College Football Is An Awful Sport

[ShotgunDawg]

I realize everyone loves the pageantry, but we are a top 25 recruiter & the talent levels couldn't be further apart in this game.

If College football wants to take the next step in popularity, money making, & interest, there MUST be moves made to create more parity across power 5.

What we are watching today makes no sense IMO from a business perspective.

The amount of money that is being lost due to bad games because of massive discrepancies in talent between top 25 recruiters is wild to me. There is no argument that this is good for the sport

And before anyone says " dey coached better" or "just out recruit them"

- Yes they are coached better. That's an us problem.
- You can't out recruit them when their NFL player lists multiplies by the year. You'd have to cheat at unprecedented levels to defeat a spreadsheet that tells the recruit how likely he is to play in the NFL by coming to Bama.

Again, the sport is just operating at about 60% capacity right now & for no reason.

[EdDawg]

I agree my interest level has definitely dwindled over the years, but the people in charge are still raking in money, so no change will happen. They could probably bring in more money, but they don't want to upset the apple cart.

[deadheaddawg]

Why are you limiting the parity to the power 5. If you want to be a football socialist, don't half ass it. Make it fair for everyone

[ShotgunDawg]

I agree my interest level has definitely dwindled over the years, but the people in charge are still raking in money, so no change will happen. They could probably bring in more money, but they don't want to upset the apple cart.

Yeah.

I mean, we are a top 25 recruiter. Meaning that we are supposed to have talent, but it's not close.

The sport could just be so much better for so many schools.

And with every pro sports league creating more parity, it's obvious that it's the right financial decision

[ShotgunDawg]

Why are you limiting the parity to the power 5. If you want to be a football socialist, don't half ass it. Make it fair for everyone

Ok.

There is no dumber person than the person afraid of football socialism. Anyone that tries to make a political argument about college football is an absolute idiot.

This is sports & entertainment. Entertainment makes more money when it's interesting & people actually like watching the product

[ShotgunDawg]

The problem with college football is that there aren't enough "points of sale"

College football in essence is more similar to boxing in that big fights are set up & we simply wait for them instead of having week to week games that have drama like all the pro sports.

[dawgs]

I realize everyone loves the pageantry, but we are a top 25 recruiter & the talent levels couldn't be further apart in this game.

If College football wants to take the next step in popularity, money making, & interest, there MUST be moves made to create more parity across power 5.

What we are watching today makes no sense IMO from a business perspective.

The amount of money that is being lost due to bad games because of massive discrepancies in talent between top 25 recruiters is wild to me. There is no argument that this is good for the sport

And before anyone says " dey coached better" or "just out recruit them"

- Yes they are coached better. That's an us problem.
- You can't out recruit them when their NFL player lists multiplies by the year. You'd have to cheat at unprecedented levels to defeat a spreadsheet that tells the recruit how likely he is to play in the NFL by coming to Bama.

Again, the sport is just operating at about 60% capacity right now & for no reason.

RE: NFL

If the same HS talent went to state or Iowa or Colorado or some other random mid-tier program, would they still make the NFL at the same rate? Hard to say they are making the NFL because of saban/bama coaching them up and not because of their innate talent that just needs to not be screwed up the next 3-5 years.

Gets into a real chicken or the egg argument.

[ShotgunDawg]

RE: NFL

If the same HS talent went to state or Iowa or Colorado or some other random mid-tier program, would they still make the NFL at the same rate? Hard to say they are making the NFL because of saban/bama coaching them up and not because of their innate talent that just needs to not be screwed up the next 3-5 years.

Gets into a real chicken or the egg argument.

90% talent, 10% coaching.

When MSU gets Bama type talent they almost always play in the NFL

I would be pretty easy to figure out. All you have to do is compare how often 5 stars go to the NFL from Bama & how often they go to the NFL from other programs

[the_real_MSU_is_us]

I agree, and I like your idea to reduce the scholarships to 70 or 75. That would help.

BUT, Bama, LSU, Clemson, OSU, Michigan, A&M... they'll always have the $$$ to get top coaches. And recruits... they'll always want to follow the top programs and coaches. And some schools liek UGa and LSU will always have an unbelievable recruiting advantage just from location and being the only P5 team in their state.

So I'm not sure how we can really add a lot of parity.

Limiting coaching salaries/building projects? Fundamentally anti-freedom and I hate it, so that's out. Allowing players to make money only exasperates the problem because rich booster can now have more impact. Limit coaches from leaving whenever they want? IE "you can't leave as the HC at X to be the HC at Y unless you've been at X for Z+ years"? Blue bloods will still end up with the top coaches, and we'd be hurt from hiring G5 HC's just as much as Florida is hurt from hiring P5 HCs. We already have money sharing through conference's TV deals.

Reducing scholarships will make it more competitive, but I fail to see a way to actually add anything resembling parity. The teams that make the playoffs will still be the same. The teams t hat end top 10 will still be the same. Games will be more competitive and thus better to watch but it won't change the fundamentals of how the last AP poll looks

[ShotgunDawg]

I agree, and I like your idea to reduce the scholarships to 70 or 75. That would help.

BUT, Bama, LSU, Clemson, OSU, Michigan, A&M... they'll always have the $$$ to get top coaches. And recruits... they'll always want to follow the top programs and coaches. And some schools liek UGa and LSU will always have an unbelievable recruiting advantage just from location and being the only P5 team in their state.

So I'm not sure how we can really add a lot of parity.

Limiting coaching salaries/building projects? Fundamentally anti-freedom and I hate it, so that's out. Allowing players to make money only exasperates the problem because rich booster can now have more impact. Limit coaches from leaving whenever they want? IE "you can't leave as the HC at X to be the HC at Y unless you've been at X for Z+ years"? Blue bloods will still end up with the top coaches, and we'd be hurt from hiring G5 HC's just as much as Florida is hurt from hiring P5 HCs. We already have money sharing through conference's TV deals.

Reducing scholarships will make it more competitive, but I fail to see a way to actually add anything resembling parity. The teams that make the playoffs will still be the same. The teams t hat end top 10 will still be the same. Games will be more competitive and thus better to watch but it won't change the fundamentals of how the last AP poll looks

Yeah, you can't drastically create parity in any sport without a draft, but reducing scholarships would help. I think that's about the most effective way to do it.

That or just let schools pay players & give each school a salary pool that they can use how they see fit.

[the_real_MSU_is_us]

Yeah, you can't drastically create parity in any sport without a draft, but reducing scholarships would help. I think that's about the most effective way to do it.

That or just let schools pay players & give each school a salary pool that they can use how they see fit.

Cutting out the FCS games would also make for better TV. Maybe even mandate a 10 P5 game schedule

[ShotgunDawg]

Cutting out the FCS games would also make for better TV. Maybe even mandate a 10 P5 game schedule

Agree, but the power 5 games need to become better.

My dream is that college football has more of an MLB feel to it than an NFL feel.

In the NFL, literally almost any team can win it unless they are a dysfunctional mess. I like that college football has blue bloods that are the evil villains.

However, MLB works that way. MLB has a model where the Yankees, Dodgers, & Red Sox SHOULD be good on a year to year basis & that keeps blue blood fans engaged, but MLB also has a reasonably large hole that other teams like the Astros, Royals, Brewers, Giants, etc can thread to compete with the blue bloods.

That's what college football needs. A system that keeps the blue bloods interesting while also allowing non traditional, smaller market programs the legitimate ability to compete for championships if they are run competently & coached well.

The best any non blue blood can really hope for right now is to go 10-2 & lose their coach to a blue blood that is struggling. That's a bad system & costs college football on the whole millions upon millions of dollars since a vast majority of college football fans aren't fans of blue blood programs but rather fans of 2nd tier programs that currently have no chance of competing for a championship.

[Maroonthirteen]

I?ve been watching this for 40 years. That game yesterday looked very similar To the home games v Bama in 86 and 88. We just simply can?t recruit the lineman and LBs that Alabama can. However one difference in the last 40 years.... Alabama isn?t taking as much MS talent. Because Alabama has gone from a regional recruiter to a national recruiter. Assuming recruiting rankings are accurate, the gap between a top 5 class and 25th class is a gulf.

If someone really wanted to make each college football game competitive. The front runners would be moved to a 24-32 team league and play each other exclusively. The rest of us would be regulated to a sub league.

However massive change of the structure of college football will NEVER happen. The front running money schools.... Alabama, Ohio State... have it to good now. They have huge TV contracts and full stadiums playing opponents that they have huge talent advantages over. Which makes them Kings all year and an easy path to the playoff. Why would they give up that deal? Was college football making more money and had more viewers in 2014 when State was ranked #1? I doubt it. We have a tiny fan base. Would
More people tune in to see LSU/UGA vs Ohio St? Or LSU/UGA vs Minnesota? Or Oregon v Minnesota?

It would take the little guys giving up on the current structure and creating their own league. Which isn?t gong to happen because of money. I see many schools having home attendance that is very similar to Vandy football currently and the ADs won?t give a shit as long as TV money continues to flow to the bank account.

[ShotgunDawg]

I?ve been watching this for 40 years. That game yesterday looked very similar To the home games v Bama in 86 and 88. We just simply can?t recruit the lineman and LBs that Alabama can. However one difference in the last 40 years.... Alabama isn?t taking as much MS talent. Because Alabama has gone from a regional recruiter to a national recruiter.

If someone really wanted to make each college football game competitive. The front runners would be moved to a 24-32 team league and play each other exclusively. The rest of us would be regulated to a sub league.

However massive change of the structure of college football will NEVER happen. The front running money schools.... Alabama, Ohio State... have it to good now. They have huge TV contracts and full stadiums playing opponents that they have huge talent advantages over. Which makes them Kings all year and an easy path to the playoff. Why would they give up that deal?

It would take the little guys giving up on the current structure and creating their own league. Which isn?t gong to happen because of money. I see many schools having home attendance that is very similar to Vandy football currently and the ADs won?t give a shit as long as TV money continues to flow to the bank account.

I disagree with most all of this.

- Within the NCAA the non-blue bloods have the voting power not Alabama & Ohio State. This is the reason scholarships don't get increased in baseball.
- The TV contracts need more good games, not less. So they would be in favor of this.
- Why just a 24-32 team league? Where did you get that number from? Why not 40? I think MSU would be in the 32 & definitely the 40.

You post just doesn't make any business sense. It's backwards

[R2Dawg]

Ok.

There is no dumber person than the person afraid of football socialism. Anyone that tries to make a political argument about college football is an absolute idiot.

This is sports & entertainment. Entertainment makes more money when it's interesting & people actually like watching the product

A level playing field is not socialism. Kinda like antitrust monopoly laws.

Many rules have been put in place at all levels of sports to level the field - scholarship limits, salary cap in pro sports, etc. More needs to be done as the media and marketing money just keep propping up the big boys. Time for a few more rules to give a fair chance to all.

[ShotgunDawg]

A level playing field is not socialism. Kinda like antitrust monopoly laws.

Many rules have been put in place at all levels of sports to level the field - scholarship limits, salary cap in pro sports, etc. More needs to be done as the media and marketing money just keep propping up the big boys. Time for a few more rules to give a fair chance to all.

Well said. Somehow southern sports fans can't help themselves & start comparing this to socialism as if sports, which are supposed to be entertaining, are the same as the economy & the Bill of Rights.

I heard Jake Wimberly talk about socialism the other day with this stuff & it's completely idiotic. I don't think Jake is an idiot or dumb, but people simply don't see this issue from the correct, logical perspective.

[Coursesuper]

I?ve been watching this for 40 years. That game yesterday looked very similar To the home games v Bama in 86 and 88. We just simply can?t recruit the lineman and LBs that Alabama can. However one difference in the last 40 years.... Alabama isn?t taking as much MS talent. Because Alabama has gone from a regional recruiter to a national recruiter. Assuming recruiting rankings are accurate, the gap between a top 5 class and 25th class is a gulf.

If someone really wanted to make each college football game competitive. The front runners would be moved to a 24-32 team league and play each other exclusively. The rest of us would be regulated to a sub league.

However massive change of the structure of college football will NEVER happen. The front running money schools.... Alabama, Ohio State... have it to good now. They have huge TV contracts and full stadiums playing opponents that they have huge talent advantages over. Which makes them Kings all year and an easy path to the playoff. Why would they give up that deal? Was college football making more money and had more viewers in 2014 when State was ranked #1? I doubt it. We have a tiny fan base. Would
More people tune in to see LSU/UGA vs Ohio St? Or LSU/UGA vs Minnesota? Or Oregon v Minnesota?

It would take the little guys giving up on the current structure and creating their own league. Which isn?t gong to happen because of money. I see many schools having home attendance that is very similar to Vandy football currently and the ADs won?t give a shit as long as TV money continues to flow to the bank account.

This is correct. TV $$$ driving it all.

[ShotgunDawg]

This is correct. TV $$$ driving it all.

I guess you don't understand business either.

It's patently absurd to believe that TV Networks make more money by televising blowouts every week than they would if they televised, dramatic, good games. Absolutely ridiculous to believe that

[Coursesuper]

I disagree with most all of this.

- Within the NCAA the non-blue bloods have the voting power not Alabama & Ohio State. This is the reason scholarships don't get increased in baseball.
- The TV contracts need more good games, not less. So they would be in favor of this.
- Why just a 24-32 team league? Where did you get that number from? Why not 40? I think MSU would be in the 32 & definitely the 40.

You post just doesn't make any business sense. It's backwards

So if we are “allowed” in the big league at the 32 to 40 range we are still going be at the bottom of that league. What advantages does this actually give MSU.

[Coursesuper]

I guess you don't understand business either.

It's patently absurd to believe that TV Networks make more money by televising blowouts every week than they would if they televised, dramatic, good games. Absolutely ridiculous to believe that

Advertising is paying the bill, that is already payed for by time slot and are purchased months in advance. The advertising doesn’t give a shit who’s on there. The network then assigns the teams to the slot, but the $$$ have been dolled out already. Therefore your analogy if false.

[ShotgunDawg]

So if we are “allowed” in the big league at the 32 to 40 range we are still going be at the bottom of that league. What advantages does this actually give MSU.

First off, I don't see this big league happening. I don't think you'll ever see power 5 schools booted from the power 5. Too much history, relationships, & investment.

Secondly, to me narrowing down the number of teams isn't the answer as that really doesn't help the parity of college football. It only decreases the amount of non-power 5 cupcake games.

The answer is actual, actionable rules that distribute 4 star or better talent across the country to more schools.

The talent pool of top players is only an inch deep but we have a yard's worth of teams competing for the same championship. If the overwhelming majority of that inch of top players goes to only 6 schools, then there will be very little competition on the field. Narrowing down the field doesn't make the talent pool any deeper it just means that instead of having a yard's worth of teams competing, we have 2 feet worth of teams competing, which doesn't distribute the talent.

When Alabama has 3 1st round WRs, it's a completely non-level situation that is terrible for the actual competition on the field

[ShotgunDawg]

Advertising is paying the bill, that is already payed for by time slot and are purchased months in advance. The advertising doesn?t give a shit who?s on there. The network then assigns the teams to the slot, but the $$$ have been dolled out already. Therefore your analogy if false.

Advertising months in advance would cost more money months in advance if ratings were better & ratings would be better if there were better games.

Are you seriously trying to make a case that better games would not equal more money? Not to get personal, but surly you are smarter than this

Do you really think the NFL, MLB, & NBA instituted parity rules when it would cost them money?

[Maroonthirteen]

I disagree with most all of this.

- Within the NCAA the non-blue bloods have the voting power not Alabama & Ohio State. This is the reason scholarships don't get increased in baseball.
- The TV contracts need more good games, not less. So they would be in favor of this.
- Why just a 24-32 team league? Where did you get that number from? Why not 40? I think MSU would be in the 32 & definitely the 40.

You post just doesn't make any business sense. It's backwards

Your OP makes no business sense because TV rating are at all An time high for college football as it is today. Blow out wins and etc be damned, the advertising dollars are at all An time high and the little ole patsies of college football have their largest revenue ever.

I get more people tune in for an interesting match up rather than Bama vs Directional college. However the rub is the big guys will never agree to a change because what they have right now is good for business and pays everyone else?s bills.

[Coursesuper]

Advertising months in advance would cost more money months in advance if ratings were better & ratings would be better if there were better games.

Are you seriously trying to make a case that better games would not equal more money? Not to get personal, but surly you are smarter than this

Do you really think the NFL, MLB, & NBA instituted parity rules when it would cost them money?

Do you believe that advertising is sold week to week? If so you are way off base. There is national and local time, national time is sold months in advance but there is some local time sold week to week. Now they do want good numbers so they can sell it next year, but in college football eyes on products isn’t really a problem. I don’t understand the rest of your argument it doesn’t make sense to me.