Soccer in US

Jon · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 3

After attending the Man U vs Celtic game in Seattle last night with a
record breaking attendance, it sure proves that American Football,
baseball and basketball all rolled into one cannot compete with the
spectacle of soccer. I have now come to the realisation that these
American sports are boring and pointless. Long live soccer, the one
true team sport!

Archived from group: rec>sport>football>pro

Penn · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 7

"Jon" wrote in message@posting.google.com...
> The arrival at the airport wasn't made public, that's why only 12
> people showed up. How do you explain 66,700 people at Seahawk
> stadium? The highest attendance for any sporting event ever in that
> ground!

Well, Seahawk Stadium is a new Stadium. The Seattle Seahawks football team
formerly played at the Seattle Kingdome. Then they moved to the college
football stadium while the new Stadium was being built. (the roof at the
KingDome was deemed unsafe). The big crowd showed up out of curiosity...
Manchester is a fine team and the best in world, right?.... Hats off to them
and without meaning any disrespect to them.... they were more of a curiosity
than an attraction.

How many baseball/American football games attract that amount
> of support for an exhibition game?

Almost all of the Pro American Football games will be sell-outs as they are
every year. Most of the Stadiums seat less than 70,000 and the 66,000 that
showed up for the soccer game was a great crowd. A few College American
Football teams sell out every home game with crowds of over 100,000 (Penn
State for example). The American Bowl pre-seasonn Football game played in a
foriegn Nation annually is always a sell-out too..I think this years game
will be in Tokyo. The Last one in Tokyo had over 100,000 in attendance. Did
you know the American SuperBowl is the most watched annual Television event
(sporting or other wise) in the entire world?... every year, Jon.

>
> I actually hope it doesn't catch on in the States. It gives the rest
> of the world something to laugh at when you try and compete in the
> World Cup.

Gee, don't our American women dominate that? Our male teams get the
left-over, second-teir players who couldn't make the football and baseball
teams where the huge money is. Basically, nobody here really cares if our
soccer team wins or loses... we just don't care, Jon. It isn't a National
Pride issue here like it is in other countries where the people have nothing
else to be proud of.

> Enjoy your baseball (Yawn)
Baseball sux but baseball is the reason Soccer will never catch on in the
United States..... we already have a long, slow, low scoring and boring game
(Baseball) . Heck, even Hockey and BasketBall get a better draw than Soccer.
American Football rules in the United States. Baseball is America's national
sport in name only. Soon all the Pro football Stadiums will be packed on
Sundays, the college Stadiums on Saturday and the high-school Stadiums on
Friday night.

> Jon
>
I do enjoy reading about the riots and hoolagans accociated with soccer
games after some country gets it national pride hurt but Europe can have
your Soccer Jon, they can keep their Formula One racing as well. Neither
will ever be a big-hit in the United States. American Football and Nascar
Racing rule here... and The US Military rules everywhere else.

Robert Goodman · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 35

"Randy Rokosz" wrote in message@udel.edu...

> Manchester United, allegedly the world’s most famous soccer team,
showed
> up in Portland, Oregon recently. And you’d have to admit, as far as
U.S.
> soccer cities go, Portland is one of the better ones. So you can
imagine
> that the people of Portland were ‘pumped’ up to welcome ‘Man-U’ as
they
> are ridiculously referred to as.

> Now these are the early estimates, the final figures have yet to be
> released, but a total of 12 people and 1 reporter showed up to welcome
> the team at the airport.

> The most famous team in the world drew 12 people? We’re talking about
> the ‘New York Yankees’ of soccer, if there is such a thing. The most
> ‘popular’ soccer team in the world arguably drew a total of 12 people?

Well, a large part of that is that the team is foreign, and USAns
generally aren't interested in foreign sports teams.

But the point is still well taken. Big time soccer has nowhere near the
drawing power in the USA as in most of the world, no matter how they
try, repeatedly, to prime the pump. For decades it's existed mostly in
a summer niche where it won't compete with other versions of football,
which are played in the fall and to some extent spring.

Since the 19th C., various observers have thought it only a matter of
time before soccer made it really big as a spectator sport in the USA,
and they've always turned out wrong. Some observers thought that if
they could only get the youth to play it, they'd for sure come out to
watch it. But even that turned out to be wrong. The past 35 years or
so saw an explosion of children's soccer in North America, to the point
where the term "soccer mom" came into political use. Yet by the time
they become teens, they lose interest in playing and don't become
spectators. The game has, if anything, become stigmatized as the
interest of little children and recent immigrants. The continuous
influx of immigrants is about the only thing that's sustained pro soccer
even at its current level of spectator interest in the USA, and that's
been true for a century.

It seems that countries that developed their own versions of football in
the 19th C. -- USAn, Canadian, Gaelic, Aussie -- are resistant to the
"World Game". Soccer has been able to relegate rugby to 2nd class in
most countries, but not to displace or even seriously challenge these
national versions of spectator football. Soccer seems too simple a game
to be of much interest to the natives as spectators, and its
pigeonholing as a children's game heightens that impression. Also, the
fact that relatively few North Americans play tackle football at any
stage of their lives (although plenty play touch) seems to heighten its
mystique as a spectator sport.

I haven't attended a soccer game in years, even though I used to play a
little & watch. It just doesn't engage my mind the way Rugby Union
(which I took up playing late) or even many obscure USAn football teams
(minor league, women's) or even Canadian football do, and even though I
wouldn't play a game with that body armor.

Robert

NZDude · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 43

"Jon" wrote in message@posting.google.com...
> The arrival at the airport wasn't made public, that's why only 12
> people showed up. How do you explain 66,700 people at Seahawk
> stadium? The highest attendance for any sporting event ever in that
> ground! How many baseball/American football games attract that amount
> of support for an exhibition game?
>
> I actually hope it doesn't catch on in the States. It gives the rest
> of the world something to laugh at when you try and compete in the
> World Cup.

Yeah soccer, rugby (league and union), cricket and a few others are not
money sports in the USA. They aren't TV friendly and there isn't the
opportunity to make big bucks for the athletes like in other sports. The
thing is how many Americans even care that much about the soccer world cup?
Do they care that the USA has never won it?

Its like the America's Cup yacht race. The few who care about it have great
passion, but their numbers are miniscule when compared to the majority who
don't give a toss. As far as the world laughing at America about our lack
of prowess in some of these sports, so what. America kicks ass at the
Olympics and we kick ass in international affairs, soccer is simply one
sport Amercians don't care enough about to attempt to dominate. If they did
care, they would soon produce a world class team. Bet on that.
NZD

NZD

Gary Rosen · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 71

"Jon" wrote in message@posting.google.com...
> After attending the Man U vs Celtic game in Seattle last night with a
> record breaking attendance, it sure proves that American Football,
> baseball and basketball all rolled into one cannot compete with the
> spectacle of soccer.

Absolutely. None of them has the consistent lack of drama and
interest that only soccer can attain. Consider these game-ending
scenarios:

Baseball: Bonds hits walk-off homer (just yesterday)

Basketball: MJ sinks winning three-pointer

Football: Montana-to-Clark ("The Catch")

Soccer: Guys running around aimlessly. All of a sudden they stop.
Guess the clock ran out, nobody really knew what time it was.

- Gary Rosen

Robert Goodman · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 35

"Gary Rosen" wrote in message$OZ2.26060@rwcrnsc54...

> Absolutely. None of them has the consistent lack of drama and
> interest that only soccer can attain. Consider these game-ending
> scenarios:

> Baseball: Bonds hits walk-off homer (just yesterday)

> Basketball: MJ sinks winning three-pointer

> Football: Montana-to-Clark ("The Catch")

> Soccer: Guys running around aimlessly. All of a sudden they stop.
> Guess the clock ran out, nobody really knew what time it was.

That's not fair. It could be said of any timed game. At some
facilities the official time is displayed, at others not -- hard to say
which is more suspenseful. However, a football of basketball game
usually ends the same way.

Soccer is a terrific participant sport. It has that highly prized
quality in a game: being easy to learn, difficult to master. However,
it has enough shortcomings as a spectator sport that it has failed to
displace any national form of football.

Robert

Gary Rosen · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 71

"Robert Goodman" wrote in message$jboj3$3@ID-140940.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "Gary Rosen" wrote in message
> $OZ2.26060@rwcrnsc54...
>
> > Absolutely. None of them has the consistent lack of drama and
> > interest that only soccer can attain. Consider these game-ending
> > scenarios:
>
> > Baseball: Bonds hits walk-off homer (just yesterday)
>
> > Basketball: MJ sinks winning three-pointer
>
> > Football: Montana-to-Clark ("The Catch")
>
> > Soccer: Guys running around aimlessly. All of a sudden they stop.
> > Guess the clock ran out, nobody really knew what time it was.
>
> That's not fair. It could be said of any timed game. At some
> facilities the official time is displayed, at others not -- hard to say
> which is more suspenseful. However, a football of basketball game
> usually ends the same way.
>
> Soccer is a terrific participant sport. It has that highly prized
> quality in a game: being easy to learn, difficult to master. However,
> it has enough shortcomings as a spectator sport that it has failed to
> displace any national form of football.

I think it is fair. Football and basketball are also timed games. The
difference is that very few soccer games have the kind of drama
the other three sports so frequently have. I think the reason is
that scoring is *so* rare that a 1-goal margin has the effect of
a 3-4 TD lead in real (American) football. Teams start running the
clock out very early in the game. There is rarely the sense of that
last-minute shot on which the outcome of the game can turn. I'm
not saying it never happens, just much more rarely.

A blowout is a yawner in any sport. But baseball/football/basketball
have a healthy proportion of games that are still closely contested
up to the last minute (or out). And because scoring isn't so hard,
there is always the tease of a dramatic comeback win even when the
leader has a good (but not overwhelming) margin - 3-4 runs in the
9th inning, 10-15 pts. in the 4th quarter (either football or basketball).
Ironically the most dramatic soccer match I've seen was the one
where the US women won the world championship from China because
it was 0-0 until the end - closely contested all the way! And even then
it had to end with an artificial shootout.

- Gary Rosen

Jon · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 3

The American mentality is that they need to see lots of goals in order
for it to be considered a good game. There are plenty of soccer games
played every week that end in a 0-0 draw, but the gameplay has been
electric. Look at basketball, all the baskets look the same. People
just sit there clapping and cheering continuously.

I spoke with several 'curious' American's after the Seattle game on
Tuesday, and they all said they had never experienced an atmosphere
quite like it, and they would definatly start taking a greater
interest in the game. I think the Americans are starting to realise
what they have been missing out on all these years.

Jon

"Gary Rosen" wrote in message news:...
> "Robert Goodman" wrote in message
> $jboj3$3@ID-140940.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > "Gary Rosen" wrote in message
> > $OZ2.26060@rwcrnsc54...
> >
> > > Absolutely. None of them has the consistent lack of drama and
> > > interest that only soccer can attain. Consider these game-ending
> > > scenarios:
>
> > > Baseball: Bonds hits walk-off homer (just yesterday)
>
> > > Basketball: MJ sinks winning three-pointer
>
> > > Football: Montana-to-Clark ("The Catch")
>
> > > Soccer: Guys running around aimlessly. All of a sudden they stop.
> > > Guess the clock ran out, nobody really knew what time it was.
> >
> > That's not fair. It could be said of any timed game. At some
> > facilities the official time is displayed, at others not -- hard to say
> > which is more suspenseful. However, a football of basketball game
> > usually ends the same way.
> >
> > Soccer is a terrific participant sport. It has that highly prized
> > quality in a game: being easy to learn, difficult to master. However,
> > it has enough shortcomings as a spectator sport that it has failed to
> > displace any national form of football.
>
> I think it is fair. Football and basketball are also timed games. The
> difference is that very few soccer games have the kind of drama
> the other three sports so frequently have. I think the reason is
> that scoring is *so* rare that a 1-goal margin has the effect of
> a 3-4 TD lead in real (American) football. Teams start running the
> clock out very early in the game. There is rarely the sense of that
> last-minute shot on which the outcome of the game can turn. I'm
> not saying it never happens, just much more rarely.
>
> A blowout is a yawner in any sport. But baseball/football/basketball
> have a healthy proportion of games that are still closely contested
> up to the last minute (or out). And because scoring isn't so hard,
> there is always the tease of a dramatic comeback win even when the
> leader has a good (but not overwhelming) margin - 3-4 runs in the
> 9th inning, 10-15 pts. in the 4th quarter (either football or basketball).
> Ironically the most dramatic soccer match I've seen was the one
> where the US women won the world championship from China because
> it was 0-0 until the end - closely contested all the way! And even then
> it had to end with an artificial shootout.
>
> - Gary Rosen

Robert Goodman · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 35

"Gary Rosen" wrote:

> scoring is *so* rare that a 1-goal margin has the effect of
> a 3-4 TD lead in real (American) football.

That's not true, when you consider that a goal is scored
instantaneously, as opposed to a succession of scores.

> A blowout is a yawner in any sport. But baseball/football/basketball
> have a healthy proportion of games that are still closely contested
> up to the last minute (or out). And because scoring isn't so hard,
> there is always the tease of a dramatic comeback win even when the
> leader has a good (but not overwhelming) margin - 3-4 runs in the
> 9th inning, 10-15 pts. in the 4th quarter (either football or
basketball).

Actually I think basketball's the worst on that list in that regard
because scoring is so frequent that it's very difficult to make up a big
deficit. Arena football is even worse because under current rules it's
so hard to prevent touchdowns. Baseball's the best on the list in
having the sense that even a big lead late is surmountable.

A lot of this depends on level of play. Among poor chess players
there's a lot of suspense because you never know how many blunders will
be made. Similarly with kids playing soccer. Or beginners at bowling
(10 pins). As players get more proficient, it becomes more obvious when
a game's wrapped up.

Robert

Eric Fernandes · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 7

"Robert Goodman" wrote in message news:...
> "Gary Rosen" wrote in message
> $OZ2.26060@rwcrnsc54...
>
> > Absolutely. None of them has the consistent lack of drama and
> > interest that only soccer can attain. Consider these game-ending
> > scenarios:
>
> > Baseball: Bonds hits walk-off homer (just yesterday)
>
> > Basketball: MJ sinks winning three-pointer
>
> > Football: Montana-to-Clark ("The Catch")
>
> > Soccer: Guys running around aimlessly. All of a sudden they stop.
> > Guess the clock ran out, nobody really knew what time it was.
>
> That's not fair. It could be said of any timed game. At some
> facilities the official time is displayed, at others not -- hard to say
> which is more suspenseful. However, a football of basketball game
> usually ends the same way.
>
> Soccer is a terrific participant sport. It has that highly prized
> quality in a game: being easy to learn, difficult to master. However,
> it has enough shortcomings as a spectator sport that it has failed to
> displace any national form of football.
>
> Robert

Well, Gary, most baseball games end in a strikeout or a pop fly.
Bond's homer is not the norm.

Can anybody explain the hooliganism and violence that soccer fans
seems to show so often in Europe?

Eric Fernandes

--------------------------
| Eric Fernandes |
| Aurora, Illinois |
| efernand@racemail.com |
--------------------------

GN · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 1

On 28 Jul 2003 09:24:54 -0700, lfcok@hotmail.com (Jon) wrote:

>The American mentality is that they need to see lots of goals in order
>for it to be considered a good game. There are plenty of soccer games
>played every week that end in a 0-0 draw, but the gameplay has been
>electric. Look at basketball, all the baskets look the same. People
>just sit there clapping and cheering continuously.
>
>I spoke with several 'curious' American's after the Seattle game on
>Tuesday, and they all said they had never experienced an atmosphere
>quite like it, and they would definatly start taking a greater
>interest in the game. I think the Americans are starting to realise
>what they have been missing out on all these years.

I'm a believer in the theory that it's all about taste and *personal*
preference. I grew up in Southeast Asia where soccer is a huge-huge
thing. Everybody knows about soccer, all of the different European
leagues, their players, and everything.. except for me..

I have never been interested too much in soccer (played a little bit
in grade school, not doing too bad, but then the interest just fade
away). As I got older I have never been a fan of soccer, I tried to
watch, but I just don't get it. In the meantime, I have never been
exposed to 'American' football, or even know what they were at the
time. I thought that since I didn't like to watch soccer, it's not
possible that I could ever gotten myself to like watching football.

I have never been more wrong about myself.

Right from the first moment I saw the game on TV here in the US, I was
hooked. It took a little bit of time for me to understand what's going
on, and I asked a lot of questions to my friends here who has been
exposed to this type of game their whole life. Now, I can't get myself
*not* to watch a football game when it's on. Not much as a
'screaming-fans-on-the-field', and more as a
'screaming-fans-on-the-couch', but I think that's because I really
enjoyed listening to the commentary while watching it on TV.

It's been almost four years, I learned a lot about the game, I like it
even more (can't wait for the preseason to start this weekend), and I
still think that most of the soccer games are boring. I watched all of
the games from the World Cup last year from the quarter-final and up,
waking up six in the morning and everything, but most of them not
worth my time at all.

My point is, it's really a personal preference. I have been exposed to
soccer my whole life, and never got it why people always thought of it
as interesting. It took me one game on TV to got me hooked on
football, for life, I hope..

=GN-

Robert Goodman · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 35

"Jon" wrote in message@posting.google.com...

> The American mentality is that they need to see lots of goals in order
> for it to be considered a good game. There are plenty of soccer games
> played every week that end in a 0-0 draw, but the gameplay has been
> electric. Look at basketball, all the baskets look the same. People
> just sit there clapping and cheering continuously.

> I spoke with several 'curious' American's after the Seattle game on
> Tuesday, and they all said they had never experienced an atmosphere
> quite like it, and they would definatly start taking a greater
> interest in the game. I think the Americans are starting to realise
> what they have been missing out on all these years.

But that's been said over and over for a century.

Gary Rosen · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 71

"Eric Fernandes" wrote in message@posting.google.com...
> "Robert Goodman" wrote in message
news:...
> > "Gary Rosen" wrote in message
> > $OZ2.26060@rwcrnsc54...
> >
> > > Absolutely. None of them has the consistent lack of drama and
> > > interest that only soccer can attain. Consider these game-ending
> > > scenarios:
> >
> > > Baseball: Bonds hits walk-off homer (just yesterday)
> >
> > > Basketball: MJ sinks winning three-pointer
> >
> > > Football: Montana-to-Clark ("The Catch")
> >
> > > Soccer: Guys running around aimlessly. All of a sudden they stop.
> > > Guess the clock ran out, nobody really knew what time it was.
> >
> > That's not fair. It could be said of any timed game. At some
> > facilities the official time is displayed, at others not -- hard to say
> > which is more suspenseful. However, a football of basketball game
> > usually ends the same way.
> >
> > Soccer is a terrific participant sport. It has that highly prized
> > quality in a game: being easy to learn, difficult to master. However,
> > it has enough shortcomings as a spectator sport that it has failed to
> > displace any national form of football.
> >
> > Robert
>
> Well, Gary, most baseball games end in a strikeout or a pop fly.
> Bond's homer is not the norm.
>
> Can anybody explain the hooliganism and violence that soccer fans
> seems to show so often in Europe?

Not enough action during the game :^).

- Gary Rosen

Robert Goodman · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 35

"BackDownUnder" wrote in message@mb-m20.aol.com...

> I still prefer Aussie Rules though.

I find that to be the least interesting type of football. It's
basically a series of 1-on-1 contests.

Dennis · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 4

lfcok@hotmail.com (Jon) startled small woodland creatures when they
said:

>The American mentality is that they need to see lots of goals in order
>for it to be considered a good game. There are plenty of soccer games
>played every week that end in a 0-0 draw, but the gameplay has been
>electric. Look at basketball, all the baskets look the same. People
>just sit there clapping and cheering continuously.
>
>I spoke with several 'curious' American's after the Seattle game on
>Tuesday, and they all said they had never experienced an atmosphere
>quite like it, and they would definatly start taking a greater
>interest in the game. I think the Americans are starting to realise
>what they have been missing out on all these years.

how many shots on goal were attempted compared to an "average" game.
FWIW, I detest "pitcher's duels" in baseball too.

I think that futbol just doesn't come off on television well, you
gotta be there to enjoy it.

"education is the progressive discovery of our own ignorance" --Will Durant
"people who read the tabloids deserve to be lied to " Jerry Seinfeld
"if we don't have a sense of humor, we can't have a sense of perspective --Wayne Thiboux