***Official Soccer Discussion Thread*** (1 Viewer)

[PIK95]

I tivo'd and watched that LA-Houston game. I don't watch a lot of MLS so I would be the casual fan. I think the playoff system is atrocious.

The matrix for fans for MLS is incredibly complicated in terms of the muliple groups they try and reach which leads them to weird decisions concerning the league.1) Hard core soccer fans who watch MLS no matter what2) Soccer fans who won't give MLS time of the day3) Casual soccer fans who will watch big events like the world cup4) The youth soccer crowd5) Hard core sports fans who have not yet taken to soccerTo MLS's credit, in the early days number 5 above was the most important. In the last handful of years they have correctly given up on this group.#2 above has been by far the hardest group to reach over the years and have picked up the moniker Euro Snobs, but in reality its just a group of sports fans who are used to watch the highest quality league.It is a terrible catch 22 for MLS. They will never reach group 2 with out significantly upgrading the talent in the league. They won't be able to upgrade the talent in the league with out the revenue that group 2 could provide.

His name...#2.

 

[andy_b]

I tivo'd and watched that LA-Houston game. I don't watch a lot of MLS so I would be the casual fan. I think the playoff system is atrocious.

The matrix for fans for MLS is incredibly complicated in terms of the muliple groups they try and reach which leads them to weird decisions concerning the league.1) Hard core soccer fans who watch MLS no matter what2) Soccer fans who won't give MLS time of the day3) Casual soccer fans who will watch big events like the world cup4) The youth soccer crowd5) Hard core sports fans who have not yet taken to soccerTo MLS's credit, in the early days number 5 above was the most important. In the last handful of years they have correctly given up on this group.#2 above has been by far the hardest group to reach over the years and have picked up the moniker Euro Snobs, but in reality its just a group of sports fans who are used to watch the highest quality league.It is a terrible catch 22 for MLS. They will never reach group 2 with out significantly upgrading the talent in the league. They won't be able to upgrade the talent in the league with out the revenue that group 2 could provide.

His name...#2.

??

 

[prefontaine]

World Cup pots are set

Group 1 (protected seeds): RSA, Brazil, Spain, Italy, Germany, Argentina (surprise!), England, France (if France loses then Netherlands gets it)

Group 2 (UEFA): Netherlands, Port/Bosnia, Russia/Slovenia, Switzerland, Greece/Ukraine, Serbia, Denmark, Slovakia

Group 3 (CAF/CONMEBOL): Ivory Coast, Ghana, Cameroon, Nigeria, Egypt/Algeria, Paraguay, Chile, Uruguay/CRC

Group 4 (Asia/CONCACAF): Japan, South Korea, North Korea, Australia, New Zealand, USA, Mexico, Honduras

So, as anticipated, we got totally shafted and will almost definitely end up in a group of death.

 

[TLEF316]

such horse#### that we get put with Asia.

Predicted draw....

US

Brazil

Netherlands

Uruguay

Of course, Mexico will likely end up with South Africa, Switzerland and Algeria.

 

[prefontaine]

such horse#### that we get put with Asia. Predicted draw....USBrazilNetherlandsUruguayOf course, Mexico will likely end up with South Africa, Switzerland and Algeria.

I don't think they would put Uruguay in Brazil's group. We would draw Cameroon or someone instead.

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

World Cup pots are setGroup 1 (protected seeds): RSA, Brazil, Spain, Italy, Germany, Argentina (surprise!), England, France (if France loses then Netherlands gets it)Group 2 (UEFA): Netherlands, Port/Bosnia, Russia/Slovenia, Switzerland, Greece/Ukraine, Serbia, Denmark, SlovakiaGroup 3 (CAF/CONMEBOL): Ivory Coast, Ghana, Cameroon, Nigeria, Egypt/Algeria, Paraguay, Chile, Uruguay/CRCGroup 4 (Asia/CONCACAF): Japan, South Korea, North Korea, Australia, New Zealand, USA, Mexico, HondurasSo, as anticipated, we got totally shafted and will almost definitely end up in a group of death.

Costa Rica can't be in group 3 if they win, can they? ( probably a moot point but still)draw prediction:SpainRussiaNigeriaUSoof

 

[prefontaine]

World Cup pots are setGroup 1 (protected seeds): RSA, Brazil, Spain, Italy, Germany, Argentina (surprise!), England, France (if France loses then Netherlands gets it)Group 2 (UEFA): Netherlands, Port/Bosnia, Russia/Slovenia, Switzerland, Greece/Ukraine, Serbia, Denmark, SlovakiaGroup 3 (CAF/CONMEBOL): Ivory Coast, Ghana, Cameroon, Nigeria, Egypt/Algeria, Paraguay, Chile, Uruguay/CRCGroup 4 (Asia/CONCACAF): Japan, South Korea, North Korea, Australia, New Zealand, USA, Mexico, HondurasSo, as anticipated, we got totally shafted and will almost definitely end up in a group of death.

Costa Rica can't be in group 3 if they win, can they? ( probably a moot point but still)draw prediction:SpainRussiaNigeriaUSoof

There is actually a note that if CR wins this may affect the 3/4 groupings. How aboutRSASlovakiaUruguayUS

 

[bentley]

I need some help as a n00b. I don't understand why being in group 3 or group 4 matters. Looks like we have a protected seed and someone from UEFA to get past to make it onto the next round no matter which pot we end up in. How does the draw work?

 

[prefontaine]

I need some help as a n00b. I don't understand why being in group 3 or group 4 matters. Looks like we have a protected seed and someone from UEFA to get past to make it onto the next round no matter which pot we end up in. How does the draw work?

One team from each group is drawn for each world cup group. They also protect it so as to minimize confederation overlap. Thus, an African side will not be drawn with RSA. That means the 3 non-CAF sides in Group 3 each have a 33% chance of ending in the host group. On top of that, the weakest teams are the Asian group and by being in Group 4 we cannot draw one.

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

I need some help as a n00b. I don't understand why being in group 3 or group 4 matters. Looks like we have a protected seed and someone from UEFA to get past to make it onto the next round no matter which pot we end up in. How does the draw work?

it's really about the strength of the African/South American teams in group 3 in relation to Asia and New Zealand. Much harder to get a result over the likes of Paraguay or Ghana than it would against New Zealand or North Korea.

 

[Mjolnirs]

I need some help as a n00b. I don't understand why being in group 3 or group 4 matters. Looks like we have a protected seed and someone from UEFA to get past to make it onto the next round no matter which pot we end up in. How does the draw work?

The teams listed for South America in group 3 have a FIFA average ranking of 21The teams listed for Asia in group 4 have a FIFA average ranking of 50.75The teams listed for Africa in group 3 have a FIFA average ranking of 26.2 or 26.4 (Egypt or Algeria)Since you cannot be drawn into a group with people from your same pot, being put into the pot with Asia means we will be drawn against teams from either SA or Africa. We would prefer to draw against a team from Asia or even New Zealand (ranked 83) which can't happen in this case.Of course we all agree the FIFA rankings are worthless, but it does give you a base to get an idea of where the confederations rank.

 

[andy_b]

World Cup pots are setGroup 1 (protected seeds): RSA, Brazil, Spain, Italy, Germany, Argentina (surprise!), England, France (if France loses then Netherlands gets it)

Why would Holland get a #1 seed? Unless they changed the rules, the fact that they did not even qualify for 2002 will make it very difficult for them. Both Mexico and Portugal have a better chance looking at current rankings and the last 2 World Cups.Obviously the hidden FIFA fudge factor is the toughest thing to guage.

 

[derek245583]

I am a noob

How can you even remotely pick what group we are in? Doesnt Fifa just put 1 team from each of those pods in a group?

 

[TLEF316]

I am a noobHow can you even remotely pick what group we are in? Doesnt Fifa just put 1 team from each of those pods in a group?

we're all guessing based on the idea that fifa will always screw the US over.

 

[The Gator]

I am a noobHow can you even remotely pick what group we are in? Doesnt Fifa just put 1 team from each of those pods in a group?

we're all guessing based on the idea that fifa will always screw the US over.

 

[Moe.]

I wasn't aware that RSA couldn't be drawn with another African team. Kinda nice for the three South American teams. I'm assuming they have to draw the RSA group first, and only select out of a hat containing the three CONMEBOL teams once they get to pot 3? All this gerrymandering makes me want to root against RSA.

 

[Whiplash Inc.]

http://www.marca.com/2009/11/16/futbol/sel...1258385669.html

I prefer the Netherlands in group 2. The tougher the group the better, as was the case for the 2006 World Cup and EURO 2008.

Brasil

Netherlands

Ivory Coast

USA

That would be awesome.

Actually.....it would be hard to pass on another match up with our arch rivals, Germany, at a big tournament, so maybe them instead of Brasil. I dunno, tough one.

 

[derek245583]

I am a noobHow can you even remotely pick what group we are in? Doesnt Fifa just put 1 team from each of those pods in a group?

we're all guessing based on the idea that fifa will always screw the US over.

OhYa I have heard that sentiment, but I thought there would be some sort of formula for it. I would think the winner of each qualifying pod would get lumped into one pool, second another, third another, etc.Then one team from each pod randomly drawn to form the WC groups. Seems basic enough to me.

 

[TLEF316]

I am a noobHow can you even remotely pick what group we are in? Doesnt Fifa just put 1 team from each of those pods in a group?

we're all guessing based on the idea that fifa will always screw the US over.

OhYa I have heard that sentiment, but I thought there would be some sort of formula for it. I would think the winner of each qualifying pod would get lumped into one pool, second another, third another, etc.Then one team from each pod randomly drawn to form the WC groups. Seems basic enough to me.

nope. FIFA grants 8 teams "seeds". One is the host, the other 7 are allegedly determined by a formula based on past performances. However, any time it wants, Fifa can change the formula however they want. So basically, they protect teams like Argentina and The Netherlands that have struggled recently (Argentina barely qualified this year and the Dutch have flat out missed recent world cups) in order to help them move on and get better ratings.the 2nd pod is the 8 winners of the european groups that arent seeds. They do this to make sure that 3 european teams dont end up in the same group.They consider Africa and south america stronger than Conconcaf (probably rightly so) so they get a pod. As a result, we get mixed in with the Asian teams, so they cant be in our group. Of course, Mexico counts more than us as well, so they will likely get some preferential treatment.In all likelyhood, we'll end up with one of the tougher seeded teams (guarantee we wont get South Africa) the 4th or 5th best Euro winner and the best African team. You can pretty much take it to the bank.

 

[derek245583]

I am a noobHow can you even remotely pick what group we are in? Doesnt Fifa just put 1 team from each of those pods in a group?

we're all guessing based on the idea that fifa will always screw the US over.

OhYa I have heard that sentiment, but I thought there would be some sort of formula for it. I would think the winner of each qualifying pod would get lumped into one pool, second another, third another, etc.Then one team from each pod randomly drawn to form the WC groups. Seems basic enough to me.

nope. FIFA grants 8 teams "seeds". One is the host, the other 7 are allegedly determined by a formula based on past performances. However, any time it wants, Fifa can change the formula however they want. So basically, they protect teams like Argentina and The Netherlands that have struggled recently (Argentina barely qualified this year and the Dutch have flat out missed recent world cups) in order to help them move on and get better ratings.the 2nd pod is the 8 winners of the european groups that arent seeds. They do this to make sure that 3 european teams dont end up in the same group.They consider Africa and south america stronger than Conconcaf (probably rightly so) so they get a pod. As a result, we get mixed in with the Asian teams, so they cant be in our group. Of course, Mexico counts more than us as well, so they will likely get some preferential treatment.In all likelyhood, we'll end up with one of the tougher seeded teams (guarantee we wont get South Africa) the 4th or 5th best Euro winner and the best African team. You can pretty much take it to the bank.

This is good info right here. I did not know any of this.

 

[Steve Tasker]

However, any time it wants, Fifa can change the formula however they want.

Just like UEFA protecting France, Portugal, Greece, and Russia in the WCQs

 

[prefontaine]

http://www.marca.com/2009/11/16/futbol/sel...1258385669.html

I prefer the Netherlands in group 2. The tougher the group the better, as was the case for the 2006 World Cup and EURO 2008.

Brasil

Netherlands

Ivory Coast

USA

That would be awesome.

Actually.....it would be hard to pass on another match up with our arch rivals, Germany, at a big tournament, so maybe them instead of Brasil. I dunno, tough one.

You crazy Dutch can have whatever ridiculous group you want....leave us out of it. Take Mexico.Also, amusingly in the above article (it's a Spanish newspaper) they fret about a group of Netherlands/Portugal, Ivory Coast, USA. We are at least getting respect as the scariest side in Pod 4

 

[TLEF316]

However, any time it wants, Fifa can change the formula however they want.

Just like UEFA protecting France, Portugal, Greece, and Russia in the WCQs

thats just an absolute shame. It should have been random pairings.

 

[Steve Tasker]

I'm looking forward to the South Africa, Slovakia, Paraguay, USA group

 

[brewer]

Headline of the day - Placenta rehab for Van Persie

I've called the guy a baby before, but this seems a bit harsh....

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

I'm looking forward to the South Africa, Slovakia, Paraguay, USA group

They'll make sure Mexico gets this draw...

 

[JMon348]

Also, Costa Rica lost last night 1-0 in Saprissa, so looks like we're heading for a pot with AFC and the Kiwis. Would have been interesting to see what would have happened had four CONCACAF teams made it.

Can you flush this out Moe? What do you mean?

FIFA tries to group confederations together in WC draws. If Costa Rica loses, Pot 4 (the lowest ranked pot) will most likely contain the 3 CONCACAF teams (US, MEX, HON), the 4 AFC (Asian) teams (JPN, KOR, PRK, AUS) and New Zealand. If Costa Rica wins, giving CONCACAF 4 teams, the pot math gets messed up and there was speculation earlier in the thread about what this would mean for the US, i.e. could they get bumped to a higher draw pot and lessen the chance of seeing a Group of Death

Gotcha, thanks.

Speaking of which, since the African qualifiers look to be extremely strong this time around (except for possibly the winner of Egypt/Algeria), assuming CRC lose to URU, it's possible that the only way the US DOESN'T draw a Group of Death is if they get South Africa's group, which would then also give them a non-seed Euro team (think Denmark, Slovakia, hopefully not the Netherlands), and one of Paraguay, Uruguay or Chile. That would still be a challenging group, but much better than something like Brazil/Russia/Ivory Coast.

Egypt has a strong team. Won the last 2 Africa cups. Had a pretty good showing in the Champions tourney a couple of months ago and are ranked 28th by Fifa.Tomorrow is the big game, what will be my excuse to leave work eary to watch?

 

[Whiplash Inc.]

I am a noob

How can you even remotely pick what group we are in? Doesnt Fifa just put 1 team from each of those pods in a group?

we're all guessing based on the idea that fifa will always screw the US over.

OhYa I have heard that sentiment, but I thought there would be some sort of formula for it.

I would think the winner of each qualifying pod would get lumped into one pool, second another, third another, etc.

Then one team from each pod randomly drawn to form the WC groups. Seems basic enough to me.

nope. FIFA grants 8 teams "seeds". One is the host, the other 7 are allegedly determined by a formula based on past performances. However, any time it wants, Fifa can change the formula however they want. So basically, they protect teams like Argentina and The Netherlands that have struggled recently (Argentina barely qualified this year and the Dutch have flat out missed recent world cups) in order to help them move on and get better ratings.the 2nd pod is the 8 winners of the european groups that arent seeds. They do this to make sure that 3 european teams dont end up in the same group.

They consider Africa and south america stronger than Conconcaf (probably rightly so) so they get a pod. As a result, we get mixed in with the Asian teams, so they cant be in our group. Of course, Mexico counts more than us as well, so they will likely get some preferential treatment.

In all likelyhood, we'll end up with one of the tougher seeded teams (guarantee we wont get South Africa) the 4th or 5th best Euro winner and the best African team. You can pretty much take it to the bank.

We've been in every major tournament since '88, with the exception of the 2002 WC.

 

[LHUCKS]

such horse#### that we get put with Asia.

 

[TLEF316]

I am a noob

How can you even remotely pick what group we are in? Doesnt Fifa just put 1 team from each of those pods in a group?

we're all guessing based on the idea that fifa will always screw the US over.

OhYa I have heard that sentiment, but I thought there would be some sort of formula for it.

I would think the winner of each qualifying pod would get lumped into one pool, second another, third another, etc.

Then one team from each pod randomly drawn to form the WC groups. Seems basic enough to me.

nope. FIFA grants 8 teams "seeds". One is the host, the other 7 are allegedly determined by a formula based on past performances. However, any time it wants, Fifa can change the formula however they want. So basically, they protect teams like Argentina and The Netherlands that have struggled recently (Argentina barely qualified this year and the Dutch have flat out missed recent world cups) in order to help them move on and get better ratings.the 2nd pod is the 8 winners of the european groups that arent seeds. They do this to make sure that 3 european teams dont end up in the same group.

They consider Africa and south america stronger than Conconcaf (probably rightly so) so they get a pod. As a result, we get mixed in with the Asian teams, so they cant be in our group. Of course, Mexico counts more than us as well, so they will likely get some preferential treatment.

In all likelyhood, we'll end up with one of the tougher seeded teams (guarantee we wont get South Africa) the 4th or 5th best Euro winner and the best African team. You can pretty much take it to the bank.

We've been in every major tournament since '88, with the exception of the 2002 WC.

should have said world cup. IMO, if you missed the WC just 2 cycles ago, you should not be eligible for a seed. Not saying the US should be seeded (we obviously shouldn't) but i dont believe the Dutch should either.

 

[LHUCKS]

Argentina gets a protected seed because they will get good ratings...ridiculous.

 

[prefontaine]

Argentina gets a protected seed because they will get good ratings...ridiculous.

well, yeah, that and they've made the quarters in 2 of the last 3 WCs, have only failed to reach the knock out stages once since 1970, won it twice, finished 2nd in each of the last two Copa Americas, won the last two Olympics, and have talent as good as if not better than any country in the world. But besides that, what have they done? Sure Maradona is a terrible coach but they have the skins on the wall to not argue with their seed.

 

[TLEF316]

i don't see why they base seeds on what happened in the past. It should be entirely based on our resume since the last WC. (including that world cup) Argentina barely qualified this year. They shouldn't be a seed. When you finish 4th in your federation, you should have to fight it out like everyone else.

Of course, if FIFA agreed with me, the US's group would probably end up being Spain, Argentina, the US and the Ivory coast.

 

[LHUCKS]

i don't see why they base seeds on what happened in the past. It should be entirely based on our resume since the last WC. Argentina barely qualified. They shouldn't be a seed. When you finish 4th in your federation, you should have to fight it out like everyone else. Of course, if FIFA agreed with me, the US's group would probably end up being Spain, Argentina, the US and the Ivory coast.

 

[prefontaine]

i don't see why they base seeds on what happened in the past. It should be entirely based on our resume since the last WC. Argentina barely qualified. They shouldn't be a seed. When you finish 4th in your federation, you should have to fight it out like everyone else. Of course, if FIFA agreed with me, the US's group would probably end up being Spain, Argentina, the US and the Ivory coast.

Since the last World Cup (where they lost on PKs to the eventual winner in the quarters), Argentina has won the Olympics, finished 2nd twice in Copa America (to Brazil), qualified without playoff to this World Cup, and have never dropped out of the top 10 in the FIFA world rankings. You guys are #####ing because they had a bad game or two on the road in South American qualifying but there are maybe 3-4 teams that have a better overall resume.

 

[Steve Tasker]

What makes England more qualified for a Group 1 seed than Argentina? A great run of qualifying? The Brits didn't even qualify for Euro 08...

ETA - I'm not saying England shouldn't be a top seed, but nitpicking about Argentina? They should both probably be top seeds, but if I had to choose 1 to be more "upset" about, it'd be England...

 

[Moe.]

should have said world cup. IMO, if you missed the WC just 2 cycles ago, you should not be eligible for a seed. Not saying the US should be seeded (we obviously shouldn't) but i dont believe the Dutch should either.

I don't see why what happened in 2000-01 should have anything to do with the seeding for 2010. Just pick the 8 best teams.edit: Going back and looking at the 2002 qualification, Holland were in a group that was topped by Portugal and Ireland. Ireland ended up qualifying via playoff and doing pretty well, and while Portugal busted out in the group stage I think they were considered one of the better teams in the world. Some of those European qualifying groups are rough, no way you can punish a team for that now.

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

What makes England more qualified for a Group 1 seed than Argentina? A great run of qualifying? The Brits didn't even qualify for Euro 08...ETA - I'm not saying England shouldn't be a top seed, but nitpicking about Argentina? They should both probably be top seeds, but if I had to choose 1 to be more "upset" about, it'd be England...

When you look at the rest of the field who currently project as non-seeds, who's more qualified to get a seed than England? The only squads even in the running IMO are Portugal, Netherlands and Mexico.England's been to the quarters in '06 and '02 and went out in round 2 in 98 (the Beckham red card game).Portugal got 4th place in '06, but went out in the group stage in '02 and did not qualify in '98. Netherlands got 4th place in '98, but only got to round 2 in '06, and did not qualify in '02.Mexico went out in round 2 in '06, '02 and '98.England's certainly been the most consistent of the four.

 

[Steve Tasker]

What makes England more qualified for a Group 1 seed than Argentina? A great run of qualifying? The Brits didn't even qualify for Euro 08...ETA - I'm not saying England shouldn't be a top seed, but nitpicking about Argentina? They should both probably be top seeds, but if I had to choose 1 to be more "upset" about, it'd be England...

When you look at the rest of the field who currently project as non-seeds, who's more qualified to get a seed than England? The only squads even in the running IMO are Portugal, Netherlands and Mexico.England's been to the quarters in '06 and '02 and went out in round 2 in 98 (the Beckham red card game).Portugal got 4th place in '06, but went out in the group stage in '02 and did not qualify in '98. Netherlands got 4th place in '98, but only got to round 2 in '06, and did not qualify in '02.Mexico went out in round 2 in '06, '02 and '98.England's certainly been the most consistent of the four.

I never said England shouldn't be a top seed, but I don't think ANY of those 3 teams you mentioned should be seeded ahead of Argentina. The only real argument that I see, as pre already pointed out, is that Argentina didn't play well in qualifying. At the very least, you could make an argument about why one of those 3 should be seeded ahead of England...even if it's not a strong one.

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

What makes England more qualified for a Group 1 seed than Argentina? A great run of qualifying? The Brits didn't even qualify for Euro 08...ETA - I'm not saying England shouldn't be a top seed, but nitpicking about Argentina? They should both probably be top seeds, but if I had to choose 1 to be more "upset" about, it'd be England...

When you look at the rest of the field who currently project as non-seeds, who's more qualified to get a seed than England? The only squads even in the running IMO are Portugal, Netherlands and Mexico.England's been to the quarters in '06 and '02 and went out in round 2 in 98 (the Beckham red card game).Portugal got 4th place in '06, but went out in the group stage in '02 and did not qualify in '98. Netherlands got 4th place in '98, but only got to round 2 in '06, and did not qualify in '02.Mexico went out in round 2 in '06, '02 and '98.England's certainly been the most consistent of the four.

I never said England shouldn't be a top seed, but I don't think ANY of those 3 teams you mentioned should be seeded ahead of Argentina. The only real argument that I see, as pre already pointed out, is that Argentina didn't play well in qualifying. At the very least, you could make an argument about why one of those 3 should be seeded ahead of England...even if it's not a strong one.

I'm not arguing with you, I agree 100% - Brazil and Argentina will always get seeded as long as they qualify, and their history in World Cups warrants that. For the remaining 5 seeds, Italy, Germany, France are no-brainers. If you look solely at World Cup results, England actually has a better case for a seed than Spain, who went 2nd round in 06, quarters in '02, group stage in 98. But Spain is so on form the last two years, they also deserve a seed. So Spain and England seem reasonable as the last two seeds, with Portugal haaving the biggest gripe at not making it, followed by Netherlands and Mexico.

 

[andy_b]

What is going on in the MLS playoffs. I caught the LA Galaxy clincher the other day and I saw Columbus lose...

I am trying to get into soccer a little more and wanna follow this. Is it aggregate scoring again next round? Doesnt somebody play tonight?

Houston and the Galaxy play. I think its still home and home until the Finals, so its still aggregate. Should be a good match, to bad its at 11pm EST. Stupid on MLS's part, but I guess that's the only time ESPN2 had for them.

The semi finals are not aggregates. They are single games, played at the location of the higher seed.The 11:00pm slot is pretty normal with the game being in LA. Over the years the games played at 11:00pm have not done bad at all in the ratings.

http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ym...s&fext=.jspESPN2's live coverage of the 2009 MLS Western Conference Finals Friday, Nov. 13, a 2 - 0 extra time victory by the Los Angeles Galaxy over the Houston Dynamo, was seen in an average of 538,000 television homes (700,000 people 2+), based on a 0.5 rating, making it the most-watched MLS telecast ever on the network.

The previous record was on Thurs., Aug. 23, 2007, in a regular-season match between Chivas USA and Los Angeles, seen in an average of 532,000 television homes (658,000 P2+), a 0.6 rating.

Additionally on ESPN Deportes, the match was seen in an average of 73,000 Hispanic television homes (121,000 Hispanic P2+), a 1.6 Hispanic coverage rating.

 

[Sammy3469]

What is going on in the MLS playoffs. I caught the LA Galaxy clincher the other day and I saw Columbus lose...

I am trying to get into soccer a little more and wanna follow this. Is it aggregate scoring again next round? Doesnt somebody play tonight?

Houston and the Galaxy play. I think its still home and home until the Finals, so its still aggregate. Should be a good match, to bad its at 11pm EST. Stupid on MLS's part, but I guess that's the only time ESPN2 had for them.

The semi finals are not aggregates. They are single games, played at the location of the higher seed.The 11:00pm slot is pretty normal with the game being in LA. Over the years the games played at 11:00pm have not done bad at all in the ratings.

http://web.mlsnet.com/news/mls_news.jsp?ym...s&fext=.jspESPN2's live coverage of the 2009 MLS Western Conference Finals Friday, Nov. 13, a 2 - 0 extra time victory by the Los Angeles Galaxy over the Houston Dynamo, was seen in an average of 538,000 television homes (700,000 people 2+), based on a 0.5 rating, making it the most-watched MLS telecast ever on the network.

The previous record was on Thurs., Aug. 23, 2007, in a regular-season match between Chivas USA and Los Angeles, seen in an average of 532,000 television homes (658,000 P2+), a 0.6 rating.

Additionally on ESPN Deportes, the match was seen in an average of 73,000 Hispanic television homes (121,000 Hispanic P2+), a 1.6 Hispanic coverage rating.

Still sucks though I guess there are a lot of people in LA. Looking forward to the Final

 

[Big Rocks]

FYI, the Ukraine-Greece match is on ESPN2 at 1pm, then the US-Denmark game when the first game ends (starts at 2:30 but will be joined in progress). Also, the Egypt-Algeria game can be seen here at 12:30

 

[Bonzai]

FYI, the Ukraine-Greece match is on ESPN2 at 1pm, then the US-Denmark game when the first game ends (starts at 2:30 but will be joined in progress). Also, the Egypt-Algeria game can be seen here at 12:30

Forgot about this. Thanks!

 

[TLEF316]

looks like ESPN classic will pick the US match up from the start. Of course, you'll have to wait until ESPN2 picks up coverage to get HD.

 

[Steve Tasker]

looks like ESPN classic will pick the US match up from the start. Of course, you'll have to wait until ESPN2 picks up coverage to get HD.

I was wondering why ESPN2 was only listing an hour and a half of the game...oh well, looks like I'll miss the beginning on my DVR

 

[TitusIII]

Algeria(white) v Egypt(red)...winner to the World Cup, loser goes home.

Beautiful web-cast, no score at the moment, about 15 mins in I believe.

http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/news/new...eria+egypt+live

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

Algeria(white) v Egypt(red)...winner to the World Cup, loser goes home.

Beautiful web-cast, no score at the moment, about 15 mins in I believe.

http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/news/new...eria+egypt+live

Algeria with the 1-0 lead at HT

 

[JMon348]

Algeria(white) v Egypt(red)...winner to the World Cup, loser goes home.

Beautiful web-cast, no score at the moment, about 15 mins in I believe.

http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/news/new...eria+egypt+live

Algeria with the 1-0 lead at HT

We had our chances, need a much better 2nd half.

 

[Mjolnirs]

Greece up 1-0 on Ukraine.