Great questions! I always thought or just assumed the player contracts were through the end of August, therefore playoffs included with no extra pay. My memory that was the case for the WPS, the players were not payed extra. Rewards and costs? I think the teams pay costs and no rewards. Again, in WPS the teams were responsible for playoff costs. I remember Gerry the GM of SB telling us at the first '09 playoff at Wash that the teams were responsible for costs and that it would cost SB $50K to go all the way to the finals. I think SB used a larger number afterwards. So if a team is only the visitor in the playoffs, I think the answer is its a losing $ proposition but to be able to say they won or went to playoffs. Home teams depends if it can sell enough tickets on short notice.
I think FCKC wins today if 6,000 fans bought tickets and showed up. I think the team was a little distraught after seeing a sub-par attendance draw for a home playoff match.
I think FCKC wins if its 80 on the carpet instead of 110...other than Tymrak and the subs, most of the other players looked run out even before extra time.
A couple of thousand? short notice to email and call ticket holders, plus late August vacations and at the Shore (it was cloudy but nice at Point Pleasant yesterday and lovely day today in NJ, even Rampone would have been tempted to stay home). Frank Giase did write about SB this week, so some press on it. Like I wrote on some other thread, I think Tom H. deep down was happy SB finished 4th. Avoided the issue.
Portland won and FCKC lost because, in this game, Portland was the better side. Better conditioned, with a whole lot more heart. There were some things I didn't like about Chicago this year, but their heart was tremendous. But, no greater than Portland's today. I'm not a big fan of Cindy Parlow Cone, but I'll give her credit she's learned over the course of the season. Moving Shim back to more of a central defender role the last few games was a huge help. Moving away from the direct, long-ball route when Alex went out was a huge help. Hopefully, even if Alex is back next week, we'll see more of the same. In fact, maybe we'll see the same formation with Alex as a wing mid. Wouldn't that be great?
they can't hold leads which doesn't mean portland is the better team. i don;t think anyone can explain their mental collapse late in all those games, just too talented and well organized for that. and it has nothing to do with people putting the blame on casey. as someone said, they were dropping games when she was watching them on tv in texas. secondly, their bread and butter on defense is to sit scott or another defender opposite pole of Barnhart in which they save her skin. If you don;t believe, go back and look at the number of balls they clear for her, esp in those clean sheet games. Those opportunities didn't happen, and Barnhart got torched. I hope they hold the same formation. Franch is better athlete and reacts a split second faster. It should be a good game if Cindy doesn;t go direct. Like Rampone Estelle has had good success when you go direct at her. Rochester has no reason not to put 10k in the stadium. Weather should be good.
If Cone decides to stay with the 4-2-3-1 she featured Saturday then I like Sinclair better as the lone forward. Im not sure she does that tho as playing wing and it's added defensive responsibilities would be tougher on Morgan's knee.
I'm just hoping for a huge crowd for the final in Rochester. Would love to see Sahlen's packed with 14,000 fans(maybe some Thorns' fans, too)!!
They were easily audible on the KC broadcast, I'm sure traveling three time zones over won't be that much worse than traveling two. =-)
How does the championship game being on labor day weekend affect the attendance positively or negatively?
My guess is negative. People already had plans no matter how reliably WNY wins the league. The only positive I can think of is if they had gone with a Sunday game but that didnt happen.
Kenntomasch with a list of attendance for all outdoor soccer. Great list and interesting to note that NWSL teams were all among the top 50. http://www.kenn.com/the_blog/?p=5602
Well, no. All outdoor soccer attendance is not accurate, as he has no NCAA teams on the list. They would displace many of the top 50. UCSB lead men's soccer with 5,543 ( 25th) and UP led women's soccer with 3,313.(34th) BYU women weren't far behind and more that doubled the men's PDL team totals, which he does list. Further, he has no us national team stats. And the Cosmos'two games? Didn't the Argentina and Brasil national teams play 2 games here last year? What were their numbers? And how about Messi and friends? It seems silly to include the Cosmos. With the addition of the NCAA teams, some nwsl teams might not be top 50.
Looking at that list again, our local Rose City Sockers girls u8 rec team would make about 130 on that list just counting parents, aunts and uncles, and neighbors....
Really, they all pay for tickets? Ken's list IS complete for pro soccer (afaik). Including college games would just screw up the list since it's an apples and oranges (or $20 vs. often free) comparison.
Kens list has little to do with paid tickets. uP charges for all admissions That was Kens argument, but it seems it's not all apples and oranges. UP charges for all admissions, either through student fees, throught season and individual, or through youth group pricing. Just on paid season tickets , now approaching 2K, they would be pretty far up that list multiplied times the number of games. That number of season tickets sold is higher than nearly all NWSL teams, as far as I see. Even if you just included NCAA tournament games, which HAVE to be paid for as you need to charge at least what you did during the season, , (the NCAA is jealous of its take) UP would make that list. BYU would be halfway up that list just on Tournament attendance, all paid. And the pro designation doesn't hold water either. Not all those teams are professional, or there would be a bunch of student athletes in violation of NCAA eligibility rules, including all college players who played for the Timbers u23 and And UW players who played for the Sounders women this year, and at least one UNC player who played with all those professional Sounders women players last year. Near as I can tell, the list is just a mishmash of teams he saw on some list and has little to do with actual research on paid attendance in any category. He excludes college because he doesn't want to do the work, and actually hasn't looked into whether all the attendance even on the list is all paid attendance.
As much as it pains me to defend Ken, I disagree with you on this pretty completely. Saying that students who get free admission "paid" because of their student fee money isn't all that honest when colleges do it, and it certainly isn't in terms of attendance. But also, colleges have a fanbase that goes beyond being soccer fans or supporters, so getting big turn outs for TAMU games in College Station don't really indicate a soccer fanbase or anything other than TAMU student culture of going to games. I assume Ken's list is an attempt at looking for the kind of support pro soccer gets at different levels, so adding colleges (or your U8's) isn't really germane, but I'm sure he can defend himself on that.
Why not if the student fees are elective? I don't see it as any different than season tickets. The fee pays for entrance into soccer, volleyball, and Basketball. UP women's soccer outdrws the others combined. And the student portion is pretty easy to parse out just by reading the reports and looking at the student section. Last year it averaged around 600, with an occasional game to 1600, or half the student body. Even if you deduct the entire enrollment of the school, UP still makes the list. And season thicket sale is pretty easy also. Just ask, and look at the number of stadium and bench back seats. They are all paid for. At least one NWSL team gave students at the school they were renting the stadium from free tickets, not that it made much impact. Plus, you haven't answered the PRO part.If you eliminate college, you have to take them off the list, including the BYU PDL team. The list isn't well researched. I have nothing against Ken, but it is a partial list at best. Did he even talk to anybody at colleges? I'll ask UP if he did.
And, the shark is jumped. Student fees are NOT elective, they are by definition charged to ALL students on a per credit basis. And they're justified as covering at least a portion of intramural/recreational/activity program, facility, and site costs. So students pay a highly subsidized rate or nothing to participate in intramural sports or use recreational facilities on their campuses. Free (or highly reduced) admission is generally an added bonus not supported by the actual fee money or central to the justification of the charge (think of it like being forced to pay for YMCA membership). Being able to attend games or go the library (do kids GO to libraries any more?) by showing your student ID because you're a tuition paying student in good standing is NOT a season ticket. Regardless, the central point is that looking at pro soccer attendance across levels makes sense, throwing college games into the mix wouldn't make that information more useful in any discernible way.
This part I don't agree with. College attendance, in some cases (not all), can suggest where there likely are women's soccer fans. If one wants to use women's soccer attendance as an indication for where NWSL teams are likely to thrive/survive, then a full range of attendance figures, both pro and non-pro, can be helpful. For example, does anyone seriously think Merritt Paulsen didn't take the U of Portland women's attendance figures into consideration as a factor indicating whether a pro women's team would be successful in Portland?