How would you add parity to college football?
- Thread starter HailtoPitt
- Start date
But thats always been the case.
You have a pool of blue bloods. Lets say 20ish of them. A few of those blue bloods make the right hire and dominate for 5 to 10 years. You then usually have a new kid on the block that joins in during that era.
my number is 65 but have the right idea. amazing that pro teams can get by with 53 but college needs 85?
I agree to a certain point. I like that you say 20ish of them. I think that used to be the number. I think it is down to 14/15, that is my point. Like I said, I never see Nebraska getting back there. Tennessee maybe better suited to return to that status but I don't see it unless major changes happen. To me the pool of those able to truly compete is drastically shrinking. I will also use Stanford as an example. They were always a fringe team where they were not a blue blood but they were respected and if everything aligned right they could make a run. I never see that happening anymore. I could be way off, but I think it is the big 3, then the next 9 or 10 then everyone else at this point. Just my opinion, ymmv
I like the 65 number, because I do think colleges need more than a pro team. If a pro team gets an injury bug, they can sign people off waivers while a college team can't, so a 12 person cushion is needed.
Move the regular season up a few weeks. Nothing is on TV in mid to late August. Less direct competition (for interest) with the NFL.
I agree with the premise, but the questions are, how many conference teams are going to be played, and do we play any teams o-o-c? Do we play more than 12 regular season games?
We don’t see many ACC foes on a regular basis with the current format. If we add several Big Xll teams, do we eliminate o-o-c games? It’s hard to think of a school as a fellow conference member, if we only play once a decade or so.
I like the concept; I just see a lot of challenges with so many teams in one conference. Considering we have challenges with the current configuration.
I like this idea of 65. This helps reduce excess for big time programs. Less 5 stars potentially for Alabama. If you factor in a semipro development league for players to skip college you can also reduce excess.
yeah, i agree about the injuries. but plenty of high school teams get by on 40-ish kids in the program. it can be done. maybe they'd do better building a walk-on program.
I have two problems with scholarship limits:
1) Less scholarships for kids throughout college football.
2) It won't stop the usual culprits from processing recruits, and it will get worse. The teams that don't do it as much will be at an even greater disadvantage.
You need some kind of a scholarship cap with a dead scholarship limit that counts against your cap. When you push kids out they still count against your cap. There are a lot of things you can do to structure something. Puts more of an emphasis on recruiting quality kids and developing them.
1) Less scholarships for kids throughout college football.
2) It won't stop the usual culprits from processing recruits, and it will get worse. The teams that don't do it as much will be at an even greater disadvantage.
You need some kind of a scholarship cap with a dead scholarship limit that counts against your cap. When you push kids out they still count against your cap. There are a lot of things you can do to structure something. Puts more of an emphasis on recruiting quality kids and developing them.
If parity were truly the desired result, how about leaving the limit at 85, but:
- Only if your players are with you for four years.
- If they opt for the NFL in three years, you lose that scholarship for the following season.
That way, Alabama would have to supplement their team with 3 or less star players, leaving room for some of those 5 stars to go to other teams.
I’m not sure I agree with the whole forced ‘parity’ idea, but the above may help to achieve it.
- Only if your players are with you for four years.
- If they opt for the NFL in three years, you lose that scholarship for the following season.
That way, Alabama would have to supplement their team with 3 or less star players, leaving room for some of those 5 stars to go to other teams.
I’m not sure I agree with the whole forced ‘parity’ idea, but the above may help to achieve it.
I would like to see a team take no HS recruits one year and then get the entire 2nd team offense and defense at Alabama to transfer in. That would be awesome.
oh, i don't know. maybe give them to other sports. or, here me out, give them out for academics.
Reducing scholarships would hurt Pitt and I can't understand why nobody sees it. Would place a higher premium on talent evaluation and acquisition because you can't afford to miss. Would force a hard pass on kids that aren't as coveted that Pitt has success with now.
Except pro teams don't get by with anywhere close to 53. As an example, as of last weekend the Stillers had a total of 78 players under contract. When a guy gets hurt, he can be placed on the injured reserve and replaced. Teams have practice squads with even more players on it that they can bring up to the regular roster at any time they want.
If you wanted to limit game day rosters to 53 in college football you could easily do that. But if you limit colleges to 53 players total (or anything close to it) you are going to eventually cause roster issued for some teams.
You don’t limit scholarships/ that’s stupid
You cap expenses and salaries of coaching staff
You cap expenses and salaries of coaching staff
The problem with dead spots is we kinda have that now and it’s hurting teams and players. The initial counter limitation makes it difficult to replace players that transfer, because you can’t just add that loss to your next class. This hurts transfers because there aren’t spots opening up.
But new teams like Clemson and LSU have replaced them.
Nebraska never should have been a power. Segregation and the NCAA’s control of tv rights saved them for a while.
But in the end it’s a school out in the middle of nowhere, with the average recruit coming from 800+ miles away. Why should they be able to compete for national championships?
Last edited:
It’s not even that. Players for the most part, don’t like going far away. So if you’re in a talent hub, you’re going to reap the benefit of human nature.
A system that forces kids to leave everything they’ve ever known, so that Northwestern has a chance to win a championship, isn’t a system worth defending.
How about academic incentives? Say if you earn specific metrics (GPA for higher level majors) (graduating players on time) (retaining players) you earn MORE scholarships and those who don't have them reduced....
Trust me I know it would never happen but it sure would be interesting...
Trust me I know it would never happen but it sure would be interesting...
Nebraska no longer being a power is due to hiring Steve Pederson and moving to the Big 10 will keep them from ever regaining that status.
I have long advocated that every team play an equal number of home and away games beyond conference requirements.
Every professional sport does it.
Colleges should too.
Every professional sport does it.
Colleges should too.
Probably a dynamic that is changing a little but it is still situational. Kids from Ohio sometimes pick a MAC or AAC school to they can stay home. Kids from other football rich areas are willing to move around a little to play at "lesser" programs. Pitt has benefited but it's no longer a given that Texas gets first pick of the Texas kids or a SoCal kid will try to stay in California. FL kids are willing to go just about anywhere.
As Nick Saban learned, when you go to the NFL, you are playing against teams who pull their players from the same player pool that you do. That have the same rules that you do. That have the same schedule requirements that you do.
In college, Alabama and Ohio State don't get their players from the same pool that Pitt and Boston College does. Their budget is 5-10X of our budgets for coaching and facilities. They can choose their OOC opponents "judiciously".
But mostly, it is about the talent. To put it this way, Alabama, Ohio State play with all 1st and 2nd rd picks. Some others play with 1st, 2nd and 3rd picks. The Pitt's play with 4th, 5th and 6th rounders. As we know, with Tom Brady, Antonio Brown, a few 6th rounders turn into gold. We see this collegiately with an Aaron Donald. But their is a reason why Pitt has produced some HOF football players over the last 40 years with very little to show from it. The rest of the team is not that good.
Until you make it more palatable for "1st and 2nd rounders" to go elsewhere aside from an Alabama or Ohio State, this performance in the CFP ain't going to change.
In college, Alabama and Ohio State don't get their players from the same pool that Pitt and Boston College does. Their budget is 5-10X of our budgets for coaching and facilities. They can choose their OOC opponents "judiciously".
But mostly, it is about the talent. To put it this way, Alabama, Ohio State play with all 1st and 2nd rd picks. Some others play with 1st, 2nd and 3rd picks. The Pitt's play with 4th, 5th and 6th rounders. As we know, with Tom Brady, Antonio Brown, a few 6th rounders turn into gold. We see this collegiately with an Aaron Donald. But their is a reason why Pitt has produced some HOF football players over the last 40 years with very little to show from it. The rest of the team is not that good.
Until you make it more palatable for "1st and 2nd rounders" to go elsewhere aside from an Alabama or Ohio State, this performance in the CFP ain't going to change.
Players are willIng to literally leave the state they are from, and that has probably always been the case. But even FL kids aren’t leaving the south. Remove IMG from it since those aren’t actually FL kids. Looking at the 247 2021 FL recruit rankings, it’s not very diverse in terms of regions. The super-majority of kids are staying in state or staying in the south. So even if they are willing to leave the actual borders of FL, that isn’t much help to Nebraska.
California would be the same. It’s a little more diverse, which is to be expected with how weak college football is out west. But for the most part, it’s still the west coast footprint even for kids leaving Cali.
Really the one real exception to this is Ohio State. They dont’ need to be in a talent hot bed to get elite talent.
Athletes must meet across the board higher academic standards than is currently the case for an athletic scholarship to be recruited to a school of their choosing. I figure this to be about 20% of the pool. Others may be enrolled in universities in the manner they currently do but are subject to a national collegiate draft and are required to attend said university....Bama has the 85th pick in the first round in March.
there, I fixed it.
Last edited:
Latest posts
-
-
Heather wasn’t canned soon enough. Extending this clown…- Latest: UptownPrivileges
-
-
