Chris, having listened to your podcast, I hear your main point about parity, which is that great players go to winning teams, and there's not much we can do about it.
I think in your analysis there's some reality to the fact that top teams have stayed the top team because they've always been the top teams. Still, one thing that makes this analysis difficult is that for the most part college football is alone in this disparity among Division 1 sports.
In college basketball, yes Duke and North Carolina and Virginia tend to be at the top, but it's still easier for lower tier teams to rise higher--in the past UConn, Georgetown, Villanova, and now Gonzaga, Butler, and more. I know that bball requires fewer players, but there is more general parity.
When you look at the other sports such as soccer, lacrosse, hockey, there's more ability for lower teams to rise to the top. Yale's the great example, having recently won the D1 hockey and lacrosse championships, and having been bad at both ten years ago--or Penn State who had no hockey ten years ago, and in lacrosse being pretty much not much. Heck, Pitt went from nothing to #1 in two years in soccer.
You suggest that the answer is getting a coach who can develop lower recruited athletes. That's not really a path to parity because so much of college coaching is equivalent. The real difference in college football is that incredible disparity of money being able to spend at the top levels. Off memory, Clemson's able to spend $80 million, while Pitt can spend $24 million. We can pay our coach $4 million, but Bama can pay $8-9 million. I would argue that CFB is getting worse in the disparity
NO coach can come to a place like Pitt and be that good that he can coach up athletes of a 3* rating consistently up to a 5* level. And if he did, he'd be snapped up by Florida, Michigan, Texas, or somewhere like that.
You mentioned that people have Bama/OSU fatigue. I do. I'm tired of all the regular cast of teams. Over time it will drive ratings down for CFB.
I think in your analysis there's some reality to the fact that top teams have stayed the top team because they've always been the top teams. Still, one thing that makes this analysis difficult is that for the most part college football is alone in this disparity among Division 1 sports.
In college basketball, yes Duke and North Carolina and Virginia tend to be at the top, but it's still easier for lower tier teams to rise higher--in the past UConn, Georgetown, Villanova, and now Gonzaga, Butler, and more. I know that bball requires fewer players, but there is more general parity.
When you look at the other sports such as soccer, lacrosse, hockey, there's more ability for lower teams to rise to the top. Yale's the great example, having recently won the D1 hockey and lacrosse championships, and having been bad at both ten years ago--or Penn State who had no hockey ten years ago, and in lacrosse being pretty much not much. Heck, Pitt went from nothing to #1 in two years in soccer.
You suggest that the answer is getting a coach who can develop lower recruited athletes. That's not really a path to parity because so much of college coaching is equivalent. The real difference in college football is that incredible disparity of money being able to spend at the top levels. Off memory, Clemson's able to spend $80 million, while Pitt can spend $24 million. We can pay our coach $4 million, but Bama can pay $8-9 million. I would argue that CFB is getting worse in the disparity
NO coach can come to a place like Pitt and be that good that he can coach up athletes of a 3* rating consistently up to a 5* level. And if he did, he'd be snapped up by Florida, Michigan, Texas, or somewhere like that.
You mentioned that people have Bama/OSU fatigue. I do. I'm tired of all the regular cast of teams. Over time it will drive ratings down for CFB.
Last edited:
