Fan Nation
Forums
Forum list
Search forums
Rules & Policies
Podcast
Mobile App
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Shop
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Horned Frog Athletics
Scott & Wes Frog Fan Forum
TCU-KSU Home Field Advantage
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Zubaz" data-source="post: 3224201" data-attributes="member: 3528"><p>.</p><p></p><p>Judge's next closest competitor was what, Schwarber with 46? Not exactly close here. But yes, I totally agree that Babe changed the way the game is played and is rightly considered an icon, arguably the biggest star the sport has ever had to this day. But he was facing the same pitcher 4 or 5 times a game, who had pitch counts that today would seem absolutely insane. And of course, that's also ignoring the huge elephant in the room that is integration. The game different, but even then I would argue that Baseball in Babe's time is far closer to today's product, compared to the changes made to football.</p><p></p><p>And sure, you can say "if they were trained the same they could be just as good", or "if TV and the internet were around it would have been as big" or whatever, but....they didn't and they weren't. We aren't talking about "natural talent", we're talking about actual performance, actual importance, actual numbers. And really, in the</p><p></p><p>Basically, what is more relevant to today's college football? <a href="https://dyn1.heritagestatic.com/lf?set=path%5B1%2F9%2F1%2F9%2F8%2F19198966%5D&call=url%5Bfile%3Aproduct.chain%5D" target="_blank">These guys</a> strapping on some leather helmets to beat Carnegie Melon in front of 45,000 people when certain groups were excluded from the game, or <a href="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/544576/Rose_Bowl_Game_Wisconsin_v_TCU_ZXyOhv6Ae_wl.jpg" target="_blank">these guys</a> playing a pretty much identical game to today and beating Wisconsin in front of 100,000 people and millions more watching at home? I think you would be incredibly hard pressed to say the former.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I understand, but I don't think judging it "on a curve" (for lack of a better term) like you do here with the Sugar Bowl attendance. College football was a regional sport certainly beneath Baseball, and probably beneath boxing as well. It wasn't near as big, or as culturally relevant, as it is today. </p><p></p><p>Also, no, Ohio State and Michigan were not drawing those numbers outside of the games against each other (not unlike today's Harvard & Yale attendances, where they draw meager crowds outside of their own rivalry game against each other. Here's some attendance figures from 1935, the year we claim a national title. They aren't close to comparable to today's games.</p><p></p><p>1935 Michigan:</p><p>[ATTACH=full]12856[/ATTACH]</p><p>1935 Ohio State:</p><p>[ATTACH=full]12857[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>There's <em>some</em> big games, sure, but on the whole you see attendance that would get them compared to us or Cincinnati. I suppose you could blame the Depression for that, but going back to the 20's doesn't really change it either.</p><p>1926 Michigan:</p><p>[ATTACH=full]12858[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't consider "really really good for the time, not as relevant to today's product as other more recent games" to be all that disrespectful. If you disagree, that's fine.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Zubaz, post: 3224201, member: 3528"] . Judge's next closest competitor was what, Schwarber with 46? Not exactly close here. But yes, I totally agree that Babe changed the way the game is played and is rightly considered an icon, arguably the biggest star the sport has ever had to this day. But he was facing the same pitcher 4 or 5 times a game, who had pitch counts that today would seem absolutely insane. And of course, that's also ignoring the huge elephant in the room that is integration. The game different, but even then I would argue that Baseball in Babe's time is far closer to today's product, compared to the changes made to football. And sure, you can say "if they were trained the same they could be just as good", or "if TV and the internet were around it would have been as big" or whatever, but....they didn't and they weren't. We aren't talking about "natural talent", we're talking about actual performance, actual importance, actual numbers. And really, in the Basically, what is more relevant to today's college football? [URL='https://dyn1.heritagestatic.com/lf?set=path%5B1%2F9%2F1%2F9%2F8%2F19198966%5D&call=url%5Bfile%3Aproduct.chain%5D']These guys[/URL] strapping on some leather helmets to beat Carnegie Melon in front of 45,000 people when certain groups were excluded from the game, or [URL='http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/544576/Rose_Bowl_Game_Wisconsin_v_TCU_ZXyOhv6Ae_wl.jpg']these guys[/URL] playing a pretty much identical game to today and beating Wisconsin in front of 100,000 people and millions more watching at home? I think you would be incredibly hard pressed to say the former. I understand, but I don't think judging it "on a curve" (for lack of a better term) like you do here with the Sugar Bowl attendance. College football was a regional sport certainly beneath Baseball, and probably beneath boxing as well. It wasn't near as big, or as culturally relevant, as it is today. Also, no, Ohio State and Michigan were not drawing those numbers outside of the games against each other (not unlike today's Harvard & Yale attendances, where they draw meager crowds outside of their own rivalry game against each other. Here's some attendance figures from 1935, the year we claim a national title. They aren't close to comparable to today's games. 1935 Michigan: [ATTACH type="full"]12856[/ATTACH] 1935 Ohio State: [ATTACH type="full"]12857[/ATTACH] There's [I]some[/I] big games, sure, but on the whole you see attendance that would get them compared to us or Cincinnati. I suppose you could blame the Depression for that, but going back to the 20's doesn't really change it either. 1926 Michigan: [ATTACH type="full"]12858[/ATTACH] I don't consider "really really good for the time, not as relevant to today's product as other more recent games" to be all that disrespectful. If you disagree, that's fine. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Which team did TCU defeat in the College Football Playoffs?
Post reply
Forums
Horned Frog Athletics
Scott & Wes Frog Fan Forum
TCU-KSU Home Field Advantage
Top