Time to Ban Contact Football

[Boges]

the brain-meltingly dull one where the ball is seldom touches the foot and where there's about 11 minutes of actual action in the course of a bloated three hour broadcast.

No sense pretending American Football is actually exciting. It's boringness is a feature, not a bug.

You can't argue with an opinion.

I'm a big fan of the NFL brand of football. Very strategic, my defence vs your offence, what play I'm going to draw up. It's hard-hitting and if you care about the result it can be quite suspenseful.

If you don't like it no one is ordering you to watch but the NFL is by far the largest Western sports league so people do widely enjoy the product.

When you talk about Futbol they have 90 minutes of guys kicking a ball around and occasionally they make a move to the net. Fans like the strategy in forming plays but many find it mind-numbingly boring.

Edited November 26, 2013 by Boges

[Black Dog]

You can't argue with an opinion.

I'm a big fan of the NFL brand of football. Very strategic, My defence vs your offence, what play I'm going to draw up. It's hard-hitting and if you care about the result it can be quite suspenseful.

If you don't like it no one is ordering you to watch but the NFL is by far the largest Western sports league so people do widely enjoy the product.

Savvy marketing and gambling. Very few peopel IMO actually care about the game. It's popular in part because it allows you do do so many other things at the same time without missing any action (more than half of the average broadcast is spent showing replays of stuff that already happened).

The CFL is much better in terms of pace and action.

When you talk about Futbol they have 90 minutes of guys kicking a ball around and occasionally they make a move to the net. Fans like the strategy in forming plays but many find it mind-numbingly boring.

90 minutes of constant action>11 minutes.

[Boges]

Savvy marketing and gambling. Very few peopel IMO actually care about the game. It's popular in part because it allows you do do so many other things at the same time without missing any action (more than half of the average broadcast is spent showing replays of stuff that already happened).

The CFL is much better in terms of pace and action.

90 minutes of constant action>11 minutes.

What you don't think Gambling doesn't play into the appeal of Soccer? But you're throwing around hyperbole with no real citation as to what actually makes up the majority of what goes on in a game.

You can use similar tropes to slag just about any sport. Baseball is 90% people playing catch, The only interesting part of a Basketball game is the last 2 minutes and even then it's just people fouling each other. Hockey is essentially Ice Soccer with hitting and bent sticks.

Football is a very complex game, if you don't like it, you don't like it. But it's pretty compelling if you're into it.

Edited November 26, 2013 by Boges

[Black Dog]

What you don't think Gambling doesn't play into the appeal of Soccer? But you're throwing around hyperbole with no real citation as to what actually makes up the majority of what goes on in a game.

You mean advertising timeouts, players running on and off field, instant replay appeals, and the occasional moment of actual play?

You can use similar tropes to slag just about any sport. Baseball is 90% people playing catch, The only interesting part of a Basketball game is the last 2 minutes and even then it's just people fouling each other. Hockey is essentially Ice Soccer with hitting and bent sticks.

Football is a very complex game, if you don't like it, you don't like it. But it's pretty compelling if you're into it.

That's my point: football requires a tremendous investment and degree of knowledge to actually appreciate it on its merits. To a causal viewer, there's nothing compelling about the game itself. I'd be pretty comfortable saying that true aficionados are a distinct minority: for most people, the real attraction is the spectacle, which is largely a creation of TV.

[Boges]

You mean advertising timeouts, players running on and off field, instant replay appeals, and the occasional moment of actual play?

Advertising timeouts happen in most sports. What you have in football is a one set piece after another. It's derived from Rugby, I find Rugby tedious sometimes because every time someone is tackled you have to the chaos of a ruck that's very informal and confusing. Where as football is just a succession of plays that each have a different strategic approach.

So in between plays they show replays and players are subbed in based on the what the play is going to be. Then at the line, before the play starts, your Quarterback gets to see how the defence is set up and they can change the play. Even when an actual play isn't happening, other stuff still goes on.

That's my point: football requires a tremendous investment and degree of knowledge to actually appreciate it on its merits. To a causal viewer, there's nothing compelling about the game itself. I'd be pretty comfortable saying that true aficionados are a distinct minority: for most people, the real attraction is the spectacle, which is largely a creation of TV.

I'm not sure how you can quantify that. If you don't know anything about football, it will take time to explain but because something is complicated doesn't mean it's compelling. I actually like the complexity of the sport because it keeps things interesting.

Again, to each their own.

Edited November 26, 2013 by Boges

[Black Dog]

Advertising timeouts happen in most sports. What you have in football is a one set piece after another. It's derived from Rugby, I find Rugby tedious sometimes because every time someone is tackled you have to the chaos of a ruck that's very informal and confusing. Where as football is just a succession of plays that each have a different strategic approach.

So in between plays they show replays and players are subbed in based on the what the play is going to be. Then at the line, before the play starts, your Quarterback gets to see how the defence is set up and they can change the play. Even when an actual play isn't happening, other stuff still goes on.

All that set up for a play that lasts an average of four seconds. You're describing a three hour chess match where the participants take occasional breaks to run into each other.

I'm not sure how you can quantify that. If you don't know anything about football, it will take time to explain but because something is complicated doesn't mean it's compelling. I actually like the complexity of the sport because it keeps things interesting.

You don't think complexity is a barrier? Of all the major North American pro sports (plus soccer), it's the one that requires the greatest degree of knowledge to understand (baseball is probably #2 on that list, and, probably not coincidentally, is the second most tedious to watch).

IMO, the things that make football interesting (the actual gameplay) are almost secondary. It's pretty easy to see how it could be a more exciting and fast paced product (going with the shorter play clock, or maybe pushing more no huddle offences), but those aspects are anathema to the actual purpose of the league and its broadcasts (making ad $$$$$).

[Boges]

All that set up for a play that lasts an average of four seconds. You're describing a three hour chess match where the participants take occasional breaks to run into each other.

You don't think complexity is a barrier? Of all the major North American pro sports (plus soccer), it's the one that requires the greatest degree of knowledge to understand (baseball is probably #2 on that list, and, probably not coincidentally, is the second most tedious to watch).

IMO, the things that make football interesting (the actual gameplay) are almost secondary. It's pretty easy to see how it could be a more exciting and fast paced product (going with the shorter play clock, or maybe pushing more no huddle offences), but those aspects are anathema to the actual purpose of the league and its broadcasts (making ad $$$$$).

You still really haven't proven that the popularity of the sports is because of the spectacle attached to it, by that logic any sport can be a success based on how it's presented.

Even some pre-season NFL games garner huge ratings. People like to follow the sport, same with how hockey is treated here.

[Black Dog]

You still really haven't proven that the popularity of the sports is because of the spectacle attached to it,

It's a theory, I don't think i ever presented it as anything but. If you disagree, can you tell me why?

by that logic any sport can be a success based on how it's presented.

And?

That's why we've seen some leagues in sports like cricket actually change the game to make it more TV friendly. Or why FIFA and UEFA keeps adding teams to tournaments like the Euros and the Europa League. Or the WJCs on TSN.

Even some pre-season NFL games garner huge ratings. People like to follow the sport, same with how hockey is treated here.

Except at one time, football was, like hockey, a niche sport. It's success is almost completely due to the power of television and, increasingly, social media. And one of the reasons why it i successful on TV is because the game lends itself so well to broadcast.

Edited November 26, 2013 by Black Dog

[Boges]

It's a theory, I don't think i ever presented it as anything but. If you disagree, can you tell me why?

Because if you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig. People don't just watch sports because of it's slick presentation.

Football at many different levels are religion in parts of the United States. People flock to high school football games on Friday nights. You get 90,000 plus people at college football games. It's more than just how the sport is presented.

That's why we've seen some leagues in sports like cricket actually change the game to make it more TV friendly. Or why FIFA and UEFA keeps adding teams to tournaments like the Euros and the Europa League. Or the WJCs on TSN.

Except at one time, football was, like hockey, a niche sport. It's success is almost completely due to the power of television and, increasingly, social media. And one of the reasons why it i successful on TV is because the game lends itself so well to broadcast.

How sports are presented certainly makes it more appealing to the masses. Interestingly NFL attendance has actually declined a bit because the TV experience is so good. But that doesn't mean the sport isn't compelling to watch, to many people. it's just better to watch on TV.

Edited November 26, 2013 by Boges

[socialist]

Black Dog makes many excellent points, and easily wins this debate. Soccer is 90 minutes of action. Football, like he said, is 11 minutes of boring action. The odd long pass causes 3 seconds of excitement. I call it Gruntball. Soccer has more worldwide fans than the NFL, and that says a lot.

[Boges]

The main reason Soccer has such a wide support internationally is the relative cheapness required to participate in the sport. If you notice the second most popular participation sport in the world is volleyball, another low cost sport to participate in.

We see a problem in Canada with hockey and the expense required to get into hockey at a high level. It's a lot cheaper and easier to get into a sport like Soccer at a young age.

Now American Football is ingrained in the American culture, it's a religious like experience in many parts of the US. We see similar stuff in Canada related to hockey. Football is a sport you can take up in public school at a low cost because the equipment is rented and and ice surface doesn't need to be rented.

Grassroots Soccer has seen an uptick, largely due to immigration but at a top level is still hasn't seen much of a breakthrough in popularity. North America's Pro League, the MLS, is a comparative mid-tier league in Europe and I reckon North Americans don't appreciate being offered a developmental league when they get to see the top level in 4 pro sports.

Toronto's MLS club was initially met with great enthusiasm (relatively of course, their stadium is about 20,000 seats) but years of poor play have greatly reduced their support.

Edited November 28, 2013 by Boges

[GostHacked]

Never mind the concussions: what of all the people who watch football and get bored to death?

Go do something productive for once? There is a whole world out there.

[segnosaur]

Black Dog makes many excellent points, and easily wins this debate. Soccer is 90 minutes of action. Football, like he said, is 11 minutes of boring action. The odd long pass causes 3 seconds of excitement.

A little context is important here...

While it is true that the amount of actual "play" in a typical American (or Canadian) rules football game may only be on the order of 10-15 minutes, each second of that play is dynamic (with events happening both in and around the quarterback, and downfield), and each moment has the opportunity to drastically affect the outcome of the game. (On a given play, you could in theory score a touchdown, or have one scored against you. Even making or failing to make a first down can seriously affect the outcome of the game.)

On the other hand, while soccer may have a full 90 minutes of "play" not all of that will be of interest... some of that time may consist of a player idly kicking the ball at midfield, passes between players where there is no chance of interception, etc. So, it has more "quantity" of play, but not necessarily more high "quality" of play.

Soccer has more worldwide fans than the NFL, and that says a lot.

Not really.

As another person pointed out, part of that popularity might be due to the low cost for individuals to play.

And if you're going by shear popularity, keep in mind that "Jersey Shore" and "Honey Boo Boo" both regularly attracted millions of viewers, and higher ratings than other more respected TV shows. So, going by the number of "fans" is no indication of overall quality.

[Black Dog]

A little context is important here...

While it is true that the amount of actual "play" in a typical American (or Canadian) rules football game may only be on the order of 10-15 minutes, each second of that play is dynamic (with events happening both in and around the quarterback, and downfield), and each moment has the opportunity to drastically affect the outcome of the game. (On a given play, you could in theory score a touchdown, or have one scored against you. Even making or failing to make a first down can seriously affect the outcome of the game.)

On the other hand, while soccer may have a full 90 minutes of "play" not all of that will be of interest... some of that time may consist of a player idly kicking the ball at midfield, passes between players where there is no chance of interception, etc. So, it has more "quantity" of play, but not necessarily more high "quality" of play.

Except I never took issue with what happens during the play in football (even if more often than not it's about as exciting and less productive as watching rhinos rut), just that there's so little of it.

As for the rest it's tough to compare free flowing, relatively stoppage free sports like hockey or soccer with a sport where constant stoppages are built-in.

Not really.

As another person pointed out, part of that popularity might be due to the low cost for individuals to play.

He said "fans" not "participants".

And if you're going by shear popularity, keep in mind that "Jersey Shore" and "Honey Boo Boo" both regularly attracted millions of viewers, and higher ratings than other more respected TV shows. So, going by the number of "fans" is no indication of overall quality

I'd like to see a Venn diagram of the overlap between football fans and viewers of those shows. IMO, there wouldn't be a ton of daylight.

[segnosaur]

He said "fans" not "participants".

Yes he did...

But the 2 are not mutually exclusive.

Many people who become 'fans' were previous participants (e.g. when they were children), or at least friends of previous participants.

And without a certain critical number of participants in a sport at the lower levels, you will not have enough players to establish high-calibur professional leagues (which will draw in the fans.)

[Black Dog]

Yes he did...

But the 2 are not mutually exclusive.

Many people who become 'fans' were previous participants (e.g. when they were children), or at least friends of previous participants.

And without a certain critical number of participants in a sport at the lower levels, you will not have enough players to establish high-calibur professional leagues (which will draw in the fans.)

if the theory is that people watch soccer because they can play, why wouldn't the reverse hold true?

[Boges]

People generally become fans of sports that are widely available where they live. How many people are fans of Aussie Rules Football in Canada? Likely very few because no one plays it here. A lot of people play Soccer in Europe, Africa, Asia, South America therefore there are lots of fans of the sport there.

When we're talking about sports that have a lot of stoppage built in we also have Volleyball, Tennis and Baseball. All of which are sports that are very popular internationally.

BTW today Canada's National Men's team reached an all time low in international rankings. This could be another reason why Soccer has yet to gain a major football in Canada.

Canada fell three spots to 114, setting a new all-time low. Canada is sandwiched between North Korea and Guatemala, and behind such countries as Benin, Kuwait and Burundi.

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/sports/cristiano-ronaldo-s-world-cup-playoffs-goals-lift-portugal-in-fifa-rankings-1.1564468#ixzz2lyl2LEqz

Edited November 28, 2013 by Boges

[segnosaur]

Many people who become 'fans' were previous participants (e.g. when they were children), or at least friends of previous participants.

And without a certain critical number of participants in a sport at the lower levels, you will not have enough players to establish high-calibur professional leagues (which will draw in the fans.)

if the theory is that people watch soccer because they can play, why wouldn't the reverse hold true?

Actually I never said the only reason people watch soccer is because they can play. I said it was likely part of the reason.

In North America, soccer will likely always be the red-headed stepchild of professional sports because there are alternatives (football, hockey, backetball) that are already ingrained into our culture. Other countries have fewer alternatives (you won't see too many professional hockey teams in south America because they don't have the climate or infrastructure.) So, you end up with a continent where soccer is about the only affordable alternative to play.

[Army Guy]

I don't think hockey or football will be banned anytime soon, there is to much money to be made, those with injuries will be paid out and put out to pasture, and sport fans around the world will continue to watch, why because it is Violent,and thats why the fans watch.

[dre]

I don't think hockey or football will be banned anytime soon, there is to much money to be made, those with injuries will be paid out and put out to pasture, and sport fans around the world will continue to watch, why because it is Violent,and thats why the fans watch.

I dont think fans watch just because of violence. In the case of hockey the game has become less and less violent for the last couple of decades, but ratings have grown. Lots of people just like it because its got good pace, and its a great team game with pretty passes, lots of speed etc.

Same goes for football. I played football in highschool, and its a very interesting game with a lot of strategy. I cant bear to watch a whole game as a fan because theres too much standing around, but I love to watch the highlights. Theres some amazing plays.

Sure... theres people that watch both sports simply because of the contact and physicality but thats not the only reason.

[Army Guy]

I dont think fans watch just because of violence. In the case of hockey the game has become less and less violent for the last couple of decades, but ratings have grown. Lots of people just like it because its got good pace, and its a great team game with pretty passes, lots of speed etc.

Same goes for football. I played football in highschool, and its a very interesting game with a lot of strategy. I cant bear to watch a whole game as a fan because theres too much standing around, but I love to watch the highlights. Theres some amazing plays.

Sure... theres people that watch both sports simply because of the contact and physicality but thats not the only reason.

Violence is part of it, it is part of the attraction of watching a good check will draw a postive response from the crowd, in some cases changes the game, same as football, take out the hitting etc and it will become a womens sport...like tenis,etc etc...i think it is integral to the game. there is a whole industry built around it, greatest hits, greatest fights,etc....Ask don Cherry...i agree there is more to these games but vilence is built into these sports...