So on Sunday, I got bored with the NHL All-Star Game and flipped over to the AFL game on NBC. Here in Dallas, the game shown was the New York Dragons at the Dallas Desparados. My first impression is that NBC is doing a pretty good job with the coverage. Apparently, they're going to have a few regional games each Sunday and during the New York-Dallas game, they showed clips of action from the other games that were going on at the same time. It was like watching a weekend telecast from one of the Big 4 leagues. It amused me that after years and years and years of steadfastly refusing to put a scoreboard in the corner of the screen like all the other networks do on their football telecasts, they've done it with the AFL. Then again, I think they did it with the XFL, too. So maybe it's just a gimmick that they only bring out for the minor leagues, since I don't think they have it on their Notre Dame telecasts. At various point throughout the game they brought a little box with that had a little snippet about the AFL's rules, like how wide the field is, or how high the boards are, or whatever, sort of like ESPN's NHL Rules telecasts. It's a good idea, since I otherwise wouldn't have known half the stuff they put up there. They've got a studio show that includes Michael Irvin. Irvin did the color work on the Desparados' local TV telecasts last season, and he's pretty good on Fox Sports Net. A pretty good hire for them. And it's pretty interesting to see how Irvin has rehabilitated his career since the coke-and-self-employed-models scandals several years ago. Overall, NBC seems to be treating the league with a lot of respect and class. They're not promoting in an over-the-top manner like the XFL or just throwing the telecasts on TV without any sort of effort or production value. Yes, they're going with the whole "There's no other football until August, so come watch us" promotional angle that they tried with the XFL, but it comes across much better with the AFL for some reason.
This is Business and Media. We look at how other sports run their business on the non-soccer business board. Any questions?
I accidentally tuned in, noticed quickly what I was watching (and thought that Boise would get Arizona v San Jose rather than the game in Denver for some silly reason), and thought that the XFL cameramen were back. Two minutes of garish crowd shots, sans the beer in each hand of everyone and their 12-year-old kid. Then came the "are we on" cries from the announcing crew- they couldn't hear over the PA noise, obviously. Such is the value of "game ops" to this sport, and I hate to think that MLS might actually learn something from that. Problem is, I fear that the casual fan MLS is after expects EXACTLY that. After that, definitely professional broadcast. Let me get attendance figures (knowing Denver sold out) before making any more judgments. I'm still expecting a train wreck in most markets.
im curious of what the ratings were. AFL broadcasts looked pretty slick. I watched Dallas/NYC. Kinda odd to see John Gregory and Aaron Garcia playing (coached/played for the Barnstormers before moving to NYC)
According to www.arenafootball.com "Highlighted by the lead game, in which Dallas defeated New York 60-56, the telecasts generated a 2.2 overnight rating/5 share"
It has taken a long time for AFL to be on TV. I think the league has been around for 16 or so years. Compare that to MLS, I think that exposure wise, MLS is doing so much better. There have been MLS players on the cover of SI, and articles about the league. Despite what most of us feel, ESPN does cover soccer. AFL for an extended period of time was only in the back shadows, until Kurt Warner arrived. In comparing the two, I would take MLS as being ahead at the same point in their developtment.
Everyone laughed at the XFL, but Vince McMahon's premise was 100% correct. Just when the whole nation's really getting into football, the season ends. The NHL is not a TV sport. Baseball is in decline. College hoops on TV isn't much until the NCAA tournament. Football remains our national pastime. I think this is eventually could be a huge hit for NBC if they stay with it and it looks like they're going to. I'll be curious to see where the ratings go once we get to March but I think this is something that's going to grow over time. Kurt Warner and Tommy Maddux have kind of legitimized the league so I think people are going to take it seriously. BTW, Michael Irvin's star seems to be ascending as a TV analyst. It's pretty amazing given all the off the field garbage he's been involved with over the years.
ED Fajardo Said: What the $#&@%$^ does this have to do with soccer? -------------------------------------------------- What this means is that the Arena Football League was a summertime event after the NBA & NHL are finished with their seasons, but now that NBC has bought the national TV rights to show the AFL and move the entire season in the middle of the dog days of the NBA & NHL seasons. This forced the Gladiators to move out of the Meadowlands into Las Vegas because you can't have an Arena Football Team congest whatever dates that are available on the weekends that have the Devils or the Nets plays their games. So basically this means that Arena Football is no longer a summer sport & That is one less thing we can worry about. True that non of us thinks that Arena Football is a worry or a concern like Baseball & or NASCAR, but if this can help MLS move to another network because let's be honest. The ABC/ESPN connection isn't working. No matter how much the perception is showing, maybe just maybe if NBC or CBS wants to show MLS to fill in their weekends and have a serious commitment to the sport, this could work. But once again their must be a commitment on one of the other networks if they wish to persue this.
It's worth noting that NBC payed a grand total of $0 for TV rights. Then add in the fact that there are plenty of TV timeouts. Did you notice the adviretisment by the time and score icon?
Interesting. I expected the overnights for the first game to be much higher, closer to a 2.7. The final ratings are going to most likely drop under 2.0. I thought I read that NBC was expecting a 2.0 final average. This most likely means that the AFL is going to have to buck the trend of ratings dropping from the initial telecast for a league on a broadcast station. Andy
Here are some articles discussing the AFL, NBC and the ratings which are expected and which were achieved in week 1: http://www.newsday.com/sports/football/wire/sns-ap-weekend-ratings0203feb03.story. http://www.newsday.com/sports/football/ny-arenatv303112149feb02.story. My only comment about the AFL is that the Dragons got more coverage on the local sportscasts than the Metros have ever gotten.
This doesn't have to do with ratings, but I didn't think it deserved its own thread so I decided to stick it here. In his "Rumblings" column in today's Dispatch Bob Hunter mentioned that multiple investors in Columbus are looking to own an AFL expansion team starting in 2005. Hunter noted that last year one AFL expansion team - I forget which one exactly - paid a $12 million fee to get into the league while the entry fee was only $400,000 about six to seven years ago. Those are the numbers I remember; the online version should be up soon.