What’s worse….a soccer match ending 0-0 or a twelve round boxing match going to decision? (1 Viewer)

[Zigg]

Just reading through this thread leads me to believe that there are people that basically feel like a “tie” is the same as if the game/event never happened

No doubt,

But the US/ENG match is a very good example of a tie a very definite result, and what it means for the US team, the ENG team, the US' chances and confidence going forward, it is a simple fact that it is not as if the game never happened.

From a fan perspective. A FAN perspective

But you’re not a fan. You said so yourself. So why are you speaking for actual fans?

yeah I can't figure this out either.

The sport is growing by leaps and bounds by every single possible measure in the US in popularity and the guys that don't like (or even know) the sport think they know how to fix it.

Just reading through this thread leads me to believe that there are people that basically feel like a “tie” is the same as if the game/event never happened

No doubt,

But the US/ENG match is a very good example of a tie a very definite result, and what it means for the US team, the ENG team, the US' chances and confidence going forward, it is a simple fact that it is not as if the game never happened.

I understand this but I’m not wasting my time to watch teams play to not win and not score. It is the epic everyone gets a trophy result.

No, one team gets a trophy.

 

[Spartans Rule]

Just reading through this thread leads me to believe that there are people that basically feel like a “tie” is the same as if the game/event never happened

No doubt,

But the US/ENG match is a very good example of a tie a very definite result, and what it means for the US team, the ENG team, the US' chances and confidence going forward, it is a simple fact that it is not as if the game never happened.

From a fan perspective. A FAN perspective

But you’re not a fan. You said so yourself. So why are you speaking for actual fans?

yeah I can't figure this out either.

The sport is growing by leaps and bounds by every single possible measure in the US in popularity and the guys that don't like (or even know) the sport think they know how to fix it.

Just reading through this thread leads me to believe that there are people that basically feel like a “tie” is the same as if the game/event never happened

No doubt,

But the US/ENG match is a very good example of a tie a very definite result, and what it means for the US team, the ENG team, the US' chances and confidence going forward, it is a simple fact that it is not as if the game never happened.

I understand this but I’m not wasting my time to watch teams play to not win and not score. It is the epic everyone gets a trophy result.

College football has 40+ postseason bowl games where all you have to do is finish .500 to get into one and soccer is the one that gives everyone trophies?

And all the pro sports here reward failure with high draft choices. Soccer you finish last, you’re kicked out of the league.

 

[massraider]

Everyone gets a trophy?????



--Tottenham

 

[FairWarning]

Just reading through this thread leads me to believe that there are people that basically feel like a “tie” is the same as if the game/event never happened

No doubt,

But the US/ENG match is a very good example of a tie a very definite result, and what it means for the US team, the ENG team, the US' chances and confidence going forward, it is a simple fact that it is not as if the game never happened.

From a fan perspective. A FAN perspective

But you’re not a fan. You said so yourself. So why are you speaking for actual fans?

yeah I can't figure this out either.

The sport is growing by leaps and bounds by every single possible measure in the US in popularity and the guys that don't like (or even know) the sport think they know how to fix it.

Just reading through this thread leads me to believe that there are people that basically feel like a “tie” is the same as if the game/event never happened

No doubt,

But the US/ENG match is a very good example of a tie a very definite result, and what it means for the US team, the ENG team, the US' chances and confidence going forward, it is a simple fact that it is not as if the game never happened.

I understand this but I’m not wasting my time to watch teams play to not win and not score. It is the epic everyone gets a trophy result.

College football has 40+ postseason bowl games where all you have to do is finish .500 to get into one and soccer is the one that gives everyone trophies?

Bowls are not part of the NCAA, I could be wrong. I get your point though.

 

[NewlyRetired]

Everyone gets a trophy?????



--Tottenham

Thread winner!!!! Close this puppy

 

[belljr]

I played soccer for a long time, I can't watch it

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

I just want to congratulate @eoMMan for keeping his Ripken-like every four year “nobody cares about soccer” thread starting streak going. See you in 2026 bud.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I just want to congratulate @eoMMan for keeping his every four year “nobody cares about soccer” thread starting streak going. See you in 2026 bud.

I think that's interesting. Talking negatively about a tie is the same as "nobody cares about soccer"?

As I've said I don't know much about it, but I can obviously see it's super popular and I'm interested in things people are interested in. But it seems like some are beyond sensitive about it just looking to be offended.

I think someone can think a tie is not good. I think people can think a tie is great.

I actually think those differences in how people see something are interesting and a good thing to discuss.

I don't think either of those is "nobody cares about soccer". Or maybe I'm missing something.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Really dumb question. At some point, ties are not allowed, right?

Like in the final game, that can't tie, right?

When do they start not allowing ties?

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

I just want to congratulate @eoMMan for keeping his every four year “nobody cares about soccer” thread starting streak going. See you in 2026 bud.

I think that's interesting. Talking negatively about a tie is the same as "nobody cares about soccer"?

As I've said I don't know much about it, but I can obviously see it's super popular and I'm interested in things people are interested in. But it seems like some are beyond sensitive about it just looking to be offended.

I think someone can think a tie is not good. I think people can think a tie is great.

I actually think those differences in how people see something are interesting and a good thing to discuss.

I don't think either of those is "nobody cares about soccer". Or maybe I'm missing something.

Joe-

He started the ***Official*** Nobody Cares about Soccer thread in both 2018 and 2014. And probably earlier World Cup years too that aren’t archived. Go look it up.

This isn’t some new thing around here. Every single soccer pro and con argument has been made on this site since 2006 and probably earlier.

 

[NewlyRetired]

Really dumb question. At some point, ties are not allowed, right?

Like in the final game, that can't tie, right?

When do they start not allowing ties?

round of 16. (the next game after the groups are done).

round of 16, quarters, semis and finals all need a winner

 

[NewlyRetired]

I just want to congratulate @eoMMan for keeping his every four year “nobody cares about soccer” thread starting streak going. See you in 2026 bud.

I think that's interesting. Talking negatively about a tie is the same as "nobody cares about soccer"?

As I've said I don't know much about it, but I can obviously see it's super popular and I'm interested in things people are interested in. But it seems like some are beyond sensitive about it just looking to be offended.

I think someone can think a tie is not good. I think people can think a tie is great.

I actually think those differences in how people see something are interesting and a good thing to discuss.

I don't think either of those is "nobody cares about soccer". Or maybe I'm missing something.

there is a very very small contingent of FFA guys who truly believe no American cares no matter how much data is presented to them to show them they are not well informed.

Those very words were written in this thread by a poster who has since deleted it before he could be called out on it.

 

[Joe Bryant]

He started the ***Official*** Nobody Cares about Soccer thread in both 2018 and 2014. And probably earlier World Cup years too that aren’t archived. Go look it up.

This isn’t some new thing around here. Every single soccer pro and con argument has been made on this site since 2006 and probably earlier.

I was just looking at this thread.

Negative comments about a tie doesn't seem like "nobody cares about soccer". At least to me.

As I said, I find the difference between people who don't like the tie compared to people who like the tie super interesting.

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

He started the ***Official*** Nobody Cares about Soccer thread in both 2018 and 2014. And probably earlier World Cup years too that aren’t archived. Go look it up.

This isn’t some new thing around here. Every single soccer pro and con argument has been made on this site since 2006 and probably earlier.

I was just looking at this thread.

Negative comments about a tie doesn't seem like "nobody cares about soccer". At least to me.

As I said, I find the difference between people who don't like the tie compared to people who like the tie super interesting.

Ok let me ask you since I brought it up earlier and I’m genuinely curious.

Which OT system do you like more: college or NFL? Does a tie after 10 minutes in the NFL bother you? Do you think there should be a winner no matter what?

 

[Joe Bryant]

round of 16. (the next game after the groups are done).

round of 16, quarters, semis and finals all need a winner

Thanks.

Why the change in format? Why not just keep playing with ties?

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

round of 16. (the next game after the groups are done).

round of 16, quarters, semis and finals all need a winner

Thanks.

Why the change in format? Why not just keep playing with ties?

Because it’s a single elimination bracket format starting in the round of 16 so someone has to go home

 

[Long Ball Larry]

round of 16. (the next game after the groups are done).

round of 16, quarters, semis and finals all need a winner

Thanks.

Why the change in format? Why not just keep playing with ties?

Because the group stage you play 3 games and get points for each. After that it is a single elimination tournament. Sort of like a short regular season then playoffs

 

[Joe Bryant]

Ok let me ask you since I brought it up earlier and I’m genuinely curious.

Which OT system do you like more: college or NFL? Does a tie after 10 minutes in the NFL bother you? Do you think there should be a winner no matter what?

I personally prefer the NFL system as it seems more like the rest of the game. But I know lots of people I respect that like the college system better.

I personally like to have a decisive winner and loser for the game. But that's a personal preference I'm sure. Much of it cultural I'm sure. I'm ok with the current system for NFL where ties sometime happen but are rare. It seems implausible to ask players to continue playing indefinitely a game that's so physically punishing.

The one thing I know for sure is I won't say whatever opinion someone has on their entertainment or what they like for sports is "objectively wrong".

 

[NewlyRetired]

round of 16. (the next game after the groups are done).

round of 16, quarters, semis and finals all need a winner

Thanks.

Why the change in format? Why not just keep playing with ties?

Once it gets to the round of 16, you need to think of it like a NCAA basketball bracket. Every game must have a winner. So that you can advance from Sweet 16 to Great 8 to final 4 to finals.

Points have no meaning once it gets to the final 16 teams. Win or go home. Points (and ties) are only useful in a group or league format.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Ok let me ask you since I brought it up earlier and I’m genuinely curious.

Which OT system do you like more: college or NFL? Does a tie after 10 minutes in the NFL bother you? Do you think there should be a winner no matter what?

I personally prefer the NFL system as it seems more like the rest of the game. But I know lots of people I respect that like the college system better.

I personally like to have a decisive winner and loser for the game. But that's a personal preference I'm sure. Much of it cultural I'm sure.

The one thing I know for sure is I won't say whatever opinion someone has on their entertainment or what they like for sports is "objectively wrong".

How often do you think there is really a “decisive winner” in a single game? There is a “decision” made, but often has to do as much with chance as with skill.

 

[Grahamburn]

fantasy soccer really blows

I’m in a PPF (points per flop) league. Insanely high scoring.

 

[Grahamburn]

+5 SuperFlex if you can get the ref to pull a card when you aren’t actually touched by a defender.

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

Ok let me ask you since I brought it up earlier and I’m genuinely curious.

Which OT system do you like more: college or NFL? Does a tie after 10 minutes in the NFL bother you? Do you think there should be a winner no matter what?

I personally prefer the NFL system as it seems more like the rest of the game. But I know lots of people I respect that like the college system better.

I personally like to have a decisive winner and loser for the game. But that's a personal preference I'm sure. Much of it cultural I'm sure.

The one thing I know for sure is I won't say whatever opinion someone has on their entertainment or what they like for sports is "objectively wrong".

Fair enough. I agree with you on the NFL system, and I also thought changing it to “TD ends the game but FG doesn’t” was a stroke of genius that imo they’re going to ruin with the “both teams get the ball in OT regardless” in the playoffs. I value the idea of a defense having to stop the offense so if you can’t keep them out of the endzone, you deserve to lose. On the other hand, shortening OT to 10 minutes vs 15 made no sense to me precisely because it would necessarily cause more ties.

One thing I think is getting lost in translation here is the idea that people who don’t react negatively to ties therefore must “like” ties in their sports. I don’t think anyone “likes” ties in and of themselves. I just think that in soccer, there’s no great way to solve a tie when they happen without a gimmick like PKs (ie you can’t just play OT forever), so they factor it into the points system to favorably weight wins, and people accept it as part of the game.

 

[NewlyRetired]

so they factor it into the points system to favorably weight wins, and people accept it as part of the game.

I feel like I should know the answer to my question but I don't.

Do you have any knowledge of how much going to 3 points for a win effected the rates of draws in the game?

I am pretty sure the English did it first and then FIFA adopted it world wide.

 

[Tom Servo]

What's worse is my wife and daughter are both convinced the US women's team would beat the men's team in soccer.
I can't unconvince them. My wife got mad when I said there's plenty of men's college teams that would beat the women's team.

Tell them to stop drinking the Kool Aid. A team of 15 year old boys curb stomped a women's pro team 7-0.
There's a ton more videos out there proving this to be demonstrably false.

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

so they factor it into the points system to favorably weight wins, and people accept it as part of the game.

I feel like I should know the answer to my question but I don't.

Do you have any knowledge of how much going to 3 points for a win effected the rates of draws in the game?

I am pretty sure the English did it first and then FIFA adopted it world wide.

I know that 1994 was the first World Cup to use the 3-1-0 system, and I also know that Italia 90 was heavily panned for cynical, overly defensive negative soccer. So yeah, I’d say it had a big impact on rewarding attacking.

 

[bigbottom]

A tie game IS a conclusion. It’s one point. A win is three. It’s like in hockey.

Not to all people. I feel like there are lots of people that would prefer that there be a clear winner and a clear loser to sporting events. Just reading through this thread leads me to believe that there are people that basically feel like a “tie” is the same as if the game/event never happened. They feel like they are investing their time and energy into watching something—and the only thing they ask in return is a clear result of a win or a loss. Personaly—I agree with you. I think a tie is a valid conclusion—and that sits well with me—but I don’t think that everybody feels the same way.

Except saying that a tie is the same as the game never taking place is just flat out wrong. It’s not an opinion. It’s just wrong.

Ask the US team if their tie between them and England yesterday is the same as having not played. It kept them alive and for fans who knew anything at all, it was very much a desired result against a superior England team.

You can prefer there be a clear winner, but people shouldn’t claim that a tie is the same as not having played at all. That just shows more ignorance of the game.

Re the bolded, I’m not sure the draw really made that much of a difference as whether we lost or tied, we would still need to beat Iran to advance. I think the only way the draw against England makes a difference is if Wales somehow manages to beat England (which is unlikely). I’m sure someone will come along to correct me.

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

A tie game IS a conclusion. It’s one point. A win is three. It’s like in hockey.

Not to all people. I feel like there are lots of people that would prefer that there be a clear winner and a clear loser to sporting events. Just reading through this thread leads me to believe that there are people that basically feel like a “tie” is the same as if the game/event never happened. They feel like they are investing their time and energy into watching something—and the only thing they ask in return is a clear result of a win or a loss. Personaly—I agree with you. I think a tie is a valid conclusion—and that sits well with me—but I don’t think that everybody feels the same way.

Except saying that a tie is the same as the game never taking place is just flat out wrong. It’s not an opinion. It’s just wrong.

Ask the US team if their tie between them and England yesterday is the same as having not played. It kept them alive and for fans who knew anything at all, it was very much a desired result against a superior England team.

You can prefer there be a clear winner, but people shouldn’t claim that a tie is the same as not having played at all. That just shows more ignorance of the game.

Re the bolded, I’m not sure the draw really made that much of a difference as whether we lost or tied, we would still need to beat Iran to advance. I think the only way the draw against England makes a difference is if Wales somehow manages to beat England (which is unlikely). I’m sure someone will come along to correct me.

The other thing that’s important here is that there’s a huge difference between getting a draw as a result and PLAYING for a draw.

Nobody who watched yesterdays game can honestly say the US was playing for the draw. They had the better of the attacking chances and pretty much went toe to toe with England. No bunkering of any kind, even in the closing minutes.

So there’s all kind of context to draws when they happen.

 

[NewlyRetired]

Re the bolded, I’m not sure the draw really made that much of a difference as whether we lost or tied, we would still need to beat Iran to advance. I think the only way the draw against England makes a difference is if Wales somehow manages to beat England (which is unlikely). I’m sure someone will come along to correct me.

you are correct on the math.

There is also the mental side to knowing you just drew with one of the best teams in the world and one of the handful of favorites to win the cup. You can't measure stuff like that but it is important especially for a team as young as the US is.

There is also some knock on residual stuff if the US lost like England not having anything to play for against Wales if they won and may have played against Wales differently (more subs, resting key players etc).

 

[NewlyRetired]

A tie game IS a conclusion. It’s one point. A win is three. It’s like in hockey.

Not to all people. I feel like there are lots of people that would prefer that there be a clear winner and a clear loser to sporting events. Just reading through this thread leads me to believe that there are people that basically feel like a “tie” is the same as if the game/event never happened. They feel like they are investing their time and energy into watching something—and the only thing they ask in return is a clear result of a win or a loss. Personaly—I agree with you. I think a tie is a valid conclusion—and that sits well with me—but I don’t think that everybody feels the same way.

Except saying that a tie is the same as the game never taking place is just flat out wrong. It’s not an opinion. It’s just wrong.

Ask the US team if their tie between them and England yesterday is the same as having not played. It kept them alive and for fans who knew anything at all, it was very much a desired result against a superior England team.

You can prefer there be a clear winner, but people shouldn’t claim that a tie is the same as not having played at all. That just shows more ignorance of the game.

Re the bolded, I’m not sure the draw really made that much of a difference as whether we lost or tied, we would still need to beat Iran to advance. I think the only way the draw against England makes a difference is if Wales somehow manages to beat England (which is unlikely). I’m sure someone will come along to correct me.

The other thing that’s important here is that there’s a huge difference between getting a draw as a result and PLAYING for a draw.

Nobody who watched yesterdays game can honestly say the US was playing for the draw. They had the better of the attacking chances and pretty much went toe to toe with England. No bunkering of any kind, even in the closing minutes.

So there’s all kind of context to draws when they happen.

the next US game should be an interesting one to watch.

The US needs a win but Iran only needs a draw. How Iran manages the game will be really fun to watch unfold.

 

[Joe Bryant]

One thing I think is getting lost in translation here is the idea that people who don’t react negatively to ties therefore must “like” ties in their sports. I don’t think anyone “likes” ties in and of themselves.

Maybe I put too much weight on folks in this thread.

I love ties. It’s the actual outcome. College football OT and hockey shootouts are the most absurd things in sport.

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

One thing I think is getting lost in translation here is the idea that people who don’t react negatively to ties therefore must “like” ties in their sports. I don’t think anyone “likes” ties in and of themselves.

Maybe I put too much weight on folks in this thread.

I love ties. It’s the actual outcome. College football OT and hockey shootouts are the most absurd things in sport.

I can’t speak for @Zigg but I’m guessing even he would prefer an organic winner and loser to a tie.

Then again, he’s Canadian so

 

[Tom Servo]

But did we ever decide which is worse?

 

[Joe Bryant]

I can’t speak for @Zigg but I’m guessing even he would prefer an organic winner and loser to a tie.

Do you think a clear winner and loser is preferable to a tie?

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

I can’t speak for @Zigg but I’m guessing even he would prefer an organic winner and loser to a tie.

Do you think a clear winner and loser is preferable to a tie?

IF a clear winner and loser can be reasonably determined based on the rules and merits of the sport itself, then of course I prefer that to a tie. As you mentioned, NFL OT is basically an extension of the game itself. Extra innings in baseball, Basketball OT are as well. They are all reasonable ways to extend the game to determine a clear winner.

College football OT, hockey shootouts (which aren’t even used in the postseason) and soccer PK shootouts are gimmicks that are outside the rules of the normal game and are only employed for the sole purpose of avoiding a tie. If that’s my only other option, then give me the tie.

In the case of soccer, PK shootouts are essentially the last resort if you NEED a winner in a tournament format and you’ve already played 120 minutes.

 

[belljr]

I'm surprised people are unfamiliar with how pool play works.

Guess if you were never involved with it directly it might not make sense

 

[belljr]

I can’t speak for @Zigg but I’m guessing even he would prefer an organic winner and loser to a tie.

Do you think a clear winner and loser is preferable to a tie?

IF a clear winner and loser can be reasonably determined based on the rules and merits of the sport itself, then of course I prefer that to a tie. As you mentioned, NFL OT is basically an extension of the game itself. Extra innings in baseball, Basketball OT are as well. They are all reasonable ways to extend the game to determine a clear winner.

College football OT, hockey shootouts (which aren’t even used in the postseason) and soccer PK shootouts are gimmicks that are outside the rules of the normal game and are only employed for the sole purpose of avoiding a tie. If that’s my only other option, then give me the tie.

In the case of soccer, PK shootouts are essentially the last resort if you NEED a winner in a tournament format and you’ve already played 120 minutes.

Technically pk and hockey penalty shots are rules of the normal game....but I agree with your point

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

I can’t speak for @Zigg but I’m guessing even he would prefer an organic winner and loser to a tie.

Do you think a clear winner and loser is preferable to a tie?

IF a clear winner and loser can be reasonably determined based on the rules and merits of the sport itself, then of course I prefer that to a tie. As you mentioned, NFL OT is basically an extension of the game itself. Extra innings in baseball, Basketball OT are as well. They are all reasonable ways to extend the game to determine a clear winner.

College football OT, hockey shootouts (which aren’t even used in the postseason) and soccer PK shootouts are gimmicks that are outside the rules of the normal game and are only employed for the sole purpose of avoiding a tie. If that’s my only other option, then give me the tie.

In the case of soccer, PK shootouts are essentially the last resort if you NEED a winner in a tournament format and you’ve already played 120 minutes.

Technically pk and hockey penalty shots are rules of the normal game....but I agree with your point

Sure, it’s elements of the game, but the format varies from the course of the game itself. Imo, gimmicks don’t determine a “clear winner and loser”, they just avoid a tie.

To wit, FIFA and betting markets officially determine a soccer game decided by PKs as a tie.

 

[Frostillicus]

A tie game IS a conclusion. It’s one point. A win is three. It’s like in hockey.

Not to all people. I feel like there are lots of people that would prefer that there be a clear winner and a clear loser to sporting events. Just reading through this thread leads me to believe that there are people that basically feel like a “tie” is the same as if the game/event never happened. They feel like they are investing their time and energy into watching something—and the only thing they ask in return is a clear result of a win or a loss. Personaly—I agree with you. I think a tie is a valid conclusion—and that sits well with me—but I don’t think that everybody feels the same way.

Except saying that a tie is the same as the game never taking place is just flat out wrong. It’s not an opinion. It’s just wrong.

Ask the US team if their tie between them and England yesterday is the same as having not played. It kept them alive and for fans who knew anything at all, it was very much a desired result against a superior England team.

You can prefer there be a clear winner, but people shouldn’t claim that a tie is the same as not having played at all. That just shows more ignorance of the game.

Re the bolded, I’m not sure the draw really made that much of a difference as whether we lost or tied, we would still need to beat Iran to advance. I think the only way the draw against England makes a difference is if Wales somehow manages to beat England (which is unlikely). I’m sure someone will come along to correct me.

The other thing that’s important here is that there’s a huge difference between getting a draw as a result and PLAYING for a draw.

Nobody who watched yesterdays game can honestly say the US was playing for the draw. They had the better of the attacking chances and pretty much went toe to toe with England. No bunkering of any kind, even in the closing minutes.

So there’s all kind of context to draws when they happen.

the next US game should be an interesting one to watch.

The US needs a win but Iran only needs a draw. How Iran manages the game will be really fun to watch unfold.

I can't wait to see this. I love this part of the world cup. (note: I am a filthy american who only watches soccer every four years, but I really, really enjoy the World Cup).

 

[Scoresman]

Ok let me ask you since I brought it up earlier and I’m genuinely curious.

Which OT system do you like more: college or NFL? Does a tie after 10 minutes in the NFL bother you? Do you think there should be a winner no matter what?

I personally prefer the NFL system as it seems more like the rest of the game. But I know lots of people I respect that like the college system better.

I personally like to have a decisive winner and loser for the game. But that's a personal preference I'm sure. Much of it cultural I'm sure. I'm ok with the current system for NFL where ties sometime happen but are rare. It seems implausible to ask players to continue playing indefinitely a game that's so physically punishing.

The one thing I know for sure is I won't say whatever opinion someone has on their entertainment or what they like for sports is "objectively wrong".

But the “facts” that these opinions are based on can be objectively wrong.

 

[massraider]

If Fulham ties Manchester City, YOU can explain to the celebrating Fulham fans that no one won, and it's not a result.

 

[bigbottom]

Ok let me ask you since I brought it up earlier and I’m genuinely curious.

Which OT system do you like more: college or NFL? Does a tie after 10 minutes in the NFL bother you? Do you think there should be a winner no matter what?

I personally prefer the NFL system as it seems more like the rest of the game. But I know lots of people I respect that like the college system better.

I personally like to have a decisive winner and loser for the game. But that's a personal preference I'm sure. Much of it cultural I'm sure. I'm ok with the current system for NFL where ties sometime happen but are rare. It seems implausible to ask players to continue playing indefinitely a game that's so physically punishing.

The one thing I know for sure is I won't say whatever opinion someone has on their entertainment or what they like for sports is "objectively wrong".

But the “facts” that these opinions are based on can be objectively wrong.

This was your original quote: “The opinion that number of points somehow equals excitement or quality of play is objectively wrong.” There are really two assertions here you are countering: (1) number of points equals excitement; and (2) number of points equals quality of play. Assuming that we’re talking about soccer, here, I think the first assertion about excitement is pretty subjective, while the second assertion about quality of play is more on the objective side. In other words, I think that automatically concluding that a 7-5 soccer match must have featured better quality of play than a 2-1 soccer match is an objectively wrong opinion. So I generally agree with you with respect to that specific assertion. As for excitement level, I think that is much more in the eye of the beholder, and I can imagine that some fans (casual fans more often than not) find higher scoring affairs more exciting, so I tend to disagree with you on that specific assertion.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Facts are one thing. They're to be respected and given proper due.

But someone's opinions on things like entertainment or music or comedy or sports are wildly different.

Trying to tell someone their opinion is "objectively wrong" on how they value entertainment or see a game was one of the more interesting things I've seen on the boards in a while.

All good though.

 

[eoMMan]

I just want to congratulate @eoMMan for keeping his every four year “nobody cares about soccer” thread starting streak going. See you in 2026 bud.

I think that's interesting. Talking negatively about a tie is the same as "nobody cares about soccer"?

As I've said I don't know much about it, but I can obviously see it's super popular and I'm interested in things people are interested in. But it seems like some are beyond sensitive about it just looking to be offended.

I think someone can think a tie is not good. I think people can think a tie is great.

I actually think those differences in how people see something are interesting and a good thing to discuss.

I don't think either of those is "nobody cares about soccer". Or maybe I'm missing something.

If it’s ever going to get anywhere close to the NFL in terms of casual fans watching, they have to do something about increasing scoring.

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

I just want to congratulate @eoMMan for keeping his every four year “nobody cares about soccer” thread starting streak going. See you in 2026 bud.

I think that's interesting. Talking negatively about a tie is the same as "nobody cares about soccer"?

As I've said I don't know much about it, but I can obviously see it's super popular and I'm interested in things people are interested in. But it seems like some are beyond sensitive about it just looking to be offended.

I think someone can think a tie is not good. I think people can think a tie is great.

I actually think those differences in how people see something are interesting and a good thing to discuss.

I don't think either of those is "nobody cares about soccer". Or maybe I'm missing something.

If it’s ever going to get anywhere close to the NFL in terms of casual fans watching, they have to do something about increasing scoring.

Who ever said catching the NFL is the goal? No other sport here is held to that standard, so why is that your bar for success or failure for soccer? I certainly don’t ever expect that to happen in my lifetime.

 

[hagmania]

I'm surprised people are unfamiliar with how pool play works.

Guess if you were never involved with it directly it might not make sense

Round robin groups into a bracket is so damn intriguing that it hooks me into an annual tournament where players race a Nintendo 64 video game.

Incredible format. It's very similar to regular season-postseason, but not quite (some important differences).

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

If it’s ever going to get anywhere close to the NFL in terms of casual fans watching, they have to do something about increasing scoring.

You left out "in the US" in the middle of your sentence.

3.5 BILLION people worldwide saw the 2018 World Cup final. It's estimated 5 BILLION will watch this year's final.

 

[Scoresman]

Ok let me ask you since I brought it up earlier and I’m genuinely curious.

Which OT system do you like more: college or NFL? Does a tie after 10 minutes in the NFL bother you? Do you think there should be a winner no matter what?

I personally prefer the NFL system as it seems more like the rest of the game. But I know lots of people I respect that like the college system better.

I personally like to have a decisive winner and loser for the game. But that's a personal preference I'm sure. Much of it cultural I'm sure. I'm ok with the current system for NFL where ties sometime happen but are rare. It seems implausible to ask players to continue playing indefinitely a game that's so physically punishing.

The one thing I know for sure is I won't say whatever opinion someone has on their entertainment or what they like for sports is "objectively wrong".

But the “facts” that these opinions are based on can be objectively wrong.

This was your original quote: “The opinion that number of points somehow equals excitement or quality of play is objectively wrong.” There are really two assertions here you are countering: (1) number of points equals excitement; and (2) number of points equals quality of play. Assuming that we’re talking about soccer, here, I think the first assertion about excitement is pretty subjective, while the second assertion about quality of play is more on the objective side. In other words, I think that automatically concluding that a 7-5 soccer match must have featured better quality of play than a 2-1 soccer match is an objectively wrong opinion. So I generally agree with you with respect to that specific assertion. As for excitement level, I think that is much more in the eye of the beholder, and I can imagine that some fans (casual fans more often than not) find higher scoring affairs more exciting, so I tend to disagree with you on that specific assertion.

I think defining excitement is at least partially objective. Look at any classic historical matchup in any sport, no one would deny they are exciting. That’s why I feel someone saying a low scoring tie in soccer isn’t exciting is wrong. There’s so much more you need to know about the matchup to say that.

I feel like people just look at the box score and draw that conclusion. It feels like an uninformed opinion to me.

 

[gianmarco]

Facts are one thing. They're to be respected and given proper due.

But someone's opinions on things like entertainment or music or comedy or sports are wildly different.

Trying to tell someone their opinion is "objectively wrong" on how they value entertainment or see a game was one of the more interesting things I've seen on the boards in a while.

All good though.

You've quoted and posted those words (objectively wrong) a few times now in this thread. It's clearly something you don't agree with.

But it was said by one person and I'm not seeing anyone trying to defend it so not sure why it keeps getting repeated as if that's the belief of soccer fans in this thread. It's not.

Most soccer fans here completely understand that not everyone is a fan. We are happy to share/educate about the sport for anyone that is interested in learning or giving it a shot. I'd argue that most that do put away any previous biases and give it a chance come away with at least an appreciation if not a liking for a new sport. But if not, it's no big deal as there's no shortage of fans (here and around the world) and the number only continues to grow, not decrease. As has been pointed out, the interesting thing that comes up every 4 years during this tournament is the suggestions on how to improve a sport to get more fans by those that don't really know much about it. It happens like clockwork here (and elsewhere). If anything, it's been a bit better here so far. But then you get this thread, and well,.....

But again, I think it's pretty clear you didn't like the comment who about opinions being objectively wrong. I just don't see why it keeps getting repeated when it was only one poster in a thread that's 4 pages long already and I don't think a single person has jumped in to defend that post.

 

[Scoresman]

If it’s ever going to get anywhere close to the NFL in terms of casual fans watching, they have to do something about increasing scoring.

You left out "in the US" in the middle of your sentence.

3.5 BILLION people worldwide saw the 2018 World Cup final. It's estimated 5 BILLION will watch this year's final.

But they’re all wrong or crazy!
We need to double the size of the goals!!!!