much as i hate to admit it you are probably right about football. the NFL has the ability to deal with this better than the colleges can. already 3 of the big 5 have said they will only play a conference schedule. the Big 10, PAC 12 and now the SEC which is the 900 pd gorilla in the room. that leaves only the ACC and Big 12. while inter league games are great, i'll forgo that if it means there is a college football season.
at the end of the day it's a numbers game. and not just money there the Pro's can still get TV revenue as can the colleges but what i mean is the numbers. a NBA squad is 12 players .. baseball about 26. now compare that to football where the NFL has a 53 man roster and colleges 85 plus.
pretty easy to see who has the easier path. the NBA.
Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid
I agree with the sentiment that the lack of a crowd will seriously and negatively impact the energy of the games...what fun is it to show off the same dunk moves to your teammates and coaches? They won't cheer wildly and give you the natural high that comes with the validation of a large gathering united in the common purpose of victory.
When the sponsors see the low TV ratings after the novelty wears off, I can see some serious conflicts between the networks and the advertisers. I will likely watch a game or two to see if it seems like game films or a scrimmage to confirm my thoughts on the matter.
I admit I'm biased against it but I doubt it will be very exciting. Perhaps America will use this opportunity to quit watching other people play games while drinking beer and eating pizza and getting fat, and will instead participate in their own activities instead.
Rooting for a bunch of players who will go to the highest bidder and in this instance happen to be playing for the "local" team validates the fans exactly how? At least in the college game, many of the players on the state University teams played ball in a local high school and have a connection to the area.
Originally Posted by Grace Preston
