OrrvilleQB;527036 wrote:lol so is it safe to say Coach Doug Martin would be on the hot seat if he doesn't beat Alabama?

CinciX12;527040 wrote:Without question. Win of GTFO.

WebFire;527137 wrote:I say put a ban on paying for opponents. Maybe that will stop some of the cream puff scheduling.

WebFire;527137 wrote:I'm not a big fan of paying teams to play. It exploits the young men who work their ass off to play college football. Then you schedule them against Alabama when they have no chance of winning, all in the name of the almighty dollar. How is that fair to the players?

I say put a ban on paying for opponents. Maybe that will stop some of the cream puff scheduling.

SportsAndLady;527155 wrote:While I do not really agree or disagree with your suggestion, I feel like everyone on here wants to "get rid of" every single thing about college and professional football.

enigmaax;527175 wrote:Yeah, I happen to completely disagree with the original post about the ban and second this notion. There really isn't much wrong with the sport. People make up a lot of "solutions" for non-existant problems. If the sport is so bad, why the fuck are so many people watching it and how are they raking in so much cash?

The fact that these types of games are played enables those smaller schools (or those with otherwise much smaller athletic budgets) to offer sports - and not just football. People tend to hone in on one aspect of the game and not realize how the overall cycle works. That and...you think the Kent State players are sitting around going, "oh fuck, now we gotta play Alabama...we have no chance to win and I could possibly get hurt...blah blah blah"? In virtually every single conversation I've had with people who played at mid-level and lower schools, when the topic of their playing days comes up, the first story is about what big name program they played. Clearly its a good experience, win or lose.

WebFire;527179 wrote:I completely understand that it works that way, and funds many small college athletic budgets for an entire year. That is why it will never go away. I guess my thought was more for a perfect world, and we all know we are far from a perfect world.

WebFire;527179 wrote:But beyond the money, it really is pointless. It just seems to defy what college athletics is really about, IMO.

WebFire;527179 wrote:Also, just because people continue to pay and watch, doesn't mean things cannot be improved. NFL and college games have been sold out for over a half century. Should we have just kept things the way they were then?

enigmaax;527211 wrote:So what is your perfect world? If you take away these creampuff games, who is going to play who? If Texas, Ohio State, USC, LSU, Florida, Alabama, Oklahoma, etc...all play each other every year, what is going to happen? Some teams will have winning records, some will have losing records and your perception will change to view the ones that lose in that group as bad programs.

Then you are going to have a bunch of lesser schools going undefeated or winning a bunch of games going, "oh we are one of the top programs in the country because we win 10 games every year". How would you reward them? Would they really have dramatically improved? How would that make college football better?



What is college athletics about? Isn't it about opportunities and participation? It isn't pointless at all beyond the money, it is just that money is necessary to achieve the mission.



I didn't say things can't be improved. But arbitrary changes without really weighing the consequences doesn't mean the change is going to make things better. Nothing is perfect, but a lot of changes people wish for would have far, far more negative impacts that what most are willing to consider with the surface thought. Your exclusive reason for saying schools shouldn't be allowed to pay other schools for games is because you don't want to see a Kent State get annihilated by an Alabama. That is extremely minor in the grand scheme.

OrrvilleQB;527047 wrote:haha exactly.....I think he has been on the hot seat for about 3 years now! Maybe with their new AD he will get a new guy in charge of the Golden Flashes. One of my former teammates is on that team so I will have to see what he thinks about playing the Crimson Tide! haha

WebFire;527219 wrote:Sorry I didn't put together a committee to conduct a 3 year study on the effects of schools not paying the small fish to play them. I think you are taking it too literally.

enigmaax;527267 wrote:Hmm...I thought of those things in about 5 seconds. Which goes back to the original point, that people do a lot of bitching with ridiculous suggestions for no real reason.

WebFire;527401 wrote:My point though is that 95% of the board would fall under this. Of course these things would take some thinking. You don't just implement rules on a whim. But that doesn't mean my thought or opinion has no merit.

WebFire;527490 wrote:Well, I didn't want to write a thesis on it. We are here for conversation, but I don't feel I need to write a book to validate my opinions for you. You seem to be in attack mode rather than just disagree mode.

enigmaax;527581 wrote:Well, then sorry I came off that way. I used your statement to make a general statement and then you responded...nothing personal...obviously it isn't that big of a deal. But I got it now...you just want to throw out random, meaningless statements about how the game can be better even though it won't really make it better and don't really want to discuss it. That's cool. I just disagree.