The W
Views: 100896311
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
27.11.14 0329
The W - Football - NFL vs. College - What's your game (Page 2)
This thread has 34 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2(1999 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (40 total)
Battlezone
Potato korv








Since: 27.2.03
From: Seattle, Washington

Since last post: 2179 days
Last activity: 231 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#21 Posted on
    Originally posted by TheCow
    Uh, Battle?

    Once again, what are you talking about? We don't dress up here - we just make you go blind during a day game. Must be those crazy Georgia fans. (Come to the return game here and see what I mean.) Now, yeah, there are some people that dress, but I'll put $10 down that 95% of them are in some frat or sorority (and at least 75% of those are newbies); for everyone else, it's all about comfort and home colors. Now, I'm not going to deny that it sounds stupid enough to be a SEC tradition (we've got some boneheaded ones here), it's just not one that I (or about 85% of the population - minimum - in Neyland on gameday) take part in.

    (Edited for clarification purposes and heresuch.)

    (edited by TheCow on 5.9.03 1844)


Duly noted. I think it was a fraternity/sorority thing at UGA. I, personally, thought they were crazy, considering it was 90-something outside, but to each their own. And, like I said before, I've been told that it happens at other schools in the SEC.

And, I would *love* to come to that return game. Got a ticket? :)



"So you're Ben Affleck. You're sitting next to Jennifer Lopez, who's your fiancee, you're eating a eight-foot high sundae, and members of the Boston Red Sox are coming up to you and asking for autographs. If that's not heaven, what is?" - Tony Kornheiser, PTI
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 514 days
Last activity: 514 days
#22 Posted on
A point that has not yet been mentioned: NFL with Dish vs. NFL without Dish vs. College Football. With a dish, you have the opportunity to watch whatever game you want, and any close game at all, instead of being stuck with what the nitwits running your local CBS/FOX affiliate brand as the game of the week. And, if your stuck in a home market with a local team you don't like, you get stuck with that game plus an Arizona game as the second game of the day. Thus, with a Dish, the NFL comes out on top.
However, without a dish, it becomes a different story. Take this Saturday night as an example. After a day of college football, you get at the same time Florida/Miami on ABC, Oklahoma/Alabama on ESPN, and Florida State vs. Maryland on the Deuce. Thus, if cable is your option instead of Direct TV, you can still watch 20 plus games in a day instead of a maximum of 5. Better chance when there are 7 games on simultaneously than 2 of having at least one game be exciting.
Plus, the biggest advantage for college football: Lee Corso.



Time to do a Red Sox pennant chase supply list: Arsenic: check. Cyanide: check. Booze: check. Fully loaded gun for full chamber Russian Roulette: check. Ok, I'm prepared, let the pennant race commence.
Doc_whiskey
Frankfurter








Since: 6.8.02
From: St. Louis

Since last post: 42 days
Last activity: 42 days
AIM:  
#23 Posted on
    Originally posted by redsoxnation
    the biggest advantage for college football: Lee Corso.


We already got an annoying announcer in the NFL, his name is John Madden.

Battle: Ohio St. winning close games last year ahd nothing to do with the competition being good, it had more to do with Ohio St. IMO Ohio St. wasnt impressive (defensively yes, but not offensively). The best team last year was probably USC, but we didnt get to se how they would do against Ohio St. or Miami because college lets a computer decide who gets to lay for their national title instead of letting teams duke it out at the end of the year.



Mr. Burns: You are of course familiar with our state usury laws?
Homer:U-sur-y?
Mr. Burns: Oh silly me, I must have just used a word that doesn't exist.
TheCow
Landjager








Since: 3.1.02
From: Knoxville, TN

Since last post: 2484 days
Last activity: 2484 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#24 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.00
If I can find a guy who will go in on a ticket, but not to the game, consider it done. However, that ...may be easier said than done for Georgia. I think it can be done, though.





Knoxville Lindy Exchange
Battlezone
Potato korv








Since: 27.2.03
From: Seattle, Washington

Since last post: 2179 days
Last activity: 231 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#25 Posted on
    Originally posted by Doc_whiskey
      Originally posted by redsoxnation
      the biggest advantage for college football: Lee Corso.


    We already got an annoying announcer in the NFL, his name is John Madden.

    Battle: Ohio St. winning close games last year ahd nothing to do with the competition being good, it had more to do with Ohio St. IMO Ohio St. wasnt impressive (defensively yes, but not offensively). The best team last year was probably USC, but we didnt get to se how they would do against Ohio St. or Miami because college lets a computer decide who gets to lay for their national title instead of letting teams duke it out at the end of the year.


Not so FAST, my friend...

Ohio State: Undefeated. Miami: Undefeated. USC: One loss. Can't really blame this on on the computers. If USC doesn't lose their game, then you've probably got an argument.

And I'll say it again. Of OSU's seven close games, three were ranked in the top 15 when they played them (PSU, Wisconsin, Miami), and SIX of them are ranked in the Top 25 this year. So give them a LITTLE credit for beating some talented teams. It wasn't just luck, as everyone likes to say...

edit: I forgot about Wisconsin being ranked...

(edited by Battlezone on 6.9.03 1055)


"So you're Ben Affleck. You're sitting next to Jennifer Lopez, who's your fiancee, you're eating a eight-foot high sundae, and members of the Boston Red Sox are coming up to you and asking for autographs. If that's not heaven, what is?" - Tony Kornheiser, PTI
Doc_whiskey
Frankfurter








Since: 6.8.02
From: St. Louis

Since last post: 42 days
Last activity: 42 days
AIM:  
#26 Posted on
Yeah one time in the last five years there was no controversy in the BCS. What abou talst year with Nebraska, or the year before with Miami...you get the point. And just because a team has 1 loss compared to an undefeated team, does not mean that team is better. The Pac 10 is a far better conference than the Big East. Also look at USC vs Miami vs Ohio St. pre-conference schedules. Good teams are allowed to schedule horrible teams to pad their record.
Also, again when you let computers pick your title game instead of the teams, then you cant take the game as seriously as the NFL.



Mr. Burns: You are of course familiar with our state usury laws?
Homer:U-sur-y?
Mr. Burns: Oh silly me, I must have just used a word that doesn't exist.
Battlezone
Potato korv








Since: 27.2.03
From: Seattle, Washington

Since last post: 2179 days
Last activity: 231 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#27 Posted on
Actually, USC (with *two* losses), wasn't even ranked third in the BCS. Georgia was ranked ahead of them, and I'd think we'd agree that the SEC is tougher than the Pac-10.

Look, I'll admit the BCS is flawed. But show me a playoff system that works, and I'll be the first to jump on board. The problem is, for any playoff system to work, you've got to include all eleven Division 1 conferences, and that doesn't include the independents. Most playoff ideas I've seen only include the top eight ranked teams, or the top four, or even the top four BCS teams. Thing is, NONE of those solve the problems most people have with a) the rankings, and b)the BCS.

Then you've got to figure out a way to schedule the games so they don't run through finals. Then you've got to figure out how to split up the money throughout all the conferences, because, let's face it-there's NO way the Big 6 are going to agree to give up all that money.

Show me a workable playoff system (and maybe I'll take this to another thread), and I'm in.




"So you're Ben Affleck. You're sitting next to Jennifer Lopez, who's your fiancee, you're eating a eight-foot high sundae, and members of the Boston Red Sox are coming up to you and asking for autographs. If that's not heaven, what is?" - Tony Kornheiser, PTI
Doc_whiskey
Frankfurter








Since: 6.8.02
From: St. Louis

Since last post: 42 days
Last activity: 42 days
AIM:  
#28 Posted on
    Originally posted by Battlezone
    Actually, USC (with *two* losses), wasn't even ranked third in the BCS. Georgia was ranked ahead of them, and I'd think we'd agree that the SEC is tougher than the Pac-10.

    Look, I'll admit the BCS is flawed. But show me a playoff system that works, and I'll be the first to jump on board. The problem is, for any playoff system to work, you've got to include all eleven Division 1 conferences, and that doesn't include the independents. Most playoff ideas I've seen only include the top eight ranked teams, or the top four, or even the top four BCS teams. Thing is, NONE of those solve the problems most people have with a) the rankings, and b)the BCS.

    Then you've got to figure out a way to schedule the games so they don't run through finals. Then you've got to figure out how to split up the money throughout all the conferences, because, let's face it-there's NO way the Big 6 are going to agree to give up all that money.

    Show me a workable playoff system (and maybe I'll take this to another thread), and I'm in.



Top 16 ranked teams play starting in December, take time off for finals use the lesser bowls as playoff games instead of Big 10 7th place vs SEC 6th place, and finish at the title game at the normal time. While teams in the NFL may have more losses (they also play an ave of 5 more games, and again the drop off from one team to the next isnt nearly as bad as it is in college) the teams that make the playoffs are good teams, with a lot of talent, and they earn there spot, its not given to them like in college (coughNebraskacoughFlorida St.). Also the rankings in college are so incredibly biased. A team that has an outstanding year is not rewarded because they werent ranked at the beginning of the year, so a lot of teams end up getting screwed that way as well.



Mr. Burns: You are of course familiar with our state usury laws?
Homer:U-sur-y?
Mr. Burns: Oh silly me, I must have just used a word that doesn't exist.
Bullitt
Shot in the dark








Since: 11.1.02
From: Houston

Since last post: 12 days
Last activity: 12 days
#29 Posted on
I'll take the NFL, thanks. Tomorrow is gonna feel like Christmas morning for me...opening Sunday is my favorite day of the year (followed closely by the first two days of the NCAA tournament and Royal Rumble Sunday.)

I can't get into college football until things start to shake themselves out a little bit. I blame that on having gone to a US college without a football team (Go University of Maine at Fort Kent Bengals!)

Oh, and you couldn't pay me enough to watch the CFL.




You kids like the rock 'n roll music? Then here's Matthew Good.
Quezzy
Knackwurst








Since: 6.1.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 16 hours
Last activity: 16 hours
#30 Posted on
    Originally posted by Melon' Head
    For me its definately college football. All the rivalries are bigger than any in the NFL. To me Michigan vesus Ohio State is the biggest college sports rivalry there is. You have nothing like this in the NFL(Jets/Dolphins are about the only one).But I think it is the presteige of winning the national championship and beating your rivals that sets college football ahead of pro for me.


You could say Ohio State vs. Michigan is the number one rivalry. People in Texas would argue it's Texas vs. Texas A&M. People in Alabama would say it's Alabama vs. Auburn. People in California would say USC vs. UCLA. People in Florida would say Florida vs. Florida State, or Florida vs. Miami, or Miami vs. Florida State. That's what's great about college football, the rivalries are everywhere. Even two of the worst teams in the country, Navy and Army, have a huge rivalry. Just about every team has a rival and it makes even the bad teams have seemingly really important games.

Also there is less games and the games are more important. Tampa Bay and Philadelphia are playing opening week. What if one team loses the very first game of the season? Nothing. They can still go 12 - 6 or whatever and be fine. If you lose the first week of the college football season 90% of the time it's already over (NC State, Virginia, Maryland, and Auburn's seasons are already over as far as the national championship goes).

Say what you want about the BCS, it's not reason to completely condemn an entire sport. Plus it does add debate that the NFL does not get. Also the Heisman is talked about way more than the NFL MVP.

I watch games all day on Saturdays usually and the fans are just so crazy, the games are exciting and meaningful and not just one meaningful game but several then the next day I watch the NFL and it's just SO boring.

I mean look at this day of action on October 11th
#6 Kansas State vs. Oklahoma State
#25 Penn State vs. #23 Purdue
#24 Nebraska vs. Missouri (could be ranked by then)
#18 Florida vs. #13 LSU
#16 Notre Dame vs. #12 Pittsburgh
#8 Georgia vs. #14 Tennessee
#3 Miami vs. #10 Florida State
#1 Oklahoma vs. #4 Texas

NFL can't compete with that.




Lance's Response:

THAT IS AWESOME!
TheCow
Landjager








Since: 3.1.02
From: Knoxville, TN

Since last post: 2484 days
Last activity: 2484 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#31 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.00
Look.

I'm the first person to admit that the BCS is a piece of crap. I just haven't heard of a good playoff system (will debate in another thread). But for now, that's it. We live with it. Ohio St. and Miami were undefeated; they deserved to play for the shot. So long as the favorite wins in case of controversy (as was the case with Oklahoma a couple of years ago - the Nebraska issue), the BCS kind of works itself out anyway. USC? Not undefeated; try again this year. (Although right now, they've been damn impressive.)

Oh, and as to scheduling weak teams to pad the record, two things:
1) there's a little thing called strength of schedule in the BCS formula. That's why you never see Kansas St. too high in it, for one.
2) Ohio St.: Washington? Not weak. SDSU played them tough. NC State was preseason ACC contender. Bowling Green just knocked off Purdue.
Miami: Yes, you're right. Florida St., Florida, and Tennessee non-conference? Weak.
USC: Auburn's overrated, but not bad; as of now, I'd probably say Hawaii's the best non-conference they have.

You weren't trying to say that USC has a harder non-conference than Ohio St. and Miami, right?

(As for last year: USC did have a harder schedule than Ohio St., but Miami's was no pushover. Besides, losing to K-State then Wazu kind of did them in.)





Knoxville Lindy Exchange
Doc_whiskey
Frankfurter








Since: 6.8.02
From: St. Louis

Since last post: 42 days
Last activity: 42 days
AIM:  
#32 Posted on
USC (#22 Auburn, #14 Colorado, #6 Kansas St., #12 Notre Dame) did have a harder non conference than Ohio St. (texas Tech, Kent St, #7Wash, Cincinatti, San Jose St.)last year, not Miami (though it is arguable that USC was just as hard as Miami-Florida A&M, #20 Florida, #16 Florida St, Connecticut (remember UConn started Big East football this year, they were indy last year), shouldve clarified that. Also, if the system is not screwed up how come if you lose early in the year you are not as affected than if you lose late in the year? The time you lose a game should not matter. The NFL game is better, their post season system is better (you actually get in by winning not who a computer likes, or who happens to be ranked high at the beginning of the year), and more people watch the championship for NFL then college.



Mr. Burns: You are of course familiar with our state usury laws?
Homer:U-sur-y?
Mr. Burns: Oh silly me, I must have just used a word that doesn't exist.
Battlezone
Potato korv








Since: 27.2.03
From: Seattle, Washington

Since last post: 2179 days
Last activity: 231 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#33 Posted on
Again, I'll repeat: Any team that has seven losses should not be able to be the champion of ANYTHING. That's what I can't stand about the NFL. Games today-don't matter. Hell, games in October don't matter. As long as you can sneak in with a 9-7 record, you've got a shot. Hell, I've got NFL Sunday Ticket, and I *really* won't be paying that much attention until November.

And yes, in college there are times where teams lose early and make it back into the race. But those have always been teams that lost to a highly ranked team, and dominated the rest of the schedule. That, I've got no problem with.

As far as your ratings arguement-the Super Bowl is an institution for 30 something years. Super Bowl III practically invented Sports On Television as we know it today. The BCS championship game is only what-six years old?

Besides, American Idol gets better ratings than a quality progam like CSI. Are you going to tell me that American Idol is a better show than CSI just because the ratings are better?

(Breaking news: NFL owners are meeting this week and will likely cancel NFL Europe. WTF?)



"So you're Ben Affleck. You're sitting next to Jennifer Lopez, who's your fiancee, you're eating a eight-foot high sundae, and members of the Boston Red Sox are coming up to you and asking for autographs. If that's not heaven, what is?" - Tony Kornheiser, PTI
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 233 days
Last activity: 34 days
#34 Posted on
Hey, if you like a sport where teams regularly go undefeated you can have it. While to you it may seem like, "Every game counts... we could lose this one!" it screams to me, "There is no parity in college football! If you're not a Big 6 team you don't get to play! Even if you manage to upset one of the higher ranked teams, that was probably the only one on your schedual, so while it means you knocked the high rank out of contention, you don't get anything for yourself."

The only thing that works with College football is the school rivalries. If I didn't care about making fun of the other ACC schools for losing to UNC I would never ever ever watch college football. And when we're not playing ACC teams? Who cares? Even if we had a good enough record to go to a bowl game, what does it mean? We won the Fiesta Bowl? Woooo! In your face... uh... everybody else who didn't win the Fiesta Bowl!

It's just so much meaningless crap to me. I'll go watch college football in the stadium, but I will never watch it on TV.

-Jag

Unless ESPN actually puts on a Wyoming game. Then I have to watch because Wyoming rules!



Cybernetic Robotic Zombie
JayJayDean
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 5 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#35 Posted on
I was a whole lot more excited last Saturday for the start of the college season than I am today for the start of the NFL season.

Also, Battle, I don't get your beef with the potential 7-loss champion. Ok, it COULD happen, but the team that won would at best be the #4 seed, like the Jets were last year as the AFC East champs. They would've had to win a home game, a road game (at the #1 seed), then the Conference Championship game (probably on the road), then the Super Bowl. Last year they would've had to do this:

win at home against 10-6 Indianapolis (which they did)
win at 11-5 Oakland (which they didn't do)
win at 11-5 Tennessee
win the Super Bowl vs. 12-4 Tampa Bay

That would be impressive enough for me. Also, here is a list of six-plus loss teams in the Conference Championship games (since 1978, the first year of the 16-game schedule):

1996: Jacksonville (9-7) lost to New England 20-6
1995: Indianapolis (9-7) lost to Pittsburgh 20-16
1993: San Francisco (10-6) lost to Dallas 38-21
1989: Cleveland (9-6-1) lost to Denver 37-21
1988: San Francisco (10-6) BEAT Chicago (12-4) 28-3 and won Super Bowl XXIII over Cincinnati (12-4) 20-16
1987: Minnesota (8-7) lost to Washington 17-10 (Strike season)
1984: Chicago (10-6) lost to San Francisco 23-0
1984: Pittsburgh (9-7) lost to Miami 45-28
1983: San Francisco (10-6) lost to Washington 24-21
1983: Seattle (9-7) lost to Los Angeles Raiders 30-14
1981: San Diego (10-6) lost to Cincinnati 27-7
1979: Los Angeles Rams (9-7) beat Tampa Bay (10-6) 9-0 and lost Super Bowl XIV to Pittsburgh 31-19
1978: Houston (10-6) lost to Pittsburgh 34-5

Analysis: Since 1978, there have been 48 teams in Conference Championship games (if you take out the strike year of 1981, when they played 9 games in the season). Thirteen teams with SIX losses have made it that far, 27%. SIX teams with 7 losses made it that far (12.5%) and only ONE won the game to advance to the Super Bowl, which they subsequently lost.

BZ, you're saying you have a problem with the NFL because of something that MIGHT happen, but hasn't in 25 years and has only come remotely close to happening ONCE?






We're 0-1, but the Huskies are still winning the Pac-10, and even if we don't at least we don't look like a bunch of frickin' yellow idiots like Oregon.
Excalibur05
Knackwurst








Since: 19.1.02
From: Minnesota

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 7 hours
AIM:  
#36 Posted on
Game I'd Rather Attend Live: College. The game day attmosphere at college games is unmatched by any Pro-Football game I've ever attended. Sure the pro game is fun to watch live, and it's easy to get excited about your favorite team, but there's something more about the college game that puts it over and above. Maybe it's the student sections, maybe it's the college traditions. I dunno. My appartment this year overlooks Camp Randall Stadium (in Madison, WI), and I get giddy every time I look over there and think about attending games (and seeing plays like Lee Evan's 99 yard TD reception this week).

Game I'd Rather Watch on TV: NFL. Big name guys, slick production, the sense that the games actually mean something (yeah, yeah, college games "mean" something, but there's a bigger feel to the NFL games, as well there should be), and plus I only have to keep track of 32 teams, rather than a hundred some odd teams, most of whom aren't in contention for anything. Sure I could just watch top twenty five games, but then you don't get to see everybody play. And besides, while I know there are alot of people who love watching Ole Miss or Tulsa or Bowling Green or whoever, I couldn't care less, whereas there's almost always something I'm interested in during an NFL game, even if it isn't the Vikings.

Game I'd Rather Play: Arena League. Looks like fun. Sure it'd be great to play college and NFL ball, but if I would pick just to play for the fun of it? Areana League all the way.





Feh.
Battlezone
Potato korv








Since: 27.2.03
From: Seattle, Washington

Since last post: 2179 days
Last activity: 231 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#37 Posted on

    BZ, you're saying you have a problem with the NFL because of something that MIGHT happen, but hasn't in 25 years and has only come remotely close to happening ONCE?


No, what I'm saying is that the current system rewards mediocrity. I'm not real crazy on the idea of wild cards anyway. It doesn't seem right to me that a team that didn't win it's division, and has a good number of losses, could catch at hot streak and find themselves in the Super Bowl. That said...

    Originally posted by Doc_whiskey
    If your [college] playoff system has started already, then it sucks. Your telling me one loss should be enough to dissqualify you from playing for the national title?


The only season that matters in the NFL? The post-season. And what's the only way you can make it to the Super Bowl in the post-season? Go undefeated.

Let me clarify something. I love the NFL. I've got the Sunday Ticket package (The Greatest Invention Ever After TiVo), and I woke up at 8:00 this morning to catch the pregame show. When the game started, I had *goosebumps*. And when the Vikes went up 20-3, I was giddy. When they hung on to win, I was estatic. But at the end of the day? Green Bay lost. And it means nothing. Conversely, yesterday, I almost had a heart attack watching Ohio State yesterday, because I knew if they lost that game, their chance at repeating was GONE.

Two early season games-two completely different consequences. And THAT'S why I prefer college over the pros.



"So you're Ben Affleck. You're sitting next to Jennifer Lopez, who's your fiancee, you're eating a eight-foot high sundae, and members of the Boston Red Sox are coming up to you and asking for autographs. If that's not heaven, what is?" - Tony Kornheiser, PTI
JayJayDean
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 5 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#38 Posted on
    Originally posted by Battlezone
    No, what I'm saying is that the current system rewards mediocrity.


I think that limiting the field in the playoffs to the top 6 of 16 teams in each conference and giving the top two teams bye weeks while the other four teams don't get one hardly "rewards mediocrity." Actually, I'd argue that, compared to the NBA and NHL, they are rewarding ONLY excellence despite the fact that if they allowed 16 teams in like the NBA and NHL they would have four extra playoff games for which they would receive substantial stadium and television revenue. Only Major League Baseball allows a lower percentage of the teams to participate in the postseason compared to the NFL.


(edited by JayJayDean on 7.9.03 2248)


Washington Huskies, 1-1. USC didn't look THAT great after the first quarter, so I'm more optimistic that they'll be the 2003 Pac-10 champs.
NEO
Salami








Since: 15.1.02
From: Texas

Since last post: 3874 days
Last activity: 3874 days
#39 Posted on
    Originally posted by Big Bad
    Clearly the NFL. I like seeing people being paid to play who I know are being paid to play.


That's funny but I share the same sentiment a little bit. I just like to see a good game really. The college players do tend to play a little harder since they're trying to impress. But I normally just watch the bowl games or a big time rivalry match-up. I'll watch just about any NFL game.



"NOW YOU GET YOUR WHININ ASS OUTTA HERE!!" Sid Vicious after slapping Bret Hart
ges7184
Lap cheong








Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 79 days
Last activity: 1 day
#40 Posted on
    Originally posted by The Thrill
    Nothin' against Barry Alvarez and the awesome Wisconsin Badgers, but...

      Originally posted by Melon' Head
      All the rivalries are bigger than any in the NFL. To me Michigan vesus Ohio State is the biggest college sports rivalry there is. You have nothing like this in the NFL(Jets/Dolphins are about the only one).


    Packers/Bears, anyone? They've played over 150 freakin' games! And Green Bay and Chicago STILL hate each other...and that's just the fans. Or Packers/Vikings? We hate them purple pansies, they hate us. Simple and effective.


      Originally posted by ges7184
      College. Better atmosphere: Bands. Real cheerleaders. Traditions. Real rivalries (not phony ones like the NFL). Generally better fans (though a few NFL teams have great fans as well) And in this era of free agency in the pros, better continuity for teams year to year.


    At Lambeau, the cheerleading duties are split between UW-Green Bay (go Fighting Phoenix!) and St. Norbert College. And the Packer Band, though kicked out of the stadium several years ago (damn you Ron Wolf), still plays...they split into 2 groups and roam the parking lot/surrounding area. (Click the Packer logo in my sig to hear 'em!)

    Rivalries...see above. And tradition begins and ends in Green Bay, Wisconsin.

    (EDIT: A li'l Badger love)

    (edited by The Thrill on 5.9.03 0806)


I'm a Bears fan, but this is one of the phony rivalries I'm talking about. You see, this USED to be a rivalry. But in the era of free agency, these rivalries can't be real anymore. You can't tell me that Kordell Stewart suddenly hates Green Bay just because he is now putting on a dark blue uniform instead of a black one. You can't tell me that the GB game means more to him than any other. You can't tell me that a guy who played for the Bears last year who now plays for GB will just suddenly hate his former teammates. And with the people coming and going, nobody really sticks around long enough for one team to actually dislike another team. Yeah, back in the day, GB/Chi and KC/Oak were bitter rivals, but not anymore (maybe still with the fans, but not the players). (*And quite frankly, for a rivalry to be any good, one team can't dominate like GB has over the past several years)

Um, and I'm not sure I would hang my hat on cheerleaders borrowed from colleges(!) and a band that plays OUTSIDE the stadium. It doesn't matter anyway, because that's the exception, not the rule. Most teams have "dance squads" and pump rock and pop music in over the loud speakers.

All that said, when I said that a few NFL teams have great fans, Green Bay was one of the teams I was thinking of. Definately one of the top two or three atmospheres in the NFL, and among the best of ANY football.



Everything that is wrong in this world can be blamed on Freddie Prinze Jr.
Pages: Prev 1 2
Pages: Prev 1 2Thread ahead: OVERRATED!
Next thread: Dolphins suck. Thats a fact Jack!
Previous thread: NFL Week Two Picks
(1999 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Well, it came down to New England not making mistakes and Jacksonville making some pretty egregious mistakes. You can usually say that in New England games, just replacing the team name for the opponent.
The W - Football - NFL vs. College - What's your game (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.147 seconds.