Here's a thought

WreckinGT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,194
Because that’s how the world works. You don’t think that right now the money guys are lining up to pay handsomely for big time matchups. Remember when we had 1 big opening game to start the season? We were in 1 against Penn State after the Natty. Then remember what happened? Those games were so successful that more and more popped up. Now, we have multiple games in the same stadium over the Labor Day weekend. Those games were all add ons by rich guys to make money. If you don’t think the rich guys in the likeness of Jerry Jones and Arthur Blank aren’t working behind the scenes then you are nuts.

Here‘s the overall point - yes, the big boys are making bank right now and have an easy 8 wins a year and clear paths to the playoff. All that is true. But the reality is they see it as they are subsidizing the GT’s, Kentucky’s, and Indiana’s of D1. In their mind, they are leaving money on the table by allowing those teams to profit off of their fanbase and name. It’s like us benefitting from Clemson and UGA taking over our stadium. It’s great for us but isn’t for them.

Right now TV execs see 2-3 games a week that are big time. Some weeks there are none. ESPN sees this as do the networks. For every one LSU- Bama weekend we have four Bama vs. Sisters of the poor and Ohio State vs. Indiana.

The upcoming model will have marquee national level games every week. Those of you who say you won’t watch isn’t who they are after. When you have Bama-USC and Ohio St-FSU and Penn State-Florida type matchups every week you’ll see why they did it.
I think you are equating marquee matchups with school names alone, which doesn’t really work. Some of the teams in the new super league are now going to be bad teams. If a 3-7 Florida team plays a 2-8 Penn State team, nobody is going to care. Ooh, 1-9 Tennessee is playing 4-6 Texas. How exciting. You would still get some good matchups, just like you do now. Most wouldn’t be all that great. Now for those big matchups you have a smaller overall base of interested people to watch due to the fact that you demoted their team to the kids table. Trying to create an NFL model for college football will simply never work.
 

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
14,241
i’m sorry but this is a pretty ridiculous take. collins being a bad coach doesn’t mean recruiting here can’t work. we aren’t gonna compete with bad recruiting classes. i’m not sure what is so hard to realize about that. we have to at least attempt to close the insurmountable gap. a good base of physical ability and talent is the bare minimum to sit at the table with uga and clemson. while no one reasonably expects us to beat them on a regular basis, they aren’t going anywhere on our schedule any time soon so it’s in our best interest to do SOMETHING. hindering ourselves further by making bad excuses as to why we can’t recruit and settling for coaches that can’t recruit is a much bigger issue.

people that post their anti collins rhetoric constantly talk about how standards are falling, how our fanbase needs to demand more etc. where is that energy for our recruiting? you know, the single most important facet of college football at the moment?
We hired a good recruiter who can’t coach his way out of a wet paper bag! Not a recipe for success.
 

CEB

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,787
I think you are equating marquee matchups with school names alone, which doesn’t really work. Some of the teams in the new super league are now going to be bad teams. If a 3-7 Florida team plays a 2-8 Penn State team, nobody is going to care. Ooh, 1-9 Tennessee is playing 4-6 Texas. How exciting. You would still get some good matchups, just like you do now. Most wouldn’t be all that great. Now for those big matchups you have a smaller overall base of interested people to watch due to the fact that you demoted their team to the kids table. Trying to create an NFL model for college football will simply never work.
I’ll never say never, but I feel this way too. The process of getting there has so many hurdles. There is going to have to be some sort of “shepherd” for the big boy / superconference and all of the members have pesky obligations to other schools that will have to dissolve. The most feasible way (in my mind) for this to happen is for an entire conference to basically secede from college football. Looking at you, SEC, for both football reasons and a bit of history repeating irony.:ROFLMAO: Even the SEC will have to jettison some schools who won’t make the investment... that’s going to be a tough discussion.
But let’s Say that all happens; then they’ll have to entice the Big Ten and Pac contenders to abandon their conference and join ranks (side note conspiracy theory of the day- Big Ten grant of rights goes away in two years... how they handle the renegotiation of that will be telling. I’m guessing they’ll renew for about 10 years, which will suspiciously coincide with grant of rights expiration for SEC and ACC)
But back to your original point, everyone is thinking of how great an entire season of 1 loss and undefeated match ups will be... but what happens when all of these teams are hovering around .500? Compelling? :unsure:
Not to mention, lots of these guys like having 7 or even 8 home games per year with three or so “exhibition” type opponents. That’s presumably going away in the new model
Again, I’ll never say never, but lots of wood to chop here!
 

SOWEGA Jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,111
I think you are equating marquee matchups with school names alone, which doesn’t really work. Some of the teams in the new super league are now going to be bad teams. If a 3-7 Florida team plays a 2-8 Penn State team, nobody is going to care. Ooh, 1-9 Tennessee is playing 4-6 Texas. How exciting. You would still get some good matchups, just like you do now. Most wouldn’t be all that great. Now for those big matchups you have a smaller overall base of interested people to watch due to the fact that you demoted their team to the kids table. Trying to create an NFL model for college football will simply never work.
The assumption is that the vast amount of 5 and 4 stars will sign with the schools that get on TV and have the most NIL in the top tier. That’s the basis of this entire discussion. If schools break away and offers 6 and 7 figures for NIL and they only get 3 stars taking those offers then of course the system will fail. The supposition is that those who break away get all the big time players while the 2nd tier get the “student-athletes”. Under that assumption, records don’t mean all that much because the talent level will be such that the games are competitive (Like the NFL). So, while records won’t be artificially inflated like we are use to, watching a 5-4 LSU take on a 4-5 Penn State is still better for TV than having what we have now where the winner is already known for 90% of the games each week.

Your post points out where this current system has taken us over the past 80 years where everything is artificially inflated so we assume the best teams either go undefeated or lose 1 game. That’s not the real test since schedules are unbalanced and teams choose who they play to maximize wins. We’ve been conditioned to accept crap for 80% of the season.
 

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,736
So recruiting is what got him to be a P5 coach?
His past recruiting acumen with Georgia Tech and connections to the area are absolutely the only reasons he's a P-5 coach today.

Don't get me wrong - I can see why he was hired, and I hope he succeeds because he is a good recruiter. He's failed so far as a head coach, but if he can get some good assistants around him, he might make a go of it yet (if he can get past this year).
 

SOWEGA Jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,111
I’ll never say never, but I feel this way too. The process of getting there has so many hurdles. There is going to have to be some sort of “shepherd” for the big boy / superconference and all of the members have pesky obligations to other schools that will have to dissolve. The most feasible way (in my mind) for this to happen is for an entire conference to basically secede from college football. Looking at you, SEC, for both football reasons and a bit of history repeating irony.:ROFLMAO: Even the SEC will have to jettison some schools who won’t make the investment... that’s going to be a tough discussion.
But let’s Say that all happens; then they’ll have to entice the Big Ten and Pac contenders to abandon their conference and join ranks (side note conspiracy theory of the day- Big Ten grant of rights goes away in two years... how they handle the renegotiation of that will be telling. I’m guessing they’ll renew for about 10 years, which will suspiciously coincide with grant of rights expiration for SEC and ACC)
But back to your original point, everyone is thinking of how great an entire season of 1 loss and undefeated match ups will be... but what happens when all of these teams are hovering around .500? Compelling? :unsure:
Not to mention, lots of these guys like having 7 or even 8 home games per year with three or so “exhibition” type opponents. That’s presumably going away in the new model
Again, I’ll never say never, but lots of wood to chop here!
The “shepherd” is the same we’ve had the past 20 years - money. Now the money has morphed from bowl payouts and regional TV contracts to national networks and stadium owners. Now we are moving into the streaming era. But make no mistake their are many shepherds out there working behind the scenes to maximize the money. Ohio States AD basically said this without saying it.

As I stated above, we have been conditioned to watch a crap product for 100 years for 80% of the season when the outcomes are known before kickoff. In no other sport is the team deemed the best the team just because they have the fewest losses. How many years have we watched SEC teams win 11 games with 8-9 patsies. To me that is garbage. I’d much rather watch a two evenly matched teams play even if they both have 4 losses which will happen in both tiers in the future. Then they’ll both have their playoffs to win a Natty on the field. It’s all about content and keeping fanbases involved for 5 months instead of bailing after loss #2.
 

JacketFan137

Banned
Messages
2,536
We hired a good recruiter who can’t coach his way out of a wet paper bag! Not a recipe for success.
it ultimately takes both, literally no one ever argued that you can do it ONLY being a good recruiter. you also can have the best scheme in the world but eventually you come up against teams that are in such a different stratosphere as far as athleticism and talent you can no longer control that gap. see clemson after 2014, uga after smart year 1.

the issue when people present option coaches to come in is that almost every one of them come from environments that either don’t recruit the same way as p5 (service academies like monken who is brought up a lot) or just don’t recruit close to the level needed like chadwell at coastal carolina (who is recruiting anywhere from the 80s-120s in recruiting). i understand it may be different when they show up at a p5 school with more resources and less restrictions than an academy but i’m not so sure they’ll magically recruit at the level we need.

so if any of these guys could come in and prove me wrong i wouldn’t be opposed on the basis that they’re an option coach. obviously on field coaching is extremely important but as long as we continue to play clemson, uga, notre dame and other big OOC games like ole miss, it’s basically penciling in a guaranteed loss unless you have the athletes to compete. if you don’t wanna do that then we might as well drop to the sun belt or something now and quit wasting our time
 

augustabuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,412
  1. It’s another level up in money
  2. The teams moving up get more money; the teams left behind get less
  3. It’s the same teams they’re butting heads with now. They’d be moving into a league of “games that matter”
  4. They play sacrificial games against middle Utah state now; after they move up, Washington State is the exhibition game.
  5. If the other teams move up and they don’t, they get left behind
  6. It’s also like a D2 or G5 team “moving up”. Yeah, the competition is weaker where you are, but you move up whenever you can.
D1 teams are not allowed to play D2 teams.
 

yeti92

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,181
i’m not so sure they’ll magically recruit at the level we need.

so if any of these guys could come in and prove me wrong i wouldn’t be opposed on the basis that they’re an option coach. obviously on field coaching is extremely important but as long as we continue to play clemson, uga, notre dame and other big OOC games like ole miss, it’s basically penciling in a guaranteed loss unless you have the athletes to compete. if you don’t wanna do that then we might as well drop to the sun belt or something now and quit wasting our time
Regarding the first statement I partially bolded - I understand where the idea that the the option makes recruiting more difficult comes from, but I don't think it's impossible like many want to believe. I posted somewhere on here recently that CPJ's 2010 class had a higher average recruit ranking than any of CGC's classes have. CGC's average has been consistently better than CPJ's average by about 10 spots nationally, but it's clearly possible to recruit decently well despite running the option, particularly if there is proper dedication and commitment from the AA and fans to provide the funding and support staff needed to be and stay competitive in recruiting, which I don't think is something CPJ was ever given. All that said, I think far too many members of this fanbase believe it impossible or simply dislike the option too much to make that happen anytime soon.
 

WreckinGT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,194
The assumption is that the vast amount of 5 and 4 stars will sign with the schools that get on TV and have the most NIL in the top tier. That’s the basis of this entire discussion. If schools break away and offers 6 and 7 figures for NIL and they only get 3 stars taking those offers then of course the system will fail. The supposition is that those who break away get all the big time players while the 2nd tier get the “student-athletes”. Under that assumption, records don’t mean all that much because the talent level will be such that the games are competitive (Like the NFL). So, while records won’t be artificially inflated like we are use to, watching a 5-4 LSU take on a 4-5 Penn State is still better for TV than having what we have now where the winner is already known for 90% of the games each week.

Your post points out where this current system has taken us over the past 80 years where everything is artificially inflated so we assume the best teams either go undefeated or lose 1 game. That’s not the real test since schedules are unbalanced and teams choose who they play to maximize wins. We’ve been conditioned to accept crap for 80% of the season.
You can't rely on the competitive nature to rival the NFL. In the NFL they have salary caps, and drafts to create parity, along with relatively equal compensation for coaches. College Football will never attempt to do that. Tennessee hasn't gotten within three TDs of Alabama in 6 years. They haven't beaten them in 15 years. How is that going to change? In reality you are still going to have 5-6 teams that are leagues ahead of the other 18 or so "super" teams. The only real big games will be within that group. Nobody is going to care about the 5-4 LSU team vs the 4-5 Penn State team. That simply isn't interesting on any level to anyone other than the fans of those schools.
 

JacketFan137

Banned
Messages
2,536
Regarding the first statement I partially bolded - I understand where the idea that the the option makes recruiting more difficult comes from, but I don't think it's impossible like many want to believe. I posted somewhere on here recently that CPJ's 2010 class had a higher average recruit ranking than any of CGC's classes have. CGC's average has been consistently better than CPJ's average by about 10 spots nationally, but it's clearly possible to recruit decently well despite running the option, particularly if there is proper dedication and commitment from the AA and fans to provide the funding and support staff needed to be and stay competitive in recruiting, which I don't think is something CPJ was ever given. All that said, I think far too many members of this fanbase believe it impossible or simply dislike the option too much to make that happen anytime soon.
it’s not impossible but it’s certainly a significant detriment to recruiting by any measure. offensive players want to play in something similar to an nfl offense or at least be in a position where they get to showcase nfl skills and defensive guys wanna practice against it. if an option coach can overcome that and recruit at least the defensive side of the ball then i would be in. otherwise i just don’t see how it makes sense to bring in an option coach. i think the best path to see that success would have been to give paul a legit DC instead of wasting years of his career with bozos like ted roof and let them recruit the defensive side of the ball
 

SOWEGA Jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,111
You can't rely on the competitive nature to rival the NFL. In the NFL they have salary caps, and drafts to create parity, along with relatively equal compensation for coaches. College Football will never attempt to do that. Tennessee hasn't gotten within three TDs of Alabama in 6 years. They haven't beaten them in 15 years. How is that going to change? In reality you are still going to have 5-6 teams that are leagues ahead of the other 18 or so "super" teams. The only real big games will be within that group. Nobody is going to care about the 5-4 LSU team vs the 4-5 Penn State team. That simply isn't interesting on any level to anyone other than the fans of those schools.
What? The reason Tennessee or Georgia Tech for that matter hasn’t touched Bama in years is because Saban has the best (Kirby on his heels) money laundering scheme under that system. That’s why Saban is whining about NIL. He has just lost one of his best advantages and that was under the table payment schemes. We are in a transition period right now with NIL but once it settles out schools like Tennessee will be able to pay just like Bama has and magically Bama’s days of running roughshod will be over.

And you say those matchups aren’t interesting. That’s your opinion. But I think they are more compelling than watching Bama beat someone by 40 with nothing on the line. Once each tier has their playoff system in place those games will matter for playoff position just like 8-6 vs. 7-7 matchups do in late season NFL games. Basically, instead of these systems being bogus with undefeated teams like we see now, both tiers will be like the Coastal Division has been forever - parity where every game counts. That’s the entire point. The money guys are tired of spending money on worthless games we see 80% of the time in todays college football scheduling. Like you said who wants to watch a paid for Bama team beat a not paid for Tennessee team. Now that they all get to pay without penalty it’s going to be way more interesting. What we’ve seen the last few years were paid for Bama, Georgia, Ohio St, Oklahoma make a mockery of college football.

I look forward to the day of a tier 1 of paid for NIL teams who play competitive games with each other where the playoff champ has 3-4 losses. And I look forward to watching GT play in tier 2 where we have competitive games where our champ has 3-4 losses. Heck, the most fun college football the past decade has been watching the Coastal where every team has been in the hunt until November. Right now we know before the season starts that Bama wins the west, UGA wins the east, Ohio State Wins the BIG and Clemson wins the ACC. Ratings are falling because the outcomes are pre-determined due to their buying of recruits. If this system stays I look forward to USC and others knocking Bama and UGA off the payment perch.
 
Top