Why is ESPN Anti-Soccer in the U.S., but Pro-Soccer Everywhere else?

I don't know that. At least we know that ESPN sublicense CL to Setanta and ESPN Deportes. That's more than fans who are interested in CL. Remember, 0.15...

Well, how do you know other fans need you to speak out? And unfortunately, these other fans, if exists, do not register in the ratings radar screen, i.e. you speak out for an insignificant masses from TV's perspective.

I mean, other CL fans live with the fact that CL is niche content in this country. I mean, if you really have a grudge, they could have boycotted the game in Setanta pubs as a protest (because Setanta partner with ESPN). No, but they would rather watch than boycott...

You are the only one who doesn't want to face the reality...

Ummm... strange logic again. So a channel that is not interested in CL at all looks good in your book, while a network that broadcasts 1 game/match day on a popular channel, and 7 other games on a niche channel doesn't look good in your book. Well, what else is new?

 

Everybody who wants to!!

On the contrary. “Having the option” is all that matters. Just like everybody in L.A. has the option to go out and buy a dozen roses today. Of course, if everyone in L.A. actually did this there would be a severe shortage! Does that matter? No. Because it doesn't happen in practice. We all know the flowers will be there for us WHEN WE NEED THEM! Is this analogy helping you at all?? It's really not that complicated.

Wrong. They are not out of luck! Those 15999600 people didn’t want to go to Nevada’s anyway. But someone who wants to go to Nevada’s and is stuck in Kansas City at this time is the one who is out of luck (analogous to someone who can’t subscribe to ESPN deportes even if they wanted to).

That {capacity + 1}th person doesn’t exist in practice (only in theory)! Remember the flower analogy? Even on Valentine’s Day (analogous to, say, a World Cup Final) the supply will increase in anticipation of the increase in demand (such as the dive-bar across the block that usually shows scrabble, soap-operas, pool, darts, fishing and other ESPN-like **********e, will be open for soccer on this occasion).

It’s also amusing how you compare the # of households with ESPN deportes available to them with the capacity of soccer bars! In other words, you’re saying that picking 1M households at random and giving them access to deportes is the same thing (ie. makes the same # of people happy) as giving access to deportes to the first 1M households in the country who ask for it and want it! That’s fascinating!

 

Wrong, the Nth+1 person cannot.

Of course it does matter, because the Nth+1 person does not have the option of watching the game in a packed bar. He can't even get in!!!

You are talking about the coverage of Setanta CCTV games vs ESPN Deportes games, i.e. their accessibility. In other words, as soon as N people packed into the pub, the pub is ***INACCESSIBLE*** to the M-N people in that metro area, where M is the population, true or false?

So "in practice", i.e. how many people want or need to see them, is irrelevant. I mean, when everything fails, you can just wimp out with "there aren't that many people that want to see the game, so the pub won't be packed"...

It's not going to help your argument at all, because the pub capacity is not unlimited.

Who care about whether they want to go or not? your own statement is

Well, a channel "only available in pubs" is still more accessible than a channel "only available in 1% of the country".

You have ABSOLUTELY NO WAY to defend this statement, because ***ACCESSIBILITY*** is not there. Now, you can wimp out with "they don't want to see it anyway", be my guest...

That's enough to shoot your statement about "accessibility", which is a ***THEORETICAL*** argument. Much like "the Super Bowl is accessible to XXX millions people in the world", which is true, but this statement has nothing to do with what actually happens (globally, very few people would actually see the game).

You can use all feeble analogy you want, but as soon as you try to argue accessibility, you are cooked.

Well, don't try to divert the issue, which is accessibility. Your happiness or other whiners' happiness is not my concern. Making CL fans happy is a separate issue on its own, but I'll worry about it after you can defend your "accessibility" argument. As long as your context is accessiblity, I won't let you off the hook...

 

Now, MiamiAce, Kotto bass, Bocafans and other whiners will call this another conspiracy against CL soccer and favoring hockey. Check out ESPN2's new schedule on the IIHF World Championship, created only after USA shocked the world by reaching the semi-final:

http://www.nhl.com/onthefly/news/2004/05/212714.html

Now, they would rather put IIHF hockey on tape delay than showing CL games on tape delay. To those who don't know much about hockey, IIHF's World Championship has about the same significance as Olympic soccer, i.e. not that significant.

Now, ever wonder why hockey has a higher profile than CL soccer on ESPN2? Look no further than the nature of the telecast:

=====
Sat., May 8 6:00 p.m. EDT USA vs. Sweden (semifinals) ESPN2
Sun., May 9 7:00 p.m. EDT USA vs. Canada/Slovakia (gold-medal)* ESPN2
Sun., May 9 7:00 p.m. EDT USA vs. Canada (bronze-medal)* ESPN2

* if U.S. advances to gold-medal game against either Canada or Slovakia
** if U.S. faces Canada in bronze-medal game (if U.S. faces Slovakia in bronze-medal game, it will not be televised)
=====

especially the telecast on Sunday:

USA in gold medal game: yes
USA in bronze medal game x Canada: yes
USA in bronze medal game x Slovakia: no

Of course, people who are blind about the USA sports culture (and that's MiamiAce, Kotto Bass and Bocafan) while only know about European soccer would have no clue on the reasons behind these options. They think that games involving Slovakia, Madrid, Milan, Manchester and Munich should receive the same type of attention as USA, Canada, New York, Chicago, Detroit, etc., on ESPN2.

Sure, why aren't games involving European teams getting the same type of attention as games involving North American teams? someone must think this is a conspiracy against Europe.

And why would USA x Slovakia (gold meda game) be covered but not USA x Slovakia (bronze medal game)? that someone must think that this is another conspiracy against Europe...

 

Like we care about ESPN's desperate attempts to fill those huge gaps in their programming schedule!

 

Blah, blah blah.

Dude, do everyone a favour and take some economics courses. Supply v Demand will teach you alot. ie. if not enuf Setanta CL pubs to serve an area, more will appear.

 

I have never seen anyone who likes to argue like you. Take your hockey statistics to a hockey forum. You are supposed to be complaining to your friends about coverage of the highly regarded CL. But you chose to stick to your dbs and run your mouth.
Your arguments are really frustrating to CL lovers, and we are really getting tired of slapping sense into your head.

 

Why? because your "accessibility" theory got crushed?

Glad that you put your foot in your mouth. Now, if there are more demands on ESPN Deportes, don't you think more supply will appear? i.e. more cable carriers or even DirecTV/Dish Network would carry it?

See, when you have no way to argue "more accessible". When you have to resort to supply and demand, your whole claim got shot.

In other words, you still have no way to defend your initial claim...

 

Sure your camp does, otherwise why that much whining that ESPN prefer NHL hockey than CL soccer?

 

Then see it. Afterall, I enjoy bashing the whiners here, especially whining about CL coverage on ESPN2, more than 95% of the football games I watch...

See, when you have no clue why ESPN2 would choose to televise 2 games regarding USA in the IIHF tournament, what else can you do? I mean, slapping sense? I've never seen people campaigning for more coverage for an event while CONFESSING that this event only has "the few people who watch it". YOu don't know sense when it hits you in the head...

Besides, your camp have been all over ESPN2's extensive coverage on the NHL. I wonder why you don't tell your friends to take hockey discussions to a hockey forum...

 

Got crushed in your dreams, maybe! I gave practical examples that proved my point (ie. more than 1.5 to 2M people live within 30 minute drive of a Setanta-CL pub). You prefer to resort to theoretical examples (ie. IF everyone in the country will rush to a Setanta-CL pub at the same time, not everyone will get to see the matches). In that case, I can argue that 200 million people watch CL in the U.S. per matchday. It just happens that nobody with a Neilson box does (or only .15%). Hey, theoretically its possible!

So thanks to Ranger00-logic, I've just crushed your argument that CL isn't popular in this country.

Absolutely! But until that day comes, I'd rather they sell all CL games to Setanta! However your camp seems to think ESPN deportes is only interested in obtaining MFL and Copa Libertadores so it makes me wonder if that day will ever come.... if it does though, of course I'd rather have CL on ESPN deportes than PPV!

 

You still haven't told us, how can 1.5-2M people pack in all pubs of totally capacity of about 7000 (at the average of 200/pub)?

Because that's the context you set up, i.e. the accessiblity, or the amount of supply. Now, you are crushed on supply, i.e. ESPN Deportes blow out Setanta pubs as far as supply is concerned, you have to wimp out with a different example, i.e. the actual demand...

It's you who want to use Setanta's supply > ESPN Deportes' supply to argue. Can't blame you for wimping out...

No you cannot, because the number of homes that have access to ESPN2 is NOT what we argue. The context is about ratings, not cable penetration.

Wait until you can show us when we started arguing about cable penetration, or "accessibilty of ESPN2". I dare you...

So you just want the games on a supply chain that is 50 times smaller than ESPN Deportes. So in other words, your preference crushed your own EPL theory: that a competition *should* be widely available (as in ESPN televising the EPL) to convert the non-fans...

I couldn't care less what my camp thinks. I only care that ESPN Deportes is more accessible than Setanta. You have no way to swim out of your own blatant lie...

 

Nope! Do you want to look up the word 'accessible' in the dictionary? I'll save you the trouble...

Accessible: Easy to get to; nearby; reachable; handy; within reach.

Now do you think a Setanta CL pub is "easy to get to" by more or less people than ESPN deportes? I bet you don't have a clue!

Now I know what one of your favorite arguments is: "If person X doesn't live in an ESPN deportes zone, that's THEIR problem". .. Don't waste your typing. I'll just fire back with "If person Y doesn't live across the street from a Setanta CL pub or arrives at the pub too late that they can't get in, that's THEIR problem!" In other words, even if you wanna argue supply instead of accessibility, I'll still smoke you!!

 

1) How do people 401 to 2M *easy to get to* a pub that sits 400?

2) How is a pub that sits 400 *reachable* to people 401 - 2M?

3) How is a pub that sits 400 *handy* to people 401 - 2M?

4) How is a pub that sits 400 *within reach* to people 401 - 2M?

Go ahead, keep swimming. Maybe you can find more dictionary definitions of "accessible" to save you...

Of course not, unless you can tell us the answers of questions (1) - (4).

No, I don't have to. No matter how you define "accessible", the numbers still kill your argument.

I can't wait. Maybe you can tell us how a supply to 2M people can be less than a supply to 7000 people...

Supply or accessiblity, you are still smoked...

I also notice your wimping out of the TV ratings vs cable penentration (of ESPN2), as well as your EPL theory that "if the game is accessible to more people, it will generate more fans". Is it because they all contracdict your current context?

 

If a person can't wake-up in time to be one of the first 400, that's THEIR problem! Considering I've gone to Nevada's hundreds of times to watch soccer and NOT ONCE did I NOT fit inside, I think its safe to define Nevada's as "reachable" to me. The # of people living closer to Nevada's than me is already bigger than the number of people with access to ESPN deportes. So if its 100% reachable for me, its 100% reachable to more people than ESPN deportes. Then we still have the other 34 (or more) Setanta CL pubs to consider. So I can smoke you 34 more times whenever I feel like it!

I was just making a joke by using Ranger-logic to prove something absurd ... ie. that everyone w/o a Neilson box COULD be watching CL -- so theoretically 99 million households could be watching CL each matchday. This is of course ridiculous, but no more so that your theory that 2 million people are trying to get into the same pub at the same instant.

Again, it was just a joke. Didn't know you were taking me seriously. The feeling is NOT mutual!

 

which has nothing to do with your original statement:

"more accessible".

You still can't swim out of your blatant lie.

Where in your statement

Well, a channel "only available in pubs" is still more accessible than a channel "only available in 1% of the country".

that you qualify "more accessible" is "more accessible to ONLY ME"? I am here to hook you good. You have no way to wimp out of your blatant lie.

Oh, so you have to wimp out with a context that it's more accessible to ONLY you and the people who live between you and Nevada Smith? Let's see, where in the statement that you qualify with this condition?

Well, a channel "only available in pubs" is still more accessible than a channel "only available in 1% of the country".

Go ahead, keep trying. You have no way to get out...

Yeah? and I can smoke you 2.5M-7000 times for those people who have access to ESPN Deportes that can't squeeze into Setanta pubs. Maybe you want to say 34> (2.5M-7000), but do you think I'll let you?

Yes, when you get caught with an idiotic statement, just wimp out as a joke. So your claim that Setanta is more accessible than ESPN Deportes, is that a joke too? How can you be taken seriously when you have to wimp out with jokes?

Not at all, because Nielsen ratings is about statistical sampling. You, of course, have no idea what that is. It's possible that 99M household are watching the CL on ESPN2 without Nielsen box, but it's extremely unlikely. So IN THEORY, the statistical sampling are NOT about what's possible, but what's PROBABLE!!! Those who use the results (advertisers) aren't inerested in what's possible either.

So we also know that theory is not your strong suit.

I don't have to use this theory, because it's you who talk about "accessiblity", not me. In other words, even if 0 people go to the pub to watch the game, and 0 people watch it on ESPN Deportes, ESPN Deportes is STILL MORE ACCESSIBLE than Setanta pubs. You limit the context to accessiblity, not actual audience of the game.

As an example, if

Game A is accessible by 500M people globally, but watched by only 2M;
Game B is accessible by 50M people globally, but watched by 30M.

Game A is still more accessible than game B.

Well, if nothing else, your argument is a joke...

 

I bet with Ranger-logic you can prove that the world is square. But you'll only be convincing yourself.

Nowhere am I talking about ONLY ME. Why don't you respond to by entire paragraph/thought instead of just taking one sentence at a time and treating that sentence as something totally independent from the rest of my paragraph? Until you do that, your breaking-down of my paragraphs into 12 pieces is just seen as wimping out! It's like I'm saying:
IF condition A and IF condition B THEN C.

And you cut me off after the first condition and respond with: A does NOT imply C. Well, great. But I'm not saying that am I?

Dumb. That's like saying A-Rod had 250M reasons to sign with Texas. That's stupid lingo! Reality is, he only had one (ie. the 250M dollars). If you're gonna start rambling like American media, there'll be no getting thru to u!

And that's what I'm talking about! In THEORY, the CL pub is not reachable by 16M people in NYC, but that's extrememly unlikely. What's probable is that it is in fact accessible by 16M people in NYC.

Now you're smoking yourself! Good job!

As a second example, if:

Game A is accessible by 16M people in one city, but watched by only 400;
Game B is accessible to 2.5M people country-wide, but watched by X.

Game A is still more accessible than game B regardless of the value of X.

Well, if nothing else, you just keep shooting yourself in your foot.

 

I don't have to, as long as your claim that Setanta is more accessible than ESPN Deportes is a lie...

That's why your

Well, a channel "only available in pubs" is still more accessible than a channel "only available in 1% of the country".

is a blatant lie. A channel that 2.6M people can assess is more accessible than a channel that 7000 people can access.

Because your statement is blatantly false. I just like to pick on that...

Nope, you said Setanta is more accessible than ESPN Deportes, which is simply a false statement, no other way around it.

Are you really that stupid to use all these things to try to whitewash the statement I pick on?

And how is that compared to your 34 ways to smoke my argument?

And when have you restricted this context to NYC? You mentioned 1M subscribers on ESPN Deportes. Are these 1M subscribers in NYC?

Now when everything fails, just wimp out that what you said is about you, the people living between you and Nevada Smith, NYC, etc.

Not at all. Game A is accessible by at most 400 people, how is it accessible by 16M people? I mean, you had no way to make it accessible to
the 401st person, 402nd person, 1000th person, 10000th person, 1000000th person, 10000000th person.

I mean, last time I mentioned 10000000th person who can't access the game, you wimped out with the "supply-demand" BS. Now, you want to try the same stunt again? You simply have no way to argue that the supply from ESPN Deportes blows out the supply from Setanta.

So how can person 400 to person 16000000 access the supply?

How do I keep shooting myself in the foot for pointing out that your 401st person cannot access the Setanta game?

 

Well, I guess you can argue that taking the bus downtown to a CL-pub is less practical than moving to L.A. and subscribing to deportes. Go ahead. Lemme see how that argument would go...

So you finally agree with me?

Just by repeating the same thing over and over is not gonna make you look any better. I'm still smoking you, no other way around it.

Because I really can smoke you 34 more times. I only used Nevada Smiths which by itself is already available to more people than ESPN deportes. There are (at least) 34 other Setanta CL pubs, no? (If I were to use your lingo, I would say I have 16M minus 2.5M ways to smoke you, which would be a lie).

Not at all. But I only need NYC to find enuf people with access to Setanta CL pubs to outnumber the # of people with access to deportes country-wide!

Why not, when that's all I need to prove my argument and light a match to yours!?

It's BS just because you have no way to combat it? That's a shame.

 

Yes, the argument goes good, because a channel accessible by 2.6M people is certainly more accessible than a channel accessible by 7000. How do you like it?

That's citing your statement. You really have comprehension problem...

I sure do look better, because you get caught with a lie, and you have ABSOLUTELY no way to get out of it.

And that's a lie, unless you can prove that 400 > 2.6M, I can't wait...

But Nevada Smith is not accessible by 16M people. There is nothing you can do about. Just keep putting up a lie doesn't make it true.

Which you cannot, unless you can show us the Setanta pubs in NY have a capacity of >2.6M people. Of course, you know you can't do it, but I'll still ask: Show us the Setanta pubs in NY have capacities of > 2.6M people, I dare you.

You can keep yapping, but you have no way to get away from your lie. Go ahead, show us Setanta pubs in New York can house > 2.6M people. Don't be shy.

You know, you get caught with a lie, and I won't let you off the hook. Now matter how you swim, you are still in the net.

Combat what? Setanta pubs in NY are accessible by 2.6M people? Where is this documented? This is interesting.

 

The argument is okay, but its starting a little slow. Get to the part where you argue that's it's more practical for an individual to gather their furniture and family, move to L.A. (or some other area w/ deportes) and subscribe to deportes than it is for that individual to take the bus downtown and walk into a virtually empty Setanta CL-pub.

Well, since asking you (to stop taking pieces of my argument and treating each piece as a whole) didn't work, I had to show you by an example what its like. How did you like it? Annoying, eh?

Please, you're giving the moderator of this forum a headache. Until you can cite where I said the capacity of all setanta CL pubs is greater than 2.6M, you're just blowing hot-air.

With your logic, nobody in the U.S. even has access to electricity. True or false?

Again with capacity? yaaAAAWWWWnnn... Leeme know when you're ready to debate something relevant to the practical real world not your warped theoretical one. I'll be waiting.

 

Well, you talked about accessible, I couldn't care less whether you move the family to LA or Seattle, it's still accessible, unlike being the 401th to 16000000th person that tries to get into the pub that only allows 400, yes or no?

Your argument, as in the post on May 6, 10:18 ET, had only 1 claim:

==========
Well, a channel "only available in pubs" is still more accessible than a channel "only available in 1% of the country". I mean, Nevada Smiths alone (ie. one pub) is accessible to more people than ESPN deportes.
==========

Now, what other piece do you have in this idiotic post?

Really? I am not the one who tries to talk "accessible", as limited by capacity of a pub, and then try to wimp out with all 16M of the NY citizens...

Well, you said:

"I only used Nevada Smiths which by itself is already available to more people than ESPN deportes."

How is a pub sitting 400, or all the Setanta pubs combined (~35) be already available to more people than people from 1M households (about 2.6M people)?

Well, that's not what you said? then how can this statement be true?

'Well, a channel "only available in pubs" is still more accessible than a channel "only available in 1% of the country".'

False.

Of course, because you talked about "accessible", that's why capacity can kill your argument.

How isn't "accessible" practical real world? Your original claim:

'Well, a channel "only available in pubs" is still more accessible than a channel "only available in 1% of the country".'

accessible (as compared to 1M households of another channel)
= as in how many people can access this Setanta close-circuit channel
= as bound the capacity of those commercial establishments showing this channel
= the amount of items (a vacancy to see the game) that Setanta pubs can supply

Your context is not

"how many people want to see the game" or "the actual demand of this channel", true or false?

I couldn't care less whether there is a 450th person who actually wants to see the game. As long as you started a context on "accessible", you can't stop now, can you? So, I've ***HOOKED*** you on the capacity issue. You can try to swim out of it, but do you think you can?

 

Deportes remains a joke, as long as it is not available to most cable and satellites. Diehard CL fans always have access to Setanta pubs, however, some of us here do not even know where the closest home carrying Deportes is. In the meantime, this uncivilized method of cutting off small pieces of conversation and responding to them is totally unacceptable and should stop NOW.

 

Well, he made a statement about "accessible", he didn't qualify it as "accessible to diehard fans". As long as the context is general accessibility, he is cooked.

How is a channel accessible to 7000 people max be more accessible than a channel accessible to 1M households? I mean, is Setanta available to most cable or satellites? yes or no?

So channel D is available to some cable carriers. Channel S is absolutley not available to any cable carriers or DBS carriers. Yet you think that channel S is more accessible than channel D?

Logic is not your strong suit, isn't it?

Exactly, the one who claims channel X is more accessible than channel Y, but when challenged, tries to wimp out with "accessible to diehard fans", should definitely STOP...