What kind of numbers is the premier league putting up against the NHL and MLS?For big tournaments sure. What kind of numbers is MLS putting up against the NHL?
What kind of numbers is the premier league putting up against the NHL and MLS?For big tournaments sure. What kind of numbers is MLS putting up against the NHL?
Hockey on NBCSN average: 378,000 (the handful of full NBC games was much higher 1.5 or so)What kind of numbers is the premier league putting up against the NHL and MLS?
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.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.
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 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'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)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.
You're right, espnfc's webpage was just very confusing. This makes me happy. Carry on.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)
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.“Before the game started I was thinking 'Man, I really need to play good,' but then when I got the ball I had like three [passing] options, every single time I picked my head up,” Mursowski said.
“It's easier for you to pass the ball, to open up for the ball, because everybody does the right movements,” Somera added. “Their touch is so quality that it's easier for you on the pitch.”
Both players also noted that, though it was a meaningless scrimmage the day after an intense game, all the Argentina players played with intensity and focus. They barked orders at their new teammates, instructing them on where to be and when.
I like your 4-4-2, but with Zardes staying at midfield and Pulisic filling in for WoodA 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.
Give Jurgen a lifetime contract!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.
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.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.
I completely agree. Coming in to this tournament I would have said: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.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-22/univision-doubles-money-on-70-million-bet-on-copa-americaUnivision has sold $135 million in advertising for the Copa America Centenario, almost double the $70 million it paid to broadcast the international tournament. With three matches to go, the Spanish-language channel has recorded 20 percent more ad revenue than anticipated, according to Juan Carlos Rodriguez, president of Univision Deportes.
Univision’s Copa matches have made it the most-watched sports network in June, regardless of language, Rodriguez said, beating out ESPN and Fox Sports: “It was David versus Goliath, and David won.”
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.How do you think FS1 and other networks view that 3.3M number? Has this competition met/not met/exceeded expectations?
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.
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.
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.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.
Also we have less flexibility in our legal system for allowing any dissidents to be jailed.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.
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.Alexis' foot was...uh....fucked up
Shorts up to my junk is the only way I celebrate anything post-Alexis to Arsenal.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.
I'm envisioning you getting cold cuts -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).Alexis' foot was...uh....fucked up: