Rev-eler
30 Jul 2002, 11:07 AM
"Soccer is boring b/c it is low scoring"
Many fans of the other major sports have bandied this phrase around. Perhaps none more vocal about throwing this anti soccer sentiment around than those fans of the NFL….and more specifically our patriot "big brothers". last night on sports radio….i once again heard ron borges (of the globe) throw this phrase around. I called over and got on with him. mostly to dispell his assertion that Lance Amstrong is not a great "athlete" and that the sport he mainly writes about "boxing" is watched live and on t.v. in the u.s. by far far fewer people than watch soccer. he again told me there is no scoring in soccer….so I countered with the fact that the revs have played 20 games this year so far and 1/3rd (I believe) have had 5 goals or more scored in them. and, the revs have been on the losing AND winning end of these results…..to which I got no answer.
so, I did a bit of research to further bring the "scoring" of american football in line with its world counterpart.
assumptions:
1. the inflationary nature of football scoring propogates this myth to a large extent (obvious)
I grew up playing asteroids, for example. back then, I think hitting the big asteroid was 10pts….med was 25….small may have been 50. now, you'd be hard pressed to find a video game where picking up a rock gets you less than 1,000. its clearly a matter of scale that soccer has to fight in this argument
2. that field goals are nothing but door prizes for "failing".
When a team gains possession of the football. Is there ever a time where they go after a field goal? Does one really ever hear anything other than "well, the patriots will settle for the field goal here. Even with the game on the line and they say "well, the pats just need to get into field goal range"……a team is always going to move the ball as close to the endzone as possible until such time that they think its too risky to keep that mentality and get prepared for the next best option…a field goal.
so, given that…..(1 touchdown=1 goal) i looked up the pat's scores for the 16 regular season games and 3 post-season games and compared them to the first 19 games for the revs:
revs matches: 34 goals for, 42 against….4.0 total gpg
pats contests: 49 goals for, 31 against…..4.2 total gpg
forget that silly "shootout" to appease the american fanbase...all we need to do is erect a couple of 30 foot high vertical bars to the top of the goalmouth and make goals worth 2pts. and, if the revs feel like "gosh, its just to hard to get past this san jose defense"... well, we'll just let 'em kick a bomb from 40 yds out, thru the uprights for the 1 pt booby prize.
i think i'll call borges to see if he'll like soccer better if we can get this done.
;)
Many fans of the other major sports have bandied this phrase around. Perhaps none more vocal about throwing this anti soccer sentiment around than those fans of the NFL….and more specifically our patriot "big brothers". last night on sports radio….i once again heard ron borges (of the globe) throw this phrase around. I called over and got on with him. mostly to dispell his assertion that Lance Amstrong is not a great "athlete" and that the sport he mainly writes about "boxing" is watched live and on t.v. in the u.s. by far far fewer people than watch soccer. he again told me there is no scoring in soccer….so I countered with the fact that the revs have played 20 games this year so far and 1/3rd (I believe) have had 5 goals or more scored in them. and, the revs have been on the losing AND winning end of these results…..to which I got no answer.
so, I did a bit of research to further bring the "scoring" of american football in line with its world counterpart.
assumptions:
1. the inflationary nature of football scoring propogates this myth to a large extent (obvious)
I grew up playing asteroids, for example. back then, I think hitting the big asteroid was 10pts….med was 25….small may have been 50. now, you'd be hard pressed to find a video game where picking up a rock gets you less than 1,000. its clearly a matter of scale that soccer has to fight in this argument
2. that field goals are nothing but door prizes for "failing".
When a team gains possession of the football. Is there ever a time where they go after a field goal? Does one really ever hear anything other than "well, the patriots will settle for the field goal here. Even with the game on the line and they say "well, the pats just need to get into field goal range"……a team is always going to move the ball as close to the endzone as possible until such time that they think its too risky to keep that mentality and get prepared for the next best option…a field goal.
so, given that…..(1 touchdown=1 goal) i looked up the pat's scores for the 16 regular season games and 3 post-season games and compared them to the first 19 games for the revs:
revs matches: 34 goals for, 42 against….4.0 total gpg
pats contests: 49 goals for, 31 against…..4.2 total gpg
forget that silly "shootout" to appease the american fanbase...all we need to do is erect a couple of 30 foot high vertical bars to the top of the goalmouth and make goals worth 2pts. and, if the revs feel like "gosh, its just to hard to get past this san jose defense"... well, we'll just let 'em kick a bomb from 40 yds out, thru the uprights for the 1 pt booby prize.
i think i'll call borges to see if he'll like soccer better if we can get this done.
;)