What kind of numbers is the premier league putting up against the NHL and MLS?
Copa America Centenario
- Thread starter Infield Infidel
- Start date
I mean opening round of tourney v SCF (a potentially series clinching game at that) is pretty impressive. I am really not good at finding tv ratings to compare. Though in any given week there is a lot more soccer nationally than hockey (EPL and Bundesligia included).
As always, people are forgetting arguably the most popular soccer league in the US.
There are three soccer leagues that garner ratings of any substance. MLS is a distant third. Second is the EPL. The league with the best US ratings is Liga MX.
There are three soccer leagues that garner ratings of any substance. MLS is a distant third. Second is the EPL. The league with the best US ratings is Liga MX.
Hockey on NBCSN average: 378,000 (the handful of full NBC games was much higher 1.5 or so)
MLS on ESPN average: 244,900, Univision 244,000, FOXsports 196,500
EPL on NBCSN average: 514,000 (per match window).
So EPL outdraws MLS, tougher to say if it outdraws Hockey regular season, both soccer get crushed by NHL playoffs.
Edit- I did indeed forget Liga MX, which slots above everything except NHL playoffs.
Yeah, Liga MX is doing 1.1m on Univision. The article states that it is 19% higher than EPL on NBC, so we can extrapolate that the EPL is doing around 915k when it's over the air on NBC. It's probably more fair to compare EPL numbers on an over-the-air network to Liga MX's Univision numbers.
One slight correction - MLS games are on UniMás or Univision Deportes (sometimes simulcast on both) but never on the big Univision. Excruciating detail on MLS ratings can be found here.
The fragmentation of the soccer landscape makes it difficult to compare to singular leagues of ~30 teams like the NHL. One area where I think soccer definitely lags behind is in what I'll call the "Conference Call Small Talk Index". People will mention Big Four sports happenings, but nobody's going to bring up Liverpool, the LA Galaxy, or Chivas. I think that soccer still has a comparative dearth of casual fans. There's a pretty sizable hardcore across various leagues, but it just hasn't permeated the general cultural consciousness the way the Big Four have. That being said, hockey is by far the niche-iest of the Big Four in the US. I do think soccer (all the leagues collectively) will be on a similar level to hockey sooner or later.
One last thing - I know that the demographic profile of the MLS TV audience is off-the-charts good in terms of what advertisers are looking for (young, male, etc). I'd imagine the EPL is the same. Probably more of a standard sports age profile for Liga MX.
Univision got a higher rating than FS1 despite the fact that unlike Mexico and some other Latin American countries, there really can't be much of a pro-Paraguay viewing audience in the US.
I was looking at the knockout bracket, and it's odd for teams for the same group to be placed on the same side of the bracket right? If I'm looking at the bracket correctly, teams from the same group are lined up to play each other again in the semis, and not the finals. That makes no sense to me and IIRC WC '14 split up the group winners and runner ups on different sides of the bracket. i.e. If the US and Colombia both win their QF, they will play in the semis. That seems like such as buzzkill, when the alternative would have the US play an Argentina, Mexico, or another team they haven't seen yet.
I believe the idea behind this is that if you won't have a finals match where the teams already played, but as you said it just increases the odds of this occurring in the semis instead.
I'm not sure what you are looking at, but this is not the case. The US/Ecuador winner will play the winner of 1D/2C (prob Argentina)
You're right, espnfc's webpage was just very confusing. This makes me happy. Carry on.
Here's an interesting article on the US semi-pro players who end up serving as scrimmaging partners for international teams' practices in between matches. It really does a good job of imparting the surreal experience for these ex-college players on what it was like taking the field against (and with!) Argentina the other day. It's a really good read. A sample:
I imagine international teams do similarly for scrimmages in other countries - TB probably knows best - but this was an aspect of the game I'd never seen reporting on before.
A lot of options for how to line up against Argentina.
I think the two I like most that I think Klinsmann will consider (so no odd man back lines):
I also think Klinsmann is not going to move either FB to the midfield.
a 4-3-3:
First choice back 4,
Middle 3 of Bradley Beckerman and (Nagbe or Zusi) with Beckerman sitting back.
Top 3: Pulisic, Dempsey, Zardes- basically the same as has been running but with Pulisic in Wood role.
Advantage of this is you keep a lot of the same relations and roles, Beckerman takes the Jones role but is less adventurous going forward I lean towards Zusi since he'll be playing the Bedoya role and helping cover Yedlin's errors.
Disadvantages: Lot of pressure on Pulisic to cover ground, leaves one of Zusi/Nagbe on the bench.
A 4-4-2
Same back line
Bradley, Zusi, Nagbe, Beckerman in the midfield.
Probably tending toward more of a 4-1-3-2 really, Beckerman as the anchor.
Front two Dempsey, Zardes.
Advantage: probably stronger defensively, gets Zusi and Nagbe on at same time
Disadvantage: Dempsey is better in the 3 man front.
I think the two I like most that I think Klinsmann will consider (so no odd man back lines):
I also think Klinsmann is not going to move either FB to the midfield.
a 4-3-3:
First choice back 4,
Middle 3 of Bradley Beckerman and (Nagbe or Zusi) with Beckerman sitting back.
Top 3: Pulisic, Dempsey, Zardes- basically the same as has been running but with Pulisic in Wood role.
Advantage of this is you keep a lot of the same relations and roles, Beckerman takes the Jones role but is less adventurous going forward I lean towards Zusi since he'll be playing the Bedoya role and helping cover Yedlin's errors.
Disadvantages: Lot of pressure on Pulisic to cover ground, leaves one of Zusi/Nagbe on the bench.
A 4-4-2
Same back line
Bradley, Zusi, Nagbe, Beckerman in the midfield.
Probably tending toward more of a 4-1-3-2 really, Beckerman as the anchor.
Front two Dempsey, Zardes.
Advantage: probably stronger defensively, gets Zusi and Nagbe on at same time
Disadvantage: Dempsey is better in the 3 man front.
I like your 4-4-2, but with Zardes staying at midfield and Pulisic filling in for Wood
So among the teams participating in the tournament, your semifinalists are:
Argentina (#1 FIFA, #1 Elo)
Colombia (#3, #7)
Chile (#5, #9)
USA (#31, #18)
Eliminated:
Brazil (#7, #5)
Mexico (#16, #6)
Uruguay (#9, #13)
Ecuador (#13, #15)
Offhand, I'd say we're punching above our weight.
Argentina (#1 FIFA, #1 Elo)
Colombia (#3, #7)
Chile (#5, #9)
USA (#31, #18)
Eliminated:
Brazil (#7, #5)
Mexico (#16, #6)
Uruguay (#9, #13)
Ecuador (#13, #15)
Offhand, I'd say we're punching above our weight.
Is there any way to make this a mire frequent event?
Having teams of this caliber in the US brings more exposure to the sport and having CONCACAF teams play together with CONMEBOL can only help them.
I understand the rumor posted in another thread has been debunked.
Having teams of this caliber in the US brings more exposure to the sport and having CONCACAF teams play together with CONMEBOL can only help them.
I understand the rumor posted in another thread has been debunked.
Like your (positive) comments (the last three above). But what do you expect, when the USA lose like 3-0 vs. Argentina with a dominating performance from ARG and barely a chance for the US. I don´t think it will happen, but it could happen, without a doubt. There will be more than 50% of comments here, media reports, people´s opinions, which will say Klinsmann didn´t develop the Team! or whatever negative comments you can drag out of such a game, instead of seeing it in a positive way.
I'm not a big JK fan but I don't see this tourney as anything other than a success for the US. Won the group, made semis, and got further than Mexico. We got lucky that Costa Rica beat Colombia, but few tournaments go according to chalk. Even if they get blown out by Argentina, at least it's in the semis and not the quarters, and maybe there's a chance to avenge the opening loss to Colombia in the 3rd place match.
So far I call it a success. Played pretty well won the games against teams outside the top 5. Only disappointment would be if they get dominated in both the ARG match and the 3rd place match.
I completely agree. Coming in to this tournament I would have said:
group stage exit = disappointment
QF = par
SF & beyond = good
Unless Klinsmann does something totally ridiculous against Argentina, I don't see how he doesn't come out of this tournament in better standing than when he started.
For USA-Argentina:
3.3m on FS1
4.8m on Univision
Fox also said the game broke their streaming record on FoxSportsGo, for whatever little that's worth.
This tournament has been a huge home run for Univision. For comparison, USA-Belgium '14 got 16.5m on ESPN and 5.1m on Univision.
3.3m on FS1
4.8m on Univision
Fox also said the game broke their streaming record on FoxSportsGo, for whatever little that's worth.
This tournament has been a huge home run for Univision. For comparison, USA-Belgium '14 got 16.5m on ESPN and 5.1m on Univision.
How do you think FS1 and other networks view that 3.3M number? Has this competition met/not met/exceeded expectations?
It's a good rating. FS1 has never had a men's soccer game get a higher number. Obviously they will when the World Cup rolls around and they haven't been around for that long, but it's still a good number.
The combined 8.1m rating should make it the third-most-watched non-WC game in USMNT history, behind the USA-Mexico WCQ in 2013 and the USA-Mexico Gold Cup final in 2011 if Wikipedia is to be believed. That Gold Cup final was on Fox Soccer Channel, but they drew just under 1m -- the big number was basically all Univision.
It's going to be hard for CONMEBOL and CONCACAF to turn down all this cash money in the future, especially considering the average ticket prices for the CA Centenario were probably higher than any of the above tournaments by a significant amount. It's not the "real" Copa America, but I thought the CONMEBOL powers that be took it reasonably seriously. Brazil didn't bring their strongest team, but most countries did and the players seemed to care.
I definitely think there's potential for a repeat of this thing.
This also proves the viability of holding major Soccer Tournaments in the US. They don't need infrastructure or stadia, and I believe the 1994 WC still holds the attendance record (too lazy to google but with 4 Tournaments of 32 teams each that record may have been broken). Whatever may be said about US trying to own everything, them hosting a WC would be the smartest move made by FIFA. Instead there is Qatar 2022.
Qatar 2022 was an incredibly smart move by FIFA. First, they got all the bribes to vote for Qatar in the first place, and then they'll get a nice cut on all the stadium construction.
Pre-existing infrastructure is a negative for a U.S. bid, not a positive.
Also we have less flexibility in our legal system for allowing any dissidents to be jailed.
Announcers kept saying he "turned it" and hope it wasn't caught in the field seams, when it was clearly (and unintentionally) trod upon by the defender. Don't recall exactly, but around the 15th or 20th minute. Painful.
The again, so is watching him parade around with his shorts up to his junk.
Shorts up to my junk is the only way I celebrate anything post-Alexis to Arsenal.
That's not particularly surprising given how badly it got rolled (the slow-mo was not fun to watch).
I was shocked at how effective he was through the rest of the match. When I saw the replay, I was expecting him to have to be replaced.
Finally ready to put my thoughts down. Going bullet points:
Here's a gif of all Messi's touches during the final:
- Higuain is the goat and no one else. Third competition final where he has had a breakaway 1v1 with the keeper and didn't convert. He owes Messi and la seleccion apologies for eternity. He finishes even 1 of those chances and history/legacy is changed forever. He finishes 2 and Argentina become a memorable team. He finishes 3 (and wins the matches) and this is one of the best teams of all time.
- The ref really blew the entertainment factor for this game. 10v10 before halftime is rarely appropriate and it was not here - both teams tactics were ruined at this point. The second yellow against the Chilean was wrong, and so was the direct red for Rojo (yellow, at worst). Never had control of his emotions and forgot that he's not the star. Abhorrent.
- The loss of Fernandez and the use of Biglia was huge, as I predicted. Biglia looked a step slow the entire game, and somehow Tata thought it was appropriate for him to play 120 minutes and take a penalty even though he hadn't played a full 90 all tournament. After Higuain, Biglia is my second goat although that's really on Tata.
- Aguero also had a putrid performance, missing shots wildly and not passing to open teammates (Mercado on his first possession standing out as particularly egregious).
- Unclear what Tata was thinking with Di Maria. By playing Biglia all game and subbing Di Maria for Kranevitter, Tata was basically capitulating his offensive talent advantage. Lamela came on far too late.
- Tata basically took a play from Jurgen's book with squad selection and team selection - he was awful this game. Tata was limited with midfield options and with Fernandez out because of injury, Biglia made sense, at least for a portion of the game. Hard not to notice the absence of Pereyra and Lanzini, especially when you consider that Pastore was not fit and did not play a single minute along with Maidana.
- Once Rojo was sent off, the question was whether to keep Masche in MF as the pivot or push him back to D. IMO, the better decision would have been to sub out either Biglia (due to lack of fitness) or Di Maria (presumably due to lack of fitness or lack of defensive workrate) and put in the best option between Cuesta and Roncaglia (Funes Mori can and was playing FB, but looked uncomfortable there). That was you keep Masche as the pivot along with Banega in the MF, then you could bring on Lamela or Gaitan to work the flanks and provide more D than Di Maria, while keeping Messi and a striker up front.
- Lots of credit to Chile, who played a brave game. Alexis is a tough SOB for playing on a severely twisted/sprained ankle for most of the game.
- Bravo had an outstanding game and his save on the Aguero header was world class - Guzan should take notes.
- Chile defended aggressively and crowded Messi well. You could see any time Messi had the ball in danger areas, 4-5 Chileans would crowd him and force other Argentine players to beat them (which they couldn't).
- I think Vidal is a cyborg - guy was running more than anyone, would love to know how much ground he covered.
Here's a gif of all Messi's touches during the final: