Jump to content

College Football Is Broken: How To Fix It


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I’ve never been less invested in college football, and the majority of fans that aren’t part of the Alabama, Clemson, or Ohio State fanbases are in the same boat. This is the worst system they’ve ever

No thanks. 

I think playing every game up to the semis on campus is exactly what should happen.  The SEC would NEVER go for that.

This is to everyone for reference, our link policy reads in part:

III. When any member posts a link to a 3rd party website, that link MUST be accompanied by meaningful commentary in the post explaining why the link has been shared. This is intended to provide insight about the link without forcing anyone to leave BGP in order to understand the subject matter, as well as continuing to generate organic discussion in the thread rather than completely directing attention elsewhere. Meaningful commentary could include questions (one simple question will not be sufficient) intended to stem discussion, it can be some personal observations about the topic of the link, or it could simply be a summary in the member’s own words about what is contained in the link.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, theguru said:

What does the article say about fixing it?

Basically talks about how expanding the playoff would share the wealth as far as recruiting goes. Right now your usual suspects in the CFP are also dominating on the recruiting trail as well. 

Those same schools would still get their share of 5* and elite kids, but we probably wouldn't see as many west coast kids heading east just for a chance to play for a program with a better shot at the CFP. Pac 12 has been non existent in the CFP outside of Oregon one year and also seen the quality of their league go down as a result.

Also mentions how the results of kids being able to profit off their name, image, and likeness could help spread the wealth as well if the CFP expands. Example: A high 4* backup at Bama might not have the same endorsement opportunities as he would being the face of a "smaller" program.

On expanding the playoff, we may still get the same final 4 at the end of the year but winning a home quarterfinal game becomes a similar feat as reaching the final 4 in College basketball. It gives more teams an opportunity who maybe play in tougher conferences and had a slip up to still compete for a national championship. 

Mostly ideas that have already been thrown out but it's good to see the national media putting more attention on the fact that the CFP has become more of an invitational based on history rather than an actual playoff where upsets could happen.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Walter said:

Basically talks about how expanding the playoff would share the wealth as far as recruiting goes. Right now your usual suspects in the CFP are also dominating on the recruiting trail as well. 

Those same schools would still get their share of 5* and elite kids, but we probably wouldn't see as many west coast kids heading east just for a chance to play for a program with a better shot at the CFP. Pac 12 has been non existent in the CFP outside of Oregon one year and also seen the quality of their league go down as a result.

Also mentions how the results of kids being able to profit off their name, image, and likeness could help spread the wealth as well if the CFP expands. Example: A high 4* backup at Bama might not have the same endorsement opportunities as he would being the face of a "smaller" program.

On expanding the playoff, we may still get the same final 4 at the end of the year but winning a home quarterfinal game becomes a similar feat as reaching the final 4 in College basketball. It gives more teams an opportunity who maybe play in tougher conferences and had a slip up to still compete for a national championship. 

Mostly ideas that have already been thrown out but it's good to see the national media putting more attention on the fact that the CFP has become more of an invitational based on history rather than an actual playoff where upsets could happen.

Thanks for all that.

We have talked about it a lot.  You have to expand the playoffs if you want to spread the wealth.  It will take awhile but eventually things will become more competitive.

I also think football should be just like basketball and if you want to leave after one year for the NFL you should be allowed to do so.  Some players are ready after a year or two and furthermore I think it will encourage some big time recruits to go to some lesser schools for the opportunity to play right away and maybe jump to the league quicker. 

16 team playoff! 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, John Anthony said:

The top talent only goes to a few schools, I don’t really see that changing.  Recruiting budgets and perks will never be equal.  

That is a good point that applies to college basketball too.  Once you get a bunch of money flowing through college sports it is all corrupted.  

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets map this discussion to our own high school 6A situation and ask - will anything really get 'fixed' by all the tinkering with structure and post season. 

Super-districts, rotating regions, eliminating Jefferson County vs state final and so on. After years and decades of changes to 'fix' the lack of diversity of success the top class a big green T is on the BGP homepage - again. 

This discussion and direction on the CFP seems to be going the same route.  Expanding the playoffs will fix - what?  Does anyone really expect a #5 or higher to be champion?  Only if their name is Alabama or Ohio State.  Take these two vanguards (and target of the fixing) out of the picture and the champion has been #1 or #2.  The 3 seed has yet to win the CFP.  So in the majority of years it seems even the BCS did a reasonable job. 

Another parallel is "blow-out-weekend".  Are the 1 v 8 and 2 v 7 games really going to be competitive in an 8 team format most years?  Likely not. 

Go for an expanded format if there is something good to come out of it.  But 'fixing' the rich get richer issue is not something that is fixed by this move. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Bluegrasscard said:

Lets map this discussion to our own high school 6A situation and ask - will anything really get 'fixed' by all the tinkering with structure and post season. 

Super-districts, rotating regions, eliminating Jefferson County vs state final and so on. After years and decades of changes to 'fix' the lack of diversity of success the top class a big green T is on the BGP homepage - again. 

This discussion and direction on the CFP seems to be going the same route.  Expanding the playoffs will fix - what?  Does anyone really expect a #5 or higher to be champion?  Only if their name is Alabama or Ohio State.  Take these two vanguards (and target of the fixing) out of the picture and the champion has been #1 or #2.  The 3 seed has yet to win the CFP.  So in the majority of years it seems even the BCS did a reasonable job. 

Another parallel is "blow-out-weekend".  Are the 1 v 8 and 2 v 7 games really going to be competitive in an 8 team format most years?  Likely not. 

Go for an expanded format if there is something good to come out of it.  But 'fixing' the rich get richer issue is not something that is fixed by this move. 

Even though I am quoting you Bluegrasscard this is to everyone, I really want to leave Kentucky High School Football out of this discussion, nothing good can come of it.

Eventually the talent will spread out but it won't happen overnight. 

And I am little more concerned about the 1 v 16 and 2 v 15 match ups. 🙂

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that college football isn’t perfect. I also want to see the playoff expanded. I don’t believe expanding the playoff is necessarily going to fix the issues. If you want to spread out the talent and increase the parity in the sport this is what has to happen: 

1) There needs to be a central governing body for the sport. No longer should each conference get to dictate its own rules. The way the sport is structured right now, the conferences only look out for their own best interests which is what they are paid to do. Take that power away from the conferences. There needs to be an FBS commissioner that makes decisions for the good of the sport as a whole. 

2) Reduce the number of scholarship athletes in FBS football. 85 is way too many scholarship athletes. 
 

3) One free transfer rule. Which is already happening. Players should be more empowered to leave if there is a better opportunity for them elsewhere. 
 

4) Expand the playoffs. As I mentioned earlier, I don’t think this solely fixes the issues of the sport but if the other changes happen first, it would assist the efforts to increase parity. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one that thinks expanding the playoffs does nothing to "spread the wealth?"

We are fixated on the playoff because it is still relatively new, but Alabama (as one example) has been good long before the playoff. Expanding the playoff doesn't mean players stop going to Alabama and start going somewhere else. 

I like @GrantNKYidea of a central governing body of sorts. That could move us towards making decisions that better college football as a whole, not just the SEC, ACC, etc. Why would any conference do anything to better another one? They wouldn't and shouldn't. 

At the end of the day, it's all about money. Conference TV deals means more money for schools for resources, recruiting, facilities and everything in between. Good football teams means more people in the student body. Until the money isn't grossly uneven across the board, the wealth will, literally and figuratively, never be spread beyond where it is. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, TheDeuce said:

 

At the end of the day, it's all about money. Conference TV deals means more money for schools for resources, recruiting, facilities and everything in between. Good football teams means more people in the student body. Until the money isn't grossly uneven across the board, the wealth will, literally and figuratively, never be spread beyond where it is. 

This is way more important than anything in all honesty. Look at which conferences have lucrative TV deals and which ones don’t. No team outside of the SEC, Big 10, or ACC has won a title since Texas in 2005. Those conferences are the only ones with great TV deals with their own networks. The Pac 12 has a network, but no one even knows how to get the Pac 12 network so it doesn’t even really count. The Big 12 has nothing, but Texas has the Longhorn network which they hold over the rest of the conference from getting a TV deal. An overall governing body of the sport can tell Texas to kick rocks, the Big 12 can’t. Get everyone in on equal tv deals. Lower the number of scholarship players and increase the number of full scholarship athletes for non revenue generating sports. The conferences will still hold a huge role because I don’t think anyone wants to get rid of conferences, there just needs to be uniformity to level the playing field. But we’ll never get uniformity when the sport is divided so much that 5 parties and I guess you could expand it out to 10 parties, are in a position where they can’t worry about the rest of the sport. The SEC is always going to look out for the SEC, as they should. We need to eliminate that for the betterment of the sport. Every other sport in the world has a governing body looking out for everyone. Hell even college basketball, while not having an official governing body for the sport at least is more regulated by the NCAA so the playing field is more level. College football is my favorite sport, but how it’s run is so backwards to how every other sport in the world. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

The Power 5 conference teams with their TV money bring in $50 million. UC brings in $8 million. How does a non Power 5 team compete against that? Would a 16 team playoff spread that money more evenly? If yes, then I am in favor of a 16 team playoff.

It would be a long, hard road.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

The Power 5 conference teams with their TV money bring in $50 million. UC brings in $8 million. How does a non Power 5 team compete against that? Would a 16 team playoff spread that money more evenly? If yes, then I am in favor of a 16 team playoff.

I mean the answer is kind of simple, but some people won’t like it. The Group of 5 needs their own playoff. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the site you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Policies.