Sunday, August 26, 2007
Why College is better than the NFL
We see these types of articles come out each year. As a matter of fact, I think I did one myself in 2006. So why do this again? Many reasons actually - but the best I can think of right now is that who the hell remembers what I said last year? I don't.
So, in the epic debate between college and pro, which one is really better? Personally, I stopped watching most pro sports except for auto racing and golf back in the 90's. Actually, I pretty much gave up on MLB after a series of strikes in the 80's and 90's which ended up screwing the little guys and the fans while the owners and players emerged much richer for their 'efforts'. And then there' s 'pro' basketbatll and 'pro football'. Honestly, does anyone see a difference between these two leagus and the WWF or WWE or whatever series of WWW the pro-wrestling federation employs? I mean come on?
Michael Vick makes me sick. And what's his face (the NBA official - Donagy (sp?)) and his cronies who were in on the fix and take. Yeah, I'm sure everyone who purchased a ticket to one of those games feels good about it now. And who can forget the Tour de France? That event has been flawed for years with tabloid ariticles and unsubstantiated / substantiated facts around doping. Yuck - you can have pro sports. No big gain there from my side of the fence.
Dodd gets is right (and so do many othes this time of year). Check-out his article at the link above, but here's a snip-it as to what you'll find there:
NFL: Killing dogs.
College football: Damn Good Dog.
NFL: Punching some guy in the stands.
College: Dotting the I before the game.
NFL: Sideline supertramps.
College: USC's Song Girls.
And does Mandel. Both are great sources of ammo for this classic grid-iron debate against the big boys and their inflated paychecks. Here are my top-5 from his list:
1) Fight songs performed by actual, live bands and written prior to 2003.
2) Cheerleaders without silicone.
3) Rivals that only play each other once a year.
4) Games with national-title implications in September.
5) A Seminole on a horse riding to midfield and throwing a flaming spear.
So, in the epic debate between college and pro, which one is really better? Personally, I stopped watching most pro sports except for auto racing and golf back in the 90's. Actually, I pretty much gave up on MLB after a series of strikes in the 80's and 90's which ended up screwing the little guys and the fans while the owners and players emerged much richer for their 'efforts'. And then there' s 'pro' basketbatll and 'pro football'. Honestly, does anyone see a difference between these two leagus and the WWF or WWE or whatever series of WWW the pro-wrestling federation employs? I mean come on?
Michael Vick makes me sick. And what's his face (the NBA official - Donagy (sp?)) and his cronies who were in on the fix and take. Yeah, I'm sure everyone who purchased a ticket to one of those games feels good about it now. And who can forget the Tour de France? That event has been flawed for years with tabloid ariticles and unsubstantiated / substantiated facts around doping. Yuck - you can have pro sports. No big gain there from my side of the fence.
Dodd gets is right (and so do many othes this time of year). Check-out his article at the link above, but here's a snip-it as to what you'll find there:
NFL: Killing dogs.
College football: Damn Good Dog.
NFL: Punching some guy in the stands.
College: Dotting the I before the game.
NFL: Sideline supertramps.
College: USC's Song Girls.
And does Mandel. Both are great sources of ammo for this classic grid-iron debate against the big boys and their inflated paychecks. Here are my top-5 from his list:
1) Fight songs performed by actual, live bands and written prior to 2003.
2) Cheerleaders without silicone.
3) Rivals that only play each other once a year.
4) Games with national-title implications in September.
5) A Seminole on a horse riding to midfield and throwing a flaming spear.