Comments on: Italy Game Was Ratings Hit

By: massimo

massimo — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 04:20:37 +0000

Italy isgana win this time usa sucks

By: Jon E.

Jon E. — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 13:03:01 +0000

For games the weekend before, Univision averaged about a 2.5 share. And they got a 5.4 for the Mexico-Iran game. So I’m betting they got at least a 3.0 for the US-Italy game..

Add those up and you get an 8.2 share for the US-Italy game. If you count bars etc., about 10 million people watched the game in the US.

That’s not bad considering that Game 5 of the NBA finals got a 13 share. And that the Stanley Cup playoffs have NEVER done better than a 5.2 share (in 1992).

By: Travis

Travis — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:25:02 +0000

I’ll second (or third or whatever) about the comments on the graphics comming in at the wrong time. And they’re so big too – very annoying.

And what about those instant replays? Too many times, the camera is zoomed too far in and they easily lose track of the ball or we don’t get a total view of the play. Again, very annoying.

Definately haven’t been a fan of the commentating, especially from the former players. Yea, we all get passionate, but many times it’s just way over the top and not insightful at all. Just compare to every other sporting event you’ve watched or heard on the radio – quite a contrast.

And the ads… What I think it really comes down to is what companies felt would be worth to advertise during the WC. I bet too many figured it wouldn’t be worth it, but I think its pretty safe to say that they figured wrong. Sadly, we’re left with José +10 (even though he never really does win the game, eh?) and others ad nauseum. Too bad none of the Joga Bonito clips never made it on.

–Travis

By: Troglodyte

Troglodyte — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:13:29 +0000

I think it’s an artifact of American football coverage, in which the flanks are relevant for only seconds at a time. But in real football they’re often obscuring the most important play.

By: ZJ

ZJ — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:47:52 +0000

I have to agree with Troglodyte. Too many times there have been “info” bubbles that appear directly over the play action. It’s hard enough to see when you’re watching on a tiny TV, let alone with all of ESPN’s screen clutter.

By: Troglodyte

Troglodyte — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 08:13:08 +0000

The other problem is the ridiculous pop-up graphics with meaningless information that obscure vital parts of the field at exactly the wrong times.

By: pao

pao — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 06:22:16 +0000

Same Jose in Italy Anthony. It’s a big surprise reading Americans complain about the quality and poor variety of commercials while here we just can’t stand their existence. I agree on what Jono said excitement for blood and guts is not American it’s part of the human nature. Ever heard of gladiators 2 thousands years ago?
The game against us italians could have given non-football fans in America a sample of how thrilling can be football. Now they just need a fine display of skills and they’ll be catched.
Karl good point on the clash of nations. A world cup is a place were nationalism is allowed and not blamed. It’s a pacific display of nationalism that we just need every 4 years. It’s great part of its charme.

By: Anthony Gutierrez

Anthony Gutierrez — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 05:07:23 +0000

I think that ESPN has done remarkably well this tournament. There seems to be good coverage of highlights from other games, mini player profiles and brief interviews. I like the commetary of Wynalda, Foudy, and Lalas, especially after the Czech game because you can see that they were fans who were as mad as we were if not more.

There was also coverage on SportsCenter, which used to be HORRIBLE about covering soccer.

There is no doubt in my mind that soccer is here to stay in the minds of the American sports fan, but my main complaints about the coverage (I think) has to do with the fact that soccer is still lower on the list of sports that the American sports fan is interested in.

My first complaint is that there (sometimes) is no lead in or connection between games. Some of the days (maybe it was weekends) after the game was over, there was unrelated programming until right before the next game. I usually chaged the channel to Univision to watch other pre-game coverage, including the players waiting to take the field, national anthems, etc. Too often in the Olympics, we see TOO MUCH coverage about a single player or about the host country, but in this case I would like to see a little more, especially about what’s going on around each venue.Also at least one game (Sweden/Paraguay)changed from one of the ESPN stations to the other so, having taped it, I missed it.

The second is the annoying repetition of the commercials and not just the overplayed Nike one, but even the other American-centric businesses. Why are there no interesting commercials for American audiences with the American players or with Americans talking about soccer. This is where I think the coverage is lesser because the popularity here is lesser than other sports.

Can anyone tell me, is Nike showing a wider variety of soccer related commercials in other countries, or do we all have to put up with the same Jose+10?

By: John

John — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 04:34:07 +0000

I bet the ratings will be high (for a Thursday morning, anyway) when we play Ghana. Excitement has been building after the draw against Italy. I think people who watched that game realized the US wasn’t going to go away with a whimper after all.

By: UC

UC — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 00:43:17 +0000

This is fantastic news. I guess it’s true what they say: Blood sells!

Now if only we could incorporate sex somehow.