Re: Re: Re: Re: Real & Roma I agree with your statement. And most of the big teams in Europe are thick skinned to let outsiders in, but it great for US soccer to get the different experiences of different leagues. That will make us grow even more.
Correct. He wasn't even one of the better midfielders on the team. He was TRADED because he sucks and completed more passes to players on the other team then his own. Please stop it with the quoting thing 10x in a row. You are making me dizzy.
For the record, Peter Villegas was a great player when he was the only other player on the field. When you added the opposition he was bad. When you added his ten other teammates, he was even worse. Paul
My point in all of this was, as Sgt. Hulka put it (now switching my references from oldies rock to movies): Lighten up Francis. Don't rail on the Metros and MLS. They have done their share of wrong. But Thursday night's game was about marketing, or lack thereof, and the unsophisticated that buy into it. I watched Real-Roma, and there were some moments where I went, hey, that was something. But I saw very few of them. I've been to a lot of MLS matches and said, ``hey'', a lot more frequently. Real-Roma was an exhibition, a pre-season exhibition. I've been to exhibition matches. Paid to go see them. But I didn't spend $75 and then acted like I had seen God himself. I honestly have to question those who thought they were going to -- and in some cases actually thought they did -- see an INFINITELY better game between two teams in pre-season than they would by watching Chicago and the Mutz play for a third of the price. If you want to go fine. If you go to both, great. But for those who went Thursday but I couldn't get to a Metros game either by offering them a ride in my Mercury Maurader, or dragging them by a rope with the car's 300 hp engine, I have to say they/you are not soccer fans. They/you are star watchers. And that doesn't mean they/you will burn in hell, but don't blame MLS or the Mutz for being unable to appeal to them/you. They couldn't appeal to them/you with Catherine Zeta-Jones in a thong at midfield. How much ``marketing'' went into Thurday night's game? Some said they saw billboards outside the Lincoln Tunnel. I've the MetroStars logo all over the place, including a scratch-off card I got at Burger King last week. They really didn't have to market Real-Roma, because all some people had to see was Real or Roma's name, and Ohmigod, they had to go. Was it the promise of the best soccer ever? If it was, they should get their money back. It was an OK game, but like I said, I've seen a lot better -- including in MLS. MLS and the Metros have brought in teams like Celtic, Rangers, Leverkusen, Chivas (who will be in again Thursday), Brazil, Colombia... They realize there is a market that they can only appeal to, or get their attention by, bringing in these kinds of teams. They hope they'll see the MLS teams, either against the foreign clubs or stick around for the DH game involving the MLS sides, and find out that it isn't the dregs they've led to believe by some. MLS/The Mutz weren't involved in Thursday's game because of a chest-puffing maneuver on the part of the NJSEA. And even if they were involved, I think the idea of giving vouchers -- or free tickets -- to a Mutz/MLS game is a bad idea. Ask any good marketer and he will tell you, once you give something away for free, it is VERY hard to get someone to pay for it later. (Samples of soap don't count. You don't see Sony giving away TVs by the 70,000 load.) For those who pay to go see the Mutz regularly, and paid to see Real-Roma to get a little extra, I applaud you/them. You/they wear your/their passion for the game on your/their sleeve, or express it with your/their wallet. For those who only went to Thursday night's game because it was the only level of soccer that meets their ``standards,'' (and by my estimation there were a lot of them) I do not consider them fellow soccer fans. They're fans of a team, voyeurs, or those who have to do the faddy thing. And don't think for a minute, that the NJSEA or anybody else is going to be able to bring five games a year that is going to draw 60,000 or more unless they're wearing pads and helmets. Fads, like glory, are fleeting. Criticism of another is as old as language itself. And Lord knows I done more than my share (in this post alone). But I wasn't going to let uninformed criticism, unjust criticism go unchallenged. (you can cut the Battle Hymn of the Republic music now.)
But that's not quite fair. Would anyone here on these board refer to MetroStars as a "winning" franchise? When the Mets are bad, look at their attendance-go back and look at the Stump Merrill Yankees. Why should MLS soccer not be subject to the same dynamic? This post on the Revs board-with all of the problems they are having in NE spells out this problem pretty well: Metro for most of its history suffers from this as well: it can claim decent attendance in the league, but has been a pretty much a faliure in terms of winning. And that can't be overlooked as source for bad attendanceand APATHY-especially in a market like NY/NJ that is savy about soccer. I think your right that there is truth to the idea that MLS will never tap into a certain fan base; that some people will never warm up to our brand of soccer. But that has become something of a crutch/excuse to deflect attention from the product on the field-they're not ALL snob or "star watchers." Look, I'm a regular at Giants Stadium, have been for years now. But worse than any marketing problems, MetroStars haven't won anything! In one sense what IS there to market with this club-what winning tradition has there been-especially considering that Year #1 of MLS is also Year#1 of the Yankees current run. I have only had a season pass for year, so can tell you I have sat in every section of GS, and when I talk to people who sigh/yell, "they suck!" they're not just talking about the quality vs Europe, they really mean, "THEY SUCK!" They want to cheer for a winner! So before you kill those who went to Real-Roma, but don't go to MetroStars, ask yourself why should they? To support the growth of US soccer? OK, I would agree-but is that really anyway to sell a league? Does there have to be so much baggage attached to being a soccer fan in America? Simply put, last Thursday may have been a match of zero meaning, but it was fun. And that is something that has been missing more often than not, not only in Metroland, but I suspect other MLS cities as well.
Real Ray, MLS can't be Lake Woebegone. Some of the children have to be average, and some of them have to be below average.
Not true. Championsworld did more Guerilla Marketing for this than the Metros have done in 7 years combined. Billboards on major interstates, street blimps, teams of hot chicks going to bars, tv commericials, radio ads, flyers, posters- etc. If they played this game with no promotion then they would struggle to get 25K. 70K does not promote itself. Thats utter ************************e.
Sure. But 70K could have shown up for Metros vs. Bavarian Munich (Bayern is Bavarian in English, so...). There should have been an ad for Metros vs. BM during that Champions League match on ESPN2. There should have been ads everywhere after Munich won. Ladies and gents, this was a high risk/high reward proposition by Champions World, and it paid off. I don't think that you could do five events at the Meadowlands and get 70K each time, but I do think all five would do better than the paltry 30K that went to the Metros/Munich match. BTW, I went to both Real/Roma and Metros/Munich and the latter was a better match, despite Zidane's beautiful touches and Roberto Carlos' juggling at midfield.