PDA

View Full Version : NCAA Football thread 2011



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18

BigB08822
12-07-2011, 10:10 PM
The problem is that football brings in so much money for some schools that without it there is no telling what the cost of attendance would be. So it is a double edged sword. I also know many of those so called student athletes look at college football as nothing more than a 2-3 year long NFL recruitment process. They have no plans or intentions to graduate, they just want to be drafted.

zippy
12-08-2011, 01:58 AM
The costs of attending these games, be they bowl games, conference title games, whatever...is prohibitive to most people anyway and a playoff would not be any different than that. As for time...the Big 10 Leaders Division wasn't decided until a week before the title game with the Wisconsin-Penn State game, and I hadn't heard that that resulted in empty seats in Indianapolis. Fans with the means to travel will get to these games.

It's different because most fans would need to choose between up to 4 games (or more depending on how a playoff system grows), and that makes the cost prohibitive for more and more people. Most people I know who go to the big bowl games save up for quite awhile to be able to afford the trip. As for the Big 10 title game, I didn't see it and have no idea what the attendance situation was, but that's one game as opposed to four, and it's a championship game, not round one of a playoff game. Some say that seats would be filled by selling tickets to corporations like the superbowl, which I think would be a detriment to the atmosphere of college football. The situation is not exactly comparable to other sports like college basketball since much bigger stadiums are involved. This article (http://collegesportsinfo.com/2010/12/16/college-football-playoffs-vs-bcs/) pretty fairly discusses the issue in FCS playoffs and how it might apply to FBS football.


First of all, if that were the case, why would fans flock to the meaningless bowl games? Why do teams not see a huge drop in attendance after their first loss every season? Why do conference title games sell out when one or both teams come in with losses?

For the bowls: Because it's seen as their team's crowning achievement for the season, a chance to win a title (however meaningless to you), and the bowl games are fun, with lots of festivities, and many are in nice travel destinations, over a holiday weekend, with plenty of time to plan the trip. As for the losses, for one thing, it's not at all true that you can't make it to the title game or a good bowl with a single loss, or even multiple losses. And contrary to popular belief, it's not all about being 'the best' team. Regarding the conference title game, it's a title game - what do the losses have to do with it?


Every other college sport has a post season tournament to determine a legitimate national champion. Including football on other levels. It is absurd--and actually not fair to the athletes--that Division I football is left to this subjective mess of a system because a bunch of people are making money off of it.

For one thing, just because other sports do something doesn't mean in itself that it's right for every sport. And as I said previously, I don't think a system that shortens a season for the vast majority of the athletes while giving a select few teams much more attention is more fair than what we have now. It puts too much focus on the fans' need to find out who the 'best' team is at the expense of smaller football programs.


A system that used conference championships/runners up would eliminate the ridiculous pressure of needing to be undefeated to win a title and level the playing field to some degree. Michigan State, for example, would have made such a play off with a 10-3 record. A fine example of the lessening of hysteria that a playoff system could bring--look at the histrionics around here over a 9-3 season. If that season could get you into a playoff for a title, there could be less pressure to win at all costs.

It would take an awful lot of restructuring of the conferences to make a system like that work, IMO - they're way too lopsided. As it is now, Arkansas wouldn't qualify for the playoffs, while the runner up of the Sun Belt conference, for example, would qualify. Is that fair? If you completely dump a ranking system of any kind, how do you determine who is the conference champion when you have a situation where LSU beats Alabama, Alabama beats Arkansas, and Arkansas beats LSU, and no other team goes undefeated? How does it lessen the pressure to be undefeated during the regular season, since teams would generally need to be undefeated or have minimal losses to become a conf. champion/runner-up in most conferences? How does a sudden-death playoff system minimize pressure, when a loss ends that team's season? As it is, poor Cade Foster (one of Alabama's kickers) practically had to go into hiding after the LSU-Bama game, which in the end ruined nothing for that team - imagine if it happened during an early round playoff game.

In the end, a small playoff could enhance fairness at the top level, but there will always be someone that feels left out, hence why playoff systems tend to expand and expand until they're just plain unwieldy. As a whole, a system that downplays the importance of determining the so-called best team and gives the whole range of teams a chance to win a title is probably more appropriate and balanced for football at this level. Honestly, it's the fans that put the crazy into it. That said, I'm perfectly fine with exploring a plus-one system - funny that none of the conferences besides the SEC and ACC were willing to even discuss it. Maybe now that a Big 12 team was hurt by that, they might be more open to the idea.

redonthehead
12-09-2011, 12:58 AM
In Louisiana you simply do not schedule a wedding or anything on the day of a football game. That is a big no-no and anyone who skips out on your event is more than justified. That wouldn't change if we were in a losing season, either. I don't know if people can understand it if they don't experience it first hand. It isn't just about watching your team win. The entire day is a big event and at LSU there are thousands (even 100,000+ depending on the opponent) who go tailgating but do not even have a ticket to the game.

Same here. As I've said before, we set our wedding date around the Auburn/Bama game!

You can't hardly move in Auburn on home game days. It's packed. There's as many people watching the game on tvs outside the stadium as there are people inside the stadium. Seriously!

BigB08822
12-09-2011, 07:05 AM
Congrats to LSU! Three huge awards!

http://www.lsusports.net/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=5200&ATCLID=205344235

centerstage01
12-10-2011, 02:52 AM
Looks like Arkansas has hired former Ohio State co-defensive coordinator Paul Haynes as our new defensive coordinator. Good hire?

BigB08822
12-10-2011, 05:14 AM
Didn't Ohio State used to have an amazing defense? Not sure if he was coaching there at the time but if so, I would say that is a great thing.

Flatfoote
12-11-2011, 12:39 PM
Is anyone here interrested in playing a quick "pick em" type game, where you pick the winner of each of the 35 bowl games? I'm currently running the game on three other message boards, and I'd be glad to post one here if there are enough interested players.

Cachoo
12-14-2011, 05:22 AM
I don't think I need to mention that I think that. But I usually get attacked when I bring it up here or anywhere else. The mere mention of sports being an out of control priority in American education from about 7th grade through all sizes and sorts of colleges is usually enough to get a person labeled an anti-American bitter pitiful old bitch. ("bitter" came up here last time I expressed the opinion--because my asserting that schools' money should be spent on education more than on sports was only born of my own "bitterness" and had nothing to do with a lifelong belief that education should be the primary objective of a school...which I need to let go of because it is apparently absurd).

But...in spite of all of that, sports is not going away. So we should make it fairer.

A playoff system that also shortened the regular season (as I suggested above) could do wonders to calm down the insanity surrounding college football. A system that used conference championships/runners up would eliminate the ridiculous pressure of needing to be undefeated to win a title and level the playing field to some degree. Michigan State, for example, would have made such a play off with a 10-3 record. A fine example of the lessening of hysteria that a playoff system could bring--look at the histrionics around here over a 9-3 season. If that season could get you into a playoff for a title, there could be less pressure to win at all costs.

As for the baseball playoffs and the CWS--it takes place almost entirely after classes end for the regular academic year, so it is not taking students out of classes to the degree other sports do. And since Major League Baseball actually has a minor league system and actually signs players who have not played in college, baseball is not a great example of the corruption in college sports. The combination of an absurd system for determining titles and the function of essentially being a minor league system for the NFL has corrupted division I football.

Perhaps this has been asked before but did Nebraska realistically believe they would win the conference this year and head to the Rose Bowl? Believe me I am NOT trying to start a fight but I do hear people calling for the Bo's head from time to time and wonder what they expect.

BigB08822
12-14-2011, 08:07 PM
I think Nebraska is a tough place to coach at. They always expect to win even though that isn't possible. Nebraska would have been a good fit in the SEC with that mentality, lol

numbers123
12-14-2011, 09:19 PM
Perhaps this has been asked before but did Nebraska realistically believe they would win the conference this year and head to the Rose Bowl? Believe me I am NOT trying to start a fight but I do hear people calling for the Bo's head from time to time and wonder what they expect.


I think Nebraska is a tough place to coach at. They always expect to win even though that isn't possible. Nebraska would have been a good fit in the SEC with that mentality, lol

I don't know what people realistically thought, but Nebraska fans are always hopeful. If Crick hadn't been hurt, I do wonder what would have happened.
I think more often it is Tom Shantel (sportswriter for the Omaha World Herald) that calls for Bo's head. Especially when Bo is not playing the players that Tom thinks should be starting. One of the best interviews this year was when Bo told Shantel: he had had enough of that line of questioning - NEXT. (or something to that effect).

Brian - I know that you are proud of LSU and think that it is somewhat beneath them to have to play a team they are ready beat, - that may be true, but I would gently remind you of last year's Nebraska/Washington game. We beat them by a huge margin the beginning of the season, so when the bowl game came around I don't think too many people thought it would be an issue and really thought it was a :rolleyes: decision. Turns out Washington had the last laugh

PDilemma
12-14-2011, 10:16 PM
I don't know what people realistically thought, but Nebraska fans are always hopeful. If Crick hadn't been hurt, I do wonder what would have happened.
I think more often it is Tom Shantel (sportswriter for the Omaha World Herald) that calls for Bo's head. Especially when Bo is not playing the players that Tom thinks should be starting. One of the best interviews this year was when Bo told Shantel: he had had enough of that line of questioning - NEXT. (or something to that effect).

Brian - I know that you are proud of LSU and think that it is somewhat beneath them to have to play a team they are ready beat, - that may be true, but I would gently remind you of last year's Nebraska/Washington game. We beat them by a huge margin the beginning of the season, so when the bowl game came around I don't think too many people thought it would be an issue and really thought it was a :rolleyes: decision. Turns out Washington had the last laugh

Actually, it was Dirk Chatelain, also of the OWH that Bo took down. He's even worse than Shatel. He had attacked Martinez personally that week calling him a "west coast introvert" who "didn't fit in" in the state (and since I think Tom Osborne may the poster introvert for college football history, I don't know what his point was). I honestly think he and Lee Barfknecht are the worst with Lincoln Journal-Star's Steve Sipple in bronze medal position. Shatel is rational sometimes. Sipple practically declares every game a "turning point" for the program that is a "must win" or the Huskers are doomed to losing forever.

Too many Nebraska fans are completely irrational about football. That's how it became justifiable to fire a coach with a 9-3 record claiming that the program was not going in the "right direction". Huge numbers of them have declared the season a failure and I even saw one debate on a blog about whether or not the season could be called a "winning" one with three losses.

For a short answer to the original question...most fans here expect to win or play for a conference and national title every year. That's their yardstick. They had good company with the AD for a short time, a fact that decimated the program. And they gave no credence to the fact that the transition to a new conference, playing new teams in new places, would be a bumpy road.

BigB08822
12-15-2011, 04:41 AM
Brian - I know that you are proud of LSU and think that it is somewhat beneath them to have to play a team they are ready beat, - that may be true, but I would gently remind you of last year's Nebraska/Washington game. We beat them by a huge margin the beginning of the season, so when the bowl game came around I don't think too many people thought it would be an issue and really thought it was a :rolleyes: decision. Turns out Washington had the last laugh

I don't think it is beneath LSU. I just think it is unfair. LSU must beat Bama 2 times this season to end up as National Champs but Bama needs to only win 1 of the matches for all the marbles. They could be tied 1-1 on the season with LSU having 1 more win than Bama but somehow Bama is the National Champ despite not winning its Conference OR Division. There is just a huge loop hole in the system. LSU should have been playing Ok. State. Another 1 loss team who WON their Conference and has yet to play LSU and a team the computers saw as #2. I can't get over how the BCS bases a huge portion of its outcome on a poll done by COACHES. Can you imagine if coaches got to judge all ISU events?

Bama may or may not win and they may or may not win by a large margin. That isn't really comparable to your example though, as LSU and Bama did not play early in the season, they both played towards the end of their schedules when neither team should have been having any kinks in their execution.

Cachoo
12-15-2011, 05:30 AM
I won't pretend to understand why LSU has to play a team that they beat at their home. But I'm in Big 12 (or whatever we are) country and would have like to see OK State get a shot. I still would like to see play-offs. And this bowl system: After watching HBO's Sports Magazine show how much of a rip-off those games can be for the schools involved I wonder why people aren't screaming for a change.

BigB08822
12-15-2011, 06:01 AM
I thought the Bowl games brought in huge money to the schools, win or lose. How is it a rip off? I thought part of the issue with getting change is that schools don't want less bowl games because bowl games equal big $$.

Cachoo
12-15-2011, 07:14 PM
I was starting to respond but I think this column better explains the sports tv show story:


The Cold Filtered Ramblings of Gene Mueller
The NCAA bowl system: HBO says you're helping to throw the party, sucker
By Gene Mueller CREATED Sep. 21, 2011
RSS Feed
Share EmailPrint

It's either prudent fiscal policy meant to even things out between the wealthy and the rest of us, or "class warfare" designed to drive a wedge for political gain.

No, this won't be a screed about the merits of President Obama's quest for the so-called "Buffett Tax", part of his effort to balance the federal budget. I have my feelings, as I'm sure you do. We may not agree. But I bet we both think that it's high time to end abuses, waste, and instances of obvious fraud.

Exhibit A might just be your favorite college bowl game.

HBO's "Real Sports" lays into the system in it's 2011 series opener. Bernard Goldberg exposes a system rife huge salaries for executives, little if any payout for local charities or participating schools. And, it all happens as many of the bowls enjoy tax-exempt status.

That's right--they rake in tens of millions of dollars without paying a dime back to local, state or federal governments. Fact is, some of the games actually receive huge amounts of taxpayer help, again under the guise that the bowls are there to benefit charities.

HBO says the percentage that goes to help others is painfully small. As for participating schools? Sure, the bowls may say they pay back as much as 75% to the universities. But, they also charge schools for unsold tickets. They invite school bands to play at halftime (that way they don't have to pay someone else) but they make participants pay for travel to the game, not to mention their seats. Those charges, and others, turn that 75% into a much, much smaller number.

Bowl generosity exists but it starts at home: HBO found instances of bowl CEO's earning $600,000 (Sugar), and $500,000 (Orange and Cotton). A tax attorney representing the bowl organization says that's what the market demands, even though the heads of other charities purposely take far less in salary if nothing else to avoid allegations that they're taking advantage of the generosity of others.

How does such a broken system continue to exist? Because, as is often the case in society, there are many people making a profit off of it. That tends to kill the incentive for reform. Host communities love the national exposure and the tens of thousands of tourists who rent rooms, buy meals, visit attractions. Universities get a free three hour commercial that serves as a recruiting tool for new talent. Coaches' contracts include bowl appearance incentives. And, the bowl system wines/dines/courts the favor of universities and others who'd have cause to say, "Hey, wait a minute...something stinks here." As for the student-athlete? Some get another look from pro scouts, others one last chance to play for the alma matter. All get their schooling paid for, in lieu of a salary. Hey, the system can only feed so many.

All while we help pay for it, at several governmental levels. And this is just one example. How many more such broken systems are there out there--federal agencies that are run amok, government programs fatally compromised by lobbies and special interests?

Should the nation's wealthiest pay more in taxes? Is it a question of fairness, class warfare, or playing politics? People may never agree, based on where they are in the pecking order and what party they belong too. All will say they want fairness, though.

Let's start then with the obvious examples and the lowest of the hanging fruit. Can't we all agree on that?

Note: In Goldberg's report he said the CEO for Habitat for Humanity makes under $150,000 a year and cited other examples of more authentic charities and their payscales which are much less then these men who have the responsibility of running one football game a year.