Popularity of US football

Is he right? Would US football be popular in US if it was a foreign sport?

Other urls found in this thread:

thebiglead.com/2013/10/31/gio-bernard-went-barry-sanders-on-the-dolphins-for-the-best-nfl-td-run-this-year/
youtube.com/watch?v=fimclacYmyI
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Is there anything more pathetic than people who go into detail about why they don't like sports and insulting fans of it instead of just not watching it?

Also
>reddit
>gayunicornrainbows

Seems about right.

Is there anything more pathetic than people who get offended by a post on a website they claim to hate instead of just ignoring it?

Also
>Germany
>hfhkajhg

Seems about right.

That is a false equivalency. And if truly were an endless spiral down then you would be more retarded for not ignoring my post.

You are retarded on several different levels which is an achievement I guess.

I don't remember ever having beef with upside-down Poland. Are you just retarded and think you are actually poland?

But it technically IS a foreign sport, it's literally just a modified version of rugby.

And it wasn't even that popular until TVs became widespread in the 50s and 60s, before that baseball was the undisputed king.

Yes. The reason football and baseball are popular in the US is because those are the only sports (aside from golf) that don't require much physical exertion and where fat people can be successful.

dude clearly doesn't understand how football works if he thinks it's slow

the thing with soccer is that its one guy moving with or passing the ball and everyone else on the team standing around and waiting until they touch the ball

in american football, the action is not always centered on the person with the ball, at all times all 22 people on the field are actively engaged with their opponents and fulfilling an important role

so much more action than soccer in every respect, and I watch and have played both sports

i would still watch it because it's fun. the real reason other countries don't care about our sports is because we are a very young country and their cultures are older. why would they suddenly adapt to our sports after playing soccer for hundreds of years? that doesn't make sense.

This. Football has the most explosive plays while soccer or rugby is literally jogging throughout 90% of the "action".

>dude clearly doesn't understand how football works if he thinks it's slow
>proceeds to tells us how he does not know how european football works

>everyone else on the team standing around and waiting until they touch the ball
Just stop burger

You didn't dispute any of my claims. Soccer players barely make attacking runs, it happens infrequently. Every football play you have 5 guys actively making runs(running routes) at the defense.

1 player in soccer maybe will make a run every 5 minutes after his team has passed sideways or backwards long enough and they finally decide to attempt to score. It's painfully boring and slow.

>playing soccer for hundreds of years
It was literally only codified 1863, Australian rules football is older. Cricket is older.

America is the cultural hegemony. And heaps of countries play Basketball and Ice Hockey and a few even play Baseball. GridIron jsut sucks.

>the thing with soccer is that its one guy moving with or passing the ball and everyone else on the team standing around and waiting until they touch the ball
please dont talk about footbal ever again, thank you

>Soccer players barely make attacking runs
Is this fucking bait?

Much prefer watching American Football over Rugby desu

Football is GOAT, handegg is crap.

/thread

The point the reddit guy was making isn't that Gridiron lacks attacking plays. It's just all the stoppages. NFL games take 3 hrs to complete 1 hour of actual play.
Soccer has almost no stoppages. It takes 100 minutes to broadcast 90 minutes of play.

Gridiron has impenetrable rules that frequently change. It's the same reason why Australian football isn't popular internationally

this

1 guy (the striker) makes a run while everyone else stands or jogs in formation and passes the ball around

in football everyone execpt the linemen is making runs every 10ish seconds (1 play), this is way more action, more pieces in motion and more tactical depth

soccer is slow in comparison

OP here.

I read on another website that US football growth overseas was doomed from start because 1/ sport for and from the elite (not grassroot like baseball) 2/ brits exported their sports as hygiene 3/ US isolationism settled US football fate (as the world became sporty in the 1900-1940, US culture was more inwards than outwards)

who fucking cares

I like watching good d
And I like watching a team phone it in for the first 50 minutes then scramble at the end, only to depend on fucking special teams to keep them alive
I dunno football rocks fuck all y'all

this

the stoppages in football don't bother me (well except for the added unnecessary commercial breaks in the middle of the game when they should just move on to the next play) because you know when the action is going to occur and when you need to pay attention

watching a soccer match sucks because you can't look away for more than 5 seconds or you might miss the only good action of the match

>football
>sport for the elite

Is this bait? It was literally fucking part time bricklayers and dock workers playing it until the 60s.

Even today it has a lot of shitpoor blacks from da hood.

Well that's not true
What about the iron bowl a few years ago where auburn went onside in their first kickoff.....nobody expected that

you clearly have no clue of what you are talking about, just stop embarassing yourself

Don't need to be rude m8

US football was codified by your universities and was used by students to perfect their leadership skills

Early 20th century it transpired into the high schools

afaik there is still a thing like "college football" in your country

Thing is, US football (and rugby) was more top-bottom than bottom-top like soccer (and soccer is today more like bottom-bottom...)

That now or then some plebs played it isn't the question

I wasn't rude at all.

>created by universities

Doesn't change the fact it was mostly played by poor people for most of its existence, vast majority of players didn't come from Ivies. You're literally the only person I ever heard describing football as an upper class sport.

>open image
>reddit
>close image
>post this
>close thread

>college football

Student athletes are a joke, barely literate ghetto niggers riding on full scholarship while pretending to be studying memeshit like African American studies.

codified and played are two different things. in order to be codified the sport has to exist first.

My source is the wikipedia article "history of american football". Prevalence of your universities in its popularity is underlined.

See Those student athletes are anything but elites, they're the dregs.

Why do Euros constantly only gravitate toward sports that are "free-flowing" or "fluid?"

Do you know how many fuckin' field + ball + 5-15 players on the field running around without stoppages, trying to cross a goal-line/put the ball in the goal sports are there?

This is why American football is popular here, because it fits a niche alongside basketball and ice hockey, and even soccer as game with a slow-to-medium pace. And baseball fits another nice niche as a non-goal sport that is different from the tired "put ball into goal" game design.

Australia and Canada have a similar dynamic with their major sports. I'll eve throw in the UK here since snooker and darts are reasonably popular there (not sports, but at least it's something different on tv).

Don't Euros and South Americans like contrast? Why does every sport need to have the same basic design and gameplay for them to be entertained?

"Wow. Another game where a bunch of guys run around a field or court trying to score a goal! But at least stuff is moving around, so I'm entertained."

I do agree with you guys about the excessive commercials, though.

Was staying in the US for about 6 months and watched a lot of American Football while there. Most people don't even watch the sport for the entire game, they're usually on their phone the whole time.

The sport can have glimmers of excitement but is largely boring. I find it funny Americans call soccer boring yet are willing to put up with all this shit:

>3 hour game with only about 10% comprising of actual on the field play
>constant commercials and breaks at any given opportunity
>flags get thrown for literally everything and anything at such a rate that it disrupts play even further
>coaches also throw red flags to challenge calls which even further adds more breaks / commercials, only for the refs' original call to stand in 80% of challenges
>plays are constantly overturned due to arbitrary rules such as "both feet weren't planted when he caught the ball," or "his toe was on the outside line," which either restarts plays or leads to a field kick which then goes into another fucking commercial break and drive
>not very athletic / skill based compared to most other sports (excluding motorsports). Commentators lose their shit over the most basic of catches or throws which literally anyone with basic cognitive motor-skills can make.
>tactics are stupidly basic, both on attack and defence.
>defence comprises of nothing but blitzing / sacking, and/or stopping wide receivers + running backs. Plays are usually over within 3 seconds on average because attacking players can't get past 300lb meat sacks.
>attacking plays at their most technical involves feinting throws towards receivers and instead handing off to running backs who can't be caught by aforementioned fat ass defenders.

The most exciting games I saw were college games, largely due to the fact that the players are largely inexperienced and are more unconventional in their playing, plus the fact that referees were less stringent in their calls and stopping plays.

>arbitrary rules

So like every sport ever?

>tactics are stupidly basic, both on attack and defence.
elaborate.

>tactics are stupidly basic

You get 1/10 for making me reply, otherwise it would be obvious you're a serious retard who thinks every pass rush is a blitz.

I found that funny considering AFL and Rugby Yawnion have some truly stupid rules.

AFL:

>Required to punch the ball to pass
>Can only take a certain amount of steps before you're required to bounce the ball
>Piss easy to score and takes no skill to score since the goals are about 5 times as wide as a conventional field goal
>Tactically and strategically barren.
>Very shitty athletically compared to basketball players and NFL players (AFL is like a crossbreed between basketball and rugby

Yawnion:

>Tactically shallow. The game is basically one long and glorified lateral play
>Dumb rules. Players can't purposely bat a ball on defense. Yeah this ain't totally fuckin' arbitrary and unquantifiable to judge:

>A deliberate knock on is a penalty as opposed to an accidental knock on that results in a scrum. In the case of a defender batting down a pass, the referee has to judge whether they think the defender was actually trying to catch (intercept) the pass or just trying to knock it down.

Gave the Rugby Yawnion World Cup a chance, and saw Scotland lose the game on that stupid rule. Immediately changed the channel. Not to mention, rugby has a very monotonous pace. Lateral/Run/Lateral/Run. You won't see something like Odell Beckham's one handed grab

You rarely, if ever, see individual brilliance like this in Yawnion. If a player gets into trouble he can just semen-slurpingly lateral it to a teammate. Rinse and repeat.

thebiglead.com/2013/10/31/gio-bernard-went-barry-sanders-on-the-dolphins-for-the-best-nfl-td-run-this-year/

You see no truly big hits (fuck off with that "armour" excuse, cunts. Even with the padding, the body still takes more direct force than one of rugby's boring wrap tackles). No receivers skying through the air to bring down a pass. No 65 yard bomb.

Just lateral/run. Semen slurping indeed.

i agree with the slowness and amount of commercials.

if they could just run every play no huddle and you had like less than 30 seconds for every snap it would become much more popular with the rest of the world

just like have 10 minutes of commercials every quarter or something all at once and then none during the game

the players might get more tired but just allow bigger rosters.

its good when theres action, its the breaks that are the issue

I think the "commercials" problem will soon disappear, as the era of TV is reaching its end

>I don't know anything about football and rugby

why would you use snooker and darts as examples over cricket and rugby?

Redzone channel has literally 0 comnercials and live feed from all games, you should check it out.

The most idiotic rugby shit is the fact you're not even allowed to block.

Totally agree about the commercials. They've become excessive over the past 20 years. (In the 70's and 80's, the only breaks were the 2 min warning and halftime).

But as I said in an above post, I don't get the "Rest of the world's" obsession with "flow?"

If you "speeded up" American football, you lose a great deal of the tension built up until the ball is snapped. When it's 3rd and 4, crowd is going wild for a stop or conversion, and you see the quarterback reading the defense, barking the count, and then calling the audible, and the defense reacting to the audible, your stomach is churning for those 20-30 seconds.

To go no huddle all the time would ruin that.

Is the world's obsession with constant movement of players borne out soccer being everyone's first sport?

Does American Football NEED to be a foreign sport? Why?

Football is fine here in burgerland, it doesn't have to be exported. If England is any indication we would become immediately horrible at the sport we invented and I don't know if I can live with that.

Rugby isn't a fluid game? Seems they're constantly on the move, and there's only minimal stoppages.

Forgot about cricket, but is it really relevant over there still aside from the Ashes?

I would think the best darts and snooker players make money and are more relevant.

/u/gayunicornrainbows are 100% right 2bh

In college when they are running no huddle offenses or aggressive spread attacks they really can't show commercials.

Not that most Americans care, just gives us time to talk with our friends about the game, shitpost without missing anything, or check fantasy. It's just a different animal from soccer and I can see why all the breaks are a turnoff for people who are so used to soccer having no breaks. You just don't know wtf to do with yourselves in the downtime. Grab a beer, grab some snacks, argue with your friends, shit man be social. Ever been to a baseball game? 90% of the "event" is about just enjoying the weather.

if you don't like baseball why do you pay to go to the games?

I agree, I don't want yuros and other foreign shits playing it. It's the NFL owner clique that always wants to expand the league abroad but average Americans want none of that shit.

>watching a soccer match sucks because you can't look away for more than 5 seconds or you might miss the only good action of the match
It's actually the opposite, most of the play is very dynamic and fluid. There's always something going on that's different, while American football is fairly schematic and 95% consist of methodical play you've seen before. Boreball is even worse. If you aren't able to comfortably watch 2 45 minute parts without your ADHD acting up, you might want to look into therapy.

isnt it more boring with every player being american? like in basketball for example you get random freaks from other countries like manute bol, or chara in hockey, in nfl you rarely get that, every team could have like 5 hayne plane tier meme players

I always write that US football is more akin to computer programing than to sport.

1/ coach selects program (tactics for offensive squad)
2/ squad executes
3/ if fails go to 1/

No, because unlike you we actually don't give a fuck about the rest of the planet.

There are foreigners in the NFL, just not that many.

cricket is much more relevant than snooker or darts, I'd say its probably the 3rd biggest here. Rugby Union is fluid but League has turnovers like American Football

not him but 90% of our culture does or pretends to likes things because everyone else is pretending to do the same. its a highly feminine culture actually, which makes it consumer friendly and inclusive.

>there are genuinely people on this very board who think football created stoppages to be friendly to fat people and commercials

When that shit was created America wasn't fat yet and TV wasn't invented yet.

I can feel the impotent anger in every keystroke of this post lol

so is that why you europoors like to drink and riot during games to make it more interesting?

Americans only really play sports that allow fat people to compete like baseball and football. Basketball is basically just niggers and wiggers.

You are clueless. Completely.

Sure, modern football may seem slower at times, but in fact isn't, at all.
People complain about the passing around but they don't understand that there is a point to it: finding the space while not falling for a trap that will leave them open for counter's.
Today's football is about fast transitions. Too bad most people don't see what is right in front of their eyes.

No we don't, we do those things before and after the match.
We actually have a sport to watch.

i think you are wrong about that.

>The reason football and baseball are popular in the US is because those are the only sports (aside from golf) that don't require much physical exertion

I can't tell if you're shitposting or if you genuinely believe this

>sport

being proud of ignorance and wanting to be unintelligent and uncultured is what will make mexico rule you guys

Nah I see it, I understand what's going on and the tactical purpose behind it, but it's just shit to watch. It's just not entertaining to see them pass around the back for 90 minutes and only 30 seconds of those 90 minutes is anyone even remotely close to scoring a goal.

Wish teams weren't so afraid of conceding and played more open styles. It's like the object of soccer isn't to score but to prevent the other team from scoring. I don't know, I can appreciate a good defensive battle in NFL, but in soccer its unwatchable

If we weren't constantly forcefed the values of tolerance and acceptance of foreign cultures by the liberals, we'd have deported those beaner shitters a long time ago.

> but in soccer its unwatchable
Then you're a pleb, m8.

>Not wanting the game to last 3 hours instead of 100 minutes

Ever since I got into American football, football games just seem way too short now. Feels like it's all over too quickly and I feel like I'm left wanting more

>There's always something going on that's different, while American football is fairly schematic and 95% consist of methodical play you've seen before.

This is where familiarity with the sport comes into play.

When I watch soccer, I see the same shit. Over and over and over. Attacks and counterattacks unfold relatively the same few ways pretty much every time. But since you're "familiar," you see the subtle nuances that make each attack different.

Same thing with American football. It is by no means "schematic." Euros are under the mistaken impression that the head coach forces the players to do exact thing he wants every down, without any chance for their "improvisation" they see in soccer. But this is untrue.

A coach calling in a play is just the initial set-up move, if you will, a set-up based on the coach's anticipation of what the other coach might call in that situation. After that, it's up to the players to decide if they want stay with the play or audible based on their on-field reads.

In the huddle, a wide receiver, knowing his man is tired, might tell the QB to run a specific play for him when the initial play called in by the coach called was a run play.

There's tons of improvisation and on field adjusting, but it's not as overt or apparent, so Euros don't think it exists.

where did you get this idea from? mexico is a good friend of ours. we help each other in a lot of ways.

> When I watch soccer, I see the same shit. Over and over and over. Attacks and counterattacks unfold relatively the same few ways pretty much every time
Bullshit.
When was the last time that American Football actually changed?

In football you can clearly guess the decade of a game by the way they play. Football is always evolving.

>Wish teams weren't so afraid of conceding and played more open styles. It's like the object of soccer isn't to score but to prevent the other team from scoring.

Gotta thanks our Italian friends for this "catenaccio" thingy

That's a crass exaggeration, and it wasn't applicable until the 1960s or so. Frogman is correct

90% of the breaks would happen without TV interfering. Highschool football is proof of this

You're just as bad as him. 90% of you retards in this thread have no idea about the sport you are commenting on.

Can we stop talking shit about each others footballs?

My question still stands: would US football be succesful in US if it was a foreign sport?

Yeah, I don't get the idea that once you get something, you'll start to magically like it.

We can write a 500 page thesis on the strategy, tactics, and subtleties of American football, but Euros will never come around because at the end of the day, they prefer a game with no stoppages in action. Not even talking about commercials. We can get rid of them, too. But the fact that the play stops after every tackle in American football will forever turn them off. The soccer aesthetic is too ingrained into them, and every sport needs to have constant running around.

With soccer, a Euro can write his 500 page dissertation, and I won't come around, because what's ingrained in me and most US sports fans, is sports that have something of a back-and-forth shootout dynamic to them.

I want to see scoring tug-o-wars, so to speak. One team scores twice in a row. Team responds with a score. Team A scores another two in a row. Team, B responds with a 3 score run to tie it up. Back-and-forth, punch/counterpunch.

In soccer, you're lucky if you get a punch and one counterpunch most of the time. The average score for a game is 2.5 goals (for both teams) and 30% of the games end in ties.

>Dumb American. You need scoring to be entertained!

Soccer tactics are no deeper than any other ball and goal sport. So the tactical interest Euros always talk about I can get from any other ball and goal sport, even non-American sports like Rugby, AFL, etc in addition to a better scoring dynamic.

The only reason I occasionally tune in is to watch some neat skills on display Other than that...yawn.

Fucking nazi go start another war faggot

Probably, but I'm not here to attack your football. I find it fun sometimes, I know the history and rules of it. I also know how it evolved over the years.
I'm just here to defend Soccer from turbo plebs.

You know why I said fairly schematic? Why I said 95% of stuff you've seen before? Because I know there's some room for improvisation. Hell, even the athleticism of the players makes a difference in how plays in American football turn out. But adjustments because of tired players aren't dynamic game play, they are strategic patterns, that happen all the fucking time. It's real time strategy versus turn based. I'm not saying there's no depths. The dynamic elements of American football are mostly happening at short term QB decision making and the consequences, when to drop a run, etc. and are still fairly minimal. There's a huge difference.

Hard to say. Unfamiliarity is a big obstacle to understanding and enjoying a sport, as evidenced by this thread.

It'd probably be rugby tier. But it's popularity isn't due solely to the fact that it was invented here

>My question still stands: would US football be succesful in US if it was a foreign sport?

An unanswerable question.

And what does this prove?

It's like asking would soccer be the world's game if the English, through their world spanning empire, didn't bring it with them to the lands they conquered? Or bringing it to countries they shared a border with?

Example: "Modern football was introduced nine years later in 1872 by English sailors playing in Le Havre in 1872."

Fair enough sorry for being mean senpai

*resheaths katana*

>running 100 yards while being chased by fat men in spandex who can't keep up is the height of physicality to burgerclaps
>doing pointless flips and dancing is considered athleticism to burgerclaps
>kicking a ball further than 40 yards away from a goal is challenging to burgerclaps
>burgerclaps are actually impressed by this stuff

youtube.com/watch?v=fimclacYmyI

kek

Handegg is literally the nigger sport. Who in their right mind would want to watch a bunch of dudes jumping on each other. I'm surprised americans on here hate football and actually defend handegg.

Those fat baseball players are still more athletic than you except maybe bartolo colon

You are a fucking idiot. If you think the game hasn't changed even in the last decade then just gtfo of this thread.