August 25, 2004

I'm not a football fan

so I really wouldn't know, but DeAnna (a self-proclaimed "crazed football fan") asks a question.

Posted by sheila

I would say no. It's a different game, certainly - the days of dynasties (60's Packers, 70's Steelers, 80's 49ers, 90's Cowboys) are probably over, and as a die-hard 49ers fan that saddens me. But you can make a solid argument that today's game is just as interesting - while in the past the challenge may have been to find the best players and just pay them whatever it cost (which was basically the 49ers approach in their glory days), today the challenge is to find the best players for the best value - the perfect example being the New England Patriots, who have few stars or high-paid players (in comparison to superstars) but have excelled by finding over-achievers mid-way on the pay scale at nearly every position.

So for me, there is less continuity from year to year, but the game is just as entertaining as it's always been.

Posted by: Jeff at August 25, 2004 02:19 PM

You're probably right.
I think what I'm missing is the camaraderie and the feeling like the team worked as a well-oiled machine because they knew each other so well.
I guess it's still interesting but maybe it's lost it's heart, for me at least.

Posted by: DeAnna at August 25, 2004 02:26 PM

Pro-basketball is like that for me now - as much as I love the game. College basketball is a MUCH more exciting game to watch.

Posted by: red at August 25, 2004 02:27 PM

"College basketball is a MUCH more exciting game to watch."

Amen to that, red. Pro basketball is akin to watching paint dry for me...

Posted by: MikeR at August 25, 2004 03:40 PM

Yeah, it's too bad. I wonder ... It seems to me that the players (in pro-basketball) are better than the game - if that's possible. So that they can kind of skate their way through it. But college basketball players are really working together, working their asses off - and so you're on the edge of your seat watching it.

Something like that.

Posted by: red at August 25, 2004 03:41 PM

Yes, but free agency (as DeAnna questions) has nothing to do with a sport's downfall; it's the sport itself. If free agency was the problem, nobody would like college basketball. In college ball the players are only with their teams for 4 years maximum; and the good ones leave early.

Posted by: Easycure at August 25, 2004 03:53 PM

Red, my dad has said for years that NBA players are too good for the game. Although lately, I wonder, considering the overall decline in fundamental skills. Actually, the decline of fundametals applies to baseball and football as well, I think.

The thing that bothers me about pro football isn't so much free agency as it is the conservatism of coaches. There are really only two or three offenses and two or three defenses (each with variants, but practically everyone uses the same variants) in use around the whole league. It's not like college, where you can still find pro-style, option, wishbone, run-and-shoot, Delaware Wing-T, and other offensive systems in use.

Posted by: Ken Hall at August 25, 2004 04:52 PM

Yeah, well, call me un-American or whatever, but I've never cared about football, pro or college...except when the Pats are in the Super Bowl, of course. If anything, living in Tallahassee, where the Noles are the center of everything, has only made me zone it out more.

(FSU-Florida is a serious rivalry?! Hah! You people have never been to a Sox-Yankees game!) ;-)

Posted by: Dave J at August 25, 2004 04:59 PM

My brother was at the Super Bowl in New Orleans when the Patriots won. He still has not recovered.

Posted by: red at August 25, 2004 05:00 PM

New Orleans is difficult enough to recover from on its own, so I'm sure I can't even imagine.

Posted by: Dave J at August 25, 2004 05:05 PM

Also, U2 played. My brother has been into U2 since ... well ... since before they were world-famous. And there they were. My brother basically just freaked OUT. On multiple levels.

Posted by: red at August 25, 2004 05:07 PM

To me, the NBA has always gone too far in terms of simplifying and minimizing the rules. If someone travels or palms the ball or charges on a fast break, why can't you just CALL IT? Why do you need a 24-second shot clock, when a 30-second clock would allow for more teamwork on both offense and defense? The NBA is organized around emphasizing and promoting individual skills, and that's just not the right way to play basketball.

The players seem too good for the game because the NBA game was long ago made too simple.

Posted by: MikeR at August 25, 2004 07:18 PM