NFLPA to decertify Topic

Rugby tends to be more lateral, from what I understand. 

Also, who can forget the amount of players that are stationary and essentially targets to blast into, everyone in rugby is moving. And, dare I say, rugby players likely aren't selected for their ability to crush another player. 
3/13/2011 3:35 PM
Posted by leppykahn on 3/13/2011 3:35:00 PM (view original):
Rugby tends to be more lateral, from what I understand. 

Also, who can forget the amount of players that are stationary and essentially targets to blast into, everyone in rugby is moving. And, dare I say, rugby players likely aren't selected for their ability to crush another player. 
It is a little more lateral.

A bigger factor is high tackling is outlawed in rugby union and rugby league so there's a reduced number of head shots. You can still see some spectacular collisions but they don't tend to lead to concussions.
3/13/2011 3:58 PM
I thought this was a serious conversation about football, RUGBY? You got to be kidding me!
3/13/2011 4:06 PM
1. American football derived from rugby, thus lessons can be learned from where they diverged.
2. Rugby is a better game. No brainer.
3/13/2011 4:32 PM
Posted by deathinahole on 3/13/2011 4:32:00 PM (view original):
1. American football derived from rugby, thus lessons can be learned from where they diverged.
2. Rugby is a better game. No brainer.
1. Baseball was derived from cricket but I do not think you will see many cricket leagues here.

2. I would love to see that one put to a vote.
3/13/2011 4:51 PM
The vote would be swung by you minions sucked into the NFL media hype.
3/13/2011 5:29 PM
And, I don't see many people wringing their hands over the lifespan of baseball players.
3/13/2011 5:30 PM
Posted by deathinahole on 3/13/2011 5:30:00 PM (view original):
And, I don't see many people wringing their hands over the lifespan of baseball players.
What? How is that meaningful to the discussion?
3/13/2011 5:32 PM
Rugby - full lifespan.
American football - 20 yers less.

What's different? Same game at one time, what did football add that's causing this issue?

I'm pretty sure we know,, but knowing it and doing something about it are two different things.
3/13/2011 5:42 PM
Hows about pro wrestlers, they are lucky to be 25.
3/14/2011 8:14 AM
No one wants Football players to get $12 an hour. They are still going to get rich.

What we have now is a tax on the working class. Teams charge $50 for a ticket becuase they need the money to pay players.
3/14/2011 7:28 PM
What we have now is a situation where demand is high enough to charge 50 bucks a ticket, and teams even package that so that you are forced to buy a package, with a scrimmage, with ask all games at full price.

If you think the owners wouldn't t raise the prices every year because they have enough money, you are living a delusion.
3/14/2011 7:44 PM
Prices went up when players wanted higher salaries. There was no great increase when players salaries were controlled.
3/14/2011 7:59 PM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 3/14/2011 7:59:00 PM (view original):
Prices went up when players wanted higher salaries. There was no great increase when players salaries were controlled.
You ignorance of very basic economic concepts for a self-proclaimed conservative is appalling. Jesus wept.
3/14/2011 10:47 PM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 3/14/2011 7:59:00 PM (view original):
Prices went up when players wanted higher salaries. There was no great increase when players salaries were controlled.
Players salaries are controlled...it's called a salary cap. 
3/14/2011 11:01 PM
◂ Prev 1...3|4|5|6|7...9 Next ▸
NFLPA to decertify Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.