(07-14-2014 10:11 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Smart nations are moving away from these gigantic wastes of money.

Brazil's government could fall over the cost of the WC and the Olympics. Brazil spent 20 Billion on the WC. What did they get for their money? A month of tourism, and multiple stadia that will have no use after the games. Manaus, where they spent several hundred million on a stadium, doesn't even have a soccer team. Brasilia's stadium cost over a billion bucks. Brasilia doesn't have a top level Brazilian soccer team.

Putin spent over 51 Billion for the Olympics in Sochi. Russian Oligarchs spent another 20 Billion. Games are over and now....there's little use for those facilities. Russians would rather go to Europe to ski, Turkey/Spain are warmer and nicer, and the whole place is empty.

Russia has announced that it will spend 20 Billion for World Cup 2018. Given the level of corruption and overruns at Sochi, as well as the extreme reluctance of Russian buisnesspersons to donate heavily again, the cost is estimated to rise to 75 Billion. Russia is building massive stadiums in places where there will be little, if any, use for the stadiums after the games. Yekaterinburg and Kaliningrad are two examples.

Qatar isn't even pretending that there will be any use for its stadiums after they host the World Cup in 2022. They're planning on tearing down all the stadium's save one after the games.

And then there's the distaste of the corruption needed to 'win' the games. Many places aren't going to go that route anymore.

------------------

But people are getting smart about it. The IOC opened up bidding for the 2022 Winter Games. They want the games in the Americas or non-CIS Europe. Well there are exactly zero bids from the US, Zero bids from Canada, and Zero bids from Europe. As of now, only two bidders, Beijing and Almaty in Kazakhstan. The IOC is apparently deeply offended and worried that the West, from whom the vast majority of the IOC's legal revenues come from (TV etc.) have basically said "we're washing our hands of the whole mess". If no one in a civilized country is willing to host, then the Winter Games will sink into irrelevance. The feedback that the IOC is getting from some Western venues is, 'we really don't want the games in 2022 and we really don't think we're going to want them anytime in future if this is how we have to bid for the games and spend to produce them'. There are limited places the IOC can host a Winter Olympiad.

---------------------

I think the US should bid on the World Cup in 2026. They should announce that the bid will take the following form. "We will not build any stadiums, but will place the turf of your choosing in the existing stadiums used to host the games. We have any number of fantastic, already built stadiums to propose as venues'. Obviously there's security costs and other costs of putting on the games. So while everyone else is bidding 20 Billion while planning on spending 40 Billion, we will bid 4 Billion to put on the games (which would make the games profitable as a result of TV revenue, licensing revenue etc.).

Basically our bid is a nice way of saying 'you can make the games an orgy of waste, or you can host them without the waste'. We know you'll choose waste, but we just want to highlight that you are choosing waste.

There is some value to hosting the World Cup. The number of fans are greater, they're spread out over a greater area, and they stay for longer periods. But it isn't worth 20 Billion.

-------------------

The Summer Olympics is considered valuable by many nations. I fail to see why. They generate more income than the Winter games, but still involve a ton of wasteful and duplicative spending. Studies have shown that host cities actually have less total tourism in hosting years because the number of people avoiding the host city outweigh the number of tourists who travel there for the 2 weeks of the games. Hosting the games also usually involves massive disruptions to commerce. Every single Summer Olympics has lost money since Barcelona in 1992. And most have lost massive amounts of money. They'res no shortage of cities wishing to host the games. I hope none of them are in the US. But its not like any US city will be awarded the games. The IOC, which is largely funded by the US, is extremely anti-American.

Someone who had experience salvaging an Olympics tarred by scandal, and turned them into a successful and profitable Olympics, would have the leadership and management skills to make a great President of the United States.

(07-15-2014 08:24 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 10:11 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Smart nations are moving away from these gigantic wastes of money.

Brazil's government could fall over the cost of the WC and the Olympics. Brazil spent 20 Billion on the WC. What did they get for their money? A month of tourism, and multiple stadia that will have no use after the games. Manaus, where they spent several hundred million on a stadium, doesn't even have a soccer team. Brasilia's stadium cost over a billion bucks. Brasilia doesn't have a top level Brazilian soccer team.

Putin spent over 51 Billion for the Olympics in Sochi. Russian Oligarchs spent another 20 Billion. Games are over and now....there's little use for those facilities. Russians would rather go to Europe to ski, Turkey/Spain are warmer and nicer, and the whole place is empty.

Russia has announced that it will spend 20 Billion for World Cup 2018. Given the level of corruption and overruns at Sochi, as well as the extreme reluctance of Russian buisnesspersons to donate heavily again, the cost is estimated to rise to 75 Billion. Russia is building massive stadiums in places where there will be little, if any, use for the stadiums after the games. Yekaterinburg and Kaliningrad are two examples.

Qatar isn't even pretending that there will be any use for its stadiums after they host the World Cup in 2022. They're planning on tearing down all the stadium's save one after the games.

And then there's the distaste of the corruption needed to 'win' the games. Many places aren't going to go that route anymore.

------------------

But people are getting smart about it. The IOC opened up bidding for the 2022 Winter Games. They want the games in the Americas or non-CIS Europe. Well there are exactly zero bids from the US, Zero bids from Canada, and Zero bids from Europe. As of now, only two bidders, Beijing and Almaty in Kazakhstan. The IOC is apparently deeply offended and worried that the West, from whom the vast majority of the IOC's legal revenues come from (TV etc.) have basically said "we're washing our hands of the whole mess". If no one in a civilized country is willing to host, then the Winter Games will sink into irrelevance. The feedback that the IOC is getting from some Western venues is, 'we really don't want the games in 2022 and we really don't think we're going to want them anytime in future if this is how we have to bid for the games and spend to produce them'. There are limited places the IOC can host a Winter Olympiad.

---------------------

I think the US should bid on the World Cup in 2026. They should announce that the bid will take the following form. "We will not build any stadiums, but will place the turf of your choosing in the existing stadiums used to host the games. We have any number of fantastic, already built stadiums to propose as venues'. Obviously there's security costs and other costs of putting on the games. So while everyone else is bidding 20 Billion while planning on spending 40 Billion, we will bid 4 Billion to put on the games (which would make the games profitable as a result of TV revenue, licensing revenue etc.).

Basically our bid is a nice way of saying 'you can make the games an orgy of waste, or you can host them without the waste'. We know you'll choose waste, but we just want to highlight that you are choosing waste.

There is some value to hosting the World Cup. The number of fans are greater, they're spread out over a greater area, and they stay for longer periods. But it isn't worth 20 Billion.

-------------------

The Summer Olympics is considered valuable by many nations. I fail to see why. They generate more income than the Winter games, but still involve a ton of wasteful and duplicative spending. Studies have shown that host cities actually have less total tourism in hosting years because the number of people avoiding the host city outweigh the number of tourists who travel there for the 2 weeks of the games. Hosting the games also usually involves massive disruptions to commerce. Every single Summer Olympics has lost money since Barcelona in 1992. And most have lost massive amounts of money. They'res no shortage of cities wishing to host the games. I hope none of them are in the US. But its not like any US city will be awarded the games. The IOC, which is largely funded by the US, is extremely anti-American.

Someone who had experience salvaging an Olympics tarred by scandal, and turned them into a successful and profitable Olympics, would have the leadership and management skills to make a great President of the United States.

LOL. No. SLOC 'made' 40 million, after the Feds gave them 1.4 Billion.

(07-15-2014 07:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 07:32 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 05:41 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 02:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If I were to change one rule, I'd stop the grabbing and holding. Of course, that's against the rules (supposedly). But that's not the way they enforce it. There's way too much grabbing and shoving going on. And if you got rid of it, the scoring would take care of itself.

The pitch is simply too big. Too much time is spent chasing down the fcking ball. We forget that lots of NFL games end 1-0 or 2-1. We just jacked up the points. A smaller field would increase scoring like it does in indoor soccer.

That's a gross exaggeration. How college or pro games end 7-0 or 10-7/14-7 according to your analogy? Not many. More often than not, both teams score at least three times.

Actually fewer players or a bigger pitch would open up play even more. Look at what happens in rugby when you go from 15s to 7s. Indoor soccer has more scoring because there are fewer players on a side.

I still think cracking down on the grabbing and holding would be the best way to open it up.

Or you could think of Aussie Rules. Now that's a scoring game because of a very large field.

Canadian football also scores more on less downs due to the field size.

It's not the scoring that matters IMO. If that were the case, we'd be playing cricket. It's simply the fact that it's still unfamiliar. I suggest finding a team in MLS, MX, or EPL, watch highlights and learn the players. Once you have a team to follow, scoring becomes less of a complaint. Then you're concerned about winning more than the scoreline.

Plus, you have to remember that the WC is not very high quality stuff.

(07-15-2014 10:09 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  It's not the scoring that matters IMO. If that were the case, we'd be playing cricket. It's simply the fact that it's still unfamiliar. I suggest finding a team in MLS, MX, or EPL, watch highlights and learn the players. Once you have a team to follow, scoring becomes less of a complaint. Then you're concerned about winning more than the scoreline.

Plus, you have to remember that the WC is not very high quality stuff.

That and the fact that it is boring and does not have a root in America.

I think a big part of the problem relates to OkieDixie's comment about no strategy in soccer when compared to American football. The thing that I enjoy most about soccer is the strategy, which is much more complex on many more levels IMO than in American football.

The problem is that so much of the strategy involves what happens away from the ball, and TV doesn't usually capture that. Some of the commentators do a good job of providing that, some don't.

Five minutes into the Germany-Algeria game, I'm on Facebook with a US soccer coach and a German fan (both long time friends) and we're all agreeing that the German defense is taking too high a line and they've got to move Lahm back to right back. They made those adjustments at the half, but only after the most incredible display of goal keeping by Neuer, who came out of his box 18 times (that's for the game as a whole, not sure how many were in the first half, but probably 15 of them came when he was the only defender who could get there) to stop breakaways almost single-handedly. Without Neuer, Germany's probably down anywhere from 3-0 to 5-0 at the half, and their World Cup is over. To be fair, the Lahm to right back move had been discussed in the pre game show.

Under Klinsmann and then Low, Germany has changed from an defense-minded team to an much more offense-minded team. Their defense is mostly a bunch of older guys who are incredibly smart and savvy but who move like statues. They gave Argentina more than enough chances to put the game out of reach, but Argentina simply could not finish.

The whole game reminds me of the old South American joke. When God was making the world, and He got to Argentina, He said, "Give me the most beautiful beaches in the world," and He made Mar del Plata. Then He said, "Give me the most beautiful mountains in the world," and He made the Andes. Then He said, "Give me the most fertile farmland in the world," and He put it in between. One of the angels leans in and asks, "God, aren't you giving too much to one country?" God replies, "No, the people I'm going to put there will screw it all up."

If you've ever been there, you know exactly what that joke means. And that was Argentina on Sunday.

(07-15-2014 10:13 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 10:09 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  It's not the scoring that matters IMO. If that were the case, we'd be playing cricket. It's simply the fact that it's still unfamiliar. I suggest finding a team in MLS, MX, or EPL, watch highlights and learn the players. Once you have a team to follow, scoring becomes less of a complaint. Then you're concerned about winning more than the scoreline.

Plus, you have to remember that the WC is not very high quality stuff.

That and the fact that it is boring and does not have a root in America.

#NoWorries.

There is no doubt the sport is growing in the US.

More than 26 Million in US Watch World Cup Finals.

Quote:NEW YORK (AP) — Even without the home team involved, the World Cup final between Germany and Argentina set a television viewership record in the United States, capping a tournament that exceeded expectations for interest on both ESPN and Univision.

The month-long World Cup also was responsible for more than 3 billion interactions on Facebook and 672 million messages on Twitter, the social media companies said on Monday.

An estimated 26.5 million people in the U.S. watched Germany's extra-time win on Sunday afternoon, the Nielsen company said. The game had 17.3 million viewers on ABC and another 9.2 million on the Spanish-language Univision. In addition, just over 750,000 people were watching the game during a typical minute online through services provided by each network.

(07-15-2014 10:09 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Plus, you have to remember that the WC is not very high quality stuff.

This.

Most of the real stars (Messi, Crissy, Neymar, Luiz, any of the big names) play on club sides that are better than these national teams.

That was really brought home to me more in this Cup than before. Germany was clearly the best team there in the end, but they are not a team without major flaws. Their defense is way, way too slow. Neuer saved them, and IMO he was the man of the tournament by far. Messi got the award based on reputation, not his play. That plus the fact that the media on hand at the end were probably disproportionately from Argentina.

I do find it interesting to see how many of the stars remain stars when not surrounded by great talent, and how many suffer a bit. Some even suffer a lot.

(07-15-2014 10:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 10:09 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Plus, you have to remember that the WC is not very high quality stuff.

This.

Most of the real stars (Messi, Chrissy, Neymar, Luiz, any of the big names) play on club sides that are better than these national teams.

That was really brought home to me more in this Cup than before. Germany was clearly the best team there in the end, but they are not a team without major flaws. Their defense is way, way too slow. Neuer saved them, and IMO he was the man of the tournament by far. Messi got the award based on reputation, not his play. That plus the fact that the media on hand at the end were probably disproportionately from Argentina.

I do find it interesting to see how many of the stars remain stars when not surrounded by great talent, and how many suffer a bit. Some even suffer a lot.

I agree that National teams aren't better than some Club teams; however, the best players in the world are playing so that in and of itself makes me watch.

(07-15-2014 10:43 AM)VA49er Wrote:  I agree that National teams aren't better than some Club teams; however, the best players in the world are playing so that in and of itself makes me watch.

That is true, you get ALL the best players in the WC whereas you only get the ones that play in a particular league with clubs.

I would tend to think the the UEFA Champions League is probably the best level of play that you see anywhere.

(07-15-2014 10:39 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 10:13 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 10:09 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  It's not the scoring that matters IMO. If that were the case, we'd be playing cricket. It's simply the fact that it's still unfamiliar. I suggest finding a team in MLS, MX, or EPL, watch highlights and learn the players. Once you have a team to follow, scoring becomes less of a complaint. Then you're concerned about winning more than the scoreline.

Plus, you have to remember that the WC is not very high quality stuff.

That and the fact that it is boring and does not have a root in America.

#NoWorries.

There is no doubt the sport is growing in the US.

More than 26 Million in US Watch World Cup Finals.

Quote:NEW YORK (AP) — Even without the home team involved, the World Cup final between Germany and Argentina set a television viewership record in the United States, capping a tournament that exceeded expectations for interest on both ESPN and Univision.

The month-long World Cup also was responsible for more than 3 billion interactions on Facebook and 672 million messages on Twitter, the social media companies said on Monday.

An estimated 26.5 million people in the U.S. watched Germany's extra-time win on Sunday afternoon, the Nielsen company said. The game had 17.3 million viewers on ABC and another 9.2 million on the Spanish-language Univision. In addition, just over 750,000 people were watching the game during a typical minute online through services provided by each network.

26.5 million people is still less than 8% of the population.

This number is still fairly large for a sporting event (dwarfing the NBA, MLB and NHL finals), but considering it is once every four years and there is only one game to determine the champion (as opposed to 4-7 in the other sports), I actually think that is fairly low.

(07-15-2014 10:43 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 10:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 10:09 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Plus, you have to remember that the WC is not very high quality stuff.

This.

Most of the real stars (Messi, Chrissy, Neymar, Luiz, any of the big names) play on club sides that are better than these national teams.

That was really brought home to me more in this Cup than before. Germany was clearly the best team there in the end, but they are not a team without major flaws. Their defense is way, way too slow. Neuer saved them, and IMO he was the man of the tournament by far. Messi got the award based on reputation, not his play. That plus the fact that the media on hand at the end were probably disproportionately from Argentina.

I do find it interesting to see how many of the stars remain stars when not surrounded by great talent, and how many suffer a bit. Some even suffer a lot.

I agree that National teams aren't better than some Club teams; however, the best players in the world are playing so that in and of itself makes me watch.

I understand that and having the best players in the world go back home is great to watch. I'm way more willing to watch some of the not-so-popular countries duke it out over bottom-of-the-table clubs in the EPL.

(07-15-2014 10:53 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 10:43 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 10:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 10:09 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Plus, you have to remember that the WC is not very high quality stuff.

This.

Most of the real stars (Messi, Chrissy, Neymar, Luiz, any of the big names) play on club sides that are better than these national teams.

That was really brought home to me more in this Cup than before. Germany was clearly the best team there in the end, but they are not a team without major flaws. Their defense is way, way too slow. Neuer saved them, and IMO he was the man of the tournament by far. Messi got the award based on reputation, not his play. That plus the fact that the media on hand at the end were probably disproportionately from Argentina.

I do find it interesting to see how many of the stars remain stars when not surrounded by great talent, and how many suffer a bit. Some even suffer a lot.

I agree that National teams aren't better than some Club teams; however, the best players in the world are playing so that in and of itself makes me watch.

I understand that and having the best players in the world go back home is great to watch. I'm way more willing to watch some of the not-so-popular countries duke it out over bottom-of-the-table clubs in the EPL.

I'm going to start watching more EPL, etc type games from now on if I can find them televised.

(07-15-2014 10:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 10:43 AM)VA49er Wrote:  I agree that National teams aren't better than some Club teams; however, the best players in the world are playing so that in and of itself makes me watch.

That is true, you get ALL the best players in the WC whereas you only get the ones that play in a particular league with clubs.

I would tend to think the the UEFA Champions League is probably the best level of play that you see anywhere.

I'm not really all that into the Champions League. I'll watch Arsenal and I'll watch in hopes of a ManU loss (not even going this season), but most of the other teams are those that I either dislike or don't care about.

(07-15-2014 10:54 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 10:53 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 10:43 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 10:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 10:09 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Plus, you have to remember that the WC is not very high quality stuff.

This.

Most of the real stars (Messi, Chrissy, Neymar, Luiz, any of the big names) play on club sides that are better than these national teams.

That was really brought home to me more in this Cup than before. Germany was clearly the best team there in the end, but they are not a team without major flaws. Their defense is way, way too slow. Neuer saved them, and IMO he was the man of the tournament by far. Messi got the award based on reputation, not his play. That plus the fact that the media on hand at the end were probably disproportionately from Argentina.

I do find it interesting to see how many of the stars remain stars when not surrounded by great talent, and how many suffer a bit. Some even suffer a lot.

I agree that National teams aren't better than some Club teams; however, the best players in the world are playing so that in and of itself makes me watch.

I understand that and having the best players in the world go back home is great to watch. I'm way more willing to watch some of the not-so-popular countries duke it out over bottom-of-the-table clubs in the EPL.

I'm going to start watching more EPL, etc type games from now on if I can find them televised.

Every Saturday and Sunday morning on Fox Sports 1 for Premier League. I have no idea where to find the others.

I enjoy Champions League. I think it's because in a former job I was always in Europe around the final, and it was great fun to join a viewing party and soak up the atmosphere.

(07-15-2014 08:14 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 05:41 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 02:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If I were to change one rule, I'd stop the grabbing and holding. Of course, that's against the rules (supposedly). But that's not the way they enforce it. There's way too much grabbing and shoving going on. And if you got rid of it, the scoring would take care of itself.

The pitch is simply too big. Too much time is spent chasing down the fcking ball. We forget that lots of NFL games end 1-0 or 2-1. We just jacked up the points. A smaller field would increase scoring like it does in indoor soccer.

Yeah, I bet if we made soccer goals worth 7 points instead of 1 point folks would feel different even though it would be the exact same thing. People freak out over a 1-0 soccer game but think nothing of a 7-0 football game.

Not to mention how many games on the Gridiron are won by no TD. Who came up with the idea of kicking a damn xtra point anyway? That schit has always bothered me. It should be just another play from the goal line. To lose a game on an extra point try is silly IMO.

(07-15-2014 07:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 07:32 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 05:41 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 02:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If I were to change one rule, I'd stop the grabbing and holding. Of course, that's against the rules (supposedly). But that's not the way they enforce it. There's way too much grabbing and shoving going on. And if you got rid of it, the scoring would take care of itself.

The pitch is simply too big. Too much time is spent chasing down the fcking ball. We forget that lots of NFL games end 1-0 or 2-1. We just jacked up the points. A smaller field would increase scoring like it does in indoor soccer.

That's a gross exaggeration. How college or pro games end 7-0 or 10-7/14-7 according to your analogy? Not many. More often than not, both teams score at least three times.

Actually fewer players or a bigger pitch would open up play even more. Look at what happens in rugby when you go from 15s to 7s. Indoor soccer has more scoring because there are fewer players on a side.

I still think cracking down on the grabbing and holding would be the best way to open it up.

I can tell you I like Rugby 10x better than soccer and damn near as much as American football. I could be a big rugby fan if it was in my area.

(07-15-2014 11:23 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I can tell you I like Rugby 10x better than soccer and damn near as much as American football. I could be a big rugby fan if it was in my area.

I think rugby would catch on with a lot more Americans than soccer. It has the physical confrontation and more scoring, and the scoring is very similar to the familiar American football--7s and 3s, with some minor differences (see below). The problems that I see with rugby people trying to explain the game to Americans are twofold: 1) too much is made of the blood and guts aspect, without talking enough about the object of the game which is to score points, and 2) the explanations about what happens around the tackle and rucks and mauls gets way too technical too fast. I think a more simple way to explain it is that in American football, when the ball carrier is tackled the play stops, both teams retreat to their sides of the ball and line up for the next play, and the ball remains dead until the offense snaps the ball for the next play, whereas in rugby when the ball carrier is tackled, the ball remains live, the runner has to release the ball, both teams come in and compete for possession with the ball still live, and the next play can start at any time, so getting to the spot of the tackle and getting lined up in a hurry is at a premium, which is why you don't see 350-pound rugby players. There are rules to govern what you can and can't do at the breakdown, but I tell most newbies not to worry, just watch the flow of the game, and if the referee blows his/her whistle it means either 1) something happened that would take too long to explain to be worth fooling with, or 2) nothing happened but the referee is as clueless as you are.

(07-15-2014 11:20 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Not to mention how many games on the Gridiron are won by no TD. Who came up with the idea of kicking a damn xtra point anyway? That schit has always bothered me. It should be just another play from the goal line. To lose a game on an extra point try is silly IMO.

This actually came from rugby. In the original version of rugby, when you crossed the goal line and touched the ball down in the end zone (and you actually had to touch it down, it was a true touchdown), you were awarded a try for goal, meaning that you would throw the ball back into the field of play to a teammate who would kick for goal from the spot. The only scoring was the goal, the try for goal counted nothing. Then they started allowing kicks for goal from the field of play. Soon teams began just kicking for goals from the run of play rather than bothering to score the try first, so they started adding points for the try to make it important. These days a converted try counts 7, just like football--the try counts 5 and the conversion 2 (but it's harder than the football conversion because it has to come from in line with where you scored, so if you score just inside the right flag the kick has to come from just inside the right sideline). And a field goal counts 3 like football, and comes in either of two ways--a drop kick in the run of play (you really don't have a way to set up a place kick in open play) or any time there is a penalty called on the other team you have an option of a place kick at goal from the spot of the foul (penalty goal).

(07-15-2014 10:59 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 10:54 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 10:53 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 10:43 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 10:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  This.

Most of the real stars (Messi, Chrissy, Neymar, Luiz, any of the big names) play on club sides that are better than these national teams.

That was really brought home to me more in this Cup than before. Germany was clearly the best team there in the end, but they are not a team without major flaws. Their defense is way, way too slow. Neuer saved them, and IMO he was the man of the tournament by far. Messi got the award based on reputation, not his play. That plus the fact that the media on hand at the end were probably disproportionately from Argentina.

I do find it interesting to see how many of the stars remain stars when not surrounded by great talent, and how many suffer a bit. Some even suffer a lot.

I agree that National teams aren't better than some Club teams; however, the best players in the world are playing so that in and of itself makes me watch.

I understand that and having the best players in the world go back home is great to watch. I'm way more willing to watch some of the not-so-popular countries duke it out over bottom-of-the-table clubs in the EPL.

I'm going to start watching more EPL, etc type games from now on if I can find them televised.

Every Saturday and Sunday morning on Fox Sports 1 for Premier League. I have no idea where to find the others.

NBCSN now, with the more high profile games on NBC, and the rest on streaming. Fox has the champions league, and starting next season will have the bundesliga, which for me is the most exciting of the bigger european leagues.