Yes, N.F.L. games are longer (TOO long as far as I’m concerned) but it’s what’s contained within them that has the appeal. N.F.L. football has WAAAAAY too many breaks but it’s no worse than baseball in that regard and watching guys run over people or make spectacular catches trumps watching guys adjust their crotch/bat/glove/hat/helmet every few seconds and spit tobacco juice out or blow their nose (RIGHT ON CAMERA!) every single time.
Not so different. Average NFL game = 3hrs 12min, MLB 2hrs 58min.
Depends on who you are talking to ;). I vastly prefer baseball over American football (though I do really enjoy the college game). So I think watching the pitcher/catcher duel and amazing defensive plays are more interesting that watching guys run over people ;). NFL’s downtime is greater than baseball’s, I think.
The difference is 14 mins, which doesn’t look that much, but if you compare, the average game in 2004 was 2hrs, 51mins. People are complaining that it has increased a lot recently, but in the last 10 years it’s only risen 7 mins a game. But that 7 mins average, over 162 games a team, makes a difference.
I don’t think it’s meant to “attract new fans” so much as to “keep existing fans from getting fed up with the game and leaving.” Another problem might be with the World Series; since every game starts at 8:30 Eastern, 3-hour games end after a lot of people (especially kids) go to bed. How do you develop loyalty for your team if you can’t watch them play in the biggest games of the season because they run so late?
But of course. But as N.F.L. football has eclipsed “America’s Pastime” as #1 in the American sporting conscience it seems pretty clear that spectacular catches made by N.F.L. wide receivers are more popular than those made by baseball outfielders.
Using larger goals might make Team USA worse at shooting into smaller goals in international play.
Regardless (no one is going to touch the popularity of the NFL for many, many, many years), baseball is quite entrenched as the #2 sport in the US. Even though people keep talking about which sport is going to wrestle away the spot from MLB, it keeps setting attendance records and landing quite impressive television deals (the Dodgers’ recent one is mind boggling). Neither is really in any trouble in the short run.
I couldn’t find Merkan in websters but I am a life long soccer player, coach and fan and I live in the US where there are very big bucks waiting for MLS and perhaps worldwide soccer if there were more 8-6 games. I don’t think the rest of the world would want our money if it means a big change in “their” sport, but that’s their loss. There are lots of us here in the US who would love to see more goals. I do love a good defensive battle, but I love an offensive showdown even better because we cheer wildly more for goals scored than goals stopped, unless there is an outstanding save. I do think the defense has an advantage. Another point is that since scoring is so difficult and when a team goes down by 2, many players and fans lose hope and that’s not very exciting. If goals were easier then the added hope will keep folks and players into the game. The real big buck would come from TV adds that would be viewed because fans would stay tuned to see if their team can mount a come-back. They might score a couple goals and get back in the game. We may lose, but at least we got a chance to cheer wildly and feel hope. Come on, lets take some risk, don’t be so traditional. I know change is not easy, but do you think anyone regrets the 3 point line in basketball? Wow, what a game changer when it comes to added excitement to a game that already had dozens of opportunities to cheer wildly. MORE GOALS, MORE SHOTS, MORE SAVES, less dives, less pulling jersey’s, less cheating, less intentional injuries, less profanity, less arguments with officials and between teams, less fan fights, MORE GOALS, MORE CHEERS. I love this game and we are screwing up a good opportuity to make it King everywhere. Cheers
If you change the rules so the scores are all 8-6, it won’t be it anymore. There are lots of goals in five-a-side games but nobody wants to watch those.
But this cuts to the point we are making. A 2-0 lead does not see teams losing hope, where do you get that idea? Under those circumstances the fans would and do think “one goal and we are back in this”. The momentum shifts in football very quickly. Two goals can be scored in the blink of an eye and both teams know this.
Again, if you make it so much easier to score goals I can’t see how a 4-0 scenario is qualitatively any different from the common 2-0 scenario I mentioned.
Unless you think that the act of putting the ball in the net is the only way to judge how good a game is.
And again I draw your attention back to one key thing that attracts us to football as fans and players. That, being a low scoring sport, the obvious underdog always has a chance at a shock result in a single match whilst the objectively better teams end up winning. If you increase scoring I think you very much reduce the chance of that happening.
Anyone who thinks soccer would be better as a higher scoring game clearly does not understand its appeal in the first place.
As a season ticket holder for an MASL team, and as someone who is looking forward to attending some of the indoor world cup group rounds in a few weeks, I’d have to respond “It didn’t”.
It’s not as popular as basketball, football, baseball, or even hockey, but it’s far from dead.
I’d also point out that indoor has smaller goals, and higher scoring games.
It means ‘American’.
For a lifelong fan of the sport you show a remarkable lack of understanding. Big bucks for the MLS and maybe worldwide soccer can feed on the crumbs. Are you aware of the latest TV rights deal that the Premier League secured?
It’ll be tough for the rest of the world to be denied the quality of players such as Clint Dempsey, but I’m sure we’ll manage.
The impression I get from the knowledgeable American soccer fans on here is that they generally like it the way it is.
The current interpretations of the Laws are arguably the most advantageous to the attackers (offense) than at any time in the history of the game.
Missed The Tottenham v West Ham Match a couple of weeks back did you? Or a couple of years back when Newcastle were 4-0 down at home to the Woolwich Arsenal and came back to draw 4-4, and were a whisker away from winning it.
The Laws of soccer and their interpretations have been honed for over 150 years. It’s by far the most popular sport in the world. You think you know better?
…
A lot of that doesn’t make much sense to me. I don’t doubt that you love the game, but I think you need to improve your understanding of it and accept it for what it is.
Maybe what is needed is more goals, as in more places where a goal can be made.
Have three different goal areas on each side.
Also have a neutral goal on each side of the middle of the field that is only used under certain circumstances, like when they get the key to unlock the blue door. Players that knock the ball in without getting the blue key are taken out of the game for a time. So you could kick the ball off someone on the other team and into that goal and they would lose that player.
Basically, whatever you can do to make it more like a live video game and less like soccer.
Soccer scores should be akin to baseball scores, usually in the 2-7 range, rarely 1’s and 0’s. It would eliminate a lot of PK shoot-outs. Enlarging the goal would work, or reducing the number of players on the field in overtime to open things up for more scoring chances.
“should be”…what does that even mean? Where are you picking that range from. Do you mean that each team should score at least 2?
And are you aware that penalty shoot outs are very, very rare in professional football. They probably make up less than 1% of all games played? I’ve not seen one yet this season in any the top professional leagues across Europe, nor in the European champions league.
That might go down well with Villa fans…
now, now, we should never intrude on private grief.
(but then I’m a Leeds fan and no-one ever extends the same courtesy to me!)
Right now, the goalposts are 7.32 meters apart, because that’s the equivalent of 8 yards. The OCD-part of me would like to see that changed to 8 meters, with every other measurement (other than the length and width of the field) similarly changed – you have to be 10 meters away from most of your opponent’s free kicks, the penalty area is 18 m by 44 m, penalty kicks are taken from 12 meters out, the crossbar of the goal is 2.666… meters off the ground, etc. This would boost scoring, but it would make the game even less American than it already is. 
The most pressing issue I see with soccer at this instant is that the offside rule can be difficult to call in real time. Rather than change the rule, though, I’d just wait until FIFA decides to let GoalControl call offsides: “Technically, yes, offside is absolutely possible — it would just take a few more cameras in the stadium,” Dirk Broichhausen, GoalControl’s managing director, said in a recent interview at the company’s offices. “This is the direction the sport is going. We are hoping to be at the start of something here.”
Well, that’s partly because there are few formats where penalties are required. Obviously there are none in league play because you can have draws in a round robin format. There are few few in the Champions’ League and other continental tournaments (not to mention lots of domestic cups) because of the away goals rule, FA Cup replays and so on.
There were four penalty shootouts in the 2014 World Cup in 16 knockout matches (25%.) There have been 26 in the last nine World Cups (that’s going back to '82), o 26/144 in terms of matches decided by penalties over that period. That’s 18% and change.
ETA: Somebody has already done the legwork for me for European Cup penalty statistics on the relevant Wikipedia page; 15 out of 50 knockout games (30%) have been decided by penalties since they became part of the tournament in 1976.