Comments » 71

MetroplexMojo writes:

in response to johnlg00:

Heck, there may not be football at all in just a few years the way we've mostly known it for the last 60 years or so. Travel costs, recruiting costs, escalation of facilities, poor fan experiences, tight economy, player injuries, academic fraud, legal/moral problems with players and coaches, gender equity, drying-up youth replacement pool--the list of things that can bring down big-time college football either all at once or little by little grows longer and longer. My attitude is strictly that I will enjoy it while I can, but if the rest of society turns against it, then I guess that's it. The NFL may not last much longer either. We may all have to find a new sports interest sooner than we think. Mark my words.

I think you bring up an interesting point. Football is not going away but I think you will see a shift in the future like you are seeing in baseball today. In the past 20-30 years, the youth that would have normally been playing baseball were doing other things such as video games, basketball, and football that provided more action than baseball. There is very little interest in inner city youth in playing baseball. The talent in baseball today is not what is was 20 years ago (and would be much lower if not for the dramatic increase in players from Latin America). The drop in talent compared to other sports is one reason why football is much more popular than baseball and why baseball has been passed by basketball as well.

I think the injury and concussion issues are a huge concern for long term future of football. I think you will continue to see strong football in the Southeast and Texas where football in embedded within the culture. But I can see other parts of the country banning or reducing youth football due to potential injury concerns. In the next 30-40 years, will there still be the huge hunger for football that currently exists if the players aren't as talented? High school and college football may become like sweet tea...most parts of the country dabble in it but only one region knows how to do it.

FearTheVols1252 writes:

in response to Lizardgrad89:

When Tennessee was winning, the SEC wasn't dominating the BCS title game every year like they are now. Makes a difference.

The BCS title game has only existed since the 98/99 season, and since then the SEC has won 9 of them (out of 15 total). No matter how you slice it, I'd say that's dominating given its short existance.

CoverOrange writes:

in response to MetroplexMojo:

I think you bring up an interesting point. Football is not going away but I think you will see a shift in the future like you are seeing in baseball today. In the past 20-30 years, the youth that would have normally been playing baseball were doing other things such as video games, basketball, and football that provided more action than baseball. There is very little interest in inner city youth in playing baseball. The talent in baseball today is not what is was 20 years ago (and would be much lower if not for the dramatic increase in players from Latin America). The drop in talent compared to other sports is one reason why football is much more popular than baseball and why baseball has been passed by basketball as well.

I think the injury and concussion issues are a huge concern for long term future of football. I think you will continue to see strong football in the Southeast and Texas where football in embedded within the culture. But I can see other parts of the country banning or reducing youth football due to potential injury concerns. In the next 30-40 years, will there still be the huge hunger for football that currently exists if the players aren't as talented? High school and college football may become like sweet tea...most parts of the country dabble in it but only one region knows how to do it.

I think cost will become a bigger factor in school districts cutting down on youth football. Where I live many school districts are facing deficits due to reduced state funding and refusal by the community to raise property taxes to pay for the academic side much less the extracurricular side. Several school districts now charge hundreds of dollars per kid per year to participate in sports, including band. Pretty soon it'll only be schools like Webb playing schools like Farragut.

CrankE writes:

in response to LiveFaith:

Now we just have to get there. Go Vols.

Hey Strange, do you have any updates on John Adams? New awards from media cronies. Anything? We're waiting.

Here's hoping for a looooooooooooong recovery.

Oh wait, this just in, Adamz won an award for Courage In Kneehab from the Trollz Local 182.

MetroplexMojo writes:

in response to CoverOrange:

I think cost will become a bigger factor in school districts cutting down on youth football. Where I live many school districts are facing deficits due to reduced state funding and refusal by the community to raise property taxes to pay for the academic side much less the extracurricular side. Several school districts now charge hundreds of dollars per kid per year to participate in sports, including band. Pretty soon it'll only be schools like Webb playing schools like Farragut.

I can see where funding will be an issue in certain communities. I think it will be hard for lower income districts to offer football if it is not supported by the students and communities.

On the other hand, there are a lot of communities that would fund the local high school football team before purchasing textbooks. I went to a high school where the football weightroom was 5x larger than the library. The football team played in a brand new stadium while the school had spotty AC at times with numerous leaky roofs. And this was a high school where the football was actually crappy (especially by Texas standards).

utvolfan1955 writes:

in response to DeltaCharlie3:

Same could be said for Auburn. A strong Auburn makes UGA and Bama's path much more difficult each year.

Regarding Tennessee, doesn't really matter, as they can't beat Florida when they're good, or bad.

Little zz, regarding you and your numerous user names on this site, doesn't really matter, you're still a low life piece

Basketvol writes:

in response to SAMA_BUCKS:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

My take on that game--there was nothing lucky about Travis Henry and the Volunteer offensive line taking the ball right down the field for a touchdown after the Stoerner stumble. The story behind that game is one of the greatest stories of determination to win a game that I have ever heard. Billy Ratliff willed that fumble to happen. That was a great game to be at; also the six overtime win. Worst ever--the Jabar Gaffney "touchdown" game.

Basketvol writes:

in response to SevenT:

Alabama pounds Tennessee every year, UT simply does not belong on the same field with Alabama. Back in the 1950s it may have been a good game but not today.

Every SEC fan would rather see Alabama play a good SEC East team like Florida or Georgia.

You don't have to go back in time that far. Tennessee dominated Bama in the 90's Did you read in the article that over the last 21 years Tenn and Bama are even at 10-10-1? Did you read the article?

Basketvol writes:

in response to MetroplexMojo:

I think you bring up an interesting point. Football is not going away but I think you will see a shift in the future like you are seeing in baseball today. In the past 20-30 years, the youth that would have normally been playing baseball were doing other things such as video games, basketball, and football that provided more action than baseball. There is very little interest in inner city youth in playing baseball. The talent in baseball today is not what is was 20 years ago (and would be much lower if not for the dramatic increase in players from Latin America). The drop in talent compared to other sports is one reason why football is much more popular than baseball and why baseball has been passed by basketball as well.

I think the injury and concussion issues are a huge concern for long term future of football. I think you will continue to see strong football in the Southeast and Texas where football in embedded within the culture. But I can see other parts of the country banning or reducing youth football due to potential injury concerns. In the next 30-40 years, will there still be the huge hunger for football that currently exists if the players aren't as talented? High school and college football may become like sweet tea...most parts of the country dabble in it but only one region knows how to do it.

Great post. I can see things playing out regionally like you described. I love the last bit about sweet tea. So true.

johnlg00 writes:

in response to Lizardgrad89:

When Tennessee was winning, the SEC wasn't dominating the BCS title game every year like they are now. Makes a difference.

So then, in your view, Tennessee set the stage for more than a decade of SEC dominance in title games, since they won the first BCS trophy. Took awhile for the rest of the conference to catch up with us, but the Vols blazed the BCS championship trail for the SEC. We've been down lately, but I feel that the Vols will be marching on that trail again in the not-too-distant future, and maybe tripping up a few others sooner than that. I wouldn't have expected such a complimentary post from you, but, hey, sometimes people can surprise you!

johnlg00 writes:

in response to FearTheVols1252:

I don't think it had as much to do with halftime adjustments made by UF as much as it did that we simply had a moron for a DC. What's scary is that if Wilcox were still DC, we would have dominated that game. Yes... I said dominated, and the trolls know it (though they'll NEVER admit it).

However... woulda, coulda, shoulda... but didn't. It's just one more thing I'd like to thank Dooley for. :-/

I may be wrong in remembering this about the Florida game in particular, since it was a pattern of the Vols much of the season, but it seems to me that the Vols were leading at halftime after running the ball effectively in the half. Then after halftime, the Vols stopped running for no reason that I could see, UF got a couple of quick scores, and the team and staff didn't know how to handle it so they lost. I'm not much of one for game predictions, but I am guessing that Jones and staff won't let that kind of thing happen as often. Sometimes the opponents are better, and you can do your best and still lose. Just don't ever let it be said that you lost your head and heart and will in a game. I don't think people will say that about Jones' teams.

johnlg00 writes:

in response to MetroplexMojo:

I think you bring up an interesting point. Football is not going away but I think you will see a shift in the future like you are seeing in baseball today. In the past 20-30 years, the youth that would have normally been playing baseball were doing other things such as video games, basketball, and football that provided more action than baseball. There is very little interest in inner city youth in playing baseball. The talent in baseball today is not what is was 20 years ago (and would be much lower if not for the dramatic increase in players from Latin America). The drop in talent compared to other sports is one reason why football is much more popular than baseball and why baseball has been passed by basketball as well.

I think the injury and concussion issues are a huge concern for long term future of football. I think you will continue to see strong football in the Southeast and Texas where football in embedded within the culture. But I can see other parts of the country banning or reducing youth football due to potential injury concerns. In the next 30-40 years, will there still be the huge hunger for football that currently exists if the players aren't as talented? High school and college football may become like sweet tea...most parts of the country dabble in it but only one region knows how to do it.

Great post; much food for thought for football fans. There are parallels to NASCAR as well. The sport grew up in the South, notably North Carolina, and thrived because "racin'" is in the culture, from the moonshine runners to the country-boy shade-tree mechanics who would race anywhere at the drop of a hat. Once the TV networks discovered it, and the presence of large numbers of Southerners in cities across the country was seen as a possible initial target audience, NASCAR attempted a big leap out into the rest of the country.

For a variety of reasons, the bloom seems to be fading from that particular rose. Some of the old race tracks, such as those at Martinsville, VA and Darlington, SC, were sold or virtually shut down. Now some of the newer speedways around the country are also losing money. But racing is still strong in the culture of the South. Some of the older tracks are reopening for NASCAR, and are sustained almost year round by local races. The local TV news in my part of NC has a local racing rundown just about every evening, and covers NASCAR like the Dixie dew. Racing news of one sort or another consumes a whole page or more of the sports section nearly every day. Racing will thrive in the South even if interest declines elsewhere. Football may go similarly.

Olddogsrule writes:

"Thunder Road" is US Hwy 70. Known in Knoxville as Kingston Pike. It's also on the routes East/West (The Lee Highway)and North/South (The Dixie Highway) til it splits at Dixie-Lee Junction. You could follow any direction you chose from Dixie-Lee for just a few miles and find oval track action on Saturday night.

Just over by Melton Hill Dam on the Clinch river was Atomic Speedway. It sat right beside I-40 and the track lights lit up the interstate too. Atomic was a great dirt track with great seats and for years the seats were filled.

They were all over, those dirt tracks. Big and small. Some only the red clay dozed to make the banked ovals and no real stadium seats, just some bleachers cobbled togeather on a hilside above the track.

The "Shiners" are long gone. Beach racin's gone. Most local dirt tracks and drag strips are gone. Not enough fans show to keep 'em going. The big screen TV provides the speed fix.

Is this the future of CFB?

Or, because of the rise of on-line education, some predict that around 2040 colleges with a campus will start going bankrupt and cease to exist. Stadiums will be sold (or left to rot) to semi-pro teams or the like, and most collegiate sports teams will become a chapter in the history books.

Read:
"Why College Football Will be Dead Within 20 Years"
by Jon Johnston in SB Nation.
http://www.cornnation.com/2013/7/18/4...

Do I believe it? Hope not, but Johnston makes a strong argument.

GONAVY writes:

in response to RememberWhen:

People need to stop whining about schedules. SEC teams haven't played all of the others in the league since anybody can remember. Guess what? Neither does the NFL but they still recognize a Super Bowl champ don't they!? And nobody questions it. MLB and the NBA pley unbalanced schedules too...just like practically every sports league on the planet! Spurrier and SC started this phooey because they're pretending to be big boys right now but can't actually win anything that matters. Was Stevie crying when he was at FL and actually winning championships? No. So the fact that you might beat all the east teams but would be 4th or 5th in the west does not mean you should go to the SEC title game. Bottom line...if it's a league opponent - it counts. It's called win or go home...or in this case - win or shut up.

well said

MetroplexMojo writes:

in response to SAMA_BUCKS:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

I think that the college experience will change over the next 20-40 years. Colleges that do not adapt with the times will face some economic hardships. However, the author glosses over the biggest issue facing for-profit online colleges...NOBODY VALUES THOSE DEGREES!!!!

I'm in my early 30s and have reviewed hundreds of resumes. Any candidate with a degree from a for-profit online college gets tossed. My belief is commonplace in the corporate world and for people my age. For the author to be correct, my generation and corporate America would have to do a 180 when it comes to hiring in the next 20 years. That's not happening. If I was hiring someone out of school, should I hire someone from an accredited 4 year college that has internship experience or someone who got a 18 month degree that advertised right before Maury announced who the father is?

Olddogsrule writes:

though I only threw it out to participate in the direction the thread was taking, and I don't particularly agree with all his conclusions, it's not 'completely' preposterous. Just Google how many on-line degree programs there are. Mind boggling. And the significanly (and I mean hugely significantly) lower cost of getting a degree on line. Employers getting more and more used to the idea of hiring those with an on line degree. Parents in this economy with 3 or 4 kids to get through higher education may be able to educate all of them for the cost of one living on campus now. A college degree now is like a high school degree when I went through, you really need one. So, No it's not preposterous at all. When the Tandy TRS 80, Apple One and IBM PC came out in the early and mid 1980's. No one could have conceived of the idea of a minicomputer you could hold in your hand. Especially one that also had a 13 megapixel color camera and a telephone you could use anywhere you were. Sea changes in technology and civilization's response are happening.

And especially for small under funded private schools and state schools with no land grant dollars there will be change. TV dollars will only go so far in supporting already big school athletic departments. What about the academic side. These schools don't exist so they can have a football team. They may have a football team because they exist. There will be a LOT of smaller private institutions not participating in huge TV revenue distributions go by the way, they won't exist. Ones who only get on TV once or twice a year, if that, and they will be Div I NCAA schools FCS or BCS.

Yes, there will be some large land grant schools that will remain. But the face education is going to change and so NCAA college ball is going to change radically. It IS going SOMEWHERE. It is NOT going NOWHERE.
There will be many who won't catch the train. Comparing to banty roosters, Y2K, Armegeddon, & etc. is a knee jerk hide yer head in the sand reaction.

So since you disagree, and really can provide non-reactionary facts, and paint a picture of what NCAA football will truly look like in 15 or 20 years, we'd all love to hear them.

underthehill writes:

in response to johnlg00:

Heck, there may not be football at all in just a few years the way we've mostly known it for the last 60 years or so. Travel costs, recruiting costs, escalation of facilities, poor fan experiences, tight economy, player injuries, academic fraud, legal/moral problems with players and coaches, gender equity, drying-up youth replacement pool--the list of things that can bring down big-time college football either all at once or little by little grows longer and longer. My attitude is strictly that I will enjoy it while I can, but if the rest of society turns against it, then I guess that's it. The NFL may not last much longer either. We may all have to find a new sports interest sooner than we think. Mark my words.

Just kidding? Only way football goes away is if rednecks do..and there's too many of us...

Olddogsrule writes:

in response to SAMA_BUCKS:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Yeah, my career was engineering too. Mechanical. Architecture in '69 before Nam & switched after. Oak Ridge & TVA, & others. About '75 the chief of DOE's design and construction said it took him 3 years for a college grad to get to where they didn't just cost money. I'm nothin' special but I've read hundreds of BS (double entendre' intended) resumes & placed & seen fired some MS Masters of Disaster, always who can do the books, but not engineer their way out of a paper bag. So BSEE meet I don't care.

Go tell Ray Kurzweil- inventor & futurist & a Director of Engineering for Google that his comments to L. Raphael Reif - President of MIT is pi$$ing in the wind.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/singulari...

Some of your points are valid for several years for the hard sciences and engineering. That will change. Right now there's Engineers with their newly minted online MBA's getting advanced.
But in 30 years (or less-maybe much less) when those who hire got their degrees online with supplemental personal/socializing enrichment programs on the side, residential university attendance will be available but won't be necessary. Only private schools, Vanderbilt, Harvard, etc. with their large endowments and reputation to get those corporate grants and the best public land grant universities, hopefully one for every state, will survive. But, survive with much smaller populations. There are 106 land grant schools now, they won't all make it. Many that do may be forced to drop their athelitic programs.

Now football:
Eh! Are we are in total agreement? Since you did agreed with me: "it is NOT dying (not at the D-1 level ENTIRELY, anyway)." {'ENTIRELY' Caps Mine}-to emphasize you only said what I said. So it was all yer wantin' to do bluff an bluster 'bout p!$$ & rain & beachfront somewheres & my bein fool enough to buy it. NO.

Yer somehow from somewhere thunk that I think it's gonna die when I plainly stated the FACE of NCAA sports will radically change. And, as you said (for some reason after rattling on about ocean property)yes, it is a business,.. but a lot of it is sponsored by those smaller educational institutions and many of those sponsoring schools will have pulled in their horns or ceased to exist in 20, 25 & 30 years as the technological advances in all levels of education render them moot, corporate grants are shifted to private private facilities, and (like many now who tried) aren't able to produce viable, accreditable, on-line programs. There won't be 106 Land Grant Schools, not nearly ..unless Congress..well..they may well fund losing propositions.. maybe. Those big schools who survive will always offer a certain amount of sports, and

Yes, TV contracts will drive it, but the NCAA won't have the number of teams we know. But by that time I'll be pushin' daisies anyway, less'n they find the fountain of youth in a medicine bottle.

Olddogsrule writes:

in response to MetroplexMojo:

I think that the college experience will change over the next 20-40 years. Colleges that do not adapt with the times will face some economic hardships. However, the author glosses over the biggest issue facing for-profit online colleges...NOBODY VALUES THOSE DEGREES!!!!

I'm in my early 30s and have reviewed hundreds of resumes. Any candidate with a degree from a for-profit online college gets tossed. My belief is commonplace in the corporate world and for people my age. For the author to be correct, my generation and corporate America would have to do a 180 when it comes to hiring in the next 20 years. That's not happening. If I was hiring someone out of school, should I hire someone from an accredited 4 year college that has internship experience or someone who got a 18 month degree that advertised right before Maury announced who the father is?

Agreed, the programs providing Maury's pocket change are pretty much only lining the pockets of their investors with Pell Grant and Ed Loan dollars. Few if any are accredited by reputable organizations, and few every will be. But when the big schools like MIT, Stanford, Harvard, etc. and the better land grant programs get it figured out those degrees will be worth something. For better or worse.

As Kurzweil said to the MIT president in the above referenced Forbes article, "However, I do think that when the change gets going, it will happen faster and more profoundly than people expect. It is easy to get lulled by hundreds of years of tradition and stability."

You see it everywhere. County school programs in Tennessee providing these programs now and incorporating pre-existing home schooling methods of socialization. It dosen't have to be a 180. There will be those who never will accept the online degree out of principle. And those who approve it.

So college ball is going to take a big hit, and there won't be any penalty, and the culprit won't get ejected.

johnlg00 writes:

in response to Olddogsrule:

"Thunder Road" is US Hwy 70. Known in Knoxville as Kingston Pike. It's also on the routes East/West (The Lee Highway)and North/South (The Dixie Highway) til it splits at Dixie-Lee Junction. You could follow any direction you chose from Dixie-Lee for just a few miles and find oval track action on Saturday night.

Just over by Melton Hill Dam on the Clinch river was Atomic Speedway. It sat right beside I-40 and the track lights lit up the interstate too. Atomic was a great dirt track with great seats and for years the seats were filled.

They were all over, those dirt tracks. Big and small. Some only the red clay dozed to make the banked ovals and no real stadium seats, just some bleachers cobbled togeather on a hilside above the track.

The "Shiners" are long gone. Beach racin's gone. Most local dirt tracks and drag strips are gone. Not enough fans show to keep 'em going. The big screen TV provides the speed fix.

Is this the future of CFB?

Or, because of the rise of on-line education, some predict that around 2040 colleges with a campus will start going bankrupt and cease to exist. Stadiums will be sold (or left to rot) to semi-pro teams or the like, and most collegiate sports teams will become a chapter in the history books.

Read:
"Why College Football Will be Dead Within 20 Years"
by Jon Johnston in SB Nation.
http://www.cornnation.com/2013/7/18/4...

Do I believe it? Hope not, but Johnston makes a strong argument.

I grew up in K'ville and lived there for 45 years, so I well know all those places you mentioned. I don't have any way to really measure this, but my impression through the local media is that local racing is alive and well in the Piedmont Triad of North Carolina.

I think you might be right about the future of "brick and mortar" colleges. I'm glad to have trod the grounds of the UT campus, for all its faults. I can only regard it as a crying shame for future generations not to experience college life as I did. Oh, one may be sure the Ivies and such will maintain pristine campuses on into the distant future, even if no real "educating" is happening on them. For a guy from a middle-class background like mine, the experience will be unaffordable, I'm afraid. Forget about learning or art for its own sake. Forget about learning to relate to people from varied backgrounds. I could go on, but fundamental change in the nature of the colleges can't help but have major effects on the structure of college sports.

johnlg00 writes:

I have really enjoyed the exchange of views on the future of higher education and/or college football. I don't claim any special expertise in these subjects, but I do read a lot about them and care about them.

The least realistic expectation of any complex social arrangement is that it cannot undergo significant change in what can seem like a short time in the life of a society. There are already many forces working on the institutions of higher education and on college sports, with profound implications for both. It is possible that any of several apparent trends may not be permanent, but when you have a number of powerful ones tending in roughly the same direction, it is hard to say which one will prove the strongest or what their ultimate combined effects will be.

Oh yes, I think there will be some form of higher education pretty broadly available to and accepted by most, but there is almost no chance that my particular campus experience will be an expectation of large numbers of people. There may be the evolution of some kind of semi-pro sports to fill the niche college sports does now. Some of those teams may be sponsored in some sense by a college. However, the number of colleges who can participate meaningfully on a national scale will slowly contract. There may only be 50 schools willing to spend the money to support a few major teams; everybody else will play on a non-scholarship basis.

Want to participate in the conversation? Become a subscriber today. Subscribers can read and comment on any story, anytime. Non-subscribers will only be able to view comments on select stories.

Features