Agree. Was just making a point that anything is better than the current systemQuote:
Originally Posted by Lord McBuckethead
Agree. Was just making a point that anything is better than the current systemQuote:
Originally Posted by Lord McBuckethead
Money spent on recruiting really don't mean much to me. Our footprint is LA, MS, AL, West Tenn and East texas. GA recruits nationwide. They need more money.Quote:
Originally Posted by StarkVegasSteve
Money spent on recruiting really don't mean much to me. Our footprint is LA, MS, AL, West Tenn and East texas. GA recruits nationwide. They need more money. Ole Miss tried going nationwide and it only hurt them.Quote:
Originally Posted by StarkVegasSteve
Those 3 are roommates, so makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by StarkVegasSteve
I seem to remember them getting a Sugar Bowl out of that and were a freak play away from the SEC Championship game. Also, to play in this offense we're going to have to go outside our recruiting footprint.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Lambert
Looking like a good prediction so far. College football could be so much more amazing with some small tweaks.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg
Yup. Big 10 game of the year is 28-7 at halftime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quaoarsking
It's a brutal sport. There is no path. Indiana has done everything right this season but the overwhelming talent advantage of about 5 schools in the country makes it impossible
35-7 now.
Again, these are the two best teams in the Big 10
What's hilarious is how the media thinks it's because of coaching, scheme, etc. Nothing about the reality
Ohio State is up 35-14 and Fields has thrown 3 INTs.
Think about how large the talent gap much be to throw 3 INTs & still be up 35-15....
Again, this isn't a competitive sport. It doesn't even really develop players on blue bloods because they never get punished for mistakes.
It's 42-28 and TOs are even at 3.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg
42-35 Ohio st... TOs still even at 3
Haha although I agree with the premise this is not aging well.
Yup, Indiana is coming back, with a bunch of Mississippi players nonethelessQuote:
Originally Posted by msstate7
Oh come on. Even if Indiana pulls this out, the overall point that the "big boys" have huge advantages and win a disproportionate share of games is still true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarius
That’s what I said. I agree with the premise. It’s just a bad example that aged poorly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quaoarsking
Alabama vs Kentucky about to start.
Alabama has won 95 straight games against unranked opponents. NINETY-FIVE
Think about how non-competitive that is & also consider that maybe only 5 of Alabama normal 12 game schedule are against ranked opponents.
Big boys have a huge advantage when they have a great coach. No one crying about Texas, Michigan, and usc. And there were times when the world wasn't fair bc those 3 were better than everyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quaoarsking
True and when 2nd tier teams have a great coach, they leave because big boys have the advantage. There's literally nothing you can doQuote:
Originally Posted by msstate7
Losing coaches to blue bloods does suck, but it's human nature to want bigger, better things, so I can't fault the coachesQuote:
Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg
Oh I get it, but, if there was a little more parity, program would be able to build up a better tradition, funds, etc & actually may be able to keep those coaches.Quote:
Originally Posted by msstate7
Think about college baseball. The same teams are usually the best teams, but very rarely to coaches change jobs in that sport, because even a non-blue blood program still has a chance at winning big.
College basketball is similar. Yes, some coaches move around in college basketball, mostly from mid-majors to blue bloods, but most of them stay put & build where their feet are.
College football offers no such chance & that's the problem. You can't build anything.
If college football would just close the gap to the point where good coaches stayed at schools & built for the long haul, it would be a far far far better game, TV product, & sport very quickly.
Shotgun, I TOTALLY support your opinion. College football right now, as a whole is a terrible product. By far the worst of any major sport out there. Yes, there are a lot of great individual games out there from week to week but overall the sport is just not competitive. You've got ONLY the same elite programs every year that can win a championship (roughly 6 to 8 of them) and only maybe about 15-18 programs that have any chance to make a 4 team playoff. The Bama game today was unwatchable, unless you are a huge Bama fan, like all but about 3 or 4 of their games all year. Whatever movement can be formed to promote the reduction of scholarships per program I will gladly join and support. There has to be some way to spread out some of the elite talent a little more each year to close the talent gap a bit between the few haves and the rest of everyone else who are essentially the have nots.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg
Yeah it is a joke. NFL can play with 53 but college needs 85? Something needs to be done just like when they put scholarship limits. Cut them back and bring some parity to college football.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg
When scholarship limits were first imposed, was 85 the limit, or has it changed, either up or down, since then?Quote:
Originally Posted by R2Dawg
Basketball has a limit of 13, which is 2.6 the number that can be on the floor at one time. Baseball can barely field a 9-man team with scholarship players (were they able to give full scholarships). But football has almost 8 times the number on the field at once, or 4 times the number if you consider offense and defense to be different teams (so to speak).
If the number was cut to that of basketball, then the limitation would be 2.6 x 22, or 57.2. Maybe that's the magic number for football. It's a contact sport, but so is basketball nowadays.
I think you are on to something here.Quote:
Originally Posted by RocketDawg
But let?s round up to 3x
Basketball 3x 5=15 scholarships
Baseball 3x 9=27 scholarships
Football 3x 22=66 scholarships
W-Basketball-15
Softball-27
Soccer-33
Volleyball-12
Cheerleading/Dance-21
The money is in football.
I imagine, the scholarships won't change due to it helping so many under-privileged kids get a degree. Whether you agree with that or not.
That is the political side of this. However, the sport would make more money with less scholarships which may open the door for players to be paid somethingQuote:
Originally Posted by SPMT
True
There would be a lot more money in football if more schools could actually compete for something other than a nice bowl trip. Can you imagine how many more season tickets could be sold at a lot of the Power 5 schools if more schools had real hopes of competing for a NC. The money will be there anyway, no matter how many scholarships football gets, and most folks just want a more competitive product to follow so seems like it would be fine to just fund 10 to 15 more scholarships from the football profits to fund scholarships for underprivileged kids. It would be the same difference since we are basically saying that the extra glut of scholarships used on football is just a scholarship program anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by SPMT
Dead... nuts... onQuote:
Originally Posted by maroonmania