College Football is dead

[Unchainme]

ESPN has truly just killed it and buried in a shallow grave.

[sonrisa salvaje]

What did ESPN do besides announce the bowl games?

[Unchainme]

ESPN unfortunately has an interest in 'Bama and LSU going to the game.

ESPN has the contract rights to the SEC Network and several ways of promoting the conference through various means through an 80 million dollar tv contract.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/stewart_mandel/07/24/sec-espn/index.html

ESPN controls the money, thus ESPN is able to mold the way things are in college football. Conferences like the PAC Mountain West, B1G and Big XII minus Texas, they could give a shit about. The money they get is not nearly enough as the big jackpot they got from showing SEC teams.

Why worry about having a tournament or crowning any other conference champion, when you can continue to have your network be the home of a flawed championship, and to be the flagship station of the conference that dominates the conference.

ESPN is able to use it's pulpit to place people like Craig James, Mark May, and Kirk Herbstrait to trumpet the rematch, while not having one voice of opposition.

I believe the network is truly evil and is in dire need of competition.

[Blaze]

You have barely touched the iceberg. I noticed that ESPN employees are selling "corporate hospitality packages" in certain games that have manufactured limited (at best) seating with full sanction. It is truly shocking and the paper trail is amazingly revealing. Moreover, the sheer disregard for local daily labor is shocking.
I have always been appalled at certain for profit venues expecting volunteerism, but the extent of hording profit is shocking. Moreover, the exploitation of the local coverage of "benefits" by low pay is morally wrong.

But what has been so eyeopening is how out of touch conglomerate corporations have become.

[sonrisa salvaje]

Keep in mind that the SEC is the only conference that has gone on record suggesting a 4 team playoff for the National Title but no other conference was interested. This was 2 or 3 years ago. Maybe this will actually get enough people pissed off to change the system. If we had a 4 team playoff now, you would have LSU playing Stanford and Bama vs Ok St to see who would play in the final game. Then, of course, you will have the number 5 and 6 teams crying because they didn't get in.

[sonrisa salvaje]

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-wetzel_sec_reaps_reward_rejection_120311

[Blaze]

The amount of games being played is not angering. What is disturbing it how ESPN is channel stuffing seats, exploiting the local labor markets, and the cozy relationships with conglomerates that are in an already dubious financial spotlights.

Moreover, the recent notice of the sheer amount of profit made upon the collage football player's back with none given to any key players. The noticeable cost of sports teams in the credit/debit ratio to most collages that also do not share in the profit of ESPN and its associated conglomerates. It does appear to be a drain on academia. Moreover, it does appear to be a manufactured hype and the natural selection of local sports degenerated.

[Unchainme]

It disgusts me the amount of sponsorships go on in college football, and that the "Student-Athletes" don't see a fucking penny.

I'm not against say, Coke being the official soft-drink of Ohio State athletics, so long as they go "Alright, part of the deal is...We'll give you guys free things of vitamin water/powerade to keep hydrated". THAT'S FINE. You may not be giving money directly to the student-athletes themselves, but at least they're helped by the process.

No, funding this and working with the ncaa to make sure these players don't get a single penny is fucking wrong. It's designed to keep the money in the pockets of a few rich old white guys and away from people actually playing the damn sport.

[FORD]

What really sucks is the corporate branding of bowl games. Buy as many fucking ads for the TV game as you want, but don't attach your filthy names to the game itself.

[sonrisa salvaje]

What really sucks is the corporate branding of bowl games. Buy as many fucking ads for the TV game as you want, but don't attach your filthy names to the game itself.

Hell yeah. Remember when we were younger and it was just the Cotton Bowl, Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl?
Now corporations just come up with their own bowl game ala the Poulan Weedeater Bowl and the Emerald Nut Bowl.

[Nitro Express]

There just has gotten to be too much money in sports period. I remember Terry Bradshaw saying when he went to his first Superbowl the Steelers rode to it on a chartered bus and ate sack lunches. They were just happy they could make a living playing a game they loved. Now he said the teams fly charter jet and eat four star meals. He said college teams get more pampering now than what NFL players got in the 70's. It's just gotten nuts.

[FORD]

Yep.... used to be three or four bowl games on New Years Day and that was it. And for a while there, the Dawgs were in the Rose Bowl damn near every year, so I never missed it. Another victim of NCAA east coast favoritism :(

[Little Texan]

Now corporations just come up with their own bowl game ala the Poulan Weedeater Bowl and the Emerald Nut Bowl.

Oh boy, I can't wait for the Kohler Toilet Bowl, Trojan Condom Bowl, Wolf Brand Chili Bowl, Preparation H Hemorrhoidal Cream Bowl and the Hanes Her Way Panty Bowl! Of course those are just some made up bowl names I came up with myself, but some of the actual bowl names are every bit as ridiculous as those.

[Little Texan]

I believe there is a way of combining the current BCS system, the bowl games, and a playoff system. Just use the year end BCS rankings to seed all the teams, use the dead period we have now between the end of the regular college season and the bowl games for the playoffs, and however the teams finish in the playoffs determines what bowl they play in, with the final two teams playing for the national title.

[BigBadBrian]

ESPN unfortunately has an interest in 'Bama and LSU going to the game.



Maybe, but you can't doubt both of these teams are the best two in the country right now. An LSU/'Bama matchup would never fly had either team lost just one more game. Then letting in Okie State would be undeniable.

[indeedido]

I'm an Oklahoma State alum and fan. Do I think they can beat LSU? Irrelevant. Can they? Yes. Would they? I don't know. I could make a case they should be #2. I've heard no statistical info from ESPN on why Alabama deserves to go to the nat'l title game. "We used the eye test." What the fuck does that mean? They didn't argue strength of schedule or the number of ranked teams OSU and Alabama beat/played because it tipped to OSU. Eye test, come on man. Did Alabama win their conference? No. Did they even win their division within the conference? No. It is all about money and ESPN being in bed with the SEC. When OSU's offense is cranked up there's no doubt they can play with anyone.

[sonrisa salvaje]

I'm an Oklahoma State alum and fan. Do I think they can beat LSU? Irrelevant. Can they? Yes. Would they? I don't know. I could make a case they should be #2. I've heard no statistical info from ESPN on why Alabama deserves to go to the nat'l title game. "We used the eye test." What the fuck does that mean? They didn't argue strength of schedule or the number of ranked teams OSU and Alabama beat/played because it tipped to OSU. Eye test, come on man. Did Alabama win their conference? No. Did they even win their division within the conference? No. It is all about money and ESPN being in bed with the SEC. When OSU's offense is cranked up there's no doubt they can play with anyone.

This isn't the first time a team that didn't win their conference made it into the championship game and i don't think it will be the last. That is the unfortunate thing about the current system. What is frustrating to me as a Bama fan, is that Oklahoma State does have an argument and i would rather we just play Oklahoma State for the right to play LSU so that there is no doubt who should be playing for it all. My problem with Oklahoma State is that the loss to Iowa State was just so bad. If Bama had lost to say...Mississippi State or Tennessee then i would say they have no business in the game.

[indeedido]

Iowa State was a bad loss. I can't make an excuse of the plane crash the morning of the game, they may have come out and played flat anyway. A one game playoff for the right to go to the nat'l title game is a good idea. I don't know how to make playoffs work in the NCAA but when things are so close maybe it could be written for situations like this. I dunno

[sonrisa salvaje]

Iowa State was a bad loss. I can't make an excuse of the plane crash the morning of the game, they may have come out and played flat anyway. A one game playoff for the right to go to the nat'l title game is a good idea. I don't know how to make playoffs work in the NCAA but when things are so close maybe it could be written for situations like this. I dunno

I agree with you. They want to make everything an across the board decision but sometimes you need to take things on a case by case basis. The BCS is supposed to enable things to be settled on the field and in most years there are only 2 undefeated legitimate teams left standing. However, in years like this the system really leaves a lot to be desired. If you look at the rankings as they stand now, if they took the top 4 teams only and did a playoff, Oregon would be pissed off at number 5 considering they beat number 4 Stanford. After this season we have 2 more years under the current system by contract. I fear this may happen again before the term is up and that is very unfortunate.

[BigBadBrian]

My problem with Oklahoma State is that the loss to Iowa State was just so bad. If Bama had lost to say...Mississippi State or Tennessee then i would say they have no business in the game.

I think you hit it right on the head there. It's not about your wins, but your losses also.

That being said, i think it's obvious the current system needs revamping.

[indeedido]

There's a corralation between that and the Heisman. What is supposed to be about the best player in college football, has as much to do with losses as wins. As each candidate goes through the season if their team loses so does that candidates chances to be the Heisman winner. Is that player no longer good because the team lost a game? Does Andrew Luck now stink because they lost a game? that's all I've heard all year is how he is hands down the winner, yet they lose a game and he's no longer in the discussion. But yet he's still discussed as the #1 draft pick.

[Little Texan]

There's a corralation between that and the Heisman. What is supposed to be about the best player in college football, has as much to do with losses as wins. As each candidate goes through the season if their team loses so does that candidates chances to be the Heisman winner. Is that player no longer good because the team lost a game? Does Andrew Luck now stink because they lost a game? that's all I've heard all year is how he is hands down the winner, yet they lose a game and he's no longer in the discussion. But yet he's still discussed as the #1 draft pick.

I think RG3 should be the unanimous choice for the Heisman. He IS Baylor, and without him, Baylor, which has nothing resembling a defense, wins maybe 2 or 3 games instead of the 9 games they won this year. He was the MVP on his team, is superior to Andrew Luck in every statistical passing category, and didn't have a bad game this season, even in the losses.

[indeedido]

+100000

[Little Texan]

RG3 wins the Heisman...Fuckin A!

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7339011/robert-griffin-iii-baylor-bears-wins-77th-heisman-trophy

They got it right this time.

[Little Texan]

Check out this awesome play to beat Oklahoma.

[damngoodtimes]

I have a playoff system in my head, that I know I've posted here before, where you use the existing bowls to create a simple 8 team playoff. I'm too lazy to write all that again.

However, with the BCS we have, the simplest answer is to add one rule: "you don't win your conference, you don't play for the title." It wasn't right when OU played for it in 2003 and it's not right this year. There are too many teams in too many conferences that don't play each other to truly figure out who is better than who across the country. The only things we know for sure is that each conference champion is better than the rest of their conference. They proved it on the field.