2013 NCAA Football Thread

I highly doubt that. Instead, it would deprive access to games with major programs, which is a major revenue driver for the middle class of FBS. I only think two FCS programs make a profit. I imagine that another division would cripple who gets left behind.

Besides, the profit-unprofittable shift doesn't really line up with "who is good at football". Not a single ACC team turned a profit in 2010-2011. Only Oregon did in the Pac-12. The teams that make money are dominated by Big Ten and SEC schools, powered by favorable TV contracts and HUGE alumni bases.

Purdue made a bigger profit than Auburn, adjusting for subsidy level. Money isn't everything, I suppose.
 
I was just being an ass anyway.
 
If college sports are not profitable, let's get rid of them completely!



(no please don't! :please:)
 
As a university, OSU doesn't NEED football. Without it, their athletic department would unquestionably be MUCH smaller, but the school is a top 25 public uni in the country, and one of the largest and most significant research institutions in the entire world. Football helped it get to that point (like it did with Florida State and Penn State), but the university would be fine without it.
I'd love to see a source for that.

Based on patents, MIT is #2, Tsinhua University is #5, Cal Tech is #7, National Taiwan University is #8, and National Chao Tung University is #10.

Ohio State is way down in 36th near such notable football powerhouses as King Fahd University, Harvard, and NYU. Penn is 18th but Penn State is 55th. I wonder how many of them are phys ed related...
 
I'd love to see a source for that.

Based on patents, MIT is #2, Tsinhua University is #5, Cal Tech is #7, National Taiwan University is #8, and National Chao Tung University is #10.

Ohio State is way down in 36th near such notable football powerhouses as King Fahd University, Harvard, and NYU. Penn is 18th but Penn State is 55th. I wonder how many of them are phys ed related...

Tsinghua, National Taiwan University and National Chao Tung University are, notably, not located in the United States. This is of course, also ignoring the context and general point which was that, although a strong athletics program isn't a requirement to achieve prominence as a top-tier school, having a good athletics program can help a more marginal university achieve wider national recognition/grant a foothold towards increasing notoriety/prestige.
 
It's certainly helped Alabama. Applications and enrollment have increased dramatically during our current run, and 57% of current undergraduates are paying out of state tuition . . .
 
36th in the world is pretty good, I think. It's also behind historical football powers Stanford, Wisconsin, Texas, Michigan, Southern California, Florida and Washington.

If we want to be historically accurate, Harvard was ALSO a historical football powerhouse, until a little after WW2.

These spreadsheets break down which universities get the most research grant money. Ohio State is 16th on this list (22nd in federal grant money), and Penn State is 14th. You'll notice there are a *ton* of football-focusing institutions on this...Michigan, Wisconsin, Washington, UCLA, Pitt, hell, even Texas A&M!

http://www.ns.umich.edu/Releases/2012/Mar12/research.html

and thank you Owen, that is exactly what I was trying to say.
 
Moving on, if the SEC's dominance in the BCS era continues through the playoff era, do you see the game becoming regionalized . . ?
 
If we want to be historically accurate, Harvard was ALSO a historical football powerhouse, until a little after WW2.
Ironically they were a "football powerhouse", not because they ran their student athletics like they were a minor league professional team with high paid coaches, but because nobody did back then. Much like public high schools that don't cheat, the coach was relegated to using whoever happened to be attending the college. The students were accepted based on their academic credentials, instead of a distinct lack thereof in many cases.

This is actually the model which I think should be reimplemented. Do away with all sports scholarships, and return intercollegiate sports back to being a bit more formalized version of intramural sports which are readily open to all students who attend the college. They can even practice as much as a few hours a day in the late afternoons during the season, just as they did back in the day when Harvard was a "football powerhouse".
 
I agree. If a person is incapable of completing college-level coursework, there is no reason they should be allowed engage in any productive endeavor . . .

EDIT: It's Oklahoma week ! ! !
 
Moving on, if the SEC's dominance in the BCS era continues through the playoff era, do you see the game becoming regionalized . . ?

I don't think it would become regionalized entirely, because there is too much of a football tradition in places like Texas, Ohio and California, but I don't think it's good for the sport, big picture. I don't think it's something that we really need to worry about though, because the rest of the country is eating away at the structural advantages that the SEC enjoyed.

Ironically they were a "football powerhouse", not because they ran their student athletics like they were a minor league professional team with high paid coaches, but because nobody did back then. Much like public high schools that don't cheat, the coach was relegated to using whoever happened to be attending the college. The students were accepted based on their academic credentials, instead of a distinct lack thereof in many cases.
Lol, if you believe that, you don't know much about the history of college football.

There has been academic impropriety pretty much since the sport started, and football founding fathers Amos Alonzo Stagg (Chicago), Walter Camp (Yale) and Fielding H. Yost (Michigan) were notorious for being creative about rules for academics and eligibility. John Heisman, when he was coaching at Oberlin, used to bring in ringers and non-students to help his overmatched team. Other schools actually refused to schedule Chicago in the heat of the Maroon dynasty because Stagg was perceived to be a huge cheater (and also, incidentally, because others felt his program was all about the money. He was sort of a 1900s version of Dave Brandon).

Sure, a lot of this was at a much lower scale, because the sport wasn't on TV and wasn't truly national, but let's not pretend it was ever perfect. For a long as people have cared about the outcome, people have been trying to skirt academic rules.

The best book I ever read about this era was Stagg University, and I got most of the juicy bits confirmed when I interviewed staffers at U Chicago.

I can look for links to the FSU and Paterno stuff, since I've only read about it in books. The most recent one I read, which talked about how Joe Pa pressed the university administration after Penn State's first title to build "championship caliber research and facilities" was in 4th and Long by John U Bacon, a book that is quite critical of college football in parts.
 
I don't think it would become regionalized entirely, because there is too much of a football tradition in places like Texas, Ohio and California, but I don't think it's good for the sport, big picture.
Hey, Texas is in the SEC now . . .

More seriously, I agree the SEC's dominance is bad for the sport, and I'm always excited to see competitive teams fielded outside the southeast. The one upside to Auburn winning the Iron Bowl this year is that the SEC has finally given the nation a champion that's capable of being beaten . . .
 
Oh, that's a little hyperbolic. The 2010 Alabama team was *capable* of losing to Texas had the Longhorns stayed healthy, and let's not pretend that the 2011 Auburn team was some unstoppable juggernaut. They won by 3, and if they played 10 times, Oregon probably wins 5.

Auburn winning this year would be a fairly significant upset I think. Outside of Florida State though, I'm not sure who would be a real credible threat to the SEC for next season? Stanford loses a TON of talent, Ohio State graduates half their line and might lose their QB, Oregon has questions on their line, Texas is LOL, Clemson graduates most of their offensive skill position talent....
 
Go Blue? (we'll keep pretending we're significant)
 
Oh, that's a little hyperbolic.
Yes, I wasn't being serious, except about Auburn losing. I've got FSU 52 Auburn 28 . . .

As for the other, remember most of the SEC is going to be taking a step back as well. All of our good QBs are graduating or should leave early. Auburn will probably be the preseason pick to win the conference next year. There is going to be a lot of uncertainty on a lot of campuses going into next season . . .
 
Hey, Texas is in the SEC now . . .

More seriously, I agree the SEC's dominance is bad for the sport, and I'm always excited to see competitive teams fielded outside the southeast. The one upside to Auburn winning the Iron Bowl this year is that the SEC has finally given the nation a champion that's capable of being beaten . . .
Didn't the past couple of champions back into ther championship game with a loss on their record?
 
I know. That's how we established that the SEC is much harder to win than the BCS -- tougher competition. But that's old news at this point . . .
 
Alabama has requested and sold an additional 2,000 tickets over its allotment for the Sugar. So at least the fans aren't experiencing a Utahesque letdown . . .
 
Back
Top Bottom