Wiz get screwed in tv schedule

Yeah - and a team that did not make the playoffs gets NINE, count'em NINE, games on national TV.

************ that.

 

what's the deal with May 3? two games on ESPN2 at the same time.

 

3 televised games from Naperville too.

Which can go either way I guess... lots of complaints about how it looked on TV last year, but w/ a good crowd, the atmosphere is good for TV.

 

What teams get the best ratings? I'd say that it's important for MLS to get its numbers way up in the next couple years to try to get television contract with decent money.

Moreover, to claim that making the playoffs should be the standard of whether a team is significantly better or not ignores the fact that THREE POINTS meant the difference between finishing fifth-- having the #2 seed in the playoffs, in this case-- and finishing out of the playoffs. It really doesn't say much, to be honest, and Andy's point is totally disingenuous.

 

No, it's not. It's about exposure. If the Metro's ratings were that much better, then why don't more folks show up to the games? The league derives far more revenue at the gate than with TV ads.

When a city with a population of 1.2 million can get 12k per to each game - they deserve a bit more encouragement than 1 freaking midnight tape delay home game on national TV.

We're talking about 52 slots divided between 10 teams.

Sports is a game of "inches" or "points in the standing". The Wizards had them, the Metros didn't. At the end of the day it's results.

Can you honestly think it's fair - or even smart - to schedule a team that was god-awful more than the attacking attractive LA Galaxy?

And before you go on about new coach and players - we've heard that before. Remember your 1999 season? You might be better. You might be attractive, but Los Angeles is[/b] better and attractive.

It's not like an NBA, NHL, or NFL team - with 30 teams in the league - getting shafted. We're looking at a league of 10 teams. How hard would it have been to throw a couple of Wizards games on the schedule. God forbid the Wizards actually have a good season.

That's what happened in 2000 - nobody saw the team (except for diehards and satellite owners) until MLS Cup.

Do you want the league leaders on TV or New Jersey's finest because 10 million people in New York could care less?

 

Giants Stadium happens to be the cheapest stadium in MLS to broadcast from, even more so than LA, because of it's proximity to broadcast centers in NYC, major mobile studios (broadcast trucks) based in NJ, and ESPN's base in CT.

I'm sure that plays into the scheduling somewhere...

 

How about a plaque?

Find where in the MLS rules-- or the NFL rules, where smaller market teams that finish mid-standings or below don't play games on Monday nights-- it says that the order of finish determines who goes on television the next year.

If your point was that teams that finish out of the playoffs are so bad that no television viewers should be exposed to them, then I'd say you would be right if the team was, say, Metro 1999. But the Metros in 2002 were marginally worse than four teams in the playoffs, and that the relative order of finish says nothing about how entertaining they'll be in 2003.

I don't care a whit about what channel the Metros are on, as I'll see as many games as are on television, local or national. What I do care about is that MLS ratings be as high as possible, so that MLS can make a decent case for a decent television contract-- or at least, one no worse than the present one. When the league's financial security is assured, bring on Oklahoma City vs Rochester, live on ABC (very little would make me happier).

Is what's really motivating this that Wizards fans must have nationally televised games, because the local contract is poor, and because the shootout package doesn't pick up much of what's there? That seems totally self-serving.

 

So I'll put that down as a "yes."

Metrosports games really do need to be on the Shootout package. As a Shootout subscriber, I want them there too.

 

Well, in theory, every team should at least be on national TV at least once a year. I mean, how can we say how crap the Whizzers are if we never get to see them on TV? How about KC at Metros to kill both birds with one stone?

Seriously, I do recall that Metros seemed to be on an awful lot, and in one isntance, I think it was 3 weeks in a row, and 4 of 5 weeks. That is definitely overkill, even if they do get better ratings, which seems a bit far-fetched to justify that amount of exposure if you ask me.

The thing that shouldn't happen is to have the same matchup twice on national TV. I noticed that the Revs-Quakes are on twice, and as appealing as the Twellman vs Gesu Bambino matchup may be, it wouldn't hurt to show everyone at least once.

Tom

 

I feel bad that you only get to see your team once on national TV, that sucks, especially with how many teams are in the league and such...

I'm a neutral, no seattle team yet, but, and i know this isn't my place to say, i'm glad they are only on once, I get the shootout every season and never watch any wizards game unless its on ESPN2 or the only game on the shootout at the time, the team is the boringest team in the world to me, in 96, 97 and 98 I wanted them on TV every week...since then they eithere were crap, or they were just defense and boring, no offense at all...hopefully they are exciting to watch this season and i see games on the shootout, but as of now i'm glad they are only on once on ESPN2....

Also, a positive maybe, instead of 4:00pm EST midday games you get all saturday night games mostly, and that will bring more fans in...help KC out...

 

This is what alot of us are talking about. KC attacked much more in 2002 than they did in 2000. They had to get a high number of chances with no proven finisher. That led to quick counters with only the center backs defending. KC, in the second half at least, came forward aggressively against SJ and won 2-1 in April on soccer saturday, and then won 4-2 in New England in July on soccer saturday.

If you don't see them alot, you'll keep thinking that they don't attack at all.

 

I saw both of those games, and was impressed with a few players, including Fabbro and Armstrong (had seen him play before, but he stood out for me)...and i saw a lot of games on the shootout, they still don't have that player I NEED to watch or aren't really that fun to watch...even though Preki's cutbacks always get me excited and thinking about the first few years, and with Wolff coming, hopefullying Fabbro and Armstrong start, they just need someone else i feel, they are a good team, but not fun to watch is all i'm saying...its kinda the leagues fault for not "giving" them players like they do other teams, but oh well....I did like Lowe when he was there but hes gone also...

 

People outside of MLS are going to think the league is composed of about 4 teams. Everyone already thinks 10 is a joke. So I don't know what the league is thinking.

 

So let me get this straight, you didn't see any games, but you think KC was "boringest"...Hmmm, all right, whatever. A small suggestion: Get directtv(dishnet sucks, you'll be sorry), watch KC afew times and form an opinion based on actual experience. After you do that, then come here with the "boring" label and we'll be glad to entertain your assertions. BTW, KC was boring in 2000. I'd also tollerate another boring season like that in a heartbeat!

That said, it's standard to not have KC on national TV much. Only having one game was a mild shock. Still, KC ran up and down the wings all last season. They simply didn't score. KC had more chances at net and the lowest pecentage of finishing those same cances than anyone in MLS.

Combine the preceding fact, the perception of KC as boring (undeserved, but percieved), KC's TV ratings have alway been lower than NY, CHI, LA, etc., LA are champs, CHI has that unreal atmosphere, and Metros' new additions and this should be fully expected.

The silver lining in this is that we see all the KC games anyway, either in person or on MS. It isn't all bad to have all the other teams pumped into our living rooms. At least this way, you get to know more than one team.

 

If you never watch them, then how are they boring?

 

Yeah... I'm in on this!

How can the Wizards possibly be boring the way they spectacularly crashed out of the CONCACAF Champions Cup to Monarcas, MLS Cup play-offs to LA (did you see the spectacular manner in which we flamed out of that series?!) AND the Lamar Hunt Open Cup!

Half the fun last year was figuring out how we would toss our chances out a 32nd story window and watch them plummet to the street below!

BTW-- just in the US-based competitions I named before the total stats were: Goals for: 9 Goals against: 11

Not exactly the stats of a boring defensive team

 

Me saying I never watch them doesn't mean i don't see a lot of their games, I have the shootout, every season its been avaliable, i have Digital cable...

If they are playing at the same time as another game i watch the other game, but flip to the KC match to get score updates, etc...its not like i haven't seen many many Wizards games, also saw them at the rose bowl a few seasons ago and they were boring then also...

wizardscharter - So yes, i've seen them play a bunch and they are boring....even in 2000 they were boring, they were the champions, yes, congrats on that...

I'm a neutral fan like i said so its not like i'm attacking the team or its fans (are there any of you? joking...) I'm just saying that they've been a boring team to watch since they stopped attacking, like i said them verse DC was always the game i wanted to see in the 96-98 seasons, my two fav teams to watch at the time...99 KC sucked, 2000 I hated watching them all season and as a neutral fan hated that they made the cup just for the fact that they played not to lose...instead of playing to win...if KC had enough fans and were the type of fans that liked to watch attractive attacking soccer they would have booed and whistled all matches until gansler decided to try and score, its been like this since 2000...yes, as a fan of soccer i appreciate a good sound defense, but to play not to win i don't like to watch...it will probably never been seen in KC again, maybe even in MLS but the way Newman had his lads all out attack, it was fun to watch, and to see mike be under fire all match and make spectacular saves, i loved it, the wizards keeper hated it i know, he had many quotes about how he wanted a defense in front of him and for the team to play more defensive...

 

First off, Wizards fans were intelligent to know that the 2000 team was not suited to playing a flowing, attractive and attacking style of play. You wouldn't have asked the 2001 Fusion to play a sound, cautious style because those players would have struggled to do so. So why ask KC to play a style that wouldn't serve them?

NEWSFLASH!!!! This past season, LA played much like the Wizards did in 2000. A dominant and well organized back 3 and a first year in the league foreign goal poacher. Califf and Marshall would mark forwards tightly, Lalas would clean up anything that got through, and Hendrickson and Victorine would support as wingbacks, similar to McKeon and Zavagnin covering in the central defensive midfield.

Meanwhile, KC did lose alot of games in spectacular fashion as TartanMystic pointed out. Two games really stood out in my mind, at home against NY and at home against Columbus. Both times they looked like a Keegan, or God forbid, Ron Newman team. They were playing a 4-4-2 with BOTH fullbacks pushing forward at the same time. Then here comes a counter and all of the sudden Garcia had to handle Diallo by himself with tons of space. Against Columbus, you had Chris Brunt and Vermes trying to handle Cunningham and Buddle. Without a consistent predator up top, they had to attack or else they'd never score.

KC plays much more possession now than they did in 2000. Gutierrez adds attacking flair as a left back, or he brings much more skill to the defensive midfield than McKeon ever did. They traded Prideaux for Stephen Armstrong, got Eric Quill, as well as a forward line that plays with more flair than Johnston and Molnar did (without the lethal finshing however). Now add Josh Wolff to the mix. You're telling me there is no difference to the 2000 team?

 

OK, you have the SO package. Somehow you still didn't watch KC play in 2002. At this point it becomes an opinion mixed with a "but I did watch and what I saw was..." thing. I know most soccer fans have an irrational aversion to quantifiable numbers when seeking tangeble information. That said, statisticly in 2002 no team had more shots than KC. Nobody. Said another way, KC led the league in ripping through the midfield to get into scoring positions. I'm not aware of any chain of logic that converts that fact into "boring". If you have one, I'd love to hear it. At some point your opinion becomes held by one of either the extremly biased or tragicly uninformed.

I'll extend an olive branch. There is a root to why KC might be considered unexciting. They were also dead last in scoring percentage (goals/shots) at 9.18%. Remarkably below MLS average of 1 in 9 or 11.11%. You can call '02 KC frustrating, average, overtaxed by a rediculous schedule, impotent on the finish, unable to controll the air, unlucky, etc., but certainly not boring.

Maybe your statement is residue from 2000's "Bunker Bob" team. OK, but even that is a bit of a falacy. I mean really, how boring are titles? To back up: when I agreed with you that the team boring, I did so as a comparison to the early KC teams that played the run and gun soccer you mentioned. Every MLS team (except Miami '01) was boring compared to how Newman had his guys play. No small coincidence that not one title team has done so on the back of that style. More on point, KC's boring rep came from a few 0-0 late season results, the widely seen 1-0 Cup win where offensive Chicago bombed Meola's goal for 90+ miniutes and came up craps, and the sticking alliteration of "Bunker Bob". KC didn't stay back as a plan, they were forced to in the Cup Final. A quick comparison of KC 2000 to LA in 2002 brings up that LA scored only .1 of a goal more per game, yet LA isn't labeled. Why? Dunno, probably it's that Ruiz potted 24 to lead the league. That's fairly exciting, never mind that next best on the whole team was Lalas, a defender, with 4! Obviously Lalas should have bought him a BMW instead of merely a watch.

All this aside, was KC boring? If you truly think so, I believe you just saw poor games, but OK. Just make certain you label LA boring also. In the 24 games KC and LA didn't play against eachother last season there were 5 more goals[i/] scored by teams in KC games. I'd bet bocu bucks that if someone were to go back and look at game tapes or just check the shot numbers, those would be signifigantly higher (indicating more action around goal) in the KC games also. LA was basicly 88 minutes of boring capped by Ruiz late/OT.

 

Since when has ABC actually cared about encouraging the growth of soccer in the United States? Whether it's true or not (I'm not going to join the debate) it appears that most MLS fans agree with MLS3. Kansas City just did not get as high of ratings as say Los Angeles or San Jose. I'll watch no matter who is playing, but the conception of most MLS fans is that KC plays a boring, defensive game (you're right about last year's LA squad.) I'm sorry, it may not be true, but that's just how it is. The money-grabbers at ABC don't care about the fans, they care about the $$$.

 

Has anyone actually seen the ratings broken down on a team by team basis? High NY ratings was thrown out here as one possible explanation for the distribution of the games, but I have yet to see real numbers to back that up. I strongly suspect that cost has a lot more to do with it than anything else. The same thing happens in the ESPN NHL games - most of them originate from east coast rinks, because ESPN (as an east-coast based company) can show those with less expense than from other venues.

 

The two times they played in DC were pretty good games.