College Football is a Terrible Product

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_real_MSU_is_us

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maroonthirteen

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msstate7

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by War Machine Dawg

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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-fo...lentcomposite/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maverick91

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-fo...lentcomposite/

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maroonthirteen

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maverick91

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StarkVegasSteve

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by War Machine Dawg

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_real_MSU_is_us

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord McBuckethead

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maroonmania

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_real_MSU_is_us

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maroonmania

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maroonmania

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StarkVegasSteve

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StarkVegasSteve

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msstate7

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maroonmania

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maverick91

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maverick91

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maverick91

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maroonmania

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.