Obnoxious Football Trash Talk Thread

[dataz722]

I wish those ****ers at the NCAA would stop pretending that college athletics was a charitable endeavor.

Pay the athletes a modest stipend. ****, ****ing teaching assistants can earn a salary, why can't your placekicker? Share the ****ing wealth with the kids who are sacrificing each week. Give them enough of a stipend so you don't have as many of the Reggie Bush-type situations. You'll always have boosters trying to get players to come to their squad for *more* money, but you'll eliminate a good chunk of the issue if you just give the kids a fair percentage of what the schools earn.

Maybe the ****ing UAW should unionize the football players at some major team; ****, they've already unionized the teaching assistants at my wife's school...

But, stop pretending that college football is somehow cleaner or more pure than the NFL. At least in the NFL, if Randy Moss wants to get paid, he's going to be honest about it and tell you. I'd rather hear that than have the best players in the NCAA all getting paid under the table (and then wondering why certain squads are perennially so much better than everyone else).

And, give us a clear playoff system, so there's a REAL ****ing champion. **** the BCS, **** it up its stupid ass.

 

[Sea]

I wish those ****ers at the NCAA would stop pretending that college athletics was a charitable endeavor.

Pay the athletes a modest stipend. ****, ****ing teaching assistants can earn a salary, why can't your placekicker? Share the ****ing wealth with the kids who are sacrificing each week. Give them enough of a stipend so you don't have as many of the Reggie Bush-type situations. You'll always have boosters trying to get players to come to their squad for *more* money, but you'll eliminate a good chunk of the issue if you just give the kids a fair percentage of what the schools earn.

Maybe the ****ing UAW should unionize the football players at some major team; ****, they've already unionized the teaching assistants at my wife's school...

But, stop pretending that college football is somehow cleaner or more pure than the NFL. At least in the NFL, if Randy Moss wants to get paid, he's going to be honest about it and tell you. I'd rather hear that than have the best players in the NCAA all getting paid under the table (and then wondering why certain squads are perennially so much better than everyone else).

And, give us a clear playoff system, so there's a REAL ****ing champion. **** the BCS, **** it up its stupid ass.

Well said! Though not enough asterisk's........

 

[Sea]

To be completely honest, I wouldn't be surprised if the NFL's profit wasn't about the same if not less than college per year.

You could be right, what do I know. I'd like to see the numbers though. To be fair though you would have to compare the top 32 teams in college to the NFL.

You have to admit though that there's more risk taking in college ball, which is why I personally find it more enjoyable to watch. I wonder why this is, if not that there's less to lose when you fail?

 

[the_bird]

I'd want to see some quantification of how much "risk taking" is involved at the two levels. What do you mean, more going for it on fourth and short? More trick plays? Two point conversions? Is there really MORE "risk taking," or does it look like there's more because there are so many more games and risky plays tend to get in the highlight reels?

Some "risk taking" can be explained when there's a huge talent disparity. I remember when the Pats were just STARTING to get good, they ran a lot of trick plays because they didn't really have the talent to beat up the other team straight-up. Sometimes "taking a risk" is the only way an inferior team can be competitive. Not sure how you'd quantity this, but I'd wager that there's a MUCH bigger gap in talent between an elite Division I squad (like, top 5%) and one that's in the bottom 5% - a bigger talent gap than exists between a team like the Saints and a teams like the Rams or the Lions.

 

[dataz722]

You could be right, what do I know. I'd like to see the numbers though. To be fair though you would have to compare the top 32 teams in college to the NFL.

You have to admit though that there's more risk taking in college ball, which is why I personally find it more enjoyable to watch. I wonder why this is, if not that there's less to lose when you fail?

I really have no idea how much either make. I was just saying it wouldn't surprise me. I was also taking into considering all D1 schools and not having to pay the players, or at least the book keeping not showing it.


I think that the risk taking is for the same reason you see it a lot in High school ball. They don't trust the defense or special teams and would rather just take the chance. That and the other defense is usually fairly weak, hence the high scoring.

 

[Sea]

I'd want to see some quantification of how much "risk taking" is involved at the two levels. What do you mean, more going for it on fourth and short? More trick plays? Two point conversions? Is there really MORE "risk taking," or does it look like there's more because there are so many more games and risky plays tend to get in the highlight reels?

Some "risk taking" can be explained when there's a huge talent disparity. I remember when the Pats were just STARTING to get good, they ran a lot of trick plays because they didn't really have the talent to beat up the other team straight-up. Sometimes "taking a risk" is the only way an inferior team can be competitive. Not sure how you'd quantity this, but I'd wager that there's a MUCH bigger gap in talent between an elite Division I squad (like, top 5%) and one that's in the bottom 5% - a bigger talent gap than exists between a team like the Saints and a teams like the Rams or the Lions.

I honestly don't know how you would quantify it, but certainly all the things you listed would apply, with trick plays at the top of the list. I don't really watch enough college football to say that it's the quantity of teams which influences my perception of a less cautious style of play. Perhaps it may be that my favorite teams are a bit unconventional which influences my viewpoint on this, but it is what I see.

 

[joel4482]

At least you are from the New England area. We have stupid fans over here on the west coast that are fans of the patriots just because they have been good in the past. Go Seahawks!

 

[the_bird]

The 'Hawks DID get jobbed in the Super Bowl a few years back, but still... no one questions whether Pittsburgh was the Champion that year. Same as no one (including myself) claims that the 2007 Pats were really the best team in football, not the Giants.

Playoff systems and REAL title games make a huge difference.

 

[joel4482]

I'd want to see some quantification of how much "risk taking" is involved at the two levels. What do you mean, more going for it on fourth and short? More trick plays? Two point conversions? Is there really MORE "risk taking," or does it look like there's more because there are so many more games and risky plays tend to get in the highlight reels?

Some "risk taking" can be explained when there's a huge talent disparity. I remember when the Pats were just STARTING to get good, they ran a lot of trick plays because they didn't really have the talent to beat up the other team straight-up. Sometimes "taking a risk" is the only way an inferior team can be competitive. Not sure how you'd quantity this, but I'd wager that there's a MUCH bigger gap in talent between an elite Division I squad (like, top 5%) and one that's in the bottom 5% - a bigger talent gap than exists between a team like the Saints and a teams like the Rams or the Lions.

That is the beauty of the NCAA, "teams" like Boise state can beat more "talented" schools because the are a better "team" rather than more "talented individuals"

 

[the_bird]

Meh. Happens in the NFL all the time. Talent level of the 2001 Pats was <<<<<<<<<<<<<< that of the Rams. Was the Trent Dilfer-led Baltimore team more talented than the Giant team they beat? Gets a little fuzzy in terms of how you want to define "talent," but they weren't exactly exceptional at the skill positions (at least on offense).

Not sure there's ANY football team, at ANY level above high school, where any one individual is more important than the collective group.

Or hell, let's talk about a guy like Tim Tebow, was was probably more single-handedly responsible for his "team's" success than any other last year. Think he's going to be as critical a cog to the Broncos success in the future?

If anything, I'd say the impact of one dominant individual is felt much more at the collegiate level than in the NFL. One dominant player gets you squat in the NFL, any team's defense can take away any single player if they choose.

College football being more of a "team" sport is just more NCAA propaganda.

Besides, people hate on NFL divas... you really think guys like Dez Bryant were perfect "team guys" until they hit the NFL?

 

[cimirie]

The 'Hawks DID get jobbed in the Super Bowl a few years back, but still... no one questions whether Pittsburgh was the Champion that year. Same as no one (including myself) claims that the 2007 Pats were really the best team in football, not the Giants.

Playoff systems and REAL title games make a huge difference.

Let me preface by saying I would much rather have a college football playoff than our current system. It does take out much of the "ifs," "ands," and "buts."

I don't 100% agree, though, that a playoff system eliminates the question of who is the better team. The year you quote, I don't have an opinion on the matter so I'll agree. But in the NFL, any team can beat any other team on a given Sunday. One team has an off game, the other plays lights out, that team wins. Sure they won the Super Bowl. Yes they deserved to win it and they have earned the indisputable right that they are the Super Bowl champs. That doesn't make them the better team - just the better team on that day.

 

[the_bird]

Let me preface by saying I would much rather have a college football playoff than our current system. It does take out much of the "ifs," "ands," and "buts."

I don't 100% agree, though, that a playoff system eliminates the question of who is the better team. The year you quote, I don't have an opinion on the matter so I'll agree. But in the NFL, any team can beat any other team on a given Sunday. One team has an off game, the other plays lights out, that team wins. Sure they won the Super Bowl. Yes they deserved to win it and they have earned the indisputable right that they are the Super Bowl champs. That doesn't make them the better team - just the better team on that day.

Still. My point is... that's the team we remember. That's what we all have decidedly, collectively, really matters. Pats went 18-0; who cares, after the helmet catch? 'Hawks might have been able to beat the Steelers with better officiating; no one really cares (excepting in both cases some hardcore fans).

NFL football is definitive. Black and white. If you finish the playoffs without losing any games, you're the best team in the league.

College football, no one really trusts who the "champions" are because of how much stuff goes on under the surface, that no one understands, that determines who gets to play for the title of being "best."

You know what really sticks in my craw, philosophically? How many teams are out there - Division I teams, mind you - that literally have a 0.0000000000000000000% chance of ever being considered NCAA Champions because they play in a division that's not going to be considered for the title game? The Detroit Lions or St Louis Rams or Tampa Bay Bucs could win the Super Bowl this year, they probably won't but if something *magical* happens, they start winning games, they *could*, in theory, make the playoffs, win some games, and get themselves a ring and a parade.

It annoys me that even though the odds of a team from a "lesser" conference not ever likely BEING the best team in college football, the way the rules are set up it could never, ever, ever possibly happen. There can never be a Hickory High in NCAA football, like there can be in college basketball.

 

[dataz722]

Let me preface by saying I would much rather have a college football playoff than our current system. It does take out much of the "ifs," "ands," and "buts."

I don't 100% agree, though, that a playoff system eliminates the question of who is the better team. The year you quote, I don't have an opinion on the matter so I'll agree. But in the NFL, any team can beat any other team on a given Sunday. One team has an off game, the other plays lights out, that team wins. Sure they won the Super Bowl. Yes they deserved to win it and they have earned the indisputable right that they are the Super Bowl champs. That doesn't make them the better team - just the better team on that day.

But that is still a better option. Hell, the best option. Unless you were to do a multi-game series you really can't get any more definitive, but even that wouldn't be perfect. Of course that isn't really possible with football. I can't really think of any better idea.

 

[the_bird]

You couldn't do a 64-team tourney, but would a best-of-eight series be too bad? You could even make five or six of the spots be locked in to certain conference champions, but leave two or three spots open for great teams from "lesser" divisions. There are still issues with determining WHICH eight teams would get an invite, but it's a metric ****ton better than using polls and ****ty computer models to determine the only TWO teams deemed worthy of even being considered for the championship.

 

[dataz722]

You couldn't do a 64-team tourney, but would a best-of-eight series be too bad? You could even make five or six of the spots be locked in to certain conference champions, but leave two or three spots open for great teams from "lesser" divisions. There are still issues with determining WHICH eight teams would get an invite, but it's a metric ****ton better than using polls and ****ty computer models to determine the only TWO teams deemed worthy of even being considered for the championship.

I like the idea of keeping the bowls but use some of them as the first round of the playoffs. That solves some of the problem with the money factor. Just leave the bigger bowls for the later rounds. Yes, the first round would need to be voted in but however many teams is better than just 2.

 

[the_bird]

Exactly what I've thought. Bowl season always begins at Christmas, hits its crescendo at New Years, and last year's "Championship" bowl was January 7th. That's three weekends worth of bowls already. The only difference is that you'd have some teams playing in multiple bowls... so you'd have to give the players some playoff money.

 

[cimirie]

You couldn't do a 64-team tourney, but would a best-of-eight series be too bad? You could even make five or six of the spots be locked in to certain conference champions, but leave two or three spots open for great teams from "lesser" divisions. There are still issues with determining WHICH eight teams would get an invite, but it's a metric ****ton better than using polls and ****ty computer models to determine the only TWO teams deemed worthy of even being considered for the championship.

I agree that the consensus of top 10 teams (or 8 in your example) is usually much more unanimous than top 2. I wouldn't mind that idea at all. You'd still need polls and computers to get to the top teams, which I'm OK with (since Part of the college FB fun is the lobbying. I just don't think lobbying should decide the only 2 that can play for the NC).

 

[dataz722]

I agree that the consensus of top 10 teams (or 8 in your example) is usually much more unanimous than top 2. I wouldn't mind that idea at all. You'd still need polls and computers to get to the top teams, which I'm OK with (since Part of the college FB fun is the lobbying. I just don't think lobbying should decide the only 2 that can play for the NC).

The worst part of it all though is that no matter how many people/players/coaches/media want it, it will never happen.

 

[madbaldman]

As far as SEC dominance... I wholeheartedly disagree. What you actually have had is one or two very talented teams from the SEC, and the rest are good to bad - just like you see in every conference. (USC/Ore/Cal Pac10, OSU/PSU Big10, UT/OKla Big12). The bowl record for the SEC is far from dominating. Yes the SEC has produced the strongest team in the country the past few years. But a great team doesn't make a conference "magically" superior - as most pollsters and too many fans seem to believe.

I don't believe the SEC gets any special attention from the pollsters in the last couple years. They were "magical" at one time when the SEC consistently had 3-4 teams in the top ten that were contenders to the NC. Last couple years things have slipped (LSU, UT, AU, UGA) and now I don't think the SEC gets any special consideration as far as strength of schedule like they used to get a few years ago. Even so, I don't think you can point to any conference as being stronger than the SEC, nor any team stronger than Bama.

 

[motobrewer]

great weekend.

pack dominated, queens got beat. manning v manning wasn't all that entertaining.

 

[SpanishCastleAle]

RE: the NCAA BCS; IMO one of the fundamental 'essences' of sport is 'who wins the game', not who is a better team on paper. "That's why they play the game." as they say. The NCAA eliminates one of the most basic essences of sport. It's a non-championship imo.

Proponents like to say "but every regular season game matters, it's like a season-long playoff." I contend that NONE of the regular season games matter (since it's a non-championship anyway) and certainly don't for those teams that could go undefeated and never get a sniff of a National Championship game.

 

[Dwain]

Jesus... it's like Christmas morning...


Jets sh!tspanked the Pats and then...
Giants LOST
Washington LOST
Vikings LOST

I'll take that for Week 2 results!!!

However, on the sh!tspanked side,
How 'bout 'dem Cowboys!

 

[the_bird]

RE: the NCAA BCS; IMO one of the fundamental 'essences' of sport is 'who wins the game', not who is a better team on paper. "That's why they play the game." as they say. The NCAA eliminates one of the most basic essences of sport. It's a non-championship imo.

Proponents like to say "but every regular season game matters, it's like a season-long playoff." I contend that NONE of the regular season games matter (since it's a non-championship anyway) and certainly don't for those teams that could go undefeated and never get a sniff of a National Championship game.

Exactly! Football shouldn't be a popularity sport; we're trying to determine the single best team, not elect a homecoming king. The BCS is basically the equivalent of judging in figure skating; some technical measures considered, but ultimately mostly subjective.

The solution is SO simple (re-purposing existing bowls into a three-round, eight-team playoffs). I can't even see how the total dollars earned would be any different - but of course, it would be different teams and conferences getting those dollars.

 

[olllllo]

Yea, if I were a Pats fan, I'd be spending my time on college football bowl restructuring too.

 

[the_bird]

What, I should be in panic mode over a 1-1 start? Where the **** you been, ollllllllllllllllllllo, we've been talking about this for a good week.

 

[olllllo]

New England Patriots <---- going to absolutely freakin own everyone this year and if you don't think that's the case... you're stupid.

There.... now you know. :rockin:

Just bringing this convo back to its roots, boyo.

 

[SpanishCastleAle]

Thought it was funny that Kubiak (formerly under Shanahan) pulled the 'timeout just as ball is snapped for an OT field-goal' on Shanahan since it was Shanahan who (most notoriusly) started the obligatory 'timeout just as ball is snapped for an OT field-goal'.

 

[Cape Brewing]

Sonofa.....

 

[humann_brewing]

so part of me has to root for SF tonight because they are a local but they are gonna get spanked tonight.

 

[motobrewer]

Yea, if I were a Pats fan, I'd be spending my time on college football bowl restructuring too.

Just bringing this convo back to its roots, boyo.

love. it.