Originally posted by sally cinnamonWhat trouble? I understand perfectly what your pea-brain is trying to get across. What you fail to understand is that such a tournament would generate 0 interest worldwide and, most importantly, 0 interest among football fans as anyone who has a basic knowledge of the sport knows perfectly well the NFL already contains all of the best players in the world, the majority of which (if not 100π΅ are all from the same Country, making said tournament totally redundant and absolutely useless.
The game is played by teams outside america. Start a tournament and include these teams in it, whoever wins are world champions. Quite simple really but you seem to be having some trouble with this format
If American Football had real international competition and popularity then maybe an argument could be made for a world tournament, but until then, you're just another snobby soccer sally with a hard-on for yankees who enojys talking out their ass.
Originally posted by darvlayYou mean the world's best NFL players don't play in countries where the are no major leagues and hardly any interest in the sport?! π²
What trouble? I understand perfectly what your pea-brain is trying to get across. What you fail to understand is that such a tournament would generate 0 interest worldwide and, most importantly, 0 interest among football fans as anyone who has a basic knowledge of the sport knows perfectly well the NFL already contains all of the best players in the world, ...[text shortened]... e just another snobby soccer sally with a hard-on for yankees who enojys talking out their ass.
Originally posted by darvlayNot really just wanted to know how your comentators came to the conslusion that the superbowl champions were the world champions. You could argue that the nfl contains the best players in the world and you can also say that the italian, english and spanish football leagues contain the best players in europe, but it doesnt stop the likes of porto from the portugese league winning the european cup. Liverpool won the european cup for the fifth time in 2005, but not even the morst ardent liverpool fan will not argue that we had the best players in the world in our team. So yes youre right you are talking out of your ass
What trouble? I understand perfectly what your pea-brain is trying to get across. What you fail to understand is that such a tournament would generate 0 interest worldwide and, most importantly, 0 interest among football fans as anyone who has a basic knowledge of the sport knows perfectly well the NFL already contains all of the best players in the world, ...[text shortened]... e just another snobby soccer sally with a hard-on for yankees who enojys talking out their ass.
What if soccer was only played in italy and basically no where else in the world? And say in this Italian soccer league this one team wins the leauge championship. This team should be able to call themselves world champions because no where else in the world is thier sport played. It would be common sense that the team that won the leauge championship would be the best in the world. Am i wrong in my logic?
Err quite frankly no. If they invited competion from other teams outside italy to compete then yes they could say they were world champions. Even if no other teams entered from outside italy at least they have given others a chance. Heres a good example, the world championship of snooker takes place in the uk every year. The players that enter are nearly entirly all british with a few exceptions, because it is a game that is rarely played outside of the uk and ireland. Im not saying it isnt played anywhere else in the world its just its core is uk and ireland. However the tournament is open to anyone of any nationality that is good enough to win their way in. Its open to the world. The nfl is not open to world hence the superbowl champions can not be crowned as world champions. American champions yes, world champions no.
Late entry here by me, and it is an after the pub one at that (confession: I have only read the first 2 pages of posts)
I feel that most American criticism of 'soccer' is valid. I accept the cheating and play acting (most of the time), but I can't defend it to a critical American audience. And I would find it hard to warm to the sport after seeing such behaviour if it was new to me.
Regarding the American Football/Soccer argument, after seeing plenty of both sports, it is quite clear they are connected by name only and therefore should not be compared.
And, as for baseball, I love it, but not on channel 5 at 2 am in the morning. Beer’ed up, in person, on a Sunday afternoon, that is the way to experience it. *
-Russ
* Just to be a little controversial though, I am disappointed at the way American baseball parks empty if the home team is losing….
Originally posted by RussSox fan doesn't leave! They are not called 'The Fenway Faithful' for nothing... or perhaps the park is so small they can't all squeeze out before the end. π
Late entry here by me, and it is an after the pub one at that (confession: I have only read the first 2 pages of posts)
I feel that most American criticism of 'soccer' is valid. I accept the cheating and play acting (most of the time), but I can't defend it to a critical American audience. And I would find it hard to warm to the sport after seeing such beh ...[text shortened]... ough, I am disappointed at the way American baseball parks empty if the home team is losing….
I find it sad that some parks never fill up unless Yankee or Red Sox come to play... and then it is all their fans, and no local fans. Nothing like getting your butts beat in and having the home crowd cheer.
I wish their was a salary cap of sorts to keep the play even, but most US citizens who do watch baseball think the playoffs would suck without Yankee and Red Sox in it (like this year).
P-