NCAA football, 2013-14

[Barrister]

This is just a bit of an aside to the debate, but one I thought interesting enough to include.

I've been reading A Great Game, by Stephen Harper (yes, THAT Stephen Harper), which tells about the origins of professional hockey in Canada generally, but Toronto more specifically.  I bring it up because, without any possible doubt, the major issue facing hockey in it's early days was whether it would be an amateur sport, or a professional sport.  The rules from Day One were that it was to be played by amateurs, and there were various stories (seemingly familiar if you're familiar with NCAA athletics) of players being kicked out of hockey for all time for something as trifling as receiving a $10 gold coin as a gift after winning a big game.

But seemingly from Day Two, amateurism was recognized with a wink and a nod - players would move around the country seemingly at a moments whim in order to play for the bigger clubs with wealthier backers.

Then, some rival pro teams and pro leagues were springing up as well (all those talented players kicked out of hockey were still good, and had nothing to lose by being full professionals).

Eventually, both the competition and the sheer hypocrisy of the situation seems to have prevailed (I haven't finished the book yet), as fairly quickly hockey (and the Stanley Cup) became the purview of exclusively professional teams.

[grumbler]

59 whole schools.  That is a pretty small number.  The top 25 is not much of an honor eh?

There are something like 130 college hockey teams.  Still not a huge number, but so what?

[Valmy]

Eventually, both the competition and the sheer hypocrisy of the situation seems to have prevailed (I haven't finished the book yet), as fairly quickly hockey (and the Stanley Cup) became the purview of exclusively professional teams.

That is pretty much what happened in Baseball as well.

[alfred russel]

Any semblence of amateur spirit is dead in this country. With very few exceptions, the players are aspiring professionals (or at least would turn pro with a chance).

I only think amateurism should remain for competitive reasons. There are ~130 teams at college football's highest level, and while I think that is too many and some are hopelessly uncompetitive, the large number of teams is a major reason the sport is popular. Most people have ties to some college that plays in the FBS (even if they never went to college, maybe they live in the area of one, or have family that did).

Revenue, however, is grossly unequal. Some schools bring in obscene amounts, but most schools are struggling to break even. If you lost amateurism altogether, you could end up with only a handful of schools really competitive at the highest level. And then you've just killed what makes college football so popular, and the ultimate golden goose even of the profitable schools.

[grumbler]

Of course they don't want professional athletes, that would be way more expensive.  I also didn't say the program had to be strictly professional, just that if an athlete doesn't meet the academic standard then they can play for the team but not be at the school.

But your "solution" solves nothing, and adds all kinds of additional down sides.  What would possibly motivate a university to engage in such a business venture?

It's true that it's the attachment to the school that attracts the attention not the athletes, but there's a big caveat there.  If the school isn't competitive at the level that it is at (doesn't get the best players it can), particularly if this lasts for an extended time, then see how the interest and money dry up.  It's an arms race in effect.  The only way the schools would stop recruiting every athlete they can get regardless of academic ability is if it was imposed from above, and the NCAA isn't going to do it in any real sense and the government definitely shouldn't do it.

You are engaging in the fallacy that the NCAA isn't the schools' collective creation.  Saying that universities would only do something if it was "it was imposed from above" and then mention the NCAA as though it was "above" the schools is to misunderstand the entire nature of the NCAA.  If the school presidents want to do something, they are the decision-makers for the NCAA.  All it takes is the decision by the leading schools to do it, and it will be done.  The presidents care about fair competition, not quarterback ratings.

[grumbler]

This is just a bit of an aside to the debate, but one I thought interesting enough to include.

I've been reading A Great Game, by Stephen Harper (yes, THAT Stephen Harper), which tells about the origins of professional hockey in Canada generally, but Toronto more specifically.  I bring it up because, without any possible doubt, the major issue facing hockey in it's early days was whether it would be an amateur sport, or a professional sport.  The rules from Day One were that it was to be played by amateurs, and there were various stories (seemingly familiar if you're familiar with NCAA athletics) of players being kicked out of hockey for all time for something as trifling as receiving a $10 gold coin as a gift after winning a big game.

But seemingly from Day Two, amateurism was recognized with a wink and a nod - players would move around the country seemingly at a moments whim in order to play for the bigger clubs with wealthier backers.

Then, some rival pro teams and pro leagues were springing up as well (all those talented players kicked out of hockey were still good, and had nothing to lose by being full professionals).

Eventually, both the competition and the sheer hypocrisy of the situation seems to have prevailed (I haven't finished the book yet), as fairly quickly hockey (and the Stanley Cup) became the purview of exclusively professional teams.

This isn't true.  There are a lot of (90?  100?) college and university hockey teams in Canada.

[Savonarola]

This is probably true of baseball, but is definitely not true of hockey.  Hockey is big (where they play it).

59 whole schools.  That is a pretty small number.  The top 25 is not much of an honor eh?

It's better than being in the bottom 34.   

Hockey benefits from having a following that's concentrated geographically.  More than half the college hockey teams are found in just four states (Massachusetts, New York, Michigan and Minnesota.)  So there are many nearby rivalries and in many cases hockey is the school's only division one sport.

Is "Interuniversity" hockey big in Canada?

[Barrister]

This is just a bit of an aside to the debate, but one I thought interesting enough to include.

I've been reading A Great Game, by Stephen Harper (yes, THAT Stephen Harper), which tells about the origins of professional hockey in Canada generally, but Toronto more specifically.  I bring it up because, without any possible doubt, the major issue facing hockey in it's early days was whether it would be an amateur sport, or a professional sport.  The rules from Day One were that it was to be played by amateurs, and there were various stories (seemingly familiar if you're familiar with NCAA athletics) of players being kicked out of hockey for all time for something as trifling as receiving a $10 gold coin as a gift after winning a big game.

But seemingly from Day Two, amateurism was recognized with a wink and a nod - players would move around the country seemingly at a moments whim in order to play for the bigger clubs with wealthier backers.

Then, some rival pro teams and pro leagues were springing up as well (all those talented players kicked out of hockey were still good, and had nothing to lose by being full professionals).

Eventually, both the competition and the sheer hypocrisy of the situation seems to have prevailed (I haven't finished the book yet), as fairly quickly hockey (and the Stanley Cup) became the purview of exclusively professional teams.

This isn't true.  There are a lot of (90?  100?) college and university hockey teams in Canada.

But college/university hockey (at least in Canada) has followed the model of baseball.  Anyone with any serious interest in playing professional hockey does not bother with CIS hockey (of which there are only 36 teams), they instead play in the major junior CHL leagues.  IN the CHL the players get paid an absolutely ridiculously tiny stipend which is almost as exploitative as the NCAA (perhaps more so since in the CHL you're dealing with kids as young as 16), but they are "professionals".

CIS hockey is where CHL players go when they realize they're not good enough to play pro hockey, and want to try and make something else of their lives.

BUt if your point was the patently obvious one that "yes, people in Canada play hockey without being paid", then yes you are correct.  There are uncounted numbers of rec hockey leagues throughout the country, together with CIS, high school, and other leagues.

[Barrister]

Is "Interuniversity" hockey big in Canada?

Not really.  University teams will get a small amount of coverage, a few hundred to a couple thousand fans at games, but the major developmental league is major junior hockey.

[alfred russel]

Is "Interuniversity" hockey big in Canada?

Not really.  University teams will get a small amount of coverage, a few hundred to a couple thousand fans at games, but the major developmental league is major junior hockey.

Now that I am Dorsey again, I can finally say fuck you for stealing our hockey team. 

Actually, no one really cared except to comment that it sucks we aren't a 4 sport city anymore. Which is probably why we lost the team.

[Savonarola]

Is "Interuniversity" hockey big in Canada?

Not really.  University teams will get a small amount of coverage, a few hundred to a couple thousand fans at games, but the major developmental league is major junior hockey.

Heh, a couple thousand would be the entire student body at some of the colleges with hockey teams in the United States.

Thanks, I had heard hockey announcers talk about the CHL a good deal, but never about the CIS so I had wondered.

[Barrister]

Is "Interuniversity" hockey big in Canada?

Not really.  University teams will get a small amount of coverage, a few hundred to a couple thousand fans at games, but the major developmental league is major junior hockey.

Now that I am Dorsey again, I can finally say fuck you for stealing our hockey team. 

Actually, no one really cared except to comment that it sucks we aren't a 4 sport city anymore. Which is probably why we lost the team.

We didn't steal your team - nobody in Atlanta wanted them.  Seriously, the local ownership group (which also owned the Hawks and Phillips Arena) wanted them out, figuring they could make more money without a hockey team.

The good news is that back in 2011-2012 I got to see the Battle of Atlanta - the former Atlanta Flames play the former Atlanta Thrashers.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Yessssssss it's official:  Bobby Petrino back to Lville.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24403353/bobby-petrino-says-louisville-is-his-destination-job

[alfred russel]

We didn't steal your team - nobody in Atlanta wanted them.  Seriously, the local ownership group (which also owned the Hawks and Phillips Arena) wanted them out, figuring they could make more money without a hockey team.

The good news is that back in 2011-2012 I got to see the Battle of Atlanta - the former Atlanta Flames play the former Atlanta Thrashers.

I used to go to some of the games. It was a good excuse to drink. Basically no one in the arena knew the rules and was just there to drink and watch the fights.

I felt bad for the players. You reach the pinnacle of your sport and no one knew who you were or anything about what you did. Some of the guys might have liked that though.

[The Minsky Moment]

.  You think the Penn State fans rallied around the University because they give a damn about the revenues or because they love sex offenders?  You clearly do not get it.  You might as well be demanding we cancel Christmas to alot of these places.

No I totally get, I think the Christmas analogy is apt.  The nature of the fervor is akin to that of religion.  Is is emotional, not rational.  It is the kind of mentality that leads an educational institution to erect a statue to a football coach.  But it is a dangerous mentality and what happened at PSU demonstrates that perfectly.  Intelligent, well-meaning people did stupid, immoral and in some cases possibly criminal things because they couldn't bear the idea that their idols (Joe Pa, THE PROGRAM) would be tainted in some way if the truth came out.  It can be a slippery slope from school spirit to pathology.  And it would be very naive not to realize that the money greases that slope.