Balderdash, Basketball was created before the MTV generation. (European youth have short spans too, it's a western phenomena) And if the game was created specifically to appeal to attention spans, why was baseball so much more popular? Basketball, like hockey, is exciting because it is fast paced and aggressive. Youth today do not want to see a "gentlemanly" game of tip-sipping bluebloods playing at a country club pace.
I don't play first person shooters because they cater to a short attention span, I play them because they are so fast that they require more of my attention.
Football is a game not only of individual skill, but of strategy. As an armchair coach, it is much more exciting. As an armchair player, it still has the element of individual achievement. The game can have commercial breaks merely because it is turn-based.
The reason why the scores are so much lower in soccer has nothing to do with team balance. The NBA is also balanced as is most professional sports. It has more to do with the size and organization of the playing field. Soccer just makes it really hard to score, and defensive play is way easier in soccer, the offense is at a disadvantage. In baseball, they lengthened the size of the parks, since most of today's batters could hit a homerun almost everytime if the parks were sized as they were in baseball's beginnings.
In basketball and football, the defense has to work much harder to prevent scoring. They've shortened the shot-clock in basketball, but it hasn't stopped much. In basketball in particular, it is very hard to stop scoring. If someone is a good shooter, for example, they can shoot 3-pointers and there's not much you could do to stop them if they are deadly accurate.
In ice hockey, for example, the net is much smaller than soccer, so it is easier to defend. If it was any bigger, the smaller arena size would make ice hockey more like basketball, with scoring much more frequent.
I simply refuse to watch a sport that go can for hours with a score of 0 - 0, and someone wins by getting a lucky free kick at the end.
Beach or professional volleyball or tennis is way more exciting.
When someone wins, I want it to be because they OBVIOUSLY played with either superior skill or strategy. A game's rules for scoring should leave without a doubt, at the end, who played better. I do not want it to be because the goalie was tired, slipped on the grass, or mispredicted a random kick.
May as well flip a coin to decide the end of the game at that point.
At the end of a superbowl, I usually know, usually by the 1st half, which team is OBVIOUSLY playing better and which plays were truely great. Lucky breaks should not be what makes the sport "exciting"
I don't play first person shooters because they cater to a short attention span, I play them because they are so fast that they require more of my attention.
Football is a game not only of individual skill, but of strategy. As an armchair coach, it is much more exciting. As an armchair player, it still has the element of individual achievement. The game can have commercial breaks merely because it is turn-based.
The reason why the scores are so much lower in soccer has nothing to do with team balance. The NBA is also balanced as is most professional sports. It has more to do with the size and organization of the playing field. Soccer just makes it really hard to score, and defensive play is way easier in soccer, the offense is at a disadvantage. In baseball, they lengthened the size of the parks, since most of today's batters could hit a homerun almost everytime if the parks were sized as they were in baseball's beginnings.
In basketball and football, the defense has to work much harder to prevent scoring. They've shortened the shot-clock in basketball, but it hasn't stopped much. In basketball in particular, it is very hard to stop scoring. If someone is a good shooter, for example, they can shoot 3-pointers and there's not much you could do to stop them if they are deadly accurate.
In ice hockey, for example, the net is much smaller than soccer, so it is easier to defend. If it was any bigger, the smaller arena size would make ice hockey more like basketball, with scoring much more frequent.
I simply refuse to watch a sport that go can for hours with a score of 0 - 0, and someone wins by getting a lucky free kick at the end.
Beach or professional volleyball or tennis is way more exciting.
When someone wins, I want it to be because they OBVIOUSLY played with either superior skill or strategy. A game's rules for scoring should leave without a doubt, at the end, who played better. I do not want it to be because the goalie was tired, slipped on the grass, or mispredicted a random kick.
May as well flip a coin to decide the end of the game at that point.
At the end of a superbowl, I usually know, usually by the 1st half, which team is OBVIOUSLY playing better and which plays were truely great. Lucky breaks should not be what makes the sport "exciting"
quit calling it soccor thats not even a word.
