[JohnRawls]

Your not in a bubble, you have argentina,brazil and even mexico near by. The other 3 leagues are superior to mls skill wise. Thats pretty pathetic considering your population and wealth. Mexico is barely clutching it out with you but Brazil and Argentina are definately superior.

[The Clockwork Rat]

... I'm not American.

Although the US is wealthier and has a high population, there are four major team sports that are more popular (American football, baseball, basketball and ice hockey) which suck up most of the athletic talent available.

[The Immortal Goon]

Though it's quickly changing, soccer is traditionally considered a sport for children and women. I'm not saying that to be insulting, but that's how your standard red-blooded American is going to see it for a while. And that's why talent in the US doesn't go to soccer.

[The Clockwork Rat]

Also not as highly paid.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Ugh, as for the naming conventions, as has been pointed out many times on this site, "football" is a generic term for all sports played on your feet instead of on horses. Legally, for 600 years, pal in Ireland had to be called "football," which would predate the very game of soccer.

And that's complete bollocks. Baseball is not a type of football; cricket is not a type of football; (field) hockey is not a type of football; golf is not a type of football; tennis is not a type of football; handball is not a type of football; netball is not a type of football; basketball is not a type of football. Pool is not a type of football. Sports played on horses are rare; involving a ball, it's just polo. The idea that 'football' means "any ball sport involving people on their feet as opposed to on a horse" is ridiculous. And don't try to claim that other horse-based sports, such as steeplechasing, count; that would then mean track and field athletics are, by your brain-dead definition, a type of 'football'.

I'm quite aware of the derivations of 'soccer' and 'rugger'. I didn't mention the word 'soccer', and I'm quite happy with anyone calling it that if they want. What I was remarking about was your, and Demosthenes', weird hatred of a game that forbids the use of hands. You do get people screaming at the world that footballers ought to be allowed to use their hands - you both just did it. I didn't 'scream' about still calling American Football 'football' - I said it is funny. It is funny that you're sitting there, insisting that 'football' should involve the use of hands; while American Football has team members who go from one game to the next without touching the ball with any part of their anatomy - they just block bodies. The rules even forbid the ball being passed to them - their only chance to pick it up (let alone kick it) is if there's an occasional loose ball.

[Demosthenes]

And that's complete bollocks. Baseball is not a type of football; cricket is not a type of football; (field) hockey is not a type of football; golf is not a type of football; tennis is not a type of football; handball is not a type of football; netball is not a type of football; basketball is not a type of football. Pool is not a type of football. Sports played on horses are rare; involving a ball, it's just polo. The idea that 'football' means "any ball sport involving people on their feet as opposed to on a horse" is ridiculous. And don't try to claim that other horse-based sports, such as steeplechasing, count; that would then mean track and field athletics are, by your brain-dead definition, a type of 'football'.

You realize TiG is a historian who studied in Ireland, correct?

Anyway, without bringing anyone's blood to a boil,

You do get people screaming at the world that footballers ought to be allowed to use their hands - you both just did it.

No. I didn't say that. I said that's one thing I don't like about it. I specifically didn't suggest it should happen because at this point that would make it another sport (Team Handball?) and I'm not sure I'd watch that anyway so why would I ruin the sport you like your way to change it to something that would be cooler to me but that still wouldn't interest me?

Then I would kinda be a dick. So, I'm not sure what other sports you mention that require you not use an integral part of your body like soccer does.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

You realize TiG is a historian who studied in Ireland, correct?

I don't see how this is relevant to the conversation. Polo comes from Asia. Is he claiming that there's an Irish horse-and-ball game that had to be distinguished from everything on foot? He mentioned 'pal', but fuck knows what that is.

I'm curious as to why you despise soccer so much, TIG.

To answer both of the above, it takes the two things humans are best at: complicated team work and our hands, and strips them away.

It's like watching a horse try to type. Partially because of this, a complete chance occurrence can end up getting a point, and that point means that the game is probably going to win you the game. Which, I would argue, means that you never really get to see who is actually a better team. Just what random ass stuff happens while people are running around like toddlers.

TiG goes on, at quite some length, why he despises it. And then:

TiG's point about the hands is big thing too actually. I had thought that on some level from the first time I ever heard anything about soccer, but I don't know that I'd have been able to voice that.

It really sucks that you can't use your hands. Then Euros think we're the cunts because all of our sports use our hands, as if the hands were somehow a weakness that only cunts used.

Both of you really, really seem to care about the hands. I wouldn't say you're a dick about it, but it seems to have mattered to you for years.

So, I'm not sure what other sports you mention that require you not use an integral part of your body like soccer does.

Field hockey, golf, tennis and (I think) basketball all forbid the use of feet to move the ball (except for the hockey goalie, analogous to the football one). Cricket severely restricts it (and if you use your padded legs to stop a ball hitting the wicket, you're out). You can't use your hands to pick up the ball in golf (in play). You can't use them in pool either. These are all blindingly obvious examples, but the point is that they're all a basic part of the rules, which are, for each sport, arbitrary.

[The Immortal Goon]

And that's complete bollocks. Baseball is not a type of football; cricket is not a type of football; (field) hockey is not a type of football; golf is not a type of football; tennis is not a type of football; handball is not a type of football; netball is not a type of football; basketball is not a type of football. Pool is not a type of football. Sports played on horses are rare; involving a ball, it's just polo. The idea that 'football' means "any ball sport involving people on their feet as opposed to on a horse" is ridiculous. And don't try to claim that other horse-based sports, such as steeplechasing, count; that would then mean track and field athletics are, by your brain-dead definition, a type of 'football'.

And yet Peil (autocorrect made it 'pal' in my earlier post), was legally called football before soccer was invented, and today is better known as "football." And you can use your hands:

[youtube]TEAbWrdB9XU[/youtube]

And it's not my definition, Wiki has it too:

Although the accepted etymology of the word football, or "foot ball", originated in reference to the action of a foot kicking a ball, this may be a false etymology. An alternative, controversial, explanation has it that the word originally referred to a variety of games in medieval Europe, which were played on foot.[6] These sports were usually played by peasants, as opposed to the horse-riding sports more often enjoyed by aristocrats. In some cases, the word has been applied to games which involved carrying a ball and specifically banned kicking. For example, the English writer William Hone, writing in 1825 or 1826, quotes the social commentator Sir Frederick Morton Eden, regarding a game — which Hone refers to as "Foot-Ball" — played in the parish of Scone, Perthshire:

The game was this: he who at any time got the ball into his hands, run [sic] with it till overtaken by one of the opposite part; and then, if he could shake himself loose from those on the opposite side who seized him, he run on; if not, he threw the ball from him, unless it was wrested from him by the other party, but no person was allowed to kick it.[7]

I don't have a, "weird hatred of a game that forbids the use of hands," nor did I ever say they should use their hands. I mentioned a oneliner about it and then went on to the whole cultural imperialism thing. Nor is it particularly, "funny," that the vast majority of forms of "football," use hands. It does go to show that soccer isn't the only sport to properly be called, "football" though.

[Brio]

How many times are we going to have this boring ass debate on here?

As Demo alluded to in the second post of the thread, why anyone even debates football vs. football is stupid in my eyes; ice hockey is clearly a better sport than those two.

[Demosthenes]

How many times are we going to have this boring ass debate on here?

In fairness I took the OP for playing around, and didn't think it would get taken seriously.

As Demo alluded to in the second post of the thread, why anyone even debates football vs. football is stupid in my eyes; ice hockey is clearly a better sport than those two.

I'm a fan of American football but there are some things that Hockey does better. To compare the two is to compare apples and kidney beans however, so I don't want to argue about that with anyone either.

I don't see how this is relevant to the conversation.

You don't see how a historian giving you the history of a sport is relevant to that history?

Anyway the soccer vs anything threads always turn into flames and hurt feelings and I'm not interested in that. You have fun with yours, we will with ours.

I made a point of agreeing with TiG on that point, and now you're making that into all sorts of other nuances. I don't want to fight you about it on any level whatsoever.

The OP wasn't even trolling, he was just playing around, and perhaps even wondering somewhat legitimately if the sport could be adapted in some way as to make it better liked in North America. No, you don't need it too, and certainly we don't need to like it, but... meh, I don't feel like explaining anything else. This shit has been done some many times on this site that it's not worth the hassle.

[U184]

Place the game in a Hockey sized arena and allow the ball to be bounced of the walls. Its a simple change, smaller area of play will increase the speed of the game and the bounce option will introduce an advanced skill portion. Remove draw option and add a pass clock.

[The Clockwork Rat]

Sounds like indoor 5-a-side football.

[Demosthenes]

For what it's worth, I hate the shoot out in NHL hockey and would love to go back to having ties.

I could live with wins being equal to 3 pts, and I could live with the KHL scoring method, but then you have 5 categories of pts and I'm guessing most people don't have the patience for that.

[fuser]

PC, you are an aussie right? No need to indulge in this partisan topic, just scream Cricket!! Cricket!! and Cricket!!. All other games are for low born peasants, the only gentleman's sport is cricket.

[Godstud]

I agree, Demosthenes. 3 points for a win, 1 each for a tie, and 2 points for an overtime(5min) win would be simple enough to have, without a silly shootout.

Cricket???

[U184]

Cricket??? low born peasants, the only gentleman's sport is...

[fuser]

lalala lalalaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Cricket the greatest sports ever, preached to far flung corners of earth by greatest empire ever.

successfully diverts this thread from this silly silly "football debate" which has been done to death already.

[Demosthenes]

Lemme guess who's Indian in here?

I gotta admit, Cricket love is different around here.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

You don't see how a historian giving you the history of a sport is relevant to that history?

A historian quoting Wikipedia is not "giving you the history of a sport". It seems more like an admission that it's nothing whatsoever to do with the history he studies. And even then Wikipedia says this claim is 'controversial'. Yes, it would be, seeing as no-one can name a European horse-and-ball game that would need to be distinguished from football.

Yes, of course Gaelic Football is called football; the ball is often kicked. If you want some support for this claim about horses, then find an instance of hurling being called 'football', since it's a ball game played by people on their feet. They're even allowed to kick the ball. Good proof would be someone calling real tennis 'football', since it's an old ball game played on foot.

[layman]

Indians literally play and watch no other sport than cricket.

I dont know of any country that is so dedicated to just one.