SOCCER - The Real Football
- Thread starter dennycrane
- Start date
nflnutswif
Member
Originally Posted by abethedog
I'm a huge football fan so don't group me with the soccers. But, Houston has some issues with team names. The Texans? At least they didn't go with the "Houstons." Toros seems like the obvious choice (sarcasm).
I actually like the "Houston Texans" - And it is WAY better than the runner up: "Apollos" YUK!
obviously in keeping with the (space theme)
I'm a huge football fan so don't group me with the soccers. But, Houston has some issues with team names. The Texans? At least they didn't go with the "Houstons." Toros seems like the obvious choice (sarcasm).
I actually like the "Houston Texans" - And it is WAY better than the runner up: "Apollos" YUK!
obviously in keeping with the (space theme)
dennycrane
Member
Originally Posted by ruaround
no comment Denny??? well NFL just gave it straight up...
BTW... There are several USA Companies that sponsor Soccer... i.e. Master Card, American Express, a couple of cell phone companies (that have european ties), ohhh and a little Company called McDonalds...maybe you have head of them...(there are more but why waste my time listin over 50 major companies) so to say there is no sponsorship from American companies is not right at all...
Yes, I have "head" of the companies you've mentioned. But a wasted point. I never said that "American" companies don't sponsor soccer teams. BTW most of the companies you mentioned are structured offshores so to call them "American" would be improper.
NFL just reinforced my point: American football is structured to generate comercial revenue. So from a giant corporation's point of view the ability to force feed you copious amounts of their sales strategies and commercials, football is better than soccer. That combined with the cost of television commercials and the commercial nature of American culture makes nfl's numbers believable. Have I lost you again? It all come's back to my point: Football is more about the selling of goods than the sport itself. For purity of sport and home grown fanfare, soccer is the ultimate game.
But if you want stats, here's some: The most populer athelete on the planet is David Beckham (I don't like him, but I digress), The most popular sports team on the planet is Manchester United, followed by the New York Yankees. Chelsea, Barcelona FC and Real Madrid are on the list. American football is, sadly, unrepresented.
ps. "Sensical" is a word, as in you entertain me with your non-sensical ramblings about NFL. Educate yourself a little. Try and pry yourself away from MTV for a change and read a book.
no comment Denny??? well NFL just gave it straight up...
BTW... There are several USA Companies that sponsor Soccer... i.e. Master Card, American Express, a couple of cell phone companies (that have european ties), ohhh and a little Company called McDonalds...maybe you have head of them...(there are more but why waste my time listin over 50 major companies) so to say there is no sponsorship from American companies is not right at all...
Yes, I have "head" of the companies you've mentioned. But a wasted point. I never said that "American" companies don't sponsor soccer teams. BTW most of the companies you mentioned are structured offshores so to call them "American" would be improper.
NFL just reinforced my point: American football is structured to generate comercial revenue. So from a giant corporation's point of view the ability to force feed you copious amounts of their sales strategies and commercials, football is better than soccer. That combined with the cost of television commercials and the commercial nature of American culture makes nfl's numbers believable. Have I lost you again? It all come's back to my point: Football is more about the selling of goods than the sport itself. For purity of sport and home grown fanfare, soccer is the ultimate game.
But if you want stats, here's some: The most populer athelete on the planet is David Beckham (I don't like him, but I digress), The most popular sports team on the planet is Manchester United, followed by the New York Yankees. Chelsea, Barcelona FC and Real Madrid are on the list. American football is, sadly, unrepresented.
ps. "Sensical" is a word, as in you entertain me with your non-sensical ramblings about NFL. Educate yourself a little. Try and pry yourself away from MTV for a change and read a book.
ruaround
Active Member
hmmm...in what language???
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sensical
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sensical
dennycrane
Member
You are embarrasing yourself.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=nonsensical
The root word is sense. Sensical and nonsensical are constructions of that root word. Much like whim and whimsical, music and musical, etc., etc. The opposite of nonsensical is sensical. Whether or not they are in a dictionary is irrelevant to whether or not they are actually words.
But "sense" we are talking about words, why do they call football football ?
Please, oh please, enlighten me.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=nonsensical
The root word is sense. Sensical and nonsensical are constructions of that root word. Much like whim and whimsical, music and musical, etc., etc. The opposite of nonsensical is sensical. Whether or not they are in a dictionary is irrelevant to whether or not they are actually words.
But "sense" we are talking about words, why do they call football football ?
Please, oh please, enlighten me.
nflnutswif
Member
Ruaround, I had more respect for DennyCranes obvious intelligence before his infiriority complex dealt the "I'm superior" card.
give me a break professor!
darth tang
Active Member
Originally Posted by DennyCrane
You are embarrasing yourself.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=nonsensical
The root word is sense. Sensical and nonsensical are constructions of that root word. Much like whim and whimsical, music and musical, etc., etc. The opposite of nonsensical is sensical. Whether or not they are in a dictionary is irrelevant to whether or not they are actually words.
But "sense" we are talking about words, why do they call football football ?
Please, oh please, enlighten me.
Excuse me professor? Sensical is NOT a word. It does NOT exist in any language or dictionary. How can a word exist if it can not be defined? Please stop playing the higher intelligence card. It is demeaning to yourself and your thread. I could respect your opinion on soccer (by the way, why is it called soccer when you soc noone?) but your holier than thou attitude is annoying.
It is called football because the ball is KICKED OFF and also kicked through a goal post to score three points. It can also be punted (kicked in simple terms) on any given down by ANY person behinmd the line of scrimmage. For having a higher intellect I am surprised you needed to ask this.
Darth (not stupid enough to place my head in front of a ball kicked 70 miles an hour) Tang
You are embarrasing yourself.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=nonsensical
The root word is sense. Sensical and nonsensical are constructions of that root word. Much like whim and whimsical, music and musical, etc., etc. The opposite of nonsensical is sensical. Whether or not they are in a dictionary is irrelevant to whether or not they are actually words.
But "sense" we are talking about words, why do they call football football ?
Please, oh please, enlighten me.
Excuse me professor? Sensical is NOT a word. It does NOT exist in any language or dictionary. How can a word exist if it can not be defined? Please stop playing the higher intelligence card. It is demeaning to yourself and your thread. I could respect your opinion on soccer (by the way, why is it called soccer when you soc noone?) but your holier than thou attitude is annoying.
It is called football because the ball is KICKED OFF and also kicked through a goal post to score three points. It can also be punted (kicked in simple terms) on any given down by ANY person behinmd the line of scrimmage. For having a higher intellect I am surprised you needed to ask this.
Darth (not stupid enough to place my head in front of a ball kicked 70 miles an hour) Tang
ruaround
Active Member
Originally Posted by DennyCrane
You are embarrasing yourself.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=nonsensical
The root word is sense. Sensical and nonsensical are constructions of that root word. Much like whim and whimsical, music and musical, etc., etc. The opposite of nonsensical is sensical. Whether or not they are in a dictionary is irrelevant to whether or not they are actually words.
But "sense" we are talking about words, why do they call football football ?
Please, oh please, enlighten me.
nonsesical is a word and it is derived from sense... but sensical is not... you probably think that herent is a word derived from inherent or that chalant is a word derived from nonchalant... but you are right I guess I should be embarassed... and this isn't english class...
football is called football because when the game first came about it was played alot like rugby... no forward passes, alot of running and the use of drop kicks...
You are embarrasing yourself.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=nonsensical
The root word is sense. Sensical and nonsensical are constructions of that root word. Much like whim and whimsical, music and musical, etc., etc. The opposite of nonsensical is sensical. Whether or not they are in a dictionary is irrelevant to whether or not they are actually words.
But "sense" we are talking about words, why do they call football football ?
Please, oh please, enlighten me.
nonsesical is a word and it is derived from sense... but sensical is not... you probably think that herent is a word derived from inherent or that chalant is a word derived from nonchalant... but you are right I guess I should be embarassed... and this isn't english class...
football is called football because when the game first came about it was played alot like rugby... no forward passes, alot of running and the use of drop kicks...
dennycrane
Member
I'm not playing any cards here, and trust me - I don't have an inferiority complex. And if you think sounding intelligent is a demeaning quality, then you are what's wrong with the American education system - failure to adhere worth and value to knowledge and intelligence. BTW, it isn't professor; it's Doctor. "Non" is a prefix. PRE-fix! Which means it is affixed to a base word - sensical, which is constructed from a root word- sense. This is not higher education stuff. This is 4th grade English composition. Chalant is the same thing. Though no longer used in modern lexicon, it once was and meant "to worry". It was derived from the French word chaloir (I think - my french is terrible). It is still a word. Your web searches and dictionaries are not the end all in whether a word is a word. All it is is simply a collection of definitions of the most widely used words in the spoken language.
BACK TO THE SUBJECT:
This is interesting, if not a little boring but expands on ruaround's reasons why football is called football...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football
The rules of football were codified in England by the Football Association in 1863, and the name association football was coined to distinguish the game from the other forms of football played at the time, specifically rugby football. The term soccer first appeared in the 1880s as a slang abbreviation of Association football.
BACK TO THE SUBJECT:
This is interesting, if not a little boring but expands on ruaround's reasons why football is called football...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football
The rules of football were codified in England by the Football Association in 1863, and the name association football was coined to distinguish the game from the other forms of football played at the time, specifically rugby football. The term soccer first appeared in the 1880s as a slang abbreviation of Association football.
ruaround
Active Member
Originally Posted by DennyCrane
"Non" is a prefix. PRE-fix! Which means it is affixed to a base word - sensical, which is constructed from a root word- sense. This is not higher education stuff. This is 4th grade English composition. Chalant is the same thing. Though no longer used in modern lexicon, it once was and meant "to worry". It was derived from the French word chaloir (I think - my french is terrible). It is still a word. Your web searches and dictionaries are not the end all in whether a word is a word. All it is is simply a collection of definitions of the most widely used words in the spoken language.
you are right "non" is a prefix... but not in the case of nonchalant... I did learn this in 3rd grade reading... such as "in" is also a prefix but there is no such word a herent...
"The object of all football games is to advance the ball by kicking, running with, or passing and catching, either to the opponent's end of the field where points or goals can be scored by, depending on the game, putting the ball across the goal line between posts and under a crossbar, putting the ball between upright posts (and possibly over a crossbar), or advancing the ball across the opponent's goal line while maintaining possession of the ball.
In all football games, the winning team is the one that has the most points or goals when a specified length of time has elapsed."
"Non" is a prefix. PRE-fix! Which means it is affixed to a base word - sensical, which is constructed from a root word- sense. This is not higher education stuff. This is 4th grade English composition. Chalant is the same thing. Though no longer used in modern lexicon, it once was and meant "to worry". It was derived from the French word chaloir (I think - my french is terrible). It is still a word. Your web searches and dictionaries are not the end all in whether a word is a word. All it is is simply a collection of definitions of the most widely used words in the spoken language.
you are right "non" is a prefix... but not in the case of nonchalant... I did learn this in 3rd grade reading... such as "in" is also a prefix but there is no such word a herent...
"The object of all football games is to advance the ball by kicking, running with, or passing and catching, either to the opponent's end of the field where points or goals can be scored by, depending on the game, putting the ball across the goal line between posts and under a crossbar, putting the ball between upright posts (and possibly over a crossbar), or advancing the ball across the opponent's goal line while maintaining possession of the ball.
In all football games, the winning team is the one that has the most points or goals when a specified length of time has elapsed."
darth tang
Active Member
Originally Posted by DennyCrane
I'm not playing any cards here, and trust me - I don't have an inferiority complex. And if you think sounding intelligent is a demeaning quality, then you are what's wrong with the American education system - failure to adhere worth and value to knowledge and intelligence. BTW, it isn't professor; it's Doctor. "Non" is a prefix. PRE-fix! Which means it is affixed to a base word - sensical, which is constructed from a root word- sense. This is not higher education stuff. This is 4th grade English composition. Chalant is the same thing. Though no longer used in modern lexicon, it once was and meant "to worry". It was derived from the French word chaloir (I think - my french is terrible). It is still a word. Your web searches and dictionaries are not the end all in whether a word is a word. All it is is simply a collection of definitions of the most widely used words in the spoken language.
Ok, if Sensical were a word used in language then one should be able to place it in a Google search and come up with a few articles using the word in it's proper context. Hmmmmm.......*click*.........the only thing that comes up is the word used in the form of a name of a company. That is it. So, it may be a word, but the context you used it in is incorrect as it is a name or noun and NOT a verb, adverb, or adjective.
And I suppose the fact you sound more condescending (due to your higher education) than anything is the actual problem.
Darth (Get 'R' Done) Tang
I'm not playing any cards here, and trust me - I don't have an inferiority complex. And if you think sounding intelligent is a demeaning quality, then you are what's wrong with the American education system - failure to adhere worth and value to knowledge and intelligence. BTW, it isn't professor; it's Doctor. "Non" is a prefix. PRE-fix! Which means it is affixed to a base word - sensical, which is constructed from a root word- sense. This is not higher education stuff. This is 4th grade English composition. Chalant is the same thing. Though no longer used in modern lexicon, it once was and meant "to worry". It was derived from the French word chaloir (I think - my french is terrible). It is still a word. Your web searches and dictionaries are not the end all in whether a word is a word. All it is is simply a collection of definitions of the most widely used words in the spoken language.
Ok, if Sensical were a word used in language then one should be able to place it in a Google search and come up with a few articles using the word in it's proper context. Hmmmmm.......*click*.........the only thing that comes up is the word used in the form of a name of a company. That is it. So, it may be a word, but the context you used it in is incorrect as it is a name or noun and NOT a verb, adverb, or adjective.
And I suppose the fact you sound more condescending (due to your higher education) than anything is the actual problem.
Darth (Get 'R' Done) Tang
dennycrane
Member
Originally Posted by nflnutswif
I actually like the "Houston Texans" - And it is WAY better than the runner up: "Apollos" YUK!
obviously in keeping with the (space theme)
Houston 1836 sounds like a good name for a team. I know in some European leagues (Germany?) they use dates as names for their teams. Apollos would be horrible. Why not go back to the Oilers? Tennessee obviously isn't using it. I always thought the Oilers and the Steelers were the most appropriate names for NFL teams.
I actually like the "Houston Texans" - And it is WAY better than the runner up: "Apollos" YUK!
obviously in keeping with the (space theme)
Houston 1836 sounds like a good name for a team. I know in some European leagues (Germany?) they use dates as names for their teams. Apollos would be horrible. Why not go back to the Oilers? Tennessee obviously isn't using it. I always thought the Oilers and the Steelers were the most appropriate names for NFL teams.
nflnutswif
Member
Originally Posted by DennyCrane
Houston 1836 sounds like a good name for a team. I know in some European leagues (Germany?) they use dates as names for their teams. Apollos would be horrible. Why not go back to the Oilers? Tennessee obviously isn't using it. I always thought the Oilers and the Steelers were the most appropriate names for NFL teams.
I liked it. Like everyone does though, how would you nickname them "the 36'ers" ? As of today the 22nd. the name has not changed. People are buying up the jerseys that were printed in advance with the current logo applied. Guess you can cash in on that one if they finally do decide to change the name.
As for Oilers (funny reference by the way) THAT would open up an entirely different can of whooop***!
I do not like the Oakland Raiders, but I always thought that name was appropriate for a football team. I have a financial interest in our Houston Texans so I might get a little defensive with regard to my team. Hummm defense maybe I can suggest that to the Texans drafting department!
Houston 1836 sounds like a good name for a team. I know in some European leagues (Germany?) they use dates as names for their teams. Apollos would be horrible. Why not go back to the Oilers? Tennessee obviously isn't using it. I always thought the Oilers and the Steelers were the most appropriate names for NFL teams.
I liked it. Like everyone does though, how would you nickname them "the 36'ers" ? As of today the 22nd. the name has not changed. People are buying up the jerseys that were printed in advance with the current logo applied. Guess you can cash in on that one if they finally do decide to change the name.
As for Oilers (funny reference by the way) THAT would open up an entirely different can of whooop***!
I do not like the Oakland Raiders, but I always thought that name was appropriate for a football team. I have a financial interest in our Houston Texans so I might get a little defensive with regard to my team. Hummm defense maybe I can suggest that to the Texans drafting department!
nflnutswif
Member
This is not meant to be offensive, just a retaliatory logo to replace the protested new Houston soccer teams logo!
Personally I think it's hilarious.
Personally I think it's hilarious.
dennycrane
Member
Originally Posted by nflnutswif
This is not meant to be offensive, just a retaliatory logo to replace the protested new Houston soccer teams logo!
Personally I think it's hilarious.
Nice. Here in Alabama, that would go over like an atomic bomb. I didn't realize the whole Mexico / Texas thing was still a sore spot.
This is not meant to be offensive, just a retaliatory logo to replace the protested new Houston soccer teams logo!
Personally I think it's hilarious.
Nice. Here in Alabama, that would go over like an atomic bomb. I didn't realize the whole Mexico / Texas thing was still a sore spot.
nflnutswif
Member
Although I'm a transplant from So.Cal, Texas History is huge here in all the schools. The first of course being the Alamo/SanJacinto. So the year of Texas independance is for most people IN Texas a respected date. Here is the current logo for the soccer team.
dennycrane
Member
That beats 99% of all the MLS team names. MetroStars? Are you serious? I think that Houston design really cool, actually.
nflnutswif
Member
I do too, I don't understand like I said above, why we keep bending to appease the few when so many others are in agreement. It's a big deal out here. The mexican community feel rejected when they are apt to be the biggest supporters of the sport. Already 5-6,000 season tickets have been sold. I know you've guessed, I personally am not really a fan of soccer but it's in the headlines daily these days.