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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_real_MSU_is_us

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

---

He is dead on!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dogbone

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msstate7

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dogbone

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_real_MSU_is_us

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tbonewannabe

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.

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.