DebAte-T-Q: Which is more fun to watch, college or pro sports?
The NBA playoffs have recently started and the college version of the post season just completed and it brought to mind the question for me, which is more fun to watch, college or pro sports? On the one hand with college sports you have the affiliation that people feel to their alma mater that causes more emotional connection to the teams then pro sports. You also have the whole amateur athlete playing for the love of the game versus jaded pro just waiting to cash his big paycheck.
Matt: Personally, I find myself more entertained watching pro sports than college. First of all the talent level isn't even comparable. You know the discussions that come up every once in a while about could NCAA Champion X beat perennial pro loser team Y? Let me just tell you, no. No college team could EVER beat a professional team. Ever. The best athletes with the most talent play pro sports. Whether that's the NFL, NBA or MLB.
Second, there is more of a purity to the championships in pro sports. For all the gaudy spectacle that is the Super Bowl, you never hear anyone talking about how the Champion of the NFL should be split because the AP writers and the USA Today Coaches couldn't agree on who deserved it.
Lastly, the games are more fun to watch. They're better coached, the execution is more crisp and the level of play is better. Guys know how to make shots, blocking and hitting is better and the coaching is far superior. Two words: NCAA Championship. The men's basketball NCAA Championship game this year was a travesty. No one can tell me they enjoyed watching that brick-fest. No way would a NBA coach allow his team to continue to jack up 3's while shooting 19% in a championship game.
Tako: I'm glad you like prefer pro sports to college sports. It's just too bad for you that two of the major American sports leagues could be headed for work stoppages in the next 12 months. I guess you'll still have Euro league soccer.
College sports is team play, and hustle. I could care less about the NBA playoffs, because who honestly wants to watch a bunch of overpaid superstars half-ass it for 44 minutes, playing selfish, show-off basketball? I'd rather watch a team of five guys (or girls) working together every second of every game. The talent disparity means nothing if it isn't fun to watch, especially considering pro ticket prices. You won't see me shelling out $75 to maaaaybe see LeBron do something awesome. In fact, I think the talent level in the NFL actually HURTS its watchability. There are so many defensive freaks of nature flying around the field, it leads to low-scoring games. This is America, damnit, I WANT POINTS!
In college, every game counts. In the pros, there are 162 baseball games, 82 basketball and hockey games, 16 (and possibly 18) football games. By the time the playoffs roll around, the players are on their last legs. That's why most Super Bowls are snoozefests. The last exciting Super Bowl was Giants-Pats, and that game was possibly the worst Super Bowl ever for the first 52 or so minutes. They spend so much time exploiting the fan for as much money as they can squeeze figuring out who the best team is that it cheapens the product. It also ruins the ending. If the most talented group of players always wins, why even play the season? Just have all the GMs sign players, and then the commissioner can hand out a trophy.
College sports is about pride. For many college sports fans, you are a fan of that school because you went to school there; you know what it feels like to have it be YOUR school. The student-athletes are playing for more than just an ownership group and a paycheck; they are playing for the pride of alumni, students, and future generations of scholars. Rivalries are about more than just geography and some on-field meetings; they are rooted in tradition, from the Stanford Axe to the Little Brown Jug to the Harvard-Yale prank war. College sports is about celebrating the athlete that, to borrow from the cheesy NCAA ad campaign, will go pro in something other than sports. This is it for them. This is their shot at fame and glory, and they will push themselves above and beyond to obtain it. They aren't working for a new shoe deal or a contract extension; they are working to be immortalized as a campus legend like Lorenzo Charles, Kenny Wheaton, or Wes Byrum. It's the purest form of sport.
Lastly, I like what you did here.
They're better coached, the execution is more crisp and the level of play is better. Guys know how to make shots, blocking and hitting is better and the coaching is far superior.
Saying the exact same thing in two straight sentences is a great way to make your argument seem longer. I used it all the time in high school.
Matt: You sound like you're creating a commercial for the next year's Women's NCAA tournament...
College sports is team play, and hustle. We got game.
You can't honestly tell me that watching Butler shoot 3-31 from inside the 3 point line was "fun." The talent level disparity is meaningful. A majority of the NCAA tournament games were pathetic. Bad shooting, bad coaching, jack up 3's high screen and roll boring offenses and even worse defenses. So far in the first round of games in the NBA playoffs, there has been one game decided by 10 points or more, and that was an upset. On top of that not a single team has shot 19% from the field.
So every game counts in college huh? That Butler loss to Evansville (16-16 in the MVC) was so meaningful. Gimme a break. The NCAA regular season is about as meaningless as they can make it right now. You still get invited to play in your conference tourney and you can still get an auto bid to the NCAA tourney, and even if those don't work out you still have the NIT, CIT, CBI, Meineke Car Care Bowl and Insight.com Holiday Extravaganzza After School Special Bowl. In pro sports, the regular season actually matters because there is an actual postseason.
As for just handing out trophies, isn't that what college football is all about. The AP just hands out a trophy to who it feels is the champ. There are trophies for games. Little Brown Jug? Nice trophy for winning a game. I thought only the champion was supposed to get a trophy, but apparently in college sports you get a bunch of them just for winning a regular season game. Also, don't give me the "it's a rivalry thing" excuse either. Red Sox - Yankees, that's a rivalry. Ravens - Steelers, that's a rivalry. Lakers - Celtics, Cheifs - Raiders. All rivalries and still no trophy.
Lastly, stop contradicting yourself. The Giants - Pats was a great Super Bowl? And you really like scoring? 17-14 doesn't sound like a shootout. Also, don't mention the Payton Manning versus Drew Brees Super Bowl with two of the best offenses in the NFL and onside kicks and and INT's for a touchdown to seal the game. Or how about the Steelers - Cardinals which ended up 31-25. And yes, getting to the end of the season is a drain and a marathon, which is why the best teams get there. In college football we get to wait a month and a half between games to see the Championship. You don't think the teams are little rusty? You think we're seeing the best product after a 45 day lay off? Most BCS games are snooze-fests because none of the teams are sharp at that point.
I'm glad college players take pride in playing. I'm glad they can take heart in "this is it for them" and "they'll go pro in something else." Most 3rd grade club leagues have the same thing. It doesn't mean it's the most enjoyable to watch. I want the best product for my money and time. That's truly American.
Tako: The NCAA Championship game was not fun to watch. But what about the first four hours of the tournament, complete with four buzzer beaters and only one game decided by more than 5 points. You want to talk about an exciting first round? You got it. March Madness is one complete entity. It's a spectacle far more exciting than the Super Bowl. There were three out of four close games in a day? Whoop-dee-doo, the NBA playoffs last for what feels like six months because these "super-athletes" need three days off between 48 minute games. Maybe if there weren't an 82 game regular season, the playoffs would be more engaging...
No regular season matters more than NCAA football. How many teams have a shot at the title after the regular season is over? Two. How much more exciting would the NBA regular season have been if tonight was Game 1 of the NBA Finals?
As far as trophies are concerned, that's just what there is in college sports. There aren't athletes who dog it on the court, wasting the fans' and the league's time and money, because they're in a contract year and they needs to get paid. There may be prima donnas in college sports, but they can't demand a trade to a bigger TV market.
College athletes are able to make an emotional connection to the fans. A player is there for 4 years, give or take, and his identity lives with that school. Tim Tebow will always be a Florida Gator, Dennis Dixon will always be an Oregon Duck, Brandon Roy and Tim Lincecum will always be washington huskies. In the pros, you can play for as many clubs as will give you a uniform; legacies are sullied, and the emotional content that makes the fan a fan is lost.
To sum up, pro sports is corporate, and college sports is what America should be about: respectful competition free from outside influences. Sometimes Entries Last Longer Or Under Textualize.
Matt: You're right, emotional content can be lost. Joe Montana will always be a Chief and Jerry Rice a Raider.
Tako: No Jerry Rice is a Seahawk. Wait, no, he's a Bronco.
I'm not saying there aren't "lifers" in the pros. Cal Ripken, Jr., Peyton Manning, Malone and Stockton immediately come to mind. But superstars like LeBron, Carmelo, A-Rod, and others don't have an identity other than being an elite athlete and a Nike pitchman. And how much did Brett Favre alter his legacy by changing teams? There's a reason why pro sports still hold athletes from woebegone eras (segregated, pre-forward pass, pre-shot clock and 3-point-line); today's pros are freelance sports consultants.
...
That should get you guys started. What do you think? Are college sports more fun to watch because the athletes are in it for the game and aren't corrupted by the financial side of the business or do you prefer the more talented aspects of pro sports? Debate away.
133 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
College by a mile. (Except for baseball)
"I'll give any teller who gives me a lollipop 4 stars."-Chip Kelly
by TennesseeQuackAttack8 on Apr 20, 2011 12:15 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
100% agree.
And… think about this – what’s talked about the most on the day after most Super Bowls?
The commercials.
That says it all.
by ConfofChamps on Apr 24, 2011 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions
Cheap shot on Brad Stevens
FG : 18.8% (12-64)
3 PT %: 27.3 (9-33)
What type of idiot wouldn’t have their team throwing up 3 pointers at that point?
The guy is one of the best coaches in the game. The NC game was just a statistical anomaly.
by Charlie Offenbacher on Apr 20, 2011 12:20 PM PDT reply actions
Fun with stats
Season averages:
2 Pt FG% – 48.5%
3 Pt FG% – 35.2%
Maybe he shouldn’t have been drawing up plays for the lower percentage shots? Stevens is a great coach, but the talent level and quality of play between college sports and pro sports is wide, and you’d be hard pressed to find a championship game where a team shoots that poorly.
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
That’s the college game. See who can hit the most threes. Thrilling, isn’t it?
And that’s why the college basketball postseason is the most wildly overrated thing in sports.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
I normally love what you guys write...
…but Butler hit 9 times as many 3’s as UConn in the championship game. Just throwing that out there as a counter point.
by Charlie Offenbacher on Apr 20, 2011 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions
That’s not really a counter point. It’s a cherry picked incident where a game didn’t come down to three point shooting. In most cases, it does.
I don’t really think this is debatable. College basketball, merely because of the skill level of all the players involved, comes down hitting open shots. Most defense aren’t good enough to take this away from opponents. Open shots will happen, and it often becomes a jump shooting contest.
That appeals to some people, but that, combined with the setup of the postseason tournament, drive me crazy.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Not many people agree with you. I think that makes it debatable, at least in terms of being “the most wildly overrated thing in sports.”
Defending maligned chants since 2009
Agree with me about what? The style of the college game isn’t really up for debate. It is what it is.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Agree with you about college basketball, or at least the college basketball tournament, being unappealing.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
That’s not what I was referring to with the debate comment. That was specifically about the style of college basketball.
Enjoyment of the NCAA tournament is entirely subjective (and thus up for debate). But we’re coming at this from two totally different points of view. You’ve stated before that you only care about the first weekend of the tournament. I want to see the best teams make it to the end, and I don’t care about the first two days.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Last time I checked...
They add up the points at the end of the game, not number of shots made.
2 * 0.485 = 0.97 points / shot
3 * 0.352 = 1.056 points / shot
And those are in regular, Horizon-league games where Butler should have been able to dominate in the paint.*
Also, Butler was just getting smashed inside during the championship game. Their two best players combined to be 0-16. Butler was able to get off reasonable looking 3-pointers, which means their percentage was a lot closer to average outside.
*I haven’t actually seen a Butler regular-season game.
by Charlie Offenbacher on Apr 20, 2011 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions
Butler had a season efficiency of 109
against UConn it was 73. They were atrocious that game. UConn wasn’t much better. They have a season efficiency of 109.2 and were 94.6 in the Championship game.
We can look at all the stats we want, they’ll all point to the fact that it wasn’t much fun to watch. College post seasons do not lend themselves to putting the two best teams playing their best game on the field, court, turf at that time.
That’s my point.
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
Ohhh
Okay. I thought you were criticizing the quality of play and the coaching, not the format.
by Charlie Offenbacher on Apr 20, 2011 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions
I’m criticizing both. The format doesn’t help, but the quality of play and the coaching are no where near a professional level.
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
Sure
Just wanted to point out that your argument about coaching was completely bogus. And I’m just glancing through FG averages for NBA teams, and they all seem to be about 47% / 35% as well on the year, approximately the same as Butler, so I don’t think it’s inconceivable that one of them would shoot that poorly in a championship game (wait, there are up to 7 of them every year?). The last time a team shot under 30% from the field in a NCAA championship was the 1960’s… it’s not fair to take an anomaly and make a sweeping generalization.
by Charlie Offenbacher on Apr 20, 2011 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm sorry Matt
but it’s NO comparison. I wouldn’t watch much pro baseball or basketball if it weren’t for fantasy sports.
The "Bill Simmons" of ATQ
College sports is better because 95% of the Athletes give a total 110% every time
As opposed to 5% of NBA players giving a damn.
The "Bill Simmons" of ATQ
Adding random statistics to your opinion doesn't give it any more credence
That’s such a broad generalization and patently false.
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
Speaking of broad generalizations…
A majority of the NCAA tournament games were pathetic.
I enjoyed nearly all of the tournament games that I watched this year. (This could be slightly due to the format, as during the early rounds you have multiple options of what to watch, but wouldn’t that simply be another perk related to the tournament?)
I don't mean to impose...
by TheOcean on Apr 20, 2011 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I love having 18,000 games on at one time
Because I can ignore the 17,996 of them that are pathetic and watch the 4 entertaining ones.
There were 64 total games in the tourney. Feel free to count how many were exciting well played basketball. The only reason you watched the other ones were because they mattered to your bracket, or because you knew the season was going to be over for one of the teams. It wasn’t inspired great basketball we got to enjoy.
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
I was simply responding in order to point out that neither side in this argument has avoided using generalizations. I am not sure that I should be the one tasked with counting how many games were…unpathetic. I don’t even want to begin to hash out what makes a game pathetic or not. I simply want statements such the one below to be left out of a debate. You don’t get to tell someone else why they enjoyed or didn’t enjoy something.
“The only reason you watched the other ones were because they mattered to your bracket, or because you knew the season was going to be over for one of the teams. It wasn’t inspired great basketball we got to enjoy.”
Also, you and I both know that there is a vast difference between your “18,000” concurrent games and the reality that there were never more than 4 games on simultaneously.
I respect your right to an opinion that college basketball’s skill level makes it unwatchable for you, just as I think the obtuse rules used by the NBA to encourage offense might hinder the product on offer.
As a final note, I think we can all agree that one thing the NBA can offer, is a complete lack of the Washington Huskies. (Happy Jake Locker Day!)
I don't mean to impose...
You watch a tuesday night college game
and then a wednesday night NBA game and tell me which one has a greater proportion of players playing hard 100% of the time.
The "Bill Simmons" of ATQ
It depends
Hockey, baseball, give me the pro’s. Although I will admit that might be because college baseball and college hockey aren’t very televised. On the other hand, those are my two favorite sports.
Give me college for everything else. It seems like the quality of competition isn’t THAT much less that it’s distracting, but the game itself feels more pure and less filled with overpaid loafers. I feel like the players, on the whole, are much more about the team and less about individual achievements in college. It’s probably because most of them know they won’t move on to the next level, so the team is much more important.
Those are generalizations, obviously, and don’t hold true for everybody. I just enjoy watching college more. Parity is almost too great at the pro level. There aren’t any upsets any more. There isn’t as much drama or as much rivalry and history.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
Depends on the sport
I love and follow the NBA and MLB closely, but do not follow NCAA BB or Baseball, beyond an casual interest in how the Ducks are doing in those sports.
However, college football is so vastly superior to the NFL as to be in a different stratosphere. I’d have to be tied to a chair to sit through an entire NFL game, yet can waste an entire Saturday watching game after game of college football.
To me the difference is three main things:
1. In CFB, every single game matters – if you have hopes to challenging for the National Championship, every single game is life and death.
2. I think CFB inspires much more creativity . Because the level of talent varies so greatly and can change quickly from year to year, I think you see a much larger variety of offensive an defensive strategies – sometimes even things you’ve never seen before.
3. Offense, offense, offense! I loooooove me some scoring. 65-51? Now that’s a football game I want to see.
Correction
1. In CFB, every single game matters – if you have hopes to challenging for the National Championship, every single game is life and death.
Every single game matters for one team. Either one team is already out of the NCG race or soon will be. Once your team is no longer in that race, the games don’t matter as much.
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
No, your correction is not correct.
Sure, there is some diminishing return for some teams as they go through the season – I don’t suppose it’s any fun to be a Wazzu fan right now for instance. But a huge number of teams are playing for something that matters greatly to them – the best bowl game possible. When we beat the Beavs in 2008, I was thrilled not because it knocked them out of the Rose Bowl, but for us it meant the Holiday Bowl instead of the Sun Bowl.
Were you more thrilled with going to the NCG or the Holiday Bowl? I’m guessing the NCG, so the losses definitely means
the games don’t matter as much.
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
My theory is
that Tako paid you to take the Pro Sports (and therefore NFL) stance here. No one who loves Duck Football as much as you do could really believe this.
by daisyduck on Apr 20, 2011 1:16 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yikes, I hit post too soon
Meant to say:
It is a stupid question posted by a Duck lover trying to hide his true feelings about his favorite sport in the world in order to keep the debate raging so we all have something to do with our brains this Wednesday afternoon.
Thanks for taking one for the team, Matt Daddy.
Close.
While I love the Ducks more than any sports team in the history of the world, it doesn’t mean that the product on NCAA fields is better than the product on NFL fields. If I take my emotional attachment out of it, it’s not hard for me to realize that the quality of coaching, the execution of the game, the format of the league, and the post seasons are that much better.
If only I had attended the University of Steelers.
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
Well in the end there really isn't much to debate is there?
For some, the NFL is more fun to watch because of the reasons you outlined. For me, I’d rather spend a rainy Saturday afternoon at Chuckie Cheese. While hungover.
Give me my college football any day.
And I’m glad you’ve admitted that putting produce in beer is a fantastic way to enjoy a beverage. Way to be a man!
Defending maligned chants since 2009
I'm not wrong
But you know that I’m a really nice girl that would rather always avoid conflict. Frankly, you scare me with your superior debating and cooking skills. It’s enough to crush my fragile ego to bits.
I tried using that debate tactic once
But now they have me wearing this restrictive white coat and keep saying that I don’t “play well with others.” At least the walls are soft in here.
Prince: This bores me. Is anyone up for a game of basketball?
Don’t interrupt the flow. It’s possible I’ll have Matt Daddy admitting that I’m a really nice girl any minute now. Then I’m going to copy that post and paste it in the Quack Fix every freaking day. And I expect all the rest of you to turn it green, dammit.
Not really.
Each loss a college team has, the more of a negative impact it has for the season, until you fall below .500.
You can’t even say that’s true for the NFL (7-9 Seahawks), and you can suffer a few losses and still end up as the top seed at the end.
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-S-K-Y"
College for me, and it's not close.
Matt, I’ll concede your point about the talent being vastly superior in the NFL. But I don’t think that necessarily makes the game more watchable. In fact, I think it makes the games more predictable, which (for me) is a bad thing.
One of my absolute least favorite things about pro sports — particularly, the NFL — is the ubiquity of conservative coaching. Riverboat gamble playcalls are so rare in the NFL, but they’re a bodily function for Chip Kelly (and some other coaches, none of whom are named “Tressell”). I can almost never call Chip’s next move, and at this point I’m chemically addicted to that feeling.
The other aspect for me is that the NFL games just feel sterile in a way that’s hard for me to articulate well. These two articles from Slate (1, 2) do a pretty decent job outlining what I mean. Yes, obviously some college players are getting paid. But most of them aren’t (outside of scholarships); this is their last stop in sports, and they’re playing — to abuse a tired cliché — for the love of the game.
The NFL just doesn’t seem to have the passion that the college game does for me. Obviously, NFL fans can be passionate, but often the players aren’t (or don’t seem that way to me). Why should they be? They are, after all, professionals.
"[Autzen Stadium's] steep concrete banks and closed ends turn a small but rabid crowd from WAC-sized cheering section into a horde of bees with megaphones capable of reaching 127 decibels of hatenoise." -Spencer Hall
Wow Matt...
Attempting to argue that pro sports are more fun to watch than college sports (on a college sports blog nonetheless) is one hell of a tall task.
Self anointed President of the Kenjon Barner fan club.
No one can tell me they enjoyed watching that brick-fest
I’m sorry, do you not remember the Spurs/Pistons finals several years back? And you picked out quite possibly the worst championship game as your example. What about last year with Gordon Heyward coming inches away from a buzzer beating half-court shot? The reason NCAA BB is far better than NBA – because every tournament game is do or die for each time. I think in the last 20 years, there’s only been 3 game 7 finals. Most of the time, it is very clear who the champion will be. But in the NCAA, its one game. Anyone can win 1 game – not anyone can beat another team 4 out of 7. This makes the tournament so much more exciting and rewarding to watch.
Anyone can win 1 game
Apparently not a 16 seed.
So what you’re basically saying is that you’ll live with lower quality play, mediocre teams in the championship game for the thrill of the do or die? Sure the NBA playoffs are more predictable, and the best team will more often win a series, but who are the best two teams in the league this year? Parity makes the games more competitive, the series are closer, and the outcome less predictable.
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
'...and the outcome less predictable'
I thought the advantage of NBA playoffs is that they are more predictable, from earlier in your paragraph.
by Charlie Offenbacher on Apr 20, 2011 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions
No one really likes predictability... that's just boring.
But there has to be a balance between utter chaos and complete predictability. I’ll take a little predictability to ensure that the quality of the games are that much better.
I’m not interested in a NBA championship game between Indiana and Sacramento.
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
Are you telling me that you were not interested in the Duke/Butler or UConn/Butler championship games?
I'm not going lie and say no, I'm a sports junky (especially basketball)
But I’m more interested in Lakers – Celtics game 7 or games 3,4, and 5 of Lakers – Magic (2009).
The games are more fun to watch. How about Lakers – Utah or Cleveland – Celtics?
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
I’ll give you the Lakers/Celtics game 7, but those are so few. But Game 5 Lakers/Magic with the Lakers up 3-1? Or Game 4 of Spurs/Cavs with the Spurs up 3-0?
Or how about the entire freaking college basketball regular season, which is rendered meaningless when almost half of BCS teams make it to the tournament?
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Over half the NBA teams make the post season
Some with losing records. And they get to play 7 game series.
by OregonNYC on Apr 20, 2011 3:35 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
The national champion in college basketball was .500 in their conference over the regular season.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
Best two teams: Spurs and Bulls – but thanks to the 82 game regular season, the Spurs will break down due to age – which goes against your"quality" argument because the Spurs were by far the best team of the NBA for 3/4 of the season.
You really think Butler was a mediocre team the past couple of years? You’re basing that off of 1 horrible game they played.
Where was Butler ranked going into the tournament? I’m not the only saying they were mediocre.
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
To throw a small sample size argument back in your court – what about Game 7 of the Celtics – Lakers last year? You could argue that these were the two best teams and were playing a do-or-die and yet that game stunk. Not on the same level as Butler, but it’s not like having the two best teams guarantees a high quality contest.
I’ll live with lower quality play and mediocre teams (although that’s a huge exaggeration – Butler was not “mediocre”; they were good, not great, but that’s not mediocre) in exchange for more exciting games.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
My interest order...
College football, and nothing else is close. Then, the NBA and MLB.
Outside of Oregon, I don’t care about college basketball, and I’m turning on the NCAA tournament. I don’t like watch poorly played games, where the style of play greatly benefits whatever team ends up getting hot that game, and inevitably the best teams aren’t there at the end. College basketball has some severe talent issues, and it’s killing the game.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
College basketball has some severe talent issues, and it’s killing the game.
They need the Baseball rule structure: If you want to go to the pros right out of high school, be our guest but there’s a rookie salary structure so don’t expect the immediate pay day. If you choose to come to school, you’re here for 3 years.
That would promote the growth of more players that make a lasting impact on a program/community (Catron-ish) and less of the Brandon Knights of the world (“Wait, we lost?” Fuck Soc 121.")
The "Bill Simmons" of ATQ
That would mean that the NBA and NCAA would have to work together. And David Stern says, “fuck that.”
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
I prefer the NBA to NCAA BB
Because the talent gap is so huge. Basketball is also a sport that highlights the talent gap so much that levels lower than the NBA look awful by comparison.
Football has more college talent, and the lower level guys on the field are not as obvious.
by OregonNYC on Apr 20, 2011 3:41 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I enjoy college sports because of the disparity on the field. I don’t like watching all of the best players go against each other.
I like seeing LaMichael James run to a wall of defenders on the right, break a tackle, keep his balance, out run 7 guys to the corner to the left side of the field, cut up, miss a defender, break a tackle, burst off some speed, break another tackle, and then dive into the end zone. And I like him making stuff like this happen several times a game.
We can make fun of UCLA’s water pistol offense, but the fact that they run an offensive set based from the pistol offense makes it unique. In the NFL, you basically have 3-4, 4-3 sets and a mix of “pro-style” offenses that everyone else runs.
Also, the I find the parity in the NFL is be detractive from the product, because you don’t really have superstars anymore. You have players that are better than the rest, but the bar isn’t really being set, as the ground is rising up to the bar. The talent pool has balanced out so much that you won’t really have the dominate players like Joe Montana, Barry Sanders, Walter Payton, Emmet Smith, Chuck Bednarik, Bruce Smith, Reggie White, or Lawrence Taylor. Terry Bradshaw wouldn’t be as good as he was in his prime if he played in today’s game.
I can see why someone might “appreciate” the overall better talent level, and they see that as a better product. But the better product is the one that I find more entertaining.
It's spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-S-K-Y"
Lastly, the games are more fun to watch…Two words: NCAA Championship. The men’s basketball NCAA Championship game this year was a travesty.
Three words: Chip Kelly’s offense. And while collegiate athletics has its problems, there will never be the threat of a program leaving the school unless taxpayers build a new stadium. They won’t play communities against each other (Raiders), sneak off in the middle of the night (Browns to Baltimore), have secret committees that constantly mess with things (Paul Allen’s “Vulcans”) or brazenly lie to fans before screwing them (Howard Schulz, Clay Bennett and David Stern).
Yes, pro sports have better athletes and crisper execution. They’re also really just the playthings of incredibly wealthy people who are gracious enough to let you watch.
Three words: Chip Kelly’s offense.
You only feel that way because of your emotional attachment to the Ducks (obviously I’m guessing, you can tell if I’m wrong). If Oregon was a pro-style offense and Chip Kelly was coaching the huskies (eww, that made me throw up a little in my mouth) you’d probably think differently.
The quality of play across the board in the NFL makes it that much more enjoyable to watch. Most of the arguments I’m seeing here are “but I love my Ducks/LMJ/Chip Kelly/etc.” I’m not arguing that, of course you’re going to love the Ducks. I do too. I’m saying the pro sports have better athletes, a more consistent product, and are more fun to watch.
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
I’m saying the pro sports have better athletes, a more consistent product, and are more fun to watch.
The 3rd statement does not follow from the first two. I don’t think anyone concedes the first two points. Having good athletes does not mean that the NFL is more fun to watch. Being more consistent doesn’t make it more fun to watch. In fact, I think both of these things conspire make NFL less fun to watch.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
I completely agree with that. It makes it more mundane that players are so good, you can’t get away with much beyond what’s already there. Belichick is praised for being outside the box, but he would be milquetoast compared to a lot of college schemes. And there are no real upsets in the NFL. There are no Appalachian St. vs. Michigan. That’s not as interesting to me.
Defending maligned chants since 2009
Obviously we're dealing with a subjective topic of "fun"
so what I’m trying to say is take your objective allegiances out of the picture. For example, Oregon doesn’t have a hockey team, so I’m not swayed by my allegiance to Oregon Hockey.
I’d much rather watch an NHL game than a college hockey game. The product is just better. The quality of the play is going to be more consistent and the athletes will be better.
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
so what I’m trying to say is take your objective allegiances out of the picture.
Yeah, it’s still totally subjective and your statements don’t conclusion doesn’t have any correlation to your first two statements.
I would rather watch a good college football game than a good NFL game. I’ll watch random college football games. I will rarely do that with the NFL.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
and your statements don’t conclusion doesn’t have any correlation
You want to try that one again?
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
your statements and conclusion doesn’t have any correlation
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
So you’re saying consistency of the product and talent level of the athletes don’t have anything to do with the enjoyability or entertainment value of the sport?
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
They are a couple of many factors that go into the enjoyability of watching a sport.
--AddictedToQuack, SBNation's Oregon Ducks blog
One of my favorite bowl experiences this year was the Little Ceasar’s Pizza Bowl (yes, I watched it) with FIU vs. Toledo. I have zero emotional commitment to either team, but holy crap, that was a finish I still remember.
As you said earlier, this is entirely subjective. For some people, a more polished product is going to be more entertaining. For some people (myself included), a less predictable product that occasionally includes botched assignments, long snaps out the back of the end zone, and improbable conversions on 4th-and-17 is more enjoyable. There’s no inconsistency there.
We’re arguing about this like there’s some objective truth to be had, but that’s silly. There’s none to be had. And that’s okay. This isn’t Red Vines vs. Twizzlers, guys. (SPOILER ALERT: RED VINES WIN AND IT IS OBJECTIVELY TRUE WITH SCIENCE TO BACK IT UP, GUYS.)
"[Autzen Stadium's] steep concrete banks and closed ends turn a small but rabid crowd from WAC-sized cheering section into a horde of bees with megaphones capable of reaching 127 decibels of hatenoise." -Spencer Hall
by ProbablyMonty on Apr 20, 2011 3:08 PM PDT up reply actions
Oregon doesn't have a hockey team?
Hmm. I remember going to watch a bunch of Oregon hockey games in the PAC-8. That was 5 years ago or so… Has Oregon dropped hockey since then?
I’ll be the first to admit that even though I’m trying to be objective, biases may be part of it. But I’ve had friends that are Texas, Tennessee and Georgia fans tell me CK’s offense was hands down the most entertaining football they’ve seen in a long time.
I think if you take ‘personal emotional investment’ out of the equation, sure, pro sports are better. For a lot of people, they get the same enjoyment watching a generic game as watching one involving their team. But I think for most, a big part of it is simply being a loyal fan and having that loyalty rewarded. In the pros, that loyalty is something to be manipulated more than appreciated.
I think its okay for biases to be a part of it
that bias is inherent to our ability to enjoy sports.
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, your friendly, neighborhood Oregon Ducks blog
Bias is what makes peewee tee ball watchable.
That and the occasional America’s Funniest Videos moments.
I’m saying the pro sports have better athletes, a more consistent product, and are more fun to watch.
Of course they have better athletes. The second one is debatable. The NFL is consistent, for sure. The NBA players consistently don’t give a darn during the regular season.
Parity is great if your team is a traditional have not. Its why the Blazer fan in me wants parity in the NBA. Its boring if you don’t really have a team to follow. You either want to see two titans going at it, or a major upset brewing. I want to see Alabama play LSU and Texas play Oklahoma. I don’t want to see NFL games involving Jacksonville and Denver or NBA games involving Milwaukee and Indiana.
Likewise, I don’t want to see Iowa State vs. Kansas. But college football delivers the best of both worlds. You get lots of clashes of the titans. You get upsets where you can cheer an Iowa State beating a Texas, but they still happen infrequently enough that they are still special. I think college football is loads more entertaining than the NFL.
Of course, for most people it just comes down to whatever team they have more of a connection to.
I think quality of play rarely has anything to do with it.
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, your friendly, neighborhood Oregon Ducks blog
College sports > Pro sports in general
College football is way more fun to watch than the NFL, mostly because the NFL now has become the No Fun League. Combine the fact that NFL teams have more turnover than a Chili’s wait staff, it’s hard to really take to the players on your team. There’s a lot more diversity in scheme in college as well, which is always fun to watch. And there are way too many NFL games. Who wants to watch Detroit play 16 times in a season? Finally, the playoff system is ridiculous. The fact that Seattle was given a home field game this year speaks to that.
College basketball is better than the NBA only because we all know the NBA is staged by the puppet master David Stern. Neither is very thrilling these days though, especially with the lack of talent at the college level.
MLB baseball is a great pro sport however. It’s laid back, it’s always on, and while some people think it’s too slow, it’s the perfect summer sport. Come playoff time, it’s thrilling. The playoffs aren’t flooded with teams barely treading water (usually). It’s got something for everyone; stat-heads, traditionalists, historians, and thrill seekers. I got excited the other day just watching Aroldis Chapman throw a ball at what people thought was 106 mph. That’s incredible.
Prince: This bores me. Is anyone up for a game of basketball?
What really sucks about the NBA is the refs
The grandstanding, posturing, general skeeziness. Those bozos actually think they’re part of the reason people watch the NBA.
No kidding
The way they prance around, I feel like I’m watching pro wrestling.
Prince: This bores me. Is anyone up for a game of basketball?
At least they have an excuse for their ineptitude.
What’s the Pac 10 ref’s excuse?
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
The difference is
The Pac 10 refs are inept, but the NBA refs know exactly what they’re doing. That’s what makes some of the calls in the NBA ridiculous. I can deal with ineptitude better than refs purposely affecting the outcome.
Prince: This bores me. Is anyone up for a game of basketball?
I think everyone's opinion on this topic us mostly
Formed by who they have the most passion for as a team. I’m a blazer fan from 5 years old, so I love the NBA and will watch any random game of decent teams because my Blazer fandom makes my invested in the NBA product.
I’m a UO grad and a huge ducks football fan, so I’ll happily watch most decent NCAA football games as I’m invested in the college FB product.
I do have to say that college BB, even though I’m a big UO fan, is really inferior to pro ball. The talent gap is too large, the format of basket enhances the obviousness of the gap as well, while it is more hidden in college FB. Playing hard is great, but I play hard at the Y and no one wants to watch our games.
by OregonNYC on Apr 20, 2011 3:52 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
Pro sports WAY > College sports
College sports are only watchable because of the personal ties. If you honestly think that “a bunch of overpaid superstars half-ass it for 44 minutes, playing selfish, show-off basketball” in the NBA playoffs, you have literally never watched the NBA playoffs. There is no less heart, no less passion or drive, it’s silly to even accuse them of such. And they last so long because they actually separate the chaff from the wheat, and you can’t fluke into a championship, which can’t be said for any game where there is only a small sample involved.
"We Believe" - Rudy Fernandez
By the bye — as others have said, kudos to you Matt for coming onto a college sports blog and defending the NFL position. You had to know you’d be in the minority on this, and yet you have not only articulated your position clearly, but have defended it well. (Seriously.)
"[Autzen Stadium's] steep concrete banks and closed ends turn a small but rabid crowd from WAC-sized cheering section into a horde of bees with megaphones capable of reaching 127 decibels of hatenoise." -Spencer Hall
My position:
He doesn’t really believe it. He’s just a debate-a-holic.
by daisyduck on Apr 20, 2011 6:16 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
I agree.
"I'll give any teller who gives me a lollipop 4 stars."-Chip Kelly
by TennesseeQuackAttack8 on Apr 20, 2011 6:34 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I was just trying to make Daisy cry
But seriously, the offseason is a long time, so I thought it’d be fun to put together a couple of post debating a number of the topics that have floated around the site for a while and sometimes you have to take a side that isn’t easy. I’d love to get some people other than mods involved in this too.
My first thought was debating maligned chants and fan behavior with Gorby, but he’d have to agree to it. Gorby?
Constantly making Daisy cry
Addicted to Quack
You're like the guy at my office that makes a different female employee cry every two months or so.
Great guy.
Take a doo doo pie. I love you.
by Bill Musgrave on Apr 20, 2011 6:52 PM PDT up reply actions
I know everything.
Take a doo doo pie. I love you.
by Bill Musgrave on Apr 20, 2011 7:02 PM PDT up reply actions
This is blazers edge right now

Constantly making Daisy cry
Addicted to Quack
by Matt Daddy on Apr 20, 2011 7:58 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Oh I can imagine it.
Take a doo doo pie. I love you.
by Bill Musgrave on Apr 20, 2011 7:56 PM PDT up reply actions
Was it a kick or punch to the jewels?
I’m guessing a punch. You seem pretty vicious. Or maybe a grab ‘n’ twist. A twist ‘n’ hook?
That's not Daisy's style
I’m guessing it was more emasculating than that.
Constantly making Daisy cry
Addicted to Quack
It was a complete
evisceration of his manhood and self worth. According to him. Me, I just thought I was telling him to get his freaking act together or we’d be showing him the door. Granted, maybe I shouldn’t have pointed and laughed quite so hard when he got emotional. And it’s also possible I shouldn’t have told all the girls about it at happy hour.
by daisyduck on Apr 20, 2011 8:49 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
ok, that made me laugh
Granted, maybe I shouldn’t have pointed and laughed quite so hard
Told you it was more emasculating.
Constantly making Daisy cry
Addicted to Quack
You've got a son, right?
I want to pre-order his autobiography right now. Got an amazon link?
You've got me all wrong
I am a really nice girl. It’s like you all have short term memory loss around here.
Besides, those boys of mine totally have my number. I’m at their mercy.
Thanks!
Yeah, that’s going to last until about tomorrow, and then you’ll all be back to the Memento impressions again. Good thing I have no problem telling you all over and OVER AND OVER.
Gotcha. I’ve cooked up a few more debate topic ideas for you, if you’re interested:
1) What is the best football team in the state of Oregon? jtlight says UO, Matt says OAC.
2) What color goes best with yellow? Daisy says green, Matt says purple.
3) Which Duck-covering sports writer is the best? ntrebon says Moseley, Matt waffles between Canzahno and Bach-mann. (Spelling errors intentional.)
"[Autzen Stadium's] steep concrete banks and closed ends turn a small but rabid crowd from WAC-sized cheering section into a horde of bees with megaphones capable of reaching 127 decibels of hatenoise." -Spencer Hall
by ProbablyMonty on Apr 20, 2011 7:23 PM PDT up reply actions
We can debate that too, if you want. (Okay, no we can’t.)
FWIW, my other comment about giving you kudos was (and is) completely serious.
"[Autzen Stadium's] steep concrete banks and closed ends turn a small but rabid crowd from WAC-sized cheering section into a horde of bees with megaphones capable of reaching 127 decibels of hatenoise." -Spencer Hall
by ProbablyMonty on Apr 20, 2011 7:31 PM PDT up reply actions
The DebAte-T-Q idea is a really good one however
The threads have been pretty slow around here lately, and this one was fun. I mean, even HRD has ditched us and I didn’t think I’d ever see that day. I suppose it is possible that there has been some sort of consumption epidemic in Hood River, but I’d think we’d have heard about it by now.
Thanks
I got a number of ideas to debate. Something entertaining to get us through the long off season.
Constantly making Daisy cry
Addicted to Quack
Well, the spring game will come soon.
which means Dr. Delight and bashing galore.
The "Bill Simmons" of ATQ
I love arguing. What do you want me to argue with you about?
"I'll give any teller who gives me a lollipop 4 stars."-Chip Kelly
by TennesseeQuackAttack8 on Apr 20, 2011 7:32 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I don't like watching freaks playing freaks.
I know there are many freak athletes in college sports, but for the most part they are distributed. They are also in the process of developing their potential, and still have the unpredictability of being 17-22 years old.
Speed Endurance Talent is how Track Town USA plays football. WWWWWWWWWWWWin The Day
Quite Frankly
My argument is this: There is really no place for the “little guy” in pro sports. I tried watching a pro basketball game last night and the guys are so huge that it’s just not fun to watch. I can stomach pro football to an extent.
There are of course exceptions to this rule: Aaron Brooks – small guy doing well in the NBA. Others too in both pro football and basketball can do well also, but they are few and far between.
In college sports you can have kids that will never-ever play at the upper level and I feel good about seeing them excel at the college level.
Once we start paying these kids (more?) will it change college sports? Yes.
Also kinda off topic, but relates to this subject – The predicted top two players in the NFL draft are both from Auburn, who just barely beat us in the National game. We don’t have anyone even in the first round (probably) that will go to the NFL draft. That shows that guys with less talent can excel in college sports at a high level to me.
"David Paulson dropped a ball one time just to see what it felt like. But he didn't like it so he decided not to do it again." -Mark Asper

by 

















