Was college football fandom better then or now?

Let’s take a trip on the college football carousel, shall we? We’ll take a look at a few facets of college football and decide whether each has gotten better or worse over the last few decades. Also, add your own in the comments.

Better in the past.

Remember those days when major-conference teams actually played teams from other major conferences? In 1990, Colorado won the national championship in a season in which the Buffs’ September schedule was No. 8 Tennessee, Stanford, No. 22 Texas, No. 21 Washington, and No. 21 Illinois. You think we’re ever going to see a national contender play a slate like that again?

Three decades ago, Auburn opened the 1984 season with a neutral-site game against Miami and then a road game against Texas, all in a season in which the Tigers would also play Florida State and Georgia Tech outside of the league. And that kind of September schedule was the norm.

The modern era gives us a big-money out-of-conference game or two, but follows it with weeks of dead air until conference play. In 2014, likely No. 1 Florida State will play Oklahoma State, but it will then play The Citadel. LSU and Wisconsin will open against each other, but between them they’ll also play Bowling Green, New Mexico State, Sam Houston State, ULM, USF, and Western Illinois this September.

Worse in the past.

Greed giveth, and greed taketh away. The desire to make every last cent has also pushed major conferences into having their own championship games. This means that instead of the season ending on Thanksgiving weekend or often, on the weekend prior, we now get a smorgasbord of quality, high-stakes games in early December. The regular season doesn’t go out like a whimper like it did when I was a kid. So thanks to former SEC commissioner Roy Kramer for figuring out that playing an extra big game was a good way to put the conference further in the black.

Equipment aesthetics
Better in the past.

Back then, skill-position players wore two-bar masks and linemen wore intimidating cages that were befitting of trench warriors. A viewer could look at a helmet and know who was who.

And what happened to the ultimate sign of linebacker masculinity: the neck roll? “My neck is going to see so much action that I need to give it its own car seat.”

Worse in the past.

I have to admit that I prefer a world in which the NCAA has just given up trying to enforce its rules against players receiving extra benefits. For one thing, the players deserve more compensation.

For another, if you start from the base position that players receiving extra benefits is inevitable and the only question is the degree, then why should certain teams suffer massive sanctions because of payments made years ago? NCAA enforcement was always a matter of random chance anyway, so why should it play a significant role in deciding the fates of teams and coaches?

Why should Oregon not get to compete for the national title because the prior coach might have paid a talent scout in Texas to bring in a running back who transferred anyway? In the old days, we had to deal with the silly fiction of Florida having to hang separate “First in the SEC” banners for their conference titles in ‘84 and ‘90. Enough with the fiction.

So, Mark Emmert, thanks for giving up. Now might I suggest that a similarly supine approach might make sense in the Ed O’Bannon case?

Worse in the past.

For those of you who grew up in the Internet era, imagine a world without team-specific blogs. Imagine that opinion is driven entirely by fossilized columnists who think that one-sentence paragraphs are the height of style. Imagine a total dearth of information about teams outside of your region.

As far as television goes, imagine a world where Kirk Herbstreit and Chris Fowler are replaced by MIke Francesa -- a New Yorker with no college football background other than a deep, abiding love for Notre Dame -- bloviating on CBS. Imagine five or fewer games per Saturday on TV instead of 50.

This one is not even up for discussion.

Better in the past.

College football coaches used to dress like grown-ups. And not just Howard Schnellenberger. The SEC was replete with men in tweed coats, guys like Pat Dye, Gene Stallings, and Johnny Majors, who provoked thoughts like, “I wonder if he can drink a fifth of bourbon in 30 minutes,” or, “let me list the woodland creatures that can understand his growls better than humans.” The Big Ten had Earle Bruce’s kick-ass hats. The Pac-10 had Terry Donahue’s array of sweaters.

And now, just about every coach is a billboard for team apparel. With Jim Tressel’s “insurance agent who isn’t telling you about some major policy exclusions” sweater vests gone to academia, there isn’t a single major coach whose outfits are in any way distinct or stylish. Personally, I got to experience Elvis’s upper/downer cycle on Fall weekends in 2011 when my two favorite teams were coached by the immaculately attired Pep Guardiola (see, there is one sport where coaches haven’t turned themselves into billboards for Nike and adidas) and the “bringing Midwestern slob chic back” Brady Hoke.

Better in the past. Miami. Hurricanes. Best villains ever.

Better in the past.

First, bowl games have gotten so common that it is no longer an achievement to play past November. Any time you see a statistic that goes along the lines of “team X played Y bowl teams” or “team Z has been to bowl games in five straight years for the first time in decades,” you know immediately that someone is trying to mislead with a devalued stat that trades on memory of an era when 6-6 teams didn’t make bowl games.

Second, the names are just embarrassing. When college football fans are being mocked by NFL fans for crass commercialism, something is definitely wrong.

Better now.

Isn’t it a treat to know something about players before they come to school? If we are going to be made to suffer through blowouts against FCS opponents, then at least we get to see the younger backups so we can start matching up players to recruiting profiles.

And recruiting results give fans a good yardstick against which to measure coaches and programs. For instance, is it fair to judge a program for middling results when it is stuck in an area of the country that the recruiting rankings reflect is bereft of talent? And is it fair to judge a coach for middling results when we know that his predecessor was a weak recruiter and the new coach is bringing in better players who need time to mature? More than anything else, the recruiting analysis industry has made college football fans smarter.

What other parts of college football have gotten significantly more or less enjoyable over the last few decades?