I don't know who Nate Scott is...

"Gamecat235" (Gamecat235) 08/27/2013 at 14:33 • Filed to: Lousy Sportswriters

1

19

But he's definitely NOT a soccer fan. In fact, he's a stereotypical American sports fan who watches soccer. But he's the latest to argue that a 0-0 tie should be worth 0 points in the standings for a match result.

Link to USA Today article: !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! .

/rant

Party-vi > Gamecat235 08/27/2013 at 14:41

2

I don't know what soccer is, but it's definitely not football. In fact, as a stereotypical American sports fan who watches football, soccer shouldn't even exist and is probably illegal.

/MERICA!

Z_Stig > Gamecat235 08/27/2013 at 14:50

2

What an idiot....well that's why he probably writes for the sports section of USA Today, the official newspaper of hotels everywhere.

When you draw, you share the spoils.

Mr. Ontop, No Strokes, No Smokes...Goes Fast. > Gamecat235 08/27/2013 at 15:03

0

American soccer fan here. I happen to agree with him. Just the idea that a sporting event can end in a tie has always bothered me, even when I used to play. And don't get me started on penalty kicks.....for me, that is akin to going all the way through the NBA playoffs only to decide the championship winning team by playing a game of H.O.R.S.E.

Enginerrrrrrrrr > Gamecat235 08/27/2013 at 15:06

1

He really doesn't sound like a football fan (yeah I'm going there, billions of people call it football because that's what it is and was there before American football, suck it).

He mentions the importance of the game for both teams and mentions Chelsea's renowned defense. Then goes on an idiotic rant that makes no sense if you know anything about the game. Who the hell is this guy?

It's not like the players are just kicking the ball around waiting for the game to finish... each team is trying to win, and each team is trying not to lose.

I played defense most of the time because for me, being scored on was the worst feeling. Yeah it was great when we scored, but if I could make it so the other guys didn't score at all, well that made me feel proud.

Also him even referencing the Simpsons makes his entire article a joke. Wtf...

Gamecat235 > Mr. Ontop, No Strokes, No Smokes...Goes Fast. 08/27/2013 at 15:19

1

PK's are an abysmal solution to a problem created by the nature of the rules of the sport. Agreed there.

But... the idea of a draw (and specifically in this point, a 0-0 draw, because, what about a 5-5 draw? is there a difference?) rewarding more points than a loss is such that a draw is worth more. The ONLY way that I could see this working is if a loss were worth a negative point total, but this only offsets the issue. I like that a draw at least potentially could reward an overmatched side that manages to keep the game scoreless.

Mr. Ontop, No Strokes, No Smokes...Goes Fast. > Gamecat235 08/27/2013 at 15:21

0

No, I'm of the opinion you play until you have a winner. I don't think that a tie of any number should be rewarded with advancement in ranks.

Gamecat235 > Enginerrrrrrrrr 08/27/2013 at 15:23

0

Listen... Soccer is the appropriate term. It's an English term, and it has solid roots from there. So, I'm sticking with Soccer because I'm obstinate. =P

And the guy is an idiot. And moreso, he's a stereotypical American idiot. and as an American who grew up trying to understand the game, and who eventually did, and wouldn't change the major tenets for the world, I so dislike when anyone with a platform such as this calls for such a major overhaul in the name of (ugh) "entertainment".

It annoyed me enough that I had to share.

Z_Stig > Gamecat235 08/27/2013 at 15:25

1

PKs do suck. Except two years ago one night in Munich :)

But I like a draw for the same reasons. It gives the road team some reward for playing well enough to tie on your opponents home turf, and rewards a team playing heavily favored opposition that does well enough to tie.

Gamecat235 > Mr. Ontop, No Strokes, No Smokes...Goes Fast. 08/27/2013 at 15:26

0

As a native of Arizona, I respectfully disagree that this is a valid solution. This solution could literally kill people in some environments.

Mr. Ontop, No Strokes, No Smokes...Goes Fast. > Gamecat235 08/27/2013 at 15:30

1

Arizona is a bit of an extreme environment to really be doing anything outside....ever... unless you are a Gila Lizard, but I still hold my opinion.

Enginerrrrrrrrr > Mr. Ontop, No Strokes, No Smokes...Goes Fast. 08/27/2013 at 15:30

0

Awww, I love PK's!

It's the most exciting thing that can happen in the game!

At least you have to make it through a lot of overtime to even get to PK's.

Enginerrrrrrrrr > Gamecat235 08/27/2013 at 15:35

1

Psh slang historical terms. It's like you are talking about the evolution of language or something.

Z_Stig > Enginerrrrrrrrr 08/27/2013 at 16:20

0

Well, they're awesome when you win them.

They are the suckz when you lose them.

And you find out just how much you can sweat when sitting still while watching a PK shootout.

Bakkster, touring car driver > Gamecat235 08/27/2013 at 16:22

0

I agree with his original premise, that a team shouldn't be rewarded for a scoreless tie. But the fact it's 1 point each instead of 3 points for the win is enough for me.

If I were to make a change, it would be to double the points for everything but a 0-0 tie. 2 points for any other draw, and 6 for a win. That would likely still have the intended effect of additional offense without treating it as a loss for both. By game theory assuming equally matched opponents going all out of offense would go from expecting 50% more points to tripling them.

Of course, then you will just have teams agreeing to go 1-1 instead to both score the extra point.

Z_Stig > Mr. Ontop, No Strokes, No Smokes...Goes Fast. 08/27/2013 at 16:24

0

It's not really an advancement in ranks. In the Premier League last season, if a team had drawn every game (38 games in the season) they would have earned 38 points, which was not enough to stay in the Premier League. They would've been demoted to a lower division.

Z_Stig > Enginerrrrrrrrr 08/27/2013 at 16:28

0

I call it football....'cuz you play with your feet. And they hardly use their feet in American Football, so why is it called that?

Enginerrrrrrrrr > Z_Stig 08/28/2013 at 01:08

0

Well apparently when these sports started back in the day (football, rubgy, american football) they didn't really have a differentiated word for them. Then Associated Football split off and slang turned it to "assoc" in england. Then with their accents it sounded like "soccer". So then the people started calling it soccer. Eventually they officially called it football in the UK, but by then football was growing in popularity in the US (the American football kind) whereas they kept the term Soccer.

Hence the US not being totally at fault for their odd naming decisions.

Enginerrrrrrrrr > Z_Stig 08/28/2013 at 01:11

1

You sit still while watching PK's?

;)

Z_Stig > Enginerrrrrrrrr 08/28/2013 at 01:41

0

LOL so if I pass out from delirium I land on soft couch B)