Paul Daugherty: OK, I give. College is better

Monday, November 26, 2007

OK, I give. College is better

Never thought I'd say that, but for a year anyway, I've become a bigger fan of college football than the NFL. The blowouts still bug me, the game lengths are ridiculous, but for the first time, the product on the field is more entertaining. It's a glorious mess, what with 12 top 5 teams losing. The weekend clinched it for me... LSU-Arkansas? Just a great football game. Missouri-Kansas almost equally entertaining. Even the UC-Syracuse game owned one of my eyes, the other being on Xavier's terrific win over Indiana.

Meantime, the NFL produces 3 clunkers on Thanksgiving Day. The "highlight'' was waiting 6 minutes during Packers-Lions for them to rule on a replay that wasnt even a scoring play. College football, with the spread offense, rivalries and the exploding number of Any Given Saturdays, has become more compelling than The League, where everyone plays the same way and every coach treats every play like its Omaha Beach.

It has helped that UC is suddenly interesting and fun, but it's more than that. As long as pretty good players decide they'd rather start at a BCS school such as UC/USF/UConn than sit the bench at Ohio State or Michigan, the trend should continue. Boola-boola...

28 Comments:

at 10:38 AM

Anonymous said...

Totally agree. The NFL seems way too bland and corporate these days. For compelling story lines and entertainment value, Saturday has become must-see-TV. I've had an easy time passing on Sundays lately.

at 11:21 AM

Anonymous said...

The NFL has become the "WWF of the 21st Century." The big opening game of the year looked like some huge staged event. The pre-game had some entertainer do their 1 or 2 song set where the energy just does not come thru the TV set. The players come out of some crazy blow-up device at the precise time and are directed where to run to. There is no spontaneity. Then players don't tackle, they play to not get hurt. There is no dirt, no blood and no games like 10-20 years ago.

College is exciting. And...Ohio State will be playing in the Championship game.

at 11:39 AM

Anonymous said...

There is absolutely NOTHING in pro sports that holds a candle to college sports.
I've always thought, Paul: How, in God's name can Paul prefer pro to college??!!

Well, it's no contest; case closed.

at 11:42 AM

oldtimer said...

Hey Doc...speaking of exciting, how bout the college overtime scenario?

I absolutely love it. The most exciting finish in the world. It's more like baseball, where each team plays offense and defense per inning. Both teams get a chance to socre. Ten times better than the NFL, where the coin toss can be the biggest play. Much fairer. Love it, love it, love it. And there have been some crazy, unbelievable endings.

Take the UK-UT game; a thousand deaths a play in overtime. Thrilling, dissappointing, hugely exciting. Great stuff.

And the color guy on the Bengals game yesterday, some boneheaded ex-jock, pontificated as to how the college OT system wasn't real football, took special teams out of the mix. HUH??? WAKE UP, MAN!! Didn't UK get a kick to win blocked and UT then almost run it back? That play, with its shift from super high to super low, alone had more drama than the Bengals entire season. And the required 2 point conversion after 3 OTs isn't special teams, at their most important?

The NO Fun League needs to adopt this system yesterday. Both OT games last night were mildly entertaining by comparison.

at 11:58 AM

Anonymous said...

It is true. I only watch the Bengals' game. Other than that I don't really care for the rest of the NFL. But on Saturday, I watch college football from 12pm-11pm and then watch the highlights on ESPN. There is a certain mystique to College football. Although I will never say its pure because of the money grubbing that goes on but it still has it's magic.

Tyler, Ohio University

at 2:34 PM

JerBear said...

Paul, I can't believe I'm saying this, but I think I am with you also.

Even up to last year I could never understand how people liked College football better than the NFL.

But this year I find myself watching a lot more College football than the NFL.

I think there's 3 big factors
1) The spread offense-Not only the spread, but there all kinds of different formations and styles in the college game today.

2) Parity...Missouri and Kansas playing the biggest game of the year in Arrowhead stadium!? That was pretty sweet and gives hope to fans for teams like UC.

3)Overtime-Oldtimer is right. OT in college football is so much more exciting and fair in my opinion. The NFL always promotes itself as the best league in the world, but their overtime scenario is so outdated it's not even a debate.

...One final small factor I would say is that the Bengals stink, thus taking some of my attention.

But all in all College Football is just plain exciting on a game by game basis.

The bowl system is still a joke, but I actually think all of the excitement and debate this year will give the NCAA people more reason not to go to a playoff system.

at 3:46 PM

Brad said...

College sports are better across the board. College football is better than the NFL, and college basketball is light years better than the NBA.

at 4:35 PM

Anonymous said...

Glad to see that you have come around. College kids play with all they have all the time. It would appear, my opinion, that once the pros are out of the running, they stop caring. Could be wrong. Don't think so.

at 5:14 PM

Chris S. said...

Well, allow me to dissent.

I will agree, Paul, that college football has largely been more exciting than the NFL this year, but it's just been this one year. For a largely casual fan of college football like myself who only concerns himself with the local favorites (UC, OSU, MU) and the best programs, college football has been boring in recent memory because it's been the same eight to 12 teams dominating the rankings without fail. This year, there has been real parity in the BCS conferences, and it's made for some outstanding football, but I need more than a season before I withdraw my support from the NFL.

And I hate to bring this tired argument up, but doesn't the emerging existence of parity in college football demand some sort of playoff format? We've all cried in the past about one team missing out on a chance at the national championship, but are there even two teams that are clearly superior to the rest this year? Should OSU be denied a title shot for their one loss? What about USC's late season surge? Is it fair to take Kansas out of the picture when they have one loss which was against the fourth-ranked team? What about both of LSU's losses coming against good teams in multiple overtimes? I know I'm just dreaming, but a playoff is sounding as appealing as ever right about now.

at 7:00 PM

Anonymous said...

Hey, Doc, glad you've seen the light. You and Joliet Jake...right on!

I was surfing over on Sagarin's page today and looking at conferences and teams. It really is an eyeopener. Everything the beginning of the season took for wisdom has been turned on its head. (Although everyone seems to agree that SEC is the best conference.)

UC/Syracuse was a great game because it was a game all along.

Like you point out, why would any outstanding HS player want to sit the bench in the Big Ten when there are so many other great conferences out there?

Other than that you're wrong about everything -- even the time of day. :>)

And whoever said that the college ball is better than NBA is only partly right. High School ball is better than NBA!

dribble, dribble, fake, shoot -- the dreaded BallHog

at 8:34 PM

Anonymous said...

"Like you point out, why would any outstanding HS player want to sit the bench in the Big Ten when there are so many other great conferences out there?"

Why? Because maybe they'll get the shot to start in the Big 10! For some people that is better than starting all 4 years and playing for a mediocre football team in the Meinke Car Care Bowl.

at 9:19 PM

Dustin Dow said...

Generally I prefer college games but they need to find a way to shorten them. The football games in particular take waaay too long. The simplest fix would be to keep the clock moving after first downs. After a while, I just get bored. The only time I don't mind the length is in the overtime periods, which I prefer to the NFL's sudden death.

On the basketball court, the media timeouts have a wonderful way of absolutely killing any sense of flow to most games. They've also spawned a cliche. Not a game goes by where I don't hear a player or coach refer to a "four-minute war."

at 9:24 PM

Anonymous said...

Doc, I'm with you. This Year college has been more exciting around here. But I think the Bengals being down, UC being fun and interesting, and parity around college football in general have created the perfect storm. Who's the say it will be like this every year? All the things about college football that stink are still there - The Haves are still kicking the crap out of the have-nots most of the time (Appalachian State not withstanding), Coaches are still going to be hosing their players by bolting for greener pastures, the BCS is still a crummy alternative to a playoff, and face it people... Marching Bands are pretty corny. If you get misty watching some jabroni in a goofy hat twirl a baton, you need to checkedy check yourself.

I think we're on the same page, right Doc?

at 9:42 PM

Anonymous said...

This might be a good forum to hash the playoff argument (per Chris S).

How about a top 4 playoff (if you're #5, too bad)? It could easily fit the dead period from 12/2 to 1/8 or so. And it would avoid the 7 week layoff that OSU endured last year.

???

at 2:43 PM

Anonymous said...

8:34 -- You'd rather sit the bench than go to the Meineke Bowl and be a player? You aren't a football player, bubba. Get a clue -- You're the waterboy.

Personally, I'm glad UC is doing Charlotte and the Meineke. It gives the city and UC supporters a chance to grow into a bowl mentality. Charlotte isn't that bad a drive.

As for UC basketball, the Enquirer reporters are carrying water for Cronin. I think the Enquirer NCAA blog started to get honest last week when it admitted about the b'ball team that "some is Cronin's fault."

The bball Cats simply don't play like a well-coached team. Slow on the court, slow picking up on defense, sloppy, sloppy passing. There's something "dragging" about them.

I actually fear getting blown out by UAB. UAB will tell us if this is going to be a no-win Big East Season.

If it is, then Cronin's out of here.

at 4:23 PM

Anonymous said...

Paul:
A bit off topic, but help me understand the Brian Kelly to Michigan rumors. Obviously ,its a dream job but at what point in this country did contractual obligations become irrelevant and at what point did Mark Dantonio and Brian Kelly's personal aspirations trump the interests of a billion dollar instituion of higher learning? WHy would UC grant Michigan.....or anyone else for that matter, permission to talk to Brian Kelly. Kelly ( or the Huggins/Saban/Dantonio du jour) plays the role of pimp and whores out the university, its athletes,alumni,students, and community. THere are certainly unique situations but the Kelly/UC one is blatantly unacceptable. One year on the job and see you later? Contract and commitment be damned, the only thing that matters is a bigger paycheck and the career aspirations of an individual coach.

Help me understand the legal aspect of this and why UC would not have structured a contract a year ago that made it impossible for Kelly to leave,at least in a 3-4 year window. It ought to be simple- just like D-1 athletes. The only way head coaches can leave after they have signed a contract is to sit out a year.
Legitimate question Paul, Help me understand how and why this carousel is perpetuated each year and why the NCAA or inversity Presidents couldnt simply say.....No Brian, you cant leave.
Thanks

at 4:30 PM

Anonymous said...

paul, you better write something unbelievable in tomorrows paper, take it to the bowl commitees (escpecially the car care bowl) for skiping out on the #20 ranked team in the country for an unranked team...

at 7:06 PM

JerBear said...

Uc's basketball team is really bad, which is kind of surprising. I guess you have to give Cronin a little slack because of the injuries to Mike Williams and Jamal Warren, but still as someone mentioned, they just look slow and sloppy.

I don't know if anyone saw this, but the Coastal Carolina coach said "In my opinion Wright State is a lot better team than Cincinnati". After losing to UC, Coastal Carolina played at Wright State 2 days later and lost by 23.

Wright State is a good team, but that speaks volumes of where UC hoops is now.

I agree with Dustin especially on the tv timeouts in college hoops. I seem to really notice it as the season goes on...if you don't think about it, it might not bug you, but once you are cognizant of the fact that the games stops every 4-5 minutes you start to think man is this really worth it!

at 7:48 PM

Anonymous said...

Yeah.... After what happened to UC today I think we can move all the "College is better than the NFL" conversation to the back burner for awhile.

at 8:44 PM

Anonymous said...

college is funner to watch when it comes down to it. the kids out there, they have the motivation from high school where if they gave it their all, they would be given a chance at a good college with a scholarship. then in college, the dream is to get into the NFL, maybe even make the draft. then... if they do... they look forward to signing that deal. thats it. but the rookies don't play, and you see the veterans who will try hard in their contract year, but the rest is a provided salary. college is the chance to get a job, and the dream for the athletes is to get into the pros. but then, after 3 years, who cares. you have a boatload of cash and could retire at 26. the NFL kills motivation with these salaries, so we see no real trying out there.

at 1:42 AM

Anonymous said...

UC has a nice team this year, but they are a long way from being a "big time football program." String together winning seasons, beat some traditional powers, win a league title or 2, and draw sellout crowds every weekend...then you will earn respect. You can't market, hype, or sell "tradition" based on the last 6 weeks. Most of us aren't UC alums and don't share the Enquirer's penchant for all things Bearcat. This is not the News Record !
Til then, take what you're given and give thanks that the football team, unlike Mick's boys, will actually play a game in the postseason.

at 9:35 AM

Anonymous said...

Doc:

A few questions from today's column.

Should we perhaps tell the Steelers that they don't get to go to the playoffs because they lost to the Jets? Afterall, the Jets are horrible.

How does the NCAA b-ball tournament work where this would not?

There are multiple solutions. I'll give one (off the top of my head), 8 team playoff. Two options, top 4 teams earn homefield advantage or they play at neutral bowl sites. Then they travel to one of the 4 BCS bowl sites where the final 3 games are played or homefield advantage remains. (You can pick!). Finally they play the title game on a neutral field.

at 9:46 AM

Anonymous said...

Paul,

Have you lost your mind?

Your article today says that a college football playoff can't be done. Of course it can be done.

It's like anything else in life. There are obstacles, problems, downsides, etc. That's why we still don't have aeroplanes, and we've never been to the moon.

The only issue is making the decision.

And the decision should be based on only one consideration: "Would it be best for College Football?"

How do you measure that? I'd say, "maximize profits without injuring education."

If a playoff is what's best, then any number of smart people can put a plan together.....even a sports journalist who's lost his mind.

at 1:06 PM

Chris S. said...

First of all, though I would certainly prefer a playoff, I don't think college athletes should be paid. The notion is flat-out idiotic to me and, I think, to the majority of sports fans. College athletes are compensated plenty with their scholarships and myriad other perks. Anyone who has paid his/her own way through college, simply helped pay his/her own way, or graduated with massive debt would likely agree that college athletes have it made.

I don't think of the business side of sports before I think of the integrity of sports. I know, I know, integrity in silly old sports, especially football? But I'm not talking about Chris Henry brandishing guns. I'm talking about the on-field product. We certainly can't trivialize the fact that colleges want to make a profit from sports, but is it not possible to be (way) in the black and to have a sport with a means of determining a champion worth taking seriously? The current system of determining a champion in college football has no credibility. Sure, it's a little easier when two teams go undefeated, but what if there aren't two undefeated teams or two one-loss teams? And what if, like this year, there are a lot of teams that have performed well, even some two-loss and three-loss teams, that have seemingly little separating them? It gets complicated then, and like the entire rankings system in college football in general, the selection of who plays in the national championship game then becomes dangerously close to completely arbitrary. No one should be fooled by the impressive-looking hundredths-or-thousandths-of-a-point BCS computer score. It's just as arbitrary as the previous system was, especially since this superficially objective measurement includes the utterly subjective human rankings in its formula. It is utter nonsense to me to let such an inherently flawed means of determining a team’s worth be used to decide a champion.

And we also have to make a distinction between what it means to be the "best team" and what it means to be the "champion." The writers and coaches decide the "best team" when they send in their rankings. The analysts do it eight times an hour on ESPN through their grandstanding. The “champion” should not be determined by these same means. The Cardinals maybe weren't the "best team" in 2006, but really, is determining the “best team” point of the playoffs and World Series? Sort of like the MVP awards are necessarily for the “best player.“ Why does the champion have to be the “best team” in the eyes of someone like Lee Corso or Dusty Baker “analyzing” a team’s talent level? Let’s face it: by saying the Cardinals weren't the "best team," isn't that just saying that they didn't have as much talent as their playoff opponents? I'm as cynical as they come, but is there not more to being a champion than talent? Isn’t there the whole showing up, playing tough, playing smart, playing hungry, playing together etc. thing? Or have I attained new levels of naiveté? If we are looking for a “best team,” then in the timeless words of Dennis Green, “if you want to crown them, then crown their ass!” with “their” being West Virginia. Or “their” being the Yankees with ARod etc. or Red Sox with Ortiz and Manny if we’re talking baseball. The Patriots with Brady and Moss in the NFL. Forget the playoffs or even a championship game if that’s all you want to know. But personally, I’m looking for a champion, the team that plays the best in the playoffs when playing not Akron and Holy Cross but USC and Georgia, when it counts the most. Do you see where I’m coming from at least?

The suggestion given about an eight-team playoff involving first-round home field advantage would be ideal. There’d be no problem filling stadiums if this was the case. Then two semi-final games and a national championship game. No problem filling stadiums for those either regardless of where the games are played. You could do a 12-team playoff similar to the NFL’s: four wild-card games with the games being hosted by the higher-seeded teams; two “divisional” games hosted by the teams with opening-round byes; two “conference championships” at neutral locations; and a national championship at a neutral location. You could do a 14-team format with six first-round games (hosting team decided in a similar fashion) and the two highest-seeded teams getting first-round byes and playing home games against the lowest-seeded first-round winner on their team’s side of the bracket. Or you could do a 16-team bracket. Bottom line: the stands would be filled for first-round home games, my preferred format of a 12-team or 14-team playoff with second-round home games for the teams with first-round byes would negate the problem of empty stadiums for quarterfinal games, and filling stadiums for the “Final Four” games wouldn’t be a problem no matter what. None of these scenarios I thought up in two minutes lasts longer than four rounds which means that, hypothetically, the playoff could start next Saturday (the 8th) and be over by the first of the year. The playoff doesn’t even stretch into the new year, much less a new semester. But it will go on during exam week for the first semester, but hey, it’s not like these players really take their exams anyway, right?

Sorry for the length.

at 1:28 PM

Anonymous said...

Paul, right on the money, college is far more interesting than the usual slate of pro games. The SEC alone has offered better games this season than the NFL.

I think there's been one good Monday night game this season (Buffalo/Dallas) while college offers exciting finishes most weekends. The atmosphere at most college games is better as well.

As for U.C. and its crappy bowl destination, its all about TV ratings and fans that travel. Once the Bearcats prove they're legit, they'll play in a better game.

at 3:23 PM

Anonymous said...

Paul, I'm disappointed to hear this change of heart. The big problem I have with College FB is you play an entire season to then go and have a vote. What started as a sport becomes Dancing with the Stars. If you vote for who gets to win, is it really a sport anymore?

at 4:09 PM

Anonymous said...

As I previously said (9:42PM), I think a 4 team playoff should be relatively easy to do. (Too bad #5, try harder next year).

Don't see a down side?

at 7:58 PM

Unknown said...

How about a knock out format that begins from the eighth game of the season.

You could have the 128 top BCS teams in Division one square off beginning in week 8-12. Then you would have a semi-final played in early December when a lot of conference championships are not played, and the National championship game on January 2; you can still have all the other bowls games for all the also-rans.

Destroys the conference system, but gives everyone (at least the top 128) a fair shot at the national title and teams still get to make money on those lucrative bowl games, maybe they could be awarded based on where a team places in the knock out cup.

Previous Posts

Monday, November 26, 2007

OK, I give. College is better

28 Comments: