Deep Thoughts: Football and the internet
I made another 'Deep Thoughts' post a while back that went pretty well, and had the intention of posting one about once a month. I've been thinking about the effect the internet had had on college football since its proliferation. There are so many dynamics that the internet has changed in regards to football. Do you think it has been a mostly positive impact, or mostly negative impact?
Points to consider:
1. High school athletes receive more exposure, which may have lead to parody in all but the top schools. Are high school athletes with talent more likely to be recognized, especially when they come from places that are not traditional hotspots?
2. College athletes are now under a very high powered microscope. They can't eat a salad these days without it being posted on Twitter. The general opinion is that college athletes have had an alarming rate of stupid ideas, but is this just the microscope speaking?
3. College coaches and adminstrators are not immune to fans actions and reactions. Ultimately, we are the consumers of their product. We can pressure them into making decisions. Whether it be scholarship long snappers or punishments for starting RBs, what level of control do fans have by vocalizing our displeasure through email, forums, blogs, etc?
4. NCAA enforcement has become somewhat of a joke. Is this a loosening of policies or a product of the information age?
August 28th, 2012 at 11:01 AM ^
High school athletes receive more exposure, which may have lead to parody in all but the top schools.
Disagree. There isn't nearly enough satire in the recruiting world.
August 28th, 2012 at 11:13 AM ^
For those that still don't see the error and are becoming increasingly confused, it's because the word should be parity here.
August 28th, 2012 at 11:25 AM ^
I have a pretty well rounded grasp on the Inglish language, and I should have known that. I feel a deep shame, as I'm usually on your side of this little exchange. I won't change it as a reminder to myself to exercise humility.
August 28th, 2012 at 11:27 AM ^
Inglish? Are you parodying yourself?
August 28th, 2012 at 11:38 AM ^
I parity myself alot.
August 28th, 2012 at 4:16 PM ^
August 28th, 2012 at 5:48 PM ^
August 28th, 2012 at 11:02 AM ^
disagrees with Number 4.
I don't think the internet has changed college football at all. Along with almost everything, all the internet has done is make people think they know more about something than they do. Look at me, I know nothing about what the internet has done or not done to college football, but since I am on the internet I am rendering an opinion.
Wow, that was.... deep.
August 28th, 2012 at 11:06 AM ^
Can we postpone the deep thoughts for later in the day? My coffee hasn't kicked in yet.
August 28th, 2012 at 11:10 AM ^
The word is parity.
Edit: To partially answer your question I think the Internet has had a negative impact on some aspects of college life. Kids have always been idiots for the most part. That came out harsher than intended but you get the idea. With the Internet now, though they can be idiotic in a lot more ways and it's a hell of a lot more public.
August 28th, 2012 at 11:13 AM ^
Internets can be parroty.
August 28th, 2012 at 1:19 PM ^
1. Yes
2. Kids have always (and will continue) to do stupid things. Many never outgrow it.
3. What level of influence? Some, it depends 100% on the situation & the parties involved.
Public outcry can lead to change, but only if the powers that be are listening. The internet has made it easier for fans to congregate & communicate amongst themselves, so that is in itself an important factor.
4. I don't think the NCAA realizes that there IS an internet.
August 28th, 2012 at 11:07 AM ^
My biggest concern regarding football and the internet is whether MGoBlog will be accessible on Saturday night. I hope the promised behind the scene fixes took place, because otherwise...
August 28th, 2012 at 11:12 AM ^
The fact that video is so much easier leads to the Fort Hoke mentality. I have to believe that one of the huge benefits of the indoor fieldhouse is the complete privacy from prying eyes.
The bigger difference with the internet is for the fan. I wasn't nearly as obsessed with football while a student. A good part of the reason is there was limited information available.
The other big change is cable and the ability to watch all the games in the NFL, along with fantasy leagues. I know there are a bunch of guys who compulsively check all the scores and games all day long on Sunday. I pretty much limit my fandom to Michigan, and a little bit the Chicago Bears. There Is no way I have the time or energy to follow football the way some people do. Being around my son's football team, I realize that there are many people who live, sleep, breath, football. Actually, I guess Brian is one of them. Just look at the schedule Ace is keeping watching HS game swith Michigan recruits. I'm just not that committed, but modern media makes it possible for people to follow all the games.
August 28th, 2012 at 11:18 AM ^
I'd answer none. I would think that even someone connected like Brian could write an article per day criticizing Hoke (or Red or Beilein or whoever) and have it get the 50,000 page views or whatever a Brian article averages, and if Hoke is winning 8-9-10-11+ games per year and keeping grades up and off field headlines down, Brandon, Hoke or the program won't change one thing they're doing.
Obviously it gets more complicated if we're talking about a post-2010 type deal, but even then I think if the guys in charge have the backing of the suiteholders/guys with names on buildings and a vote of confidence from Brandon, nothing gets done, no matter how much the Freep and ESPN and MGoBlog writes on the topic.
August 28th, 2012 at 12:55 PM ^
August 28th, 2012 at 11:34 AM ^
Well first off, I would like to thank Jack Handy for this thread.
I guess, I think that the new information age has done to college football what it has done to most things, simply greater amounts of detailed information is available for consumption. We(this board) over-analyze just about ever stat there is, we look for information in every data field there is. We then like to make all kinds of speculation about said data. It is fun sometimes, other times it makes us think we would be better off if it was 1970 and we had no more info than what the coach let us have. Then we would simply root for Michigan on Saturday and be done with it.
<shrugs> You take the good with the bad, it is what it is.
Go Blue.
August 28th, 2012 at 11:39 AM ^
In regards to the first point, it seems as if the Internet has made recruiting and the recruiting process much more transparent than it ever was before. Due to the Internet and the proliferation of film available on high school athletes, a certain amount of disintermediation has taken place in the process and you can easily check up on players at schools that you may not have even considered a couple decades ago (indeed, you may not have heard of them). You can read comments from other people doing the same thing, and those comments might lead you to schools which are not traditional hotbeds of talent. You may even find the guy you're looking for there to boot. I would say that the Internet has helped players from offbeat places get looks that they may not have received otherwise.
As for fans having some control over coaches and administrators, the Internet has made it extremely easy for fans to voice their adulation / outrage at various decisions, but ultimately, I think fans have as much control as a coach or athletic department will allow. I would think that, in most cases, that would be "ultimately none". Now, do they listen? Certainly. The Internet, I am sure, has made athletic departments more attune to their fanbase. I don't doubt that popular displeasure regarding some proposal would weight into its ultimate adaptation, but the decisions are still ultimately made based on the interests of the department or school, and those may or may not coincide with the interests of the fans.
August 28th, 2012 at 11:47 AM ^
You're correct, they MAY not have any impact. But ask yourself, would we have a mascot now without the internet? Would the band be going to Texas? Not everything is controlled by the fans, but I'm sure that administrators are much more cognizant of popular opinion.
August 28th, 2012 at 12:18 PM ^
The school quickly learned people's thoughts about the halo in the pre-internet days, so I doubt the internet changes the public's level of influence. The internet just allows for these things to be discussed before anyone may even be thinking of implementing them.
In the old days, we would have just gotten a mascot or wondered "Where is the band?" after the fact and the fallout would commence. Now the idea can be floated out there or a rumor can just pop up out of nowhere and the athletic department can get a quick tally of potential fan reaction.
August 28th, 2012 at 5:57 PM ^
And although I don't have more of them off the top of my head, let's not forget that in the olden times people did have paper and would write letters. Maybe it's just me, but I think it would be much eaiser to delete a thousand emails than to get a thousand letters off my desk.
Telephones were also used and were especially effective in the era before computerized answering services. When real humans were actually answering the lines and if they were ringing non-stop, you could bet that form of public outcry was taken into account.
August 28th, 2012 at 11:54 AM ^
I think it should be addressed on two different levels. For recruits still in high school the parents should set the standard for what they allow their kids to do. Does this country not work like that anymore? When I was in HS I didn't have a cell phone, but with that being said my younger brother got one when he was 14 - but my parents are the ones that were responsible for this decision. Obviously parents are going to have a HUGE range of opinions on this and it seems to be a given now that even kids in HS NEED cell phones. I read something recently that a recruit had said about people calling him constantly to try and get more information from him and all taht I thought was "wow I'd probably be inclined to turn off my cell phone."
As far as once they get to college I've always kind of thought that athletes getting in trouble in college gets WAY overblown. Obviously some of the issues are serious and I'm certainly not trying to downplay the seriousness of a DUI ... but if you take 100 college athletes and 100 college non-athletes and compare the number that get in trouble with the law, I would be pretty shocked if the numbers weren't comparable (how many friends did you know that got MIPs?). For twitter - the players can control that. I've never been in a position to have that much attention focused on me and maybe it is overwhelming to the point that you can't get enough, but if you choose to keep your life private, you can do it. Its all a matter of how much you are willing to share.
August 28th, 2012 at 12:29 PM ^
NCAA enforcement is way stricter than it has ever been. Penn State just got hammered for stuff that wasn't even really related to football. USC got hammered because one guy took money from a dude who wanted to be his agent when he left school. Kelvin Sampson is out of work in part because of phone calls. The "rogue programs" in college football are the ones employing tactics like trying to nudge non-productive players out the door to sign new guys or, God forbid, stretching too much.
If you read a book like "Junction Boys" you'll see a much different world (Bryant walked in the door at A&M, threw a hat on the table, and basically said "Pony up so we can buy better players"). SMU was blatantly paying players and it took two swipes for the NCAA to do anything about it. Now cars and cash provided by school officials have been replaced with kids trading gear for free tats. You also have much more scrutiny from outside sources. It took a federal investigation for Michigan to get into any trouble for the Ed Martin shenanigans (about as blatant as cheating can get), yet now you have websites like Yahoo doing their own digging and exposing things that the NCAA (which can't really investigate on its own) can use.
The NCAA is still capricious and arbitrary, but the level of enforcement/scrutiny is at an all-time high, and the information age you mention does have a lot to do with it.
August 28th, 2012 at 1:02 PM ^
As the internet, with respect to college football, is an extension of the media, and as the media does have an effect on college football, the question really boils down to: does the media have a positive or negative impact on college football? The answer to that depends on your point of view, and what you value as good or bad. Media attention has turned college football into a multi billion dollar industry. Money = power, and power is neither good nor bad..... but human nature seems to go toward corruption when large amounts of that stuff are involved. Good things happen too....but at the risk of sounding like old farts who say the world is worse now than it used to be.... well, college football seems worse now than it used to be. I know "seems" is a key word there, but on a gut level I bet a lot of us feel like that.
August 28th, 2012 at 1:36 PM ^
When we play Alabama on Saturday, they will have a few black guys on their team (wouldn't have been the case as recently as 1970).
Those of us not making the trip to Dallas this weekend will be able to choose between 40-50 college football games to watch on TV and online this weekend. The over 40 crowd can remember a time when that number was, what, 2? Maybe 3? In the days of Crisler and Yost you had to be there to see it happen.
When the games are finished, we can stay up all night watching highlights from every game in the country on multiple channels, rather than hoping to hear the score mentioned on a 5 minute nightly news segment or read about it in the paper the next morning.
If a Big Ten team goes undefeated, they will have an opportunity to play to be the undisuted national champion, unlike in 1994 when PSU had to play a mediocre Oregon team or in 1997 when Michigan played Wazzu instead of Nebraska. Same goes for Pac 10 schools like ASU in 1998 who played one-loss OSU while undefeated FSU played a rematch against UF.
Notre Dame stinks at football now (this was not the case for much of their history).
So, you see, it certainly isn't all bad and I'd argue there's a lot more good. Like you said though, we tend to dwell on the negative and make it newsworthy.
August 28th, 2012 at 1:32 PM ^
technology has changed the game. In our youth football, there is a group of guys that go to each league game, digital video it, and have CDs ready for purchase for $10 the next day for coaches and parents. Their next step is web access to these games.
We can scout each team on Monday. This was inconceivable just a few years ago.
I remember the "rudy" movie and seeing the coach flipping old movie reels back and forth.
August 28th, 2012 at 2:26 PM ^
I think in general the internet has changed the game, and made the job of the head coach significantly tougher. Instead of simply being able to handle things "in house" so to speak, the public gets to make a snap judgment about what should happen when athletes inevitably mess up. The instant they so much as gets a parking ticket, it's on twitter, message boards, etc. It seems today that the only thing we don't know is what happens behind closed doors, at practices and team meetings, and as such the public is led on to speculate endlessly on what should happen based on limited information.
August 28th, 2012 at 4:48 PM ^
Deep Thoughts
by Jack Handy
If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason.
August 28th, 2012 at 5:43 PM ^
August 28th, 2012 at 6:08 PM ^
...I have gotten to the point where I'm no longer wondering if the increased exposure via technology is lessening my enjoyment because I'm certain that it has. I really would go back to the days of most games being un-televised.
But since you can't put the genie back in the bottle, the real question is how do I, personally, deal with what might be an addiction? Yeah, obviously get off mgoblog. Unfortunately, it's easier said than done.
August 28th, 2012 at 6:47 PM ^
Sort of, anyway. I don't know if I'd completely go back, but the lost productivity from me being on this (and other) websites is pretty staggering to consider.
August 28th, 2012 at 11:48 PM ^
You lost me at parody.