2 hours ago, hputenis said:

Geez brother, did they run out of Tampax again at the grocery store?

Your sister in law was over last night. Didn’t know she used 3-4 at a time

32 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

This is not unrelated to the soccer debate: Are universities miscast as the infrastructure for sports in 18-22 year old Americans?

What was the retort to the sentimental, antiquated yearning for amateur student athletes you recognize from biology 101 singing your alma mater's fight song? Times change. Treat the athletes like the revenue generating professionals that they are.

So I ask the college football fans: why are you so attached to the professional football team owned and operated by your college? The universities are a barrier to efficiency and to linear development. From a purely developmental and operational standpoint, university athletics make sense for 2nd tier athletes who are actual students and part of the community to participate in intercollegiate athletics. For the professional level athletes, it's inefficient.

Historically, the US has prioritized sports where international competition is not a consideration. So developmental inefficiencies in gridiron football, baseball, and basketball haven't been under the microscope. Basketball and baseball, which do have growing international interest, have circumvented those inefficiencies by....naturally....increasingly circumventing college. The NFL hasn't done that simply because of how damn popular college football still is. So American sports have never really been forced to introspectively evaluate things like efficiency and development. It's been purely organic instead of strategic. That's a stark contrast to international soccer talent development. And that's why we, culturally, despite being simultaneously the largest economy in the world and the most sports invested country in the world, are at a developmental disadvantage compared to other countries.

That and I still buy the argument that our best athletes are funneled away from soccer, not towards it. But even 10% of the USA talent pool and athletics funding should be enough to match or exceed France/Spain/England/Brazil...and USA soccer is approaching those threshold off the field.

In summary, college is the problem.

Soccer just isnt our sport mostly because the general of attitude towards it. My high school basketball and football coaches in NM used to tell us: "Soccer is a commie sport." Enough said.

It was my favorite sport growing up but we didnt even have a high school team in 90s. It is that attitude that will always keep the US from being a serious competitor

40 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

This is not unrelated to the soccer debate: Are universities miscast as the infrastructure for sports in 18-22 year old Americans?

What was the retort to the sentimental, antiquated yearning for amateur student athletes you recognize from biology 101 singing your alma mater's fight song? Times change. Treat the athletes like the revenue generating professionals that they are.

So I ask the college football fans: why are you so attached to the professional football team owned and operated by your college? The universities are a barrier to efficiency and to linear development. From a purely developmental and operational standpoint, university athletics make sense for 2nd tier athletes who are actual students and part of the community to participate in intercollegiate athletics. For the professional level athletes, it's inefficient.

Historically, the US has prioritized sports where international competition is not a consideration. So developmental inefficiencies in gridiron football, baseball, and basketball haven't been under the microscope. Basketball and baseball, which do have growing international interest, have circumvented those inefficiencies by....naturally....increasingly circumventing college. The NFL hasn't done that simply because of how damn popular college football still is. So American sports have never really been forced to introspectively evaluate things like efficiency and development. It's been purely organic instead of strategic. That's a stark contrast to international soccer talent development. And that's why we, culturally, despite being simultaneously the largest economy in the world and the most sports invested country in the world, are at a developmental disadvantage compared to other countries.

That and I still buy the argument that our best athletes are funneled away from soccer, not towards it. But even 10% of the USA talent pool and athletics funding should be enough to match or exceed France/Spain/England/Brazil...and USA soccer is approaching those threshold off the field.

In summary, college is the problem.

Yeah i’m not reading all that…

Someone made a good point last night.

Soccer at the youth club level is becoming very political and expensive so almost any kid below the upper middle class is going to be pushed more towards basketball, football, etc because their parents don’t have the means or time to commit to it. Basically like lacrosse or hockey.

Even so, kids are forced to focus on one sport at way too young of an age. Michael Jordan and LeBron James are hands down the two best basketball players over the past 35 years and each of them played another sport until they were 16/17. They weren’t told at 12 to only focus on basketball.

Way its setting up FIFA might just get its big 4 semi's w France, Spain, England, Argentina

2 hours ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Is soccer season over now?

What is soccer?

1 hour ago, eagle45 said:

This is not unrelated to the soccer debate: Are universities miscast as the infrastructure for sports in 18-22 year old Americans?

What was the retort to the sentimental, antiquated yearning for amateur student athletes you recognize from biology 101 singing your alma mater's fight song? Times change. Treat the athletes like the revenue generating professionals that they are.

So I ask the college football fans: why are you so attached to the professional football team owned and operated by your college? The universities are a barrier to efficiency and to linear development. From a purely developmental and operational standpoint, university athletics make sense for 2nd tier athletes who are actual students and part of the community to participate in intercollegiate athletics. For the professional level athletes, it's inefficient.

Historically, the US has prioritized sports where international competition is not a consideration. So developmental inefficiencies in gridiron football, baseball, and basketball haven't been under the microscope. Basketball and baseball, which do have growing international interest, have circumvented those inefficiencies by....naturally....increasingly circumventing college. The NFL hasn't done that simply because of how damn popular college football still is. So American sports have never really been forced to introspectively evaluate things like efficiency and development. It's been purely organic instead of strategic. That's a stark contrast to international soccer talent development. And that's why we, culturally, despite being simultaneously the largest economy in the world and the most sports invested country in the world, are at a developmental disadvantage compared to other countries.

That and I still buy the argument that our best athletes are funneled away from soccer, not towards it. But even 10% of the USA talent pool and athletics funding should be enough to match or exceed France/Spain/England/Brazil...and USA soccer is approaching those threshold off the field.

In summary, college is the problem.

College is in no way shape or form a barrier for football…other sports it’s an option. Good back over the top 100 prospects of the past 10 years, tell me how many are in the NFL, let alone ‘super stars’. College for football is 100% a development tool. However NIL and this mercenary era is killing that. 2 drafts ago the #1 pick was a 0 star recruit with ZERO offers.

Also many developmental leagues have tried and all have failed.

27 minutes ago, Wentz_Era said:

What is soccer?

No clue. But I hear people talking about it in here for way too long.

1 hour ago, Wentz_Era said:

College is in no way shape or form a barrier for football…other sports it’s an option. Good back over the top 100 prospects of the past 10 years, tell me how many are in the NFL, let alone ‘super stars’. College for football is 100% a development tool. However NIL and this mercenary era is killing that. 2 drafts ago the #1 pick was a 0 star recruit with ZERO offers.

Also many developmental leagues have tried and all have failed.

I'd argue that college football isn't a developmental tool at all. Grooming and preparing players for the NFL isn't the goal. The goal is winning now in the college ecosystem (and making money). Sure, it's passively a stepping stone to the NFL. But it is its own standalone entity that competes, spends, and generates money on its own. And its power, draw, and monopoly on recruiting are the reason developmental leagues have failed.

If NCAA football vanished and every NFL team had a farm league team that fed to the big league club...do you really think that players would not be trained, utilized, and coached differently? Of course, the league wouldn't be as profitable...the Allentown Eagles aren't going to generate as much interest as Penn State on Saturdays. But the players would be developed for the NFL.

Of course, I'm not saying this is how things should be. The point is that the relationship between NCAA football and NFL football is a terrible model for youth scouting, development, and optimization in other international sports. But that model bleeds into US soccer. Colleges and professional sports are an odd, inefficient pairing.

3 hours ago, Freshmilk said:

Except that weak team, without its best player, made the US look like chumps. And that same team is on an 18 game unbeaten streak. So maybe weak in public statements, but not so much on the field. Heck, even the US goal was an own goal by Belgium. I'll watch again in 4 years if the US makes the World Cup.

Stop confusing my feelings with your facts.

3 hours ago, eagle45 said:

This is not unrelated to the soccer debate: Are universities miscast as the infrastructure for sports in 18-22 year old Americans?

What was the retort to the sentimental, antiquated yearning for amateur student athletes you recognize from biology 101 singing your alma mater's fight song? Times change. Treat the athletes like the revenue generating professionals that they are.

So I ask the college football fans: why are you so attached to the professional football team owned and operated by your college? The universities are a barrier to efficiency and to linear development. From a purely developmental and operational standpoint, university athletics make sense for 2nd tier athletes who are actual students and part of the community to participate in intercollegiate athletics. For the professional level athletes, it's inefficient.

Historically, the US has prioritized sports where international competition is not a consideration. So developmental inefficiencies in gridiron football, baseball, and basketball haven't been under the microscope. Basketball and baseball, which do have growing international interest, have circumvented those inefficiencies by....naturally....increasingly circumventing college. The NFL hasn't done that simply because of how damn popular college football still is. So American sports have never really been forced to introspectively evaluate things like efficiency and development. It's been purely organic instead of strategic. That's a stark contrast to international soccer talent development. And that's why we, culturally, despite being simultaneously the largest economy in the world and the most sports invested country in the world, are at a developmental disadvantage compared to other countries.

That and I still buy the argument that our best athletes are funneled away from soccer, not towards it. But even 10% of the USA talent pool and athletics funding should be enough to match or exceed France/Spain/England/Brazil...and USA soccer is approaching those threshold off the field.

In summary, college is the problem.

College is the best way for EVERYONE to forge their own path to success. You don't have to get lucky that some academy scout was at your pee wee football game. You work hard, you destroy your high school competition, go to college, and earn your success.

1 minute ago, devpool said:

College is the best way for EVERYONE to forge their own path to success. You don't have to get lucky that some academy scout was at your pee wee football game. You work hard, you destroy your high school competition, go to college, and earn your success.

That doesn't really apply to the Lebron James or Mike Trout.

1 hour ago, eagle45 said:

That doesn't really apply to the Lebron James or Mike Trout.

Ok, you have 2 out of tens of thousands of players over the last decade. You can find 50 (you won't) and it still doesnt invalidate my point

4 hours ago, kiwieagle said:

Way its setting up FIFA might just get its big 4 semi's w France, Spain, England, Argentina

Was that ever in doubt?

3 hours ago, eagle45 said:

I'd argue that college football isn't a developmental tool at all. Grooming and preparing players for the NFL isn't the goal. The goal is winning now in the college ecosystem (and making money). Sure, it's passively a stepping stone to the NFL. But it is its own standalone entity that competes, spends, and generates money on its own. And its power, draw, and monopoly on recruiting are the reason developmental leagues have failed.

If NCAA football vanished and every NFL team had a farm league team that fed to the big league club...do you really think that players would not be trained, utilized, and coached differently? Of course, the league wouldn't be as profitable...the Allentown Eagles aren't going to generate as much interest as Penn State on Saturdays. But the players would be developed for the NFL.

Of course, I'm not saying this is how things should be. The point is that the relationship between NCAA football and NFL football is a terrible model for youth scouting, development, and optimization in other international sports. But that model bleeds into US soccer. Colleges and professional sports are an odd, inefficient pairing.

Football is the wrong sport to pick for this argument, while you’re right on the surface about a lot. There’s 138 FBS schools, all with nearly double the roster size of an NFL team. Then add in the various FCS schools, several of which have had more draft picks than a bunch of those FBS schools in the past 10 years. The NFL would have to go beyond the MLB model and have A-AAAA at a minimum. Then what’s the shelf life of players in football compared to those sports? What would really be developed. Heck the draft would have to be at least 75 rounds to even pull that off. Oh and then these kids when 99% of them fail to make it, don’t have a college education to fall back on. Now let’s talk about coaching? Is there a sport in the world with as much variations of schemes, plays, etc….what happens when a HC at the NFL level gets fired and the entire staff is designed to be a pipeline for their team? The NFL can’t even keep 32 competent HC’s around let alone every other coaching job that has constant turnover. Where are those coming from? We scouting HS coaches now too?

There’s a ton more to add as well. That’s barely scratching the surface on how negatively the NFL and the sport would be effected by getting rid of the college level.

There’s obviously massive talent, skill and need for development disparity between HS and pro’s in every sport…but football has the largest delta. I’d argue that soccer has the smallest, then basketball, then flip a coin between baseball fan hockey. Football is miles ahead of those.

1 hour ago, TEW said:

Was that ever in doubt?

Last time out Morocco crashed the party as a big surprise, and Croatia wouldn't have been in most people's pick either.

7 hours ago, Wentz_Era said:

Football is the wrong sport to pick for this argument, while you’re right on the surface about a lot. There’s 138 FBS schools, all with nearly double the roster size of an NFL team. Then add in the various FCS schools, several of which have had more draft picks than a bunch of those FBS schools in the past 10 years. The NFL would have to go beyond the MLB model and have A-AAAA at a minimum. Then what’s the shelf life of players in football compared to those sports? What would really be developed. Heck the draft would have to be at least 75 rounds to even pull that off. Oh and then these kids when 99% of them fail to make it, don’t have a college education to fall back on. Now let’s talk about coaching? Is there a sport in the world with as much variations of schemes, plays, etc….what happens when a HC at the NFL level gets fired and the entire staff is designed to be a pipeline for their team? The NFL can’t even keep 32 competent HC’s around let alone every other coaching job that has constant turnover. Where are those coming from? We scouting HS coaches now too?

There’s a ton more to add as well. That’s barely scratching the surface on how negatively the NFL and the sport would be effected by getting rid of the college level.

There’s obviously massive talent, skill and need for development disparity between HS and pro’s in every sport…but football has the largest delta. I’d argue that soccer has the smallest, then basketball, then flip a coin between baseball fan hockey. Football is miles ahead of those.

I’m not talking about the value of a college education. Although that’s another point I’d probably argue against. And I agree for second tier athletes that it’s a great thing. But for the true professional athletes, it’s an inefficiency.

Been listening to the newest 6ers calls with media. They credit Gansey, and Jameer Nelson for coming to Philly. Not once have I heard anyone say they wanted to play in the sane city as Jalen Hurts. He continues to not draw talent in free agency.

15 hours ago, devpool said:

This is why soccer will never be big in the US. Who has time for all that ish from age 6 when you could earn probably 10x more money playing baseball, basketball, or football and you only have to put a kid into high school sports?

Erling Haaland is reportedly being paid upto $1.1m per week, Vinicius is on around $500k per week. You can compare career lengths on each sport and most football careers are 10-15 years vs NFL which is a lot shorter - the top salaries aren't comparable because of how skewed the NFL is. The real question should be how likely will I succeed at one sport vs another, with the earning potential of each. Is it worth the grind to be a PS player in the NFL?

28 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

Been listening to the newest 6ers calls with media. They credit Gansey, and Jameer Nelson for coming to Philly. Not once have I heard anyone say they wanted to play in the sane city as Jalen Hurts. He continues to not draw talent in free agency.

Meanwhile at Northern State where Carson Strong is QB coach all you read is how guys commit there because they want to play for Carson.

12 minutes ago, Freshmilk said:

Meanwhile at Northern State where Carson Strong is QB coach all you read is how guys commit there because they want to play for Carson.

That number would likely be near 100% since he would be heavily involved in the recruiting.

When Bill Belichick and the Patriots divorced in 2024, Sean Payton considered presenting Broncos owner Greg Penner a proposal for the ages: Hire Belichick as head coach until he reached 15 wins, enough to break Don Shula's career record of 347. Payton would temporarily step down to assistant head coach and run the offense, then move back after Belichick became the all-time leader. In the end, it was too complicated -- and maybe too fanciful.

52 minutes ago, HazletonEagle said:

Been listening to the newest 6ers calls with media. They credit Gansey, and Jameer Nelson for coming to Philly. Not once have I heard anyone say they wanted to play in the sane city as Jalen Hurts. He continues to not draw talent in free agency.

Wouldn't this bizarre comparison you are trying to do to get continue with your jester character of hating on Jalen Hurts at every possibility opportunity only work if the Sixers members you were citing were players instead of front office members?

4 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

Wouldn't this bizarre comparison you are trying to do to get continue with your jester character of hating on Jalen Hurts at every possibility opportunity only work if the Sixers members you were citing were players instead of front office members?

Theres been mention of Tyrese Maxey and VJ Edgecombe as well. So now you may go cry in a corner. Nobody likes your boy and his goofy grandpa styles.