MetroplexJimDid someone force you to watch any of the games?
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ... Is it over yet? zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
If one likes soccer, it was very good final. If not, it was zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, but I believe the channel could be changed.
And I agree 100% with your "home run derby" analogy.
game I ever saw in person was in 1985 in La Paz: the national teams of Bolivia & Brasil. It was truly an insane experience; Brasil was by far the better team, pushed the locals all over the
pitch. But, in the second half the 12,000' altitude had the Brasilians running like their feet were in buckets. Bolivia won the
match on an incredible bicycle kick past Brasil's incredibly gifted 6'4" 'All World' goalkeeper. I have never heard a louder crowd in all my life; frankly, had I had an emotional investment in the Bolivian team it probably would have been the most thrilling live sporting event of my life.
Too bad that soccer, like hockey, is unwatchable on T.V.; absent a 'life & death' rooting interest, soccer on the telly is a snorefest.
The only way Americans will watch soccer is if there ever
occurs a once in a century 'U.S. v. World' match like hockey's 'Miracle on Ice'. Then, after that match is over - as it did with hockey, interest in soccer will wane to its present level. They'll make a frigging movie and that will be 'it' for soccer in the U.S.
And sports entrepreneurs know this. The U.S. could buy a World Cup Championship, but what entrepreneur would contract for world class players for a quadrennial national 'All Star' team if nobody is going to watch the regular season games on T.V.?
Conversely, American Football is far better on T.V. than it is in person with all those 'T.V. timeouts'; that's why the Cowboys started with the 'cheerleaders' and why Jerry Jones made such a huge investment in those monster screens in A.T.T. Stadium - together, they palliate the ennui of actually attending the game.
I'm not 'hating' on soccer, just telling it the way that it is.
post edited by MetroplexJim - 2014/07/14 08:42:12