College Football or the NFL?

[rams80]

Serious question: is Duke losing to anybody in football shocking at all, let alone a massive upset?

The Blue Devils really should be able to beat Richmond more often than they do.

[thespleenenator]

Serious question: is Duke losing to anybody in football shocking at all, let alone a massive upset?

You shouldn't lose to an FCS school, no matter who you are.

[Lights Out]

A.) I won't even pretend to argue that "name" schools don't load up on cupcakes at the beginning of the season. That said, you'll never convince me that Boise State's conference schedule is of the same caliber that an SEC or Big Ten conference schedule is. I'm not saying "cupcake schedule" is a fair reason to shut out the "small schools" from the BCS. The SOS argument against a Boise State isn't based on overall SOS. It's based on conference schedule and that's kind of where Boise State's argument gets a little weak. It's tougher for LSU to go undefeated than it is for Boise State. I'm all for the Boise State's of the world to get a fair shot but when someone argues that Boise's SOS isn't the same as Alabama's, it's a perfectly legitimate point. Not to mention, it's not like Boise State hasn't played in it's share of BCS bowls.

But that's where the unfairness comes in. The solution to a weak conference schedule would be to play tough teams out-of-conference, right? Well, it's pretty much impossible to do that when all the other highly-ranked schools are too busy buying wins from cupcakes to actually challenge themselves out-of-conference. Boise's been able to get one marquee out-of-conference game a year for the past couple years, but there's just no way they or any other good non-AQ school can get a better OOC slate without playing most of their games on the road for pennies on the dollar (which is unreasonable for other reasons).

Another problem I forgot to mention is simply that the cupcake-filled early month of the season is unfair to fans. The best teams from the different conferences playing each other to start the year would be glorious. That's another thing college basketball gets right - marquee OOC matchups early in the year.

B.) Fair or not, the first goal of a bowl game is to make money. Period. Other than the "title" game, bowls are just exhibition games. As such, they need to bring in teams that travel well and get TV ratings. Again, I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm only pointing out the way it is. Like it or not, fair or not, most fans would rather see Michigan or VT than they would Boise State or Kansas State. Again, it's just the way it is.

I seem to recall Kansas State packing the stadium for their trip to the Fiesta in '97. Regardless, I feel like having the best teams play would be just as much of a ratings boon as having the most traditional teams play.

[HedleyLamarr]

College football with a fair March Madness-style playoff would be the best sport in the American sporting world - even better than the NFL, IMHO.

Until that day, though, while I love college football, it will always be #2 to the NFL. The current poll system makes things WAY too predictable. You can pretty much predict that an SEC school is going to win it all again this year, simply because half the conference is ranked in preseason, deserving or not, which artificially juices the whole conference's SOS. Then the disappointments take forever to drop out of the polls because ESS EEE SEE PAWWWLLLL, and the SEC gets to use their beloved strength of schedule argument.

Never mind the fact that the SOS argument is flawed beyond belief in a system where all the "name" schools spend the first month or so buying cupcake wins because they can't afford to challenge themselves against a Boise State, Baylor, Stanford, Oklahoma State, etc. who could very well beat them. Then these same schools are quick to shout "CUPCAKE SCHEDULE" when less prestigious schools are left out in the cold. The ability of power schools to refuse to play certain schools and then influence the pollsters and the bowls to pass on those same schools for scheduling reasons demonstrates how :censored:ed up the current system is, and people actually ACCEPT this!

(By the way, the lamest argument in favor of this are the SEC fans' claims that they "play an NFL-esque gauntlet" in conference play, so they're entitled to play cupcakes. Last I checked, you still have Ole Miss, Miss St., Vanderbilt, Tennessee, a suddenly-terrible Florida, and now Texas A&M.)

Bowl selection is just an extension on the same high school clique behavior that permeates the polls. There's no way Virginia Tech or Michigan belonged anywhere near the Sugar Bowl, but their names are more famous than Kansas State's, Boise State's, or Michigan State's, so we were stuck with an unfulfilling matchup of two mediocre teams. "Tradition" wins, and the fans lose.

College football has many problems, but the biases inherent in polling and bowl selection are THE biggest. Maybe if every team went into every year with an actual chance at a title, no matter how strong or how tenuous, less programs would feel the need to cheat to get ahead. And I'm not convinced a 4-team playoff will change any of this.

Great post Lights! I was thinking the same thing but I wanted to add perception as a problem with college football. You see teams like ND and Auburn in the polls over more deserving teams like Washington and Louisville (Using this years preseason poll as an example). And that leads me to my next issue; the preseason and coaches poll. My issue with preseason poll is that nobody hasn't played yet and still they rank teams based on preconceptions and hype. They should start ranking after week 1 so it will be more fair. I dislike the coaches poll because they don't watch the games and again, use preconceptions. I feel that the coaches should be focused on their team rather than filling out the poll and should leave the rankings to the fans and experts, who actually watches the games.

The argument about "The preseason polls heavily influence the national championship race!" lost a lot of weight a few years back when unranked South Florida was ranked #2 by mid-October.

All these preseason polls do is give folks something to talk about. Come the end of the season, the pollsters tend to get things right/settled more often than not.

[rams80]

College football with a fair March Madness-style playoff would be the best sport in the American sporting world - even better than the NFL, IMHO.

Until that day, though, while I love college football, it will always be #2 to the NFL. The current poll system makes things WAY too predictable. You can pretty much predict that an SEC school is going to win it all again this year, simply because half the conference is ranked in preseason, deserving or not, which artificially juices the whole conference's SOS. Then the disappointments take forever to drop out of the polls because ESS EEE SEE PAWWWLLLL, and the SEC gets to use their beloved strength of schedule argument.

Never mind the fact that the SOS argument is flawed beyond belief in a system where all the "name" schools spend the first month or so buying cupcake wins because they can't afford to challenge themselves against a Boise State, Baylor, Stanford, Oklahoma State, etc. who could very well beat them. Then these same schools are quick to shout "CUPCAKE SCHEDULE" when less prestigious schools are left out in the cold. The ability of power schools to refuse to play certain schools and then influence the pollsters and the bowls to pass on those same schools for scheduling reasons demonstrates how :censored:ed up the current system is, and people actually ACCEPT this!

(By the way, the lamest argument in favor of this are the SEC fans' claims that they "play an NFL-esque gauntlet" in conference play, so they're entitled to play cupcakes. Last I checked, you still have Ole Miss, Miss St., Vanderbilt, Tennessee, a suddenly-terrible Florida, and now Texas A&M.)

Bowl selection is just an extension on the same high school clique behavior that permeates the polls. There's no way Virginia Tech or Michigan belonged anywhere near the Sugar Bowl, but their names are more famous than Kansas State's, Boise State's, or Michigan State's, so we were stuck with an unfulfilling matchup of two mediocre teams. "Tradition" wins, and the fans lose.

College football has many problems, but the biases inherent in polling and bowl selection are THE biggest. Maybe if every team went into every year with an actual chance at a title, no matter how strong or how tenuous, less programs would feel the need to cheat to get ahead. And I'm not convinced a 4-team playoff will change any of this.

Great post Lights! I was thinking the same thing but I wanted to add perception as a problem with college football. You see teams like ND and Auburn in the polls over more deserving teams like Washington and Louisville (Using this years preseason poll as an example). And that leads me to my next issue; the preseason and coaches poll. My issue with preseason poll is that nobody hasn't played yet and still they rank teams based on preconceptions and hype. They should start ranking after week 1 so it will be more fair. I dislike the coaches poll because they don't watch the games and again, use preconceptions. I feel that the coaches should be focused on their team rather than filling out the poll and should leave the rankings to the fans and experts, who actually watches the games.

The argument about "The preseason polls heavily influence the national championship race!" lost a lot of weight a few years back when unranked South Florida was ranked #2 by mid-October.

All these preseason polls do is give folks something to talk about. Come the end of the season, the pollsters tend to get things right/settled more often than not.

That was in 2007. That year was so abnormally screwed up that it should probably be barred for example-citing because we will never see its like again.

[The_Admiral]

Serious question: is Duke losing to anybody in football shocking at all, let alone a massive upset?

You shouldn't lose to an FCS school, no matter who you are.

Well, then you shouldn't be allowed to play them, now should you? The Packers aren't allowed to get fat on the University of Minnesota. NFL 1, College 0

Furthermore, the Paul Finebaum Show exists. NFL 2, College 0

No NFL team has been found to have aided and abetted a child rape factory for the enrichment of the football program and its high-ranking individuals. NFL infinity, College 0

[HedleyLamarr]

That was in 2007. That year was so abnormally screwed up that it should probably be barred for example-citing because we will never see its like again.

If I recall correctly, both Oregon and Auburn were both outside the top-10 in the AP's preseason poll back in 2010. (Auburn was well outside the top 10.)

[thespleenenator]

Serious question: is Duke losing to anybody in football shocking at all, let alone a massive upset?

You shouldn't lose to an FCS school, no matter who you are.

Well, then you shouldn't be allowed to play them, now should you? The Packers aren't allowed to get fat on the University of Minnesota. NFL 1, College 0

Furthermore, the Paul Finebaum Show exists. NFL 2, College 0

No NFL team has been found to have aided and abetted a child rape factory for the enrichment of the football program and its high-ranking individuals. NFL infinity, College 0

I get what you're saying, but that doesn't take away from the fact that college football is just more entertaining to watch and follow. The NFL is just a business. College football (while you could make an argument that most of it is business) has at least a little bit of genuine pageantry. I'll be honest, following free agency is boring.

And the emotion in the game is much more present in the college game. The NFL players are mostly concerned with getting payed, while the college players (at least about 99% of them) are just concerned with winning.

And, as I said before, the college game is just more fun to watch. I'd rather watch an NAIA game then an NFL game. In the NFL, you know what you're going to get, while in college, it's a complete surprise (in most cases).

[The_Admiral]

And the emotion in the game is much more present in the college game. The NFL players are mostly concerned with getting payed, while the college players (at least about 99% of them) are just concerned with winning.

Oh, come on, we go over this same thing with college vis-a-vis NBA basketball, where grimacing and gesticulating is perceived as some manifestation of Trying Really Hard. I think it's cooler when athletes do something that we know is hard and don't spaz out over it. Do you think McEnroe is the only tennis player who ever gave a damn about his craft because he threw the most bitchfits?

N.B.: I'm not even a huge NFL fan really.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

And the emotion in the game is much more present in the college game. The NFL players are mostly concerned with getting payed, while the college players (at least about 99% of them) are just concerned with winning.

Oh, come on, we go over this same thing with college vis-a-vis NBA basketball, where grimacing and gesticulating is perceived as some manifestation of Trying Really Hard. I think it's cooler when athletes do something that we know is hard and don't spaz out over it. Do you think McEnroe is the only tennis player who ever gave a damn about his craft because he threw the most bitchfits?

N.B.: I'm not even a huge NFL fan really.

I think you're reading in the wrong way. NFL players are most interested in getting "payed," which is shorthand for expressing nationalism. NCAA players are playing for the love of school, whereas NFL players are playing for love of country. When you're playing for the glory of your country, there is no joy. Only true grit.

Right?

[thespleenenator]

And the emotion in the game is much more present in the college game. The NFL players are mostly concerned with getting payed, while the college players (at least about 99% of them) are just concerned with winning.

Oh, come on, we go over this same thing with college vis-a-vis NBA basketball, where grimacing and gesticulating is perceived as some manifestation of Trying Really Hard. I think it's cooler when athletes do something that we know is hard and don't spaz out over it. Do you think McEnroe is the only tennis player who ever gave a damn about his craft because he threw the most bitchfits?

N.B.: I'm not even a huge NFL fan really.

Quite frankly, I'm not even sure what you're trying to say at this point. You just seem angry.

[Lights Out]

Furthermore, the Paul Finebaum Show exists. NFL 2, College 0

But without PAWWWWWLLLLL, how would we know the whereabouts of Auburn's bagman and the exact number of titles Bama's claiming this minute? Considering they claim one every time Saban takes a dump, they must be up to 300 NASH'NUL TITLES PAWWWWWLLLL, RAWL DAMN TODD.

[The_Admiral]

Furthermore, the Paul Finebaum Show exists. NFL 2, College 0

But without PAWWWWWLLLLL, how would we know the whereabouts of Auburn's bagman and the exact number of titles Bama's claiming this minute?

Did we ever find out the fate of the guy who admitted to having poisoned the Auburn trees thus destroying public property?

Ah poisoned dem trees. Thurr gonna dah. Do whuh? ROLL DAMN TODD

[Billy B]

Furthermore, the Paul Finebaum Show exists. NFL 2, College 0

But without PAWWWWWLLLLL, how would we know the whereabouts of Auburn's bagman and the exact number of titles Bama's claiming this minute?

Did we ever find out the fate of the guy who admitted to having poisoned the Auburn trees thus destroying public property?

Ah poisoned dem trees. Thurr gonna dah. Do whuh? ROLL DAMN TODD

He's on trial now. Said he did it and he's not going to win. I bet it was worth it though, roll tide!

[The_Admiral]

I really think the best way to settle this is to compile and rate the acts of violence, destruction, and rampant stupidity committed in the name of one's football team. Tree-Killing Cracker is an 8/10 for procuring expensive, industrial-grade herbicide and acting alone without the cover of an angry mob. Saints Bounty is probably an 8.5.

[Gothamite]

I used to love college football, but as it has become more and more apparent that it was always a business first and foremost I've almost entirely lost interest. I've already got the NFL for that, I don't need a minor league version.

[pianoknight]

There's too much parity in the NFL. Draft order and salary caps mean that all teams are within a few "levels" of each other. College football still allows for dynasties, although not as much as in the past.

In the NCAA, one raw freak athlete can change a game (see: Cam Newton, RG3). I suppose by deduction, you could then assume that the NFL relies more on team effort and is thus more true to the spirit of team athletics. But regardless, even guys like Brees, Brady or Manning can't completely take over a game like Tebow did at Florida.

In the NFL, a guy scores because he ran a well-designed play, got some key blocks and exploited a mismatch on the defense. In the NCAA, a guy scores because he can simply outrun 11 other dudes on the field.

Case in point, this stuff happens almost weekly in the NCAA. In the NFL it's maybe four or five times a season.

[WSU151]

Case in point, this stuff happens almost weekly in the NCAA. In the NFL it's maybe four or five times a season.

Those plays are a dime a dozen in high school. Doesn't mean high school football is amazingly awesome.

And BTW, Devin Hester says he can do that kind of play in his sleep.

[The_Admiral]

Tortured logic out the ass from the losing side here. "It's better because lots of players suck." lolwut

[thespleenenator]

Tortured logic out the ass from the losing side here. "It's better because lots of players suck." lolwut

No, I think it's more "It's more interesting to watch college football, because the game is more unexpected, and allows a greater chance for amazing individual efforts, while still being played on a high enough level so that team effort is required, and one player does not make a championship team, no matter how good.