Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[theory]

Maybe this belongs in the RSP sub forum, but possibly because of the Capitalist government? With it, you always feel like you have to be on top and the 'winner'? That would be my guess. I don't mind ties, but I'd usually prefer for there to be a winner.

Because the US is the only capitalist country in the world ...

The core difference between US sports and Euro sports is that US sports are about drama.  The Super Bowl is dramatic.  March Madness is dramatic.  Winning a league title?  Not dramatic (it's even an insult).  Ties?  Definitely not dramatic.

[Davio]

Maybe it's the most capitalistic.

Netherlands is more social capitalistic, meaning: Sure, we like winning, but we can live with a tie.

[Drab Emordnilap]

I never thought about it before, but one of the most personally fulfilling accomplishments in Dominion is to claw back from behind a guy and end the game on a tie. I mean, winning from behind is cool, too, but when you have to sit there and puzzle it out to get exactly enough points to not lose, man that's a rush.

[eHalcyon]

I've never understood the appeal of baseball. I find most Canadians don't. We share a lot of culture, but baseball is something we just don't get. 

[jonts26]

I've never understood the appeal of baseball. I find most Canadians don't. We share a lot of culture, but baseball is something we just don't get. 

But curling somehow is.

[dondon151]

The core difference between US sports and Euro sports is that US sports are about drama.

Whereas in the US, drama happens between teams, in Europe, apparently it happens between fans...

[yudantaiteki]

I've never understood the appeal of baseball. I find most Canadians don't. We share a lot of culture, but baseball is something we just don't get. 

A lot of Americans don't either.  Baseball has fallen off dramatically in popularity.  It was created during an era when average people were starting to get lots of leisure time but there still wasn't a huge amount of leisure entertainment available.  I personally find it way too slow moving and boring to watch, and I also don't like the fact that the huge number of games they play each season means that each individual game is nearly meaningless in the overall picture.  I have the same problem with the NBA, though.

The only professional sports I watch regularly are (American) football, and college basketball.  I also watch the Tour de France in July but I do cycling myself and I can understand why people would find it boring.  American football is by far my favorite spectator sport, though, and watching football is one of my favorite leisure activities.

[Lekkit]

[eHalcyon]

I've never understood the appeal of baseball. I find most Canadians don't. We share a lot of culture, but baseball is something we just don't get. 

But curling somehow is.

I don't know if you are serious or sarcastic here... but yes! I watched curling for the first time I think during the Canadian-hosted Olympics. It was surprisingly captivating.

[gman314]

I've never understood the appeal of baseball. I find most Canadians don't. We share a lot of culture, but baseball is something we just don't get. 

But curling somehow is.

The only people who really like watching curling are those who play it themselves. (Myself included.)

And speaking of curling, it has just about the worst tie-breaker system ever. In the event of a tie at any sort of tournament, the tie-breaker is to play an extra end. But since last shot is a HUGE advantage, and the team who just scored to tie it up goes first, the ruling in a tie is basically that whoever was up most recently wins. (Although, sometimes the team with first shot steals the extra end, but that's relatively is.)

[eHalcyon]

I don't go out of my way to watch it, but I enjoy curling without paying it myself. Quite a few of my friends do too.

[HiveMindEmulator]

FWIW, I'm an American, and I don't really mind ties, but I do like to see overtime and extra innings. In general I feel like if a game is close enough that it resulted in a tie, there is added excitement in seeing more of it, not to avoid a tie, but to have more of the game.

What I don't like is forced tie-breakers that have little to do with the actual game. Going to penalty kicks in soccer is the absolute worst. It has nearly nothing to do with actual soccer. There's no running, passing, dribbling, defending, spacing the field, and the keeper can't even come off the line! The only thing it has to with soccer is that involves kicking a ball. It would be like breaking ties in baseball by taking turns swinging a bat at a pinata... But even though it's not related to the game, a lot of people like this anyway, just because it's exciting to have the game on the line. It's the same reason people like to gamble in casinos. Regardless of the game you're playing, you're invested in something and will be thrilled if you win.

The NHL recently decided to have shootouts in regular season games, and a few years before, they added something like a shootout to college football. Each team takes turns getting the ball at the opponents 25 and scoring until someone screws up... It's a little more related to the game than a shootout, but not enough (imo). It's just about red-zone offense and defense, neglecting anything about working for field position. And to make it even more insulting, they add the score to game score instead of having a separate parenthetical score like in other sports with shootouts! Can you imagine if a soccer match scoring 1-1(5-3) was instead called 6-4?

I think the NFL way of breaking american football ties is much better. Just play an extra period sudden death (with a restriction to prevent the game from ending on a field goal by the first team to possess the ball). This makes it essentially like continuing the game with the same rules (a little different since you're more likely to settle for a field goal than go for a touchdown). There are still ties, but rarely, and it's okay. I'm actually watching more football, not a shootout. However, most other Americans I talk to like the college football method better and it blows my mind... I guess it's just the general love of scoring...

[theory]

The NFL overtime format suffers from its inane first-possession rules.  I think that's why people tend to prefer the NCAA format (also because it's like the Red Zone, but live).

I would be a fan of the NFL overtime rules if they allowed each coach to bid for starting possession; whichever team was willing to start further back gets the ball first.

[greatexpectations]

I personally find it way too slow moving and boring to watch,

agreed, i dislike american football too.

[enfynet]

I prefer playing any sport to watching it. With that said, I enjoy watching many different sports because I understand what goes into playing a lot of them. While I don't necessarily understand the professional strategy and play-calling in the hyper-active sports like soccer(football), basketball, or hockey; I do understand the fundamentals and the rules enough to appreciate the skill involved in professional matches.

I do prefer having a determined winner over a tie.

[Lekkit]

I recently found out that they don't do Golden Goal (Sudden Death) in soccer anymore because it promotes boring safe play. I prefer adding some extra time rather than "whoever takes the least risks have a higher chance of winning". I think it was smart of them to not use Golden Goal anymore.

[HiveMindEmulator]

The NFL overtime format suffers from its inane first-possession rules.  I think that's why people tend to prefer the NCAA format (also because it's like the Red Zone, but live).

I would be a fan of the NFL overtime rules if they allowed each coach to bid for starting possession; whichever team was willing to start further back gets the ball first.

There was only really a problem when the kickoff was from the 30 yard line. The team who possessed the ball first would also have a field position advantage, making the overall advantage of winning the coin toss too great. There was no significant advantage when the kickoff used to be from the 40, and it appears that there is none now that it's from the 35 and the first-possession field goal restriction is implemented (though there's not that much data yet).

The problem fans have is partially with perception. Fans feel like having the ball is the most important thing and don't care about field position. They boo when their team opts to punt rather than to go for it on 4th and 2 from their own 20. Even if you're ~50% to make it, the risk is giving up free points vs the reward of getting a few more downs (after which you are reasonably likely to end up punting anyway).

Your idea about bidding for field position makes some sense in that it emphasizes the importance of it, but it's arguably even more convoluted (and non-football related) than the current method and could easily result in tied bids.

I recently found out that they don't do Golden Goal (Sudden Death) in soccer anymore because it promotes boring safe play. I prefer adding some extra time rather than "whoever takes the least risks have a higher chance of winning". I think it was smart of them to not use Golden Goal anymore.

With no golden goal, you have an increased risk of a tie, and you lose out on the chance to have a "walk-off" kind of play, which is a nice moment. But you get overall better play. So again this comes down to the trade-off between the chance of dramatic moments and average quality of entertainment. I think the trend in America is the opposite since we prefer the dramatics, hence our love of shootouts...

[yudantaiteki]

I think the NFL way of breaking american football ties is much better. Just play an extra period sudden death (with a restriction to prevent the game from ending on a field goal by the first team to possess the ball). This makes it essentially like continuing the game with the same rules (a little different since you're more likely to settle for a field goal than go for a touchdown). There are still ties, but rarely, and it's okay. I'm actually watching more football, not a shootout. However, most other Americans I talk to like the college football method better and it blows my mind... I guess it's just the general love of scoring...

I agree.  I'm not a fan of the NCAA one because college football games are already long enough, and the NCAA overtime takes too much of the regular football stuff out of the game.

I like the NFL sudden death, although I don't mind the addition of either the "first to 6" or "guaranteed possession for each side" rule.  I don't really have a problem with the pure sudden death, though. IMO if you couldn't score more points than the other team in 60 minutes, and you can't stop their offense on an additional drive, you deserve the loss.  If you're going to complain that your team's offense didn't get a chance, they had 60 minutes of chances.

[Lekkit]

With no golden goal, you have an increased risk of a tie, and you lose out on the chance to have a "walk-off" kind of play, which is a nice moment. But you get overall better play. So again this comes down to the trade-off between the chance of dramatic moments and average quality of entertainment. I think the trend in America is the opposite since we prefer the dramatics, hence our love of shootouts...

What I forgot to say was that they actually did add two extra halfs that are shorter than a regular half. That way you are guaranteed to see half an hour of extra play and if one team is on top after that, the game ends. Instead of ending as soon as one team scores. This way you avoid ties and promote "normal" play. If the teams are still tied after the extra play time, you go to shoot offs.

[greatexpectations]

If the teams are still tied after the extra play time, you go to shoot offs.

except in some cup tournaments where away goals will still win it in extra time. (edge cases woo)

[Archetype]

Maybe this belongs in the RSP sub forum, but possibly because of the Capitalist government? With it, you always feel like you have to be on top and the 'winner'? That would be my guess. I don't mind ties, but I'd usually prefer for there to be a winner.

Because the US is the only capitalist country in the world ...

Maybe it's the most capitalistic.

This. I should have clarified.

[Warfreak2]

Having tie-breaking mechanics as part of a game can serve to increase the strategic depth; if a slight advantage can be important because it breaks what would otherwise be a tie, then a small difference in skill can be important, so the range of skills is more granular, so the game has more depth. Something similar can be said for game mechanics which compensate for first-player advantage.

[Twistedarcher]

The two reasons my friends don't like following soccer (other than the ridiculous "but nothing happens!" argument, [...]

I think it has to do with the fact that you can't "play for a draw", and use negative tactics to ensure a better chance at a result. I see the side of this argument, but I think that playing for a draw should be valid, as well.

I fail to see how that's ridiculous. it's true.

I compare it to American football, which has 45 seconds off, 15 seconds on, repeatedly. In a tree hour game there's so, so, so much less action.

[jonts26]

The two reasons my friends don't like following soccer (other than the ridiculous "but nothing happens!" argument, [...]

I think it has to do with the fact that you can't "play for a draw", and use negative tactics to ensure a better chance at a result. I see the side of this argument, but I think that playing for a draw should be valid, as well.

I fail to see how that's ridiculous. it's true.

I compare it to American football, which has 45 seconds off, 15 seconds on, repeatedly. In a tree hour game there's so, so, so much less action.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704281204575002852055561406.html

[HiveMindEmulator]

The two reasons my friends don't like following soccer (other than the ridiculous "but nothing happens!" argument, [...]

I think it has to do with the fact that you can't "play for a draw", and use negative tactics to ensure a better chance at a result. I see the side of this argument, but I think that playing for a draw should be valid, as well.

I fail to see how that's ridiculous. it's true.

I compare it to American football, which has 45 seconds off, 15 seconds on, repeatedly. In a tree hour game there's so, so, so much less action.

The brilliant part is that you know when the action is going to occur, which makes it a great sport for casual viewers. You don't have to pay too much attention to catch all the action.