BPL’s Goals in Comparison with MLB and NFL

Americans don’t like soccer. The biggest complaint I hear is that it is boring. Why? Because goals aren’t scored enough. However, soccer is comparable to that of the MLB and NFL.

In 2011, America’s favorite past time, baseball, saw 2.85 runs per hour in each game in the MLB.

In 2010-2011, American football saw 2.10 touchdowns and field-goal conversions per hour in each game in the NFL.

In 2010-2011, the BPL in England averaged 1.87 goals per hour.

American’s like everything to be big, whether it is their big gulp soft drinks or their entertainment scorelines. Soccer games are only 90 minutes, while MLB and NFL games average at about 3 hours–twice as long as a soccer game. Now, each BPL game averaged 2.8 goals; compare that to the MLB of 4.28 runs per game and the NFL at 6.30 touchdowns and field-goal conversions per game. Because of America’s preference for extra large, spectators take the scoreline for granted. Yet, per hour, there is not much difference in scorelines. Yes, it is true that baseball and American football yield more scoring opportunities on average. But it isn’t that big of a difference when boiled down to a per-hour foundation. All three sports should expect to see 2 scoring opportunities, whether runs, touchdowns and field-goal conversions, or goals, each hour of play.

Out of curiosity, how do the top performers of each stack up to each other? The New York Yankees managed to earn 859 runs in 162 games last season, working out to be 5.30 runs per game. The New England Patriots earned a total of 518 points in 16 games, which is 32.38 points per game on average, equating to 4.63 touchdowns and field-goal conversions every game. Manchester United scored 78 goals across 38 games, or 2.05 goals per game. As I pointed out earlier, our common ground is per hour: the Yankees scored 1.77 runs per hour; the Patriots 1.53 touchdowns and field-goal conversions per hour; and the Red Devils 1.36 goals. The scoring is comparable across the boards.

To say that soccer is boring because there aren’t that many goals is a false statement. The scoring rate per hour is less than the likes of the MLB or NFL, but it is still comparable. People often neglect to consider that the soccer game is typically around 90 minutes, whereas baseball and football games are around 3 hours. Just saying.


The Future of the Kings and ARCO Arena

From Bleacher Report:

“The Sacramento Metro Chamber is currently working with the Mayor’s office in the ongoing effort to demonstrate that Sacramento has been and will continue to be a viable NBA market for the Sacramento Kings. The Metro Chamber’s work includes identifying existing business support, new business support and potential support for the team. The critical component of those three is identifying—immediately—new corporate suite holders and sponsors that bring new revenue to the table.”

The Maloofs have been trying to move the Kings into a new stadium for some time now. ARCO Arena, newly dubbed The Power Balance Arena, is somewhat archaic. The acoustics are terrible and it’s design is a bit dated. What they want more than anything it seems is to get the Kings an arena in downtown Sacramento. But voters have not approved. It has come to the point that the Maloofs are tired of begging, and they have resolved in their minds to relocate to a new city altogether. Anaheim is beckoning.

I say they should go. Leave. They have failed to produce during my lifetime and have been nothing but frustrating to watch. I’ve moved on from the Kings and the NBA anyway, so I really don’t care. If they go, I’ve got some ideas.

First, tear down ARCO. Get rid of it. It is old and it just simply needs to go.

Second, bring in a team from a different sports franchise. I have a few proposals, but I will save my favorite one for last.

One option would be to build an American football stadium and move the Raiders to Sacramento. They are accustomed to moving, so why not?

Another option would be to upgrade the Rivercats to the MLB and give them a new and improved stadium.

There are problems with these two options. The Raiders probably won’t want to uproot again, and who will feed the Athletics? Besides, it is an expensive thing to fund a new stadium, so there are financial problems both of these teams would have. I suppose they could do a loan, but I’m sure there would be some road blocks.

My favorite option would be to take the Sacramento Knights, the professional indoor soccer team, and put them into the MLS. If you didn’t know, the MLS is on the up and up. It’s growing. Not to mention, soccer stadiums can be built for cheap for starters. Build a cheap stadium for the Knights, allow them to build a fan base and revenue, and then in a few years they can provide sufficient funds for a stadium. I would propose a name change: Sac FC, nicknamed the Knights.

I don’t watch the NFL, MLB, or MLS, but if the MLS came to Sacramento, I would go to see a few games a year and watch the other games on TV.

In any case, let the Kings leave. Let’s get a winning franchise here. The Knights are successful, as are the Rivercats, but if they are put into the MLS or MLB, respectively, there’s no telling how well they would do. The Raiders, well, not so much, but I’m sure the Raider nation will come together nicely in Sacramento should they come here.

What do you think? Should ARCO be taken down? Who should replace the Kings if they leave?