Yeah, you sure get national "respect" when you play in the Shreveport Bowl in front of 1800 viewers. People just respectin' ya all over the country. Lulz.


Fewer people watched MU play OU in the 2007 Big 12 Title Game than watched KU play UNC in the Elite 8. Respect..

For the total.

For a single game the Super Bowl is still tops but as an entire season College Basketball and the NFL stand alone.

http://kantarmediana.com/sites/defau...V-Ad-Spend.jpg

http://kantarmediana.com/intelligenc...-trends-report

The Northeast doesn't really give a wet fart about college football. It's not surprising, pretty much everyone that way sucks badly at it.

But they do love college basketball. And there are a ton of people there.

So yeah, college basketball does well in the ratings because it's well-liked in a high population density area. Congrats, I guess.

Still don't care. It's still just a clank-fest most nights where way too many uncontested shots are missed, way too many easy passes are missed.

That's the major difference between college football and college basketball. College football is a different sport than the NFL. The rules are different, the rosters are different. The ways you can succeed are significantly different. It's just a vastly different sport than the pro version.

College basketball, OTOH, is just the minor league version of the NBA. It's like watching a far shittier version of pro-basketball where guys miss open looks, are slow on their rotations and come March, just stand behind a short 3-point line chucking 3 balls hoping to knock off superior opponents in a crap-shoot of a tournament.

If I feel like watching basketball - I'm gonna watch the NBA. It's simply a far superior product. If I feel like watching football...well then it just depends on the mood. Both are equally outstanding in their own ways.

I can't tell someone what to enjoy in life, but I do find your logic here a bit awkward. You like the NBA because it's a superior product, fair enough. That same logic would force you to like the NFL far more than college (as most Americans not living in the Deep South already do). You seem inconsistent here in your logic.

The NFL isn't a superior product to me. The rules and how they are enforced in the NFL simply make it a much different product. 20 years ago, you'd have been right.

Now, however, it's just a much different game.

I recognize there's a lot of editorializing here, but every time I watch a college basketball game it just looks like the same as a pro game, only far far more poorly played. It's much more basic, it's much more sloppy. It's a lesser version of the same product.

I don't feel that way about college football. It's simply a different product.

Most people who watch college football take about 3 seconds and say. Well, that team has better players than the other team.

Trying to say one sport so much better than the other just shows your bias. You can poke holes into just about anything and make it work the way you want it.

Trying for one second to pretend that college football is anywhere near the same level of play as the NFL is laughable.

I love any sport that has 58 fouls called in a 40 minute game. 72 free throws? Sign me right up.

44 shots made versus 45 free throws made? Hell yes.

Where is college football? What are the ad revenues for the bowl season?

It's not the same level. But the NFL is so much of a 'team' sport that the differences in respective skill sets isn't so obviously manifested on a play to play basis.

For instance, a battle in the trenches in the college game is going to be between two players that are obviously inferior to a pro equivalent. However, they offset and the results are almost exactly the same as they would be in a pro game.

In college basketball, those errors are just incredibly stark because there are 10 guys on the court instead of 22 and so much of the game is done at an individual level. A guy with bad handles is just obvious. A guy that can't hit an uncontested 12 footer is just smacking you right in the fact.

And because everyone on the court shoots and/or handles the ball at some point or another, there's simply a higher rate of flat out obvious clanks or guys dribbling the ball off their shoes. It's not that the disparity is any wider, it's that it's more clearly manifest in what you see.

The difference in the levels of play is far more apparent in a college basketball game than it is a college football game. It's the nature of the respective sports.

Fair enough. But all sports can be broken down based on number of participants and influences on the game by a single player.

I happen to think that the stark difference between a single player making an impact on a CFB vs an NFL game is very apparent.

I thoroughly enjoy all 4 sports we're talking about here so it doesn't hold that much importance for me. They all fit into their own time and nowadays plenty of coverage of all 4 is available for anyone to get their fill.

I have no idea why someone would call college basketball "sloppy" but not see the same with college football. I can't remember the last college football game I watched where some dude didn't break off a 75 yard TD run without being touched. No matter, college football's main problem is it doesn't really produce that many upsets. Example: Sagarin's rating system has been 90% effective in determining who wins this year.


In college basketball Northern Iowa can beat Kansas, Robert Morris can beat Kentucky, Butler can nearly win the national title. In football it's the same damn mega-schools (all in the South) that win every year. Why is that fun? Why is that enjoyable as a fan?

That actually annoys me a bit about college ball.

I know the casual fan likes upsets, but to me they dilute the product, especially in the tournament. Some team like Oral Roberts goes out there and upsets a team that will beat them 19 times out of 20, then gets thumped a round later to make it easier for another squad to advance. I hate that crap.

The problem is the 3-point line. The 3-ball is the great equalizer in basketball. It's worth a full 50% more than a normal shot and in the college game it's just too close. Hell, up until 2007 they literally played on a High School court. A sub-20 foot 3 pointer is pathetic. Now moving it out to 21ish is more acceptable, but it's still more than a foot shorter than the WNBA. I think we will all concede that a major college mens team should be able to house a WNBA squad pretty easily, so WTF are they doing getting 3-balls from a foot closer in?

If you push the 3 point line out to a more difficult level, you'd put an end to these teams that build around unathletic, unsound 'distance' shooters that just stand around all day chucking 3s. It's a horribly boring game and it's as bad when they're on as it is when they're off. Teams would get their focus back on working around the rim; crisp interior passing, hard screens and movement without the ball. They'd have to get smart in small spaces or die. The game would improve a hell of a lot, IMO.

When a 3-ball is actually difficult, you'll have kids that bother developing the muscle memory to stroke a mid-range jumper. I think you'll see more transition basketball. I think you'll just get a much better game.

Boise St can beat Oklahoma.

There are all kinds of things they could do to encourage CFB upsets. First and foremost being the elimination of stopping the clock after every first down. The games are simply too long thus the more talented team wins out nearly all of the time.

Don't we want the more talented team winning most of the time?