Dear american football...

[billsin01]

Well...your post was very nice...but it also has nothing to do with what I posted...
I was talking about TV ratings, not live attendance. The MLS game drew a .35 on ESPN 2 which was higher than some NHL Playoffs games on NBCSports

Ah, fair enough. Again, picking one game and then cherry picking others doesn't really mean anything statistically.

 

[djcon57]

Ah, fair enough. Again, picking one game and then cherry picking others doesn't really mean anything statistically.

Yes, a regular season game vs playoff games is clearly cherry picking.

Also...thanks for your apology for suggesting I was being disingenuous

 

[Scooch]

Well...your post was very nice...but it also has nothing to do with what I posted...
I was talking about TV ratings, not live attendance. The MLS game drew a .35 on ESPN 2 which was higher than some NHL Playoffs games on NBCSports

It was also lower than some softball games on cable this weekend, so let's not get crazy.

 

[djcon57]

It was also lower than some softball games on cable this weekend, so let's not get crazy.

Scooch, my first post said "but whatever...no reason to get worked up about it. We'll see where it goes from here"

I wasn't getting crazy about it. I was posting facts.

 

[billsin01]

Yes, a regular season game vs playoff games is clearly cherry picking.

Also...thanks for your apology for suggesting I was being disingenuous

Did I honestly hurt your feelings with that post? This is a message board, I feel like someone calls me an ignorant a-hole about twice a day on here. But, I apologize for misinterpreting -- my bad. It is the very definition of statistical cherry picking. You take one game involving by far MLS' most valuable franchise and then say it beat some (unnamed) nhl playoff games. There's no context for what time and what it was up against or for the markets involved. And, beyond that, if we take it at face value it's a data point that, in and of itself, is not indicative of any larger trend.

Now if the MLS is routinely beating the NHL in national and regional tv ratings, then obviously that's news. And it could happen.

 

[Pyle]

" Shrink the soccer field to the size of an nhl rink and play 7 v 7 instead of 11 v 11 and it would look remarkably similar.
.

I see we're starting to get somewhere lol...Now just change the offsides to something more permanent and I'm all for it. Another cool thing, even though the NHL did away with it, would be to create some type of 2 line pass rule. I hate seeing them kick the ball the entire length of the field, see 2 guys head the ball before somebody else boots it all the way down to the other end. I do think you really hit on something. Soccer is too wide open and therefore slow for my taste, shrink it up, make it look faster, and penalize the floppers and maybe it's something I could get into. As of now, too many guys, too big of a crease, too big of a field, too many floppers, and a crappy offsides rule are killing it for me.

 

[djcon57]

Did I honestly hurt your feelings with that post? This is a message board, I feel like someone calls me an ignorant a-hole about twice a day on here. But, I apologize for misinterpreting -- my bad. It is the very definition of statistical cherry picking. You take one game involving by far MLS' most valuable franchise and then say it beat some (unnamed) nhl playoff games. There's no context for what time and what it was up against or for the markets involved. And, beyond that, if we take it at face value it's a data point that, in and of itself, is not indicative of any larger trend.

Now if the MLS is routinely beating the NHL in national and regional tv ratings, then obviously that's news. And it could happen.

Nope, you didn't hurt my feelings, but I thought we were trying to have an honest debate... If you want me to act like a dick ...I'll be glad to up the ante and start calling you an a-hole and start posting dumbsh!t pics and memes. I'd rather not, but that's just me...

 

[billsin01]

Hockey is essentially faster, more condensed soccer. My buddy is a huge hockey fan and I told him to watch soccer through the same lens and now he see's it. Hockey in person can't be matched but on TV soccer>>>hockey because the camera can follow the ball as well as multiple players much better.

I'm not trying to sell anyone on a 0-0 fulham v hull game as a reason to watch soccer. I'd watch but I understand why some are bored to tears with that. However, over the 38 game domestic season liverpool scored 101 goals and conceeded 50. 151 total goals = 3.97 goals per game average last season so ever if a game was 1-0 one week you're just as likely to see 6+ the following. Man City scored 102 and conceded 37 139/38 = 3.65 goals per game. Chances for seeing a 0-0 game involving either team is slim.

So I"m genuinely interested in this b/c I'm one of the knuckleheads who think soccer is a little boring given the long periods of zero scoring/scoring chances. If the powers that be revamped off-sides to look more like lacrosse (3 guys from each team have to stay on each half of the field) or did something else to open things up in the offensive end and it made matches higher scoring -- is that something real soccer fans and people who actually know what's happening in the sport would like or despise?

 

[billsin01]

Nope, you didn't hurt my feelings, but I thought we were trying to have an honest debate... If you want me to act like a dick ...I'll be glad to up the ante and start calling you an a-hole and start posting dumbsh!t pics and memes. I'd rather not, but that's just me...

Wow. I will only say complimentary things from now on.

 

[ImperialOrange]

I see we're starting to get somewhere lol...Now just change the offsides to something more permanent and I'm all for it. Another cool thing, even though the NHL did away with it, would be to create some type of 2 line pass rule. I hate seeing them kick the ball the entire length of the field, see 2 guys head the ball before somebody else boots it all the way down to the other end. I do think you really hit on something. Soccer is too wide open and therefore slow for my taste, shrink it up, make it look faster, and penalize the floppers and maybe it's something I could get into. As of now, too many guys, too big of a crease, too big of a field, too many floppers, and a crappy offsides rule are killing it for me.

Funny thing is I prefer the larger olympic rink that opens up hockey games. It's all preference really was just giving some background as to why I made that comparo.

 

[Pyle]

Funny thing is I prefer the larger olympic rink that opens up hockey games. It's all preference really was just giving some background as to why I made that comparo.

The difference is the bigger rink in the Olympics makes the game faster. It gives the finesse players more room to skate and gain speed. There really isn't alot of room once all 11 guys get into the offensive zone.

 

[ImperialOrange]

So I"m genuinely interested in this b/c I'm one of the knuckleheads who think soccer is a little boring given the long periods of zero scoring/scoring chances. If the powers that be revamped off-sides to look more like lacrosse (3 guys from each team have to stay on each half of the field) or did something else to open things up in the offensive end and it made matches higher scoring -- is that something real soccer fans and people who actually know what's happening in the sport would like or despise?

Honestly, scoring numbers in soccer aren't straight forward. You can look at overall goals per game BUT teams don't score as much as they could if they are in control of a game. Germany had 5 at the half vs Brazil and finished with 7. If they wanted to push the issue they likely couldve scored a dozen BUT likely to have a Brazilian player go goon squad and put his stud through one of their players femur. Soccer does a better job of policing itself because people aren't wearing armor so you don't see as many scores run up.

End game, teams could score more but don't. No pollsters or power rankings to impress and teams also try to rest players and get squad players game time as much as they can. The season is many more games than just the domestic league to build for.

Offsides only encompasses half the field so if a team wanted to sit with their strikers as midfield and boot the ball over the top and try and outrun the defense they could BUT, unlike in hockey where the keepers mobility is limited, the opposing keeper could be almost as fast and running the other direction to clear the danger. It leaves much less room over the top but also occasionally causes the keeper to get caught out and allow a goal from 40+ yards or get chipped.

 

[ImperialOrange]

The difference is the bigger rink in the Olympics makes the game faster. It gives the finesse players more room to skate and gain speed. There really isn't alot of room once all 11 guys get into the offensive zone.

You rarely see everyone in the offensive zone. Offensive half perhaps, but final 3rd not unless it's last ditch (hockey pulling your keeper) time. Defensive teams "park the bus" and keep 8 guys behind the ball and only occasionally try and counter. Teams that have faith in their scoring ability might only have 4 or 5 behind the ball. They'll try and draw the defensive team out and then quickly break with even numbers or even a 3 v 2 or 4 v 3 odd man rush.

 

[Pyle]

Soccer does a better job of policing itself because people aren't wearing armor so you don't see as many scores run up.

They don't wear armor in baseball and I've seen a lot of 9-3, 10-1 type games
They DO wear armor in hockey but typically a team will sit back on a 3 goal lead and NOT run up the score, it's possible they still get one on a breakaway or defensive collapse but generally they don't push and play puck possession.
The lack of armor doesn't stop JB from hanging a hundred on Sienna either.

 

[Millhouse]

Honestly, scoring numbers in soccer aren't straight forward. You can look at overall goals per game BUT teams don't score as much as they could if they are in control of a game. Germany had 5 at the half vs Brazil and finished with 7. If they wanted to push the issue they likely couldve scored a dozen BUT likely to have a Brazilian player go goon squad and put his stud through one of their players femur. Soccer does a better job of policing itself because people aren't wearing armor so you don't see as many scores run up.

End game, teams could score more but don't. No pollsters or power rankings to impress and teams also try to rest players and get squad players game time as much as they can. The season is many more games than just the domestic league to build for.

Offsides only encompasses half the field so if a team wanted to sit with their strikers as midfield and boot the ball over the top and try and outrun the defense they could BUT, unlike in hockey where the keepers mobility is limited, the opposing keeper could be almost as fast and running the other direction to clear the danger. It leaves much less room over the top but also occasionally causes the keeper to get caught out and allow a goal from 40+ yards or get chipped.

the losing team never scores in the world cup final

i think you're trying too hard. let's cross the running up the score bridge when we come to it.

 

[ImperialOrange]

They don't wear armor in baseball and I've seen a lot of 9-3, 10-1 type games
They DO wear armor in hockey but typically a team will sit back on a 3 goal lead and NOT run up the score, it's possible they still get one on a breakaway or defensive collapse but generally they don't push and play puck possession.
The lack of armor doesn't stop JB from hanging a hundred on Sienna either.

Because in baseball a 5+ run inning is more likely to happen than giving up a 3 goal lead in soccer. Liverpool kept trying to score to make up goal differential on Man City late in the season and instead gave up 3 and drew the game 3-3. Momentum shifts are huge in soccer.

Barry Bonds wore body armor at the plate and set the *home run record while hanging over the plate as well but baseball isn't set up for direct retribution IE a pitcher hits a batter and the opposing pitcher hits an opposing batter. Never see a pitcher intentionally pegging another pitcher. Also, if I hit a home run and dance around the base path like a clown and your batting behind me in the order you get pegged.

JB hanging 100 on Sienna is a different beast because basketball is inherently a scoring game. You HAVE to cross half court in 10 seconds and you HAVE to shoot within 35 seconds. Walk ons chucking up 3s while we cheer for taco's is part of the fun as well.

 

[billsin01]

Honestly, scoring numbers in soccer aren't straight forward. You can look at overall goals per game BUT teams don't score as much as they could if they are in control of a game. Germany had 5 at the half vs Brazil and finished with 7. If they wanted to push the issue they likely couldve scored a dozen BUT likely to have a Brazilian player go goon squad and put his stud through one of their players femur. Soccer does a better job of policing itself because people aren't wearing armor so you don't see as many scores run up.

End game, teams could score more but don't. No pollsters or power rankings to impress and teams also try to rest players and get squad players game time as much as they can. The season is many more games than just the domestic league to build for.

Offsides only encompasses half the field so if a team wanted to sit with their strikers as midfield and boot the ball over the top and try and outrun the defense they could BUT, unlike in hockey where the keepers mobility is limited, the opposing keeper could be almost as fast and running the other direction to clear the danger. It leaves much less room over the top but also occasionally causes the keeper to get caught out and allow a goal from 40+ yards or get chipped.

That all makes sense but I'm just saying if there were some sort of rule change that made the game more wide open and the scoring jumped (and I realize this is a massive hypothetical at this point) -- but would it be well-received?

 

[Bayside44]

Because in baseball a 5+ run inning is more likely to happen than giving up a 3 goal lead in soccer. Liverpool kept trying to score to make up goal differential on Man City late in the season and instead gave up 3 and drew the game 3-3. Momentum shifts are huge in soccer.

Barry Bonds wore body armor at the plate and set the *home run record while hanging over the plate as well but baseball isn't set up for direct retribution IE a pitcher hits a batter and the opposing pitcher hits an opposing batter. Never see a pitcher intentionally pegging another pitcher. Also, if I hit a home run and dance around the base path like a clown and your batting behind me in the order you get pegged.

JB hanging 100 on Sienna is a different beast because basketball is inherently a scoring game. You HAVE to cross half court in 10 seconds and you HAVE to shoot within 35 seconds. Walk ons chucking up 3s while we cheer for taco's is part of the fun as well.

Shawn Estes tried to hit Roger Clemens and missed. Stupid Mets...

 

[cuseinchina]

I think much of this is just not being accustomed to the game and not knowing what to like about it. It's sort of like learning about football, there is so much going on - and if you don't know the game you don't know what to appreciate at first. Like when I first moved to the Caribbean I thought cricket was one of the most boring things I'd ever seen - until I got to know it - now I far prefer it by far to baseball.

That said, I've often wondered what a simple rule change like getting rid of off-sides would do to soccer. Maybe that would be catastrophic, I'm not sure.

 

[ImperialOrange]

the losing team never scores in the world cup final

i think you're trying too hard. let's cross the running up the score bridge when we come to it.

Because the final is always 2 evenly matched teams playing with a short turn around from prior games. If the NCAA tourney had group play before single elimination how many cinderellas do you think you'd see?

 

[ImperialOrange]

That all makes sense but I'm just saying if there were some sort of rule change that made the game more wide open and the scoring jumped (and I realize this is a massive hypothetical at this point) -- but would it be well-received?

Higher scoring teams are well received there's just no reason for them to try and keep scoring unless it's late in the season and they're trying to make up goal differential. It would be akin to FSU or Clemson throwing bombs or going for it on 4th down while up 35 on us and you know how much we thought of Dabo for doing it vs Jimbo for not.

You could change the rules however you want but it would just change formations and tactics and end game it all comes down to the precision on the players involved.

 

[ImperialOrange]

I think much of this is just not being accustomed to the game and not knowing what to like about it. It's sort of like learning about football, there is so much going on - and if you don't know the game you don't know what to appreciate at first. Like when I first moved to the Caribbean I thought cricket was one of the most boring things I'd ever seen - until I got to know it - now I far prefer it by far to baseball.

That said, I've often wondered what a simple rule change like getting rid of off-sides would do to soccer. Maybe that would be catastrophic, I'm not sure.

I think teams would simply employ a sweeper (libero) in front of the keeper but behind the back line like a free safety in football. Germany used to do it with Franz Beckenbauer who was the GOAT in that position.

Would probably be counter productive though as most plays then would include 1 less player building the attack. Same reason basketball or hockey don't always have a defender hang back to prevent fast breaks.

 

[CU44SE]

I do have to give Nasa and XC credit, they have mastered the art of trolling.

 

[billsin01]

Higher scoring teams are well received there's just no reason for them to try and keep scoring unless it's late in the season and they're trying to make up goal differential. It would be akin to FSU or Clemson throwing bombs or going for it on 4th down while up 35 on us and you know how much we thought of Dabo for doing it vs Jimbo for not.

You could change the rules however you want but it would just change formations and tactics and end game it all comes down to the precision on the players involved.

This makes sense but are there rule changes that would open up the field to generally increase scoring? In other words if the average score is 4-3 instead of 2-1, for example, then you can't sit on a goal or two. Or at least it's harder or a much bigger gamble to do so.

 

[ImperialOrange]

This makes sense but are there rule changes that would open up the field to generally increase scoring? In other words if the average score is 4-3 instead of 2-1, for example, then you can't sit on a goal or two. Or at least it's harder or a much bigger gamble to do so.

You'll laugh at the first part of this but I think the answer is to cut down on physicality and punish divers. I like the card system but what gets a card on a given day is up to that specific ref and where the foul takes place. A yellow card is given for a cynical challenge while straight red is a dangerous challenge. If a player compiles 3 or 4 non yellow card worthy fouls it should equate to the receiving a yellow card. You see some refs do this but not all after calling a foul for the 4th time brandish a yellow card and point to all the spots that player has committed fouls but not always.

Fouls called in the midfield are 50:50 but contact in the box is decidedly pro defenders. Liverpool have one of the worst in Martin Skrtel who will drape himself over players and he's far from the only one. If you really want to push scoring, call fouls the same in the box as you would in midfield. You would see a ton more PK's and also defenders having to play looser in the box. If you do that it would also make it more conceivable for a team to come back from a multi goal deficit. The flip side, which everyone wants, is to call fouls and brandish cards for dives in the box. Less rugby style grappling and oscar worthy diving in the box would make the game higher scoring and less detestable in general.

The one caveat with more fouls/cards is players get suspended for accumulation. With bigger "read deeper roster" clubs it would be easier to overcome, but a 3 game suspension for a team in relegation battle could be the difference in staying up or not. End game, it would favor the richer clubs.