Take them bowling
As much as I scoff at a lot of college football—the stupid rankings, the idiotic overtime rules, the laughable glut of bowl games—there's a quality to the sport that's really found nowhere else, a quality that I realized as I was watching the end of the Fiesta Bowl, watching the Ohio State fans going crazy as a 60-yard run sealed the victory. Even though there's a game to crown the number one team, college football is the only sport where multiple teams get the chance to end their season with a huge victory that's thrilling even though it doesn't give them a championship.
It could be argued that getting into the Final Four in basketball is close, that it's an honor to slog it out through the tournament and be one of those four teams, but that comparison would only hold if the season ended there. As it is, only one of those four teams ends their season with a win.
The pro sports aren't even close. Even in the case of, say, the Astros <ahem>, who I was able to be thrilled about just making it to the World Series, they still ended with a loss that was disappointing in spite of the uncommon success. Winning an NFL conference championship is, at best, a slight consolation if the team doesn't win the Super Bowl. All other sports are defined by their championships: how many the team's won, how long it's been since their last one, what they'll have to do to get back there. And while Ohio State, Penn State and (sigh) West Virginia would undoubtedly love to take their victories to a level of competing for #1, there's still the thrill of a season-ending, big-time victory for multiple teams and their fans.
As exciting as I am about tonight's game, and while there's undeniably 10 times as much focus on the Rose Bowl as any of the others, it's the excitement of the past two days that shows that creating a playoff situation for college football would ultimately drain it of one of those things that makes it unique. Incredibly unique.
HOOK 'EM HORNS!!
22 comments:
College football is enjoyable. It's not been marketed and profiled to death, and the young men playing aren't jaded by the big bucks yet. They also aren't as large. It's amazing the growth/girth period that happens between college and pro ball.
There was an SI columnist a while ago who put together the list of what he considered to be the most exciting sports for fans in the world, and just ahead of the Olympics and the World Cup was college football, which I can understand. There's a fandom that goes into and a sense of community and geography that you really don't find in many other American sports.
I think that the size difference between college and the NFL has to do with the fact that the NFL talent pool is much smaller. The bigger guys go to the NFL.
I'm a casual college fan, and I prefer the pro game (it's easy to get spoiled by the talent level), but it's days like today when I wish I was more into the college game. It is more enjoyable in a lot of ways, and I love the classic feel, with some of these uniforms that have been around for decades.
I understand why one would like pro-football better, but I can't stand pro basketball. I prefer college. It's just more pure.
I love watching college football - I've followed it a lot longer than I have the pro game, and it really is the penultumate sport when it comes to pagentry and tradition and all that. But, it's also the only sport I can think of that can become less exciting as the season progresses. Take the UT Volunteers for instance - they lose to Florida or someone early in the season, and you feel like it's over (since they are intending on going for a national championship almost every year) - which is pretty ridiculous - and probably says more about the expectations of UT fans than anything. But still, it sucks. Of course, the year they went undefeated and won the whole thing was probably the most exciting season of sports watching I've ever had. So there is definitely a trade-off with the college system if you are a fan of a big team like the UT's or Notre Dame or something. Now, for a team like Kentucky or North Carolina or Vandy - you're just happy to (a) win more than 4 games (with maybe even an upset in there), and (2) go to a bowl game, and that's where I think the bowl system is just fine - nobody at UK expects a national championship - they just want to play somewhere in Dec or Jan. And so watching UK and Army (1979, not 1968) is probably the most fun I've had watching college ball - it's all pageantry and there are some crazy games since the talent level isn't amazing (see UK vs LSU and "the tip").
This year worked out perfectly for the BCS - and the Rose Bowl is gonna be great, but those years (like last year) where there isn't a clear-cut champion, it's such a letdown - I mean, one more game - and we would know who the champion was! But yeah, I generally like the bowl system, but when it comes down to those years with 3 or 4 teams who are all equally great, I don't see why another "bowl" game would be so difficult. Of course, not having a clear champion makes for lively discussion over beers in Columbus, OH or Tuscaloosa, AL...so that's good.
Not been marketing and profiled to death? Are we talking about the same sport here? Aren't we all gearing up to watch the Tostitos Rose Bowl sponsored by Geico presented by Sears at the Home Depot Stadium in Pasadena? Or something like that? Or is it just me? I prefer pro football to college...and college basketball to pro. But I think any claim that sports at the collegiate level is more pure or less about money is kind of naive. That's true if you're a follower of some division 2 or 3 team. But really USC is practically a professional sports franchise for all intents and purposes.
Very true (and very funny) about the corporate sponsorship. And you're right that there's as much money in the overall sport. BUT...where there isn't money is in the players themselves. Yes, there's tons of money spent recruiting, but the college players are doing it for free (and if they're not, it's against the rules), and their loyalty to the team and the school tends to be much stronger than in the pros.
So while I think that money plays a big hand in college sports (as it does in most everything in the US) as a whole, I would agree that the game itself is *less* about money than the pros, if only because they players are mostly playing for their schools and the game.
Yeah, now the marketing thing is crazy - and now the sponsors are taking the names of the original bowls off the names! Like the citrus bowl which is now just the capitol one bowl (I think) or the peach bowl which will be just the chick-fil-a bowl next year - that's preposterous! At least the Poulon Weed-Eater Bowl started out as that. Thankfully, I guess, the Rose Bowl will stay the Rose Bowl presented by such and such - but still. Also, college athletes not caring about bucks? See Florida State or Maurice Claurette. It's nice that the NFL post-season games aren't named things like the Chunky Soup NFC Wildcard Game.
So by that theory, it means more to Reggie Bush to win the Rose Bowl for USC than it would for say, Peyton Manning to win the Super Bowl for the Colts? I can buy the tradition/pagentry/geography angle. But then again, does anyone ever talk about the band's halftime performance? Will we see highlights of that on ESPN? I do realize that not ever player on even the most high profile college team will make the pro's...so sure, there are players who are there for the love of the game and not a paycheck. But I think it's an unfair generalization that the NFL guys are just about the paycheck. After all, Reggie Bush isn't staying for his senior year at USC, is he? ;)
BTW, I'm certainly not attempting to dampen anyone's enthusiasm for collegiate sports or anything like that. I just don't get the whole notion that in order to state a preference for one thing you have to denigrate another. It's like people, ahem, who say that baseball is a better, more cerebral sport than football. Hey whatever. You like baseball. That's cool. You don't have to slam football to justify that. I'm just sayin' is all. Frankly, I think all sports, professional or amateur, pale in comparison to a good game of tiddlywinks.
NO HE IS NOT!!! WOOO!!
No, no...I don't think it "means more" at all. I don't think that it's at all quantifiable, nor does it mean that it's at all accurate to say that NFL players "only" care about money. The majority of NFL players are near-obsessive competitors and play to win.
But...the fact that the players are getting paychecks makes a difference in the way fans respond to it. You've heard it before: "If ____ is making that much money, he should have been able to make that tackle!" You've heard the contract negotations and hold-outs. You've heard the players who talk about being disrespected because they weren't offered a certain amount of money. It happens every year.
And while college athletics are a huge industry, these are all things that aren't there in the dynamic between players and their teams in college.
Also, I don't have exact numbers, but I would guess that it's only about 20% of all Div I college players who even have a chance of playing in the pros. Of course, most of them harbor dreams of it, but I would say that very few college players are playing for their dreams.
Add to that the age difference: college-age guys are more likely to be idealistic about their teams. Go through a contract negotiation or two in the pros, and it would be pretty easy to get jaded pretty fast.
Anyway...you know that I prefer pro ball. And I would never try to talk up college football by deliberately putting down the pros. But I do see the point that there's a level of loyalty on the part of the fans and the players that the pros are nowhere near. At the pro level, the fans are more fickle, the players jump from team to team, and while there's always a level of excitment and dedication, there's at least a little extra spark in the college game that's missing from the pros, a spark that I think has a lot to do with the paychecks.
I dunno...I was weeping some bitter tears over the UGA loss this week, and that has nothing to do with anything except the kind of school spirit (I know, ick) that comes from sitting in stands and getting drunk off sneaked-in booze and barking/hooting/hollering at a bunch of boys who got to go to school because they can move a ball awfully well. Same thing with Maryland hoops, but to think that either of these places or teams isn't a professional sports franchise is silly. People bark at me when I wear UGA gear (sorry, Susan), but they don't do anything cool if I'm wearing Nats stuff or (god forbid) Redskins stuff. No joy or fun for the pros...it's their job. So yeah, "real" college ball is better. :)
You a Dawgs fan?!?!? WOOF! WOOF!
I'm not usually one to comment on football, but...
I have to disagree with the notion that winning a lesser bowl game is at least a little somethin' somethin' for the fans. A few years ago, Tulane made a solid run -- winning every single one of its games and putting Patrick Ramsey on the map. We settled for the Independence Bowl and promptly lost the coach to one of the Florida teams. Bastard ingrate! No loyalty there.
Prior to picking up the pieces of my ruined alma mater, Tulane's president was at the head of the pack campaigning to ditch the BCS exactly because it's lame and all about money. There's a very insidious side to this whole bowl game thing, which, to me, takes most of the excitement away from the ole college try.
College players may not get pay checks, but they get nice scholarships, premium on-campus housing, free hand-holding (I mean tutoring), free meal plan, etc etc. Considering what I paid for college 10 years ago and what it costs now... those aren't small figures. It may not be multimillion dollar endorsement deals, but it's a lot of money especially for people who may otherwise have no prospect of going to school. It's a win-win for both types of players - some get the opportunity to move on to the NFL, others get a decent education that they may not otherwise have received.
Since I went to Tulane when our football team sucked eggs, I was pretty bitter about how much I owed and how much those jocks who didn't even win got for free.
PS - AS IF college football is more exciting for world wide sports fans than the World Cup. Then again... not so suprised that SI would print that. Would you like a free travel alarm clock with your $4 annual subscription?
great game last night! That Texas QB is pretty incredible. One question: what's with the singing of "Working on the railroad" at the end of the games? ;)
Plenty of money in college football. Have to agree with Jen here...the players get plenty of financial benefits and perks. They're not doing it for free at all. Not to mention that many of them aren't even there to get a degree, but solely to market themselves to the NFL.
As for the bowl sponsor names, they were originally called things like "Orange," "Peach," and "Rose" because they were sponsored by big agri-business consortiums. We're quick to complain about a loss of tradition when the new sponsors want naming rights, but really it's always been that way.
"As for the bowl sponsor names, they were originally called things like "Orange," "Peach," and "Rose" because they were sponsored by big agri-business consortiums. We're quick to complain about a loss of tradition when the new sponsors want naming rights, but really it's always been that way."
Oh, I didn't know that - pretty interesting. What about Fiesta? Was this a sponsorship by the large fiesta industry? :) No, I understand why the sponsorships are there, but "Chick-fil-a" or Capital One has less of a regional meaning for me than "Peach" or "Citrus". Now, if it was the "Krystal Bowl" - then there would be no mistaking about what region that bowl is in! Come to think of it, Krystal should jump on that.
Chick-fil-a Bowl may not sound as nice, but it is an Atlanta based company, so really there's just as much regional tie-in as with the Peach growers. Some of the other sponsors obviously don't have any connection to the geographic location...Citibank in Pasadena, for instance. Fiesta and some of the others were exceptions, but wasn't that one of the newer ones (started in the '80s or '90s)? I never thought of that as one of the "classic" bowl games. I'm not a big follower of college football though, so a lot of it doesn't make sense to me.
For instance, why do they use the term "bowl" for football games anyway?
I can't find any real information on it, but at least on the Rose Bowl site, it says that the Rose Bowl was a way for people in Pasadena in the early 20th century to advertise the warmer weather: that the "our flowers are blooming and our oranges are about to bear." So it was advertising, but it's a different kind of advertising, and not exactly accurate to say it was "corporate sponsorship". As far as I could find, the bowls, while they may have been named in honor of local industries, were not sponsored.
Which is a pretty far cry from now. Did you see the trophy presentation last night? The guy from ADT securities gave the national championship trophy to Mac Brown after going on a LONG spiel about, "On behalf of ADT Securities, our thousands of employees, etc etc." Let's not try to compare that to, "Let's name this bowl in honor of our area's main source of income."
I stand corrected. After checking the sites for the Orange, Cotton, Sugar, and Peach Bowls, I couldn't find anything to support my previous comment. I swear I'd read that in Sports Illustrated a few years ago, but I must have been mistaken.
I did just learn that the Orange Bowl was originally called the Palm Festival however. Which makes me wonder again who decided to call these things "bowls"? Pretty much everyone else was just trying to recreate the Rose Bowl in their own cities, but what made the Rose Bowl (or is it Tournament of Roses?) start using that term?
well, here
http://www.tournamentofroses.com/history/gamehistory.asp
it says:
"Local newspaper reporter Harlan "Dusty" Hall, who also served as the Tournament's press agent, came up with the name "Rose Bowl" for the stadium, and on January 1, 1923, the Tournament held its first football game there."
From the blimp shots last night, the place does look a big bowl. then, maybe the sugar people decided it would be cute to call theirs the "sugar bowl"...and so it went...
oh, wait, the orange bowl was named next - to capitalize on the popularity of the rose bowl - info that I obtained from some sketchy website on the history of bowl games.
great thread...
I think it was Rose, Orange, Cotton, then Sugar, from looking at it earlier today. So basically they named the games after the stadiums?
Wouldn't that mean that this year's Super Bowl should really be called the Super Dome? ;)
Post a Comment