You can limit schollies though
Printable View
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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