Comments: Random Question

Too many players, too violent, too stop-and-start, too expensive... those are all pretty good reasons. Add the bewildering complexity of the game, and I don't think it's all that shocking that American Football has caught on anywhere else. There are minor leagues in Norway, which is kinda cool.

I also wonder if some -Euros especially- are ticked off that we call it "football" to begin with.

Oh, and I've gone completely in the opposite direction with soccer. I'm actually really getting into it after the World Cup.

Posted by frinklin at August 2, 2006 08:16 PM

The number of players and possibly the equipment required could be tinkered with. (Take seven-man or eight-man football, both of which were once popular in the rural South.) And I'm not sure that the sport is any more complex than, say, baseball or cricket.

The stop-and-start pace is definitely a problem. (I wonder why Americans seem to have more of a tolerance for that in their sports than people in other countries.) And I'll bet the "football" name does bother some Europeans. (And they're right, too; the name makes no sense.)

Soccer and I are just never going to click; I've tried it several times, and it and I will never get along. At least there's already one flailing American soccer league, so we don't have to worry about "World Cup fever" producing another.

Posted by Mediocre Fred at August 3, 2006 06:59 AM