Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 69

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

  1. #41
    Senior Member Todd4State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    40,209
    vCash
    3700
    Quote Originally Posted by Tbonewannabe View Post
    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.

  2. #42
    Senior Member Todd4State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    40,209
    vCash
    3700
    Quote Originally Posted by BrunswickDawg View Post
    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.

  3. #43
    TheDynastyIsDead TUSK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    In your head.
    Posts
    13,203
    vCash
    1000619
    Quote Originally Posted by Todd4State View Post
    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.
    "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

  4. #44
    Senior Member ShotgunDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    37,276
    vCash
    3700
    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.
    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

  5. #45
    Senior Member bulldawg28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    5,443
    vCash
    3700
    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.

  6. #46
    TheDynastyIsDead TUSK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    In your head.
    Posts
    13,203
    vCash
    1000619
    Quote Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg View Post
    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...
    "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

  7. #47
    Senior Member Commercecomet24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    24,715
    vCash
    3100
    Quote Originally Posted by bulldawg28 View Post
    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.

  8. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    3,828
    vCash
    3200
    Quote Originally Posted by TUSK View Post
    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.

  9. #49
    TheDynastyIsDead TUSK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    In your head.
    Posts
    13,203
    vCash
    1000619
    Quote Originally Posted by dawgs View Post
    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*...
    "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

  10. #50
    Senior Member bulldawg28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    5,443
    vCash
    3700
    Quote Originally Posted by Commercecomet24 View Post
    I like this idea.
    It would even the playing field and spread more talent and lesser talent to teams.

  11. #51
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    48
    vCash
    3700
    Quote Originally Posted by Matty Dispatch View Post
    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?

  12. #52
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    48
    vCash
    3700
    Quote Originally Posted by dawgs View Post
    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.

  13. #53
    Senior Member ShotgunDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    37,276
    vCash
    3700
    Quote Originally Posted by ababyatemydingo View Post
    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.

  14. #54
    Senior Member Matty Dispatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    407
    vCash
    3100
    Quote Originally Posted by ababyatemydingo View Post
    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.

  15. #55
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Backwoods Alabama
    Posts
    508
    vCash
    3100
    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.
    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.

  16. #56
    TheDynastyIsDead TUSK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    In your head.
    Posts
    13,203
    vCash
    1000619
    Quote Originally Posted by Token Bammer View Post
    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"...

    "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

  17. #57
    Senior Member QuadrupleOption's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    876
    vCash
    3700
    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.

  18. #58
    Senior Member thf24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    3,543
    vCash
    3200
    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.

  19. #59
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    48
    vCash
    3700
    Quote Originally Posted by Matty Dispatch View Post
    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

  20. #60
    Senior Member Matty Dispatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    407
    vCash
    3100
    Quote Originally Posted by QuadrupleOption View Post
    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.

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.