Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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?

 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

Texas could just host the damn thing.

 kronk wrote:
Texas could just host the damn thing.

I think we'd rather not, because we'd have that enforced water break in every game

 kronk wrote:
Texas Should just host the damn thing.

Corrected your typo.

There's an extremely simple solution to the mind-numbingly boring crawl of soccer...cut the field in half. Now you have a sport worth watching.

 gunslingerpro wrote:
Best to think of Ann Coulter as Stephen Colbert where the satire never turns off.

But then people would actually have to engage their brains and dissect the real points she's trying to make. You crazy!

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 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.

a new challenger appears !





People like this can vote and breed.

Don't worry, after we lose the US will hate the world cup again too. We don't cotton to losers!

EDIT: on the article you posted, my only comment is...what the hell was that?

 reds8n wrote:
a new challenger appears !





People like this can vote and breed.

Do I detect sour grapes from that eejit?

Having said that, after watch the Belgium vs. USA game for two minutes I remember why I hate soccer too.

• 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?

 reds8n wrote:
a new challenger appears !





People like this can vote and breed.

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.

Because you are not American!

 reds8n wrote:
a new challenger appears !





People like this can vote and breed.

I took the liberty of checking out the rest of that website.

http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/obama-adviser-let-in-illegals-to-get-votes/

It's very cute how Americans think their wussie knock off rugby is the #1 sport.

 44Ronin wrote:
It's very cute how Americans think their wussie knock off rugby is the #1 sport.

I wish Australian Football was the world's biggest sport... Now that gak's enjoyable to watch.

 44Ronin wrote:
It's very cute how Americans think their wussie knock off rugby is the #1 sport.

This may be the only time I'll agree with you here.

I'll take a good NZ v Aus or Super Rugby match over NFL or College football anytime.

 Soladrin wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:
It's very cute how Americans think their wussie knock off rugby is the #1 sport.

I wish Australian Football was the world's biggest sport... Now that gak's enjoyable to watch.

'Aussie rules player banned for testicle bite'

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2002/may/01/1



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

 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.

So WND is a conservative nut-job site?

Edit: Yep, defnitly a conservative nut-job site. Look at this nonsense. Elites conspire to legalize 'gay' marriage in 2015

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
So WND is a conservative nut-job site?

Edit: Yep, defnitly a conservative nut-job site. Look at this nonsense. Elites conspire to legalize 'gay' marriage in 2015

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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
So WND is a conservative nut-job site?

Edit: Yep, defnitly a conservative nut-job site. Look at this nonsense. Elites conspire to legalize 'gay' marriage in 2015

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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Why do I always get the feeling Americans have absolutely no idea as to what marxism, communism etc. actually are

Just watch posts here in the OT where several of them claim Europe is a communist paradise.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Why do I always get the feeling Americans have absolutely no idea as to what marxism, communism etc. actually are

Just watch posts here in the OT where several of them claim Europe is a communist paradise.

You mean it's not???

Same goes to my daddy.

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

 Lone Cat wrote:

- 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

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Lone Cat wrote:

- 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