Something has got to give.. I get blasted on Facebook for suggesting the scholarships be lowered. So, I’m curious if you guys think there is any other remedy for lack of parody. (Btw, I’m a long time lurker, but hardly ever post. Been checking this board daily since the mid 2000s for team news and entertainment) I’ll hang up and listen.
Another year, another playoff blowout
- Thread starter Motodawg
- Start date
It is pretty incredible. The only playoff semifinal game I can remember that was even close was the Georgia-Oklahoma Rose Bowl overtime game. Every other one has been a blowout.
ETA: Last year’s Fiesta Bowl semifinal was close. Clemson beat Ohio State 29-23.
ETA: Last year’s Fiesta Bowl semifinal was close. Clemson beat Ohio State 29-23.
Last edited:
For parody, they should create a league similar to bracket racing. Game starts with the vegas handicap as the score. ****
At kickoff. Notre Dame 20. Alabama 0.
At kickoff. Notre Dame 20. Alabama 0.
Reduce scholarships.
Reduce total number of players on team.
See if it works, then adjust in 10 years if needed.
Thats what should happen. If people of Facebook disagree, then recognize that there is 0 reason to care- its Facebook- and move on.
Reduce total number of players on team.
See if it works, then adjust in 10 years if needed.
Thats what should happen. If people of Facebook disagree, then recognize that there is 0 reason to care- its Facebook- and move on.
I posted about this on Facebook, too. I learned two things:
1) it’s parity, not parody.
2) the argument against cutting scholarships is that “it would only hurt kids because of less scholarships to offer. I suppose that’s why I see many posters say to give them to another sport?
1) it’s parity, not parody.
2) the argument against cutting scholarships is that “it would only hurt kids because of less scholarships to offer. I suppose that’s why I see many posters say to give them to another sport?
Is Notre Dame much more than a glorified AAC team? If not, they haven’t shown it in any BCS/CFP game. They have gotten boat raced for years. They live off their name and decades-old history.
They’re the 2nd best team in the ACC. Would be the 2nd-3rd best team in the B1G. They’re a solid team. Just lack the elite talent to win against the “elite” teams.
You’re not the only person that feels the way you do. The only way to change is by not watching the playoff games. It’s unfortunate but you have no voice same as any other fan of the sport unless it’s done in numbers.
A football scholarship limit should be no more than 65.
But the best thing that could happen to college football is if the NFL would start a minor league system. It would generate a lot more money at the community level around the country and would mean athletes could get paid over the table instead of under it.
Those who don't pan out a the minor league level should still have some form of eligibility to play in college if they choose to go later.
But the best thing that could happen to college football is if the NFL would start a minor league system. It would generate a lot more money at the community level around the country and would mean athletes could get paid over the table instead of under it.
Those who don't pan out a the minor league level should still have some form of eligibility to play in college if they choose to go later.
Almost totally agree. A 6 to 8 year wait is long enough, in my opinion. Also limit staff to get rid of off-field "analysts".
Scholarship reduction is the ONLY way to make college football more competitive. College football is just a joke right now unless you like only about 7 to 8 programs having any chance to win a NC. College is the only level of sports where the athlete has free reign to choose where he goes. In HS there are residential requirements. In the pro ranks there is a draft. The elite college programs will always get most of the best recruits but the more elite players you allow them to sign and have on their roster (a bunch of which are just sitting on their benches) the less talent available for anyone to have to compete with them. Bottom line is though when the 85 scholarship rule was first put into place freshman essentially didn't even play. That is not the case anymore so the 25 annual signees and the 85 total limit is just a glut of scholarships that the elite programs use to sign guys and then process them out if they don't measure up. So even when you get guys out of the transfer portal from these programs you are essentially getting their rejects. Sounds like to me fans of these elite programs are using "discrepancy against minorities" as an argument to not reduce the 85 so the status quo remains and the talent gap remains at its current ridiculous levels.
Should be same as pros - 55 scholarships.
Somehow you have to limit the number of off the field analysts - not sure how you do that. Look at bama and Clemson to see how they are stretching the rules then change the rules.
The brass will hold out against playoff expansion for fear of 2-3 SEC teams yearly making the 8. Now that ESPN has all sec games that will help.
Somehow you have to limit the number of off the field analysts - not sure how you do that. Look at bama and Clemson to see how they are stretching the rules then change the rules.
The brass will hold out against playoff expansion for fear of 2-3 SEC teams yearly making the 8. Now that ESPN has all sec games that will help.
Hopefully next year the committee will remember the last couple of *** beatings that ND has taken and give them a year or two off.
But is that the purpose of football scholarships? Making sure that the disadvantaged get to go to major colleges when there will be other opportunities with 5 levels of college and a fertile Juco system? Football is not a part of the Social Engineering Program now is it?
The main argument against cutting scholarships is money. It makes no sense for big schools to divert a couple million dollars per year away from student athletes that make money for the school, and towards those who lose money for the school. It also makes no sense for the biggest of the big schools to allow the status quo which has brought them enormous success to be dismantled, nor does it make sense for even the medium sized schools like MSU to allow the gap to close between themselves and the G5 schools.
It may make for more entertaining games, but it’s the same as term limits for politicians. Those that would be the most negatively affected by the change are the very ones who have to vote for that change, so it’s simply never going to 17ing happen.
Yeah, I wouldn't think twice if its fewer years before reassessing. 8 years seems quite ok. Honestly, I put 10 years because the NCAA is slow as shitnat most everything, so I just figure it'd be at least a decade.
And I'm fully on board that staff should be limited to a certain number. I dont know what that number should be though.
Do more analysts/staff really help make the program significantly better, or do they just provide marginal gains?
If MSU hired 10 extra staff to just analyze, would we suddenly be 5 wins better each season?...I think success is more player dependent and pure talent is more critical than more analysts.
^ i don't have any metrics to support this, its just a gut guess.
If the athletics dept of a university exists only to produce revenue then it makes no sense to divert scholarships away from rev generating sports.
But if the athletics dept exists for more than only to produce revenue, then it makes sense to divert scholarships away from rev generating sports in an effort to improve competition.
As for your claim that it'll never 17ing happen, its already happened twice. Of course it could happen again.
Argument seems illogical to me. The colleges won't lose a dime of any money cutting fat off the roster. Essentially the only student athletes that won't 'share' in the money being made are the ones not needed to make that money anyway. In fact, most schools will actually make more money with contributions and season tickets if they have a more competitive product to market which should result with talent being spread out more among the P5 schools.
It happened twice over a period of less than 20 years from 1973 to 1992, and hasn’t happened again in the almost 30 years since. There’s a reason behind that....they found the sweet spot where all the money schools want it. Before, 105 players was just too many because almost half your team would never play anything besides special teams for their entire career. Everyone agreed that was enormous fiscal waste, and in the era before huge TV contracts that was a big deal.
I’m not arguing against the merits of the idea. I’d love to see it. But considering who it would hurt the most, and consider the most powerful schools in the sport, and then realize those are the two same groups, then its easy to see that it will not ever happen in any meaningful way. Reducing down to maybe 78-80 scholarships from 85? Sure, maybe one day. 65 scholarships? You can practically forget about it.
So if Alabama watches 25% of their talent go elsewhere, and the same of the other big schools, and they lose 3-4 games every couple of years and go from making the CFP 80% of the time to making it 20% of the time due to increased parity, they won’t lose money? They absolutely will. So will everyone else at the top.
A few schools may not generate as much $, but college football as a whole won't necessarily generate less. Other schools could generate more than current.
A few schools shouldn't be able to keep all the rest of D1 from changing.
I think you have to get to a point where college football revenues aren’t beating prior years every single season before a serious discussion can be had there.
It’s also not “just a few schools”. Take Auburn for example. Auburn has recently won a natty, been on a cusp of another, and been just outside the CFP picture a time or two. A big part of that is the advantage they hold in their tier over schools like MSU, OM, Arkansas, arguably Texas A&M, and 5 of the 7 teams in the SEC East in terms of their recruiting appeal. The last thing they want to do is make those schools better and themselves worse. Auburn is a Top 15ish program but not a Top 5 elite. So you’re talking about at least 14 other schools like that who are also going to be in the same boat...roughly 20-25% of the Power 5 at minimum. It’s easy to see from the vantage point of MSU and say “it has to change”. But I think a lot of people overestimate the number of schools that are dissatisfied with the status quo. And again, the money doesn’t lie....it keeps increasing even now.
Last edited:
Glad I don't waste my time! The powers that be are thumbing their nose at you. Instead, they are going to open it up so Blamo can harvest the best in the portal as well. Saban has the NCAA by the short hairs and will continue pull whatever he wants.
I still don't really follow this reasoning. Even if you take the rosters down to say 70 scholarships, Bama (as long as Saban is there) and other elite programs will still have the best 70 man rosters in the country just as they have the best 85 man rosters now. No way would Bama lose 3-4 games a year. With the scholarship reductions the best programs will still remain the best programs because there will NEVER be parity in college football. What scholarship reductions would do is bring back a little competitiveness to college football, not parity. Hopefully what it will do is stop the elite programs like Bama from just stomping mudholes in every team they play that is also not elite. It will not stop them winning almost all of those games although, yes, there would be a somewhat higher probability of an upset. Bama would likely still make the CFP a large percentage of the time so there would be no loss of revenue from them although, of course, the elite programs want to keep things as they are so they can remain totally dominant.
So essentially if you ranked programs 1 thru 100 right now with 85 scholarships and then reranked where programs would be with a 70 scholarship limit I would think the ranking would be almost identical. The HOPE would be that if you limited the scholarship count that the talent gap between program 1 and program 100 would be somewhat reduced along with every other program in between. That is the realistic goal. Only way you would ever have parity in college football would be if colleges could draft out of HS which is not even realistic given college is a choice of where you want to get educated and football is suppose to be a secondary thing.
Last edited:
Yeah, talent is the most important factor. I am not real sure what the analysts add either. Saban has how many? He certainly thinks they are worthwhile.
Yeah, and if Amazon, Microsoft, and Google agreed to let 20% of their profits go to tech start-up competitors, they’d still be by far the biggest players in the tech industry. So should be no problem convincing them to do that, right? And, I never said Bama would lose 3 or 4 games per year. I said they would lose 3 or 4 games in a single season once every so often, which isn’t a big stretch. They went 9-3 in 2010 on the heels of a national title season, for reference.
The point is that these “college football is broken” discussions don’t happen on LSU, Auburn, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida message boards. They happen on those with fans of MSU, Ole Miss, Kentucky, South Carolina, Arkansas, etc. And look around at all the policy changes happening in college football right now. Everything being done is only serving to widen the gap between the elites and non-elites, not narrow it. The elimination of the one-year transfer sit-out and allowing players to profit from likenesses is going to absolutely destroy the weaker Power 5 programs. And why? Because the big boys wanted those changes, and the NCAA is going to continue to bow down to them out of intense fear that they will eventually break off and form their own association and regulatory body. The tail is wagging the dog at this point.
Overall, college football works the same way the rest of the world does. The rich get richer, the poor stay poor, and the more things “change”, the more they stay the same. I wish it wasn’t that way, but I stopped being an idealist about college football a long time ago.
Nobody pays entertainment dollars to watch tech companies compete so its sort of a bogus comparison. College football is the worst major sports product out there from a competition standpoint, no doubt about it. I mean heck, even Herbstreit and others are saying as much. Its much worse than any pro sport product or any other college sport because other college sports don't have the relative glut of scholarships football does. Scholarship reduction is the only way to improve it. Back in the day there were no scholarship limits and somebody finally cared enough about the competitive aspects to bring in the 85 limit. All I can hope is that the same concern will be brought about by the 95% of programs it would benefit to where maybe one day a further reduction can happen. Am I optimistic about it? No.
Latest
-
01
Maroon and White Football
Mississippi State PFF Grades from 56-23 loss to Alabama
-
02
Maroon and White Football
Anthony Evans III posts highest PFN WR grade of Week 5
-
03
Maroon and White Football
Standout Stats: No. 7 Alabama 56-23 No. 16 Mississippi State
-
04
Maroon and White Football
Unpacking Mississippi State's offensive unraveling against Alabama
-
05
Maroon and White Football
"Learning Moments": Mississippi State HC Jeff Lebby speaks on rough outing for QB Kamario Taylor