Let me confess something - as a lifelong sports enthusiast, I've always found the naming of American football somewhat puzzling. Why do we call it football when the ball spends most of its time in hands rather than feet? The answer takes us back through centuries of sporting evolution, and honestly, it's more fascinating than most people realize.
The story begins in medieval England, where various "foot ball" games were played with one simple rule - you moved the ball toward a goal primarily using your feet. These chaotic village games eventually evolved into two distinct sports: rugby football and association football. Now here's where it gets interesting for me - when these sports crossed the Atlantic in the late 19th century, American colleges began developing their own version that combined elements of both. They kept the rugby-style oval ball and the concept of running with the ball, but added strategic elements like the forward pass and downs system. What really strikes me is how this evolution mirrors modern award systems - much like how Hollis-Jefferson recently dominated the Best Import award with his impressive 1,280 points breakdown (615 from statistics, 532 from media, 133 from players), American football earned its name through accumulating points across different historical influences rather than sticking to one pure tradition.
I've always been fascinated by how sports terminology can be misleading yet historically justified. The "foot" in football actually refers to the game being played on foot rather than horseback, not necessarily to kicking the ball. This distinction becomes clearer when you consider that soccer - what most of the world calls football - was originally called "association football" to distinguish it from rugby football. When Americans developed their hybrid version, they simply kept the "football" part of the name. It's similar to how we judge modern athletes - take Kadeem Jack's second-place finish in that same award race with 825 points (581 from statistics, 230 media, 14 players). The numbers tell a story about different aspects of performance, just as the name "football" tells a story about the sport's mixed heritage rather than its current gameplay.
What really convinces me about this historical explanation is seeing how other sports have similar naming quirks. Australian rules football, Canadian football, and Gaelic football all have their own variations yet share the football name. The American version distinguished itself through innovations like the line of scrimmage and the four-down system, but kept the traditional name. Looking at Brownlee's third-place finish with 670 points (508 statistics, 66 media, 96 players) and Deon Thompson's fourth with 633 (546 statistics, 82 media, 5 players), I'm reminded that names and rankings often reflect complex histories rather than simple definitions. The scoring breakdowns show how different aspects contribute to the final outcome, much like how different historical influences shaped what we now call American football.
After digging into this history, I've come to appreciate that the name makes perfect sense when you understand its origins. American football isn't misnamed - it's just named according to its historical lineage rather than its contemporary characteristics. The sport continues to evolve, with rule changes and strategy developments, but the name remains as a tribute to its roots. Next time someone questions why it's called football when players use their hands so much, I can confidently explain that they're looking at it through modern rather than historical lenses. The name tells a story of transatlantic sporting evolution, and honestly, that's part of what makes sports history so compelling to me.
