College Football Rankings

[uc50ic4more]

Originally Posted by Astro14
People sure do care about college football teams...

Some sure do: It's an excellent, wholesome way to spend leisure time. It allows a platform for bonding and for playful rivalry; and encourages the celebration of hard work, resilience, leadership, teamwork and fitness. Sometimes people care enough to start appropriately-titled threads on message boards, which are often soon derailed by Buzzkillingtons who grumble...
Originally Posted by Astro14
Does anyone care about college academic rankings any more?

I am sensing probably not as much as you'd like here **in a thread about college football**.
Originally Posted by Astro14
The WSJ published their rankings yesterday...

Sounds like a great idea for a new thread, hopefully titled something **other than** "College Football Rankings". Maybe several posts into that thread about WSJ's rankings I'll chime in and ask "Hmpf! Doesn't anyone here care about the state of mainstream journalism?!"

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted by uc50ic4more
Originally Posted by Astro14
People sure do care about college football teams...

Some sure do: It's an excellent, wholesome way to spend leisure time. It allows a platform for bonding and for playful rivalry; and encourages the celebration of hard work, resilience, leadership, teamwork and fitness. Sometimes people care enough to start appropriately-titled threads on message boards, which are often soon derailed by Buzzkillingtons who grumble...
Originally Posted by Astro14
Does anyone care about college academic rankings any more?

I am sensing probably not as much as you'd like here **in a thread about college football**.
Originally Posted by Astro14
The WSJ published their rankings yesterday...

Sounds like a great idea for a new thread, hopefully titled something **other than** "College Football Rankings". Maybe several posts into that thread about WSJ's rankings I'll chime in and ask "Hmpf! Doesn't anyone here care about the state of mainstream journalism?!"


Then I think you've missed my point:

College football is entertainment provided by athletes who are exploited (unpaid, often provided a sub-standard education, with small hope of a professional career) by colleges/universities.

College should be about learning and academics, and the amount of attention paid to football played by those athletes contributes to the money machine that exploits athletes.

My point was all about college football.

I'll start the thread on reading comprehension another time...wouldn't want to go off topic...

 

[Vuflanovsky]

Originally Posted by Astro14
Originally Posted by uc50ic4more
Originally Posted by Astro14
People sure do care about college football teams...

Some sure do: It's an excellent, wholesome way to spend leisure time. It allows a platform for bonding and for playful rivalry; and encourages the celebration of hard work, resilience, leadership, teamwork and fitness. Sometimes people care enough to start appropriately-titled threads on message boards, which are often soon derailed by Buzzkillingtons who grumble...
Originally Posted by Astro14
Does anyone care about college academic rankings any more?

I am sensing probably not as much as you'd like here **in a thread about college football**.
Originally Posted by Astro14
The WSJ published their rankings yesterday...

Sounds like a great idea for a new thread, hopefully titled something **other than** "College Football Rankings". Maybe several posts into that thread about WSJ's rankings I'll chime in and ask "Hmpf! Doesn't anyone here care about the state of mainstream journalism?!"


Then I think you've missed my point:

College football is entertainment provided by athletes who are exploited (unpaid, often provided a sub-standard education, with small hope of a professional career) by colleges/universities.

College should be about learning and academics, and the amount of attention paid to football played by those athletes contributes to the money machine that exploits athletes.

My point was all about college football.

I'll start the thread on reading comprehension another time...wouldn't want to go off topic...


I think your definition of college football might be a bit one dimensional in regards to a statement like "nearly every one of the athletes that you're discussing will fail to succeed in professional sports, and in life, and the ugly fact is that those young athletes are being exploited for your entertainment". Is this comparing "football factory" scholarships versus student athletes who play football in smaller conferences and schools with no real aspirations of playing professionally?? I think the level of exploitation involved can vary greatly between all schools....with some of that exploitation being self-induced...so a blanket statement, for example, labelling the UPI Top 10 with a mid-major conference being the same academically with ultimately the same intentions probably doesn't hold water.

I can tell you I know two gentlemen who played college football. One in a smaller conference ( my cousin ) and one who played in the Pac-12 ( a friend ). Both were students first, not exploited to the degree being inferred here, and have successful professional lives that never included dreams of playing in the NFL. Many college football programs have concurrent academic requirements and follow-up during the week that has to be adhered to on a regular basis. Blanket statements make nice septuagenarian "get off my lawn" material on Bitog but I don't think it makes great reality unless you're talking about a football factory school where the head coach gets paid 6M/year and getting a 1.8 GPA along with a rape allegation still allows you to play and everything's swept under the rug.

 

[Astro14]

I've actually watched quite a bit of college football live/at the stadium.

If the athletes are actually getting an education, and have hope for the future, it is great entertainment. I love college sports. I've spent entire weekends in Boston watching the Head of the Charles, for example.


But college football isn't like rowing, and the reality is this: for every kid who plays football at, say, Yale, and has a choice between investment banking, medical school, or the NFL, there are literally thousands caught in the football factory schools...

With less than a 2% chance at the NFL.

And a much lower graduation rate than their peers at the same school.

So, while those schools have large groups of fans/followers, they are quite honestly using those kids, those unpaid "amateur" athletes, to make money for the school.

It's worse for kids of color. They have a far lower graduation rate. And, working the very simple math, a 98% chance that they will never play professional football.

So, no future for them.

https://news.usc.edu/138228/leading-sports-schools-black-athletes-graduation-rates-lower/
https://www.insidehighered.com/news...uate-rates-lower-full-time-student-peers

Still entertained by the "wholesome" spectacle of college football?

I'll watch Harvard vs. Yale (even if it was played in Fenway last year), or Williams vs. Amherst, knowing that those kids all have a bright future.

But for the rest?

The NCAA talks a lot about scholar athletes, and mixes the success of all athletes into the published numbers, so they quite effectively hide the real impact of the football factories on athletes' lives and futures by adding up all the rowers, or fencers, or whatever, at elite schools into the statistics on graduation rates. Sure, the kids rowing at Harvard have over 90% graduation rate and end up doing amazing things beyond sports...but the kids playing football don't have those opportunities...

And the money that fans spend on college football fans the flames of that inequality, and greed, and exploitation of the hopes of young men, in particular, who think they're going to the NFL.

When the odds say that they're not.

 

[bbhero]

Originally Posted by Astro14
I've actually watched quite a bit of college football live/at the stadium.

If the athletes are actually getting an education, and have hope for the future, it is great entertainment. I love college sports. I've spent entire weekends in Boston watching the Head of the Charles, for example.


But college football isn't like rowing, and the reality is this: for every kid who plays football at, say, Yale, and has a choice between investment banking, medical school, or the NFL, there are literally thousands caught in the football factory schools...

With less than a 2% chance at the NFL.

And a much lower graduation rate than their peers at the same school.

So, while those schools have large groups of fans/followers, they are quite honestly using those kids, those unpaid "amateur" athletes, to make money for the school.

It's worse for kids of color. They have a far lower graduation rate. And, working the very simple math, a 98% chance that they will never play professional football.

So, no future for them.

https://news.usc.edu/138228/leading-sports-schools-black-athletes-graduation-rates-lower/
https://www.insidehighered.com/news...uate-rates-lower-full-time-student-peers

Still entertained by the "wholesome" spectacle of college football?

I'll watch Harvard vs. Yale (even if it was played in Fenway last year), or Williams vs. Amherst, knowing that those kids all have a bright future.

But for the rest?

The NCAA talks a lot about scholar athletes, and mixes the success of all athletes into the published numbers, so they quite effectively hide the real impact of the football factories on athletes' lives and futures by adding up all the rowers, or fencers, or whatever, at elite schools into the statistics on graduation rates. Sure, the kids rowing at Harvard have over 90% graduation rate and end up doing amazing things beyond sports...but the kids playing football don't have those opportunities...

And the money that fans spend on college football fans the flames of that inequality, and greed, and exploitation of the hopes of young men, in particular, who think they're going to the NFL.

When the odds say that they're not.



^^^^^↑^^^

I agree with you on parts of this one hundred percent


I read a story where a college football player who got a severely injured knee found out what happens if he was no longer of use to the team.... Bye bye anyone to help that guy with his classes... And he flunked out easily enough. Because the HIGH SCHOOL system FAILED him too.... Because that guy was not even remotely close to the reading and comprehension level needed to actually be in a college at that time.

This is a very, very common phenomenon at many colleges across this country.... And not just the big ones either.

 

[Hall]

Originally Posted by bullwinkle
Originally Posted by hallstevenson
Originally Posted by bullwinkle
Hope they've been drinking that Kool-Aid come Saturday...

If the Buckeyes come out strong and don't get lackadaisical (like they did against FAU), they'll do fine against the Bearcats.
I'm rooting for lackadaisical, myself-that 2nd half against FAU looked like tOSU was really trying to let them back in the game!

Really expected more of a game from UC....

 

[billpace1956]

Hello All! I think I now know who the over rated team is. Michigan!! The way they played yesterday says it all! If Army had a good field goal kicker they would have lost! WOW!! I thought it was App. State all over again! That would have been a MAJOR black eye for the Big Ten to say the least. It was a good thing they did not play OSU yesterday. It would have been ugly. The one team that ALL of college football nobody now wants to play is MARYLAND! I'll bet Texas is glad they are not on the schedule this year!! With them playing so well and all of those really good players they have that Big Ten east is really a beast! The SEC west is the only other division that could be better. Watch out UM,OSU and PSU they are for real!

 

[53' Stude]

Biggest and most overrated teams I see so far: WVU being smashed like they should by Mizzou yesterday and #2. UCLA is way, way overrated losing to a GOOD Cincinnati Bearcats team. I dont care what conference you are in

 

[Al]

Originally Posted by Astro14
, they are quite honestly using those kids, those unpaid "amateur" athletes, to make money for the school.

As they get a couple hundred thousand of benefits in a free education including Stipends now. Cry me a friggin' river.

 

[JohnnyJohnson]

Originally Posted by 53' Stude
Biggest and most overrated teams I see so far: WVU being smashed like they should by Mizzou yesterday and #2. UCLA is way, way overrated losing to a GOOD Cincinnati Bearcats team. I dont care what conference you are in


The problem with a lot of college rankings is they are done by the press so when you get to a big city that has a ton of press they get a lot of votes. One team can be in the top 10 lose a game and completely drop out of the top 20. While at the same time another team loses a game and they don't drop out of the top 10.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted by Al
Originally Posted by Astro14
, they are quite honestly using those kids, those unpaid "amateur" athletes, to make money for the school.

As they get a couple hundred thousand of benefits in a free education including Stipends now. Cry me a friggin' river.


Do they?

When they fail to graduate, those "benefits" are worth zero.

When they only passed the classes with the help of a tutor, and didn't actually learn much while in college, they are unprepared for life after football.

The stipends are a pittance compared with the education, and the future career, they missed while focused on playing.

Even if they're in the fortunate 2% who make it to the NFL, the average career in the NFL is three years.

And when they're done with that?

Uneducated is no way to start out life.

 

[Mr Nice]

Don't forget their body , knees, hips are shot and they are useless after NFL.

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted by billpace1956
Have you not looked at who the other top teams play in their OOC games? The SEC teams play FCS teams!! AND, they even LOSE to them!! WOW! Maybe OSU WILL lose to UM this year. MAYBE!! But, the new coach thing and the new QB WON'T be the reason. OSU DID lose some good players from last season. True that. But, they also have MANY good ones that RETURNED to play this year. The reason they might lose is because the other teams have really good players. I'm sure OSU will beat at least some of the ranked teams they play this year and going forward because they recruit so well. And, last years team had the firing of one of their coaches that had to distract the players. That element is NOT there this year. AND, as I recall didn't you say that OSU was OVERRATED before in a post last year? How did that turn out when those overrated OSU folks beat PSU AND that "great defensive" team from Ann Arbor in a beat down of all time in the history of the series? You are just a hater of OSU. That is your right to be that way. But, you will be called out. OSU is NOT as good as Clemson or Alabama. They should be glad they did not have to play them last year with their bad defense they had! I love all the teams in college football. I would LOVE to see UM win the college playoff! Or, PSU also. Do I think that will happen? Heck no! But, that is why they play the games. I think that Alabama has the best chance this year. But, I won't hate on them or ANY other team. Thank You, Bill


OSU is overrated every year, and it's because they're a ratings darling...

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted by billpace1956
Hello All! I think I now know who the over rated team is. Michigan!! The way they played yesterday says it all! If Army had a good field goal kicker they would have lost! WOW!! I thought it was App. State all over again! That would have been a MAJOR black eye for the Big Ten to say the least. It was a good thing they did not play OSU yesterday. It would have been ugly. The one team that ALL of college football nobody now wants to play is MARYLAND! I'll bet Texas is glad they are not on the schedule this year!! With them playing so well and all of those really good players they have that Big Ten east is really a beast! The SEC west is the only other division that could be better. Watch out UM,OSU and PSU they are for real!


Michigan is getting worse under Harbaugh, not better, and they should've lost the Army game...

 

[Vuflanovsky]

Originally Posted by Astro14
Originally Posted by Al
Originally Posted by Astro14
, they are quite honestly using those kids, those unpaid "amateur" athletes, to make money for the school.

As they get a couple hundred thousand of benefits in a free education including Stipends now. Cry me a friggin' river.


Do they?

When they fail to graduate, those "benefits" are worth zero.

When they only passed the classes with the help of a tutor, and didn't actually learn much while in college, they are unprepared for life after football.

The stipends are a pittance compared with the education, and the future career, they missed while focused on playing.

Even if they're in the fortunate 2% who make it to the NFL, the average career in the NFL is three years.

And when they're done with that?

Uneducated is no way to start out life.


The reality is that if someone's worldview of college football is nothing but highly recruited elite athletes from football factory schools lacking academic skills, then a single hammer can double as a nice soapbox. The actual reality is that it varies tremendously with some schools with relatively high graduation rates for it's football teams and others not. If I want to lump everything into a box of failing to graduate, not being able to pass classes without intense tutoring and support, and 98% of those who participate in college football somehow not graduating and failing out of the gate, then I don't think it's going to represent the empirical reality.

If Alabama has poor graduation rates, does much higher LSU and Vanderbilt football graduation rates represent an anomaly?? more serious academics?? better quality students?? How could this be when all SEC football teams are academic failures?? College football is college football, right?? How do high graduation rate schools like Notre Dame, Stanford, and Northwestern compare with a lesser academic school like Boise State which also has high football graduation rates. How many mid-major conferences football programs approximate the graduation rates of the top 20% of the specific GSR metric the NCAA uses to track this issue?? While I'd never suggest that there aren't football schools with low graduation rates, it seems like lumping all of college football into a bin of academic failure probably represents more of a soapbox POV than what actually goes on.

 

[Astro14]

I lumped nothing together that did not belong together. I distinguished between schools.

I'm aware of the academic opportunity presents to players, but I question how many actually benefit from it. Clearly, failing to graduate represents a failure to capitalize on that opportunity.

The points remain:

Some schools make BIG money on football.

Football players, across ALL schools, graduate at lower rates than non-players.

That statistic is worse for athletes of color.

When schools like Harvard have the same graduation rate for player and non-players, the above statistic is clearly made up at a different academic tier.

And it's those players who are being exploited to make money for the school.

Not every player is exploited, but enough are that it sickens me.


For the record, I was a college athlete. It affected my grades.

But I wasn't ever under the delusion that a pro sports job was waiting for me...not a lot of professional rowing opportunities exist...

 

[billpace1956]

Rating darlings for OSU? Really? Let us look at where OSU ended up in the end of year rankings since Urban Meyer was there. 2012, #3. Undefeated! How can a team that is undefeated be overrated? 2013, #12 they had 2 losses that year. I would say that was spot on. 2014 #1. National Champions! How could they be overrated as the National Champions? 2015, #4 with 1 loss. Here again spot on. 2016, #6 with 2 losses. Spot on once more. 2017, #5 with 2 losses. Spot on. 2018, # 3 with 1 loss. Spot on as Clemson and Alabama were better for sure. Also in that time frame they had 2 times where they won over 20 games in a row! They now have 52 former players that are in the NFL. Only Alabama has more. Are those players overrated also? You of course have they right to your opinion. BUT, the FACTS speak a different tune! As far as the Michigan coach goes, he is BETTER (by far) over the 2 coaches that coached there before he came there. And only Ohio State is better. And, if Michigan can cut down their turnovers going forward, they can still win the Big Ten and go to the playoff. Urban Meyer says they have to stay the course on their new offense and he really likes the QB named Dylan McCaffrey. He is much more suited for the spread offense and the RPO that system uses. AND remember this, in 2016 Michigan had the better team, but bad QB play ( 3 turnovers) killed their chances of winning. Now Michigan has 3 real good QB's. If OSU's QB goes down, they are sunk. Urban Meyer said there is a BIG dropoff in QB play for OSU after Justin Fields. Injuries happen. Just like in 2017 for Michigan. If their QB (Peters) does not get hurt they might very well have beaten OSU. And, that same year OSU's QB got hurt in the Michigan game and in comes Dwayne Haskins and he has a great game and OSU wins. If JT Barret stayed in the game, I don't know if OSU wins or not as JT was not a great passer. Thank You, Bill

 

[02SE]

 

[Astro14]

On that we agree!

Watching a college game in person is fun because I am doing it with family/classmates....it's a social event...

But football on TV vs. riding?

Shooting?

Or any other personal activity like skiing, kayaking, woodworking or even working on my car?

Yeah...not even a question...

 

[grampi]

OSU is overrated because of their ridiculously easy schedule. They should go 12-0 every year with their cream puff schedule. What happens to them almost every time they end up in the play-offs tells you they're overrated...