How Do We Fix the Dirty Culture of College Recruiting?

[Dawgology]

"You can't win if you don't cheat" - Rick Ray, 57-102 record as a HC

He's the most honest guy I know!! HAHAHAHAHAHAA

[JoseBrown]

"You can't win if you don't cheat" - Rick Ray, 57-102 record as a HC

"It ain't cheating if you don't get caught." And "You ain't trying if you ain't cheating." Both quotes made by Jim Rome.

That's all I remember about him though, and somebody jumped across a table after him I think....

[Dawgology]

I like the idea of restricting number of players you can sign based on ratings. You would have to have a ranking system like the 247 composite rating then allow each school to sign no more than: 1 - 5 star, 5 - 4 star, 15 - 3 star per year. the rest filled in with 2 star and under if you had room. To a certain degree it would punish a college for losing a lot of players early (out of NFL early, dropped form team, etc) as it would make it impossible to fill all of those slots with top flight talent based on your cap...so colleges would have to be smarter and not waste scholarships just to bench guys or boost recruiting rankings. This would help improve parity throughout the collegiate football ranks.

[smootness]

I like the idea of restricting number of players you can sign based on ratings. You would have to have a ranking system like the 247 composite rating then allow each school to sign no more than: 1 - 5 star, 5 - 4 star, 15 - 3 star per year. the rest filled in with 2 star and under if you had room. To a certain degree it would punish a college for losing a lot of players early (out of NFL early, dropped form team, etc) as it would make it impossible to fill all of those slots with top flight talent based on your cap...so colleges would have to be smarter and not waste scholarships just to bench guys or boost recruiting rankings. This would help improve parity throughout the collegiate football ranks.

I absolutely hate that idea, personally.

[ShotgunDawg]

I absolutely hate that idea, personally.

Why?

[Dawgology]

I absolutely hate that idea, personally.

why?

[confucius say]

why?

Bc you are restricting where a kid can go to school. The kid should be allowed to go wherever he/she wants. A 5 star tackle wants to go to msu bc he wants to be a vet/engineer/or just grew up a fan and he can't Bc msu already has a 5 star committed. Don't take away choices from a kid.

And Bc you are penalizing coaches who are good recruiters.

The much easier way is to hold the adults accountable. You do it once, career over and school has no schollies for a decade. That will fix it.

[smootness]

Why?

It would be the most arbitrary, roundabout way to solve a problem I can think of. College recruiting has gotten out of hand, so the solution is to limit the number of kids a random internet site attaches a certain value to that can go to a school? That is truly bizarre, IMO.

Confucius explained the main issue with it above. You're basically saying that every school should field as close to the exact same product as possible, and we're going to legislate it that way and force everyone's hand, including the kids. And how would it even solve dirty recruiting? The truly special kids would get even more in this scenario because you get so few of them.

Imagine if you had 2 stud 5-stars in the state of MS who were both State legacies who had always dreamed of playing for State. You would suddenly despise that rule. Or imagine if you had a kid on the very edge between a 4- and 5-star. We already had one 5-star committed, and this kid was a 4-star committed to State as well, then just before signing day the kid's rating gets bumped up slightly by one site, so his composite rating bumps up to a 5-star. Now we can't sign that kid, our plans are ruined, and his plans are ruined.

You would give an unbelievable amount of power to the recruiting sites, who we already loathe. Imagine a world in which Yancy Porter can actually have influence on who can come to State and who can't, or on whose rating suddenly drops low enough to be able to go to OM.

There are a lot of really, really big problems with that plan.

[msstate7]

If you're going for parity, I like the idea of a scholarship being tied to 1 player for 4 years. When bama, Ohio state, etc lose 7-8 juniors to the draft, it would sting with no way to replace them for another year.

[smootness]

If you're going for parity, I like the idea of a scholarship being tied to 1 player for 4 years. When bama, Ohio state, etc lose 7-8 juniors to the draft, it would sting with no way to replace them for another year.

That, to me, is a potentially good idea and one that is actually realistic. It may also have pitfalls, but on the surface it seems like something that would definitely work.

My guess is that if they were to implement it, it would probably change to 2-3 years instead of 4. That way you penalize schools more for players who quit/transfer/flunk out than those who leave early to go pro.

[Ifyouonlyknew]

I absolutely hate that idea, personally.

I hate it too. Who is some committee to tell a kid where he can or can't go to school. You guys always talking about snowflakes & America becoming pussies. Well this is the most ***** thing I've heard. No kid you can't go to KY(bball) or Bama(football) they will have too many good players.

[Tbonewannabe]

Why of course they are paid in ways that maintain their amateur status.... They are not paid until they turn pro. The Dream Team had to eventually happen, because every other countries basketball players were playing in professional leagues. We finally caught up to them. The extreme majority of Team USA athletes are not professional until they decide to give up their Olympic time.

The Rio Olympics is the first Olympics that has no requirement for amateur status for any sport. So there were some sports that still wanted you to be an amateur but now everyone is welcome to compete.

[Lord McBuckethead]

If those numbers are correct then 4% is $35 MIL. So $30 MIL a year would make more than make a dent. It's a complex issue because for the pay the players people you have budget issues that 85-90% of the schools would have trouble with and you also will have Title IX and non revenue sports headaches galore. Where do you make cuts to pay football players?

If you go scorch earth with detterants, you could see major football powers decide to leave the NCAA. Is there a balance to be found? Doubt it but the member institutions have to decide what model they are ultimately looking for and what makes sense. Is competitive balance something they even care about? The haves don't want that.

Complex problem but I agree it does need to be much better.

30 mill off the top.

[msstate7]

I hate it too. Who is some committee to tell a kid where he can or can't go to school. You guys always talking about snowflakes & America becoming pussies. Well this is the most ***** thing I've heard. No kid you can't go to KY(bball) or Bama(football) they will have too many good players.

IYOK used to never get mad like this. Thanks ED

Lol

[Lord McBuckethead]

The much easier way is to hold the adults accountable. You do it once, career over and school has no schollies for a decade. That will fix it.

I agree with punishing the adults big time, but I also would set up some sort of sting operation against Saban until he messed up in the slightest of ways. Just a matter of time.
Also, with the redmond situation, it could be seen as mullen not having control of his guy, then Mullen wouldn't be able to coach anymore?

[dawgs]

The ratings might be high for the first few years but by year 6 or 7, boredom would set in. It is the same way with TV shows. Eventually when plot of the show is repetitive then the ratings go down. Professional sports are kind of a different animal in that you have loyalty to your team. MSU fans are a lot more likely to watch a game involving MSU. Hell, we have people that think since Dan can't get over the hump of 7 - 8 wins then we need a new coach. That is kind of boredom of seeing the same wins against the same type of teams. People would risk going back to 4 - 6 wins just for a chance at beating Bama.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_Bad

Check the viewership section under reception.

[dawgs]

That, to me, is a potentially good idea and one that is actually realistic. It may also have pitfalls, but on the surface it seems like something that would definitely work.

My guess is that if they were to implement it, it would probably change to 2-3 years instead of 4. That way you penalize schools more for players who quit/transfer/flunk out than those who leave early to go pro.

Yeah I think you figure out a way to keep the bama’s and Ohio st’s from processing guys that don’t develop as expected. I don’t think penalizing teams for a guy being good enough to leave a year early is fair and would promote coaches to try to limit the impact of their underclassmen stars. I would like to see something where coaches can guarantee a scholarship for as many years as a player wants it. So maybe bama only offers a guy a guaranteed 1 or 2 years, but we could offer with a 4 year guarantee. Probably wouldn’t be a huge swing in the best players, but the guys in the bottom half of bama’s classes would still be damn good recruits for us, and we might be able to swing a few of those types each year offering them a full 4 years instead of the real chance of them being processed after a year or 2 at bama when bama picks up a bunch of 4-5* guys again next year.

[Dawgology]

I hate it too. Who is some committee to tell a kid where he can or can't go to school. You guys always talking about snowflakes & America becoming pussies. Well this is the most ***** thing I've heard. No kid you can't go to KY(bball) or Bama(football) they will have too many good players.

It was just a spitball idea. Jesus, chill the **** out Dan. It's not like you are pulling in a dozen 5-stars every year anyway!**

[Dawgology]

It would be the most arbitrary, roundabout way to solve a problem I can think of. College recruiting has gotten out of hand, so the solution is to limit the number of kids a random internet site attaches a certain value to that can go to a school? That is truly bizarre, IMO.

Confucius explained the main issue with it above. You're basically saying that every school should field as close to the exact same product as possible, and we're going to legislate it that way and force everyone's hand, including the kids. And how would it even solve dirty recruiting? The truly special kids would get even more in this scenario because you get so few of them.

Imagine if you had 2 stud 5-stars in the state of MS who were both State legacies who had always dreamed of playing for State. You would suddenly despise that rule. Or imagine if you had a kid on the very edge between a 4- and 5-star. We already had one 5-star committed, and this kid was a 4-star committed to State as well, then just before signing day the kid's rating gets bumped up slightly by one site, so his composite rating bumps up to a 5-star. Now we can't sign that kid, our plans are ruined, and his plans are ruined.

You would give an unbelievable amount of power to the recruiting sites, who we already loathe. Imagine a world in which Yancy Porter can actually have influence on who can come to State and who can't, or on whose rating suddenly drops low enough to be able to go to OM.

There are a lot of really, really big problems with that plan.

We were just throwing ideas out I thought for discussions sake. No reason to really get all upset over it. I have no power to make this happen. You can't deny it though. It would force parity. Also, it would have to be an official site and not random fan site. Like I said. It was just an idea for discussion. Everyone cool out. Shit.

[Turfdawg67]

If you're going for parity, I like the idea of a scholarship being tied to 1 player for 4 years. When bama, Ohio state, etc lose 7-8 juniors to the draft, it would sting with no way to replace them for another year.

So big boosters would set up trust funds to be collected after graduation...