PS

actually, there haven't been true "pennant races" since they added the two divisions in 1969. would you prefer that we eliminate the playoffs altogether? that way you and Bob Costas could have your "tradition". baseball is still the hardest of the 4 major sports in which to make the playoffs, obvuously.

I'm not saying they're equally dangerous, just that no sport is safe or free from injury. Football is dangerous and the league does its best to minimize the risk while allowing the game to proceed. To suggest football is too dangerous to play is simply silly. And you might be surprised if you compare concussion frequency in football to that of soccer.

The simple fact that many people consider Brett Favre's consecutive starts for a QB record more impressive than Ripkens (a number in the 100's versus the thousands) is one simple indicator.

Too simple really. Baseball players play 10+ times the games football players play every year. So Favre's 240 games = 2400 baseball games. Yes, football is a rougher sport, probably 10 times rougher, but that's not to say it is inhumanely brutal.

The routine actions of a football play will result in severe suspensions in "non-contact" sports.

Well sure, they're "non contact" so contacting would result in a suspension. I don't think the intensity of the "routine actions" would have anything to do with that.

On the other side of the equation you also have the mind-numbing boredom of a baseball game. How thrilling it must be at the end of the game to hear an outfielder talk about how he watched so many plays happen in front of him. Or for any of them to talk about how they watched the pitcher strike someone out.

Football isn't exciting because of the violence, it is exciting because of the action. 22 people running around all at the same time, trying to keep track of the ball and each other. Is there violence? Yes. Can that be part of the excitement? Yes. However to equate it to boxing or another blood sport is a simplistic attempt to horrify people. Mikes Pace's yammering about unrealistic numbers of concussions or his wacky SF yarns about steroid use turning people into monsters are just silly attempts at using wild statements to bait people or scare them.

"Sure, I mean why would you tune in to the culmination of the Watch Guys Stand Around For Awhile League?" (reference to MLB)

My good friend, a film director, videotaped an NFL game some years ago, and edited it to replay all the actual "action" of the game. Yeah, that's right, he took out the commercials, timeouts, huddles, and standing around. If my memory of his account is correct, the three-hour extravaganza that is an NFL game comprised something like eleven minutes of players actually playing. I'm extremely tired of hearing football advocates bitch about the lack of "action" in baseball. The war metaphors for the game of football are not accidental. It is indeed a lot of sitting around punctuated by extreme violence. If you doubt this, please compare the health and mobility (and longevity) of NFL veterans with actual war veterans. Not that people aren't entertained by this sport. Let's just see things as they are.

christmartin17 actually the wild card has made the September (and earlier) games more important, not less so ... Because twice as many teams make the playoffs each year, more teams have a chance to make it at a later stage in the season....thus keeping interest in more cities past July and August. this is fairly obvious and i am surprised I even have to point it out.

You don't. You could have read my column, because I pointed it out too. There are more teams alive in September and therefore more meaningful games. But there are no true pennant races.

would you prefer that only 4 teams out 32 make the playoffs each year

Yes. I'd rather have a couple of dozen fantastic pennant-race games as two teams fight to the death for one playoff spot -- this can happen in four divisions -- than a couple of hundred meaningful but not nearly as intense games as a clump of mostly mediocre teams, since the good ones have already clinched the playoffs, try to get the last spot.

how is that exciting?

You're asking about the Yankees winning, but I'll answer about true pennant races, between good teams, with the loser going home, not getting the wild card concession prize. The answer is: If you're too young to remember 1993 or 1978 or a number of others, I guess I can't explain it to you here.

maybe you, and the rest of the sports media just likes Football better than baseball? sounds like a logical explanation to me.

Good. Glad it sounds logical to you. I like baseball better than I like football, and it isn't close. What do you think of that?

TEB 33 Translation: The Giants are 18 games back with 5 to play.

Right. And how are the Rams and Raiders, my favorite NFL teams, doing?

christmartin17 actually, there haven't been true "pennant races" since they added the two divisions in 1969. would you prefer that we eliminate the playoffs altogether? that way you and Bob Costas could have your "tradition".

Well whatever you want to call them. Best team in the league vs. the 2nd best team in the league, loser goes home. Cannot happen today. Literally.

I'd be fine, by the way (I'll have to ask Bob about his at the next Baseball Traditionalists Society tea), with eight four-team divisions, with each winner making the playoffs. It's not the eight teams in the playoffs that I don't like. I like the playoffs. I write about almost nothing but in October, during which time baseball and football fans in this thread can switch places. It's the lack of true [whatever you want to call them, see above for definition] races.

The two expansion teams would go in greater New York, by the way.

the excitement or lack thereof in baseball is not the point.

mike's pace is not exaggerating the concussion list as much as you think. studies suggest that 20% of high school football players suffer a concussion during a typical season (250,000 concussions a year). so if that is accuarate, then there are 10 to 15 thousand concussions over a typical football weekend.

source: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=155441

i don't think that football should be banned. i'm a big fan, but the physical effects are harder and harder to ignore. and what is so unsettling about it all is that the nfl worries more about protecting its current product rather than its players. they don't do all they can.

as a football fan, i recommend reading the articles linked below (one King's):

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/18/sports/football/18waters.html

http://nflretirees.blogspot.com/2007/01/glory-can-be-costly.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/21/SPG6JNM6MN1.DTL

http://www.salon.com/sports/col/kaufman/2007/01/31/wednesday/index1.html (halfway down the page)