Why I’ve lost faith in College Football

By this point in the college football season, all the bowl games are set, Alabama is Ranked #1, and Ingram won the Heisman. Sadly I have problems with all three of these points.

First I have a problem with the BCS. Since 1998, the Bowl Championship Series has been ruining college football. With their highly subjective and heavily computerized ranking system, the NCAA has lost control of possibly their most valuable sport. College Basketball offers at least every conference winner a spot in the NCAA basketball tournament, but in football only six conferences are included in the major BCS bowl Games. That leaves out every mid-major conference, including two of the top six teams in the BCS’s own rankings (Boise State and TCU). If the BCS doesn’t want to seem so biased and inclusive, then they should accept all D-1 conferences including the MAC, WAC, and Sun Belt to name a few. I am one of the many fans out there who would lobby for a playoff system. I mean, high schools play a playoff and professionals play playoffs, why shouldn’t colleges? If most of the players in college have the dream of going professional sooner or later, they should be excited to want to play in a college playoff, it can give them valuable experience in playing games that are winner take all. I do applaud that some conference already have a conference title playoff, but others do not. I really believe that because the Big Ten don’t have a playoff for their conference title, is why they have been hurting in the bowl games recently. And I hate hearing people arguing against a playoff because it means players are more frequent to injury. Well that’s the tough of it, players are going to get hurt and miss big games, it’s how it has been and always will be. I think the NCAA should drop the BCS system and work for a playoff system. Division II football uses a playoff system quite effectively, and with basketball, I believe they both honestly pick the right winner, not some overused computer program.

Next is the awards part. Like I stated in my intro, Mark Ingram won the 2009 Heisman Trophy. Firstly I think that awards are given out too early. I didn’t pay much attention to the awards this year except for the Heisman and the Biletnikoff award. The Heisman in 2008 was given to the wrong player and again this year, the Heisman was given to the wrong player. I just don’t understand how the award can be given to an athlete who had worse statistics than another player. If this award is given to the best individual athlete, then it should have gone to Toby Gerhart, not Mark Ingram. Gerhart carried the ball 62 more times than Ingram, and Gerhart also rushed for 194 more yards as well as 11 more touchdowns. It shouldn’t matter that Ingram’s team is changeling for the national title; I just think Gerhart got robbed. Even worse than the Heisman was the Biletnikoff award, given to the country’s top wide receiver. The three finalists for the award were Jordan Shipley of Texas, Freddie Barnes of BGSU, and Golden Tate of Notre Dame. Tate ended up winning the award even though he finished behind Barnes and or Shipley in the statistical category of receiving yards, touchdowns, and receptions. Although I used this same argument for the Heisman, the team’s overall standing shouldn’t have any effect on the winner’s chance. Notre Dame has declined any bowl invitations with a 6-6 record. BGSU is 7-5 and will play in the Roady’s Humanitarian Bowl in Boise, while Texas is obviously playing against Alabama for a national title. I just don’t understand how these awards cannot be given the player with the best statistics, regardless of where they went to school.

Bowl Games are my final point of argument. For years, bowl games have defined college football. I consider all of them except for the title game to be just consolation prizes for teams. Does it really matter if a team wins the Rose Bowl for the eighth time, or back to back Sugar Bowls? No, they really mean nothing in the long run, just another chance for some schools to earn money for their football programs. I mean there are so many bowls now-a-days that there are 34 bowl games, which means that 68 football teams get to play in the postseason. (A little obsessive if you ask me.) I think that this just gives more backing for a playoff system. Cut the teams down, and create a bracket like system similar to basketball. I have my ideas for a playoff, but I feel the NCAA should work one out for themselves.

So in the end, I think that certain players were given the wrong awards, the National title game might be biased, and the bowl games offer no clear way of what team is better. Unless some stuff changes, I don’t know how long I won’t have faith in college football.

Do Fantasy Sports ruin sports?

This may seem like a silly question to ask, but the world of fantasy sports is growing in popularity each year, and has become a popular pastime on the internet and in people’s basements. Firstly I am a fantasy sports owner. Each season since 2006, I have played fantasy football, baseball, and soccer. People do not understand the amount of time, money, and integrity that surrounds fantasy sports. In this blog, I’d like to explore each of these areas, and see if fantasy sports are good for the sporting world.

First there is time. Sports are a 24-hour 365-days-a-year business. At any given time, something is happening with sports somewhere in the world. The same goes with fantasy sports. People are constantly checking rosters, trading players, picking favorable matchups, and keeping tabs on their fantasy players. On average, I would say people waste close to 2 hours a week on fantasy sports. Now to some, that doesn’t seem like a long time, but that’s just an average. I know when I was in high school, every morning in my first period class; I would check my fantasy sports teams. Even though it was probably unnecessary, I still checked rosters and free agency every day. I don’t do it as often now a day. But I would probably bet there are the hardcore fantasy owners that constantly check stats.

Money is another issue. Wouldn’t it be considered a form of gambling when it comes to fantasy sports? Not necessarily, This follows real life sports too, nearly every major sport game can be betted on, so there is nothing illegal when it comes to gambling though fantasy sports. I personally don’t gamble when I play fantasy sports. I usually play for free on Yahoo.com. Not every fantasy league or owner pays money to play, with a chance of winning it in the end, but a good majority of leagues are ran with a betting system. Venues like Yahoo, CBS Sports, and NFL.com offer a more user-friendly area to play fantasy sports. But there are still a large following of people that play fantasy sports offline and handle money free-hand.

Finally there is integrity. Fantasy sports are all based on numbers. In any of the fantasy sports, a victory could depend on a matter of fractional points. I can vouch that I’ve lost a few fantasy football games by .15 points at least. It’s a rough game. In case you aren’t familiar with fantasy sports, athletes are given points based on the stats that they get in their games. During week 10 of the NFL, Jaguars running back Maurice Jones-Drew knelt down at the one yard line when he had an open opportunity to score a touchdown. To fantasy owners of Jones-Drew, this was huge. Fantasy sports players usually don’t care how the outcome of a game goes for a team, as long as the player on their team does well. I think this hurts fan-hood, because it encourages individual success in a team sport. It would be different for fantasy golf, but this is an issue in most fantasy sports. Fantasy baseball owners hate it when their players are forced to sacrifice bunt, and in fantasy basketball when players foul on purpose.

Despite some of these minor issues in the sports, I think fantasy sports are harmless. Real life teams and players are aware of fantasy sports, but still play the sport in the way they have always played it. Fantasy owners can’t do much more than gripe if their players don’t rack up the big points, but I do agree that fantasy sports offers just another venue of friendly completion between friends, co-workers, or complete strangers.

Is Elizabeth Lambert a bad soccer player? Or is she doing her job?

We all saw in class the following video on Elizabeth Lambert, the New Mexico Women’s soccer player whose highlight reel was far from glamorous. No she didn’t score a dozen goals, but she might have accumulated a dozen fouls. So does this make Lambert a bad player? Surprisingly enough I say no.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JC-pF3OHY1c

All teams have these types of players on their teams; enforcers. These are players who go in and make the big hits, they aren’t afraid to get physical. We see this from the footage of Ty Cobb, and even to this day with players like Hines Ward, Ray Lewis, Ron Artest, and Gennaro Gattuso. Most of you probably aren’t familiar with Gattuso, but I’ll explain more about him later.

Soccer doesn’t get a good reputation when it comes to being a physical sport. Players are often considered “Grass fairies” by other sports fans, but soccer can be just as physical as football or hockey. Yes some of the things Lambert did were over the line, but jabbing players in the back, a little push and shove here and there is how the game is played. Lambert was probably doing her role, but just in an extreme case. The New Mexico team was playing BYU in the playoffs, so the two teams were playing with some emotions. Maybe Lambert was getting frustrated that her team was losing, but that does not constitute her actions.

Gennaro Gattuso is a world renowned soccer player from Italy. He plays for the club team, A.C. Milan. He plays in the defensive midfielder position, and has gained a reputation as being one of the most aggressive players in the entire world. Gattuso has gained a reputation for committing some pretty harsh fouls, and I remember hearing during the 2006 World Cup an announcer saying something along the lines as, “Gattuso is almost guaranteed a yellow card every time he goes for a tackle.” This isn’t to make it seem that Gattuso is always a dirty player; he plays with a passion, a passion that every game is just as important as any other, and losing is not an option. Here is a video that shows some of Gattuso’s highlights.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8-G1RVz-cc&feature=fvw

I know it was brought up in class that Lambert is being treated differently because she is a female. I agree she is getting unfair media coverage. I’m not condoning her actions, but I do believe that because she is a girl, she isn’t being treated right. Yes, she should be suspended for her actions, but to be quite honest, she should have gotten a red card, or even two, for her fouls. In my eyes, that is poor refereeing. I know in most soccer games, there are only three referees on a field for a game. And I know that referees can’t see everything on the field, but from watching the highlights, how could the referees not notice her challenges and give her a red card.

To be honest I felt that Lambert was playing her position properly, yes she had some aggressive fouls, and some sloppy play, but aside from the hair pulling incident, I don’t think she should have anything more than a one game suspension. I would also like to see if this is a recurring theme of playing, or if this was a one game situation, regardless, she shouldn’t be suspended for too long.

Fan Behavior at School’s Hockey games, too far?

After attending a couple of BGSU Men’s Hockey games this fall, and watching an ethical presentation by Cody and Marcus got me thinking. Do fans take it too far at sporting events?

Now this topic could go a million different ways, but I’d like to focus on mainly BGSU Men’s Hockey. I was outraged after attending this past weekend’s hockey games versus Alaska. Yes we split the series 1-1, but the real tragedy came with how some of the fans handled themselves during the game.

To start with, why to fans boo the referees as soon as they come out on the ice? Why make them hate the fans even before a foul is called? Wouldn’t it make sense to just leisurely clap for the referees when they came onto the ice? Nope, apparently hockey fans hate all referees, which makes no sense to me, because I would rather welcome the referees to the game hoping to get a better call in our favor for the game. And with our dismal 1 - 8 - 1 record, you would think we would want every call we could get to go in our favor.

Next you have the obnoxious fan that has no regard for what they say. Obviously I was sitting in the student section cheering on the falcons every chance I could, but there was always these two hooligans who were heckling the Alaska goalie throughout the whole game. (Some of the following language may not be suitable for all ages) Every time there was a break in play, these two men would insult Scott Greenham, the goalie, calling him an orphan, a bitch, and a no body. They didn’t stop there. They even went as far as making homosexual remarks about Greenham. As a student of the university, I wanted these two kids thrown out of the arena, but no security action was taken. I felt they were an embarrassment to the school and team.

Now I also think that some of the chants used during the hockey game by the whole student section could also be thrown out. In case you aren’t a hockey fan, whenever a player on the opposing team gets a penalty and goes to the penalty box, all the student section cheers, “See ya, bye bye, jackass!” or something to that nature. It may seem all in good fun, but I really think it is in poor taste. Yelling profanity at the player doesn’t affect them as much as we would think, no one is going to take off their skate and stab somebody with it. And yes, I have heard all this wacky things said.

Hockey already has a poor reputation as being a violent crude sport. I feel that if some of the chants were taken away and the students’ sportsmanship was a little more sincere, the hockey could still be just as exciting. I don’t think that just because we are college students is a good enough excuse anymore. We are young adults, and acting like Imbecile in public doesn’t help our reputation that much. I know it would be a long shot to change the “traditions” of BGSU Hockey, but it’s worth a chance.

NCAA Football eligibility, too lenient?

This blog isn’t an attack on the Ohio State Buckeyes, but something just doesn’t feel right. In the past few years dating back to 2006, the OSU football team has had some pretty unique kickers on their teams. Starting in 2006, Ryan Pretorius began kicking field goals for the buckeyes. During the 2006-07 season, Pretorius was 26 years old. He continued to kick for the buckeyes until 2008, which had him at 30 years of age at the start of the season. The average age of a college football player during the 08-09 season was between 18-23. Pretorius was twelve to seven years older than his opponents; I feel that there is a disadvantage there. To my knowledge, Pretorius played professional rugby before he joined the buckeyes, and this is where I have my problem.

I consider college athletes as amateurs. And even if people don’t consider rugby a major sport in America, it is throughout other parts of the world. If he would have played professionally, he would have had a contract, and gotten paid to play. Even though it was a different sport, I think the NCAA merely looked the other way when it came to Pretorius playing football. It seems like a HUGE disadvantage for teams who have to face a freshman kicker that’s played professional rugby outside the USA.

Next comes another Ohio State kicker, this time Devin Barclay. Barclay, if many of you didn’t know, played professional soccer in the MLS, with the teams: Tampa Bay Mutiny, San Jose Earthquakes, D.C. United, and Columbus Crew. Barclay had been playing professional soccer since he was 18 when he signed a contract with the Tampa Bay Mutiny. Although he didn’t have a successful career in the MLS, he somehow found his way on to the football field and soon became the starting kicker for the Buckeyes.

Although not near as old as Pretorius, I have the same problem with Barclay. He was a professional athlete in a different sport, but still gets to play in the NCAA. I believe that the NCAA needs to change the rules of eligibility so that this kind of thing doesn’t keep happening. There needs to be age limits for college football athletes. It only seems fair to allow players aging from 17-26 to play football. By having players older than that, seems like an unfair recruiting method. Also, I feel the NCAA should uphold its amateur status better, if a player has ever played professionally for any sport, and then they should not be allowed to play an NCAA sport. It may seem harsh, but it’s only fair. In Barclay’s example, he “retired” from soccer, but he still held a professional position on a team. He shouldn’t be allowed to play. These players take away from the integrity of the game. Teams should have to recruit high school or junior college students, not former professional players. I would hope the NCAA does something about this before more players follow this path which I find unethical. And I believe this should go for all NCAA sports, not just football.

Why the USA has failed at soccer.

Why the USA has failed at soccer.

As we have discussed in class, soccer has deep roots in American sports. But in a more modern sense, soccer has a reputation as a sport played by “grass fairies.” But why is this? Soccer is the most popular sport in the world, but in America it may be classified as the 5th most popular, or even lower.

For the past four years, I have been following European and American soccer teams on a near religious level. There are HUGE differences in the style and structure of soccer in America and Europe. For the most part, all the European leagues follow the same rules, but Major League Soccer, the US league, has rule like no other league in the world.

First we will explore players between leagues. In Europe, players are traded, sold, and bought from other teams like the MLS, and free agency is also the same. Trading deadlines are similar to the transfer windows between the two league styles. But what the MLS has is a draft. A very “American” sports tradition, the MLS draft is how teams obtain new young talent. Most Europeans, at least from what I have read and seen on TV, laugh off this idea. In Europe, nearly every club team has what’s called a “Youth team.” This youth team is made of 11 to 18 year old kids who play football more as a fun sport, but some of the bigger clubs, take youth teams very seriously. Because the talent can be harder to see at a young age, if a team can see the talent early enough, then the payoff will be higher. Drafts aren’t a bad idea, but it almost promotes losing. Now hear me out. How does it make sense for the worst team of a league be able to get the most “talented” player of a draft, it’s just never made sense to me.

Another thing to look at is the league structure. In all European leagues, after a season is over, the bottom 2 to 4 teams are relegated to a lower league. Similar to the Minor leagues in baseball and hockey, but US sports don’t have a relegation system, because of the lack of teams for multiple levels of leagues. The MLS barely has enough teams to support a full league, so I have to cut them some slack for this reason.

In Europe, football is sometimes considered a “sexy” sport. With high profile players, speed, agility, and fancy footwork seem to dominate the game’s tactics. I think the US plays a more enjoyable football. There a few superstars, but mainly there are just some young players trying to make a name for themselves. Its not about the money with MLS players, its about pride.

Secondly we can look at the other sports played around the world. In America we have the big 4 sports; baseball, football, basketball, and hockey. In Europe, the Soccer is the top sport. But basketball, rugby, cycling, and Formula One racing are all second sports due to the large following of soccer. When we discussed in class about why nearly every one of us played soccer as a kid, was because it was the most available sport to play. Despite a huge drop in popularity, the United States has more numbers of youth soccer players than any other country. But because more sports become available to play as kids grow older, soccer is usually abandoned to play other sports like football or basketball.

I think regional has another thing to do with soccer’s success. In all US professional sports, teams are allocated by the economic market they might succeed in, or by the private investor who wishes to own a team. In Europe, nearly all the teams were once founded by small local groups, and some built their way up into being the giants we see today. England alone has over 7,000 teams in their 24 level, 480 divisions of soccer. That’s right, I know its Wikipedia, but this explains it best. (My jaw really dropped when I saw this.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_football_league_system

Part of me wants to say that the opportunity to play other types of sports is the reason why soccer isn’t as loved in America. But part of me thinks that it is because soccer is not American. Soccer was created by the Britain’s in the 1800s. I still think by then the American mentality by our newly founded country was to not act like the British. It seems like our nature is to not do what the rest of the world does, but that we should play the sports that we want to play. Many people consider soccer a “foreign game.” A term I consider unfair to the sport.

But this actually gives me hope that soccer will become a bigger sport in the US. The United States hosts the best sports leagues for baseball, American football, basketball, and hockey in the world. And you might also add NASCAR to that list for arguments sake. But soccer is left out of the equation. The United States has won some sort of international title is hockey, baseball, and basketball. (American Football is not an internal sport to the extent of internal competition.) Soccer is left out of our trophy case. The US Women’s national soccer team has won 3 Olympic gold medals as well as two Women’s World Cups.

The Men’s national team has not had the same success. They did finish 3rd in the 1930 World Cup, but that can’t be good enough. I personally think that the US has a shot to win the F.I.F.A World Cup in South Africa this summer. The US beat Spain in the Confederations Cup this past summer, and they were ranked #1 in the world. I’m not saying that we are guaranteed to win the World Cup, but it seems that the World Cup would be the last trophy the USA would need to complete the collection. Soccer is the final frontier for American Sports. If we can learn some methods of our European counterparts, maybe we can become reputable in this sport.

Should college players be paid to play?

Should college players be paid to play?

Collegiate sports can be the highlight of some peoples’ lives. The atmosphere and environment often harvests an excellent group of athletes. But unlike their professional counterparts, these young athletes don’t see a penny for their effort or success. But is it fair? Should college athletes get some sort of compensation for their efforts?

Now I know it might sound kinds ridiculous, but there needs to be some light shed upon this on both sides. Athletics are most college’s number one source for revenue, with ticket sales, concessions, and merchandise. In many cases these college athletes are more popular than any professor on campus. They can sometimes be larger than life. But does this warrant the requirement for paying athletes?

First let’s look at the current perks of being a collegiate athlete. For the most part, most athletes are on some sort of athletic scholarship. And that basically means that are attending college for free. Although they are often required to maintain a certain G.P.A. for the most part they have a free ride. Scholarship athletes usually get a good setup with their exclusive meal plan, when they can schedule classes, and usually athletes are put up in nicer dorms if they still live on campus. When teams travel, the schools pay for all of their traveling and room costs. In football, if the team is good enough to play in a BCS bowl game, every player on the team receives a gift package which is sponsored by the bowl sponsor, some of these gift packages can range in the thousands of dollars for each athlete.

But something else comes to mind when it comes to the athletes getting paid. Who deserves to get paid what? Would football players automatically get more money than soccer players? Should cheerleaders get paid? It just doesn’t seem ethical to pay all players the same because obviously certain players have longer seasons opposed to others. But would male athletes get paid more than women? So should these athletes be paid despite getting all these perks?

I know a lot of people will agree with me, but I have to say no, athletes should not be paid to play in college. The point of college sports is not to make a living; it’s supposed to be for fun. Yes there are some players in college that will go pro in different sports, but just because a fraction of the players are pro potential, that doesn’t give the reason for everyone to get paid like professionals. Not everyone is a professional athlete, so we as a society shouldn’t prematurely treat these athletes as something that they are not, regardless of their potential.