Airing of Grievances: What Would You Change About College Football

[ShotgunDawg]

So, I was thinking this would be an interesting thread before the excitement of game week. In honor of the "Festivus for the Rest of Us", I thought we could have an "Airing of Grievances" about college football.

So what is the one thing that makes your skin crawl and, if you were "El Commissioner" of college football, you would set out to correct immediately?

For me:

The differences between schedules across the country.

I realize this is a tough thing to correct, but it makes my skin crawl to see such drastic differences in schedules for teams competing for the same championships. I wish there was more scheduling equality across the country so that teams like Ohio State truly have earn their way to the playoff or that MSU doesn't have to continually play Arkansas between our two biggest rivals, ect.

I am sick of rankings being influenced by team's schedules as much as they are by their play on the field.

Anyway, that's mine.

[Bully13]

that rule that cost a touchdown and the game a few years back against u-pig. that fumble into the endzone that ended up out of bounds. should have been our ball. that rule needs to change. still pisses me off.

[IMissJack]

OOC game officials should be from a neutral conference. (See BYU and Houston)

[ShotgunDawg]

that rule that cost a touchdown and the game a few years back against u-pig. that fumble into the endzone that ended up out of bounds. should have been our ball. that rule needs to change. still pisses me off.

Good one. I agree.

Awful rule

[Pollodawg]

that rule that cost a touchdown and the game a few years back against u-pig. that fumble into the endzone that ended up out of bounds. should have been our ball. that rule needs to change. still pisses me off.

Agreed. That rule is absolutely ridiculous. Anywhere else on the field, if the ball rolls out of bounds with no one having clear possession, it goes back to the offense. Why is the endzone any different? Completely stupid rule.

[Pollodawg]

Is the NCAA eliminating the Northern Mississippi football program an option?

[drunkernhelldawg]

I'd get rid of 1st and 5. Reset the chains with a d penalty on 1st down. D being at such a disadvantage makes the series less interesting.

Agree about the fumble out of the end zone too.

[ShotgunDawg]

I would make holding a 5 yard penalty instead of 10 yards.

10 yards seems like an awful lot of yardage for a subjective call that could be made on every play. 10 yard holding penalties give referees too much power on the outcome of the game IMO

[msstate7]

I'd get rid of 1st and 5. Reset the chains with a d penalty on 1st down. D being at such a disadvantage makes the series less interesting.
.

Don't agree. If you do that, then you'd have to do same for offense.

[msstate7]

Defensive PI be a spot foul. Doesn't seem fair to tackle a wr 50 yards down field and only get 15 yards

[starkvegasdawg]

This is a rule that is at all levels of football. I would like to see the rule changed that makes you have to keep possession throughout the play to get a TD on a pass play into the end zone. If it's a rush all you have to do is break the plane. You can stick it out and have it knocked from your hands and it's still six, but if it's a pass you have to maintain possession the whole time. If you catch it but lose possession on the way down its incomplete. Why the added difficulty on a pass play. Either make a pass play where the moment you have possession in the end zone it's a score or make a rushing play where you have to maintain possession until you are tackled so a QB can't just jump and stretch his arms out to break the plane and then have the ball knocked loose but it still count.

[drunkernhelldawg]

Don't agree. If you do that, then you'd have to do same for offense.

I thought about that, but I'm not sure it has to be fair in that way. Doing it for the offense would hurt the competetive factor while doing it for the d would improve that. I figured many would disagree, but that's the way I see it. I just sigh when 1st and 5 happens. It bores me.

[starkvegasdawg]

Defensive PI be a spot foul. Doesn't seem fair to tackle a wr 50 yards down field and only get 15 yards

That's #2 on my list.

[msstate7]

Legalize stomping**

[starkvegasdawg]

#3 is take the skirt off of the WR's and make them actually able to be hit. Go back to the Ronnie Lott days where you better have your head on a swivel if you come across the middle. Screw the defenseless receiver rule.

[starkvegasdawg]

Legalize stomping**

Only enforced against us.

[drunkernhelldawg]

This is a rule that is at all levels of football. I would like to see the rule changed that makes you have to keep possession throughout the play to get a TD on a pass play into the end zone. If it's a rush all you have to do is break the plane. You can stick it out and have it knocked from your hands and it's still six, but if it's a pass you have to maintain possession the whole time. If you catch it but lose possession on the way down its incomplete. Why the added difficulty on a pass play. Either make a pass play where the moment you have possession in the end zone it's a score or make a rushing play where you have to maintain possession until you are tackled so a QB can't just jump and stretch his arms out to break the plane and then have the ball knocked loose but it still count.

I agree with that, but I'd include rushing td's too. Esp. in the state of Alabama.

[War Machine Dawg]

No polls can be released by any media entity after the final poll of the season until Week 6 of the following season. For example, the final poll of 2014-15 with OSU released in mid-January. From then until Week 6, no polls can be made or released.

All these preseason polls do is cater to the same major fan bases and unfairly prejudice the system against smaller teams. Forcing the media to actually watch games for nearly half the season before voting for the first poll will force them to consider on the field results more. And it hopefully balances out all the unearned offseason blowing of the same teams - Bama, tOSU, Oregon, Auburn, FSU, etc.

[War Machine Dawg]

OOC game officials should be from a neutral conference. (See BYU and Houston)

I like this one and think it would have a good chance of actually happening.

[archdog]

Fumbling through the endzone is stupid and should be changed. Redshirt players should be allowed to play in atleast 2 games during the reg season without losing a year. They also should get to play in the bowl game reguardless. Or everyone has 5 years eligibilty where 1 year is only 6 games possible. If you play more than 6 each year you only have 4 years.
Medical reshirts still apply if you play less than 6 games.

Grey shirts and other arrangements should be illegal and you should have to disclose that info a minimum of a month prior to signing day.

If you give a kid an offer, they have the full right to except that offer at anytime. Both the player and the team have a month to back out of it, unless that offer falls within a month of signing day. After the month, the player can sign a letter of intent. If the coach leaves, the player can withdraw the letter as long as they have not enrolled. I see this as a way to stop the noncommittable offer bullshit that Alabama uses on every prospect. Also gives review time to the team and the player. Gives an early signing period that will stop some of the shananigans.

[archdog]

Recruiting should have a down period where zero contact can be made between the prospects and anyone associated with the team nationwide, say bowl prep time.

[archdog]

The biggest for me are grey shirts and noncommittable offers. Neither should exist.

If you remove grey shirts from the game, I think you would see the talent pool distributed a little more fairly. Same with the committable offer issue. Think what would happen if you couldn't make that type of offer. Less kids would get jerked around by teams slow playing them because they are 4th on their board. That player would know who values them, because an offer would hold value. Right now I think UM has something like a 1000 offers out there. Imagine if they had to withdraw offers once people commit. For one thing the players would have a better true idea about their prospects. Teams would have the benefit of reviewing a commitment for a month and get the LOI signed early, so they can move on and secure other positions. I think doing away with noncommitable offers would radically change the system.

[drunkernhelldawg]

I don't care for the goofy alignment Oregon used a few times. I'd make a rule that the front five use a standard alignment regarding distance between players.

I believe the football establishment places too much value on scoring. Mano y mano is the beauty of the game. Accidental points skew it in a negative way. Let the winners be decided on quality of play, not circumstances like a rambunctious crowd in Eugene or officials that let plays run before they themselves are set.

[drunkernhelldawg]

Speaking of recruiting, need to stop or severely limit text message contact with high school students by college coaches. I taught a highly recruited player who received dozens of text messages daily during school hours. If these coaches want their recruits to be ready for college, they need to leave them alone during school hours.

I disagree with forcing a recruit to stick by his commitment. It's that guy's life we're talking about. Making the right decision is more important than anything. If he makes a misstep early in the process, he needs to be able to correct it.

And while we're at it, players should be compensated more fairly. Their talent generates billions of dollars. Unbelievable that we expect them to just give it away for a scholarship, which many students are getting anyway with much less effort and contribution. With a fair compensation package, we could justify limiting the many freebies on the edge of legal, most of which benefit the big name programs most. Rules that make sense are more likely to be enforced.

[Dawgface]

I would make holding a 5 yard penalty instead of 10 yards.

10 yards seems like an awful lot of yardage for a subjective call that could be made on every play. 10 yard holding penalties give referees too much power on the outcome of the game IMO

Agree.

[msstate7]

Until a recruit has a qualifying gpa, no official visits and severely limit contact.

Hopefully by doing this, kids will work harder in the classroom so they can enjoy the process.

[dickiedawg]

My changes would focus on beefing up scheduling to lessen non-competitive games.

Start by eliminating inter-division play. No more FBS vs FCS. Possibly have an exception for great programs, for instance making the semifinals gives you a 3-year window to schedule FBS teams.

Look at limiting P5 teams to 2 "group of 5" games per year. This would help level the playing field for conferences that already play 9 conference games. Ultimately, I think the conferences would all go to 9 conference games if you did that. But the season ticket holders get better value that way, the television product is better.
I realize this makes it harder for borderline teams to make bowl games. With that in mind, I think I'd do away with the 6-win requirement and find a way to put the best teams in bowl games. If FPI or some objective ranking says 5-7 Kentucky is better than 7-5 South Alabama, so be it.

[thunderclap]

I'm with War. No poll until October 1.

[starkvegasdawg]

I'm with War. No poll until October 1.

TSUN would never be ranked again.

[thf24]

This is a rule that is at all levels of football. I would like to see the rule changed that makes you have to keep possession throughout the play to get a TD on a pass play into the end zone. If it's a rush all you have to do is break the plane. You can stick it out and have it knocked from your hands and it's still six, but if it's a pass you have to maintain possession the whole time. If you catch it but lose possession on the way down its incomplete. Why the added difficulty on a pass play. Either make a pass play where the moment you have possession in the end zone it's a score or make a rushing play where you have to maintain possession until you are tackled so a QB can't just jump and stretch his arms out to break the plane and then have the ball knocked loose but it still count.

The difference between breaking the plane during a run and catching a pass is that in the case of the former, possession has already been established prior to entering the end zone. If the ball is fumbled into the end zone, the same rules to re-establish possession and score are in effect as catching a pass, minus of course the ball becoming dead if it hits the ground. As frustrating as it is sometimes, it makes sense the way it is.

[5 Star]

1) Stop the neutral site games. Put the games back on campuses where they belong. Mandate every matchup be at least a home and home. If you want to buy a 2 for 1 or more, more power to you, but you have to return the favor at least once.

2) No stipends.

3) Players can go pro after 2 years instead of 3.

4) Erase the last round of conference expansion from existence.

5) Make all conference requirements the same (example, whatever that BS JUCO rule is regarding the SEC and not the Big 12).

[thf24]

5) Make all conference requirements the same (example, whatever that BS JUCO rule is regarding the SEC and not the Big 12).

I couldn't agree with this one more. However, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to do so under the current situation in which the power 5 have effectively become more powerful than the NCAA. All the NCAA could do right now is mediate if the P5 were all interested, which wouldn't happen since the current inconsistencies between conferences give some advantages over others, like in the instance you mentioned.

[ShotgunDawg]

1) Stop the neutral site games. Put the games back on campuses where they belong. Mandate every matchup be at least a home and home. If you want to buy a 2 for 1 or more, more power to you, but you have to return the favor at least once.

This is a part of my scheduling beef. The schedules in college football are just too different, school to school, from how much they can pay for out of conference games, their ability to negotiate home & homes, to the timing of certain conference games.

[BulldogBear]

My changes would focus on beefing up scheduling to lessen non-competitive games.

Start by eliminating inter-division play. No more FBS vs FCS. Possibly have an exception for great programs, for instance making the semifinals gives you a 3-year window to schedule FBS teams.

Look at limiting P5 teams to 2 "group of 5" games per year. This would help level the playing field for conferences that already play 9 conference games. Ultimately, I think the conferences would all go to 9 conference games if you did that. But the season ticket holders get better value that way, the television product is better.
I realize this makes it harder for borderline teams to make bowl games. With that in mind, I think I'd do away with the 6-win requirement and find a way to put the best teams in bowl games. If FPI or some objective ranking says 5-7 Kentucky is better than 7-5 South Alabama, so be it.
I would actually reduce the bowl games by about ten. Neither of the above mentioned examples should be in a bowl game.


But my #1 has already been mentioned and that's fumbling into the endzone and out of bounds. When a fumble goes backwards, the lost yardage is applied but possession doesn't change. When you fumble forward and it goes out of bounds you retain possession but cannot benefit from the yardage, so the ball is therefore brought back to the point of fumble as if you were down at that point. In effect, fumbling OOB creates a dead ball situation where the ball is placed back at it's last known quantifiable point of reference (as far as possession) so that you cannot benefit from fumbling in this way. This is so you do not "accidentally" fumble a ball forward for the last yard needed to obtain a first down and that sort of thing. Which leads us to.....

Why the 17 should the ball going forward into the endzone and out of bounds make any difference? You're right. It doesn't (shouldn't). When this happens the ball should come back to the point of the fumble and remain consistent with fumbling everywhere else on the field. Don't forget that the ball was fumbled INSIDE the field of play. If this interpretation remains in place, then you need to change the rule and state that any fumble going OOB is a loss of possession.

I don't get the current way of applying results on plays like the one we all know we're talking about at all.

[starkvegasdawg]

The difference between breaking the plane during a run and catching a pass is that in the case of the former, possession has already been established prior to entering the end zone. If the ball is fumbled into the end zone, the same rules to re-establish possession and score are in effect as catching a pass, minus of course the ball becoming dead if it hits the ground. As frustrating as it is sometimes, it makes sense the way it is.

I could argue that possession has been established on a catch, too. If the receiver goes up for a pass and catches it, he then has possession just as much as a QB or RB has possession when he stretches his arms out in an attempt to get the nose of the ball to break the plane. To me, it shouldn't make any difference if a LB then knocks the ball out of the runners hand or if the WR hits the ground and the ball pops out. I'm not saying the catch rule has to be the one changed. I would be fine saying the RB or QB has to complete the play and maintain possession until he is tackled. This should not be a TD if knocked loose if a pass can be ruled incomplete.

http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/nj1015.com/files/2012/01/137565378.jpg

[BulldogBear]

I don't have a problem with the TD rule as it currently is. I think of it this way and then it doesn't bother me anymore: What I've got to understand is that when the player has possession of the ball and crosses the plane, it is an instant dead ball therefore I don't see that it matters what happens a second later. As long as we can establish that a "possessed ball" did in fact cross the plane, then the play is complete. Does a guy that breaks a long run have to run around in the endzone until someone tackles him before it counts? No, that would be stupid!!! And we would all agree. So, don't think of it any different when it's short or close play. Ball breaks plane, play over. It's not an issue.

[TrapGame]

Excellent Thread!!!

To quote Delmar "I'm with you fellas."

[scottycameron]

change the replay rule, it's ruining the game. Nothing should be reviewed unless the a head coach asks for it.

[scottycameron]

#3 is take the skirt off of the WR's and make them actually able to be hit. Go back to the Ronnie Lott days where you better have your head on a swivel if you come across the middle. Screw the defenseless receiver rule.

you're being rather contradictory, you want the WR's to be able to get hit, but you want a 50 yard penalty enforced when a WR bumps into a DB and falls down. On one hand you don't want the WR protected and on the other you want to ensure he isn't touched.

[sandwolf]

I could argue that possession has been established on a catch, too. If the receiver goes up for a pass and catches it, he then has possession just as much as a QB or RB has possession when he stretches his arms out in an attempt to get the nose of the ball to break the plane.

Not according to the longstanding rules of football. It's no different than any where else on the field. If a receiver jumps and catches a ball in the middle of the field, but before he even hits the ground he gets hammered by the safety and the ball gets knocked loose, do you think that should be a fumble? I think it should be an incomplete pass because the receiver had not yet established possession when the ball was knocked loose.

[Intramural All-American]

1) Players must be down by contact. If a player falls down without being touched, he can get up and continue running, just like the NFL.
2) As mentioned before, PI be a spot foul.
3) In OT, move the starting spot to the 50. The ability to kick a FG without even gaining a yard is dumb.

[starkvegasdawg]

you're being rather contradictory, you want the WR's to be able to get hit, but you want a 50 yard penalty enforced when a WR bumps into a DB and falls down. On one hand you don't want the WR protected and on the other you want to ensure he isn't touched.

I just think it should be legal that if a WR goes up for a ball the DB can legally plant his shoulder squarely in his chest and knock him into next week. That is not contradictory to wanting pass interference to be a spot foul, either. Just think back to the NFL back in the 1980's. They didn't have a defenseless receiver rule and PI was a spot foul.

[starkvegasdawg]

Not according to the longstanding rules of football. It's no different than any where else on the field. If a receiver jumps and catches a ball in the middle of the field, but before he even hits the ground he gets hammered by the safety and the ball gets knocked loose, do you think that should be a fumble? I think it should be an incomplete pass because the receiver had not yet established possession when the ball was knocked loose.

Granted, there would have to be some ground rules in place. But, to use your middle of the field example...if it is 4th and inches on the 35 yard line and the QB does a sneak and extends the ball over to the 34 and then has it knocked loose it is a fumble. He does not get credit for a first down. And you are right about a receiver having to maintain possession of the ball through the catch in the middle of the field. Personally, I think the rule should be that if you catch the ball (meaning that you have stopped its forward momentum completely and the ball is not moving in your hands) for at least one second then that is a catch. You have caught and gained possession of the ball. Just like the ground can't cause a fumble on a running play the ground shouldn't be able to cause an incomplete pass either. If you have possessed it by my definition for a period of at least one second and then you get your head taken off by a safety that would be a fumble because without that hit you would have maintained possession and it would have been a catch. No different than if you caught it and ran 15 more yards down the field and then got hit and fumbled. It would still be an incomplete pass if the contact that initiated the drop happens in under a second to allow for those plays where the DB perfectly times his hit to jar the ball loose. I know that is breaking with long standing rules but it is a rule change I would like to see.

[starkvegasdawg]

3) In OT, move the starting spot to the 50. The ability to kick a FG without even gaining a yard is dumb.

I think for the sake of our kickers we need to leave this rule alone.

[ShotgunDawg]

2) As mentioned before, PI be a spot foul.

Somewhat agree, but believe that PI should be treated like a flagrant foul in basketball.
There are few things that are more frustrating than to see an NFL game completely altered by a questionable PI penalty being market at the spot of the foul.

Therefore, I would keep the standard PI penalty as a 15 yard penalty & have a flagrant (on purpose) PI penalty that gets marked at the spot of the foul. This penalty would be susceptible to instant replay, just like targeting.

[Johnson85]

No major complaints, but if I were czar, some ideas I'd like to at least look into:

- Allow an early signing period before an athlete's senior year. A player ought to be able to commit and know that an injury won't cause him to lose his spot, and coaches ought to be able to know that a player has committed.
- I like the idea of a player having to be on track academically before full blown recruiting can occur. A minimum ACT score and on track to graduate doesn't seem like to much to ask of somebody. But this would probably not be good for MS players and could potentially be terrible for some players in the worst school districts; I'm sure some students only become eligible because schools recruit them first and help get them on a plan, and this rule might hurt them. Or it might ensure they end up in JUCO where they can get instruction better suited to their needs.
- I like the idea of some limited playing time being allowed to go with a redshirt. Say up to 12 quarters in the first 6 games. This could also be tied to academic performance in some way.
- Scholarships should be equal commitments from both sides. If a player can't transfer without being penalized, then a school can't process them for no other reason than that they have a recruit their more excited about they want to sign and they need to free up a scholarship.
- Committed players should be able to leave if their coach changes schools before they enroll (not sure this is a huge problem for football, but might be if there was an early signing period).
- Something to slow down the play after the referee spots the ball. I like the hurry up offense and think offenses should be able to go as fast as they want, provided that they should have to be set for a couple of seconds before snapping the ball and shouldn't be snapping the ball before the referee is out of the way.

[BulldogBear]

Granted, there would have to be some ground rules in place. But, to use your middle of the field example...if it is 4th and inches on the 35 yard line and the QB does a sneak and extends the ball over to the 34 and then has it knocked loose it is a fumble. He does not get credit for a first down. And you are right about a receiver having to maintain possession of the ball through the catch in the middle of the field. Personally, I think the rule should be that if you catch the ball (meaning that you have stopped its forward momentum completely and the ball is not moving in your hands) for at least one second then that is a catch. You have caught and gained possession of the ball. Just like the ground can't cause a fumble on a running play the ground shouldn't be able to cause an incomplete pass either. If you have possessed it by my definition for a period of at least one second and then you get your head taken off by a safety that would be a fumble because without that hit you would have maintained possession and it would have been a catch. No different than if you caught it and ran 15 more yards down the field and then got hit and fumbled. It would still be an incomplete pass if the contact that initiated the drop happens in under a second to allow for those plays where the DB perfectly times his hit to jar the ball loose. I know that is breaking with long standing rules but it is a rule change I would like to see.

But that is because that does not instantly end the play, whereas breaking the plane of the goal line does.


IAA: I like the 50. I have long advocated that. Make them actually have to drive a little. I believe it will actually shorten OT in most case.

[Jack Lambert]

I would force Texas A&M to get Female Cheerleaders.

[TUSK]

Ban the HUNH offense, limiting passing to a maximum of 25 atts/game and don't allow players to leave for the NFL early.*

[scottycameron]

I would force Texas A&M to get Female Cheerleaders.

Force A&M and Mizzou out of the SEC and back in the big whatever.

[sandwolf]

3) In OT, move the starting spot to the 50. The ability to kick a FG without even gaining a yard is dumb.

I agree with this, but I think just moving it back to the 40 would be fine.

[ScottH]

Either 9 conference games, 2 P5 and 1 non FCS.... Or....8 conference games, 3 P5 and 1 non FCS

[Johnson85]

I agree with this, but I think just moving it back to the 40 would be fine.

Starting at the 40 means you have to go ten yards to have a 47 yd field goal. That seems pretty reasonable to me. If they don't move the ball at all and can hit a 57 yd field goal when the game is on the line, that doesn't bother me. And if they move the ball 20 yds, which is still a pretty successful outing for the D, the O still has to hit a 37 yd field goal, which is not really a chip shot.

Starting at the 50 wouldn't be terrible, but I do think in defensive matchups, it might make the game last too long. The MSU/Auburn teams from the 3-2 debacle probably could have played another half's worth of plays had they ended up in overtime and had to start from the 50.

[Johnson85]

Either 9 conference games, 2 P5 and 1 non FCS.... Or....8 conference games, 3 P5 and 1 non FCS

This might destroy the NCAA. The non power five conference schools would be financially hammered if you prevented them from playing against major conference schools. They'd either have to basically become FCS or Div II, or they'd have to form a separate organization to try to compete with the NCAA and the power 5 schools.

[sandwolf]

Starting at the 40 means you have to go ten yards to have a 47 yd field goal. That seems pretty reasonable to me. If they don't move the ball at all and can hit a 57 yd field goal when the game is on the line, that doesn't bother me. And if they move the ball 20 yds, which is still a pretty successful outing for the D, the O still has to hit a 37 yd field goal, which is not really a chip shot.

Starting at the 50 wouldn't be terrible, but I do think in defensive matchups, it might make the game last too long. The MSU/Auburn teams from the 3-2 debacle probably could have played another half's worth of plays had they ended up in overtime and had to start from the 50.

Yea, that is pretty much the way I see it.

[Dawgology]

As SEC commish:

- Get rid of Divisions in the SEC . You have one permanent opponent (rival) and everything else rotates on an annual basis. Top two play each other for the SEC Champ.

As imaginary NCAA commish:

- If your team has a below .500 winning percentage for two consecutive years then your team is allowed to play two non-FCS schools the next year and they both count. I think this would help some smaller schools that struggle financially make it into bowl games and would lead to greater parity across the NCAA in the long run. Ultimately the gap between the have and the have-nots will widen to the point where there will have to be a P-5 Division. Then the same thing will happen inside that division and so on and so forth. At some point, if college football is to survive, some parity inducing procedures HAVE to take place.

- The non recruiting until academically eligible is one of the best ideas I have ever heard. I also like the restrictions on grey shirts and commitable offers idea.

[BrunswickDawg]

College Football Relegation http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2015/2/24/8052475/college-football-relegation-promotion-conferences-LIKE-SOCCER

5 Super Conferences with 7 tiers of teams below that can move up by winning or down by losing. SEC/SunBelt/Ohio Valley/So Con/Gulf South/South Atlantic/CIAA would be ours. This past year would have seen Vandy move down and replaced by Georgia Southern. Who would you rather watch? Vandy getting skull drug or GA Southern beating UF?

[sandwolf]

At some point, if college football is to survive, some parity inducing procedures HAVE to take place.

Is there not more parity today than there has ever been? I know money wise, there is.

[Johnson85]

Is there not more parity today than there has ever been? I know money wise, there is.
Money wise there is probably more parity within the P5 conferences (driven largely by the SEC) but there is much less parity between the P5 conferences and the nonP5 conferences. There used to be a lot of schools from small conferences that had similar resources to MSU and UM and it was only the true haves like Bama, UF, UT, etc. that they couldn't compete with. Now they're not even close schools like MSU and UM.

[Bully13]

I would force Texas A&M to get Female Cheerleaders.

Excellent