OT: It is NOT...

[courtside]

If you're fine with a sample of 16, then you don't understand statistics. That's really neither here nor there.

Kindly show me a sentence where I stated that there was a plan to expand the soccer park to 50K. You'll have trouble with this one because it never happened. I first posted that there was a plan to expand the soccer park but MLS was looking at venues like the Meadowlands. I later posted that there was a plan to expand soccer park to a capacity of 10-12K. That's it.

I'm clearly making posts based on memories of newspaper articles that I read almost 20 years ago. I could easily be off on my numbers a bit. You are making posts with a great deal of certainty but posted no links. If you can show me a link to some early '90s statement that MLS was looking to build soccer specific venues I'll buy it. I can't really find anything before about 2000.

Yes I am absolutely 100 percent fine with the numbers I gave because majors only occur 4 times per year. Numbers were also given for the dozens and dozens and dozens of other non-major PGA events too.(Sources: many...a good one is Feb 19 ESPN article Tiger Woods Nielsen Ratings)

MLS has always been consistent. It wanted to start a new league and did before new venues were built in each city in its league. The only places to play in existing facilities were the bigger American football style stadiums, which were not preferred for anything more than a brief transition. Soccer specific stadiums were preferred, and have been built all over the league in those years through and including the present. Soccer Park was never a viable option for a St. Louis team. The only thing viable about it was land. The quality of the facility was and is not good enough to be expanded. It would need to be a tear down and start from scratch with that land or land elsewhere.

You posted regarding the 50k stadiums not me. There was never an intention of playing in sparsely filled huge stadiums and there was never an expectation to get more than the 20k type of facilities filled for league play. The teams had no choice but to begin with previously existing facilities to get the league started at that time. It wasn't preferred and it wasn't expected to be the case for very long and that's been the case.

[kevinfootes]

Yes I am absolutely 100 percent fine with the numbers I gave because majors only occur 4 times per year. Numbers were also given for the dozens and dozens and dozens of other non-major PGA events too.(Sources: many...a good one is Feb 19 ESPN article Tiger Woods Nielsen Ratings)

MLS has always been consistent. It wanted to start a new league and did before new venues were built in each city in its league. The only places to play in existing facilities were the bigger American football style stadiums, which were not preferred for anything more than a brief transition. Soccer specific stadiums were preferred, and have been built all over the league in those years through and including the present. Soccer Park was never a viable option for a St. Louis team. The only thing viable about it was land. The quality of the facility was and is not good enough to be expanded. It would need to be a tear down and start from scratch with that land or land elsewhere.

You posted regarding the 50k stadiums not me. There was never an intention of playing in sparsely filled huge stadiums and there was never an expectation to get more than the 20k type of facilities filled for league play. The teams had no choice but to begin with previously existing facilities to get the league started at that time. It wasn't preferred and it wasn't expected to be the case for very long and that's been the case.

So are you agreeing that you were wrong and that I never posted about expanding the soccer park facility to 50K?

Again, golf was popular before Tiger and will be popular when he's gone. He's a big draw, but life will go on.

Soccer park could have fairly easily been expanded to add 4-6K more seats. More recently, the land was offered by inbev (probably for tax reasons) as an option for a totally new venue. In 1993-1994, soccer park with a few thousand more bleachers added would have been the best atmosphere in the league. A better facility could have been built down the road. Are you saying that 8K fans in the 78K Arrowhead stadium would have been better?

[courtside]

So are you agreeing that you were wrong and that I never posted about expanding the soccer park facility to 50K?

Again, golf was popular before Tiger and will be popular when he's gone. He's a big draw, but life will go on.

Soccer park could have fairly easily been expanded to add 4-6K more seats. More recently, the land was offered by inbev (probably for tax reasons) as an option for a totally new venue. In 1993-1994, soccer park with a few thousand more bleachers added would have been the best atmosphere in the league. A better facility could have been built down the road. Are you saying that 8K fans in the 78K Arrowhead stadium would have been better?

Yesterday, 3:34pm in this thread...you mention the league wanted 50k stadiums then follow up in the very next sentence about St. Louis seeking to expand Soccer Park to get a team/facility.

It would be extremely dismissive to not include golf's decline prior to Tiger and without Tiger playing and/or playing at an elite level winning. When over the course of many years the discrepancy in viewership is double and triple when one player plays and performs at an elite level, it's significant.

A lot of things would need to be changed and replaced at Soccer Park...How exactly are you going to add seats to a facility that doesn't have a concrete built foundation of current seats? Soccer Park isn't even built as well as many High School football and soccer facilities in the Stl area....not to mention other aspects of the facility. This isn't high school, you don't just throw up bleachers.

[kevinfootes]

Yesterday, 3:34pm in this thread...you mention the league wanted 50k stadiums then follow up in the very next sentence about St. Louis seeking to expand Soccer Park to get a team/facility.

It would be extremely dismissive to not include golf's decline prior to Tiger and without Tiger playing and/or playing at an elite level winning. When over the course of many years the discrepancy in viewership is double and triple when one player plays and performs at an elite level, it's significant.

A lot of things would need to be changed and replaced at Soccer Park...How exactly are you going to add seats to a facility that doesn't have a concrete built foundation of current seats? Soccer Park isn't even built as well as many High School football and soccer facilities in the Stl area....not to mention other aspects of the facility. This isn't high school, you don't just throw up bleachers.

Here's what I typed:

"At that point there was talk around town of exapnding the soccer park to try to land a team, but the league insisted on places like the Meadowlands, Arrowhead, etc" While this was not the best crafted sentence I've ever written, it in no way states that soccer park would be expanded to 50K. My point is that the league was looking at bigger venues.

So can we at least agree that I never suggested soccer park would be expanded to 50K?

This isn't high school? In the early days MLS didn't miss it by much.

I've stated many times that Tiger makes a difference. My original point in this thread was how could anybody expect a new women's soccer league to succeed while longstanding sports like women's golf were declining over the past 10 years (while men's golf was growing). I'll stand by that.

[courtside]

Here's what I typed:

"At that point there was talk around town of exapnding the soccer park to try to land a team, but the league insisted on places like the Meadowlands, Arrowhead, etc" While this was not the best crafted sentence I've ever written, it in no way states that soccer park would be expanded to 50K. My point is that the league was looking at bigger venues.

So can we at least agree that I never suggested soccer park would be expanded to 50K?

This isn't high school? In the early days MLS didn't miss it by much.

I've stated many times that Tiger makes a difference. My original point in this thread was how could anybody expect a new women's soccer league to succeed while longstanding sports like women's golf were declining over the past 10 years (while men's golf was growing). I'll stand by that.

If you are now changing what you posted before, that's fine. You posted that the league wanted 50k stadiums and then immediately foillow that up with Stl wanted to expand Soccer Park to get a team. ...well if according to you it took 50k...

We can agree that you amended your previous statement yes.

Not one team in MLS built a new stadium with "High School" type of materials. Not one team in MLS added to an existing structure in that manner either. Not one.

Apples to oranges on LPGA and women's soccer. I do not agree with the logic that because one women's league fails they'll all fail. I even gave the example of the success of women's tennis this past decade for example.

Men's golf's results were due to Tiger Woods.

[kevinfootes]

If you are now changing what you posted before, that's fine. You posted that the league wanted 50k stadiums and then immediately foillow that up with Stl wanted to expand Soccer Park to get a team. ...well if according to you it took 50k...

We can agree that you amended your previous statement yes.

Not one team in MLS built a new stadium with "High School" type of materials. Not one team in MLS added to an existing structure in that manner either. Not one.

Apples to oranges on LPGA and women's soccer. I do not agree with the logic that because one women's league fails they'll all fail. I even gave the example of the success of women's tennis this past decade for example.

Men's golf's results were due to Tiger Woods.

I didn't amend/change anything. Here's what I wrote:

"If you read what I posted, when the league started they insisted on a capacity of > 50K. At that point there was talk around town of exapnding the soccer park to try to land a team, but the league insisted on places like the Meadowlands, Arrowhead, etc"

I did NOT write that the soccer park would be expanded to 50K. I wrote that it wasn't big enough for what MLS wanted so it didn't happen. So we can agree that you are mistaken. There is no way an expansion like that could have happened.

You are correct that no other team built expanded existing strutures. They would have been better if atmosphere-wise if they had, but they didn't. Instead they had <20% capacity for a long time.

Tiger Woods has obviously made men's golf more popular, but men's golf has been popular for decades and will continue.

[courtside]

I didn't amend/change anything. Here's what I wrote:

"If you read what I posted, when the league started they insisted on a capacity of > 50K. At that point there was talk around town of exapnding the soccer park to try to land a team, but the league insisted on places like the Meadowlands, Arrowhead, etc"

I did NOT write that the soccer park would be expanded to 50K. I wrote that it wasn't big enough for what MLS wanted so it didn't happen. So we can agree that you are mistaken. There is no way an expansion like that could have happened.

You are correct that no other team built expanded existing strutures. They would have been better if atmosphere-wise if they had, but they didn't. Instead they had <20% capacity for a long time.

Tiger Woods has obviously made men's golf more popular, but men's golf has been popular for decades and will continue.

I don't think we can agree on anything. The only thing I can add is no MLS franchise would ever have a venue of such poor construction quality or build any addition of such poor construction quality ...for that level of a league.

You refuse to acknowledge the decline in many aspects of men's golf prior to Tiger Woods. And, you refuse to acknowledge the quantity of difference he makes in the game. The statement that golf always was and will be popular is not a complete or accurate state of affairs in terms of level of professional viability. Golf as is the case with any sport, can impropve upon it's situation but the facts pre-Tiger and without Tiger are the facts.

[kevinfootes]

I don't think we can agree on anything. The only thing I can add is no MLS franchise would ever have a venue of such poor construction quality or build any addition of such poor construction quality ...for that level of a league.

You refuse to acknowledge the decline in many aspects of men's golf prior to Tiger Woods. And, you refuse to acknowledge the quantity of difference he makes in the game. The statement that golf always was and will be popular is not a complete or accurate state of affairs in terms of level of professional viability. Golf as is the case with any sport, can impropve upon it's situation but the facts pre-Tiger and without Tiger are the facts.

I've acknowleged the value of Tiger to the game of golf several time in this thread. Golf was indeed declining before he came around, but it has been on the air for about 6 decades and will always be on the air. There are plenty of ways to look at Nielsen ratings, but golf had a higher share in the '70s that it has had at any time Tiger has been playing.

You, on the other hand, have simply put words in my mouth that arent't true.

Besides, I'm not sure what any of this has to do with why a lame ladies soccer league failed. The reason for that is that no one cares.

[BACKHANDtheRICAN]

I've acknowleged the value of Tiger to the game of golf several time in this thread. Golf was indeed declining before he came around, but it has been on the air for about 6 decades and will always be on the air. There are plenty of ways to look at Nielsen ratings, but golf had a higher share in the '70s that it has had at any time Tiger has been playing.

You, on the other hand, have simply put words in my mouth that arent't true.

Besides, I'm not sure what any of this has to do with why a lame ladies soccer league failed. The reason for that is that no one cares.

+1

[waldo027]

They're losing by 7 with 12:55 left right now. Hope they lose so we don't have to hear about them anymore.

[MB73]

It was awful.

I was minding my own business, watching the Holiday Bowl.

ESPN, with no warning, goes to live feed of U Conn - Stanford girls game.

FCC should regulate that sort of thing.

It could have been worse, it could have been soccer.

(By the way, Coach Wooden lied.)

[courtside]

I've acknowleged the value of Tiger to the game of golf several time in this thread. Golf was indeed declining before he came around, but it has been on the air for about 6 decades and will always be on the air. There are plenty of ways to look at Nielsen ratings, but golf had a higher share in the '70s that it has had at any time Tiger has been playing.

You, on the other hand, have simply put words in my mouth that arent't true.

Besides, I'm not sure what any of this has to do with why a lame ladies soccer league failed. The reason for that is that no one cares.

It is factually incorrect to say that golf had a higher rating in the 1970's than at any time during Tiger Woods. This is for ratings, share, number of viewers, percentage of viewers, any way you want to slice it. The opposite has occurred quite often. And, this was when there were 3 channels in th 1970's vs hundreds and hundreds of channels today.

And, as stated the ratings double and triple when Woods is in winning contention vs when he is not playing or a non-factor. After all of these years of opportunity with Tiger, golf has yet to find a way to come close to ratings without him.

[kevinfootes]

It is factually incorrect to say that golf had a higher rating in the 1970's than at any time during Tiger Woods. This is for ratings, share, number of viewers, percentage of viewers, any way you want to slice it. The opposite has occurred quite often. And, this was when there were 3 channels in th 1970's vs hundreds and hundreds of channels today.

And, as stated the ratings double and triple when Woods is in winning contention vs when he is not playing or a non-factor. After all of these years of opportunity with Tiger, golf has yet to find a way to come close to ratings without him.

The share numbers for the US Open were greater than 20 each year from 1971-1982 except for 1979 when it was 19. During the Tiger Woods era (through 2008 anyway) the highest share number for the US Open was 20. This is per Nielsen. Does that "slice" work for you?

The average US Open HH rating number for 1971-1982 was 6.3. During the Tiger Woods era it was 4.9 through 2008.

[courtside]

The share numbers for the US Open were greater than 20 each year from 1971-1982 except for 1979 when it was 19. During the Tiger Woods era (through 2008 anyway) the highest share number for the US Open was 20. This is per Nielsen. Does that "slice" work for you?

The average US Open HH rating number for 1971-1982 was 6.3. During the Tiger Woods era it was 4.9 through 2008.

You said "at any time." And, that is factually incorrect. I see now you are only using the U.S. Open when previously you said the far wider comment of "golf." When did we limit this to the U.S. Open?

You of course are taking the number compared to the other channels on at that time and somehow trying to compare that to present day and that of course can't be done considering the hundreds and hundreds of added channels. And, even using your own criteria there are many occurrences where the numbers are better during Woods' era.

You also do not use other numbers of relevance.

The more you discuss it the more it makes the point of golf's decline prior to Tiger Woods and its massively different ratings and interest when he plays in contention and when he does not play or is not in contention.

Golf has not shown the ability to be greatly significant without him in present times.

[dlarry]

It was awful.

I was minding my own business, watching the Holiday Bowl.

ESPN, with no warning, goes to live feed of U Conn - Stanford girls game.

FCC should regulate that sort of thing.

It could have been worse, it could have been soccer.

(By the way, Coach Wooden lied.)

The FCC wont allow a boob to be shown on TV but they allow a womens college basketball game to interupt a college football game?

Thats not right on so many different levels.

[kevinfootes]

You said "at any time." And, that is factually incorrect. I see now you are only using the U.S. Open when previously you said the far wider comment of "golf." When did we limit this to the U.S. Open?

You of course are taking the number compared to the other channels on at that time and somehow trying to compare that to present day and that of course can't be done considering the hundreds and hundreds of added channels. And, even using your own criteria there are many occurrences where the numbers are better during Woods' era.

You also do not use other numbers of relevance.

The more you discuss it the more it makes the point of golf's decline prior to Tiger Woods and its massively different ratings and interest when he plays in contention and when he does not play or is not in contention.

Golf has not shown the ability to be greatly significant without him in present times.

You made the claim "any way you want to slice it", not me. I looked at a familiar event and it took about 3 seconds to find those numbers. Sorry I looked at something like the US Open. Why would anyone be interested in that? It's only one of the biggest events. After all, it's not women's soccer. Perhaps you shouldn't make claims like "any way you want to slice it" if you're unwilling to accept the results.

I'm well aware of the relevance of all of this. I understand how Nielsen works and the difference between '70s tv vs. present day. I've also repeatedly acknowledged the impact of Tiger Woods on the game of golf, which you won't acknowledge.

But hey, you're right...no one ever heard of golf before Tiger Woods came on the scene. It was never on TV and won't be on again after he retires. Arnie's Army...it didn't exist. The best player ever, Jack Niklaus...who's he? Everyone will be watching women's soccer.

Happy New Year, "any way you want to slice it"!

[courtside]

You made the claim "any way you want to slice it", not me. I looked at a familiar event and it took about 3 seconds to find those numbers. Sorry I looked at something like the US Open. Why would anyone be interested in that? It's only one of the biggest events. After all, it's not women's soccer. Perhaps you shouldn't make claims like "any way you want to slice it" if you're unwilling to accept the results.

I'm well aware of the relevance of all of this. I understand how Nielsen works and the difference between '70s tv vs. present day. I've also repeatedly acknowledged the impact of Tiger Woods on the game of golf, which you won't acknowledge.

But hey, you're right...no one ever heard of golf before Tiger Woods came on the scene. It was never on TV and won't be on again after he retires. Arnie's Army...it didn't exist. The best player ever, Jack Niklaus...who's he? Everyone will be watching women's soccer.

Happy New Year, "any way you want to slice it"!

You said that golf had higher ratings in the 1970's than during Tiger Woods at ANY time. That statement was and still is false any way you slice it. Why? Golf has had higher ratings many different times for many different events during Tiger Woods than it did in the 1970's for the same events, let alone different events. In order for your statement to be false, it only had to happen once. In fact it has happened too many times for me to count. You even gave an exception yourself later, after saying it didn't happen at all.

You can't make a statement saying something never happened...which you did by saying "any time," and then later cherry pick specifics of one event of 4 of its kind let alone the regular tour. It is factually incorrect ...any...way...you...slice...it. In order for your statement to be correct it needed to happen EVERY time and it didn't, not even close, for majors or other events.

I didn't say Tiger Woods invented golf. What I said was and is golf was on the decline prior to him, and, golf has yet to show it can compete at as high a level in interest without him. Maybe that'll change some day, but so far it hasn't ...for years....unrelated examples...baseball is less popular than it used to be, and football is more popular, etc...there is zero guarantee that golf will be more popular in the future because it once had some popularity in the 1970's. Some things bounce back and some things don't, and circumstances will continue to change.

Golf's success for a long time has been linked to Tiger Woods. You may not like that or may not want that to be true but that has not been the case up to this point.

[kevinfootes]

You said that golf had higher ratings in the 1970's than during Tiger Woods at ANY time. That statement was and still is false any way you slice it. Why? Golf has had higher ratings many different times for many different events during Tiger Woods than it did in the 1970's for the same events, let alone different events. In order for your statement to be false, it only had to happen once. In fact it has happened too many times for me to count. You even gave an exception yourself later, after saying it didn't happen at all.

You can't make a statement saying something never happened...which you did by saying "any time," and then later cherry pick specifics of one event of 4 of its kind let alone the regular tour. It is factually incorrect ...any...way...you...slice...it. In order for your statement to be correct it needed to happen EVERY time and it didn't, not even close, for majors or other events.

I didn't say Tiger Woods invented golf. What I said was and is golf was on the decline prior to him, and, golf has yet to show it can compete at as high a level in interest without him. Maybe that'll change some day, but so far it hasn't ...for years....unrelated examples...baseball is less popular than it used to be, and football is more popular, etc...there is zero guarantee that golf will be more popular in the future because it once had some popularity in the 1970's. Some things bounce back and some things don't, and circumstances will continue to change.

Golf's success for a long time has been linked to Tiger Woods. You may not like that or may not want that to be true but that has not been the case up to this point.

"any was you want to slice it"...as long as I slice it the way you decide. Great!

Geez, maybe I should have made a statement along the way that I recognize the importance of Tiger Woods. Oh wait, I've done that 5 or 6 times already! Thanks for reminding me, though. I posted that golf had been poplualr before Tiger and would continue to be after he is gone. You can't refute that. Like most things, it can and will go up and down.

BTW, I found an article from 2009 stating that ESPN had drawn their highest EPL ratings ever in the US. It was a 0.3. So much for casual soccer fans in the US being interested in what's going on overseas.

[courtside]

"any was you want to slice it"...as long as I slice it the way you decide. Great!

Geez, maybe I should have made a statement along the way that I recognize the importance of Tiger Woods. Oh wait, I've done that 5 or 6 times already! Thanks for reminding me, though. I posted that golf had been poplualr before Tiger and would continue to be after he is gone. You can't refute that. Like most things, it can and will go up and down.

BTW, I found an article from 2009 stating that ESPN had drawn their highest EPL ratings ever in the US. It was a 0.3. So much for casual soccer fans in the US being interested in what's going on overseas.

You made a statement which was factually incorrect.

In terms of opinion of golf's popularity, that is relative. Your statement implied golf was popular before Tiger Woods historically, and that it will be equally as popular long after Tiger Woods. You did not make any distinctions as to what level. I stated that golf declined in popularity until Tiger Woods, and in recent history and presently moving forward, it has been far less popular without him playing well. You said that statement can't be refuted. Sure it can. The future of golf's popularity is unknown at best. With increased competition for the sports dollar as well as hundreds of others things to watch and do, golf has quite a few challeneges.

You seem pretty confident that golf will get those 1970's ratings long after Tiger Woods. We'll see about that.

Soccer. You do realize those games are shown on weekday afternoons and 4am, 6am, 7am times on weekends, with limited games available? 570,000 viwers(.4 rating) for a weekday afternoon, of a game with a several hour time difference on a different continent...and it's just the beginning stages of ever airing those games on that network...yeah I'd say there's interest. Fox, ESPN and several other networks also apparently agree with me as they keep bidding for more in the future.

And, MLS, with better days of the week, better prime time starts, etc...and all the advantages of being local doesn't do as well. Why? The level of play is not as good. And, even with this, MLS is going to double and triple it's tv contract with multiple networks.

[moytoy12]

And, MLS, with better days of the week, better prime time starts, etc...and all the advantages of being local doesn't do as well. Why? The level of play is not as good. And, even with this, MLS is going to double and triple it's tv contract with multiple networks.

Level of play is not the only reason as you seem to imply.

[kevinfootes]

You made a statement which was factually incorrect.

In terms of opinion of golf's popularity, that is relative. Your statement implied golf was popular before Tiger Woods historically, and that it will be equally as popular long after Tiger Woods. You did not make any distinctions as to what level. I stated that golf declined in popularity until Tiger Woods, and in recent history and presently moving forward, it has been far less popular without him playing well. You said that statement can't be refuted. Sure it can. The future of golf's popularity is unknown at best. With increased competition for the sports dollar as well as hundreds of others things to watch and do, golf has quite a few challeneges.

You seem pretty confident that golf will get those 1970's ratings long after Tiger Woods. We'll see about that.

Soccer. You do realize those games are shown on weekday afternoons and 4am, 6am, 7am times on weekends, with limited games available? 570,000 viwers(.4 rating) for a weekday afternoon, of a game with a several hour time difference on a different continent...and it's just the beginning stages of ever airing those games on that network...yeah I'd say there's interest. Fox, ESPN and several other networks also apparently agree with me as they keep bidding for more in the future.

And, MLS, with better days of the week, better prime time starts, etc...and all the advantages of being local doesn't do as well. Why? The level of play is not as good. And, even with this, MLS is going to double and triple it's tv contract with multiple networks.

You made a statement that was factually incorrect when you accused me of claiming that there was a plan to expand soccer park to 50K even though I showed you the exact quote 2 different times.

The future of any sport's popularity is unknown...like many things in the future.

Have you ever heard of tivo, dvr, etc.? It doesn't matter so much what time something is on the air. This isn't the '70s after all. If the average soccer fan is interested in the EPL, then I guess you're claiming that the "average" fan is a 0.4 share. That's a pretty poor average.

What does the average MLS team get from the TV deal? My quick seach showed it was about $800K a couple of years ago. Do you have more recent info? Would triple that be $2.5 million? Yippie!

[courtside]

You made a statement that was factually incorrect when you accused me of claiming that there was a plan to expand soccer park to 50K even though I showed you the exact quote 2 different times.

The future of any sport's popularity is unknown...like many things in the future.

Have you ever heard of tivo, dvr, etc.? It doesn't matter so much what time something is on the air. This isn't the '70s after all. If the average soccer fan is interested in the EPL, then I guess you're claiming that the "average" fan is a 0.4 share. That's a pretty poor average.

What does the average MLS team get from the TV deal? My quick seach showed it was about $800K a couple of years ago. Do you have more recent info? Would triple that be $2.5 million? Yippie!

I was the one who informed you that European pro soccer leagues had more interest in the U.S. than MLS. One of the league tv deals is currently under negotiation. The average fan has more interest in European soccer leagues than in MLS to this point. MLS is in its infancy stages in the U.S. Complete European soccer coverage is also in its infancy stages in the U.S. For reasons unknown you clearly have a different timetable. The interest and ratings are up for the European leagues. And, while interest in the U.S. is less for MLS than the top European Leagues, the league tv deals will be increasing sizeably from previous levels. ...those are the facts. You can like, dislike, say yippie or whatever you'd like...doesn't matter, don't care...I simply gave the facts.

No, I didn't make a factually incorrect statement. You made a statement, then you changed your statement in a later post.

Now I see you say the statement that the future of any sports popularity is known. This differs with your repeated assertion that golf was popular long before Tiger Woods and it will be as popular long after Tiger Woods. That is unknown at best.

[moytoy12]

The average fan has more interest in European soccer leagues than in MLS to this point...I simply gave the facts.

This is an opinion. You seem to have trouble with the fact/opinion distinction.

The "average fan" is a subjective definition that you have. It could be right; it could be wrong. Either way, your definition of the average fan and what that average fan prefers are opinions.

[bk18]

let me bring us back to the topic.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/news/story?id=5937356

Old video but interesting question. "Is this good for women's basketball?"

My answer is no. It shows that competitive landscape in women's basketball is completely different than in men's basketball.

Women's basketball is more about raw talent than men's basketball and this just goes to prove that. The Men's NCAA tournament is always more exciting to watch because any team can beat any team almost any game. That's what makes it exciting. This is not the case for women's basketball.

[courtside]

This is an opinion. You seem to have trouble with the fact/opinion distinction.

The "average fan" is a subjective definition that you have. It could be right; it could be wrong. Either way, your definition of the average fan and what that average fan prefers are opinions.

It is indeed a fact in terms of the numbers. You seem to be having some trouble with numbers. You also seem to be having trouble understanding that the highest interest is for the highest level leagues in any sport, at its level.