...NCAA Women’s basketball. How many times can UConn playing in the Final Four be fun to watch? Fans from 64 teams may have delusions of grandeur when the brackets are announced but in the final analysis only a handful of teams really have a chance to win the tournament. In the last 15 years, 5 NCAA Women basketball programs have taken 34 of the 60 Final Four slots. Here is a rather absurd statistic but it still drives home the complete lack of parity in women’s basketball: 1.5% of the 339 Division 1 teams have taken 57% of the Final Four slots.
Is NCAA football headed for the same fate? In the last 15 years, 4 football programs have won 10 of the 15 championships. Again, said differently, 6% of the 65 P5 schools have won 67% of the championships. And to show where things are trending, in the 4 years of the CFP, 4 teams have taken 11 of the 16 slots.
Can anything harm a sport faster than a lack of parity? To make things worse, we can reasonably predict most of the CFP participants for at least the next few years just by looking at the recruiting standings each year. Who would be foolish enough to bet against Alabama, Georgia, Clemson, Ohio State and Oklahoma making up 2-3 of the CFP teams for the next few years? And unlike in basketball where the blind optimism meter gets reset for 64 (or 68) teams with the bracket announcements, only 4 teams have any shot when CFP is announced. Sure, you can say that conference championships realistically bring a few more teams into the fold but I think you get my point.
So what can be done to give schools like Pitt a chance of ever winning another national championship? The most you could hope for in the way of expanding the CFP would be to add 1 more round and allow 8 teams into the playoff. However, that doesn’t address the parity problem. I believe salary caps have helped add parity to professional sports and without taking a shot at corrupt college programs, probably the best cap setting would be to reduce the number of available scholarships. Maybe lowering the total from 85 to 75 or 70 would be helpful as 10-15 players from each of the elite programs would have to find another home and the trickle down affect would spread the wealth over several dozen more programs. Then the number of realistic challengers might be more meaningful. And a program like Pitt might not have to strike lightning in a bottle to win a championship every 40-50 years but could be in the CFP conversation maybe once or twice a decade.
Another relevant type of cap setting would be to limit the number of support staff. The NCAA now allows 10 on-field coaches, 5 strength and conditioning coaches and 4 graduate assistants. In addition to those numbers, Alabama and Georgia have 29 support staff members. By comparison, the best I can determine, Pitt has a support staff of about 17. You don’t have to limit the amount that you pay each support staff member (just as on-field coaching salaries aren’t limited) but limit the number of support staff. That would help level the playing field a bit so that the only advantage the richer programs have would be in the quality of their support staffs. Support staffs might not sound like a major factor but if you value recruiting, game planning, player evaluations/development, academic eligibility and just about any other area impacting a college football program then they are critical. Every area must be addressed and whatever isn’t handled by support staff must be handled by the on-field staff.
I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on parity and if you even think there is a problem. I know there are many issues impacting Pitt’s ability to compete at an elite level but I think leveling the playing field, wherever possible, will bring many more programs into the annual CFP discussion and I don’t see how that could possibly be a bad thing.
Is NCAA football headed for the same fate? In the last 15 years, 4 football programs have won 10 of the 15 championships. Again, said differently, 6% of the 65 P5 schools have won 67% of the championships. And to show where things are trending, in the 4 years of the CFP, 4 teams have taken 11 of the 16 slots.
Can anything harm a sport faster than a lack of parity? To make things worse, we can reasonably predict most of the CFP participants for at least the next few years just by looking at the recruiting standings each year. Who would be foolish enough to bet against Alabama, Georgia, Clemson, Ohio State and Oklahoma making up 2-3 of the CFP teams for the next few years? And unlike in basketball where the blind optimism meter gets reset for 64 (or 68) teams with the bracket announcements, only 4 teams have any shot when CFP is announced. Sure, you can say that conference championships realistically bring a few more teams into the fold but I think you get my point.
So what can be done to give schools like Pitt a chance of ever winning another national championship? The most you could hope for in the way of expanding the CFP would be to add 1 more round and allow 8 teams into the playoff. However, that doesn’t address the parity problem. I believe salary caps have helped add parity to professional sports and without taking a shot at corrupt college programs, probably the best cap setting would be to reduce the number of available scholarships. Maybe lowering the total from 85 to 75 or 70 would be helpful as 10-15 players from each of the elite programs would have to find another home and the trickle down affect would spread the wealth over several dozen more programs. Then the number of realistic challengers might be more meaningful. And a program like Pitt might not have to strike lightning in a bottle to win a championship every 40-50 years but could be in the CFP conversation maybe once or twice a decade.
Another relevant type of cap setting would be to limit the number of support staff. The NCAA now allows 10 on-field coaches, 5 strength and conditioning coaches and 4 graduate assistants. In addition to those numbers, Alabama and Georgia have 29 support staff members. By comparison, the best I can determine, Pitt has a support staff of about 17. You don’t have to limit the amount that you pay each support staff member (just as on-field coaching salaries aren’t limited) but limit the number of support staff. That would help level the playing field a bit so that the only advantage the richer programs have would be in the quality of their support staffs. Support staffs might not sound like a major factor but if you value recruiting, game planning, player evaluations/development, academic eligibility and just about any other area impacting a college football program then they are critical. Every area must be addressed and whatever isn’t handled by support staff must be handled by the on-field staff.
I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on parity and if you even think there is a problem. I know there are many issues impacting Pitt’s ability to compete at an elite level but I think leveling the playing field, wherever possible, will bring many more programs into the annual CFP discussion and I don’t see how that could possibly be a bad thing.
