Paying players

#26
#26
Where was this era where the power-sharing was so much more equal? When was this era when the power that be turned over once every few years? When was this era when teams did what Clemson has done all the time? When I think of 90s and early 2000s football, I think of 3 programs...Nebraska, Florida St, and Tennessee. All of them suck right now. USC had a great run after those 3 schools did, and they suck right now. LSU emerged, Alabama re-emerged, Ohio St re-emerged, and Clemson came from totally outside the club to join it. If you're looking for widespread turnover every few years, not only are you not going to get it, but it has never happened like that in the entire history of the sport. You keep pining for a version of the past that never existed. College football has always been a dynastic sport.

There is one thing we could do to return to the past...no scholarship limits. That would help parity...right?

Alabama re-emerged is an understatement. Has there ever been a dynasty like this? Maybe, but how far back do you have to go to find a team winning the NC 6 of 12 years? Even in your 90's and 2000's, Tenn only managed it once, FSU twice, and Nebraska three times (and one was shared). Each time, how long did those runs last? 10 years, max? In any other era UGA would have even won one by now. OSU won the title in 2002 and 2014 and they have a seat almost every year in the playoffs. In fact, how many of the same teams are we seeing in the playoffs every year?

Yes - there are dynasty's. Yes, there are runs. Yes the history of the sport is littered with multi-year dominance from teams. But no - in no other time in college football has the ability to win a championship been closed to so few.

Perhaps it is a product of the playoffs themselves - and maybe if the playoffs were around in the 90's and 2000's it would be more clear. However, as it stands - I see no reason other than "it has always happened in the past" to see that anything will be changing moving forward. If that is your argument then more power to you. To me - this is a different era and a different game and we won't see the change like we have in the past.
 
#27
#27
Alabama re-emerged is an understatement. Has there ever been a dynasty like this? Maybe, but how far back do you have to go to find a team winning the NC 6 of 12 years? Even in your 90's and 2000's, Tenn only managed it once, FSU twice, and Nebraska three times (and one was shared). Each time, how long did those runs last? 10 years, max? In any other era UGA would have even won one by now. OSU won the title in 2002 and 2014 and they have a seat almost every year in the playoffs. In fact, how many of the same teams are we seeing in the playoffs every year?

Yes - there are dynasty's. Yes, there are runs. Yes the history of the sport is littered with multi-year dominance from teams. But no - in no other time in college football has the ability to win a championship been closed to so few.

Perhaps it is a product of the playoffs themselves - and maybe if the playoffs were around in the 90's and 2000's it would be more clear. However, as it stands - I see no reason other than "it has always happened in the past" to see that anything will be changing moving forward. If that is your argument then more power to you. To me - this is a different era and a different game and we won't see the change like we have in the past.

Cause we still don't have a true playoff. Instead of just picking 2 teams to play for the NT (BCS era) or by popular vote (pre-BCS), we now pick 4. Which is just a BCS expanded playoff system of the pre-BCS popular vote system. You install an FCS level playoff in 1-A and you will see the field level out little. Until then, the powers that be will always find a way to slide in the "Favorites."

There are what, 5 P5 conferences and 5 G5? Take those 10 plus the 2 highest ranked at large outside the conference winners and go to a 12 team runoff.
 
#28
#28
Alabama re-emerged is an understatement. Has there ever been a dynasty like this? Maybe, but how far back do you have to go to find a team winning the NC 6 of 12 years? Even in your 90's and 2000's, Tenn only managed it once, FSU twice, and Nebraska three times (and one was shared). Each time, how long did those runs last? 10 years, max? In any other era UGA would have even won one by now. OSU won the title in 2002 and 2014 and they have a seat almost every year in the playoffs. In fact, how many of the same teams are we seeing in the playoffs every year?

Yes - there are dynasty's. Yes, there are runs. Yes the history of the sport is littered with multi-year dominance from teams. But no - in no other time in college football has the ability to win a championship been closed to so few.

Perhaps it is a product of the playoffs themselves - and maybe if the playoffs were around in the 90's and 2000's it would be more clear. As it stands - I see no reason other than "it has always happened in the past" to see that anything will be changing moving forward.
"Has there ever been a dynasty like Alabama" is a different question. The answer to that question is probably no. Their "peak" is probably higher than any other dynasty's peak based on the sheer number of titles they have won.

But as far as how long the dynasties last, they can last longer than 10 years. Way longer. Nebraska was an elite squad almost every single year from 1973 to 1995. Florida St was an elite team basically every year from 1985 to 2000; Bowden had a run of 14 straight years with a top 5 finish. Not even Saban, even though his Alabama dynasty is obviously better, has achieved that. Barry Switzer had an elite squad almost every year from 1973 to 1988 at Oklahoma, and that came on the heels of Bud Wilkinson having an elite team almost every year from 1947 to 1963. All involved multiple national championships and multiple years (sometimes 10+ straight years) of conference titles. For example, from 1947 until 1988, Oklahoma won their conference 29 times (71% of the time). They won almost 3 out of 4 conference titles over a period of 41 years. By comparison, Saban has won the SEC "only" 50% of the time in 14 years at Alabama.

It is possible, had a playoff existed, that the Nebraska/Oklahomas/Florida Sts of the world would have won more titles. You had to have a poll declare you to be a champion in those days. If you had the legacy bowl system with polls (pre-BCS) in 2017, for example, Saban likely would not have won a title given they were #4 headed into bowl season and did not win the SEC.
 
Last edited:
#29
#29
Where was this era where the power-sharing was so much more equal? When was this era when the power that be turned over once every few years? When was this era when teams did what Clemson has done all the time? When I think of 90s and early 2000s football, I think of 3 programs...Nebraska, Florida St, and Tennessee. All of them suck right now. USC had a great run after those 3 schools did, and they suck right now. LSU emerged, Alabama re-emerged, Ohio St re-emerged, and Clemson came from totally outside the club to join it. If you're looking for widespread turnover every few years, not only are you not going to get it, but it has never happened like that in the entire history of the sport. You keep pining for a version of the past that never existed. College football has always been a dynastic sport.

There is one thing we could do to return to the past...no scholarship limits. That would help parity...right?
Clemson won a title back in the 80s. Sure it took cheating but it was there. But there is also about 15 conference titles since WWII. It's not like they were Vandy.
 
#30
#30
Clemson won a title back in the 80s. Sure it took cheating but it was there. But there is also about 15 conference titles since WWII. It's not like they were Vandy.
They weren't Vandy, but they also were not even close to being a traditional power. They were not even close to being as accomplished of a program as Tennessee, for example, before this run they've gone on.
 
#31
#31
Cause we still don't have a true playoff. Instead of just picking 2 teams to play for the NT (BCS era) or by popular vote (pre-BCS), we now pick 4. Which is just a BCS expanded playoff system of the pre-BCS popular vote system. You install an FCS level playoff in 1-A and you will see the field level out little. Until then, the powers that be will always find a way to slide in the "Favorites."

There are what, 5 P5 conferences and 5 G5? Take those 10 plus the 2 highest ranked at large outside the conference winners and go to a 12 team runoff.
Lol blowouts. Name any one team, not in the playoffs that would have come close to winning?

Going back to 2019, cause 2020 was weird, you would have had LSU, OSU, Clemson, OK, Oregon, Memphis, Boise, Kiffins FAU, 7-5 Miami (OH), and Drinkwitz Appy state, in as the champs. With Georgia and Baylor, both of whom had lost in their championships as the at large.
 
#32
#32
Lol blowouts. Name any one team, not in the playoffs that would have come close to winning?

Going back to 2019, cause 2020 was weird, you would have had LSU, OSU, Clemson, OK, Oregon, Memphis, Boise, Kiffins FAU, 7-5 Miami (OH), and Drinkwitz Appy state, in as the champs. With Georgia and Baylor, both of whom had lost in their championships as the at large.

And that would be proper, regardless of the outcomes. That's why they play the games. If you only went with the obvious there would be no chubby, half attractive men with hot wives.
 
#36
#36
And he's the exception to the rule. For every PM there are countless nobody broken bodied working stiffs
Of course he’s the exception.

And what you’re going to find out with this new image rights thing is they’re still nobodies. It will be the haves and have nots.
 
Last edited:
#38
#38
Of course he’s the exception.

And what you’re going to find out with this new image rights thing is they’re still nobodies. It will be the haves and have nots.
But this way it won't be the NCAA restricting them from even making an attempt while everyone around them makes millions.
 
#39
#39
Of course he’s the exception.

And what you’re going to find out with this new image rights thing is they’re still nobodies. It will be the haves and have nots.

But the size of the group of haves will grow. There are plenty of guys who are good to great in college who make modest to little in the pros, like say Chris Lofton. Making $ off licensing for them would be huge.
 
#40
#40
A lot of you guys don't understand that NCAA football is about to change heavily. The mere fact that these kids can sell their likeness will force some type of re-evaluation of the leagues, conferences, ect. It's already an uneven playing field for schools with big pockets. It's just done in the shadows. When that becomes public instead of under the table, jealousy strikes which draws media attention and ad revenue for said media. Everyone who has a smartphone has an opinion that can be heard and the media loves negativity so they will force this on every headline. Schools with the most marketability will be true dominate teams. Notre Dame, Texas, North Carolina, even UT. Kids will be choosing schools based on how much they can sell themselves at that school.
 
#41
#41
A lot of you guys don't understand that NCAA football is about to change heavily. The mere fact that these kids can sell their likeness will force some type of re-evaluation of the leagues, conferences, ect. It's already an uneven playing field for schools with big pockets. It's just done in the shadows. When that becomes public instead of under the table, jealousy strikes which draws media attention and ad revenue for said media. Everyone who has a smartphone has an opinion that can be heard and the media loves negativity so they will force this on every headline. Schools with the most marketability will be true dominate teams. Notre Dame, Texas, North Carolina, even UT. Kids will be choosing schools based on how much they can sell themselves at that school.

College football needs a shot in the arm in the worst way. I'm to the point where I barely care about it and this is astonishing to me because it used to be my #1 by a mile. I just can't help it though, when any given Saturday there are 40 games and 35 of them are blowouts. It's a dog **** product. The last 3 natty games were blowouts, for hell's sake. 9 out of 14 semifinals have been blowouts since the inception of the playoff
 
#42
#42
College football needs a shot in the arm in the worst way. I'm to the point where I barely care about it and this is astonishing to me because it used to be my #1 by a mile. I just can't help it though, when any given Saturday there are 40 games and 35 of them are blowouts. It's a dog **** product. The last 3 natty games were blowouts, for hell's sake. 9 out of 14 semifinals have been blowouts since the inception of the playoff
I agree. My interest in CFB has faded as well. It has more to do with the fact that schools are turning blind eyes to violent criminal activity because they are good at a sport that makes them money. It's the reason pro sports produce violent millionaires at an alarming rate. It's pretty much the only profession that consistently produces violent millionaire criminals.
 
Last edited:
#44
#44
College football needs a shot in the arm in the worst way. I'm to the point where I barely care about it and this is astonishing to me because it used to be my #1 by a mile. I just can't help it though, when any given Saturday there are 40 games and 35 of them are blowouts. It's a dog **** product. The last 3 natty games were blowouts, for hell's sake. 9 out of 14 semifinals have been blowouts since the inception of the playoff
...and expanding the playoff, which many want and think is some kind of solution to the problem you're describing, would make it even worse.

If 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3 are blowouts, what do you think the outcome of 1 vs. 8, 2 vs. 7, etc. would be?
 
#45
#45
...and expanding the playoff, which many want and think is some kind of solution to the problem you're describing, would make it even worse.

If 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3 are blowouts, what do you think the outcome of 1 vs. 8, 2 vs. 7, etc. would be?

The only possible benefit I can see from expanding the playoffs is a dispersion of talent. It might lead players to pick schools other than the 5 or 6 we see in the playoffs every year.
 
#46
#46
The only possible benefit I can see from expanding the playoffs is a dispersion of talent. It might lead players to pick schools other than the 5 or 6 we see in the playoffs every year.
I doubt it. The #5-8 schools would all eventually end up being viewed like Notre Dame is right now. Good teams, but still get eaten alive by the Alabamas/Clemsons of the world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
#47
#47
College football needs a shot in the arm in the worst way. I'm to the point where I barely care about it and this is astonishing to me because it used to be my #1 by a mile. I just can't help it though, when any given Saturday there are 40 games and 35 of them are blowouts. It's a dog **** product. The last 3 natty games were blowouts, for hell's sake. 9 out of 14 semifinals have been blowouts since the inception of the playoff

I agree about the semis, which is why I'm totally opposed to expanding the playoff.

But while the last three title games have been laughers, the three games before those were all absolute classics.
 
#48
#48
...and expanding the playoff, which many want and think is some kind of solution to the problem you're describing, would make it even worse.

If 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3 are blowouts, what do you think the outcome of 1 vs. 8, 2 vs. 7, etc. would be?
I don’t expect the improvement to be immediate, but I could see the potential long term benefit. Part of the benefit being that when the Ohio State’s of the world get waxed by 30 on the road at Purdue they don’t sneak into the #4 spot because they’re Ohio State and still have the majority of the fans at the Cotton Bowl. They have to go to Norman or Clemson or Baton Rouge for a true road Playoff game. I think it creates more meaningful games down the road.
 
#49
#49
I don’t expect the improvement to be immediate, but I could see the potential long term benefit. Part of the benefit being that when the Ohio State’s of the world get waxed by 30 on the road at Purdue they don’t sneak into the #4 spot because they’re Ohio State and still have the majority of the fans at the Cotton Bowl. They have to go to Norman or Clemson or Baton Rouge for a true road Playoff game. I think it creates more meaningful games down the road.

I'm confused. Why are you assuming that with 4 more spots tOSU doesn't wind up #4 and hosting a first round game?
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol

VN Store



Back
Top