Revenue Games, Mismatch for Money

Revenue Games, Mismatch for Money - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Revenue Games, Mismatch for Money (/thread-16394.html)

Pages: 1 2

Revenue Games, Mismatch for Money - Trevmiesterj - 09-12-2018

This is the starting article in a SF Chronicle series breaking down why FBS teams continue to schedule cupcake games throughout the season. While the article ends on a positive slant mentioning the rare David upsets Goliath games, it also details how the smaller programs risk a physical beat down for the sake of a payday.

Why college football plays these annual blowouts.

Per the Chronicle:

Quote:Every year, you see the mismatches on college schedules. Football powerhouses playing little-known schools. Texas vs. San Jose State. Cal vs. Presbyterian. Stanford vs. UC Davis. Why does college football feature these lopsided games, which the bigger schools usually win by landslide scores? The Chronicle investigates the questionable tradition of “revenue games.”
Today/Part 1: Why college football plays these annual blowouts. A1
Al Saracevic: Bad for players, fans. B1
Thursday/Part 2: What’s in this for the little guy?
Friday/Part 3: San Jose State: How they make millions

RE: Revenue Games, Mismatch for Money - 82lsju - 09-12-2018

the companion article

A mismatch for money: College football should be ashamed of ‘revenue games’

RE: Revenue Games, Mismatch for Money - Mick - 09-12-2018

(09-12-2018, 08:28 AM)82lsju Wrote: the companion article

A mismatch for money: College football should be ashamed of ‘revenue games’

Mismatch for money seems insensitive to me. I prefer the old "body bag games."

RE: Revenue Games, Mismatch for Money - Trevmiesterj - 09-12-2018

Quote:Mismatch for money seems insensitive to me. I prefer the old "body bag games."

Some close friends in my neighborhood have a son that excelled in football and achieved a scholarship to UNH last year. He redshirted but now is the starting tight end. They play Colorado this Saturday in Boulder and what would have been an exciting moment for me to watch him play for the first time will be an exercise in fretting that he and his teammates get out relatively unscathed. Based on how the Wildcats season has gone so far, a beat down awaits.

After thinking about Devon Gales situation from 2015, does anyone know if the NCAA or the players university provide insurance support if a player suffers a catastrophic injury?

RE: Revenue Games, Mismatch for Money - CTcard - 09-12-2018

(09-12-2018, 08:28 AM)82lsju Wrote: the companion article

A mismatch for money: College football should be ashamed of ‘revenue games’

That article would have a lot more impact if the author would actually substantiate the claim that players on the losing end actually get more injured in these games than others. It seems it might be true, but I have never seen any real evidence on the matter.

Otherwise, it is merely a matter of taste (these games are boring, oh the poor guys on the losing team).

It would also help if the author defined the level of cupcake he objects to. He gives examples that are both FCS teams versus FBS, but also all-FBS games that are Power 5 schools versus non-Power 5. So, what does he actually want to get rid of? No FCS opponents might be reasonable. No non-Power 5 opponents for Power 5 schools would outrage everybody and destroy any concept they are in the same division.

Finally, simply saying it's icky because it is about money is ridiculous. In fact, these schools need money to keep their athletics programs going - in fact a lot more than they are getting from these games. So, if you outlaw the body bag games, where does the money come from?
Who comes out ahead if all these schools simply drop their intercollegiate athletics?

By the way, I don't like the body bag games either and I am not particularly excited for Stanford's game this coming Saturday. But I don't quite dislike them to the point of simply telling UC Davis, SJSU, App State, and Idaho State to drop dead. I would probably prefer a system where the Power 5 schools simply tax themselves and hand over the money to non-Power 5 and FCS schools; but I won't be holding my breath til that happens.

RE: Revenue Games, Mismatch for Money - Cinemalover - 09-12-2018

But Davis beat us in 2005, historic for both campuses for different reasons. If I recall, they were still transitioning from Division II. And 2 weeks ago, the Aggies beat a confident SJSU.

I believe we'll prevail by 4 or 5 TDs, maybe more, but they do have a stud WR in 6'3" Keelan Doss, who will play on Sundays, and a solid QB.

RE: Revenue Games, Mismatch for Money - Snorlax94 - 09-13-2018

It’s a silly article. It comes off that he has had this bone to pick, and with Stanford playing UC Davis, it finally gives him an opportunity to express this opinion and grind this axe. Even though, actually, the point doesn’t apply to this game.

The reason the criticism doesn’t apply is that it’s a local game. A lot of the tradition of sports is that you play teams that are nearby. Sometimes you have these mismatches. I don’t mind Oregon playing Portland State. Why fly all the way across the country. One week, sports writers are complaining that student athletes spend too much time traveling, which cuts into their studying.The next week sports writers are complaining that teams are unfairly playing against a better team that happens to be a just a couple hours away. It clearly would make sense for Stanford to play San Jose State, and UC Davis beat SJ State by a lot.

Additionally, with this game in particular, I don’t think there such a tremendous size mismatch. A few years ago a different Davis coach said they were trying to model their program based on Stanford‘s, and now, I see a lot of striking similarities. They clearly recruit size. They try to run a power running game. They have big tall receivers. They have big lineman. They have a star receiver who is going to play in the NFL. Some people called him the best receiver at any level. And they have a good quarterback who can zing him the ball. It seems perfectly reasonable that these NFL prospects should have the opportunity to play against a strong Power 5 opponent.

It feels like it was just an article he wrote years ago, waiting to save it for some kind of San Jose State flying out to Alabama game, and he didn’t bother to actually familiarize himself with this game or the current UC Davis team, and he had a deadline this week, so he just dug it up even though it doesn’t apply to this game because it’s a local game, with competitively-sized Davis players, and some futute nfl talent that some have called the best in the nation.

RE: Revenue Games, Mismatch for Money - JPR36 - 09-13-2018

(09-13-2018, 01:18 AM)Snorlax94 Wrote: It’s a silly article. It comes off that he has had this bone to pick, and with Stanford playing UC Davis, it finally gives him an opportunity to express this opinion and grind this axe. Even though, actually, the point doesn’t apply to this game.

The reason the criticism doesn’t apply is that it’s a local game. A lot of the tradition of sports is that you play teams that are nearby. Sometimes you have these mismatches. I don’t mind Oregon playing Portland State. Why fly all the way across the country. One week, sports writers are complaining that student athletes spend too much time traveling, which cuts into their studying.The next week sports writers are complaining that teams are unfairly playing against a better team that happens to be a just a couple hours away. It clearly would make sense for Stanford to play San Jose State, and UC Davis beat SJ State by a lot.

Additionally, with this game in particular, I don’t think there such a tremendous size mismatch. A few years ago a different Davis coach said they were trying to model their program based on Stanford‘s, and now, I see a lot of striking similarities. They clearly recruit size. They try to run a power running game. They have big tall receivers. They have big lineman. They have a star receiver who is going to play in the NFL. Some people called him the best receiver at any level. And they have a good quarterback who can zing him the ball. It seems perfectly reasonable that these NFL prospects should have the opportunity to play against a strong Power 5 opponent.

It feels like it was just an article he wrote years ago, waiting to save it for some kind of San Jose State flying out to Alabama game, and he didn’t bother to actually familiarize himself with this game or the current UC Davis team, and he had a deadline this week, so he just dug it up even though it doesn’t apply to this game because it’s a local game, with competitively-sized Davis players, and some futute nfl talent that some have called the best in the nation.

Good points, although UC Davis beat SJS 44-38. I don't know if that qualifies as a "a lot". Perhaps you are thinking of their 54-21 victory over San Diego.

RE: Revenue Games, Mismatch for Money - Cinemalover - 09-13-2018

It was Coach Gould who wanted a power run game, and it didn't work in the Big Sky with Montana and Montana State. The Big Sky has some tough teams. Coach Hawkins has completely changed that, I believe I saw over 10 receivers catch balls against both opponents. There doesn't seem to be a brobdingnagian difference in size, but skill, speed, and probably depth. Pressure on the QB will slow their passing game, they'll probably shift players around to add QB protection. Veteran USD coach said they had gimmicks and decent skill players, but USD is non scholarship playoff team.

(Interesting how this site edits my ' brobdingnagian difference' to immense proportions.)

RE: Revenue Games, Mismatch for Money - yvonne - 09-13-2018

(09-12-2018, 11:30 PM)Cinemalover Wrote: But Davis beat us in 2005, historic for both campuses for different reasons. If I recall, they were still transitioning from Division II. And 2 weeks ago, the Aggies beat a confident SJSU.

I believe we'll prevail by 4 or 5 TDs, maybe more, but they do have a stud WR in 6'3" Keelan Doss, who will play on Sundays, and a solid QB.

I believe that Aggies are capable of reading the Chronicle articles and that beating Stanford would be a highlight of their season. I know that they're aware that Love is not playing and may even see that as a slight. I also believe that Davis is capable of beating a Love-less Stanford team.

RE: Revenue Games, Mismatch for Money - BostonCard - 09-13-2018

(09-13-2018, 08:37 AM)yvonne Wrote:
(09-12-2018, 11:30 PM)Cinemalover Wrote: But Davis beat us in 2005, historic for both campuses for different reasons. If I recall, they were still transitioning from Division II. And 2 weeks ago, the Aggies beat a confident SJSU.

I believe we'll prevail by 4 or 5 TDs, maybe more, but they do have a stud WR in 6'3" Keelan Doss, who will play on Sundays, and a solid QB.

I believe that Aggies are capable of reading the Chronicle articles and that beating Stanford would be a highlight of their season. I know that they're aware that Love is not playing and may even see that as a slight. I also believe that Davis is capable of beating a Love-less Stanford team.

Thank you for appeasing the woofing gods, but as you well know, deliberate attempts to appease them doesn't work. The damage done in this thread cannot be undone.

BC

RE: Revenue Games, Mismatch for Money - yvonne - 09-13-2018

(09-13-2018, 10:13 AM)BostonCard Wrote:
(09-13-2018, 08:37 AM)yvonne Wrote:
(09-12-2018, 11:30 PM)Cinemalover Wrote: But Davis beat us in 2005, historic for both campuses for different reasons. If I recall, they were still transitioning from Division II. And 2 weeks ago, the Aggies beat a confident SJSU.

I believe we'll prevail by 4 or 5 TDs, maybe more, but they do have a stud WR in 6'3" Keelan Doss, who will play on Sundays, and a solid QB.

I believe that Aggies are capable of reading the Chronicle articles and that beating Stanford would be a highlight of their season. I know that they're aware that Love is not playing and may even see that as a slight. I also believe that Davis is capable of beating a Love-less Stanford team.

Thank you for appeasing the woofing gods, but as you well know, deliberate attempts to appease them doesn't work. The damage done in this thread cannot be undone.

BC

I seriously do think we're in a position to lose, largely due to the absence of Love. Nevertheless, I haven't seen a worse case of woofing since teejers and that word referring to well, um grand proportions. Shocking!

RE: Revenue Games, Mismatch for Money - yvonne - 09-13-2018

(09-13-2018, 08:04 AM)Cinemalover Wrote: (Interesting how this site edits my ' of immense proportions difference' to immense proportions.)

sarcasm?

RE: Revenue Games, Mismatch for Money - Cinemalover - 09-13-2018

Editing Gods, two times now from brobdingnagian difference to immense proportions.

Even though the press lazily overlooks the Aggies, and they're better, we'll still likely trounce them. If I recall the last loss, our QB went down in the first quarter.

We'll win it in the trenches and be rested and healthy for our next big test.

RE: Revenue Games, Mismatch for Money - JPR36 - 09-13-2018

(09-13-2018, 11:49 AM)yvonne Wrote:
(09-13-2018, 08:04 AM)Cinemalover Wrote: (Interesting how this site edits my ' of immense proportions difference' to immense proportions.)

sarcasm?

If, with the team and players we have this year, we lose to UC Davis at home, it would be (IMO anyway) one of the biggest (if not the biggest) choke jobs in the history of Stanford football. San Jose State (yes, the same San Jose State that was shut out by Wazzu last weekend) put up nearly 500 yards of total offense against them. If KJ and his offense don't have a field day even without Love, something is the matter.
It wouldn't shock me, though, if it were a reasonably close game (we win by 2-3 TD's).

RE: Revenue Games, Mismatch for Money - BostonCard - 09-13-2018

I assume "hüge" (brobdingnagian) is still censored. Long story.

BC

RE: Revenue Games, Mismatch for Money - Snorlax94 - 09-13-2018

I

(09-13-2018, 03:33 AM)JPR36 Wrote:
(09-13-2018, 01:18 AM)Snorlax94 Wrote: It’s a silly article. It comes off that he has had this bone to pick, and with Stanford playing UC Davis, it finally gives him an opportunity to express this opinion and grind this axe. Even though, actually, the point doesn’t apply to this game.

The reason the criticism doesn’t apply is that it’s a local game. A lot of the tradition of sports is that you play teams that are nearby. Sometimes you have these mismatches. I don’t mind Oregon playing Portland State. Why fly all the way across the country. One week, sports writers are complaining that student athletes spend too much time traveling, which cuts into their studying.The next week sports writers are complaining that teams are unfairly playing against a better team that happens to be a just a couple hours away. It clearly would make sense for Stanford to play San Jose State, and UC Davis beat SJ State by a lot.

Additionally, with this game in particular, I don’t think there such a tremendous size mismatch. A few years ago a different Davis coach said they were trying to model their program based on Stanford‘s, and now, I see a lot of striking similarities. They clearly recruit size. They try to run a power running game. They have big tall receivers. They have big lineman. They have a star receiver who is going to play in the NFL. Some people called him the best receiver at any level. And they have a good quarterback who can zing him the ball. It seems perfectly reasonable that these NFL prospects should have the opportunity to play against a strong Power 5 opponent.

It feels like it was just an article he wrote years ago, waiting to save it for some kind of San Jose State flying out to Alabama game, and he didn’t bother to actually familiarize himself with this game or the current UC Davis team, and he had a deadline this week, so he just dug it up even though it doesn’t apply to this game because it’s a local game, with competitively-sized Davis players, and some futute nfl talent that some have called the best in the nation.

Good points, although UC Davis beat SJS 44-38. I don't know if that qualifies as a "a lot". Perhaps you are thinking of their 54-21 victory over San Diego.

Yes, corrected, they beat SJState, scored a lot against them, and also beat SD by a wide margin. Averaging 49 ppg their first two games.

RE: Revenue Games, Mismatch for Money - CompSci87 - 09-13-2018

(09-13-2018, 01:24 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I assume "hüge" (of immense proportions) is still censored. Long story.

BC

The FAQ is back and tells the story briefly: https://thecardboard.org/faq/ -- last item.

RE: Revenue Games, Mismatch for Money - Cinemalover - 09-13-2018

I forgot about the banned word.

I wonder if the Aggieses will bring many fans?

RE: Revenue Games, Mismatch for Money - d4cohn - 09-13-2018

(09-13-2018, 11:16 AM)yvonne Wrote:
(09-13-2018, 10:13 AM)BostonCard Wrote:
(09-13-2018, 08:37 AM)yvonne Wrote:
(09-12-2018, 11:30 PM)Cinemalover Wrote: But Davis beat us in 2005, historic for both campuses for different reasons. If I recall, they were still transitioning from Division II. And 2 weeks ago, the Aggies beat a confident SJSU.

I believe we'll prevail by 4 or 5 TDs, maybe more, but they do have a stud WR in 6'3" Keelan Doss, who will play on Sundays, and a solid QB.

I believe that Aggies are capable of reading the Chronicle articles and that beating Stanford would be a highlight of their season. I know that they're aware that Love is not playing and may even see that as a slight. I also believe that Davis is capable of beating a Love-less Stanford team.

Thank you for appeasing the woofing gods, but as you well know, deliberate attempts to appease them doesn't work. The damage done in this thread cannot be undone.

BC

I seriously do think we're in a position to lose, largely due to the absence of Love. Nevertheless, I haven't seen a worse case of woofing since teejers and that word referring to well, um grand proportions. Shocking!

I will respectfully disagree. Davis hasn't challenged us since the depths of the Walt Harris era. They may have gotten better, but we are a top 10 team, with a defense that just held an offense filled with 5 stars to their lowest point totals in 25 years.