[This is a follow-up to my last post "Broken Games," where I talk about the ever increasing frequency of bad MLS games.] One of the things I thought about when writing that post was the visual experience of watching a MLS match. Not on ESPN or FS1 but where 90% of the games are watched... local broadcasts.
It's reasonable to think that local broadcasts are inferior to the big boys like ESPN but because so few MLS games are covered at that level it's fair to take stock of what the local / regional broadcasters are producing (to be fair, ESPN and FS1 broadcasts are slick but love too tight camera shots on the action). With that in mind and armed with MLS Live, I set out to grade each team's broadcast. This is visually speaking only (after all, this is TV), so no assessment of the folks on the call.
After spending some time running up and down all 20, I came up with five different categories of which to grade. Keep in mind this is only based on what I see visually on TV,
not what it's like to be there.
1. Pitch
2. Stadium
3. Atmosphere
4. Camera Angle and Distance
5. Graphics
I scored
each category on a 0-20 scale, only giving out 0, 10, or a 20 to keep it simple and fast instead of obsessing needlessly between the difference of 12 and 15 (or similar). The standard-bearer is
White Hart Lane, home of the Tottenham Hotspurs of the Barclays Premier League as well as Old Trafford (
not when NBC has their cameras there).
Going in I knew generally what to expect but what I found was that there are many MLS markets that are "broken" as far as even approaching a standard, informative and interesting match broadcast for a fan of soccer.
Now, I say fan of soccer because it is a fan that MLS has never really grabbed hold of. They've always gravitated to the "casual fan." Since I'll likely be referring to both "casual" and "soccer fan" a few times let's call them
Butch (representing a small % of soccer fans in the US) and
Liam (who represents every kid who watches foreign leagues in Europe and Mexico, aka - most soccer fans in the US. Think of them as the ones that sell out 90k strong Barcelona games in the USA).
First up are the broken broadcasts. What this means is that Liam will not spend much time with them on TV. Their overall scores vary but the dealbreaker is the surface, so we'll start with those. I'll still grade the other items on my list, as you will see.
[% is total score out of 100 possible points]
--% New England Revolution, Gillette Stadium (CSN, NBC)
It's an impossible watch for any fan outside the teams playing, and even for them it is a test in patience. I've found that you have to treat the game like it's another sport. Making matters worse is its a cavernous NFL stadium.
0: Pitch
0: Stadium
0: Atmosphere
10: Camera Angle, Distance
0: Graphics
--% Orlando City, Citrus Bowl (FOX)
Orlando gets the Angle and Distance right but is otherwise completely broken from a soccer viewing standpoint. The surface is awful and it's in a gridiron stadium.
0: Pitch
0: Stadium
10: Atmosphere
20: Camera Angle, Distance
0: Graphics
--% Vancouver Whitecaps, BC Place (TSN)
I like BC Place as a soccer stadium, but the surface is rough and artificial. The camera on the action is pretty good, but just like other non-specific stadiums, it's more to do with what else is played there and not the decisions of the Whitecaps.
0: Pitch
10: Stadium
20: Atmosphere
10: Camera Angle, Distance
0: Graphics
--% Portland Timbers, Providence Park
The most unique and atmospheric of MLS stadiums is played on artificial turf. It's the pellet type as well, making it worse. It also appears to play smaller on TV (listed at 110x75 yds).
0: Pitch
10: Stadium
20: Atmosphere
20: Camera Angle, Distance
0: Graphics
--% Seattle Sounders FC, Century Link (CSN, NBC)
Seattle gets a lot of things right with their broadcast, but not much of that is due to what they have done (it's a NFL stadium). The surface is also poor and it isn't uncommon for it to have gridiron lines in the fall. I'm not docking it for this but... it comes off as sterile on TV. Like it under fluorescent office lighting.
0: Pitch
10: Stadium
20: Atmosphere
20: Camera Angle, Distance
0: Graphics
20% New York City FC, Yankee Stadium (YES)
Outside of the novelty aspect of a game at a popular MLB team's home, these games are terrible to watch on TV. The surface from a playing standpoint looks alright but it's small and you can tell where they sod the baseball field. The Yankees are paying a lot of money to make it playable but it's not "division 1."
10: Pitch
0: Stadium
0: Atmosphere
0: Camera Angle, Distance
10: Graphics
30% FC Dallas, Toyota Stadium (CSN, NBC)
FC Dallas games are often sparsely attended and making matters worse is the stage on one end. The atmosphere is also extremely casual.
20: Pitch
0: Stadium
0: Atmosphere
10: Camera Angle
0: Graphics
30% Chicago Fire, Toyota Park (CSN, NBC)
I'm being generous to Chicago's pitch. Think of the 10 as a "most improved" score. The rest of the experience of watching a game at Toyota Park is average. It falls in the PPL Park, Rio Tinto, Dick's type feel of sameness though. One thing Chicago broadcasts also suffer from is lack of fans. Don't let the official attendance fool you, there are a number of nights at Chivas USA levels.
10: Pitch
10: Stadium
0: Atmosphere
10: Camera Angle, Distance
0: Graphics
30% Columbus Crew SC, Mapfre Stadium (TWC)
Sorry Crew fans. Again, this isn't about the gameday experience, it's what I see on TV (and the stage and the south end "party on the pitch" is giant eyesore, not to mention the field seating). Outside of the immaculate surface, everything else is busted. It's shot like an NBA basketball game and the angle is nearly flat. You can't tell what's going on 10 yards outside of the ball.
20: Pitch
0: Stadium
0: Atmosphere
0: Camera Angle, Distance
10: Graphics
40% DC United, RFK Stadium (CSN, NBC)
DC gets a little love from me for the atmosphere. It's the longest running MLS home in the country and the fans loyalty comes through on TV. The angle and distance are pretty good as well, but still. It's just doesn't reach the bar as far as viewing on TV.
20: Pitch
0: Stadium
10: Atmosphere
10: Camera Angle
0: Graphics
40% Philadelphia Union, PPL Park (ABC)
Philly suffers from the multi-use syndrome, for me. If it isn't football lines it is lacrosse. Otherwise the surface is nice. Stadium is nice as well but the atmosphere has dipped over the last couple years. I almost reaches average. Maybe it's unfair to call this one broken but there just isn't any energy at PPL park coming through my TV.
10: Pitch
10: Stadium
10: Atmosphere
10: Camera Angle
0: Graphics
40% Toronto FC, BMO Field (TSN)
Toronto's biggest crime is adding a 2nd tier that erased the skyline view for watchers on TV. It's funny because they still shoot the stands as if you can see the city. You can't. You can only see more sparsely populated seats. Games also don't come off as exciting on TV. Not sure if it's the stadium sounds or just the colors that dull the senses. Either way, comes off flat. Intensity on the pitch often refects that as well.
20: Pitch
10: Stadium
0: Atmosphere
10: Camera Angle, Distance
0: Graphics
50% Real Salt Lake, Rio Tinto Stadium (American Sports Network)
Just like I mentioned with Chicago. There is a sameness to the stadium. What does separate it is the atmosphere that the fans bring. Fading now that the team is slipping.
20: Pitch
10: Stadium
10: Atmosphere
10: Camera Angle, Distance
0: Graphics
50% Houston Dynamo, BBVA Compass Stadium (Root Sports)
Houston went ahead and build an enclosed stadium in the face of 90+ degree temperatures. Combine that with the orange colored seats (which are often unfilled) and I break a sweat just watching a game on TV.
20: Pitch
0: Stadium
0: Atmosphere
20: Camera Angle
10: Graphics
50% San Jose Earthquakes, Avaya Stadium (CSN, NBC)
I docked the pitch because it's the first year and it hasn't been consistent. It's also been used for other sports and not properly converted back to soccer. Liam hates that. Liam likes the stadium though, even with the rich sections at field level. Why? It's fitting for a place like San Jose (the richest place on the planet) and not generic.
10: Pitch
20: Stadium
10: Atmosphere
10: Camera Angle, Distance
0: Graphics
60% Colorado Rapids, Dick's Sporting Goods Park (Altitude Sports)
Unique and easily identifiable is the best way do describe DSG Park. The architecture also matches the Colorado feel (for me) and comes across on TV. Especially when there's snow. Haven't commented on graphics much because almost all broadcasts stink, Colorado's might most of all. They regularly shrink the screen to fit in ads, not good.
20: Pitch
20: Stadium
10: Atmosphere
10: Camera Angle, Distance
0: Graphics
60% Montreal Impact, Stade Saputo (TSN)
Stade Saputo looks good even when it isn't filled to the brim, which is something I can't say for many others. It has a unique feel to it on TV (and a pretty blue hue). Over the year,s the pitch has been kinda dicey, but I don't mind a pitch that isn't perfectly green if it suits the location of the city. It should look a little rough in Montreal.
10: Pitch
20: Stadium
20: Atmosphere
10: Camera Angle, Distance
0: Graphics
70% L.A. Galaxy, StubHub Center (TWC)
I like watching games at the StubHub center because of the large, expansive pitch and the camera angle I get. There might not be many "locally" broadcast games for the Galaxy (many get on ESPN, Fox or Unimas) but when they are, they work.
20: Pitch
10: Stadium
10: Atmosphere
20: Camera Angle, Distance
10: Graphics
80% New York Red Bulls, Red Bulls Stadium (MSG)
This is probably the broadcast to watch as far as meeting an international standard (Liam loves that). If only they could fill up that stadium more often and improve the graphics (get bonus points for being a little unique).
20: Pitch
20: Stadium
10: Atmosphere
20: Camera Angle, Distance
10: Graphics
80% Sporting Kansas City, Sporting Park
Top of my list is Sporting. They've got just about everything working for their broadcast including unique and only to them graphics that are well thought out and executed (pre-game graphics are great). They are the gold standard right now. A lot of teams talk about mimicking this team but nobody actually pays attention to the details (looking at Precourt Sports Ventures).
10: Pitch
20: Stadium
20: Atmosphere
10: Camera Angle, Distance
20: Graphics
------------------------------------------------------
CLOSING THOUGHTS
------------------------------------------------------
Not mentioned in any of the comments above is one glaring problem when watching MLS games (and this includes national broadcasts) and that is when the action drifts towards the top (away from the camera) the videographer fills 50% off the frame with the crowd. It's nice every now and again but - man, is it a problem. I figure this comes from the cameramen shooting NFL or College Football games.
What's a little baffling to me is how MLS doesn't have any sort of standard for broadcasts. They pride themselves on equality of teams via caps and roster rules as well as stadium standards (mostly) but completely leave it up to individual teams to figure out the broadcast. Even the English Premier league has a consistent broadcast in the way of graphics and broadcast quality. There are only 20 teams in MLS, so that's 10 games a weekend. I'm not sure why they don't hire 10 broadcast teams to venture out each week instead of following this local model like MLB.
Last up is a couple comments on ESPN, Univision and Fox Sports 1 handling of the games... they are not as good as we might think and still plagued with poor camera angles and awkward cut-ins and interviews. I will say, however, that they do draw you in with shots of coaches and players in between the action. It's something the local guys can't get because of the lack of cameras at the game (I'm faily certain TWC has about 3 at Crew games).
Anywho, I enjoyed going over each broadcast. Needs work overall. The league needs to focus on the basics in regards to the television product to avoid remaining a punchline in the industry as far as TV ratings. Instant replay, ref cameras and the like can wait.
