College football jam.....
- Thread starter Denverdave
- Start date
reverend1
Kick Henry Jackassowski
If I lived in Ohio, I wouldn't care about the NFL either
Well, to me NFL teams have no affinity to anyone. The player don't care who they play for as long as the check clears. Don't get me wrong I have no problem with that but I have no connection to those teams. At least with college teams we can cheer for the schools we attended and the player have many common experiences with the student body. Even if they seem to not have the same academic requirements. But at least there is a connection there. I couldn't care less that your team is located in my state so are a bunch of other businesses I could care less about.
Jake S.
Kick Henry Jackassowski
Funny story about the Michigan Appalachian State game. My above mention friend watched that game at my house. When Michigan lost he removed his Michigan shirt and hat and burned them on my grill.
Awesome.
reverend1
Kick Henry Jackassowski
Awesome.
It was pretty funny at the time.
Chad
Slender Hobbit
Neither do colleges. You know how many kids go to a school because of the $500 handshakes they get from boosters? Or the free use of cars and apartments?
I had friends at VA Tech who were in classes with Michael Vick and Jim Druckenmiller. You know how many classes they showed up to?
One thing that sets the NFL apart, is the teams have a level field. You do bad, you get a higher draft pick. No team can spend more money than the other.
I grew up in the DC area. Most people there like the Redskins. I lived there for 30 years and am moving back. I was in college for 4 years and paid to go there. I have way more connection to the DC are than I ever did with my college. I know it is different in other cities and if you don't have an NFL team in your city.
reverend1
Kick Henry Jackassowski
It's still my school. I don't work for the Lions, Browns whoever. They have nothing to do with me and vice versa. Just they way I look a it.
cuffdc
chicken n waffles
I don't follow the NFL, but one thing I always do is check to see if the Foreskins lost. I hate that team. I hate George Michael and his damn sports machine (though I will say he was a class act when NBC4 was cutting staff and he stood up to them), I detested Jack Kent Crook and his Raljon FedEx Field and you can be damned sure I hate the Little Danny.
I think DC should sue the NFL so the Toughskins can't call themselves the team from Washington anymore. They play in Laurel for God's sake.
Damn that felt good. I lived there fifteen years and visited regularly for two years before I moved there...long story, those visits.
Johnny N.
Kick Henry Jackassowski
This is way too hard to do in a forum
I think it is just way too hard in general....... which explains why there still is no consensus on how to best declare a national champion. At least not among fans.
Chad
Slender Hobbit
The New York Giants and New York Jets play in New Jersey. The Dallas Cowboys play in Arlington, TX, I could go on. FedEx Field is in Landover not Laurel. It wasn't FedEx Field until Danny boy (who I despise) figured out he could make money by selling the name of the stadium to a corporation, so don't blame that on Cooke, but give him full blame for RalJon. What a horrible name.
How can you hate the late George Michael? He was the only sportscaster in the world to cover pro wrestling back in the 80s. That was awesome.
cuffdc
chicken n waffles
I don't really hate George Michael, although I thought the Sports Machine was hilarious in the unintentionally hilarious way.
Landover, Laurel...some maryland suburb. And I have the same complaints about those other teams. They don't play in the city, stop letting them use the city for free publicity. The New Jersey Giants should be called as such.
I do seem to recall it was Jack Kent Cooke Stadium until that little shitbird sold the naming rights. This jackass little douche is the same scumbag who also tried (maybe still does) to charge admission to practices, rigged the parking so he could "maximize profits" by screwing the fans, many of whom are already shelling out more than they can afford to pay allegiance to the racistmascot team (a good bit of irony there if you know the Toughskin fan base -- something Chris Rock points out).
My favorite Jack Kent Cooke story was the time his trophy wife Marlene was arrested for driving her Jag down M Street with a young man on the hood:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/library/cooke/marl93.htm
sunvalleylaw
Yep.
I agree with this. The fans in a conference like the SEC get to feeling like the best teams are in the same conference. The fans in other conferences see the proclamation of who is best via poll or whatever as being artificial. Beyond that, to give too much weight to one conference perpetuates the disparity. Recruiting, money, TV coverage, etc. gets all weighted toward that one conference. So it is not good for the game overall.
So I agree it is not easy to find a solution. But to me, the correct one includes actual playoffs on the field of play, including the winners of the conferences, and maybe some others. To a certain extent, the conference that feels it is not fair because there are more tough teams in there conference has to just get over that. But I am sure other fans, (and Rev) would not agree.
Chad
Slender Hobbit
reverend1
Kick Henry Jackassowski
I'm not complaining about fair. That's what everyone else is doing. I'm just telling you reality. If everyone wants to see an undefeated Rice Owls team play in a playoff and lose by 150 to an Alabama/LSU/Florida/Oklahoma/Ohio State who ever, fine. I don't care, but it's a total waste of time.
Do you want to know why the SEC is so much better than everyone else right now? Here it is:
-players look at college as a audition for the NFL
-the SEC has twice as many nationally televised games as everyone else every Saturday
-The SEC sends more player to the NFL than any other conference
-All of the schools feature warm weather year round.
-who wants to play with snow up their ass for half of the season
-coeds at warm weather school wear less clothing (yes it matters, remember when you were a freshman)
-SEC schools get their pick of recruits with a very few going to some others, and everyone else get who's left over.
sunvalleylaw
Yep.
Terry, I was referencing out conversation as I wrote that. If "fair" is not the correct word and "currently realistic" is how you rather it be phrased, that's fine. I thought the complaint was that in a countrywide playoff system, some of the top teams would be left out in favor of "lesser" teams, because of the strength of the SEC conference. Just semantics to me. I would rather see a lopsided game from playoffs that span all divisions, than continue to add weight to the advantages that the SEC has in coverage, money, and the other controllable items of your list above. (can't control the weather). Otherwise, I suppose we could just call the SEC "semi-pro" or something, and they can have their own little playoff system because the are so much better and all that, and the rest of the country can compete in something else.
But no system will be perfect. So, as I said, for me as a casual fan, I will simply focus on the Pac 12 conference play and not worry about the rest. You have said you connect more to your college team, because at least you went to school there. Me too. So my loyalties lie over on the left coast! I have no real interest in watching a Gators/Bama game for nat'l championship. (or whoever the top 2 teams over there are this year).
But no system will be perfect. So, as I said, for me as a casual fan, I will simply focus on the Pac 12 conference play and not worry about the rest. You have said you connect more to your college team, because at least you went to school there. Me too. So my loyalties lie over on the left coast! I have no real interest in watching a Gators/Bama game for nat'l championship. (or whoever the top 2 teams over there are this year).
Johnny N.
Kick Henry Jackassowski
I havnet seen a playoff proposal yet that makes any sense and conference champions makes less sense than most to me. There is a factual disparity between conferences across the country. I just dont find being aligned with a group of teams by calling a confernce has any bearing on level of play. It guarrantees all conferences get a chance but that doesnt mean the best 4 or 8 or however many teams are in the playoffs are the best or most deserving.
If we are really trying to crown the best team in teh country, why would we create a system that says better teams have to get over it? Just to be fair to teams that play in other conferences? It is a likely scenario primarily because, as we all know, everything is dictated by money. And the conferences all want a hunk.
Chad
Slender Hobbit
There isn't a perfect solution, but taking the top 4 teams at the end of the season is much better than taking the top 2. I think 6 would be ideal simply because there is not enough across conference play. Plus that gives you more good college football games and who doesn't want that? And if the SEC is the best conference every year, they will still win out in a playoff and give the same end result with less bitching by teams who are left out.
sunvalleylaw
Yep.
@JohnnyN, My reason is that if in fact it is true that the SEC is the "only good conference" or the vastly superior conference or whatever, that having a system that crowns the nat'l champ from teams largely within once conference will perpetuate the disparities noted by Rev.
At the "amateur" level of college athletics, parity and a level playing field, and access to the party to teams from colleges across the country, has to be a large part of the goal. So, because college athletics has that (or IMO should have that) as a major part of the goal, crowning what some or many believe to be the absolute best has to take a second seat.
Or, we could just do away with the BS, acknowledge that largely the players on these major college teams often have little to do with the schools they represent, and make it some sort of professional farm system. Call a spade a spade and all that. Then the new professional organization can find the best team whatever way it wants.
EDIT: I like Chad's proposal.
At the "amateur" level of college athletics, parity and a level playing field, and access to the party to teams from colleges across the country, has to be a large part of the goal. So, because college athletics has that (or IMO should have that) as a major part of the goal, crowning what some or many believe to be the absolute best has to take a second seat.
Or, we could just do away with the BS, acknowledge that largely the players on these major college teams often have little to do with the schools they represent, and make it some sort of professional farm system. Call a spade a spade and all that. Then the new professional organization can find the best team whatever way it wants.
EDIT: I like Chad's proposal.
sunvalleylaw
Yep.
@JohnnyN, I also sympathize with your point. It is like the womens' overall individual gymnastics comp this year in the Olympics. Based on scores alone, at least one other of the US athletes should have been in the hunt over an athlete from some other country. But the rules only allow so many competitors from each country. So, an example of drawing the rules in what is still considered to be amateur sport to have competition from across a more international sampling of the best, rather from among only the best based on prelim scores or rankings or however they got there. College athletics also should have that sort of parity, IMO. But it still sucks if your team/athlete is better than another competitor.
Depends on the overall goal I suppose.
Depends on the overall goal I suppose.
sunvalleylaw
Yep.
You may be right. So maybe we should just call a spade a spade.
Yeah, I am glad we can discuss stuff here too. Just having a discussion. No big drama.
I enjoyed going to UW husky games as a kid with my Dad. I liked it when the Huskies would get to go to the Rose Bowl and play Michigan or whoever. But I never really thought about nat'l championships back then. Even in the 90's when the Huskies were considered contenders for the nat'l title, it was not about that for me. So now, when so much emphasis is placed on the rankings, it almost takes away from the sport in my opinion.
No absolute right answer, and I suppose we can't rewind the clock to college football of a couple/few decades ago. Though I suppose we could if we took the whole thing down, and enforced a new set of rules. But I don't think that would ever happen. As it stands, they have torn down Husky stadium, moved the students out of their traditional seats along the sidelines down to the end zones, and put in f'in luxury boxes and crap. More in the wrong direction in my opinion, but I suppose it is what they have to do if they are gonna attract $$ to strengthen the program.
So, as far as this nat'l stuff goes, I guess I will just remain glad if the Huskies can regain competitiveness in the Pac12, (maybe keep working on the D so they can compete against the Ducks) maybe make it back to the Rose Bowl at some point. And I will try to ignore the fact that it is not even remotely an amateur sport played by student athletes for the most part.