But NCAA football DOES have other critical factors needed for sport popularity - it’s been around forever, most notably. It’s one of the oldest organized sports on the continent; they were playing college football when James Naismith was still in high school. College football didn’t mean a lot to anyone but its immediate participants when it started; one of the things that gives it much of its popularity is that it’s been around for so long. There are college football rivalries older than any of the people posting in this thread.
Again, it’s not ONE thing that makes a sport hard to sell. It’s a combination of things.
No, you haven’t. You cited NASCAR. NASCAR’s been around since 1949, and generally dates its modern era as having started in 1972. No soccer league has lasted longer than sixteen years - the equivalent of NASCAR dying out in 1965 - and the current soccer league is only 13 years old. If NASCAR had died in 1965 and not been revived until the 1980s, there’s no way in hell it’d be as popular as it is now.
As has already been pointed out, this is false. It’s also kind of stupid. I can’t believe anyone would actually be dumb enough to think first downs were invented as a metaphor for manifest destiny. They were invented so you couldn’t hold onto the ball forever, and were in fact a direct consequence of the invention of the play from scrimmage; without a down-and-advance rule, scrimmage allowed a team to essentially possess the ball forever. First downs were introduced (very quickly) to prevent that exploitation of the rule. This sort of information is rather freely available; Sal Palantonio is either putting you on or he’s a retard.
DSYoungEsq and RickJay, while I would never argue that Sal Paolantonio isn’t stupid, he said his source was going to the colleges and reading the minutes to the meetings.
I’m assuming he was dumbing things down for a short segment on a national radio show. Given that, I don’t see anything you guys have said as directly contradicting what he said. For example, maybe he said “first down” instead of “play from scrimmage” in order to be clearer for the unwashed masses.
I’d love to see a cite refuting his claims if you can find one.
First, that was 9 years ago, not “a few.” Second, the subsequent women’s professional league has already folded because nobody cared about it. And third, the players from that team who people cared about are retired.
If you’re basing your “American soccer optimism” on the 1999 Women’s World Cup, well, prepare for disappointment.
America already has a game like soccer, except it’s called hockey, it’s played on ice, which is more interesting, it’s full-contact, so it’s badass, there’s fighting in it so it’s really badass, and they use sticks and a puck instead of a ball.
When I was younger and I played hockey, a lot of the better players played soccer in the summer, and some of them quit hockey for good and just played soccer when they got to high school. But I never got into it. Too much pussy-assed-ness. I like to be able to have some good hard physical contact and not have the play stop every time it happens (which is probably why I played rugby in high school.)
Anyone got some figures of what Latino immigrants watch? Do they stick with football (the real one!) or switch over to American sports? If the former they could be what makes football a real sport there, given their ever increasing numbers.
I’ll be happy to dig around and find some cites, but what sounds likelier to you; that the sport, like virtually all sports, had major rule changes instituted as metaphors for alleged “American Values,” or that they were instituted to improve the sport?
Here’s something else to keep in mind: on the whole, schools in the U.S. did not start sponsoring soccer because the KIDS loved it and were clamoring for it. Schools turned to soccer in a big way in the Seventies and Eighties because it’s a relatively inexpensive sport to sponsor, especially compared to baseball and American football, which require a lot more costly gear.
A minor (I hope) hijack, although I’m not a fan of Football I can watch it now and then. But American Football drives me mad for the opposite reasons that Americans say Football drives them mad. I’m sure one time I remember reading that American Football was the only sport invented to make sure they could fit adverts in!
The one thing that does drive me nuts about American Football is that it seems to be entirely driven from the sidelines, “you go there do that, you go here and do this”…the players charge out, execute the instructions and then stop for the next set of instructions. Whilst there are instructions given to players in Football it doesn’t seem to be of the level given to American Football players, there’s just too much stop, start all the time. It’s quite an interesting sport in many ways (with it’s similarity to Rugby) but I just want to see some free flowing play lasting more than a few seconds! In my mind a sport should be played by the players with contributions from the coach on the sidelines…not the other way around.
Though I love American football, I appreciated the analysis of George Will (a baseball fanatic) who said “American football combines the two worst elements of modern American life: violence and committee meetings.”
Bumping this thread because of the World Cup – and because I just came across this article in The Nation. It never occurred to me there would be political aspects to this. :rolleyes:
It’s entirely possible that you’re right. But you see, I’m 49 years old, and have been hearing this EXACT same prediction since I was a little kid myself. I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve been told by smart, confident-sounding people that soccer was THE Next Big Thing, and that it would be as big as baseball in just 10 years or so.
But 10 years keeps coming and going, and it never happens. 10 years pass, and it’s “Well, just wait, immigrants love soccer and they’ll boost attendance.” Another 10 years go by, and it’s “Kids are all playing soccer, and they’ll be huge fans of pro soccer when they grow up.” Another 10 years go by, and soccer is still just a niche sport.
MAYBE this time is different, but history gives us old guys good reason to be skeptical.
There’s a lot of bad information in this thread, and a lot of things taken on faith that simply aren’t true.
The reason soccer didn’t catch on in the 70’s and 80’s was that it was a child’s game with no opportunity once the kids grew up. My high school didn’t have a soccer team for either sex. Few colleges played the game (those that did were mostly old institutions in the northeast), so there were few scholarship opportunities. The second reason was the lack of coaching. WHile a six year old can do just fine under the tuteledge of some teammates dad, as the kids grew, there was no one available to teach them technique, so they failed to develop. (This is still an issue today, one that U.S. Soccer is trying desperately to change. Too much emphasis on playing games, and not enough on development of skills.)
This has been changing, slowly, over time. Most high schools of a decent size field soccer teams for boys and girls. Many, many colleges have programs, especially for women due to Title 9. Go to any high level tournament and you will see excellent soccer being played, and college coaches will be prowling the sidelines looking for talent. Kids today have the opportunities their parents didn’t have. College scholarships, professional leagues, and skilled coaching through high school. Skilled players will rise through the ranks of club soccer, compete for spots on the Olympic Development Program (ODP) and more recently the Development Academies.
Kids are also aware of the professional opportunities. Older World Cup teams were filled with MLS or even college players, but almost every player on the current U.S. team plays overseas, many for big money.
In summary, it has taken a long time to get the infratructure in place, but it is now there, and we will begin to see a lot more top quality players emerging. As the U.S. becomes more competitive internationally, interest will rise. While I don’t think that soccer will surpass football or baseball or basketball in popularity, I can see it bumping hocky for the final spot in the “big four.”
Here’s another issue with professional soccer: There’s no continuity between the college stars and the Pros/World Cup team.
So the University of Akron just recently won the NCAA soccer champs. How many players from that team is on the World Cup team? I don’t know. I personally watched Univ of Akron play on cable, and was amazed at how good they were.
How do they choose who is on the World Cup team anyway? Are there any college stars on the World Cup team? I think that if College soccer were given more air time, and then continuity could be continued in terms of players being picked to be on the national team, or in the MLS, then grass roots interest would increase.
America is missing recognizable soccer stars. These great players are forgotten after college.
My bad, Akron lost to Virginia in PK’s, but still, there is a TON of college talent out there, how many of these college players make it to the MLS? World cup team?
Here’s a link to the 2010 MLS draft. Virtually all of the players are drafted out of college. So yes, the top players go to MLS. A U of Akron player was the fourth player chosen.
All of the World Cup squad are seasoned professionals, and only three of them play in MLS. The rest play overseas in leagues of varying quality. The World Cup squad is like the USA Olympic basketball or hockey team. They are the best professionals in the game. No college player would likely stand a chance of making the squad. Despite Christian Laetner (token.)