Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 69

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

  1. #21
    TheDynastyIsDead TUSK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    In your head.
    Posts
    13,203
    vCash
    1000619
    Quote Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg View Post
    Ok, I realize that many here will say that the rules won't change, but there has to be a line right?

    Bama has won 5 of the last 9 National Titles & was in another championship game.

    Bama has only played in 3 games over the past decade in which they were out of contention for the national championship.

    We saw scholarship reductions to 95 in 1978 to 85 in 1992. Bear Bryant won titles in 73, 78, & 79.

    Question is: how many more years can the Bama dynasty last before rule changes are made?

    Are we close or are we still aways away?

    Is the next move a scholarship limit reduction or a dramatic change in how schools acquire players?
    Well, they've already changed the post season from the 2 team BCS format to a 4 team playoff. It's my opinion that was done to prevent an All-SEC final. When "they" went to 4 teams bc of all the crying, I was steadily smiling. All that was going to do was INCREASE the odds of an All-SEC final. And if/when "they" go to 8 teams (bc of all the crying), I will smile even bigger and then retroactively claim the 2010 NC.

    The dynasty will die, they all do... will it be 3 years? 5? I dunno, but it will croak.

    Scholarship Reductions? That would help, but it probably wouldn't mitigate much of the disparity between the current Ohio States, Alabamas, Clemsons, etc and the others. Those schools would probably see their actual "average recruit ranking" increase, but depth would be negatively impacted. I don't think Bammer would have stood a snowball's chance in hell of going 13-1 this past season with all the injuries if the scholarship numbers were drastically lower. Conversely, non "blue blood" programs would have almost zero margin of error, as well. Adding MORE playoff teams would help bigtime programs, IMO.

    Ncaa HS player draft? No.

    Now, what would be effective?

    1) Have ONLY conference champs eligible for the playoffs. And, as soon as that happens, an MSU, USCe, or Iowa (historical type team) will go 11-1 in the regular season with a decent SOS and victory margin only to lose on a blocked punt for a TD as time expires to their eventual conference champ. Then, the aforementioned team (prolly ranked in the Top 5), would get supplanted in the playoffs by a #18 UCF (12-0) with an SOS of 854...

    2) Put a quota on the number of times one can go to the playoffs. Yeah, unless I see the modern day equivalent of a Soviet T-72 Tank rolling down my driveway, that ain't happenin'...

    3) Create a separate "league". Perhaps with an NFL affiliation (I dunno). Just spitballin', here:

    SEC - Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Tennessee?
    PAC - USC, Oregon
    B1G - OSU, Michigan, PSU, Wisky?
    B12 - Oklahoma, Texas, TCU?
    ACC - Miami, Clemson, FSU, VT?
    Ind - ND

    4) Or, we can just wait.

    Sorry for the atypically long winded post... I ain't goin' outside today, so yall are stuck with me allllllll day...
    Last edited by TUSK; 01-16-2018 at 03:06 PM.
    "It is not courage to resist TUSK; It is courage to accept TUSK."

    No.


    Easy there buddy. Tusk is...well Tusk is Tusk. Tireddawg 12.20.17

  2. #22
    Senior Member ShotgunDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    37,276
    vCash
    3700
    Quote Originally Posted by TUSK View Post
    Well, they've already changed the post season from the 2 team BCS format to a 4 team playoff. It's my opinion that was done to prevent an All-SEC final. When "they" went to 4 teams bc of all the crying, I was steadily smiling. All that was going to do was INCREASE the odds of an All-SEC final. And if/when "they" go to 8 teams (bc of all the crying), I will smile even bigger and then retroactively claim the 2010 NC.

    The dynasty will die, they all do... will it be 3 years? 5? I dunno, but it will croak.

    Scholarship Reductions? That would help, but it probably wouldn't mitigate much of the disparity between the current Ohio States, Alabamas, Clemsons, etc and the others. Those schools would probably see their actual "average recruit ranking" increase, but depth would be negatively impacted. I don't think Bammer would have stood a snowball's chance in hell of going 13-1 this past season with all the injuries if the scholarship numbers were drastically lower. Conversely, non "blue blood" programs would have almost zero margin of error, as well. Adding MORE playoff teams would help bigtime programs, IMO.

    Ncaa HS player draft? No.

    Now, what would be effective?

    1) Have ONLY conference champs eligible for the playoffs. And, as soon as that happens, an MSU, USCe, or Iowa (historical type team) will go 11-1 in the regular season with a decent SOS and victory margin only to lose on a blocked punt for a TD as time expires to their eventual conference champ. Then, the aforementioned team (prolly ranked in the Top 5), would get supplanted in the playoffs by a #18 UCF (12-0) with an SOS of 854...

    2) Put a quota on the number of times one can go to the playoffs. Yeah, unless I see the modern day equivalent of a Soviet T-72 Tank rolling down my driveway, that ain't happenin'...

    3) Create a separate "league". Perhaps with an NFL affiliation (I dunno). Just spitballin', here:

    SEC - Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Tennessee?
    PAC - USC, Oregon
    B1G - OSU, Michigan, PSU, Wisky?
    B12 - Oklahoma, Texas, TCU?
    ACC - Miami, Clemson, FSU, VT?
    Ind - ND

    4) Or, we can just wait.

    Sorry for the atypically long winded post... I ain't goin' outside today, so yall are stuck with me allllllll day...
    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.
    Last edited by ShotgunDawg; 01-16-2018 at 03:22 PM.

  3. #23
    Senior Member ShotgunDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    37,276
    vCash
    3700
    Or creat a relegation system for transfers.

    At the end of every season, the playoff committee makes a top 15 ranking. Any players from any school can transfer and be immediately eligible, but, if you transfer to a school in the top 15, you have to sit a year, but, if you transfer to a school outside the top 15, you are immediately eligible.

    This would ensure that players that transferring would be seeking a better situation for their career than just chasing a ring and propping up a blue blood
    Last edited by ShotgunDawg; 01-16-2018 at 03:30 PM.

  4. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Gold, Mississippi
    Posts
    26,385
    vCash
    1094082
    Quote Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg View Post
    Or creat a relegation system for transfers.

    At the end of every season, the playoff committee makes a top 15 ranking. Any players from any school can transfer and be immediately eligible, but, if you transfer to a school in the top 15, you have to sit a year, but, if you transfer to a school outside the top 15, you are immediately eligible.

    This would ensure that players that transferring would be seeking a better situation for their career than just chasing a ring and propping up a blue blood
    You've left the reservation. Life isn't fair and neither is college football.

  5. #25
    TheDynastyIsDead TUSK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    In your head.
    Posts
    13,203
    vCash
    1000619
    Quote Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg View Post
    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.
    That would work. What do you think would be the best method?

    Post signing period, MSU could pick 1 recruit each off of Ohio State, Bama, etc? Also, would the players be allowed to be redistributed a 2nd or 3rd time in order to be fair to 3rd tier teams? e.g. MSU gets Shavers from Alabama because they need a WR; Can USM take Shavers from USM bc they need a WR? Or can USM grab Simmons from MSU because they want a DL?

    Additionally, Bammer has guys that could start most anywhere, immediately, but are willing to wait a year or two (and, sometimes, 3)... should the athlete's desires be taken into account, or should he be forced to be "redistributed" against his will?

    I think a more fair thing would be to just reduce scholarship limits for the Alabama's and the Ohio State's while increasing limits for others... not that that's "fair"...

    As far as transfer go, I'm cool with them goin' anywhere they like and NOT sitting out... Players transferring out actually helps Bama, IMO...
    "It is not courage to resist TUSK; It is courage to accept TUSK."

    No.


    Easy there buddy. Tusk is...well Tusk is Tusk. Tireddawg 12.20.17

  6. #26
    Senior Member Tbonewannabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    10,651
    vCash
    3500
    Quote Originally Posted by TUSK View Post
    That would work. What do you think would be the best method?

    Post signing period, MSU could pick 1 recruit each off of Ohio State, Bama, etc? Also, would the players be allowed to be redistributed a 2nd or 3rd time in order to be fair to 3rd tier teams? e.g. MSU gets Shavers from Alabama because they need a WR; Can USM take Shavers from USM bc they need a WR? Or can USM grab Simmons from MSU because they want a DL?

    Additionally, Bammer has guys that could start most anywhere, immediately, but are willing to wait a year or two (and, sometimes, 3)... should the athlete's desires be taken into account, or should he be forced to be "redistributed" against his will?

    I think a more fair thing would be to just reduce scholarship limits for the Alabama's and the Ohio State's while increasing limits for others... not that that's "fair"...

    As far as transfer go, I'm cool with them goin' anywhere they like and NOT sitting out... Players transferring out actually helps Bama, IMO...
    The only way to "redistribute" athletes is to maybe allow transfers without sitting out from any team that made the playoff or in the top ten. It gives someone like Jalen Hurts the ability to go somewhere else without losing a year. It also gives Bama the ability to sign 25 every year without having to put guys on "medical waiver" so they can still pursue a football career.

    At the end of the day, Saban will eventually retire and Bama will take a step back. The only real rule I would like to see is the support staff get limited. Even Bama having former players on their scout team should count as support staff the same way as Boobie Dixon should count for us. I don't blame Saban for doing all of this because there isn't a rule against it.

  7. #27
    Senior Member ShotgunDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    37,276
    vCash
    3700
    Quote Originally Posted by Dawg61 View Post
    You've left the reservation. Life isn't fair and neither is college football.
    Just an idea bud.

    Throw enough stuff at the wall and you find something.

    Your right, college football isn’t fair, but that doesn’t mean we can’t make it better.

    Is it fair to Lashley or Nigel Knott right now that they can’t transfer without wasting a year of eligibility?

    I’m Just trying to find some win/win type rules that help both the player and sport.

    A draft isn’t a win/win. It doesn’t benefit the player.

    Working with transfer rules so that players who could start elsewhere aren’t punished for transferring seems like a worthy cause.
    Last edited by ShotgunDawg; 01-16-2018 at 04:13 PM.

  8. #28
    Senior Member ShotgunDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    37,276
    vCash
    3700
    Quote Originally Posted by TUSK View Post
    That would work. What do you think would be the best method?

    Post signing period, MSU could pick 1 recruit each off of Ohio State, Bama, etc? Also, would the players be allowed to be redistributed a 2nd or 3rd time in order to be fair to 3rd tier teams? e.g. MSU gets Shavers from Alabama because they need a WR; Can USM take Shavers from USM bc they need a WR? Or can USM grab Simmons from MSU because they want a DL?

    Additionally, Bammer has guys that could start most anywhere, immediately, but are willing to wait a year or two (and, sometimes, 3)... should the athlete's desires be taken into account, or should he be forced to be "redistributed" against his will?

    I think a more fair thing would be to just reduce scholarship limits for the Alabama's and the Ohio State's while increasing limits for others... not that that's "fair"...

    As far as transfer go, I'm cool with them goin' anywhere they like and NOT sitting out... Players transferring out actually helps Bama, IMO...
    It’s up to the players if they want to transfer. Schools don’t get to pick anyone.

    I used the 35% of snaps qualifier to ensure that players are transferring to better their career and not to chase a ring. Then it would be their decision if they want to transfer. A player that plays 5 snaps all year doesn’t have to go anywhere. He can stay at Bama but would have the option of immediate transfer if he wanted.

    I don’t see why Bama fans would be against this. The only players that would be leaving aren’t ones that are actually playing for them?

    Your response made it seem like my idea was joke or as if you didn’t understand it. Does this proposal scare you? Again, none of the players that actually play a significantly amount of snaps for you would be eligible transfer.

    It’s a win/win. What’s the issue?
    Last edited by ShotgunDawg; 01-16-2018 at 04:15 PM.

  9. #29
    Senior Member Tbonewannabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    10,651
    vCash
    3500
    Quote Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg View Post
    It’s up to the players if they want to transfer. Schools don’t get to pick anyone.

    I used the 35% of snaps qualifier to ensure that players are transferring to better their career and not to chase a ring. Then it would be their decision if they want to transfer. A player that plays 5 snaps all year doesn’t have to go anywhere. He can stay at Bama but would have the option of immediate transfer if he wanted.

    I don’t see why Bama fans would be against this. The only players that would be leaving aren’t ones that are actually playing for them?

    Your response made it seem like my idea was joke or as if you didn’t understand it. Does this proposal scare you? Again, none of the players that actually play a significantly amount of snaps for you would be eligible transfer.

    It’s a win/win. What’s the issue?
    This is probably the best I have seen as far as transferring goes. It would have to be enough to prevent losing the 2nd string depth that plays a good amount of snaps. I think you hit upon a good idea.

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    6,800
    vCash
    3100
    None of my State or UNM friends even care about watching bama games anymore unless it's hoping that they will lose. My wife's uncle from just across the MS. line asks me every Sunday at church if I'm going to watch that week's bama game. I reply that their games are boring to a non-bama fan. He admitted that he sometimes feels the same way until the playoffs. Another bama fan at church told me "haters gonna hate" when referring to bama dominance by fans from other schools. How many off the field analysts do they have? The playing field is very uneven when it comes to bama.

  11. #31
    TheDynastyIsDead TUSK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    In your head.
    Posts
    13,203
    vCash
    1000619
    Quote Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg View Post
    It’s up to the players if they want to transfer. Schools don’t get to pick anyone.

    I used the 35% of snaps qualifier to ensure that players are transferring to better their career and not to chase a ring. Then it would be their decision if they want to transfer. A player that plays 5 snaps all year doesn’t have to go anywhere. He can stay at Bama but would have the option of immediate transfer if he wanted.

    I don’t see why Bama fans would be against this. The only players that would be leaving aren’t ones that are actually playing for them?

    Your response made it seem like my idea was joke or as if you didn’t understand it. Does this proposal scare you? Again, none of the players that actually play a significantly amount of snaps for you would be eligible transfer.

    It’s a win/win. What’s the issue?
    Not at all... In fact, I'd love to free up scholarships by culling players that aren't good enough to contribute... It happens a BUNCH, now... I'm all for anything that makes that easier, and, in turn, makes Bammer better.
    "It is not courage to resist TUSK; It is courage to accept TUSK."

    No.


    Easy there buddy. Tusk is...well Tusk is Tusk. Tireddawg 12.20.17

  12. #32
    Senior Member ShotgunDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    37,276
    vCash
    3700
    Quote Originally Posted by TUSK View Post
    Not at all... In fact, I'd love to free up scholarships by culling players that aren't good enough to contribute... It happens a BUNCH, now... I'm all for anything that makes that easier, and, in turn, makes Bammer better.

    Deal then. It’s a win/win for everyone.

    Let’s call the NCAA and get this done.

  13. #33
    TheDynastyIsDead TUSK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    In your head.
    Posts
    13,203
    vCash
    1000619
    Quote Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg View Post
    Deal then. It’s a win/win for everyone.

    Let’s call the NCAA and get this done.
    I'll talk to my people at the REC.... We're building a Nick Saban snowman later today.*
    "It is not courage to resist TUSK; It is courage to accept TUSK."

    No.


    Easy there buddy. Tusk is...well Tusk is Tusk. Tireddawg 12.20.17

  14. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    4,874
    vCash
    3828
    Quote Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg View Post
    Just an idea bud.

    Throw enough stuff at the wall and you find something.

    Your right, college football isn’t fair, but that doesn’t mean we can’t make it better.

    Is it fair to Lashley or Nigel Knott right now that they can’t transfer without wasting a year of eligibility?

    I’m Just trying to find some win/win type rules that help both the player and sport.

    A draft isn’t a win/win. It doesn’t benefit the player.

    Working with transfer rules so that players who could start elsewhere aren’t punished for transferring seems like a worthy cause.
    Thoughts on Lashley and Knott: 1) they should have thought about playing time before signing with Bama (if it was important to them) 2) we should have done a better job recruiting them 3) I hope our staff uses examples like this during recruiting to show kids what might happen if they go there.
    This post isn’t a knock on your hypothetical rule changes. Just things I thought of when I saw their names

  15. #35
    Senior Member msstate7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    72,078
    vCash
    10439
    What is the nfl gonna do about the patriots dominance? Re-draft every year? Bama is a dynasty, but like all dynasties, they will fall... no reason to force it with rule changes

  16. #36
    Senior Member Spiderman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,711
    vCash
    2610
    Quote Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg View Post
    Ok, I realize that many here will say that the rules won't change, but there has to be a line right?

    Bama has won 5 of the last 9 National Titles & was in another championship game.

    Bama has only played in 3 games over the past decade in which they were out of contention for the national championship.

    We saw scholarship reductions to 95 in 1978 to 85 in 1992. Bear Bryant won titles in 73, 78, & 79.

    Question is: how many more years can the Bama dynasty last before rule changes are made?

    Are we close or are we still aways away?

    Is the next move a scholarship limit reduction or a dramatic change in how schools acquire players?
    So you think there should be a rule because one team has won a bunch of titles?.................. ok
    Not only did Mississippi State embarrass LSU on this night. Davis Wade Stadium wrecked Tiger Stadium in music choice, atmosphere and, most of all, volume.

    When I'm 80 and deaf, it's not going to be all those Springsteen concerts or Queen at Municipal Auditorium in New Orleans on Halloween Night in 1978, it will be this game...............Glen Guilbeau--Sherveport Times

  17. #37
    Senior Member ShotgunDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    37,276
    vCash
    3700
    Quote Originally Posted by Spiderman View Post
    So you think there should be a rule because one team has won a bunch of titles?.................. ok
    Uh yeah. If a bunch of different teams won titles there would be no need for a rule.

    What’s your point?

  18. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    3,828
    vCash
    3200
    I think the option to offer a guaranteed full 4 yeah scholarship instead of year to year scholarships is coming. It?ll curtail processing and give programs like us a chance to offer a guy a fully guaranteed 4 year scholarship if bama is only offering the traditional year to year deal. Obviously the players have to hold up their end (grades, arrests, failing drug tests, etc breaks the agreement and scholarships can then be canceled), but if the player makes his grades and keeps himself out of trouble, you can?t boot him off the team simply because he didn?t develop as your hoped.

  19. #39
    Senior Member Spiderman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,711
    vCash
    2610
    Quote Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg View Post
    Uh yeah. If a bunch of different teams won titles there would be no need for a rule.

    What’s your point?
    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.
    Not only did Mississippi State embarrass LSU on this night. Davis Wade Stadium wrecked Tiger Stadium in music choice, atmosphere and, most of all, volume.

    When I'm 80 and deaf, it's not going to be all those Springsteen concerts or Queen at Municipal Auditorium in New Orleans on Halloween Night in 1978, it will be this game...............Glen Guilbeau--Sherveport Times

  20. #40
    TheDynastyIsDead TUSK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    In your head.
    Posts
    13,203
    vCash
    1000619
    Quote Originally Posted by Spiderman View Post
    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.
    Communism? Wealth redistribution? I think I read about this stuff somewhere.... IIRC, it didn't work so great...

    MDL, please save us from the Red Menace...
    "It is not courage to resist TUSK; It is courage to accept TUSK."

    No.


    Easy there buddy. Tusk is...well Tusk is Tusk. Tireddawg 12.20.17

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Disclaimer: Elitedawgs is a privately owned and operated forum that is managed by alumni of Mississippi State University. This website is in no way affiliated with the Mississippi State University, The Southeastern Conference (SEC) or the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The views and opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the post author and may not reflect the views of other members of this forum or elitedawgs.com. The interactive nature of the elitedawgs.com forums makes it impossible for elitedawgs.com to assume responsibility for any of the content posted at this site. Ideas, thoughts, suggestion, comments, opinions, advice and observations made by participants at elitedawgs.com are not endorsed by elitedawgs.com
Elitedawgs: A Mississippi State Fan Forum, Mississippi State Football, Mississippi State Basketball, Mississippi State Baseball, Mississippi State Athletics. Mississippi State message board.