maybe they'll get Ray Hudson... and that would be the shit

3/31/2009 8:10:39 AM

haha, agreed

3/31/2009 10:11:48 AM

for the record I don't really mind Tommy Smyth, he's leagues better than anything FSC can muster up.


Derrick Rae is the fuckin' mustard though, and I hate that I won't get to hear him.

3/31/2009 11:30:25 AM

I think Rae and Smyth are the best announcing combo in all of sports.

3/31/2009 11:42:59 AM

Quote :

"FSC, which reaches 34 million households, plans to launch HD telecasts at the end of this year. ... While ESPN announcers called the games from its studios in Bristol, Conn., FSC may take the international English audio feeds provided by UEFA. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/02/AR2009040200435.html

4/2/2009 1:15:14 PM

I'm glad FSC is covering the Champions League and getting HD and shit...maybe they'll add it to my channel lineup next year

4/2/2009 8:59:55 PM

Quote :

"While ESPN announcers called the games from its studios in Bristol, Conn."

I fucking hate when they do that. It's so obvious they aren't at the match.

4/2/2009 9:02:44 PM

so I still don't understand this

Quote :

"It's true, and it's the worst thing that could happen to soccer in the US."

The network that's had soccer basically since the early 90s, who doesn't do shit with regards to highlights, promotions, shows, etc. on any of its main networks (Yeah, there's ESPN Press Pass or whatever the hell that is), treats American soccer coverage like they're being forced to (yes, I know some of you don't care about the national team or MLS but still), and only gives soccer the time of day every four years (with Julie fucking Foudy and Alexi Lalas no less)... doesn't have rights anymore, and instead CL is moving to a soccer-only channel that will be giving pre-game and wrap-up shows every matchday in CL and show way more games than ESPN ever did... and that's a bad thing?

Yeah, it kind of sucks short-term for those that have basic cable and don't even get FSC, but they're pushing to become part of more basic-tier cable packages with this move.

4/3/2009 7:51:51 AM

Best part of that article is this:

Quote :

"Fox plans expanded coverage of the European Champions League next season, with matches appearing on Fox Sports Net and FX in addition to the Fox Soccer Channel. "

So they really have 3 channels they can use. It looks like it's going to be 48 live matches, which is a hell of a lot more than ESPN ever did.

4/3/2009 9:00:12 AM

Quote :

"The network that's had soccer basically since the early 90s, who doesn't do shit with regards to highlights, promotions, shows, etc. on any of its main networks (Yeah, there's ESPN Press Pass or whatever the hell that is), treats American soccer coverage like they're being forced to (yes, I know some of you don't care about the national team or MLS but still), and only gives soccer the time of day every four years (with Julie fucking Foudy and Alexi Lalas no less)... doesn't have rights anymore, and instead CL is moving to a soccer-only channel that will be giving pre-game and wrap-up shows every matchday in CL and show way more games than ESPN ever did... and that's a bad thing? Yeah, it kind of sucks short-term for those that have basic cable and don't even get FSC, but they're pushing to become part of more basic-tier cable packages with this move."

I also hate how ESPN pays no attention to soccer, but part of that has to do with the fact that no one cares. When you are trying to market your network you have to go with what draws ratings. The MLS Thursday night game only drew a little over 200,000 viewers each week (the same as the WNBA). The Italy vs USA game in World Cup 2006 drew 1.5 million viewers on ABC, but yet there were regular season baseball games on June 17, 2006 that drew over 2 million viewers. That is why ESPN isn't worried about soccer in America.

4/3/2009 11:23:53 AM

Quote :

"That is why ESPN isn't worried about soccer in America."

Yeah, that's exactly my point. Get soccer on a network that gives a shit about it and even better, a channel exclusively designed for it.

Soccer fans exist in America. Yeah, MLS is a very average league right now, but it won't always be... and guess how you grow the league? Cater to existing soccer fans. When the talent comes and the league gets better, why wouldn't all these English Premier League fans turn on an MLS game? It's not like they're automatically dismissing the league because it's an American one. It's because it's of extremely lower quality compared to leagues around the world. If a channel has EPL, Champions League, Serie A, etc... they'll eventually come across the MLS and as the league keeps improving, the more fans it will attract. I think CL on FSC and other networks is HUGE for soccer in America, especially MLS.

4/3/2009 11:33:38 AM

^I've heard some coaches say MLS is about like the bottom 10 of the EPL/top 10 of the English first division. It's not so much the quality of the league as much as the way it looks and sounds. Half empty stadiums with quiet crowds makes the league look crappy. Sold out crowds singing makes European soccer look more exciting than it is. The first thing my friend from England said to me after he went to the DC vs LA game last year was that the atmosphere was great.

4/3/2009 11:39:25 AM

So you say the league's atmosphere brings it down? And you give an example that the takeaway from an MLS game for an Englishman was their great atmosphere? Nice. Great crowds help to draw fans but come on, I like the league and all, it's the quality and depth of the player pool that is keeping this league down for right now.

Anybody who thinks an MLS team could finish mid-table or even avoid relegation in a season is either a homer or a soccer n00b. Starting XI MAYBE is quality of a lower-tier English club... but not over a course of a season, no way.

4/3/2009 11:48:16 AM

^Yeh the atmosphere brings it down. There are a lot of people who have this image of soccer mom's with 20 kids at the game with them. The league needs more fans to go to games so teams can make more money and can afford better players. There was a British news paper that listed 50 sporting events you must see before you die (not counting the EPL). Number 1 on the list was Boca Juniors vs River Plate in the Argentine league. They also suggested Celtic vs Rangers, Real Madrid vs Barcelona, and Inter Milan vs AC Milan. If you ever watched the video on ussoccer.com the U-17 team got to go to the Boca vs River game and were amazed at the atmosphere. They said it was more intense than when they went to see games at Manchester United and Bolton Wonderers. The quality of play in Argentina isn't what makes Boca vs River one of the greatest sports rivalries in the world, it is the fans that go to the games who create the atmosphere. It wouldn't be the big deal it is if 1,000 fans showed up and sat quietly in the stands all game. The rowdy fans in South America and Europe is what makes their leagues so much fun to watch. btw, April 19, 2009 is the next Boca vs River game. I can't wait to watch!

4/3/2009 3:23:56 PM

Yeah, it's very convenient all those rivalries are between some of the world's most successful and talented clubs. I'm sure you also tune in to Blackpool/Preston North End and Bristol City/Bristol Rovers whenever they play too, right?

The empty crowds don't exactly help but talent on the field is what will bring viewers in and people to the stadium, regardless of how much they wave flags or paint their face.

Maybe we're just different soccer fans. I would love to watch any of those games you named in person, that's a hell of a soccer experience. But when I watch a game on tv, I'm usually watching the game instead of the supporters jumping around.

[Edited on April 3, 2009 at 3:53 PM. Reason : .]

4/3/2009 3:47:04 PM

Sure, it's great that there's a Soccer-only channel in the US, but I'll outline the problems with FSC.

1. Not enough exposure. 34 Million homes is a pittance compared to ESPN's exposure. Because of this, even if they get an HD feed, they will have a bitch of a time getting carriers to pick it up as part of any standard package. DISH and DirecTV both charge premium prices for FSC. I'm not sure about other cable networks, but I think we're lucky in this area that TWC carries it. ESPN (with a few exceptions) can tell people to pick up their channels or else. Fox does not and will never have that sort of muscle.

Couple that with the fact that ESPN has been making a concerted effort in the past few years to raise the profile of the sport the RIGHT way. You see UCL, Serie A, and BPL goals with a regularity on the SportCenter top 10s now. The page redesign of ESPN.com no longer has the soccer link buried off to the side - it is infinitely more accessible.

2. Bottom-drawer quality hosts, for the most part. There are three people on the entire channel who know their shit and are worth watching: Steven Cohen - who also hosts World Soccer Daily and generally has nothing positive to say about FSC in general because of how poorly it's run, Bobby McMahon - who is hands-down one of the best soccer pundits on the planet, and the guy who does the Argentine games whose name I don't know atm.

3. LACK OF REAL CONTENT. They try to throw the net too wide and cover too many leagues, and they're not even a 24/7 network. Even with that, they have a problem filling time slots and have numerous repeats. A-League Review show? 5 times in a week? Really? REALLY?




Those are the 3 MAJOR flaws with FSC. I could go on and on about nuance.

4/3/2009 4:17:59 PM

Your first and third points are both valid points - that are being addressed by making moves like this one. Not enough content? They're adding Champions League with pre and post game shows, they're showing way more live games than ESPN ever did, I'm sure they'll have weekly wrap-ups as well. They can't be a 24/7 network with the limited distribution they have, which is why they have to have that paid programming. I mean, they just got listed with Nielsen ratings - by bringing in more valuable content like CL, they'll get more advertising money because they'll get better ratings.

As for ESPN making an effort to raise the profile of the sport? I totally disagree. So they show a goal here and there in their Top 10 plays - too bad the jackass introducing the highlight can't pronounce the player or the team name correctly, or gets them both completely wrong. Again with the host complaints - outside of Derek Rae, ESPN's commentators are average-at-best. I'm not defending FSC's guys necessarily but they are not that bad compared to ESPN's crew. Again maybe you don't care about anything else ESPN shows but Alexi Lalas, Julie Foudy, Pedro Gomez, Dave O'Brien, John Harkes - they're all freaking horrible commentators/pundits. They moved a link to a different spot on their website... and we're supposed to be thankful for that? Give me a break.

4/3/2009 4:35:42 PM

You're looking at this like an already established soccer fan.

How do you turn a whole populace of blithering idiots on to something?

You spoon-feed it to them.

ESPN was going down the right track to make soccer more acceptable in the eyes on the American public. They have(had?) a long-term vision laid out. Sure, Foudy and Lalas and those types are bloody awful, but they are recognized names of the sport in America, and make the American viewer on average feel more comfortable.

If a viewer has trouble understanding accents while they're trying to understand content as well, they're likely to turn the show off and never try to watch it again.

FSC is just turning itself into a niche channel for a niche market, and will effectively set the whole process back by a magnitude of YEARS.

It's a completely ass-backwards way to go.


I know it sucks, but it's the truth. You need to take off your rose-colored 'I already understand the sport so fuck the rest of em if they get it or not' glasses.


[Edited on April 3, 2009 at 4:49 PM. Reason : .]

4/3/2009 4:46:16 PM

Quote :

"ESPN was going down the right track to make soccer more acceptable in the eyes on the American public. They have(had?) a long-term vision laid out."

which was what exactly? A soccer-only highlight show sandwiched in between 10 episodes of Baseball Tonight? A replay of CL games instead of Worldwide of Poker from 20 years ago? Just one fucking commercial for an upcoming game (the only ones I saw were for finals, maybe I'm mistaken)

Quote :

"How do you turn a whole populace of blithering idiots on to something?"

Who cares about turning people who don't like soccer into fans? There are MILLIONS of fans already here. And how many non-soccer fans or casual fans are watching TV at 2:45 in the afternoon anyways? Have you ever seen the ratings for Champions League games?

edit: well I guess you addressed my last paragraph with your edit. You're right, maybe I have those glasses on, but I'm not exactly sure why I need to take them off.

[Edited on April 3, 2009 at 4:54 PM. Reason : .]

4/3/2009 4:52:03 PM

Quote :

"Who cares about turning people who don't like soccer into fans?"

The MLS. ABC/DISNEY/ESPN. USSF. Eurosport/Soccer.com. Nike. Adidas. UEFA. Real Madrid. Tom Hicks & George Gillette. The Glazer family. Randy Lerner. George Soros.

Every single "new fan" means an exponential growth in the exposure and resultant percentage of capital any one of those above mentioned can gain.

There is a massive business side to it that everyone neglects to remember.

The bottom line is that FSC getting UCL games pushes back the growth and potential capital gains of the sport in this country to terms measured in years.

[Edited on April 3, 2009 at 5:14 PM. Reason : .]

4/3/2009 5:14:15 PM

Overstated.

Are you a soccer fan? Do you watch MLS? Are you more likely to become an MLS fan than somebody who has never been a soccer fan in any capacity?

Look at the problems NASCAR and NHL is having because they branched out from their core market and tried to appeal to every demographic and every area of the US... and they're getting burned for it now. At the same time, MLS is expanding into multiple markets, where fans already exist. Maximize the potential of your existing fanbase... once that's reached, you then move on to the completely new fan of the game. I agree soccer will suffer if FSC stayed the way it is now, with no improvements or modifications, no attempts to reach out to a broader distribution, etc. - but it's obvious their plan is the complete opposite of that.

I'm no marketing expert, but I'm pretty sure you would have to spend a lot more money, effort, and time into selling a product to somebody that's never even heard of it than to somebody that already knows what it's about and what it can do.

4/3/2009 5:22:19 PM

Quote :

"A-League Review show"

haha, add the J league to that too...needless to say, i became very well versed in the ways of the urawa reds a few years ago

4/3/2009 5:26:17 PM

^^ Small segment vs large segment, my man. Not overstated in the slightest.

As much as we both hate it, catering to the established fanbase alone here in the US just isn't going to cut it.

You need your bandwagon WalMart fans to build a successful, monetized empire.

The NASL was as popular as soccer can get in America, and had the wage bill not been outrageous, it'd still be around to this day. The money was coming in from people who had never cared about soccer before, but it was being bled out in a greater ratio.

MLS and the NASL are polar opposites in terms of how money is spent, and the biggest thing (as you said earlier) holding back the MLS is lack of depth and talent. There's no way to increase both of those factors without spending money.

There's no way, with the way the league is structured now, for money to be made if soccer is treated as a niche sport by a niche channel. Exposure is key. FSC will be trying to build up what ESPN already had in place. FSC ad revenue isn't going to be nearly what ESPN revenue would've commanded. The end result is 10 steps back for one slight quarter step forward? Not good.

See what I'm getting at? You have to spend money to make money, sure... but when the money's already been spent on infrastructure (ESPN) and you've got to rebuild (FSC) to get back to the same point, you're not making any real progress.

4/3/2009 5:50:12 PM

Quote :

"There's no way, with the way the league is structured now, for money to be made if soccer is treated as a niche sport by a niche channel."

The teams with their own stadiums are already making money. Why do you think there are numerous investors looking to get into the league? So they can pretend they actually own Chelsea and throw millions of dollars away every season? Of course not, the return on investment is already very favorable... and that's without an abundance of quality players, capacity crowds, and lucrative sponsorship deals.

If I'm not mistaken, ESPN keeps all the ad-revenue generated by MLS broadcasts anyways, they just pay a flat fee per year. ESPN is also paying a higher price for MLS because they wanted the World Cup rights as well.

Quote :

"As much as we both hate it, catering to the established fanbase alone here in the US just isn't going to cut it. You need your bandwagon WalMart fans to build a successful, monetized empire."

This is very true... in the long-term. The league is less than 15 years old... less than 10 years ago, it was teetering on the edge of collapse. You can't go from point A to point Z in the blink of an eye. Slow, steady progress is the MLS business model and it's been brilliant so far.

We're off-topic so to get back on - the fans who don't know soccer weren't watching Champions League anyways. Have you ever tried to explain the point of it to them? Why is a team from Spain playing a team from Italy? So, two English teams are playing each other... for the European title? This goes on simultaneously with the league in their own country? You can play in two leagues at the same time?

4/3/2009 6:42:52 PM

^ Yeah, actually I explained the whole UCL and UEFA Cups to a friend the other night, when I was piss drunk. He was amazed.

4/3/2009 8:33:18 PM

man, ive got a mini-novel to read here...lol

4/3/2009 9:24:38 PM

And with all of this being said, we have the rest of the UEFA season, a Confederations Cup Gold Cup, and WCQ to watch between all of the networks. It's a little more than a year till the next World Cup and I can't wait!

4/3/2009 11:29:27 PM

since I knew this thread will be getting more run than other soccer ones in the next few days

did everybody see the highlights from the Bayern beatdown this weekend? check out the last goal

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jW1Hza8dtE

4/6/2009 5:13:25 PM

lol @ Breno

4/6/2009 5:28:48 PM

wonder goal. beat like 3 or 4 men im not even sure how you can count and the keeper with a backheel...amazing

4/6/2009 9:13:20 PM

i'm going to be at work today during the games. is there any website which will have full game downloads that you'll know of?

i know i should just search, but i'm pretty sure i'll find out the result first if i go that route.

4/7/2009 7:48:51 AM

Quote :

"Despite ridiculous odds against Porto in the UK, they are not rubbish and this'll be a difficult test for the holders. Porto will look to exploit United's weakness (otherwise known as John O'Shea) on the right hand side of their defence with Cissokho bombing forward in support of Cristian Rodriguez, and Lucho, Hulkn and Lisandro Lopez are all decent players."

damn espn commentary, that's a bit harsh

4/7/2009 2:43:21 PM

WHOOPS

4/7/2009 2:50:35 PM

OH GOD HULK IS PISSED

4/7/2009 2:52:39 PM

and whoops to Arse as well, not a good start for the English

4/7/2009 2:55:37 PM

ROFL

4/7/2009 3:02:03 PM

bruno lolves...rooney says thank you


utd forgot how to pass this game...and the defense is moving in slow motion....

[Edited on April 7, 2009 at 3:03 PM. Reason : scholes looks old out there right now]

4/7/2009 3:02:16 PM

Quote :

"The United bench are all wearing very stern faces despite their proximity to Gary Neville's moustache."

is ESPN commentary always this brilliant?

4/7/2009 3:04:31 PM

lol

4/7/2009 3:07:01 PM

porto is playing an amazing game - manu doesn't deserve this game at all

4/7/2009 3:07:05 PM

yeah they dont deserve the first 20 minutes...these games are 90 minutes long last i checked

[Edited on April 7, 2009 at 3:08 PM. Reason : and man utd are notorious slow starters]


scholes needs to be taken out at halftime. im not sure hes completed a single pass yet.

[Edited on April 7, 2009 at 3:13 PM. Reason : f]

4/7/2009 3:07:49 PM

omg o'shea you are awful...wtf is that

haha vidic. HE COMES FROM SERBIA

[Edited on April 7, 2009 at 3:20 PM. Reason : F]

4/7/2009 3:14:56 PM

the entire midfield needs to be revamped at halftime...not just scholes. too many CMs on the pitch. haha macheda is warming up. OH LAWD

scholes getting a header....im surprised he didnt try to hit that in with his hand

[Edited on April 7, 2009 at 3:25 PM. Reason : f]

4/7/2009 3:23:25 PM

not many options for United

Nani I guess

OR THE NEVILLER

4/7/2009 3:26:01 PM

or take a cm off and put on tevez. giggs is fine with me. put nani in for a cm and move ronaldo up top

neville is gonna have to come in for oshea. he looks completely overwhelmed out there. he cant even trap a simple pass to him right now.

[Edited on April 7, 2009 at 3:27 PM. Reason : f]

4/7/2009 3:26:46 PM

I was under the impression Giggs and Tevez were last resort options because of fatigue issues

4/7/2009 3:34:27 PM

jt, stop making excuses...manure is outmatched

4/7/2009 3:43:34 PM

this is more like it. im not sure what took so long. and vidic is a beast in the air. and that rooney chip was beyond cantona-esque had it gone in.

4/7/2009 4:02:20 PM

just booting the ball back and forth - neither team is looking especially strong right now

4/7/2009 4:09:17 PM

Quote :

"Evans is limping a bit, but after Gary Neville's performance against Villa, it'd take an amputation for him to be replaced."

4/7/2009 4:09:29 PM