How to fix College Football?

[NDRock]

A couple things to keep in perspective, fellas. College football is my favorite thing in life to follow and I would hate to see it ruined in the sense of "fairness" and "equality."

1. College football has never been equal for all teams. Conferences aren't equal, schedules aren't equal, facilities aren't equal, and the quality of education isn't either. If you're obsessed with parity, go watch the NFL. Bama and Coastal Carolina don't belong on the same field.

2. With that said, Group of 5 should have their own playoff after the regular season. Give those kids something to play for.

3. Scholarship reduction looks great on paper, but most of those kids will still take a PWO from Ohio St rather than take a scholarship from an FCS school or lower level school.

4. We don't need an 8 team playoff, and this is the laziest argument people in sports media can make and continue to make. Most of the CFP semifinal games aren't close. Making the season longer isn't healthy for these kids, and it's just gonna bring us a few more 52-14 games. It's moronic. No one benefits from Clemson clobbering Cincinnati by 40.

5. So how do we bring more competition to Clemson and Bama? Easy...hire better coaches, recruit better, and develop talent better. Get your $hit together. ND has done as good as it can do. FSU, Miami, Auburn, LSU, Oklahoma, Texas, and USC...get your $hit together. All those programs have everything they need to get it done.

6. Pray that Saban retires soon.

7. Pray that Urban stays in media.

8. Let's see how dominant Dabo is when Venables and Elliot both get head coaching gigs.

So you agree that the current situation of two teams dominating won’t last forever yet you’re not in favor of expanding because of the current situation?

Personally, split into two divisions. Eliminate the Big 12 (split between Big 10 and PAC 12). Go with 4 super conferences with 8 team divisions. CCGs are the first round. Have a televised draw for the final four matchups. Instill relegation/promotion. No committees. Settled on the field.

 

[phork]

So we've come to that perverbial fork in rhe road. To the left we have the bcs and the previous bowl system where tradition lives on in classic bowl matchups and 1 v 2 is judged by computers and polls. To the right we have a new frontier. It can be anything we want.

Consider for a minute that when Saban is done Alabama will fade to the mean, as will Clemson with Dabo. The issue then becomes culture and coaching. No system is going to beat this. In CFB right now there is Alabama and Clemson. OSU is there but not this year. I'm not a fan of reshuffling playoff seeding based on chances. If you are 1 you expect to play 4 or 8 or 16, that's the reward you get. The bottom line for these G5 teams is once in a century would they pull out the upset, only to be thrashed in round 2. Frankly I'd rather play 1 first because I'm healthy and full strength.

On to new horizons. Bowl tradition is smashed and thrown out completely. Here is the result:

8 new conferences. Divided by area. No divisions. You must play your 7 teams in your conference. You are allowed 5 ooc to maintain rivalries etc. No FCS games allowed. First place teams advance to 8 team playoff where round 1 is hosted at highest rank top 4 teams as per BCS formula. The rest of the teams can be matched up any way they want to figure out Bowls. The bottom 8 teams get relegated down to Tier 2 and the top 8 in Tier 2 get moved up for the following season. The final 3 playoff games (semis and Final) are played in large venues rotated yearly in every area of the country.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

So you agree that the current situation of two teams dominating won’t last forever yet you’re not in favor of expanding because of the current situation?

Personally, split into two divisions. Eliminate the Big 12 (split between Big 10 and PAC 12). Go with 4 super conferences with 8 team divisions. CCGs are the first round. Have a televised draw for the final four matchups. Instill relegation/promotion. No committees. Settled on the field.

I am strongly against expanding the 4 team playoff for reasons stated above. Clemson and Bama are alone at the top in their own tier because the other blue bloods who should be pushing them are dog $hit, not the other way around. USC and FSU don't suck because of Clemson and Bama.

Rewind back to the last decade 2000 to 2010. If we had this 4 team format, it largely would have been Oklahoma, USC, Ohio St, Florida, and Texas. Largely, not all. And people would be crying about teams 5-8 being left out.

Edit: We somehow have become a society driven to change anything and everything, even when we don't have to or may lead to results unintended. College football has never been more popular, TV ratings have never been higher, and fans have never had more access than we do now. More teams in a playoff doesn't automatically bring more quality with it.

 

[tussin]

IMO the problem with an 8 team playoff with multiple at large bids is that it’s rare that blue-bloods like Bama or Ohio State will ever miss the playoff. The structure causes those programs to become further entrenched as elites and it makes conference play / championship week meaningless in many cases.

My solution would be to make it a six team playoff where the participants are the P5 conference champs and the highest ranked G5 champ. Top two seeds (by BCS rankings) get byes in the first round of the playoffs. No at large bids.

Only downside is that ND would have to join a conference (unless there is some sort of carve out where ND can get in over a G5 or something). So I’d imagine this proposal is dead in the water for many on here.

 

[phork]

I am against auto bids in the current climate for various reasons but mostly the nature of football being a series of one game knock outs.

 

[NDPhilly]

It really sucks to see what should have been a great bowl game in OU & UF ruined by opt outs. This can’t be the future of the sport.

 

[phork]

It really sucks to see what should have been a great bowl game in OU & UF ruined by opt outs. This can’t be the future of the sport.

Sorry bud but ask Jaylon Smith how playing in a meaningless bowl game worked out for him. Bottom line is if you are going to the NFL then protect your asset.

 

[tussin]

Sorry bud but ask Jaylon Smith how playing in a meaningless bowl game worked out for him. Bottom line is if you are going to the NFL then protect your asset.

He seems to be doing fine.

I’d be so pissed if I was on the Florida team. Some of the players sitting out are mid-rounders... it’s absurd. They are in the freaking Cotton Bowl against Oklahoma and they quit on the team.

 

[phork]

He seems to be doing fine.

I’d be so pissed if I was on the Florida team. Some of the players sitting out are mid-rounders... it’s absurd. They are in the freaking Cotton Bowl against Oklahoma and they quit on the team.

He's fine now but his drsft stock tanked. The school is not going to reimburse you for lost income.and with finite playing time you gotta do what you gotta do. I once thought like you. But then I actually thought about it. What would I tell my kid to do. What's the right business decision here.

 

[StPaul_Irish]

How about a set budget for NCAA programs. Make it mandatory, say $10M (just an easy #). Can't spend more, cant spend less.

Make an NCAA academic requirement. Must have a 2.85 GPA In HS, must have a 2.9GPA in college to play. Must attend classes on campus and must carry a full load and be on a degree track.

 

[tussin]

He's fine now but his drsft stock tanked. The school is not going to reimburse you for lost income.and with finite playing time you gotta do what you gotta do. I once thought like you. But then I actually thought about it. What would I tell my kid to do. What's the right business decision here.

You can certainly make a case for sitting out, especially given the current dynamics of the sport. But let’s accept it for what it is, they literally quit on their team. So while the decision to sit may be justifiable, it’s equally justifiable for their teammates to be pissed.

This dynamic has always existed in CFB to some extent. But now, the decision to quit on the team is made easier when the entire sport has become CFP or bust. A high-profile bowl game that should be great on paper with two historic programs is rendered completely irrelevant because it’s non-CFP. Key players decide to sit because who cares anyway, so now an already irrelevant game becomes non-competitive. The entire system is broken.

 

[Irishize]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">What often gets categorized as a Notre Dame problem is actually a major college football problem. A tiny group of teams has bolted away from the field simply because they are accumulating far more talent than the rest.<br><br>by <a href="https://twitter.com/ralphDrussoAP?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ralphdrussoap</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/CFBPlayoff?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#CFBPlayoff</a> <a href="https://t.co/bSElYFDH6g">https://t.co/bSElYFDH6g</a></p>— AP Top 25 (@AP_Top25) <a href="https://twitter.com/AP_Top25/status/1344463039895113730?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 31, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Blazers46]

1. Keep the 85 scholarships but...

When a player leaves the program he still counts against the 85, even if he transfers to another team. This would make schools more invested in kids they recruit because they would not been seen as expendable. Might even make schools look more into character and not wanting to “sign bad contracts” in a way.

Maybe only exception might be if player leaves for NFL draft.

2. Not sure of the legalities but limit what head coaches can make. There is no reason college coaches should be making more than NFL coaches. College football is sort of like minor league football and the coaches should be seen as minor league coaches and paid as such. If you want more money be a good a good coach and graduate to the next level. Imagine if the max contract was 4 million right now. Where would Saban and Swinney be? Same with assistants. Set a different pay scale for assistants.

3. Undrafted seniors be granted another year of eligibility if they wish to come back. But would essentially become a “free agent” to go to college of choice if the school they went to does not have room for them.

4. Scholarship offers are just that. If you offer a scholarship to a student athlete there is no such thing as a non commit-able offer.

 

[Black Irish]

The 2 teams I'd put money on to be in the final ('Bama & Clemson) are 2 teams that have accounted for 7 of the last 10 championships. It gets boring, unless you're a 'Bama or Clemson fan. The question is, can we realistically expect other teams to do whatever it is that these two schools are doing to have that sustained success, especially in 'Bama's case? Or do we just ride it out, knowing that dynasties don't last forever, and wait for those 2 programs to come back to earth and parity ensues? Will parity ensue? Or is the current system set up where a 'Bama & Clemson are above the rest is more a more likely scenario than there's half-a-dozen great teams each season who have a real chance to win it all?

 

[Free Manera]

The 2 teams I'd put money on to be in the final ('Bama & Clemson) are 2 teams that have accounted for 7 of the last 10 championships. It gets boring, unless you're a 'Bama or Clemson fan. The question is, can we realistically expect other teams to do whatever it is that these two schools are doing to have that sustained success, especially in 'Bama's case? Or do we just ride it out, knowing that dynasties don't last forever, and wait for those 2 programs to come back to earth and parity ensues? Will parity ensue? Or is the current system set up where a 'Bama & Clemson are above the rest is more a more likely scenario than there's half-a-dozen great teams each season who have a real chance to win it all?

The problem is 4 teams have like 75% of the elite players. Bama Clemson OSU and UGA. UGA underperforms every year but they still has a vastly more talented roster than everyone outside the top 4.

Putting rosters with 12 five stars (Bama) against ones with 0-2 (ND and everyone else) is like a 6th grade team playing a 5th grade team. They’re just bigger faster stronger across the board. Since they basically always win, and send their elite dudes to the NFL, the system perpetuates.

It will always be 3-4 teams at the top. When Saban goes, maybe UGA or OU takes their spot. Teams 4 and up have no chance. 8 team playoff or not. That’s why I pitch the 4 year scholarships where they count against numbers even if they transfer out. It prevents football factories from stockpiling talent end on end.

 

[T Town Tommy]

The 2 teams I'd put money on to be in the final ('Bama & Clemson) are 2 teams that have accounted for 7 of the last 10 championships. It gets boring, unless you're a 'Bama or Clemson fan. The question is, can we realistically expect other teams to do whatever it is that these two schools are doing to have that sustained success, especially in 'Bama's case? Or do we just ride it out, knowing that dynasties don't last forever, and wait for those 2 programs to come back to earth and parity ensues? Will parity ensue? Or is the current system set up where a 'Bama & Clemson are above the rest is more a more likely scenario than there's half-a-dozen great teams each season who have a real chance to win it all?

There are obviously some serious issues with CFB right now and not a lot of easy answers. But it’s not the responsibility of the Clemson’s, Bama’s, tOSU’s, and Ga’s to back up to the competition. It’s the responsibility of other schools to elevate their programs. I think the simplest thing to do right now is expand the playoffs to the eight team model to allow those teams on the edge of breaking through more of an opportunity. Competing AND winning playoff games will start leveling the field a bit more. Then maybe those tier 2 schools, with more opportunities to win, can close that gap and make CFB more competitive.

 

[ShamrockOnHelmet]

The problem here is the NFL, and their “ must wait 3 years” rule. I get it, and it makes sense. The problem, however, is that you have athletes who are physically gifted, but have no intention to engage in a student experience, “playing” college. Until THAT ends, all of the above suggestions will do nothing but shift the deck chairs.

So, we need the following:
-retain the amateur status of the NCAA, no pay, only scholarships, with an absolute minimum educational standard that applies to all institutions and all athletes. No exceptions ever, under any circumstance. Kids that choose the NCAA should be actual students. Schools can of course maintain higher standard if they like (ND, Stanford, Northwestern, whoever.)

-a paid D league of some kind where high school kids can go if they don’t want to “play” college or can’t meet the NCAA new minimum standard, and play against other athletes of similar physical development. This league would have medical experts who could determine on a case by case basis who is physically mature enough to be eligible for the NFL draft after their first year, with mandatory eligibility by their third year out of high school.

It should really be that simple. That levels the playing field in the NCAA, and gives an option for “dumb jocks” to get to where they want to go too without having to feign interest in college.

 

[T Town Tommy]

The problem here is the NFL, and their “ must wait 3 years” rule. I get it, and it makes sense. The problem, however, is that you have athletes who are physically gifted, but have no intention to engage in a student experience, “playing” college. Until THAT ends, all of the above suggestions will do nothing but shift the deck chairs.

So, we need the following:
-retain the amateur status of the NCAA, no pay, only scholarships, with an absolute minimum educational standard that applies to all institutions and all athletes. No exceptions ever, under any circumstance. Kids that choose the NCAA should be actual students. Schools can of course maintain higher standard if they like (ND, Stanford, Northwestern, whoever.)

-a paid D league of some kind where high school kids can go if they don’t want to “play” college or can’t meet the NCAA new minimum standard, and play against other athletes of similar physical development. This league would have medical experts who could determine on a case by case basis who is physically mature enough to be eligible for the NFL draft after their first year, with mandatory eligibility by their third year out of high school.

It should really be that simple. That levels the playing field in the NCAA, and gives an option for “dumb jocks” to get to where they want to go too without having to feign interest in college.

The solution for minimum requirements for attendance is a lawsuit waiting to happen. Further, most players, not just the elite players, only begin to worry about academics when they start being seriously recruited to play college ball. While I will always stand on individual responsibility for applying oneself educationally, I am also not ready to hold a young person solely accountable for the lack of preparation from our educational systems across this country coupled with HS football coaches making six figures to win games while giving a damn about helping a young person apply themselves in the classroom more than on the playing field. In many cases it’s not whether the player can learn but rather the case that they haven’t been asked to. Let’s tell them that they aren’t good enough to learn... just good enough to tackle, run, or catch. No thanks.

 

[irishtrain]

There are obviously some serious issues with CFB right now and not a lot of easy answers. But it’s not the responsibility of the Clemson’s, Bama’s, tOSU’s, and Ga’s to back up to the competition. It’s the responsibility of other schools to elevate their programs. I think the simplest thing to do right now is expand the playoffs to the eight team model to allow those teams on the edge of breaking through more of an opportunity. Competing AND winning playoff games will start leveling the field a bit more. Then maybe those tier 2 schools, with more opportunities to win, can close that gap and make CFB more competitive.

T Town I respect you but here is the problem-not all schools allow the same profile into the school academically so if you break it down from the top 300 every year 60-70 percent are at at most 7-10 schools- so they are the constant contenders. My fix would be that you only allow so many recruits from each star level given to be brought in every year-thus you balance out the power so lets say team x can only get so many 5 star/4star/3star guys. Now you allow other schools to pick up the guys the other schools had to pass on because the allotment was filled. Simple-- now you have the second tier schools able to approach and sign the so called leftovers and an automatic balance of power is created. If not its the same revolving door of Ala/Clem/Ohio State/Lsu/Okla/Ga/Fla/Auburn/Texas A&M etc every year. If you look at those schools they are the contenders every year and they are the schools that depend on the football income and not the schools endowment to make $$$$. This idea is restrictive(I understand that) but the nation and college football is tired of three teams killing it every year and 120 plus other teams just wasting their time trying to win a National Title. As a Notre Dame fan or lets say for example a Iowa State fan etc we know when our team plays those teams its a no contest game. Who wants that year in and year out. The only people who like the way it is is those 3 power teams and the 7 mentioned from the SEC. It needs fixed for the good of college football. Expanding the playoffs just creates more wasted time watching non competitive games.

 

[Old Man Mike]

"Star-level" is not scientific nor even poorly defined. All sorts of "gut" in there. Five stars are few anyway. That means accurately evaluating "four stars". We on IE should know full well how NOT accurate that is.

 

[T Town Tommy]

T Town I respect you but here is the problem-not all schools allow the same profile into the school academically so if you break it down from the top 300 every year 60-70 percent are at at most 7-10 schools- so they are the constant contenders. My fix would be that you only allow so many recruits from each star level given to be brought in every year-thus you balance out the power so lets say team x can only get so many 5 star/4star/3star guys. Now you allow other schools to pick up the guys the other schools had to pass on because the allotment was filled. Simple-- now you have the second tier schools able to approach and sign the so called leftovers and an automatic balance of power is created. If not its the same revolving door of Ala/Clem/Ohio State/Lsu/Okla/Ga/Fla/Auburn/Texas A&M etc every year. If you look at those schools they are the contenders every year and they are the schools that depend on the football income and not the schools endowment to make $$$$. This idea is restrictive(I understand that) but the nation and college football is tired of three teams killing it every year and 120 plus other teams just wasting their time trying to win a National Title. As a Notre Dame fan or lets say for example a Iowa State fan etc we know when our team plays those teams its a no contest game. Who wants that year in and year out. The only people who like the way it is is those 3 power teams and the 7 mentioned from the SEC. It needs fixed for the good of college football. Expanding the playoffs just creates more wasted time watching non competitive games.

Don’t think limiting schools to “x” amount of stars would work. That would open doors to potential manipulation of the recruiting services. Instead of potentially limiting players, why not limit programs in other ways. Set a limit on the number of support staff - analysts, recruiting support personnel, etc. Why does a program need 12-15 analysts and a support staff for recruiting of 8-12 people? Set a limit on recruiting budgets to a set amount. Maybe cut on field coaches from 10 to 8. I would much rather try to find ways to even out program spending than limiting players opportunities. More extreme but unlikely is to limit coaching salaries somehow. All of these things doesn’t mean there will ultimately be more parity but it would put programs on a bit more of a level field for $$ spent. Then it’s up to each individual school to determine what they want to do to compete.

 

[Free Manera]

"Star-level" is not scientific nor even poorly defined. All sorts of "gut" in there. Five stars are few anyway. That means accurately evaluating "four stars". We on IE should know full well how NOT accurate that is.

It isn't scientific but it's pretty spot on. 53% of 5 stars go to the NFL. 20% of 4 stars and 6% of 3 stars do. Source: https://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2019/6/4/18617865/five-star-recruits-nfl-draft-history

No wins championships without a bunch of top 100 recruits (aka 5 stars or very close to it). Source: https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/history-shows-national-titles-require-great-not-just-good-recruiting-over-4-years/

It used to be that recruiting rankings were a crapshoot, but with so many recruiting services now and the access to information, they are much more prophetic than they used to be.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

There are obviously some serious issues with CFB right now and not a lot of easy answers. But it’s not the responsibility of the Clemson’s, Bama’s, tOSU’s, and Ga’s to back up to the competition. It’s the responsibility of other schools to elevate their programs. I think the simplest thing to do right now is expand the playoffs to the eight team model to allow those teams on the edge of breaking through more of an opportunity. Competing AND winning playoff games will start leveling the field a bit more. Then maybe those tier 2 schools, with more opportunities to win, can close that gap and make CFB more competitive.

Agree with you that it's not up to Bama and Clemson to make everyone else get better. Really don't see how expanding playoffs to 8 helps Cincinnati and Boise. Group of 5 should have their own playoff.

Annnnnnnnnd I'm stuck in the Philly airport for another 6 hours due to mechanical issues on the plane. Just got a fresh, large coffee and ready to roll with my IE brethren today.

 

[Wingman Ray]

There are obviously some serious issues with CFB right now and not a lot of easy answers. But it’s not the responsibility of the Clemson’s, Bama’s, tOSU’s, and Ga’s to back up to the competition. It’s the responsibility of other schools to elevate their programs. I think the simplest thing to do right now is expand the playoffs to the eight team model to allow those teams on the edge of breaking through more of an opportunity. Competing AND winning playoff games will start leveling the field a bit more. Then maybe those tier 2 schools, with more opportunities to win, can close that gap and make CFB more competitive.

SOS is the key. OSU will get in every year due to a complete cupcake schedule. Make it completely SOS and the weak duck schedules go away

 

[T Town Tommy]

SOS is the key. OSU will get in every year due to a complete cupcake schedule. Make it completely SOS and the weak duck schedules go away

SOS is a bit tricky. If one team plays two teams - one ranked 5th and one ranked 55th then theoretically their SOS is 30th. Another team plays two teams - one ranked 25th and the other ranked 35th. Their SOS is theoretically the same at 30th. Which team has played the tougher schedule? Some would say the first team because they beat the 5th ranked team. Others would say the second team because their two opponents - while not ranked anywhere close to 5th - proved a “tougher” overall schedule. Who’s right?

Further, SOS works under the flawed premise that all conferences are equal. Should a team like Oregon, for example, be penalized if they are a consensus top team but because the PAC 12 is so weak they can’t overcome that? It would be tough to tell Oregon that they are eliminated because the rest of the teams in their conference sucks.

 

[Valpodoc85]

A consideration:
The season is slowly getting extended. Ten games plus a bowl, then eleven, now twelve plus a two game championship. This is good for revenue. More games more money. This is not so good for the athletes. Many players are “dinged up” by the end of the season. Playing injured dramatically increases the risk of serious injury. CTE often is a result of multiple small head injuries. Complex knee and ankle injuries happen when the normal structural integrity of the joint has been impaired. The teams with deep rosters and seasonal games in which the first team talent sits are at significant advantage. OSU with six game slate this year will see a huge benefit.

 

[Old Man Mike]

20% success ain't "spot on" in my classroom.

 

[ShamrockOnHelmet]

The solution for minimum requirements for attendance is a lawsuit waiting to happen. Further, most players, not just the elite players, only begin to worry about academics when they start being seriously recruited to play college ball. While I will always stand on individual responsibility for applying oneself educationally, I am also not ready to hold a young person solely accountable for the lack of preparation from our educational systems across this country coupled with HS football coaches making six figures to win games while giving a damn about helping a young person apply themselves in the classroom more than on the playing field. In many cases it’s not whether the player can learn but rather the case that they haven’t been asked to. Let’s tell them that they aren’t good enough to learn... just good enough to tackle, run, or catch. No thanks.

That’s fine, then you choose the current broken system that also doesn’t help those kids, and indeed, turns them into zoo exhibits pretending to be students. To each their own, I suppose.

 

[Blazers46]

1. Keep the 85 scholarships but...

When a player leaves the program he still counts against the 85, even if he transfers to another team. This would make schools more invested in kids they recruit because they would not been seen as expendable. Might even make schools look more into character and not wanting to “sign bad contracts” in a way.

Maybe only exception might be if player leaves for NFL draft.

2. Not sure of the legalities but limit what head coaches can make. There is no reason college coaches should be making more than NFL coaches. College football is sort of like minor league football and the coaches should be seen as minor league coaches and paid as such. If you want more money be a good a good coach and graduate to the next level. Imagine if the max contract was 4 million right now. Where would Saban and Swinney be? Same with assistants. Set a different pay scale for assistants.

3. Undrafted seniors be granted another year of eligibility if they wish to come back. But would essentially become a “free agent” to go to college of choice if the school they went to does not have room for them.

4. Scholarship offers are just that. If you offer a scholarship to a student athlete there is no such thing as a non commit-able offer.

I still agree with this guy... oh wait thats me.

 

[Free Manera]

20% success ain't "spot on" in my classroom.

It’s 53% for five stars. 20% is for four stars. That seems pretty reliable to me. You sign 4 five stars per year and that’s 8 legit NFL draft picks on the roster at a time. That’s what the big boys do. The ones that actually win championships. Five stars are the single biggest prerequisite to winning championships. Proof in the pudding.