I can honestly say I've not got a clue how many teams there were in the higher years, I remember there being an "E" maybe even "F" team lower down.
I might have enjoyed Rugby a little more if it wasn't forced on me and full of people insisting it's some sort of beacon of righteousness for all other sports to look up to.
In my Nottingham comp (in the late 70s) we got a new sports teacher who binned footy as the winter sport in favour of Rugby Union. Despite only a few lessons and a vague knowledge of the rules I was put in the school team because I was 'big' and played two games. The first against the first boys I had ever seen with beards and the second against another lot of neanderthals from Top Valley. First game I was punched on the side of the head in the scrum and spent the rest of the game ambling about in a daze...(might explain why my memory is a bit....a bit....where was I?) and the second my leg was stamped on and I had to come off as I could barely walk. ('Stop whinging you big puff...!' was the teachers response) Needless to say my career was short.
One of the fundamental reasons I think football is the greatest sport is the variety of scoring. Many goals look similar to one you have seen before (especially set pieces), but for the most part, goals look completely unique, as there is so much variety to the build up and final touch.
On the other end of the spectrum is basketball, where the scoring zone is a small hoop, barely bigger than the ball itself. Thus, most scoring looks exactly like something you have seen over and over again. Baseball, though having a large field, is a little like this too, with most sports falling somewhere in between, though usually nearer to predictable basketball scoring than the unique football scoring.
It's the infrequency as well. Scoring in basketball doesn't feel like an event, which is the main reason I've never been able to get into it. In football, 1-0 doesn't feel like too little and 4-3 doesn't feel like too much.
Rugby at pro level is one thing but at school level just seemed to be an excuse for the "rough" kids to have a ruck.
I dare say all of us have played a footy game with a doddery ref against some dodgy scofflaws, but in rugby surely every game is just getting smashed to bits
There were few better moments in my sporting ‘career’ than a well-timed tackle bringing some lumbering, young-farmer type, Neanderthal crashing down to earth.
I've always thought of NFL as a sort of chess. Trying to figure out what your opponent will play, setting out to quash that while utilising your own strengths
@Malone said:
Rugby at pro level is one thing but at school level just seemed to be an excuse for the "rough" kids to have a ruck.
I dare say all of us have played a footy game with a doddery ref against some dodgy scofflaws, but in rugby surely every game is just getting smashed to bits
Just a wild guess, but I reckon those who now play at pro level probably once played at school level
You know the whole draft system? Where you've got teams who know they have no chance of making the play offs, does it not incentivise them to keep losing so they'll get first pick next season?
Is there anything in place to stop this happening?
@eric_plant said:
I had another question I meant to ask.
You know the whole draft system? Where you've got teams who know they have no chance of making the play offs, does it not incentivise them to keep losing so they'll get first pick next season?
Is there anything in place to stop this happening?
It definitely incentivises them to 'tank' the season, although the Cleveland Browns did it for several seasons but didn't pick particularly wisely and traded for 'Hollywood' players while neglecting other key areas. The 49ers, though, by comparison, finished last season as the second worst in the league, picked wisely in this year's draft - and made some great trades/free agency pick-ups - and are now the last undefeated team standing. You've got to have the right people upstairs, regardless of the picks you have.
Is there anything in place to stop it? To the best of my knowledge, no.
@eric_plant said:
I had another question I meant to ask.
You know the whole draft system? Where you've got teams who know they have no chance of making the play offs, does it not incentivise them to keep losing so they'll get first pick next season?
Is there anything in place to stop this happening?
Nothing really from a club management point if view and the Miami Dolphins have been accused of 'tanking ' this season.
They won at the weekend though bringing the equally bad New York Jets in to the mix for the first pick.
The main reason 'tanking' doesn't happen is the players. Most are on short term contracts and are looking to put down performances to keep them in work and to maximise their value. Players seen to be buying in to the 'tanking' are not employed once the season is over.
Finally college football is so different these days to the NFL a high draft pick in no guarantee of getting a great player. Recent first rounds are littered with failures. As many as half first rounds picks don't get a second contract.
This means some teams are now giving up draft picks for estsblished players. It's more expensive as rookie contracts are capped but in a world of instant success it works for some
That's why there's a complicated lottery system in the NBA (basketball) where the worst team from the previous season doesn't automatically get the first pick, simply a higher chance to win the 1st pick lottery. It's around 25% I believe, 20% chance for 2nd worse, all the way down to about 1% for the mid-table 15th/16th place teams.
Selecting one superstar college player in a 5-a-side sport, with maybe 8/9 players contributing to any one match would have a lot larger effect on a team's performance than an NFL team with their 53 man 'rosters'.
They have the combine, where players go up against each other in all sorts of drills - the 40-yard dash is probably the best known - but I don't know a whole lot beyond that.
There aren't transfers, not as we know them in football. You can only move in a trade or as a free agent - which you become by being cut to free up cap space (salary cap, that is), reaching the end of your contract, or being fired. I'm probably missing something from that, but you can't buy a player.
Well college football is a whole other sport in its own right. Games every Saturday, national TV coverage, 70,000+ attendances. Plenty of opportunities for scouts to evaluate the players.
@chairboyscentral said:
It's the infrequency as well. Scoring in basketball doesn't feel like an event, which is the main reason I've never been able to get into it.
Agree about the scoring problem - missed shots are the clinchers, but hard to get excited about. Basketball’s enjoyable to play but not much of a watch IMO.
Harlem Globetrotters were great entertainment to us teenagers in the early ‘50s, even in black and white on a 14” screen. Have I derailed? I’m too tired to check and I’m off to see if there’s a more interesting thread.
Having lived in the US for many years I had no choice but to try out watching their sports (except for 10am Saturday when I would listen to the Wycombe commentary!). With maybe the exception of ice hockey most sports have short bursts of action and then a pause or reset. I couldn't make head nor tail of baseball or American football, basketball is my pet hate and never gave a serious go. However, I was living in Boston and at that time the Red Sox got to their first World Series for about a thousand years and was traveling on business a lot at the time with my Bostonian boss. Sitting in bars watching the games he took time to explain the tactics (he did the same with American football later that year when the Pats got to the Super Bowl).
Without any knowledge of the tactical side of the game it was just watching people hit/throw a ball, with the knowledge of the why after the explanation i could appreciate the nuances of games and the strategy involved.
I would say the same could be said for septics when they watch footie. I remember taking two septics to the Chelsea v Wycombe game 2nd leg at the bridge. They left at half time as found the whole game boring...on discussion they explained it was due to them having no clue who was doing what and why on the pitch, and despite being a fairly high scoring game (unfortunately) they just didn't know what was going on and left to get a beer.
I did watch one NFL game liv and hated it a everything stopped every couple of minutes for ad breaks, on to is much better. It's the other way around for baseball, sitting in Fenway people watching and drinking is a great way to spend an afternoon/evening and every now and then someone hits a ball...very relaxing...a bit like cricket.
Comments
I think I managed to play rugby once at RGS. Some fat guy fell on my head and that put me off forever.
I can honestly say I've not got a clue how many teams there were in the higher years, I remember there being an "E" maybe even "F" team lower down.
I might have enjoyed Rugby a little more if it wasn't forced on me and full of people insisting it's some sort of beacon of righteousness for all other sports to look up to.
It was a culture shock, starting secondary school and realising that not everyone liked football - far from it.
In my Nottingham comp (in the late 70s) we got a new sports teacher who binned footy as the winter sport in favour of Rugby Union. Despite only a few lessons and a vague knowledge of the rules I was put in the school team because I was 'big' and played two games. The first against the first boys I had ever seen with beards and the second against another lot of neanderthals from Top Valley. First game I was punched on the side of the head in the scrum and spent the rest of the game ambling about in a daze...(might explain why my memory is a bit....a bit....where was I?) and the second my leg was stamped on and I had to come off as I could barely walk. ('Stop whinging you big puff...!' was the teachers response) Needless to say my career was short.
One of the fundamental reasons I think football is the greatest sport is the variety of scoring. Many goals look similar to one you have seen before (especially set pieces), but for the most part, goals look completely unique, as there is so much variety to the build up and final touch.
On the other end of the spectrum is basketball, where the scoring zone is a small hoop, barely bigger than the ball itself. Thus, most scoring looks exactly like something you have seen over and over again. Baseball, though having a large field, is a little like this too, with most sports falling somewhere in between, though usually nearer to predictable basketball scoring than the unique football scoring.
It's the infrequency as well. Scoring in basketball doesn't feel like an event, which is the main reason I've never been able to get into it. In football, 1-0 doesn't feel like too little and 4-3 doesn't feel like too much.
When my cub team were being regularly beaten 24-0, it did, to be fair, feel like 'too much' !
Rugby at pro level is one thing but at school level just seemed to be an excuse for the "rough" kids to have a ruck.
I dare say all of us have played a footy game with a doddery ref against some dodgy scofflaws, but in rugby surely every game is just getting smashed to bits
There were few better moments in my sporting ‘career’ than a well-timed tackle bringing some lumbering, young-farmer type, Neanderthal crashing down to earth.
I've always thought of NFL as a sort of chess. Trying to figure out what your opponent will play, setting out to quash that while utilising your own strengths
Just a wild guess, but I reckon those who now play at pro level probably once played at school level
I had another question I meant to ask.
You know the whole draft system? Where you've got teams who know they have no chance of making the play offs, does it not incentivise them to keep losing so they'll get first pick next season?
Is there anything in place to stop this happening?
It definitely incentivises them to 'tank' the season, although the Cleveland Browns did it for several seasons but didn't pick particularly wisely and traded for 'Hollywood' players while neglecting other key areas. The 49ers, though, by comparison, finished last season as the second worst in the league, picked wisely in this year's draft - and made some great trades/free agency pick-ups - and are now the last undefeated team standing. You've got to have the right people upstairs, regardless of the picks you have.
Is there anything in place to stop it? To the best of my knowledge, no.
Nothing really from a club management point if view and the Miami Dolphins have been accused of 'tanking ' this season.
They won at the weekend though bringing the equally bad New York Jets in to the mix for the first pick.
The main reason 'tanking' doesn't happen is the players. Most are on short term contracts and are looking to put down performances to keep them in work and to maximise their value. Players seen to be buying in to the 'tanking' are not employed once the season is over.
Finally college football is so different these days to the NFL a high draft pick in no guarantee of getting a great player. Recent first rounds are littered with failures. As many as half first rounds picks don't get a second contract.
This means some teams are now giving up draft picks for estsblished players. It's more expensive as rookie contracts are capped but in a world of instant success it works for some
thanks
Surely must be some equivalent to our gambling rules if you are caught deliberately losing?
That's why there's a complicated lottery system in the NBA (basketball) where the worst team from the previous season doesn't automatically get the first pick, simply a higher chance to win the 1st pick lottery. It's around 25% I believe, 20% chance for 2nd worse, all the way down to about 1% for the mid-table 15th/16th place teams.
Selecting one superstar college player in a 5-a-side sport, with maybe 8/9 players contributing to any one match would have a lot larger effect on a team's performance than an NFL team with their 53 man 'rosters'.
I've always wondered how they rank the up and coming players.
Clearly sometimes it's obvious a kid will be a superstar, like say Wayne Rooney, but surely it's not an easy task ranking players.
And how long do they stay with that team? Are there transfers etc?
They have the combine, where players go up against each other in all sorts of drills - the 40-yard dash is probably the best known - but I don't know a whole lot beyond that.
There aren't transfers, not as we know them in football. You can only move in a trade or as a free agent - which you become by being cut to free up cap space (salary cap, that is), reaching the end of your contract, or being fired. I'm probably missing something from that, but you can't buy a player.
Well college football is a whole other sport in its own right. Games every Saturday, national TV coverage, 70,000+ attendances. Plenty of opportunities for scouts to evaluate the players.
Chess the musical is more interesting than rugby.
Agree about the scoring problem - missed shots are the clinchers, but hard to get excited about. Basketball’s enjoyable to play but not much of a watch IMO.
Harlem Globetrotters were great entertainment to us teenagers in the early ‘50s, even in black and white on a 14” screen. Have I derailed? I’m too tired to check and I’m off to see if there’s a more interesting thread.
Of the American sports ice hockey is the most entertaining and easy to understand but difficult to televise.
Having lived in the US for many years I had no choice but to try out watching their sports (except for 10am Saturday when I would listen to the Wycombe commentary!). With maybe the exception of ice hockey most sports have short bursts of action and then a pause or reset. I couldn't make head nor tail of baseball or American football, basketball is my pet hate and never gave a serious go. However, I was living in Boston and at that time the Red Sox got to their first World Series for about a thousand years and was traveling on business a lot at the time with my Bostonian boss. Sitting in bars watching the games he took time to explain the tactics (he did the same with American football later that year when the Pats got to the Super Bowl).
Without any knowledge of the tactical side of the game it was just watching people hit/throw a ball, with the knowledge of the why after the explanation i could appreciate the nuances of games and the strategy involved.
I would say the same could be said for septics when they watch footie. I remember taking two septics to the Chelsea v Wycombe game 2nd leg at the bridge. They left at half time as found the whole game boring...on discussion they explained it was due to them having no clue who was doing what and why on the pitch, and despite being a fairly high scoring game (unfortunately) they just didn't know what was going on and left to get a beer.
I did watch one NFL game liv and hated it a everything stopped every couple of minutes for ad breaks, on to is much better. It's the other way around for baseball, sitting in Fenway people watching and drinking is a great way to spend an afternoon/evening and every now and then someone hits a ball...very relaxing...a bit like cricket.
Prefer my Saturday at AP any day though.
Hang on...you took two people to the gold dust tickets of the semi final v chelsea...and they left at half time?!
Bloody norma
They were hardly gold dust tickets
Well it wasn't the much quoted 18,500 at villa park
It was 19,500
@eric_plant not gold dust but certainly stubs were required