Sunday, October 2, 2011

Defining boring

It was rather interesting - and a first as I recall - to see the choices for network television sports viewing in this market on Sunday.

Obviously, the Browns were playing (if that's what you want to call it) on WOIO. When an NFL team has a home game televised in its home market, the opposing channel, in this case WJW, steps aside and doesn't show an NFL game at the same time because league rules restrict it.

So instead of the NFL, and even instead of the usual mix of Seinfeld reruns and infomercials for the latest weight-loss product or juicer, WJW showed Fox Soccer's coverage of a taped English Premier League match between Tottenham and Arsenal.

<a href="" target="_new" title="">PL Highlights: Tottenham/Arsenal</a>

As you're probably well aware if you read any of my work, I'm a huge soccer fan.

But I chose the Browns game, and I would choose the Browns every time because, as horribly as they played, that's my team - even with soccer as an option.

It does bring up an intriguing contrast in viewpoints on American football vs. soccer. Many NFL fans probably would rather scratch their nails on a chalkboard than watch soccer - that's their right, and that's fine. Their reasoning, normally, is soccer is too boring for their liking - not enough scoring, not enough action per se.

That's why it may surprise you to find out what diehard soccer fans think of the NFL when the tables are turned. The truth is, they can't stand it either, the reason being they think the NFL is boring. There's even a segment who would argue soccer players are tougher because they're not wearing as much protective equipment. (No, I'm serious.)

As a fan of both the NFL and soccer, I don't subscribe to either viewpoint. I enjoy both sports immensely.

I'm merely pointing out it's interesting how segments of both fan bases view the other sport as boring. It doesn't seem to make sense, but to them it does.

- Chris Lillstrung


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home