Month: October 2020

Why College Football Is (Way) Better than the NFL

Amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, the fate of the National Football League and its collegiate counterpart were once unknown. However, now that both seasons are underway, it is a great time to tackle the question: Which is truly better, the NFL or college football?

For starters, I am a biased source. For those of you who know me, I am as obnoxious of a University of Michigan fan as they get. I was raised to support the Wolverines, largely due to my father being an alum, and consequently my childhood was filled with cramming into the Big House (Michigan’s stadium).

However, as I got older, my passion for college football as a whole only intensified. Despite attending countless NFL games for the Chicago Bears, my level of excitement just could not match that of a college football game. With that being said, here, in no particular order, are a few reasons why I firmly believe college football is more exciting than the NFL:

  1. The Game Day Atmosphere. Let’s start simple. Atmosphere is largely due to two things: location and crowd. NFL stadiums occasionally are not even located in the state for which their name claims. (The New York Jets actually play in New Jersey.) However, with college, stadiums are always on campus, and there are far more college football teams in cities across the country than the 32 NFL teams. Here, you are surrounded by tens of thousands of other college students who take their football team almost as seriously as religion, and the vibe cannot be beat. There is always a buzz to the air in a college town, as you walk down the main street towards the stadium.

The second part of this equation, crowd, is also best exemplified at a college football game as opposed to NFL. The student section is most responsible for this. At NFL games, fans of opposing teams can be intermingled among one another. However, you’ll only find fans of the home team in the student section. This creates an adrenaline filled, almost rowdy atmosphere that is radiated to all other fans in the stadium. Student sections will scream cheers, sing songs, and frequently all match in color or theme, something that is much more difficult to find at the NFL level.

2. The Fight Songs. There isn’t much to this one. Very few NFL fight songs are sung or known, but everyone on a college campus will know their school’s fight song, and they sure aren’t scared to sing it after a touchdown.

3. The Marching Bands. I could’ve merged this with number two, but I felt it was important enough to have its own ranking. Marching bands at college stadiums are a great way to get fired up after a score or opposing turnover, and their halftime antics cannot be compared. Any random talent that performs at an NFL halftime game (aside from well established bands or performers during important games, such as the super bowl) will not intrigue the crowd like a marching band simulating the mood landing or playing a Michael Jackson tribute.

4. The Football Itself. This can best be broken down into three parts: the players, the style of play, and the rules. First, as many know, college football players do not make money for playing. (I am not here to go into whether or not they should be paid, because I’ll save that for a later date.) However, by removing salaries and monetary incentives, I feel there is a greater sense of team play at the college level. In the NFL, many fans can easily name 2-3 players who chose to value their contract over their team. Players can hold out for larger salaries, negatively affecting the quality of their team until they get paid. In college, there is no incentive to hold out for a larger contract. You want to sit? Fine, next man up. I believe that by not having this problem like the NFL does, you have a higher number of teammates who want to play more for each other and their school as opposed to themselves.

The second part of this ranking is in the style of play. In college, there is no doubt a talent gap between their competition and that of the NFL. As a result, teams can be more creative with their style of play. Certain play calls or strategies that might not outsmart an NFL veteran might work on a 19 year old college player. Offenses such as Mike Leach’s “Air Raid” offense or Army and Navy’s historical triple-option offense usually do not have success in the NFL. Quarterback’s in college are much more confident to run the ball and scramble as opposed to the NFL where players hit harder, have a higher football IQ, and are discouraged to do so by coaches promoting durability.  These plays, when combined with the increased amount of trick plays in college, often tend to bring more excitement to fans and those watching.

Lastly, the rules of college football provide much more entertainment. One of these rules is what is considered a catch. In the NFL, receivers must have the ball and get two feet in-bounds, as opposed to only one foot being required in college. As a result, there usually tend to be much wilder and extreme catches in a college football game than that of the NFL. Wide receivers can make more attempts on the ball, knowing that there is a higher likelihood that it will be a catch due to the one foot down rule. In addition to this, college overtime rules are superior to that of the NFL. In the NFL, if you win the coin toss and score a touchdown, the game is over. The other team does not even get a chance to match that touchdown or try to win by going for a two point conversion. However, in college football overtime, both teams have a chance to play offense. Therefore, even if the opposing team scores a touchdown first, your team still has a shot. There is no question that this is more fair and keeps the game much more enteratining, as it increases the chances of double, triple, or even seven overtimes (2018 LSU vs Texas A&M went into 7 OT’s).

Overall, both college and NFL football have their pros and cons, but I stand by my claim that college football is much better than the NFL. Looking at the reasons above, I think college football presents more excitement and opportunity to be engaged with the sport as a whole, and all the experiences and traditions that come with it.

Jake Banas

Reason vs Instinct, a “Most Dangerous” Assumption

As members of society, it is safe to say that we believe there is a clear distinction between instinct and reason. One can be impulsive, almost natural, as if it was buried deep inside us centuries ago, while the other requires logic, thought, and analysis. In trend with modern times, we substantially favor reason over instinct. In an age surrounded by numbers and stats, we trust research and probability over our “gut instincts.” After all, the word “instinct” sounds primitive, raw, and uncut. It makes us think of our evolutionary ancestors or beasts of the wilderness. However, in Richard Connell’s, “The Most Dangerous Game,” our beliefs about the distinction between instinct and reason, and even human versus animal, are quickly disproved. We see that the differences between instinct and reason are not as exclusive of each other as we believe them to be.

The Most Dangerous Game was written and published in the mid 1920’s. Known as the “Roaring Twenties,” it was a time of great prosperity and advancement for the world. However, the U.S. was just coming out of a war, WWI, where destruction and violence took place on a scale unbeknownst to the world. Author Richard Connell was a soldier in that war. He fought in France, which was host to some of the most barbaric battles of the conflict. This no doubt inspired him to draw upon the relationship of human versus animal, and instinct versus reason. 

One of the most intriguing aspects of the piece are the settings that Connell chose for the story to take place in. Connell bases the story on an island, where a large jungle is present. The author states that, “an unbroken front of snarled and ragged jungle fringed the shore.” The jungle, as characterized by many, is a place that is wild, ungovernable, and dangerous due to the uncertainty it presents. 

The jungle mirrors the personality of one of the characters in the story, General Zaroff, who is equally as unpredictable and abides by no law but that of his own. Readers soon find out that he hunts captured humans in this jungle, as it is the only thing that he finds pleasure in. He is able to control the hunt and the chase, something he could not do in the real world as a Cossack (a Russian mercenary, until the empire collapsed.) The jungle impedes all influence of civilization, and there, General Zaroff lives as he desires. Ironically enough, General Zaroff is described as a well mannered man, who dresses in his military uniform and lives in a large castle. Yet, despite his notions that he is a man of class, he hunts his own species for enjoyment. This further emphasizes the claim that man and animal are not as different as we assume. What once was thought as a wide difference, really is more of a fine line. 

Furthermore, by selecting an island as the larger setting for the piece, Connell’s characters can emulate the literal conflict of an island’s location. For instance, it is known that islands are secluded, small, and surrounded on all sides by water. A large percent of islands are uncharted, so naturally human influence and interaction are not present. Therefore, just like the jungle, the island is uncontrollable and a realm of the wild. 

This similarly characterizes Rainsford, the hunter that General Zaroff has challenged. Rainsford, who washed up on the island after his boat was sunk, is also a hunter. Before he washed up on the island, Rainsford was making fun of how his partner claimed that the animals had emotion, specifically fear. Upon hearing this, Rainsford stated that animals “have no understanding [of fear.]” However, he soon realizes that his partner is correct, as Rainsford becomes the hunted, not the hunter. As General Zaroff is chasing him across the island, Rainsford feels this very fear that he once denied. This not only embodies the idea that the island characterizes fear, but shows the internal conflict that explains how humans are no different than the animals that they claim they are above. Both experience fear, and the preconceived notion that humans are superior due to their ability to reason is destroyed. 

Overall, Richard Connell’s “Most Dangerous Game” draws on the differences between instinct versus reason to show how humans and animals are not as emotionally and intellectually separated as previously assumed. While society originally associates instinct with the wildness of animals, the same instinct can consume humans as well. Reason does not propel humans to a higher moral code, as evident with General Zaroff and Rainsford’s actions. Just as easily as we distinguish ourselves from the primitive instinct of animals, we too can just as easily become prey.