How to change the landscape of college football.

[RamblinRed]

First off you can't go independent because you would receive no TV money.
NCAA has very little to do with college football. it is controlled by the P5 and most there are simply happy to collect the checks.
NCAA exists to make it look like someone is managing college football but college football is actually being managed by the conferences themselves.

 

[GTfan4Life]

1. Make all scholarships 4 year guaranteed - leaving for the NFL or early graduation is the only way to open that slot.
2. Provide that all scholarship offers can be immediately signed by the prospective athlete.
3. Limit overall staff - paid or not.

I think the first 2 takes care of the signing disparity and games. The last limits the disparity in the so-called "arms" race. Most other changes would be near impossible to implement. These won't totally lead to parity, but I think makes good progress.

 

[gtg391z]

Great post, completely agree.
It seems like the most competitive games happen in the middle area that you mention. When I look at schools like Alabama , Clemson etc how is that even fun when every school you face on your schedule is almost like a cupcake team year after year. UGA is almost at that point now too. Play 12 games, one maybe hard one

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

I would love to find out if I liked winning every game or not because being the patsy sure sucks.

 

[stech81]

I would love to find out if I liked winning every game or not because being the patsy sure sucks.

Careful what you wish for :

 

[gtg391z]

I don't have that much hair anymore.

 

[3Bees]

1. Limit staff size (coaches and support staff)
2. Reward schools that have higher academic stadards with more scholarships. Those with lower stasndards get less. But plus or minus a certain limited number.
3. If you haved high player turnover (players leaving) due to lack of playing then you lose scholarships. Something to prevent churning players through the program.

 

[A Love Supreme]

First off you can't go independent because you would receive no TV money.
NCAA has very little to do with college football. it is controlled by the P5 and most there are simply happy to collect the checks.
NCAA exists to make it look like someone is managing college football but college football is actually being managed by the conferences themselves.

The factory schools should just leave the NCAA and start their own thing. Why won't they do that?

 

[Wrecked]

All good ideas. I would change the playoff so ALL teams have a shot at winning it. First no wild cards. 10 conference champs only. Rank the champs by some method, maybe BCS. Top six get first round byes, first two first round games on campus at the higher seeds. Second round games on campus at higher seeds. Final four and Championship stay the same as now.

All TV and ticket revenue money is even split between conferences to divide as they see fit. The advantages I see is it forces teams to play a strong schedule, you have to win your conference so no bias by a committee. And independents have to join a conference.

 

[Scubapro]

All good ideas. I would change the playoff so ALL teams have a shot at winning it. First no wild cards. 10 conference champs only. Rank the champs by some method, maybe BCS. Top six get first round byes, first two first round games on campus at the higher seeds. Second round games on campus at higher seeds. Final four and Championship stay the same as now.

All TV and ticket revenue money is even split between conferences to divide as they see fit. The advantages I see is it forces teams to play a strong schedule, you have to win your conference so no bias by a committee. And independents have to join a conference.

This could be a step in the right direction....eliminate the SEC getting two teams into the championship.
There are many good ideas on here but very few would have a snowball's chance in hades to come to pass.

 

[TechPreacher]

1. Make all scholarships 4 year guaranteed - leaving for the NFL or early graduation is the only way to open that slot.
2. Provide that all scholarship offers can be immediately signed by the prospective athlete.
3. Limit overall staff - paid or not.

I think the first 2 takes care of the signing disparity and games. The last limits the disparity in the so-called "arms" race. Most other changes would be near impossible to implement. These won't totally lead to parity, but I think makes good progress.

Very close to my ideas:

1. 4 year schollies stay on the books 4 years regardless if the player stays or not. Teams like Alabama that put juniors in the NFL each year would self-impose scholarship restrictions with this rule.

2. Yes. It's only a real offer if I can accept it now.

I also like weight limits for players and a universal higher minimum academic requirement for players .

Last, red and black teams automatically lose half their schollies. Just because. THWG.

 

[JeepinJacket]

So, I’ve been thinking about how big of a difference there is in college football from one program to the next. You have your blue bloods, then your mid level, and then the bottom feeders. Blue bloods are constantly in the top 10, while the mid level schools will make the top 25 some and can end up having big years when the stars align. The bottom feeders are just that, bottom feeders. I will say, you could argue there is a level between the blue bloods and the mid level, those are teams who make the top 25 consistently but can’t teally compete with the blue bloods on a consistent basis. The question now becomes, how does college football become more competitive and even across the board? (Which I don’t think will happen) however I’d like to see some ideas on what could be done.

I personally know people who don’t watch college football anymore because it’s just not as fun and competitive as the NFL across the board. My brother in law (Bama fan) doesn’t even watch all Bama games because it’s not fun for them to beat up on everyone to him. The sad thing is, this could be changed with a few new rules imo, but probably will never happen.

So, here we go. First I’d like to see a cap on the size of support staff, this is huge imo and majorly divides the levels listed above. I’d say 15 or so is an amount that is fair. All schools might not be able to do that, but it levels it out some. I’d also like to see “investigators” in different regions who can randomly stop by schools (and would) that can make sure programs don’t have extra staff coaching in practice, making sure kids are going to class ect. These “investigators” would also make sure that money is not given to recruits from these programs, might not completely work but would possibly scare some programs a little with the possibility of a BIG pentalty.

Second, I’d like to see a cap on funds that can be spent per year for each program as far as recruiting, facilities, ect. There is such a major difference In facilities that also divide the levels listed above. Now, I’m not saying all should be made equally, but when a school spends 10 million compared to 3 million of another school, they should make it somewhere in the middle. I would say for big projects there could be exceptions.

Third, and the most important, there should not only be a gpa requirement (which there is) but a requirement for graduation rate. 80 percent should be the minimum or you would get penalized. It’s sad, imo some are more worried about the success of the football programs over the success of the student athletes outside of football.

Fourth, and this would definitely not happen, but would MAJORLY even things out. Have a point system in recruiting, stars would count as points, and you couldn’t go over your allowed amount of points, or average star ranking since you might not always sign 25. Let’s say 3.4 or 3.5 is the limit of star ranking.

What would y’all like to see?

 

[Coloradojacket]

So, I’ve been thinking about how big of a difference there is in college football from one program to the next. You have your blue bloods, then your mid level, and then the bottom feeders. Blue bloods are constantly in the top 10, while the mid level schools will make the top 25 some and can end up having big years when the stars align. The bottom feeders are just that, bottom feeders. I will say, you could argue there is a level between the blue bloods and the mid level, those are teams who make the top 25 consistently but can’t teally compete with the blue bloods on a consistent basis. The question now becomes, how does college football become more competitive and even across the board? (Which I don’t think will happen) however I’d like to see some ideas on what could be done.

I personally know people who don’t watch college football anymore because it’s just not as fun and competitive as the NFL across the board. My brother in law (Bama fan) doesn’t even watch all Bama games because it’s not fun for them to beat up on everyone to him. The sad thing is, this could be changed with a few new rules imo, but probably will never happen.

So, here we go. First I’d like to see a cap on the size of support staff, this is huge imo and majorly divides the levels listed above. I’d say 15 or so is an amount that is fair. All schools might not be able to do that, but it levels it out some. I’d also like to see “investigators” in different regions who can randomly stop by schools (and would) that can make sure programs don’t have extra staff coaching in practice, making sure kids are going to class ect. These “investigators” would also make sure that money is not given to recruits from these programs, might not completely work but would possibly scare some programs a little with the possibility of a BIG pentalty.

Second, I’d like to see a cap on funds that can be spent per year for each program as far as recruiting, facilities, ect. There is such a major difference In facilities that also divide the levels listed above. Now, I’m not saying all should be made equally, but when a school spends 10 million compared to 3 million of another school, they should make it somewhere in the middle. I would say for big projects there could be exceptions.

Third, and the most important, there should not only be a gpa requirement (which there is) but a requirement for graduation rate. 80 percent should be the minimum or you would get penalized. It’s sad, imo some are more worried about the success of the football programs over the success of the student athletes outside of football.

Fourth, and this would definitely not happen, but would MAJORLY even things out. Have a point system in recruiting, stars would count as points, and you couldn’t go over your allowed amount of points, or average star ranking since you might not always sign 25. Let’s say 3.4 or 3.5 is the limit of star ranking.

What would y’all like to see?

So most of you are probably in you thirties or twenty's. Back in the 70s it wasn't much different than it is today. Alabama Notre Dame, Oklahoma, USC Penn State, and Ohio State were the monsters. Everybody else was lapping up the crumbs, with only about 12 bowl games. In the 80' first half, it was Georgia, Pitt, Penn State, and Auburn. Later and into the 90's Miami, Nebraska, Florida Florida State.

What made the difference in all these teams.....
The Bear
Ara
Switzer
Paterno
Woody
Hershel
Bo
Shnellenberger
Bowden
The old Ball Coach

Sometimes it is a player, mot so much any more. But it is mostly the Coach. So today it has pretty much been Alabama and Clemson. They probably have the two best Coaches in College Football today. You don't think USC, Nebraska, Florida etc don't get lot of money.....They do

 

[tech_wreck47]

So most of you are probably in you thirties or twenty's. Back in the 70s it wasn't much different than it is today. Alabama Notre Dame, Oklahoma, USC Penn State, and Ohio State were the monsters. Everybody else was lapping up the crumbs, with only about 12 bowl games. In the 80' first half, it was Georgia, Pitt, Penn State, and Auburn. Later and into the 90's Miami, Nebraska, Florida Florida State.

What made the difference in all these teams.....
The Bear
Ara
Switzer
Paterno
Woody
Hershel
Bo
Shnellenberger
Bowden
The old Ball Coach

Sometimes it is a player, mot so much any more. But it is mostly the Coach. So today it has pretty much been Alabama and Clemson. They probably have the two best Coaches in College Football today. You don't think USC, Nebraska, Florida etc don't get lot of money.....They do

This is true to an extent, the only issue I see is that the player still has a lot to do with this. Yes, those coaches are good, but they still all had stud players that only the blue bloods get consistently. I’d dare to say there are coaches that are close to the level as the blue bloods but are at schools where they can’t recruit that good of players, if they could they would have way better success. JMO.

 

[Coloradojacket]

This is true to an extent, the only issue I see is that the player still has a lot to do with this. Yes, those coaches are good, but they still all had stud players that only the blue bloods get consistently. I’d dare to say there are coaches that are close to the level as the blue bloods but are at schools where they can’t recruit that good of players, if they could they would have way better success. JMO.

My point is it is no differnet from then as to today. Good players wanted to play for great coaches. When the coaches left the programs stumbled. College football has never been a level playing field and never will. That is what makes upsets so great... GT 1980 tie of ND.....GT win at Alabama in 1981.

 

[tech_wreck47]

My point is it is no differnet from then as to today. Good players wanted to play for great coaches. When the coaches left the programs stumbled. College football has never been a level playing field and never will. That is what makes upsets so great... GT 1980 tie of ND.....GT win at Alabama in 1981.

I see what you are saying now, the point of this thread though, is what would level the playing field. Many things listed on here would create level playing fields no matter how good the coach is imo.

 

[Coloradojacket]

So, I’ve been thinking about how big of a difference there is in college football from one program to the next. You have your blue bloods, then your mid level, and then the bottom feeders. Blue bloods are constantly in the top 10, while the mid level schools will make the top 25 some and can end up having big years when the stars align. The bottom feeders are just that, bottom feeders. I will say, you could argue there is a level between the blue bloods and the mid level, those are teams who make the top 25 consistently but can’t teally compete with the blue bloods on a consistent basis. The question now becomes, how does college football become more competitive and even across the board? (Which I don’t think will happen) however I’d like to see some ideas on what could be done.

I personally know people who don’t watch college football anymore because it’s just not as fun and competitive as the NFL across the board. My brother in law (Bama fan) doesn’t even watch all Bama games because it’s not fun for them to beat up on everyone to him. The sad thing is, this could be changed with a few new rules imo, but probably will never happen.

So, here we go. First I’d like to see a cap on the size of support staff, this is huge imo and majorly divides the levels listed above. I’d say 15 or so is an amount that is fair. All schools might not be able to do that, but it levels it out some. I’d also like to see “investigators” in different regions who can randomly stop by schools (and would) that can make sure programs don’t have extra staff coaching in practice, making sure kids are going to class ect. These “investigators” would also make sure that money is not given to recruits from these programs, might not completely work but would possibly scare some programs a little with the possibility of a BIG pentalty.

Second, I’d like to see a cap on funds that can be spent per year for each program as far as recruiting, facilities, ect. There is such a major difference In facilities that also divide the levels listed above. Now, I’m not saying all should be made equally, but when a school spends 10 million compared to 3 million of another school, they should make it somewhere in the middle. I would say for big projects there could be exceptions.

Third, and the most important, there should not only be a gpa requirement (which there is) but a requirement for graduation rate. 80 percent should be the minimum or you would get penalized. It’s sad, imo some are more worried about the success of the football programs over the success of the student athletes outside of football.

Fourth, and this would definitely not happen, but would MAJORLY even things out. Have a point system in recruiting, stars would count as points, and you couldn’t go over your allowed amount of points, or average star ranking since you might not always sign 25. Let’s say 3.4 or 3.5 is the limit of star ranking.

What would y’all like to see?

So a few more points on this.

1. We aint the NFL and do not want to be. The NFL is boring
2. College football is about tradition, not a sanitized socialism broken down world
3. As a Tech fan, you understand your place and love those shiny years, 1990, 2009, 2014
4. Not to get political here, but much of what is suggested will limit how many of the kids, from let's say low means to enable them to get into college and have a chance for the next level and maybe even a degree. I truly believe that college football has been the greatest success story of integration in America.

 

[LibertyTurns]

@Coloradojacket Spurrier’s a good case study. 12 for 12 really good seasons at UF. 4 of 11 at USCe. I don’t think he forgot how to coach. Some places are harder to win at than others.

 

[Old South Stands]

So a few more points on this.

1. We aint the NFL and do not want to be. The NFL is boring
2. College football is about tradition, not a sanitized socialism broken down world
3. As a Tech fan, you understand your place and love those shiny years, 1990, 2009, 2014
4. Not to get political here, but much of what is suggested will limit how many of the kids, from let's say low means to enable them to get into college and have a chance for the next level and maybe even a degree. I truly believe that college football has been the greatest success story of integration in America.

I used to like the NFL, but don't anymore and haven't for quite some time. The NFL used to be full of great personalities. Think Bradshaw, and Stabler, and Staubach, and Mean Joe, and Tarkenton, etc. Each team had its own personality as well, often reflecting the persona of city it represented or the coach at the helm. Teams got their own jerseys made locally (no league-wide contracts on uniforms), and players made salaries similar to those of your highest-paid professional in your neighborhood. In many ways, they were 'regular' folks you could relate to. And this wasn't antique ball; it was all in the Super-Bowl era.

Most of the teams in the NFL now are interchangeable, the same product with different-colored uniforms. Like NASCAR and many other pro sports, the league has become faceless. More fluff with billion-dollar stadiums and pyrotechnics shows, circus-like media and irritating computer graphics, all masking an increasingly vanilla on-field product. Some teams are better than others, but they still look the same, like the cars of today, which you can't tell apart without getting up close and looking at the logo.
I don't want college football to resemble pro sports in any way like that. Yet, that seems the direction elite college football has been trending for some time now. Alabama is more like a corporation than a football team, and as much as I hate to think, even Clemson is to a degree. Certainly UGA is. I don't know the answer to any of this, but would ideally like to see teams consisting of regular students (no scholarship players) who fulfilled all the normal academic requirements for their respective institutions. Interested guys from the student body would sign up and try out for the team, just like in high school. Teams could be grouped into conferences or leagues based on the similarities of their academics. Figuring out a national champion might be difficult, but maybe it could be based on the 'model' that existed pre-BCS. This system could leave space for a minor pro league, a bridge between high school and the pros for the more elite players. Like baseball and hockey, players could still be drafted from the college ranks instead of going minor-league.

There are a lot of flaws with an arrangement like this, and it would be difficult if not impossible to police. Also, the road to college might be denied to many whose only chance at an education is through athletic scholarships.

I remember the days when only a handful of games were even broadcast on a given Saturday. You had your own team you rooted for (listened to them on the radio), but watched a national powerhouse on TV, be it Notre Dame, USCw, Pitt, Nebraska, Michigan, Ohio State, etc., and also became a fan of one of those. In many ways I liked it better then. Sports didn't consume so many people's lives. You didn't absolutely live for sports like the media and advertisers are trying to make us do today. And yet you still had those 'shiny' moments like beating Notre Dame in '76, or Alabama in '81, or UGA in '84, not to mention 1990... Posting the newspaper cutout of Dewberry and Curry celebrating at Sanford Stadium my senior year on the inside of my high school locker (in a school full of Bulldogs) was incredibly satisfying.

 

[tech_wreck47]

So a few more points on this.

1. We aint the NFL and do not want to be. The NFL is boring
2. College football is about tradition, not a sanitized socialism broken down world
3. As a Tech fan, you understand your place and love those shiny years, 1990, 2009, 2014
4. Not to get political here, but much of what is suggested will limit how many of the kids, from let's say low means to enable them to get into college and have a chance for the next level and maybe even a degree. I truly believe that college football has been the greatest success story of integration in America.

NFL boring? I guess, if you don’t like close games.

Also what is one thing that has been said that would apply to your number 4? If anything it would make academics and stressing success better for the recruits imo.

 

[Boomergump]

I don't like the ideas surrounding penalizing success. However the concept of limiting scholarships to a hard number, where players can't be run off, combined with no signing period (dates) limitations, would just about do it. Most of the factories make hay by recycling scholarships after a year. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that schools signing 25 players per class, combined with 5 years to play 4, results in way more than 85 total. I'll bet Bammer runs off close to 10 players per year. Stop that and you bring them a lot closer to the pack than you may think. Plus, if you stop them from stringing players along with signing period nonsense and poaching other school's commits during that time, it would help a lot too. If every offer was able to be executed immediately and made legally binding, it would negate a huge advantage they have. Schools like GT could get the kids they want earlier in the process, but also identify the late (senior season) bloomers after the factory schools have already filled their quotas with legally binding scholarships.

Signing 4 and 5 star players helps, but running off the swings and misses helps even more than that. Believe it or not, recruiting is not an exact science. There are a ton of those upper echelon ( in terms of stars) kids that never work out. We live with ours for the most part. They do not.

The entry ticket into the playoff structure being limited to conference champions is an absolute must for the good of the sport. There is no logical claim to a right to play for a national title if you can't win your conference. It makes no sense and totally invalidates the regular season and conference champ games. Rankings should be for seeding the bracket only. Basketball has a field of 64, so naturally expanding beyond champs makes sense. Until CFB decides to go for a field of 16, don't even talk to me about conference runner ups or wild cards.