Sports discussion

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

[view] [edit]


Do you like moto gp? What your favorite rider? And How many sesion or raceplace in the motogp? Redbull horns (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not one for spec racing series (Formula 1, NASCAR, etc.) and I have a hard time seeing MGP as anything but. I just don't care enough about drivers and am more interested in seeing different cars battle it out as opposed to basically different drivers in the same machine. BORT (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

2015 Super Bowl

New England Patriots vs Seattle Seahawks. Who wins? Serocco (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Commercialism. As usual. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 18:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Nobody interesting, as usual. --Miekal 18:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Two teams I am indifferent about. The half time show is generic pop-tart Katy Perry. Doubt I'll even tune in for the ads. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 20:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm rather surprised that there's such a low-key view of the Super Bowl, given the DeflateGate scandal going on right now. Serocco (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Just because i live in a state that worships football, (our state stadium becomes the 3rd most populated area on gameday) doesn't mean i care about the sport :P --Miekal 17:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
US gridiron football is the worst spectator sport in the world to attend live. If you followed the playoffs you'd notice: it's played out of doors in rain, snow, and gales. Oftentimes, the conditions on the field turn the players' skills into a secondary thing. How this rubbish took over from baseball is a mystery to me. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 19:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
It was marketed more as bloodsport than game of skill. The NFL's rise to prominence was attached to a marketing campaign oriented around manliness and toughness. Ikanreed (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I think the one guy is going to sport harder and make the points go in the goals and win the balls. Ikanreed (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
I think one group of people will throw/kick a ball slightly more accurately than another group of people. BicyclewheelModerator 20:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Baseball takes forever to end. Football does it in half the time. Plus, PEDs are killing interest in baseball. Concussions and violence may just kill football in twenty years' time. Serocco (talk) 06:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
"Plus, PEDs are killing interest in baseball." Unlike in American footballWikipedia's W.svg? Not that I particularly care about either sport (or sport in general). I find NFL more interesting from a socio-cultural and organisational point of view (particularly as a contrast to "soccer"), though as with practically any sport, I can easily be fascinated by a match if I happen to come across it. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I think the NFL loves this matchup — the Seahawks are still a popular team after having lost a Super Bowl several years ago thanks to some controversial referee calls (and they're the returning champs), while the Patriots are, right now, hated by every American who's not from New England. If the Seahawks win, then the NFL can get the entire sports press talking about the beginning of a potential "Seattle dynasty" for the 2010s, while if the Patriots win, then they've got an instant hate figure for next season. (In case you couldn't tell, I'm rooting for the Seahawks. I root for New York and whoever's playing Boston, no matter what sport it is. Except the Jets, because fuck the Jets.) KevinR1990 (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
The Patriots are the Yankees of football. Interesting. - Smerdis of Tlön, A ⇒ ¬A. 18:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
There's a lot on the line for these two teams. You have the defending champions in Seattle finally breaking the Winners' Curse by winning a playoff game (which hadn't been done for the champs in eight years), and returning to the Super Bowl for a chance to repeat, the first time a team can do so since, who else? New England in '03 and '04. Brady winning will likely cement his legacy as the better one to Peyton, especially after the last two losses to Eli. If New England wins, thanks to Seattle breaking the winners' curse, people will tune next year in just to see the Patriots lose. If Seattle wins, and stay roughly the same in the summer, they can position themselves for a three-peat, something nobody has done yet in the NFL. Cue talks of a dynasty. Serocco (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
A team named "Patriots" is hated by almost all Americans? Now there's something unexpected. (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
That, and nobody will ever let them forget "18-1". (Short version for you non-Americans: the Patriots went undefeated through the 2007 season all the way through the playoffs, but at Super Bowl XLII, they lost to the New York Giants in one of the biggest upsets in NFL history — especially because it went down to the last minute of the game. The Patriots went 18-1 that season, winning every game except the one that mattered the most.) KevinR1990 (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
At least they got second? (talk) 07:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

The Official London Olympics 2012 thread

Enjoy. - π 06:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

London Olympic opening ceremony[edit]

If you saw it, objectively, what did you think? NBC fucked up its live screening, so when it was rebroadcasted 3 hours later social networking was the equivalent of US tourists in the Louvre.

I thought it was fine. Nothing beats China's in 2008, but what does these days? Osaka Sun (talk) 07:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

A combination of pony friends wanting me to watch MLP with them and a game of Civ 5 kept me from watching it, but i heard it was nice. --il'Dictator Mikal 08:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
It was awesome. Really, it was. I was expecting it to be pretentious, awful tripe, with a lethal drinking game to be had for every time the words "celebrating diversity" were used. But no, we got the motherfucking Queen parachuting into the venue with motherfucking James Bond. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 08:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Arseholes. Couldn't even have the Welsh kids sing in Welsh. And I'm not sure "look! we turned our countryside into a stinking, smokey hell" is the best advert for your country either. Not only that, I doubt 1 in 10 Brits could tell you who Isambard Brunel was, never mind the rest of the world. And all that hype about the bell and we get "Dong." WTF? Then again, I'm the kind of person who thinks opening and closing ceremonies are a complete waste of time and money. --Psygremlin (talk) 08:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Booo! Hisss!! Go comment on the Daily Mail! Scarlet A.pngsshole 09:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Bloody foreigners coming over here, making our athletes look bad... --Psygremlin (talk) 10:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I thought it was great, really good fun and spectacular. Good on yer, Mr Boyle! Ajkgordon (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
IKB was one of the top finalists for "Great Britons" so that's probably several million people who not only know who he was but thought he was more important to Britain than Winston instantly-recognisable Churchill. I attended a party which was designed so that if the ceremony was awful people could eat barbecue and drink cocktails, and if it wasn't they could cluster around a big TV and point at stuff. Almost everyone spent the entire time watching the TV. Several fun moments when people's cherished guesses for what would feature were mistaken. Some people expected the Titanic, slavery (or abolition) and the World Wars, but they got the Windrush, suffragettes and a nation in mourning. Sir Tim got a big cheer (many of those present including myself have worked with him) and people seemed to enjoy the surprise twist in the Bond mini-film. (talk) 11:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Best part was Mr Bean. --Psygremlin (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
It was definitely better than I expected. The industrialization bit looked very impressive and Isambard Kingdom Brunel seemed damn healthy for someone who's over 200 years old. The kids were boring, but fortunately Rowan Atkinson arrived at the right moment and saved me from falling asleep. Of course nothing could top the barrel-rolling corgi in the Bond bit, but I'm sure they were aware of the risks of having that so early in the show. Oh, and some of the CGI looked incredibly unconvincing. What was up with that? Vulpius (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
It's David Icke! Balaam (talk) 11:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I fully expected it to be a gigantic embarrassing flop, but my God, it was fucking incredible. The cricketers, the mary poppinses, the Bond, the Mr Bean, the body-popping industrialists, the voldemort, the motherfucking NHS... I think they knew the only way to beat Beijing was to go completely balls-to-the-wall bonkers. Beijing was a technical, choreographic marvel, but it was soulless. I thought this beat Beijing hands down! ONE / TALK 13:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely agree. Nice sum up. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Not enough David Tennant. (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Props to the British for having an army of Mary Poppins defeat a 100-foot Voldemort. I thought it was an impressive way to open the Olympics. Sam Tally-ho! 19:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying my best to ignore the fact that the olympics are even happening, but this description makes me kind of sorry I didn't watch it. I suppose I could torrent that shit if I really wanted to. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Twas effin' good (apart from the strange inclusion of some "athletes"). Channel hopping to avoid it from now though. Oh & Macca's past his "sell by" date. Loved the NHS, loved the "cauldron". Scream!! (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry, Tennant took a torch at the last minute. Only problem was he was surrounded by Silents. Blue Talk 08:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Celebrating multiculturalism, the NHS, the industrial revolution - it's all too much for the Daily Mail. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The Mail is hardly consistent, it ran a ton of articles in the run up to the games about how the opening ceremony would be shit and how dare they forget England's green and pleasant land and put chimneys and mines on it (that's sooo working class!) and then trumped it up as being awesome on their front page after it actually happened. Scarlet A.pngnarchist
They get to have their cake & eat it, using the enthusiastic front page coverage to trumpet about how great Britain is, while their columnists bitch about how the ceremony represents everything they hate about modern Britain. Anyhoo, the Rick Dewsbury piece I linked above has now been pulled offline after getting nothing but negative comments & complaints. Cached copy here. Speaking of the Mail, I can't help but laugh when I see the phrase "Leftie multicultural c***". It makes it sound like Aidan Burley said something a lot ruder than he actually did (he said "crap"). WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
That may be intentional, or people are just excessively shy of rude words. Peter Hitchens is being especially curmudgeonly about it. In fact, I'd go as far as to say I can't read any of this without thinking "oh shut the fuck up you pathetic little cuntball, you're not even a minor fraction of the man your brother was". Scarlet A.pngtheist 23:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Mmmm, Nazi & Soviet comparisons, that's what we need here. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 06:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Just putting this here Balaam (talk) 11:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner[edit]

That I wish Paris had won the games. rpeh •TCE 07:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I remember in 2000 a store in sydney made good money selling tshirts that said "Fuck the olympics". Pi 3:14 (talk) 08:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, to be fair, I have to say it's not been too bad after all. My commute takes me from south east London to a spot roughly halfway between London and Tower bridges, just north of the river, and the journey has been better than normal in terms of congestion. Coming back from a holiday in Scotland led me to the full horror of London Bridge station, though. I really don't know what the flying fuck they've done there. It took at least three times as long to get from the underground to my platform as it usually would, although much of that was me wandering randomly and saying "For fuck's sake" a lot. TL;DR: It's not been as bad as I thought it would be. rpeh •TCE 20:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Medal count by population[edit]

all hail Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan (whose national anthem includes the line "As your song I will stream, my country"). SophieWilder 06:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I've gotta say, watching one of the trainers during their second gold (weightlifting in this case) getting in front of the camera and saying "Kazakhstan number 1!" was hilarious. Q0 (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh man, the same guy just went apeshit after they won their third weightlifting gold. There's gotta be a video of this somewhere. Q0 (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Alternative expectations[edit]

Some academics have looked at various factors and predicted how various nations should do. It's interesting for explaining why countries like India 'under-perform' compared to 'over-performers' such as South Korea. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 07:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Medal projections[edit]

Browsing around the BBC website I came across a projection by Sheffield Hallam University in April that GB would get 27 golds and 56 medals in total. This currently looks a plausible target; in stark contrast to the Australian prediction that GB would slip to eighth and that the Aussies would finish above us with 17 gold.  Lily Inspirate me. 22:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

[view] [edit]

Analysis of the relative income streams of the National Football League and international rugby union

This is one of many discussions that has descended into petty snipping and trolling idiocy on RationalWiki.
Here are the others, in case you are curious, bored, or enjoy pain:
- Analysis of the relative income streams of the National Football League and international rugby union -- Barroom brawls -- Cat fight -- Chicken coop -- Chicken coop/Archive37 -- Community Standards/Revamp, January 2009 -- Community Standards/Revamp draft -- Community Standards/TK -- Community Standards/disruption -- Constitutional Convention, April 2008 -- Drama dump -- Epic debate -- HeartOfGold Sysop vote -- Inactivity -- Is RationalWiki under the control of Feminist activists? -- Make TK a sysop? -- Nuclear Option -- Privacy clusterfuck -- Property rights in WIGOs -- Requests for comment/HeartOfGold -- Serious Business -- Site politics -- Statement candidacy for the RationalWiki Foundation Board of Trustees -- The Rationalwiki Reform Society -- The case of MarcusCicero -- The mobocracy -- User:Copyvio's campaign to stop copyvio -- User rights and moderation revisited -- Voting Procedure -- Voting standards -
To big a task to add up the cost of TV market ad time in the various RWC competitors and do conversion rates? then add up the same cost in the remaining wp:Rugby Union TV markets? then add up costs outside the Rugby Union (you could count the more affluent major markets and leave out the piddly-ass minor shit if its too laborious). This is not rocket science, and yo9u do actually get paid if you can sell something, other than a dream of colonizing the moon or mars in 50 years. nobsModerated 01:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Why would anyone want to do such a thing and why would anyone care. You need to get over this weird rugby obsession. AceModerator 02:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh cool, I'm on First World too, much cooler than Second Life, Third Wheel and Fourth Meal. RachelW (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Have you seen this guy's shit on the Third World? nobsModerated 02:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Rob, it is your own pet hypothesis that the sole measure of the worth of a championship is in the ad dollars it generates. If this is the metric you choose, then surely you should do the fucking work. As for myself, it sounds like a perfectly pointless exercise. I'll wager I'm not alone in that judgment. Phiwum (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Newsflash: Rugby is entertainment, not sport. If you want to prove you have cajoonies or sumpthin', join the Marines. Go to Afghanistan. nobsModerated 04:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Now you are confusing war with sport, which is worse than confusing sport with entertainment (which it, ideally, is of course). Rugby is a sport. Hunting isn't. War isn't. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
And Rugby is entertainment. So is football. What's your point, Rob? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 05:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Brilliant wit, as usual! My, but that was an entertaining riposte! Completely fucking beside any relevant point to be seen here, but oh so darned humorous. Phiwum (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Of course it's entertainment; the name of the game s 'take the public's money'. I can see where this is news for those making the transition to the First World. nobsModerated 04:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
So Rob, you say "a 30 sec spot is US $3.5M... My guess, ad rates [for Rugby World Cup] are not even half, and probably pitifully less than that." Well, we all know your guess is worth 2 things: jack and shit. So why don't you ret to come up with some figures to back that up. I'd guess Rugby is more expensive, you know why? Because it has, as you say, 3 times the viewership and viewership is what they base the goddamn ad prices on. Also, the fact that you'd have to buy ad space in dozens (hundreds?) of different markets throughout the globe, rather than just one American network, seems to indicate that yes, you'd have to spend one metric fuckton on money to place an ad that everyone watching the Rugby World Cup would see. What this has to do with lightyears and gravity is beyond me. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
The RWC is 64 games consisting of 96 hours, or 5760 minutes of broadcast time. By contrast, the Superbowl is 60 minutes of broadcast time. While stats are admittedly hard to come, this site says the 2006 Rugby Cup generated $1 billion in ad revenue compared with the 2009 Superbowl which generated $213 million. This means every 1 minute of broadcast time the Rugby Cup generated $173,600, whereas the Superbowl earned $3,550,000 per minute. Case closed. nobsModerated 05:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I assumed we were talking about just the final game of the World Cup, as that's as close as you can get to the equivalent of the Super Bowl (each being the final game that decides the winners, or else we'd have to include the NFL playoffs as well, or even the entire season). If you want to compare every game of the Rugby Cup to just the one game of the Super Bowl then we're really getting into apples and oranges territory here. Do you have figures for those? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I've said it before, I'll say it again. There's no way anyone with the mental faculties to edit a wiki could be this dumb. Rob's trolling is boring, and RW's feeding of this troll is even more boring. PACODOGwoof, bitches 05:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
The Super Pooper Bowl will run 3 to 3.5 hours of broadcast time. For sixty minutes of actual "play". Get your facts and all. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
You're right. Adjustment have to be made. To answer Dick, This report says $9 billion. 16 games in a 16 week season is 256 games (plus playoffs). By far the most of this comes TV revenues, with a small fraction from sale of hats & tee-shirts and stadium revenues such as tickets and hot dogs. Wikipedia says 55% of TV revenues go to the salary cap, so the exact figure can be figured that way, too. Over a four year period, the NFL would earn $36 billion, whereas the Rubgy Cup only $1 billion in the same period of time. nobsModerated 05:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm surprised no-one has had a red flag raised by the 2006 world cup ad revenue citation that Rob keeps mentioning. DamoHi 05:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Using wp:National_Football_League#Salary_cap, $127 million salary per team x 32 teams = $4.064 billion = 55% of total TV revenues = $7.389 billion total TV revenues x 4 years = $29.55 billion, compared to the Rugby Cup earning $1 billion in the same time. nobsModerated 05:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
So the NFL screws over advertisers in a captive, limited market. This makes yank football a better sport how? --PsyGremlinHable! 06:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand the point here anyway. Besides, I prefer cricket to rugby. AceModerator 06:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
The point, Ace, is earning money. I know, too deep a concept while you're transitioning to a money economy from the hunter-gatherer state, so we'll be patient. Now, if the RWC generated $1 billion in 96 games, that is roughly $10 million per game; Yahoo answers cite the University of Ohio as a typical example of an American collegiate football game, saying they gross $64 million per game, and profit $28 million. So we all see what league the RWC is in. nobsModerated 06:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
What the fuck do I care about advertising revenue? I don't watch rugby or football. AceModerator 06:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
This just goes to show how difficult comparisons are, especially when you start comparing a yearly event with one every 4 years. In any case, I thought the discussion was the cost of a 30 second ad that would be seen by every viewer of the Super Bowl with a 30 second ad that would be seen by every viewer of the Rugby World Cup final game. That's about as equal a comparison as you can get (though total viewership would be a much more useful figure, you seem bent on the advertising angle. So be it). You haven't furnished any figures for the latter, and I imagine it would be difficult to do. Totals don't work well because there is probably an order of magnitude more ads during American football than during rugby, which only contradicts your assertion that football is a sport and rugby is entertainment. So, come back when you find an approximate figure for how much it would cost to run an ad in every market in which the Rugby World Cup final game is shown, and we'll see how it compares to the $3.5 million or so for the Super Bowl. Until then you're just playing numbers games. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
This is by far the dumbest thread on Talk:CPWIGO I've read in a while. I like American Football. I live in the American South. Who fucking cares? "My sport is better than yours." Give me a fucking break. PACODOGwoof, bitches 06:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── All we can do is take gross ad revenues over a four period divide by the number of games. For the RWC, it is $1 billion / 96 = $10 million per game; for the NFL it is $29.55 / (256 regular season + 11 playoff games x 4 years) = $28.7 million. Close enough. So evidently some US colleges approach NFL revenues , too. nobsModerated 06:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I still don't know why you care about these figures, they're meaningless. Even if you wanted to pretend it's some sort of objective mathematical proof of what sport is The Best, it just doesn't work. Even if all else is equal, the fact that sports like football and baseball are much more geared towards TV advertising just shows that more ads = more revenue. As if we didn't know that already. Rugby is more popular than American football, as it has more worldwide viewers. Does that really mean anything? No. Association football (ie "soccer") is more popular still. Is it an objectively "better" sport? No. Personally, I enjoy an American football game now and then, but find soccer pretty boring. Does that have anything to do with how much each sport makes from advertising? Not at all. Give it a rest. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Goodpost.gif --DamoHi 06:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC) (although I do enjoy watching Rob troll himself.)

Formula One (one my favourites) is one of top earners. AceModerator 06:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Jesus, Rob. I've said it before but it's probably worth repeating. You're turning making-a-fool-of-yourself into an art form. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Nobs exemplifies why many in the rest of the world resent certain aspects of American culture - life is about more than making money! Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 09:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
To be honest, all this is pointless because it assumes a US model of TV advertising. (big shock, US conservative assumes a US-centric view). The RWC is a bit of an anomaly in the UK - it was shown on ITV (with ads). Most Rugby is shown on the BBC and generates precisely £0 in TV ad revenue. Worm (talk) 10:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I'll explain the significance. The $28 million per game figure for the NFL is based upon a formula of 1068 (256 regular season + 11 post season) games over 4 years. If the RWC where to allow greedy television executives to manipulate its rules, as the NFL has, to allow for 96 games per year, it would play 384 games over 4 years and produce $4 billion. So while the NFL has reached a mature state and can't really produce more (other than allow the greedy evil TV's execs to leapfrog the Pro-Bowl to the week before the Superbowl for higher ratings), the RWC shows a higher potential for growth at 400%. This is common throughout the Second and Third World. Plus the added incentive the workers Rugby players are willing to work for $2 a day. nobsModerated 13:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
No, Rob, that's not significant. "If they held the World Cup every year instead of every 4 years they'd make more money. But they don't because they're 'Third World.'" Do you ever get tired of displaying your stupidity in such a blatant manner? Did you know that if hey held the Super Bowl every week they'd make 52 times as much money by your logic, and therefore they have the capacity for 52x growth, so the NFL is a Third World institution? Can we move please move this discussion to Forum:Do retards know they're retarded?. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Is this an argument that the rest of the world needs to take up American football over rugby, or what? Because if it's a purely financial argument then it's one about business models, not sports. And as pointed out above, F1 is the way you want to go there. Scarlet A.pngtheist 13:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Please tell me you're not looking for anything like a thesis statement from a Rob Smith rant. The argument is whatever Rob wants it to be about at any given time (it will not doubt shift to communism and/or Chip Berlet momentarily) and will change track on a dime every time Rob is thoroughly pwned (ie often). Turpis 3:16 (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I didn't relise there was an argument, I thought Rob was just stating numbers he wasted time finding. - π 13:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
It all started as a pissing contest and Rob's trying to win by saying that "evolved" sports make more money which seems to be exactly how you shouldn't measure sports. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Exactly, so when attendance and viewership stats did not back up Rob's hypothesis, he decided to switch to a more capitalist model, which might have some merit on some level. The problem with that is it's supposed to show the relative value people give to something based on how much they spend on it, which is fine, but doesn't work for a broadcast model in which all the viewers (except those actually in attendance) are watching for free. Corporations, based on how many people they think will watch and how likely they are to buy their products, pay, which simply means whatever sport can squeeze in more opportunities for ads will come out ahead there. It really doesn't reflect the value the viewers put on the sport at all. You can make that case for ticket prices to an extent, but that's a tiny fraction of the market. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
So really, it's more a reflection how on gullible and ridiculous the fans are in how much they'll pay to wast 2-3 hours of their lives on a weekend. Scarlet A.pngsshole 14:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Completely, but again, only for actual attendance. We at home get to watch for free at the mere cost of sitting through a slew of commercials (during the Super Bowl the commercials are some of the best parts) so it's not a bad deal. The amount generated is more a reflection of how stupid the corporations think the viewers are that they'll be swayed by some actors on TV. Pretty stupid, apparently. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
"Value" is what people will pay for it. That's it, really, you can't really deduce anything more than that. Do you really think Facebook is worth $100 billion? It's just code, after all... Scarlet A.pngpostate 14:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely. That's all it tells you, but that is something, and you have the potential to use actual figures to make your point with it, though the point doesn't necessarily have any relevance. Then you have Rob's making shit up and playing with numbers, which tells us only what an idiot Rob is. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Just to step in here and show my e-penis of geeky trivial knownledge off: What an ad on television costs is normally deduced by the rating of the year before relative to what other channels got in ratings and what the people that want to put an ad up are willing to pay for it. If the channel couldn't sell at the price they wished for they will lower the price until the can sell that thing. Also, and this goes out to Rob specifically, not every single 30 seconds cost the same. You would never pay the same price for a 30 seconds 2 minutes before the end of broadcast than the last spot during halftime. And the price of 3.5 million per 30 seconds is always given as the price during halftime. That doesn't mean that you have 3 hours of such continious revenue, in fact you have the complete opposite of a short very high peak of a price during halftime with, relative to halftime-ads low prices on the other ends. If one really wanted to look at sports events with the most revenue (which isn't completely besides the point for people that studied media studies and the industry itself) one would have to sum up all the prices of each ad (have fun collecting that data) deduce an average but still highlight the peak and the low point while if working on an international scale you would have adjust for the size of the market (percentage of households with a TV or other means to see these ads, and don't forget that you have to adjust for the fact that many visit a party for this kind of event, so you'd have to get the average size of such a party from some weird as shit kind of statistic) or the outreach of the specific channel (network system fucks you over on this one). It's much more complicated that one might think.
Also, sport events don't make their money from the ads during the broadcast, that is where the channel get it's money from. The actual sporting event makes this money by selling licenses to those channels. These kinds of licenses are normally auctioned off to a selected number of channels or given long-term planning with a single channel/network behind closed doors. The NBC back in 2008 with the Olympic Games fell flat on their face with this, they paid so much money for the Beijing Games but couldn't get the ad revenue so that they had to end the Olympics with a lose of several million dollars. The IOC couldn't give less than a shit about this. --ʤɱ secularist 15:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Incidentally, for a real football team like Man U only around one third of revenue is from broadcasting. Think of all the kids world wide that wear Rooney replica kit. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Holy shit! I never knew ManU was sports event! I always thought the were a sports club! /snark --ʤɱ kant 16:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't getting at you, or your incisive comment on advertising. I was remarking that Rob's concentrating on advertising revenue was only seeing one third of the picture. Moreover, it's the third seen by the armchair fan, the one who doesn't go to matches (gate receipts) or buy the replica kit (merchandising). Jack Hughes (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, the discussion was still about sporting events, though… --ʤɱ secularist 19:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure a replica kit is something the aliens use to blend in with us humans. I don't know what that has to do with sporting events. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
What I'm amazed at and no one has picked up on, if 1000 games in the NFL produce $29 billion over 4 years, and 400 games in RWC could produce $4 billion over the same time, 1000 RWC games could produce $10 billion over 4 years. The NFL has reached its optimum level; the money grubbing TV promoters & bosses want a 17 week schedule (already built in with the byes) but the players are resisting. It is just physically not possible now. But the RWC has enormous potential for growth, if the same TV promoters can get a hold of it and do for them what they've done for the NFL. nobsModerated 20:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Alright, I'm out of my element, here, I admit, as I know very little about footie or rugby, but isn't the world cup the championship tournament, sort of like the playoffs in American sports? Aren't games played for several years and the ones who do best qualify for the World Cup? You seem to think no one's playing rugby or football for 3 years and then the World Cup comes along, and you think they should extend games into those 3 sabbatical years. Well, I'm here to tell you they do play, they do generate money, it just isn't the World Cup. You could say the same thing about the Olympics. Imagine Olympic games every year. People would get damn sick of it anyway. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Several years ago the NFL turned the game over to the TV promoters to exploit revenues. The TV networks produce the schedule, iow, schedules used to be determined by who beat who last year and so on, now the network promoters determine who plays who based on maximum revenue. Flex-scheduling was introduced, meaning the kickoff time can be varied late in the season, and they want to be able to change up who plays on Monday night, for example. Thursday nite games have been added. Actual playing rules have been tweaked, for example the 35 second clock, and out of bounds rules, kickoff rules, instant replay, all to accommodate maximum broadcast revenues. nobsModerated 20:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I must admit that I've only skimmed this but I find it baffling. Could someone simply explain what point is being debated and why it should matter? --BobSpring is sprung! 21:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Mostly irrelevant, as usual, Rob, but mostly accurate, I guess. Though who plays whom is determined by a formula, not by who'd draw the best ratings (which games are the prime time, network games are determined by projected draw, at least to an extent, but whatever teams are matched would play each other regardless). If your point is that the NFL is more geared towards TV viewers than rugby, then you could have saved us a lot of time and said that to begin with. No one would have contradicted you. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Rob, the problem is that for some reason - probably trolling Ace - you're equating the annual super bowl with a four-year world cup, thinking they operate in isolation. You're forgetting to include the Six nations, Tri-Nations, Lions tours, Currie Cup, Celtic Cup, Heineken Cup, etc, etc. But you know what the ultimate question is? What's the big fucking deal? Revenues do not make a sport better than another. Maybe Yank football is wildly popular in the US... because it's geared to the US mentality. Micro-seconds of action, followed by ages of nothing, sort of inline with your attention span. So is baseball, so is basketball, so is ice hockey. After all, yours is a nation that cannot grasp how a cricket game can last for 5 days and end in a draw. For you easy nice, easy good, not have to think, look America, here's 27 channels of American Gladiators! You are free to think as we tell you... --PsyGremlinPrata! 21:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I still fail to see how this is a troll of me. I don't watch rugby often and enjoy cricket and F1 far more than rugby. AceModerator 21:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Rob's just trying to find an actually quantifiable manner in which American football beats rugby (not that any statistic is really meaningful). Not able to do it in viewership or attendance or anything, he's gone on to ad revenue. Fine. Per game the NFL season likely beats just about every other major sport in this measure (though you're still not using good figures, Rob). I don't know what he hopes to accomplish from this except show some numbers that benefit his side.
As for what sports reflect American mentality, it's hard to say. Football does have short spans of intense action, often followed by longer periods of nothing, but I don't know how relevant that is. Personally, I'd take that over the last World Cup final, which was 90 minutes of guys kicking a ball back and forth, never once getting it where they wanted it to go. Basketball, however, is quite different than either. The action doesn't stop after a 10 second play, but they score so often it's impossible to get excited when they do. I guess I like sports where the teams score every now and then, but not so often that it's boring. That's why the only sports I ever watch are American football or baseball (neither very often, and the latter very rarely indeed). And put in the the column of people dumbfounded by a game going on for 5 days and ending in a draw. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Who. The. Fuck. Cares.[edit]

How is this relevant to anything? Osaka Sun (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Goodpost.gif Rennie McGreet (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

[view] [edit]

Rugby World Cup 2011

Think Richie's a cheat? Bakkies is dirty? The Poms are boring? Then this is the page to get talk about the rugby.

We have a few Kiwis, Aussies, Saffers and Poms on here so hopefully we can get a bit of banter going.

I have predicted All Black victories for the last 5 world cups and that hasn't gone so well, so perhaps I'll keep my predictions to myself this year.


Looking bloody good against a pretty good French team. As did Romania against Scotland earlier. What a magnificent start to the world cup. its 25-18 to France 12 mins into the second half. --DamoHi 07:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Not that the minnows will ever win, but it's good to see the gap closing. Gone are the days of the All Blacks putting 150 points past Japan. Wales played their hearts out and were unlucky Hook left his kicking boots at home. Any bets on an All Black - Wallaby final? (Sad to say, but the Boks won't get past the semis, if that far) --PsyGremlinFale! 14:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
On current form you should beat the Aussies in the quarters. Might be tough against us in the semis but you never know. --DamoHi 22:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


Sadly I doubt they'll get very far this world cup. Very scrappy play, giving away too many penalties, and Johnny seems to have lost his ability to kick. They're also still relying too much on pick up and drive rather than having a player hitting the ball at pace while going down the line, which is odd considering that on the rare occasions they do actually do this they either make loads of ground or get a try. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 12:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you know...[edit]

It's fucking awesome to have a wife who loves rugby as much (if not more) than you :) CrundyTalk nerdy to me 21:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Awww~ That's awesome. :D --Dumpling (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
It fucking would be. How would I meet such a wife? Mine is Ok though, she understands my needs for the sole possession of the TV at certain key times and my need to occasionally make away trips (and the necessity of the "what goes on tour" rule. --DamoHi 02:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Mine sits ariound drinking in her Springboks shirt whenever they play (she is a saffa) and we watch every game the SA's or AB's play. She loves it. Aceace 02:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
16th October should for interesting for you two if the boks beat the auzzies then. I can't imagine the kiwis losing to the argies (did I use enough country nicknames there?) CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Quarter Finals[edit]

3 of the 4 QF's are too close to call. So I'll call them anyway.

  • Springboks to beat Wallabies
  • Poms to beat Frogs
  • Dragons to beat Shamrocks
  • All Blacks to beat Pumas

Wouldn't put any substantial money on any of these aside from the AB's, but at $1.03 why would you? DamoHi 08:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The England France game will be close I think. England really need to sort their kicking out. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 15:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Given that the Aussies' loss to the Irish means you've got the Boks, ABs and Wallabies in one half, I'm going to put my head on the block and say that the other finalist will come from the winner of the Wales v Ireland game. That either England or France will make the semis is a travesty - they have both played absolutely awful rugby. SA v Wales final would make me happy, but it's not going to happen. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 15:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
If England don't get through, I'd love to see another home nation lift the trophy. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

My worst nightmare[edit]

(Moved from SB)

That's three world cups in a row England and France have clashed in the knock-out stages and the two previous times I've had to celebrate victory while consoling my wife. Come on lads, you can do it! Ajkgordon (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm Welsh, so I'm busy working myself into a frenzy of worry about our game against the Irish tomorrow morning. That's going to be a good one I hope, but I'm buggered if I can predict who's going to win it. Wales I hope! As to the England-France match I'm still wondering what happened to the French team, who appear to have fallen apart like one of BillO's Faux News flunkies when confronted with an articulate and educated person. Why are the French being so unpredictable dammmit???? Darkmind1970 (talk) 13:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
French are unpredictable shock. They're at their most dangerous now. They could sweep England aside knowing them like they did to the ABs last time. But I don't think they will. England by 6 points. I'll miss most of the Wales-Ireland match as I'm having to drive the Olds to the airport but it looks like potentially the best match in the quarters. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


I thought this was going to be close. England soon going home I fear.CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

And just as I say that England score a try :) CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Watching it......sorry Crundy....Aceace 08:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Typical - France decide this is the day they'll play rugby. Still, I'm happy - Wales were very, very good this morning. Altho Ireland's tackling left much to be desired. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 08:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Ireland just kept fumbling the ball. Wales defense was spot on though. Aceace 09:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
God, I was convinced that the Wales-Ireland match was in squeaky bum time after the break - and then the boys came right back and scored those tries! Great way to start the day! As for the England-France match, you're right Psygremlin, it was very typical of the sodding French. All the same, the English didn't do themselves any favours playing like that. I can't understand Johnson's thinking at all - Flood and Wilkinson hadn't played together in those positions for 18 months, no wonder they barely knew what to do. What price Johnson's position now? Darkmind1970 (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I guess it shows that great players cannot instantly become great coaches. England looked awful all tournament. They were a bit lucky to squeak past Argentina and Scotland. Today they came up against a team that turned the early pressure into points and England got too far behind to come back. Sorry Crundy, but England were very average for large periods tonight, they played well below their abilities given their talent. I blame Johnson. The Welsh on the other hand looked bloody good. DamoHi 19:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I'm not surprised England went out. Even the most basic skills (esp passing) seemed to escape them. Well, I think I'll support Wales now. Go the taffies! CrundyTalk nerdy to me 16:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, go Taffs! My lad was devastated by England's loss though - Wilco is his hero. I'm not sure he'll be able to support France in the semis even though he's half French. He had a great tour to Wales a couple of years ago and took a shine to them. I think that the quarters was France's One Big Game and they'll fold in the semis. With the way Wales are playing at the moment, it could be a fascinating final against the ABs. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


.....................watching Australia v Sth Africa? Oz leads 8-3 at the break. A scrappy game. RagTopGone sailing 05:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

AUSTRALIA!!! --Horace (talk) 06:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. I think they're going to get beat next game though :) Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 06:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Quite frankly, that has to be the worst refereeing I have ever seen in my life. Hands in ruck, front row popping up, disallowed try for a legal pass. If I didn't know better, I'd say that ref had been paid to fix the match. Fucking disgusting effort. I hope (and this is the only time in my life I'll cheer for the All Blacks) the ABs grind those cheating sheep-shagging sons of convicts into dust. Well played, Argentina, who had the heart, but not the stamina. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 09:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Your team sucked. But your other team won against Ireland. Aceace 09:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Just as long as your blokes don't choke against those bastards. --PsyGremlinTal! 10:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, the Pumas showed that the ABs aren't as unstoppable as everyone might have thought - that final score of 31-10 flattered the ABs quite a bit. ABs - Wallabies should be interesting. I'm busy wondering which French team will turn up against us. Will it be the majestic runners or the shambling fuckwits? Jesus - there's a chance that Wales could make the final. When did I slip into an alternate reality? I'm bloody delighted but a tad bemused. Darkmind1970 (talk) 10:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad I'm not the only one who spotted all those hands in the rucks and thought "WTF?". I did think the pass was forward for the disallowed try though. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 16:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
And to add to the general "what the fuck is going on with the English", Tuilagi has been nicked by the Kiwi rozzers for jumping off a ferry and swimming to a nearby pier. Well that's... bizarre.Darkmind1970 (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh yeah, bizzare. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 09:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

All Blacks Downfall[edit]

Here RagTopGone sailing 01:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I wonder if the ABs will make it, or if they'll choke yet again? They should make it, but with their third choice flyhalf and McCaw's dodgy foot... I've got a funny feeling about Sunday's match. Mind you it might just be gas - I'm feckin' terrified ahead of our match with the Frogs. Darkmind1970 (talk) 12:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm really hoping for a Wales v NZ final. Would be epic. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 22:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
That'd be awesome though I am predicting an All Blacks vs. France final. Aceace 22:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Don't forget that the Wallabies beat the All Blacks twice (home & away) in August to take the Bledisloe Cup & the Tri-nations. I wouldn't write them off so lightly. Wallabies v France in the final. RagTopGone sailing 01:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Um, what? The Wallabies beat us ONCE in August and the Bledisloe cup is safe at home at NZRU headquarters for another year. DamoHi 08:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Wales v France[edit]

Woah! Captain red carded! CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

fuckfuckfuck Warburton fuckfuckfuck Hook. Red card was a bit harsh, wasn't an intentional spear, should have been a yellow. Another game fucked up by the ref. For gawd's sake, take that fucking Hook off the field and get Jones on. --PsyGremlinHable! 08:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah man, red card was way harsh eh. Aceace 08:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Very harsh. Defo should have been yellow. Doesn't seem to have affected Wales thus far though. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

W00t! go the taffies! CrundyTalk nerdy to me 09:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Shit man, they really want it... Aceace 09:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Bah, such a close kick. Aceace 09:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Fucks sake. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 09:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
All Blacks vs France final? Aceace 09:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah well, Wales threw that away - 11 missed points with the boot. But for France to remain scoreless in the 2nd half against 14 men - I've never seen a team so undeserving to be in a world cup final. They look awful. Whoever wins tomorrow wins the cup. (Ironcially AB v F were the teams for the 1st WC final, that the AB won) --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 09:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Red card[edit]

I am a referee and that red card was an obvious one. Not even an issue. If you lift a player up so his legs go beyond the horizontal you need to be absolutely sure he is let down gently. If you drop him you should be sent off every time. The guidelines surrounding tip tackles have been around for 2 years now. The ref knew it and Warburton should have known it to. No issues at all with the RC, probably he is lucky to only get a 3 week ban. If you get tackles like that even slightly wrong people can spend the rest of their lives in a wheelchair. DamoHi 05:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you still think it would have been a red if he asked the video ref? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Well I'm not sure what he would ask the TMO about, given that the TMO can't rule on foul play (except in the in-goal - and even then only to make a ruling on try/no try/penalty try. There is a myth going around that he could have asked the video ref, dunno who started it, but it is totally bogus. He could have spoken to his AR's (touchies) but he looked pretty certain in his mind that it was a RC.
One of the things you learn as a ref is that you feel a red card in your gut. You see it and you know instinctively whether its a red or just a yellow. Rolland obviously felt it. Watching it live I felt it too and screamed "Red card" at the screen in the pub I was in. To be honest if it wasn't a semi final of a WC there would be no discussion. If you don't believe me I could drag up plenty of similar cases at provincial level where a RC was given. DamoHi 08:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm just not convinced that there was any malice in his action. If it was an accident and he didn't think in time to put him down safely then it should have been a sin bin. If he picked him up and deliberately slammed him into the ground then it should have been a red card. I don't doubt that the action was dangerous, I just doubt that in the circumstances and in a semi final he should have been sent off. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
It may be that the IRB will look into the issue of red cards, perhaps something like 20 minutes with 14 players and then he can be replaced might be a good compromise. Whilst I agree that there probably was no malice, he chose to lift him up, and once you make that call you are on very thin ice. When you think about it, many people scream for a red card for say a stomp to the head or a sucker punch from behind. Whilst those actions look ugly, they are unlikely to actually kill or paralyse a person. In NZ alone on average one person is paralysed every year from a tackle just like that. I imagine the stats in other countries would be similar. DamoHi 09:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

NZ v Oz[edit]

Bit of a fuck up from australia before they even got started.CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

fuck me. All blacks really need to sort their kicking out. They should be 38 - 6 up at the moment. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 09:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
What happened? Missed the start. Nice to see the Aussies finally getting penalised for cheating at the ruck. NZ def need a decent kicker. Ironically, we have exactly the same games as in 1987 - NZ v F final, Aus v Wales 3rd place. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 09:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Australia did the first kick off, but their kicker punted it straight into touch, so from their kick off the game started with nz having a scrum on the half way line. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 09:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I was there. It was awesome! Crowd started chanting "4 more years, 4 more years" towards the end. Take that Georgie boy! DamoHi 05:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I liked the following chant: Your next queen is Camilla Parker Bowles, Camilla Parker Bowles, Camilla Parker Bowles... larronsicut fur in nocte 06:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Not quite as worrying as the fact our next king will be Charles *shudder* CrundyTalk nerdy to me 07:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Aus v Wales[edit]

Fuck fuck fuckity fuck. If only Wales had taken a fucking kicker to the world cup. Fuck. All 3 games they lost was because they couldn't kick for shit. Fuck. --PsyGremlin講話 16:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You support Wales, or just anyone playing Australia? Agree about the kicking though. Terrible all throughout the cup. I reckon Halfpenny should have been given more of a go, he was given all the hard long ones and did ok all things considered. --DamoHi 21:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


Bit dull so far. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 09:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Not any more :O -- Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 09:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah true. France have really upped their game today. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 09:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Phew! Close but I'm glad nz won. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 09:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Phew. French played bloody well. Good on them. Not quite enough though this time. Fancy winning a world cup with your 4th string first V? (And a guy who was fishing for whitebait 10 days ago). --DamoHi 10:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Any Runners out there?

Cause I think I spend too much time running.--Hi! (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Impossible to spend too much time running, unless I guess you're running from something!
I used to run a lot, but now I barely do at all. I got really into barefoot running last year, but I don't have the time for it now. It's a shame.
What do you do for a run?--ADtalkModerator 00:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Former cross country guy here, don't run as much as I like but still doing a few miles a week. Тytalk 00:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I did cross country and track in high school. Hopefully it'll continue in college. SoCal But said it would be legal... 01:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I`m a highschool runner myself. I`m a year away from being in the same boat as you, Socal. I do a bit of everything to train, but I live around a few good size hills, so that definitely impacts how I train. I`m just kinda itching for the first race of the year right now.Hi! (talk) 06:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Impossible, I agree. Never did track or anything like that, though. I just like to run. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
@Hi, what are your PRs? SoCal But said it would be legal... 21:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
1500m: 4:43, 1600m: 5:03, 3000m (Track): 9:50, 5000m (XC): 17:44. I`m in Oregon, so we don`t do the 1600/3200 for the most part. I`m hoping this will be a lifelong thing for me. After college I`ll probably start doing marathons and 50 milers. I don`t have nearly enough speed for anything shorter than a 3k so I`m hoping my above-average endurance will make me a decent marathoner.
What are your PRs Socal? --DurbinatorExperimenting with my sig! 06:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Good for you. It's a bit different here in California, and I wish you luck this year (Oregon's a good place for distance running).
I did 2:07 for the 800, 4:33 for 1600, 9:54 for 3200, and 15:24 for 3 miles. That converts to about 4:13 for 1500, 9:13 for 3000, and 15:56 for 5K if that helps. SoCal But said it would be legal... 19:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Those are some good PR`s. I really am lucky to live in the Portland area. My HS is close enough to the Nike world HQ that we can go running there whenever we want. I`ve even seen Galen Rupp a few times when I`m out for runs. --DurbinatorThe truth has a liberal bias! 20:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
That's pretty awesome. Sounds like you're at the center of it all. SoCal But said it would be legal... 01:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
[view] [edit]


Does anybody here like soccer? just a question, as I would like to debate with people.

I like soccer. I only follow it when I'm in France, however. What is it you wish to debate, anyways?--"Shut up, Brx." 04:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm from Germany so I pretty much got it written in my DNA. --ʤɱ secularist 22:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I hate soccer. I love football though. What the fuck is "soccer"? SJ Debaser 22:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
The Beautiful Game is true football. what's to debate? LowKey (talk) 02:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Todays football exists because of a few reasons. 1. Money, 2. Enternainment, 3. Money, 4. Patriotism 5. Money and 6. Money. Overpaid players cry over little cramps or an opponent grazing their ankle. "Oldschool" football players even played with pulled hamstrings or a bleeding nose. It´s sad, that the image of the modern football is so damaged because of pussy-players like Christiano Ronaldo or Neymar. Another problem in modern football is corruption. "Extrapaid" referees manipulating games because other people making even more money with bets. Why don´t we all become adults and worship this beautiful game? Why does the world today make everything so complicated? It´s my opinion so correct me, if I´m wrong. Traverella 15:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
So, when A.F.C. Fylde play F.C. United Of Manchester - and a great match it was too - in the Conference North in front of 400 spectators it's about money? And all those semi-pros are overpaid? There is a great deal more to footie than the Prem or La Liga or Serie A or whatever. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually, seriously, Traverella, go find your nearest lower league team. OK, so the skill level won't be the best but you'll pay a lot less to get involved, the welcome will be warmer and you can get behind a team where you actually know the players most of whom are locals and are playing for local pride. And when Man U win something it's just another win. When my local team win something it's something special. In the recent cup match of AFC Wimbledon against Liverpool sure, Liverpool won but I would have preferred to be a Wimbledon supporter that night. And when lowly Bradford beat Chelsea at Stamford Bridge.... And the Bradford players aren't on super star wages. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I like soccer but I never to watch.

Redbull horns (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

But the FCB is club greated? :)

Redbull horns (talk) 06:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

[view] [edit]

2010 "World" Series

Wow, this second game has blown wide open! From 2-0 to 9-0 in one inning with two outs hanging over the Giants. Making it really easy for their closers even if they don't get the shut out. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

NY residents abstaining from this discussion[edit]

  • I don't care about this World Series. Fucking Texas Rangers. Blue Talk 03:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The path to the MLB championship always goes through New York, as they say. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Game 3[edit]

Saturday in Texas. See you then. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This should be interesting. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Ew, I just threw up in my mouth a little, they showed GW & Laura behind the on-deck circle. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Pi's pathetic opinion[edit]

I just got back from San Francisco and this was all they were talking about there. Go Giants! On a side note, all my clothes smell like pot and I didn't even smoke the stuff. - π 03:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Woohoo, contact high? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe that is why I enjoyed it so much. I am glad I was not randomly selected for the drug scan thing they do these days, I would not have passed. - π 04:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Excellent, that is the best one can hope for, on both sides! SF bases balls fans are euphoric tonight, of course, one probably wouldn't even need drugs to get a contact high. The Rangers' bullpen came out slow and sluggish, and the Giants took full advantage. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I went to have one last beer in my favorite bar in San Fran on the night of the first game. I only managed to get serve because I stood at the spot of the bar where you could not see the screen. I couldn't stay to the end but the nice security guy at the airport told me the score. - π 05:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

"World" Series[edit]

World cup (football) - 204 teams from across every part of the world
World Series (baseball) - All teams from North America
Just saying. Jack Hughes (talk) 09:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
No kidding, why do you think I put it in scare quotes? ħumanUser talk:Human 22:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Game 5[edit]

This is what game 1 was supposed to be, a pitching duel between two aces. I call for the Rangers to score in the 8th and win with a 1-0 or 2-0 shutout. Predictions are so easy to make! ħumanUser talk:Human 01:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I was very wrong, 3-0 in the 7th, Giants getting closer to the prize... ħumanUser talk:Human 01:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Talking to myself here... well, the queers beat the steers. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

2010 Predictions

Time to nail your colours (or colors if you will) to the mast and say who's going to win the 2010 Football (that's soccer to you Merkins) World Cup.

Côte D'Ivoire0Vote
New Zealand0Vote
North Korea1Vote
South Africa0Vote
South Korea0Vote
World What?5Vote

Martin's world cup predictions[edit]

  • 1990:Netherlands to win (reached second round)
  • 1994:Mexico to win (reached second round)
  • 1998:Spain to win (out first round)
  • 2002:Argentina to win (out first round)
  • 2006:Gave up predicting world cup winners. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Is this even possible?

In the light of recent trollary I have been spending times hanging out on sports forums and a question came to mind - is it even possible to have a rational discussion about sports? If the forum involves fans of different teams, reality denial takes place. I am not talking just about people I disagree with because they support a different team, there are people that claim their team that went 1-15 this season are on the way to the Super Bowl next year, in complete defiance on anything that has ever been recorded before. Fans of the same team are worse. They are will fight over who should be on the team, give each other nicknames that imply they are gay when they disagree and they all seem to think you can trade a third round draft pick for another teams better starting quarterback. So basically is there any point to RationalWiki having a sport forum or is it inherently irrational? - π 07:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the harm in having one, as long as people realise that like religion and politics, no amount of verbage is going to make you change teams. Especially those loyal supporters of clubs, who follow them through thick and thin (Nottingham Forest back in the Premier league next year! Me and St Brian are so proud). I think there's plenty of room for general discussion, as long as you can look past the ABUs (Anyone But United). --PsygremlinParlez! 10:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
But sports are far more important than politics or religion. - π 10:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Abso-damn-lutely! Besides, I'm not going to spend 4 hours in a pub cheering on Prime Minister's question time. --PsygremlinTala! 10:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


I am a big cricket fan - unfortunately the NZ team is suck ass. Lets make fun of them and then turn around and call Ricky Ponting a cunt. Acei9 08:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Exactly my point. We could talk about cricket, but how long until one of us brings up the underarm bowl and a flame war breaks out about cricket match that took place thirty years ago?- π 08:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
That was a fucking tragedy! You godamn cheats. Acei9 08:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
They told the referee that they were going to bowl underarm and he informed the batter, all according to the rules. - π 08:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Those were not the international rules, only the Aussie ruls which hadn't been updated by you backward mutants. Poor, very poor, sportsmanship. Acei9 08:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
You can change bowling style during an over so long as you tell the referee. Underarm is a bowling style. - π 08:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Educate your fine self.... Disgraceful. Acei9 08:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
End of the month, I am on dial up speeds. What is it about? - π 08:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
It is wikipedia. If you wanna get technical about "the rules" then the bowl itself was a NO-BALL. Acei9 08:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I thought it was a YouTube video. - π 08:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I did post the offending over from youtube but changed when I saw you were on dailup. Acei9 08:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
The article says it was legal. Besides it was hittable hence therefore it was not a no ball. - π 08:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
It was a no-ball because there were too many inside the circle. Acei9 09:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
The citation for that is Channel 9's commentary. Channel 9 is less reliable than the National Enquirer and even Conservapedia. - π 09:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Now you are just being a poor sportsman again :-)......Funniest cricket moment I ever had was at Lords. Went to go get some cash out from the machine and found some poor hapless drunk complaining he'd been standing in the sun getting heat stroke, missing the England/Pakistan match, for over 20 mins because he couldn't get his card out from the machine. I introduced him to the concept of "pulling". Acei9 09:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah cricket drunks. I don't care for the sport much really, but this is more fun than thinking about the trolls. My favourite cricket story was when Pollock was bowling to Ponting and he had missed a few balls in a row. Pollock walks up to him and goes "It's red, round & weighs about 5 ounces, try to hit it". Next bowl Ponting hits it clean out of the oval over the stand. Ponting yells out "Shaun knows what it looks like, he can find it". - π 09:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Bahahahahahahahaha....that is fucking funny. Acei9 09:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
My second favourite I can't remember the guy involved. Every source in the internet seems to attribute this too Eddie Brandes, although I have never heard of him and he doesn't have Wikipedia page. Glenn McGrath was bowling but he couldn't get the number 11 out to finish the match up. He walks up to him and goes "Eddie, why are you so fat"? He turns around to him and goes "Because every time I fuck your wife she gives me a biscuit". - π 09:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully back on topic[edit]

All Your hope are belong to us --Opcn (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)