Not So Big 8
- Thread starter Guy Chamberlin
- Start date
knapplc
International Man of Mystery
Yes, the scholly limits have been around for a long time, but it takes time for the effect to trickle down. And it's not just the scholly limit - regime change plays a huge role as well - but when you combine new coaching with a limited scholarship roster, the effects are magnified.
Think about it - with a combined 22 starters on O and D, you're no longer able to field four classes of scholarship athletes at every position with a cap at 85. Even at 88, you're ignoring special teams players like kickers and gunners, and you're one injury away from lacking scholarship-quality depth at each position. As we've seen through injury and attrition at QB and RB this year, that depth is crucial. Lacking that depth, you have teams that used to be able to survive calamities suddenly falling by the wayside.
And let's be clear about this - it's theft by the NCAA, plain and simple. Notre Dame built college football. Without the Notre Dame teams of the 30s-60s, this sport probably isn't half what it is today. Oklahoma, Michigan, Ohio State, USC, Nebraska, Texas, Alabama, Penn State... these are the teams that built solid programs encompassing decades of work, investment and struggle, and what do they get? They get thrown into the same heap as USF, who didn't even have a team ten years ago.
The danger, as I see it, is in the disenfranchisement of those pillars of fans, those Buckeyes and Wolverines and Sooners and Irish who have filled 80,000+ seat stadiums for decades. Sustaining that fan base does require some kind of success, and you need look no further than pre-Pete Carroll USC as an example. For nearly two decades the Trojans were sputtering along aimlessly, and their attendance numbers were way down. This, from the school that gave us OJ Simpson, Charlie White and Marcus Allen, a school that won nine National Championships before Pete Carroll ever set foot on campus. A decade or two of mediocrity spelled irrelevance for the Trojans.
If it can happen to USC it can happen anywhere.
As one poster mentioned, yes there has been a slow decline in the number of scholarships allowed, but you still have to think of the ramifications of this.
I know there were fewer than 120 DI football schools back in in the 90's, but for arguments sake I'm going to use that number. When they dropped the scholarship limit from 88-85, that is 3 players per school that have to find another school or roughly 360 total players. That means out of the teams that finished in the Top 25, 75 players who could have gone to big times school now have to go to other schools.
The scholarship limit has made it so guys athletically talented enough to play at the bigger schools now have to go another school that will take them. Recruiting is more competitive than ever now and guys who could have been on a Nebraska roster are now playing for a team like TCU.
The system is diversifying talent, allowing for traditional weak teams to make big splashes nationally. While it is interesting to see some of these teams, they still don't help the system. Without big time teams CFB loses it's appeal.
You may disagree with the idea, but it's still the truth: people like the big time teams winning big games and playing in championships. Most people simply do not want to see a MNC with TCU or Cinci. If they did, then you would see more favoritism for them in the BCS.
I know there were fewer than 120 DI football schools back in in the 90's, but for arguments sake I'm going to use that number. When they dropped the scholarship limit from 88-85, that is 3 players per school that have to find another school or roughly 360 total players. That means out of the teams that finished in the Top 25, 75 players who could have gone to big times school now have to go to other schools.
The scholarship limit has made it so guys athletically talented enough to play at the bigger schools now have to go another school that will take them. Recruiting is more competitive than ever now and guys who could have been on a Nebraska roster are now playing for a team like TCU.
The system is diversifying talent, allowing for traditional weak teams to make big splashes nationally. While it is interesting to see some of these teams, they still don't help the system. Without big time teams CFB loses it's appeal.
You may disagree with the idea, but it's still the truth: people like the big time teams winning big games and playing in championships. Most people simply do not want to see a MNC with TCU or Cinci. If they did, then you would see more favoritism for them in the BCS.
HuskersandHoldem
Three-Star Recruit
I think the smaller schools playing in bigger games is a good thing. Kinda brings out a David vs Goliath mentality in fans of the game.
A playoff system gives the smaller schools undefeated team a chance to play a big undefeated team.
A playoff system gives the smaller schools undefeated team a chance to play a big undefeated team.
knapplc
International Man of Mystery
Is it realistic to have 120 teams vie for one title, though? I get where you're coming from with the Yankees comparison, and I agree that's boring, but we're not really in that situation. Look at just the top schools from the top conferences and you'll see that we have (had) a base of what? 25 teams? 30? That were regularly vying for supremacy in the 80s & 90s. That's plenty to form a competitive league, and you could even include some of the semi-majors and pump it up to 40 if you want, but the bottom line is, 120 teams is completely unfeasible as a single division.
My solution? Put scholarships back around 100. Cherrypick the best teams, then cut the Sun Belt, WAC, MAC, C-USA and Mountain West conferences from Division 1A, have them make their own also-ran conference, and let the teams who have shown through decades of effort and investment that they intend to be a player in the football world, and make a Super Conference where each team plays 12 games, there's a playoff and a real National Championship.
Of course in this scenario Iowa State would be busted down to the also-ran conference, but you have to make some tough decisions. Then again, that may not be so tough.
JTrain
All-Conference
First, you distance yourself as far as possible from the Coaches' Poll (the biggest joke in all of sports). Then you weed out the low integrity scum among the media polls, and come up with 40-50 critically intelligent, open-minded and high integrity pollsters from across the country. Make that the human element of the ranking system, and make it worth 50%. Then allow the computers to use MOV again (common sense, considering the pollsters clearly take it into consideration every week), and make that worth 50%. Tally the rankings at the end of the season and come up with the top four for a plus-one playoff system (any more than that will damage the beauty of the regulars season). Play #1 vs. #4 on Dec. 30 and #2 vs. #3 on Dec. 31. You could make those neutral games or have them home games (for #1 and #2) to make things more interesting, and keep some incentive to finish in the top two.
Let's say this very simple system is in place this season. Let's say Texas and Bama win out (including the CCGs) and Cincinnati falls to Pitt. This likely leaves the top four as follows:
1. Alabama 13-0
2. Texas 13-0
3. TCU 12-0
4. Boise St. 12-0
Boise St. books their flights to Tuscaloosa for a showdown on Dec. 30 as they try to recreate their Fiesta Bowl upset of Oklahoma (or Utah's Sugar Bowl win over Bama last season) against the #1 Crimson Tide.
TCU takes their best team in school history to Austin to try to knock off Heisman winner Colt McCoy and finalist Jordan Shipley. It's the two longest winning streaks in the country as either TCU's 14 games or Texas' 17 games will end on Dec. 31.
Then the winners play in the National Championship Game December 7 in Pasadena. Other bowls go on as usual.
BlackShirt1340
Five-Star Recruit
It's too bad the boneheads that are actually in control of this system are too stubborn and pig-headed to realize that a "Plus-1" system is THE BEST system for deciding the national championship. :dunno
One side-note on that... This is probably obvious, but I think that if there are only 2 undefeated teams at the end of the year, scratch the Plus-1 and just have the title game. But yes... in the scenario where there are 4 or even where there are 3, have a plus one and figure the crap out once and for all.
Because no one outside the top 4 really has performed at the level of a national champion anyway. Wouldn't it be great to see the best 4 teams in the country get to play it out for all the marbles?
One side-note on that... This is probably obvious, but I think that if there are only 2 undefeated teams at the end of the year, scratch the Plus-1 and just have the title game. But yes... in the scenario where there are 4 or even where there are 3, have a plus one and figure the crap out once and for all.
Because no one outside the top 4 really has performed at the level of a national champion anyway. Wouldn't it be great to see the best 4 teams in the country get to play it out for all the marbles?
Guy Chamberlin
Heisman Trophy Winner
Boise State vs. Oklahoma in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl.
That's where I learned to care about Boise State. One of the best college football games I've ever seen and Boise State earned it on a level playing field.
If Nebraska wants to get back in the mix, they can do it using the same tools Boise State and Cincy are using.
Parity is where any one team is as good as the other. That's not what we have or where we're going. The best teams will still be able to craft dynasties, but they'll have to be smart about it rather than rely on protectionism.
That's where I learned to care about Boise State. One of the best college football games I've ever seen and Boise State earned it on a level playing field.
If Nebraska wants to get back in the mix, they can do it using the same tools Boise State and Cincy are using.
Parity is where any one team is as good as the other. That's not what we have or where we're going. The best teams will still be able to craft dynasties, but they'll have to be smart about it rather than rely on protectionism.
BlackShirt1340
Five-Star Recruit
Are you saying that college football is not going toward parity? Because if that's so, I must respectfully disagree. I have never seen a time in my life where Boise State, Cincinatti, and TCU take up 3 spots in the top 10 countries out of 120 in Div. 1 football. If anything, I would say parity is more prevalent now than ever before.
And if by being smart you mean scheduling weak teams as Boise State does now. Their A.D. publicly stated in 2007 that they scheduled (at least at the time) weaker teams in the non-conference. BSU may be a top 10 team and has been for a couple of years, but I cannot help but think that if they played in a competitive conference, they would have 3-4 losses. And they may be in the top 10 every year, but they will NEVER play for a national title without a LOT of help... and by help I mean teams losing 2-3 games near the end of the year.
For instance, they played Oregon this year and beat them.... good win. But the thing I can't help but thinking is due to their INCREDIBLY WEAK conference schedule, they are able to get up for games against BCS conference teams and treat them like the superbowl. Getting pumped and "up" for a game against teams week in and week out is much different than ONCE a season as BSU does. Congrats on them going Undefeated right now, but I don't think they would be if they played in a conference like the Big 12 or SEC, Pac-10 or even Big 10/11
Last edited by a moderator:
T_O_Bull
All-American
irafreak
All-American
While this is one of the better theories I've heard from playoff people...I still don't see how it solves anything. It works out great in your scenario...but let's say something happens to Texas, TCU, and Boise. Who does Alabama play? Do they really need to play 2 games to prove they are the best or should they just play the next best team? If you end up with one undefeated and 2 one loss teams then what? Let's say they grab the next "best" 2 loss team and they beat the undefeated team. Then the 2 loss beats the other team. In the current system the 2 loss wouldn't even be a factor...
JTrain
All-Conference
I see what you're saying and you make a legitimate point that BlackShirt1340 hinted at, but in the scenario you present, why should Bama have to play anyone (even the next best team as you say)? The answer is, they probably shouldn't. But that level of extreme contingency will never be accepted.
As I've mentioned in my CCG thread last week, contingent games are the only way to go if you are going to be completely fair in crowning a champion. However, contingent games are not very practical in football, and so realistically they will never be implemented. So, if the system must have a fixed number of teams, how do you determine what number to use? Well, IMO, you look back at recent history and see, on average, how many teams at the end of the regular season legitimately deserved a title shot? Well, I would say it's almost never more than five. Sometimes it's two, three, four or even five. It's very rarely one, six or more than that. Looking at that, it seems to me that four is not only very practical, but on average it's very accurate. Sure, there will be seasons when #4 and/or #3 may not deserve a chance in a perfect world. And there will be seasons when #5 has a legitimate gripe. But in more seasons than not, four will be a very solid number.
I am positive it happened only 1 time back in 1898. I would bet on it ...
clone
Starter
you mean big 2 talk. :dunno
that's what it was commonly referred as in the old days.
ou and NU -- the rest were creampuffs most seasons.
:snacks: