SpongeWorthy

That's a mild surprise. I was sort of expecting lots of hemming and hawing about why this transition should last longer than the US's involvement in World War I.

As long as we're all admitting that these things aren't very quantifiable then couldn't I argue that England might play worse by feeling additional pressure as opposed to playing better because they have to try harder?

Kyle's point isn't necessarily moot, just misguided. It's been fun arguing with people who spend much less energy following and understanding the subtleties of a sport than USSoccer and I, but since it's clear you're happy in your obstinacy, I'll leave it at this. A 65% chance is better than a 55% chance. Beyond that, more than any other sport, soccer is difficult to quantify. Unlike baseball, abstract things like confidence and momentum matter. With all the importance stressed on this game both among fans/media and the teams themselves, getting a point is very important. What's more important is the confidence and momentum it imparts to the US team. The US and England will advance. They probably would have advanced even if England won, but to say you're not sure how this helps just shows your ignorance of the sport. I see what you're saying. I would question why momentum and confidence don't matter in baseball just because it's quantifiable though. I think those are the wrong adjectives. Chemistry or something like that, sure. Soccer requires far more teamwork than baseball.

Keep hammering overly simplistic explanations that miss important nuances with heavyhanded sarcasm. It's apparently the only club in your bag, so I can see why you feel the need to use it every shot. The only realistic scenario in which the point against England makes the difference between advancing and not advancing is if the U.S. draws with either Slovenia and Algeria, defeats the other one by a narrow margin, the one that we draw against beats the one that we lost against by a large margin, and the one that we draw against manages to lose to England narrowly. That exact scenario has a slim chance of happening. In the World Cup system, the marginal value of "points" is not nearly as absolute as you want to pretend it is. Some points are huge, some are relatively unimportant. You just made my argument for me. Thank you, Kyle. In a tournament when there is so little margin for error, leaving points on the table is unacceptable. As unrealistic as your proposed scenario is, it could still happen and if it does, you spend the next 4 years kicking yourself for it. Last year at the Confed's Cup we lost two terrible games and had to beat Egypt, the two-time reigning African Champions 3-0 and had to have Italy lose to Brazil 3-0. That was the only scenario where we would advance. I think if you went to some Italian message board, there'd probably be some misguided, under-informed poster arguing like you, that leaving points on the table against Egypt in the second game wasn't a bad thing because it didn't effect their odds of advancing due to the unlikelihood of the confluence of events that happened to happen. But it did. So please stop being dumb, it's ruining my favorite thread. So some weird crap happened in the Confederations Cup so Kyle's point is moot? If that's the counter argument you would've made if Kyle hadn't made it for you then I would say he is basically right--there isn't much of a difference between a loss and a tie.

Onyewu had one really bad giveaway way up field that Howard was exposed on. He got better after that though.

How much realistic improvement can we expect from the young, core guys? I'm guessing Kane and Toews and can still get better right and even Keith from what you guys say. That should help lessen the blow of losing some pieces.

2 million is more than the estimated crowd at Obama's inauguration. I just don't think it's a realistic number.

Well I think the announcers have unrealistic expectations with the level of precision, yes. But that's not where my problem lies. Obviously any sport where you play primarily with your feet is going to be less precise than a sport played with your hands. I do think that's a reason why the sport hasn't caught on big here--there aren't enough "things" happening.

Here's my problem with soccer: 75% of what comes out of the announcers mouth (rough estimate) is about how Player X needs to or usually does better when shooting, crossing, heading, etc. except guys are routinely launching the ball 10 yards off target or going way over their teammates head when crossing.

I find that claim dubious, at best.

Apparently the key to beating Mexico is to have your goalie bomb it deep over the top...guaranteed quality chance.

So this is the world's biggest sporting event and it only happens every four years and they get announcers who don't know the offsides rule backwards and forwards.

The one close replay I saw showed that the goalie might not have gotten off in time. It was a lot closer than the commentators made it seem though. They really seemed to think that the guy on the goal line was all that mattered and they started speculating about a possible hand ball or some other infraction. Are the announcers just stupid?

Yeah I thought it had to be one guy between the attacker and the goalkeeper. The commentators made it seem like the guy on the goal line was all that was needed.

So Kyle was not dismayed by a 2 month stretch of mediocre hockey but was ready to throw in the towel after Game 3 of the SCF :cool:

What was the season long Kyle/dexter argument about?

If there's any justice the SEC will be absorbed by the AFC South so they can compete with teams on a more equal footing.

I'm getting pretty damn excited right now. That would be a pretty swift kick in the balls for the Pac 10 with USC now neutered. I guess OU is still nice.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/42/82308120_353c2a9160.jpg

Texas and OU aren't going to be in the Pac 10 this season.

Meaning the NCAA didn't want to annoy its television partners by pulling the only national draw the Pac 10 has. I bet USC does really good television numbers this season.

My understanding is that the NCAA can waive the 1 year transfer rule if a postseason ban is as long as their remaining eligibility. So I think juniors and seniors can transfer and play somewhere else immediately.

Here's the report: http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2010/division+i/bowl+ban+among+penalties+for+southern+california • Scholarship reductions in football (to 15 initial grants and 75 total grants for each of the 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 academic years, which represents a decrease of 10 scholarships for each of the three seasons) What does that mean?

The scholarship reductions are 30 over 3 years.

I don't know. I don't really think about what constitutes some idea of justice. No crimes were being committed here so I'm not going to concern myself with it. All I know is that the next two years will suck more than they otherwise would have and that I'll still watch way too much college football on Saturdays.