Moderator: Community Team


pancakemix wrote:Quirk, you are a bastard. That is all.
can you not say that of football, basketball, badminton, tennis, waterpolo, cricket, baseball, hockey, rugby, volleyball... basically any sport involving a ball against opponents?muy_thaiguy wrote:It's a game of strategy, physicality, speed, power, and athleticism.
Plus, at the collegiate level, fans get passionate for the schools they went to and supported when they defeat a long time rival.

It seems you're still skipping over the quarter breaks, time to reset play after a score, and everything else previously mentioned. That's probably a good idea.tzor wrote:Well let's say it. That's 4.5 minutes wasted. Why? Because under the regulation, without the commercial factor, a timeout is 30 seconds.saxitoxin wrote:IOW let's say, in a game, teams use three of their six time-outs in a half,
SOURCE
If there were no commercials all time outs would be 30 seconds, not two minutes.Article 1 The Referee shall suspend play while the ball is dead and declare a charged team timeout upon the request for a timeout by the head coach or any player to any official.
Item 1: Three Timeouts Allowed A team is allowed three charged team timeouts during each half.
Item 2: Length of Timeouts. Charged team timeouts shall be two minutes in length, unless the timeout is not used by television for a commercial break. Timeouts shall be 30 seconds in length when the designated number of television commercials have been exhausted in a quarter, if it is a second charged team timeout in the same dead-ball period, or when the Referee so indicates.
Check and Mate ... Q.E.D.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 0#p5349880
I wonder the same thing at high school games and there's nary a TV camera in sight.DoomYoshi wrote:f*ck off, saxitoxin. Next time you go to a game and you wonder why the players are just milling about the field and nothing is going on; over and over and over again you will quickly realize how many commercial breaks are totally unwarranted. I can read and practice the entire Kama Sutra in the amount of wasted time on Sundays.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 0#p5349880
NObetiko wrote:can you not say that of football, basketball, badminton, tennis, waterpolo, cricket, baseball, hockey, rugby, volleyball... basically any sport involving a ball against opponents?muy_thaiguy wrote:It's a game of strategy, physicality, speed, power, and athleticism.
Plus, at the collegiate level, fans get passionate for the schools they went to and supported when they defeat a long time rival.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 0#p5349880
At least its better than watching baseball live. They do make it much better on TV though. Hated watching my first MLB baseball game in stadium though.TA1LGUNN3R wrote:Football is about as exciting as English food is flavorful.
-TG
aage wrote: Maybe you're right, but since we receive no handlebars from the mod I think we should get some ourselves.

Indeed, although those sports tend to have all the players displaying all of Muyt's qualities over a sustained period of time. So, not like American Football.betiko wrote:can you not say that of football, basketball, badminton, tennis, waterpolo, cricket, baseball, hockey, rugby, volleyball... basically any sport involving a ball against opponents?muy_thaiguy wrote:It's a game of strategy, physicality, speed, power, and athleticism.
Plus, at the collegiate level, fans get passionate for the schools they went to and supported when they defeat a long time rival.
Each team has 11 players (12 for the CFL) on the field at a time. And each player has an individual assignment, that if they fail, could bring about disaster for the play.betiko wrote:can you not say that of football, basketball, badminton, tennis, waterpolo, cricket, baseball, hockey, rugby, volleyball... basically any sport involving a ball against opponents?muy_thaiguy wrote:It's a game of strategy, physicality, speed, power, and athleticism.
Plus, at the collegiate level, fans get passionate for the schools they went to and supported when they defeat a long time rival.
That's not exactly true. They would just be fairly rich instead of stinking rich. Your typical football stadium has the capacity of around 80,000 (Metlife Stadium capacity is 82,556). Compare that to Yankee Stadium which has a 52,251 capacity. Unfortunately games are only once a week, with the bye week somewhere therein and only half of the games are home games (not counting the times both teams have away games because they want to bring the sport to London) and the actual season capacity of the crowd is far greater for baseball than it is for football. On the other hand, most football games are sellouts and this is not the case for baseball.notyou2 wrote:Let's understand one thing. Without the TV audience and the advertisers that bankroll the sports industry, all your favourite players would be selling real estate and/or meth, because the money is better.

It's pretty much a fixed game overall, though, isn't it? It's not as if local teams, or states without a franchise can compete. It's really a business more than a sport, from the college level up, it's a leviathan.tzor wrote:That's not exactly true. They would just be fairly rich instead of stinking rich. Your typical football stadium has the capacity of around 80,000 (Metlife Stadium capacity is 82,556). Compare that to Yankee Stadium which has a 52,251 capacity. Unfortunately games are only once a week, with the bye week somewhere therein and only half of the games are home games (not counting the times both teams have away games because they want to bring the sport to London) and the actual season capacity of the crowd is far greater for baseball than it is for football. On the other hand, most football games are sellouts and this is not the case for baseball.notyou2 wrote:Let's understand one thing. Without the TV audience and the advertisers that bankroll the sports industry, all your favourite players would be selling real estate and/or meth, because the money is better.
Besides most NFL players couldn't sell real estate to save their lives and they would be immediately profiled by law enforcement if they tried to sell meth.
Well it is definitely a "monopoly" by the power of Federal law. More so than Baseball. There are no "minor" leagues and no "independent" leagues. (Originally there was two major leagues in Football but they combined. Third leagues tended to die slow and painful deaths.) Football at the college level is actually pathetic if you are not a Division I school. (But R.P.I. still fights Union every year for a pair of wooden shoes.)Symmetry wrote:It's pretty much a fixed game overall, though, isn't it? It's not as if local teams, or states without a franchise can compete. It's really a business more than a sport, from the college level up, it's a leviathan.

I don't understand how it could be considered a fixed game. Local or semi-pro teams really wouldn't be able to compete, the best of the best typically end up making it into the NFL. Also a large talent differential for football is not like it would be for a 100 meter sprint, not only would the losing side get embarrassed by the score but typically the worse team will be riddled with injuries afterwards. The way I see it, the business and the sport go hand in hand and it seems to work out pretty well. Because the players get paid so well, they can dedicate their careers to the sport and produce the highest level of performance possible where most Olympic athletes can't say the same. Also since they get paid so well and are so well covered by the media, it attracts more talent to the sport and makes it more competitive. This is why most of the athletic talent seems to gravitate towards basketball and football in the US as opposed to soccer in Europe.Symmetry wrote: It's pretty much a fixed game overall, though, isn't it? It's not as if local teams, or states without a franchise can compete. It's really a business more than a sport, from the college level up, it's a leviathan.
saxitoxin wrote:Serbia is a RUDE DUDE
may not be a PRUDE, but he's gotta 'TUDE
might not be LEWD, but he's gonna get BOOED
RUDE

The shotgun formation was invented in 1940 (with Tommy Thompson.). Named after someone who used it in 1960 (John Brodie). Briefly by Joe Namath but not as a major tactic until the mid 70's with Roger Staubach who had a running back next to him to provide a running alternative from the position. So tell me what you consider the "infant days of the shotgun formations."Lucky Se7en wrote:Are you seriously trying to say that there was more strategy to football back in the infant days of the shotgun formations?


pancakemix wrote:Quirk, you are a bastard. That is all.
I appreciate that the few minutes of actual play are exciting, Your second point largely bears true, but hell, if you'd seen Mo Farah compete you wouldn't make the comparison at all American Football isn't really compararible to individual athletic events though.Lucky Se7en wrote:I don't understand how it could be considered a fixed game. Local or semi-pro teams really wouldn't be able to compete, the best of the best typically end up making it into the NFL. Also a large talent differential for football is not like it would be for a 100 meter sprint, not only would the losing side get embarrassed by the score but typically the worse team will be riddled with injuries afterwards. The way I see it, the business and the sport go hand in hand and it seems to work out pretty well. Because the players get paid so well, they can dedicate their careers to the sport and produce the highest level of performance possible where most Olympic athletes can't say the same. Also since they get paid so well and are so well covered by the media, it attracts more talent to the sport and makes it more competitive. This is why most of the athletic talent seems to gravitate towards basketball and football in the US as opposed to soccer in Europe.Symmetry wrote: It's pretty much a fixed game overall, though, isn't it? It's not as if local teams, or states without a franchise can compete. It's really a business more than a sport, from the college level up, it's a leviathan.
I don't understand how the level of excitement for a sport is directly compared to the amount of time spent watching it. I get that commercials are annoying but I'd rather spend my time watching a sport fully interested in what's going to happen/happening than watching something drone on. I mean come on, who would be in their right mind to say that they are more excited to watch a distance running event than watch a couple sprints?
I'm going to disagree. It not a matter of the quantity (although that does make for boring game play) but there are certain aspects of the game that have been ruined by a number of parameters that basically limit options on the field considerably. They consist of the offensive and defensive lines as well as protection and in some cases the lack thereof.Symmetry wrote:It's a fixed game because only a certain set of teams are allowed to play, and of those teams, the worst gets the best pick of a deeply corrupt college system. Fifa is awful, but the NFL?
NFL Players at most positions are bigger and stronger than their predecessors, but sizes and body styles have diverged — sometimes dramatically — based on the demands of their roles. As data journalist Noah Veltman noted after crunching the numbers on NFL player height and weight over time, “nowadays, if you’re 6 foot 3 inches and 280 pounds, you’re too big for most skill positions and too small to play line.”
One recent analysis of average player weights by position, using data from NFL.com for each player on 2013 rosters, found a range from 193 pounds for cornerbacks to 315 for offensive guards. (The difference in average heights, while not as dramatic, ranged from 5 foot 11 inches for running backs and cornerbacks to 6 foot 5 inches for offensive tackles.
I don't see the changes that were made leading to more exciting football. It's more like watching demolition derby.The impression that players at every position are much bigger and stronger than previous generations is not always true. Sometimes the ideal body type for today’s game is actually smaller. Consider the running back.
Bronko Nagurski, the ball carrier who became the NFL’s symbol of power football during the 1930s, stood 6 feet 2 inches tall and weighed 226 pounds. His strength and size helped him plow through would-be tacklers.
Running backs today average just shorter than 6 feet, and 215 pounds. On those terms alone, Nagurski would not be outmatched. But today’s runners use their size to hide behind the massive linemen blocking in front of them, and spend countless hours in training to develop the acceleration and lower body strength to speed through holes and fight for extra yardage.
