ADVERTISEMENT

Concentration of talent

S

Sean Miller Fan

Lair Hall of Famer
Oct 30, 2001
65,661
21,181
113
In another thread, there were some stats about how a small amount of schools (PSU getting in this club unfortunately) were gobbling up so many 4-5 stars, that they had such a disproportionate number of them that could all conceivably play meaningful snaps.

This leads me to this question. With so much talent on the bench at places like Bama, OSU, Clemson, etc, if those teams had 2 teams, how do you think they'd be ranked.

For the purposes of this, lets rule out injuries, fatigue, etc. Lets say that Clemson A got the 1st stringers and 4th stringers and Clemsob B got the 2nd stringers and 3rd stringers. Same with Bama, OSU, etc. Lets also say that the coaching staffs were cloned and coached both teams. Inotherwords, how good would those "B teams be?"

I'd say there would be 7-8 B teams in the Top 25 which is ridiculous if you think about it. Like I know we beat Clemson's A team but if you threw Clemson's entire 1st String out of school, I think they would still be favored over us and most other teams.

I have always said 85 scholarships are too many. It allows these schools to stockpile talent because its better that they sit on their bench than suit up against them in a Pitt or UVa or BC uniform.
 
This is pretty easy, imo.

First team for Clemson is obviously a top 4 team.

Their second team would be a top 25 team and probably still better than a Wisconsin type of team.
 
The 3 teams you mention are all loaded at quarterback, an injury at that position is a killer for most teams.

Those 3 would probably not miss a beat if they had to play a backup.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HailToPitt725 and ratking17
BFo8 said:
The 3 teams you mention are all loaded at quarterback, an injury at that position is a killer for most teams.

Those 3 would probably not miss a beat if they had to play a backup.
Click to expand...

Which is why there are so many transfers from these schools. If a school has three 4 and 5 star QBs, only one is going to be the starter. The other two may be good as well but they will have to sit and if you are good, you do not want to sit. This doesn't really hurt them however as they will bring in another one in the next class. On the other hand, these teams don't rebuild, they reload. There is no noticeable drop off in production when players go down with an injury due to their superior depth.

For the rest of us, critical injuries can be devastating. Look at WVU last year when Grier went down, they really sucked as his back ups were not good.
 
BFo8 said:
The 3 teams you mention are all loaded at quarterback, an injury at that position is a killer for most teams.

Those 3 would probably not miss a beat if they had to play a backup.
Click to expand...
No kidding. Who else could bench their QB, in the national championship, and actually play better than Bama or Clemson or Ohio St?

When it happened, I was thinking, “I wish we had that luxury!” :)
 
Sean Miller Fan said:
In another thread, there were some stats about how a small amount of schools (PSU getting in this club unfortunately) were gobbling up so many 4-5 stars, that they had such a disproportionate number of them that could all conceivably play meaningful snaps.

This leads me to this question. With so much talent on the bench at places like Bama, OSU, Clemson, etc, if those teams had 2 teams, how do you think they'd be ranked.

For the purposes of this, lets rule out injuries, fatigue, etc. Lets say that Clemson A got the 1st stringers and 4th stringers and Clemsob B got the 2nd stringers and 3rd stringers. Same with Bama, OSU, etc. Lets also say that the coaching staffs were cloned and coached both teams. Inotherwords, how good would those "B teams be?"

I'd say there would be 7-8 B teams in the Top 25 which is ridiculous if you think about it. Like I know we beat Clemson's A team but if you threw Clemson's entire 1st String out of school, I think they would still be favored over us and most other teams.

I have always said 85 scholarships are too many. It allows these schools to stockpile talent because its better that they sit on their bench than suit up against them in a Pitt or UVa or BC uniform.
Click to expand...
Top programs and teams are top programs and teams for a reason and deserve to get what they can get.

If you were a fan or alum of one of the programs you mentioned you wouldn't be making this post!

These programs have the skills and talent to manage a Top Level sports program and they've invested in facilities and other amenities to attract Top Talent.

One thing they didn't do was hire ineffective AD's ( I believe we fixed this) and four football coaches in a span of five years ( I believe we fixed this) so let's hope we're one of the programs getting the top talent in the future.

One thing that shouldn't happen in college football are regulations that make it difficult for top programs to dominate the recruiting process.

Either more programs and teams improve and raise their level or there will be less D1/P5 teams which is probably what will eventually happen!

"it's five o'clock somewhere"
Signed: Mr Buffett
Go PITT & CSU Rams!
 
BuffetParrothead said:
Sean Miller Fan said:
In another thread, there were some stats about how a small amount of schools (PSU getting in this club unfortunately) were gobbling up so many 4-5 stars, that they had such a disproportionate number of them that could all conceivably play meaningful snaps.

This leads me to this question. With so much talent on the bench at places like Bama, OSU, Clemson, etc, if those teams had 2 teams, how do you think they'd be ranked.

For the purposes of this, lets rule out injuries, fatigue, etc. Lets say that Clemson A got the 1st stringers and 4th stringers and Clemsob B got the 2nd stringers and 3rd stringers. Same with Bama, OSU, etc. Lets also say that the coaching staffs were cloned and coached both teams. Inotherwords, how good would those "B teams be?"

I'd say there would be 7-8 B teams in the Top 25 which is ridiculous if you think about it. Like I know we beat Clemson's A team but if you threw Clemson's entire 1st String out of school, I think they would still be favored over us and most other teams.

I have always said 85 scholarships are too many. It allows these schools to stockpile talent because its better that they sit on their bench than suit up against them in a Pitt or UVa or BC uniform.
Click to expand...
Top programs and teams are top programs and teams for a reason and deserve to get what they can get.

If you were a fan or alum of one of the programs you mentioned you wouldn't be making this post!

These programs have the skills and talent to manage a Top Level sports program and they've invested in facilities and other amenities to attract Top Talent.

One thing they didn't do was hire ineffective AD's ( I believe we fixed this) and four football coaches in a span of five years ( I believe we fixed this) so let's hope we're one of the programs getting the top talent in the future.

One thing that shouldn't happen in college football are regulations that make it difficult for top programs to dominate the recruiting process.

Either more programs and teams improve and raise their level or there will be less D1/P5 teams which is probably what will eventually happen!

"it's five o'clock somewhere"
Signed: Mr Buffett
Go PITT & CSU Rams!
Click to expand...

85 players on scholarship is unnecessary and I'd even say detrimental as many good players are lost in the process.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tbro34 and pbrad
Sean Miller Fan said:
85 players on scholarship is unnecessary and I'd even say detrimental as many good players are lost in the process.
Click to expand...
85 is too many and in addition the top programs get 110 commits to get to 85. By the time the 4 and 5* backups realize they aren't in the plans to be starters its too late to transfer.
 
I actually don't think they would be that good. A big reason the Big time teams are so stacked is because of depth. When you are eliminating that advantage, injuries will start to have a huge impact. Clemsons B team would be like Pitt. There would be some very good players, but some spots would suck. Theyd win 7 games or so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shendojoe
h2p_5150 said:
I actually don't think they would be that good. A big reason the Big time teams are so stacked is because of depth. When you are eliminating that advantage, injuries will start to have a huge impact. Clemsons B team would be like Pitt. There would be some very good players, but some spots would suck. Theyd win 7 games or so.
Click to expand...

Of course but its a hypothetical. How would a Clemson B do or an OSU b do if there were no injuries and every player was fresh every game. Like, I'd say that Clemson B and FSU B would be 3rd or 4th in the ACC, probably no lower than 5th or 6th. OSU B would only be behind Mich, PSU, MSU, and Wisky. It isn't right that these teams can hog so much talent.
 
pbrad said:
85 is too many and in addition the top programs get 110 commits to get to 85. By the time the 4 and 5* backups realize they aren't in the plans to be starters its too late to transfer.
Click to expand...
SMF posts on this are just like his posts on other topics hard to connect to reality.

But you have a point!

To get 85 the U's recruit 110 and many get buried, never play, waste years which puts them out of the game, etc.
So maybe say you need 85 you get 90 chances to get your 85 guys?

If I remember correctly one of our kids who eventually ended up at PITT played college football.
He mentioned the U football program he played for accepted like 110 players to the program for 65 spots (not D1). Some kids were grey shirted and others red shirted.The odds of not getting a spot are really high!
 
Last edited:
pittdan77 said:
Let’s not advocate taking scholarships away. That’s a horrible idea. Kids that can get a free education that aren’t NFL’ers deserve it.

Loosen transfer rules. Let kids that get trapped transfer up to a certain point.
Click to expand...

To offset it, I would eliminate FCS and allow them to carry the full alottment of 75 scholarships. But what about the FCS playoffs you ask? Simple. There would be no FCS so each conference could decide whether it wants to be a part of the bowl system or a mid-major FBS playoff system
 
  • Like
Reactions: pittdan77
Sean Miller Fan said:
85 players on scholarship is unnecessary and I'd even say detrimental as many good players are lost in the process.
Click to expand...
They should probably reduce it to like 40 scholarships per school for football. That would spread out the 4-5 star studs and also schools could increase scholarship support for other sports, like women's sports, soccer, baseball etc. It would IMPROVE the competitiveness of college football, Buffet probably likes the same 3-4 rich guys dominating forever, but I wouldn't mind if the top 25 changed more often and other schools could more easily compete.
 
pittdan77 said:
Let’s not advocate taking scholarships away. That’s a horrible idea. Kids that can get a free education that aren’t NFL’ers deserve it.

Loosen transfer rules. Let kids that get trapped transfer up to a certain point.
Click to expand...

Give the scholarships you cut to athletes in other sports, they busted their butts getting good at those sports, why don't they deserve it?
 
cashisking884 said:
Everything you're saying in this thread is gross.
Click to expand...
No, it would make college football a better sport, the opening day Top 25 wouldn't include the exact same teams every year.

I just wonder? Would some of you be upset if the same 20 or so blue bloods weren't in the Top 25 every year? I'd love it! But I get the sense some wouldn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BPKY
The money college football generates would go away because the product would suffer and the "Blue Bloods" generate TV ratings and money.
 
Pitt79 said:
They should probably reduce it to like 40 scholarships per school for football. That would spread out the 4-5 star studs and also schools could increase scholarship support for other sports, like women's sports, soccer, baseball etc. It would IMPROVE the competitiveness of college football, Buffet probably likes the same 3-4 rich guys dominating forever, but I wouldn't mind if the top 25 changed more often and other schools could more easily compete.
Click to expand...

I am a fairly big wrestling fan, but even I understand why wrestling doesn't have enough scholarships for all the starters 9.9 scholarships for 10 starting spots. No way should football suffer to boast sports that already cost more money then they bring in.
 
pafootballguy said:
The money college football generates would go away because the product would suffer and the "Blue Bloods" generate TV ratings and money.
Click to expand...
Sadly then, people don't want a competitive sport, where there's a chance that different "names" can be at the top. Myself, I never watch the playoffs anymore, I'm tired of seeing Alabama, Clemson, tOSU, Auburn over and over and over. I don't care that it's the best quality teams, it's just a turn off to me that it's so rare when someone different gets in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4Mark_Marty
Mikefln said:
I am a fairly big wrestling fan, but even I understand why wrestling doesn't have enough scholarships for all the starters 9.9 scholarships for 10 starting spots. No way should football suffer to boast sports that already cost more money then they bring in.
Click to expand...
Football wouldn't suffer, maybe the 5s that Bama takes will be the busts and the 4.5s that Pitt is left with are the real deal and maybe teams like Pitt can get lucky and move up some years. It would spread the talent and it wouldn't be so 99% certain that it's Bama vs Clemson every freaking year.
 
I follow Pitt's games, but not the Top 25 and the "national scene" because it's too boring! There is no other sport that is so predictable, at least Duke and Kentucky often enough get upset in the NCAAT so that it's not the same 4 teams in the Final 4 every year like in football.
 
All lowing scholarship levels does is force parity on to the sport and stops rewarding the schools that invest in the sport. Alabama should be better than Pitt because they spend the money to be great, Clemson should be better than Pitt because the money spend and the fan support they have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jpripper88
pafootballguy said:
All lowing scholarship levels does is force parity on to the sport and stops rewarding the schools that invest in the sport. Alabama should be better than Pitt because they spend the money to be great, Clemson should be better than Pitt because the money spend and the fan support they have.
Click to expand...
But to me, it makes the sport boring to follow when surprises are so few and far between, I'd rather force parity. To me, having a lot of decent teams and not being sure who will win is more entertaining than the same old, same old winning every time. To me, the NFL would totally suck if there was no salary cap and it was New York vs. Jerry Jones every year and the Rooneys became the Nuttings.
 
Pitt79 said:
Football wouldn't suffer, maybe the 5s that Bama takes will be the busts and the 4.5s that Pitt is left with are the real deal and maybe teams like Pitt can get lucky and move up some years. It would spread the talent and it wouldn't be so 99% certain that it's Bama vs Clemson every freaking year.
Click to expand...

You think going from 85 scholarships to 40 for D1 would not hurt football. If you said 75 hell even 70, I would say "ok I guess that may work", but 40? That is beyond absurd.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PittFanDan17 and Jpripper88
h2p_5150 said:
I actually don't think they would be that good. A big reason the Big time teams are so stacked is because of depth. When you are eliminating that advantage, injuries will start to have a huge impact. Clemsons B team would be like Pitt. There would be some very good players, but some spots would suck. Theyd win 7 games or so.
Click to expand...

I don't think they would be .500 against a similar schedule. They're the B team for a reason. Everyone assumes all their positions are 2-3 deep in studs, which is hardly the case. Half of the studs they recruit won't pan out. Those are often the depth guys until they get recruited over.
 
pittdan77 said:
Let’s not advocate taking scholarships away. That’s a horrible idea. Kids that can get a free education that aren’t NFL’ers deserve it.

Loosen transfer rules. Let kids that get trapped transfer up to a certain point.
Click to expand...

This is a much better option than reducing ships.
 
pittdan77 said:
If that was the case, why did the B1G need Rutgers or Maryland? If what you’re saying is true, they made their product worse.
Click to expand...

Still need to fill the schedule with more games but the fact is the blue bloods bring eyeballs and interest in the sport. When a none blue blood is in a major bowl game the ratings are lower.
 
Gunga_Galunga said:
Everyone assumes all their positions are 2-3 deep in studs, which is hardly the case. Half of the studs they recruit won't pan out.
Click to expand...

This is why it would be great for CFB to significantly slash scholarships. Then Bama couldn't recruit three 5 star QBs, they'd have to choose one of those 3. Maybe they choose the wrong one, and go 6-6 the next 2 years, but one of the ones they didn't take is the true stud and he goes to Pitt and leads the Panthers to 11-1! Stuff like that would make the sport BETTER,
 
pafootballguy said:
When a none blue blood is in a major bowl game the ratings are lower.
Click to expand...

Those are the only games I watch! LOL, I'm sick of seeing the "blue bloods", the only bowl game I watched in it's entirety last year was rooting hard for UCF to beat Auburn. It was the only game I had interest in, because it wasn't same old/same old.
 
pafootballguy said:
Still need to fill the schedule with more games but the fact is the blue bloods bring eyeballs and interest in the sport. When a none blue blood is in a major bowl game the ratings are lower.
Click to expand...

Penn State vs Washington had higher ratings than O$U vs ND.

Also, the “schedule filler” argument is counter to that theory because who wants to watch Indiana get rolled by Michigan?

Yeah, Blue Bloods matter but it goes a tad deeper than that.
 
Pitt79 said:
Those are the only games I watch! LOL, I'm sick of seeing the "blue bloods", the only bowl game I watched in it's entirety last year was rooting hard for UCF to beat Auburn. It was the only game I had interest in, because it wasn't same old/same old.
Click to expand...

Lowest rated New Years 6 game
 
  • Like
Reactions: PittFanDan17
pittdan77 said:
Penn State vs Washington had higher ratings than O$U vs ND.

Also, the “schedule filler” argument is counter to that theory because who wants to watch Indiana get rolled by Michigan?

Yeah, Blue Bloods matter but it goes a tad deeper than that.
Click to expand...

Penn State always draws good ratings.

ESPN/ABC has 5 channels, Fox has 3 and plus you have BTN, SEC and soon to be ACC that all need to eat. People want to watch Michigan and the games that have viewership issues are Indiana vs Minny but the networks still need programming.
 
i didn't realize slapping some stars next to a recruits name made them ready to play as freshman. upperclassmen would fill the A squads
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

NC Panther

Would someone please do a comparison?

Replies
3
Views
285
Center Court at the Pete
pittchagg
pittchagg
latz66

The state of our Panther Sports in 2024

Replies
36
Views
3K
Olympic Sports
vkj91
V
S

PPG Day 1 thoughts

Replies
6
Views
565
Basketball Board
upj87
U
S

Pitt's best hope

Replies
6
Views
623
Basketball Board
AllegeneeGenacGenac
A
2

"The toirnament we will be playing in will have 3 letters instead of 4"

Replies
33
Views
1K
Center Court at the Pete
UPitt '89
UPitt '89
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back