American Futbol's Future

They let the short guy hold the trophy so it doesn't look so small.

@ Ratboy - The trophy looks tacky and cheap.

@MilkmanDanimal - So..... size is an issue for you? *Gets out notebook* Do you often feel the need to have larger things or make grand gestures? Do you feel validated through larger material goods?

*Preemptive "Uh-huh!" and "Hmmmmm, interesting."*

Size isn't everything and the trophy is big enough to serve it's purpose. It's pretty detailed and the associated emotional investment in it far outweighs any reason for it to be larger. I suppose that stupid Mona Lisa is just too darn small because something that important should be the size of a freakin' movie theatre screen etched by laserbeams.... right?

While ratings for the Cup after the Ghana game will be interesting to see, I will be more curious to see if ESPN can generate solid ratings for the upcoming USA/Brazil friendly.

Will soccer ever be the dominant sport in the States, of course not, but I do think baseball can be tied or at least 4th place securely locked up in the next 20 years, and that the US will continue more and more international worthy players.

More and more kids are growing up with soccer leagues. Surely someone's trotted that out already, but its true and bears repeating. My grandpappy grumbles about not understanding the sport, but myself, my brother, and my sister all get it quite well. But I'm not especially sure I want it popular here--that'll just lead to TV Timeouts and other forms of annoyingness. It'll likely look a little something like this.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

It'll likely look a little something like this.

Going from mostly dull to constantly annoying. You know, like NASCAR.

Tanglebones wrote:
heavyfeul wrote:

Sorry guys. Soccer will never catch on. Every time a World Cup comes around the talk starts again and quickly dies after some poor rich bastards invest a small fortune in promoting the sport in the US and find that they just flushed their money down the toilet. Not enough people care.

The NHL, for example, is still fighting to get air time in the US since the strike years ago and it is a major money making pro sport in the US. We even stole a bunch of teams from Canada where it is the national sport and it is still the red-headed step child of US pro sports. How anyone thinks soccer has a snowball chance in hell is beyond me.

I'm not saying soccer has arrived, but the numbers for this World Cup are dwarfing the previous one. Here's some numbers:
http://blogcritics.org/sports/articl...

Were you trying to point out just how far away soccer is from amking money in the US?

The average World Cup Soccer matched aired on ABC in 2002 scored less than 1 million viewers. According to Reuters, this year the average is 2.6 million, representing a 65 percent increase from the previous tournament.

That's a big increase. But considering the numbers, it's irrelevant. And we're talking about the best soccer has to offer.

Our friends had us over to watch the final yesterday. I actually watched a game from start to finish for the first time. I had not even taken the time to really watch the US games. Let's just say that game wasn't enough to make me want to watch another game, or pick up the new Fifa game from EA. It did get me to fire up NHL 10 today and play some international games.

But really, soccer won't make it in the US until we get stops in action which will allow for commercials. Personally, I think a smaller field, more liberal substitutions, and TV timeouts would improve the game significantly. It would improve the level of play, because as important as stamina is, I'm only going to tune it to see something amazing happen, which is what you get in basketball. But because of the World Cup, and the huge difference in how our cultures view sports, I don't think the changes can happen, and it will prevent the sport from being popular with people that don't play.

Actually, that's not the best football has to offer.

Have you noticed most national teams looked... tired? Well, that's because most players hauled ass through an entire season (70+ games, yeah, sometimes 2 games a week) without breaks. Only now they're going for some vacations.

The best is usually in the Champions League. A tournament between the best european clubs.

Jayhawker wrote:

Personally, I think a smaller field, more liberal substitutions, and TV timeouts would improve the game significantly. It would improve the level of play, because as important as stamina is, I'm only going to tune it to see something amazing happen, which is what you get in basketball.

I believe you're looking for futsal. Of course, it's no more likely to become popular than is Arena Football.

Edit for video:

Jayhawker wrote:

But really, soccer won't make it in the US until we get stops in action which will allow for commercials. Personally, I think a smaller field, more liberal substitutions, and TV timeouts would improve the game significantly.

I agree with this. I hate to be "stupid American", but the excessively large field and high number of players on it makes for a game that's like the world's biggest neutral zone trap in hockey. Scoring and scoring opportunities are stifled so much that there are just too few opportunities for exciting action.

*Legion* wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

But really, soccer won't make it in the US until we get stops in action which will allow for commercials. Personally, I think a smaller field, more liberal substitutions, and TV timeouts would improve the game significantly.

I agree with this. I hate to be "stupid American", but the excessively large field and high number of players on it makes for a game that's like the world's biggest neutral zone trap in hockey. Scoring and scoring opportunities are stifled so much that there are just too few opportunities for exciting action.

Maybe it's because a lot of people find enjoyment watching the play and the feinting and control of that space. Some of the best matches in history have been nil-nils. It's just a different sort of game... kinda like golf or baseball compared with basketball or waterpolo. You say there's just too few opportunities for exciting action... but the playing itself is the exciting action.

*Legion* wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

But really, soccer won't make it in the US until we get stops in action which will allow for commercials. Personally, I think a smaller field, more liberal substitutions, and TV timeouts would improve the game significantly.

I agree with this. I hate to be "stupid American", but the excessively large field and high number of players on it makes for a game that's like the world's biggest neutral zone trap in hockey. Scoring and scoring opportunities are stifled so much that there are just too few opportunities for exciting action.

Sooooo, indoor soccer? I've been to a dozen or so games in my life and it's a much faster paced experience.

Prederick wrote:

I just really can't understand how anyone can be behind "TV Timeouts" in any circumstances

Hey, some of us would like to take a piss and not miss anything. We can't all have cable hookups in the bathroom.

Rat Boy wrote:
Prederick wrote:

I just really can't understand how anyone can be behind "TV Timeouts" in any circumstances

Hey, some of us would like to take a piss and not miss anything. We can't all have cable hookups in the bathroom.

I'm suddenly beginning to suspect, from all the ads for various pills on TV, that America really does have a widespread incontinence problem.

I just really can't understand how anyone can be behind "TV Timeouts" in any circumstances, in any sport. I remember going to my first NFL game, and being aghast that the game had stopped, for apparently no reason other than to put commercials on for people who aren't even there. I really do not understand it. It's like Americans have been so inundated and overwhelmed by advertising that they've given up fighting it ('cept for the Jerseys, of course), and now think that having a game near-constantly stopped for even more advertisements is okay. It's like Stockholm Syndrome or something. Just Does. Not. Compute.

The lack of TV timeouts are significant part of the reason I love soccer. The game kicks off at 2:30, I watch 45 minutes of play, they take a 15 minute break, I watch another 45 minutes, and I don't have to watch the same goddamned Coors Light ads 25 times.

Jayhawker wrote:

But really, soccer won't make it in the US until we get stops in action which will allow for commercials. Personally, I think a smaller field, more liberal substitutions, and TV timeouts would improve the game significantly.

So you want it to be more like Football?

Duoae wrote:
*Legion* wrote:

I agree with this. I hate to be "stupid American", but the excessively large field and high number of players on it makes for a game that's like the world's biggest neutral zone trap in hockey. Scoring and scoring opportunities are stifled so much that there are just too few opportunities for exciting action.

Maybe it's because a lot of people find enjoyment watching the play and the feinting and control of that space. Some of the best matches in history have been nil-nils. It's just a different sort of game... kinda like golf or baseball compared with basketball or waterpolo. You say there's just too few opportunities for exciting action... but the playing itself is the exciting action.

I agree. I don't mean to sound like i'm bashing you here Legion, but the "world's biggest neutral zone trap" argument seems to betray a near-willful ignorance of the sport, it's nature and its tactical nuances and its culture, inasmuch as NASCAR is "three hours of rednecks turning left" or baseball is a three-hour exercise in standing around. It's like me saying that Football is three hours of broke-dick-pill advertisements and overweight men standing around in tight pants, briefly interrupted by moments of overweight men in tight pants pushing each other and preening after gaining six yards. There's a lot going on there that i'm neglecting.

Soccer is soccer. It's not going to magically become Football, or Basketball, or Chess Boxing. It's soccer. Ideally, that means one should approach the game as it stands and make a good-faith attempt to learn about it, how it operates and why, rather than trying to make it something it's not.

I don't think Soccer will ever become more than a second-tier sport in the U.S., and that's at best. We are, as a nation, in love with our own games, the games that we invented/popularized, and are always going to be resistant to a game that is not "ours". Really, soccer has already "made it" in America, and for it to stay viable is the achievement.

Jayhawker wrote:

But then again, I'm describing hockey, and it's not exactly lighting the world on fire either. But at least I can say that I actually enjoy hockey. Which is more than I can say for the people they kept showing in the stands that looked bored to death. Or they were just very intently trying to ignore the jackwagons blowing their horns for hours on end.

Really now, let's not make this a "I found a bored person at X sport" thing. That's a red herring.

Jayhawker wrote:

But soccer is probably fine where it is. But it is a long ways from catching baseball. It's not even approaching hockey at this point. And in 18 months, no one is going to be talking about soccer making inroads. Americans will continue to play soccer, but also continue to not watch it on TV, either.

For the most part, I agree with this.

Prederick wrote:

Really now, let's not make this a "I found a bored person at X sport" thing. That's a red herring.

That's fair. I just didn't think the crowd looked excited during the game. But I was probably projecting.

One of the reasons football (the American version) succeeds so spectacularly as a spectator sport is because of the constant stoppages of play. I can run to the bathroom, get a beer, grab a snack, discuss the last play, argue over great players, mock the announcers, or explain details to my son. It's the opportunity for people to socialize and bond. It's also where the obvious points of strategy come in; football, for all the violence, is an incredibly cerebral game, and the instant analysis you can do between every play makes the game. A lack of timeouts mean none of that happens.

I'm not really into TV time outs myself. Watching hockey without time outs in the Olympics was pretty awesome. But if you want American TV to embrace a sport, you better figure out how they are going to make money.

I can understand why people that love soccer as it is don't want it to change. But mainstream America doesn't like soccer as it is. All I'm saying is that more timeouts and liberal substitution would allow for players to play at peak performance for a greater period of the game. A smaller field would create more moments of possible game changing events.

But then again, I'm describing hockey, and it's not exactly lighting the world on fire, either. But at least I can say that I actually enjoy hockey.

But soccer is probably fine where it is. But it is a long ways from catching baseball. It's not even approaching hockey at this point. And in 18 months, no one is going to be talking about soccer making inroads. Americans will continue to play soccer, but also continue to not watch it on TV, either.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Really now, let's not make this a "I found a bored person at X sport" thing. That's a red herring.

Now that's not fair. You are going to compare a Lions game to a World Cup Final? Surely you respect soccer more than that.

Jayhawker wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Really now, let's not make this a "I found a bored person at X sport" thing. That's a red herring.

Now that's not fair. You are going to compare a Lions game to a World Cup Final? Surely you respect soccer more than that.

You're avoiding the point. It. Is. A. Red. Herring.

EDIT: More importantly, considering that we're (apparently) positioning Football as the be-all-end-all of excitement, shouldn't even a horrible NFL team garner more excitement that that? I mean, it is still football.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

I can run to the bathroom, get a beer, grab a snack, discuss the last play, argue over great players, mock the announcers, or explain details to my son. It's the opportunity for people to socialize and bond. It's also where the obvious points of strategy come in; football, for all the violence, is an incredibly cerebral game, and the instant analysis you can do between every play makes the game. A lack of timeouts mean none of that happens.

Well, i've gotten a beer while watching soccer, gotten a snack, done TONS of arguing online and off over who is and isn't having a good game, people are constantly mocking the announcers (see any Guardian Minute-by-Minute featuring Clyde Tydesley), and watched several games of this previous Premier League season with friends, at a bar, talking, chatting, arguing, explaining, debating, all while still watching the game. People do the same in England, in Brazil, in Spain, in Italy, in Germany, etc, etc.

Not having TV timeouts prevents none of these things. I know chances of this are low, but if you actually went to a soccer pub and watched a game with soccer heads, you'd see all the things that you listed happening during the game. They don't disappear.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

It's also where the obvious points of strategy come in; football, for all the violence, is an incredibly cerebral game, and the instant analysis you can do between every play makes the game. A lack of timeouts mean none of that happens.

Again, like I said earlier, and i'm not trying to be mean, but to me, this seems like not only a lack of knowledge of the sport, but an unwillingness to learn anything about it, and judge it against other sports that it just isn't. It's like getting pissed at MMA for not being in a square ring, for not forcing the fighters to stand up, and for them not wearing larger gloves.

I'm certainly not going to sit here and argue that Football isn't insanely, wildly spectacular in the U.S., but I'm having a hard time seeing how TV Timeouts improve anything other than the bottom line of the companies putting ads on.

Prederick wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Really now, let's not make this a "I found a bored person at X sport" thing. That's a red herring.

Now that's not fair. You are going to compare a Lions game to a World Cup Final? Surely you respect soccer more than that.

You're avoiding the point. It. Is. A. Red. Herring.

EDIT: More importantly, considering that we're (apparently) positioning Football as the be-all-end-all of excitement, shouldn't even a horrible NFL team garner more excitement that that? I mean, it is still football.

First, I already conceded your point. I'm just poking fun at your newly presented evidence.

Second, well, I really don't have another point.

If you think of the Vuvuzela as a stand-in for Hypnotoad, everything makes sense.

This thread went is a funny direction since I last checked on it.

Even as a person who doesn't like soccer I understand a few things.

Senior national soccer sucks. The players don't play together regularly, they are tired from their club seasons and they are too conservative. The best soccer is, as slazev says, the UEFA Champions League or even under 23 national soccer is fun, the players are quicker and play together a lot more so they are more cohesive.

A final in any sport is not really the game at its most entertaining. There is too much on the line so everyone plays as conservatively as possible.

This World Cup final had far more exciting moments, with the various near-shots and the like, than any Superbowl I wasn't skiing during.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

This World Cup final had far more exciting moments, with the various near-shots and the like, than any Superbowl I wasn't skiing during.

A good example of how it all boils down to personal opinion and taste. I would take a bad super bowl over a great world cup final anyday. Not because its better, just because I like it better. There is a huge difference.

Prederick wrote:

I agree. I don't mean to sound like i'm bashing you here Legion, but the "world's biggest neutral zone trap" argument seems to betray a near-willful ignorance of the sport, it's nature and its tactical nuances and its culture, inasmuch as NASCAR is "three hours of rednecks turning left" or baseball is a three-hour exercise in standing around. It's like me saying that Football is three hours of broke-dick-pill advertisements and overweight men standing around in tight pants, briefly interrupted by moments of overweight men in tight pants pushing each other and preening after gaining six yards. There's a lot going on there that i'm neglecting.

I think you misunderstand what I was going for.

Let me make an example using hockey. If you took hockey and added 3 more people on the ice per team, it would have a lot of a stifling effect on the action. (I already think NHL hockey is suboptimal because of the smaller ice).

If you took football and put the game on a 500 yard field, it too would be suboptimal.

I think everything that makes soccer fun to watch does not necessarily require a setting that stifles scoring and other "TV highlight" moments so much that they so rarely happen (by comparison to other sports).

How much of it is just entrenched tradition? "That's how big the pitch has always been", etc?

If soccer had always been on a smaller pitch with a few fewer players, and more regular scoring, would anyone have been able to convince soccer fans to change it to how it is today?

Would everything you like about soccer really be lost in an environment where teams are more able to actually put their progress on the scoreboard?

By "world's biggest neutral zone trap", I mean in the way the action is so strongly impeded from getting to the goal.

World cup ratings and ratings for the final were way up from 2006.

*Legion* wrote:
Prederick wrote:

I agree. I don't mean to sound like i'm bashing you here Legion, but the "world's biggest neutral zone trap" argument seems to betray a near-willful ignorance of the sport, it's nature and its tactical nuances and its culture, inasmuch as NASCAR is "three hours of rednecks turning left" or baseball is a three-hour exercise in standing around. It's like me saying that Football is three hours of broke-dick-pill advertisements and overweight men standing around in tight pants, briefly interrupted by moments of overweight men in tight pants pushing each other and preening after gaining six yards. There's a lot going on there that i'm neglecting.

I think you misunderstand what I was going for.

Let me make an example using hockey. If you took hockey and added 3 more people on the ice per team, it would have a lot of a stifling effect on the action. (I already think NHL hockey is suboptimal because of the smaller ice).

If you took football and put the game on a 500 yard field, it too would be suboptimal.

I think everything that makes soccer fun to watch does not necessarily require a setting that stifles scoring and other "TV highlight" moments so much that they so rarely happen (by comparison to other sports).

How much of it is just entrenched tradition? "That's how big the pitch has always been", etc?

If soccer had always been on a smaller pitch with a few fewer players, and more regular scoring, would anyone have been able to convince soccer fans to change it to how it is today?

Would everything you like about soccer really be lost in an environment where teams are more able to actually put their progress on the scoreboard?

By "world's biggest neutral zone trap", I mean in the way the action is so strongly impeded from getting to the goal.

For a smaller field and less players, there's futsal.

edit:
It was already mentioned up there.

slazev wrote:

For a smaller field and less players, there's futsal.

Which looks interesting. But obviously isn't where the elite players go.