Discussion in 'University of Colorado News and Olympic Sports' started by Buffnik, Jul 29, 2012.
It's an under 23 tournament of little importance. There's nothing to see here.
It isn't about results at the youth level, but player development.
we **** the bed against el salvador.... and game up a literally last moment goal that knocked us out
This also explains why we sent more women to London than men, 269 women and 261 men.
US hockey men didn't qualify either. The women did.
Kind of a question/ theory but the US has title 9 so our women have an easier path to be athletically inclined. I barely know our laws let alone other countries but how many other countries have adopted title 9 type laws or have the same attitude towards women athletics as us. So that could make an easier route for the womens soccer and hockey compared to the mens.
Soccer is not a major sport in the US. US Men isn't a top soccer country and never will be. Why anyone would be surprised at the failure of US soccer at any level is beyond me. Just doesn't have the support or talent level in this country. Males have many other sports that are relevant to play in the US than something that is known as soccer.
jimmy why do you find the need to troll every soccer thread?
How is he trolling? He's making legit points.
i guess i just read the part where he said
and stopped reading from there
here let me show you how to do this BCS.
great point jimmy except you are dead wrong. If you look at the latest attendance numbers between NHL, NBA and MLS, you will see that you are dead wrong. For the 2012 season (soccer) and the 2011-2012 NBA and NHL seasons here are the average attendance numbers:
So what makes it a major sport in the US? Millions of players across all age level, check. Major league network, check. higher attendance numbers than NBA and NHL, double check.
Tante just described the axis of suck.
Average attendance numbers don't tell the whole story. MLS only has 18 teams which play 306 games for a total attendance of 5,468,951 per year. The NHL has 30 teams which play 1230 games for a total of 21,470,155 per year. The NBA has 30 teams which play 990 games for a total of 17,100,861 per year.
Also the average price of an MLS game is $25.00 while it is $54.25 and $48.08 for the NHL and NBA respectively. If MLS tickets had the same price the quantity of tickets demanded would be much lower. The gate revenue for the NHL is $1,135.35 mil, NBA is $1,024.23 mil and for MLS it is $100.05 mil which is less than AAA baseball at $113.90 mil. These figures would not include money from TV viewership, which are arguably much higher for NBA and NHL than MLS.
Also basketball courts and hockey rinks are smaller so there are less good seats and therefore arenas are smaller. The number of people willing to pay the price to attend exceeds actual attendance due to capacity constraints (sell-outs).
I think Jimmy is right, soccer isn't a major sport. If you go to espn.com, soccer is listed after Nascar and golf. No sport in America is ridiculed like soccer is. This is coming from a soccer fan. I like to watch soccer but I never watch what I call 'Minor League Soccer'. I like to watch International competition, Champions League, EPL, Ligue 1 and Bundesliga; since MLS maybe cracks the top 10 of soccer leagues worldwide. Whereas the NBA and the NHL are by far the number one leagues in their sport.
of course total revenue is going to be smaller for MLS, there are less teams, that is why people use averages to compare things. If you want to make a good argument, don't use something stupid like where it is listed on the ESPN page. do some work and find television contracts and tv ratings. I guarantee that NBA is first, then NHL and finally MLS of the three. I am not trying to say that soccer is awesome but the bottom line it averages a higher attendance per team than both NBA and NHL.
People also use totals to compare things. There is no correct answer as to which metric to use, that's why average attendance per game doesn't "tell the whole story". We could compare many things:
Total attendance per year
Total revenue per year
Total number of viewers, in attendance and on TV
Total number of fans
Number of professional teams
Average attendance per game
Average attendance per team per year
Average revenue per game
Average revenue per team
Average number of viewers per game
Average TV ratings per game
The ratio of Attendance to capacity of a venue per game
ESPN placement of the sport on the page; since it could be argued this is a good proxy for how interested its readers are or how many clicks articles receive. You could argue that it isn't a good proxy giving reasons rather than calling it "stupid".
MLS only wins one, which is attendance per game. Bottom line is that MLS is not as popular as major sport leagues such as the NBA or the NHL.
Why would I search for TV numbers when you don't dispute that MLS is third? We all know it is higher for NHL and NBA.
EPIC FAIL. Of course a league with more teams and more games is going to have a higher total number otherwise you can use your stupid logic to prove that MLB is the most popular sport in the United states. I mean the Rockies must be almost 5 times as popular as the Broncos since they put 2.9 million fans in the seats compared to the Broncos 600k. In fact the Avs edged out the Broncos as well. I guess Denver is a baseball town first, then a hockey town and finally a football town.
If you are trying to reason that MLS is more popular or even comparable to the NHL and the NBA, then saying it has more teams and more games isn't helping your case. Arguing if the Rockies or the Broncos are more popular is a waste of time, because each would win different metrics. But I think most people see that it is obvious that MLS is not as popular, especially when it only wins one metric. The NBA sold more than 3 times the tickets and the NHL almost four times for the year and the tickets were twice the price. They also had smaller venues and less tickets available per game because of sell-outs. Why don't we compare sell-outs? Why don't we compare how many people care about or watch the games, live and on TV? You found one number that was a little higher and proclaimed a definitive conclusion, that is stupid logic. Your logic would say that the Broncos are more popular because average attendance is higher, my logic would say the question is more complex than comparing two numbers since we could find many numbers to compare. I think we should look at all the evidence.
Si ma tante avait des couilles, ca serait mon oncle.
If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle, obviously
if your using big soccer as a source youve already lost
there you go, now you are using your head a bit. All I am saying is that MLS is a major us sport based on average attendance numbers that are better than NBA and NHL. Not that it is more popular.
p.s. is your uncle Jerry Sandusky? you should stop playing with his balls.
Screw attendance. All that matters is tv carriage & eyeballs.
damn nascar fans.
NASCAR's a great example. Based on attendance it's bigger than the NFL. But it's not bigger than the NFL so attendance isn't the right measure.
I have noticed that tv coverage of soccer has increased tremendously and is on the upswing. NHL seems to have declined in that regard.
the world is weird. they like watching soccer.
I'm saying that average attendance per game being higher doesn't mean that MLS is a major us sport or even comparable. When yearly attendance is 33% of the NBA, 25% of the NHL, and yearly gate revenue is about 10% of each. Soccer stadiums are bigger which probably explains why the average number is higher.
Are you a CSU fan?
how dare you insult me in such a way, shame on you good sir
this response is proper.
your argument kinda scares me if you are a CU fan. You can easily use revenue numbers to back your position. Soccer literally makes less than 10% of the revenue that NHL and NBA bring it. That is the only argument that you need. Don't take us on some journey of circular logic on bigger stadiums and average attendance. Stick with the money.
to piss u off
I'm a CU fan and a statistician. It's just I hate when people hold up one piece of statistical evidence like it's the holy grail, similar to what you did with average attendance when there is much more to a complex problem. It's how statistics can be misleading if not taken in a large context. So I'm glad the money thing speaks to you. (Which was in my first post)
I looked at different capacities, and actually MLS stadiums have a lower min, but a higher variance, max and average than NBA arenas.
My point was really this: if 25,000 people are willing to pay and go to see the LA Galaxy then 25,000 is the attendance, but if there are 25,000 who are willing to pay and go to see the Lakers then the attendance is 18,997. (Strangely capacity for the Clippers was listed at 19,060). In Denver this couldn't happen because capacity for the Nuggets is greater than the Rapids.
I wasn't trying to fight but just have an interesting conversation, I've actually never really posted in any forum before yesterday except for espn.com CU game pages. I'm curious about your screen name, why tante?
Separate names with a comma.