basketball is a canadian inventionZeon. wrote:
Fuck that, basketball owns horribly... Don't like any other sports though ...
Here's a fact: These teams are businesses. They exist to make money, and regardless of what you think, there is nothing wrong with that. Occasionally, you do see money getting in the way of the sport, but for the most part I don't think that is the case. Clearly MANY people think the sport is fine, as they are raking in the cash.JudgeDredd1824 wrote:
How true.... I don't mind watching American Football, Baseball or even Basketball. As a Brit living in Texas for 6 years, I don't have much option if I need a "sport fix". That said, when a club's success is measured by how much money they generate, the sport becomes secondary, and the team should all pack up and become stock market accountants or something. Making money for the team's survival is fine, but when it becomes the ONLY reason, then quit and go play the stock market, there's more money, and no-one pretends to be anything other than a money grabbing twat.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
Whittsend - About the "most valuable sport" thing, firstly, it is typical American attitude to judge success by money, it's the first language over there; secondly I've read that article and no where does it say that, it only compares it financially to the other 3 American Sports. The only comparison to football is how the clubs in England can all compete whereas in the NFL only the rich ones survive (sounds good money management eh?). .
In any case, Please don't tell me it isn't about money in the UK. We know that Manchester Utd. is the most valuable single team in the world, and we all know that the other FC's WANT to duplicate that success. It isn't just Americans who want to make money, and as I said before, there's nothing wrong with that.
I don't know what you mean about only the rich surviving in Football...read the article. They are profit sharing so that all will survive, and it is not very common for a pro-sports team in this country to fold. Look at the Kansas City Royals. Smallest market in baseball, and they still manage to field a team every year.
Negatory on that...manitobapaintballa wrote:
basketball is a canadian inventionZeon. wrote:
Fuck that, basketball owns horribly... Don't like any other sports though ...
Darth_Fleder wrote:
The 'CANADIAN' was working in the United States (Springfield, MA.) when he invented it. And no, it was introduced at the YMCA International Training School in Springfield, Massachusetts..not StanfordBlokieBF2 wrote:
basketball was "invented" by a CANADIAN and he introduced it at Stanford University
http://www.hoophall.com/halloffamers/Naismith.htm
An interesting side note is that it is claimed that Dr. Naismith also introduced the use of the helmet in American football.
Here's a few "football" facts for all of you:
Evidence of the game of football can be traced back as far as 400 BC but no one really knows how old the game is.
Of the three games that were spawned from the original game of football, American Football, Soccer, and Rugby the oldest is American Football which was first played at Harvard University in the early 16th century and formalized by universities by the late 17th century. The youngest of the three, Soccer, arguably resembles the original game the least of the three. This can be argued since the original game of football allowed for holding and running with the football, and passing it in addition to kicking the football.
I would never argue that Soccer isn't a popular sport played all over the world, that would be ignorant, as ignorant as suggesting that American sports like baseball, Basketball, and Football aren't popular and played all over the world.
When the US soccer team is in the world cup you will see me cheering on my team because of patriotism. At any other time given the choice between watching fishing on TV and watching soccer on TV and only having those two choices and if I had to watch TV with no other option I would readily pick Fishing. Soccer is a slow game and very boring and this is why most Americans do not like it. We watch sports to be entertained. Seeing a single goal scored in an entire two hour game is boring. And baseball just isn't that fast a game but its lightspeed better than soccer IMO.
Evidence of the game of football can be traced back as far as 400 BC but no one really knows how old the game is.
Of the three games that were spawned from the original game of football, American Football, Soccer, and Rugby the oldest is American Football which was first played at Harvard University in the early 16th century and formalized by universities by the late 17th century. The youngest of the three, Soccer, arguably resembles the original game the least of the three. This can be argued since the original game of football allowed for holding and running with the football, and passing it in addition to kicking the football.
I would never argue that Soccer isn't a popular sport played all over the world, that would be ignorant, as ignorant as suggesting that American sports like baseball, Basketball, and Football aren't popular and played all over the world.
When the US soccer team is in the world cup you will see me cheering on my team because of patriotism. At any other time given the choice between watching fishing on TV and watching soccer on TV and only having those two choices and if I had to watch TV with no other option I would readily pick Fishing. Soccer is a slow game and very boring and this is why most Americans do not like it. We watch sports to be entertained. Seeing a single goal scored in an entire two hour game is boring. And baseball just isn't that fast a game but its lightspeed better than soccer IMO.
Sorry Sgt, I'm going to have to disagree with you on the age of Soccer.
I'm a Historian by education, and I have read documents which described Scottish soldiers playing football (soccer) in France prior to a battle which took place long before John Harvard was a gleam in the Milkman's eye.
If you call me on it, I'm going to have to defer because my memory of it isn't that great...but I know what I read.
I'm a Historian by education, and I have read documents which described Scottish soldiers playing football (soccer) in France prior to a battle which took place long before John Harvard was a gleam in the Milkman's eye.
If you call me on it, I'm going to have to defer because my memory of it isn't that great...but I know what I read.
Thanks you for that, I feel truly happy and whole as a person now I know that...manitobapaintballa wrote:
basketball is a canadian inventionZeon. wrote:
Fuck that, basketball owns horribly... Don't like any other sports though ...
</sarcasm>
3 out of six is half of the World, not quite all over the World.whittsend wrote:
I said Asia and Latin America (which is part of North American and All of South America). Throw in the rest of North America and you are looking at three out of six inhabited Continents and a majority of the worlds population.
It says if "A" European Football league were to compete, singular. The Premiership, La Liga, Serie A and The Bundesliga combined would dwarf the NHL, and tha's not mentioning the rest of the other big non-European leagues and other smaller Euro leagues.whittsend wrote:
I interpreted this:To be referring to European Soccer leagues. This is a British journal, so Football=Soccer. The clear implication of this statement is that the cashflow of the NFL is higher than other American sports and European Football leagues. Seems simple to me.The Economist wrote:
The co-operative arrangements also make costs stable and predictable. Mr Vrooman reckons that even if another American sports league, or a big European football league, were to have similar cashflows to the NFL, the American league's teams would still be 50-60% more valuable because their business is so much less risky.
This just shows your ignorance to economics and maths. The reason it costs more to advertise per second with the Superbowl is because it reaches a massive number of rich Americans whereas the World Cup has to cater for markets of many economic climates. America is the richest country in the world remember!whittsend wrote:
In any case, your conception of where the money is coming from shows your lack of understanding: It's not about tickets, and merchandise is tertiary. It is all about TV contracts and advertising. It costs 2 MILLION DOLLARS for 30 seconds of advertising time during the Superbowl. The amount of money involved is staggering, and the same thing applies in miniature all season long, as football is consistently among the top rated programs in the country. I'm pretty sure the World Cup doesn't make that kind of money.
Secondly, you're wrong and I can prove it. Read this article here and then it's time for a small maths test...
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business … 39,00.html
Okay, so the world cup will generate 1 billion dollars in advertising revenue, the Superbowel gets $2 millions per 30 secs of advertising. So,
1,000,000,000 divided by 2,000,000 = 500...times 30 secs = 15,000 sec = 250mins = 4.2 hours.
So the Superbowl would have to sell 4.2 hours of advertising to generate the same amount as the Wotld Cup. Somehow, I don't think so.......
Dr. James Naismith was indeed canadian, however he invented it in Springfield, Massachusetts (1891) so it can be defined as being invented in America.manitobapaintballa wrote:
basketball is a canadian inventionZeon. wrote:
Fuck that, basketball owns horribly... Don't like any other sports though ...
Never said it wasn't bud, that's why I cited Wigan as an example (I hate MU with a passion for just that reason), I come from Wigan and have followed the team over many years. They stayed true to one ideal, to give the fans an exciting spectacle.whittsend wrote:
In any case, Please don't tell me it isn't about money in the UK. We know that Manchester Utd. is the most valuable single team in the world, and we all know that the other FC's WANT to duplicate that success. It isn't just Americans who want to make money, and as I said before, there's nothing wrong with that.
I don't know what you mean about only the rich surviving in Football...read the article. They are profit sharing so that all will survive, and it is not very common for a pro-sports team in this country to fold. Look at the Kansas City Royals. Smallest market in baseball, and they still manage to field a team every year.
I did say that making money was important to keeping the team running, I was only commenting on being an issue when it becomes more important than the sport itself.
If you read my post properly, then you will have noticed that I said I liked US sports, just not the constant drive to make money at the expense of the sport itself. As for pro teams in the US not folding... True, but they can and do move to completely different cities (and States) just for profitability. How does that make the local fans feel? Hell, I'm a Green Bay fan myself, know why? Coz I feel they stay true to their roots, and will (hopefully) never move to a new city. They are a great example of "sportsmen" and the management don't seem to put profit over the sport. If more teams were like that, then the world of sports would be a better place. You can be self sustaining, win and not be a bunch of money hungry twats.
Whittsend, I won't argue that Brittish soldiers have been playing football longer than Harvard University has existed much longer even. What I would argue is that they were playing the original game and not what Americans call Soccer today.
Manitobapaintballa, you are confused. Basketball's inventor was born in Canada but he created it with two teams of 9 men in a YMCA gymnasium in Springfield, Mass.
Manitobapaintballa, you are confused. Basketball's inventor was born in Canada but he created it with two teams of 9 men in a YMCA gymnasium in Springfield, Mass.
Are you saying that American Football is an older invention than Real football? I'm not even going to post eveidence that you're wrong because you must be the only person in the wolrd with that view. It's simple, somes school kids were playing football (soccer), when one of the player picked up the ball and ran with it and thus came Rugby from which your game comes from. You do know you're country is olnly 400 years old don't you????sargeant_rock wrote:
Of the three games that were spawned from the original game of football, American Football, Soccer, and Rugby the oldest is American Football which was first played at Harvard University in the early 16th century and formalized by universities by the late 17th century. The youngest of the three, Soccer, arguably resembles the original game the least of the three. This can be argued since the original game of football allowed for holding and running with the football, and passing it in addition to kicking the football.
Not to mention that he spent the rest of his life in the U.S. and so do his descendants.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
Dr. James Naismith was indeed canadian, however he invented it in Springfield, Massachusetts (1891) so it can be defined as being invented in America.manitobapaintballa wrote:
basketball is a canadian inventionZeon. wrote:
Fuck that, basketball owns horribly... Don't like any other sports though ...
Dude they are shown on british tvstacky24af wrote:
Dude screw your rugby, screw your cricket they both suck ass. If your shitty TV networks actually televised American football, baseball, and basketball you would have a clue in life of what good sports are. And just a heads up to ENGLAND fans they will not win the world cup so start cryin yourself a river.
soccer is the most popular sport in the world becuase all you need to play it is a 5 dollar ball so it can be played in the most destitute places in the world.
rugby pales in comparison to the athletes in football. football and basketball both require equipment to play and also we invented them so of course they are more popular here.
cricket is the gayest game ever like a retarded woamns version of baseball
the only countries cricket and rugby are popular in are former colonies of england
rugby pales in comparison to the athletes in football. football and basketball both require equipment to play and also we invented them so of course they are more popular here.
cricket is the gayest game ever like a retarded woamns version of baseball
the only countries cricket and rugby are popular in are former colonies of england
Sorry to Quote myself but as I have said above they are different styles of sport that is why we are all arguingJinto-sk wrote:
I think American sports are good, but take a look at Baseball And American Football they are both based on short bursts of power and speed. A fast pitch followed by a swing of the bat, then a sprint, and then wait a few minutes till the next chap is ready to bat. Americn Football is similar, hike, lots of people run into each other, ball goes dead, again a few more minutes till it all happens again. These sports are based on short bursts of power and speed, they are not a continually flowing game like most of the European sports. But that doesn't make them bad sports.
I am how ever intrigued as to why the baseball final is called the WORLD series when it is only the Americans that play it.
Before You flame me I do watch these sports and know most the rules.
Basketball is the best of the US sports by far fast and exciting I love playing it
thats my 2 cents
CYA
Why dont you include the football playoffs since the world cup is in essence a playoff to the finals=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
Secondly, you're wrong and I can prove it. Read this article here and then it's time for a small maths test...
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business … 39,00.html
Okay, so the world cup will generate 1 billion dollars in advertising revenue, the Superbowel gets $2 millions per 30 secs of advertising. So,
1,000,000,000 divided by 2,000,000 = 500...times 30 secs = 15,000 sec = 250mins = 4.2 hours.
So the Superbowl would have to sell 4.2 hours of advertising to generate the same amount as the Wotld Cup. Somehow, I don't think so.......
Last edited by JG1567JG (2006-06-02 10:33:23)
Yeah, at 2 in the morning because they're so damn unpopular, lolJinto-sk wrote:
Dude they are shown on british tv
Aren't you forgetting the point of the topic. Your sports are only played in a former Colony of Britian (not England BTW), the USA!!!!!!morecullions wrote:
the only countries cricket and rugby are popular in are former colonies of england
Shown on TV and not very popular... Why??.... coz the Brits won't put up with all the fekkin adverts that the games are run around. What's with that??? When the adverts dictate the pace of the game, then it sucks balls. Least a game of footie is 45mins of action, followed by one break, the another 45 mins. I Like American Football, but I can't get over the fact that a game of 4 periods of 15 mins takes 3 soddin hours. Correct me if I'm wrong, but 4x15 = 60 mins, not 180. Like my last posts... when money is more important than the game, then it sucks.Jinto-sk wrote:
Dude they are shown on British TVstacky24af wrote:
Dude screw your rugby, screw your cricket they both suck ass. If your shitty TV networks actually televised American football, baseball, and basketball you would have a clue in life of what good sports are. And just a heads up to ENGLAND fans they will not win the world cup so start crying yourself a river.
American Football without commercial breaks, without dozens of time-outs would be a great sport to watch.
In American Football the clock doesn't run constantly so it will take longer than 60 min. Clock strategy is very important in American football.JudgeDredd1824 wrote:
Shown on TV and not very popular... Why??.... coz the Brits won't put up with all the fekkin adverts that the games are run around. What's with that??? When the adverts dictate the pace of the game, then it sucks balls. Least a game of footie is 45mins of action, followed by one break, the another 45 mins. I Like American Football, but I can't get over the fact that a game of 4 periods of 15 mins takes 3 soddin hours. Correct me if I'm wrong, but 4x15 = 60 mins, not 180. Like my last posts... when money is more important than the game, then it sucks.Jinto-sk wrote:
Dude they are shown on British TVstacky24af wrote:
Dude screw your rugby, screw your cricket they both suck ass. If your shitty TV networks actually televised American football, baseball, and basketball you would have a clue in life of what good sports are. And just a heads up to ENGLAND fans they will not win the world cup so start crying yourself a river.
American Football without commercial breaks, without dozens of time-outs would be a great sport to watch.
OK, be picky... You know what I meant. I don't expect it to be 60 mins, just not 3 hours. Commercials dictate the sport in the US. Thats the problemJG1567JG wrote:
In American Football the clock doesn't run constantly so it will take longer than 60 min. Clock strategy is very important in American football.JudgeDredd1824 wrote:
Shown on TV and not very popular... Why??.... coz the Brits won't put up with all the fekkin adverts that the games are run around. What's with that??? When the adverts dictate the pace of the game, then it sucks balls. Least a game of footie is 45mins of action, followed by one break, the another 45 mins. I Like American Football, but I can't get over the fact that a game of 4 periods of 15 mins takes 3 soddin hours. Correct me if I'm wrong, but 4x15 = 60 mins, not 180. Like my last posts... when money is more important than the game, then it sucks.Jinto-sk wrote:
Dude they are shown on British TV
American Football without commercial breaks, without dozens of time-outs would be a great sport to watch.
Yeah soccer what a real interest. What is there a goal like every 30 mins. or so wow the excitement is amazing. Almost as shitty as hockey. Not to mention the fans dont watch the game they're to busy chanting and fusing with the apponents fans.
Not ment to flame anybody but those of you that pay attention to the world cup and soccer about how many players can you name from your team and other teams. I could probably name at least 100 NFL players just off the top of my head but that is the sport that I like to follow. I'm just curious as to weather it is the sport of soccer/football that you like or the national rivalry that goes on when two teams play.
Edit--->The commercials and timeouts give you time to check on the other games going on.
Edit--->The commercials and timeouts give you time to check on the other games going on.
Last edited by JG1567JG (2006-06-02 10:48:30)
Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics. Even if you win you are still retarded.
Its not just about the goals, its the gameplay inbetween.stacky24af wrote:
Yeah soccer what a real interest. What is there a goal like every 30 mins. or so wow the excitement is amazing. Almost as shitty as hockey. Not to mention the fans dont watch the game they're to busy chanting and fusing with the apponents fans.
If you only get excitement from watching a sport where the score is the only thing, then watch darts, they can get 180 points in seconds, and the whold match can be over in a few mins. Its probably about the length of your attention span.
If you dont like the commercials dictating the sport in america then blame the network tv stations not the sport since they are the ones that put the commercials in.
Edit--> I agree on the dart comparison and that it is the action inbetween scores that is the best to watch but when i watch soccer I never see or actually dont know what a good play is other than a score but in football I can see a good play when it happens but I bet that is only from my lack of knowledge about Soccer
Edit--> I agree on the dart comparison and that it is the action inbetween scores that is the best to watch but when i watch soccer I never see or actually dont know what a good play is other than a score but in football I can see a good play when it happens but I bet that is only from my lack of knowledge about Soccer
Last edited by JG1567JG (2006-06-02 10:56:16)