Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 118

Thread: College Football is a Terrible Product

  1. #81
    Senior Member Maverick91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    2,090
    vCash
    3000
    Quote Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg View Post
    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.

  2. #82
    Senior Member Maroonthirteen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    6,007
    vCash
    4388
    Quote Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg View Post
    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.

  3. #83
    Senior Member Maverick91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    2,090
    vCash
    3000
    Quote Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg View Post
    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.

  4. #84
    Senior Member Maroonthirteen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    6,007
    vCash
    4388
    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.

  5. #85
    Senior Member maroonmania's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    19,160
    vCash
    3700
    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick91 View Post
    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.

  6. #86
    Senior Member ShotgunDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    37,276
    vCash
    3700
    Quote Originally Posted by Maroonthirteen View Post
    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.
    CAN'T PUT A SADDLE ON A MUSTANG

    Quit Your Bi$&$&?!, He's Not Going to Run the Ball More

  7. #87
    Senior Member Maverick91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    2,090
    vCash
    3000
    Quote Originally Posted by maroonmania View Post
    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.

  8. #88
    Senior Member BB30's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Columbus, Ms
    Posts
    2,123
    vCash
    3523
    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick91 View Post
    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.

  9. #89
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    9,923
    vCash
    3200
    [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.

  10. #90
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    3,795
    vCash
    3100
    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick91 View Post
    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

  11. #91
    Senior Member StarkVegasSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    6,199
    vCash
    98074
    Quote Originally Posted by the_real_MSU_is_us View Post
    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.

  12. #92
    Senior Member ShotgunDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    37,276
    vCash
    3700
    [QUOTE=Bothrops;1280775]
    Quote Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg View Post
    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
    CAN'T PUT A SADDLE ON A MUSTANG

    Quit Your Bi$&$&?!, He's Not Going to Run the Ball More

  13. #93
    Senior Member ShotgunDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    37,276
    vCash
    3700
    Quote Originally Posted by the_real_MSU_is_us View Post
    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
    CAN'T PUT A SADDLE ON A MUSTANG

    Quit Your Bi$&$&?!, He's Not Going to Run the Ball More

  14. #94
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    8,588
    vCash
    3100
    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick91 View Post
    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.

  15. #95
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    3,795
    vCash
    3100
    Quote Originally Posted by R2Dawg View Post
    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

  16. #96
    Senior Member maroonmania's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    19,160
    vCash
    3700
    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick91 View Post
    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.

  17. #97
    Senior Member maroonmania's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    19,160
    vCash
    3700
    Quote Originally Posted by R2Dawg View Post
    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.

  18. #98
    Senior Member maroonmania's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    19,160
    vCash
    3700
    Quote Originally Posted by the_real_MSU_is_us View Post

    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.

  19. #99
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    3,795
    vCash
    3100
    Quote Originally Posted by maroonmania View Post
    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
    Last edited by the_real_MSU_is_us; 10-26-2020 at 01:13 PM.

  20. #100
    Senior Member ShotgunDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    37,276
    vCash
    3700
    Quote Originally Posted by the_real_MSU_is_us View Post
    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.
    CAN'T PUT A SADDLE ON A MUSTANG

    Quit Your Bi$&$&?!, He's Not Going to Run the Ball More

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Disclaimer: Elitedawgs is a privately owned and operated forum that is managed by alumni of Mississippi State University. This website is in no way affiliated with the Mississippi State University, The Southeastern Conference (SEC) or the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The views and opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the post author and may not reflect the views of other members of this forum or elitedawgs.com. The interactive nature of the elitedawgs.com forums makes it impossible for elitedawgs.com to assume responsibility for any of the content posted at this site. Ideas, thoughts, suggestion, comments, opinions, advice and observations made by participants at elitedawgs.com are not endorsed by elitedawgs.com
Elitedawgs: A Mississippi State Fan Forum, Mississippi State Football, Mississippi State Basketball, Mississippi State Baseball, Mississippi State Athletics. Mississippi State message board.