The New Era of College Football

 

We have entered a new era of college football, which is to say, that college football is no longer college football, at least Division One College Football. The picture above is still college football. It is a picture of a Division Three football game in Williamstown, Massachusetts. 

This past year the Ohio State University won the whole things, but what does that prove? Are they the best team? Maybe, but they are the future of college football. Everyone on that roster was paid. Their player budget was larger than most companies. This is the future. Teams that cannot pay will no longer be able to afford to get quality players. What will it look like? Well, here are a few predictions. 

First, five to seven schools will get all of the highest-rated players for one simple reason; they will be the only ones that can afford them. 

Second, in five to ten years, schools will begin to drop their football programs as they will no longer be able to afford to keep their programs. 

Third, prices will rise while the game itself will sink. It will no longer be enjoyable to watch. 

Fourth, all bowl games outside of the playoffs will become meaningless. Fans will not watch not will they travel to bowl games anymore. 

Fifth, there will become one super conference consisting of those teams who are still able to afford the top players. 

Sixth, some of the best coaches in the game right now will leave college football in the next five years. 

And, finally, with no power, players will begin to leave teams mid-season if they do not get the playing time they deem they deserve. 

It is a bad situation getting worse. I see no future and I see the sky falling pretty quickly. I wish I had better news ... 

Uniformed and Out of Touch

 

Since the election has come to an end, we have had to listen to the insistent complaining from celebrities and professional athletes about the outcome. Those that voted for Donald Trump have been called uniformed, uneducated and out of touch with reality. The question is, are they?

Who is really uninformed? Defined it means "not having or showing awareness or understanding of the facts." To be uninformed requires one to be in a position to be uninformed. Who can afford to not have or show awareness? Well, my answer would be those who have the money to do so. Those who own three houses and travel the world ... Those who are not impacted by the price of gas or eggs. Frankly, it is rich for a celebrity or a professional athlete to lecture the rest of the country on being out of touch when they are the epitome of being out of touch. 

I still can't figure out why professional athletes and celebrities advocate for socialism, which pushes everyone to share everything, leaving little to no personal disposable income. Professional sports and entertainment depend only on disposable income. Both industries provide no meaningful product that contributes to society. Professional sports and Hollywood does nothing but entertain. People escape the hard reality they are in when they engage these industries, and yet, these people lecture and ridicule those who don't see the world as they see it. Each industry does nothing more than entertain, and each is dependent on the population embracing the entertainment they provide and still they push this leftist socialist agenda. Why are they trying to kill the golden goose? 

For me, most of the evidence points to professional athletes and celebrities being the ones that are uninformed and out of touch. It is the Alec Baldwins of the world who don't understand that their money comes from people who embrace their movies enough to spend the money they earned on them, but maybe, Mr. Baldwin doesn't care anymore. I don't know, but I do know sitting in an expensive house surrounded by money calling those who live daily in the struggle the last four years has created is out of touch and uninformed.  

The Deterioration of Professional Sports

 

I just can't watch professional sports anymore. I used to be such a junky when it came to professional sports. I watched them all: NBA, NFL, MLB and even NHL. It didn't matter ... I could not get enough. Now, I have had enough. 

As ticket prices go through the roof, the level of play in professional sports continues to fall. Why? Well, I have a few ideas. 

First, the earlier athletes are allowed to enter professional sports the less developed they will be. With NIL rising up, there will be more and more younger athletes enter the professional realm and all of them will be less developed. We are seeing this in college now where coaches are pressured to get talented freshman on the field or risk losing them in the transfer portal to other coaches who will play them right away. 

The level of play in both the NFL and NBA has fallen. In the NBA, rule changes have prompted less set plays and more of a run and gun approach. Very few teams in the NBA run set plays anymore because there is no need. Isolations are allowed and defense is hardly played. Zone defense is played by most teams (It used to be illegal in the NBA!) and most simple play a loose zone giving up the high percentage outside shot. If you can make that shot, and Stephen Curry has made a living out of making that shot, you will make millions and never have to play defense. It is all about scoring in the NBA. 

The NFL is no different. Everything has gone the way of RPO. Run, pass or option is the way of offense now. It depends on a good reaction by the QB at the line of scrimmage, but it only works if the QB is a willing participant in the option side of the RPO. Looking at the QB stats, we see only a few with quality stats; instead, we see mediocre stats, turnovers but wins because the QB is a willing runner. The running back has become less important because everything is an RPO call involving Wide Receivers, Tight Ends, Quarterbacks and Running Backs and all of them must be willing and ready to run if asked. 

MLB has the same issue. We see more deterioration of skills. In 2024, only seven batters in all of MLB hit .300 or better. That one stat is amazing to me. The overall average batting average has continued to go down. In 1930 it was .282 but in 2024 the average batting average was .243, which was identical to 2022. Errors climb, Earner Run Average climbs while complete games by pitchers fall ... all signs of a deterioration of skills and a change in focus in the game from playing all phases of the game well to generate offense.  

We see 40 years old playing quarterback in the NFL, pitching in MLB and playing basketball in the NBA, and all of them are doing it while getting paid millions. How good can a league be if an older athlete can still thrive? I am not debating whether they can still play, because I am sure some can, but I am debating whether any of them should still being considered one of the best because if that is the case, it just doesn't speak well for the competitiveness of the league. 

I have not paid to see a professional sport in a long time, and I will not. It is hard to watch when played poorly and much of it is played poorly; it has become too political and too privileged. Too many professional athletes are not the role models I want for my children. They pout, show boat and complain, all while performing at a sub par level, and they get paid millions to play a sport. I still can't believe we pay them so much. It speaks to how out of touch we are in regard to what is important. 

Professional athletes have lost touch with reality and I am waiting for reality to catch up to them as they continue to support causes that do not support their industry. Most are huge advocates of socialism, which, if ever implemented properly, would never have any kind of professional athletics as there would be no disposable income to spend on them. I believe we are coming to the point where there will be no professional sports anymore and every professional athlete will only have themselves to blame as they continue to kick around the golden goose ... the fan. The fan has never gotten less while paying more. Ticket prices continue to rise, which makes a family experience so expensive that most families can no longer afford the experience. Athletes support causes that actually go against the family and yet, expect the family to show up each weekend in support of their anti-family antics. They whine when questioned about effort, they take games off just to rest and they do all this asking to be paid more and more. 

Eventually, the game and the experience will have gotten so poor that the fan will no longer be willing to make the financial commitment. This is where I think Adam's Smith economic theory will kick in. Athletes have not been shy asking for more money based on Smith's concept of free trade. Smith argued that a human being's natural tendency toward self interest will result in prosperity. Professional athletes have gotten rich on this concept, but the concept, I believe, will be pushed back onto them from those who have made them rich, especially if the product is mediocre, and the product is quickly become mediocre. This is where professional sports is, in my opinion.    

The New Reality of College Football

 

Welcome to the new reality of college football! What is this new reality? Is it parity? Is it NIL? I think those are factors but that is not the reality that I am thinking about. No, the new reality of college football is the current NFL reality, mediocrity. 

With onset of this Wild West mentality where anything goes, what we can expect is mediocre football at best. Why? Well, there will be no depth as depth transfers to play right away. No one wants to sit the bench, work hard in practice and be developed over time because they no longer have to wait. If your current school will not start you, there is a school out there that will. To land top freshman recruits, programs are now forced to guarantee true freshman playing time. That leaves little time to be developed and no time to grow and mature. 

We have already seen this in the NFL. College players have been leaving their colleges earlier because they can get paid right away in the NFL. We have seen the deterioration of the skill positions in the NFL. Quarterback play has seen an increase in interceptions and a decrease in completion rates. Wide receivers drop more balls and blame other factors. The running back is no longer a prominent position on the field. Coaches are hired to counsel and manage egos and not coach football. I can't even watch the NFL anymore, and college has quickly arrived at the same door.  

I admit it. I don't like it. I am starting to see to many things that resemble the NFL game. So, what's the answer? I am not sure there is one. There is plenty of money in support of the game so those who watch football for football will probably fad into the woodwork. The game will miss the football purist only if he or she can't be replaced, but my bet is that for a while they will be replaced by a new bred of fans. Those wanting all the other things besides football. The drama ... the storylines ... the feuds ... the plots ... All of these things will be added to football to make it more appealing and people will go and cheer, but for what?

The game will have changed, and purists like me will be long gone, but are we needed? Probably not. It will go on without us, but I don't think it will be the same and that is sad. Those cheering their team on ten years from now will not recognize the football I knew and loved. They will never know the beauty of the game where every kid had a place on the team. There was no bigger, faster, stronger program ... no flying around tackling with your head down. The game back in the day taught more than football. It was a chance for boys to learn to be men. It was a place where hard work was rewarded and being physical was taught in all the right ways. It was field where every player learned the benefits of team and the determent of individuality. 

The game of football I knew taught so much more than football and it appears that this version of the game is gone and being replaced by money, power and fame. Something inside me says this will not end well, but what do I know.  

Sad But True

 

Here is a new feature to this blog. I call it "Sad But True." In this section, I will post facts that are sad, weird, hard to believe and even outlandish but are also true. So, here we go!

Pluto did not get to make one full orbit around the Sun between its discovery as a planet and its demotion from planet to dwarf planet. It takes 248 years for it to orbit the Sun. Pluto was discovered on February 8, 1930 and it was demoted from full planet status to a dwarf planet on April 24, 2006. That is our first "weird but true" fact!  

Fallacies and the News

 

It would be amusing if it were not so sad, but watching the news is like watching a rolling list of fallacies, especially in this election cycle. It is hard to believe our country has sunk this low in such a short period of time.

As we prepare to elect a president, I ask you what policies does your candidate support? Do you know them?  In my lifetime, I don't think I have ever experienced an election where my reasons for voting were more about the other candidate. Both candidates call each other names and the media (local and national news) do the same. There is no reporting from a neutral position anymore and the reporting itself has dropped to a new low, but the more disturbing aspect is the number of fallacies we see from the news. Let's run through a few. 

First, there is the ad hominem fallacy which is attacking the messenger to distract you away from the message. We see this from both camps as they name-call each other and their supporters. We see this from reporters, famous news media, other politicians, sitting governors and mayors and directors of state and local agencies. It is like we live in one big middle school. 

Second, we see circular reasoning in almost every report these days. Next time you watch a report notice that the conclusion is that which started the report, which is supported by premises that presuppose the conclusion. An example of this would be candidate A is immoral and you shouldn't vote for candidate A because of his/her immorality. 

Third, the straw man fallacy is used often on both sides of the isle. This fallacy involves labeling your opponent in a certain way or with an untrue easily defeated position and then continue to attack that position. 

Fourth, we see the Post Hoc Ergo, Propter Hoc (After this, therefore because of this) used by the media often in fact-checking segments where they make logical leaps that cannot be made. If an event A occurs and then is followed by an event B, with no direct causal relationship, but an appeared or assumed one, the media will let the public assume and these days the media will actually add speculation to make the better case. 

Fifth, there is the fallacy of accent. This occurs when the reporter adds emphasis or accent to words in a report to suggest something that is not really there. This one occurs a lot by accident but its increase suggests that the care for remaining a neutral observer and reporter of facts is no longer a concern. 

Sixth, contextomy, or quoting out of context, happens all the time. When a reporter interviews someone and only quotes a portion of the quote to imply something very different than what was said is actually slander, is it not?. Another version of this is headlines that imply something different than what is in the story. 

I could go on all day, but my point is that the media, the news, reporters ... all of them have lost our trust and with good reason. They can no longer be trusted because their reporting is slanted and bent one way. They have moved beyond reporting and into the arena of influencing. They are no longer reporting facts. They are now trying to convince you of something or convert you to some candidate. 

This election is a great example. What do you actually know about each candidate's policies and positions? I bet not a whole lot. Why? One answer ... the media. They have stopped being the watch dog for the people and have become one-sided. It is really sad but not all that surprising. If you are still getting your news from a local or national channel understand one thing ... It is not news as much as it is propaganda. This is where we are and I don't see it getting any better anytime soon.    

Morality and the Election

 

We sit a mere 22 days away from the next presidential election. Whether you are on the left or on the right, if you're honest, you have to admit that the two candidates on the current docket are lacking. Can we not unite on that? Both of our parties have let us down, but even less surprising, is some of the rationale people are tossing about to justify their decisions. 

Several have publically declared that they are voting for candidate A, not because of policy or economy, but because of morality. They are voting for candidate A because candidate B is morally bankrupt. On the surface, it sounds nice and presents a moral standard, but once we dig into this thinking, what we find is the opposite. 

If you want morality to serve as your standard then, from my position, neither candidate is an option for you. Both candidates have huge moral issues. A vote for one candidate over the other on moral grounds tells me a few things. 

First, to imply that one candidate is a morally superior candidate to the other is to repeat tired speculation thrown about carelessly by the network news (See my last post on whether you can trust the news or not.).   

Second, it implies that you are part of the base of one party and asserting that party's mantra. Suggesting one candidate is morally superior is a party line and an arrow both parties use to shoot at each other.  

Third, presenting either candidate as morally superior is, forgive me for this, delusional. Morality dissolved as a concern during the Clinton years. If morality is your standard then I guess I am wondering how you can vote for anyone.  

This last point is for those of us who claim Jesus Christ as Savior. Condemning anyone for their past is out of step with what the scriptures teach. First, your past has been wiped clean; God does not hold your past against you and He certainly does not give you the authority to hold another's past against them.

In Matthew 7, Jesus commands us to not judge; He goes further and tells us not to judge others or we will be judged in the same manner in which we judge others. He goes on to warn us that we tend to look at the speck in our brother's eye and miss the log in our own. The point is we love to judge ... why? I think it is so we can point out another's sin hoping people ignore our own. Jesus reminds us n Matthew 7 that there is only one judge and when He returns He will set all things right. That job is not yours or mine. Our job is to be found faithful and obedient to Jesus Christ, who is found in the word of God.  

Let's agree that both candidates have moral issues; both candidates will not save us from our fate, which is set. So, how should you vote? Well, this is not a spiritual issue, in my opinion, as much as I wish it were one. We are not voting for a savior, a pastor or anything moral; that shipped sailed a long time ago. We are voting for sinful horribly-flawed candidates who represent direction, policy and governance. To ignore all of those to vote for one candidate as a rejection of the other's past sins is flawed and upside down. 

As a Believer, if morality is your issue then neither candidate should be morally acceptable, but you and I are not morally acceptable either ... without Jesus Christ. What is the difference between who we are and who both candidates are? It is Jesus. There is nothing good in us other than Jesus. As Believers, we are called to a higher standard. We are called to live according to the standards laid out before us in scripture and then we are called to live them out before a watching world. How we do that matters, even when voting.