http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/06/ann-coulter-is-right-to-fear-the-world-cup/373680/
QuoteAnn Coulter Is Right to Fear the World Cup
America's growing coalition of soccer fans looks a lot like the coalition that got Obama elected.
Last week, Ann Coulter penned a column explaining why soccer is un-American. First, it's collectivist. ("Individual achievement is not a big factor...blame is dispersed.") Second, it's effeminate. ("It's a sport in which athletic talent finds so little expression that girls can play with boys.") Third, it's culturally elitist. ("The same people trying to push soccer on Americans are the ones demanding that we love HBO's "Girls," light-rail, Beyoncé and Hillary Clinton.") Fourth, and most importantly, "It's foreign...Soccer is like the metric system, which liberals also adore because it's European."
Soccer hatred, in other words, exemplifies American exceptionalism. For roughly two centuries, American exceptionalism has rested on the premise that there is a standard mode of national behavior, born in Europe, which America resists. Over the centuries, what constitutes that European standard—and America's resistance to it—has changed. For some 19th-century thinkers, for instance, what made America exceptional was its refusal to partake of the European habit of fighting wars. For Coulter and many contemporary conservatives, by contrast, part of what makes America exceptional is its individualism, manliness and populism. (All of which soccer allegedly lacks).
But Coulter's deeper point is that for America to truly be America, it must stand apart. That's why she brings up the metric system. The main reason to resist the metric system isn't that it's a bad form of measurement. It's that it's a European form of measurement. So it is with soccer. Soccer's alleged collectivism, effeminacy and elitism are simply markers of its foreignness. The core problem with embracing soccer is that in so doing, America would become more like the rest of the world.
Which is why Coulter should be very afraid. Because America is embracing soccer. America's World Cup game against Portugal attracted almost 25 million television viewers in the U.S., eight million more than watched the highest rated World Cup game in 2010, and far more than the average viewership for last year's World Series or this year's NBA finals. NBC now broadcasts English soccer. And America's own league, Major League Soccer, draws as many fans to its stadiums as do the NHL and NBA.
Worse, from Coulter's perspective, Americans like soccer for the very reason she loathes it: It connects us to the rest of the world. Earlier this year, I wrote an essay entitled "The End of American Exceptionalism," which argued that on subjects where the United States has long been seen as different, attitudes in America increasingly resemble those in Europe. Soccer is one of the best examples yet.
To understand how the embrace of soccer undermines American exceptionalism, it's worth understanding why Americans rejected soccer to begin with. In their 2001 book, Offside: Soccer and American Exceptionalism, Andrei Markovits and Steven Hellerman argue that in advanced industrial countries, the sports that achieved hegemony in the late 19th and early 20th centuries have generally maintained preeminence ever since.
So why didn't soccer gain a foothold in the U.S. in the decades between the Civil War and World War I, when it was gaining dominance in Europe? Precisely because it was gaining dominance in Europe. The arbiters of taste in late 19th and early 20th century America wanted its national pastimes to be exceptional. Despite the British roots of both baseball (in rounders) and football (in rugby), their promoters worked to cleanse them of foreign associations and market them as American originals. Basketball had the good fortune to have actually been invented in the United States.
Soccer, by contrast, was associated with foreignness in an era when mass immigration was spawning Coulter-like fears that America was losing its special character. "Soccer," Markovits and Hellerman argue, "was perceived by both native-born Americans and immigrants as a non-American activity at a time in American history when nativism and nationalism emerged to create a distinctly American self-image ... if one liked soccer, one was viewed as at least resisting—if not outright rejecting—integration into America." Old-stock Americans, in other words, were elevating baseball, football, and basketball into symbols of America's distinct identity. Immigrants realized that embracing those sports offered a way to claim that identity for themselves. Clinging to soccer, by contrast, was a declaration that you would not melt.
So why is interest in soccer rising now? Partly, because the United States is yet again witnessing mass immigration from soccer-mad nations. A huge chunk of the soccer fans in America today are Hispanic. According to one recent study, 56 percent of Hispanic Americans said they planned to watch the World Cup compared to only 20 percent of white non-Hispanics. Twenty-six percent of Hispanics in the U.S. call soccer their favorite game; among non-Hispanics whites, it's three percent.
The difference between Hispanic immigrants today and European immigrants a century ago is that today's newcomers don't feel they must reject soccer to prove their Americanism. Technology makes it easier to stay connected to one's favorite teams back home. But the key shift is that America's sports culture is less nativist. More native-born Americans now accept that a game invented overseas can become authentically American, and that the immigrants who love it can become authentically American too. Fewer believe that to have merit, something must be invented in the United States.
This reflects a broader turn away from the exceptionalism that Coulter champions: Americans today are less likely to insist that America's way of doing things is always best. In 2002, 60 percent of Americans told the Pew Research Center that, "our culture is superior to others." By 2011, it was down to 49 percent. This change is being led by the young. According to that same 2011 Pew survey, Americans over the age of 50 were 15 points more likely to say "our culture is superior" than were people over 50 in Germany, Spain, Britain, and France. Americans under 30, by contrast, were actually less likely to say "our culture is superior" than their counterparts in Germany, Spain, and Britain.
It's not surprising, therefore, that young Americans disproportionately like soccer. The average age of Americans who call baseball their favorite sport is 53. Among Americans who like football best, it's 46. Among Americans who prefer soccer, by contrast, the average age is only 37.
Beside Hispanics and the young, the third major pro-soccer constituency is liberals. They're willing to embrace a European sport for the same reason they're willing to embrace a European-style health care system: because they see no inherent value in America being an exception to the global rule. According to a survey by Experian Marketing Services, American liberals were almost twice as likely to watch the 2010 World Cup as American conservatives. When the real-estate website Estately created a seven part index to determine a state's love of soccer, it found that Washington State, Maryland, the District of Columbia, New York, and New Jersey—all bright blue—loved soccer best, while Alabama, Arkansas, North Dakota, Mississippi and Montana—all bright red—liked it least.
In fact, the soccer coalition—immigrants, liberals and the young—looks a lot like the Obama coalition. Not long ago, commentators assumed that these groups could never make soccer popular on their own. The traditional "rule of thumb," argued Markovits and Hellerman in 2001, is that for a sport to succeed in America, it must develop strong roots among the white working class. "Soccer, on the other hand, continues to be identified as 'yuppie' and 'preppy' indulged by a mixture of suburban 'soccer moms,' along with Hispanic immigrants."
But what Markovits and Hellerman didn't anticipate is that the same demographic changes that have helped Obama win the White House without strong white working class support are helping soccer gain acceptance without it too. Soccer's rise is part of what John Judis and Ruy Teixeira call "George McGovern's revenge." In 1972, McGovern won minorities, well-educated white liberals, and the young, but still lost 49 states. Since then, however, the minority share of the American electorate has risen from 11 percent to 28 percent. Whites without college degrees, by contrast, composed only 36 percent of American voters in 2012, down from 54 percent in 1988. (The only group that figures prominently in the Obama coalition but not the soccer coalition is African Americans, who disproportionately favor basketball. Sports-wise, therefore, Democrats constitute an alliance between soccer and basketball fans while Republicans disproportionately follow baseball, golf, and NASCAR. Football, by far America's most popular sport, crosses the aisle.)
The willingness of growing numbers of Americans to embrace soccer bespeaks their willingness to imagine a different relationship with the world. Historically, conservative foreign policy has oscillated between isolationism and imperialism. America must either retreat from the world or master it. It cannot be one among equals, bound by the same rules as everyone else. Exceptionalists view sports the same way. Coulter likes football, baseball, and basketball because America either plays them by itself, or—when other countries play against us—we dominate them. (In fact, most of the other countries that play baseball do so because they were once under U.S. occupation).
Embracing soccer, by contrast, means embracing America's role as merely one nation among many, without special privileges. It's no coincidence that young Americans, in addition to liking soccer, also like the United Nations. In 2013, Pew found that Americans under 30 were 24 points more favorable to the U.N. than Americans over 50. According to a 2011 Pew poll, Millennials were also 23 points more likely than the elderly to say America should take its allies' opinion into account even if means compromising our desires.
Coulter would find this deeply un-American. But it's a healthy response to a world that America is both less able to withdraw from, and less able to dominate, than it was in the past. In embracing soccer, Americans are learning to take something we neither invented nor control, and nonetheless make it our own. It's a skill we're going to need in the years to come.
A little surprised that baseball fans skew Republican.
I think ann coulter is doing a victory dance with the publication of this article.
QuoteAfrican Americans, who disproportionately favor basketball
Keep the tired racist clichés coming.
QuoteSo why didn't soccer gain a foothold in the U.S. in the decades between the Civil War and World War I, when it was gaining dominance in Europe? Precisely because it was gaining dominance in Europe.
This is nonsense. Any historical evidence for this? I have to admit that is the first time I have ever heard that before. I mean the main reason for Baseball's success was the tireless promotion by the Englishman Henry Chadwick. If we were playing these sports simply to show how long our American shlongs were surely we would have rejected Baseball as being that evil foreigner Chadwick's obsession.
QuoteThe arbiters of taste in late 19th and early 20th century America wanted its national pastimes to be exceptional. Despite the British roots of both baseball (in rounders) and football (in rugby), their promoters worked to cleanse them of foreign associations and market them as American originals. Basketball had the good fortune to have actually been invented in the United States.
Ok but that has nothing to do with why American football and Baseball became popular. They were already loved and widely played before the late 19th century, early 20th century when Spalding and company decided they had to show Baseball was 100% American. Further I have never heard anything like this for American Football. Our sports were just what we played not developed out of nationalist reaction out of obsession with Europe and a hatred of Europeans. How idiotic.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 02, 2014, 07:58:34 AM
A little surprised that baseball fans skew Republican.
Like Sears shoppers and people who still buy Buicks, it's an aging demographic.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 02, 2014, 08:21:29 AM
Like Sears shoppers and people who still buy Buicks, it's an aging demographic.
That makes sense.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 02, 2014, 07:58:34 AM
A little surprised that baseball fans skew Republican.
Definitely surprised by that, baseball's highest level of support is in the northeast, all of them solid democratic or swing states. Not a republican one among them.
Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2014, 08:19:59 AM
QuoteSo why didn't soccer gain a foothold in the U.S. in the decades between the Civil War and World War I, when it was gaining dominance in Europe? Precisely because it was gaining dominance in Europe.
This is nonsense. Any historical evidence for this? I have to admit that is the first time I have ever heard that before. I mean the main reason for Baseball's success was the tireless promotion by the Englishman Henry Chadwick. If we were playing these sports simply to show how long our American shlongs were surely we would have rejected Baseball as being that evil foreigner Chadwick's obsession.
Baseball had success on it's own and it did develop out of version of cricket.
And, as I said before, Soccer spread where British commercial interests but not british immigration happened. Rugby and Cricket spread where there was british immigration. It's only when the Forward Pass (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-early-history-of-footballs-forward-pass-78015237/?no-ist) came into use that the american game became fully separated from what became Rugby League.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 02, 2014, 07:58:34 AM
It always puzzled me a bit that so many traditional northeast lefties and outright Marxists are huge baseball fans.
The science of the sport appeals to intellectual elitism.
But tell that to George F. Will. :P
Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2014, 08:19:59 AM
Ok but that has nothing to do with why American football and Baseball became popular. They were already loved and widely played before the late 19th century, early 20th century when Spalding and company decided they had to show Baseball was 100% American. Further I have never heard anything like this for American Football. Our sports were just what we played not developed out of nationalist reaction out of obsession with Europe and a hatred of Europeans. How idiotic.
Yeah. Seems a bit anachronistic to assume that mid-19th century Americans had a clear idea of what sports were popular in Europe. I don't think they would give a shit either way what was popular there.
My understanding was always that early rugby developed into American football here, Canadian football up north, and Association Football in England (which then spread.) I don't really think that happened out of a North American hatred of how the English developed it, anymore than the Canadian version developed out of a hatred of four downs...things just happened differently and countries stuck with what they had.
As a big baseball fan and reader of baseball history I'll contest that it derived from Cricket. Baseball's origins are mostly poorly known and understood, but the most recent research on it suggests that there were a slew of essentially regional bat-and-ball games in both England and Europe. Cricket and baseball both developed from these bat-and-ball games, and there's even some evidence Cricket specifically developed from a type of bat-and-ball game originally played in Flanders, which was imported to England.
The best known candidates for proto-baseball are Rounders and Stoolball, both regional bat-and-ball games in England. Baseball as we know it then most likely developed organically in the United States from bat-and-ball games imported in the Colonial Era and probably imported again by subsequent immigration. Basically people had long played games with bats and balls, and baseball is one type of those games which developed and became popular.
By the 1870s baseball was already drawing large crowds in the United States and fielding the first true professional athletes in America, men who were paid large sums to solely play baseball--there's record of some of the best players making like $2,000/year--a huge sum in that time. Given that I don't think it's too likely we embraced baseball out of hatred of Association Football and Europeans, it was really only getting started around the same time, and arguably baseball had already become a major (as in people in large numbers paid to go see it, and some players could earn a living playing full time) sport before Association Football. So America's embrace of it for anti-European reasons seems unlikely.
Stoolball. :w00t:
Soccer hatred? :unsure:
Good job, Seedy :lol:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 02, 2014, 09:32:32 AM
My understanding was always that early rugby developed into American football here, Canadian football up north, and Association Football in England (which then spread.)
Not really. Both Rugby and Association football derived from a schism in the Football Association when the majority of representatives in a committee developing standard rules. wanted to drop two from an existing draft allowing for the ball to be carried by hand and for players to be hacked.
The schismatics set up their own association - the Rugby Football Union, which later split over professionalism into rugby union and rugby league, each fo which evolved differently.
Quote from: The Brain on July 02, 2014, 09:35:14 AM
Stoolball. :w00t:
Definitely sounds like some third world game. Like where the village is too poor to buy a soccer ball.
My guess is it was a way of defining the strike zone, like the wicket in cricket.
I like soccer and basketball. I think watching cars race around a track and watching others play golf are worse than watching paint dry.
But I also like watching baseball and cricket.
I am the undecided voter....
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2014, 10:14:38 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 02, 2014, 09:35:14 AM
Stoolball. :w00t:
Definitely sounds like some third world game. Like where the village is too poor to buy a soccer ball.
They use the heads of of those in the neighbouring village. :smarty:
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2014, 12:38:14 PM
I like soccer and basketball. I think watching cars race around a track and watching others play golf are worse than watching paint dry.
But I also like watching baseball and cricket.
I am the undecided voter....
Like the rest of this dumb ass article he is just making shit up about the supposed demographics of each sport IMO. I mean once you start claiming we went with Baseball and Football just to spite Europe you have to work hard to convince me you are writing about something other than the fantasy world you inhabit.
Quote from: Norgy on July 02, 2014, 12:47:58 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2014, 10:14:38 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 02, 2014, 09:35:14 AM
Stoolball. :w00t:
Definitely sounds like some third world game. Like where the village is too poor to buy a soccer ball.
They use the heads of of those in the neighbouring village. :smarty:
Or their stool. Hey, maybe it's a German thing.
I'd expect a slight Republican edge among football fans. Yeah, it's near universal, but members of Democrat leaning groups(such as women and recent immigrants) are more likely to opt out.
I'd agree, but FWIW the immigrants I've known have tended to gravitate towards football. At least the male ones.
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2014, 01:15:00 PM
I'd agree, but FWIW the immigrants I've known have tended to gravitate towards football. At least the male ones.
Cant blame anyone for trying to fit into the dominant culture.
It is not about that. It is about the inherent awesomeness of football.
Especially it's inherent ossumness as a televised spectacle.
None of them are immigrants, but my wife's cousins, uncles, etc. all seem to have selected their favorite NFL teams based upon the US city they first visited. Of course now after I gave them shit about it, they all claim to be Bengals fans :D
Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2014, 01:19:15 PM
It is not about that. It is about the inherent awesomeness of football.
Compared to rugby, football is a painfully slow and slow paced game to watch. But it has media dominance and so rubgy, as a direct competitor, will never see the light of day.
The pauses are part of why it is a perfect game for TV.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2014, 01:24:26 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2014, 01:19:15 PM
It is not about that. It is about the inherent awesomeness of football.
Compared to rugby, football is a painfully slow and slow paced game to watch. But it has media dominance and so rubgy, as a direct competitor, will never see the light of day.
Whatever. Football never got an awesome movie like Invictus made about it. And the best sports are slow, as they give time for the drama to build.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 02, 2014, 01:26:06 PM
The pauses are part of why it is a perfect game for TV.
Agreed. It is a slow game which is perfect for TV advertising. But that doesnt make the game awesome. Just slow.
Football movies really tend to bore me, for the most part. The only one I sort of liked was Rudy. I guess Blind Side was okay. But none of them seem to be able to match the excitement and drama you get from an actual game.
Football is not the least bit slow. The pauses actually make the action faster and more explosive.
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2014, 01:38:52 PM
Football is not the least bit slow. The pauses actually make the action faster and more explosive.
:lol:
Slow is fast, freedom is slavery etc.
:rolleyes: The only sport with faster action is hockey, and that's because they're on skates.
If the action is so slow how come it gives everybody dangerous head injuries eh? You don't get that from being slow no sir.
Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2014, 01:47:04 PM
If the action is so slow how come it gives everybody dangerous head injuries eh? You don't get that from being slow no sir.
The game is slow in the sense that it often only moves a few yards before the end of a play. It is slow paced because there is no continuity of play. As you said, if it were otherwise it wouldnt be good for TV.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 02, 2014, 01:26:06 PM
The pauses are part of why it is a perfect game for TV.
Yeah, football has really replaced Baseball as the professional sport due to TV. I think in part it's because when the game is playing everyone is moving at once. That doesn't lend itself well to radio. In a baseball game you typically on have only three guys doing anything at a given time. The batter, catcher and pitcher. Much easier to describe in radio.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2014, 01:52:31 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2014, 01:47:04 PM
If the action is so slow how come it gives everybody dangerous head injuries eh? You don't get that from being slow no sir.
The game is slow in the sense that it often only moves a few yards before the end of a play. It is slow paced because there is no continuity of play. As you said, if it were otherwise it wouldnt be good for TV.
I actually did not say that. Continuity of play does nothing for me. I mean I don't mind games that have it obviously, but big deal.
Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2014, 02:02:36 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2014, 01:52:31 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2014, 01:47:04 PM
If the action is so slow how come it gives everybody dangerous head injuries eh? You don't get that from being slow no sir.
The game is slow in the sense that it often only moves a few yards before the end of a play. It is slow paced because there is no continuity of play. As you said, if it were otherwise it wouldnt be good for TV.
I actually did not say that. Continuity of play does nothing for me. I mean I don't mind games that have it obviously, but big deal.
Like I said in the first post, the leagues and treatment TV gives it has convinced people this slow paced game is not that bad and so fast paced games that are in direct competition - ie rubgy have no chance in the US market. People have grown accustomed to the slow pace and it fits the lifestyle that has grown up around the game.
Soccer is fun to play. But to watch, is often boring. But that US-Belgium game yesterday was fantastic. :yeah:
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2014, 02:35:08 PM
it fits the lifestyle that has grown up around the game.
:rolleyes:
On a different note, I was just saying the other day that I think football packs in more excitement per game than soccer.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2014, 12:38:14 PM
I like soccer and basketball. I think watching cars race around a track and watching others play golf are worse than watching paint dry.
But I also like watching baseball and cricket.
I am the undecided voter....
I find watching soccer and basketball to be remarkably similar to watching a car race. It's just constant movement. All tactics and little strategy. Even baseball is less boring than basketball and racing.
The stop-startfests of football take me out of the action and ruin some of the excitement for me. Give me a flowing game of soccer any day of the week.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2014, 02:35:08 PM
Like I said in the first post, the leagues and treatment TV gives it has convinced people this slow paced game is not that bad and so fast paced games that are in direct competition - ie rubgy have no chance in the US market. People have grown accustomed to the slow pace and it fits the lifestyle that has grown up around the game.
If fast paced automatically made things better than the most popular sport would be the 100 meter dash. And further your premise is obviously incorrect since rugby was around and lost to those other sports long before TV or any leagues were around.
Though I guess, to be fair, I have no idea what you mean by direct competition. What sport is Rugby in direct competition with in the US that it is not in the other 150+ countries it has not caught on?
I don't think you've really got a good argument there CC. I think Americans don't like soccer because they don't like soccer. We like basketball and it has continuity of action, and hockey has always had some level of support in parts of the country and also has continuity of action.
Soccer is really no more/less suited for TV than basketball or hockey.
Football is very well suited for TV because there are natural breaks in it, and TV watchers as a rule like to get up and leave their living rooms periodically. Even if you're watching something without commercial breaks, how many people will stare at the screen non-stop for the entire thing? I mean I'm sure some do, sometime, but people like breaks.
Baseball is a sport that is/was well suited for radio, the way the action unfolds it's a great sport to listen to when you're doing something else. Likewise it's great to go see in person, because then it becomes a social activity, you can get some beers, talk with friends etc while the game is going on. But as a TV sport baseball is hard to watch because the breaks between the meaningful moments are long and terrible. When you're at a ballpark that doesn't bother you, but at home you just get bored.
I think most Americans don't follow soccer for the same reason I don't, I already follow(ed) several sports by the time soccer was even on the radar in terms of TV time here, and just don't have an interest in following more. I'm sure there are many worthy sports, but how many can one person follow and still have any interests outside of sport? And with that limitation people are much more likely to just follow what they grew up with.
Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2014, 03:00:46 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2014, 02:35:08 PM
Like I said in the first post, the leagues and treatment TV gives it has convinced people this slow paced game is not that bad and so fast paced games that are in direct competition - ie rubgy have no chance in the US market. People have grown accustomed to the slow pace and it fits the lifestyle that has grown up around the game.
If fast paced automatically made things better than the most popular sport would be the 100 meter dash. And further your premise is obviously incorrect since rugby was around and lost to those other sports long before TV or any leagues were around.
Though I guess, to be fair, I have no idea what you mean by direct competition. What sport is Rugby in direct competition with in the US that it is not in the other 150+ countries it has not caught on?
You are confusing the speed of one play with the pace of play. But granted, a football fan would necessarily have to ignore the concept of pace of play to still enjoy the sport.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 02, 2014, 03:03:36 PM
I don't think you've really got a good argument there CC. I think Americans don't like soccer because they don't like soccer. We like basketball and it has continuity of action, and hockey has always had some level of support in parts of the country and also has continuity of action.
Thats not my argument :huh:
I have no idea why Americans prefer football to soccer. It is a genuine mystery to me. Valmy is the one who made the point that Football is perfect for TV.
Isn't CFL more popular in Canada than soccer? I at least know hockey is. I imagine to a Brazilian they'd ask why a Canuck prefers hockey to soccer.
I don't really think there is much mystery to any of this stuff, I think people like the sports they grow up with. I don't really think it's any more complex than that. The only question is what lead people to grow up with certain sports, and in most countries that goes back to the 19th century and the history is what it is. For football I think it's as simple as the big colleges in America really embraced it, and they had/have outsize influence because they were where all the rich important people went to school back t hen (with American football heavily linked to the Ivy League in its early days.)
As much as I like American Football, I find broadcasts often painful to watch. What's nominally a 1 hour game will often be a 3 hour broadcast, with a probably a third or more of it being commercials, and only a fraction of the time actual plays. More than with other team sports I find myself doing something else while leaving an NFL game mostly on in the background, occasionally turning my head to the screen when a play is about to commence.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 02, 2014, 03:08:48 PM
I don't really think there is much mystery to any of this stuff, I think people like the sports they grow up with. I don't really think it's any more complex than that.
Maybe but you would think with the amount of people who play youth soccer there would be some interest in the sport later in life. But perhaps like you said it is a "watching" sort of thing so that while people play youth soccer, they don't generally watch it.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 02, 2014, 03:08:48 PM
Isn't CFL more popular in Canada than soccer?
Hard to say, the CFL isnt that popular here despite what BB thinks/hopes. Most people prefer the NFL. At least in the major markets. Relative popularity is hard to measure in part because North American soccer leagues have not been run very well and Euro league games are at odd hours but there are a lot more Canadians watching the world cup than ever watch a CFL game on TV. Also soccer is the most popular sport in Canada as measured by participation by a long way.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2014, 03:05:59 PM
Valmy is the one who made the point that Football is perfect for TV.
I never said that. Ever. I think that was Yi.
Yeah, for a sport to be big on TV people have to want to watch it. For the big American sports--football, baseball, and basketball (to a degree hockey), before TV people were watching these sports live. When TV came, it exposed more people to games and probably helped with live attendance to some degree as well. Baseball still has strong live attendance numbers but has lost the TV battle to football. Basketball has good live attendance numbers but so-so ratings, often like baseball it picks up a lot at the end of the season.
There are a lot of sports people have always participated in here that have never been big on TV or in terms of live attendance: softball, bowling (lol), amateur wrestling, various track and field events (which are ignored outside of the Olympics every 4 years) etc.
When you grow up with the Big 3 on TV--and for any American born since the 1960s this has been the case, it's just not that likely you'll want to invest time in learning a whole new sport and caring about it. Especially not when the United States is not a good place for that sport, because it means all the local teams will have subpar talent. If you watch NBA or MLB you see the best players not just in America, but all over the world. Because any European or Asian or Latin American (for MLB) players worth a damn in those sports come to America. In Soccer it's the exact opposite, the few American players who are any good go play for second-rate European clubs (maybe a few for good ones), very few are interested in staying to play for MLS teams.
Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2014, 03:18:08 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2014, 03:05:59 PM
Valmy is the one who made the point that Football is perfect for TV.
I never said that. Ever. I think that was Yi.
You are right it was Yi.
But are you denying Yi is correct :huh: One wonders why you would be so emaphatic that you never said that - Ever. :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2014, 03:16:40 PM
Relative popularity is hard to measure in part because North American soccer leagues have not been run very well
I beg to disagree. The MLS has done better than anybody back in 1994 could have dreamed. Creating an audience from nothing takes awhile. Their minor league clubs do a great job getting local players involved and gaining support. I think our soccer leagues are very well run IMO.
QuoteAlso soccer is the most popular sport in Canada as measured by participation by a long way.
And you guys are still so painfully horrible that tiny Euro colonies beat you? Canada you should be ashamed.
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2014, 03:12:35 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 02, 2014, 03:08:48 PM
I don't really think there is much mystery to any of this stuff, I think people like the sports they grow up with. I don't really think it's any more complex than that.
Maybe but you would think with the amount of people who play youth soccer there would be some interest in the sport later in life. But perhaps like you said it is a "watching" sort of thing so that while people play youth soccer, they don't generally watch it.
Eh, the number of Americans watching soccer now compared to the number of Americans watching soccer 30 years ago is a huge difference. The audience is growing and while it will never overtake football it will find itself a solid niche in the coming decades.
It's still astonishing to me that NBC shows every single English Premier League game live on tv and streaming for free. The amount of soccer content available now is light years ahead of where it was just ten years ago and the ten year olds playing baby soccer on the weekends today will grow up having access to the game that I never had. That access means something and will contribute to the popularity of the sport in the coming decades.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2014, 03:16:40 PMHard to say, the CFL isnt that popular here despite what BB thinks/hopes. Most people prefer the NFL. At least in the major markets. Relative popularity is hard to measure in part because North American soccer leagues have not been run very well and Euro league games are at odd hours but there are a lot more Canadians watching the world cup than ever watch a CFL game on TV. Also soccer is the most popular sport in Canada as measured by participation by a long way.
Are we talking about sports Americans watch or that they play? Because football is not by any means the most played sport in America. I'd assume in Canada the most watched sport would be hockey, but it doesn't surprise me it isn't the most played. For similar reasons to why football is the most watched but not the most played--equipment is expensive, injuries scare parents etc.
Actually this (https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/the-eh-game/great-canadian-ratings-report-always-hockey-season-canada-200214504.html) makes me pretty sure hockey is the most popular watched sport in Canada, noticing how high the draft's ratings are to actual world cup soccer matches. And looking back, the ratings for the Canadian hockey team when they were playing in the most recent olympics dwarf the world cup ratings--over half of Canadian households watched Canada play hockey in the Olympics. I don't think any Olympic event has ever gotten that level of rating in America.
Quote from: FunkMonk on July 02, 2014, 03:22:34 PM
Eh, the number of Americans watching soccer now compared to the number of Americans watching soccer 30 years ago is a huge difference.
The number of Americans now compared to the number of Americans 30 years ago is also a huge difference. :P
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2014, 03:28:09 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on July 02, 2014, 03:22:34 PM
Eh, the number of Americans watching soccer now compared to the number of Americans watching soccer 30 years ago is a huge difference.
The number of Americans now compared to the number of Americans 30 years ago is also a huge difference. :P
There are enough Americans watching soccer now to get coverage in mainstream sports media. That means it has arrived in my book.
Quote from: derspiess on July 02, 2014, 09:39:33 AM
Good job, Seedy :lol:
:lol: Oops
You have any idea how tough it is to post on Languish on an iPhone while on the crapper? With these thumbs?
Quote from: FunkMonk on July 02, 2014, 03:22:34 PMEh, the number of Americans watching soccer now compared to the number of Americans watching soccer 30 years ago is a huge difference. The audience is growing and while it will never overtake football it will find itself a solid niche in the coming decades.
It's still astonishing to me that NBC shows every single English Premier League game live on tv and streaming for free. The amount of soccer content available now is light years ahead of where it was just ten years ago and the ten year olds playing baby soccer on the weekends today will grow up having access to the game that I never had. That access means something and will contribute to the popularity of the sport in the coming decades.
And to me that goes back to what I've been saying--people like the sports they grow up watching. The real question is what controls what they watch on TV and what they don't. To some degree I think a small group of people get to make these decisions. In Japan they literally adopted baseball as a national sport because the government decided they wanted it to be so, because they wanted to emulate America.
Some sports are just never going to be popular on TV--softball, bowling, amateur wrestling, competitive skateboarding etc.
By the time TV started baseball and football were the most popular spectator sports. This was the 1960s (not when TV started, but when you started to see a lot of televised sports all the time), so people really weren't making a choice between watching soccer and watching football. That choice was made for them by the networks, based on the existing live attendance and radio fans. To figure out why football and baseball were the live attendance and radio kings and not soccer in the United States, you have to go back to the 19th century. To me, the history makes it look like it basically just happened organically to some degree. There's not a good reason for/against it, it's just what happened. For the first 40 years or so of big time televised sports, air time was so limited and the channel lineup along with it, that there wasn't going to be room for more major sports than we already have. With ESPN, Fox Sports, + the Networks, + the ancillary sports networks I'd argue it makes sense that now we may see a sport like soccer get more air time in the United States. But I think its long term health will depend on the MLS being good or not, because in terms of fanship I think English Premier League and the world cup every four years won't be enough.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 02, 2014, 03:31:04 PM
But I think its long term health will depend on the MLS being good or not, because in terms of fanship I think English Premier League and the world cup every four years won't be enough.
Yeah.
American football isn't slow (excluding TV timeouts). There is constant action: depending on the level, you may have ~80 guys on a side, and a bunch of substitutions between plays. If you understand the teams, watching the substitutions, pre - snap looks and adjustments is quite interesting, and is occurring very quickly (even a team moving at a glacial pace has to get plays off every 40 seconds).
People that don't understand the sport may only focus on the game action, but that isn't a flaw with the game.
Quote from: Syt on July 02, 2014, 03:09:31 PM
As much as I like American Football, I find broadcasts often painful to watch. What's nominally a 1 hour game will often be a 3 hour broadcast, with a probably a third or more of it being commercials, and only a fraction of the time actual plays. More than with other team sports I find myself doing something else while leaving an NFL game mostly on in the background, occasionally turning my head to the screen when a play is about to commence.
Whenever I watch a hockey or football game, I record it first, then I start 1hr into the game, skip the ads, the breaks, the soul searching in between plays, etc and I arrive at the end like everyone :)
It makes games much more enjoyable that way.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 02, 2014, 03:32:58 PM
American football isn't slow (excluding TV timeouts). There is constant action: depending on the level, you may have ~80 guys on a side, and a bunch of substitutions between plays. If you understand the teams, watching the substitutions, pre - snap looks and adjustments is quite interesting, and is occurring very quickly (even a team moving at a glacial pace has to get plays off every 40 seconds).
People that don't understand the sport may only focus on the game action, but that isn't a flaw with the game.
Plus that's when they show the slo mo replays of the previous play from four different angles, which is the best part of the show.
NFL play clock is less than 40, isn't it? 35?
Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2014, 03:29:38 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2014, 03:28:09 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on July 02, 2014, 03:22:34 PM
Eh, the number of Americans watching soccer now compared to the number of Americans watching soccer 30 years ago is a huge difference.
The number of Americans now compared to the number of Americans 30 years ago is also a huge difference. :P
There are enough Americans watching soccer now to get coverage in mainstream sports media. That means it has arrived in my book.
Yeah, pretty much. Soccer in America has matured enough to where it won't die out, barring a catastrophic match-fixing scandal in MLS or something. A lot has been made of the sport having a "defining" moment that makes Americans take it seriously, but I think what has happened is lots of separate forces coming together that has brought soccer into the "national sport discussion" for lack of a better term.
1) Youth soccer is huge for some reason
2) Demographics (immigrants bringing their love of the game with them)
3) The sport's appeal to millennials and younger
4) "Big" moments like World Cup fever and crap like that
5) Increased access to foreign leagues with better quality play
Overall, I'd say soccer has arrived and has a bright future as complementary sport to football.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 02, 2014, 03:25:44 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2014, 03:16:40 PMHard to say, the CFL isnt that popular here despite what BB thinks/hopes. Most people prefer the NFL. At least in the major markets. Relative popularity is hard to measure in part because North American soccer leagues have not been run very well and Euro league games are at odd hours but there are a lot more Canadians watching the world cup than ever watch a CFL game on TV. Also soccer is the most popular sport in Canada as measured by participation by a long way.
Are we talking about sports Americans watch or that they play?
:huh:
You asked me whether the CFL was more popular than soccer in Canada.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 02, 2014, 03:32:58 PM
American football isn't slow (excluding TV timeouts). There is constant action: depending on the level, you may have ~80 guys on a side, and a bunch of substitutions between plays. If you understand the teams, watching the substitutions, pre - snap looks and adjustments is quite interesting, and is occurring very quickly (even a team moving at a glacial pace has to get plays off every 40 seconds).
People that don't understand the sport may only focus on the game action, but that isn't a flaw with the game.
Ok, if you think watching people walking back to a huddle is "action" then I think you have proven the point I made earlier about people learning to accept that this slow paced game is in fact not slow at all. :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2014, 03:53:53 PM
Ok, if you think watching people walking back to a huddle is "action" then I think you have proven the point I made earlier about people learning to accept that this slow paced game is in fact not slow at all. :P
Probably the same way I think people talking in movies is more entertaining than 90 minutes of wall-to-wall explosions and car chases. Constant action is not entertaining. At least not to me. But I don't consider continuity of play sports as "action". Players are moving stuff around, setting up plays for awhile in soccer. In Basketball we all have to stop for a bit while the point guard calls the play and blah blah. They have their own stops and starts.
Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2014, 03:59:26 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2014, 03:53:53 PM
Ok, if you think watching people walking back to a huddle is "action" then I think you have proven the point I made earlier about people learning to accept that this slow paced game is in fact not slow at all. :P
Probably the same way I think people talking in movies is more entertaining than 90 minutes of wall-to-wall explosions and car chases. Constant action is not entertaining. At least not to me. But I don't consider continuity of play sports as "action". Players are moving stuff around, setting up plays for awhile in soccer. In Basketball we all have to stop for a bit while the point guard calls the play and blah blah. They have their own stops and starts.
You have made the all Martinus team with that analogy.
By definition walking back to a huddle is not part of the play. There is a stoppage in play to allow the players to regroup.
Besides, if you want a fast paced, continuous game with more physicality than basketball, you may want to watch handball. :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2014, 04:01:29 PM
By definition walking back to a huddle is not part of the play. There is a stoppage in play to allow the players to regroup.
Yes but when they are playing they are going 100% and it is pure violence and everybody is running as fast as they can. That hardly ever happens in basketball except for very short bursts as well because it cannot. So overall I do not see the big difference in the actual action. I think the little stoppages help me get a better grasp for the strategy and give me a second to digest what I just saw on the previous play. However, I have little problem talking about the strategy or discussing previous plays at a soccer match or basketball game because there is also plenty of downtime.
QuoteYou have made the all Martinus team with that analogy.
Oh for fucksake. :lol:
That is what walking back to the huddle is all about. Talking about the play, thinking about what happens next. Then you have the setup and then the action when the ball is snapped. Just like a drama you have the build up to the climax and then the ball is downed and we do it again. The exact same way you want a little time between explosions and car chases to build context and excitement.
Quote from: Syt on July 02, 2014, 04:05:42 PM
Besides, if you want a fast paced, continuous game with more physicality than basketball, you may want to watch handball. :P
Something that Iceland is good at? I don't know...
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 02, 2014, 03:03:36 PM
Baseball is a sport that is/was well suited for radio, the way the action unfolds it's a great sport to listen to when you're doing something else.
Yep. Great to listen to in the car or while I'm doing something around the house.
QuoteLikewise it's great to go see in person, because then it becomes a social activity, you can get some beers, talk with friends etc while the game is going on.
The "new" stadiums that replaced the 60s/70s cookie cutter stadiums helped this a lot. Especially if you have kids.
QuoteBut as a TV sport baseball is hard to watch because the breaks between the meaningful moments are long and terrible. When you're at a ballpark that doesn't bother you, but at home you just get bored.
I wish they ran the MLB StrikeZone channel more than twice a week. It's by far the best way to watch baseball on TV.
Quote from: Syt on July 02, 2014, 04:05:42 PM
Besides, if you want a fast paced, continuous game with more physicality than basketball, you may want to watch handball. :P
Actually I was surprised at how physical the world cup games have become now that we are in the elimination rounds. Granted there is still too much diving but a lot of the time people are going to ground for good reason now.
Handball is injuries galore. I follow the womens' games because the pace of the mens' games is just too high. :blush:
Quote from: Norgy on July 02, 2014, 04:17:41 PM
Handball is injuries galore. I follow the womens' games because the pace of the mens' games is just too high. :blush:
I only see it in the olympics but we dont get much coverage, mainly just highlights in a summary of what happened that day.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2014, 03:53:53 PM
Ok, if you think watching people walking back to a huddle is "action" then I think you have proven the point I made earlier about people learning to accept that this slow paced game is in fact not slow at all. :P
Well no. Admittedly this can be a challenge on television, but there are usually substitutions on offense, which are countered by substitutions on defense. It is something of a very time sensitive chess match--the personnel groupings to a large degree dictate what is going to happen in the next play.
If you think about it, you have a sideline of 80 players. In 40 seconds, you have to determine which 11 you want to have out on the field, what play you want to run, communicate it along with the play, along with what pre snap alignment you want to show and any motions to give clues of what the defense is doing and disguise what you want to do. The logistics of putting this together is not simple, and fast teams are doing it in ~15 seconds. Sometimes plays are changed based on reads as well. Complicating this is that most of the players are morons, and some basically illiterate.
If that gets to be too much to pay attention to, you also have cheerleaders to keep you entertained. I don't know of many of venues outside of high school and college games where you can stare for 3 hours at really young women in super short skirts doing all sorts of poses earnestly and have it still be socially acceptable.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 02, 2014, 04:22:02 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2014, 03:53:53 PM
Ok, if you think watching people walking back to a huddle is "action" then I think you have proven the point I made earlier about people learning to accept that this slow paced game is in fact not slow at all. :P
Well no. Admittedly this can be a challenge on television, but there are usually substitutions on offense, which are countered by substitutions on defense. It is something of a very time sensitive chess match--the personnel groupings to a large degree dictate what is going to happen in the next play.
If you think about it, you have a sideline of 80 players. In 40 seconds, you have to determine which 11 you want to have out on the field, what play you want to run, communicate it along with the play, along with what pre snap alignment you want to show and any motions to give clues of what the defense is doing and disguise what you want to do. The logistics of putting this together is not simple, and fast teams are doing it in ~15 seconds. Sometimes plays are changed based on reads as well. Complicating this is that most of the players are morons, and some basically illiterate.
If that gets to be too much to pay attention to, you also have cheerleaders to keep you entertained. I don't know of many of venues outside of high school and college games where you can stare for 3 hours at really young women in super short skirts doing all sorts of poses earnestly and have it still be socially acceptable.
Ok, you have explained some rationale for why there is such a long stoppage between plays. But the fact remains there are stoppages in play. The fan does not have to make any of the decisions to which you refer and so, for the viewer, it gets boring. Unless, as you said, one is really into cheerleaders.
If you are at the game and you really know a team, you can follow what is happening. Go to a team's message board and they will scream that the team is too predictable because based on some pre snap aspect they know what the next play will be. Or see that the defense is late with their substitutions and guys have to sprint to their positions from the sidelines.
A lot of time the play is won before it ever starts: a top receiver ends up being covered by a guy that really shouldn't cover someone, for instance.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 02, 2014, 04:39:36 PM
If you are at the game and you really know a team, you can follow what is happening. Go to a team's message board and they will scream that the team is too predictable because based on some pre snap aspect they know what the next play will be. Or see that the defense is late with their substitutions and guys have to sprint to their positions from the sidelines.
A lot of time the play is won before it ever starts: a top receiver ends up being covered by a guy that really shouldn't cover someone, for instance.
I think you have made my point. Football is a game of stoppages of play which are far more lengthy than the play itself. So much so that fans must distract themselves by having enough time to second guess coaching decisions which occur during the stoppages in play.
I'm saying the stoppages are interesting in themselves. If for no other reason, cheerleaders. :)
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2014, 04:48:07 PM
I think you have made my point. Football is a game of stoppages of play which are far more lengthy than the play itself. So much so that fans must distract themselves by having enough time to second guess coaching decisions which occur during the stoppages in play.
Your point is you don't like that. Our point is we do. The part where it gets stupid is you trying to claim that somehow TV and leagues had to convince us it was better when we already thought that before TV or leagues came along.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 02, 2014, 04:50:22 PM
I'm saying the stoppages are interesting in themselves. If for no other reason, cheerleaders. :)
It is probably my brain's inability to do more than one thing at a time but I never pay much attention to the cheerleaders during the games. Unless they are actually leading cheers but in the moderns stadium environment they rarely even do that anymore.
Sorry, cc, but I want some thinking in my sports. Constant motion is boring.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 02, 2014, 04:50:22 PM
I'm saying the stoppages are interesting in themselves. If for no other reason, cheerleaders. :)
But surely they're not always showing the correct shot for you to admire said cheerleaders?
Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2014, 04:51:16 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2014, 04:48:07 PM
I think you have made my point. Football is a game of stoppages of play which are far more lengthy than the play itself. So much so that fans must distract themselves by having enough time to second guess coaching decisions which occur during the stoppages in play.
Your point is you don't like that. Our point is we do.
No, when I first brought up the issue that football was slow paced there was all kinds of disagreement. Someone even tried to suggest it was fast paced. Now you people seem to agree that football is slow paced but you embrace the stoppages in play.
I've been to exactly one NFL game. It was a preseason game, and one thing I noticed is there were dudes down in the front row corner that never took their eyes off the cheerleaders. If there was a score they might have watched the replay on the jumbotron.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 02, 2014, 05:00:27 PM
Sorry, cc, but I want some thinking in my sports. Constant motion is boring.
:lol:
You mean you need time to think?
I am beginning to see why Americans like slow paced sports :P
Maybe Republicans lean that way after all.
It would be nice if grumbler were to show up in this thread. I want to hear what he has to say about this.
Quote from: Neil on July 02, 2014, 05:19:57 PM
It would be nice if grumbler were to show up in this thread. I want to hear what he has to say about this.
I'd be interested in his thoughts on the topic as well, but we are closing in on 100 replies. Imagine all the grammar errors he would need to pounce on before he could share his thoughts on the topic at hand.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 02, 2014, 05:28:58 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 02, 2014, 05:19:57 PM
It would be nice if grumbler were to show up in this thread. I want to hear what he has to say about this.
I'd be interested in his thoughts on the topic as well, but we are closing in on 100 replies. Imagine all the grammar errors he would need to pounce on before he could share his thoughts on the topic at hand.
CC's in the thread; he'll skip the grammar in favour of the jugular.
Quote from: Agelastus on July 02, 2014, 05:30:06 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 02, 2014, 05:28:58 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 02, 2014, 05:19:57 PM
It would be nice if grumbler were to show up in this thread. I want to hear what he has to say about this.
I'd be interested in his thoughts on the topic as well, but we are closing in on 100 replies. Imagine all the grammar errors he would need to pounce on before he could share his thoughts on the topic at hand.
CC's in the thread; he'll skip the grammar in favour of the jugular.
And so the balance of nature is preserved...
Quote from: Agelastus on July 02, 2014, 05:30:06 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 02, 2014, 05:28:58 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 02, 2014, 05:19:57 PM
It would be nice if grumbler were to show up in this thread. I want to hear what he has to say about this.
I'd be interested in his thoughts on the topic as well, but we are closing in on 100 replies. Imagine all the grammar errors he would need to pounce on before he could share his thoughts on the topic at hand.
CC's in the thread; he'll skip the grammar in favour of the jugular.
pfft,
At a mere 6'3'' he could barely get a good shot in at my shoulders before he hit the ground like a flopping Dutch striker.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 02, 2014, 05:28:58 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 02, 2014, 05:19:57 PM
It would be nice if grumbler were to show up in this thread. I want to hear what he has to say about this.
I'd be interested in his thoughts on the topic as well, but we are closing in on 100 replies. Imagine all the grammar errors he would need to pounce on before he could share his thoughts on the topic at hand.
You mean the grumbler who thinks "charactor" is a word? ;)
Quote from: viper37 on July 02, 2014, 02:35:25 PM
Soccer is fun to play. But to watch, is often boring. But that US-Belgium game yesterday was fantastic. :yeah:
Caring who wins makes a really big difference.
I didn't care much for watching sports until I was an adult. I admit that soccer game was fun to watch.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2014, 05:01:07 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2014, 04:51:16 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2014, 04:48:07 PM
I think you have made my point. Football is a game of stoppages of play which are far more lengthy than the play itself. So much so that fans must distract themselves by having enough time to second guess coaching decisions which occur during the stoppages in play.
Your point is you don't like that. Our point is we do.
No, when I first brought up the issue that football was slow paced there was all kinds of disagreement. Someone even tried to suggest it was fast paced. Now you people seem to agree that football is slow paced but you embrace the stoppages in play.
You just said it was slow. I won't argue that the overall pace is slow. My point was that the action was fast. But as usual you ignored important parts of my argument.
Quote from: Viking on July 02, 2014, 06:49:22 PM
Quote from: viper37 on July 02, 2014, 02:35:25 PM
Soccer is fun to play. But to watch, is often boring. But that US-Belgium game yesterday was fantastic. :yeah:
Caring who wins makes a really big difference.
This is the problem soccer has in the US. Hockey too, to an extent. The US gets behind the international teams, but we just don't have personal connections with the professional clubs (an exception being in the northeast in the US for hockey).
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 02, 2014, 03:48:35 PM:huh:
You asked me whether the CFL was more popular than soccer in Canada.
I'm aware--but you also pointed out that soccer is "by far the most played" sport in Canada in addition to answering the CFL question. I wasn't sure if this was you saying soccer is the most popular sport in Canada or not. So I brought up that I (assumed) hockey is Canada's most popular sport even if it isn't Canada's most played sport.
This would mirror the situation in America where football is by far our most popular sport (as measured by fan interest, various polls, and television ratings--live attendance is murkier due to the other sports having vastly more games but per game football is much higher) but is not our most played sport.
I'm not sure how they'd rank, but I know bowling is generally claimed to be the most played sport. But bowling is seriously questionable as a sport (as it very nearly requires no athleticism, it couldn't be played by a quadriplegic but it stretches the already murky definition of sport.) After that baseball and its derivatives and soccer would rank very, very highly. Primarily because both have robust amateur leagues from very young ages up through adulthood. I know tons of people who are on adult baseball or softball teams and some who are in soccer leagues as well. Even for the kiddos, there's usually lots of opportunities to play baseball outside of the school system--Little League for example goes up through High School age and is separate from the schools (usually around here the kids who can't make the cut on the High School team will play Little League, but in some areas where the schools aren't big into it Little League has the best kids of that age.) Little League alone has 3m players annually, and this is only kids 4-18, and doesn't count the school system leagues and all the adult leagues.
Football on the other hand is basically exclusively played:
1. In "midget leagues", which are for kids typically grades 4/5/6.
2. In school teams for jr/sr/college kids.
3. Professionally (NFL mostly, Arena football in some form still exists etc.)
There aren't all these other leagues for football, largely because there aren't enough people interested in playing. You don't casually play full contact football into middle age like you might do with softball. I know a lot of people who have wrecked knees for life just from playing football for a few years in their late teens. To be honest football is a terrible sport for your health because of the way it evolved to emphasize maximum impact collisions (Rugby or Australian Rules Football players just don't lay each other out like that because the lack of armor makes it basically insane to do so, armor allows it to happen and prevents the immediate term catastrophic damage most of the time, but the long term problems are definitely there even aside from the concussion stuff.) Even aside from the health concerns, full contact football, like hockey, is expensive. Lots of expensive equipment, and you need big teams etc.
Flag football is played somewhat though, but that's different enough from tackle football as to not be the same thing (to me it's a much bigger difference than say, baseball vs softball, which are almost the same sport with slightly different equipment.)
By most played sport I meant by kids and teenagers. I dont know what the most played sport for adults might be in Canada. It is probably hockey as a lot of mens leagues have limited hitting rules and so it is a low impact sport compared to say basketball which remains hard on the joints (all that running and jumping). As a result kids that played hockey continue to do so well into their adult years. Not so much for basketball. I also suspect curling is up there in terms of adult participation (as much as it pains me to say).
Baseball is upthere too for Adults.
Baseball or softball?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 03, 2014, 11:36:08 AM
By most played sport I meant by kids and teenagers. I dont know what the most played sport for adults might be in Canada. It is probably hockey as a lot of mens leagues have limited hitting rules and so it is a low impact sport compared to say basketball which remains hard on the joints (all that running and jumping). As a result kids that played hockey continue to do so well into their adult years. Not so much for basketball. I also suspect curling is up there in terms of adult participation (as much as it pains me to say).
According to curling.ca there are 653,000 curlers in Canada, or 2.2% of the entire population.
I don't think it's #1 in terms of participation, but it's right up there.
Is there a way to straighten curlers?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 03, 2014, 11:36:08 AM
By most played sport I meant by kids and teenagers. I dont know what the most played sport for adults might be in Canada. It is probably hockey as a lot of mens leagues have limited hitting rules and so it is a low impact sport compared to say basketball which remains hard on the joints (all that running and jumping). As a result kids that played hockey continue to do so well into their adult years. Not so much for basketball. I also suspect curling is up there in terms of adult participation (as much as it pains me to say).
Apparently the #1 sport in Canada for participation is golf, followed by hockey, then swimming.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-595-m/2008060/t-c-g/c-g9-eng.htm
One problem though is that this is adult participation, so adding kids might sway things.
Curling doesn't even hit the top ten. :cry:
Quote from: Barrister on July 03, 2014, 12:39:11 PM
Apparently the #1 sport in Canada for participation is golf
I would never have guessed that. I wonder if that captures all the people who dont actually play but feel obliged to show up to charity/company/industry golf events. I have to do that but I am by no means a golfer.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 03, 2014, 12:14:37 PM
Baseball or softball?
In my experience there's about a 75/25 split in terms of softball/baseball and adult leagues. The big hangup for adult baseball leagues is finding people that know how to pitch a baseball well enough to play regular games, with softball basically anyone can pitch. I was on an adult baseball league for ages but eventually gravitated toward softball just due to the leagues being much more popular, a lot of games get cancelled in the local adult baseball league due to no-shows.
I don't think I've ever heard of an adult playing hardball, whereas you can't turn around without bumping into an office softball league.
Softball is much better for non-athletic types which is why it annoys me that hard core jock women have to play it seriously. Um if baseball worked for the women of the 40s surely this generation can do it.
Women can't pitch overhand because their boobs get in the way.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 03, 2014, 12:51:13 PM
I don't think I've ever heard of an adult playing hardball, whereas you can't turn around without bumping into an office softball league.
Around here they exist, they've had hardball leagues everywhere I've lived, but like I said games often get canceled due to low turnout. When I still played there was a 19+ league and a 30+ league, in general the 19+ league was mostly really good HS or college players who were done w/school and still wanted to play in their spare time (but obviously weren't good enough for pro or anything), the 30+ league had a lot of geezers who couldn't move so well. I always advocated we combine the two leagues and have tryouts, as you could have had a lot of actual games if you did that instead of all the cancellations. But older guys didn't want to get embarrassed due to their inability to move.
The old Slave Leagues were best.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 03, 2014, 01:08:48 PM
Women can't pitch overhand because their boobs get in the way.
Fat people aren't usually good at sports regardless.
Quote from: Barrister on July 03, 2014, 12:19:13 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 03, 2014, 11:36:08 AM
By most played sport I meant by kids and teenagers. I dont know what the most played sport for adults might be in Canada. It is probably hockey as a lot of mens leagues have limited hitting rules and so it is a low impact sport compared to say basketball which remains hard on the joints (all that running and jumping). As a result kids that played hockey continue to do so well into their adult years. Not so much for basketball. I also suspect curling is up there in terms of adult participation (as much as it pains me to say).
According to curling.ca there are 653,000 curlers in Canada, or 2.2% of the entire population.
I don't think it's #1 in terms of participation, but it's right up there.
It's really catching on in Mexico.
http://youtu.be/p7w_S5zme5Y
Some good friends of mine play in an old man baseball league. They actually won a "national championship" a couple of years ago. They also play against Jose Canseco the next year in the same tournament.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 03, 2014, 01:08:48 PM
Women can't pitch overhand because their boobs get in the way.
Are you pulling my leg here?
Mostly.
I know there are at least a few women who can throw because I've watched Lingerie League football.
(https://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/non-native-american-nations-territorial-claims-over-nafta-countries-1750-2008.gif)
Seige's map is incorrect when it just awards the entire artic archipelago to the Uk in the early 19th century. That area was largely unexplored until the late 19th and even early 20th century. Arguable Norway had proper title to certain areas, but they were sold to the UK (and then in turn handed over to Canada).
Its sad to watch the Pacific Northwest lost to the Crown.