I would love for this to be the gold standard in NCAA football rules.

[ShotgunDawg]

Someone on this thread is teetering close to socialism.

I disagree with all out socialism, but I do think the sport would benefit by there being more good games & a reasonable path for well run programs & schools to build championship caliber programs without cheating or the all out threat of their coach leaving. I mean, Alabama hasn't lost an SEC football game in over 2 years. Regardless of how good your coach is or program is, that reeks of a non-competitive format, which is bad for the sport.

I don't have an issue with Bama & the same other teams winning most years, but I do think by creating somewhat of a ceiling & floor of power 5 talent levels, the actual games would be more competitive & compelling to go along with different story lines each year.

I have no issue with Bama having the best starting lineup in the college football. They have earned that. What I do think could be adjusted is that they shouldn't have so much talent that they have 4 & 5 star players sitting the bench & not playing. It would be better for the sport if that wasn't the case & also better for those players.

I think where this argument typically goes to hell, is that people try to make it an all-out socialism vs completely free market structure. However, I truly believe there are answers somewhere in the middle that can allow the most committed to schools to have the best chance of winning while also offering hope to those that are committed but don't have the tradition to get over the hump.