I can't believe they spent our tax dollars on this study at Los Alamos National Laboratory ... http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060104/sp_nm/soccer_surprise_dc
Ah shush. You probably would take a dim view then of the Institute for Football Research in England's Leicester University. But a propos the findings, they are right. The capability for upsets is what makes soccer so engrossing to follow, or did until Abramovich came along. The Premiership is so predictable now it is getting boring for those of us who remember differently. I don't get what Chel$ki fans get from paying $80 to see uncompetitive games every time.
Alright, fess up, which one of you BigSoccer members was the head of this study. Come on, it was done in the U.S. and says something in a positive light about Soccer. We know it wasn't done by an American Football fan, who was it?
http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/esporte/ult92u97058.shtml It made the news in Brazil too. But the article says Americans still think soccer is emotionless. If you want to translate the article (which basicaly is the same of the one the thread started posted, along with a few comments on American soccer) use babelfish.
This is the effect the last paragraph in the report was referring to which gave baseball the chance to overtake soccer. Actually, although we're seeing the Abramovich effect now with Chelsea, the ten year time mentioned in the report is due to the formation of the premiership and giving clubs all the money from their home games instead of all gates being shared fifty/fifty.
They talked about this show on the Tucker Carlson show on MSNBC tonight. They brought it up on the segment where they bring in Max Killerman to argue points back and forth; well turns out both sides totally ripped the issue with no person defending the study and on top of that they used the time to totally rip into soccer. Of course ignorant statements were constantly made, with no attempt at facts. I'll probably never watch the show again, I"m debating wether it's even worth my time to write them an email about it.
Greg Ferguson the host of late night on CBS in the US gave it up for soccer a.k.a. football on his show last night. I was loving it. Americans just need to get educated about soccer cuz the problem is they havent seen good soccer games and they dont know how fast and exciting it is cuz the camera has the whole field. Here is how to solve the problem; If they put multiple cameras all over the field and they have a control room who switches back and forth to the camera closest to the players to catch the action, THEN the americans would see the intensity of the game and they would watch it. I mean i admit if you're not a fan and the game is not going good then it gets boring but not if the camera catches up close action of the players with good commentators.
this could help , I've heard a lot about how the Bundesliga uses clever camera angles to make the game seem faster and more appealing to fans..
I've been watching youth soccer for about 12 years now. Until the last World Cup, my experience was pretty much on the girls/women's side with an oocasional MLS game thrown in. Certainly, I was very much caught up with what the US Women's team was doing to promote soccer in this country, but I also felt soccer was soccer no matter who played it. Lots of people were telling me that wasn't the case at all, so when the men's WC came around, I decided I had to watch this level to see what they were talking about. It took exactly one game for me to say to myself "Oh wow. Now I get it!" I'm not sure that the general American public, with absolutely no soccer background will get it this time around no matter what angle the TV cameras, but at least they won't have to get up before the sun in order to watch it. It will be interesting to see if more Americans catch the passion I have developed thanks to the last World Cup.