(5.1.06 20:42) The study defines the excitement of a sport as "frequency with which lower-ranked teams beat higher-ranked ones". A league dominated by one to four teams, with maybe 12 or 13 teams closely-bunched in the middle and a few perennial basement teams will obviously provide many such results wherever the closely-bunched mid-table pack play each other. If you look at the history of English football, this mid-table clumping isn't a new phenomenon, so it's not surprising to me that this study identifies it as highly "exciting", even though there are long periods of time where the same one or two teams are the only ones realistically in with a chance of winning. I think what really makes English football (and I'm referring only to the league, not the cup competitions here) more exciting than US sports is the simple idea of relegation and promotion. On the other hand, the salary-cap and draft systems of US sport, while not feasible in English (or European, or South American) football, definitely make it much easier for a losing team to become a winning one, and much harder for a club / franchise to establish continued dominance (i.e. being at or very near the top decade after decade), as is seen to some extent in all "soccer" leagues. I like hockey because living in Canada I don't have a choice, but also because there are zero breaks in play (except for ads, natch). Baseball I thought I'd like more than I do - the endless stats just bore the hole off me and it really does seem to lack the guile and grace of cricket - and basketball I find even more inane, repetitive and forgettable than I knew I would before I came here. But US (and Canadian) football have taken me a bit by surprise. I like them. I think the trick is not to see a game of US football as one game, but as twenty or thirty very short ones, most of which end 0-0.

(5.1.06 21:45) well i could, if i actually liked the actual sport, but i don't find it exciting, in the same way i don't find rugby exciting. i don't know if it's just cos i grew up with football. I just prefer the game of foot. I remember as a kid trying to get into american football, trying to watch the super bowl, trying to like 'fridge' perry, but i just could not hold any interest, whereas footy... Even when the London Monarchs, remember them , when they used White Hart Lane as a home, i still couldn't do it. The relegation and promotion thing is true. And the salary capping thing is an interesting point, cos you'd think if they had that in England, Chelsea wouldn't be where they are now.

(5.1.06 21:53) though i gotta say i admire baseball fans for their grasp of endless stats. and the san francisco giants are great when they want to be!

(5.1.06 22:50) If they had a salary cap in England, any player of international class currently with Chelsea or any other club would be playing in Italy and Spain. US sports get away with it cos no other leagues are competitive.

(5.1.06 23:37) Like in France. I don't think they have any salary caps, but all the clubs are skint, so the best French players play outside France. Which makes their league vastly more interesting (at least until Lyon's recent hegemony, for about seven or eight years they had a new winner every season, a different club every time; when Lyon won it first, three years back, it was their first ever victory) (shit, i sound like a baseball fan now)

(5.1.06 23:38) Though when i say interesting, i mean as far as the title race goes. I have seen some dreadfully poor league matches in the Ligue 1.

Name:	Email:
Website:	Email me when further comments are posted Save information (cookie)
Insert emoticons

powered by
20six.co.uk