Coulter argues the reason people are watching soccer now is because of Sen. Edward Kennedy's 1965 immigration law.
"I promise you: No American whose great-grandfather was born here is watching soccer," she wrote. "One can only hope that, in addition to learning English, these new Americans will drop their soccer fetish with time."
She also says soccer is not a "real sport." A real sport, she argues, requires individual achievement and "the prospect of either personal humiliation or major injury."
"Do they even have MVPs in soccer? Everyone just runs up and down the field and, every once in a while, a ball accidentally goes in," she wrote.
Tweeters also joined in on the chorus of criticism.
"Ann Coulter meets a new low. I have no words. Probably the worst column I've read. And I don't even like soccer," one person tweeted.
I've held off on writing about soccer for a decade — or about the length of the average soccer game — so as not to offend anyone. But enough is enough. Any growing interest in soccer can only be a sign of the nation's moral decay.
• Individual achievement is not a big factor in soccer. In a real sport, players fumble passes, throw bricks and drop fly balls — all in front of a crowd. When baseball players strike out, they're standing alone at the plate. But there's also individual glory in home runs, touchdowns and slam-dunks.
In soccer, the blame is dispersed and almost no one scores anyway. There are no heroes, no losers, no accountability, and no child's fragile self-esteem is bruised. There's a reason perpetually alarmed women are called "soccer moms," not "football moms."
Do they even have MVPs in soccer? Everyone just runs up and down the field and, every once in a while, a ball accidentally goes in. That's when we're supposed to go wild. I'm already asleep.
• Liberal moms like soccer because it's a sport in which athletic talent finds so little expression that girls can play with boys. No serious sport is co-ed, even at the kindergarten level.
• No other "sport" ends in as many scoreless ties as soccer. This was an actual marquee sign by the freeway in Long Beach, California, about a World Cup game last week: "2nd period, 11 minutes left, score: 0:0." Two hours later, another World Cup game was on the same screen: "1st period, 8 minutes left, score: 0:0." If Michael Jackson had treated his chronic insomnia with a tape of Argentina vs. Brazil instead of Propofol, he'd still be alive, although bored.
Even in football, by which I mean football, there are very few scoreless ties — and it's a lot harder to score when a half-dozen 300-pound bruisers are trying to crush you.
• The prospect of either personal humiliation or major injury is required to count as a sport. Most sports are sublimated warfare. As Lady Thatcher reportedly said after Germany had beaten England in some major soccer game: Don't worry. After all, twice in this century we beat them at their national game.
Baseball and basketball present a constant threat of personal disgrace. In hockey, there are three or four fights a game — and it's not a stroll on beach to be on ice with a puck flying around at 100 miles per hour. After a football game, ambulances carry off the wounded. After a soccer game, every player gets a ribbon and a juice box.
• You can't use your hands in soccer. (Thus eliminating the danger of having to catch a fly ball.) What sets man apart from the lesser beasts, besides a soul, is that we have opposable thumbs. Our hands can hold things. Here's a great idea: Let's create a game where you're not allowed to use them!
• I resent the force-fed aspect of soccer. The same people trying to push soccer on Americans are the ones demanding that we love HBO's "Girls," light-rail, Beyonce and Hillary Clinton. The number of New York Times articles claiming soccer is "catching on" is exceeded only by the ones pretending women's basketball is fascinating.
I note that we don't have to be endlessly told how exciting football is.
• It's foreign. In fact, that's the precise reason the Times is constantly hectoring Americans to love soccer. One group of sports fans with whom soccer is not "catching on" at all, is African-Americans. They remain distinctly unimpressed by the fact that the French like it.
• Soccer is like the metric system, which liberals also adore because it's European. Naturally, the metric system emerged from the French Revolution, during the brief intervals when they weren't committing mass murder by guillotine.
Despite being subjected to Chinese-style brainwashing in the public schools to use centimeters and Celsius, ask any American for the temperature, and he'll say something like "70 degrees." Ask how far Boston is from New York City, he'll say it's about 200 miles.
Liberals get angry and tell us that the metric system is more "rational" than the measurements everyone understands. This is ridiculous. An inch is the width of a man's thumb, a foot the length of his foot, a yard the length of his belt. That's easy to visualize. How do you visualize 147.2 centimeters?
• Soccer is not "catching on." Headlines this week proclaimed "Record U.S. ratings for World Cup," and we had to hear — again about the "growing popularity of soccer in the United States."
The USA-Portugal game was the blockbuster match, garnering 18.2 million viewers on ESPN. This beat the second-most watched soccer game ever: The 1999 Women's World Cup final (USA vs. China) on ABC. (In soccer, the women's games are as thrilling as the men's.)
Run-of-the-mill, regular-season Sunday Night Football games average more than 20 million viewers; NFL playoff games get 30 to 40 million viewers; and this year's Super Bowl had 111.5 million viewers.
Remember when the media tried to foist British soccer star David Beckham and his permanently camera-ready wife on us a few years ago? Their arrival in America was heralded with 24-7 news coverage. That lasted about two days. Ratings tanked. No one cared.
If more "Americans" are watching soccer today, it's only because of the demographic switch effected by Teddy Kennedy's 1965 immigration law. I promise you: No American whose great-grandfather was born here is watching soccer. One can only hope that, in addition to learning English, these new Americans will drop their soccer fetish with time.
I don't even know how to respond. She's daft. That's it.
As one comic noted, it's gotten to the point where you can't tell the parodies of right-wing rants from the real things...
Valete,
JohnS (who played soccer, who has watched the World Cup for the last 20 years, who's great-grandfather was a land-owner in Texas and who's great-great-grandfather was as a land-owner in Virginia)
Isn't there enough proof by now to have her sectioned or something? I know people who are clearly more mentally stable than this person who have spent time in mental institutions.
I think she's worked a deal with her family. They're concerned about getting a phonecall that Coulter's neighbours are reporting a really bad smell and that they'll have to go to her house to find a decaying corpose, so they need a way to be periodically told she isn't dead yet. Now, that can't mean going over and visiting her, because, well she's Ann Coulter and I'm pretty sure not even direct relations are willing to spend time talking to her, so instead every so often she just writes some insane bs sure to get to spammed across the internet, just to let her family know she isn't dead yet.
Meh. Once again she tries to get the attention of people she knows will go bat s#!t crazy making some outrages claim. It's what she does best and gets paid a lot for.
That said, I do not like soccer, in fact, I hate it. I pay attention for a few minutes during the world cup but don't actually root for anyone. But I respect the talent soccer players have and the amount of training they go through. I think the amount of endurance they have is insane and something I think anyone who is an athlete to enjoys athletics can respect.
I only have room for one true love for sports. Football. The American kind.
Crazies are always funny. Once read a feminist blog claiming all sex was rape. Its stuff like this that provides a good amount of laughter during a long day at work.
Gonna read this site now, judging by your comments its somewhat run of the mill to see stuff like this there?
She's a talking head who says outrageous things to sell books to and get on the news. She repeats this every time she has a new book. She's tall, thin, and blonde, so is frequently on an infotainment network that is fond of thin blonde women of a similar political stripe.
I'm a little surprised you've never heard of her, with how familiar you typically are with American politics.
She's a talking head who says outrageous things to sell books to and get on the news. She repeats this every time she has a new book. She's tall, thin, and blonde, so is frequently on an infotainment network that is fond of thin blonde women of a similar political stripe.
I'm a little surprised you've never heard of her, with how familiar you typically are with American politics.
heard her name before and I think I vaguely recall her being an author, but I think she quickly found her way into my "people who I can completely forget about with no negative effects" column.
Jimsolo wrote: That being said, it's not like she's the only American celebrity to make jokes about soccer being the most boring sport in the history of ever.
It's not the "soccer is boring" comments that are the issue, it's most of everything else she said.
easysauce wrote: heard her name before and I think I vaguely recall her being an author, but I think she quickly found her way into my "people who I can completely forget about with no negative effects" column.
Yes, she fits in well with Alan Grayson, Rush Limbaugh, Alan West, Michelle Malkin, etc etc etc.
I hadn't heard of her either, but she has to be a troll.
I've held off on writing about soccer for a decade — or about the length of the average soccer game — so as not to offend anyone. But enough is enough. Any growing interest in soccer can only be a sign of the nation's moral decay.
Despite the fact that a game of football goes less than half the time as a game of NFL . *applause*
I have no idea how she managed to bring the metric system in but that really stood out as a big troll win. I am disappointed though, ann coulter just informed me I am not a man, neither my thumb nor my foot match the measurement described.
she is hilarious though...
Liberal moms like soccer because it's a sport in which athletic talent finds so little expression that girls can play with boys. No serious sport is co-ed, even at the kindergarten level.
Yes I agree Ann, women participating in sport means it isn't a serious sport, luck they are introducing knitting as a serious sport for women next olympics.
I am upset that she considers boxing not a real (no use of opposable thumbs) sport as it seems to cover her other criteria.
Ouze wrote: I'm a little surprised you've never heard of her, with how familiar you typically are with American politics.
She really dropped off the radar in about 2006, I'd say. Her and Michelle Malkin and a couple of others that really paved new ground for Republican crazies seemed to have done about all they could do, and in order to keep their place as the crazy end of right wing politics they either had to get more fanatical (as Malkin did, especially on race) or just start making weird comments about random nonsense, like Coulter.
But that doesn't get you anywhere near the same coverage, so for anyone who came to this after, say, 2006, I'm not surprised they don't know her. It's a bit of an age test, like when you're talking about Dick Morris and you realise the other person in the conversation doesn't know that before both Democrats and Republicans hated that Republican douchbag Dick Morris, both Democrats and Republicans hated that Democrat douchebag Dick Morris.
Man, I can't believe you guys actually care about this. Of all the things she's been saying over the years you (and the rest of the internet apparently) get mad at this? o.O
Its insanely boring to watch. Nothing ever happens. You play hours to maybe score one goal and win. And it can end in a tie.
Sure, there is action, but its pointless action. It almost never amounts to anything, just passing the ball back and forth while making feeble attempts at scoring which might occasionally succeed.
And you've got entire countries who eat it up? People got nothing actually interesting to watch obviously.
Its insanely boring to watch. Nothing ever happens. You play hours to maybe score one goal and win. And it can end in a tie.
Sure, there is action, but its pointless action. It almost never amounts to anything, just passing the ball back and forth while making feeble attempts at scoring which might occasionally succeed.
And you've got entire countries who eat it up? People got nothing actually interesting to watch obviously.
Soccer is literally no more action filled than a couple guys passing a ball back and forth between themselves. Except there is a bunch of guys instead of just 2.
Ouze wrote: Yes, she fits in well with Alan Grayson, Rush Limbaugh, Alan West, Michelle Malkin, etc etc etc.
I'm pretty sure Alan West is genuinely crazy.
At the very minimum, I would say he is the only person named that actually truly believes what comes out of his own mouth. I mean, you look at Bill Maher, Ann Coulter, you know it's a schtick.
Its insanely boring to watch. Nothing ever happens. You play hours to maybe score one goal and win. And it can end in a tie.
Sure, there is action, but its pointless action. It almost never amounts to anything, just passing the ball back and forth while making feeble attempts at scoring which might occasionally succeed.
And you've got entire countries who eat it up? People got nothing actually interesting to watch obviously.
I too am mystified that people who grew up with a game from a young age would love that game, and not treat it with passionless disinterest like I do. Why it is even more bizarre that people don't recognise the objective superiority of the games I grew up watching.
Its insanely boring to watch. Nothing ever happens. You play hours to maybe score one goal and win. And it can end in a tie.
Sure, there is action, but its pointless action. It almost never amounts to anything, just passing the ball back and forth while making feeble attempts at scoring which might occasionally succeed.
And you've got entire countries who eat it up? People got nothing actually interesting to watch obviously.
I think you need to actually watch it - it also involves rolling around on the ground apparently dying when someone comes within 10 cm of you (thats 4 inches in Ann Coulter world)
Ouze wrote: At the very minimum, I would say he is the only person named that actually truly believes what comes out of his own mouth. I mean, you look at Bill Maher, Ann Coulter, you know it's a schtick.
Yeah, I think so.
I mean, I think Bill Maher certainly believes he is as clever as he says he is, but other than that it's just saying whatever will score ratings.
Its insanely boring to watch. Nothing ever happens. You play hours to maybe score one goal and win. And it can end in a tie.
Sure, there is action, but its pointless action. It almost never amounts to anything, just passing the ball back and forth while making feeble attempts at scoring which might occasionally succeed.
And you've got entire countries who eat it up? People got nothing actually interesting to watch obviously.
I too am mystified that people who grew up with a game from a young age would love that game, and not treat it with passionless disinterest like I do. Why it is even more bizarre that people don't recognise the objective superiority of the games I grew up watching.
I agree it's why I try and get people on this forum to watch rugby League occasionally, I actually think they would like the game though.
I don't particularly like any sports (I like the shooting sports, if that counts, and fishing); but am very fond of the metric system, and not just saying that as a way to segue in a pulp fiction quote and/or gif.
Its insanely boring to watch. Nothing ever happens. You play hours to maybe score one goal and win. And it can end in a tie.
Sure, there is action, but its pointless action. It almost never amounts to anything, just passing the ball back and forth while making feeble attempts at scoring which might occasionally succeed.
And you've got entire countries who eat it up? People got nothing actually interesting to watch obviously.
I too am mystified that people who grew up with a game from a young age would love that game, and not treat it with passionless disinterest like I do. Why it is even more bizarre that people don't recognise the objective superiority of the games I grew up watching.
Its not that people like it, its that the game ever caught on as a spectator sport watched by millions. It just doesn't lend itself well to watching it IMO.
And I actually don't watch much sport period. I watch the Super Bowl and thats pretty much it. I've gone to 2 of my College's Football games.
Soccer in particular just sticks out as being a poor spectator sport game to me, one who generally doesn't like watching sports. It strikes me as being particularly poor for it.
I enjoy playing sports, but watching isn't really my thing.
Bullockist wrote: I agree it's why I try and get people on this forum to watch rugby League occasionally, I actually think they would like the game though.
Okay, while my general rule is 'every game is fine and people will mostly love the ones they grew up playing and watching and somehow not realise that's what everyone else is doing'... but I have an exception for rugby league. That game is terrible.
I get really tense watching football , really tense if I'm watching a team I love. It's the knowledge that at any time the game can change. I expect that i will die at 50 of a heart attack watching Sydney FC play.
What's weird is it's my 2nd favourite ball sport and I don't get tense at all watching my favourite. I can totally understand why it caught on as a spectator sport.
Grey Templar wrote: Its not that people like it, its that the game ever caught on as a spectator sport watched by millions. It just doesn't lend itself well to watching it IMO.
Yeah, and as I already explained that's how it works when it's a sport you didn't grow up with, didn't build up a passion for.
I'm not a huge fan of soccer either, but I grew up watching Aussie Rules and playing and watching Hockey*, so of course they're the games I love. I don't see how mysterious it can be that other people would love the game they grew up watching and playing.
Bullockist wrote: I agree it's why I try and get people on this forum to watch rugby League occasionally, I actually think they would like the game though.
Okay, while my general rule is 'every game is fine and people will mostly love the ones they grew up playing and watching and somehow not realise that's what everyone else is doing'... but I have an exception for rugby league. That game is terrible.
DIE !
It is the toughest game around and feth me, it's just awesome. If I find out you like aerial ping pong I will have to get your post printed on to a scarf ,find you and strangle you with it. Goddamn it sebster that comment is almost an auto Ignore list offence
Soccer is literally no more action filled than a couple guys passing a ball back and forth between themselves. Except there is a bunch of guys instead of just 2.
About as much stuff happens in Soccer as happens in Baseball.
It's not at all uncommon for baseball games to end 1-0 or close to that after hours of play.
Ouze wrote: At the very minimum, I would say he is the only person named that actually truly believes what comes out of his own mouth. I mean, you look at Bill Maher, Ann Coulter, you know it's a schtick.
Yeah, I think so.
I mean, I think Bill Maher certainly believes he is as clever as he says he is, but other than that it's just saying whatever will score ratings.
Maher's entire sense of self and existence is based on his own sense of how clever he thinks he is. I think if he realized he wasn't the smartest guy in every room he walked into he would literally die from the whiplash.
Soccer is literally no more action filled than a couple guys passing a ball back and forth between themselves. Except there is a bunch of guys instead of just 2.
While I am do defender of soccer, I will say that it is more action than 99.9% of any baseball game (which is barely a team sport anyway).
Everyone knows nothing screams "IN YOUR FACE SPORTS EXCITEMENT!!!" like watching a 0-0 baseball game late in 14th inning.
Bullockist wrote: DIE !
It is the toughest game around and feth me, it's just awesome. If I find out you like aerial ping pong I will have to get your post printed on to a scarf ,find you and strangle you with it. Goddamn it sebster that comment is almost an auto Ignore list offence
the scarf is at the printers!
I understand that for rugby league players it might be the toughest game around, but for all the rest of us counting to six over and over again stopped being a challenge a long time ago
I don't even know what the scarf thing is about, but yeah, Aussie Rules fan here. Well, sort of, I'm a bit disillusioned with the game, what with all the special treatment handed to Sydney, the AFL's attempts to help Essendon cover up their drugs scandal, and the standard of umpiring slowly slipping back to the bad old Victorian days. But the game itself, if the AFL would stop fething with it, well it's that perfect balance between speed and hardness.
I've never understood the aerial ping pong thing, by the way. I mean, in Union they actually will spend long periods of time with fullbacks kicking it between each other, but you use that term to describe AFL, where you're always kicking to a contest, and that's only if you don't have a player open.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: Maher's entire sense of self and existence is based on his own sense of how clever he thinks he is. I think if he realized he wasn't the smartest guy in every room he walked into he would literally die from the whiplash.
Pretty much yeah. It's a shame, because he can actually think of some decent one liners from time to time. It's just a shame that those lines are surrounded by lazy liberal politics and that damn ego.
Soccer is literally no more action filled than a couple guys passing a ball back and forth between themselves. Except there is a bunch of guys instead of just 2.
While I am do defender of soccer, I will say that it is more action than 99.9% of any baseball game (which is barely a team sport anyway).
Everyone knows nothing screams "IN YOUR FACE SPORTS EXCITEMENT!!!" like watching a 0-0 baseball game late in 14th inning.
I'm not going to throw rocks at anyone for PLAYING soccer. Makes perfect sense. Seems like a good way to burn off a lot of energy, and we all know how much chicks dig violence (or simulated violence), so there's that. But it goes right in the barrel with baseball when it comes to watching it as a spectator sport.
I'd be willing to play a game of soccer, but I think I'd rather have a root canal than watch another game of soccer. (No, for real. At least with invasive and painful dental surgery I'm relieving myself of future pain--if I spend the time to actually WATCH a soccer game, I've lost an hour or more off my life that gained me nothing and can never be gotten back.)
Jimsolo wrote: I'm not going to throw rocks at anyone for PLAYING soccer. Makes perfect sense. Seems like a good way to burn off a lot of energy, and we all know how much chicks dig violence (or simulated violence), so there's that. But it goes right in the barrel with baseball when it comes to watching it as a spectator sport.
I'd be willing to play a game of soccer, but I think I'd rather have a root canal than watch another game of soccer. (No, for real. At least with invasive and painful dental surgery I'm relieving myself of future pain--if I spend the time to actually WATCH a soccer game, I've lost an hour or more off my life that gained me nothing and can never be gotten back.)
You guys are nuts. Soccer is like hockey slowed down. It's not quite as good, but still good.
Seaward wrote: Though I do agree with her about men and women playing together = not a real sport.
S'funny, I think that any sport where men and women DON'T compete against one another suffers for it. (Which is pretty much every sport.) Seems pretty ludicrous to try to claim that men and women are just as good as one another but then segregate them at sporting events. I seem to recall that we had a Supreme Court case that decided that separate would always be inherently unequal.
Jimsolo wrote: S'funny, I think that any sport where men and women DON'T compete against one another suffers for it. (Which is pretty much every sport.) Seems pretty ludicrous to try to claim that men and women are just as good as one another but then segregate them at sporting events. I seem to recall that we had a Supreme Court case that decided that separate would always be inherently unequal.
Really? You want to put females in the NFL and the NHL? You really want to see some 19 year-old girl get Kronwalled?
And I don't try to claim that men and women are as good as each other at everything. I'm not an idiot.
Jimsolo wrote: S'funny, I think that any sport where men and women DON'T compete against one another suffers for it. (Which is pretty much every sport.) Seems pretty ludicrous to try to claim that men and women are just as good as one another but then segregate them at sporting events. I seem to recall that we had a Supreme Court case that decided that separate would always be inherently unequal.
Really? You want to put females in the NFL and the NHL? You really want to see some 19 year-old girl get Kronwalled?
And I don't try to claim that men and women are as good as each other at everything. I'm not an idiot.
Yes! If a 19 year old boy is allowed to do it, then why not a 19 year old girl? If you're going to compete at a professional level, I don't think it's unreasonable to have both sets of professionals at the SAME level. If you don't, you wind up with one league that is regarded as the professional level of the sport, and a second league where players are told that they are inherently inferior.
People once said that players from the negro leagues shouldn't play baseball because it wouldn't be fair to them. People also once said that black boxers wouldn't be able to compete against white boxers. When given the opportunity to compete at the same level as everyone else, these notions proved to be groundless. You let women compete on the same level as men, and they will not only survive, they will dominate at least as much as their male counterparts.
When we say that women can't compete with men, the implication is that they're too delicate. It's absurdly sexist, and is a form of discrimination that just astounds me in this day and age.
Jimsolo wrote: You let women compete on the same level as men, and they will not only survive, they will dominate at least as much as their male counterparts.
We know that's not the case, though, from individual sports. Unless you're suggesting that female sprinters/swimmers/etc. are just lazier. The fastest 100m dash ever run by a female doesn't even make it into the men's top 25.
When we say that women can't compete with men, the implication is that they're too delicate. It's absurdly sexist, and is a form of discrimination that just astounds me in this day and age.
It acknowledges the reality that men and women are built differently. The genders are not identical. Wishing won't make it so.
We know that's not the case, though, from individual sports. Unless you're suggesting that female sprinters/swimmers/etc. are just lazier. The fastest 100m dash ever run by a female doesn't even make it into the men's top 25.
It's also worth pointing out that the time difference in run times only grows larger the longer the run. The difference between top men and top women in 1500m is a minute, while the difference between the 100m is around 1 second (meaning that 15x the distance results in 60x time difference).
I'm all for sex equality, but equal opportunity doesn't mean equal success, especially not in a field dominated by physical prowess like Football. There are certainly some women out there able to compete in that world, but we shouldn't pretend there's an abundance of them or that they'll make the cut against male competitors.
When we say that women can't compete with men, the implication is that they're too delicate. It's absurdly sexist, and is a form of discrimination that just astounds me in this day and age.
It acknowledges the reality that men and women are built differently. The genders are not identical. Wishing won't make it so.
Don't have to be identical. Sports like baseball and football have a broad range of roles, and the performance ability of the athletes also covers a broad spectrum. No one is going to try to claim that female athletes, trained at the same level as male athletes, would not still fall within this spectrum.
Racist and sexist policies throughout history have shielded themselves with the excuse of "it's just biological fact." It isn't a defense, it's an excuse.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: I'm all for sex equality, but equal opportunity doesn't mean equal success
It doesn't have to. There are certainly many other professions that see a certain degree of gender disparity, where one gender will outperform the other. But with very few exceptions (almost none that I can think of) we don't segregate or restrict those by gender.
Jimsolo wrote: Don't have to be identical. Sports like baseball and football have a broad range of roles, and the performance ability of the athletes also covers a broad spectrum. No one is going to try to claim that female athletes, trained at the same level as male athletes, would not still fall within this spectrum.
Racist and sexist policies throughout history have shielded themselves with the excuse of "it's just biological fact." It isn't a defense, it's an excuse.
Well, you've changed my mind.
I'm off to have an MMA match with fiancee. I'll need your personal details so my lawyer can call you as a witness for the defense.
When we say that women can't compete with men, the implication is that they're too delicate. It's absurdly sexist, and is a form of discrimination that just astounds me in this day and age.
It acknowledges the reality that men and women are built differently. The genders are not identical. Wishing won't make it so.
Don't have to be identical. Sports like baseball and football have a broad range of roles, and the performance ability of the athletes also covers a broad spectrum. No one is going to try to claim that female athletes, trained at the same level as male athletes, would not still fall within this spectrum.
Racist and sexist policies throughout history have shielded themselves with the excuse of "it's just biological fact." It isn't a defense, it's an excuse.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: I'm all for sex equality, but equal opportunity doesn't mean equal success
It doesn't have to. There are certainly many other professions that see a certain degree of gender disparity, where one gender will outperform the other. But with very few exceptions (almost none that I can think of) we don't segregate or restrict those by gender.
There just isn't a physical role in most sports where the best woman available will beat the best man available. It's just the way it is. The best women will sure beat most men, but when you are talking about the absolute peak of physical achievement men win out.
trexmeyer wrote: Oh, this is more than just being an idiot. This is out and out racism and it isn't very subtly directed either.
Jingoistic maybe.
But we all must acknowledge that there is only one true sport.
Its insanely boring to watch. Nothing ever happens. You play hours to maybe score one goal and win. And it can end in a tie.
Sure, there is action, but its pointless action. It almost never amounts to anything, just passing the ball back and forth while making feeble attempts at scoring which might occasionally succeed.
And you've got entire countries who eat it up? People got nothing actually interesting to watch obviously.
She's like Rush Limbaugh, Bill Mahr, or Bill O'Reilly. She's says ridiculously offensive things she doesn't mean in exchange for a paycheck.
That being said, it's not like she's the only American celebrity to make jokes about soccer being the most boring sport in the history of ever.
Winner winner chicken dinner.
You guys need to realize that people like Ann coulter, Sean Hannity, Bill Mahr...etc..etc. don't necessarily believe the stuff they say. They say it partly to get people saying things like.."i can't believe they said that".....or to get themselves invited onto talk shows, or to get themselves invited to lecture halls...or to drum up book sales...It's all about money.
trexmeyer wrote: • Soccer is like the metric system, which liberals also adore because it's European. Naturally, the metric system emerged from the French Revolution, during the brief intervals when they weren't committing mass murder by guillotine.
The French Revolution was based on the ideas of what Revolution?
A. The American Revolution
B. The Industrial Revolution
C. The Agricultural Revolution
D. Potato
As an outsider, is there actually people that take this seriously? I mean, there has to be in order for them to make money, no?
And the title of "biggest moron in America" goes to Ann Coultre. We thank all participants for playing, but it wasn't really a contest-after all, nobody else chances personal injury or looking like a fool. Ann wins by a landslide. There were many 'huzzahs'.
"Look at me! Don't forget about me!" said Ugly Ann.
That waste of space is like Old Faithful...always spewing forth right on time. She's the easily the worst of all of them, because her opinions are only ever loud, empty and ugly, just like Ann.
I can't believe people think Ann is hot. She looks like John Kerry in a fething wig.
Hey Easy Sauce here is Ann Coultier on the fifth estate mentioning how Canada participated in the Vietnam War, this was done after George W came to Ottawa a while back it is pretty funny.
Any sport where you can lose twice and still have a chance for the title is not a sport. Its guys running around kicking a ball. PLus no one dies or is permanently maimed (unless you count the fans beheading people).
Frazzled wrote: Any sport where you can lose twice and still have a chance for the title is not a sport. Its guys running around kicking a ball. PLus no one dies or is permanently maimed (unless you count the fans beheading people).
Any sport where you can finish top of the league and then lose the league to the team in 6th place makes no sense at all.
Avatar 720 wrote: Isn't there enough proof by now to have her sectioned or something? I know people who are clearly more mentally stable than this person who have spent time in mental institutions.
I don't think she believes 1/10 of the gak she says.
Not for 1 minute.
You think her books would sell and she would get her own show and a prime-time talking head and the $$$ that goes with it by her looks alone?
"Doty's first problem with the law came just after the Pilgrims had begun constructing their settlement. The early eighteenth century notes of Thomas Prince describe an incident of June 18, 1621 when the first duel (with a sword and dagger) was fought in New England between two servants of Stephen Hopkins, Edward Doty and Edward Leister. The duel ended with one being wounded in the hand and one in the thigh. Their punishment was to be tied head and feet together for twenty-four hours without meat or drink. But soon their master Stephen Hopkins, apparently taking pity on their "great pains", made a "humble request, upon promise of a better carriage" and they were released by the governor."
Yeah yeah, it's MSNBC. But they did manage to sum up the Dakka OT quite nicely:
This certainly isn’t to suggest everyone should be interested in the tournament. But why in the world would someone go on national television to suggest the World Cup is part of some kind of plot to distract people?
The right’s willingness to see every possible development as a deliberate “distraction” from the news they consider important has gotten a little out of hand. Obamacare is a distraction from Fast & Furious, which is a distraction from the IRS “scandal,” which is a distraction from Benghazi, which as of last week is itself a distraction from Benghazi.
Swastakowey wrote: Once read a feminist blog claiming all sex was rape. Its stuff like this that provides a good amount of laughter during a long day at work.
Sounds like Andrea Dworkin. She was certainly controversial, but I think her craziness has been greatly exaggerated.
Frazzled wrote: Any sport where you can lose twice and still have a chance for the title is not a sport. Its guys running around kicking a ball. PLus no one dies or is permanently maimed (unless you count the fans beheading people).
I'm so glad to see support for the idea that baseball is not a sport.
"Doty's first problem with the law came just after the Pilgrims had begun constructing their settlement. The early eighteenth century notes of Thomas Prince describe an incident of June 18, 1621 when the first duel (with a sword and dagger) was fought in New England between two servants of Stephen Hopkins, Edward Doty and Edward Leister. The duel ended with one being wounded in the hand and one in the thigh. Their punishment was to be tied head and feet together for twenty-four hours without meat or drink. But soon their master Stephen Hopkins, apparently taking pity on their "great pains", made a "humble request, upon promise of a better carriage" and they were released by the governor."
hehehehehehe!
Sactafied excrament, Batman! I'll have to check, but we might be very distantly realted .
On the other had, I've been awake for 25.5 hours, so my memory is a bit shaky .
Whoever this Ann Coulter might be, I think she is insane.
Also, it is called football.
Also, people who say football is boring clearly have not been following the World Cup. Football is the best sport there is after icehockey.
Once again hundreds of reasonable people fall victim to the trap of actually paying attention to Ann Coulter and her particular brand of "not sure if serious, but scared that she might be."
This is the everyday and endlessly repeatable situation where she says something as ridiculous and baseless as this and then laughs all the way to the bank because folks are going to get outraged, follow links to where her stuff is posted and she reaps the ad revenue.
Remember what your parents would have said.
"When you wrestle a pig you just end up dirty and the pig likes it"
It is called football in most places and soccer in some. Once you learn that different places often have different names for things, and not just sports, you'll live a more stress free life.
I still feel like it should be called football. Whatever idiot took the name 'football' for American football should have been smacked. Hard. The only time the foot is involved is during the punt. As opposed to a game played 95% of the way with the feet. But, you know...stupid people make decisions. And other idiots perpetuate it.
timetowaste85 wrote: I still feel like it should be called football. Whatever idiot took the name 'football' for American football should have been smacked. Hard. The only time the foot is involved is during the punt. As opposed to a game played 95% of the way with the feet. But, you know...stupid people make decisions. And other idiots perpetuate it.
Its not called a football because you use your feet.
Its because the ball is a foot long.
Both games have an equally valid reason for being called what they are.
Today I found out the origin of the word “soccer”. For all you out there who love to complain when Americans, and certain others, call “Football”, “Soccer”, you should know that it was the British that invented the word and it was also one of the first names of what we now primarily know of as “Football”.
In fact, in the early days of the sport among the upper echelons of British society, the proper term for the sport was “Soccer”. Not only that, but the sport being referred to as “Soccer” preceded the first recorded instance of it being called by the singular word “Football” by about 18 years, with the latter happening when it became more popular with the middle and lower class. When that happened, the term “Football” gradually began dominating over “Soccer” and the then official name “Association Football”.
In the 1860s, as in most of history- with records as far back as 1004 B.C.- there were quite a lot of “football” sports in existence being played popularly throughout the world and of course, England. Many of these sports had similar rules and eventually, on October 26th, 1863, a group of teams in England decided to get together and create a standard set of rules which would be used at all their matches. They formed the rules for “Association Football”, with the “Association” distinguishing it from the many other types of football sports in existence in England, such as “Rugby Football”.
Now British school boys of the day liked to nickname everything, which is still somewhat common. They also liked to add the ending “er” to these nicknames. Thus Rugby was, at that time, popularly called “Rugger”. Association Football was then much better known as “Assoccer”, which quickly just became “Soccer” and sometimes “Soccer Football”.
The inventor of the nickname is said to be Charles Wredford Brown, who was an Oxford student around the time of Association Football’s inception. Legend has it, in 1863 shortly after the creation of Association Football, Wredford-Brown had some friends who asked him if he’d come play a game of “Rugger”, to which he replied he preferred “Soccer”. Whether that story’s true or not, the name caught on from around that point on.
In the beginning, the newly standardized Rugby and Soccer were football sports for “gentlemen”, primarily being played by the upper echelons of society. However, these two forms of football gradually spread to the masses, particularly Soccer as Rugby didn’t really catch on too well with the lower classes. This resulted in the name switching from “Soccer” and “Association Football”, to just “Football”; with the first documented case of the sport being called by the singular term “Football” coming in 1881, 18 years after it was first called “Soccer” or, officially, “Association Football”.
The game gradually spread throughout the world under the lower class name of “Football”, rather than “Soccer” as the “gentlemen” called it. The problem was, though, that a lot of other countries of the world already had popular sports of their own they called “Football”, such as the United States, Canada, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, to name a few. In these countries, the name “Soccer” was and, in some, still is preferred for this reason.
LuciusAR wrote: The metric system is the tool of the devil! My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it!
Before any of you gets any weird ideas about systems of measurement! The metric system is the one true system of measurement! Using any other system is vile heresy and will be punished by up to ten years of correctional labour in Siberia.
That said, I do not like soccer, in fact, I hate it. I pay attention for a few minutes during the world cup but don't actually root for anyone. But I respect the talent soccer players have and the amount of training they go through. I think the amount of endurance they have is insane and something I think anyone who is an athlete to enjoys athletics can respect.
I only have room for one true love for sports. Football. The American kind.
This is me... I hate soccer... But this year, is the first time I've EVER sat down and actually watched an entire 2 and half hour broadcast of a WC match.
Alas, where Piston and I differ is in our one true love of sports: As I also love only Football, but my football is the Rugby Union kind
Frazzled wrote: Any sport where you can lose twice and still have a chance for the title is not a sport.
So that means baseball and basketball aren't sports, because you can lose two games and still win the seven game series comfortably. While an American football team that only lost twice during the regular season would likely finish top of its group and probably be among the favourites for the title, so I guess that isn't a sport either.
I guess we can do this for any sport that isn't a knock out comp. So that means is tennis passes your test, and so do some knock out comps that run alongside regular comps (so soccer counts, but only when they're playing the FA cup and similar).
Frazzled wrote: Any sport where you can lose twice and still have a chance for the title is not a sport.
So that means baseball and basketball aren't sports, because you can lose two games and still win the seven game series comfortably. While an American football team that only lost twice during the regular season would likely finish top of its group and probably be among the favourites for the title, so I guess that isn't a sport either.
I guess we can do this for any sport that isn't a knock out comp. So that means is tennis passes your test, and so do some knock out comps that run alongside regular comps (so soccer counts, but only when they're playing the FA cup and similar).
Not sure that's the result you were after
IMO, I *think* what he's trying to say is that, within a single tournament where there is a group stage, followed by knockout stage... it's difficult to see the merit of a team that potentially doesn't win a single game, yet still advances on some points system
But every one of our sports in the US is a tournament with a group stage followed by a knockout stage.
The World Cup is a tournament that spans multiple years, and has a final group stage with the best two teams advancing to the knock-out stage (aka The Playoffs).
Baseball/Basketball/Football/Soccer all have divisions and conferences, and you can lose games and still advance out of your "group".
I completely agree, however, I would think that, if in theory only, a team could potentially draw or lose every one of it's games in the group phase, but still make it to knockout stages.
Definitely, as long as they are better than two of the other teams they go on. I just find that using a "three game mini-season" followed by a 16 team playoff makes it easy to explain the process for the non-familiar.
There are definitely professional sports in the US with playoff systems that piss me off... Hockey and Basketball being two (as they are basically the same, though my hatred of basketball runs much, much deeper than just playoffs), when literally half of the league is in the playoffs... to me, just brings that "elite" feeling down some. I mean, when you have the NFL and MLBs systems, where the number of spaces is quite severely limited, it creates a better atmosphere for the fans and players alike, and the feeling of accomplishment is/should be much greater knowing that you are among the top 25-30% of your league.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: IMO, I *think* what he's trying to say is that, within a single tournament where there is a group stage, followed by knockout stage... it's difficult to see the merit of a team that potentially doesn't win a single game, yet still advances on some points system
I guess while possible that's pretty unlikely. I mean, each group has 4 teams and only two go through. So if you drew all three games you'd end up on 3 points, and be banking on only one other team in the group winning any games. SO you'd be hoping that one strong team in your group (that you drew with) won both its other games, and then the other game that didn't include you or the strong team was a draw, because if either team won that they'd go through on 4 points to your 3. It's possible, but I wonder how many times its happened in the World Cup.
The bigger problem with soccer, I think, is with teams putting up the bus and just trying to stop the other (superior) team from scoring. They do that either to sneak a draw in a group stage match (and then hope to beat one or both of the other teams in the group who are weaker teams)... or in the knock out phase in order to sneak a win on penalties. But that hasn't been a problem in this world cup, every game I've seen has involved lots of attacking from both sides, and the draws have been draws where both teams have scored.
The bigger problem with soccer, I think, is with teams putting up the bus and just trying to stop the other (superior) team from scoring. They do that either to sneak a draw in a group stage match (and then hope to beat one or both of the other teams in the group who are weaker teams)... or in the knock out phase in order to sneak a win on penalties. But that hasn't been a problem in this world cup, every game I've seen has involved lots of attacking from both sides, and the draws have been draws where both teams have scored.
This was something I was noticing with the Germany/USA match last week... you could very much tell that both sides wanted a win, and wanted to advance on their own merits; not based on what happened in the "other" match.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: There are definitely professional sports in the US with playoff systems that piss me off... Hockey and Basketball being two (as they are basically the same, though my hatred of basketball runs much, much deeper than just playoffs), when literally half of the league is in the playoffs... to me, just brings that "elite" feeling down some. I mean, when you have the NFL and MLBs systems, where the number of spaces is quite severely limited, it creates a better atmosphere for the fans and players alike, and the feeling of accomplishment is/should be much greater knowing that you are among the top 25-30% of your league.
Major League Soccer has 19 teams, and 10 make the playoffs. It's pretty stupid.
Edit: of course us soccer purists think the playoffs are very un-soccer like and are a stupid attempt at "americanizing" the sport .
There is now an official trophy that was fan created and is called the "supporters shield" that is awarded to the winner of the season using "european rules".
I do know that once the US is knocked out of the WC, regular Americans will go back to not caring one bit about soccer till the next WC in Qatar.
Speaking of that, what do you think the over/under number will be of players that drop during games due to the heat of summer in the desert nation of Qatar?
Zathras wrote: I do know that once the US is knocked out of the WC, regular Americans will go back to not caring one bit about soccer till the next WC in Qatar.
That's how we know you are American, because the next World Cup is in Russia
I hope that the US will have a deep run to keep people fired up. Major League Soccer has a new TV contract next season and will have a lot more games on ESPN, including Saturday and Sunday games with every game being available on streaming. That has been part of the problem with MLS, hardly any of the games are on TV unless you are one of the cities with a team and have them on your local cable network. You can't grow soccer in the US if you can't even watch the damn thing! So if we can keep people interested and then actually let them watch it on TV, then that should help.
Speaking of that, what do you think the over/under number will be of players that drop during games due to the heat of summer in the desert nation of Qatar?
It seems like people are getting pretty banged up in the current heat, which doesn't give me any confidence in Qatar. I'm still hoping that between the stupid weather and the corruption scandal they will end up moving it somewhere else.
Zathras wrote: I do know that once the US is knocked out of the WC, regular Americans will go back to not caring one bit about soccer till the next WC in Qatar.
That's how we know you are American, because the next World Cup is in Russia
I hope that the US will have a deep run to keep people fired up. Major League Soccer has a new TV contract next season and will have a lot more games on ESPN, including Saturday and Sunday games with every game being available on streaming. That has been part of the problem with MLS, hardly any of the games are on TV unless you are one of the cities with a team and have them on your local cable network. You can't grow soccer in the US if you can't even watch the damn thing! So if we can keep people interested and then actually let them watch it on TV, then that should help.
Maybe. MLS' problems run deeper than that, though. I, for example, would probably enjoy going to a DC United game, but I don't particularly want to run the MS13 gauntlet.
There hasn't been much of a hassle going to an FC Dallas game for me, except the fact that the supporter groups is now treated like criminals and we have 10 cops surrounding us and watching for an excuse to kick us out...
Edit: Is security just big for DC United because of the location?
Edit again: misunderstood the MS-13 reference.
We don't really have any problems of that kind either though.
Frazzled wrote: Any sport where you can lose twice and still have a chance for the title is not a sport.
So that means baseball and basketball aren't sports, because you can lose two games and still win the seven game series comfortably. While an American football team that only lost twice during the regular season would likely finish top of its group and probably be among the favourites for the title, so I guess that isn't a sport either.
I guess we can do this for any sport that isn't a knock out comp. So that means is tennis passes your test, and so do some knock out comps that run alongside regular comps (so soccer counts, but only when they're playing the FA cup and similar).
Not sure that's the result you were after
I think he's talking about Colege Football in that if a team loses a game there's basically no chance they can win the BCS title, but College football's ranking system is pretty fething silly so...
Frazzled wrote: Any sport where you can lose twice and still have a chance for the title is not a sport. Its guys running around kicking a ball. PLus no one dies or is permanently maimed (unless you count the fans beheading people).
I'm so glad to see support for the idea that baseball is not a sport.
Baseball and golf are not sports. Rattlesnake rwrangling, now that is a sport!
It is called football in most places and soccer in some. Once you learn that different places often have different names for things, and not just sports, you'll live a more stress free life.
Soccer is actually a British word. In locations where there are other games called football, soccer gets the term. in fact it didn't change in Britain until the late 80s.
That would be fething brilliant, but I'd say they'd need to limit it to one geographic region... For instance if they ran the WC from between SF, and Seattle, there's at minimum, 3 high class stadia that could hold WC type crowds (being SF, Seattle, and Portland)
I'd definitely be down for a West Coast hosted World Cup. Though I think they'd honestly go with something more like NY, Chicago and Philly as three main cities.
How many stadiums would they need? We have like 15 bazillion of them.
If you count major university stadiums Houston alone has five. San Antio has two, Austin has three, Dallas has a stadium or two, El Paso, has one. Even our high school stadiums can fit several thousand people. Lets do this!
If they play in Aggieland, everyone will have to do pushups if someone scores a goal though...
Frazzled wrote: How many stadiums would they need? We have like 15 bazillion of them.
If you count major university stadiums Houston alone has five. San Antio has two, Austin has three, Dallas has a stadium or two, El Paso, has one. Even our high school stadiums can fit several thousand people. Lets do this!
If they play in Aggieland, everyone will have to do pushups if someone scores a goal though...
While I obviously have no idea what FIFAs criteria are, I'd somewhat assume a stadium that holds minimum 20-30k people?
LordofHats wrote: Wiki says a standard Soccer field is 115 x 74 Yards. I'd say the NFL has plenty of stadiums, but aren't our football fields only like 50 yards wide?
The playing surface is a bit narrower than a standard soccer/rugby field, but basically all NFL/ College football stadiums will work due to having massive sideline areas/buffers between the playing field and fans
Frazzled wrote: How many stadiums would they need? We have like 15 bazillion of them.
If you count major university stadiums Houston alone has five. San Antio has two, Austin has three, Dallas has a stadium or two, El Paso, has one. Even our high school stadiums can fit several thousand people. Lets do this!
If they play in Aggieland, everyone will have to do pushups if someone scores a goal though...
While I obviously have no idea what FIFAs criteria are, I'd somewhat assume a stadium that holds minimum 20-30k people?
there's definitely a minimum capacity but there'll also be things about what facilities the stadium has & the surrounding area etc. College football has a huge draw but most people don't stay in a nearby hotel before & after the game etc which FIFA would probably demand that there's enough for travelling teams & fans(Then again it could be gak I'm spewing)
Most colleges in Texas are in major cities. Not what you're getting at. I didn't mention Baylor.
Definitely better than a stadium in the jungle like certain other locations...right now.
EDIT: on the other hand having lived through the super bowl here with its attendant problems....never mind. I'm sure somehow we'd have to spend billions for it.
FIFA stadium criteria is based on crowd capacity, facilities for referees, interview areas, space and support for media, stuff like that. Any football stadium (NFL or Divisions 1 college football) would qualify.
The US spend almost nothing in 94 when they hosted, they only upgraded two stadiums and that was just work to the fields there.
• Soccer is like the metric system, which liberals also adore because it's European. Naturally, the metric system emerged from the French Revolution, during the brief intervals when they weren't committing mass murder by guillotine.
But I've always wanted to kill rich people! Does that make me un-American?
Soccer sucks and is Un-American because America isn't Best in World at it? And Americans that support and cheer for their team to win, despite not being Best in World, secretly hate America and want it to fail? I don't follow his train of thought.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I think we'd rather not, because we'd have that enforced water break in every game
Just promise you'll build air-conditioned stadiums for all the games, then withdraw that once they've given you the world cup.
You will have to bribe a lot of people, but other than that the plans is a sure thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
44Ronin wrote: There's more strategy in Gridiron as it is more tactical, but union is a tougher game period.
Gridiron is a series of short plays with many breaks, Union is non-stop endurance.
I mean Gridiron even has the concept of the playbook, because it is a given that the game is broken into short plays.
Meanwhile the idea of a restarting the game in Rugby is to have two meatwalls bang against each other
Aussie Rules, League, Union, Soccer etc... they all have playbooks. The only difference is that in grid iron the play stops so all the players can get told which play to run, whereas in other sports the players themselves have to figure out which play to run as the game unfolds, signalling to each other what they're doing as they're doing it, and modify those plays over the course of the game as it becomes clear what is and isn't working.
Obviously because grid iron allows that time to stop the plays can be more intricate, but that doesn't make them smarter.
He had me rolling on the ground laughing as soon as he said 'marxist elites' Those two are pretty much mutually exclusive. Why do I always get the feeling Americans have absolutely no idea as to what marxism, communism etc. actually are, but still like to throw the words around for some reason. Also, I am pretty sure there are no marxists or any kind of communists in the US that are in a position to conspire to legalize gay marriage.
He had me rolling on the ground laughing as soon as he said 'marxist elites' Those two are pretty much mutually exclusive. Why do I always get the feeling Americans have absolutely no idea as to what marxism, communism etc. actually are, but still like to throw the words around for some reason. Also, I am pretty sure there are no marxists or any kind of communists in the US that are in a position to conspire to legalize gay marriage.
Yeah, this is a country in which Obama is called communist. He's not even a socialist. But some people like to live in the Reagan era.
He dislikes soccer/football for the following reasons.
- Gambling... and the gangsters can influence over an entire league or tournament. not just one game
- It takes a relative long time for each score to occure. (and Football is not rally-score sport, it is 'time limit' sport)... it is possible (And it happens so many time) that a match can end without score.
- ridiculous rules like offsides where in a heat of match. players may not realize whether did he/she offsides and once it occurs, a goaling (if it happens) is nullified outright
but Soccer/football is quite my favorite sport. especially the La Liga or Gialcho Series A
- It takes a relative long time for each score to occure. (and Football is not rally-score sport, it is 'time limit' sport)... it is possible (And it happens so many time) that a match can end without score.
Germany and Brazil is testament that this isn't really the case
- It takes a relative long time for each score to occure. (and Football is not rally-score sport, it is 'time limit' sport)... it is possible (And it happens so many time) that a match can end without score.
Germany and Brazil is testament that this isn't really the case
Not really, the slaughterfest that was Germany-Brazil was really quite exceptional. I don't think anything like that ever happened in football history. High-level football matches usually see very little goals. Games are usually won with scores like 1-0 or 2-1, and they rarely go above 3 goals for one side. This tournament did see quite a few of those surprises though. Netherlands-Spain 5-1, Germany-Portugal 4-0 and of course Germany-Brazil 7-1
But it's not like the NFL is always a score fest either. It seems that way because you have different ways to score and each is worth multiple points anyway.
Looking at a random week last season you end up with converted scores of: 3-7, 3.5-1.5, 3.5-5, 2.5-3, 4-0, 2.5-3, 2.5-3.5, 2.5-1.5, 3-3.5, 2-1, 3.5-3, 4-5, 3.5-4, 4.5-5, 5-4. (I counted field goals as 0.5 of a goal).
Sure, it's higher than soccer. But it's not really crazily so. I just picked a random week in the NFL, and if you converted the scores to goals (every 7 points = 1 goal) you end up with an average score of 3-3.
That's really it, the average "so much more scoring than soccer" football game in that week was 3 goals by each side.
Let's look at a couple different matchdays for soccer leagues:
NFL: 3-3
College Football: 4.5-4
Bundesliga: 2-1
Premier League: 2-0.5
La Liga: 1.5-1
So if we take away two touchdowns from each NFL game are going to abandon the sport because it's "boring and nobody scores"?
Added average week 10 scores for the Top 25 College football scores last season. If NFL fans think that Soccer is boring then College Football fans must think that the NFL is a stinker
Iron_Captain wrote: I don't think anything like that ever happened in football history.
In the last world cup, Portugal beat North Korea by 7-0. Those kinds of results are somewhat unusual but they aren't that rare. The only historical thing about this one was that it happened to Brazil.
Iron_Captain wrote: I don't think anything like that ever happened in football history.
In the last world cup, Portugal beat North Korea by 7-0. Those kinds of results are somewhat unusual but they aren't that rare. The only historical thing about this one was that it happened to Brazil.
Exactly. High scores like that are more common on lower levels (North Korea is far from being at the same high football level as Portugal, the same goes for Saudi Arabia), but it is incredibly rare that it happens on such high-level matches as Germany-Brazil. Brazil is the best football country in the world. Such a humiliation, I still can barely believe it.
These people were invited to an event, and instead of just having some fun and letting the host win, they won't hesitate to humiliate, then curbstomp him and piss on his head...
Go watch some 
!
. 
