You crack me up.

 

There may and I stress may be just a few teams with a legitimate shot to challenge Alabama but your 15 to 20 range is laughable.

 

Fans thinking their team is in contention (again think Kentucky fans) and actually being in contention are night and day.

 

Anything can happen. That's why they play the games. Take Tua out of a game and Alabama is a different animal.

There may have been 15-20 that were in contention to get in the playoffs but not to win a championship. This year there has been 6-8 at the most at the beginning of the year and really just 1 for most of the year.

 

That's what I was referring to.

Disagree whole heartedly. If you have to go to school for 3 years for basketball, going to Duke or UK still is the best route for you to go if you want to make the NBA which all the top guys think they are going to do.

 

Better check your math.

 

And while you are at it we are not talking about the same thing.

Better check your math.

 

And while you are at it we are not talking about the same thing.

What math are you referring to?

Adopting NFL rules is the wrong way to go. The NFL is headed towards flag football. That's boring.

 

1. Adopt the rules of the game from the 60's and 70's. I don't like to watch a track meet. Return football to the way it was meant to be played. It was a man's game and only true warriors stood tall. This would increase the importance of the RB and MLB. The QB role would diminish some. It is way out of balance now.

 

2. Put all Bowl games on the major networks so you don't have to have cable to watch the big games. This has ruined college football more than anything else for me. I can't watch Bowl games any more unless I go to someone else's house or to a sports bar and a sports bar is the worst atmosphere to watch a game. You can't hear anything.

 

3. End the season on January 1 or 2. Extending it beyond that is ridiculous.

 

And no, I am not joking. These changes would make college football much more enjoyable for me. I realize I am in the minority. So what else is new?

I prefer parity over what college football is now. The same old same old is boring.

 

Football is different than basketball in many ways. What makes the Alabamas of the world say at the top college football is depth. I believe limiting their ability to maintain depth will eventually produce a modicum of parity.

 

If I were King, this is how I'd like it done...

 

-- No partial scholarships. Full rides only. Only scholarship players can play in games. Walk-ons can practice with the team, but they earn their way to a scholly before they play.

 

-- A potential player must complete 24 hours of core studies with a GPA of 2.3 or higher to be eligible to play college football. A student must prove that they can be a student of a college before they can play for it. That's right. No freshman and they still take up a scholarship. It's either that or reduce the maximum number of scholarship players allowed to 63.

 

-- Eliminate the bowl games and have a 16 team playoff. All 10 conference champions get an automatic bid with 6 at large slots. Once given the opportunity to compete, the G5 teams will. If you are going to use a basketball analogy, please consider Gonzaga, Loyola, Butler, Wichita State, ..., etc.

I prefer parity over what college football is now. The same old same old is boring.

 

Football is different than basketball in many ways. What makes the Alabamas of the world say at the top college football is depth. I believe limiting their ability to maintain depth will eventually produce a modicum of parity.

 

If I were King, this is how I'd like it done...

 

-- No partial scholarships. Full rides only. Only scholarship players can play in games. Walk-ons can practice with the team, but they earn their way to a scholly before they play.

 

-- A potential player must complete 24 hours of core studies with a GPA of 2.3 or higher to be eligible to play college football. A student must prove that they can be a student of a college before they can play for it. That's right. No freshman and they still take up a scholarship. It's either that or reduce the maximum number of scholarship players allowed to 63.

 

-- Eliminate the bowl games and have a 16 team playoff. All 10 conference champions get an automatic bid with 6 at large slots. Once given the opportunity to compete, the G5 teams will. If you are going to use a basketball analogy, please consider Gonzaga, Loyola, Butler, Wichita State, ..., etc.

If you want parity then none of the stuff you said will accomplish that. There is one thing that creates parity in sports: $. You want parity but nothing in the power 5 is equal to the group of 5. The tv deals, the resources, the alumni, the booster programs, etc. These things aren’t even remotely similar and are the reason we have power conferences to begin with. I have no issue with you wanting parity or wanting to give the little guy a chance. But it’s just not possible in the current state of college football. There are 2 Power 5 coaches who make more than the salaries of every coach in the MAC put together. Having a 16 team playoff, limiting scholarships, etc. wouldn’t solve any of these issues. Is your goal to just give the little guy a chance by putting them in the game or do you want to see the little guy have a chance because they are on a relatively level playing field with everyone else?

If you want parity then none of the stuff you said will accomplish that. There is one thing that creates parity in sports: $. You want parity but nothing in the power 5 is equal to the group of 5. The tv deals, the resources, the alumni, the booster programs, etc. These things aren’t even remotely similar and are the reason we have power conferences to begin with. I have no issue with you wanting parity or wanting to give the little guy a chance. But it’s just not possible in the current state of college football. There are 2 Power 5 coaches who make more than the salaries of every coach in the MAC put together. Having a 16 team playoff, limiting scholarships, etc. wouldn’t solve any of these issues. Is your goal to just give the little guy a chance by putting them in the game or do you want to see the little guy have a chance because they are on a relatively level playing field with everyone else?

 

You are absolutely right. College Football is entirely all about the money and nothing else.

You are absolutely right. College Football is entirely all about the money and nothing else.

It sort of sounds like you disagree with that take though. It sounds like you believe there are things that can be done to eliminate the effect money has on college football.

Adopting NFL rules is the wrong way to go. The NFL is headed towards flag football. That's boring.

 

1. Adopt the rules of the game from the 60's and 70's. I don't like to watch a track meet. Return football to the way it was meant to be played. It was a man's game and only true warriors stood tall. This would increase the importance of the RB and MLB. The QB role would diminish some. It is way out of balance now.

 

2. Put all Bowl games on the major networks so you don't have to have cable to watch the big games. This has ruined college football more than anything else for me. I can't watch Bowl games any more unless I go to someone else's house or to a sports bar and a sports bar is the worst atmosphere to watch a game. You can't hear anything.

 

3. End the season on January 1 or 2. Extending it beyond that is ridiculous.

 

And no, I am not joking. These changes would make college football much more enjoyable for me. I realize I am in the minority. So what else is new?

 

To say current NFL game and players are soft is simply not correct. I understand the nostagia that folks feel for the old days. And yes, those guys were absolutely tough. But 3 yards and a cloud of dust was boring, unimaginative, and had the sport not evolved, it wouldn't be anywhere near the popularity that it is now. And today's player is absolutely, tough. While some of the violence has been removed, the game is still a grind, and players are physically beat up, and most have short careers. That part hasn't changed a bit.

 

I do agree that NFL rules won't help college football. But not because it makes the game "soft". There simply aren't enough guys in college football that are athletic enough to play by all the NFL rules. That would simply make the top handful of teams that much better than everyone else, and further reduce the parity.

It sort of sounds like you disagree with that take though. It sounds like you believe there are things that can be done to eliminate the effect money has on college football.

 

Yes, I disagree. I believe limiting the pool size, requiring academic standards, and giving all of the schools participating in the sport a reasonable chance at a playoff spot will increase parity. However, I have not the time or desire to debate it. I really do not care about it all that much. You asked a question, I answered. Hack away at it. I'm done.

deleted duplicate post

@rjs4470, it is only my personal opinion. The QBs are close to having flags now. You can't land on them. A D-lineman has to risk injury to himself in order to keep from landing on the QB.

 

Three yards and a cloud of dust is not boring to me. Remember, this is my personal opinion. That was a description that characterized the Woody Hays years at OSU and I loved those years, but it was an exaggeration, at that. Three yards and a cloud of dust has never been true of the NFL since the 40's, even with the old rules. I do prefer that style of football and I think it took more toughness to play it.

It was a more physical game then. Yes, guys are athletic and physical now. They are bigger and faster now than they were then. But in the old days there was a toughness that had to be there as a LB, for instance, to fill the hole on 30 run plays a game with a blocking FB coming through the hole first that you just don't have to have in defending a spread offense. If you watch a high school game today where a school runs a power I and note the toll it takes on the defense over the course of a game compared to a defense trying to catch one of those fast guys sprinting down the sidelines. 28 points are on the board before you know it and everybody is winded but they ain't beat up and they don't have to tighten their chin straps. The rules changes lend themselves to more of a passing offense than in the old days and the types of athletes needed to execute it.

 

It takes more speed and agility today. It took more raw toughness then. Players are still tough today, but they don't have to knock heads as much as they use to. The situations created by a spread offense just don't require as much of it. The rules effect the style of play and I prefer smash-mouth to a track meet.

Yes, I disagree. I believe limiting the pool size, requiring academic standards, and giving all of the schools participating in the sport a reasonable chance at a playoff spot will increase parity. However, I have not the time or desire to debate it. I really do not care about it all that much. You asked a question, I answered. Hack away at it. I'm done.

If you don’t have the desire to debate it, fine. But I won’t apologize for trying to have a discussion about your ideas. You obviously know by now that I thrive on debating college football. Believe it or not I actually do care about your opinion on this since you’re the only big fan of a group of 5 team on here that seems to want to have a rational conversation about all of this.

I think the targeting rule should be changed. Also I like the 4 team playoff but I think it should be expanded to at least 6 teams so that all P5 champions are included.