Critique of Modern College Football - WSJ

[ALTideUp]

another point of view

[ricky023]

Well that is a pretty good argument. Why today, why now? I know our athletes are bigger and stronger but what happens in the fast paced college night world when there is no coaches and staff helping these kids? They have more time to get in trouble, like smoking pot, no reason to truly stay in college because football is their life. Well maybe to restate it, that playing of the game keeps most athletes straight and not in trouble. I look forward to other opinions on this debate. RTR!

[BAMAWV]

43% of NCAA schools don't make money on football. Doesn't this mean that 57% do make money?

Another lame ass academian/journalist not getting enough attention or recognition for what he contributes.  Arguing the other side is a slam dunk. While he wants to make readers gasp at CNS's obscene salary he conveniently omitted that University of Alabama revenues greatly increased since he was hired.  Also ignored was the intangibles of PR, enrollment enhancement, and the general enthusiasm around the state by the tax payers that do supplement college programs. The author is, like always, amazed that no one wants to spend $1000 on a weekend to come to town and watch him write.
 

[XBAMA]

well , it seems we got us a grade A momma's boy here in ole Buzz-kill Bissinger

went from Comics to Chefs: Top Celebrity Tweeters to writing about
 college football ?
somebody has a wedgie , ain't that right Buzzy poo ? 
girlfriend ran off with a football player ? a coach ?
hit on a player and get that ass whooped ?
which is it Buzz ? 

[XBAMA]

Mr. Bissinger is the author of "Friday Night Lights." He will participate in a debate Tuesday evening at New York University, sponsored by Intelligence Squared, in which he and Malcolm Gladwell will argue that college football should be banned. (See Ideas Calendar)

he should have stayed with the make believe High School stuff   

[ricky023]

43% of NCAA schools don't make money on football. Doesn't this mean that 57% do make money?

Another lame ass academian/journalist not getting enough attention or recognition for what he contributes.  Arguing the other side is a slam dunk. While he wants to make readers gasp at CNS's obscene salary he conveniently omitted that University of Alabama revenues greatly increased since he was hired.  Also ignored was the intangibles of PR, enrollment enhancement, and the general enthusiasm around the state by the tax payers that do supplement college programs. The author is, like always, amazed that no one wants to spend $1000 on a weekend to come to town and watch him write.
 

I have to applaud you. This said more than I could with two keyboards. lol! RTR!

[XBAMA]

I have to applaud you. This said more than I could with two keyboards. lol! RTR!

ain't that the truth !  we need to get it Buzzy Poo so she can read it too !

 

[rueben]

College is there for the purpose of preparing someone for a better career than one could have had straight out of High School. Does this not happen with football as well?
  I have long felt that athletes should be able to pursue a degree in "Sports."
Classes should involve such things as A&P, Kinisiology,  (Sports) Psychology, and Money management, among others.

BTW, did the bitter butt hurt writer mention how much $ CNS donates BACK to UA, for start up Schollies?

[XBAMA]

long live soccer !!!!   

[cbbama99]

Mr. Bissinger is the author of "Friday Night Lights." He will participate in a debate Tuesday evening at New York University, sponsored by Intelligence Squared, in which he and Malcolm Gladwell will argue that college football should be banned. (See Ideas Calendar)

he should have stayed with the make believe High School stuff   

Multi-million dollar moneymaker, even if it is for ONLY 57 percent of schools. Yeah, good luck with that Mr. Bissinger. 

[ALTideUp]

Not a very thoughtful discussion.

While 57% of football teams might make money, the calculation surely does not include the Title IX costs (matching male athletic participation with female athletic participation), or reflect athletic departments asa whole. It also does not include capital project costs like stadium and other facilities renovations.

In the escalating race to attract the best coaches and players much of the profit is returned to the athletic departments. This is the part that spells trouble for the future of college football. Unless the NCAA can come up with an expenditure cap system to maintain parity, the extraordinary resources of a small number of schools are essentially going to price 100 of the 140 div 1 football programs out of business. And the scholly cap is a band-aid that will not fix the problem.

If the mass of people east of Columbus Oh, and north of Knoxville TN stop caring about college football, and it becomes a southern thing, the TV money will dry up, followed by the apparel contracts. Then say goodbye to big-time college football.

The success of a small number of schools will kill the goose that laid the crystal egg.

[BAMAWV]

Not a very thoughtful discussion.

While 57% of football teams might make money, the calculation surely does not include the Title IX costs (matching male athletic participation with female athletic participation), or reflect athletic departments asa whole. It also does not include capital project costs like stadium and other facilities renovations.

In the escalating race to attract the best coaches and players much of the profit is returned to the athletic departments. This is the part that spells trouble for the future of college football. Unless the NCAA can come up with an expenditure cap system to maintain parity, the extraordinary resources of a small number of schools are essentially going to price 100 of the 140 div 1 football programs out of business. And the scholly cap is a band-aid that will not fix the problem.

If the mass of people east of Columbus Oh, and north of Knoxville TN stop caring about college football, and it becomes a southern thing, the TV money will dry up, followed by the apparel contracts. Then say goodbye to big-time college football.

The success of a small number of schools will kill the goose that laid the crystal egg.

Take away a school's football program and watch the enrollment numbers decline. The same whiners that brought us Title IX on the pretense of parity are now trying another scheme to destroy college football-- a much loved American tradition.  Ask the taxpayers which campus rat hole they would wish to quit pouring money down and the conversation will quickly turn against tenure and for at will employment agreements.  There is a ton of money being wasted on liberal arts crapola that can be eliminated long before you get to whittling away at athletic department budgets.   

[Catch Prothro]

Not a very thoughtful discussion.

True... but it's your link!

[ALTideUp]

Well that is a pretty good argument. Why today, why now? I know our athletes are bigger and stronger but what happens in the fast paced college night world when there is no coaches and staff helping these kids? They have more time to get in trouble, like smoking pot, no reason to truly stay in college because football is their life. Well maybe to restate it, that playing of the game keeps most athletes straight and not in trouble. I look forward to other opinions on this debate. RTR!

You make some good points Ricky. I do not doubt that a high proportion of at-risk kids who play college football are literally saved from a difficult and dangerous life. On the other hand, these kids represent an infinitesimally small fraction of at-risk kids. We are not saving them for them, we are saving them for us.

To answer why today, why now? I think it's the poor state of state economies. When so many states are cutting funds to their state colleges and universities, it is understandable that some would question why states continue to support football programs that cost money. The other answer to the why now issue is that dollar figures attached to athletic department budgets, particularly for football, are astronomical. That's not a problem for us because our program is a big money maker. But the escalation in the costs to be competitive will soon price many schools out of business. Add the growing concerns about the long-term effects of repetitive closed head injuries (see Cecil's column this morning) and football finds itself in a precarious position.

[ricky023]

Well that is a pretty good argument. Why today, why now? I know our athletes are bigger and stronger but what happens in the fast paced college night world when there is no coaches and staff helping these kids? They have more time to get in trouble, like smoking pot, no reason to truly stay in college because football is their life. Well maybe to restate it, that playing of the game keeps most athletes straight and not in trouble. I look forward to other opinions on this debate. RTR!

You make some good points Ricky. I do not doubt that a high proportion of at-risk kids who play college football are literally saved from a difficult and dangerous life. On the other hand, these kids represent an infinitesimally small fraction of at-risk kids. We are not saving them for them, we are saving them for us.

To answer why today, why now? I think it's the poor state of state economies. When so many states are cutting funds to their state colleges and universities, it is understandable that some would question why states continue to support football programs that cost money. The other answer to the why now issue is that dollar figures attached to athletic department budgets, particularly for football, are astronomical. That's not a problem for us because our program is a big money maker. But the escalation in the costs to be competitive will soon price many schools out of business. Add the growing concerns about the long-term effects of repetitive closed head injuries (see Cecil's column this morning) and football finds itself in a precarious position.

Hey Al, I agree about the large amounts of money. I would say if the administrators are so worried about their budgets, than give back some of their pay as CNS does. Quit wearing those $1,000 to $2,000 suits and all those expensive settings in their office.
When you actually give to the cause then you can debate about it. Today as we see more people allowed in our country of Freedom, they are jealous of College Football it seems. I can say if you want your sport to increase in revenue, then teach and preach what it does for the kids. College football makes people stronger and less likely to die in a fat pack such as myself.
I do though have an excuse, a Baptist Preacher, and Fried Chicken is my problem. Look forward to your reply. RTR!

[Guest]

Username:
Password:
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

There aren't any users online.

Loading Tweet...