800 dude wrote:
rojo wrote:Before everyone says Symmonds is a total genius, he also says in the interview that American football is boring. Is he crazy? American football is SO much more entertaining than track.
I'm skeptical of claims that sports are just inherently interesting/exciting or not. I think that a major element of the popularity of sports is a positive feedback cycle, whereby something that's popular becomes automatically more interesting. Otherwise it would be pretty hard to explain the crazy regional differences in the popularity of various sports, except by using overly simplistic stereotypes about the national character of various peoples.
Look at it this way: Can you explain the vast disparity in popularity between rugby and the NFL (in the US) simply in terms of the forward pass? Of course not. The NFL is popular BECAUSE it's popular. It seems dramatic and important because everyone talks about it, has an opinion, eagerly anticipates Sundays in the fall, and so on. The Matthew effect in sports is massive. Conversely, people in Europe don't really follow the NFL, not because they can't understand what makes football great, but because they're not a member of a community that imbues the sport with social meaning.
Also, for what it's worth, I agree with Symmonds regarding the NFL. Football isn't inherently the most exciting sport, and it's also extraordinarily slow. I think if you were to do a test with people who had never watched sports before, most would not conclude that football is especially exciting, even if the rules were properly explained.
My personal theory on football's popularity is that it all comes from college sports. College athletics instantly create that kind of hoopla because people identify so closely with their teams. By contrast, when you start a pro team in an area, the residents of that area don't automatically identify with the team at first. Think about expansion teams, or teams in minor sports (how many of you feel a connection to your local WNBA team?).
Football developed as the premier collegiate sport because the only other popular field sport in America was baseball, which isn't as well suited to being a school sport because every position has to be highly skilled. In football, by contrast, you could go out for the team as a freshman in 1920, never having played before, and still be useful. Only a few people on the team had to have any skills. This was important, because kids back then weren't being groomed through youth athletics programs. Also, the huge numbers of players needed for football teams ensured that more members of a school community (whether high school or college) had a connection to the team. These early advantages that football had as a school sport helped to kickstart the Matthew effect.
Great post, thanks.
NFL is boring if you haven't watched it before and it has no meaning. EPL (soccer) gets the biggest crowds and TV, yet to me is still boring even though I played it. The main reason for support is allegiance to clubs, being a Man U or Liverpool die hard.
In Australia, sports are even provincialistic....AFL is mainly supported in Victoria (it used to be VFL). Rugby League is NSW/QLD (mainly NSW), Rugby Union is NSW/QLD.
Every sport is fighting for TV eyeballs and are forever expanding into other areas, and investing big in creating teams interstate, getting a following, spending grassroots money hoping that kids take it up.
The crowds are only a secondary issue, only there to create some atmosphere and to make the TV coverage imply that there is a huge following. They even sell tickets based on that, and one basketball owner even rang up mid match and asked the staff to move people into one area instead of scattered.
They are all after your TV $$, now they are after your gambling $$ and alcohol $$...there is little of supporting grassroots sports for its benefits, but rather for their benefit