[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
That team sucked. Everyone knew they would suck going into the games.
Panther is 100% right on this.[/quote]
Come on. They were still fairly solid by comparative standards. Iverson and co would be the best players for any of those opposing teams.
Carlos Boozer getting a gig is hilarious.
When I said “kids”, I mean high schoolers who are good enough to really want to go into a sport for life. Would they rather play for the Metrostars, or the Giants or Yankees?
This might be beside the point anyway. American kids might grow up playing soccer, which is cool, but they don’t grow up idolizing pro soccer players. I didn’t know who Tony Meola was until he played for the Jets (and sucked, I might add), but I’ve been watching the Giants since I was three months old. That’s the difference- no one in my family, and I daresay, most American families, gives a shit about soccer. The sport is too slow. Even Baseball has a more constant pace, and more scoring is involved. Not too mention, of course, that baseball is as ingrained into american culture as soccer is into the world’s.
We have enough money in this country that we invented and can ably play other sports. Soccer will never catch on, simply because Americans don’t have to tie together rags to make a ball and keep themselves entertained (not that there’s anything wrong with that, it’s just that its not the way it goes here).
If you throw in TV, and how soccer is NOT meant for it in any way, then you have an American culture that not only doesn’t watch soccer, but can’t because no network wants to carry something where there’s only a commercial break every half hour.
It ain’t happenin, and I’m fine with that.
Go Red Sox.
[quote]Panther1015 wrote:
You Aussies seem to have a pretty decent talent base to put together a good American FB team. [/quote]
I think a mixture of Aussie Rules and the Rugby League guys would be able to put in a pretty impressive team. There is, however, a large aerobic component in AFL, NRL and etc so that would be largely wasted in NFL.
The thing that soccer has going for it is that it is simple. The rules are simple, all you need is a ball and people of all sizes can play it. NFL has many complex rules and any team starting up would need to take out a second mortgage to deck the team out with equipment.
Those people are a product of years of training for a specific position and game. In soccer, Aussie rules and just about any sport for that matter there is no need for a guy the size of an offensive lineman.
[quote]
The only ones I can think of off the top of my head are Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, Italy (a stretch), Turkey, Iran, Greece, Russia and maybe some of the smaller Eastern Bloc nations. That’s it. [/quote]
Yeah, the Asians might stuggle filling out a NFL team.
Another point that I think the rest of the world doesn’t like NFL for is the fact that that it is too rigid. There is no free flowing plays, it is scientific and that is what bores people.
The rest of the world goes for sports like soccer, rugby, Aussie Rules, Hurling and etc beause they are non stop and action packed.
Time outs and etc have ruined your sports. I can’t watch a final quarter of NBA due to the 20 time outs taken.
Also, people hate bench time and there is plenty of it in NFL.
Great game, in my eyes, but I don’t think people will take to it Overseas for the above mentioned facts.
[quote]G.O.A.T wrote:
Great game, in my eyes, but I don’t think people will take to it Overseas for the above mentioned facts.
[/quote]
American football is more strategic than tactical, especially when you compare it to soccer. I think that there is a place for tactics in FB though. Just look at some of our great running back’s and quarterbacks for example. It all depends on the system and the talent used, but there is a place for open flow in football, it’s just within the rigid system you mentioned.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I daresay, most American families, gives a shit about soccer.
[/quote]
Same in Australia. We don’t give a shit about soccer, even though it does have a mild following with the “New Australian’s”
As far as US sports are concerned. We definetly don’t give a fuck about NFL, NHL or MBL just as you don’t give a shit about Aussie Rules, NRL or our sports.
It is what you grow up with. The sports are in your veins and you can’t just make that happen because you want it to. The world cup is good because I’ll follow Australia with pride in midget tossing if needs be. But at the click of a finger I can’t support Melbourne Victory (our faggy soccer team) because I want to. I grew up supporting a certain Aussie rules team and that is with me forever. As you guys love your teams over there.
[quote]Panther1015 wrote:
American football is more strategic than tactical, especially when you compare it to soccer. I think that there is a place for tactics in FB though. Just look at some of our great running back’s and quarterbacks for example. It all depends on the system and the talent used, but there is a place for open flow in football, it’s just within the rigid system you mentioned. [/quote]
But that is the problem. People want to play a sport where you aren’t 100% bound by the play. That is how NFL looks to me.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Panther1015 wrote:
Sonny S wrote:
White guys play sports too…anyway Kobe lived a few years in Italy and speaks fluent italian, he does commercials in Italy.
Panther1015 wrote:
I wondered what Team USA would’ve been like if Michael Vick, Allen Iverson, Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Adam Archuleta, Julius Peppers, Larry Fitzgerald, etc. played soccer all their lives and developed overseas…
Was going off name recognition. I did mention Archuleta. Anyway, this Forbes article explains why the US is underachieving so much in soccer:
http://www.forbes.com/business/2006/06/22/world-cup-soccer-cx_0622worldcup.html
We’re underachieving because we don’t care about the sport. I care far more about the Red Sox and Giants then for some fuckin soccer team…most people grew up with football or baseball, not soccer.
Kids know where the money is…and it’s in those A Rod esque $250 million contracts.[/quote]
i hate baseball
The only ones I can think of off the top of my head are Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, Italy (a stretch), Turkey, Iran, Greece, Russia and maybe some of the smaller Eastern Bloc nations. That’s it. [/quote]
Stop with the asinine attempts to figure out which countries could be good at what.
Oh, and you left out half the world’s population in China and India.
Not to mention the entire continent of Africa.
[quote]Sonny S wrote:
The only ones I can think of off the top of my head are Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, Italy (a stretch), Turkey, Iran, Greece, Russia and maybe some of the smaller Eastern Bloc nations. That’s it.
Stop with the asinine attempts to figure out which countries could be good at what.
Oh, and you left out half the world’s population in China and India.
Not to mention the entire continent of Africa.[/quote]
He obviously left those countries out for a reason. Think real hard for a moment (without hurting yourself) and you might see why.
I didn’t read this whole thread because it gave me a migrane. If already covered I apologize.
Any Duke TEAM could win the olympics. Piling a bunch of wannabe gangsters is not our best strategy. Taking the losing team from the NBA finals to the olympics would gaurantee we would never lose.
Soccer still sucks. We could take our best athletes (primarily defensive backs), train them for 6 months, and win the world cup. Jesus, soccer sucks.
[quote]Panther1015 wrote:
You Aussies seem to have a pretty decent talent base to put together a good American FB team. This leads me to another thought…maybe American FB isn’t taking off as well across the world as soccer because of the types of athletes required to excel in it. Obviously culture and infrastructure have a lot to do with it too, but think about it. How many other sports require such a broad range of body and skill types as FB? You’ve got massive powerlifter types all the way down to some skinny little speedsters that wouldn’t look out of place on a soccer field. I don’t think many nations have the diversity or depth of talent to compete in American FB. The only ones I can think of off the top of my head are Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, Italy (a stretch), Turkey, Iran, Greece, Russia and maybe some of the smaller Eastern Bloc nations. That’s it. [/quote]
Soccer is not exactly ‘taking off’ in europe, its already been flying over here for 200 years. As for your point about us not playing american fb its because Rugby is so much better.
In fact you invent your own sports because you dont want your ass kicked on the world stage.
you took baseball from cricket and football from rugby…
[quote]doogie wrote:
I didn’t read this whole thread because it gave me a migrane. If already covered I apologize.
Any Duke TEAM could win the olympics. Piling a bunch of wannabe gangsters is not our best strategy. Taking the losing team from the NBA finals to the olympics would gaurantee we would never lose.
Soccer still sucks. We could take our best athletes (primarily defensive backs), train them for 6 months, and win the world cup. Jesus, soccer sucks. [/quote]
Wow arn’t you amazingly arrogant… maybe you wouldn’t win. Your medal haul a t the last olympics, in proportion to population, was lower than any country in the EU. So where do you get your crazy ideas from? Even in other sports, ie tennis, 72 of the worlds top 100 are European only 6 of the top 100 are american.
[quote]doogie wrote:
OK - soccer sucks. Whatever. But that comment is SOOO stupid, one cannot even begin to refute it. So stupid.
The Americans tried it in bobsled with Herschel Walker and Edwin Moses - 2 amazing athletes, but keep them off the fuckin’ bob track!
You have absolutely NO knowledge of soccer if you think 6 months will turn you into a player.
This reminds me of the old Nike commercial with Bo Jackson and Wayne Gretzky telling him “No way.”
[quote]doogie wrote:
I didn’t read this whole thread because it gave me a migrane. If already covered I apologize.
Any Duke TEAM could win the olympics. Piling a bunch of wannabe gangsters is not our best strategy. Taking the losing team from the NBA finals to the olympics would gaurantee we would never lose.
Soccer still sucks. We could take our best athletes (primarily defensive backs), train them for 6 months, and win the world cup. Jesus, soccer sucks. [/quote]
You do know that NBA teams have players who are not American
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
When I said “kids”, I mean high schoolers who are good enough to really want to go into a sport for life. Would they rather play for the Metrostars, or the Giants or Yankees?
This might be beside the point anyway. American kids might grow up playing soccer, which is cool, but they don’t grow up idolizing pro soccer players. I didn’t know who Tony Meola was until he played for the Jets (and sucked, I might add), but I’ve been watching the Giants since I was three months old. That’s the difference- no one in my family, and I daresay, most American families, gives a shit about soccer. The sport is too slow. Even Baseball has a more constant pace, and more scoring is involved. Not too mention, of course, that baseball is as ingrained into american culture as soccer is into the world’s.
We have enough money in this country that we invented and can ably play other sports. Soccer will never catch on, simply because Americans don’t have to tie together rags to make a ball and keep themselves entertained (not that there’s anything wrong with that, it’s just that its not the way it goes here).
If you throw in TV, and how soccer is NOT meant for it in any way, then you have an American culture that not only doesn’t watch soccer, but can’t because no network wants to carry something where there’s only a commercial break every half hour.
It ain’t happenin, and I’m fine with that.
Go Red Sox.[/quote]
So watching 9 innings of baseball is more entertaining than soccer? Soccer isn’t the most entertaining team sport at times I agree, but baseball is as entertaining as watching curling or lawn bowling most of time.
[quote]G.O.A.T wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Kids know where the money is…and it’s in those A Rod esque $250 million contracts.
Really? Kids are that shallow in the US? Wouldn’t you play the sports that you love.
By the way, soccer is kind of big money in Europe. And by kind of big, I mean fucking huge.
I just did a google search and it came up with David Beckham as a higher earner than Kobe Bryant. Shaq being 2 places ahead though.
Also there are many high paying leagues. Not just 29 US teams for basketball, 28 Football (or whatever it is) and so on. There are a good 20 teams in the Premier League, Spanish League, Italian, and so on.
Soccer is where the money is and the opportunities lie.
I hate the sport though.
[/quote]
To put it in perspective, golf is a much higher earning sport in the U.S. than professional soccer.
DB
[quote]doogie wrote:
I didn’t read this whole thread because it gave me a migrane. If already covered I apologize.
Any Duke TEAM could win the olympics. Piling a bunch of wannabe gangsters is not our best strategy. Taking the losing team from the NBA finals to the olympics would gaurantee we would never lose.
Soccer still sucks. We could take our best athletes (primarily defensive backs), train them for 6 months, and win the world cup. Jesus, soccer sucks. [/quote]
lol @ point 2)!! Have you even ever watched ‘soccer’?
[quote]G.O.A.T wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Kids know where the money is…and it’s in those A Rod esque $250 million contracts.
Really? Kids are that shallow in the US? Wouldn’t you play the sports that you love.
By the way, soccer is kind of big money in Europe. And by kind of big, I mean fucking huge.
I just did a google search and it came up with David Beckham as a higher earner than Kobe Bryant. Shaq being 2 places ahead though.
Also there are many high paying leagues. Not just 29 US teams for basketball, 28 Football (or whatever it is) and so on. There are a good 20 teams in the Premier League, Spanish League, Italian, and so on.
Soccer is where the money is and the opportunities lie.
I hate the sport though.
[/quote]
David Beckham earns equiv $32M per annum. Plus endorsements from Gillette, Pepsi etc.
[quote]doogie wrote:
Soccer still sucks. We could take our best athletes (primarily defensive backs), train them for 6 months, and win the world cup. Jesus, soccer sucks. [/quote]
Have you been using adhesive rich in solvents in a confined space ?
[quote]doogie wrote:
I think the worst thing the USOC ever did was allow professional basketball players to play in the olympics. Make it a college all-star team again, and we will be back to never losing a game.
I think that 6 months would be stretching it a bit, but I would agree that DB’s, athletic qb’s, and receivers -if trained in the basic skills of the game - would change the face of soccer.
How do you defend someone that is 6’4", 235, and can run a 4.4 40? Teach them how to dribble and pass that stupid little ball, and there would be yet another reason to hate the US.