One grating aspect of sports coverage is when leagues discuss rule changes and the experts come out of the woodwork. You know who I'm talking about-the wiseguys who pump out columns with rule changes so sensible, you almost forget they're either pointless or completely unrealistic.
So often the proposed changes would only slightly improve the experience for fans, rather than drawing in any new viewers. Writers say things like: "If baseball really wanted to be more successful, they'd do something about all that standing around." Granted, there are too many moments in any game when a pitcher's attempting his fifteenth straight pickoff throw, but there's no way that an arbitrary limit to the number of pickoff throws, for example, is really going to change people's mind about the sport in general.
What really gets me is that it's one of the most popular sports that has all the problems. That's college football. Fun to watch it may be, but it also unifies almost all of the biggest problems from every major sports league. Fortunately, college football fans are nice enough to casually disregard each of these issues.
You don't believe me?
1) Like hockey stars, college football players don't think they get paid enough.
And they may be right. I used to care about whether college football players got paid outside of their scholarships; then I remembered I'm not one. Like most fans, I don't care. Is it an injustice that colleges make money off some of the players? I guess, though almost everyone with a job is really just stacking up the cash for the person above them. (I have a government job, but I'm talking about the rest of you.)
There are obviously some players who bring in the big bucks. These guys are usually the same men who go on to make millions in the NFL, so it's almost fair (though I'd hate to be told, "Don't worry, there's a chance your next job'll make up for this). But there's just as clearly a huge crop of guys who not only don't deserve any extra dough, they shouldn't be on scholarship to begin with. Which brings us to our next issue:
2) Like college basketball, college football has way too many untalented players.
Even the top college hoops squads have that one "defensive specialist" who plays thirty minutes a night but only averages like three points per game. Teamwork is great, but don't forget that guys are often out there only because of a good attitude.
College football isn't exactly loaded, either. Part of the excitement of the game is that almost anything can and will happen. In a close contest, you never know how the game is going to end-an interception, a punt return, a massive offensive drive, and a blocked kick are all not only possible, but almost likely. But then that's the problem. The fluke plays don't happen as often in the pros, because most of those guys can do their jobs competently.
What always sticks out to me are the kickers. How often do bad special teams decide a game? I always recall this California-BYU game I attended as a freshman. The Cal kicker was lining up for what I think was a field goal but of about PAT distance. Well, he ended up shaking the stadium foundations with the brick he fired into the uprights. This is entertainment?
Fans get carried away with the "I could've done that", but man, I can miss a field goal!
3) Like major league baseball, college football has a testing problem.
You've been blind if you don't see what's going on here. Shortstops hitting 40 homers a season, players having career years at 38, the home run record falling seemingly every other month-baseball has a steroid problem it's known about for years.
(One thing I like about the steroid controversy is when writers make it really, really obvious whom they're writing about, but yet are too chicken to actually name the guy. Sort of like what I just did.)
College football has a testing problem, too. Not steroids, though. I'm talking about school exams. Granted, many players really do try to learn, but we also know that tons of players don't want to go to class. This leads to widespread corruption by desperate coaches and pathetic athlete-friendly instructors. The obvious solution: stop making players go to class. To my professor brother: I'm only kidding.
Seriously, though, if your favorite team has special assistants who only write term papers, and a list of teachers without the guts to fail a star, your team is a bunch of cheaters, just like Raffy P. Do college football fans care? What do you think?
(On a side note about the steroids, has anyone here heard about the new Blitz videogame? After the NFL sold its exclusive license/soul to the John Madden franchise, Midway responded with a completely over-the-top look at pro football that's due out in a few months. For example, you're going to have players thrown in jail during the season, and one team has a quarterback named "Mexico". One fun feature is the chance to use steroids to boost performance or get an injured player back on the field more quickly. Anyway, I told you all this so I could post this screenshot, where you can check out one of the available drug choices.)
4) Like major league baseball, college football has a huge competitive imbalance.
This one's legit. Everyone, myself definitely included, hates the Yankees (and if you don't, you better be from New York). They spend more than anyone in an attempt to buy championships. Sensible fans see that other squads, like the Red Sox, do exactly the same thing. But teams run by tightwads often don't have a prayer.
Same thing in college football. What's the difference between the Yankees and, say, USC? It's the same few juggernauts every year that have a realistic chance at the title in both sports. Most schools will never sniff a title, not unlike most baseball teams.
Does this bother anyone? Are you crazy? On the contrary, who doesn't love watching a Heisman hopeful score six touchdowns in one half against Southeastern Nebraska State?
5) Like pro basketball, college football is all about the star system.
What's wrong with the NBA? Aside from the idea that if you're a fan, there's a player out there right now looking to climb into the bleachers and cold-cock you, the most common complaint leveled against pro hoops is the idea that there's no teamwork anymore. It's always one guy isolated on one side while the rest of the team hides behind the three-point line in the opposite corner, critics say.
How is college football any different? Obviously, you can't line up a guy on one side and let the other ten keep the D distracted. But when a team gets its hands on a future NFL star, they'll install whatever gimmicky one-dimensional offense they can to force-feed him the ball (sometimes even when he's not a future star, just a quarterback at Texas Tech). I remember reading before the Virginia Tech-Florida State national title game in 2000 that Seminole coaches had devised something like 28 different ways to get Peter Warrick the ball. This is teamwork?
"Well, you oughta give your best player the ball." Isn't that what NBA teams are doing?
6) Like the NFL, college football hasn't started yet.
Bring it on!
4 comments:
I hate the NCAA myself, so I am with you there, though for accuracy's sake I'm not sure they've ever had a sound idea for me to agree with. I'll assume you were speaking hypothetically.
Interesting point about college football and Blitz-frankly, I'm a little disappointed I didn't come up with it myself.
As for the competitive imbalance, I'm not sure it's quite so cut-and-dry. All college football has over baseball is a ton more teams, but percentage-wise, I'm not sure any more teams have a shot at a title. If you're not in a BCS conference, you basically don't have a prayer-but since there are so many teams in college football, national media outlets can afford to focus almost solely on fantastic teams. MLB is small enough that even crappy teams get some face time, so it seems like we're more aware of them.
i say we pay the college athletes with a free educ...
oh wait.
look, these kids knew what they were getting into when they signed up. they are using the college football system to get a free, quality education. if they are really talented, i'll hopefully be shining their shoes some day.
if they aren't fortunate to get a full or partial scholarship, then they are playing for the love of the game, and that's what makes college football so much more pure.
college basketball for that matter too.
i think you'd see an astronomical increase in ego...
not to say that there aren't HUGE egos now (eg, all of the miami program)
i just think that the crucial element to collegiate athletics is that the majority of the players are still doing it for passion.
when i watch professional sports, i see that missing in their eyes. it's sad.
Pure? What is so pure about college sports? I've heard the phrase a lot, but I'm ever less convinced that I know what it means. I see a ton of corruption and I'm not sure there are that many more players in the game for the love. Some guys are just using their talent to get an education...not that there's anything wrong with that, of course, but it's not a pure love of sport necessarily motivating everyone, even if their overall intentions are pretty good. And just because players aren't paid over-the-table doesn't mean some aren't motivated by payments made under the table.
There are some pro athletes who are motivated by greed just like athletes at all levels are motivated by all sorts of bad things. However, I do think this gets overblown at the pro level. I can name a TON of pro athletes who seem, if not perfectly pure in their motives (I'm not motivated at my job by a love of tech support or anything, so this is probably unrealistic to ask for anyway), compete like crazy and try very hard to win in a sportsmanlike fashion. And as a fan, that's all I can ask for.
Can you really see it in their eyes? Have you ever watched an NFL game and been like, wow, on the whole, these guys don't care? I haven't. Even the guys that don't belong out there for talent are usually trying, if only out of fear of decapitation. Sure, some individuals don't try-Ryan Leaf, etc.-but I've seen college guys make plays where I question their guts just as often.
Like you said, a majority of college guys play for passion. Obviously, there's no way we could really prove this, but I think a majority of pro players feel the same way.
J, no reason to take shots at the CFL. It combines the best parts of every league. The speed of the AFL. The size of the NFL +1. The talent of the XFL and the exposure of the WFL.
Moving on... Mike I agree with all of your points but I think you left out the BCS. I feel that the BCS is one of the biggest reasons college football is going down hill. Nebraska should have never played in the Rose Bowl, Oklahoma should not have played in the Sugar Bowl, and Auburn and USC should of had their chance. J's right, don't let a number of wanna-be football players choose who is the best, let the teams plays.
The competetive imbalance seems to have come because of the BCS. I don't see how a national contendor team from the 80's and 90's like BYU can no longer compete for a national championship because of the system running the NCAA. Now talented kids that want to win national championships have to go to specific schools which is going to further increase the imbalance. At least there are still mediocre conferences and title games and meaningless bowl games for for less talented teams to play in and feel good about themselves.
With truly minimal talent, the star system is the only way that seems to allow teams to compete and help coaches keep their jobs. Would VT have been any good if they force Vick to share the ball? Would Nebraska have been any good if Eric Crouch learned a skill other than pitching? Would Wisconsin have been a good team if Ron Dayne sat out a couple of plays to get his team involved? Team work is nice, but doesn't really work if your team sucks.
When you're watching Texas this weekend, notice how there offense is based around two player. Vince Young and whoever they choose to run for them. Teamwork and spreading the ball doesn't work when you receivers can't catch.
Post a Comment