A radical idea that would increase parity

[J C Higgins]

and should be easy to implement.

First....do away with the December signing date and return to the spring signing date.

Second.... after the FBS Championship game the 15 highest ranked teams would be limited in the number of recruits and transfers they could sign the next year based on their ranking. Number One would be limited to 15 fewer than what their limit would otherwise be. Number 2 limited to 14 fewers, number 3 limited to 13 fewer, number 4 limited to 12 fewer, number 5 limited to 11 fewer....etc., etc.

Teams ranked number 16 or less would have no reduction.

Probably the only teams that would be opposed to this would be the teams that have been able to stockpile high ranked players, three deep.

 

[EtowahVol]

It would work but money and greed would not let it happen.

 

[VOL 4 Life 83]

So….in other words, penalize successful teams with reduction in scholarships?

Yeah I don’t see any major program signing off on that.

 

[Rickyvol77]

and should be easy to implement.

First....do away with the December signing date and return to the spring signing date.

Second.... after the FBS Championship game the 15 highest ranked teams would be limited in the number of recruits and transfers they could sign the next year based on their ranking. Number One would be limited to 15 fewer than what their limit would otherwise be. Number 2 limited to 14 fewers, number 3 limited to 13 fewer, number 4 limited to 12 fewer, number 5 limited to 11 fewer....etc., etc.

Teams ranked number 16 or less would have no reduction.

Probably the only teams that would be opposed to this would be the teams that have been able to stockpile high ranked players, three deep.

No offense but no that’s dumb

 

[fossilfiction]

Let's be real, the only disparity exist because of financial standings resulting in better facilities and atmosphere and coaches who are superior out coaching and recruiting.
What you are saying here is punishment for being good. That should never be the case. Raise and spend money better, hire the best coaches you can pay. That is how you get on the Clemson, Georgia, OSU, Oklahoma, and Alabama level.

 

[Halph66]

Why would NCAA Football be interested in parity?

So if a team team has enough talent to win a National Championship two years in a row they would loose 30 players out of 85 (35% of their team). What a joke.

 

[sonofUT62]

and should be easy to implement.

First....do away with the December signing date and return to the spring signing date.

Second.... after the FBS Championship game the 15 highest ranked teams would be limited in the number of recruits and transfers they could sign the next year based on their ranking. Number One would be limited to 15 fewer than what their limit would otherwise be. Number 2 limited to 14 fewers, number 3 limited to 13 fewer, number 4 limited to 12 fewer, number 5 limited to 11 fewer....etc., etc.

Teams ranked number 16 or less would have no reduction.

Probably the only teams that would be opposed to this would be the teams that have been able to stockpile high ranked players, three deep.

Why dont we stop encouraging parity and have the other schools do better??

 

[VOLinAL]

So essentially in 4 years Alabama will have 7 players on their team?

I like it.

 

[J C Higgins]

So essentially in 4 years Alabama will have 7 players on their team?

I like it.

If they would be number one after having their roster reduced the first 3 years. Chances pretty slim.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

and should be easy to implement.

First....do away with the December signing date and return to the spring signing date.

Second.... after the FBS Championship game the 15 highest ranked teams would be limited in the number of recruits and transfers they could sign the next year based on their ranking. Number One would be limited to 15 fewer than what their limit would otherwise be. Number 2 limited to 14 fewers, number 3 limited to 13 fewer, number 4 limited to 12 fewer, number 5 limited to 11 fewer....etc., etc.

Teams ranked number 16 or less would have no reduction.

Probably the only teams that would be opposed to this would be the teams that have been able to stockpile high ranked players, three deep.

What part of "walk on" is covered here?

With NIL, a scholarship is a trivial expense. Alabama suddenly has 25 "walk ons" with $150k/yr NIL deals so they're going to worry about a scholarship to pay for school?

 

[Boca Vol]

You realize rankings are subjective. Who would rank these teams?

 

[J C Higgins]

You realize rankings are subjective. Who would rank these teams?

Polls. Maybe a composite of coaches, sportswriters, etc.

 

[J C Higgins]

So….in other words, penalize successful teams with reduction in scholarships?

Yeah I don’t see any major program signing off on that.

It's already done in the pros but in a different form (order of draft). Colleges couldn't do it that way.

 

[ArmchairQB]

Some kind of conversation about parity is inevitable though, isn't it? There's a salary cap in the NFL, NBA, NHL and MLS. There's a luxury tax in MLB. A somewhat level competitive playing field is a pretty reasonable thing to want, for the long-term health of college football, and introducing NIL rights and opening the door to compensation probably means having to have that conversation in some form eventually. And don't get me wrong... calling D1 football an amateur sport is a joke. NIL is a good first step, but it's going to make for a really interesting next decade or so.

 

[hog88]

How about increase the yearly class limit to 40 and scholarship limit to 100. Plus make it so P5 schools can only schedule 1 OOC game outside the P5 and it has to be a G5 school.

 

[Boca Vol]

Polls. Maybe a composite of coaches, sportswriters, etc.

So coaches & media could rank a 7-5 UT team #10 if they wanted just to screw the Vols. You know, because everyone has it out for UT.

 

[sjt18]

and should be easy to implement.

First....do away with the December signing date and return to the spring signing date.

Second.... after the FBS Championship game the 15 highest ranked teams would be limited in the number of recruits and transfers they could sign the next year based on their ranking. Number One would be limited to 15 fewer than what their limit would otherwise be. Number 2 limited to 14 fewers, number 3 limited to 13 fewer, number 4 limited to 12 fewer, number 5 limited to 11 fewer....etc., etc.

Teams ranked number 16 or less would have no reduction.

Probably the only teams that would be opposed to this would be the teams that have been able to stockpile high ranked players, three deep.

Why do you think "parity" is a desirable thing... at least to the extent you're proposing. Efforts to create "parity" in the NFL ruined it for years.

 

[sonofUT62]

It's already done in the pros but in a different form (order of draft). Colleges couldn't do it that way.

Yes and incentivising tanking makes for such an amazing product. i propose an alternative based off of European soccer. Each league drops the bottom 2 finishers for a year and replaces them with two teams added by a vote of the remainders. Once Vandy gets "relegated" and replaced with App State a few times, maybe they'll start to take it a little more seriously.

 

[VAVol85]

First, the OP is proposing a way to make a sport more interesting not an economic model for running the country, so analogs to capitalism v. socialism, Republicans v. Democrats, etc. are not really relevant.

Second, every major professional team sports league has a way of punishing success and rewarding failure - e.g. winning teams go to the bottom of the draft, great teams have to get rid of their best players due to a salary cap, etc. This is because the league knows that its long term profitability depends on competition not dominance by a single team.

The recent changes (NIL, transfer portal) have the potential to strengthen dominant teams and ultimately reduce competition. Even with all the band wagon Bama fans, there are not enough of them to maintain the health of college football over the long term. The NCAA or whatever comes after it, will have to address parity in some fashion or begin to lose fans (and revenue).

The OPs proposal may be a bit draconian, but parity rules need to be discussed.

 

[robmgrig]

Sounds kind of like a plan the federal government would implement. Take away from the rich and give to the poor.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

First, the OP is proposing a way to make a sport more interesting not an economic model for running the country, so analogs to capitalism v. socialism, Republicans v. Democrats, etc. are not really relevant.

Second, every major professional team sports league has a way of punishing success and rewarding failure - e.g. winning teams go to the bottom of the draft, great teams have to get rid of their best players due to a salary cap, etc. This is because the league knows that its long term profitability depends on competition not dominance by a single team.

The recent changes (NIL, transfer portal) have the potential to strengthen dominant teams and ultimately reduce competition. Even with all the band wagon Bama fans, there are not enough of them to maintain the health of college football over the long term. The NCAA or whatever comes after it, will have to address parity in some fashion or begin to lose fans (and revenue).

The OPs proposal may be a bit draconian, but parity rules need to be discussed.

These aren't salaries. These are individual contracts.

The NFL, MLB, etc DO NOT ADDRESS the money players make from endorsements (other than morality/taste rules.)

You cannot justify regulating personal income.

 

[sjt18]

First, the OP is proposing a way to make a sport more interesting not an economic model for running the country, so analogs to capitalism v. socialism, Republicans v. Democrats, etc. are not really relevant.

Second, every major professional team sports league has a way of punishing success and rewarding failure - e.g. winning teams go to the bottom of the draft, great teams have to get rid of their best players due to a salary cap, etc. This is because the league knows that its long term profitability depends on competition not dominance by a single team.

The recent changes (NIL, transfer portal) have the potential to strengthen dominant teams and ultimately reduce competition. Even with all the band wagon Bama fans, there are not enough of them to maintain the health of college football over the long term. The NCAA or whatever comes after it, will have to address parity in some fashion or begin to lose fans (and revenue).

The OPs proposal may be a bit draconian, but parity rules need to be discussed.

Bama's run has been unusually long but these things cycle. Saban will be done some day... or a young, innovative coach will find the silver bullet and beat him. He could have already been history but to his great credit he evolved with the game as few coaches with his age and experience do. But he only has to take the wrong path once...

Punishing success is stupid and not good for the sport long term or short term. The NFL isn't a "sport". It is an entertainment enterprise so you are right that they don't want any of their theaters to become unattractive. One of the common complaints at UT and other schools is that mediocre performance is frequently rewarded by financial success.

An NIL salary cap is an interesting idea.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

What in the Vladimir Lenin is going on here?

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

An NIL salary cap is an interesting idea.

Doesn't that just push the same old "envelopes under the table" back into existence?

If NIL caps are there, the top schools still have ways of getting money into the hands of a player and have for decades and decades.

I see a cap as punt, not a real solution.

 

[Okie]

So….in other words, penalize successful teams with reduction in scholarships?

Yeah I don’t see any major program signing off on that.

I don't see any top programs agreeing to this,though it would quickly change the landscape. It's similar in intent to the seeding of the nfl draft where losing teams get a chance to choose the best

What part of "walk on" is covered here?

With NIL, a scholarship is a trivial expense. Alabama suddenly has 25 "walk ons" with $150k/yr NIL deals so they're going to worry about a scholarship to pay for school?

Actually I think a lot of kids would be pretty cheesed off at having to spend "their money" on school expenses just to play ball. Never mind that they only have the money in the first place because of the school.