MLS has bypassed the NBA as the 3rd most attended sports league in the US

[MrBug708]

Major League Soccer doesn't get the buzz on sports radio or the blogs, but it has corner kicked its way past the NBA in average attendance, according to the news site Examiner.com. MLS attendance has gone up 6.6 percent this season, helping it become the new No. 3 sports league in the United States, based on per-game attendance. An average of 17,870 fans have attended MLS games over the course of the 2011 season -- that's 3.0 percent more than the NBA and 4.1 percent more than the National Hockey League.

Getting The Boot: NBA Loses Its Spot As Third-Best-Attended U.S. Pro Sports League | ThePostGame (http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/dish/201111/nba-no-longer-3rd-best-attended-us-sports-league)

[sterlingice]

I'll do the obvious joke of "it's easier to have a larger attendance than 0, right?"

SI

[MizzouRah]

I still don't understand why hockey isn't watched more?

I'd rather watch a good hockey game more than just about any sport except for college football.

Apparently I'm in the minority.

[molson]

I still don't understand why hockey isn't watched more?

I'd rather watch a good hockey game more than just about any sport except for college football.

Apparently I'm in the minority.

I prefer hockey as a sport. But at some point, completely overnight, I seemingly lost track of who plays for who, and what teams are good. It all seemed like random mismatch of teams whose rosters are reshuffled every year, there's no year-to-year storylines or consistency...I know that's not literally true in any way, but for some reason I can pay minimal attention to the NBA, MLB, and still pretty much always know what's going on, where with the NHL I'd have to subscribe to the Hockey News and read it religiously to have a clue.

Which has nothing to do with this thread, but whatever, leave me alone, I just woke up and there's snow on 11/5 in Boise.

[Lathum]

The Sounders are a big part of that, they average over 30K a game, either way, good for the MLS. They have a good business model and stick to it. The NBA owners have no one to blame but themselves. And we all know such a big chunk comes from TV money. When the MLS starts getting TV deals like the NBA that will be news.

As for hockey, it is hard to watch on TV and expensive to go to a game, not a great combination.

[Chubby]

The hockey numbers are hurt badly by having teams in places they have no business being. Most of the quality franchises have excellent attendance and actually average more than their NBA counterparts. It's just places like Florida and Phoenix that drag down the average.

also most arenas capacity is 17-19k which makes it kinda tough to hit 18K average

[Matthean]

Hockey is also one sport that is vastly improved when you see it live. Basketball, even live, can be not all that exciting to watch. I watch NBA games where there's little crowd and what crowd there is tends to be about as loud as a library.

[kcchief19]

Here's the key stat: the MLS has an average ticket price half the NBA and the NHL prices and fewer than half as many home games.

Double the ticket price and double the home games and get back to us.

[Buccaneer]

I still don't understand why hockey isn't watched more?

I'd rather watch a good hockey game more than just about any sport except for college football.

Apparently I'm in the minority.

A good hockey game is cool to watch but most NHL games are not. The many stupid fights degrade the watchability tremendously, imo. It's like the imbeciles that only watch car racing just to see crashes. Baseball, football and soccer are not like that and thus, greater appeal, imo. As far as NBA > NHL, I think market has a lot to do with it, as HiFi said. While I can't understand the appeal of NBA, I can believe that the great appeal of NCAA hoops can spill over to the NBA.

[britrock88]

also most arenas capacity is 17-19k which makes it kinda tough to hit 18K average

Thank you.

[MrBug708]

I would imagine most of the same people posting and defend hockey are the same ones that troll the World Cup thread and tell us how bad soccer sucks :)

[larrymcg421]

Hi, my name is TV. Meet my friend Ratings. Hello MLS. I don't believe we've met yet.

[Chubby]

A good hockey game is cool to watch but most NHL games are not. The many stupid fights degrade the watchability tremendously, imo. It's like the imbeciles that only watch car racing just to see crashes. Baseball, football and soccer are not like that and thus, greater appeal, imo. As far as NBA > NHL, I think market has a lot to do with it, as HiFi said. While I can't understand the appeal of NBA, I can believe that the great appeal of NCAA hoops can spill over to the NBA.

I'm guessing the last time you watched an NHL game was in the 80s? Fighting is still there but "many" is not an adjective I'd use to describe them by any means.

Bug - Nah, I enjoy the WC but can't really stomach MLS. Hell, we watched the semis and finals in the delivery room before my son was born (Gold Cup 09? US had huge upset win in semis, took lead against Mexico in finals then pissed it away)

[bronconick]

Such an odd metric to claim 3rd. The crazy thing is that if it were to catch even the NHL in yearly revenue, it would be something like the 3rd or 4th richest soccer league in the world. Pass the NBA, and only the EPL would be making more money, IIRC.

[DaddyTorgo]

Such an odd metric to claim 3rd. The crazy thing is that if it were to catch even the NHL in yearly revenue, it would be something like the 3rd or 4th richest soccer league in the world. Pass the NBA, and only the EPL would be making more money, IIRC.


Love the stat. Fuck the haters.

/still would love to see the level of play continue to improve so the games are more attractive to watch

[JonInMiddleGA]

And yet the numbers were enough that NBC Sports/Versus took the plunge and signed MLS to a fairly lucrative deal.

That's NBC/Versus, which also signed a long term deal with Professional Bull Riding (which I like fairly well but readily acknowledge the ratings challenge for).

[sabotai]

also most arenas capacity is 17-19k which makes it kinda tough to hit 18K average

This. I looked at the attendances awhile back, and since an NBA court is smaller than an NHL rink, and they play in the (mostly) same buildings, it's virtually impossible for the NHL to pass NBA in terms of overall attendance. Then you look at soccer and they play in outdoor stadiums that have well above the capacity of an arena and it becomes almost an apples-to-oranges comparison. Many NHL and NBA teams sell out every game and would probably have no problem selling out an arena that would have a few thousand more seats, but an indoor arena can only get so big.

[kcchief19]

According to the Sports Business Daily, the M.L.S./NBC deal is worth $10 million a year.
NHL, NBC/Versus Ink 10-Year, $2 Billion National TV Rights Contract
I think the NHL has scoreboard on this one.

[mckerney]

Here's the key stat: the MLS has an average ticket price half the NBA and the NHL prices and fewer than half as many home games.

Double the ticket price and double the home games and get back to us.

Yeah, having higher average per game attendance is nice, but I wouldn't call it the 3rd most attended league in the US. MLS has 16 teams playing 30 games a year, NBA has 30 teams playing 82 games a year. By the numbers given the NBA had 21,340,500 in paid attendance for last season while MLS had 4,288,800.

[kcchief19]

And yet the numbers were enough that NBC Sports/Versus took the plunge and signed MLS to a fairly lucrative deal. Soccer is here, MLS is not going away, and once someone figures out how to count the bar crowd into ratings things will look better for MLS.
This exact sentence has been uttered repeatedly for 50 years. The ESPN documentary on the NY Cosmos was classic, with the line from Howard Cossell from the 1970s saying soccer was going to be the biggest sport in the country in a decade.

I don't get why it's so important to soccer fans that everybody love their sport. It doesn't matter if it's the 4th favorite or 10th favorite sport in the country if you love it. For every stat you come up with proving soccer is on par with the big four, I can show you three stats to prove it's not. Only 2-3 teams are profitable, the league has lost over a half million dollars since its start, and is barely breaking even now ... and is probably still under water given the spending on new soccer-specific stadiums in the last few years so that MLS teams could get into 20,000-seat stadiums and out of 60,000-seat football stadiums they couldn't fill.

Bottom line ... who cares? I have nothing against soccer, other than all the people trying to convince me soccer is the most awesome thing in the world.

[kcchief19]

Yeah, having higher average per game attendance is nice, but I wouldn't call it the 3rd most attended league in the US. MLS has 16 teams playing 30 games a year, NBA has 30 teams playing 82 games a year. By the numbers given the NBA had 21,340,500 in paid attendance for last season while MLS had 4,288,800.
Or consider this ... the Seattle Sounders drew 654,000 fans this year.

The Lehigh Valley Iron Pigs (AAA team of the Philadelphia Phillies) drew 628,000 fans this year.

27 minor league baseball teams drew more fans the the LA Galaxy this year, the MLS's second team in attendance.

[MizzouRah]

The hockey numbers are hurt badly by having teams in places they have no business being. Most of the quality franchises have excellent attendance and actually average more than their NBA counterparts. It's just places like Florida and Phoenix that drag down the average.

True...

Also, I forgot hockey arenas do not seat as many.

[RPI-Fan]

The hockey numbers are hurt badly by having teams in places they have no business being. Most of the quality franchises have excellent attendance and actually average more than their NBA counterparts. It's just places like Florida and Phoenix that drag down the average.

To be fair, I think the median capacity in MLS is not that much different than for hockey. In particular, San Jose has a ridiculously low capacity (and their new stadium is 2 years away at a minimum). Honestly I'm not even sure why San Jose still has a franchise given their stadium mess.

[Ksyrup]

I prefer hockey as a sport. But at some point, completely overnight, I seemingly lost track of who plays for who, and what teams are good. It all seemed like random mismatch of teams whose rosters are reshuffled every year, there's no year-to-year storylines or consistency...I know that's not literally true in any way, but for some reason I can spend pay minimal attention to the NBA, MLB, and still pretty much always know what's going on, where with the NHL I'd have to subscribe to the Hockey News and read it religiously to have a clue.

Which has nothing to do with this thread, but whatever, leave me alone, I just woke up and there's snow on 11/5 in Boise.

I agree with this. It probably sounds cliche, but I lost interest in the NHL after the strike/lockout. Not because I was upset with the players/owners, but simply because the game was off my radar for 18 months. Since then, it's just become a jumble of weird names and familiar names jumbled around on different teams. I have no clue what goes on in the league anymore, and it feels like I have to work to find any information. Not having a game on ESPN once or twice a week doesn't help, either.

[RainMaker]

I've been meaning to go to a Chicago Fire game for awhile now. I guess I just feel like I'll be out of place there as I don't know the sport all that well and don't follow the team much. I know a few of the players, but that's about it.

[Marc Vaughan]

Love the stat. Fuck the haters.

/still would love to see the level of play continue to improve so the games are more attractive to watch

I'm sure the level of play will continue to improve; but I'd argue the MLS is very enjoyable as it is - tactically a little niave at times ... but that can often make for more exciting games imho :D

[RomaGoth]

I still don't understand why hockey isn't watched more?

I'd rather watch a good hockey game more than just about any sport except for college football.

Apparently I'm in the minority.

I actually prefer hockey in person, and it is close between football and hockey on tv with a slight not to football.

The reasons are about the same as to why hockey and soccer are not more popular in the US: most fans here want immediate, quick action and the attention span of a fan here is but a blip on the radar. In order to enjoy hockey and soccer, one must actually learn the rules and develop a solid understanding of the who/what/why/when for the game. Most people, sadly, don't bother with it.

[JAG]

I've been meaning to go to a Chicago Fire game for awhile now. I guess I just feel like I'll be out of place there as I don't know the sport all that well and don't follow the team much. I know a few of the players, but that's about it.

I started going to Fire games midway through their opening season and then got season tickets the following year (can't recall if I did the year after, but I kept going to a number of home games until they ended up in Naperville for a year during the Soldier Field construction). Sitting (or rather standing) in their supporter section (Barnburners, not sure if that's still their name) doing all the crazy stuff was by far and away the best live sporting experiences I've ever had. My wife and I don't even really follow the team anymore and we still sometimes break out into Fire chants.

[cuervo72]

Have to admit, the chants are one reason I can't see ever getting into soccer. Can't say exactly what it is about them, but they make me uncomfortable.

(don't really like them seeping into baseball and college football, either)

[RomaGoth]

Have to admit, the chants are one reason I can't see ever getting into soccer. Can't say exactly what it is about them, but they make me uncomfortable.

(don't really like them seeping into baseball and college football, either)

I think it is because when you hear those chants, you know a brawl and at least one shooting is coming.

[Lathum]

once someone figures out how to count the bar crowd into ratings things will look better for MLS.

This comment makes no sense to me. I can say with almost 100% certainty I have spent more time in bars than just about any on this board, and I have never once had anyone ask me to put a soccer game on the TV.

Lakers-Mavs, yeah, people ask for that to be put on.

[ISiddiqui]

I don't get why it's so important to soccer fans that everybody love their sport. It doesn't matter if it's the 4th favorite or 10th favorite sport in the country if you love it. For every stat you come up with proving soccer is on par with the big four, I can show you three stats to prove it's not. Only 2-3 teams are profitable, the league has lost over a half million dollars since its start, and is barely breaking even now ... and is probably still under water given the spending on new soccer-specific stadiums in the last few years so that MLS teams could get into 20,000-seat stadiums and out of 60,000-seat football stadiums they couldn't fill.

Bottom line ... who cares? I have nothing against soccer, other than all the people trying to convince me soccer is the most awesome thing in the world.

It's mostly a reaction. When you have so many people slamming soccer, calling it boring and a girly sport, etc, etc, etc, it is only natural for soccer fans to be overly defensive of the sport and to go crazy over small victories!

[fortheglory]

Maybe it's the popularity of Football Manager ;)

[Lathum]

There are multiple soccer bars in DC and more than one shows MLS games as much as anything else. There are 9 "official" DC United bars in the city and you can usually find people watching other MLS games there whenever one is on.

It's certainly not the same as the huge crowds they'll pack in for certain UEFA, World Cup, and Premiership games, but I've been surprised at the size of crowds who show up and watch something like Seattle-Chicago on a weeknight.

We have them is Seattle as well, probably more given the popularity of it here, but I doubt it is enough to make any kind of dent. And there are tons more people out there in bars that aren't soccer bars watching basketball.

[MacroGuru]

This comment makes no sense to me. I can say with almost 100% certainty I have spent more time in bars than just about any on this board, and I have never once had anyone ask me to put a soccer game on the TV.

Lakers-Mavs, yeah, people ask for that to be put on.

It does to me because in my travels over the past couple of years we were following Real Salt Lake and would look up soccer friendly bars and we would hit some that would have a couple of hundred fans in there watching to some that had maybe 20..It's a growing trend....

[SirFozzie]

Also: THE #'s are likely skewed because of a couple big performing new teams (the seattles, the vancouvers, philadelphia etcetera). Let's see if the currently under performing places (like DC and New England) pick up before we crow.

[Lathum]

It does to me because in my travels over the past couple of years we were following Real Salt Lake and would look up soccer friendly bars and we would hit some that would have a couple of hundred fans in there watching to some that had maybe 20..It's a growing trend....

IMO means nothing, for every one "soccer" bar you probably have 100 other bars with people who want to watch an NBA game over an MLS game.

[JonInMiddleGA]

IMO means nothing, for every one "soccer" bar you probably have 100 other bars with people who want to watch an NBA game over an MLS game.

Or re-runs of WSOP coverage for that matter.

Snipped from a NY Post article in early October Including World Football Challenge matches against MLS teams, league clubs averaged 324,000 viewers this season on ESPN and ESPN2 combined, up from their 279,000 last year.


That's about half the number of viewers that Fox Sports gets for their WPT coverage to put it into some perspective.

[MrBug708]

It's great to see some much inspired hate...lol

[JonInMiddleGA]

something as innocuous as soccer.

Methinks you assume too much.

[bronconick]

Once again, why the need to shit all over something without reason? There's a good professional soccer league whose average attendance has grown steadily from 13,756 in 2000 to 17,869 in 2011. There are people that are happy to see that the league is not only turning a profit, but solidifying itself enough to be considered legitimately here to stay.

It amazes me that people have this absurd need to attack something as innocuous as soccer.


You're getting this reaction because you implied that if Nielsen could report bar watching numbers, it would somehow be a greater bonus to MLS and soccer than any other sport. That goes against all the anecdotal evidence, which is really the only kind of evidence that matters until Nielsen actually *does* start counting it.

[Suburban Rhythm]

I prefer hockey as a sport. But at some point, completely overnight, I seemingly lost track of who plays for who, and what teams are good. It all seemed like random mismatch of teams whose rosters are reshuffled every year, there's no year-to-year storylines or consistency...I know that's not literally true in any way, but for some reason I can pay minimal attention to the NBA, MLB, and still pretty much always know what's going on, where with the NHL I'd have to subscribe to the Hockey News and read it religiously to have a clue.

Which has nothing to do with this thread, but whatever, leave me alone, I just woke up and there's snow on 11/5 in Boise.

I loved THN, even as recent as 2-3 years ago. But, it's pretty bad now. Not ESPN the Mag bad, but as with most items, it's been replaced by the internet.

I am still a subscriber, I extended 2 years about 2 years ago, and I won't renew. $55 for "news" that is two week old. No thanks.

also most arenas capacity is 17-19k which makes it kinda tough to hit 18K average

Whole thing seems apples-to-oranges to me. Can't imagine it would be hard for the NBA and NHL to twist the same numbers to call themselves #3

[Suburban Rhythm]

Also: THE #'s are likely skewed because of a couple big performing new teams (the seattles, the vancouvers, philadelphia etcetera). Let's see if the currently under performing places (like DC and New England) pick up before we crow.

DOLA

I read that thinking "That's a pretty odd name for a team", but then remembered it's now hip to go with non -s names: Wild, Magic, etc

[GoldenEagle]

You want find a bigger MLS fan on this board than me. That being said, if they can't find a way to get TV ratings up, the league will suffer. As others have said, TV revenue is how leagues make their money.

MLS is in a unique situation from other American leagues. They can fetch more money for international rights. But the product and players have to be there. Beckham, Keene, and Marquez aren't going to cut it.

The goal for MLS should be to become the best league in the Western Hemisphere. Getting the best Mexican, Brazilian, and Argentinean players and then turning around and selling TV rights in those countries would fetch enough money to put it past the NHL and in the same category as maybe MLB and the NBA.

The higher attendances and grassroot movements will help though.

[Lathum]

It's great to see some much inspired hate...lol

I'm not seeing much hate in this thread at all

Once again, why the need to shit all over something without reason? There's a good professional soccer league whose average attendance has grown steadily from 13,756 in 2000 to 17,869 in 2011. There are people that are happy to see that the league is not only turning a profit, but solidifying itself enough to be considered legitimately here to stay.

It amazes me that people have this absurd need to attack something as innocuous as soccer.

You are being way over sensitive. Who shit on anything? I'm merely making a point. FWIW I love soccer, played it my whole life growing up, watched tons of world cup, and have been to several sounders games. I hope soccer continues to grow in this country. That being said I'm not going to convince myself it's something that it's not.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

i see ads for mls on univision quite a bit. so that's good. i just don't see it being must see tv in the states. at least not in the short term.

[sterlingice]

DOLA

I read that thinking "That's a pretty odd name for a team", but then remembered it's now hip to go with non -s names: Wild, Magic, etc

Gold :D

SI

[RomaGoth]

i see ads for mls on univision quite a bit. so that's good. i just don't see it being must see tv in the states. at least not in the short term.

You are possibly the first person I have ever met who watches Univision.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

You are possibly the first person I have ever met who watches Univision.
me gustan las chicas

[molson]

It's weird that hockey is so much better in person when you can see everything that happens on TV. As opposed to football, which is considered a "TV sport", yet TV can only show you the line of scrimmage and nothing going on in the secondary unless the ball is actually thrown there. It's a pretty big omission in a passing league. But ya, for whatever reason, I agree, hockey works great in person - I have no clue what's going on in the NHL anymore but I do check out the Idaho Steelheads a few times a year. It's a great, loud, intimate environment where you're right on top of everything.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I know that Sporting KC has seen a huge surge in attendance with the new stadium. They were playing in a 5,000 seat converted baseball stadium before. They now have one of the nicest stadiums not only in the US, but in the world. The English teams that have come through for friendly matches have commented on the fact that they'd love to be playing in a stadium like what we have.

I'm sure that the surge in fantastic soccer-only stadiums is playing a big part in the surge in attendance. Playing in front of 15,000 in a football stadium isn't nearly as much fun.

[RPI-Fan]

I know that Sporting KC has seen a huge surge in attendance with the new stadium. They were playing in a 5,000 seat converted baseball stadium before. They now have one of the nicest stadiums not only in the US, but in the world. The English teams that have come through for friendly matches have commented on the fact that they'd love to be playing in a stadium like what we have.

I'm sure that the surge in fantastic soccer-only stadiums is playing a big part in the surge in attendance. Playing in front of 15,000 in a football stadium isn't nearly as much fun.

Nice it may be, but part of the reason is because it "only" seats 19k compared to European and Asian stadiums which must accommodate 40k+ (and often much more). With that said, it is perfect for SKC and MLS's needs. But it's not like it can serve as a model for what teams overseas should be doing.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Nice it may be, but part of the reason is because it "only" seats 19k compared to European and Asian stadiums which must accommodate 40k+ (and often much more). With that said, it is perfect for SKC and MLS's needs. But it's not like it can serve as a model for what teams overseas should be doing.

I think the facilities that the team offers to players are more what they were referring to rather than the number of fans. The locker room and training facilities exceed the quality of many clubs in Europe. It was the Newcastle coach that made those comments.

[RPI-Fan]

I think the facilities that the team offers to players are more what they were referring to rather than the number of fans. The locker room and training facilities exceed the quality of many clubs in Europe. It was the Newcastle coach that made those comments.

Excellent point. That stadium seems to be just perfect for MLS. And it is close to the KC urban area, correct? The Dallas and Colorado stadiums are already floundering due to horrible suburban locations.

[MJ4H]

Here's the key stat: the MLS has an average ticket price half the NBA and the NHL prices and fewer than half as many home games.

Double the ticket price and double the home games and get back to us.

How about let's half the NBA and NHL ticket prices and season length? I think that would have more of an effect than anything else. Would definitely make those two products more attractive.

[cuervo72]

Other thoughts I've had in the past regarding MLS:

1. Yes, the US *will* have ain increasing % of Latinos. But as has been stated, there has to be a reason to watch the MLS rather than other leagues. Anecdotal, but we have a shopping center with an Italian place and a Mexican place next to each other. The Italian place typically has Italian broadcasts in the background. The Mexican place, Mexican. It may take a couple of generations to establish new allegiances.

2. Some of the names are just...well, silly compared to US standards. Sporting KC? Come on. Real Salt Lake? As opposed to what, Salt Lake Substitute? I'll admit to at least liking "Philadelphia Union."

[korme]

How about television audiences? MLS is still, at best #5. I'm ranking baseball, football, basketball, hockey, tennis, and golf more important than american soccer. Come on. As a sports fan with a passing interest in soccer, I'd rather watch the EPL or IS over MLS any day. It's like watching double A baseball, or the NBA Developmental league.

[Logan]

How about television audiences? MLS is still, at best #5. I'm ranking baseball, football, basketball, hockey, tennis, and golf more important than american soccer. Come on. As a sports fan with a passing interest in soccer, I'd rather watch the EPL or IS over MLS any day. It's like watching double A baseball, or the NBA Developmental league.

You must be one of those pesky sit-at-home-watching-sports-on-TV rarities.

[korme]

I don't understand your satire

[GrantDawg]

I would watch a whole lot more MLS if they got a team in Atlanta. I would probably become a fanatic. But I just really don't watch it much because I just don't have a team to root for, and the EPL is better quality soccer to watch.

[molson]

I think the whole single-entity structure hurts the MLS a bit (do they still have that?) It makes it feel less like competition and more like an American soccer exhibition.

[RPI-Fan]

I think the whole single-entity structure hurts the MLS a bit (do they still have that?) It makes it feel less like competition and more like an American soccer exhibition.

The concise answer is: sort of, but not really.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Excellent point. That stadium seems to be just perfect for MLS. And it is close to the KC urban area, correct? The Dallas and Colorado stadiums are already floundering due to horrible suburban locations.

Maybe 15 minute drive from downtown, but it's part of a major development that includes the NASCAR track, a large shopping/entertainment district, and will soon have a large casino/hotel. They've done a good job of creating things around it to make it a full experience.

[DougW]

TV Ratings are a joke, they don't tell the real story. You can go to any bar, any time there is a game on - and you will see droves of people demanding that other sports be turned off so they can watch soccer. It often gets violent, if the bar owner/ bartender don't comply.

I got a little off topic there at the end. My point is, that you have to multiply the ratings by at least 100, as people watch soccer in like groups of that much. So for every TV set that is showing it, like 100 people are watching.

[cuervo72]

bah, insert not sure if serious meme here

Reminds me though - sports talk radio. I listen to 980 every day on the way home, and have never heard a single call taken regarding the MLS. The last time I can recall the United even being mentioned was when Freddy Adu was with the club.

[Lathum]

TV Ratings are a joke, they don't tell the real story. You can go to any bar, any time there is a game on - and you will see droves of people demanding that other sports be turned off so they can watch soccer. It often gets violent, if the bar owner/ bartender don't comply.

I got a little off topic there at the end. My point is, that you have to multiply the ratings by at least 100, as people watch soccer in like groups of that much. So for every TV set that is showing it, like 100 people are watching.

Are you talking about the US? Because if you are you must be joking.

[Lathum]

dola- To say 100 people in a bar is a HUGE number, I would estimate the average size bar has 20-25 seats.

[RomaGoth]

TV Ratings are a joke, they don't tell the real story. You can go to any bar, any time there is a game on - and you will see droves of people demanding that other sports be turned off so they can watch soccer. It often gets violent, if the bar owner/ bartender don't comply

You clearly hang out at the wrong bars. Or you spend a lot of time in Ireland.

[ISiddiqui]

I would watch a whole lot more MLS if they got a team in Atlanta. I would probably become a fanatic. But I just really don't watch it much because I just don't have a team to root for, and the EPL is better quality soccer to watch.

I'm kinda in the same boat. I had the Metrostars to root for when I lived in NJ, but I lost touch with the MLS and then they sold out to Red Bull...

[GrantDawg]

I'm kinda in the same boat. I had the Metrostars to root for when I lived in NJ, but I lost touch with the MLS and then they sold out to Red Bull...


Atlanta would be a great market for MLS, and there has been noise in the past (Gwinnett being the most likely place for a stadium). I am really shocked it hasn't happened.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Atlanta would be a great market for MLS, and there has been noise in the past (Gwinnett being the most likely place for a stadium). I am really shocked it hasn't happened.

I imagine the (legitimate) concern is that it isn't historically a good pro sports town. Plus the NASL Silverbacks haven't exactly set the world on fire (about 3k attendance I believe) even with a dedicated (if in a shit location) stadium.

[digamma]

Other thoughts I've had in the past regarding MLS:


2. Some of the names are just...well, silly compared to US standards. Sporting KC? Come on. Real Salt Lake? As opposed to what, Salt Lake Substitute? I'll admit to at least liking "Philadelphia Union."

Couldn't agree with you more. Hard to create your own identity when you are just imitating other places and teams.

[Crapshoot]

You want find a bigger MLS fan on this board than me. That being said, if they can't find a way to get TV ratings up, the league will suffer. As others have said, TV revenue is how leagues make their money.

MLS is in a unique situation from other American leagues. They can fetch more money for international rights. But the product and players have to be there. Beckham, Keene, and Marquez aren't going to cut it.

The goal for MLS should be to become the best league in the Western Hemisphere. Getting the best Mexican, Brazilian, and Argentinean players and then turning around and selling TV rights in those countries would fetch enough money to put it past the NHL and in the same category as maybe MLB and the NBA.

The higher attendances and grassroot movements will help though.

I think you're light years off base here. This isn't hockey, where the country where the sport is most beloved happens to be on the Northern border and is still a part of the league - soccer/football is a quasi-religion in South America, and the best Brazilian / Argentinian players are not going to leave the likes of Corinthians / Boca Juniors to play in the MLS - that's not even a reasonable goal. If they leave, it will be for the much much more expensive European pastures. There is an opportunity to carve out a solid North American niche, but Brazil's economy is booming and the sport owns the national consciousness there in a way it never will in America - why would young talent Brazilians come to MLS, when Europe is there for the taking or they can stay at home?

[Big Fo]

Yeah, nowadays the top Brazilian clubs are paying very good wages. Guys like Fred, Ronaldinho, Deco, and Luis Fabiano have all recently returned from Europe to Brazil and are making similar salaries than what they were getting at their previous clubs.

Right now some MLS teams' yearly payrolls would only cover about 2-3 months of what Flamengo pays Ronaldinho.

[Young Drachma]

Yeah, nowadays the top Brazilian clubs are paying very good wages. Guys like Fred, Ronaldinho, Deco, and Luis Fabiano have all recently returned from Europe to Brazil and are making similar salaries than what they were getting at their previous clubs.

Right now some MLS teams' yearly payrolls would only cover about 2-3 months of what Flamengo pays Ronaldinho.

This.

MLS salaries are AWFUL with the exception of the DPs. They've got a long way to go, but I do think their infrastructure and how they've grown the sport in certain markets is impressive. Watched some highlights of the EC Finals in KC and it was a good crowd who clearly are supporting the club. The name change sucks and so forth, but...they're getting owners who seem engaged enough to invest in the sport and in their communities.

If nothing else, doing what other sports can't and that's getting venues built in this economic climate.

[cuervo72]

why would young talent Brazilians come to MLS, when Europe is there for the taking or they can stay at home?

MLS salaries are AWFUL with the exception of the DPs.

To extend this, why would truly talented American players want to stay in the MLS?

[General Mike]

$2 tickets

[GoldenEagle]

I think the whole single-entity structure hurts the MLS a bit (do they still have that?) It makes it feel less like competition and more like an American soccer exhibition.

They still have it, other than the DP rules where franchises can splurge on up to 3 players. The single-entity is the reason MLS is still around. It has helped to keep costs down. Most MLS clubs turn a small profit, while seeing the value of the franchise rise. The Seattle owners are making money hand over fist.

I don't see that changing anytime soon. Look at the mess that some of the European clubs are in and of course we have the NASL for historical purposes in this country.

[GoldenEagle]

I think you're light years off base here. This isn't hockey, where the country where the sport is most beloved happens to be on the Northern border and is still a part of the league - soccer/football is a quasi-religion in South America, and the best Brazilian / Argentinian players are not going to leave the likes of Corinthians / Boca Juniors to play in the MLS - that's not even a reasonable goal. If they leave, it will be for the much much more expensive European pastures. There is an opportunity to carve out a solid North American niche, but Brazil's economy is booming and the sport owns the national consciousness there in a way it never will in America - why would young talent Brazilians come to MLS, when Europe is there for the taking or they can stay at home?

MLS could serve as a bridge between South America and Europle. Many South Americans struggle with the transition to Eurpoe and MLS could better prepare them for it. It is closer to home and the league compares to the EPL in terms of physicality (note: I am not saying MLS is anywhere near the level of the EPL).

We are starting to see some Colombians attempt this route. Obviously, there economy is shit so they can almost make as much money in the US.

If Mexico continues to deteriorate, I think you could see some of their best players jumping ship as well, as long as MLS owners are willing to open the pocket book.

[GoldenEagle]

This.

MLS salaries are AWFUL with the exception of the DPs. They've got a long way to go, but I do think their infrastructure and how they've grown the sport in certain markets is impressive. Watched some highlights of the EC Finals in KC and it was a good crowd who clearly are supporting the club. The name change sucks and so forth, but...they're getting owners who seem engaged enough to invest in the sport and in their communities.

If nothing else, doing what other sports can't and that's getting venues built in this economic climate.

The salaries are not as bad as they used to be. The minimuim a player makes these days is around $40k. Most players probably average around $75-100k a year.

[GoldenEagle]

$2 tickets

This is not D-II college football. You will not find a single club selling a ticket for under $10 to a MLS game. You might can get a $2 ticket to go to Open Cup game or something.

Attendance is not the problem. TV ratings are the problem.

[Ksyrup]

Last week after one of the mid-week football games ended, I watched one of the playoff games...kinda, in the background, anyway. It was decent entertainment for 11pm on a weeknight with no other live sports going on at the time. It didn't completely hold my attention, but it was sports and it wasn't golf, so I paid some attention to it.

The thing that stood out to me, though, was that even in the playoffs, they do some pretty strange things that just don't work with the general US sports fan population. The idea of "aggregate" scoring is...um, ridiculous? And I thought I heard (but maybe I misunderstood) that in the case of an aggregate tie, goals scored as the away team count more? Huh? Is that the "you didn't get to sleep in your own bed" bonus?

If MLS is serious about making inroads wit the average US sports fan, they have to structure themselves like an American sport. Even when they use something as American as a playoff, they still manage to European it up with these crazy rules. It's like they look for anything other than just wins and losses to determine a champion. I'd rather they toss cleats into a bucket after 120 minutes to break a tie rather than play separate games, but add all the goals together to determine a winner.

[cuervo72]

If MLS is serious about making inroads wit the average US sports fan, they have to structure themselves like an American sport. Even when they use something as American as a playoff, they still manage to European it up with these crazy rules. It's like they look for anything other than just wins and losses to determine a champion. I'd rather they toss cleats into a bucket after 120 minutes to break a tie rather than play separate games, but add all the goals together to determine a winner.

I've mentioned it before, but part of the continued slide of the NHL from my consciousness is shootout scoring. Just go back to W-L-T, forget "regulation-overtime wins", and shootout losses.

[Passacaglia]

And I thought I heard (but maybe I misunderstood) that in the case of an aggregate tie, goals scored as the away team count more? Huh? Is that the "you didn't get to sleep in your own bed" bonus?


It's weird, but it's still better than anything involving a coin toss.

[Fidatelo]

It's weird that hockey is so much better in person when you can see everything that happens on TV. As opposed to football, which is considered a "TV sport", yet TV can only show you the line of scrimmage and nothing going on in the secondary unless the ball is actually thrown there. It's a pretty big omission in a passing league. But ya, for whatever reason, I agree, hockey works great in person - I have no clue what's going on in the NHL anymore but I do check out the Idaho Steelheads a few times a year. It's a great, loud, intimate environment where you're right on top of everything.

Football works so well on TV because it's broken up into plays. You get 5-10 seconds of intense action, and then 45 seconds of replays and analysis where they can show you all the stuff that you may have missed live. Even if you could see the whole field on your TV set, for the average viewer like myself there is too much going on for me to take in all of it during the actual play. The replays and analysis help me fill the gaps, something I can't get in the stadium.

As for hockey, the intense action is often flowing for several minutes at a time. Even on TV there is no time to sit back and analyse every nuance; for the most part you need to just take it all in as it happens. But with half as many players on the field as compared to football, it's a much more realistic goal. Add in the more intimate setting of an enclosed arena filled with rowdy fans and you get a pretty compelling experience versus sitting at home watching on TV.

[Pumpy Tudors]

wait until americans discover that the soccer clock counts the wrong way and most of the players get in trouble for touching the ball with their hands

and what is with those funny colored yellow and red cards

whats the deal with airline food

[Ksyrup]

It's weird, but it's still better than anything involving a coin toss.

Determining possession in the limited circumstance of OT versus determining the outcome of a series? I'm not even sure I understand the comparison, actually.

[Young Drachma]

The thing that stood out to me, though, was that even in the playoffs, they do some pretty strange things that just don't work with the general US sports fan population. The idea of "aggregate" scoring is...um, ridiculous? And I thought I heard (but maybe I misunderstood) that in the case of an aggregate tie, goals scored as the away team count more? Huh? Is that the "you didn't get to sleep in your own bed" bonus?

.

It's how soccer is played worldwide. Aggregate goals isn't that weird. MLS playoffs are poorly structure, but aggregate goals itself isn't a big problem. Even a casual fan like you picked it up. You might think it's dumb, but...you figured it out without cliff notes.

[GoldenEagle]

MLS does not use away goals as a tiebreaker. If aggergate score is tied after 180 minutes, it goes to overtime.

Also, only one round of four uses aggergate scoring. I am guessing as more teams come into the league, it will be scraped in the conference semi-final round.

[Big Fo]

If MLS insists on having over half the teams make the playoffs, I think they need to do more to reward higher seed. I'd like to see teams play two legs in each round before the final (maybe not the new wild card round if that sticks) and if there is a tie, the higher seeded team advances.

I've read that next year MLS is considering letting the higher seeded team in the final host the match instead of using a predetermined stadium. That would also be good.

Part of the reason I don't watch more regular season MLS games is that the games have even less meaning than NBA or NHL regular season games in terms of percentage of the league's teams making the playoffs and the importance of high seeding in the playoffs.

[Ksyrup]

It's how soccer is played worldwide. Aggregate goals isn't that weird. MLS playoffs are poorly structure, but aggregate goals itself isn't a big problem. Even a casual fan like you picked it up. You might think it's dumb, but...you figured it out without cliff notes.

The issue isn't understanding what the rule does, but why it is used. Nonsensical and stupid is more the issue for your average US sports fan, I imagine. The fact that it's commonplace around the world just underscores the fact that, to succeed here, soccer people need to think about these things differently.

[Bisbo]

I don't get why it's so important to soccer fans that everybody love their sport. It doesn't matter if it's the 4th favorite or 10th favorite sport in the country if you love it.

Bottom line ... who cares? I have nothing against soccer, other than all the people trying to convince me soccer is the most awesome thing in the world.

I think it is, in part, a reaction to lots of sportscasters deriding (or ignoring) soccer in their sports reporting.

[Big Fo]

The issue isn't understanding what the rule does, but why it is used. Nonsensical and stupid is more the issue for your average US sports fan, I imagine. The fact that it's commonplace around the world just underscores the fact that, to succeed here, soccer people need to think about these things differently.

When MLS started they tried to Americanize things a little bit by having the clock count down instead of up and used shootouts (and not a penalty kick shootout, but one from 35 yards where players could dribble up, kind of like hockey) to break any ties. All it really did was annoy people who were already fans of the sport. Thankfully they gave this up after a few years.

[bronconick]

When MLS started they tried to Americanize things a little bit by having the clock count down instead of up and used shootouts (and not a penalty kick shootout, but one from 35 yards where players could dribble up, kind of like hockey) to break any ties. All it really did was annoy people who were already fans of the sport. Thankfully they gave this up after a few years.

That's about par for the course. The fans you *could* win over by making it more "American" are mixed in with all the people who wouldn't watch your sport if they were paid and you end up upsetting the people who pay your salaries anyway, and every sport outside of MLB/NFL/NBA ends up doing it.

Like NASCAR's "sprint for the cup" or whatever it's called. "It's more like a playoff! Late races mean more." Personally speaking, nothing is ever going to make me want to watch NASCAR, so it's a lost cause to me and I'm sure there's some huge racing fan somewhere who thinks it's the damn foolest thing they've ever come up with.

[cuervo72]

The issue isn't understanding what the rule does, but why it is used. Nonsensical and stupid is more the issue for your average US sports fan, I imagine. The fact that it's commonplace around the world just underscores the fact that, to succeed here, soccer people need to think about these things differently.

Basically you're just saying the rest of the world is nonsensical and stupid. :D

[sterlingice]

Basically you're just saying the rest of the world is nonsensical and stupid. :D

Hi, we're Americans. Have we met? :D

SI

[ISiddiqui]

Aggregate Goals actually tend to make more sense than "lets play one elimination game, like that will determine who is the better team".

[Wolfpack]

There was a time when MLS did actually do three-game aggregate point series back around 2000 or so, except for the MLS Cup. So, the playoffs at one time were more "American" than they are now, which I agree is a bit on the silly side. Personally, I think they should shorten up the regular season and then do aggregates in the Cup semis (currently conference finals). They also need to shorten the regular season because MLS teams are killing themselves with all the cross-continent travel for MLS, US Open Cup, and (for the lucky few) CONCACAF Champions League (for example, Seattle had to play a home friendly against Man U, then travel to Panama, then to Houston, then back to Seattle, then out to KC, all in two weeks this year...Europeans just don't have this kind of travel burden).

[Young Drachma]

MLS commish: D.C. United relocation is possible - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/sports/soccer/news/_/id/7217371/dc-united-relocation-possible)

Apparently the rent at RFK is too high. Considering a move to Baltimore or somewhere in the area, if that fails...other cities. Any MLS insider thoughts?

[Ksyrup]

Basically you're just saying the rest of the world is nonsensical and stupid. :D

I think it says more about the sport and why it will never connect with Americans that the idea of playing a series of games that comes down to adding up all the goals to determine a winner of a series ISN'T considered nonsensical, but the norm.

[Ksyrup]

Aggregate Goals actually tend to make more sense than "lets play one elimination game, like that will determine who is the better team".

It's a playoff, that's the entire point. You had the regular season to play a bunch of games to prove you were better for a season. The playoffs don't determine who's better, they determine a winner.

If you're going to aggregate goals, then just play 1 game. If you're going to play a series of games, then the winner of the series should be the team that wins the most games. I don't see how that isn't the default position.

[ISiddiqui]

It's a playoff, that's the entire point. You had the regular season to play a bunch of games to prove you were better for a season. The playoffs don't determine who's better, they determine a winner.

If you're going to aggregate goals, then just play 1 game. If you're going to play a series of games, then the winner of the series should be the team that wins the most games. I don't see how that isn't the default position.

If the playoffs are just to determine a winner, then what's the problem with two games to determine who is better? If one acknowledges home field advantage, then in the absense of a neutral field, it makes sense to have a home and home and tally up the goals.

This whole it should only be one game smacks of "this is way we've always done it".

The difference comes down, IMO, the idea in the US that "games" and "wins" are sacrosant. Whereas in world soccer, you get points for your result and a tie will get you some points (well, usually just 1).

[Ksyrup]

I don't understand any sport that plays a game, not to win. I think that's the bottom line. It's not, "that's the way we've always done it," it's, "this makes total and complete sense, and playing separate and discrete games but counting all the goals/runs/points scored in all the games together makes no sense." I just can't wrap my mind around how that makes any sense.

Even in hockey, I understand points for wins and even the convoluted OT loss point system. But at the end of the day, their playoff system is about absolute wins and losses, as it should be.

[ISiddiqui]

So just social conditioning then ;).

Due to the nature of the game, soccer has always placed more reward on a tie than American sports. That drives, seemingly, everything else as well.

[Ksyrup]

And my perception has always been that they have to place such an emphasis on the tie because no one scores - which, IMO, is a major problem with the sport. Not that they don't score a lot, but that they score so infrequently that all these rules about ties and aggregate scoring have to implemented. You don't think the rest of the world would decide things on simple wins and losses if the game had more frequent scoring?

It's not like they came up with these decidedly better rules first, and then fit the game around them. The rules are necessary because of the design/structure of the game. And that's an issue, at least in the US. if you have to come up with an alternative way to decide a winner rather than who wins a game or series of games outright...that's a problem.

[Ksyrup]

And let me just say that I've played adult league soccer for the last 5 years, and I enjoy it for the conditioning and because the quality of soccer we play, lack of scoring and ties is rarely, if ever, an issue. :D

[ISiddiqui]

And my perception has always been that they have to place such an emphasis on the tie because no one scores - which, IMO, is a major problem with the sport. Not that they don't score a lot, but that they score so infrequently that all these rules about ties and aggregate scoring have to implemented. You don't think the rest of the world would decide things on simple wins and losses if the game had more frequent scoring?

It's not like they came up with these decidedly better rules first, and then fit the game around them. The rules are necessary because of the design/structure of the game. And that's an issue, at least in the US. if you have to come up with an alternative way to decide a winner rather than who wins a game or series of games outright...that's a problem.

So, basically, the issue isn't with the system, but the sport itself. The lack of scoring is seen by many as a feature, not a bug (just as the insane amount of scoring in basketball is seen as a feature by its fans).

[Ksyrup]

The issue is the system, but it's predicated on a flaw with the game. I understand some/most people don't consider it a flaw, but when you can't score enough to determine who wins each game that's played, that's a flaw in a league/championship setting. In a vaccuum, I couldn't care less if two teams wanted to play to a draw. When the entire purpose is to determine a winner of a tournament or league, that's a totally different issue. At least, when you get to the playoffs, do what hockey does - continuing playing by the same rules you use during a regular season game until someone wins.

I know we'll never change each other's mind. I was just pointing out that I actually watched some of one of the games, and the way they figured who advanced in the playoffs turned me off. I don't really care what the rest of the world does - they also think national team games mean more than league games, so it's hard for me to understand them anyway.

[ISiddiqui]

Interesting, Hockey did use aggregate goals in its playoffs until 1937.

[ISiddiqui]

they also think national team games mean more than league games, so it's hard for me to understand them anyway.

Um, not exactly. I had this mistaken notion as well, but I think it had more to do with my American mindset regarding nationalism than the actual reality. It took me a while to realize that people care more about their league teams than the national team (well, aside from the World Cup - but that's during the offseason anyways).

[Ksyrup]

Interesting, Hockey did use aggregate goals in its playoffs until 1937.

So soccer's only 75 years behind, then. :p

[ISiddiqui]

It's like college football - it values tradition :p.

[Ksyrup]

Um, not exactly. I had this mistaken notion as well, but I think it had more to do with my American mindset regarding nationalism than the actual reality. It took me a while to realize that people care more about their league teams than the national team (well, aside from the World Cup - but that's during the offseason anyways).

I'm just basing that off of what I see with the WC, as well as a South African guy who I work with. All he talks about is country on country (be it soccer, rugby, cricket, etc.), and is the first to mention the nationality of a tennis player or golfer or race car driver. I honestly don't pay any attention to that nonsense.

[Ksyrup]

It's like college football - it values tradition :p.

Yeah, but in soccer, "plus one" is the way of breaking a tie in the aggregate by awarding an extra point to the team that had the fewest combined red and yellow cards.

[sterlingice]

It's like college football - it values tradition :p.

And paying players gobs of money? ;)

SI

[Pumpy Tudors]

I wish all sports except baseball had ties. That includes tennis, golf, and bull riding.

[wade moore]

I don't understand any sport that plays a game, not to win. I think that's the bottom line. It's not, "that's the way we've always done it," it's, "this makes total and complete sense, and playing separate and discrete games but counting all the goals/runs/points scored in all the games together makes no sense." I just can't wrap my mind around how that makes any sense.

Even in hockey, I understand points for wins and even the convoluted OT loss point system. But at the end of the day, their playoff system is about absolute wins and losses, as it should be.

Hrmm...


NFL TIE-BREAKER RULES
TO BREAK A TIE WITHIN A DIVISION

If, at the end of the regular season, two or more clubs in the same division finish with identical won-lost-tied percentages, the following steps will be taken until a champion is determined.

Two Clubs

Head-to-head (best won-lost-tied percentage in games between the clubs).
Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the division.
Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games.
Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference.
Strength of victory.
Strength of schedule.
Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed.
Best combined ranking among all teams in points scored and points allowed.
Best net points in common games.
Best net points in all games.
Best net touchdowns in all games.
Coin toss
Three or More Clubs

(Note: If two clubs remain tied after third or other clubs are eliminated during any step, tie breaker reverts to step 1 of the two-club format).

Head-to-head (best won-lost-tied percentage in games among the clubs).
Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the division.
Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games.
Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference.
Strength of victory.
Strength of schedule.
Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed.
Best combined ranking among all teams in points scored and points allowed.
Best net points in common games.
Best net points in all games.
Best net touchdowns in all games.
Coin toss

[Ksyrup]

We've already discussed that.

First, those tie-breakers have nothing to do with how you win a game. Tie-breakers for standings is a completely different issue. You really think it's practical to have a one-game playoff beofre the playoffs to "finally" determine a division winner?

Second...look how far down each list your highlighted items are. WAY the heck down there.

But the bottom line is, we're talking about determining the winner of a game/series, not who is ranked ahead of who for determining who qualifies for the playoffs at the end of the regular season.

[Ksyrup]

I'll just go ahead and say it, Wade...MLS = Apple.

There, are you happy? :D

[wade moore]

We've already discussed that.

First, those tie-breakers have nothing to do with how you win a game. Tie-breakers for standings is a completely different issue. You really think it's practical to have a one-game playoff beofre the playoffs to "finally" determine a division winner?

Second...look how far down each list your highlighted items are. WAY the heck down there.

But the bottom line is, we're talking about determining the winner of a game/series, not who is ranked ahead of who for determining who qualifies for the playoffs at the end of the regular season.

Huh? I don't understand what you're saying. Outside of the "how far down the list it is", how is this different than the MLS?

[Ksyrup]

The MLS is using aggregate scoring to determine the winner of a game/series.

The NFL uses total points scored/allowed to determine ranking in the standings, not who wins or loses a game or playoff series.

[Young Drachma]

From the MLS Commish via SI.com:

SI.com: I don't know if you saw my proposal for how to restructure the MLS postseason, but what do you think of having a group stage in the MLS playoffs?
Garber: (Nods.) We've looked at every possible playoff iteration you could imagine. I read comments from our fans and media pundits, and they think the MLS office is sitting there with their head in the sand or their face in a computer and hasn't looked at every possible playoff format. Because we have. We have a number of objectives that need to be achieved. The format needs to fit in the broader schedule footprint. It needs to take into consideration what we're trying to achieve driving television and attendance revenue, taking into consideration stadium availability, our commitments to the U.S. Open Cup and CONCACAF, trying to take off for the FIFA dates and so many variables that requires us to have a full-time schedule czar and a consultant who works with a variety of computer models and algorithms to feed it in and come out with a format for the regular season and the playoffs that makes the most sense. I think our fans will see we've come up with a format that will work for us in 2012.


Read more: 'It's been a very good year' for MLS - Grant Wahl - SI.com (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/grant_wahl/11/18/mls.commissioner.interview/index.html#ixzz1e7FWsVX0)

[MrBug708]

I wish all sports except baseball had ties. That includes tennis, golf, and bull riding.

What about curling?