How Many More Titles Can Bama Win Before The NCAA Makes Rule Changes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tbonewannabe

Miami won 4 titles in 9 years. The biggest difference is now college football coaches aren't getting poached by the NFL. Saban would have had his salary doubled by the Cleveland Browns in previous eras. Bama will be good and still possibly great if they get Dabo to come "home" but there will be a drop off after Saban retires.

I think the 25 signing class being a hard line and now with the early signing period, those are direct shots to Bama and other big schools. They can't just poach guys at the last second if they miss on someone with the early signing period. They also can't sign guys to keep them away from other schools only to offer a grey shirt in May. The only other thing I see that Bama has over other schools would be to put a limit on non coaching staff. Bama has more "analysts" or other off the field coaching positions than some teams have entire staffs. It is a loophole that probably needs to be closed. It gives them the opportunity to prepare more than other schools who would be "under staffed" in these positions.

---

Exactly. A lot of people probably never thought Alabama would cycle out when Bear Bryant was their coach- well as we all know it did cycle out once the Bear left. Until they got Saban. And now the same thing will happen once Saban decides to leave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrunswickDawg

Personally, I'd prefer the Relegation model with tiered conferences that SB Nation has been advocating - https://www.sbnation.com/college-foo...ion-simulation

Can you imagine a 1 game playoff between OM and Vandy to see who gets dropped to the Sun Belt??? I'd pay to watch it.

---

If Ole Miss ever drops down to the Sun Belt I'm driving to Oxford and I will be driving around their campus laughing my ass off at them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd4State

If Ole Miss ever drops down to the Sun Belt I'm driving to Oxford and I will be driving around their campus laughing my ass off at them.

---

https://scontent-sea1-1.cdninstagram...EzMg%3D%3D.2.c

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spiderman

My point is that's BS. Other teams can win titles too. Other than Bama having 2 of the Top 5 coaches of all time, how many did they win?

You can't legislate against that.

That's communism, basically.

---

What?s communist about allowing players that don?t play to transfer without penalty?

I don?t understand your stance. Seems like a win/win

I think it's an easy fix. I propose any scholarship that is offered must be honoured. No more stringing kids along and playing the "bigger better deal package". If you offer a kid he can commit at any time and it's locked in. The exception would be not meeting academic standards or breaking the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

What?s communist about allowing players that don?t play to transfer without penalty?

I don?t understand your stance. Seems like a win/win

---

it was (mostly) a joke about "redistribution"...

The whole idea of the governmental philosophy of Communism/Socialism is to take from those that "have" and give to those that "have not" in hopes of "leveling the playing field"...

What many don't understand is that the top echelon of "haves" won't be affected regardless of philosophy...

The more I've thought about your transfer idea, the more I like it... Bammer's composite talent would improve...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bulldawg28

I think it's an easy fix. I propose any scholarship that is offered must be honoured. No more stringing kids along and playing the "bigger better deal package". If you offer a kid he can commit at any time and it's locked in. The exception would be not meeting academic standards or breaking the law.

---

I like this idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUSK

it was (mostly) a joke about "redistribution"...

The whole idea of the governmental philosophy of Communism/Socialism is to take from those that "have" and give to those that "have not" in hopes of "leveling the playing field"...

What many don't understand is that the top echelon of "haves" won't be affected regardless of philosophy...

The more I've thought about your transfer idea, the more I like it... Bammer's composite talent would improve...

---

The haves will end up with more under a more socialist economy. The difference is that by taking a little more from the haves and giving it to the have nots, the have nots now have more $$ to spend on the goods and services from the haves, which drives up demand, which creates jobs to meet that demand. A trickle up economy is far more sustainable and driven by demand. Trickle down makes no sense because if there’s no demand, no amount of tax cuts are going to grow jobs. Sure, the money ends up in the same hands, but we at least have an economy churning with more people with more disposable income to buy shit, whereas trickle down is proven to stagnate a lot of $$ at the top of the economy while drying up demand at the bottom, which leads to jobs cuts (no good businessman is gonna keep unnecessary employees on the books because they got a tax cut).

So basically I’m failing to see how this all relates to CFB.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawgs

The haves will end up with more under a more socialist economy. The difference is that by taking a little more from the haves and giving it to the have nots, the have nots now have more $$ to spend on the goods and services from the haves, which drives up demand, which creates jobs to meet that demand. A trickle up economy is far more sustainable and driven by demand. Trickle down makes no sense because if there’s no demand, no amount of tax cuts are going to grow jobs. Sure, the money ends up in the same hands, but we at least have an economy churning with more people with more disposable income to buy shit, whereas trickle down is proven to stagnate a lot of $$ at the top of the economy while drying up demand at the bottom, which leads to jobs cuts (no good businessman is gonna keep unnecessary employees on the books because they got a tax cut).

So basically I’m failing to see how this all relates to CFB.

---

Ya oughta re-post this on the Poly Board... I think you'd enjoy it there*...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Commercecomet24

I like this idea.

---

It would even the playing field and spread more talent and lesser talent to teams.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matty Dispatch

College football needs to adopt an NFL scheduling model, because what we have now is ridiculous. The gap between P5 and G5 continues to grow, especially as coordinator salaries go over $1 million and are reaching $2 million, G5 schools will be unable to hire them as HC. They need to be two separate divisions. P5 schools should play 8 conference games and 1 game from every other P5 league. 6 home games, 6 away games. The current model with G5 and FCS games completely wastes 1/4 of the entire season's schedule....no one really cares anymore, and that is shown in the attendance of those games.

But salary caps and drafting players is stupid. If the P5 broke off into it's own division they could establish a threshold to pay players, then enable them to offer three levels of salaries above their academic scholarships. Level 1: $30K per year (5) Level 2: $20K per year (10) Level 3: $10K per year. Those difference salary levels would even the playing field as four and five star athletes would spread themselves out to ensure getting a Level 1 salary.

Then maybe as an incentive to stay 4 years, there's a carrot of $100K bonus if you graduate. Maybe that would stop some of the poor decisions to declare for the NFL draft too early.

---

Did you even put a calculator to what you proposed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawgs

The haves will end up with more under a more socialist economy. The difference is that by taking a little more from the haves and giving it to the have nots, the have nots now have more $$ to spend on the goods and services from the haves, which drives up demand, which creates jobs to meet that demand. A trickle up economy is far more sustainable and driven by demand. Trickle down makes no sense because if there’s no demand, no amount of tax cuts are going to grow jobs. Sure, the money ends up in the same hands, but we at least have an economy churning with more people with more disposable income to buy shit, whereas trickle down is proven to stagnate a lot of $$ at the top of the economy while drying up demand at the bottom, which leads to jobs cuts (no good businessman is gonna keep unnecessary employees on the books because they got a tax cut).

So basically I’m failing to see how this all relates to CFB.

---

Name one socialist economy that has been / is successful and thriving. The socialist utopian theory does not ever translate to actuality. They all fail. Quite quickly, actually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ababyatemydingo

Name one socialist economy that has been / is successful and thriving. The socialist utopian theory does not ever translate to actuality. They all fail. Quite quickly, actually.

---

Yeah but most of these ideas are socialist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ababyatemydingo

Did you even put a calculator to what you proposed?

---

Take 4 years of signing classes x 25 signees = 100 scholarships. 20 Level 1s = $600,000, 40 Level 2s = $800,000 and 40 Level 1s = $400,000. That's a total of $1.8 million. Since there are only 85 scholarships, take the average amount of each scholarship over those 100 signees ($18,000) x the 85 = $1.53 million. It wouldn't take much scaling back on coaching salaries to come up with that money.

The average graduation rate right now is roughly 15 players per year. With a $100,000 carrot at the end, let's say that jumps to 20 per year. So $2 million paid out in bonuses. That probably wouldn't work under the current structure, but if they did as I proposes by playing 12 P5 games, that would greatly increase TV and ticket revenue to easily offset that $2 million and then make a bunch of money on top of it for the athletic departments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

None of your answers help MSU in any way. Sorry try again

I?ll stick with my idea about players getting a 1 time immediately eligible transfer if they don?t play 35% or greater snaps after their 2nd or 3rd year on campus

My issue with Bama has never been the starters. It?s the 4 & 5 star guys on the bench that don?t play that could be starting or in the 2 deep for 2nd tier schools that bother me.

Allow a redistribution of the talent and I think you see a more even playing field even though Bama would technically still be the best team.

---

So your issue with BAMA is their freedom to recruit good players, and those good players freedom to come in and compete for a job with other good players, but likely having to wait their turn? Your proposal doesn't sound anything like college football, or even America.

Welcome to the dictatorship of ShotgonDawg. Now stand in line for a week for your single roll of toilet paper and moldy bread.

When players come to BAMA they know what they are getting. They get a chance to play for a championship, a chance to compete for playing time, and the best program in college football for putting players in the league. A chance...that's all they get at BAMA. The rest is up to them.

Again, players like Knott and Lashley know what they are getting themselves into when they sign with BAMA. Over the last 10 years, many players have waited until their junior or senior years to be full time starters at BAMA and been drafted in the first two rounds. It's part of it. Neither Lashley nor Knott's career at Alabama is over, but likely rather just beginning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Token Bammer

So your issue with BAMA is their freedom to recruit good players, and those good players freedom to come in and compete for a job with other good players, but likely having to wait their turn? Your proposal doesn't sound anything like college football, or even America.

Welcome to the dictatorship of ShotgonDawg. Now stand in line for a week for your single roll of toilet paper and moldy bread.

When players come to BAMA they know what they are getting. They get a chance to play for a championship, a chance to compete for playing time, and the best program in college football for putting players in the league. A chance...that's all they get at BAMA. The rest is up to them.

Again, players like Knott and Lashley know what they are getting themselves into when they sign with BAMA. Over the last 10 years, many players have waited until their junior or senior years to be full time starters at BAMA and been drafted in the first two rounds. It's part of it. Neither Lashley nor Knott's career at Alabama is over, but likely rather just beginning.

---

You betta be careful, Comrade... You might get sent off for "reeducation"...

http://chineseposters.net/images/e15-35.jpg

So far I've seen exactly two ideas in this thread that don't make me cringe a little:
1) Limiting non-coach analysts
2) Requiring schools to honor scholarships once they've been offered (for one year).

The rest of these are unworkable and a quick way to reduce college football from 130+ teams right down to around 30 teams. Quit trying to make it like the NFL. If I want to watch the NFL there are 3 nights a week during the season I can watch the NFL.

I think the main issue many of us take with Bama is their power to get highly-rated but not elite players to come sit on their bench for at least 3-4 years then maybe play a meaningful part as a junior or senior (or maybe not), when they could play a lot and even start almost immediately at many other schools. If not for that, I don't think there would be nearly as much complaining about their recruiting prowess. I can't say it doesn't frustrate me as well, but there's not much to rationally do about it because,

1.) Most 17 or 18-year-old D1 football recruits are confident, cocky, and believe they are the baddest mf'er on the board no matter what the recruiting rankings say and can compete anywhere with anyone. They don't see their true level of ability and aren't thinking about how it fits into depth charts like we do.

2.) No matter how recruits see their situation, if they want to sit on Bama's bench their whole career, that's their prerogative. Doing anything to take away from that completely free choice will only hurt the sport in the long run, as has already been discussed in this thread. And frankly, I question the competitive spirit of the handful of prospects who do understand that they're going to sit on the bench for a long time when they could play right away somewhere else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matty Dispatch

Take 4 years of signing classes x 25 signees = 100 scholarships. 20 Level 1s = $600,000, 40 Level 2s = $800,000 and 40 Level 1s = $400,000. That's a total of $1.8 million. Since there are only 85 scholarships, take the average amount of each scholarship over those 100 signees ($18,000) x the 85 = $1.53 million. It wouldn't take much scaling back on coaching salaries to come up with that money.

The average graduation rate right now is roughly 15 players per year. With a $100,000 carrot at the end, let's say that jumps to 20 per year. So $2 million paid out in bonuses. That probably wouldn't work under the current structure, but if they did as I proposes by playing 12 P5 games, that would greatly increase TV and ticket revenue to easily offset that $2 million and then make a bunch of money on top of it for the athletic departments.

---

The schools with less resources will still get left in the dust. Including us. The schools with little to no tv money would be obliterated under this plan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuadrupleOption

So far I've seen exactly two ideas in this thread that don't make me cringe a little:
1) Limiting non-coach analysts
2) Requiring schools to honor scholarships once they've been offered (for one year).

The rest of these are unworkable and a quick way to reduce college football from 130+ teams right down to around 30 teams. Quit trying to make it like the NFL. If I want to watch the NFL there are 3 nights a week during the season I can watch the NFL.

---

It would be nice if MSU, or Iowa State, or Kentucky, or three dozen other school had a snowball's chance in hell to win something significant. College football is romanticized because players are doing it "for the love of the game". Well, they are getting a scholarship too, and many wouldn't be playing if they weren't. You can structure CFB like the NFL but still have all the tailgating and the traditions and the band and the cheerleaders and all the things you love about CFB. Except it would be better because teams other than the same handful could actually win something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ababyatemydingo

The schools with less resources will still get left in the dust. Including us. The schools with little to no tv money would be obliterated under this plan

---

Well, yeah, in my original point I said the P5 and G5 should have 2 separate divisions. We would not be that greatly affected by $1.8 million used to pay football players. Everyone would be paying the same $1.8 million. For some schools, like MSU, it would most likely mean reducing the amount of money in the pool for its coaches. The bigger schools would be able to attract better coaches - as it is right now - but it would even out the distribution of talent, which would create a more competitive environment...and giving all those schools with less resources a chance to win at a higher level since they'll have better players.

Does everyone crying "Socialism!" object to equal sharing of bowl and tv revenues?

Regarding players being allowed to transfer to another school without sitting out a year: Would this apply to players that would be interested in leaving a "have not" program to chase a ring (and possibly gain more exposure) at a "have" program?

If so, I think we need to draft this puppy up all formal like and run it up the flagpole...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUSK

Regarding players being allowed to transfer to another school without sitting out a year: Would this apply to players that would be interested in leaving a "have not" program to chase a ring (and possibly gain more exposure) at a "have" program?

If so, I think we need to draft this puppy up all formal like and run it up the flagpole...

---

Shotgun will head the Committee on Monitoring Transfers to Maintain Competitive Balance**

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quaoarsking

Does everyone crying "Socialism!" object to equal sharing of bowl and tv revenues?

---

You talkin' to me?

https://images.theconversation.com/f...w=926&fit=clip

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matty Dispatch

Well, yeah, in my original point I said the P5 and G5 should have 2 separate divisions. We would not be that greatly affected by $1.8 million used to pay football players. Everyone would be paying the same $1.8 million. For some schools, like MSU, it would most likely mean reducing the amount of money in the pool for its coaches. The bigger schools would be able to attract better coaches - as it is right now - but it would even out the distribution of talent, which would create a more competitive environment...and giving all those schools with less resources a chance to win at a higher level since they'll have better players.

---

And the Ole Miss's of the world will still try to offer more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matty Dispatch

It would be nice if MSU, or Iowa State, or Kentucky, or three dozen other school had a snowball's chance in hell to win something significant. College football is romanticized because players are doing it "for the love of the game". Well, they are getting a scholarship too, and many wouldn't be playing if they weren't. You can structure CFB like the NFL but still have all the tailgating and the traditions and the band and the cheerleaders and all the things you love about CFB. Except it would be better because teams other than the same handful could actually win something.

---

We had chances in 1999 and 2014 and shit the bed both times. The reason Bama and schools like Bama are always good is because they put a lot more emphasis on being the best and have had DECADES of success to use with recruits to entice them to campus. It is what it is.

I was thinking about this yesterday, as a matter of fact. And yeah, I get tired of seeing the same ol' shit every year too but I really don't think we're that far off from being a pre-season top 25 team every year. We just have to keep our program at the same level (minimum) as it is now and continue to win.

The reason the usual suspects keep making the playoffs is
1) they're usually really good
2) they get the benefit of the doubt when they lose a game (see Auburn almost making it if they won the SEC).
3) many blue blood programs are overvalued every year (Notre Dame, Texas, Ohio State, etc).

We're getting better recognition as an athletic department, which will help. 2014, 2015, 2017, and our football coaching search have done a lot to raise perceptions about MSU to the national media. Other sports (WBB and baseball) being top tier also help.

It's frustrating but I don't think the answer is some kind of regulated draft or artificial restriction of who can go where.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ababyatemydingo

Name one socialist economy that has been / is successful and thriving. The socialist utopian theory does not ever translate to actuality. They all fail. Quite quickly, actually.

---

No one argues to go full socialist where doctors and janitors are making the same salary, but we have swung far too right on the economy. During the 50s-70s when the middle class was built, this country had far more balance between capitalism and socialist ideals.

But to answer your question, Canada and the scandanavian countries (and a lot of Europe) aren?t doing too bad on this list from that liberal rag, Forbes magazine, when it comes to starting businesses.

https://www.forbes.com/best-countrie...business/list/

Or this one from business insider

http://nordic.businessinsider.com/th...siness-2017-3/

Then you look and see many of the same countries listed among the highest quality of life in the world

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/...uality-of-life

So yeah, I think any intelligent person would at least admit that some socialist ideas might be worth investigating to better our lives in America.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quaoarsking

Does everyone crying "Socialism!" object to equal sharing of bowl and tv revenues?

---

Pro sports might be the most socialist business/industry in the country.