DISQUS

Every time I read one of Mitch's blog entries it's like I'm reading a gag article from The Onion.

Sunderland? It would be in Pittsburgh. Coal mining, glass production, on the banks of multiple rivers, working class town.

I won't take credit for it, but on the BBC website a blogger called it "You'll Never Walk Cologne". :)

Nor do I subscribe to the single table argument, in a league where distances of 2,500 miles is common between stadiums. To me it makes more sense to play the clubs in your geographic area more often than clubs on the other side of the continent.
---------------------------------------------------
While playing your geographic rivals may make more sense from a rivalry viewpoint and away fan support, going to a single table home-and-home schedule does not mean an massive increase in travel.

I calculated the estimated air travel for San Jose, Colorado, Chivas USA, DC United and Chicago for the 2010 season (which will include two new teams, Philly and Seattle) and compared the season-long travel versus the current 2008 schedule. On average it meant an extra 2,500 miles traveled with single table home-and-home.

Even DC United — in that northeast corridor with close neighbors New York, New England and Philly — would only have 3,000 more miles traveled in a single table (32,700 vs. 35,600).

To Jeff's point, ESPN shouldn't have a blanket policy on what sports the update interrupts. In a soccer match it could obscure the focal point of the game, unlike most American sports.

It's funny...ESPN gets these good ratings from the standardized soccer broadcasts, which they can't "ESPN-ize", yet they continue over and over to screw it up for soccer they produce. It's not like they have nothing to use as a reference.

I will say this for ESPN: At least they got rid of the score graphic that went all the way across the screen and compressed it into the upper left like everyone else does. They got that part right.