All they do is talk about the NFL, NBA with a little bit of pro baseball and wrestling mixed in (if they have time). No NHL coverage, and when they do talk about baseball, it always revolves around the Red Sox and Yankees. They blow things out of proportion, are biased towards superstars (LeBron, Kobe, Brady, Manning, etc) and have obnoxious personnel (like Skip Bayless, Colin Cowherd, Chris Broussard, Stephen A. Smith, Brian Windhorst, etc)
I believe they do that because most people who watches sports knows / loves those athletes you just named.
They do it for the views / money, not for the sports at all.
I once went on there so see a game about the 49ers, and I end up getting a speech about Tom Brady and will the Patriots make it to the Super Bowl.
ESPN isn't the greatest , so I know how you feel pal. :angry:
Skip Bayless is the worst.😒
IMHO I've always thought ESPN was more about "news" than sports. Worse, "news" includes all the tabloid trash.
^^ Well, the "E" stands for Entertainment, and note it comes before the "S" for Sports. And the entertainment industry has been growing more trashy as time goes by.
Considering they have no deal with the NHL, it's probably no surprise they don't talk about the NHL very much. The fact is, they know who their audience is and they cater to them. And I'm sure you meant UFC instead of wrestling.
ESPN has been a joke for a very long time. When they started, they showed everything, every type of sport from show jumping to hockey to lacrosse. Now, it's MLB, NBA, MLS (WTF cares!?!), and NFL with maybe some NASCAR and Indy.
As such, I'll watch something else. Fuck ESPN.
If no one cared, the ratings would be zilch and advertisers would be flocking away. MLS (which I don't watch either) is somehow hugely popular. As for the rest of the network, yes, it's a sports network, but they're going to cater to what people want. The NHL has a loyal but small following, with many if the players from other countries. NFL has a loyal, large following, that cares about the sport all year long.
ESPN isn't a startup network trying to be something for everyone. They have their nitch, and go after those viewers. At least it isn't as bad as MTV or VH1. At least ESPN is still about sports; just not the ones some of you care about.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 25, 2015, 08:30:10 AMMLS (which I don't watch either) is somehow hugely popular.
Perhaps for all those reasons why soccer is the world's most played team sport, and the world's most watched team sport? Even some non-immigrants might see the appeal...
Sure, there's other hold outs where other sports are much bigger (Indian subcontinent and Cricket, for instance), but MLS is a league with the money to get all those aging stars like Gerrard and Lampard - so it might not be the absolute best soccer, but it's still decent soccer, and it airs in the afternoons in America, unlike European matches.
Quote from: english si on May 25, 2015, 09:00:16 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 25, 2015, 08:30:10 AMMLS (which I don't watch either) is somehow hugely popular.
Perhaps for all those reasons why soccer is the world's most played team sport, and the world's most watched team sport? Even some non-immigrants might see the appeal...
But in the US, the stadiums are generally small; along the size of an NBA or NHL arena. They play few games. They aren't on TV that much. But yet, when they are on TV such as during the World Cup, they are immensely popular. People that I know that would talk NFL 24/7 and never speak a syllable of soccer suddenly become enraged fans. It's just...I don't know how to describe it - unusual!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 25, 2015, 09:29:08 AMthe stadiums are generally small. They play few games. They aren't on TV that much.
So MLS on ESPN is a rare chance for soccer fans to watch soccer - explains how it is hugely popular...
What gets me is that ESPN adds about $10/month to my cable bill (most of any channel), and there is no way to get cable channels without it.
Years ago, i was working my weekend job with a young man (African) who didnt understand why Americans love American football more than soccer...
I first explained that American football is a microcosm of modern American life (Occasional violence sprinkled with committee meetings)...
then i noted that soccer seems content with what i called a 0-0 or 1-0 snoozefest (which may be why there were so many riots,....so little scoring was going on that the fans had to entertain themselves somehow)...i then noted for him that id they changed the rules (got rid of the off-sides, made the goals a foot wider on each side and a foot taller) then we would have some dandy 9-7 and 6-5 games and Americans love scoring! He looked at me horrified and exclaimed "But...but...that wouldnt be soccer!" :-o
My reply "Maybe, but it would be more fun to watch!" :biggrin:
And yes, i do miss the old Australian Rules Football they used to show.....would rather watch that than all those sports opinion shows! >_<
Quote from: ctsignguy on May 25, 2015, 10:07:44 AMthen i noted that soccer seems content with what i called a 0-0 or 1-0 snoozefest
A nil-nil draw can be a snoozefest, or can be epic. There's more to sport than getting points.
And if points was where excitement was, then Twenty20 cricket would be the most loved sport in America with scores in the 100s (and short playing time).
QuoteMy reply "Maybe, but it would be more fun to watch!" :biggrin:
Sounds as dull as ditchwater, tbh. What makes soccer exciting is that it takes effort to score.
If it was easy and happened 15 times a game, then its a case of who gives a shit that the ball is in the back of the net.
What you propose sounds like changing Snooker to Pool. They tried, at the height of Snooker's popularity, to make Pool happen as a TV event in the UK, holding a tournament with some famous snooker players and the best pool players. They thought that without the defensive play, pool would be more successful. The snooker players had mostly never played it, but soon found that the smaller table and larger pockets made it pretty easy to beat most of the pool players. Viewers just got bored as balls were potted with a boring inevitability and changed channel. Pool has (20+ years later) never appeared on mainstream UK TV again, whereas Snooker still gets decent coverage.
Quote from: ctsignguy on May 25, 2015, 10:07:44 AM
Years ago, i was working my weekend job with a young man (African) who didnt understand why Americans love American football more than soccer...
I first explained that American football is a microcosm of modern American life (Occasional violence sprinkled with committee meetings)...
then i noted that soccer seems content with what i called a 0-0 or 1-0 snoozefest (which may be why there were so many riots,....so little scoring was going on that the fans had to entertain themselves somehow)...i then noted for him that id they changed the rules (got rid of the off-sides, made the goals a foot wider on each side and a foot taller) then we would have some dandy 9-7 and 6-5 games and Americans love scoring! He looked at me horrified and exclaimed "But...but...that wouldnt be soccer!" :-o
My reply "Maybe, but it would be more fun to watch!" :biggrin:
And yes, i do miss the old Australian Rules Football they used to show.....would rather watch that than all those sports opinion shows! >_<
I agree with ditching the offsides rule and giving soccer matches a large dose of fast break goals.
0-0 games when there are two great disciplined defensive teams is also fun to watch. I really enjoyed Paraguay's D in the 2010 World Cup but they had no chance on O. Thus a need for the game to evolve just as we saw in the NBA. Prior to the Pistons winning titles, it was almost always a three digit score for each side. Detroit showed the world how to play D in an O-oriented game and the result was great in my eyes. Soccer starts off on the opposite end so they need to have more O come along to offset the defensive orientation and arrive at a more compelling balancing point for play style.
Rick
I firmly believe the if you took the amount of time ESPN's Sports Center show and its "sports argument" shows like PTI, ATH, Sports Reporters, etc. devoted to each sport, the coverage would be about "right" relative to each sport's popularity in the USA. With one huge exception. The NBA. ESPN GROSSLY over-covers the NBA, which, really is not all that popular outside certain demographic groups and is pretty much totally ignored by everyone outside the urban core.
ESPN also, when it can, ignores things that are not ESPN property. NHL, certain college conferences, golf, etc.
As to soccer, it is laughable to call it "immensely popular" in the USA in any context. Soccer has been the sport of the next generation. Four generations and counting. America ignores it, because it is fundamentally repugnant to everything America is about.
Quote from: SP Cook on May 25, 2015, 01:37:05 PM
I firmly believe the if you took the amount of time ESPN's Sports Center show and its "sports argument" shows like PTI, ATH, Sports Reporters, etc. devoted to each sport, the coverage would be about "right" relative to each sport's popularity in the USA. With one huge exception. The NBA. ESPN GROSSLY over-covers the NBA, which, really is not all that popular outside certain demographic groups and is pretty much totally ignored by everyone outside the urban core.
ESPN also, when it can, ignores things that are not ESPN property. NHL, certain college conferences, golf, etc.
As to soccer, it is laughable to call it "immensely popular" in the USA in any context. Soccer has been the sport of the next generation. Four generations and counting. America ignores it, because it is fundamentally repugnant to everything America is about.
ESPN devotes
at least 75% of its coverage to NBA and NFL. Seriously, I turn it on and it's all NFL mock draft, Cavs are going to the Finals, LeBron big game, is Tebow going to make the Eagles, what is going on with James Harden, is LeBron going to leave Cleveland again, etc.
Quote from: I-39 on May 25, 2015, 01:45:47 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on May 25, 2015, 01:37:05 PM
I firmly believe the if you took the amount of time ESPN's Sports Center show and its "sports argument" shows like PTI, ATH, Sports Reporters, etc. devoted to each sport, the coverage would be about "right" relative to each sport's popularity in the USA. With one huge exception. The NBA. ESPN GROSSLY over-covers the NBA, which, really is not all that popular outside certain demographic groups and is pretty much totally ignored by everyone outside the urban core.
ESPN also, when it can, ignores things that are not ESPN property. NHL, certain college conferences, golf, etc.
As to soccer, it is laughable to call it "immensely popular" in the USA in any context. Soccer has been the sport of the next generation. Four generations and counting. America ignores it, because it is fundamentally repugnant to everything America is about.
ESPN devotes at least 75% of its coverage to NBA and NFL. Seriously, I turn it on and it's all NFL mock draft, Cavs are going to the Finals, LeBron big game, is Tebow going to make the Eagles, what is going on with James Harden, is LeBron going to leave Cleveland again, etc.
Given that it's about 30% commercials, I don't think that's possible.
Quote from: 1 on May 25, 2015, 01:47:39 PM
Quote from: I-39 on May 25, 2015, 01:45:47 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on May 25, 2015, 01:37:05 PM
I firmly believe the if you took the amount of time ESPN's Sports Center show and its "sports argument" shows like PTI, ATH, Sports Reporters, etc. devoted to each sport, the coverage would be about "right" relative to each sport's popularity in the USA. With one huge exception. The NBA. ESPN GROSSLY over-covers the NBA, which, really is not all that popular outside certain demographic groups and is pretty much totally ignored by everyone outside the urban core.
ESPN also, when it can, ignores things that are not ESPN property. NHL, certain college conferences, golf, etc.
As to soccer, it is laughable to call it "immensely popular" in the USA in any context. Soccer has been the sport of the next generation. Four generations and counting. America ignores it, because it is fundamentally repugnant to everything America is about.
ESPN devotes at least 75% of its coverage to NBA and NFL. Seriously, I turn it on and it's all NFL mock draft, Cavs are going to the Finals, LeBron big game, is Tebow going to make the Eagles, what is going on with James Harden, is LeBron going to leave Cleveland again, etc.
Given that it's about 30% commercials, I don't think that's possible.
Some of the commercials are for the NBA and the NFL.
If you haven't done so, check out Fox Sports Live, which airs nightly on Fox Sports 1, usually at 11 PM Eastern. The primary anchors for Fox Sports Live used to host the Canadian version of SportsCenter, so they do cover plenty of hockey.
I miss the days when ESPN had a real variety of sports, but had almost no MLB, NHL, NBA, and certainly no NFL. Once the more popular sports edged out the (cheaper) fringe programming, that changed. And that makes total sence.
The farcical element is when they devote hours to discussion about "what ifs" and "mock drafts", wasted time on over-analysis and pre-game/series discussion...which dominate the actually interesting-to-watch stuff. It's overtaken things to the point of near-hysteria.
There was one year ESPN covered Magic: The Gathering and they handled it poorly. Women's flat track roller derby had one bout from Seattle, where the Rat City Rollers draw over 10K to Key Arena once and then it too disappeared. Between ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPN News and ESPN3 you would think there would be a huge variety of competitive activities being covered.
The one positive I note is the "30 For 30" series. If you enjoy a dramatically done human interest series of stories about those who are or have been involved with sports, this is must-watch TV. Check out "The U", which is the story of how the Miami Hurricanes came out of nowhere to become one of the greatest college programs ever. It was so well-received that some years later a second part was done and it too was a good 'un.
Rick
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on May 24, 2015, 10:06:06 PM
Skip Bayless is the worst.😒
I enjoy seeing Skip Bayless getting roasted by athletes.
My favorite one is him vs. Richard Sherman. :bigass:
Quote from: Brandon on May 25, 2015, 07:44:38 AM
When they started, they showed everything, every type of sport from show jumping to hockey to lacrosse.
The only reason they showed that snooze-worthy programming was because they didn't have any contracts. The original ESPN was a joke.
Quote from: english si on May 25, 2015, 09:56:58 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 25, 2015, 09:29:08 AMthe stadiums are generally small. They play few games. They aren't on TV that much.
So MLS on ESPN is a rare chance for soccer fans to watch soccer - explains how it is hugely popular...
Except there are no "hugely popular" MLS games scheduled to be broadcasted on ESPN. Pertaining to a new contract, there are some games scheduled to be shown on ESPN 2. And there will be 6 MLS Cup playoff games that can be broadcast on any ESPN network - but that could be ESPN, ESPN 2, ESPN 3, ESPN 8 (the "Ocho"...anyone get that reference?), etc... But as far as the flagship ESPN station goes, there are no guarantees that any game will be shown.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 25, 2015, 10:21:01 PM
Quote from: english si on May 25, 2015, 09:56:58 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 25, 2015, 09:29:08 AM
the stadiums are generally small. They play few games. They aren't on TV that much.
So MLS on ESPN is a rare chance for soccer fans to watch soccer - explains how it is hugely popular...
Except there are no "hugely popular" MLS games scheduled to be broadcasted on ESPN. Pertaining to a new contract, there are some games scheduled to be shown on ESPN 2. And there will be 6 MLS Cup playoff games that can be broadcast on any ESPN network - but that could be ESPN, ESPN 2, ESPN 3, ESPN 8 (the "Ocho"...anyone get that reference?), etc... But as far as the flagship ESPN station goes, there are no guarantees that any game will be shown.
I think soccer is more locally broadcast. The Seattle Sounders broadcast via our local FOX affiliate, KCPQ, and its sister station, KZJO.
From their website:
Quote from: soundersfc.com
Following the strongest regional television ratings in club history throughout 2014 that saw a 32-percent increase in year-over-year viewership — and the highest household ratings in MLS — Sounders FC has extended its relationship with Q13 FOX (KCPQ-Channel 13) and JOEtv (KZJO-Channel 22) to continue as the regional television home of the Rave Green.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 25, 2015, 10:21:01 PM
Quote from: english si on May 25, 2015, 09:56:58 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 25, 2015, 09:29:08 AMthe stadiums are generally small. They play few games. They aren't on TV that much.
So MLS on ESPN is a rare chance for soccer fans to watch soccer - explains how it is hugely popular...
Except there are no "hugely popular" MLS games scheduled to be broadcasted on ESPN. Pertaining to a new contract, there are some games scheduled to be shown on ESPN 2. And there will be 6 MLS Cup playoff games that can be broadcast on any ESPN network - but that could be ESPN, ESPN 2, ESPN 3, ESPN 8 (the "Ocho"...anyone get that reference?), etc... But as far as the flagship ESPN station goes, there are no guarantees that any game will be shown.
Who cares? It's 2015, not 1995. 99.99% of the houses that have ESPN also have ESPN2 (actual number, not hyperbole). There's no effective difference in coverage for having a game on one channel over the other. Additionally, MLS has national games on Fox Sports 1, which is available to 90% of the people who have ESPN, and also on the Univision broadcast network, which available over the air in most major cities and on cable/satellite everywhere. Univision Deportes also has some games, and those are really the only ones that are even slightly challenging to find as most providers carry it in a sports tier, though it's at least an option for almost every provider. The remaining games that don't have national broadcasts are typically carried on either local RSNs (like Fox Sports or Comcast SportsNet) or local broadcasters. Your local team in Philly has most of their games split between CSN and TCN, with one on WPVI ABC 6 and a couple on FS1. You can see every game they play this year with a standard cable subscription. Most of the other teams are in the same situation. They've all come to realize that good TV coverage is mandatory to grow the game.
The thing about MLS is that in the cities where there are MLS teams, they have a certain level of popularity, probably similar to NHL. If you don't have an MLS team in your city, you probably don't care, although I have an ex high school soccer player friend/former coworker who will drive down to Kansas City from here in the Omaha area to see Sporting KC at least once a year. Of course, the thing about soccer on ESPN is they talk about Champions League before they ever talk about MLS, but of course, the best players are in the Champions League.
Quote from: SP Cook on May 25, 2015, 01:37:05 PMAmerica ignores it, because it is fundamentally repugnant to everything America is about.
Team work is fundamentally repugnant to everything America is about? Working hard towards a difficult goal for the measly reward of a point is fundamentally repuganant to everything America is about? Not winning if you cannot win in the allotted time is fundamentally repugnant to everything America is about?
Really?
Quote from: nexus73 on May 25, 2015, 12:21:21 PMI agree with ditching the offsides rule and giving soccer matches a large dose of fast break goals.
Except it won't - because with no offside rule, teams will play deep and have lots of men behind the ball.
The offside rule was created in order to get defenders to push up the pitch as they don't need to worry about attackers in the space behind them. The rule makes those fast breaks possible as it creates the space for the attacking players to run into.
Quote from: english si on May 26, 2015, 01:15:47 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on May 25, 2015, 01:37:05 PMAmerica ignores it, because it is fundamentally repugnant to everything America is about.
Team work is fundamentally repugnant to everything America is about? Working hard towards a difficult goal for the measly reward of a point is fundamentally repuganant to everything America is about? Not winning if you cannot win in the allotted time is fundamentally repugnant to everything America is about?
Really?
You know, we do have other sports here. It's OK if we're not into soccer. Football accomplishes the same thing...with a lot more scoring. Oh, and less rioting in the stands as well.
I would like to see the off-sides rule not in effect within the penalty box. There are usually so many players in there that it is of no benefit; it just causes goals to be unexpectedly disallowed.
BTW, when ESPN2 was first launched it was referred to as The Deuce.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 26, 2015, 01:41:40 PM
Quote from: english si on May 26, 2015, 01:15:47 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on May 25, 2015, 01:37:05 PMAmerica ignores it, because it is fundamentally repugnant to everything America is about.
Team work is fundamentally repugnant to everything America is about? Working hard towards a difficult goal for the measly reward of a point is fundamentally repuganant to everything America is about? Not winning if you cannot win in the allotted time is fundamentally repugnant to everything America is about?
Really?
You know, we do have other sports here. It's OK if we're not into soccer. Football accomplishes the same thing...with a lot more scoring. Oh, and less rioting in the stands as well.
Yeah, we save our rioting for the streets of downtown after the game. :)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 26, 2015, 01:41:40 PMYou know, we do have other sports here. It's OK if we're not into soccer
Yes, that's fine. I don't have a problem with India for not caring about soccer, but caring about cricket.
The issue is not not liking soccer, but thinking that America is superior than it.
QuoteOh, and less rioting in the stands as well.
Are you in the 1980s or Turkey?
American television as a whole is a joke. That is all. next.... :sleep:
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on May 26, 2015, 07:14:16 PM
American television as a whole is a joke. That is all. next.... :sleep:
Fred Allen: "Television is called a 'medium" because so little of it is well-done."
Quote from: okc1 on May 25, 2015, 10:04:50 AM
What gets me is that ESPN adds about $10/month to my cable bill (most of any channel), and there is no way to get cable channels without it.
What gets me is that my cable provider forces me to take Animal Planet, Univision, We, VH1, something called Discovery Life that is nothing but reality programming of the freak-show kind, the Food Network, and a History Channel that rarely shows history anymore in order to watch ESPN, and I'd have to fork over even more for ESPNU.
To pull the original topic back, ESPN heavily hypes those properties it has deals with, and ignores those it does not as much as it can. The continued employment of Bayless and Smith is beyond my understanding. I only watch ESPN 1 or 2 during the games, occasionally a 30 for 30, and maybe part of a Sportscenter (but SC is half talking heads now too).
Quote from: english si on May 26, 2015, 03:36:44 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 26, 2015, 01:41:40 PMYou know, we do have other sports here. It's OK if we're not into soccer
Yes, that's fine. I don't have a problem with India for not caring about soccer, but caring about cricket.
The issue is not not liking soccer, but thinking that America is superior than it.
QuoteOh, and less rioting in the stands as well.
Are you in the 1980s or Turkey?
OK, we'll go with corruption instead! At least FIFA is making headlines all across America today!
We used to watch ESPN to see the highlights of games we couldn't watch. Then the internet got fast so we didn't need ESPN for that.
To keep eyeballs on the screen, ESPN fell into the cable news model of programming. Have two people argue about something stupid and hype any controversy that comes along.
ESPN is responsible for over half the price of your cable/satellite bill. They have all these big, big money deals with various leagues and need to deliver eyeballs for their advertisers not only for the sporting events themselves, but for their other channels so they can make up for the cost of broadcasting those expensive sporting events. So Disney (who owns ESPN, as I'm sure you all know) forces cable and satellite providers to include ESPN in their basic packages or else they will deny them the rights to broadcast the other popular channels Disney owns that people actually want to see. This bundling of channels by Disney, Viacom, NewsCorp, etc is how you wind up with all those stupid channels you never watch. Then the cable and satellite companies pass the cost to you and me.
So even if there was a TV package available that did not include ESPN, that one channel would still be inflating the price of your cable/satellite bill because of all this bundling of good channels and shitty channels.
Quote from: I-39 on May 24, 2015, 09:13:35 PM
All they do is talk about the NFL, NBA with a little bit of pro baseball and wrestling mixed in (if they have time). No NHL coverage, and when they do talk about baseball, it always revolves around the Red Sox and Yankees. They blow things out of proportion, are biased towards superstars (LeBron, Kobe, Brady, Manning, etc) and have obnoxious personnel (like Skip Bayless, Colin Cowherd, Chris Broussard, Stephen A. Smith, Brian Windhorst, etc)
You forgot Berman. His funny stuff is not funny 30 years later. Chris, there are no New York Baseball Giants anymore. I swear they get a bonus every time they say "walkoff". Plus the female commentators like Beth Mowins are awful. Yet ESPN is the only reason we don't dump cable altogether.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 27, 2015, 06:41:00 AMOK, we'll go with corruption instead! At least FIFA is making headlines all across America today!
Sure, FIFA are corrupt. But this
ad hominem doesn't undermine the sport itself, just FIFA.
And it's not like Britain hasn't been anti-FIFA for way longer than the US. We have many journalists banned from FIFA after they investigated the corruption there.
Plus, here's three words to show it's not just soccer: National Football League! :P
Quote from: english si on May 27, 2015, 01:53:45 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on May 27, 2015, 06:41:00 AMOK, we'll go with corruption instead! At least FIFA is making headlines all across America today!
Sure, FIFA are corrupt. But this ad hominem doesn't undermine the sport itself, just FIFA.
And it's not like Britain hasn't been anti-FIFA for way longer than the US. We have many journalists banned from FIFA after they investigated the corruption there.
Plus, here's three words to show it's not just soccer: National Football League! :P
Here, the letters NFL stand for No Fun League. X-(
I'm in Canada South anyway, so hockey tends to be very much watched. In some areas, it's two seasons, hockey and baseball. :biggrin:
Quote from: texaskdog on May 27, 2015, 12:53:36 PM
You forgot Berman. His funny stuff is not funny 30 years later. Chris, there are no New York Baseball Giants anymore.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that. There was a time I said it was time for Berman to be put out to pasture. Now I am saying that Berman's career should be given the "Old Yeller" treatment -- He goes out with the ESPN crew to a sports story, but only the sports crew returns!!!
Quote from: thenetwork on May 27, 2015, 05:27:35 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on May 27, 2015, 12:53:36 PM
You forgot Berman. His funny stuff is not funny 30 years later. Chris, there are no New York Baseball Giants anymore.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that. There was a time I said it was time for Berman to be put out to pasture. Now I am saying that Berman's career should be given the "Old Yeller" treatment -- He goes out with the ESPN crew to a sports story, but only the sports crew returns!!!
Like when businesses think up clever ad campaigns and they go on too long. Flo is another one to put out to pasture.
Quote from: texaskdog on May 28, 2015, 08:34:34 AM
Quote from: thenetwork on May 27, 2015, 05:27:35 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on May 27, 2015, 12:53:36 PM
You forgot Berman. His funny stuff is not funny 30 years later. Chris, there are no New York Baseball Giants anymore.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that. There was a time I said it was time for Berman to be put out to pasture. Now I am saying that Berman's career should be given the "Old Yeller" treatment -- He goes out with the ESPN crew to a sports story, but only the sports crew returns!!!
Like when businesses think up clever ad campaigns and they go on too long. Flo is another one to put out to pasture.
Her radio commercials are even worse than her TV ads....
If you somehow could pry ESPN away from Disney, what would you get rid of? (personalities, programs) and what would you add?
Quote from: ctsignguy on May 28, 2015, 08:39:09 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on May 28, 2015, 08:34:34 AM
Quote from: thenetwork on May 27, 2015, 05:27:35 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on May 27, 2015, 12:53:36 PM
You forgot Berman. His funny stuff is not funny 30 years later. Chris, there are no New York Baseball Giants anymore.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that. There was a time I said it was time for Berman to be put out to pasture. Now I am saying that Berman's career should be given the "Old Yeller" treatment -- He goes out with the ESPN crew to a sports story, but only the sports crew returns!!!
Like when businesses think up clever ad campaigns and they go on too long. Flo is another one to put out to pasture.
Her radio commercials are even worse than her TV ads....
If you somehow could pry ESPN away from Disney, what would you get rid of? (personalities, programs) and what would you add?
Well I always hated Flo anyway.
I like the channel for what it is but Berman would go (i can live with him being unfunny but I hear he's a huge jerk too). Craig James if he's still around. Beth Mowins and all of her wannabes (Pam Ward and that new Mowins soundalike) and anyone who says "walkoff" anything. Moreso commentators do not need to talk constantly. I wish there was the option to watch a game with the crowd noise but none of the inane banter.
And here I always thought that a "walk off home run" had something to do with a pitcher first walking a batter(s) then the walks come back to haunt them when the home run brings 'em all in. I didn't realize that base hits and/or errors were also allowed to enable the "walk off" scenario.
Learn something new every day...
Quote from: thenetwork on May 28, 2015, 10:38:35 AM
And here I always thought that a "walk off home run" had something to do with a pitcher first walking a batter(s) then the walks come back to haunt them when the home run brings 'em all in. I didn't realize that base hits and/or errors were also allowed to enable the "walk off" scenario.
Learn something new every day...
Well its stupid because Game winning home run accomplished the same things. Why did we need new lingo? My kid's kickball team won last night with a freaking WALK OFF CALLED STRIKEOUT :P
Runs scored by running around in circles, pumpin steroids and doctoring the bat.
Quote from: thenetwork on May 28, 2015, 10:38:35 AM
And here I always thought that a "walk off home run" had something to do with a pitcher first walking a batter(s) then the walks come back to haunt them when the home run brings 'em all in. I didn't realize that base hits and/or errors were also allowed to enable the "walk off" scenario.
Learn something new every day...
Yeah, basically anything that allows the home team to win in the bottom of the 9th or later is now considered a 'walk off'. It really doesn't make any sense. I had personally considered a 'walk off' something that a pinch hitter did, because in my mind he was just sitting around the dugout all game, then was told to go in and hit. Instead, the guy that's already had 5 at bats and played in the field all day is now given the walk off designation if he brings in the winning run, even though he's been walking around the entire game.
Somehow since one guy decided it was the lingo they all had to
Quote from: texaskdog on May 29, 2015, 09:15:56 AM
Somehow since one guy decided it was the lingo they all had to
And BOOM goes the dynamite!
Quote from: texaskdog on May 27, 2015, 12:53:36 PM
Quote from: I-39 on May 24, 2015, 09:13:35 PMChris, there are no New York Baseball Giants anymore.
No, but there is a team whose corporate name is New York Football Giants, Inc.
Looks like you can blame Hall of Fame pitcher Dennis Eckersley for the term "walk-off".
QuoteAlthough the concept of a game-ending home run is as old as baseball, the adjective "walk-off" attained widespread use only in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
The first known usage of the word in print appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle on April 21, 1988, Section D, Page 1. Chronicle writer Lowell Cohn wrote an article headlined "What the Eck?" about Oakland reliever Dennis Eckersley's unusual way of speaking: "For a translation, I go in search of Eckersley. I also want to know why he calls short home runs 'street pieces,' and home runs that come in the last at-bat of a game 'walkoff pieces' ..." Although the term originally was coined with a negative connotation, in reference to the pitcher (who must "walk off" the field with his head hung in shame), it has come to acquire a more celebratory connotation, for the batter who circles the bases with pride with the adulation of the home crowd.
This according to the Oracle at Wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walk-off_home_run (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walk-off_home_run)
To me the term implies a no-doubt-about-it home run in the bottom of the 9th to win the game, such that the fielders begin walking off the field before the ball even lands.
I thought a "walk-off" was just simply when the game ends during the bottom of the 9th (after the bottom of the 9th begins, but before there are 3 outs), and that any run scored that puts the home team in the lead will do it. Does it actually have to be a home run?
Quote from: 1 on May 29, 2015, 02:55:29 PM
I thought a "walk-off" was just simply when the game ends during the bottom of the 9th (after the bottom of the 9th begins, but before there are 3 outs), and that any run scored that puts the home team in the lead will do it. Does it actually have to be a home run?
Nope - it can be anything. A walk-off walk, as stupid as it sounds, has been said. http://m.mlb.com/news/article/2487461/
And a walk-off wild pitch? Yeah...it really doesn't even make sense, because the batter didn't have anything to do with it, other than not throwing his bat at the poorly thrown ball: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2013/09/29/henderson-alvarez-marlins-no-hitter/2891883/
Seen walk off balks, hit batsmen, and grand slam singles.
How about a walk-off on Rule 7.05(i), which awards "One base, if the batter becomes a runner on Ball Four or Strike Three, when the pitch passes the catcher and lodges in the umpire's mask or paraphernalia"?
(This rule will always be followed, in my mind, by Cecil Adams's followup line, "That is, if they can stop laughing long enough.")
Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 31, 2015, 11:32:59 AM
How about a walk-off on Rule 7.05(i), which awards "One base, if the batter becomes a runner on Ball Four or Strike Three, when the pitch passes the catcher and lodges in the umpire's mask or paraphernalia"?
(This rule will always be followed, in my mind, by Cecil Adams's followup line, "That is, if they can stop laughing long enough.")
On a similar note, about a week ago, the first batter in a game (I forget offhand the teams) strikes out, the ball misses the catcher and goes back almost to the backstop. Batter takes off for first, the catcher finds, retrieves the ball and throws it into the right field corner (oops! :-o ), allowing the batter to keep running, ending up at third (*CLOSE* to scoring, too!). Yep, a dropped third-strike and a two-base error on the catcher.
Ya gotta complete the strikeout!
:rolleyes:
I also remember reading in the annals of a World Series game from the late 1940s or early 1950s where there were 2 out in the top of the 9th when a game-winning third strike eluded the catcher, allowing the batter to reach first. With a renewed lease on life in that game, the road team then proceeded to score four runs, winning the game over their totally shell-shocked home team opponent. IIRC, the road team then went on win the Series.
Mike
Made it through several WCWS putting up with Mowins.
Granted she follows it but it's like if Gilbert Gottfried was the foremost NFL expert. Even if he knows his stuff no one could tolerate his voice.
If you go to a game you don't have commentary nor would you likely want it. Yet on TV they think someone needs to CONSTANTLY talk. Occassionally you get a commentator who talks less than half the time, it's so nice! Apparently we, the viewing audience, is too stupid to know what is going on. I'd love to have the crowd noise but generally it's better to turn the sound off.
Quote from: mgk920 on May 31, 2015, 12:44:11 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on May 31, 2015, 11:32:59 AM
How about a walk-off on Rule 7.05(i), which awards "One base, if the batter becomes a runner on Ball Four or Strike Three, when the pitch passes the catcher and lodges in the umpire's mask or paraphernalia"?
(This rule will always be followed, in my mind, by Cecil Adams's followup line, "That is, if they can stop laughing long enough.")
On a similar note, about a week ago, the first batter in a game (I forget offhand the teams) strikes out, the ball misses the catcher and goes back almost to the backstop. Batter takes off for first, the catcher finds, retrieves the ball and throws it into the right field corner (oops! :-o ), allowing the batter to keep running, ending up at third (*CLOSE* to scoring, too!). Yep, a dropped third-strike and a two-base error on the catcher.
Ya gotta complete the strikeout!
:rolleyes:
I also remember reading in the annals of a World Series game from the late 1940s or early 1950s where there were 2 out in the top of the 9th when a game-winning third strike eluded the catcher, allowing the batter to reach first. With a renewed lease on life in that game, the road team then proceeded to score four runs, winning the game over their totally shell-shocked home team opponent. IIRC, the road team then went on win the Series.
Mike
Thanks to Joey Votto's accomplishment the other night, now I'm eager to see the three-ball walk-off. Of course, unlike Votto's walk, at least one person on the field might notice a walk-off walk on three balls.
So the winning run is at second base, with two outs, three and two to Mookie Wilson. [A] little roller up along first... behind the bag! It gets through Buckner! Here comes Knight, and the Mets win it!
Scully then remained silent for more than three minutes, letting the pictures and the crowd noise tell the story. Scully resumed with:
If one picture is worth a thousand words, you have seen about a million words, but more than that, you have seen an absolutely bizarre finish to Game 6 of the 1986 World Series. The Mets are not only alive, they are well, and they will play the Red Sox in Game 7 tomorrow!
(how many commentators could remain silent for 3 minutes?)
Quote from: texaskdog on June 01, 2015, 12:46:19 PM
So the winning run is at second base, with two outs, three and two to Mookie Wilson. [A] little roller up along first... behind the bag! It gets through Buckner! Here comes Knight, and the Mets win it!
Scully then remained silent for more than three minutes, letting the pictures and the crowd noise tell the story. Scully resumed with:
If one picture is worth a thousand words, you have seen about a million words, but more than that, you have seen an absolutely bizarre finish to Game 6 of the 1986 World Series. The Mets are not only alive, they are well, and they will play the Red Sox in Game 7 tomorrow!
(how many commentators could remain silent for 3 minutes?)
Lesson here:
Keep as few as possible - and preferably zero - ex Cubs on your roster! Buckner was the only ex Cub in that entire World Series.
Almost prophetically, several weeks earlier, John Chancellor did a piece on just that subject - 'The Cub Factor' - in a commentary on the NBC network TV news. I'd love to see a replay of that.
Mike
I used to kind of like the Cubs until Bartman. I watched that too, I guess the SS had a good defense to not become the next Buckner this time. At least Boston blamed the player (and it certainly wasn't all his fault).
Holy fuck there is a lot of soccer-hate here.
Yes, MLS is not that popular in America, but it has a respectable base to build on. The league is only 20 years old and has made great strides and will continue to grow thanks to their very conservative business model (few risks, single-entity, not afraid to rebrand unsuccessful teams, building soccer-only stadiums close to downtowns and public transit instead of suburbs). MLS is going to remain primarily a local sport (those in MLS markets will care more for MLS than people living elsewhere, especially overseas with superior leagues) and that's just fine. Doesn't seem to bother the 60,000 Seattleites who show up to the Portland matches every year.
Soccer might be boring to some people and that's just fine. It's a sport that feeds off of a long periods of anticipation and building up to a goalscoring chance, with an identifiable rhythm. Some 0-0 draws (ties) can actually be quite entertaining.
Also, ESPN has been spot-on with their coverage of the FIFA scandal. Bob Ley and Jeremy Schapp are absolutely killing it.
This year I tried to figure out what I hate about soccer and it's a few things but mainly one thing. Little offense. The field needs to be half the size. Indoor soccer was fun! Americans need 11-10 games not 0-0 ties. If Hockey rinks were twice the size no one would watch it. Americans don't like 0-0 anything.
Saying that Americans "need" high-scoring games is kind of an insult to Americans as a whole.
The growing number of Americans who are just fine watching soccer as it is is testament that Americans don't need anything more out of soccer. Just more exposure and more local lower-league teams.
In its early days, MLS attempted to appease American audiences by changing all sorts of rules (no ties, instead decided by a series of 35-yard penalty shootouts; countdown clocks that would stop for breaks; etc.) but changed them after they saw that they were alienating fans who wanted soccer as it was promised to them, not an Americanized version. Besides, it made it harder to take MLS seriously and it interfered with international play (which has become very lucrative in the form of summer friendlies).
I'm not blaming soccer so much. Basketball got more interesting with the 3 point shot. Football with the 2 point conversion and a wider passing game. Baseball got really boring and they made some changes this year to speed it up. I'm sure most of my fellow Americans would first be confused at the clock that didn't count down.
Quote from: texaskdog on June 02, 2015, 04:49:12 PMIndoor soccer was fun!
I sort of agree. Smaller games with fewer people per side are more fun to play and are fun to watch.
However you do change the dynamics - less skill required, scoring more scrappy and random (like Ice Hockey - which is pretty low scoring).
Last kickabout I did (3-a-side, very small pitch), in about 45 minutes I score 9 for my team (more than anyone on the 'pitch'), despite being the worst player on the pitch, spending time in goal, etc. We lost 20-19, but on a larger pitch (even just with twice the goal-goal distance - ie about 10 yards) then there was no way I was either scoring so many (maybe 1 or 2) or my team getting within a goal (20-15 would have been about right). With more room, then the player who played for serious youth teams would have had room to apply his quality, I would struggle to get the scrappy goals I got as the keeper would be able to see the ball easier/have more time to react/etc).
QuoteAmericans need 11-10 games not 0-0 ties.
America's pastime of Baseball ought to be something like Twenty20 Cricket then. Why have a 4-hour 11-4 game (the highest scoring in the 2104 'World' Series), when you can have a 3-hour 144-145 game (the lowest scoring 2015 NatWest t20 Blast game so far this season - excepting the one that got stopped for rain)?
Quote from: english si on June 02, 2015, 06:20:21 PM
Why have a 4-hour 11-4 game (the highest scoring in the 2104 'World' Series),
The World Series will probably include the whole world by 2104.
Hockey is too low scoring, but the puck often goes from one side of the rink to the other in a few seconds. In soccer most of the time the ball is nowhere near either goal. There is a happy medium, much like I think NFL needs more scoring so I thought I'd like Arena football but they go too far the other way.
I heard an interesting theory about why Americans are "meh" on futbol. It's not necessarily the low scoring. Football only seems higher-scoring because you get six points for one touchdown. So a score of 21-7 is really just 3-1. We pad the score.
No, Americans don't like soccer because "we" didn't invent it.
"We" invented (or rather changed an existing sport into) baseball.
"We" invented (or rather changed an existing sport into) American Football.
"We" in the New World, invented basketball (sup, Canada?).
They all came out of the same era where the United States is still carving out its own identity on the international stage.
I chalk it up to plain ol' nationalism. We don't care about "your" sport, we've got our own sport that we invented and we are super into and we will export to the regions of the world over which we hold influence.
Quote from: texaskdog on June 02, 2015, 04:49:12 PM
This year I tried to figure out what I hate about soccer and it's a few things but mainly one thing. Little offense. The field needs to be half the size. Indoor soccer was fun! Americans need 11-10 games not 0-0 ties. If Hockey rinks were twice the size no one would watch it. Americans don't like 0-0 anything.
Actually, ask a hockey fan what they don't like about soccer, and it's not the score. It's large field size that causes what appears to be slow play, and the lack of checking. My personal thoughts on how to improve soccer:
1. Allow checking.
2. Penalties should be served by the player in a box to the side.
3. Shrink the field size.
4. Modify the offsides so that the ball must cross a "blue line" before the players, but players can be ahead of the ball after that.
5. Cut the number of players to five plus the goaltender.
6. Move the net away from the edge of the playing field a la hockey or lacrosse.
7. Add boards.
Now
that would be interesting soccer.
One thing that might help is if MLS and its fans weren't so bent on aping the affectations of other countries. This includes referring to the uniform as a "kit," the field as a "pitch," nonsensical team names like DC United (united from what?) Real Salt Lake, and yes, "fútbol" used when not speaking Spanish. These are all very cute, but the non-watching market has adequate words already, and has local traditions and symbols that could be embraced to greater effect.
Real Salt Lake–I mean, really, what's next, Inter Phoenix?
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 03, 2015, 04:33:36 PM
One thing that might help is if MLS and its fans weren't so bent on aping the affectations of other countries. This includes referring to the uniform as a "kit," the field as a "pitch," nonsensical team names like DC United (united from what?) Real Salt Lake, and yes, "fútbol" used when not speaking Spanish. These are all very cute, but the non-watching market has adequate words already, and has local traditions and symbols that could be embraced to greater effect.
Real Salt Lake–I mean, really, what's next, Inter Phoenix?
DC's name is referencing the federal government, while also referencing European clubs. Traditionally, the "united" name is reserved for teams that form out of the merger of teams.
Real Salt Lake is a total mistake and the league knows it. It's too soon to propose a total rebrand, but I'd love to see it changed to something else.
There's no happy medium for MLS team names...either it's too European (FC suffix, United/Real/City FC) or too American (mascots, animals, natural disasters [Fire and Quakes]). The Cascadia trio (Seattle Sounders, Vancouver Whitecaps, Portland Timbers) have great names that reference the local environment (Sounders for the Puget Sound, Whitecaps for the nearby mountains as well as the surrounding water, Timbers for the logging industry).
Also, allowing for more physicality in soccer would be a mistake. The only body protection a player has is their shin guards, everything is fair game to be broken, bruised or torn.
Quote from: Bruce on June 03, 2015, 04:50:43 PM
The Cascadia trio (Seattle Sounders, Vancouver Whitecaps, Portland Timbers) have great names that reference the local environment (Sounders for the Puget Sound, Whitecaps for the nearby mountains as well as the surrounding water, Timbers for the logging industry).
Great names, and great logos too (IMO). Seems like Cascadia has soccer down.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg1.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20101003142111%2Fsoccer4ever%2Fimages%2F2%2F23%2FVancouver_Whitecaps.PNG&hash=97109bf56e361fdd88dd17731629ba0fb9f9df33) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg3.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20100925055853%2Flogopedia%2Fimages%2F7%2F7c%2FSeattle_Sounders_FC.png&hash=0e5e54fc67326cf3938b57841ee765e12e1a8d68) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg4.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20120301174905%2Flogopedia%2Fimages%2F4%2F4a%2FPortland_Timbers_%2528MLS%2529_logo.png&hash=dde00706f1bea757d9b14aadbf8b8bc9bbbc2179)
Quote from: Pete from Boston on June 03, 2015, 04:33:36 PM
One thing that might help is if MLS and its fans weren't so bent on aping the affectations of other countries.
Also popular is Europeans announcing the games. Seattle's matches have been announced by British people since at least 2010.
To be fair, MLS has really only taken off in the last 10 years. I don't think "uniform" or "field" were well cemented enough to stick anyways (though, I will happily admit, "fútbol" is ridiculous).
I do think its funny how soccer players fall and act hurt but so do kickers/punters (the most fragile of all athletes). I seriously doubt any American has a hangup over who invented it. Americans have little patience...less and less every year. You have to watch something several times to become a fan and not that many americans have the patience to get into the psychology of a 0-0 game. I would say if soccer averaged maybe 10 goals a game the "masses" would like it.
And yes I may rip on soccer but I used to go to Minnesota Thunder games regularly in the 90s. I accepted it and attended but I got bored with it.
Quote from: texaskdog on June 03, 2015, 05:50:07 PM
I do think its funny how soccer players fall and act hurt but so do kickers/punters (the most fragile of all athletes). I seriously doubt any American has a hangup over who invented it. Americans have little patience...less and less every year. You have to watch something several times to become a fan and not that many americans have the patience to get into the psychology of a 0-0 game. I would say if soccer averaged maybe 10 goals a game the "masses" would like it.
The "masses" already love soccer. It's just the American masses that haven't adopted it.
Yes, soccer players dive a lot (especially those from Latin America, whose leagues are more lenient on this kind of behavior on average...especially in the Champions League). MLS introduced a Disciplinary Committee that retroactively suspends players for offenses by using replays and a board of referees and it's helped cut down on diving and other unsporting behavior.
One reason why I don't like Futbol is because you never know exactly when a game will end, because of their confusing timing rules.
In Basketball, Football & Hockey, there is a clock which tells you exactly how much time is left in the quarter/period. If the game ends in a tie after regulation, each sport has it's rules to determine how an overtime period(s) can decide a game. In Baseball, you know it takes 3 outs to potentially end a game in the 9th (or extra innings).
In Futbol, the clock counts up and when it hits a certain mark, then it's up to the referees to determine when the game will end. I think it's because the clock never stops for a time out or penalty, and the "refs" add that time to the base time at the end. Unless you are a great timekeeper at home or in the stands, you are left in the dark when the game gets called in what seems to be in the middle of a game -- whether it is a close game or not.
Quote from: Bruce on June 03, 2015, 06:13:02 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on June 03, 2015, 05:50:07 PM
I do think its funny how soccer players fall and act hurt but so do kickers/punters (the most fragile of all athletes). I seriously doubt any American has a hangup over who invented it. Americans have little patience...less and less every year. You have to watch something several times to become a fan and not that many americans have the patience to get into the psychology of a 0-0 game. I would say if soccer averaged maybe 10 goals a game the "masses" would like it.
The "masses" already love soccer. It's just the American masses that haven't adopted it.
European masses and some South American masses love soccer. The masses in many parts of Asia, Oceania, and North America have not adopted it. It never ceases to amaze me how Europeans seem to think that whatever they are or love, the whole world should be as well.
Quote from: Brandon on June 03, 2015, 06:56:11 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how Europeans Americans seem to think that whatever they are or love, the whole world should be as well.
FTFY.
Quote from: DTComposer on June 03, 2015, 07:11:52 PM
Quote from: Brandon on June 03, 2015, 06:56:11 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how Europeans Americans seem to think that whatever they are or love, the whole world should be as well.
FTFY.
Speak for yourself, Californian.
Quote from: Brandon on June 03, 2015, 08:33:46 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on June 03, 2015, 07:11:52 PM
Quote from: Brandon on June 03, 2015, 06:56:11 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how Europeans Americans seem to think that whatever they are or love, the whole world should be as well.
FTFY.
Speak for yourself, Californian.
I don't think either is particularly true. A substantial amount of both populations would rather live in each other's continent.
To expand, a lot of other countries watch American television (much more so than the opposite) and have been losing, to a very small degree, a portion of their own cultural identity. Canada and the UK are the best examples. Both are losing their accents and spelling traditions (again, to a small degree) due to the large cultural influence by the States. Measurable? Absolutely not. Just something I've noticed.
Quote from: Brandon on June 03, 2015, 08:33:46 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on June 03, 2015, 07:11:52 PM
Quote from: Brandon on June 03, 2015, 06:56:11 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how Europeans Americans seem to think that whatever they are or love, the whole world should be as well.
FTFY.
Speak for yourself, Californian.
Nice. For the record, I personally find plenty to love about California (alongside things to criticize), but there's a dozen other places in this country I could easily live, and I don't judge nor worry about where any other person chooses to live.
For what it's worth, my commentary - mainly tongue in cheek, mind you - was based on what seems to be a resurgence of the concept of "American Exceptionalism."
Quote from: Brandon on June 03, 2015, 04:30:04 PM
Actually, ask a hockey fan what they don't like about soccer, and it's not the score. It's large field size that causes what appears to be slow play, and the lack of checking. My personal thoughts on how to improve soccer:
1. Allow checking.
2. Penalties should be served by the player in a box to the side.
3. Shrink the field size.
4. Modify the offsides so that the ball must cross a "blue line" before the players, but players can be ahead of the ball after that.
5. Cut the number of players to five plus the goaltender.
6. Move the net away from the edge of the playing field a la hockey or lacrosse.
7. Add boards.
Now that would be interesting soccer.
A lot of what you described already exists as arena soccer (http://www.maslsoccer.com/).
I played organized soccer as a kid, and enjoyed it.
I have tried many times to watch it on TV, especially during the world cup and for some reason, I just couldn't get it into it. I'm not going to just blame it on the lack of scoring either. I have found that over the years I have also lost my love for basketball, too-and they have plenty of scoring. Hockey can have a decent amount of scoring too but I was never really into it. I'm not sure what it is about those sports that makes them hard to watch on TV and really get into them like I have for other sports. My brother surmises that I just really don't enjoy the constant back and forth up and down the pitch/court/rink type of game with no reset between plays. Maybe he's right, I don't know
Baseball was my first love but after we lost a World Series because millionaires didn't think they were getting paid enough of money to play the sport that I would have paid for the opportunity to play I left baseball for good. I couldn't even tell you who the stars of today are and where they play.
Football (NFL or NCAA) was always one of my favorites to watch on TV but with all the 15 yard personal foul penalties now-a-days for breathing on a receiver or even thinking about looking in the general direction of a goldenboy QB has made it alot less enjoyable-though I still do watch!
Auto racing of all types has pretty much been my favorite to watch since about 2000, and even all the BS gimmicks the different series are coming up with to decide the champion hasn't been able to dim the fire, at least not yet.
Quote from: jakeroot on June 03, 2015, 09:40:15 PMCanada and the UK are the best examples. Both are losing their accents and spelling traditions (again, to a small degree) due to the large cultural influence by the States.
We're more losing dialect than accents and spelling. It's the words we use, not how we communicate them that is more noticeably Americanising.
Quote from: english si on June 04, 2015, 04:04:01 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 03, 2015, 09:40:15 PMCanada and the UK are the best examples. Both are losing their accents and spelling traditions (again, to a small degree) due to the large cultural influence by the States.
We're more losing dialect than accents and spelling. It's the words we use, not how we communicate them that is more noticeably Americanising.
True. More accurately, dialect in the UK, spelling and grammar in Canada. Canada's accent is quickly disappearing, and at least in my experience, young Canadians seem prefer the American spellings.
On the other hand, older Canadians are very strict about their grammar, and even go so far as to use "s" instead of "z". For example, here's a screenshot of a CBC newscast I was watching not too long ago:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fu7rvzm1.jpg&hash=a5bf5b29f2143825e39dcfec7dfe6c0291a160dc)
Quote from: jakeroot on June 04, 2015, 04:34:50 AMeven go so far as to use "s" instead of "z".
Well, why wouldn't you? I used to think the 'z' was the British and the 's' the American, because the 's' makes sense, like removing the 'u' from colour, dropping the 'ugh' in doughnut, having 'f' in sulphur, etc. It was very confuzing to know how to spell stuff!
Quote from: slorydn1 on June 04, 2015, 03:08:07 AM
I played organized soccer as a kid, and enjoyed it.
I have tried many times to watch it on TV, especially during the world cup and for some reason, I just couldn't get it into it. I'm not going to just blame it on the lack of scoring either. I have found that over the years I have also lost my love for basketball, too-and they have plenty of scoring. Hockey can have a decent amount of scoring too but I was never really into it. I'm not sure what it is about those sports that makes them hard to watch on TV and really get into them like I have for other sports. My brother surmises that I just really don't enjoy the constant back and forth up and down the pitch/court/rink type of game with no reset between plays. Maybe he's right, I don't know
Baseball was my first love but after we lost a World Series because millionaires didn't think they were getting paid enough of money to play the sport that I would have paid for the opportunity to play I left baseball for good. I couldn't even tell you who the stars of today are and where they play.
Football (NFL or NCAA) was always one of my favorites to watch on TV but with all the 15 yard personal foul penalties now-a-days for breathing on a receiver or even thinking about looking in the general direction of a goldenboy QB has made it alot less enjoyable-though I still do watch!
Auto racing of all types has pretty much been my favorite to watch since about 2000, and even all the BS gimmicks the different series are coming up with to decide the champion hasn't been able to dim the fire, at least not yet.
Football has way too many penalties. let...them...play
Quote from: texaskdog on June 04, 2015, 07:54:22 AM
Football has way too many penalties. let...them...play
While that's generally true, in nearly all cases when a flag is thrown against the fan's team, it's "Let them play". When a flag is
not thrown against the other team, it's "The refs are blind. How could they not see that penalty"?
I can't stand watching football with those people. I'm not saying ignore penalties but there are way too many of them.
Quote from: english si on June 04, 2015, 06:58:18 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 04, 2015, 04:34:50 AMeven go so far as to use "s" instead of "z".
Well, why wouldn't you? I used to think the 'z' was the British and the 's' the American, because the 's' makes sense, like removing the 'u' from colour, dropping the 'ugh' in doughnut, having 'f' in sulphur, etc. It was very confuzing to know how to spell stuff!
I'm sure as hell not defending the way Americans spell things, which I'm sure is only because of our strong desire to be different from our forefathers (which, while understandable at the time, is now beginning to look doltish).
FWIW, Canada uses "zed", not 's' for most words (organizer, realize, etc), hence the reason I screencapped the newscast.
Quote from: jakeroot on June 04, 2015, 04:33:56 PM
Quote from: english si on June 04, 2015, 06:58:18 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 04, 2015, 04:34:50 AMeven go so far as to use "s" instead of "z".
Well, why wouldn't you? I used to think the 'z' was the British and the 's' the American, because the 's' makes sense, like removing the 'u' from colour, dropping the 'ugh' in doughnut, having 'f' in sulphur, etc. It was very confuzing to know how to spell stuff!
I'm sure as hell not defending the way Americans spell things, which I'm sure is only because of our strong desire to be different from our forefathers (which, while understandable at the time, is now beginning to look doltish).
FWIW, Canada uses "zed", not 's' for most words (organizer, realize, etc), hence the reason I screencapped the newscast.
It goes back a long way. Some of it was simplification, some of it was two competing spellings, and one won out in one area, while the other did in another.