Why the NFL can't hold a flame to college Football

Submitted by lunchboxthegoat on
Disclaimer

    I'm going to preface my case for why NFL football can never hold a flame to college football by saying that it is entirely possible my perception is warped. I grew up in/near Detroit. The Lions have been god awful the vast majority of my life. Michigan has been bad for one year of my life. This surely skews my fandom of NFL football versus NCAA football. I haven't paid much attention to the Lions for five years now since following Art Regner's lead and being "Lions free."

    Also: I don't necessarily think I'm going to convince anyone of my position, nor do I want to necessarily. I just feel the need to explain why the NFL is a relative bore as compared to college football.

Rationale

    There are probably dozens of reasons I could come up with if I sat here and just thought and thought and thought about this and just typed them as they came to me. However, what follows are the main thoughts that have lived with me for several years now.

1. The NFL offenses/defenses are just boring, anymore.

    Maybe I was spoiled and turned off of the pro-set offense and the 4-3/3-4 offense and defense combinations by the Carr/DeBord era but I have trouble watching NFL games anymore because of the sheer boredom. There are three types of offense (or so it seems in the NFL) the power run game , the spread pass game, the west coast offense. The most innovation that has come out of the NFL in the past decade is the wildcat and the implementation of the spread offense in the passing attack (see NE Patriots). I theorize this is the case because of the fear of losing one's job and/or the relative level field between all the different teams' talent so that you don't have to make up for your roster of 2 and 3 star talent versus mostly 5 stars. Nothing was more exciting to me than watching a WVU game when RichRod was there, or watching Florida or Oklahoma do their thing or Nevada and the pistol or GaTech and the triple option resurgence. coaches are willing to mix things up in college either due to necessity or lack of prsssure or whatever it may be. It makes the games a lot more entertaining... it even makes picking games/previewing games more interesting...there are infinitely more matchups in terms of offensive styles vs. defensive styles to account for in college than the pros and its fun to see which way it will all shake out.

2. The traditions. The NFL has traditions, sure. But it seems like so many of them are just soulless and more a fun novelty than an actual carried on legacy attached to a program or team.

3. Rivalries. The NFL has rivalries, sure.... Denver and Oakland, Green Bay and Chicago, Indianapolis and New England, the NFC East. But the rivalries feel so muted and more novelty than reality when you take into account the college game. M v. MSU, M v. ND, M v. OSU, OU vs. Texas, Florida vs. Florida State, Miami (that Miami) vs. Florida State, etc. these are games that we live and die by, these are games that some people remember forever. There's so much more history with these collegiate programs and their rivalries than the NFL ones.

4. No Fun League. Some people think some of the things players do (see: Ochocinco) are over the top and should not be a part of the game. Some of his and TOs antics I would agree, don't belong in the sport. That's not to say that celebration or the natural release of emotion after a huge play or a huge victory doesn't belong. I see there being a difference between MANY NFL players and the celebrations that occur in college. The NFL celebrations seem to calculated and designed and directed at creating controversy and attention rather than just being elated at the fact that you scored or that you're helping your team's cause. The NFL takes itself very seriously and a lot of that kills the joy in it for me. The contract nonsense of holdouts and trade demands etc is just ridiculous. There's no loyalty or pride (in the good sense) from either the management/coaches or the players.

Conclusion

    I still watch NFL football a lot of the time. I will not go so far as to say that I dislike it. However, largely I watch it for fantasy football. I really enjoy that aspect of it. I feel no attachment to any NFL team, probably because of the Lions awfulness for my entire life. I just watch as a bystander in every NFL game with no vested interest. My fantasy team is the team I root for...That's a lot less satisfying than cheering U of M on Saturdays. Or listening to the radio when I'm at work and not wanting to miss a moment of it. and rushing home after work on Saturdays to watch my DVR to see exactly how everything went down. I'm not sure there's anything the NFL could do to persuade me back to their side of the argument. College football's product is better, its more fun to watch, it has more creativity, more passion, and more risk taking than the NFL has had for decades. Saturdays are the holy days to me. (and no, I'm not a jew)
football
NFL
ncca
u of m
lions suck
no fun league.

Comments

ShockFX

September 29th, 2009 at 11:15 AM ^

Ah hahahahahaha. I opened this thread solely to see dex's response, and he doesn't disappoint by being the first and only response so far.

Joined: 07/16/2008

MGoPoints: 4073

bouje

September 29th, 2009 at 11:16 AM ^

There I said it. In all serious-ness though it's completely subjective and the argument is pretty stupid. I personally like college sports more than any of their pro counter-parts. Mostly because it's not about the money... unless... Nope I won't even say it!

Joined: 09/30/2008

MGoPoints: 4705

lunchboxthegoat

September 29th, 2009 at 11:17 AM ^

Also: I don't necessarily think I'm going to convince anyone of my position, nor do I want to necessarily. I just feel the need to explain why the NFL is a relative bore as compared to college football. Yes. I think I realized that.

Joined: 10/07/2008

MGoPoints: 4865

wolverine1987

September 29th, 2009 at 12:39 PM ^

Nothing wrong with posting your opinion, and I agree, though not for the reason you stated (other than college traditions). For me the last couple years the gulf is widening, and I'd rather watch a good college game than NFL anytime. In fact, if in a hypothetical world the BCS title game and the Super Bowl were on at the same time, I'd watch the BCS game.

Joined: 07/07/2008

MGoPoints: 18065

NoNon

September 29th, 2009 at 11:34 AM ^

definitely enjoy college football more, it's all pretty subjective in terms of what you appreciate more and a lot of it depends on where you grew up and what you grew up watching. I lived in Battle Creek/Toledo area growing up, and especially in the Toledo area, it's all college football. I mean, seriously who are those people in those areas going to cheer for harder? The Lions? The Browns? It's all Ohio State or Michigan. It's hard to get pumped up for NFL when your team blows. But on the other side of the spectrum, I've lived in Chicago for four years and it's all about the Bears there and that makes perfect sense too. Think about it, who are they going to cheer for? Northwestern? Illinois? Just as people from LA prefer the Trojans, people from Minneapolis favor the Vikings, Alabamians like Bama or Auburn and folks from Indy care about the Colts, geographical factors definitely affect what level of football you prefer, which is already a pretty subjective opinion anyway.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 464

Topher

September 29th, 2009 at 11:44 AM ^

"The most innovation that has come out of the NFL in the past decade is the wildcat and the implementation of the spread offense in the passing attack (see NE Patriots)." I totally agree with your premise, but you aren't even going far enough. The NFL "innovated" the "Wildcat" (a modern single wing) by boilerplate copying it from Arkansas who had been running it for two years; Arkansas had really just taken to fruition the (non-veer) mobile-quarterback schemes that had been creeping into the college game since the late 90's, but the NFL wanted nothing to do with it until the then-moribund Dolphins smoked New England one week and then the NFL pretended it invented it. The NFL likewise "innovated" the spread passing game from the principles of the run and shoot and air-raid (both of which we are told "won't work in the NFL") and other successful packages. Then we get into the debate of what is innovation and what is just tuning your scheme to the personnel by adopting the right pieces of what's been done. FWIW, I think the Colts' passing game is something that can't be done at the college level because the accumulation of talent and the longevity (also the holding and PI rules give them a huge advantage vis a vis the NCAA, an unspoken tilting of the playing field to the offense).

Joined: 07/05/2008

MGoPoints: 742

dex

September 29th, 2009 at 1:22 PM ^

How are you going to gauge the "last ten years"? Are you telling me that Belichick, the Ryans, Dungy, Martz, none of these guys have done anything "innovative"? Or that you just haven't personally noticed it? It took a while to really see the widespread influence of Walsh - compare his coaching tree in 1989 to 1999.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 1934

bigmc6000

September 29th, 2009 at 11:48 AM ^

Aside from Brett Favre's amazing finish last week there is no way the NFL even comes close to level of insanity at the end of the game. It seems as those once you get to about 1 min left the game is virtually over because of the idiotic time rules whereas in College 1 min can last, say, as many as 6, 7 or even 8 plays where in the NFL it's like 4. There's also the OT rules which give a big advantage to CFB. I'm not saying that the game or the players or the rivalries are any better or worse but I'd say both NFL and CFB fans alike can agree that NFL games would be far more exciting if at the 2 min mark they adopted the CFB clock rules and they did the CFB OT (might run into more resistance on that one tho). EDIT: I don't know where you'd get the stats but I'd bet a pretty hefty amount of money that there have been more sub 2-min game winning drives in CFB than in the NFL and the greater the score differential (0-3, 4-8, 9-16) the less likely an NFL team is to come back and tie/win.

Joined: 01/12/2009

MGoPoints: 1957

Topher

September 29th, 2009 at 1:34 PM ^

"That's because the players are better, making it harder to come back, and they don't have the asinine "stop the clock on a first down" rule." That argument doesn't make any sense. The offensive players are better, too; also they have the advantage of rules that heavily favor the offense. I will give the modern NFL some props, though - it's the best employer for placekickers in the history of the game. However, I don't enjoy watching soccer, so I usually turn it off when an NFL game becomes a field goal fest.

Joined: 07/05/2008

MGoPoints: 742

bigmc6000

September 29th, 2009 at 1:35 PM ^

Are also better so, 40 skill vs 40 skill is the same talent differential as 80 skill vs 80 skill. Also, why should the clock run while a bunch of fat, out of shape guys figure out where to spot the ball and then run out to place it? You're taking the fate of the game out of the players hands and putting it into the conditioning of the refs.

Joined: 01/12/2009

MGoPoints: 1957

mpharmd98

September 29th, 2009 at 3:29 PM ^

Why would you not want more football? The NFL rules on timing seem designed to shorten the game by cutting out the actual football. Maybe the NFL could cut the run time of games by getting rid of the - score - TV timeout - KO - TV timeout - instead of actually taking away football plays...

Joined: 09/29/2008

MGoPoints: 35

Keeeeurt

September 29th, 2009 at 12:07 PM ^

I agree with some of the stuff that T.O. mainly and OchoCinco but a lot of Chad's stuff is harmless. Putting the football with a pylon, riverdancing, wiping the balls butt, I mean come on that stuff is just fun. He's not taunting the other team, he's just having fun. Who is it hurting???? No one, thats who.

Joined: 09/04/2009

MGoPoints: 3647

markusr2007

September 29th, 2009 at 12:10 PM ^

The NFL has no variety. The offenses are all the same. Every single one of them. The same running plays, the same pass plays. The same offensive sets. Offensive excitement in the NFL comes along rarely, when some dummy OC calls a.....wait for it...flea-flicker pass play! And the NFL fans go Ooooooh! Aaaaaaah! The only thing about the NFL that I find incredibly fun to watch might be the defensive lineman, when they off the heads of overpaid and overhyped quarterbacks from time to time. That's entertainment. The NFL has a huge following, boatloads of cash, but absolutely positively no creativity or ingenuity. It's completely and totally predictable. There's no motivation from pride, because whether your 12-2 or 0-16, you get paid. This is where college football comes in. There's pride. There's attitude. There's regionalism. And there's creativity. Plus there's the law of "any given Saturday" where even the mightiest can be totally embarrassed and destroyed and fans feel it for months. That will never ever be the case in the NFL to the same degree as college football.

Joined: 10/21/2008

MGoPoints: 19372

lunchboxthegoat

September 29th, 2009 at 12:39 PM ^

The NFL has a built in excuse that every single team should be competitive every year due to the salary cap and revenue sharing so there's not much in terms of "upsets." week in-week out. Did anyone bat any eye that the pitiful Cincinnati Bungles beat the Steelers this past week? In college you still get the USF beats Miami or Washington beats USC or even some of the horrible stuff that we've been through because its not a level field. Its getting there, I can't wait for what college football will be like in 5-10 years when I anticipate the scholarship limits are further reduced and you can't completely out-talent 90% of your o.o.c. opponents.

Joined: 10/07/2008

MGoPoints: 4865

Griff27054

September 29th, 2009 at 1:54 PM ^

Bengals are for real this year. Very clique to call them the bungles and the unfair criminal image has been way overdone by national media. It will take some time to erase the past but they are building a nice defensive identity with a nice blend of Michigan (Leon Hall, Morgan Trent on bench) and USC (Rivers and Maualuga) talent. If Carson Palmer stays healthy the O will score a lot. Beating the Steelers not a fluke.

Joined: 09/09/2009

MGoPoints: 1

dex

September 29th, 2009 at 12:56 PM ^

Stephen Peterman broke down in tears Sunday after enduring 19 straight losses and finally getting a win. TO played in the Super Bowl on what was essentially one leg. Guys routinely come back from major injury too early to get on the field. Look, you don't like the NFL. That's fine. Blanket statements like "there's no pride" when guys are battering themselves and most have trouble getting out of bed when they are over 50 are fucking idiotic.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 1934

bigmc6000

September 29th, 2009 at 1:56 PM ^

I know it didn't used to be the case when people weren't being paid like CEO's of Fortune 500 companies but how many of us would willingly take some of the aches and pains to play 10 years in the NFL, hell, or even 5. Jake Long made more in his first year of NFL football than most all of us will make in our entire lives. Beyond that how many guys get up there and talk about "their job." Brett Favre said it at least 3 times when he was talking about the game winning play. It's much the same and when Serena Williams talked about her "job." You, me, the kids in HS, and 99.99999999999% of the population play sport for fun. There are tons of people who get injured playing those just for fun games so claiming that just because they are 50 and they have aches and pains that means they've got pride is a faulty argument. I'll also say that the person sitting at their desk working as a data entry clerk that ends up with Carpal Tunnel had "pride" in their job. They may very well have pride and I'm sure most of them do but saying it's because they ache when they are 50 makes no sense at all. I like the NFL, I watch the NFL just as much as I watch college but I'm not going to pretend like those guys aren't being paid ridiculous sums of money to play a kids game.

Joined: 01/12/2009

MGoPoints: 1957

dex

September 29th, 2009 at 2:02 PM ^

How are job and pride not tangled together? I have pride in doing a good job at my job. Why can't an NFL player have pride in his job? And if you reallllly think that having carpal tunnel from data entry = having grand mal seizures due to repeated concussions, then fuck yourself.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 1934

bigmc6000

September 29th, 2009 at 2:44 PM ^

San Diego... You should ask the HS kids who played the game for love of the sport and never got paid a dime and have ended up paralyzed, dead, grand mal seizures, etc. Every job has its risks and rewards. If you sign up for a career in the NFL and you, say, come back after 1 concussion who's fault is that? What about 2, or 3, at what point are you just a stupid guy who's doing it for the money since you obviously don't care about your health and well being? If a bungee jumper ended up effing up his back to all hell, had surgery and went back to do it again you'd probably say he/she was an idiot but ignoring the consequences of having 250 lb+ men hurl themselves at you is somehow different?

Joined: 01/12/2009

MGoPoints: 1957

bigmc6000

September 29th, 2009 at 3:04 PM ^

As I said before, I don't doubt they have pride in what they do and they love it. I just said that saying they have pride because they end up hurt is a bad argument. I'd say at least 99% of the league loves what they do and the ones doing it for a paycheck probably end up riding the bench because you need to have more motivation than money to be a starter on an NFL squad (well, at least most of them). I'm saying that if you take concussion upon concussion and you keep coming back and you completely ignore the fact that if you get one more you're probably going end up with a life long disability then that's on you for being stupid and allowing, quite possibly, the prospect of more money blinding you to the simple truth that you're, basically, killing yourself.

Joined: 01/12/2009

MGoPoints: 1957

dex

September 29th, 2009 at 3:36 PM ^

you can't just say they all come back because of the money though. do you really think that none of them come back because they are addicted to playing football? i mean, why is it 'love of the game' when Tebow inevitably returns too early from his concussion but just money when an NFL guy does it? sure, i'm certain some of them come back because they need the cash, but you can't seriously say that's why every single one of them does it.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 1934

bigmc6000

September 29th, 2009 at 8:46 PM ^

But if you think most of the players in the NFL would be playing football if they were getting paid Arena Football League money if they could make more doing whatever their college degree was in you must be kidding yourself. Some might (see the Arena Football League) however most wouldn't if they could make more sitting at a desk. However that's the way with all of us - I'd love to only work a few days a week so I'd have time to do everything I want but I don't - same thing applies to the NFL players.

Joined: 01/12/2009

MGoPoints: 1957

bigmc6000

September 30th, 2009 at 10:14 AM ^

"Some might (see the Arena Football League)" Is that not clear enough? Some people will actually still play football even if they can make a better living elsewhere (aka, the people who play in the Arena Football league but many could make the case that they still get paid more than they would if they went out and got "regular" jobs) but a lot of people wouldn't. Which make them just like us...

Joined: 01/12/2009

MGoPoints: 1957

chitownblue2

September 30th, 2009 at 10:18 AM ^

But you're talking about NFL players. You're saying that if they weren't getting paid tons of money, they wouldn't play. The number of people who have toiled in the XFL, the Arena league, the CFL, NFL Europe say you're completely wrong.

Joined: 06/03/2009

MGoPoints: 7178

bigmc6000

September 30th, 2009 at 10:39 AM ^

still off base. http://www.sportsmanagementworldwide.com/courses/athlete-management-spo… CFL and Arena league still make well above what the average American makes. Further than that the CFL has a minimum that most people on this blog would love to make. If you want to argue that the MLS guys do it for love of the game I might give ya that one but most of them are probably hoping to be picked up to play in Europe (same thing applies to most minor league players).

Joined: 01/12/2009

MGoPoints: 1957

chitownblue2

September 30th, 2009 at 12:28 PM ^

But if you think most of the players in the NFL would be playing football if they were getting paid Arena Football League money if they could make more doing whatever their college degree was in you must be kidding yourself. The fact that they play for Arena Football league money shows that...they would play for Arena Football league money. Right?

Joined: 06/03/2009

MGoPoints: 7178

Tim

September 29th, 2009 at 12:54 PM ^

"you realize this is a completely subjective opinion, right? i like the NFL more. how can you tell me i'm "wrong"?" He never said people who disagree with him are "wrong," just explained why he feels how he does. In fact, he goes out of his way several times to say that it's just his e-pinion.

Joined: 07/08/2008

MGoPoints: 13040

dex

September 29th, 2009 at 1:21 PM ^

Using the chic example, the Wildcat, let's look at where it "came from". We'll ignore that it's just a variant of an offense that's been around since before WWII for now. Gus Malzahn brought it from his HS team, to Arkansas, to the NFL. Doesn't it make sense that "innovation" would be most likely to occur at the HS level, where the talent gap is at its widest? Once it proves sustainable there, some college gives it a try. The talent gap narrows, and cute little "innovations" get squeezed out if they don't actually work. If it passes both those tests, it moves to the NFL, where the talent level is essentially even (and much, much, much higher) for 80% of the league and execution really overtakes pretty "schemes" get thrown out if they hinder winning. Why would innovation take place at the elite level of the sport? Shouldn't these innovations HAVE to prove themselves before being deployed against the best football players in the world?

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 1934

Topher

September 29th, 2009 at 1:41 PM ^

This is the snottiest argument put forth by NFL advocates - that high school and college schemes are just "gimmicks" and that any offense the NFL doesn't use is because only "real football" works in the NFL. The NFL is paranoid and hyper-conservative, restricting their adoption of sound offensive football schemes. Also the player-personnel model encourages them to think in terms suited to certain schemes. The NFL instead sees fit to give the offenses absurd advantages in the rules - legalized holding, spot fouls on PI, and a flag-football 5-yard "holding" rule. And the pro offenses STILL suck! (In reality, colleges and high schools trade ideas in a much more balanced flow than "the colleges run it after the high schools test it out.")

Joined: 07/05/2008

MGoPoints: 742