Five Reasons Why The NBA Is Better Than The NFL (pro, best)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In simplest terms (purely sports without the demographic / psychographic, ability to identify with players) NBA is most action per minute played and when played well is most 'team' oriented. The athletes are constantly in action the fluid team movement and positioning and powerful 'highlight reel' play coupled with high scoring nature (time clock) is what IMO the growth in interest is related to. Its improved tremendously in athletic skills but lamentably is not played to its rules. (There's a great article John Wooden wrote about 20-25 years ago about the total difference in the way the game is played. This can be good bad or indifferent depending on what type of basketball play is desired. The shot clock dramatically increasing pace of play and possessions has done much good for the game.
Hockey is next in 'action' but very low in scoring as well as being very regional and seasonal. So it languishes. Crowds like high scoring coupled with action or in case of hockey (fights).
Football is most militaristic 'team' oriented sport. Actually very little action per full elapsed game time. But is has those exceptionally well coordinated plays like a general 'marching his forces' down field and exercising a special operation to score a touchdown that make it very pleasing in a strategic way.
Baseball is most lacking in real 'action' and is the most individual oriented of team sports - hitter versus pitcher and reactive on part of other players. It is also one of few sports where the defense has the ball and initiates action. This coupled with younger generations being conditioned to want constant action has diminished its attraction. Baseball for all intents and purposes you don't have to play like a 'team' as long as you perform your positional role fundamentally well. Even World Series winners were notorious for having unstable clubhouses - a few Yankees 1970s teams come to mind. Baseball without a clock is most pastoral and slow paced.
As for the article writers points:
1) Players have power (this is a negative in some respects in that it is like having the kids run the classroom)
2) Best Team always wins the championship (this I highly agree with - the nature of season length and playoff structure insure this is always true and speaks to the importance of team chemistry in play. But it is what gives NFL more excitement at times if your team is underdog)
3) Bigots hate it? This seems a troll statement.
4) Skill matters (duh - OK but every sport has different skill sets so while I agree basketball is one of most difficult all around it doesn't supersede another sports skill set. If that was the case the Olympic Decathlon competition would be the most watched) Since action explosiveness and scoring are programmed to be the end all of televised sports naturally Basketball and Football will have most appeal to the television conditioned public for always on entertainment.
5) Each player matters too (counterintuitive but many people don't care about individual players who scream "look at me' and would rather they played as a team. Note: only because the roster is small but those 11th 12th men on rosters often matter less than an NFL special teams player.
Football is most militaristic 'team' oriented sport. Actually very little action per full elapsed game time. But is has those exceptionally well coordinated plays like a general 'marching his forces' down field and exercising a special operation to score a touchdown that make it very pleasing in a strategic way.
This is probably the best explanation for why I love football I have ever read.
The racial element of the NBA/NFL debate which the author touched on is real. "But but most of the players in the NFL are black too"
Yeah but the position that matters(QB) is almost universally white. Look at the backlash cam got this season, there is a reason for that.
There are some people who dislike the NBA because of its current demographics. Then there are a whole lot of people, imo, who would be more interested in the NBA if its demographics were different (i.e., Whiter). The first group, which I think is smaller, truly harbors some racial resentment (often subconsciously). The second group simply doesn't find the players that relatable.
The NFL still has a lot of White, American-born superstars. J.J. Watt, Jared Allen, Greg Olsen, Jason Witten, Rob Gronkowski, Jordy Nelson, etc. The offensive lines are still mostly American-born Whites. And of course, the face of the franchises (QBs) are mostly White. The QB is almost always labeled the "leader" of the organization unless he's truly awful or irrelevant like a Trent Dilfer on the '01 Ravens squad. Everyone knows that that was Ray's team.
As much as we would like to believe race plays no role at all, or that it plays a minimal role, the rise of Donald Trump sort of undercuts that argument.
The NFL's fanbase is slightly right of center in terms of its political leanings. The NBA is way left of center, which is probably because minorities comprise such a large share of the fanbase. Sort of interesting how European soccer skews to the left of MLS. I'm surprised to see that WWE has such a Democratic lean, but that might be because wrestling fans skew younger.
You mean like 1/2 the football team when the offence is taking their turn or the basketball players who only get to play to give the stars a chance to take a break.
Or the reserve pitchers and infielder/outsiders who may never play at all.
Baseball may be the only sport where you can be a starter and spend most of the game sitting down. In fact, you could be a starting player and not even run the entire game. If a third baseman goes 0-4 (all strikeouts), he literally will not run the entire game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDD
Every sport requires a certain amount of skills it's just that baseball requires more of them.
Every sport requires a certain amount of skills it's just that baseball requires more of them.
The best way to determine how skill-dependent a sport is is to ask whether a 10-year old girl could beat you at it. The more likely you are to lose to a child in any given sport (gymnastics aside), the more skill the sport probably requires.
The basics in baseball (same in basketball) are largely intuitive. Sure, swing and pitch mechanics need more refinement as one gets older and moves into more competitive levels of play, but most players develop 90% of their technique through imitation. Nobody really "teaches" you how to throw a baseball when you're a kid. Like Benny told Smalls in the Sandlot, it's like throwing a newspaper or anything else. When you get to the top, let go.
Then you have a highly skill-dependent sport like tennis. The only intuitive part of the sport is the running. That's why a 10-year old girl can beat a lot of adults who have been playing the game for years. If the skill gap is wide enough, then there is no amount of strength, speed and overall athleticism that can make a difference.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
