Sound Off: Is Football (Finally) on the Rise in America?

[Suntan Superman]

Well, according to TimLaw's logic of attendance figures, the MLB is 3x as popular as the NFL, and the NFL is the least popular of the "Major 4"

Clearly, there's no flaw in this logic.

[yankeesgiants]

Quote: Originally Posted by KG

How would your ideas benefit the sport of soccer, especially in International competitions? We play by one set rules while the rest of the world plays by another? Yeah, that makes sense.

It already happens. The NHL and the IIHF not only have different rules but the ice surfaces are also different sizes. THE NBA has it's own set of rules and FIBA has it's own set of rules. When the NBA plays exhibition games in europe, they play under the FIBA rules. To have amercan rules and FIFA rules might not be a bad idea. suggestions??

[eyeamg0dly]

Quote: Originally Posted by yankeesgiants

It already happens. The NHL and the IIHF not only have different rules but the ice surfaces are also different sizes. THE NBA has it's own set of rules and FIBA has it's own set of rules. When the NBA plays exhibition games in europe, they play under the FIBA rules. To have amercan rules and FIFA rules might not be a bad idea. suggestions??

Yeah but look how both sides are merging together to make one set of rules. FIBA changed their trapazoid key to match the NBA. NBA changed their zone defense rule to match FIBA. I wont be surprised if the assists rules change either. The NBA is also thinking of shifting to team sponsorship and putting their logos on their jerseys.

[NYwRiter94]

Quote: Originally Posted by fugazi

um....this thread posed a question. and in this thread, a number of people offered their opinion that soccer would never be this or that or take over these 4 yadda yadda etc. while i don't particularly care, bc the issue isn't whether the MLS will become bigger than MLB or NFL or anything...and bc I will spend most of my soccer time watching other leagues... I can't for the life of me figure out how anyone could make such a ridiculous statement regarding a table that showed MLS had higher per-game average attendance than NBA and NHL. Even with the caveats you mentioned, which are far from damning, the fact remains. I didn't say it suggested some kind of great change in the landscape, just posted the fact. I don't know what is misleading about it. The top NBA teams draw more than twice the lower ones per game... regardless, I don't see how anyone that has paid any attention to the sports landscape in the US since the early 90s can't discern the considerable, consistent, and obvious rise in the popularity of soccer in the US. I would say you are trolling, except you seem to take your argument way too seriously.

My original comments were partially designed to be incendiary (although I stand by them), but the ridiculous responses are just the reason that I posted them in the first place. The original thread may have been about the rise of soccer in the US, but your posting of those attendance figures came immediately after you responded to a post involved in what this thread has mostly turned into, which is a discussion about why soccer does not cater particularly well to most American sports fans.

You can make your arguments about the rising attendance figures, but those show very little. Someone mentioned the large number of people who attend minor league baseball games in a year. Does that mean minor league baseball will ever be a relevant mainstream sport in the US? Absolutely not. The reason minor league games get that attendance is because people say, "Hey, it's a nice day out. We should get out and do something. Why don't we go to the nearby ballpark and watch the local team play?" If tickets to the MLS were really that desirable, they wouldn't be so cheap.

That's not to say the sport's not on the rise here, as I think that it is and also that the MLS caters more to the American sports fan than other soccer leagues (minus the lack of talent). But the attendance figures you showed were not comparing MLS attendance now to the past; you specifically picked stats compared to a) other American sports leagues and b) other professional soccer leagues. So don't complain when we point out why those figures are misleading in regards to those two categories.

Quote: Originally Posted by KG

Rules are being changed all the time just like any other major sport. Goal-line technology was being called-upon for years and it was implemented this year. The diving in soccer is bad but every sport over-exaggerates contact. Hell, after almost every incomplete pass now in the NFL WR's are calling for a flag. I don't blame the players, I blame the respective leagues for not punishing that kind of behavior. Players are going to do whatever they can to create advantageous situations. In regards to low % plays, it's no different than in hoops when someone takes a deep mid-range jumper knowing they could step back a foot and take a 3. Low IQ players do low IQ things, that isn't sport dependent. I would love to see what this "Americanized" version of soccer is that your team plays. If you played soccer for years how do you not understand the concept of a player taking a mini break to stretch, tie their shoe, adjust their equipment, etc? You must have had FIFA video game-like stamina where you could just sprint for the entire match. The reason they haven't globally introduced video-replay is because it's hard to fiscally accomplish. Sure, the EPL would be able to do it but smaller leagues around Europe/South American would struggle to be able to do it on a consistent basis. That's why goal-line technology wasn't introduced 4 years ago after the uproar that would have seen Lampard's shot vs Germany in the '10 WC be called a goal. It will eventually happen but sometimes these things take time. Also, some soccer leagues have a playoff system and they also have League Cups which are a mini/major tournament during the season that's apart from the actual Regular Season. NFL teams and NBA teams don't time waste? NFL teams run to milk the clock, NBA/College Hoops team hold the ball to run the shot clock down. It's all strategy and yes it does add depth to a game/season. There are very few more gut-wrenching experiences in sports to me than your soccer team holding a lead while the other team is going all-out for the win and just throwing waves forward. You seem to be a pretty intelligent person but a lot of your arguments seem to lack a deeper understanding about the sport and its striking similarities to other sports.

That last comment is pretty insulting, especially considering I'm about to address the fact that some of your comments completely missed my point or just ignored what was said.

Receivers may call for a flag after the ball goes past them, but you don't really see them diving onto the ground as the contact is made. In fact, the fact that they immediately jump up and make the motion of pulling out the flag means they aren't rolling around on the ground acting like they've been shot. I wouldn't have a problem with soccer plays immediately running over to the ref and complaining instead of lying motionless on the field after minimal contact.

Do you even read what's being said in this thread? I'm not questioning van Persie's attitude or dedication because he sat down to stretch his hamstring. I'm saying that it doesn't seem right to me that the rules and structure of the game dictate that he should be doing so. I don't understand what the game loses by allowing him to come off of the field for two minutes while a substitute runs on so the game isn't reduced to fewer players and he can take care of what he needs to. Most of these complaints are about the system, not about the actions of the individual players (aside from the diving, although that is mostly a product of the system).

I also am not expecting players to have video game-like stamina. I understand that running around on a massive field for 90 minutes is a physically exhausting task. My point is that if there were more substitutes available, as well as re-entry, the game would be more exciting. You cannot seriously tell me that the players on the field are giving 100% the entire time they are out there. I'm not saying they are being lazy or undisciplined, just that they are obviously not giving it their all BECAUSE they know they can't tire themselves out for the rest of the game. Once again, a product of the system. You can make all of the arguments you want about the "tradition" and "spirit" of the game, but you're flat out lying to me if you say that watching a player play at 65% for 90 minutes is better than watching him play 65% of the game at 100% and then watching a substitute player play the remaining time at an equal or better level than the original player would have been playing if he were on the field the entire time.

As for the time-wasting component, there is no aspect of soccer that I know of designed to prevent that. In football, you have the play clock and in basketball you have a shot clock. The rulemakers of those sports and leagues have done their best to encourage high-quality entertainment from start to finish without compromising the integrity of the game. In addition, the original poster praised the strategy of time wasting. Do you ever see football or basketball fans talking about how great running out the clock is? It's a necessary evil of time-based sports. We should be trying to minimize it instead of encouraging it.

You two can keep mocking my statements all you want, but you keep responding. And I keep firing back with legitimate criticism. Still, you guys are like most soccer-first fans that I talk to, in that you refuse to actually look at what I'm trying to say and just defend your sport until the death.

Let me explain one last time: I ENJOY THE SPORT OF SOCCER. I HATE THE WAY IT IS PLAYED AT THE PROFESSIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL LEVEL.

[KG]

Quote: Originally Posted by NYwRiter94

That last comment is pretty insulting, especially considering I'm about to address the fact that some of your comments completely missed my point or just ignored what was said. Receivers may call for a flag after the ball goes past them, but you don't really see them diving onto the ground as the contact is made. In fact, the fact that they immediately jump up and make the motion of pulling out the flag means they aren't rolling around on the ground acting like they've been shot. I wouldn't have a problem with soccer plays immediately running over to the ref and complaining instead of lying motionless on the field after minimal contact.

No argument here when it comes to the art of selling the foul in soccer. They do it because it works, just like it does in basketball the majority of the time.

Quote: Originally Posted by NYwRiter94

Do you even read what's being said in this thread? I'm not questioning van Persie's attitude or dedication because he sat down to stretch his hamstring. I'm saying that it doesn't seem right to me that the rules and structure of the game dictate that he should be doing so. I don't understand what the game loses by allowing him to come off of the field for two minutes while a substitute runs on so the game isn't reduced to fewer players and he can take care of what he needs to. Most of these complaints are about the system, not about the actions of the individual players (aside from the diving, although that is mostly a product of the system).

It loses the one thing that separates soccer from football, basketball, and baseball...an actual flow. No timeouts, no breaks in between plays/pitches. Just continual action for the better part of a game. I love basketball but it can be brutal in a close game where there's a sub every dead-ball followed up by timeouts to make sure the optimal play is called given the situation. None of that in soccer. Adjust on the fly tactically or make a sub.

Quote: Originally Posted by NYwRiter94

I also am not expecting players to have video game-like stamina. I understand that running around on a massive field for 90 minutes is a physically exhausting task. My point is that if there were more substitutes available, as well as re-entry, the game would be more exciting. You cannot seriously tell me that the players on the field are giving 100% the entire time they are out there. I'm not saying they are being lazy or undisciplined, just that they are obviously not giving it their all BECAUSE they know they can't tire themselves out for the rest of the game. Once again, a product of the system. You can make all of the arguments you want about the "tradition" and "spirit" of the game, but you're flat out lying to me if you say that watching a player play at 65% for 90 minutes is better than watching him play 65% of the game at 100% and then watching a substitute player play the remaining time at an equal or better level than the original player would have been playing if he were on the field the entire time.

Again, more exciting is subjective. More subs in my mind means more stoppages and that is not exciting or enticing to me. I like to see what teams still have in the tank in the 80th minute, multiple subs would take that away.

Quote: Originally Posted by NYwRiter94

As for the time-wasting component, there is no aspect of soccer that I know of designed to prevent that.

It's statements like this that make me question how well you know the sport. Refs 1) give out yellow cards for time-wasting and 2) add time back on the clock for stoppage time

Quote: Originally Posted by NYwRiter94

In football, you have the play clock and in basketball you have a shot clock. The rulemakers of those sports and leagues have done their best to encourage high-quality entertainment from start to finish without compromising the integrity of the game. In addition, the original poster praised the strategy of time wasting. Do you ever see football or basketball fans talking about how great running out the clock is? It's a necessary evil of time-based sports. We should be trying to minimize it instead of encouraging it.

No one "likes" it in any sport but everyone realizes it's a part of the game and you do what you do to get the desired result. When the Giants are running out the clock on my Skins I'm not happy but I understand that it's a necessary evil. Just like when Man United dribbles to the corner-flag against Chelsea. It's a viable strategy.

Quote: Originally Posted by NYwRiter94

You two can keep mocking my statements all you want, but you keep responding. And I keep firing back with legitimate criticism. Still, you guys are like most soccer-first fans that I talk to, in that you refuse to actually look at what I'm trying to say and just defend your sport until the death. Let me explain one last time: I ENJOY THE SPORT OF SOCCER. I HATE THE WAY IT IS PLAYED AT THE PROFESSIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL LEVEL.

I'm a bball fan 1st and foremost but you're "legit criticisms" aren't very legit. I'd still like to hear how your local team plays an "Americanized" version of soccer.

[NYBorn81]

Having not read this whole thread. I'll say this, I only just got into Soccer during the last World Cup, before Donovan & Co. were knocked out by Ghana. Before that, while I never previously watched it, catching glimpses of it, I always wondered why my foreign-turned-American (some of them, a couple of them are illegal immigrants to this day) friends found it to be their main sport and I struggled to find their enjoyment in it. Well, watching the last World Cup, changed all of that for me. Watching with those same friends at a get together or something, I discovered how exciting the games are themselves in most cases. After the World Cup ended, I began to watch MLS, on DirecTV which my last cable provider, they had an awesome Soccer package, they had one channel dedicated to the English League, another channel dedicated to another league and then the Fox Soccer Channel which covered everything. But being a NY'er, MSG covered my MLS needs with the Red Bulls, I then got into watching those games, and was stoked when Thierry Henry came around. I can no longer keep up as much as I'd like to because I no longer have that awesome cable package.


But this time has become my favorite time of the year, or every four years. Lol. Every game has been pure excitement, every time a team gets inside the box it sends an adrenaline rush down my spine, I may not even be a fan of the specific team playing, but I've become a fan of the game itself. Every scoring attempt makes me want to rise out of my seat in anticipation. Last weeks game between US & Portugal was literally the most exciting 90 minutes of any sport that I have ever sat through in it's entirety. Back to my point before, every attempt caused an increase in my heart beat, whether it missed or not, every time we got into the box I found myself biting my nails in the hopes that we could finally sneak one past the goalkeep. And vice versa, when they got inside of our box, I did the same thing in hopes that our goalkeep could continue to keep the ball outside of our net. When we finally scored I found myself outscreaming everyone else in the room out of pure excitement. When Dempsey scored came a relaxing period, but then I quickly found out there are no relax periods in this game, and more insanity ensued after Portugal tied things up in the literal final minute. With that said, I've come to find out why my friends love it so much, Soccer (Futbol) is a very emotional sport and game, I think it's pretty easy to get sucked into if you actually go into it with a level head and a fair idea of the game. If you go to watch with the thoughts of "Why do they call it Football, this ain't got nothing on OUR football", then sure, you may not enjoy it. But if you go into it without any pre-determined judgments of it, I guarantee you'll be surprised.


I was never a baseball fan, so this sport automatically eclipses that for me. I'm no longer into Hockey like I used to be, so this too surpasses that. I'd put Soccer (Futbol) into my top three sports, behind only the NFL & NBA. And while I think Soccer is definitely on the rise here, I don't think it'll ever exceed baseball in popularity. Baseball is losing it's popularity here in America due to the whole "Steroids" thing and their seemingly being a lack of big time hitters now that the league has clamped down on suspected HGH usage. But it'll never lose enough popularity to the point where a sport like Soccer can surpass it. Things like Baseball, Football, Basketball, and even hockey to some extent are too engrained in American culture to be moved to the side in favor of another game from another place other than America.

[gopher_guy]

Quote: Originally Posted by TimLawNYC

All I'm saying is that any sport in which contests routinely end in a scoreless tie cannot be taken seriously.

lol.

He says this like there is a 0-0 draw every other game.

[Twenty Four]

Quote: Originally Posted by gopher_guy

lol. He says this like there is a 0-0 draw every other game.

That is such a big reason why soccer isn't more popular. From experience, this is a big knock on the sport from people who really have no clue about it. I used to hear the "kicking a ball around for 90 minutes to end 0-0 isn't american" and for most of my childhood I believed it an never gave soccer a chance. Until the 2006 World Cup. Granted, it was an awful American showing, it got me intrigued enough to tune into the 2010 World Cup, and I was hooked after the USA vs Algeria game. Sure, there's a ton of people (like me) who really only watched because the US was playing as a country. But, if every doubter, like me, would give the game a chance, I think the sport would sky rocket.... It's not at ALL as boring as I once thought, in fact Id much rather watch a soccer game than a basketball or baseball game now. The MLS however, is a different story. I do think it's growing and expanding, but it's goin to take something big for it to really take off. Sooner or later I think it can happen though. Overall, this is a silly topic, of course it's growing, it's just a matter of at what rate.