The National Football League returns on Thursday, and in anticipation of the kickoff, the AYRFSF FlynnFiles weekly pool returns tomorrow. But before all that, stand up and be counted. Let the world know your Super Bowl prediction before the season starts. Mine?

New England Patriots over Seattle Seahawks.

Issue your forecast in the comments section below. Note: Appalachian State is not an NFL team, so they are ineligible to play in the Super Bowl.

Repeat champions, Colts start to establish a dynasty as they beat the Bears.

But I don't know professional football at all.

As for college can the sports media finally get two things through its collective thick skull after this past Saturday and drop its skewed perspective on the Big Ten and on Notre Dame. Why did the sports world decide that the Big Ten was some sort of superior conference the last few years; particularly last year w/ OSU and Michigan? All that yapping about their game last year being the national championship game in all but fact was ludicrous at the time and I even predicted that Florida's defense would own OSU and a blowout by the Gators would very possibly occur. And then Michigan didn't even show up for the Rose Bowl and now App State embarrasses them beyond belief. Can we all just move along and treat the Big Ten as what it is, a decent conference but not a PAC 10 or SEC caliber conference?

And Notre Dame. My Jackets could have easily beaten them by a 50 point spread if they had even a moderately experienced QB, as it was they handed the Irish their worst home opener margin of defeat in the school's history. Aren't the Irish alum getting sick and tired of the college football world pretending they are still a powerhouse, to the tune of always ending up in a bowl game they frankly have no business being in? I bet they would love to end their NINE bowl game losing streak. That is right the mighty Irish have lost nine straight and then get stomped by Tech (a very good team but still . . . ) at home right out of the gates. Weis tried three different quarterbacks and Tech sacked each of them at least once to a total of 9 times. The irish did not score a touchdown for the first time in four years. So finally, please, for the Notre Dame fans sake, can they stop being overrated so they can start to get on track? Losing bowl games doesn't help recruiting.

I'll bite.....Patriots over Cowboys.

College football? Entertaining when you have absolutely nothing to do because, a) defenses can't tackle, and, b) One or two NFL caliber stars on a team who make the other players look gossly inferior show why the NFL is tops and why college football is just ok.

Damn. I really wanted to vote for the hillbillies.

So, next best thing: Tenn. vs. Dallas.

I disagree with asdf. The pro game is too full of stopages and is poorly paced. 20 seconds of action followed by 3 minutes of comercials. But I will bite. The Patriots will play the Bears, with the Pats on top.

Is that why the NFL is the most watched (and, I would suspect the most popular) professional league?

Unless your alma mater is playing, Saturday business does not typically stop for the NCAA. On Sundays, it does for the NFL.

Asdf. They had 105,000 in Ann Arbor this weekend. They had 90,000 at Clemson last night and they will have 106,000 in College Park on Saturday. Life stopped around Thursday of last week in those places. For this weeks Penn St Notre Dame games hotels are sold out for well over a 100 miles. This does not happen in any pro city unless it is the Super Bowl. Ncaa football has a 6-10 of these games a week for 15 weeks.

Exactly - "Unless your alma mater is playing". Or to further qualify that, unless you're g@mbling (another reserved word?) on college football.

But, with a few exceptions in terms of entertainment, I think that most every pro game (even a game between two not so serious contenders) is more exciting than your average college game.

Cowboys vs. Titans.

Despite a brilliant performance by Vince Young, Cowboys prevail to bring their number of Lombardi trophies to six.

Great site!

Would you be interested in a Link Exchange with The Internet Radio Network?

http://netradionetwork.com

asdf,

I admit that my vent was slightly off topic (only slightly as Flynn did refer to the Michigan game) but the argument you started is just ridiculous. I hear this often from people who only watch a professional league, particularly NBA and NFL fans. Do such people have some sort of complex about the popularity or caliber of play of their leagues? Or do they feel the need to justify their lack of interest in a particular sport in order to protect their masculinity from accusations?

I say this b/c it is silly to attack someone's enjoyment of a non-professional sport on the grounds that it isn't, uh, a professional sport.

Your direct claims are simply opinion and not worth arguing over (e.g. relative "excitement" level) or simply false (e.g. college defenses don't tackle and "nfl-caliber" players routinely embarrass everyone else).

Sounds more like your experience of college football has come from behind a joystick playing a video game.

And a general question for the crowd: Why is the argument from popularity such a common refrain in discussions of sports? If someone enjoys watching soccer say, then why do others have to mock them b/c soccer will never amount to more than a ripple in television ratings compared to other sports? Generally we adults recognize that the "everyone does (or watches) it" argument needs to be retired w/ adolescence, but it is a constant refrain on sports talk radio and other outlets.

Bruce,

I am a college AND professional sports fanatic. If asked which I'd prefer, a Longhorns national championship or a Cowboys Superbowl, I'd have to think about it.

Here's my opinion. I think that college football is equal in entertainment value to pro football because, unlike basketball, the stud athletes in college stay until at least their junior year (the NFL is just to brutal for 19-year-olds, I don't care how good you are). Anyone who thinks that college football is not just as entertaining, didn't see my main man Vince own the Rose Bowl a two seasons ago.

Basketball, unfortunately, is a different story. Until last season, college hoops was loosing out entirely on the best players because they were going straight from high-school to the pros. Last season the NBA passed a rule that you had to be at least 19 to enter the draft. That kept the likes of Oden and Durant in college for all of a year (Durant won NCAA player of the year, and Oden took his team to the Finals), and then they were gone. In college hoops, then, we truly have a less talented league because kids who used to play that game now just go to the pros.

If Durant and Oden, Carmello and Lebron, and all the rest stayed until at least through their junior year, college hoops would be amazing (just like college football), but for now, that's not how it is.

Batman, lighten up. I’m not attacking your enjoyment of college football. Enjoy away! I’m just saying that, from my perspective, college football is minor league football and until a selected few players make it to the bigs (i.e., the NFL), and I get to see them competing against others who are the best of the best of the best, I can’t get too excited about it.

Outside of watching certain college players of NFL caliber perform, or watching two of the better college football teams go head to head, college football is a close second to anything else there is to do.

I can certainly enjoy college football but, suffice it to say, I would not plan my day around ANY college football game as I might around certain pro games.

Still amazes me how college sport purists in general get so pi$$ed off when somebody insults their passion.

"Outside of watching certain college players of NFL caliber perform, or watching two of the better college football teams go head to head, college football is a close second to anything else there is to do."

Really? Have you see the Packers play the Lions recently? It's pretty ugly. I'd much rather watch a good Big 12 game. Consider this Saturday: No. 7 Texas vs. No. 19 TCU, No. 1 USC vs. No. 15 Nebraska, No. 8 Oklahoma against Miami, No. 2 LSU vs. No. 9 Viginia Tech. You'd be hard pressed to find four games on Sunday that are as interesting as those.

New England Patriots over New Orleans Saints

ASDF,

I am not taking umbrage at what you personally find more or less entertaining. My annoyance (and it is a pet peeve of mine hence the irritation) is over the complete dismissal of college football and indicating astonishment that anyone could possibly enjoy it. Even when you make exception for when one's alma mater plays.

Same for Ralph w/ college basketball. I guess I do not see why the mere fact that one can find a sport being played at a higher level w/ a greater caliber of talent is an argument to dismiss the value of leagues that play at a qualitatively lesser level? I don't have an issue w/ anyone not finding college basketball much fun and preferring the NBA, same w/ football. But it is the same thing as if one were to, say, enjoy watching the little league world series and someone says "dude that stinks, their is way more talent in high school baseball," and so on up the chain to the Major Leagues.

Parity of talent and less extraordinary talent creates TEAM competition that is imo very similar in excitement to that in a higher league. And when you see the best at that level competing against each other you are witnessing real striving for excellence which is always admirable.

For example, if you had the chance or inclination to watch the LLWS championship game and saw Japan and Warner Robbins GA go to extra innings only to have Dalton Carriker hit a dramatic walk off home run for Georgia, I suspect you would have found that competition quite exciting despite being played by 12 year olds. I think that that game which was played at the highest level of excellence achievable by 12/13 year olds was simply a better game to watch then any number of Major League ball games one can imagine, such as say a late September game between the Pirates and the Nationals, or the Devil Rays and the Royals. Clearlytalent level is greater at the higher level but as for entertaining and well played and meaningful game (relative to level) the LLWS beats those.

I agree with Bruce. In fact, taking the logic of "higher levels of play = more worthy of being watched" people should only want to watch NFL games between teams such as the New England Patriots and the San Diego Chargers. Since these teams are more talented than other teams in the league, it follows that they would be more worth watching than the New York Jets, even if the Jets are your hometeam.

Bruce,

Why are we interested in the Little League World Series? Why does it get broadcast on ESPN? The principal reason, it seems to me, can be captured by the following observation "Wow, that kid can really pitch for a 12-year-old!" Obviously, the Little League champions would get annihilated by the worst MLB team (say, the Rangers). But that's not how I measure them. I say, "In relation to their peers, that's great baseball."

The same applies to college football. We're interested in the best among a class of peers. In this case, 18-22-year-olds. Obvioulsy, the worst NFL team would pound the NCAA National Champions, just as the NCAA Natinoal Champions would pound the best high-school teams in the country. But that won't stop me from eagerly anticipating ESPN's broadcast of Southlake Carroll (the best high-school team in Texas) vs. Miami Northwestern (one of the best high-school teams in Florida).

However, if the NFL came up with a farm system like MLB's so that most of the great high-school players skipped college, the entertainment value of the college game would be greatly diminished. Not because the teams are less talented than the NFL, but because they're less talented than what they used to be, or what they ought to be.

It's for just these reasons that I don't watch follow Division II college football or the NIT tournament in college hoops. They are simply not as entertaining as the DI bowl series or the NCAA tournament.

Ralph.

I have never agreed w/ something you have written more than the above.

We are totally on the same page. I had a longtime back had the sort of argument w/ you about college bball specifically similar to the one w/ asdf over college football. That is how I was roping you in a bit on my pet peeve.

But I completely agree about the way you describe enjoying excellence of athletic performance relative to age/talent level. That is why I am a "sports" fan, I can watch something and appreciate it when it is clearly being done at the highest level possible for some group or individuals. This goes for even non-athletic competitions that I have an interest in, such as p-oker, or chess.

And at the different levels many other things factor into the appeal than just raw talent which exists most at the highest levels. Which is why that LLWS game was quality entertainment, and why college football can likewise be even compared to the NFL.