It's okay - football's actually an interesting game. You don't have to try and manufacture excitement by counting down to the final whistle.
"No it isn't - they don't score often enough for it to be interesting!"
At least, that seems to be how most US sports work.
But somebody mentioned having double points for scoring from outside the penalty box. That would be cool no matter what.
I think maybe if you shortened the field to like 100 yards only and thinned it to only 50, you'd make it much more interesting and tense; a shot could come from anywhere.
Then you would have to allow timeouts controlled by the coaches, because otherwise you don't get enough spaces for advertising and commercialisation, and they need to be able to communicate to the team.
Then they would probably add a time-stoppage every time there is a play-stoppage so that people can get a drink.
Then they would have to split it into quarters, because you need to let the good players have a rest without missing the game.
Then they would have to add free substitutions, because 90 minutes is a pretty long game.
Then you would have to change the offside rule, because that whole "two players closer to the line or behind the ball at the moment the ball is kicked" seems like too many words for some sportsfans. How about "inside the box when the ball is kicked" or "in front of the ball when the ball is kicked"?
This is the US we're talking about: you have to inject anything and everything with artificial excitement to catch their attention. Me, I prefer my sports with tactical thinking included.
™ Version 4.2
