How about those Sounders

[Eddie Teach]

As a participant sport, footie is superior to US football or rugby, IMO.

Basketball > all

[grumbler]

As a participant sport, footie is superior to US football or rugby, IMO.

Basketball > all

Basketball requires actual skill before you can even start.  Footie does not.

[oldman]

Sports dick waving just makes for a terrible thread.

[Agelastus]

  The Superbowl gets 101,000+ if the stadium can hold that many.  The record for Twickenham was apparently 82,000 on the 5th of November 2006.  The Superbowl record is 103,667.

It may be true that Twickenham is larger than some venues that have sponsored the Superbowl, but this says nothing about either game.

Ah, my apologies, I was misreading an article. It was talking about recent sporting attendance, rather than being as historical as it needed to be.

As for using Twickenham as an example, you were doubting the sport's viability as a spectator event. Rugby Union's previous amateurism hasn't helped the development of big stadia around the country, the way the money flooding into American Football has helped grow their stadia, so I had to use the example of being able to fill Twickenham (or Croke Park) as an example of its ability to attract spectators rather than the smaller stadia I would have liked to use.

Perhaps a good example would be the Varsity Match between Oxford and Cambridge, held last year on a Thursday afternoon. Limited fan base, annual match rather than being part of a league, held on a working day rather than at the weekend, attracts 30000+ spectators.

[Agelastus]

As a participant sport, footie is superior to US football or rugby, IMO.

Basketball > all

Basketball requires actual skill before you can even start.  Footie does not.

I agree. Basketball requires an unacceptable level of initial skill to be a good participant sport.

[Eddie Teach]

I agree. Basketball requires an unacceptable level of initial skill to be a good participant sport.

Just lower the goal then.

[The Larch]

I played a bit of rugby when I lived in the UK, but never really considered it as a spectator sport.  I don't think it would make a great spectator sport, though, because so much of the action is hard to see.

As a participant sport, footie is superior to US football or rugby, IMO.

It made a better spectator sport before some idiot thought up the ELV "experiment".

ELV?

"Experimental Law Variations". Basically dickish rules thought up by a bunch of Australians (mainly) to create a more fluid, running game...because they didn't like the fact that their packs had turned into a bunch of useless pansies that were routinely getting dominated by their Northern kin.

Note that it was the pack (the forwards) that was their only problem. Their backs, the creative players, were still the best in the world.

Turned a great sport of rucks and rolling mauls into "kick and hope". Some of the matches I've seen in the last couple of years...

Fortunately, the majority of the ELVs look like they will not be adopted and will disappear into the ashcan of history - after being around just long enough to confuse the hell out of everybody and cause a major decline in skill at the maul. Which, if I was being paranoid, would suggest its what the Australians wanted.

What kind of rules were those? Can you remember something specific?

[Ed Anger]

I agree. Basketball requires an unacceptable level of initial skill to be a good participant sport.

Just lower the goal then.

More elbows to the head help also.

[Agelastus]

What kind of rules were those? Can you remember something specific?

The proposed law amendments are:

In the original version of the laws, players were allowed to use their hands at all times at the breakdown. A slightly different rule, prohibiting hands in the ruck but making it only a free kick, has been trialled as well. The final rule regarding hands in the ruck has not been established. In any event, players must come into the breakdown in an onside position, and only players who are on their feet are allowed to play the ball. The side that takes the ball into the breakdown loses it if they do not recycle possession.

At the scrum, all backs except for the two scrum-halves must be at least 5 metres behind the hindmost foot of the scrum, instead of level with it as allowed in the current laws.

Either side can use as many players as they like in the lineout, at any time, providing they fit between the 5-metre line and the 15-metre line.

The opposing hooker in a lineout no longer has to stand between the 5-metre line and touchline; he can stand anywhere he wishes as long as he conforms to the laws.

On a quick throw in the ball can be thrown straight or back towards the defenders' goal line, but not forwards towards the opposition goal line.

Where touch judges are trained referees, they will be referred to as assistant referees, with responsibility for policing the offside lines.

Penalty kicks are generally to be given only for offside and foul play. Most other penalties will become free kicks, with the option of taking a scrum as in the current laws, which cannot be used for a kick at goal or a dropped goal.
If the ball is passed or run back into the 22 and then kicked out on the full before a tackle, ruck or maul is effected, the resulting lineout is taken from where the kick was made. However, if the kick bounces into touch, the lineout is taken from where the ball went into touch, as in the present laws.

The maul can be collapsed by defending sides without incurring a penalty if the forward momentum of the attacking side has been neutralised or reversed.

The corner flag, currently situated where the try line meets the touchline, will become part of the field of play. Under the current laws, a try is disallowed if a player touches the corner flag while attempting to touch the ball down.

The two bolded ones are the most egregious changes.

Uncontested rucks effectively locks possession for one side, and removes a good chunk of the opportunity for breakaway play.

The second bolded rule effectively removed the maul or rolling maul as a viable tactic (how do you effectively police a rule that means if the maul stays still for a second, it can be legally collapsed?) Unable to maul to move the ball forward, teams started just hoofing it up the field when unable to see a useful pass. Moreover, legally being able to collapse the maul is downright dangerous and increases the possibility of injury, particularly in community or amateur games. And to cap it all off, without players rushing in to the maul to either push it forward or force it back, defences stay spread out and it actually becomes harder to score a try - the exact opposite of what the law is supposed to encourage.

There's a certain amount of truth to Bryan Habana's claim that they are making the game like Rugby League. I've seen it reported that the Australians want to try-out uncontested scrums as well, but I haven't got the reference for that.

[grumbler]

As for using Twickenham as an example, you were doubting the sport's viability as a spectator event.

Not doubting it, so much as wondering about it.  Lots of sports are watched by enthusiasts without them actually being great spectator sports.  I don't know enough about Rugby.  Having just played some pickup games when I lived in London (and only maybe three or four, as I wasn't really into it any more than I was cricket the few times I played that), it didn't seem like most of the action was visible to the spectators.

American football has been extremely popular since long before the commercialization of it.  It actually is almost designed specifically for spectators - the action is discontinuous, so you know when to watch, and it is a highly comprehensible strategic game, with the results of the strategy immediately obvious.  Everything is out in the open.  Every play has the potential to be huge.  Fun as it is to play, it is even more fun to watch.

The downside, of course, is that it is hugely expensive to put together, and pickup games are very hard to arrange (unless playing the much-less-interesting variants like "tag football").

[grumbler]

Just lower the goal then.

Not an option, generally.