Well, to be honest I did know they had a football team and that is was the Raven's but I'm just saying the amount of thought that I have put towards the names of football teams, let alone the sport it'self is staggeringly little. The only thing football means to me is a chili contest at my work :-p
I'll admit that I didn't know Baltimore had a professional sports team when I first attended Otakon, nevermind the fact that it was called "The Ravens." I independently heard something about "The Ravens," but assumed they were a band. Later, when I learned that it was a sports team, I thought, "Hey, I'll bet it's named in honor of Poe." But that's only because I'm a fan. Most people know that Poe wrote "The Raven." Some of them know that he wrote other works. Very few know or care where he lived, was born, or died, and would thus never even think to make the connection between Poe and Baltimore.
I'll bet most people who know Poe think of him when they hear of "The Ravens," but miss the link to Baltimore.
I enjoy playing it, but that's primarily due to the fact that it's a much more strategic and tactical game than many other popular sports. It's a wonderful blend of strategic planning, tactical opportunism, and physical prowess: few other sports combine all three so well.
Watching football is like watching people play a boardgame. I understand how that would be incredibly boring to many people. ^_~
I am one of those many. I'd rather watch baseball.
I find baseball a thousand times over more boring than football. The meta-game is almost the entire game, and no one deviates from optimal strategy ever. I'd rather watch BASEketball...
I enjoy playing it, but that's primarily due to the fact that it's a much more strategic and tactical game than many other popular sports. It's a wonderful blend of strategic planning, tactical opportunism, and physical prowess: few other sports combine all three so well.
Watching football is like watching people play a boardgame. I understand how that would be incredibly boring to many people. ^_~
Wow, that was the perfect blend of eloquence, bullshit, and insult.
To claim that football is "more strategic and tactical" than many other sports is whooey and hogwash. Basketball, hockey, soccer, etc. all rely heavily on strategy (when played with any proficiency). I find watching any sporting event dull, but I love to play sports not only for the physical play, but for the enjoyment of executing a well thought out strategy and making split second decisions when to deviate from that strategy if it is failing.
I am one of those many. I'd rather watch baseball.
I find baseball a thousand times over more boring than football. The meta-game is almost the entire game, and no one deviates from optimal strategy ever. I'd rather watchBASEketball...
I know what you mean, but for some reason I just keep turning back... maybe the television's got me addicted or something. Though, sports in general seem to bore me. Except hockey, but only if I'm actually in the stadium. I dunno, I'd rather just go play video games...
Basketball, hockey, soccer, etc. all rely heavily on strategy (when played with any proficiency).
Hockey is far more tactical than strategic: situations evolve too quickly, and there are only a few strategies to choose from. Basketball has a handful of strategies, and is primarily a matter of tactical execution only. Baseball has effectively one strategy.
Football has far more strategic-level decisions than most other popular sports. I stand by this claim. Other sports have strategies, but not as many decisions or options. Hockey is, due to its scoring and fast player changes, primarily tactical and physical. Baseball has one strategy and few tactics, and is primarily just a game of physical execution (unless you include the meta-game of team management outside of the individual games). Basketball is similar to hockey, but more physical and less tactical (at least, in the NBA as it currently exists).
Football is the only sport that combines all three elements equally.
When I was growing up, I didn’t play much sport. I think this is down to having a disabled father who wasn’t able to play football with us kids. More importantly (for this post) we never had a TV in the house, so watching sport was never even an option. The first time I tried watching a football (soccer) match, when I was maybe 16 or 17, I found it quite tedious, and wondered why anyone would put themselves through that experience for entertainment’s sake.
One of the main reasons I didn’t enjoy it, I think, was because I really didn’t understand what was going on. After seeing more games, I understood much more, and could appreciate it on a more tactical level. But it’s still pretty dull.
As a juggler, and an entertainer, I try to do something new, or say something interesting, or make the audience laugh at least once every 10 to 15 seconds. That means, in a 45 minute long show, about 200-250 points of engagement.
With soccer? Something interesting happens only once every two or three minutes, and the vast majority of those end in failure. The rest of the time the guys just kick the ball about, tediously lining each other up, getting into position, faffing about, diving on the floor at the merest touch. Yawn…
So, this is why (among other reasons) I enjoy watching tennis. There’s a constant one-on-one battle, and within a minute someone WILL score a few points. And every contact between the ball and a racket has importance, as if it isn’t perfect (or lucky) they’ll be a point or game or set or match down. In soccer, if someone makes a bad pass, it probably won’t matter, as the other side probably won’t score, and they’ll get possesion back in a minute or so.
Which brings me to American Football, a sport I’ve been watching more and more over the last few years as I’ve worked on cruise ships. ESPN is always available, and you can see games every night of every weekend at this time of year. Now, when I first watched a game, I was put off by how often it stopped, and how many adverts they showed between plays. There was also the whole average time between engagements thing too, where the stop-start nature meant that something interesting happened only once every few minutes. And, as it’s an excruciatingly complex game, I had the not-really-understanding-what-the-hell-is-going-on problem too. And the games a looooong. That’s a lot of negatives. But I’ve been completely won over.
First, I don’t mind the adverts, because outside of the USA ESPN shows its own adverts, talking about their own programming, not those for other companies, and as they repeat them so much they are completely ignorable. And it’s not as if we’re missing anything during the adverts. I bet you could play as many adverts during a soccer game, over the time that they’re tediously kicking the ball to other players on their own team, without missing anything interesting too!
Second, I understand what’s going on now, and really appreciate the depth of the game. Some of the rules seem a bit “Um… what? Okay then…†and it’s funny that quite a lot of the players don’t know the rules in many situations… “Wait, was that a forward fumble or an interception? And if I touch the ball now does that mean something or not?â€
Third, while the average time between engagements is long, every single play is filled with immense skill, strength, tactical depth, athleticism, huge guys pounding each other into the grass, etc. What’s not to like?
Forth, each one of those engagements has a much higher chance of success. Unlike soccer, where success on the part of the attacking team comes maybe two or three times per game, almost every play in American Football gets the team closer to their goal.
Fifth, mistakes matter! If your team makes three or four mess-ups in a game, and your opponents only make one, you’re screeeeeeeeewed.
Sixth, there’s no faking injuries when someone sneezes near another player on the field.
There’s probably more things I could say about what I like about watching American Football over soccer, but I’ll leave it there.
Now basketball… there’s a sport where engagements happen four times a minute, but each one is so repetitive and meaningless that you might as well not bother watching. I have ideas about how to make that sport more interesting, but I’ll save them for another post.
Now basketball… there’s a sport where engagements happen four times a minute, but each one is so repetitive and meaningless that you might as well not bother watching. I have ideas about how to make that sport more interesting, but I’ll save them for another post.
Raise the nets 10 feet, have a 4-point line further out from the 3-point, make the court wider, and reduce the number of players. ^_~
Now basketball… there’s a sport where engagements happen four times a minute, but each one is so repetitive and meaningless that you might as well not bother watching. I have ideas about how to make that sport more interesting, but I’ll save them for another post.
Raise the nets 10 feet, have a 4-point line further out from the 3-point, make the court wider, and reduce the number of players. ^_~
No, all the rules stay the same except something like this:
1. Forget having four quarters. 2. Have "sets" that last 5 minutes each. 3. Play as normal for the first set. 4. The team with the most points at the end of the set wins the set. 5. First to seven sets wins.
The only exciting time for me in a basket ball game is in the last 5 minutes of a close game. This way you get those last 5 minutes continuously. Kobe Bryant can beat the buzzer not just once but many times per game, and snatch the set.
A game which is unequal will mean it ends in a short time. A game which is evenly matched will last a lot longer.
At any point at the start of any set, it is possible for the losing team to come back and win the game, unlike currently where in an uneven game it would be physically impossible to gain the points needed by the buzzer.
I find that it helps to be really drunk during a sporting event. This rule especially applies to baseball. I can't understand how someone could watch an entire basball game sober.
much more strategic and tactical game than many other popular sports
>get one man past opposing defence, throw ball at him. Or >kick ball. Very... strategic. You even get to practice and rehearse your methods of getting that one man past the defence before the match and then remind everyone once on the field. That's not strategy. That's programming and executing. You don't have that kind of depth in the programming for most other sports though, I'll give you that. One argument for a benevolent god.
Rugby is a participant sport if you ask me. It's a game for one to get rough, sweaty, dirty and exhausted with friends without going all out brawling in a pub (yes I've played rugby a few times and it got me awesome stories).
Football is like USA rugby, ice hockey, hockey(, etc) in that the only interesting parts are those you see in the summary after the game has been played. Unless you're watching something like the second round World Cup match between the Netherlands and Portugal and one and a half dozen yellow cards are being given because the game has turned into a game of: MOW DOWN Madagascar.jpg EVERYONE
Speed skating has the fact that roughly every 30 seconds you will know if the guy you're rooting for is on schedule compared to his 'rival', especially on the 10km when you get reactions like "holy crap, he's been going for 7 kilometers now AND HE'S SPEEDING UP" or "holy crap, he still manages to clock under 30 seconds after a dozen laps". These things only happen in the last few races though.
I prefer to think of it as trench warfare style rugby.
Trench warfare eh? You mean that incredibly boring act of taking potshots at the little targets the enemy have put on top of their helmets like you have done on your helmet, or shooting artillery into nowhere just to be doing SOMETHING? (see WWI)
Trench warfare eh? You mean that incredibly boring act of taking potshots at the little targets the enemy have put on top of their helmets like you have done on your helmet, or shooting artillery into nowhere just to be doing SOMETHING? (see WWI)
I was thinking more along the lines:
1. everyone lines up 2. fighting happens 3. territory is gained or lost 4. fighting ceases 5. repeat.
>get one man past opposing defence, throw ball at him. Or >kick ball. Very... strategic. You even get to practice and rehearse your methods of getting that one man past the defence before the match and then remind everyone once on the field. That's not strategy. That's programming and executing. You don't have that kind of depth in the programming for most other sports though, I'll give you that. One argument for a benevolent god.
Rugby is a participant sport if you ask me. It's a game for one to get rough, sweaty, dirty and exhausted with friends without going all out brawling in a pub (yes I've played rugby a few times and it got me awesome stories).
Football is like USA rugby, ice hockey, hockey(, etc) in that the only interesting parts are those you see in the summary after the game has been played. Unless you're watching something like the second round World Cup match between the Netherlands and Portugal and one and a half dozen yellow cards are being given because the game has turned into a game of: MOW DOWN Madagascar.jpg EVERYONE
Speed skating has the fact that roughly every 30 seconds you will know if the guy you're rooting for is on schedule compared to his 'rival', especially on the 10km when you get reactions like "holy crap, he's been going for 7 kilometers now AND HE'S SPEEDING UP" or "holy crap, he still manages to clock under 30 seconds after a dozen laps". These things only happen in the last few races though.
Nice to see you are completely ignorant of American sports.
>get one man past opposing defence, throw ball at him. Or >kick ball. Very... strategic. You even get to practice and rehearse your methods of getting that one man past the defence before the match and then remind everyone once on the field. That's not strategy.
Your argument is based solely on your misunderstanding of what the word strategy means. You're so wrong it's painful to look at. Do you really, honestly want me to refute you on this point, or will you concede while there's still time?
Trench warfare eh? You mean that incredibly boring act of taking potshots at the little targets the enemy have put on top of their helmets like you have done on your helmet, or shooting artillery into nowhere just to be doing SOMETHING? (see WWI)
Toward the end of the war, trench warfare became a sophisticated tactical and strategic endeavor. Rolling barrages and defense of depth, use of air power, strategic retreats: your understanding derives solely from the mismanagement and poor decisions made during the early stages of the war.
If you don't believe that there is strategy in football watch this video where Giants QB Eli Manning explains how he beat the defense and got this touchdown. This is what happens almost every single play in football.
Also, check out this video where he explains why he took a delay of game penalty on purpose. He tried to call time out, but he wasn't allowed to call two timeouts in a row.
I think a big part of the problem with American Football is the broadcasts. They assume the viewer knows how the game works, so it's very hard for new viewers to learn without investing themselves into it. However, they also assume the viewer isn't a football genius, so they don't explain into this level of depth unless you go look up some 3rd party commentary like these videos on nfl.com or football blogs and such.
Also, they are right. Most football fans don't understand the full depth of the game. And even for people who do understand it deeply, there is always something new to learn. There isn't much new to learn in a sport like baseball.
I know, I just took the piss on your comment with true facts for fun. I've stated before on these forums that I know very little about USA Football outside of "It's rugby with pads and more preparation with an inappropriate name". After all, it's not a ball, and the feet are only used for running about and sometimes kicking. I thought about adding something along the lines of "If you're talking about Actual Football, then surely nobody in the USA can blame you for not knowing the Baltimore team, right?" to my initial post, but decided to leave it out and see what would happen to the conversation. As you can see it resulted in some people fuming.
Your argument is based solely on your misunderstanding of what the word strategy means. You're so wrong it's painful to look at. Do you really, honestly want me to refute you on this point, or will you concede while there's still time?
Strategy is prepared beforehand, tactics is the form of execution. Also see reply to gedavids. But do go off on a lecture about strategy and tactics. Though I feel like that would be more appropriate in something like a podcast about, say Advance Wars in a similar vein to how you did the last one on Street Fighter.
Toward the end of the war, trench warfare became a sophisticated tactical and strategic endeavor. Rolling barrages and defense of depth, use of air power, strategic retreats: your understanding derives solely from the mismanagement and poor decisions made during the early stages of the war.
See reply to gedavids. Take your assumptions too, or are you fuming that badly?
Nice to see you are completely ignorant of American sports.
I can watch a football game without commentary and understand 95% of what is happening. However, once I was confused at something, so turned up the sound, and the commentators were discussing how the players themselves didn't do the right thing in that situation, because the rule change was new and pretty obscure.
Those videos are exactly the kind of thing that makes me appreciate the game so much, and as you said, there's this level of thought to every play!
I just looked up where I'll be for the superbowl. I'm not sure the ESPN signal reaches Antarctica. Fail!
I dont' understand how you are watching NFL football on ESPN. ESPN only shows one NFL game per week on Monday night. Maybe international ESPN shows the NFL? The Super Bowl this year is on CBS.
Comments
I'll bet most people who know Poe think of him when they hear of "The Ravens," but miss the link to Baltimore.
Watching football is like watching people play a boardgame. I understand how that would be incredibly boring to many people. ^_~
To claim that football is "more strategic and tactical" than many other sports is whooey and hogwash. Basketball, hockey, soccer, etc. all rely heavily on strategy (when played with any proficiency). I find watching any sporting event dull, but I love to play sports not only for the physical play, but for the enjoyment of executing a well thought out strategy and making split second decisions when to deviate from that strategy if it is failing.
Football has far more strategic-level decisions than most other popular sports. I stand by this claim. Other sports have strategies, but not as many decisions or options. Hockey is, due to its scoring and fast player changes, primarily tactical and physical. Baseball has one strategy and few tactics, and is primarily just a game of physical execution (unless you include the meta-game of team management outside of the individual games). Basketball is similar to hockey, but more physical and less tactical (at least, in the NBA as it currently exists).
Football is the only sport that combines all three elements equally.
When I was growing up, I didn’t play much sport. I think this is down to having a disabled father who wasn’t able to play football with us kids. More importantly (for this post) we never had a TV in the house, so watching sport was never even an option. The first time I tried watching a football (soccer) match, when I was maybe 16 or 17, I found it quite tedious, and wondered why anyone would put themselves through that experience for entertainment’s sake.
One of the main reasons I didn’t enjoy it, I think, was because I really didn’t understand what was going on. After seeing more games, I understood much more, and could appreciate it on a more tactical level. But it’s still pretty dull.
As a juggler, and an entertainer, I try to do something new, or say something interesting, or make the audience laugh at least once every 10 to 15 seconds. That means, in a 45 minute long show, about 200-250 points of engagement.
With soccer? Something interesting happens only once every two or three minutes, and the vast majority of those end in failure. The rest of the time the guys just kick the ball about, tediously lining each other up, getting into position, faffing about, diving on the floor at the merest touch. Yawn…
So, this is why (among other reasons) I enjoy watching tennis. There’s a constant one-on-one battle, and within a minute someone WILL score a few points. And every contact between the ball and a racket has importance, as if it isn’t perfect (or lucky) they’ll be a point or game or set or match down. In soccer, if someone makes a bad pass, it probably won’t matter, as the other side probably won’t score, and they’ll get possesion back in a minute or so.
Which brings me to American Football, a sport I’ve been watching more and more over the last few years as I’ve worked on cruise ships. ESPN is always available, and you can see games every night of every weekend at this time of year. Now, when I first watched a game, I was put off by how often it stopped, and how many adverts they showed between plays. There was also the whole average time between engagements thing too, where the stop-start nature meant that something interesting happened only once every few minutes. And, as it’s an excruciatingly complex game, I had the not-really-understanding-what-the-hell-is-going-on problem too. And the games a looooong.
That’s a lot of negatives. But I’ve been completely won over.
First, I don’t mind the adverts, because outside of the USA ESPN shows its own adverts, talking about their own programming, not those for other companies, and as they repeat them so much they are completely ignorable. And it’s not as if we’re missing anything during the adverts. I bet you could play as many adverts during a soccer game, over the time that they’re tediously kicking the ball to other players on their own team, without missing anything interesting too!
Second, I understand what’s going on now, and really appreciate the depth of the game. Some of the rules seem a bit “Um… what? Okay then…†and it’s funny that quite a lot of the players don’t know the rules in many situations… “Wait, was that a forward fumble or an interception? And if I touch the ball now does that mean something or not?â€
Third, while the average time between engagements is long, every single play is filled with immense skill, strength, tactical depth, athleticism, huge guys pounding each other into the grass, etc. What’s not to like?
Forth, each one of those engagements has a much higher chance of success. Unlike soccer, where success on the part of the attacking team comes maybe two or three times per game, almost every play in American Football gets the team closer to their goal.
Fifth, mistakes matter! If your team makes three or four mess-ups in a game, and your opponents only make one, you’re screeeeeeeeewed.
Sixth, there’s no faking injuries when someone sneezes near another player on the field.
There’s probably more things I could say about what I like about watching American Football over soccer, but I’ll leave it there.
Now basketball… there’s a sport where engagements happen four times a minute, but each one is so repetitive and meaningless that you might as well not bother watching. I have ideas about how to make that sport more interesting, but I’ll save them for another post.
1. Forget having four quarters.
2. Have "sets" that last 5 minutes each.
3. Play as normal for the first set.
4. The team with the most points at the end of the set wins the set.
5. First to seven sets wins.
The only exciting time for me in a basket ball game is in the last 5 minutes of a close game. This way you get those last 5 minutes continuously. Kobe Bryant can beat the buzzer not just once but many times per game, and snatch the set.
A game which is unequal will mean it ends in a short time. A game which is evenly matched will last a lot longer.
At any point at the start of any set, it is possible for the losing team to come back and win the game, unlike currently where in an uneven game it would be physically impossible to gain the points needed by the buzzer.
There would be more breaks for adverts.
No need for time outs.
Etc.
Or
>kick ball.
Very... strategic. You even get to practice and rehearse your methods of getting that one man past the defence before the match and then remind everyone once on the field. That's not strategy. That's programming and executing. You don't have that kind of depth in the programming for most other sports though, I'll give you that. One argument for a benevolent god.
Rugby is a participant sport if you ask me. It's a game for one to get rough, sweaty, dirty and exhausted with friends without going all out brawling in a pub (yes I've played rugby a few times and it got me awesome stories).
Football is like USA rugby, ice hockey, hockey(, etc) in that the only interesting parts are those you see in the summary after the game has been played. Unless you're watching something like the second round World Cup match between the Netherlands and Portugal and one and a half dozen yellow cards are being given because the game has turned into a game of:
MOW DOWN
Madagascar.jpg
EVERYONE
Speed skating has the fact that roughly every 30 seconds you will know if the guy you're rooting for is on schedule compared to his 'rival', especially on the 10km when you get reactions like "holy crap, he's been going for 7 kilometers now AND HE'S SPEEDING UP" or "holy crap, he still manages to clock under 30 seconds after a dozen laps". These things only happen in the last few races though. Trench warfare eh? You mean that incredibly boring act of taking potshots at the little targets the enemy have put on top of their helmets like you have done on your helmet, or shooting artillery into nowhere just to be doing SOMETHING? (see WWI)
1. everyone lines up
2. fighting happens
3. territory is gained or lost
4. fighting ceases
5. repeat.
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-playbook/09000d5d80c190cc/Wk-9-Playbook-Eli-Manning-on-the-Dallas-Defense
Also, check out this video where he explains why he took a delay of game penalty on purpose. He tried to call time out, but he wasn't allowed to call two timeouts in a row.
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-playbook/09000d5d80c0d685/WK-8-Anatomy-Extra-Manning-on-delay-of-game
I think a big part of the problem with American Football is the broadcasts. They assume the viewer knows how the game works, so it's very hard for new viewers to learn without investing themselves into it. However, they also assume the viewer isn't a football genius, so they don't explain into this level of depth unless you go look up some 3rd party commentary like these videos on nfl.com or football blogs and such.
Also, they are right. Most football fans don't understand the full depth of the game. And even for people who do understand it deeply, there is always something new to learn. There isn't much new to learn in a sport like baseball.
If you are interested, I highly recommend these Anatomy of a Play videos. http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-films-anatomy-of-a-play
Those videos are exactly the kind of thing that makes me appreciate the game so much, and as you said, there's this level of thought to every play!