I'll give you a topic

[Consigliere]

The gulf between the haves and have nots in the FBS is growing and a four team playoff will not impact. I'm not talking about the Boise States and Northern Illinois of the world but the teams in power conferences that no longer seem capable of making the jump from solid program status to National Champion contender. Teams like Illinois, North Carolina, Oklahoma State, Cal, Ole Miss and yes, Syracuse are capable of consistently winning 8 or 9 games or at least improving to that level but we'll never see them on that Final Monday.

Competitive balance in Mens Basketball exploded when scholarship limit was reduced from 15 to 13. It's time for a similar move in football - no annual limit to class size but a maximum of 75 players on scholarship at any time.

Discuss.

 

[Timonen]

oklahoma st. was an iowa st. loss away from playing for a nc two years ago. if ~3-5 teams per major conference have the potential of being in the mix, that's not bad. and teams like baylor and stanford competing at the bcs level blows up the notion of the chasm, no? it feels like there's a ton more teams in the mix now than there were 10-20 years ago.

 

[Rocco]

All that would happen is the dominant schools would become that much more picky when "selecting" recruits. I don't see how it would necessarily change anything.

There is no realistic way to change it right now IMO. You just need to find a diamond-in-the-rough coach, develop an incredible QB and possess a great defense to consistently win. The biggest issue now IMO is that most coaches' are hungry for their next big paycheck (and rightfully so in this capitalistic world), so tenures at schools are significantly lower than they were 30-40 years ago. The amount of money in college football is baffling and it is growing by leaps and bounds every year. The "bigger" schools have deep pockets to pretty much do whatever they want to do (ie. stealing coaches, facilities, etc).

A guy like Scott Shafer may stick around for 20 years if he pans out. Then again, he might show great success much to our pleasure, before leaving for a $5 mil/year job at an SEC school in 5 years. Syracuse simply cannot financially compete with that, or should I say "won't" compete with that?

 

[SmilinBob]

The SEC would then have cuts. Not that they don't now but it would be even worse.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

All that would happen is the dominant schools would become that much more picky when "selecting" recruits. I don't see how it would necessarily change anything.

There is no realistic way to change it right now IMO. You just need to find a diamond-in-the-rough coach, develop an incredible QB and possess a great defense to consistently win. The biggest issue now IMO is that most coaches' are hungry for their next big paycheck (and rightfully so in this capitalistic world), so tenures at schools are significantly lower than they were 30-40 years ago. The amount of money in college football is baffling and it is growing by leaps and bounds every year. The "bigger" schools have deep pockets to pretty much do whatever they want to do (ie. stealing coaches, facilities, etc).

A guy like Scott Shafer may stick around for 20 years if he pans out. Then again, he might show great success much to our pleasure, before leaving for a $5 mil/year job at an SEC school in 5 years. Syracuse simply cannot financially compete with that, or should I say "won't" compete with that?

No, I think can't is the right word. The public universities where higher emphasis is placed on college football by the fans, school, and culture will always work harder and spend more to build a true winner, doesn't mean that all will be successful but it's just the way it is. You only need to spend a few minutes in SEC Country, deep SEC country to figure that out. Not in the South where there is a ton of Northern transplants the true South

 

[OrangeXtreme]

75 players on a team, but you can bring in way more than 25 players in a class?

1. You would no longer have the luxury of redshirting most of your incoming class.

2. Players who didn't pan out would be run off very quickly.

 

[Timonen]

No, I think can't is the right word. The public universities where higher emphasis is placed on college football by the fans, school, and culture will always work harder and spend more to build a true winner, doesn't mean that all will be successful but it's just the way it is. You only need to spend a few minutes in SEC Country, deep SEC country to figure that out. Not in the South where there is a ton of Northern transplants the true South

it's the white collar version of it, but it's certainly evident in Atlanta (which has a ton of transplants). i describe atlanta as the all star workforce from the sec/acc. if you went to bama or lsu or ole miss or florida or clemson or auburn etc and are going into any type of business, you're likely moving to atlanta (i imagine dallas is the same for big 12). it's created an unbelievable atmosphere where every other house has a flag up on saturdays and car flags are always flying. us northern transplants have jumped in full force (off the top of my head, my neighborhood has flags from wvu, cuse, cincy, michigan st, osu, and oklahoma from outside the region). it's the center of conversation with friends and co-workers.

 

[Full_Rebar]

oklahoma st. was an iowa st. loss away from playing for a nc two years ago. if ~3-5 teams per major conference have the potential of being in the mix, that's not bad. and teams like baylor and stanford competing at the bcs level blows up the notion of the chasm, no? it feels like there's a ton more teams in the mix now than there were 10-20 years ago.

Stanford's success has to do with a combination of a wealthy athletic department and a pair of coaches who have recruited nationally to fit the institution. Okie State's rise was directly related to T. Boone's influx of cash and Baylor hired a very bright coach and took advantage of Mack Brown and Texas slipping.

If you look at the title contenders from the 80s/90s, these teams have stepped in the last couple of years -Nebraska/Miami/Penn St/Michigan/USC, so some of the names change, but I don't think the number of teams "in the mix" is different.

 

[retro44]

Ok. St. has T. Boone Pickens and reportedly pays a good dollar for kids to go there. When they cheat on a bigger scale it does pay ,but these players today with street agents command big money and Emmert walks away from that stuff.

Baylor is big oil university of wealthy donors. But not a bright bunch of people as they to get caught,are the others in that state ratting them out?

 

[baggerbob]

If you have a max of 75 on scholarship, and make the max you can bring in per year at 23, that would put a lot more players at other schools

 

[javadoc]

The gulf between the haves and have nots in the FBS is growing and a four team playoff will not impact. I'm not talking about the Boise States and Northern Illinois of the world but the teams in power conferences that no longer seem capable of making the jump from solid program status to National Champion contender. Teams like Illinois, North Carolina, Oklahoma State, Cal, Ole Miss and yes, Syracuse are capable of consistently winning 8 or 9 games or at least improving to that level but we'll never see them on that Final Monday.

Competitive balance in Mens Basketball exploded when scholarship limit was reduced from 15 to 13. It's time for a similar move in football - no annual limit to class size but a maximum of 75 players on scholarship at any time.

Discuss.

Great idea which I have espoused a couple times as well, with the same number (75). Also tweak the number that can be brought in, although I don't have a good analysis of what that should be. Maybe reduce proportionately.

You also have to forbid walk-ons from playing. Make schools pay for everyone who appears on the field, including kickers. Some accommodation would have to be made for the service academies given their special nature wrt scholarships and participation.

 

[IthacaBarrel]

it's the white collar version of it, but it's certainly evident in Atlanta (which has a ton of transplants). i describe atlanta as the all star workforce from the sec/acc. if you went to bama or lsu or ole miss or florida or clemson or auburn etc and are going into any type of business, you're likely moving to atlanta (i imagine dallas is the same for big 12). it's created an unbelievable atmosphere where every other house has a flag up on saturdays and car flags are always flying. us northern transplants have jumped in full force (off the top of my head, my neighborhood has flags from wvu, cuse, cincy, michigan st, osu, and oklahoma from outside the region). it's the center of conversation with friends and co-workers.

Yes, Atlanta is a great example as well, plenty of Northern people but a ton of people from the South from all over, like you said it's all consuming for sure

 

[All4SU]

Not trying to hijack this thread... I agree with the original premise by the OP that it is becoming increasingly difficult to be a "have" in cfb. It is possible that the split off by the five major conferences could impact that, and create a new balance because all of those teams will be elevated together in some sense.

But beyond that, i think money is just going to keep steering cfb in the wrong direction. If you truly want to move toward parity, find a way to get the nfl to start a minor league for football, let the natural order syphon off those kids that are not really interested in college, and want to earn a check, and TRY to nudge cfb back in the direction of true student athletes. Parity will result, i guarantee it. Of course, i dont think thats what most people here really want.

 

[RobCWhatUp]

I was always under the assumption that these things happened in a cycle, so I decided to look up the winningest programs from the 80s, 90s, and 00s. What I found interesting was that there were 4 schools that showed up in the 80s and 90s but not in the 00s (Nebraska, FSU, Miami, and PSU); only 2 schools showed up in the 90s and 00s (Florida and Ohio St); 2 schools showed up in the 80s and then again in 00s (Oklahoma and Georgia). A team that is not a power conference is also in the top 3 each decade and no team shows up in all 3 decades. While a majority of these schools are the big time schools we are talking about, there are some that are able to peek though. I also believe we see new names in the 00s because of conference realignment and I am sure we will see newer names when we look at the 10s in the year 2020 (wow! Talk about looking ahead).

I think to make a solid run to the playoffs for a mid level team (like a Syracuse, Missouri, etc) it would take a down year from a major team, those one or two game changers that decide to go to a mid-level school, and a lot of luck. I don't think a reduction in scholarship is the answer either with only a 4 team playoff. Just not enough seats at the table to see major changes.

The parity in college basketball showed because 64, then 65, and now 68 teams make the post season tournament. Those are a lot of teams for an elite team to get through every year, hence why I think we have seen more teams breakthrough over the last few years.

80s -
1. Nebraska: 103-20-0 .837
2. Miami (FL): 98-20-0 .831
3. BYU: 102-26-0 .797
4. Oklahoma: 91-25-2 .780
5. Clemson: 86-25-4 .765
6. Penn State: 89-27-2 .763
7. Georgia: 88-27-4 .756
8. (tie) Florida State: 87-28-3 .750

90s -
1. Florida State: 109-13-1 .(890)
2. Nebraska: 108-16-1 (.868)
3. Marshall: 114-25-0 (.820)
4. Florida: 102-22-1 (.820)
5. Tennessee: 99-22-2 (.813)
6. Penn State: 97-26-0 (.789)
7. Michigan: 93-26-3 (.775)
8. Miami (FL): 92-27-0 (.773)
9. Texas A&M: 94-28-2 (.766)
10. Ohio State: 91-30-3 (.746)

00s -
1. Boise State: 112-17 (.868)
2. Texas: 110-19 (.853)
3. Oklahoma: 110-24 (.821)
4. Ohio State: 102-25 (.803)
5. Southern California: 88-26 (.772) (reflects victories lost in the 2004 and 2005 seasons)
6. Florida: 100-30 (.769)
7. TCU: 95-29 (.766)
8. LSU: 99-31 (.762)
9. Georgia: 98-31 (.760)
10. Virginia Tech: 99-32 (.756)

 

[Timonen]

Stanford's success has to do with a combination of a wealthy athletic department and a pair of coaches who have recruited nationally to fit the institution. Okie State's rise was directly related to T. Boone's influx of cash and Baylor hired a very bright coach and took advantage of Mack Brown and Texas slipping.

If you look at the title contenders from the 80s/90s, these teams have stepped in the last couple of years -Nebraska/Miami/Penn St/Michigan/USC, so some of the names change, but I don't think the number of teams "in the mix" is different.

i only cited okie st because they were given as an example of a team that could get to a certain level but never play in the championship game...which just isn't accurate. i don't think you look at just the teams who are actually getting it right, but also the ones with the potential. Michigan, Texas, USC, Miami, Nebraska, Tenny have been down but would be right back there if they make the correct choices re: coaches and strategy. Teams like Stanford, Baylor, Oregon, Clemson have inserted themselves into the top 10/discussion...so there's upward mobility (by whatever means get you there). Arkansas is just a couple years removed from regularly being in the BCS conversation. aTm is there now after really slipping for a while. We're not too far removed from Bama being way down and FSU being average...and LSU was the definition of average through the 90s. It's fluid and doesn't strike me as the same cast of characters, though there are some pillars that are often in the mix. If the goal is the rationalize a system where we have a good shot, that ain't happening these days...just like it didn't really happen in the 90s when we were at our heights. But, there are a lot of teams/institutions who can work their way into the mix.

 

[VaSaltine]

The gulf between the haves and have nots in the FBS is growing and a four team playoff will not impact. I'm not talking about the Boise States and Northern Illinois of the world but the teams in power conferences that no longer seem capable of making the jump from solid program status to National Champion contender. Teams like Illinois, North Carolina, Oklahoma State, Cal, Ole Miss and yes, Syracuse are capable of consistently winning 8 or 9 games or at least improving to that level but we'll never see them on that Final Monday.

Competitive balance in Mens Basketball exploded when scholarship limit was reduced from 15 to 13. It's time for a similar move in football - no annual limit to class size but a maximum of 75 players on scholarship at any time.

Discuss.

Good analysis, Mr. President