|
On March 15 2013 04:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 04:45 Ysellian wrote:On March 15 2013 04:39 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 15 2013 04:32 warding wrote:Stratos_speAR, it's funny you mention american sports. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NBA_championsTwo teams have dominated the NBA historically, and its rise in popularity in the 80s was due in large part to the Lakers vs Celtics rivalry. The NBA also proves the point that having a lot of money concentrated on one league may be good, because that allows to have the best talent in the world playing in the best league. And the NBA has a lower average attendance than the NHL, which isn't even a U.S. sport. That actually supports my point quite well, not to mention the fact that the NBA still has a draft system and salary caps, which soccer doesn't. Wow I didn't know that. I actually googled it because I didn't believe you (sorry  ), but low attendance seems to be a big problem for the NBA. Why is that? Basketball is mostly popular in highly urban areas, and American culture still has a significant rural influence on it, so popularity for it isn't as widespread. Furthermore, youth programs tend to be dominated by other sports; high school and college football are dominant in pretty much every southern state, and high school and college hockey dominate the upper midwest; basketball is most popular at the youth level in states like Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. Racial divides could have something to do with it as well. I don't actually have numbers for this, but I would be willing to say that the NBA is the most disproportionate sport in terms of black:other races of players, and so it could be a sub-cultural thing, with other races being bigger fans of other sports. White folks are especially fans of football, hockey, and baseball, and the Hispanic population overwhelmingly loves baseball and soccer. Also, the NBA is recently having some image problems; a lot of players seem to look like they're into it more for the money than the game itself. Finally, a lot of NBA markets are doing very poorly. Golden State, Sacremento, Minnesota, Charlotte, Orlando, and many other places have consistently poor-performing teams, meaning that their attendance numbers will continue to drop. Oh, and they have to compete with football (the American sport), baseball (the traditionally American sport), and hockey (the Gospel of Canada and a sport that is slowly invading the U.S. from the north).
Even more than rural culture having an influence: where basketball is the biggest cultural institution, among inner city blacks, they can't really afford tickets to go to NBA games. The upper middle class (who are the most frequent attendees of all sports I'm pretty sure) isn't as into it. And in the midwest where there are traditionally many white fans, NCAA basketball is the dominant force rather than the NBA.
|
|
|
On March 15 2013 04:52 warding wrote:
I'm arguing for two things:
Having a lot of money concentrated into one league is good. This is what happens with the NBA in comparison with other basketball leagues around the world. The world's best players flock to the NBA because they earn more, which makes for better quality. Given that we all have cable tv and internet, we don't need a lot of local leagues with quality, we only need one super league with a lot of quality. Which is why it's better for football fans to have a lot of quality concentrated in the Premiership and/or La Liga than to have it spread around all the different national leagues - or why they should create a super league.
Story lines are created through rivalries which entices fans. Often the best rivalries are generated between two teams that are consistently dominant over team in a league. So having a select few teams being consistently dominant over time, is great for the sport because it creates story lines that people are drawn to. That can partly explain why the NBA is so popular around the world whereas outside North America (and selected Latin American countries + Japan) no one cares about baseball or american football. I'm not sure european fans of ice hockey care that much about the NHL but that would be interesting to know. Having your Jacksonville Pussycats competing for titles might be great for the local folk, but outsiders are looking for storylines to follow.
Again, you can't use U.S. leagues as an example of why it's good to have all the money in one league for a particular sport. Why? 1) Your example uses the worst-attended sport in the U.S., even worse than MLS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Soccer_attendance#MLS_average_attendance_vs._other_US_major_sports
2) There are a huge amount of reasons that the the U.S. leagues dominate. When U.S. leagues were first forming and becoming popular, the U.S. was a much more attractive place to be and live than other places, especially since when these leagues were first growing in the U.S., other countries didn't have leagues that could compete. Now the U.S. has juggernaut leagues while other countries are just beginning to develop leagues in these sports.
Rivalries hardly follow the best teams. The Minnesota Vikings and Green Bay Packers (NFL) have one of the most intense rivalries in the world; the Packers were TERRIBLE from the 60's-80's and the Vikings have never won a Super Bowl. The Jets vs. the Giants is another incredibly passionate rivalry and neither team has ever dominated in the fashion of the 49'ers, Cowboys, Steelers, or Patriots. The Red Sox vs. Yankee's (MLB) is an interesting one because the Red Sox didn't win a World Series for 80+ years, and yet it's one of the most popular baseball teams. White Sox and Cubs? The Cubs haven't won a World Series for something like 100+ years and the White Sox have never dominated like the Yankees have. Blues vs. Blackhawks (NHL)? Blackhawks vs. Red Wings? Wild vs. Predators? Habs vs. Bruins? Rangers vs. Bruins? Cannucks vs. Blackhawks? The NHL is by far the most competitive league and has hardly been dominated by team for decades.
And yes, the NHL is the hockey league, just like the NBA/MLB are the leagues for those sports.
|
uhh, the commentator just said penalty shootout is out of the question now in inter-tottenham. Surely that can't be true?
|
On March 15 2013 05:17 HwangjaeTerran wrote:
uhh, the commentator just said penalty shootout is out of the question now in inter-tottenham. Surely that can't be true?
Why can't it be true? Tottenham have the tiebreaker with the away goal now.
|
On March 15 2013 05:19 city42 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 05:17 HwangjaeTerran wrote:
uhh, the commentator just said penalty shootout is out of the question now in inter-tottenham. Surely that can't be true? Why can't it be true? Tottenham have the tiebreaker with the away goal now.
But the first game can't go to extra-time, so how is that fair?
|
On March 15 2013 05:19 HwangjaeTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 05:19 city42 wrote:On March 15 2013 05:17 HwangjaeTerran wrote:
uhh, the commentator just said penalty shootout is out of the question now in inter-tottenham. Surely that can't be true? Why can't it be true? Tottenham have the tiebreaker with the away goal now. But the first game can't go to extra-time, so how is that fair?
It's not. It's a part of the rules I really hate as well, extra time should start with a clean slate.
|
On March 15 2013 05:19 HwangjaeTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 05:19 city42 wrote:On March 15 2013 05:17 HwangjaeTerran wrote:
uhh, the commentator just said penalty shootout is out of the question now in inter-tottenham. Surely that can't be true? Why can't it be true? Tottenham have the tiebreaker with the away goal now. But the first game can't go to extra-time, so how is that fair?
I'm not too much a fan of the rule, but then again, think of the two legs as one very long game.
HAH Inter scores again.
|
On March 15 2013 05:19 HwangjaeTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 05:19 city42 wrote:On March 15 2013 05:17 HwangjaeTerran wrote:
uhh, the commentator just said penalty shootout is out of the question now in inter-tottenham. Surely that can't be true? Why can't it be true? Tottenham have the tiebreaker with the away goal now. But the first game can't go to extra-time, so how is that fair?
It's not fair at all but it's the rule. As Ysellian said, extra time should start with a clean slate.
|
On March 15 2013 05:20 Ysellian wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 05:19 HwangjaeTerran wrote:On March 15 2013 05:19 city42 wrote:On March 15 2013 05:17 HwangjaeTerran wrote:
uhh, the commentator just said penalty shootout is out of the question now in inter-tottenham. Surely that can't be true? Why can't it be true? Tottenham have the tiebreaker with the away goal now. But the first game can't go to extra-time, so how is that fair? It's not. It's a part of the rules I really hate as well, extra time should start with a clean slate.
It's sort of made up for in getting to play the extra time at home (usually your better leg) I guess so each side has an advantage, but it's really weird still.
|
I'd say getting to play at home first is an advantage.
e. ah, Torres starting against Steaua :D
|
Inter may have lost, but it feels like they were the moral victors. To come back from 3-0 down in the first leg the way that they did, incredible.
|
Dembele's back must hurt from carrying so hard.
|
Watching Lazio vs Stuttgart is sooo weird. The stadium is completly empty. Its so silent, all you can hear is the occasinal screams from players and coaches. Like it was a practice match.
|
Screw away goals in Extra time. Doesn't make any sense ahhhhh  . But hey that was a heck of a performance by Inter <3!
|
and people dont say bale carries tottenham... hes out and they have noone who can run with the ball and draw fouls relieving pressure at the back!
|
On March 15 2013 04:25 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 01:07 Passion wrote:On March 15 2013 00:41 warding wrote:
You guys realize that by saying that most of the Spanish league sucks actually supports my argument? Most of the Spanish league sucks because not enough rich guys have bought teams there -> there is not enough money in the smaller teams. The Premiership is better precisely because more teams have more money.
I also agree that the German league is fun to watch... for Germans. Just not so much for the rest of the world compared with the Premiership or La Liga.
EDIT: The relevance of clubs not having debts to the watchability of a football league = 0. German league is a lot more fun to watch than the Spanish one, and to be honest, a lot better (the two might be related). Sure, Spain has two inflated super teams, but this does only so much for the quality of the league as a whole. Especially when looking at viewing pleasure, this league has barely anything to offer - barely a couple of teams play interesting, offensive football and I'd say none come anywhere close to the dedication and power of German teams. Hell, I'd almost rather watch the Italian league than the Spanish one. You also completely fail to understand the role of money in football. "There is not enough money in the smaller teams"... I think just about every true football fan will rather watch a bunch of local youngsters that managed to be forged into a true team perform well than seeing Chelsea/Man. City/Real/... Besides, as briefly pointed out before, football is so much more than money or the individual quality of players or even the general quality of the teams. I actually enjoy watching the Dutch league, not only because I'm Dutch, but mainly because of its super offensive playstyle. Sure, the defensive mistake frequently made sometimes make me slap myself. But the game as a whole is a lot more fun to watch. Similar reasons cause me enjoying the English and German leagues a lot more than the Spanish one (to be honest, I mostly have a hard time watching all league matches there as they just bore me to death). snip
I've always thought that the lack of playoffs with soccer was boring, but honestly I have to admit I like the Champions League more, and it'd be really hard to have playoffs in soccer without shortening the season, because the offseason is short enough as it is, and they usually have international competitions in the summer after the season (World Cup, Euro, etc.) And between the league, UCL/Europa, domestic cups and (for some players) international games, teams in the top flight are already playing a ridiculous amount of games.
I remember we were talking about the EPL, La Liga, and the Bundesliga being locked up in January. Who wants to watch that? I definitely agree they need more competition, because for some teams, it seems like the league is just a formality to get to the UCL. Though I wish American sports had something similar to relegation to keep fans interested in crappy teams in the current season, rather than just the future, because it seems like most of the bottom teams are there because their front office sucks.
I'm a lifelong Detroit Lions fan (hometown team), and it's damn depressing. You have hope at the beginning of the year like you said, then after 4-5 games your season in essentially over and there's no reason to care at all anymore. Teams that don't have a chance to win a title in soccer at least have avoiding relegation, competing for European qualification, or domestic cup(s) to play for.
Regarding the NBA, they actually had a discussion about the (lack of) competition in the league in the NBA thread here on TL, and one of the reasons that they came up with was the shallow talent pool. The NBA has three types of teams. Teams with the superstars that will compete for the title (think the Heat, Spurs, Thunder, Bulls, Clippers, Celtics, etc.), the teams with decent talent and maybe a couple all stars that will cap out in the first-second round (Jazz, Pacers, Nets, Grizzlies, etc.), then the lottery teams. It's sad but, the NBA is a star league, you need stars to win, and there's only so many to go around. It's honestly not too different from soccer. Sure it has a much bigger and diverse talent pool, but you still need world class players if you want to win the Champions League.
Lastly, I don't think it's fair to call teams like Man U, Real, Barca, and Bayern are part of the problem. Yes they splash the cash, but they generate their own revenue by having decades of success and being a global brand. Hating on them for having money is like hating on the New York Yankees for having money. The problem is the sugar daddy teams like Chelsea, Man City, and PSG who inflate the market after buying players at prices above their market value.
On March 15 2013 05:30 HwangjaeTerran wrote:
I'd say getting to play at home first is an advantage.
e. ah, Torres starting against Steaua :D
Well who else is gonna start? Ba is cup-tied
Also Rafa SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU PLAY TERRY. HE DOES GOOD STUFF
And wtf Torres scored, what an odd game.
|
On March 15 2013 05:56 TerransHill wrote:
Watching Lazio vs Stuttgart is sooo weird. The stadium is completly empty. Its so silent, all you can hear is the occasinal screams from players and coaches. Like it was a practice match.
that's what you call a ghost-game.
|
Also no sympathy for Steaua, they are playing like a bunch of thugs. That one guy just grabs Juan Mata's shirtsleeve from behind to drag him down, them another guy kicks Torres in the face when he's on the ground.
Wow Torres is just carving the defense open this game.
Why would you have Torres take the penalty and not Mata? wtf
|
On March 15 2013 06:35 mevshero wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 05:56 TerransHill wrote:
Watching Lazio vs Stuttgart is sooo weird. The stadium is completly empty. Its so silent, all you can hear is the occasinal screams from players and coaches. Like it was a practice match. that's what you call a ghost-game.
yes i just dont recall ever watching one on tv. its kinda fascinating, like watching 2 small village clubs play.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
