|
Post by Aaron2344 on Jan 31, 2008 22:04:11 GMT -5
you sure that isn't 90 million in the states alone?
|
|
James
Scrub
Ex-GM
Posts: 2,398
|
Post by James on Jan 31, 2008 22:05:52 GMT -5
An NFL game would sell out in any country, because as I said, it's a commodity.
a) NFL caliber players wouldn't go to Europe.
b) Europeans don't care for the game.
Sorry, but your fantasy of the sport being taken seriously outside of North America is laughable.
A sell-out game in Europe once a year does not solidify your point.
|
|
James
Scrub
Ex-GM
Posts: 2,398
|
Post by James on Jan 31, 2008 22:06:57 GMT -5
you sure that isn't 90 million in the states alone? I'm sure, and I doubt that 900 million people watched it elsewhere. Seriously, I thought that comment by Gregg was a joke. The World Cup is the greatest sporting even on the planet.
|
|
James
Scrub
Ex-GM
Posts: 2,398
|
Post by James on Jan 31, 2008 22:07:43 GMT -5
And Blue, you realise that the NFL game in London was a commodity for the Brits and more of a circus than anything else. If you think the media and a coutry pay so much attention to a single sport in the US, you are yet to see Englands fixation with football. I'm not saying that the sport will never spread there, however I'm honestly going to say that the chances of it doing so and being succesful would be below 0.5%... That's a joke. If the NFL sent four teams of NFL caliber players to Europe, they'd have popularity SO fast. So many reasons why, but mostly because it would create interntional rivalry and would be a new, exciting sport that is already COMPLETELY established. You've no idea how easy it would be. It's just a matter of time. Last year a game was in London, I think there will be on this year, too, not to mention in Toronto. You're clueless. Aaron why would it be so popular? And it would create international competition between who exactly?
|
|
|
Post by Aaron2344 on Jan 31, 2008 22:09:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Phoenix Phil on Jan 31, 2008 22:10:10 GMT -5
And Blue, you realise that the NFL game in London was a commodity for the Brits and more of a circus than anything else. If you think the media and a coutry pay so much attention to a single sport in the US, you are yet to see Englands fixation with football. I'm not saying that the sport will never spread there, however I'm honestly going to say that the chances of it doing so and being succesful would be below 0.5%... Maybe the London game was a commodity, but their seemed to a good British reaction, and that's what's most important. And I agree, I don't think the NFL will ever truly make it huge overseas, but there definitely is room for some growth.
|
|
James
Scrub
Ex-GM
Posts: 2,398
|
Post by James on Jan 31, 2008 22:10:51 GMT -5
What teams are in the Superbowl and whens it on? I'm pretty sure we get it but at a terrible time like 5am.
|
|
|
Post by Phoenix Phil on Jan 31, 2008 22:12:16 GMT -5
NY Giants vs New England Patriots
starts around 6 PM EST
|
|
James
Scrub
Ex-GM
Posts: 2,398
|
Post by James on Jan 31, 2008 22:13:29 GMT -5
Blue, I agree with you.
And thats kind of my point. I realise that it's the biggest game in the US by far, but saying that it's going international to places like England, Germany etc... frustrates me because it won't and those games are just 1 offs?
A 1 off game here in Aus would sell out to, even though 99% of the people inside the stadium wouldn't know that the rules were.
|
|
James
Scrub
Ex-GM
Posts: 2,398
|
Post by James on Jan 31, 2008 22:13:54 GMT -5
Which was the team that went undefeated?
|
|
|
Post by Speed Racer on Jan 31, 2008 22:17:52 GMT -5
Maniac, I agree that my comment was rather 'brash', however it does have 'some' backing to it. Surely if any other country thought it was even remotely good, they'd play it? And yes I realise some of the rivalries in the NFL are very big and it consumes a lot of peoples lives, but what I'm saying is that with football, real life opinions including politics and religion come into play, so I'm saying that it reflects more of an individuals life personally, rather than it consuming their physical time if that makes sense. I respect what you are saying though and realise that theres no arguing the point because we both have different opinions and neither are going to agree! HOWEVER Gregg, your points are TERRIBLE. It took 30 years to spread...when there was like TV or interenet...fark, don't even know why I bothered discussing this issue with you. It's a lot easier for things to catch on these days, and when I say a lot, I mean it. And LMFAO at your Superbowl comment about it rating higher than the World Cup. World Cup Final = 1.1 Billion Viewers Superbowl = 90 Million Viewers Lol, you made plenty of great points Gregg. I've heard the 1.1 billion viewers for the World Cup is an extremely inaccurate number. www.worldcupblog.org/world-cup-2006/world-cup-final-the-most-watched-sporting-event-in-2006.html260 million is a whole lot different than 1.1 billion, and I'd say that's much more accurate. You're going to have a hard time convincing me that nearly 20% of the worlds population watched the World Cup Final. Super Bowl XLI, however, did indeed draw about 100 million viewers. That's not bad for a game that's played every year, as opposed to an event that's done every four years. And no, your comments about the rest of the world not playing football have zero backing in my book. Football hasn't made much of an effort to globalize itself, nor should it. Personally, I'd be upset if the Steelers were to play a game in London or Germany and I'd lose a home game. That would suck. I think the NFL and most fans are happy to see the game stick to the US. And why not? The NFL has become the dominant sport in the United States and it will remain that way. If the rest of the world catches on, cool, but the millions of football fans in the US are fine with how it is. We'll take our game and go home. Enjoy your soccer, we'll enjoy our football.
|
|
|
Post by Speed Racer on Jan 31, 2008 22:19:16 GMT -5
Which was the team that went undefeated? Patriots.
|
|
|
Post by Phoenix Phil on Jan 31, 2008 22:20:33 GMT -5
it seems like Goodell is now trying to globalize the game to capitalize on a potential overseas market. I agree though, it is BS that a team loses out on a home game just to make more money for the NFL. If they keep on doing shit like that, they'll end but alienating the true NFL fans who pay for season tickets and the such.
|
|
James
Scrub
Ex-GM
Posts: 2,398
|
Post by James on Jan 31, 2008 22:23:54 GMT -5
Maniac, Fifa confirmed it at 1.1 billion, I'll try to find the link.
And thats fine with the US keeping it an American game. I feel as though they should do it anyway.
Also in terms of ratings, I think the last WC final between France and Italy had 11 million viewers.
|
|
James
Scrub
Ex-GM
Posts: 2,398
|
Post by James on Jan 31, 2008 22:26:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Speed Racer on Jan 31, 2008 22:26:16 GMT -5
Maniac, Fifa confirmed it at 1.1 billion, I'll try to find the link. And thats fine with the US keeping it an American game. I feel as though they should do it anyway. Also in terms of ratings, I think the last WC final between France and Italy had 11 million viewers. And I'm still going to call bullshit on that. Like I said, 20% of the world watched it? Right. I don't believe it.
|
|
James
Scrub
Ex-GM
Posts: 2,398
|
Post by James on Jan 31, 2008 22:28:23 GMT -5
Check that link, it also confirms it Maniac.
|
|
GMGreggor
All-Star
Houston Rockets
Posts: 5,726
|
Post by GMGreggor on Jan 31, 2008 22:30:59 GMT -5
HOWEVER Gregg, your points are TERRIBLE. It took 30 years to spread...when there was like TV or interenet...fark, don't even know why I bothered discussing this issue with you. It's a lot easier for things to catch on these days, and when I say a lot, I mean it. And LMFAO at your Superbowl comment about it rating higher than the World Cup. World Cup Final = 1.1 Billion Viewers Superbowl = 90 Million Viewers Lol, you made plenty of great points Gregg. Eh, did'nt do any research for the worldwide ratings, I just seemed to remember hearing before the SB it's the worlds most viewed sporting event.Maybe that was just America's hell I dont know. But it would stand to reason a game that's been played internationally over a century at least should have a bigger audience than the SB. As for your other point why would it be easier to catch on now just because of TV,internet etc? Seems to me it's the other way around. Back when soccer started what the hell else was there to do for sport? Could'nt watch TV,no internet,no worldwide press. They were bored to death and started playing imported soccer. Why the hell else would they play it? I honestly think the biggest reason for soccer's growth is just find any damn ball or can or whatever and kick it between the posts,any posts. Doesnt really take any money to play it, or sense. Just kick the damn ball thru the posts.
|
|
|
Post by Speed Racer on Jan 31, 2008 22:32:31 GMT -5
Check that link, it also confirms it Maniac. Saying it was viewed by anywhere from 300 million to 1 billion is confirmation that 1.1 billion people viewed it? Haha. That's some suck ass confirmation. I can find articles saying the Super Bowl is viewed by over 1 billion people also, but that doesn't make it true. These games are aired enough to have potentially billions of viewers, but that also does not mean they're all watching. You're as unrealistic as you claim others to be.
|
|
James
Scrub
Ex-GM
Posts: 2,398
|
Post by James on Jan 31, 2008 22:44:52 GMT -5
HOWEVER Gregg, your points are TERRIBLE. It took 30 years to spread...when there was like TV or interenet...fark, don't even know why I bothered discussing this issue with you. It's a lot easier for things to catch on these days, and when I say a lot, I mean it. And LMFAO at your Superbowl comment about it rating higher than the World Cup. World Cup Final = 1.1 Billion Viewers Superbowl = 90 Million Viewers Lol, you made plenty of great points Gregg. Eh, did'nt do any research for the worldwide ratings, I just seemed to remember hearing before the SB it's the worlds most viewed sporting event.Maybe that was just America's hell I dont know. But it would stand to reason a game that's been played internationally over a century at least should have a bigger audience than the SB. As for your other point why would it be easier to catch on now just because of TV,internet etc? Seems to me it's the other way around. Back when soccer started what the hell else was there to do for sport? Could'nt watch TV,no internet,no worldwide press. They were bored to death and started playing imported soccer. Why the hell else would they play it? I honestly think the biggest reason for soccer's growth is just find any damn ball or can or whatever and kick it between the posts,any posts. Doesnt really take any money to play it, or sense. Just kick the damn ball thru the posts. Well can't I just throw a ball and run to point a then kick the ball through posts? Seriously. And Gregg, about the boredom thing, wow. TV and internet makes things a lot more popular/spreadable you idiot, think about it for just one second. How old are you by the way?
|
|
|
Post by Speed Racer on Jan 31, 2008 23:03:41 GMT -5
Eh, did'nt do any research for the worldwide ratings, I just seemed to remember hearing before the SB it's the worlds most viewed sporting event.Maybe that was just America's hell I dont know. But it would stand to reason a game that's been played internationally over a century at least should have a bigger audience than the SB. As for your other point why would it be easier to catch on now just because of TV,internet etc? Seems to me it's the other way around. Back when soccer started what the hell else was there to do for sport? Could'nt watch TV,no internet,no worldwide press. They were bored to death and started playing imported soccer. Why the hell else would they play it? I honestly think the biggest reason for soccer's growth is just find any damn ball or can or whatever and kick it between the posts,any posts. Doesnt really take any money to play it, or sense. Just kick the damn ball thru the posts. Well can't I just throw a ball and run to point a then kick the ball through posts? Seriously. And Gregg, about the boredom thing, wow. TV and internet makes things a lot more popular/spreadable you idiot, think about it for just one second. How old are you by the way? Football is a more complicated and expensive game to play than soccer. Proper football requires the proper equipment, all of which is a bit costly, and has far more rules than soccer. I'm not an avid soccer fan, but I know how the game is played. Most soccer fans cannot say the same for football.
|
|
GMGreggor
All-Star
Houston Rockets
Posts: 5,726
|
Post by GMGreggor on Jan 31, 2008 23:04:30 GMT -5
Eh, did'nt do any research for the worldwide ratings, I just seemed to remember hearing before the SB it's the worlds most viewed sporting event.Maybe that was just America's hell I dont know. But it would stand to reason a game that's been played internationally over a century at least should have a bigger audience than the SB. As for your other point why would it be easier to catch on now just because of TV,internet etc? Seems to me it's the other way around. Back when soccer started what the hell else was there to do for sport? Could'nt watch TV,no internet,no worldwide press. They were bored to death and started playing imported soccer. Why the hell else would they play it? I honestly think the biggest reason for soccer's growth is just find any damn ball or can or whatever and kick it between the posts,any posts. Doesnt really take any money to play it, or sense. Just kick the damn ball thru the posts. Well can't I just throw a ball and run to point a then kick the ball through posts? Seriously. And Gregg, about the boredom thing, wow. TV and internet makes things a lot more popular/spreadable you idiot, think about it for just one second. How old are you by the way? I was making a point that without so many options to choose from like today one could be entertained very easily in the old days thus soccers growth. And I'm old enuff to kniow a blowhard when I hear one by the way.
|
|
|
Post by Funky George! on Jan 31, 2008 23:24:41 GMT -5
Well can't I just throw a ball and run to point a then kick the ball through posts? Seriously. And Gregg, about the boredom thing, wow. TV and internet makes things a lot more popular/spreadable you idiot, think about it for just one second. How old are you by the way? I was making a point that without so many options to choose from like today one could be entertained very easily in the old days thus soccers growth. And I'm old enuff to kniow a blowhard when I hear one by the way. James, even you would admit Greg's good with the putdowns. I love this.
|
|
|
Post by Funky George! on Jan 31, 2008 23:30:05 GMT -5
An NFL game would sell out in any country, because as I said, it's a commodity. a) NFL caliber players wouldn't go to Europe. b) Europeans don't care for the game. Sorry, but your fantasy of the sport being taken seriously outside of North America is laughable. A sell-out game in Europe once a year does not solidify your point. No, you missed the point entirely. The NBA plans to expand to have a European division one day that competes in some facet with NBA teams as part of its regular season. That's the type of international expansion I'm referring to. If the NFL offered its brand of football, with its talents competing against each other in both Europe and the US, it'd be fucking huge. Football is an incredibly marketable sport because it has all kinds of physical offerings.
|
|
|
Post by Speed Racer on Jan 31, 2008 23:35:06 GMT -5
An NFL game would sell out in any country, because as I said, it's a commodity. a) NFL caliber players wouldn't go to Europe. b) Europeans don't care for the game. Sorry, but your fantasy of the sport being taken seriously outside of North America is laughable. A sell-out game in Europe once a year does not solidify your point. No, you missed the point entirely. The NBA plans to expand to have a European division one day that competes in some facet with NBA teams as part of its regular season. That's the type of international expansion I'm referring to. If the NFL offered its brand of football, with its talents competing against each other in both Europe and the US, it'd be fucking huge. Football is an incredibly marketable sport because it has all kinds of physical offerings. That I do agree with. I caught some NFL Europe games before, and my god, I think a lot of High School games featured more talent and entertainment. Sheeeeesh. Those were harsh to watch. However, if NFL caliber players, like you said, were playing every week over there it certainly would grow. Football is a tremendously entertaining sport. It's fast, hard-hitting, and involves a shitload of strategy - what's not to love? The game is played with passion and every game is a big one. NFL Europe was a joke and one can only thank the Lord that they banished that thing. Ughh.
|
|