Conference ljsrv1::tv_chatter

    Soccer seems to get a lot of ribbing because it's "not a very exciting
    game".  I'm not sure how people draw that conclusion -- soccer has
    always struck me as hockey, without sticks and not on ice.   No,
    there's not a lot of scoring, but a lot of scoring doesn't necessarily
    mean anything other than it's relatively easy to score (like
    basketball.)
    
    Anyway, from watching a couple matches, soccer isn't
    just guys running around kicking a ball. They run around a LOT (must be
    hell on the legs after a while), slam into each other, push, shove,
    trip, crash, etc.   Sure,nobody gets quite checked into the boards like
    hockey, but otherwise, soccer players make plenty of body contact for
    those who think you have to collide to be exciting. Even without all
    the crashing and smashing, it's kinda exciting simply because it's
    never static.  Nobody is ever just standing around.  
    
    And I kinda like the no commericials.  Then you don't spend 3 hours
    watching a 90 minute game.  
    
    kim

    There is one reason why soccer might catch on as a TV sport in the
    US:  unlike baseball, hockey, and football, a soccer game fits very
    neatly into a two hour package.  No worry about overruns into "60
    Minutes" or having to push the evening news back an hour with a
    baseball game going to extra innings.  The news is where these stations
    make their money, and a sporting event that does well with the right
    demographics and has virtually no chance of running too long would be
    a bonanza for TV executives.
    
    As for the World Cup, I've watched most of the games, and it's been
    positively riveting.  The action is virtually non-stop, unlike hockey
    which has a facoff every 30 seconds, not to mention line switches and
    players tossed out of faceoffs.  The soccer action of course puts both
    football and baseball to shame.  The passion and intensity that the
    World Cup is played at obviously won't carry over to an American
    league, but the speed and skill of the game will, and that could be
    enough to make it a qualified success.
    
    NAZZ

  If they added planned time outs it might work. They have to do something to
allow for commercials. During the Olympics they think nothing of cutting away
then rejoining when they get back from the commercial but that wouldn't work for
a professional league in the U.S. Around here People would not stand for (read
tune in and become a fan) missing the only goal because it was scored while
they were watching a beer ad. 

  If they did something like play 9 out of every 10 minutes followed by a 1
minute time out, that might work. 

  George

    nope I don't like the timeout idea....TV should not control how the
    game is played...ESPN is doing fine without commercial breaks. noone
    has missed a goal because there is no commercial to watch :') IMHO we
    don't need no stinking commercials :') 

  World Cup is a special case. It's being seen as a public service for stations
and sponsors to contribute time and money for the game to be played. Also the
expenses are lower because the players don't get paid millions of dollars each.

  If you tried to run Soccer as a business the way Major League Baseball, NBA
Basketball, NFL Football, and NHL Hockey are run, you would have a hard time
attracting the top talent and making money without TV. And if TV saw this as a
business instead of a World Cup thing (which is sort of like the Olympics),
they would not be as willing to donate time nor would sponsors be as willing to
give money without being able to run their ads. 

  So the question is, if you feel we don't need commercials, what's the
alternative? How would you pay for professional soccer without commercials? 

  George 

    re-1
    
    Hi There.  From the point of view of the UK, this is an interesting
    discussion.  Does this all mean that American sports - Baseball etc -
    need TV to make money, or just to make lots of money? (if you see what
    I mean).  Soccer in the UK gets a lot of cash from TV companies, but it
    could, I think, exist without them.  It does seem odd that the playing
    of sport would be dictated by the need to show commercials on tv.
    
    Interesting
    
    Mikef  

    well if commercials are needed then I guess we will not be seeing much
    of the sport ! the best thing about the World Cup (or Soccer for that
    matter) is the clock never stops....even when someone gets their head
    taken off almost, bleeding like crazy, the clock never stops ! the Refs
    ask for the stretchers to get the player off the field, on Saturday
    someone was given a yellow card because he would not get on the 
    stretcher ! if we (USA TV) were to tell the sport how to run the game
    then we would just be looked at as taken the sport and screwing it up
    and we would not be given an inch of respect. If we can not leave the
    game as it is then we should not bother to back it on USA TV. which
    would be to freaking bad....
    
    IMO, we leave it as it is...or forget it completely.
    
    Chris

RE          <<< Note 266.6 by WARNUT::FIDDLERM "Higher than the Sun" >>>

>    Hi There.  From the point of view of the UK, this is an interesting
>    discussion.  Does this all mean that American sports - Baseball etc -
>    need TV to make money, or just to make lots of money? (if you see what
>    I mean).  

  They need to make money. They are private businesses with no government
support. If they don't make money, they go out of business. The last time they
tried to start a professional soccer league in the U.S. all the teams all went
bankrupt and the league folded.

>Soccer in the UK gets a lot of cash from TV companies, but it
>    could, I think, exist without them.  It does seem odd that the playing
>    of sport would be dictated by the need to show commercials on TV.
    
  A sport can exist in the U.S. without TV and in fact soccer is very popular
in the United States. School kids play it all the time. But for it to exist at
the World Cup level and for it to be considered a big national sport where
the public follows the team, it needs TV. 

  Without TV, they can't pay the best athletes enough money to play soccer.
They will play tennis, golf, basketball, baseball, hockey, or football which
offer big salaries. Also without TV the sport won't get much of a national
following and people won't learn the names of the stars. It will continue to be
thought of as one of those "Wide World of Sports" type things like skeet
shooting, curling, or competitive lama herding which is good for amusement on a
rainy Saturday afternoon but does not generate much passion. 

  George

RE               <<< Note 266.7 by SLOHAN::FIELDS "Strange Brew" >>>

>    ... the best thing about the World Cup (or Soccer for that
>    matter) is the clock never stops....even when someone gets their head
>    taken off almost, bleeding like crazy, the clock never stops 

  Well yes and no. True the clock does not stop ticking, but the officials
add time on to the end of the game to make up for injury time. If this is
some sort of advantage it's hard to see why. They still play 90 minutes of
actual playing time. Why not stop the clock then have the game stop when it
hits 90 minutes?

>    IMO, we leave it as it is...or forget it completely.

  Then most likely we can forget it completely. At least at the national level.

  George

    What do you mean no commercials?
    
    Logos on screen all the time, announcers doing 'brought to you by'
    spots, ads at the beginning, during half-time, and at the end.
    
    They may not be able to run 20 minutes of ads every hour, but the
    sponsors definitely got their names before the public. I thought it
    was a very reasonable compromise.

RE         <<< Note 266.10 by CSOA1::LENNIG "Dave (N8JCX), MIG, @CYO" >>>

  From the way you worded your reply I believe you misunderstand what I am
saying. I am not for one minute suggesting that sponsors deserve to run
commercials or that they got a bad deal. That's not the issue. Maybe that's
true and maybe not, but that's a different discussion. 

  My point is that without the ability to run real commercials, I seriously
doubt that sponsors will give a professional soccer league a large contract
with which they could pay the salaries necessary to attract the top talent to
the United States.

  World Cup, sure, it has a certain public relations benefit but without any
commercials they won't want to pay much money to a U.S. league.

  George

    World Cup Final
    Brazil vs Italy
    
    What a dissapointment. Two good teams who cancelled each other out.
    I think Brazil deservedly edged it, at 3-2, after penalty shoot-outs.
    Classic NOT!

  I didn't watch all that much after the U.S. was eliminated but I saw the
final and I thought it was fun. The tie breaker didn't bother me that much.
Yes, it's a flip of the coin but all tie breakers are a flip of the coin. The
one exception is probably the U.S. Open where they play an entire round the
next day. 

  According to the Globe, the Spanish stations had what they called "crawls" in
which an animated TV ad was superimposed over the screen when the action slowed
down. They wanted to use it on ABC/ESPN but the U.S. broadcasters felt the
regular U.S. audience wouldn't go for it. 

  Soccer's a good game. Now we'll see if it catches on as a big U.S. TV sport. 

  George