If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Soon to be most hated man in America calls for the banning of college football. Fark: He actually makes a valid point   (slate.com) divider line 194
    More: Scary, Malcolm Gladwell, Intelligence Squared, college football, shoot out tournament, Tyler Cowen, economic power, CTE, best-selling author  
•       •       •

5658 clicks; posted to Sports » on 01 May 2012 at 10:50 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



194 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-01 11:21:47 AM

Carth: Babwa Wawa: IAmRight: I assume that it didn't stop being popular due to head trauma. Rise of NASCAR? Gambling restrictions? IndyCar used to be relatively important, too. I think it's silly to say that there's one reason for any sport to decline in popularity. There has to be multiple problems.

Horse racing, dog fighting, cock fighting, and boxing are all formerly popular pastimes in which the athlete cannot avoid injury. It's hard not to notice the common thread.

as someone else pointed out MMA is actually rapidly increasing in popularity despite the risks of traumatic brain injury.


That would be a valid point if the MMA were a mainstream sport.
 
2012-05-01 11:22:20 AM

Carth: Fubini: Generation_D: Ah, someone selling a viewpoint to promote his own work. Thats more like it. OK. So because the argument is on "safety" and "danger," are you in favor of banning all risky behavior by all people under a certain age, or all people in college?

Reading comprehension for the loose. Go read the article again, Gladwell never calls for or suggests that anybody should ban anything. The interviewer uses that language several times, so I suppose he's also complicit in your strawman. It's true that Gladwell doesn't correct the interviewer, but look at his language carefully:

All Gladwell is doing is pointing out that there's a growing body of evidence that shows that football leads to long term neurological damage. Given this now appreciable risk, he predicts that both players and institutions are going to be less willing to engage in a sport that can cause such damage. For the players, the personal cost is too high, for the institutions, the liability cost is too high. This is a far cry from trying to abolish the sport via fiat.

The only argument he does push is that college football players should be compensated for their effort. He claims that it's exploitative to ask young people to permanently damage their bodies with no guarantee of payoff. This is why he doesn't make the claim that the NFL is exploitative: players are directly compensated.

Except the whole article is about an upcoming Intelligence Squared debate on "banning college football" where gladwell is arguing for the motion.


I'll believe it when I see it. I looked up a few other articles and haven't been able to find Gladwell directly calling for a ban. Gladwell is undoubtedly being brought to the debate so he can provide evidence supporting the opinion that we should ban college football- this doesn't mean he himself is calling for one.

Think about the role of an expert witness in a trial. They interpret evidence for the general public, but they don't have a say in the final verdict. Gladwell can be considered an expert witness through his research on repeated subconcussive blows.

I'm not saying he doesn't support banning college football, it just seems like a rather extreme position for an academic to take and thus far I haven't seen him directly espouse the idea.
 
2012-05-01 11:22:37 AM

Fubini: The primary reason that someone plays college football (at least at a big school) is that they want to have a shot at professional football. This is their only compensation


Well, that's not really true. I think Gladwell has a point and in an actual debate with rules and moderators and shiat he'd hand most of our asses to us.... but it's not true that a shot at the NFL is the 'only compensation' college football players get. Most do not take full advantage and many are not even capable and probably shouldn't be there - but many a college football player you never heard of got real value out of their education, not to mention room and board, which may be poo pooed but it's not nothing. I'm not saying the situation is equitable necessarily, just that a shot at the NFL is not their only compensation. You're selling the players short - better than nine of ten of those guys know they'll never make a dime playing pro football.
 
2012-05-01 11:23:26 AM

Babwa Wawa: Carth: Babwa Wawa: IAmRight: I assume that it didn't stop being popular due to head trauma. Rise of NASCAR? Gambling restrictions? IndyCar used to be relatively important, too. I think it's silly to say that there's one reason for any sport to decline in popularity. There has to be multiple problems.

Horse racing, dog fighting, cock fighting, and boxing are all formerly popular pastimes in which the athlete cannot avoid injury. It's hard not to notice the common thread.

as someone else pointed out MMA is actually rapidly increasing in popularity despite the risks of traumatic brain injury.

That would be a valid point if the MMA were a mainstream sport.


It is on network television with more viewers than the NHL. How do you define "mainstream" if that isn't one?
 
2012-05-01 11:24:00 AM
I'd support getting rid of it.

If the NFL and NBA want developmental leagues for their prospects, they should do what baseball and hockey have done. Establish a system of professional minor and/or junior leagues where prospects can be developed and paid fairly at the same time.

The current system isn't really fair to so-called "student-athletes," and it's a corrupting influence on universities as institutions of learning and research. In many places, it seems that the main purpose of the university is to host its football program, and that's just messed up.
 
2012-05-01 11:24:07 AM
I adore Malcolm Gladwell. And a former track athlete, too - I wonder what his events were?
 
2012-05-01 11:25:06 AM

Fubini: Carth: Fubini: Generation_D: Ah, someone selling a viewpoint to promote his own work. Thats more like it. OK. So because the argument is on "safety" and "danger," are you in favor of banning all risky behavior by all people under a certain age, or all people in college?

Reading comprehension for the loose. Go read the article again, Gladwell never calls for or suggests that anybody should ban anything. The interviewer uses that language several times, so I suppose he's also complicit in your strawman. It's true that Gladwell doesn't correct the interviewer, but look at his language carefully:

All Gladwell is doing is pointing out that there's a growing body of evidence that shows that football leads to long term neurological damage. Given this now appreciable risk, he predicts that both players and institutions are going to be less willing to engage in a sport that can cause such damage. For the players, the personal cost is too high, for the institutions, the liability cost is too high. This is a far cry from trying to abolish the sport via fiat.

The only argument he does push is that college football players should be compensated for their effort. He claims that it's exploitative to ask young people to permanently damage their bodies with no guarantee of payoff. This is why he doesn't make the claim that the NFL is exploitative: players are directly compensated.

Except the whole article is about an upcoming Intelligence Squared debate on "banning college football" where gladwell is arguing for the motion.

I'll believe it when I see it. I looked up a few other articles and haven't been able to find Gladwell directly calling for a ban. Gladwell is undoubtedly being brought to the debate so he can provide evidence supporting the opinion that we should ban college football- this doesn't mean he himself is calling for one.

Think about the role of an expert witness in a trial. They interpret evidence for the general public, but they don't have a say in the final v ...


Fair enough. The article worked on me in that I"ll listen next week to see what they have to say.
 
2012-05-01 11:25:06 AM

IAmRight: Too many Barbaros, then?

/this hippie sh*t is getting kind of annoying
//the more you eliminate relatively safe "dangerous" activities, the more people will turn to far more dangerous activities (like some of the examples with people drinking rubbing alcohol or huffing paint or sh*t like that).
///honestly, I'd probably enjoy watching flag football anyway. Still better than soccer.


I'm not advocating for banning the NFL or anything. I'm a pretty big fan.

I can like football and still believe that colleges are exploiting their players. I can like football and still be worried that its popularity will suffer if CTE is unavoidable.
 
2012-05-01 11:25:34 AM

Generation_D: I can't accept this argument, because people volunteer for the risk. Every year, tens of thousands of them line up for a shot to play for their schools. Are you trying to take away their right to their choices?


FFS, look at the Ivy League.

No athletic scholarships. Full of most of the brightest kids in the country. Yet they're still playing for even less than most of those teams get.

/hell, football was created by colleges - college football is real football. The NFL just exists so college players can keep playing and we can keep watching 'em.
 
2012-05-01 11:27:34 AM
Gladwell is a guy who seems to take a big picture cause and effect approach in his writing, yet doesn't seem to understand the extremely low percentage of concussed (or effected by mass cumulative subconcussive hits) players, and typically (not always) concussions occur through a violation of rules or simply playing wrong.
 
2012-05-01 11:28:50 AM
So the College's make the athletes sign a waiver in order for them to play. Big deal.
 
2012-05-01 11:30:02 AM

Generation_D: I would think repeat blows to the temple by a foot, or a fist to the back of the head, would actually lead to trauma. Don't have sources to cite either way, but the MMA I've watched seemed to be more violent than football in some ways.


Hits to the back of the head are illegal in MMA.

And a referee will stop the fight as soon as a fighter stops intelligently defending himself. That, and fighters typically fight, at most, 6 times a year (and that is an absurd amount, most fight 4 or less). Football has way more long-term damage (repeated collisions running at full speed, head first.
 
2012-05-01 11:31:09 AM
cache.ohinternet.com

Unless the brain injury suits pile up like the cancer claims against Big Tobacco, ain't gonna happen. Too much money.
 
2012-05-01 11:31:28 AM
Well if you are going to ban Football then you have to ban Hockey also. It has the same problems and same risks.
 
2012-05-01 11:33:07 AM

Carth: It is on network television with more viewers than the NHL. How do you define "mainstream" if that isn't one?


I'd expect it to be somewhere - anywhere - on this list.
 
2012-05-01 11:33:46 AM

Generation_D: Fubini: Generation_D: To me, being in the military is far worse than being in college sports. But maybe thats why I never considered joining the military, yet wished I could have joined college sports and did play high school sports.

You're totally misunderstanding the point: Gladwell says the problem with college football is that it is exploitative. In both the NFL and military there are certainly undisclosed dangers, but in both the participants are fairly compensated for the risk they assume.

The primary reason that someone plays college football (at least at a big school) is that they want to have a shot at professional football. This is their only compensation, so this means that a lot of young people going into college football will get nothing of substantial value by the end.

There are lots of jobs that expose people to necessary dangers: electricians, construction workers, firemen, etc. Those people accept those risks and are properly compensated. Those risks are considered necessary due to the benefit of society. College football is a totally unnecessary risk, so college football players should be appropriately compensated.

I can't accept this argument, because people volunteer for the risk. Every year, tens of thousands of them line up for a shot to play for their schools. Are you trying to take away their right to their choices?


Once again, you're conflating an opinion with what you imagine an opinion to be. I never said that we should ban college football, I'm not trying prevent anybody from doing anything.

I do, however, agree with Gladwell on two points. I agree that universities should be primarily learning institutions, so the role of college sports should support that aim or we shouldn't have them. Second, I agree that college football is exploitative in the sense that very very few college football players ever get anything of substantial value.

With respect to the second point- when I'm using the term "substantial value" I'm not just talking about raw compensation in terms of stipends or tutors, etc. I'm also talking about opportunity cost. The young people who play college football spend a number of years wholly focused on their sport. How much better off would those young people be if they spent those early formative years learning practical skills and knowledge rather than chasing an extremely unlikely position playing professional football?

A whole aspect of Gladwell's research that is not presented in TFA is the long-term outcomes of these young college football players. The majority of them lag behind their peers and have increased risks of mental disorders later in life. There's a definite net cost to pursuing a career in college football, and this is why Gladwell claims it's exploitative. At the very least, the people who pursue this should break even.
 
2012-05-01 11:34:18 AM

Babwa Wawa: Carth: It is on network television with more viewers than the NHL. How do you define "mainstream" if that isn't one?

I'd expect it to be somewhere - anywhere - on this list.


fixed
 
2012-05-01 11:34:57 AM

HZS9PK: So the College's make the athletes sign a waiver in order for them to play. Big deal.


Waivers won't cut it. I'm surprised ex-college players have not filed a lawsuit against their schools like ex-NFL players have against the NFL, but maybe it is just a matter of seeing how the class action suit against the NFL shakes out.

I'm betting the NFL is going to settle to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars if not a billion or more.
 
2012-05-01 11:35:14 AM
Generation_D


The dog-fighting analogy works best in the context of college football, for which the athletes themselves receive no compensation.

Free will gets up and leaves the argument early, leaving a contrarian dickweed with a need for attention. Fine.

So college athletes in general, and football players specifically, are no better than dogs, trainable and with a fighting instinct?

Would you be for banning the military then?


Man you got a lot of butt hurt.

Ban the military?

Purpose of football is the entertainment of the fans.

Purpose of the military is to advance a political agenda by killing people and breaking things.

They are not comparable and you detract from your argument by trying to equate the two.
 
2012-05-01 11:36:59 AM

Slaves2Darkness: Well if you are going to ban Football then you have to ban Hockey also. It has the same problems and same risks.


The difference is that NCAA hockey is not the primary feeder system for the NHL. Most prospects come from junior hockey or Europe, develop in the ECHL or AHL, and then work their way upto the NHL.

The NHL would be just fine if you banned college hockey.
 
2012-05-01 11:39:53 AM
If boxing hasn't been banned, football won't be, period. Everything you can say about injuries in football you can multiply for about 20 for boxing...not to mention the sport is still as corrupt as Chicago politics.
 
2012-05-01 11:41:13 AM

Babwa Wawa: I can like football and still believe that colleges are exploiting their players. I can like football and still be worried that its popularity will suffer if CTE is unavoidable.


I'm only quoting you because you raise the more relevant counterpoints - I'm arguing against the general concept. But Mr. Gladwell isn't here right now, so I can't argue against him.

Nogale: I adore Malcolm Gladwell. And a former track athlete, too - I wonder what his events were?


It made me laugh to read that. I know he went to a Canadian college, so I can't speak as to how it works there...but track scholarships (the few that there are) basically come from football dollars.

Here's the main problem with everything college-related: People treat it as though it's a business. Parts of it operate that way, sure. Ultimately, however, you're going to run into problems when you're looking at the costs for an experiential business. There are also problems with it like there are with government: They see X dollars, they think "hey, that can pay for Y"...what they don't know is that it's already paying for Z. If you make it pay for Y and Z, then you're losing money. If you cut Z to pay for Y, you're f*cking over a lot more people than the current system. In this case, revenue for, say, football and basketball largely pays for the other sports. The other sports help attract people that are actually in college for the education, as well as representing their school.

You COULD take the money away from them and give it to the football players, thereby righting that "wrong," but then you're going to have hundreds of other athletes who will now get nothing. And then why would they go to your school? Someone else is going to give them financial aid (the No. 1 reason people decide to go to the university they decide to go to). So you're losing out on good student-athletes now and in the future because the best athletes in those sports won't bother to look at a school that doesn't support them.

You COULD try to pay the players and keep the scholarships. Then everyone's going to be pissed off that you're hemorrhaging money from your athletic department and they'll want you to shut the non-revenue sports down. You can't do that without running afoul of Title IX, so you basically have to shut everything down.

Everyone creates rules/regulations based on the current system as though it will never change, which hampers all future flexibility and the ability to adapt. This is part of the reason that governments can't act like businesses - they're subject to so many more rules in the interest of fairness that it's impossible for them to be efficient.

/that rant was only semi-coherent, so I apologize if it doesn't make complete sense.
 
2012-05-01 11:41:31 AM
Malcolm Gladwell is a douchey little shiat-nugget who needs to be beaten to death with a claw hammer.
 
2012-05-01 11:42:45 AM

Doc Daneeka: Slaves2Darkness: Well if you are going to ban Football then you have to ban Hockey also. It has the same problems and same risks.

The difference is that NCAA hockey is not the primary feeder system for the NHL. Most prospects come from junior hockey or Europe, develop in the ECHL or AHL, and then work their way upto the NHL.

The NHL would be just fine if you banned college hockey.


Exactly this guys point. Hockey has developed a system that compensates players for the risks they take, maybe not fairly, but still it is there. The NFL has not and has foisted those costs onto the schools and players themselves.

Also there is the issue of High School football which needs to be banned. No child, i.e. anyone under the age of 18, should be playing full contact football because of the risk of long term injury.

High School players damage themselves and only when they reach their 40's does that damage become apparent. If the public is expected to provide this sports thorough public school we should make sure it is as safe as possible. That means restricting it to touch or flag football only.
 
2012-05-01 11:43:10 AM

Doc Daneeka: I'd support getting rid of it.

If the NFL and NBA want developmental leagues for their prospects, they should do what baseball and hockey have done. Establish a system of professional minor and/or junior leagues where prospects can be developed and paid fairly at the same time.

The current system isn't really fair to so-called "student-athletes," and it's a corrupting influence on universities as institutions of learning and research. In many places, it seems that the main purpose of the university is to host its football program, and that's just messed up.


They do have minor leagues in the NFL. The Lions, Raiders, and Rams.
 
2012-05-01 11:47:28 AM

Hot Carl To Go: They do have minor leagues in the NFL. The Lions, Raiders, and Rams.


Did you just wake up from a nap that you took in 2009?
 
2012-05-01 11:48:31 AM

Babwa Wawa: Babwa Wawa: Carth: It is on network television with more viewers than the NHL. How do you define "mainstream" if that isn't one?

I'd expect it to be somewhere - anywhere - on this list.

fixed


I'm not sure an online/phone poll where MMA isn't given as an option provides the best evidence of the sports popularity. Looking at the ratings on Fox and the fact it pulled in 5.7 million viewers on its first broadcast (which puts it above any NHL regular season game and most prime time show. If you go by actual number of viewers it is hard to say MMA isn't mainstream.
 
2012-05-01 11:48:44 AM

The Third Man: If boxing hasn't been banned, football won't be, period. Everything you can say about injuries in football you can multiply for about 20 for boxing...not to mention the sport is still as corrupt as Chicago politics.


Boxing is not a High School sport and very few colleges field a boxing team. The real issue is should we the public allow such sports to have a place in our public schools, colleges and universities? What people participate in and allow their children to participate in private clubs should not be our concern, for they are assuming the risks.
 
2012-05-01 11:54:24 AM

Fubini: How much better off would those young people be if they spent those early formative years learning practical skills and knowledge rather than chasing an extremely unlikely position playing professional football?


What is the subset of the football-playing population that would learn more practical skills and knowledge with no free ride to college than they would get in a university? Basically I have it lined up like this:

Play football because they're super-talented and going pro: benefit more by going to college, which is the easiest route to the NFL.
Play football because they're talented and think they're going pro, but they're not quite there: These people are not quitting on their dreams at age 18 to go be a welder. They're trying to scrap in lower football leagues, making $500 or less/game, no benefits, for 5 months/year. They have to pay their own way to training camp and their own way home when they're cut/the season ends.
Play football because they really love the game, but they know they're not pro material: Probably better for them in the long run to get a free college education than to take up a trade, unless they're really into that particular trade.
Play football because they're told they're good at it, but they don't really like it: Probably want to go to college anyway - might as well avoid student loan debt.

Unless that person wants to enter a particular trade that doesn't require a college education, going to college almost universally benefits them more than any football-playing alternative.
 
2012-05-01 11:59:09 AM

IAmRight: Babwa Wawa: I can like football and still believe that colleges are exploiting their players. I can like football and still be worried that its popularity will suffer if CTE is unavoidable.

I'm only quoting you because you raise the more relevant counterpoints - I'm arguing against the general concept. But Mr. Gladwell isn't here right now, so I can't argue against him.

Nogale: I adore Malcolm Gladwell. And a former track athlete, too - I wonder what his events were?

It made me laugh to read that. I know he went to a Canadian college, so I can't speak as to how it works there...but track scholarships (the few that there are) basically come from football dollars.


He said he ran track, not that he was on a track scholarship. His father is a professor; his mother is a psychotherapist - I don't think the family was hurting for money. Also, I checked and according to Wiki (YMMV), he was a middle-distance runner (1,500m).
 
2012-05-01 12:02:18 PM

Carth: Looking at the ratings on Fox and the fact it pulled in 5.7 million viewers on its first broadcast (which puts it above any NHL regular season game and most prime time show. If you go by actual number of viewers it is hard to say MMA isn't mainstream.


I found it to be pretty spot on, esp if they included UFC in the boxing category.

UFC has maybe 32 events per year. The NHL has over 1200 individual events per season - and that's just in the regular season. To effectively compare the two sports, you'd have to aggregate viewership of all the NHL games over some period and compare it to the ratings during the same period for UFC.

If you do that, you'll find that far more people spend far more time watching hockey than they do UFC.
 
2012-05-01 12:04:18 PM

Nogale: He said he ran track, not that he was on a track scholarship


I know what he said. Which is why I didn't say that's how it worked for him.
 
2012-05-01 12:05:26 PM
Well unlike dogs football players have more a choice in the matter if they play or not. I believe that athletics are import, however if they overshadow an institutions academic side that could cause problems.
 
2012-05-01 12:10:54 PM
Go get 'em Babwa Wawa

www.erichufschmid.net
 
2012-05-01 12:14:28 PM

Babwa Wawa: Carth: Looking at the ratings on Fox and the fact it pulled in 5.7 million viewers on its first broadcast (which puts it above any NHL regular season game and most prime time show. If you go by actual number of viewers it is hard to say MMA isn't mainstream.

I found it to be pretty spot on, esp if they included UFC in the boxing category.

UFC has maybe 32 events per year. The NHL has over 1200 individual events per season - and that's just in the regular season. To effectively compare the two sports, you'd have to aggregate viewership of all the NHL games over some period and compare it to the ratings during the same period for UFC.

If you do that, you'll find that far more people spend far more time watching hockey than they do UFC.


In 2011 the UFC broadcast around 80 events ( 27 being on PPV) with an average number of viewers for non PPV event being over 2 million. Again what is your threshold for being mainstream since it is one of the highest rated cable shows week after week and draws more viewers than the Stanly cup when on FOX.

People spend more time watching hockey because there is more of it being played. For the number of viewers per event hockey doesn't even come close to UFC for the last 5 years.

What is your cut off for mainstream? How many millions of viewers have to watch it every week?
 
2012-05-01 12:15:01 PM
It's a worthwhile discussion to have, but it's currently too toxic since the general sentiment from two prominent camps are:

(1) professional athletes are worthless, uneducated punks who'd be flipping burgers if not for their natural abilities which they did not work hard towards while they cheated their way through school and have the audacity to make more money than (enter any "noble" profession here).

(2) anyone promoting more safety measures, or concussion awareness, is a pussy girly man who doesn't have any balls and should go just put on a dress to watch Glee in place of sports.

Until some people grow the f*ck up and (a) at least grasp basic economics, and (b) stop subscribing to some outdated idea of manliness, we'll just spin our tires 'round and 'round.
 
2012-05-01 12:17:02 PM

Babwa Wawa: IAmRight: I assume that it didn't stop being popular due to head trauma. Rise of NASCAR? Gambling restrictions? IndyCar used to be relatively important, too. I think it's silly to say that there's one reason for any sport to decline in popularity. There has to be multiple problems.

Horse racing, dog fighting, cock fighting, and boxing are all formerly popular pastimes in which the athlete cannot avoid injury. It's hard not to notice the common thread.


For what it's worth, horse racing's decline has nothing to do with concern about jockeys or horses. It's more a shift in gambling dollars to other venues (casinos, legalized lotteries), and the rise of other sports.

Also, its been said but boxing's decline wasn't directly due decreased fan interest due to injuries to Ali or any other boxers. Boxing fell off the map after Mike Tyson becuse there were so few compelling contenders. Although you might say that boxing injuries led to an indirect decline in that they prevented more Americans from joining the sport.

Football's popularity will not decline due to injuries, but perhaps due to restrictions in the game to avoid injuries. Also, legal liability issues, like mentioned in TFA could end the game altogether. IMO, that's an indication that our legal system is messed up, rather than football.
 
2012-05-01 12:17:36 PM
Anyone remember how the NLCL* eventually came to an end?

*National Lion/Christian League
 
2012-05-01 12:21:50 PM

Carth: Babwa Wawa: Carth: Looking at the ratings on Fox and the fact it pulled in 5.7 million viewers on its first broadcast (which puts it above any NHL regular season game and most prime time show. If you go by actual number of viewers it is hard to say MMA isn't mainstream.

I found it to be pretty spot on, esp if they included UFC in the boxing category.

UFC has maybe 32 events per year. The NHL has over 1200 individual events per season - and that's just in the regular season. To effectively compare the two sports, you'd have to aggregate viewership of all the NHL games over some period and compare it to the ratings during the same period for UFC.

If you do that, you'll find that far more people spend far more time watching hockey than they do UFC.

In 2011 the UFC broadcast around 80 events ( 27 being on PPV) with an average number of viewers for non PPV event being over 2 million. Again what is your threshold for being mainstream since it is one of the highest rated cable shows week after week and draws more viewers than the Stanly cup when on FOX.

People spend more time watching hockey because there is more of it being played. For the number of viewers per event hockey doesn't even come close to UFC for the last 5 years.

What is your cut off for mainstream? How many millions of viewers have to watch it every week?


The NHL hasn't been on FOX since the 90s. Its current network partner is NBC. Before that, it was ABC.

This tells me that you don't really know what you're talking about.
 
2012-05-01 12:23:27 PM

Doc Daneeka: The NHL hasn't been on FOX since the 90s


Clearly he was talking about MMA being on Fox (to compare network TV to network TV).
 
2012-05-01 12:25:07 PM

Carth: Babwa Wawa: Babwa Wawa: Carth: It is on network television with more viewers than the NHL. How do you define "mainstream" if that isn't one?

I'd expect it to be somewhere - anywhere - on this list.

fixed

I'm not sure an online/phone poll where MMA isn't given as an option provides the best evidence of the sports popularity. Looking at the ratings on Fox and the fact it pulled in 5.7 million viewers on its first broadcast (which puts it above any NHL regular season game and most prime time show. If you go by actual number of viewers it is hard to say MMA isn't mainstream.


So, by that logic, the XFL was extremely successful? I think you're not factoring in the appeal of its "new-ness."
 
2012-05-01 12:25:28 PM

Doc Daneeka: Carth: Babwa Wawa: Carth: Looking at the ratings on Fox and the fact it pulled in 5.7 million viewers on its first broadcast (which puts it above any NHL regular season game and most prime time show. If you go by actual number of viewers it is hard to say MMA isn't mainstream.

I found it to be pretty spot on, esp if they included UFC in the boxing category.

UFC has maybe 32 events per year. The NHL has over 1200 individual events per season - and that's just in the regular season. To effectively compare the two sports, you'd have to aggregate viewership of all the NHL games over some period and compare it to the ratings during the same period for UFC.

If you do that, you'll find that far more people spend far more time watching hockey than they do UFC.

In 2011 the UFC broadcast around 80 events ( 27 being on PPV) with an average number of viewers for non PPV event being over 2 million. Again what is your threshold for being mainstream since it is one of the highest rated cable shows week after week and draws more viewers than the Stanly cup when on FOX.

People spend more time watching hockey because there is more of it being played. For the number of viewers per event hockey doesn't even come close to UFC for the last 5 years.

What is your cut off for mainstream? How many millions of viewers have to watch it every week?

The NHL hasn't been on FOX since the 90s. Its current network partner is NBC. Before that, it was ABC.

This tells me that you don't really know what you're talking about.


I meant when the UFC is on fox. You're right that was a poorly phrased sentence. Here is where I was looking for NHL ratings if you have a better source that would be great.
 
2012-05-01 12:28:09 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Also, legal liability issues, like mentioned in TFA could end the game altogether. IMO, that's an indication that our legal system is messed up, rather than football.


I don't see how it's messed up really.

If I am an insurance company and it costs me money to provide liability insurance I have two options. Stop providing coverage or raise my rates. The universities can then pay the higher rates (which could be too high for them to pay) or cover the liability themselves. There are maybe 20 programs in the country that could afford to take liability themselves, and only a dozen that probably would do it.
 
2012-05-01 12:28:52 PM

thegod082: Carth: Babwa Wawa: Babwa Wawa: Carth: It is on network television with more viewers than the NHL. How do you define "mainstream" if that isn't one?

I'd expect it to be somewhere - anywhere - on this list.

fixed

I'm not sure an online/phone poll where MMA isn't given as an option provides the best evidence of the sports popularity. Looking at the ratings on Fox and the fact it pulled in 5.7 million viewers on its first broadcast (which puts it above any NHL regular season game and most prime time show. If you go by actual number of viewers it is hard to say MMA isn't mainstream.

So, by that logic, the XFL was extremely successful? I think you're not factoring in the appeal of its "new-ness."


With the exception of the XFL's insane opening numbers the ratings were really poor.

UFC has pulled in consistent numbers with The Ultimate Fighter and Prelims for about 5-6 years. Just to clarify. I'm not saying MMA is incredibly popular and everyone in the US watches it: I'm saying its popularity is increasing despite the obvious risks of traumatic brain injury and has continued to do so for the past decade.
 
2012-05-01 12:29:51 PM

Carth: What is your cut off for mainstream? How many millions of viewers have to watch it every week?


Dude, when you poll 2,237 people and not a goddamned one of them identifies themselves as a UFC fan, then it's not a tier 1 sport.

I think this might be a question of terminology. Nobody could argue that boxing is a tier 1 sport, but it could be mainstream. Likewise, nobody could argue that UFC (or hockey) is a tier 1 sport. In the US, top tier sports are NFL, MLB, and NCAA football.

What I'm saying is that if it turns out that CTE is unavoidable, the NFL will not be a tier 1 sport for long.
 
2012-05-01 12:33:11 PM

Hot Carl To Go: Doc Daneeka: I'd support getting rid of it.

If the NFL and NBA want developmental leagues for their prospects, they should do what baseball and hockey have done. Establish a system of professional minor and/or junior leagues where prospects can be developed and paid fairly at the same time.

The current system isn't really fair to so-called "student-athletes," and it's a corrupting influence on universities as institutions of learning and research. In many places, it seems that the main purpose of the university is to host its football program, and that's just messed up.

They do have minor leagues in the NFL. The Lions, Raiders, and Rams.


Do you know how I know you don't watch the NFL?

/welcome to 2012
//change your teams to the Colts, Vikings, Browns
 
2012-05-01 12:35:56 PM

Babwa Wawa: Carth: What is your cut off for mainstream? How many millions of viewers have to watch it every week?

Dude, when you poll 2,237 people and not a goddamned one of them identifies themselves as a UFC fan, then it's not a tier 1 sport.

I think this might be a question of terminology. Nobody could argue that boxing is a tier 1 sport, but it could be mainstream. Likewise, nobody could argue that UFC (or hockey) is a tier 1 sport. In the US, top tier sports are NFL, MLB, and NCAA football.

What I'm saying is that if it turns out that CTE is unavoidable, the NFL will not be a tier 1 sport for long.


I agree with you MMA is nowhere near the popularity of the NFL, MLB or even PGA. My point was only that its popularly is growing rapidly despite the obvious risks of brain injury to the point it now has millions of viewers every week and is shown on both broadcast and cable networks.

In the Harris poll no one had the option of identifying themselves as an MMA fan. They were given a choice of the listed options and asked which one was there favorite. The link you provided shows that in the questionnaire.
 
2012-05-01 12:37:09 PM

Babwa Wawa: Dude, when you poll 2,237 people and not a goddamned one of them identifies themselves as a UFC fan, then it's not a tier 1 sport.


Agreed. Clearly it has some popularity and lots of interested fans but it doesn't approach any of the big 3 or probably even nascar in overall appeal. Me, I just don't like to see people hit each other in the face.
 
2012-05-01 12:37:39 PM
No, he doesnt subby, he just makes a point you agree with so that makes it a good point to you.

Hes just some little boy who never got picked for teams and is now out to kill the one thing that sets other kids above others in the juvenile world, they have already killed little league. For every program that makes money I could show you 20 that lose money every year and for those that do make a profit you can see how it supports 10 other sports at the same school, mostly womens sports that without football they wouldnt be able to function.

So take away football and quite a few kids could not attend college because they have no money to go.
 
2012-05-01 12:40:55 PM
If the connection of the university to the football program is the problem then why not just cut that connection? The NFL has enough money coming out its wazoo, it could work out a deal with 32 colleges to take over their football programs and turn those teams into a sort of feeder system. Hell, take another 32 schools and turn that into a lower minor league of sorts. Keep using the stadiums and practice facilities, offer tickets to those college students at a similar price to what they pay now, pay the kids who want to try their hand at pro football, and even offer those kids the chance to take classes at that college when they're in the offseason. Exploit the best parts of the "college-football" relationship (fervent fan base, team/school pride, education for athletes who normally wouldn't get that chance) and work to eliminate the worst parts (paying students under the table, spending university money on athletics instead of education).

/Oh, and a playoff system for those minor leagues
 
Displayed 50 of 194 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report