What is the Athletic Department Going to Do To Get this Program Back on Track?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

But that would still close the gap.

- Average recruit ranking is meaningless if the average is just increased due to a lowering of numbers. Bama has no more talent than they do now

- Even if most of the re-allocation is 3 stars, the 3 stars that Bama, for example signs, are still better 3 stars than what everyone else is signing.

There is absolutely no argument that lowering scholarships wouldn't create a better product in college football

---

Why is a Bammer 3 star different than any other? Because he signed with Bammer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach007

This I agree with. Until you make the sport more competitive and fair. For example, there is no reason we should have 85 players. Reduce them by 15. Change the caps on recruiting so teams can keep the 70.

Change the play offs. Because the competition will be better.

Reduce the games played to 2 OOC increase the playoffs to top 12.

Move the first games 3 weeks later than current start weekend.

---

Agreed. I would rather the first weeks game start the 1st weekend of October. I would love to have some december games. Just compress the bowl season. We really do not need 3 solid weeks of bowl games. Double them up during the week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coursesuper

Why is a Bammer 3 star different than any other? Because he signed with Bammer?

---

Because Bammer offered him & felt he was worthy of a scholarship over pretty much any other play in the country

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord McBuckethead

Agreed. I would rather the first weeks game start the 1st weekend of October. I would love to have some december games. Just compress the bowl season. We really do not need 3 solid weeks of bowl games. Double them up during the week.

---

Agree. Problem is no one in college athletics appears to have the balls to stand up & change things

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaroonFlounder

Yeah...reduce scholarships...and then have an injury-riddled season like we are experiencing now, and see how we end up, sacrificing an entire season, and having to endure a shitty season because we are playing walk-ons.

You either think too much, or not at all, there is no in-between with you.

---

Yet we still fielded a competitive team. Now imagine if 6 of those guys were ready talent rather than simply raw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

Agree. Problem is no one in college athletics appears to have the balls to stand up & change things

---

It's hard to stand up to TV money. They are running the show, I you don't believe it just look at next weeks SEC tv schedule. UK at MSU is a 3:00 PM start and non conference San Jose State at Ark is the prime time game on the "SEC" network. Protect the possible TV audience for CBS prime time game ND@UGA at all cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUSK

I think what a scholarship reduction would do is reallocate a lot of the 3 star type players that sign on with the top ~5-10 teams to the other ~120 teams...

So, let's say skollies are reduced to 75... that's ~50-100 3 star guys spread across the rest of the field... While all schools would see an increase in overall talent, "Average per recruit" ranking would increase more for those upper echelon programs than it would for everyone else.

JMO

---

It would need to be around 70. You would have to reduce the amount per year. In 2017 bama signed 6 5 stars, and 18 4 stars.

You would not have been able to do that. You would have had to turn away 8ish of those.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coursesuper

It's hard to stand up to TV money. They are running the show, I you don't believe it just look at next weeks SEC tv schedule. UK at MSU is a 3:00 PM start and non conference San Jose State at Ark is the prime time game on the "SEC" network. Protect the possible TV audience for CBS prime time game ND@UGA at all cost.

---

I agree. Since we're making all that money, let's have a stadium that is equipped to handle those games.

In order to get butts in seats is you have to have a winning program and one that people are excited about. To have any of those you need a competent coach and staff and you have to recruit with the big boys. In order to attract these recruits you have to have all the amenities that other big programs have. I say we start there. Start attracting the recruits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by munk_munk92

In order to get butts in seats is you have to have a winning program and one that people are excited about. To have any of those you need a competent coach and staff and you have to recruit with the big boys. In order to attract these recruits you have to have all the amenities that other big programs have. I say we start there. Start attracting the recruits.

---

I think the history of college football has made it clear that it's delusional to think you can accomplish this.

We haven't had a first time national champion in 26 years.

Since 1977, only 6 teams have won the SEC title.

Yes, Oregon (Nike) & Clemson (incredible staff continuity & transcendent head coach) have been able to compete nationally although not blue bloods, but that is it.

It's simply not realistic to believe we have any chance of accomplishing this, which means the system is horribly flawed.

Other sports have a draft to bring about parity but you can't do that when educations are at stake. Kids must be able to choose their school. Thus the only answer is to limit scholarships OR allow players that willingly enter a draft to be paid.

Not promote a baseball coach will little real athletics administration experience. Bring back Scott Wetherbee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trojandawg

Not promote a baseball coach will little real athletics administration experience. Bring back Scott Wetherbee.

---

Yep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by munk_munk92

In order to get butts in seats is you have to have a winning program and one that people are excited about. To have any of those you need a competent coach and staff and you have to recruit with the big boys. In order to attract these recruits you have to have all the amenities that other big programs have. I say we start there. Start attracting the recruits.

---

When was our last losing non-bowl season again? Ten years ago?

Even Alabama is having trouble keeping fans at the games.

It's not just about winning. College football is having to compete with comfort from home and the cost of going to games. I probably spend anywhere between 600-800 dollars a weekend all told going to Starkville. Sometimes have to re-arrange my schedule at work. Sometimes sacrifice some of my personal time. All to wake up at 5 AM to go to an 11 AM game that has a 115 degree heat index at a place with traffic headaches, is a four hour drive round trip, metal detectors that don't work, and have concessions that may or may not have people at them plus very few if any healthy concession options.

Or I could save hundreds of dollars watching the game on TV at my own convenience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trojandawg

Not promote a baseball coach will little real athletics administration experience. Bring back Scott Wetherbee.

---

We probably need to go outside of the MSU family in all honesty. Which is what Keenum really wanted to do. But some influential MSU people disagreed and sabotaged it.

At this point I just hope that Cohen ups his game in the marketing, promotion, and gameday function arena. Which we all knew was going to be his weakness going in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

I think the history of college football has made it clear that it's delusional to think you can accomplish this.

We haven't had a first time national champion in 26 years.

Since 1977, only 6 teams have won the SEC title.

Yes, Oregon (Nike) & Clemson (incredible staff continuity & transcendent head coach) have been able to compete nationally although not blue bloods, but that is it.

It's simply not realistic to believe we have any chance of accomplishing this, which means the system is horribly flawed.

Other sports have a draft to bring about parity but you can't do that when educations are at stake. Kids must be able to choose their school. Thus the only answer is to limit scholarships OR allow players that willingly enter a draft to be paid.

---

The number of teams that can compete is actually shrinking also. Look at national title winners since the 1980s and 1990s that have fallen in the last 10 years to where they are not competing for national titles for long stretches - Nebraska, Miami, FSU, USC, Texas,Tennessee, Colorado, Georgia Tech, Michigan, Penn State, Pitt, BYU. Many of those teams have gotten flat out bad, while others are still Top 25 but don't come close to competing with the Bama/Ohio State/Clemson level teams. There are some pretender teams too - like Notre Dame whoever the favorite PAC12 team of the year is (Washington??), who live off their schedules and fold against elite teams in the post season. Its killing the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrunswickDawg

The number of teams that can compete is actually shrinking also. Look at national title winners since the 1980s and 1990s that have fallen in the last 10 years to where they are not competing for national titles for long stretches - Nebraska, Miami, FSU, USC, Texas,Tennessee, Colorado, Georgia Tech, Michigan, Penn State, Pitt, BYU. Many of those teams have gotten flat out bad, while others are still Top 25 but don't come close to competing with the Bama/Ohio State/Clemson level teams. There are some pretender teams too - like Notre Dame whoever the favorite PAC12 team of the year is (Washington??), who live off their schedules and fold against elite teams in the post season. Its killing the game.

---

Agree.

I think there are few reasons for this:

1. TV. Some of those teams used to be good because they were on TV & other school were not. That is no longer the case & thus it's hard to recruit outside your footprint

2. Recruiting rankings & recruiting/scouting combines have allowed the best players to get to know who their peers are, &, just like we've seen in the NBA, it produces a "super team" desire in those players. They are more & more attending the same schools together because they are friends. It used to not be that way.

It's a real issue that has to be addressed if the power that be want this sport to thrive.

How many years in a row will Bama & Clemson have to play in the national title game for things to change?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by defiantdog

We're a very soft team..... Kentucky is going to route us, but Tennessee and Arkansas will be competitive. We don't have man eaters on the DL, we don't have head hunters in the secondary, we have a starting QB that can't take a hit (but we have a future with the Shredder..... he's fearless) we don't have an OL pancaking anyone (last year, Jenkins imposed his will on everyone that lined up in front of him). It looks more like a ballerina act at times.

---

They showed some on that 4th and short.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basedog

You are basing things after a lost way too much Shotgun, things aren't as bad as you speak nor they as good as we might like. But oveall Msu is growing and getting better every year, it's not always about football, it's about our University. You are pretty much saying we need change starting the President, Athletic Director and Head Football Coach. And don't say you didn't, go read what you are posting. To think where Msu is today compared to 5 years ago, 10 years ago, how about 25 and 50 years ago, you need to show more support and get out of the "we aren't worthy" attitude.

To all the fans who show up to the games, I salute you and thank you for your support. For you folks who live to far away or simple can't afford to give or attend, I surely understand and wish you well and thanks for loving the University. For you "oh the sky is falling" and never attend nor give, shut up and quite bitching, folks like y'all make things worse for ones who truly love and give their support not just to our athletic programs but to our University, after all, This Is Our State!

We need fan support Saturday, hope DWS is loud and rocking as this will be the biggest game of this year so for.

---

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to basedog again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaroonFlounder

Yeah...reduce scholarships...and then have an injury-riddled season like we are experiencing now, and see how we end up, sacrificing an entire season, and having to endure a shitty season because we are playing walk-ons.

You either think too much, or not at all, there is no in-between with you.

---

Give him credit though. He has a very vivid imagination. LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

Agree.

I think there are few reasons for this:

1. TV. Some of those teams used to be good because they were on TV & other school were not. That is no longer the case & thus it's hard to recruit outside your footprint

2. Recruiting rankings & recruiting/scouting combines have allowed the best players to get to know who their peers are, &, just like we've seen in the NBA, it produces a "super team" desire in those players. They are more & more attending the same schools together because they are friends. It used to not be that way.

It's a real issue that has to be addressed if the power that be want this sport to thrive.

How many years in a row will Bama & Clemson have to play in the national title game for things to change?

---

I agree with most of what you think the problems are... I don't agree with most of your solutions...

I think we just need another class division of college football... and quit pretending they're "amateurs"...

(I'm not advocating for a "P4P" deal... just sayin' if it were segregated, the sum of the parts would be greater than the whole...)