World Cup 2014

[IrishBlood81]

When do the major leagues play? How many can the average American watch?

You can't be just average to watch it... You have to do something really extraordinary and then your cable company will unlock it for yu.

 

[Cackalacky]

I'm sorry, I should've been clearer. I meant what time of day. Obviously the months matter (thank you for providing that), but unless the leagues can play on TV when John Doe is able to watch, the sport won't gain as much popularity as it could.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

Lol. Sorry. They have games live from 7:00am to 2:00 pm on Saturdays and Sundays most weeks.

 

[nsisk157]

I'm sorry, I should've been clearer. I meant what time of day. Obviously the months matter (thank you for providing that), but unless the leagues can play on TV when John Doe is able to watch, the sport won't gain as much popularity as it could.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

Someone beat me to the timing but here are the channels

England - Barclays Premier League on NBC and NBC Sports
Germany- Bundesliga on GolTV
Italy- Serie A on BeIn Sport
Spain- La Liga on BeIn Sport
France- Ligue 1 on BeInSport
Scotland- Scottish Premier League- Fox Soccer Plus

Champions League on Fox Sports and its partners Midweek games on 1445/1545 depending on where you are...

 

[zelezo vlk]

Lol. Sorry. They have games live from 7:00am to 2:00 pm on Saturdays and Sundays most weeks.

Thank you and the guy right below you. This is pre football time in the fall so it may work but...unless the games can be replayed later I think they'll miss out on a lot of viewers.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[notredomer23]

Starting in the 2015-2016 season the Bundesliga will be covered on the FOX series of networks. I wish it were this coming season. There are a ton of yanks playing in the Bundesliga.

 

[NDinL.A.]

Thank you and the guy right below you. This is pre football time in the fall so it may work but...unless the games can be replayed later I think they'll miss out on a lot of viewers.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

Their ratings are actually really good in the US, especially for the EPL. I know that when its college football season, once it's 12 eastern, they lose me (and I'm sure many others), but there is still good soccer on before that. And really, considering that football is on from 12 and 1 o'clock all weekend in the fall, there really isn't anything they can do to get more viewers. Also, we're not the #1 priority for those countries, well, we're lucky to get some eary EPL games to watch.

Of course, the DVR helps a ton as well.

 

[zelezo vlk]

Their ratings are actually really good in the US, especially for the EPL. I know that when its college football season, once it's 12 eastern, they lose me (and I'm sure many others), but there is still good soccer on before that. And really, considering that football is on from 12 and 1 o'clock all weekend in the fall, there really isn't anything they can do to get more viewers. Also, we're not the #1 priority for those countries, well, we're lucky to get some eary EPL games to watch.

Of course, the DVR helps a ton as well.

Yes and I've watched a few games but I think that airing at a "better time" would help to grow the popularity.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[nsisk157]

Yes and I've watched a few games but I think that airing at a "better time" would help to grow the popularity.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

We fall at the mercy of the respective leagues being shown. Like NDinLa said, anything pre-noon does much better for the casual fans but for the die hards, Saturdays and Sundays are marathons..

Random Saturday in the fall...

0700 Celtic FC in Kearny
1000 Tottenham in Bryant Park pub
1200 Headline Game of the week for Sat Legends
230/330 ND Football..

The missus hates Saturdays lol

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

I guess I don't understand why people care about how good the MLS is. I care way more about the success of the national team than I do about the success of MLS. You can be a soccer fan whether or not MLS is viable. It is easy enough to watch the EPL on TV now. The Brazilian players play almost exclusively in Europe, and they don't seem to have a hard time getting fans interested in the sport. In the Americas, that is just the way it's going to be and I'm totally fine with that.

Because MLS's and the national team's success are tied with each other.

 

[Cackalacky]

We fall at the mercy of the respective leagues being shown. Like NDinLa said, anything pre-noon does much better for the casual fans but for the die hards, Saturdays and Sundays are marathons..

Random Saturday in the fall...

0700 Celtic FC in Kearny
1000 Tottenham in Bryant Park pub
1200 Headline Game of the week for Sat Legends
230/330 ND Football..

The missus hates Saturdays lol

Yup. They are 4-6 hours ahead of us so we have to schedule on their times. That window though is awesome. So much promise. Beats the hell out of infomercials. I sometimes am at a bar drinking on Saturday morning by 8am. Watch three games, then get ready to watch ND at 3.

Ditto on Saturdays with my wife. Lol. Unproductive is the world that gets tossed about.

 

[notredomer23]

Because MLS's and the national team's success are tied with each other.

I don't think this is necessarily true. There is nothing wrong if the MLS is a league that develops talent, sends them off to Europe, and then they come back when its time for retirement. Believe me, I am a big fan of the MLS, and a strong MLS means a strong national team.

But let's look at the teams in the Semifinals. The Dutch have 10 domestic based players, and all their best players were based in the best leagues.

The Argentines and Brazil have 3 players based domestically.

Obviously Germany has the majority based in Germany, but that is because the Bundesliga is the best in the world.

I think the goal for MLS should to be known as a solid developer of talent(at least for now). Because for a while, most teams didn't even have academies and had poor facilities/coaching. Its only been improving in recent years.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

The players don't need to be playing in their domestic league, but the domestic league needs to be good enough to train them. Ajax has one of the best youth systems in the world, and the top teams in Netherlands produce a bunch of great players for larger clubs. Argentina and Brazil have very good leagues that prepare players for the next level as well. The NFL would be shitty if every player had to go through the NAIA. MLS just needs to get on the level of Division I instead of II or III like they are right now.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Because MLS's and the national team's success are tied with each other.

I don't really agree with this, and I think my post lays out exactly why. We can have our nationals playing abroad in the world's best leagues and that will get the USMNT where they need to be. MLS really doesn't have to factor into that. I think it could work in reverse, though. If we get to the point where we are one of the best handful of nations in terms of producing talent and out national team has success commensurate with that, maybe at that point we can look to start bringing back our best players and keeping our best young players and also attracting top talent from other nations away from the European leagues. I would assume that if we get to that point, there will be sufficient interest here to warrant the type of investment it would take to attract some of the world's best players. We wouldn't need MLS to supplant the EPL and La Liga, but if it were good enough to be a viable alternative that would still be really quality soccer. I hope we do get there, but I don't want to see us put the cart before the horse at the expense of the USMNT because I think that will hurt the game's long-term prospects in this country.

The players don't need to be playing in their domestic league, but the domestic league needs to be good enough to train them. Ajax has one of the best youth systems in the world, and the top teams in Netherlands produce a bunch of great players for larger clubs. Argentina and Brazil have very good leagues that prepare players for the next level as well. The NFL would be shitty if every player had to go through the NAIA. MLS just needs to get on the level of Division I instead of II or III like they are right now.

I do agree with this. I'd love for guys to get scooped up by MLS youth programs and developed here and break in professionally here before they are sold to a top league. That is a viable model and would allow U.S. fans who follow the sport closely to form relationships with our players before they go abroad. The youth development system has to get really good really soon, though.

 

[STLDomer]

I don't think the MLS will ever reach the level of an EPL, Serie A, Bundesliga or La Liga, or Ligue 1 in part because simply, we aren't in Europe. Athletes want to win the best and in terms of soccer than means Champions League. So unless the MLS suddenly gets a boat load of money and can lure players with that the elite will always play the good portion of their career in Europe. As others have stated we gotta hope IMO some of the MLS clubs can be like Ajax or River Plate or Santos in their respective countries and settle for that level of league.

 

[Grahambo]

My take is that while it'd be ideal for MLS to retain national superstars and go after world superstars, I think it's better they go overseas to refine their skills. Overseas has, not only the talent but also the more advanced coaching. Not to say MLS doesn't have good coaches but it's just a different level overseas.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Emcee77]

I guess I don't understand why people care about how good the MLS is. I care way more about the success of the national team than I do about the success of MLS. You can be a soccer fan whether or not MLS is viable. It is easy enough to watch the EPL on TV now. The Brazilian players play almost exclusively in Europe, and they don't seem to have a hard time getting fans interested in the sport. In the Americas, that is just the way it's going to be and I'm totally fine with that.

I think I posted somewhere back in this thread an article in which Bruce Arena criticized Jurgen Klinsmann, saying that the U.S. doesn't need to look abroad to improve the U.S. team and that U.S. soccer can improve organically, and I think those comments shed some light on this.

Basically, I totally agree with you that the success of MLS is not of paramount importance, and I think Jurgen Klinsmann agrees with you, but that represents a major shift in U.S. Soccer's thinking, as you can tell from Bruce Arena's comments, which make him seem out of touch, imo.

For years, the prevailing belief was that we can't duplicate the soccer success of other countries unless we figure out how to grow our own soccer stars right here, and having a topflight professional league is a huge part of that vision. Klinsmann is showing, imo, that that strategy of fully homegrown success is not the best or fastest way to catch up with the rest of the world. The best way to develop our players' skills and instincts is to let them play with the best players. Seems pretty obvious in hindsight.

So yeah, I don't see why MLS needs to be a top league.

 

[Emcee77]

I don't think the MLS will ever reach the level of an EPL, Serie A, Bundesliga or La Liga, or Ligue 1 in part because simply, we aren't in Europe. Athletes want to win the best and in terms of soccer than means Champions League. So unless the MLS suddenly gets a boat load of money and can lure players with that the elite will always play the good portion of their career in Europe. As others have stated we gotta hope IMO some of the MLS clubs can be like Ajax or River Plate or Santos in their respective countries and settle for that level of league.

I agree. Can that happen though? Do MLS clubs have affiliated youth teams that go after young players early?

For me that is one of the major differences between soccer in the U.S. and in the rest of the world.

David Beckham signed with Manchester United's youth team when he was 14.

Our players who were raised in Germany began playing with youth teams affiliated with professional clubs when they were that age or younger. Jermaine Jones was 13 when he began playing with Eintracht, IIRC.

More to the point, Neymar signed a contract and began playing with Santos at age ELEVEN.

Talented players are groomed to be professionals at a younger age in the rest of the world. With our scholar-athlete paradigm, kids just don't get the same exposure to the game. They just don't play it as much, because we insist that kids stay in school. And very likely most people are better off for it--I'm not saying we should advise more kids to drop out of school to play soccer, lol--but I think this is a big part of why other nations are able to develop better soccer talent. Their kids play soccer; they don't play school.

But maybe I'm wrong and MLS is more like the rest of the world than I realize in this respect. I don't know much about their youth development stuff.

 

[IrishLax]

I agree. Can that happen though? Do MLS clubs have affiliated youth teams that go after young players early?

For me that is one of the major differences between soccer in the U.S. and in the rest of the world.

David Beckham signed with Manchester United's youth team when he was 16.

Our players who were raised in Germany began playing with youth teams affiliated with professional clubs when they were that age or younger. Jermaine Jones was 13 when he began playing with Eintracht, IIRC.

More to the point, Neymar signed a contract and began playing with Santos at age ELEVEN.

Talented players are groomed to be professionals at a younger age in the rest of the world. With our scholar-athlete paradigm, kids just don't get the same exposure to the game. They just don't play it as much, because we insist that kids stay in school. And very likely most people are better off for it--I'm not saying we should advise more kids to drop out of school to play soccer, lol--but I think this is a big part of why other nations are able to develop better soccer talent. Their kids play soccer; they don't play school.

Harrison Shipp came up through the Chicago Fire youth system. Youth systems exist, they're just not effective for a lot of reasons. I think mainly though because kids in the US look at college as the next step.

The bigger issue, IMO, is that with the bullshit that is Title IX and the NCAA soccer is an equivalency sport. Which means a soccer team can't be fully funded with full scholarships for all its players. Which means the best athletes will always try their hands at football/basketball first.

On top of that, with amateurism the way it is in the NCAA, I don't know when kids can actually start signing legitimate paying contracts with youth system/academy teams and what impact that has on eligibility. As you said, Neymar signed at contract at age ELEVEN... can't imagine someone being willing to forfeit their NCAA eligibility at that age in the US.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Maybe soccer being a scholarship sport in the U.S. is a detriment to our development and we'd be better off as a soccer playing nation if we scrapped it as a scholarship sport. I'm not full-on advocating for that because I'm not close to informed enough to have a valid opinion. But I think it is probably a conversation worth having if we are serious about competing with the best in the world. Maybe we don't care enough about that to scrap the school-based system we have for other sports. Maybe there is a hybrid model similar to baseball that could work.

 

[aubeirish]

Harrison Shipp came up through the Chicago Fire youth system. Youth systems exist, they're just not effective for a lot of reasons. I think mainly though because kids in the US look at college as the next step.

The bigger issue, IMO, is that with the bullshit that is Title IX and the NCAA soccer is an equivalency sport. Which means a soccer team can't be fully funded with full scholarships for all its players. Which means the best athletes will always try their hands at football/basketball first.

On top of that, with amateurism the way it is in the NCAA, I don't know when kids can actually start signing legitimate paying contracts with youth system/academy teams and what impact that has on eligibility. As you said, Neymar signed at contract at age ELEVEN... can't imagine someone being willing to forfeit their NCAA eligibility at that age in the US.

Looking at that equivalency chart, it's funny that women get more scholarships than men for the same sports. Men soccer gets 9.9 scholarships and women soccer gets 14. Huh?.
Baseball gets 11.7. Damn. Lacrosse with a 12.6. Only major team sports with fair amounts of scholarship are Football, Basketball, and Hockey(Though hockey could use another 4-7 to bring it to 22-25 scholarships)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_I_(NCAA)

 

[Emcee77]

Maybe soccer being a scholarship sport in the U.S. is a detriment to our development and we'd be better off as a soccer playing nation if we scrapped it as a scholarship sport. I'm not full-on advocating for that because I'm not close to informed enough to have a valid opinion. But I think it is probably a conversation worth having if we are serious about competing with the best in the world. Maybe we don't care enough about that to scrap the school-based system we have for other sports. Maybe there is a hybrid model similar to baseball that could work.

Right. Unlike in other countries, in the U.S. soccer is a sport played mostly by middle-class or privileged kids (although that's changing, especially as the Latino population in the U.S. has grown). These kids may come from college-educated familiies, they may feel like they won't fit in among many of their friends and family members if they don't go to college, so they want to go to college. They are likely not angling for a professional contract at 14; they are angling for a D-I scholarship, and then they will see about pro soccer afterward.

But all that studying seriously limits the amount of time they can actually play soccer in relation to kids in other countries. Compare that U.S. schoolboy star to a poor Brazilian kid who isn't going to college either way. He basically becomes a pro soccer player at age 12. He has a lot of time to develop skills and instincts playing soccer while the schoolboy star is doing a report on Frederick Douglass or learning trigonometric functions or whatever.

 

[notredomer23]

Maybe soccer being a scholarship sport in the U.S. is a detriment to our development and we'd be better off as a soccer playing nation if we scrapped it as a scholarship sport. I'm not full-on advocating for that because I'm not close to informed enough to have a valid opinion. But I think it is probably a conversation worth having if we are serious about competing with the best in the world. Maybe we don't care enough about that to scrap the school-based system we have for other sports. Maybe there is a hybrid model similar to baseball that could work.

You're definitely on to something. I don't think the colleges would really care that much, but then what if people start questioning(after seeing the success of it) the same thing for football and basketball? College presidents would do everything they can for that not to happen

 

[IrishLax]

Maybe soccer being a scholarship sport in the U.S. is a detriment to our development and we'd be better off as a soccer playing nation if we scrapped it as a scholarship sport. I'm not full-on advocating for that because I'm not close to informed enough to have a valid opinion. But I think it is probably a conversation worth having if we are serious about competing with the best in the world. Maybe we don't care enough about that to scrap the school-based system we have for other sports. Maybe there is a hybrid model similar to baseball that could work.

Agreed, Rhode. I think there needs to be a hybrid system where a kid can sign with a youth program and get paid and still retain eligibility for college. I know NCAA hockey and baseball have sort of hybrid models, and then there is the outright Olympic model which allows athletes compensation.

I don't know enough about soccer to know what the current regulations are with professional affiliated youth programs (i.e. what Harrison Shipp came through with the Chicago Fire, much less a European affiliated program with the likes of EPL, Serie A, etc.

Right. Unlike in other countries, in the U.S. soccer is a sport played mostly by middle-class or privileged kids (although that's changing, especially as the Latino population in the U.S. has grown). These kids may come from college-educated familiies, they may feel like they won't fit in among many of their friends and family members if they don't go to college, so they want to go to college. They are likely not angling for a professional contract at 14; they are angling for a D-I scholarship, and then they will see about pro soccer afterward.

Hold on though, one thing I brought up in post #2280 is that the big issue IMO is that soccer ISN'T a scholarship sport in the traditional sense... it's an equivalency sport. So for a full team of soccer players there aren't enough scholarships to go around.

As such, middle and upper middle class kids are the ones excelling in tennis/soccer/lacrosse/golf/etc. because the superior athletes coming from poor backgrounds are basically forced to chase basketball/football for that full scholarship that will allow them to go to college.

If soccer started offering completely full rides AND worked out something allowed kids to sign with/get paid by professionally affiliated youth programs at a young age, you'd see a drastic increase in the amount of superior athletes who give soccer a longer look.

 

[Emcee77]

Hold on though, one thing I brought up in post #2280 is that the big issue IMO is that soccer ISN'T a scholarship sport in the traditional sense... it's an equivalency sport. So for a full team of soccer players there aren't enough scholarships to go around.

As such, middle and upper middle class kids are the ones excelling in tennis/soccer/lacrosse/golf/etc. because the superior athletes coming from poor backgrounds are basically forced to chase basketball/football for that full scholarship that will allow them to go to college.

If soccer started offering completely full rides AND worked out something allowed kids to sign with/get paid by professionally affiliated youth programs at a young age, you'd see a drastic increase in the amount of superior athletes who give soccer a longer look.

Ah yeah, true enough. I should have said that the kids I was talking about are "aiming to play D-I soccer", rather than "angling for a D-I scholarship," my point being that, for sociocultural reasons, including a desire to hedge against the possibility that they will fail as pro soccer players, they WANT to go to college, and they believe that a pro soccer career can wait till afterward.

But I totally agree with you, a way of changing the dynamic would be providing a way for soccer players to get full rides across the board.

Some sort of hybrid system like in baseball or hockey would probably be the way to go, although I would be concerned even then that kids aren't playing enough soccer early enough in comparison to kids in other parts of the world. But it would be a vast improvement.

 

[Cackalacky]

Just to use an example:

Yeldin was playing developmental leagues by age 11. He signed with Seattle in 2011 then went on scholarship to Akron for 2 years and then came back to Seatlle.

This is fairly common. It is this way because the youth system is not set up to identify young talent early on line in European countries. 10 year olds are not able to join and pursue club level soccer. They have to play travel teams which is very expensive.

Only recently are there opportunities to try out for major clubs. Liverpool is holding tryouts in South Carolina this summer. Its getting bigger but it will take some time. I think it is more an academy issue than scholarships IMO. Most clubs want you in the system by 17, not 22.

 

[Emcee77]

SIAP, but FYI, DiMaria's out but Aguero is back for Argentina:

Argentina's Angel di Maria is out for World Cup semifinals Sergio Aguero is in vs - ESPN FC

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I'm all in on Germany and the Netherlands. Off-loaded every Brazilian and Argentinian player (even Messi) from my fantasy team.

 

[IrishBlood81]

Can't believe you guys want a European team to win the Cup AGAIN! Jeez really? Why? Its someone else's turn. I'm all in for Argentina to take it, Messi deserves it.

 

[notredomer23]

I just can't see the Dutch stopping Argentina's attack even without Di Maria. Their keeper is average and that defense was getting eaten up by Mexico. Van Gaal has been looking like a genius though so we shall see.

Smart money would be on Germany over Brazil but I am not touching that one. Germany is obviously great, but the defense has looked a little suspect at times. Brazil has been very underwhelming, but the officials will be giving them all the calls, and it is in Brazil. Both games should be fun to watch.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Can't believe you guys want a European team to win the Cup AGAIN! Jeez really? Why? Its someone else's turn. I'm all in for Argentina to take it, Messi deserves it.

I'm all in on Germany and the Netherlands because I expect them to advance, and I'd like to win my fantasy league; not because I dislike non-European teams. I'd be very happy to see Messi lift the trophy.

I just can't see the Dutch stopping Argentina's attack even without Di Maria. Their keeper is average and that defense was getting eaten up by Mexico. Van Gaal has been looking like a genius though so we shall see.

Argentina's defense is arguably the most suspect of the four remaining teams. Di Maria and Messi have been responsible for Argentina's entire transition game in the mid-field, and now it's all on Messi. And, in typical Argentinian form, they still haven't managed to play well together (despite all their talent), whereas the Dutch have been a very cohesive unit since the group stage began.

Smart money would be on Germany over Brazil but I am not touching that one. Germany is obviously great, but the defense has looked a little suspect at times. Brazil has been very underwhelming, but the officials will be giving them all the calls, and it is in Brazil. Both games should be fun to watch.

IIRC, Germany's defense really only looked shaky when Hummels was out with the flu. As long as he's fit, they've got the best defense left in the tournament.

Brazil hasn't looked solid all tournament, and now they'll be facing their first real test in Germany-- probably the best team in the world-- without their two most important players; Neymar was their offensive engine, and Thiago Silva the lynchpin of their defense. Brazil hasn't lost at home in nearly 40 years, and the officiating will likely be in their favor again, but this game just has "Brazil Exposed!" written all over it.