First my disclaimer: I hate professional sports. All of them.
I haven't always. It's a recent thing. I used to hate college sports. Thought they were stupid, low-talent, etc. Now I realize that college sports (in any flavor) are better than professional sports.
Why? One reason - heart.
College kids just play harder. Most of them play for the fun of the game. A few play for the shot at being drafted and becoming millionaires. In either case, they have more incentive.
I realized this many years ago (but didn't make the connection) when I attended Portland Winter Hawks games. If you don't know, the Winter Hawks are Portland's minor league (AAA equivalent) hockey team. Those guys play (and fight) hard because they have to prove their worth to get to the NHL (back when the NHL existed).
Pro athletes have the contracts, endorsements, etc. before they ever put on a uniform. Before they've ever done a damn thing. Why should they play hard then? They're gonna get paid whether they ball or not. Worst that can happen is that they get traded or benched - but they still get paid.
One of my greatest peeves with pro sports though (and the real reason I hate them) is the decreasing quality of the pro game (namely basketball and, to a lesser extent, football). Allowing kids to come in with minimal or no college time is assinine. These kids were superstars in high school, which means they were rewarded for basically taking over a game - i.e. playing selfish.
College ball is full of kids who were also high school superstars (or stars), so you can't really just run over people like you used to in high school. Thus, players have to learn to adjust their game to the team concept while enhancing fundamentals that must change to the evolved skill level of the competition (i.e., your high school jump shot won't cut it in the face of an NBA defender).
I have never understood why the pro leagues don't simply require college degrees. Yeah, so some dumb-asses won't make it. So what? Isn't that consistent after all with the hypocritical "stay-in-school" v. skip college messages sent by the pro leagues?
I guess the NFL's new rule comes closest so far - requiring a draftee's high school class to have finished college. In other words, you can sit out four years, or play college football for four years (three plus a redshirt I guess). I imagine most would play, and the rule lets them leave after their junior season (if they redshirted). Basketball could do this too.
In the meantime, we'll continue to have dressed-up high school basketball presented as the professional game, and we'll have NFL draftees who take 4 years to learn the game, and it'll all just continue to suck.
I hate pro sports.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I concur with your sentiments concerning the NBA but would totally disagree when it comes to the NFL. Don't get me wrong, I like college football; but most of the things that people give as reasons for preferring college football to pro football result directly from college player's mistakes, incompetence, and overall poor play. The real reason the college game is so "exciting" is that teams make so many mistakes that it creates a lot of close games. If players were playing well, there wouldn't be so many blocked punts, blocked field goals, missed field goals, fumbles and interceptions that keeps games close and thus, "exciting." Pro football is a much better game if you are more interested in seeing the players play the game well.
I agree to a large extent, the NFL is definitely a higher quality game than in college - it's faster, harder hitting, etc.
I might have to back off a bit re: the NFL. However, I still think, overall, NFL players lack the intensity of college players. (Not all, obviously. But enough that I find the game boring).
On the other hand, a lot of that may have to do with the "no-fun" rules they've imposed in recent years.
Post a Comment