End of a sport

[Akela3rd]

Irrelevant. Still refuse to acknowledge MKDons existence as an ex-Wimbledon resident. Lalalalala. Not listening.

[perkinke]

What people seem or fail to understand is that the major problem with the sport is the HELMET.

It does nothing to protect the inside of the head aka brain. Years ago when the sport was just

starting out they wore no helmet and then a leather garmet. Most serious injuries were very low

with maybe a broken nose or bruised shoulder. Fast forward to 2016 look at all the damaged being done.

The plastic helmet is the reason. Yes, yes I know the players are bigger and faster and in much

better condition. Take away the helmet (plastic) replace it with somethinge else (leather)

and the game might survive. The NFL is going to places like Egland, Iceland (maybe) all of

Europe to gain more profits before the lawsuits kill it. Roger Goodall (NFL Commis.) knows this

and so do the owners. They have to move fast before more lawsuits eat away at

their profits. Owners know it, lawyers know it but it seems the fans are blind and I'm

sure owners / lawyers like it that way. As the dog in the Jetsons barks "rottes of ruck"

sport fan but then maybe soccer is in the cars for you.

This isn't quite true, the reason why they had to start wearing helmets was because too many players were dying in games and teddy Roosevelt was considering banning the game if they did not make reforms.

http://www.history.com/news/how-teddy-roosevelt-saved-football

[jwr0201]

FIFY, were basically screwed

Great Signature!

[jwr0201]

Gymnastics already has the horizontal beam event, so why can't they add the vertical bar?

Pole Dancers???

[planetary]

without wishing to demean baseball, you can imagine why that sport seems so trivial and fluffy compared to a five day cricket test. but i get what you say.

As you may know, in baseball you have 162 games in the regular season, each ~3 hours in length. So we have ~500 hours of game per season - which, if I'm not mistaken, is rather a lot in the annals of modern professional sport.

Also, during the season you often have teams playing each other several days in a row. 3 or even 4 consecutive games are not uncommon. Such engagements, along with the best of 5 or 7 playoff series, seem quite similar to cricket's multi-day tests in principle. ...But I really should educate myself more about cricket. Being calibrated to baseball, cricket has always seemed baroque by comparison -- just as baseball might seem 'lite' for one calibrated to cricket.

[Ken Gargett]

As you may know, in baseball you have 162 games in the regular season, each ~3 hours in length. So we have ~500 hours of game per season - which, if I'm not mistaken, is rather a lot in the annals of modern professional sport.

Also, during the season you often have teams playing each other several days in a row. 3 or even 4 consecutive games are not uncommon. Such engagements, along with the best of 5 or 7 playoff series, seem quite similar to cricket's multi-day tests in principle. ...But I really should educate myself more about cricket. Being calibrated to baseball, cricket has always seemed baroque by comparison -- just as baseball might seem 'lite' for one calibrated to cricket.

each game has its own idiosyncracies and attractions, whether a code of football, cricket, baseball, or whatever. i remember being staggered by the number of games when i lived in the states. it wasn't one of the attractions for me but i'm sure it was for others, especially those with a far better understanding of the game than i had.

but i'm speaking about the game itself rather than such concocted matters, if you like - for cricket, i dislike that most series are only 3 tests. much prefer when we have five tests, as per the ashes, when we play england. but that is neither here nor there. we have various forms, other than the test match off five days - a one day format and also a more recent innovation of around 3 hours and a bit. i have far less interest in them.

what i was really getting was where our friend above had intimated a preference for baseball, one of the reasons being, if i am not putting words where they shouldn't go, the greater intracacies of baseball over football. my point was simply that a five day test allows for an expansion of that to a far greater level. it is one of the things i love about the game. but thee days, more fans prefer the shorter form, it seems.

[perkinke]

I personally hate baseball, bores me to tears even though I have been around it all my life and know the game well. However, it does provide a good touch point for this discussion. One of the tipping points in the downturn of its popularity was the strike in the 1980's and people becoming fed up with player behavior (doc gooden, Daryl strawberry, Barry bonds, etc) and owners' greed pushing tickets to costs the average fan couldn't afford, which are things the NFL also has working against it. I think the article where it talked about football becoming like the MMA was a more likely outcome than its extinction.

[thecrowder]

I was watching the Pro Bowl (I still don't know why) and it seemed to me that a potential outcome for the NFL is that the games will become much more like that one--lots of passing, no nickel, little blitzing, and absolutely no tackling.

While the NFL is making insane amounts of money, they are facing some headwinds. In my opinion, they've priced out most fans from being able to attend games with single game ticket prices rivaling that of Disneyland and seat license fees close to that of a compact car. The people who are able to afford to attend aren't really that into the game...check out 49ers stadium in the 2nd half of most games. TV blackout rules are incredibly stupid and need to be changed. Finally, it is my opinion that the government and public are starting to question the value of using public money for funding stadiums.

I don't think the NFL will go away, but, I do think things will be much different 10 years from now.