Reliant Stadium = AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!

Congrats to Houston for having a soccer team. Who knows if Real Madrid will play there on the next year's tour. I hope so.

great points on the bench (college) vs. seats (pro) configurations.

Have the expansions of the large stadiums continued the use of benches?

^ When we added 12,000 to Beaver Stadium in 2001 they were all seats instead of the benches in most of the stadium.

--------------------------
CFB thread
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=286428

I think they will use the Astrodome

It would be a good idea to use the Astrodome, why coverted into a hotel or something else, when it has been a city icon of sports, it has hosted football, baseball, other non-sport events, and even a refuge, why not add soccer to the Astrodome's history. Plus, if that was the original problem to bring soccer to Houston, the lack of a soccer specific stadium, why not use it, I mean it's just sitting there.

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_menu/past_future/pictures/past_stadiums/houston_astrodome1.jpg

Now all the U.S. needs is best players money can buy :)

Plus there are no roofs on most.

Here we go again...

roof on college football stadium = vomit. That's about as nice as I could say it. I hope we never see that day.

Good stuff. Now, the next stage is to start calling it by its proper name - football.

You are slowly getting there. Keep up the good work.

roof on college football stadium = vomit. That's about as nice as I could say it. I hope we never see that day.

but it rains in a lot of places in America. Why wouldn't you want a roof in an area where it rains a reasonable amount of the time?

Why do you hate roofs? Even if it hardly rains at all, what harm does a roof do?

You have bizarre attitudes towards roofs.

Do you have a roof on your house? or is that against tradition?

blah, how patronizing .....


That is a good idea considering how big Houstons Latino population is. I wonder if they will put another team somewhere else in the Bay area though. As far as I knew I thought all of the big metros in Cali embraced soccer more then most.

we dont need roofs because we aren't pussies. need any more clarification?

PS. dont get pissy. its just a joke. sort of. college football is a different animal altogether. Do rugby stadiums NEED, and i mean, N-E-E-D roofs?

sorry, but it doesn't rain in most places in the U.S. (except in the northwest, where they do have partial roofs on some stadiums) as much as in northern Europe.

Americans also like this thing called sunshine. Most Americans I think would rather be under the sun with Gods rays beaming down on them in sunlight 7 out of 10 days then worry about the 1 out of 10 games where they have to worry about a little drizzle.

To me if you watch a game under an oppresive low hung well extended roof you might as well just put "the pitch" or field and put it in an arenea.

sorry, but it doesn't rain in most places in the U.S. (except in the northwest, where they do have partial roofs on some stadiums) as much as in northern Europe.

Americans also like this thing called sunshine. Most Americans I think would rather be under the sun with Gods rays beaming down on them in sunlight 7 out of 10 days then worry about the 1 out of 10 games where they have to worry about a little drizzle.

To me if you watch a game under an oppresive low hung well extended roof you might as well just put "the pitch" or field and put it in an arenea.

I said it rains in some places. I didn't say most. So you just confirmed what I thought.

What's an 'oppresive' roof? Is that a roof that calls you names and gives you low paid jobs?

we dont need roofs because we aren't pussies. need any more clarification?

PS. dont get pissy. its just a joke. sort of. college football is a different animal altogether. Do rugby stadiums NEED, and i mean, N-E-E-D roofs?


No stadium NEEDS a roof, they don't even NEED toilets. The roof is just a nice thing to have incase it rains.

I understand not having a roof in an area with a nice climate. But stadiums in areas with decent amounts of rainfall should be totally roofed.

I don't get why you said 'Rugby' stadium? A stadium is a stadium, what's rugby got to do with it?

or was it just an example?

its quite worrying that footy is getting big in the USA, soon they'll be whooping ass at it.... we shouldnt be celebrating the fact that they are beginning to realise the beauty of the best sport on the planet!!!

lol, joking aside, it is good to see footy becoming more popular even in the states

I think the best teams (domestic) are always gonna be in europe.... thats just the way it is. But it will be good to have a competitive league in the U.S. A higher profile and support will only result in higher quality, which will be good for everyone!

its quite worrying that footy is getting big in the USA, soon they'll be whooping ass at it.... we shouldnt be celebrating the fact that they are beginning to realise the beauty of the best sport on the planet!!!

lol, joking aside, it is good to see footy becoming more popular even in the states


Any sport refered to as "footy" should be banned on that principle alone.

I said it rains in some places. I didn't say most. So you just confirmed what I thought.

What's an 'oppresive' roof? Is that a roof that calls you names and gives you low paid jobs?


yes, something like that. Also the tendancy to do all they can to seperate humans from mother natures elemants and brilliant majesty. No sunshine, no stars, no clouds, no snow, no blue sky.

Just an ugly teflon or metal overhang for you to look right up into. No thanks.

No surprise FOOTBALL (soccer) is without a shadow of a doubt the best sport in the world i.e. the most popular.

How can any team build up a loyal following, when at the drop of a hat, they can just move to a different city and new supporters?....its crazy.

How can any team build up a loyal following, when at the drop of a hat, they can just move to a different city and new supporters?....its crazy.

They will do it and it shall take time ever heard of the saying "patience is a virtue".

a domed stadium was the "goof-er" that killed Minnesota football.

College football tradition dictates being outside, facing the elements.

Yes but still, where does that leave the San Jose fans?

It's an aspect of American sport that i really do not agree with.

Why didn't they move to somewhere else in the bay area?

What an amazing arena for soccer!

Most of the rainiest places have more torrential rains in the spring. That's how it is in Texas. In the fall, when football is played its first warm and sunny in most of the US. You might get one rainy game per season. Most seasons you get none. Maybe a wet game once in a while because of rain the day before. Then you MIGHT get some snow for 2-3 games in colder climates. Again, maybe. Remember, ONE GAME PER WEEK. There is simply no justification for a roof unless its retractable for indoor events or if you're in a very cold or extremely hot climate. Then its not even necessary either. The weather is simply a great thing in the US. Especially during football season. If football were played in the spring, you might see lots of roofs.

I can say that in my years at UT and since then, I can remember two games where it rained. I enrolled at UT in 1996. I remember the first game I saw vs New Mexico St in 1996 and Oklahoma St in 1998 as the only times it rained at DKR on gameday. I'm sure there were a few more. But not many.

Even in Miami, one of the rainiest places in the U.S. has most of its rain fall in the Summer months. Only a couple UM games this year had rain fall.

I agree with the whole moving thing. I mean if they move to the same general area where the original fans can easily travel... then fair enough. If they move miles and miles away, then surely they will lose all their fans and end up having to start afresh.... except maybe a few glory supporters.

I think the best teams (domestic) are always gonna be in europe.... thats just the way it is. But it will be good to have a competitive league in the U.S. A higher profile and support will only result in higher quality, which will be good for everyone!

Best soccer team in the US is the LA Galaxy.

Btw..what does the FC in FC Dallas and Real in Real Madrid mean?

FC = Football Club
Real = Royal in spanish

No surprise FOOTBALL (soccer) is without a shadow of a doubt the best sport in the world i.e. the most popular.

:sleepy: :sleepy: :sleepy: :sleepy: :sleepy: :sleepy:

Never been in a basketball arena ?

:sleepy: :sleepy: :sleepy: :sleepy: :sleepy: :sleepy:

Never been in a basketball arena ?
:lol:

It would be a good idea to use the Astrodome, why coverted into a hotel or something else, when it has been a city icon of sports, it has hosted football, baseball, other non-sport events, and even a refuge, why not add soccer to the Astrodome's history. Plus, if that was the original problem to bring soccer to Houston, the lack of a soccer specific stadium, why not use it, I mean it's just sitting there.

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_menu/past_future/pictures/past_stadiums/houston_astrodome1.jpg

The Astrodome cant be used because its a completely closed stadium, where natural grass dont receive sunlight and cant grow. And FIFA FORBIDS professional football games of being played on artificial grass.




It sucks for a team to simply change city! Thats what happens when a team is a franchise instead of a CLUB, like in all large football nations.

yes, something like that. Also the tendancy to do all they can to seperate humans from mother natures elemants and brilliant majesty. No sunshine, no stars, no clouds, no snow, no blue sky.

Just an ugly teflon or metal overhang for you to look right up into. No thanks.


erm......ok


http://www.simpsoncrazy.com/gallery/screenshots/s3/7f24_019.jpg

:lol:

Fux soccer, sorry but I hate it :D

Anyway there are lot of sports much more exciting and nice than soccer ... one of these is for sure basketball.

http://media.telebasket.com/pics/50543_m400.jpg

Yes but still, where does that leave the San Jose fans?

It's an aspect of American sport that i really do not agree with.

The San Jose fans weren't supporting the team enough which is why they moved....

but it rains in a lot of places in America. Why wouldn't you want a roof in an area where it rains a reasonable amount of the time?

Why do you hate roofs? Even if it hardly rains at all, what harm does a roof do?

You have bizarre attitudes towards roofs.

Do you have a roof on your house? or is that against tradition?

If you don't understand College Football don't bother posting about it...

also that is a very dumb analogy

having the fans in the rain or snow or whatever is a part of it too. It shows loyalty and gives a better experience.

It doesnt rain that much in Michigan, and the wolverines season ends usually before it snows, so adding a roof seems pointless. I would like to see Michigan Stadium top 150,000. That would be cool.

The Astrodome cant be used because its a completely closed stadium, where natural grass dont receive sunlight and cant grow. And FIFA FORBIDS professional football games of being played on artificial grass.




It sucks for a team to simply change city! Thats what happens when a team is a franchise instead of a CLUB, like in all large football nations.

I don't if you're aware that the New York Metrostars play on turf...
:eek2:
Giants Stadium
http://www.giants.com/photos/stadium_2002.jpg

I don't if you're aware that the New York Metrostars play on turf...
:eek2:
Giants Stadium
http://www.giants.com/photos/stadium_2002.jpg
Yeah, but their games are not professional FIFA games. The Astrodome couldn't host a game between two national teams.

:sleepy: :sleepy: :sleepy: :sleepy: :sleepy: :sleepy:

Never been in a basketball arena ?
Not one with 90.000 audience members...

having the fans in the rain or snow or whatever is a part of it too. It shows loyalty and gives a better experience.


It's a better experience watching a game for 2+ hours sitting in the wind, rain or snow?


erm....ok!


http://www.simpsoncrazy.com/gallery/screenshots/s3/7f24_019.jpg

It's a better experience watching a game for 2+ hours sitting in the wind, rain or snow?


erm....ok!


http://www.simpsoncrazy.com/gallery/screenshots/s3/7f24_019.jpg

Bubomb I live in Austin home to the UT, I can tell you it is way better watching it with crazy weather...it is not about the football (who care the football anyway!) it is all about the party and beers!

Bubomb I live in Austin home to the UT, I can tell you it is way better watching it with crazy weather...it is not about the football (who care the football anyway!) it is all about the party and beers!


Fair enough. Its just that when I went to parties in my student days, we always had them in the student halls or someones house (unless it was the summer). I don't think i've ever seen a party being held outdoors in the snow or rain!! You would look stupid and people would point and laugh.

You would get cold and wet!! The rain would break the MIDI system!! In fact, where would you plug it in?

Anybody who prefers a party in the rain and snow, as opposed to the sun, must be a bit simple.

I have to say that most these college stadiums are quite poor. They are big, but they look poor and are very basic.

A lot of them look like huge temporary stands with exposed frames holding them up. The Michigan Stadium reminds me of the old hampden. Terrible sight lines, and no facilities. Basically a big hole in the ground. A lot of them even have wooden benches instead of proper seats.

However, Ohio Stadium does look impressive. Kyle Field will be very good if they build behind the goal (which I think they are planning to do).

Still, a 100000 stadium for a University is very impressive regardless of the quality of the stadium.

Not one with 90.000 audience members...


huh? What does that have to do with anything?

In fairness the very nature of sports like Ice Hockey and Basketball would mean that was impossible, but it doesn't mean the support base isn't there.

The San Jose fans weren't supporting the team enough which is why they moved....


Same thing hapenned when Wimbledon moved to Milton Keynes to become the MK Dons. The Wimbledon supporters abandoned them and set up their own team. Doing very well they are too in the Ryman League, Premier Division. Thats Division 7 level.

League Structure (http://www.thepyramid.info/pyramid/Pyramid2.htm)

Soccer is gettingbigger and bigger in the us right?

The college stadiums really aren't a lot different in quality to the old ones in Britain of not so long ago before the Taylor report changed everything.

Many people, a definate majority in my opinion, preferred the old style stadiums with huge terraces. I'm sure bubomb can remember paying 3 quid to watch Rangers in the 80's.

These days the British stadiums are much more similar to NFL stadiums in quality (and ticket price). Most are smaller of course but with places like Majdeski or Pride Park they're best described as the lower tier of an NFL ground (with the obligitary roof).

I think the best teams (domestic) are always gonna be in europe.... thats just the way it is. But it will be good to have a competitive league in the U.S. A higher profile and support will only result in higher quality, which will be good for everyone!
I think so too. Even if the sport does become popular here in the U.S. and the clubs became as rich as top European clubs, we would have competitions similar to the Premiership, La Liga, and Serie A, but we would have nowehere to go after that. We would have nothing as good as the Champions League/ UEFA Cup b/c there would not be any other really great leagues in CONCACAF (Mexico, but that would still only be 2 leagues, not 20 quality leagues like in Europe).

Best soccer team in the US is the LA Galaxy.

Btw..what does the FC in FC Dallas and Real in Real Madrid mean?
Best team in the U.S. overalll is D.C. United. If you mean the current champions then, yes, it is the Galaxy.

FC = football club
real = ?

The Astrodome cant be used because its a completely closed stadium, where natural grass dont receive sunlight and cant grow. And FIFA FORBIDS professional football games of being played on artificial grass.


That is not correct! Artificial turf is allowed in official matches like the Champions League and UEFA Cup.

http://www.thefa.com/Grassroots/FacilityDevelopment/LatestNews/Postings/2004/11/UEFAApprovesArtificialTurf.htm

Soccer is gettingbigger and bigger in the us right?
Debateable. I sure hope it is. And I think it will be big one day, but this is not for sure. Having a 0-0 tie at the end of regulation of the MLS final is not very good advertising to U.S. sports fans. Also, when the U.S. made it to the quarter-finals at the last World Cup, it drew tons of publicity to the sport. I don't see that happening this time with the group we're in...

I have to say that most these college stadiums are quite poor. They are big, but they look poor and are very basic.

A lot of them look like huge temporary stands with exposed frames holding them up. The Michigan Stadium reminds me of the old hampden. Terrible sight lines, and no facilities. Basically a big hole in the ground. A lot of them even have wooden benches instead of proper seats.

However, Ohio Stadium does look impressive. Kyle Field will be very good if they build behind the goal (which I think they are planning to do).

Still, a 100000 stadium for a University is very impressive regardless of the quality of the stadium.

They are poor quality because for the most part, they aren't used for much. Teams only play half a dozen or so home games a year, so unless the capacity was high enough or in a top school, the cost of a state-of-the-art stadium just wouldn't be as profitable.

I think bubomb has missed the US vs World and EU threads. This stuff has been argued and argued. And no this stuff isn't temporary.

The college stadiums really aren't a lot different in quality to the old ones in Britain of not so long ago before the Taylor report changed everything.

Many people, a definate majority in my opinion, preferred the old style stadiums with huge terraces. I'm sure bubomb can remember paying 3 quid to watch Rangers in the 80's.

These days the British stadiums are much more similar to NFL stadiums in quality (and ticket price). Most are smaller of course but with places like Majdeski or Pride Park they're best described as the lower tier of an NFL ground (with the obligitary roof).

I think the reason a lot of people prefered the old grounds wasn't because of the poor facilities, but because you could stand. Each week you could meet your mates on the same area of the terrace. You also didn't need a season ticket. You could go one week, then maybe not the next week as you might be busy. In other words, you could choose when to go. You didn't have to fork out £400 up front, you could pay when you wanted to.

For me, the new German grounds are perfect. Modern, safe stadiums with superb facilities, but still the option to stand in areas with terracing. The perfect combination.

Debateable. I sure hope it is. And I think it will be big one day, but this is not for sure. Having a 0-0 tie at the end of regulation of the MLS final is not very good advertising to U.S. sports fans. Also, when the U.S. made it to the quarter-finals at the last World Cup, it drew tons of publicity to the sport. I don't see that happening this time with the group we're in...

Some of the best games i've ever seen have been 0-0's.

Thats another problem. Americans are used to reasonably high scoring games. If somebody just sees results on T.V of 0-0, 1-0 etc etc then they are likely to think they are boring games. Obviously, as mentioned by bubomb thats not always the case.... but without watching and understanding how the sport works it wont get appreciated. Getting people understanding the sport is the big challenge.

I always thought that Houston was a baskettball city after the recent championships from both the Rockets and the Comets.

Hey since americans say soccer, how can FC Dallas be called "FC" when it stands for football club and plus it isn't even a club its a franchise. Same with Real Salt Lake, i bet if you ask their fans, they won't no what the Real part means.

Yeah, but their games are not professional FIFA games. The Astrodome couldn't host a game between two national teams.

The Gold Cup final was held at this stadium (Giants Stadium)
and plus I've seen and have been to games for the 2006 world cup caulifying games, like the games at Costa Rica's, Ricardo Saprissa Stadium (field turf)and the game I went to in San Antonio between Mexico & Dominica, it was played in field turf......
what else do you want to know....

Debateable. I sure hope it is. And I think it will be big one day, but this is not for sure. Having a 0-0 tie at the end of regulation of the MLS final is not very good advertising to U.S. sports fans. Also, when the U.S. made it to the quarter-finals at the last World Cup, it drew tons of publicity to the sport. I don't see that happening this time with the group we're in...

Exactly. I believe the sport(Soccer, Football whatever you want to call it) is getting bigger no doubt in this country. But it will stay behind the NFL, NBA, MLB as well as the NHL in the country. Americans don't like 0-0 games nor do we like 2-2 games. Americans would be pissed at 5-5 games. They like points and despise ties. That's a good reason why the NHL had trouble in most American markets because of the low scoring and the ties. Now that they got rid of it and there are more scoring, people are slowly start to watch the sport again.

Yeah, MLS is definitely finding it's place in the US, it's going to take a while though, but what Americans on the large scale need to do is appreciate the skill that's involved on the little things, not just goal scoring, I think once that's accepted more, like how it is in hockey people will like it, I actually think hockey is very similar and MLS could become like the NHL someday. I know in the DC area soccer and lacrosse are two more obscure sports that there is a ton of following for.

Exactly. I believe the sport(Soccer, Football whatever you want to call it) is getting bigger no doubt in this country. But it will stay behind the NFL, NBA, MLB as well as the NHL in the country. Americans don't like 0-0 games nor do we like 2-2 games. Americans would be pissed at 5-5 games. They like points and despise ties. That's a good reason why the NHL had trouble in most American markets because of the low scoring and the ties. Now that they got rid of it and there are more scoring, people are slowly start to watch the sport again.

Why do they despise ties? Winning, losing and drawing are all part of the game. I simply don't understand why somebody would hate a draw.

Rangers drew away to Porto this year. I was over the moon.

No disrespect, but is it because Americans in general have shorter attention spans than others, and need an obvious winner rather than spending time working out if a draw was a good result or not? In other words, they need lots of obvious big things happening to keep their attention.

It's sounds a bit like Hollywood. Crap films with big explosions and wise-cracking cops do better than classic thinking movies like 'Der Untergang'.

Britain also suffers from this dumbing down for the masses, although probably not as much as America.

Why do they despise ties? Winning, losing and drawing are all part of the game. I simply don't understand why somebody would hate a draw.

Rangers drew away to Porto this year. I was over the moon.

No disrespect, but is it because Americans in general have shorter attention spans than others, and need an obvious winner rather than spending time working out if a draw was a good result or not? In other words, they need lots of obvious big things happening to keep their attention.

It's sounds a bit like Hollywood. Crap films with big explosions and wise-cracking cops do better than classic thinking movies like 'Der Untergang'.

Britain also suffers from this dumbing down for the masses, although probably not as much as America.


Yes, Americans are all just dumb ADD bastards. And not nearly as much as Britts (anymore dumb generlizations?)

I think Americans just like a winner at the end of the day. If a draw was all it was cracked up to be then why wouldn't their be draws allowed at the end of championship soccer/football games? I mean if one is unacceptable as a result in one instance shouldn't it be in another? There is just no excuse not to play through to and end result in my mind. There is nothing more awesome in sport to play to the bitter end for all the marbles and stakes in one game. The drama usualy increases the longer an overtime periods goes and a result is in the balence.

As far as scoring? Well, yea that is a problem maybe. But it also goes the other way. I used to be a big basketball fan but for me the scoring is almost too frequant and easy. Without fail most games teams will also get within 80-100 points (I would say 75% of the time) I like games that are not very predictable and often have a wide variety of scoring. In baseball it is not all that uncommon to find a 1-0 or 2-0 score. Also there are certain games where teams will blow up and there will be scores like 18-2 or 17-0 (though pretty darn rare). In football teams often score as little as 0 or 3 points and at times score as many 7 touchdowns (49 points or thereabouts). There is so much variety in the scoring that indicates how well a team played or didn't play.

FC means Football Club, and Real means Royal (I think).

Why the fuck are they moving to Houston??? Thats so shit, imagine if Chelsea moved to Liverpool or something, the most stupid thing iv ever heard!!!!

Yes, Americans are all just dumb ADD bastards. And not nearly as much as Britts (anymore dumb generlizations?)

I think Americans just like a winner at the end of the day. If a draw was all it was cracked up to be then why wouldn't their be draws allowed at the end of championship soccer/football games? I mean if one is unacceptable as a result in one instance shouldn't it be in another? There is just no excuse not to play through to and end result in my mind. There is nothing more awesome in sport to play to the bitter end for all the marbles and stakes in one game. The drama usualy increases the longer an overtime periods goes and a result is in the balence.

As far as scoring? Well, yea that is a problem maybe. But it also goes the other way. I used to be a big basketball fan but for me the scoring is almost too frequant and easy. Without fail most games teams will also get within 80-100 points (I would say 75% of the time) I like games that are not very predictable and often have a wide variety of scoring. In baseball it is not all that uncommon to find a 1-0 or 2-0 score. Also there are certain games where teams will blow up and there will be scores like 18-2 or 17-0 (though pretty darn rare). In football teams often score as little as 0 or 3 points and at times score as many 7 touchdowns (49 points or thereabouts). There is so much variety in the scoring that indicates how well a team played or didn't play.


I hope you deliberately spelt ass wrong!

Draws are allowed in league games because it gives more options for points and makes it more exciting. Sometimes you need a draw, sometimes a win, sometimes you don't know if a draw is enough! It all adds up to the excitement of who will win the league, qualify for Europe, get relegated etc.

Penalty shoot-outs in Cups are very exciting because they don't happen that often. If they happened every week, they would no longer be exciting as you would get used to them. There is nothing more nerve-racking that a World Cup penalty shoot-out (as England always hilariously find out).

Yeah, MLS is definitely finding it's place in the US, it's going to take a while though, but what Americans on the large scale need to do is appreciate the skill that's involved on the little things, not just goal scoring, I think once that's accepted more, like how it is in hockey people will like it, I actually think hockey is very similar and MLS could become like the NHL someday. I know in the DC area soccer and lacrosse are two more obscure sports that there is a ton of following for.
It's interesting to hear about that, b/c many people would have thought that the MLS would have died after its first few seasons, but it didn't. Unfortunately, it is liked as much as it is around the world. Maybe if the MLS managed to get Ronaldo, more would end up watching like they would in the UEFA leagues. On a sidenote, the WNBA will probably be nexting in finding its place.

Real Sant Lake? :sleepy: The United States is not a monarchy, that name is stupid..

In Spain many clubs have crown in their shield...

Real Betis Balompie in Sevilla

http://www.realbetisbalompie.es/img/noticias/1134854744.jpg

Real club Deportivo de La Coruña

http://www.dc.fi.udc.es/~alonso/images/coruna/escudo_depor.gif

Real Club Deportivo Espanyol de Barcelona

http://images.google.es/url?q=http://infosoccer.com.ru/gifs/espanyol.gif

Real sociedad de Fútbol

http://thethao.vietnamnet.vn/dataimages/original/images374531_sociedad.jpg

Real Zaragoza

http://thethao.vietnamnet.vn/dataimages/original/images374541_zaragoza.jpg

..........and more...

http://www.fororealmadrid.com/images/realmadridforum/escudo.gifhttp://thethao.vietnamnet.vn/dataimages/original/images374411_mallorca.jpg

The Astrodome cant be used because its a completely closed stadium, where natural grass dont receive sunlight and cant grow. And FIFA FORBIDS professional football games of being played on artificial grass.

It sucks for a team to simply change city! Thats what happens when a team is a franchise instead of a CLUB, like in all large football nations.

Nonsense. In The Netherlands, we have three professional teams (one in the Eredivisie) who play on artificial grass, they all meet the highest standards. Although artificial grass sucks and real grass kicks ass :bash:

How come only rich kids and middleclass youths play soccer in U.S?
In other countries its the other way around most of the time.

Some of the best games i've ever seen have been 0-0's.
I totally agree with you on this one. It may be hard to comprehend why this is if you're not from America (you are Scottish, correct?), but for some reason sports fans in the U.S. don't like ties. Steve Rushin just wrote an article about this in Sports Illustrated, about how the tie has dissapeared from North American sports.

In 1932 the Chicago Bears tied six games. There has only been one tie in the last six NFL seasons. The NHL just got rid of the tie. He goes on to mention how the tie is cherished is soccer (or football, whatever the hell one wants to call it). And how he thinks it should have a place in U.S. sports. I agree with him, but sadly, I think most here would disagree. They would maybe be okay with a tie if it had some goals, but not a 0-0 tie.

Soccer has a reputation here of being "boring" because there isn't enough scoring. I don't see how it's that much different from American Football. A 3-2 game is the same as 21-14 game. And even if there is less scoring (which there is). what's wrong with that? Americans don't like it for some reason, and I don't know why. Basketball is just the opposite. Scoring is so routine, it happens at about every other posession. This sometimes bores me, so I don't see why people don't have a problem with this but they have a problem with soccer. I'm not slaming basketball here, i like it as much as soccer.

So that's why a 0-0 draw in the final is a bad advertisement for MLS.

How come only rich kids and middleclass youths play soccer in U.S?
In other countries its the other way around most of the time.
That's not true. What about Eddie Johnson (I mean the Eddie Johnson who plays for FC Dallas, not the one on loan to Crewe Alexandra)?

How come only rich kids and middleclass youths play soccer in U.S?
In other countries its the other way around most of the time.

Because overprotective parents don't want their kids playing tougher sports like baseball (a line drive to the head with a baseball to an 8 year old can be pretty serious stuff), ice hocky, or American football. The rules are also relativley straight forward and makes kids run around the most and become tired (which most parents can appreciate). Plus it is rather inexpensive to play and run a league.

Poor quality? Yea, this definitely screams poor quality:

Oklahoma Memorial Stadium: University of Oklahoma

http://reich.morpheus.net/oustadium/08-30-03/DSC02460_1.JPG
http://sooner.nmn.speedera.net/pics8/400/QQ/QQXTGMJCWQFEGXR.20051201193628.jpg
http://sooner.nmn.speedera.net/pics11/400/SW/SWVRDKZUKCBMDDB.20040920201512.jpg
http://reich.morpheus.net/oustadium/08-30-03/DSC02456_1.JPG
http://reich.morpheus.net/oustadium/08-30-03/DSC02466_1.JPG
http://reich.morpheus.net/oustadium/08-30-03/DSC02460_1.JPG
http://reich.morpheus.net/oustadium/08-30-03/DSC02457_1.JPG
http://sooner.nmn.speedera.net/pics26/400/OP/OPBTIAVTMDWKKOA.20051201195148.jpg
http://sooner.nmn.speedera.net/pics22/400/FT/FTVWMVFYQHNNXIC.20051112221541.jpg
http://sooner.nmn.speedera.net/pics16/400/HQ/HQOYVVLJMWOZCVK.20051112221634.jpg
http://sooner.nmn.speedera.net/pics7/400/BC/BCBCIHKHXESDDVQ.20040920201303.jpg
http://sooner.nmn.speedera.net/pics26/400/QC/QCUQJKJHEUMDZSR.20041005220617.jpg
http://sooner.nmn.speedera.net/pics28/400/WO/WOSFZMTSTGYCPZZ.20041005220257.jpg
http://sooner.nmn.speedera.net/pics28/400/UQ/UQENIXUVHCGUGLJ.20041005220450.jpg
http://sooner.nmn.speedera.net/pics24/400/BM/BMJDSJMNZTHKAPK.20041005220556.jpg
http://sooner.nmn.speedera.net/pics27/400/ED/EDYHDZXZVEFISRA.20041005220341.jpg

What bleachers? Approximately 10-15k of the 82,000 seats are chairback.
http://reich.morpheus.net/oustadium/08-30-03/DSC02448_1.JPG

First of all, BuBomb, I don't think you understand the college game very well.

Most college stadiums are 50+ years old and hold lots of tradition. Many have existed since the 1920s, when the average attendnace was a couple of hundred spectators. No one wants to tear these old stadiums down and build state of the art, NFL-like stadiums. It costs a lot of money and you have to do it over and over again, something that most universities simply cannot afford. The average fan doesn't want to throw away the history and tradition for a chairback, armrests, air conditioning, a roof, or nice concessions.

In most college stadiums, most of the crowd stands for the entire game and never sits, except at halftime. Tailgating before and after the game is done whether it's -17C or 48C outside. Many tailgaters bring their own generators and large tents so they can watch TV, use stereos, etc, outdoors. I know when I tailgate, we usually get out there at about 9am for a 2pm game and stay for several hours afterwards.

The reason there aren't roofs on most college stadiums is because it's stupid. Most colleges play 5-6 home games a year. The chances of absolutely horrid weather on one of those days is minimal, especially when you consider that Fall is not the rainy season in the US. If it does rain during a game, it usually only happens on one game per year.

Teams in the northeast (the rainiest part of the US) have roofs, but they are the only ones that experience that much rainfall.

The biggest reason roofs aren't on college stadiums is that there is an accepted feeling that if you can't stand through the rain, sleet, snow, hail, or 50C heat, then you aren't a true fan. If the team plays in it, then the fans should sit or stand through it. I agree.

Sounds like you are expected collegiate stadiums to be NFL quality. If you need seatbacks, luxury concessions, a roof, A/C, and WANT to be indoor before a game, then you aren't cut out to be a college football fan.

No sport should allow a tie or draw. That's just dumb.

How can you walk away with a winner in some games and not others?

BuBomb, ADD stands for Attention Deficit Disorder.

Basketball and football are played by the "lower class" here in the US and it has been that way for quite sometime now. Don't know why, it just has.

People say that Americans just need to learn about the smaller things, other than just scoring, such as the matchups between players. That's the same thing we've been telling Europeans about baseball for years, but for some reason, it hasn't caught on.

It's just two different cultures.

Personally, I think baseball is the greatest sport in the world. Why hasn't Europe caught on to that yet?

First of all, BuBomb, I don't think you understand the college game very well.

Most college stadiums are 50+ years old and hold lots of tradition. Many have existed since the 1920s, when the average attendnace was a couple of hundred spectators. No one wants to tear these old stadiums down and build state of the art, NFL-like stadiums. It costs a lot of money and you have to do it over and over again, something that most universities simply cannot afford. The average fan doesn't want to throw away the history and tradition for a chairback, armrests, air conditioning, a roof, or nice concessions.

In that respect college stadiums are much more like British football grounds than NFL ones are. In both cases the club is inextricably linked to its location(Wimbledon moving to Milton Keeyes being a very unpopoular exception) and without the garenteed revenue of the NFL(clubs can be religated or fail to quality for the Champions League thus reducing their income).Even the new Wembley is being built on the site of the old stadium not because its an espeically good location but out of tradision. Whats causing a few clubs to build new stadiums in different locations recently is the fact that all seater grounds were introduced 15 years ago after the Hillsborough disaster thus reducing capacitys of grounds that don't have any room to redevolp due to being in the middle of towns/cities. I'd say that has effected the use of roofs aswell since many of those old standing room stands were uncovered, it is afterall much more unpleasent to sit in the rain than it is to stand in it.

I don't have anything agenst grounds having benchs/standing room its just that with such room you can obviously fit more people in a physically smaller stadium. Most British fans would I'd guess welcome the return of well designed standing areas as used in germany right now whether they preffer to stand or not now that holiganism has been largely removed from the game as they'd likely boost capacities, help atmosphere and reduce ticket prices. With the greater level of public interest in football compaired to the 80's I wouldnt be supprized if the likes of Man Utd could pull in monster attendances similar to collage teams if that happened.

How is it dumb to have a draw? You seem like you like sports, which means you would enjoy Sports Illustrated. Read Steve Rushin's article that I talked about in my other posts.

And what's more exciting: A win that's a total blowout, or a nail-biter that goes down to the very, bitter end? So what if it ends in a draw. No matter who you are, or what your favorite sport is, everyone has to admit that a hard-fought, blood, seat, and tears, down-to-the-wire game is better than a lopsided, run-up-the-score victory. What's wrong with having two equal teams?

I can't believe that there's actually a team called "Real Salt Lake". That city has the most inappropriate team names (see Utah Jazz).

At least Chivas USA has a decent logo

http://dwh.goal.com/multimedia/1056-6.jpg

And what's more exciting: A win that's a total blowout, or a nail-biter that goes down to the very, bitter end? So what if it ends in a draw. No matter who you are, or what your favorite sport is, everyone has to admit that a hard-fought, blood, seat, and tears, down-to-the-wire game is better than a lopsided, run-up-the-score victory. What's wrong with having two equal teams?

Sure, I love close, hard fought games. That's the best kind- a down to the wire type game like the Baylor-OU game that ended in double overtime in Norman this year. I was on the edge of my seat for the last hour. OU ended up winning, but that's ok. I would've been pissed off to no end if they would've declared the game a tie though.

No one wants to see a blowout, but everyone loves to see games in overtime or extra innings. One of the greatest games I've ever watched was the 6 hour long, 18 inning Houston-Atlanta baseball game earlier this year. Of course, I'm biased towards Houston, but I would've been incredibly upset had that game ended in a hard fought "draw." The crowd goes to see a win or loss, not a tie. It's why they took it out of college football years ago.

Exactly. Collegiate stadiums are built on the college campus. Here's a picture of Notre Dame's grounds:

http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Quad/2749/campusaerial.JPG

The stadium has been there for generations. It would be extremely difficult and costly to build a new state of the art stadium there. It would also be throwing away nearly 100 years of tradition.

Instead, college stadiums have been adding and expanding the press box area of stadiums. It is in these press boxes that the luxury amenities are located, such as suites, restaurants, bars, A/C, heat, etc, etc. Prices for these areas are at a premium though and the average fan cannot afford these seats.

There is simply a lot of tradition in many stadiums in the US that people wouldn't trade for the upgrades. It's the same reason that Wrigley Field in Chicago, Fenway Park in Boston, Allen Fieldhouse in Lawrence, and more haven't built new facilities.

I would rather watch my teams play a game sitting on a bleacher in the boiling heat than to sit in the A/C in a suite. The latter type of atmosphere takes away from the experience.

Thats changing now, the image of the "soccer mom" is fading, those kids were rich and just played for fun but now its turning into playing it because you love it and there is somewhere you can get with it.

The college stadiums really aren't a lot different in quality to the old ones in Britain of not so long ago before the Taylor report changed everything.

Many people, a definate majority in my opinion, preferred the old style stadiums with huge terraces. I'm sure bubomb can remember paying 3 quid to watch Rangers in the 80's.

These days the British stadiums are much more similar to NFL stadiums in quality (and ticket price). Most are smaller of course but with places like Majdeski or Pride Park they're best described as the lower tier of an NFL ground (with the obligitary roof).


Let us non-UK folk in on what the Taylor reports were if you don't mind? I am pretty intrigued.

Basically, let's just acknowledge that there's no way in which people that have never been to a college football game and live in another continent and don't even really follow american football will understand what we're talking about.

It's similar to soccer I don't know why it's hard to understand. And Americans are supposed to be the materialistic ones. It's about having up to 100k fans, many of them rowdy especially the students, yelling and screaming for your team, your yelling every defensive play to distract the opposing team, and not worrying about your stupid cup holder, put it on the damn floor. It's about the bands and pageantry, the tailgating, the talking trash.

And no, it's not too early for it to snow in michigan, the last game is in the third week of november, and it has snowed numerous times for this last game.

All you foreign people are fixated on is the attendance and comparing it to euro stadia, it's not the big a deal, it's about the atmosphere and tradition and quality of team and program before the attendance. Attendance is important to the ones that are big like michigan, penn state, osu, tennessee, etc, but a lot of it is the experience.

And this idea of a roof, it's nice but not necessary, having the experience of being in sub freezing temperature with snow, being bundled up, and still yelling your ass off, that is definitely a part of the experience, sorry if soccer people can't understand and I love soccer btw.

And the other 100k plus people in the stadium doing the same, that's what it's all about. Standing and seating room, sure that's great, but it's about getting off your ass and rooting for your team creating an exciting and memorable experience, even handicapped, grandmas, I want everyone yelling.

Michigan Stadium is planning the new renovation, it's gonna had better bathrooms and handicap access along with more room per person, hopefully not compromising the attendance, which we love to be at the top with. It's being debated whether to add luxury boxes, because the stadium hasn't discriminated in the past with seating, it's symbolic, but the added revenue would be great, there aren't any advertisements at all in michigan stadium.

I can't believe that there's actually a team called "Real Salt Lake". That city has the most inappropriate team names (see Utah Jazz).
Real Salt Lake is a really, really boring, uncreative, and above all else out-of-place name for that team; indeed, any America team. As for the Jazz, they used to be in New Orleans, so that explains it.

The crowd goes to see a win or loss, not a tie. It's why they took it out of college football years ago.
No... I'm pretty sure the corwd goes and pays good money to see great games, played by great athletes at the top of their games. If they went to see wins and losses, then they could just walk down the street and watch a Little League baseball game for free. If people only go to games to see wins and losses, then how is this any different than going to a major league game? It's not.

No... I'm pretty sure the corwd goes and pays good money to see great games.

We do, but we also want to see if our team wins or loses not if they somehow ties Thats fucking boring. At the end of the day, everybody would walk out of the stadium confused and dejected because they wanted to see there team win or lose. That's what the crowd pays to see. To see the athletes and to see there team win. Not tie. Ties are just as bad if not worse than losses. America does not like it and hopefully, they never will.

Great for hoston, maybe they will become toronto's rival when we join the lead in 2007 :)

Real = Royal; FC = Football Club

Do the US football teams play in the Libertadores Cup?

I totally agree with you on this one. It may be hard to comprehend why this is if you're not from America (you are Scottish, correct?), but for some reason sports fans in the U.S. don't like ties. Steve Rushin just wrote an article about this in Sports Illustrated, about how the tie has dissapeared from North American sports.

In 1932 the Chicago Bears tied six games. There has only been one tie in the last six NFL seasons. The NHL just got rid of the tie. He goes on to mention how the tie is cherished is soccer (or football, whatever the hell one wants to call it). And how he thinks it should have a place in U.S. sports. I agree with him, but sadly, I think most here would disagree. They would maybe be okay with a tie if it had some goals, but not a 0-0 tie.

Soccer has a reputation here of being "boring" because there isn't enough scoring. I don't see how it's that much different from American Football. A 3-2 game is the same as 21-14 game. And even if there is less scoring (which there is). what's wrong with that? Americans don't like it for some reason, and I don't know why. Basketball is just the opposite. Scoring is so routine, it happens at about every other posession. This sometimes bores me, so I don't see why people don't have a problem with this but they have a problem with soccer. I'm not slaming basketball here, i like it as much as soccer.

So that's why a 0-0 draw in the final is a bad advertisement for MLS.

Interesting. Thanks for that. Yes, the draw is an integral part of football. I just can't imagine football without draws. It makes the league more interesting, knowing that each team can get 3 different amounts of points each week.

I wonder why it's only America that hates the draw? It's a strange one. If one country hates it, you would think some others would. I suspect Canada probably hates it as well, as they have a similar culture to America.

We do, but we also want to see if our team wins or loses not if they somehow ties Thats fucking boring. At the end of the day, everybody would walk out of the stadium confused and dejected because they wanted to see there team win or lose. That's what the crowd pays to see. To see the athletes and to see there team win. Not tie. Ties are just as bad if not worse than losses. America does not like it and hopefully, they never will.


Rangers drew away to Porto in the Champions League. It was a great result for Rangers. I was at the game, it was amazing. The Rangers fans went nuts. That draw was one of the main reasons we qualified for the next stage.

Fux soccer, sorry but I hate it :D

Anyway there are lot of sports much more exciting and nice than soccer ... one of these is for sure basketball.

http://media.telebasket.com/pics/50543_m400.jpg

Youre italian and still say that? You should be locked up and silenced ;)

First of all, BuBomb, I don't think you understand the college game very well.

Most college stadiums are 50+ years old and hold lots of tradition. Many have existed since the 1920s, when the average attendnace was a couple of hundred spectators. No one wants to tear these old stadiums down and build state of the art, NFL-like stadiums. It costs a lot of money and you have to do it over and over again, something that most universities simply cannot afford. The average fan doesn't want to throw away the history and tradition for a chairback, armrests, air conditioning, a roof, or nice concessions.

The reason there aren't roofs on most college stadiums is because it's stupid. Most colleges play 5-6 home games a year. The chances of absolutely horrid weather on one of those days is minimal, especially when you consider that Fall is not the rainy season in the US. If it does rain during a game, it usually only happens on one game per year.

Teams in the northeast (the rainiest part of the US) have roofs, but they are the only ones that experience that much rainfall.

Sounds like you are expected collegiate stadiums to be NFL quality. If you need seatbacks, luxury concessions, a roof, A/C, and WANT to be indoor before a game, then you aren't cut out to be a college football fan.


Basically you have summed up what I said. I did not say the I expected better, I was just giving my opinion on the quality of the stadiums. Big and basic (with a few exceptions). You have agreed with me that they are old and basic. I know why they are big and basic, but the reasons don't change the fact that they are big and basic.

At no point did I say 'these stadiums should be much better quality'. In fact, I said any stadium holding 100000, for a university, is impressive.

You have also agreed with me on roofs. I said only grounds with substantial rainfall should have roofs, and you confirmed this is the case in the Northeast.

What's the problem here? They are big basic stadiums. Fine.

Let us non-UK folk in on what the Taylor reports were if you don't mind? I am pretty intrigued.


The Taylor Report was brought in because Liverpool fans are drunken idiots. They killed 39 Italians and Belgians in Heysel, and 96 of their own fans at Hillsborough. Hilariously, Liverpool fans to this day class themselves as 'the victims'. It is part of the 'blame everybody else' culture that you find in Liverpool. Liverpool and it's people are never to blame for anything, it's always somebody else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heysel_Stadium_disaster

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Report


We could of had modern stadiums with standing, like those in Germany, but Liverpool ruined it for everybody.

Rangers drew away to Porto in the Champions League. It was a great result for Rangers. I was at the game, it was amazing. The Rangers fans went nuts. That draw was one of the main reasons we qualified for the next stage.

Well that is how it is over there. Over here, we despise/hate/loath/detest ties. No matter how exciting they are. There better be an outcome at the end of the game in which your team either wins or loses. If it doesn't, Americans will lose interest and the sport/league will becoming nearly irrelevant(NHL).

How could anybody like a tie.
Bob "Did your team win"
Mike "No"
Bob "Did your team lose"
Mike "No"
Bob "What happended then?"
Mike "It ended in a tie, Nobody won"
Bob "WTF?"
that's the type of convo you would get here in the US.

Well that is how it is over there. Over here, we despise/hate/loath/detest ties. No matter how exciting they are. There better be an outcome at the end of the game in which your team either wins or loses. If it doesn't, Americans will lose interest and the sport/league will becoming nearly irrelevant(NHL).

How could anybody like a tie.
Bob "Did your team win"
Mike "No"
Bob "Did your team lose"
Mike "No"
Bob "What happended then?"
Mike "It ended in a tie, Nobody won"
Bob "WTF?"
that's the type of convo you would get here in the US.

Yes, but that sounds like a conversation between 2 morons.


Here's the UK version -

David - "How did Rangers do last night?"
Stuart - "We drew 1-1"
David - "Great result"
Stuart - "Yeah, I thought Porto would hump us"
David - "especially with Rangers away from home"
Stuart - "That's us almost qualified"
David - "Yup, if Porto draw or lose their next game you are through"
Stuart - "I know, I can't wait for the next round of games"
David - "Ok, I better get home, see you tomorrow"
Stuart - "Ok, bye"

No surprise FOOTBALL (soccer) is without a shadow of a doubt the best sport in the world i.e. the most popular.
Good luck finding an American or Canadian that will agree with you there.

Hockey and Football(american)>Soccer.

Well that is how it is over there. Over here, we despise/hate/loath/detest ties. No matter how exciting they are. There better be an outcome at the end of the game in which your team either wins or loses. If it doesn't, Americans will lose interest and the sport/league will becoming nearly irrelevant(NHL).

How could anybody like a tie.
Bob "Did your team win"
Mike "No"
Bob "Did your team lose"
Mike "No"
Bob "What happended then?"
Mike "It ended in a tie, Nobody won"
Bob "WTF?"
that's the type of convo you would get here in the US.There are no longer ties in the NHL.

Good luck finding an American or Canadian that will agree with you there.

Hockey and Football(american)>Soccer.


The key word was 'world'

America and Canada are not the 'world'

In Pakistan, for example, they will all say cricket is the best sport in the world. But overall, by far the most popular sport in the world is football (soccer).

I always find it strange that a great country such as the USA has such rubbish sports.

There are no longer ties in the NHL.

I know that.
Yes, but that sounds like a conversation between 2 morons.
Irrelevant. I can say the same about your convo but I honestly could care less. The point is that most Americans cannot stand Ties as a result to end a game. If ties are natural, it will be not followed in this country, sorry.

For instance, i'm a Dallas Cowboys fan. My team lost 35-7 to our most hated rival yesterday. I was mad that we LOST. Washington Redskin fans were happy that they WON. How do you think we both would feel if the game ended in a 14-14 tie. Not one person from each fanbase( which are huge fanbases btw) would be happy.In fact, they would be angry moreso than happy.

I know that.

Irrelevant. I can say the same about your convo but I honestly could care less. The point is that most Americans cannot stand Ties as a result to end a game. If ties are natural, it will be not followed in this country, sorry.


You couldn't say the same about my conversation, as my conversation didn't sound like a conversation between 2 morons.

You couldn't say the same about my conversation, as my conversation didn't sound like a conversation between 2 morons.

Oh who gives a fucking shit. That was not the point I was trying to make with my post.

I know that.

Irrelevant. I can say the same about your convo but I honestly could care less. The point is that most Americans cannot stand Ties as a result to end a game. If ties are natural, it will be not followed in this country, sorry.

For instance, i'm a Dallas Cowboys fan. My team lost 35-7 to our most hated rival yesterday. I was mad that we LOST. Washington Redskin fans were happy that they WON. How do you think we both would feel if the game ended in a 14-14 tie. Not one person from each fanbase( which are huge fanbases btw) would be happy.In fact, they would be angry moreso than happy.


Then why are football fans delighted when their team draws a game they were expected to lose?

Look at my Rangers/Porto example. We were delighted with an away draw. It meant we ended above Porto in the table.

Because ties are accepted over there. But they simply are not over here. We like to have a 50/50 result to an end of a game. 50 percent chance of winning or 50 percent chance of losing.

BTW, football fans over here are not delighted whatsoever.

Because ties are accepted over there. But they simply are not over here. We like to have a 50/50 result to an end of a game. 50 percent chance of winning or 50 percent chance of losing.

BTW, football fans over here are not delighted whatsoever.

Football isn't like that. Sometimes you have a 90% chance of losing if you are at the bottom of the table and are playing a top team. So to get a point from a draw is a great result, as you had a 90% of getting nothing at all.

Very few games are 50/50. The home team is the favourite most the time.

I think Americans are more shallow and can only understand win or lose. The don't have the depth to analyse if a draw was a good,bad or average result. The need an obvious answer - win or lose.

Very few games are 50/50. The home team is the favourite most the time.

I think Americans are more shallow and can only understand win or lose. The don't hsve the depth to analyse if a draw was a good/bad or average result.

1. Home teams are nearly the favorite most of the time as well over here. But they are all 50/50. they have a chance to win, or lose, nothing more, nothing less. Ties can happen of course in the NFL. But they rarely do. I don't think we have had one this century so far.

2.We have analyzed it. The result, it sucked. We did not like the outcomes of the games. Teams started to play for the ties instead of the win. That made coaches, fans, and players very upset. So they created a system to have a team win or lose if the score is tied at the end of regulation. If that makes us shallow, then so be it.

1. Home teams are nearly the favorite most of the time as well over here. But they are all 50/50

I'm afraid that's a glaring contradiction.

You haven't given any reason as to why draws are accepted in Europe but not America. Saying 'because we don't like them' is not enough. Why do Americans not like them but Europeans don't mind them? Why do they have different mentalities towards a draw?

duplicate post

duplicate post (again). damn site.

I'm afraid that's a glaring contradiction.

Not really. You may have home field advantage because you simply are, at home. But you still have a 50 percent chance of winning and a 50 percent chance of losing. Nothing more, nothing less.


You haven't given any reason as to why draws a re accepted in Europe but not America. Saying 'because we don't like them' is not enough. Why do Americans not like them but Europeans don't mind them. Why do they have different mentalities towards a draw?

BaylorFan and I have already said many things about ties. We simply do not care for them. We like to attend games to see if our team will win or lose, not tie. You will leave each game knowing your team was better or worse on that day. Not walk out wondering , upset, confused on why there was no clear cut winner.I don't know why they are accepted in Europe and I honestly could care less. But here in the US, ties is like french kissing your sister to get your first kiss.

In fact, MLB had the allstar game back in 2003 end in a tie. It made huge news and nearly every baseball fan was pissed and was saying all type of things about Bud Selig( MLB Commsioner). Ties are unacceptable. What more do you want me to say about the issue.

Post tomorrow.

Not really. You may have home field advantage because you simply are, at home. But you still have a 50 percent chance of winning and a 50 percent chance of losing. Nothing more, nothing less.




BaylorFan and I have already said many things about ties. We simply do not care for them. We like to attend games to see if our team will win or lose, not tie. You will leave each game knowing your team was better or worse on that day. Not walk out wondering , upset, confused on why there was no clear cut winner.I don't know why they are accepted in Europe and I honestly could care less. But here in the US, ties is like french kissing your sister to get your first kiss.

In fact, MLB had the allstar game back in 2003 end in a tie. It made huge news and nearly every baseball fan was pissed and was saying all type of things about Bud Selig( MLB Commsioner). Ties are unacceptable. What more do you want me to say about the issue.

Post tomorrow.


I have never walked out of a football stadium 'confused' after a draw. It's not quantum physics we're talking about.

and you don't have a 50% chance of winning if the other team are better than you. If every team had a 50% chance of winning then every team would end up on roughly the same points at the end of a season.

If Chelsea get Halifax Town in the FA Cup, Halifax Town will not have a 50% chance of winning. It will be more like 0.5%.

I'll draw a line at the bottom of this post, anyone who boths to reply to anything this fool has to say below it is wasting theirs and everyone elses time.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Interesting. Thanks for that. Yes, the draw is an integral part of football. I just can't imagine football without draws. It makes the league more interesting, knowing that each team can get 3 different amounts of points each week.

I wonder why it's only America that hates the draw? It's a strange one. If one country hates it, you would think some others would. I suspect Canada probably hates it as well, as they have a similar culture to America.


Lets not over analyzing and chalk it all up to culture on this one. The fact is that soccer if Europes (and a good slice of the worlds popular sport). It is not all that pratical to play a game through in soccer/football though because you could literally go on for hours easily in overtime soccer games of extra overtime. Considering rules of substitution, time constraints, and other factors it is just not pratcial for soccer to go on undending. Soccer fans hvae grown up around this reality and have learned to enjoy a draw in their games because it is seen as a natural and understandable outcome.

In the same vein it is pretty rare for a baseball or American football games to be hampered by the same problems (baseball once in awhile can get into marathon games but this is relativley rare and they can make many substitions in the process). In American sports there is really not too much of a reason too call it a draw because of lack of substitutions, lack of scoring, and time constraints.

So bottom line the circumstances of the games themselves have all to do with if Americans can't stand a "draw" and why Europeans go on and talk about the "chivalry" of it or however they like to explain it. It is not because of base stupid generalizations about one "cultures" attention span or drive to have a winner ect.... If that was true then Europeans would find it more then happy to have draws in World Cup finals games and in North America it would be against the rules for the NFL to ever end in a tie (while rare it can and does happen every blue moon).

The key word was 'world'

America and Canada are not the 'world'

In Pakistan, for example, they will all say cricket is the best sport in the world. But overall, by far the most popular sport in the world is football (soccer).

I always find it strange that a great country such as the USA has such rubbish sports.


Please don't be ignorant friend. You are making yourself looking like a very provincial backwards Britt.

Lets not over analyzing and chalk it all up to culture on this one. The fact is that soccer if Europes (and a good slice of the worlds popular sport). It is not all that pratical to play a game through in soccer/football though because you could literally go on for hours easily in overtime soccer games of extra overtime. Considering rules of substitution, time constraints, and other factors it is just not pratcial for soccer to go on undending. Soccer fans hvae grown up around this reality and have learned to enjoy a draw in their games because it is seen as a natural and understandable outcome.

In the same vein it is pretty rare for a baseball or American football games to be hampered by the same problems (baseball once in awhile can get into marathon games but this is relativley rare and they can make many substitions in the process). In American sports there is really not too much of a reason too call it a draw because of lack of substitutions, lack of scoring, and time constraints.

So bottom line the circumstances of the games themselves have all to do with if Americans can't stand a "draw" and why Europeans go on and talk about the "chivalry" of it or however they like to explain it. It is not because of base stupid generalizations about one "cultures" attention span or drive to have a winner ect.... If that was true then Europeans would find it more then happy to have draws in World Cup finals games and in North America it would be against the rules for the NFL to ever end in a tie (while rare it can and does happen every blue moon).

Very good points. I suspected that the nature of the games (football very low scoring, high probability of a draw and American sports - high scoring, draws very rare) was one of the main reasons behind the different attitudes towards draws.

It's like Rugby, you hardly ever see draws because of the high scoring, so if you weren't used to draws, then over time you might begin to think it's better to get rid of them, seeing as they hardly ever happen. If you get used to a winner and a loser (high scoring sports) then the draw becomes alienated and when it does happen people don't like it becasue it is not a normal part of that sports routine. Therefore people who follow those sports remove it.

Please don't be ignorant friend. You are making yourself looking like a very provincial backwards Britt.


I wasn't being ignorant. I think American sports are rubbish.

Do you want me to lie and say I love them?

Real Salt Lake is a really, really boring, uncreative, and above all else out-of-place name for that team; indeed, any America team. As for the Jazz, they used to be in New Orleans, so that explains it.

I know that (about the Jazz) but why oh why did they not change the name when they relocated to SLC? I mean there's not a single Spanish-speaking person or an African-American in the entire state of Utah.

I'll draw a line at the bottom of this post, anyone who boths to reply to anything this fool has to say below it is wasting theirs and everyone elses time.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Don't like the truth?

I wasn't being ignorant. I think American sports are rubbish.

Do you want me to lie and say I love them?


Ok, I think Britts sports are "rubbish" (and no I really don't give a fark how many Paki's play cricket or how much Africans ect. have come to love soccer as a result of colonization). But it is opinion and doesn't matter what we think does it? The fact that they are sports that many people have come to enjoy for a vareity of reasons in all cases. Why become such a tool about it? Do you respect any sports that are NOT Britt sports or do they everything else is just "rubbish"?

Have you ever played in a organized baseball league? Have you ever played organized American football? Basketall? Hockey? How many games have you ever been to of those sports? I played soccer in my youth for 5 years and have gone to a handfull of soccer games on all levels in my life. Nice little game but it just doesn't do it for me the way football and baseball do. The differance is when many Americans make such comparison they are usually not being nataionalistic homers but have actually played soccer AND other sports and can make a vaild comparison. I am guessing in all likelyhood the provicial nature of Britts sports and the protypical Britts sports fan you have played very little in terms of American sports (or non Britts sports in geneal) or gone to more then the smallest sampling of games to make an educated and informed opinion.

Ok, I think Britts sports are "rubbish" (and no I really don't give a fark how many Paki's play cricket or how much Africans ect. have come to love soccer as a result of colonization). But it is opinion and doesn't matter what we think does it? The fact that they are sports that many people have come to enjoy for a vareity of reasons in all cases. Why become such a tool about it? Do you respect any sports that are NOT Britt sports or do they everything else is just "rubbish"?

Have you ever played in a organized baseball league? Have you ever played organized American football? Basketall? Hockey? How many games have you ever been to of those sports? I played soccer in my youth for 5 years and have gone to a handfull of soccer games on all levels in my life. Nice little game but it just doesn't do it for me the way football and baseball do. The differance is when many Americans make such comparison they are usually not being nataionalistic homers but have actually played soccer AND other sports and can make a vaild comparison. I am guessing in all likelyhood the provicial nature of Britts sports and the protypical Britts sports fan you have played very little in terms of American sports (or non Britts sports in geneal) or gone to more then the smallest sampling of games to make an educated and informed opinion.


Yes, I played rounders at school, but only the girls were allowed to play netball.

Yes, I played rounders at school, but only the girls were allowed to play netball.


Thats funny. In the UK baseball and "rounders' is more associated with girls sports and soccer is more associated as a girl sport in the U.S. Pretty ironic.

Thats funny. In the UK baseball and "rounders' is more associated with girls sports and soccer is more associated as a girl sport in the U.S. Pretty ironic.

No, netball (basketball) is a girls sport in the UK. Rounders (baseball) is for anybody. No boys play Netball.

I don't think football is classed a girls sport in America, seeing as so many boys play it. Is this a 'Jock' thing?

No, netball (basketball) is a girls sport in the UK. Rounders (baseball) is for anybody. No boys play Netball.

I don't think football is classed a girls sport in America, seeing as so many boys play it. Is this a 'Jock' thing?


True many boys play it but often among peers soccer is derided a bit and at least consdiered a tad "effeminate" (maybe more in jest then again). For example many of the people I knew called the boys soccer players in high school soccer bunnies. We used to call them this and they were for the most part pretty cool guys and fun to hang out with but there were similar terms to jibe them with.

Youre italian and still say that? You should be locked up and silenced ;)

Me and other 9 milions of italians :|

Please don't be ignorant friend. You are making yourself looking like a very provincial backwards Britt.

Please don't associate all of us with bubomb.

He's just a troll - clearly as anti American as he is anti English - who acts as a (bu)bomb on any thread in which he partakes.

He likes to lecture people about how to behave on a message board. Irony clearly isn't his strong point!

Please don't associate all of us with bubomb.

He's just a troll - clearly as anti American as he is anti English - who acts as a (bu)bomb on any thread in which he partakes.

He likes to lecture people about how to behave on a message board. Irony clearly isn't his strong point!

Stop following me, you troll (whatever that is?)

It is strange that Americans find draws hard to accept, for example an Indy 500 race is so boring imho. I prefer a draw over an indy 500 race any time. Nevertheless it's up to the Americans to decide what to like and what to dislike.
I've been to a Yankees game and I was bored out of my mind. On the other hand, Americans give everything to win, that's why they are so damn good in almost everything. It's a mentality thing, no American will ever be happy with the second place. Europeans, when they come in second, tend to say: 'I gave it my best, so I am happy being second.' That's something an American will never do, I respect that.

The key word was 'world'

America and Canada are not the 'world'

In Pakistan, for example, they will all say cricket is the best sport in the world. But overall, by far the most popular sport in the world is football (soccer).

I always find it strange that a great country such as the USA has such rubbish sports.
I agree with you that the US and Canada are not the world and that football is by far the most popular sport in the world. But please don't bash our sports. You obviously don't like it when Americans bash football, so don't do the same thing back if you don't like it. I like American football and basketball as much as football (and track & field too, but that's another story). I don't think there is such thing as a rubbish sport as long as you have to work hard to be good at it.

your personal opinions are truth?

your personal opinions are truth?


These are facts, not opinions.

bubomb i understand what your saying, but this is bascially it:

its so much nicer to enjoy these sports in nice sunny weather than indoors. the problem is since these are Universities and not commercial teams, they dont have the money to build retractable roofs. my university doesnt even have its own stadium anymore, and they are finding it difficult to fund even a small open-air stadium. additionally, college football seasons for the most part end before the bad weather kicks in. overall tho, because there isnt enough money for retractable roofs, people would rather sacrfiice a couple of games with bad weather for the rest of the season in good outdoor weather.

if each college had $500 million lying around to spend on retractable roofs tho, im sure those retractable roofed stadiums would be built, but we are poor college kids... we cant afford new socks!

are we back to the rubbish sports thing again. How cyclical

The Taylor Report (http://www.le.ac.uk/fo/resources/factsheets/fs2.html)

Controversial at the time. Banished the hugely popular terraces from football grounds among other things. The linked site is quite interesting and very in-depth.

....Despite suggestions in some national newspapers, notably The Sun, that drunken Liverpool hooligan fans were behind the events at Hillsborough, the official inquiry concluded that police "operational errors" (HMSO, 1990, p.25) were the main cause of the disaster........

Stop flaming, lads.

Again: Do the USA football teams play in the Libertadores Cup?

Bubomb's message is not fact, plain and simple. We can just say it's a cultural thing, how bout we leave it at that and not insult eachother in the process.

This thread has become very humerous in the last 24 hours or so.

One of the biggest reasons for the US to eliminate ties was the way college football was structured.

For example:

Team A is 10-1-0
and
Team B is 9-1-1.

However, Team B beat Team A earlier in the year. Who do you take in the postseason?

Now, being used to the scoring system, you would say "Well, you have to take Team A because they have 30 points and Team B only has 24." But that doesn't make much sense if Team B beat Team A already.

You see how this got confusing?

Now assume that there are no draws.

Team A is still 10-1, but now, Team B is either 9-2 or 10-1.
Assuming that Team B is also 10-1, then they are the obvious pick for the postseason because they beat Team A and have the same amount of wins.

Now, if Team B is 9-2, you have to take Team A, because while Team B beat Team A, Team B likely got their second loss against someone that Team A beat.

You follow?

There was no penalty for a draw, which I think is fair (you should be penalized for a loss, not for a draw), so the American system was left with lots of "What If" scenarios.

Thus, draws were done away with. It made the system more clean cut. Plus, it excited the fans much more. If you went into a game between two 11-0 squads, you knew, at the end of the day, that one would be ahead of the other in the standings.

Although Americans claim not to like ties as a result of thier competitive nature, I find it strange that in the otherwise admirable world of college football the teams are allowed to pick their own divisions to play it. And there's no relegation! While Sunderland fans might like the sound of that the rest of the planet would struggle to comprehend sports with such a bizarre 'structure'

Although Americans claim not to like ties as a result of thier competitive nature, I find it strange that in the otherwise admirable world of college football the teams are allowed to pick their own divisions to play it. And there's no relegation! While Sunderland fans might like the sound of that the rest of the planet would struggle to comprehend sports with such a bizarre 'structure'

Divisions (or conferences) became organized by geography and TV contracts more than anything. Once you are in a conference, you sign a binding contract not to leave. Conferences do realign from time to time, but it doesn't happen often.

Because conferences are primarily formed by TV contacts which like to put teams of relatively equal competitivness and fan base together, there are several stronger conferences (six, actually) that are deemed "BCS conferences" and they get more spots in the postseason than other conferences. That doesn't mean that a team from a non-BCS conferences isn't as good as a team from a BCS conference, it just means the conference, on average, is weaker.

It sounds very confusing, but makes sense if you follow the sport.

Theres no relegation? The NCAA oversees all college sports (sometimes derided for having too heavy of a hand). They can put teams on probation, set up rules for scholarships, and I believe approve of reject realignment of conferances and witch teams move into what divisions (Div 1, 2, and 3). It is hardly mass chaos.

bubomb i understand what your saying, but this is bascially it:

its so much nicer to enjoy these sports in nice sunny weather than indoors. the problem is since these are Universities and not commercial teams, they dont have the money to build retractable roofs. my university doesnt even have its own stadium anymore, and they are finding it difficult to fund even a small open-air stadium. additionally, college football seasons for the most part end before the bad weather kicks in. overall tho, because there isnt enough money for retractable roofs, people would rather sacrfiice a couple of games with bad weather for the rest of the season in good outdoor weather.

if each college had $500 million lying around to spend on retractable roofs tho, im sure those retractable roofed stadiums would be built, but we are poor college kids... we cant afford new socks!


I totally agree. As I said, I was just giving my opinions on the the quality of the stadiums, not the reason behind the quality of the stadiums.

If a 100000 big basic stadium was built and owned by Microsoft, or the exact same stadium was built and owned by some poor guy who lives in a hut in a rundown town, the quality of the stadium would be exactly the same in each case, regardless of who had the most money or any other reasons. My opinions were based solely on the stadium, not any other reasons. When you take into account that these stadiums are owned by universities, then yes, that makes them much more impressive. But on their own, without taking anything else into account, they are big and basic.

I would like to see Michigan Stadium top 150,000. That would be cool.

one has to wonder how much bigger Michigan Stadium would get before condsidering an upper deck. Can you imagine how far away the last row of the Big House would be if it continued as one deck for 150,000 seats?

The NCAA regulates college football very closely, most of the time TOO closely. Perhaps you are thinking of intramural sports?

I'm not sure that the 100,000+ stadiums really serve the viewing public. All of these huge structures are built on campuses of flagship state universities (i.e. Michigan,Ohio St, Penn St, Tenn, LSU, etc.)

If there is that much interest in college football to have these 100,000+ stadiums, would the sport be better served if stadiums didn't grow to that immense size and the non-BCS conferences were able to upgrade their stadiums and their conferences rise to a more major status?

With such a large percentage of Americans going to and graduating from college, the old state flagships don't dominate t heir states the way they used to. Most grads have more interest in their alma mater than their state's flaship.

Let me use the state of Michigan as an example. Would the sport in the Big Ten be more enjoyable to watch if Michigan Stadium stopped it growth and the growth Spartan Stadium grew, so the gap between the two was miniscule?

Or taking it futher, would the state be better off if its three MAC schools (WMU, CMU, EMU) were able to generate interest in 50,000 seat stadiums (that interest is not there now), while the two B10 schools, U-M and MSU, froze stadium size?

My main point here: if there is itnerest in 100,000+ stadiums, wouldn't it be better to see that interest spread to other majors in state (as in U-M to MSU) or from the major conferences to the mid majors (i.e. U-M and MSU to EMU, CMU, WMU)????

The NCAA regulates college football very closely, most of the time TOO closely. Perhaps you are thinking of intramural sports?

Perhaps he is, or perhaps he really doesn't know anything about American College Football and should stop talking about it.

Look guys, there's no point in arguing about it. Americans will always prefer American Football/gridiron, and Europeans will always prefer European Football/soccer. Get over it. The MLS is mildly successful, and so is NFL Europe. Those establishments are there for people who like those sports. If you don't like them, don't watch them, and don't complain. Nobody's forcing you to like it. Both sports have their own detailed history, and both have established rules. So what.

Perhaps he is, or perhaps he really doesn't know anything about American College Football and should stop talking about it.

Look guys, there's no point in arguing about it. Americans will always prefer American Football/gridiron, and Europeans will always prefer European Football/soccer. Get over it. The MLS is mildly successful, and so is NFL Europe. Those establishments are there for people who like those sports. If you don't like them, don't watch them, and don't complain. Nobody's forcing you to like it. Both sports have their own detailed history, and both have established rules. So what.


I agree, but football is much better.

I agree, but football is much better.
OK you can think that. Who effing cares? Your opinion means nothing to me, but I respect it.

I'm not sure that the 100,000+ stadiums really serve the viewing public. All of these huge structures are built on campuses of flagship state universities (i.e. Michigan,Ohio St, Penn St, Tenn, LSU, etc.)

If there is that much interest in college football to have these 100,000+ stadiums, would the sport be better served if stadiums didn't grow to that immense size and the non-BCS conferences were able to upgrade their stadiums and their conferences rise to a more major status?

With such a large percentage of Americans going to and graduating from college, the old state flagships don't dominate t heir states the way they used to. Most grads have more interest in their alma mater than their state's flaship.

Let me use the state of Michigan as an example. Would the sport in the Big Ten be more enjoyable to watch if Michigan Stadium stopped it growth and the growth Spartan Stadium grew, so the gap between the two was miniscule?

Or taking it futher, would the state be better off if its three MAC schools (WMU, CMU, EMU) were able to generate interest in 50,000 seat stadiums (that interest is not there now), while the two B10 schools, U-M and MSU, froze stadium size?

My main point here: if there is itnerest in 100,000+ stadiums, wouldn't it be better to see that interest spread to other majors in state (as in U-M to MSU) or from the major conferences to the mid majors (i.e. U-M and MSU to EMU, CMU, WMU)????

Everyone would love for other programs to grow, however stadium size does not determine the fan base for programs. Michigan has been playing football since 1887. Michigan State has been playing since 1910.

Western Michigan, on the other hand, has only been playing since 1961. Central Michigan and Eastern Michigan have only been playing since 1972.

When the programs are that new (only about 30 years old) the fan and alumni bases simply haven't grown yet.

Unfortunately for the schools like Western Michigan, their universities are not held in the same regard as Michigan or Michigan State, thus they do not get the respect, loyalty, support, etc.

It's the same in numerous other states. Teams like Florida Atlantic, Florida International, South Florida, Central Florida, etc, have not had teams long enough or universities well known enough to gather large crowds. Florida, Florida State, and University of Miami, on the other hand, have huge alumni followings as the school and football programs have been around since the early 1900s.

Simply stopping expansion of a popular schools facilities does not lead to increase in the support of another school.

Truth is, you're going to like what you've been exposed to.

Although I played soccer as a child, I played in much more competitive leagues in football and baseball than soccer. Because it is on tv more and is publicized more, I grew up watching baseball and american football more.

Therefore, I have grown a passion for those two sports.

Take hockey for example. I'm from Texas, so I never grew up around hockey. I've seen it a couple of times on TV, but it just doesn't appeal to me. Of course, to someone in Canada who grew up around hockey, they love it much more than american football or baseball, I'm sure.

bubomb, you grew up around soccer. You played it, watched it, and read about it much more than american football or baseball. So, of course, you're going to like it much better than anything else.

There's nothing wrong with that.

To me, baseball is the greatest sport ever invented, but that's what I grew up around. I also played a lot of American football when I was young, so i love it too.

I didn't grow up arround soccer, so I don't have the same appreciation for it that you do. You feel the same about American football and baseball. That's ok.

There's not a chance in hell you're gonna convince me that soccer is better than american football or baseball. I won't try to convince you either.

Truth is, you're going to like what you've been exposed to.

Although I played soccer as a child, I played in much more competitive leagues in football and baseball than soccer. Because it is on tv more and is publicized more, I grew up watching baseball and american football more.

Therefore, I have grown a passion for those two sports.

Take hockey for example. I'm from Texas, so I never grew up around hockey. I've seen it a couple of times on TV, but it just doesn't appeal to me. Of course, to someone in Canada who grew up around hockey, they love it much more than american football or baseball, I'm sure.

bubomb, you grew up around soccer. You played it, watched it, and read about it much more than american football or baseball. So, of course, you're going to like it much better than anything else.

There's nothing wrong with that.

To me, baseball is the greatest sport ever invented, but that's what I grew up around. I also played a lot of American football when I was young, so i love it too.

I didn't grow up arround soccer, so I don't have the same appreciation for it that you do. You feel the same about American football and baseball. That's ok.

There's not a chance in hell you're gonna convince me that soccer is better than american football or baseball. I won't try to convince you either.

This is true. If I was born in Texas or Mississippi, I doubt I would love Football. I would probably love American Football or Basketball.

Football is still the best though.

what..............?

I've often wondered what will happen in say, 200 years to a place like DKR. Its expected to grow to around 114,000 over the next 10-15 years. So where does it expand? Will that be the max capacity, and more luxury seats be added at the expense of the bench seating. I bet that's the way it goes, and the capacity shrinks to about 95,000(despite the benches, college stadiums are still huge structures). I think television in whatever form it has will change sports attendance anyway. Too far in the nosebleeds will finally become an issue unless some super zoom, contact lenses are invented.

Don't know why we are debating the quality of these stadiums anyway. These structures are serious stalwarts built when structures were built with permanance in mind. The luxury suits and club seating are as nice as any stadium in the world. If you want whole stadiums like that, go compare yourself to the NFL. And stop this roof talk. Find me a vomit emoticon, please.

The only argument that I'd raise about the quality of the stadiums is that when the "best" stadiums are dicussed many football/soccer stadiums are critized for their basic facilities or standing room while collage US football grounds rarely are.

Everyone would love for other programs to grow, however stadium size does not determine the fan base for programs. Michigan has been playing football since 1887. Michigan State has been playing since 1910.

Western Michigan, on the other hand, has only been playing since 1961. Central Michigan and Eastern Michigan have only been playing since 1972.

When the programs are that new (only about 30 years old) the fan and alumni bases simply haven't grown yet.

Unfortunately for the schools like Western Michigan, their universities are not held in the same regard as Michigan or Michigan State, thus they do not get the respect, loyalty, support, etc.

It's the same in numerous other states. Teams like Florida Atlantic, Florida International, South Florida, Central Florida, etc, have not had teams long enough or universities well known enough to gather large crowds. Florida, Florida State, and University of Miami, on the other hand, have huge alumni followings as the school and football programs have been around since the early 1900s.

Simply stopping expansion of a popular schools facilities does not lead to increase in the support of another school.

BaylorGuy, I'll concede your points on the age of the universities and their relative support. But I would like you to keep the following in mind: the tremendous growth of public universities after WWII shifted a lot of in-state support among its schools. In that sense, schools like WMU, EMU, CMU were relatively small before WWII and even MSU was not on the scale of U-M.

that's changed today and I think for many folks, it is harder and harder to support the state flagship when people did not go to it and went to another in-state public u.

I'd like to be in an era when not only secondary state universities had more power in college football, but that private schools did as well.

I'll throw this one back to you because it is truly in your court: as a Baylor fan, if fan support were equitably spread in the state of Texas, like to go back to a previous era of the Southwest Conference, knowing that private schools like Baylor, Rice, TCU, and SMU could keep up with the publics, and where among the publics themselves, UT was not on a level by itself with A&M right behind, but know that public schools like UT, A&M, TT, UH, Ark were all reasonably competive? I think that was a blockbuster in-state league you used to have and it existed at a time when there was a lot more equity in college football than what we now have.

The only argument that I'd raise about the quality of the stadiums is that when the "best" stadiums are dicussed many football/soccer stadiums are critized for their basic facilities or standing room while collage US football grounds rarely are.

Did you start reading this forum today? College football stadiums have probably taken the most criticism on this board.

I always thought that Houston was a baskettball city after the recent championships from both the Rockets and the Comets.

What is Rockets? something from NASA??

Stop flaming, lads.

Again: Do the USA football teams play in the Libertadores Cup?
No and if did, hahahahah nobody went to complain of ties:
São Paulo 10 x 0 Best USA Team
River Plate 9 x 0 Best USA Team
Palmeiras 8 x 0 Best USA Team
Santos 7 x 0 Best USA Team
Peñarol 6 x 0 Best USA Team
The only tie i can imagine is:
Corinthians 0 x 0 The worse USA Team

The USA Soccer (Footbal - Futebol) Teams play in CONCACAF Cup.

What is Rockets? something from NASA??
They were originally from San Diego from 1967, until they moved to Houston since 1971. I am surprised that you didn't know about them since you are from Texas, b/c a lot of others would know that they won the 1994 and 1995 NBA Champions, which were lead by Hakeem Olajuwon. I take it you don't follw baskettball that much. I am also surprised of the many Houston and Texan fourmers who never knew that the Houston Comets won the first four WNBA Championships (1997-2000).

^^I think he was just being sarcastic. But then again, you could be right. I can't really tell.

I need some pictures of AAC.
Have some of you some pictures ?

I need some pictures of AAC.
Have some of you some pictures ?

AAC Pictures (http://images.google.com/images?hs=vW&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=American%20Airlines%20Center&btnG=Search&sa=N&tab=wi)

Thanks, but I mean some pictures you have shot.

It does have a good backdrop of the Dallas skyline.

Penguins find arena funds
Partner in $1 billion plan would build facility -- if it gets casino license
Wednesday, December 21, 2005

By Mark Belko, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The Pittsburgh Penguins' partner in a proposed $1 billion development at the site of Mellon Arena is willing to put up $290 million to pay for a new, 18,000-seat home for the National Hockey League team.

The Penguins' development, which would secure the team's future in Pittsburgh, is contingent on winning a license for the city's slot machine casino.

Besides construction of a casino and a replacement for the aging arena, oldest in the NHL, the development would include a mix of offices, residential units and retail space.

The Penguins will team with a yet-unidentified gambling operator and with Nationwide Realty Investors of Columbus, Ohio., to handle development.

As part of its application for the Pittsburgh slots license, the gaming operator intends to pledge the money to build a new arena. It also would finance construction of the casino for 3,000 slot machines, with room to expand to 5,000.

The Penguins will not be the applicant for the state license, nor will the team take any profits from the slots casino. Once a new arena is built, it plans to turn ownership over to the city-county Sports & Exhibition Authority.

In all, the casino and arena developments are expected to cost a total $600 million to $700 million. The team is planning at least another $400 million in development at the current 50-acre arena site.

The Penguins were expected to announce details of the proposed development today. David Morehouse, a consultant for the Penguins, would not comment on the proposal last night.

Nationwide Realty financed construction of the 18,500-seat Nationwide Arena in Columbus and spearheaded development of the 95-acre arena district, which includes bars, clubs and a movie theater. The firm also has been involved in development of the Waterfront complex in the Homestead area and other projects in Pittsburgh.

The mixed-use development proposed by the Penguins is similar to a $500 million office, retail and housing plan it unveiled several years ago in a bid to win public support for a new arena.

That proposal would have included shops, restaurants, parking garages, three to seven new office towers, and rental and for-sale housing. While the theme of the new plan essentially is the same, the mix probably will change, based on the current real estate and office climate.

The Penguins are planning to restore a street grid that will reconnect the lower Hill District with Downtown. The team also intends to use the former St. Francis Central Hospital property it purchased for $8 million in 2000 as part of its proposal.

In addition to teaming with a casino operator and Nationwide Realty, the Penguins are hoping to join with a local group so additional slots-related revenue can be returned to the community.

With today's expected announcement, the team will be the first of the potential competitors for the Pittsburgh casino to unveil detailed plans. The sports authority board also is expected to meet today to consider possible terms relating to a new arena should the Penguins secure funding for it.

Others expected to be in the hunt for the casino license are Station Square owner Forest City Enterprises, which will team with gambling power Harrah's Entertainment; Alco Parking Corp. President Merrill Stabile; MTR Gaming, owner of Mountaineer Race Track and Gaming Resort; and Beaver County developer Charles Betters.

Here are some pics of the new arena:
http://www.post-gazette.com/images3/20051222hoarenaair_230.jpg
http://www.post-gazette.com/images3/20051222hoarenaair_230.jpg
http://www.post-gazette.com/images3/20051222hoarena_230.jpg
http://www.post-gazette.com/images3/20051222hoarena3_230.jpg

Great news. Now the Penguins can stay in Pittsburgh. Hopefully this may bring some new skyscrapers to town.

What should the team name be?????

Here are my favorite names....

Houston Mustangs
Houston Stallions
Houston Revolvers
FC Houston 06

Atletico de Houston or perhaps FC Bayern Houston (there are a lot of German-Americans in Texas).

It would be a shame if the pens woule leave Pittsburgh. I knew the Mellon Arena was old, but it still looks up to date on pictures I've seen.

I bought EAsports NHL back in 98 not knowing anything about the sport, thanks to the game I learned the rules. Not knowing what team was the best I chose for the Pens and I still do whenever I play a NHL game on the PS2. Later I learned that Lemieux is the same for Hockey as Pele is for football, and that Kovalev is one of the best defenders in the world. I even go watch some games of the local Ice Hockey club here in Tilburg. Strange how a single computer game can trigger this. :)

^ I guess it goes to show you can't judge a book by its cover. Outside, it looks awesome, inside it is old, but it still is in pretty good shape for when it was built. I guess this means Pittsburgh's gonna get a new casino as well, but will it be downtown, be sweet if it was. Lemieux has seen better days, though, he is out with irregular heartbeat problems, and if this continues on while he is still playing hockey, he may have to retire, and I wouldn't blame him. He might have been as good as Gretzky, had he not had those injuries, that disease and other things. But Sidney Crosby will take his place in the years to come.

I'll be going to a game in Pittsburgh this year, btw, so I look forward to seeing that, and dependent on what happens, may not be my last time in Pittsburgh either. :)

Here's a question about stadium aesthetics:

MLB is unique among all sports because of its ability to shape and control the size of its playing field. Every park has its own dimensions, both in the outfield and in foul territory. There are infinite ways to build and design a ball park and due to the differing dimensions, the lack of symmetry is often a given. We love ball parks because of their unique way of each displaying its own personality (while deploring the era of cookie cuters in StL, Cin, Pgh, Phil, Atl, DC, etc., as a time of total lack of stadium personality)

Not so in other pro sports, such as NFL, NBA, NHL. These sports operate around a rectangular playing surface that are etched in stone. Logically there has been no reason to make one side of the field diferent from th e other and aesthetic considerations kept things symmetrical.

The most serious break in the symmetry issue, IMHO, was the Bears' redevelopment of Soldier Field. Site considerations (based on SF's original foot print) required some creative solutions of getting the new stadium into the bowl of the old.

The result: an assemmetrical stadium, with all sky boxes on the east side and a west side with more seating and higher decks.

Did it work? Prejudice Bear fan and Chicagoan that I am, I have to say, "Hell, yes!"

The question is: does such lack of symmetry work aesthetically in future NFL stadiums or the arenas used by the NBA and NHL?

take a look at salford reds new stadium. The answer is yes......

http://www.reds.co.uk/images/stadium/barton/barton_artists4.gif
http://www.reds.co.uk/images/stadium/barton/barton_artists1.gif
http://www.reds.co.uk/images/stadium/barton/barton_artists2.gif
http://www.reds.co.uk/images/stadium/barton/barton_artists3.gif

Here's a question about stadium aesthetics:

MLB is unique among all sports because of its ability to shape and control the size of its playing field.

Cricket? Football pitches are not standardised either.

They are more or less standardized. FIFA has certain standards.

(e) never mind

Westfalen is still pretty semetrical besides the standing room at one end. The UK is probabley the world capital for assemetrical stadiums wheather it be football, rubgy or cricket, normally only stadiums constructed in the last decade or so have much semetry.

As far as actual pitch dimensions go, there is no standard for Australian Rules Football... for example, the boundaries at the MCG and Gabba form a large oval identical in size, whereas the SCG is much shorter (more a circle), and skilled stadium a very thin oval (squeezed in middle). Often this means multiple stands at these grounds, different sizes and shapes (although Gabba and MCG in recent redevelopments are fairly symmetrical).

Stu

those aren't even close to the crazy shapes one gets in a baseball stadium

Nope, it isn't.


We're talking about the dimensions of the pitch, not the design of the stands (aren't we?).

A comparison:

Fenway Park

http://www.photofile.com/Photos/Albums/Stadiums/MLB/Images/Fenway_Park3.jpg

http://www.photofile.com/Photos/Albums/Stadiums/MLB/Images/Fenway_Park_Green_Monster.jpg

Shea Stadium

http://www.photofile.com/Photos/Albums/Stadiums/MLB/Images/Shea_Stadium2.jpg

Yankee Stadium

http://www.photofile.com/Photos/Albums/Stadiums/MLB/Images/Yankee_Stadium3.jpg

Polo Grounds (look at left field)

http://www.photofile.com/Photos/Albums/Stadiums/MLB/Images/Polo_Grounds_Aerial_View_Sephia.jpg

Camden Yard

http://www.diamond-mind.com/parks/camden2001.jpg

PNC Park

http://www.diamond-mind.com/parks/pnc.jpg

Petco Park

http://www.diamond-mind.com/parks/petco2004.jpg

Dodger Stadium

http://www.diamond-mind.com/parks/dodger2005.jpg

RFK

http://www.diamond-mind.com/parks/rfk2005.jpg

We're talking about the dimensions of the pitch, not the design of the stands (aren't we?).

That's what I thought too. Most cricket grounds have an asymmetrical playing area - see Headingley for example:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v435/davidlufc/52938891.jpg

The original question seemed to be talking about stands to me, mentioning something like Solider Field.

Assymetrial as a result of the playing field is what I think he meant. Think he also means other sports have a harder time coming up with assymetrical designs because the playing dimensions are more uniform. There are no uniform dimensions for the edges of a baseball park. Almost anything could be done outside of the diamond, so you end up with oddly shaped stands like the Triangle in Boston or the porch in Texas that kind of juts into the what would be a symmetrical outfield wall.

Interesting thread. That Salford stadium looks great!

Interesting thread. That Salford stadium looks great!

You reckon? I think it looks hideous!

The only standard for soccer pitches is that it has to be rectangular, so it can be a long and thin field, or a short and fat field

^ Doesn't FIFA have very strict guidelines?

That's what I thought too. Most cricket grounds have an asymmetrical playing area - see Headingley for example:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v435/davidlufc/52938891.jpg
Nice one...cricket grounds of the world are mainly circular or oval in shape but they can come in all shapes and sizes.

Lords has a square shaped playing surface and a wicked slope of about 2-3 meters running left to right :nuts:

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/united_kingdom/england/london/london_lords.jpg

If we are talking pitch, then assymetry can't occur in any sport that has a rectangular playing area. So, in this sense, yes assymetry is better suited for MLB than most other leagues/sports. As for the stands, assymetry works when done right, which it often times is. But it is just as frequently screwed up which makes for truly awful results, IMO.

^ Doesn't FIFA have very strict guidelines?

There is quite a range of pitch sizes that are allowed;

45-90m width and 90-120m length so the area can vary a lot, between 4050m^2 and 10800m^2 are acceptable.

FIFA prefers 105 X 68M but this is not a strict definition.

45-90m width and 90-120m length so the area can vary a lot

http://www.fifa.com/en/laws/Laws1_01.htm

For international matches there's not really that big of a choice.


BTW, Minute Maid Park in Houston has a small hill in center field

http://www.teresco.org/pics/toabq-20030820-31/28/P8280055-640.jpg

http://www.fifa.com/en/laws/Laws1_01.htm

For international matches there's not really that big of a choice.


BTW, Minute Maid Park in Houston has a small hill in center field

http://www.teresco.org/pics/toabq-20030820-31/28/P8280055-640.jpg

True enough, but International matches don't make up a very big percentage of games.

Does International matches only refer to national teams or also to the Champions League and UEFA-Cup? I mean if you're designing a stadium, it makes sense to abide by Fifa's rules.

Does International matches only refer to national teams or also to the Champions League and UEFA-Cup? I mean if you're designing a stadium, it makes sense to abide by Fifa's rules.

I'd guess CL or UEFA Cup games would be under UEFA rules, whatever they may be.

FIFA's preferred dimensions are near the higher end of the range so having a pitch that can accomodate Int'l games it can also be reduced as per the current managers preference.

Now that Houston has a soccer team, the city will build a new
soccer-specific stadium, Houston has always impressed with it's stadiums such as, the Astrodome (1st domed stadium) and then the Reliant Stadium (1st NFL retractable roof stadium) and hopefully the city can keep up the good work by building a modern stadium with good architecture.
I've seen lately some of the new MLS stadiums and they're just too plain, the only one that's ok is the Home Depot Center in L.A.
I know the stadium is not going to be big or anything, but at least it can have a good design.

Here are some stadiums that I would like the new stadium to look like......
and if you have any ideas, share them........

Oita Stadium
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/asia/japan/kyushu/oita_big_eye1.jpg

Toyota Stadium
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/asia/japan/chubu/toyota_stadium1.jpg

Now that Houston has a soccer team, the city will build a new
soccer-specific stadium, Houston has always impressed with it's stadiums such as, the Astrodome (1st domed stadium) and then the Reliant Stadium (1st NFL retractable roof stadium) and hopefully the city can keep up the good work by building a modern stadium with good architecture.
I've seen lately some of the new MLS stadiums and they're just too plain, the only one that's ok is the Home Depot Center in L.A.
I know the stadium is not going to be big or anything, but at least it can have a good design.

Here are some stadiums that I would like the new stadium to look like......
and if you have any ideas, share them........

Oita Stadium
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/asia/japan/kyushu/oita_big_eye1.jpg

Toyota Stadium
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/asia/japan/chubu/toyota_stadium1.jpg


It all depends on the budget. Sunderland's Stadium of Light cost only £23M (42,000 seats) when constructed and an additional £7M when capacity was increased to 49,000 a few years later. It was constructed in such a way that swift and economical expansion can bring attendance up to 64,000 when the team can draw that many spectators(ie not for a few years).

http://www.alston-limestone.co.uk/photos/Stadium.jpg

and later.....

http://www.pictureblinds.co.uk/footballgrounds/images/Sunderlandfg.JPG

Nice.

The outfield for cricket varies a lot and some cricket grounds even have slopes as well.
The difference in pitches is simply enormous. Its very different from ground to ground and especially from nation to nation.

On and off the field international cricketers really go through more changing circumstances than any sport I am aware of.

Look at England. From the home series against Australia played on 5 different pitches then off to Pakistan, completly different cricket, on the field and off the field, confined to hotels under staggering security levels guarded by thousands of soldiers. England failed to ajust to pakistani pitches and paid the price but credit to them for going.
(No offence but would an american baseballer even consider going to pakistan and discover that there is much more to this country than just religious fanatics.)

In march its off to the series is India, again very different conditions, a spin-attack in suffocating heat awaits there. Next northern winter its the big grounds and bouncy pitches in Australia, where england will bring some 20-30,000 supporters with them and later the carribean holiday destinations.

It's pretty hot in Texas in the summer and there are religious fanatics over there as well.

http://www.sportsvenue-technology.com/projects/home_depot/images/galaxy02.jpg

Home Depot Center. Capacity 27000.

It all depends on the budget. Sunderland's Stadium of Light cost only £23M (42,000 seats) when constructed and an additional £7M when capacity was increased to 49,000 a few years later. It was constructed in such a way that swift and economical expansion can bring attendance up to 64,000 when the team can draw that many spectators(ie not for a few years). Very smart...IMO more stadiums should be constructed that way.

Sometime in 2006 a new soccer/rugby stadium will be built in Melbourne using the same logic. It will initially be a 20k seater that can and will be expanded when necessary.

Indeed, that is way better than building 50k stadiums which only draw spectator numbers of 20.000.
I support a football club that became 2nd in the dutch league a couple of years ago, but the stadium could not be expanded due to foundation problems. Very bad planning imo. And the stadium then was 5 years old.
Not that expanding the stadium would have helped because now they're dangling at the bottom of the league table.
Nevertheless, AZ is buidling a 13.000 seater which can easily be expanded when necessary.

Most of the new stadiums constructed in England have similar principles in mind.

Just two examples..........

St Mary's stadium in Southampton was constructed with 32,000 seats but can be expanded to 52,000.

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/united_kingdom/england/south_east/southampton_st_mary1.jpg

The Majdeski Stadium in Reading holds 24,000 but can be expanded to 40,000+, possibly quite soon as Reading are currently sitting atop the Championship.

http://stadiums.football.co.uk/shared/images/Championship/Reading%20FC/Madejski-Stadium01.gif

The original question seemed to be talking about stands to me, mentioning something like Solider Field.

I was the original post.

Basically, you got me right. For MLB, it would, of course, be a combination of field dimensions and the layout of the stands.

For the rectangular playing field of US sports (NFL, NBA, NHL), let's face it: the stands are going to interface with the field/court/ice in virtually the same way. The seating area abutting the playing surface is so valuable that it needs to basically parallel the field dimensions (a larger rectangle, if you will). In back of that "larger rectangle" is the area I had in mind, just as MoreOrLess preceived here.

If we are talking pitch, then assymetry can't occur in any sport that has a rectangular playing area. So, in this sense, yes assymetry is better suited for MLB than most other leagues/sports. As for the stands, assymetry works when done right, which it often times is. But it is just as frequently screwed up which makes for truly awful results, IMO.

and the real question would be: why do you want the assymetrical?

• would it be restraints a site puts on construction (i.e. Soldier Field being shoehorned into the old exterior

-or-

• is there a conscious desire to put all luxury suites together on one side of the field (I'm not positive the advantage here....obviously Soldier Field did this becaus eit had no choice

The real issue on symmetry for NFL, NBA, NHL: If an archtiect just designed a fantastic set up for the left side of the field/court/ice, why would he want to change it on the right side. Again, note, there is nothing comparable in baseball, where even the baselines may be of different length.

philips arena (hockey, basketball) in atlanta has all the luxury boxes on one side as a design 'test' i believe to shove all boxes to one side and make all the seats on the other 3 so the last rows are closer to the playing field or something along that lines. i dont think they had a tight site that required the massing that way.

Hook em' Horns. 2006 National Champs!!!! Texas defeats USC 41-38 in a battle of two traditional college powers

Beautiful
http://images.sportsline.com/u/gettyimages/photos/56486117BL001_National_Cham010417_1024x768.jpg

Fans from both sides were out in force
http://images.sportsline.com/u/ap/photos/PRB102010417_lower.jpg
http://images.sportsline.com/u/gettyimages/photos/56486117MC012_National_Cham010419_lower.jpg
http://images.sportsline.com/u/gettyimages/photos/56486117MC008_National_Cham010419_lower.jpg
http://images.sportsline.com/u/ap/photos/PRB107010418_lower.jpg


Over 93,000 filled the Rose Bowl for the championship game that turned out to be one of the greatest of all-time
http://images.sportsline.com/u/gettyimages/photos/56486117BL005_BCS_National_010418_1024x768.jpg

http://images.sportsline.com/u/ap/photos/LPI101010500_1024x768.jpg

UT would pull out to a halftime lead
http://images.sportsline.com/u/ap/photos/PRB141010423_1024x768.jpg


Heisman winner Reggie Bush and USC offense would have its say and turn a back and forth game to a 12 point lead
http://images.sportsline.com/u/ap/photos/PRB174010501_1024x768.jpg
http://images.sportsline.com/u/gettyimages/photos/56486117MC082_National_Cham010501_800x600.jpg
http://images.sportsline.com/u/gettyimages/photos/56486117MC087_National_Cham010501_800x600.jpg
http://images.sportsline.com/u/gettyimages/photos/56486117BL052_National_Cham010500_800x600.jpg


The winning TD by Vince Young(G.O.A.T.) Vince finished the season with 3000 yards passing and over 1000 yards rushing. The greatest dual threat QB season ever
http://images.sportsline.com/u/ap/photos/PRB168010501_800x600.jpg
http://images.sportsline.com/u/ap/photos/CADIU101010502_800x600.jpg
http://images.sportsline.com/u/gettyimages/photos/56486117MC099_National_Cham010502_800x600.jpg

Crowd goes wild
http://images.sportsline.com/u/gettyimages/photos/56486117BL091_National_Cham010502_1024x768.jpg
http://images.sportsline.com/u/gettyimages/photos/56486117MC107_National_Cham010501_1024x768.jpg

Sorry SC............
http://images.sportsline.com/u/gettyimages/photos/56486117MC121_National_Cham010502_800x600.jpg

But the crystal football is coming to Austin this year
http://images.sportsline.com/u/ap/photos/PRB195010502_1024x768.jpg

Monkey of the back
http://images.sportsline.com/u/gettyimages/photos/56486117MC105_National_Cham010502_800x600.jpg


And there it is on paper. Never thought I'd see it in my lifetime
http://images.sportsline.com/u/ap/photos/GFX987010511_1024x768.jpg

http://i.cnn.net/si/si_online/covers/images/2006/0109_large.jpg

http://images.sportsline.com/u/gettyimages/photos/56486117BL027_National_Cham010422_1024x768.jpg
http://images.sportsline.com/u/gettyimages/photos/56486117BL050_National_Cham010422_1024x768.jpg
http://images.sportsline.com/u/gettyimages/photos/56486117BL040_National_Cham010423_1024x768.jpg



Greatest of All-Time
http://images.sportsline.com/u/gettyimages/photos/56486117MC078_National_Cham010423_800x600.jpg

Unbelievable pictures. I jumped like a crazy mad man when VY scored and once the clock read 0 i was yelling at the top of my lungs. Truly a great experience. Like I said in Skybar. Too all the people that do not like American football and always like to talk shit about it. Watch this game as well as the other bcs bowls. Four great games this season.

VY= GOAT...ask Reggie to fedex him the heisman :) That stadium was split 50/50. USC fans thought they would outnumber them but Texas fans seem louder than them. Lots of Burnt Orange in the crowd.

Congrats Texas! I'm an OU fan and i'm not as bitter as I thought I'd be. VY is AMAZING. See you guys in October. It is a great feeling isn't it?

I cried tears of joy. Tears of fricking joy.

Nice pics. Was this the super bowl or a league game?

college football national championship game

cpddavis....tears were running down my face as well. This is why being a true fan pays off. To enjoy moments like these.

Nice pics. Was this the super bowl or a league game?

as said above, this was the college national championship. The University of Texas vs The University of Southern California. We've posted a few college stadium posts as well as some game posts like Texas-OU and Texas vs Ohio State. As you can see by the pics, college sports are a big deal in the U.S. These are the guys that will feed into the NFL over the next few years. This game happened to feature the three biggest stars in college football: Reggie Bush(pictured #5 on USC), Matt Leinart(#11 USC) and Vince Young(#10 Texas). They will probably be the top 3 draft pics for the NFL this spring. Many other future NFL stars are on both teams. Very high level of talent and athleticism on the field that night. Incredible speed. Also turned out to be about as good of a game as you could have. Defensive struggle in the first half, then back and forth, then USC pulled away only to have Texas catch and pass them.

Awesome pics. I do have to rain a little bit on the parade concerning that shovel-pass by Young though.

@ rantanamo...fantastic pics and by the sounds of it, a fantastic occasion. I hear tickets were being scalped for $US 4,000 and there were just as many people partying outside the stadium as there were inside.

A few questions...
How do all these bowl games work?
Do the same teams play every year or is it a final you need to qualify for?
Also how many of these games are there and where are they played?

as said above, this was the college national championship. The University of Texas vs The University of Southern California. We've posted a few college stadium posts as well as some game posts like Texas-OU and Texas vs Ohio State. As you can see by the pics, college sports are a big deal in the U.S. These are the guys that will feed into the NFL over the next few years. This game happened to feature the three biggest stars in college football: Reggie Bush(pictured #5 on USC), Matt Leinart(#11 USC) and Vince Young(#10 Texas). They will probably be the top 3 draft pics for the NFL this spring. Many other future NFL stars are on both teams. Very high level of talent and athleticism on the field that night. Incredible speed. Also turned out to be about as good of a game as you could have. Defensive struggle in the first half, then back and forth, then USC pulled away only to have Texas catch and pass them.

They are good pics.

Shame that there's no roof on the stadium.

Great Pics! :)

Surely that's a foul!! It's a clear handball!!


http://images.sportsline.com/u/ap/photos/PRB141010423_1024x768.jpg

Unbelievable pictures. I jumped like a crazy mad man when VY scored and once the clock read 0 i was yelling at the top of my lungs. Truly a great experience. Like I said in Skybar. Too all the people that do not like American football and always like to talk shit about it. Watch this game as well as the other bcs bowls. Four great games this season.

VY= GOAT...ask Reggie to fedex him the heisman :) That stadium was split 50/50. USC fans thought they would outnumber them but Texas fans seem louder than them. Lots of Burnt Orange in the crowd.


So what will people say about Vince Young if he joins Texas for his Senior year, leads them to an undefeated regular season, takes the Heisman with an even higher percentage than Bush did this past season, then brings them back from another late game deficit to win the National Championship? :D

So funny... so possible.

Vince Young is one of those guys that no matter what happens, he is going to pull it out when he has to. He's Michael Jordan, He's Joe Montana, He's Sandy Koufax, He's Babe Ruth. He's God's Son. He Ethered 'Em. Got Some Dirt on His Shoulder, Can You Brush It Off For 'Em? He's a Hustla, AsK About Em. All of the Talent in the Sports Universe converge into One.. Vince Young. He's the Man, Myth, Legend... the G.O.A.T.!!!

:cheers:

Shame that there's no roof on the stadium.

in Southern California..... lol

Vince Young went to High School in Houston, he would sell alot more tickets then Bush.

who would you pick first in the draft?

in Southern California..... lol


Don't be so gullible!!


http://www.sfffc.org/images/Oz's%20bait%20fish.jpg

@ rantanamo...fantastic pics and by the sounds of it, a fantastic occasion. I hear tickets were being scalped for $US 4,000 and there were just as many people partying outside the stadium as there were inside.

A few questions...
How do all these bowl games work?
Do the same teams play every year or is it a final you need to qualify for?
Also how many of these games are there and where are they played?

The ratings are out for the game. Most watched game in a long long time. Impressive for a game in the modern era of technology. Very few events draw that much domestic viewership. The only ones that comes to mind are the final game of the world series and Superbowl in the NFL.

Anyhow, for the bowl questions:

To answer that question is to explain college football, which is a very strange sport administratively. So strange that there is constant debate and change in the qualifiying rules. That's why most refer to the football championship as the MNC or Mythical National Championship. Its legit and recognized by everyone, but there is just dispute sometimes. Not the case this season.

Basically there is only a regular season, and no playoff for D-I(highest level of college football). Instead they have the bowl system and rankings. I posted a poll to illustrate that. That poll is the Associated Press Poll. The other is the BCS poll. Both award national championships to the team that finishes #1 in their poll. This year UT finished first in both. The AP Poll is based on the votes of sports writers and media members across the US. The AP used to actually allow their poll into the BCS before this year. The BCS is the one most accepted these days. Basically it is a ranking formula that uses a couple of human polls along with a few computer rankings plus other components like strength of schedule. So basically, your best shot to play for the MNC is to go undefeated(usually 12-13 games) against a decent schedule. Both USC and Texas were the only undefeated teams this season. There are years though where this doesn't work out and you have multiple undefeated teams. It still all goes back to the formula. If you played bad teams all year and went undefeated, teams with 1 or 2 losses can still be ahead of you in the BCS or other computer polls. For example, Texas beat Ohio State this year. After that win, Texas fans rooted for Ohio State all season long. When they lost it affected our ranking. When they won it affected our ranking. Its an interesting system though I favor a playoff. Many who are against a playoff argue that this system is more of a measure of who is the best over a season. No hot playoff teams like you see in college basketball. I dunno. It worked out for us.

Anyways, college football is divided into 12 conferences. These conferences are very geographic in nature. Examples are the Big 10(midwestern states like Ohio, Michigan and Illinois), Pac-10(Biggest schools on the west coast), SEC(Southeastern states like Alabama and Georgia). ACC(Atlantic coast schools from Miami to Virginia) and BigXII(basically the heartland of America from Texas straight up to Iowa and Nebraska. A team will usually play 4 or five games versus teams out of their conference, and the rest against conference teams.

How teams finish in their conference determines bowl games for them. There are 28 bowl games. They have conference tie-ins that determine matchups. It will go something like this for example. The Cotton Bowl, played in Dallas, is the Big XII second choice team vs SEC third choice team I believe. That is basically how it goes for the bowls except for the BCS. The BCS is the top 4 bowls: Rose Bowl(Pasadena, California in the LA Metro), Orange Bowl(Miami Florida), Fiesta Bowl(Tempe, Arizona in the Phoenix metro) and Sugar Bowl(normally New Orleans Superdome, but at the Georgia Dome this year). The championship game rotates between these bowls. Last year the Orange Bowl was the championship game. The BCS #1 and #2 rated teams play in the championship game. The other matchups are conference tie-ins. Too complicated!!!!!!! Basically if you are top 8 in the BCS, you are BCS eligible, unless you didn't win your conference. This allows a traditional conference tie-in or a BCS guranteed team to trump you. And example was Cal-Berkeley last year. They were ranked #5 in the BCS, but USC won the Pac-10 over them, while Texas was ranked #4, but lost their conference to Oklahoma. Texas being #4 got them that BCS bid, while Cal was squeezed out of the BCS games by other conference winners. If Cal was #4 they would have been guranteed a BCS game. The BCS games are big because their payout to each school is much much larger than the other bowls, and their is a prestige to them.

The rest of the bowls are played all over. They are almost like a reward. The cities treat the teams to all kinds of activities and foods. Then you go out and play, and your fans get a chance to follow the team to new places. Before last year, Texas had never played in the Rose Bowl game, so this took many UT fans out to LA to paint the town burnt orange the last two years.

Its kind of complicated. Basically you try to go undefeated and you get a good bowl game, maybe even the championship game.

This should make for a good Red River Rivalry game next year! VY is going to be hard to stop.

Great, I mean great, play!!
http://i.a.cnn.net/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/2006/01/05/gallery.rosebowl/006708643.jpg

GREATEST GAME IN HISTORY!

Infact the greatest 24 hours in American sport

I was at the Orange Bowl which was a barn burner in it's own right. Triple OT and went 4:30+ hours, I got out of the stadium (drunkest place I have ever seen) at 2:30am. Penn State and FSU fans making it the most incredible atmosphere imagineable. Because the game ended so late I went from the game to my flight home, our plane which was all Penn State fans was greeted at the airport by the TV news crews. I then arrived at home for 10 mins of SSC and then the Rose. Rose Bowl was just so good: Keith Jackson, Flying Reggie Bush, and then the single greatest act in human history (the performance of Vince Young) I was doing the hook em' for the rest of the night

What a feast of college football, a sleepless 24 hours
WV game also good only complant was OSU winning because I hate the bastards

Vince Young a household name and watercooler hero over night

http://www.dallasnews.com/img/photo/01-05/rosebowl1.jpg

Been waiting forever to see this for football

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v157/Zuerst/Stuff/UTNo1Sig.jpg

LOL!!!!!
http://webpages.charter.net/glennwisdom/RoseBowl/champ%20who.jpg

@ rantanamo...Thanks for the in depth description of college football. I must admit after reading it a couple times it's starting to make sense lol.

According to an Australian sports journo who was in Pasadena to cover the game, he described it as one of the most amazing experiences of his life and recommended that it needs to be seen to be believed. :cheers:

Vince Young a household name and watercooler hero over night

http://www.dallasnews.com/img/photo/01-05/rosebowl1.jpg

He should've already been anyway. He was 29-2 coming into the Rose Bowl this year, was the most accurate QB in the nation and had already given a superb performance (192 rush yards, 4 TD) in the 2005 Rose Bowl leading Texas to a 38-37 win.

I wonder who those two losses were to. Haha... Jk.

OU and Washington State(He didn't even play most of the game) I believe. He didn't start in '03 and beat OU in '05.

As for the hero status, Vince has always done this kind of thing. Most of the nation simply hasn't payed much attention to Texas except for the biggest games. Of course he always shines statistically because..................................He actually gets to play the whole game. Most games he was out by the 2nd drive of the 3rd quarter and still put up 3000 passing and 1000 rushing, 26 td passes, 13 rushing tds while completing over 65% of his passes. Funny how last year he was actually compared to Matt Jones as a QB and considered a lesser dual threat than Reggie McNeal and Brad Smith.

I'm just glad someone took down USC, since Notre Dame came so close to doing it.
Go Texas.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/misc/wallpaper/img/longhorns/0105vince4_wall_1024.jpg

^You guys got hosed. They didn't even mark the third down play in the place where Leinart fumbled. UT almost got hosed by a bad spot too on that last 4th down.

On that fourth down before Texas got the ball back for the winning possession. I thought they gave him a favorable spot. I was like,"THEY MOVED THE BALL UP" and was scared as hell.
http://i.a.cnn.net/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/2006/01/05/gallery.rosebowl/006708643.jpg
Unbelievable.....great to see the Horns win a national championship in football. growing up seeing everybody else win championships. I always wondered when Texas would be one of them. Thats why this feels special.

On that fourth down before Texas got the ball back for the winning possession. I thought they gave him a favorable spot. I was like,"THEY MOVED THE BALL UP" and was scared as hell.


I definately agree on that one... it didn't look anywhere close to a 1st down, then they put it just inches away!
But, Texas had that fake touchdown early-on (not that they wouldn't have scored anyway with a 1st down that close), so it all kind of evens out. Not bad officiating overall, considering how bad it could have been *AHEM*MichiganNebraska*AHEM*.

The referee needs glasses. He's missed about a hundred handballs. Shocking!!!

The referee needs glasses. He's missed about a hundred handballs. Shocking!!!

Yeah, and someone really ought to inflate that weird brown ball back up.

Yeah, and someone really ought to inflate that weird brown ball back up.

I know, the ball has been 'egged'. Our American cousins - what are they like!!

:hug:

I'm just glad someone took down USC, since Notre Dame came so close to doing it.
Go Texas.

ND did, they just got screwed like we did on the same day

Hook em BABY!!!!

I'm STILL hoarse from the game. Los Angeles/hollywood/pasadena kicked ass!!!!!

http://www.balettie.com/albums/TexasTower/We_re_1.jpg

http://www.balettie.com/albums/TexasTower/Tower_close_2.jpg

http://www.balettie.com/albums/TexasTower/Tower_sunset_5.jpg

who would you pick first in the draft?
Reggie Bush. Running backs can single-handedly change a team better than QB's can, becuase QB's need at least decent receivers to make things happen. Then Lienart. Vince Young third. He won't be able to run in the NFL the way he does in college. The defenses are too good. He's a better athlete than Lienart, but Lienart is the better QB.

Great pics, rantanamo. ESPN made all 4 BCS games Instant Classics. And the Big Ten took 2 of the 4 BCS bowls!!! Hell yeah, Big Ten all the way! The Rose Bowl was one F***ing amazing game, I must say. I'm so glad USC lost. I've hated them forever, since I was in first grade and they beat Northwestern in the Rose Bowl Game. Haha, revenge!! I admit, I did cheer for them once this season, against Notre Dame. I can't stand Notre Dame. If there's ever a national Championship between them and Florida State I'd have to kill myself.