2012 College Football


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby guru » Sun Sep 16, 2012 11:21 am

gh wrote:Cal's Brendan Bigelow (who? they say he was a very good HS sprinter)...



They said he was a 10.62, but his actual PR is 10.57. Soph year was his last track season(also 21.37 - as a frosh(!)).

http://ca.milesplit.com/athletes/792214-brendon-bigelow
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby j-a-m » Fri Sep 21, 2012 4:05 am

Down by seven with a few minutes to go, and you score a touchdown; do you kick the extra point or do you go for the two-point conversion to decide the game right then and there? It depends:

When it's a high-scoring game, your offense is playing great, your defense isn't; by all means, go for it.

When it's a low-scoring game, your offense is really bad, your defense has given up zero points all day; no, don't go for it, give your defense the opportunity to win the game.

Guess the BYU coach disagrees with me on that, as shown by his play-calling when BYU played Boise State yesterday.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby Marlow » Fri Sep 21, 2012 5:02 am

j-a-m wrote:Guess the BYU coach disagrees with me on that, as shown by his play-calling when BYU played Boise State yesterday.


With 8:03 remaining, BYU backup quarterback Taysom Hill engineered an 11-play, 95 yard drive capped by his four-yard touchdown run. But BYU coach Bronco Mendenhall gambled, electing to go for a 2-point conversion to try to secure the Cougars' first-ever victory over Boise State.
Hill dropped back to pass, was immediately flushed out of the pocket and his on-the-run throw was deflected by linebacker J.C. Percy and fell incomplete into the end zone.
"I wanted to win," Mendenhall said. "We had momentum for the first time in the game, moving the ball offensively. We wanted to capitalize on it. I'd do it again."

I find no fault in that logic.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21084
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby j-a-m » Fri Sep 21, 2012 5:22 am

Marlow wrote:
"I wanted to win," Mendenhall said. "We had momentum for the first time in the game, moving the ball offensively. We wanted to capitalize on it. I'd do it again."

That coaching decision was a slap in the face of his defensive players after they did such an outstanding job in that game.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby Marlow » Fri Sep 21, 2012 5:35 am

j-a-m wrote:
Marlow wrote:
"I wanted to win," Mendenhall said. "We had momentum for the first time in the game, moving the ball offensively. We wanted to capitalize on it. I'd do it again."

That coaching decision was a slap in the face of his defensive players after they did such an outstanding job in that game.

??!!
What would it have been to the offense who had just driven the field, if they hadn't gone for it? Strike while the iron is hot. Leaving it to overtime brings in all sorts of other variables, that might have had nothing to do with how well the D is playing.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21084
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby guru » Thu Sep 27, 2012 8:15 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:How 'bout dat Cardinal!



Indeed...
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby Marlow » Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:51 am

guru wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:How 'bout dat Cardinal!

Indeed...

If Nunes were even half the QB Luck is, that'd've been a cake-walk. it's really hard to win in the PAC-12/14 w/o a pass-efficient attack. :(
Marlow
 
Posts: 21084
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Sep 28, 2012 4:00 am

Marlow wrote:If Nunes were even half the QB Luck is, that'd've been a cake-walk. it's really hard to win in the PAC-12/14 w/o a pass-efficient attack. :(

The folks in Boise, Madison and East Lansing feel your pain.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby Conor Dary » Fri Sep 28, 2012 7:23 am

jazzcyclist wrote:How 'bout dat Cardinal!


Not so good last night against Washington....
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby Marlow » Fri Sep 28, 2012 7:37 am

Conor Dary wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:How 'bout dat Cardinal!

Not so good last night against Washington....

The experts (sic) have been praising the Cardinal O-line, the great smash-mouth running game, the great D-line/linebackers, the improved D-backs, and the 'competence' of Nunes. I saw glimpses of it against SC, not much last night . . . :(
Marlow
 
Posts: 21084
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby lonewolf » Fri Sep 28, 2012 10:52 am

Marlow wrote:[The experts (sic) have been praising .....the 'competence' of Nunes.

I think that is called 'damning with faint praise". :)
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby j-a-m » Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:49 am

Nick Saban considers fast execution on offense unfair:
I just think there's got to be some sense of fairness in terms of asking: Is this what we want football to be?

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/ ... ball-to-be
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby Conor Dary » Fri Oct 05, 2012 6:44 am

What a baby. Is he afraid of the Ducks?
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby lonewolf » Fri Oct 05, 2012 6:47 am

Suck it up, Nick. You are Number 1.. how much fairer could it be?
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby Marlow » Fri Oct 05, 2012 6:54 am

lonewolf wrote:Suck it up, Nick. You are Number 1.. how much fairer could it be?

Zackly! How on earth is the no-huddle, up-tempo offense NOT fair?
Nick, if you think it gives an unfair advantage, then you are welcome to employ it!
The 'safety issue' is a complete red herring!
Marlow
 
Posts: 21084
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Oct 16, 2012 2:24 pm

Nick Saban makes freshman linebacker write letter apologizing to Missouri for suplex tackle.

http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-footba ... gh-gary-pi

Do any of you remember back in the day when Turkey Jones did the same thing to Terry Bradshaw and it was no big deal?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_BuDursFIg
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby KevinM » Sun Oct 21, 2012 12:43 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:Nick Saban makes freshman linebacker write letter apologizing to Missouri for suplex tackle.

http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-footba ... gh-gary-pi

Do any of you remember back in the day when Turkey Jones did the same thing to Terry Bradshaw and it was no big deal?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_BuDursFIg


Sure seems like it should have been, don't you think?
KevinM
 
Posts: 2645
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby Pego » Mon Oct 22, 2012 4:36 am

jazzcyclist wrote:Nick Saban makes freshman linebacker write letter apologizing to Missouri for suplex tackle.

http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-footba ... gh-gary-pi

Do any of you remember back in the day when Turkey Jones did the same thing to Terry Bradshaw and it was no big deal?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_BuDursFIg


I do and Jones should have had his ass roasted. More unnecessary brutality gets eliminated from football, the better the game is going to be.
Pego
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Oct 22, 2012 5:38 am

Of course I agree with both KevinM and pego. I don't want to go back to the days of Dick "Night Train" Lane trying to decapiate people and the suplex move has no place on the football field. I think it's good that the headhunting and spearing have been outlawed. However, I think the officials should only be in the business of legislating the technique of the hits. I don't think they should legislate the intensity of the hits. I've seen too many games recently when defensive players have made tackles straight of the textbooks and been penalized becasue the offensive player was knocked out.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby Pego » Mon Oct 22, 2012 10:06 am

It is quite early, but here is my prediction for the national championship game.

Alabama - Kansas St.
Pego
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby Marlow » Mon Oct 22, 2012 10:23 am

Pego wrote:It is quite early, but here is my prediction for the national championship game.
Alabama - Kansas St.

Who will beat Oregon?
KsSt looked very beatable vs. a 'good' Iowa St team.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21084
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby Pego » Mon Oct 22, 2012 10:56 am

Marlow wrote:
Pego wrote:It is quite early, but here is my prediction for the national championship game.
Alabama - Kansas St.

Who will beat Oregon?
KsSt looked very beatable vs. a 'good' Iowa St team.


No questionmarks. Your pairing, please!
Pego
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby Marlow » Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:18 am

Pego wrote:No questionmarks. Your pairing, please!

Bama & the Ducks!
Marlow
 
Posts: 21084
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby Conor Dary » Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:43 am

Marlow wrote:
Pego wrote:It is quite early, but here is my prediction for the national championship game.
Alabama - Kansas St.

Who will beat Oregon?
KsSt looked very beatable vs. a 'good' Iowa St team.


Oregon was supposed to play KSU but KSU backed out this year. I wonder WHY?
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby j-a-m » Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:17 pm

Pego wrote:No questionmarks. Your pairing, please!

Kansas State - LSU
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:23 pm

Alabama - Oregon

The big question is whether Chip Kelly has an answer for the best SEC defenses when they have more than a month to prepare for Oregon's basketball-on-grass. The Auburn defense that he faced two years ago was very mediocre by SEC standards. Alabama's defense will make Oregon think the game is being played in a phone booth.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby Marlow » Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:35 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:Alabama's defense will make Oregon think the game is being played in a phone booth.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. Bama hasn't seen anything remotely like Ore's diversity and speed of attack. Bama will do fine for 3 quarters, but then the wheels could come off. Even after the first 3 fluff games, O's O looks mighty impressive:

Arizona 49-0
Washington St. 51-26
Washington 52-21
Arizona St. 43-21

Bama will get their points, but will they get enough?
Marlow
 
Posts: 21084
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Oct 22, 2012 1:47 pm

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Alabama's defense will make Oregon think the game is being played in a phone booth.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. Bama hasn't seen anything remotely like Ore's diversity and speed of attack. Bama will do fine for 3 quarters, but then the wheels could come off. Even after the first 3 fluff games, O's O looks mighty impressive:

Arizona 49-0
Washington St. 51-26
Washington 52-21
Arizona St. 43-21

Bama will get their points, but will they get enough?

We don't KNOW how Alabama would handle Oregon's offense but last year, LSU gave us a pretty good idea. Since LSU had eight months to prepare for Oregon, their defense was fully prepared for a track meet, and at the end of the third quarter they were beating Oregon's offense back to the line of scrimmage, and mocking Darren Thomas by asking him what's taking so long to get the plays off. You can't run people into the ground when they're in equal or better condition that you are. If it does end up Alabama-Oregon for the Crystal Football, Alabama's first two weeks of practice after the SEC Championship Game will more resemble track/cross country practices than football practices, with every workout being done in shorts and tee shirts.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby donley2 » Mon Oct 22, 2012 2:29 pm

Conor Dary wrote:
Marlow wrote:
Pego wrote:It is quite early, but here is my prediction for the national championship game.
Alabama - Kansas St.

Who will beat Oregon?
KsSt looked very beatable vs. a 'good' Iowa St team.


Oregon was supposed to play KSU but KSU backed out this year. I wonder WHY?


Because the coach is a genius and prefers to play as many cupcakes as possible. In my opinion absolutely the right strategy if you are an SEC, or Big 12 team. If you go undefeated you are likely in the BCS championship game regardless of who you played out of conference.
donley2
 
Posts: 2058
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Oct 22, 2012 2:50 pm

donley2 wrote:
Conor Dary wrote:Oregon was supposed to play KSU but KSU backed out this year. I wonder WHY?


Because the coach is a genius and prefers to play as many cupcakes as possible. In my opinion absolutely the right strategy if you are an SEC, or Big 12 team. If you go undefeated you are likely in the BCS championship game regardless of who you played out of conference.

I don't know about that. In recent years, Alabama, LSU and Georgia haven't shied away from facing formidable opponents in their season openers, though you do have a point about Florida. And I don't know why you feel that the Big 12 has more credibility than the PAC 12, because the power rankings certainly haven't shown this in recent years. Furthermore, the PAC 12 has a conference championship game which the Big 12 doesn't have, which automatically puts it at a disadvantage when it comes to strength of schedule.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby donley2 » Tue Oct 23, 2012 6:05 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
donley2 wrote:
Conor Dary wrote:Oregon was supposed to play KSU but KSU backed out this year. I wonder WHY?


Because the coach is a genius and prefers to play as many cupcakes as possible. In my opinion absolutely the right strategy if you are an SEC, or Big 12 team. If you go undefeated you are likely in the BCS championship game regardless of who you played out of conference.

I don't know about that. In recent years, Alabama, LSU and Georgia haven't shied away from facing formidable opponents in their season openers, though you do have a point about Florida. And I don't know why you feel that the Big 12 has more credibility than the PAC 12, because the power rankings certainly haven't shown this in recent years. Furthermore, the PAC 12 has a conference championship game which the Big 12 doesn't have, which automatically puts it at a disadvantage when it comes to strength of schedule.


Not really trying to start a Big-12 vs Pac 12 argument. My larger point is that if you think your conference is good enough (and feel free to argue all day about which ones are good enough) to get in the BCS championship game with a undefeated season, than risking an early season loss with a really tough opponent in my opinion is just stupid. Thats just my opinion and I am certainly no football expert at all, but Bill Snyder agrees with me and I think he may be the coach who does the most with his talent of any coach in the past 30 or 40 years.
donley2
 
Posts: 2058
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Oct 23, 2012 6:58 pm

donley2 wrote:My larger point is that if you think your conference is good enough (and feel free to argue all day about which ones are good enough) to get in the BCS championship game with a undefeated season, than risking an early season loss with a really tough opponent in my opinion is just stupid. Thats just my opinion and I am certainly no football expert at all, but Bill Snyder agrees with me and I think he may be the coach who does the most with his talent of any coach in the past 30 or 40 years.

1) There are a few recent examples of teams making it to the national championship game that contradict this theory (eg. LSU in 2011, Alabama in 2009, LSU in 2007). Furthermore, if Oregon hadn't lost to USC at the end of the last season, they were in line to get another crack at LSU in the national championship game despite their season-opening lost to them.

2) For all his success at Kansas State, Bill Snyder has never gotten the Wildcats to the championship game, despite his penchant for avoiding tough out-of-conference opponents.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby Conor Dary » Wed Oct 24, 2012 7:32 am

jazzcyclist wrote:1) There are a few recent examples of teams making it to the national championship game that contradict this theory (eg. LSU in 2011, Alabama in 2009, LSU in 2007). Furthermore, if Oregon hadn't lost to USC at the end of the last season, they were in line to get another crack at LSU in the national championship game despite their season-opening lost to them.

2) For all his success at Kansas State, Bill Snyder has never gotten the Wildcats to the championship game, despite his penchant for avoiding tough out-of-conference opponents.


Correcto. If all you play is crap teams in the non conference games it gets noticed. And you are right about Oregon getting back after an early season lost. Not the only team to do it.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby preston » Wed Oct 24, 2012 8:58 am

I like Oregon; I really like their Nike uniforms - all 316,000 versions of them, but they shouldn't play for the national championship. Overrated conference.

Great job of KSU coming back, or should I say Schneider, but they're not great (witness WV: 69-34 Marshall, 70-63 Baylor, 48-45 Texas, and then get crushed by TxTech and KSU). They shouldn't play for the national championship. Another overrated conference.

Notre Dame should be barred from college football.

The best teams are the teams that are best able to stop the run and those teams reside in the SEC. Just make a battle royal of SEC programs and award the crystal trophy to the last team standing; no other conference or program is worthy.

College football needs to go back to 105 scholarships; this 85 scholarship thing forces too many fans to conflate relative parity with competitiveness.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby Marlow » Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:46 am

preston wrote:1. Notre Dame should be barred from college football.
2. Just make a battle royal of SEC programs and award the crystal trophy to the last team standing; no other conference or program is worthy.

1. Agreed! :D
2. Generally speaking yes, but there are singular teams elsewhere that are perfectly capable of knocking off that 'last standing' team in a one-game series.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21084
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby gh » Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:48 am

preston wrote:.....
College football needs to go back to 105 scholarships; this 85 scholarship thing forces too many fans to conflate relative parity with competitiveness.


No, it needs to drop to 50 and spend all the money on other teams! :evil:

(hey, if an NFL team can get by with 44 players....)
gh
 
Posts: 46322
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby Conor Dary » Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:51 am

gh wrote:
preston wrote:.....
College football needs to go back to 105 scholarships; this 85 scholarship thing forces too many fans to conflate relative parity with competitiveness.


No, it needs to drop to 50 and spend all the money on other teams! :evil:

(hey, if an NFL team can get by with 44 players....)


Can't argue with that. By the way it is 53 players in the NFL. Why can't the NCAA do that?
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby preston » Wed Oct 24, 2012 11:21 am

gh wrote:
preston wrote:.....
College football needs to go back to 105 scholarships; this 85 scholarship thing forces too many fans to conflate relative parity with competitiveness.


No, it needs to drop to 50 and spend all the money on other teams! :evil:

(hey, if an NFL team can get by with 44 players....)

Absolutely NOT!!!! The NCAA "balance" is preserved by shifting the financial largesse -created by usually middle/low-income white and brown boys in revenue producing sports- to give free room, board and tuition to athletically undeserving white girls. Crew, Equestrian, Field Hockey, Tennis, Golf, Softball, Swimming and Diving, Gymastics ... that's who benefits, disproportionately, from all that TV money or scholarships.

Reducing scholarships to 50? That's 35 fewer scholarships for boys at any given school. Rest assured, the extra money will only result in more undeserving girls getting full scholarships. If it was truly about equity, tennis and golf wouldn't get ANY scholarships (when you consider that a FULL men's track team only get around 12).
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Oct 24, 2012 11:59 am

preston wrote:
gh wrote:
preston wrote:.....
College football needs to go back to 105 scholarships; this 85 scholarship thing forces too many fans to conflate relative parity with competitiveness.


No, it needs to drop to 50 and spend all the money on other teams! :evil:

(hey, if an NFL team can get by with 44 players....)

Absolutely NOT!!!! The NCAA "balance" is preserved by shifting the financial largesse -created by usually middle/low-income white and brown boys in revenue producing sports- to give free room, board and tuition to athletically undeserving white girls. Crew, Equestrian, Field Hockey, Tennis, Golf, Softball, Swimming and Diving, Gymastics ... that's who benefits, disproportionately, from all that TV money or scholarships.

Reducing scholarships to 50? That's 35 fewer scholarships for boys at any given school. Rest assured, the extra money will only result in more undeserving girls getting full scholarships. If it was truly about equity, tennis and golf wouldn't get ANY scholarships (when you consider that a FULL men's track team only get around 12).

You do have a point about "undeserving girls" leeching off the blood and sweat of boys, but not all of those girls are in the "White" country club sports. The girls on the track & field and basketball teams do their fair share of leeching too, and even the Tennessee and Connecticut women's basketball teams lose money.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby preston » Wed Oct 24, 2012 1:16 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
preston wrote:
gh wrote:
preston wrote:.....
College football needs to go back to 105 scholarships; this 85 scholarship thing forces too many fans to conflate relative parity with competitiveness.


No, it needs to drop to 50 and spend all the money on other teams! :evil:

(hey, if an NFL team can get by with 44 players....)

Absolutely NOT!!!! The NCAA "balance" is preserved by shifting the financial largesse -created by usually middle/low-income white and brown boys in revenue producing sports- to give free room, board and tuition to athletically undeserving white girls. Crew, Equestrian, Field Hockey, Tennis, Golf, Softball, Swimming and Diving, Gymastics ... that's who benefits, disproportionately, from all that TV money or scholarships.

Reducing scholarships to 50? That's 35 fewer scholarships for boys at any given school. Rest assured, the extra money will only result in more undeserving girls getting full scholarships. If it was truly about equity, tennis and golf wouldn't get ANY scholarships (when you consider that a FULL men's track team only get around 12).

You do have a point about "undeserving girls" leeching off the blood and sweat of boys, but not all of those girls are in the "White" country club sports. The girls on the track & field and basketball teams do their fair share of leeching too, and even the Tennessee and Connecticut women's basketball teams lose money.

I would agree that track leeches but you can BET that the athletes who get scholarships in track and field who are most "undeserving" are DISTANCE RUNNERS - because often times distance coaches run the programs. Sprinters and Throwers and Jumpers don't get that.

Look at a school like Wisconsin. Big time football, men's track wins big 10 and the women can barely score anyone at the conference much less qualify athletes for NCAA's (1 or 2?). And, it's not like they're competitive...they're really not good at all.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests