Great stuff, Spike. Excellent assessment of the game and I agree completely. I also agree with most of what you said about the NCAA. I would say that the college system is unfair and sorely in need of major reform, but it does have a silver lining. There are a lot of athletes (especially in money losing sports) who wouldn't get a scholarship if it was simply a normal free market system. So it isn't all bad (just mostly bad).
Anyway, from a cultural standpoint, while 2016 will go down as a sad year in music, the big stories involved sports. The Cubs win a championship for the first time in over a 100 years and the Cavs won their first championship. Not just any championship, but a championship lead by a prodigal son, in a "this would be way too sappy if it were a movie" situation. He returns, leads his team to a championship playing a team that won the most games in a regular season ever. The series goes to 7 games and he makes not only the game deciding (and completely fantastic) block, but hits the second of his two free throws (while injured) to seal the victory.
Meanwhile, while the music world lost some greats, there are simply lots of great musicians to be lost. For example, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Aretha Franklin, Mick Jagger and Stevie Wonder are still around. It is quite possible that 2016 will just seem like a normal year in a few years when it comes to musical greats passing away. Meanwhile, hockey lost one one of the best ever, but that is nothing compared to losing Ali. Not only was he the greatest boxer ever, but a man named the greatest athlete of the 20th century by Sports Illustrated, and arguably the greatest sports figure of all time. This was a huge year in the world of sports.
The free 4-5 years of university education is the payment for their labor! Also all the perks that come with it. Free tutoring, free travel, free gym with the best equipment and lots, and lots, and LOTS of steaks! Those of us who played not-football sports should be so lucky!
Don't these athletes have the choice of going pro right after high school? Are they not there to improve their play and showcase themselves so they can be drafted by the best teams - and get pay a much higher salary after college, than they could command if they had gone pro without playing college ball?
I thought Pac-12 winners always go to the Rose Bowl. When was that changed? Does the Peach Bowl pay more?
@2 - the NFL requires players be three years out of high school, which basically forces these young men into the college farm system. Some top programs only graduate half of the team and very few players go pro, so many if not most are risking chronic injury (including traumatic brain injury) for a false promise of an illusory dream. I'm not sure they get free steak for their troubles, as that would be a form of compensation under NCAA eligibility rules.
The traditional bowl structure was superseded by the bowl championship series and then by the college football playoff. If the PAC-12 champion is one of the top four teams in the nation, that trumps the Rose Bowl invite. Also, every other year, the Rose Bowl is the semifinal of the CFP.
There - you're up to date on the past 20 years in NCAA football.
So tired of hearing about "unpaid" college players! Please add up the costs of their free four or five years of college education, huge free training table meals, free meals on travel days, free athletic wear and get over yourselves! The rest of us are in debt over our education!
Under the Good Olde Days System, the Rose Bowl would have been played between Washington, the Pac 12 champion, and this year's Big Ten (cough) champion: Penn State (Not Ohio, nor Michigan).
Alabama, a member of the SEC, not the Big Ten, would never get a chance to play in the Rose Bowl; they'd instead have an impressive collection of Sugar Bowl wins.
@10 robotslave: That's right----'Bama has ruled the Sugar Bowl.
I sure enjoyed the UW's Rose Bowl victories, especially way back
when I was in the Navy (Husky glory days of the '90s). *Sigh*
The weird thing about 2016 in sports was that two men died who totally transcended their sport, pretty much responsible for getting their sports into the consciousness of non-sports fans, and both of their deaths (Arnold Palmer and Gordie Howe) were so completely eclipsed by the death of Muhammad Ali. Because he was the athlete of the 20th century and they weren't. And he transcended boxing by several standard deviations more than they did golf or hockey.
Anyway, from a cultural standpoint, while 2016 will go down as a sad year in music, the big stories involved sports. The Cubs win a championship for the first time in over a 100 years and the Cavs won their first championship. Not just any championship, but a championship lead by a prodigal son, in a "this would be way too sappy if it were a movie" situation. He returns, leads his team to a championship playing a team that won the most games in a regular season ever. The series goes to 7 games and he makes not only the game deciding (and completely fantastic) block, but hits the second of his two free throws (while injured) to seal the victory.
Meanwhile, while the music world lost some greats, there are simply lots of great musicians to be lost. For example, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Aretha Franklin, Mick Jagger and Stevie Wonder are still around. It is quite possible that 2016 will just seem like a normal year in a few years when it comes to musical greats passing away. Meanwhile, hockey lost one one of the best ever, but that is nothing compared to losing Ali. Not only was he the greatest boxer ever, but a man named the greatest athlete of the 20th century by Sports Illustrated, and arguably the greatest sports figure of all time. This was a huge year in the world of sports.
Don't these athletes have the choice of going pro right after high school? Are they not there to improve their play and showcase themselves so they can be drafted by the best teams - and get pay a much higher salary after college, than they could command if they had gone pro without playing college ball?
I thought Pac-12 winners always go to the Rose Bowl. When was that changed? Does the Peach Bowl pay more?
The traditional bowl structure was superseded by the bowl championship series and then by the college football playoff. If the PAC-12 champion is one of the top four teams in the nation, that trumps the Rose Bowl invite. Also, every other year, the Rose Bowl is the semifinal of the CFP.
There - you're up to date on the past 20 years in NCAA football.
Under the Good Olde Days System, the Rose Bowl would have been played between Washington, the Pac 12 champion, and this year's Big Ten (cough) champion: Penn State (Not Ohio, nor Michigan).
Alabama, a member of the SEC, not the Big Ten, would never get a chance to play in the Rose Bowl; they'd instead have an impressive collection of Sugar Bowl wins.
I sure enjoyed the UW's Rose Bowl victories, especially way back
when I was in the Navy (Husky glory days of the '90s). *Sigh*