The DU Lounge
Related: Culture Forums, Support ForumsStatistics!!! If you go by how much you have to pay attention, Soccer is the most exciting sport.
How much of a game could you miss without missing out?
How closely do you have to pay attention to what's going on or else you'll miss an important play?
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/11/25/1718580/-Irrefutable-proof-that-soccer-is-the-most-exciting-sport
Consider soccer to start. A typical match consumes about 2 hours of running time. Of that time, the event is live and the ball is moving for 90 plus minutes. When there is stoppage, the referree adds time back in at the end of each period. Subtracting for substitutions, injuries, fouls, throw-ins, goalkeeper stalls, etc., I estimate that the ball is in play for about 75 minutes of every match. That gives an action fraction of 75/120, or 62.5%.
(Soccer has two half-times of 45 minutes each and a 20-minute break. That's 110 minutes. Plus 1-3 minutes per half-time added to the clock at the discretion of the referee because there are no time-outs. But his estimate of 75 minutes of attention-worthy plays is good.)
...
Given that an average baseball game takes about 3 hours, that gives an action fraction of about 11.3%. In other words, one could sleep through 88.7% of a baseball game and not miss one second of action.
...
There are about 130 plays from scrimmage in a football game, each taking about 6 seconds from snap to whistle. Adding in 14 punts and 10 kickoffs at 8 seconds each brings the total playing time to 16.2 minutes, and the action fraction clocks in at a whopping 7.7%. So in fact a football game provides an even greater sleep fraction than a languorous baseball game, more than 92%.
...
that brings the total action time to 52 minutes. A basketball game takes about 2.5 hours to play, so the action fraction is a respectable 34.7%.
...
A professional hockey game consists of three 20-minute periods of non-stop action. Given that a hockey game takes about 3 hours, that gives an action fraction of 33.3%.
--------------------
I think that so few goals being scored in total precisely is what makes Soccer so exciting: There's maybe 5 goals in the whole match. And it only takes 1 minute to go from defense to a counter-attack and to maybe score a goal.
0:00 You go to the toilet.
0:05 The goalkeeper kicks off. The ball goes to a midfield-receiver.
0:10 The midfielder passes the ball on to a striker running along the flank.
0:15 The midfielders move their line forwards to support the strikers.
0:20 The striker gets intercepted. He passes the ball to another player.
0:25 The defenders intercept again.
0:30 A fumble, a hole in the defense, a lucky shot. Goal.
0:40 - 1:30 The goal is repeatedly replayed in slow-motion from multiple angles.
1:30 Kick-off.
2:00 You return from the toilet. And you missed the probably only goal of the game.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)passing and kicking the ball around endlessly.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Defensive formations, aggressive or conservative styles. I don't need to see a touchdown, a goal, or a basket every possession to be entertained. The pursuit of that is more exciting.
If touchdowns were 1 point you'd see low scores and there is baseball which I find golf to be more exciting than that sport besides 0-0 scores aren't that common. I actually watch the sport.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)I missed that. I will say this, if FIFA would install one new rule implementing a "blue line," like they have in hockey, where there is no off sides once the ball goes over it, you would increase the offense (and excitement) in soccer by orders of magnitude.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Because of the smaller rink and faster pace but in soccer players would have to wait for the ball from the backfield and screw up offensive sets plus I LOVE the timing passes where an offensive player beats the defender to the ball that is kicked behind him. I enjoy both sports.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)genxlib
(5,518 posts)I would allow greatly increased (if not unlimited) substitutions including allowing players back into a game.
I think it would greatly increase the speed of the game if players could go all out in 15 minute stretches and then rest. How many times have we seen the energy level go up with a late substitution? Why should we have to wait so long for that?
I think it is an unreasonable restriction on the energy level in a game to have so few substitutions. One of my pet peeves are the prima dona strikers that only put in one sprint every five minutes when they have a chance for a long ball (I'm looking at you Cristiano Ronaldo).
Aside from that, it could really ratchet up the strategy by allowing for multiple changes throughout the game. You could try different alignments, go defensive, all out blitz, up tempo, extra midfielder, etc.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)The "traditions" of soccer rules are worse than baseball.
Ron Obvious
(6,261 posts)I remember when substitutions were only allowed to replace injured players, never for tactical reasons. I'd go back to 2 subs if I had my way.
trc
(823 posts)with football being much more physical on every play and soccer being less physical by design (flopping being a huge problem). Football is combat on a controlled field and every play can result in a score, for either side. Soccer is one long play being driven by long range strategy to get the right players in the right positions at the right time to score. They are very different sports and to say one is more exciting than the other strikes me as odd. I like football, I do not watch soccer, nor do I watch tennis, golf, hockey, curling...you get the idea. We watch what we want to watch for the reasons we choose. Is one more exciting than the other...depends on whose watching.
genxlib
(5,518 posts)The DVR has spoiled me so that I can't watch sports live anymore. I start watching at least an hour after the game starts and just fast forward through the non-action bits.
In reality, the DVR has upended my love of soccer by changing my attention span. I used to watch soccer a lot and it did compare favorably in action to the other sports. Now, I get restless when watching soccer because it is not as suitable for DVR acceleration.
Yes, I realize it is sad. But it correlates to life changes that has diverted my time elsewhere. When I was young, single and childless, I could devote long stretches of time to sports at the very specific times that they were on. Now, I have family and work obligations that make it harder to devote that time. So I watch it when I am available and in a fraction of the time.
And no commercials is a bonus.
I think part of it is that I am frustrated by the state of soccer in the USA. I remember the NASL of the 80's and the constant talk about how we were going to be an emerging power because millions of youths were taking up soccer. Not so much. Every time I see the MLS I can't help but think that we are miles behind everyone else. They play the worst defense in that league I have ever seen.
Floyd R. Turbo
(26,545 posts)diving!
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Floyd R. Turbo
(26,545 posts)wear Speedos!
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)gibraltar72
(7,499 posts)would be hockey. I've never seen a goal until it was replayed!!!
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,325 posts)The puck would appear to go through spectators' heads, all kinds of strange nonsense. If only the goalies wore virtual-reality headgear, nothing would get past them.
I'm very glad the networks dropped that glowing puck.
jmowreader
(50,533 posts)...then there's only one choice for "the most exciting sport": NASCAR, where the cars are in motion any time a red flag is not being displayed.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Oh woes me oh WOES me it hurts so bad look at me rolling back and forth. 3 minutes, later, oh, yeah, I can stand just need to walk it out. Yep, I'm fine, lets play!