Does any guys NOT like soccer?

[Hot Chocolate]

I was wondering if any guys do not like soccer at all? It seems that guys here at singapore always talk soccer, walk soccer, play soccer...it seems that their life just revolves around soccer.

Anyone guys or gals here not like soccer?

[Riiya]

.

[Brax]

I love soccer but I'm too out of shape to play it right now. It's great too because you're all running around like idiots kicking around a ball and no one cares.

[BostonB]

Soccer is probably the least popular of all the major sports in america. In fact, a lot of hardcore sports fans look down on it. I don't particularly like it either. I like sports, but I don't really make it a point to watch them. There are a lot of other things I'd rather be doing

[CAD]

Hate it. And I'm a man with a penis and everything.

[PGVan]

Originally Posted by BostonB

Soccer is probably the least popular of all the major sports in america. In fact, a lot of hardcore sports fans look down on it. I don't particularly like it either. I like sports, but I don't really make it a point to watch them. There are a lot of other things I'd rather be doing

One aspect that can be attributed to the average US sports fan (no offence, but it's true) is that low-scoring sports are automatically boring. Look at the most popular sport in the USA (American Football). They award 6 points for a touchdown. A high number on the scoreboard is the desire. This attitude is shown even more by how the NHL is always trying to change its rules in attempt to increase offence. They do it because they need a larger US fanbase and low-scoring games are seen as boring.

This attitude is something I can't stand. I watched a very exciting 1-0 game between the Boston Bruins and Vancouver Canucks last week. The fans were into it. I hate to imagine how this game would have been received by fans had it been played in Atlanta or Nashville.

Back to soccer, even though it's not in the Top 5 sports in the US, it is by far the world's most popular sport. I would also say that soccer fans are the most hardcore sports fans on the planet. Nothing compares to the atmosphere in a soccer stadium. NFL fans are good, but not quite at the level of soccer fans.

[sprinter]

I don't like it. It's made up of a bunch of plays that almost work.

[bezoomny]

Originally Posted by PGVan

One aspect that can be attributed to the average US sports fan (no offence, but it's true) is that low-scoring sports are automatically boring. Look at the most popular sport in the USA (American Football). They award 6 points for a touchdown. A high number on the scoreboard is the desire. This attitude is shown even more by how the NHL is always trying to change its rules in attempt to increase offence. They do it because they need a larger US fanbase and low-scoring games are seen as boring.

This attitude is something I can't stand. I watched a very exciting 1-0 game between the Boston Bruins and Vancouver Canucks last week. The fans were into it. I hate to imagine how this game would have been received by fans had it been played in Atlanta or Nashville.

Back to soccer, even though it's not in the Top 5 sports in the US, it is by far the world's most popular sport. I would also say that soccer fans are the most hardcore sports fans on the planet. Nothing compares to the atmosphere in a soccer stadium. NFL fans are good, but not quite at the level of soccer fans.

Baseball often has a low number of runs. Even though baseball's reputation is waning in the US, in Atlanta it's still very popular.

[kikachuck]

Originally Posted by bezoomny

Baseball often has a low number of runs. Even though baseball's reputation is waning in the US, in Atlanta it's still very popular.

Exactly, that's why I don't think it's the low scoring that turns off American fans, rather, the high likelihood of tie scores. There is something that seems just un-american about a game that frequently has no winners or losers. I think that's a large reason why the NHL changed a lot of its overtime rules to lessen the probability of a tie score.

BTW, as a true blooded American male, I don't care for soccer.

[PGVan]

Every time there is a low-scoring baseball game, it's criticized for being dull and boring. Fans want offensive production. When was baseball at its most popular point in time? During the home run record chase years. (Then the steroid crackdown came and there are less home runs now as a result.)

I'm watching Dallas @ NY Giants right now. If touchdowns counted for one point (I know it can't be that way because there are field goals, but just to make my point), it's 2-1 New York instead of 14-7. The fact that there are two methods of scoring in american football shows the fan's obsession for points on the board.

[gertrude]

I played soccer as a kid and what I took away from it is that 1) getting kicked in the shin hurts a lot more than you'd think, and 2) shin guards don't work nearly as well as you'd think.

No, I don't like soccer. But I'm a girl and an American and my shins throb just thinking about the sport, so I guess I wouldn't.

[PGVan]

Originally Posted by kikachuck

Exactly, that's why I don't think it's the low scoring that turns off American fans, rather, the high likelihood of tie scores. There is something that seems just un-american about a game that frequently has no winners or losers. I think that's a large reason why the NHL changed a lot of its overtime rules to lessen the probability of a tie score.

Sure there are draws in soccer. It's part of the game. The point of the season is to finish in first place. European soccer leagues aren't like North American sports where you have a regular season and playoffs. You have one season, and whoever is on top of the standings after the last game wins the league. Earning a point for a draw helps that cause, but it's not like teams don't play for the win either. When you get 3 points for a win, settling for a draw if you're a top team is pretty close to a loss.

As a hockey fan, I hate what the NHL did to overtime. Shootouts are a ****ing disgusting gimmick which should be reserved for skills competitions. In a sport with regular season and playoffs, the goal for NHL teams is to finish in the Top 8 in the conference to have a chance to win the league. Playoff overtime is great (play until somebody scores). For the regular season, it should be like it used to be...5 minutes 5-on-5. If you can't score, the game is tied.

Probably the part of NHL regular season overtime now that pisses me off the most is giving a point in the standings to the losing team. I shouldn't have to explain why that is bull****, but I will anyway. In 2006, the Oilers got 8th place in the West and made the Stanley Cup Final (and damn near won the goddam thing) only because they had 5 more overtime losses than the 9th placed Vancouver Canucks, who missed the playoffs, yet won one more regular season game than the Oilers.

Right now in the NHL, teams are not rewarded appropriately for winning and losing can help you out, as long as you push the game to overtime.

[Polar]

There's a big interest for it here, but I don't really care about it. I follow some international matches in the big cups if I've got nothing else to do but otherwise I can't really be bothered.

I like hockey better.

[dax]

I like it. Most Americans don't however.

[Mr. Orange]

Originally Posted by PGVan

Every time there is a low-scoring baseball game, it's criticized for being dull and boring.

I don't think many people find a good pitcher's dual boring at all. These games are very climatic because just a couple small slip ups and everything changes. A lot more exciting than just home runs being hit every other inning.

I don't like soccer, by the way.

[Zephyr]

Originally Posted by PGVan

As a hockey fan, I hate what the NHL did to overtime. Shootouts are a ****ing disgusting gimmick which should be reserved for skills competitions. In a sport with regular season and playoffs, the goal for NHL teams is to finish in the Top 8 in the conference to have a chance to win the league. Playoff overtime is great (play until somebody scores). For the regular season, it should be like it used to be...5 minutes 5-on-5. If you can't score, the game is tied.

Probably the part of NHL regular season overtime now that pisses me off the most is giving a point in the standings to the losing team. I shouldn't have to explain why that is bull****, but I will anyway. In 2006, the Oilers got 8th place in the West and made the Stanley Cup Final (and damn near won the goddam thing) only because they had 5 more overtime losses than the 9th placed Vancouver Canucks, who missed the playoffs, yet won one more regular season game than the Oilers.

Right now in the NHL, teams are not rewarded appropriately for winning and losing can help you out, as long as you push the game to overtime.

One thing they can do to remedy that is award more points for a regulation time win, say three. Whoever wins in regulation gets three points, loser gets none obviously. If it goes to overtime then the winner gets two points, with the loser one. If no one scores in overtime it ends in a tie with one point apiece. This system would reward teams that get the job done in the sixty minutes that a hockey game is supposed to last, and would allow them to separate from teams that hang around and can't win until overtime. I think getting a point for being tied after sixty is fair, no matter what happens afterward.

If you want to keep the shootout, you can go to something like: four points for a regulation win, three for an overtime win, two for a shootout win. One point for losing in shootout/overtime (well, if you want to think about it right it's one point for being tied after regulation, not for losing). This would provide even more separation, and also push teams to win games before points come off the table.

The way things are now, a team could lose a huge majority of their games and still qualify for the playoffs by just pushing things to overtime or shootout. You can build a whole season around losing artfully. The above systems would make it impossible to do that.

[Sabreth]

It's as about as exciting as watching fish swim back and forth.

[Mnster]

My cousins love it they have signed posters and stuff on their walls.

Me I can't tolerate sports at all, well other then offroad motorsports.

[PGVan]

Originally Posted by Zephyr

One thing they can do to remedy that is award more points for a regulation time win, say three. Whoever wins in regulation gets three points, loser gets none obviously. If it goes to overtime then the winner gets two points, with the loser one. If no one scores in overtime it ends in a tie with one point apiece. This system would reward teams that get the job done in the sixty minutes that a hockey game is supposed to last, and would allow them to separate from teams that hang around and can't win until overtime. I think getting a point for being tied after sixty is fair, no matter what happens afterward.

How is it fair? The game isn't over. Why should points be awarded before the game is over? It doesn't make sense.

Soccer has the best point system..

3 for a win
1 for a tie
0 for a loss

This encourages winning and it does not reward losing in any way.

Originally Posted by Zephyr

The way things are now, a team could lose a huge majority of their games and still qualify for the playoffs by just pushing things to overtime or shootout. You can build a whole season around losing artfully. The above systems would make it impossible to do that.

Why complicate it when it could be simple by simply awarding no points for any loss?

[PGVan]

Originally Posted by Mr. Orange

I don't think many people find a good pitcher's dual boring at all. These games are very climatic because just a couple small slip ups and everything changes. A lot more exciting than just home runs being hit every other inning.

I agree that a good pitcher's duel is exciting. However, I am a baseball fan. To find those low-scoring games exciting, you need to be a fan and understand the game. An average sports fan who doesn't understand baseball in depth is going to look at the scoreboard and roll his/her eyes.

That's also why soccer isn't very popular in the US, at least when it comes to pro sports. (More kids play soccer than anything else because it's cheap.) The game is not understood very well. I will say that it is different in Canada. We hosted the U20 World Cup last year, and sellouts were the norm. Toronto FC is the only MLS team who has spirited fans selling out their stadium every game. I run a sports retail store, and the World Cup and European Championships are big business for us.

Not understanding the game is also why the NHL is always trying to increase offensive production. The people running the league are way too concerned with pleasing the US fanbase. Montreal's GM Bob Gainey, a guy who played the game "back in the day", when some people say "hockey was hockey" suggested last week that the NHL create a penalty for lying down to block shots. Despite being a huge shot blocker when he played, now he all of a sudden wants those shots to get through because they might go in the net. I officiate hockey, and I will tell you here and now that if such a rule were to come into the leagues I officiate, I'm hanging up my skates. I would refuse to be a part of such a ridiculous altering of the game I love. People who basically were the game, now no longer understand it. They also won't be happy until goaltenders have no padding left at all.

The NHL has fallen into the trap that more points on the board automatically equals an exciting product, and if it's not curbed soon enough, it's going to destroy the game.