Are you an American exceptionalist to football?
Jun 21st, 2006, 02:26 PM
#241
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,000
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm having a hard time understanding how collegiate athletics represents a net minus as far as the university's educational mission is concerned.
Is it not a fact that the cash flow generated by sports subsidizes the operations of the college as a whole?
Can it be shown that allowing academically underqualified athletes to attend classes has a detrimental effect on those who do possess those credentials?
Who, I ask, loses - and how?
Is it not a fact that the cash flow generated by sports subsidizes the operations of the college as a whole?
Can it be shown that allowing academically underqualified athletes to attend classes has a detrimental effect on those who do possess those credentials?
Who, I ask, loses - and how?
Jun 22nd, 2006, 05:27 AM
#244
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think one of the reasons football hasn't caught on in States is that it is not appealing for the networks to broadcast the games, and without national broadcasts it is hard to build a fan base. There are very few breaks in the game to allow for advertising. It's all about the money.
Jun 22nd, 2006, 06:29 AM
#246
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread proves that the USA will never get football. You just have to look at the ingrained hostility, or complete bafflement, to realise that it is barren ground for the beautiful game.
Oh well, it’s your loss.
Oh well, it’s your loss.
Jun 22nd, 2006, 06:55 AM
#248
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,657
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phew, so many opinions I feel cross eyed reading them.
I'll just pitch in on one - many have suggested that the offisde rule should be scrapped to make the game more interesting and create more goals. This would actually have the adverse effect.
Without the offside rule, a striker could just hang around the goal while his team lobs ball after ball at him until he gets one in. Unbelievably boring play requiring very little skill. It would destroy the game (and, arguably, the need to have more than about 3 players!).
With the offside rule, the team has to work together to pass and dribble their way through to the goal - this brings an incredible level of skill to the game which is the reason for it's attraction as the world game.
A goal popped in every 5 minutes would be boring. An incredibly tight game, with immense skill, tackles, dribbles, spectaular long shots and near misses raises the blood pressure to boiling point, and a goal makes your head explode. It's the scarcity of goals that actually makes it so thrilling to watch. Every goal feels likes winning the World Cup. If you don't get this point, then you'll never 'get' football.
I'll just pitch in on one - many have suggested that the offisde rule should be scrapped to make the game more interesting and create more goals. This would actually have the adverse effect.
Without the offside rule, a striker could just hang around the goal while his team lobs ball after ball at him until he gets one in. Unbelievably boring play requiring very little skill. It would destroy the game (and, arguably, the need to have more than about 3 players!).
With the offside rule, the team has to work together to pass and dribble their way through to the goal - this brings an incredible level of skill to the game which is the reason for it's attraction as the world game.
A goal popped in every 5 minutes would be boring. An incredibly tight game, with immense skill, tackles, dribbles, spectaular long shots and near misses raises the blood pressure to boiling point, and a goal makes your head explode. It's the scarcity of goals that actually makes it so thrilling to watch. Every goal feels likes winning the World Cup. If you don't get this point, then you'll never 'get' football.
Jun 22nd, 2006, 07:05 AM
#249
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kate makes a very good point about the lack of goals or points make it more exciting.
Take Basketball, for me the professional game is boring except for the last few minutes, because it just goes from one end to another with very few errors appearing to be made. Especially as half the time when they slam dunk etc they are actually travelling but the ref's seem to just let it go, as they don't want to spoil the spectacle.
Where as college basketball is different as they makes lots of mistakes and have low scoring games. I was in the US during March Madness this year and it was quite entertaining to watch.
Geordie
Take Basketball, for me the professional game is boring except for the last few minutes, because it just goes from one end to another with very few errors appearing to be made. Especially as half the time when they slam dunk etc they are actually travelling but the ref's seem to just let it go, as they don't want to spoil the spectacle.
Where as college basketball is different as they makes lots of mistakes and have low scoring games. I was in the US during March Madness this year and it was quite entertaining to watch.
Geordie
Jun 22nd, 2006, 07:29 AM
#250
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't believe anyone suggested scrapping it, merely changing it in such a way that would encourage more opportunities to score. More importantly to end the 'no goal' because the defender takes one giant step forward at the appropriate time even though they are only 6 meters from the goal.
Jun 22nd, 2006, 07:29 PM
#251
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robespierre: 1. It's been well documented that collegiate sports not only do not subsidize the rest of a university, they do not even pay for themselves, particularly at institutions where athletic director and coach salaries approach $1 mill. and maintenance of stadiums and equipment costs more than salaries of all social science and humanities faculty put together.
2. Under-qualified "student athletes" often require extra work on the part of faculty OR they have courses specially designed for them that wouldn't normally be offered. Many don't even graduate, which brings down the evaluative statistics that are used in rankings like USNews & World Report (idiotic as those rankings are).
When those rankings fall, so does corporate, foundation and alumni giving, thereby undoing all the supposedly extra generosity on the part of deep-pocket sports-nut alumni.
To others: denigrating a sport because there aren't enough scores suggests a complete absence of appreciation for strategy, seeking instant-gratification instead. The comparison to basketball is apt.
2. Under-qualified "student athletes" often require extra work on the part of faculty OR they have courses specially designed for them that wouldn't normally be offered. Many don't even graduate, which brings down the evaluative statistics that are used in rankings like USNews & World Report (idiotic as those rankings are).
When those rankings fall, so does corporate, foundation and alumni giving, thereby undoing all the supposedly extra generosity on the part of deep-pocket sports-nut alumni.
To others: denigrating a sport because there aren't enough scores suggests a complete absence of appreciation for strategy, seeking instant-gratification instead. The comparison to basketball is apt.
Jun 22nd, 2006, 08:19 PM
#252
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, basketball is the furthest comparison. Hockey is the best and they at least have an offside rule that allows scoring in the 5-7 goal/game range while still putting pressure on the defender to weigh his offense vs defense. He simply can not take a step forward to mask his mistake.
As far as your inference that Americans need instant gratification, I think you are forgetting that there are pleny of Euro-dominated sports that have a bevy of scoring. The other major American sports do not: Baseball averages about 7-9 runs/game, football has about the same # of scoring plays.
Regarding the NCAA, I'd find it hard to believe that the number of non-graduating atheletes would equate is something other than an NM% (not meaningful). he two sports that have the largest % on non-graduates are football and basketball. They are generally played by institutions with tens of thousands of students. The few exceptions generally graduate their atheletes.
As far as your inference that Americans need instant gratification, I think you are forgetting that there are pleny of Euro-dominated sports that have a bevy of scoring. The other major American sports do not: Baseball averages about 7-9 runs/game, football has about the same # of scoring plays.
Regarding the NCAA, I'd find it hard to believe that the number of non-graduating atheletes would equate is something other than an NM% (not meaningful). he two sports that have the largest % on non-graduates are football and basketball. They are generally played by institutions with tens of thousands of students. The few exceptions generally graduate their atheletes.
Jun 28th, 2006, 06:02 AM
#255
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>> and a goal makes your head explode.
I couldn't have said it better myself Kate !
Well said !!
_____________________________________
http://www.colin-julie.com/travel.htm
I couldn't have said it better myself Kate !
Well said !!
_____________________________________
http://www.colin-julie.com/travel.htm
