Re: Arsenal 3-1 Stoke City: Cameron Scores First BPL Goal
Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2016 8:51 am
Any team that makes it to the knockout round with Portugal and Germany in the group is a good team.
Ignorance is not cool and people that hate soccer probably aren't any dumber than people that hate baseball.TruePoint wrote:This is a dinosaur way of thinking. It's also obviously wrong, since the U.S. is already good at soccer, it just isn't one of the very elite soccer nations yet. As I mentioned before, the "ignorance is cool" soccer-hating thing that was popular among dumb sports fans of a certain age in the late 90s has lost the culture war on soccer. The metrics are not debatable - the demand for the sport at its highest level has led to all of the major European soccer leagues to be broadcast live in the U.S., the attendance and overall health of MLS is on a steady incline, and anecdotally this generation of sports fan cares more and knows more about the game of soccer globally than they do about American sports like hockey.NYGFan_Section208 wrote:I think the US will be 'good at soccer', right after we adopt the metric system....
The metric system analogy is awful and sums up your ignorance of soccer. As TP said the fact that the major European soccer leagues now broadcast live in the US is just one example of how soccer is growing. If you don't like soccer that's fine, nobody cares, but maybe try and realize soccer is growing whether you want it to or not.NYGFan_Section208 wrote:Ignorance is not cool and people that hate soccer probably aren't any dumber than people that hate baseball.TruePoint wrote:This is a dinosaur way of thinking. It's also obviously wrong, since the U.S. is already good at soccer, it just isn't one of the very elite soccer nations yet. As I mentioned before, the "ignorance is cool" soccer-hating thing that was popular among dumb sports fans of a certain age in the late 90s has lost the culture war on soccer. The metrics are not debatable - the demand for the sport at its highest level has led to all of the major European soccer leagues to be broadcast live in the U.S., the attendance and overall health of MLS is on a steady incline, and anecdotally this generation of sports fan cares more and knows more about the game of soccer globally than they do about American sports like hockey.NYGFan_Section208 wrote:I think the US will be 'good at soccer', right after we adopt the metric system....
But, it does seem that there are many more that like baseball and don't like soccer - the 'dumb majority', maybe?
And if someone could post funnies on a baseball thread about why it sucks, I'd probably laugh, too.
Has to be a reason why the soccer stuff is so much funnier though...
The metric system analogy is spot on...the fact is...it just has not caught on in America...doesn't matter if it's 'better' or not. It has not caught on.
It has not and probably will not, in our lifetime, ever surpass any of the big 4 in America (of which hockey is #4 and therefore maybe a decent target).
I disagree...most have limited time, so you do have to give up something Most people that have jobs and families...only have so much time for sports. So, if I'm going to watch three hours of soccer, I gotta give up three hours of real sports - and people are not doing that in mass quantities...yet. Not saying never...but not now.TruePoint wrote:First of all, the metric system is a terrible analogy. That would be asking people to abandon their whole frame of reference for measurements they've had their whole life, while soccer is asking people to like a new thing without replacing any other thing. It's like if you have two $20s in your pocket and I'm like "would you like to have this $10 bill also?" There is no down side to it, you don't have to give me one of your $20s. It's just a new extra thing.
Second of all, the premier league is on network NBC somewhat regularly. Maybe you should wake up earlier.
Still proving my point, NBA doesn't have to...the Chinese (and the UK) get up at 3AM to watch...because it's the NBA...TruePoint wrote:You know that the UK has money, too, right? Does the NBA play games at 3am so China can watch it in primetime?
5000-1 odds at the beginning of the season. URI might even have better odds than that next year to win the tourney. It amazing too because without any playoffs they're required to be the best team for the entire season and not just a portion of it.TruePoint wrote:Not sure how many of you guys are paying attention, but Leicester City won again today and is going to win the premier league. That is kind of like URI winning the NCAA tournament, only in a way even more impressive because it is 40 games instead of 6. One of the coolest stories in sports right now.
josephski wrote:5000-1 odds at the beginning of the season. URI might even have better odds than that next year to win the tourney. It amazing too because without any playoffs they're required to be the best team for the entire season and not just a portion of it.TruePoint wrote:Not sure how many of you guys are paying attention, but Leicester City won again today and is going to win the premier league. That is kind of like URI winning the NCAA tournament, only in a way even more impressive because it is 40 games instead of 6. One of the coolest stories in sports right now.
Leicester doesn't have any superstars they just play extremely well as a team. It's a simple 4-4-2 approach but it works for them. They don't compare to the likes of Chelsea and Man U when it comes to money so they got some under the radar guys that have worked out perfectly like Vardys and Mahrez. Playing great defense and counter attacking is what they do better than anyone. Their opponent will possess the ball for a while but then boom they see an opening and score on a counter attack.UCH21377 wrote:So how is it happening? Did they have players come out of nowhere and become great, a la Brady? Did they just come up from the lower division? Why were the odds so long? Just curious; don't know much about soccer but did notice the press about Leicester. I'm assuming they don't have the money of the big shots, who are Man U and a few others right? And since we are talking about Cameron, where does Stoke fit in historically? Looks like the middle of the pack.
I do NOT (updated from earlier typo where I forgot the "not" and accidentally claimed knowledge I definitely don't have) know enough about soccer from a technical standpoint, nor have I watched enough of Leicester City this season, to know exactly how they are doing this. Just from doing a little reading on the internet, I can tell you that Leicester has never won the highest division of English soccer and, other than a runner-up finish in 1929, has never really threatened to in its 125+ year history. They have mostly bounced back and forth between the two highest divisions (the Premier League and the Championship) throughout their history, but as recently as 2009 were actually relegated all the way down to Division One, which is the third tier league.UCH21377 wrote:So how is it happening? Did they have players come out of nowhere and become great, a la Brady? Did they just come up from the lower division? Why were the odds so long? Just curious; don't know much about soccer but did notice the press about Leicester. I'm assuming they don't have the money of the big shots, who are Man U and a few others right? And since we are talking about Cameron, where does Stoke fit in historically? Looks like the middle of the pack.
What channel?josephski wrote:Leicester plays Manchester United tomorrow at 9:05 am. A win will give Leicester the premier league title and complete one of the greatest stories in sports history while Manchester United currently sits in 5th and is still fighting to get in the top 4 so they have a spot in the champions league next season. Should be a great match!
Never questioned how much of a fan you are...but if people want to talk about how 'popular' it is here (which, it's really not), then it seems comparison to real sports is a good place to start. What would you suggest comparing it to? House Hunters, Charlie Moor Outdoors? It's just that soccer has not caught on here in the US like any of the real sports. It's not that it's less popular because it's on a less extensive network and in the morning, it's on in the morning on a less extensive network because it's not that popular. Am guessing a Red Sox game in the middle of the week on NESN draws as many viewers as Saturday's match?TruePoint wrote:I love baseball and you won't see me knocking it. But please consider that (1) baseball has had a 100 year head start in the U.S., (2) baseball teams have home markets in the U.S. to anchor their ratings, where European soccer does not, (3) European soccer broadcast live in the U.S. is typically on in the mornings, whereas baseball is played in primetime and (4) Sunday Night Baseball is not only on in primetime, but is on ESPN which is available in more households than NBCSN which is the primary carrier of the Premier League in the U.S.
It is dumb to pit baseball against soccer anyways. I am a much bigger MLB fan than I am an EPL fan, but most people capable of holding more than one thought in their head at the same time are also capable of liking multiple sports not the exclusion of one another.
Your argument is tied up in so much wrongheaded nonsense. If you want a comparison for soccer's TV ratings, I think a good place to start would be soccer's ratings 10 years ago, and 20 years ago. As has been explained already, the games are on when they are on because they are played in Europe and they are shown live. Nobody is arguing that soccer is more popular in the U.S. than the major American sports, but it has a not insignificant following and, more importantly, the popularity and the quality of soccer played here are both on a positive trajectory. You don't have to like soccer, but to make the argument that soccer is objectively bad just makes you look dumb. Every single tangible and intangible way of measuring it shows that the sport's popularity is unmatched globally and on the come in the U.S., and that is bolstered by the demographics of who is watching it and following it. When you don't know what you're talking about, sometimes it is better to not say anything rather than draw attention to your own ignorance.NYGFan_Section208 wrote:Never questioned how much of a fan you are...but if people want to talk about how 'popular' it is here (which, it's really not), then it seems comparison to real sports is a good place to start. What would you suggest comparing it to? House Hunters, Charlie Moor Outdoors? It's just that soccer has not caught on here in the US like any of the real sports. It's not that it's less popular because it's on a less extensive network and in the morning, it's on in the morning on a less extensive network because it's not that popular. Am guessing a Red Sox game in the middle of the week on NESN draws as many viewers as Saturday's match?TruePoint wrote:I love baseball and you won't see me knocking it. But please consider that (1) baseball has had a 100 year head start in the U.S., (2) baseball teams have home markets in the U.S. to anchor their ratings, where European soccer does not, (3) European soccer broadcast live in the U.S. is typically on in the mornings, whereas baseball is played in primetime and (4) Sunday Night Baseball is not only on in primetime, but is on ESPN which is available in more households than NBCSN which is the primary carrier of the Premier League in the U.S.
It is dumb to pit baseball against soccer anyways. I am a much bigger MLB fan than I am an EPL fan, but most people capable of holding more than one thought in their head at the same time are also capable of liking multiple sports not the exclusion of one another.
If people want to make fun of baseball...go for it...I just don't think it's as ripe for that kind of thing...
I guess. That's just the way the scheduling worked, but there is an outright champion.RhowdyRam02 wrote:By the odds it's certainly up there, and I'm sure their fans don't really care how it happened, but it felt odd and anticlimactic to me that they weren't on the field of play when the championship was won. Felt like some of the worst years in FBS when you didn't get an outright champion.
I'm not saying it's objectively bad, I just find it definitely boring, subjectively bad and objectively less popular than any major sport in America. Last I knew, how much someone (subjectively) liked soccer was not a reflection of ignorance?TruePoint wrote:Your argument is tied up in so much wrongheaded nonsense. If you want a comparison for soccer's TV ratings, I think a good place to start would be soccer's ratings 10 years ago, and 20 years ago. As has been explained already, the games are on when they are on because they are played in Europe and they are shown live. Nobody is arguing that soccer is more popular in the U.S. than the major American sports, but it has a not insignificant following and, more importantly, the popularity and the quality of soccer played here are both on a positive trajectory. You don't have to like soccer, but to make the argument that soccer is objectively bad just makes you look dumb. Every single tangible and intangible way of measuring it shows that the sport's popularity is unmatched globally and on the come in the U.S., and that is bolstered by the demographics of who is watching it and following it. When you don't know what you're talking about, sometimes it is better to not say anything rather than draw attention to your own ignorance.NYGFan_Section208 wrote:Never questioned how much of a fan you are...but if people want to talk about how 'popular' it is here (which, it's really not), then it seems comparison to real sports is a good place to start. What would you suggest comparing it to? House Hunters, Charlie Moor Outdoors? It's just that soccer has not caught on here in the US like any of the real sports. It's not that it's less popular because it's on a less extensive network and in the morning, it's on in the morning on a less extensive network because it's not that popular. Am guessing a Red Sox game in the middle of the week on NESN draws as many viewers as Saturday's match?TruePoint wrote:I love baseball and you won't see me knocking it. But please consider that (1) baseball has had a 100 year head start in the U.S., (2) baseball teams have home markets in the U.S. to anchor their ratings, where European soccer does not, (3) European soccer broadcast live in the U.S. is typically on in the mornings, whereas baseball is played in primetime and (4) Sunday Night Baseball is not only on in primetime, but is on ESPN which is available in more households than NBCSN which is the primary carrier of the Premier League in the U.S.
It is dumb to pit baseball against soccer anyways. I am a much bigger MLB fan than I am an EPL fan, but most people capable of holding more than one thought in their head at the same time are also capable of liking multiple sports not the exclusion of one another.
If people want to make fun of baseball...go for it...I just don't think it's as ripe for that kind of thing...
Instead of comparing one sport's 7 best games (in its 'most popular year ever') against the 7 YEAR AVERAGE of another (declining, as you said) sport... what's the average of ALL PL matches this season compared to all MLB national games (this year, last year, any year)? I'm guessing they are of a totally different scale... They aren't in the same universe...people are passionate about it, but it's still a niche sport in the US...TruePoint wrote:Just some cursory research shows that the Premier League had 7 matches with over 1.25M U.S. viewers this season. By way of comparison, MLB's national games on FOX have averaged between 1.9M and 2.7M over the last seven seasons, and the national MLB games on ESPN have averaged between 1.7M and 2.4M during that same time - those numbers show what anyone would expect, that baseball is more popular in America than soccer (duh), but they are not of a totally different scale. I don't think the numbers in any way support the argument that you are trying to make that soccer "is not popular." You can also look at the domestic league, MLS, which is doing terrific with attendance and cannot add teams fast enough (the markets that have fans sufficient to support a franchise far outnumber the number of teams for which there are good players available).
The point is the reach. In any given week, it is feasible that soccer could get as many viewers as a national baseball broadcast. That is startling. You're talking about the numbers as if they demonstrate people aren't interested in the sport, but the sport is in its relative infancy here. It isn't a mature market at this point.NYGFan_Section208 wrote:Instead of comparing one sport's 7 best games (in its 'most popular year ever') against the 7 YEAR AVERAGE of another (declining, as you said) sport... what's the average of ALL PL matches this season compared to all MLB national games (this year, last year, any year)? I'm guessing they are of a totally different scale... They aren't in the same universe...people are passionate about it, but it's still a niche sport in the US...TruePoint wrote:Just some cursory research shows that the Premier League had 7 matches with over 1.25M U.S. viewers this season. By way of comparison, MLB's national games on FOX have averaged between 1.9M and 2.7M over the last seven seasons, and the national MLB games on ESPN have averaged between 1.7M and 2.4M during that same time - those numbers show what anyone would expect, that baseball is more popular in America than soccer (duh), but they are not of a totally different scale. I don't think the numbers in any way support the argument that you are trying to make that soccer "is not popular." You can also look at the domestic league, MLS, which is doing terrific with attendance and cannot add teams fast enough (the markets that have fans sufficient to support a franchise far outnumber the number of teams for which there are good players available).