- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
2
Posted on 7/5/11 at 8:40 pm to LSUTigerfaninHtown
You like what you like. My opinion is biased and I will not try to influence you. Although it is difficult.
Posted on 7/5/11 at 8:42 pm to glassman
Does FSC play a lot of EPL replays?
Posted on 7/5/11 at 8:43 pm to LSUTigerfaninHtown
You probably want to pull for a team that has dark blue in its kit ... just sayin'. 
Posted on 7/5/11 at 8:44 pm to LSUTigerfaninHtown
quote:
Does FSC play a lot of EPL replays?
Yeah during the week in-season they'll show games over again. I don't know what they do during the summer though.
Posted on 7/6/11 at 6:30 am to crazy4lsu
Just as a side note: The dribble-up shootout is how ties are eventually broken in Texas High School play. Most districts just let ties stand during the regular season, but during the playoffs, there is extra time, then the dribble-up shootout.
Posted on 7/6/11 at 7:42 am to Gmorgan4982
(no message)
This post was edited on 4/4/12 at 6:09 pm
Posted on 7/6/11 at 3:33 pm to clooneyisgod
Something noone has mentioned is that even if soccer can match the amount of viewers as football, television stations are not going to want to show a sport where commercials can only be shown at half time. It's just not a profitable sport for television.
My dad was working in Germany when Germany played in the World Cup (2002 I believe). The game was not even televised because the stations don't get any advertisement money. My dad's co-worker's from Germany were giving him grief about American television because we have commercials in the middle of our programs. (Apparently they show uninterrupted programs with the commercials at the end so nobody has to watch them).
My dad was working in Germany when Germany played in the World Cup (2002 I believe). The game was not even televised because the stations don't get any advertisement money. My dad's co-worker's from Germany were giving him grief about American television because we have commercials in the middle of our programs. (Apparently they show uninterrupted programs with the commercials at the end so nobody has to watch them).
Posted on 7/6/11 at 3:48 pm to TheSexecutioner
And I know we all want a diversionary reason as to why Americans don't like to watch soccer much, but it is because of the lack of scoring. It's a great sport, but it's not that exciting to watch something that is constantly being reset. In football, when a team has to punt the ball, all of the yards they gained on the possession still count. All plays end up impacting the game, be it score or field position. In soccer, it's not just a matter of not scoring, it's a matter of over 95 percent of possessions not even impacting the game.
Football is a battle to gain an advantage to score points on every single play. Soccer is a constantly-resetting waiting game to see who finally punches one in. That's not to say one is a better sport, but to say the scoring from football parallels that of soccer is wrong.
Football is a battle to gain an advantage to score points on every single play. Soccer is a constantly-resetting waiting game to see who finally punches one in. That's not to say one is a better sport, but to say the scoring from football parallels that of soccer is wrong.
Posted on 7/6/11 at 4:40 pm to TheSexecutioner
You make good points. I would argue however, that what you describe is the reason why goals (and missed opportunities for goals) are so vital and exciting. The build-up and struggle to the eventual goal makes it more meaningful.
The USA-Algeria game is a great example of this. The lateness of the goal definitely contributed to its importance and excitement, but the frustration of so many missed chances for the US in that game made the final release of the winning goal that much sweeter and memorable.
As far as the television product not being profitable, I'm not sure I believe that considering the most recent sale of overseas TV rights to the EPL went for 1.4 billion pounds. It's certainly a different model than traditional American televised sports, but if worldwide networks are willing to pony up that much cash for the EPL, I'm guessing they've figured out a way to make it profitable.
The USA-Algeria game is a great example of this. The lateness of the goal definitely contributed to its importance and excitement, but the frustration of so many missed chances for the US in that game made the final release of the winning goal that much sweeter and memorable.
As far as the television product not being profitable, I'm not sure I believe that considering the most recent sale of overseas TV rights to the EPL went for 1.4 billion pounds. It's certainly a different model than traditional American televised sports, but if worldwide networks are willing to pony up that much cash for the EPL, I'm guessing they've figured out a way to make it profitable.
Posted on 7/6/11 at 4:51 pm to boxcar willie
quote:
But what if they just made the goals bigger?
That'd be like what the cfl is to the nflPosted on 7/6/11 at 5:06 pm to TheSexecutioner
quote:
Something noone has mentioned is that even if soccer can match the amount of viewers as football, television stations are not going to want to show a sport where commercials can only be shown at half time. It's just not a profitable sport for television.
they have their ways, and it hasn't stopped the abc family of networks from getting in on the action. i would include fsc, as well, but they are obviously subscription based.
quote:
My dad was working in Germany when Germany played in the World Cup (2002 I believe). The game was not even televised because the stations don't get any advertisement money.
germany played in the wc final in 2002, yes
the final was not shown on television where? germany? the us? it was on abc in the us. i'm sure that it was shown in germany, as well.
Posted on 7/6/11 at 5:08 pm to joey barton
quote:
the final was not shown on television where? germany?
No shite. It is probably the most watched program in German TV history.
Posted on 7/6/11 at 5:26 pm to TheSexecutioner
quote:
And I know we all want a diversionary reason as to why Americans don't like to watch soccer much, but it is because of the lack of scoring.
but, that hasn't stopped plenty of red-blooded americans from getting into it at some level. you can't take a sport, randomly introduce it to a nation, and expect it to immediately displace the "native" sports.
is it "unfamiliar" to many americans? sure. has it had it's problems in the past? yes. is it going away now? probably not. as the sport becomes increasingly more familiar, people will be able to treat it for what it is. if there are people that don't like it then, fine, but it will merely be a matter of personal preference.
Posted on 7/6/11 at 7:10 pm to joey barton
quote:
the final was not shown on television where? germany? the us? it was on abc in the us. i'm sure that it was shown in germany, as well.
Germany. I'll have to check with my dad to get the details on the story. Maybe it was a different year that they made the finals. Basically, he said that German television stations have no money to buy rights to broadcast. This is because of their practice(not specifically sports related) of showing commercials between programs and not during them, like American TV.
Perhaps it was just a certain region of Germany as this does seem a bit extreme. The point was that they thought it was silly that we had our commercials during our programs but didn't stop to think that that is why their television can't even show the world cup when their own team is in it.
Posted on 7/6/11 at 7:13 pm to TheSexecutioner
quote:
but, that hasn't stopped plenty of red-blooded americans from getting into it at some level. you can't take a sport, randomly introduce it to a nation, and expect it to immediately displace the "native" sports.
Well soccer originated from the same game as rugby did. Americans just decided we liked the rugby school and the rest of the world liked soccer. They were both equally foreign. Just the two most popular versions of football.
Posted on 7/7/11 at 12:35 am to TheSexecutioner
quote:
The point was that they thought it was silly that we had our commercials during our programs but didn't stop to think that that is why their television can't even show the world cup when their own team is in it.
quote:
The rating in Germany for the same match [final] was even higher, with coverage by national broadcaster ZDF achieving a rating of 37.8%. This was the highest audience recorded in Germany for the tournament and amounted to over 26.5 million viewers, representing an astonishing market share for ZDF of 88.2%!
LINK
iirc, mls had an exchange program w/the bundesliga a few years back. we taught them how to advertise. they taught us how to build stadiums. if it is broadcast, americans will find a way to advertise during it.
quote:
Americans just decided we liked the rugby school and the rest of the world liked soccer. They were both equally foreign. Just the two most popular versions of football.
the game wasn't always unpopular, but i'm talking strictly w/i the context of now.
This post was edited on 7/7/11 at 12:39 am
Posted on 7/7/11 at 9:12 am to TheSexecutioner
quote:
Something noone has mentioned is that even if soccer can match the amount of viewers as football, television stations are not going to want to show a sport where commercials can only be shown at half time. It's just not a profitable sport for television.
Up until a point in the early 80s, many US television shows only had one commercial break during a 30 minute program and one commercial break between programs. Many 60 minute programs had the breaks at every 15 minutes (three in-program interruptions), but some were set up with a break every 20 minutes (two in-program interruptions).
The current format in almost all network television (roughly, 7 minutes of show, 3 minutes of commercials, rinse and repeat) certainly provides opportunities to make MORE money from advertising, but that's not to say that the other method was not also profitable.
In soccer coverage, you usually have a 30 minute pregame with roughly three chunks of 6.33 minutes of show + 3.33 minutes of commercials, then pre-match coverage with another chunk of commercials thrown in, then 50 minutes or so of uninterrupted play, then halftime which is usually two large chunks of commercials sandwiched around a quick first half recap, then another 50 minutes of uninterrupted play, closed out with a large chunk of commercials, a brief match recap, and commercials before the next programming.
So in 150 minutes of broadcast for the match package you get about 35 to 40 minutes of commercials. Normal network programming currently has about 50 minutes of commercials for 150 minutes of broadcast. Sure, it's less minutes, but it's not the end of the world.
I don't even want to think about other sports programming, though, not to mention the whoring that networks do for their other shitty shows during the actual sports broadcast. Oh, shitty, shitty CBS college football broadcasts, you're almost back upon us again.
This post was edited on 7/7/11 at 9:14 am
Posted on 7/7/11 at 9:43 am to CrazyTigerFan
quote:
Oh, shitty, shitty CBS college football broadcasts, you're almost back upon us again.
I love this sequence of events, that happens in damn near every CBS game.
-Punt - Timeout, 3 minute commercial break
-First down, 2 yard run, injury! - Timeout, 3 minute commercial break
-Second down - TOUCHDOWN! - Timeout, 3 minute commercial break
-Kickoff - Timeout, 3 minute commercial break
-1st down, incomplete pass
-2nd down, gain of 6 - End of quarter! - Timeout, 3 minute commercial break
I was in the stadium at the LSU-Arkansas game in 2007.... An hour had elapsed since kickoff, the first quarter clock still had 11+ minutes to go. Game took something like 5.5 hours.
frick that nonsense.
That's one thing I certainly love about soccer. If a game starts at 10AM, 99.88% of the time, it will be over by noon.
Posted on 7/7/11 at 10:00 am to Sheep
quote:
I was in the stadium at the LSU-Arkansas game in 2007
I remember that game, we sat through it (and our group were in the student section for that one, so we'd been in there for two hours BEFORE kickoff too). I've been disgruntled with the commercials for a while, but that game is the one that pushed me over the edge. We were in the stadium for almost 8 hours... as much as I love Tiger Stadium, that's just too long for one single game. I'd honestly have rather just stayed home (and gotten to watch all the other games).
It's getting difficult to remember the time before the three hour miniumum football games, and it was only like a decade ago.
This post was edited on 7/7/11 at 10:01 am
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News