Question for the Soccer Fans

[TXDawg]

I'll admit, I'm not a soccer fan. The only time I watch are during the World Cups and then I only watch the US matches.

One rule that confuses the crap out of me is offsides. I understand what offsides is and when it's called, but why is that rule even in the game? Sure, it limits "snowbirding", but just like basketball, the play of the game should regulate that, not some stupid rule. If I want to keep a couple of offensive players deep in my opponent's zone, I'll pay the price on defense.

Why doesn't soccer eliminate the offsides rule? I think it would make for a MUCH more exciting game.

[Pioneer Dawg]

It would make for a much MUCH less exciting game.

[dawgs]

It'd make the game far less exciting, and there'd be far less movement. Defenders would NEVER come up to support the attack, and midfielders would be reluctant to make deep attacking runs. The game would be entirely station to station.

Part of what makes some teams and players good is being able to make perfectly synced runs and passes. That whole element of the game would be gone with offsides eleminated.

[sleepy dawg]

I agree that it would make more exciting games... I am also not a fan of soccer, but I am of the NHL, and they have the same rule. It would force the players to become much better at long passes, and create some good breakaways and one on one opportunities.

[jumbo]

You should ask Cristiano Ronaldo his opinion. He plays the game as if there is no off-sides rule.

[dawgs]

I agree that it would make more exciting games... I am also not a fan of soccer, but I am of the NHL, and they have the same rule. It would force the players to become much better at long passes, and create some good breakaways and one on one opportunities.

You're wrong. Sorry, it's not an opinion, it's a fact.

Also, doesn't everyone bitch about basketball these days being a series if 1-on-1? Why do we wanna take away the team aspect of soccer?

[MadDawg]

I'll admit, I'm not a soccer fan. The only time I watch are during the World Cups and then I only watch the US matches.

One rule that confuses the crap out of me is offsides. I understand what offsides is and when it's called, but why is that rule even in the game? Sure, it limits "snowbirding", but just like basketball, the play of the game should regulate that, not some stupid rule. If I want to keep a couple of offensive players deep in my opponent's zone, I'll pay the price on defense.

Why doesn't soccer eliminate the offsides rule? I think it would make for a MUCH more exciting game.

I understand your point and have felt that way at times in the past. But I'd have to side on keeping the rule now. It is part of the game. Changing it would dramatically change the way the game is played. At one time, I would have been ok with that but now I appreciate the game the way it is played and wouldn't want to see that change.

Would you be in favor of removing the offsides rule in football too? It certainly would "open the game up".

[PassInterference]

Not having offsides would also prevent the goalie from having a fair chance to defend the goal. Imagine camping a few offensive players right in front of the goalie's face regardless of where the ball is.

[TXDawg]

It would make for a much MUCH less exciting game.

Can you explain why it would be less exciting? It seems to me that for the majority of the game (when the ball is in/around the middle 1/3 of the field), the gameplay would be pretty much unchanged. However, during the offensive attacks, there would be more break-aways and runs to the goal since the offense doesn't have to worry about being offsides.

[dawgs]

Not having offsides would also prevent the goalie from having a fair chance to defend the goal. Imagine camping a few offensive players right in front of the goalie's face regardless of where the ball is.

The game might have more scoring, but it wouldn't be more exciting. It'd just be stagnant. Not sure why think you have to have scoring to have excitement. Basketball has more scores than any other major sport, and it's the most boring to watch IMO.

[TXDawg]

Not having offsides would also prevent the goalie from having a fair chance to defend the goal. Imagine camping a few offensive players right in front of the goalie's face regardless of where the ball is.

If an offense wants to camp players, the opposing team should be able to take advantage of that on the other end of the field. If you can't, then you're forced to "camp" a couple of defenders with them. Seems like this would open the field and allow more goals. Again, making the game more exciting.

[dawgs]

Can you explain why it would be less exciting? It seems to me that for the majority of the game (when the ball is in/around the middle 1/3 of the field), the gameplay would be pretty much unchanged. However, during the offensive attacks, there would be more break-aways and runs to the goal since the offense doesn't have to worry about being offsides.

There wouldn't be runs because the guys would already be standing 5 yards in front of the goal having not moved the entire game just waiting for a long ball. And there'd be at least 1 more defender than attacker standing down there with them, which means less help on the attack, which means less ball movement and runs.

The whole point is the sync with your teammates so that runs and passes are perfectly timed. That's pretty much the entire goal on the offensive side of the ball in soccer.

[DudyDawg]

I agree that it would make more exciting games... I am also not a fan of soccer, but I am of the NHL, and they have the same rule. It would force the players to become much better at long passes, and create some good breakaways and one on one opportunities.

It would actually eliminate long passes. With the offsides rule, players who can play a good long pass in behind the defense but in front of the goalie are invaluable. If there were no offsides, there would be no space between the defense and the goalie and the game would just turn into people making short passes and dribbling past people, because secondary defenders could not come to help. They would be forced to basically play man to man defense and it would ruin the game completely. Playing a defensive line as either an offsides trap or a cover line (players chase the runners instead of trying to force them offsides) is one of the only bits of strategy that can be put in place before the game. Its the "chess" part of the game that scouting and managers have a huge impact on, and no offsides would take that bit of strategy away.

[dawgs]

If an offense wants to camp players, the opposing team should be able to take advantage of that on the other end of the field. If you can't, then you're forced to "camp" a couple of defenders with them. Seems like this would open the field and allow more goals. Again, making the game more exciting.

Goals aren't what makes it exciting. There's like 80 make shots a night in the nba. It's still boring.

[DudyDawg]

Can you explain why it would be less exciting? It seems to me that for the majority of the game (when the ball is in/around the middle 1/3 of the field), the gameplay would be pretty much unchanged. However, during the offensive attacks, there would be more break-aways and runs to the goal since the offense doesn't have to worry about being offsides.

The play in the middle third would be completely changed. Playing there is basically you holding possession until someone can find a pass that can break down the other team's back line. If no one was making a run, midfielders would just get the ball and kick it towards the box and basically see what happens. It would turn into a game of jackpot with no hands

[TXDawg]

The whole point is the sync with your teammates so that runs and passes are perfectly timed. That's pretty much the entire goal on the offensive side of the ball in soccer.

That makes sense. I just think there has to be a way to preserve that aspect of the game while allowing more flexibility for scoring. Why should you reward a defender for moving AWAY from his own goal (in order to make his opponent be offsides)? That might be good strategy, but it doesn't sound like good DEFENSE to me.

[DudyDawg]

That makes sense. I just think there has to be a way to preserve that aspect of the game while allowing more flexibility for scoring. Why should you reward a defender for moving AWAY from his own goal (in order to make his opponent be offsides)? That might be good strategy, but it doesn't sound like good DEFENSE to me.

Its great defense. Half of the goals scored are because one defender was out of position by two feet and it allowed a guy to score. Dempsey would've been offsides had that defender not fallen down and been slow to get up literally inches between Clint and the goal. There are guys who are paid millions because of their ability to communicate and sync four defenders in a perfect line that forces players offsides. Think of playing the offsides trap like blitzing in football. You have to know when to push up and force the action (blitz/offsides) or when to sit back and let them come at you and try to stop them. The rule adds strategy to a game that is more focused on creativity and improvisations.

[PassInterference]

If an offense wants to camp players, the opposing team should be able to take advantage of that on the other end of the field. If you can't, then you're forced to "camp" a couple of defenders with them. Seems like this would open the field and allow more goals. Again, making the game more exciting.

You are assuming that offensive players contribute a lot to playing defense.

They play some defense, but camping offensive players is not nearly the glaring defensive liability that it is in a sport like basketball or hockey with fewer players on a smaller surface.

[smootness]

There's a reason it was first implemented. The game would be terrible without it.

First, every team is definitely going to camp one or two guys right up next to the goal because, why not? That means the defense is also going to keep at least a couple of men down there. Sure, the theory might be that the offensive players aren't down to support the defense, but you're not going to leave them alone for easy goals up top, so you're going to naturally take away that advantage by keeping defenders back. That means that it will be more like 7-on-7 or 8-on-8 in the midfield, and there is no opportunity for a lot of the different types of goals you see now.

Essentially, the only ways to score then would be crosses into the box or kicking it into the box and hoping the mass confusion leads to the ball finding the net. Considering that much of the beauty of soccer comes from the fact that there are an infinite number of ways to get the ball in the net right now, that would be awful to watch and would take away a good bit of the skill currently required to play the game.

Take Messi. If he's camped near the goal, his size gives him a disadvantage and his dribbling is mostly taken away. If he's not near the goal, there is a ton of traffic ahead of him, and most likely his coach is just going to want him to kick it up to the strikers, who will turn into 6'5" brawlers just to muscle their way into goals up front. You've just taken the best player in the world, who's amazing to watch, and reduced him to having minimal impact.

Imagine removing it in hockey and just having two guys sitting in front of the goalie at all times. It may lead to more goals, but how on earth is that more exciting? The exciting part of soccer is not watching someone add another number to the scoreboard. It's watching the build-up to goals and watching how different players try to accomplish that.

[dawgs]

There's a reason it was first implemented. The game would be terrible without it.

First, every team is definitely going to camp one or two guys right up next to the goal because, why not? That means the defense is also going to keep at least a couple of men down there. Sure, the theory might be that the offensive players aren't down to support the defense, but you're not going to leave them alone for easy goals up top, so you're going to naturally take away that advantage by keeping defenders back. That means that it will be more like 7-on-7 or 8-on-8 in the midfield, and there is no opportunity for a lot of the different types of goals you see now.

Essentially, the only ways to score then would be crosses into the box or kicking it into the box and hoping the mass confusion leads to the ball finding the net. Considering that much of the beauty of soccer comes from the fact that there are an infinite number of ways to get the ball in the net right now, that would be awful to watch and would take away a good bit of the skill currently required to play the game.

Take Messi. If he's camped near the goal, his size gives him a disadvantage and his dribbling is mostly taken away. If he's not near the goal, there is a ton of traffic ahead of him, and most likely his coach is just going to want him to kick it up to the strikers, who will turn into 6'5" brawlers just to muscle their way into goals up front. You've just taken the best player in the world, who's amazing to watch, and reduced him to having minimal impact.

Imagine removing it in hockey and just having two guys sitting in front of the goalie at all times. It may lead to more goals, but how on earth is that more exciting? The exciting part of soccer is not watching someone add another number to the scoreboard. It's watching the build-up to goals and watching how different players try to accomplish that.

This. Pretty much everything I wanted to say but didn't wanna type out completely on my phone.

[DudyDawg]

This. Pretty much everything I wanted to say but didn't wanna type out completely on my phone.

Lazy ass**

[Randy]

FYI. It's offside. Not offsides like in football.

[PassInterference]

I say Starkville. You say Starksville.

[Randy]

I say Starkville. You say Starksville.

Starkvegas baby.

[gravedigger]

the WHY question: the same reason American football doesn't.

[DudyDawg]

the WHY question: the same reason American football doesn't.

What?

[TheRef]

Starkvegas baby.

Dammit, Randy!!!

[gravedigger]

The same reason a receiver can't just run down field before the ball is hiked.

[fishwater99]

The same reason a receiver can't just run down field before the ball is hiked.

Exactly... What if you had 2 or 3 receivers standing in the end-zone at all times?

[DudyDawg]

The same reason a receiver can't just run down field before the ball is hiked.

Ohhhh okay. Gotcha

[smootness]

Exactly... What if you had 2 or 3 receivers standing in the end-zone at all times?

More points!

[thf24]

Goals aren't what makes it exciting. There's like 80 make shots a night in the nba. It's still boring.

While I agree with that point, basing it on your opinion that the NBA is boring isn't a valid argument.

[sleepy dawg]

The game might have more scoring, but it wouldn't be more exciting. It'd just be stagnant. Not sure why think you have to have scoring to have excitement. Basketball has more scores than any other major sport, and it's the most boring to watch IMO.

Basketball is more exciting than soccer... "it's not an opinion, it's a fact"

[DudyDawg]

Basketball is more exciting than soccer... "it's not an opinion, it's a fact"

I disagree. I find soccer way more entertaining than basketball. So that would make it opinion??

[sleepy dawg]

I disagree with so many of these points... For starters, the comparison to the Football offsides is way off... In football, offsides occurs in a preplay scenario where play is halted. This is like comparing apples and ... oceans.

Someone made the comparison to NHL, which is a good one, but you still don't see NHL players camping at the blue line. If there is some desire to have a permanent player by the goal, why wouldn't they get them as close as they can now? In my recreational hockey playing, we never had offsides, and no one camped. It provided for more breakaways, and that's about it. Also, you didn't have to clear everyone out if the puck went behind a certain point. The forced clear out is the worst part of offsides to me.
They used to have the 2 line pass rule in the NHL, which had a very similar intent as the offsides rule. It was eliminated, and I think it made the sport better. It did not completely destroy passing. It did encourage a few more breakaways, which added to the excitement, and frees up players to make better set ups.

In a similar sense, basketball has no offsides, but you don't see offensive players sitting at the other end of the court hoping their team gets the ball at some point.

I do not believe all these negative scenarios being painted by everyone would be nearly as extreme as they are making it out to be. Yes, some teams would try to camp. Yes, there would be more breakaways. Yes there would be a little more scoring.

The main thing is that most sports fans usually don't like rule changes to the way the game is played. Most non fans of that sport are eager to point out what rule changes would make the game more likely for them to watch.

To add, in 1990 the rule was amended to adjudge an attacker as onside if level with the second-to-last opponent. This change was part of a general movement by the game's authorities to make the rules more conducive to attacking football and help the game to flow more freely... It needs to be weakened again.

[sleepy dawg]

I disagree. I find soccer way more entertaining than basketball. So that would make it opinion??

That was a jab at user "dawgs" who basically said the same thing to me.

[DudyDawg]

There would be ZERO breakaways because there would always be a defender back. Comparing hockey and basketball camping to soccer is apples and oceans because in those sports, there are five players who play both ways and they don't play on a 110 yard field. Its 100 feet. So all players are constantly involved and thus cancel out camping.

[DudyDawg]

That was a jab at user "dawgs" who basically said the same thing to me.

Didn't see that. You're correct, that was stupid of him.

[DudyDawg]

Also, the us Portugal game had more viewers than every game of the NBA finals, including the clinching one. And that is with the biggest name in the game involved. So tides may be turning whether people like it or not. Could be a fad, could be permanent. Who knows

[thf24]

Also, the us Portugal game had more viewers than every game of the NBA finals, including the clinching one. And that is with the biggest name in the game involved. So tides may be turning whether people like it or not. Could be a fad, could be permanent. Who knows

Is that more viewers in the US, or total viewers? Because the former would be fairly significant (although still not completely unexpected since there are more fans of the USA than the Miami Heat or San Antonio Spurs), while the latter would be a no-brainer.

[TheRef]

Is that more viewers in the US, or total viewers? Because the former would be fairly significant (although still not completely unexpected since there are more fans of the USA than the Miami Heat or San Antonio Spurs), while the latter would be a no-brainer.

It's the Former. Highest ever ESPN rating excluding NFL and College Football. They beat NBA, MLB, and any other sport on ESPN viewing.

[DudyDawg]

US alone

[DudyDawg]

Also, ESPN alone. So people like Will, errrrr Pioneer who watched on Univision don't count

[thf24]

It's the Former. Highest ever ESPN rating excluding NFL and College Football. They beat NBA, MLB, and any other sport on ESPN viewing.

Pretty cool. I'm not the biggest soccer fan, but I've always wanted to see it get bigger and better in the US. Looks like that's happening.

[TXDawg]

Also, the us Portugal game had more viewers than every game of the NBA finals, including the clinching one. And that is with the biggest name in the game involved. So tides may be turning whether people like it or not. Could be a fad, could be permanent. Who knows

It's because it's the World Cup and it only happens every four years. There are plenty of non-fans and casual fans watching these matches because it's Team USA. Get back to us when a regular season MLS game draws a higher rating than MLB, NFL, NCAAFB, or NBA.

Back to the original topic: I appreciate the discussion and explanation of the offsides rule and possible consequences of removing it. I tend to agree with Sleepy Dawg, though when he pointed out that non-fans of a given sport sometimes have a more open mind about improvements that can be made to a particular sport. I think weakening the offsides rule could be done in a way preserves the game. Maybe offsides doesn't get called as long as the ball is played from your offensive half of the field.

[DudyDawg]

It's because it's the World Cup and it only happens every four years. There are plenty of non-fans and casual fans watching these matches because it's Team USA. Get back to us when a regular season MLS game draws a higher rating than MLB, NFL, NCAAFB, or NBA.

Back to the original topic: I appreciate the discussion and explanation of the offsides rule and possible consequences of removing it. I tend to agree with Sleepy Dawg, though when he pointed out that non-fans of a given sport sometimes have a more open mind about improvements that can be made to a particular sport. I think weakening the offsides rule could be done in a way preserves the game. Maybe offsides doesn't get called as long as the ball is played from your offensive half of the field.

I wasn't arguing that it was bigger or anything yet, just thought the number was interesting. Also, MLS already gets more attendance than MLB on average I believe

[hacker]

It's because it's the World Cup and it only happens every four years. There are plenty of non-fans and casual fans watching these matches because it's Team USA. Get back to us when a regular season MLS game draws a higher rating than MLB, NFL, NCAAFB, or NBA.

Back to the original topic: I appreciate the discussion and explanation of the offsides rule and possible consequences of removing it. I tend to agree with Sleepy Dawg, though when he pointed out that non-fans of a given sport sometimes have a more open mind about improvements that can be made to a particular sport. I think weakening the offsides rule could be done in a way preserves the game. Maybe offsides doesn't get called as long as the ball is played from your offensive half of the field.

World Baseball Classic, Basketball @ Olympics happen every 4 years too.

And to the original question: the rule was implemented to fix a problem.

[dawgs]

That was a jab at user "dawgs" who basically said the same thing to me.

I didn't say your opinion was wrong whether basketball or soccer was more entertaining, I said it's a fact that doing away with offside would result is more stagnant play and not make the game more exciting. That is a bonafide fact that has nothing to do with opinion.

I find soccer more exciting than basketball, but that's an opinion and was not the subject of my "it's an opinion, it's a fact" comment. So don't try to misinterpret my post to make me sound like a bigger asshole.

[dawgs]

I wasn't arguing that it was bigger or anything yet, just thought the number was interesting. Also, MLS already gets more attendance than MLB on average I believe

MLS draws more on average than the nba and nhl, still trails mlb.

[dawgs]

It's because it's the World Cup and it only happens every four years. There are plenty of non-fans and casual fans watching these matches because it's Team USA. Get back to us when a regular season MLS game draws a higher rating than MLB, NFL, NCAAFB, or NBA.


If you don't see the seeds growing though, you have on blinders. Of course the WC draws more than MLS, but MLS is still growing, and of only 5% of the casual fans of the WC get excited about MLS, that's a huge bump and still a very small portion of the WC viewers. And that's how you grow a sustainable league, you gradually grow your fanbase organically.

[DudyDawg]

Still, in smaller stadiums, the MLS gets a higher average percentage I believe, and there are a decent handful of MLS teams that average more than some MLB ones. The growth is pretty impressive from a business standpoint

[smootness]

The measure of whether or not soccer is growing in the US isn't necessarily tied to the MLS anyway. It's not a top league, and everyone knows that. You can find EPL games and all kinds do soccer on TV now if you want, it's not just about whether or not people are watching MLS.

But the fact that MLS is growing, and attendance is where it is, given that people know it isn't the top level, is impressive nonetheless.

[dawgs]

The measure of whether or not soccer is growing in the US isn't necessarily tied to the MLS anyway. It's not a top league, and everyone knows that. You can find EPL games and all kinds do soccer on TV now if you want, it's not just about whether or not people are watching MLS.

But the fact that MLS is growing, and attendance is where it is, given that people know it isn't the top level, is impressive nonetheless.

I love rolling over in bed and watching the 2nd half of an epl match on a Saturday morning before getting the day started.

[tcdog70]

There's a reason it was first implemented. The game would be terrible without it.

First, every team is definitely going to camp one or two guys right up next to the goal because, why not? That means the defense is also going to keep at least a couple of men down there. Sure, the theory might be that the offensive players aren't down to support the defense, but you're not going to leave them alone for easy goals up top, so you're going to naturally take away that advantage by keeping defenders back. That means that it will be more like 7-on-7 or 8-on-8 in the midfield, and there is no opportunity for a lot of the different types of goals you see now.

Essentially, the only ways to score then would be crosses into the box or kicking it into the box and hoping the mass confusion leads to the ball finding the net. Considering that much of the beauty of soccer comes from the fact that there are an infinite number of ways to get the ball in the net right now, that would be awful to watch and would take away a good bit of the skill currently required to play the game.

Take Messi. If he's camped near the goal, his size gives him a disadvantage and his dribbling is mostly taken away. If he's not near the goal, there is a ton of traffic ahead of him, and most likely his coach is just going to want him to kick it up to the strikers, who will turn into 6'5" brawlers just to muscle their way into goals up front. You've just taken the best player in the world, who's amazing to watch, and reduced him to having minimal impact.

Imagine removing it in hockey and just having two guys sitting in front of the goalie at all times. It may lead to more goals, but how on earth is that more exciting? The exciting part of soccer is not watching someone add another number to the scoreboard. It's watching the build-up to goals and watching how different players try to accomplish that.


dang, nice Smoot,I'm impressed with your Soccer Smarts

[hacker]

I love rolling over in bed and watching the 2nd half of an epl match on a Saturday morning before getting the day started.

World Cup has really gotten me into soccer. I'm going to be doing this this summ--... uhh, when the hell is league soccer played?

[dawgs]

World Cup has really gotten me into soccer. I'm going to be doing this this summ--... uhh, when the hell is league soccer played?

well mls runs from march until november, but the big euro leagues and champions league runs from september to may. you can catch epl games early on a fall satuday before college football starts. much better than watching gameday 90% of the time.

[TheRef]

well mls runs from march until november, but the big euro leagues and champions league runs from september to may. you can catch epl games early on a fall satuday before college football starts. much better than watching gameday 90% of the time.

Barclay's Premiere League will be shown on NBC now in the US. So now there will be an official channel to watch games from the BPL.

[dawgs]

Barclay's Premiere League will be shown on NBC now in the US. So now there will be an official channel to watch games from the BPL.

It was this past season, i was watching games on nbcsports.

[DudyDawg]

La Liga in Spain is during the same time period if you want to see Real Madrid or Barcelona play. Their games are usually a few hours later as well so you don't have to get up as early to watch. They play on BEINsports

[TheRef]

It was this past season, i was watching games on nbcsports.

It will be shown on network NBC now, I believe

[hacker]

so, BPL and La Liga are the top leagues in Europe? I recognize a lot of team names in those two. The number of leagues and teams has always been quite confusing for me. I know a few teams in the Bundesliga too.

[TheRef]

so, BPL and La Liga are the top leagues in Europe? I recognize a lot of team names in those two. The number of leagues and teams has always been quite confusing for me. I know a few teams in the Bundesliga too.

The thing about the Futbol Leagues in Europe, they have relegation and promotion of teams. If you're not doing well that season, there's a possibility of you being relegated to the league below you.

[DudyDawg]

My list of top leagues would be
1. La Liga (Spain)
2. EPL (England)
3. Bubdesliga (Germany)
4. Serie A (Italy)
5. Ligue 1 (France)

[dawgs]

My list of top leagues would be
1. La Liga (Spain)
2. EPL (England)
3. Bubdesliga (Germany)
4. Serie A (Italy)
5. Ligue 1 (France)

I'd put epl and bundesliga ahead of la liga. La liga obviously has 2 of the best and most popular clubs in the world (Real Madrid and Barcelona), but overall, is far more top heavy than epl and bundesliga. And not like epl and bundesliga are lacking for top end strength either.

[dawgs]

It will be shown on network NBC now, I believe

They may be expanded their network coverage next season, but nbc did carry some games last season.

[hacker]

I'd put epl and bundesliga ahead of la liga. La liga obviously has 2 of the best and most popular clubs in the world (Real Madrid and Barcelona), but overall, is far more top heavy than epl and bundesliga. And not like epl and bundesliga are lacking for top end strength either.

Is there any inter-league play?

[DudyDawg]

I'd put epl and bundesliga ahead of la liga. La liga obviously has 2 of the best and most popular clubs in the world (Real Madrid and Barcelona), but overall, is far more top heavy than epl and bundesliga. And not like epl and bundesliga are lacking for top end strength either.

I wouldn't. Mostly because of the European competition the past two seasons. We call OOC football the measure of a conference and the SEC dominates, so does la Liga. Last year of the 8 semi finalists in Champions League and Europa League, six were in la Liga. Meaning the first and second tier of la Liga is better by far than anywhere. And I wouldn't really consider it top heavy. Yes, there are three horses that almost always win. But that's not bc of a lack if ability at the bottom, they are just so good that real and barca would win any league consistently. All of the bottom feeders in Spain are main suppliers of talent both to La Liga powers and English ones.

[DudyDawg]

Is there any inter-league play?
Yes. Google UEFA Champions league and Europa league

[TheRef]

Is there any inter-league play?

The only real inter-league play to speak of is Champions League or EURO

Simple explanation of Champions League is found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Champions_League

[dawgs]

Essentially the champions league is a giant ncaa tourney like playoff (not exactly with group play, 2 legs, etc., but you get the point) that last months of all the best European club teams from the previous season. Europa league is like the NIT.

[Dawg61]

My list of top leagues would be
1. La Liga (Spain)
2. EPL (England)
3. Bubdesliga (Germany)
4. Serie A (Italy)
5. Ligue 1 (France)


This is one of the things that bugs me with soccer. There's too many damn leagues. Add in Champions league and MLS all during the NFL and College football seasons and well it's just too damn much to follow. I love the World Cup because it simplifies it all and the average fan can follow it much better. I'll follow the EPL league but that's it. Soccer just isn't that cool to warrant following eight different leagues at the same time.

[DudyDawg]

Simple fix. Pick a team, for whatever reason (like their name,jersey, style) and follow them. Watch every game they play and pretty quickly you'll learn it all without having to try, just purely by seeing it

[Pioneer Dawg]

The thing about the Futbol Leagues in Europe, they have relegation and promotion of teams. If you're not doing well that season, there's a possibility of you being relegated to the league below you.

It would be very cool if our sports did this.. It would eliminate the race to the bottom aspects of sports. Also allow for more regional professional fandom. Eliminate the major league control over the minor league teams. The Mississippi Braves could eventually be promoted to the Big Leagues!

[DudyDawg]

Also, it would make the Bucks-pistons game just as exciting, if not more, than a Heat-Pacers one because the bad teams are fighting for survival. It's really awesome

[TheRef]

It would be very cool if our sports did this.. It would eliminate the race to the bottom aspects of sports. Also allow for more regional professional fandom. Eliminate the major league control over the minor league teams. The Mississippi Braves could eventually be promoted to the Big Leagues!

Let's put it this way...before this past season, Cardiff City FC was not in the BPL. Cardiff City is rivals with Swansea City FC. They didn't do very well and were relegated back down to the league below. This motivates you to constantly keep up your team and make them the best as possible.

[TheRef]

FYI: Premier League Schedules have been released for the 2014-2015 Season

Manchester United v. Chelsea Match-days: Sat. October 25, 2014 10:00 AM CDT, Sat. April 18, 2015 10:00 AM CDT

[Dawg61]

Simple fix. Pick a team, for whatever reason (like their name,jersey, style) and follow them. Watch every game they play and pretty quickly you'll learn it all without having to try, just purely by seeing it

I picked a league not a team and I went with the EPL two years ago. I still don't have a favorite team I just enjoy watching that league. Liverpool, Man U, Man C, Everton, Chelsea, Arsenal, Tottenheim etc.. it is the best league to follow imo and has the best announcers (which is huge for me for soccer).

[dawgs]

It would be very cool if our sports did this.. It would eliminate the race to the bottom aspects of sports. Also allow for more regional professional fandom. Eliminate the major league control over the minor league teams. The Mississippi Braves could eventually be promoted to the Big Leagues!

It'd take a total restructuring of the major league system to work.

I think the best set up for a relegation type system might be college sports, especially if the big 5 conferences break away. But you'd never see universities agree to that.

[DudyDawg]

I picked a league not a team and I went with the EPL two years ago. I still don't have a favorite team I just enjoy watching that league. Liverpool, Man U, Man C, Everton, Chelsea, Arsenal, Tottenheim etc.. it is the best league to follow imo and has the best announcers (which is huge for me for soccer).

Nice. Follow all of those teams when they play in Europe as well and it'll all become clear pretty easily.

[DudyDawg]

And by Europe I mean not in the EPL games

[Dawg61]

Nice. Follow all of those teams when they play in Europe as well and it'll all become clear pretty easily.

You are saying follow them when they qualify for the Champions League and watch that league too? Is the Champions league the playoffs for the EPL or does the EPL also have its own playoffs after the regular season is finished?

[hacker]

The only real inter-league play to speak of is Champions League or EURO

Simple explanation of Champions League is found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Champions_League

This says qualifying begins on July 1? How does that work if a lot of players are in Brazil?

[TheRef]

You are saying follow them when they qualify for the Champions League and watch that league too? Is the Champions league the playoffs for the EPL or does the EPL also have its own playoffs after the regular season is finished?

EPL does not have a playoff system. It's just a season and if you're on top of the table at the end, then you win the BPL. Top 5 Qualify for UEFA Champions League I believe.

[Pioneer Dawg]

You are saying follow them when they qualify for the Champions League and watch that league too? Is the Champions league the playoffs for the EPL or does the EPL also have its own playoffs after the regular season is finished?

It's just called the "Champions League"

Its not really a "League" but a tournament that takes place over the course of the year.

Similar tournaments are played throughout the year (FA Cup, Europa Cup, Capitol One Cup)

[DudyDawg]

EPL does not have a playoff system. It's just a season and if you're on top of the table at the end, then you win the BPL. Top 5 Qualify for UEFA Champions League I believe.

Top four. Seeding is July 1.

The teams qualify for Champions League (a tournament of teams from leagues all over Europe) based on how they finish the previous year in their domestic league. Each European domestic league is allotted a certain number of spots in the CL. These teams play a tournament with group and then knock out stages. Google it for a better explanation

[dawgs]

Top four. Seeding is July 1.

The teams qualify for Champions League (a tournament of teams from leagues all over Europe) based on how they finish the previous year in their domestic league. Each European domestic league is allotted a certain number of spots in the CL. These teams play a tournament with group and then knock out stages. Google it for a better explanation

Also teams from the 2nd tier leagues and that barely qualified for the champions league in the 1st tier leagues have to go through a qualifying round, while the higher seeded (for lack of a better term) clubs get a bye, right?

I don't know all the ins and outs, it's pretty complicated, and I don't usually start paying attention until the qualifying rounds end.