Sport. Love it? Hate it? Which do you do and/or watch?

[joeactor]

I think sport is OK if you're doing it, watching it seems a waste of time.

I'm with you on that one... not usually interested in watching many sports (tho I did watch the Super Bowl).

It' goes along with my "levels of abstraction" idea about TV in general:
1) Living Through Something (ie. life, playing a sport, doing...)
2) Acting in Stage/Film (pretending to live through something)
3) Watching a Film/Play (watching someone pretend to live through something)
4) Reviews (watching someone talk about watching someone pretend to live through something)
... etc ...
(infinity) "Award Shows" ;-)

... but back to Sports.

I do think true competitive sports are more interesting (ie. soccer, tennis, pool etc).
What's a false competitive sport, you may ask?
One where there is no real interaction between sides (bowling, swimming, golf, etc.)
In other words, you're really just trying to get the best score/time/whatever, and the other people don't interfere with you.
Maybe it's just me that makes that odd distinction.

... but I do think Bowling would be a lot more exciting if you could throw the ball at the guy who's taking his turn!

[Tank]

Lol, sorry about that. I was impatient.

Good lord! Whatever next an impatient 17 year old

[AnimatedDirt]

I am a huge sports fan. Huge! My favorites are Football (not kick and chase soccer), basketball and track and field. I will watch golf if Tiger is playing. Baseball is fun at the stadium but is boring on tv. Any sporting event is better live at the arena/stadium than watching on tv, though with the advances in HD and surround sound, tv is getting closer to the real thing.

I played high level college football in the States. I never got a shot at the NFL, that is to say I wasn't drafted. I could have tried as a "free agent" which is an undrafted player trying to make the team. Strictly by the numbers, I figured I didn't have much of a shot. There are 32 teams, each will carry (usually) 8 offensive lineman on their rosters, for a total of about 250 lineman in the NFL at any one time. Not all of them retire each year, so to make it, you have to be one of the best 250 offensive lineman, and you have to be good enough (or the other guy not good enough) to warrant booting him and taking you. It's an exclusive club to be sure. Not to mention you have to be big, strong, fast and [gasp] smart. Anyone who believes that lineman are still the big dumb drooling idiots that they are so often portrayed as hasn't been paying close enough attention. My avatar is actually my sophomore year mug shot for the media guide.

We just finished having the Superbowl here in the states.  111 million viewed the game apparently.  It's big, so big it gets people that have no interest in football to watch it simply because it is so big. (in the states)

I saw a picture recently that said: Superbowl 100 million people. Church attendance on Christmas 40 million people. Suck on that Jesus.  

I cannot stand all the padding and helmets these "real men" wear to play the game.  They are getting hurt left and right.  What it is, to me, is a bunch of fat boys in a line who cannot run 100 yards without needing pure oxygen afterwards.  They are barely able to move fast for a few seconds at a time.

There is no doubt that football is a game full of violent collisions. The extra padding isn't so much to keep people from getting hurt, it is to keep people from reducing their lifespans later on. Some of these collisions can be upwards of 150 g's of force, and that is not two of the bigger players.

I will tell you from experience, if you want to know what it is like to have played in a college football game as an offensive lineman, just run (not sprint, maybe a little fast than a jog) from about 10 feet away in to a wall 75 times every 45 seconds.

The biggest issue currently in the NFL is concussions. They are increasing at an alarming rate, and it seems more and more like the pads and protection aren't keeping up. But, as a more than casual observer, I am seeing a difference in the way hits are delivered. This method is illegal, until this year hasn't been enforced, and is being taught to kids at a younger and younger age. The player will load up, and torpedo himself into another player putting all of his force through the crown of his helmet in to the chest. These types of hits are quite literally bone jarring. Kids are taught to "see what you hit", meaning have your neck tilted back when hitting and don't lead with your helmet. They are told that otherwise you can break your neck. What they don't tell you is how badly (and it's more common) you can hurt the player you are hitting, especially if they are unaware of the hit they are about to receive. Here's a picture of the type of hit I'm talking about:

[spoiler:23pgwevk][/spoiler:23pgwevk]

Add to this the idiocy of the running backs that are mostly robots.  They are conditioned that the play is to go through the "2" hole...regardless of an erected concrete wall, they will try running through the concrete wall.  No sense of "oh damn, it's blocked...let me try going around...".  No, they insist on hitting the wall of bodies.  Sometimes a short gain, even less times, a long gain, mostly no gain whatsoever.  Blockheads, really.

This is a good point, if there is no defense on the field. Remember, they are reacting to the running back, the offensive line, and their play call. Most defenses are built upon some sort of "gap cancellation" scheme. So, when the running back committed to the hole, it may have been open. But, the defense surely tried to close it. Also, often trying to run it directly up the middle is better, in the split second decision of the play, than to try and bounce to the outside, risking a loss of yardage.

I actually prefer Gridiron to soccer. At least with gridiron you know when to bother to watch! I also like watching the quarter back getting sacked! There is something I find hilarious about the inevitable demise of the poor little guy as he gets pounded to oblivion by some huge defensive tackle!

As an offensive lineman, you find my nightmare hilarious. Giving up a sack is the worst.

I forgot to add...16 game season.  What a bunch of pansies!  When baseball is playing over 160 games per season, basketball is playing 80+ games per season, hockey is also playing 80+ games per season and MLS, soccer (you called "kick and chase" then I call football, "hike and pile") is playing at least double that...what is it with these "big, strong, 'intelligent' men" that they only play 16 games?  I will not accept the "injury" factor.  If they can't handle the roughness, don't play.

[hismikeness]

I forgot to add...16 game season.  What a bunch of pansies!  When baseball is playing over 160 games per season, basketball is playing 80+ games per season, hockey is also playing 80+ games per season and MLS, soccer (you called "kick and chase" then I call football, "hike and pile") is playing at least double that...what is it with these "big, strong, 'intelligent' men" that they only play 16 games?  I will not accept the "injury" factor.  If they can't handle the roughness, don't play.

No doubt a baseball season (162 plus playoffs and pre-season), hockey and basketball (82 plus playoffs and preseason) and soccer seasons all are grinds on the body. There is no doubt. But, I don't think that the NFL (16 games, plus 4 preseason and possibly 3 post season) is the same strain physically as, say, a starting pitcher in MLB, taking the field every 5th game, or even the NBA, a game which doesn't have the collisions but has more aerobic requirements. I am speaking strictly in a physical sense. I think the strain on an NFL body is more than the other sports.

Is your point, really, that the athletes who put their bodies through that grind are pansies? The best MMA fighters only fight twice, maybe three times a year. Are they pansies too? It seems that the Tour de France is only once a year... pansies? Don't even get me started on Olympians once every four years.

If they can't handle the roughness, don't play- I'll accept that point, and I think for a lot of people they get weeded out at the lower levels. For the most part, a guy entering the NFL has gone through college, high school and lower levels of football, and pretty well knows what to expect from a "roughness" factor. So those who can't handle it remove themselves (or get removed) at an younger age and lower level. It's a completely different story when one is concussed, has torn ligaments, muscle tears, bone fractures, strains, sprains, and yes, even turf toe. Those aren't just "owies", those are injuries.

[AnimatedDirt]

Is your point, really, that the athletes who put their bodies through that grind are pansies? The best MMA fighters only fight twice, maybe three times a year. Are they pansies too? It seems that the Tour de France is only once a year... pansies? Don't even get me started on Olympians once every four years.

No, they are not pansies in that sense.  They are "pansies" in the sense that they require so much padding YET cannot handle the rough and tumble of the game.  They are "pansies" in the sense that 16 games...let's work this out at the most actual time played:

16 games x 15 minutes of play per game = 4 hours of ACTUAL PLAYING time over a season PER TEAM.  Now divide that even further between Offense and Defense.  Then divide that again as players switch in and out of the game.  So at the MOST, each player is MAYBE playing a full hour and a half, maybe two per season on average if they don't go out on injury.  How many players are there on a football team?

The best MMA fighters are alone, are in a full contact FIGHT.  Their ENDURANCE needs to span the entire fight, up to 25 minutes...so you see, even the MMA fighter, in one fight puts out more than a football player might in a whole season.  MMA fighters have to allow their bodies to heal from cuts and bruises where all injury is to one, they are there fully, by themselves.  Hardly a tag-team, butt slappin' sport. (unless you count the end)  Maybe we should add helmets and pads to MMA fighters?

The Tour de France is the Superbowl of cycling.  There are races all over the world.  Everyone rides for themselves, there are teams, but only one wears the yellow jersey.  It is an individual sport which uses team tactics.

Olympians are training throughout their lives up to the point of the Olympics...and many beyond for multiple appearances.

Like I said, I like football, but it is certainly NOT the "manly" sport it is made out to be.  To be so is to remove 90% of the "protection" and add some actual play.  Give 5-8 seconds of time to set up after the ref places the ball...make these boys run and WORK!  Right now, they are just a ton of guys standing around in helmets and pads on grass for 2 hours and 45 minutes of a 3 hour game.

[McQ]

I played sports my whole life and still do a couple.
Played:

Baseball, Football, Ice Hockey, Basketball from youth into high school and then stayed with football, ice hockey and also did wrestling in high school. Also took Kodenkan Judo from about age nine through college and did tourneys with that.

College, played D3 Ice hockey.

Played or play adult ice hockey and baseball. Gave up Judo and ice hockey five years ago.

Had also done triathlons (both sprint and full), and then formed an Adventure Racing team in 1999, which competed in a bunch of adventure races over a five year period. The mountain biking just about ruined my wrists and shoulders. Two rotator cuff and two wrist surgeries!

Finally gave up all the contact sports recently and continued with the "fun" sports of golf and tennis.

Coached football, ice hockey, roller hockey, and baseball.

I like watching baseball and hockey, either live or on TV. Also like watching golf.

[McQ]

Like I said, I like football, but it is certainly NOT the "manly" sport it is made out to be.  To be so is to remove 90% of the "protection" and add some actual play.  Give 5-8 seconds of time to set up after the ref places the ball...make these boys run and WORK!  Right now, they are just a ton of guys standing around in helmets and pads on grass for 2 hours and 45 minutes of a 3 hour game.

I wouldn't agree with this. If you realize how much force goes into a hit in football, you wouldn't say these guys are pansies or just standing around. The level of speed, and the serious force with which they hit is extremely high.

Could the game be made more pure? Yeah, but it's hardly what you've made it out to be. Ever been in a game, or down on the field during play of a college or pro game?

[Cecilie]

Lol, sorry about that. I was impatient.

Good lord! Whatever next an impatient 17 year old

I'm usually very patient, but my sister was shouting at me to do something at the very second I clicked submit.

[AnimatedDirt]

Like I said, I like football, but it is certainly NOT the "manly" sport it is made out to be.  To be so is to remove 90% of the "protection" and add some actual play.  Give 5-8 seconds of time to set up after the ref places the ball...make these boys run and WORK!  Right now, they are just a ton of guys standing around in helmets and pads on grass for 2 hours and 45 minutes of a 3 hour game.

I wouldn't agree with this. If you realize how much force goes into a hit in football, you wouldn't say these guys are pansies or just standing around. The level of speed, and the serious force with which they hit is extremely high.

Could the game be made more pure? Yeah, but it's hardly what you've made it out to be. Ever been in a game, or down on the field during play of a college or pro game?

I don't doubt they hit hard.  It is a rough game...however, unlike hockey where a rock is flying around at blinding speeds, there is no reason to be padded up as if they were on a space walk in an asteroid field.  Rugby is basically the same game and they get through it just fine in t-shirts and shorts.

Someone care to comment on the amount of actual play in a game...season...per player?  It's rediculous.

I don't mean to be argumentative and it's sound more and more like I am.  It's just a pet-peeve of mine.  

[McQ]

Like I said, I like football, but it is certainly NOT the "manly" sport it is made out to be.  To be so is to remove 90% of the "protection" and add some actual play.  Give 5-8 seconds of time to set up after the ref places the ball...make these boys run and WORK!  Right now, they are just a ton of guys standing around in helmets and pads on grass for 2 hours and 45 minutes of a 3 hour game.

I wouldn't agree with this. If you realize how much force goes into a hit in football, you wouldn't say these guys are pansies or just standing around. The level of speed, and the serious force with which they hit is extremely high.

Could the game be made more pure? Yeah, but it's hardly what you've made it out to be. Ever been in a game, or down on the field during play of a college or pro game?

I don't doubt they hit hard.  It is a rough game...however, unlike hockey where a rock is flying around at blinding speeds, there is no reason to be padded up as if they were on a space walk in an asteroid field.  Rugby is basically the same game and they get through it just fine in t-shirts and shorts.

Someone care to comment on the amount of actual play in a game...season...per player?  It's rediculous.

I don't mean to be argumentative and it's sound more and more like I am.  It's just a pet-peeve of mine.  

A.D., I understand what you're saying a little better now. I had a bit more time to read the posts. I thought you were essentially knocking the toughness of guys in the NFL. I think I get your meaning now.

I don't think the hits in rugby are as violent as in football precisely because of the amount of padding that is and isn't worn in both sports. Rugby players hit hard, but they would hit way harder if they had more pads, and vice versa.

The amount of actual game play time has become ridiculously low in football, and I also feel that players have become too specialized. In that regard, I think they are less "tough" than the players of older eras. Those guys played all 60 minutes, both offense and defense, wore less padding, and were damn tough.
On the flip side, they were slower, smaller, and weaker than today's players. And there are too many prima donnas these days. Guys that will run out of bounds rather than take a hit. That irks me.

By the way, please argue as vigorously as you want! This is sports, dude! We're supposed to argue about sports! Lol!

[terranus]

Ah ha! So this is where everyone has been posting all day.

For so many people who claim to be uninterested in sports, I find it quite interesting that this thread already has 3 pages within the 1st day.

As for me, I love sports, and am not in the least ashamed to admit it.
I am a die-hard American Football fan, college and NFL. I even watch a little UFL action every now and then.
But I do like Soccer/Futbol as well. I like watching Chelsea play, they always seem to have a good team.
Basketball is probably my 2nd favorite sport...
Baseball during the summer when nothing else is on...Go Mets!
And we have a minor league Hockey team here in town which I like to go see mianly because of the insane # of fights which have taken place in the past 2 years.  

[AnimatedDirt]

A.D., I understand what you're saying a little better now. I had a bit more time to read the posts. I thought you were essentially knocking the toughness of guys in the NFL. I think I get your meaning now.

I don't think the hits in rugby are as violent as in football precisely because of the amount of padding that is and isn't worn in both sports. Rugby players hit hard, but they would hit way harder if they had more pads, and vice versa.

I think we agree more than we disagree.  I would also say the hits are harder in football vs rugby.  I don't know the exact name for when, in rugby, the teams line up to push and shove to see who wins possession, but as a friend of mine told me, the six in front (3 from each team) actually crash heads together!  They don't wear helmets!

The amount of actual game play time has become ridiculously low in football, and I also feel that players have become too specialized. In that regard, I think they are less "tough" than the players of older eras. Those guys played all 60 minutes, both offense and defense, wore less padding, and were damn tough.
On the flip side, they were slower, smaller, and weaker than today's players. And there are too many prima donnas these days. Guys that will run out of bounds rather than take a hit. That irks me.

I think we agree here.  It is strictly a for-profit game in the worst sense.

The play is dull.  If the League would shorten the time between plays, that would help.  If they shortened it to the way the Oregon Ducks play their "hurry up offense", that would be amazing.  Do you watch their games?  I got to recently and it was hilarious watching the defense huffing and puffing not being able, or struggling to, keep up with the pace...AS IT SHOULD BE.

By the way, please argue as vigorously as you want! This is sports, dude! We're supposed to argue about sports! Lol!

I dont normally "follow" sports...my wife does.  She'd be the one putting up arguments.  

[hismikeness]

I don't know the exact name for when, in rugby, the teams line up to push and shove to see who wins possession

I believe that is called the scrum.

If they shortened it to the way the Oregon Ducks play their "hurry up offense", that would be amazing.  Do you watch their games?

I watch their games... in fact, any mention of them and their team makes my stomach turn, as I played at Oregon State. Their offense is tough to hang with with in regards to the speed at which they run it.

After thinking about the "actual length of play" argument, there is no doubting that in the course of 60 minutes, maybe a quarter of that time is actually time involved in play. Without breaking it down, I would say baseball has a lower ratio, what with all the time in between pitches. The reason for it in football is the interaction between coaching staff and players on the field. In other sports, like basketball for instance, the players get the call on the fly or before play resumes, but there is room for improvisation while playing. Baseball the manager will sometimes signal a "call" to the catcher, which is then relayed to the pitcher or the other defenders, and likewise the batter's manager will signal the first or third base coach and they will signal the batter as to the call.

In football, the play is called from the booth, relayed via headset to the sideline and signaled in to the QB (by one way radio in the NFL, which cuts off when the play clock reaches 15 seconds) and that then is relayed in the huddle to the other members of the offense. There are rules built in which state if the offense substitutes players, the defense must be given ample time to also substitute in response. This was a point of emphasis by Gene Chizik, the head coach of the Auburn Tigers, in the BCS National Championship game. There were several occasions where oregon (I refuse to capitalize the word in relation to the evil empire  ) was forced to wait for several seconds while Auburn was being allowed to sub. Of course, oregon whined about it.

Where I believe that oregon is going against the spirit of the rule is when they run their no-huddle offense, get up to the line quickly, allow the defense to set up in accordance to the formation which they are in, allow the coaches in the booth to have a look, decide if a different play would be a better option, signal down to the sideline, and then they hold up these giant boards (example in the spoiler below) which signals the new play to the players on the field. Sure, there is no rule against this, but an audible, by the spirit of the rule, is a change made by the players on the field, not the professional coach in the booth. Payton Manning is excellent at making these changes.
[spoiler:lxngl85j]And holy shit those uniforms are disgusting!
[/spoiler:lxngl85j]
They will continue to have the edge until the rules are amended to remove these "against the spirit of the rules" changes, and I believe they will. Animated Dirt, you are correct to say that football is a for profit sport. A good majority of that profit comes from television, which is paid for by advertisements, and the way oregon runs their offense isn't necessarily conducive to commercial breaks, which will eventually be the downfall of that system, IMO.

[AnimatedDirt]

I believe that is called the scrum

Thanks!  I remember that word now from my time recently in S. Africa.

I watch their games... in fact, any mention of them and their team makes my stomach turn, as I played at Oregon State. Their offense is tough to hang with with in regards to the speed at which they run it.

I think its a good thing.

After thinking about the "actual length of play" argument, there is no doubting that in the course of 60 minutes, maybe a quarter of that time is actually time involved in play. Without breaking it down, I would say baseball has a lower ratio, what with all the time in between pitches.

Of course in baseball, there is no time limit.  The game is played at a leisurely pace as it is inning based and not time based.

The reason for it in football is the interaction between coaching staff and players on the field.

Understood.

In football, the play is called from the booth, relayed via headset to the sideline and signaled in to the QB (by one way radio in the NFL, which cuts off when the play clock reaches 15 seconds)

I did not know this tid-bit of info.  I thought it was two-way and constant.  What is the point of it being cut off at 15 seconds?

and that then is relayed in the huddle to the other members of the offense. There are rules built in which state if the offense substitutes players, the defense must be given ample time to also substitute in response. This was a point of emphasis by Gene Chizik, the head coach of the Auburn Tigers, in the BCS National Championship game. There were several occasions where oregon (I refuse to capitalize the word in relation to the evil empire   ) is able to adapt to rule changes and make their game better and that makes their opponents job more difficult is seen as "going against the spirit of the rule"?  I see it more as oregon is thinking of how, within the silly rules, to make their game better and WIN.

They will continue to have the edge until the rules are amended to remove these "against the spirit of the rules" changes, and I believe they will.

Seriously?  An ammendment to the rules because one team is able to make the other think on their toes?  Is not SPORT all about being better than the other, fooling them, showing one thing and doing another?  What next...a rule that states that a team must wear the same exact socks?  Oh wait...that exists, at least in HS football.  My son's team was warned for one player whose socks were a different shade of blue...SILLY.

Animated Dirt, you are correct to say that football is a for profit sport. A good majority of that profit comes from television, which is paid for by advertisements, and the way oregon runs their offense isn't necessarily conducive to commercial breaks, which will eventually be the downfall of that system, IMO.

How so?  The world over is successful at televising soccer games.  They go 45 minutes commercial free and still make a killing, maybe not on the same pay scale as football or baseball or basketball...IN THE U.S...but the world over?  I'm all for placing advertising on the field if it means the game gets better, more action, more PLAY TIME and less commercials.  Isn't it silly to you that aside from the game, the next biggest thing about the Superbowl is the commercials?  Even the halftime show is huge.  Many of the 111 million viewers were on the channel to view the commercials and the halftime show.  I was one of those.

[hismikeness]

What is the point of it being cut off at 15 seconds?

The headset to the QB is a relatively recent development. It always was one way, only coach to player. My understanding of the cutting off at 15 seconds was to prevent the coach from cueing the player as to the proper reads to make play adjustments... exactly what oregon has figured a way of skirting the rules to do with those giant play cards.

"You cannot do "joe's" job, so for this play, you're out." And we wonder why the players are becoming specialized. If I ran a team, I'd require them to be versatile...I would have less players, but need to make less changes as they are challenged in doing multiple facets of the game. How many on the average NFL football team? WAY TOO MANY.

Players are becoming specialized. But, I think in theory a team full of few less-specialized players is a good one on paper, but one that would fail in practice. Not because there aren't guys that can do it all, but Jerry Rice, as good as he was, wouldn't have made a good running back. Similarly, Walter Payton wouldn't have made a good wide receiver. And kickers aren't good at anything, including their own damn job 30% of the time.

By the way, the average number of players on an NFL team is 53 maximum on the active roster. Assuming 22 starters, 22 backups, a few specialists (kickers, punters, holders, snappers, etc) plus always a 3rd QB, you run out of spots real quick. Some formations (goalline) require more TEs, so you have to have those, or have a guy that can play TE in those situations, but his number has to be appropriate. Some teams have linebackers that will play in those situations. NCAA allows 65 players.

Seriously? An ammendment to the rules because one team is able to make the other think on their toes? Is not SPORT all about being better than the other, fooling them, showing one thing and doing another?

In a perfect situation, sport would be only about who is better. But, that isn't the case. There are plenty of rules put in place which are there only to take an advantage away from the offense or from the defense. All the rules of illegal motion, for example. If the ability to "fool" the other team were what it was all about, then an offense could have many people in motion, all in different directions, just to get the advantage over the defense. Same with the eligible jersey number rule (only numbers 1-49 and 80-99 are eligible to catch a pass downfield) in place so the defense knows which players it must cover for a potential pass. I think all rules are there for one of three reasons: 1) player safety 2) to negate an advantage gained 3) protect the integrity of the game. Only rules outside of those three do I deem silly. Like the one about the socks... There's myriad rules such as that regarding uniforms. Jersey must be tucked in; gloves must be gray (NCAA); cleats can only be a certain length; the Tebow rule- no writing on eye black; there is actually a rule about how big the logo on the uniform pants can be, what color a towel (and who can wear one) can be, and on and on. So yeah, football is probably over-ruled.

I'm all for placing advertising on the field if it means the game gets better, more action, more PLAY TIME and less commercials. Isn't it silly to you that aside from the game, the next biggest thing about the Superbowl is the commercials?

To me, there's already too much advertising on the field, but mostly that is the companies logos that have bought naming rights of the stadium. At the stadium, and usually not shown on tv, the jumbotrons are surrounded by ads. The oregon uniforms are hideous, but they are bad by design, not because they are plastered with ads, like some soccer uniforms, bicyclists uniforms and MMA fighters shorts. At least the major sports in America (NFL, NCAA, NBA, MLB, NHL) haven't gone that route yet.

Because oregon, (notice no capital in honor of your distaste)