Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 118

Thread: College Football is a Terrible Product

  1. #1
    Senior Member ShotgunDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    34,375
    vCash
    1200

    College Football is a Terrible Product

    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. We?ll see
    Last edited by ShotgunDawg; 10-25-2020 at 12:11 PM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member ShotgunDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    34,375
    vCash
    1200
    Ole Miss vs Auburn and Penn State vs Indiana were great but those were just exhibition games because they were meaningless due to the structure of the sport being broken.

  3. #3
    Senior Member THE Bruce Dickinson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Starkville, MS
    Posts
    1,027
    vCash
    600
    I actually made a similar comment yesterday.

    Oklahoma State is currently number 6, and they would get drummed by Clemson, Bama, or Ohio State.

    It used to be where most top 10 could beat one another depending on the circumstances. That's not the case anymore and it makes college football pretty awful to watch at times.

  4. #4
    Senior Member ShotgunDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    34,375
    vCash
    1200
    Quote Originally Posted by THE Bruce Dickinson View Post
    I actually made a similar comment yesterday.

    Oklahoma State is currently number 6, and they would get drummed by Clemson, Bama, or Ohio State.

    It used to be where most top 10 could beat one another depending on the circumstances. That's not the case anymore and it makes college football pretty awful to watch at times.
    Agree. We?ve currently got 3 programs that are playing an entirely different sport and two more that are able to lineup the stars and compete with them (LSU and UGA).

    After those teams, college football is great and the games are competitive. But all those games are exhibitions because they?re meaningless.

    It?s just terrible structure. College basketball and baseball have much better structures. Both sports have brands and blue bloods who are good every year, but the gap between the blue bloods and everyone else is just narrow enough for quality competition.
    Last edited by ShotgunDawg; 10-25-2020 at 12:30 PM.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    4,141
    vCash
    1888
    I agree.

    I'm trying to think over the years. I guess Oregon and Clemson are two programs that have really elevated their program To A NC level over my lifetime. However for the most part the mid tier P5s of the 80s are the same programs today. However OHSt and Bama are even better.

    Clemson would be the outlier though and an interesting case study. It would be extremely interesting to know all of Clemson's secrets. To learn exactly how they built that program.

  6. #6
    Senior Member ShotgunDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    34,375
    vCash
    1200
    Quote Originally Posted by Maroonthirteen View Post
    I agree.

    I'm trying to think over the years. I guess Oregon and Clemson are two programs that have really elevated their program To A NC level over my lifetime. However for the most part the mid tier P5s of the 80s are the same programs today. However OHSt and Bama are even better.

    Clemson would be the outlier though and an interesting case study. It would be extremely interesting to know all of Clemson's secrets. To learn exactly how they built that program.
    I don?t think Oregon has ever been a real natty contender. Very Oklahoma like to me.

    The sport just has to evolve.
    Last edited by ShotgunDawg; 10-25-2020 at 01:47 PM.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    113
    vCash
    600
    Right. The problem has been apparent for quite a while, but the all conference schedules have made it glaring. Allowing so many buy-a-wins injected false hope into the system, but it was a band aid that in reality made things easier to overlook, so the problem grew worse. Most fan bases are left feeling like (and in reality) have little skin in the endgame, more like passing entertainment for a few months out of the year. And meanwhile, if other fanbases are like ours, and I suspect they are, often resort to squabbling and in-fighting and doing little to further their own cause.

  8. #8
    Zone Blocking Specialist coachnorm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    262
    vCash
    600
    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. We?ll see

    Being that there are currently 3-5 programs playing at a different level, no one else deserves to be playing for a championship. When someone else joins the group they deserve consideration. The Larger conference schedules expose the contenders from the pretenders. This guarantees the quality of the product. I believe that any program that schedules a FCS program should be disqualified from the 4 team playoff. Also a championship team should prove itself by going on the road 6 times in 12 games, 7 home games equals a disqualification. This is great quality control which forces competition to prove a worthy champion without controversy.

  9. #9
    Senior Member ShotgunDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    34,375
    vCash
    1200
    Quote Originally Posted by coachnorm View Post
    Being that there are currently 3-5 programs playing at a different level, no one else deserves to be playing for a championship. When someone else joins the group they deserve consideration. The Larger conference schedules expose the contenders from the pretenders. This guarantees the quality of the product. I believe that any program that schedules a FCS program should be disqualified from the 4 team playoff. Also a championship team should prove itself by going on the road 6 times in 12 games, 7 home games equals a disqualification. This is great quality control which forces competition to prove a worthy champion without controversy.
    You don’t get it.

    The recruit hoarding prevents anyone else from remotely being able to step up and compete. The class structure of the sport simply won’t allow it.

    The sport cannot grow like this. College is the equivalent of giving 3 NFL teams all the first round draft picks every year. It doesn’t work
    CAN'T PUT A SADDLE ON A MUSTANG

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

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    40
    vCash
    600
    The problem is that 2 things essentially pay for all other athletics at most places. Football and the NCAA tournament. The powers to be don?t care about competitive balance. I wish we would drop the signing day cap to 20ish and lower overall schollys to 75. That?s 5 players a year Bama and LSU can?t sign and hoard. Give those schollys to baseball but at the end of the day if it happened the schollys would go to a women?s sport.

  11. #11
    Senior Member msstate7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    57,827
    vCash
    7939
    I've moved to nfl more these days. Nfl is a vastly superior product. College football without huge crowds and tailgating isn't as good anyway, regardless of competitive imbalance

  12. #12
    Senior Member ShotgunDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    34,375
    vCash
    1200
    Quote Originally Posted by msstate7 View Post
    I've moved to nfl more these days. Nfl is a vastly superior product. College football without huge crowds and tailgating isn't as good anyway, regardless of competitive imbalance
    Competitive balance to at least some degree would really help college football.

    The lack of tailgating and such has exploited how bad the product is when you can only watch the top teams for a quarter before the game is out of hand.

    Just a terrible structure.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Madison, Alabama
    Posts
    11,944
    vCash
    1883832
    Quote Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg View Post
    You don’t get it.

    The recruit hoarding prevents anyone else from remotely being able to step up and compete. The class structure of the sport simply won’t allow it.

    The sport cannot grow like this. College is the equivalent of giving 3 NFL teams all the first round draft picks every year. It doesn’t work
    It's not as bad was when Bear Bryant had unlimited scholarships, but the present cap needs to be reduced. Alabama is still hoarding really good players.

  14. #14
    Senior Member Todd4State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    33,560
    vCash
    1200
    It needs to be 65 scholarships period.

  15. #15
    Senior Member ShotgunDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    34,375
    vCash
    1200
    Quote Originally Posted by RocketDawg View Post
    It's not as bad was when Bear Bryant had unlimited scholarships, but the present cap needs to be reduced. Alabama is still hoarding really good players.
    Totally agree but to a large degree in the Bryant years college football wasn?t a massively consumed, money making product.

    The sport just has to evolve. It?s not good for the sport to only have 3-5 contenders

    A full schedule of exhibition games for 90+% of the teams in the country isn?t a quality product.
    Last edited by ShotgunDawg; 10-25-2020 at 04:33 PM.

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Madison, Alabama
    Posts
    11,944
    vCash
    1883832
    Quote Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg View Post
    Totally agree but to a large degree in the Bryant years college football wasn?t a massively consumed, money making product.

    The sport just has to evolve. It?s not good for the sport to only have 3-5 contenders
    That's true, it wasn't the cash cow it is today, but it was still a big deal here in Alabama (Denny Stadium was smaller then than Davis Wade is now though) and other places. Tickets were $5 then instead of near $100, so a little more than inflation. I think television has made it the huge deal it is now.

  17. #17
    Senior Member ShotgunDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    34,375
    vCash
    1200
    Quote Originally Posted by Avelso View Post
    The problem is that 2 things essentially pay for all other athletics at most places. Football and the NCAA tournament. The powers to be don?t care about competitive balance. I wish we would drop the signing day cap to 20ish and lower overall schollys to 75. That?s 5 players a year Bama and LSU can?t sign and hoard. Give those schollys to baseball but at the end of the day if it happened the schollys would go to a women?s sport.
    Hopefully the new transfer rule helps, and lowering schollies would obviously help but that?ll be hugely political.

    Another, outside the box option, is have an optional draft in which players that opt in to the draft get paid and players that don?t can choose where they want to go but don?t get paid.

  18. #18
    Senior Member ShotgunDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    34,375
    vCash
    1200
    Alabama just got the number 1 CB in the country. Check out his final 4... if only someone would step up and compete with them....

    CAN'T PUT A SADDLE ON A MUSTANG

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

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    2,073
    vCash
    600
    Quote Originally Posted by coachnorm View Post
    Being that there are currently 3-5 programs playing at a different level, no one else deserves to be playing for a championship. When someone else joins the group they deserve consideration. The Larger conference schedules expose the contenders from the pretenders. This guarantees the quality of the product. I believe that any program that schedules a FCS program should be disqualified from the 4 team playoff. Also a championship team should prove itself by going on the road 6 times in 12 games, 7 home games equals a disqualification. This is great quality control which forces competition to prove a worthy champion without controversy.
    This isn't about the playoff format or scheduling SOS, as you say there's only a few teams good enough to make the 4 team playoff as is. We're discussing the distribution of talent:

    Imagine if 2 NFL teams got 5 1st round picks apiece each year, and a higher cap. The NFL season would be worthless because everyone knows those 2 teams are going to meet in the Super Bowl. WHy care at all about my team or their standing in the division if they'll get blown out by that super team?

    Well, because the blue bloods have their pick of the litter, they have significantly more talent than anyone else. It's like the NFL scenario I just laid out.

    A solution that Shotgun has always pushed is to reduce scholarships from 85 to 70, and give those scholarships to baseball and other mens sports. That would a) help out those other sports, and b) mean there's 15 less blue chip players per blue blood. Imagine if you took 60 total 4*s from LSU, Bama, UGA, and Florida and distributed them to State, Arky, OM, SC, Vandy, Kentucky, and Mizzou... The games would be far more enjoyable to watch, just like how the NFL has multiple close games every Sunday because the talent is levelish.

  20. #20
    Senior Member Todd4State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    33,560
    vCash
    1200
    Quote Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg View Post
    Hopefully the new transfer rule helps, and lowering schollies would obviously help but that?ll be hugely political.

    Another, outside the box option, is have an optional draft in which players that opt in to the draft get paid and players that don?t can choose where they want to go but don?t get paid.
    You can't have a draft involving kids and where they go to college. It's just not feasible. That's a lawsuit waiting to happen when some kid has his pro career tanked because he got drafted by Ole Miss and couldn't go to Bama.

    The only thing that they can do is lower the amount of scholarships that they give. Which to me is too many based on the fact that every team seems to be giving at least one walk-on a full ride every year. Going with 65 scholarships would probably mean 15 man recruiting classes every year.

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.