Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Once again hundreds of reasonable people fall victim to the trap of actually paying attention to Ann Coulter and her particular brand of "not sure if serious, but scared that she might be."
This is the everyday and endlessly repeatable situation where she says something as ridiculous and baseless as this and then laughs all the way to the bank because folks are going to get outraged, follow links to where her stuff is posted and she reaps the ad revenue.
Remember what your parents would have said.
"When you wrestle a pig you just end up dirty and the pig likes it"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/28 12:14:16
It is called football in most places and soccer in some. Once you learn that different places often have different names for things, and not just sports, you'll live a more stress free life.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
I still feel like it should be called football. Whatever idiot took the name 'football' for American football should have been smacked. Hard. The only time the foot is involved is during the punt. As opposed to a game played 95% of the way with the feet. But, you know...stupid people make decisions. And other idiots perpetuate it.
Reality is a nice place to visit, but I'd hate to live there.
Manchu wrote:I'm a Catholic. We eat our God.
Due to work, I can usually only ship any sales or trades out on Saturday morning. Please trade/purchase with this in mind.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
timetowaste85 wrote: I still feel like it should be called football. Whatever idiot took the name 'football' for American football should have been smacked. Hard. The only time the foot is involved is during the punt. As opposed to a game played 95% of the way with the feet. But, you know...stupid people make decisions. And other idiots perpetuate it.
Its not called a football because you use your feet.
Its because the ball is a foot long.
Both games have an equally valid reason for being called what they are.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Today I found out the origin of the word “soccer”. For all you out there who love to complain when Americans, and certain others, call “Football”, “Soccer”, you should know that it was the British that invented the word and it was also one of the first names of what we now primarily know of as “Football”.
In fact, in the early days of the sport among the upper echelons of British society, the proper term for the sport was “Soccer”. Not only that, but the sport being referred to as “Soccer” preceded the first recorded instance of it being called by the singular word “Football” by about 18 years, with the latter happening when it became more popular with the middle and lower class. When that happened, the term “Football” gradually began dominating over “Soccer” and the then official name “Association Football”.
In the 1860s, as in most of history- with records as far back as 1004 B.C.- there were quite a lot of “football” sports in existence being played popularly throughout the world and of course, England. Many of these sports had similar rules and eventually, on October 26th, 1863, a group of teams in England decided to get together and create a standard set of rules which would be used at all their matches. They formed the rules for “Association Football”, with the “Association” distinguishing it from the many other types of football sports in existence in England, such as “Rugby Football”.
Now British school boys of the day liked to nickname everything, which is still somewhat common. They also liked to add the ending “er” to these nicknames. Thus Rugby was, at that time, popularly called “Rugger”. Association Football was then much better known as “Assoccer”, which quickly just became “Soccer” and sometimes “Soccer Football”.
The inventor of the nickname is said to be Charles Wredford Brown, who was an Oxford student around the time of Association Football’s inception. Legend has it, in 1863 shortly after the creation of Association Football, Wredford-Brown had some friends who asked him if he’d come play a game of “Rugger”, to which he replied he preferred “Soccer”. Whether that story’s true or not, the name caught on from around that point on.
In the beginning, the newly standardized Rugby and Soccer were football sports for “gentlemen”, primarily being played by the upper echelons of society. However, these two forms of football gradually spread to the masses, particularly Soccer as Rugby didn’t really catch on too well with the lower classes. This resulted in the name switching from “Soccer” and “Association Football”, to just “Football”; with the first documented case of the sport being called by the singular term “Football” coming in 1881, 18 years after it was first called “Soccer” or, officially, “Association Football”.
The game gradually spread throughout the world under the lower class name of “Football”, rather than “Soccer” as the “gentlemen” called it. The problem was, though, that a lot of other countries of the world already had popular sports of their own they called “Football”, such as the United States, Canada, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, to name a few. In these countries, the name “Soccer” was and, in some, still is preferred for this reason.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
LuciusAR wrote: The metric system is the tool of the devil! My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it!
Before any of you gets any weird ideas about systems of measurement! The metric system is the one true system of measurement! Using any other system is vile heresy and will be punished by up to ten years of correctional labour in Siberia.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/06/28 23:24:11
That said, I do not like soccer, in fact, I hate it. I pay attention for a few minutes during the world cup but don't actually root for anyone. But I respect the talent soccer players have and the amount of training they go through. I think the amount of endurance they have is insane and something I think anyone who is an athlete to enjoys athletics can respect.
I only have room for one true love for sports. Football. The American kind.
This is me... I hate soccer... But this year, is the first time I've EVER sat down and actually watched an entire 2 and half hour broadcast of a WC match.
Alas, where Piston and I differ is in our one true love of sports: As I also love only Football, but my football is the Rugby Union kind
Frazzled wrote: Any sport where you can lose twice and still have a chance for the title is not a sport.
So that means baseball and basketball aren't sports, because you can lose two games and still win the seven game series comfortably. While an American football team that only lost twice during the regular season would likely finish top of its group and probably be among the favourites for the title, so I guess that isn't a sport either.
I guess we can do this for any sport that isn't a knock out comp. So that means is tennis passes your test, and so do some knock out comps that run alongside regular comps (so soccer counts, but only when they're playing the FA cup and similar).
Not sure that's the result you were after
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Frazzled wrote: Any sport where you can lose twice and still have a chance for the title is not a sport.
So that means baseball and basketball aren't sports, because you can lose two games and still win the seven game series comfortably. While an American football team that only lost twice during the regular season would likely finish top of its group and probably be among the favourites for the title, so I guess that isn't a sport either.
I guess we can do this for any sport that isn't a knock out comp. So that means is tennis passes your test, and so do some knock out comps that run alongside regular comps (so soccer counts, but only when they're playing the FA cup and similar).
Not sure that's the result you were after
IMO, I *think* what he's trying to say is that, within a single tournament where there is a group stage, followed by knockout stage... it's difficult to see the merit of a team that potentially doesn't win a single game, yet still advances on some points system
But every one of our sports in the US is a tournament with a group stage followed by a knockout stage.
The World Cup is a tournament that spans multiple years, and has a final group stage with the best two teams advancing to the knock-out stage (aka The Playoffs).
Baseball/Basketball/Football/Soccer all have divisions and conferences, and you can lose games and still advance out of your "group".
I completely agree, however, I would think that, if in theory only, a team could potentially draw or lose every one of it's games in the group phase, but still make it to knockout stages.
Definitely, as long as they are better than two of the other teams they go on. I just find that using a "three game mini-season" followed by a 16 team playoff makes it easy to explain the process for the non-familiar.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/30 05:02:45
There are definitely professional sports in the US with playoff systems that piss me off... Hockey and Basketball being two (as they are basically the same, though my hatred of basketball runs much, much deeper than just playoffs), when literally half of the league is in the playoffs... to me, just brings that "elite" feeling down some. I mean, when you have the NFL and MLBs systems, where the number of spaces is quite severely limited, it creates a better atmosphere for the fans and players alike, and the feeling of accomplishment is/should be much greater knowing that you are among the top 25-30% of your league.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: IMO, I *think* what he's trying to say is that, within a single tournament where there is a group stage, followed by knockout stage... it's difficult to see the merit of a team that potentially doesn't win a single game, yet still advances on some points system
I guess while possible that's pretty unlikely. I mean, each group has 4 teams and only two go through. So if you drew all three games you'd end up on 3 points, and be banking on only one other team in the group winning any games. SO you'd be hoping that one strong team in your group (that you drew with) won both its other games, and then the other game that didn't include you or the strong team was a draw, because if either team won that they'd go through on 4 points to your 3. It's possible, but I wonder how many times its happened in the World Cup.
The bigger problem with soccer, I think, is with teams putting up the bus and just trying to stop the other (superior) team from scoring. They do that either to sneak a draw in a group stage match (and then hope to beat one or both of the other teams in the group who are weaker teams)... or in the knock out phase in order to sneak a win on penalties. But that hasn't been a problem in this world cup, every game I've seen has involved lots of attacking from both sides, and the draws have been draws where both teams have scored.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
The bigger problem with soccer, I think, is with teams putting up the bus and just trying to stop the other (superior) team from scoring. They do that either to sneak a draw in a group stage match (and then hope to beat one or both of the other teams in the group who are weaker teams)... or in the knock out phase in order to sneak a win on penalties. But that hasn't been a problem in this world cup, every game I've seen has involved lots of attacking from both sides, and the draws have been draws where both teams have scored.
This was something I was noticing with the Germany/USA match last week... you could very much tell that both sides wanted a win, and wanted to advance on their own merits; not based on what happened in the "other" match.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: There are definitely professional sports in the US with playoff systems that piss me off... Hockey and Basketball being two (as they are basically the same, though my hatred of basketball runs much, much deeper than just playoffs), when literally half of the league is in the playoffs... to me, just brings that "elite" feeling down some. I mean, when you have the NFL and MLBs systems, where the number of spaces is quite severely limited, it creates a better atmosphere for the fans and players alike, and the feeling of accomplishment is/should be much greater knowing that you are among the top 25-30% of your league.
Major League Soccer has 19 teams, and 10 make the playoffs. It's pretty stupid.
Edit: of course us soccer purists think the playoffs are very un-soccer like and are a stupid attempt at "americanizing" the sport .
There is now an official trophy that was fan created and is called the "supporters shield" that is awarded to the winner of the season using "european rules".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/30 05:25:42
I do know that once the US is knocked out of the WC, regular Americans will go back to not caring one bit about soccer till the next WC in Qatar.
Speaking of that, what do you think the over/under number will be of players that drop during games due to the heat of summer in the desert nation of Qatar?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/30 05:29:28
Solve a man's problem with violence and help him for a day. Teach a man how to solve his problems with violence, help him for a lifetime - Belkar Bitterleaf
Zathras wrote: I do know that once the US is knocked out of the WC, regular Americans will go back to not caring one bit about soccer till the next WC in Qatar.
That's how we know you are American, because the next World Cup is in Russia
I hope that the US will have a deep run to keep people fired up. Major League Soccer has a new TV contract next season and will have a lot more games on ESPN, including Saturday and Sunday games with every game being available on streaming. That has been part of the problem with MLS, hardly any of the games are on TV unless you are one of the cities with a team and have them on your local cable network. You can't grow soccer in the US if you can't even watch the damn thing! So if we can keep people interested and then actually let them watch it on TV, then that should help.
Speaking of that, what do you think the over/under number will be of players that drop during games due to the heat of summer in the desert nation of Qatar?
It seems like people are getting pretty banged up in the current heat, which doesn't give me any confidence in Qatar. I'm still hoping that between the stupid weather and the corruption scandal they will end up moving it somewhere else.
Zathras wrote: I do know that once the US is knocked out of the WC, regular Americans will go back to not caring one bit about soccer till the next WC in Qatar.
That's how we know you are American, because the next World Cup is in Russia
I hope that the US will have a deep run to keep people fired up. Major League Soccer has a new TV contract next season and will have a lot more games on ESPN, including Saturday and Sunday games with every game being available on streaming. That has been part of the problem with MLS, hardly any of the games are on TV unless you are one of the cities with a team and have them on your local cable network. You can't grow soccer in the US if you can't even watch the damn thing! So if we can keep people interested and then actually let them watch it on TV, then that should help.
Maybe. MLS' problems run deeper than that, though. I, for example, would probably enjoy going to a DC United game, but I don't particularly want to run the MS13 gauntlet.
There hasn't been much of a hassle going to an FC Dallas game for me, except the fact that the supporter groups is now treated like criminals and we have 10 cops surrounding us and watching for an excuse to kick us out...
Edit: Is security just big for DC United because of the location?
Edit again: misunderstood the MS-13 reference.
We don't really have any problems of that kind either though.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/06/30 06:14:53
Frazzled wrote: Any sport where you can lose twice and still have a chance for the title is not a sport.
So that means baseball and basketball aren't sports, because you can lose two games and still win the seven game series comfortably. While an American football team that only lost twice during the regular season would likely finish top of its group and probably be among the favourites for the title, so I guess that isn't a sport either.
I guess we can do this for any sport that isn't a knock out comp. So that means is tennis passes your test, and so do some knock out comps that run alongside regular comps (so soccer counts, but only when they're playing the FA cup and similar).
Not sure that's the result you were after
I think he's talking about Colege Football in that if a team loses a game there's basically no chance they can win the BCS title, but College football's ranking system is pretty fething silly so...
Currently debating whether to study for my exams or paint some Deathwing
Frazzled wrote: Any sport where you can lose twice and still have a chance for the title is not a sport. Its guys running around kicking a ball. PLus no one dies or is permanently maimed (unless you count the fans beheading people).
I'm so glad to see support for the idea that baseball is not a sport.
Baseball and golf are not sports. Rattlesnake rwrangling, now that is a sport!
It is called football in most places and soccer in some. Once you learn that different places often have different names for things, and not just sports, you'll live a more stress free life.
Soccer is actually a British word. In locations where there are other games called football, soccer gets the term. in fact it didn't change in Britain until the late 80s.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/30 11:00:00
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
That would be fething brilliant, but I'd say they'd need to limit it to one geographic region... For instance if they ran the WC from between SF, and Seattle, there's at minimum, 3 high class stadia that could hold WC type crowds (being SF, Seattle, and Portland)
I'd definitely be down for a West Coast hosted World Cup. Though I think they'd honestly go with something more like NY, Chicago and Philly as three main cities.
How many stadiums would they need? We have like 15 bazillion of them.
If you count major university stadiums Houston alone has five. San Antio has two, Austin has three, Dallas has a stadium or two, El Paso, has one. Even our high school stadiums can fit several thousand people. Lets do this!
If they play in Aggieland, everyone will have to do pushups if someone scores a goal though...
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled wrote: How many stadiums would they need? We have like 15 bazillion of them.
If you count major university stadiums Houston alone has five. San Antio has two, Austin has three, Dallas has a stadium or two, El Paso, has one. Even our high school stadiums can fit several thousand people. Lets do this!
If they play in Aggieland, everyone will have to do pushups if someone scores a goal though...
While I obviously have no idea what FIFAs criteria are, I'd somewhat assume a stadium that holds minimum 20-30k people?
