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

[ShotgunDawg]

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?

[Tbonewannabe]

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?

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.

[BrunswickDawg]

Tbone took the words out of my mouth. Saban was pissed about these changes too because he knows it will impact their ability to string along kids.
Limiting off field staff will be the next step because it does create a competitive advantage for the big money schools.

The biggest thing that will stop Bama is Saban retiring. What we need to hope for is Bama following their history, and spending a few years hiring coaches from the "Saban tree" and infighting about what Saban would do instead of hiring the best coach in the country.

[Coach34]

Dabo is building Clemson into a program that’s going to be hard to leave when Saban retires. Being the guy following Saban won’t exactly be a good position either. The expectations will be ridiculous

[HancockCountyDog]

Lets see where Bama finishes in recruiting rankings - if it isn't number 1, there will be a crack in the dam. UGA, LSU, OSU, AU and Clemson are all telling kids that Saban won't be there by the time you graduate. THey are selling this hard.

Obviously Saban is still doing ridiculous things on the recruiting trail and the red elephant club is not going to stop doing what they do to keep the titles coming. Right now they are ranked 5th in the 247 rankings. That may seem like a small drop, but for Bama its a big freaking drop down. Of course who knows how they close.

[PassInterference]

I heard Bama has an analyst for each team on the schedule. The analysts job is to follow the team they are assigned and know everything about them. That is excessive and has to stop.

Thinking outside the box, Wolken had an article proposing to make CFB like the NFL. Pay players. Have salary caps. Have drafts. That would level the playing field.

[BrunswickDawg]

I heard Bama has an analyst for each team on the schedule. The analysts job is to follow the team they are assigned and know everything about them. That is excessive and has to stop.

Thinking outside the box, Wolken had an article proposing to make CFB like the NFL. Pay players. Have salary caps. Have drafts. That would level the playing field.

I'd be totally against some sort of draft oriented CFB. All that will be is a minor league for the NFL. Part of what makes CFB - and all college sports - is that the players choose and are there as part of their life experience. Drafting kids will kill the sport completely. Now, should the kids get some more stipend money so they can fill their fridge and go on a date? Yes - because their job is essentially year round and they have no opportunity to build up any bank.

[Political Hack]

Dabo is building Clemson into a program that’s going to be hard to leave when Saban retires. Being the guy following Saban won’t exactly be a good position either. The expectations will be ridiculous

He’d be an idiot to leave. I may be mistaken, but I think he’s spent more time at Clemson at this point than he has at Bama.

[Political Hack]

I'd be totally against some sort of draft oriented CFB. All that will be is a minor league for the NFL. Part of what makes CFB - and all college sports - is that the players choose and are there as part of their life experience. Drafting kids will kill the sport completely. Now, should the kids get some more stipend money so they can fill their fridge and go on a date? Yes - because their job is essentially year round and they have no opportunity to build up any bank.

You can’t draft people when there’s educational issues at stake. An engineer gets drafted to an art school? Pre-med drafted to an engineering school? Can’t do it. It’ll never happen.

[somebodyshotmypaw]

You can’t draft people when there’s educational issues at stake. An engineer gets drafted to an art school? Pre-med drafted to an engineering school? Can’t do it. It’ll never happen.

Extremely valid point. If I'm a student athlete (student first, athlete second) with a desire to be an architect, why would I want to go to Ole Miss?

[codeDawg]

I'd be totally against some sort of draft oriented CFB. All that will be is a minor league for the NFL. Part of what makes CFB - and all college sports - is that the players choose and are there as part of their life experience. Drafting kids will kill the sport completely. Now, should the kids get some more stipend money so they can fill their fridge and go on a date? Yes - because their job is essentially year round and they have no opportunity to build up any bank.

I think what’s killing the sport is the lack of parity. Alabama winning the title every year turns off more people than professionalizing the sport. I don’t sit around and feel more proud of my team because they choose to play at MSU for peanuts than I would a better team that has a shot at the title but makes a few bucks.

[Matty Dispatch]

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.

[Goldendawg]

My interest is only in pulling for MSU and following us during the regular season and our (now regular ) bowl game. I have totally lost interest in the "playoffs" due to the domination of bama virtually every year. Just watched bits and pieces of it and the other 500 bowl games and I'm a lifelong college football fan.

[Coach34]

Since Integration of blacks into southern college football- there has not really been any parity in college football.

1971- Nebraska
1972- USC
1973- Bama/Notre Dame
1974- Oklahoma/USC
1975- Oklahoma
1976- Pittsburgh
1977- Notre Dame
1978- Bama/Notre Dame
1979- Bama
1980- Georgia
1981- Clemson
1982- Penn State
1983- Miami
1984- BYU
1985- Oklahoma
1986- Penn State
1987- Miami
1988- Notre Dame
1989- Miami
1990- Colorado/Ga Tech
1991- Miami/Washington
1992- Bama
1993- Fla State
1994- Nebraska
1995- Nebraska
1996- Florida
1997- Nebraska
1998- Tennessee
1999- Fla State
2000- Oklahoma
2001- Miami
2002- Ohio State
2003- LSU
2004- USC
2005- Texas
2006- Florida
2007- LSU
2008- Florida
2009- Bama
2010- Auburn
2011- Bama
2012- Bama
2013- Fla State
2014- Ohio State
2015- Bama
2016- Clemson
2017- Bama

Not alot of diversity in that group

[Liverpooldawg]

You can’t draft people when there’s educational issues at stake. An engineer gets drafted to an art school? Pre-med drafted to an engineering school? Can’t do it. It’ll never happen.

I agree, that will never happen. If it did lawyers will be racing to courthouses all over the country to try to be the one to file the first class action suite.

[Johnson85]

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. I think this is a good idea. The problem is going to be all the Power 5 schools right now that benefit from the cupcake games (MSU included). Some people are going to be scared about what it will mean if they start being consistent losers because they no longer have 3 or 4 cupcake games. I think based on the NFL, it won't hurt with current fans. But I'm not sure what it does going forward. Do students buy in as much if school is consistently winning 4 or less games per year? Do better G5 teams actually benefit more from football as far as enrollment because students like winners? Or do the G5 teams turn into an upper tier Div II because there is no interest in them when they don't play Power 5 schools (I'm guessing the latter)

i just don't think anybody is going to be eager to change the status quo because the status quo is making a lot of coaches and administrators rich.

[thf24]

I think based on the NFL, it won't hurt with current fans.

One problem I see with comparing it to the NFL is that the talent disparity between the best and the worst P5 teams is far greater than that of the best and worst NFL teams.

[Ifyouonlyknew]

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.

The problem with this is that those G5 & FCS schools pretty much run their athletic dept off of these check games. You stop those a lot of schools won't be able to pay the bills.

[BrunswickDawg]

Personally, I'd prefer the Relegation model with tiered conferences that SB Nation has been advocating - https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2017/6/6/15724156/college-football-relegation-promotion-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.

[Dawg61]

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

[TUSK]

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...

[ShotgunDawg]

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.

[ShotgunDawg]

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

[Dawg61]

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.

[TUSK]

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...

[Tbonewannabe]

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.

[ShotgunDawg]

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.

[ShotgunDawg]

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?

[Tbonewannabe]

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.

[Goldendawg]

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.

[TUSK]

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.

[ShotgunDawg]

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.

[TUSK]

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.*

[Bdawg]

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

[msstate7]

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

[Spiderman]

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

[ShotgunDawg]

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?

[dawgs]

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.

[Spiderman]

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.

[TUSK]

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...

[Todd4State]

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.

[Todd4State]

Personally, I'd prefer the Relegation model with tiered conferences that SB Nation has been advocating - https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2017/6/6/15724156/college-football-relegation-promotion-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.

[TUSK]

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.

https://scontent-sea1-1.cdninstagram.com/t51.2885-15/s480x480/e35/c0.64.563.563/13267343_1712559905650795_1549368717_n.jpg?ig_cach e_key=MTI1ODE3MTM1MTYwOTgyOTEzMg%3D%3D.2.c

[ShotgunDawg]

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

[bulldawg28]

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.

[TUSK]

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...

[Commercecomet24]

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.

[dawgs]

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.

[TUSK]

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*...

[bulldawg28]

I like this idea.

It would even the playing field and spread more talent and lesser talent to teams.

[ababyatemydingo]

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?

[ababyatemydingo]

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.

[ShotgunDawg]

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.

[Matty Dispatch]

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.

[Token Bammer]

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.

[TUSK]

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"...

http://chineseposters.net/images/e15-35.jpg

[QuadrupleOption]

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.

[thf24]

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.

[ababyatemydingo]

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

[Matty Dispatch]

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.

[Matty Dispatch]

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

Well, yeah, in my original point I said the P5 and G5 should have 2 separate divisions. We would not be that greatly affected by $1.8 million used to pay football players. Everyone would be paying the same $1.8 million. For some schools, like MSU, it would most likely mean reducing the amount of money in the pool for its coaches. The bigger schools would be able to attract better coaches - as it is right now - but it would even out the distribution of talent, which would create a more competitive environment...and giving all those schools with less resources a chance to win at a higher level since they'll have better players.

[Quaoarsking]

Does everyone crying "Socialism!" object to equal sharing of bowl and tv revenues?

[TUSK]

Regarding players being allowed to transfer to another school without sitting out a year: Would this apply to players that would be interested in leaving a "have not" program to chase a ring (and possibly gain more exposure) at a "have" program?

If so, I think we need to draft this puppy up all formal like and run it up the flagpole...

[msstate7]

Regarding players being allowed to transfer to another school without sitting out a year: Would this apply to players that would be interested in leaving a "have not" program to chase a ring (and possibly gain more exposure) at a "have" program?

If so, I think we need to draft this puppy up all formal like and run it up the flagpole...

Shotgun will head the Committee on Monitoring Transfers to Maintain Competitive Balance**

[TUSK]

Does everyone crying "Socialism!" object to equal sharing of bowl and tv revenues?

You talkin' to me?

https://images.theconversation.com/files/194971/original/file-20171116-17112-19pygv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=926&fit=clip

[Spiderman]

Well, yeah, in my original point I said the P5 and G5 should have 2 separate divisions. We would not be that greatly affected by $1.8 million used to pay football players. Everyone would be paying the same $1.8 million. For some schools, like MSU, it would most likely mean reducing the amount of money in the pool for its coaches. The bigger schools would be able to attract better coaches - as it is right now - but it would even out the distribution of talent, which would create a more competitive environment...and giving all those schools with less resources a chance to win at a higher level since they'll have better players.

And the Ole Miss's of the world will still try to offer more.

[QuadrupleOption]

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.

We had chances in 1999 and 2014 and shit the bed both times. The reason Bama and schools like Bama are always good is because they put a lot more emphasis on being the best and have had DECADES of success to use with recruits to entice them to campus. It is what it is.

I was thinking about this yesterday, as a matter of fact. And yeah, I get tired of seeing the same ol' shit every year too but I really don't think we're that far off from being a pre-season top 25 team every year. We just have to keep our program at the same level (minimum) as it is now and continue to win.

The reason the usual suspects keep making the playoffs is
1) they're usually really good
2) they get the benefit of the doubt when they lose a game (see Auburn almost making it if they won the SEC).
3) many blue blood programs are overvalued every year (Notre Dame, Texas, Ohio State, etc).

We're getting better recognition as an athletic department, which will help. 2014, 2015, 2017, and our football coaching search have done a lot to raise perceptions about MSU to the national media. Other sports (WBB and baseball) being top tier also help.

It's frustrating but I don't think the answer is some kind of regulated draft or artificial restriction of who can go where.

[dawgs]

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.

No one argues to go full socialist where doctors and janitors are making the same salary, but we have swung far too right on the economy. During the 50s-70s when the middle class was built, this country had far more balance between capitalism and socialist ideals.

But to answer your question, Canada and the scandanavian countries (and a lot of Europe) aren?t doing too bad on this list from that liberal rag, Forbes magazine, when it comes to starting businesses.

https://www.forbes.com/best-countries-for-business/list/

Or this one from business insider

http://nordic.businessinsider.com/the-9-best-countries-in-the-world-to-start-a-business-2017-3/

Then you look and see many of the same countries listed among the highest quality of life in the world

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/07/these-countries-have-the-highest-quality-of-life

So yeah, I think any intelligent person would at least admit that some socialist ideas might be worth investigating to better our lives in America.

[dawgs]

Does everyone crying "Socialism!" object to equal sharing of bowl and tv revenues?

Pro sports might be the most socialist business/industry in the country.