The Problem & Truth About College Football....

[ShotgunDawg]

I had some free time this morning & in light of the thread on Sixpack about my idea of reducing football scholarships to 70-75 & giving the left overs to baseball & other men's sports, I decided to look for some truth about how about 6 teams hold an absolute monopoly on winning in college football due to the ridiculous hoarding of recruits that is allowed because they have 85 scholarships to play with.

On Saturday night, Georgia played Notre Dame. In that game, Georgia played 59 total players & those 59 players are undoubtedly one of, if not the top roster in college football.

However, here is what UGA did not play in that game. Here is the recruiting rankings of players on UGA's roster that DID NOT PARTICIPATE in the Notre Dame game

- 3 5 star recruits
- 20 4 star recruits
- 9 3 star recruits
- 3 2 star recruits

So, by using 247's college roster rankings, UGA has a roster that most resembles Stanford or UCLA sitting on the bench vs Notre Dame. UGA sat more talent on the bench vs Notre Dame than Mississippi State has on it's entire roster.

Folks, that is an awful business model & ridiculous. It's the main reason why CBS is having to televise a 2:30 game this weekend between Bama & Ole Miss that will end up 65-10 or so. It's terrible for TV & terrible for business.

Now, for a second, imagine that UGA, only had 70 scholarships. That means that off of UGA's roster, 8 4 star & 9 3 star recruits would have been redistributed across college. Imagine muliplying that with Bama's roster, Clemson's roster, Ohio State's roster, Oklahoma's roster, LSU's roster, etc & you are looking at something close to 80-100 4 star caliber players being redistributed across college football.

How much better would the game be? How much better would TV be? How much more interest would the sport have? How much more money would be made due to this interest? How many more fans would show up to watch those games?

[StateDawg44]

Is this something that is actually being considered or just your thoughts and recommendations typed out?

I'd be fine with it. What would the drawbacks be?

[msstate7]

Imagine if we only 70 scholarships this year and 10 of them were suspended.

[ShotgunDawg]

Imagine if we only 70 scholarships this year and 10 of them were suspended.

That would be a huge issue but it would also lower the margin for error across the country & raise the standards in athletic departments to prevent things like that from happening.

[ShotgunDawg]

Is this something that is actually being considered or just your thoughts and recommendations typed out?

I'd be fine with it. What would the drawbacks be?

Although it's the #1 issue plaguing college football, to my knowledge no one with power in the sport has had the balls yet to bring it up. It's just been my recommendation for a long time now.

The drawbacks would be as 7 just said. If your caught up in a scandal & have a bunch of players suspended, it could destroy your season.

The other draw back is that 1,875, bad college football players would not have a scholarship. However, those scholarships wouldn't disappear. They would just be re-allocated to other men's sports like baseball & soccer.

The other downside is that while everyone would get a roster that was closer to beating Bama, USM & La Tech would also get a roster that would be closer to beating us.

[AusTexDawg]

I’ve wondered if further scholarship reductions would help level the playing field. The concept is solid, and anything that could get more baseball scholarships available would be a plus. Not sure coaches would go for it (even the ones who could benefit)

[TrapGame]

Isn't most of the modern day scholarship rules due to Bear Bryant giving everyone with talent a scholly so he didn't have to face them on an opposing team?

In some ways I think we have regressed to that point. I think there should be a cap on how many 5* and 4* you can have on the team, scholarship or not. Sitting 20 4* star players is ridiculous. This is why we can't have nice things. And let's be really honest. Georgia's getting these 5* and 4* the old fashion way and it ain't just recruiting.

[Cooterpoot]

You’d have to split the scholarships. They can’t simply go to men’s sports.

[ShotgunDawg]

Isn't most of the modern day scholarship rules due to Bear Bryant giving everyone with talent a scholly so he didn't have to face them on an opposing team?

In some ways I think we have regressed to that point. I think there should be a cap on how many 5* and 4* you can have on the team, scholarship or not. Sitting 20 4* star players is ridiculous. This is why we can't have nice things. And let's be really honest. Georgia's getting these 5* and 4* the old fashion way and it ain't just recruiting.

It's easier to just lower the scholarship limits than to regulate 4/5 star recruits on a roster.

I don't have any issue with the blue bloods being the best teams. I have an issue with the lack of competition in the sport & that lack of hope that 100+ fan bases have. It's bad for the sport.

The system doesn't need an overhaul. The margin for error that the blue bloods have just needs to be reduced

[ShotgunDawg]

You’d have to split the scholarships. They can’t simply go to men’s sports.

I'm not completely sure how Title 9 works, so you may be correct. Either way, this move would help football & other sports.

[Coach007]

Although it's the #1 issue plaguing college football, to my knowledge no one with power in the sport has had the balls yet to bring it up. It's just been my recommendation for a long time now.

The drawbacks would be as 7 just said. If your caught up in a scandal & have a bunch of players suspended, it could destroy your season.

The other draw back is that 1,875, bad college football players would not have a scholarship. However, those scholarships wouldn't disappear. They would just be re-allocated to other men's sports like baseball & soccer.

The other downside is that while everyone would get a roster that was closer to beating Bama, USM & La Tech would also get a roster that would be closer to beating us.

Over all, I agree 100% and have talked about that here. The business model is bad. I will disagree with one thing. Those 1875 players have other options. There is JUCO and DII. Those could be expanded and be the prepping field for move ups.

With the Portal, you basically now have a FA system too.

[ShotgunDawg]

Over all, I agree 100% and have talked about that here. The business model is bad. I will disagree with one thing. Those 1875 players have other options. There is JUCO and DII. Those could be expanded and be the prepping field for move ups.

With the Portal, you basically now have a FA system too.

Good point with the JUCO & D2 & yes the bottom of college football could be expanded to accommodate.

[Red Sox Dawg]

One drawback would be the loss of scholarships for athletes when all rosters are trimmed. 1950 less scholarships hurts a lot of athletes. I would be ok if you gave 2 scholarships to basketball and 13 to baseball, basically redistribute them.

[TrapGame]

It's easier to just lower the scholarship limits than to regulate 4/5 star recruits on a roster.

I don't have any issue with the blue bloods being the best teams. I have an issue with the lack of competition in the sport & that lack of hope that 100+ fan bases have. It's bad for the sport.

The system doesn't need an overhaul. The margin for error that the blue bloods have just needs to be reduced

Yeah, scholly limits are the easiest to do without major changes.

[Percho]

I had some free time this morning & in light of the thread on Sixpack about my idea of reducing football scholarships to 70-75 & giving the left overs to baseball & other men's sports, I decided to look for some truth about how about 6 teams hold an absolute monopoly on winning in college football due to the ridiculous hoarding of recruits that is allowed because they have 85 scholarships to play with.

On Saturday night, Georgia played Notre Dame. In that game, Georgia played 59 total players & those 59 players are undoubtedly one of, if not the top roster in college football.

However, here is what UGA did not play in that game. Here is the recruiting rankings of players on UGA's roster that DID NOT PARTICIPATE in the Notre Dame game

- 3 5 star recruits
- 20 4 star recruits
- 9 3 star recruits
- 3 2 star recruits

So, by using 247's college roster rankings, UGA has a roster that most resembles Stanford or UCLA sitting on the bench vs Notre Dame. UGA sat more talent on the bench vs Notre Dame than Mississippi State has on it's entire roster.

Folks, that is an awful business model & ridiculous. It's the main reason why CBS is having to televise a 2:30 game this weekend between Bama & Ole Miss that will end up 65-10 or so. It's terrible for TV & terrible for business.

Now, for a second, imagine that UGA, only had 70 scholarships. That means that off of UGA's roster, 8 4 star & 9 3 star recruits would have been redistributed across college. Imagine muliplying that with Bama's roster, Clemson's roster, Ohio State's roster, Oklahoma's roster, LSU's roster, etc & you are looking at something close to 80-100 4 star caliber players being redistributed across college football.

How much better would the game be? How much better would TV be? How much more interest would the sport have? How much more money would be made due to this interest? How many more fans would show up to watch those games?


Absolutely the best post you have ever made. Needs to be posted on all social media. "They," need to understand the game is going to hell and the interest thereof.

[Percho]

Imagine if we only 70 scholarships this year and 10 of them were suspended.

If those 10 were kicked out of school as they probably should be we would only have 75.

[ShotgunDawg]

Absolutely the best post you have ever made. Needs to be posted on all social media. "They," need to understand the game is going to hell and the interest thereof.

Thank you.

I'm all for this being distributed.

It took 20 minutes of research to figure out & the truth needs to be told.

The sport is being destroyed & now that recruiting rankings can quantify such things, people understand why the sport is being destroyed.

I don't blame our forefathers because without recruiting rankings this becomes impossible to quantify & understand, but now that the truth takes 20 minutes to discover, for the good of the sport, change must occur

[Dawg2003]

How is the current model bad for business and TV? Are revenue and ratings down?

[ShotgunDawg]

How is the current model bad for business and TV? Are revenue and ratings down?

Attendance is dropping & I can't imagine how anyone could make an argument that blow outs are good for TV?

I can't believe your question is serious. It's not a sustainable business model. It causes 85% of the country to be excluded from hope

College football hasn't had a 1st time champion since Florida in 1996

The SEC has only had 6 different conference champions since 1975.

There no way anyone can convince me that this is a competitive sport & lack of competition isn't entertaining & bad for the sport

[AROB44]

Actually, Shotgun, this is definitely the best post you have ever made. I agree with you 100%.

[Coach007]

Thank you.

I'm all for this being distributed.

It took 20 minutes of research to figure out & the truth needs to be told.

The sport is being destroyed & now that recruiting rankings can quantify such things, people understand why the sport is being destroyed.

I don't blame our forefathers because without recruiting rankings this becomes impossible to quantify & understand, but now that the truth takes 20 minutes to discover, for the good of the sport, change must occur

One catch before you do out this out there.

59+3+20+9+3= 94

Are you sure they have 94 on their roster?

[Dawg2003]

Attendance is dropping & I can't imagine how anyone could make an argument that blow outs are good for TV?

I can't believe your question is serious. It's not a sustainable business model. It causes 85% of the country to be excluded from hope

College football hasn't had a 1st time champion since Florida in 1996

The SEC has only had 6 different conference champions since 1975.

There no way anyone can convince me that this is a competitive sport & lack of competition isn't entertaining & bad for the sport

But are TV ratings and revenue down?

[ShotgunDawg]

One catch before you do out this out there.

59+3+20+9+3= 94

Are you sure they have 94 on their roster?

The roster size is 105. I don't know who UGA has on scholarship and who is considered a walk-on

[ShotgunDawg]

But are TV ratings and revenue down?


IDK but I'm fairly certain they'd be higher with changes.

[ShotgunDawg]

If you want to spend the time to check my work, feel free. Here are the links:

https://georgiadogs.com/boxscore.aspx?id=11779&path=football

https://georgiadogs.com/roster.aspx?path=football

https://247sports.com/Team/Georgia-172/Roster/

[Dawg2003]

IDK but I'm fairly certain they'd be higher with changes.

To argue that the current business model is bad, you'd have to argue that revenue and ratings are down because of the business model. I don't know the numbers myself, which is why I'm asking. FWIW, I've lost a lot of interest in college football as well because of how its set up. But I don't know that the way it's set up is a bad business model if the goal is to increase revenue. I haven't looked at any numbers.

I'm also not convinced that ratings would be better with changes? How do we know that?

[ShotgunDawg]

To argue that the current business model is bad, you'd have to argue that revenue and ratings are down because of the business model. I don't know the numbers myself, which is why I'm asking. FWIW, I've lost a lot of interest in college football as well because of how its set up. But I don't know that the way it's set up is a bad business model if the goal is to increase revenue. I haven't looked at any numbers.

I'm also not convinced that ratings would be better with changes? How do we know that?

Fair points.

I think ratings would be better because every pro league has benefitted by having more parity.

In fact, the pro leagues are best off when the blue bloods are good while the non blue bloods have hope.

This system sets that up. The blue bloods are most likely still the best teams under my system, but the non blue bloods are just enough closer that many many more teams have hope, which makes every game that much more important for more teams.

[ScoobaDawg]

I will see I have been giving you some hell because you have gone far off the rails... but this is a good idea.
Double good because it would help baseball also. Not sure what other women's sport it would help off the top of my head.

[turkish]

I’m not sure TV ratings stats support that viewers prefer parity.

[ShotgunDawg]

I will see I have been giving you some hell because you have gone far off the rails... but this is a good idea.
Double good because it would help baseball also. Not sure what other women's sport it would help off the top of my head.

I won over Scooba!

WOW

[BrunswickDawg]

Thank you.

I'm all for this being distributed.

It took 20 minutes of research to figure out & the truth needs to be told.

The sport is being destroyed & now that recruiting rankings can quantify such things, people understand why the sport is being destroyed.

I don't blame our forefathers because without recruiting rankings this becomes impossible to quantify & understand, but now that the truth takes 20 minutes to discover, for the good of the sport, change must occur

The recruiting rankings have made it easier for the Blue Bloods to corner the market. In the old days they had a slight advantage in terms of how much money they could spend looking for talent. But, UGA/Bama, etc were not going to comb the nation to get it. They would target the closer boarder states to their schools - I know UGA would hit GA, AL, SC, TN, and North FL. You rarely saw kids from outside those areas on the GA roster. The 1980 team had 20 non-GA players - only 2 of whom were not from the states listed earlier. There are 42 non-Georgia players on their roster this season, 28 of whom are outside that traditional recruiting circle. That is a huge, huge advantage for those teams. Bama had 46 out of state kids in 1980, 13 of whom I'd consider "outside" of a traditional recruiting footprint (GA, FL, MS, LA, TN, SC) - which is a little bigger than most schools at the time. They have 74 on the roster (I assume this includes walk-ons) this year with 31 being from outside that traditional footprint. Bama has long had a national draw - but when the numbers get to where Bama is it shows how skewed the talent process is.

[ShotgunDawg]

The recruiting rankings have made it easier for the Blue Bloods to corner the market. In the old days they had a slight advantage in terms of how much money they could spend looking for talent. But, UGA/Bama, etc were not going to comb the nation to get it. They would target the closer boarder states to their schools - I know UGA would hit GA, AL, SC, TN, and North FL. You rarely saw kids from outside those areas on the GA roster. The 1980 team had 20 non-GA players - only 2 of whom were not from the states listed earlier. There are 42 non-Georgia players on their roster this season, 28 of whom are outside that traditional recruiting circle. That is a huge, huge advantage for those teams. Bama had 46 out of state kids in 1980, 13 of whom I'd consider "outside" of a traditional recruiting footprint (GA, FL, MS, LA, TN, SC) - which is a little bigger than most schools at the time. They have 74 on the roster (I assume this includes walk-ons) this year with 31 being from outside that traditional footprint. Bama has long had a national draw - but when the numbers get to where Bama is it shows how skewed the talent process is.

Completely agree 100%.

Add in these Summer recruiting camps & combines & now not only do the blue bloods not have to find the great players, the players that may be already committed to them become friends with the other top recruits & convince them to help form a super team.

Now, the world isn't going backwards in terms of recruiting rankings or Summer camps/combines, so the only realistic, easily implementable answer to helping solve this issue is to reduce scholarships.

Every year it's gets more & more difficult to hide players. Just look at the 2019 recruiting class in Mississippi. Does Chris Jones remain hidden out until his SR year in today's recruiting world? I doubt it.

Point is, we've reached a new era in college football & just like past new eras in college football & new era in different industries across, new rules must be created & adjustments must be made to the protect the competitive nature of the sport.

It's an absolute no brainer to me, but I doubt any administrator with pull has the balls or dick size to fight for the betterment of the game.

[ShotgunDawg]

What's frustrating is due to the media becoming more & more national, no one with a platform either realizes the issue or doesn't care to talk about it.

While it seems like such a no brainer, I'm not sure how we get people that can influence the sport to talk about this.

[BulldogBear]

You?d have to split the scholarships. They can?t simply go to men?s sports.

Aren't they already mens' scholarships?

[R2Dawg]

You?d have to split the scholarships. They can?t simply go to men?s sports.

Actually I think they would, these are men's scholarships. The offset of the these scholarships are the other women's sports, already adjusted on the 85 schollies.

[sleepy dawg]

I had some free time this morning & in light of the thread on Sixpack about my idea of reducing football scholarships to 70-75 & giving the left overs to baseball & other men's sports, I decided to look for some truth about how about 6 teams hold an absolute monopoly on winning in college football due to the ridiculous hoarding of recruits that is allowed because they have 85 scholarships to play with.

On Saturday night, Georgia played Notre Dame. In that game, Georgia played 59 total players & those 59 players are undoubtedly one of, if not the top roster in college football.

However, here is what UGA did not play in that game. Here is the recruiting rankings of players on UGA's roster that DID NOT PARTICIPATE in the Notre Dame game

- 3 5 star recruits
- 20 4 star recruits
- 9 3 star recruits
- 3 2 star recruits

So, by using 247's college roster rankings, UGA has a roster that most resembles Stanford or UCLA sitting on the bench vs Notre Dame. UGA sat more talent on the bench vs Notre Dame than Mississippi State has on it's entire roster.

Folks, that is an awful business model & ridiculous. It's the main reason why CBS is having to televise a 2:30 game this weekend between Bama & Ole Miss that will end up 65-10 or so. It's terrible for TV & terrible for business.

Now, for a second, imagine that UGA, only had 70 scholarships. That means that off of UGA's roster, 8 4 star & 9 3 star recruits would have been redistributed across college. Imagine muliplying that with Bama's roster, Clemson's roster, Ohio State's roster, Oklahoma's roster, LSU's roster, etc & you are looking at something close to 80-100 4 star caliber players being redistributed across college football.

How much better would the game be? How much better would TV be? How much more interest would the sport have? How much more money would be made due to this interest? How many more fans would show up to watch those games?

Nice research!

[gravedigger]

Solid. The disparity of talent in football is a negative. You are also correct in that there are too many scholarships on a college football team. Baseball has to divide them into percentages so football should too.

Where you and I differ is in HOW talent is evaluated. It seems to me that there is too much incentive for a college athlete to sit on the bench. If that incentive were reduced, I could see talent naturally being distributed. I know there is no feasible way to distribute stars. They aren?t accurate enough and they don?t measure many things that go into being successful.

Scholarship limitations do work but slowly. It is criminal what has been done to baseball.

Bottom line though is that booster money is why those kids are content to stand on the sidelines. If you don?t find a way to mitigate that, nothing improves. If all teams only had 10 scholarships to divvy out, Bama would just raise more money for the walkons.

[ShotgunDawg]

Solid. The disparity of talent in football is a negative. You are also correct in that there are too many scholarships on a college football team. Baseball has to divide them into percentages so football should too.

Where you and I differ is in HOW talent is evaluated. It seems to me that there is too much incentive for a college athlete to sit on the bench. If that incentive were reduced, I could see talent naturally being distributed. I know there is no feasible way to distribute stars. They aren?t accurate enough and they don?t measure many things that go into being successful.

Scholarship limitations do work but slowly. It is criminal what has been done to baseball.

Bottom line though is that booster money is why those kids are content to stand on the sidelines. If you don?t find a way to mitigate that, nothing improves. If all teams only had 10 scholarships to divvy out, Bama would just raise more money for the walkons.

First off, I agree. In a perfect system we would have a better way distributing talent across college football so that really good players that can play a substantial amount at other schools aren't riding the bench.

That being said, lowing the scholarship amount is still the most feasible, tangible, easily adoptable way of doing this.

As for the walk-ons, the NCAA already has rules that prevent kids from walking on that are recruited athletes. Additionally, the NCAA has rules within programs that walk-ons can't receive the same benefits as scholarship athletes. I don't think the walk-on thing would be an issue.

[maroonmania]

I had some free time this morning & in light of the thread on Sixpack about my idea of reducing football scholarships to 70-75 & giving the left overs to baseball & other men's sports, I decided to look for some truth about how about 6 teams hold an absolute monopoly on winning in college football due to the ridiculous hoarding of recruits that is allowed because they have 85 scholarships to play with.

On Saturday night, Georgia played Notre Dame. In that game, Georgia played 59 total players & those 59 players are undoubtedly one of, if not the top roster in college football.

However, here is what UGA did not play in that game. Here is the recruiting rankings of players on UGA's roster that DID NOT PARTICIPATE in the Notre Dame game

- 3 5 star recruits
- 20 4 star recruits
- 9 3 star recruits
- 3 2 star recruits

So, by using 247's college roster rankings, UGA has a roster that most resembles Stanford or UCLA sitting on the bench vs Notre Dame. UGA sat more talent on the bench vs Notre Dame than Mississippi State has on it's entire roster.

Folks, that is an awful business model & ridiculous. It's the main reason why CBS is having to televise a 2:30 game this weekend between Bama & Ole Miss that will end up 65-10 or so. It's terrible for TV & terrible for business.

Now, for a second, imagine that UGA, only had 70 scholarships. That means that off of UGA's roster, 8 4 star & 9 3 star recruits would have been redistributed across college. Imagine muliplying that with Bama's roster, Clemson's roster, Ohio State's roster, Oklahoma's roster, LSU's roster, etc & you are looking at something close to 80-100 4 star caliber players being redistributed across college football.

How much better would the game be? How much better would TV be? How much more interest would the sport have? How much more money would be made due to this interest? How many more fans would show up to watch those games?

Well I started the thread over on Sixpack so I agree with you 100%. This is the only approach to make college football more competitive across the board (since there is no draft). And 85 scholarships is just more than needed given that so many freshmen are playing and contributing these days. Personally I'm sick of all the blowouts in college and I'm even more tired of a major network like CBS volunteering to show one nationwide this Saturday just because a bunch of Bammers will watch, although I'm not sure who else will.

[maroonmania]

Imagine if we only 70 scholarships this year and 10 of them were suspended.

Same thing that would have happened had we had 25 players getting tutor 'assistance' rather than 10. But in reality, our problem is that 3 of the 10 players we lost are defensive starters. Bottom line though is there is never a limit to how many players could lose eligibility if they are doing things to jeopardize it and a 'Bracky Brett' type is running your compliance department so I don't think that could even be a consideration. Guess if it got bad enough though you would hope you had a good walkon program.

[JoseBrown]

I had some free time this morning & in light of the thread on Sixpack about my idea of reducing football scholarships to 70-75 & giving the left overs to baseball & other men's sports, I decided to look for some truth about how about 6 teams hold an absolute monopoly on winning in college football due to the ridiculous hoarding of recruits that is allowed because they have 85 scholarships to play with.

On Saturday night, Georgia played Notre Dame. In that game, Georgia played 59 total players & those 59 players are undoubtedly one of, if not the top roster in college football.

However, here is what UGA did not play in that game. Here is the recruiting rankings of players on UGA's roster that DID NOT PARTICIPATE in the Notre Dame game

- 3 5 star recruits
- 20 4 star recruits
- 9 3 star recruits
- 3 2 star recruits

So, by using 247's college roster rankings, UGA has a roster that most resembles Stanford or UCLA sitting on the bench vs Notre Dame. UGA sat more talent on the bench vs Notre Dame than Mississippi State has on it's entire roster.

Folks, that is an awful business model & ridiculous. It's the main reason why CBS is having to televise a 2:30 game this weekend between Bama & Ole Miss that will end up 65-10 or so. It's terrible for TV & terrible for business.

Now, for a second, imagine that UGA, only had 70 scholarships. That means that off of UGA's roster, 8 4 star & 9 3 star recruits would have been redistributed across college. Imagine muliplying that with Bama's roster, Clemson's roster, Ohio State's roster, Oklahoma's roster, LSU's roster, etc & you are looking at something close to 80-100 4 star caliber players being redistributed across college football.

How much better would the game be? How much better would TV be? How much more interest would the sport have? How much more money would be made due to this interest? How many more fans would show up to watch those games?

Dude, I don't know you and rarely post, but that's the best post I think I've ever seen you make. I like the idea. With those reductions everyone would be more selective, you may actually cull some of the bad apples that don't last a year, you know. Even moreso help all those lower-rated have a spot. But moreso, close the gap a little...which is most important...

[BulldogBear]

Interesting Wolken article on this from December. I'm not sure about all of it but it is food for thought.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/dan-wolken/2018/12/19/ncaa-can-create-more-college-football-parity-reducing-scholarships/2360842002/

[ShotgunDawg]

Interesting Wolken article on this from December. I'm not sure about all of it but it is food for thought.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/dan-wolken/2018/12/19/ncaa-can-create-more-college-football-parity-reducing-scholarships/2360842002/

Good find.

What I have found through this debate over the past year or so is that there seems to be 3 negative reactions from college football fans on this issue. All of which can be addressed by showing the truth like I did here & thoroughly explaining

1. "Don't mess with my college football" - No one wants to mess with your college football. This makes it better. More good games equals more fun sitting on the couch & more incentive to attend games because your team may actually have a chance at larger goals. Every game is more important & there are less cupcake off weeks

2. "This is socialism" - Gotta remember that the majority of college football fans are Southern white conservatives. Hell I am. But I just can't take anyone seriously that is trying to combine politics & sports. I believe conservative policies work in the economy because less government intervention spurs innovation & creates jobs. Without getting political here, 1. Sports need competition to be entertaining & sports are supposed to be entertaining. Everyone makes more money that way & 2. Unlike capitalism in the economy, capitalism in sports creates no jobs & creates no innovation. In fact, since the blue bloods have such a talent advantage, innovation almost never comes from them. I think many times the socialism argument comes from blue blood fans with an agenda of keeping things the same, but I can't take anyone seriously that doesn't understand the difference between sports & politics.

3. "it's bad because it reduces scholarships" - Uh.... no it doesn't. The only people that lose a scholarship are the 1,800 worst players in college football across all levels &, under my plan, those 1,800 scholarships are reallocated to other men's sports like soccer & baseball. It's not a racial argument in the least.

Vote for Shotgun dawg for NCAA PREZ...

[Coursesuper]

Good find.

What I have found through this debate over the past year or so is that there seems to be 3 negative reactions from college football fans on this issue. All of which can be addressed by showing the truth like I did here & thoroughly explaining

1. "Don't mess with my college football" - No one wants to mess with your college football. This makes it better. More good games equals more fun sitting on the couch & more incentive to attend games because your team may actually have a chance at larger goals. Every game is more important & there are less cupcake off weeks

2. "This is socialism" - Gotta remember that the majority of college football fans are Southern white conservatives. Hell I am. But I just can't take anyone seriously that is trying to combine politics & sports. I believe conservative policies work in the economy because less government intervention spurs innovation & creates jobs. Without getting political here, 1. Sports need competition to be entertaining & sports are supposed to be entertaining. Everyone makes more money that way & 2. Unlike capitalism in the economy, capitalism in sports creates no jobs & creates no innovation. In fact, since the blue bloods have such a talent advantage, innovation almost never comes from them. I think many times the socialism argument comes from blue blood fans with an agenda of keeping things the same, but I can't take anyone seriously that doesn't understand the difference between sports & politics.

3. "it's bad because it reduces scholarships" - Uh.... no it doesn't. The only people that lose a scholarship are the 1,800 worst players in college football across all levels &, under my plan, those 1,800 scholarships are reallocated to other men's sports like soccer & baseball. It's not a racial argument in the least.

Vote for Shotgun dawg for NCAA PREZ...

Gun everything you're saying here makes perfect sense and I agree the game is definitely becoming a stale product. But l know the NCAA doesn't run Bowl Subdivision Football, the TV network money does. Until advertising money begins to back away and ratings go completely in the tank there will be no movement. I am fearful of what's to come, I hope there isn't a breakaway by the schools that drive the ratings now it would devastate the game we grew up with and put schools like ours in a bad spot financially.

[ShotgunDawg]

Gun everything you're saying here makes perfect sense and I agree the game is definitely becoming a stale product. But l know the NCAA doesn't run Bowl Subdivision Football, the TV network money does. Until advertising money begins to back away and ratings go completely in the tank there will be no movement. I am fearful of what's to come, I hope there isn't a breakaway by the schools that drive the ratings now it would devastate the game we grew up with and put schools like ours in a bad spot financially.

I agree with you 100%

- I worry that the powers that be in college football don't realize what they are missing out on.

- My hope is that common sense can prevail due to every pro sport league benefiting from a meaningful talent distribution program.

What's funny is that the same arguments made about creating more parity are the exact same arguements that were made when MLB instituted it's draft in 1965 after they Yankees & Cardinals had won most of the previous 50 World Series.

This was taken from the MLB Wiki page

https://i.imgur.com/LCQ5oJw.jpg

[NWADAWG]

Attendance is dropping & I can't imagine how anyone could make an argument that blow outs are good for TV?

I can't believe your question is serious. It's not a sustainable business model. It causes 85% of the country to be excluded from hope

College football hasn't had a 1st time champion since Florida in 1996

The SEC has only had 6 different conference champions since 1975.

There no way anyone can convince me that this is a competitive sport & lack of competition isn't entertaining & bad for the sport

This is the same basic reasoning that led to NFL having salary caps. The NFL wanted more parity and this is one of the ways it achieved it. The NCAA has got to see the writing on the wall and make some changes.

[Coursesuper]

This is the same basic reasoning that led to NFL having salary caps. The NFL wanted more parity and this is one of the ways it achieved it. The NCAA has got to see the writing on the wall and make some changes.

This is where the disconnect is the NCAA doesn't run D1, there is no NCAA championship in this division. TV money and the power 5 conferences control the division. This is the big difference since the last time there was a scholarship reduction in 1992.

[The Federalist Engineer]

The free market solution would be to eliminate the NFL draft limits like having to be 21 and losing eligibility if you declare for the draft. These limits make no sense in any profession and are purely arbitrary. Also why can’t ball players transfer at Will. Coaches can quit any time.

It would be like Google only can sign one engineer, then Intel, then Microsoft, etc. and they cannot sign a kid if he is not 3 years beyond high school. And if the kid attends a job fair, he is no longer allowed on campus. Also, once you start at one particular college, you can’t go to another college without losing a year of development. You have sit out a year and mow lawns or veg out on a couch.

If all the 5- Stars and 75% of 4-stars just signed with NFL after HS and played in Canada (minor league) for two years AND kids could just float to better college situations like free men, then UGA would not have a war chest of unused talent.

But yeah, more scholarships for baseball would be a great thing. Good post.

[TUSK]

Somehow, I do not believe that Bluebloods, sans 10-15 3*s and 2*s would have a noticeable impact when diluted over another 120 programs.

I think the skolly reduction would have to be double that... jus guessing...

[ShotgunDawg]

Somehow, I do not believe that Bluebloods, sans 10-15 3*s and 2*s would have a noticeable impact when diluted over another 120 programs.

I think the skolly reduction would have to be double that... jus guessing...

I disagree. 200+ 87 or higher rated 4 stars and high 3 stars being redistributed across the country would have a massive impact.

1. It would lessen the margin for error that blue bloods have in evaluation and injuries

2. It would ensure that most of the top 40 teams in the country are complete teams with legitimate players at most every position.

The blue bloods would still have the overwhelming majority of the 5 stars, but, again, they'd be playing against teams that were mostly complete without any massive talent holes.

Over time, it would lead to a significantly more competitive landscape. I'm not sure it would change who wins the natty most years, but the games themselves week in and week out would be significantly more watchable.

Everyone wins that way, including the blue bloods to some degree because their would be more "big games" and each week would be more exciting.

There is no way you can sell me that UGA having a top 20 roster on the bench is somehow good for the sport

[TUSK]

I disagree. 200+ 87 or higher rated 4 stars and high 3 stars being redistributed across the country would have a massive impact.

1. It would lessen the margin for error that blue bloods have in evaluation and injuries

2. It would ensure that most of the top 40 teams in the country are complete teams with legitimate players at most every position.

The blue bloods would still have the overwhelming majority of the 5 stars, but, again, they'd be playing against teams that were mostly complete without any massive talent holes.

Over time, it would lead to a significantly more competitive landscape. I'm not sure it would change who wins the natty most years, but the games themselves week in and week out would be significantly more watchable.

Everyone wins that way, including the blue bloods to some degree because their would be more "big games" and each week would be more exciting.

There is no way you can sell me that UGA having a top 20 roster on the bench is somehow good for the sport

Aight, I’ll work with ya, buddy. Let’s quantify some things that will help me understand your take:

1. Define blue blood.
2. Are we talking about 5, maybe 10 programs?
3. What is your proposed skolly #? 70, 75, 80?
4. Would you allow the current transfer situation to endure?

(Forgive syntax. I’m on my phone & I suck at working it)