College Football is a Terrible Product

[ShotgunDawg]

It also helps that they're in the ACC where they only have 2-3 tough games a year. .

Only playing 2-3 tough games a year allows you to build a winning culture.

[Maverick91]

Only playing 2-3 tough games a year allows you to build a winning culture.

I have to disagree. even if you limit to 60 players then that just means that Bama gets to play everyone that they usually play, it wouldn't affect the quality of player that they receive, and teams like State would not be affected either in helping bridge the gap, it might help us in the aspect that Bama could only take in so many. All it would do is affect the depth of the quality of player they have. Honestly I see lowering the scholarships hurting more than helping because you have less individuals to practice against thus more injuries would occur.

[maroonmania]

I have to disagree. even if you limit to 60 players then that just means that Bama gets to play everyone that they usually play, it wouldn't affect the quality of player that they receive, and teams like State would not be affected either in helping bridge the gap, it might help us in the aspect that Bama could only take in so many. All it would do is affect the depth of the quality of player they have. Honestly I see lowering the scholarships hurting more than helping because you have less individuals to practice against thus more injuries would occur.

So very wrong. It would spread out more of the elite talent and Bama would have to play with who they sign rather than signing more than they need and then processing the ones they sign that don't cut it. This has been gone over ad nauseum. And its been discussed over and over that the elite will continue to be the elite, its all a matter of closing the competitive gap to make college football a better overall product which it would absolutely do.

[Maverick91]

So very wrong. It would spread out more of the elite talent and Bama would have to play with who they sign rather than signing more than they need and then processing the ones they sign that don't cut it. This has been gone over ad nauseum. And its been discussed over and over that the elite will continue to be the elite, its all a matter of closing the competitive gap to make college football a better overall product which it would absolutely do.

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.

[maroonmania]

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.

[Maverick91]

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.

[BB30]

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.

[R2Dawg]

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.

[maroonmania]

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.

[ShotgunDawg]

I have to disagree. even if you limit to 60 players then that just means that Bama gets to play everyone that they usually play, it wouldn't affect the quality of player that they receive, and teams like State would not be affected either in helping bridge the gap, it might help us in the aspect that Bama could only take in so many. All it would do is affect the depth of the quality of player they have. Honestly I see lowering the scholarships hurting more than helping because you have less individuals to practice against thus more injuries would occur.

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.

[Maverick91]

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.

[the_real_MSU_is_us]

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

[StarkVegasSteve]

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.

[ShotgunDawg]

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

[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.