Interesting Free 247 Article on the Recruiting Landscape

[ShotgunDawg]

I thought this article was interesting & speaks the discussion we've been having over the past few months about what is contributing to the decline of college football attendance & how college football needs to add parity quick or the sport is in danger of losing more fans & 90% of the country becoming apathetic due to knowing that their team has absolutely no chance.

Among the reasons that I have speculated in the past that has led to the decline in parity & ultimately attendance due to about 5 or 6 programs in the country hoarding most of the good players, is that recruiting rankings, social media, & showcase combines have allowed the top players to get to know each other & develop relationships in a way that we've never seen in college football. That has led to players recruiting players in a way that has never happened before.

It's an interesting read that makes you sick if your program is outside of this group. You have absolutely no chance. There is a glass ceiling in place that you cannot break through until there is massive reform in college football.

What is the answer?

https://247sports.com/Article/College-football-recruiting-arms-race-Alabama-Ohio-State-Georgia-Clemson-LSU--133490848/

https://twitter.com/247Sports/status/1148235814733832193

[ShotgunDawg]

As far as the answer:

- I think lowering the scholarships to 70 is an absolute must. Yes the best players will still recruit each other, but at least there will be less margin for error in the evaluation process & the croot hoarders won't be able to take everyone.

- Secondly, in an extremist view, if kids are making school decisions based on football rather than education, then pay them & lets have a draft.

More parity = closer games = more big games = more teams with hope = more invested fans = greater attendance = more money

[Jack Lambert]

If I was a coach at another school I would walk into the kids house with the roster of those five schools with their star ranking and show him what he is facing if he goes there and I would also do research and find the four and five stars who went to those schools that never started.

[ShotgunDawg]

If I was a coach at another school I would walk into the kids house with the roster of those five schools with their star ranking and show him what he is facing if he goes there and I would also do research and find the four and five stars who went to those schools that never started.

I imagine they do that already.

What we are seeing in college football is the NBA model of players building super teams.

It's a big issue that the current recruiting model of college football, when designed in prehistoric times, never intended to happen.

When the recruiting model evolved in college football, social media, recruiting rankings, showcase combines weren't a sparkle in anyone's eye

[Jack Lambert]

I imagine they do that already.

What we are seeing in college football is the NBA model of players building super teams.

It's a big issue that the current recruiting model of college football, when designed in prehistoric times, never intended to happen.

When the recruiting model evolved in college football, social media, recruiting rankings, showcase combines weren't a sparkle in anyone's eye

The problems about building that super team among high school kids is they can super team their asses on the bench for four years. Coaches just have to open these kids eyes. Going to Bama will give them a better chance of winning a ring but going to another SEC school where he can shine will get you to the NFL. That's the ultimate goal of these kids. I would hope.

I do agree that they need to limit scholarships to 70.

[Covercorner2]

The problems about building that super team among high school kids is they can super team their asses on the bench for four years. Coaches just have to open these kids eyes. Going to Bama will give them a better chance of winning a ring but going to another SEC school where he can shine will get you to the NFL. That's the ultimate goal of these kids. I would hope.

I do agree that they need to limit scholarships to 70.

You have to realize all these kids believe they are good enough to start anywhere.

Also, if you tell a kid "there is no way you are going to play, you are going to sit the bench for a few years," isn't that kind of a slap in the face to the kid?

[ShotgunDawg]

The problems about building that super team among high school kids is they can super team their asses on the bench for four years. Coaches just have to open these kids eyes. Going to Bama will give them a better chance of winning a ring but going to another SEC school where he can shine will get you to the NFL. That's the ultimate goal of these kids. I would hope.

I do agree that they need to limit scholarships to 70.

I think limiting scholarships to 70 will lead to enough parity where kids will begin choosing schools based on depth chart & playing time because they'll have enough hope that the school they choose can compete, even if it's not Bama, OSU, LSU, Clemson, or UGA

[ShotgunDawg]

You have to realize all these kids believe they are good enough to start anywhere.

Also, if you tell a kid "there is no way you are going to play, you are going to sit the bench for a few years," isn't that kind of a slap in the face to the kid?

Agree. That's why lowering schollies to 70 is a must

Over time that should level the playing field at least enough where kids begin choosing schools based on what's best for them in terms of the depth chart instead just going to 1 of the 5 schools that have a chance to win the national title.

[Liverpooldawg]

The playoff and the BCS is what killed what parity we had. Bowls used to be a BIG deal. You could have a great season without winning it all and people would be happy with it. Not anymore.

[ShotgunDawg]

The playoff and the BCS is what killed what parity we had. Bowls used to be a BIG deal. You could have a great season without winning it all and people would be happy with it. Not anymore.

I don't disagree, but what should people be happy with a bowl? Yes, the new system is partly to blame, but I don't think that's a bad thing & actually believe it's a gateway to creating the greatest college football structure in history once they get this fixed.

It's very difficult as a college football fan to see leagues like the NFL, MLB, & the NBA institute rule after rule, NFL draft/salary cap, MLB draft, rule 5, luxury tax, INT signing poop limits, ect, & NBA draft, salary cap, & incumbent team allowed to pay more, while college football sits back with an antiquated, 1960s model that does not fit in today's world.

Do you think all the professional sports leagues would be promoting parity through their rules if it were bad for business?

[Jack Lambert]

You have to realize all these kids believe they are good enough to start anywhere.

Also, if you tell a kid "there is no way you are going to play, you are going to sit the bench for a few years," isn't that kind of a slap in the face to the kid?

I agree but a coach just has to show proof to that kid that a lot of kids thought the same thing. I would even use the transfer portal and show them who is transferring and why.

[Dawgtini]

Agree. That's why lowering schollies to 70 is a must

Over time that should level the playing field at least enough where kids begin choosing schools based on what's best for them in terms of the depth chart instead just going to 1 of the 5 schools that have a chance to win the national title.

Lowering schollys will help, but will only lower the ceiling a little bit...there may then be 15ish teams with a legit chance. If our team is not in that group, it will still suck. Gotta be a better way to encourage spreading the talent around, but I am not sure what that may be at the moment.

[TALL DAWG]

Agree. That's why lowering schollies to 70 is a must

Over time that should level the playing field at least enough where kids begin choosing schools based on what's best for them in terms of the depth chart instead just going to 1 of the 5 schools that have a chance to win the national title.

Most folks keep saying lower it to 70.
It would be of great benefit to just lower it to
75 and....give 10 back to baseball while they are at it.

[Johnson85]

You can forget lowering scholarships. You have coordinators making 7 figures and basically recruiters making high six figures, and you are going to say fewer football players get scholarships? Just a political non-starter for the NCAA.

[ShotgunDawg]

Lowering schollys will help, but will only lower the ceiling a little bit...there may then be 15ish teams with a legit chance. If our team is not in that group, it will still suck. Gotta be a better way to encourage spreading the talent around, but I am not sure what that may be at the moment.

15ish teams with a chance would be tremendous for the sport.

Would we be a part of those 15? Some years yes

[ShotgunDawg]

Most folks keep saying lower it to 70.
It would be of great benefit to just lower it to
75 and....give 10 back to baseball while they are at it.

Why not give 15 to baseball or men's soccer? 70 is a good number that helps numerous sport become more competitive under Title 9, while not lessening the opportunities.

[ShotgunDawg]

You can forget lowering scholarships. You have coordinators making 7 figures and basically recruiters making high six figures, and you are going to say fewer football players get scholarships? Just a political non-starter for the NCAA.

What would be political about it?

You take the schollies lessened & give them to other men's sports

In the end, there are no opportunities being lost

[the_real_MSU_is_us]

What would be political about it?

You take the schollies lessened & give them to other men's sports

In the end, there are no opportunities being lost

You've gotta ask yourself who's it that the NCAA fears... so reducing it to 70 helps State, but it hurts Bama, LSU, OSU, USC, Michigan, etc. Those schools have the power here

the second question then becomes "Why would those schools fight a 70 scholarship limit, even though the remaining 15 scholarships would get redistributed to other sports?". The answer is that they don't make money with Baseball or mens' soccer, they make it with Football. And if you stay on top, you get more fans, more applications to your school, etc. SO why would they want to reduce their competitive advantage in the sport that pays the bills?

So in the general public I agree with you- shifting 15 scholarships from football to other sports wouldn't be controversial. But it would be controversial among the schools that the NCAA fears going independent. It's why Bama and UGA and LSU don't get investigated for anything, while Mizzou gets a bowl ban for self reporting a rogue tutor.

[TaleofTwoDogs]

One recurring answer when the recruits are asked about how a non-elite school can win a natty, they say "you got'a break through".

If we had beaten Bama and UM in 2014 would we have broken the barrier? Would Mullen had been refocused to continue the trek into elite status or would we have been a one and done program?

[TALL DAWG]

Why not give 15 to baseball or men's soccer? 70 is a good number that helps numerous sport become more competitive under Title 9, while not lessening the opportunities.

Because it would be easier to move the FB # to 75 instead
of 70. Actually...it will not be easy to move it ANY off
85 number. So, all comments on this issue are probably wasted
type time.

[ShotgunDawg]

You've gotta ask yourself who's it that the NCAA fears... so reducing it to 70 helps State, but it hurts Bama, LSU, OSU, USC, Michigan, etc. Those schools have the power here

Why do they have the power? The majority of D1 can just outvote them.


the second question then becomes "Why would those schools fight a 70 scholarship limit, even though the remaining 15 scholarships would get redistributed to other sports?". The answer is that they don't make money with Baseball or mens' soccer, they make it with Football. And if you stay on top, you get more fans, more applications to your school, etc. SO why would they want to reduce their competitive advantage in the sport that pays the bills?

A more competitive sport would equal more money not less. Why do you think every pro sport league does it? What does money making ability have to do with how many scholarships each sport has? College softball has more scholarships that college basketball. Does that mean softball makes more money? I'm confused by the logic of your point.


So in the general public I agree with you- shifting 15 scholarships from football to other sports wouldn't be controversial. But it would be controversial among the schools that the NCAA fears going independent. It's why Bama and UGA and LSU don't get investigated for anything, while Mizzou gets a bowl ban for self reporting a rogue tutor.

You really think the NCAA fears that Bama, UGA, LSU could go independent? That ridiculous

All in all, I think your post is unintelligent & lacks logic. Perhaps I'm wrong but I think all your points in here are crap.

[ShotgunDawg]

Because it would be easier to move the FB # to 75 instead
of 70. Actually...it will not be easy to move it ANY off
85 number. So, all comments on this issue are probably wasted
type time.

Of course nothing is easy. Doesn't mean we shouldn't push for what's in the best interest of the sport & college athletics in general though

[BuckyIsAB****]

There is no way in hell 90 percent of the country is apathetic to CFB. I think yall are making way more out of the ''decline'' of college football than it really is.

[ShotgunDawg]

There is no way in hell 90 percent of the country is apathetic to CFB. I think yall are making way more out of the ''decline'' of college football than it really is.

I agree to a large extent because TV rating are good.

However, I do think the month of November has lost an awful lot because of the lack of parity. November should be a month where teams are battling for the title but instead, it's usually locked up by then

And by 90%, I mean 90% of the teams are eliminated before the season starts & that's not a good thing no matter how you slice it.

[dawgs]

I agree but a coach just has to show proof to that kid that a lot of kids thought the same thing. I would even use the transfer portal and show them who is transferring and why.

Every 5* kid (and really every highly recruited 4* kid too) is gonna think they can beat out anyone on the roster. What's funny is that pretty much everyone if asked to describe the type of mentality they want in their own players is to believe they are the best and will win the battle, yet with recruiting y'all are suggesting that we recruit by telling them they aren't good enough to beat out the talen at bama/uga/tosu/clemson/LSU, yet want them to come to Starkville and beat the talent at bama/uga/tosu/clemson/LSU after we've pitched them on not being good enough and needing to lower talent bar between them and playing time?

[BuckyIsAB****]

I agree to a large extent because TV rating are good.

However, I do think the month of November has lost an awful lot because of the lack of parity. November should be a month where teams are battling for the title but instead, it's usually locked up by then

And by 90%, I mean 90% of the teams are eliminated before the season starts & that's not a good thing no matter how you slice it.

November is fun as hell in the SEC. Lots of rivalries and conference games. I do agree that 90 percent of the country, more than that really is out of the natty hunt by then but its that same way in the NFL, and every other league by late season.

The bowls are fun its all as good as its ever been. I would also argue that 90 percent of the country doesnt expect to win the natty, they get their enjoyment by beating conf rivals and thats just as fun IMO

[dawgs]

As far as the answer:

- I think lowering the scholarships to 70 is an absolute must. Yes the best players will still recruit each other, but at least there will be less margin for error in the evaluation process & the croot hoarders won't be able to take everyone.

- Secondly, in an extremist view, if kids are making school decisions based on football rather than education, then pay them & lets have a draft.

More parity = closer games = more big games = more teams with hope = more invested fans = greater attendance = more money

Another big area that could help with parity is the off-field analysts staffs. Programs like bama and tosu have the money to employ dozens of analysts, many of them former HCs and coordinators who were at one point considered to be hot names in the CFB coaching world. That's a huge advantage. I know we are finally upgrading our "analysts", but we will never catch up to the big boys in quantity or quality until the ncaa regulates the entire staff the same way they regulate on-field staffs.

[dawgs]

November is fun as hell in the SEC. Lots of rivalries and conference games. I do agree that 90 percent of the country, more than that really is out of the natty hunt by then but its that same way in the NFL, and every other league by late season.

The bowls are fun its all as good as its ever been. I would also argue that 90 percent of the country doesnt expect to win the natty, they get their enjoyment by beating conf rivals and thats just as fun IMO

Nah, way more of the NFL is in the running for the super bowl late in the season. We've seen 5 and 6 seeds win the super bowl in the past decade, which means there were other teams competing for those spots in the last few weeks of the season, and clearly teams barely making the playoffs are capable of winning the super bowl somewhat regularly. Usually at least half the league is in playoff position or fighting for a spot well into December and those teams that do make it can't be ignored as lacking the talent to win it all either as evidenced by past wild card teams winning the super bowl.

[dawgs]

I agree to a large extent because TV rating are good.

However, I do think the month of November has lost an awful lot because of the lack of parity. November should be a month where teams are battling for the title but instead, it's usually locked up by then

And by 90%, I mean 90% of the teams are eliminated before the season starts & that's not a good thing no matter how you slice it.


Today's decline in attendance is tomorrow's decline in tv ratings (or whatever metric is used to measure watching the games via tv/internet in the future). Hard to turn the next generation into hardcore fans if they don't feel like their team ever has a real chance and they don't have the visceral experience of attending multiple games each season to build that emotional tie to the program. (And I recognize there's a lot going into the decline in attendance beyond decreasing parity - cost and every game in HDTV beamed to your home being chief among them).

[BuckyIsAB****]

Nah, way more of the NFL is in the running for the super bowl late in the season. We've seen 5 and 6 seeds win the super bowl in the past decade, which means there were other teams competing for those spots in the last few weeks of the season, and clearly teams barely making the playoffs are capable of winning the super bowl somewhat regularly. Usually at least half the league is in playoff position or fighting for a spot well into December and those teams that do make it can't be ignored as lacking the talent to win it all either as evidenced by past wild card teams winning the super bowl.

Thats still not 90 percent of the league in the running for the super bowl. Just making the playoffs in the NFL is comparable to making a good bowl in CFB. Theres also only 32 teams in the NFL. Theres 130 something in FBS CFB so theres no way 90 percent of them were ever going to be in the running for a natty in november.

College football is better now than it ever has been except for a few rules I hate but thats a different argument. The only reason for down attendance is if 1. your team is terrible and 2. every game is televised or live streamed. If teams want higher attendance they will win and they will have a great gameday experience. To do that they are going to have to spend some money. Every school in the SEC has enough money to spend to make their game day experience better. Its up to them whether they do or not. You want more students to come to games? Pay for a good wi fi connection in your stadium. Play a good home schedule, they cant help times but they can help opponents.

[BrunswickDawg]

I agree to a large extent because TV rating are good.

However, I do think the month of November has lost an awful lot because of the lack of parity. November should be a month where teams are battling for the title but instead, it's usually locked up by then

And by 90%, I mean 90% of the teams are eliminated before the season starts & that's not a good thing no matter how you slice it.



But has that actually changed? I don't think it really has. The teams involved ebb and flow, but when was the last time we had an unexpected National Champ? Probably GA Tech in 1990. The last 1st time NC winner was Colorado in 1990.
Nationally, there never has been parity.

Parity - to me - is SEC focused, and either 1 of two things; 1) the number of teams competitive for a title; or 2) the overall competitive balance the league. Since SEC expansion and movement to the 8 game schedule, it has been almost unchanged. From 1992-2011, on average 3.6 teams have been 6-2 or better (contenders); 5.05 teams have been within a game of .500 (between 3-5 to 5-3), and 3.35 teams have been 2-6 or worse. After expanding again in 2012 - it moved to 3.6 teams with 6-2 or better, 7 teams within 1 game of .500, and 3.4 teams at 2-6 or worse. So literally no change other than total number of teams participating over almost 30 years. And of the 14 teams, all but two have had at least 1 season at 6-2 or better, all but 3 have at least won a share of a division title, but only 6 have won it all.

Are people tired of the same 4 teams in the playoff? Yes. Will it be any different when power shifts slightly and instead on OSU, OK, Clemson and Bama it becomes Michigan, Texas, FSU, and LSU? Nope.

[ShotgunDawg]

November is fun as hell in the SEC. Lots of rivalries and conference games. I do agree that 90 percent of the country, more than that really is out of the natty hunt by then but its that same way in the NFL, and every other league by late season.

The bowls are fun its all as good as its ever been. I would also argue that 90 percent of the country doesnt expect to win the natty, they get their enjoyment by beating conf rivals and thats just as fun IMO

So you're for no progression at all?

[ShotgunDawg]

But has that actually changed? I don't think it really has. The teams involved ebb and flow, but when was the last time we had an unexpected National Champ? Probably GA Tech in 1990. The last 1st time NC winner was Colorado in 1990.
Nationally, there never has been parity.

Parity - to me - is SEC focused, and either 1 of two things; 1) the number of teams competitive for a title; or 2) the overall competitive balance the league. Since SEC expansion and movement to the 8 game schedule, it has been almost unchanged. From 1992-2011, on average 3.6 teams have been 6-2 or better (contenders); 5.05 teams have been within a game of .500 (between 3-5 to 5-3), and 3.35 teams have been 2-6 or worse. After expanding again in 2012 - it moved to 3.6 teams with 6-2 or better, 7 teams within 1 game of .500, and 3.4 teams at 2-6 or worse. So literally no change other than total number of teams participating over almost 30 years. And of the 14 teams, all but two have had at least 1 season at 6-2 or better, all but 3 have at least won a share of a division title, but only 6 have won it all.

Are people tired of the same 4 teams in the playoff? Yes. Will it be any different when power shifts slightly and instead on OSU, OK, Clemson and Bama it becomes Michigan, Texas, FSU, and LSU? Nope.

I get what you're saying, but the entire sport is cheating itself with this set-up. So much money & drama has been lost.

People say things are cyclical, but that's a lie. Things aren't cyclical. It's the same teams over & over & over, & it's getting worse due to super team building.

[dawgs]

I get what you're saying, but the entire sport is cheating itself with this set-up. So much money & drama has been lost.

People say things are cyclical, but that's a lie. Things aren't cyclical. It's the same teams over & over & over, & it's getting worse due to super team building.

The only thing that cycles is which of the top 15 or so programs are the 4-6 currently fighting it out for the natty. Currently it's bama, clemson, and tosu with uga poised to start winning them any year now. F$U was up there in the early 00s, but has cycled off. USC, Florida, and Texas were there in the 00s (when bama and clemson weren't). It's just a matter of which elite programs have the right coach in place at the moment to put all the pieces together, the pieces are largely already gathered at the elite programs - that's why you can tell in year 2 or year 3 at the latest whether a coach is gonna win at the elite programs cause it doesn't usually take a full overhaul to start winning 10+ games and staying in the playoff discussion into November.

Think about who has played for a natty in the crootin' ranking era. Only auburn and Clemson have won a natty without the previous 4-5 classes averaging in the top 10, and both of those averaged just outside the top 10 with multiple top 10 classes on the roster. Only Oregon has even played for the natty with similar average crootin' ranking and Oregon didn't have the top 10 classes that auburn and Clemson rostered. In the playoff era, Washington made it with crootin' rankings outside the top 10 and they were steamrolled by bama. So if you wanna predict the playoff teams and national champ, start by digging into the crootin' rankings from the past 4-5 years to narrow down your choices.

[ShotgunDawg]

So if you wanna predict the playoff teams and national champ, start by digging into the crootin' rankings from the past 4-5 years to narrow down your choices.

Really man?

Overall your post was solid, but really?

The entire thread & previous threads before this one were entirely based on the premise. Anyone that doesn't understand this is a willful idiot at this point.

[Johnson85]

What would be political about it?

You take the schollies lessened & give them to other men's sports

In the end, there are no opportunities being lost

What would be political about taking scholarships from a sport that makes a shit ton of money for Power 5 schools and is also dominated by minority athletes who don't have an option to go pro at 18, and reallocating those scholarships to a sport that loses money for most Power 5 schools but whose rosters are mostly relatively affluent Caucasians and whose better players could have gone pro out of high school?

You're right. No way that would be a problem to do.

[dawgs]

Really man?

Overall your post was solid, but really?

The entire thread & previous threads before this one were entirely based on the premise. Anyone that doesn't understand this is a willful idiot at this point.

I'm always amazed how many folks on here still argue crootin' rankings don't matter. The whole point was about how predictable it all really is because of crootin' rankings alone before even getting into a more nuanced analysis.

[dawgs]

What would be political about taking scholarships from a sport that makes a shit ton of money for Power 5 schools and is also dominated by minority athletes who don't have an option to go pro at 18, and reallocating those scholarships to a sport that loses money for most Power 5 schools but whose rosters are mostly relatively affluent Caucasians and whose better players could have gone pro out of high school?

You're right. No way that would be a problem to do.

Ha, I agree with you here. Though in 20 years, football probably won't be the light at the end of the tunnel for many that it is today thanks to CTE. A lot of these kids won't grow up playing football in school when programs are disbanding due to insurance premiums (on top of the increasing number of kids whose parents just aren't gonna let them play). Baseball (and soccer) stand to see a nice talent pool bump in the coming decades from low income minorities imo.

[1bigdawg]

The NCAA reduced scholarships from 95 to 85 in 1992 so it can be done. There are two groupings vying for control. The G5 would like fewer scholarships to improve competition with the P5, but are scared of the P5 bolting from the NCAA. The MSUs of the world actually have a lot of say. Those "power" schools that are often mentioned cannot set up a separate division because there are not enough of them. They are locked into the conferences and really need the MSUs to rack up wins and television viewers.

I am not sur the move to 75 would be good for college football. It was not too long ago that everyone said the playoff system would be and I believe that has been detrimental to everything but budgets.

[ShotgunDawg]

What would be political about taking scholarships from a sport that makes a shit ton of money for Power 5 schools and is also dominated by minority athletes who don't have an option to go pro at 18, and reallocating those scholarships to a sport that loses money for most Power 5 schools but whose rosters are mostly relatively affluent Caucasians and whose better players could have gone pro out of high school?

You're right. No way that would be a problem to do.

I think we have to be really careful to label a sport a white sport or black sport. Which sport people play is entirely by choice.

To add, put some of the scholarships towards men's soccer, which would be beneficial to Hispanics & satisfy the urge to appease a minority group.

What sport are Hispanics supposed to play in college?

[ShotgunDawg]

I am not sur the move to 75 would be good for college football. It was not too long ago that everyone said the playoff system would be and I believe that has been detrimental to everything but budgets.

What would be the downside of 70-75 schollies?

[BuckyIsAB****]

So you're for no progression at all?

Im always for things getting better but I just think people shitting on college football the way it is now are just bama fatigued its not bad. Its the same as always except there is more money in it than ever

[BuckyIsAB****]

I'm always amazed how many folks on here still argue crootin' rankings don't matter. The whole point was about how predictable it all really is because of crootin' rankings alone before even getting into a more nuanced analysis.

They dont. They dont matter as much as you and people like bo bounds who love to think they know more than the average joe

[dawgs]

They dont. They dont matter as much as you and people like bo bounds who love to think they know more than the average joe

Look at every national champ since recruiting rankings became a thing. Look at every runner up. Look at every playoff contender. Then report back with how many of them had an average recruiting ranking outside elite levels.

[ShotgunDawg]

They dont. They dont matter as much as you and people like bo bounds who love to think they know more than the average joe

They don't matter within your lane, but they do matter when playing someone outside of your lane. Outside your lane & matchups don't matter. Inside your lane, matchup determine the outcome.

1-6
7-11ish
12-30

[ShotgunDawg]

Look at every national champ since recruiting rankings became a thing. Look at every runner up. Look at every playoff contender. Then report back with how many of them had an average recruiting ranking outside elite levels.

Yes, they matter significantly at the elite level of the game. Nobody argues that.

The argument is that people JUST look at who wins the natty rather than looking at who wins when the #16 recruiter plays the #9 recruiter. Just because who wins the natty greatly influenced by recruiting rankings, doesn't mean that who goes 6-6 or 8-4 is greatly influenced by recruiting rankings.

Just debating recruiting rankings as they pertain to who wins the natty is a very shallow argument.

[dawgs]

Yes, they matter significantly at the elite level of the game. Nobody argues that.

The argument is that people JUST look at who wins the natty rather than looking at who wins when the #16 recruiter plays the #9 recruiter. Just because who wins the natty greatly influenced by recruiting rankings, doesn't mean that who goes 6-6 or 8-4 is greatly influenced by recruiting rankings.

Just debating recruiting rankings as they pertain to who wins the natty is a very shallow argument.

Well sure, obviously the further down the list you go, the more variation in outcomes you'll see. I'm with you that there's really more tiers than exact rankings, I've said as much plenty of times elsewhere on this board but didn't feel the need to get into all those details every time crootin' comes up.

[Jarius]

What would be political about taking scholarships from a sport that makes a shit ton of money for Power 5 schools and is also dominated by minority athletes who don't have an option to go pro at 18, and reallocating those scholarships to a sport that loses money for most Power 5 schools but whose rosters are mostly relatively affluent Caucasians and whose better players could have gone pro out of high school?

You're right. No way that would be a problem to do.

If baseball had full scholarships to give out, it would very much help diversify the sport and it would not be looked at as a Caucasian sport. Some of the best baseball in the world is played by minorities all over the globe. The reason it's an affluent sport in the US is because the NCAA is making it that way with scholarship restrictions.....but yea, let's only give minorities the option of banging their head against another human being and not being able to physically function at the age of 45.

[TUSK]

They don't matter within your lane, but they do matter when playing someone outside of your lane. Outside your lane & matchups don't matter. Inside your lane, matchup determine the outcome.

1-6
7-11ish
12-30

This is correct... What we need is another "lane"...

Have the Top 25-30 Teams (based on "success" and revenue generated) break away from the NCAA and become de facto NFL Feeders (which they already are)... It'd be another product football fans could enjoy and it'd make a pile of money...

Hypothetically, this new league could have 6 conferences with 5 teams each...

Schedule: 4 games vs conference, 5 vs non-conference, and 1 or 2 non-league games/championship games... Then an 8 team playoff...

Bam, Done!

[Johnson85]

If baseball had full scholarships to give out, it would very much help diversify the sport and it would not be looked at as a Caucasian sport. Some of the best baseball in the world is played by minorities all over the globe. The reason it's an affluent sport in the US is because the NCAA is making it that way with scholarship restrictions.....but yea, let's only give minorities the option of banging their head against another human being and not being able to physically function at the age of 45.

It would make college ball more of an option for less affluent people, so it would help. But compared to football and basketball, repetition against good competition still means a lot compared to natural ability. So people that can pay for travel ball are going to be disproportionately represented compared to their talent. And even with reasonable scholarship numbers, you're still going to lose a disproportionate number of poor players because even a $100k signing bonus seems like too much money to turn down.

I don't necessarily disagree with your point, but if the political winds are blowing a particular direction, it's towards football players getting more of the money they help generate, not taking it away. Maybe if a scholarship reduction were coupled with allowing larger stipends, based on the argument that the best players generate most of the value, and therefore it makes sense to pay more to fewer players, which would then have the byproduct of freeing up scholarships for title IX purposes for baseball. So footbally players wouldnt' get any less money. Baseball players would get more money. And Title IX would be satisfied.

[BuckyIsAB****]

Look at every national champ since recruiting rankings became a thing. Look at every runner up. Look at every playoff contender. Then report back with how many of them had an average recruiting ranking outside elite levels.

Yea and those same teams all also have Nick Saban and Dabo Swinney coaching them. Those same 2 teams have also been pushed to their limit by teams and beaten by teams that recruit in the 15-30 range.

They dont matter as much as you think. They are mainly a money maker. It is totally overblown

[ShotgunDawg]

Yea and those same teams all also have Nick Saban and Dabo Swinney coaching them. Those same 2 teams have also been pushed to their limit by teams and beaten by teams that recruit in the 15-30 range.

They dont matter as much as you think. They are mainly a money maker. It is totally overblown

This is wildly ignorant.

[MedDawg]

What would be political about taking scholarships from a sport that makes a shit ton of money for Power 5 schools and is also dominated by minority athletes who don't have an option to go pro at 18, and reallocating those scholarships to a sport that loses money for most Power 5 schools but whose rosters are mostly relatively affluent Caucasians and whose better players could have gone pro out of high school?

You're right. No way that would be a problem to do.

College football is dominated by minority athletes, true. If they cut the scholarships to 70 the top 9,100 players will remain in FBS and worst 1,950 players in FBS will lose scholarships (and move down to FCS). However, because of the dominance of minorities in FBS it is likely that the worst 1,950 players will have relatively fewer minorities than the top 9,100 players.

[TUSK]

Yea and those same teams all also have Nick Saban and Dabo Swinney coaching them. Those same 2 teams have also been pushed to their limit by teams and beaten by teams that recruit in the 15-30 range.

They dont matter as much as you think. They are mainly a money maker. It is totally overblown

This got me to thinking... I didn't cull this list based on "recruiting prowess", but here all the opponents that have either beaten Bammer or lost to them by 13 points or less since the "run" began in '08...

Arkansas (10-3)
Arkansas (7-6)
Arkansas (8-5)
Auburn (10-4)
Auburn (12-2)
Auburn (14-0)
Auburn (8-5)
Auburn (8-5)
Clemson (14-1)
Clemson (14-1)
Clemson (15-0)
Florida (13-1)
Georgia (10-3)
Georgia (11-3)
Georgia (12-2)
Georgia (13-2)
Kentucky (7-6)
Louisiana State (10-3)
Louisiana State (11-2)
Louisiana State (13-1)
Louisiana State (8-4)
Louisiana State (8-5)
Louisiana State (8-5)
Louisiana State (9-4)
Mississippi State (10-3)
Mississippi State (7-6)
Mississippi State (9-4)
Mississippi (10-3)
Mississippi (4-8)
Mississippi (5-7)
Mississippi (9-4)
Mississippi (9-4)
Ohio State (14-1)
Oklahoma (11-2)
Oklahoma (12-2)
South Carolina (9-5)
Tennessee (7-6)
Tennessee (9-4)
Texas A&M (11-2)
Texas A&M (7-6)
Texas A&M (9-4)
Utah (13-0)
Virginia Tech (10-3)
West Virginia (7-6)

[BuckyIsAB****]

This is wildly ignorant.

Ok. So Clemson and Bama have never lost to anyone that doesnt recruit in the top 5 or 10? Whatever you consider an ''elite'' recruiting ranking? They have. More than once.


Recruiting rankings and all the attention the kids get is totally and completely overblown and anyone who says different hasnt had to deal with it

[BuckyIsAB****]

This got me to thinking... I didn't cull this list based on "recruiting prowess", but here all the opponents that have either beaten Bammer or lost to them by 13 points or less since the "run" began in '08...

Arkansas (10-3)
Arkansas (7-6)
Arkansas (8-5)
Auburn (10-4)
Auburn (12-2)
Auburn (14-0)
Auburn (8-5)
Auburn (8-5)
Clemson (14-1)
Clemson (14-1)
Clemson (15-0)
Florida (13-1)
Georgia (10-3)
Georgia (11-3)
Georgia (12-2)
Georgia (13-2)
Kentucky (7-6)
Louisiana State (10-3)
Louisiana State (11-2)
Louisiana State (13-1)
Louisiana State (8-4)
Louisiana State (8-5)
Louisiana State (8-5)
Louisiana State (9-4)
Mississippi State (10-3)
Mississippi State (7-6)
Mississippi State (9-4)
Mississippi (10-3)
Mississippi (4-8)
Mississippi (5-7)
Mississippi (9-4)
Mississippi (9-4)
Ohio State (14-1)
Oklahoma (11-2)
Oklahoma (12-2)
South Carolina (9-5)
Tennessee (7-6)
Tennessee (9-4)
Texas A&M (11-2)
Texas A&M (7-6)
Texas A&M (9-4)
Utah (13-0)
Virginia Tech (10-3)
West Virginia (7-6)

That is just wildly truthful Shotgun. Seems like a lot of less than elite recruiters in there

[BuckyIsAB****]

Maybe some of you cats arent as smart as you think you are and are depending on an imaginary ranking made by some expert to tell you how good a team will be instead of actually knowing the game and going and watching the in state kids you bitch about bc they are only 3 stars yourselves.

[dawgs]

Lulz Saban has a 146-21 record (0.870 winning percentage) at bama and if you take away his first season, it's 139-15 (0.903) and we are supposed to believe crootin' rankings are overrated because some 7-9 win sec teams managed to stay within 2 TDs in losses and a few even lucked into some Ws? You are missing the damn forest for the trees, bro. If you think giving weight to crootin' rankings means the outcome aligns with the crootin' rankings literally every game, then you have a pretty unreasonable standard for success.

[TUSK]

Lulz Saban has a 146-21 record (0.870 winning percentage) at bama and if you take away his first season, it's 139-15 (0.903) and we are supposed to believe crootin' rankings are overrated because some 7-9 win sec teams managed to stay within 2 TDs in losses and a few even lucked into some Ws? You are missing the damn forest for the trees, bro. If you think giving weight to crootin' rankings means the outcome aligns with the crootin' rankings literally every game, then you have a pretty unreasonable standard for success.

What should be the "maximum allowable winning %" in order to attain "parity" or "fairness"?

[dawgs]

What should be the "maximum allowable winning %" in order to attain "parity" or "fairness"?

That wasn't the point being made, but if you want a ballpark figure, 90% winning percentage over a decade time span is probably a bit too high for a healthy league. Shit, y'all can't even fill the stadium if it's not Auburn, LSU, or UGA rolling into town, and I guess for the first half against Tennessee.

[BuckyIsAB****]

Lulz Saban has a 146-21 record (0.870 winning percentage) at bama and if you take away his first season, it's 139-15 (0.903) and we are supposed to believe crootin' rankings are overrated because some 7-9 win sec teams managed to stay within 2 TDs in losses and a few even lucked into some Ws? You are missing the damn forest for the trees, bro. If you think giving weight to crootin' rankings means the outcome aligns with the crootin' rankings literally every game, then you have a pretty unreasonable standard for success.

No Im just saying football games dont come down to rankings made up by people who said a kid who doesnt even exist was a 3 star player

[BuckyIsAB****]

What should be the "maximum allowable winning %" in order to attain "parity" or "fairness"?

I think its all bullshit. People are Bama fatigued. If the rest of college football wants fairness and parity (which there is a lot of already) then they should make better hires and commit to the level that it takes to get compete

[Jarius]

Most schools can't get away with buying 25 first round draft picks every year in recruiting season or they would. As much as I hate OM, they got busted because they were a nontraditional power taking players from blue bloods. Upsetting the order of college football gets you the OM treatment by the NCAA. They would do the exact same thing to us if we started driving 100 mph in recruiting (they did it to JWS and he wasn't even driving 100 mph). Ole Miss getting mad at MSU over Leo Lewis and rebel rags and all of that shit is comical. They got burned because they pissed off much bigger programs than MSU. Alabama, Georgia, LSU, etc. can buy whoever they want whenever they want because it doesn't turn heads. Until that mindset is changed by the NCAA, we will always be an 8 win program, and so will anyone else that's not already a blue blood. Clemson is the exception to the rule and they built that program over 2 decades and did it in a shit league.

[ShotgunDawg]

I think its all bullshit. People are Bama fatigued. If the rest of college football wants fairness and parity (which there is a lot of already) then they should make better hires and commit to the level that it takes to get compete

This is naive

To get to their level, you have to take players from those 6 schools. And, without going on probation, there's virtually no investment that will allow you to do that.

[dawgs]

Most schools can't get away with buying 25 first round draft picks every year in recruiting season or they would. As much as I hate OM, they got busted because they were a nontraditional power taking players from blue bloods. Upsetting the order of college football gets you the OM treatment by the NCAA. They would do the exact same thing to us if we started driving 100 mph in recruiting (they did it to JWS and he wasn't even driving 100 mph). Ole Miss getting mad at MSU over Leo Lewis and rebel rags and all of that shit is comical. They got burned because they pissed off much bigger programs than MSU. Alabama, Georgia, LSU, etc. can buy whoever they want whenever they want because it doesn't turn heads. Until that mindset is changed by the NCAA, we will always be an 8 win program, and so will anyone else that's not already a blue blood. Clemson is the exception to the rule and they built that program over 2 decades and did it in a shit league.

Clemson also has a natty from the early 80s, which is relatively modern for CFB (compared to all the pre-1960s records and trophies programs claim).

[dawgs]

No Im just saying football games dont come down to rankings made up by people who said a kid who doesnt even exist was a 3 star player


Of course it's not just crootin' rankings between the teams in any given game, there's coaching, game planning, injuries, lucky bounces, etc. but the point is bama has such a talent edge on a mid-tier sec program that they can show up with their C-game and still have a chance to win even if the other team brings their A-game. If bama loses a player to injury, they have a 4-5* kid waiting to get their chance to replace them, we have a 3* redshirt freshman from neshoba county who picked us over OM, Memphis, and usm to replace them. When bama guys get tired, they rotate in equally talented guys so that everyone stays fresh without a drop in talent, while we can't rotate every position to keep starters fresh and not expect to take some significant steps back in production when the 2nd string steps in. It's more than about measuring your best 22 against their best 22, it's about creating such depth that bad game planning, bad playcalling, tired players, injured players, etc. that should swing the outcome of games doesn't actually swing the outcome, which is how you win 90+% of your games over 10+ years. You seem to think talent doesn't make a ******* bit of difference yet everything I see indicates that signing better recruits usually leads to better on field results over time and signing better recruits is the only way to put yourself in position for a natty.

Note that at no point did I say coaching doesn't matter (crootin' is part of coaching for CFB anyway!), just that stockpiling talent the way a handful of programs are these days insulates the coach and players from the consequences of their bad decisions and/or execution. The RT misses a block, but the 5* stud RB makes the DE miss anyway and runs for a TD vs. the RT misses a block and the 3* RB is a quarter second too late with his juke and gets tackled for a 5 yard loss.