If American Football wasn't called "football", would it be more popular...

Skimmed through this thread, so I might be repeating some stuff, but I don't care.

The game isn't popular, not because of its name, but because of the amount of stoppages it contains. Some people just don't want to watch five seconds of action and wait half a minute to see another 5 seconds.

Plus if football/soccer had a stoppage of 5-35 seconds after the defender passed it to the midfield. And then again once a forward gets it. It would lose a ton of its popularity as well. Basketball has plenty of stoppages as well, but the action lasts more than a dozen seconds before most stoppages. Hockey has stoppages at goals and penalties, but is otherwise freeflowing. Football/soccer needs no explanation on the freeflowing by anyone who has watched it.

As far as money goes, why do European countries invest in hockey but not football? You need padding, just like the NFL, but on top of it, you need good ice as well. And to play football, all you need is a football and grass, you are good to go.

When it comes to athleticism, endurance plays a big part in it as well. Sprinting for 5 seconds, even while taking some major hits, can be viewed inferior by some to running around for 85 minutes with a fifteen minute break in between and some walking around but being able to make a last second sprint to get a tying or winning goal. And vice-versa, as has been proven by this thread.

[QUOTE=joe]I thought the same thing about the cups, but he told me a lot of players didn't wear them because they'd chaffe your legs up, or were restrictive and uncomfortable. He also told me when there would be a human pile and a fumble, sometimes players [B]would stick their thumbs into the guys butt [/B]who has the ball to make him drop it. hahahahha. ****ing animals man.

I've never really watched Rugby, only once or twice. Seems like a pretty cool sport though. They have some badass uniforms, that's the main thing I took away because the strategy of it was completely foreign to me, lmao[/QUOTE]

Oh so you guys do that too?

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hopoate"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hopoate[/URL]

[QUOTE]During a 2001 clash with the Cowboys, Hopoate, in an attempt to unsettle several of his opponents, inserted his finger in three players' anuses,

Hopoate claimed in front of the panel of judges that he was simply attempting to give all three players "a wedgie" with his fingers, denying he had done anything wrong and that he was "a great believer in what happens on the field should stay there".[5]

The three victims in the case, Cowboys players Glenn Morrison, Peter Jones and Paul Bowman all disagreed with the reasoning put forward by Hopoate and his team. Jones stated, "It wasn't a wedgie. That's when your pants are pulled up your arse. I think I know the difference between a wedgie and someone sticking their finger up my bum", while Bowman stated that he was "disgusted" and "couldn't believe it."[6]
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=kaiteng]Jim Brown would have played lacrosse for his playing career and just be the greatest lacrosse player ever.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=-p.tiddy-]if every NFL player and every soccer player on the planet all participated in a giant 100 M race the first 100 people to finish would all be from the NFL...[/QUOTE]

[IMG]http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/mj-laughing.gif[/IMG]

[QUOTE=atljonesbro]He's [B]slower than Adrian Peterson[/B], weaker, less agile, not as big, can't jump as high or as far, and can't take as much punishment.

How is he the best athlete in the world lmao.[/QUOTE]

Seriously?

[QUOTE]Ronaldo was compared to Olympic sprint legend Usain Bolt after thundering 96 metres down the field for a counter-attack in just ten seconds, leading to many people claiming he would be of international athletics standards.[/QUOTE]

Source: [url]http://www.givemefootball.com/198162-cristiano-ronaldo-challenged-to-100m-race-by-spanish-record-holder[/url]

[QUOTE=B-Easy8]Its really boring. Plays go for 5-10 seconds at most and then there is a minimum of a 30 second break everytime. The stops are just insane, they spend 3/4 of the time doing nothing.

Also why do they have so much protection? Watch Australian football or rugby, they are just as rough, if not more and they wear nothing.

Another reason is that no one else in the world plays it, whilst almost every country in the world plays basketball.[/QUOTE]


Few arguments chap my ass more than this one because they are so wrong and so misguided and based on asinine simpletons making dumb observations without putting any real thought into it.

I played football in HS and played rugby in college as well as on teams overseas. Yes, rugby is a rough game, BUT IT IS NOT NEARLY AS HARD OR AS DANGEROUS AS FOOTBALL. The collisions in football are spectacularly more dangerous and harder.

Rugby is like long distance running, Football is like a series of sprints, the collisions when you sprint are much more violent.

Also, rugby players DO WEAR PROTECTION. You cannot watch a high level rugby game now without seeing a large majority of players wearing this:

[IMG]https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQGv1U8lyLIit7zYpoDLofiZqufBc0c0DIxFqro9MTGN65hf7khQQ[/IMG]

And if anyone has any head trauma they need to wear one of these for the rest of their career.

[IMG]http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQU88qvLam2HqmTmOANiDJGD1guoCSsSt_onzeKKgLExwubZa-6tA[/IMG]

In the next decade I see both being mandatory, so yes my friends, rugby, as it continues its evolution into a real pro sport (Fact: Rugby Union was COMPLETELY AMATEUR UNTIL 1995). They are still making major changes to the 'laws' of the game as it deals with the reality of bigger, stronger, faster and professional players entering its ranks.

We will see even more changes, and more equipment as the speed ramps up and approaches football levels.

And don't brandish me a hater, I love Rugby Union, it is the sport I am second best at (besides hoops) but I also played HS football and a lot of my friends played in college, so I cannot deny reality.

Non-Americans like to take cheap shots at football, it is misguided and b*tchmade.

[QUOTE=PHX_Phan]LJJ digging a hole :lol

You're coming off as an idiot. Maybe you don't respect the sport, but using the word marginal to describe the athletes just makes you come off as another idiot flinging turds.

We KNOW the athletes are superior to many sports in certain aspects because that is what the sport demands. You can look at physical numbers from the combine if you need further proof that they are top athletes regardless of where they are in the world.

You also overlook a huge factor in your 'logic.' The money. The NFL makes tons of money. Professional athletes tend to go where there is money. The sport doesn't have to be played all over the world if it's the biggest sport in one of the largest markets.[/QUOTE]

the way he's attempted to validate his retarded statements indicate that he's autistic. poor guy.

[QUOTE=deja vu]Seriously?



Source: [url]http://www.givemefootball.com/198162-cristiano-ronaldo-challenged-to-100m-race-by-spanish-record-holder[/url][/QUOTE]

Lol...they compared him to Bolt on a soccer site because he made a fast run down the field

If Peterson and Ronaldo raced Peterson would absolutely burn him...the only race Ronaldo might win between the two is long distance and I'm not even sure he could win that, Peterson has good endurance.

Been to a rugby game...watched Aussie Rules football...the tackling there vs. the tackling in American football is nowhere near the same.

They're both pretty cool but I don't find either really THAT entertaining. Aussie Rules just looks like a bunch of people playing grabass and kicking it up the field at random times. Takes a lot of endurance though.

[QUOTE=AngelEyes]There's no talking to retards like you. A toddler can put forth a better argument than your dumb ass.

You make fun of the ability to catch a ball when soccer takes what skill.... ? Kicking a [I]fu[/I]cking ball. My god that is just so much more impressive. At this point you better be trolling, otherwise you may want to get a brain scan, perhaps too many concussions. Well, congratulations for separating yourself from the dumbasses.[/QUOTE]

It was funny when football players came to soccer tryouts. Let's just say that.

Soccer does take more "skill" than football. I would tend to agree with that guy. Football relies much more on athleticism and just being huge more than anything. I like American football...

Also, Johnny ****ing Football is white and an incredible athlete. A better athlete than RGIII.

[QUOTE=AngelEyes]Seriously? How about... arm strength, accuracy, footwork, field vision, ability to know and execute routes, body control, pass catching, blocking, tackling, punting, kicking, etc.

What a stupid fu[I]c[/I]king question.[/QUOTE]

The only skill in there is throwing the ball and catching. The rest is intelligence and athleticism.

Add in punting and kicking too.

[QUOTE=PHX_Phan]They probably could be, but that's not how the game is played.

And, do you really think the same thing that happens in scrums doesn't happen in football pile-ups? Not even just in pile-ups, the NFL recently went through a huge ordeal with teams setting up bounties to inflict injury on particular players to take them out of games. Plenty of dirty stuff happens in American football.[/QUOTE]

Rugby Union sure...rugby league not so much.

[QUOTE=-p.tiddy-]Lol...they compared him to Bolt on a soccer site because he made a fast run down the field

If Peterson and Ronaldo raced Peterson would absolutely burn him...the only race Ronaldo might win between the two is long distance and I'm not even sure he could win that, Peterson has good endurance.[/QUOTE]
LOL c'mon Ronaldo ran 96 meters in less than 10 seconds during the 77th minute of the game. Imagine if he was fresh? :lol Let Peterson run and jog for 77 minutes, let's see if he can still run as fast as Ronaldo. :lol

[QUOTE=-p.tiddy-]If you don't think the ginormous slave trade did anything to African Americans in terms of physicality then you are in denial...simple as that

most African Americans don't deny this and understand it...watch a Chris Rock stand up

and you're right, no point in arguing it with someone that pretends it didn't happen[/QUOTE]

:wtf:

You do know that the US isnt the only country that had african slaves right?

Brazil had triple the population of African slaves than the US, so we are the most athletic country in the world i guess...

Probably the reason why we are the best soccer team in the world too :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

Brazil 2014!

Now seriously, you can't compare the two sports in athleticism since the players are trained for two very different types of games. In soccer its a lot more important to be agile than strong, see Messi, Neymar, etc. Ball control and skill are supreme, speed and agility too. So the training regime is completely differente from football where the most important parts are explosiveness and strength.

That's why you will never see a good football player become a good soccer player, but you can see the opposite since skill with the soccer ball is very hard to obtain unless you train since you are young but strength can easily be gained in the weight room and with correct nutrition.

[QUOTE=B-hoop]:wtf:

You do know that the US isnt the only country that had african slaves right?

Brazil had triple the population of African slaves than the US, so we are the most athletic country in the world i guess...

Probably the reason why we are the best soccer team in the world too :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

Brazil 2014![/QUOTE]
slave breeding was an enormous industry in the US, in fact at one point I believe it was the single biggest money maker in the country...I don't think it was like that for Brazil

However many of the US slaves escaped south to Mexico and South America/Brazil and Jamaica as well as...many of the "black latinos" down there are ancestors of US slaves...many South American MLB players like Sammy Sosa and such have US slave ancestors. I am sure there are plenty of 'black Brazilians" like that as well...I am sure Anderson Silva has slave ancestors

[QUOTE=B-hoop]:wtf:

You do know that the US isnt the only country that had african slaves right?

Brazil had triple the population of African slaves than the US, so we are the most athletic country in the world i guess...

Probably the reason why we are the best soccer team in the world too :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

Brazil 2014![/QUOTE]


no you're not

ranked 19th in the latest fifa rankings :roll:

[QUOTE=chosen_one6]On average, American football has only 11 minutes of action in 3 hours.[/QUOTE]

it really is fukking insane..........

[QUOTE=tomtucker]it really is fukking insane..........[/QUOTE]
that isn't even true...not sure where he got that

one quarter is 15 minutes long with clock stops during most breaks

[QUOTE=-p.tiddy-]slave breeding was an enormous industry in the US, in fact at one point I believe it was the single biggest money maker in the country...I don't think it was like that for Brazil

However many of the US slaves escaped south to Mexico and South America/Brazil and Jamaica as well as...many of the "black latinos" down there are ancestors of US slaves...many South American MLB players like Sammy Sosa and such have US slave ancestors. I am sure there are plenty of 'black Brazilians" like that as well...I am sure Anderson Silva has slave ancestors[/QUOTE]

LOL

Wtf dude do some internet research, Portugal was the biggest slave trader in the world and Brazil was its colony. For christ sake you think all black people in the South America are African American descendants? :facepalm

This is why most people hate americans, you dont know shit about what you are talking and act as if you know it all because America cant possibly be anything other than the best (in this case worse since we are talking about slavery here).

30% of Brazil's population in the 1800's was made of slaves. That's 1 million slaves in 1800. Do you know what was the american population in 1800? 5 million. So Brazil had as many slaves as 25% of the total american population in 1800.

Yea sure, our "black latinos" are descendants of african americans that came south :roll:

[QUOTE=B-hoop]LOL

Wtf dude do some internet research, Portugal was the biggest slave trader in the world and Brazil was its colony. For christ sake you think all black people in the South America are African American descendants? :facepalm

This is why most people hate americans, you dont know shit about what you are talking and act as if you know it all because America cant possibly be the best (in this case worse since we are talking about slavery here).

30% of Brazil's population in the 1800's was made of slaves. That's 1 million slaves in 1800. Do you know what was the american population in 1800? 5 million. So Brazil had as many slaves as 25% of the total american population in 1800.

Yea sure, our "black latinos" are descendants of african americans that came south :roll:[/QUOTE]
I said "many escaped to the south..."...not all, read mfer shit

again, I don't think it was as big of an industry as the US...but I am sure many of the best athletes there can be traced to slave breeding if it was that huge

perhaps South American Africans are equal in terms of physical dominance, I do think Jamaicans are...but the Lebrons and Calvin Johnsons of the world have US roots

How the hell can it not be as big of an industry when the country was simply the biggest slave buyer in the world?

When 30% of its total population was made of slaves?

Of course Lebron and Calvin are african american slaves i never said otherwise. You said America had the best athletes because of the african slave trade, i am showing you Brazil had an even bigger slave trade so logically by your own arguments we must be the most athletic country in the world.

The appearance of more athletic players in the US is easily explained by infraestructure and a strong sports culture in schools and colleges. In Brazil our freak athletes are working men and probably uneducated so they never had the chance play a sport professionally. Why do you think that MMA is dominated by Brazil? Its a sport that demands no education to enter it and its cheap to practice. Read about brazilian MMA athletes, all of them have a poor background, and i dont mean american poor where they still have a house, internet, tv, etc. I mean dirt poor where they earn less than a dollar per day.

[QUOTE=Andrew Wiggins]no you're not

ranked 19th in the latest fifa rankings :roll:[/QUOTE]

Yea quote we when you become a five time world champion please
:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

[QUOTE=B-hoop]How the hell can it not be as big of an industry when the country was simply the biggest slave buyer in the world?

When 30% of its total population was made of slaves?

Of course Lebron and Calvin are african american slaves i never said otherwise. You said America had the best athletes because of the african slave trade, i am showing you Brazil had an even bigger slave trade so logically by your own arguments we must be the most athletic country in the world.

The appearance of more athletic players in the US is easily explained by infraestructure and a strong sports culture in schools and colleges. In Brazil our freak athletes are working men and probably uneducated so they never had the chance play a sport professionally. Why do you think that MMA is dominated by Brazil? Its a sport that demands no education to enter it and its cheap to practice. Read about brazilian MMA athletes, all of them have a poor background, and i dont mean american poor where they still have a house, internet, tv, etc. I mean dirt poor where they earn less than a dollar per day.[/QUOTE]
I am agreeing that South America in general could have equal athletes yes...but I was saying that I didn't think it was as big of an industry in brazil because I don't think it was nearly as big money wise $$$...

I agree 100% that many of the athletes in Brazil and all of South America for that matter probably didn't have opportunities like US players because of money/economic reasons


all in all I pretty much just agree with you...

Again, Brazil was a richer colony than the american colony in the early 1700's when slave trade was the big thing. We got left behind when the US became independent and started industrializing, a thing we couldnt do since Portugal prohibited any industry in Brazil until 1808 when the Portuguese king came to live in Brazil.

So yes, our slave market was bigger $$wise than the US. The US only had slaves in the south, we had slaves all over the country.

Salvador, the city i live in, is 80% black (its the biggest black city outside of Africa) and it has a population of 4 million people.

[QUOTE=B-hoop]Again, Brazil was a richer colony than the american colony in the early 1700's when slave trade was the big thing. We got left behind when the US became independent and started industrializing, a thing we couldnt do since Portugal prohibited any industry in Brazil until 1808 when the Portuguese king came to live in Brazil.

So yes, our slave market was bigger $$wise than the US. The US only had slaves in the south, we had slaves all over the country.

Salvador, the city i live in, is 80% black (its the biggest black city outside of Africa) and it has a population of 4 million people.[/QUOTE]
Okay, well in terms of physical freak genes perhaps Brazil is number 1, I'm not saying you're wrong.

I am sure that with a great economy and training Brazil could produce some amazing NFL teams/players

[QUOTE=Balla_Status]
Also, Johnny ****ing Football is white and an incredible athlete. A better athlete than RGIII.[/QUOTE]
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

and NFL shits on boring ass soccer. just another reason why the USA is the GOAT country I guess

[QUOTE=LJJ]It's a bunch of [B][B]marginal athletes[/B][/B] on steroids running into each other in between commercials.[/QUOTE]
/credibility :roll:

[QUOTE=Timmy D for MVP]It's easy to explain I think.

Football is, in a basic form, a variation of an already established popular worldwide sport.

Whereas basketball was a novel, truly original sport.[/QUOTE]
If you're suggesting that football is a variation of soccer, I'd say that basketball is actually a more similar sport.

[QUOTE=LJJ]It's just facts and common sense here. Scale matters. If you have a sport that is practiced by 50000 people and compare it to a sport that is practiced by 50 million people, the latter will have superior athletes. No reason to get butt hurt over that.[/QUOTE]
:oldlol: What a terrible argument.

Who tend to be better athletes, baseball players or boxers? Table tennis players or swimmers? Badminton players or wrestlers?

GTFO dude. :lol

I think the problem and hurdle that many Europeans face is that they view American football through the lens of soccer (for the purposes of this discussion so we can distinguish), rugby and even Aussie football. The truth is, while those sports are all relatively similar in that there is non-stop action and no stops, American football is a completely, totally different game.

Every single person on an American football field is 100-percent specialized to play that exact position. They have probably been playing that very specific position their entire lives and wouldn't even know what to do if they were placed elsewhere. That is part of the brilliance of it, though.

I say this with no malice toward soccer (a game that I do appreciate), but it (soccer) is checkers compared to football's chess. On a chess board, you have certain pieces that can only move certain ways and do certain things.

Coaches have total control of what happens on a football field and, if they have one guy out of place or call a blitz at the wrong time, it can cost them the game.... Just like making one tiny mistake on the chess board can be the end.

I think you have to learn to look at American football with fresh eyes and don't compare to other sports, because it is totally unique. There may be significant time in between plays, but that is only because every play is of so much importance. It is incredibly tactical... Like war without the deaths.

Also, the time between the plays allows players to go 100% on every snap, as opposed to nonstop running, which will obviously wear on you in a different way. You are not going to be able to unleash the kind of incredible hit on someone after running for an hour nonstop the way you can with breaks after each play, nor can you run as fast, be as physical, etc.

Comparing rugby or futbol to American football is like comparing a marathon to a sprint.

That's my take.

[QUOTE=KingBeasley08]:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:[/QUOTE]

I've watched both in college. RGIII was nowhere near as shifty as Johnny Manziel when it came to avoiding sacks.

[QUOTE=Balla_Status]I've watched both in college. RGIII was nowhere near as shifty as Johnny Manziel when it came to avoiding sacks.[/QUOTE]
Manziel is barely 200 pounds. RG3s faster and 225

[QUOTE=KingBeasley08]Manziel is barely 200 pounds. RG3s faster and 225[/QUOTE]

Cool. Texas A&M defense dominated the **** out of RG3 at Baylor because they used Johnny Manziel as the scout QB in practice. They said RG3 was easier to get a hold of and had a much harder time in containing Johnny.

[QUOTE=RedBlackAttack]I think the problem and hurdle that many Europeans face is that they view American football through the lens of soccer (for the purposes of this discussion so we can distinguish), rugby and even Aussie football. The truth is, while those sports are all relatively similar in that there is non-stop action and no stops, American football is a completely, totally different game.

Every single person on an American football field is 100-percent specialized to play that exact position. They have probably been playing that very specific position their entire lives and wouldn't even know what to do if they were placed elsewhere. That is part of the brilliance of it, though.

I say this with no malice toward soccer (a game that I do appreciate), but it (soccer) is checkers compared to football's chess. On a chess board, you have certain pieces that can only move certain ways and do certain things.

Coaches have total control of what happens on a football field and, if they have one guy out of place or call a blitz at the wrong time, it can cost them the game.... Just like making one tiny mistake on the chess board can be the end.

I think you have to learn to look at American football with fresh eyes and don't compare to other sports, because it is totally unique. There may be significant time in between plays, but that is only because every play is of so much importance. It is incredibly tactical... Like war without the deaths.

Also, the time between the plays allows players to go 100% on every snap, as opposed to nonstop running, which will obviously wear on you in a different way. You are not going to be able to unleash the kind of incredible hit on someone after running for an hour nonstop the way you can with breaks after each play, nor can you run as fast, be as physical, etc.

Comparing rugby or futbol to American football is like comparing a marathon to a sprint.

That's my take.[/QUOTE]


Well said. I still thinks it's bs for a 60min game to take 5hours to play.

[QUOTE=Balla_Status]Cool. Texas A&M defense dominated the **** out of RG3 at Baylor because they used Johnny Manziel as the scout QB in practice. They said RG3 was easier to get a hold of and had a much harder time in containing Johnny.[/QUOTE]
college :sleeping

RG3's game actually translates to the pros. Why? Cuz he's athletic

[QUOTE=KingBeasley08]college :sleeping

RG3's game actually translates to the pros. Why? Cuz he's athletic[/QUOTE]

Yeah...you're an idiot if you don't think Johnny can play in the pros.

[QUOTE=Balla_Status]Yeah...you're an idiot if you don't think Johnny can play in the pros.[/QUOTE]
im sure he can play but I doubt he can ball


dudes 6'1 200 pounds. needs to start bulking up

[QUOTE=Nick Young]I like the tactics of football, I understand it because I'm American but compared to sports like basketball and soccer (THE ENGLISH INVENTED THAT WORD, GET OVER IT EUROSNOBS) it is too slow paced and dull. I like watching the playoffs and superbowl, that's it.[/QUOTE]

Football is dull compared to soccer? That's the direct opposite of reality.


It's harder to get into a sport when you don't understand it, and there's a lot of shit you have to learn for football to really understand it. When your country doesn't really have anyone playing at a high level in that sport, then it makes it harder for you to cheer for it. And of course, the expenses of playing the sport. I don't really care if it's not hugely popular around the world. It's doing just fine here and that's what matters to me.