Read the story here: http://indoorsoccer.weebly.com/1/po...e-killed-basketball-is-it-killing-soccer.html
The three-point line has not killed either basketball or indoor soccer in my view. I think many experts feel that it helped basketball by forcing defenders outside and opening up the lane more for stars like Michael Jordan and Lebron James. Basketball attendance and TV revenue went way up after the three-point line was adopted. I don't think the three-point line in indoor soccer affects play on the field as much as it affects basketball. I think it's harder to have plays to set up three-point shots in soccer than it is in basketball. But I don't think indoor soccer's attendance problems have much if anything to do with multiple-point scoring. I think other factors are responsible, including increased competition from other sports.
I dont think it killed indoor soccer what has killed indoorsoccer is teams folding & changing the rules all the time . I hate MPS they need to go back to a normal size goal box and 1 point goals and get over it
I agree with you two about the attendance factor: the 3 point line didn't solely affect attendance numbers because when they took out the three point line, attendance didn't heighten either. I just don't think the three point line fits soccer. For me, I'd rather see games end in OT or even shootouts than seeing the game determined by one three pointer. And it seems like teams are awarded extra points for easier shots (ie empty netters). That's just my thoughts.
Yeah.. Teams like Chicago needed it (ironic that they had to finish rapidly so teams that payed to play came in, and not the opposite way around..) But, this year, none of the seven teams are situations like Massachusetts or Chicago so in a way this league has doubled in size (yeah, I know, 7 Teams not 8..). Now just waiting for a live T.V. deal (possible), an 18+ home game season (maybe in a year or two), 8-10 teams split in two divisions (forseeable in the future) and an annual video game for the league (not going to happen) lol.
The 3-point line killed basketball. The 3-point line is a major factor in indoor soccer's fall. Obama was born in Sudan. Martians killed Kennedy. Lady Gaga's music plays through fillings in my teeth. Pro wrestling is real. MMA is fixed. The 2-point drop kick PAT killed Arena Football.
Beau Dure I think you covered almost all the conspiracy thoeries except the loch ness monster and Bigfoot had a love child who currently lives in lake champlain. Seriously, a 3 pointer is a rare occurance in soccer, because of how the field is shaped and plays are run.about the only time you see it is on an empty-netter.
I believe the NPSL had 3pts curbed where as you had to be past at least half field and before the opposing arc (prior to the arc the 3rd/defensive line was used) for it to count more than 2pts. That aeliminated keepers from throwing a 3pt goal...so you still had a race to get past half field to take an offcentered shot to get the blood pumping. Most other 3pts occured from set plays just outside on deadball situations. Hector and Zoran could do those all day long in the day...
First, I do not have a problem with 3 point goals. Some folks on here talk about SPS as if Moses brought it down carved in a stone tablet. Here's a little bit of info. The whole sport of indoor as played in the MISL and PASL was created less than 40 years ago. At 40 years old the NFL had 12 teams, there was no 2 pt conversion, rosters were 32 and the season ended before New Years. Not to mention Detroit and Cleveland were perennial contenders. All that being said, a shot from beyond the arc should not count as a 3pt goal if it is deflected by a field player inside the arc. Additionally 3 point goals should only count from the offensive half of the field.
I think you may have missed the highlighted phrase. The whole sport of indoor as played in the MISL and PASL was created less than 40 years ago. Not sure anyone played full seasons with dasher-boards and glass before the 70's.
in bYeah, the sport was first played before basketball was invented by Dr. Nasmith (I believe). But there was no national league until the 70's. I'd be in favor of 3 pointers like you guys if and only if: A) They were more prevalent. Too many games in seasons past were determined by one goal. On that hand, going into overtime or a shootout is more exciting (to me). B) There was a rule that countered empty netters (you had to make it past half court or it only counts as a "2") C) If you're going to do MPS, do it all the way. A penalty shot is like an uncontested foul shot in basketball, with the exception of the goalie. Those should only be one point goals. Just my additional thoughts on the matter...
Seriously - blaming the 3-point line for killing indoor soccer is like blaming the stock market crash on the iPad. And blaming it for killing basketball is like saying the forward pass killed the NFL.
I agree with B and I like C. However, since C always results in a penalty (blue card) I would award the PK with a 2-minute penalty to follow regardless of the result of the PK. Also, no 1 point Powerplay goals.
I don't see how it has hurt basketball, but it has been very disruptive to indoor soccer. They alienated fans who liked single point and then they changed the rules several times and alienated people who liked multi-point. Leagues have been started and folded because of the scoring rules. This is a fact. The fact that owners and fans are still fighting about this issue 20 years later is a shame and an unneeded distraction. It's not like a fight over whether they should be red lines or yellow lines. I wouldn't say it killed indoor soccer. If indoor soccer was HIV positive already this was the pneumonia that triggered full blown AIDS.
I contend that the 3 point line has hurt basketball as well as helped it, especially the collegiate game. It has helped it because it allows teams to compete that may not necessarily be able to which in turn fans really like. It has hurt because the quality of the game is worse. Some players have more limited skill sets because they can stand on the 3 pt line and can jumpers. I recently watched a game on ESPN Classic with Memphis St. and Houston from the Olajuwan days. There was no 3 pt line and the game was fluid and a vastly different game than today's college game. The issue in indoor soccer is that the 3 pt line isn't a viable strategy to employ throughout a game. If it was utilized for a game the sport would be vastly different and most likely less skillfull and entertaining. The 3 pt shot doesn't reward good play. The NFL Europe had a rule that field goals over 50 yards were worth 4 points. It was rarely utilized, but the point is it discourages good football play meaning moving the ball downfield. In indoor soccer it rewards big blasts and empty netters hardly skills that should be the backbone of soccer. If anything three point goals should be reversed. You get three pointers for shots in the box and two for anything outside and one for shots from past the center line. Then it would make sense.
That is actually a very good and accurate analogy. Apparently you didn't read the end of my article. Sigh. This is the last one (for me). Only wrote it for my blog and because I thought the USL would clean up the MISL's act (it has been doing so, so far).