How to fix College Football?

[IrishLax]

I really hate salary cap stuff. I get that the schools dont want to pay it, so let them off the hook and put the money towards olympic sports. But if a 3rd party wants to throw his money down the drain at a DE to come play for his favorite school, what is being harmed? Certainly not the booster, school, or kid.

I don't care what they say about "strict enforcement blah blah blah", the second that there are rules limiting the amounts the same schools that always broke the rules will start doing it again.

Yup. All that's going to happen is that the "car dealership" schools will cheat again. Everyone is in a tough situation because of the fact that many of these schools are broke and they can't keep up with the well-funded schools while maintaining their Olympic / non-revenue sports.

My other hot take is that no one wants to see a mini-NFL and "parity" will be terrible for the sport. Same with the recommendation for 24 team playoff.

 

[GowerND11]

Yup. All that's going to happen is that the "car dealership" schools will cheat again. Everyone is in a tough situation because of the fact that many of these schools are broke and they can't keep up with the well-funded schools while maintaining their Olympic / non-revenue sports.

My other hot take is that no one wants to see a mini-NFL and "parity" will be terrible for the sport. Same with the recommendation for 24 team playoff.

100% this

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I'm 75/25 on the following:

1) College football doesn't "need" fixed. Schools have always, and will always pay players. Allowing pay-for-play so that all schools can pay whatever it is they feel necessary or can afford is now fair game. If you're a school that can't afford a top roster, sorry 'bout ya. Even professional sports (small-market teams) have to deal with being have-nots.

2). The flip-side, for me, is that I actually like how there are limitations and regulations in the NFL. A wild west system seems unsustainable. Some form of governance feels necessary.

Also of note: I'm against any playoff expansion beyond 16 teams and a while also having a total overhaul of how the selection process plays out. There is way too much money on the line. Especially when you factor in rev share among conferences. That bias needs get eliminated.

 

[stlnd01]

I'm 75/25 on the following:

1) College football doesn't "need" fixed. Schools have always, and will always pay players. Allowing pay-for-play so that all schools can pay whatever it is they feel necessary or can afford is now fair game. If you're a school that can't afford a top roster, sorry 'bout ya. Even professional sports (small-market teams) have to deal with being have-nots.

2). The flip-side, for me, is that I actually like how there are limitations and regulations in the NFL. A wild west system seems unsustainable. Some form of governance feels necessary.

Also of note: I'm against any playoff expansion beyond 16 teams and a while also having a total overhaul of how the selection process plays out. There is way too much money on the line. Especially when you factor in rev share among conferences. That bias needs get eliminated.

Agree with all of this.
Players getting paid is not the problem. The wide open, no-rules, transfer market is a much bigger problem when it comes to sustaining the sport's middle class programs (and thus a lot of its fan base).
And expanding the playoff beyond 16 teams would kill the greatest regular season in all of American sports. It'd become like the NBA or college basketball. No thanks. I'm fine with 12. Wouldn't mind eight in the right configuration.

 

[Ndaccountant]

The #1 thing that needs resolved is players being considered employees. IMO, that is the biggest hold up in all of this. I completely understand why the schools do not want this. However, enforceable contracts solves many of the "broken" pieces of the current environment. Sign a kid for a single year or multi year contract. Both sides are then legally binded, which gives clarity to both sides.

It wont happen because of the residual complications and risks it introduces. But in my opinion, its the elephant in the room and trying to contrive a system around a non-employment structure is never going to work.

 

[GowerND11]

Agree with all of this.
Players getting paid is not the problem. The wide open, no-rules, transfer market is a much bigger problem when it comes to sustaining the sport's middle class programs (and thus a lot of its fan base).
And expanding the playoff beyond 16 teams would kill the greatest regular season in all of American sports. It'd become like the NBA or college basketball. No thanks. I'm fine with 12. Wouldn't mind eight in the right configuration.

Expansion is awful. 24 teams could result in 8-4 IOWA getting in this past year.

 

[IrishLax]

I'm 75/25 on the following:

1) College football doesn't "need" fixed. Schools have always, and will always pay players. Allowing pay-for-play so that all schools can pay whatever it is they feel necessary or can afford is now fair game. If you're a school that can't afford a top roster, sorry 'bout ya. Even professional sports (small-market teams) have to deal with being have-nots.

2). The flip-side, for me, is that I actually like how there are limitations and regulations in the NFL. A wild west system seems unsustainable. Some form of governance feels necessary.

Also of note: I'm against any playoff expansion beyond 16 teams and a while also having a total overhaul of how the selection process plays out. There is way too much money on the line. Especially when you factor in rev share among conferences. That bias needs get eliminated.

I really think that you can fix about 80% of the current issues by restricting transfers. Not only will it curb cost but it will add stability at all levels (P4 Elite, P4 Mid, G6, and FCS).

 

[IrishLax]

Also, capping conferences at 12 teams and mandating regionality. Which you can probably achieve with media rights pooling. Simply instituting a rule that states a maximum median distance between schools or a maximum distance between any two member schools would do wonders.

 

[dublinirish]

Also, capping conferences at 12 teams and mandating regionality. Which you can probably achieve with media rights pooling. Simply instituting a rule that states a maximum median distance between schools or a maximum distance between any two member schools would do wonders.

Football programs would simply move locations :s

 

[NorthDakota]

Expansion is awful. 24 teams could result in 8-4 IOWA getting in this past year.

It's going to happen.

Around the time I graduated college, 6-5 Western Illinois made the FCS playoffs as an at-large.

FCS at least has a lot of conferences getting auto-bids. There is like 10 at large bids or something like that.

The only justification for 24 teams in FBS is if you are letting every conference in.

 

[GowerND11]

It's going to happen.

Around the time I graduated college, 6-5 Western Illinois made the FCS playoffs as an at-large.

FCS at least has a lot of conferences getting auto-bids. There is like 10 at large bids or something like that.

The only justification for 24 teams in FBS is if you are letting every conference in.

There are 10 conferences in the FBS. Even if you give each one an auto bid, going to 16 still seems like a way more manageable number.

Sadly, you're right.

 

[Huntr]

The only justification for 24 teams in FBS is if you are letting every conference in.

The justification is that the schools make more tv money by including more P4 teams in a playoff, record be damned.

 

[stlnd01]

The justification is that the schools make more tv money by including more P4 teams in a playoff, record be damned.

Do they?
It feels like it would eventually devalue TV rights for the regular season if the games don’t mean much and there aren’t as many compelling heavyweight fights. And for most schools the regular season TV money is more important than the playoff revenue.

 

[Huntr]

Do they?
It feels like it would eventually devalue TV rights for the regular season if the games don’t mean much and there aren’t as many compelling heavyweight fights. And for most schools the regular season TV money is more important than the playoff revenue.

Money is the only reason they do anything. Of course it doesn't devalue the product.

The schools and rights-holders work hand in hand. Petitti and Sankey aren't coming up with this drek all by themselves.

 

[Irish#1]

These schools went for the money grab from the networks. Now that they have to share it with the players and those slices of the pie keep getting bigger they want to put in some rules? lol

Does these people really think the NCAA can govern this? That would probably require additional staff and another slice of the pie. More crying.

Limiting transfers to one time is one of the biggest pieces that makes sense and would bring a small bit of sanity to this mess.