| Micrówave 26.10.2007 18:04 |
Well, finally the NFL is putting something decent on display for you Brits. No half-assing: NFL Europe or Preseason football. A game that actually matters, where the starters won't be pulled after one quarter. All part of Roger Goddell's plan to get a team playing there every weekend within 5 years. And I am really excited to see how it is all received in London. The game sold out in less than 30 minutes. Problem is, Liverpool/Arsenal comes on exactly 1 hour afterwards!!! Now if was Manchester U, no question! But what do I watch? What will you watch? |
| pow wow 26.10.2007 18:46 |
Liverpool all the way. We'll (Liverpool) be looking to bounce back after another crap performance in the Euro's this week. Arsenal are on fire at the moment but got a feeling we're going to beat them. Torres is back, hopefully Alonso will start too. Going to be a good game - wish I had a ticket! I'm down for a season ticket, should get one for the 2018/19 season. |
| wstüssyb 27.10.2007 00:54 |
You are Getting the Dolphins...which suck, they are 0-6, very shitty ass team that lost their best player, Ronnie Brown (RB) for the season, starting QB Trent Green is out for the season as well...Playing the Giants...A boring ass Offensive team that Eli Manning can't seem to lead. Now if it was the Colts and Pats it would be a different story, Other words I would watch Pool/arsenal. |
| Penetration_Guru 27.10.2007 17:09 |
Why, how will that be any different? |
| yamaha 27.10.2007 17:57 |
Penetration_Guru wrote: Why, how will that be any different?Colts/Pats would be better since they are both good teams. You guys are getting something along the lines of a staring contest for crack addicts and tourettes sufferers. |
| Penetration_Guru 27.10.2007 18:49 |
Sorry, the question was how does underachieving Dolphins vs boring Giants differ from Liverpool vs Arsenal? |
| wstüssyb 27.10.2007 19:23 |
With pool and arsenal you'll get at least a few seconds of Enjoyment in seeing one of them losing points on Man Utd. |
| Micrówave 29.10.2007 10:55 |
yamaha wrote: Colts/Pats would be better since they are both good teams. You guys are getting something along the lines of a staring contest for crack addicts and tourettes sufferers.Ok, so you want the first real game over there to pretty much be the Superbowl? That wouldn't make any business sense whatsoever. This was a 'trial run' at something down the line. And I think it's kind of funny that the land of a 1-0 overtime goal is complaining about a 13-10 victory by the Giants. While it wasn't a touchdown every minute, which apparently is the only acceptable thing, it isn't the 1-1 draw that we got from Liverpool & Arsenal. What a yawner!!! Score 1 point at HOME? Geez!!! The NFL game was clearly the superior this weekend, which means IT'S COMING!! And those weren't free Jerseys and face paint they were giving away either. Probably be a division over there in the next few years. from ESPN.COM |
| Tero 29.10.2007 11:54 |
Sorry for not knowing much about the game, but how long does a 60 minute game of football take? The thing that makes it seem so long is the huge amount of breaks compared to the soccer games which run a regular two hours with the break. Also, I wouldn't pass judgement on based on a single game... One time has plenty of curiosity value, but that's a long way from keeping the general population interested with practically zero interest in the grassroot (players) level. |
| Micrówave 29.10.2007 12:14 |
Tero wrote: Sorry for not knowing much about the game, but how long does a 60 minute game of football take? The thing that makes it seem so long is the huge amount of breaks compared to the soccer games which run a regular two hours with the break.About 3 hours. That's probably the 2nd most common thing complained about, the length of the game (with breaks). What people seem to fail to understand is this. The NFL generates more money than any Sports League on the planet. It's true. You can search all you want but the bottom line is clear. Also, salaries compared to sports NOT in the U.S. are so much higher. You gotta pay for all of that, and the only way to do that is advertising. If you can sell a lot of ads, networks will pay outrageous prices to air your games on TV. See, I remember growing up in the seventies, being told that Soccer is going to invade the U.S. I'm still waiting for that to happen, but I am not surprised why it doesn't. Why does a video football game (Madden) outsell a video soccer game by millions? There aren't more football fans out there, but there are more who see it on TV than the soccer fans. The NFL pays Electronic Arts millions. The soccer leagues do not. More budget is set aside for development, more budget is set aside to promote it. Bringing it back full circle, now you know why there are more breaks and a longer game. It is simply more than just a game attended by thousands. It's a way of life. We still see Peyton Manning everywhere. What happened to David Beckham? He still alive? It's all about how you market your sport. |
| Tero 29.10.2007 13:30 |
Micrówave wrote:You make a very good case about why football is a huge business, and why as such it's an embodiment of sports in USA. Believe it or not, I'm not unfamiliar with the concept of business, and its relation to sports.Tero wrote: Sorry for not knowing much about the game, but how long does a 60 minute game of football take? The thing that makes it seem so long is the huge amount of breaks compared to the soccer games which run a regular two hours with the break.About 3 hours. That's probably the 2nd most common thing complained about, the length of the game (with breaks). What people seem to fail to understand is this. The NFL generates more money than any Sports League on the planet. It's true. You can search all you want but the bottom line is clear. Also, salaries compared to sports NOT in the U.S. are so much higher. You gotta pay for all of that, and the only way to do that is advertising. If you can sell a lot of ads, networks will pay outrageous prices to air your games on TV. See, I remember growing up in the seventies, being told that Soccer is going to invade the U.S. I'm still waiting for that to happen, but I am not surprised why it doesn't. Why does a video football game (Madden) outsell a video soccer game by millions? There aren't more football fans out there, but there are more who see it on TV than the soccer fans. The NFL pays Electronic Arts millions. The soccer leagues do not. More budget is set aside for development, more budget is set aside to promote it. Bringing it back full circle, now you know why there are more breaks and a longer game. It is simply more than just a game attended by thousands. It's a way of life. We still see Peyton Manning everywhere. What happened to David Beckham? He still alive? It's all about how you market your sport. The only problem here is that you seem to assume that's the only possible way the rest of the world could ever think about any sports. Ultimately it isn't even a case of football being the dominant sport in USA because it's better, or more profitable business, or even a more enjoyable thing to watch... It's because it's a part of the American culture, just like soccer is a part of the British (and come to think of it, pretty much global) culture. No one really expected soccer to become a huge success in the USA overnight, or Beckham to be a household name (at least outside their wildest dreams...), just like NFL isn't going to be a success in the UK within the next five years. That's just your wishful thinking. I will admit though, that NFL has a much greater potential in Europe than soccer could ever have in USA. Not because of any inherent quality, but rather because of the way our societies work. Americans are more driven towards personal success, and that's going to be a lot easier (and more profitable) in the sports that are already dominant ie. football, baseball, basketball. Because the financial gains aren't quite as large in the European sports (with the exception of soccer), the potential athletes here are going to be distributed among more numerous sports. What it all really comes down to is that football is more of a business than a sport, and unlike most American businesses it hasn't been able to gain a foothold in the global market because a) there is no tradition for it, and b) we aren't quite as commercialised as you, yet. In all likelihood those are going to change much sooner than the USA could ever give up on it's commercial traditions and embrace sports that aren't quite as profitable as the current favourites. ;) |
| The Mir@cle 30.10.2007 08:17 |
I watched Aberdeen together with Alex... so I missed both. Sorry! |
| Micrówave 30.10.2007 11:00 |
Tero wrote: just like NFL isn't going to be a success in the UK within the next five years. That's just your wishful thinking.Uh, no, that's the entire League's thinking. And I don't think they would be investing all this time and money on a "hunch". A successful business doesn't do that, and you've admitted that it is that. Tero wrote: a) there is no tradition for it, andNo, we can't trace it back to William Wallace, like you must be doing with soccer, but did you know in: 1892 - In an era in which football was a major attraction of local athletic clubs, an intense competition between two Pittsburgh-area clubs, the Allegheny Athletic Association (AAA) and the Pittsburgh Athletic Club (PAC), led to the making of the first professional football player. 1902 - Baseball's Philadelphia Athletics, managed by Connie Mack, and the Philadelphia Phillies formed professional football teams, joining the Pittsburgh Stars in the first attempt at a pro football league, named the National Football League. 1913 - Jim Thorpe, a former football and track star at the Carlisle Indian School (Pa.) and a double gold medal winner at the 1912 Olympics in Stockholm, played for the Pine Village Pros in Indiana. 1922 - After admitting the use of players who had college eligibility remaining during the 1921 season, Clair and the Green Bay management withdrew from the APFA, January 28. Curly Lambeau promised to obey league rules and then used $50 of his own money to buy back the franchise. Bad weather and low attendance plagued the Packers, and Lambeau went broke, but local merchants arranged a $2,500 loan for the club. A public nonprofit corporation was set up to operate the team, with Lambeau as head coach and manager. The American Professional Football Association changed its name to the National Football League, June 24. The Chicago Staleys became the Chicago Bears. 1924 - The league had 18 franchises 1933 - The NFL, which long had followed the rules of college football, made a number of significant changes from the college game for the first time and began to develop rules serving its needs and the style of play it preferred. The innovations from the 1932 championship game-inbounds line or hashmarks and goal posts on the goal lines-were adopted. Also the forward pass was legalized from anywhere behind the line of scrimmage, February 25. Marshall and Halas pushed through a proposal that divided the NFL into two divisions, with the winners to meet in an annual championship game, July 8. Three new franchises joined the league-the Pittsburgh Pirates of Art Rooney, the Philadelphia Eagles of Bert Bell and Lud Wray, and the Cincinnati Reds. The Staten Island Stapletons suspended operations for a year, but never returned to the league. Halas bought out Sternaman, became sole owner of the Bears, and reinstated himself as head coach. Marshall changed the name of the Boston Braves to the Redskins. David Jones sold the Chicago Cardinals to Charles W. Bidwill. In the first NFL Championship Game scheduled before the season, the Western Division champion Bears defeated the Eastern Division champion Giants 23-21 at Wrigley Field, December 17. . . . . . . I don't know, this seems like a little bit of "tradition". We've had football for over 115 years. We've been a nation for 231 years. What are your requirements, Togg? Has SOCCER been around for half of your country's existance? |
| Tero 30.10.2007 11:51 |
Micrówave wrote: I don't know, this seems like a little bit of "tradition". We've had football for over 115 years. We've been a nation for 231 years. What are your requirements, Togg? Has SOCCER been around for half of your country's existance?I think you should brush up on your reading comprehension. For starters you've got my username wrong, and you're mixing up OUR traditions with YOUR traditions. I didn't deny the American tradition of football. I actually said that particular tradition which you have (and we don't) is the biggest obstacle for your football taking on in Europe. I also doubt anyone (besides possibly you) is expecting the NFL to branch out into Europe even in the next decade. The sport needs to have local players and local following, and that takes years. NFL IS interested in it as a long term investment, though, as the American market is already about as saturated as it can possibly get. They need to expand the business to make more money, and the only way is to eventually go to other countries. |
| Micrówave 30.10.2007 16:41 |
Tero wrote: I think you should brush up on your reading comprehension. For starters you've got my username wrongSorry, Tero, my bad. That's one. Tero wrote: I didn't deny the American tradition of football. I actually said that particular tradition which you have (and we don't) is the biggest obstacle for your football taking on in Europe.No you didn't. I quoted you. Did you go back and edit all that into your original post? I think I clearly showed that the NFL is able to bring tradition to the table. That's one for me. Tero wrote: I also doubt anyone (besides possibly you) is expecting the NFL to branch out into Europe even in the next decade. The sport needs to have local players and local following, and that takes years. NFL IS interested in it as a long term investment, though, as the American market is already about as saturated as it can possibly get. They need to expand the business to make more money, and the only way is to eventually go to other countries.Uh, dude... maybe you didn't hear the NFL. They're planning at least one game a year or more in the next five years. 3 confirmed in the UK. 1 confirmed in Mexico. 1 confirmed in Japan. The NFL is branching out to the world! Plus, why would there have to be local players? The good European Basketball players all dream and sometimes end up playing in the NBA. Not the other way around!?! That's a silly argument. Also, the NFL needing local fans to survive overseas? Hello!!! The Dallas Cowboys sell the most merchandise of any sporting team IN THE WORLD. Thats right, THE WORLD. Not Liverpool, or even God Love 'em Manchester U. Also, local players would kill the sport in Europe. They're simply not as good. We don't want another NFL Europe: Local players and NFL rejects. I would think Britain would demand only the best. I hope you're not getting all worked up about this, Tero. But my reading comprehension is just fine. You, on the other hand, may be a victim of your own sport. I freely admit not knowing a lot about the business side of soccer. It's pretty screwy, in my eyes. But Pro Football and how it has been marketed is something I'm a little more educated about. I've been working in this business for about 10 years now. |
| Tero 31.10.2007 01:27 |
Micrówave wrote:I haven't touched my original post, and here's the abdridged version for your reading pleasure:Tero wrote: I think you should brush up on your reading comprehension. For starters you've got my username wrongSorry, Tero, my bad. That's one.Tero wrote: I didn't deny the American tradition of football. I actually said that particular tradition which you have (and we don't) is the biggest obstacle for your football taking on in Europe.No you didn't. I quoted you. Did you go back and edit all that into your original post? I think I clearly showed that the NFL is able to bring tradition to the table. That's one for me.Tero wrote: I also doubt anyone (besides possibly you) is expecting the NFL to branch out into Europe even in the next decade. The sport needs to have local players and local following, and that takes years. NFL IS interested in it as a long term investment, though, as the American market is already about as saturated as it can possibly get. They need to expand the business to make more money, and the only way is to eventually go to other countries.Uh, dude... maybe you didn't hear the NFL. They're planning at least one game a year or more in the next five years. 3 confirmed in the UK. 1 confirmed in Mexico. 1 confirmed in Japan. The NFL is branching out to the world! Plus, why would there have to be local players? The good European Basketball players all dream and sometimes end up playing in the NBA. Not the other way around!?! That's a silly argument. Also, the NFL needing local fans to survive overseas? Hello!!! The Dallas Cowboys sell the most merchandise of any sporting team IN THE WORLD. Thats right, THE WORLD. Not Liverpool, or even God Love 'em Manchester U. Also, local players would kill the sport in Europe. They're simply not as good. We don't want another NFL Europe: Local players and NFL rejects. I would think Britain would demand only the best. I hope you're not getting all worked up about this, Tero. But my reading comprehension is just fine. You, on the other hand, may be a victim of your own sport. I freely admit not knowing a lot about the business side of soccer. It's pretty screwy, in my eyes. But Pro Football and how it has been marketed is something I'm a little more educated about. I've been working in this business for about 10 years now. Tero wrote: unlike most American businesses it hasn't been able to gain a foothold in the global market because a) there is no tradition for it, and b) we aren't quite as commercialised as you, yet.1) I'm writing about an American business in the global market. 2) I'm talking about why it hasn't become as huge abroad as it is in the USA. 3) I'm saying it's because there's no tradition for it. All these ideas are related to each other, and number 3) is the cause for the previous two. YOu can talk about the American historical, cultural, social and financial traditions of football as much as you like, but those mean absolutely nothing when it comes to other countries. It's as simple as that. Alright, so you've reset the goal posts on the whole NFL branching out to the world... As long as we're talking about one game (played by visiting players) per year, it means absolutely nothing in a business sense. Previously you were talking about a whole division of local teams in the UK, which would have meant hundreds of professional players from UK. THAT isn't going to happen before 2020 at the earliest. Or were you expecting half a dozen teams to just move into USA based on one game? And were you expecting the local spectators to be any more interested in those teams then you would be about David Beckham? What you're still guilty of in this topic (and have been all along) is |
| YourValentine 31.10.2007 04:18 |
I think there is already a fanbase for American Football in Europe although it's really tiny compared to football, for example. Or hockey in Sweden, Finland, Czech Republic. The NFL match in Wembley was entertainment, like for example Holiday On Ice. However, how often do people pay to watch Holiday on Ice? A team sport needs national and international competition to be mass appealing. People want to see their teams win, that's the main factor. If you ever witnessed football frenzy during a world cup ("world" meaning teams from all over the world are competing)in a football country like England, Germany, Italy, or Brazil you will see that marketing cannot win over passion. Football is every day, in every small team in every small town whereas the Wembley match was mainly a showcase which is probably very nice to watch but in the long run it does not "sell" to the masses like another team sport that is rooted in the country. |
| Mr.Jingles 31.10.2007 07:17 |
Who gives a fuck how much money a sport or a sport team makes, what matters more than anything else to the actual sport follower is that it's entertaining. Money should only matter to the sport executives and media promoters because they are the ones who actually make a profit from it. Why should a fan worry if it makes money or not? As long as it makes enough money for the league not to be cancelled, that's good enough for the fan. ...and about the NFL taking over the world? Oh please... even fuckin' cricket has more worldwide appeal than American Football. |
| Micrówave 31.10.2007 10:40 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: Who gives a fuck how much money a sport or a sport team makes, what matters more than anything else to the actual sport follower is that it's entertaining.Players, owners, investors, advertisers, networks, the list goes quite a long way. Mr.Jingles wrote: Why should a fan worry if it makes money or not? As long as it makes enough money for the league not to be cancelled, that's good enough for the fan.Tell that to small market teams or The Baltimore Colts, Los Angeles Rams, and soon The Buffalo Bills. Mr.Jingles wrote: ...and about the NFL taking over the world? Oh please... even fuckin' cricket has more worldwide appeal than American Football.That's only because of Men At Work's Be Good Johnny. |