Viewership YOY, MLS Fading

Over on Twitter, I posted a quick analysis of soccer viewership using the dates January 1 - March 11, year over year. The mid-March date has significance because it is almost all soccer leagues across the planet stopped playing. 

There are a couple changes to the "normal" schedule, still, this year, but for the most part everything is getting back to normal. Well, sans fans... and sans, astonishingly, MLS. 

So who is benefitting from MLS sitting out the month of March? Let's take a look. 

Below will show the top 50 cable soccer programs Jan 1 - March 11 last year and this year (same time frame).

It's pretty simple and easy to see what happened. Without things like the CONCACAF Champions League and MLS (US Men also dropping to lows in interest), viewers have shifted over to the English Premier League. It's even grown in its number one spot over Liga MX because of it.

I've been commenting over the years that the EPL is siphoning off MLS fans, and it is seen here as well. The EPL hits a sweet spot with US consumers of sports as it "fits" in to the routine and doesn't have to compete with the "big 4" directly. 

How? It's on in the mornings and daytime hours, meaning general sports fans that watch a lot of things (a good chunk of the MLS demographic) can watch that ("EPL Mornings") and then switch over to whatever they want in the evening (most likely some sort of basketball this time of year).

Again, I think it is a grave mistake that MLS pushed the season back almost 6 weeks. The Premier League is humming and both the NBA and NHL will be hitting their late-season/playoff stride right as MLS kicks off. 

-------------------------

In the chart at the top of this post, it's easy to identify two events that have increased the Premier League's interest over MLS (and other soccer events). First, it's the USMNT missing out on the 2018 world up (the bend in my hastily put together graph) and now, this late winter/spring. 

NBA players head strike

What started as a refusal to play by the NBA's Milwaukee Bucks snowballed into a complete shutdown of games. The rest of the NBA, WNBA, 8 of 32 MLB teams, and 10 of 12 MLS teams players all followed the Bucks lead. The USL and NHL played games as normal.

It's understandable for NBA players to not want to play games. They are stuck in a bubble away from family and friends while outside the bubble there is a pandemic, intense protests, another police shooting (with a deadly citizen response) rages on. For the Bucks, tensions were already high because one of the players was harassed and beaten in a big box store parking lot last year.

Things got pretty messy over in MLS. 

The NBA strike was in full swing before the start of the evening games in Major League Soccer. A couple players (notably, Jozy Altidore and Mark Anthony-Kaye) jumped on Twitter to express their feelings, which were basically in solidarity with the NBA strike.

Orlando City and Nashville then kicked off. Notably, only one player on the Orlando side kneeled (Nani). About halfway through the 1st half news of players from the other games meeting about not playing. Around this time the league (MLS) and Don Garber released a mystifyingly vague statement about the current social environment. It seemingly lit a fire under the players and shortly thereafter decisions were made by the players to not play. Effectively canceling the games.

In another statement later in the night, Garber issued a statement that alluded to the idea that it was the league that made the call and not the players, which is a complete fabrication and lie.

WILDCAT STRIKE

Players refusing to play without the league or player's union approval is the same as workers walking off the job without their union's say. This is commonly called a "wildcat strike." It's a well-worn path in union shops (particularly in corrupt areas, but we won't get into that). Many news outlets are calling it a "boycott" but that's incorrect. What are they boycotting? No players issued a statement calling out their own league employers. I don't think the term fits.

PLAYERS UPSET

The decision the Bucks made to not play and the speech they gave afterward came from the heart. They have been put in a fishbowl and, looking back now, this is probably the predictable result. MLS players, fresh off their own fishbowl, are doing the same. 

WHAT NOW

Apparently, all remaining NBA teams met last night to vote on canceling the rest of the season and only the two LA teams (notably LeBron James) voted to cancel the season. Everyone else wants to play.

In MLS, who knows. Last night it felt like the league was falling apart in real-time. The NBA, season canceling or not, will survive. I don't think MLS can afford to lose the season.

Fixing the NBA

A few weeks ago the powers that be floated a few different ideas to help improve the current competition format of 82 games + 7 game playoffs. The fact that that they are talking openly about it sets off a few alarm bells, but it also tells us how severe some of their current format problems might be impacting fan interest.

1st, let's list off a few problems:

1. 82 game season is too long
Teams have started a kind of rotation for players meaning that there are a lot of nights that the star players might not be on the floor. This dovetails into another issue with 82 games... most of the games don't matter all that much.

2. A playoff series can get stale
Watching the first couple rounds of the playoffs can be a grind. The players, coaches and fans know who the better team is in the first couple rounds. Much of the proceedings are mostly formal. Sure an injury here or there can change it, but even in a close series, we know the winner. There were 82 dang games to sort it out!

3. Tanking/Last picks 1st-ish
When you have a 30 team league and the best way to get better is trying your luck at the lottery system by tanking the season, you have a real problem. Outside of star players sitting out games already, you have nights where teams are taking on zombies.

SOLUTION!

We'll do the best teams first: Top 8 teams from each conference play in 4 team groups. Winners from the 4 groups play in a playoff-style tournament (7 game series is fine).

So, how would that look right now:

East Group 1
#1 Bucks
#8 Magic
#3 Celtics
#6 Pacers

East Group 2
#2 Raptors
#7 Nets
#4 Heat
#5 76ers

------------------------

West Group 1
#1 Lakers
#8 Grizzlies
#3 Clippers
#6 Mavericks

West Group 2
#2 Nuggets
#7 Thunder
#4 Jazz
#5 Rockets

Each group will play a double-round robin. That's 6 total games for each team in the group stage. Whoever has the best record advances on the 5 or 7 game series "final 4."

SOLUTION FOR THE BOTTOM DWELLERS

With the top 8 in each conference in the playoffs, the question becomes, what to do with the bottom 7.

It's simple and Adam Silver gets his midseason tournament.

1. The last-place team is replaced by the best G-League team (I don't care if they play in a barn). More on this at the bottom.

2. With the remaining 6 teams (#9 - #15) have a bracket-style tournament to determine the draft order the next season.

3. The winner of each conf bracket will play each other in the final for the #1 pick.

I'm not sure anyone is satisfied with "The Lottery" as it is in its current form. I suppose you could still have one based on the results of this tournament, but I'd rather not. Good players shouldn't be stuck on bad teams. Fans want to see good players be, you know, good. How many careers have we been robbed of?

WHAT'S GOOD ABOUT IT

Makes games in the regular season matter a bit more while retaining the traditional 82 game format, shortens the useless grind that is the 1st round of the playoffs (while not losing inventory), and give poor/middling teams something to play for in the middle of the season.

Everyone will be playing for something. Top to bottom.

ON THE G-LEAGUE

Legally, it may be difficult to drop a team out of the NBA, so either owners would have to be on board with that OR the NBA would have to bring the G-League in closer to the mother ship (basically an NBA-2 league, legally).

I love this idea because it gives the NBA a way to expand into growing markets and do it without a lot of risk. It'll also help stabilize the G League a bit. Grow interested in none NBA areas and give fans a great reason to watch. I think with the popularity of basketball in this country, the G-League itself could have lots more teams and tiers.

TANKING IT

Not exactly sure how losing on purpose got associated with the word "Tanking," but it is and most people understand it when it's used in a sports context. Thinking back through all my years of US sports watching, I seem to remember it always being sort of around. Maybe more of a wink and a nod, but it was there - but it was also rare.

"Back in the old days" it was seen as a shameful act, that tanking. The thought of going into a competition to purposefully lose was once seen as a commandment brought down from Mount Sinai by Moses himself. THOU SHALT NOT LAY PURPOSEFULLY UNDER THE FEET OF THINE ENEMY, it says. Well, almost says.

There is a biblical connection to not losing on purpose that permeates U.S. sporting culture that is sold, repackaged, sold and sold and sold again. In the US it comes in the form of the Great Underdog. And who was one of the first and most famous of all underdogs? Why it was David and his victory over Goliath.

I consider the "never say die, always try your hardest" approach one of the greatest attributes of the United States sporting culture. No matter the odds, no matter the opponent, Americans always believe they can win. It's brought us things like The Miracle on Ice, 1982-83 NC State, Gene Hackman, Rocky and (some might say) saving the day in WWII.

What of this approach now though?

Out in Tennessee a few days ago two high school girls basketball teams played a scheduled match in which they both tried to lose in order to avoid a superior opponent in an upcoming tournament, and thus extend their season. What ended up happening was down right biblical. Reports out of the district have girls time killing, missing shots on purpose and even one side trying to score on themselves. Unconfirmed reports say that after the game there the match there were rivers turning to blood and many locusts.

It's more than fitting (and I kid you not) that one of schools is from Smyrna. A place likely named after biblical city that is mentioned in the Book of Revelations.

In a story from The Tennessean today, fired up columnist David Plazas felt robbed of a potential match up that faced the winner:

"It’s that David-and-Goliath moment when you can test your mettle even if your rival is bigger and better armed than you."

The punishment for the two schools was severe. Each school ended up getting fined (in high school?) as well as kicked out of the tournament all together. I can't get over that. Applying a fine to a high school for trying to gain an advantage in a system they didn't create reminds me of one of my favorite Charles Frazier lines from Cold Mountain;

"Every piece of this is man's bullshit. They call this war "a cloud over the land" but they made the weather and then they stand in the rain and say "Shit, it's rainin'!"

GREAT THE REWARD

Last place wins

Great rewards await anyone who tries their hardest. No question. But in the realm of athletic competition in this country, where the spoils of losing at our highest levels greatly benefit and reward failure, it's hardly surprising that we see teams at the high school level mimic pro teams like the Philadelphia 76ers or (dare we say) Columbus Blue Jackets.

Tanking in the major sports in the US is rewarded via high draft picks and extra money usually (in the case of MLS, not making the playoffs gets you just about as much as making it). Player movement in domestic sport is so restrictive that sometimes tanking has become a necessity.

As close as a few years ago, you would rarely hear of fans and columnists and even analysts openly approving of teams tanking it. There's been a shift in that approach recently though. Complete shift. So much so that we see "star" players dropping out of season all together towards the end to help get a jump on the next year (Kyrie Irving last couple years before LeBron and I'll put Kobe in that mix this year, moving surgery up). I know plenty Cleveland Browns' fans that regularly route for losing after the first few games so they can get better picks.

Tanking-It is now seen as a prudent competitive approach. "Gamesmanship," is what some are calling it. It's hard to disagree with it, really. But herein lies the issue. Teams breaking one of the commandments of sports is merely a bi-product of the ridiculousness of league set ups. Losing is rewarded, so why not lose.

There are those out there, like Plazas, that will always condemn the idea of losing on purpose but never quite understand why they think that way. Which is unfortunate.

Effort in the face of long odds use to be what we structured our leagues around in the US. Now the scales have tipped way too far in favor of not even trying. What we are left with is rewarding people trying to gain at failure instead of actually punishing poor performance. It's all mixed up.

EVERYBODY IS STILL ALIVE

Sixers are still in it!!

Not doing well in your conference? Well you still within striking distance in your division, right? No? What about taking down that regional rival?  Hmmm. US leagues are bloated. So many teams but only one winner. The remedy for that is breaking it up into smaller groups so that you (FAN) don't ever really feel that far away from winning SOMETHING, but if you are too far away from even any of that? Tank it and reap the rewards of failure.

Actual competition in this country has gotten so convoluted, it's hard to tell that most of it is a charade to keep you tuned in. We have gotten so far away from actual, honest competition that we think have a four team playoff is a "fair" way to determine a National Champion when most of the 100 + D1 schools haven't, don't and probably never will, play each other.

The competitive models in our major leagues need to be re-examined, re-thought and re-booted. Otherwise we are forever doomed to watching half the teams in any league engage in a rat race to the bottom - celebrating them all along the way while wondering what the hell happened to the American Way.

The Psychology Buried Within the Promotion/Relegation Debate

Never in the history of American Soccer has there been such a profound ideological divide amongst people who share a deep passion for the beautiful game. The current debate, easily witnessed and joined, can be found growing deep roots in the rich soil of soccer forums, message boards, blogs, and websites.

Comparing the promotion/relegation debate to the abortion debate would be, at the very least, a gross insult to a complex human sentiment. Yet, the debate within the North American Soccer Community bears some striking similarities to the fight to safely reduce the number of abortions in the United States.

Words such as “idiot,” “wrong,” “stupid,” “dim-witted,” “brain-dead” and worse are often tossed around when people on both sides of the pro/rel debate argue their side. In this post, I will make an effort to explain the source and motivation which leads to the promotion/relegation dispute spewing such venom.

A good starting point is the incredibly simple nature of our sport. Given a serviceable round object and at least two people, the game of soccer can sprout anywhere: in a gym, on the playground, in a basement, an alley or the street. Soccer is a sport of both the people and the person.

We try to challenge ourselves: how many juggles can we get? We try to best our opponents: a simple step-over or touch through the defender’s legs sees us on our way to goal.

There is a sense of the primordial ooze about our sport. The heart races, the knees and shins sometimes bleed. Dirt and grass stains seep into our very being.

We start at an early age, a simple single-celled organism: kick the ball, laugh, chase. We slowly, over the years, become a mosaic, an Escher painting: unpredictable, challenging, provocative.

These things are the core of our sport. We never shed these things. They may be buried deep inside when we reach adulthood; but, they continue to fan the flames of competition, even at the highest, most organized levels of our sport.

So, how does this simple yet powerful aspect of our sport manifest itself in the ideological divide between proponents and opponents of the promotion and relegation debate? Plainly stated, there are those who wish to protect themselves and the mature version of our sport from the uncertainty crawling to the shore from the thick and wicked pool of primordial ooze. And then, there are those who wish to gather up the beautiful game and dive into the primordial ooze.

One side cannot stand the constant stress of random chance, and so, struggles to find order, codifies the un-codifiable and builds barriers between the game and the ooze.

The other side wants to let the ooze run free, and so, demands that all involved compete in the primordial soup. From teams, to fans, to towns, to owners, this second group wants the very essence of our sport, the people and the person, on display in every way possible.

I count my self in the second group. There is already enough in our American culture that is codified, walled-off and protected. Banks write banking legislation to protect themselves from the downside of competition. Politicians manipulate so that they have safety nets to land softly and richly after terms run out. Owners of NHL, NBA, MLB and NFL teams quash competition in order to shelter themselves from the very competition they profess to admire. The players in these sports compete, but the owners do not take part. They build dams to hold back the primordial ooze. Players risk injury, the end of an already short career. They uproot their families year after year. Owners sit in luxury boxes and count money, knowing that failure will be rewarded with better draft picks, an easier schedule, a move to another city and layer after layer of protection from the very things they are selling to their customer.

Our sport is an escape from the mundane. All those involved should be constantly evolving from simple organism to Escher complexity, always in search of the playground, the step-over, the alley, the gym, the next level.

Slipping, sliding back is part of the complexity. Don’t be afraid. Embrace the ooze. 

Major League Soccer's Offseason Sucks! Promotion/Relegation!

Promotion/Relegation is indispensable to the sport of soccer. Why?

I'm going to leave that hanging, right there, for a moment.
.
*
@
#
$$$

Hint: It's not the usual reasons discussed. And, yes, the owners of MLS will, probably, never institute Pro/Rel.

.
*
@
#
$$$

This is the reason...

Here it comes...

Ready???

Were you ever an NBA fan? This is important. Think, think, think.

.
*
@
#
$$$

What about American football keeps older, seasoned veterans from developing a routine of coasting through portions of games and seasons? Answer: The level of violence inherent in the game. You go all-out or risk getting killed.

Why are Major League Baseball players always trying to compete at their peak? Their salary is greatly influenced by their individual performance and giving 100% effort rarely sees them risk major injury.

Now, back to the NBA. Why is the NBA regular season virtually unwatchable for all but the most diehard of fans?

I was an NBA fan growing-up. I was a kid and then college student who loved the game, the greats and the competition. But...I matured, hard to believe, and realized like most sport's fans that NBA players coast for portions of both games and season's. It's a grueling game and a long season. As long as each player proves that he is at least worthy of top twelve status on their team, they will have a spot and a very comfortable living.

It's a closed league. I'm not saying that NBA players step-up to the tip-off consciously thinking "I'm going in the tank for the next twenty minutes of my career." I'm saying, the closed nature of the league, with guaranteed contracts, the elevated risk of injury during the lengthy season, and the fact that it is a contact sport leads to exactly what you see so often in the NBA.

That's why soccer NEEDS Promotion and Relegation. Human beings choose, subconsciously, to coast occasionally when the circumstances allow. It's human nature. Leagues around the world are better and more enjoyable to watch because Promotion and Relegation adds another layer of pressure/motivation to the competition, for everyone involved.

I love what Major League Soccer has done for the professional game in our country. But, I am not naive. It is far too easy for the owners and players of MLS to slowly, year-by-year, institutionalize the very same structural aspects that make the NBA unwatchable so often. They have already begun the journey down that path.

I was and still am a basketball fan. I'm just not an NBA fan anymore.

I don't want Major League Soccer to become the soccer version of the NBA. I think it's inevitable given the business model; but, I'm still hopeful the rich guys can grow a collective pair and give North America the real beautiful game.  

A Look at Sports TV Contracts

Ran across this in last week's Sports Business Journal so I thought I'd share. It's TV deals by year on US networks. It's in dollars and I'm leaving the zeros.

Summary $ Per Year -- League, Event
6,570,000,000 -- NFL
2,600,000,000 -- NBA
1,550,000,000 -- MLB
820,000,000 -- NASCAR
771,428,571 -- NCAA Men's Div I Basketball Tourn
637,500,000 -- Olympics (US Rights)
608,333,333 -- College Football Playoff
355,000,000 -- SEC
280,000,000 -- ACC
250,000,000 -- Pac-12
200,000,000 -- NHL
193,750,000 -- FIFA WORLD CUP
192,307,692 -- Big 12
112,000,000 -- Big Ten Conf
93,333,333 -- US Open (Golf)
90,000,000 -- MLS, USMNT
75,000,000 -- US Open (Tennis)
41,666,667 -- Big East Conf
40,000,000 -- Wimbledon
16,571,429 -- Mountain West Conf
12,000,000 -- WNBA

Here's more detail:

NBA Champions: Pareto

Yes, a pareto chart may not be the right way to plot NBA champs over the years because it is generally used to solve problems. Example: if you have a car giving you problems then you can use the pareto to organize thoughts after identifying a main problem. To start you can use an Affinity Diagram. This is where you just list out all problems with the car and group similar issues together.

The Pareto Principle postulates that 80 percent of the trouble comes from 20 percent of the problems. It separates the "vital few" from the trivial many. This principle is remarkably effective.

So, is it fair to look at who is winning the NBA championship as a problem? Probably not. However, it could be symptomatic of other problems the NBA has like the number of teams in the playoffs or the way they organize the playoffs by seed. You could even look at the length of the series in the playoffs. The length is particularly interesting to me because it eliminates "luck". While this may be the fair way to do things, it is not the most exciting. Football, both college and pro is exciting because of "luck". The best team may not always win. If the NFL were to play playoff series then the Colts would probably have about four more titles.

The pareto at the top of this post shows NBA champions. Is it a problem that half off all championships go to just a select few? Debatable and it can be argued. Particularly when you consider that the size of the league has changed. I do believe that it shows that fairness on some level in the NBA is not clear. The remarkably few teams that win multiple titles could be due to a whole host of things. What I see is the 80-20 (20% of teams winning 80% of the time) rule being broken. It is muddled by teams moving and league expansion. However; that said: in the NBA it is more like the 94-6 rule. Two franchises winning 50% of the time. Were one to apply the 80-20 Bradford Distribution law to the 29 teams making the finals you should have 6 teams winning 20% of the time. Laws have been broken here!

Population density, team management, wealth, wealth generated by winning, the teams the NBA advertises most, and yes... even corruption should be considered. Especially when half the league makes the playoffs. It's also important to note that 29 different teams (not franchises) have made the finals with 19 different winners. If you were to stop there then it seems fair, but when you take it a step farther to the frequency of which team wins over the 60 year history it just plain looks like somethings amiss.

Those are things maybe the NBA should look at. In the meantime, it's good to be a Lakers or Celtics fan because the averages show that if you just wait 3 years - your chances of winning a championship are nearly guaranteed.

If you are a one time winner and not one of those teams? Savor it; because it will not happen again in your lifetime. If you are lucky enough to have a dynasty (San Antonio, Chicago)? Savor that as well.

If you are a fan of a team that has never won one? Hang in there chances are you'll get one within the next 60 years.

Here are the teams that have made the finals along with the number of times they have been there. Of all these teams only five won titles in two or more decades. The Celtics have won at least once in every decade. The Lakers took a nap in the 90s. Detroit has won at least one in the last three decades. No other team has won in three different decades.

24:Los Angeles Lakers
20:Boston Celtics
8:New York Knicks
6:Chicago Bulls
6:Philadelphia 76ers
5:Minneapolis Lakers
5:Detroit Pistons
4:San Antonio Spurs
4:St. Louis Hawks
4:Houston Rockets
3:Washington Bullets
3:Seattle SuperSonics
3:Syracuse Nationals
3:Portland Trail Blazers
3:Utah Jazz
2:Milwaukee Bucks
2:Orlando Magic
2:San Francisco Warriors
2:Ft. Wayne Pistons
2:Phoenix Suns
2:New Jersey Nets
1:Cleveland Cavaliers
1:Philadelphia Warriors
1:Miami Heat
1:Baltimore Bullets
1:Golden State Warriors
1:Indiana Pacers
1:Rochester Royals
1:Dallas Mavericks

As with any data, one can draw what ever conclusions they wish. Especially when dealing with statistics. After playing around with NBA finals data I still believe that if you are not a fan of either the Celtics, Lakers or maybe the Pistons you are out of luck. Fans of other teams will have to settle with just getting there once or, if you are lucky, twice a generation.

Suck it Vilfredo Pareto!!

-----------
For a brief comparison: the NFL has had 20 different Super Bowl winners in 44 years. The NBA has 16 year head start on the NFL and only has 19 different teams. This; while the NFL has had a smaller league size (in the past). It takes 5 teams in the NFL to make 50% of the winners... it takes the NBA 2 teams to get 50%.

The NFL's most winning Super Bowl team (Steelers) has won 14% of the time. NBA's Celtics have won 28% of the time in a league that has existed longer with more teams.

Now the MLB in its 105 history? Well... the Yankees have won a remarkable 26% of the World Series. They are one of the teams in the World Series 38% of the time. For another team just to win 27, as the Yanks have (using WS wins to years), it will take over 300 years. That team would be the Cardinals. I don't need to go any farther then that. Baseball's season length reduces variability, which makes it more probable that teams with the best players (i.e. most money), win. While season length is great for looking at statistics, it may be hurting it in terms of the variety of WS winners.

I know that just merely looking at championships doesn't mean everything. Just interesting to look at. Variability is at work here. The NFL has a short season, single elimination playoff and has not been around as long. The NBA is in the middle with a longer season and longer playoff format. The grandaddy, MLB, has been around longer and has an epic season length in terms of games and its playoff format only allows for a small % of teams as well. It has almost all but eliminated "luck".

You win the WS in baseball... you're the best team that year. Almost no doubt. Win in the NFL? Seems like it is more like playing the lottery.

Now, the NBA? The best playoff team wins. It's season length is long enough to tell you which teams are good but the number of teams entering the playoffs diminishes the importance of the regular season and in doing so makes determining the best team before the playoffs start difficult. It's one of the reasons games are played at three quarters speed. The NBA playoffs might as well be another season, heck, even a different sport.

Which brings me back to why I'm writing this long post today. The NBA is a head scratcher in a way. But I know that if one were to treat the fact that Boston and the Lakers winning most of the time as a problem (as the car example) then you put the pareto back into balance at 80-20 and any year going by with out the Yankees winning... well that's almost like betting the odds.