CFL vs NFL vs NCAA

[worth]

Some people say the CFl is bush league etc. but I think this puts things into perspective and gives teh CFL some legitimacy:

Here is the average attendance for the top ten attended sports in the world.

1) NFL United States 2005 67,593
2) Bundesliga 1 Football (soccer) Germany 2005-06 40,775
3) Australian Football League (Premiership Season) Australia 2006 35,250
4) FA Premier League Football (soccer) England 2005-06 33,875
5) Major League Baseball Baseball 30,970
6) La Liga Football (soccer) Spain 2005-06 29,029
7) Canadian Football League Canada 2005 28,438
8) NPB Baseball Japan 2005 23,552
9) Serie A Football (soccer) Italy 2005-06 21,968
10) Football (soccer) France 2005-06 21,576

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_attendance

There you have it, the CFL is number 7 in the entire world in Average attendance per game. I found that to be shocking. I would have thought that there would be 50 soccer leagues in Europe that would draw more than 30,000 average.

Now, of course total will be no where near MLB or some soccer leagues or even the NHL. That of course has to do with the number of games played and the number of teams. There were 81 CFL games played last year compared to how many MLB games are played, there's a significant difference. But this shows that sports fans in Canada are willing to come out and show support.

I mean, if it's averaging 7th in the world for average attendance, someone must like it.

[socalwingfan]

Sort of Hijacking the thread, but for the NCAA fans this weekend has some very cool matchups:

Michigan vs Notre Dame
LSU vs Auburn
Florida vs Tennessee
Nebraska vs USC
Oklahoma vs Oregon

[JiriHrdina]

What makes the CFL bush league is not it's attendance. If anything the fan support has allowed the CFL to get away with running the league like a clown show at times. The actions of Edmonton last year in their trades with Hamilton is a perfect example of this, and the fact that it was allowed to happen.

[Antithesis]

1. NCAA - Love everything about it, and actually, in my opinion, the BCS (or some form of it) is not at all that bad.

1a. NFL - The best players.

2. (by a long shot) CFL ... just ... seems kind of bush league sometimes, I guess.

[calf]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

What makes the CFL bush league is not it's attendance. If anything the fan support has allowed the CFL to get away with running the league like a clown show at times. The actions of Edmonton last year in their trades with Hamilton is a perfect example of this, and the fact that it was allowed to happen.

We can add to this the way the league has treated its best commissioner in years as well. Or the consistently poor referreeing. Or the terrible ownership decisions. Or, or, or... But, people keep coming back because they enjoy the game, like you said, allowing the CFL to get away with a bunch of this.

[Josh]

NCAA > NFL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>CFL


Real football starts in the fall. I can't choke down the CFL, its a joke.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Antithesis

1. NCAA - Love everything about it, and actually, in my opinion, the BCS (or some form of it) is not at all that bad.

1a. NFL - The best players.

2. (by a long shot) CFL ... just ... seems kind of bush league sometimes, I guess.

A breath of fresh air. I like the BCS, the only thing bad about it is the polls. Human polls are the only negative thing about NCAA FB. Back when they had the computers doing rankings they would always make more sense than the coaches or AP poll. Basically humans don't care about strength of sched, and they put an empasis on a preseason poll that is based on nothing.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

What makes the CFL bush league is not it's attendance. If anything the fan support has allowed the CFL to get away with running the league like a clown show at times. The actions of Edmonton last year in their trades with Hamilton is a perfect example of this, and the fact that it was allowed to happen.

Totally agree, that and zero drug testing.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by worth

Some people say the CFl is bush league etc. but I think this puts things into perspective and gives teh CFL some legitimacy:

Here is the average attendance for the top ten attended sports in the world.

1) NFL United States 2005 67,593
2) Bundesliga 1 Football (soccer) Germany 2005-06 40,775
3) Australian Football League (Premiership Season) Australia 2006 35,250
4) FA Premier League Football (soccer) England 2005-06 33,875
5) Major League Baseball Baseball 30,970
6) La Liga Football (soccer) Spain 2005-06 29,029
7) Canadian Football League Canada 2005 28,438
8) NPB Baseball Japan 2005 23,552
9) Serie A Football (soccer) Italy 2005-06 21,968
10) Football (soccer) France 2005-06 21,576

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_attendance

There you have it, the CFL is number 7 in the entire world in Average attendance per game. I found that to be shocking. I would have thought that there would be 50 soccer leagues in Europe that would draw more than 30,000 average.

Now, of course total will be no where near MLB or some soccer leagues or even the NHL. That of course has to do with the number of games played and the number of teams. There were 81 CFL games played last year compared to how many MLB games are played, there's a significant difference. But this shows that sports fans in Canada are willing to come out and show support.

I mean, if it's averaging 7th in the world for average attendance, someone must like it.

It's not 7th in the world. This list is misleading. The SEC would be one, Big Ten would be two, and 3 through five would be Big XII, Pac 0 and ACC.

[moon]

I like NCAA but there is plenty of bush league things going on in NCAA. Probably more than any other league.

BCS- USC number one in both polls but doesn't play for the National championship? Makes teams run up the score and schedule lesser teams to ensure undefeated seasons and high computer stats.

Cheating- Nowhere do teams break the rules more than here. They have a lto more rules for players, but recruiting violations and the things that go on with stars and big programs are very bush league.

Div I teams paying Div IAA and small schools to come play so they can whoop up on them.

[political renagade]

CFL and nothing else!!!
In the CFL there are less downs (making it a quiker game) a bigger field and end zone. And the best thing of all is that anything can happen!!

[moon]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

A breath of fresh air. I like the BCS, the only thing bad about it is the polls. Human polls are the only negative thing about NCAA FB. Back when they had the computers doing rankings they would always make more sense than the coaches or AP poll. Basically humans don't care about strength of sched, and they put an empasis on a preseason poll that is based on nothing.

The computers do not look at the common sense factor that says that USC being ranked one in both polls should have played ahead of Oklahoma and LSU. Most people thought that USC was still best after LSU was awarded their BS National Championship.

The BCS is garbage and lucked out last season. I hope this year that there are three or four undefeateds and the BCS is shown for the fraud that itis.

[calgaryrocks]

Originally Posted by Josh

NCAA > NFL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>CFL


Real football starts in the fall. I can't choke down the CFL, its a joke.

good reasoning...oh wait what is your reasoning, am i missing something because theres no logic to that

[Flames in 07]

Moon, before BCS, #1 almost never played #2.

Now they always play, and in 8 years there is only one maybe case which is USC.

The worst thing about the BCS is the public pressure to dumb it down to the lowest common denominator. When it started it cared about strength of schedule and head to head match ups by way of the computer models. Now it is almost solely human polls, which are awful. They are based on pre-season polls and give absolutly no weight to strength of schedule.

Utah got into the fiesta two years ago running the table of cupcakes of air force, colorado state and wyoming. There were probably 20 teams in the country that could have won out on that schedule. It's created two of the best games in sports history, the 06 rose bowl and the 03 fiesta bowl ... all thanks to bcs.

[moon]

Well Auburn also got screwed one year so it has been a problem more than one time and it certainly was more than a maybe in the case of USC. LSU won the "BCS Championship" and in the one pole that wasn't tied into the BCS USC still was voted 1st.

It may have improved the chances for 1 to play 2 compared to the old conference tie in bowl system but it certainly has not done a lot to improve it and a play-off would be 1000 times better.

I am interested to see what happens when Auburn/Ohio State/West Virginia/USC all go undefeated. Throw in Virginia Tech from a weak ACC, plus TCU from the Conference USA and you have six undefeated teams at the start of bowl season.

TCU and Virginia Tech get thrown out of NC mix because of weak conferences this year. But how do you kick out two of Auburn/USC/Ohio State/West Virginia?

The BCS might luck out and have two of them lose but if not. Ohio State will make it based on their conference, ranking and win over Texas. Auburn will come from the top conference and will have wins over top teams. USC beat Nebraska, will have wins against ND which will have a high ranking and Oregon, plus have lost twice in the past three years. WV will have beat a good Louisville team and won a decent Big East. Two of these teams will not have the chance to win the NC because some BS system doesn't give them the chance.

[Flames in 07]

Auburn scheduled a div II team that year. BCS doesn't recognize this as a real win ... which it isn't. As far as I'm concerned USC is the only maybe arguement.

TCu and Va Tech should be out every year, one problem I have is that we consider the Mtn West and MAC in the same relm as the SEC and Big Ten. That's insane, nobody in their right state of mind would tell you that the players in these conferences are anywhere near the caliber of the top divisions, yet when they run the table everyone says they've been screwed out of a NC.

As for this year, it's highly unlikely that all 6 will run through. Even you got to admit your scenario is highly unlikely, but if it did, WV doesn't count cause they are in a cupcake conference, they'll have one quality win ... big deal. So we'd be down to Auburn, USC and OSU so ya, someone would be screwed ... and it would probably be Auburn, can't turn down OSU for scheduling Texas, and it's tough to knock USC for scheduling Nebraska.

As for a playoff, to me, a playoff wrecks the best playoffs in all of sports, it's just that the NCAA calls it a regular season.

The games yesterday would not have meant much if they had a playoff.

Lastly, NC is a big focus to us, but in those conferences, much of the emphasis is on the conf championship, the NC gets lots of media time, but it's not the end all and be all to the teams.

As for a NC request, I'll take OSU vs USC ... I saw OSU cream ND last year, and would love to see them knock of USC this year.

[Antithesis]

Originally Posted by moon

It may have improved the chances for 1 to play 2 compared to the old conference tie in bowl system but it certainly has not done a lot to improve it and a play-off would be 1000 times better.

I am interested to see what happens when Auburn/Ohio State/West Virginia/USC all go undefeated. Throw in Virginia Tech from a weak ACC, plus TCU from the Conference USA and you have six undefeated teams at the start of bowl season.

TCU and Virginia Tech get thrown out of NC mix because of weak conferences this year. But how do you kick out two of Auburn/USC/Ohio State/West Virginia?

1. What you're saying is a matter of opinion rather than fact. The schools who are a part of the BCS certainly don't complain about the amount of money brought in by the system, so they at least accept it that way.

I, personally, would much rather a system where you are guaranteed a great game to decide the championship, and I honestly can't see how you can say the BCS is a failure because there simply isn't a large enough sample size to go by. If the system works every single year out of the next 100 - then USC (kind of) and Auburn (maybe) got 'screwed'. Not bad if you ask me. With a playoff system, each round makes it more and more improbable that the two best teams over the season meet each other in the national championship. Look at the NHL this year - the Oilers (no matter how you cut it) were NOT the best team in the West this season ... just in the playoffs (maybe). Also in your post, which I cropped, you mention that the BCS "got lucky" with USC/Texas last year - how do you know that it's not a matter of them being 'unlucky' with Auburn?

I look at it this way - the 'regular season' of the NCAA is a playoff system, with the BCS to top it off.

2. You're writing as if you absolutely know these things will happen. Ohio State may have gotten by Texas but they still have tough games ahead. USC still has to play Notre Dame which is not as bad a team as this week made them out to be - not to mention conference play in a strong Pac-10. Auburn is not going to run the table, in my opinion, but that's just it - my opinion. I would suspect that when everything boils down at the end of the season, we'll have another clear-cut #1 vs. #2 championship game. At very least - through the BCS - this will be more likely than with the much-vaunted playoff system.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Antithesis

1. What you're saying is a matter of opinion rather than fact. The schools who are a part of the BCS certainly don't complain about the amount of money brought in by the system, so they at least accept it that way.

I, personally, would much rather a system where you are guaranteed a great game to decide the championship, and I honestly can't see how you can say the BCS is a failure because there simply isn't a large enough sample size to go by. If the system works every single year out of the next 100 - then USC (kind of) and Auburn (maybe) got 'screwed'. Not bad if you ask me. With a playoff system, each round makes it more and more improbable that the two best teams over the season meet each other in the national championship. Look at the NHL this year - the Oilers (no matter how you cut it) were NOT the best team in the West this season ... just in the playoffs (maybe). Also in your post, which I cropped, you mention that the BCS "got lucky" with USC/Texas last year - how do you know that it's not a matter of them being 'unlucky' with Auburn?

I look at it this way - the 'regular season' of the NCAA is a playoff system, with the BCS to top it off.

2. You're writing as if you absolutely know these things will happen. Ohio State may have gotten by Texas but they still have tough games ahead. USC still has to play Notre Dame which is not as bad a team as this week made them out to be - not to mention conference play in a strong Pac-10. Auburn is not going to run the table, in my opinion, but that's just it - my opinion. I would suspect that when everything boils down at the end of the season, we'll have another clear-cut #1 vs. #2 championship game. At very least - through the BCS - this will be more likely than with the much-vaunted playoff system.

Well said, Now GO SUN DEVILS!!

[Josh]

Originally Posted by calgaryrocks

good reasoning...oh wait what is your reasoning, am i missing something because theres no logic to that

It's just my opinion. Just because someone likes the CFL better than the others doesn't mean they're wrong, its just my opinion.

Personally I think the CFL is a joke. I don't need to explain my reasoning.

I love the NCAA because I went to a Pac 10 school in the states. People who don't like NCAA football probably didn't go to a school down here with a half descent football program.

I enjoy the NFL, but am not nearly as passionate about it as college football.

If the CFL were to fold, I don't think I could care any less.

And oh yeah, DUCKS SUCK!!! GO BEAVS!!!

[moon]

Originally Posted by Antithesis

1. What you're saying is a matter of opinion rather than fact. The schools who are a part of the BCS certainly don't complain about the amount of money brought in by the system, so they at least accept it that way.

I, personally, would much rather a system where you are guaranteed a great game to decide the championship, and I honestly can't see how you can say the BCS is a failure because there simply isn't a large enough sample size to go by. If the system works every single year out of the next 100 - then USC (kind of) and Auburn (maybe) got 'screwed'. Not bad if you ask me. With a playoff system, each round makes it more and more improbable that the two best teams over the season meet each other in the national championship. Look at the NHL this year - the Oilers (no matter how you cut it) were NOT the best team in the West this season ... just in the playoffs (maybe). Also in your post, which I cropped, you mention that the BCS "got lucky" with USC/Texas last year - how do you know that it's not a matter of them being 'unlucky' with Auburn?

I look at it this way - the 'regular season' of the NCAA is a playoff system, with the BCS to top it off.

2. You're writing as if you absolutely know these things will happen. Ohio State may have gotten by Texas but they still have tough games ahead. USC still has to play Notre Dame which is not as bad a team as this week made them out to be - not to mention conference play in a strong Pac-10. Auburn is not going to run the table, in my opinion, but that's just it - my opinion. I would suspect that when everything boils down at the end of the season, we'll have another clear-cut #1 vs. #2 championship game. At very least - through the BCS - this will be more likely than with the much-vaunted playoff system.

I was talking in the hypothetical about all the teams going undefeated, I should have mentioned that.

The truth is someone most likely trip up and let the BCS of the hook again.

The system works well if there are two clear cut teams to play in the championship. If not it doesn't work at all and has shown an ability to pit the wrong teams in most peoples opinions against each other.