That doesn't mean it's well run. The MLB spending cap is a joke, the poor teams are just farm teams for the 'franchises' you talk about, the stadiums are 90% empty, the sport's on a terminal decline.
The American consumer will accept just about anything. If it is marketed with mass media we will believe anything(we were convinced that the most brutal dictator in history Joe Stalin was our ally-remember Uncle Joe?). It is the dumbing down of the American people. Four hours to play a college football game in order to absorb 12 minutes of activity? I used to ask who are these people? I went to Cellular Field a few weeks ago: I looked around and the future of America is in jeopardy. Barry Bonds is the great hero yet he is a well recognized drug abuser and cheater (and people bring their children to watch this?). 35% of all NFL players are obese AND use steroids. Yet the politicians are spending our tax money to fund their stadia? Most NFL players cant speak english-they speak ebonics; this is frightening. How pleasant it was to watch the ManU awards on Setanta and listen to thoughtful, well-spoken, pleasant appearing athletes (instead of gangsta inner city hoodlums).
You shouldn't speak what you think is the truth. It's not politically correct. Hasn't our culture taught you anything? The politically correct counter to your arguement is the NFL is working very hard at elliminating the very few bad apples that use illegal substances. Most of these outstanding athletes are just extraordinary American humans. As far as Barry Bonds goes, I think the "Baseball and steroids" thing has helped pro Baseball. I think Americans, subconsciously, will think it has given the game more legitimacy as a sport. Most Americans don't understand athletics. A large percentage of sports fans never played or rarely played any sport. I think that when Americans hear that Baseball players take steroids, they think you have to be a very strong athlete to play baseball which, if you played baseball, you know is not true. You do need to be well coordinated and skilled at what you do. Getting back to my point about Americans not truly understanding sports because they didn't play any, I think that is the reason why Americans need a high scoring game. They don't know what else to cheer for. A tick on the scoreboard is one of the very few things they understand, they know to cheer at that time. It makes it easy for them.
I would say the opposite would be better: Use European League structure with American sports. Imagine how much more exciting the NFL would be if teams like Detroit, Arizona, Cleveland, New Orleans, Houston, etc actually had to play for something (TO STAY IN THE LEAGUE) instead of just cashing in on ticket sales week in and week out and then being rewarded for their terrible play by being granted a "top draft pick" for the next season, which apparently doesn't help anyways. How many top 10 picks have the Lions used in consecutive years to remain a ************ ass team? If we had promotion/relegation the fans would have something to be passionate about, every game would mean something for every team, and overall the sport/league would be better. As it is right now, the games only mean something for the top teams. By mid-season there is absolutely no point in watching Lions vs Saints because by this point neither of them are going to make the play-offs. The further you get into the season, the less teams actually have something to play for. In European soccer even the worst teams still have something to play for until the very last game (to try to avoid relegation). Hell, even baseball would be exciting because there would actually be a point to watching teams other than the Yankees, Red Sox, White Sox, Braves, and Cardinals. I completely gave up with baseball when the Tigers (my "home team") tied the record for most losses ever in a single season and had absolutely no repercussions... they were still in the league the next season and still had pretty much the same roster. Also, in all sports, this would make it possible to have a "home team" that is actually close to my home. I live 2 and a half hours away from Detroit, but I have to support them because they are the closest team, and the only one in the state. Chicago is over 4 hours away and Cleveland/Columbus are even further. If there was a way that a team from Lansing, Battle Creek, or especially Jackson could promote into the top league(s) I'd much rather support them than a Detroit team. But it's simply not possible in the USA.
Well doesnt american fans say European football is boring becouse the same teams win the league year after year? Yet i looked at the statistics of the NFL playoffs and theres allways the same 4-5 teams makes it to the play off "cough" Steelers "cough" Yeah so NFL aint better the European league, however if you look at the Champions league statistics hardly any team won the title more the 2 times
The American leagues wouldn't go for that, it would mean the owners would risk being kicked off the gravy train. The good thing about cartels is that they're good for everyone in them, and no-one wants to leave. NFL teams can lose game after game and still suck at the teat of shared revenue and endless ticket sales from fans who are prepared to pay $250 for a ticket and $25 parking to watch a crap team because 'omg its teh nfl and tv says its teh gratist show on erth'. If I was an NFL owner of a successful team with large gate receipts I'd propose a relegation system to stop the lazy owners who don't care about the game leeching my cash. I think that's more to do with the playoff system. If the NFL took the best 20 teams and had them all play each other once in a single table, I think you'd see a more European-style conclusion. Although I don't think a playoff system would make the Premiership any less predictable considering how the same four teams always win the FA cup.
Well year after year i hoping that a Hungarian football team makes it to the champions league group stage;however hungarian teams are shit and will never make it lol but i still watch it year after year for 12 years and never turned my back on football at all i think thats how long the champions league been running 12 years ?! Im not talking about the champions cup tho
Before I discovered soccer, American football was my favorite sport. Soccer has since replaced it, but I still get excited every fall when football season starts up again. And for those who think football is a boring sport--you've obviously never played it. I've never suited up in pads and a helmet in my life, but I played plenty of backyard/vacant lot football in my youth. It's a blast.
What about Rugby Football or Aussie Rules Football? Didn't they all evolve from Rugby school when some kid decided to pick up a soccer ball and run with it?
I believe I am correct. American, Rugby and Australian versions of football all evolve from that kid in Rugby school. I assume that is why they retained the name "football" despite being primarily hand sports.
I prefer soccer. Its simple and very fun. My friend and I play recreationally at this park called Owen's Field, they have like 5 real fields and we just do Penalty Shootouts, fun as hell. From time to time a bunch of Mexicans show up and we play real games.
No. He invented what were the the seeds of Rugby without knowing it. The school simply developed a set of rules which is how the game got it's name of Rugby Football. All 3 at one point were basically the same sport. They just evolved over the years with each country developing a form of Rugby to suit local tastes. The Aussie version is the most dramatic evolution. That's got something to do with the fact they have to play on round or oval cricket pitches. Something like that.
I think you're referring to their FA. They were called something like the United States Football Federation. then it changed to the United States Soccer Federation. But Americans have always colloquially referred to the game as soccer. Football has always meant gridiron. Even in Wales, elderly men still refer to Rugby as "football".
Early soccer leagues in the US mostly used the name football leagues: for example, the American Football Association (founded in 1884), the American Amateur Football Association (1893), the American League of Professional Football (1894), the National Association Foot Ball League (1895), and the Southern New England Football League (1914). However, the word "soccer" was beginning to catch on, and the St Louis Soccer League was a significant regional competition between 1907 and 1939. What is now the United States Soccer Federation was originally the US Football Association, formed in 1913 by the merger of the American Football Association and the American Amateur Football Association. The governing body of the sport in the US did not have the word soccer in its name until 1945, when it became the US Soccer Football Association. It did not drop the word football from its name until 1974, when it became the US Soccer Federation.
Not for every game though. You should have ties like the rest of the world. However, I liked the WAY they were done with the pk taker allowed to dribble the ball and the keeper coming out one-on-one. When FIFA suggested this method of taking PK's only one NT coach (Johan Cruyff) voted for it. Then MLS adopted it.