-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
what do you think about the little league world series.
- Thread starter djfrresh
- Start date
I've watched the LLWS for several years now and don't see anything unique or unusual about this year's version. The kids are having fun and competing at the same time. I haven't seen one kid yet who is significantly aware of the cameras. Obviously, you haven't caught the "umpire/player dance offs" or the mini-bicycle race around the base paths or you'd see the kids rocking out with the fans and umps too.
I played and coached LL back in the late 50's and we never had as much fun as these kids seem to be having. Nor were we nearly as good.
I played and coached LL back in the late 50's and we never had as much fun as these kids seem to be having. Nor were we nearly as good.
W
WTUX
Guest
I have been watching some of the games and it appears the kids are having a blast. They are too young to realize they should be nervous with the TV cameras all around them.
I've always found it mind boggling that we can have kids play a ton of playoff games to even reach the LLWS in Williamsport, but we can't have college-age kids (let's face it, they're still kids) from a superior football program play 2 or three extra games to decide a true national champion. 
I'll give that question a try.....
The Little League season is primarily played during out of school time (I know....it runs into the end and beginning of some school years for some teams) so it doesn't impact "real serious education" which cannot be delivered later.
The college season runs almost exclusively during the school year and athletes already lose lots of classroom time to the demands of the sport (major revenue producers for the top colleges). I know, you're going to say "but these guys are not really scholars" or something to that effect and that technically might have some validity (again, at the top achieving schools) but many, many colleges still demand education first and sports second and the NCAA must consider all its member schools and not just the football powerhouses.
Since college supposedly trains youngsters for careers maybe it is time for them to charge the NFL for being an unpaid minor league for so many years. Then we wouldn't be having any debates about education vs sports. After all, colleges have been doing research for dollars for many years. Training athletes doesn't seem to be a big stretch.
The Little League season is primarily played during out of school time (I know....it runs into the end and beginning of some school years for some teams) so it doesn't impact "real serious education" which cannot be delivered later.
The college season runs almost exclusively during the school year and athletes already lose lots of classroom time to the demands of the sport (major revenue producers for the top colleges). I know, you're going to say "but these guys are not really scholars" or something to that effect and that technically might have some validity (again, at the top achieving schools) but many, many colleges still demand education first and sports second and the NCAA must consider all its member schools and not just the football powerhouses.
Since college supposedly trains youngsters for careers maybe it is time for them to charge the NFL for being an unpaid minor league for so many years. Then we wouldn't be having any debates about education vs sports. After all, colleges have been doing research for dollars for many years. Training athletes doesn't seem to be a big stretch.
landtuna said:
To paraphrase from George Orwell's Animal Farm, all colleges are equal, but some colleges are more equal than others.
The first "A" in NCAA stands for "Athletic." That should tell people what their top priority is. It's true that football season can take up much of the first half of a school year. However, when it's bowl season, it's always during the holiday season. Most schools are on Winter Break. The schools on the Quarter System are most likely between quarters. I'm guessing that most players on a Bowl-bound team are not hitting any books. Which brings me to....
The point of the Animal Farm paraphrase. While major football powers are preparing for a bowl game with God Knows how much of a monetary payout for the participating schools, massive television exposure, and players anticipating their NFL Draft positions, lower division schools are competing in actual playoff games sanctioned by the same NCAA, and determining a true champion on the football field, as it should be.
Many of these lower division schools have stiff entrance requirements, probably stiffer than most major division football powers. While perennial power Alabama requires only a high school diploma for admission, Div. III member University of Redlands has roughly the same entrance requirements as the Ivy League schools or Stanford.
As one Div. III coach put it: "At major colleges, classes are scheduled around practice. At our level, practice is scheduled around classes."
If all the other NCAA divisions can have a playoff, why not the top level? Let's not forget the money, TV ratings, and interest such a thing would generate. I think it would outdo The Weed Wacker Bowl or The Pacific Life/Sea World/Cabrillo Monument Holiday Bowl.
I agree totally that the pretense of amateurism must be dropped. The time to pay players at the college level has come. It's hypocritical for colleges to be selling merchandise with players' likeness and images on them, and the players not getting anything out of it. With the massive amounts of money schools get from various sources, why not pay players $100 or $250 a game? It would probably cut down on booster shenanigans, and help players with expenses. In most cases, a football scholarship doesn't come close to covering all expenses, and most people don't realize that.
- Status