Why aren't there more football card collectors?

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

You raise some good points, Peter. I can't say that you are wrong. The helmet-wearing could be part of the equation. That's funny because I (along with other baseball card collectors) get so turned off by baseball cards of hatless players. However, football cards almost necessitate that they don't wear their helmet when having their picture taken for their card. Of course some did wear their helmets but not that many. But I don't think that impacts vintage football that much because it seems like the helmet wearing is mainly with more modern issues.

I do believe you hit on a key aspect though----that being the relative anonymity of the player of say the 1960s and on back. You referred to the scrums and lack of individuality. With the exception of the really big names like Nagurski, Unitas, Jim Brown, Namath, etc., many of the rest aren't well known. It seems baseball has a middle class of players. For example, in postwar baseball collecting, everyone knows who Mantle was. He was a megastar. Though not megastars, Billy Martin and Phil Rizzuto were reasonably well known, too. Outside of the great Colt and Packer teams who had a lot of recognizable players thanks to their success, many teams had a guy or two per team that you might know, and that's about it.

In thinking carefully about my collecting of football, I think I am drawn more to leagues and teams, with a few individuals sprinkled in. For instance, the colorful, high-flying AFL appeals to me, particularly the Chargers and the other western teams. The casual fan can name you a player or two per team, but that's about it probably.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[silvor]

I wonder if the shorter careers of pro football players is also a factor?
3.3 years for NFL
5.6 for MLB

[Peter_Spaeth]

Random modern RC.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagebaseballcardguy

You raise some good points, Peter. I can't say that you are wrong. The helmet-wearing could be part of the equation. That's funny because I (along with other baseball card collectors) get so turned off by baseball cards of hatless players. However, football cards almost necessitate that they don't wear their helmet when having their picture taken for their card. Of course some did wear their helmets but not that many. But I don't think that impacts vintage football that much because it seems like the helmet wearing is mainly with more modern issues.

I do believe you hit on a key aspect though----that being the relative anonymity of the player of say the 1960s and on back. You referred to the scrums and lack of individuality. With the exception of the really big names like Nagurski, Unitas, Jim Brown, Namath, etc., many of the rest aren't well known. It seems baseball has a middle class of players. For example, in postwar baseball collecting, everyone knows who Mantle was. He was a megastar. Though not megastars, Billy Martin and Phil Rizzuto were reasonably well known, too. Outside of the great Colt and Packer teams who had a lot of recognizable players thanks to their success, many teams had a guy or two per team that you might know, and that's about it.

In thinking carefully about my collecting of football, I think I am drawn more to leagues and teams, with a few individuals sprinkled in. For instance, the colorful, high-flying AFL appeals to me, particularly the Chargers and the other western teams. The casual fan can name you a player or two per team, but that's about it probably.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

It's also hard for most positions to get a sense of how good players were, and compare them, the way you can with all the baseball metrics. What can I look up, for example, that isn't anecdotal/testimonial that's going to give me a sense of Bob Lilly, or Jim Parker, or Jack Lambert?

[samosa4u]

I think whether it's a hockey guy in Vancouver or a baseball guy in Dallas, every collection will have a few football cards in there.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's also hard for most positions to get a sense of how good players were, and compare them, the way you can with all the baseball metrics. What can I look up, for example, that isn't anecdotal/testimonial that's going to give me a sense of Bob Lilly, or Jim Parker, or Jack Lambert?

Related to this is the fact that the NFL only recently (during Reggie White's era in the '90s??) started keeping up with sacks and sack records and such. Without sacks, the defensive lineman and linebackers do become a bit more difficult to distinguish from one another unless a collector is a die hard collector of say the Bears, Cowboys, Packers, Steelers, etc. In baseball all position players eventually come to the plate and are seen. If you play football but not a glamour position, it is hard to get noticed by a collector unless that player just happens to be above average or better on a dynamite team. That being said, I enjoy collecting those sets!

[Kurri17]

Interesting topic and a lot of good points made. My first thoughts on the topic are in regards to connection. In addition to the visibility points made earlier, baseball is played every day and in modern times fans can see their favorite, or any, teams regularly if not every game. While that level of exposure wasn't always the case, baseball fans of old followed their teams on the radio daily, and pored over box scores for stats. Football is obviously played just once a week, per team of course, and plays over a shorter season. This increased level of availability may have something to do with it, along with simple fact that football came into prominence nationally much later than baseball. Personally, I collected both equally as a kid in the '70s, eagerly awaiting the arrival of both sport's packs in my local stores and have a fondness for their place in my childhood that is at the very core of why I still collect.