Update Request- TOTAL FOOTBALL
Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2014 8:42 am
ARCHIVE
Update Request- TOTAL FOOTBALL
Started by BrownsHistorian, Aug 17 2014 10:52 AM
Research Tools
Page 1 of 2
25 replies to this topic
#1 BrownsHistorian
Forum Visitors
Posted 17 August 2014 - 10:52 AM
Good Morning,
I read in the forum from time to time about how Research Sites
(Free and otherwise) are becoming harder to find and harder to navigate...
Several members have written books, etc which cover specific topics...
It has been a while since I have seen anyone discuss what I believe is one of the best tools we have: TOTAL FOOTBALL
the last version, TOTAL FOOTBALL II, came out in the late 90's with editing by Bob C.
A year plus ago I remember seeing a comment that a new version was maybe in the works.....
As it has been 15 years since the last one, does anyone know the status of this Project?
Rich Crow/ BrownsHistorian
#2 Rupert Patrick
PFRA Member
Posted 17 August 2014 - 11:34 AM
It pains me to say this, but the days of the gigantic sports encyclopedias are gone. Like so many things, they have been made obsolete due to the Internet. I don't believe you will ever see something like a new book like Total Football or the Macmillan Baseball Encyclopedia again. The last books of this kind were the ESPN Encyclopedias, and even with ESPN's name on it, they still couldn't sell enough of them to justify the work involved in putting a book like that together. I think the last one of those ESPN books was in 2006.
#3 JWL
PFRA Member
Posted 17 August 2014 - 11:38 AM
The last ESPN Encyclopedia was published in the summer of 2007. I still look at it almost everyday. I think if you want/need a book like it, you need to make it yourself by typing, printing, copying whatever you want and update it every year.
#4 lastcat3
Forum Visitors
Posted 17 August 2014 - 11:44 AM
Rupert Patrick, on 17 Aug 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:
It pains me to say this, but the days of the gigantic sports encyclopedias are gone. Like so many things, they have been made obsolete due to the Internet. I don't believe you will ever see something like a new book like Total Football or the Macmillan Baseball Encyclopedia again. The last books of this kind were the ESPN Encyclopedias, and even with ESPN's name on it, they still couldn't sell enough of them to justify the work involved in putting a book like that together. I think the last one of those ESPN books was in 2006.
Although it is nice to go thumb through a book it is definitely true about the internet. So much easier for people to hop online and go to a site for free with all that info then to have to have to go to a bookstore and pay (not sure how much the Total Football book cost as I got it for a Christmas present back in the day).
Many hard core book lovers probably wouldn't mind it but the casual enthusiast would much rather prefer the easier way of looking things up.
Even novels through traditional methods are starting to slowly fade away as people are reading more and more on their nook and kindle devices.
#5 luckyshow
Forum Visitors
Posted 17 August 2014 - 12:00 PM
And what about when a lot of detail is lost due to everything going into twitter and facebook? Which is becoming a trend..
#6 Jeffrey Miller
PFRA Member
Posted 17 August 2014 - 12:58 PM
I might be old fashioned (as a lot of us historians are), but I like my hard copies much better than surfing the net. My book shelves are right next to my desk and access is very easy. If I am not sure exactly how to spell a man's name, I can still find it in the book with an educated guess. If you can't spell a man's name correctly in a search engine, you cold spend lots of time looking at the wrong player, or maybe going through several players with the same name before you find the right guy. I have several NFL encycs, including TF2 (my favorite), along with the ESPN, the Maher/Gill, and the Treat. There are errors in each one of them, but there are also on the internet sites. But with each one of these hard books, I know where to look for everything I want to find in them. I know where the drafts are listed, the yearly record, the all-pro listings, and any other special categories or focus areas each individual book contains. And then they slide right back on the shelf.
Don't get me wrong, I do use internet sites on a fairly regular basis, especially Pro Football Reference, but I the books much easier to navigate.
#7 Rupert Patrick
PFRA Member
Posted 17 August 2014 - 02:10 PM
From a statistical standpoint, the internet is a godsend because some sites like pro football reference allow you to convert their statistical data into a .csv file that you can export to create excel files for stat analysis. I spent a couple years doing nothing but building databases for my various rating systems, and I could have cut my time in half by grabbing the data online and converting it to dump into excel as opposed to logging in all the statistical information manually.
#8 Marble_Eye
Forum Visitors
Posted 17 August 2014 - 06:36 PM
My guess is most of those that post here are at least middle aged if not older. We probably tend to prefer books or if not, at least like the option of having both print and online available to us. I know I like to have both. I have several sports encyclopedias from days gone by and am glad to have them. I don't mind using online as well. But the blunt truth is: no one is ever getting younger and there is a whole generation out there that grew up with computers as a matter of fact thing in the home the way many of us did with rotary phones and B&W TV. I wish there was going to be money in things like Total Football and updating it, but I see it going the other way. With the ESPN emphasis on 1979 and beyond, and the NFL's own emphasis on the Super Bowl and beyond, I think people coming up with interest in the earlier eras of football, with little to no film out there are going to be fewer and fewer. I hope I am wrong about that.
#9 Nwebster
Forum Visitors
Posted 18 August 2014 - 09:39 AM
Even as early as 2000 I had to explain to a (now) ex-girlfriend, that there were all kinds of stats that weren't available online. What upsets me is the concept that if it's not online it didn't happen. To my knowledge there's only one place on earth to get a 1960 Colts-Redskins Gamebook, and that's in the archives in Canton . . . sadly it always will be.
#10 mwald
PFRA Member
Posted 18 August 2014 - 10:55 AM
NWebster, on 18 Aug 2014 - 09:39 AM, said:
Even as early as 2000 I had to explain to a (now) ex-girlfriend, that there were all kinds of stats that weren't available online. What upsets me is the concept that if it's not online it didn't happen. To my knowledge there's only one place on earth to get a 1960 Colts-Redskins Gamebook, and that's in the archives in Canton . . . sadly it always will be.
I'm more interested in the fact you found a girl interested enough in football to listen to an explanation of what is vs. what isn't available online in terms of stats.
Please send name and address.
#11 Tod Maher
PFRA Member
Posted 18 August 2014 - 11:39 AM
NWebster, on 18 Aug 2014 - 09:39 AM, said:
Even as early as 2000 I had to explain to a (now) ex-girlfriend, that there were all kinds of stats that weren't available online. What upsets me is the concept that if it's not online it didn't happen. To my knowledge there's only one place on earth to get a 1960 Colts-Redskins Gamebook, and that's in the archives in Canton . . . sadly it always will be.
I would love to publish the stats you and John Turney have put together on my site - http://www.profootballarchives.com.
#12 Bryan
Forum Visitors
Posted 19 August 2014 - 08:07 AM
NWebster, on 18 Aug 2014 - 09:39 AM, said:
Even as early as 2000 I had to explain to a (now) ex-girlfriend, that there were all kinds of stats that weren't available online.
My wife thinks that the "Coffin Corner" title is in reference to all the dead football players that we talk about at PFRA.
#13 oldecapecod 11
PFRA Member
Posted 19 August 2014 - 08:31 AM
Since he did not see it in print, a friend asked if the coughin' corner was the smoking section at stadia nowadays.
He was going to buy tix via the telephone and did not want to sit near that section.
#14 rhickok1109
PFRA Member
Posted 19 August 2014 - 08:54 AM
mwald, on 18 Aug 2014 - 10:55 AM, said:
I'm more interested in the fact you found a girl interested enough in football to listen to an explanation of what is vs. what isn't available online in terms of stats.
Please send name and address.
Move to Green Bay; you'll find plenty of "girls" like that, including my sister and my niece
#15 Citizen
Forum Visitors
Posted 19 August 2014 - 09:04 AM
luckyshow, on 17 Aug 2014 - 12:00 PM, said:
And what about when a lot of detail is lost due to everything going into twitter and facebook? Which is becoming a trend..
I'm not sure what this even means.
As someone with a deep interest in a small handful of topics, every day I thank whichever deity needs thanking for the Internet. Books have their place, but consider for a moment how lucky we are to have the greatest research tool ever invented literally at our fingertips. I can't understand why anyone would bemoan such a thing.
#16 mwald
PFRA Member
Posted 19 August 2014 - 09:17 AM
Thanks for having the courage to say this, Citizen. I love nothing more than holding a book in my hands. Reference books line my wall. I'll probably continue to read 100 books a year and buy 50 more. But the only thing books have over the internet is permanence, and that's not a small thing.
Now, the internet isn't perfect. Sites like SI.com and Fox Sports, etc. are becoming so video and ad driven that they're virtually unnavigable. But the difference is their goal is accumulating web traffic to generate ad revenue. Analysis and quality content is no longer their game. It isn't that the next Dr. Z doesn't exist. They're not looking for him.
On the other hand, sites like P-F-R and Pro Football Archives, while not perfect, are living breathing examples of what the internet can do.
#17 oldecapecod 11
PFRA Member
Posted 19 August 2014 - 10:44 AM
Wikipedia gets its knocks and probably deserves most of them.
But... it Is an excellent starting point because it includes every link they have which may or may not have either supporting or conflicting data.
Trouble is: the links are too darn interesting and there goes an hour-or-so.
#18 mwald
PFRA Member
Posted 19 August 2014 - 10:50 AM
oldecapecod 11, on 19 Aug 2014 - 10:44 AM, said:
Wikipedia gets its knocks and probably deserves most of them.
But... it Is an excellent starting point because it includes every link they have which may or may not have either supporting or conflicting data.
Trouble is: the links are too darn interesting and there goes an hour-or-so.
Wikipedia is one of the best things ever invented. Most criticism of it is overblown and originates out of simple haughty disdain for the internet. The best thing about it is it's not for profit, meaning greedy corporate interests aren't driving what's on it.
Are there errors in it? Of course. But how may books out of ten are well written, adequately researched and sourced, or definitively reliable? One, maybe. If you're lucky.
Same old story, different technology. But the delivery system is superior. I call that an improvement.
#19 Mark L. Ford
Administrators
Posted 19 August 2014 - 11:47 AM
Wikipedia has come a long way over the past decade, after having been considered a joke when it first came out, top heavy on "then-what-happened" summaries of TV episodes and biographies of cartoon characters. Now, the articles tend to be at the top of a Google search, the difference being that serious writers began telling where they got their information from.
As noted above, those articles that have citations to a published source are useful, since they provide a verifiable link that you can go to. Since anyone can edit the articles, a lot of the pro football entries have links to a pre-2006 Coffin Corner article, which is sometimes the first notice to a fan of the existence of PFRA.
#20 apbaball
PFRA Member
Posted 19 August 2014 - 12:18 PM
NWebster, on 18 Aug 2014 - 09:39 AM, said:
Even as early as 2000 I had to explain to a (now) ex-girlfriend, that there were all kinds of stats that weren't available online. What upsets me is the concept that if it's not online it didn't happen. To my knowledge there's only one place on earth to get a 1960 Colts-Redskins Gamebook, and that's in the archives in Canton . . . sadly it always will be.
I don't see a hardcover encyclopedia getting published unless it has more information available than you can find online.
Page 1 of 2
oldecapecod 11
ARCHIVE
Update Request- TOTAL FOOTBALL
Started by BrownsHistorian, Aug 17 2014 10:52 AM
Research Tools
Page 2 of 2
25 replies to this topic
#21 Porky
Forum Visitors
Posted 02 September 2014 - 08:43 PM
I remember getting one of these books as a 10 year old (I blew like $30 of money from a month of milking cows!), and continuously reading it... My brother would make fun of me for reading a book that had mostly stats and rosters! The internet is great, but I still am fond of an actual book.
#22 fgoodwin
Forum Visitors
Posted 03 September 2014 - 04:18 PM
I have a paperback copy of Total Football - Dallas Cowboys edition. I don't recall the publication date, but I'm guessing around 1997. Were there other team-specific editions of Total Football?
#23 Mark L. Ford
Administrators
Posted 03 September 2014 - 04:51 PM
Porky, on 02 Sept 2014 - 8:43 PM, said:
I remember getting one of these books as a 10 year old (I blew like $30 of money from a month of milking cows!), and continuously reading it... My brother would make fun of me for reading a book that had mostly stats and rosters! The internet is great, but I still am fond of an actual book.
I think most of us got that reaction growing up. When I was a teenager, my sister thought it was ridiculous that I would go to a library to take notes about old football games. My wife was nicer about it-- she said that she didn't understand why I was so interested in that type of thing, but took the stance of "I'm happy if you're happy". Hey, to be great is to be misunderstood....
#24 Rupert Patrick
PFRA Member
Posted 03 September 2014 - 04:58 PM
fgoodwin, on 03 Sept 2014 - 4:18 PM, said:
I have a paperback copy of Total Football - Dallas Cowboys edition. I don't recall the publication date, but I'm guessing around 1997. Were there other team-specific editions of Total Football?
There was a Total Steelers version, and also a Total Patriots; I think they made them for most of the older teams. Checking Ebay, I see there is also a Total Quarterbacks book.
#25 Nwebster
Forum Visitors
Posted 03 September 2014 - 07:48 PM
Mark L. Ford, on 03 Sept 2014 - 4:51 PM, said:
I think most of us got that reaction growing up. When I was a teenager, my sister thought it was ridiculous that I would go to a library to take notes about old football games. My wife was nicer about it-- she said that she didn't understand why I was so interested in that type of thing, but took the stance of "I'm happy if you're happy". Hey, to be great is to be misunderstood....
Yeah, my wife totally called me out, she wanted me to watch "The Maltese Falcon" and I argued that I didn't want to watch a black and white movie. "But all you want to do is watch black and white football???". Guilty.
#26 JuggernautJ
PFRA Member
Posted 03 September 2014 - 11:31 PM
fgoodwin, on 03 Sept 2014 - 4:18 PM, said:
I have a paperback copy of Total Football - Dallas Cowboys edition. I don't recall the publication date, but I'm guessing around 1997. Were there other team-specific editions of Total Football?
I have Total:
49ers, Steelers, Cowboys, Packers, Browns, Quarterbacks and Super Bowl.
(And, of course, Total Football I & II)
If there is a Total Patriots it must have come out later (or at least I never saw it).
Total Cowboys printed in 1998
Page 2 of 2
Update Request- TOTAL FOOTBALL
Started by BrownsHistorian, Aug 17 2014 10:52 AM
Research Tools
Page 1 of 2
25 replies to this topic
#1 BrownsHistorian
Forum Visitors
Posted 17 August 2014 - 10:52 AM
Good Morning,
I read in the forum from time to time about how Research Sites
(Free and otherwise) are becoming harder to find and harder to navigate...
Several members have written books, etc which cover specific topics...
It has been a while since I have seen anyone discuss what I believe is one of the best tools we have: TOTAL FOOTBALL
the last version, TOTAL FOOTBALL II, came out in the late 90's with editing by Bob C.
A year plus ago I remember seeing a comment that a new version was maybe in the works.....
As it has been 15 years since the last one, does anyone know the status of this Project?
Rich Crow/ BrownsHistorian
#2 Rupert Patrick
PFRA Member
Posted 17 August 2014 - 11:34 AM
It pains me to say this, but the days of the gigantic sports encyclopedias are gone. Like so many things, they have been made obsolete due to the Internet. I don't believe you will ever see something like a new book like Total Football or the Macmillan Baseball Encyclopedia again. The last books of this kind were the ESPN Encyclopedias, and even with ESPN's name on it, they still couldn't sell enough of them to justify the work involved in putting a book like that together. I think the last one of those ESPN books was in 2006.
#3 JWL
PFRA Member
Posted 17 August 2014 - 11:38 AM
The last ESPN Encyclopedia was published in the summer of 2007. I still look at it almost everyday. I think if you want/need a book like it, you need to make it yourself by typing, printing, copying whatever you want and update it every year.
#4 lastcat3
Forum Visitors
Posted 17 August 2014 - 11:44 AM
Rupert Patrick, on 17 Aug 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:
It pains me to say this, but the days of the gigantic sports encyclopedias are gone. Like so many things, they have been made obsolete due to the Internet. I don't believe you will ever see something like a new book like Total Football or the Macmillan Baseball Encyclopedia again. The last books of this kind were the ESPN Encyclopedias, and even with ESPN's name on it, they still couldn't sell enough of them to justify the work involved in putting a book like that together. I think the last one of those ESPN books was in 2006.
Although it is nice to go thumb through a book it is definitely true about the internet. So much easier for people to hop online and go to a site for free with all that info then to have to have to go to a bookstore and pay (not sure how much the Total Football book cost as I got it for a Christmas present back in the day).
Many hard core book lovers probably wouldn't mind it but the casual enthusiast would much rather prefer the easier way of looking things up.
Even novels through traditional methods are starting to slowly fade away as people are reading more and more on their nook and kindle devices.
#5 luckyshow
Forum Visitors
Posted 17 August 2014 - 12:00 PM
And what about when a lot of detail is lost due to everything going into twitter and facebook? Which is becoming a trend..
#6 Jeffrey Miller
PFRA Member
Posted 17 August 2014 - 12:58 PM
I might be old fashioned (as a lot of us historians are), but I like my hard copies much better than surfing the net. My book shelves are right next to my desk and access is very easy. If I am not sure exactly how to spell a man's name, I can still find it in the book with an educated guess. If you can't spell a man's name correctly in a search engine, you cold spend lots of time looking at the wrong player, or maybe going through several players with the same name before you find the right guy. I have several NFL encycs, including TF2 (my favorite), along with the ESPN, the Maher/Gill, and the Treat. There are errors in each one of them, but there are also on the internet sites. But with each one of these hard books, I know where to look for everything I want to find in them. I know where the drafts are listed, the yearly record, the all-pro listings, and any other special categories or focus areas each individual book contains. And then they slide right back on the shelf.
Don't get me wrong, I do use internet sites on a fairly regular basis, especially Pro Football Reference, but I the books much easier to navigate.
#7 Rupert Patrick
PFRA Member
Posted 17 August 2014 - 02:10 PM
From a statistical standpoint, the internet is a godsend because some sites like pro football reference allow you to convert their statistical data into a .csv file that you can export to create excel files for stat analysis. I spent a couple years doing nothing but building databases for my various rating systems, and I could have cut my time in half by grabbing the data online and converting it to dump into excel as opposed to logging in all the statistical information manually.
#8 Marble_Eye
Forum Visitors
Posted 17 August 2014 - 06:36 PM
My guess is most of those that post here are at least middle aged if not older. We probably tend to prefer books or if not, at least like the option of having both print and online available to us. I know I like to have both. I have several sports encyclopedias from days gone by and am glad to have them. I don't mind using online as well. But the blunt truth is: no one is ever getting younger and there is a whole generation out there that grew up with computers as a matter of fact thing in the home the way many of us did with rotary phones and B&W TV. I wish there was going to be money in things like Total Football and updating it, but I see it going the other way. With the ESPN emphasis on 1979 and beyond, and the NFL's own emphasis on the Super Bowl and beyond, I think people coming up with interest in the earlier eras of football, with little to no film out there are going to be fewer and fewer. I hope I am wrong about that.
#9 Nwebster
Forum Visitors
Posted 18 August 2014 - 09:39 AM
Even as early as 2000 I had to explain to a (now) ex-girlfriend, that there were all kinds of stats that weren't available online. What upsets me is the concept that if it's not online it didn't happen. To my knowledge there's only one place on earth to get a 1960 Colts-Redskins Gamebook, and that's in the archives in Canton . . . sadly it always will be.
#10 mwald
PFRA Member
Posted 18 August 2014 - 10:55 AM
NWebster, on 18 Aug 2014 - 09:39 AM, said:
Even as early as 2000 I had to explain to a (now) ex-girlfriend, that there were all kinds of stats that weren't available online. What upsets me is the concept that if it's not online it didn't happen. To my knowledge there's only one place on earth to get a 1960 Colts-Redskins Gamebook, and that's in the archives in Canton . . . sadly it always will be.
I'm more interested in the fact you found a girl interested enough in football to listen to an explanation of what is vs. what isn't available online in terms of stats.
Please send name and address.
#11 Tod Maher
PFRA Member
Posted 18 August 2014 - 11:39 AM
NWebster, on 18 Aug 2014 - 09:39 AM, said:
Even as early as 2000 I had to explain to a (now) ex-girlfriend, that there were all kinds of stats that weren't available online. What upsets me is the concept that if it's not online it didn't happen. To my knowledge there's only one place on earth to get a 1960 Colts-Redskins Gamebook, and that's in the archives in Canton . . . sadly it always will be.
I would love to publish the stats you and John Turney have put together on my site - http://www.profootballarchives.com.
#12 Bryan
Forum Visitors
Posted 19 August 2014 - 08:07 AM
NWebster, on 18 Aug 2014 - 09:39 AM, said:
Even as early as 2000 I had to explain to a (now) ex-girlfriend, that there were all kinds of stats that weren't available online.
My wife thinks that the "Coffin Corner" title is in reference to all the dead football players that we talk about at PFRA.
#13 oldecapecod 11
PFRA Member
Posted 19 August 2014 - 08:31 AM
Since he did not see it in print, a friend asked if the coughin' corner was the smoking section at stadia nowadays.
He was going to buy tix via the telephone and did not want to sit near that section.
#14 rhickok1109
PFRA Member
Posted 19 August 2014 - 08:54 AM
mwald, on 18 Aug 2014 - 10:55 AM, said:
I'm more interested in the fact you found a girl interested enough in football to listen to an explanation of what is vs. what isn't available online in terms of stats.
Please send name and address.
Move to Green Bay; you'll find plenty of "girls" like that, including my sister and my niece
#15 Citizen
Forum Visitors
Posted 19 August 2014 - 09:04 AM
luckyshow, on 17 Aug 2014 - 12:00 PM, said:
And what about when a lot of detail is lost due to everything going into twitter and facebook? Which is becoming a trend..
I'm not sure what this even means.
As someone with a deep interest in a small handful of topics, every day I thank whichever deity needs thanking for the Internet. Books have their place, but consider for a moment how lucky we are to have the greatest research tool ever invented literally at our fingertips. I can't understand why anyone would bemoan such a thing.
#16 mwald
PFRA Member
Posted 19 August 2014 - 09:17 AM
Thanks for having the courage to say this, Citizen. I love nothing more than holding a book in my hands. Reference books line my wall. I'll probably continue to read 100 books a year and buy 50 more. But the only thing books have over the internet is permanence, and that's not a small thing.
Now, the internet isn't perfect. Sites like SI.com and Fox Sports, etc. are becoming so video and ad driven that they're virtually unnavigable. But the difference is their goal is accumulating web traffic to generate ad revenue. Analysis and quality content is no longer their game. It isn't that the next Dr. Z doesn't exist. They're not looking for him.
On the other hand, sites like P-F-R and Pro Football Archives, while not perfect, are living breathing examples of what the internet can do.
#17 oldecapecod 11
PFRA Member
Posted 19 August 2014 - 10:44 AM
Wikipedia gets its knocks and probably deserves most of them.
But... it Is an excellent starting point because it includes every link they have which may or may not have either supporting or conflicting data.
Trouble is: the links are too darn interesting and there goes an hour-or-so.
#18 mwald
PFRA Member
Posted 19 August 2014 - 10:50 AM
oldecapecod 11, on 19 Aug 2014 - 10:44 AM, said:
Wikipedia gets its knocks and probably deserves most of them.
But... it Is an excellent starting point because it includes every link they have which may or may not have either supporting or conflicting data.
Trouble is: the links are too darn interesting and there goes an hour-or-so.
Wikipedia is one of the best things ever invented. Most criticism of it is overblown and originates out of simple haughty disdain for the internet. The best thing about it is it's not for profit, meaning greedy corporate interests aren't driving what's on it.
Are there errors in it? Of course. But how may books out of ten are well written, adequately researched and sourced, or definitively reliable? One, maybe. If you're lucky.
Same old story, different technology. But the delivery system is superior. I call that an improvement.
#19 Mark L. Ford
Administrators
Posted 19 August 2014 - 11:47 AM
Wikipedia has come a long way over the past decade, after having been considered a joke when it first came out, top heavy on "then-what-happened" summaries of TV episodes and biographies of cartoon characters. Now, the articles tend to be at the top of a Google search, the difference being that serious writers began telling where they got their information from.
As noted above, those articles that have citations to a published source are useful, since they provide a verifiable link that you can go to. Since anyone can edit the articles, a lot of the pro football entries have links to a pre-2006 Coffin Corner article, which is sometimes the first notice to a fan of the existence of PFRA.
#20 apbaball
PFRA Member
Posted 19 August 2014 - 12:18 PM
NWebster, on 18 Aug 2014 - 09:39 AM, said:
Even as early as 2000 I had to explain to a (now) ex-girlfriend, that there were all kinds of stats that weren't available online. What upsets me is the concept that if it's not online it didn't happen. To my knowledge there's only one place on earth to get a 1960 Colts-Redskins Gamebook, and that's in the archives in Canton . . . sadly it always will be.
I don't see a hardcover encyclopedia getting published unless it has more information available than you can find online.
Page 1 of 2
oldecapecod 11
ARCHIVE
Update Request- TOTAL FOOTBALL
Started by BrownsHistorian, Aug 17 2014 10:52 AM
Research Tools
Page 2 of 2
25 replies to this topic
#21 Porky
Forum Visitors
Posted 02 September 2014 - 08:43 PM
I remember getting one of these books as a 10 year old (I blew like $30 of money from a month of milking cows!), and continuously reading it... My brother would make fun of me for reading a book that had mostly stats and rosters! The internet is great, but I still am fond of an actual book.
#22 fgoodwin
Forum Visitors
Posted 03 September 2014 - 04:18 PM
I have a paperback copy of Total Football - Dallas Cowboys edition. I don't recall the publication date, but I'm guessing around 1997. Were there other team-specific editions of Total Football?
#23 Mark L. Ford
Administrators
Posted 03 September 2014 - 04:51 PM
Porky, on 02 Sept 2014 - 8:43 PM, said:
I remember getting one of these books as a 10 year old (I blew like $30 of money from a month of milking cows!), and continuously reading it... My brother would make fun of me for reading a book that had mostly stats and rosters! The internet is great, but I still am fond of an actual book.
I think most of us got that reaction growing up. When I was a teenager, my sister thought it was ridiculous that I would go to a library to take notes about old football games. My wife was nicer about it-- she said that she didn't understand why I was so interested in that type of thing, but took the stance of "I'm happy if you're happy". Hey, to be great is to be misunderstood....
#24 Rupert Patrick
PFRA Member
Posted 03 September 2014 - 04:58 PM
fgoodwin, on 03 Sept 2014 - 4:18 PM, said:
I have a paperback copy of Total Football - Dallas Cowboys edition. I don't recall the publication date, but I'm guessing around 1997. Were there other team-specific editions of Total Football?
There was a Total Steelers version, and also a Total Patriots; I think they made them for most of the older teams. Checking Ebay, I see there is also a Total Quarterbacks book.
#25 Nwebster
Forum Visitors
Posted 03 September 2014 - 07:48 PM
Mark L. Ford, on 03 Sept 2014 - 4:51 PM, said:
I think most of us got that reaction growing up. When I was a teenager, my sister thought it was ridiculous that I would go to a library to take notes about old football games. My wife was nicer about it-- she said that she didn't understand why I was so interested in that type of thing, but took the stance of "I'm happy if you're happy". Hey, to be great is to be misunderstood....
Yeah, my wife totally called me out, she wanted me to watch "The Maltese Falcon" and I argued that I didn't want to watch a black and white movie. "But all you want to do is watch black and white football???". Guilty.
#26 JuggernautJ
PFRA Member
Posted 03 September 2014 - 11:31 PM
fgoodwin, on 03 Sept 2014 - 4:18 PM, said:
I have a paperback copy of Total Football - Dallas Cowboys edition. I don't recall the publication date, but I'm guessing around 1997. Were there other team-specific editions of Total Football?
I have Total:
49ers, Steelers, Cowboys, Packers, Browns, Quarterbacks and Super Bowl.
(And, of course, Total Football I & II)
If there is a Total Patriots it must have come out later (or at least I never saw it).
Total Cowboys printed in 1998
Page 2 of 2