SATURDAY - OCTOBER 5, 2002 Colorado Rapids at Los Angeles Galaxy - 10:00 p.m. ET ATT Broadband DIRECTV: 794 DISHNET: 456 iN DEMAND: LIVE SUNDAY - OCTOBER 6, 2002 Columbus Crew at New England Revolution - 4:00 p.m. ET FOX Sports New England, Sport! TV DIRECTV: 794 DISHNET: 456 iN DEMAND: LIVE WEDNESDAY - OCTOBER 9, 2002 New England Revolution at Columbus Crew - 7:30 p.m. ET ATT Broadband DIRECTV: 794 DISHNET: 461 iN DEMAND: LIVE Los Angeles Galaxy at Colorado Rapids - 9:00 p.m. ET Fox Sports West 2 DIRECTV: 795 DISHNET: 462 iN DEMAND: LIVE
They've shown all their games, home and away, since day one. Their attendance has been pretty much all the proof that you need that the old saw about "televising home games hurts attendance" is a pile of crap.
What about their attendence this past week? Nothing too hot, until they are the #1 attendence in the league, there is no need for home TV games.
They've been #1 in attendance before, and they were televising their home games then, too. In fact, because they've always televised home games, no matter what the swings in attendance, you can make the argument that TV coverage doesn't really affect attendance at all. There's no numerical evidence that televising home games hurt the attendance.
ElJefe, haven't you posted figures in the past somewhat demonstrating that televised home matches have no measurable effect on home attendance? I seem to recall some posts about this last season or the season before.
Yeah, but they were lost in the Great Crash of 2002. The bottom line was that teams' attendance when the games were on TV locally (whether on ABC or ESPN or ESPN2 or the local regional sports network or whatever) were pretty much the same as when the games weren't on local TV.
A Patriots or Red Sox game has a much greater impact than the fact that the Revs are being televised.