Timon: it's not ridiculous to propose changes to the rules/laws of game. Like I said, changes are made to all sports from time to time. It's my bad for suggesting it in this particular thread and then doubling down on that error by supporting my opinion and other tangential opinions based on anecdotal evidence to a crowd more plugged into the game than I am. I've looked up your posting history/record and I can comfortably admit that you know way more about the game than I do. So yeah, I'm walking my statements way back. But the manner in which you present your arguments is so immature that I initially questioned whether or not I was going back and forth with some dorky teen with nothing else going on in his life but this forum.
Listen, there are changes to the game, and then there are changes to the game. The backpass rule, the constant tweaks to offside, etc. those are unobtrusive changes that do not change the character of the game while still (generally) improving it, especially the first one. Fiddling with who can occupy what space when and in what situations and/or how they may conduct themselves therein, or changing the dimensions of the goal are far more disruptive and fundamentally change the game. This is how you get futsal, Rugby sevens, and other unique offshoots to established sports. Fundamentally changing the game so that the game can appeal to people who almost certainly will never accept it is stupid, foolhardy, and (American) chauvinist. The game is actually doing pretty damn well as it is. The rest of the world need not be sacrificed for a bunch of hayseeds who will find something else to complain about when you scratch a particular itch - this is especially true as adoption of the game in the US has been fantastic in recent years. Of all the descriptors of "my posting style" that I've heard, immature is the one that makes the least sense. This is a (relatively) open forum. Big claims require some manner of evidence. People who have posted on BigSoccer far longer than I have have dealt with these same damn arguments for decades, going back before BigSoccer has existed, back to the NASL days. There's a certain amount of institutional impatience. If you can't take a little sarcasm or a little ribbing, you maybe ought to post in more strictly moderated "safe zones".
That's not what's happening here. Either you know that and are being disingenuous anyway, or you lack the ability to critically read what's in the forum.
Please look back at my statement, I was in no way saying viewership was poor. I pointed out that viewership through the group games was about 10 million combined (great numbers for men or women!). I pointed out that the exponential increase to get to the stated tens of millions of people who watched that game was likely an exaggeration based on the numbers from the group stage and the timing of the game. I haven't seen the specific numbers for the game, but NBCSN averaged 1.8 million viewers throughout the day. I would imagine that the USWNT brought the average up, but I highly doubt it was viewed by "tens of millions."
Sorry, but I'm still not sure if I get what you're saying. So it'd be ruled onside if the player comes back onside from an offside position and is in an onside position when they receive the ball? I'd be okay with that modification to the law.
I like that one, even though it really only formalizes a common practice in other forms of the game (indoor, futsal). Low impact, improves the flow.
I take no stand on this particular issue of spillover from the women's national team's popularity but you'd have to leave out 2004 and 2008. Those were down cycles in terms of the USWNT's popularity.
??? Maybe I mis-staated the idea (which admittedly may not be one of my great ones!) -- you can enter the 6-yard after the corner kick is taken. You just can't start out there. It's a static situation, just like the 10-yard rule on free kicks and the penalty arc rule on PKs.
The numbers for the USWNT since 2011 are better than you're implying. The USWNT's attendance figures are better than the men's this year.
I wasn't totally clear on your proposal, I guess. This sounds less offensive, but then I wonder "why bother?" Forbidding a starting position of the 6-yard-box until the kick is taken isn't going to change a whole lot, frankly, and it will provide yet another distraction for the man in the middle. A stride and a half and you can have your posts covered before the ball reaches a dangerous spot. Doesn't seem to be much bang for the buck there.
Over the course of 4 years, it's still not much of a contest. The women's attendance also (though maybe not surprisingly because of the structure of the cycle) has been more ephemeral as well. The men seem to draw more consistently. I submit that by the end of the year, average attendance will be lower on the women's side. Do you have numbers (that actually include Copa America Centenario - unlike the USWNTPA does for their suit(s)) for this year so far? I haven't seen much.
Could be. I suppose it could be tested in practice. But I'm inclined to stick with my original suggestion of requiring two defenders to be outside the offensive zone until the kick is taken.
This has been talked about before. How about awarding zero points to both teams in the group qualifying stage if the match ends in a 0-0 tie. This would at the very least keep lower level teams from using the bunker strategy to get 3 points in group qualifying to advance. I realize that top 10 teams like Sweden (on the women's side) would've still advanced to the knock out stages, since they can at least beat teams like South Africa. However, let's keep in mind that after losing 5-1 to Brazil, they decided to use a defensive strategy against China to not only qualify to the next round (instead of let's say NZ), but to also practice this defensive style prior to the knock-out stages. Again, this idea will not stop teams like Italy from using the bunker tactic against high powered offenses in the knock-out stages. I just don't want to see a team deploy this strategy in every single match in a tournament since they know if they open up their offense, they'll lose every match. In all honesty, this could be a detriment to the team's progression since they'll view getting 3 points and advancing on 0-0 ties as a step-up than actually attempting to play both defense and offense en route to getting eliminated after two 2-2 draws and one 1-0 loss to a powerhouse opponent. At least the latter results are something to build on for the future instead of just concentrating on playing the game in one-dimensional style and booting the ball to the center circle.
Going back to the pk vs. additional time added recommendation. In all honesty, if both teams are not willing to push numbers forward and are playing defensively during the last 20 minutes of the match and the subsequent 30 minutes of extra time, I'm actually relieved when the ref stops the match for pk's. After a while it's just not fun to watch with players on both sides sitting on the grass gasping for air after every run. However, there are instances where I wanted the match to go on since both teams were attacking non stop and scoring during extra time (e.g. the Germany vs. France match in 1982 or even the Sweden vs. Romania match in I believe 1994). Alas, those type of matches are few and far in between. On a side note, when I've watched WC matches with casual fans, they're actually super excited when it gets to penalty kicks, especially after watching 50 straight minutes without a goal scored and one or both teams bunkering. At that point they just want the match to end.
Actually, they aren't. According to attendance figures on ussoccer.com, the men are averaging 30,396 for all games played this year, and the women are averaging 15,066 without including games against Colombia and Sweden, as those numbers haven't been posted on the website. If you add the attendance numbers from ESPNFC.com for those 2 games, the USWNT numbers jump to 15,819 for the year.
WADR,screw the casual American viewer. Screw mainstream America. I don't want growth from fans who demand a sport change so they can like it better. We've gone past the point where we should think that kowtowing is necessary,and this game will grow in spite of those dinosaurs.
I did the math, so if someone doubts the validity of those numbers, I welcome someone to double check the math, there might have been a type-o on the calculator, but I think I got it right(ish).
The funny thing is, as each year passes, the distinction between "soccer fan" and "mainstream sports fan" blurs even more. Soccer is actually pretty close to mainstream in a lot of the country. I have trouble typing those words because it's something I almost never could have believed back when I was a youth-type person. It's both remarkable in general and non-remarkable for its sneakiness.