Dear american football...

[Scooch]

I could see how that would affect the SuperBowl's number. I'd bet more people watch whole soccer matches due to it's tidy 2 hour block with no breaks but halftime. Scores tend towards non-blowouts too.

As a general rule, sports audiences "turn over" 3 times over the course of a game. Meaning that if a football game lasts 3 hours, the typical viewer watches 1 hour of it. The Super Bowl is a rare case where the turnover is much lower. From my experience soccer is about 2.5-3X.

 

[CanadianSU]

I mean the States did well...

But it's only the round of 16. Relax.

 

[TheCusian]

As a general rule, sports audiences "turn over" 3 times over the course of a game. Meaning that if a football game lasts 3 hours, the typical viewer watches 1 hour of it. The Super Bowl is a rare case where the turnover is much lower. From my experience soccer is about 2.5-3X.

Interesting. And I'm sure if it's "your team" playing in either sport the retention is much higher...

 

[Scooch]

Interesting. And I'm sure if it's "your team" playing in either sport the retention is much higher...

True, although not entirely to the extent you might think. Obviously if, say, SU is playing in the NCAA tourney the turnover would be less. But aside from the crazy diehards who watch every minute, there's still a large degree of audience churn even when it's someone's favorite team playing.

I mean, I'm a huge Red Sox fan, but I cannot tell you the last regular season game I watched more than half of.

 

[rrlbees]

They take and take and take...you almost think the Chiefs exist to feed the Nationals. Give me the Yankees AAA franchise.

Oh to have the yankees back.

 

[jekelish]

Even the World Cup final will be very minimal unless absolutely nothing else is on TV at the same time.

15.5 million people in the US watched the World Cup final in 2010. That's not including Univision's numbers.

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...most-watched-men’s-world-cup-game-ever/56837/

Soccer is more popular now than it was in 2014, as evidenced by the TV ratings throughout this World Cup, which have been record breaking - and not just when the US plays.

 

[rrlbees]

Obviously if, say, SU is playing in the NCAA tourney the turnover would be less. But aside from the crazy diehards who watch every minute, there's still a large degree of audience churn even when it's someone's favorite team playing

I know who those fans are too. They are the same ones who after the other team hits an opening 3 to make it 3-0, they post in chat;

Here we go again with this zone. Dammit JB play some man. Every year it's the same crap. And player xyz is so lazy they didn't even get out on the shooter. What a POS. May as well turn this garbage off now, it's gonna be a long game.

 

[longtimefan]

Yes, this will have an impact, but start times in Brazil were Noon, 3 PM and 6 PM. That would place the 2nd and 3rd games of the day (in the Group stages) at 7 AM and 10 AM. That's not horrible. It's not as bad as when they held it in Japan and South Korea in 2002. And of course, there's always the DVR.

9 hours on the East Coast, 12 on the West. So 3 PM Moscow is 6 AM NYC, 3 AM in LA.

Not a total determining factor, but not the ideal we had this year, for sure.

 

[longtimefan]

Oh to have the yankees back.

The Yankees' minor league system is pretty barren right now.

 

[Scooch]

I know who those fans are too. They are the same ones who after the other team hits an opening 3 to make it 3-0, they post in chat; Here we go again with this zone. Dammit JB play some man. Every year it's the same crap. And player xyz is so lazy they didn't even get out on the shooter. What a POS. May as well turn this garbage off now, it's gonna be a long game.

Well, sure those fan exist.

There's also people like me who often don't get home from work til 8pm, so I may be able to catch some of the 2nd half of weeknight games if I'm lucky.

 

[SWC75]

You don't know that about American rules football (3-4 hours), baseball (2.5-5+ hours), lacrosse, ice hockey or tennis either.

I don't mean the length of time it will take to play the game. I mean the amount of actual playing time left in the game. And, of course, baseball isn't about time, so that's an irrelevant comparison. Neither is tennis.

Hockey certainly has a visible clock:
So does lacrosse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfsrvq_kMr8[/quote]

 

[KaiserUEO]

True, although not entirely to the extent you might think. Obviously if, say, SU is playing in the NCAA tourney the turnover would be less. But aside from the crazy diehards who watch every minute, there's still a large degree of audience churn even when it's someone's favorite team playing.

I mean, I'm a huge Red Sox fan, but I cannot tell you the last regular season game I watched more than half of.

I've been wanting to ask you this, ratings and baseball.

The Yankees are in an attendance groove now (certainly not a hitting one :bang so lets say they're averaging 40k in attendance. Now I keep seeing 200k viewers are watching at home...so are the powers that be trying to tell me that roughly 15% of ALL Yankee fans in the tri state area...are AT the game????!!!!

Ridiculous.

And obviously all their #s are not counting all the Yankee fans in Albany, Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo.

I just don't get it.

Sorry to interrupt, go back to explaining to imatt why a soccer game involving the US Men's National Team, played during a Happy Hour, once every 4 years, had a better TV audience than a few of the 162 Yankee games locally played every year.

 

[Jamesvillecuse]

anyone catch the HBO show Real Sports piece about widespread game fixing in European soccer and Interpol thinks that it has even happened in America?

 

[cliftonparksufan]

15.5 million people in the US watched the World Cup final in 2010. That's not including Univision's numbers.

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...most-watched-men’s-world-cup-game-ever/56837/

Soccer is more popular now than it was in 2014, as evidenced by the TV ratings throughout this World Cup, which have been record breaking - and not just when the US plays.

See those numbers don't really impress me when you consider this is an event that only takes place every four years. I'm sure in the other fifteen countries in the knock out round, their ratings are more off the charts. Plus I heard people comparing it to the World Series or to the NBA. I don't think it's an apple to apple conversation.

Now if the USA got to the semis or the finals, we might see incredible ratings, but so far I'm not too impressed.

 

[TheCusian]

See those numbers don't really impress me when you consider this is an event that only takes place every four years. I'm sure in the other fifteen countries in the knock out round, their ratings are more off the charts. Plus I heard people comparing it to the World Series or to the NBA. I don't think it's an apple to apple conversation. Now if the USA got to the semis or the finals, we might see incredible ratings, but so far I'm not too impressed.

The real measure is against the US numbers last World Cup to this one. That growth is pretty impressive.

 

[jekelish]

See those numbers don't really impress me when you consider this is an event that only takes place every four years. I'm sure in the other fifteen countries in the knock out round, their ratings are more off the charts. Plus I heard people comparing it to the World Series or to the NBA. I don't think it's an apple to apple conversation.

Now if the USA got to the semis or the finals, we might see incredible ratings, but so far I'm not too impressed.

You said minimal viewers. I'm simply offering hard evidence that's not at all the case. Those numbers match the World Series and NBA Finals, and that's without the US competing. You said with two random teams, no one would watch. You can't suddenly change your argument to "well maybe some but not INCREDIBLE numbers." Fact is, it'll get at least the same numbers as the World Series or NBA Finals, and will probably beat either of those this year based on the ratings so far this World Cup.

 

[cliftonparksufan]

You said minimal viewers. I'm simply offering hard evidence that's not at all the case. Those numbers match the World Series and NBA Finals, and that's without the US competing. You said with two random teams, no one would watch. You can't suddenly change your argument to "well maybe some but not INCREDIBLE numbers." Fact is, it'll get at least the same numbers as the World Series or NBA Finals, and will probably beat either of those this year based on the ratings so far this World Cup.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/world-c...tings-sure-sign-of-soccers-rapid-growth-here/
Worldwide, several World Cup games have already qualified as the most-watched sporting events in their country this year. They include the 42.9 million people in Brazil who watched the home team against Croatia, the 34.1 million in Japan who saw Japan play Ivory Coast, and the 26.4 million in Germany who saw the home team beat Portugal, according to FIFA.

Here are incredible numbers. 22% of all Brazilians were watching their game, 27% of all Japanese and 32% of all Germans. Meanwhile US was only at 7.7% (24.7 million viewers (counting univision vs 320 M population). No doubt there are some decent % increases but the US still has a long way to go. Especially for an event that only happens every four years.

BTW, here are a couple issues with comparing World Cup #'s. Last time the US played in the knockout round on a Saturday, this year on a Tuesday. Tuesday's rankings were only 5% higher than a Saturday. How do you make that comparison. Should day and time come into affect or not. It's hard to make comparisons.

I play in a golf league on Tuesdays. In my league there are two fanatical soccer fans. I figured they would skip golf this week but neither one did. Both left right after golf and drove home to watch the DVR without knowing the result. This story means nothing but so does the many people in NYC and all over the East Coast who left work to go watch in watering holes. They didn't do that on a Saturday in 2010 but you could argue people only did it this year so they could have some social cocktails after work. I think days of the week, times of the games, opponents all come into play.

 

[billsin01]

You said minimal viewers. I'm simply offering hard evidence that's not at all the case. Those numbers match the World Series and NBA Finals, and that's without the US competing. You said with two random teams, no one would watch. You can't suddenly change your argument to "well maybe some but not INCREDIBLE numbers." Fact is, it'll get at least the same numbers as the World Series or NBA Finals, and will probably beat either of those this year based on the ratings so far this World Cup.

This thread is all over but I don't feel like there's much argument that the World Cup is a cool event that basically the whole world watches. I'm not quite sure why there's so much need to extend it beyond that. If soccer grows via espn and the MLS starts landing the best international talent, then great for them. Until they do this whole argument seems like saying AA baseball is going to dislodge the NBA. Nothing wrong with AA baseball (I actually love it) but folks getting super invested in a minor league product is a long shot.

 

[TheCusian]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/world-c...tings-sure-sign-of-soccers-rapid-growth-here/
Worldwide, several World Cup games have already qualified as the most-watched sporting events in their country this year. They include the 42.9 million people in Brazil who watched the home team against Croatia, the 34.1 million in Japan who saw Japan play Ivory Coast, and the 26.4 million in Germany who saw the home team beat Portugal, according to FIFA.

Here are incredible numbers. 22% of all Brazilians were watching their game, 27% of all Japanese and 32% of all Germans. Meanwhile US was only at 7.7% (24.7 million viewers (counting univision vs 320 M population). No doubt there are some decent % increases but the US still has a long way to go. Especially for an event that only happens every four years.

BTW, here are a couple issues with comparing World Cup #'s. Last time the US played in the knockout round on a Saturday, this year on a Tuesday. Tuesday's rankings were only 5% higher than a Saturday. How do you make that comparison. Should day and time come into affect or not. It's hard to make comparisons.

I play in a golf league on Tuesdays. In my league there are two fanatical soccer fans. I figured they would skip golf this week but neither one did. Both left right after golf and drove home to watch the DVR without knowing the result. This story means nothing but so does the many people in NYC and all over the East Coast who left work to go watch in watering holes. They didn't do that on a Saturday in 2010 but you could argue people only did it this year so they could have some social cocktails after work. I think days of the week, times of the games, opponents all come into play.

A Tuesday in the middle of the work day is pretty much a dead zone. 5% increase is pretty impressive and wasn't just for cocktails.

 

[DeGrozz]

This thread is all over but I don't feel like there's much argument that the World Cup is a cool event that basically the whole world watches. I'm not quite sure why there's so much need to extend it beyond that. If soccer grows via espn and the MLS starts landing the best international talent, then great for them. Until they do this whole argument seems like saying AA baseball is going to dislodge the NBA. Nothing wrong with AA baseball (I actually love it) but folks getting super invested in a minor league product is a long shot.

This is the problem with this thread. People can post a ton of information on how the sport is gaining traction in the US, including in its domestic leagues, but there is this sub-group of people who aren't fans of the sport that will go out of their way to bash it, just say "I don't buy it" when the progress of the sport in this country is discussed, or call all of the facts posted in this thread "hyperbole". It's really bizarre. The strangest thing is, the people who don't see the progress are completely ignorant about the game and it's current news but feel the need to continue to compare it to double-A baseball.

 

[CanadianSU]

Stop the diving, which will never happen.

And soccer will grow

 

[KaiserUEO]

This is the problem with this thread. People can post a ton of information on how the sport is gaining traction in the US, including in its domestic leagues, but there is this sub-group of people who aren't fans of the sport that will go out of their way to bash it, just say "I don't buy it" when the progress of the sport in this country is discussed, or call all of the facts posted in this thread "hyperbole". It's really bizarre. The strangest thing is, the people who don't see the progress are completely ignorant about the game and it's current news but feel the need to continue to compare it to double-A baseball.

Lets compare it to AA ball, I bet the Trenton Thunder (Yankees) out draw the RedBulls in total attendance.

 

[cusefan88]

Lets compare it to AA ball, I bet the Trenton Thunder (Yankees) out draw the RedBulls in total attendance.

Baseball is a poor comparison if you want to use total attendance. The worst MLB team will have a higher total attendance than the best NFL team.

I love soccer but I certainly understand why people don't want to watch. I think the only way it really takes in an exponential way would be if the US actually had a top player in the world (at Real Madrid, Liverpool etc) and were expected to make the World Cup semis or something.

We're Americans. The underdog is only fun for so long. US becoming a soccer power would turn the tide. That I think, with some luck, is 15-20 years away.

 

[TheCusian]

Lets compare it to AA ball, I bet the Trenton Thunder (Yankees) out draw the RedBulls in total attendance.

18k for the Red Bulls, 8k for the Thunder

 

[KaiserUEO]

18k for the Red Bulls, 8k for the Thunder

T.O.T.A.L.