College football is in a hurry. Over the past three seasons, there has been a movement in college football to make the games shorter. The idea is for a college football game to fit neatly into a three hour time block for television like NFL games. In 2005, the college game implemented speed-up rules as an experiment. The result was shorter games with less plays. The rules were quickly dropped for the 2006 season.
This season, college football will be using a 40 second play clock like the pros. In the past, the ball was whistled ready for play and a 25 second clock started. Now, a 40 second clock will begin once the previous play has ended. The change is expected to shorten games without losing a lot of plays.
The question is: what’s the rush? Does the average fan really care that a game goes 3 hours and 27 minutes rather than the target 3 hours flat? People that attend college football games are not exactly on a tight schedule. Same goes for the people watching them on TV. The biggest complaint people have about college football on TV is the number of commercials – the very reason televised games last so long to begin with. Your average football fan spends nine months out of the year waiting for football season to start. And when it gets here, the powers that be want to shorten the games. The game is fine. Leave it alone. Stop allowing television to control everything. There are plenty of TV stations that will gladly televise the games no matter how long they last.
If college football really wants to shorten the games, they should look at adopting another NFL rule – twelve minute half times. The length of games would be cut by eight minutes without losing a play. During most college half times, the home and visiting bands make an appearance. Rather than both bands, just have the home band do their thing (except when Carolina plays at home against S.C. State). I have sat through many a half time where only the home band plays. During the rest of the time, I watch the kickers and punters warm up. This is hardly riveting half time entertainment.
Unfortunately, this solution is shouted down because we will lose the “pageantry of college football.” This is nonsense. Exactly how much pageantry is there in watching a guy from the stands attempt a thirty yard field goal? And how much pageantry is there in watching a band perform a “Salute to Hanna Barbara” while marching in amorphous shapes. (For the record, bands should always be spelling something for the crowd, not doing abstract art. But that is another blog.) I am sure most fans would trade some “pageantry” for eight more minutes of football.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Nothing to worry about
In the last couple of months, there has been an ongoing debate about a new trend that might have started among talented high school basketball players. A player named Brandon Jennings may end up being remembered as the Curt Flood of basketball in that he could change the landscape of college basketball recruiting for years to come.
Jennings’ story starts at Oak Hill Academy where he was a highly recruited basketball player committed to play at the University of Arizona. When he realized that his grades were going to keep him from being admitted, he decided to take his game to the European leagues. He has signed a three year deal with an Italian professional team that features buy out clauses for when the NBA is allowed to come calling.
Jennings’ departure has American hoop-heads crying that college basketball is being deprived of a talented player and that it could lead to future exports of young talent to Europe. Under the current rules, NBA teams are forbidden to draft a player until he turns nineteen. This is what is known as the “one and done” rule. Players like Rose from Memphis and Oden from Ohio State played one year in college until such time that they were eligible to be drafted. Jennings will forgo the year in college in exchange for a year or more in Europe where he will be a professional instead of a student athlete. The question is: why does this bother so many people?
“He is not taking advantage of his chance at a college education.” You mean that one and a half semesters of classes he will attend until basketball season is over? Yeah, we wouldn’t want him to miss out on that. People go to college to create job opportunities. I think this kid has found a pretty good opportunity. If he really wants to go to college, the money he will make overseas will be more than enough for tuition once his career ends.
“He is missing out on the college experience.” Ok, let’s see – frat parties in Tuscon versus living in Italy for three years. Yeah, those are comparable.
“He is taking away from the idea of student-athlete.” Actually, he is doing the exact opposite. Rather that perpetuate the fraud of being a student athlete for eight months and then leaving school for the NBA, he is going off to perfect his skill.
“Other high school players will follow his lead and dilute the talent in college basketball.” This is probably true, but who cares? The average fan would hardly notice the difference. Second, if a player has no real interest in going to college and is just using it as a spring board for a professional career, should he really be going to college? One of the biggest criticisms of Division I college basketball is that it is merely a “minor league” for the NBA and is filled with players that have no real interest in a college diploma. College basketball annually lags behind all other sports in graduation rates. True supporters of the idea of student athletes should applaud Jennings’ decision and encourage others like him to do the same.
“He is too young to have all that money.” And you’re probably right. But he is eighteen years old and this is America. If someone is dumb enough to give an eighteen year old kid millions of dollars to play a sport, then why fault the kid? If coming into that money ruins his character, then so be it. That’s what parents are for.
All in all, I hope that Jennings sets an example for future generations of basketball players in his position. In a perfect world, college basketball would be played by college students who are all seeking a college education. Perhaps this is the start of that very phenomenon.
Jennings’ story starts at Oak Hill Academy where he was a highly recruited basketball player committed to play at the University of Arizona. When he realized that his grades were going to keep him from being admitted, he decided to take his game to the European leagues. He has signed a three year deal with an Italian professional team that features buy out clauses for when the NBA is allowed to come calling.
Jennings’ departure has American hoop-heads crying that college basketball is being deprived of a talented player and that it could lead to future exports of young talent to Europe. Under the current rules, NBA teams are forbidden to draft a player until he turns nineteen. This is what is known as the “one and done” rule. Players like Rose from Memphis and Oden from Ohio State played one year in college until such time that they were eligible to be drafted. Jennings will forgo the year in college in exchange for a year or more in Europe where he will be a professional instead of a student athlete. The question is: why does this bother so many people?
“He is not taking advantage of his chance at a college education.” You mean that one and a half semesters of classes he will attend until basketball season is over? Yeah, we wouldn’t want him to miss out on that. People go to college to create job opportunities. I think this kid has found a pretty good opportunity. If he really wants to go to college, the money he will make overseas will be more than enough for tuition once his career ends.
“He is missing out on the college experience.” Ok, let’s see – frat parties in Tuscon versus living in Italy for three years. Yeah, those are comparable.
“He is taking away from the idea of student-athlete.” Actually, he is doing the exact opposite. Rather that perpetuate the fraud of being a student athlete for eight months and then leaving school for the NBA, he is going off to perfect his skill.
“Other high school players will follow his lead and dilute the talent in college basketball.” This is probably true, but who cares? The average fan would hardly notice the difference. Second, if a player has no real interest in going to college and is just using it as a spring board for a professional career, should he really be going to college? One of the biggest criticisms of Division I college basketball is that it is merely a “minor league” for the NBA and is filled with players that have no real interest in a college diploma. College basketball annually lags behind all other sports in graduation rates. True supporters of the idea of student athletes should applaud Jennings’ decision and encourage others like him to do the same.
“He is too young to have all that money.” And you’re probably right. But he is eighteen years old and this is America. If someone is dumb enough to give an eighteen year old kid millions of dollars to play a sport, then why fault the kid? If coming into that money ruins his character, then so be it. That’s what parents are for.
All in all, I hope that Jennings sets an example for future generations of basketball players in his position. In a perfect world, college basketball would be played by college students who are all seeking a college education. Perhaps this is the start of that very phenomenon.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
One curse broken
You may have missed it back in February but one of those little “curses” that surrounds USC’s football program was quietly snapped. The Gamecocks can say that at least one football coach finally rose from the ashes of the coaches’ graveyard. That coach is Sparky Woods, and he will be leading the VMI football program starting this season.
Gamecock fans remember Sparky as the young coach from App. State with the thick southern accent that led USC from 1989-1993. What they should also remember is a guy that inherited a bit of a mess and left the program in a better place.
Sparky basically started his career in a no win situation. First, he replaced one of the most successful coaches in school history – never a good way to start. Second, he inherited a program that had a public black eye thanks to a steroids scandal. Third, he inherited a team with little depth at quarterback. The quarterback he did inherit went down with a season ending injury in Sparky’s first year. Lastly, and what really hurt Sparky, was that the Gamecocks entered the SEC in his fourth year, which considerably raised the bar for the program.
As for positives, not many people remember that he beat Georgia twice – both times in Athens. He notched a win at Clemson. And in his first two years, the Gamecocks were bowl eligible. (To this day, I maintain that Carolina’s decision to hold those two teams out of bowl competition because of exams was one of the great bonehead decisions in athletic department history. Had USC gone to those two bowls, it would have made four bowl appearances in a row for Carolina.) Lastly, he recruited guys like Taneyhill, Bennett, Pritchett, Cates, Campbell, Dexter, Dinkins, Evans, Richardson, and Rumph – players that were a big part of USC’s first bowl win in 1994.
After USC, Sparky spent time at Virginia, Memphis, Mississippi State, Alabama, and the New York Jets. Unlike most USC coaches, Woods was young enough to get another shot at a head coaching job. Here is hoping that he makes the most of it.
Gamecock fans remember Sparky as the young coach from App. State with the thick southern accent that led USC from 1989-1993. What they should also remember is a guy that inherited a bit of a mess and left the program in a better place.
Sparky basically started his career in a no win situation. First, he replaced one of the most successful coaches in school history – never a good way to start. Second, he inherited a program that had a public black eye thanks to a steroids scandal. Third, he inherited a team with little depth at quarterback. The quarterback he did inherit went down with a season ending injury in Sparky’s first year. Lastly, and what really hurt Sparky, was that the Gamecocks entered the SEC in his fourth year, which considerably raised the bar for the program.
As for positives, not many people remember that he beat Georgia twice – both times in Athens. He notched a win at Clemson. And in his first two years, the Gamecocks were bowl eligible. (To this day, I maintain that Carolina’s decision to hold those two teams out of bowl competition because of exams was one of the great bonehead decisions in athletic department history. Had USC gone to those two bowls, it would have made four bowl appearances in a row for Carolina.) Lastly, he recruited guys like Taneyhill, Bennett, Pritchett, Cates, Campbell, Dexter, Dinkins, Evans, Richardson, and Rumph – players that were a big part of USC’s first bowl win in 1994.
After USC, Sparky spent time at Virginia, Memphis, Mississippi State, Alabama, and the New York Jets. Unlike most USC coaches, Woods was young enough to get another shot at a head coaching job. Here is hoping that he makes the most of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)