Either one is fine, but since I knew you were gonna use basketball, I used the US as my reference point.Originally Posted by R13
Wrong, thats about as wrong as a person can possibly be. Revenue is WAY deeper than popularity. Its management, advertising, all different variables go into revenue. To say its nothing more than popularity is ridiculous and wrong.You specifically say that popularity doesn't equal greatest, but point to revenue(which is nothing but a popularity contest) as your first point of your argument.
Haha, again. No evidence to refute me whatsoever. I was talking about the intricate schemes and matchups, the amount of studying and preparation EACH player has to do. I mentioned that football players spend more time gameplanning and studying regardless. And that is 100% true. No way to refute that.Preparation into game plan is absolutely ridiculous, I would hope they put more preparation into game plan when I have A WEEK before the next game. Other sports don't have that luxury considering it's a bit more grueling playing 4-5 times a week. That one was just absurd, how can that even be considered?
And if playing 4-5 basketball games a week was more grueling, wouldnt more NBA players be injured and suffer long term health effects? Just stop man
No other sport uses matchup scheming, gameplanning to the extent the NFL uses. Meaning that no other sport has their players as prepared as NFL players are; no other sport makes athletes more familiar with their opponents, leading to a chess match unseen in any other mainstream sport. When opponents know each other so well, they know tendencies and other variables, meaning that the games are usually well played and scheme battles. No other sport is like that.
Absolutely. Dude, you have no basis and no argument. When the schedule is smaller, each game means more, meaning each week is more important. Can you refute that? NoThe games are more meaningful and that somehow dwindles the other sports because they have to play more games? That goes with the second gem above, the format of the scheduling somehow makes it a factor as the greatest sport? lmao
I now understand what everyone else on here says. You make **** up and expect people to believe it.Those two lines really just made me laugh. You're telling me that a sport that half of the players that are just overweight goliaths that make a living hand-checking other overweight goliaths 8 seconds at a time and usually on ONE SIDE OF THE BALL requires the greatest athletes of all of sports? ahahahaha. Riiiiight.
Calling an NFL DT nothing more than an overweight goliath is ridiculous. You are a completely braindead if you believe it does not take an incredible amount of talent and skill to play DT in teh NFL.
If its so easy, why arent there thousands of fat, out of shape guys in teh NFL?
If it takes no athleticism, you try to:
weight 285 pounds
bench press well over 300 pounds
run the 40 yard dash in less than 4.6 seconds
have a vertical leap over 35"
then you can be Julius Peppers.
Or weight 350 pounds, bench well over 400 pounds, run the 40 yard dash in 5 seconds, move like a cat and play 50 snaps a game. Then maybe you can talk about how Vince Wilfork is just a fat goliath.
So you are saying that playing 300 plays a year as an OL is not more physicall grueling than playing 30 minutes per game in teh NBA? Dude, really? Surely you dont believe that.That devotion one is again laughable, what other sport requires the athlete to play a whopping 300 plays a year? How about all of them, that's how many minutes of actual playing time? 30? This one isn't even close, in the other two major sports the athletes play on both sides of the ball, far more many times and if we're talking a much faster paced basketball game then it's really not even close to devotion for the sport - even though that's iffy to judge an athletes devotion to anything...which brings me to your next piece.
Playing 30 MPG in 80 NBA games equals 2400 minutes on the court. But big men dont play like that. Since we are talking about big men, we have to use big guys. Most bigger C's and PFs play what, 20 MPG? and they paly what, 75% of their teams games? Thats about 60 games, and leads to about 1200 minutes per year.
NFL OL, where guys smash into other huge men at high rates of force, play 60 snaps per game for mediocre offense (some are even higher). 60 snaps thru 16 games is 960 plays a year. at about 10 seconds per play, thats 9,600 seconds, or almost three hours of game time a year.
But since NFL players practice more often and longer, the numbers are much closer than you lead on.
And to argue that 1200 minutes of NBA action is harder on your body than 500 minutes of playing OG against NFL DTs is just out there. I seriously doubt many people will disagree that playing OT in the NFL is much, much more physically grueling than playing C in teh NFL.
Passion =/= atmosphere, dumb argument. and since you bring up college, college football has been known for the greatest atmosphere in sports for years.Passion. Since you possess the ability to judge passion of ANYONE, I don't even know where to start with this one. I'll take an atmosphere at a college basketball game or NBA playoff game as good as any NFL game played a year. Never is an football player taught to HURT anyone, it may happen because it's a contact sport, but I've never heard any right-minded coach to tell his players to seriously injure or anything close to it to play the game...football players aren't asked that, sorry. There's enough rules and pads to make the injuries of the everyday game worth the million dollar paycheck. If we were talking rugby or MMA, you might have a point.
So you are arguing that running full speed into another grown man is not hurting each other? Again, W.O.W. Again, you show how little you know about football.
Its controlled violence, mayhem. You are telling me that James Harrison running full speed at a RB isnt hurting him? ****
Oh, tell all these old NFL guys with brain damage, broken limbs, backs/knees that dont work, etc.. that the NFL doesnt require you to hurt another person.
You ever heard of an injury called a CONCUSSION?
Again, you keep flip-flopping to world or US? Which is it? And I'm just realistic actually and not a blind homer to say that my FAVORITE sport is the greatest on earth. Your argument was incredibly flawed, hell a big chunk of it is based on scheduling, the other a popularity contest you contradicted yourself on and unmeasurable factors like passion? I don't even know why I'm arguing about it, I've said it can't even be determined and this petty argument you laid out sure as hell didn't convince anyone or change any minds. You say you lay out this solid as nails argument that can't be touch(ha) and then say exactly what the hell I said from the beginning - it CAN'T BE DETERMINED AND IS A MATTER OF PREFERENCE. Probably done with the thread altogether since it's a ridiculous debate.
If my argument is so **** flawed, why couldnt you pick it apart? Your logic is weak, very very weak.
My argument is solid, yours is laughable.
To say NFL lineman are not athletes and just overweight goliaths; to say playing an NBA season is just as grueling if not more than teh NFL; arguing that NFL players dont spend more preparation time and gameplanning than other sports; to say that football players dont hurt each other is funny in how untrue all that is.
Just bad, terrible post by you. I cant believe you really thought you were ripping up my argument when yours is so bad.
[IMG]http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh111/Vic_Fontaine/sig.jpg[/IMG]
If you really wanna "rip up my argument", make a post about the NBA like I did for the NFL.
Thats the only logical way to refute me, show me another sport thats better.
You did nothing to suggest that any other sport is better.
and you didnt understand what I was saying;
It is MY OPINION that the NFL is the best sport, but I did not use OPINIONATED criteria to show why.
[IMG]http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh111/Vic_Fontaine/sig.jpg[/IMG]
I'm not going to become heavily involved with the Soccer-versus-Football debate, but I will say this: If you think that because a sport is more popular than another it's better, you're incredibly naive. Popularity has never equaled quality. This goes for almost everything: Movies, music, television, and even video games. I'm convinced that the simplicity and history of Soccer is the only reason it is as popular as it is. I'll just leave it at that and kindly exit the thread.
Riiiight, either is fine? Pick one and get it over with. Basketball is a world sport, football isn't, there's big difference in talking about the field of top US sports and top world sports. Let's not try to cover up flip-flopping back and forth as you predicting my argument. American football is a joke around the world, so I'd stick to the US if I were you.
Lol seriously? Revenue is based on popularity, from ticket sales to sports wear(which is their main source of advertising). To sit here and say revenue isn't based on popularity is beyond stupid, of course that's not every nut and bolt of it, but that's what it equals.
Uh what? What evidence were you looking for? That's a ridiculously simplistic argument," uh they spend more time watching film and studying playbooks", no one disgreed with that - when talking about per game, altogether in a season is a different story. That's based on time before a game, you're sitting here acting like the NBA players or other athletes just are too lazy to do it or some ****. And you're equating grueling to "who knocks the **** out of each other" or something. Grueling is playing a constant game, 4-5 times a week not including practice, in 6-7 times as many games which means you're on the road and away from home an insane amount of time and let's not pretend basketball isn't a contact sport(by rule it's not, but in reality it's not)..yeah, grueling.
Who the **** tried to refute that? Of course the season is shorter and the games count more, and? That's scheduling format, it's not a rule of the game is it? Baseball players can't help they play 150+ games a year and basketball players can't help they play 80+ a year. What about a fighter? Everyone one of his fights are extremely important to his CAREER, talk about meaningful.
What the hell are you talking about? What's made up about that? You sat here and pretended that all football players are some world-class athlete, get them on a court and let them run a little and we'll see how great they really are. They're athletes and it takes talent, but lets not be silly and say they're the cream of the crop in all of sports, your comment was as equally as dumb as you claim mine was.
Nice one, you compare your players season total to my players one game total. I'm saying your 300 plays to countless plays(equaling 2,460 minutes of play time to 30 minutes pf play time) is every bit of grueling. Surely you don't think that it's not.
What? I was saying look into the stands and then come back and try to say any of those fans are anymore passionate than football fans. I've been to many, many NBA games and I know for sure that's bogus. Watch an NHL game, that's another sport you fail to put into factor, that's some passionate fans. Lets stack up NHL to NFL too, ever been to a hockey game? They play more games, they're conditioned as well as any of sport(****ing running on ice) and are VERY skilled and talented and as every bit as physical - from checks to fights, touch as ****. Really can't wait to you stack up your argument with football against hockey.
I'm saying that's not what they are taught and not what they are asked to do like you said. No one said injuries don't happen a lot, but that's a factor in it being the greatest sport? Then I guess I get why you ignored the MMA comment, throw boxing in there too, those are true sports you have to hurt someone in to win. You're confusing people getting hurt in a sport that requires to tackle someone, to a sport in that you MUST hurt someone to win. If an football went an entire game without an injury, someone still wins.
I just did and did it even more so, it's easy to do in a useless argument. Your argument is as laughable as they come too, you think it's the most foil proof thing, but seriously look at what you're saying and trying to argue. It's a matter of preference and what material you're using for your argument is all but thrown out when stacked up against other sports...it has some areas you're correct in that it's tough sport and requires a lot of work, but that's dismissing at least the ones I named (NBA, NHL, MMA, Rugby-I can see why you ignored that one too-) that has every bit the athletes, passion, toughness, game dedication etc. You just think you have this in your head about it being the greatest sport, with virtually nothing to back it up and I say that not because it's some **** sport...I say it because it goes back to my original point, that its a matter of preference and really not debatable. But keep on if you must, I'm done like I should have been in the last post, joke of an argument to be arguing with to begin with and I knew better. Football fans are going to think their sport is the greatest, basketball fans are going to think their sport is the greatest, baseball fans are going to think their sport is and so on and so on and so on...and not or anyone else can say they are wrong because it comes to who likes what. Have fun.
And I see you've added some stuff, but I'm not wasting my time going back over it when I shouldn't have did this much and it's a opinion.
Why would I do that when I don't think it's the greatest sport? You're not getting that I'm not saying my sport is the greatest, I'm saying your sport isn't because there is no such thing. I've used several sports and pointed out how much they match up against your argument with football. You've convinced no one, neither have I and why is that? For like the fifth time, because it's a ****ing opinion and that's all it will ever be.
I haven't ever figured out the need to try and persuade people about this or that sport being the best, greatest, most popular, etc...
To each his own. Ill take a day baseball game over any other sport out there. But thats me. I understand people love football, and that soccer is huge worldwide. But why the need to argue over why this one is greater than that one?
This isn't directed at any particular post. Honestly, I didn't read much of this entire thread. I just had a few pennies lying here and wanted to throw them in.
Im all about a spirited game of jai alai.
"Call me crazy, but I want to buy the Dallas Cowboys end zone and have the star right at the foot of my bed. That way when I score, I can spike the ball right on the star!" -Woody Paige, Around the Horn 10.9.08
This man knows what he's talking about!
I had no intentions of replying to this, I admit I got heated. That was not the intention of this thread. But when someone comes in being so ****ing condescending I dont handle it well. If you acted like a normal human being and not the most arrogant person on the planet, I wouldnt have called you out on it.
But since you continue to be condescending and arrogant, Ill continue,
lulz, again, nothing fact based there, especially that last sentence. American football is a joke because the rest of the world cant do it. Why else is NFL Europe full of Americans?
Jesus dude, just stop.Lol seriously? Revenue is based on popularity, from ticket sales to sports wear(which is their main source of advertising). To sit here and say revenue isn't based on popularity is beyond stupid, of course that's not every nut and bolt of it, but that's what it equals.
since you insist, time to prove it.
Whats the most popular sport in the world? Soccer.
Current value of the most valuable soccer club?
Man U., at 1.8 billion, and there are only four soccer clubs across the world (Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal, and Real Madrid) valued at over 1 billion, with Barcelona barley hovering over 1 bil.
NFL:
The Cowboys are valued at 1.8 billion dollars too.
The top SIXTEEN NFL franchies are all over 1 billion dollars. The lowest NFL team is Jacksonville, worth about 700 million dollars. There are only EIGHT soccer teams worth more than the worst NFL team.
So if popularity was the great indicator, why are more NFL teams worth more than soccer teams?
Not to mention the NFL is ONE league whereas the rest of these teams come from many leagues.
Why is the NFL as a whole worth more than the EPL? Soccer in Europe is way more popular, so why isnt the best soccer league, the EPL, worth more than teh NFL?
Popularity DOES NOT EQUAL Revenue.
And before you jump on the revenue statistics, you need to see the broader picture. Check out the debt/value %. The top three of soccer, Man U., Madrid and Arsenal, rank at 46, 54, 41% debt, respectively. The top three NFL teams, Dallas, Washington and New England, rank at 11, 15, 20. So the top three soccer teams are in way more debt than the top NFL teams, meaning that the NFL teams make more money. If revenue streams are sucked up by debt, then its not gross profit. Profit, the magic word.
You CANNOT, I repeat CANNOT use the NFL team revenue numbers as a sticking point because of NFL revenue sharing is extremely different than EPL revenue sharing. The percentages, the amount of teams, the players cut, etc.. are all vastly different so pure revenue statistics are meaningless.
Ok, I know you will try to pass that off somehow, even tho all my ducks are in a row.
So lets end this now;
The EPL, the MOST watched sports league in teh world, made 2.3 billion Euros for the 09 season. 2.3 billion euros converts to a little over $3 billon dollars, actually its $3,018,750 billion dollars.
The NFL, a league in only one country with only 32 teams, made $7.8 billion dollars from the 09 season. So the NFL made $4.7 billion MORE than the EPL.
Hmm... how is that possible? If popularity=revenue, why in teh world does the NFL make more money?
Bundgeldesia: made around $2 billion, same with the La Ligra, which is barely below $2 billion.
So you can take the THREE most profitable soccer leagues in teh world, add them together, you get barely over $7 billion dollars.
The NFL makes MORE than the top three soccer LEAGUES, not teams, LEAGUES, combined. How can that be possible? If you add the top three soccer leagues, it soars past the NFL in popularity, in terms of people watching on TV, people attending games, merchandise, etc.. making the three way more popular.
Yet the NFL makes more money. Care to explain that?
My sources:
Soccer team revenues:
Soccer Team Valuations - Forbes.com
NFL teams revenue:
NFL Team Valuations - Forbes.com
Soccer league revenue:
EPL tops global league for revenues - Deloitte - World - ArabianBusiness.com
NFL revenue overall:
sports recreation leisure market research - statistics
(that says revenue from 2010 season but thats not possible since its still going on. The numbers were reported in 10, after last years Super Bowl, but it reflects the 09 season.)
Im not addressing the rest of the post, Im not trying to get all worked up and go apesh1t.
I already passed out some knowledge on the first part proving how wrong it was, not wasting my time with the rest, because spewing BS like the NBA is just as grueling as teh NFL or that NFL players arent athletes is wrong and you know it. No need for me to address, deep down you know how great an athlete Vince Wilfork is. Your dumb lil scenario is retarded, sure NFL players might not be great NBA players (oh wait, some would! Antonio Gates, Tony Gonzalez, etc.. all played bball in college) but put Kevin Garnett at defensive end, see how long he holds up. It goes both ways.
Julius Peppers? He played BASKETBALL AT NORTH CAROLINA, one of the most prestigious schools in the nation. Naw, NFL players cant play basketball.
LOL
[IMG]http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh111/Vic_Fontaine/sig.jpg[/IMG]
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks