September 3, 2001

7:07 PM

This coming Sunday 1,643 men will start hitting each other and continue to do so for at least 17 weeks: NFL Football is back! But what happened to all the dynasty teams? And what drives its fans to play God? Is it the end of the quarterback? The real question is how many players will have run-ins with the law...
posted by owillis (16 comments total)

And not one Redskins reference. Whoo!
posted by owillis at 7:08 PM on September 3, 2001

I miss the XFL.
posted by ewwgene at 7:32 PM on September 3, 2001

after starting to watch rugby a while back i just can't watch american football anymore. it's ridiculous how the game keeps stopping every 5 seconds and everyone stands around with wireless headsets stratergerizing.

if you want real tackles, constant action (unless you've got a pedantic ref.) and genuine sportsmanship give rugby a try :)

p.s. congrats wallabies!
posted by cheesebot at 7:38 PM on September 3, 2001

As a result, the NFL has become pro sports’ biggest crapshoot, with virtually every team—except, of course, the Cincinnati Bengals—suddenly transformed into a potential Super Bowl contender.

*sigh*

It's so hard being a Bengals fan.
posted by Mick at 8:43 PM on September 3, 2001

American football is a mockery of contact sports. Growing up around it I found that the biggest fans of football are men who played it in highschool or college and sit around recalling old game stories. This really works for alot of men. Not to mention the fact that American professional football has been fine tuned to be the most TV and advertising friendly of professional sports. Soccer (the real Football for people from outside the U.S border), Rugby, field hockey, Hockey, even baseball, or (my personal favorite) Lacross makes pro football look pretty damn boring and inactive.
posted by neon_slacker at 8:46 PM on September 3, 2001

I have been a Vikings fan my entire life, but Randy Moss' contract makes me want to puke...

Actually Randy Moss makes me want to puke.

Why does arrogance and pro football have to be synonymous?

Why must, should, a man be paid $75 million to try and catch between 5-15 balls in three hours?

I understand market value, and that the owners shouldn't be taking advantage of the players, but when athletes-entertainers are probably paid more than all of the teachers in the world combined, isn't that taking advantage of the fans, viewers, youth, disenfranchised, you, me???

I still don't get it...
posted by john_lustig at 9:29 PM on September 3, 2001

Major League Football: 1643 players.

Apple Computer: 8500+ employees at last head count

IBM and GE: 313,000 employees each at last head count

General Motors: 386,000 employees at last head count

Remember these numbers at the next school board meeting. When they say that football makes money for the school, ask them to prove it. I doubt thier figures will follow generally accepted accounting principles.
posted by ilsa at 10:01 PM on September 3, 2001

Cities building stadiums for pro teams who threaten to move has been one of the biggest boondoggles in recent years. The taxpayers front the costs while the owners rake in the cash and the city is worse for the wear...
posted by owillis at 10:36 PM on September 3, 2001

Ilsa,
You make a semi-valid point about the problem of equitably disseminating the scant income of colleges and/or high schools. However, the "evidence" you provide makes little or no sense. What does the number of people that work for the National Football league (not Major League Football) (and for the record, the NFL employees more that just players. I would even go so far as to assert that the NFL’s total operating staff rivals the number of people employed by the companies you mentioned) compared with the number of people who work at some major corporations relate to issue? How do those who play, or are employed, in the NFL or any of the corporations you sited have anything to do with how colleges distribute funds? Or even high schools for that matter?
Perhaps you could have provided figures to suggest money that goes to football programs (i.e. for stadium up keep, coach’s salaries, etc.) take away form money that would otherwise be earmarked for academic pursuits.
As for the issue: The proceeds that are collected from tickets sales and food and beverage sales create are a lot of extra revenue. More importantly, however; a winning team raises school awareness and pride among alumni, and can lead to greater alumni donations. And, if said funds are distributed back to the school that would ultimately help the academic side of the college or university. I find that argument a convicting one (or at least much more convicting that the one you asserted). The same, but to a lesser extent, may also go for explaining, in part, why high schools promote football so much too (I won’t know, my high schools didn’t have a football program)
posted by Bag Man at 10:51 PM on September 3, 2001

neon:

i don't know about the biggest fans are former players of the sport: there are an awful lot of seats in football stadiums... they must be getting big fans from someplace besides former players.

personally, i'm a fan of both soccer and football, and i find both to be quite active. in fact, i find football to be fairly engrossing.
posted by moz at 10:51 PM on September 3, 2001

Glad to see I'm not the only Bengals fan here! (Although my support of Cincinnati is pretty tenuous. I've never been to America, let alone Ohio. They were the first team I saw when Channel 4 started broadcasting NFL highlights back in the 80s, and I liked the helmets.) Why oh why couldn't I have picked a good team to follow!?

I notice that TV figures are down for almost every sport in the USA. I wonder if anybody has thought that maybe there are too many commercial breaks? 3 hours 10 minutes is just too long and the action just gets broken up.

American football still comes behind soccer, rugby union, rugby league, formula one and CART for me.
posted by salmacis at 1:03 AM on September 4, 2001

I think football and hockey do have parity right (among US pro sports). The NHL West has 4 or 5 very good teams that can legitimately contend for the Stanley Cup. And the NFL does have some recent standout teams (Baltimore, Tennessee, Oakland, Philly) that are not one-year wonders, and are expected to do as well this season. (It was gratifying to see Washington attempt to bulk-up Yankees style but finish out of contention. I guess building a team and its chemistry does matter.)

So what if there's a lot of churn in the upper levels. This makes for good stories like the New Orleans comeback. It also adds interest to the sport because each game does matter (ok, having only 16 games helps too).

Baseball has it wrong. For almost all fans except those of the team on top, dynasties suck. Imagine a single-screen cinema, the only one in town, that shows nothing but Police Academy sequels. That's major league baseball in a nutshell. Pro sports is a form of entertainment, and MLB is sucking at it.

Good example: the botched third-trimester abortion of a "world series" 2000, shrunk down to the scope of an intracity NY/NY scrimmage. The New York media, living in the center of its own pre-Copernican universe, wondered why no one else was interested in the outcome.

The NBA has it wrong as well. I'm not interested in seeing "Malone vs. Jordan"; that sort of gimmicry should be confined to the All-Star weekend. Instead, we have to see one-man hotdogging all year, instead of team play. Who needs the NBA when we have March Madness anyway.

Having dynasty teams in major media markets (NYC, LA) only compounds the problem, as celebrities, TV and magazines join in the cheerleading.

So go Eagles, or Ravens, or Rams, or Raiders. It's nice not having the Super Bowl in the bag before the season starts.
posted by kurumi at 9:06 AM on September 4, 2001

kurumi:

the problem is that it takes so long to develop talent -- it's really difficult to go from worst to first. you might think the cubs were able to pull it off, but really, the cubs turned themselves around 4 or 5 years ago when they got some good people in the front office drafting the right talent and increasing the budget for their scouting and development. i'm not sure there's much that can be done on that end -- i think people in football develop much faster once they're drafted. football teams also have an advantage of a main office which is willing to help pick out a GM for you (the bears could have asked the NFL to do so, but opted not to).
posted by moz at 11:32 AM on September 4, 2001

The trouble with all professional sports in the US (with the exception of soccer and the NHL, I think) is that we face no real competition in the international arena. There is no German or Brazilian Football team that rivals the US team. The level of passion for a sport in America ends with how passionate you can be for your local team.

Everywhere else in the world (with the exception of Ireland -- they play some weird stuff there that no one else does) there's soccer (real Football), cricket and rugby. And all these nations can compete on the international level against other nations and actually run into fierce competition. Thus, the level of passion that is already fervent and oftentimes hysterical on the local club level can carry over and unite entire nations in big competitions. There's just something special about all of England erupting with unbridled glee when watching its wonderboy Michael Owen bag a hat trick in Germany in one of the biggest matches in the history of the English game. No fan of American football, no matter how much passion they feel for the sport, will ever understand that.

In America there is no World Cup of American Football (yet the Super Bowl Champions, like Baseball champions, are still considered the "World Champions"). There is no baseball "Tri-Nations" between the US, Cuba, and Japan. We're good at the Summer Olympics, where we cheer for individuals and watch the latest incarnation of the Dream Team stomp over everyone.

But that's just my opinion. I'm entitled to it.
posted by dopamine at 1:29 PM on September 4, 2001

dopamine, there are certain logistical problems with playing cross-Pacific on a baseball schedule (five or six games a week); specifically, there is a sixteen hour time difference.

But sometime earlier this year (or maybe last) the American all-stars found their way to Japan for an 11 game tour/series against the Japanese all-stars. There were several games where the Americans got their asses handed to them by the Japanese bat-boy. The best of he best from the two leagues are on about the same level. Now if we could get a series where the Japanese and American champions faced off, we`d really have something.
posted by chiheisen at 10:53 PM on September 4, 2001

What you have to realize is that you can't compare many aspects of baseball with football.

In baseball the worse team in the league can beat the best and no one bats an eye. In football this would come as a complete shock.

In baseball all you need is a dominant pitcher and any team can beat any other. This doesn't work in football. A great quarterback without a line, a running game, receivers, etc. is meaningless.

The notion that japanese baseball is anywhere near the quality of american baseball is simply an ignorant statement.

Yes, I know about Ichiro Suzuki. When asked japanese managers one after another stated that Suzuki was an anomaly and guessed that there 'might' be one or two other players in japan on his level.

Of course, in the u.s. Suzuki is a wonderful player, and an all star, but certainly no different than many other players in the league.
posted by justgary at 11:12 PM on September 4, 2001