The current FBS format is broken....

[thekimmer]

This will be the 7th year of the 4 team playoff format. Bama will have appeared 6 times. Clemson 6 times, Oklahoma 5 times and Ohio State 4 times. The current 4 team NCAA playoff format has succeeded in creating about 4 or 5 super programs that at least three of them make it in every year and continue to get stronger and stronger. I don't blame the teams at all but everyone is sick and tired to seeing the same teams play for the NC every year.

The NCAA should either expand the playoffs to 8 teams or go back to the old BCS format or even drop it all together. I think CFB was way more exciting when every game counted even if multiple teams could legitimately claim an NC.

 

[Russ Wheeler]

This will be the 7th year of the 4 team playoff format. Bama will have appeared 6 times. Clemson 6 times, Oklahoma 5 times and Ohio State 4 times. The current 4 team NCAA playoff format has succeeded in creating about 4 or 5 super programs that at least three of them make it in every year and continue to get stronger and stronger. I don't blame the teams at all but everyone is sick and tired to seeing the same teams play for the NC every year.

The NCAA should either expand the playoffs to 8 teams or go back to the old BCS format or even drop it all together. I think CFB was way more exciting when every game counted even if multiple teams could legitimately claim an NC.

Geez stop posting this nonsense. The postseason format has NOTHING to do with certain teams building their programs into monsters. Having a boring *** championship game rematch featuring Alabama is what ended the BCS and gave way to the 4 team playoff to begin with.

I'm not saying we shouldn't go back to the bowls, or expand the playoff.....but your reasoning is not why we should do either. There was a long as thread about this yesterday, and here you go starting a new one. Alabama and Clemson would meet in the championship of a 64 team playoff, or meet in a BCS title game with a 1 vs. 2. So your problem still remains.

Next question please. Have a St. Louis.

 

[BirminghamDAWG]

This will be the 7th year of the 4 team playoff format. Bama will have appeared 6 times. Clemson 6 times, Oklahoma 5 times and Ohio State 4 times. The current 4 team NCAA playoff format has succeeded in creating about 4 or 5 super programs that at least three of them make it in every year and continue to get stronger and stronger. I don't blame the teams at all but everyone is sick and tired to seeing the same teams play for the NC every year.

The NCAA should either expand the playoffs to 8 teams or go back to the old BCS format or even drop it all together. I think CFB was way more exciting when every game counted even if multiple teams could legitimately claim an NC.

The issue isn't the format, it's talent distribution. Looking at the final rankings. 6,7, and 8 are not going to beat 1,2,3. Notre Dame vs. TAMU is a tossup, and number 1. Alabama beat TAMU by 28, and 2. Clemson beat ND by 24. Your suggestion of going back to the BCS makes the most sense in today's world (but will still feature about 5 different teams, most of the time) and an 8 team playoff makes sense if there is better talent distribution. Unfortunately, the only real way to do that is to lower scholarship numbers, which I doubt will happen

 

[thekimmer]

Geez stop posting this nonsense. The postseason format has NOTHING to do with certain teams building their programs into monsters. Having a boring *** championship game rematch featuring Alabama is what ended the BCS and gave way to the 4 team playoff to begin with.

I'm not saying we shouldn't go back to the bowls, or expand the playoff.....but your reasoning is not why we should do either. There was a long as thread about this yesterday, and here you go starting a new one. Alabama and Clemson would meet in the championship of a 64 team playoff, or meet in a BCS title game with a 1 vs. 2. So your problem still remains.

Next question please. Have a St. Louis.

Well I didn't see the one yesterday so my bad if I hurt your feelings posting this one. I see you still decided to weigh in though. Feel free to ignore such posts in the future.

 

[Ranchdawg]

Yep, boosters stacking the deck has destroyed college football. Until we find a way to stop it watching the championship is a waste of time. I don't care if Clemson, Ohio State or Alabama wins another NC. I haven't watched the series for 4 years now because of this. I am voting with my television.

 

[Coast_Dawg]

What changes would you propose to fix it?

Here some snippets from multiple threads on the subject over the past couple of weeks. (With my biased opinion on them)

The format is not broken. No changes will do much to alter the overall outcome. The playoff allows a team to stumble once and still be involved as a 3/4 seed and if they’re the best, they will still come out on top. See Bama and Ohio State.

Expanding to 8 teams allows more inclusion but likely still allows the same outcome as the disparity from 4-8 is generally rather large.

Redistribution of talent seems to be the only answer but there are as many pros as there are cons. Reduction in scholarship opportunities for lower tier athletes unless they’re moved to another sport (perhaps baseball) but then what would that do to college baseball or whatever sport receives the transferred scholarships? Likely puts a bias towards the larger schools then so it breaks that sport like you’re saying football is broken.

It’s a great conversation but until the upper echelon of NCAA/Power5 decision makers are having the conversation and agree that it’s not healthy overall for the sport, it’s a meaningless conversation. Still interesting to discuss.

 

[johnson86-1]

What changes would you propose to fix it?

Here some snippets from multiple threads on the subject over the past couple of weeks. (With my biased opinion on them)

The format is not broken. No changes will do much to alter the overall outcome. The playoff allows a team to stumble once and still be involved as a 3/4 seed and if they’re the best, they will still come out on top. See Bama and Ohio State.

Expanding to 8 teams allows more inclusion but likely still allows the same outcome as the disparity from 4-8 is generally rather large.

Redistribution of talent seems to be the only answer but there are as many pros as there are cons. Reduction in scholarship opportunities for lower tier athletes unless they’re moved to another sport (perhaps baseball) but then what would that do to college baseball or whatever sport receives the transferred scholarships? Likely puts a bias towards the larger schools then so it breaks that sport like you’re saying football is broken.

It’s a great conversation but until the upper echelon of NCAA/Power5 decision makers are having the conversation and agree that it’s not healthy overall for the sport, it’s a meaningless conversation. Still interesting to discuss.

I don't think we've have more than 3 legitimate contenders in any year since the playoff format started. The only thing an 8 team playoff would do is ensure that the top four teams are in it if we have four undefeated P5 teams and one or two of them is a paper tiger that benefited from an easy schedule. Not sure we've had that happen when the SEC's second team is a legitimate contender yet, but it will happen eventually. This year A&M deserves to be in the playoff more than Notre Dame and OSU, but even if they were there, it would take a huge upset for them to beat bama, and maybe to beat Clemson. .

 

[Coast_Dawg]

I don't think we've have more than 3 legitimate contenders in any year since the playoff format started. The only thing an 8 team playoff would do is ensure that the top four teams are in it if we have four undefeated P5 teams and one or two of them is a paper tiger that benefited from an easy schedule. Not sure we've had that happen when the SEC's second team is a legitimate contender yet, but it will happen eventually. This year A&M deserves to be in the playoff more than Notre Dame and OSU, but even if they were there, it would take a huge upset for them to beat bama, and maybe to beat Clemson. .

I agree that 8 teams allows the committee to goof up the top 4 and still get one of the true top 4 teams in as #5/6 should they not be a conference champion. I’d also like to see a UCF or Cincy or whoever fills that blank get a chance to play. Regardless of the outcome, they still got a chance and can’t make any bogus claims. The UCF claim a few years back was laughable but allowing them to get steamrolled would shut them up or maybe it would have been more of a Boise State outcome where they show they belonged.

 

[mstateglfr]

Redistribution of talent seems to be the only answer but there are as many pros as there are cons. Reduction in scholarship opportunities for lower tier athletes unless they’re moved to another sport (perhaps baseball) but then what would that do to college baseball or whatever sport receives the transferred scholarships? Likely puts a bias towards the larger schools then so it breaks that sport like you’re saying football is broken.

I cant say that I see as many cons as pros.
Players who would usually sign as P5 possible players will move to G5. Players who would usually sign as G5 will move to D2. Players who would usually sign as D2 will move to NAIA. Players who would usually sign as NAIA will either sign D3 and pay their way or not play college football at the NAIA level.
Seriously- that is what we are talking about here- less players at the level that has literally never been considered when making any decisions about college football. Why on earth would now be the time to start caring about D2/NAIA/D3 players?

And perhaps baseball is then dominated by the larger schools...but when a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears, does it 17ing matter that it fell?
All seriousness, perhaps baseball is dominated by larger schools. Or perhaps smaller schools bring in better players since they are able to sign more. That would be counter to what we see in football, but college baseball is unique for many ways.
Maybe men's volleyball is expanded to more schools. Maybe men's soccer is expanded to more schools.

 

[Coast_Dawg]

I have a small sample size but I’m aware of a kid with a scholarship to a FCS school and that football scholarship is not even 100% tuition/room and board due to NCAA limitations. 85 to 70 reduction is 1950 kids that aren’t getting a scholarship now and likely not getting a free education (which may or may not be valuable to them).

Given the craziness of 2020, I won’t go into specifics but there are multiple paths that could be traveled about how those types of changes would create quite the whirlwind involving politics and some associations.

I admit I don’t have the answer. The intent of my original post was somewhat of a summary of prior discussions that the OP seemed to have missed.

Sadly, the people that make the decisions don’t have the answer either and they likely can’t give the honest reasons for why things are the way they are.

 

[Apoplectic_Objurgator]

Cut scholarships to 55 and playoff to 6 or 8 teams. Problem solved

 

[Russ Wheeler]

Maybe men's volleyball is expanded to more schools. Maybe men's soccer is expanded to more schools.

This is what you and your ilk truly want, i.e. the crux of the issue. You want to take some from football and give it to other sports. Whether it's CTE, your hatred of masculinity, your need for safety, or whatever - that's what's going down. And that's fine, but just admit it.

 

[karlchilders.sixpack]

Also, Must limit the number of walkon's

Max number that can participate, period.

 

[Russ Wheeler]

Max number that can participate, period.

How do you do that? We don't even do that for baseball.

How many of you scholarship reducers voted Republican? Serious question. Because you certainly support a liberal concept.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

Would be really nice to see men's soccer have scholarships in the SEC. As for volleyball...basically, just let me pick what to fund and it'll all be good!***

 

[8dog]

Sure we do in baseball. 35 man cap.

Though i think the idea in football that a bunch of 5 stars will walk on at Bama or Clemson over a p5 offer is not realistic

 

[mstateglfr]

I have a small sample size but I’m aware of a kid with a scholarship to a FCS school and that football scholarship is not even 100% tuition/room and board due to NCAA limitations. 85 to 70 reduction is 1950 kids that aren’t getting a scholarship now and likely not getting a free education (which may or may not be valuable to them).

Yeah, FCS has less scholarships than FBS. And partials seems to be common(or at least they are not uncommon) as Ive read and listened to examples of partial scholarships for FCS.
And good point on FCS, I forgot that level within my earlier comments. FBS P5 to FBS G5 to FCS to D2 to NAIA/D3.

Those 1950 kids(or whatever the number may be) may not have scholarships in football, but that doesnt mean 1950 fewer kids get scholarships. Those scholarships could transfer to other sports and 1950 MORE kids would have scholarships in that other sport(s).

 

[mstateglfr]

This is what you and your ilk truly want, i.e. the crux of the issue. You want to take some from football and give it to other sports. Whether it's CTE, your hatred of masculinity, your need for safety, or whatever - that's what's going down. And that's fine, but just admit it.

WT17 are you rambling about? Who are 'my ilk' here?...I seriously dont know. And your claim that the issue here is that 'my ilk' dont like football due to CTE, hating masculinity, or wanting safety is confusing and completely unfounded.
The only reason I have ever listed for supporting a reduction in scholarships is to make D1 FBS football more competitive at the top. That is the only reason I have listed and the only reason I have thought about.

If I was motivated by CTE, I sure as 17 wouldnt suggest soccer be supported more. Damn man.

I suggested men's volleyball or soccer because baseball was already discussed and someone is concerned more scholarships would lead to dominance by large schools in baseball. So I suggest a couple other sports and am met with your dumb claim.
Post less, please.

Oh, and how is soccer or volleyball 'not masculine'? Both require incredible athleticism and conditioning.

 

[manofsteel]

There are d3 conferences that have a roster limit of 100 to keep schools from stockpiling a ton of kids. It has worked but you still see schools that want to spend more $ stay at the top of the pack.

I don't think taking the limit from 85 to 75 will do it. Knocking off the bottom 10 kids at Clemson or Alabama isn't going to hurt them. They’ll still have 75 great prospects.

If you wanna see talent disperse and more teams involved in the playoff cutting scholarships to 65 or fewer will prob have to happen.

Also, remove non league games. Play everyone in your league. Don’t give the Alabama’s or Clemson’s a chance to protect their record.

Limiting off the field staff would help...

Also, it would be interesting to see what happened to TV deals of teams had to play everyone in their league. Better games, more drama, higher stake games, more tv money???

 

[codeDawg]

Some people would rather their team never have a chance at sniffing a championship than moving to a format that acknowledges that the popularity of the game and the money that brings has changed it at the D1 level.

The only way to fix it is to professionalize it with rules on how talent is spread out, how revenue is allocated, and yes, how players are compensated.

I know people are obsessed with recruiting being part of the game and the local appeal of local players, but Alabama, Clemson, LSU, and the like just spend their way to the top. It’s not as simple as that, but it’s the result. Unless you have an organization that gets around the rules at a massive level, you won’t win championships in this format. The money has to come above board.

 

[Ranchdawg]

Even if you professionalise it what is going to stop the booster organizations at OSU, Alabama and Clemson from continuing to secure the best talent? There is no way to stop the corruption. What could stop a coach from telling top paying boosters how to bet on their games to secure funding? I fear it is too far gone to fix at this point.

 

[Coast_Dawg]

It can always be fixed but the amount of change that would be necessary would likely turn CFB into a step above average high school football and not the pro-lite that we have today. Have to pretty much burn it down and start over.

Pay above board won’t fix anything because somebody will always pay more below the table for the best of the best.

The analogy that comes to mind is the MLB product with steroids vs after. The change was dramatic and the game lost a lot of excitement in my opinion.

 

[bruiser.sixpack]

I will point out that with College Baseball, Cal State-Fullerton, Fresno State, Wichita State and Coastal Carolina have won National Championships. Very unlikely any of those would ever win a Football NC. Baseball is just a different animal because most of the players have access to other scholarship or tuition assistance.

 

[codeDawg]

Even if you professionalise it what is going to stop the booster organizations at OSU, Alabama and Clemson from continuing to secure the best talent? There is no way to stop the corruption. What could stop a coach from telling top paying boosters how to bet on their games to secure funding? I fear it is too far gone to fix at this point.

You have to put in a system that spreads the talent out like some sort of draft. That takes choice and recruiting out of the equation, and then also means the kids should be compensated for that. It would be difficult to put together a system that respects some amount of choice to a conference or region, but it could be done.

Recruiting is the problem with CFB and the reason certain organizations continue to dominate and others will never sniff a championship.