All Forums | General Discussion

3 Reasons why Soccer will never be a major sport in USA

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 6423
Posts: 130
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2012
Posts: 1725
Posted: #51
We also like out athletes to be ugly. I don't want a bunch of Van Persie's or Ronaldo's on when I watch with my gal. Give me ugly dudes like Tim Duncan or Marshawn Lynch.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2009
Posts: 6580
Posted: #52
Quote Originally Posted by SportsFan9698:

Besides that, as I can see... the off-sides rule is officiated poorly.

I would say about 50% of the time they get it right.  It is such a very marginal call... how many times have you watched a game turning goal to be turned down due to an ERROR on the offisides call??? Happens way more than it should.  I don't blame the linesman... nobody can keep a perfect eye on two moving objects at the same time.

50% might be a bit of an exaggeration. 


https://soccerrefereeusa.com/index.php/entry/32-studies-suggest-that-assistant-referees-make-too-many-inaccurate-offside-decisions
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2009
Posts: 6580
Posted: #53
Quote Originally Posted by SportsFan9698:

1.  The flopping.  It is ridiculous.  There is flopping in all major sports, but none at the level we see in soccer.  A player gets touched, or does not get touched, and he goes down in apparent agony fearing he may not survive.  A yellow card is exposed, and amazingly the player in agony is suddenly all good and running around the field.  US sports fans find such theatrics nauseating.  US sports fans like tough guys that play through pain and distress... not pansy behind idiots begging for the refs to help them to win.

2.  Low scoring.  Plenty of running around... athletic men (and women) on display doing what few of us can do, no doubt.  But damn it is painful to watch.  Most US sports fans would rather watch grass grow... which is actually what is happening.

3.  Ties.  US sports fan are conditioned to have a loser and a winner.  Ties suck.  OT is interesting, but in reality both teams are usually playing to not lose during the extra time.  In single elimination play, a shootout is then needed.  It gets worse here... then the whole batch is decided by your goalkeeper hopefully guessing correctly.

I played soccer for years as a youth.  I was a goalkeeper in Varsity HS soccer.  I also refereed and coached youth soccer as a young adult.  Don't tell me I don't understand the game or strategies involved.  I understand all too well.  I also understand the psyche of the US sports fan and the real drama that Baseball, Hockey, Basketball, and American Football has to offer.  There is no comparison IMO

Soccer will not every take off as other sports have in past decades.  Some think that because there seems to be growing interest in the WC that it is happening before our eyes.  This is not true.  The MLS is still a failure, and losing fans.  People are watching the WC in the US because it is a nice distraction and something to do.  People like to be social, and this is working for now.  After the USA loses, it all goes back to the baseline.  And the MLS will continue to struggle to draw.  The real soccer fans living in the USA will continue to watch the British Premier league... that is the majors for this sport.

I hate soccer, I mean it is sooo boring and painful to watch.  But I will be watching and cheering for the USA come Tuesday.  I think USA is a great bet to beat Belgium... and NO I refuse to wager regulation time.  I will bet them to advance.

Go USA!!



How do you figure the MLS is a failure considering it's expanding and has seen an increase in attendance 4 of the last 5 years? Also if you removed Chivas from the league it would have been 5 out of 5 years. I'm curious to know what your definition of "failure" is? 

https://www.sbnation.com/soccer/2013/10/31/5047982/mls-attendance-2013-report
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2009
Posts: 6580
Posted: #54
Quote Originally Posted by SportsFan9698:


I agree!!  If they got rid of offsides, the action would be SO MUCH BETTER.  More flow, more athleticism, and more scoring.  Why should there be an artificial moving line that restricts offense?  Same goes for hockey.

Do you have any evidence or stats to back up that the game would have more "flow, athleticism, and scoring"? 
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2009
Posts: 6580
Posted: #55
Quote Originally Posted by SportsFan9698:


That is kind of the point... I'm NOT a big fan of soccer for the reasons I cite.

I did not see that action where Renaldo broke some ankles... but sure I love that display of talent.  I think most fans do.

I have noticed that you have NOT given any argument to my central thesis... why is soccer a better game with off-sides?  I have never heard a credible response to this.

Why should anyone give any argument to your central thesis about offsides when you have given no credible proof that eliminating the rule would improve the game? All you have given is your opinion and nothing more. No stats, no references, nothing but your opinion. 
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2009
Posts: 6580
Posted: #56
Quote Originally Posted by SportsFan9698:


That is your opinion.  And a bad one at that.

I know exactly what I am talking about.  Nobody would "park" and offensive player next to the goalie - same as nobody on a basketball team just stays at the offensive end while the action is in the other end of the court.

Again, you have NOT given any credible argument as to WHY soccer is a better game with off-sides rule.  Instead you choose to deflect and try to insult me.  Not working.  

IF you have a credible reason as to why the game is better with off-sides, let's hear it.  No spin, no insults.  Give the reason.  

Why wouldn't soccer teams park a forward at the top of the opponents if they were allowed to? Many teams have proven they can hold another team scoreless down a man. It happens with somewhat of a regularity in soccer. Hell, sometimes teams even score down a man. 

You don't think a team like Brazil or Argentina wouldn't park Neymar or Messi like that against a lesser opponent? Sure they may give up a goal playing 10 v 11 in their own end, but they would probably get 2 or 3 in return just by leaving those guys alone to "cherry pick". I don't think that is the way to increase the excitement level in soccer, which seems to be doing alright around the world, and here in America, as it currently is. 
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2009
Posts: 6580
Posted: #57
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:

So, you think purists would abandon soccer if the offsides rule were changed? DH, 3pt line, specialty pass rushers, middle relief pitchers, and many other rules changes to sports to increase scoring and they have way more fans now.  I think it would be fine in the long-run.

So, by extrapolation, maybe a team would leave 2 or 3 or 4 guys closer to goal if defense kept a guy back also?  This strategy would not last long.  Basketball is different in that there is no goalie.  So in soccer there is a goalie and he could guard the guy left back very close until a break away came.

I don't think you have to play soccer at an extremely high level to understand it in its current state. The majority of the world has not; and they love it.  But I could argue it is all they have known until we have slowly introduced other sports to them.  Most people by nature like action and scoring---why we have changed all sports to have more scoring.  Even partially why we looked other way during steriods era in baseball.


How are these rule changes rather than strategies adopted by teams? 


 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2010
Posts: 24229
Posted: #58
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:


How are these rule changes rather than strategies adopted by teams? 


Some are strategies---3 pt --various rule change in football to aid offense---DH--etc.---  point just that sports evolve.

 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2010
Posts: 24229
Posted: #59
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:


Why should anyone give any argument to your central thesis about offsides when you have given no credible proof that eliminating the rule would improve the game? All you have given is your opinion and nothing more. No stats, no references, nothing but your opinion. 

Not sure you can---without giving it a try---but it would appear to be in place to SLOW it down or prevent faster scoring?

Yes--why wouldn't Arg or Brazil park 2 down there against a much lesser opp?  

 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2010
Posts: 24229
Posted: #60
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:


How are these rule changes rather than strategies adopted by teams? 


Errr--didn't finish my point---yes some of the strategies are developed because of rule changes---so as rule changes are made I think strategies evolve. Think soccer would as well.

 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2010
Posts: 24229
Posted: #61
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:


How are these rule changes rather than strategies adopted by teams? 


Thoughts on flopping and clock?  Maybe more subs allowed?

 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2002
Posts: 54462
Posted: #62

Quote Originally Posted by Jose_Reyes:

I didn't mean websites when referring to people talking about tweaking the offsides rule. I meant anyone I've ever played with, and still play with today. I've never been in the presence of someone suggesting the offsides rule needing to be changed.

Maybe I'm wrong, and you guys are right. Maybe the rest of the world wants to change the rules to make the game more appealing for people watching it on TV, but I doubt it.

Now, technology that would make sure every offside call is correct, that would be something entirely different. But doing away with the call, or allowing some players to be offside, that changes how the game is played, not improving the quality of officiating.

Just my 2 cents though.
In regards to "tweaking" the offsides rule, why cant they make a small change. 95% of the time the offsides rule is a good thing. However, when a team works the ball into the final 25% of the field (halfway into the offensive zone), I think the offense should be able to have a player break towards the goal.

 

Jose

 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2009
Posts: 6580
Posted: #63
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:

Thoughts on flopping and clock?  Maybe more subs allowed?


The flopping is ridiculous and out of control. I would like to see more yellows and reds for excessive acting. I would also like to see the assistant refs and 4th ref get involved more helping the referee card players that flop. 

I have no issue with the clock as is. I believe the MLS used to allow the ref to have the time keeper stop the clock when needed. I guess it didn't work out to well. 

I disagree with the the title of the thread and most of what the OP stated in his first post. I think soccer is on the rise in the U.S. and not necessarily because I want it to succeed. I honestly can't remember the last time I watched an entire MLS game. Attendance is rising and the league seems to be successfully expanding into markets that will be able to support teams. The quality of players the league is attracting from overseas is starting to improve as well. Yes, David Villa is on the wrong side of 30. However, he isn't completely washed up like most of the European players the MLS is accustomed to signing. Players that really didn't have much else of an option overseas. 

Given the concussion issues in football and the steadily rising median age of the average baseball fan, I think you will see a rise in the success of the MLS in America. There is a reason Premier League games and Champions League games are now shown regularly on American TV networks. Kids might very well start sticking with soccer as oppose to risking concussions in football, which would increase the talent level. I'm not saying soccer will overtake football as America's number one sport. However it wouldn't shock me if, in 20 years, it did overtake baseball and fall right behind basketball. If this happens that would qualify soccer as being main stream in America. 

https://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303843104579167812218839786
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2009
Posts: 6580
Posted: #64
Oh yeah, and become main steam without changing the offside rule and running clock. 

The flopping does need to be addressed though. 

 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2009
Posts: 6580
Posted: #65
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:

Errr--didn't finish my point---yes some of the strategies are developed because of rule changes---so as rule changes are made I think strategies evolve. Think soccer would as well.


I'm still not seeing how rule changes brought about middle relief pitching or specialty pass rushers. 

I think eliminating offsides would just turn the game into a bunch of low percentage long balls which would make the game even more boring. Higher scoring doesn't necessarily mean a game is more entertaining either. It's very possible to have an exciting game end 0-0 and it's possible to have a really boring game end 5-0. 
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2010
Posts: 5575
Posted: #66
The offsides rule is ridiculous as far as I'm concerned.

To those that think you know so much about soccer, and we "don't get it".... then answer me this.

The first tactic that defenders learn is a coordinated effort to elicit an offsides call.  It is called the offsides trap.

The entire line surges forward just as a midfielder is about to advance.  TRAP some guy gets caught offsides.

You might call that gamesmanship, or part of the strategy.  I call bullshit.  

If there were no offside rule, attacking offenses could do just that - attack.  That is what would make a better game IMO

There would not be cherry picking... not to any extent that some try to make you think.  Could or would a guy get behind the defenders occasionally and get a fast break?  YES.  It is the defenders job to make sure that does not happen.

Scoring would go up, and the game would more apt to reward the better athletes, not the better actors.

At the very least, the stupid rule should not apply to the 16 meter box.  Those calls are ridiculous.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2009
Posts: 6580
Posted: #67
Quote Originally Posted by SportsFan9698:

The offsides rule is ridiculous as far as I'm concerned.

To those that think you know so much about soccer, and we "don't get it".... then answer me this.

The first tactic that defenders learn is a coordinated effort to elicit an offsides call.  It is called the offsides trap.

The entire line surges forward just as a midfielder is about to advance.  TRAP some guy gets caught offsides.

You might call that gamesmanship, or part of the strategy.  I call bullshit.  

If there were no offside rule, attacking offenses could do just that - attack.  That is what would make a better game IMO

There would not be cherry picking... not to any extent that some try to make you think.  Could or would a guy get behind the defenders occasionally and get a fast break?  YES.  It is the defenders job to make sure that does not happen.

Scoring would go up, and the game would more apt to reward the better athletes, not the better actors.

At the very least, the stupid rule should not apply to the 16 meter box.  Those calls are ridiculous.

I really don't think many coaches are teaching 5-8 year olds the offside trap as you suggest. This is when many kids start playing soccer and they are just learning the basic fundamentals and playing their position. I'm pretty sure coaches also teach footwork, defensive positioning, pushing an attacker outside as oppose to the middle, and many, many other defensive techniques before they ever even consider teaching an offside trap....but maybe your experience with soccer was different than mine. Maybe your coaches were able to coordinate an offside trap with a group of 5-8 year olds. 

You can call it bullshit all you want, it's a part of the game and there are methods to break an offside trap. It isn't some all encompassing defensive tactic that no one has ever been able to solve. 

I think you're flat out wrong that teams wouldn't allow defenders to cherry pick goals either. Maybe two world class teams wouldn't do it i.e. Germany vs. Brazil. However, in a game with a very good team and a sub par team, it would most likely happen. Why would a team have their forward fall back to the half line if they don't need him to stay onside or defend? No reason for it. 

The game, as is, does reward the better athletes. As far as growing the game in America, we just don't have the best athletes playing MLS right now. However, the league is growing and it could soon become a viable option for younger overseas players, not just those over 30. It won't happen next year or the year after, but in time it very well could happen. 

I'm curious to know why you think the MLS is failing and what your definition of failing is on this topic? 
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2010
Posts: 24229
Posted: #68
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:


I'm still not seeing how rule changes brought about middle relief pitching or specialty pass rushers. 

I think eliminating offsides would just turn the game into a bunch of low percentage long balls which would make the game even more boring. Higher scoring doesn't necessarily mean a game is more entertaining either. It's very possible to have an exciting game end 0-0 and it's possible to have a really boring game end 5-0. 
Very early subs not allowed.  Get tired had to switch with player in field etc. 
Then later pitcher mound was lowered to increase offense.  This relievers were developed to counter this, etc. 
Strategy developed because of rule change. 

To make nfl more appealing and promote offenses. Hands allowed by offensive line.  No bumping downfield by DBs etc.  Offense goes way up because QB has more time to throw and WR have easier time to get open. 
Therefore, specialist pass rushers were a strategy developed because of rule changes.  Etc. 
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2010
Posts: 24229
Posted: #69
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:


I'm still not seeing how rule changes brought about middle relief pitching or specialty pass rushers. 

I think eliminating offsides would just turn the game into a bunch of low percentage long balls which would make the game even more boring. Higher scoring doesn't necessarily mean a game is more entertaining either. It's very possible to have an exciting game end 0-0 and it's possible to have a really boring game end 5-0. 

Feel about more subs in soccer?  What wrong with stopping clock etc  so fans know exactly when game ends?
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2014
Posts: 60
Posted: #70

but on a positive note ya have the soccer moms

 

 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2009
Posts: 14212
Posted: #71
eliminating offsides is like saying wide recievers dont have to line up behind the line of scrimmage, same principle.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2009
Posts: 6580
Posted: #72
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:


Feel about more subs in soccer?  What wrong with stopping clock etc  so fans know exactly when game ends?

I wouldn't mind seeing more subs, especially when the game goes to extra time. I wouldn't go past two more subs though. One draw back would be teams might play for penalties more often if they have a solid PK taker or two on their bench. Playing for penalties definitely slows the game down. 

Stopping the clock would introduce other factors into time keeping such as the criteria for when to stop the clock. If anything this might lead to guys faking injuries even more because they know the ref will stop the clock. Also this lead to a demand for some sort of review system if teams feel the clock isn't being stopped appropriately. 

Last second goals aren't a very common occurrence and the teams have at least a full 90 minutes to try and win the game. If they feel they were shorted 30 seconds of injury time then I have little sympathy for them. In addition, the referee does a pretty good job in adhering to the added time indicated by the fourth referee. I really don't feel like there is a good enough reason to change the rule at this point. If refs were deviating from the indicated time by the fourth official frequently or there were other significant time keeping issues then changing the rules would be worthwhile. However, I don't think this will keep soccer from growing in America. 


 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2009
Posts: 6580
Posted: #73
Quote Originally Posted by mr_bollox:

eliminating offsides is like saying wide recievers dont have to line up behind the line of scrimmage, same principle.

 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2009
Posts: 6627
Posted: #74

Quote Originally Posted by CrusCrnshw:

My take on all of this...

The clock running up, the flops, the "lack" of scoring has little to do with why we American's will never fully embrace soccer. They might be little pieces and play a roll but IMO the real reason is this...

We do no produce the best players nor do we have the best league.

Our soccer league, the MLS, and our home grown soccer players as a whole are not widely considered the best in the world. The MLS is pretty much laughable in terms of leagues in the world. La Liga, Serie A, The Premier league is what we would need. We don't have that. Your average American does not want to watch mostly average on the world scale teams and players. Sure we have some good ones, but our best ones generally play overseas as do the best players in the world.

Take the NBA, best league in world. MLB, best league in world. NFL, best league in world. NHL, best league in world. With NBA and NFL no one would argue that we dont produce by and large the best talent country vs. country. MLB is very debatable but we are still up there with the likes of PR and a couple others. Plus it is our pastime.

Soccer is not. Sure, our kids play youth and run up and down the field like sheep, which is all great and fun, but until we have a top tier league and by and large a top tiered nation, or at least close in both, no one will care sans the world cup.

I coach high school soccer and love it, but I can't get into the MLS knowing the competition in European leagues is the cream of the crop. If I lived in Europe, Id be all over it, and I did for 6 months, and I lived and died for AS Roma.

This is why soccer is not big time here and will never be in the near future.

Also, I would hate to see offsides gone. I see I am in the minority in this thread, but I agree with Jose, I like to build up. I can't imagine having to figure out how to spread my players on the field if there were no offsides. The entire game would change more than you think. The domino effect (regardless of whether or not someone cherry picks) would be very difficult. talent would change to an extent and we would see a totally different game. The game all in all is great. Sure it has some kinks, don't all games?

And yes I hate the flop!

 

 
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2010
Posts: 24229
Posted: #75
Quote Originally Posted by Ktrain:


I wouldn't mind seeing more subs, especially when the game goes to extra time. I wouldn't go past two more subs though. One draw back would be teams might play for penalties more often if they have a solid PK taker or two on their bench. Playing for penalties definitely slows the game down. 

Stopping the clock would introduce other factors into time keeping such as the criteria for when to stop the clock. If anything this might lead to guys faking injuries even more because they know the ref will stop the clock. Also this lead to a demand for some sort of review system if teams feel the clock isn't being stopped appropriately. 

Last second goals aren't a very common occurrence and the teams have at least a full 90 minutes to try and win the game. If they feel they were shorted 30 seconds of injury time then I have little sympathy for them. In addition, the referee does a pretty good job in adhering to the added time indicated by the fourth referee. I really don't feel like there is a good enough reason to change the rule at this point. If refs were deviating from the indicated time by the fourth official frequently or there were other significant time keeping issues then changing the rules would be worthwhile. However, I don't think this will keep soccer from growing in America. 


All Forums | General Discussion
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Sports Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gaming
Sports Betting
US Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Ultimate Race
Office Pools
The Covers community has
618,670
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 25 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
Site Map Help Privacy Terms of Service youtube logo facebook logo twitter logo instagram logo linkedin logo google news logo
Covers is verified safe by: Evalon Logo GPWA Logo GDPR Logo GeoTrust Logo Evalon Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2024 CS Media Limited All Rights Reserved.

If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.