The British take on the NFL (and American Football in general)

[Color Me Badd Fan]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/mysun/commen...=jump&pageNo=1

It appears as if there are three common rips on football from the Brits:

1. The stop-start feature of the game makes it boring.

2. You take the same hits in rugby, but rugby players don't have to have all the padding.

3. Half of the guys on the football field are fat and therefore not athletes at all.

First of all, there are sports fans in the US that don't care for baseball or basketball. Some guys are baseball guys and some guys are basketball guys. I'm a basketball guy. Some sports fans don't care for either.

The one unifying sport is football. You'll have an exceptionally difficult time finding a guy that is a fan of some kind of sport that also isn't a fan of football on some level. Obviously, there's something about football that elevates it above other games for a larger number of people in the US than other sports.

The NFL requires that high school and colleges in this country develop their players. You can't just go into a random city around the country and pluck kids that haven't ever played organized football and hope they can make it in the NFL. You need to have the pads, the equipment and the organized games in order to develop players. In this respect, it's far different from soccer and basketball. You can develop the most important skills in soccer and basketball by playing out on the playground (ballhandling and shooting). This is the reason why football isn't played around the world- it requires too much organization and equipment. Soccer and basketball are the two biggest sports in the world because it's easy to set up and play and to develop a talent pool from which to draw up a professional league.

So, just because soccer and basketball are more popular worldwide, doesn't mean they're necessarily better or more exciting sports. And my opinion is that soccer has largely failed in the US for two reasons: 1) Football gets all of the athletes that would have played soccer-second tier athletes in the US play soccer; 2) Soccer can't overcome football because it's an inferior game and will therefore never attract the elite athletes in this country. If Barry Sanders had played soccer, he would have kicked the shit out of all these mulleted Euros.

As for the three rips above:

1. Stop-start. If you have to place a number from 1-10 on the level of intensity that takes place during the average NFL snap, it's probably at a 9. One error can lead to a turnover, TD, your QB getting injured, etc. In soccer the average level of intensity seems to be at a 3. I would rather have a game be stop-start than a game where the guys seem to be aimlessly pacing/jogging around the field for about 90% of the game. The strategy and violent aspects football are what play a huge part in the appeal of the game. Soccer seems to have far less strategy.

2. Padding is for pussies. This critique pisses me off more than anything. These guys are fans of a sport (soccer) where guys will roll around on the ground after not being touched hoping to get a call. They are then carted off the field where the trainer armed with the spray bottle filled with magical tap water sprays the "injury" and the player is immediately back on the field after being CARTED OFF a minute before. Football players do everything they can to get off the field under their own power. Rugby is a violent sport, no doubt about it. But Rugby simply doesn't have the same amount and frequency of speed and collisions that occur in football.

3. Half the players are fat. This just shows how ignorant and stupid these people are. Take a basic physics class and you'll understand why its important for o-linemen and interior d-linemen to have weight on them. If you have a freakishly fast 270 lb defensive end coming at you when you're pass protecting, you better have the mass to withstand the bullrushing 270 lbs.

[DU Ute]

If Barry Sanders had played soccer, he would have kicked the shit out of all these mulleted Euros.

The whole post was great, but this is so good it deserves special recognition.

[landpoke]

I've played significant amounts of both rugby and football. Football hits/tackles/collisions > rugby hits/tackles/collisions. Pads allow a tackler to tee off on a guy in a way that just isn't possible in rugby without serious injury.

[LiveCoug]

Mythbusters did a football vs rugby, which is more dangerous? bit on their show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7tGY-VDx3o

[falafel]

2) Soccer can't overcome football because it's an inferior game and will therefore never attract the elite athletes in this country. If Barry Sanders had played soccer, he would have kicked the shit out of all these mulleted Euros.

Wait, what? That's a pretty circular argument. "Soccer is an inferior game" - I don't even know how you would begin to evaluate the different sports and assign rankings.

As for the three rips above:

1. Stop-start. If you have to place a number from 1-10 on the level of intensity that takes place during the average NFL snap, it's probably at a 9. One error can lead to a turnover, TD, your QB getting injured, etc. In soccer the average level of intensity seems to be at a 3. I would rather have a game be stop-start than a game where the guys seem to be aimlessly pacing/jogging around the field for about 90% of the game. The strategy and violent aspects football are what play a huge part in the appeal of the game. Soccer seems to have far less strategy.

Many would say, just like you seem to be saying to the British, that you don't really know what you're talking about. If you don't see the strategy in soccer, its likely that you don't know enough to recognize it. Besides, since when is strategy the indicator of good sport? Also, I think you underestimate the level of physical fitness required to be constantly moving, a high percentage of the time at full or near full speed, for two 45 minute periods.

2. Padding is for pussies. This critique pisses me off more than anything. These guys are fans of a sport (soccer) where guys will roll around on the ground after not being touched hoping to get a call. They are then carted off the field where the trainer armed with the spray bottle filled with magical tap water sprays the "injury" and the player is immediately back on the field after being CARTED OFF a minute before. Football players do everything they can to get off the field under their own power. Rugby is a violent sport, no doubt about it. But Rugby simply doesn't have the same amount and frequency of speed and collisions that occur in football.

No real complaints here. I would say that Rugby, while violent, doesn't have anything near the speed component that football does. Nor does it have the real possibility for out-of-nowhere hits at full speed like football does. The pads and helmets were not originally required in football. They were only added after it was apparent that too many people would be seriously injured/killed without them. The fact that rugby doesn't use pads indicates that the hits have not reached that same level of violence.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Wait, what? That's a pretty circular argument. "Soccer is an inferior game" - I don't even know how you would begin to evaluate the different sports and assign rankings.



Many would say, just like you seem to be saying to the British, that you don't really know what you're talking about. If you don't see the strategy in soccer, its likely that you don't know enough to recognize it. Besides, since when is strategy the indicator of good sport? Also, I think you underestimate the level of physical fitness required to be constantly moving, a high percentage of the time at full or near full speed, for two 45 minute periods.

First, my first argument isn't circular. My point is that the two components feed off each other and it both explains why soccer is currently a second tier sport and will remain so. The MLS will never be a serious league in this country unless it has top tier athletes. MLS teams can't realistically compete with the Champions League superteams in Europe and get the top soccer players. Football is king in the US and it gets the best athletes. Part of it is that football has a tradition in the US and soccer does not, the second part is that soccer is inferior to football. Soccer is like Nascar. If I want to watch cars drive by repeatedly I'd just go to a freeway overpass and watch the cars zoom by. If I wanted to watch a few men run around for 90 minutes kicking the ball back and forth with very little real action- I'm sure I can find another outlet for that. 85 minutes of any given soccer game will have guys aimlessly running around the midfield with each team endlessly turning over the ball. The other five minutes consist of corner kicks and real action near the goals. I'm sure there's SOME strategy involved, but let's not pretend it approaches football at any level at all.

Strategy by itself probably isn't much of an indicator of a great sport. Basketball doesn't approach football either. But the aimlessness of soccer is a problem. Defender kicks the ball to the midfielder, midfielder is defended but retains control of the ball, midfielder kicks to midfielder2, midfielder2 is well-defended and opposing midfielder takes the ball and the process is repeated over and over again for an overwhelming majority of the time.

My point is that soccer is not popular in the US for a reason. We have options in the US and we have a population that has the physical aptitude to play any of them. Some are not popular because we're genuinely not familiar with them, e.g. Cricket. Others aren't as popular because we don't commonly have the facilities or weather (hockey for much of the country). We in the US are familiar with soccer and we have the capability to play it (not hard, all you need is a ball and some space). We've just concluded that football and basketball are more interesting. Pro football wasn't big in the states until the 50s. The NBA didn't hit its stride until the 60s (and was really second tier in the 70s). You'd figure that soccer would have gained a foothold if it had any value to it.

[Indy Coug]

There is no sport on earth that is more stop and start than cricket. Hell, the players break for afternoon tea. It makes baseball seem positively lightning fast.

[Donuthole]

Mythbusters did a football vs rugby, which is more dangerous? bit on their show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7tGY-VDx3o

I'm no scientist, but that was pretty lame. Way too many variables unaccounted for to arrive at the final conclusion.

[falafel]

First, my first argument isn't circular. My point is that the two components feed off each other and it both explains why soccer is currently a second tier sport and will remain so. The MLS will never be a serious league in this country unless it has top tier athletes. MLS teams can't realistically compete with the Champions League superteams in Europe and get the top soccer players. Football is king in the US and it gets the best athletes. Part of it is that football has a tradition in the US and soccer does not, the second part is that soccer is inferior to football. Soccer is like Nascar. If I want to watch cars drive by repeatedly I'd just go to a freeway overpass and watch the cars zoom by. If I wanted to watch a few men run around for 90 minutes kicking the ball back and forth with very little real action- I'm sure I can find another outlet for that. 85 minutes of any given soccer game will have guys aimlessly running around the midfield with each team endlessly turning over the ball. The other five minutes consist of corner kicks and real action near the goals. I'm sure there's SOME strategy involved, but let's not pretend it approaches football at any level at all.

Strategy by itself probably isn't much of an indicator of a great sport. Basketball doesn't approach football either. But the aimlessness of soccer is a problem. Defender kicks the ball to the midfielder, midfielder is defended but retains control of the ball, midfielder kicks to midfielder2, midfielder2 is well-defended and opposing midfielder takes the ball and the process is repeated over and over again for an overwhelming majority of the time.

My point is that soccer is not popular in the US for a reason. We have options in the US and we have a population that has the physical aptitude to play any of them. Some are not popular because we're genuinely not familiar with them, e.g. Cricket. Others aren't as popular because we don't commonly have the facilities or weather (hockey for much of the country). We in the US are familiar with soccer and we have the capability to play it (not hard, all you need is a ball and some space). We've just concluded that football and basketball are more interesting. Pro football wasn't big in the states until the 50s. The NBA didn't hit its stride until the 60s (and was really second tier in the 70s). You'd figure that soccer would have gained a foothold if it had any value to it.

Sigh. Again, you can't come up with any reasons why the game of soccer is intrinsically inferior to football. Your main argument seems to be that its boring most of the time. That argument applies equally well to tons of sports, including America's past time. Also, your description of soccer's play indicates that you aren't actually familiar with it on any real level. Its the same thing with Brits and american football. Its fine for you to say that you are personally bored by soccer, or that you don't find it as interesting as football. But there's no way you can say that football is intrinsically more interesting that soccer. Its too subjective of an analysis to hold any real weight.

I understand, and do not argue with, your argument that football will be superior in the states b/c it gets the best athletes. That's a good reason for why football will likely retain its popularity over soccer in the U.S. But that's about all you can say about it.

Finally, there are some points that the Brits make that I have to agree with. The NFL is difficult to watch for me b/c I don't have 4 hours in the day to sit around and watch the games. Part of that is the nature of football, but a big part of that is the amount of t.v. time outs required to fit all the advertising in. there are plenty of times during an NFL game where you'll get one play in before another commercial break. Like a punt, for example. They don't take similar breaks nearly as often in the college game. All I'm really trying to say is that the Brits make some decent points here and there. There's nothing fun about runs for 2 yrds, or overthrown passes. I disagree with the notion that the majority of an NFL game is pure entertainment. I would say I'm bored more than 50% of the game.

[il Padrino Ute]

Which sports are best depends on what one likes and understands. Hockey is probably the fastest paced sport, but not as popular as football, which in actuality is very slow paced.

It's no surprise that the Brits prefer soccer to football, because that's what they grew up with. I wasn't a soccer fan until I learned just how much skill they players have when I watched a couple of teens in Italy kick a ball back and forth to each other at a distance of about 50M and the ball didn't hit the ground for a good 5 minutes.

[il Padrino Ute]

Sigh. Again, you can't come up with any reasons why the game of soccer is intrinsically inferior to football. Your main argument seems to be that its boring most of the time. That argument applies equally well to tons of sports, including America's past time. Also, your description of soccer's play indicates that you aren't actually familiar with it on any real level. Its the same thing with Brits and american football. Its fine for you to say that you are personally bored by soccer, or that you don't find it as interesting as football. But there's no way you can say that football is intrinsically more interesting that soccer. Its too subjective of an analysis to hold any real weight.

I understand, and do not argue with, your argument that football will be superior in the states b/c it gets the best athletes. That's a good reason for why football will likely retain its popularity over soccer in the U.S. But that's about all you can say about it.

Finally, there are some points that the Brits make that I have to agree with. The NFL is difficult to watch for me b/c I don't have 4 hours in the day to sit around and watch the games. Part of that is the nature of football, but a big part of that is the amount of t.v. time outs required to fit all the advertising in. there are plenty of times during an NFL game where you'll get one play in before another commercial break. Like a punt, for example. They don't take similar breaks nearly as often in the college game. All I'm really trying to say is that the Brits make some decent points here and there. There's nothing fun about runs for 2 yrds, or overthrown passes. I disagree with the notion that the majority of an NFL game is pure entertainment. I would say I'm bored more than 50% of the game.

In a 60 minute game, there is probably less than 10 minutes of actual game play.

[MartyFunkhouser]

To sum up this fantastic post, Euro kicky-kicky ball sucks.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Sigh. Again, you can't come up with any reasons why the game of soccer is intrinsically inferior to football. Your main argument seems to be that its boring most of the time. That argument applies equally well to tons of sports, including America's past time. Also, your description of soccer's play indicates that you aren't actually familiar with it on any real level. Its the same thing with Brits and american football. Its fine for you to say that you are personally bored by soccer, or that you don't find it as interesting as football. But there's no way you can say that football is intrinsically more interesting that soccer. Its too subjective of an analysis to hold any real weight.

I understand, and do not argue with, your argument that football will be superior in the states b/c it gets the best athletes. That's a good reason for why football will likely retain its popularity over soccer in the U.S. But that's about all you can say about it.

Finally, there are some points that the Brits make that I have to agree with. The NFL is difficult to watch for me b/c I don't have 4 hours in the day to sit around and watch the games. Part of that is the nature of football, but a big part of that is the amount of t.v. time outs required to fit all the advertising in. there are plenty of times during an NFL game where you'll get one play in before another commercial break. Like a punt, for example. They don't take similar breaks nearly as often in the college game. All I'm really trying to say is that the Brits make some decent points here and there. There's nothing fun about runs for 2 yrds, or overthrown passes. I disagree with the notion that the majority of an NFL game is pure entertainment. I would say I'm bored more than 50% of the game.

If you look at the history of my posts, I'm not a total soccer hater. I think the MLS and soccer have the potential to become a legitimate sports league in this country. I think it could eventually overtake baseball. The MLS is a very well-managed league and it's now been around for close to 15 years. I really, really like watching the World Cup. I also think ESPN should broadcast more Champions' League matches. The nationalistic aspect of soccer is cool.

But my point is this- America is the marketplace of sports ideas. And for some reason soccer hasn't caught on while basketball and football in the modern era has. I view baseball more as a legacy sport that owes its success to the fact that it was by far the earliest professional sports league in this country and its roots are deep. The history of both the NFL and NBA is much more recent. As recently as the 1970s, the NBA playoffs were put on delayed broadcast. The NFL Championship of 1958 between the Giants and Colts is viewed as the coming out party for the NFL. The AFL was able to gain a foothold in the US in the 1960s because the NFL still wasn't really firmly established around the country. So in the relatively recent past, Americans have embraced professional sports leagues for both football and basketball. I think its possible that soccer will eventually be embraced and take a place ahead of baseball (they play during the same season), in fact I wish it would so my sports needs are fulfilled during July and August.

The merits of soccer vs. basketball or soccer vs. baseball are much more worthy debates. Both sports have shown recent problems with ratings and popularity. But the NFL is a juggernaut, and its not just because the NFL is well-managed and well-marketed. Football excels at the high school, college and professional levels to a degree that just isn't seen by any other sport. Intrinsically, the game is interesting and exciting. Whether its the violence, speed or strategy, it's difficult to say. Perhaps it comes closest to gladiator battles or simulated war as any other sport, and maybe that's the virtue of it. You're asking a question that can't be answered. It's like asking why more people like a well-prepared steak over a piece of well-prepared chicken- one simply tastes better than the other and its not easy to say why it tastes better.

[falafel]

In a 60 minute game, there is probably less than 10 minutes of actual game play.

60 minute game? What sport are we talking about? I don't know of any sport whose games last 60 minutes.

[il Padrino Ute]

60 minute game? What sport are we talking about? I don't know of any sport whose games last 60 minutes.

60 minutes of time keeping.