Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Yeah I don't get the appeal of soccer.  Let's run around around for 90 minutes and then add an extra 30 minutes and still end up in a zero-zero tie.  Then change the rules to shootout because that's the only way to break the tie.  Who wins seems so much based on luck. 

I just don't like games where nobody scores.  To appeal to me,  the rules need to change to average about 10 goals a game.  Then you have a clear winner most of the time.  I don't care how you do it.  You can make the goal bigger,  or not let the goalie use his hands,  or let the other players bat the ball volley ball style with their hands.  But do something. 

I would watch boxing or for that matter paint drying before I'd watch soccer.

Of course. 

I'd put watching soccer right up there with watching a marching band

I'll take the band.

Yeah I don't get the appeal of soccer.  Let's run around around for 90 minutes and then add an extra 30 minutes and still end up in a zero-zero tie.  Then change the rules to shootout because that's the only way to break the tie.  Who wins seems so much based on luck.

I just don't like games where nobody scores.  To appeal to me,  the rules need to change to average about 10 goals a game.  Then you have a clear winner most of the time.  I don't care how you do it.  You can make the goal bigger,  or not let the goalie use his hands,  or let the other players bat the ball volley ball style with their hands.  But do something.

I think there's a goldilocks point. I.e. basketball there is so much scoring that it's almost like no individual score is meaningful, and if one team is dominant the game becomes uninteresting. If one team isn't dominant, then the game is boring up until the last 5 minutes because any individual run doesn't really portend much as the other team might well answer. 

Football and baseball IMHO are in the goldilocks zone. Scoring is intermittent enough that every score is meaningful. And scoring generally is a result of building momentum (driving the field in football and getting runners on base and in scoring position in baseball), although there are obviously big plays and dingers that are individual. And scoring is meaningful enough that driving the field and settling for a field goal, or leaving runners stranded at the end of the inning, actually seem like REAL letdowns. 

I feel like both soccer and hockey suffer from scoring that is so minimal that it depends more on the goalie having a good day than the better team winning, at least much of the time. A team can control the flow of the game, get 15 shots on goal but the goalie blocks them all, while the other team only manages 2 shots on goal but they sneak past and that team wins 2-0. It seems like a lot of randomness of outcome, which is fine when you play a series of 7 (like in hockey), but not so much when you're playing single matches (like in soccer). 

ever since Pele

I think there's a goldilocks point. I.e. basketball there is so much scoring that it's almost like no individual score is meaningful, and if one team is dominant the game becomes uninteresting. If one team isn't dominant, then the game is boring up until the last 5 minutes because any individual run doesn't really portend much as the other team might well answer.

Football and baseball IMHO are in the goldilocks zone. Scoring is intermittent enough that every score is meaningful. And scoring generally is a result of building momentum (driving the field in football and getting runners on base and in scoring position in baseball), although there are obviously big plays and dingers that are individual. And scoring is meaningful enough that driving the field and settling for a field goal, or leaving runners stranded at the end of the inning, actually seem like REAL letdowns.

I feel like both soccer and hockey suffer from scoring that is so minimal that it depends more on the goalie having a good day than the better team winning, at least much of the time. A team can control the flow of the game, get 15 shots on goal but the goalie blocks them all, while the other team only manages 2 shots on goal but they sneak past and that team wins 2-0. It seems like a lot of randomness of outcome, which is fine when you play a series of 7 (like in hockey), but not so much when you're playing single matches (like in soccer).

Although some people find tennis to be super boring,  I like the fact in order for the match to progress points need to be won (or lost depending how you look at it)  Eventually games are won and sets are won.  Finally the match is won.  There is a nice progression to it even if 1 player dominates.  Same with VOLLEYBALL, or ping pong, I guess. 

Really, Baseball, Tennis, Volleyball, ping pong are all games of ins and outs.  As long as the ball or player stays in, the game keeps going.  When a ball or player is out,  the game progresses to the next stage. 

If i can find the right stakes, I can learn to enjoy most of it. 

Granted, if it's a semi-random game, my order would be
Football
Basketball
Hockey
Baseball (college more than the majors) or Soccer (Only because my TV is such that any game on is probably of some quality)

I also realized I'd rather watch the replay of a good old college game over a live NFL preseason game, which feels very weird.