Only 6 teams have ever won a college football playoff game...

[HoopsDawg]

1. Bama
2. Ohio State
3. UGA
4. LSU
5. Clemson
6. Oregon

Top 6 recruiting classes:

1. Bama
2. Ohio State
3. UGA
4. LSU
5. Clemson
6. Oregon

Nothing to see here. Everything's fine.

[ShotgunDawg]

As Herbstreit said "The system is broken"

HUDL, recruiting sites, recruit combines, etc have created an industry where the best players are more well known commodities, get to know kids from other parts of the country, & ultimately increases the chances that blue bloods know who the best players are & the players themselves know each other & want to play together.

When a sport can tell you who the final 3-4 for next year's playoff will be before the current season is over, you have a huge problem.

That's not a sport. That's Wrestling with a script

[Matt3467]

We could've been in that number had Mullen not slept the end of '14 away.

[HoopsDawg]

As Herbstreit said "The system is broken"

HUDL, recruiting sites, recruit combines, etc have created an industry where the best players are more well known commodities, get to know kids from other parts of the country, & ultimately increases the chances that blue bloods know who the best players are & the players themselves know each other & want to play together.

When a sport can tell you who the final 3-4 for next year's playoff will be before the current season is over, you have a huge problem.

That's not a sport. That's Wrestling with a script

Need to move to a hard cap of 20 signees per year ASAP. Allow rosters to stay at 85 for a few years as we transtion down to 70.

[Irondawg]

Oregon is a great example of what hiring the right coach who stays for a while combined with a single massive booster can do.

They are in a remote part of the US with almost no local football talent in state to pull from. USC and UCLA to the south and and Washington had some success before them.

Now they are a top 8 recruiter annually with 25-40% of their classes coming from outside their footprint. They’ve taken some MS and AL kids the past few years that have hurt us directly or indirectly.

Clemson is another good example as nobody expected Dabo to be an elite coach.

I think our biggest problem is that even with the right coach our booster base is never going to be expansive enough to break through. The current big boys in our backyard will never allow it. Ole Miss tried and proved it can work but also proved the other SEC powers won’t let it happen

[ShotgunDawg]

Need to move to a hard cap of 20 signees per year ASAP. Allow rosters to stay at 85 for a few years as we transtion down to 70.

Yup. It's the only logical way to improve this. Narrow the gap based on on numbers & you'll see more competitive games, which will equal more volatility

[ShotgunDawg]

Oregon is a great example of what hiring the right coach who stays for a while combined with a single massive booster can do.

They are in a remote part of the US with almost no local football talent in state to pull from. USC and UCLA to the south and and Washington had some success before them.

Now they are a top 8 recruiter annually with 25-40% of their classes coming from outside their footprint. They’ve taken some MS and AL kids the past few years that have hurt us directly or indirectly.

Clemson is another good example as nobody expected Dabo to be an elite coach.

I think our biggest problem is that even with the right coach our booster base is never going to be expansive enough to break through. The current big boys in our backyard will never allow it. Ole Miss tried and proved it can work but also proved the other SEC powers won’t let it happen

No, the problem is that Oregon is the #6 recruiter & doesn't have a chance in Hell of winning in the playoff.

That's the problem. The fact that the #6 recruiter still doesn't have near enough talent to compete.

[Captain Falcon]

Clemson and Ohio State becoming pretty much unbeatable in their own conferences is what changed things for the worse, in my opinion. LSU, Georgia, and Oregon are what they've been for a long time, occasionally great and consistently good to very good.

College football can survive with one dominant team, because then you have a clear villain that everybody wants to see lose and anybody who challenges them becomes the sentimental favorite. But when you have 2 or 3 dominant teams that are always there at the end every single year, it's hard for most people to get excited about that.

[ShotgunDawg]

Here's a thought:

LSU is a blue blood that recruits at an elite level & caught lightening in a bottle last year with one of the best teams & offenses in NCAA history.

The beat Bama by only 5 points

[ShotgunDawg]

Clemson and Ohio State becoming pretty much unbeatable in their own conferences is what changed things for the worse, in my opinion. LSU, Georgia, and Oregon are what they've been for a long time, occasionally great and consistently good to very good.

College football can survive with one dominant team, because then you have a clear villain that everybody wants to see lose and anybody who challenges them becomes the sentimental favorite. But when you have 2 or 3 dominant teams that are always there at the end every single year, it's hard for most people to get excited about that.

I can agree with this.

The way to solve that though is to reduce scholarships, which would narrow the gap to the point where Clemson, OSU, Bama, etc would at least have to show up & play well to win games.

[Bdawg]

Yeah I agree with a lot of this. I love me some football, but seeing the same teams every year has really started to lower my interest in the playoffs. Never though that would happen, but it has. It's definitely not right that we know before the season starts basically who will be the last 4. That's a BS system were no one can hardly climb the ladder.

And that also hurts in recruiting where kids know there are only a handful of schools that will get you to a title game.

[StarkVegasSteve]

Every one of those teams outside of LSU has instilled a great culture and that's what has created the long term success. I mean I don't think Dabo is a great playcaller, but he's a great motivator and CEO coach who, after a few years, learned what worked and what would create long term success. With Cristobal, Kirby, and Day they learned from the best. They learned how to build and run a programs from two of the best to ever do it at the college level.

Oregon is going to get there if Cristobal stays and there is a way to break into that echelon once every few years. The difference is that those teams are going to be in the mix every year. That's why we, along with the other second tier P5 programs can't worry about stacking top 10 classes on each other. You have to try to break into the Top 15 once every 4 years and make sure the rest of your classes are between 15-22. Talent evaluation is the most important thing at programs like ours. It's what made Dan's staff so damn good. They were able to find the Moneyball type players that no one else saw value in. I think Leach has a chance to do that. I'm not saying it'll happen but our offense is the type that if you can put enough overlooked playmakers together with stud receivers then that once every 4 years type season is possible.

Having said all that, I agree that the system is broken. I never thought 4 was the right idea. I'd have gone with 16 and moved the regular season back to 10 games. That gives all P5 champs a spot and then gives 11 spots for at large P5 and conference champs from the G5. I think that's the best way to do it and it would actually make the regular season interesting again. The regular season isn't very fun when you already know who's going to be in the playoff by June.

[msstate7]

Need to move to a hard cap of 20 signees per year ASAP. Allow rosters to stay at 85 for a few years as we transtion down to 70.

I'm all for it. Don't think it will happen though. If it does happen, that competitive balance would work against us too though... all-the-sudden, I think the OOC games become much more competitive. I'm all for that too.

[ShotgunDawg]

I'm all for it. Don't think it will happen though. If it does happen, that competitive balance would work against us too though... all-the-sudden, I think the OOC games become much more competitive. I'm all for that too.

Absolutely. Troy and USM would get better, but that's fine with me. That makes for many more good games & a more healthy sport. It would be great for those programs as well, which is good for Hattiesburg, Memphis, Troy, etc. The sport would basically be a lot like college basketball in terms of who can beat who.

I think that would be great. You'd see few coaches leaving 2nd tier schools as well because they'd know they could win at their current school.

[Maroonthirteen]

While I agree college football could use more parity. I'm surprised State fans don't look at Clemson and see a similar program that has been built into a national power under the current system.

Clemson has a better win % than State over the years. However I see two rural schools, the other school in their own state, surround by other national powers and with similar resources. Clemson has revenues less than S.Car and Arkansas but out produces those schools. Clemson is 22 nationally and State is 30 nationally in revenue.

State just needs to get better at hiring ADs and HCs.

[the_real_MSU_is_us]

While I agree college football could use more parity. I'm surprised State fans don't look at Clemson and see a similar program that has been built into a national power under the current system.

Clemson has a better win % than State over the years. However I see two rural schools, the other school in their own state, surround by other national powers and with similar resources. Clemson has revenues less than S.Car and Arkansas but out produces those schools. Clemson is 22 nationally and State is 30 nationally in revenue.

State just needs to get better at hiring ADs and HCs.

I think this is a really really bad take. Clemson has MASSIVE booster support. Therea a reason they can win recruiting battles with Bama and UGA, and its money. They have facilities that blow ours out ofthe water. They pay more for theor staff than wed be able to muster if it was 100% certain wed win a natty by doing it. They arent "surround" by powers, they have UGA to the south and thats it, and Georgia produces far more talent than UGA could hope to sign so thats relatively easy pickings. Lastly, theor coordinators dont leave. This is huge key. Venables could have been a p5 Hc 5 years ago bit doesnt want it. Elliot should have been an HC 2 seasons ago. Weve never had assistants stay at all, much less turn down P5 HC jobs to stay

The only similarities are A) small town, and B) 2 P5s in a small state. But they have so much more money and far less recruiting competition surrounding them.

[StarkVegasSteve]

While I agree college football could use more parity. I'm surprised State fans don't look at Clemson and see a similar program that has been built into a national power under the current system.

Clemson has a better win % than State over the years. However I see two rural schools, the other school in their own state, surround by other national powers and with similar resources. Clemson has revenues less than S.Car and Arkansas but out produces those schools. Clemson is 22 nationally and State is 30 nationally in revenue.

State just needs to get better at hiring ADs and HCs.

Clemson would be a great model if they were in the SEC. A better team to look at would probably be USCe under Spurrier. They were a doormat until he, and I guess a little of Holtz, got there. Now Spurrier is obviously a HELL of a coach and a HELL of a personality, but what he did there was pretty simple and he built them into a national power while he was there. He DOMINATED in state recruiting, he beat his rival I believe 7 straight years, he gave the fan base an offense to be excited about, and he made players want to come play for his program.

[FISHDAWG]

Only 6 teams have ever won a college football playoff game...But only one team was the inaugural #1 ranking of the College Football Playoff Committee... Oh well - we wouldn't have beat Bama even with another shot at them that year ... But what might have been

[MetEdDawg]

You'll get an expansion of the playoffs before any scholarship changes. That's the standard response to parody. Add more teams in the mix for a championship by just adding more teams.

The truth is college football doesn't want parody. They want money and ratings. And the biggest teams bring the most fans and the largest viewership. Which equals money. Teams like us don't make them the money they want. And it's why there was no way in hell, in the most chaotic year of college football in 2 generations, that they would expand. Too many uncontrollable variables that might knock the status quo. Keep it small and hope the blue bloods make it through the riff raff, which they all have so far.

[ShotgunDawg]

You'll get an expansion of the playoffs before any scholarship changes. That's the standard response to parody. Add more teams in the mix for a championship by just adding more teams.

The truth is college football doesn't want parody. They want money and ratings. And the biggest teams bring the most fans and the largest viewership. Which equals money. Teams like us don't make them the money they want. And it's why there was no way in hell, in the most chaotic year of college football in 2 generations, that they would expand. Too many uncontrollable variables that might knock the status quo. Keep it small and hope the blue bloods make it through the riff raff, which they all have so far.

That's a good way to destroy a sport over time

[AROB44]

Explain to me why the playoff system can't be like FCS, Div II and Div III......a sixteen team playoff. Current bowls could be used for the venues.

[CaptainObvious]

I think this is a really really bad take. Clemson has MASSIVE booster support. Therea a reason they can win recruiting battles with Bama and UGA, and its money. They have facilities that blow ours out ofthe water. They pay more for theor staff than wed be able to muster if it was 100% certain wed win a natty by doing it. They arent "surround" by powers, they have UGA to the south and thats it, and Georgia produces far more talent than UGA could hope to sign so thats relatively easy pickings. Lastly, theor coordinators dont leave. This is huge key. Venables could have been a p5 Hc 5 years ago bit doesnt want it. Elliot should have been an HC 2 seasons ago. Weve never had assistants stay at all, much less turn down P5 HC jobs to stay

The only similarities are A) small town, and B) 2 P5s in a small state. But they have so much more money and far less recruiting competition surrounding them.

You had me right up until small town.

Clemson is within the Greenville-Spartanburg Statistical Area and that market is bigger than the Jackson, Ms. market. It is also an industrial Mecca, meaning more high paying jobs. I cannot figure why the Braves thought it was the right move to leave Greenville, SC and move to Jackson metro.

[PGHBulldogBG]

I wish they would put Coastal Carolina in as the 4 time. Bama vs CC and then Clemson vs Ohio State. I?m not delusional enough to believe CC would actually beat Bama, but this CC team is actually really fundamentally good. They aren?t a fraud like UCF with a coach running a system or a Cincinnati who just has all seniors. While I think Bama would end up winning by 2 TDs. Chadwell would have Saban on pins and needles the whole game. It would at least make it interesting with someone else in there

[BrunswickDawg]

While I agree college football could use more parity. I'm surprised State fans don't look at Clemson and see a similar program that has been built into a national power under the current system.

Clemson has a better win % than State over the years. However I see two rural schools, the other school in their own state, surround by other national powers and with similar resources. Clemson has revenues less than S.Car and Arkansas but out produces those schools. Clemson is 22 nationally and State is 30 nationally in revenue.

State just needs to get better at hiring ADs and HCs.

This take shows how little attention some people pay to football outside of the SEC. Clemson has had a successful football program well be before Dabo. Pre-Dabo they have the 1981 National Title, 19 conference titles, 5 undefeated seasons, and 3 Hall of Fame Coaches (Heisman, Howard, and Ford). They ruled the ACC pre-FSU. They had a couple of marginal hires in Tommy West and Tommy Bowden (and Bowden won 9 games multiple times) that gave them about a decade out of the NC picture, but for most of the 80s and 90s they were in the hunt. IPTAY is the oldest booster club in the county - and it has paid a whole lot of players. They have been ranked in the Top 25 at some point in the season all but 5 years since 1977, and finished in the Top 25 26 times in the past 43 years.

[Tbonewannabe]

Yeah I agree with a lot of this. I love me some football, but seeing the same teams every year has really started to lower my interest in the playoffs. Never though that would happen, but it has. It's definitely not right that we know before the season starts basically who will be the last 4. That's a BS system were no one can hardly climb the ladder.

And that also hurts in recruiting where kids know there are only a handful of schools that will get you to a title game.

I watch every MSU game but I have gotten to where I rarely watch any other games. I haven't watched a full playoff game in a few years. I just don't care enough to see if Oklahoma or Ohio State actually beat Bama or Clemson.

I did watch LSU last year just because it was a different kind of team. I have gotten bored watching Bama and Clemson.

[ShotgunDawg]

https://twitter.com/YahooSports/status/1339370442063310856?s=20

[Dogbone]

https://twitter.com/YahooSports/status/1339370442063310856?s=20

He is dead on!

[ShotgunDawg]

He is dead on!

Yeah, I think we're entering an era where most people are realizing we have a huge problem, but they haven't yet put together reasonable thought on how we improve the situation

Listening to Matt Wyatt today & he's in the same space. Realizes there is a problem but doesn't have a clue on how to fix it (Shows he doesn't read message boards)

Anyway, hopefully now that the powers that be, like Herby, realizes there is a problem, soon scholarship reductions will begin to be talked about

[Dogbone]

Yeah, I think we're entering an era where most people are realizing we have a huge problem, but they haven't yet put together reasonable thought on how we improve the situation

Listening to Matt Wyatt today & he's in the same space. Realizes there is a problem but doesn't have a clue on how to fix it (Shows he doesn't read message boards)

Anyway, hopefully now that the powers that be, like Herby, realizes there is a problem, soon scholarship reductions will begin to be talked about

Reducing scholarships and the number of players on their rosters.

[maroonmania]

I'm all for it. Don't think it will happen though. If it does happen, that competitive balance would work against us too though... all-the-sudden, I think the OOC games become much more competitive. I'm all for that too.

The P5 teams will still get the cream of the crop but I'm totally in favor of making ALL D1 games more competitive. College football is crap right now when it comes to actually competing for championships. College basketball and baseball are light years ahead in terms of being competitive but that is just the nature of those sports. If you get the best and biggest athletes you are going to win period. Basketball and baseball have much more finesse skills involved that aren't just brute force. I rarely ever watch a Bama game or Clemson game or Ohio State game because they are unwatchable. Its usually like watching a college play a junior college. The games worth watching don't involve them until you get to the playoff where they are playing each other.

[ShotgunDawg]

Reducing scholarships and the number of players on their rosters.

Yup. It's the easiest, most effective thing that we can do that requires no enforcement

[maroonmania]

I am all of a sudden a huge Kirk Herbstreit fan. Can't believe its taken this long for someone in the college football analyst world to finally address the elephant in the room.

[ShotgunDawg]

I am all of a sudden a huge Kirk Herbstreit fan. Can't believe its taken this long for someone in the college football analyst world to finally address the elephant in the room.

Yeah, but now they'll act dumb for 5 years before they realize the obvious solution

[maroonmania]

Yup. It's the easiest, most effective thing that we can do that requires no enforcement

If we were able to go from unlimited to an 85 cap, why do people bring up all of these red herring arguments why it would be such a terrible and discriminatory thing to go from 85 to even 75? Fact is you DO NOT NEED 85 scholarships to field a quality football team with reasonable depth. You would still be able to have all the walk-ons you want. Heck, its not a good situation, but we are fielding a team right now with less than 50 scholarship players.

[Maroonthirteen]

I recall Danny Fords run with Clemson in the 80s. I remember the ncaa rectal exam they had to endure after. However you act like they have the resources of Alabama or Ohio State.

IPAY is their fans stepping up. State fans could step up as well. No current scholarship rules are restricting the Bulldog Club.

[ShotgunDawg]

I recall Danny Fords run with Clemson in the 80s. I remember the ncaa rectal exam they had to endure after. However you act like they have the resources of Alabama or Ohio State.

IPAY is their fans stepping up. State fans could step up as well. No current scholarship rules are restricting the Bulldog Club.

Less enforcement is needed with lowered scholarships because most of the $ schools will be fighting over replaceable players

With more good players to go around, the scarcity of the product is reduced. Supply and demand takes over and there is less cheating & less players to have to monitor

Sure the 5 stars & high 4 stars will still get $, but a guy like MJ Daniels doesn't because he's just another guy. Just another low 4 star, high 3 star. With lowered schollies, MSU & OM would sign double digit of those a year or close to it, thus making each one less significant

[LC Dawg]

I think this is a really really bad take. Clemson has MASSIVE booster support. Therea a reason they can win recruiting battles with Bama and UGA, and its money. They have facilities that blow ours out ofthe water. They pay more for theor staff than wed be able to muster if it was 100% certain wed win a natty by doing it. They arent "surround" by powers, they have UGA to the south and thats it, and Georgia produces far more talent than UGA could hope to sign so thats relatively easy pickings. Lastly, theor coordinators dont leave. This is huge key. Venables could have been a p5 Hc 5 years ago bit doesnt want it. Elliot should have been an HC 2 seasons ago. Weve never had assistants stay at all, much less turn down P5 HC jobs to stay

The only similarities are A) small town, and B) 2 P5s in a small state. But they have so much more money and far less recruiting competition surrounding them.

And I would add that SC has 2M+ more people than MS.

[maroonmania]

Less enforcement is needed with lowered scholarships because most of the $ schools will be fighting over replaceable players

With more good players to go around, the scarcity of the product is reduced. Supply and demand takes over and there is less cheating & less players to have to monitor

Sure the 5 stars & high 4 stars will still get $, but a guy like MJ Daniels doesn't because he's just another guy. Just another low 4 star, high 3 star. With lowered schollies, MSU & OM would sign double digit of those a year or close to it, thus making each one less significant

Reductions won't hurt us a bit because right now we really have trouble getting more than 20 true SEC caliber players to sign with us. Heck, we only signed 18 yesterday and we are complaining about a couple of them not being worthy of an SEC scholarship. Our last few players in pretty much any recruiting class are just projects we are hoping develop. I mean if LSU has even 2 less scholarships to work with we would have gotten Nabors and so on and so on.

[Bdawg]

I watch every MSU game but I have gotten to where I rarely watch any other games. I haven't watched a full playoff game in a few years. I just don't care enough to see if Oklahoma or Ohio State actually beat Bama or Clemson.

I did watch LSU last year just because it was a different kind of team. I have gotten bored watching Bama and Clemson.

Exactly what I do. Same team, same story every year I be playoffs. No excitement there for me, even though some of games have been competitive. Just wash, rinse and repeat.

Playoff committee has it easy. Only picking from about 5-7 teams every year. I could easily do that.

[StarkVegasSteve]

So I've mentioned a 16 team playoff and I think that while that helps make college football more interesting it still doesn't solve the MASSIVE talent gap. I mean Coastal Carolina getting a shot is great in theory until they look like Oklahoma vs LSU last year if they run up against Bama.

[R2Dawg]

While I agree college football could use more parity. I'm surprised State fans don't look at Clemson and see a similar program that has been built into a national power under the current system.

Clemson has a better win % than State over the years. However I see two rural schools, the other school in their own state, surround by other national powers and with similar resources. Clemson has revenues less than S.Car and Arkansas but out produces those schools. Clemson is 22 nationally and State is 30 nationally in revenue.

State just needs to get better at hiring ADs and HCs.

History is full of these type things. Clemson, Florida St., VaTech, Nebraska, Miami, etc. MSU has had two chances to break in - Jackie and Mullen. We got close but couldn't turn the corner.

[R2Dawg]

This take shows how little attention some people pay to football outside of the SEC. Clemson has had a successful football program well be before Dabo. Pre-Dabo they have the 1981 National Title, 19 conference titles, 5 undefeated seasons, and 3 Hall of Fame Coaches (Heisman, Howard, and Ford). They ruled the ACC pre-FSU. They had a couple of marginal hires in Tommy West and Tommy Bowden (and Bowden won 9 games multiple times) that gave them about a decade out of the NC picture, but for most of the 80s and 90s they were in the hunt. IPTAY is the oldest booster club in the county - and it has paid a whole lot of players. They have been ranked in the Top 25 at some point in the season all but 5 years since 1977, and finished in the Top 25 26 times in the past 43 years.

ACC hasn't been a powerhouse conf. a long time either. It was 2-3 good teams and a lot of weak teams. That has changed in the last 10 years.

[RocketDawg]

1. Bama
2. Ohio State
3. UGA
4. LSU
5. Clemson
6. Oregon

Top 6 recruiting classes:

1. Bama
2. Ohio State
3. UGA
4. LSU
5. Clemson
6. Oregon

Nothing to see here. Everything's fine.

Maybe the Bears are right when they place so much importance on recruiting ranking?

[PGHBulldogBG]

So I've mentioned a 16 team playoff and I think that while that helps make college football more interesting it still doesn't solve the MASSIVE talent gap. I mean Coastal Carolina getting a shot is great in theory until they look like Oklahoma vs LSU last year if they run up against Bama.


It won?t be like that. Bama will win, but CC is actually one of the first mid majors I call legit since Marshall 1998 and Utah 2004. CC would beat Oklahoma this year

[Offshore Dawg]

So try this rule. If you are in the 4 team playoff this year you can't be in it next year. That way more teams get a trophy. Isn't that the way todays culture thinks.

[Dawgsfanalongtime77]

Bama has a ridiculous class year in and year out. The depth is nfl roster quality. Hard to stay competitive on a Yearly basis.

[Quaoarsking]

So try this rule. If you are in the 4 team playoff this year you can't be in it next year. That way more teams get a trophy. Isn't that the way todays culture thinks.

I don't follow the crack about "today's culture" when the Big 10 used that exact rule in the 60s and 70s.