Why It's Impossible To Currently Win in College Football

[ShotgunDawg]

I thought these tweets were interesting and speak to how closed off it is to compete at the highest level.

If you click on the tweet, there are more numbers.

https://twitter.com/tomvh/status/1129735966699249664?s=21

[ShotgunDawg]

Recruiting sites and 7 and 7 camps have done an incredible job of identifying kids early, building up their hype, and effectively funneling them to the same schools.

[msstate7]

Clemson pushed their way into this position. They weren't considered blue blood 5 years ago. LSU certainly wasn't pre-saban

[Tbonewannabe]

With the camps, it makes it harder to find those diamond in the rough guys.

[FriarsPoint]

Money and protected status. Period. Look no further than Boone Pickens and Okie State.

Even if I made 10 billion, the ncaa will not let me into the club.

Good riddance. **** em. They’ve killed the goose.

[Todd4State]

With the camps, it makes it harder to find those diamond in the rough guys.

With technology today- social media, MaxPreps, the recruiting web sites and etc. I think diamonds in the rough are basically dead and don't exist anymore. Witherspoon is about as close as you will get nowadays. A guy that just simply wasn't playing football at all until his junior or senior year.

[Percho]

This is what i get when i click tweet posts

Sorry, that page doesn’t exist


What do I need to do to see the tweets?

[ShotgunDawg]

With technology today- social media, MaxPreps, the recruiting web sites and etc. I think diamonds in the rough are basically dead and don't exist anymore. Witherspoon is about as close as you will get nowadays. A guy that just simply wasn't playing football at all until his junior or senior year.

Yup and then people are dumb enough to write articles asking why attendance is down.

The teams outside of these schools realize they have no shot and the teams that are one of these schools are tired of watching blowouts.

Too many scholarships. Cut from 85 to 70 and the game starts to massively improve.

[msstate7]

Yup and then people are dumb enough to write articles asking why attendance is down.

The teams outside of these schools realize they have no shot and the teams that are one of these schools are tired of watching blowouts.

Too many scholarships. Cut from 85 to 70 and the game starts to massively improve.

I'd like to toy with the idea of each player you sign count for 4 years against the 85. This would create parity bc declaring juniors still count the next season against 85.

ETA... processing would do you no good bc they still count

[Percho]

I like both of the last two thoughts.

[ShotgunDawg]

I'd like to toy with the idea of each player you sign count for 4 years against the 85. This would create parity bc declaring juniors still count the next season against 85.

ETA... processing would do you no good bc they still count

Not a bad idea.

Just something to create some reasonable margin for error that would allow others to compete.

[The Federalist Engineer]

In the early 2000s - the big schools that got all the players were Miami, USC, and Oklahoma

Where are they now? Things change, hubris strikes, and innovations disrupt the party.

Miami thought they had great WRs, Oklahoma got soft, and USC lost Pete Carroll

[Cooterpoot]

The move to power 5 conferences, media selling schools, and the NCAA protecting those schools did it. It’s about money and nothing else. I’ve lost interest in college football more and more each year for the last decade. We can’t compete. I prefer our other sports over football now, because we compete in those.

[ShotgunDawg]

The move to power 5 conferences, media selling schools, and the NCAA protecting those schools did it. It’s about money and nothing else. I’ve lost interest in college football more and more each year for the last decade. We can’t compete. I prefer our other sports over football now, because we compete in those.

This is the conundrum, if it were only about money, I'd think they would want a more competitive landscape. Better games = more money.

[bulldawg28]

Yup and then people are dumb enough to write articles asking why attendance is down.

The teams outside of these schools realize they have no shot and the teams that are one of these schools are tired of watching blowouts.

Too many scholarships. Cut from 85 to 70 and the game starts to massively improve.

My take is attendance is down due to the games all being on TV. It's too convenient to not stay home unless your living in the respective state with a reasonable drive. The out of state attendances numbers are suffering more I bet.

[Cooterpoot]

This is the conundrum, if it were only about money, I'd think they would want a more competitive landscape. Better games = more money.

Why? Competition doesn’t get the NCAA more money. Go look at the merchandise sold and tv contracts. Attendance is the smallest of money makers.

[AlSwearengen]

The ncaa needs to cut scholarships and no more of the bullshit processing and grey shirting that saban is famous for. If a kid takes a grey shirt, it counts against that university for four years.

[ShotgunDawg]

My take is attendance is down due to the games all being on TV. It's too convenient to not stay home unless your living in the respective state with a reasonable drive. The out of state attendances numbers are suffering more I bet.

I think that's certainly a cause as well, but the big games are typically packed. If there were more big games....

[ShotgunDawg]

Why? Competition doesn’t get the NCAA more money. Go look at the merchandise sold and tv contracts. Attendance is the smallest of money makers.


Better games = more people watching on TV which = More money.

Do you think the NFL would make more or less money on the whole if the Cowboys and Patriots won every game by 20+ points and then played in the Suoer Bowl every year?

[Goldendawg]

Yup and then people are dumb enough to write articles asking why attendance is down.

The teams outside of these schools realize they have no shot and the teams that are one of these schools are tired of watching blowouts.

Too many scholarships. Cut from 85 to 70 and the game starts to massively improve.

The same thing was said when the change was made from what 100 down to 85. The big boys would find a way around 70 just like 85 now.

[ShotgunDawg]

The same thing was said when the change was made from what 100 down to 85. The big boys would find a way around 70 just like 85 now.

I don't understand people that make this argument

[Jarius]

The same thing was said when the change was made from what 100 down to 85. The big boys would find a way around 70 just like 85 now.

There is a point to where it will make things more equal. Look at baseball. Look at basketball. when you have small teams or small amounts of scholarships the field is much more level. I don't know what number it would take for football to get that way but I hope we get to find out.

[ShotgunDawg]

There is a point to where it will make things more equal. Look at baseball. Look at basketball. when you have small teams or small amounts of scholarships the field is much more level. I don't know what number it would take for football to get that way but I hope we get to find out.

This.

The scholarship reduction has to match up with the talent pool depth or it won't help.

Reducing the scholarship amount from 100-85 didn't crack into the elite player pool. Reducing it from 85-70 I think would begin to crack into it. The same teams would still be the best teams, but their margin for error would be significantly less & they'd be facing more teams on a week to week basis that didn't have massive holes on their roster

Outside of 1 or maybe 2 games a year, Alabama has a future NFL player at a position vs a G5 talent in most every game they play. That makes them virtually unbeatable. With a 70 player scholarship pool, that wouldn't happen in SEC games.

[msstate7]

This.

The scholarship reduction has to match up with the talent pool depth or it won't help.

Reducing the scholarship amount from 100-85 didn't crack into the elite player pool. Reducing it from 85-70 I think would begin to crack into it. The same teams would still be the best teams, but their margin for error would be significantly less & they'd be facing more teams on a week to week basis that didn't have massive holes on their roster

Outside of 1 or maybe 2 games a year, Alabama has a future NFL player at a position vs a G5 talent in most every game they play. That makes them virtually unbeatable. With a 70 player scholarship pool, that wouldn't happen in SEC games.

Unless you do something about processing, the elite recruiting teams will just process current players to get new elite ones imo

[ShotgunDawg]

Unless you do something about processing, the elite recruiting teams will just process current players to get new elite ones imo

True. I like your idea about the 4 year scholarship limit. There is definitely some plugging of holes that needs to happen

[msstate7]

I think there would be a fight over dropping 85 to 70. This would leave 1,950 players that would've gotten a scholarship without one. Women certainly don't wanna lose 15 scholarships for their sports, so where do you use the 15 on the men's side? We would love for those to be used on baseball, but most programs don't wanna put more money in the money pit that is college baseball at most places. Seems taking scholarships from football to baseball would hurt minorities... would the ncaa want this image?

[ShotgunDawg]

I think there would be a fight over dropping 85 to 70. This would leave 1,950 players that would've gotten a scholarship without one. Women certainly don't wanna lose 15 scholarships for their sports, so where do you use the 15 on the men's side? We would love for those to be used on baseball, but most programs don't wanna put more money in the money pit that is college baseball at most places. Seems taking scholarships from football to baseball would hurt minorities... would the ncaa want this image?

1. Agree it would be fight

2. Could give a few to baseball but also start Men's Soccer in the SEC or another sport.

3. By minorities, you mean black people because many Puerto Ricans & Latins would benefit from increased baseball scholarships & they are also minorities. I've heard the minority angle on this, but it's cherrypicking IMO & only focuses on the concern of 1 minority when everyone is supposed to be equal. Additionally, with more full scholarships, I think you'd see the African American participation in baseball pick up a bit. Think how much adding Men's Soccer would assist Latin minorities. Scholarship allotments can't play favorites depending on the racial mix of the sport. The scholarship allotments should be based on the balance of providing enough scholarships for everyone to field a team while keeping the general competitiveness of the sport at a high level

[Jarius]

I think there would be a fight over dropping 85 to 70. This would leave 1,950 players that would've gotten a scholarship without one. Women certainly don't wanna lose 15 scholarships for their sports, so where do you use the 15 on the men's side? We would love for those to be used on baseball, but most programs don't wanna put more money in the money pit that is college baseball at most places. Seems taking scholarships from football to baseball would hurt minorities... would the ncaa want this image?

Well making a team of 35 players split 11.7 scholarships between each other hurts non minorities. They can get over it.

[IMissJack]

And this is why NCAA football is in a downward spiral in attendance, and bowls are dying. Noone is going to keep paying thousands of dollars to finish 7-5 to 8-4 every year, and go to Jacksonville. While I know based on our history this is good for us, it is not motivating for the fans to see no upward movement. This is why most fans were pissed with last year's record. We had an all time defense and finish 8-5.

[Mobile Bay]

How can fans of Mississippi State say there are no diamonds in the rough when we just had Dak Prescott?

[ShotgunDawg]

How can fans of Mississippi State say there are no diamonds in the rough when we just had Dak Prescott?

I hear you, but that 8 years ago that we signed Dak.

With every passing year, the camps become a bigger deal & the recruiting rankings improve.

Additionally, he can't build a nationally competitive roster off of diamonds in the rough. It's not possible

[the_real_MSU_is_us]

How can fans of Mississippi State say there are no diamonds in the rough when we just had Dak Prescott?

Of course there are diamonds out there. HOWEVER, they're extremely hard to find and Bama's of the world can find them too (Josh Jacobs, for example). So blue bloods take 20 5/4* players, + their portion of the diamonds in the rough, and the rest of us compete for 5-7 4*, a 5* ever couple years if we're lucky, and then add 18 diamonds in the rough every class AND then develop them which means we only get 1-2 yeas of production.

It simply doesn't compare. A 5* is on average better than a 4*, who's on average better than a high 3*, who's on average better than a low 3*. Yes there's some low 3* that will be stars but there's no way 1 team can use them to compete with a team of 5/4*. It's math. And as i said a ton of teams are trying to fill out their class with underrated guys so it's not like there's no recruiting competition for them

[Tbonewannabe]

Of course there are diamonds out there. HOWEVER, they're extremely hard to find and Bama's of the world can find them too (Josh Jacobs, for example). So blue bloods take 20 5/4* players, + their portion of the diamonds in the rough, and the rest of us compete for 5-7 4*, a 5* ever couple years if we're lucky, and then add 18 diamonds in the rough every class AND then develop them which means we only get 1-2 yeas of production.

It simply doesn't compare. A 5* is on average better than a 4*, who's on average better than a high 3*, who's on average better than a low 3*. Yes there's some low 3* that will be stars but there's no way 1 team can use them to compete with a team of 5/4*. It's math. And as i said a ton of teams are trying to fill out their class with underrated guys so it's not like there's no recruiting competition for them

5 stars also typically are ready to play day one. Most college freshmen need at least a redshirt year or just special teams to get acclimated. Most 5 stars come in and are at least in the 2 deep in August. We have had 2 5 stars in the last umpteen years, Chris Jones and Jeffrey Simmons, and both were on the field almost 50% of the time for the defense. Bama gets 5 or so of those guys every year but they have to wait behind the other 5 stars in front of them.

[War Machine Dawg]

The same thing was said when the change was made from what 100 down to 85. The big boys would find a way around 70 just like 85 now.

But for a long time, the change helped. Instead of 3-4 teams being competitive, you got 5-8 teams being competitive. Bear & Vaught couldn't hoard every good player in the South between them, so a few other programs benefitted. I think reducing down to 70 would be a start, but I'd go all the way down to 55. NFL has a 43 man roster, so 12 more for college seems fair. That would really force a dispersal of talent. Split the 25 scholarships lost in football amongst baseball (20 full schollies, anyone?) and other sports. That way the women don't lose any, but football is forced to level the playing field.

[ShotgunDawg]

But for a long time, the change helped. Instead of 3-4 teams being competitive, you got 5-8 teams being competitive. Bear & Vaught couldn't hoard every good player in the South between them, so a few other programs benefitted. I think reducing down to 70 would be a start, but I'd go all the way down to 55. NFL has a 43 man roster, so 12 more for college seems fair. That would really force a dispersal of talent. Split the 25 scholarships lost in football amongst baseball (20 full schollies, anyone?) and other sports. That way the women don't lose any, but football is forced to level the playing field.

NFL has a 53 man roster, & I think you need more in college because many/most freshman aren't ready to play. Thus the 70 number seems about right.

[Tbonewannabe]

NFL has a 53 man roster, & I think you need more in college because many/most freshman aren't ready to play. Thus the 70 number seems about right.

That also doesn't include the NFL practice squad. When someone is injured they typically sign someone from the practice squad or get a free agent. You don't have that ability in college so it would take a larger roster.

[TUSK]

I think we need an additional subdivision within CFB....

Carve off, say, the top 24-32 agreeable, elite, revenue producing programs and then start over with a new "league"/conference.... possibly NFL affiliated....

IMO, that's where it's all headed....

[Irondawg]

I'd vote to cut it to 70-75 and disperse those scholarships between baseball and men's soccer.

Soccer is becoming way too big for a lot of programs to only have club mens teams. The baseball scholarship situation has always been laughable.

[ShotgunDawg]

I think we need an additional subdivision within CFB....

Carve off, say, the top 24-32 agreeable, elite, revenue producing programs and then start over with a new "league"/conference.... possibly NFL affiliated....

IMO, that's where it's all headed....

I think that's a less optimal solution when much of the issue could be solved by just lowering the scholarship limit a hair

You also won't see this because it would effect other sports. Like what do you do with the basketball blue bloods?

They need football to pay for their athletic departments but are the biggest draws in basketball. If you lower them to another level of football, their basketball programs start to lack the funding to be elite.

Because of the integrated funding nature of college sports, you simply can't start moving power 5 schools into levels depending on the sport. The easier way to solve the issue to just lower the ridiculously high scholarship limit that allows 5-8 schools to dry up the talent depth

[War Machine Dawg]

I'd vote to cut it to 70-75 and disperse those scholarships between baseball and men's soccer.

Soccer is becoming way too big for a lot of programs to only have club mens teams. The baseball scholarship situation has always been laughable.

17 NO!!! We need college soccer to die quickly. It's holding back the development of the sport in this country. But that's another discussion.

[War Machine Dawg]

NFL has a 53 man roster, & I think you need more in college because many/most freshman aren't ready to play. Thus the 70 number seems about right.

Yeah, I goofed, meant 53, not 43. I'd say 65 is a good number with that in mind.

[drunkernhelldawg]

The fastest way to achieve parity is to decrease the number of scholarship players allowed. It's hard for me to understand why this isn't being done already. The non competitive nature of the current game is killing it.

In one proposal I read, the lost scholarships could be spread among other sports like Baseball that don't have too many. That way, the same number of athletes could be served; they would just divide differently.

[Maroonthirteen]

Do you think the NFL would make more or less money on the whole if the Cowboys and Patriots won every game by 20+ points and then played in the Suoer Bowl every year?

I see State fans on occasion mention the 2017 Bama game. Meh.... I went because it was a big game. But I was not excited or nervous at any point in that game. I knew what was going to happened (81,92,94,99, 12, 14.....)

[ShotgunDawg]

The fastest way to achieve parity is to decrease the number of scholarship players allowed. It's hard for me to understand why this isn't being done already. The non competitive nature of the current game is killing it.

In one proposal I read, the lost scholarships could be spread among other sports like Baseball that don't have too many. That way, the same number of athletes could be served; they would just divide differently.

Yup

[The Federalist Engineer]

I'd vote to cut it to 70-75 and disperse those scholarships between baseball and men's soccer.

Soccer is becoming way too big for a lot of programs to only have club mens teams. The baseball scholarship situation has always been laughable.

Make sense to me + for soccer

[Tbonewannabe]

The fastest way to achieve parity is to decrease the number of scholarship players allowed. It's hard for me to understand why this isn't being done already. The non competitive nature of the current game is killing it.

In one proposal I read, the lost scholarships could be spread among other sports like Baseball that don't have too many. That way, the same number of athletes could be served; they would just divide differently.

Or you only get a certain number of freshmen that are eligible without a redshirt. Then the only way to remove the redshirt is a season ending injury to someone on your roster. That would at least have the immediate impact guys going to more programs as teams like Bama get full at that spot and only have a redshirt to offer. It would be similar to how the NFL has a practice squad. Only freshmen would be eligible so you couldn't redshirt later to get around the recruiting angle.

[BrunswickDawg]

Or you only get a certain number of freshmen that are eligible without a redshirt. Then the only way to remove the redshirt is a season ending injury to someone on your roster. That would at least have the immediate impact guys going to more programs as teams like Bama get full at that spot and only have a redshirt to offer. It would be similar to how the NFL has a practice squad. Only freshmen would be eligible so you couldn't redshirt later to get around the recruiting angle.

After the battle to get Freshmen eligible in the 70's, I'm not certain schools would be willing to go back to restricting them in some way.

[Tbonewannabe]

After the battle to get Freshmen eligible in the 70's, I'm not certain schools would be willing to go back to restricting them in some way.

I didn't think about that so it would probably be better to restrict the overall schollies then if that was the case. You can't go too low in football just because of the chance of injury is higher than any other sport. They could probably look at the data of how many people play in a normal year and have that as a guideline whatever that amount is.

We know from Mullen that we rarely used all 85 scholarships and now Joe undersigned also. Saban uses them plus processes guys with either transfers or just puts them on medical scholarships.

[TUSK]

There are some compelling arguments within this thread. RE: reducing football skollies frome 85 to 70.

I'm curious, however, what the impact would be on the ~2000 people that wouldn't get the opportunity to receive a "free" college education (should they desire one)....

[Jarius]

There are some compelling arguments within this thread. RE: reducing football skollies frome 85 to 70.

I'm curious, however, what the impact would be on the ~2000 people that wouldn't get the opportunity to receive a "free" college education (should they desire one)....

There would be no impact on how many people get the scholarship. You would reallocate it to another sport, such as baseball.

[ShotgunDawg]

There are some compelling arguments within this thread. RE: reducing football skollies frome 85 to 70.

I'm curious, however, what the impact would be on the ~2000 people that wouldn't get the opportunity to receive a "free" college education (should they desire one)....

Dumb argument. Schollies would just be reallocated

[TUSK]

Dumb argument. Schollies would just be reallocated

I missed the “reallocation” part. Sorry.