ECNL. The C stands for Cartel

[Grace T.]

It's really not that deep. You stated, with words, that most positions of football were low-skill. This remains an untrue statement that someone can either roll their eyes at or decide to call out. It takes no stretch to take that to mean that soccer is a high-skill sport, but football (for most positions) was low-skill.

Of course that was inflammatory, of course it was uninformed, and of course there might be some dumbass (i.e. me) who will call you out for it. The fact that someone can walk on to a high school team, or even a college team, for some positions if everything else was a fit - doesn't mean that the position that they turn out to be quite good at (hopefully) - doesn't require much skill. It just means that they inherently have the skill to perform well from the start, including the athleticism, body type, smarts, etc.

Reasonable people can disagree about how relevant or necessary the amount of hours put in to learning a certain position relates to how well one can perform in that position - but I don't see how they can disagree that the ultimate measure has nothing to do with hours, it's simply their performance on the field.

Well, you are back to objecting to the distinction between soccer and football, which I do still stand by, and which you've been presented the not quite mountain but most definitely a hill without rebutting evidence on your part. I stand by the position that soccer (or for that matter QB) is a more skilled based than football positions, at least linesman. We just disagree with that. I get getting hurt over the omission of the "er" and making it an objective measure. But on the relative, you just don't have a leg to stand on and have advanced nothing that disputes that beyond "I believe". The one argument you've made is that linemen are highly paid, but that doesn't follow a priori that they are skilled either (particularly since you dispute hours as a representation of skill)...just because an actor or a singer is highly paid doesn't make them skilled either.

The reason your "ultimate measure" doesn't work is because there is no rubric to compare a violin player to a drummer, a chess player to a checkers player, a soccer player to a football linesman besides money (which I've pointed out to you is another fallacy) and time, at least when comparing the difficulty of one discipline to another. Hence the necessity for a razor which, while the correlation is not 1 to 1, is high. The more you do something the better you get at it, which means mastery is simply a function of the difficulty of the endeavor from a skills perspective, the preordained innate level of elements required (which as I've said is higher in football than soccer), and the time put it (hence the high but not perfect correlation between time and mastery). That's just an economics analysis.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

In real life, one doesn't win an argument if they can find enough citations that tangentially support the point they are trying to make. They are either right or wrong. And in most cases, both tend to leave in opposite directions and continue to believe they are right.

Suggesting that I need to prove that NFL linesman are highly skilled is absurd. Suggesting that the hours put in is the right measure to compare the skill needed to do something - when that something included in the data set is a top-flight athlete, is equally absurd. It is just as easy, and even easier, to measure the output and make inferences and decisions based on that. For pretty much any level, but especially the highest level, all that needs to be shown is that they (the player) exists and keeps their position. Because if they didn't, it follows that they didn't have the skill, along with all accompanying necessities, to show that they were the best choice for that position. It's silly for the person losing that position to try and convince people that they've put in more hours over the years than their replacement. It's even sillier to use that hours metric when comparing whether a football linesman or a soccer player or a hockey winger both require and possess a higher level of skill.

The 10,000 hours and mastery discussion applies to a point, it isn't wrong on its face, but it just outweighed by all of the other factors that are involved - tied to whatever the ultimate measure of success is - not the amount of effort put in. Same as there are people who have played golf for 50 years and couldn't hit the ocean if they were on a beach, while there are scratch golfers who aren't yet 10 years old. Of course time put in both short-term and long-term should make a difference - but it's awfully easy to look at the scorecard at the end of 18 holes and decide which golfer has the most skill.

 

[Woobie06]

NFL Players are not unskilled, at any position. I would argue on Offense, QB and Center have the largest cognitive load.

On Defense, MLB and Free Safety.

Do some do insanely dumb stuff off the field, yes…So do many pro athletes in all sports…Pairing young adults with little life experience and tons of money…what could go wrong…but to say they are unskilled athletes is not a fair statement in my opinion.

Skilled positions refer to Receivers, Running Backs, QB’s, Receiving TE’s and DB’s. Skilled really refers to players that handle the ball more so than anything else.

Kickers, Punters, and Long Snappers are Specialists.

 

[Grace T.]

NFL Players are not unskilled, at any position. I would argue on Offense, QB and Center have the largest cognitive load.

On Defense, MLB and Free Safety.

Do some do insanely dumb stuff off the field, yes…So do many pro athletes in all sports…Pairing young adults with little life experience and tons of money…what could go wrong…but to say they are unskilled athletes is not a fair statement in my opinion.

Skilled positions refer to Receivers, Running Backs, QB’s, Receiving TE’s and DB’s. Skilled really refers to players that handle the ball more so than anything else.

Kickers, Punters, and Long Snappers are Specialists.

The issue isn't NFL players v. a high school freshman or novice just starting out in the game. All professionals are higher learned skilled than novice across all sports. The question is the amount of effort (for which time is razor) it takes to get skilled at the game (which will be different for each individual but likely averages out over time into various bell curves). The secondary question is how that relates to other sports...the relative measure of how long it takes to get skilled at one game v another.

My nephew is able to walk on as a freshman who hadn't played (outside of some peewee football really early on and touch in pe) football as de at a top 20 socal school and make varsity as a sophomore. Despite his height and athleticism, he could not do the same with an MLS Next team let alone my kid's varsity team. The Usain bolt video above is very illustrative...I'd venture running track is a lower skilled sport and the main variable there really is athleticism...like the SAT you can improve with practice and education but at heart the SAT is an IQ test especially once you get to the 80th percentile.

 

[Woobie06]

The issue isn't NFL players v. a high school freshman or novice just starting out in the game. All professionals are higher learned skilled than novice across all sports. The question is the amount of effort (for which time is razor) it takes to get skilled at the game (which will be different for each individual but likely averages out over time into various bell curves). The secondary question is how that relates to other sports...the relative measure of how long it takes to get skilled at one game v another.

My nephew is able to walk on as a freshman who hadn't played (outside of some peewee football really early on and touch in pe) football as de at a top 20 socal school and make varsity as a sophomore. Despite his height and athleticism, he could not do the same with an MLS Next team let alone my kid's varsity team. The Usain bolt video above is very illustrative...I'd venture running track is a lower skilled sport and the main variable there really is athleticism...like the SAT you can improve with practice and education but at heart the SAT is an IQ test especially once you get to the 80th percentile.

Some people are smarter, some are more athletic, some work harder for the same result as those that have to put in little effort. The SAT and ACT are Academic Events you can train for, and get better results if you are better trained or very smart and can rock a test. Like a combine….Some people are more talented in areas than others…not everyone is equal. Whats the point of this conversation again?

The amount of time it takes to get skilled has to do with athleticism, work ethic, ability, a wide array of things…hours spent is not a good metric…showing up to practice versus practicing with purpose is a different thing.

Why are we talking about hours of practice?

 

[Chelsea dad g09]

If anyone thinks the amount of footwork needed to be an nfl lineman, the hand and elbow placement, punch off the snap, ability to shed blockers, ability on pass vs run block, hips and center of gravity while a 275+ lb man is trying to move you out the way, is without any high technical skill, they don’t know anything about football. I’ve seen the most athletic big men on the line who can’t even keep their thumbs out, so just because you don’t see and understand it, doesn’t mean it’s not there.

 

[Grace T.]

Some people are smarter, some are more athletic, some work harder for the same result as those that have to put in little effort. The SAT and ACT are Academic Events you can train for, and get better results if you are better trained or very smart and can rock a test. Like a combine….Some people are more talented in areas than others…not everyone is equal. Whats the point of this conversation again?

The amount of time it takes to get skilled has to do with athleticism, work ethic, ability, a wide array of things…hours spent is not a good metric…showing up to practice versus practicing with purpose is a different thing.

Why are we talking about hours of practice?

Hours of practice is definitively a function of mastery. The economic model would be mastery on the x axis time on the y. There is a direct correlation. The slope is determined by a. How difficult the activity is and b. The innate ability of the athlete. You can factor out b. by taking a bell curve (the economic argument then is what set and is the mean or median). Reason we are talking about it is you raised the argument that the other sports divert talent. The counter was the other sports aren’t good equivalents. The more persuasive argument you raised is that it doesn’t just divert Dennis Rodman away from soccer, but also potential Messi’s. That’s a better argument though your remaining issue is it still leaves a pool that is larger than Honduras or Uruguay.

 

[Grace T.]

If anyone thinks the amount of footwork needed to be an nfl lineman, the hand and elbow placement, punch off the snap, ability to shed blockers, ability on pass vs run block, hips and center of gravity while a 275+ lb man is trying to move you out the way, is without any high technical skill, they don’t know anything about football. I’ve seen the most athletic big men on the line who can’t even keep their thumbs out, so just because you don’t see and understand it, doesn’t mean it’s not there.

The question isn’t whether there is any skill involved particularly on the pro level. The question is how much, how easy is it to learn and how does that compare to the other sports. As shown above, football itself draws a distinction between the so-called skilled and non-skilled positions (again their words, not mine). The relative argument is that all other things being equal (proper body type/work ethic) it is easier to pick up being a linesman than either a qb or soccer player. Kids aren’t walking onto high school and college play as novice qbs. Then aren’t walking onto mls next teams as novices on college. They are in high school and has been pointed out even in college for linesmen. Nothing offered so far rebuts that.

 

[Chelsea dad g09]

The question isn’t whether there is any skill involved particularly on the pro level. The question is how much, how easy is it to learn and how does that compare to the other sports. As shown above, football itself draws a distinction between the so-called skilled and non-skilled positions (again their words, not mine). The relative argument is that all other things being equal (proper body type/work ethic) it is easier to pick up being a linesman than either a qb or soccer player. Kids aren’t walking onto high school and college play as novice qbs. Then aren’t walking onto mls next teams as novices on college. They are in high school and has been pointed out even in college for linesmen. Nothing offered so far rebuts that.

Every sport has their novices and elites. You said it takes less skill to play lineman in football than to play soccer, and which I’ve rebutted you don’t understand what it takes nor will you ever. And yes there are “novice” lineman in college, much like there are “novice” soccer players in college. And no, it’s not easier to play lineman than soccer, just differences that you don’t recognize.

 

[#girldad]

Every sport has their novices and elites. You said it takes less skill to play lineman in football than to play soccer, and which I’ve rebutted you don’t understand what it takes nor will you ever. And yes there are “novice” lineman in college, much like there are “novice” soccer players in college. And no, it’s not easier to play lineman than soccer, just differences that you don’t recognize.

Size is the first determining factor in being a lineman, then quickness and technique. Lineman are the greatest UNSUNG hero of all sports.

 

[Grace T.]

Every sport has their novices and elites. You said it takes less skill to play lineman in football than to play soccer, and which I’ve rebutted you don’t understand what it takes nor will you ever. And yes there are “novice” lineman in college, much like there are “novice” soccer players in college. And no, it’s not easier to play lineman than soccer, just differences that you don’t recognize.

Might be a definitional problem in that you have a very broad definition of novice but no…there are no novice soccer plays at any of the d schools on the boys side at least…not one kid coming out of ayso and not one kid that hasn’t done it for years. Yes they are a rarity but as has been established there are novice linesmen going into college. They aren’t comparable and the sport ITSELF draws a distinction between the positions. There is not a single freshman player on the line at my nephew’s top 20 school that has put even a 1/10th of the hours that my freshman kid has in soccer. No comparison. And that’s freshman year with a limited ability of those linesmen to train given the wear and tear on their bodies. It’s not even close.
That’s a completely different question than “easier”. I’d say being a linesman is actually harder than being a soccer player just because of the punishment. The question isn’t easier v difficult but easy v difficult in skill.

 

[Grace T.]

Might be a definitional problem in that you have a very broad definition of novice but no…there are no novice soccer plays at any of the d schools on the boys side at least…not one kid coming out of ayso and not one kid that hasn’t done it for years. Yes they are a rarity but as has been established there are novice linesmen going into college. They aren’t comparable and the sport ITSELF draws a distinction between the positions. There is not a single freshman player on the line at my nephew’s top 20 school that has put even a 1/10th of the hours that my freshman kid has in soccer. No comparison. And that’s freshman year with a limited ability of those linesmen to train given the wear and tear on their bodies. It’s not even close.
That’s a completely different question than “easier”. I’d say being a linesman is actually harder than being a soccer player just because of the punishment. The question isn’t easier v difficult but easy v difficult in skill.

Two analogies. The singer v guitarist in a band. The guitarist may or may not read music but to play on a professional level will have put years of work on the technique. The singer does not necessarily have to be trained….there are naturally gifted singers who have gone professional with no voice training whatsoever. On the whole, it is harder to learn to play the guitar than to be the singer in a professional band. Yet the singer takes most of the glory and the singer may actually have the harder job given the band rises and falls with them

Chess v checkers. Chess is just a multidimensional game that takes longer to learn. You can have someone innately come along that masters both games quickly. But on the whole it is harder to be a chess grand master than checkers. That doesn’t mean, however, that if you put the checkers master in a stadium filled with screaming people and loud music with a clock that they wouldn’t have a harder time than the chess master playing in his home with his notes and books and the ready against equivalent opponents

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

As shown above, football itself draws a distinction between the so-called skilled and non-skilled positions (again their words, not mine).

You keep repeating this, and don't understand that nobody but you labels the other positions as non-skilled. The opposite of skilled positions is not non-skilled, low-skilled, or un-skilled positions. It's not just a language thing - you are fundamentally misunderstanding the entire topic.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

Two analogies. The singer v guitarist in a band. The guitarist may or may not read music but to play on a professional level will have put years of work on the technique. The singer does not necessarily have to be trained….there are naturally gifted singers who have gone professional with no voice training whatsoever. On the whole, it is harder to learn to play the guitar than to be the singer in a professional band. Yet the singer takes most of the glory and the singer may actually have the harder job given the band rises and falls with them

Chess v checkers. Chess is just a multidimensional game that takes longer to learn. You can have someone innately come along that masters both games quickly. But on the whole it is harder to be a chess grand master than checkers. That doesn’t mean, however, that if you put the checkers master in a stadium filled with screaming people and loud music with a clock that they wouldn’t have a harder time than the chess master playing in his home with his notes and books and the ready against equivalent opponents

Pick an analogy that works, is relevant, and supports your point. Neither of these do.

 

[Grace T.]

You keep repeating this, and don't understand that nobody but you labels the other positions as non-skilled. The opposite of skilled positions is not non-skilled, low-skilled, or un-skilled positions. It's not just a language thing - you are fundamentally misunderstanding the entire topic.

A. Its in the citations. It used RIGHT THERE. B. It’s a Venn diagram. If one thing is within the other is not C. The article itself sets up the opposite. Says “by contrast”. That’s just reading comprehension. D. It’s the rule of language construction. If one is that which is not within the definition is “non” meaning not. As that which does not make sense is nonsense (which is what you’ve just laid out here)

Pick an analogy that works, is relevant, and supports your point. Neither of these do.

They do. There are more. Again your position seems to continually be arguing “is not is not” the more which is put up against you.

 

[rainbow_unicorn]

Maybe instead of just assuming one league is "better" than another you should try to understand why a player or parent might choose one league or the other.

Not an assumption, just reality that ECNL has better competition and recruitment. Just like how GA has better competition and recruitment than NPL or E64 league. Imagine a parent banging on a drum constantly saying that E64/NPL is just as good as GA.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

A. Its in the citations. It used RIGHT THERE. B. It’s a Venn diagram. If one thing is within the other is not C. The article itself sets up the opposite. Says “by contrast”. That’s just reading comprehension. D. It’s the rule of language construction. If one is that which is not within the definition is “non” meaning not. As that which does not make sense is nonsense (which is what you’ve just laid out here)

We are talking football. You are talking logic. You are wrong about football no matter how many times you repeat it. The language error that you are making, if you want to be pedantic, is that skill positions in football are a label, same as if they said they were blue positions or fluffy positions. There is no opposite of either - it's just a label. You are misinterpreting that skill must mean there is a no-skill or less-skill, when all it really means it whether they are expected to touch the ball often or not.

They do. There are more. Again your position seems to continually be arguing “is not is not” the more which is put up against you.

Chess is a more complicated game than checkers. There are many more mathematical permutations, and assigning skill to the two disciplines can be compared and contrasted. Trying to do the same between sports runs down a path that ends with a whole bunch of unfounded and uninformed opinion, typically by one who is deep in one sport but not the other - doesn't matter which sport is which.

 

[Grace T.]

We are talking football. You are talking logic. You are wrong about football no matter how many times you repeat it. The language error that you are making, if you want to be pedantic, is that skill positions in football are a label, same as if they said they were blue positions or fluffy positions. There is no opposite of either - it's just a label. You are misinterpreting that skill must mean there is a no-skill or less-skill, when all it really means it whether they are expected to touch the ball often or not.



Chess is a more complicated game than checkers. There are many more mathematical permutations, and assigning skill to the two disciplines can be compared and contrasted. Trying to do the same between sports runs down a path that ends with a whole bunch of unfounded and uninformed opinion, typically by one who is deep in one sport but not the other - doesn't matter which sport is which.

The reality is they aren't labelled blue or fluffy. They chose a word which has a specific meaning. They could have gone with the "handling" positions....very easy...they didn't. I'm not interpreting anything here. It's just English. I'm sorry but I haven't received my eleventh edition of the Newspeak dictionary.

I'm also not just contrasting between the sports but within the sport itself: quarterback is a much more skilled position than linesman. Quarterback is probably the most skilled position in football. You aren't jumping into quarterback as a freshmen at a top 20 southern California high school if you haven't done it before...you can jump in as a lineman if you got the right build.

 

[RandomSoccerFan]

I'm sorry but I haven't received my eleventh edition of the Newspeak dictionary.

Or have taken the time to learn football terms before denigrating the sport and its positions.

I'm also not just contrasting between the sports but within the sport itself: quarterback is a much more skilled position than linesman. Quarterback is probably the most skilled position in football. You aren't jumping into quarterback as a freshmen at a top 20 southern California high school if you haven't done it before...you can jump in as a lineman if you got the right build.

No, you're backtracking. Again - here's what you said:

Football is a low skilled sport for most positions (QB, receiver and certain other positions exempted)

And it remains as untrue now as it was then.

 

[Grace T.]

Or have taken the time to learn football terms before denigrating the sport and its positions.



No, you're backtracking. Again - here's what you said:



And it remains as untrue now as it was then.

1. I'm not denigrating football. I'm actually a fan. I like it more than I do soccer. I think it's more suited to the American character.
2. It's the sport's terminology, not mine. It's what they say themselves, which is why I carved out certain positions. A more interesting argument is whether a receiver is a harder skill to learn than a soccer player...I have my opinion but am agnostic as to the actual outcome...I can see the arguments for both sides with that.
3. I already told you I'm willing to amend to say "football is a lowER skilled sports for most positions (QB,..."). Rather than take the win, you doubled down on the ridiculous assertion that a linesman is as hard as position to learn as QB or soccer player, a position for which you have advanced no evidence for despite the arguments made on the other side. Either that or you hold to the ridiculous belief that all sports positions are equally hard...that's not true either...the GK position in the modern game by far has much much more to learn than even the striker position.
4. There's no backtracking here. You know QB is short for quarterback, right???? It's right there in the quote.