How to ensure parity and/or fix the college football playoffs.

[Thomas1945]

I’m not advocating or denigrating the following opinions, just throwing them out as a starting point. However since I’m operating with severely limited cranial firepower this is all i have.
1. Limit scholarships to 75 with a strict limit of only 20 new ones every year.
2. Expand the playoffs to at least 8 teams.
3. A combination of 1 and 2 above.
4. No restrictions whatsoever in the transfer pool with immediate playing time availability for all players.
5. No immediate playing time for transfers unless they have actually graduated. No exceptions with a mandatory one year sit out required.
6. Any combination of items 1, 2, 4 and 5.
7. Leave it as it is, everything is fine.

I realize that some opinions above come with the specter of Legal challenges, but what doesn’t in our current society? Also I know that much of this has been previously discussed at different times, but what’s more fun than beating a dead horse? Feel free to add your own helpful solutions or negative, unwarranted and foolish attacks on what is obviously a brilliantly designed and timely thread.

 

[Texas Lion]

1. Would be interesting wouldn't it?
2. 8 sounds great, 5 conference champs, group of 5 highest ranked, and 2 at large.
3. Why not both?
4. I hate the transfer with no penalty. I have always been more of a #5 guy myself. I just think it allows people to bolt at the first sign of adversity. Imagine where Ricky Slade would be right now had he stayed?
5. Yep, spot on.....and I will sound like a big ole meany when I say this....but unless you have a diploma, you do not get any waiver of any kind. Ive seen too many arbitrary rulings and I don't like inconsistant approach.
6. I think you make it 1, 2, and 5.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

I’m not advocating or denigrating the following opinions, just throwing them out as a starting point. However since I’m operating with severely limited cranial firepower this is all i have.
1. Limit scholarships to 75 with a strict limit of only 20 new ones every year.
2. Expand the playoffs to at least 8 teams.
3. A combination of 1 and 2 above.
4. No restrictions whatsoever in the transfer pool with immediate playing time availability for all players.
5. No immediate playing time for transfers unless they have actually graduated. No exceptions with a mandatory one year sit out required.
6. Any combination of items 1, 2, 4 and 5.
7. Leave it as it is, everything is fine.

I realize that some opinions above come with the specter of Legal challenges, but what doesn’t in our current society? Also I know that much of this has been previously discussed at different times, but what’s more fun than beating a dead horse? Feel free to add your own helpful solutions or negative, unwarranted and foolish attacks on what is obviously a brilliantly designed and timely thread.

I like 1, 2 (would add conference championship is an automatic bid), and 4. Of those, I think most difficult to pass would be the scholarship limits. How about eliminating red-shirt years? Would force some talent to re-think going to a consistent powerhouse if their eligibility begins to burn ASAP. What I think will happen is an expansion of teams if anything. Get the conference champs in there too.

 

[Obliviax]

I’m not advocating or denigrating the following opinions, just throwing them out as a starting point. However since I’m operating with severely limited cranial firepower this is all i have.
1. Limit scholarships to 75 with a strict limit of only 20 new ones every year.
2. Expand the playoffs to at least 8 teams.
3. A combination of 1 and 2 above.
4. No restrictions whatsoever in the transfer pool with immediate playing time availability for all players.
5. No immediate playing time for transfers unless they have actually graduated. No exceptions with a mandatory one year sit out required.
6. Any combination of items 1, 2, 4 and 5.
7. Leave it as it is, everything is fine.

I realize that some opinions above come with the specter of Legal challenges, but what doesn’t in our current society? Also I know that much of this has been previously discussed at different times, but what’s more fun than beating a dead horse? Feel free to add your own helpful solutions or negative, unwarranted and foolish attacks on what is obviously a brilliantly designed and timely thread.

I like the portal but I think it needs to be one in windows. I don't like a kid transferring in or out at any time during the year. I also think there needs to be a portal process so that kids and teams can find matches based on need. I also would like to see a yearly limit on kids you can bring in beyond the # of kids that left.

 

[Ranger Dan]

Why limit scholarships? That just means that fewer kids go to college.

Either your points 4 and 5 disagree with each other relative to immediate playing time Or it already is like what you suggest. I’m not sure.

Here is the solution:
1. 8 equal sized regional conferences (geography not TV)
2. Relegation between top tier and second tier within region
3. All 8 winners of top tier conferences make playoffs
4. Central scheduling with rotating OOC
5. Top tier plays all 7 teams in conference, three teams in second tier of region, and 2 top tier OOC games

 

[Sullivan]

I’m not advocating or denigrating the following opinions, just throwing them out as a starting point. However since I’m operating with severely limited cranial firepower this is all i have.
1. Limit scholarships to 75 with a strict limit of only 20 new ones every year.
2. Expand the playoffs to at least 8 teams.
3. A combination of 1 and 2 above.
4. No restrictions whatsoever in the transfer pool with immediate playing time availability for all players.
5. No immediate playing time for transfers unless they have actually graduated. No exceptions with a mandatory one year sit out required.
6. Any combination of items 1, 2, 4 and 5.
7. Leave it as it is, everything is fine.

I realize that some opinions above come with the specter of Legal challenges, but what doesn’t in our current society? Also I know that much of this has been previously discussed at different times, but what’s more fun than beating a dead horse? Feel free to add your own helpful solutions or negative, unwarranted and foolish attacks on what is obviously a brilliantly designed and timely thread.

Reduce the salary cap

 

[fastlax16]

Expand to 8 and making conference champs auto qualifiers would be the path of least resistance. Everything else would would be a tough to impossible sell.

 

[WDLion]

I’m not advocating or denigrating the following opinions, just throwing them out as a starting point. However since I’m operating with severely limited cranial firepower this is all i have.
1. Limit scholarships to 75 with a strict limit of only 20 new ones every year.
2. Expand the playoffs to at least 8 teams.
3. A combination of 1 and 2 above.
4. No restrictions whatsoever in the transfer pool with immediate playing time availability for all players.
5. No immediate playing time for transfers unless they have actually graduated. No exceptions with a mandatory one year sit out required.
6. Any combination of items 1, 2, 4 and 5.
7. Leave it as it is, everything is fine.

I realize that some opinions above come with the specter of Legal challenges, but what doesn’t in our current society? Also I know that much of this has been previously discussed at different times, but what’s more fun than beating a dead horse? Feel free to add your own helpful solutions or negative, unwarranted and foolish attacks on what is obviously a brilliantly designed and timely thread.

1 won't work. The same same teams will still get all of the 4 and 5 stars. All that will do is deny many kids of scholarships.

 

[The Spin Meister]

1 won't work. The same same teams will still get all of the 4 and 5 stars. All that will do is deny many kids of scholarships.

Actually, it means tha som of the kids will go to other schools and spread out the talent. Just like when they set the limit at 85. Lots of schools got better. And more kids get playing time.

 

[WDLion]

Actually, it means tha som of the kids will go to other schools and spread out the talent. Just like when they set the limit at 85. Lots of schools got better. And more kids get playing time.

Disagree on parity. The same teams will still get the best players.

 

[The Spin Meister]

Disagree on parity. The same teams will still get the best players.

Sure they do. But the other teams pick up a few better players and thus get better.

Edit: And I said nothing about parity.

 

[WDLion]

Sure they do. But the other teams pick up a few better players and thus get better.

Edit: And I said nothing about parity.

In my opinion there aren't enough 4 and 5 stars to make much of a difference. Alabama will still have the same number of 4-5 stars and less 3 stars. Teams like Indiana will still have the same number of 3 stars and less 2 stars.

 

[WDLion]

Sure they do. But the other teams pick up a few better players and thus get better.

Edit: And I said nothing about parity.

The O P which is who i replied to mentioned parity.

 

[The Spin Meister]

The O P which is who i replied to mentioned parity.

The ‘parity’ comment, number 10, quoted The Spin Meister.

 

[JustinTyme]

College football already has achieved parody in 2020. https://thespun.com/more/top-stories/sec-shorts-college-football-2020-parody

 

[Lion Son/Husband/Father]

I’m not advocating or denigrating the following opinions, just throwing them out as a starting point. However since I’m operating with severely limited cranial firepower this is all i have.
1. Limit scholarships to 75 with a strict limit of only 20 new ones every year.
2. Expand the playoffs to at least 8 teams.
3. A combination of 1 and 2 above.
4. No restrictions whatsoever in the transfer pool with immediate playing time availability for all players.
5. No immediate playing time for transfers unless they have actually graduated. No exceptions with a mandatory one year sit out required.
6. Any combination of items 1, 2, 4 and 5.
7. Leave it as it is, everything is fine.

I realize that some opinions above come with the specter of Legal challenges, but what doesn’t in our current society? Also I know that much of this has been previously discussed at different times, but what’s more fun than beating a dead horse? Feel free to add your own helpful solutions or negative, unwarranted and foolish attacks on what is obviously a brilliantly designed and timely thread.

Cowherd added a team that reaches the final 4 2 years in a row gets 10 less scholarships for 2 years.

 

[PrtLng Lion]

Cowherd added a team that reaches the final 4 2 years in a row gets 10 less scholarships for 2 years.

Interesting idea, would certainly help promote parity. When I think about it though, I don't like the idea of punishing success.

 

[RU31trap]

I’m not advocating or denigrating the following opinions, just throwing them out as a starting point. However since I’m operating with severely limited cranial firepower this is all i have.
1. Limit scholarships to 75 with a strict limit of only 20 new ones every year.
2. Expand the playoffs to at least 8 teams.
3. A combination of 1 and 2 above.
4. No restrictions whatsoever in the transfer pool with immediate playing time availability for all players.
5. No immediate playing time for transfers unless they have actually graduated. No exceptions with a mandatory one year sit out required.
6. Any combination of items 1, 2, 4 and 5.
7. Leave it as it is, everything is fine.

I realize that some opinions above come with the specter of Legal challenges, but what doesn’t in our current society? Also I know that much of this has been previously discussed at different times, but what’s more fun than beating a dead horse? Feel free to add your own helpful solutions or negative, unwarranted and foolish attacks on what is obviously a brilliantly designed and timely thread.

Excellent list!! I feel that number 1 can be viewed as college football’s version of a salary cap. If #1 came to fruition recruiting will take on a completely different meaning. I also see number 2 directly related to #1. The very best athletes in the country are competing for an offer from the same 5, maybe 6 teams that make the (4 team) playoffs. With an 8 team playoff the number of teams in the hunt becomes 11, this will offer options for kids and opportunities for teams. Finally, I think number 5 must happen if we are going to stop this revolving door of athletes leaving a program. The only exception might be a change in head coach. Other than that you need to sit out a season.

 

[BobPSU92]

Expose everyone to the virus equally.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

Interesting idea, would certainly help promote parity. When I think about it though, I don't like the idea of punishing success.

Especially since there is a big subjective element to the CFP. Do whatever you can to eliminate subjectiveness (automatic bid for conference champ, expand to 8 teams) and maybe you can do something to dial back scholarships or effect some other tool to help out other teams. If you win in the NFL your reward is a lower draft pick. Win in college football and all the best players want to play for you.

 

[Wallace Breen]

If you want to fix college football, you have to fix recruiting. All schools should be capped at 65 or 70 scholarship players. There is no need for 85. Secondly, the NCAA needs to raise its minimum academic standards. They are much too low.

As far as the post season goes, expanding the playoffs is the absolute wrong decision. Much of what is currently wrong with college football is directly attributed to the playoffs. Just kill it outright and tie post-season participation to graduation rates as well as win/loss records.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

If you want to fix college football, you have to fix recruiting. All schools should be capped at 65 or 70 scholarship players. There is no need for 85. Secondly, the NCAA needs to raise its minimum academic standards. They are much too low.

As far as the post season goes, expanding the playoffs is the absolute wrong decision. Much of what is currently wrong with college football is directly attributed to the playoffs. Just kill it outright and tie post-season participation to graduation rates as well as win/loss records.

Right, because no school would ever cheat academically to achieve success in athletics. Expand the playoff, limit number of scholarships or eliminate redshirt seasons, give automatic bids to conference champions, have transfer portal without penalty during 'off season' (no mid-season transfers) and standardize recruiting budgets. You need to spread the wealth of talent around; Alabama averages about 3 5 Star players per recruiting class (that's typically the minimum - in 2017 they signed seven). That's more than the entire Big Ten gets - even when you add in OSU. When you throw in Georgia, LSU, Florida, Auburn - it's not even close.

 

[Lion Son/Husband/Father]

Interesting idea, would certainly help promote parity. When I think about it though, I don't like the idea of punishing success.

For the greater good. Even Alabama can’t fill the stands cause beating the shit out of ol miss by 30 is B O R I N G

 

[psuro]

Eliminate the poll system. It's antiquated and unnecessary.

 

[Lion Son/Husband/Father]

If you want to fix college football, you have to fix recruiting. All schools should be capped at 65 or 70 scholarship players. There is no need for 85. Secondly, the NCAA needs to raise its minimum academic standards. They are much too low.

As far as the post season goes, expanding the playoffs is the absolute wrong decision. Much of what is currently wrong with college football is directly attributed to the playoffs. Just kill it outright and tie post-season participation to graduation rates as well as win/loss records.

Yeah, don’t think I’m watching LEHIGH play ny6 games with a field full of nerds.

 

[Lion Son/Husband/Father]

Eliminate the poll system. It's antiquated and unnecessary.

When State is cooking, I LOVE when the polls come out. Generates interest and discussion.

 

[PS4814]

What about a salary cap on coach and/or assistant coach salaries?

Reading through all these responses makes me think that one thing you could do to create some turnover and potential parity without taking scholarships from kids is to limit the amount coaches make so they're enticed to "move on" to the NFL if they want to make more money. Maybe a max of $2 million per year for a head coach and $500k for OC and DC each since the lowest salary for an NFL coach last year was $4 million, but just tossing out those numbers. For comparison currently there are ~30 college teams paying their head coach $4+ million per year and ~60 paying $2+ million per year.

When you've got coaches pulling in a comparable (or much more) paycheck to what they'd make in the NFL there is no motivation to move anywhere else, so coaches like Saban, Urban, Sweeney etc. can continue to be the "big fish in the little pond" and dominate year after year. You cut their salaries, limit compensation from endorsements - like is done to the college athletes - maybe you'd see some movement from coaches and less repetition of the same teams in the playoff year after year.

 

[Lion Son/Husband/Father]

What about a salary cap on coach and/or assistant coach salaries?

Reading through all these responses makes me think that one thing you could do to create some turnover and potential parity without taking scholarships from kids is to limit the amount coaches make so they're enticed to "move on" to the NFL if they want to make more money. Maybe a max of $2 million per year for a head coach and $500k for OC and DC each since the lowest salary for an NFL coach last year was $4 million, but just tossing out those numbers. For comparison currently there are ~30 college teams paying their head coach $4+ million per year and ~60 paying $2+ million per year.

When you've got coaches pulling in a comparable (or much more) paycheck to what they'd make in the NFL there is no motivation to move anywhere else, so coaches like Saban, Urban, Sweeney etc. can continue to be the "big fish in the little pond" and dominate year after year. You cut their salaries, limit compensation from endorsements - like is done to the college athletes - maybe you'd see some movement from coaches and less repetition of the same teams in the playoff year after year.

Too socialist here, no bueno

 

[PS4814]

Too socialist here, no bueno

I guess I'd like to hear then how it's more "socialist" different than the NFL's salary cap? Or any salary table for most college / governmental jobs?

 

[ram2020]

Question; does the NCAA or college athletics as a whole need to create parity? Is it their responsibility? Sure, I think its boring to see the same schools in the playoffs each year, but does it matter? When would it matter? I suppose when Penn State stops having fans in the seats, the Big 10 starts loosing money, the NCAA and the fat cats in Indianapolis start receiving pay cuts. Look, this playoff system isn't working for us, but it's working for the system. The enterprise, pre-covid, is doing just fine. Unless they materially stop receiving viewership, TV contracts, fans, etc. they won't feel pressure to change a damn thing. You can BDS the games and that might move the needle? Otherwise, OSU/CLem/ALA/ are going to keep humming.

 

[Lion Son/Husband/Father]

Should we limit owners take too?

 

[stf110]

Why limit scholarships? That just means that fewer kids go to college.

The idea being that with fewer there is less aptness to the "named" programs just stockpiling and sitting on players, back in the day before any scholarship limits, schools would sign players less "because we need you and will give you playing time" and more "we don't want our rivals to get you".

 

[PS4814]

Should we limit owners take too?

There are no "owners" of NCAA football teams unless you're referring to the athletic departments and colleges themselves. In which case I'm all on board with using the extra revenue on other things either within the department (i.e. facilities improvements for the athletes), scholarships for athletes in other sports, or maybe even paying the players - but that's an argument for another thread.

I'm just surprised you're pulling the socialist card when there is a salary cap in the NFL and with most properly run teams it can help to create parity within the league. But somehow the idea of a salary cap for college football coaches is a step too far? You don't want to put it on an individual - fine - how about each school can only spend $"X" million on the coaching staff including incentives for winning bowl games etc. You have a Saban at 'Bama and you want to pay him $9 mil a year that's cool, you now have only $1 mil left for the remaining coaches.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

There are no "owners" of NCAA football teams unless you're referring to the athletic departments and colleges themselves. In which case I'm all on board with using the extra revenue on other things either within the department (i.e. facilities improvements for the athletes), scholarships for athletes in other sports, or maybe even paying the players - but that's an argument for another thread.

I'm just surprised you're pulling the socialist card when there is a salary cap in the NFL and with most properly run teams it can help to create parity within the league. But somehow the idea of a salary cap for college football coaches is a step too far? You don't want to put it on an individual - fine - how about each school can only spend $"X" million on the coaching staff including incentives for winning bowl games etc. You have a Saban at 'Bama and you want to pay him $9 mil a year that's cool, you now have only $1 mil left for the remaining coaches.

The NFL (and all big time college sports conferences for that matter) is all about revenue sharing; Rutgers gets the same check every other B1G team does at the end of bowl season and the same cut of the TV money. Certainly, local revenue will vary (ticket sales, concessions, parking, etc.) but the idea that it's completely capitalist is simply not true.

 

[KnightSlayer]

If you want to spread out the talent, you need to expand the playoffs. 16 team playoff, no conference champ games. 2 teams each from the power 5 conference and 6 at large.

Under this scenario. OSU, PSU, Mich, MSU, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minn would have been in the playoffs over the last 6 years.

 

[Lion Son/Husband/Father]

There are no "owners" of NCAA football teams unless you're referring to the athletic departments and colleges themselves. In which case I'm all on board with using the extra revenue on other things either within the department (i.e. facilities improvements for the athletes), scholarships for athletes in other sports, or maybe even paying the players - but that's an argument for another thread.

I'm just surprised you're pulling the socialist card when there is a salary cap in the NFL and with most properly run teams it can help to create parity within the league. But somehow the idea of a salary cap for college football coaches is a step too far? You don't want to put it on an individual - fine - how about each school can only spend $"X" million on the coaching staff including incentives for winning bowl games etc. You have a Saban at 'Bama and you want to pay him $9 mil a year that's cool, you now have only $1 mil left for the remaining coaches.

the NCAA and the fat cats in Indianapolis start receiving pay cuts.

 

[bvillebaron]

Right, because no school would ever cheat academically to achieve success in athletics. Expand the playoff, limit number of scholarships or eliminate redshirt seasons, give automatic bids to conference champions, have transfer portal without penalty during 'off season' (no mid-season transfers) and standardize recruiting budgets. You need to spread the wealth of talent around; Alabama averages about 3 5 Star players per recruiting class (that's typically the minimum - in 2017 they signed seven). That's more than the entire Big Ten gets - even when you add in OSU. When you throw in Georgia, LSU, Florida, Auburn - it's not even close.

Actually I think making everyone who transfers through the portal sit out a year promotes parity. How would OSU fared last year if Fields wasn’t immediately eligible?

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

Actually I think making everyone who transfers through the portal sit out a year promotes parity. How would OSU fared last year if Fields wasn’t immediately eligible?

I could go either way on sitting a year - if you keep redshirt years then they should sit, if not they should be able to play right away. Always thought having to sit a year was unnecessarily punitive, but not fair to teams either. Just don’t want some arbitrary case by case ruling - all sit, or all play (with very specific circumstances for a waiver).

 

[soulkitchen74]

Cowherd added a team that reaches the final 4 2 years in a row gets 10 less scholarships for 2 years.

Just tie the amount of scholarships to their graduation rate. The problem will work itself out that way, and you can say you are focusing more on the "student athlete".

 

[Lion Son/Husband/Father]

Just tie the amount of scholarships to their graduation rate. The problem will work itself out that way, and you can say you are focusing more on the "student athlete".

It’s as if we give zero fvcks about the game itself. I don’t care if they graduate, I want 12 hours of high quality football every Saturday