American Football questions?

Yes. You don't think it will happen?

The owners are trying to tap into the European fan base to spread the sale of merchandise/tickets.

If I remember correctly, all of the NFL games played there have sold out.  NFL Europe didn't do so well (they lost money and shutdown) but their is a fan base there.  And the NFL wants their money.

Thing is, just like the Super Bowl here, those sell outs were mainly to corporations and to the very wealthy who were only there to be seen, not to watch the game.

I don't have a true source, just enough friends in England to tell me what they have read and seen.

Yeah and have you ever seen Hurling in Ireland?  Viscious!

As a former player of both, I will say that Rugby does not trump football in terms of roughness. Not to take *anything* away from rugby--a brutally fun sport--but the difference in terms of sheer force of impact is definitely swayed to football. Yes, there are pads and helmets involved, but rugby tends to be an upper body type of take down akin to wrestling, whereas football players lead with their heads and the full force of their body.

Again, not taking anything away from Rugby players--I would NOT want to go up against the All Blacks, ever! I would even allow an argument that the two are equally brutal sports, but I don't think rugby trumps American football in terms of roughness.

puellasolis - 2008-10-20 12:23 PM

Poster Nutbag - 2008-10-20 10:14 AM

As a former player of both, I will say that Rugby does not trump football in terms of roughness. Not to take *anything* away from rugby--a brutally fun sport--but the difference in terms of sheer force of impact is definitely swayed to football. Yes, there are pads and helmets involved, but rugby tends to be an upper body type of take down akin to wrestling, whereas football players lead with their heads and the full force of their body.

Again, not taking anything away from Rugby players--I would NOT want to go up against the All Blacks, ever! I would even allow an argument that the two are equally brutal sports, but I don't think rugby trumps American football in terms of roughness.

I just meant to point out that there are other rough sports out there, and that the idea that Europeans are too "soft" for American football is, IMO, a little silly.

I get you, and I agree.  I'll also say that soccer does NOT trump football in athleticism.  Overall fitness and/or endurance, absolutely.  But a midfielder can't do what a linebacker does, a defenseman can't do what a center does, etc, etc.  Both have different levels of athleticism, and it's not a true comparison.  One is based on strength and power, the other is based on endurance and the ability to flop

BTW, I play soccer in a rec league and it's the first time I've played since I was 7 or 8 years old.  A new appreciation for the game, but I still think it's for little girls.  

^^ LOL@ the riots comment

Yeah, some of the offensive and defensive linemen are big, but you'd be blown away watching some of them run a 4.8x40 yards!  Well, maybe not that fast, but those big guys are insanely quick.

Poster Nutbag - 2008-10-20 1:24 PM

puellasolis - 2008-10-20 12:23 PM

Poster Nutbag - 2008-10-20 10:14 AM

As a former player of both, I will say that Rugby does not trump football in terms of roughness. Not to take *anything* away from rugby--a brutally fun sport--but the difference in terms of sheer force of impact is definitely swayed to football. Yes, there are pads and helmets involved, but rugby tends to be an upper body type of take down akin to wrestling, whereas football players lead with their heads and the full force of their body.

Again, not taking anything away from Rugby players--I would NOT want to go up against the All Blacks, ever! I would even allow an argument that the two are equally brutal sports, but I don't think rugby trumps American football in terms of roughness.

I just meant to point out that there are other rough sports out there, and that the idea that Europeans are too "soft" for American football is, IMO, a little silly.

I get you, and I agree.  I'll also say that soccer does NOT trump football in athleticism.  Overall fitness and/or endurance, absolutely.  But a midfielder can't do what a linebacker does, a defenseman can't do what a center does, etc, etc.  Both have different levels of athleticism, and it's not a true comparison.  One is based on strength and power, the other is based on endurance and the ability to flop

BTW, I play soccer in a rec league and it's the first time I've played since I was 7 or 8 years old.  A new appreciation for the game, but I still think it's for little girls.  

Girlie man.

I'm not saying there aren't tough dudes in Europe, because there are a lot of them, and rugby is a brutal sport. But what I really meant was that compared to Americans, Euro men are softer. They wouldn't make it in the NFL, and they are widely known as the softest players in the NBA, I mean that's not even up for debate.

And I have played virtually all sports, and no soccer doesn't take more athleticism than football. I would say basketball and football take the most overall athleticism, in my opinion.