Sporting KC at Houston Sunday Nov 4, 2:30 p/i/p [R]

We'll be playing in Chicago or Houston on Sunday the 4th. We don't exactly have a stellar record against either one of those two teams over the last few years. They play each other first on Wednesday though in Chicago.

I am rooting for Chicago to win against Houston on Wednesday. I really think our chances are better against Chicago. I thought we looked really good against Chicago home and away this year. Houston just plays against us really well from a visual point of view.

+1. Neither Chicago or Houston are in the best form as of late, so the seeding probably turned out as good as it could have for us. I think DC is in better form to beat NY.

We pulled a Dom on the Fire in September, containing Chris Rolfe and completely stifling their attack. I imagine we could do the same, even in cold rainy awful Toyota Park this time.

And honestly, a 13 hour drive to Houston compared to a free ride to Chicago is a big difference.

So long as Sly James, Frank Haith, and Bill Self are with us, who can be against us.

Too bad the game isnt on a Saturday for travel.

NBC doesn't show football during the day, that's CBS and Fox.

I like to call it handegg.

My choice is for Houston, a chance to exorcise any restless spirits of last year. I think that a win over either, both teams that have been an issue for us, is a good start to the playoffs.

i tend to call it olive ball. from 橄榄球. which means "olive ball."

Haha, that picture created many great sports conversations at work. I have another graphic from the Wall Street Journal that shows how little "ball in play" time there is in a typical handegg match.
I will miss those conversations.

It's less than that, it is about 6 to 8 minutes and the average play last about 6 seconds. I love the game but it is astonishing how ridiculous those numbers are. What is even more astonishing is that American football fans accuse soccer of being boring.

I honestly think the average American sports fan needs well defined moments to enjoy. A touchdown is big. A home run is big. A goal is big. But a great sliding tackle the breaks up a 2 on 1? A lofted ball in that makes a defender turn and put the ball across his own line? 4 guys stepping up at the same moment to trap a guy offsides? That's so not intuitive to most people that I can understand why people aren't into it. They're just not sure what they're watching.

I've gotten my father in-law into SKC and after six or so weeks of me talking the rules through to him, he's walked out of a nil-nil game blown away by what he saw.

And I do love me some american football, and I'll even watch baseball if it's like Cubs-Cardinals or Yankees-Redsox, but I honestly think American sports fans enjoy big, defined, "scores" more than they do actual run of play game stuff. No one likes a 3 yard run unless it results in a first down. Who cares about a single unless it drives in a run? Without some immediate metric to tell you how good a pass was, I just don't think a lot of people who didn't grow up with the game really understand how much a well timed tackle resulting in a throw in that lets your defense reset can be enjoyable.

Oh lord that was a lot of words.....

Anyway, yeah, Buzkashi is the best sport ever.

while i basically agree with your post here, i think the real reason is something that you touched on in the meat of your post. it's ignorance. i know that word has a very negative connotation (commonly misused as another way to call someone stupid), but it's not meant to be an insult in this instance. it's just saying that the average american isn't fully informed on it. it's not because americans on the whole are dumb and can't "get it." jough, you described it perfectly when describing how you've brought your dad around. quite simply, when you understand the 'why,' you can appreciate the 'how' and the 'what.'

You're exactly right. I have sat down and had this conversation with soccer bashers a lot over the years and when I break it down with the numbers of the lack of game play in both baseball and football, they really do not have any response for it. As a recent article said, sports fandom is a generational thing and MLS is behind a few generations of the other leagues. Some people think that sports fandom is chosen by location but actually sports fandom is something that is usually inherited from fathers, grandfathers, uncles, family friends, etc. People who grew up watching MLS as kid's now have their kids so the league is really only on it's second generation. It is important that current MLS fans keep their kids intertested and make them fans for life so that their kids are also fans and so on. When we have our third and fourth generation inheriting their fandom is when this league will truly take off. When a grandfather, son, and grandson attend games together all having grown up watching the league is when we will be at the level of the other leagues.

I also think the one game a week, 16 game schedule helps the NFL. Every game has a lot of meaning and having a defined day for the sport does a lot for it. The job the NFL has done over the past 3 decades building their product is a sample to be followed. Fortunately, I think MLS is doing a great job as well. The NBA and NHL have suffered due to strikes, lockouts, player behavior, and a number of other problems and MLB struggles with a huge parity issue. NASCAR is even seeing a decline in their fanbase so that leaves a perfect window for MLS to gain some ground on their competition.

I was 16 when I went to my first wizards game. I am now 33. I do not have kids but most of my friends do. They are age 1-5. In the next 10 years their will be a lot of interested teens watching their parents sport. It is this group when they hit their 20's when you will see massive interest. 20 years and this is a top tier sport (NFL) We do not overtake it, but it will be as big as EPL with a broad american appeal.

you know, it's flat-out phenomenal where the league is when you consider what the salary cap is for each team ... and then compare that to every other professional league in this country.

+1 here.

a possible MLS golden age on the horizon -- Money hath yet to ruin her?

It lead me to calculate the ratio of NFL touchdowns divided by real time versus EPL goal scoring / real time. By kicking out field goals (bc those are "boring"), and dividing by real time, the amount of tds in NFL was basically level with goals in EPL that year.

I thought it was interesting last night at Grinders when PV came out and said if we play Chicago, it will be interesting to watch/attacking soccer; whereas if we play Houston, it'll be a "battle" i.e. real fooking ugly, and not for casual observers.

Also thought it was interesting that Collin mentioned our average attendance > Ligue 1 average. That said, Im sure some (my girlfriend included) didn't really care what he said, so long as it was spoken with an accent, while wearing sparkly shoes.

I always like to reference Seattle and Portland when I use this argument. They have been around for 30-40 years. They do have the 2-3 generations of support for the team, and look at what they are able to do now.

Okay, let's do this.

If my counting is correct (and it may not be, bit of a pre-Halloween hangover and not quite through my first coffee) the Chiefs scored 20 TDs in 2011, good enough for second to last in the NFL. If an NFL game is 210 minutes long ("realtime"), that means the Chiefs scored every 168 minutes (16 * 210/20).

They had 24 field goals. If we include those, the scoring rate drops to a score every 76 minutes.

SKC scored 50 goals in 34 regular season game. If each match lasts 120 minutes, that means SKC was scoring at a rate of one goal every 82 minutes. So SKC scores much more often than the Chiefs find the endzone, and only a little slower than any Chiefs score.

Now looking at league wide, the average 2011 NFL game had 44.4 points scored. Let's just say seven touchdowns in each game. So at an average NFL game, you're seeing a scoring play about every 30 minutes.

In 2011 the average MLS game had 2.58 goals scored. That's a scoring play about every 47 minutes.

So American football scores a little more often than MLS soccer, but not by much. And Kansas City soccer scores more often than Kansas City football (if you exclude field goals).

If you wanna look at the Premier League as a better counterpoint to the NFL, there were 2.8 goals scored per game in 2011, which would drop the soccer number to a scoring play every 43 minutes.

In short, I really don't think there's much to the argument that soccer is a low scoring game, but who needs facts, right?