Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: CFB monopoly

  1. #1
    Senior Member TheLostDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    1,952
    vCash
    2725

    CFB monopoly

    USA TODAY: How to break up Nick Saban's monopoly at Alabama to improve college football.
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...ip/6630094002/

    Good read

  2. #2
    Senior Member Jack Lambert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    misippi
    Posts
    13,643
    vCash
    2238605444
    I just think kids not in 11th or 12th grade should not be contacted and for the love of god don't offer 8th graders scholarships.

  3. #3
    Senior Member StarkVegasSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    6,199
    vCash
    98074
    Decreasing the scholarship limit is definitely the first place to start. I'd go a step further though and go from 85 to 70. There has to be parity and when you let Bama, OSU, Clemson, and UGA hoard all the talent then you'll never get any.

  4. #4
    Senior Member TrapGame's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    13,168
    vCash
    4975
    Quote Originally Posted by StarkVegasSteve View Post
    Decreasing the scholarship limit is definitely the first place to start. I'd go a step further though and go from 85 to 70. There has to be parity and when you let Bama, OSU, Clemson, and UGA hoard all the talent then you'll never get any.
    Alabama has way too many 5 stars riding the pine.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,223
    vCash
    3200
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Lambert View Post
    I just think kids not in 11th or 12th grade should not be contacted and for the love of god don't offer 8th graders scholarships.
    I can tell you right now from going through it in other sports, it?s a nightmare not being able to talk to coaches.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Maverick91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    2,090
    vCash
    3000
    Why is everyone so hung up on lowering the scholly numbers? I tend to like to idea of putting a cap on the rating of the athlete. Ex. each team is limited to 3x5 stars, 10x4 stars, and 3,2,1 stars at will. it will force teams to evaluate better and the top teams cannot just hoard the talent. If we just lower the amount of schollys then bama is still going to get their 7 five stars and 15 four stars, it wouldn't effect them at all. It doesn't force the talent to look at other schools. Also, the value of the lower rated players would come into play greatly because a lot more of them are going to be needed to fill roster spots.

  7. #7
    Senior Member StarkVegasSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    6,199
    vCash
    98074
    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick91 View Post
    Why is everyone so hung up on lowering the scholly numbers? I tend to like to idea of putting a cap on the rating of the athlete. Ex. each team is limited to 3x5 stars, 10x4 stars, and 3,2,1 stars at will. it will force teams to evaluate better and the top teams cannot just hoard the talent. If we just lower the amount of schollys then bama is still going to get their 7 five stars and 15 four stars, it wouldn't effect them at all. It doesn't force the talent to look at other schools. Also, the value of the lower rated players would come into play greatly because a lot more of them are going to be needed to fill roster spots.
    Ratings are completely subjective and each company rates different. I mean who would be standard? Would it be ESPN? Rivals? 247? Lowering scholarships is a better idea because even though Bama might still get their top end players, it's the low end 5 to the mid 4 stars talents that they have to make decisions on. They can't offer a scholarship to a guy like Byron Young just so we can't have him or a guy like Brandon Turnage. Bama is always going to get the Najee Harris, Devonta Smith, and Jaylen Waddle's of the world. Nothing is going to stop that. Because in your system if Bama has a 5 star they like they can just go to the recruiting service and get the guy dropped down to a 4 star and problem solved.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    1,218
    vCash
    3100
    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick91 View Post
    Why is everyone so hung up on lowering the scholly numbers? I tend to like to idea of putting a cap on the rating of the athlete. Ex. each team is limited to 3x5 stars, 10x4 stars, and 3,2,1 stars at will. it will force teams to evaluate better and the top teams cannot just hoard the talent. If we just lower the amount of schollys then bama is still going to get their 7 five stars and 15 four stars, it wouldn't effect them at all. It doesn't force the talent to look at other schools. Also, the value of the lower rated players would come into play greatly because a lot more of them are going to be needed to fill roster spots.
    I think there's a few problems with that. First, we'd need a governing body giving out stars. Do we really want the NCAA in charge of ranking a kid a 5 star? Won't be long before boosters are paying people to rank a kid a 3 star vs 4 star so they can take him. Then what happens if a kid blows up his senior year. Do you have to drop him if he's bumped up to a 5 star and you're already full?

  9. #9
    Senior Member Maverick91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    2,090
    vCash
    3000
    Quote Originally Posted by StarkVegasSteve View Post
    Ratings are completely subjective and each company rates different. I mean who would be standard? Would it be ESPN? Rivals? 247? Lowering scholarships is a better idea because even though Bama might still get their top end players, it's the low end 5 to the mid 4 stars talents that they have to make decisions on. They can't offer a scholarship to a guy like Byron Young just so we can't have him or a guy like Brandon Turnage. Bama is always going to get the Najee Harris, Devonta Smith, and Jaylen Waddle's of the world. Nothing is going to stop that. Because in your system if Bama has a 5 star they like they can just go to the recruiting service and get the guy dropped down to a 4 star and problem solved.
    Completely agree that is is subjective there would have to be a standard that would have to be meet, how that is come up with, don't ask me. But, that is why they have a cap on the amount of 4 stars they could get. eventually the top level talent or what is considered top level has to be divided up amongst the teams. Again if all they had was 70 schollys they would just not sign the two to three 3 stars that they sign every year. They would still be able to hoard everything that they already hoard.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Tbonewannabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    10,650
    vCash
    3500
    Quote Originally Posted by vv83 View Post
    I think there's a few problems with that. First, we'd need a governing body giving out stars. Do we really want the NCAA in charge of ranking a kid a 5 star? Won't be long before boosters are paying people to rank a kid a 3 star vs 4 star so they can take him. Then what happens if a kid blows up his senior year. Do you have to drop him if he's bumped up to a 5 star and you're already full?
    Bama would just have guys rated a 3 star if they needed to. It isn't like they don't cheat already. The only way to make it more fair is to lower scholly numbers.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    9,923
    vCash
    3200
    Alabama isn't really a college program these days. It's something different.

  12. #12
    Senior Member Interpolation_Dawg_EX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    4,378
    vCash
    62623
    Quote Originally Posted by Bothrops View Post
    Alabama isn't really a college program these days. It's something different.
    It's probably that "NFL style" S&C program.

  13. #13
    Senior Member maroonmania's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    19,160
    vCash
    3700
    Nice to see someone from a national publication finally willing to at least broach the topic of scholarship reductions. Its seemingly the taboo subject but the only real meaningful way to make football more competitive from top to bottom.

  14. #14
    Senior Member War Machine Dawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    N5 London Colney
    Posts
    10,471
    vCash
    3921
    I'd drop the limit to 65, maybe even 60. If the NFL can make it with a 54 man roster, I don't know why colleges couldn't make it with 65. You're realistically only playing about 30-35 players regularly on a weekly basis, barring injury. But I think we can all agree that the current 85 scholarship rule is absurd and way too many.

    Side note: How ironic would it be that the dominance of Bama (and to a lesser degree Northern Miss in the 50s) that led to the original imposition of the current scholarships limit could result in the limit being lowered again?
    It's the roller coaster of hope that this program keeps us on that makes it hell being a State fan. - CadaverDawg, 10/15/22


  15. #15
    Senior Member maroonmania's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    19,160
    vCash
    3700
    Quote Originally Posted by War Machine Dawg View Post
    I'd drop the limit to 65, maybe even 60. If the NFL can make it with a 54 man roster, I don't know why colleges couldn't make it with 65. You're realistically only playing about 30-35 players regularly on a weekly basis, barring injury. But I think we can all agree that the current 85 scholarship rule is absurd and way too many.

    Side note: How ironic would it be that the dominance of Bama (and to a lesser degree Northern Miss in the 50s) that led to the original imposition of the current scholarships limit could result in the limit being lowered again?
    Not sure it would be practical to go much below 70. NFL may have a 54 man roster but they can sign free agents or call up players from their practice squad if a player is lost due to injury during the season. Colleges only have the players they have when they start the season. Plus nobody in the NFL on a roster is 'redshirting' and everyone is expected to contribute in some way which a lot of guys straight out of HS on a college roster are not. But there is no argument to be had that 85 is way too many and constitutes a glut that allows a program like Alabama to oversign and then process out players that don't measure up to Saban's standard.

  16. #16
    Senior Member Maroonthirteen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    6,007
    vCash
    4388
    Alabama smoked Kentucky in Rupp last night.

    Time to lower basketball scholarships.** Hahahaha.

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.