Saturday Down South: Cable not dying. It's dead.

Re: Satruday Down South: Cable not dying. It's dead.

Redwood Forrest said:

I watch college football from Thursday night through Saturday night. Last year I did not even watch the Super Bowl.

I just don't like the pro game like I do college. Now if college football went away I am certain I would watch the Pros.

Click to expand...

I get people have different preferences but the way some people talk about the NFL is weird to me. I completely understand liking college more because there are valid reasons to. But what gets me is when people say the college product is better. It isn't. The level of play in the NFL is sooo far above most college games its not even comparable. I will say this, both the NFL and college needs to shorten their games. I'm watching a sport that I love and I am willing to accept that their is only about 11 mins of real action per game. But I should not have to sit around for 4+ hours for that 11 minutes.

Actually, at 170 a month cable/high speed internet is a deal. Have you looked at the cost of personally attending big time collegiate or professional sports? For the cost of attending one or two games I get about 14-15 UA games -- and so many others every week that it is mind-boggling...and I get a better view and to choose who I sit beside...

Yes, there are those who are cutting the cord...but cable/internet providers are not stupid. They will figure out a way to be indispensable -- it is called providing value. All this is a numbers game...RTR!

In regards to watching on the phones, I think it's also just as likely that younger people are getting their sports fix (even CFB or NFL) through social media posts and video highlights their teams or sports media groups. So, they're watching on the phones, but they may not be watching the actual game. I do agree that some are watching the whole game on the phone, but I'd say there are just as much looking at stats/highlights on their phones as well.

There issue is not cutting the cord, it is ESPN and its big money conference deals. ESPN is hemorrhaging subscribers which has been by far their biggest source of revenue. The college football games are still profitable, but it can't cover the costs of covering and telecasting marginally profitable sports forever. NFL game rights are so high it only slightly profitable for them to carry the games. At some point, ESPN has to change its business model to an internet based subscriber service, but will you and I pay ESPN for the service when it is not football season. Or they may go to a pay per view system which is again based on the assumption people will pay to watch the individual games. What happens to the hundreds of millions in college football game rights if ESPN doesn't move quickly enough and can't support the cost of those deals? The conferences who are collecting hundreds of millions for ESPN will be possibly be forced to change their alignments in order to support the growing cost of the facility arms races. The smaller schools will be left out because most can pay for their football programs now so when the pie gets smaller, many of those schools will get squeezed out.

CaliforniaTide said:

In regards to watching on the phones, I think it's also just as likely that younger people are getting their sports fix (even CFB or NFL) through social media posts and video highlights their teams or sports media groups. So, they're watching on the phones, but they may not be watching the actual game. I do agree that some are watching the whole game on the phone, but I'd say there are just as much looking at stats/highlights on their phones as well.

Click to expand...

I can't speak for anyone else but I do watch games on my phone pretty regularly. If you have Verizon you have every NFL game in your area on your phone and I'm pretty sure it doesn't even count to your data limit.

Also wanted to add that I "cast" shows and sports to my tv all the time. So that is another aspect to this whole thing.

Re: Satruday Down South: Cable not dying. It's dead.

RollTide_HTTR said:

I get people have different preferences but the way some people talk about the NFL is weird to me. I completely understand liking college more because there are valid reasons to. But what gets me is when people say the college product is better. It isn't. The level of play in the NFL is sooo far above most college games its not even comparable. I will say this, both the NFL and college needs to shorten their games. I'm watching a sport that I love and I am willing to accept that their is only about 11 mins of real action per game. But I should not have to sit around for 4+ hours for that 11 minutes.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is actually arguing the quality of play is better in college vs. NFL. Obviously, NFL players are bigger, faster, stronger, older, etc. The worst pro team would hammer the best college team every single year if such a game could be staged. But, to some, the quality of the overall product is far better in college vs. pro. The nostalgia, the bands, the pageantry, etc. That means a lot to many people. Many people get turned off by the blandness of the NFL product. While there are differences, most every offense is exactly the same. Defenses as well. That's not the case in the college game.

I'll watch the NFL, but I can miss it without a single regret. I can't say that about the college game. So, when folks want to make college football more like the NFL, that's something I cannot understand. We've already got a boring NFL. Why do we need to make college football more like that?

Re: Satruday Down South: Cable not dying. It's dead.

RollTide_HTTR said:

I get people have different preferences but the way some people talk about the NFL is weird to me. I completely understand liking college more because there are valid reasons to. But what gets me is when people say the college product is better. It isn't. The level of play in the NFL is sooo far above most college games its not even comparable. I will say this, both the NFL and college needs to shorten their games. I'm watching a sport that I love and I am willing to accept that their is only about 11 mins of real action per game. But I should not have to sit around for 4+ hours for that 11 minutes.

Click to expand...

I think it kind of depends -- obviously the level of talent in the NFL is far greater than the level of talent in the NCAA but I don't think that necessarily makes for a better product. The NFL has changed their rules to neuter defenses and cater to elite QBs to the extent that teams are rarely allowed to play defense and star QBs just dominate the game. College often features a more balanced attack where more positions of talent matter outside of QB.

Re: Satruday Down South: Cable not dying. It's dead.

UntouchableCrew said:

I think it kind of depends -- obviously the level of talent in the NFL is far greater than the level of talent in the NCAA but I don't think that necessarily makes for a better product. The NFL has changed their rules to neuter defenses and cater to elite QBs to the extent that teams are rarely allowed to play defense and star QBs just dominate the game. College often features a more balanced attack where more positions of talent matter outside of QB.

Click to expand...

The same can be said for the NFL. If the entire team is very good to great but the QB is so-so, the team can still win.

Re: Satruday Down South: Cable not dying. It's dead.

UntouchableCrew said:

I think it kind of depends -- obviously the level of talent in the NFL is far greater than the level of talent in the NCAA but I don't think that necessarily makes for a better product. The NFL has changed their rules to neuter defenses and cater to elite QBs to the extent that teams are rarely allowed to play defense and star QBs just dominate the game. College often features a more balanced attack where more positions of talent matter outside of QB.

Click to expand...

I have to disagree here. College football has way less defense and way more offense than the NFL. Most college teams can barely play defense. Also, when it comes to rules there are a ton of college rules that help more than any NFL rule. The OL being able to move past 3 yards on a passing play is a big one right now. 1 foot for a catch is another. College does have a more defense friendly PI rule though.

I do agree that QB is more important in the NFL but I disagree with your reasoning. I think its more that because the talent is spread so thin in college so the talent gap between a team like Alabama and a team like VT(or whoever) is so great that even having an elite QB wouldn't be enough for VT. In the NFL the base level of talent has a much higher floor and so the difference between the 5th best WR and the 10th best is significantly smaller. It is also MUCH easier to create schemes that take advantage of QBs with clear limitations but also clear strengths in college. NFL defenses are too good at exploiting weaknesses so its a lot harder to find a QB that can win games.

TideEngineer08 said:

I don't think anyone is actually arguing the quality of play is better in college vs. NFL. Obviously, NFL players are bigger, faster, stronger, older, etc. The worst pro team would hammer the best college team every single year if such a game could be staged. But, to some, the quality of the overall product is far better in college vs. pro. The nostalgia, the bands, the pageantry, etc. That means a lot to many people. Many people get turned off by the blandness of the NFL product. While there are differences, most every offense is exactly the same. Defenses as well. That's not the case in the college game.

I'll watch the NFL, but I can miss it without a single regret. I can't say that about the college game. So, when folks want to make college football more like the NFL, that's something I cannot understand. We've already got a boring NFL. Why do we need to make college football more like that?

Click to expand...

I have seen people argue it before Idk about on here though. I have no problem with people liking the College game more though. I personally like both and probably couldn't put one over the other. I love Alabama games more than any NFL game (even Redskins) but I also think the avg NFL game is significantly better than the avg college game.


I should have clarified by product I meant purely on the field. Not overall. So, exclude the pageantry, fandom, traditions, etc. I also have no desire to make college football the "NFL Lite". I think they both have their advantages and really enjoy both of them because of their differences. If college moved to be more like the NFL I think they would risk losing viewers honestly.

Re: Satruday Down South: Cable not dying. It's dead.

RTR91 said:

The same can be said for the NFL. If the entire team is very good to great but the QB is so-so, the team can still win.

Click to expand...

Not really. The final four teams in the NFL last year had Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Matt Ryan and Ben Roethlisberger playing for them. It's extremely rare to have an elite team without elite QB play.

Re: Satruday Down South: Cable not dying. It's dead.

RollTide_HTTR said:

I have to disagree here. College football has way less defense and way more offense than the NFL. Most college teams can barely play defense. Also, when it comes to rules there are a ton of college rules that help more than any NFL rule. The OL being able to move past 3 yards on a passing play is a big one right now. 1 foot for a catch is another. College does have a more defense friendly PI rule though.

Click to expand...

Well the thing with college is that it depends on the teams, the conferences. It's not nearly as uniform. Sure, the Big XII will have it's 58-54 type games, but you'll also get low scoring slugfests like Alabama-LSU that is 0-0 in the fourth quarter. Regardless, you don't have situations where a team like the Patriots or Packers wins 12 games every year because they have a Hall of Fame QB and you can't touch the QB, you can't touch the receivers, and they just pass all over everyone and you need a historically great defense to really stop them... The defensive holding and PI rules in the NFL have made it so that QB is so important it makes the game awful if you don't have one.

I do agree that QB is more important in the NFL but I disagree with your reasoning. I think its more that because the talent is spread so thin in college so the talent gap between a team like Alabama and a team like VT(or whoever) is so great that even having an elite QB wouldn't be enough for VT. In the NFL the base level of talent has a much higher floor and so the difference between the 5th best WR and the 10th best is significantly smaller. It is also MUCH easier to create schemes that take advantage of QBs with clear limitations but also clear strengths in college. NFL defenses are too good at exploiting weaknesses so its a lot harder to find a QB that can win games.

Click to expand...

This is all true, I don't dispute any of it... I still think it makes for a better college product though, since my whole argument is that the NFL has become too QB/passing game centric.

Re: Satruday Down South: Cable not dying. It's dead.

UntouchableCrew said:

Not really. The final four teams in the NFL last year had Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Matt Ryan and Ben Roethlisberger playing for them. It's extremely rare to have an elite team without elite QB play.

Click to expand...

Because they all had great teams, too.

Back at work, so I'm going to expound on this some.

The Patriots had the #8 defense in the regular season. The Steelers were at #12; the Packers at 22, and the Falcons at 25 (improved as the season progressed and the young players adjusted).

Matt Ryan was second in total passing yards. Rodgers was fourth while Big Ben finished seventeenth and Brady was twentieth.

The Packers were the only one of the four teams to not have two guys finish in the top 50 in yards per carry average. The Steelers (Bell #2 and DeAngelo Williams #45), Patriots (Blount #12 and D. Lewis #36) and Falcons (Freeman #14 and Coleman #37) had two guys average 4.4 yards per carry or better. Eddie Lacy was the only Packer in the top 50, and he was #13.

New England (Edelman #15 and Gronk #18) and Green Bay (Nelson #7 and Adams #33) each had two guys finish in the top 50 for receiving yards per game, too. Julio was first. Antonio Brown was fourth.

Again, the QB might be the difference in an elite team and a very good team, but the entire team still has to be very good.

Also, look at this clip and tell me the rules are completely slanted towards the offense. Arguably the best WR in the league gets a no-call on the game deciding play. It's all how the officials call the game.

Re: Satruday Down South: Cable not dying. It's dead.

UntouchableCrew said:

Well the thing with college is that it depends on the teams, the conferences. It's not nearly as uniform. Sure, the Big XII will have it's 58-54 type games, but you'll also get low scoring slugfests like Alabama-LSU that is 0-0 in the fourth quarter. Regardless, you don't have situations where a team like the Patriots or Packers wins 12 games every year because they have a Hall of Fame QB and you can't touch the QB, you can't touch the receivers, and they just pass all over everyone and you need a historically great defense to really stop them... The defensive holding and PI rules in the NFL have made it so that QB is so important it makes the game awful if you don't have one.


This is all true, I don't dispute any of it... I still think it makes for a better college product though, since my whole argument is that the NFL has become too QB/passing game centric.

Click to expand...

I would bet that we averaged more points per game than any NFL team by at least 5 points. I also think the OL being allowed to move past 3 yards (sometimes they don't even call it past 10 yards) are more harmful to the defense than the PI rules in the NFL. It's not like you can really touch WRs or QBs in college either. I also would bet that you could find some numbers out there that show there is more parity in the NFL. You may not have teams like the Patriots in college but you do have Alabama, Ohio State, etc. And while you need a QB in the NFL there are a lot of teams with decent to good QBs that have a lot of success.

That's definitely fair. The NFL is more QB centric and the passing game is very important. I make different conclusions than you do but that's how it goes.

RTR91 said:

Because they all had great teams, too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

This is a good point. You can't win in the NFL with JUST good QB play (see Colts and Chargers). If you could the Packers, who have the most talented passer in the NFL, would have won a lot more super bowls. The Patriots are easily the most well built, schemed, and coached team in the NFL IMO.

And you don't need an "elite" QB to win a super bowl just a above average one. Broncos, Ravens, Giants(twice), Bears, 49ers, Carolina (2004) all had at best good QBs capable of stretches of great play and at worst well Peyton Manning at the end of his career. I could also probably argue the Seahawks won a super bowl with just above average QB Play.

Cutting the cord is becoming increasingly interesting to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro[emoji208]

I have a question I can't seem to find the answer to. By all accounts ESPN makes ~$6/month for every cable subscriber. So when a cable subscriber cancels, ESPN loses that $6/month in revenue. Obviously extrapolate that by the millions who are cancelling and it adds up. But this is my question. A great deal of those who cancel traditional cable are moving to a streaming service like sling, direct tv now, YouTube tv etc. For the streaming packages that include ESPN, does anyone know how much ESPN makes per subscriber through the streaming services? It would have to be considerably lower than $6/month but one would assume ESPN is making something from the folks who cancel traditional cable and sign up for a streaming service that includes ESPN..

Re: Satruday Down South: Cable not dying. It's dead.

RollTide_HTTR said:

I would bet that we averaged more points per game than any NFL team by at least 5 points. I also think the OL being allowed to move past 3 yards (sometimes they don't even call it past 10 yards) are more harmful to the defense than the PI rules in the NFL. It's not like you can really touch WRs or QBs in college either. I also would bet that you could find some numbers out there that show there is more parity in the NFL. You may not have teams like the Patriots in college but you do have Alabama, Ohio State, etc. And while you need a QB in the NFL there are a lot of teams with decent to good QBs that have a lot of success.

Click to expand...

Well Alabama is Alabama -- the talent discrepancy is obviously going to lead to bigger PPG totals when you're dealing with the preeminent team in a sport where recruiting is how players are acquired with 120 FBS programs... Obviously in a draft/FA/salary cap sport like the NFL with only 32 teams you'd expect a far more balanced sport. I guess I'm talking in more relative terms here. Even if elite NFL teams don't bulldoze most of their competition the way Alabama, Ohio State, etc. do they continue to dominate the sport in relative terms.

And you don't need an "elite" QB to win a super bowl just a above average one. Broncos, Ravens, Giants(twice), Bears, 49ers, Carolina (2004) all had at best good QBs capable of stretches of great play and at worst well Peyton Manning at the end of his career. I could also probably argue the Seahawks won a super bowl with just above average QB Play.

Click to expand...

I mean, since 2003 these QBs have won the 14 Super Bowls:

Brady x5
Roethlsiberger x2
Peyton Manning x2
Eli Manning x2
Drew Brees
Aaron Rodgers
Joe Flacco
Russell Wilson

That's probably 11 of the 14 won by future Hall of Famers. Only Eli Manning (who might get into the HOF anyway) and Joe Flacco have won SBs as "average" QBs. Heck, from 2001 to 2016 three QBs (Manning, Brady, Roethlisberger) represented the AFC in 14 out of 16 SBs. Sure, these teams have lots of talent but the QB is the driving force. You put Peyton Manning on some other decent team during that span and they're absolutely making the same runs the Colts made IMO.

Re: Satruday Down South: Cable not dying. It's dead.

UntouchableCrew said:

Well Alabama is Alabama -- the talent discrepancy is obviously going to lead to bigger PPG totals when you're dealing with the preeminent team in a sport where recruiting is how players are acquired with 120 FBS programs... Obviously in a draft/FA/salary cap sport like the NFL with only 32 teams you'd expect a far more balanced sport. I guess I'm talking in more relative terms here. Even if elite NFL teams don't bulldoze most of their competition the way Alabama, Ohio State, etc. do they continue to dominate the sport in relative terms.

I mean, since 2003 these QBs have won the 14 Super Bowls:

Brady x5
Roethlsiberger x2
Peyton Manning x2
Eli Manning x2
Drew Brees
Aaron Rodgers
Joe Flacco
Russell Wilson

That's probably 11 of the 14 won by future Hall of Famers. Only Eli Manning (who might get into the HOF anyway) and Joe Flacco have won SBs as "average" QBs. Heck, from 2001 to 2016 three QBs (Manning, Brady, Roethlisberger) represented the AFC in 14 out of 16 SBs. Sure, these teams have lots of talent but the QB is the driving force. You put Peyton Manning on some other decent team during that span and they're absolutely making the same runs the Colts made IMO.

Click to expand...

That's where having an elite QB makes the difference. There's a very, very small difference from 4-12 and 8-8, and that small difference can also be found from 8-8 to 12-4. Add an elite QB, and you become the 12-4 or better team. That's why NFL organizations value QB play so much.

UntouchableCrew said:

See, I think stats like this can be misleading. Part of the reason the Patriots defense is so "good" is because the offense makes things easy for them. They are always well rested because the offense always sustains long drives. They never have to deal with short fields based on turnovers. They're always playing with a lead. They aren't facing the struggle faced by a defense with a crappy QB.Admittedly the Pats aren't all Brady. Bill Belichick is the greatest HC of all time, IMO. The guys about as close to a football genius as has ever lived. But without Brady? They aren't close to the dominant team they've been.I mean Brady was suspended for four games and Roethlisberger missed time with injuries. All four were top five QBs.
Again we need to argue correlation vs causation here. LeVeon Bell is a stud but for the most part these other teams run the ball so well BECAUSE they pass it well. Nobody in the NFL can run the ball without a good passing attack these days.I mean Edelman is a nobody on most teams. But yeah, obviously Antonio Brown and Julio Jones are studs. I never said these teams didn't have talent, just that without a QB that talent is likely going to waste.I'm not even sure that's true in some cases. The Packers were one game from the SB and hoenstly, I don't think that team is very good. If Rodgers went down with an ACL I don't think they go 5-11. That said, your overall point is obviously true -- you need more than a QB to win. You need a good team. But QB play dominates the league and without a great QB it's impossible to win consistently.

Click to expand...

And that's why having an elite QB matters so much. An elite QB helps a team overcome the parity among the rest of the positions.

Re: Satruday Down South: Cable not dying. It's dead.

RTR91 said:

The Patriots had the #8 defense in the regular season. The Steelers were at #12; the Packers at 22, and the Falcons at 25 (improved as the season progressed and the young players adjusted).

Click to expand...

See, I think stats like this can be misleading. Part of the reason the Patriots defense is so "good" is because the offense makes things easy for them. They are always well rested because the offense always sustains long drives. They never have to deal with short fields based on turnovers. They're always playing with a lead. They aren't facing the struggle faced by a defense with a crappy QB.

Admittedly the Pats aren't all Brady. Bill Belichick is the greatest HC of all time, IMO. The guys about as close to a football genius as has ever lived. But without Brady? They aren't close to the dominant team they've been.

Matt Ryan was second in total passing yards. Rodgers was fourth while Big Ben finished seventeenth and Brady was twentieth.

Click to expand...

I mean Brady was suspended for four games and Roethlisberger missed time with injuries. All four were top five QBs.

The Packers were the only one of the four teams to not have two guys finish in the top 50 in yards per carry average. The Steelers (Bell #2 and DeAngelo Williams #45), Patriots (Blount #12 and D. Lewis #36) and Falcons (Freeman #14 and Coleman #37) had two guys average 4.4 yards per carry or better. Eddie Lacy was the only Packer in the top 50, and he was #13.

Click to expand...

Again we need to argue correlation vs causation here. LeVeon Bell is a stud but for the most part these other teams run the ball so well BECAUSE they pass it well. Nobody in the NFL can run the ball without a good passing attack these days.

New England (Edelman #15 and Gronk #18) and Green Bay (Nelson #7 and Adams #33) each had two guys finish in the top 50 for receiving yards per game, too. Julio was first. Antonio Brown was fourth.

Click to expand...

I mean Edelman is a nobody on most teams. But yeah, obviously Antonio Brown and Julio Jones are studs. I never said these teams didn't have talent, just that without a QB that talent is likely going to waste.

Again, the QB might be the difference in an elite team and a very good team, but the entire team still has to be very good.

Click to expand...

I'm not even sure that's true in some cases. The Packers were one game from the SB and hoenstly, I don't think that team is very good. If Rodgers went down with an ACL I don't think they go 5-11.

That said, your overall point is obviously true -- you need more than a QB to win. You need a good team. But QB play dominates the league and without a great QB it's impossible to win consistently.

Re: Satruday Down South: Cable not dying. It's dead.

RTR91 said:

That's where having an elite QB makes the difference. There's a very, very small difference from 4-12 and 8-8, and that small difference can also be found from 8-8 to 12-4. Add an elite QB, and you become the 12-4 or better team. That's why NFL organizations value QB play so much.

Click to expand...

Right, that's all I'm really arguing here. The league has evolved in a way where the only teams that consistently win are teams with top QBs. Occasionally you'll get a team like the 2015 Broncos that rides an elite defense to a title but 9 times out of 10 teams that dominate are all about the QB.

I guess I should reveal I'm a fan of a team that hasn't had a franchise QB since the 1960s, haha.... But yeah. I think the NFL product has become ticky tacky protect the QB at all costs that has made it less exciting for me. I love the turnover and change college produces, even if top programs stay at or near the top... It's fresh, it's new, while maintaining tradition. NFL is same old same old.