MLL Scheduling

[PhilWings24]

I'm just curious, who else agrees (or disagrees for that matter) with me that, in order for MLL to be succesful long term , each team would need to play about 82 games a year? (i jus took that number because its what hockey and basketball teams play) maybe as few as 60.

obviously, there's no way they could pull that off yet, the league would need to gain a much larger following.

but i've heard people saying that it should stay 1-2 games a week, which is remarkably hard to pull off.

the only reason football teams can pull it off is its just such a wonderful tv-sport. but generally speaking, it takes several games a week to keep large numbers of people interested.

thats all, lemme know what ya think, cya

[freestylewalkin]

actually the league would need a lot more teams to pull of as few as 60 becasue b ball and hockey have more than 15 teams (i took a guess) and it would get boring seeing them play the same team over and over again

[Lax101]

Soccer doesn't play close to 82 games, and football plays 16.

I think if the MLL is as successful as the MLS in a decade, that would be a success.

[PhilWings24]

actually the league would need a lot more teams to pull of as few as 60 becasue b ball and hockey have more than 15 teams (i took a guess) and it would get boring seeing them play the same team over and over again

yeah, it would need to gain a much much larger following (which it would need more teams to do). i'm not talking short term, i mean once (or if, really) it becomes a heavily followed sport, which it is not at all, as of right now.

[PhilWings24]

Soccer doesn't play close to 82 games, and football plays 16.

I think if the MLL is as successful as the MLS in a decade, that would be a success.

yeah, if ya read my original post you'll see i mentioned that football is the only sport in america that can pull off so few games. its such a wonderful tv sport, that people will get excited every sunday and sit down and watch. however, outdoor lacrosse would lose ridiculous amounts of money if they attempted to follow in their footsteps, for the reasons i mentioned in my original post.

and also, soccer is infinitely larger a sport than football. they could probably get away with playing a game once every 3 weeks.

and lastly, mll will easily pass mls by the end of the decade. easily.

[stinisonfire]

and lastly, mll will easily pass mls by the end of the decade. easily.

MLS attendance has been going down while MLL has been going up. it should be within 5 years is my guess. especially with the new teams out west.

To be on topic though, I think the number of games they should play is around 12-15, including the new "out of league".

Watch, hopefully soccer goes on strike and all the soccer fans go to watch the MLL like the NHL scared away fans to the NLL. Or baseball. That'd be awesome. :thumbsup:

[PhilWings24]

To be on topic though, I think the number of games they should play is around 12-15, including the new "out of league".

Watch, hopefully soccer goes on strike and all the soccer fans go to watch the MLL like the NHL scared away fans to the NLL. Or baseball. That'd be awesome. :thumbsup:

yeah for next year that number sounds about perfect for me. and stealing all of the mls fans would definitely make me smile. but i'm a huge red sox fan, so lets wait til they get knocked out of the playoffs for baseball to go on strike.

it's all coming together now.

[temporary1357]

MLS attendance has been going down while MLL has been going up. it should be within 5 years is my guess. especially with the new teams out west.
Optimism is great, but I'm not going to bet on Los Angeles MLL team beating out the Galaxy (or even Chivas) attendances in the next decade (about 24,000 a game)

[PhilWings24]

Optimism is great, but I'm not going to bet on Los Angeles MLL team beating out the Galaxy (or even Chivas) attendances in the next decade (about 24,000 a game)

well yeah, of course there are gonna be individual teams from one league that outdraw individual teams from a lesser league.

n also, the los angeles team will draw well. san francisco won't.

[laxrat22]

Optimism is great, but I'm not going to bet on Los Angeles MLL team beating out the Galaxy (or even Chivas) attendances in the next decade (about 24,000 a game)

does chivas really get that many a game, they suck. and i don't see the L.A. team surpassing either

[temporary1357]

does chivas really get that many a game, they suck. and i don't see the L.A. team surpassing either
I think they get about 11,000 a game, although their publicised attendance is 17,000 because they got 88,000 at the Coliseum for a doubleheader that included a Mexican league game.

And seriously, MLL is levels below the NLL, which doesn't get mainstream coverage or is known outside of their markets (and even in). MLL has light years to go.

http://www.kenn.com/sports/
This has attendances for pretty much every league if you're curious.

[PhilWings24]

i completely agree its got a long ways to go, but its definitely moving up, and mls is moving down

[temporary1357]

Chivas gets about 10-11,000 a game, though their official average is 17,000 because they got 88,000 at a game in Coliseum, which was part of a doubleheader with a Mexican league game.

http://www.kenn.com/sports/
This site has attendances for almost every worthy league in America.

[stinisonfire]

Oh no, I didn't mean that MLL was gonna overtake the soccer teams out West right away. I just meant that the pro teams are expanding and that it's not just being contained in the East. But then again, look at how huge soccer is in Mexico (let alone the rest of the world). Then look at the Hispanic population of the Southwest. But I could see lax MAYBE taking the Fire out once the MLL team is there (Chicago) within a couple of years. Lacrosse is blowing up in that section (IL, IN, WI). San Fran has a chance as well. Where does Chivas play? I know the LA Galaxy has a strong fan base.

[temporary1357]

Chivas plays in the Home Depot Center with the Galaxy, and they have a disastrous marketing plan, as their fanbase consists of Mexican-Americans that are fans of the Guadalaja Chivas team. The Galaxy on the other hand, have a successful but questionable marketing plan: pander to the businesses around LA and sell season tickets to people who will show up half the time for half the game (pretty much like every other LA team).

It seems like you guys are targeting MLS and are sure that this league will go down in flames. Maybe because lacrosse and soccer have always been linked as "upper class suburban white" sports in America. I am a HUGE follower of MLS (Go Galaxy, go away Chivas), and this league isn't going down unless the government bans it. This league hasn't done a whole lot of growing in terms of TV and attendance, but after losing $30-40 million a year in the first 6 or 7 years, now, that figure is going down to about $10 million last year. This league has powerful and rich owners that really don't care about losing money, and one of the biggest things this league has done is build soccer stadiums (Home Depot Center, Crew Stadium, Pizza Hut Park, Bridgeview) that at least get them out of NFL stadiums. And those 20,000 seater stadiums, I've been advocating, would be a great launching pad for MLL teams. They are built like NFL stadiums (proper concession stands, club seats/luxury boxes, jumbotrons, and all that crap) except with 1/4th the amount of seats.

Anyway, enough about soccer, let's discuss MLL scheduling. First of all, I don't know how this league can pull off 82 games a year when lacrosse, like soccer, is a sport played once a week with the occasional double game week. By forcing teams to play every other day, the quality will just take a nosedive and force some unusual and upsetting changes to the game. A 40 game schedule over 7 months sounds like a good plan to shoot for, as we're not trying to get as much revenue as the major leagues, just trying to somewhat enter their territory. And I've always assumed that having fewer games allows fans to follow their teams a lot better. Every game in football is an event in itself, while you can just have several games fly by your head in baseball.

[PhilWings24]

Anyway, enough about soccer, let's discuss MLL scheduling. First of all, I don't know how this league can pull off 82 games a year when lacrosse, like soccer, is a sport played once a week with the occasional double game week. By forcing teams to play every other day, the quality will just take a nosedive and force some unusual and upsetting changes to the game. A 40 game schedule over 7 months sounds like a good plan to shoot for, as we're not trying to get as much revenue as the major leagues, just trying to somewhat enter their territory. And I've always assumed that having fewer games allows fans to follow their teams a lot better. Every game in football is an event in itself, while you can just have several games fly by your head in baseball.

Well put argument.

And i completely agree that short seasons are best now, because of exactly what you said; makes the teams easier to follow, and each game a bigger event.

However, once you get a considerably sized base of die-hard fans, you just wanna keep feeding them as much as you can. and i personally think 82 games is absolutely fine, because there's no way outdoor lacrosse is as exhausting as hockey, and you could even argue it isnt as exhausting as basketball. and anyone who thinks its about as exhausting is football is just.....wrong. wrong like woah.

one thing, however, that is downright indisputable in my opinion is that, once/if the league is large enough, there need to be playoff series. not games. lacrosse just isn't the kind of game wherein entire seasons should be determined by one game.

[GBaschski]

[QUOTE=PhilWings24] because there's no way outdoor lacrosse is as exhausting as hockey, and you could even argue it isnt as exhausting as basketball. and anyone who thinks its about as exhausting is football is just.....wrong. wrong like woah.QUOTE]

A sport is only as exhausting as how hard you work...I could jog around at a football game and be fine, but if I bust my butt every single second of a lacrosse game, throw myself into every single scrum with no regard to my safety, and keep running as hard as I can until I throw up seven times...then I'll be a bit more exhausted from playing lacrosse. :thumbsup:

[PhilWings24]

A sport is only as exhausting as how hard you work...I could jog around at a football game and be fine, but if I bust my butt every single second of a lacrosse game, throw myself into every single scrum with no regard to my safety, and keep running as hard as I can until I throw up seven times...then I'll be a bit more exhausted from playing lacrosse. :thumbsup:

lol....yes. yes that's very true.

[fenwicklax89]

philwings, i cant help but think that lacrosse isnt your #1 sport. you seem kinda pessimistic at times.

[PhilWings24]

philwings, i cant help but think that lacrosse isnt your #1 sport. you seem kinda pessimistic at times.

me??? are you bein sarcastic? cus i seem to be the only one, so far, that seems fully convinced that MLL could maintain an 82 game season, which i'd call optimism.

if by pessimistic you just mean that i'm saying its not as exhausting as hockey or maybe even basketball, then thats just the truth. i play pick up games of roller hockey with my friends and i feel drained afterwards, but i can play 5 games of outdoor lax a weak and just feel sore afterwards.

(and lacrosse is my #2 sport behind baseball.)

[laxrat22]

me??? are you bein sarcastic? cus i seem to be the only one, so far, that seems fully convinced that MLL could maintain an 82 game season, which i'd call optimism.

if by pessimistic you just mean that i'm saying its not as exhausting as hockey or maybe even basketball, then thats just the truth. i play pick up games of roller hockey with my friends and i feel drained afterwards, but i can play 5 games of outdoor lax a weak and just feel sore afterwards.

(and lacrosse is my #2 sport behind baseball.)

ok first of all, thought of 82 games may be 'optomistic' but not realistic. lacrosse is more draining than basketball because it has physicality factor, why do you think football has only one game a week, they don't do as much running as basketball players but they get so smashed up they need time to recuperate. i know lacrosse isn't as physical as football but it ain't no walk in the garden. and to pull off 82 games you need like 30 teams and i don't even see that within the next 20 years, my be possible but i don't see it happening.

and san fransisco will most likely bring in a way bigger crowd than L.A. the bay area lacrosse community is bigger than the L.A. lacrosse community and i don't see the whole san diego lax communuty going up for everygame, and we're the anchor of socal lacrosse.

[stegmakk]

60 games per season...maybe...but the fan base would need to be huge as well as the marketing budgets...
If you have enough fans to support all of the new travel costs involved...all the venue expenses...etc...
If they stayed at current venues...say Mitchell field for the Lizards...who can't even half fill the stands...maybe...if you are talking about getting into biggger venues...keep dreaming for another 100 years or so...

[PhilWings24]

ok first of all, thought of 82 games may be 'optomistic' but not realistic. lacrosse is more draining than basketball because it has physicality factor, why do you think football has only one game a week, they don't do as much running as basketball players but they get so smashed up they need time to recuperate. i know lacrosse isn't as physical as football but it ain't no walk in the garden. and to pull off 82 games you need like 30 teams and i don't even see that within the next 20 years, my be possible but i don't see it happening.

and san fransisco will most likely bring in a way bigger crowd than L.A. the bay area lacrosse community is bigger than the L.A. lacrosse community and i don't see the whole san diego lax communuty going up for everygame, and we're the anchor of socal lacrosse.

okay lol...i keep makin the same points over and over: hockey is way way way more exhausting than lacrosse. they play 82 games a year.

and did i also made it clear i meant down the line. maybe not ever. but i don't think MLL would ever be able to keep its head above water by playing one game a week.

and if you've played a highly competiive game of basketball as well as a highly competitive game of lacrosse, you'd be awful surprised how comprable the wear on your body is.

[PhilWings24]

60 games per season...maybe...but the fan base would need to be huge as well as the marketing budgets...
If you have enough fans to support all of the new travel costs involved...all the venue expenses...etc...
If they stayed at current venues...say Mitchell field for the Lizards...who can't even half fill the stands...maybe...if you are talking about getting into biggger venues...keep dreaming for another 100 years or so...

not "huge" at all. n if ya'd read what i said you'd understand that i do mean once it gets bigger. people seem to forget that the sport can and will grow, and that its not the most exhausting sport in america.

[dougm]

Soccer doesn't play close to 82 games, and football plays 16.

I think if the MLL is as successful as the MLS in a decade, that would be a success.

modest goals

[stegmakk]

not "huge" at all. n if ya'd read what i said you'd understand that i do mean once it gets bigger. people seem to forget that the sport can and will grow, and that its not the most exhausting sport in america.
It has to get much bigger to be able to support such a feat.
And again...are you talking about these small current venues or about larger pro (or college) football stadiums?
While not the most exhaustive sport...it is up there...and to compare competative lax with competative basketball is crazy. Lacrosse puts more stress on your body, and is more exhaustive. I'll give you hockey is much worse than lacrosse...but lax IS up there...

[PhilWings24]

It has to get much bigger to be able to support such a feat.
And again...are you talking about these small current venues or about larger pro (or college) football stadiums?
While not the most exhaustive sport...it is up there...and to compare competative lax with competative basketball is crazy. Lacrosse puts more stress on your body, and is more exhaustive. I'll give you hockey is much worse than lacrosse...but lax IS up there...

yeah, i mean larger venus. basically (i'm starting to realize i didn't do a good job of laying the foundation here) i mean in a world where everything in the MLL is perfect, but they are still deciding how many games to play a year. cus, at the point for this to even be an issue, it would need to be at least as big as hockey.

and i agree, basketball isn't as exhausting as lacrosse. but its much closer than most people would think, at least at highly competitive levels. (for the top players, its basically 40-48 minutes of sprinting downcourt, side stepping for defense, sprinting upcourt, running at 60-90% speed on offense...its alot tougher than it looks on TV, but, i agree, not nearly as tough as lacrosse)

[nclax35]

i love lacrosse and all and i think they should play more games but 60, you body would take such a pounding i think like this year they should play like 15 then once they get like 16 teams like play like 20 or 30 games.