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.

 Avatar 720 wrote:
Yeah, the key-word in Prestor's post was "deliberately".

Besides, I'm sure Central American teams would much prefer being bundled with the US and Mexico than half the teams in South America. If overcoming the US marks a challenge, imagine how they'd feel knowing they had to conquer the likes of Brazil, Argentina, or Uruguay.

That's the impression I got from the qualifying writeup - that the US would never have a chance if it had to play against South / Central America for a spot.

Here i Sweden I'd say the top team sports are (non-american) football, hockey, bandy and handball.

Football and hockey are the ones you'll see most often on TV, and the ones with the most rabid fans.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Avatar 720 wrote:
Yeah, the key-word in Prestor's post was "deliberately".

Besides, I'm sure Central American teams would much prefer being bundled with the US and Mexico than half the teams in South America. If overcoming the US marks a challenge, imagine how they'd feel knowing they had to conquer the likes of Brazil, Argentina, or Uruguay.

That's the impression I got from the qualifying writeup - that the US would never have a chance if it had to play against South / Central America for a spot.

It should be North and Central America as a zone. Not far that Ecuador has to play Peru, Argentina, and Brazil. It really is stacked towards the US or maybe Mexico.

On the other hand the whole methodology sounds utterly asinine. If its the playoffs then there should have been multiple games with the best teams getting into the playoffs, not one off games.

Also how does this relate to professional teams, like Manchester United et al?

Considering the NFL's popularity negatives went up 30% in the last two weeks and ratings dropped 17%, along with demographics, the NFL may go the way of Baseball with soccer gaining more popularity.

 d-usa wrote:

 John Prins wrote:
Soccer is the #5 major league sport in the USA. Basically, if someone has athletic talent, they get funneled into baseball, basketball or football, or maybe hockey.

The only reason the USA has had any success in Soccer is because it's got over 300 million people to pick from. Most other nations in the world rate Soccer #1 and it shows, a nation of 15 million can put out a competitive team.

Canada generally funnels top talent into Hockey.

And recently, more of our successful national players came out of the academy system of other countries as well. Dual nationals who have a “fall back” option of playing for the US team if they don’t get selected by their other national team.

Soccer is also primarily a middle to upper class sport in the US. Where as in the rest of the world it's more broadly popular.

I've also heard it's not uncommon for US clubs to have a pay for play time system that contributes to the 'funneling' problem.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Avatar 720 wrote:
Yeah, the key-word in Prestor's post was "deliberately".

Besides, I'm sure Central American teams would much prefer being bundled with the US and Mexico than half the teams in South America. If overcoming the US marks a challenge, imagine how they'd feel knowing they had to conquer the likes of Brazil, Argentina, or Uruguay.

That's the impression I got from the qualifying writeup - that the US would never have a chance if it had to play against South / Central America for a spot.

And they would never play them unless it was at a final.

You have to understand what FIFA is to understand the qualifying:

FIFA is the worldwide body for regulating the sport of soccer. They make the rules, they set the standards for confederations, leagues, teams, stadiums, etc. They also organize the various worldwide tournaments, with the World Cup being the most famous of them all. FIFA is also the collaborative body for the individual confederations that oversee the actual national programs. FIFA hosts the event, but the actual confederations get to pick who goes to the event. It’s not the 32 best teams in the world, it’s “confederations, send me YOUR best teams”.

The six confederations oversee the individual national programs, and they set the rules for these programs. They organize their own tournaments and championships (UEFA Cup, CONCACAF Gold Cup, etc). There is some politics about what country plays in what confederation (Russia plays in Europe instead of Asia, a few South American countries play in CONCACAF), but confederations mostly govern themselves as long as they follow FIFA rules. The World Cup is of course a big deal for the individual countries involved, but it is as much a competition for prestige between the individual confederations as it is between the individual nations. Brazil-Germany was just as much about CONMEBOL vs UEFA. The confederations don’t care as much about which national team makes it to the World Cup, they simply want their best teams to represent them as the best conference. They are not going to rig the selections for weaker teams, because a weak showing at the World Cup will financially hurt the confederation.

Then you get national federations (US Soccer for us) who regulate professional and amateur play in each country. They set the rules and standard in each country, down to the lowest level.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Avatar 720 wrote:
Yeah, the key-word in Prestor's post was "deliberately".

Besides, I'm sure Central American teams would much prefer being bundled with the US and Mexico than half the teams in South America. If overcoming the US marks a challenge, imagine how they'd feel knowing they had to conquer the likes of Brazil, Argentina, or Uruguay.

That's the impression I got from the qualifying writeup - that the US would never have a chance if it had to play against South / Central America for a spot.

It should be North and Central America as a zone. Not far that Ecuador has to play Peru, Argentina, and Brazil. It really is stacked towards the US or maybe Mexico.

On the other hand the whole methodology sounds utterly asinine. If its the playoffs then there should have been multiple games with the best teams getting into the playoffs, not one off games.

Also how does this relate to professional teams, like Manchester United et al?

Considering the NFL's popularity negatives went up 30% in the last two weeks and ratings dropped 17%, along with demographics, the NFL may go the way of Baseball with soccer gaining more popularity.

Individual professional teams don’t feature in the World Cup (aside from Bayern München maybe, which has like 2/3rds if the German national team on the payroll ). Think of it similar to the NBA and the Olympics, except that any soccer player saying “I don’t want to play in the national team because I might get hurt and damage my professional career wild kill his career forever.

For the qualifying, they were not one of games. The 6 teams that made it to the hex, including the US, played a total of 10 games facing each other nation at home and away. It was a long cumulative effort that kept the US from qualifying.

Suggesting the North, Central America and Caribbean qualifying group is stacked towards USA and Mexico is like saying the AFC East Division is stacked towards the New England Patriots.

Not saying that it's wrong to think it's stacked, but it's on the same lines as what is being said.

A very simplified qualification list of how CONCACAF teams qualify for the World Cup Final, curtesy of Wikipedia. There are 35 national teams in the confederation (many small island nations), and they are ranked 1-35.

The qualification structure was as follows:[4][6]

First round: A total of 14 teams (lowest ranked teams are assigned spots 22–35) played home-and-away over two legs. The seven winners advanced to the second round.

Second round: A total of 20 teams (second lowest ranked teams are assigned spots 9–21 and seven first round winners) played home-and-away over two legs. The ten winners advanced to the third round.

Third round: A total of 12 teams (teams ranked 7–8 by CONCACAF and ten second round winners) played home-and-away over two legs. The six winners advanced to the fourth round.

Fourth round: A total of 12 teams (teams ranked 1–6 by CONCACAF and six third round winners) were divided into three groups of four teams to play home-and-away round-robin matches. The top two teams of each group advanced to the fifth round.

Fifth round: The six teams which had advanced from the fourth round played home-and-away round-robin matches in one single group (often referred to as the "Hexagonal"). The top three teams qualified for the 2018 FIFA World Cup, and the fourth-placed team advanced to the inter-confederation play-offs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Henry wrote:
Suggesting the North, Central America and Caribbean qualifying group is stacked towards USA and Mexico is like saying the AFC East Division is stacked towards the New England Patriots.

Not saying that it's wrong to think it's stacked, but it's on the same lines as what is being said.

I think “stacked” just implies purposeful malice.

I wouldn’t argue against the fact that the US plays in a very favorable confederation based on the competitiveness of the teams in the confederation. But I won’t argue that the confederation was created or organized to benefit the US.

For the qualifying, they were not one of games. The 6 teams that made it to the hex, including the US, played a total of 10 games facing each other nation at home and away. It was a long cumulative effort that kept the US from qualifying.

AH, thanks for the clarification! In that case they suck and all good Americans will shun them!

To quote our America's spiritual leader:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
...but do any Americans actually care?

Nobody watches soccer during football season.
see what i did there?

I’m always willing to jump on the “FIFA is corrupt and screwed up everything” bandwagon, but the US really managed to screw themselves out of playing at the World Cup without any help .

 d-usa wrote:
I’m always willing to jump on the “FIFA is corrupt and screwed up everything” bandwagon, but the US really managed to screw themselves out of playing at the World Cup without any help .

Can't *both* of those thins be true?

For example, the IOC is notoriously corrupt, but the US Mens Olympic Soccer team hasn't medaled in a while (ever?), either.

Most nations really don’t care about Olympic soccer, so it’s not a significant indicator of how each nations team is doing. The teams are age restricted, and fewer teams qualify to begin with. Most nations see it as a “practice playing in a tournament” event, and not much more. It’s “World Cup or Bust” for most.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Soccer is the second most boring major sport to watch, beaten only by golf. I honestly don't understand the hype people get into about the game, they're total snooze fests where maybe 2-3 goals get scored per game total and other than that it's a bunch of running around the field uselessly passing the ball back and forth. Announcers practically hyperventilating over a few passes or the occasional fight over absolutely nothing. I swear they must be on crack and speed to find any of that exciting.

I can see maybe it would be fun to play Soccer and it's good exercise, but watching it is utterly uninteresting.

Unfortunately no sport can ever hope to compete with freaking curling!

It's like bowling but with brooms and ice!

Cat version for lulz.

EDIT: damn tags always messing with me XD

We've had the discussion about what sport is more boring to watch in the past, and got a mod warning about it in the past as well.

The summary is, in an absolute shocker to almost nobody, that any sport where you don't know the tactics and techniques is usually considered boring to watch.

I can't stand baseball, to me it's just one guy throwing a ball, a random guy with a bat trying to smash the ball, and then a bunch of people running around in a circle while a different bunch of people try to catch the ball. Why the feth one would sit in front of a TV for hours to watch that is beyond me. Other people find it riveting, they know the rules, they understand the techniques, and they know that there are reasons for why that one guy just took 5 steps to the right that can affect the entire game.

Heck, I curl, and curling might be one of the most technical and tactical sports out there. I watch the heck out of that sport if it is on TV. I can totally understand why people consider it a waste of bandwidth though!

Edit: while looking for that old discussion about "boring" I did come across this:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Soccer is the second most boring major sport to watch, beaten only by golf. I honestly don't understand the hype people get into about the game, they're total snooze fests where maybe 2-3 goals get scored per game total and other than that it's a bunch of running around the field uselessly passing the ball back and forth. Announcers practically hyperventilating over a few passes or the occasional fight over absolutely nothing. I swear they must be on crack and speed to find any of that exciting.

I can see maybe it would be fun to play Soccer and it's good exercise, but watching it is utterly uninteresting.

Unfortunately no sport can ever hope to compete with freaking curling!

It's like bowling but with brooms and ice!

Cat version for lulz.

EDIT: damn tags always messing with me XD

Incorrect. You missed the important rule. You have to drink whiskey or chug a Molson every time a stone is pushed. Note: this is not in the rulebook and was told to me by a Canadian.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
We've had the discussion about what sport is more boring to watch in the past, and got a mod warning about it in the past as well.

The summary is, in an absolute shocker to almost nobody, that any sport where you don't know the tactics and techniques is usually considered boring to watch.

I can't stand baseball, to me it's just one guy throwing a ball, a random guy with a bat trying to smash the ball, and then a bunch of people running around in a circle while a different bunch of people try to catch the ball. Why the feth one would sit in front of a TV for hours to watch that is beyond me. Other people find it riveting, they know the rules, they understand the techniques, and they know that there are reasons for why that one guy just took 5 steps to the right that can affect the entire game.

Heck, I curl, and curling might be one of the most technical and tactical sports out there. I watch the heck out of that sport if it is on TV. I can totally understand why people consider it a waste of bandwidth though!

Edit: while looking for that old discussion about "boring" I did come across this:

We need to invoke the "if we lose we invade your country" rule.

In other news, it appears Fox pre-paid $400M to televise World Cup soccer next year. That's gonna be a tough sell if there won't be an American team in any of those games...

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
In other news, it appears Fox pre-paid $400M to televise World Cup soccer next year. That's gonna be a tough sell if there won't be an American team in any of those games...

They have enough Spanish speaking stations to televise to the "still care" crowd!

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
In other news, it appears Fox pre-paid $400M to televise World Cup soccer next year. That's gonna be a tough sell if there won't be an American team in any of those games...

I read somewhere else that the 400mil are for 2018 and 2022, not just next year.

OK, $200Mil down the tubes! So much better!

The US is huge, there're going to be people watching.

Actually through 2026, they extended the current contract last year. It also includes all the other FIFA tournaments through 2026: Women’s World Cups, Confederation’s Cup, both men’s and women’s U-20 and U-17 World Cups.

Sure, the Men’s World Cup is the big one, but the deal includes a ton of events.

Even if 2018 is a bust, the US is thought to be the host for 2026, so getting the rights to broadcast the American World Cup in the USA will probably still be worth it.

 d-usa wrote:
Actually through 2026, they extended the current contract last year. It also includes all the other FIFA tournaments through 2026: Women’s World Cups, Confederation’s Cup, both men’s and women’s U-20 and U-17 World Cups.

Sure, the Men’s World Cup is the big one, but the deal includes a ton of events.

Even if 2018 is a bust, the US is thought to be the host for 2026, so getting the rights to broadcast the American World Cup in the USA will probably still be worth it.

That's a lot of content for 400ml. And sure they'll now lose that block of people that suddenly become soccer experts for a couple of weeks while their national team is still in the tournament, but that's not where the value is. There's very large immigrant and expat populations in the US that will be watching every game, that's where the money is.

I think probably the bigger issue is the timezones, I'm guessing games will be played at awkward times in the US?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Fear not Seb, Australia are still in with a chance of making it.

Didn't our triumphant victory of the might of Syria put us in?

Anyhow, I'm gonna be barracking for Iceland.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Soccer is the second most boring major sport to watch, beaten only by golf. I honestly don't understand the hype people get into about the game, they're total snooze fests where maybe 2-3 goals get scored per game total and other than that it's a bunch of running around the field uselessly passing the ball back and forth. Announcers practically hyperventilating over a few passes or the occasional fight over absolutely nothing. I swear they must be on crack and speed to find any of that exciting.

I can see maybe it would be fun to play Soccer and it's good exercise, but watching it is utterly uninteresting.

Boring is in the eye of the beholder. I could complain about american football when I tried watching it. It was "few seconds actions. half minute commercials, few seconds actions, half minute wait, repeat and fall asleep".

Maybe regular game is better but the super bowl? Boooooring.

tneva82 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Soccer is the second most boring major sport to watch, beaten only by golf. I honestly don't understand the hype people get into about the game, they're total snooze fests where maybe 2-3 goals get scored per game total and other than that it's a bunch of running around the field uselessly passing the ball back and forth. Announcers practically hyperventilating over a few passes or the occasional fight over absolutely nothing. I swear they must be on crack and speed to find any of that exciting.

I can see maybe it would be fun to play Soccer and it's good exercise, but watching it is utterly uninteresting.

Boring is in the eye of the beholder. I could complain about american football when I tried watching it. It was "few seconds actions. half minute commercials, few seconds actions, half minute wait, repeat and fall asleep".

Maybe regular game is better but the super bowl? Boooooring.

Everything is of course subjective.
But some sports like baseball, most of the time nothing happens (it takes forever between two throws, and even then most of them result in nothing). I would say cycling (which I love) is like that too. These are sports that are best enjoyed when you know them.
On the other side, while I don't care for basketball or handball, I can clearly see the appeal, and I've enjoyed the few games I've been to. I didn't grasp the tactics and stuff, but there's enough action that it's enjoyable.

 sebster wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Fear not Seb, Australia are still in with a chance of making it.

Didn't our triumphant victory of the might of Syria put us in?

Anyhow, I'm gonna be barracking for Iceland.

I was barracking for Syria if I'm honest, I love watching how many fair weather fans drop the Socceroos/the A League like a snake as soon as the national team isn't doing well

 motyak wrote:
I was barracking for Syria if I'm honest, I love watching how many fair weather fans drop the Socceroos/the A League like a snake as soon as the national team isn't doing well

I didn't really have a horse in the game either way. I quite like the World Cup, but I don't follow soccer regularly so I have no engagement with any Australian players, and I've never barracked for Australia just because*. I guess I would barrack for Syria given what's happening there, but I don't really know how the team aligns with the Assad regime. Doesn't matter now, I guess.




*I grew up in the 90s as a mad keen cricketer. Barracking for Australia was boring because we were so dominant. So I started following players instead, and teams if they played a style of game that was good.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Soccer is the second most boring major sport to watch, beaten only by golf. I honestly don't understand the hype people get into about the game, they're total snooze fests where maybe 2-3 goals get scored per game total and other than that it's a bunch of running around the field uselessly passing the ball back and forth. Announcers practically hyperventilating over a few passes or the occasional fight over absolutely nothing. I swear they must be on crack and speed to find any of that exciting.

I can see maybe it would be fun to play Soccer and it's good exercise, but watching it is utterly uninteresting.

There's nothing on Earth that is more boring than baseball

But also hockey is quite boring. In fact those sports are only loved in a few countries in the world.

Scoring every second is way more boring than an entire match without a single goal, that's why I don't like those sports like basketball or tennis which end with 150-200 points scored. Volley is an exception.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:


There is probably a valid argument to reallocate the number of teams each region can send to the Finals, and I think that CONCACAF should probably get a permanent 4th spot instead of the 3.5 we have now.

They should have 2 or 2.5, actually. Africa and south america should have 1-2 more teams and asiatic selections are usually better than central-north american ones, where only Costa Rica, Mexico and USA have the skills to be part of a world cup without being there only to be sparring partners.

 sebster wrote:

 motyak wrote:
I was barracking for Syria if I'm honest, I love watching how many fair weather fans drop the Socceroos/the A League like a snake as soon as the national team isn't doing well

I didn't really have a horse in the game either way. I quite like the World Cup, but I don't follow soccer regularly so I have no engagement with any Australian players, and I've never barracked for Australia just because*. I guess I would barrack for Syria given what's happening there, but I don't really know how the team aligns with the Assad regime. Doesn't matter now, I guess.




*I grew up in the 90s as a mad keen cricketer. Barracking for Australia was boring because we were so dominant. So I started following players instead, and teams if they played a style of game that was good.

Australia Vs Honduras for a place at the World Cup. If Australia win, will they be dancing on the streets of Melbourne?

There's nothing on Earth that is more boring than baseball

I take it these folks have never watched 5-day test cricket. The very definition of boring. The only good thing about it is that you CAN actually watch the grass grow at the same time.

 Blackie wrote:


But also hockey is quite boring.

There are few words that can make a Canadian act in an impolite manner. Don't push it, pal.

Scoring every second is way more boring than an entire match without a single goal, that's why I don't like those sports like basketball or tennis which end with 150-200 points scored. Volley is an exception.

A 150 point basketball game is not usually seen in professional play, and that's at most 75 baskets, almost certainly less with the three point shots.

In what world does tennis regularly reach 150-200 points? It's first to 4, usually.