College Football is a Terrible Product

[ShotgunDawg]

With all conference schedules, every game involving a championship contender yesterday was a non-competitive blowout.

The sport cannot grow like this. There are currently 3-5 programs that are playing a different sport than everyone else and it destroys the competitive nature of the sport.

Hopefully the new transfer portal rule will help. We?ll see

[ShotgunDawg]

Ole Miss vs Auburn and Penn State vs Indiana were great but those were just exhibition games because they were meaningless due to the structure of the sport being broken.

[THE Bruce Dickinson]

I actually made a similar comment yesterday.

Oklahoma State is currently number 6, and they would get drummed by Clemson, Bama, or Ohio State.

It used to be where most top 10 could beat one another depending on the circumstances. That's not the case anymore and it makes college football pretty awful to watch at times.

[ShotgunDawg]

I actually made a similar comment yesterday.

Oklahoma State is currently number 6, and they would get drummed by Clemson, Bama, or Ohio State.

It used to be where most top 10 could beat one another depending on the circumstances. That's not the case anymore and it makes college football pretty awful to watch at times.

Agree. We?ve currently got 3 programs that are playing an entirely different sport and two more that are able to lineup the stars and compete with them (LSU and UGA).

After those teams, college football is great and the games are competitive. But all those games are exhibitions because they?re meaningless.

It?s just terrible structure. College basketball and baseball have much better structures. Both sports have brands and blue bloods who are good every year, but the gap between the blue bloods and everyone else is just narrow enough for quality competition.

[Maroonthirteen]

I agree.

I'm trying to think over the years. I guess Oregon and Clemson are two programs that have really elevated their program To A NC level over my lifetime. However for the most part the mid tier P5s of the 80s are the same programs today. However OHSt and Bama are even better.

Clemson would be the outlier though and an interesting case study. It would be extremely interesting to know all of Clemson's secrets. To learn exactly how they built that program.

[ShotgunDawg]

I agree.

I'm trying to think over the years. I guess Oregon and Clemson are two programs that have really elevated their program To A NC level over my lifetime. However for the most part the mid tier P5s of the 80s are the same programs today. However OHSt and Bama are even better.

Clemson would be the outlier though and an interesting case study. It would be extremely interesting to know all of Clemson's secrets. To learn exactly how they built that program.

I don?t think Oregon has ever been a real natty contender. Very Oklahoma like to me.

The sport just has to evolve.

[DeltaChicagoDog]

Right. The problem has been apparent for quite a while, but the all conference schedules have made it glaring. Allowing so many buy-a-wins injected false hope into the system, but it was a band aid that in reality made things easier to overlook, so the problem grew worse. Most fan bases are left feeling like (and in reality) have little skin in the endgame, more like passing entertainment for a few months out of the year. And meanwhile, if other fanbases are like ours, and I suspect they are, often resort to squabbling and in-fighting and doing little to further their own cause.

[coachnorm]

With all conference schedules, every game involving a championship contender yesterday was a non-competitive blowout.

The sport cannot grow like this. There are currently 3-5 programs that are playing a different sport than everyone else and it destroys the competitive nature of the sport.

Hopefully the new transfer portal rule will help. We?ll see


Being that there are currently 3-5 programs playing at a different level, no one else deserves to be playing for a championship. When someone else joins the group they deserve consideration. The Larger conference schedules expose the contenders from the pretenders. This guarantees the quality of the product. I believe that any program that schedules a FCS program should be disqualified from the 4 team playoff. Also a championship team should prove itself by going on the road 6 times in 12 games, 7 home games equals a disqualification. This is great quality control which forces competition to prove a worthy champion without controversy.

[ShotgunDawg]

Being that there are currently 3-5 programs playing at a different level, no one else deserves to be playing for a championship. When someone else joins the group they deserve consideration. The Larger conference schedules expose the contenders from the pretenders. This guarantees the quality of the product. I believe that any program that schedules a FCS program should be disqualified from the 4 team playoff. Also a championship team should prove itself by going on the road 6 times in 12 games, 7 home games equals a disqualification. This is great quality control which forces competition to prove a worthy champion without controversy.

You don’t get it.

The recruit hoarding prevents anyone else from remotely being able to step up and compete. The class structure of the sport simply won’t allow it.

The sport cannot grow like this. College is the equivalent of giving 3 NFL teams all the first round draft picks every year. It doesn’t work

[Avelso]

The problem is that 2 things essentially pay for all other athletics at most places. Football and the NCAA tournament. The powers to be don?t care about competitive balance. I wish we would drop the signing day cap to 20ish and lower overall schollys to 75. That?s 5 players a year Bama and LSU can?t sign and hoard. Give those schollys to baseball but at the end of the day if it happened the schollys would go to a women?s sport.

[msstate7]

I've moved to nfl more these days. Nfl is a vastly superior product. College football without huge crowds and tailgating isn't as good anyway, regardless of competitive imbalance

[ShotgunDawg]

I've moved to nfl more these days. Nfl is a vastly superior product. College football without huge crowds and tailgating isn't as good anyway, regardless of competitive imbalance

Competitive balance to at least some degree would really help college football.

The lack of tailgating and such has exploited how bad the product is when you can only watch the top teams for a quarter before the game is out of hand.

Just a terrible structure.

[RocketDawg]

You don’t get it.

The recruit hoarding prevents anyone else from remotely being able to step up and compete. The class structure of the sport simply won’t allow it.

The sport cannot grow like this. College is the equivalent of giving 3 NFL teams all the first round draft picks every year. It doesn’t work

It's not as bad was when Bear Bryant had unlimited scholarships, but the present cap needs to be reduced. Alabama is still hoarding really good players.

[Todd4State]

It needs to be 65 scholarships period.

[ShotgunDawg]

It's not as bad was when Bear Bryant had unlimited scholarships, but the present cap needs to be reduced. Alabama is still hoarding really good players.

Totally agree but to a large degree in the Bryant years college football wasn?t a massively consumed, money making product.

The sport just has to evolve. It?s not good for the sport to only have 3-5 contenders

A full schedule of exhibition games for 90+% of the teams in the country isn?t a quality product.

[RocketDawg]

Totally agree but to a large degree in the Bryant years college football wasn?t a massively consumed, money making product.

The sport just has to evolve. It?s not good for the sport to only have 3-5 contenders

That's true, it wasn't the cash cow it is today, but it was still a big deal here in Alabama (Denny Stadium was smaller then than Davis Wade is now though) and other places. Tickets were $5 then instead of near $100, so a little more than inflation. I think television has made it the huge deal it is now.

[ShotgunDawg]

The problem is that 2 things essentially pay for all other athletics at most places. Football and the NCAA tournament. The powers to be don?t care about competitive balance. I wish we would drop the signing day cap to 20ish and lower overall schollys to 75. That?s 5 players a year Bama and LSU can?t sign and hoard. Give those schollys to baseball but at the end of the day if it happened the schollys would go to a women?s sport.

Hopefully the new transfer rule helps, and lowering schollies would obviously help but that?ll be hugely political.

Another, outside the box option, is have an optional draft in which players that opt in to the draft get paid and players that don?t can choose where they want to go but don?t get paid.

[ShotgunDawg]

Alabama just got the number 1 CB in the country. Check out his final 4... if only someone would step up and compete with them....

https://twitter.com/secfootball/status/1320478890247159808?s=21

https://twitter.com/secfootball/status/1320478890247159808?s=21

[the_real_MSU_is_us]

Being that there are currently 3-5 programs playing at a different level, no one else deserves to be playing for a championship. When someone else joins the group they deserve consideration. The Larger conference schedules expose the contenders from the pretenders. This guarantees the quality of the product. I believe that any program that schedules a FCS program should be disqualified from the 4 team playoff. Also a championship team should prove itself by going on the road 6 times in 12 games, 7 home games equals a disqualification. This is great quality control which forces competition to prove a worthy champion without controversy.

This isn't about the playoff format or scheduling SOS, as you say there's only a few teams good enough to make the 4 team playoff as is. We're discussing the distribution of talent:

Imagine if 2 NFL teams got 5 1st round picks apiece each year, and a higher cap. The NFL season would be worthless because everyone knows those 2 teams are going to meet in the Super Bowl. WHy care at all about my team or their standing in the division if they'll get blown out by that super team?

Well, because the blue bloods have their pick of the litter, they have significantly more talent than anyone else. It's like the NFL scenario I just laid out.

A solution that Shotgun has always pushed is to reduce scholarships from 85 to 70, and give those scholarships to baseball and other mens sports. That would a) help out those other sports, and b) mean there's 15 less blue chip players per blue blood. Imagine if you took 60 total 4*s from LSU, Bama, UGA, and Florida and distributed them to State, Arky, OM, SC, Vandy, Kentucky, and Mizzou... The games would be far more enjoyable to watch, just like how the NFL has multiple close games every Sunday because the talent is levelish.

[Todd4State]

Hopefully the new transfer rule helps, and lowering schollies would obviously help but that?ll be hugely political.

Another, outside the box option, is have an optional draft in which players that opt in to the draft get paid and players that don?t can choose where they want to go but don?t get paid.

You can't have a draft involving kids and where they go to college. It's just not feasible. That's a lawsuit waiting to happen when some kid has his pro career tanked because he got drafted by Ole Miss and couldn't go to Bama.

The only thing that they can do is lower the amount of scholarships that they give. Which to me is too many based on the fact that every team seems to be giving at least one walk-on a full ride every year. Going with 65 scholarships would probably mean 15 man recruiting classes every year.

[ShotgunDawg]

You can't have a draft involving kids and where they go to college. It's just not feasible. That's a lawsuit waiting to happen when some kid has his pro career tanked because he got drafted by Ole Miss and couldn't go to Bama.

The only thing that they can do is lower the amount of scholarships that they give. Which to me is too many based on the fact that every team seems to be giving at least one walk-on a full ride every year. Going with 65 scholarships would probably mean 15 man recruiting classes every year.

Todd, “optional draft”. That means kids have the option of not participating in it and choosing where they want to go just like they have for 100+ years. Nothing changes unless the kid wants to get paid.

Please read what wrote before disagreeing

To add, you could let the kid narrow down his schools to 10 or do that we’re eligible to draft him

[RocketDawg]

You can't have a draft involving kids and where they go to college. It's just not feasible. That's a lawsuit waiting to happen when some kid has his pro career tanked because he got drafted by Ole Miss and couldn't go to Bama.

The only thing that they can do is lower the amount of scholarships that they give. Which to me is too many based on the fact that every team seems to be giving at least one walk-on a full ride every year. Going with 65 scholarships would probably mean 15 man recruiting classes every year.

Having a draft of high school kids would just make college football more and more professional. The kids have to be able to go to whatever school they want to (and get into, of course). College football has really gotten out of hand.

[ShotgunDawg]

Having a draft of high school kids would just make college football more and more professional. The kids have to be able to go to whatever school they want to (and get into, of course). College football has really gotten out of hand.

“Optional draft”

Again, reading comprehension appears to be a real issue here.

[RocketDawg]

“Optional draft”

Again, reading comprehension appears to be a real issue here.

No, I saw that part but still don't think it's the thing to do. But I'm old school. Might as well not even require them to go to school if we start going down roads like that.

[calidawg]

And the "legalized" player endorsement and compensation rules aren't even in effect yet.

[the_real_MSU_is_us]

No, I saw that part but still don't think it's the thing to do. But I'm old school. Might as well not even require them to go to school if we start going down roads like that.

+1 that's good stuff

[TUSK]

JMO - While skolly reductions would mitigate the composite talent disparities some, I believe the end result would be (mostly) negligible...

I'd still like to see a new, self-governing FB "classification" formed, separate from the NCAA...

[ShotgunDawg]

JMO - While skolly reductions would mitigate the composite talent disparities some, I believe the end result would be (mostly) negligible...

I'd still like to see a new, self-governing FB "classification" formed, separate from the NCAA...

I don’t Think the super league will help other than destroying numerous good football programs.

The scholarship reduction won’t change who the best teams mostly are but it would narrow the gap to the point where games were more competitive and the product was better.

That’s all anyone is asking for here. Not to watch blow outs every weekend and see college football thrive. I realize as a Bama fan, seeing the reality of 90% of teams is tough.

[Jack Lambert]

I actually made a similar comment yesterday.

Oklahoma State is currently number 6, and they would get drummed by Clemson, Bama, or Ohio State.

It used to be where most top 10 could beat one another depending on the circumstances. That's not the case anymore and it makes college football pretty awful to watch at times.

These polls mean nothing. These polls have BYU 12th. No way in hell the Playoff committee have them 12th.

[Jack Lambert]

If OSU goes 8-0 and Bama goes 9-1 who has the higher seeding? What if Oregon or USC goes 7-0? This season is really going to be freaked upped.

[ShotgunDawg]

If OSU goes 8-0 and Bama goes 9-1 who has the higher seeding? What if Oregon or USC goes 7-0? This season is really going to be freaked upped.

Doesn’t matter who the higher seed is. Bama is 30 points better than Ok St

[TrapGame]

Alabama has like 50 five stars on the team. That's the problem. My opinion is a star limit. A team can only have so many five and four star slots on a team.

[msstate7]

Probably worth noting that Clemson made their way into prime time, so it can be done

[Jack Lambert]

Doesn?t matter who the higher seed is. Bama is 30 points better than Ok St

OSU is Ohio State not OK State.

[the_real_MSU_is_us]

Alabama has like 50 five stars on the team. That's the problem. My opinion is a star limit. A team can only have so many five and four star slots on a team.

You think Bama buying 'croots Chargers was bad? Wait till you see the entire 247 staff with Bentleys and bama getting that -3* bump

[ShotgunDawg]

You think Bama buying 'croots Chargers was bad? Wait till you see the entire 247 staff with Bentleys and bama getting that -3* bump

Using recruiting rankings is too subjective. Wouldn’t work. There are other more objective methods.

[the_real_MSU_is_us]

JMO - While skolly reductions would mitigate the composite talent disparities some, I believe the end result would be (mostly) negligible...

I'd still like to see a new, self-governing FB "classification" formed, separate from the NCAA...

Oh no doubt the top programs will stay the top programs. But now, instead of 'Bama having their top 25 picks in a class, they'd have their top say, 16. That's still the best 16 player class in the country, BUT a lot of really really good players are in those last 9 in and they can go to other P5 teams and make the games far closer than they are now.

Bama, OSU, UGA, LSU, and Clemson will still be the most talented teams each year, but there's more of a chance of bad evals by a staff knocking one out of contention (16 player classes means there's less wiggle vs a 25 player class- better make sure you chose the right OT to keep), and there's a better chance of the stars aligning on a State A&M or PSU

EDIT: also the NCAA is ruled by the blue bloods and Basketball and Football. Not sure cutting off the power of Duke, Kansas, UCLA, and UNC really change much for the dynamics

[TrapGame]

You think Bama buying 'croots Chargers was bad? Wait till you see the entire 247 staff with Bentleys and bama getting that -3* bump

Official NCAA star rankings. It's time for the NCAA to have an official ranking system.

[the_real_MSU_is_us]

Official NCAA star rankings. It's time for the NCAA to have an official ranking system.

The NCAA literally refuses to investigate a blue blood for their incredibly blatant cheating, and is ran by the big schools. Notice how every transfer is granted eligibility if it's to a big school? Any ranking system they do will be about money.

Plus they are still human, and thus can be bought.

[Maroonthirteen]

Probably worth noting that Clemson made their way into prime time, so it can be done

Which is what this thread should be talking about.

Clemson had some football history but not a whole lot. In 99, we beat them pretty good. Since then Clemson has gotten better and better.

I see their situation as similar to ours. In state rival. Georgia just down the road to recruit against.

So what happened for them to get so strong? Their payroll rival that of a Pro-team? A lot of credit goes to Dabo but there has to be more to the story

[TrapGame]

The NCAA literally refuses to investigate a blue blood for their incredibly blatant cheating, and is ran by the big schools. Notice how every transfer is granted eligibility if it's to a big school? Any ranking system they do will be about money.

Plus they are still human, and thus can be bought.

That's a good point.

[ShotgunDawg]

Which is what this thread should be talking about.

Clemson had some football history but not a whole lot. In 99, we beat them pretty good. Since then Clemson has gotten better and better.

I see their situation as similar to ours. In state rival. Georgia just down the road to recruit against.

So what happened for them to get so strong? Their payroll rival that of a Pro-team? A lot of credit goes to Dabo but there has to be more to the story

Clemson just took FSU?s spot as the ACC super power who only plays 1-2 top 25 caliber teams a year.

Clemson would be a slightly better version of South Carolina if in the SEC. something close to Auburn.

They struck gold on a great coach and could keep that coach and build the program due to easy schedules.

[Todd4State]

Probably worth noting that Clemson made their way into prime time, so it can be done

The interesting thing about Clemson is they stuck with Swinney after a 6-7 season and five straight losses to South Carolina. Maybe some of our fans should take notes.

[Todd4State]

The other thing that helps Clemson is they have boosters that will pay for football players. They were every bit as involved as Ole Miss was with Nkemdiche and this was before Clemson became Clemson. Our boosters need to step it up some on the elite in state players that keep going out of state.

[War Machine Dawg]

With all conference schedules, every game involving a championship contender yesterday was a non-competitive blowout.

The sport cannot grow like this. There are currently 3-5 programs that are playing a different sport than everyone else and it destroys the competitive nature of the sport.

Hopefully the new transfer portal rule will help. We?ll see

Everyone wanted a playoff and those who thought it was a terrible idea were vilified. This was a foreseeable consequence of making the bowls irrelevant. Only a few teams make the playoffs, so all the top croots go to those schools, creating a self-perpetuating cycle that's nearly impossible to break.

The only viable fix is changing the scholarship limit to 60 and forcing the talent pool to be spread more broadly. Expanding the playoffs isn't a real fix because it'll only add a couple of teams to the cycle without raising the floor.

[ShotgunDawg]

Everyone wanted a playoff and those who thought it was a terrible idea were vilified. This was a foreseeable consequence of making the bowls irrelevant. Only a few teams make the playoffs, so all the top croots go to those schools, creating a self-perpetuating cycle that's nearly impossible to break.

The only viable fix is changing the scholarship limit to 60 and forcing the talent pool to be spread more broadly. Expanding the playoffs isn't a real fix because it'll only add a couple of teams to the cycle without raising the floor.

Maybe the best post you've ever made.

Honestly, I have always supported a playoff, but the case you made is very compelling to the problem with it and one which I hadn't considered.

Whatever the case, it has to be fixed or the sport will slowly die.

Anyone that doesn't see where this train is headed is either a fan of one of those 5 schools or isn't thinking this through

[Maverick91]

With all conference schedules, every game involving a championship contender yesterday was a non-competitive blowout.

The sport cannot grow like this. There are currently 3-5 programs that are playing a different sport than everyone else and it destroys the competitive nature of the sport.

Hopefully the new transfer portal rule will help. We?ll see

Which is so weird, because if we look at the star power per team there are a lot of teams that should be competing together week in and week out. Just on talent alone. This truly makes me think that Coaching does play a ridiculous role. A lot of these top ten teams talent wise cannot hold water with Ohio State, Clemson, or Bama.

https://247sports.com/season/2019-football/collegeteamtalentcomposite/

[ShotgunDawg]

Which is so weird, because if we look at the star power per team there are a lot of teams that should be competing together week in and week out. Just on talent alone. This truly makes me think that Coaching does play a ridiculous role. A lot of these top ten teams talent wise cannot hold water with Ohio State, Clemson, or Bama.

https://247sports.com/season/2019-football/collegeteamtalentcomposite/

3-5 teams are still getting all the first picks regardless if the recruiting rankings say that their SHOULD be more competition.

The sport just needs reform. The NFL is putting an outstanding product on the field each and every week with close games that engage audiences for 3.5 hours whereas college football fans are engages for 15 minutes.

The popularity of the sport can't improve if we continue down this road. There is just no way.

[Maverick91]

3-5 teams are still getting all the first picks regardless if the recruiting rankings say that their SHOULD be more competition.

The sport just needs reform. The NFL is putting an outstanding product on the field each and every week with close games that engage audiences for 3.5 hours whereas college football fans are engages for 15 minutes.

The popularity of the sport can't improve if we continue down this road. There is just no way.

I wont disagree. It was nice to see people fall this past weekend, Penn State. The NCAA isn't going to get down into the roots and truly investigate blue bloods. One thing that could help is put a star cap on teams. I know a lot of people don't put a lot of stock into the star power. But, it does matter.

Let us say they put a cap of thirty 4 star recruits on each team and three 5 star recruits. Please be aware that is just within the first 19 teams on the power ranking system. A few things would happen:

1. Doing this alone would force 207 4 star recruits to be spread across the country.
2. 47 5 star recruits to be spread across the country.
3. Coaching, strength training, evaluation, and player development importance would go through the roof. We think those are important know, I don't think we could fathom the importance of it moving forward.

This alone would make the talent level at the top 30 schools to probably always land at the same.

[Hot Rock]

Let's face it... college football never has been fair and will never be fair. Bama & Ohio State and the select few pay it's players better because it has more fans willing to pay. $100 handshakes that OBJ was giving out was just pocket change, these guys are getting paid and I don't blame the players at all. In many cases, its the after football life that is different as well. They get jobs after football they would never have gotten.

No matter how many scholarships you give, they will always have the best players simply because they pay more. That's the way it is and I don't see it changing by limiting scholarships. All that does is give fewer players a chance at an education. Believe it or not, some do take advantage and get a degree in something that gets them out of the factories.

The NFL is a far superior product but I don't have an NFL Team, i have a college team so I am a college football fan.

[StarkVegasSteve]

Which is what this thread should be talking about.

Clemson had some football history but not a whole lot. In 99, we beat them pretty good. Since then Clemson has gotten better and better.

I see their situation as similar to ours. In state rival. Georgia just down the road to recruit against.

So what happened for them to get so strong? Their payroll rival that of a Pro-team? A lot of credit goes to Dabo but there has to be more to the story

Dabo built a culture. And a lot of credit for Clemson's rise goes to Terry Don Phillips, their former AD. He got out of Dabo's way, let him build, and didn't listen to fans and alums who wanted him gone early on. It also helps that they're in the ACC where they only have 2-3 tough games a year. Although you can honestly say the same about any elite program, and that includes Bama.

[ShotgunDawg]

I wont disagree. It was nice to see people fall this past weekend, Penn State. The NCAA isn't going to get down into the roots and truly investigate blue bloods. One thing that could help is put a star cap on teams. I know a lot of people don't put a lot of stock into the star power. But, it does matter.

Let us say they put a cap of thirty 4 star recruits on each team and three 5 star recruits. Please be aware that is just within the first 19 teams on the power ranking system. A few things would happen:

1. Doing this alone would force 207 4 star recruits to be spread across the country.
2. 47 5 star recruits to be spread across the country.
3. Coaching, strength training, evaluation, and player development importance would go through the roof. We think those are important know, I don't think we could fathom the importance of it moving forward.

This alone would make the talent level at the top 30 schools to probably always land at the same.

Star rankings are subjective and thus can't be used as a way to create parity in college football.

If players ever get paid, you could have a salary cap, but, until then, limiting scholarships is about the only way to regulate things.

[ShotgunDawg]

It also helps that they're in the ACC where they only have 2-3 tough games a year. .

Only playing 2-3 tough games a year allows you to build a winning culture.

[the_real_MSU_is_us]

Everyone wanted a playoff and those who thought it was a terrible idea were vilified. This was a foreseeable consequence of making the bowls irrelevant. Only a few teams make the playoffs, so all the top croots go to those schools, creating a self-perpetuating cycle that's nearly impossible to break.

The only viable fix is changing the scholarship limit to 60 and forcing the talent pool to be spread more broadly. Expanding the playoffs isn't a real fix because it'll only add a couple of teams to the cycle without raising the floor.

Not sure I agree with the first paragraph, just because the Blue Bloods were already really separated from the rest of us going back to the mid 2000's. USC has fallen off and been replaced by Clemson, LSU and OSU are still there, Texas fell off and is replaced by Bama... but the overall theme of 4-5 super talented dominant programs is still here.

I think under the BCS players still picked programs they thought could make the Championship game, now they pick who they think can make the playoffs, but I'm not sure there's any difference- they still congregate to roughly the same number of programs

I 100% agree with the scholarship limit stuff. 60 might be a bit too low, I am sympathetic to the need to red shirt and develop some of these 18 year olds and I think if we go too low you'll have an increase in horror stories of a barely 18 year old out of shape LB with terrible form getting destroyed because he couldn't redshirt. NFL struggles to put make do with a 54 man roster but those guys are all ready to go physically and technique wise. 65-70 scholarships is perfect to me imo

[maroonmania]

College football is the WORST product of any popular fan sport out there. I've never seen any sport where there was such a divide between 3 or 4 programs and the rest of the field. Basically everyone but those teams are playing for nothing more than bowl positioning. And everything the NCAA does with rule changes just keeps widening the separation between the elite programs and everyone else. So now we have things like free transfers every year and NLI coming onboard that will just keep supporting the status quo if not making it worse. Things like forcing every non-graduate to sit out a year if they transfer (like it always had been until the 'hardship' waiver came out) and the biggest item of cutting scholarships back (both total and yearly) will not even be considered or discussed. So we will continue to have a glut of football scholarships so that Bama, Clemson, Ohio State and the like can continue to sign all the elite athletes they want and then process out 4 or 5 every year that don't cut it there while a sport like college baseball can't even offer enough scholarship money to get most players to even seriously consider college if they go anywhere in the Top 15-20 rounds of the MLB draft. The ONLY thing that saves college football across the board as an overall product though is brand loyalty and allegiance from alumni and sidewalk fans.

[ShotgunDawg]

Not sure I agree with the first paragraph, just because the Blue Bloods were already really separated from the rest of us going back to the mid 2000's. USC has fallen off and been replaced by Clemson, LSU and OSU are still there, Texas fell off and is replaced by Bama... but the overall theme of 4-5 super talented dominant programs is still here.

I think under the BCS players still picked programs they thought could make the Championship game, now they pick who they think can make the playoffs, but I'm not sure there's any difference- they still congregate to roughly the same number of programs

I 100% agree with the scholarship limit stuff. 60 might be a bit too low, I am sympathetic to the need to red shirt and develop some of these 18 year olds and I think if we go too low you'll have an increase in horror stories of a barely 18 year old out of shape LB with terrible form getting destroyed because he couldn't redshirt. NFL struggles to put make do with a 54 man roster but those guys are all ready to go physically and technique wise. 65-70 scholarships is perfect to me imo

60 man is too low, but, with FR coming in more ready than ever to contribute, 85 scholarships is a completely outdated policy that only hurts the game

I'm for 70-75 scholarships. I'm also OK with gradually lowering it until we see the desired outcome. Lower it to 80 for 5 years and see if the games get better. Then lower it to 75 and see what things look like. Something has to happen though

[Lord McBuckethead]

You don?t get it.

The recruit hoarding prevents anyone else from remotely being able to step up and compete. The class structure of the sport simply won?t allow it.

The sport cannot grow like this. College is the equivalent of giving 3 NFL teams all the first round draft picks every year. It doesn?t work

Even without the recruit hoarding, the only ones transfering are guys that were at best second string. Also, all of Bama's second string tend to transfer to a bunch of different teams. So even with transfers, the talent is spread out without the potential of 1 team getting enough talent to challenge Bama week in and out.

[Lord McBuckethead]

Good point.
Bama will never have a position of weakness ever again. They will just take the best of the best transfers each off season to fill a recruiting gap they may have.

[ShotgunDawg]

College football is the WORST product of any popular fan sport out there. I've never seen any sport where there was such a divide between 3 or 4 programs and the rest of the field. Basically everyone but those teams are playing for nothing more than bowl positioning. And everything the NCAA does with rule changes just keeps widening the separation between the elite programs and everyone else. So now we have things like free transfers every year and NLI coming onboard that will just keep supporting the status quo if not making it worse. Things like forcing every non-graduate to sit out a year if they transfer (like it always had been until the 'hardship' waiver came out) and the biggest item of cutting scholarships back (both total and yearly) will not even be considered or discussed. So we will continue to have a glut of football scholarships so that Bama, Clemson, Ohio State and the like can continue to sign all the elite athletes they want and then process out 4 or 5 every year that don't cut it there while a sport like college baseball can't even offer enough scholarship money to get most players to even seriously consider college if they go anywhere in the Top 15-20 rounds of the MLB draft. The ONLY thing that saves college football across the board as an overall product though is brand loyalty and allegiance from alumni and sidewalk fans.

100% agree, but there is a crisis on the horizon.

When sports fans see professional sports that have good games, competitive divisions, etc they are going to slowly and surely migrate to those sports and abandon their passion for college football.

Until 10-15 years ago, college football could get away with the current set-up because recruiting rankings didn't exist and people were largely ignorant to the talent discrepancy between teams. However, now that people can easily google the lack of talent distribution, it's highlighted what a waste of time and money the sport is. 90+% of power 5 teams literally have absolutely NO SHOT at winning anything other than a meaningless bowl game.

To save the sport, something has to be done.

[maroonmania]

Even without the recruit hoarding, the only ones transfering are guys that were at best second string. Also, all of Bama's second string tend to transfer to a bunch of different teams. So even with transfers, the talent is spread out without the potential of 1 team getting enough talent to challenge Bama week in and out.

Yea, but the ones transferring are the ones that Bama, or other elites, misevaluated and want to offload. If player A and player B are coming out of HS and Bama had to sign one or the other based on who they want more and live with their potential misevaluation if they pick the wrong one, that is a LOT different than them being able to sign both, figure out which one they want more, and then send the other one on their way. So the talent is not exactly getting spread out in the same way with transfers as it would if scholarships were cut back.

[maroonmania]

100% agree, but there is a crisis on the horizon.

When sports fans see professional sports that have good games, competitive divisions, etc they are going to slowly and surely migrate to those sports and abandon their passion for college football.

Until 10-15 years ago, college football could get away with the current set-up because recruiting rankings didn't exist and people were largely ignorant to the talent discrepancy between teams. However, now that people can easily google the lack of talent distribution, it's highlighted what a waste of time and money the sport is. 90+% of power 5 teams literally have absolutely NO SHOT at winning anything other than a meaningless bowl game.

To save the sport, something has to be done.

As an example, we are a 33 point underdog to Bama this weekend. I am a diehard MSU fan but I seriously don't even know if I will take out any time Saturday evening to watch this game. What's the point other than to maybe see how some of our individual players play?

[the_real_MSU_is_us]

100% agree, but there is a crisis on the horizon.

When sports fans see professional sports that have good games, competitive divisions, etc they are going to slowly and surely migrate to those sports and abandon their passion for college football.

Until 10-15 years ago, college football could get away with the current set-up because recruiting rankings didn't exist and people were largely ignorant to the talent discrepancy between teams. However, now that people can easily google the lack of talent distribution, it's highlighted what a waste of time and money the sport is. 90+% of power 5 teams literally have absolutely NO SHOT at winning anything other than a meaningless bowl game.

To save the sport, something has to be done.

Exactly right, HUDL is great for the kids but horrible for the sport; Bama's recruiting analysts can sit on their ass and watch every highlight of every kid that wants to play in college. Much easier to find elite athletes or raw gems than pre-highlight videos being online

[ShotgunDawg]

As an example, we are a 33 point underdog to Bama this weekend. I am a diehard MSU fan but I seriously don't even know if I will take out any time Saturday evening to watch this game. What's the point other than to maybe see how some of our individual players play?

100% agree. Thing is: it's not just an MSU problem. Alabama has averaged beating a blue blood Tennessee by 27+ points over the past 14 years. That's absurd and absolutely awful for the sport.

[ShotgunDawg]

Exactly right, HUDL is great for the kids but horrible for the sport; Bama's recruiting analysts can sit on their ass and watch every highlight of every kid that wants to play in college. Much easier to find elite athletes or raw gems than pre-highlight videos being online

Absolutely correct. Additionally, as if we needed anymore additions, the national combines bring all these 4 and 5 star guys together and allow them to become friends, which leads to even more of them attending the same schools.

We've just got to find a better way. Many people are completely against scholarship reductions due the role they occupy in helping kids to go to college that may not have been able to any other way. I get that and am completely open to hearing and considering alternative options other than cutting scholarships, but keeping the status quo is not one of them.

Something has to be done or we are going to absolutely destroy the sport. For the good of the long term health of the sport, reform has to happen. It can't survive like this.

[msstate7]

The revenue from the sport has exploded though, so until there's a financial hit, there's no problem in the powers that be eyes.

[ShotgunDawg]

The revenue from the sport has exploded though, so until there's a financial hit, there's no problem in the powers that be eyes.

I think there is about to be a financial hit. I think COVID has dropped the curtain on the issues. There's certainly about to be an attendance hit once things open back up.

We live in a progressive society, where even conservatives like myself have progressed far more than we realize over the past decade, and it's highlighted the lack of progressiveness in college football IMO.

I'm a capitalist at heart, but capitalism without some government control, leads to too many haves and have nots. The NCAA's rules in this case are the government and more regulation is needed.

[maroonmania]

I think there is about to be a financial hit. I think COVID has dropped the curtain on the issues. There's certainly about to be an attendance hit once things open back up.

We live in a progressive society, where even conservatives like myself have progressed far more than we realize over the past decade, and it's highlighted the lack of progressiveness in college football IMO.

I'm a capitalist at heart, but capitalism without some government control, leads to too many haves and have nots.

I just find it humorous that Saban basically failed at his only job (Miami Dolphins) where he coached in a league where everyone basically has a chance at obtaining equal talent. He quickly realized that wasn't the gig for him.

[ShotgunDawg]

I just find it humorous that Saban basically failed at his only job (Miami Dolphins) where he coached in a league where everyone basically has a chance at obtaining equal talent. He quickly realized that wasn't the gig for him.

Absolutely and he was smart to get out.

The system needs to be fixed and the quicker the sport fixes it, the quicker it'll grown & secure the long term health of the sport

[StarkVegasSteve]

I just find it humorous that Saban basically failed at his only job (Miami Dolphins) where he coached in a league where everyone basically has a chance at obtaining equal talent. He quickly realized that wasn't the gig for him.

9-7 and 6-10 for 15-17 overall record. There's a lot of coaches that are still coaching in the league with WAY WORSE records than that. Also people forget that Saban was a hell of a DC under Belichick. He left the Dolphins because instead of listening to him and signing Brees, they instead opted to sign Daunte Culpepper. Saban got mad, so he met with Mal Moore and he made him a home run offer. Amazing that one decision altered two franchises as much as it did. The Dolphins have made the playoffs twice since that decision and Brees has led the Saints to a Super Bowl, 3 NFC Championship games, and 8 playoff appearances.

[msstate7]

9-7 and 6-10 for 15-17 overall record. There's a lot of coaches that are still coaching in the league with WAY WORSE records than that. Also people forget that Saban was a hell of a DC under Belichick. He left the Dolphins because instead of listening to him and signing Brees, they instead opted to sign Daunte Culpepper. Saban got mad, so he met with Mal Moore and he made him a home run offer. Amazing that one decision altered two franchises as much as it did. The Dolphins have made the playoffs twice since that decision and Brees has led the Saints to a Super Bowl, 3 NFC Championship games, and 8 playoff appearances.

Would Brees have been the same player with Sean Payton? I think brees would be good with anyone, but not sure he's great without Sean. Sean and Brees were a perfect marriage

[maroonmania]

9-7 and 6-10 for 15-17 overall record. There's a lot of coaches that are still coaching in the league with WAY WORSE records than that. Also people forget that Saban was a hell of a DC under Belichick. He left the Dolphins because instead of listening to him and signing Brees, they instead opted to sign Daunte Culpepper. Saban got mad, so he met with Mal Moore and he made him a home run offer. Amazing that one decision altered two franchises as much as it did. The Dolphins have made the playoffs twice since that decision and Brees has led the Saints to a Super Bowl, 3 NFC Championship games, and 8 playoff appearances.

Man, are you like Saban's relative or something to give that diatribe on all the reasons why he was 15-17 in the NFL? Nobody is saying Saban isn't a good coach, he obviously is, but he certainly likes coaching in a situation where he just has way more talent than most every team he plays. I guess most coaches do.

[StarkVegasSteve]

Would Brees have been the same player with Sean Payton? I think brees would be good with anyone, but not sure he's great without Sean. Sean and Brees were a perfect marriage

I think it brings up the question of would Brees have convinced Saban to embrace the spread in 06 rather than at Bama in 14. I agree that it worked out better for Brees to be with Sean in NOLA, but I've always been fascinated by the dominos that one move caused.

[StarkVegasSteve]

Man, are you like Saban's relative or something to give that diatribe on all the reasons why he was 15-17 in the NFL? Nobody is saying Saban isn't a good coach, he obviously is, but he certainly likes coaching in a situation where he just has way more talent than most every team he plays. I guess most coaches do.

Yep that's it. I'm Saban's relative. And he gave me some insight on what they're gonna do this weekend, they're gonna be revolutionary and only play defense. They'll immediately punt if they get the ball on offense. He feels like his D can score 3 to 4 TDs with Costello at the helm.

[Maverick91]

Only playing 2-3 tough games a year allows you to build a winning culture.

I have to disagree. even if you limit to 60 players then that just means that Bama gets to play everyone that they usually play, it wouldn't affect the quality of player that they receive, and teams like State would not be affected either in helping bridge the gap, it might help us in the aspect that Bama could only take in so many. All it would do is affect the depth of the quality of player they have. Honestly I see lowering the scholarships hurting more than helping because you have less individuals to practice against thus more injuries would occur.

[maroonmania]

I have to disagree. even if you limit to 60 players then that just means that Bama gets to play everyone that they usually play, it wouldn't affect the quality of player that they receive, and teams like State would not be affected either in helping bridge the gap, it might help us in the aspect that Bama could only take in so many. All it would do is affect the depth of the quality of player they have. Honestly I see lowering the scholarships hurting more than helping because you have less individuals to practice against thus more injuries would occur.

So very wrong. It would spread out more of the elite talent and Bama would have to play with who they sign rather than signing more than they need and then processing the ones they sign that don't cut it. This has been gone over ad nauseum. And its been discussed over and over that the elite will continue to be the elite, its all a matter of closing the competitive gap to make college football a better overall product which it would absolutely do.

[Maverick91]

I think there is about to be a financial hit. I think COVID has dropped the curtain on the issues. There's certainly about to be an attendance hit once things open back up.

We live in a progressive society, where even conservatives like myself have progressed far more than we realize over the past decade, and it's highlighted the lack of progressiveness in college football IMO.

I'm a capitalist at heart, but capitalism without some government control, leads to too many haves and have nots. The NCAA's rules in this case are the government and more regulation is needed.

I don't think more regulation is needed. I think the regulation they have handed down has been in favor of the current power teams. They need to rethink the regulations that have taken place because those regulations have been what has hindered the progress of the sport becoming more relevant and competitive.

[ShotgunDawg]

I have to disagree. even if you limit to 60 players then that just means that Bama gets to play everyone that they usually play, it wouldn't affect the quality of player that they receive, and teams like State would not be affected either in helping bridge the gap, it might help us in the aspect that Bama could only take in so many. All it would do is affect the depth of the quality of player they have. Honestly I see lowering the scholarships hurting more than helping because you have less individuals to practice against thus more injuries would occur.

I disagree completely. Lowering scholarships would massively narrow the field. Misevaluations would be major problems whereas now 3-5 teams can cover them up.

Initially, your correct in that Bama would get the same level player but over the years, as the best coaches were truly recognized due to more narrow talent levels, different schools would begin to emerge as real contenders.

[ShotgunDawg]

I don't think more regulation is needed. I think the regulation they have handed down has been in favor of the current power teams. They need to rethink the regulations that have taken place because those regulations have been what has hindered the progress of the sport becoming more relevant and competitive.

Do you not pay attention to college football?

How could you possibly say that no more regulation needed? You enjoy 48-14 games?

[ShotgunDawg]

When Bama and sometimes UGA and LSU aren’t playing SEC football is awesome because the talent levels between team 4 and team 13 are close enough that the game almost always goes to the 4th quarter. We need more of that with games that actually matter. Currently all the good games are exhibition games.

[Maverick91]

So very wrong. It would spread out more of the elite talent and Bama would have to play with who they sign rather than signing more than they need and then processing the ones they sign that don't cut it. This has been gone over ad nauseum. And its been discussed over and over that the elite will continue to be the elite, its all a matter of closing the competitive gap to make college football a better overall product which it would absolutely do.

I don't disagree with what you are saying. I am saying that I think cutting scholarships is not the best way to do it. I know people don't like star power, but, it is a thing. Bama wouldn't be Bama if they didn't have all the 4 and 5 star recruits that they have. As a former college athlete cutting the amount of scholarships I don't like. It limits the amount of diamonds in the rough that are found, it would affect practice top to bottom how they are planed and implemented, I do believe injuries would rise because players would be taking way more reps than usual, and it does inhibit kids from getting a solid education that they probably otherwise wouldn't have received. Also, please note that the NFL can limit rosters to 53 because it is the players job to be fit. College they are "students" first the level of fitness isn't even close. So, being able to keep up with less bodies for each program would suck in my humble opinion.

I am way more open to putting a cap of number of 4 and 5 star recruits that can be recruited either during each recruiting cycle, or at one time can be on a team. Teams would have to spend way more time evaluating players, would give lower graded players a higher shot of being noticed, and I think the diamonds would be seen way more than usual, and you aren't cutting away from kids being able to get an education that otherwise couldn't or wouldn't.

[Maverick91]

I disagree completely. Lowering scholarships would massively narrow the field. Misevaluations would be major problems whereas now 3-5 teams can cover them up.

Initially, your correct in that Bama would get the same level player but over the years, as the best coaches were truly recognized due to more narrow talent levels, different schools would begin to emerge as real contenders.

Don't disagree that something needs to be done. I just don't think cutting ships is the best way to do it. I think would have a ripple down affect in a bad way throughout the entirety of each program.

[Maroonthirteen]

Clemson just took FSU?s spot as the ACC super power who only plays 1-2 top 25 caliber teams a year.

Clemson would be a slightly better version of South Carolina if in the SEC. something close to Auburn.

They struck gold on a great coach and could keep that coach and build the program due to easy schedules.

Clemson has stepped out of conference and beat some SEC schools, Notre Dame and P5 schools.

They have knocked off OSU in the semis.

Their program is legit.

[Maverick91]

Do you not pay attention to college football?

How could you possibly say that no more regulation needed? You enjoy 48-14 games?

You missed my point. I think they need to reevaluate the regulation they have before they add more. Change somethings that they currently have going on an lets see what happens there. If nothing of significance changes then lets look at adding more regulation.

[Maroonthirteen]

Tennessee could have rebuilt their program and easily rival Alabama. However they have the same problem as the Dallas Cowboys..... Fulmer is in the background making the decisions and he just needs to get out of the way.

Tennessee recruited on a national level in the late 90s. They had kids from all over the nation signing. They have the boosters, facilities, town and academics to recruit to. They are just poorly poorly mismanaged.

[maroonmania]

I don't disagree with what you are saying. I am saying that I think cutting scholarships is not the best way to do it. I know people don't like star power, but, it is a thing. Bama wouldn't be Bama if they didn't have all the 4 and 5 star recruits that they have. As a former college athlete cutting the amount of scholarships I don't like. It limits the amount of diamonds in the rough that are found, it would affect practice top to bottom how they are planed and implemented, I do believe injuries would rise because players would be taking way more reps than usual, and it does inhibit kids from getting a solid education that they probably otherwise wouldn't have received. Also, please note that the NFL can limit rosters to 53 because it is the players job to be fit. College they are "students" first the level of fitness isn't even close. So, being able to keep up with less bodies for each program would suck in my humble opinion.

I am way more open to putting a cap of number of 4 and 5 star recruits that can be recruited either during each recruiting cycle, or at one time can be on a team. Teams would have to spend way more time evaluating players, would give lower graded players a higher shot of being noticed, and I think the diamonds would be seen way more than usual, and you aren't cutting away from kids being able to get an education that otherwise couldn't or wouldn't.

Well, I don't like not having any baseball scholarships either, but it is what it is. Football can survive greatly with 10-15 less scholarships on a team. Heck, the NFL only has 50 man rosters. College could have 70-75 man scholarship rosters and be fine as that doesn't even count walkons. If you gave those schollys to baseball it would improve both products. And there would be no net loss of total athletic scholarships. Heck, you might could even field an additional male sport like soccer or something. Giving extra scholarships to find 'diamonds in the rough' is not the purpose of giving guys a free education and allows certain programs to hog all the best of the best. And I guess I'm not following on some of your logic, Bama and the other elites will always have the most star power so I'm not sure the point there.

[ShotgunDawg]

Clemson has stepped out of conference and beat some SEC schools, Notre Dame and P5 schools.

They have knocked off OSU in the semis.

Their program is legit.

I didn’t say they weren’t legit. It’s just that the building process was significantly easier than it would’ve been for an SEC team.

[Maverick91]

Well, I don't like not having any baseball scholarships either, but it is what it is. Football can survive greatly with 10-15 less scholarships on a team. Heck, the NFL only has 50 man rosters. College could have 70-75 man scholarship rosters and be fine as that doesn't even count walkons. If you gave those schollys to baseball it would improve both products. And there would be no net loss of total athletic scholarships. Heck, you might could even field an additional male sport like soccer or something. Giving extra scholarships to find 'diamonds in the rough' is not the purpose of giving guys a free education and allows certain programs to hog all the best of the best. And I guess I'm not following on some of your logic, Bama and the other elites will always have the most star power so I'm not sure the point there.

Pardon me if this is a dumb question. But, is there a reason why baseball and other sports are not allowed more schollys? Do we have to limit football to give them more? I just don't think limiting the amount of players on a team is the way to do it.

I made the post earlier, but, I don't see why we couldn't put a cap on the amount of 4 and 5 stars that are signed each signing period. They have to go somewhere and if Bama, clemson, Ohio State meet whatever that cap is, then they are done, and the other 20 highly rated players they would have otherwise signed must chose to go somewhere else to play. It forces the talent to be spread-out and teams couldn't hoard talent until they weed them out.

[BB30]

Pardon me if this is a dumb question. But, is there a reason why baseball and other sports are not allowed more schollys? Do we have to limit football to give them more? I just don't think limiting the amount of players on a team is the way to do it.

I made the post earlier, but, I don't see why we couldn't put a cap on the amount of 4 and 5 stars that are signed each signing period. They have to go somewhere and if Bama, clemson, Ohio State meet whatever that cap is, then they are done, and the other 20 highly rated players they would have otherwise signed must chose to go somewhere else to play. It forces the talent to be spread-out and teams couldn't hoard talent until they weed them out.

Title 9 if I remember correctly. Having to do with the number of womens sports and scholarships relative to mens sports and scholarships.

Could be wrong but I think that is the reasoning behind the 11.7.

You would have to cut back in another mens sport to add to baseball I believe.

[Bothrops]

[QUOTE=ShotgunDawg;1280492]With all conference schedules, every game involving a championship contender yesterday was a non-competitive blowout.

The sport cannot grow like this. There are currently 3-5 programs that are playing a different sport than everyone else and it destroys the competitive nature of the sport.

Hopefully the new transfer portal rule will help.

People are so sick of Saban and the impenetrable bunker built around the Alabama program that a level of apathy has set in with the whole sport. Especially with how the media hacks keep blowing them up as if it's some sort of big accomplishment anymore. It is not, and it's sickening that anybody still cares what they do.

[the_real_MSU_is_us]

Don't disagree that something needs to be done. I just don't think cutting ships is the best way to do it. I think would have a ripple down affect in a bad way throughout the entirety of each program.

Only ripple effect it would have is to push talent down a notch; some players that would be at Bama will now be at State, some players that would be at State will now be at ULL, etc etc until some kids that would be playing in the lowest level simply have nowhere to go.

But at Shotgun has said in the past, we can move those football scholarships to other mens sports and thus the same total number of male athletes will get access to affordable college. I see no reason why a male HS Basketball/Baseball/Tennis/Golf player getting a scholarship instead of a FB player is any less moral than the reverse.

In fact, since there's so many more FB scholarships than any other male sport, I'd argue there's a lot of athletes from other sports that deserve a scholarship more than the lowest level of FB players:

There's a 85 scholarships and 130 teams which = 11,050 FB scholarships in the FBS (2,763 per year). There's 11.7 scholarships on 297 baseball teams for 3,475 scholarships (869 per year). Why should the 2,500th best FB player get a scholarship but not the 1,000th best baseball player? Apply this to any non FB male sport and it still applies

[StarkVegasSteve]

Only ripple effect it would have is to push talent down a notch; some players that would be at Bama will now be at State, some players that would be at State will now be at ULL, etc etc until some kids that would be playing in the lowest level simply have nowhere to go.

But at Shotgun has said in the past, we can move those football scholarships to other mens sports and thus the same total number of male athletes will get access to affordable college. I see no reason why a male HS Basketball/Baseball/Tennis/Golf player getting a scholarship instead of a FB player is any less moral than the reverse.

In fact, since there's so many more FB scholarships than any other male sport, I'd argue there's a lot of athletes from other sports that deserve a scholarship more than the lowest level of FB players:

There's a 85 scholarships and 130 teams which = 11,050 FB scholarships in the FBS (2,763 per year). There's 11.7 scholarships on 297 baseball teams for 3,475 scholarships (869 per year). Why should the 2,500th best FB player get a scholarship but not the 1,000th best baseball player? Apply this to any non FB male sport and it still applies

I agree that is an egregious flaw in the system. The only reason I can see them justifying it is that baseball has the amateur draft and you can be drafted out of high school. Still doesn't make up for the fact that baseball is the one sport that seems to have gotten screwed through Title IX but my guess is that's why the scholarship numbers have remained so low in baseball.

[ShotgunDawg]

[QUOTE=ShotgunDawg;1280492]With all conference schedules, every game involving a championship contender yesterday was a non-competitive blowout.

The sport cannot grow like this. There are currently 3-5 programs that are playing a different sport than everyone else and it destroys the competitive nature of the sport.

Hopefully the new transfer portal rule will help.

People are so sick of Saban and the impenetrable bunker built around the Alabama program that a level of apathy has set in with the whole sport. Especially with how the media hacks keep blowing them up as if it's some sort of big accomplishment anymore. It is not, and it's sickening that anybody still cares what they do.

Good post. Agree

If I see one more Marty Smith feature on Nick Saban, I'm going to throw my TV

It's got to get old for the media to continue to push the same story line every year

[ShotgunDawg]

Only ripple effect it would have is to push talent down a notch; some players that would be at Bama will now be at State, some players that would be at State will now be at ULL, etc etc until some kids that would be playing in the lowest level simply have nowhere to go.

But at Shotgun has said in the past, we can move those football scholarships to other mens sports and thus the same total number of male athletes will get access to affordable college. I see no reason why a male HS Basketball/Baseball/Tennis/Golf player getting a scholarship instead of a FB player is any less moral than the reverse.

In fact, since there's so many more FB scholarships than any other male sport, I'd argue there's a lot of athletes from other sports that deserve a scholarship more than the lowest level of FB players:

There's a 85 scholarships and 130 teams which = 11,050 FB scholarships in the FBS (2,763 per year). There's 11.7 scholarships on 297 baseball teams for 3,475 scholarships (869 per year). Why should the 2,500th best FB player get a scholarship but not the 1,000th best baseball player? Apply this to any non FB male sport and it still applies

Listen to this man! He gets it

[R2Dawg]

Pardon me if this is a dumb question. But, is there a reason why baseball and other sports are not allowed more schollys? Do we have to limit football to give them more? I just don't think limiting the amount of players on a team is the way to do it.

I made the post earlier, but, I don't see why we couldn't put a cap on the amount of 4 and 5 stars that are signed each signing period. They have to go somewhere and if Bama, clemson, Ohio State meet whatever that cap is, then they are done, and the other 20 highly rated players they would have otherwise signed must chose to go somewhere else to play. It forces the talent to be spread-out and teams couldn't hoard talent until they weed them out.

I like the thought on limits on 4-5 star players. Also think they could reduce full scholarships 5-10 as well. NFL plays with 53 man roster. Could have half scholarships for the final 10 players or something.

Problem with limit on 4-5 star players is some schools would cook the books on the rating system. Bama would get first round NFL talent as a 2-3 star. We would get the bust 5 star.

[the_real_MSU_is_us]

I like the thought on limits on 4-5 star players. Also think they could reduce full scholarships 5-10 as well. NFL plays with 53 man roster. Could have half scholarships for the final 10 players or something.

Problem with limit on 4-5 star players is some schools would cook the books on the rating system. Bama would get first round NFL talent as a 2-3 star. We would get the bust 5 star.

That's my issue. Ranking players is an imprecise science and the best ones at it make more doing it at Bama than they would at 247. And for every 200 recruits, you'd only have 1 or so talent evaluator, which means boosters can pool their money and just offer massive competing bribes to the evaluators. Or if the NCAA was dong it they'd go "Sure would be good for $$$ if Texas was back..." and rig it themselves for the moneymakers

It's also kinda weird to me to have coaches not just look for talent, not just try to convince that talent to pick them, but to also try to balance how they split 10 stars between 3 positions; do we want the 4* to be a RB, DT, or OT? It's a strange layer of coaching to add on and has nothing to do with the current skill set coaches have to have.

Simply reducing the scholarships keeps things functioning the same, just with a higher emphasis on talent evaluation

[maroonmania]

Pardon me if this is a dumb question. But, is there a reason why baseball and other sports are not allowed more schollys? Do we have to limit football to give them more? I just don't think limiting the amount of players on a team is the way to do it.

I made the post earlier, but, I don't see why we couldn't put a cap on the amount of 4 and 5 stars that are signed each signing period. They have to go somewhere and if Bama, clemson, Ohio State meet whatever that cap is, then they are done, and the other 20 highly rated players they would have otherwise signed must chose to go somewhere else to play. It forces the talent to be spread-out and teams couldn't hoard talent until they weed them out.

Yes, Title IX essentially forces colleges to give roughly the same number of athletic scholarships to women as they do to men. Its why women have so many more sports they can play due to football having so many male scholarships. Funny though, I know of no such equivalence required on the academic side although everyone knows the male and female brains are just as different as the male and female bodies.

[maroonmania]

I like the thought on limits on 4-5 star players. Also think they could reduce full scholarships 5-10 as well. NFL plays with 53 man roster. Could have half scholarships for the final 10 players or something.

Problem with limit on 4-5 star players is some schools would cook the books on the rating system. Bama would get first round NFL talent as a 2-3 star. We would get the bust 5 star.

You could NEVER limit a player's choice on a college because they are 'already full up on 4 and 5 stars'. That would never hold up ethically or legally. Kids get to choose where they want to go to college if the college is willing to take them. No way to limit that.

[maroonmania]

Simply reducing the scholarships keeps things functioning the same, just with a higher emphasis on talent evaluation

Yep, but instead, now you are going to have the situation where Bama can sign all the 5 stars they want, then process out any they misevaluated PLUS now tell a kid at another P5 school that is a top level player that they have an opening to start at their position, so come on and transfer in without having to sit out and win a NC with us.

[the_real_MSU_is_us]

Yep, but instead, now you are going to have the situation where Bama can sign all the 5 stars they want, then process out any they misevaluated PLUS now tell a kid at another P5 school that is a top level player that they have an opening to start at their position, so come on and transfer in without having to sit out and win a NC with us.

Transfer rules are a separate issue though, and at the very least the lack of talent hoarding will make the lesser teams more competitive, even if Bama still have t he best talent and can fill in gaps via transfers.

If Bama can sign 2 really good RBs in a class because they have 85 scholarships vs 70ish, that's 1 less really good RB that they have to face on another teams' roster. Like Bear Bryant signing kids just so nobody else can have them lol

Bama still may win them all, but at least it'll take till the 3rd Q for it to turn into a blowout vs halfway through the 1st Q

[ShotgunDawg]

That's my issue. Ranking players is an imprecise science and the best ones at it make more doing it at Bama than they would at 247. And for every 200 recruits, you'd only have 1 or so talent evaluator, which means boosters can pool their money and just offer massive competing bribes to the evaluators. Or if the NCAA was dong it they'd go "Sure would be good for $$$ if Texas was back..." and rig it themselves for the moneymakers

It's also kinda weird to me to have coaches not just look for talent, not just try to convince that talent to pick them, but to also try to balance how they split 10 stars between 3 positions; do we want the 4* to be a RB, DT, or OT? It's a strange layer of coaching to add on and has nothing to do with the current skill set coaches have to have.

Simply reducing the scholarships keeps things functioning the same, just with a higher emphasis on talent evaluation

Yeah, Using recruiting rankings won't work.

The idea isn't bad but it wouldn't work.

If we're going to use recruiting rankings, just pay the players and have a salary cap so evaluation matters.

[ShotgunDawg]

You could NEVER limit a player's choice on a college because they are 'already full up on 4 and 5 stars'. That would never hold up ethically or legally. Kids get to choose where they want to go to college if the college is willing to take them. No way to limit that.

You can limit schollies though

[ShotgunDawg]

Yep, but instead, now you are going to have the situation where Bama can sign all the 5 stars they want, then process out any they misevaluated PLUS now tell a kid at another P5 school that is a top level player that they have an opening to start at their position, so come on and transfer in without having to sit out and win a NC with us.

I don't see starters at SEC or power 5 schools leaving to blue bloods. It may happen every once in a while but I don't think many players are willing to risk that.

[TUSK]

You can limit schollies though

You thinking 20/Year, Capped at 70?

[ShotgunDawg]

You thinking 20/Year, Capped at 70?

There abouts. I think 70 is about the lowest you can go. 75 would probably help a lot

[Maverick91]

Title 9 if I remember correctly. Having to do with the number of womens sports and scholarships relative to mens sports and scholarships.

Could be wrong but I think that is the reasoning behind the 11.7.

You would have to cut back in another mens sport to add to baseball I believe.

If this is the case, I believe this should be something that should be looked at amending, so that you don't take away from football, but, you allow other sports to grow.

[Maverick91]

Only ripple effect it would have is to push talent down a notch; some players that would be at Bama will now be at State, some players that would be at State will now be at ULL, etc etc until some kids that would be playing in the lowest level simply have nowhere to go.

But at Shotgun has said in the past, we can move those football scholarships to other mens sports and thus the same total number of male athletes will get access to affordable college. I see no reason why a male HS Basketball/Baseball/Tennis/Golf player getting a scholarship instead of a FB player is any less moral than the reverse.

In fact, since there's so many more FB scholarships than any other male sport, I'd argue there's a lot of athletes from other sports that deserve a scholarship more than the lowest level of FB players:

There's a 85 scholarships and 130 teams which = 11,050 FB scholarships in the FBS (2,763 per year). There's 11.7 scholarships on 297 baseball teams for 3,475 scholarships (869 per year). Why should the 2,500th best FB player get a scholarship but not the 1,000th best baseball player? Apply this to any non FB male sport and it still applies

I can get behind that math. I would just rather see the rules be amended to allow for other sports to have higher scholly numbers than to prohibit football, so that other sports could have more. With all the money sports are bringing in especially football, I don't understand the need to keep other sports programs at such an antiquated number.

[TUSK]

There abouts. I think 70 is about the lowest you can go. 75 would probably help a lot

Well, if ya take 3-5 teams, and cut off their lowest rated players to get from 85 to 75, that's 30-50 3* players to divvy up among the other 125 to 127 programs (to be fair, these cats would probably go to the next ~30 top programs). Best case scenario, that's 1-2 additional three star guys per "non elite" program.

#3*LM*

[Maverick91]

I like the thought on limits on 4-5 star players. Also think they could reduce full scholarships 5-10 as well. NFL plays with 53 man roster. Could have half scholarships for the final 10 players or something.

Problem with limit on 4-5 star players is some schools would cook the books on the rating system. Bama would get first round NFL talent as a 2-3 star. We would get the bust 5 star.

Not going to say this couldn't be an issue. But, I would rather try and make this adjustment than limiting scholly's.

[ShotgunDawg]

Well, if ya take 3-5 teams, and cut off their lowest rated players to get from 85 to 75, that's 30-50 3* players to divvy up among the other 125 to 127 programs (to be fair, these cats would probably go to the next ~30 top programs). Best case scenario, that's 1-2 additional three star guys per "non elite" program.

#3*LM*

You're taking those last 10 players from far more than 3-5 programs. 4 stars would also be redistributed, but even if it's just 3 stars, you're talking about those guys filling in talent gaps, which makes the games more competitive while also making it more necessary for the blue bloods to properly evaluate.

This guy on Sixpack puts it well.

Start with scholarships. The ratio of starting players/total scholarship players is way out of line. Assuming you have 25 starters (11 offense, 11 defense, 3 ST), 85 scholarships is 3.4x your starting lineup size. The sport with the closest ratio is Hockey with 18 scholarships for 6 starters, so 3x. Basketball with 13 has 2.6x, and it gets worse from there on team sports, especially for men.

Setting football to the same 2.6 multiplier gets you to 65 scholarship players. Reduce the signing limit to 20. Take the 20 scholarships and send them to baseball and men's soccer.

[Maverick91]

Yes, Title IX essentially forces colleges to give roughly the same number of athletic scholarships to women as they do to men. Its why women have so many more sports they can play due to football having so many male scholarships. Funny though, I know of no such equivalence required on the academic side although everyone knows the male and female brains are just as different as the male and female bodies.

yes!

[Maverick91]

You could NEVER limit a player's choice on a college because they are 'already full up on 4 and 5 stars'. That would never hold up ethically or legally. Kids get to choose where they want to go to college if the college is willing to take them. No way to limit that.

I disagree, it's the same thing as their being a cut off for how many scholly you can sign per year. Sometimes we can only sign 25 players others we can sign more or less, just depends on the year.

[ShotgunDawg]

Well, if ya take 3-5 teams, and cut off their lowest rated players to get from 85 to 75, that's 30-50 3* players to divvy up among the other 125 to 127 programs (to be fair, these cats would probably go to the next ~30 top programs). Best case scenario, that's 1-2 additional three star guys per "non elite" program.

#3*LM*

Tusk, with all due respect, I think you're trying to find a logic hole from which you can tell me that my idea won't help.

I would urge you to step outside of your Bama fanboy bias, and realize that most every game involving national title contenders is an absolutely non-competitive blowout, and that's a huge problem for the sport that you and I love long term.

You may not agree with reducing scholarships as the answer, but for the long term health of the sport, things need to change.

Please see that. Please see that for the sport to be competitive and enjoyable to the masses, you've got to have more than 3-5 teams in the country with a chance to win.

[Maverick91]

Well, if ya take 3-5 teams, and cut off their lowest rated players to get from 85 to 75, that's 30-50 3* players to divvy up among the other 125 to 127 programs (to be fair, these cats would probably go to the next ~30 top programs). Best case scenario, that's 1-2 additional three star guys per "non elite" program.

#3*LM*

This is my issue, if we lower they recruiting numbers. They will still sign all the highly rated players they were going to sign anyways. It just leaves the high tear practice squad guys that they would have used to go somewhere else. I just don't see this actually fixing the issue.

[TUSK]

Tusk, with all due respect, I think you're trying to find a logic hole from which you can tell me that my idea won't help.

I would urge you to step outside of your Bama fanboy bias, and realize that most every game involving national title contenders is an absolutely non-competitive blowout, and that's a huge problem for the sport that you and I love long term.

You may not agree with reducing scholarships as the answer, but for the long term health of the sport, things need to change.

Please see that. Please see that for the sport to be competitive and enjoyable to the masses, you've got to have more than 3-5 teams in the country with a chance to win.

I agree with anything you just posted.

[ShotgunDawg]

This is my issue, if we lower they recruiting numbers. They will still sign all the highly rated players they were going to sign anyways. It just leaves the high tear practice squad guys that they would have used to go somewhere else. I just don't see this actually fixing the issue.

They will sign most of the highly rated guy initially, but with the 2nd tier teams having more complete rosters, there will be more upsets and more contenders coming from that level. Thus, the quality head coaches at South Carolina, Ole Miss, Arkansas won't be as quick to leave for blue bloods and will actually choose to stay and build. In the long term, due to more teams competing, I expect that the top talent will spread out more. In the short term you're right, but long term I think you'll see a more parity.

Secondly, big time players bust as well and don't make. By lowering the schollie limit, those misses will hurt more.

[Jarius]

This is my issue, if we lower they recruiting numbers. They will still sign all the highly rated players they were going to sign anyways. It just leaves the high tear practice squad guys that they would have used to go somewhere else. I just don't see this actually fixing the issue.

You are never going to completely close the gap, but the gap needs to be closed to a point to where the same 5 teams Do not blowout 90 % of their Schedule every year. Scholarship limitations were put in place in the 90s for this reason, but they didn’t go far enough with it to really make a difference. Alabama and Ohio State literally being able to roll out their 3rd string and compete with/beat a State / Ole Miss team is ridiculous and not good for the sport. There is no other sport we play where this is the case. It makes everything so very anticlimactic, as Matt Wyatt said today.

[TUSK]

You are never going to completely close the gap, but the gap needs to be closed to a point to where the same 5 teams Do not blowout 90 % of their Schedule every year. Scholarship limitations were put in place in the 90s for this reason, but they didn’t go far enough with it to really make a difference. Alabama and Ohio State literally being able to roll out their 3rd string and compete with/beat a State / Ole Miss team is ridiculous and not good for the sport. There is no other sport we play where this is the case. It makes everything so very anticlimactic, as Matt Wyatt said today.

Yep, I'd agree with 'Guns theory if the skolly limit was ~50-55ish...

What we really need is a separate division of football.

[ShotgunDawg]

Yep, I'd agree with 'Guns theory if the skolly limit was ~50-55ish...

What we really need is a separate division of football.

Maybe but you have try a bunch of other stuff before going nuclear. I don't think a 2nd football division is needed. I think lowering scholarships to 70-75 would help immensely

The new football division that boots half the power 5 just isn't going to happen. Would involve way to much litigation and the destruction of too many great fan bases with 60+K stadiums. Not going the happen.

I realize that's one of those things Bama fans talk about to feed their ego while drinking beers at the hunting camp, but it would be a problem for other sports as well. You going to boot Kentucky and MSU from football and then expect us to play basketball and baseball against you?

Again, I get it would be cool to some degree, but it ain't happening in your lifetime. Scholarship reductions is actually a realistic idea that could happen fairly easy, especially with COVID