Started By
Message

re: Serious question for the serious soccer fans

Posted on 6/17/10 at 1:20 pm to
Posted by Buckeye Fan 19
Member since Dec 2007
36430 posts
Posted on 6/17/10 at 1:20 pm to
quote:

I'm sure the MLS doesn't come close to comparing to the NBA finals.


I think the highest rated MLS game on ESPN was last year's semifinals, with 675,000 people.

I enjoy the MLS, but it's nowhere near the NFL, NHL, MLB, and NBA. It's just not.
Posted by Sheep
Neither here nor there
Member since Jun 2007
19695 posts
Posted on 6/17/10 at 2:44 pm to
quote:

I think the highest rated MLS game on ESPN was last year's semifinals, with 675,000 people.


MLS Cup 2009 drew from a .9 to a 1.1 last year on ESPN (about a millionish people) up against a Bears/Steelers Sunday night game. Spanish language viewership usually adds about 30% to that. (Too lazy to look that up.)

ESPN was drawing .4 and .5s (400-500K viewers) for the 6.30 AM Premier League games for most of the year. Considering that's pre-dawn for half of our country, that's pretty damn strong, IMO.

To answer the OP, I don't think changing scoring will make soccer "popular" to the masses. It already has a pretty large following in the US, and one that has grown year over year since 1994.

Will it ever be as big as the NFL is now, baseball was in the 1960s, or basketball in the 1990s? Probably not, but I'm not sure I foresee soccer vanishing from the sporting landscape like it did in the 60s and 80s.

I think at some point, it will go from the Big 3 + NHL + Nascar, to those + "soccer", though not necessarily just MLS.
Posted by Zach
Gizmonic Institute
Member since May 2005
116704 posts
Posted on 6/17/10 at 2:57 pm to
quote:

So the average NFL team scored 2.5 TDs per game. This season in the Premiership, the average club scored 1.4 goals per match


BS.
I did the math. The average NFL team scored 21.27 points per game last year.
A TD = 6 points. So translating NFL scoring to TDs alone = 3.5 touchdowns per team.
World Cup scoring is still at 0.8

That means football scoring is FOUR TIMES more than soccer. Not points. SCORING.
Posted by Chicken
Jackassistan
Member since Aug 2003
26851 posts
Posted on 6/17/10 at 3:04 pm to
quote:

If the rules to soccer were tweaked such that 10-8 and 9-7 type scores were commonplace, but it greatly improved the popularity of the sport in the US, would you be in favor of it?
I am a new soccer fan, and I think it is fine as is...the game is great as it is.
Posted by molsusports
Member since Jul 2004
37067 posts
Posted on 6/17/10 at 3:08 pm to
I think it's about presentation on television more than rule changes (although I would see nothing wrong with allowing a lot more substitutions)

If they can find ways to do more "picture in picture" showing Americans who are new to the game the intricate footwork and movement on shots then people would be more interested IMO

What Joe Sixpack starts yawning about is a widescreen shot in the middle 60% of the field - where there doesn't look like any probability of a scoring chance and you can't appreciate the skills of the players near the ball
Posted by LbScUs
Houston
Member since Dec 2007
184 posts
Posted on 6/17/10 at 3:20 pm to
quote:

Why should the game be changed to please Americans? It is the most popular sport in the world, and most of the world likes it as it is.


It's the most popular sport in the world because most of the world is too poor to support/follow/play other sports.

In countries where they can follow other sports, they do. baseball in Japan and Korea, basketball in China, Cricket in India, hockey in Russia, hockey, football, and basketball in Canada, the list goes on...

There is nothing wrong with soccer, it is entertaining and there a lot of good athletes who play it but you people that idolize it need to chill out. In the scheme of major world sports, it, in and of itself, is nothing special at all.

Its worldwide popularity is due more to its simplicity than anything remarkable about the game or its players.
Posted by Sheep
Neither here nor there
Member since Jun 2007
19695 posts
Posted on 6/17/10 at 3:21 pm to
quote:

BS.
I did the math. The average NFL team scored 21.27 points per game last year.
A TD = 6 points. So translating NFL scoring to TDs alone = 3.5 touchdowns per team.
World Cup scoring is still at 0.8

That means football scoring is FOUR TIMES more than soccer. Not points. SCORING.


Put the slide rule down, Copernicus. You'll lose an eye.

There were 721 field goals kicked in 2009, over 512 team games (only 256 games, but for the sake of the exercise...), so each team kicked 1.4 field goals. Let's round down and call it 4 points per team, per game.

That drops you to 17.27 points with out field goals. You can total up safeties and two point conversions, but I'm not going to. Since a TD is essentially worth 7 points (with an all but guaranteed extra point).... you're looking at....

.................drumroll........................

2 TDs (and some change) per team, per game.

In the 2006 World Cup, it was an average of 2.3 goals per game.

So, 1 goal (and some change) per team, per game.

Oh, the humanity. That's like four times as much.

*disclaimer: I really like football AND soccer.
Posted by Sophandros
Victoria Concordia Crescit
Member since Feb 2005
45219 posts
Posted on 6/17/10 at 3:21 pm to
quote:

BS.
I did the math.


LINK

Sure, you can count field goals if you want, but if you want an apples to apples comparison, count goals vs. touchdowns.

The numbers, unlike you, don't lie.

Posted by Sophandros
Victoria Concordia Crescit
Member since Feb 2005
45219 posts
Posted on 6/17/10 at 3:23 pm to
Basically, the summary of the soccer haters' "reasons" for their hatred of soccer boils down to this:

They don't understand it, thus they hate it.

Here's the thing: I don't want you to like soccer. If you don't like it, then there is no need to comment on it. But at least take the time to actually LEARN about it.
Posted by Sheep
Neither here nor there
Member since Jun 2007
19695 posts
Posted on 6/17/10 at 3:37 pm to
quote:

Basically, the summary of the soccer haters' "reasons" for their hatred of soccer boils down to this:

They don't understand it, thus they hate it.

Here's the thing: I don't want you to like soccer. If you don't like it, then there is no need to comment on it. But at least take the time to actually LEARN about it.


I disagree. There's no need to force it upon someone if they don't want to learn about it. No big deal.

People like different sports for different reasons. I don't like to watch golf or Nascar or lacrosse for more than about three minutes. So I just change the channel.

And maybe the regular posters in those threads can answer... do people come into a golf thread and say "it's just a bunch of people walking around a country club" or "they should let the golfers hit each other with the clubs?"



I really DON'T understand what seems like an irrational hatred for soccer. If something is on that I don't like, I change the channel.

If something that I don't care about (take the recruiting board here, for example) is on a message board, I don't go there to tell people how much of a waste of time I think it is, I just don't go over there.

That part I actually don't understand.

Posted by Sophandros
Victoria Concordia Crescit
Member since Feb 2005
45219 posts
Posted on 6/17/10 at 3:41 pm to
quote:

I disagree. There's no need to force it upon someone if they don't want to learn about it. No big deal.


I didn't say to force anything on anyone. In fact, I straight up said I DON'T WANT YOU TO LIKE SOCCER.

If they want to like it, cool. But if they don't, that's fine, too. If they want to criticize it, at least know what the frick they're talking about.

quote:

I really DON'T understand what seems like an irrational hatred for soccer. If something is on that I don't like, I change the channel.

If something that I don't care about (take the recruiting board here, for example) is on a message board, I don't go there to tell people how much of a waste of time I think it is, I just don't go over there.

That part I actually don't understand.



And that's what pisses me off the most. If they don't like it, don't watch it. Don't talk about it. I totally agree with you.
This post was edited on 6/17/10 at 3:44 pm
Posted by Zach
Gizmonic Institute
Member since May 2005
116704 posts
Posted on 6/17/10 at 3:43 pm to
quote:

Put the slide rule down, Copernicus. You'll lose an eye.

I didn't think you'd understand the math so let me explain again. We are comparing scoring in two sports. Soccer and American Football. You can't throw out FG and extra points because you don't like them. They are part of the game.
Soph's analysis was TDs v. scores so I translated it honestly instead of the dishonest way that he did. The numbers are real whether or not you like them.

Posted by Zach
Gizmonic Institute
Member since May 2005
116704 posts
Posted on 6/17/10 at 3:44 pm to
quote:

Sure, you can count field goals if you want, but if you want an apples to apples comparison, count goals vs. touchdowns.

See my post above.
Posted by molsusports
Member since Jul 2004
37067 posts
Posted on 6/17/10 at 3:48 pm to
Posted by Zach
Gizmonic Institute
Member since May 2005
116704 posts
Posted on 6/17/10 at 3:50 pm to
quote:

I really DON'T understand what seems like an irrational hatred for soccer.

I've said it a hundred times and I'll say it again. I don't hate soccer. I don't think it should be banned. I would never bother to watch a soccer game or pay for a game because I think it's a ill conceived sport.

My problem with soccer is simple. YOU LIE!!!!!

"Soccer will be the most popular sport in the US in 10 years."

I started hearing that in the 60s. When are you going to stop that shite? You don't hear golfers say "Golf will be the most popular sport in America in 10 years?"

You don't hear bowlers say "Bowling will be the most popular sport in America in 10 years."

That's why I compared it to the metric system. I started hearing "Everyone in America will be on the Metric system by 1970." It was a lie.

That's why I hate home town newspapers that talk about "reviving downtown." "Everyone will move from the burbs to downtown by 1980."

It's a crock.
Posted by molsusports
Member since Jul 2004
37067 posts
Posted on 6/17/10 at 3:53 pm to
agree partly

I'd be surprised if soccer ever passed up football, baseball, or basketball in the US - maybe hockey but I doubt that too
Posted by Sheep
Neither here nor there
Member since Jun 2007
19695 posts
Posted on 6/17/10 at 3:55 pm to
quote:

I didn't think you'd understand the math so let me explain again. We are comparing scoring in two sports. Soccer and American Football. You can't throw out FG and extra points because you don't like them. They are part of the game.
Soph's analysis was TDs v. scores so I translated it honestly instead of the dishonest way that he did. The numbers are real whether or not you like them.


In soccer, you're trying to score goals.

In football, you're trying to score touchdowns. Football (and perhaps, rightly so) gives you a chance to score a couple points when you fail at a primary objective, and a free point when you succeed.

The primary objective for each is accomplished once more, per team, per game than football than in soccer.

So, if soccer had some "gimme" points, like a point every time a goalkeeper made a save, and another point every time you attempted 4 shots and didn't score, everyone would love it.

Brilliant.
Posted by LSUROCKS52
Rest in Peace
Member since Oct 2003
56 posts
Posted on 6/17/10 at 3:59 pm to
the point about not counting FG's is very valid. at no point in soccer can you substitute something b/c you failed to score a goal. there is nothing to give you a half goal in soccer. so the goal of the game is to score goals much like it is in football to score touchdowns. there is nothing in soccer to fairly compare scoring field goals too. that would be akin to saying field goals are worth as much as touchdowns b/c hey, scoring is scoring right?
Posted by Zach
Gizmonic Institute
Member since May 2005
116704 posts
Posted on 6/17/10 at 4:19 pm to
quote:

gives you a chance to score a couple points when you fail at a primary objective,

Nope. A couple of points is called safety. Very rare. Very exciting. And it penalizes the offensive team by making them kick the ball off.
FG are often the main objective, not a TD. If you're losing by 2 in the final minute you are driving down the field with a play selection designed to get you within FG range.
Posted by Zach
Gizmonic Institute
Member since May 2005
116704 posts
Posted on 6/17/10 at 4:22 pm to
quote:

the point about not counting FG's is very valid

No, it's not. FG's are often the prime objective. See my post above. This thread really illustrates how little soccer fans know about American FB. The latter is very complicated. The former is very simple. I guess that's why foreigners like it so much.
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 7Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram