Superbowl Sunday
- Thread starter milehigh
- Start date
Studies are now seeing the effects of football hits to the head on players. Many of the same things as boxers. Add in factors like painkiller addictions, loss of lifestyle after they retire and no future plans after the career ends..........First I must apologize for my utter ignorance when it comes to football.. I know nothing, I can't even watch it because I don't know the rules. Is there a lot of gun violence related to football players? I know there was another football murder/suicide recently, and then the one from 2009 posted above. Is it all American athletes? I mean you don't see gun / hockey stories ... do you? or gun / golf stories? It maybe media generated ... sometimes you only see what they want you to see, and not being a sports fanatic (other than the Leafs.. go Leafs go!) ... I really have no idea. Enlighten me.
There is actually. I remember well when Joey Porter of my beloved Steelers got shot in the ass.First I must apologize for my utter ignorance when it comes to football.. I know nothing, I can't even watch it because I don't know the rules. Is there a lot of gun violence related to football players? I know there was another football murder/suicide recently, and then the one from 2009 posted above. Is it all American athletes? I mean you don't see gun / hockey stories ... do you? or gun / golf stories? It maybe media generated ... sometimes you only see what they want you to see, and not being a sports fanatic (other than the Leafs.. go Leafs go!) ... I really have no idea. Enlighten me.
There is a running joke that NFL stands for National Felons League.
Today's open Poll on Yahoo Canada as of the time of this post:
A sport invented solely for the purpose of U.S.A. propaganda that has no league or appeal anywhere else in the world.
Who will win the Super Bowl?
Baltimore Ravens - 21%
San Francisco 49ers - 26%
I don't care - 53%
Baltimore Ravens - 21%
San Francisco 49ers - 26%
I don't care - 53%
A sport invented solely for the purpose of U.S.A. propaganda that has no league or appeal anywhere else in the world.
Actually football evolved from Rugby which is a very international sport. I guess you think that in 1869 a bunch of young guys from Rutgers and Princeton decided to create a propaganda game.A sport invented solely for the purpose of U.S.A. propaganda that has no league or appeal anywhere else in the world.
[/B]
Have a look at their merchandise sales figures and media figures overseas before you comment on their irrelevance.
It won't change a thing...
Now Rugby, there's a sport. A real one that has a World Cup and many leagues all over the world.
(BTW, why didn't those guys from Rutgers and Princeton didn't just play...Rugby?)
...it's still irrelevant and unappealing to the entire world planet save for one country and a tiny adjacent market where it's marketed to ad nauseum.Actually football evolved from Rugby which is a very international sport. I guess you think that in 1869 a bunch of young guys from Rutgers and Princeton decided to create a propaganda game.
Have a look at their merchandise sales figures and media figures overseas before you comment on their irrelevance.
Now Rugby, there's a sport. A real one that has a World Cup and many leagues all over the world.
(BTW, why didn't those guys from Rutgers and Princeton didn't just play...Rugby?)
Don you really need to stop holding back and tell people how you really feel.It won't change a thing...
...it's still irrelevant and unappealing to the entire world planet save for one country and a tiny adjacent market where it's marketed to ad nauseum.
Now Rugby, there's a sport. A real one that has a World Cup and many leagues all over the world.
(BTW, why didn't those guys from Rutgers and Princeton didn't just play...Rugby?)
That being said you are also forgetting the betting aspect. Lots of money moves worldwide on the games.....and none more than today.
If it is irrelevant and unappealing to the world why do millions outside the US watch it and buy their stuff? Why do 80,000 brits go to it every time it is played in the UK?...it's still irrelevant and unappealing to the entire world planet save for one country and a tiny adjacent market where it's marketed to ad nauseum.
Rugby is a great game.Now Rugby, there's a sport. A real one that has a World Cup and many leagues all over the world.
I guess you would have to ask them. The forward pass might have something to do with it. But no matter how you cut it, the game was not an American propaganda creation. That is just your delusion.(BTW, why didn't those guys from Rutgers and Princeton didn't just play...Rugby?)
...it's still irrelevant and unappealing to the entire world planet save for one country and a tiny adjacent market where it's marketed to ad nauseum.
And yet you take the name and quotes of a fictional man whose purpose was that very marketing and advertising you speak of. Interesting.
Both games being played in London, England, sold out within minutes. It has an enormous world - wide following, not just in the U.S. I was on a sports discussion board with some guys from Ireland today who were planning on watching the game tonight and also taking the day off tomorrow as the game only starts at 11:30pm there.Today's open Poll on Yahoo Canada as of the time of this post:
Who will win the Super Bowl?
Baltimore Ravens - 21%
San Francisco 49ers - 26%
I don't care - 53%
A sport invented solely for the purpose of U.S.A. propaganda that has no league or appeal anywhere else in the world.
although I am a casual NFL fan Don is spot on, outside of one nation and the GTA this is simply irrelevant in the world. I will give the Yanks great credit for their awesome marketing making it seem everyone from Ankara to Zagreb cares about this game, they dont. A regular first round game in soccer's World Cup is like 5 Super Bowl's combined into one day, a regular English league game between 2 huge sides will garner viewers that would dwarf the Super Bowl. As for the games in London having huge crowds, well it is a one off single game that many go to see the novelty of, try an 8 game season in London and see how long that team lasts. It is a corporate marketing creation that the American and Toronto media drone on about for weeks, I really cannot stand it when you get people who don't care about a sport the rest of the season, all the sudden get all worked up about a single game and plan their entire day around it.
This is my first year really watching football.. I am adicted now.. My team is in the Superbowl and they will win.. I am a die hard fan of The Ravens... I do not know the history or any of that stuff.. but I like to watch and yell at the tv and that is all that matters to me...just enjoy the game people..
You're right that it was not an American propaganda creation. The Harvard/Princeton 1869 game was basically a soccer game. North American football was actually created at McGill University in Montreal & based on rugby. They played Harvard in 1874, one game under each side's rules. Harvard liked the newer game so much, they adopted it.I guess you would have to ask them. The forward pass might have something to do with it. But no matter how you cut it, the game was not an American propaganda creation. That is just your delusion.
http://suite101.com/article/the-early-years-of-college-football-a185510
Rutgers vs. Princeton in the First College Football Game
On November 6, 1869, Rutgers met Princeton in what is considered the first intercollegiate game of American football, although it bore no resemblance to today’s sport. The game was played with 25 players on a side and under Rutgers’ rules, meaning that the ball could only be advanced by kicking or batting it with the feet, hands, heads or body. Catching, carrying, and throwing the ball were all illegal.
Rutgers won the game six goals to four. A week later, a rematch was held using Princeton rules, one of which was the rewarding of a “free kick” to a player who caught the ball. Princeton won this game eight to zero. More details on the first game can be found at Rutgers University's website and the New York Times.
Harvard vs. McGill University of Montreal
By 1873 Rutgers, Princeton, Columbia, Yale, Tufts, and Stevens Institute were regularly fielding intercollegiate football teams. Harvard wanted to also, but was having a hard time scheduling opponents because its rules, based on the “Boston game,” included running with the ball. Their insistence on this rule would help to bring about modern football.
In the spring of 1874 Harvard and Montreal’s McGill University agreed to meet in two games of football. The first game would be based on Harvard rules and the second on McGill rules, which, based on rugby, allowed not only running the ball, but also throwing it laterally or backwards.
Equally important, McGill’s rules included the “try.” Under this rule, if a player ran the ball past his opponent’s goal line and “touched it down,” he was given a opportunity to score by a free kick. This rule later evolved into the present day touchdown.
After the two games, both the McGill and Harvard players agreed that the Canadian version was far superior to its American counterpart. By the late 1870s, the seven other American colleges playing intercollegiate football were also in agreement. Now came the problem of standardizing the rules.
So true, ask those same people if they care about "Don Draper" or "Madmen." I like the show, but I'm not going rip into people who don't like it!And yet you take the name and quotes of a fictional man whose purpose was that very marketing and advertising you speak of. Interesting.
GO RAVENSI really cannot stand it when you get people who don't care about a sport the rest of the season, all the sudden get all worked up about a single game and plan their entire day around it.
That's the team from Birmingham, right?
