|
Post by saskabronco on Jul 29, 2013 16:12:23 GMT -5
Here is a really good debate regarding the Thread Topic. I am not saying it should be banned by posting this topic, I just thought it would be a good one to generate some discussion. So if you don't feel like watching the long video, please don't assume that I am saying it should be banned.
The main point against the motion is that college football provides many opportunities for players who would not otherwise have those opportunities and America is a free country and people should be allowed to play what they choose.
The main point for the motion is that the game is too much of a health risk to the players and that it exploits the college age students for profit and is basically a free farm system for the NFL.
Please note that the debaters against aren't necessarily saying ban football, but rather that maybe the football farm system should not be tied to colleges.
I predict the majority of people on this forum will be against the motion, but I am really curious to hear the discussion this video and this debate generate.
|
|
|
Post by patriotsk1d on Jul 29, 2013 23:53:43 GMT -5
I dont have time to watch the video right now. College Football is a farm system for the players who will end up in the NFL, however for the majority of players that isnt the case. Most college football players wouldnt have a chance to go to college if it wasnt for the full rides that they receive, so I think it is a little unfair to say they are just getting exploited for profit.
I enjoy college football as much as I enjoy the nfl. I cant say the same thing about the MLB and AA/AAA baseball, or the MLB and college baseball. I would hate to see college football banned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2013 9:51:40 GMT -5
This might not seem like the truth, but college football is arguably more popular than the NFL on a fanbase standpoint.
When the NFL went on a lockout, it never came to anything near a riot.
If college football were to be banned, there will be riots, thats how popular it is.
So to get rid of it is just not an option. To change how the farm system works, could be understandable.
|
|
|
Post by saskabronco on Jul 30, 2013 10:19:37 GMT -5
I don't think that they should remove college football at all, but I do think it is a ridiculous exploitation of the players. Insane amounts of money is brought in on a yearly basis, college football players are paid more than the deans of the colleges, yet the players are not allowed to see any of that money (at least not directly). Players are given the opportunity to get an education that they wouldn't otherwise get, but many of them don't actually receive an education, they are pushed through the program for the sake of allowing them to play football. What does that teach them? That because they are good at something they can coast through other areas of life?
I don't watch a lot of college football, but when I do watch it I find it very entertaining. I wouldn't want to see it banned, I just think there needs to be changes made.
|
|
h24dog
College Starter
Posts: 708
|
Post by h24dog on Jul 30, 2013 10:41:40 GMT -5
The laugh from :11 to :19 is the same laugh I had reading while reading that question.
REALLY!!??The notion of banning college football would be absolutely BLASPHAMIS!!I don't know what people are smoking of they thing BANNING COLLEGE FOOTBALL is going to HELP ANYBODY!
I'm following the notion of Bengal here.College football has just as big of a fanbase,if not a BIGGER fanbase than the NFL does.I enjoy watching college football just as much as watching the NFL.Sure the players aren't as talented,but you could spend your entire Saturday watching college football,there are so many games to watch.There is so much more character and swag that you see on the college field than the NFL,and I wish the NFL could make the game more fun,like the group TD dances,or actually letting the defense make a hit on somebody that could make you want to watch that play over and over and over again.If the NFL could go back in time to about 1990 when you could do all that stuff,then I would enjoy watching the NFL more,but that's another stry for another day
|
|
|
Post by saskabronco on Jul 30, 2013 11:21:56 GMT -5
The laugh from :11 to :19 is the same laugh I had reading while reading that question. REALLY!!??The notion of banning college football would be absolutely BLASPHAMIS!!I don't know what people are smoking of they thing BANNING COLLEGE FOOTBALL is going to HELP ANYBODY! I'm following the notion of Bengal here.College football has just as big of a fanbase,if not a BIGGER fanbase than the NFL does.I enjoy watching college football just as much as watching the NFL.Sure the players aren't as talented,but you could spend your entire Saturday watching college football,there are so many games to watch.There is so much more character and swag that you see on the college field than the NFL,and I wish the NFL could make the game more fun,like the group TD dances,or actually letting the defense make a hit on somebody that could make you want to watch that play over and over and over again.If the NFL could go back in time to about 1990 when you could do all that stuff,then I would enjoy watching the NFL more,but that's another stry for another day Are you just responding to the specific question though? I would recommend checking out the debate. I don't think it will change your mind but the guys debating for the notion do raise some interesting points about college football. I'm sure you will laugh at the one guy debating against it because his issue is the danger to the athletes, but the other debater (author of Friday Night Lights) raises many good points about the issues surrounding the finances and the ties to colleges. Again, I am not saying we should ban college football, but it is an interesting look at the whole college football system. I don't mind the safety rules in the NFL personally. I don't think it is necessary to watch guys try and kill the other players on the field. I would much rather see a good solid wrap up tackle and see both players up and ready to play the next down, than see a guy smash into the other guy's helmet and have one or both of them unable to continue playing... or try to continue playing despite being severely concussed.
|
|
|
Post by bronco1984 on Sept 11, 2013 15:20:39 GMT -5
I have worked in the NCAA, I have coached College Football both inside of the NCAA structure and outside (NAIA) and there are a few myths that I see repeated here that should really be addressed.
I will begin by saying, I don't think football should be banned. I have a solution for the problem, but the people at the higher levels would never adopt it because it affects their tax exempt cash cow! I believe they should set up a trust, that pays a certain amount at maturity (i.e. conditional on the student graduating in a 5-year time period). They cannot benefit from it as a student, but it is "banked" money for student athletes if they graduate and provides an incentive to do it in a timely manner. In addition, if you made the "wait" period for draft eligibility a year longer, it would force schools to enforce students tracking in degree earning programs, and keeps them accountable to making sure the education process is happening.
FULL RIDES 1. All student athletes do not get "full rides." Some notable people like Clay Matthews III and Jordy Nelson were walk-ons - Meaning, they did not initially receive scholarships. The way walk on players are treated in college football is A WHOLE DIFFERENT CAN OF WORMS. Anyway, the concept of a "full ride" inflates what is actually happening. Financial aid still plays a role in how the financial end of scholarships are processed. It is simple math. A student still fills out their Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). If they are in-state, after processing, they will receive a 'funding amount' for state and federal dollars if they qualify (based upon a federally defined needs analysis). From there, when they are offered a scholarship, the cost of their schooling (depending on their family's need) many actually only total a value of (for example) $30,000 for 4 years (which is super cheap, but not because of the school, because of their financial need relative to the cost of the university). So, think of it this way...They are making their universities millions (and in some case billions) for a DISCOUNTED education, not a free one.
They Could Not Receive an Education Otherwise 2. The notion that they could not receive an education otherwise is also false. Many of the schools that these players attend are public, 4-year institutions. The majority of the students stay in their home state, or are from neighboring states (which many universities have tuition match agreements). I say that to say, the education at many of these institutions can actually be quite affordable with in-state and federal aid, private scholarships, and maybe a loan...without going into significant debt. It is a myth that they could not otherwise afford college without athletics. In addition, there are private institutions that provide significant institutional aid. Also, programs like federal work study can provide decent avenues to paying for education.
Finally, the overwhelming majority of college athletes are graduating, and going into the workforce. Many of these student athletes were great students, great people, and provide significant value to their companies. The stereotypes around this issue reinforce this notion that student athletes receive everything for free, and don't have to work. When in reality they tend to work many times harder than the average student, and a part from the Top 25, graduate at higher percentages than traditional students.
|
|
|
Post by EagleDomiKnation on Sept 11, 2013 15:53:49 GMT -5
Banned in Eugene Oregon......yes, please, for the love of the football gods!!!
|
|