Dear Mr. Askinas, I am writing you regarding the recently released A-League schedule on Fox Sportsworld. First let me commend you and your staff for getting the A-League a television contract as it lends credibility and professionalism to the league. Also expanding coverage in Canada was a much needed move. Again, I commend you for this. In general though, I am highly disappointed in this schedule. If the USL wants to make strides in it's reputation and professionalism it would be pretty smart to actually broadcast games from their better venues. Showing a game in Richmond, Va Beach, Indiana, Toronto or El Paso only makes us look bush league. Showing Richmond and Virginia Beach 4 times is not only an insult to the teams that actually have support around the league but just does not make business sense. What are the nicest stadiums in the A-League with the most "major league atmosphere"? Those would probably be Rochester, Charleston, Portland, Seattle (although it may look really empty in Seahawks Stadium)and Vancouver. How many games between them that are being televised? 3. Again, I must reiterate my point that from a business and reputation standpoint the importance of the A-League to appear as legitimate and viable as possible in order to attract new fans to the league. The television broadcasts are possibly the best venue for reaching out and I am worried that the A-League is not seizing the opportunity presented. FSW attracts serious, sophisticated soccer fans of the EPL, La Liga, Bundesliga and Champions League and various other high level leagues. I am not suggesting that the A-League can compete with these giants in terms of atmosphere, professionalism etc. I do think however that such sophisticated fans will expect at least some atmosphere and quality soccer from a Friday night match this summer and I do not think a match between Virginia Beach and Atlanta reaches that level. While both teams may field a quality product soccer-wise, that is only half of the equation. The game last year at Toronto (I believe that the opponent was Cinncinati) was truly an embarrassment to the league. While the game itself was a pretty good match, my men's city league plays it's matches in a nicer venue. How much control does the USL have over the television schedule? Can changes be made at this time? I have enclosed for your information a conference breakdown of the television coverage. As you can see it is heavily East Coast centered with little to no coverage in the west. This flies in the face of attendance and support figures. Last year the top 6 teams in attendance were: Rochester 140,109 10008 Portland 87,648 6261 Montreal 72,486 5178 Seattle 57,223 4087 Minnesota 54,072 3862 Vancouver 52,762 3769 Of these teams 3 are from the Pacific conference yet FSW are showing exactly 2 home games from these three teams. Of the remaining teams only Montreal has television coverage proportionate to it's support. Television Coverage Breakdown Northeast: Montreal (4): 2 home, 2 away Pittsburgh (2): 1 home, 1 away Rochester (2): 1 home, 1 away Syracuse (3): 1 home, 2 away Toronto (2): 1 home, 1 away Southeast: Atlanta (1): 0 home, 1 away Charleston (1): 0 home, 1 away Charlotte (1): 0 home, 1 away Richmond (4): 2 home, 2 away Virginia Beach (4): 4 home, 0 away Central: Cincinnati (1): 0 home, 1 away El Paso (1): 1 home, 0 away Indiana (2): 2 home, 0 away Milwaukee (1): 1 home, 0 away Minnesota (2): 0 home, 2 away Pacific: Calgary (2): 0 home, 2 away Portland (1): 0 home, 1 away Seattle (1): 1 home, 0 away Vancouver (1): 1 home, 0 awa Thank you very much for your time.
There seems to be no consideration for how the games look on TV. Virginia Beach are the featured club this year with 4 home games? Take a look at their attendance last season and their record and you'll see that both were horrible. Featuring poor teams in empty stadiums is not the smart way to showcase a league. This schedule shows that the people in charge of this league are definately lacking in knowledge of how to promote themselves.
I have to come partly to the defense of Toronto. If I'm not mistaken, last years televised game was moved to York Stadium from their regular home because of a city strike. The game had to be televised earlier than scheduled because York has no lights, and only about 50 people made it to the game, as most were still at work or stuck in traffic.
This is true. Is suspect any team would be hard pressed to get fans out if you suddenly change venues and times. I would like to see what their regular stadium looks like.
At least we don't have any matches from Cincy this year. That match last year looked like it was held shortly after the tractor-pull National Championship. 2 from Indiana and 0 from Charleston: a bit of a problem there, to say the least.
Unfortunately it's not much better. It had no working scoreboard last season (I believe they will have one this season) and consists of one grandstand on one side of the field and a grass hill on the other. Apparently it is out in the sticks with no real public transportation nearby. I have a crappy shot of the granstand. http://www.xdesign.net/torontoultras/images/photos/small/Centennial/centennial1.jpg
Yeh that Cincy game was so sad it was actually pretty funny. But from what Dave Askinas said when he replied to my letter it all comes down to $$$. If the local team is willing to pony up the $$$ for production (about $15k) or at least share the costs then they get games. Portland's situation was FUBAR up until last week so they could commmitt nothing and I guess Charleston choose to pass. This is a stupid way to do things but I guess in a cash strapped league you do what you have to do.
Get Seattle out of that letter! Of their 57,000, 25,000 showed up for ONE game, which means that for 17 other home games, Seattle drew 32,000 people... Hardly great support.
VA Beach has done nothing but suffer from bad publicity over the last few years. I think that the Marniers ownership made a good move trying to get as many games televised as possible. Plus, they have a soccer spefic stadium. You use this to create a buzz about the team and get more butts in the seats.
Mike Field (owner of the Mariners) is really stepping up to the plate by having the games. He's spent a lot of money trying to drum up publicity for a team that was a disaster on and off the field last year. The Sportsplex is one of the best soccer stadiums in the country. If he's willing to spend the money trying to push his product, get off his back. We usually spend so much time complaining about owners NOT willing to spend, and when you get one that does, you say it's a disgrace. Give the guy a chance before you slam his team. Mark Bushman www.onthesidelines.org
Whoooaaaaa there Bushman. When did I ever say it was a disgrace? If The Mariners owner was willing to pony up the case to get T.V. there as part of an overall marketing strategy then I say Good on Him! What I was addressing is that the league was forced to just allow those who wanted to pay $$$ get the games. I do not think this is a good way to showcase a league and it cut out some of the best fans and venues in the country and that cannot be good for the league.
Daniel, surely you must know why Seattle drew crap at memorial stadium. Crap stadium, hard astroturf with football lines on it, no beer allowed etc, etc. Seattle will draw much better at Seahawk stadium. As for the league wanting teams to share costs for the TV productions, therfore teams willing to pony up cash get more games televised ,perhaps the league should no be so shortsighted. Sure they get to save some money on production but they also make the league look bush which can't help in the long run.
Who are you talking to? It would help if you quoted the comment you are responding to. No one is attacking Mike Field, we are questioning the logic of the LEAGUE featuring a team that had a poor season both on the pitch and in the stands. If it's part of a marketing strategy thats fine for Virginia Beach. However its doesn't help the marketing strategy of the rest of the league to showcase a team that might not have a good season and might be lucky to draw 1500 a game next season. People will tune in and watch games played in a mainly empty stadium and think "what crap is this that they are showing?" They won't be thinking "well this game is crap and the stadium is empty but it's sure a nice facility they are playing in". It's nothing personal. It's funny that this topic is being discussed on a couple of boards and in each one fans have taken it personally that people have questioned their team hosting so many games. It's just people looking at the bigger picture as opposed to whats best for their team.
Good points by both of you, Krammer and Finnegan. Maybe I misunderstood what was said (as I've been known to do on occasion). The point I was trying to make was that some people were slamming some of the smaller market teams (again, as I interpreted it) for trying to draw some attention to themselves. I think (hope) you'll see some tremendous strides by a few of these teams, and I hope it's apparent on the tv telecasts. I'm disappointed myself that there are so few West Coast teams on the schedule, but since the games are on Fridays (mostly at 8), it's hard to schedule them. I think it's pretty fortunate there are a few teams willing to spend the money and take the risk. You KNOW Charleston and Rochester will draw fans and money. Let's see if some of these other teams can take a big step forward. Mark Bushman www.onthesidelines.org
Krammerhead, I will personally record the games and mail them to you! Mark Bushman www.onthesidelines.org
Or..... you can NOT put the cart ahead of the horse. I hope that Seattle draws big crowds (they'll need it in that stadium!), but as long as a few games haven't been played, nothing is certain. And I was mainly pointing that out in regards to the numbers used. In the Sounders case, it would have been more appropriate to use the median than the mean (as it would be for Colorado in MLS).
Well I can remember what Seattle crowds used to be like in the "old" days. Playing in a nice new stadium should do wonders for their crowds. I'd guess they will at least average 4000-5000 a game this season. Thanks for the offer to record the games Bushman. I think I'll just try to find someplace that will show to the games and dream of the day I will be able to get FSWC.
I would think that the very fact that fans can now buy beer should be good for a couple of thousand extra bodies.
To paraphase the Coasters, "Why's everybody always pickin on us" We have a good July 4th game annually (61k+ last year) and a double-header with USA/MEX and everyone thinks were cookin' the books. Lots of teams (in many sports) use these tactics to boost attendance. Buck-a-Brat night, ball giveaways, shirt giveaways, rebar giveaways, etc., etc. Granted there are a few nights where we look around and think there must be 4,000 people dressed as empty seats - 'cause there sure aren't 6,000 people here! It all depends on how the league calulates attendance. Keep in mind, Denver is now a SEVEN team town (in SIX sports). Until we quit playing in cavernous stadia, and high school stadia, the TV pictures are always going to give the soccer-haters a chance to berate us and the game, and the casual fan no interest in watching what's happening in an empty stadium. [soapbox] In the mean time, we should support whatever product is out there to be watched. I watched EVERY A-League match last season on FSW. Every one. Some games looked pathetic (Cincy comes to mind), but I watched every one nonetheless. Why? Because it's good for the league in the long-haul. Even if I have to sit through some stinker games. Maybe this is the year VBeach turn the corner and have some success on and off the field. Maybe everyone can have a little success this year. We can only hope. [/soapbox]
I was just using Colorado as an example where the average of 20,000 doesn't mean that there around 20,000 people at each game (unlike, say San Jose, Chicago, Dallas, etc. who have "true" averages). Seattle had ONE game count for like 40% pf total attendance. So that would mean that ON AVERAGE there was 2,500 or whatever EXCEPT for the stadium opening, which drew 25,000. Seattle was NOT a top-drawing team in 2002, unlike it appears. Vancouver drew more on average for example.
I'm aware of the attendance that Seattle had away from that single match that drew 25000 and you are right, it hovered around the 2000 mark. I think most people are aware of that fact. I also think it will probably double this season. Of course we'll just have to wait and see, but I think that it's a safe bet that crowds will go up.
Yes, the effects of getting rid of astro-crap, a horrible stadium, add beer, etc and the attendance will go up considerably. Season tickets have already more than doubled last year with still three months to go. At least we will answer the question of how Seattle draws with a decent place to play once and for all so we don't have to go through these "what if's" any more... frankly it's gotten rather old having the same old discussion umpteen hundred times
TV is TV I know everyone only wants to showcase the best stadiums and all, but i have to say... TV is TV! I've never even contemplated watching a sounders broadcast and now not only will I get to see one, but it will be at a terrific stadium that can handle the highest tech in tv production, but also wont have any gridball lines on it, *and* it will be broadcast nationwide. Espn has great hits with worlds strongest man, the "outdoor" games (which includes dog relays), the d-league (NBADL), and plenty of other crap. even bush league looking ball cant put a bad look to the league, which most people have never heard of.
What I don't understand is how they picked the games they did? Wouldn't it make sense to try to televise games where your going to get a big crowd? I know I'm not going to watch Cincy at Indiania.