Good Yahoo Article On the Problem With College Football

[ShotgunDawg]

The sport is leaving soooo much money on the table with this system.

As I harp on once a week, the sport has to reduce scholarships to lessen the margin for error. You can't tell kids where to go to school, but you can decrease numbers & make it all the more critical that schools properly evaluate players & keep them healthy. Reduce scholarships to 70-75.

Blue bloods have no business hoarding kids like Edgerrin James, Scott Lashley, etc.

I think this is one of the main reason attendance is down yet no one wants to admit it. It's an noncompetitive sport.

1207261744046981125

[confucius say]

It amazes me that the powers that be do not fix this. Schollies will eventually be reduced, but it is taking way too long

[ShotgunDawg]

It amazes me that the powers that be do not fix this. Schollies will eventually be reduced, but it is taking way too long

Agree. It's mind boggling

[Coursesuper]

Something has to happen, the fall in attendance nationwide is telling. Reducing scholarships is a great place to start. What's sad though is the damn networks stranglehold on the sport, the money they are making is obscene and they could care less as long as the cash if flowing.

[smootness]

Here's an unpopular opinion - nothing's wrong with college football.

[ShotgunDawg]

Here's an unpopular opinion - nothing's wrong with college football.

Through 5 college football playoffs, only 5 teams have won a game.

You are correct that nothing is "wrong" with college football but with a little vision it could be so much better for far more people with some adjustments & significantly more money could be made with more competitive games & parity.

The NFL, MLB, & the NBA are always implementing more & more rules to encourage parity. They only implement those rules because they are what's in the best interest of the sport's survivability & revenue production.

I don't honestly see a fan a of a non-blue blood could believe that we are working with the best system here. Have some vision to look 10-20 years down the road.

[Maroonthirteen]

He may be on to something with the observation of only 5 teams have playoff wins over the last 5 years. However that will move to 6 this year.

If Florida, Texas, USC and Michigan get left out another 10 years or so... and we have only 2-3 different national champions..... maybe......MAYBE.... folks start pushing for changes to create parity.

However the arguement this year is that nothing is wrong with college football. LSU is a new playoff team. Alabama is left out, and Clemson is not a traditional power like Bama and Ohio State. Clemson is strong now.... but let's see it last a few more years. Anyway, that's beside the point.

As things sit now, those 5 schools like things just as the are.... hoarding 5 stars and playing for NCs. Ask Bama and Clemson, why should things change? They'll say things are fine. However give Florida and Texas and usc another 10 years of no playoff appearances, and you will get a different answer from them.

[deadheaddawg]

Something has to happen, the fall in attendance nationwide is telling. Reducing scholarships is a great place to start. What's sad though is the damn networks stranglehold on the sport, the money they are making is obscene and they could care less as long as the cash if flowing.

You are right.

But I bet virtually everyone on here watches games on TV.

Football is entertainment. TV is responsible for a VERY LARGE part of that entertainment. The distribution. And I'm not talking just State games and not watching them. I'm talking about how great it is virtually every game in the country is on TV. Most of us will watch some. Most of us will watch the playoffs.

TV plays a crucial role in college football. For the schools it provides money. For the fan's it provides non stop football on Saturdays.

It's not surprising they play a major role in decision making. And to be honest they should. In any other industry a player this large is expected to be calling the shots.

Would we be better off going back to having most games not on TV?

[TUSK]

D-2 is an option.

[dantheman4248]

Attendance is down because they followed the NASCAR model of jacking up the prices on everything astronomically meanwhile catering to the TV viewer not the in-person viewer.

That's lead to a death of NASCAR. (There's a reason Dega is still successful. Hint: $25 college tickets and allowing coolers in the stands.) Its slowly building towards it in college football. Pricing out the average fan.

Student tickets have gone from $45 in 2013 to $100 now. That's a 222% increase in 6 seasons. Thats outpacing inflation and the product by a whole freaking lot. I'd bet by 2025 they will be $200 or more.

[somebodyshotmypaw]

Reduce scholarships in football from 85 to 75. Give those 10 scholarships to baseball (increase from 11.7 to 21.7). That's my first simple fix. Would improve both sports and not give you any Title IX issues.

[MoreCowbell]

The sport is leaving soooo much money on the table with this system.

As I harp on once a week, the sport has to reduce scholarships to lessen the margin for error. You can't tell kids where to go to school, but you can decrease numbers & make it all the more critical that schools properly evaluate players & keep them healthy. Reduce scholarships to 70-75.


Blue bloods have no business hoarding kids like Edgerrin James, Scott Lashley, etc.

I think this is one of the main reason attendance is down yet no one wants to admit it. It's an noncompetitive sport.

1207261744046981125

You’re not wrong shotgun.

[MoreCowbell]

Through 5 college football playoffs, only 5 teams have won a game.

You are correct that nothing is "wrong" with college football but with a little vision it could be so much better for far more people with some adjustments & significantly more money could be made with more competitive games & parity.

The NFL, MLB, & the NBA are always implementing more & more rules to encourage parity. They only implement those rules because they are what's in the best interest of the sport's survivability & revenue production.

I don't honestly see a fan a of a non-blue blood could believe that we are working with the best system here. Have some vision to look 10-20 years down the road.

He’s right for real

[ShotgunDawg]

He may be on to something with the observation of only 5 teams have playoff wins over the last 5 years. However that will move to 6 this year.

If Florida, Texas, USC and Michigan get left out another 10 years or so... and we have only 2-3 different national champions..... maybe......MAYBE.... folks start pushing for changes to create parity.

However the arguement this year is that nothing is wrong with college football. LSU is a new playoff team. Alabama is left out, and Clemson is not a traditional power like Bama and Ohio State. Clemson is strong now.... but let's see it last a few more years. Anyway, that's beside the point.

As things sit now, those 5 schools like things just as the are.... hoarding 5 stars and playing for NCs. Ask Bama and Clemson, why should things change? They'll say things are fine. However give Florida and Texas and usc another 10 years of no playoff appearances, and you will get a different answer from them.

The blue bloods aren't the majority in college football and thus don't hold the voting rights of majority.

Here's the other things: do the blue blood fans really enjoy this system? Are Bama fans thrilled each year when they look at their him schedule only to see maybe 1 game that will be within 20 points? Where is the fun and excitement in that.

Again, with more parity, more people will watch and the stands will be more full. Fans just need to feel like they have some remote chance.

[ShotgunDawg]

D-2 is an option.

This doesn't make any sense.

I realize you guys love this monopoly on winning, but I promise you, even Bama fans will find the sport more fun and enjoyable with more competition.

[ShotgunDawg]

Attendance is down because they followed the NASCAR model of jacking up the prices on everything astronomically meanwhile catering to the TV viewer not the in-person viewer.

That's lead to a death of NASCAR. (There's a reason Dega is still successful. Hint: $25 college tickets and allowing coolers in the stands.) Its slowly building towards it in college football. Pricing out the average fan.

Student tickets have gone from $45 in 2013 to $100 now. That's a 222% increase in 6 seasons. Thats outpacing inflation and the product by a whole freaking lot. I'd bet by 2025 they will be $200 or more.

The two issues are connected.

People aren't going to pay the current prices to watch a sport where only 6-8 teams can win.

People will pay today's prices if the sport felt somewhat fair and that their team had a chance.

Again, there is no financial argument for today's system. It's frankly stupid and needs to change immediately.

College football as an industry alienates about 80% of their customer base. Makes no sense.

[Maroonthirteen]

The blue bloods aren't the majority in college football

Here's the other things: do the blue blood fans really enjoy this system. Are Bama fans thrilled each year when they look at their him schedule only to see maybe 1 game that will be within 20 points? Where is the fun and excitement in that.

.

There isn't a college football congress. There are conference commissioners. The sec definitely takes into consideration the wishes and wants of the National Champions before they even listen to the bottom of the league.

I sat among many Alabama fans for our game this year. Trust me, they were happy with the win.

With all that said, I agree with your original point. My point is, I just don't think a fundamental change to the structure of college football is even on the conference tables for discussion anywhere.

[ShotgunDawg]

There isn't a college football congress (yes there is. They are called college presidents). There are conference commissioners. The sec definitely takes into consideration the wishes and wants of the National Champions before they even listen to the bottom of the league.

I sat among many Alabama fans for our game this year. Trust me, they were happy with the win.

With all that said, I agree with your original point. My point is, I just don't think a fundamental change to the structure of college football is even on the conference tables for discussion anywhere.

Actually there are university presidents and they couldn't care less about the national champions. The commissioners only act upon what the presidents want.

This situation is easily correctable if the non- blue blood presidents will just push for it.

Why wouldn't Bama fans be happy with the win? Odd comment that seems kind of pointless in this thread.

[Tbonewannabe]

There isn't a college football congress. There are conference commissioners. The sec definitely takes into consideration the wishes and wants of the National Champions before they even listen to the bottom of the league.

I sat among many Alabama fans for our game this year. Trust me, they were happy with the win.

With all that said, I agree with your original point. My point is, I just don't think a fundamental change to the structure of college football is even on the conference tables for discussion anywhere.

I believe Shotgun's point is, do you enjoy the 50 point win over Abilene Christian or a 3 point win over Texas A&M more? It has gotten to the point that I don't even expect to compete with Bama. I don't buy season tickets anymore and just go to whatever games that I can make it to. I won't spend $100 to see Bama beat the shit out of us and I think more people are starting to feel that way. There is almost a gap as big between us and Bama as there is between us and USM.

The cinderella teams in football are rare in todays game. That is what makes March in basketball and Regionals in baseball so fun. Then you look at football and there are 4 teams in a Playoff and only 6-7 programs are even considered starting in September. Let the Yankees and Dodgers play every year for the World Series and watch how quickly ratings start dropping.

[ShotgunDawg]

I believe Shotgun's point is, do you enjoy the 50 point win over Abilene Christian or a 3 point win over Texas A&M more? It has gotten to the point that I don't even expect to compete with Bama. I don't buy season tickets anymore and just go to whatever games that I can make it to. I won't spend $100 to see Bama beat the shit out of us and I think more people are starting to feel that way. There is almost a gap as big between us and Bama as there is between us and USM.

The cinderella teams in football are rare in todays game. That is what makes March in basketball and Regionals in baseball so fun. Then you look at football and there are 4 teams in a Playoff and only 6-7 programs are even considered starting in September. Let the Yankees and Dodgers play every year for the World Series and watch how quickly ratings start dropping.

Well said.

About 80% of college football fans are fans of non-blue bloods.

Imagine any other business or industry alienating 80% of their potential customers. Makes no sense.

[confucius say]

So what is the best route to getting this done? Presidents and ADs speaking out about it? Are any currently speaking out about it?

[ShotgunDawg]

So what is the best route to getting this done? Presidents and ADs speaking out about it? Are any currently speaking out about it?

I would think getting college presidents on board would have to be the number 1 goal.

I'm sure they talk about it internally but no one ever officially says anything. They constantly talk about why attendance is down but never address one of the main causes.

[smootness]

I would think getting college presidents on board would have to be the number 1 goal.

I'm sure they talk about it internally but no one ever officially says anything. They constantly talk about why attendance is down but never address one of the main causes.

I will be shocked if, given today's climate and the talk about going further and actually paying players, the NCAA at any point approves a reduction of 1,200+ scholarships for athletes.

It's just not going to happen.

[Maroonthirteen]

Why wouldn't Bama fans be happy with the win? Odd comment that seems kind of pointless in this thread.

You mentioned Bama fans being bored. Maybe they are with a game here and there. However Bama is winning NCs now with the current format/set up. I don't see them or Ohio State etc being in favor of making their schedule and their path more difficult to obtain NCs.

[SheltonChoked]

The sport is leaving soooo much money on the table with this system.

As I harp on once a week, the sport has to reduce scholarships to lessen the margin for error. You can't tell kids where to go to school, but you can decrease numbers & make it all the more critical that schools properly evaluate players & keep them healthy. Reduce scholarships to 70-75.

Blue bloods have no business hoarding kids like Edgerrin James, Scott Lashley, etc.

I think this is one of the main reason attendance is down yet no one wants to admit it. It's an noncompetitive sport.

1207261744046981125

I'm not sure how this will help. It's not like alabama would be cutting loose 5* players, they would cut the lowest players. And Newsflash, they already do. IF Alabama could only sign 20 players a year (to get to 75) this is who they would have made available per 247 (assuming 247 and saban have the same player rankings):

2015
Matt Womack (started as a sophomore, played little as Jr and Sr)
Keaton Anderson ( not on 2019 roster, played special teams at Bama)
Jonathan Taylor (Not on 2019 roster, at SELA)
Christian Bell (not on 2019 roster, at Wisconsin)

2016
Joe Donald ( Never played, On 2019 roster)
Shawn Jennings ( Not on 2019 Roster at USA)
Aaron Robinson (not on 2019 roster At UCF)
Irv Smith Jr ( Impact player)

2017
Hunter Brannon (On Roster)
Kyriq McDonald (at Cincy)
Mac Jones ( backup QB, Impact player due to Tua Injury)
Kedrick James ( at SMU)
Major Tennison (On Roster)
Elliot Baker (On Roster)
Kendall Randolph (On Roster)
Chadarius Townsend (on roster)
Brian Robinson ( Impact Player)

2018
Layne Hatcher ( in transfer portal)

2019 (too early to tell, but they only have one 3* player, so that would be an additional 6 4*'s)

2020 (too early to tell, bottom 4 are all 3 *'s)

Out of the available players (i.e., the lowest ranked), only 2 are contributing and most of the upperclassmen are playing somewhere else.

I understand your goal, but I don't think cutting scholarships is the fix. Unless you want to cut them to 50-60 like DII or the NFL, but I think that would make the talent gap worse.

If we cut out our low ranked players to get to 20 scholarships a year since 2015, we would not have Michael Story, Farrod Green, Osirus Mitchell, or Martin Emerson.

[dawgday166]

I'm not sure how this will help. It's not like alabama would be cutting loose 5* players, they would cut the lowest players. And Newsflash, they already do. IF Alabama could only sign 20 players a year (to get to 75) this is who they would have made available per 247 (assuming 247 and saban have the same player rankings):

2015
Matt Womack (started as a sophomore, played little as Jr and Sr)
Keaton Anderson ( not on 2019 roster, played special teams at Bama)
Jonathan Taylor (Not on 2019 roster, at SELA)
Christian Bell (not on 2019 roster, at Wisconsin)

2016
Joe Donald ( Never played, On 2019 roster)
Shawn Jennings ( Not on 2019 Roster at USA)
Aaron Robinson (not on 2019 roster At UCF)
Irv Smith Jr ( Impact player)

2017
Hunter Brannon (On Roster)
Kyriq McDonald (at Cincy)
Mac Jones ( backup QB, Impact player due to Tua Injury)
Kedrick James ( at SMU)
Major Tennison (On Roster)
Elliot Baker (On Roster)
Kendall Randolph (On Roster)
Chadarius Townsend (on roster)
Brian Robinson ( Impact Player)

2018
Layne Hatcher ( in transfer portal)

2019 (too early to tell, but they only have one 3* player, so that would be an additional 6 4*'s)

2020 (too early to tell, bottom 4 are all 3 *'s)

Out of the available players (i.e., the lowest ranked), only 2 are contributing and most of the upperclassmen are playing somewhere else.

I understand your goal, but I don't think cutting scholarships is the fix. Unless you want to cut them to 50-60 like DII or the NFL, but I think that would make the talent gap worse.

If we cut out our low ranked players to get to 20 scholarships a year since 2015, we would not have Michael Story, Farrod Green, Osirus Mitchell, or Martin Emerson.

A few reasons I think it would be an improvement to reduce football schollys:
1) Cutting schollys would increase the number of 4* players available to lower tier schools.
2) Would probably decrease the elite schools' 3-deep depth (cause their margin of error in player evaluation will be minimized. If they miss on some targets they don't have as many to choose from on the depth chart).
3) Would keep Saban from swooping into MS and taking a player just to keep that player from us or OM (which I think he has done but not too often). That player might could be developed to be an SEC performer if not buried on Bama's depth chart.
4) Could scatter those saved football schollys to other sports (such as MSU baseball to level the playing field there in recruiting).

Just my thoughts.

[ShotgunDawg]

You mentioned Bama fans being bored. Maybe they are with a game here and there. However Bama is winning NCs now with the current format/set up. I don't see them or Ohio State etc being in favor of making their schedule and their path more difficult to obtain NCs.

You're not understanding here

2 teams don't trump 65 other teams in voting.

[StateDawg44]

I will be shocked if, given today's climate and the talk about going further and actually paying players, the NCAA at any point approves a reduction of 1,200+ scholarships for athletes.

It's just not going to happen.

I totally agree with what you are saying. Just don't see it happening.

If "opportunity" is what you see holding it up, surely that opportunity would just go to a different sport than football.

[StateDawg44]

You're not understanding here

2 teams don't trump 65 other teams in voting.

I'm totally on your side here, but what you're saying would be quite a revolution. To pretend like there isn't a pecking order is denial.

Like someone said earlier. The SEC is going to listen to Bama and UGA before they give a damn about making it fair. Until they stop caring about cash flow and focus on fans, this will never happen.

Yes, higher attendances and other things would change and create revenue that was previously declining, but if the SEC/NCAA is looking at it from an investment standpoint, do you actually expect them to rock the boat on what would be viewed as a gamble pretty much?

[Political Hack]

The problem is based on the presumption that blue bloods are blue bloods and it can never change. History has proven that to be false. Even the great Bammers endured hard times. Risers and fallers in the last 2+ decades: USC, Bama, Tennessee, Penn State, Michigan, Notre Dame, Texas, Florida, Miami, VaTech, Oregon, Colorado, Nebraska, etc... There is ebb and flow in college football, it's just that currently we're witnessing two dynasties at once that are two of the best ever seen. If you take Clemson and Bama away, it's wide open. And if anyone thinks that reducing college scholarships because two teams screwed the curve, then you're not taking into account the bigger picture. Who wins the national championship should not cost ten little Johnny's at southwest directional state a chance at a free college education.

[ShotgunDawg]

The problem is based on the presumption that blue bloods are blue bloods and it can never change. History has proven that to be false. Even the great Bammers endured hard times. Risers and fallers in the last 2+ decades: USC, Bama, Tennessee, Penn State, Michigan, Notre Dame, Texas, Florida, Miami, VaTech, Oregon, Colorado, Nebraska, etc... There is ebb and flow in college football, it's just that currently we're witnessing two dynasties at once that are two of the best ever seen. If you take Clemson and Bama away, it's wide open. And if anyone thinks that reducing college scholarships because two teams screwed the curve, then you're not taking into account the bigger picture. Who wins the national championship should not cost ten little Johnny's at southwest directional state a chance at a free college education.

Lack of competitive balance me in the sport over the course of time will cost little Johnny way more scholarships than creating a more balanced field.

While Yes, college football does evolve, it's pretty much the same now as it was in 1980.

[SheltonChoked]

The problem is based on the presumption that blue bloods are blue bloods and it can never change. History has proven that to be false. Even the great Bammers endured hard times. Risers and fallers in the last 2+ decades: USC, Bama, Tennessee, Penn State, Michigan, Notre Dame, Texas, Florida, Miami, VaTech, Oregon, Colorado, Nebraska, etc... There is ebb and flow in college football, it's just that currently we're witnessing two dynasties at once that are two of the best ever seen. If you take Clemson and Bama away, it's wide open. And if anyone thinks that reducing college scholarships because two teams screwed the curve, then you're not taking into account the bigger picture. Who wins the national championship should not cost ten little Johnny's at southwest directional state a chance at a free college education.

This.

Except instead of 10 little johnny's, it will be 1,300 that will not get a free education.


Look at where the Top California HS kids signed in yesterday https://247sports.com/Season/2020-Football/RecruitRankings/?InstitutionGroup=HighSchool

Vs in 2009 https://247sports.com/Season/2010-Football/RecruitRankings/?InstitutionGroup=HighSchool&State=CA

The Top players want to go to the Top Schools...
And you think the top recruits ( those are the ones that make the difference) will go to the not in power programs?

Also, look at our "bottom ranked" players over the years. Guys like Preston Smith 2*, Darius Slay 2*, Gabe Jackson, Benadrick McKinney. All would have been left out due to your limits...

Would we have been a better program without those players?

[ShotgunDawg]

This.

Except instead of 10 little johnny's, it will be 1,300 that will not get a free education.


Look at where the Top California HS kids signed in yesterday https://247sports.com/Season/2020-Football/RecruitRankings/?InstitutionGroup=HighSchool

Vs in 2009 https://247sports.com/Season/2010-Football/RecruitRankings/?InstitutionGroup=HighSchool&State=CA

The Top players want to go to the Top Schools...
And you think the top recruits ( those are the ones that make the difference) will go to the not in power programs?

Also, look at our "bottom ranked" players over the years. Guys like Preston Smith 2*, Darius Slay 2*, Gabe Jackson, Benadrick McKinney. All would have been left out due to your limits...

Would we have been a better program without those players?

Scholarships would be reallocated to other sports. So no less Johnnies would get a scholarship.

[ShotgunDawg]

This.

Except instead of 10 little johnny's, it will be 1,300 that will not get a free education.


Look at where the Top California HS kids signed in yesterday https://247sports.com/Season/2020-Football/RecruitRankings/?InstitutionGroup=HighSchool

Vs in 2009 https://247sports.com/Season/2010-Football/RecruitRankings/?InstitutionGroup=HighSchool&State=CA

The Top players want to go to the Top Schools...
And you think the top recruits ( those are the ones that make the difference) will go to the not in power programs?

Also, look at our "bottom ranked" players over the years. Guys like Preston Smith 2*, Darius Slay 2*, Gabe Jackson, Benadrick McKinney. All would have been left out due to your limits...

Would we have been a better program without those players?

- Firstly, you don't know where our staff had those players on their board. If they were good evaluators, then they would've still be Bulldogs.

- Secondly, add those guys to the Bulldogs that Bama, LSU, and Auburn couldn't sign and YES we'd absolutely be a better program.

[lefty96]

Attendance is down because they followed the NASCAR model of jacking up the prices on everything astronomically meanwhile catering to the TV viewer not the in-person viewer.

That's lead to a death of NASCAR. (There's a reason Dega is still successful. Hint: $25 college tickets and allowing coolers in the stands.) Its slowly building towards it in college football. Pricing out the average fan.

Student tickets have gone from $45 in 2013 to $100 now. That's a 222% increase in 6 seasons. Thats outpacing inflation and the product by a whole freaking lot. I'd bet by 2025 they will be $200 or more.


I paid $13 in the late 90's

[maroonmania]

It amazes me that the powers that be do not fix this. Schollies will eventually be reduced, but it is taking way too long

I'm not sure it will change anytime soon. The only people I'm hearing talk about it is on MSU message boards. Even when the talking heads speak about things to improve the sport, I don't really hear any of them talk about reducing scholarships.

[SheltonChoked]

Scholarships would be reallocated to other sports. So no less Johnnies would get a scholarship.

Yeah they would.

Unless you somehow think the football little johnnies can be D1 swimmers, lacrosse players, or baseball players...

[SheltonChoked]

- Firstly, you don't know where our staff had those players on their board. If they were good evaluators, then they would've still be Bulldogs.

- Secondly, add those guys to the Bulldogs that Bama, LSU, and Auburn couldn't sign and YES we'd absolutely be a better program.


I know that McKinney was added on the last day, so we would have missed on a NFL Linebacker. For a guy that got cut at Alabama.

But you really think the bottom of alabama's talent pool is higher than the players I listed?

[Tbonewannabe]

I know that McKinney was added on the last day, so we would have missed on a NFL Linebacker. For a guy that got cut at Alabama.

But you really think the bottom of alabama's talent pool is higher than the players I listed?

We have been pretty lucky getting guys under the radar. However, the rating system is fairly accurate in todays recruiting. More talent evaluation is done now since a lot of guys are either going to camps or on 7 v 7 teams. You can look at teams that regularly recruit in the top 15 and those are the teams that are mostly in the top 25 at all times. There are some variations due to coaching but on average a 4 star is going to outperform a 2-3 star.

[smootness]

I know that McKinney was added on the last day, so we would have missed on a NFL Linebacker. For a guy that got cut at Alabama.

But you really think the bottom of alabama's talent pool is higher than the players I listed?

So your argument is that we're better off taking guys last minute that we didn't really want that much instead of guys more highly regarded that have interest from the best programs in the country?

[Coursesuper]

Yeah they would.

Unless you somehow think the football little johnnies can be D1 swimmers, lacrosse players, or baseball players...

If there were a reduction in football grant and aid at the FBS level then the scholarship dollars would have to be rolled down to the FCS and DII level to help balance the numbers out. Rolling them to other sports would be a non starter.

[SheltonChoked]

So your argument is that we're better off taking guys last minute that we didn't really want that much instead of guys more highly regarded that have interest from the best programs in the country?

No. You really think we were going to get Tua or Trevor Lawernce if not for those pesky 10 spots? It's not the cannot miss guys we would get, it's the bottom 10. the guys we already compete for.

My argument is it's IMPOSSIBLE to tell which 3- low 4* players will be Dak/Slay/Gabe jackson/preston smith vs a transfer bust.

The big boys will always most of the cannot miss miss 5 * players, even if you removed all the scholarships.

So thinking that removing the chance 1,000's of kids from going to college in the hope that Tua and Jerry Judy will pick MSU over bama is not the right path.

[SheltonChoked]

We have been pretty lucky getting guys under the radar. However, the rating system is fairly accurate in todays recruiting. More talent evaluation is done now since a lot of guys are either going to camps or on 7 v 7 teams. You can look at teams that regularly recruit in the top 15 and those are the teams that are mostly in the top 25 at all times. There are some variations due to coaching but on average a 4 star is going to outperform a 2-3 star.

Signed,
USC ( 2, 10, 4, 4, 20)
UCLA (12, 13, 20, 19, 40, 28)
FSU( 3, 3, 6, 11, 21)
Tenn( 4, 14, 17, 21, 13, 15)
TAMU (11, 18, 13, 17, 4, 6)
Texas (10, 7, 25, 3, 3, 9)
#8 Wisconsin (41, 35, 39, 45, 29, 26)
#11 Utah (45, 37, 33, 33, 42, 32)
#7 Baylor(36, 40, 40, 29, 35, 52)



That's a great theory. Too bad it's not true past the top 5. Again. The cannot miss 5*'s are easy. But below that, work ethic means more. That's the real secret. That's what made Dak/slay/jj watt/preston smith/mckinney.

2015-2019 class rankings per 247 listed in ( )

And I didn't even bother with known recruiting powerhouses Boise State, and Navy

[smootness]

No. You really think we were going to get Tua or Trevor Lawernce if not for those pesky 10 spots? It's not the cannot miss guys we would get, it's the bottom 10. the guys we already compete for.

My argument is it's IMPOSSIBLE to tell which 3- low 4* players will be Dak/Slay/Gabe jackson/preston smith vs a transfer bust.

The big boys will always most of the cannot miss miss 5 * players, even if you removed all the scholarships.

So thinking that removing the chance 1,000's of kids from going to college in the hope that Tua and Jerry Judy will pick MSU over bama is not the right path.

I agree that it won't happen and am torn on if I think it should, but it would definitely benefit us. There's really no way to argue that. Sure, we still wouldn't get the top kids, but the more talented players you get that the top schools don't, you're better off.

[smootness]

Signed,
USC ( 2, 10, 4, 4, 20)
UCLA (12, 13, 20, 19, 40, 28)
FSU( 3, 3, 6, 11, 21)
Tenn( 4, 14, 17, 21, 13, 15)
TAMU (11, 18, 13, 17, 4, 6)
Texas (10, 7, 25, 3, 3, 9)
#8 Wisconsin (41, 35, 39, 45, 29, 26)
#11 Utah (45, 37, 33, 33, 42, 32)
#7 Baylor(36, 40, 40, 29, 35, 52)



That's a great theory. Too bad it's not true past the top 5. Again. The cannot miss 5*'s are easy. But below that, work ethic means more. That's the real secret. That's what made Dak/slay/jj watt/preston smith/mckinney.

2015-2019 class rankings per 247 listed in ( )

And I didn't even bother with known recruiting powerhouses Boise State, and Navy

Eh, it's more that coaching and culture means more...also competition.

USC and FSU have bad coaches.
UCLA has a coach that seems totally disinterested now, on the heels of a bad coach and a terrible culture.
Tennessee has a coach that is just figuring out what he's doing, on the heels of a mediocre coach, with a weak culture, and they play in an insanely talented conference.

Texas A&M plays in an insanely talented conference.
I don't really know what Texas' issue is, but in general, for both of them, Texas talent is overrated. I'll give you that one.

Wisconsin has a very good coach and a great culture, and the teams they play mostly recruit where they do.
Utah has a very good coach, and the teams they play mostly recruit where they do.
Baylor has a phenomenal coach.

[SheltonChoked]

Eh, it's more that coaching and culture means more...also competition.

USC and FSU have bad coaches.
UCLA has a coach that seems totally disinterested now, on the heels of a bad coach and a terrible culture.
Tennessee has a coach that is just figuring out what he's doing, on the heels of a mediocre coach, with a weak culture, and they play in an insanely talented conference.

Texas A&M plays in an insanely talented conference.
I don't really know what Texas' issue is, but in general, for both of them, Texas talent is overrated. I'll give you that one.

Wisconsin has a very good coach and a great culture, and the teams they play mostly recruit where they do.
Utah has a very good coach, and the teams they play mostly recruit where they do.
Baylor has a phenomenal coach.


If its coaching, culture, and competition, then Recruiting rankings are complete bullshit.

Coaching is only 20 hours a week. the other 148 is on the athlete.

Dizenzo miller and Dontae walker had the same coaching. Dontae had way more natural talent. Work Ethic was the difference.

[SheltonChoked]

I agree that it won't happen and am torn on if I think it should, but it would definitely benefit us. There's really no way to argue that. Sure, we still wouldn't get the top kids, but the more talented players you get that the top schools don't, you're better off.


And My point is that outside of the top kids (which are very obvious), the recruiting rankings are made up to make $$$ and fanbases feel better....

[The Federalist Engineer]

Here's an unpopular opinion - nothing's wrong with college football.

The 33 5-stars would still go to the same school. Other schools would frenzy-feed on the back-end of top-school recruiting classes. But that would mean that USM and Memphis would get the back end of MSU?s Class.

It?s not like Bama loses players and we get to keep all of ours.

I actually like the Shotgun Dawgs idea to create more Baseball and Men?s Soccer scholarships, however.

Using the logic of title 9, football discriminates against the sporting taste and physiology of many American minorities, especially the biggest USA Minority that loves soccer and is built for soccer...that also loves Baseball.