What is the Athletic Department Going to Do To Get this Program Back on Track?

[Coursesuper]

This I agree with. Until you make the sport more competitive and fair. For example, there is no reason we should have 85 players. Reduce them by 15. Change the caps on recruiting so teams can keep the 70.

Change the play offs. Because the competition will be better.

Reduce the games played to 2 OOC increase the playoffs to top 12.

Move the first games 3 weeks later than current start weekend.

Do you really believe that reducing the scholarship number would benefit MSU?

[Coach007]

Do you really believe that reducing the scholarship number would benefit MSU?

I'm thinking the sport in general. But yes.

[Coursesuper]

[QUOTE=Coach007;1149801]I'm thinking the sport in general. But yes.[/QUOTE

So you believe there is a level playing field for all, every school has the same exact advantages and disadvantages. And on that note I want to ask you a serious question. What is Mississippi State football actually playing for?

[ShotgunDawg]

Do you really believe that reducing the scholarship number would benefit MSU?

Absolutely, without a doubt it would help MSU

[ShotgunDawg]

[QUOTE=Coursesuper;1149806]

I'm thinking the sport in general. But yes.[/QUOTE

So you believe there is a level playing field for all, every school has the same exact advantages and disadvantages. And on that note I want to ask you a serious question. What is Mississippi State football actually playing for?

Nobody said there should be a level playing field, but the margin for error has to grow smaller for the good of the game.

If run correctly, programs like MSU, Ole Miss, South Carolina, Ok State, etc should have the ability to compete for a national championship. That can be true while the blue bloods are still the best programs with the most talent. The gap has just gotten too large for anyone to be interested

college football needs a system that kind of works like MLB. In MLB, the Yankees, Dodgers, Cardinal, Cubs, & Boston are usually the best teams but the sport also provides a path for the Kansas City Royals to win a World Series if built correctly. College football provides no such hope & it's a huge problem

[MaroonFlounder]

Absolutely, without a doubt it would help MSU

Yeah...reduce scholarships...and then have an injury-riddled season like we are experiencing now, and see how we end up, sacrificing an entire season, and having to endure a shitty season because we are playing walk-ons.

You either think too much, or not at all, there is no in-between with you.

[Coursesuper]

[QUOTE=ShotgunDawg;1149810]

Nobody said there should be a level playing field, but the margin for error has to grow smaller for the good of the game.

If run correctly, programs like MSU, Ole Miss, South Carolina, Ok State, etc should have the ability to compete for a national championship. That can be true while the blue bloods are still the best programs with the most talent. The gap has just gotten too large for anyone to be interested

college football needs a system that kind of works like MLB. In MLB, the Yankees, Dodgers, Cardinal, Cubs, & Boston are usually the best teams but the sport also provides a path for the Kansas City Royals to win a World Series if built correctly. College football provides no such hope & it's a huge problem

Your one task there but I don't think scholarship reductions with have the affect many then they will.

Reducing the scholarship number doesn't benefit MSU or any other program trying to compete with the top of the heap. The kids that want to go to Alabama, LSU, Ohio State and so forth are still going to go there, the scholarship limit isn't going to more equality distribute talent. It's will only make schools like MSU less deep because we won't be able take any chances on a marginal recruit on our board because there will be no spot for that kid.

It will benefit the MAC, Sun Belt, AAC, CUSA and the FCS division.

[ShotgunDawg]

Yeah...reduce scholarships...and then have an injury-riddled season like we are experiencing now, and see how we end up, sacrificing an entire season, and having to endure a shitty season because we are playing walk-ons.

You either think too much, or not at all, there is no in-between with you.

Maybe, but Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Ohio State, etc would be susceptible to the same thing. You aren't thinking here.

[ShotgunDawg]

[QUOTE=Coursesuper;1149863]

the scholarship limit isn't going to more equality distribute talent.

This is a completely illogical statement

The cascading effect of limited scholarship would ABSOLUTELY distribute talent

[Coursesuper]

Maybe, but Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Ohio State, etc would be susceptible to the same thing. You aren't thinking here.

Disagree wholeheartedly, they will be able to withstand this much more than others, kids trying to get to the league are still going to those schools their depth won't be as effected nearly as much.

[MaroonFlounder]

O[QUOTE=ShotgunDawg;1149866]

This is a completely illogical statement

The cascading effect of limited scholarship would ABSOLUTELY distribute talent

No, it would mean Bama becomes an even bigger monopoly in the SEC.

[ShotgunDawg]

Disagree wholeheartedly, they will be able to withstand this much more than others, kids trying to get to the league are still going to those schools their depth won't be as effected nearly as much.

Again, you aren't thinking here. Your position is illogical

[ShotgunDawg]

[QUOTE=MaroonFlounder;1149873]O

No, it would mean Bama becomes an even bigger monopoly in the SEC.

No chance unless you believe that the last 20 players on MSU's roster gets MSU closer to beating Bama than the MSU having the last 20 players on Bama's roster on theirs

[Coursesuper]

[QUOTE=ShotgunDawg;1149866]

This is a completely illogical statement

The cascading effect of limited scholarship would ABSOLUTELY distribute talent

Those schools aren't going to sign less 4 or 5 stars.

[TUSK]

Disagree wholeheartedly, they will be able to withstand this much more than others, kids trying to get to the league are still going to those schools their depth won't be as effected nearly as much.

I think what a scholarship reduction would do is reallocate a lot of the 3 star type players that sign on with the top ~5-10 teams to the other ~120 teams...

So, let's say skollies are reduced to 75... that's ~50-100 3 star guys spread across the rest of the field... While all schools would see an increase in overall talent, "Average per recruit" ranking would increase more for those upper echelon programs than it would for everyone else.

JMO

[ShotgunDawg]

[QUOTE=Coursesuper;1149876]

Those schools aren't going to sign less 4 or 5 stars.

Uhhhh, yes they would because they wouldn't have room.

[Coursesuper]

[QUOTE=ShotgunDawg;1149875]

O

No chance unless you believe that the last 20 players on MSU's roster gets MSU closer to beating Bama than the MSU having the last 20 players on Bama's roster on theirs

That only works in a perfect world.

[Coursesuper]

I think what a scholarship reduction would do is reallocate a lot of the 3 star type players that sign on with the top ~5-10 teams to the other ~120 teams...

So, let's say skollies are reduced to 75... that's ~50-100 3 star guys spread across the rest of the field... While all schools would see an increase in overall talent, "Average per recruit" ranking would increase more for those upper echelon programs than it would for everyone else.

JMO

Exactly.

[ShotgunDawg]

I think what a scholarship reduction would do is reallocate a lot of the 3 star type players that sign on with the top ~5-10 teams to the other ~120 teams...

So, let's say skollies are reduced to 75... that's ~50-100 3 star guys spread across the rest of the field... While all schools would see an increase in overall talent, "Average per recruit" ranking would increase more for those upper echelon programs than it would for everyone else.

JMO

But that would still close the gap.

- Average recruit ranking is meaningless if the average is just increased due to a lowering of numbers. Bama would have no more talent than they do now

- Even if most of the re-allocation is 3 stars, the 3 stars that Bama, for example signs, are still better 3 stars than what everyone else is signing.

There is absolutely no argument that lowering scholarships wouldn't create a better product in college football

[TUSK]

But that would still close the gap.

- Average recruit ranking is meaningless if the average is just increased due to a lowering of numbers. Bama has no more talent than they do now

- Even if most of the re-allocation is 3 stars, the 3 stars that Bama, for example signs, are still better 3 stars than what everyone else is signing.

There is absolutely no argument that lowering scholarships wouldn't create a better product in college football

I don't disagree with any of that... It would just be a really negligible difference, IMO... I do think it'd create a bigger gap between mid-tier programs that would scoop up most of the "good" 3 stars vs lower tier programs...

But, that would be unfair...*