I was flipping through the typical late night TV lineup, trying to forget the fact that my free trial of NHL Center Ice expired earlier in the week, when all of a sudden I saw that the Seattle Sounders and Houston Dynamo were playing the first leg of their first round MLS playoff matchup. So I decided to watch a few minutes of the game.
AND I ACTUALLY ENJOYED IT.
Crazy, right? I mean, what casual soccer fan (such as myself) actually enjoys watching a MLS playoff game? It's a sub-par league with very few big names (aside from Beckham and Donovan), and is microscopic when compared to the Italian Serie A or the English Premier League.
But the atmosphere in Seattle last night was electric. The Sounders lime green uniforms flooded the stadium, and over 36,000 fans kept the energy level intense. Scoring chances were few and far between (the game ended in a 0-0 draw), which makes the fans passion even more admirable. Drew Carey, a minority owner of the Sounders franchise, was in attendance. Heck, I even surprised myself by watching more than five minutes of the game.
This is what the MLS is missing - passionate fans and an energetic atmosphere at each game. America doesn't have the kind of die-hard soccer fans that England or Italy has, so the MLS has to focus on attracting those casual fans who may watch a game or two every once in a while. And if the atmosphere at a game is fun, entertaining, energetic, ect., then the league should have no problem gaining viewership and increasing ticket sales. If other cities and venues are able to follow Seattle's lead, there may be hope for professional soccer in the United States.
- The big debate surrounding the World Series right now is the use of instant replay to correct umpire mistakes. Many are asking the question "if football, basketball, and hockey can use it, why can't baseball?" Well, here's why:
Baseball is a game entirely determined by umpires and the judgment of one human being. The "human factor" is an essential part of baseball. A strike is not a strike until the umpire confirms it as such, and the same goes for a ball. Other sports may use referees, but they do not directly influence the outcome of a game the way umpires do in baseball.
Many are arguing that umpires are no longer necessary, and technology can now do their job for them. This new "K-Zone" or whatever its called (the thing that shows whether or not a pitch was in the strike zone or not) is damaging some umpires reputations. "Bang bang" plays are becoming the worst enemy of the men in blue.
Here's my argument against instant replay: back when I played little league baseball, I was told that the strike zone was different for every player. If one guy is nearly 6 feet tall, then his strike zone is bigger than the guy who is barely 5 feet tall (I have yet to see or hear about the "K-Zone" technology adapting to the height of the batter). If instant replay is used in the field to determine if a player did or did not catch a line drive, the issue becomes even bigger.
Say there's a runner on second, and the batter hits a line drive to right field that is caught. The runner stays at second base, and the batter is out. But after looking at instant replay, it is determined that the right fielder did not actually catch the ball. What do you then do with the runner on second base? Do you make him stay at second? Or do you allow him to go to third base? Chances are he would have been on third if he had known that the ball was going to hit the ground, so do you allow him to advance?
Alright, so say you just read that last paragraph and have come up with a solution. Good job. Now figure out what to do in that same situation if there's a runner on first base, or better yet if the bases are loaded. What would you do then?
Bottom line: this whole instant replay thing is giving many people headaches, and I doubt that a solution will be surmised anytime soon.
- I'm gonna take a minute now to defend my man Jake Delhomme. No doubt, he has been awful so far this year, and leads the league with 13 interceptions. So why should he still be the starter in Carolina? Here's why:
Reason #1: Carolina has two backup QB's that are terrible - Matt Moore (career QB rating of 64.0) and A.J Feeley (career QB rating 69.6). Sure, you're probably thinking about that one time seven years ago when Feeley filled in for an injured Donovan McNabb and played decent (keyword here being "decent"), but his QB rating was only 75.4 in six games, and he threw only one more touchdown pass than INT (6 TD's, 5 INT's).
Reason #2: John Fox, Carolina's head coach, has been to the Super Bowl before. He knows what he's doing. He's out there watching practice each week, and he knows what QB gives the Panthers the best chance to win. According to him, that QB is Jake Delhomme.
Reason #3: The Panthers are 16th in the NFL in rushing attempts. John Fox undoubtedly knows that he has two stud running backs in Jonathan Stewart and DeAngelo Williams, and he knows that he has to give them more carries. If Fox somehow doesn't pound the rock this week against Arizona, then I might have to stop defending him and his quarterback...
No comments:
Post a Comment