View Single Post
  #6  
Old November 8th 11, 08:09 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
yirgster
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 130
Default OT - College Football

I assume there is a rule about having to complete x downs before
you can attempt a FG?


No, but there's no point to kicking a FG on any down but 4th,
unless you are in regulation time and worried about the clock
running out. Before 4th down you can try to get a 1st and
prolong the drive.


It's not uncommon for a team to kick the winning field goal before 4th down in a game ending situation. This is if they are quite close to the goal line and the field goal is considered a "chip shot." The reasoning is a fumble on the earlier downs (it's been known to happen) and some mistake on the 4th down such as a bad snap from the center or the holder doesn't place the ball well, etc. If you kick on say 3rd down now you would have another opportunity. If this happened on 4th down, or you lost a fumble on an earlier down, you are SOL when you could've won the game with a gimme field goal.

Didn't LSU kick the winning field goal on third down? I thought they tried one run (off tackle?) to the left, and then a 2nd run to the right the purpose of which was to more center the ball wrt the goal posts, not really intended to gain yardage at all. The guy seemed to run pretty much parallel to the line and not very much forward and just about gave himself up, i.e., no fumble.

* They seem to play games on an almost arbitrary basis - much was made
of this being the top two ranked teams meeting, but in other sports they
would meet every year. *From what I recall about last year's ESPN
America listings (when I wasn't watching college games), just about
everybody competes in a bowl game.


Teams can play up to 12 games a year and it takes 6 wins against FBS opponents (the top division) to qualify for a bowl.

So a huge # of teams qualify and it's become a big deal even though most of these bowl games are worthless and even cost the schools more than they take in because of their expenses including being responsible for selling a LARGE # of tickets at their over inflated face value

There are no playoffs because (a) there haven't been and
tradition is powerful, (b) the prolongation of the college football
season would further expose the NCAA's self serving fiction
that athletes are students and amateurs.


The bowls are run outside of the NCAA. I certainly agree with FB's characterization of the NCAA's self-serving fiction.

The BCS bowls feel they stand to lose a lot of money (though I don't see why if they host the playoffs) and power (true) and they more than lavishly wine and dine and junket university officials. In fact the Fiesta Bowl in Arizona was accused of violating tax law--which it did--by contributing to political campaigns, trying to launder the contributions by pressuring, uh, I mean making gentle suggestions to, employees to make the contributions. The Rose Bowl, in California, with its famous pre-game parade, seems a lone exception to this.

The universities are afraid, for no rational reason that I can see, that somehow the bowl games will disappear (why would they?) and they would lose $$$ and also that the conference season will be cheapened by having a playoff. This too comes down, as I see it, to a money. Less interest, less TV revenue. The previous president of the NCAA, Myles Brand, outright stated the bowls were all about money.) It seems to me a playoff would generate huge amounts of $$$$ more and even more craziness.

the new system [the BCS, for deciding the national champion] replaces this
by irritating a large percentage of fans every year.


Absolutely. Even Obama, a big time basketball fan, has asked why this is the only collegiate sport without a playoff (and the lower level FCS schools do have a playoff!) and the justice department is or was actually looking into it, although it's pretty dubious, my opinion, that anything will come of it.

Make no mistake, millions and millions of dollars are involved. The state of Utah is suing the BCS (bowl championship series--it's not run by the NCAA) on the basis that it unfairly excludes schools from a non-qualifying conference (there are only 6 qualifying conferences) and thus unfairly denies them increased revenue. Since some of these are state schools, i.e., governmental and public entities and in fact all schools of any size receive incredible government funding and tax breaks... Well, you get the picture.

FBS (upper tier) football completely runs college sports. It's become obvious beyond obvious the last couple of years with rampant conference realignment, which used to be fairly rare, where a school leaves one conference for another. The status of other sports at the schools is irrelevant, even those with championship and much more prestigious basketball programs than their football ones. It's all about the $$$$ TV revenues.

TCU (Texas Christian University) was set to join the Big East conference (right, I forgot, Texas is in the east) until it got a better deal. Colorado and Utah joined the Pac (i.e, Pacific) 10 now 12 last year, though they don't seem to be exactly abutting the Pacific. Neither did the arizona schools when they joined, years before though.

The Pac 10 (now 12) fired its hidebound commissioner two years ago who evinced zero understanding of what was going on and brought in the man who was in charge of the women's pro tennis tour to turn things around. In May it signed a 13 year TV deal with ESPN and Fox worth more than $225 million per year.

The whole thing, imo, is truly disgusting and a perversion of what I consider core values of a university or college which just happen to include teaching and education and research. The football coach can make millions while professors earn, let us say, exponentially less. I much prefer the club system of football (soccer) that exists in Europe. At least, in my slight understanding of it. It's hard to maintain values when so many dollars are at stake. I doubt I could.
Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home