College Football (US)

[mike777]

I would think the injury rate is well above 100%, the graduation rate below 100%.

[Zelandakh]

So you claim that injured college football players outnumber graduated college football players? That is plausible, but I would want some sources.

 

I am interested in your overall point, but can't tell what it is.

Perhaps if you tried understanding what I wrote rather than assigning a completely different meaning it would help. Not that there was a point as such. Am I only allowed to post in WC threads if I want an argument? Or perhaps I am now misreading your point - easily done, no?

[billw55]

Perhaps if you tried understanding what I wrote rather than assigning a completely different meaning it would help. Not that there was a point as such. Am I only allowed to post in WC threads if I want an argument? Or perhaps I am now misreading your point - easily done, no?

Easy there Zel :) I am not aware of arguing with you or even disagreeing with you, in this thread.

 

The roles and counterbalancing of academics, athletics, and revenue in college sports is a topic that interests me, and that has room for differing yet reasonable viewpoints. So I like to discuss it, and hear what other people think.

[billw55]

I would think the injury rate is well above 100%, the graduation rate below 100%.

Could be true, depending on what is considered an "injury". If an injury is anything that hurts, you are certainly right. If injury means something that prevents an athlete from competing, then it might be close. Or maybe it means something in between, such as anything that receives treatment.

[mike777]

Could be true, depending on what is considered an "injury". If an injury is anything that hurts, you are certainly right. If injury means something that prevents an athlete from competing, then it might be close. Or maybe it means something in between, such as anything that receives treatment.

 

 

I will let the Mom define :)

 

 

but if there are 50 players on a team I would expect more than 50 injures a year per team.

 

but then she may be the only one who really cares.

[bd71]

60 minutes tv show said only about 25 teams break even or better

 

I assume 60 minutes is looking at direct sports revenue (tickets, advertising, etc.) compared to direct costs. If you were to add the impact that football teams have on alumni donations, I think the math will look very different.

[mike777]

Football has the same relation to education that bullfighting has to agriculture,” Hutchins said breezily in dismissing the game.

 

Other uses, ostensibly meritorious, were found for Stagg Field.

 

Three years later, scientists standing on the balcony of a squash court under the west stands set off the first self-sustaining nuclear reaction, an event that necessarily preceded the explosion of the world’s most powerful bomb

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/17/sports/ncaafootball/at-the-university-of-chicago-football-and-higher-education-mix.html?pagewanted=all

[billw55]

I assume 60 minutes is looking at direct sports revenue (tickets, advertising, etc.) compared to direct costs. If you were to add the impact that football teams have on alumni donations, I think the math will look very different.

It can be fairly complex. Do you track donations to the athletic department separately from those to academics or capital improvements? How would you determine which of these "other" donations are related to athletic publicity? I am guessing that someone in the university athletic department knows the answers, and knows just what their bottom line really is.

 

Anyway, pretending to be losing money is a very common ploy for tax breaks, other benefits, public sympathy, and so on. I would be very slow to trust any organization's published "accounting".

[billw55]

Football has the same relation to education that bullfighting has to agriculture," Hutchins said breezily in dismissing the game.

It can well be argued that public universities should not sponsor football, or any athletics. Many do so argue - mostly academic professionals from what I can tell.

 

If all University athletic programs ceased, I am quite sure that private enterprise would swiftly self-organize to keep the revenue-generating sports going.

[jjbrr]

bumping for LOL

 

the amazing thing about this thread is that a bcs schedule like this:

 

NCG: Notre Dame vs Alabama

Rose: Stanford vs Florida

Fiesta: Kansas State vs LSU

Cotton: Oklahoma vs Texas A&M

Sugar: Oregon vs Georgia

Orange: Florida State vs South Carolina

 

would provide some fantastic football to watch. And I think SEC teams would win 4 of those games. but LOL sort by OUT OF CONFERENCE SCHEDULE and CONFERENCE CHAMPION and become ncaaf expert, i guess.

[jjbrr]

will bump again after the MNC.

[awm]

bumping for LOL

 

the amazing thing about this thread is that a bcs schedule like this:

 

NCG: Notre Dame vs Alabama

Rose: Stanford vs Florida

Fiesta: Kansas State vs LSU

Cotton: Oklahoma vs Texas A&M

Sugar: Oregon vs Georgia

Orange: Florida State vs South Carolina

 

would provide some fantastic football to watch. And I think SEC teams would win 4 of those games. but LOL sort by OUT OF CONFERENCE SCHEDULE and CONFERENCE CHAMPION and become ncaaf expert, i guess.

 

An interesting lineup, although it might not draw as well as more traditional ones.

 

It's one thing to say "The SEC has a lot of strong teams and they don't play much outside their conference, it would be fun to line up their top teams against top teams from the rest of the nation" and quite another to say "The SEC is so clearly the best conference that even though they have played virtually no legit out-of-conference games, we will line up a rematch of the two best SEC teams and name the winner national champion."

[Flem72]

An interesting lineup, although it might not draw as well as more traditional ones.

 

An impossible lineup b/c the BCS has that bonehead rule that no conference may have more than 2 teams in the BCS bowls. So we get N. Illinois....

[bd71]

 

It's one thing to say "The SEC has a lot of strong teams and they don't play much outside their conference, it would be fun to line up their top teams against top teams from the rest of the nation" and quite another to say "The SEC is so clearly the best conference that even though they have played virtually no legit out-of-conference games, we will line up a rematch of the two best SEC teams and name the winner national champion."

 

Is it so clear that the SEC has weaker non-comference schedules than other major conferences? My impression is that the reluctance to schedule more than one tough non-conference opponent is endemic to all big-time conferences and programs.

 

I'm a Michigan fan, and it's highly unusual for us to have a year like this year when we played two high-quality non-conference opponents (Alabama, Notre Dame)...although I loved it. In fact, we've often had zero tough non-conference games when Notre Dame has been week over the last decade. I think other Big Ten teams take similar approaches.

 

So where's the evidence the SEC is an outlier?

[jjbrr]

It's quite possible the two best teams in the SEC didn't even meet in the SEC Championship game due to a somewhat arbitrary tie breaker. Florida is really getting shafted by having to play Louisville in the Sugar Bowl.

 

Compare Florida's resume to Georgia's:

 

Florida:

W @ TAMU

W LSU

W @ Vandy

W USC

L @ UGA

W @ FSU

 

UGA:

W Vandy

L USC (35-7)

W UF

L Bama

W Nebraska in the Cap One Bowl(lol)

 

That's like 4.5 quality wins for UF and 2 for UGA. If Florida could play and beat UO in a BCS game, it really would not be out of touch with reality to suggest a split title with the winner of the MNC, but unfortunately the SEC is too top heavy, and the rules prevent the BCS games from being scheduled based on how good the team is.

 

Bama's resume for the sake of completion:

 

W Mich

W Miss St (maybe shouldn't be included?)

W @ LSU

L TAMU

W UGA

and if they win the MNC W ND for also ~4.5 quality wins.

 

And I know this is completely irrelevant, so probably just ignore it, but next year Tennessee plays @Oregon, @Florida, UGA, USC, @Bama. Yes, UT is irrelevant next year, but when the Oregon game was scheduled both teams were relevant.

[jjbrr]

Also note: Both UGA and BAMA were the only teams in the SEC top 6 to only play 2 games against the rest of the SEC top 6. Mizzou had to play 5 of the top 6 (welcome to the SEC amirite) while the rest of the SEC top 6 played 3-4 games against the others.

[jjbrr]

Sorry when I said arbitrary tie breaker I'm not saying H2H shouldn't be an obvious tie breaker. I'm just saying Florida's season was much, much better than UGA's and I think most of us can agree with that.

[inquiry]

So where's the evidence the SEC is an outlier?

Here is the list of non-conference games this year for the SEC. You can draw your own conclusions, but this looks weak to me, and I am a huge SEC fan. On the other hand, despite the "easy" ooc schedule, the sec plays a brutal in-confernce schedule.

 

1. Missouri: Southeastern Louisiana, Arizona State, at UCF, Syracuse2. Vanderbilt: at Northwestern, Presbyterian, UMass, at Wake Forest

 

3. Arkansas: Jacksonville State, at Louisiana-Monroe, Rutgers, Tulsa

 

4. Alabama: Michigan (at Dallas), Western Kentucky, FAU, Western Carolina

 

5. Florida: Bowling Green, Louisiana-Lafayette, Jacksonville State, at Florida State

 

6. LSU: North Texas, Washington, Idaho, Towson

 

7. Ole Miss: Central Arkansas, UTEP, Texas, at Tulane

 

8. South Carolina: ECU, UAB, Wofford, at Clemson

 

9. Auburn: Clemson (at Atlanta), Louisiana-Monroe, New Mexico State, Alabama A&M

 

10. Georgia: Buffalo, FAU, Georgia Southern, Georgia Tech

 

11. Tennessee: NC State (at Atlanta), Georgia State, Akron, Troy

 

12. Kentucky: at Louisville, Kent State, Western Kentucky, Samford

 

13. Texas A&M: at Louisiana Tech, at SMU, South Carolina State, Sam Houston State

 

14. Mississippi State: Jackson State, at Troy, South Alabama, Middle Tennessee

 

 

I can't speak fot the relative stregnth of schedule for these non-conference opponents versus other conference's ooc games, but I do know that Florida has already played five schools with 10 wins or more this season, and lost one of those games. They have one more 10 win school to play in the bowl game. Someone told me that no school has ever won 4 games against opponents with 10+ wins before (I am not a football historian and didn't try to verify that), and Florida is a double digit favorite to get their 5th such win in Jan. So at least Florida had a tough schedule with games against final BCS rated teams at #7, 8, 9, 10, and 12, and one more against #21 (Louisville). So maybe OCC is not all that important during regular season for the SEC, let's see how they do in their bowl games, shall we?

[ArtK78]

Also note: Both UGA and BAMA were the only teams in the SEC top 6 to only play 2 games against the rest of the SEC top 6. Mizzou had to play 5 of the top 6 (welcome to the SEC amirite) while the rest of the SEC top 6 played 3-4 games against the others.

Part of the reason for this is that both UGA and BAMA were in the SEC top 6, and they can't play against themselves.

 

Another reason is just luck of the draw, since the schedules are put together years in advance in most cases.

[billw55]

BCS ranks are heavily influenced by human polls.

 

Human polls are based on slot voting starting from preseason ranks.

 

Preseason ranks are based on how good you were last year.

 

The SEC was good last year.

 

See how it works? Once the SEC starts losing some bowl games, the cycle can be broken for next year.

[inquiry]

BCS ranks are heavily influenced by human polls.

 

Human polls are based on slot voting starting from preseason ranks.

 

Preseason ranks are based on how good you were last year.

 

The SEC was good last year.

 

See how it works? Once the SEC starts losing some bowl games, the cycle can be broken for next year.

 

 

If your bolded statement is right, and if the gamblers are right (see below), it looks like the SEC will be highly ranked again next year. It seems eight SEC teams are in Bowls this year (two BCS ones), and they are favored in all eight. In two of them they are favored by double digits, in all but two of them, they are favored by at least one touchdown. Only the Gator Bowl with Mississipi State (who struggled at the end of the year) is the point spread really very close. For what it worth, Alabama (#2) is a bigger favorite against Notre Dame (#1) than they were against Georgia (then #3, now #7).

 

Music City Bowl: NC State vs Vanderbilt (-7.5)

Chick Fil-A Bowl: Clemson vs LSU (-7)

Gator Bowl: Northwestern vs Mississippi State (-2.5)

Outback Bowl: South Carolina (-7) vs. Michigan

Cotton Bowl: Texas A&M (-6) vs Oklahoma

Capital One Bowl: Nebraska vs Georgia (-12.5)

Sugar Bowl: Florida (-15.5) vs Louisville

BCS Championship Game: Alabama (-9.5) vs Notre Dame

 

 

 

 

 

[Flem72]

Take Mississippi State.

[Bbradley62]

Chick Fil-A Bowl: Clemson vs LSU (-7)

Note to self: remember to wear orange on 12/31, to blend in...

[Thiros]

If your bolded statement is right, and if the gamblers are right (see below), it looks like the SEC will be highly ranked again next year. It seems eight SEC teams are in Bowls this year (two BCS ones), and they are favored in all eight. In two of them they are favored by double digits, in all but two of them, they are favored by at least one touchdown. Only the Gator Bowl with Mississipi State (who struggled at the end of the year) is the point spread really very close. For what it worth, Alabama (#2) is a bigger favorite against Notre Dame (#1) than they were against Georgia (then #3, now #7).

 

Nine. Ole Miss is also in a bowl game, playing Pittsburgh, and is also favored, although narrowly (as of now).

 

The interest in bowl game pairings often goes beyond the matchup on the field. For instance, Kansas State had a game scheduled at Oregon in September this year, but backed out because Oregon swapped out a meeting with Kansas State on a neutral field for one with LSU last year. Thus the gaudy appearance of Tennessee Tech on Oregon's schedule, which was the result of a last-minute scramble by Oregon to fill the vacated spot. Now Kansas State is the Big 12 champion and going to the Fiesta Bowl, where they will be playing Oregon after all. So here we have a storyline about the team that, in the end, has to play the game that they tried to back out of.

 

Meanwhile, back home, Stanford will be playing to avenge the loss to Wisconsin the last time they played in the Rose Bowl, at the turn of the millennium. At that time Wisconsin was the national power and Stanford was the lowly representative of a weak Pac-10; now the roles are reversed.

[billw55]

If your bolded statement is right, and if the gamblers are right (see below), it looks like the SEC will be highly ranked again next year. It seems eight SEC teams are in Bowls this year (two BCS ones), and they are favored in all eight. In two of them they are favored by double digits, in all but two of them, they are favored by at least one touchdown.

True, but to some extent the betting line reflects public perception as much as it does real sports predicting. The only thing bookies care about is getting equal amounts bet on both sides. If enough bettors would bet Notre Dame -50, that's what the line would be, reality notwithstanding. People think the SEC is superior, therefore the betting lines favor them by more than is really warranted.

 

Or maybe it is warranted after all, results will tell. But if I was a betting man, I would bet against the SEC team in every game and expect to come out ahead.