[NCAAF] Whew. We've determined that College Football should be banned. Thanks Slate!

Charlie Don't Surf · May 9, 2012

http://www.slate.com/articles/sport...bate_on_may_8_.single.html#pagebreak_anchor_2

The motion for the debate—“ban college football”—kicked off a verbal contest that rivaled the Rose Bowl in intensity. Arguing “for” were Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and Friday Night Lights author Buzz Bissinger and Malcolm Gladwell, the New Yorker columnist and writer of Blink and The Tipping Point. Tim Green, a former NFL defensive end and sports broadcaster, joined Fox sports correspondent Jason Whitlock to contest the motion.
The audience was polled at the beginning and end of the event, and the side that changed the most minds carried the night. After a spirited battle, Bissinger and Gladwell were clear victors, capturing 53 percent of the final vote to Green and Whitlock’s 39 percent. Eight percent left the auditorium undecided. The numbers revealed a remarkable about-face: Before the debate started, only 16 percent of the crowd supported the motion, 53 percent opposed it, and 31 percent weren’t sure.

The debate, rawer than most because of each panelist’s personal investment in football, was not without its brilliantly oddball moments. During the question and answer period, Green protested, “This is America! We don’t ban things!”
“Gay marriage. Heard of it?” Gladwell replied.
“That’s certainly banned in most football programs,” added Bissinger.
“Don’t ask, don’t tell, Buzz,” quipped Green, closing the comic loop before the men turned, as one, to the next point.

This is a really interesting article. I'd love to hear your thoughts!

GasBandit · May 9, 2012

I'm of the opinion no public funds or land grants should go to a university with an intercollegiate sports program. Intramural would be ok. However, private schools would be able to do as they will.

jwhouk · May 11, 2012

Intriguing.

Of course, banning intercollegiate football would essentially destroy the NFL, wreck the American economy, and force many major universities to cease operations. It would also have a drastic effect on all of the major television networks, and even some of the lesser ones (like NBCSN and FSN).

I think we'd be better served at getting a Division 1-BCS football championship than we would banning the sport altogether.

Charlie Don't Surf · May 11, 2012

jwhouk said:
, wreck the American economy, and force many major universities to cease operations. It would also have a drastic effect on all of the major television networks,

I posted this slightly tongue-in-cheek, just because it's an interesting conversation.

But I disagree with the above points. I really don't think football money props up higher learning. It mostly goes back into football. Hence all the hand-wringing over college football's existence making academic pursuits suffer. A drastic effect? The major networks only show college football on Saturday nights. I don't think it would wreck the American economy either. It is a multi-million/billion probably business, but that's still a drop in the bucket of GDP. The recent billion dollar trading fuck up by Goldman Sachs yesterday would have more of an effect on the national economy than football completely and immediately disappearing. Also no CFB would really not make the NFL fold instantly. It would hurt it, but it would just make the NFL make something similar to the D-League the NBA has, or prop up Arena Football again OR just have them go straight from high school to the NFL and have a higher learning curve.

blotsfan · May 12, 2012

Gregg Easterbrook thinks that College football is the main reason going to college has become so popular in the US. And honestly, I think he has a point. While I wanted to go to college anyways, a lot of the schools I applied to I only knew about because of their sports programs. Theres also something called the "Flutie Factor" names after how boston college got a lot more applicants in the 80s after Doug Flutie was a star there. Football's revenue might not directly go to academics, but I'd say that with the exception of the harvards and yales, football is the best marketing tool any college has.

Charlie Don't Surf · May 12, 2012

Gregg Easterbrook is a fucking idiot. His column is one of the worst I've ever read.

blotsfan · May 12, 2012

Wow. I really like his columns and thought he'd be right up your alley.

Dave · May 12, 2012

There's a lot to the fact that college football and sports in general add a lot to the tuition of a school. Multi-million dollar sports complexes and salaries means that money has to come from somewhere. Sports boosters take up a lot of the slack, but only the biggest schools actually make money off of sports. I'll try and find the article in which they talk about that.

The biggest issue, I find, is the safety one. The NFL is going all out (and maybe a little overboard) to make sure people are as safe as they can be on the field, but college football isn't there yet due to monetary constraints. I like football but I can see the argument against it as one that is certainly viable.

Mathias · May 22, 2012

“the distracted university”: the campus so awash in fun and fandom that it neglects learning.

I completely disagree with this statement. Learning is a very much individual thing and is not under the influence of going to a game Saturday afternoon. Those who want to learn do so. Those that want to party will party regardless of a tailgate or not.

jwhouk · May 22, 2012

No football would turn towns like Norman, OK and Lincoln, NE, and Athens, GA into ghost towns.

EDIT: Yes, I put "Lincoln, NE" in there intentionally, knowing Dave would like it.

GasBandit · May 22, 2012

jwhouk said:
No football would turn towns like Norman, OK and Lincoln, NE, and Athens, GA into ghost towns.

EDIT: Yes, I put "Lincoln, NE" in there intentionally, knowing Dave would like it.

jwhouk · May 22, 2012

Football makes alumnae want to come back to their Old School, more than pretty much any other sport. And most colleges are supported financially either by their locality (city/county/parish/state) or by alumnae.

Ergo, no football = no alumnae; no alumnae = no money; no money = no school.

GasBandit · May 22, 2012

jwhouk said:
Football makes alumnae want to come back to their Old School, more than pretty much any other sport. And most colleges are supported financially either by their locality (city/county/parish/state) or by alumnae.

Ergo, no football = no alumnae; no alumnae = no money; no money = no school.

If the only thing keeping a school afloat is its football team, maybe that school needs to go away anyway. Or, at least be forced to take a good, hard look at their priorities, curriculum and faculty. You can't tell a private institution what to do with its own money, but if my opinion is asked, I will say I am not in favor of public funds going to glorified farm teams with GEOL101 "Rocks for Jocks" pretenses to education.

And I live in Texas.