How Many More Titles Can Bama Win Before The NCAA Makes Rule Changes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tbonewannabe

Miami won 4 titles in 9 years. The biggest difference is now college football coaches aren't getting poached by the NFL. Saban would have had his salary doubled by the Cleveland Browns in previous eras. Bama will be good and still possibly great if they get Dabo to come "home" but there will be a drop off after Saban retires.

I think the 25 signing class being a hard line and now with the early signing period, those are direct shots to Bama and other big schools. They can't just poach guys at the last second if they miss on someone with the early signing period. They also can't sign guys to keep them away from other schools only to offer a grey shirt in May. The only other thing I see that Bama has over other schools would be to put a limit on non coaching staff. Bama has more "analysts" or other off the field coaching positions than some teams have entire staffs. It is a loophole that probably needs to be closed. It gives them the opportunity to prepare more than other schools who would be "under staffed" in these positions.

---

Exactly. A lot of people probably never thought Alabama would cycle out when Bear Bryant was their coach- well as we all know it did cycle out once the Bear left. Until they got Saban. And now the same thing will happen once Saban decides to leave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrunswickDawg

Personally, I'd prefer the Relegation model with tiered conferences that SB Nation has been advocating - https://www.sbnation.com/college-foo...ion-simulation

Can you imagine a 1 game playoff between OM and Vandy to see who gets dropped to the Sun Belt??? I'd pay to watch it.

---

If Ole Miss ever drops down to the Sun Belt I'm driving to Oxford and I will be driving around their campus laughing my ass off at them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd4State

If Ole Miss ever drops down to the Sun Belt I'm driving to Oxford and I will be driving around their campus laughing my ass off at them.

---

https://scontent-sea1-1.cdninstagram...EzMg%3D%3D.2.c

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spiderman

My point is that's BS. Other teams can win titles too. Other than Bama having 2 of the Top 5 coaches of all time, how many did they win?

You can't legislate against that.

That's communism, basically.

---

What?s communist about allowing players that don?t play to transfer without penalty?

I don?t understand your stance. Seems like a win/win

I think it's an easy fix. I propose any scholarship that is offered must be honoured. No more stringing kids along and playing the "bigger better deal package". If you offer a kid he can commit at any time and it's locked in. The exception would be not meeting academic standards or breaking the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

What?s communist about allowing players that don?t play to transfer without penalty?

I don?t understand your stance. Seems like a win/win

---

it was (mostly) a joke about "redistribution"...

The whole idea of the governmental philosophy of Communism/Socialism is to take from those that "have" and give to those that "have not" in hopes of "leveling the playing field"...

What many don't understand is that the top echelon of "haves" won't be affected regardless of philosophy...

The more I've thought about your transfer idea, the more I like it... Bammer's composite talent would improve...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bulldawg28

I think it's an easy fix. I propose any scholarship that is offered must be honoured. No more stringing kids along and playing the "bigger better deal package". If you offer a kid he can commit at any time and it's locked in. The exception would be not meeting academic standards or breaking the law.

---

I like this idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUSK

it was (mostly) a joke about "redistribution"...

The whole idea of the governmental philosophy of Communism/Socialism is to take from those that "have" and give to those that "have not" in hopes of "leveling the playing field"...

What many don't understand is that the top echelon of "haves" won't be affected regardless of philosophy...

The more I've thought about your transfer idea, the more I like it... Bammer's composite talent would improve...

---

The haves will end up with more under a more socialist economy. The difference is that by taking a little more from the haves and giving it to the have nots, the have nots now have more $$ to spend on the goods and services from the haves, which drives up demand, which creates jobs to meet that demand. A trickle up economy is far more sustainable and driven by demand. Trickle down makes no sense because if there’s no demand, no amount of tax cuts are going to grow jobs. Sure, the money ends up in the same hands, but we at least have an economy churning with more people with more disposable income to buy shit, whereas trickle down is proven to stagnate a lot of $$ at the top of the economy while drying up demand at the bottom, which leads to jobs cuts (no good businessman is gonna keep unnecessary employees on the books because they got a tax cut).

So basically I’m failing to see how this all relates to CFB.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawgs

The haves will end up with more under a more socialist economy. The difference is that by taking a little more from the haves and giving it to the have nots, the have nots now have more $$ to spend on the goods and services from the haves, which drives up demand, which creates jobs to meet that demand. A trickle up economy is far more sustainable and driven by demand. Trickle down makes no sense because if there’s no demand, no amount of tax cuts are going to grow jobs. Sure, the money ends up in the same hands, but we at least have an economy churning with more people with more disposable income to buy shit, whereas trickle down is proven to stagnate a lot of $$ at the top of the economy while drying up demand at the bottom, which leads to jobs cuts (no good businessman is gonna keep unnecessary employees on the books because they got a tax cut).

So basically I’m failing to see how this all relates to CFB.

---

Ya oughta re-post this on the Poly Board... I think you'd enjoy it there*...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Commercecomet24

I like this idea.

---

It would even the playing field and spread more talent and lesser talent to teams.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matty Dispatch

College football needs to adopt an NFL scheduling model, because what we have now is ridiculous. The gap between P5 and G5 continues to grow, especially as coordinator salaries go over $1 million and are reaching $2 million, G5 schools will be unable to hire them as HC. They need to be two separate divisions. P5 schools should play 8 conference games and 1 game from every other P5 league. 6 home games, 6 away games. The current model with G5 and FCS games completely wastes 1/4 of the entire season's schedule....no one really cares anymore, and that is shown in the attendance of those games.

But salary caps and drafting players is stupid. If the P5 broke off into it's own division they could establish a threshold to pay players, then enable them to offer three levels of salaries above their academic scholarships. Level 1: $30K per year (5) Level 2: $20K per year (10) Level 3: $10K per year. Those difference salary levels would even the playing field as four and five star athletes would spread themselves out to ensure getting a Level 1 salary.

Then maybe as an incentive to stay 4 years, there's a carrot of $100K bonus if you graduate. Maybe that would stop some of the poor decisions to declare for the NFL draft too early.

---

Did you even put a calculator to what you proposed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawgs

The haves will end up with more under a more socialist economy. The difference is that by taking a little more from the haves and giving it to the have nots, the have nots now have more $$ to spend on the goods and services from the haves, which drives up demand, which creates jobs to meet that demand. A trickle up economy is far more sustainable and driven by demand. Trickle down makes no sense because if there’s no demand, no amount of tax cuts are going to grow jobs. Sure, the money ends up in the same hands, but we at least have an economy churning with more people with more disposable income to buy shit, whereas trickle down is proven to stagnate a lot of $$ at the top of the economy while drying up demand at the bottom, which leads to jobs cuts (no good businessman is gonna keep unnecessary employees on the books because they got a tax cut).

So basically I’m failing to see how this all relates to CFB.

---

Name one socialist economy that has been / is successful and thriving. The socialist utopian theory does not ever translate to actuality. They all fail. Quite quickly, actually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ababyatemydingo

Name one socialist economy that has been / is successful and thriving. The socialist utopian theory does not ever translate to actuality. They all fail. Quite quickly, actually.

---

Yeah but most of these ideas are socialist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ababyatemydingo

Did you even put a calculator to what you proposed?

---

Take 4 years of signing classes x 25 signees = 100 scholarships. 20 Level 1s = $600,000, 40 Level 2s = $800,000 and 40 Level 1s = $400,000. That's a total of $1.8 million. Since there are only 85 scholarships, take the average amount of each scholarship over those 100 signees ($18,000) x the 85 = $1.53 million. It wouldn't take much scaling back on coaching salaries to come up with that money.

The average graduation rate right now is roughly 15 players per year. With a $100,000 carrot at the end, let's say that jumps to 20 per year. So $2 million paid out in bonuses. That probably wouldn't work under the current structure, but if they did as I proposes by playing 12 P5 games, that would greatly increase TV and ticket revenue to easily offset that $2 million and then make a bunch of money on top of it for the athletic departments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

None of your answers help MSU in any way. Sorry try again

I?ll stick with my idea about players getting a 1 time immediately eligible transfer if they don?t play 35% or greater snaps after their 2nd or 3rd year on campus

My issue with Bama has never been the starters. It?s the 4 & 5 star guys on the bench that don?t play that could be starting or in the 2 deep for 2nd tier schools that bother me.

Allow a redistribution of the talent and I think you see a more even playing field even though Bama would technically still be the best team.

---

So your issue with BAMA is their freedom to recruit good players, and those good players freedom to come in and compete for a job with other good players, but likely having to wait their turn? Your proposal doesn't sound anything like college football, or even America.

Welcome to the dictatorship of ShotgonDawg. Now stand in line for a week for your single roll of toilet paper and moldy bread.

When players come to BAMA they know what they are getting. They get a chance to play for a championship, a chance to compete for playing time, and the best program in college football for putting players in the league. A chance...that's all they get at BAMA. The rest is up to them.

Again, players like Knott and Lashley know what they are getting themselves into when they sign with BAMA. Over the last 10 years, many players have waited until their junior or senior years to be full time starters at BAMA and been drafted in the first two rounds. It's part of it. Neither Lashley nor Knott's career at Alabama is over, but likely rather just beginning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Token Bammer

So your issue with BAMA is their freedom to recruit good players, and those good players freedom to come in and compete for a job with other good players, but likely having to wait their turn? Your proposal doesn't sound anything like college football, or even America.

Welcome to the dictatorship of ShotgonDawg. Now stand in line for a week for your single roll of toilet paper and moldy bread.

When players come to BAMA they know what they are getting. They get a chance to play for a championship, a chance to compete for playing time, and the best program in college football for putting players in the league. A chance...that's all they get at BAMA. The rest is up to them.

Again, players like Knott and Lashley know what they are getting themselves into when they sign with BAMA. Over the last 10 years, many players have waited until their junior or senior years to be full time starters at BAMA and been drafted in the first two rounds. It's part of it. Neither Lashley nor Knott's career at Alabama is over, but likely rather just beginning.

---

You betta be careful, Comrade... You might get sent off for "reeducation"...

http://chineseposters.net/images/e15-35.jpg

So far I've seen exactly two ideas in this thread that don't make me cringe a little:
1) Limiting non-coach analysts
2) Requiring schools to honor scholarships once they've been offered (for one year).

The rest of these are unworkable and a quick way to reduce college football from 130+ teams right down to around 30 teams. Quit trying to make it like the NFL. If I want to watch the NFL there are 3 nights a week during the season I can watch the NFL.

I think the main issue many of us take with Bama is their power to get highly-rated but not elite players to come sit on their bench for at least 3-4 years then maybe play a meaningful part as a junior or senior (or maybe not), when they could play a lot and even start almost immediately at many other schools. If not for that, I don't think there would be nearly as much complaining about their recruiting prowess. I can't say it doesn't frustrate me as well, but there's not much to rationally do about it because,

1.) Most 17 or 18-year-old D1 football recruits are confident, cocky, and believe they are the baddest mf'er on the board no matter what the recruiting rankings say and can compete anywhere with anyone. They don't see their true level of ability and aren't thinking about how it fits into depth charts like we do.

2.) No matter how recruits see their situation, if they want to sit on Bama's bench their whole career, that's their prerogative. Doing anything to take away from that completely free choice will only hurt the sport in the long run, as has already been discussed in this thread. And frankly, I question the competitive spirit of the handful of prospects who do understand that they're going to sit on the bench for a long time when they could play right away somewhere else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matty Dispatch

Take 4 years of signing classes x 25 signees = 100 scholarships. 20 Level 1s = $600,000, 40 Level 2s = $800,000 and 40 Level 1s = $400,000. That's a total of $1.8 million. Since there are only 85 scholarships, take the average amount of each scholarship over those 100 signees ($18,000) x the 85 = $1.53 million. It wouldn't take much scaling back on coaching salaries to come up with that money.

The average graduation rate right now is roughly 15 players per year. With a $100,000 carrot at the end, let's say that jumps to 20 per year. So $2 million paid out in bonuses. That probably wouldn't work under the current structure, but if they did as I proposes by playing 12 P5 games, that would greatly increase TV and ticket revenue to easily offset that $2 million and then make a bunch of money on top of it for the athletic departments.

---

The schools with less resources will still get left in the dust. Including us. The schools with little to no tv money would be obliterated under this plan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuadrupleOption

So far I've seen exactly two ideas in this thread that don't make me cringe a little:
1) Limiting non-coach analysts
2) Requiring schools to honor scholarships once they've been offered (for one year).

The rest of these are unworkable and a quick way to reduce college football from 130+ teams right down to around 30 teams. Quit trying to make it like the NFL. If I want to watch the NFL there are 3 nights a week during the season I can watch the NFL.

---

It would be nice if MSU, or Iowa State, or Kentucky, or three dozen other school had a snowball's chance in hell to win something significant. College football is romanticized because players are doing it "for the love of the game". Well, they are getting a scholarship too, and many wouldn't be playing if they weren't. You can structure CFB like the NFL but still have all the tailgating and the traditions and the band and the cheerleaders and all the things you love about CFB. Except it would be better because teams other than the same handful could actually win something.