WWC (Women's World Cup) USA

[SFP]

The USA women showed the world what we are about today against Brazil. The USA woman suffered bad call after bad call from the ref and still manged to win in a gut wrenching manner. They never gave up and scored the equalizer with a minute left in stoppage time a woman down.

Go USA!!!!

[Da Coach]

It was fun to watch. An amazing game-tying goal in the last minute of extra time in Overtime (122nd minute) on a header by Abby Wambach, then they made all their penalty kicks to win. There were some bizarre calls, especially the red card then the rare encroachment call that lead to 2 penalty kicks, a goal, and that forced to US to play most of the game short a player.

http://espn.go.com/sports/soccer/news/_/id/6754797/women-world-cup-us-captured-lightning-bottle-brazil-soccer

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/report/_/id/323673?cc=5901

[BU RICK]

They're a good looking team and playing great

I liked these stills from the north korean game earlier...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCfK6lNeaPc

[AZ BU Fan]

Soccer needs to improve the way it officiates games. There is really no excuse for the blown calls today in a World Cup Quaterfinal elimination game.
Never should have been a free kick by Brazil in front of our goal, and Brazil's second goal was clearly set up by an off sides play.

Funny how the officials called out US wing player offsides right before the Brazil free kick in the box, but couldn't see Brazil offsides later in the game setting up their go ahead goal.

More officials, replay challenge, rule changes....something should be done to get officiating up to speed with the level of the women's (and men's) game today.

Unfortunately, I was amazed at how much holding, grabbing, elbowing, hip checking, pushing, is allowed in soccer.

Getting closer to rugby, aussie rules football, or even the NBA, than soccer.

Sad...

[Da Coach]

With the USA women's big win yesterday in the quarterfinals of the Women's World Cup, now the media is asking the question they always like to ask every time a World Cup or big international win occurs-
Will soccer's popularity take off?

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/07/11/3007013/talking-points-will-soccers-popularity.html

I agree with the author of the article- Even if the US women can keep going and win the tournament, I don't see soccer's popularity increasing because of this. Just as it faded last summer when everyone expected soccer to take off after the men's World Cup in South Africa, and just like it fades after every World Cup, and just like it did in 1999 when the US women surprised the world and won the Women's World Cup, and just as it did in 1994 when the World Cup was held in the US.

[TheAsianSensation]

The problem with popularity in soccer in the US is that it's national-team based. I see popularity in both national teams increasing and I think that can be sustained. However, so much of football popularity in the rest of the world is based on club teams as well as national teams, and I don't see club football ever gaining steam in the USA.

National team play has been compelling, but to ultimately take the next step, club football needs to gain a foothold.

[SFP]

The problem with popularity in soccer in the US is that it's national-team based. I see popularity in both national teams increasing and I think that can be sustained. However, so much of football popularity in the rest of the world is based on club teams as well as national teams, and I don't see club football ever gaining steam in the USA.

National team play has been compelling, but to ultimately take the next step, club football needs to gain a foothold.

I agree for the short term. MLS will have to find a way to market their brand to the main stream American market and then find a way to keep players from bolting to Europe. In the long term I believe our demographics will dictate an uptake in the sport. How well depends on how well we can develop players we all want to relate to. All sports have cyclical periods of ups and downs in popularity. I can see the USA being a lot like Europe is for basketball. It will take time and growing talent. MLS has changed their process in developing talent which is more aligned with how the Europeans club produce theirs.

[TylerDurden]

The problem with popularity in soccer in the US is that it's national-team based. I see popularity in both national teams increasing and I think that can be sustained. However, so much of football popularity in the rest of the world is based on club teams as well as national teams, and I don't see club football ever gaining steam in the USA.

National team play has been compelling, but to ultimately take the next step, club football needs to gain a foothold.

Agreed. But it already is, to some degree. MLS built the league correctly, i.e. not buying international players when they didn't have the money or fan support to do so.

Here are the average attendance numbers for MLS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_L...cer_attendance

As a league, they averaged 16,675 in 2010. Half of the league averaged more than 14,000 per match. Seattle (an expansion team) averaged 31,000 its first season and more than 36,000 last year.

The NBA and NHL hover around the positive side of 17,000 as leagues.

The NBA clearly has better television exposure and the NHL has more history, but I can see MLS continuing its grown and surpassing each of those in average attendance in the next decade.

[Da Coach]

The Seattle example may be a bit unique- Seattle had just lost their NBA franchise (Sonics) in 2008, their football team (Seahawks) had a couple woefully bad seasons (2008 & 2009), and their baseball team was even worse, losing 101 games in 2008. All that made for a niche that sports fans in Seattle were dying for a new team to support. The Sounders franchise began play in March of 2009, with wealthy owners and extremely well funded to enable them to sign good talent and be competetive immediately. They play in a relatively new, beautiful downtown stadium, and the Seattle area is a bit insulated from some of the economic problems facing most cities. Plus, Seattle is a great sports city, where soccer is highly popular. It was a perfect storm of circumstances to enable an expansion soccer franchise to be successful.
I doubt the success the startup Sounders had could be duplicated in any other city.

[tornado]

it's as simple as this -- there will always be a core group of great soccer fans - like the ones who drove 500 miles to see one game when the Fire played here in Peoria --

..but if anyone associated with soccer expects or wants the game to generate broader appeal in the US -- it's going to take more than a week of good play on ESPN or winning the World Cup --

The soccer purists abhor even thinking about what must be done to interest Americans -- they won't speak it and won't consider it in any way...but I am going to be bold and speak it here even if it curdles the blood of a few soccer purists...

The game must be changed to give more action and more scoring instead of perhaps one exciting play every 10 minutes or an exciting goal at the 122nd minute...
If they choose not to change the game then they will get what they have always gotten from Americans -- just a passing bit of interest when our team in playing on a world level. If the US hadn't qualified for the World Cup then the number watching would be just a fraction of what it is.

Example...even though soccer was played more than 200 years ago -- a problem developed in the mid-1800's when teams had players that stayed downfield somewhat "basket hanging" or "cherry picking"....
balls were just kicked long for easy scores to cherry picking players so something had to be done...

In other words -- ironically -- the scores were TOO HIGH and the rules had to be changed.
In order to clean that part of the game up -- rules then started including "offsides" rules...
In other words -- the offsides rule came into the game as a way to change it and prevent gobs of easy scores from cherry picking --

Now we have exactly the opposite problem -- long scoreless games....but now every player plays the full field unlike when they all just played their positions (mid-field, forward, etc..) - so forwards are constantly trying to get just an advantage and defenses are trying like crazy not to let them downfield by using tricks to provoke them offsides.
In the end -- tons of exciting scoring plays are ruled offsides, making it exceedingly hard to score.
If that's the way the Brits like it -- fine -- but the Yanks hate that style and so the game's never gonna catch on here -- never, much to the dismay of the soccer enthusiasts who wish otherwise.

BTW -- the offsides rules have been changed several times already so it wouldn't be precedent-shattering to do it again...
Check out this paragraph...

"In 1848....to be the first set of "Cambridge Rules"..... included laws governing ....offside. .... Rule No. 9 required more than three defensive players to be ahead of an attacker who plays the ball.

The rule states:
'If the ball has passed a player and has come from the direction of his own goal, he may not touch it till the other side have kicked it, unless there are more than three of the other side before him.
No player is allowed to loiter between the ball and the adversaries' goal.

As football developed in the 1860s and 1870s, the offside law proved the biggest argument between the clubs. Sheffield got rid of the "kick-throughs" by amending their laws so that one member of the defending side was required between a forward player and the opponents' goal. The Football Association also compromised slightly and eased the Cambridge idea of "more than three" (i.e. four opponents) to at "least three" (i.e. three opponents). Finally, Sheffield came into line with the F.A., and "three opponents" became the rule until 1925.

The change to the "two opponents" rule led to an immediate increase in goal-scoring.

In 1990 the law was amended to adjudge an attacker as onside if level with the second-to-last opponent. This change was part of a general movement by the game's authorities to make the rules more conducive to attacking football and help the game to flow more freely."

So the rule's already been changed numerous times to help the flow of the game......so why such resistance to changing it again along the line of how Major League Baseball has changed the height of the mound to alter pitchers' prowess or how football has constantly adjusted hitting rules to prevent injury or even hockey's rules for offsides have gradually EVOLVED to what they are today. (There was even once a time in ice hockey where NO forward pass of any kind was allowed -- all advance had to be accomplished by carrying the puck -- you could never pass forward - ever! - LINK)

[ChewaBrave]

The Seattle example may be a bit unique- Seattle had just lost their NBA franchise (Sonics) in 2008, their football team (Seahawks) had a couple woefully bad seasons (2008 & 2009), and their baseball team was even worse, losing 101 games in 2008. All that made for a niche that sports fans in Seattle were dying for a new team to support. The Sounders franchise began play in March of 2009, with wealthy owners and extremely well funded to enable them to sign good talent and be competetive immediately. They play in a relatively new, beautiful downtown stadium, and the Seattle area is a bit insulated from some of the economic problems facing most cities. Plus, Seattle is a great sports city, where soccer is highly popular. It was a perfect storm of circumstances to enable an expansion soccer franchise to be successful.
I doubt the success the startup Sounders had could be duplicated in any other city.

Not sure exactly of the numbers, but many of the recent expansions are doing very well in attendance. Portland has been strong, as well as Toronto. Its building, slowly, but building. Hell Sporting Kansas City just built a new 200 million dollar soccer field - sharp looking. Think MLS has finally realized that to get the best soccer experience, you need a venue designed to hold soccer matches, not an amended football or baseball stadium.

[Da Coach]

Not sure exactly of the numbers, but many of the recent expansions are doing very well in attendance. Portland has been strong, as well as Toronto. Its building, slowly, but building. Hell Sporting Kansas City just built a new 200 million dollar soccer field - sharp looking. Think MLS has finally realized that to get the best soccer experience, you need a venue designed to hold soccer matches, not an amended football or baseball stadium.

Here are the attendance numbers for the MLS franchises over the last few years.
Nobody comes close to the success that Seattle has had.
Their attendance is way ahead of everyone else, and would be even higher, except that they are at capacity for their field.-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Soccer_attendance

But if you scroll down to near the bottom of that page and check out the season average attendance from 1996-2010, it is apparent that although the overall attendance at MLS games is up, it is due to more teams, and more games. The actual average attendance has remained relatively level for the last 15 years (average attendance 17,406 in 1996, and 16,675 in 2010). In fact, it is only the addition of the Seattle Sounders that has kept the average attendance from falling over the last several years.

[ChewaBrave]

No I agree, its not staggering - I was just speaking to the development of new teams, like the Sounders. Portland and Vancouver are both doing very well in attendance and it is there first year in the league. Portland is averaging a sellout, and Vancouver is up around 20,000 even though they play in a cruddy temporary stadium, and are ridiculously bad at soccer. Kansas city has also jumped considerably this year, as they increased the size of their stadium. I think its interesting that the more successful teams appear to have taken a harder edge to their soccer fanbases - and have actually made it less of a family atmosphere. Kind of an interesting development

[SFP]

This post was in support of our women's national soccer team!

They play tomorrow morning 8:30 am PST, against a formidable French team. The USA women have to be the clear favorite of the four teams remaining. I expect them to play Sweden in the Finals and revenge their loss to them earlier.

One more reason to watch...http://www.thesportsbrewery.com/xyz/...ou-alex-morgan

[Bradleyguy10]

So what changes would need to be made to make soccer more acceptable in the US?

I know they have made changes to the offsides rule but no more changes can really occur in that aspect if you are trying to get rid of cherry picking for good. The rule is two defenders (which includes the goalie) and it used to be "you're even you're off" it's not that way anymore. So essentially you can get the closest to cherry picking now without actually cherry picking. What other changes can be made to make it more offensive? The only thing I can think of is add 6 inches to each side and the height of the goal.