In comparison to May 18 Colorado at Dallas ........... .18 July 6 Dallas at Kansas City ......... .21 Aug. 10 Chicago at Dallas ........... .31 Gee. Metrostars sure blew Dallas out of the water. I see the ratings totally justify this decision.
Throwing out the number of June 29-- a .18 when the Metros at Dallas went up against the Mets-Yankees game that same afternoon-- it looks like the Metros draw numbers on the road that are significantly higher than the mean (.19) or median (.18) rating. Of course, that leaves out the two Metro away games of 8/31 and 9/5 with no data given, but with the data provided, and throwing out the game that was going up against the subway series, that's a rating a third higher than the average. Scoff if you want, but I'm sure that's meaningful to the people who make the decisions.
Nowhere, which is the reason why you've got the steady stream of Cincinnati Bengals and Arizona Cardinals games on Monday Night Football. Oh, you don't? Your argument that big markets should be on ESPN2 has some merit. Well, it does in theory. Unfortunately, in looking at Kenn's list of ESPN2 ratings from 2002, it appears that there is almost no correlation between the size of the markets involved and the nationwide rating. So you might as well go for the "best" teams.
Kenn's sample is small, but it looks to me like the Metros draw good numbers on television playing away-- some 50,000 viewers more than the MLS average on ESPN2. What incentive-- other than to boost the ratings-- would MLS have in putting six or seven Metro away games on ESPN2 telecasts? I understand some people are envious of the "help" the Metros are getting, but there is almost no incentive for a Metros fan to want to see the game on ESPN2, rather than MSG. In fact, it's far, far worse for use, because we don't get MSG's half-hour lead-in show, and ESPN2 is more likely to have some crappy programming leading in, or interrupting, its MLS game. So, in theory, Metros fans do not want games on ESPN2 when they would otherwise be on MSG. Here's a somewhat uncontroversial-seeming theory: MLS is trying to poach some of MSG's pretty good ratings figures for away Metros games to boost its overall national rating, and make a better case for increased ad revenue/future television contracts. Rather than more jealous simpering, let's hear some alternative theories.
Who, if he plays well enough for this "hype" to be meaningful, will leave MLS on a free transfer at the end of the season. Wrong. Next guess?
And see, I don't really have too much of a problem with this line up thinking. And if MLS were giving the Metros a couple of extra games here and there, I wouldn't say a damn thing about it. I know this because the Metros usually get a few more national games than the average team. But NINE appearances, while the third-best team in the league from last season gets a couple of token appearance (one in the middle of the night), is a bit much. Six or seven, yeah, that'd OK, but the friggin' champions aren't even on TV as often. OK, how about this: There are 26 ESPN2 games. That makes 52 slots. That's about five appearances per team on average. So let's start each team with five appearances, and we'll save the other two for later. So that gives us: Chicago - 5 Colorado - 5 Columbus - 5 Dallas - 5 DC - 5 Kansas City - 5 LA - 5 Metros - 5 New England - 5 San Jose - 5 Now then, you want to have the best teams on TV. So the best two teams get two more appearances, the next two get one more appearance, the next two no more appearances, the next two one few appearance, and the last two get two fewer appearances. So that gives us: LA - 7 New England - 7 San Jose - 6 Dallas - 6 Colorado - 5 Columbus - 5 Chicago - 4 Kansas City - 4 Metros - 3 DC United - 3 But you want good TV ratings, so rank the teams in order of market size, give the top two teams two more appearances, the next two one more appearance, and so on down. So that gives us: LA - 9 San Jose - 7 New England - 7 Metros - 5 Chicago - 5 Dallas - 5 Colorado - 4 DC United - 3 Columbus - 3 Kansas City - 2 Finally, dole out the last two appearances for reasons completely not based on any sort of merit, but a little guesswork on your part. Let's say that you think that the "new look" Metros, with Pope and Moreno, and the "new look" DC United, with Stewart and Petke and Kovalenko, are going to merit a little more attention. LA - 9 San Jose - 7 New England - 7 Metros - 6 Chicago - 5 Dallas - 5 Colorado - 4 DC United - 4 Columbus - 3 Kansas City - 2 And there you have it. A mostly fair distribution of national TV slots based on both merit and market size. Columbus and Kansas City fans will complain, but they live in the two smallest markets in the league, and their teams were #6 and #8 in the league. Tell me that that isn't a better way than what the league went with.
I only gave you that small sample because we were talking about Metro games. Check the entire list (I have the ratings for almost every ESPN2 game last year). Have we considered that maybe there are occasions when local telecasts are important, too? I have no inside knowledge of this, but there are teams that have more games on television than other teams. One of the things those teams can offer their local sponsors (and, I believe, league sponsors get a small bit of time on) is television advertising as a part of their sponsorship package (in other words, that surely sweetens the pot). Again, I'm just speculating here, but could it be possible that there are occasions when some teams have some games they'd rather not have on ESPN2 at 4pm on a Saturday, but would rather have at some other time? Or on their own cable or over-the-air carrier? I'd be surprised if anybody in MLS was raking it in from their local TV broadcasts, but it is inventory (limited, due to the nature of soccer television, obviously, but potentially significant) that the team loses. That might not explain why so many Metro games are on, because you'd think being in the biggest market would help get their local sponsors exposure in the biggest market. So maybe that's not it. But it's possible there may be conflicts or other things that make it impossible to broadcast certain games, or to not deprive teams of potentially very lucrative Saturday night dates. It could be that this is totally half-baked and wouldn't hold up to close scrutiny. But I think the idea that MLS is just throwing darts at a wall to pick who gets what TV games, or that they haven't already thought of or tried the things that everyone here has thought of doesn't hold up particularly well, either. Maybe the next time there's a conference call with the powers that be, someone could ask if there's a formula, or a reason that certain teams get on national television more than other teams in what seem at first glance to be disproportionate amounts. Another thing to consider, and Dustin, not that your method doesn't have merit, because it certainly does, is the actual math involved. If you've ever tried to do a schedule, you know that it simply isn't always possible to fit all the pegs in all the holes (I'm sure there are computer programs that can) all the time and get it exactly the way you have it above. It may be that you could get to a point where you have LA's first six appearances figured out, but you need to give them three more, and it turns out that because of stadium concerns or dates or something, you can't play a Galaxy/Rapids game (if it comes down to that) on a Saturday at 4pm, so it screws up the whole process. If you can take MLS' current schedule, given the fact that we didn't have any input into it, so we don't know all the nuances and why certain teams requested that they have certain dates or not have certain dates, and, without significantly moving games off their dates, find matchups that you could put on at 4pm on a Saturday that would give each team the number of appearances that you specify above, then, yes, obviously, it can be done. But I can't for the life of me think anything else than that we don't have all the information.
No, I was, I was just throwing that out there because it was a long day, I was running out the door, and I was hoping that someone could confirm what I remembered (which is why I threw out the format instead of generally asking "What is the playoff format?") Anyway, I had time to look it up, and I at least remembered correctly (glad to see that short term memory loss hasn't kicked in yet ) Seeing as how Soccer Saturday becomes Calcio Domenica in October, will the same hold true for the playoffs? Last year, there was a quick turn around late in the season on the playoff announcements: games ended 9/21, schedule announced 9/22 and playoffs started 9/25. What I can't seem to find is when they announced the TV set up for the playoffs.
It must have followed hard upon. The Fire/Revs on the Thursday was the only nationally-televised game prior to MLS Cup, if I remember correctly. There was supposed to be a playoff game on ABC, but it was quietly pulled, and I don't believe there was ever an announcement prior or an explanation after. They just unpersoned it like Winston Smith.
I would hope that at least the conference finals could be broadcast. Saturday may (probably won't) happen due to college football, I would hope that an MLS playoff game would earn better ratings than the programming ESPN normally runs opposed to the NFL. I saw that the NE v. Chicago game was at .26 for a Thursday night last year...I'm guessing a conference final on a weekend would do better, but I have no idea how to quantify that hypothetical increase