Schedule

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maroonmania

Only real way to level the playing field would be to reduce the number of scholarships but nobody will even talk about that. Instead everything is about NIL and further payments to players which is just going to further widen the divide between the elite power programs and everybody else.

---

Correct.

What’s funny is that the best players should want reduced schollies as that offers them a much greater chance of getting paid.

In order to ever pay college athletes, schools have to lean up and reduce Title 9 issues

I predict there will not be an undefeated team in the SEC. If there is a play off there will be a three lose team in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack Lambert

I predict there will not be an undefeated team in the SEC. If there is a play off there will be a three lose team in it.

---

I believe you're right Jack. Bama will lose at least one game. And I hope that game is on 10/31.

who knows with bama... they are not discussing any players opting out.. instead keeping it in house Saban said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

Correct.

What?s funny is that the best players should want reduced schollies as that offers them a much greater chance of getting paid.

In order to ever pay college athletes, schools have to lean up and reduce Title 9 issues

---

If the SEC/P5 can remove themselves from the NCAA or get greater autonomy, maybe there could be a system where the number of new scholarships (not the total number) is increased to 30, BUT you lose 1 the following year for every conference game you win this year. So at least the teams at the bottom of the standings get some kind of way to catch back up. So this year, we could bring in 27, while Arkansas brings in 30 and LSU brings in 22. This is me spitballing, and I haven't done any kind of long-term analysis on what this would mean, but it seems like it would nudge the teams toward parity without forcing it.

You're never going to make Vanderbilt as attractive as Alabama to the elite recruits, but you can at least give them more chances to find 3-star diamonds and coach them up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quaoarsking

If the SEC/P5 can remove themselves from the NCAA or get greater autonomy, maybe there could be a system where the number of new scholarships (not the total number) is increased to 30, BUT you lose 1 the following year for every conference game you win this year. So at least the teams at the bottom of the standings get some kind of way to catch back up. So this year, we could bring in 27, while Arkansas brings in 30 and LSU brings in 22. This is me spitballing, and I haven't done any kind of long-term analysis on what this would mean, but it seems like it would nudge the teams toward parity without forcing it.

You're never going to make Vanderbilt as attractive as Alabama to the elite recruits, but you can at least give them more chances to find 3-star diamonds and coach them up.

---

Going to be impossible I think to get any sort of parity that people view as fewer opportunities for kids to go to school. DOesn't matter if the total number of scholarships offered across the SEC are the same; people will view Joe Bob not getting a scholarship to his state school b/c they only offer 22 while Arkansas offers 27 to people who are not Joe Bob as inequitable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnson85

Going to be impossible I think to get any sort of parity that people view as fewer opportunities for kids to go to school. DOesn't matter if the total number of scholarships offered across the SEC are the same; people will view Joe Bob not getting a scholarship to his state school b/c they only offer 22 while Arkansas offers 27 to people who are not Joe Bob as inequitable.

---

That doesn't really bother me. If you live in Montana, the Dakotas, Maine, or New Hampshire, your state school doesn't offer as many football scholarships as most state schools. If you live in Alaska or Vermont, your state school doesn't even have college football scholarships to begin with.

So I may be lost. But are y?all saying reducing scholarships will create more parity against the big boys? Seriously we would pick up better athletes but so would they. Fewer scholarships means the big boys still get the elite. We in turn get the next group and then the non power 5 gets stronger on players we can?t develop. So you still have the elite being elite. Us still at a talent deficit and the non power 5 becoming stronger.
I like that it can help the non power 5 and lower divisions but it still leaves us in the middle weaker because we still can?t close the gap while we lose the developmental players that have kept us competitive

Parity meh. E same people that want parity in football to improve our position which it probably still wouldn't, would be raising hell if baseball made it where bama could compete w us. Put your big boy drawers on and make the most of what you have. We will never be a national contender year in year out. Once in a blue moon? Dan proved that's possible.

Also you are taking opportunities away from talented players because there are less opportunities. Either way you are keeping power to the blue bloods. Giving fewer athletes more power and eliminating the opportunities for the diamonds who may mature later and give up their dreams

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homedawg

Parity meh. E same people that want parity in football to improve our position which it probably still wouldn't, would be raising hell if baseball made it where bama could compete w us. Put your big boy drawers on and make the most of what you have. We will never be a national contender year in year out. Once in a blue moon? Dan proved that's possible.

---

This is dead on.
On another note, put your big boy drawers on and take the bet I offered you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cowbell

This is dead on.
On another note, put your big boy drawers on and take the bet I offered you.

---

What bet? I must've missed it
ETA. Ha hell no. I'm not taking less than what I can get in Vegas. But I'll take 100 from you and I'll put up 500. Just like my original bet or I'll even let you go 50-250your call.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homedawg

What bet? I must've missed it
ETA. Ha hell no. I'm not taking less than what I can get in Vegas. But I'll take 100 from you and I'll put up 500. Just like my original bet or I'll even let you go 50-250your call.

---

You said there is no chance. I'm literally offering you free money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

So because they are desperate, they are scary? Is Vandy not also desperate?

---

Yeah...a difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawgcap

So I may be lost. But are y?all saying reducing scholarships will create more parity against the big boys? Seriously we would pick up better athletes but so would they. Fewer scholarships means the big boys still get the elite. We in turn get the next group and then the non power 5 gets stronger on players we can?t develop. So you still have the elite being elite. Us still at a talent deficit and the non power 5 becoming stronger.
I like that it can help the non power 5 and lower divisions but it still leaves us in the middle weaker because we still can?t close the gap while we lose the developmental players that have kept us competitive

---

Picked this response to reply to but so many in this chain I disagree with. First, its not about making the elite not be the elite because the best football programs will always be the best programs no matter the scholarship count. Its about closing the gap to make things a little more competitive. Right now there are truly only about 8-10 programs out of the 120+ in FBS that have ANY realistic chance to win a NC. If you reduced say from 85 to 75 scholarships total and took 10 away from Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, LSU, Georgia, etc. and distributed those guys out to other programs it would close the talent gap a bit. That's all anyone is saying. Those elite programs would still be the best but the margin would shrink a bit and make college football more competitive overall (which should make it a better overall product). More parity in the NFL is what makes it the great product that it is today. And football should only need the scholarships needed to field a complete team, it should not be a 'scholarship program'. And those scholarships should not be lost anyway, they should be taken from the fat football programs and moved to scholarship starved programs like men's baseball. I mean college baseball players don't deserve opportunities as well? Additional scholarships in that sport would make it a better quality product as well as more players would go to college rather than sign pro. And its the glut of football scholarships for men that cause all the Title IX issues anyway where there are a ton of women's programs needed to try and balance out the scholarship count where men get none. For example, men soccer players don't deserve ANY opportunities? Bottom line is college football is not very competitive across the board currently and things like NIL is just going to make it even worse because it will just be one more reason for the best prospects to ONLY go to the highest profile programs with the largest fanbases. I mean who really wants to see a football game, even between two P5 programs, where the point spread going in is well over 20? Nobody really, but there are a bunch of those.