[mike777]

One cited example


students were asked to read the third paragraph, students asked what is a paragraph.

When the teacher report this to higher ups they said...never mind...pass them.

I predict:

many more scandals in college football, no one will care
hundreds if not thousands of young men will be injured, no one will care
many players will never graduate, no one will care
vast majority of fans just care if you win

btw ND graduation rate is 97%.

[Zelandakh]

mike777, on 2012-November-26, 14:30, said:

btw ND graduation rate is 97%.

Noone cares.

[billw55]

Zelandakh, on 2012-November-27, 03:30, said:

Noone cares.

Probably the graduates do.

[Zelandakh]

billw55, on 2012-November-27, 06:46, said:

Probably the graduates do.

I imagine the mothers will care about the thousands of injured young men too. Quite a lot more than the graduation rate of some kids on sports scholarships in fact.

[billw55]

Zelandakh, on 2012-November-27, 08:13, said:

I imagine the mothers will care about the thousands of injured young men too. Quite a lot more than the graduation rate of some kids on sports scholarships in fact.

So you claim that injured college football players outnumber graduated college football players? That is plausible, but I would want some sources.

I am interested in your overall point, but can't tell what it is.

[mike777]

I would think the injury rate is well above 100%, the graduation rate below 100%.

[Zelandakh]

billw55, on 2012-November-27, 13:03, said:

So you claim that injured college football players outnumber graduated college football players? That is plausible, but I would want some sources.

I am interested in your overall point, but can't tell what it is.

Perhaps if you tried understanding what I wrote rather than assigning a completely different meaning it would help. Not that there was a point as such. Am I only allowed to post in WC threads if I want an argument? Or perhaps I am now misreading your point - easily done, no?

[billw55]

Zelandakh, on 2012-November-28, 07:21, said:

Perhaps if you tried understanding what I wrote rather than assigning a completely different meaning it would help. Not that there was a point as such. Am I only allowed to post in WC threads if I want an argument? Or perhaps I am now misreading your point - easily done, no?

Easy there Zel I am not aware of arguing with you or even disagreeing with you, in this thread.

The roles and counterbalancing of academics, athletics, and revenue in college sports is a topic that interests me, and that has room for differing yet reasonable viewpoints. So I like to discuss it, and hear what other people think.

[billw55]

mike777, on 2012-November-28, 07:01, said:

I would think the injury rate is well above 100%, the graduation rate below 100%.

Could be true, depending on what is considered an "injury". If an injury is anything that hurts, you are certainly right. If injury means something that prevents an athlete from competing, then it might be close. Or maybe it means something in between, such as anything that receives treatment.

[mike777]

billw55, on 2012-November-28, 08:09, said:

Could be true, depending on what is considered an "injury". If an injury is anything that hurts, you are certainly right. If injury means something that prevents an athlete from competing, then it might be close. Or maybe it means something in between, such as anything that receives treatment.

I will let the Mom define


but if there are 50 players on a team I would expect more than 50 injures a year per team.

but then she may be the only one who really cares.

[bd71]

mike777, on 2012-November-20, 08:40, said:

60 minutes tv show said only about 25 teams break even or better

I assume 60 minutes is looking at direct sports revenue (tickets, advertising, etc.) compared to direct costs. If you were to add the impact that football teams have on alumni donations, I think the math will look very different.

[mike777]

Football has the same relation to education that bullfighting has to agriculture,” Hutchins said breezily in dismissing the game.

Other uses, ostensibly meritorious, were found for Stagg Field.

Three years later, scientists standing on the balcony of a squash court under the west stands set off the first self-sustaining nuclear reaction, an event that necessarily preceded the explosion of the world’s most powerful bomb


http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all

[billw55]

bd71, on 2012-November-28, 10:54, said:

I assume 60 minutes is looking at direct sports revenue (tickets, advertising, etc.) compared to direct costs. If you were to add the impact that football teams have on alumni donations, I think the math will look very different.

It can be fairly complex. Do you track donations to the athletic department separately from those to academics or capital improvements? How would you determine which of these "other" donations are related to athletic publicity? I am guessing that someone in the university athletic department knows the answers, and knows just what their bottom line really is.

Anyway, pretending to be losing money is a very common ploy for tax breaks, other benefits, public sympathy, and so on. I would be very slow to trust any organization's published "accounting".

[billw55]

mike777, on 2012-November-28, 11:19, said:

Football has the same relation to education that bullfighting has to agriculture," Hutchins said breezily in dismissing the game.

It can well be argued that public universities should not sponsor football, or any athletics. Many do so argue - mostly academic professionals from what I can tell.

If all University athletic programs ceased, I am quite sure that private enterprise would swiftly self-organize to keep the revenue-generating sports going.

[jjbrr]

bumping for LOL

the amazing thing about this thread is that a bcs schedule like this:

NCG: Notre Dame vs Alabama
Rose: Stanford vs Florida
Fiesta: Kansas State vs LSU
Cotton: Oklahoma vs Texas A&M
Sugar: Oregon vs Georgia
Orange: Florida State vs South Carolina

would provide some fantastic football to watch. And I think SEC teams would win 4 of those games. but LOL sort by OUT OF CONFERENCE SCHEDULE and CONFERENCE CHAMPION and become ncaaf expert, i guess.

[jjbrr]

will bump again after the MNC.

[awm]

jjbrr, on 2012-December-01, 20:27, said:

bumping for LOL

the amazing thing about this thread is that a bcs schedule like this:

NCG: Notre Dame vs Alabama
Rose: Stanford vs Florida
Fiesta: Kansas State vs LSU
Cotton: Oklahoma vs Texas A&M
Sugar: Oregon vs Georgia
Orange: Florida State vs South Carolina

would provide some fantastic football to watch. And I think SEC teams would win 4 of those games. but LOL sort by OUT OF CONFERENCE SCHEDULE and CONFERENCE CHAMPION and become ncaaf expert, i guess.

An interesting lineup, although it might not draw as well as more traditional ones.

It's one thing to say "The SEC has a lot of strong teams and they don't play much outside their conference, it would be fun to line up their top teams against top teams from the rest of the nation" and quite another to say "The SEC is so clearly the best conference that even though they have played virtually no legit out-of-conference games, we will line up a rematch of the two best SEC teams and name the winner national champion."

[Flem72]

awm, on 2012-December-03, 00:26, said:

An interesting lineup, although it might not draw as well as more traditional ones.

An impossible lineup b/c the BCS has that bonehead rule that no conference may have more than 2 teams in the BCS bowls. So we get N. Illinois....

[bd71]

awm, on 2012-December-03, 00:26, said:

It's one thing to say "The SEC has a lot of strong teams and they don't play much outside their conference, it would be fun to line up their top teams against top teams from the rest of the nation" and quite another to say "The SEC is so clearly the best conference that even though they have played virtually no legit out-of-conference games, we will line up a rematch of the two best SEC teams and name the winner national champion."

Is it so clear that the SEC has weaker non-comference schedules than other major conferences? My impression is that the reluctance to schedule more than one tough non-conference opponent is endemic to all big-time conferences and programs.

I'm a Michigan fan, and it's highly unusual for us to have a year like this year when we played two high-quality non-conference opponents (Alabama, Notre Dame)...although I loved it. In fact, we've often had zero tough non-conference games when Notre Dame has been week over the last decade. I think other Big Ten teams take similar approaches.

So where's the evidence the SEC is an outlier?

[jjbrr]

It's quite possible the two best teams in the SEC didn't even meet in the SEC Championship game due to a somewhat arbitrary tie breaker. Florida is really getting shafted by having to play Louisville in the Sugar Bowl.

Compare Florida's resume to Georgia's:

Florida:
W @ TAMU
W LSU
W @ Vandy
W USC
L @ UGA
W @ FSU

UGA:
W Vandy
L USC (35-7)
W UF
L Bama
W Nebraska in the Cap One Bowl(lol)

That's like 4.5 quality wins for UF and 2 for UGA. If Florida could play and beat UO in a BCS game, it really would not be out of touch with reality to suggest a split title with the winner of the MNC, but unfortunately the SEC is too top heavy, and the rules prevent the BCS games from being scheduled based on how good the team is.

Bama's resume for the sake of completion:

W Mich
W Miss St (maybe shouldn't be included?)
W @ LSU
L TAMU
W UGA
and if they win the MNC W ND for also ~4.5 quality wins.

And I know this is completely irrelevant, so probably just ignore it, but next year Tennessee plays @Oregon, @Florida, UGA, USC, @Bama. Yes, UT is irrelevant next year, but when the Oregon game was scheduled both teams were relevant.