One of the reasons for the rating slide is that it is difficult to build up momentum and interest when you can't see the playoff games. Like most, I only have espn, espn2, and abc. How can you draw interest if the playoff games are not on these channels?
I agree on many of these points. It is nice to have a league, YES, very much so, I love it. It is also nice to make the WorldCup and play well in it. We have a chance to do well in Germany too. Addidas deal is fantastic. This is where we part ways though. We did about as good as we hoped too in the past WC, and still, there is no lasting measurable bump in popularity. I do not see more people enjoying MLS, actually, in many places I see less. I don't claim MLS is not growing as a business entity, it is, no doubt. What alarms me is that somehow MLS has not been able to this growth into something more people actually want to see.
Does Cornell Glen have talent? Absolutely. He's strong and fast. Did he produce for the metros this year? No. He couldnt even beat out Wolyniec for the starting job. He is very inconsistent. Is gaven a flopper? Yes. Did Gaven produce this year for the metros? Yes. end of story. It has nothing to do with race or nationality. In fact, my favorite player on the metros is Guevara.
You really have it in for this guy dont you. You do realize KC didnt miss a beat this year once Klein went down and Jewsbury picked up the slack. He helped his team get to the finals unlike Glen who didnt do anything against DC. It sounds to me that you are the one who doesnt like Americans.
HIghjacking the thread, I know. . . I must admit, until we started debating this issue, I knew little more about him than you. But he was always a third-tier prospect, from what I've read about him now. Played for US regional, but not national, youth teams. Four year college player. Went undrafted first year as a pro, and had to play in the A-League. Got drafted last year in the fifth round. That's the model that predominated in our league five years ago (especially the four years of college part) but that we're moving away from now. Considering his biography, nobody should ever have done this. There are 40+ players every year that hit the pros with more "US Soccer development" cred than Jewbury. Same with Josh Gros, or this year's "Mr. Irrelevant" (the title that goes to the last player taken in the draft), Jeff Parke. I don't know what it says about the league that these guys get on the pitch. They're just "hard work guys"--not much was ever invested in them or expected of them, and they wouldn't be much better if there had been. I have a bit of a problem, too, but I don't think the league has ever concentrated on these guys. They're all late round draft picks who made the team on hustle. Every league in the world has their own equivalent of that. Naturally, the Bundesliga's are better, but they still don't ooze class when you watch them play, and they still were never highly thought of as a youth. They're a nice little bonus, in a way. Guys you never had to work hard at developing, but make your roster and contribute in small ways. They slip through the cracks because they don't look the part. But DCU would have been a weaker team this eyar if Gros hadn't been around (though some fans way overrate the guy). To get to the 'main issue', we didn't do anything at all to promote development until P-40 came along (in a sense, MLS was the development league). And some of the first steps there were, predictably for a first effort, missteps (Chris Albright and Jamar Beasley were famous failures, but there are many more names we don't remember who we thought we would). The first time we got anything right was the Donovan, Beasley, Convey generation. And even there Convey may never truly break through, and most of the rest of those guys who we thoguht would be pretty good (Kyle Beckerman, Jordan Cila, are among those players) are no more than serviceable pros at best. Well, if it did, those guys I described above would still make the field next to them. That's still about five legit creative players, and the rest of 'em are there on effort. This is a problem, but I always have trouble putting it into perspective, because I know people won't stop whining about the refs and that their whining bears only accidental relationship to the actual reffing quality. I am one of Paul Gardner's few defenders (to an extent). I am concerned (and plan to do one of those big stat threads about it some time this off-season) that the team that fouls more often might be the one that wins the game more often as well. I hate that the persistant infringement yellow seems all but fogotten. (Not only in MLS, either!) I miss the jogo bonito. I think the ideal amount of average goals per game is about 4.25! (More than that and you'd have a lot more garbage time per game, like AL baseball, because most goals scored by any team after the second are in blowouts. MLS once had a 7-4 regular season game involving the Rapids that I don't think anyone would enjoy more than a spirited 3-2, or even 2-1). All of that said, what bothers me about the way you express yourself is your unwillingness to separate the aesthetics from the talent level when you say it's a 'quality' issue. That's way too vague and ambiguous. And you keep using the word "degrading" rather than "stagnating", "not improving enough" or worst-case "racing to the middle." So do you mean the talent level, or do you just mean the style? In the first couple years, MLS scored way more goals than now, but it isn't because the players on the whole were better. Jack Jewsbury is better than a lot of those guys. (When I think of glamorized journeymen like Welton having 23 points in this league, as he did in 1999. . . .) It's far more complicated than that. Some of it, yes, is the coaching. Some of it, yes, is the refereeing. Some of it, however, is precisely the opposite of what you seem to suggest by using the word 'quality.' It's tougher for the best guys on the roster to make an impact because the gulf between them and the last guys on the roster has narrowed considerably. In a couple isolated cases (say, Beasley) that's because the best player has left, but it's far more often because the worst players are a whole lost better. Our forwards today are every bit as good as the guys who were scoring twenty a year three or four years ago. Some, like Ruiz, are probably better than those guys ever were (there is absolutely no comparison between Ruiz and Roy Lassiter, for instance). Why do they not score more? Is there more clutch-and-grab play? Maybe, but four years ago, our defenders couldn't have gotten close enough to those guys even to clutch and grab them. Then y'aint been watching Eddie Johnson. He's a Grown Ass Man. (Can't fault you for it, the rest of the team collapsed around him). That and I gotta give it up for Alecko. He disappointed me last year, but he was a light year better this eyar, and got stronger as the season went on. Frankly, the quality as opposed to the quantity of the goals scored over these past three years give me an opposite impression.
You know, honestly, I agree with this point, too. Why is it that people are always whinging about diving? You know the defense is grabbing shirt and obstructing body constantly, but where are the complaints about that? To come back with the infamous "that said. . ." Talk to the Brits about it some time. They whine about it twice as much. What's really going on here is MLS is starting to adopt the relatively cynical attitudes that the European leagues have had for years. I don't like it, either.
I agree that the quality of play has to improve. For literally all of the reasons you pointed out. A better, even if just slightly, quality of play would attract more fans, without question. Also, when I hear people welcoming weaker defense so they can see more goals, I shake my head aswell. These are comments from people that don't understand the game at all. For me, a good game should have three elements. A good level of creative urgently played soccer, a festive atmosphere and real meaningfulness that drives the prior two. Too often MLS delivers on none of these elements. I have a good plan to bring these components to the league. Yes, it involves less teams in the playoffs, but I take it much further than that. You'd have to to create real drama. Would Colorado become more exciting if it were harder to make the playoffs? Perhaps you are right, they wouldn't be more creative, but yes the games they play in would definetly be more interesting. Played with more urgency. Even down in the table, they would play the role of spoiler. Right now, there is no spoiler till about week 25 or so. In fact, there is much of anything going on till week 25. A smart format would change that. They would play harder to earn a cash bonus aswell. There will always be boring teams (Even Chelsea is considered dull by many), but if there is meaning there that drives the game, even a game with a less creative Colorado could be more interesting to watch. That said, there is a mimimum level of creativity and quality needed to make this work properly. Lastly, if more of these games had some of the elements the DC United game had a couple of Saturdays ago, we would have more fans. We are capable of it. This game showed were are. I just hope we can learn from it aswell. Not coincidentally it contained all three of the ingredients I mentioned above.
Good point, there wasn't a measurable bump when we went to the quarters.....maybe there was bad traffic....at every stadium...before every game? Seriously though, its a start and it may take 2 or 3 more quarter finals or better results for it to really stick with the sports public here. I guess I don't know for sure weather it every really will or not but we sure the hell are starting to put out some quality players (and not just keepers). I personally think it will be a snowball (a very slow snowball effect) after we continue to put out quality overseas. Then the money will follow a little more than it has been, then you attract better american athletes in general which will improve us as a national team/as a pro league...which will/should finally start to bring people around. I think the league will be at least safe finanacially for 6-8 years and hope there is attendance averages closer to 30k which may be a little ambitious since most sss aren't holding much over 25k. Now that I mention it, its funny how small they are building these sss. I don't expect 80k like arrowhead or anything but does it really cost that much more to make them around 35k to possible grow into? I obviously don't know since I am posting this here. If the league does somehow start to turn a corner those stadiums won't be able to support it at all. And if the league goes into the tank in 10 years...well you are f'd if you built the stadium regardless of what size it is. good night now.
Hey, so I appreciate and notice the fact that you have taken tons of people to games. If everybody made an effort to do that it would certainly be a start. Not that I would get hooked on Nascar if I saw it live. I am going to buy an extra pair of season tix next season and bring different friends of mine to the games in hopes that some of them will actually enjoy it....it may take some booze as well....
Re: HIghjacking the thread, I know. . . Couldn't agree with you more here. The quality of the average goal in MLS has been steadily improving for the last couple of years, and this year was the best to date in my opinion.
Agreed. These are the elements MLS needs to create, and it seems they are all related in a way that justifies your argument about league structure. A festive atmosphere (like at DC v NE) is more likely to be produced at games played with creative urgency, and creative urgency is certainly more likely if games are treated as meaningful. Following that line of logic, it all comes down to the league structure providing some additional incentive for winning, one the players/managers would take SERIOUSLY - not just the lightly regarded (just look at the Revs) pseudo-homefield advantage we see now. I wish that was enough to make the players play hard, but it doesn't seem to be. So I like the idea of additional incentive, but I don't think it matters much what the incentive is - cash bonuses for winning, fewer teams in the playoffs, or even just a more signficant homefield advantage.
The booze never hurts!! You should really do this. I buy 5 season tickets (my donation to METRO and the league) and bring different people as much as I can. When I can't go, I give them away. As long as the seat is used is all that matters. It is how this league is going to grow. We can advertise in the papers, show commercials on TV, offer enticing give aways and sell other cheesy gimmicks, but the best marketing tool a team has, is its fans. Most people become fans of a sport by being introduced to it by someone else. Going to the games, tailgating and kickin the ball around, talking about the games and the team breaths some life into it all. Then, hoping something sticks and lures the person into fandom. We need to make this product the most compelling league we possible can to earn FANS. Give them reasons to want to be a fan, not just cohersing them into the stadium with the gimmick of the week. I have said this before but it bears repeating. If all we do is just sell tickets, we have to sell them every single game. On the other hand, if we earn a fan, we have to sell them only once.
Good post. Well thought out. The cash bonus idea is very nice but unfortunately will never be put into action. As far as urgency goes it is always my belief that professionals will always play to the best of their ability simply for a sense of professional pride. This was most evident to me in the early years of the league when many of the american players (as well as some of the more mature foreign players) would get visibly upset at themselves when they did something wrong. I don't think the palyers today are any less professional but the strategies tend to rob them of the opportunity to put this into action.
The urgency point is debatable. Some people buy my take on it, others agree with yours. I still believe that if there was of a reward for winning, players and coaches would play more for wins, rather than settling for ties. Towards the end of the season METRO played Columbus. Columbus rested 5 of its starters with the Supporters Shield still at stake. To me this shows the mind set of the league. Does it show that there is value to winning the Supporters Shield. No. Does it illustrate there is reward enough to try your hardest to come in first place? No. Why? Teams know that the reward is for winning the SS and first place isn't incredibly valuable. The team in first place plays the team in eighth place (this year 9th place) in a home and away series. The team with the best record in the league was rewarded virtually the same as the team tied for the worst. In the semi's, if Columbus would have made it, homefield advantage would have been a nice prize in a one-off knock out game, granted. But is that enough reward to create urgent play over a 30 game, 6 month long schedule? You start to see a little more urgency towards the last 5 or 6 games as things start to shake out and teams know what they have to do. But for the first 25 games or so, what incentives are dangling in front of these guys? Not much. New England has shown this 2 of the last 3 seasons. Play like shitt for most of the year, then turn it on at the VERY END and make it to the finals or come as close as a penalty kick away. You are right, these players are professionals and for the most part, try hard. They are also human beings. And humans respond to incentive. Give them some and they will play harder. Oh yeah, why wouldn't the cash bonus system be put into action?
- The 1996 numbers at 1.4 reflect a base of interest boosted by curiousity. This has been said elsewhere, obviously. - The 1997 numbers reflect a partial return of the curiosity group. Also, it reflects additional or different fans that tuned in replacing those that fled due to snobbery or quality of play league wide. Most of these fans saw a mediocre game, but an incredibly passionate and impressive atmoshpere at RFK. - Then World Cup 1998 hit. It is my theory that finishing last at the WC and getting absolutely hammered in the soccer and non-soccer press just flattened MLS. It hurt soccer as a whole in this country. Fewer people were interested in MLS post WC. Even though the arguably best team ever in MLS was together that year (DC 1998), it could do nothing to gain interest in other cities. Non hardcore fans and people outside of DC and Chicago didn't care about MLS much at all at the time. The fact that this was a 1.0 is a credit to how good the first two cups were. - Bradley bunker ball then hit MLS Cup 1998. It was an awful game. The game did not make good tv whatsoever. You had a decrease in fans leading in and fewer to stick around. - 1999 through now has been all about recovery. The 1999 final wasn't that good of a game, but it had marketing interest with DC-LA in foxboro again. Had it been a thriller, then we'd be talking turn around. As it stands, not a memorable contest. - The 2000 final reiterated a trend. It was just awful to watch. I was there in person and my what a dull game from the neutral perspective. If you're a fan of great individual performances, then super. However, it was Meola after all...a known and not altogether marketable entity. - The 2001 final is the saving grace of the league. If it had been as cynical as 2000, the league might not have recovered, in my opinion. - Then hits the 2002 final. The worst of them all from the neutral observer point of view. In effect, this final wiped out some of the gain in interest experienced from the great 2002 event, season, and world cup. Oh my goodness. Just a horrible, horrible game. - 2003 was a great game. However, three of the previous 4 had been poor - 2004 time will judge. I thought it was great, but I'm too biased to judge. Over time I'll look back at it and figure out its status. Will it help MLS by keeping the base interested and building a little on the 2003 effort? Time will tell. Tim
Some great points and all lead to one thing - the more detailed data the TV books show. I'd love to see the breakdowns of viewing patterns for those bunker ball games. How many people watched early, then bailed? Same with last week - how many DC people turned to the Skins at 4 or when DC went up 3-1? There are problems, but it's not hampering investment apparently. I wish there were an easy answer, but life doesn't work that way.
You know, you guys are in all probability right about the prediction that allowing fewer teams into the playoffs would reduce bunkerball-ism. And the key factor there is the 3-1-0. Bunkerball tends to lead to a lot of draws (2-2 draws are relatively rare compared to 0-0 and 1-1). Drawing a game only gives you one point, but it "takes two away" from the other team. If 80% of the teams make the playoffs, that point can help you make them without necessarily costing the other team their spot. That can lead to the most dreaded and contemptible match in soccer--the mutually acceptable draw. If, say, 50% of the teams make the playoffs, the number of such draws would have to be reduced, because your own qualifying for the playoffs is more likely to come at your current opponent's expense. And that's probably the best argument I've yet seen for reducing the number of teams in the playoffs. However, the effect would probably be only moderate. It's useful to point out that if 5 teams (half the league) qualified this season, Colorado, the lowest scoring team with a high number of draws, would get in while the MetroStars, the highest scoring team with a low number of draws, would be on the outside looking in. Also, this season was anomalously bad. This is very important to remember. Even last year, when goals were down moderately (though 2.9 would still be one of the highest scoring leagues in the world), the four teams with the most GF were also the four top seeds (though not in order) while the three teams with the lowest GF were all either 4 seeds in the playoffs or eliminated. Furthermore, last year, no team tied ten times. This year, four teams did. I personally think a big part of the story of this season was coaches trying to protect their jobs. Sadly, at least one of them (Nichol) probably did. But even there he was hardly the worst offender, as Hankinson played way more defensively, and Andrulis had way too much talent to play as defensively as he did. If they're both gone (and that's a probability at this point) then the league's offense-mindedness will improve by that means alone.
uh-oh. I'm leaving. NOW. Of course I must say that I am not surprised that they guys harping on "style of play" as being a key consideration are Metro guys. Just another reason why Metro is having a hard time despite what could potentially be such a large base.
This is MLS. If they are gonna spen money the last place they would spend it is on the players. The primary purpose of the way this league is organised is salary control.
here we go. (BTW I come closer to agreeing with you on Glen then my posts often let on.) and Rommul that's a little unfair because you know Most Metrofans #1 peeve with respect to Gaven is the fact that he goes down way to easily. The other being he disappears for looooooong stretches throughout a game But a) he is only 18 and b) not everyone on the USMNT boards sees him on a game in game out basis.
Stan... It is hard to say the effect of adding real incentive to the league, because we have not tried it yet. The matter whom the coach is, there is no real reason to drive them to win. New England has proven this out twice now. coaches and players are not blind, they see this. Also, it is no coincidence that every player (save Bocanegra, i havn't heard any comments from him) that recently left for leagues overseas have pointed out how 'every game means something overhere', when explaining the differences from MLS. If all the players and coaches realize this, wouldn't it effect the way they play and coach? They are human afterall. Oddly, as much as I hate stats, I still enjoyed your post...
Which is why being the good citizen I am I feel the need to come here and say it. And lets be real here man Eddie is a diver (a much better one than Glen at that). A lot of the free kicks we get around the box are becuase of the lanky kid with the floppy hair.
Just simply point out that the NYC soccer area as opposed to certain others are heavily (like 90% of the soccer watching population) Euro and Latino snobbish. For whatever reason these people will not give it a second chance after 4-0 against LA in '98. Mind you there are ways around it, like cater to and work with your hard core fan base to keep things at the same level adn to help atmosphere along. This is something that Wilt and Payne have long figured out and yet Sack O' ******** and whomever is running New England (is anyone?) have not. And it shows. As for TV - no pre-advertising, no buzz, no nothing - can't say I'm surprised. TV will be the indicator that things have finally arrived, not the cause. Stadiums to create revenue streams first, product a close second, then when you have those do you start really concerning yourself with TV.