ESPN dumping MLS Thursday night

I understand the sentiment that it would be more interesting with a hometown team. That's how sports fandom should work.

But the problem is, MLS is trying to expand (soon there will be 18 teams, after just 10 in 2002) and the talent pool can't support such a move. Coaching at the youth and college levels is not geared to developing players to contribute as pros and on the national team.

Three years ago, MLS mandated that every team start a youth development system, with a few individual players emerging from some teams which already had such a system in place. Getting depth from there will take time and money, neither of which MLS really has in abundance if major pushes like Adu and Beckham continue to fall flat.

MLS is as big as it is going to get, until the product improves enough to satisfy the Eurosnobs . . .errr . . . .soccer fans in this country who have hometown teams but spurn MLS for Arsenal or some such. I just wish the league would realize that and build what it has instead of looking to establish more mediocre teams.

 

So moving telecasts to a different night --- or rotating nights --- accomplishes WHAT?

 

Boom, how many hours did you spend working on this comedic gem?

 

I've also worried about the speed of expansion in the past few years after what I'd consider judicious planning on the part of MLS.

The league has definitely made strong positive strides since Don Garber became commissioner. Ditching some of the cornier names for traditional-sounding names was a good start. Ditching the shootout was great. The level of play has improved slowly, but surely. A former D.C. United player told me that the very best two or three teams in MLS could compete with the best of the Bundesliga. And that was in 1998. The league's play has gotten better since then.

However, expanding to 18 teams, especially in this economy, sounds like a recipe for a NASL-style failure. Granted, the league's doing it one and two teams at a time, but still, the league ought to wait a few more years before it hits 18 teams.

And I also agree about the soccer-specific stadia. Playing in front of 16,000 fans in a 80,000-seat stadium makes it look like your league is on death's door. Playing in front of 16,000 fans in a 20,000-seat stadium is a whole different story.

 

The Rockford Files and Northern Exposure.

Both shows had sagged in their final season, but were pushed into the abyss by scattershot scheduling. Usually when the networks start doing that, it's a sign they want to get rid of the show anyway.

 

Here's what I can't figure, PC.
Are you watching reruns in the summer? From Mid-May to August, MLS is pretty much the only soccer you can watch.

 

ESPN would get better Thursday night ratings on reruns of the best college football games of the century

 

The taped World Series of Poker final table got over 6x the viewers of the average MLS Thursday night game.

Yikes.

http://news.777.com/2008-11/espn-world-series-of-poker-ratings

 

I'm not sure it's fair to compare a one-off event to a season-long schedule.

If you want to compare MLS rating to the WSOP's entire run, or the final table airing to the MLS Cup Final, it would be a better comparison.

But the problem for MLS remains that it isn't seen as top-flight competition. The Mexican League probably get better ratings on Telemundo than MLS does.

ESPN/ABC got a 3.1 rating for the European Championship final, and a 7.0 for the last World Cup final, both over a point higher than the WSOP Final table.

If you put quality soccer on the tube, people will watch it. The trouble is, not enough people think MLS is quality soccer.

 

In 2004, it was getting a 1.8 or 1.9.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/09/commentary/column_sportsbiz/sportsbiz/index.htm

 

I don't see how Adu and Beckham fell flat from the league's perspective. They both brought a ton of exposure, sparked record attendance, sold a bunch of merchandise. They weren't going to "make soccer big" in the U.S.

As for the shallowness of the talent pool, the league will have to expand international player limits. There's no shortage of good players in this hemisphere; it's just that most of them aren't U.S. citizens.

And what would you all say is MLS' ranking in terms of popularity among American soccer fans? Clearly, the Mexican League and Premiership have more support here. Would La Liga and Serie A fit that bill as well?

 

I think La Liga, thanks to the influence of Real Madrid and Barcalona, is probably ahead of MLS. Serie A likely is as well.