Why not? Games of "three and in", where one kid would be in goal, and the other two would try and be the first to score three goals (and then swap with the keeper to go in goal himself - or not go in goal, whichever the preference) was always pretty common here.
How much of the NBA's rise in prosperity can be attributed to David Stern's "leadership" versus having Earvin Johnson, Michael Jordan and Larry Bird carry the league forward?
Its hard not to laugh at this. Been hearing this same song and dance for 35 years. In order for the sport to grow in the states there needs to be an effort to bring in the top talent in the world to play in the MLS. Alter the domestic player requirements and get rid of the designated player rules. The reality is people know that watching MLS is like watching a AA minor league baseball team compared to the top leagues around the World.
Been there; done that. It went out of business in 1985. The fact that the sport isn't growing as fast as you want it to doesn't mean that it isn't growing.
I don't know--that doesn't stop people from watching AA minor league baseball: http://www.milb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20120912&content_id=38308618&fext=.jsp&vkey=pr_milb I think MLS would be happy with 40+ million attendance.
176 clubs stretching 15 different leagues...that number is for the whole of the minor league system. Dont let facts get in the way from your "witty" reply though.
Wee bit defensive there, don't you think? The point being--there is certainly a market for sports that are NOT at the highest level. Another example--college sports. Everybody knows that the best college FB team in the country wouldn't stand a chance in the NFL, yet every Saturday dozens of stadiums are filled with thousands of fans. Most MLS fans know that they can see a higher-level of play on TV. The league is a long way away from having a level of play which will merit significantly higher TV ratings. But that doesn't mean it can't continue to develop genuine grassroots support and lay the foundation for further success. And if you've been "hearing the same song and dance for 35 years" then you certainly know where soccer was 35 years ago compared to now. If you're seriously arguing that nothing's changed since then--hell, since MLS started less than 20 years ago--then you haven't been paying attention.
Well, things have changed in the last 8-9 years, so thinking there is an actual future in the sport doesn't have a delusional basis like it did 25 -35 years ago. There is a huge difference as to what is happening presently with soccer than when Pele was here.
The difference between then and now is both qualitative and quantitative. Soccer is still a niche sport, but it's a growing and pretty secure niche, and the sport periodically rises to general public interest on a regular basis. When I was growing up in the 70s in rural Nebraska, I was vaguely aware of soccer because NASL briefly brought it to everybody's attention. We even played it a bit on the playground @ recess in 1st and 2nd grade. But that was it. There was no real interest, no opportunities for a kid like me who thought it was the sport for him, no places to go. Now there's a soccer field in my hometown, and there's a regular rec league for younger kids. And there are club teams in two nearby towns, both within less than a half-hour drive. HS soccer gets statewide coverage, and Omaha has become something of a soccer town, with a thriving club scene, adding a second Div. 1 Men's soccer program, and watch parties for US teams at popular bars downtown. It's just a different world than it was 35 years ago. No comparison.
Fair enough, but it's not as if the NBA didn't have great or charismatic players before them. Clearly there was a combination of factors. But my point in bringing up the NBA is how quickly things change. Right now, soccer in this country, and MLS, have laid a lot of great groundwork. A tipping point can be reached unexpectedly.
The fact that there are 176 clubs in 15 different leagues shows that Americans don't really have a problem supporting sports leagues that aren't in the top tier. College basketball and football are another example of this. Sure, there is a demographic of glory-chasing sports fans who will only watch the best teams. This phenomenon seems more pronounced among American soccer fans (go to your average soccer bar and you'll notice that the vast majority of those fans are wearing the jerseys of a handful of teams). But the fact that Barcelona and Man City are out there doesn't mean that Americans will not support their local MLS team, any more than the fact that the Yankees and Cardinals exist prevents fans of the Lehigh Valley IronPigs and Scaramento River Cats from coming to games in very respectable numbers.
Plus, we like baseball. We like going to the ballpark. It's just a thing we have. Because people surely don't go to minor league basketball games in anything approaching respectable numbers. Hockey, yes. Minor-league football? No. I think there's something to the notion that while college baseball and hockey obviously have their fans, they're not as popular to a wider audience as their minor professional counterparts, whereas in basketball and football, they are.
I think college football and basketball are really the minor leagues of those sports, so they've mostly crowded out the professional minor leagues. It's an accident of history, more than anything else IMO. Hockey strikes me as more of a hybrid. There are a number of college hockey programs that are quite popular and draw very high attendance. On the other hand, there are plenty of very successful minor league hockey teams in the US and Canada, too.
You are correct, sir. But there are relatively few college hockey programs (138), and very few D1 programs (59). Near as I can tell, there are 78 minor-league hockey teams, down from an all-time high of 111 in 1999-2000. But the bottom line is that you can't tell anything about what Americans are willing to support in terms of soccer based on what they're willing to do when it comes to baseball.
Would you agree that "minor-league" status, in of itself, isn't a bar to fan support in the US? Certainly, MLS can't compete with the top leagues when it comes to the on-field product. But, on-field product isn't the end-all and be-all for all sports fans (or even most, IMO).
I think it's not the only variable in the equation. You hear it said, often, that more Americans would support MLS if it was among the world's best leagues. There's probably something to that, but I don't know how much more support it would get, or if the return on the necessary investment to make that happen would be there. I also don't know if it's a given that MLS won't get to that point or if it's merely a matter of time. I have a long view, others want it to happen yesterday. And I'm not 100% sure you can make the blanket statement - or have it transfer to a discussion of MLS, which is what this all boils down to - that "level doesn't matter" based on minor-league baseball or college basketball, given those sports' entrenchment in American culture and sports space. Some of those sports don't position themselves as major league, as MLS is doing. I don't think there's any question there's a significant number of potential ticket-buyers for whom that's not the number one priority. It's just that the rest are so damn vocal about it.
as far as college fb goes, that is part of the culture. In some places it's all the populace has going for them. Watch the attendance of a Georgia, Clemson or Troy game vs San Diego State, UNLV or UCLA. Even the coverage will be different for these two sets of schools/teams.
as far as soccer being the next national pastime goes? Only if you see the major colleges start playing - USC, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Texas, Florida, Tennessee, LSU, etc. That's when you will see the sport being accepted in other parts of the midwest and Deep South.