This just in: soccer has just moved back to the "Sports I hate" category where it will remain forever unless there are some significant rule changes. I cannot justify enjoying a sport that is decided by something that I could have done (or my grandmother for that matter).
This brings up something that I've been wrestling with lately. What is it exactly that makes one sport good and another sport bad (penultimately)? In soccer, unlike basketball, I see the potential for a good sport. I think it could be good if there were some rule changes but I have no idea what those rule changes would be. I'm not saying get rid of the goalie and let the players all use their hands (then it would be basketball), I'm just saying that something's gotta change. There's got to be a way to determine a winner that does not depend on how psychic your goalie* is.
I think today's game* shed some light on what it is exactly that makes one sport better than another. The better sport is the one that makes full use of the talents of the players at every position. Football puts every player in position to make full use of his varying talents and skills, all of which play a part in determining the outcome (unless there is no outcome to speak of as in college football). Baseball is almost as succesful as football at doing this but needs just a couple of minor adjustments (e.g., end the DH/pitcher-hitting debate once and for all with an 8-man lineup). Hockey likewise only needs a few minor adjustments. Basketball on the other hand gives the illusion of talent and skill because nobody's allowed to get in your way. But what is it exactly that needs to be changed about soccer? I don't know but they could start by allowing a point for a really good head-butt.
* I don't care if a game is called a match and a goalie is called a goalkeeper. When your sport earns my respect then I'll start worrying about terminology.