If you want a wider variety of Nat Champs go to a super regional style national title tournament. 16 teams.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
"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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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