Here is the Problem with College Football

We focus a lot on Alabama, for obvious reasons, but today let's take a look at what Ohio State has going on and how absurd this is when considering that most people would like to watch a competitive product on TV.

Last night the #1 player in 2022 class 5 star QB Quinn Ewers decommitted from Texas and immediately got a bunch of crystal balls to Ohio State.

Then this morning, the media celebrates that with ESPN's Adam Rittenberg writing this article that is likely a copy and paste from the same article that has been written for 10 straight years

Lastly, if Ewers commits to Ohio State, this would be there QB room. This is what a monopoly on winning looks like.

Quinn Ewers- 2022 - .9994 5 star https://247sports.com/Player/Quinn-Ewers-45572600/
Kyle McCord - 2021 - .9883 5 star https://247sports.com/Player/Kyle-McCord-46047962/
CJ Stroud - 2020 - .9780 4 star https://247sports.com/Player/CJ-Stroud-46038118/
Jack Miller 2020 - .8951 4 star https://247sports.com/Player/Jack-Miller-46037839/

What are we doing?

This is hoarding at it's finest and directly hurts college football.

I don't get your post. 2 4 stars and 2 5 stars committed over 3 years. This is any big program? Up until this week we had 2 4 stars and 1 5 star on our roster at QB. You can only play 1 QB at a time, one of these 4 will transfer out at some point anyway. I think what Alabama does is more hoarding of having multiple 5 stars at positions that can have 2+ on the field at once. I wish we'd just cut down on roster size and be done with it. Most the MS players that Alabama, LSU, Auburn, etc. take from us arent option one, that would greatly benefit us.

Make a NY6 bowl? You can only bring in 22 next year.
Make the CFP? You can only bring in 19 next year.
Win the CFP? You can only bring in 19 for the next 3 years.

These teams will still be very talented, but they won't be able to build dynasties by stockpiling so much quality depth. And this way you don't take away hundreds of opportunities nationwide by cutting everyone's scholarships.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DEDawg

I don't get your post. 2 4 stars and 2 5 stars committed over 3 years. This is any big program? Up until this week we had 2 4 stars and 1 5 star on our roster at QB. You can only play 1 QB at a time, one of these 4 will transfer out at some point anyway. I think what Alabama does is more hoarding of having multiple 5 stars at positions that can have 2+ on the field at once. I wish we'd just cut down on roster size and be done with it. Most the MS players that Alabama, LSU, Auburn, etc. take from us arent option one, that would greatly benefit us.

---

The point is that 5 stars are choosing to go compete for playing time vs other 5 stars instead of going to another school, where they're needed more, can get on the field quickly, & play the same schedule as the blue blood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

The point is that 5 stars are choosing to go compete for playing time vs other 5 stars instead of going to another school, where they're needed more, can get on the field quickly, & play the same schedule as the blue blood.

---

But that's their choice. They're going to choose that school whether the roster size is 85 or 70. These kids are choosing to go places that have a history of putting kids in the league. We're starting to get that with the D Line but places like OSU put people in the league at every position not just 1. I'd do the same thing. All these kids are supremely confident in their skills and want the chance to play and compete against the best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

The point is that 5 stars are choosing to go compete for playing time vs other 5 stars instead of going to another school, where they're needed more, can get on the field quickly, & play the same schedule as the blue blood.

---

Because of two things, exposure and the chance to win a national championship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StarkVegasSteve

But that's their choice. They're going to choose that school whether the roster size is 85 or 70. These kids are choosing to go places that have a history of putting kids in the league. We're starting to get that with the D Line but places like OSU put people in the league at every position not just 1. I'd do the same thing. All these kids are supremely confident in their skills and want the chance to play and compete against the best.

---

But they only put guys in the league because they get all the best players.

It's a completely self fulfilling prophecy. Everyone gets why they go there. It's not a mystery. But for the good of the game, there needs to be rules put on place that encourages players to spread the 17 out

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Offshore Dawg

Because of two things, exposure and the chance to win a national championship.

---

Which is a self fulfilling prophecy. I totally get why they go there, but there should be ways to entice the talent to spread out for the good of the game. Once that happens, everyone will be producing NFL talent

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quaoarsking

Make a NY6 bowl? You can only bring in 22 next year.
Make the CFP? You can only bring in 19 next year.
Win the CFP? You can only bring in 19 for the next 3 years.

These teams will still be very talented, but they won't be able to build dynasties by stockpiling so much quality depth. And this way you don't take away hundreds of opportunities nationwide by cutting everyone's scholarships.

---

Great idea. Best thought I've seen on dealing with the dynasties. Pro sports do similar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quaoarsking

Make a NY6 bowl? You can only bring in 22 next year.
Make the CFP? You can only bring in 19 next year.
Win the CFP? You can only bring in 19 for the next 3 years.

These teams will still be very talented, but they won't be able to build dynasties by stockpiling so much quality depth. And this way you don't take away hundreds of opportunities nationwide by cutting everyone's scholarships.

---

I don't hate this idea at all. This is way to curb dynasties without the problems that lowering the scholarship limits would bring. You'd really be able to see who the true talent evaluators were. Also, Florida would constantly be good because 1) Dan is a HELL of a talent evaluator and 2) Winning more would mean he'd have to recruit less. He'd be begging for the 19 limit at the NY6 level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quaoarsking

Make a NY6 bowl? You can only bring in 22 next year.
Make the CFP? You can only bring in 19 next year.
Win the CFP? You can only bring in 19 for the next 3 years.

These teams will still be very talented, but they won't be able to build dynasties by stockpiling so much quality depth. And this way you don't take away hundreds of opportunities nationwide by cutting everyone's scholarships.

---

That goes hand in hand w socialism. No thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homedawg

That goes hand in hand w socialism. No thanks.

---

Do you oppose Mississippi State getting an equal cut of SEC Network revenue, or an equal cut of the bowl money?

Or why not do away with scholarship limits altogether and let the free market determine how many scholarships Alabama and Mississippi State can offer?

And maybe the SEC should decide who plays in which bowl based on money rather than record. I'm sure the Orange Bowl back in 2014 would have rather had Florida than us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homedawg

That goes hand in hand w socialism. No thanks.

---

Sports and entertainment aren't the economy.

Capitalism works because it encourages innovation, but the current system doesn't encourage anything but cheating

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quaoarsking

Do you oppose Mississippi State getting an equal cut of SEC Network revenue, or an equal cut of the bowl money?

Or why not do away with scholarship limits altogether and let the free market determine how many scholarships Alabama and Mississippi State can offer?

And maybe the SEC should decide who plays in which bowl based on money rather than record. I'm sure the Orange Bowl back in 2014 would have rather had Florida than us.

---

Correct.

As I've said 100 times, good economies are mostly capitalistic with enough government intervention to make not sure not too many people pile up at the bottom.

Well, 90% of college football is piled up at the bottom. So there obviously needs to be more government(NCAA) intervention.

The key to capitalism being a sustainable economic system is that the average person has just enough hope of winning in the system that they continue to play the game and thus innovation continues to happen and new and better companies are created.

College football capitalism doesn't work because the average program doesn't have enough chance of winning to encourage them to keep playing the game. The games suck

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

College football capitalism doesn't work because the average program doesn't have enough chance of winning to encourage them to keep playing the game.

---

UCF disagrees***

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StateDawg44

UCF disagrees***

---

Their national championship was an anomaly. **

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homedawg

That goes hand in hand w socialism. No thanks.

---

That goes hand in hand with what basically every pro sports league does with a draft. You can’t force a kid to choose a certain school so this is the next best thing besides scholarship limitations to encourage parity in the sport.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

Sports and entertainment aren't the economy.

Capitalism works because it encourages innovation, but the current system doesn't encourage anything but cheating

---

Agree, gun. Leveling the playing field in sports is what all the rules have done. Even capitalism has protections like monopolies of business. Capitalism works because it rewards those that work hard and does not take away from those that earn it and give to those who don't. That is also different than charity.

85 scholarships was a move to limit teams (Bama being one) from hoarding all the talent. More corrections are needed today but just minor ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

Sports and entertainment aren't the economy.

Capitalism works because it encourages innovation, but the current system doesn't encourage anything but cheating

---

Ummm. . . . capitalism encourages hoarding similar to what you are talking about with college football.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawg2003

Ummm. . . . capitalism encourages hoarding similar to what you are talking about with college football.

---

Agree. That’s why the United States doesn’t have a purely capitalistic economy. Government regulations counters it. College football needs more government regulation. That’s our point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

Sports and entertainment aren't the economy.

Capitalism works because it encourages innovation, but the current system doesn't encourage anything but cheating

---

Look you can have your opinion and I'll have mine. It's aight. I think that way is bs. Of that happened to us in baseball you'd think the same way. Sorry. So we may never be big time. But a bunch of bs rules punishing the best is just bs.... and we still wouldn't win it all so there's that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quaoarsking

Do you oppose Mississippi State getting an equal cut of SEC Network revenue, or an equal cut of the bowl money?

Or why not do away with scholarship limits altogether and let the free market determine how many scholarships Alabama and Mississippi State can offer?

And maybe the SEC should decide who plays in which bowl based on money rather than record. I'm sure the Orange Bowl back in 2014 would have rather had Florida than us.

---

The tv deal would be hard to decipher and break up. And yes us getting someone's portion of their bowl is bs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homedawg

That goes hand in hand w socialism. No thanks.

---

Do you hate the NFL? Its essentially socialism that the worst team gets the first pick in every round of the draft the next year (they don't even snake it). Really doesn't matter anyway though, the NCAA will never go for a plan that actually penalizes a school for winning a championship. They will always have every school following the same guidelines apart from sanctions. Only way to try and improve things is to reduce total scholarships across the board so the Alabamas and Ohio States can only hoard maybe 20 or 22 players per year rather than 25. The more players the top 10 schools in the country can sign, the less talent that is left for everyone else to sign. But heck, even on this board, we got lots of MSU fans against supporting that so even that probably has no chance to pass. I guess these type fans were against the original legislation taking unlimited scholarships down to 85 total as well. Seems we are stuck with this crappy system I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homedawg

Look you can have your opinion and I'll have mine. It's aight. I think that way is bs. Of that happened to us in baseball you'd think the same way. Sorry. So we may never be big time. But a bunch of bs rules punishing the best is just bs.... and we still wouldn't win it all so there's that.

---

I actually like how baseball talent is distributed. Just wish it were full schollies

Mighty impressive that you enjoy the same 3-5 team having A chance to win each. Better man than me.

Question:

100 years from now, do the same 5 teams or so still dominate college football?

Without rule changes, I would say basically yes. It?ll fluctuate a hair, but not too much.