In today's Globe, Revolution-Crew drew a 1.1 rating. Not too shabby i think. Now could that be the highest regular season rating the Revs have ever achieved? Could this be the start of a new trend especially if Twellman and the Revs continue their winning ways?
The Revs ratings will always be higher on Ch. 56 than on Fox Sports because one is over the air and the other you need cable. It is probably the first time that the Revos have broken the 1.0 barrier this season. I think the playoff games last year did as high as 2.7. But then no one went to the playoff games until the finals. Who is going to the games now? 15,000 announced looks an awful lot like 8-9,000 in reality. And those 12,000 announced gates look a lot like 5-6,000. Padding the gates? Nah, the Revos would never do that. If a 1.1 rating, which is about a tenth of NASCAR and golf regularly receive is cause for celebration then this sport at the professional level is in a lot of trouble.
Re: Re: What Greater Boston was watching Golf, unless Tiger is playing (or Annika vs. a hundred men) rates nowhere close to ten. IIRC, Celts and Bruins midseason games generally rate less than 4.
Re: Re: Re: What Greater Boston was watching A tenth, not a 10. The Revos have been getting 0.4s and 0.5s. The sad fact is that as the team has gotten better, but there are fewer fans in the stands or viewers in front of the their TV sets to watch the Revos. That is a very troubling trend. A lot of people have gone away, and for whatever reasons, they aren't coming back. New England started off with pretty solid support for MLS in the early days. Maybe all of the losing took its toll, but that can't be an excuse since the end of last July. Winning back old fans, let alone attracting new ones, is just as challenging now as winning games. "Get Your Kicks" ain't getting it done. A better team isn't getting it done. A team with a couple of "celebrity-type" players - Twellman and Moore - isn't getting it done. So can it be done? Or is what it is, all that it will ever be? And is that enough to keep this product viable?
Big Frank, I think you're being way too negative on this. 1.1 is a damn good number for soccer. It's actually just below what the many Celtics games got this winter. Keep in mind that with MLS ratings, the games for the most part are during the summer when a lot fewer people are watching TV. There's a good reason why the networks do re-runs during June, July and August. Celtics and Bruins games are during the cold weather months when people are home watching the tube. In reality, it's those teams that should really be concerned about their ratings. They aren't doing much better than the Revs and they've got a much bigger audience to pull from. As for the crowds at Foxboro, I wouldn't get too alarmed -- yet. The Sox in recent years have had some difficulty selling out on weeknights before school ends. And with youth soccer in full swing, early Saturday games are out of the question for a lot of people, myself included. This year, the season started earlier and the Revs have had more home games in cool weather than they've had in years past. They should do much better starting in June. Plus for the first time ever, they've got a real good team on their hands.
Re: Re: What Greater Boston was watching That's an accurate observation, but an awfully negative spin on it! Yes, it doesn't hurt to remember that the regular MLS fan is a very tiny segment of the general public, sports-minded public or probably even the soccer-minded public. But, I disagree that it's a sign of trouble. It's a sign of potential (I know, how many times have we heard that?), but each of those three potential audiences grows in surges periodically. For example, ast year's MLS Cup (aided by GOOD weather) smashed the attendance of the 2 other MLS Cups held in Foxboro COMBINED. Each successive WC attracts significantly more interest in the US. There are plenty of signs, beyond the short-term ups and downs, that soccer will be a huge sport in this country; the only questions being "when" and whether MLS will have the staying power to be the vehicle. I think what MLS should be doing is arranging more international club matches to establish some credibility with US "world" soccer fans (a potential audience of what, 30-50 milllion?). DC plays some PL teams, why don't we? We played Alajuelense when they were in form, why don't we have a similiar match now, when WE are in form?
Re: Re: What Greater Boston was watching Smartstuff tickest sold and butts in the seats are two different numbers. You don't have to have all those in attendance to announce that number. Good Lord! I can't believe some schmuck on here doesn't know the difference already. This has been discussed to death!!
Re: Re: Re: What Greater Boston was watching Get a hold of yourself BigFrank is alot of things but a schmuck is not one of them. As for the ratings, I must admit that the Revs have been getting much more attention now even with all these attendance woes than before. Goes to show that what this league is in dire need of is time and patience. It WILL get there. Just not in the immediate future. and i do believe this is the first time the Revs have achieved anything bigger than a 1.0 rating for a regular season game.
The 1.1 was a "decent number for soccer" this season, but it was reached several times last year and in 2000 for over the air games like Saturday's on 56. You can't build a viable franchise on one-off fans and Gloryboys. The question is where have all of those people gone? Somewhere else, because they aren't coming back. Neither are a significant percentage from the days when bad Revos teams averaged more than 20,000 - announced, real or otherwise. The announced average is around 12,000. So can we take it to mean the real numbers are about 7-9,000? So where are those people? Aren't using their tickets? Can't even give them away? Any way it is sliced, people aren't coming. They are staying away in droves. For a league to be viable, it must have growth (unless it started at a viable number). MLS is not growing. It is still trying to recapture numbers from its first year. This is the best that the Revos have ever been on the field. If a business puts out a better and more attractive product, and yet less people are willing to buy it, what does it say about the health and future of that business?
Re: Re: What Greater Boston was watching You have to look at the market base, outside conditions, and game day factors before jumping into the conclusion that "They are staying away in droves." The Market base is more than half made up of families with children. Im in that category. Youth sports are still in full swing and the weather conditions for at least two (maybe three if your are really anal) games have not been very attractive to bring young children into. I have season tickets for my family and half of them wont be coming until the weather clears up. Take into account that the Revs have not had these many home games this early in the year. I guarantee you the the attendance numbers will surpass last years, there is no doubt in my mind. Outside Conditions and Game day Factors include many things. We never before had a home Revs game on College Graduation Weekend. We haven't seen these low temperatures at Revs games this early into the season, School is yet not out and youth sports are winding down with a fury over the weekends. Bruins & Celtics make the playoffs with contention. ETC ETC. June will bring a rise in attendance and the summer will be very good. If numbers are low at that time... then you can bring your negativism, otherwise lighten up.
Re: Re: What Greater Boston was watching The on-field quality of the team is just one aspect of the quality of the overall product. As has been pointed out elsewhere, Gillette suffers from poor ticket value in the middle pricing tier, has outrageously expensive parking and concessions, and a decidedly flat atmosphere (at least for the size of crowds that the Revs draw). I wonder if this is having an effect on the day of game walk ups. These fans make up a lot of the difference between crowds of 12,000 and crowds of 22,000. Brian
SEASON TICKET SALES? Has this year's number been posted yet? Are they up from years before? Anyone know?
Re: Re: What Greater Boston was watching MLS is 7 years old. I'm guessing it takes at least 25 to 30 years to grow a league to the point where it's making money. Let us not panic. MLS's main goal right now is to stay around, to exist long enough for the sports culture in this country to change. And it is changing though maybe not as quickly as some would like. It took the other sports a hell of a lot longer than 7 years to get to where they are now, though obviously America was a lot different in the early and middle parts of the last century. There will be no instant success for this league, though if you look at where it's come in 7 years, I think its growth to date has actually been pretty remarkable.
Re: Re: Re: What Greater Boston was watching Can you support your claim with hard numbers? A quick check on attendence since league inception: League Numbers Year G Total Avg Growth 1996 160 2,785,001 17,406 1997 160 2,339,019 14,619 -16.0% 1998 192 2,747,897 14,312 -2.1% 1999 192 2,742,102 14,282 -0.2% 2000 192 2,641,085 13,756 -3.7% 2001 158 2,363,859 14,961 8.8% 2002 140 2,214,878 15,821 5.7% Revs Numbers Year G Total Avg Growth 1996 16 304,392 19,025 1997 16 342,762 21,423 12.6% 1998 16 307,004 19,188 -10.4% 1999 16 267,752 16,735 -12.8% 2000 16 247,409 15,463 -7.6% 2001 13 203,501 15,654 1.2% 2002 14 236,973 16,927 8.1% We're still a long way from 1996 - 1998 average attendance, and I'm pretty sure the cost of running the business has increased dramatically during this time frame. Maybe folding 2 teams was seen as a positive for league growth, but I would have rather seen the teams moved. I hope not, but I think the league is in trouble.
Yes, Dorothy, we are still in Boston! If you look at RevKraft's numbers, both the league and the Revs showed growth in the last two years. This year's numbers are misleading (for the Revs) since they have not been 'bolstered' by any significant double headers - talk to me about average attendance in 2003 on July 18th. Additionally, this pessimism about the MLS could only come from Boston when.... the Women's World Cup is coming to the US, this will bring SIGNIFICANT revenue to SUM, which, when I last looked is owned by MLS owners....as well as MLS owners owning some of the fields that the WWC will be played at. I'm sorry, when have we EVER had as many soccer games scheduled to be carried on national TV?? I know in previous years, there is no way I would have been able to watch two Revs games and a US National team game on live national TV in the last month. And don't we know that TV is what drives the revenue for sports in the US. And last, there are discussions about the MLS getting a $3 million transfer fee for Tim Howard. The So, you can look at the Rev's early season numbers and say, ohmigosh the entire MLS concept is in jeopardy, OR you can look at the broader picture and say...soccer is WAY growing in the US right now and I am excited about it.
Re: Re: Re: What Greater Boston was watching You may be right here, but for everyone's sake, let's hope not. 30 years from now, Phil Anschutz will be 94 years old. Unless he funds a billion dollar trust fund to cover MLS's operating losses or if he decides to pull the plug in the foreseeable future, it's all over. For my part, 1.1 sounds pretty darn good compared to the .3 numbers of the last few seasons, even allowing for over-the-air vs. cable distribution. (And it was a great game to attract new fans!) I am concerned about attendance, though. The recent Twellman comment about the lack of noise at the stadium just might be connected to the fact there are far fewer attendees. Would the soccer staff bloodbath from late last season, along with Patriots sales staff taking over sales have anything to do with it? It's a shame, since the on field quality has definitely improved.
MLS as a business still a house of cards Pessimism to one is realism to another. MLS has a single-entity concept with all of the teams owned/operated by three groups: Phil Anchutz owns 6 teams. The Hunts own 2 teams. The Krafts own 1 team. The league owns 1 team. And the new investors are where? Not exactly beating down the doors, are they? Dallas has been a league-operated franchise for eight seasons. No one wants to buy them. Or at least no one thinks they are worth the price. Where are the new investors? What does it say about the health and viability of the league, long-term, if one guy controls 66 percent of the fanchises (his 6, plus his share of the Burn). I'm glad that Phil Anchutz believes in American professional soccer, because without him, there would be no MLS. If he ever gets bored with it, the whole league will fold. Now hopefully that won't happen, but MLS would be a lot stronger with 10 different financially stable groups operating the 10 teams.
Re: Re: Re: Re: What Greater Boston was watching Bingo! That has to be at least part of the reason for the decline. It was mentioned earlier about doubleheaders boosting attendance. That happened in previous seasons and should happen again. But the real measure of the team's popularity/viability is how it draws on its own.
I'm sorry but you can't count 2002 numbers as a growth year. I was at most matches and half the fans were there to see a new statium and didn't know you couldn't use hands in our sport. There's been many excuses for poor attendance to date this year, but it's really the fault of an organaization that's done NOTHING NEW to bring in new fans.....and keep them. And to me, tickets sold and announced attendance mean squat, its how many fans actually give a $hit about actually being there that counts. And that's where we are hurting, with my estimate being an average of <7500 fans/ match so far this year.
Big Frank, I know you lost touch with MLS since you last managed the club here in 1996, but Lamar Hunt owns Dallas, and he'd building a nice new ground for them. But I agree with your hypothesis that the Krafts have done sweet FA when it comes to building the fanbase. It is a real shame, but they have run this club into the ground by sacking almost all of the people who cared about the sport and the club and replaced them with blundering, ham-handed fools like Lou Imbriano, who is so concerned with the Rich and Famous and his crap net-side terrace and whatever, whilst neglecting the average punter who buys regular tickets. How many of those wankers in the posh seats will be back next year ? Anyone else notice there's no one there ? The only hope for this club is if Kraft gets so disinterested that he sells the club for a song to Anshcutz, who in turn builds us a new ground somewhere. I predict that will happen in 60-90 days. Metro-time, which is somewhat akin to dog-years. Cheers, "Red"
Re: Re: What Greater Boston was watching That is a laughable quote. I've had season tix for years now and while there was interest in the new stadium for 2002, I saw the same fan base as I have always seen. There has always been people going to games that arent familiar with soccer, and I did not see any significant rise of this sector from years before. I would venture to say the people who only went to see the stadium would be in high hundreds to maybe 2 thousand range TOPS. And of those I am sure they have or will return to see another Revs Game. If what you said has any truth to it then you are claiming 33,000 people went to a Revs game just to see the stadium. Highly unlikely.
Re: Re: Re: What Greater Boston was watching If you are talking about the people that went to the Cup Final, then you are actually making your argument the opposite way. The Revos best crowd this season has been about a quarter of those that went to the final. If a lot of the same people are going to all of the games, where have the other three-quarters been? I'm sure a lot of the non-regulars that attended the final were there because: 1.) It was an "Event." 2.) To see the new stadium, because they can't get Pats tickets. 3.) The home team was in it. So what has the organization done to attract them back? As far Dallas, I thought Hunt's takeover was contingent on getting a new stadium. Has it been approved yet? Either way, it still wouldn't represent any new investors. I think Red is correct is that best hope is if Anchutz comes in and buys the Revos and moves them elsewhere. I can't see him paying the Krafts rent. But that also means that MLS's best hope to become AAAHSL (All-Anchutz, All-Hunt Soccer League). That is still very scary from a business sense.
Re: Re: Re: What Greater Boston was watching What's laughable is your math skills. Let me review the 2001 vs. 2002 numbers; Year G Total Avg 2001 13 203,501 15,654 2002 14 236,973 16,927 2002 avg - 2001 avg = 1273 fans 1273 fans X 14 matches = 17,822 Do I think 17,822 fans came to see a new stadium and watch a match? Yes, in fact 65,000 patriot season ticket holders couldn't wait to see the world champions new digs. And for what it's worth, the Revs 2002 playoff run (excluding the Cup final) attendance was dismal and should have boosted the averages. Do me a favor and count (Maybe you should bring a calculator)the fans Saturday and let me know what you think about 2003 attendance so far. I've been to every home match, and it's been dead.
You are looking at averages and im looking a hard numbers. But still there is no way 33k or even 17k came to a game JUST to see the new Stadium. We have discussed why the numbers are low in the last home games (weather, school, etc). But it seems you are not getting it or you have a short attention span. Either way I think you're wrong and you think I'm wrong. At least we support the same team and at the end of the season (or mid season, most likely) lets loo at the numbers again and see who was right. In the meantime keep coming to the games.