In the DC area you get everything on network tv. Univision is great for World Cup, MLS is on Galavision, and if I'm not mistaken FMF is on both Galavision and Telefutura. We have one of the largest Honduran and Salvadoran populations in the country so it's not surprising.
It depends on the market. The Denver affiliate for Telefutura is in SD on DirecTV, even though it's broadcast in HD over the air.
Another excellent broadcast. I wouldn't be surprised if the ratings for this match are lower than the first two. (Game being played on a Friday).
This will be the highest rated game simply because it was Seattle playing. Really.....you can't get much lower than 84K.
I was thrown off by the beginning. They didn't mute the stadium mics when going into their title card so the MLS on NBC music was fighting against the Sound Wave's rendition of "Party Rock Anthem" and it wasn't necessarily winning. I'm not sure if they could hear each other in the desk segment that followed either. The rest was fine. Corey Ashe wasn't.
I love the broadcasts. They are well done - very professional. My fear, though, is they will try to 'fix' them by adding some goofball like Wynalda to add 'spice' or 'controversy' to the broadcast and have him ramble on and on and on about nothing. Dear NBC, Please don't. Len
True, but I still think there are some things MLS can do to make the overall presentation better for a national audience, meaning more neutral and casual fans. Here's a shot of the goal area at the stadium formerly known as PHP. The jumbotron is typically right in the shot, which is distracting, often causing the camera shot to be tighter (showing less of the surrounding play). You've got the concrete area with people milling around. There aren't many people behind the goad because of the stage. And if I add sound you have the d@mn plastic horns. Contrast the same area at Live Strong Park -- it's a huge difference. The active crowd is shown to advantage, they are loud and the overall presentation is very good. Now, the typical response is that the stadium formerly known as PHP is great for the viewer at the game, and it may well be. But I suggest MLS spend some time looking what a TV viewer sees and hears in these broadcasts and try and improve its presentation, because a neutral audience is more fickle than a die hard local one and they are less likely to find some of this appealing IMO.
This stuff doesn't matter nearly as much as you guys seem to think it does. MLS isn't unpopular because "the casual fan" goes out of their way to find MLS at random times on NBC Sports only to find that there isn't 30,000 people at every single game. I promise.
Having watched last night's game and the Chelsea/Tottenham game today, I'm fairly confident that someone unfamiliar with soccer would have thought that Seattle (and MLS) was bigger than Chelsea and the EPL. The EPL coverage was weird...the field and stadium looked absolutely tiny. Contrast that to the Seattle game, which made it look as though the game was being played in a cavernous stadium packed with people. Just found it to be an odd contrast.
This. Obviously a better fan presentation doesn't hurt, but sometimes BigSoccer seems to come off as "If we could just get 25K at every game with 10K ultras then ratings will go through the roof!!!". The scene in the stands is only a minor component of MLS's ratings. (And yes tab5g, that was intentional exaggeration, accept it)
That's not what I'm saying -- you don't need 30,000 people, but MLS should look at how these broadcasts look from some venues with a more critical eye. The TV audience can only see and hear what the telecast shows us. Look at the pictures again, which presents a better backdrop for the game, even before the ear splitting horns are added into the audio? Some of the newer venues simply look better on television than others do -- they present a more watchable, enjoyable experience for the person watching on TV.
PHP was built in a time when making it on TV was a small miracle. Even having a SSS was practically unheard of.
I look at it this way: Jam packed, festive stadiums will not automatically translate into good ratings Consistent empty stadiums will almost assuredly hurt your ratings. In short, lack of atmosphere will hurt more than having good atmosphere will help IMO.
And it's nothing more than this. The quality of play is what people will be watching, and it's what will bring them back or send them away. Not how the crowd looks behind goal.
Indeed. Many people greatly overstate the impact of "atmosphere" (whether it be total attendence, crowd noise, appearance of the stands, whatever) on how someone views a broadcast and a league/sport. Do those things matter at the margin? Sure, it helps. But it's a small component of how a casual viewer would perceive MLS or any other sports broadcast.
FCD also needs to install mountains, some skyscrapers, or at least a bridge so the visual outside the stadium is better.
I submit the difference in quality between Dallas and, say, Portland is negligible, and anyone who thinks a neutral wouldn't be more likely to watch those teams play in Portland then Dallas is in denial. Did you see this from Garber the other day? Link: http://espn.go.com/sports/soccer/ml...er-don-garber-spoke-2012-season-jeff-carlisle It amazes me that people have no problem believing the in-stadium experience is important to driving ticket sales -- even for those, as Garber says, who are essentially passive and view the supporters groups from the opposite side of the stadium -- yet they are convinced that how effectively a telecast conveys that experience to viewers isn't relevant to their choice of what games they watch.
So, quality of play isn't as much of a deciding factor in what fans watch? I can only speak for myself and everybody I've ever known. I don't watch a game because there are people singing in the crowd. Being at a game, that would be an awesome experience to be a part of. But when I'm watching on TV the broadcast quality (and everything that encompasses) is infinitely more important than what the crowd is doing.
I recently had two friends tell me they watched their first MLS game on tv. The first thing they mentioned was the crowd (think it was Portland and Philly crowds they saw). I highly doubt they would have stayed on the channel if they saw the Revs crowd at Gillette. Crowds matter, they enhance the experience for both those at home and at the game. To think otherwise is foolish. Call it plastic, call it superficial, whatever. It's integral to the success of the league.
Yeah, that's the thing. When I'm at a game, the crowd and atmosphere definitely has a big impact. When I'm watching on TV, I barely notice it (and to the extent that I notice it at all, it doesn't impact my decision to watch or enjoy a game). Now, I'm not saying that people don't mnake decisions for watching sports based on the perceived "reputation" of the broadcast, they do. "Minor league" broadcasts could deter someone from watching a game -- I just don't think the atmosphere of the crowd really impacts that perception watching in your home on TV. You have to be actively searching for it to really have it impact your perception. Now stuff like the actual quality of the broadcast itself (which is a big benefit of the move to NBCSN compared to FSC) is a huge part. So is the quality of play on the field. Heck, so is the quality of the field itself --- whether there is prominent football lines all over the field can make a sport/league/broadcast seem like an inferior product; but that's because you are drawn to watching the players on the field. People don't watch games and look at the crowd, at least not in my experience. Again, I don't think that games from Portland or Seattle, etc. don't have a better impact to casual viewers than Dallas and NE, but the degree of the impact is just so much smaller than some on here want to claim. And the impact on the ratings is fractions of a percentage point, not huge chunks. At least IMHO and experience from watching sports over the years.