Dick Rosenthal {l Wrote}:I agree with you both. In some respects, college football has devolved back to where it was in the earliest days of the “modern” era of the game, defined as the invention/implementation of the forward pass, and the rules instituted due to pressure from Teddy Roosevelt (abolition of the flying wedge) and transformation of the game from a rugby hybrid to a sport we’d largely recognize today. At that time, as now, there were lots of mercenary professionals who passed between schools going to the highest bidder. The Michigan teams of Fielding Yost were largely made up of such players and this was rampant in the Ivy Leagues and West Point as well. Some of the early stars of that era—George Gipp, Red Grange, Elmer Oliphant, Jim Thorpe, Tack Hardwick, Paul Robeson, Ernie Nevers, were paid like the professionals they were, and Nevers aside, most of the above barely spent any time in a classroom. This “Golden Age” lead to the creation of the NCAA and enforcement of amateurism on the players. The arms race was also the reason the Ivies and football powers like U of Chicago, Carnegie-Mellon, Case Western Reserve and Washington University either de-emphasized football or abandoned it entirely. I wonder if the same thing is about to happen again.
But the imminent destruction of everything that made college football great is part of a larger problem with our higher education system in general—the addition of highly paid “administrators” driving up costs and then justifying their existence by the aggressive pursuit of money for the institution despite obvious long-term problems with the model and the devaluation of everything they touch. Go back 50 years and look at college administration in general and athletic departments in particular. Most colleges had a fraction of the administrative overhead and even the biggest and most powerful athletic departments ran on a shoe string. Most ADs were the football or basketball coach, depending on which sport was most popular. Even amongst the few schools that had dedicated ADs, like BC or Notre Dame (Bill Flynn and Moose Krause respectively), the AD wore many hats. Flynn, talking to alums who played basketball and football and hockey here is the 60s and 70s, could be seen touching up the logo at the old Robert’s Center and helping with ice maintenance at McHugh. He also taught math, on and off, into the late 60s. Krause similarly was known to cut the grass on the practice fields, and do maintenance on the baseball field. He also taught the freshman-mandatory phys ed and swim classes.
It’s the same story on the academic side. BC has nearly tripled the number of Administrators it had from when I was a fresh faced lad of 20 walking about the campus in the early 90s, and BC is actually on the low end of the bell curve in that regard. And just like the unadulterated pursuit of maximum dollars is probably going to ultimately devalue college football overall in the long run by turning of more than half of the customer base, the increased costs of administration passed on to consumers (students) has already made college a losing proposition for the majority of attendees from a cost-benefit perspective. The college bubble is going to burst in the very near future—it’s why higher education lobbyists and their hard left allies in Congress and this Administration are pushing so hard for loan forgiveness. Anyone who has looked at the model can see a Lehman Brothers type collapse coming without a massive infusion of make believe government money to prop the thing up. It’s going to die and a lot of mediocre schools are going to go down the pipe with it. The death spiral will begin with smallish, academically blah liberal arts colleges—that is already apparently happening—and it will spread to non-flagship state schools—which is also starting to happen (Wisconsin, Illinois, California, New York and Pennsylvania have already begun closing “extension campuses” of their State University systems either proactively—Wisconsin and Pennsylvania—or because the costs aren’t sustainable under declining economies and skyrocketing deficits-Illinois, California and New York.
TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:i'm inviting all here to count the errors in the above nospacian post. closest to the right answer will win a prize.
the only hint i will give is that the number is at least double digits, but does not have a comma
TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:i'm inviting all here to count the errors in the above nospacian post. closest to the right answer will win a prize.
the only hint i will give is that the number is at least double digits, but does not have a comma
participants that show their work will have a leg up on their competition that just guesses a number. The answer is not 69. THIS IS A SERIOUS AND IMPORTANT CONTEST!
TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:i'm inviting all here to count the errors in the above nospacian post. closest to the right answer will win a prize.
the only hint i will give is that the number is at least double digits, but does not have a comma
participants that show their work will have a leg up on their competition that just guesses a number. The answer is not 69. THIS IS A SERIOUS AND IMPORTANT CONTEST!
eagle33 {l Wrote}:TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:i'm inviting all here to count the errors in the above nospacian post. closest to the right answer will win a prize.
the only hint i will give is that the number is at least double digits, but does not have a comma
i stopped reading his posts because i don't want to get CTE.
innocentbystander {l Wrote}:The regional rivalries will disappear as the most valuable college programs will gravitate towards one-another. That makes sense. There is too much money at stake. Universities with the most clout are no longer going to be satisfied making less money than they can. But there is going to be college football and people are going to continue to enjoy watching it. True, you will not see CAL play USC anymore, but the national broadcasters will light up all the TVs nationwide when USC plays Ohio State and UCLA plays Michigan. This culling of the herd, it might make college football even better.
Why do I say this? I say this because the NFL is going to continue to exist, and the NFL is likely to remain the premier professional sports league in the world. And the NFL will continue to need to find talent to fill out its rosters, the best football players in the world. And only the best will do because people do not pay to watch the second best. And college football (the way it has been constructed by the NCAA), with 85 full scholarships each for the 131 FBS schools and a variety of scholarship packages offered at the 125 FCS schools, that has a way of exposing the most talented high school athletes and giving them 3 to 5 years to show the NFL what they can do.
College baseball, sucks. I know I am going to grief for this (given the incredible success BC has had) but college hockey also sucks. It is not all that entertaining. The tv audience drawn by these college student-athletes to watch them play sports is absolutely dwarfed by men's college basketball and (especially) college football. And with good reason. They are NOT the best players. The best 19 and 20 year old baseball and hockey players are NOT playing in college. MLB and the NHL have such profound, organized, and well-funded farm programs. That is where the best 19 and 20 year old baseball and hockey players are before they are in the show. They go get the best high school players and stick them in their own farm systems and have them work it all out in their minors before they go to the show. Canada even has their own junior league for 17 to 19 year old players. True, the NBA does have a G league. But it is nothing like what exists for MLB or the NHL. The size and scope are completely different. Hell, not every NBA team even has a G-league affiliate! The best high school basketball players will continue to opt for college, even if it is only for one year (one-and-done.)
The NFL is very smart. They have already subcontracted out the most elaborate, and well structured farm system in the world for them to draft the best football players in the world. That system is college football. And that system costs the NFL, zero. Nothing. Why would they want to spend the huge money to create a farm system all on their own to draw the best high school athletes AWAY from the college gridiron, when they don't have to? Why would they do that? What is in it for them? Colleges do ALL the recruiting. They don't have to. And you can't put the best high school football player in the world right into the NFL at age 18. Unlike the NBA, this a contact sport. He will be ruined and (likely) hurt. His muscles and bone structure are still developing and playing against grown men at such a young age, might be end of him.
As long as college football (no matter what it morphs into) continues to have the best high school football players filling out its rosters, then college football will continue to exist. And it will continue to draw massive crowds in the stands (even if the Baby-Rapist schools must travel 3000 miles or more to play one another.) It will continue to get excellent ratings on television. The death of the regional rivalry will not kill the golden goose that is college football. Losing the best players WOULD kill it. But only the NFL could do that. And they have no reason to kill it.
tallsy {l Wrote}:innocentbystander {l Wrote}:The regional rivalries will disappear as the most valuable college programs will gravitate towards one-another. That makes sense. There is too much money at stake. Universities with the most clout are no longer going to be satisfied making less money than they can. But there is going to be college football and people are going to continue to enjoy watching it. True, you will not see CAL play USC anymore, but the national broadcasters will light up all the TVs nationwide when USC plays Ohio State and UCLA plays Michigan. This culling of the herd, it might make college football even better.
Why do I say this? I say this because the NFL is going to continue to exist, and the NFL is likely to remain the premier professional sports league in the world. And the NFL will continue to need to find talent to fill out its rosters, the best football players in the world. And only the best will do because people do not pay to watch the second best. And college football (the way it has been constructed by the NCAA), with 85 full scholarships each for the 131 FBS schools and a variety of scholarship packages offered at the 125 FCS schools, that has a way of exposing the most talented high school athletes and giving them 3 to 5 years to show the NFL what they can do.
College baseball, sucks. I know I am going to grief for this (given the incredible success BC has had) but college hockey also sucks. It is not all that entertaining. The tv audience drawn by these college student-athletes to watch them play sports is absolutely dwarfed by men's college basketball and (especially) college football. And with good reason. They are NOT the best players. The best 19 and 20 year old baseball and hockey players are NOT playing in college. MLB and the NHL have such profound, organized, and well-funded farm programs. That is where the best 19 and 20 year old baseball and hockey players are before they are in the show. They go get the best high school players and stick them in their own farm systems and have them work it all out in their minors before they go to the show. Canada even has their own junior league for 17 to 19 year old players. True, the NBA does have a G league. But it is nothing like what exists for MLB or the NHL. The size and scope are completely different. Hell, not every NBA team even has a G-league affiliate! The best high school basketball players will continue to opt for college, even if it is only for one year (one-and-done.)
The NFL is very smart. They have already subcontracted out the most elaborate, and well structured farm system in the world for them to draft the best football players in the world. That system is college football. And that system costs the NFL, zero. Nothing. Why would they want to spend the huge money to create a farm system all on their own to draw the best high school athletes AWAY from the college gridiron, when they don't have to? Why would they do that? What is in it for them? Colleges do ALL the recruiting. They don't have to. And you can't put the best high school football player in the world right into the NFL at age 18. Unlike the NBA, this a contact sport. He will be ruined and (likely) hurt. His muscles and bone structure are still developing and playing against grown men at such a young age, might be end of him.
As long as college football (no matter what it morphs into) continues to have the best high school football players filling out its rosters, then college football will continue to exist. And it will continue to draw massive crowds in the stands (even if the Baby-Rapist schools must travel 3000 miles or more to play one another.) It will continue to get excellent ratings on television. The death of the regional rivalry will not kill the golden goose that is college football. Losing the best players WOULD kill it. But only the NFL could do that. And they have no reason to kill it.
You are certainly right that college football will survive to feed the NFL but posit a world where baseball never lost its premier status. Would Triple A games be getting college football ratings and crowds? My instinct, which could be wrong, tells me no.
Post consolidation college football has to do 1 of 2 things - convert West Virginia, Texas Tech, etc fans to fans of the bigger programs or convince people to watch because of the increase in quality/matchups. As for the former, they are hoping those fan bases are a rounding error, but IMO in the aggregate they are wrong. As for the latter as someone who's lived in NYC, Boston, and LA, color me skeptical that large swaths of NFL fans are holding back from watching because the quality of the play isn't 10% better and are just waiting to tune in so long as we get rid of the occasional Alabama-Vandy game.
DuchesneEast {l Wrote}:The problem with having nothing but baby rapist schools is that they all can't win and then some of those schools are going to be perpetual sub 500 teams and that fan base is going to get pissed. Take a hint from wrestling, you need jobbers.
innocentbystander {l Wrote}:DuchesneEast {l Wrote}:The problem with having nothing but baby rapist schools is that they all can't win and then some of those schools are going to be perpetual sub 500 teams and that fan base is going to get pissed. Take a hint from wrestling, you need jobbers.
Yes.
When this all shakes out, and the two 16-team, super conferences, the SEC and B1G-T(16)N have gathered up all the baby rapists in one giant pile of college football tv clout and power, there will still be OOC games and perhaps one or two contracted games a year against schools in the ACC, the Big-XII, and whatever is left of my pitiful PAC. As long as that contract is as one sided as we all think the BC-Ohio State "home-and-home" will eventually wind up.
TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:I agree he is a moron, but are you saying the conferences won’t exist, the programs won’t exist, or yes?
I agree the conferences won’t exist. I don’t agree the programs won’t exist… just that they’ll become another layer between the f league and the 1aa with rules and dollars closer to 1aa than the f league
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:innocentbystander {l Wrote}:DuchesneEast {l Wrote}:The problem with having nothing but baby rapist schools is that they all can't win and then some of those schools are going to be perpetual sub 500 teams and that fan base is going to get pissed. Take a hint from wrestling, you need jobbers.
Yes.
When this all shakes out, and the two 16-team, super conferences, the SEC and B1G-T(16)N have gathered up all the baby rapists in one giant pile of college football tv clout and power, there will still be OOC games and perhaps one or two contracted games a year against schools in the ACC, the Big-XII, and whatever is left of my pitiful PAC. As long as that contract is as one sided as we all think the BC-Ohio State "home-and-home" will eventually wind up.
You're a moron for thinking any of those other football programs continue to exist in 10 years. There is zero reason for them to survive.
DuchesneEast {l Wrote}:Soooo, does the BIG and SEC kick out Vandy and NW?
innocentbystander {l Wrote}:
I know it stings guys. I know this hurts watching this unfold. But what can we do? We can't stop it.
angrychicken {l Wrote}:innocentbystander {l Wrote}:
I know it stings guys. I know this hurts watching this unfold. But what can we do? We can't stop it.
It's this type of attitude that got you introduced to Dr. Martha Blyhope.
innocentbystander {l Wrote}:DuchesneEast {l Wrote}:The problem with having nothing but baby rapist schools is that they all can't win and then some of those schools are going to be perpetual sub 500 teams and that fan base is going to get pissed. Take a hint from wrestling, you need jobbers.
Yes.
When this all shakes out, and the two 16-team, super conferences, the SEC and B1G-T(16)N have gathered up all the baby rapists in one giant pile of college football tv clout and power, there will still be OOC games and perhaps one or two contracted games a year against schools in the ACC, the Big-XII, and whatever is left of my pitiful PAC. As long as that contract is as one sided as we all think the BC-Ohio State "home-and-home" will eventually wind up.
DomingoOrtiz {l Wrote}:DuchesneEast {l Wrote}:Soooo, does the BIG and SEC kick out Vandy and NW?
and/or will get to the point that these universities no longer want to be a part of it.
hansen {l Wrote}:innocentbystander {l Wrote}:DuchesneEast {l Wrote}:The problem with having nothing but baby rapist schools is that they all can't win and then some of those schools are going to be perpetual sub 500 teams and that fan base is going to get pissed. Take a hint from wrestling, you need jobbers.
Yes.
When this all shakes out, and the two 16-team, super conferences, the SEC and B1G-T(16)N have gathered up all the baby rapists in one giant pile of college football tv clout and power, there will still be OOC games and perhaps one or two contracted games a year against schools in the ACC, the Big-XII, and whatever is left of my pitiful PAC. As long as that contract is as one sided as we all think the BC-Ohio State "home-and-home" will eventually wind up.
Don’t you have some trial you should be watching and posting about?
hansen {l Wrote}:innocentbystander {l Wrote}:DuchesneEast {l Wrote}:The problem with having nothing but baby rapist schools is that they all can't win and then some of those schools are going to be perpetual sub 500 teams and that fan base is going to get pissed. Take a hint from wrestling, you need jobbers.
Yes.
When this all shakes out, and the two 16-team, super conferences, the SEC and B1G-T(16)N have gathered up all the baby rapists in one giant pile of college football tv clout and power, there will still be OOC games and perhaps one or two contracted games a year against schools in the ACC, the Big-XII, and whatever is left of my pitiful PAC. As long as that contract is as one sided as we all think the BC-Ohio State "home-and-home" will eventually wind up.
Don’t you have some trial you should be watching and posting about?
DomingoOrtiz {l Wrote}:DuchesneEast {l Wrote}:Soooo, does the BIG and SEC kick out Vandy and NW?
and/or will get to the point that these universities no longer want to be a part of it.
TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:DomingoOrtiz {l Wrote}:DuchesneEast {l Wrote}:Soooo, does the BIG and SEC kick out Vandy and NW?
and/or will get to the point that these universities no longer want to be a part of it.
yeah, but the money spends. "oh, so i have to go 0 - 12 every year but you'll pay me $300m a year to do it? ... well then spank my ass and call me goose egg. i've got dr martha blyhope's number on speed dial"
my guess is the league builds some "minimum capacity stadium" clause into it's requirements and those that can't meet it are KICKED OUT!!!! i would guess there will be defined language that it has to be a designated stadium and soldier field/nissan stadium don't count. without something like that added to the charter, i could see it being very cost prohibitive to have to pay vandy and nw to go away (pack yer bags)
if you make it 60k then based on current stadium size you lose not only vandy and nw, but also rutgres, maryland, indiana, and minnesota (and you'd have to buy 1,500 confederate flagged folding chairs for ol' miss). i can see the baby rapist being okay with all of those falling by the wayside in favor of the clemson, fsu, domers, byu, wvu, washington, and even unc (ha!) or uva (HA!!!!)
i could also see tcu tearing down their current monstrosity and building something that meets the new capacity requirements. lots of money in ft. worth to help that to happen... and not just from mysterious strangers. then again, the horny toads have a bc level of apathy for their sports teams so, maybe not
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 213 guests