Your explanations make no sense. The attributes you claim, apply to other countries as well. The US is big, but then so are other countries, and like most other countries outside of Europe (which seems to be tine only foreign place you have heard about) you have large and spaced populations centers. Brazil is about the size of CONSUS and has half the population. Argentina is IIRC a third
if the size with a tenth of the population. Yet they don’t have a similar result.
Shots hit to the slips routinely are faster then the ball delivered. Nothing comparable in baseball. And in any case,you try to catch a cricket call baseball style, you will break your finger, the secret is in technique, not the gloves or lack thereof.
This is the first explanation that makes sense.Thanks. I can see high quality of sports at the Uni level if the Unis are the nurseries for future players.In Association football, clubs train young teens for years in their youth programs in Cricket the Counties and other local teams are on the lookout for talented youngsters from club sides and they then train them.
Furthermore, someone unthread made a statement which if I have understood correctly means that organized sports in the US began in Colleges. That would explain a lot, as in the UK at least organized sports were a gentry thing.
If you had actually read what we’re saying, we’ve specifically addressed those other countries.
Brazil and Argentina both have extremely sparsely populated interiors. Australia has a virtually depopulated interior.
Nebraska or Iowa have millions of residents but no major sports team. Is it any surprise that instead of traveling 12+ hours to see a professional team they start watching college teams more?
You are correct that in the age of everyone having TV that can get games from anywhere, this is less of an issue. But that’s a new thing, prior to the 1990s if you lived in Nebraska or Alabama you followed a local college team or you didn’t follow sports. The live sports angle is still true.
That isn’t really what drives it, though, despite it “making sense” to you. A lot of college basketball and football fans don’t follow the NFL or NBA as closely as they do college basketball or football.
Nebraska and Oklahoma fans primarily watch their teams because they are Nebraska and Oklahoma fans not because the college game is a nursery for the professional game.
Never underestimate the power of “nothing else to do.”
In places like Texas, football is everyone’s 2nd religion. People fanatically follow their local high school team, which is unfathomable to a lot of people in large East Coast/West Coast cities.
Well firstly neither Brazil nor Argentina were mentioned by anyone else (Australia, Russia and Canada were) and the population distribution for both countries shows otherwiseto yourclaim.
.png){kind=link}
I seem to have touched a raw nerve. Apparently merely asking about US College sports and suggesting that the explanations given might not be unique is not kosher and rubs people the wrong way. Sorry I asked.
:rolleyes:
You should take a look at post #21.
I don’t get your rolleye smileys. People are trying to answer your question, and I believe size is still an important aspect of the issue. According to a quick wolfram alpha search, the United Kingdom is 97.47% smaller than the US. Put another way, the US is 3,864% bigger. You can check for yourself here. Given such enormous distances, why do you feel it’s so unlikely that Americans would look to college teams for a fun sporting event? Sure, as you’ve mentioned, other countries are huge as well, but nobody is presenting the size of the US as the only factor. It’s silly to discount it because it doesn’t perfectly explain the phenomenon, but if you’re going to dismiss every facet of an answer, you’ll never get anywhere.
[QUOTE=AAK84]
I seem to have touched a raw nerve. Apparently merely asking about US College sports and suggesting that the explanations given might not be unique is not kosher and rubs people the wrong way. Sorry I asked.
:rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
It’s not the topic, it’s you.
So, explain to me the AK84 theory on college sports in America. I’m dying to know what you think.
Came in to say the same thing. If he doesn’t understand the following college sports gets, the following high school sports gets will blow his mind.
And it’s not just townsfolk keeping track of the the local schools record in the paper. It’s towns building stadiums that seat many thousands of people, thisbeing one of the more stunning examples.
So if you don’t feel that U.S. College sports and their following is unique, why did you start this thread to ask about why the U.S. uniquely has a huge following of college sports?
In any case, as I said about the U.S. and its population versus its size, it is very deceiving, and you have fallen into a familiar trap.
There is a vast difference between a countries “overall” population density and the population density “in the areas where most of its people live.” Take Russia as an example, without even consulting any almanacs or such I’m willing to bet money it has the lowest population density in the world, overall.
But imagine if 95% of Russia’s population lived in Moscow, it wouldn’t be correct to portray Russia as a sparsely populated country, at least not as most Russians experience it. It would instead be correct to portray it as a country where most people live in one big city and the rest of the country is uninhabited.
Now, the real Russia isn’t quite so lopsided, but a huge portion of Russians do not live East of the Urals, and if you add up just a few of Russia’s largest cities and their populations you cover a large portion of the total Russian population.
In any case, let us get to Brazil.
If you had looked at those Brazilians states by area you would notice that what I’m saying about Canada, Australia, and Russia, is true about Brazil.
Sao Paulo represents 2.92% of Brazilian land area, but 21.44% of Brazil’s population. Rio de Janeiro is 0.51% of Brazilian land area, but 8.31% of Brazil’s total population. In fact more than 50% of Brazilians live on only 20.26% of the land.
The 14 least populated Brazilian states make up 50.17% of its area, but only 16.28% of its population.
Further, widespread professional sports began in the late 19th century and picked up steam from there. In the United States there were tons of colleges already by that point, in places like Brazil which were true third world countries in the 19th century that just wasn’t the case, so even if Brazil’s geographic/population distribution was identical to that of the United States, the lack of Brazilian colleges around the time of the development of modern professional sports would explain why Brazil didn’t develop a similar system to the United States.
That’s the explanation I was going to make; for sports where the college level is big, it’s because the college level is the second-highest level, and there are no professional minor leagues, or if there are, they’re not considered high quality.
For example, US football and basketball are two sports where the college game is extremely popular, because there aren’t any other lower leagues under the NFL.
In fact, for those two, the leagues go like this: junior high/middle school (11-14 year olds), high school (14-18 year olds), and then college-level sports, before you get to the NFL or NBA. So for people who live in places without an NFL team, like say… Austin, Texas, the Texas Longhorns are the highest level of the sport in the area.
Sports which have a well-developed junior/minor league professional system such as baseball, hockey and soccer don’t have much of a college following by comparison with football or basketball, and the better players even bypass college and go straight to the minors.
It doesn’t have anything to do with the size of the country, but rather with the structure of the leagues in the sports as to whether the college game is popular or not.
That’s not really accurate, bump. If that was true the Pittsburgh Panthers would be an extremely popular football team, but they aren’t. It’s not because the people of Pittsburgh aren’t football fans, but because they have a real pro team to watch.
One of the University of Pittsburgh’s recent games had like 15,000 people in the stands (the same stadium that the Steelers use.) Pitt’s not a perennially terrible college team, they’ve won national championships and a lot of NFL talent has come up through there, but they’ve never been very popular. Namely because in a city with a pro team people don’t watch college ball.
That’s why out in Nebraska people love the Cornhuskers–it has nothing to do with it being the NFL’s minor leagues, it’s because that is the only form of serious football Nebraskans can watch. I’d be willing to bet no NFL team has merchandise sales in the state of Nebraska to even approach that of the Cornhuskers.
Further, if you’re not aware in some parts of the country college baseball is actually a big deal. In much of the South you have college baseball teams that bring 15k+ to the stands, which is more than most professional minor league teams.
I think the reason college baseball is very big in the SEC, Pac-10(now 12), and Big-XII is because historically those regions were deprived of pro baseball teams and thus the colleges developed a strong baseball following.
Further, in regions of the country with strong pro presence there is a dearth of serious college fans. Several college teams (Syracuse, Rutgers, even University of Connecticut) have tried to become “New York City’s” college team, because NYC is the biggest market in the country but is mostly disinterested in NCAA football. The truth of the matter is none of those teams has ever succeeded in that goal because there are two pro football teams in NYC. In New England both UConn and Boston College had mediocre followings because New England has historically followed the Patriots.
Much of the reason USC has historically had such a following has been Los Angeles lack of a pro franchise, and the ones that have been in LA have never stayed long and have often been poor products when they were there.
I think the question really should be “why aren’t college sports followed in other countries?”
In Europe where they really like “Roundball Snoozefest” (I refuse to call it either soccer or football on principle) - why don’t they follow college teams as much?
I think this is actually a huge part of the reason.
Most college’s have been playing for 100+ years and many have rivalries dating back that far. That’s a lot of time to build up momentum, coupled with the fact that pro teams are often more distant and cover a smaller number of regions.
I want to point out that in Alabama, home of one of the strongest college rivalries of any sport, there are absolutely zero professional teams in any sport. No professional football, soccer, hockey, baseball, or basketball.
There is one sport. There are two teams. Pick one.
Alaburn. Yes?
For many, it may be that the nearest college team is within their metro area whereas the nearest professional team is distant. But for others, specifically people who watch college sports on TV, it can be more of purist desire to watch sports that are relatively untainted by profits along with having more traditional rules. I personally don’t watch college sports because I consider them too amateur.