It's not what you say...

I've got a few favorite soccer journos and bloggers-- Ives, Arroyave, Goff spring immediately to mind, but the list could go on.

One of the guys I confess that I just don't get is Jamie Trecker. It's not because he never makes good points-- even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. It's because I just don't like how the guy thinks. He believes that it takes guts to do what he does-- to stand up to the incompetent USSF, to lambast MLS and to generally show US soccer journalists how real independent media really is.

Those are noble goals, but the guy just doesn't have the horses to pull the carriage.

He starts are recent blog with the following observation "We never know as much as we think we do", which pretty much renders most blogs useless, including his and mine.
http://community.foxsports.com/blogs/JamieTrecker/2007/10/10/Unable_to_learn#comments

But what he's going for is to show that US soccer keeps on making bad calls-- but only Trecker is capable of making the right calls. The following list are what he calls "bad calls", coupled with the lesson in basic rhetoric that I wish Jamie would learn:


1. "Top of the list has to be the handling of David Beckham. The only conclusion one can draw from the events of this summer is that MLS grossly mismanaged the handling of the star and turned what had been rapturous mainstream attention into recriminations and the disappearance of too much coverage for the sport."

What hyperbolic crap. Becks came to MLS injured. The only question is "how much worse did MLS make a bad situation?" Even before the mismanagement, MLS was dealing with a public relations nightmare-- Becks wasn't ready to play and people had bought tickets.

So this brings up something that Trecker always fails to do: "consider what else could have been done?" Trecker never does that, because he's a talker and not a doer. Should MLS have told fans Beckham wasn't going to play for the rest of the season when that wasn't true? What if MLS had attempted to capitalize on Becks less and Beckham had gotten healthy? Wouldn't that have been a missed opportunity? Of course.

Lesson 1: Consider the other possibilities.

MLS has brought in millions because of Beckham. The media coverage was good. Galaxy coach Frank Yallop isn't free from blame for playing Beckham, but frankly, the negative coverage was coming regardless of what happened.

2. "MLS insists that its low-cost model is the only way to ensure the sport’s survival and stability. It’s funny how, then, that the teams who have signed big names have experienced upticks in attendance and press coverage while the ones that haven’t continue to wither. It’s also funny how the best American players ditch the league as soon as they can."

Lesson 2: In articles about the limits of knowledge, please display some.
The team that has experienced, by farm the biggest uptick in attendance: the New England Revolution. The teams that have experienced the 3rd and 4th greatest increases? DC United and the Colorado Rapids-- two teams that also don't have any of the big name players.

And one team that did bring in a big name: Dallas, with Denilson, actually has fewer people in the stands than last year.

But, I'm willing to grant that the big names have been good for MLS, but that brings us to Lesson Three and Lesson Four:
Lesson Three: Be Consistent Didn't Trecker just make a big deal about how mismanaged Beckham was? Now he's saying that the teams with big names had better media coverage and better attendance? Either it worked or it didn't, Jamie, which is it?

Lesson Four: Talking business is easier than knowing business
Jamie acts like everyone's surprised that David Beckham sold lots of Galaxy jerseys and that Cuahtemoc Blanco is bringing in Mexican and Mexican-American fans everywhere. As far as I was concerned, we knew that would happen based on our experiences with Freddy Adu and Luis Hernandez.

The question instead was: "Is it worth it?" Merely increaing revenue isn't enough, especially if (a) you don't actually receive all of that revenue and (b) you have to spend too much to generate the increase. Buying David Beckham didn't make sense when the Galaxy were in the Rose Bowl because the economics were different. It makes sense now. It would seem that MLS bigwigs actually have learned a lot over the years. So bringing up how MLS decided to try out hiring Big Names doesn't exactly support Jamie's thesis, does it? No. In fact, it was a terrible example.

3. "The truth is that many players are being flat-out exploited by contracts that don’t crack $20,000. New England’s Adam Cristman has toiled away this season for $11,000. Due to some MLS legerdemain, until recently, he was not a “senior” roster player. That allowed New England to pay him even less than the pathethic $17K minimum. What an example this league sets for kids, huh?"

No. Christman actually made $17,700, which is a developmental salary and not, as Jamie indicates, the minimum salary for senior players. The minimum for senior players is still only $30,000, but Trecker's got to get this stuff right.
Lesson Five: Check your facts.

4. "MLS sticks to a summer calendar, making the argument that soccer families are the target audience.

It’s funny how, then, at the games I go to, the crowds are filled with young people on dates and that horrifying “ethnic” crowd. It’s also funny how attendances are awful at the start of the season, increase at the back end of the year… until the playoffs, when things drop off the ledge."
Lesson Six: Don't mistake your local situation for the situation everywhere
The funny thing is, when I attend MLS games, I see plenty of kids. IN fact, that's a complaint of MLS fans everywhere: that there are too many kids. I don't know what games Trecker is going to, but he needs to get out to other MLS cities.

Trecker really ought to note, too, that the reason that attendance increases in the fall is generally because the kids are back from vacation and ready to go to games. From what MLS GMs have said, this is largely due to group sales to youth soccer. Which also explains why attendance plummets in the playoffs: there's no time for group sales (in addition to the fact that marketing time is shorter in general and that playoff tickets aren't included in season ticket packages).

5. "The new women’s league has been pushed back from 2008 to 2009? Why? That’s an excellent question, because it’s a repeat of the same stagger-start that doomed WUSA I. The truth might be that there is no good reason beyond the fact that this league doesn’t have the financial legs."
Lesson Seven: Have a point.
Seriously, what is Trecker's point here? That it's big news that the women's league needs another year to attract investment if it's going to succeed?

An addition bonus point is that Trecker's assertion that the "stagger-start" is what doomed the original league is just moronic. The league failed because it didn't start up in 2000? How about the league failed because it blew through five years of financing in one year, despite meeting attendance projections?

After reading yet anothed botched Trecker article, I just have to ask "Is this guy ever going to learn?"