A radical idea that would increase parity

#51
#51
What's really interesting is to think, parity left a long time ago. If you go back before Saban at Bama, college football had a lot of parity. Look at 1990-2005 you had 16 different teams claim at least 1 National Championship and it represented all levels of P5 schools. From 2006 to 2020 you have had only 7 different teams win a National championship (not counting UCF) and really only representing blue-blood programs. This is all before NIL. Now with NIL I think the window gets much smaller.
 
#52
#52
SayUWantAreVOLution said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is no real way of doing a "cap" or stopping "compensation" at this point.
 
Last edited:
#53
#53
I
sjt18 said:
Maybe in a way. But the ideal of amateur athletics is not one that should be lost. I think it would be pretty easy to make a great case that it is "good" for individuals, communities, and societies in a way that pure egocentric materialism... is not. It conveys an ideal of doing something for a cause greater than one's own direct benefit. What "good" except a fleeting one for the selfish athlete do you propose can come out of effectively creating another professional league? Why even pretend that it is college athletics at that point?

So you think my son has a say about the value of his contribution to the American economy? No. He was offered a deal that provides him a path. He gained a college degree that he might not have afforded otherwise. It set him on the path of becoming a pilot... and the possibility of making good money IN THE FUTURE. Get that? He sacrificed IMMEDIATE gratification for a chance to achieve a certain career goal.

Not so. They can accept a deal or find a better one. At no point are they compelled to sign a LOI or prevented from playing their way into the NFL in Canada or some semi-pro league.

Next time you sit down at a nicer restaurant, look over the menu, place your order, and eat... you won't be offended if the waiter comes to you with a check with all the prices doubled, right? You'll reject that because you understand that when you make a deal and agree to terms... they have no RIGHT to change it afterward OR to force you to eat at their restaurant after jacking up the price.

Except that you are wrong about the nature of the beast.

No it didn't. That industry has financed all of those athletes and sports that otherwise could NEVER be justified. Many thousands of kids have gotten degrees paid for... by fans. AD's don't sit on big accounts. They use that money to build. The ultimate beneficiaries are athletes and fans.

They've never been excluded... they've always been compensated. But even if you weren't wrong about that... you're still WRONG. My high school paid for all of its athletic programs and band activities with football. A school with about 400 kids would have 4000-6000 people attend every home game. By your logic, the football players should have been paid.

You really do not understand what amateur athletics is or its worth, do you?

And you'd still be wrong. Organizations have a RIGHT to establish rules and offer opportunities for others to participate. Just because someone chooses to participate... does NOT mean they then have a right to dictate rules to those who started the organizations.

Yes. They should get ZERO SAY in out revenues are distributed. They are not the leaders or organizers or owners. In that sense, they ARE contract labor. They were offered compensation for participation in a sport. They accepted the terms. Don't like the terms? Find a better gig. Start your own league.

The ridiculous union mentality you're applying here is WHOLLY illegitimate.
Click to expand...
Interesting you call the players waiters and not cooks. Devalue student athletes but kiss a** for millionaire coaches. Simp.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stillavol and LSU-SIU
#54
#54
Defaultuser said:
I

Interesting you call the players waiters and not cooks. Devalue student athletes but kiss a** for millionaire coaches. Simp.
Click to expand...
Nowhere did I call the players waiters. Are you really so dense that you do not understand that type of analogy? Really?

I'm not devaluing either. Both have a RIGHT to take a deal they find agreeable and walk away from one that is not agreeable. That too is a really, really simple concept. And do you know what you should do if you think there's an opportunity due to them not being offered a good enough deal... START YOUR OWN LEAGUE. There are obviously a lot of people like you who think these guys who get free education, a stipend, free health care, free food, free tutors, etc are being screwed over massively. If that's true then just solicit investors and start a minor league system and pay them as much as you think they're worth.
 
#56
#56
rocky top buzz said:
What's really interesting is to think, parity left a long time ago. If you go back before Saban at Bama, college football had a lot of parity. Look at 1990-2005 you had 16 different teams claim at least 1 National Championship and it represented all levels of P5 schools. From 2006 to 2020 you have had only 7 different teams win a National championship (not counting UCF) and really only representing blue-blood programs. This is all before NIL. Now with NIL I think the window gets much smaller.
Click to expand...
Yes, and who wants to see the same 4-5 teams vying for the National Championship year after year. What if those teams were USC, Oregon, Notre Dame and Texas .....or any same two teams....year after year. People will become disinterested and are not as likely to go to as many games or even watch as many games on TV.
I live in the SW USA and can remember being at a social event just before Alabama and Clemson were playing in the national championship for the second time. Several commented they didn't plan on watching because it was just another game between the same two teams. My guess is if Oregon and Texas were playing year after year there wouldn't be as much interest to people on this forum than if two SE regional teams were playing. Beer and trucks are bought all over the country. Commercial sponsors know this of course and when TV ratings decline for lack of viewers companies reduce the amount they're willing to spend for advertisements. That's the reason pro sports realizes increased parity is not only desirable, it's good business.
 
#58
#58
Only way you can implement parity is by only allowing each team so many 5 star, 4 star recruits . After that you’ll win based off coaching and developing.
 
#59
#59
"Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen" -Karl Marx

So is this the account for AOC or Bernie?
 
#61
#61
sjt18 said:
Probably but the current system has pretty obvious flaws and especially in the short term. In the long term, NIL's supported by fan enthusiasm and consumption could possibly even level the field. If I lived in TN then I know that player NILs would influence my purchasing choices. At some point, opportunities to support NILs through on-line businesses will enable folks like me to help out.

However the short term could blow everything up. The rich could get so rich that no one can catch up.

Now would be a REALLY good time for a radical realignment. Something like 8 conferences of 10 or 12 teams each divided into 2 divisions. You could also go with 4 conferences of 16 teams. Teams can play cross division games but only games within the division should count toward a championship berth. UT could continue to play Bama each year but would not be penalized. The conference championships would amount to the first round of the CFB playoff. Eight CHAMPIONS would then play a randomly selected tournament for the national championship.
Click to expand...
You’re on the right track. But let’s call it like it is. NCAA is a semi pro money driven entity.
Get rid of the conference idea, and commissioners,
1 commissioner of the 8 division league.
7 teams per division.

That’s the A league.

Repeat the above for the B league and let all the non power 5 class teams have a championship to play for too.
 
#62
#62
I like it but I’d rather conferences recruit and then each team does a bottom up draft.

Example;
John Doe is recruited by the SEC and enters the draft pool in December. Then on signing day each SEC team selects until the pool is empty. Starting with lowest to highest ranked teams.

(Also, I know this isn’t feasible. Just stating how impossible it would be to make college recruiting “fair” by giving an optimal scenario in the institutions favor)
 
Last edited:
#63
#63
Elhanan said:
I like it but I’d rather conferences recruit and then each team does a bottom up draft.

Example;
John Doe is recruited by the SEC and enters the draft pool in December. Then on signing day each SEC team selects until the pool is empty. Starting with lowest to highest ranked teams.
Click to expand...

So, what you are saying is they are employees? That means all the sports will have to be paid like employees including female sports.
 
#64
#64
I'm definitely not a fan of the early signing period. It's usually around the time some coaches get canned and some coaches are rumored with other jobs. I don't like it.
 
#65
#65
J C Higgins said:
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.
Click to expand...

I tend to see the word “parity” as a replacement for “let everyone have a trophy”. Why penalize accomplishment? I have watched for years as society has leaned towards taking all contact out of football and let everyone with a winning record in a playoff. The game is almost unrecognizable today from just 20 years ago (and not in a good way). Targeting, no blindside block, unprotected player, no crack back, all were legal and now are a penalty or suspension, or both. Yes, I know they are safety measures, but it has changed who wins and loses along the way. Just my opinion.
 
#67
#67
sjt18 said:
The ridiculous union mentality you're applying here is WHOLLY illegitimate.
Click to expand...
You're literally disagreeing with the Supreme Court, but okay. Go read Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence with the unanimous opinion in NCAA v Alston. Seriously. Here's a freebie:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-512_gfbh.pdf

"The bottom line is that the NCAA and its member colleges are suppressing the pay of student athletes who collectively generate billions of dollars in revenues for colleges every year. Those enormous sums of money flow to seemingly everyone except the student athletes. College presidents, athletic directors, coaches, conference commissioners, and NCAA executives take in six- and seven-figure salaries. Colleges build lavish new facilities. But the student athletes who generate the revenues, many of whom are African American and from lower-income backgrounds, end up with little or nothing.
...
Everyone agrees that the NCAA can require student athletes to be enrolled students in good standing. But the NCAA’s business model of using unpaid student athletes to generate billions of dollars in revenue for the colleges raises serious questions under the antitrust laws. In particular, it is highly questionable whether the NCAA and its member colleges can justify not paying student athletes a fair share of the revenues on the circular theory that the defining characteristic of college sports is that the colleges do not pay student athletes. And if that asserted justification is unavailing, it is not clear how the NCAA can legally defend its remaining compensation rules."
 
#69
#69
UTwick said:
Agree. At the same time, we are one of those “other schools”.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But when we let the AD who Fulmer handpicked, negotiate a terrible extension with Fulmer , then fire Fulmer then botch Kiffins buyout,then botch the hiring of Cut to replace LK then hire Dooley;…..then it’s on us. People who handled their **** efficiently and smartly shouldn’t have to suffer.
 
#70
#70
J C Higgins said:
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.
Click to expand...

The only way to have any parity is reduce the scholarships overall to 80, or maybe, maybe, 75. NFL only uses 53, and plays more games with more practices, but college players need more development and time to grow. 85 essentially gives you 4 deep at every position, which is excessive. These 5 scholarships can be moved over to baseball upping the scholarship numbers to let's call it an even 17.

130 fbs teams equals 650 less scholarships in fbs, those would move down a level and improve the product there. Most of these ride the pine for the majority of their careers. Keep the plus 7 transfer addendum.

Scholarship limits were originally enacted to reduce stockpiling and having quality players riding the bench(today's transfer rules have dramatically reduced this but created it's own issue) plus more money for schools to devote to other sports. Today there are 10 times the quality players available and the number of teams is the same. The difference is, today, teams hoard more talent on one team than was ever amassed back then. Alabama has over 70 4* players, Georgia around 65.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raebo
#72
#72
Kinglberry said:
The only way to have any parity is reduce the scholarships overall to 80, or maybe, maybe, 75. NFL only uses 53, and plays more games with more practices, but college players need more development and time to grow. 85 essentially gives you 4 deep at every position, which is excessive. These 5 scholarships can be moved over to baseball upping the scholarship numbers to let's call it an even 17.

130 fbs teams equals 650 less scholarships in fbs, those would move down a level and improve the product there. Most of these ride the pine for the majority of their careers. Keep the plus 7 transfer addendum.

Scholarship limits were originally enacted to reduce stockpiling and having quality players riding the bench(today's transfer rules have dramatically reduced this but created it's own issue) plus more money for schools to devote to other sports. Today there are 10 times the quality players available and the number of teams is the same. The difference is, today, teams hoard more talent on one team than was ever amassed back then. Alabama has over 70 4* players, Georgia around 65.
Click to expand...

"The difference is, today, teams hoard more talent on one team than was ever amassed back then."

This is the issue.

Whatever the method, parity must increase or the population in general will lose interest. As I have said before, the owners of professional sports teams recognize this and it's the reason they instituted measures to increase parity.
 
#73
#73
J C Higgins said:
"The difference is, today, teams hoard more talent on one team than was ever amassed back then."

This is the issue.

Whatever the method, parity must increase or the population in general will lose interest. As I have said before, the owners of professional sports teams recognize this and it's the reason they instituted measures to increase parity.
Click to expand...
As others have pointed out, only 7 teams have won championships since 2006 but there's still multi-million dollar TV contracts being signed.

Parity isn't needed to maintain interest and cash flow.
 
#74
#74
Losing 15 ships in one year is almost like an NCAA death penalty. It's an interesting concept but there's no way the NCAA is going to do anything that would cripple the top programs in the country. They're the cash cows.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top