Support NeoGAF

[Imm0rt4l]

Its a fun sport for sure.

 

[t26]

I wonder if Rugby might work by marketing it as a "safe" alternative to football.

 

[genjiZERO]

I've always felt rugby was something that would fit rather well into American sports culture. However, since American football is literally a North American varient of the sport, even though they are played differently, I think they'd come across as redundant. Also, I think professional sports are already saturated in the US.

I'll just go ahead and assume you have never watched a game of rugby. Otherwise this is a really stupid post.

It's not stupid. American football evolved directly from rugby.

 

[saelz8]

NFL Plays Offense With Move Into Rugby

The National Football League (NFL) has officially entered the business of rugby. The NFL recently announced a formal partnership with the Premier Rugby League with the intention of creating a professional rugby league in the United States. The partnership’s first joint venture will be an exhibition game to be played at the New England Patriots Gillette Stadium and televised on the NFL Network this August between the London Irish and a “US Barbarians” all-star team, bringing current top international players together with talented young prospects from the states.

That's from May. I'm not sure how serious they are, but it would be cool. Would love for Rugby to be a major sport in the US. I was in Australia for 3 months and I watched every chance I could get. It's a cool game.

 

[Tallshortman]

In terms of stadium attendance I believe it is more than hockey, about the same as basketball and pushing baseball. I saw a graph somewhere once but my memory of exact data is murky.

Not that my point in any way challenges yours, just thought I'd add to the conversation.

As for rugby, it has no chance. Too similar to NFL for Americans to bother taking a widespread interest.

Now, as an Englishman, let me raise the subject of cricket...

I doubt that's even true given there are far more NHL teams and the popular ones sell out their games. Anyways, TV viewership is what matters which MLS has almost no exposure beyond some regional broadcasts and the occasional bone ESPN throws out there. Sports media barely ever mention MLS. NHL is far and away more popular and this is coming from someone who finds hockey boring.

 

[Chris R]

That's from May. I'm not sure how serious they are, but it would be cool. Would love for Rugby to be a major sport in the US. I was in Australia for 3 months and I watched every chance I could get. It's a cool game.

I'd rather have Aussie rules. Still pissed that I can't find a way to watch games here any more ESPN doesn't even broadcast the grand final any more, sportscenter reruns must be a bigger draw than live sports... fuck ESPN

 

[Hunter S.]

I already like rugby by far more than soccer, baseball, tennis, gol
f and almost even basketball to watch. But a US lauge will and does already suck especially compared to the Southern Hemisphere, and especially rugby obsessed New Zealand. I would not watch an inferior US game over the Super rugby in the South. I just really doubt it will ever get big due to high competition from many other sports here. Football UFC,and Hockey will always be better to me as an American.

 

[AranhaHunter]

As a spectator sport, with the NFL's backing and offered as an off-season alternative to football, it would probably do MLS levels well. Without the NFL, it'd probably do about WNBA/MLL levels of survivability. If it tried to go up against the NFL timewise, it's dead in the water.

The problem is going to be player pool. It's going to be a lot of international players and US players who transitioned to rugby late (college football players who didn't get drafted and the like.) With the risks of football rising, parents are becoming reluctant to let their kids play. That's going to limit the quality of play. However, I wonder if the NFL isn't thinking of rugby as kind of a Plan B. Some players and commentators are on record lately as saying they don't expect football or football as it is today to exist in 20 years. Every player suicide is another step closer to congressional hearings. It's not like it hasn't happened before, Theodore Roosevelt threatened to abolish the game a hundred years ago. If the NFL controls the national rugby competition, they could oversee the transition from American football to Rugby football while keeping their cash cow going.

The last suicide I remember was Seau's. I don't think a Rugby league would be NFL's plan B, they are planning to expand, rumor has it to London and LA, along with a couple of other cities. Football will still be big in the US in 20 years, but yeah, rule changes and better equipment are needed. Also, I wasn't suggesting using the NFL teams' names btw, just their market.

I think we would prefer Rugby league over Rugby union, though.

Rugby League should really look at the US. There is no reason why Rugby Union could be popular there and not League.

What's the difference?

Same reason they haven't sold ads on uniforms, it serves an actual game purpose and tradition.

Depending on the sport, ads on uniforms and/or grass/stadium is necessary. MLS and WNBA have started doing it. If it's a means to bringing more revenue and keeping the league going and profitable, I say put ads on uniforms and fields.

 

[GRW810]

I doubt that's even true given there are far more NHL teams and the popular ones sell out their games. Anyways, TV viewership is what matters which MLS has almost no exposure beyond some regional broadcasts and the occasional bone ESPN throws out there. Sports media barely ever mention MLS. NHL is far and away more popular and this is coming from someone who finds hockey boring.

No it's definitely true, MLS passed NHL's average crowd a year or two ago and was edging towards NBA. But MLS has a whole lot of work to do to be completely on par. Its rise from absolutely nothing to where it is now in less than twenty years shouldn't be scoffed at though.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

Rugby is actually a spin-off from football interestingly. When they were deciding the rules of association football, some people didn't like where it was going (specifically there were two rules involving carrying the ball and hacking that were removed from consideration) so they branched out and created rugby football instead.

You've got that backwards.

First off, all football codes (Rugby, association, American, etc..) ultimately derive from non-standardized variations of medieval or mob football games. Secondly, rugby football was first codified in 1848 while association football was first codified in 1863.

Depending on the sport, ads on uniforms and/or grass/stadium is necessary. MLS and WNBA have started doing it. If it's a means to bringing more revenue and keeping the league going and profitable, I say put ads on uniforms and fields.

There are no sports for which ads are necessary. There are bush league sports organizations that are pathetic enough to allow them on uniforms or the field of play. The problem with ads on uniforms and field in American football is that the field and uniform serve actual game purposes that ads would interfere with.

 

[Man God]

I played Rugby in highschool. It takes a bit of time to explain the rules but they're mostly easy to pick up. No forward passes, give the ball up when you're brought to the ground, fairly standard offsides rules, organized scrums are like hockey faceoffs. Organized inbounding and scrum formations are the only really weird (and awesome) parts of the whole thing but even then you can see the similarities between that and football.

It's a cool sport that combines the best of soccer and football but it'd be hard to get going over here professionally in a big way.

 

[Charlie McCarthy]

The last suicide I remember was Seau's. I don't think a Rugby league would be NFL's plan B, they are planning to expand, rumor has it to London and LA, along with a couple of other cities. Football will still be big in the US in 20 years, but yeah, rule changes and better equipment are needed. Also, I wasn't suggesting using the NFL teams' names btw, just their market.





What's the difference?



Depending on the sport, ads on uniforms and/or grass/stadium is necessary. MLS and WNBA have started doing it. If it's a means to bringing more revenue and keeping the league going and profitable, I say put ads on uniforms and fields.

nvm

 

[Liha]

Successful? Well, sure. Soccer's successful here. I'd be more inclined to see Rugby than Soccer.

Football, not soccer !

 

[Chris R]

There are no sports for which ads are necessary. There are bush league sports organizations that are pathetic enough to allow them on uniforms or the field of play. The problem with ads on uniforms and field in American football is that the field and uniform serve actual game purposes that ads would interfere with.

Because the Premier League is bush league right? If so why will GM pay Manchester United $80,000,000 a year for the next seven to put their logo on their jersey?

There are already markings on the field that serve no purpose (Play 60 and the end zone) that could be replaced with ads tomorrow if the NFL wanted. Same goes for the Uniform.

I bet there are ads on the field before 2020, maybe even sooner.

 

[AranhaHunter]

Also, I think professional sports are already saturated in the US..

I doubt it. There's enough people with enough different taste here that can support crap like the WNBA for nearly 20 years. The UFC went from a barbaric, banned sport in most states to the mainstream cash cow we see today. Maybe we're oversaturated in multi million dollar professional leagues, but that doesn't mean a new league in a new sport will be a multi millionaire league, even the relatively successful MLS and WNBA leagues have some players making 20-30k a year.

I doubt that's even true given there are far more NHL teams and the popular ones sell out their games. Anyways, TV viewership is what matters which MLS has almost no exposure beyond some regional broadcasts and the occasional bone ESPN throws out there. Sports media barely ever mention MLS. NHL is far and away more popular and this is coming from someone who finds hockey boring.

I have a feeling that when MLS renews their TV deal in 2014 everyone will be surprised at how much they get. The NHL signed a 10 year, $2 billion deal with NBC, their most lucrative tv deal ever. The MLS will not get anything that big, but with the 2014 WC, a new team in NY with yankee/Manchester backing, it will be something decent IMO.

There are no sports for which ads are necessary. There are bush league sports organizations that are pathetic enough to allow them on uniforms or the field of play. The problem with ads on uniforms and field in American football is that the field and uniform serve actual game purposes that ads would interfere with.

It's an uncommon practice in America that's starting to take place now, but pretty common in other parts of the world. I doubt you would call the EPL, English Premier Rugby League, or La Liga bush league sports organizations. I've heard some people in other countries say that naming rights for stadiums is like selling out and have no place in sports. I disagree with that too as we get world class stadiums that are self sustainable that way. Ads on fields/courts and uniforms keep the funding coming to keep the league/teams alive and at a high level. I'm used to it so it doesn't bother me one bit. Not sure if you like rugby or not, but if ads on uniforms and fields were a way to get the league up and running in key markets, would you be opposed to it? Would you prefer to keep having these minor rugby leagues that no one has ever heard of?

The NBA, MLB, NHL, and NFL obviously don't need them, but it would be an extra source of revenue for the league and teams and, IIRC, the NBA was considering it.

 

[AdventureRacing]

It's not stupid. American football evolved directly from rugby.

And both evolved essentially from football. Do you consider that roughly the same sport? It doesn't matter where the origin of both games are they are absolutely nothing like each other.

 

[Zoe]

I just want to use the word "scrum" in everyday speak more often.

Become a developer.

 

[genjiZERO]

And both evolved essentially from football. Do you consider that roughly the same sport? It doesn't matter where the origin of both games are they are absolutely nothing like each other.

Here's a wikipedia entry on the similarities between the two sports.

The point is that to passive observers they are similar sports, and given lineage of American football and it's many shared similarities to rugby it is not "stupid" to acknowledge this.

I doubt it. There's enough people with enough different taste here that can support crap like the WNBA for nearly 20 years. The UFC went from a barbaric, banned sport in most states to the mainstream cash cow we see today. Maybe we're oversaturated in multi million dollar professional leagues, but that doesn't mean a new league in a new sport will be a multi millionaire league, even the relatively successful MLS and WNBA leagues have some players making 20-30k a year.

That's fair. I'd like to see rugby take off in the US - it's a cool sport.

 

[Camp Lo]

Football, not soccer !

Wut

 

[Icefire1424]

I just want to use the word "scrum" in everyday speak more often.

Beyond that, any sport where a "maul" is a legit term and the fact that the "hooker" position is an actual thing is okay with me.

Similar to American football? Yes, but different enough that it can still stand on it's own. The tempo of a Rugby game is significantly faster - I think there are people out there turned off by the 10 seconds of action versus 30 seconds of playcalling that exists in American football - myself among them.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

Because the Premier League is bush league right?

Yes.

If so why will GM pay Manchester United $80,000,000 a year for the next seven to put their logo on their jersey?

Because they want eyeballs even if it means associating with a league bush enough to allow ads on the field of play.

There are already markings on the field that serve no purpose (Play 60 and the end zone) that could be replaced with ads tomorrow if the NFL wanted. Same goes for the Uniform.

Could, but it would still interfere with the purpose of those elements. (Note: I do complain about the Play 60 logo, and the end zone is a special area where the markings (usually the team's name) actually help)

I bet there are ads on the field before 2020, maybe even sooner.

Oh sure. Doesn't make it right or not bush league though.

It's an uncommon practice in America that's starting to take place now, but pretty common in other parts of the world. I doubt you would call the EPL, English Premier Rugby League, or La Liga bush league sports organizations.

Your doubt is misplaced.

I've heard some people in other countries say that naming rights for stadiums is like selling out and have no place in sports. I disagree with that too as we get world class stadiums that are self sustainable that way.

I disagree with them too, but the difference is that the name of the stadium doesn't have any impact on the game itself.

Ads on fields/courts and uniforms keep the funding coming to keep the league/teams alive and at a high level. I'm used to it so it doesn't bother me one bit. Not sure if you like rugby or not, but if ads on uniforms and fields were a way to get the league up and running in key markets, would you be opposed to it? Would you prefer to keep having these minor rugby leagues that no one has ever heard of?

If it means this:

instead of this:

Yeah, I'd prefer no ads, thank you.

The NBA, MLB, NHL, and NFL obviously don't need them, but it would be an extra source of revenue for the league and teams and, IIRC, the NBA was considering it.

Needing to deface your own brand in order to get an extra source of revenue is my definition of bush league.

And both evolved essentially from football.

Define "football" please.

 

[AranhaHunter]

I disagree with them too, but the difference is that the name of the stadium doesn't have any impact on the game itself.

How do ads on jerseys and/or courts/fields have an impact on the game itself? I'm genuinely curious.

If it means this:

instead of this:

Yeah, I'd prefer no ads, thank you.

I have no problem with those, or these:

And honestly don't know how they impact the game in a way that you're suggesting. The pics that I posted are from Major League Lacrosse, MLS, WNBA, UFC. Those 3 team leagues would be struggling or going under without sponsors. The UFC would have kept being a niche sport, and besides the MLS, they are all the top leagues/organization in their sports in the world. The MLS being the top soccer league in the US and all top soccer leagues do use ads anyway.

Needing to deface your own brand in order to get an extra source of revenue is my definition of bush league.

You have a very interesting definition of bush league. Most people would consider bush league to be 2nd/3rd tier leagues, not something that is "defaced" because it's adding ads on jerseys/courts.

I guess the best and most popular basketball league in the world, the NBA, will be bush league next season, by your definition.

I'm honestly trying to think what professional leagues/sports do not have ads prominently displayed on the field/court/jersey and I can only think of NBA/MLB/NHL/NFL. It's more money and they are a business after all. In some cases, it's the only way the league and franchises can actually survive. It's not about "ad defense force" it's about having competitive professional leagues at a high level, if that means having ads on the field or jersey, so be it. If we were to have a rugby league in the US, I feel confident there would be ads on jerseys, end zone, field, etc. If that means we can have a competitive league here, then bring on the bud light ads.

 

[Angry Grimace]

The problem is that people only want to see the "best" competition. I don't see ANY sport becoming huge in the US unless we have a top level league. That's pretty much true of any country or league.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

How do ads on jerseys and/or courts/fields have an impact on the game itself? I'm genuinely curious.

American football jerseys have such large numbers because certain positions which have certain abilities are identified by certain numbers. Sticking an ad on the jersey and reducing the size of the numbers makes it harder for the referees to spot illegal actions by certain positions. Similarly, the field is called a gridiron because of all the markings to help players and referees with positioning.

Outside of football, it's a unnecessary visual distraction. I don't like much about everything that surrounds the Olympics, but I love watching the events themselves. There is so little advertising that you can actually focus on the game without the visual assault of ads competing for your attention.

I have no problem with those, or these:

You defending this?

Ok.

As for the ones you picked, if all uni ads were that unobtrusive, I'd be less beligerent. They're practically the least offensive ones you could've chosen. The MLL one just shows how bush league they are (and I'm an MLL fan, I've been to multiple games.) The DC United one has a very simple, understated logo which the advertiser allowed to color coordinate with the team's normal color scheme. The WNBA is small in comparison to most jersey ads. The UFC one is too zoomed out to see the garish logo plastered everywhere, don't they allow the fighters to wear temporary tattoo ads?

And honestly don't know how they impact the game in a way that you're suggesting. The pics that I posted are from Major League Lacrosse, MLS, WNBA, UFC. Those 3 team leagues would be struggling or going under without sponsors. The UFC would have kept being a niche sport, and besides the MLS, they are all the top leagues/organization in their sports in the world. The MLS being the top soccer league in the US and all top soccer leagues do use ads anyway.

They may be the top league in the world in their sports, but their reliance on ads shows just how bush league they are. Is anyone really denying that $500 paycheck/game Major League Lacrosse is "bush?"

You have a very interesting definition of bush league. Most people would consider bush league to be 2nd/3rd tier leagues, not something that is "defaced" because it's adding ads on jerseys/courts.

Defacing your brand is bush league because that's what bush leagues do. In the US, look at all the bush leagues. They almost always have ads on their uniforms and fields (notable exception: minor league baseball.) Look at the major US leagues, they don't.

I guess the best and most popular basketball league in the world, the NBA, will be bush league next season, by your definition.

It's on the top of the backboards, only visible from above. Not on the playing field. Know why they don't put them on the front of the backboard where they'd get more exposure? Because then they'd be a visual distraction.

I'm honestly trying to think what professional leagues/sports do not have ads prominently displayed on the field/court/jersey and I can only think of NBA/MLB/NHL/NFL.

Those are pretty big exceptions.

It's more money and they are a business after all. In some cases, it's the only way the league and franchises can actually survive. It's not about "ad defense force" it's about having competitive professional leagues at a high level, if that means having ads on the field or jersey, so be it. If we were to have a rugby league in the US, I feel confident there would be ads on jerseys, end zone, field, etc. If that means we can have a competitive league here, then bring on the bud light ads.

You're defending this:

I'm not saying they shouldn't do it if that's the only way they can, I'm just saying it looks awful and it's bush league. It shows how desperate they are for cash, and I'm fine with calling out even the largest, most profitable leagues for looking like their a bunch of little leaguers.

 

[AranhaHunter]

American football jerseys have such large numbers because certain positions which have certain abilities are identified by certain numbers. Sticking an ad on the jersey and reducing the size of the numbers makes it harder for the referees to spot illegal actions by certain positions. Similarly, the field is called a gridiron because of all the markings to help players and referees with positioning.

You're probably thinking of gigantic ads, the most we'll get is the ads I'm posting on the bottom here. Which even you should agree don't detract from the game.

Outside of football, it's a unnecessary visual distraction. I don't like much about everything that surrounds the Olympics, but I love watching the events themselves. There is so little advertising that you can actually focus on the game without the visual assault of ads competing for your attention.

IOC is a multi billion dollar thing, billions of people watch the olympics, they don't need ads and sponsors fight for the right to be a partner or to sponsor the games. Domestic leagues OTOH don't draw that kind of viewership and attention, and more often than not they have to bend over backwards in order to get sponsorship. Especially for a sport like rugby in the USA.

You defending this?

Ok.

As for the ones you picked, if all uni ads were that unobtrusive, I'd be less beligerent. They're practically the least offensive ones you could've chosen. The MLL one just shows how bush league they are (and I'm an MLL fan, I've been to multiple games.) The DC United one has a very simple, understated logo which the advertiser allowed to color coordinate with the team's normal color scheme. The WNBA is small in comparison to most jersey ads. The UFC one is too zoomed out to see the garish logo plastered everywhere, don't they allow the fighters to wear temporary tattoo ads?

Not defending, just saying I don't have a problem with it. I think it's ugly and gross, but if that's from a league in Russia or whatever where that's the only way that they can sustain the league, then I'm ok with it.

Fighters can wear ads on their shorts. The ads on the UFC are definitely noticeable whenever you watch a fight. DW has stated the ads are a great source of revenue for them. Most jersey and field ads in the US will be unobtrusive, not like the ones you linked to. How is MLL bush league exactly? Because they allow ads on jerseys? Or because they are not one of the major 4?

It's on the top of the backboards, only visible from above. Not on the playing field. Know why they don't put them on the front of the backboard where they'd get more exposure? Because then they'd be a visual distraction.

There will be ads on top of backboards, only seen from above, yes. But there's even an image on the link I posted where other, more visible ads will be seen throughout the game

The southwest.com logos are where the new ads will be. This first year will only be for locally televised games, as a trial run, whereas the season after next they will probably go ahead with ads being there for nationally televised games. Worth noting as well that the new commissioner is much more open to the idea of ads on jerseys than Stern was.

You're defending this:

I'm not saying they shouldn't do it if that's the only way they can, I'm just saying it looks awful and it's bush league. It shows how desperate they are for cash, and I'm fine with calling out even the largest, most profitable leagues for looking like their a bunch of little leaguers.

Again, not defending it, just saying I'm okay with it if it means it can keep the league going. I don't think any US based professional league would have that amount of ad on them. It would be something like this:

Something so unobtrusive that it wouldn't even come close to changing the game, as you claim. The 4 major sports in the US don't need them, but the NBA could rake in an extra $100 million in revenue just from that, the NFL an extra $230 million. Those are significant numbers and the NFL/NHL have already allowed ads on practice jerseys. The NBA is doing its ad experiment this year. It's going to happen, you might as well accept it.

 

[fallagin]

They're just copying football, just like how europe football is copying soccer

 

[jambo]

Forget Rugby, the need to back Aussie Rules!

 

[kmag]

One of the biggest issues with both rugby codes is the rule set and officiating. I'm a big rugby fan, and I've played a decent bit through school and uni but I sometimes struggle to fathom why penalties are awarded especially at the breakdown and scrums (it's not always clear on tv or in the stands, and the commentators do a poor job of explaining*).

I've also often thought rubgy should tighten up it's clock as well. Cut it from 80 minutes by all means, but stop the clock at scrums, line outs and kicks. Scrums especially can take multiple minutes off the game if they request multiple resets.

*not sure if the aussie rugby league commentators are better, but in the UK rugby league the Sky commentators frequently get the rules wrong, replays descend into bickering about interpretations of rules generally based on misinterpretation of the rules. It's gotten to a point they've got an ex-referee sitting in giving his opinion most games now.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

You're probably thinking of gigantic ads, the most we'll get is the ads I'm posting on the bottom here. Which even you should agree don't detract from the game.

I should, should I?

Rather than go point by point, I think most of your points boil down to "it makes owners lots of money and if they need to do it, they should do it," while most of mine boil down to "I'm not saying they shouldn't do it if that's the only way they can make the business work, it just looks awful and is bush league." Neither of us like it, but the bone of contention is whether or not uni/field ads are bush league. In the US, little league teams, bush league teams, teams that are struggling to stay afloat resort to defacing their brand with ads. Teams that can afford to protect their brand, major league teams, teams with enough support, don't. In the US, uni ads are one of the most obvious indicators of whether a team is in the bush leagues or not, you don't know how big their stadium is or even need to watch them play, if they've got a uni ad, they're probably not a very high level team.

A note about terminology here for a second. When I say uni ads in the EPL are bush league, I'm not saying that the EPL is literally a second rate bush league, I'm saying that the uni ads aspect of that league is reminiscent of the bush leagues.

So taking all of that in to account, in the US, uni ads in the major leagues may be inevitable, but for now they're still bush league.

How is MLL bush league exactly? Because they allow ads on jerseys? Or because they are not one of the major 4?

Because they pay their star players $500/game. Because their players have day jobs. Because they have teams fold in the middle of the season. Because they're so desperate, they'll deface their brand - their one real asset - for a little bit of cash.

There will be ads on top of backboards, only seen from above, yes. But there's even an image on the link I posted where other, more visible ads will be seen throughout the game

Those aren't in the field of play, I'm fine with them. I'm also fine with dasherboard ads, sign hoarding ads, the annoying 3D perspective ads to the sides of soccer goals, Chicago Bears Football presented by Bank of America, CitiBank Field. I basically take FIFA's position about field markings/ads, and extend it to uniforms as well. The only thing I sort of take issue with outside of the field of play is ads on the nets that they raise in football for field goals and extra point attempts, but if anything, kickers seem to use them as targets.

*not sure if the aussie rugby league commentators are better, but in the UK rugby league the Sky commentators frequently get the rules wrong, replays descend into bickering about interpretations of rules generally based on misinterpretation of the rules. It's gotten to a point they've got an ex-referee sitting in giving his opinion most games now.

So it's just like American football commentators. Or baseball commentators. Or basketball commentators. Or hockey commentators. Heh, I remember one time watching a regular sport commentator do an Olympic bicycle race once. As the peloton was pacelining (a common riding style to break the wind,) he was going nuts about who was in the lead.