Who's Leaving? 2024/25 version

gossamorharpy said:
This is year 1 of expanded playoffs, immediate change will not happen overnight.  There is a very solid likelihood the national champ this year comes from a team currently seeded 5-9.  In previous years, these teams weren’t even afforded an opportunity to compete for the title.  I get what you’re saying about the difference between opportunity and parity but the lack of opportunity has been one of the main drivers that has hindered CFB historically- there is inherent bias when schools begin the season ranked higher, largely due to previous years performance, and this directly prevents a level playing field when we talk about who’s most deserving to play for a natty.

For instance, some schools have much tougher schedules and one loss in a close game against another top squad left them out of contention in years past.  Texas Georgia came down to the wire, Oregon OSU came down to the wire, I think Tennessee is more than capable of knocking off any of these schools.  
 

This is what I mean by an expanded field naturally driving more parity. I am confident that as the years progress and we see more teams have success in the post season and win the title that we will see a greater number of consistent title contenders each year.  
Click to expand...
Again, I understand your argument about expanded opportunities could create parity, but the support you're making for that argument is misaligned. The teams seeded 5-9 are: Texas, Penn State, Notre Dame, Ohio State & Tennessee... all perennially top 10-20 programs. All start the year as possible contenders every year. 

The parity you are referencing should focus on the teams at the margins who now are included in the postseason: Boise State, Arizona State, SMU, & Indiana. These four are the newcomers to title talk and would definitely have been left out of a two team championship game or 4-team playoff. Therefore, their opportunities are growing, but they are all still considered afterthoughts when it comes to being title contenders (Vegas odds has the best chance at Indiana +4000, worst is Boise State at +6000).

So while the variety of teams in the playoff is expanding with 12 spots, the on-field parity is really yet to be seen. You may be correct that it will change further as NIL, revenue sharing, transfer rules, etc. expand, but it is too soon to tell whether true parity will come to fruition or not.

 
DGNU said:
Bellevue West trio: no mas.
Click to expand...
GejiYLOaEAALfOX.jpg


 
krc1995 said:
Reducing our roster might have unintended benefits for us. We must have had one of biggest rosters in CFB. Maybe there’s a lot of distraction and resources going towards guys that are not likely to contribute. 
Click to expand...
I agree.  I don't have a problem with the roster limit and think it can be good for our program and college football.  We can argue if 105 is the right number or not.  It might be too low.

My biggest problem with it is that they did the entire cut in one year.  I think they should have put the roster limit at something like 120 this year.  Then next year make it 105.

Hood is a prime example of what you're talking about.  He should have been cut a long time ago.  It had to be clear that he wasn't going to be a contributor to the program and he was just taking up space and resources.

On an entire other topic.  I wonder how much cheaper we could have built our football facilities if we would have known the roster was going to be cut to 105.

 
BigRedBuster said:
My biggest problem with it is that they did the entire cut in one year.  I think they should have put the roster limit at something like 120 this year.  Then next year make it 105.

On an entire other topic.  I wonder how much cheaper we could have built our football facilities if we would have known the roster was going to be cut to 105.
Click to expand...
The change is abrupt and I feel for the guys, but this hurts (emotionally) big rostered schools much more than the average ones- although I don’t know what an average roster size was- maybe 115-120? 
 

and yes, I was wondering if that facility is going to feel extra echoey now. Maybe they could put dorms in there. 

 
krc1995 said:
The change is abrupt and I feel for the guys, but this hurts (emotionally) big rostered schools much more than the average ones- although I don’t know what an average roster size was- maybe 115-120? 
 

and yes, I was wondering if that facility is going to feel extra echoey now. Maybe they could put dorms in there. 
Click to expand...
The decision was particularly horrendous timing considering there are still players in programs with an extra year of eligibility due to Covid waiver. As you and others have said, there should have been a gradual transition

but what else would you expect from the ncaa, just another example in a long line of questionable decision making without common sense reasoning 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
krc1995 said:
Reducing our roster might have unintended benefits for us. We must have had one of biggest rosters in CFB. Maybe there’s a lot of distraction and resources going towards guys that are not likely to contribute. 
Click to expand...
I have thought about this also.  The scale seemed untenable.  I also think we are forcing things we used to do, just because.  We don't need a giant walk on program because it used to really help us, times have changed.  We are still too beholden to tradition and history, as well as too beholden to former players and coaches.  The page needs to be turned and let the current kids/staff make their own way without the 2 ton elephant around their shoulders of what this place used to be. 

 
runningblind said:
I have thought about this also.  The scale seemed untenable.  I also think we are forcing things we used to do, just because.  We don't need a giant walk on program because it used to really help us, times have changed.  We are still too beholden to tradition and history, as well as too beholden to former players and coaches.  The page needs to be turned and let the current kids/staff make their own way without the 2 ton elephant around their shoulders of what this place used to be. 
Click to expand...
There’s been a few podcasts that have raised this too. Basically the walk ons take up practice reps and attention from coaches and supporting staff when the pay off at best is one maybe a few walk ons actually seeing playing time. 
 

Particularly for a program that hasn’t been able to execute the basics for a while now, a reduced roster and more attention to a smaller group probably a positive for this team 

 
runningblind said:
I have thought about this also.  The scale seemed untenable.  I also think we are forcing things we used to do, just because.  We don't need a giant walk on program because it used to really help us, times have changed.  We are still too beholden to tradition and history, as well as too beholden to former players and coaches.  The page needs to be turned and let the current kids/staff make their own way without the 2 ton elephant around their shoulders of what this place used to be. 
Click to expand...


Ole Billy C was just 20 years ahead of his time in reducing the roster size.  :runs away from the mob:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top