I have heard some fans lately with concerns about the number of their team's games they're able to watch on television. It's not a new phenomenon, by any means, but I have an easier way to quantify it now than in years past, so I thought I'd take a look at it. Using the master league broadcasting matrix that I get from MLS, I put together some charts to get a handle on which teams' fans have "readily available" TV broadcasts in 2006. I defined a "readily available TV broadcast" as: One that is in English; and One that is broadcast on ABC/ESPN2 or a regional sports network or local affiliate from that team's home market. In other words, the other team's broadcast on Direct Kick doesn't count. Fox Soccer Channel doesn't count. HDNet doesn't count. LA and Chivas get credit for each other's broadcasts in the Classico because they're mostly on the same channels in the same city. So, here are the charts: Code: .......ROAD GAMES TELEVISED....... Team...........G...Tel...Pct....TD New England....16...16..100.0%...0 New York.......16...16..100.0%...0 Salt Lake......16...14...87.5%...7 Chivas USA.....16...12...75.0%...1 DC United......16...12...75.0%...0 Columbus.......16...11...68.8%...0 Los Angeles....16...11...68.8%...0 Dallas.........16...10...62.5%...1 Chicago........16....7...43.8%...0 Houston........16....4...25.0%...0 Colorado.......16....3...18.8%...0 Kansas City....16....3...18.8%...0 LEAGUE........192..119...62.0%...9 Code: .......HOME GAMES TELEVISED....... Team...........G...Tel...Pct....TD New England....16...16..100.0%...0 New York.......16...15...93.8%...2 Los Angeles....16...14...87.5%...1 Chivas USA.....16...12...75.0%...2 DC United......16...11...68.8%...0 Houston........16...10...62.5%...1 Chicago........16....9...56.3%...0 Colorado.......16....7...43.8%...0 Dallas.........16....3...18.8%...0 Salt Lake......16....2...12.5%...0 Columbus.......16....2...12.5%...0 Kansas City....16....0....0.0%...0 LEAGUE........192..101...52.6%...6 Code: ......TOTAL GAMES TELEVISED....... Team...........G...Tel...Pct....TD New England....32...32..100.0%...0 New York.......32...31...96.9%...2 Los Angeles....32...25...78.1%...1 Chivas USA.....32...24...75.0%...3 DC United......32...23...71.9%...0 Chicago........32...16...50.0%...0 Salt Lake......32...16...50.0%...7 Houston........32...14...43.8%...1 Columbus.......32...13...40.6%...0 Dallas.........32...13...40.6%...1 Colorado.......32...10...31.3%...0 Kansas City....32....3....9.4%...0 LEAGUE........384..220...57.3%..14 TD=Tape delay, whether by a little or a lot (and the league TD total doesn't add to 15 because there was an ESPN2 game that was TD, so it counts for the home team and the road team, but only once for the league). Helps to be in a big market, obviously. Those teams have bigger budgets and more potential broadcast partners. The teams at the bottom of the last chart are known as four of the more frugal in the league, and this kind of bears that out. I've been hearing Chicago fans, in particular, complaining, but it could be worse. You could be a fan of the Rapids or the Wizards.
As bad as it has been to be a Wizards fan, I think the Rapids fans get the biggest shaft. KC has been for sale for two years and it's obvious that the spendthrift in goodtimes HSG wasn't about to shell out any money for unnecessary things like TV broadcasts now. But the Rapids are part of the local empire that includes the Denver RSN Altitude. The fact that only 10 of 32 Rapids games have been televised - despite plenty of available time to fill on Altitude is a crying shame. The article in the Rapids thread in this forum about the small budget talks about a lack of broadcasts at Invesco because of the emptiness of it all - but that doesn't explain the fact that only 3 of 32 road games have been shown. I really wonder what Colorado fans think of Kroenke now. Or are they withholding judgement until they get a year in the new stadium under their belts. I'm just thinking that showing road games this season would help to sell tickets to the new stadium next year. But that's just me.
This might be a crazy use of all that TV money coming in, but maybe some teams should use a bit of it to buy air time in their local markets.
Well done. Say what you want about the Revs being cheap, but they pay money to broadcast the games and pay the announcers (Brad Feldman is also a full-time Revs employee). Also, being in MSG country since '03 (and ending monday ), I can testify that the only time metros/RB games haven't been on have been when the Rangers had a game and there's islanders/devils/college football on FSNY.
Or maybe the money from the shirt deals because most of that money will go to the teams (200k to MLS).
Kenn, thanks very much for the stats, very interesting. Do you think that the level of TV coverage has any real effect on attendance? My own view is that it doesn't - IOW, having less coverage probably does not compell more fans to attend games, and having more coverage probably does not keep many fans home. Here in New England, where we have enjoyed nearly 100% coverage since 1996, there may be a temptation to look at our steadily declining attendance numbers and say "Ah ha! We need to black out home games to increase attendance". I don't think local blackouts would help at all. Any comments?
Well, you can look at the teams that televise the fewest games and they seem to be the ones who sometimes struggle to sell tickets. That may be because they're just as frugal when it comes to the resources necessary to sell tickets as they are when it comes to ponying up to be on television. But then you look at the Revs and you see a club that has televised (I believe) every game in its history that wasn't on an exclusive national deal and you see how they've struggled to sell tickets the last few years. So there's not a simple cause and effect relationship, methinks. There's a school of thought that says the broadcasts are good platforms from which to promote everything you have going on and to build awareness and interest in your club - as well as to get the "feel" of being big-league. It also builds value for your sponsors (sponsors listen when you tell them you're on TV). I can see the value in that. I think we've largely moved past the school of thought that says televising home games is a detriment to attendance. It's almost expected in most sports that a lot of your games are going to be on TV if you're going to be a "player," though, to be honest, in some of the major sports, that's the only way a lot of fans are ever going to see the team because they either can't afford or can't get tickets readily. Did you know that back in the very old days, the Yankees, Giants and Dodgers had a gentleman's agreement not to broadcast home games on radio because they thought it would hurt attendance ("why would they come to the ballpark if they can listen for free?")? Of course, radio helped popularize baseball, as did television after that, and you don't need a PhD. to see how television helped football explode in this country. Speaking totally as a fan, I'd like to see every game I can on TV, starting with road games and then, if you can, home games after that. I understand some of the reasons why it doesn't happen all the time, though. But the short answer to your question would be that I don't think there's a short answer.
When you also look at certain teams like the Cleveland Indians who left FSN Ohio for their own network called Sportstime Ohio, maybe the Crew can get some games back on FSN since majority of their road matches are on that ONN channel and none of their home matches are televised.
Hey, as far as I know Red Bull paid to have every regular seaon RBNY match broadcast on regional television this year. Which match are you not counting?
Better to be owned by Kronke in Denver than (most likely) to be owned by AEG in Houston. That's the general feeling of most fans I think. They give credit to KSE for buying the team and saving us from what would be an eventual move/contraction under AEG. Other than that, we're not real happy. I have to give credit to the other Rapids diehards. As a long-distance fan I buy DK to get any game I can, but most home fans shouldn't have to do it. To still be a fan of this team after the last two years shows some real loyalty. Our attendance may suck this year, but you can't fault the diehards.
And yet, they cry poor every time someone suggest that Gillette Stadium be configured in a more fan-friendly way. Which would bring them more fans in the long run -- televising both home and road games or only televising road games and opening both sides of Gillette Stadium for Revs games?
It really does speak to their lack of fan base too. How can you be a fan and not be able watch the matches? Same logic with the USOC. Until it gets on the tube, few are gunna care about it.
The ONN deal lasts through '07. I'd be a bit surprised to see the Crew end up on FSN Ohio. The Cincinnati Reds have the summer months pretty much locked up on FSN, especially on Saturday nights. If it's FSN, the vast majority of the games would end up on tape delay. If the Crew isn't on ONN in '08 (and frankly, I'd be a bit surprised if the ONN deal gets extended), they'll likely end up on a local broadcast channel. WWHO, maybe?
That was recently changed to HDNet exclusive Mr. Tomasch. It was originally scheduled as an MSG Network event.
I know. League master schedule shows it as HDNet Exclusive #13. We were supposed to do that game tomorrow, but when HDNet stepped in, we switched to another game earlier in the season. It's been HDNet for several weeks now.
I would have to agree. Now that teams make so much money from advertising, sponsorship & merchandising you need to have your team on TV. Especially in a sport that plays a limited schedule (30 as opposed to 82 or 162). Ny having your team on TV allows fans that can't make it to the game for whatever reason to support it, and if they can support it they'll buy gear and their eyeballs will view the ads on TV.
The Wizards have announced that the regular season finale in Giants Stadium will now be on KC Metro Sports! Yay!
I have never been able to find much data on it -- but there are some scattered references that suggest the national broadcasts are under 200,000 households. If you ever find better numbers, I would be curious what the trends look like.