The Rest of College Football

[Rob F]

Wonderful discussion over the last day or two here on this thread, everyone! As much as I love the "give-and-take", the fun stuff AND the s*** we sometimes toss around (especially at "enemy" posters) in most of our discussions/threads here, I think it's the conversations like we've been having in this thread over the last couple days that I like best.

I think we've got a pretty good thing going with this forum; it has evolved nicely in our current home as a sub-forum to Deb's Detroit Lions Forum (THANKS, Deb!!!), and I'm happy, in hindsight, that this is the direction we went when Worldcrossing went belly-up. We kept most of the core group of posters that have been with us for a long period of time, some even as far back as the late 90's when many of us first got to know each other on the Freep Forums before we struck out on our own when the Freep kicked all their WX-style forums to the curb. Along the way, while WX was in it's heydey, many other now long-time members joined us. It doesn't hurt, either, that this place is on a stable platform, technically-speaking, instead of crashing repeatedly like WX did.

But we've also been able to pick up some newer posters in the last year or so here, too---several peeked in from Deb's Lions Forum, saw that they liked it, and joined, in turn helping to strengthen our base, while other "newbies" have also found us and joined in.

I still occasionally drop in on the current version of what I used to consider our "sister" forum, the Detroit Tiger's Forum (which also migrated from the Freep to Worldcrossing like we did, but decided to strike out independently on their own when WX died); sad-to-say, that place is now a shell of its former self. For a long time, we shared many members with that Tiger's Forum that, like myself, posted regularly on both places (as a few of us still occasionally do), but for a variety of reasons, that forum is now practically a ghost town.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Barring significant external pressures (depression, global disaster, etc.), CFB is going to keep on keeping on. The days of M drawing 25,000 fans to a home game (1960s) are forever gone. Now they sell out for UMass with a shit team. Whatever happens with the BCS/playoffs, the game will continue to be hugely popular.

What economic or business model do you base this on? General Motors, Pan AM, Lehman Brothers, Country Wide?

This kind of arrogance is exactly what brought everyone of these corporate giants to their knees. One rule in business: Nothing is certain except death and taxes.

....... the best thing for CFB is to eliminate the canard of the "student-athlete"

Despite the prevailing opinion, I disagree with this. A move like this may be the death knell of college sports as I enjoyed them in the past. A part of my college experience and a sense of community as a Michigan graduate. Maybe you have a different frame of reference. That's fine but I think you don't know or don't understand what you're risking here. I don't want the traditions of CFB compromised by turning it into a semi-pro league which is exactly where I think it is headed.

If you go back to the origins of sport, the Olympics and even before that, these games were about showcasing athletic skills of individuals - most of those skills closely related to the kinds of skills that produced good warriors. Later, in the period of the British Empire, team sports emerged. The fundamental value of these games was their ability to unite groups of people in the enjoyment of ritual spectacle where fans cheered their teams, their colors, their anthems and their star players. They were a community. Sponsorship was a minor part of these games, present, for sure, but very much in the background. That's been turned on its head.

Team sports today, as has been aptly pointed out up thread by others, has become a vehicle to promote products that someone wants us to buy and, in the process, make money for the promoters and the boys that want to sell you the latest shoes .... for $150 a pop. Eliminating the "canard", as you call it, of the student athlete plays directly into the hands of the promoters and the shoe guys.

I'm not for it. I think you're right, the NCAA is a self promoting bunch of wind bags who really don't care at all about the fundamental fabric of college sports that I've spoken of here - the kind of thing that builds community. The risk of taking the word student, out of the phrase, student athlete is that you also risk taking the value of community building as a part of the college experience.

What you're advocating, talent, is the abbrogation of the fabric of college football, at least as I understand and appreciate it.

[Dr. Strangelove]

What economic or business model do you base this on? General Motors, Pan AM, Lehman Brothers, Country Wide?

This kind of arrogance is exactly what brought everyone of these corporate giants to their knees. One rule in business: Nothing is certain except death and taxes.



Despite the prevailing opinion, I disagree with this. A move like this may be the death knell of college sports as I enjoyed them in the past. A part of my college experience and a sense of community as a Michigan graduate. Maybe you have a different frame of reference. That's fine but I think you don't know or don't understand what you're risking here. I don't want the traditions of CFB compromised by turning it into a semi-pro league which is exactly where I think it is headed.

If you go back to the origins of sport, the Olympics and even before that, these games were about showcasing athletic skills of individuals - most of those skills closely related to the kinds of skills that produced good warriors. Later, in the period of the British Empire, team sports emerged. The fundamental value of these games was their ability to unite groups of people in the enjoyment of ritual spectacle where fans cheered their teams, their colors, their anthems and their star players. They were a community. Sponsorship was a minor part of these games, present, for sure, but very much in the background. That's been turned on its head.

Team sports today, as has been aptly pointed out up thread by others, has become a vehicle to promote products that someone wants us to buy and, in the process, make money for the promoters and the boys that want to sell you the latest shoes .... for $150 a pop. Eliminating the "canard", as you call it, of the student athlete plays directly into the hands of the promoters and the shoe guys.

I'm not for it. I think you're right, the NCAA is a self promoting bunch of wind bags who really don't care at all about the fundamental fabric of college sports that I've spoken of here - the kind of thing that builds community. The risk of taking the word student, out of the phrase, student athlete is that you also risk taking the value of community building as a part of the college experience.

What you're advocating, talent, is the abbrogation of the fabric of college football, at least as I understand and appreciate it.

The "fabric of college football" as you view it, is an illusion. It never really existed. Not in Yost's day, not in Crisler's day, not in Bo's day.

It's been a semi-pro league since before you were born.

[CGVT]

Wonderful discussion over the last day or two here on this thread, everyone! As much as I love the "give-and-take", the fun stuff AND the s*** we sometimes toss around (especially at "enemy" posters) in most of our discussions/threads here, I think it's the conversations like we've been having in this thread over the last couple days that I like best.

I think we've got a pretty good thing going with this forum; it has evolved nicely in our current home as a sub-forum to Deb's Detroit Lions Forum (THANKS, Deb!!!), and I'm happy, in hindsight, that this is the direction we went when Worldcrossing went belly-up. We kept most of the core group of posters that have been with us for a long period of time, some even as far back as the late 90's when many of us first got to know each other on the Freep Forums before we struck out on our own when the Freep kicked all their WX-style forums to the curb. Along the way, while WX was in it's heydey, many other now long-time members joined us. It doesn't hurt, either, that this place is on a stable platform, technically-speaking, instead of crashing repeatedly like WX did.

But we've also been able to pick up some newer posters in the last year or so here, too---several peeked in from Deb's Lions Forum, saw that they liked it, and joined, in turn helping to strengthen our base, while other "newbies" have also found us and joined in.

I still occasionally drop in on the current version of what I used to consider our "sister" forum, the Detroit Tiger's Forum (which also migrated from the Freep to Worldcrossing like we did, but decided to strike out independently on their own when WX died); sad-to-say, that place is now a shell of its former self. For a long time, we shared many members with that Tiger's Forum that, like myself, posted regularly on both places (as a few of us still occasionally do), but for a variety of reasons, that forum is now practically a ghost town.

A couple of us tried to talk the Tigers forum guys into coming here as you did, but they insisted on going to the shitty site that they have now.

I used to read the Tigers W/X forum every day and posted occasionally. I signed up at their new forum but the damn thing is a nightmare to navigate and has lost so many of its posters that I rarely even stop by to read anymore. It's too bad because I really enjoyed the wit and humor of the old Tigers forum.

That said, I am glad that you all are here.

[entropy]

BELLEFONTE, Pa. -- Jerry Sandusky's trial in the Penn State scandal opened in graphic fashion Monday with the first witness testifying that the retired coach molested him in the locker-room showers and in hotels while trying to ensure his silence with gifts and trips to bowl games.

The man, now 28 and dubbed Victim 4 in court papers, left nothing to the imagination as he told the jury about the abuse he said he endured for five years beginning when he was a teenager in the late 1990s.

"I've denied it forever," he testified, looking straight at the prosecutor as Sandusky sat motionless nearby.

Sandusky, 68, faces 52 counts that he sexually abused 10 boys over 15 years. The former assistant football coach has denied the allegations. His arrest last year shamed the university and led to the ouster of beloved Hall of Fame coach Joe Paterno and Penn State's president.

According to the witness, Sandusky tried assaulting him in a hotel bathroom before a bowl banquet in Texas and threatened to send him home when he resisted, warning: "You don't want to go back, do you?"

In opening statements, prosecutor Joseph McGettigan III told the jury that Sandusky was a "predatory pedophile" who methodically used his youth charity, The Second Mile, to zero in on fatherless children or those with unstable home lives, plied them with gifts and took advantage of them sexually.

Sandusky lawyer Joe Amendola countered that the case is flimsy and that some of the accusers apparently intend to sue and have a financial stake in the case -- a preview of the battle to come as the defense tries to undermine the credibility of the young men upon whom the case rests.

According to ABC News, Amendola hinted that Sandusky could testify and explain the motives behind his behavior.

Until Monday, none of the alleged victims had testified publicly, and their identities were shielded. The Associated Press typically doesn't identify people who say they are victims of sex crimes.

Victim 4 spoke calmly and firmly under questioning by the prosecutor and acknowledged he had at first lied to police and even his own attorney about the alleged abuse.

"I don't even want to be involved now, to be honest," he said.

In the car, Sandusky "would put his hand on my leg, basically like I was his girlfriend. ... It freaked me out extremely bad," the man said, extending his arm and pushing it back and forth. "I pushed it away. ... After a little while, it would come right back. That drove me nuts."

The man said he met Sandusky through The Second Mile and that they began showering together in 1997. What began as "soap battles" quickly progressed to oral sex and other contact, the accuser said, adding that he was 90 or 100 pounds and powerless to resist the advances of the much larger man.

According to the witness, Sandusky tried assaulting him in a hotel bathroom before a bowl banquet in Texas and threatened to send him home when he resisted, warning: "You don't want to go back, do you?" Sandusky stopped only when his wife, Dottie, called out from another room, the witness said.

Over the years, the witness said, he never told Sandusky to stop.

"It was never talked about, ever," the man said. "It was basically like whatever happened there never really happened."

A self-described college football fan, the man said he enjoyed the access to Penn State football games and facilities. The man said Sandusky let him wear the No. 11 uniform of LaVar Arrington.

[+] EnlargeJerry Sandusky
AP Photo/Gene J. PuskarJerry Sandusky's trial began Monday with both sides' opening statements focusing on the motives of his alleged victims.

The man testified that Sandusky also took him on trips to bowl games, including the Outback and the Alamo bowls. Sandusky gave him golf clubs, snowboards, drum sets and various Penn State memorabilia, including a watch from the Orange Bowl, the man testified. He said he would wear gift jerseys to school.

The witness said Sandusky occasionally sent him "creepy love letters."

One letter, shown on a video screen in court, was handwritten on Penn State letterhead and signed "Jerry." It read: "I know that I have made my share of mistakes. However I hope that I will be able to say that I cared. There has been love in my heart."

Eventually, as the man got older and acquired a girlfriend, he became "basically sick of what was happening to me" and distanced himself from Sandusky. They had not spoken since 2002 when, in 2010, he took his girlfriend and 3-year-old son to visit the Sanduskys in what he said was an attempt to convince his girlfriend her suspicions about Sandusky were not true.

He said that "backfired" when Sandusky gave him a lot of attention and tried to rub his shoulders.

Under cross-examination by Amendola, the man expressed regret for not coming forward earlier, saying: "I feel if I just said something back then ... I feel responsible for what happened to other victims." He said he had spent years "burying this in the back of my head."

During his opening statement, Amendola said Sandusky's showering with children was innocuous and part of his upbringing.

"In Jerry's culture, growing up in his generation, where he grew up, he's going to tell you it was routine for individuals to get showers together," the lawyer said. "I suspect for those of you who might have been in athletics, it's routine."

Amendola also said that Mike McQueary, the football team assistant who reported seeing Sandusky naked in a shower with a boy in 2001, was mistaken about what he saw.

"We don't think that he lied. What we think is that he saw something and made assumptions," the lawyer told the jury.

Amendola also said that at least six of the accusers have civil lawyers, adding: "These young men had a financial interest in this case and pursuing this case."

[entropy]

By Michael Isikoff, NBC News national investigative correpondent

Updated at 4:02 p.m. ET: Pennsylvania prosecutors are considering criminal charges against former top Penn State University officials for allegedly concealing what they knew about the conduct of former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky, law enforcement told NBC News.

As Sandusky's trial began Monday on 52 counts alleging that he abused 10 boys over 15 years, the sources said investigators had obtained new evidence, including internal university email messages and other documents.

The documents show that former university President Graham Spanier and others discussed whether they were obligated to tell authorities about a 2001 allegation involving a late-night encounter in a Penn State shower room between Sandusky and a young boy, both of whom were naked, the sources said.

The documents allegedly show that university officials even did legal research on whether such conduct might be a crime, but in one email exchange, Spanier and former university Vice President Gary Schultz agreed that it would be "humane to Sandusky" not to inform social services agencies, two sources said.

It wasn't the first time university officials had heard about Sandusky's alleged behavior. Schultz, who headed the campus police at the time, testified to a grand jury that he knew about an alleged separate incident involving Sandusky and a young boy in a shower in 1998. That report was investigated by local authorities but never led to charges.

The documents also indicate that Spanier and former university Athletic Director Tim Curley took a report from former graduate assistant coach Michael McQueary more seriously than they led grand juries investigating the case to believe.

McQueary — who is expected to testify for the prosecution at Sandusky's trial — originally testified to a grand jury that he saw Sandusky in the shower with a young boy in March 2002. But an email revealed Monday indicates that Spanier, Schultz and Curley discussed what McQueary allegedly saw and whether to report it more than a year earlier.

Lawyers for Spanier, who was fired in September, didn't return calls seeking comment.

In a statement, lawyers for Schultz and Curley said "the information confirms that Tim Curley and Gary Schultz conscientiously considered Mike McQueary's reports of observing inappropriate conduct, reported it to the University President Graham Spanier and deliberated about how to responsibly deal with the conduct."

[Tony G]

I still occasionally drop in on the current version of what I used to consider our "sister" forum, the Detroit Tiger's Forum (which also migrated from the Freep to Worldcrossing like we did, but decided to strike out independently on their own when WX died); sad-to-say, that place is now a shell of its former self. For a long time, we shared many members with that Tiger's Forum that, like myself, posted regularly on both places (as a few of us still occasionally do), but for a variety of reasons, that forum is now practically a ghost town.

The chemistry at the old Tiger forum was both good and bad. There are/were some very good posters in there and a few that really drove it in a bad direction in an inbred sort of way IMO. One of the last schisms in it was the politics and other tread deletions. This forum avoids going there altogether. That one couldn't go back once they had crossed the line. C'est la vie.

[entropy]

dsl.. I agree that some of the memories one has of CF have been shaped by time, idealism and mostly, less awarness of what really was going on. That said, I still believe is you look at the past and look at our future, the past will be more about connections to a school, while the future will be about wins. I'm not suggesting wins haven't mattered in the past, but there was also and equally powerful feeling of what made your school special. As traditions erode in favor of advertising, as traditions erode in favor of an event atmospher, as traditions erode in favor of money, I can't see how the emotional bond will be anything but weaker.

A caller to Bill King this morning talked about how he got Florida season tickets when a few years ago there was a 5 year waiting list. As more fans chase winners and more stadiums are filled with corporations, rather than fans, you'll see more of this. Schools will fight to create excitement to get people to fill up the stadiums (not all, but many). And the gimmicks will work.. they have in minor league baseball. Becasue traditions/emotional ties are not being cultivated.. immediate gratification is...

[Hannibal]

Anyways...when people talk of returning to cfb's roots, they don't really mean that. They usually mean a return to the power structure of the 70's. Because that's the era that made them a "fan". Just my observations as someone from the

I'm not sure where you draw this conclusion from. How do you equate "I want the regular season to meant something", "I want college football conferences to be regional entities with intense regional rivalries", and "I want to hear the marching band instead of White Stripes" with "I want a sport where the same teams are in the Top 10 every year?"

[Dr. Strangelove]

Any school that has a 5 year waiting list hasn't raised ticket prices high enough to meet the market equilibrium.

Entropy- You can't put the genie back in the bottle as far as the direction of college football goes. People's perceptions of how "great" and "pure" things were when they were younger is largely fueled by ignorance of all the dirt that was going on behind the scenes. There's so much more transparency now that you can't try to bring back the old idealism, because that idealism was covering up ugly truths that can't be hidden any longer.

So you can switch back to nothing but the fight song and ban mascots from your stadium, but people are still going to be more jaded about sports. Because it's much easier to see how the sausage gets made today than ever before. And that's not going to change.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Yeah...and Woody punched a guy!

[iam416]

I agree with DSL, mostly, re tradition. People will adapt to the changes. It's what the American sports consumer does. Truth be told, they could move the OSU-M game and 50 years from now that would be the only thing the bulk of viewing audience knows.

I don't give much credence to doomsday talk in any discussion. Things will change. Some of us will consider some of the changes for the worse. But CFB will continue to be massively popular, at least as long as football remains popular. Period. So, I don't have a problem with complaining about certain changes, but I do strongly disagree if someone says the changes with which they disagree will kill the sport. That's silly.

[entropy]

I doubt the SEC is any cleaner. In fact, I'd guess they are worse at bending the rules.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Truth be told, they could move the OSU-M game and 50 years from now that would be the only thing the bulk of viewing audience knows.

I have an idea. Let's change osu's colors to maroon and green. And while we're at it, I'd like to see osu's logo changed to Chinese lettering or Japanese Hanko. 50 years from now that's all the current osu fans will know.

What you're saying here, talent, is that tradition, in a general sense, is meaningless. It has no value in preserving a bond in a particular community of football fans or elsewhere for that matter.

I disagree strongly with that view if that is what you are espousing.

[entropy]

ESPN.com colleague Mitch Sherman has a really interesting story today about the costs associated with recruiting in big-time football.

Sherman sifted through budget data from 99 of the 120 FBS schools to see how much teams spent on recruiting in 2010 and 2011. Some of the results were surprising. For example, Ohio State, which finished second nationally in football revenue, spent less on recruiting than Memphis and Army.

Then again, the Buckeyes have traditionally not had to look much outside their own state's borders for prospects, thus avoiding many travel costs.

As Sherman writes, recruiting budgets can account for travel to see prospects, on-campus visits and designing and distributing recruiting packets.

Here's how much the Big Ten schools surveyed spent on recruiting in 2010 and 2011 (Note: information for Northwestern and Penn State is not available because those schools are not subject to state open records laws):

Illinois

2010: $537,773
2011: $545,363

Indiana

2010: $272,625
2011: $270,134

Iowa

2010: $207,117
2011: $307,226

Michigan

2010: $489,412
2011: $577,663

Michigan State

2010: $390,289
2011: $383,448

Minnesota

2010: $615,063
2011: $348,609

Nebraska

2010: $344,471
2011: $478,554

Ohio State

2010: $297,342 2011: $320,938

Purdue

2010: $528,095
2011: $428,805

Wisconsin

2010: $230,227
2011: $204,181

Michigan spent more on recruiting than every other Big Ten school surveyed in 2011, followed by Illinois, which spent more in the two years combined than any other league team. Surprisingly, Minnesota led the way in 2010 under former coach Tim Brewster. The amount spent on recruiting decreased by almost half in 2011, the first year under Jerry Kill. Purdue was also a big spender in 2010. Wisconsin continues to get a lot of bang for its buck in recruiting, spending less on recruiting than every other Big Ten school surveyed yet continuing to churn out top-notch players. Iowa, which has increased its number of early commitments this year, saw a big jump in its recruiting budget from 2010 to 2011.

Big Ten schools still don't spend as much on recruiting as Tennessee, which budgeted nearly $1.5 million in 2011. Since that program recruits coast to coast, it's understandable. Defending national champion Alabama spent $980,000 on recruiting, while Auburn spent $950,000. By contrast, Boise State spent only $71,290 on recruiting in 2010. Yet the Broncos manage to do just fine on the football field.