World champions??

[Omnis]

What's not inclusive about the Superbowl? All of the world's professional American Football teams are included. That's more than you can say about the FIFA World Cup or the FIFA Club World Cup.

Well, not if you count the UFL. But those guys are scrubs that can't make an NFL team.

If the NFL is all inclusive, then why does it not generate the kind of audience that Soccer has?

 

[DKLion3s]

Okay, pure mis-communication and crossed-wires going on now. I'll exit stage left at this point. Maybe someday if and when the NFL, MLB & NBA is hosted around the world, in other countries. There will be a better platform to reflect on.


Edit: I hope. lol

 

[Famine]

NFL doesn't need to be - there are no other countries with professional American Football teams and no other country could offer up a team to beat an American National American Football team unless they provided sniper cover.

That's the point.

 

[Omnis]

That's Wembley Stadium, by the way. It's full.

The best advice I could give you is to abandon the "it's not international unless countries are involved" mentality that you seem to be locked into. You need to focus on individuals in the talent pool. If the talent pool is open to individuals from around the globe, then it is indeed an international sport. If some league has no parallel or comparative league with which it shares this talent, then it has the right to call its champion a world champion.

 

[TwinturboCH]

Omnis, you can post as many pics as you like of a packed NFL stadium, the fact is, Soccer has a global audience 10 times the size of the one for NFL. Not EVERYTHING is dependant on what happens in the US and not EVERYTHING you guys think is right. Yes it's Wembley Stadium, but the isn't 'full' by any means. Trust me, I live next to it

NFL doesn't need to be - there are no other countries with professional American Football teams and no other country could offer up a team to beat an American National American Football team unless they provided sniper cover.

That's the point.

Lovely attitude. 'America am bestest so no point competing', I really can't see why people think the US needs to be brought down a peg or two

 

[Omnis]

How convenient of you to just stroll right in ignore everything that's been said so far.

 

[TwinturboCH]

How convenient of you to just stroll right in ignore everything that's been said so far.

So because I am not a mod or admin, I am a troll? Lovely attitude. Maybe you should find out more about people before making assumptions. I've been posting since the thread was started, so I'd ask you to please check what you are typing first. My views are those of 90% of Europeans, and if you don't realise that, then it kind of says a lot about your country that it is THAT out of touch with the rest of the worlds opinion

 

[Blake]

Lovely attitude. 'America am bestest so no point competing', I really can't see why people think the US needs to be brought down a peg or two

You realise Famine isn't even from the United States right?

 

[Omnis]

What does this have to do with countries at all? Obviously, you've either not read a thing I've written or it just hasn't gotten through to you.

 

[Famine]

You realise Famine isn't even from the United States right?

Of course not, because that would make his assumption - and, subsequently, his point - hilariously inaccurate. He would also have had to read the bit where I said that in the case of MLB it is a bit silly - or notice that I've been calling it "American Football" and not "Football".

If he really wished to actually refute the point, or discuss it in anything close to an adult manner, he'd have cited all the professional American Football teams outside the US and come up with a national team that could possibly compete with a putative US national team on anything like even footing.

 

[Dennisch]

Really, it's a US based League, with a US based winner at the end.

And yes, no other country could bring a competitive team to the field,
but it's a US based League, with a US based winner at the end.

But I have a feeling that this discussion goes the same way as a pro/con dupe/trade discussions.

 

[TwinturboCH]

Of course not, because that would make his assumption - and, subsequently, his point - hilariously inaccurate. He would also have had to read the bit where I said that in the case of MLB it is a bit silly - or notice that I've been calling it "American Football" and not "Football".

If he really wished to actually refute the point, or discuss it in anything close to an adult manner, he'd have cited all the professional American Football teams outside the US and come up with a national team that could possibly compete with a putative US national team on anything like even footing.

It has no relevance where you are from. No I didn't know you were outside the US, but what of what relevance is it? The point is the view you expressed is the one given by most americans for why they should be called 'world champions' and unfortunately that means they clearly don't understand the definition of the word.

The fact is this, it doesn't matter whether any other professional teams aroudn the world could beat them, it's the fact that the ASSUMPTION has been made that they would, and THAT is what makes the whole 'world champions' argument a total pile of steaming horse product.

Really, it's a US based League, with a US based winner at the end.

And yes, no other country could bring a competitive team to the field,
but it's a US based League, with a US based winner at the end.

EXACTLY, which DOES NOT make them world champion. Finally, someone who can understand the English language to it's full extent.

 

[Dennisch]

It has no relevance where you are from. No I didn't know you were outside the US, but what of what relevance is it? The point is the view you expressed is the one given by most americans for why they should be called 'world champions' and unfortunately that means they clearly don't understand the definition of the word.

The fact is this, it doesn't matter whether any other professional teams aroudn the world could beat them, it's the fact that the ASSUMPTION has been made that they would, and THAT is what makes the whole 'world champions' argument a total pile of steaming horse product.


EXACTLY, which DOES NOT make them world champion. Finally, someone who can understand the English language to it's full extent.

I started this thread!!

 

[Omnis]

Twin, did you even bother reading anything I wrote and then reasoning why it could be that the winner of the superbowl could go further to call themselves a champion of the world? You should probably think that through.

Or, you know, you could make a point and grab 52 of your best buddies and go challenge the Green Bay Packers next week. They'll even put in Atari Bigby (from Jamaica) if you need more international flavor. You could grab Uikelotu Christopher "Chris" Kemoeatu from the Steelers if you need some help. He's not American either.

 

[TwinturboCH]

I started this thread!!

Errrr.... I know, I'm agreeing with you. What are you getting at?

Twin, did you even bother reading anything I wrote and then reasoning why it could be that the winner of the superbowl could go further to call themselves a champion of the world? You should probably think that through.

I read everything and I fully understand it, they may well be the best team on the planet, but that is not the point.

The point, which you keep seeming to so conveniently avoid is that if they ARE the best, they should invite teams from other countries to compete. against them. Yes, I agree, they would most likely win. But until they have done that they DO NOT have the right to call themselves 'World Champions'. Why is that so hard to grasp?

Or, you know, you could make a point and grab 52 of your best buddies and go challenge the Green Bay Packers next week. They'll even put in Atari Bigby (from Jamaica) if you need more international flavor. You could grab Uikelotu Christopher "Chris" Kemoeatu from the Steelers if you need some help. He's not American either.

That bears absolutely ZERO relevance to the argument at hand, I agreed the Superbowl winners are MOST LIKELY the best but they haven't competed on an international stage, so they do not have the right to call themselves 'World Champion'.

 

[Submerged]

American football is all inclusive..... It does not discriminate on where you come from. It is open to the world....So, again, if the best team they could assemble has been selected from a (literally) WORLD of players, then they deserve to call themselves world champions.

This is what I find quite odd.

Whenever I see "world champions" in NFL, I understand that it is not totally correct as they do not have teams from outside America to compete in it. It is all national, only for American football team (apart from as I understand it, one Canadian team?)

To say that the NFL uses players from "all over the world" to create an American team isn't really making it a "World Champion Team". Its like me creating a soccer team in England, Foreigners United, with players from everywhere else OTHER than England and calling it a English team because they're based in England and is playing in an English league and then calling the English League that the team is playing in a "World Championship" because all my players are international.

That isn't what most people see when they see the "World Champion" in NFL. All they see is American teams playing in an American League with the affix of "World" to it, even though the whole of the NFL is American with totally no other teams from outside America....Obviously, if there was a Champions League like in European soccer that was inclusive of Canadian, American and any other nations whoe plays American Football on a professional level then it would be understandable with regards to the "World" affix.

Of course, for the first couple of seasons it'll be all American teams....but then at least it is inclusive of other teams from outside America. Then it'll be more or less a "World Champion" type game.

I do understand most of the arguments going on though. The above is just my opinion that I have tried to lay out clearly.

 

[Dennisch]

Twin, did you even bother reading anything I wrote and then reasoning why it could be that the winner of the superbowl could go further to call themselves a champion of the world? You should probably think that through.

Or, you know, you could make a point and grab 52 of your best buddies and go challenge the Green Bay Packers next week. They'll even put in Atari Bigby (from Jamaica) if you need more international flavor. You could grab Uikelotu Christopher "Chris" Kemoeatu from the Steelers if you need some help. He's not American either.

So, if your team is international enough, you'll be world champion?
Then the world of soccer needs a change too, there is no team in Europe left with 11 native players on the field.

The Uefa Champions League World Champions? Meh.

 

[Famine]

It has no relevance where you are from. No I didn't know you were outside the US, but what of what relevance is it?

You tell me. You're the one who decided to denigrate my opinion because of my American attitude:

And it's EXACTLY that reasoning and blatant arrogance that leads everyone else on the planet the believe americans are insular xenophobes

Lovely attitude. 'America am bestest so no point competing', I really can't see why people think the US needs to be brought down a peg or two

You missed the actual point by a huge margin. I'll reiterate for you:

Imagine, if you will, that American Football suddenly has an epiphany and, instead of holding an intra-national tournament, holds an inter-national tournament to determine which nation is the best at American Football.

Who'd win?

Yup. So it doesn't really make much sense to hold this kind of tournament really. It'd be a lot of hassle and expense for nothing. Given that it's a predetermined result, how does one determine who the best collection of players in the world really is? By holding an intra-national tournament.

Now, baseball I agree with you. It's ridiculous to win the "World" Series and call yourself "World Champions". But American Football? Seems pretty well justifiable to me.

You seem sure that I'm wrong - primarily because I'm American and have a superior American attitude that needs to be taken down a peg or two. So please, demonstrate for me why a team composed of the best players of American Football from any given country can compete on level terms with a team composed of the best players of American Football from the US.

The sport is so ingrained in US culture that everyone of every age plays it. Maybe if we started today we could get it into our culture instead and in perhaps three generations' time have a professional league at the pinnacle of the sport and make it a bi-nations affair (or it might founder very badly like EFL did), but today there isn't a thing any country can do about it.

So the USA is the de facto World Champion of a sport only it plays to any level of ability (even our amateur leagues and university teams would get caned by an above-average high school team - and collegiate American Football is actually bigger than NFL!). It thus makes sense for the peak of the sport to be a domestic event and not an international one - the skills and ability would be far higher in every game than any international event - and for the team that wins that event to be declared the best team in the world. And what do we call the best team or individual in a sport in the world? "World Champion".


With this in mind, who is the World Champion of Association Football, Spain or Internazionale?

As a side note, I reckon that, if it were possible, the FIFA World Cup winners - currently Spain - who call themselves "World Champions" would have a hard time agains the FIFA Club World Cup winners - currently Internazionale. So who are the "World Champions" of Association Football?

The point is the view you expressed is the one given by most americans for why they should be called 'world champions' and unfortunately that means they clearly don't understand the definition of the word.

The fact is this, it doesn't matter whether any other professional teams aroudn the world could beat them, it's the fact that the ASSUMPTION has been made that they would, and THAT is what makes the whole 'world champions' argument a total pile of steaming horse product.

Which is it that makes them wrong then? The assumption or the "definition"?

As I've explained above, the assumption is correct and you've yet to demonstrate why it isn't. As I've explained above, the definition of the phrase is correct - the title is given to the team who are the best in the world at the sport - and you've yet to demonstrate why it isn't.


Incidentally, as one who lives next to Wembley Stadium, I'm sure you're aware that the capacity for American Football is 86,000 and the Broncos/49ers game managed 83,941 - 97.6% capacity. I'd personally say that was more "full" than "not full by any means".

 

[Omnis]

See, Twin, at least you are making more useful posts now.

I read everything and I fully understand it, they may well be the best team on the planet, but that is not the point.

The point, which you keep seeming to so conveniently avoid is that if they ARE the best, they should invite teams from other countries to compete. against them. Yes, I agree, they would most likely win. But until they have done that they DO NOT have the right to call themselves 'World Champions'. Why is that so hard to grasp?


That bears absolutely ZERO relevance to the argument at hand, I agreed the Superbowl winners are MOST LIKELY the best but they haven't competed on an international stage, so they do not have the right to call themselves 'World Champion'.

Uh, dude, there are no other teams from other countries. There is no international stage on which to compete. Therefore, the superbowl champions are the champions of the world, because once you beat all the teams there are to beat in the NFL, you are the champion of all of the teams that play that sport at that level in the entire world. They have every right to call themselves World Champions because there are no more challengers left. You keep pretending that there are other teams to beat.

 

[TwinturboCH]

Famine: I never said the assumption was incorrect, to assume they are the best in the world is at the very least, reasonable. I have only discussed the definition of the word. By DEFINITION, the winners of the Superbowl are not World Champions.

Yes, I was incorrect about your nationality, I didn't actually look where you were from, I had mistakenly read the bit under Omnis' name, so for that, I apologise.

Other than that, I stand by everything I said.

The best analogy I can think of right now is Drifting back at the start of the Millenium (2001) when the only serious competition was occuring in Japan. At the time, the Champion was Taniguchi. Now just because he is the champion of the biggest national series in the world, and because that series was of the highest standard, it is totally reasonable to assume that Taniguchi was the best in the world. HOWEVER, he has not taken on anyone from outside Japan, and so it has NEVER been said that he was 'World Champion'.

There are other examples of this with various different 'national' sports all over the globe, but the only one that thinks it has the right to call it's winners 'World' champions is the US.

Why, just because a sport/country is bigger, does that suddenly change?

Uh, dude, there are no other teams from other countries. There is no international stage on which to compete. Therefore, the superbowl champions are the champions of the world, because once you beat all the teams there are to beat in the NFL, you are the champion of all of the teams that play that sport at that level in the entire world. They have every right to call themselves World Champions because there are no more challengers left. You keep pretending that there are other teams to beat.

There are professional American football teams all over the world, you've jsut never heard of them because they never get publicity because the sport is not very big outside of the US.

 

[TwinturboCH]

Actually, I've just done some research. I stand corrected on the part about other professional teams existing all over the world, it seems that American football has totally failed globally in the past five years. There used to be quite a few teams in Europe and they ALL seem to have 'retired' and ceased playing between 2000 and 2006.

So it would seem that NOW, there may be a case for them being 'World Champions', HOWEVER, they have been calling the winner of the Superbowl 'World Champions' for many many years prior to that. So up until circa-2005 there is no way on earth they should have been using the 'world' affix, however, as of now, I don't see that there is anyone who could even say they could field a team.

 

[Omnis]

Famine: I never said the assumption was incorrect, to assume they are the best in the world is at the very least, reasonable. I have only discussed the definition of the word. By DEFINITION, the winners of the Superbowl are not World Champions.

Yes, I was incorrect about your nationality, I didn't actually look where you were from, I had mistakenly read the bit under Omnis' name, so for that, I apologise.

Other than that, I stand by everything I said.

The best analogy I can think of right now is Drifting back at the start of the Millenium (2001) when the only serious competition was occuring in Japan. At the time, the Champion was Taniguchi. Now just because he is the champion of the biggest national series in the world, and because that series was of the highest standard, it is totally reasonable to assume that Taniguchi was the best in the world. HOWEVER, he has not taken on anyone from outside Japan, and so it has NEVER been said that he was 'World Champion'.

There are other examples of this with various different 'national' sports all over the globe, but the only one that thinks it has the right to call it's winners 'World' champions is the US.

Why, just because a sport/country is bigger, does that suddenly change?



There are professional American football teams all over the world, you've jsut never heard of them because they never get publicity because the sport is not very big outside of the US.

You're the only one coming to that conclusion (in bold) here. The only sport we're saying can call its champion a world champion is NFL football. It is unique because, as I have been saying, it is an exclusive entity with a monopoly on the sport played at the highest level. There may be teams all over the world, but they are all scrubs by comparison. You know why? Because if they have good players, those players come to the NFL to play. That's just the way it is.

It doesn't matter if there is a team on each continent or each town in Texas. If they are the only ones that play ball by their standards, they are the champions of everyone there is to be a champion of.

edit: Just so you know, NFL Europe is where the scrubs went to play when they couldn't hack it in the NFL. Those were the guys that couldn't even make the practice squads (reserve players that practice with the team but never suit-up on gamedays) on the regular teams. The closest thing American football has had to a Footy-styled arrangement was when the WFL tried to break the NFL's monopoly back in the 70s. They got as far as hiring superstar players to go play in their league. During that time, it would not have been accurate to call the Superbowl champions World Champs because there were teams that were just as competitive in a different league. They would've had to arranged a UEFA Cup-style tournament or match between both league champions to determine the world champion.

edit 2: Also, 95% of players on European teams were... American.

 

[Famine]

Famine: I never said the assumption was incorrect, to assume they are the best in the world is at the very least, reasonable. I have only discussed the definition of the word. By DEFINITION, the winners of the Superbowl are not World Champions.

They are champions of that sport in the country which is the de facto champion of that sport in the world (due to the quality offered by the rest of the world). They are champions of that sport at the highest level that sport is played at in the world. By definition they are world champions.

There's no similar case in MLB - the sport is played in multiple countries, MLB is not the highest level and the US is not the world champion of the sport.

Yes, I was incorrect about your nationality, I didn't actually look where you were from, I had mistakenly read the bit under Omnis' name, so for that, I apologise.

It's not me to whom you should be apologising. The lesson should be "Don't reject opinions based on the nationality of those who offer them", not "Oh wait, you're not American so it's okay".

I have no objection to being thought of as American. I'm not, but it's not insulting to me.

The best analogy I can think of right now is...

And that's the problem, really. There isn't one.

Almost every sport ever invented and played at a professional level is played at a professional level in multiple countries - largely because we invented them and made all of our colonies play them. There isn't really an analogy for American Football except maybe Australian Rules (and their Grand Final winners call themselves "World Footy Champions"...)

So the situation we have is that NFL is the highest level of that kind of sport in the world, played in the only country in the world with a professional version of that sport (though with overseas players too), with that country being the originator and de facto world leader of that sport. There's lots of "world" in there and I'd say that gives the Superbowl winners - the champions of a sport at the highest level in the world - the right to call themselves World Champion of that sport. MLB, no. NHL, no. NBA, no. NFL, yes.

 

[Omnis]

Of the four sports, you could also argue that NBA would be a yes too. They have plenty of international superstars and even a worldwide audience. The only thing not going for it is that it's nowhere near as difficult to be competitive as American football is.

 

[DKLion3s]

Okay, let's see if I can put the proverbial shoe on the other foot.

@ Omnis : The US soccer team is the scrubs, bottom feeders of the international soccer seen. That is a fact. In every world cup, they are placed in a group of lower bottom feeders so as to save them the embarassment of getting kicked out of the tournament during the qualifying rounds.

Once they have passed the qualifying rounds, they are then, once again place amongst the bottom feeders of the official world cup groupings list, so as to save them more embarassments.

The point I'm trying to make is the US suck extremely at soccer, due to the shear lack of exposure and popularity of the sport within the country. However, they are still allowed to compete on a global stage.


@ Famine: The NFL is no where near as inclusive as soccer on a global level, because soccer during the qualifying rounds have at least, on average between 76 to 89 countries participating in the run up to the world cup year for the event (trophy).

I doubt very seriously that either yourself or Omnis can provide the same figures with regard to individual nationals in the NFL. Hence it is still exclusive.



Okay, continuing. In every country that soccer is played, no individual player has to traverse to a particular country to exhibit his/her talent at the game. Besides it's not an individual sport, it is a team event. And even then, with respect to soccer no coutry holds the right to the game to say your team is only qualified if they play within that country.

All international sporting events have there own flavour to the sport. Soccer is played all over, there is the European, English, French, Spanish, South American, African, Asian, etc styles of play to the same sport. Each unique in their own way, but they all share a common platform come time for the world cup. It's called diversity.


The three major sporting events in the US lacks this type of diversity and inclusiveness entirely. Hence the debate of wether or not they are truely World Champions.

 

[Omnis]

You got the proverbial shoe on your head. I'll let Famine respond because I don't see the point you're trying to make or how it matters.

Also, the US soccer team is quite good. Certainly not the best, but if you can qualify for World Cups and advance ahead of England you've got a pretty good team.

 

[DKLion3s]

You got the proverbial shoe on your head. I'll let Famine respond because I don't see the point you're trying to make or how it matters.

Also, the US soccer team is quite good. Certainly not the best, but if you can qualify for World Cups and advance ahead of England you've got a pretty good team.

Wrong again. Just because they were matched against shoddy teams during qualifying and won, doesn't make them good or better at the sport. You can only get better if you play with better qualified players (teams). That's why they get knocked out during the elimination rounds.


Edit: As a matter of fact, the US does not have a national soccer team. All the players that make up their world cup team, are individual players spread across the UK & European leagues/clubs.

 

[Famine]

@ Omnis : The US soccer team is the scrubs, bottom feeders of the international soccer seen. That is a fact. In every world cup, they are placed in a group of lower bottom feeders so as to save them the embarassment of getting kicked out of the tournament during the qualifying rounds.

Really? They're ranked 18th in the World and managed a high of 4th in 2006.

In 2002 they were drawn against those bottom feeders Portugal (semi-finalists in Euro 2000, finalists in Euro 2004), South Korea (hosts, semi-finalists that year, 3rd in AFC 2000) and Poland (who beat the US 3-1 in their game). They reached the quarter final and were knocked out by finalists Germany.

In 2006 they were drawn against those bottom feeders Italy (who they beat and who went on to win the World Cup that year), Ghana (3rd in the following African Nations Cup) and Czech Republic (semi-finalists in Euro 2004). They failed to qualify for round 2.

In 2010 they were drawn against those bottom feeders England (ranked 6th in the world at the time), Slovenia (who qualified for the finals by beating Russia, themselves Euro 2008 semi-finalists) and Algeria (fourth in the preceding African Nations Cup). They progressed to round 2 where they were beaten by Ghana (2nd in the preceding African Nations Cup).

Nothing you said is true.

Wrong again. Just because they were match against shoddy teams and won, doesn't make them good or better at the sport. You can only get better if you play with better qualified players. That's why they get knocked out during the elimination rounds.

If you play against better teams, you get knocked out in the elimination rounds. If you don't, you progress. So either they get knocked out playing against better teams or you progress playing against "bottom feeders". They can't both be true - you've contradicted yourself.

@ Famine: The NFL is no where near as inclusive as soccer on a global level, because soccer during the qualifying rounds have at least, on average between 76 to 89 countries participating in the run up to the world cup year for the event (trophy).

I doubt very seriously that either yourself or Omnis can provide the same figures with regard to individual nationals in the NFL. Hence it is still exclusive.

I still have no idea what you mean by "inclusive" and "exclusive", nor why it's even relevant to the fact that the best team at the highest level of a given sport in the world can call itself "World Champion" of that sport. Can Spain not call themselves World Champion because they haven't beaten Inverness Caledonian Thistle? Can Internazionale not call themselves World Champion because they haven't beaten Martinique?

Fact is, whatever your nationality, you can play American Football at the highest level (thus it includes all nationalities). Since no other country plays the sport at this level yet, you have to play it in America and an international tournament would be without any kind of merit. And if you win at the highest level in the world, are you not champion of the world?

 

[Omnis]

Wrong again. Just because they were match against shoddy teams during qualifying and won, doesn't make them good or better at the sport. You can only get better if you play with better qualified players (teams). That's why they get knocked out during the elimination rounds.

Still not seeing the point you're trying to make, except that you like soccer a lot and that the US sucks vs. juggernauts.

edit: OK, Famine replied. I'm done now.

 

[Submerged]

.... And if you win at the highest level in the world, are you not champion of the world?.....

Say, for example, an NFL coach decides to go outside of America and coach an NFL team in Australia/South Africa/China/Brazil/wherever. After a certain amount of coaching his players he has scored from there and many hours of training and plays and so on, he wants to take on the NFL teams.

He can't do that, can he? How would this hypothetical NFL coach get his team to play against the American NFL to see whether his team can compete effectively against the NFL standard teams?