NCAA or NFL

[Angie]

Originally Posted by CloneAggie

I'm not sure an individual game means that much more in the NCAA than a game in the NFL. A 16 game season versus a 12 game season. Roughly half (??) the NCAA teams make the "post-season" and a little more than 1/3 of the NFL teams make the post-season.

If you were arguing it means more to the fans, that may be the case.

I apologize - I agree with you, it's not like life or death is hanging on the balance (these are all sports, after all). I just value the fact that there is really only a love of the game and a desire to do their best propelling the players. As we saw with Randy Moss (who I actually don't mind) at the Raiders, NFL players really don't always have that same drive. Many do, but the players seem to play more from the gut/heart at the collegiate level.

[jdewaard]

Originally Posted by jumbopackage

If it wasn't for Fantasy Football, I honestly think the NFL would be going downhill.

Yes, but it is not going downhill. NFL games are typically the ratings leaders in their timeslots. Television revenues amount to nearly $4 Billion annually. I'm sorry, but you cannot say that Fantasy Football is responsible for that kind of success. Sure it helps, but America has a passion for pro football.

[cybsball20]

Originally Posted by jdewaard

Yes, but it is not going downhill. NFL games are typically the ratings leaders in their timeslots. Television revenues amount to nearly $4 Billion annually. I'm sorry, but you cannot say that Fantasy Football is responsible for that kind of success. Sure it helps, but America has a passion for pro football.

I think you are severely underestimating the power of Fantasy Football...

[clintr]

I feel like with college football that anything can happen at any time. Some kid fails to concentrate on a open pass for touchdown and boom, the entire game goes the other way. It's exciting, and also frustrating, but it makes for a great experience. They are also there practicing every day and not getting paid, which means you have a ton of determination even though only a small percentile actually make it to the pro's. You even have stuff like a Division 1AA team taking down a heavily favored big ten team.

With the NFL, it feels a bit more certain. The professionals are way better at the game and much more focused. The consistant stats tell us a lot. And let's admit, they are there for the money. Sure they may enjoy/love the game, but nothing feels better than a huge pay check at the end of the day.

[jdewaard]

Originally Posted by cybsball20

I think you are severely underestimating the power of Fantasy Football...

Hey, I know the power. I've played in at least one league for each of the past 8 years. I'm not discounting the fact that fantasy football has provided a reason to watch to millions of fans, but saying that the league would be heading downhill without it is rick-diculous. If fantasy football was all that mattered then why would the NFL bother marketing to anyone other than FF players?

[CloneAggie]

If a reason to like the NCAA more is because they aren't paid, I assume you would also like non-scholarship football better than scholarship football. You'd rather watch the University of Puget Sound versus Pacific Lutheran than Oregon versus Oregon State.

[jumbopackage]

Originally Posted by CloneAggie

I'm not sure an individual game means that much more in the NCAA than a game in the NFL. A 16 game season versus a 12 game season. Roughly half (??) the NCAA teams make the "post-season" and a little more than 1/3 of the NFL teams make the post-season.

If you were arguing it means more to the fans, that may be the case.

I'm not saying that EVERY game between every team every week is vital for the national championship contenders, but it factors in nonetheless through strength of schedule and who-beat-who arguments. For the championship contenders, however, every single game matters during the year. If USC shows up against Stanford, they have a shot at the BCS championship last year. I love that those conference games mean something. How awesome would it be if Chicago-Green Bay during the regular season meant that one team wouldn't be going to the playoffs or superbowl if they lost? You just don't get the same sense of urgency. 16 games between 32 teams. NCAA is 12 games between 119. I just think there's a lot more excitement in NCAA.

Originally Posted by jdewaard

Yes, but it is not going downhill. NFL games are typically the ratings leaders in their timeslots. Television revenues amount to nearly $4 Billion annually. I'm sorry, but you cannot say that Fantasy Football is responsible for that kind of success. Sure it helps, but America has a passion for pro football.

Their timeslots are generally on Sundays during the afternoon, when there isn't a whole lot else going on. Put some random game on against American Idol, and I don't think it would do quite as well.

Take a look at Monday Night Football, if you want an example. Do you think ABC would have gotten rid of it if it was doing so well?

[isuno1fan]

NCAA and it's not even close. Live for college football.

I used to watch a lot of NFL, but I've kind of turned into a SuperBowl only type of guy.

[cyclonepower]

CFB...not really close, I do like the NFL and love my Broncos, but nothing like Iowa State. And comparing two games involving teams I dont care about in CFB compared to the NFL I would much rather watch CFB.

excellent topic though!

[CloneAggie]

Originally Posted by jumbopackage

For the championship contenders, however, every single game matters during the year.

I think this statement is debatable considering a team with two losses played in the national championship game last year.

Other things I don't like about Div. I college FB:
1) No playoff system;
2) Losing early in the season is generally more favorable than losing late in the season (if you have championship aspirations); and
3) Lack of consistency in how conferences handle certain things, namely whether or not they have a championship game.

[ahaselhu]

Originally Posted by CloneAggie

I think this statement is debatable considering a team with two losses played in the national championship game last year.

True, but then you're relying on other teams to mess up. In the NFL, you can play 4 horrible games (at least) and still be pretty much assured of having a chance to go to the Super Bowl.

Originally Posted by CloneAggie

Other things I don't like about Div. I college FB:
1) No playoff system;

I'm on the fence about that. I'd certainly like to see it decided on the field, but I also like how important each game is in the bowl system. Currently, I'd favor a +1 format, with a national championship game after the bowls. Never gonna happen though.

Originally Posted by CloneAggie

2) Losing early in the season is generally more favorable than losing late in the season (if you have championship aspirations); and

I think this is as it should be. The teams that are playing better at the end of the season should have precedent.

Originally Posted by CloneAggie

3) Lack of consistency in how conferences handle certain things, namely whether or not they have a championship game.

Agree with you here. I would add as well the difference in sizes. I'm not a big fan of having a conference where you don't play all the other teams in the conference each year. Although the BigXII/SEC/ACC system of two divisions and a championship game is much better than the Big 10 system.

[jumbopackage]

Originally Posted by CloneAggie

I think this statement is debatable considering a team with two losses played in the national championship game last year.

Other things I don't like about Div. I college FB:
1) No playoff system;
2) Losing early in the season is generally more favorable than losing late in the season (if you have championship aspirations); and
3) Lack of consistency in how conferences handle certain things, namely whether or not they have a championship game.

It's debatable, but if there had been two undefeated teams, they would both have been playing. (let's not get into it about Hawaii...we saw what they were) I would agree that the more parity there is, the less the "every game matters" thing applies, but I think it's largely true looking back at the past 20 years or so of CFB.

1 - I don't think it matters, honestly. No matter what you did, you couldn't make it an even playing field for everyone unless you're willing to drastically change the structure of the conferences, and that means that any playoff would produce just as illegitimate a champion as the current system.

2 - I would agree somewhat, but the BCS has largely mitigated that. Nebraska losing to K-state in the Big 12 Championship, LSU losing late last year. Georgia lost earlier than LSU, but didn't get invited to the big game. Losing at all is a bad bad thing in NCAA D-1 football is you want to be a contender.

3 - I think that's somewhat part of the fun with it. You can blame the conferences for it, though. It's a ton of money to turn down every year.


What I would like to see, especially in the event of 3 or more undefeated teams, is the bowl season play out, and then the rankings AFTER those games determining a +1 game. Sort of like a playoff, but more like a second BCS championship game. I think that would largely of solved most of the "split national championship" questions over the history of College football. Last year, for instance, had Hawaii beat Georgia, they would have gotten a shot at, say, LSU. Or, as it played out, Georgia would have had a shot against LSU.

[StormnClone58]

the "kids" are playing for the love of the game and to achieve something greater for themselves in their lives ... where as the nfl is all about the money and needing that 30 mil signing bonus because they have mouths to feed (IMO)