College Football is a Terrible Product

[ShotgunDawg]

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

[ShotgunDawg]

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.

[TUSK]

You can limit schollies though

You thinking 20/Year, Capped at 70?

[ShotgunDawg]

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

[Maverick91]

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.

[Maverick91]

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.

[TUSK]

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*

[Maverick91]

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.

[ShotgunDawg]

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.

[Maverick91]

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!

[Maverick91]

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.

[ShotgunDawg]

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.

[Maverick91]

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.

[TUSK]

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.

[ShotgunDawg]

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.

[Jarius]

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.

[TUSK]

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.

[ShotgunDawg]

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