USA wonder goal against Germany

[Captain Morgan Freeman]

lol I apologize, I was drinking so I can't even really try to explain myself there. I usually try to not bring up someones nationality or refer to the continent if I can't look at the location and see where they are from maybe your not scotland messed with me lol. Again, my bad.

As either revolving door, or lariat already covered, who I would like to say appear to know the game very well. I only say appear, not in the context of a backhanded compliment but because I never really read a thread about soccer on here before so they do know the game.

Beckham did not help, he was a joke to much of the media from the beginning. I never got to the bottom of it because it started to become too confusing and misconstrued, but when they said he signed a contract for 25 mil a year nobody believed it. Soccer fans, and fans of other sports who they were trying to attract. Then it comes out well part of his contract includes advertiser money. People saw it for what it was immediately.

Also as previously mentioned, his injuries. That actually did more harm than good because soccer already gets a bad rep in this overtly macho nation. Finally, Beckham was known only for marrying posh spice or victoria as another person said. A lot of jokes were made in good humor, but it kind of falls into a bigger picture of how people see him. A metrosexual, a lil gay and in this nation you put that with soccer, it will not help. I really think that if the MLS could have landed Keane towards the end of his career or a tougher more "macho" player for lack of a less gay word (see it even applies to me) it would have helped soccer more rather then Beckham. Even though every shit free kick goal he scored was all over sports center on ESPN because of bend it like Beckham, even when it was due to awful goal keeping.

Somehow though, and I'm really struggling to explain this. The MLS and soccer in general is making great momentum. It kind of sucks because I don't think it will get to the level I would like to see it at in my lifetime, but it really looks like it could become a strong number 2 someday in this country. As I said, it already averages higher attendance than hockey, baseball and basketball. Yet basketball is deceiving because of the arenas they play in, so you can't fit what you would be able to fit outdoors.

I don't know what it is, if they improved figuring out which markets will really like soccer, but certain teams stadiums are crazy during matches. I can't watch American soccer for the life of me, it is part of the reason I quit playing in college. Yet I believe it is the Portland Timbers and Seattle have great fan bases. Then you have Toronto, with a great fanbase because Toronto is a city of immigrants. I mean that's why I think they have a great soccer fan base. It really has improved, but then you'll see cities like Kansas City where the teams are playing in front of a triple digit crowd pretty much.

Hope I didn't write too much, it's just good to discuss and debate soccer/football with people who actually know it. Outside of my family and my father's friends, nobody really gets the game here. After seeing Alastor's posts I see that dumb people are everywhere, we just have a high concentration here.


Just one last thing about Beckham, the best part about watching him play was seeing guys gun for him. Hacks and untalented nobodies trying to make their come up off of sticking Beckham and then being too slow and nailing him badly. Then Beckham getting up and getting into it because while Beckham was far more skilled than all these guys, I don't know if I'd pick him in a fight. I can't really criticize anyone though, I don't blame the nobodies because if I played here that would have been me only I would have fought him. Might as well get your 15 seconds, and Beckham has to react how he did. Some of the tackles were awful and it was the same person doing it in matches repeatedly.


Oops it was the Barber who said something I said. I just want to give him his props because he's a smart dude, I'm impressed he knows the game as well.

We do have a football thread in the spam section. There's a whole load of football fans for you to judge in there too.

 

[Loveless]

It's kind of a shame really that you got the World Cup 20 years too early. While it lead to the permanent establishment of your league, the fanbase wasn't there at the time for it to spread. To be honest until you've got a team in every state, it won't take off.

The benefit the game has is it's by far the most inclusive game for kids to play, the fact that the term "Soccer mom" is now widespread speaks to that. Parents have realised it's safer than American football, more active than baseball and more accessible than basketball. You now have a generation growing up with the game but until the game is larger at a professional level, they'll simply have nowhere to go in their teens.

"I don't think it will get huge in my lifetime. The low scoring hurts the ability to make stars.

There's no real reason for that to be the case, it hasn't anywhere else in the world. What's really needed is a decent highlights package. Over here the dull games are shunted to the back of the show and barely given 30 seconds attention.

There's not much of a gambling aspect if any.

There's plenty

For some reasons ties hurt people's feelings.

I've never gotten that

The best bets are for football be ruled to violent or for the US Men's National Team to win the World Cup. It would be interesting to see what happens to American soccer if the can get their foot in to African American inner culture but it is unlikely since the space is too valuable (see golf)."

I really think all it takes is a spark to get peoples attention. I thought it was starting to happen at the last World Cup but just as it was beginning, you got knocked out by Ghana. Progress to the semi-finals would do a world of good, especially next year when the timezones are favourable. I could see a big match against Mexico getting attention, given the latin community in the US are more familiar with the game.
As for African American culture, I think it would take an MLS star in much the same way Tiger Woods did it for golf.

 

[Brahma_Bull9]

We do have a football thread in the spam section. There's a whole load of football fans for you to judge in there too.

lol at catching feelings because I didn't mention you. I didn't look for one, I just don't get to watch enough EPL or Bundesliga games because those are the leagues I like to really discuss it in a thread regularly. I don't have fox soccer channel lol but wow.

You say something negative about someone people get mad, you say something positive about others and people get mad. It's lose with lose with some of you

 

[Brahma_Bull9]

It's kind of a shame really that you got the World Cup 20 years too early. While it lead to the permanent establishment of your league, the fanbase wasn't there at the time for it to spread. To be honest until you've got a team in every state, it won't take off.

The benefit the game has is it's by far the most inclusive game for kids to play, the fact that the term "Soccer mom" is now widespread speaks to that. Parents have realised it's safer than American football, more active than baseball and more accessible than basketball. You now have a generation growing up with the game but until the game is larger at a professional level, they'll simply have nowhere to go in their teens.

"I don't think it will get huge in my lifetime. The low scoring hurts the ability to make stars.

There's no real reason for that to be the case, it hasn't anywhere else in the world. What's really needed is a decent highlights package. Over here the dull games are shunted to the back of the show and barely given 30 seconds attention.

There's not much of a gambling aspect if any.

There's plenty

For some reasons ties hurt people's feelings.

I've never gotten that

The best bets are for football be ruled to violent or for the US Men's National Team to win the World Cup. It would be interesting to see what happens to American soccer if the can get their foot in to African American inner culture but it is unlikely since the space is too valuable (see golf)."

I really think all it takes is a spark to get peoples attention. I thought it was starting to happen at the last World Cup but just as it was beginning, you got knocked out by Ghana. Progress to the semi-finals would do a world of good, especially next year when the timezones are favourable. I could see a big match against Mexico getting attention, given the latin community in the US are more familiar with the game.
As for African American culture, I think it would take an MLS star in much the same way Tiger Woods did it for golf.

Wow I mean this guy is clueless about America. That's why I think a lot of people from other places should kind of stay in their own lane when talking about this and that with American soccer.

One, a team in every state. That is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard and just shows complete ignorance of how American sports work. We do not have relegation and promotion in our leagues. You can't have a team in every state, not to mention, their already is a team in every state besides maybe Alaska and Hawaii if you include lower divisions. However, 50 teams in one league wouldn't work and a lot of states - Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Idaho, Montana and probably a few others are too sparsely populated and the population is so spread out over a large area it wouldn't work. Some of those states I just mentioned, the land mass of all of England could fit in them and probably multiple times in some, but these states have a smaller population than the city of London.

And what are you talking about, more accessible than Basketball. Soccer and Basketball are the cheapest sports and the most accessible but Basketball is still far more accessible. I lived in Corpus Christi TX for a bit, about 300,000 people live their yet recreational soccer and fields are hard to come by. But basketball courts are all over and basketball leagues are not. Being safer is a good thing, but isn't going to make it compete with football. Kids want to play football. I was actually pretty good at soccer, and that's why I stuck with Soccer over football. Yet growing up I fought and fought to play football until they let me play. That's how kids are here.

It's also interesting you talk about soccer mom being a good thing. It is completely irrelevant and has been a term before I was born in 89. It's nothing. Yet you say we made the WC 20 years too early and had a pro league before it could be sustained. What league are you referring to here? Their has been pro leagues since like 1900, and they were in 30, 34 and some world cups in the 50's before reappearing in the 80's.

But I agree with you some the ties bothering people is dumb, but it is an American thing. I don't get it, but they hate ties in every sport. Their is a gambling aspect and the low scoring has nothing to do with development of players. We just are clueless on how to develop soccer players, we do it completely differently from every where else in the world.

And African American inner culture, what the hell does that mean. I know what you are attempting to say, but wow. And Tiger did nothing for golf as far as black people are concerned, they still hate it. And soccer is not something they are completely turned off from. Their are a lot of black players, I have played all black teams, and I've been like one of three white guys to actually start for a team.

 

[Captain Morgan Freeman]

lol at catching feelings because I didn't mention you. I didn't look for one, I just don't get to watch enough EPL or Bundesliga games because those are the leagues I like to really discuss it in a thread regularly. I don't have fox soccer channel lol but wow.

You say something negative about someone people get mad, you say something positive about others and people get mad. It's lose with lose with some of you

Seeing as you tried to red rep me it's pretty clear you're a lot more butthurt then i am.
I just found it pretty rich of you to come in like some sort of authority on who knows about football and who doesn't. Im sure if you posted regularly in the football thread here it would become clear you're full of shit.
It's not that hard to keep up with the EPL or Bundesliga, i don't have a TV package for them either and still manage to keep up to date with them.

 

[Барбоса]

Basketball is less accessible than football because you need slightly more specific equipment to play it - the elevated net and a ball.

Football all you need is a ball - "jumpers for goal posts" and all that. You could say the same about American football, although the ball is a slightly less 'orthodox' shape.

 

[Ming]

For any Americans planning to watch English Premier League football next year; don't bother. It's wrapped up.

Spoiler

 

[Brahma_Bull9]

Seeing as you tried to red rep me it's pretty clear you're a lot more butthurt then i am.
I just found it pretty rich of you to come in like some sort of authority on who knows about football and who doesn't. Im sure if you posted regularly in the football thread here it would become clear you're full of shit.
It's not that hard to keep up with the EPL or Bundesliga, i don't have a TV package for them either and still manage to keep up to date with them.

Actually it was a green rep, I just wanted to get the point across.

And for me it is, I gotta get up at like 8 or 9 on saturdays log on to ilemi or firstrowsports. Funny you want to tell me how to live my life, but maybe I'll start coming in their just to pick up apart your shit for a few weeks with all the World Cup qualifiers coming up.

And you say you don't have a cable package to watch them and you are calling it football? If you're an american I played with a lot of crappy pretentious kids like you always sucking up to the rest of the world. Again, just mad you were omitted. All you did is pretty much repeat what my first points were in my post. I'm not impressed.

 

[Brahma_Bull9]

Basketball is less accessible than football because you need slightly more specific equipment to play it - the elevated net and a ball.

Football all you need is a ball - "jumpers for goal posts" and all that. You could say the same about American football, although the ball is a slightly less 'orthodox' shape.

Again, if you don't know what you are talking about just stop talking out your ass. Every little ass town to big cities have public courts within walking distance of everywhere. That's how many there are. Like soccer all you need is a ball.... Thing that is different about soccer is if you can't find anyone to play with, no good walls around, or nets. It gets pretty boring fast. That's just in my experience coming up in America, actually being here and all.

 

[Барбоса]

Anyone could walkout into their garden/street and play football. Not everyone could not play basketball.

Therefore, football is more accessible than basketball full stop.

 

[JGlass]

Of all the stupid arguments that have ever taken place on this website, perhaps none have been stupider than whether basketball is easier to play than soccer.

 

[JGlass]

It's a shame that football isn't a huge sport over in the States. They have a pretty decent national team that could really beat a lot of other good teams on their day. If they put half of the effort into developing the sport as they do for basketball or American Football, then I could see them actively being one of the most dominant forces in world football.

It's slowly becoming a bigger and bigger deal here, and every time there's a World Cup a new batch of fans emerge and start supporting their local MLS teams or maybe even getting into BPL or La Liga. I'd say in about a decade it's going to be pretty huge here.

 

[Dowdsy McDowds]

I think that one key to America's potential success with the development of their national side, will be their colleges. As far as I am aware, and please correct me if I've misunderstood, the vast majority of the players (and coaches?) in the NBA and NFL came through college level to get to the big leagues.

What that says to me is that the development of talent has a very clear progression and success rate.

Back in the UK, questions are constantly asked of the English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish FAs ability to develop and nurture home-grown talent. The trouble is, the English Premier League is amongst the top 3 leagues in the world, and so draws a lot of talent from all over the world. With the demands for success being so high, clubs often go for expensive foreign talent as a short-term fix rather than a sustained development of young British players.

From the outside looking in, the MLS doesn't have such an extraordinary pressure for success hanging over the clubs, so it seems that they can take their time with the development of their young home-grown players.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

I'm surprised how many Yanks here know about football.

Impressed, if you will.

 

[klunderbunker]

I think that one key to America's potential success with the development of their national side, will be their colleges. As far as I am aware, and please correct me if I've misunderstood, the vast majority of the players (and coaches?) in the NBA and NFL came through college level to get to the big leagues.

That's right. Sometimes you'll hear of universities offering full scholarships in advance to players as young as 14.

 

[Loveless]

One, a team in every state. That is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard and just shows complete ignorance of how American sports work. We do not have relegation and promotion in our leagues. You can't have a team in every state, not to mention, their already is a team in every state besides maybe Alaska and Hawaii if you include lower divisions. However, 50 teams in one league wouldn't work and a lot of states - Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Idaho, Montana and probably a few others are too sparsely populated and the population is so spread out over a large area it wouldn't work. Some of those states I just mentioned, the land mass of all of England could fit in them and probably multiple times in some, but these states have a smaller population than the city of London.

1. I'm well aware of your geography and how you can't manage full national leagues because of the size of your country.
2. All sports are tribal and reliant on rivalries, local and personal.
3. Not having promotion and relegation is terrible because it makes a large portion of games pointless. It's somewhat necessary while the game isn't huge but the way the MLS controls the establishment of clubs is questionable to say the least.

And what are you talking about, more accessible than Basketball. Soccer and Basketball are the cheapest sports and the most accessible but Basketball is still far more accessible. I lived in Corpus Christi TX for a bit, about 300,000 people live their yet recreational soccer and fields are hard to come by. But basketball courts are all over and basketball leagues are not. Being safer is a good thing, but isn't going to make it compete with football. Kids want to play football. I was actually pretty good at soccer, and that's why I stuck with Soccer over football. Yet growing up I fought and fought to play football until they let me play. That's how kids are here.

Football/soccer requires a ball. That's it
Basketball requires a ball, a net and being able to shoot that high (I'm thinking of the young kids here)
There's also an issue of physical equality playing a part. Over here it's quite easy for an 11 year old to join a game with older kids or even adults, being small is sometimes an advantage, this makes getting a game together incredible easy. That's simply not the case with basketball, physical strength and height are significant advantages.

You say we made the WC 20 years too early and had a pro league before it could be sustained. What league are you referring to here? Their has been pro leagues since like 1900, and they were in 30, 34 and some world cups in the 50's before reappearing in the 80's.

Reappearing is the key word here. A major part of you being awarded the World Cup in 94 by FIFA was the permanent establishment of the MLS. I said nothing about sustaining it, I said that it was a shame you got it 20 years before the game was ready to take off.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

1. I'm well aware of your geography and how you can't manage full national leagues because of the size of your country.

You said every state, there are many states in the US that have no top level sports franchises. It does not make economic sense. Breaking that barrier would not help soccer that much.

2. All sports are tribal and reliant on rivalries, local and personal.

Not really, the Super Bowl usually has two teams that face off once every four years. Champions League has teams from completely different leagues. I'd say both are incredibly successful without much of a rivalry.

3. Not having promotion and relegation is terrible because it makes a large portion of games pointless. It's somewhat necessary while the game isn't huge but the way the MLS controls the establishment of clubs is questionable to say the least.

Are you telling me the EPL has doesn't have a far share of pointless games. Didn't Man U clinch the league way before the end of the season. Sure there are still games that matter (same with playoffs, playoff positioning and draft orde) but there are plenty that don't. The money and attention relegation games get is basically rewarding mediocrity. That seem back assward to me.

Football/soccer requires a ball. That's it
Basketball requires a ball, a net and being able to shoot that high (I'm thinking of the young kids here)
There's also an issue of physical equality playing a part. Over here it's quite easy for an 11 year old to join a game with older kids or even adults, being small is sometimes an advantage, this makes getting a game together incredible easy. That's simply not the case with basketball, physical strength and height are significant advantages.

If equipment and size is all that matters your argument is just but it all depends on how you define playing. One could argue basketball takes 10, soccer 22. One could argue basketball is traditionally an indoor sport that can be played outdoors, soccer is traditionally an outdoor sport that sucks indoors. One could argue basketball can be played in just sneaker and everyday athletic clothing, in soccer you may to wear cleats and shin guards. One could argue that basketball shooting normally takes place in a much smaller area than shooting in soccer. One One could argue that in America it is generally far easier to find a group to play pickup basketball with than pickup soccer. One could argue that basketball nets are way more prominent and accessible in America that a soccer goal. One could argue that George Steele's Barber never broke anything playing basketball in his driveway but once broke a window playing soccer in his front yard. GSB's father would rather GSB played basketball around the house.

As JGlass said it's a stupid argument. Especially when two people have different views on what it means to "play" a sport.

Reappearing is the key word here. A major part of you being awarded the World Cup in 94 by FIFA was the permanent establishment of the MLS. I said nothing about sustaining it, I said that it was a shame you got it 20 years before the game was ready to take off.

The game isn't ready to take off now any more than 20 years ago. It's had steady growth and hopefully will continue to. Youth leagues were popping up in many places due to the short lived success of NASL and parents looking for a safe way for their kids to get exercise.

Like the religion thread, how do you claim to know so much about Americans?

 

[Alastor]

I don't know how anyone can say basketball is more accessible than soccer. One do not need specialised equipment or areas to just start kicking an object. All you need is an open space and a ball to play it. Basketball requires a rim and backboard at the minimum. I can play soccer on a basketball court but I can't play basketball on a soccer court.

The object of most of these games is simply to deliver an object to the opponents's 'goal/area etc' while preventing them from doing the same. Football and all its derivation are the purest in this sense and easy to understand and participate.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

I don't know how anyone can say basketball is more accessible than soccer.

Very easily, did you read my post.

One do not need specialised equipment or areas to just start kicking an object. All you need is an open space and a ball to play it. Basketball requires a rim and backboard at the minimum.

Why? Isn't dribbling an essential part of playing basketball just like soccer? And again in America basketball nets are everywhere (e.g. driveways, parks, gymnasiums,above garbage cans, in basements). Both games need some form of net. It's not that hard to put a cardboard box and put it on a wall just like it's not hard to lay two backpacks across from one another.

I can play soccer on a basketball court but I can't play basketball on a soccer court.

If you're gonna say soccer can be played on a flat concrete or hard or concrete surface, I can just likely dribble a basketball on a flat grass surface. So unless you live in the Outback or jungles of Tanzania, I can't imagine you struggle to find a hard surface.

The object of most of these games is simply to deliver an object to the opponents's 'goal/area etc' while preventing them from doing the same. Football and all its derivation are the purest in this sense and easy to understand and participate.

This conversation is about accessibility not understanding.

As an American soccer player with little skill on the basketball court please tell me why if soccer is so easy and accessible I spent far more of my free time playing basketball over playing soccer. Was my childhood a lie?

This is a stupid argument. If you feel that strongly either way you're clearly not thinking.

 

[Барбоса]

As an American soccer player with little skill on the basketball court please tell me why if soccer is so easy and accessible I spent far more of my free time playing basketball over playing soccer. Was my childhood a lie?

It was not a lie. You were just a product of American sporting culture that places basketball so far above football. It was a choice of America, a rich affluent country, to promote basketball by building courts and making the basketball net part of parcel of many a driveway.

However, that does not mean that basketball is truly more accessible than football. All of those driveways with their garage doors would be football pitches with less effort than installing a basketball hoop.

Is it just coincidence that in the poorest parts of the world if given a ball, children will play football? Sure part of that is just the perpetuating of what is already the most popular sport in the world but if you look back to its origins, football became popular because it was so easy to play and accessible to the masses.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

It was not a lie. You were just a product of American sporting culture that places basketball so far above football. It was a choice of America, a rich affluent country, to promote basketball by building courts and making the basketball net part of parcel of many a driveway.

However, that does not mean that basketball is truly more accessible than football. All of those driveways with their garage doors would be football pitches with less effort than installing a basketball hoop.

Is it just coincidence that in the poorest parts of the world if given a ball, children will play football? Sure part of that is just the perpetuating of what is already the most popular sport in the world but if you look back to its origins, football became popular because it was so easy to play and accessible to the masses.

All true, but wasn't the basis of this discussion regarding American soccer?

 

[Барбоса]

All true, but wasn't the basis of this discussion regarding American soccer?

Yes, but even then I would still stick to what I perceive to be a fact that in the most general of terms, football is more accessible than basketball. Americans have just chosen basketball.

Now in professional/competitive/full size terms, football becomes less accessible as it requires a bigger field, but then America is hardly lacking in space and if the money that was spent on building basketball courts was put into grass-roots football, then it might be a completely different story. Might.

And even then, I would say that the low position of football in the American sporting psyche has very little to do with accessibility. If that was the case, American football would be not be as popular as it is (although I go back to my earlier point about it being perhaps as accessible as football) in terms of playing area and equipment needed at the lowest of levels).

I am sure that there is a book/doctoral thesis in investigating why America has so far failed to embrace the most popular sport in the world. Nationalism? A hangover from isolationism?

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Yes, but even then I would still stick to what I perceive to be a fact that in the most general of terms, football is more accessible than basketball. Americans have just chosen basketball.

Which means if you are an American who chooses football you are going to be very lonely playing a game by yourself since other footballers are not as basketball players.

Now in professional/competitive/full size terms, football becomes less accessible as it requires a bigger field, but then America is hardly lacking in space and if the money that was spent on building basketball courts was put into grass-roots football, then it might be a completely different story. Might.

And even then, I would say that the low position of football in the American sporting psyche has very little to do with accessibility. If that was the case, American football would be not be as popular as it is (although I go back to my earlier point about it being perhaps as accessible as football) in terms of playing area and equipment needed at the lowest of levels).

I am sure that there is a book/doctoral thesis in investigating why America has so far failed to embrace the most popular sport in the world. Nationalism? A hangover from isolationism?

This is a far more interesting conversation. I don't know the history of athletics in the world. My guess would be that as Americans accumulated wealth and free time in the 1900's they were more likely to embrace baseball as their own. I also don't how easy it was to make a soft inflatable ball at that time that could be kicked without popping or breaking whereas it isn't hard to pick an apple (or other round object) and throw it to a friend. Nationalism probably has a lot to do with it. Isolationism seems farfetched since we were bringing in immigrants by the boatload during this time. Why didn't they bring the sport more with them?

Living in Chicago today I will say the Mexican population has brought soccer with them to an extreme. They have pick up games frequently and their organized recreational games bring huge crowds (who I'd really appreciate if they'd pick up their fucking garbage).

 

[Ming]

I am sure that there is a book/doctoral thesis in investigating why America has so far failed to embrace the most popular sport in the world. Nationalism? A hangover from isolationism?

That's what I believe it is, I also believe that's why sports like American "Football" and Baseball was invented as well. It's also why they insisted on spelling certain English words wrongly too. Being a former colony, they probably didn't want to continue being perceived as such despite independance so they discontinued carrying on with some English traditions, and that includes sports. They wanted their own identity and became fearful that accepting or even liking anything English would be a way of letting imperialism and their old masters win. And many continue this line of thought hence their failure of accepting the world's most popular (and best, I feel) sport properly. If they invested in it, both culturally and financially, their national team would probably get better than England's itself in time. They're already better than Wales, Scotland and both Irish teams.

 

[Alastor]

Very easily, did you read my post.



Why? Isn't dribbling an essential part of playing basketball just like soccer? And again in America basketball nets are everywhere (e.g. driveways, parks, gymnasiums,above garbage cans, in basements). Both games need some form of net. It's not that hard to put a cardboard box and put it on a wall just like it's not hard to lay two backpacks across from one another.



If you're gonna say soccer can be played on a flat concrete or hard or concrete surface, I can just likely dribble a basketball on a flat grass surface. So unless you live in the Outback or jungles of Tanzania, I can't imagine you struggle to find a hard surface.



This conversation is about accessibility not understanding.

As an American soccer player with little skill on the basketball court please tell me why if soccer is so easy and accessible I spent far more of my free time playing basketball over playing soccer. Was my childhood a lie?

This is a stupid argument. If you feel that strongly either way you're clearly not thinking.

A cardboard box isn't the same as two backpacks to make a 'goal' for the respective games. You can't recreate the backboard game with it. Soccer is simply shooting at an empty space that can be created on most flat surfaces. Have you tried dribbling a basketball on a grass surface? Really?

You are using preference of the sports to argue against accessibility. As mentioned earlier, Americans simply chose one sport over the other.