NYCFC in the Media Thread - 2019

[Ulrich]

While this is a problem one of the major issues is that New York has two teams. I'd love to see the numbers "adjusted" to add the viewership of the two teams together to see how that would change. I do note that there might be some who watch both teams, and you'd have to account for the fact that you'd have two opposing teams instead of just the one so you can't quite just add together the two games' numbers. Still would be interesting though.

It wasn’t clear from the article if they balance the Derby numbers with the fact that the same NYC/NJ viewers that would normally watch these teams on TV would very likely actually be in the stadium seeing the match live? Not that it’d bump the viewership levels back up, but it would explain some of the lower totals.

 

[Kjbert]

Because attendance is half of what it was our first season, and the atmosphere is terrible as a result.

From the eye test, we have more white people at our games than non-white people. Would seem there is a bigger market for white fans than a certain nationality based on experience.

I think the fans we’ve lost are families and not one off folks.

 

[Kjbert]

SKC is Kansas City's third top level professional sports team. The Timbers is Portland's second. Red Bulls and NYCFC are the metro area's 10th and 11th (bump that to 11th and 12th if you count the Liberty).
NYCFC could be run perfectly and win the league and they would still get minimal traction in this market.

Portland and Kansas City have...
2.4 Million and 2.2 Million folks in the metro area.

New York has 20.3 million people in the metro area.

Based on those numbers, there should be enough to go around. It seems that Kansas City and Portland have about 1 pro team for every 500k to 1 Million people.

New York has 1 pro team for every 2 million people give or take.

 

[Christopher Jee]

From the eye test, we have more white people at our games than non-white people. Would seem there is a bigger market for white fans than a certain nationality based on experience.

I think the fans we’ve lost are families and not one off folks.

I had a conversation with someone on Twitter about "identity" that seems adjacent to this discussion:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1123781122419249153

Race / ethnicity is just one component of identity, albeit an important one.

I wonder how much of the popularity of the team has to do with style, or a style that can be seen as aspirational for our demographics. With such a diverse base, it could be difficult to find a style that satisfies all, but it's gotta be easier to find a style that all can identify with than one player of one ethnicity that everyone can identify with.

In that thread I talk about how Bielsa aligns with Leeds and how that's rekindled the support base. I'm curious what that looks like for us. I suspect Dome, on present form, isn't quite it.

 

[adam]

It wasn’t clear from the article if they balance the Derby numbers with the fact that the same NYC/NJ viewers that would normally watch these teams on TV would very likely actually be in the stadium seeing the match live? Not that it’d bump the viewership levels back up, but it would explain some of the lower totals.

Dude, there were only 61,000 watching the Derby according to that article. Let’s add 25,000 to that number. Let’s add another 25,000 fans watching at the bar (which is absurdly high). Now we’re at 110,000. That’s still less than half the average MLS viewership.

 

[Ulrich]

Dude, there were only 61,000 watching the Derby according to that article. Let’s add 25,000 to that number. Let’s add another 25,000 fans watching at the bar (which is absurdly high). Now we’re at 110,000. That’s still less than half the average MLS viewership.

What about those streaming (legally and not so) rather than watching on the tube? Do they count those? Just seems really odd how low the numbers are in comparison. But I’m not in TV marketing so I’m no expert.

 

[adam]

What about those streaming (legally and not so) rather than watching on the tube? Do they count those? Just seems really odd how low the numbers are in comparison. But I’m not in TV marketing so I’m no expert.

I don't know either. I stream legally and watch on YES or ESPN through Sling TV or ESPN app. I assume they are counting people like me, as it's easy to measure. But who the fuck knows? The numbers are just so damn low it either doesn't make sense and something is off in the reporting or soccer in NYC is in really big trouble.

 

[mgarbowski]

Portland and Kansas City have...
2.4 Million and 2.2 Million folks in the metro area.

New York has 20.3 million people in the metro area.

Based on those numbers, there should be enough to go around. It seems that Kansas City and Portland have about 1 pro team for every 500k to 1 Million people.

New York has 1 pro team for every 2 million people give or take.

I don't think the number of people matter as much as the number of competitors. NYC has 20.3mm people, most of whom either don't care about sports, or have 3-4 major teams they follow so they think "I don't need soccer" to the extent they think of it at all.
Would be sports fans in Portland and KC think "might as well try soccer" for lack of options.
And worse, too many existing soccer fans in NY look down on MLS. So the market is a subset of existing soccer fans who don't share that bias, or folks like me who became disenchanted with some of the major sports and only then said "might as well try soccer."

 

[Kjbert]

I don't think the number of people matter as much as the number of competitors. NYC has 20.3mm people, most of whom either don't care about sports, or have 3-4 major teams they follow so they think "I don't need soccer" to the extent they think of it at all.
Would be sports fans in Portland and KC think "might as well try soccer" for lack of options.
And worse, too many existing soccer fans in NY look down on MLS. So the market is a subset of existing soccer fans who don't share that bias, or folks like me who became disenchanted with some of the major sports and only then said "might as well try soccer."

If you’ve ever been to Portland, there’s a reason they say, “keep Portland weird”

 

[JayH]

Some interesting quotes.

https://sports.yahoo.com/24-thought...dion-zelalem-erik-palmer-brown-201753943.html

 

[Gotham Gator]

Some interesting quotes.

https://sports.yahoo.com/24-thought...dion-zelalem-erik-palmer-brown-201753943.html

Nice find. I will have to check this out each week.

 

[mgarbowski]

Doyle on May 8
"the intricate, ball-dominant build-ups of the Patrick Vieira truly are a thing of the past now. "
Doyle Today
"NYCFC have also re-embraced the "passing good" ethos in certain ways over the past few weeks,"

So he can learn.

 

[ZYanksRule]

Doyle on May 8
"the intricate, ball-dominant build-ups of the Patrick Vieira truly are a thing of the past now. "
Doyle Today
"NYCFC have also re-embraced the "passing good" ethos in certain ways over the past few weeks,"

So he can learn.

He wasn't wrong then, and he isn't wrong now. The guy was rightfully critical of the team, and he's right to praise them now.

 

[dummyrun]

He wasn't wrong then, and he isn't wrong now. The guy was rightfully critical of the team, and he's right to praise them now.

He was wrong both times, actually. NYCFC had shown "intricate, ball-dominant buildups" against Minnesota and Orlando in the few weeks before he wrote the May 8 column, but because they'd played direct at Montreal that week Doyle declared the possession game "a thing of the past." He looked ridiculous when NYCFC came out three days later and danced all over the Galaxy in the first half.

But he looked just as ridiculous when, on the strength of the Galaxy game, he discovered a change in "ethos" that had been going on for "the past few weeks" (weird how that timeline reaches back to well before the "thing of the past" column, right?). During that timeframe, NYCFC averaged 49% possession against D.C., Chicago, and Montreal and 64% possession against Minnesota, Orlando, and the Galaxy. That's not a team with any kind of dogma about "passing good" or "passing bad," it's a team adapting its buildup style to its opponents on a game-by-game basis.

Go back and read those columns where Doyle was "rightfully critical of the team." There's no critique there. When we're losing, he'll point out that we're losing. When we're winning, he'll spin some vague take about how things have changed "in certain ways." The closest he's come to any actual analysis of NYCFC this season was in that May 8 column when he observed that Héber has been an important addition (you don't say). Next time you read one of his columns, ask yourself this: is there anything in there that suggests he watched the NYCFC game he's writing about, or could it have been done by glancing at the table and some Twitter highlights?

 

[LostAnvil]

 

[adam]

http://www.espn.com/soccer/major-le...n-on-topbut-tough-times-for-colorado-continue

 

[LionNYC]

http://www.espn.com/soccer/major-le...n-on-topbut-tough-times-for-colorado-continue

View attachment 9799

So we're getting bricks at the new stadium now?

 

[adam]

So we're getting bricks at the new stadium now?

I’d love an “NYCFC is good again” wall in our new stadium. Can we leave little notes in it when the team sucks?

 

[ManhattanValley]

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...-rice-liam-manning-leaves-nycfc-a8914651.html

Profile of our new academy director, "one of England's best youth coaches" apparently