Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

charlie and algernon

(13,447 posts)
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 12:02 PM Jun 2014

Would 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?

14 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Would American football be as popular if TDs were only worth 2 pts and FGs 1 pt? (Original Post) charlie and algernon Jun 2014 OP
Since when are there 2-point goals in lax? KamaAina Jun 2014 #1
It's an Major League Lacrosse Rule charlie and algernon Jun 2014 #2
No Auggie Jun 2014 #3
What would you do with the record books? Start over? JeffHead Jun 2014 #4
I'm not suggesting a change, just reacting to some of anti-soccer people charlie and algernon Jun 2014 #5
one of the components that make football wilt the stilt Jun 2014 #6
A couple points VWolf Jun 2014 #7
I like the idea of unlimited substitutions in their version of overtime charlie and algernon Jun 2014 #10
Let's make it happen VWolf Jun 2014 #12
Colin Cowherd is full of shit JonLP24 Jun 2014 #14
I approach it from the opposite direction VWolf Jun 2014 #8
My son's roommate played soccer all through high school in Atlanta. wilt the stilt Jun 2014 #9
If you're a defender in soccer and you're not scoring VWolf Jun 2014 #11
It would be to me JonLP24 Jun 2014 #13

JeffHead

(1,186 posts)
4. What would you do with the record books? Start over?
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 09:26 PM
Jun 2014

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)
5. I'm not suggesting a change, just reacting to some of anti-soccer people
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 09:34 PM
Jun 2014

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)
6. one of the components that make football
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 08:40 AM
Jun 2014

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)
7. A couple points
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 09:17 AM
Jun 2014

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)
10. I like the idea of unlimited substitutions in their version of overtime
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 10:57 AM
Jun 2014

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.

JonLP24

(29,322 posts)
14. Colin Cowherd is full of shit
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 07:29 PM
Jun 2014

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)
8. I approach it from the opposite direction
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 09:24 AM
Jun 2014

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)
9. My son's roommate played soccer all through high school in Atlanta.
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 10:07 AM
Jun 2014

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)
11. If you're a defender in soccer and you're not scoring
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 12:29 PM
Jun 2014

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)
13. It would be to me
Wed Jun 25, 2014, 07:26 PM
Jun 2014

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.

Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Sports»Would American football b...