How can the New Orleans Saints genuinely call themselves world champions?
- Thread starter ed007
- Start date
PlasmaTwa2
The Second-Hottest Man in my Mother's Basement
Well, I get where you are coming from, but to me it is just a question of skill. Any team in the NFL will be superior to another team, and I see how at least playing the European champion would make them seem like world champions, but the problem is that the European team will be outmatched in every aspect.
Think of the FIFA World Cup. There might be a hundred teams trying to win the World Cup, but only sixteen(?) actually make it to the World Cup. Other teams - of lesser skill - do not get the chance to play for the Cup, even though those teams may be made of professionals, too. In the IIHF World Championship, only a certain amount of teams make it to the actual championship; the rest play in lower divisions because they simply cannot compete with teams like Canada and Russia.
The idea is logical, but I think it isn't very practical. If the teams were more even matched, then yes, they should have to play each other to decide the world champion. As it stands now, the NFL is miles ahead in skill, despite the Europe league having professionals as well. On top of this, if a European player is really skilled in the game, he will not stay in Europe; he will go to the NFL where the best in the world play.
This is why I like the NHL. Whichever team wins the Stanley Cup does not call themselves the world champion. There have been talks to hold a championship game between the best in Europe and the NHL, in fact. The only team I would ever call "world champions" out of any league would be the 1976 Philadelphia Flyers; as far as I know they are the only club to beat what was effectively the club version of the best team in the world - CSKA Moscow.
Both sides have arguments, and I think this comes down to personal opinion. In skill, the Saints are undoubtedly the world champions; they are the best team in their sport, and they don`t have to beat a European team to say that. On the other hand, I can see how some people say they aren`t true world champions unless they beat an international team.
Lungzyn
Die For Me
Pretty much :glugglug:
ChefChiTown
The secret ingredient? MY BALLS
No, I'm not talking about participating countries in each and every individual sporting even that's held in the Olympics. What I meant was that sports like swimming, curling and bobsledding (for example) aren't nearly as popular as soccer. Soccer is THE most popular sport in the entire world, which is why so many countries participate in worldwide competition. But, how many countries participate in worldwide bowling competition? Or figure skating? Or synchronized swimming?
Other than the FIFA tournament that Greg pointed out, what event is larger than the Olympics though? I mean, people are arguing that the US can't call its NFL champions "World Champions" because the whole world isn't represented in competition. Well, that's the case for 99% of tournaments that hold some sort of "World Championship", but nobody has a problem with the winners of those tournaments being crowned as World Champions. So, if those tournaments can call their champions "WORLD Champions", then so can the NFL. The principal is the same, no matter how you look at it.
:2 cents:
How would a 93-0 blowout against a European football team legitimize the Saints' title of "World Champions"...??? All that would do is just change peoples arguments of why the Super Bowl champions shouldn't be called World Champions.
"So, they beat a European football team. So what? It's not like the Europeans had a chance of winning anyway. Just because they beat a crappy team, it still doesn't make them World Champions. Blah blah blah."
People want to bitch about this because it happens in the US. It's really that simple.
As for the MLB question about where the line should be drawn...
It should be drawn by whomever controls and dominates a sport. Since Americans are the only country that play American style football, therefore making us dominant at the sport, then we control it. Other countries don't have the resources and/or desire to play American style football, so if their citizens want to play professionally, they have to come to the US in order to do so. Because we control the sport. And, since we control the sport, we control it globally. Therefore, when our NFL champion is crowned, they are WORLD Champions.
Now, if you want to talk about the MLB, then it gets kind of sketchy because there are plenty of other countries where baseball is more popular. You could also argue the same for the NBA and the NHL. But, not with the NFL. The NFL has all of the world class football players from all over the world. Yet another reason why they can call their champions World Champions.
Technically, they cant. But its not like the Montreal Alouettes are gonna swoop in and beat the Saints.
Two different games. Different size field and different rules. So both the Super Bowl Champs and the Grey Cup Champs can lay claim to being "World Champs" for that particular brand of football. Unless you played with some bastardized hybrid rules you couldn't even have a game, and even then neither team would be able to claim anything because they would not be playing their style of football.
Lungzyn
Die For Me
My thoughts were that in the NFL the only country involved is the US.
I just think a world championship should be open to every country/league. Not necessarily that every country should be entered into it, since that is impossible. I think if they have a team which meets some qualifying criteria, they should be allowed to participate. This can still lead to huge mismatches however. I'll use the Rugby World Cup of 2007 as an example. I support New Zealand, who were in a pool group with teams that had virtually no chance of winning. NZ beat :
Italy, 76-14
Portugal, 108-13
Scotland, 40-0
All complete blowouts. But at least the other teams had a chance to compete. That's what I'm used to, so when this NFL situation comes up, I feel a bit irked. Thats just me.
I understand that American Football is unique in the fact that there is gigantic gap in skill level and national interest between one country(USA) and the rest of the world, probably more than any other sport in the world(Like I said before, Australian Rules Football is the only similar sport I can think of, but it probably doesnt compare even still to the same extent)
I almost agree with you, but theres this little 2% where I cant share the view.
There's an image in my mind of what a world champion is, and its hard to fit an American team winning an American competition into that image. I would just want them to play a club outside of their own competition. If at the start of the season you say, 'this competition will decide the greatest team on the planet. Oh, and only NFL teams are allowed to play.' It makes me wonder how other teams would do. Sure they are likely to get hammered, but for me that is part of the process. Say the winner of each leagues respective competition got together and played each other. Thats how a club world championship would work for me.
New Zealand could have told Portugal, " We're not playing you, you dont deserve to be on the same field as us :thefinger". But they didnt. They played them and beat them. I would like that process to happen with American Football, but perhaps its not realistic. Victories of that kind are probably meaningless. Even so, it wont stop me thinking the way I do.
The process is the most important part for me, above anything else. Even if the results make the competition look like a joke. Its unfortunate, but thats just the way it goes.
Honestly, I wouldnt think like that. It would at least go some of the way to giving me the validation that I'm used to. I wouldnt have any problem calling them world champions if they beat the next best non-NFL team.
Thats specifically where this causes confusion for me I think. Who, besides an NFL winner, can claim to be so dominant that they deserve to be called world champions by winning a domestic competition? I cant think of any at all these days. You kind of said that in the rest of the post. The US is the be all and end all of American Football, they arent wrong in saying they are the best in the world, but 'world champion' means something different to me.
Same words, different meaning in my opinion.
I'm not saying you're wrong, and I'm not saying I'm right.
habo9
Banned
We are not saying Saints are not the best in the world , all we are saying is they cant claim the title "World Champions" until they play other teams from around the world , upsets and shocks happen all over sport where the underdog wins
How hard is it for Americans to grasp this concept?
How hard is it for Americans to grasp this concept?
ed007
Banned
:hatsoff::hatsoff:
:dunno:
I'm going to try again one last time and if it doesn't work I give up. :1orglaugh
Ace Boobtoucher
Founder and Captain of the Douchepatrol
While other countries often field teams to play football most of their players are not experienced enough to even dream of competing against even the most pathetic NFL teams.
In the early years of professional football several college All-star teams would play against the league champions...........and lose miserably. I've seen the All-Japanese team play a game against Notre Dame alumni (the oldest ND graduate was 50!) and they got smoked.
I imagine if you put some pads on Stirling Morlock or some other world class Rugger and taught them a few basic plays and technique, that they would be fair or poor football prospects. Conversely, If you put Drew Brees in a rugby match, he'd probably get mauled.......er, annihilated.
This argument is pointless in the end. It's like asking which Star Wars movie is the best (episode IV) and expecting an unbiased answer. Suffice it to say, until the rest of the world produces American Football on a par with the NFL and elite universities, there will never be a challenger (see Vince McMahon's retarded stepchild, the XFL).
That question aside, if I see someone wearing Saints gear or hear anyone say "who dat?" while working I have permission to hit them with my collapsible baton and/or pepper spray. Well implied approval, anyway. If it is actually Reggie Bush, I have express permission to bust a cap at him.
In the early years of professional football several college All-star teams would play against the league champions...........and lose miserably. I've seen the All-Japanese team play a game against Notre Dame alumni (the oldest ND graduate was 50!) and they got smoked.
I imagine if you put some pads on Stirling Morlock or some other world class Rugger and taught them a few basic plays and technique, that they would be fair or poor football prospects. Conversely, If you put Drew Brees in a rugby match, he'd probably get mauled.......er, annihilated.
This argument is pointless in the end. It's like asking which Star Wars movie is the best (episode IV) and expecting an unbiased answer. Suffice it to say, until the rest of the world produces American Football on a par with the NFL and elite universities, there will never be a challenger (see Vince McMahon's retarded stepchild, the XFL).
That question aside, if I see someone wearing Saints gear or hear anyone say "who dat?" while working I have permission to hit them with my collapsible baton and/or pepper spray. Well implied approval, anyway. If it is actually Reggie Bush, I have express permission to bust a cap at him.
ed007
Banned
Hello!! :wave2: It was a joke. :rofl: :rofl:
It's just a joke about the most powerful country in the "world" at this point in time. Whilst searching for a funny pic to post I also found some pictures making a joke about 9/11 but I didn't post them for two reasons:
1. I don't think 9/11 was funny
2. Civility's sake
I'm 100% sure many people including some Americans had a good laugh at this joke. That's all it is a joke. It's good to be able to laugh at youself sometimes. Why don't you give it a try? Oh, you are too busy trying to make out what a lovely caring fellow you are whilst in reality you spend your time picking fights with women. :rofl:
Whilst I respect the fact that we both joined this fine board in Oct 2006:lovecoupl and I also respect the fact that you speak what's on your mind I think I'll pass on the idea of taking advice on civility from you.
You know him well. :glugglug: :rofl:
ed007
Banned
Now this is really funny, ChefChiTown. :rofl:
This is probably my favourite post in this thread. :1orglaugh
"Some" of your posts make me laugh but not because
I think they are funny. They make me laugh in a strange
I can't quite believe what I'm reading
kind of way.I hope that makes sense. I will reply to the post above in much
more detail later.
Ace Boobtoucher
Founder and Captain of the Douchepatrol
You don't need to go into great detail. Olympic Champions are called just that. Individual sports have world championships separate from the Olympics, i.e. the World Cup Events or just plain old World Championships for wrestling, track and field etc. etc.
ChefChiTown
The secret ingredient? MY BALLS
The NFL is currently attempting to expand itself and it make itself a global product. The NFL has previously entertained offers from both Canadian cities and Mexican cities to house NFL teams and make them their own. Yes, it's the National Football League, but it's not denying any country the opportunity to take part in the league as well. In fact, it's doing the opposite.
And, here's something to think about...
The NCAA has National Championships. For instance, in NCAA football, the winner of the BCS Championship is considered National Champions. But, the NCAA isn't the only collegiate league in the United States, so why should they get to call their champions the National Champions? Since there are more than one collegiate leagues in the United States, can any of them really call their champions National Champions?
And, not only are there collegiate leagues other than NCAA, but there are also other divisions other than Div 1 schools that have a zero percent chance of becoming National Champions within the NCAA, no matter how good they may be. Even though there are Div 1, Div 2 and Div 3 schools within the NCAA, only Div 1 schools have the capability of winning the National Championship. So, since the opportunity isn't open to all teams in the US, can the NCAA really call it's champions National Champions?
:2 cents:
Try picturing it this way...
For the most part, in worldwide competition (where multiple countries face off against one another in a particular sport) each country's team is made up of local citizens; men and women that actually come from and live in that particular country. Are there exceptions? Yes. But, for the most part, each country participates with it's own countrymen and countrywomen.
In American leagues, we don't just put nothing but Americans out on the field. Our teams have players who are arguably the best in the world, coming from all parts of the world. For instance (and don't quote me on the exact number here), but the last time I heard, Major League Baseball has over 35% of it's players coming from foreign countries. So, even though it is an American league, you can see how much of a global participation is really being had.
And, I absolutely HATE using Wikipedia as a source, but it's the only place I could find a well established list of foreign players that are playing on American soil in their respective sport.
List Of Foreign NBA Players
List Of Foreign MLB Players
So, as you can see, just because a league is being held in America, it doesn't mean that there isn't global diversity or global competition involved. In fact, a lot of the best players in the world come to the US in order to play their respective sport. And, if the best in the world are playing here, why can't we call our champions World Champions? :dunno:
So, if you're not arguing that they're the best in the world, why argue that they aren't World Champions? Call me crazy, but isn't being the best in the world the exact qualification for being a World Champion? :dunno:
Do they have to beat every single football team in the world in order to make that title acceptable to you? Because, they beat every single football team in the world, no matter how you want to look at it. It just so happens that all of the football teams play in the NFL. Yes, there are other football leagues (Australian rules, Canadian rules, etc) but American football can only be found here in America.
So, what's your argument now? Do you want other countries to put together rag tag teams (with no chance of winning) to compete against NFL clubs, just for the sake of being able to say that the Saints played football teams outside of the US?
nightwanker
Proud first owner of FreeOnes Playing Cards
@ all
The difference is: World Championships in Football/Soccer, Hockey and what ever are all about qualification.
Qualification makes the big difference in view of sports.
You don't have to play every other team/nation, but you have to win a tournament, where you have to qualify against a choice of some and then later beat other teams that qualified against others. In the end your team has won against the only other team etc.
That sounds of course just like Super Bowl, but for Europeans or nearly everyone else in the world, except for North America, there is a lack of "Promotion and relegation".
You could say the legitimation.
Alright, you say "NFL", "MLB", "NBA", "NHL" are the best players in the world. And that maybe right. But there is no official prove.
Europeans and others love unions, organizations (in sports!) - simply "Promotion and relegation", because everybody - every team - has the chance to reach the top. In North America it's not every team that can reach the top, but (in theory; you know there is this draft thing etc) every player. It's simply a different view.
The winner of the Uefa Champions League would never call itself Champion of the World. Only "Best Club Team in Europe". Even if they win against the best team from South America, North America, Asia, Africa... they are not the champions of the world - more like "FIFA Club World Cup Winners".
In our view the title "World Champion" is for national teams that have won tournaments with every nation playing the game taking part - with there best players.
Btw another great difference is, that the Trophy for the winning team is given to the teams captain, not to the teams owner...
___
Why isn't soccer that popular in the USA?
http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?p=1697669
The difference is: World Championships in Football/Soccer, Hockey and what ever are all about qualification.
Qualification makes the big difference in view of sports.
You don't have to play every other team/nation, but you have to win a tournament, where you have to qualify against a choice of some and then later beat other teams that qualified against others. In the end your team has won against the only other team etc.
That sounds of course just like Super Bowl, but for Europeans or nearly everyone else in the world, except for North America, there is a lack of "Promotion and relegation".
You could say the legitimation.
Alright, you say "NFL", "MLB", "NBA", "NHL" are the best players in the world. And that maybe right. But there is no official prove.
Europeans and others love unions, organizations (in sports!) - simply "Promotion and relegation", because everybody - every team - has the chance to reach the top. In North America it's not every team that can reach the top, but (in theory; you know there is this draft thing etc) every player. It's simply a different view.
The winner of the Uefa Champions League would never call itself Champion of the World. Only "Best Club Team in Europe". Even if they win against the best team from South America, North America, Asia, Africa... they are not the champions of the world - more like "FIFA Club World Cup Winners".
In our view the title "World Champion" is for national teams that have won tournaments with every nation playing the game taking part - with there best players.
Btw another great difference is, that the Trophy for the winning team is given to the teams captain, not to the teams owner...
___
Why isn't soccer that popular in the USA?
http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?p=1697669
ChefChiTown
The secret ingredient? MY BALLS
So, the winners of the WORLD Cup aren't WORLD Champions? :dunno:
nightwanker
Proud first owner of FreeOnes Playing Cards
The winners of the World Cup are World Champions.
The winners of "FIFA Club World Cup" are more like "FIFA Club World Cup Winners".
This is the difference between Club-etc-Teams and Nationalteams.
Lungzyn
Die For Me
I was going to reply to some of this, but I dont really care enough anymore :dunno:
It's getting into technicalities which arent worth arguing over.
All I can say is that I respect your position, but I just have a different opinion.
Thank you, I'm moving on :hatsoff:
(this thread made me forget to watch House. I like that show :crying
mr google
Banned
I was going to reply to some of this, but I dont really care enough anymore :dunno:
It's getting into technicalities which arent worth arguing over.
All I can say is that I respect your position, but I just have a different opinion.
Thank you, I'm moving on :hatsoff:
(this thread made me forget to watch House. I like that show :crying
:rofl: :rofl:
Similar threads
