I ended up in fact watching the Super Bowl tonight. I didn't think I would, but read your guide nonetheless, because I have gotten somewhat curious in my 20 some years of being an American. I found your guide to be immensely helpful while watching the game.
Btw, anyone know why it's called the super bowl? I guess what I'm asking is why are these big tournament games called bowls? It's not like the Stanley Cup where it's an actual cup, right? They're not winning a bowl... Is it because the stadium is shaped like a bowl?
Yep. Bowl games started in college football because of the bowl shape, and when the NFL was created they decided to call it that. Nothing really special about it.
On February 08 2010 13:56 thopol wrote: Hey, thanks Micronesia.
I ended up in fact watching the Super Bowl tonight. I didn't think I would, but read your guide nonetheless, because I have gotten somewhat curious in my 20 some years of being an American. I found your guide to be immensely helpful while watching the game.
On February 08 2010 13:46 Jibba wrote: It also doesn't help that videos like that come out and the violence is heavily promoted by ESPN. Not only are those big layout tackles dangerous, but they're also less accurate and lead to more missed tackles, instead of the sure tackle by driving through someone.
Time Magazine just did an article about brain damage from football. The gist was basically that playing football, even at the middle school/high school level leads to serious brain damage. It's extremely barbaric, yet we love to watch it. o.o
it's a gladiatorial thing
you know, romans n shiit
I'm also not a big fan of football (hoops is my game) till I came across scott fujita in my multiethnic self-studies, thought I give it a shot, and it was pretty cool. you really gotta identify with it to love it, that's why it's almost a religion in rural places where the footballers are heroes
LA's too big a city and we don't have foot traffic like NY, and no football team here, so when the Lakers win the championship the celebration's pretty muffled and no big block parties or whatever...
On February 08 2010 07:49 CharlieMurphy wrote: Goalball would make more sense for soccer than NFL would.
Let me get this straight. You are saying that a game in which you hit the ball with your foot 90% of the time, and aren't even ALLOWED to touch it with your hands, makes less sense to be called football than a game where only 2 people on either team EVER touch the ball with their foot?
Your random logic for the method of sport appellation in America also holds no weight in England, from which the game football comes. We name games not after the method of scoring (bases, baskets), rather after actions or placenames. Or occasionally completely bizarre and arbitrary names like Ping Pong; which apparently according to Wikipedia was called Wiff-Waff back in the day.
You must be a debater or stoned, because to construct an argument as shaky as the one you did requires either a seriously argumentative brain, or heroine.
Look, you can debate the name all you want, it's called football in the US and there is zero chance of you getting the entire country to stop calling the sport football so it doesn't even matter if the name makes sense. I agree it doesn't, but language exists so you can communicate so you have to call it what everyone else does or you're missing the point of language.
I never realised how much gridiron was based off rugby. It makes a bit more sense now. So American football seems me to be more explosive strength where rugby is more about overall continuous fitness. Still the games are quite different. I'd rather watch rugby anyday. I'm not a big fan of having all these breaks between play.
On February 09 2010 13:21 Ludrik wrote: I never realised how much gridiron was based off rugby. It makes a bit more sense now. So American football seems me to be more explosive strength where rugby is more about overall continuous fitness. Still the games are quite different.
I think that's a fair way to put it. The type of weight lifting they do is largely built around explosive power and many of the speed position players were former sprinters in highschool and college.
For some reason, NFL football doesn't draw me as much as college football does. I think part of it is because the atmosphere is so much better at college games so the breaks aren't as annoying, and the game is a lot more emotional and unpredictable when 20 year olds are playing it.
On February 09 2010 13:21 Ludrik wrote: I never realised how much gridiron was based off rugby. It makes a bit more sense now. So American football seems me to be more explosive strength where rugby is more about overall continuous fitness. Still the games are quite different.
I think that's a fair way to put it. The type of weight lifting they do is largely built around explosive power and many of the speed position players were former sprinters in highschool and college.
For some reason, NFL football doesn't draw me as much as college football does. I think part of it is because the atmosphere is so much better at college games so the breaks aren't as annoying, and the game is a lot more emotional and unpredictable when 20 year olds are playing it.
Agree about college ball.. and also for basketball.
On February 08 2010 12:48 illu wrote: I think the problem is that American football is actually, or at least in my opinion, quite complicated. There are a few different ways to score, and the score you get varies from method to method.
For the sake of comparison, think about soccer and hockey. They are relatively simple and you get one point for getting your ball/bucket into the other team's nest.
For the sake of comparison, think about Starcraft. It is relatively simple and you get one win for getting the opponent to write gg before you.
LoL. Best answer ever. What would we do without idra?
On September 21 2010 03:11 NotTheMonker wrote: Football season is here again, and here is a well-written explanation for those of you who may not understand American football.