Metal Sludge Gossip Board

pieceofme wrote:Why is college football and basketball so popular?

demolition23 wrote:

pieceofme wrote:Why is college football and basketball so popular?

I can answer parts of this one as an outsider - as the college sport thing always fascinated me too.

Firstly, neither of those sports has a well-developed minor league/lower division arrangement. It's college and then the pros or piss off overseas really (at least compared to Baseball and sports in other countries).

Secondly, 30 odd top flight teams for a country as big as America isn't many. Hell, there are 20 odd provincial rugby teams in NZ - so plenty of room for loyalty to a college team, particularly for the millions who aren't near a pro franchise.

Thirdly, look at how franchises move around, and how commercialised it is. Less of that at the college level - seems lots of people feel its 'purer'.

Fourthly, Americans wear the university they went to as more of a badge of honour than people in a lot of places. So identifying with your team is a bigger deal by extension. By comparison, there's not as much distinction between unis in NZ for the most part, so not that same loyalty. I couldn't tell you what my university's rugby team was like. Outside of America the only University sport I've ever heard of is the Oxbridge boat race.

pieceofme wrote:When was baseball king? When did it start to fade, if it ever did? I tend to agree with the statement that 1994 was the beginning of the decline for MLB
When did the NFL become the most popular sport in the US? This is right isn't it! I think within the past 15 years
When was the height of NHL in the states? I don't think it's ever really caught on with many here. It's a great sport to watch live, but much less so on TV. I think the speed of the game and the puck have to do with that. It's funny that a lot of people don't care about hockey, but then you've got the 1980 US Olympic team and that whole story that everyone just ate up. For the NHL, the Wayne Gretzky/Oilers, Mike Bossy/Islanders years were probably the peak.
When was the height of NBA? 1980s to mid-90s. The whole Dream Team group of players. Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen of the Chicago Bulls, John Stockton and Karl Malone of the Utah Jazz, Magic Johnson of the Los Angeles Lakers, Larry Bird of the Boston Celtics, Patrick Ewing of the New York Knicks, Chris Mullin of the Golden State Warriors, David Robinson of the San Antonio Spurs, and Charles Barkley of the Philadelphia 76ers.
Do only the south care about NASCAR? Mostly the south, but there are rednecks everywhere....
Does anyone care about other 'motor' sports? not really. I was a HUGE motocross fan as a kid into my early-mid 20s
What were the 'best' NFL years? That's pretty subjective, but my bias is toward the Walter Payton era even though I am a Patriots fan
Why is college football and basketball so popular? There are a lot of states with no professional sports team to support. That and some states just have some fierce intrastate rivalries that carries over to the fans

I think I know some of these, but information from people who know US sports better than me would be great!

Thanks!

demolition23 wrote:
Thirdly, look at how franchises move around, and how commercialised it is. Less of that at the college level - seems lots of people feel its 'purer'.

johnk5150 wrote:

demolition23 wrote:
Thirdly, look at how franchises move around, and how commercialised it is. Less of that at the college level - seems lots of people feel its 'purer'.

The why all the conference hopping and big tv networks now?

johnk5150 wrote:

demolition23 wrote:
Thirdly, look at how franchises move around, and how commercialised it is. Less of that at the college level - seems lots of people feel its 'purer'.

The why all the conference hopping and big tv networks now?

demolition23 wrote:

johnk5150 wrote:

demolition23 wrote:
Thirdly, look at how franchises move around, and how commercialised it is. Less of that at the college level - seems lots of people feel its 'purer'.

The why all the conference hopping and big tv networks now?

Well, it used to seem purer I guess... I dunno man, that's just what folk here have said when I've asked similar questions.

pieceofme wrote: When watching Baseball I can't help but be unimpressed with the players catching skills in comparison to cricket players. On highlight of the night for Sportscentre or Sportsnet there will highlight this 'amazing' catch. But to me it pales in comparison to catches you see in Cricket. For a start the ball is harder in cricket, and the only player who wears gloves is the wicketkeeper.

pieceofme wrote:Also the attempted tackles I see in CFL/NFL are laughable in comparison to Rugby. Its like these guys have not been trained to tackle in their lives!

demolition23 wrote:

pieceofme wrote: When watching Baseball I can't help but be unimpressed with the players catching skills in comparison to cricket players. On highlight of the night for Sportscentre or Sportsnet there will highlight this 'amazing' catch. But to me it pales in comparison to catches you see in Cricket. For a start the ball is harder in cricket, and the only player who wears gloves is the wicketkeeper.

I would agree in general. I mean, there are amazingly athletic baseball catches and obviously those guys could field in cricket if they'd been trained to, but yeah, generally it's a totally different discipline catching with a glove like that, and not as impressive as a rule. Of course they hardly ever drop it.

However, before it sounds like I'm bagging baseball players, watch them throw sometime. Particularly the infielders. They're launching missiles in a way most cricket players can't. Of course it's a little easier because in any given situation they normally know which base they're going to have to throw to if the ball comes to them, so there's less of the uncertainty there might be in a run out situation in cricket, but even so, their throwing puts most cricketers to shame.

pieceofme wrote:Also the attempted tackles I see in CFL/NFL are laughable in comparison to Rugby. Its like these guys have not been trained to tackle in their lives!

This is true, but they're trying to do different things. In football all you're trying to achieve is to put the guy on the ground (and maybe knock the ball loose), whereas in rugby you have to tackle more completely because you're not just putting them on the ground, you're also trying to wrap them up and roll them over so they have to release the ball on your side of the ruck that forms.

Similarly, rugby players will accept being tackled in order to place the ball well and maintain possession - watch how often forwards in particular will basically fall into tackles. By comparison, the play is dead once you hit the ground in the NFL, so outside of QBs, guys aren't just going to accept a tackle.

Also, with helmets and pads, you can hit guys in ways that just aren't possible without.

Of course I've also heard criticisms from folk about the tackling of modern NFL players not being what it once was, but I've only followed the game seriously for about 14 years, so I couldn't tell you the truth of that.

pieceofme wrote:

demolition23 wrote:

pieceofme wrote: When watching Baseball I can't help but be unimpressed with the players catching skills in comparison to cricket players. On highlight of the night for Sportscentre or Sportsnet there will highlight this 'amazing' catch. But to me it pales in comparison to catches you see in Cricket. For a start the ball is harder in cricket, and the only player who wears gloves is the wicketkeeper.

I would agree in general. I mean, there are amazingly athletic baseball catches and obviously those guys could field in cricket if they'd been trained to, but yeah, generally it's a totally different discipline catching with a glove like that, and not as impressive as a rule. Of course they hardly ever drop it.

However, before it sounds like I'm bagging baseball players, watch them throw sometime. Particularly the infielders. They're launching missiles in a way most cricket players can't. Of course it's a little easier because in any given situation they normally know which base they're going to have to throw to if the ball comes to them, so there's less of the uncertainty there might be in a run out situation in cricket, but even so, their throwing puts most cricketers to shame.

pieceofme wrote:Also the attempted tackles I see in CFL/NFL are laughable in comparison to Rugby. Its like these guys have not been trained to tackle in their lives!

This is true, but they're trying to do different things. In football all you're trying to achieve is to put the guy on the ground (and maybe knock the ball loose), whereas in rugby you have to tackle more completely because you're not just putting them on the ground, you're also trying to wrap them up and roll them over so they have to release the ball on your side of the ruck that forms.

Similarly, rugby players will accept being tackled in order to place the ball well and maintain possession - watch how often forwards in particular will basically fall into tackles. By comparison, the play is dead once you hit the ground in the NFL, so outside of QBs, guys aren't just going to accept a tackle.

Also, with helmets and pads, you can hit guys in ways that just aren't possible without.

Of course I've also heard criticisms from folk about the tackling of modern NFL players not being what it once was, but I've only followed the game seriously for about 14 years, so I couldn't tell you the truth of that.

Excellent responses and thank you.
I figured even though the ball is similar, NFL is a completely different animal to rugby. The stop start of the game as you mentioned has a key impact thats for sure.

shocked_the_monkey wrote:
Rugby League is analogous to NFL far more than Rugby Union, especially down to the 5th tackle, then you have to essentially score or kick. An American friend of mine watched Rugby Union and found it very confusing, whereas he described Rugby League as like American Football, but without the stoppages.

I'd be interested in rivalries in US sport. In London for example, there are 14 professional football teams in a metropolitan area of 14 million people. In Los Angeles, with a metropolitan area of 13 million to my knowledge there's only ever been 1 NFL team at a time. Why are there not two teams in one city? It can't be due to population as, for example, Glasgow, a city of 400000 people, can support two teams with 50000 seater stadiums.

Also are rivalries based on previous contests as I looked on a US map and some teams considered rivals are 100's of miles apart? Whereas in the UK it's based on geographic location (often the same city), religious, economic reasons.

shocked_the_monkey wrote: I'd be interested in rivalries in US sport. In London for example, there are 14 professional football teams in a metropolitan area of 14 million people. In Los Angeles, with a metropolitan area of 13 million to my knowledge there's only ever been 1 NFL team at a time.

shocked_the_monkey wrote: Also are rivalries based on previous contests as I looked on a US map and some teams considered rivals are 100's of miles apart? Whereas in the UK it's based on geographic location (often the same city), religious, economic reasons.

demolition23 wrote:

shocked_the_monkey wrote: I'd be interested in rivalries in US sport. In London for example, there are 14 professional football teams in a metropolitan area of 14 million people. In Los Angeles, with a metropolitan area of 13 million to my knowledge there's only ever been 1 NFL team at a time.

New York has two NFL teams, as does the 'Bay Area' (San Fran and Oakland).
LA & NY have two NBA teams.
LA, NY, the Bay Area and Chicago have two MLB teams.
No idea about hockey.

WhiteHouseSubsAC wrote:I think the popularity of the NHL was at its overall peak in the early 90s when Fox Sports had television rights (remember the "glowing puck"? I think that the Fox "Robots" also originated in the NHL coverage as well).

bane wrote:I think Baseball was still king until the labor issues of 1994. The year they canceled the World Series. A lot of fans never came back. There are a lot of reasons for its decline, but that was one of them.

I'm pretty sure the NBA was at its peak of popularity during the Jordan era.

I don't think the NFL has ever been more popular than it is right now. Ask people of varying ages when it was at its best and you'll get different answers. I loved the NFL growing up in the 70's. I love it today. With rule changes its a slightly different game than it once was, but its still full of awesome.

Don't know a thing about motorsports. I don't think most people outside the deep South care.

Don't know a thing about Hockey. I don't think most people outside of the more Northern states care.

demolition23 wrote:

shocked_the_monkey wrote: I'd be interested in rivalries in US sport. In London for example, there are 14 professional football teams in a metropolitan area of 14 million people. In Los Angeles, with a metropolitan area of 13 million to my knowledge there's only ever been 1 NFL team at a time.

New York has two NFL teams, as does the 'Bay Area' (San Fran and Oakland).
LA & NY have two NBA teams.
LA, NY, the Bay Area and Chicago have two MLB teams.
No idea about hockey.

dtmfs wrote:

bane wrote:I think Baseball was still king until the labor issues of 1994. The year they canceled the World Series. A lot of fans never came back. There are a lot of reasons for its decline, but that was one of them.

I'm pretty sure the NBA was at its peak of popularity during the Jordan era.

I don't think the NFL has ever been more popular than it is right now. Ask people of varying ages when it was at its best and you'll get different answers. I loved the NFL growing up in the 70's. I love it today. With rule changes its a slightly different game than it once was, but its still full of awesome.

Don't know a thing about motorsports. I don't think most people outside the deep South care.

Don't know a thing about Hockey. I don't think most people outside of the more Northern states care.

Pretty much dead on except that NASCAR is pretty damn popular here in the midwest. I prefered the NFL of the 80's and 90's, the pussified rules have pissed me off a bit but I still watch.

pieceofme wrote:

What rules have made it more 'pussified'?

I've always considered it pussified with all that fucking armour they wear.

shocked_the_monkey wrote:

demolition23 wrote:

shocked_the_monkey wrote: I'd be interested in rivalries in US sport. In London for example, there are 14 professional football teams in a metropolitan area of 14 million people. In Los Angeles, with a metropolitan area of 13 million to my knowledge there's only ever been 1 NFL team at a time.

New York has two NFL teams, as does the 'Bay Area' (San Fran and Oakland).
LA & NY have two NBA teams.
LA, NY, the Bay Area and Chicago have two MLB teams.
No idea about hockey.

Still, that's not many for cities of that size.