"My" MLS Team Tied, should I be happy or sad?

by user MikeBriggs

D.C. United Ties Colorado Rapids on August 19th, 2006

Saturday's game (match?) is the first complete Major League Soccer game that I've watched (saw about ten minutes of a previous DC United game; both games seen on television, first in-person event not till next Saturday).

I’m glad that United didn't lose (as a beginning United fan), but . . . they tied. How am I supposed to respond to a tie? A vague feeling of happiness, mixed with sadness? We are talking about a first place team with just 2 losses playing a 9-8 team, and United did not pick up a win in their last three matches, so how exactly can I be happy with a tie? Only in thinking "at least they didn't lose." On the other hand, the game announcers mentioned that last years champs lost 13 regular season games (32 regular season games, ended up with a record of 19-13? nope, can't tell because of the fact ties exist, could have been 0-13-19, except I doubt a team that never won a game in regular play would win the Championship).

Interesting game to watch and I believe I see one reason, beyond the low scoring reason, for why Soccer has so much trouble advancing further into USA culture. That reason is the game itself, the 45 minutes of continuous game, 15 minutes of break then another 45 minutes of game. I saw this in the rules before I watched the game on TV, but I didn't really think about it until I saw the game. That's 45 straight minutes of game. No TV breaks, no breaks except for the half-time break. If the broadcasters go to commercial, the game does not stop, the game continues. Broadcasters don't take a break, game continues. What does the audience do? Never move, that's what. At least never leave the vicinity of the TV screen. I now know why in some movies from "soccer" countries there is a big point of having a TV in the restrooms.

Soccer, being soccer, ends up with a lot of low scoring games, if you get up for any reason, you will likely miss something important. Stay and watch people kicking the ball around. Get up and miss goals.

I was fortunate. I put off eating supper or doing anything else (like getting a drink of some kind) until after the game was over (of course I did get up at half-time). Therefore I saw the two goals.

All other major USA sports (with two+ exceptions; and assuming, by using “other” that MLS is a major USA sport), Baseball (inning breaks/side changes/pitching changes), Football (the NFL kind, quarters), Hockey (periods), and Basketball: all have built in time for broadcasters to show commercials. Soccer doesn't. The two+ exceptions? Auto-racing and golf. Both involve more than two competitors, and both can somewhat get away with taking a commercial while action continues to happen (The + is for Horse-racing - the only major events in Horse-racing, these days, are the big events - the Kentucky Derby races and the like, events that go by so quickly that there's plenty of commercial time - the pre-race talking, broken up with commercials, and the post race talking, broken up with commercials, the race itself is over before you know it).

Bear in mind that all of the above is in reference to MLS, and all other sports mentioned are the USA versions.

Date

Mon 08/21/06, 7:18 am EST

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

1195 days ago

Score 0

Ties are fine. If you are playing as a bad team playing a good team, the bad team has something to play for. They can hold on all game for a draw. Getting a draw against a good team is good, but against a bad team is not so good. If you are losing, and snatch a draw, its good. If you are winning, and concede a draw, it's bad. So that's how you feel after a draw. It's OK, nothing special. That's why the record is unimportant in "soccer countries", they only care about the number of points.

Permalink | Reply

MikeBriggsVarsity

1195 days ago

Score 1

Well, to add to the information presented: Colorado, "the bad team", scored first, and United, the first place team, snatched the draw. Number of points: I might be reading the rules wrong, but I believe that a win is 3 points in MLS and a tie is 1 point. Thanks for helping me to try to understand this thing called "soccer" and it's odd results (tie? what's a tie?).

Permalink

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

1195 days ago

Score 1

We normally call it a draw. Presuming you are a United fan, you should be disappointed you drew to a bad team. The points system is dodgy, it used to be a 2 for a win, but Jimmy Hill thought that 3 for a win would make more teams play for it. Instead, teams now play not to lose. I prefer two for a win it makes sense. A draw is there to stop the game. The idea of a baseball game lasting another three hours into a twentieth inning is a bit much. With a definite ending to the game (time wise) in a League situation, you can plan around it. Whereas with NBA, MLB, you could be there all day.

Permalink

Bleeding GreenVarsity

1195 days ago

Score 1

The problem with the MLS is that it doesn't matter. A tie or win is really not that important. Nearly every team in the leauge makes the playoffs. There's no incentive to really win games. If there was some kind of meaning to the regular season or there was champions cup berth in the balance it might matter... but it doesn't. So don't be happy or sad with a tie. Just be bored until the game matters.

Permalink | Reply

Iamadonut

1195 days ago

Score 2

nail. head.

Permalink

Bleeding GreenVarsity

1195 days ago

Score 2

Also I refuse to believe that the lack of commercials is the reason that soccer hasn;t blown up in the US. All the stoppages are the reason the NBA sucks so bad! The nonstop play in soccer is the absolute best thing it has going IMO.

Permalink | Reply

MikeBriggsVarsity

1195 days ago

Score 0

Non-stop action: looking at the commercial/money/business side: What's the incentive for a broadcaster to broadcast a game if they can't make money through commercials when they broadcast the game? Sure, the game I watched was sponsored, but did ESPN make as much money by airing the game sponsored (plus some half-time commercials) than it could have made if the game had included commercials? My point is: the game is something of a tough sell in the USA, to fans, and getting airtime would seem to be important.

From a fan perspective: I do see how riveting a non-stop sport can be, but have not determined, yet, if I can adjust to it. On the other hand, I rather dislike having to take a 15 minute break, as a fan, during a football game (USA) for a halftime break, and, oddly enough, was annoyed at the halftime 15 minute break that was taken in the MLS game I watched.

I can't say anything about the NBA as I do not pay attention to it.

Permalink

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

1195 days ago

Score 1

Perhaps rather than broadcasting live games, there should be an hour's highlights show. Highlights will show everything important, and they could throw ads in between each game's highlights. A similar thing has existed in Britain for 35 years. (Albeit without the ads). That way, attendances at matches will improve. So it could work well.

Permalink

MikeBriggsVarsity

1195 days ago

Score 0

I'd prefer seeing the live event. There's just something about a taped event that I find less exciting, less interesting and that's a showing of the complete game (a reason that I have trouble with the Olympic coverage here in the USA, as the games tend to be shown tape delayed). If a highlight show draws more fans, then that's great, but I still prefer live action. In today's era, one in which I can find the information anywhere at any time (Internet; sports highlight shows - we do have highlight shows, I just can't recall if the MLS is part of the coverage), I prefer live events, even if I don't look for the sports results. In another era, maybe I could be satisfied with tape-delayed games, and highlight shows.

Permalink

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

1195 days ago

Score 1

Perhaps they can show one live game per week (a la Monday Night Football, but on Saturday...) and show all the games' highlights that evening. They can't show all the games live.

Permalink

Iamadonut

1195 days ago

Score 1

alex - highlight shows and ads. you seem to be forgetting decades of itv's sunday afternoon programme. in london it was "the big match", not sure what it was in your part of the world. sky also do package shows for premier league and football league highlights - with commercials.

i seem to remember that mls already does a magazine show with highlights, interviews etc. not quite the "match of the day" format, more aimed at a target audience of 13-18 year olds.

my experience is that apart from the "sportscenter" format (a minute or so per game), u.s. sports fans dig live action, not taped highlights.

Permalink

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

1194 days ago

Score 1

I don't have Sky. My Parents and I don't see the point of paying for it. I have no idea of these package deals, I've never bothered to pay attention to them (not having Sky, why would I?) It would explain why there are only about 3 games going on on Saturday afternoon at 3 now though. I only remember The Big Match just before it was axed. They showed a Rugby game for some reason... That had skipped my mind. I was only five when it was pulled!

Permalink

The Manly FerryTee-Baller

1195 days ago

Score 1

Mike. You rock. I'm a big, big fan of soccer and I've followed it for years. But I've never seen someone put the case against non-stop action in the terms you chose. As much as I hate the start-stop aspect of American sport - football, especially, drives me frickin' nuts in this regard - it is nice to be able to take a break and know you can get away with it. For instance, in the one live match I ever saw in England - Watford v. Leeds - I missed not one, but TWO GOALS, because I really had to use the can. Purists would remind me that real men can hold it for 45 minutes, but there's always the tempting belief that this time will be different, that nothing is happening and it's OK to sneak away. But that's the beauty of soccer: something can happen in a flash. To answer the question in the title, though, whoever said it up the thread had it right: DC shouldn't have lost this one. If I were a DC fan, I'd be worried about the current slump.

Permalink | Reply

MikeBriggsVarsity

1194 days ago

Score 0

Thanks. I am now, after processing all the comments, deeply saddened that DC United didn't get 1 more goal and win. I didn't start paying attention until this last Saturday, so at least I can't blame myself for the slump. And yes, it is very tempting, sometimes, to believe that this time nothing will happen, and you can get away for a few moments. Despite the start-stop nature in baseball, I've been caught missing the only runs scored in the game by escaping for a few moments.

Permalink

Jgov05All-American

1195 days ago

Score 1

Wow this page is setting a record for most paragraph-length comments. Anyway I'm not a fan of any sport with ties, but I can say that I would probably be pretty disappointed by the middling result. I'd rather have a definitive result than a tie.

Permalink | Reply

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

1195 days ago

Score 1

A draw is a definite result. It shows the teams were equally good. Cricket has a tie and a draw which are two different things, interestingly. A tie is when the two teams score the same number of runs in their two innings, whereas a draw is if the match doesn't finish. Most football and cricketing countries are used to the idea of a draw. Also, a points system involving a draw makes for more permetations if it comes down to the final day, which makes it more exciting. A year or two ago in the Premiership, the bottom four could all realistically go down (there were three relegation places). At various stages of the afternoon, different teams were safe or relegated. It was great to watch it change hands all afternoon.

Permalink

Bleeding GreenVarsity

1194 days ago

Score 1

First, get DVR if you don't have it already. Not only is it great for recording shows and what not, but you can pause live TV. Problem solved. As far as making money.... You find other ways to sell sponorships. Listen to the radio broadcast of any sport, they sponsor everything. TV could easily do that with soccer. THe English Premier leauge maybe the most lucrative leauge in the world, TV over there figured it out. It's not impossible. A little invention, and a good product... would make soccer very lucrative for American TV.

Permalink | Reply