world cup thread

[Taelas]

But in number of competitors? Not unless you count all the teams that couldn't make the 32. And in number of spectators? The numbers I see are in the high 10s of thousands for World Cup, and in the low 100s of thousands for NASCAR.

So, yeah, soccer probably is the biggest sport in many ways. But the claim about the World Cup isn't that clear.

--Pete

It is quite a bit more expensive to go to the World Cup -- which attracts spectators from all over the world -- than it is to go watch NASCAR. Still, the spectators at the stadiums in 2006 averaged just over 50,000 per match, which is almost the absolute maximum possible (all matches were sold out and filled to 99.5% capacity, according to this, and while FIFA have been accused of fiddling with numbers in the past, that was of TV viewers -- not spectators.)

I can't find any data on NASCAR spectators, so I'll have to take your word for it that NASCAR attracts "low hundreds of thousands".

That completely ignores the television audience, which absolutely blows NASCAR out of the water. Even this link, which debunks FIFA's exaggerated numbers, list NASCAR as 6th, with a 240 million viewers difference from the World Cup final.... or about twelve times more than NASCAR.

[--Pete]

Hi,

You're measuring the number of spectators per event?

Spectators per event, spectators for the season. Either way. And, yes, motorways typically have much more capacity (indeed, the official capacity is often just a fraction of the total when you include infield, etc.) Still, that may be the reason, but the fact remains.

It is quite a bit more expensive to go to the World Cup -- which attracts spectators from all over the world -- than it is to go watch NASCAR. Still, the spectators at the stadiums in 2006 averaged just over 50,000 per match, which is almost the absolute maximum possible (all matches were sold out and filled to 99.5% capacity, according to this, and while FIFA have been accused of fiddling with numbers in the past, that was of TV viewers -- not spectators.)

OK, that's about 3.2 million spectators for the season.

I can't find any data on NASCAR spectators, so I'll have to take your word for it that NASCAR attracts "low hundreds of thousands".

This will give you some idea of the size of the venues. If you're looking through the table, keep in mind that only the Sprint Cup are the top event. Adding the other events would (unfairly) inflate the numbers. Total official seating capacity for all cup events is about 5 million (note that some venues are used more than one time per season). The last two years have been bad for NASCAR attendance because of the economy. But attendance would have to drop to about 60% (official) capacity to get to World Cup levels.

That completely ignores the television audience, which absolutely blows NASCAR out of the water.

I believe I conceded that point a post or two ago. And never claimed otherwise in the first place. It is only with 'number of participants' and 'number of (live) spectators' that I'm not sure of the claim.

--Pete

[Taelas]

Why does it matter whether the spectators are live or not? As Jester said, that puts a hard cap on them. The stadium can only fit so many people. It also doesn't take into account the accessibility of the event in question. I can understand arguing participants, but not spectators.

[Lissa]

But in number of competitors? Not unless you count all the teams that couldn't make the 32. And in number of spectators? The numbers I see are in the high 10s of thousands for World Cup, and in the low 100s of thousands for NASCAR.

You're measuring the number of spectators per event?

I would have thought that the size of the stadium would be the prohibitive factor there. Even the world's largest soccer stadiums (stadii?) barely seat 100,000 people.

-Jester

The stands at a NASCAR event can hold anywhere from 30,000 to 60,000. Then there is the infield where still more people (typcally in RVs) watch the race and can number a similar amount to more than the stands themselves. The Indianapolis 500 is used by both Indy car racing as well as NASCAR. With the potential to have 400k spectators at one event, no other sport comes close to the number of spectators at one single event.

[--Pete]

Hi,

The stands at a NASCAR event can hold anywhere from 30,000 to 60,000. Then there is the infield where still more people (typcally in RVs) watch the race and can number a similar amount to more than the stands themselves.

I think the numbers in this table are for the stands. I base that partially on the table note saying the number is for the seats, and partially for the Indi track which is listed at 257,325 in the table, and the article which says "257,000 people, and infield seating that raises capacity further to an approximate 400,000."

The numbers they give, for seats in the tracks used for the Sprint Cup Series, are more like 41 to 275 thousand (plus infield). Which only reinforces your claim. Didn't want you to fall short.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Why does it matter whether the spectators are live or not?

Travel cost and time, price of tickets, etc. Even I have watched a minute or two of soccer on the tube -- doesn't make me a fan.

And, the number of TV viewers is notoriously difficult to measure. Self reporting sucks, telephone surveys are hardly better, and basing it on feedback from cable sets doesn't work (my set stays on all the time, doesn't even have a power switch; when it's not recording something, it just stays on the last channel used -- for viewing or recording).

I can understand arguing participants, but not spectators.

I can't really understand arguing either topic -- or much of anything about sports. They're just not that important or interesting. I can understand discussing some things. As to viewers versus spectators, yeah, the size of the soccer stadia is a limiting factor. Then again, there is no international TV coverage of NASCAR, which kinda is limiting too.

--Pete

[Nystul]

I imagine the World Cup may be the biggest sports tournament in the world as far as worldwide interest level, although it is nearly impossible to qualify. China, Russia, and U.S. probably generate far more interest in the Olympics, and that's a ton of people, so I dunno.

Since we have this racing tangent, I have a little story. I had the chance once to march a parade around the oval before the Indy 500. It was pretty cool. Marching through those banked turns, I realized they are really banked a lot more than they look on TV. After the parade, we went to the infield to watch the race. Then it started pouring rain, and everyone had to duck under tarps. I think that was like the only time the Indy 500 got postponed. So lucky me has never seen the race live. But I did get to march around the track until one leg was shorter than the other, and swim in the infield.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Since we have this racing tangent, I have a little story. I had the chance once to march a parade around the oval before the Indy 500. It was pretty cool. Marching through those banked turns, I realized they are really banked a lot more than they look on TV. After the parade, we went to the infield to watch the race. Then it started pouring rain, and everyone had to duck under tarps. I think that was like the only time the Indy 500 got postponed. So lucky me has never seen the race live. But I did get to march around the track until one leg was shorter than the other, and swim in the infield.

Lucky you A shame you didn't get to see the race.

I love race tracks, and make a point of visiting them when I'm in the neighborhood. I've seen races at Daytona and Sebring. I've never seen the Brickyard, Nürburgring, or Le Mans. And those are the three I'd most like to see.

--Pete

[Lissa]

And getting back to the thread...

Anyone catch the news that the Ref that called off the US goal has been not allowed to ref the last couple days and was given a poor rating by FIFA? Doubt he'll be reffing anytime soon after blowing so many calls.

[eppie]

And getting back to the thread...

Anyone catch the news that the Ref that called off the US goal has been not allowed to ref the last couple days and was given a poor rating by FIFA? Doubt he'll be reffing anytime soon after blowing so many calls.

Well, the FIFA doesn't look at quality when assigning referees for the world cup.

Anyway...The US got first in their group.....and so don't have to play Germany but Ghana in the ext match.

This afternoon we will see what Italy does, and this evening I will be watching the unimportant match of the Netherlands against Cameroon....I just hope we don't have to play Italy in the 8th final.

[Kevin]

....I just hope we don't have to play Italy in the 8th final.

Well considering Italy finished last in their group I guess you don't need to worry about that now.

[eppie]

....I just hope we don't have to play Italy in the 8th final.

Well considering Italy finished last in their group I guess you don't need to worry about that now.

You're a fast poster.

No indeed, and it was a deserved last place for them....they were not good enough by far.
Let's hope we will finish first in the group so we can play against Slowakia now. And let's hope we will finish without injuries or expulsions.

[Jester]

Well considering Italy finished last in their group I guess you don't need to worry about that now.

They finished last in their group... that contained *New Zealand*. This World Cup is just full of surprises.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

Best. Team. Ever.

--Pete

[Kevin]

Well considering Italy finished last in their group I guess you don't need to worry about that now.

They finished last in their group... that contained *New Zealand*. This World Cup is just full of surprises.

-Jester

It really is. France finishing last in their group with South Africa who is rated worse than New Zealand, though being the host country is a real boost in this sport is still somewhat on par to what happened to Italy. But Paraguay and Slovakia are not the same caliber as Uruguay and Mexico either. Italy should have had the easiest road to the next round. South Korea advancing was not expected either. Greece and Nigeria are solid teams and SK getting in over them was not expected. Agentina at least was true to form and very dominating. I'm not as surprised about Ghana advancing but they were still the 4th rated team in their group.

I've enjoyed watching several of the games. I watched probably 60% of the France and Slovakia game and yeah, France was outplayed but it was still a good match to watch. I should be able to catch most of the Denmark and Japan game today as well. Yes I'm watching them online from work, but today I'm mostly testing to see if code works on the new server configuration and reporting any issues, it's not a high focus job.

I think it's all been good for the sport. Several good comeback games, lots of well played close matches and a few big upsets. Been an enjoyable tourney so far.

[kandrathe]

They finished last in their group... that contained *New Zealand*. This World Cup is just full of surprises.

Is it just me, or is this showing that the method of grouping and counting points for advancement is wrong? I would think the finals should have the best teams, right?

[Taelas]

Football can be won through luck and good defense. This is not really new.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Is it just me, or is this showing that the method of grouping and counting points for advancement is wrong? I would think the finals should have the best teams, right?

That particular can of worms has been crawling all over the forums discussing the World Cup. Some think the head-to-head history is the best way to determine ties, others don't and offer many other alternatives. I think that in a low scoring game like soccer, and with only a very few matches determining who moves up, one mistake by the players or one bad call by the refs can throw everything off. Frankly, I don't think there are any good ways to determine who moves up, only bad and worse. But what do I know.

--Pete

[Nystul]

They finished last in their group... that contained *New Zealand*. This World Cup is just full of surprises.

Is it just me, or is this showing that the method of grouping and counting points for advancement is wrong? I would think the finals should have the best teams, right?

I disagree. France and Italy each played three matches in the World Cup finals, and weren't able to win any of them. They don't deserve a free pass into the round of 16. It's not like they were stuck in impossible groups. France and Italy were the ones that were supposed to be tough to beat in their groups. Everyone expected Italy to suddenly wake up and make plays when they were facing a real chance of being eliminated in the third match, but instead they lost to Slovakia. The French team had completely lost faith in their coach and probably wouldn't win if you gave them another 10 chances.

Certainly you can outplay a team in soccer for most of the game and they can happen to score the goal and win the game, but no changes to the tournament format would change that. If you are going to bother holding a tournament, you have to reward the teams that actually win their matches instead of the teams who should have won or may be playing below their potential.

Edit: The tiebreaker system is indeed screwy though. The good thing about it is encourages more aggressive play in a sport that desperately needs it. But if two teams end up with the same number of points and the one who beat the other fails to advance, that is a bit odd.

[kandrathe]

I disagree. France and Italy each played three matches in the World Cup finals, and weren't able to win any of them. They don't deserve a free pass into the round of 16. It's not like they were stuck in impossible groups.

Yeah, France I can see. But, is three games enough, and what if you happen to have a group with Brazil, and Spain, where they might be the top two.

I think it would be fairer to not allow tie games. But not a cheesy way, like a shootout.