Is Kent State Out of their Mind?

• cats gone wild

  http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-purdue-kentst
  
  Unless they are going to get a huge payday, I dont understand why they would pay Purdue to drop them so they can play Alabama. At least they would have somewhat of a shot vs. Purdue.
• Pick6

  

  Somewhat of a shot, however, highly unlikely. I can't really blame them for doing it though, it has to be a big payday
• karen lotz

  

  I'd say Bama will throw a boat load of money at them and will more than make up for the $400,000 they had to pay to Purdue. I'm not sure the exact circumstances of who they dropped the game for or how much it was, but Western Michigan backed out of a game last November so they could play Notre Dame last weekend.
• OQB

  

  lol so is it safe to say Coach Doug Martin would be on the hot seat if he doesn't beat Alabama?
• CinciX12

  

  OrrvilleQB;527036 wrote:lol so is it safe to say Coach Doug Martin would be on the hot seat if he doesn't beat Alabama?

  
  Without question. Win of GTFO.
• cats gone wild

  Maybe Im not thinking this out right, but if they have to pay Purdue to get out of it, would they really be making much more money by playing Bama? Did Purdue pay Kent St. already and they are paying them back? Just dont understand how they will make much profit off this.
• OQB

  

  CinciX12;527040 wrote:Without question. Win of GTFO.

  
  haha exactly.....I think he has been on the hot seat for about 3 years now! Maybe with their new AD he will get a new guy in charge of the Golden Flashes. One of my former teammates is on that team so I will have to see what he thinks about playing the Crimson Tide! haha
• WebFire

  I'm not a big fan of paying teams to play. It exploits the young men who work their ass off to play college football. Then you schedule them against Alabama when they have no chance of winning, all in the name of the almighty dollar. How is that fair to the players?
  
  I say put a ban on paying for opponents. Maybe that will stop some of the cream puff scheduling.
• FatHobbit

  

  WebFire;527137 wrote:I say put a ban on paying for opponents. Maybe that will stop some of the cream puff scheduling.

  If you wanted to put an end to creme puff scheduling, that would do it.
• SportsAndLady

  

  WebFire;527137 wrote:I'm not a big fan of paying teams to play. It exploits the young men who work their ass off to play college football. Then you schedule them against Alabama when they have no chance of winning, all in the name of the almighty dollar. How is that fair to the players?
  
  I say put a ban on paying for opponents. Maybe that will stop some of the cream puff scheduling.

  
  While I do not really agree or disagree with your suggestion, I feel like everyone on here wants to "get rid of" every single thing about college and professional football.
  
  It's like the NFL got rid of one thing (helmet to helmet hits), now it's a snowball effect to ban every little thing wrong with the sport.
• enigmaax

  SportsAndLady;527155 wrote:While I do not really agree or disagree with your suggestion, I feel like everyone on here wants to "get rid of" every single thing about college and professional football.

  
  Yeah, I happen to completely disagree with the original post about the ban and second this notion. There really isn't much wrong with the sport. People make up a lot of "solutions" for non-existant problems. If the sport is so bad, why the fuck are so many people watching it and how are they raking in so much cash?
  
  The fact that these types of games are played enables those smaller schools (or those with otherwise much smaller athletic budgets) to offer sports - and not just football. People tend to hone in on one aspect of the game and not realize how the overall cycle works. That and...you think the Kent State players are sitting around going, "oh fuck, now we gotta play Alabama...we have no chance to win and I could possibly get hurt...blah blah blah"? In virtually every single conversation I've had with people who played at mid-level and lower schools, when the topic of their playing days comes up, the first story is about what big name program they played. Clearly its a good experience, win or lose.
• WebFire

  enigmaax;527175 wrote:Yeah, I happen to completely disagree with the original post about the ban and second this notion. There really isn't much wrong with the sport. People make up a lot of "solutions" for non-existant problems. If the sport is so bad, why the fuck are so many people watching it and how are they raking in so much cash?
  
  The fact that these types of games are played enables those smaller schools (or those with otherwise much smaller athletic budgets) to offer sports - and not just football. People tend to hone in on one aspect of the game and not realize how the overall cycle works. That and...you think the Kent State players are sitting around going, "oh fuck, now we gotta play Alabama...we have no chance to win and I could possibly get hurt...blah blah blah"? In virtually every single conversation I've had with people who played at mid-level and lower schools, when the topic of their playing days comes up, the first story is about what big name program they played. Clearly its a good experience, win or lose.

  
  I completely understand that it works that way, and funds many small college athletic budgets for an entire year. That is why it will never go away. I guess my thought was more for a perfect world, and we all know we are far from a perfect world.
  
  But beyond the money, it really is pointless. It just seems to defy what college athletics is really about, IMO.
  
  Also, just because people continue to pay and watch, doesn't mean things cannot be improved. NFL and college games have been sold out for over a half century. Should we have just kept things the way they were then?
• enigmaax

  WebFire;527179 wrote:I completely understand that it works that way, and funds many small college athletic budgets for an entire year. That is why it will never go away. I guess my thought was more for a perfect world, and we all know we are far from a perfect world.

  So what is your perfect world? If you take away these creampuff games, who is going to play who? If Texas, Ohio State, USC, LSU, Florida, Alabama, Oklahoma, etc...all play each other every year, what is going to happen? Some teams will have winning records, some will have losing records and your perception will change to view the ones that lose in that group as bad programs.
  
  Then you are going to have a bunch of lesser schools going undefeated or winning a bunch of games going, "oh we are one of the top programs in the country because we win 10 games every year". How would you reward them? Would they really have dramatically improved? How would that make college football better?
  

  WebFire;527179 wrote:But beyond the money, it really is pointless. It just seems to defy what college athletics is really about, IMO.

  What is college athletics about? Isn't it about opportunities and participation? It isn't pointless at all beyond the money, it is just that money is necessary to achieve the mission.
  

  WebFire;527179 wrote:Also, just because people continue to pay and watch, doesn't mean things cannot be improved. NFL and college games have been sold out for over a half century. Should we have just kept things the way they were then?

  I didn't say things can't be improved. But arbitrary changes without really weighing the consequences doesn't mean the change is going to make things better. Nothing is perfect, but a lot of changes people wish for would have far, far more negative impacts that what most are willing to consider with the surface thought. Your exclusive reason for saying schools shouldn't be allowed to pay other schools for games is because you don't want to see a Kent State get annihilated by an Alabama. That is extremely minor in the grand scheme.
• WebFire

  Well, I do think that it is pointless for Kent State to play Alabama, beyond the money.
• WebFire

  enigmaax;527211 wrote:So what is your perfect world? If you take away these creampuff games, who is going to play who? If Texas, Ohio State, USC, LSU, Florida, Alabama, Oklahoma, etc...all play each other every year, what is going to happen? Some teams will have winning records, some will have losing records and your perception will change to view the ones that lose in that group as bad programs.
  
  Then you are going to have a bunch of lesser schools going undefeated or winning a bunch of games going, "oh we are one of the top programs in the country because we win 10 games every year". How would you reward them? Would they really have dramatically improved? How would that make college football better?
  
  
  
  What is college athletics about? Isn't it about opportunities and participation? It isn't pointless at all beyond the money, it is just that money is necessary to achieve the mission.
  
  
  
  I didn't say things can't be improved. But arbitrary changes without really weighing the consequences doesn't mean the change is going to make things better. Nothing is perfect, but a lot of changes people wish for would have far, far more negative impacts that what most are willing to consider with the surface thought. Your exclusive reason for saying schools shouldn't be allowed to pay other schools for games is because you don't want to see a Kent State get annihilated by an Alabama. That is extremely minor in the grand scheme.

  
  Sorry I didn't put together a committee to conduct a 3 year study on the effects of schools not paying the small fish to play them. I think you are taking it too literally.
• CinciX12

  

  OrrvilleQB;527047 wrote:haha exactly.....I think he has been on the hot seat for about 3 years now! Maybe with their new AD he will get a new guy in charge of the Golden Flashes. One of my former teammates is on that team so I will have to see what he thinks about playing the Crimson Tide! haha

  
  He probably already feels his leg or neck breaking.
• enigmaax

  WebFire;527219 wrote:Sorry I didn't put together a committee to conduct a 3 year study on the effects of schools not paying the small fish to play them. I think you are taking it too literally.

  
  Hmm...I thought of those things in about 5 seconds. Which goes back to the original point, that people do a lot of bitching with ridiculous suggestions for no real reason.
• cats gone wild

  Maybe Im not thinking this out right, but if they have to pay Purdue to get out of it, would they really be making much more money by playing Bama? Did Purdue pay Kent St. already and they are paying them back? Just dont understand how they will make much profit off this.
• CinciX12

  

  What most likely is going to happen is that the payout for paying Alabama is so much higher than what Purdue was giving them, they are able to pay a 'fine' to Purdue from dropping the game and still make more than playing the actual game with Purdue.
• WebFire

  enigmaax;527267 wrote:Hmm...I thought of those things in about 5 seconds. Which goes back to the original point, that people do a lot of bitching with ridiculous suggestions for no real reason.

  
  My point though is that 95% of the board would fall under this. Of course these things would take some thinking. You don't just implement rules on a whim. But that doesn't mean my thought or opinion has no merit.
• enigmaax

  WebFire;527401 wrote:My point though is that 95% of the board would fall under this. Of course these things would take some thinking. You don't just implement rules on a whim. But that doesn't mean my thought or opinion has no merit.

  
  That is why I asked so many questions about your comment and let you know my thoughts. You made a very simple statement that I find to be a stupid idea. If you think I'm wrong, just counterpoint the reasons I gave you as to why I thought it was stupid. I mean, we're all here for conversation, right? We can't converse if you aren't willing to expand on your original thought a little bit.
• WebFire

  Well, I didn't want to write a thesis on it. We are here for conversation, but I don't feel I need to write a book to validate my opinions for you. You seem to be in attack mode rather than just disagree mode.
• enigmaax

  WebFire;527490 wrote:Well, I didn't want to write a thesis on it. We are here for conversation, but I don't feel I need to write a book to validate my opinions for you. You seem to be in attack mode rather than just disagree mode.

  
  Well, then sorry I came off that way. I used your statement to make a general statement and then you responded...nothing personal...obviously it isn't that big of a deal. But I got it now...you just want to throw out random, meaningless statements about how the game can be better even though it won't really make it better and don't really want to discuss it. That's cool. I just disagree.
• WebFire

  enigmaax;527581 wrote:Well, then sorry I came off that way. I used your statement to make a general statement and then you responded...nothing personal...obviously it isn't that big of a deal. But I got it now...you just want to throw out random, meaningless statements about how the game can be better even though it won't really make it better and don't really want to discuss it. That's cool. I just disagree.

  
  See what I mean?
• WebFire

  Not mention I think my point was pretty clear. How many ways can I say it shouldn't be all about the money, and that the game itself is meaningless. It isn't the job of the big colleges to supply budgets to the small schools. If it's about the participation and experience, I think Kent State has it in the budget to do so. If not, they don't offer the sports.