Sports
Related: About this forumWould American football be as popular if TDs were only worth 2 pts and FGs 1 pt?
In other words, if a high scoring football game was 10-7 instead of 35-31, would it still attract the millions of diehard fans? For the past few months, I've had a part-time job working event security at sporting events. With football season over, I've mostly worked Lacrosse games lately. Here's a game where you get 1 or 2 pts per goal and yet the scores are routinely around 13-10 or so. There's lots of scoring and you even have some violence with players hitting their opponents with sticks. But you look at the stands and the stadium is half empty and the sport hasn't gotten out of the Mid-Atlantic area.
Baseball and hockey are big in the US, but they still get trounced by the NFL in the ratings and of the arguments given is the low score. The World Cup and soccer in general is MASSIVELY popular around the world, except in the US, and again the haters love to point out those 1-0 games.
But you think about it, football scores are hugely inflated. A 28-21 game is in reality just your pretty standard 4-3 score in baseball and hockey if a touchdown was worth only 1 point.
So the question is this, if a shootout between Brady and Manning only led to a 6-5 final score instead of 42-35, would football still be America's #1 sport?
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Is there something like the 3-point arc in hoops?
charlie and algernon
(13,447 posts)goals from 16 yds out are worth 2pts.
Auggie
(31,025 posts)BTW, you'd have to account for the extra point somehow.
JeffHead
(1,186 posts)It would virtually set in stone every scoring record in the book. Too much history to change it now. I like football just the way it is.
charlie and algernon
(13,447 posts)And from watching all these Lacrosse games lately. Just making an observation that American football isn't the offensive machine we all think it is due to the inflated point system. Not at all suggesting we suddenly scrap the entire system, it is what it is.
wilt the stilt
(4,528 posts)so popular is everyone can bet it and understand it. the 6-3-1 scoring system makes sense to bettors. All the other games with the exception of basketball are hard to bet. Baseball probably being the hardest.
I always ask this question is of soccer fans. Why is soccer the only game that cannot figure out a way to end a game playing the game on the field? Having a kickoff at the end is not the game. This would be like after 2 ot's in basketball you either have a one on one game to end the game or FT's to end the game. Neither is the game. Soccer should figure out a way to end the game playing the game.
Finally, I was listening to Colin Cowherd yesterday and he said one of the beautiful things in soccer is that the better team doesn't always win. That it is fluky. I thing in the U.S. we like the better team winning. That is the finality that i think we like in all aspects of life not just sports.
VWolf
(3,944 posts)First of all, any changes to the game must go through FIFA, the most corrupt organization in the world. Even if FIFA played it straight, getting consensus from its members (they have more members than the UN) is next to impossible. This is why the sport progresses at a glacial rate compared with America-only sports. My proposed solution to avoid shootouts would be to allow unlimited substitutions at the end of regulation, as if you were replaying the match. This would give the advantage to the team with the most depth on their bench. There would be a number of details to work out, but it would be infinitely better than the crap-shoot.
As for the better team winning, I think it's a cultural thing. It's the same reason nearly all movies made in Hollywood have a "Hollywood ending". Personally, I don't like Hollywood endings - they're too predictable. FIFA seems to enjoy having the better team lose from time to time, because it generates controversy. It's the same reason they don't want video replay.
My favorite quote: "The natural state of the football fan is misery, win or lose."
charlie and algernon
(13,447 posts)Or even just increasing the number of substitutions to 5, instead of only 3. Either way, you bring in more fresh legs and like you said, the advantage will go to the team with the deeper bench.
VWolf
(3,944 posts)Got a couple million to grease the skids at FIFA?
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Look at title winners for La Liga & Premier League. How many total countries have won the World Cup?
The World Cup becomes single-elimination and in single-elimination tournaments the best team doesn't win. Especially in football where they play so few games. Baseball, they play so many to account for the down streaks.
NBA is really the only sport where the best constantly wins.
VWolf
(3,944 posts)when I'm confronted by the anti-soccer crowd. Suppose each goal was worth 7 points and each corner kick (or shot on goal) was awarded 3. Then, assume the game lasted for 3 hours instead of 2. Scores of 31-28 would not be uncommon.
For the record, I enjoy watching both soccer and football, but my love for watching soccer comes from my experience as a player (at 48, I'm still playing). It's hard to convey the passion of the sport to someone who has never played it. I suppose the same is true for football, LAX, hockey, etc.
wilt the stilt
(4,528 posts)Here is his quote" I love playing soccer I don't like watching it." After it is all said and done I still think basketball is the best game to play. The difference in soccer than basketball is the aspect of specialization. If you are a defensemen in soccer let's face it you will not be scoring. The same goes for a lineman in football. In soccer when the ball is on the opposite side you are really resting. That is why I say there is more standing around in soccer than basketball tha most soccer fans like to admit.. The mid fielders run alot. The offense and defense less so.
in basketball everyone scores, everyone is involved in almost every offensive possession. Fastbreaks being the occasional possession where the big man may stay down the floor even though in the classic fastbreak they are the outlet.
Because everyone scores in basketball then you design your own moves and those moves (probably like soccer) can change on the fly.That is really the beauty of basketball. you have to do everything.
VWolf
(3,944 posts)or at least trying to score you've got your tactics all wrong. Defenders overlap all the time in soccer. In the 2010 final, the equalizer for Italy was scored by Materrazzi, a defender.
That said, there are times when players are walking, not running. I suppose if they sprinted around for 90 minutes straight they'd all be dead.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)though it would be a very different game therefore less exciting because just being in high% FG range would be a little less important as going into the end zone.
Plus the odd scoring can be exciting. An offense can score 4 times while their opponent 3 but lose 21-20.
But what makes sports exciting is the strategy, defense, and offense plays, formations, and schemes. NHL, Soccer, and NBA the exciting stuff happens between the goals, set-ups & assists -- defenses stuffing opponents in their territory. The TCU-Boise State was highly entertaining though it was low scoring. Screen receivers were getting stuffed for no gain after the catch like they're supposed to. Then the decision for the fake punt and the design play call were impressive.