Joe > Average

Hey Joe, some questions about NFL:

1. How many teams are there? I can't imagine there's as many as there are states?

2. Those whose state doesn't have a team, is football generally less popular in that state? Is that because they don't have a team, or vice versa? Would football fans in those states generally back a team from an adjacent state, or is it a bit of a pick-and-choose as to who they'd follow?

3. Do clubs have a long history? How old are the oldest teams? Do teams ever capitulate/merge with other clubs? When was the last time a new team entered the league?

4. How long is the season, and does every team get to play against everyone each year?

5. Are there many international players and/or players who migrate from other sports? How young do they generally start their football careers?

6. How long do the good teams' period of success usually last? Do teams ever win back-to-back Superbowls? More than 2 in a row?

Joe, a couple more follow-up NFL questions, if I may...

- From a tactical perspective, what are a team's options immediately following the kick-off? For instance, when the ball is launched forwards and it lands way, way upfield, what can the receiving team do when they gain possession of the ball and what can the kicking team do, and why do they let the ball run or bounce along the ground for so long?

- Is there a particular point during the game when a player can try for a field goal in open play?

- Finally, (on a slightly different note) if I were to adopt a team to support, who would you suggest?

All great questions . I will of course have to add AFL and football questions of my own afterward as well .
 

1. How many teams are there? I can't imagine there's as many as there are states?
2. Those whose state doesn't have a team, is football generally less popular in that state? Is that because they don't have a team, or vice versa? Would football fans in those states
generally back a team from an adjacent state, or is it a bit of a pick-and-choose as to who they'd follow?
3. Do clubs have a long history? How old are the oldest teams? Do teams ever capitulate/merge with other clubs? When was the last time a new team entered the league?
4. How long is the season, and does every team get to play against everyone each year?
5. Are there many international players and/or players who migrate from other sports? How young do they generally start their football careers?
6. How long do the good teams' period of success usually last? Do teams ever win back-to-back Superbowls? More than 2 in a row?

1a. There are 32 teams with 16 in the NFC (National Football Conference), 16 in the AFC (American Football Conference) with each conference having 4 divisions.

2a. Not at all, some of the biggest football states and cities don't have a team. As a matter of fact, Alabama is not only football crazy, but may actually produce the most NFL players and doesn't have a team . Their college team is one of the best though.
2b. Since college football is huge too (even more popular than many professional sports), a lot of states without teams are crazy about their college team. There are even some cities where they don't have any professional team of any kind and the college team is so popular that their training camp makes prime time news !
2c. Aside from the college thing, what pro team is selected is somewhat of a tricky matter. Even within the same state, there are some city against city rivalries. For example, even if Buffalo had the only team in New York, some New Yorkers still might not necessarily support Buffalo due to a 'friendly' rivalry. Some also resent the fact that another city in their state has a team and they don't and will then root against them. It is interesting that California (with L.A. not having one) and New York both have three teams. Texas has two, but they are all rather large states. California has more people than Canada in fact. A lot of people without teams also just randomly pick a team when they're a kid (generally one who was good at the time or who they just liked someone from) and stick with that team.

3a. The Detroit Lions go back as far as the late 1920s although they didn't get their current name until the 1930s. Its also worth mentioning that all teams wear the original uniforms on special occasions . Some are more flattering than others .
3b. The Green Bay Packers might be the oldest since they were around just after WW1. They are also the only team that is owned by the city.
3c. The merging thing is an interesting one. Sometimes a team will cease to be due to poor attendance and such and then suddenly reemerge in a different city. The Indianapolis Colts were the Baltimore Colts for decades and literally packed up and moved overnight in an 18 wheeler to Indianapolis . The Baltimore Ravens then became the new Baltimore team and thus a heated rivalry was born as the Baltimore fans (despite the fact that the Ravens beat Indianapolis to a Super Bowl and now has won more) still hate the Colts for the whole sneaking away in the night thing. Then a team will randomly change logos. For example, the Houston Oilers moved to Tennessee and then became the Tennessee Titans, but then the Houston Texans sprouted up in 2002 also calling themselves a Houston Oilers expansion. The Carolina Panthers and the Jacksonville Jaguars started in 1995 and are probably the youngest teams to start from scratch. The Cleveland Browns were an expansion team in 1999 but had only been inactive a few years. They actually started originally in the 1940s and currently have the same name and uniforms they had back then.

4a. The regular season is 16 games but 17 weeks including the 'bye' or off week. This is actually an increase from what used to be 13 games. There is some debate about whether to expand the season, but the multitude of injuries as it is already plays the primary role in there being so few games. The NBA has 82 and the baseball season obviously goes on forever, but injuries aren't as much of a factor in either.
4b. As a result of the injuries, there are so few games and since they can't all play each other, a system is devised to play mostly teams in your own division (of 4) and others for the rest. The best from the division advances until eventually the best two from the conference play in the conference championship (NFC and AFC championship) and the winners of those play in the Super Bowl. The obvious problem is of course the fact that some have tougher regular season schedules than others, but usually the best two find their way there somehow anyway. Either that or the best and 4th best. The injuries complicate things. What keeps the league competitive is probably the seemingly endless number of college teams to draft from that help to keep the talent level fairly equal. Team chemistry, a good general manager and coach probably do more to widen the gap.

5a. Africa, Canada, Trinidad, Jamaica and Poland probably produce the most non-American players. On a different note, in terms of ethnic breakdown, Hawaii and Samoa actually produce more NFL players than Hispanics despite the fact that Hispanics are the 2nd largest group as a whole here. Its also worth mentioning that some from cold climates consider the heat to be a problem in the helmet and pads during the summer although they do play outside in extreme cold as well with most of the league being from warmer climates. Its also interesting that so many teams are in colder areas when most of the players are native to warmer areas.
5b. The most successful transitions are basketball center or power forward to Tight End and baseball pitcher to quarterback. Track and field to speed positions as well as power lifter/strong man competition guy to offensive or defensive line are actually rarely if ever successful. Brock Lesnar, Husain Bolt (fastest and with prototype receiver height) and Mark Henry (former strongest man with still active records) are good examples. Good examples of it not being successful that is.
5c. The average player begins in the NFL at 21 or 22. Overall, the vast majority of NFL players started playing in little league at the age of 5-6.

6. Some teams can remain respectable for a span of ten or more years. Some are glad just to make the playoffs two years in a row . The Patriots have technically been respectable since the mid 90s. The introduction of the salary cap (to increase competitiveness) actually made staying good somewhat more of a challenge. In the case of the Patriots, they have a coach who is a master of the salary cap. He basically started off with a good team and has a system whereby he discovers unheralded talent that he knows can be gotten for cheap while trading good players that he knows he can get good deals for.
This has pretty much allowed them to stay good, only the problem is that they seem to love having extra cap room so much that they are unwilling to spend the extra money to get them over the hump (as they did when they won their 3 Super Bowls). The Pittsburgh Steelers have been a playoff contender since the late 90s too. Overall, most teams don't stay good that long consecutively. Good players leave for more money and owners get impatient with coaches who just needed a little more time, fire them and start from scratch often to little success.

7. There were some repeats in the past. About 6-7 I think. The Patriots were the last in 2004, but the salary cap has made it more difficult. Scouting is more thorough making the teams more evenly matched too. The three-peat has always been widely considered impossible though.
 

From a tactical perspective, what are a team's options immediately following the kick-off? For instance, when the ball is launched forwards and it lands way, way upfield, what can the

receiving team do when they gain possession of the ball and what can the kicking team do, and why do they let the ball run or bounce along the ground for so long?

 

- Is there a particular point during the game when a player can try for a field goal in open play?

 

- Finally, (on a slightly different note) if I were to adopt a team to support, who would you suggest?

1a. When the ball is kicked, the receiving team's objective is to get it and run with it and the kicking team's objective is to tackle them if they pick it up. That's if everything goes as its drawn up of course.

1b. As to why they let it bounce, other factors can complicate things. For one, if the ball bounces out of bounds ahead of the endzone line (the touchdown area the kicking side is facing when they kick) the kicking side is faced with an 'illegal procedure' penalty and you are granted yardage. Thus, if it looks like it may bounce out of bounds, you should probably let it.

Also, even if it doesn't, if the ball is bouncing and the defense is closing in, the chances are you will be knocked into oblivion and fumble the ball by the time you pick it up and in

those cases, hesitation occurs.

2. There are trick plays that are sometimes successful, but the kicker is so fragile compared to the other players and oftentimes doesn't even have a backup and even most punters can't kick field goals well so most teams don't care to try kicks without a full kicker protection formation. If it was 1st-3rd down, you would also turn the ball over if you missed which wouldn't be considered worthwhile unless the clock was running out. You can legally attempt a field goal on any offensive down though. Its also worth mentioning that I refer to it as 'NFL Football' or 'American/Canadian Football' not because this is an international setting but because I think football isn't really an appropriate label .

3. It depends on whether you mean to watch or play. To play would of course depend on your interests and skills. To watch, I'm not sure where to start since I love so many sports. Off the top of my head, I'd personally recommend anything swimming oriented such as relays since its easier on the joints and also canoeing because its relaxing and fun too .

Excellent, thanks Joe - I'll attempt to apply my new knowledge next time I watch.

Do let me know if I can return the favour by answering any football/soccer questions.

Thanks for the answers Joe

The whole college thing is interesting - I take it the majority of pro players come through that system, from 17-21 sort of ages. What proportion of them actually turn pro though? And how does it compare, with regards to time commitment, training, game time, etc? Does the college comp culminate in one national final too (mini Superbowl?) or is it more segregated?

Also when you talk about a lot of injuries, are they mostly contact or soft tissue injuries? What are the most common you see?

I also wondered about how you deal with the weather in your country - if games are ever cancelled/rescheduled because of it. Do many (any?) venues have roofs? Do you see much played in rain (snow? )? I suppose you get most of that in the off-season though hey.

Sure thing and will do with the football questions . Just make sure not to laugh to hard at them . Well, here goes anyway. I saw this guy on ESPN who they said was the best 'young striker' and it occurred to me how little I know. I assumed that there was the goalie and then everyone else . That said, you might as well just explain each position along with an active player who you think is a good example .
 

For whatever reason that I've never understood, the off season is summer and the season is mostly the fall and winter . The rule with the weather is pretty much unless its like a tornado, tsunami or hurricane: , anything goes . Snow and rain games are common as well as on the other extreme, blistering heat of temperatures well over 100 degrees which is magnified by the uniforms and all the hot bodies in the stadium. The snow thing is interesting in the sense that the northern and eastern states get really cold and have a lot of snow games whereas most of the players come from the southern states. The second largest group is probably from the western states and there is a sizable Hawaiian island population. On top of that, most of the European players whose country of origin is cold are actually technically second generation Americans although some are from northern states. Then in the southern states, weather is very fickle being really hot in the spring and summer and some years blisteringly cold in the winter. There was a Super Bowl in the snow actually, its referred to as 'The Ice Bowl' where it was -26 degrees Celsius (not including wind temperature). If its in the playoffs, they generally get catchy names like that. This is a different one... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dSl64R067g

There was a regular season Seahawks vs. Chiefs game during the 90s, I couldn't find a video of it, but there was a flash flood warning and they refused to cancel the game. They then played anyway until it actually rained so bad that it literally flushed them out of there . I must not be putting the right words in the search on that one.

The college championship is a thing of great debate if not the most heated debate in American/Canadian football in general. It is segregated in that you have different conferences with the major conferences having the best schools. Truth be told, that part is for the best as any one of the top schools annihilate the smaller schools by 60 or more points (somewhat like my poor Greater Western Sydney even though your team beat them by 100). The problem though is that they have several different bowls but not main championship. As to their training, they work pretty hard although they have the added responsibility of school work of course whereas pro players can dedicate fully to the sport. Of course, some pass student athletes along when they can but others don't. Due to the competition with so many schools, a relative few actually make it to the NFL. Actually, not even all of those drafted even get signed. The injuries depend on the position although it is case by case. With the speed positions, its probably the tissue types or at least they're less likely to play with them because groin ect. type injuries shorten the gap between them and their backup. With lineman, generally broken bones. Concussions are a big thing all around though seeing as how the powers that be have become more strict about stopping players from coming back in on the whole 'how many fingers do you see?' deal. Speaking of GWS, they said on ESPN that they're actually worse than last year and on a recap video that their losing streak is the worst since like 1902 or something .

Sure thing and will do with the football questions . Just make sure not to laugh to hard at them . Well, here goes anyway. I saw this guy on ESPN who they said was the best 'young striker' and it occurred to me how little I know. I assumed that there was the goalie and then everyone else . That said, you might as well just explain each position along with an active player who you think is a good example .

 

No sweat. Fingers crossed that it all makes sense, I'll do my best not to ramble too much or state the obvious.

Defenders

Broadly speaking, a defender’s primary duty is to win the ball from the opposition and prevent them from scoring. Numbers do occasionally vary from three to five, but more often than not, a team will play with four defenders at the back (two in the middle and one on each flank).

The defenders positioned in the middle of your back line (usually known as ‘central defenders’ or ‘centre backs’) generally tend to be the tallest and strongest members of your team, since they frequently have to tackle, intercept and head the ball when it’s in the air. They rarely go forward, except for corners and suchlike. The defenders on either flank (usually known as ‘full backs’) are mostly smaller, quicker, and more skilful on the ball. Their job is to prevent opposition attacks in wide areas, but also to move forward and join in with offensive moves - at least preferably, some are better than others on that front, while some are actually better at attacking than defending.

Midfielders

These guys are usually the fittest members of your team, since they do the most running, and they usually share the responsibilities of both defence and attack, breaking up opposition attacks where possible and also creating opportunities up front, though the roles aren't always clearly defined and depend heavily on the team’s tactics. Some teams prefer to play with anything from three to five midfielders, but the most commonly used set-up is a 'midfield four' that mirrors the shape of the defence, consisting of a middle two (one ‘defensive’ guy and one ‘attacking’ guy, or ideally, two ‘good at everything’ guys) and one on each flank. Those on the flanks (‘wingers’) are usually there to deliver key passes to your forwards, create space and occasionally cut into the middle, with different degrees of defensive responsibility, again depending on the team’s particular gameplan. Your more central players are mostly expected to do a bit of everything - they hold the ball and win it back from the opposition (‘holding midfielders’ or ‘defensive midfielders’) and also try to venture forward and feed passes through to the forwards (‘attacking midfielders’).

Two great examples of holding/defensive midfielders are Xabi Alonso and Sergio Busquets, both from Spain. They're equally outstanding at winning possession of the ball and finding attacking players with short passes, though Busquets is perhaps better at tackling (he's known for having a few unsavoury character traits too, such as overreacting to fouls and intimidation of referees :yuckky:), while Alonso has a superb talent for spraying long range passes to the right and left. In terms of attacking midfielders, Andrea Pirlo (Italy), Andres Iniesta (Spain) and Bastian Schweinsteiger (Germany) are favourites of mine, all capable of dictating a game's rhythm with their passing and creativity, usually chipping in with a few goals along the way.

Forwards

This lot have the most straightforward job description on the field - score goals. Forwards (also known as ‘strikers’) come in all shapes and sizes and bring different qualities to the table. A taller striker would of course be more dangerous in the air, while a smaller, quicker player would be more effective with the ball at his feet. Teams play with anywhere from one to three strikers (sometimes four or five in emergencies ) and usually try to blend different styles, the basic objective being to strike up a good understanding of each other’s games and set up goalscoring chances for one another.

I think if you were going to try and build the ideal modern forward from the ground up, you'd probably end up with something along the lines of a Cristiano Ronaldo - 6'2", quick, skilful and packing raw athleticism in spades. Arguably the current top player in the world however, is Lionel Messi, who despite being only about 5'5" is also incredibly fast, strong and resilient, with extravagant natural skill and amazing close control. Plus, having a low centre of gravity can help no end while running with the ball and fending off opposing players.

Its interesting that you mention Messi because you or someone made a comment that I assumed was sarcasm about him not being proven because of his conference or something. I assumed that it was a joke, but didn't consider myself knowledgeable enough to be sure . I see that it was then . I've always appreciated the skill level, but this understanding will definitely increase my enjoyment and instantly moved it above 'regular' hockey on my list and I can't wait to see who it replaces after the next game I see. It is interesting that both football and basketball referees seem to be on occasion prone to intimidation when for whatever reason, NFL referees seem to all but ignore NFL player and coach whining entirely. That's not to say their actual officiating is any better though. At first I said, the full backs have to be my favorite non-goalie then since they're blue collar and get some offensive action too, but since stamina is what I associate with football second to skill, the midfielder sounds just as good although choosing a favorite player will be a case by case thing.

That definitely made perfect sense, even to a laymen *Red Dragon suddenly comes to mind* although I do have some questions.
1. What do you mean by 'tackling' ?
2. What do you  mean by 'in the air' ?
3. Among announcers or commentators, is there a non-Spanish speaking equivalent to the guy who says, 'gooooaaaalll....'?
4. Why do so many people say they hate the Madrid ? A Spanish gentleman who hates them once relayed it to me that their defensive style takes away from the fun of the game or something. I'm actually a huge defensive fan myself as I love to see steals and stops. As a matter of fact, I get somewhat of a perverse joy from seeing one side march all the way down thinking they're going to score only to have to start all over again . On the other hand, I have to admit that I do enjoy a good goal seeing as how the games are so long and it takes so long to get down there. I still prefer 1-0, 2-1 over 4-0, 4-1 ect. though.

Nice write-up Michael, though I'd make a few small changes.

Most top teams now play some variation of a 4-3-3 or a 4-2-3-1, which means that it's rare to see a real four-man midfield nowadays.

In fact, the last such outfit I can remember winning the Cup with the Big Ears was United back in 1999.

In terms of Ronaldo and Messi, what makes them unique is that neither is a conventional forward.

Messi is a winger turned into a false nine, whereas Ronaldo is a winger who has been morphed into an attacking player with license to operate accross the forward line.

And many people hate Real Madrid because it's the decent thing to do!

It's like hating the Yankees in baseball.

^Good point, one could indeed make a strong case that the traditional 4-4-2 system is becoming increasingly outdated these days, although I'd still consider it the most widely used formation over the course of recent history - certainly within living memory.

 

Its interesting that you mention Messi because you or someone made a comment that I assumed was sarcasm about him not being proven because of his conference or something. I assumed that it was a joke, but didn't consider myself knowledgeable enough to be sure . I see that it was then . I've always appreciated the skill level, but this understanding will definitely increase my enjoyment and instantly moved it above 'regular' hockey on my list and I can't wait to see who it replaces after the next game I see. It is interesting that both football and basketball referees seem to be on occasion prone to intimidation when for whatever reason, NFL referees seem to all but ignore NFL player and coach whining entirely. That's not to say their actual officiating is any better though. At first I said, the full backs have to be my favorite non-goalie then since they're blue collar and get some offensive action too, but since stamina is what I associate with football second to skill, the midfielder sounds just as good although choosing a favorite player will be a case by case thing.

 

That definitely made perfect sense, even to a laymen *Red Dragon suddenly comes to mind* although I do have some questions.

1. What do you mean by 'tackling' ?

2. What do you  mean by 'in the air' ?

3. Among announcers or commentators, is there a non-Spanish speaking equivalent to the guy who says, 'gooooaaaalll....'?

4. Why do so many people say they hate the Madrid ? A Spanish gentleman who hates them once relayed it to me that their defensive style takes away from the fun of the game or something. I'm actually a huge defensive fan myself as I love to see steals and stops. As a matter of fact, I get somewhat of a perverse joy from seeing one side march all the way down thinking they're going to score only to have to start all over again . On the other hand, I have to admit that I do enjoy a good goal seeing as how the games are so long and it takes so long to get down there. I still prefer 1-0, 2-1 over 4-0, 4-1 ect. though.

 

Oh, I think I know the Messi post you mean. Yeah, it was in jest. He'd just broken a goalscoring record for Barcelona and I'd seen a lot of people online suggesting that he'd struggle to recreate that form in the English leagues, which, if you ask me, is a patently ludicrous notion.

Anyway...

1. Basically just any attempt to win possession from your opponent, using either foot to take the ball while in a standing position, or sliding along the floor to knock the ball away. The target of the tackle must always be the ball and not the man, otherwise it's deemed as illegal and/or endangering an opponent.

2. Any time the ball is launched high into the air.

3. Sadly, we don’t really have an English-speaking equal to those exuberant Spanish guys' style, but there are always some really good videos of eccentric commentary (in almost every other language imaginable) doing the rounds on YouTube...

http://youtu.be/Fuq2ZTT3QwU

That snow game looks amazing

Are those 'yard' lines actually used for anything in terms of rules, or more just as guidelines? It's funny how they did their best to try and expose them through all the snow. Is that guy at 1:20 using a blower to clear the lines.. during play?

It's interesting with the GWS - I think in general they've had a better year in terms of overall improvement, even though they've only won 1 game with 2 rounds to go, compared to 2 wins last year. Some of their young talent is really starting to come through though, none more so than your key forward Jeremy Cameron who's being touted as an emerging superstar. He's in serious contention for the Coleman medal (most goals kicked in the season), which is pretty incredible for a) someone so young and b) in a team who's only won 1 game

There's been a lot of comparisons between the Giants and the Suns, who are the other expansion team brought in a year earlier. Their first three years were 3 wins, 3 wins then 7 wins (so far) this year - so they've generally done much better, with a notable jump in improvement in their third year. I guess the expectation for the Giants is to do the same. As I've mentioned before though, the Suns have done a bit better job of balancing their team with experienced players, plus they've also got one of the best players in the history of the game as their captain But it will be interesting to see what the Giants choose to do over the trade/draft period between seasons, and to see how they perform next year.

LOL @ the commentary :| . This seems reaffirm my notion that that tennis and golf seem to be lacking in this area compared to other sports. Okay, I figured you were joking . I guess it doesn't take an expert to see that Messi is amazingly skilled and I didn't realize he was 5'5 until you pointed it out although I never really thought about the heights of football players at all until I heard talk about the 'modern prototype.' As to the in the air thing, how rare are bicycle kicks? And do they keep records for longest goal made or rather from the farthest distance? Also, what is the FIFA rankings based on? I ask because Greece is really high and there I don't recall seeing them play in like years . That is at least since they upset some tough competition back in 04, but I don't even see them on ESPN really.

Yeah, they get pretty desperate to get that snow moved I guess . Its somewhat like in basketball where they have guys wiping up sweat during the plays. It does seem kindof funny when you put it that way though . Though they've changed some rules to make it more of a passing game to increase scoring, bad weather (snow and rain) generally makes it more of a running and defense oriented game again. Barry Sanders, Gayle Sayers and some others in particular were known for their ability to run on snow like it was any other day. The weather definitely makes things interesting. You have guys from New York or Poland playing in Arizona heat one day and guys from California or Florida playing in a blizzard the next. Each play (aside from scoring) is about yards. You start off with 4 chances to get 10 yards and if you do, you get a 'first down.' If you fail to do this after the 4th down or attempt, you can elect to kick a field goal, punt (when you're out of field goal range and want to give the other team the ball away as far as possible) or try to get the remaining yards you need. Penalties of course make you lose yards and need more. As to the lines, if you are even a half inch short of the line for the amount of yards you need, the referee will say you need 'inches.' Games have been won or lost over inches and there have been some pretty heated arguments over it as a result. There's just something about how the wind goes out of a crowd when the game is on the line and thy only needed a couple of inches .

It is interesting indeed to hear about him chasing this record with the team faring the way they are although it is good to hear that they are making improvements despite what their record looks like. It seems that things like that are always what some guy uses as fuel for their 'defense wins championships' soap box. One thing I've found (or it found me as these things always do) when I told some rugby or 'Rugby Union' not sure which that I started watching Australian football is that there are apparently some haters among rugby fans. I didn't initially even intend to reveal that I prefer AFL but they kindof forced me to. Of course, I don't generally say one sport is better although their hating made me realize that I do prefer AFL because it seems to me that they are doing the same thing with more athleticism and skill on a bigger field. Obviously, rugby fans are somewhat known for dissing other sports I guess. I know one friend of mine used to always bring up the whole NFL players are soft for wearing pads until I convinced him that not doing so would result in several annual deaths. All in all, I do prefer AFL over rugby now even though I haven't seen as much.

Its also worth mentioning that although the players generally show some restraint, particularly if they have endorsements and are supposed to be 'role models' NFL/American Football
coaches are known for their press conferrence explosions as well .
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_N1OjGhIFc

Also (aside from the NFL thing) currently working on a separate series 'The Evolution of the Fashion Model Torso' .

"Woa, women back then were...different..." - Jennka

Will need help with that one and I actually have to put some thought into that (as the other was just off the cuff). Some things instantly stand out, but I want to be thorough.

NFL thing??? Speaking of the NFL, what are your thoughts on this: http://www.nfl.com/qs/allclear/index.jsp. I just ordered a bag online. I hope I get it before Mid-September!

The Evolution of the Fashion Model Torso sounds like an interesting research project Are the torso getting smaller? Sure looks like it

Oh, I meant that part separately . The NFL thing was a separate series(with the first part being the offensive line) for those that said they didn't understand NFL rules. As to the bag thing, I must admit that I am a lover of bags myself. That's not to say 'fashionable' bags but just to carry my books, tools, supplies ect. around but I can understand their concern in a world of biological terrorism ect. I guess. I never cared for carrying to much stuff to games because with the big crowds and all the action, there's generally a lot of pick pockets likely around anyway.

Its hard to say whether its getting smaller because it seems as though the 'thinspiration' era finally caved to the criticism and it seems as though I don't see nearly as many sickingly frail looking models as I did say 5-8 some odd years ago. On the other hand, they're not the other decades were still bigger cumulatively.

Where I am right now in the model torso evolution study...

50s - it appears as though they were just kindof living life. It doesn't appear to me that they were particularly concerned about their weight, yoga ect. There were admittedly some strange looking stomachs on some and they didn't seem to show them often.

60s - seemingly the same size, but with flatter stomachs. Actually, from what I've been shown by those looking to convince me that Playboy used to not suck, the glamour models seem to have managed the 'womanly' size of the 50s with mostly flat stomachs.

70s - my knowledge of the 70s fashion industry is pretty limited.

80s - this is the earliest I've seen of the fitness type model in that working out ect. was emphasized. It doesn't appear that it was particularly important to get down to a particular size and most of the models appear to be in the 6-10 or more dress size range. Many don't even appear to show their whole stomach as often and SI swimsuit models appear to have worn actual swimsuits. The most predominant type of torso appears to be 3 dimensional with a lower belly pooch at the bottom.

90s - most seem to have 3D torsos, the stomach is shown more and the full body swimsuit appears to gradually fall out of fashion in favor of bikinis and clothes that show the whole stomach. The lower belly pooch is less frequent.

Late 90s - it appears that there is a 6'0 Brazilin Invasion with half appearing to be of German ancestry and the others thoroughly mixed with 8 things and all without the lower belly pooch. I'm not sure when 'heroin chic' took place but I assume mid to late 90s.

2000s - Aside from Laetitia Casta, the lower belly pooch becomes pretty much extinct. There are even a lot of plus sized models that don't have it. The vast majority of models have stomachs that are completely flat, but a new species emerges...The 1D torso. This is a torso that, from the side, appears as though its been flattened or as though the stomach disappears from the side view for lack of better terminology. I have absolutely no clue what type of diet brings this to pass as there are women who are the exact same size with equally flat stomachs who don't have it. In the entertainment industry, it seems to belong to models almost exclusively as I can't off the top of my head think of one singer or actress with it. I think Candice is the only African I know of with it and the western U.S. seems to produce a lot of models with it. Europe seems to be split as I haven't seen one from France, Romania, England or the Netherlands but many from the others. How do I feel about the 1D torso? Not sure. I do prefer 3D because there's more meat and warmth for the huggin'. There's even slim women and models who have 3D torsos (Josie Maran is one). On the other hand, there are those who appear to be 'regular size' at least for commercial models and have 2D, so that's a mystery to me too . That said, the 1D is at least interesting in its own way and it is probably fun to pick them up by. I haven't dated a woman with a 1D torso myself as even really skinny women in every day life tend to at least have 2D, so that's just speculation. It is also worth mentioning that (even despite obesity being way up as a whole) there appears to be more women with super flat stomachs in general. I guess the popularity of yoga and more stomach concentrated exercises or something.

^ That’s b/c you are a guy Guys rarely bring much stuff with them when they go out. Women on the other hand carry a shitload of stuff

Interesting findings (Y) Exercises like pilates & yoga contributes very much to their flat stomachs but I also think being cautious about what they eat is a factor. They probably try to avoid foods that causes bloating like dairy, fatty & salty foods, cruciferous vegetables, carbonated drinks, etc.

I think it is ok to have some belly. Sometimes when the belly is too flat it looks concaved--not very attractive.

Joe, What's a 'ID' torso?  Like the one the model Samantha and the blonde next to her has?  

My personal trainer, which I worked with for some time-  (and my experience with sports to boot..)had largely convinced me that six packs, extreme slimness and so forth are a combination of genetics and/or weight training over pure diet.  His view was that dietary content was a factor but ultimately marginal to age/genetics + actual dieting and exercise.  

My own personal experimentation with body shaping a few years gave me the same impression.  Essentially, a slim layer of fat over one's torso has everything to do with body fat %, and you reduce this with cardiovascular activity (swimming, distance running, sports, etc.).  Men are either genetically inclined or get six packs by performing exercises and sports that increase the size of the abdominal muscles so they emerge with more surface structure. People have different metabolisms and one's 'natural' body fat % will increase with age or decrease with weight loss up to a certain degree.  And of course, some people are genetically inclined to have thinner stomachs, fatter faces, fatter legs, thinner arms, etc. so weight loss and weight gain hits them differently. 

Then there are nutritional advocates and bodybuilders that claim that low carb %, higher protein and fat % of calories eaten also helps. 

Personally, I don't have naturally very low body fat % ( as in someone with ~4 %, 6 pack, etc.) so I need to work on it.  I'm technically underweight and I have a flat stomach but not incredibly cut like some people would be.

With most female models, I think they just simply starve themselves to a very low weight, and their stomachs disappear via starvation rather than real training.  So you have lots of very thin women with no definition on their stomachs (not overly low body fat %)  but combined with low muscle mass.  They're not real athletic women at all and may be just like my girlfriend, who was 5'7'' 107 lbs and maintained her slimness through both small food intake (regardless of content, she counted calories), genetics, and a few hours of jogging every week.  So they all drop their genetic body fat % to its low level mostly via food intake control.  

Then there are models Melissa T. that looks like she starves herself and overexercises.  I bet she eats only fruits, vegetables, and some protein.  Then she hits the gym with lots of cardio and swimming (she has swimmer's stomach).  Hilary Rhoda also appears to have done this, but in a different extent.  She had very defined abdominals (nearly a developing six pack bulging from her torso) in the last VS fashion show and had an obvious drop in body fat % (that hit her perfect face, unfortunately).

http://www.bellazon.com/main/topic/28359-melissa-tammerijn/page-24

LOL @ the commentary :| . This seems reaffirm my notion that that tennis and golf seem to be lacking in this area compared to other sports. Okay, I figured you were joking . I guess it doesn't take an expert to see that Messi is amazingly skilled and I didn't realize he was 5'5 until you pointed it out although I never really thought about the heights of football players at all until I heard talk about the 'modern prototype.' As to the in the air thing, how rare are bicycle kicks? And do they keep records for longest goal made or rather from the farthest distance? Also, what is the FIFA rankings based on? I ask because Greece is really high and there I don't recall seeing them play in like years . That is at least since they upset some tough competition back in 04, but I don't even see them on ESPN really.

Bicycle kick goals are usually pretty rare because raising your foot so high in the air is almost always considered dangerous play. You could only really do one legally if you remained completely unchallenged by defenders (which isn't something that you'd often see near the goalmouth) or if you were doing it in a way that didn't endanger your opponent (which is a little tricky given the nature of the maneuver). Consequently, though it's not uncommon to see them attempted, you'd rarely see one that results in a goal.

For the distance thing, probably not. There have been cases of goalkeepers scoring from long kick outs, but it's generally a freak occurence caused by odd bounces of the ball and windy conditions.

(Note the snazzy camouflage shirt )

http://youtu.be/i4SbJpQPA40

The FIFA rankings are quite often a bit of a puzzle to us all. I believe they're meant to be averaged out over about a four-year stretch, with more importance placed on recent results. It was simplified a few years back too, as it was previously thought to be a bit flawed due to teams playing different numbers of matches each year, and the quality of opposition that they have to face, which can sometimes vary pretty wildly. Even now, it's not always a reliable yardstick of a team's quality (for instance, if common sense were to prevail, there's no way Colombia would be placed third in the world), and nowhere near as prestigious as world rankings are in, say, tennis.