College Football is a Terrible Product

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

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.

---

Don't disagree that something needs to be done. I just don't think cutting ships is the best way to do it. I think would have a ripple down affect in a bad way throughout the entirety of each program.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

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.

---

Clemson has stepped out of conference and beat some SEC schools, Notre Dame and P5 schools.

They have knocked off OSU in the semis.

Their program is legit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

Do you not pay attention to college football?

How could you possibly say that no more regulation needed? You enjoy 48-14 games?

---

You missed my point. I think they need to reevaluate the regulation they have before they add more. Change somethings that they currently have going on an lets see what happens there. If nothing of significance changes then lets look at adding more regulation.

Tennessee could have rebuilt their program and easily rival Alabama. However they have the same problem as the Dallas Cowboys..... Fulmer is in the background making the decisions and he just needs to get out of the way.

Tennessee recruited on a national level in the late 90s. They had kids from all over the nation signing. They have the boosters, facilities, town and academics to recruit to. They are just poorly poorly mismanaged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maverick91

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.

---

Well, I don't like not having any baseball scholarships either, but it is what it is. Football can survive greatly with 10-15 less scholarships on a team. Heck, the NFL only has 50 man rosters. College could have 70-75 man scholarship rosters and be fine as that doesn't even count walkons. If you gave those schollys to baseball it would improve both products. And there would be no net loss of total athletic scholarships. Heck, you might could even field an additional male sport like soccer or something. Giving extra scholarships to find 'diamonds in the rough' is not the purpose of giving guys a free education and allows certain programs to hog all the best of the best. And I guess I'm not following on some of your logic, Bama and the other elites will always have the most star power so I'm not sure the point there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maroonthirteen

Clemson has stepped out of conference and beat some SEC schools, Notre Dame and P5 schools.

They have knocked off OSU in the semis.

Their program is legit.

---

I didn’t say they weren’t legit. It’s just that the building process was significantly easier than it would’ve been for an SEC team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maroonmania

Well, I don't like not having any baseball scholarships either, but it is what it is. Football can survive greatly with 10-15 less scholarships on a team. Heck, the NFL only has 50 man rosters. College could have 70-75 man scholarship rosters and be fine as that doesn't even count walkons. If you gave those schollys to baseball it would improve both products. And there would be no net loss of total athletic scholarships. Heck, you might could even field an additional male sport like soccer or something. Giving extra scholarships to find 'diamonds in the rough' is not the purpose of giving guys a free education and allows certain programs to hog all the best of the best. And I guess I'm not following on some of your logic, Bama and the other elites will always have the most star power so I'm not sure the point there.

---

Pardon me if this is a dumb question. But, is there a reason why baseball and other sports are not allowed more schollys? Do we have to limit football to give them more? I just don't think limiting the amount of players on a team is the way to do it.

I made the post earlier, but, I don't see why we couldn't put a cap on the amount of 4 and 5 stars that are signed each signing period. They have to go somewhere and if Bama, clemson, Ohio State meet whatever that cap is, then they are done, and the other 20 highly rated players they would have otherwise signed must chose to go somewhere else to play. It forces the talent to be spread-out and teams couldn't hoard talent until they weed them out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maverick91

Pardon me if this is a dumb question. But, is there a reason why baseball and other sports are not allowed more schollys? Do we have to limit football to give them more? I just don't think limiting the amount of players on a team is the way to do it.

I made the post earlier, but, I don't see why we couldn't put a cap on the amount of 4 and 5 stars that are signed each signing period. They have to go somewhere and if Bama, clemson, Ohio State meet whatever that cap is, then they are done, and the other 20 highly rated players they would have otherwise signed must chose to go somewhere else to play. It forces the talent to be spread-out and teams couldn't hoard talent until they weed them out.

---

Title 9 if I remember correctly. Having to do with the number of womens sports and scholarships relative to mens sports and scholarships.

Could be wrong but I think that is the reasoning behind the 11.7.

You would have to cut back in another mens sport to add to baseball I believe.

[QUOTE=ShotgunDawg;1280492]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.

People are so sick of Saban and the impenetrable bunker built around the Alabama program that a level of apathy has set in with the whole sport. Especially with how the media hacks keep blowing them up as if it's some sort of big accomplishment anymore. It is not, and it's sickening that anybody still cares what they do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maverick91

Don't disagree that something needs to be done. I just don't think cutting ships is the best way to do it. I think would have a ripple down affect in a bad way throughout the entirety of each program.

---

Only ripple effect it would have is to push talent down a notch; some players that would be at Bama will now be at State, some players that would be at State will now be at ULL, etc etc until some kids that would be playing in the lowest level simply have nowhere to go.

But at Shotgun has said in the past, we can move those football scholarships to other mens sports and thus the same total number of male athletes will get access to affordable college. I see no reason why a male HS Basketball/Baseball/Tennis/Golf player getting a scholarship instead of a FB player is any less moral than the reverse.

In fact, since there's so many more FB scholarships than any other male sport, I'd argue there's a lot of athletes from other sports that deserve a scholarship more than the lowest level of FB players:

There's a 85 scholarships and 130 teams which = 11,050 FB scholarships in the FBS (2,763 per year). There's 11.7 scholarships on 297 baseball teams for 3,475 scholarships (869 per year). Why should the 2,500th best FB player get a scholarship but not the 1,000th best baseball player? Apply this to any non FB male sport and it still applies

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_real_MSU_is_us

Only ripple effect it would have is to push talent down a notch; some players that would be at Bama will now be at State, some players that would be at State will now be at ULL, etc etc until some kids that would be playing in the lowest level simply have nowhere to go.

But at Shotgun has said in the past, we can move those football scholarships to other mens sports and thus the same total number of male athletes will get access to affordable college. I see no reason why a male HS Basketball/Baseball/Tennis/Golf player getting a scholarship instead of a FB player is any less moral than the reverse.

In fact, since there's so many more FB scholarships than any other male sport, I'd argue there's a lot of athletes from other sports that deserve a scholarship more than the lowest level of FB players:

There's a 85 scholarships and 130 teams which = 11,050 FB scholarships in the FBS (2,763 per year). There's 11.7 scholarships on 297 baseball teams for 3,475 scholarships (869 per year). Why should the 2,500th best FB player get a scholarship but not the 1,000th best baseball player? Apply this to any non FB male sport and it still applies

---

I agree that is an egregious flaw in the system. The only reason I can see them justifying it is that baseball has the amateur draft and you can be drafted out of high school. Still doesn't make up for the fact that baseball is the one sport that seems to have gotten screwed through Title IX but my guess is that's why the scholarship numbers have remained so low in baseball.

[QUOTE=Bothrops;1280775]

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.

People are so sick of Saban and the impenetrable bunker built around the Alabama program that a level of apathy has set in with the whole sport. Especially with how the media hacks keep blowing them up as if it's some sort of big accomplishment anymore. It is not, and it's sickening that anybody still cares what they do.

---

Good post. Agree

If I see one more Marty Smith feature on Nick Saban, I'm going to throw my TV

It's got to get old for the media to continue to push the same story line every year

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_real_MSU_is_us

Only ripple effect it would have is to push talent down a notch; some players that would be at Bama will now be at State, some players that would be at State will now be at ULL, etc etc until some kids that would be playing in the lowest level simply have nowhere to go.

But at Shotgun has said in the past, we can move those football scholarships to other mens sports and thus the same total number of male athletes will get access to affordable college. I see no reason why a male HS Basketball/Baseball/Tennis/Golf player getting a scholarship instead of a FB player is any less moral than the reverse.

In fact, since there's so many more FB scholarships than any other male sport, I'd argue there's a lot of athletes from other sports that deserve a scholarship more than the lowest level of FB players:

There's a 85 scholarships and 130 teams which = 11,050 FB scholarships in the FBS (2,763 per year). There's 11.7 scholarships on 297 baseball teams for 3,475 scholarships (869 per year). Why should the 2,500th best FB player get a scholarship but not the 1,000th best baseball player? Apply this to any non FB male sport and it still applies

---

Listen to this man! He gets it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maverick91

Pardon me if this is a dumb question. But, is there a reason why baseball and other sports are not allowed more schollys? Do we have to limit football to give them more? I just don't think limiting the amount of players on a team is the way to do it.

I made the post earlier, but, I don't see why we couldn't put a cap on the amount of 4 and 5 stars that are signed each signing period. They have to go somewhere and if Bama, clemson, Ohio State meet whatever that cap is, then they are done, and the other 20 highly rated players they would have otherwise signed must chose to go somewhere else to play. It forces the talent to be spread-out and teams couldn't hoard talent until they weed them out.

---

I like the thought on limits on 4-5 star players. Also think they could reduce full scholarships 5-10 as well. NFL plays with 53 man roster. Could have half scholarships for the final 10 players or something.

Problem with limit on 4-5 star players is some schools would cook the books on the rating system. Bama would get first round NFL talent as a 2-3 star. We would get the bust 5 star.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R2Dawg

I like the thought on limits on 4-5 star players. Also think they could reduce full scholarships 5-10 as well. NFL plays with 53 man roster. Could have half scholarships for the final 10 players or something.

Problem with limit on 4-5 star players is some schools would cook the books on the rating system. Bama would get first round NFL talent as a 2-3 star. We would get the bust 5 star.

---

That's my issue. Ranking players is an imprecise science and the best ones at it make more doing it at Bama than they would at 247. And for every 200 recruits, you'd only have 1 or so talent evaluator, which means boosters can pool their money and just offer massive competing bribes to the evaluators. Or if the NCAA was dong it they'd go "Sure would be good for $$$ if Texas was back..." and rig it themselves for the moneymakers

It's also kinda weird to me to have coaches not just look for talent, not just try to convince that talent to pick them, but to also try to balance how they split 10 stars between 3 positions; do we want the 4* to be a RB, DT, or OT? It's a strange layer of coaching to add on and has nothing to do with the current skill set coaches have to have.

Simply reducing the scholarships keeps things functioning the same, just with a higher emphasis on talent evaluation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maverick91

Pardon me if this is a dumb question. But, is there a reason why baseball and other sports are not allowed more schollys? Do we have to limit football to give them more? I just don't think limiting the amount of players on a team is the way to do it.

I made the post earlier, but, I don't see why we couldn't put a cap on the amount of 4 and 5 stars that are signed each signing period. They have to go somewhere and if Bama, clemson, Ohio State meet whatever that cap is, then they are done, and the other 20 highly rated players they would have otherwise signed must chose to go somewhere else to play. It forces the talent to be spread-out and teams couldn't hoard talent until they weed them out.

---

Yes, Title IX essentially forces colleges to give roughly the same number of athletic scholarships to women as they do to men. Its why women have so many more sports they can play due to football having so many male scholarships. Funny though, I know of no such equivalence required on the academic side although everyone knows the male and female brains are just as different as the male and female bodies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R2Dawg

I like the thought on limits on 4-5 star players. Also think they could reduce full scholarships 5-10 as well. NFL plays with 53 man roster. Could have half scholarships for the final 10 players or something.

Problem with limit on 4-5 star players is some schools would cook the books on the rating system. Bama would get first round NFL talent as a 2-3 star. We would get the bust 5 star.

---

You could NEVER limit a player's choice on a college because they are 'already full up on 4 and 5 stars'. That would never hold up ethically or legally. Kids get to choose where they want to go to college if the college is willing to take them. No way to limit that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_real_MSU_is_us

Simply reducing the scholarships keeps things functioning the same, just with a higher emphasis on talent evaluation

---

Yep, but instead, now you are going to have the situation where Bama can sign all the 5 stars they want, then process out any they misevaluated PLUS now tell a kid at another P5 school that is a top level player that they have an opening to start at their position, so come on and transfer in without having to sit out and win a NC with us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maroonmania

Yep, but instead, now you are going to have the situation where Bama can sign all the 5 stars they want, then process out any they misevaluated PLUS now tell a kid at another P5 school that is a top level player that they have an opening to start at their position, so come on and transfer in without having to sit out and win a NC with us.

---

Transfer rules are a separate issue though, and at the very least the lack of talent hoarding will make the lesser teams more competitive, even if Bama still have t he best talent and can fill in gaps via transfers.

If Bama can sign 2 really good RBs in a class because they have 85 scholarships vs 70ish, that's 1 less really good RB that they have to face on another teams' roster. Like Bear Bryant signing kids just so nobody else can have them lol

Bama still may win them all, but at least it'll take till the 3rd Q for it to turn into a blowout vs halfway through the 1st Q

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_real_MSU_is_us

That's my issue. Ranking players is an imprecise science and the best ones at it make more doing it at Bama than they would at 247. And for every 200 recruits, you'd only have 1 or so talent evaluator, which means boosters can pool their money and just offer massive competing bribes to the evaluators. Or if the NCAA was dong it they'd go "Sure would be good for $$$ if Texas was back..." and rig it themselves for the moneymakers

It's also kinda weird to me to have coaches not just look for talent, not just try to convince that talent to pick them, but to also try to balance how they split 10 stars between 3 positions; do we want the 4* to be a RB, DT, or OT? It's a strange layer of coaching to add on and has nothing to do with the current skill set coaches have to have.

Simply reducing the scholarships keeps things functioning the same, just with a higher emphasis on talent evaluation

---

Yeah, Using recruiting rankings won't work.

The idea isn't bad but it wouldn't work.

If we're going to use recruiting rankings, just pay the players and have a salary cap so evaluation matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maroonmania

You could NEVER limit a player's choice on a college because they are 'already full up on 4 and 5 stars'. That would never hold up ethically or legally. Kids get to choose where they want to go to college if the college is willing to take them. No way to limit that.

---

You can limit schollies though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maroonmania

Yep, but instead, now you are going to have the situation where Bama can sign all the 5 stars they want, then process out any they misevaluated PLUS now tell a kid at another P5 school that is a top level player that they have an opening to start at their position, so come on and transfer in without having to sit out and win a NC with us.

---

I don't see starters at SEC or power 5 schools leaving to blue bloods. It may happen every once in a while but I don't think many players are willing to risk that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

You can limit schollies though

---

You thinking 20/Year, Capped at 70?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUSK

You thinking 20/Year, Capped at 70?

---

There abouts. I think 70 is about the lowest you can go. 75 would probably help a lot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BB30

Title 9 if I remember correctly. Having to do with the number of womens sports and scholarships relative to mens sports and scholarships.

Could be wrong but I think that is the reasoning behind the 11.7.

You would have to cut back in another mens sport to add to baseball I believe.

---

If this is the case, I believe this should be something that should be looked at amending, so that you don't take away from football, but, you allow other sports to grow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_real_MSU_is_us

Only ripple effect it would have is to push talent down a notch; some players that would be at Bama will now be at State, some players that would be at State will now be at ULL, etc etc until some kids that would be playing in the lowest level simply have nowhere to go.

But at Shotgun has said in the past, we can move those football scholarships to other mens sports and thus the same total number of male athletes will get access to affordable college. I see no reason why a male HS Basketball/Baseball/Tennis/Golf player getting a scholarship instead of a FB player is any less moral than the reverse.

In fact, since there's so many more FB scholarships than any other male sport, I'd argue there's a lot of athletes from other sports that deserve a scholarship more than the lowest level of FB players:

There's a 85 scholarships and 130 teams which = 11,050 FB scholarships in the FBS (2,763 per year). There's 11.7 scholarships on 297 baseball teams for 3,475 scholarships (869 per year). Why should the 2,500th best FB player get a scholarship but not the 1,000th best baseball player? Apply this to any non FB male sport and it still applies

---

I can get behind that math. I would just rather see the rules be amended to allow for other sports to have higher scholly numbers than to prohibit football, so that other sports could have more. With all the money sports are bringing in especially football, I don't understand the need to keep other sports programs at such an antiquated number.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

There abouts. I think 70 is about the lowest you can go. 75 would probably help a lot

---

Well, if ya take 3-5 teams, and cut off their lowest rated players to get from 85 to 75, that's 30-50 3* players to divvy up among the other 125 to 127 programs (to be fair, these cats would probably go to the next ~30 top programs). Best case scenario, that's 1-2 additional three star guys per "non elite" program.

#3*LM*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R2Dawg

I like the thought on limits on 4-5 star players. Also think they could reduce full scholarships 5-10 as well. NFL plays with 53 man roster. Could have half scholarships for the final 10 players or something.

Problem with limit on 4-5 star players is some schools would cook the books on the rating system. Bama would get first round NFL talent as a 2-3 star. We would get the bust 5 star.

---

Not going to say this couldn't be an issue. But, I would rather try and make this adjustment than limiting scholly's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUSK

Well, if ya take 3-5 teams, and cut off their lowest rated players to get from 85 to 75, that's 30-50 3* players to divvy up among the other 125 to 127 programs (to be fair, these cats would probably go to the next ~30 top programs). Best case scenario, that's 1-2 additional three star guys per "non elite" program.

#3*LM*

---

You're taking those last 10 players from far more than 3-5 programs. 4 stars would also be redistributed, but even if it's just 3 stars, you're talking about those guys filling in talent gaps, which makes the games more competitive while also making it more necessary for the blue bloods to properly evaluate.

This guy on Sixpack puts it well.

Start with scholarships. The ratio of starting players/total scholarship players is way out of line. Assuming you have 25 starters (11 offense, 11 defense, 3 ST), 85 scholarships is 3.4x your starting lineup size. The sport with the closest ratio is Hockey with 18 scholarships for 6 starters, so 3x. Basketball with 13 has 2.6x, and it gets worse from there on team sports, especially for men.

Setting football to the same 2.6 multiplier gets you to 65 scholarship players. Reduce the signing limit to 20. Take the 20 scholarships and send them to baseball and men's soccer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maroonmania

Yes, Title IX essentially forces colleges to give roughly the same number of athletic scholarships to women as they do to men. Its why women have so many more sports they can play due to football having so many male scholarships. Funny though, I know of no such equivalence required on the academic side although everyone knows the male and female brains are just as different as the male and female bodies.

---

yes!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maroonmania

You could NEVER limit a player's choice on a college because they are 'already full up on 4 and 5 stars'. That would never hold up ethically or legally. Kids get to choose where they want to go to college if the college is willing to take them. No way to limit that.

---

I disagree, it's the same thing as their being a cut off for how many scholly you can sign per year. Sometimes we can only sign 25 players others we can sign more or less, just depends on the year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUSK

Well, if ya take 3-5 teams, and cut off their lowest rated players to get from 85 to 75, that's 30-50 3* players to divvy up among the other 125 to 127 programs (to be fair, these cats would probably go to the next ~30 top programs). Best case scenario, that's 1-2 additional three star guys per "non elite" program.

#3*LM*

---

Tusk, with all due respect, I think you're trying to find a logic hole from which you can tell me that my idea won't help.

I would urge you to step outside of your Bama fanboy bias, and realize that most every game involving national title contenders is an absolutely non-competitive blowout, and that's a huge problem for the sport that you and I love long term.

You may not agree with reducing scholarships as the answer, but for the long term health of the sport, things need to change.

Please see that. Please see that for the sport to be competitive and enjoyable to the masses, you've got to have more than 3-5 teams in the country with a chance to win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUSK

Well, if ya take 3-5 teams, and cut off their lowest rated players to get from 85 to 75, that's 30-50 3* players to divvy up among the other 125 to 127 programs (to be fair, these cats would probably go to the next ~30 top programs). Best case scenario, that's 1-2 additional three star guys per "non elite" program.

#3*LM*

---

This is my issue, if we lower they recruiting numbers. They will still sign all the highly rated players they were going to sign anyways. It just leaves the high tear practice squad guys that they would have used to go somewhere else. I just don't see this actually fixing the issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

Tusk, with all due respect, I think you're trying to find a logic hole from which you can tell me that my idea won't help.

I would urge you to step outside of your Bama fanboy bias, and realize that most every game involving national title contenders is an absolutely non-competitive blowout, and that's a huge problem for the sport that you and I love long term.

You may not agree with reducing scholarships as the answer, but for the long term health of the sport, things need to change.

Please see that. Please see that for the sport to be competitive and enjoyable to the masses, you've got to have more than 3-5 teams in the country with a chance to win.

---

I agree with anything you just posted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maverick91

This is my issue, if we lower they recruiting numbers. They will still sign all the highly rated players they were going to sign anyways. It just leaves the high tear practice squad guys that they would have used to go somewhere else. I just don't see this actually fixing the issue.

---

They will sign most of the highly rated guy initially, but with the 2nd tier teams having more complete rosters, there will be more upsets and more contenders coming from that level. Thus, the quality head coaches at South Carolina, Ole Miss, Arkansas won't be as quick to leave for blue bloods and will actually choose to stay and build. In the long term, due to more teams competing, I expect that the top talent will spread out more. In the short term you're right, but long term I think you'll see a more parity.

Secondly, big time players bust as well and don't make. By lowering the schollie limit, those misses will hurt more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maverick91

This is my issue, if we lower they recruiting numbers. They will still sign all the highly rated players they were going to sign anyways. It just leaves the high tear practice squad guys that they would have used to go somewhere else. I just don't see this actually fixing the issue.

---

You are never going to completely close the gap, but the gap needs to be closed to a point to where the same 5 teams Do not blowout 90 % of their Schedule every year. Scholarship limitations were put in place in the 90s for this reason, but they didn’t go far enough with it to really make a difference. Alabama and Ohio State literally being able to roll out their 3rd string and compete with/beat a State / Ole Miss team is ridiculous and not good for the sport. There is no other sport we play where this is the case. It makes everything so very anticlimactic, as Matt Wyatt said today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarius

You are never going to completely close the gap, but the gap needs to be closed to a point to where the same 5 teams Do not blowout 90 % of their Schedule every year. Scholarship limitations were put in place in the 90s for this reason, but they didn’t go far enough with it to really make a difference. Alabama and Ohio State literally being able to roll out their 3rd string and compete with/beat a State / Ole Miss team is ridiculous and not good for the sport. There is no other sport we play where this is the case. It makes everything so very anticlimactic, as Matt Wyatt said today.

---

Yep, I'd agree with 'Guns theory if the skolly limit was ~50-55ish...

What we really need is a separate division of football.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUSK

Yep, I'd agree with 'Guns theory if the skolly limit was ~50-55ish...

What we really need is a separate division of football.

---

Maybe but you have try a bunch of other stuff before going nuclear. I don't think a 2nd football division is needed. I think lowering scholarships to 70-75 would help immensely

The new football division that boots half the power 5 just isn't going to happen. Would involve way to much litigation and the destruction of too many great fan bases with 60+K stadiums. Not going the happen.

I realize that's one of those things Bama fans talk about to feed their ego while drinking beers at the hunting camp, but it would be a problem for other sports as well. You going to boot Kentucky and MSU from football and then expect us to play basketball and baseball against you?

Again, I get it would be cool to some degree, but it ain't happening in your lifetime. Scholarship reductions is actually a realistic idea that could happen fairly easy, especially with COVID