Is College Football Going To Get Banned?

[mu03eng]

Right.  They went for the short-term gain of pay per view telecasts at the expense of developing their long-term fan based.

And having a dozen sanctioning bodies with 800 weight classes doesn't help either.

Completely agree

[CTWarrior]

The height of the interest in the Olympics was when they were serving as the proxy war between the Communist block and the West during the Cold War.  The end of the Cold War meant the end of the inflated importance of the Olympics.

+1 - The Olympics were a lot more fun when you hated the Eastern bloc countries.  Even if everything else was equal in terms of the age, experience and track record of both teams, the USA beating USSR in hockey wouldn't resonate 10% as much today as it did back then.

[Hards Alumni]

Huh? Why do you think women shouldn't have as many options?

I thought I was asking you that.

There are many laws on the books for years that our gov't chooses not to enforce.  One was argued in front of the Supreme Court two weeks ago in US vs Arizona.

Women should have the same options as men, but let us not pretend that because a law is on the books there is enforcement of that law. 

So you think that administrators should (and would!) be able to get away with not enforcing title IX? 

[Pakuni]

Just to play devils advocate ...

100 years ago the biggest sport going was boxing.  It remained the top sport for 70 years.  Then the constant complaints about violence and injury got it banned in many places (not Vegas) and now the sport is fraction of what it used to be.

Violence didn't hurt boxing. The fracturing of the sport into too many wight divisions fighting after too many meaningless belts with champions who take on a real challenge maybe once every three fights (or about once every 18-24 months) is what's killed boxing. People will still come out in droves for a quality fight (see PPV buys from recent Mayweather fights or 40,000+ fans who've paid ridiculous ticket prices to see Pacquiao in Cowboys Stadium).

If violence were an issue among sports fans, how does one explain the raging popularity of MMA?

Same thing with Indy car racing, it was really popular until a rash of driver deaths in the 1970s turned off the public.  (NASCAR is popular now precisely because they go out of their way to protect the drivers and NASCAR officials will tell you the sports was almost killed off by Dale Earnhardt's death in 2001.)

The decline of Indy Car racing had nothing to do with driver deaths, and didn't happen in the 1970s. It's the result of the greedy owner of the Indianapolis Speedway trying to start his own "league" in the mid 90s, which split the best, most popular drivers into two factions that competed everywhere but on the race track and dwindled the sport's interest and popularity.
The next time someone turns away from a car race because of a crash will be the first.

[Tugg Speedman]

Intentional soccer has about as many games/leagues and shaky finances as boxing and/or Indy car.  FIFA is as poorly run as the WBC and/or CART.  None of that matters to the fans.  Maybe because no one dies on the pitch.

Do not underestimate how death and cast a pall over a sport and change its perception.  When/if MMA fighters start dying, that sport is done too.

[Tugg Speedman]

Right.  They went for the short-term gain of pay per view telecasts at the expense of developing their long-term fan based.

And having a dozen sanctioning bodies with 800 weight classes doesn't help either.

AS a I said above ....

You also have a good description of FIFA and that has not hurt soccer.  Maybe because no one has died on the pitch.

[brewcity77]

Intentional soccer has about as many games/leagues and shaky finances as boxing and/or Indy car.  FIFA is as poorly run as the WBC and/or CART.  None of that matters to the fans.  Maybe because no one dies on the pitch.

Do not underestimate how death and cast a pall over a sport and change its perception.  When/if MMA fighters start dying, that sport is done too.

I think that first line there is about as inaccurate a statement as you could make. FIFA may be corrupt, but they're not hurting at all financially. There may be individual teams, even leagues, in trouble, but the overall governing body is making money hand over fist, and probably has more corrupt money flowing through the system than the NCAA schools do. And there have been deaths on the pitch. Going back to 2007, 22 players around the world have died on a soccer pitch, primarily from cardiac arrest. Most notably, Antonio Puerta of Sevilla in Spain, Daniel Jarque of Espanyol in Spain, and Piermario Morisini of Livorno in Italy. What's interesting is how sharply the numbers have risen recently, 44 deaths recorded since 2000, 38 recorded in the entire century from 1900-1999.

[Tugg Speedman]

If a sport is popular, it is hard to kill it.  Arguing the problem with boxing is too many champions and weight classes is the reason for its lack of popularity (relative to say 30 to 50 years ago) is wrong.  Boxing is losing its popularity because sports fans are less interested in boxing and nothing Don King/WBC do can to change that.  Roger Goodell could run the WBC and Boxing popularity would not change at all.  

Why are fans leaving?  It is not because their are 75 champions.  I would argue boxing has a perception of being uncivilized because of deaths in the ring.  

If you want to know what a death in the ring can do to a sport, see the November 1982 death of Duk Koo Kim by Ran Mancini in November 1982.  I would argue boxing never recovered from that incident.

----

Brew, as you noted, FIFA is corrupt.  That's what I said.  The sport cannot modernize (instant replay) so bad calls ruin the world cup.  Most of the teams in the premiership are teetering financially and three teams are so dominant (Chelsea, Man U and Arsenal) have won all but the 1994 premiership championship.

According to everyone here, a corrupt organizing body , poorly financed and three teams winning everything while everyone sucks would kill a sport.  Instead premiership and soccer overall has never been better.  (also note I never said FIFA was not making money.  I said teams and leagues are not making money.  I said FIFA was poorly run.  Your response supports both of these contentions.)

Conversely, the NFL is soaring in popularity and nothing the owners do can kill it now.  What COULD change that is the perception that players are dying for the game.  It is that kind of perception, when it takes hold, that can change the fortunes of a sport.  The NFL is AT RISK of a change in perception in the aftermath of Junior Seau's death.

[mu03eng]

If a sport is popular, it is hard to kill it.  Arguing the problem with boxing is too many champions and weight classes is the reason for its lack of popularity (relative to say 30 to 50 years ago) is wrong.  Boxing is losing its popularity because sports fans are less interested in boxing and nothing Don King/WBC do can to change that.  Roger Goodell could run the WBC and Boxing popularity would not change at all.  

Why are fans leaving?  It is not because their are 75 champions.  I would argue boxing has a perception of being uncivilized because of deaths in the ring.  

If you want to know what a death in the ring can do to a sport, see the November 1982 death of Duk Koo Kim by Ran Mancini in November 1982.  I would argue boxing never recovered from that incident.

----

Brew, as you noted, FIFA is corrupt.  That's what I said.  The sport cannot modernize (instant replay) so bad calls ruin the world cup.  Most of the teams in the premiership are teetering financially and three teams are so dominant (Chelsea, Man U and Arsenal) have won all but the 1994 premiership championship.

According to everyone here, a corrupt organizing body , poorly financed and three teams winning everything while everyone sucks would kill a sport.  Instead premiership and soccer overall has never been better.  (also note I never said FIFA was not making money.  I said teams and leagues are not making money.  I said FIFA was poorly run.  Your response supports both of these contentions.)

Conversely, the NFL is soaring in popularity and nothing the owners do can kill it now.  What COULD change that is the perception that players are dying for the game.  It is that kind of perception, when it takes hold, that can change the fortunes of a sport.  The NFL is AT RISK of a change in perception in the aftermath of Junior Seau's death.

Personally, I don't think you could be more wrong in comparing FIFA to Boxing.  FIFA is corrupt but is basically just a rules committee and World Cup organizer.  EPL, Bundesliga, Serie A, etc are all in charge of their organizations and are semi-autonomous.  Plus there is clear organization and heirarchy as to who is where.  Its not like Real Madrid can run off, create its own cup and then say that cup was better than UEFA champions cup or something.

Boxing didn't come unhinged until the late 90s and 2000s and there were plenty of deaths in boxing prior.  Hell, your own example occurred in 1982 and Mike Tyson was a dominate fixture in sports and boxing as recently as the 90s

You are obviously entitled to your opinion but I'd like to see one shred of evidence that its death's and not an organizational issue.  Until we see that on either side we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

[Tugg Speedman]

Boxing didn't come unhinged until the late 90s and 2000s and there were plenty of deaths in boxing prior.  Hell, your own example occurred in 1982 and Mike Tyson was a dominate fixture in sports and boxing as recently as the 90s

Google how popular is boxing and here is the first response
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_popular_is_boxing

Answer:
Boxing is still very popular around the world. Popularity in the US has declined in 40 years or so due to other sports such as the rise of UFC and because of injuries.

---

The typical fan response is owners and sport organizations are a bunch of idiots and every sport would as popular as the NFL if they only had competent rich people running it.  

Fact is sport popularity is cyclical and owners cannot do much about it.  The NFL was not very popular in the 1950s and 1960s and some point in the future (maybe 50 years, maybe 10) it will be less popular.

Everyone likes action, no one like deaths.  The rash of deaths in Indy car and boxing hurt their popularity.

Boxing's popularity was long-term bear market when Tyson was at the top.  It might have blipped higher for a few years but its popularity is was nowhere near what it was when Joe Louis or Ali were champs (over even Jack Johnson for that matter).

Regarding Duk Doo Kim, that was devastating for the sport ....

November 13, 1982

When the fighters came out for the 14th round, Mancini charged forward and hit Kim with a right. Kim reeled back, Mancini missed with a left, and then Mancini hit Kim with another hard right hand. Kim went flying into the ropes, his head hitting the canvas hard. Kim managed to rise unsteadily to his feet, but referee Richard Green stopped the fight and Mancini was declared the winner by TKO nineteen seconds into the 14th round.[2]

Minutes after the fight was over, Kim collapsed into a coma, and was taken out of the Caesars Palace arena on a stretcher. Emergency brain surgery was performed at the hospital to try to save him, but that effort proved to be futile, and Kim died 4 days after the bout, on November 17. The neurosurgeon said it was caused by one punch.[2] The week after, Sports Illustrated published a photo of the fight on its cover, under the heading Tragedy in The Ring.[6] The profile of the incident was heightened by the fight having been televised live by CBS in the United States.

Aftermath of Kim's death

Mancini went through a period of reflection, as he blamed himself for Kim's death. After friends helped him by telling him that it was just an accident, Mancini went on with his career, though still haunted by Kim's death. His promoter, Bob Arum, said Mancini "was never the same" after Kim's death. Two years later, Mancini lost his title to Livingstone Bramble.[7]

Four weeks after the fatal fight, the Mike Weaver vs Michael Dokes fight at the same Caesars Palace venue ended with a technical knockout declared 63 seconds into the fight. Referee Joey Curtis admitted to stopping the fight early under orders of the Nevada State Athletic Commission to be aware of a fighter's health in light of the Mancini-Kim fight, and a rematch was ordered.

Kim's mother flew from Korea to Las Vegas to be with her son before the life support equipment was turned off. Three months later, she took her own life by drinking a bottle of pesticide.[1] The bout's referee, Richard Green, committed suicide July 1, 1983.[8]

Kim left behind a fiancée, Lee Young-Mee, who was pregnant at the time with their son, Kim Chi-Wan, who was born in July 1983.[1]

---

I'm not saying that Duerson and Seau will kill the NFL.  I'm saying the NFL is at risk and it needs to be taken very seriously, and not summarily dismissed as many are doing here.

[Tugg Speedman]

Personally, I don't think you could be more wrong in comparing FIFA to Boxing.  FIFA is corrupt but is basically just a rules committee and World Cup organizer.  EPL, Bundesliga, Serie A, etc are all in charge of their organizations and are semi-autonomous.  Plus there is clear organization and heirarchy as to who is where.  Its not like Real Madrid can run off, create its own cup and then say that cup was better than UEFA champions cup or something.

Boxing didn't come unhinged until the late 90s and 2000s and there were plenty of deaths in boxing prior.  Hell, your own example occurred in 1982 and Mike Tyson was a dominate fixture in sports and boxing as recently as the 90s

You are obviously entitled to your opinion but I'd like to see one shred of evidence that its death's and not an organizational issue.  Until we see that on either side we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Brew says ...

FIFA may be corrupt, but they're not hurting at all financially. There may be individual teams, even leagues, in trouble, but the overall governing body is making money hand over fist

MU03eng says ...

FIFA is corrupt but is basically just a rules committee and World Cup organizer.

----

Before you announce all my comments are wrong, at least agree on basic definitions of what you are talking about.

[mu03eng]

Brew says ...

FIFA may be corrupt, but they're not hurting at all financially. There may be individual teams, even leagues, in trouble, but the overall governing body is making money hand over fist

MU03eng says ...

FIFA is corrupt but is basically just a rules committee and World Cup organizer.

----

Before you announce all my comments are wrong, at least agree on basic definitions of what you are talking about.

I'd like you to first prove how our statements are in-congruent.  I was not looking at it from a financial aspect but yes Brew is right they are making money hand over fist and yes they are an organizing body.  How are these statements contradictory?

[brewcity77]

According to everyone here, a corrupt organizing body , poorly financed and three teams winning everything while everyone sucks would kill a sport.  Instead premiership and soccer overall has never been better.  (also note I never said FIFA was not making money.  I said teams and leagues are not making money.  I said FIFA was poorly run.  Your response supports both of these contentions.)

Well, FIFA and the EPL are two completely separate entities. And on average, the television rights alone net each Premiership team £90 million per year. The teams that are suffering are the ones in the lower divisions and the ones that count on that EPL money and are relegated while either being overextended on their salaries and debt (like Portsmouth or Leeds) or overspending to get back quickly and fail to get promoted.

FIFA may be unfairly run, but I'm not sure it's poorly run. The main problems with FIFA are evidenced by Qatar and Russia winning World Cup bids amidst rumors of bribes, especially when the existing stadiums and infrastructure simply isn't there in comparison with their competitors (such as the US, England, and Australia). But for Blatter and the other people high up in FIFA, things are running just fine as they line their pockets with (unsubstantiated) bribes.

I suppose I could make the assertion that the EPL will almost certainly have a fifth champion come Sunday, but the oil barons that run Man City probably aren't the best example of leveling the playing field. I have a great deal of empathy for the lower tier teams that are struggling as the team I support (Reading FC) isn't exactly fashionable or wealthy, and when I see a team like Luton struck down by the FA, but the actions of the FA and EPL are not the actions of FIFA. I could spend hours (and have, on other websites) debating the financial gaps in the sport, but when you have 92 League football clubs, not to mention even more teams in the Conference level and below, revenue sharing is almost impossible (and nonexistent) from the top down, and that's just in England, a country with a population less than 1/6 the size of the US. When you factor in Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Holland, and all the other smaller countries in Europe, I don't think it's at all an exaggeration to say that Europe has 1,000 or more club teams, all trying to get their share of essentially the same UEFA pot.

But as I look at this, I realize I'm horribly off-topic. I guess I'll leave it with this...there's plenty of corruption, but also plenty of money, and more often than not, the clubs that find themselves in financial ruin ultimately brought it on themselves. It's unfortunate for the fans, but it's survival of the fittest, not unlike how in the past NFL teams have dissolved (mostly back in the 1920s) or how the ABA folded all but 4 teams when that league went under. And there's enough interest that regardless of how many clubs fold, the sport and 90% of the clubs will continue to survive, if not thrive.

[Hoopaloop]

I thought I was asking you that.

So you think that administrators should (and would!) be able to get away with not enforcing title IX? 

Unlikely, but then again there are other equally important laws that people in power choose not to enforce in this country at the federal, state, county, city levels. 

[forgetful]

The big question is whether parents start/continue to push their kids away from playing football and instead steer them towards sports like soccer.  If that occurs the market for football will contract.  I personally think this will happen and think the college football television contracts are too high.

[Blackhat]

soccer headers may result in concussion-like injuries.

In 200 years football will be looked at as barbaric.

[Tugg Speedman]

The big question is whether parents start/continue to push their kids away from playing football and instead steer them towards sports like soccer.  If that occurs the market for football will contract.  I personally think this will happen and think the college football television contracts are too high.

Kurt Warner said he would push his sons away from football (see the first post).

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

The big question is whether parents start/continue to push their kids away from playing football and instead steer them towards sports like soccer.  If that occurs the market for football will contract.  I personally think this will happen and think the college football television contracts are too high.

I know there are plenty of people that like football that never played football.

However, there is something to people loving FB since they played on some level.

Baseball used to be "america's pastime", partially because it was the sport EVERYBODY played as a kid, so there was a built in affinity for it.

IF youth football goes down significantly (it will take a long time for that to happen), FB viewership could feel it down the road.

However, this is probably more a projection into 2030-2040 as these are more "generational" types of issues.

[Tugg Speedman]

Since the 70s it has been a fact that more kids in this country (boys and girls combined) play soccer than any other sport.  Yet that has never translated into soccer becoming a major sport in this country. 

So why should the number of kids playing football going up or down matter?

[GGGG]

Since the 70s it has been a fact that more kids in this country (boys and girls combined) play soccer than any other sport.  Yet that has never translated into soccer becoming a major sport in this country. 

So why should the number of kids playing football going up or down matter?

This is exactly right.  I never played football as a kid, and neither have my children, but football is by far and away our family's favorite sport.  I doubt there has ever been an era where football has been the most popular youth sport.

[brewcity77]

Since the 70s it has been a fact that more kids in this country (boys and girls combined) play soccer than any other sport.  Yet that has never translated into soccer becoming a major sport in this country. 

So why should the number of kids playing football going up or down matter?

+1

Regardless of what kids play, football is what teens and adults watch. I'd even guess that most soccer playing youths watch more American football than professional soccer on TV.

[GGGG]

I suppose I could make the assertion that the EPL will almost certainly have a fifth champion come Sunday, but the oil barons that run Man City probably aren't the best example of leveling the playing field. I have a great deal of empathy for the lower tier teams that are struggling as the team I support (Reading FC) isn't exactly fashionable or wealthy, and when I see a team like Luton struck down by the FA, but the actions of the FA and EPL are not the actions of FIFA. I could spend hours (and have, on other websites) debating the financial gaps in the sport, but when you have 92 League football clubs, not to mention even more teams in the Conference level and below, revenue sharing is almost impossible (and nonexistent) from the top down, and that's just in England, a country with a population less than 1/6 the size of the US. When you factor in Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Holland, and all the other smaller countries in Europe, I don't think it's at all an exaggeration to say that Europe has 1,000 or more club teams, all trying to get their share of essentially the same UEFA pot.

As a relatively recent EPL fan, my observation is that fans of these teams must feel a lot like college football fans - they have different levels of expectations and base their satisfaction on those.

You have the Man U, Arsenal, etc. fans who are only satisfied with titles and Champions League advancement.  Like the half-dozen or so teams that compete for a BCS title every year.

You have the next tier of Newcastle, Everton, who are happy with a top half finish and are happy to occasionally play in Europe.  Like Wisconsin of the past couple years who are glad to get into a BCS bowl.

Then you have those who are just happy to survive in the EPL...like a Stoke or Sunderland.  Similar to the college teams that get into an occasional New Year's Day Bowl...like Northwestern and Purdue.

And then you have those who are happy just to have an EPL season occasionally, but are content to contend at the lower levels...like a Blackpool.  Similar to those teams whose bowl appearances are rare but happy events.

Occasionally there are teams that can crack new levels like Man City (Oregon), and occasionally those teams crash and burn, likely not to return for a very long time, like Portsmouth (Colorado).

[brewcity77]

As a relatively recent EPL fan, my observation is that fans of these teams must feel a lot like college football fans - they have different levels of expectations and base their satisfaction on those.

That's 100% correct. Outside of United, City, Chelsea, Arsenal, and maybe some pie-in-the-sky Liverpool fans, no one is really hoping for a title challenge. Finishing in the European places, the top half, or even just above the relegation zone is a massive accomplishment for some teams, and their fans rejoice those accomplishments just as much as a small college team would getting invited to the Big Dance or a mid-tier bowl game.

[Benny B]

#1) Congress will never immunize the NFL or universities from litigation.  Exempting a multi-billion dollar private industry from liability won't play in this country.  Universities, as non-profits, may stand a slim chance of getting something through, but they'll never make the push for it... as watchdogs start to set their sights on "big education" (for reasons other than football injuries), universities won't even think about upsetting a major political ally (the trial lawyers association).

#2) Football's popularity is seemingly at its peak, but like all mammoths of society, it is one massive lawsuit from being brought to its knees.  The NFL has the wherewithal to defend itself, but given that most FBS schools break even or lose money on football, all it's going to take is one multi-million dollar judgment against Stanford or USC (because ground-breaking lawsuits always happen in California), and all of the sudden, schools are going to come to the realization that all that BCS money, BTN distributions, and student fees they've amassed over the years isn't nearly enough to mitigate the risk of an 8-figure lawsuit.  Cutting off or squeezing the NFL's development pipeline will spell major trouble for the pro circuit.

#3) Football isn't going to die, but it will have to live on in a different form.  Whether that form involves a major rules change, reduced number of college teams, and/or the incorporation of a "farm-system" similar to baseball, I can't say.  But the current model - given the litigious nature of our society - is not sustainable.

[TribalRage]

Football is banned shortly after Moms and Chevrolet.