sports bros
 

margin

can someone explain to me why the ncaa football scheduling isn't done exactly identically to say, march madness?

Because playing that many football games would be pretty ridiculous. An 8-team playoff would be perfect.

It's moving to a four team playoff next year.

i did hear that, a four team playoff seems stupid and the whole thing with selection by committee seems even more stupid.

college football should be outlawed

that's how march madness works too

what would your solution be? honest question. mine would be an 8 team playoff. if you can't get in the top 8 under any metric you fucked up somewhere along the way and probably don't deserve a shot.

I'd probably do something similar to how the world cup is done.

Restructure the Division 1 conferences. There are currently 128 division 1 teams. Which is nice because that evenly divides into 16 groups of 8. Single round robin in the regular season and top two finishers in each conference go to a round of 32. That's 5 rounds, which is 13 games max per season. I don't think that's too grueling, and can easily be padded with 1 or 2 interconference matchups in the regular season.

I understand that restructuring the conferences would probably be a very complicated process but when all is said and done, you'd actually know who the real champion is without everyone bitching that the noles has an easy season or something.

actually reading more about it, i restructuring the conference would be pretty much impossible, but you know, if i were king, that's what i'd do.

also i'd make sure that the players got paid through some sort of revenue sharing program.

yeah fuckin promotion/relegation would get me back into CFB

and a once monthly cup match

but see america wants to know the definitive #1 by way of arbitrary one and done playoff systems

by the way texas hiring a black man was finally a piece of good news

you fucking communist

i figure they should just let them sign shoe deals

i mean i'd like to outlaw the association between athletic clubs and universities but it's "tradition" or whatever the fuck

That is sort of maddening. Every time someone talks about college football, I feel like steven fry in this clip



I mean, I will defend the fact that universities have marching bands, as ridiculous as they are, because you can actually get a degree in musical performance and people won't necessarily laugh at you. You can't get a degree in football.

I probably shouldn't actually bring up that notion in a debate, or else it might gain some steam and alabama will start offering it in 5 years.

i don't think anyone is complaining about the 'noles, aside from the fact they were led by a likely rapist

and if you get rid of pre-season polls and move the playoff to 8 teams, i really doubt there would be problems.

college sports are inherently disparate. can't really treat it like a unified pro league or whatever.

and players should absolutely be able to get sponsorship deals. revenue sharing is good in theory but difficult in practice... who gets how much money? what about non-revenue sports?

nothing more than a local derby!!!!

just as an intellectual exercise, why is musical performance inherently more valuable?

as i understand it, revenue from football programs often support the other sports like lacrosse or whatever, so that complicates it too. but these people are making hand over fist. UCF's football coach pulls in a cool mil per year and he gets to avoid things like concussions and spinal injuries.

that's fucked up.

i'm not saying one is more valuable than the other. and i don't want to be reductive and say that football is just jocks brutalizing eachother. but if a university wants to at least pretend that it's interested in the preservation of culture and knowledge, the fine arts are certainly more relevant to that pursuit than athletics.

why?

(and there is the matter of what pays for the marching bands.... and scholarships and research facilities blahblah)

i'm (mostly) an unapologetic fan of college athletics, especially football. so i may not be the right person to have this conversation with

Because a musical performance isn't a contest.

why is a contest inherently inferior?

And I'm alright with having this conversation with you and I have no hard feelings, but if college athletics were to be banned tomorrow, I wouldn't shed a single tear and I'd honestly be a little happy with it.

Same with non-academic greek organizations.

well we're in agreement here

not saying it's inferior. i'm saying it's incongruous with what an educational institution should aspire to be.

well this leads me again to ask... why? i could make an argument that football (and pretty much every sport) has the opportunity to be an educational endeavor. the line between musical performance and sports seems fairly arbitrary to me.

It's a fraternity of sorts and if a guy loves the sport that much and wants to coach, staying in the frat keeps you in the loop for jobs. Stronger than a degree in many aspects, just depends on your contacts.

It's not that arbitrary. It's not exactly outlandish to say that legitimate educational institutions since the beginning of time have one singular interest in common: the proliferation and preservation of knowledge and culture.

it's hard to wedge "besting a cross state rival in athletic contests" into that definition.

i see that the new world order has successfully used their voice to skull technology to take your mind off of being a slave.

fuckin sheeple

athletic contests have nothing to do with knowledge or culture? i'd like an argument other than "one has been around longer." not that that's invalid. just not very convincing.

i guess somebody took the blue pill

can't we just agree that it's a vulgar misallocation of resources that exploits the naivete and virility of youth for the benefit of a select few.

like isn't that reason enough to depise its existence

misallocation of resources that would not exist but for the thing you're railing against.

and i also am not of the mind that college athletes (especially in non-revenue sports... i may side with you when it comes to football given the inherent danger, but probably not basketball) are exploited and get nothing out of it. and when you say the benefit of a select few, do you just mean monetary benefit? because as a cultural phenomenon the benefits are pretty substantial (detriments can be too of course). i think we can agree that players should be compensated according to their value. beyond that i'm not sure we'd get anywhere.

like, if makng cash hand over fist wasn't a direct consquence of being a division 1 team, would anyone really give a shit

the answer is no because the people who are paid to run athletic programs would instead go into something else like running asweat shop

or a sweet shop. children love sweets.

i'm not following

Im saying, would universites pour millions into building a stadium, paying coaching staff, printing t-shirts and everything if it was a purely cultural pursuit? the answer to that is definitely not.

and i'm fairly positive you'd agree that for-profit anything in education is really not good at all.