TV Ratings...

Re: TV Ratings...

feeds@yuku.com (DesotoCountyDawg) — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 07:32:42 GMT

I was wroooooooong, I realized now that I was wrong

Re: TV Ratings...

feeds@yuku.com (ESPNDawg) — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 07:10:59 GMT

I paid $80 (face value) for round of 16 Sweden-Saudi Arabia and they were front row midfield.

Re: TV Ratings...

feeds@yuku.com (dawgstudent) — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 07:09:11 GMT

it was 2.74.

Re: TV Ratings...

feeds@yuku.com (1984Dawg) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 22:30:11 GMT

About the closest you could get would be the US ratings of the World Cup Final vs the championship games in other sports. And even then, you're talking about one game that is not going to have Americans in it and is rarely going to be in prime-time compared to for the most part, games in a series. How do you compare? Maybe if you have a game 7 to look at. I don't know, but comparing MLS to any other American sports league is just flawed.

Edit: now that I think about it, you...

Re: TV Ratings...

feeds@yuku.com (CEO2044) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:34:01 GMT

Well..... not that I know the answer to that one, but if so, thank God. I'm sick of people jacking up prices to see a freaking game. I was going to go with my Dad to the All-Star game, but I felt guilty for him having to pay $500 a ticket to sit in the nosebleeds while I can't find a summer job.

On the ratings thing... maybe a reason the Mets were higher is because the final was played at 1PM? I know a lot of my friends had to miss it.

Re: TV Ratings...

feeds@yuku.com (HD6) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:28:08 GMT

although it's pure speculation, I'd be surprised if 20 bucks wouldn't have gotten you in the gate at the World Cup final, maybe a bad seat, but in.

Re: TV Ratings...

feeds@yuku.com (Coach34) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:21:02 GMT

the SB will sellout wherever it is, and the Cup was in the Rose Bowl...and as Colin Cowherd said today- women's soccer rode that all popularity in the US from that win to see the pro women's league go under just a few years later

People may watch some of the big events because it is a novelty, but everyday soccer is decades away from being a popular, marketable sport in the US

Re: TV Ratings...

feeds@yuku.com (Maroon Eagle) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:19:16 GMT

1999 Women's World Cup Final (Rose Bowl)
Attendance -- 90,185; Capacity -- 92.542; Filled to capacity -- 97.45%

1999 Super Bowl XXXIII (Joe Robbie/Pro Player/LandShark)
Attendance -- 74.803; Capacity -- 76,500; Filled to capacity -- 97.78%

For the heck of it...

1994 World Cup Final (Rose Bowl)
Attendance -- 94,194; Capacity -- 92.542; Filled to capacity -- 101.79%

Re: TV Ratings...

feeds@yuku.com (CEO2044) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:16:45 GMT

No, I understand and agree. Still, it's the best I had to go by.

Both probably sold out. And that is women's soccer which usually does not pull as many as men do- however, that was a special year. Still, I'd be interested in what the men could pull if we won a World Cup bid. And 90,000 at any event kind of validates its relevancy.

Re: TV Ratings...

feeds@yuku.com (HD6) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:07:35 GMT

is which stadium is used. Wasn't the World Cup final at the Rose Bowl? The Super Bowl will sell out whatever venue you put it in.

Re: TV Ratings...

feeds@yuku.com (dawgstudent) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:59:22 GMT

considering that I highly doubt the World Championship for women gets put on TV. And Olympics is a network broadcast.

Re: TV Ratings...

feeds@yuku.com (RebelBruiser) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:54:17 GMT

Regardless, comparing ratings for the US team in an international championship soccer match against a regular season WNBA game isn't a good comparison. It'd be better if you had a World Championship or Olympic Gold Medal game for the US women's team to use for comparison.

Re: TV Ratings...

feeds@yuku.com (CEO2044) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:43:30 GMT

Well, I will say, in the ONLY World Cup that I remember the US hosting (women in 1999), the championship final had an attendance of over 90,000.

The Super Bowl that same year had an attendance of over 74,000.

Now, say what you want, but those are two "world championships" supposedly.

Re: TV Ratings...

feeds@yuku.com (Dawgfan61) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:21:07 GMT

otherwise you are inaccurate. NFL is the best football league in the world. CFL might be second, then Arena with Arena2 (what Tupelo plays in) a distant fourth. MLS isnt even Arena2. With that being said I hate watching soccer but I would cheer on the US in ANYTHING against the best team in the world in that particular sport, I don't care if we are talking dwarf tossing...

Re: TV Ratings...

feeds@yuku.com (HD6) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:05:45 GMT

just out of curiousity, what do you think the WNBA would be getting rating wise if the NBA didn't force it's inclusion in signing a TV deal with anyone? At least MLS is chugging along on it's own.

Re: TV Ratings...

feeds@yuku.com (Coach34) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:01:02 GMT

that until they start getting some TV ratings and the money flows into it, soccer is going to continue to lag. We are still a generation away from that being possible

Re: TV Ratings...

feeds@yuku.com (bonedaddy401) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:46:21 GMT

as long as we have the NFL, NBA and MLB. It just won't. Even if we won the World Cup soccer may become more popular here but instead of people paying attention to MLS they will pay attention to Euro Soccer where the big boys play.

Re: TV Ratings...

feeds@yuku.com (HD6) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:43:17 GMT

Guess what those numbers look like.

Re: TV Ratings...

feeds@yuku.com (Coach34) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:36:17 GMT

and you are right on the talent issue- but the fact remains MLS is the top league in the US- and nobody gives a shit..and its going to be at least another 25 years before soccer can even remotely become relevant in the US

Re: TV Ratings...

feeds@yuku.com (Optimus Prime 4) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:33:47 GMT

TV Ratings...

feeds@yuku.com (dawgstudent) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:10:33 GMT

women's basketball gets a higher TV rating than soccer - Coach34

Colin Cowherd on his radio show - US/Brazil had a 2.4 U.S. rating while the Mets-Yankees was 2.6. WNBA = 0.32.

http://www.wnba.com/2008numbers_080916.html