The NFL, the Talent Pool, and Long-Term Expansion: A Short Essay

[tmw4h5]

Very interesting short essay. The idea that we are diluting the talent pool by allowing expansion is insane.
Besides the population numbers that you pointed out, people seem to forget that, unlike 1940, kids today are spending far more time perfecting the craft of sports. The average professional athlete today is infinitely better than the average athlete of the 40s and 50s in regards to the major sports (MLB, NFL, NBA). The time spent in preparation, training, and perfecting the craft is insane. Couple that with the evergrowing popularity of the sports and what you have, I believe, is a talent pool that is essentially bottomless.

[mikey23545]

Originally Posted by tmw4h5

Besides the population numbers that you pointed out, people seem to forget that, unlike 1940, kids today are spending far more time perfecting the craft of sports. The average professional athlete today is infinitely better than the average athlete of the 40s and 50s in regards to the major sports (MLB, NFL, NBA). The time spent in preparation, training, and perfecting the craft is insane. Couple that with the evergrowing popularity of the sports and what you have, I believe, is a talent pool that is essentially bottomless.

And you have forgotten that today, 80% of kids spend their lives open-mouthed in front of a television or computer playing video games until their dilated eyes roll back in their heads, and never see a baseball diamond or football field.

Pure population numbers mean nothing.

[tmw4h5]

Originally Posted by mikey23545

And you have forgotten that today, 80% of kids spend their lives open-mouthed in front of a television or computer playing video games until their dilated eyes roll back in their heads, and never see a baseball diamond or football field.

Pure population numbers mean nothing.

Granted, there are a lot of children who spend their lives playing video games or mastering technology is some fashion, but the number of kids playing football, basketball, and baseball is constantly, and most importantly, consistently growing.


The athletes being produced today are far superior to those produced in the 40s and 50s. Athletes today are bigger, stronger, and faster. The majority of professional athletes have spent their entire lives developing their skills and honing their talent(s).

[TimeForWasp]

It's going global. London will probably be next. Canada is in. Germany has fans. Russia will feel the heat. Almost forgot Austrailia.

[mdchiefsfan]

Originally Posted by Touchdown Kansas City !!!

It's going global. London will probably be next. Canada is in. Germany has fans. Russia will feel the heat. Almost forgot Austrailia.

This is what I was thinking. We will probably see an international broadening due to the fact that everyone in the US has set teams.

I am just curious how they are going to work out the schedule so that the 'London Hooligans' aren't a perpetual 8-8 team with their awesome home record and terrible road record. Not trying to hijack the thread, but you have me thinking NFL expansions and how they would work.

[AussieChiefsFan]

Originally Posted by Touchdown Kansas City !!!

Almost forgot Austrailia.

Don't be doing that now

[TimeForWasp]

Originally Posted by AussieChiefsFan

Don't be doing that now

Sorry bout that, I was thinking of you when I made the edit.

[DaneMcCloud]

Rainman, I'm on my iPad, so will address in detail tomorrow. But population aside, you're missing the "Divine Spark" and "unique" aspect.

In musical terms, there's been only one Elvis. One Johnny Cash. One Jimi Hendrix. One Brian Wilson. One Eric Clapton. One Chuck Berry. One Mick Jagger. So on and so forth.

There are more kids playing football today than in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's combined.

Yet, where are the multiple Johnny Unitias clones, Joe Namath, Steve Young, John Elway, etc.?

You can add cities and players. But that doesn't mean that the talent level will remain consistent. Given the facts above, it'll be further watered down.

[tmw4h5]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Rainman, I'm on my iPad, so will address in detail tomorrow. But population aside, you're missing the "Divine Spark" and "unique" aspect.

In musical terms, there's been only one Elvis. One Johnny Cash. One Jimi Hendrix. One Brian Wilson. One Eric Clapton. One Chuck Berry. One Mick Jagger. So on and so forth.

There are more kids playing football today than in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's combined.

Yet, where are the multiple Johnny Unitias clones, Joe Namath, Steve Young, John Elway, etc.?

You can add cities and players. But that doesn't mean that the talent level will remain consistent. Given the facts above, it'll be further watered down.

There are more kids playing today than ever before. Johnny U. looked remarkable because you have to compare what his talent level was in comparison to those he played against. It's the same as looking at college football. You have some guys who are absolutely dominant in college, but they might be simply mediocre in the NFL. The reason is that the talent level is so much better that the playing field is more equal. Johnny U. looked great because he was playing against lesser talents. Namath was actually just a mediocre QB.
There are, and have been, QBs every bit as good as Steve Young since Steve Young retired. The best QBs in the history of the game (arguably, of course) are currently in the league (Brady, Manning).
With a growing population and professional athletes being trained from the time that they can walk, the talent level has risen greatly, which will absolutely make it harder for individual athletes to be greatly ahead of others in the same game.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by tmw4h5

There are more kids playing today than ever before. Johnny U. looked remarkable because you have to compare what his talent level was in comparison to those he played against. It's the same as looking at college football. You have some guys who are absolutely dominant in college, but they might be simply mediocre in the NFL. The reason is that the talent level is so much better that the playing field is more equal. Johnny U. looked great because he was playing against lesser talents. Namath was actually just a mediocre QB.
There are, and have been, QBs every bit as good as Steve Young since Steve Young retired. The best QBs in the history of the game (arguably, of course) are currently in the league (Brady, Manning).
With a growing population and professional athletes being trained from the time that they can walk, the talent level has risen greatly, which will absolutely make it harder for individual athletes to be greatly ahead of others in the same game.

You're smoking crack

[tmw4h5]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

You're smoking crack

How so? It makes perfect sense.

Think about MLB for example. Do you honestly think that Babe Ruth would have been half of the hitter he was if he spent his career facing pitchers like Cici Sabathia, Randy Johnson, Clemens, or Maddux?

With growing popularity, the sport has seen a larger talent pool develop, with the talent getting better on both the high end and low end.

The players today are facing much stiffer competition than those in the past. It's pretty simple to me.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by tmw4h5

The players today are facing much stiffer competition than those in the past. It's pretty simple to me.

Well, you're ****ing stupid.

There are seven BILLION people on this planet, yet MLB struggles to find talent to compete each and every year.

The NFL struggles to find to legitimate QB's CB's, lineman, etc.

The NBA is having a real issue with finding talent. The last few drafts have offered little in the way of All-Star, let alone, HOF talent.

Quantity does not equal quality. Never has, never will.

[Rasputin]

Originally Posted by tmw4h5

There are more kids playing today than ever before. Johnny U. looked remarkable because you have to compare what his talent level was in comparison to those he played against. It's the same as looking at college football. You have some guys who are absolutely dominant in college, but they might be simply mediocre in the NFL. The reason is that the talent level is so much better that the playing field is more equal. Johnny U. looked great because he was playing against lesser talents. Namath was actually just a mediocre QB.
There are, and have been, QBs every bit as good as Steve Young since Steve Young retired. The best QBs in the history of the game (arguably, of course) are currently in the league (Brady, Manning).
With a growing population and professional athletes being trained from the time that they can walk, the talent level has risen greatly, which will absolutely make it harder for individual athletes to be greatly ahead of others in the same game.

Yes and they do a hell of a lot more film study as it is more available & technology to help them out.

[AussieChiefsFan]

Originally Posted by Touchdown Kansas City !!!

Sorry bout that, I was thinking of you when I made the edit.

[listopencil]

I'd rather the NFL add a minor league football farm system than expand.