Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 67
  1. #1

    Should there be a limit on the number of 4/5 star players a school can sign?

    We talk all the time about how 'Bama has 4 and 5 star players riding the bench. And while I agree it's their choice to do so, wouldn't it be in the best interest of College Football in general to limit the number that can be had on a roster at any given time?

    Go ahead and poke holes in this.


    1 out of 10 sixpackers like this post
    Bowling in Orlando | Hooking in Tampa Yes | No

  2. #2
    Yeah. The recruiting services will quit giving Bama players 4 and 5 stars.

    Do you really think the coaches are looking at the stars?


    Bowling in Orlando | Hooking in Tampa Yes | No

  3. #3
    Those rankings are the opinions of people who don’t know anymore about evaluating football talent than half the people on an average message board.


    1 out of 1 sixpackers like this post
    Bowling in Orlando | Hooking in Tampa Yes | No

  4. #4
    TrueMaroonGrind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Posts
    645
    The only way to spread talent evenly would be a draft and that isn’t ever gonna happen. It is college. They aren’t getting a salary. They should have the choice of going where they want. If they don’t want to ride the bench then they can transfer.


    Bowling in Orlando | Hooking in Tampa Yes | No

  5. #5
    That limit will only be set once we begin to sign all of the 5 star players!!!!


    1 out of 1 sixpackers like this post
    Bowling in Orlando | Hooking in Tampa Yes | No

  6. #6
    I would like to see unrestricted transfer based on number of years of eligibility left and participation rate in games. If you have three or more years of eligibility left and you average more than 10 plays per game over a season (kickoffs out of bounds or with touchbacks excluded from this count), score more than 30 points in a season, or kick more than 24 punts and/or kickoffs over a season, you still have to obey the normal transfer rules. Otherwise, you are free to go wherever. This would prevent the blue bloods from poaching the Dak Prescotts and Nick Fitzgeralds of the SEC.


    Bowling in Orlando | Hooking in Tampa Yes | No

  7. #7
    Defensive Coordinator Shamoan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    7,031
    so a communistic approach? damn....i thought this was America.


    2 out of 3 sixpackers like this post
    Bowling in Orlando | Hooking in Tampa Yes | No

  8. #8
    There won't ever be a college draft, but even if there were a draft a high school graduate always has a choice of where they want to go to school. A draft would merely prohibit them from playing on the varsity football team if they decided to attend a different school.
    Last edited by Dawgzilla; 11-13-2017 at 03:07 PM.


    Bowling in Orlando | Hooking in Tampa Yes | No

  9. #9
    I would like to see a further reduction in the total number of scholarships for football. Maybe reduce it to 70 total. That is still three full teams worth of players.


    We could take those 15 scholarships and 7 to mens baseball and the other 8 to womens sports to help with title nine compliance.


    3 out of 3 sixpackers like this post
    Bowling in Orlando | Hooking in Tampa Yes | No

  10. #10
    TheStateUofMS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Orlando
    Posts
    3,574
    No there should be no limit.
    MSU Class of 2011


    Bowling in Orlando | Hooking in Tampa Yes | No

  11. #11
    Got to ask. Are guys just flocking to Bama to be on the team or has Bama figured a process to pay them that takes advantage of NCAA loopholes ? Relatives and such laundering the money ?


    Bowling in Orlando | Hooking in Tampa Yes | No

  12. #12
    Not sure if this thread is serious.

    If schollys were cut to 70 there may never have been a Dak Prescott or a Bernardrick McKinney
    Last edited by Bulldogg31; 11-13-2017 at 11:19 AM.


    Bowling in Orlando | Hooking in Tampa Yes | No

  13. #13

    Do we live in Sandford?

    Name:  greater-good.gif
Views: 940
Size:  1.72 MB


    2 out of 2 sixpackers like this post
    Bowling in Orlando | Hooking in Tampa Yes | No

  14. #14
    BossDawg78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Mississippi City, MS
    Posts
    1,320
    Quote Originally Posted by UpTheMiddlex3Punt View Post
    Do you really think the coaches are looking at the stars?
    #OleMiss


    1 out of 1 sixpackers like this post
    Bowling in Orlando | Hooking in Tampa Yes | No

  15. #15
    No. It's a strictly subjective process to begin with with no mathematical basis


    Bowling in Orlando | Hooking in Tampa Yes | No

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by bulldognation View Post
    We talk all the time about how 'Bama has 4 and 5 star players riding the bench. And while I agree it's their choice to do so, wouldn't it be in the best interest of College Football in general to limit the number that can be had on a roster at any given time?

    Go ahead and poke holes in this.
    So your son or daughter is a five star that wants to go to state and we want him/her. But you have to explain the Msu has too many good athletes already.

    What upside down world would that be ok in?


    Bowling in Orlando | Hooking in Tampa Yes | No

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by bulldognation View Post
    We talk all the time about how 'Bama has 4 and 5 star players riding the bench. And while I agree it's their choice to do so, wouldn't it be in the best interest of College Football in general to limit the number that can be had on a roster at any given time?

    Go ahead and poke holes in this.
    This is close to what ive been preaching for years and is mentioned a couple times in this thread- reduce the overall number of scholarships for football.
    A reduction in scholarships would mean more talent goes to the secondary P5 schools and in turn further allows the Group of 5 conferences to improve talent.
    Its what Reagan wasn’t able to have happen in the 80s – trickle down!

    While it’s a horribly ineffective approach to economic stimulation, it would absolutely improve the overall talent field of college football. (ill point out that the difference in application is it pulls from the ‘haves’ and trickles down to the ‘have less’ and ‘have nots’. This is different from Reagan who tried to give more to the ‘haves’ in an attempt for some of that to eventually make its way down the ladder.)


    Reducing scholarships to 65, so a drop of 20, would transfer a significant amount of talent to the secondary P5 teams to directly compete against the perennial P5 teams, and it would improve the overall talent pool of the Group of 5 teams.




    As for the absurd argument that there wouldn’t be a Dak if scholarships were reduced, I don’t even know where to begin with that. I am guessing the argument is that if MSU only had 65 scholarships, then maybe Dak wouldn’t have been recruited and signed, and therefore he wouldn’t have developed into the QB he is now.
    Sure, that’s a possibility. Its also just as possible that he could have gone to LaTech or Arkansas State or Southern Miss and developed into a program changing QB. Its also just as possible that even with only 65 scholarships, MSU still signed him because, you know, he was a well recruited solid 3* QB who was ranked as a top20 player at his position and also had offers from TCU and LSU. Its not like MSU stole some unknown prospect from everyone.
    When Dak was signed in ’11, we had Russell as the future and friggin Dylan Favre as a 2* recruit on the bench for backup. Its not like there was some long line of QBs with elite talent that we would have kept and rejected Dak in the process.


    1 out of 2 sixpackers like this post
    Bowling in Orlando | Hooking in Tampa Yes | No

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Bulldogg31 View Post
    Not sure if this thread is serious.

    If schollys were cut to 70 there may never have been a Dak Prescott or a Bernardrick McKinney
    pasting the last comment of my other post since it applies directly to this unsubstantiated fear.

    As for the absurd argument that there wouldn’t be a Dak if scholarships were reduced, I don’t even know where to begin with that. I am guessing the argument is that if MSU only had 65 scholarships, then maybe Dak wouldn’t have been recruited and signed, and therefore he wouldn’t have developed into the QB he is now.
    Sure, that’s a possibility. Its also just as possible that he could have gone to LaTech or Arkansas State or Southern Miss and developed into a program changing QB. Its also just as possible that even with only 65 scholarships, MSU still signed him because, you know, he was a well recruited solid 3* QB who was ranked as a top20 player at his position and also had offers from TCU and LSU. Its not like MSU stole some unknown prospect from everyone.
    When Dak was signed in ’11, we had Russell as the future and friggin Dylan Favre as a 2* recruit on the bench for backup. Its not like there was some long line of QBs with elite talent that we would have kept and rejected Dak in the process.


    Bowling in Orlando | Hooking in Tampa Yes | No

  19. #19
    This thread has a participation trophy feel about it.


    4 out of 4 sixpackers like this post
    Bowling in Orlando | Hooking in Tampa Yes | No

  20. #20
    I think setting up an official rating system and implementing something akin to a salary cap might have a net positive effect. Ratings still wouldn't be consistently accurate, but that could be a good thing in that it would reward staffs even more for finding diamonds in the rough and make others put a little more effort into evaluating 4-5 stars.

    You can say that it would still keep some kids from going to school where they want, but any talent-regulating system, including the current one, is going to have that effect. Can't give everyone a scholarship or a spot just because they want one.
    Last edited by thf24; 11-14-2017 at 11:42 AM.


    Bowling in Orlando | Hooking in Tampa Yes | No

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by mount lefroy View Post
    So your son or daughter is a five star that wants to go to state and we want him/her. But you have to explain the Msu has too many good athletes already.

    What upside down world would that be ok in?
    I'm sure the Warriors would want LeBron James if he wanted them. There's no talent-regulating system out there that doesn't require you to make tough choices on a yearly basis.


    Bowling in Orlando | Hooking in Tampa Yes | No

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by bulldognation View Post
    We talk all the time about how 'Bama has 4 and 5 star players riding the bench. And while I agree it's their choice to do so, wouldn't it be in the best interest of College Football in general to limit the number that can be had on a roster at any given time?

    Go ahead and poke holes in this.
    Absolutely not. I hate the 'everybody gets a trophy" stuff.


    1 out of 2 sixpackers like this post
    Bowling in Orlando | Hooking in Tampa Yes | No

  23. #23
    This is perhaps the dumbest damned idea I have ever seen floated out there to help level the playing field in college football. You really want to get on board with the idea of telling a bunch of 17 and 18 year olds where they can and can't go play college football? What if it's your son and he has wanted to be a Bulldog since he learned what a football was, but the NCAA steps in and says, "No, sir. Mississippi State has already met their quota on 4 star players. You are going to have to go somewhere like Ole Miss or Southern Miss or Memphis because they still have slots available for players of your ability."

    It's just friggin stupid to suggest that the NCAA is somehow going to tell players where they can go to school based on something as arbitrary as a recruiting ranking. This isn't Cuba. We believe in freedom of choice in this country.


    2 out of 2 sixpackers like this post
    Bowling in Orlando | Hooking in Tampa Yes | No

  24. #24
    Just reduce the schollies for the 4 playoff teams and maybe the top 10 each year for the following year. So the champion loses 5 the next year, runnerup loses 4, the other 2 lose 3 the rest of the top ten lose 2 or 1. Then to keep it even in total football scholarships distribute those scholarships to the bottom 20 teams. This would be a way to try to distribute the better players a little more widely for some parity as all the other leagues do by draft.


    Bowling in Orlando | Hooking in Tampa Yes | No

  25. #25
    The other possible way for more parity is to have spending caps. So all schools can only put so much money into football each year. There can be capital improvements that go outside the cap such as stadium expansion. This could prevent the big rich schools from stealing away coaches from "lesser" schools. Any buyouts would go against that cap so giving long term deals and then firing coaches when they have many years left would be hard. This would not limit what you can pay an individual, but just keep it a "level playing field" on total expenditures.


    Bowling in Orlando | Hooking in Tampa Yes | No

  26. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by mstateglfr View Post
    This is close to what ive been preaching for years and is mentioned a couple times in this thread- reduce the overall number of scholarships for football.
    A reduction in scholarships would mean more talent goes to the secondary P5 schools and in turn further allows the Group of 5 conferences to improve talent.
    Its what Reagan wasn’t able to have happen in the 80s – trickle down!

    While it’s a horribly ineffective approach to economic stimulation, it would absolutely improve the overall talent field of college football. (ill point out that the difference in application is it pulls from the ‘haves’ and trickles down to the ‘have less’ and ‘have nots’. This is different from Reagan who tried to give more to the ‘haves’ in an attempt for some of that to eventually make its way down the ladder.)


    Reducing scholarships to 65, so a drop of 20, would transfer a significant amount of talent to the secondary P5 teams to directly compete against the perennial P5 teams, and it would improve the overall talent pool of the Group of 5 teams.




    As for the absurd argument that there wouldn’t be a Dak if scholarships were reduced, I don’t even know where to begin with that. I am guessing the argument is that if MSU only had 65 scholarships, then maybe Dak wouldn’t have been recruited and signed, and therefore he wouldn’t have developed into the QB he is now.
    Sure, that’s a possibility. Its also just as possible that he could have gone to LaTech or Arkansas State or Southern Miss and developed into a program changing QB. Its also just as possible that even with only 65 scholarships, MSU still signed him because, you know, he was a well recruited solid 3* QB who was ranked as a top20 player at his position and also had offers from TCU and LSU. Its not like MSU stole some unknown prospect from everyone.
    When Dak was signed in ’11, we had Russell as the future and friggin Dylan Favre as a 2* recruit on the bench for backup. Its not like there was some long line of QBs with elite talent that we would have kept and rejected Dak in the process.
    In my opinion, limiting the number of 4* and 5* players (or signees) would not work because the ratings system is inherently subjective and has no standard for measuring the value/quality of a football player.

    However, limiting the number of scholarships is straight-forward and would increase the quality of player for all college football teams (except Alabama, Ohio State, etc.) for the "trickle-down" reasons previously set forth. The only players this would exclude from playing college football are the "bench-warmers" on Division III teams.

    I'd reduce the scholarships to 70.


    1 out of 1 sixpackers like this post
    Bowling in Orlando | Hooking in Tampa Yes | No

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by bulldognation View Post
    We talk all the time about how 'Bama has 4 and 5 star players riding the bench. And while I agree it's their choice to do so, wouldn't it be in the best interest of College Football in general to limit the number that can be had on a roster at any given time?

    Go ahead and poke holes in this.

    Every school should be guaranteed two 5* players, 1 on offense and 1 on defense and the school decides what position they want. Next, each school gets 4four 4* guys with 2 on offense and 2 on defense and they get to choose the positions the 4* guys play. Then you finish the team out with two * and 3* guys and your success really comes down to coaching, player evaluation and development. Dan Mullen would be hard to beat.


    Bowling in Orlando | Hooking in Tampa Yes | No

  28. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by bulldognation View Post
    We talk all the time about how 'Bama has 4 and 5 star players riding the bench. And while I agree it's their choice to do so, wouldn't it be in the best interest of College Football in general to limit the number that can be had on a roster at any given time?

    Go ahead and poke holes in this.
    This is the dumbest post in the history of posts.

    However, there are things that can be done to increase parity in CFB, and some good ones mentioned in this thread.

    The NCAA could and is about to limit "off field" staff such as the 374 analysts Bama has. But the NCAA could also put a salary cap on coaching staffs and each coaching position to limit the big $ schools from stealing the best assistants and HC's. May even could put a cap on how much schools can carry in a recruiting budget or spend on football related expenses.
    You can't really limit things like facilities since you can't regulate private donations or the amount of money a school can raise on its own through sponsorships/rights agreements, etc...

    Never will be able to regulate/equalize talent though unless CFB goes to a "pay for play" employment model like many want. That brings about a ton of new unanswered questions though so I don't ever see it happening except for them increasing ALL player stipends equally to meet the cost of living


    Bowling in Orlando | Hooking in Tampa Yes | No

  29. #29
    No, there should be a limit on 2 & 3 stars.


    Bowling in Orlando | Hooking in Tampa Yes | No

  30. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Ozarka'sIllegitimate View Post
    But the NCAA could also put a salary cap on coaching staffs and each coaching position to limit the big $ schools from stealing the best assistants and HC's.
    The NCAA tried something like this in the past with the Restricted Earnings coach. The courts struck it down.

    The best bet, as others have said, is scholarship reductions so that a handful of schools can't hoard all the best players.


    Bowling in Orlando | Hooking in Tampa Yes | No

  31. #31
    Or, just continue to do things the American way.


    Bowling in Orlando | Hooking in Tampa Yes | No

  32. #32
    512taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Brandon,MS
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by bulldognation View Post
    We talk all the time about how 'Bama has 4 and 5 star players riding the bench. And while I agree it's their choice to do so, wouldn't it be in the best interest of College Football in general to limit the number that can be had on a roster at any given time?

    Go ahead and poke holes in this.
    This sounds just like what I hate about some of the politicians we have in DC. They, too, want to share the wealth which in turn punishes those that bust their hump in order to make their own situation stronger.


    Bowling in Orlando | Hooking in Tampa Yes | No

  33. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by BELdog View Post
    Or, just continue to do things the American way.
    I have four comments: #1. I love this country and freedom. #2. The last "first time" school to win a National Championship in football was Florida in 1996. #3. Up until recently, the NFL was considered a tremendous success...they have a very un-American process with worst team drafting first. #4. I would just reduce over all scholarships.


    1 out of 1 sixpackers like this post
    Bowling in Orlando | Hooking in Tampa Yes | No

  34. #34
    Exactly. This whole concept is friggin stupid. I hate rewarding losers. I learned that life wasn't fair when I was about five. I'm constantly amazed at the number of adults that still haven't figured that out.


    Bowling in Orlando | Hooking in Tampa Yes | No

  35. #35
    So from what I'm hearing, nobody has a problem with the likes of Alabama, Ohio State, etc, etc essentially cornering the market and stockpiling talent? We're good with the notion that they'll always have an army of 4-5 star talent and duke it out for the top spot year after year. While the rest of the college football landscape will just scramble and hope for a decent bowl come season's end. That's the consensus?

    As another poster said, there really hasn't been much change in the upper crust of college football for over 20 years now. So maybe the scholarship reduction would be a good way to keep talent from clustering at any handful of schools.

    Of course it's America and you can do what you want, but we do enjoy competition don't we? It's what keeps our prices low and our quality of life high. I don't see any reason why we can't figure out some way to keep it more interesting going forward.


    Bowling in Orlando | Hooking in Tampa Yes | No

  36. #36
    Competition sounds great and all until you factor in the fact that you are telling a kid whom meets all other criteria that he can't go to the school he wants to attend because...fairness. And fairness is what you claim to promote unless we are talking about being fair to the schools involved at which point your attitude becomes, "Screw you. If you weren't so damned good we wouldn't be reducing your scholarship numbers." Do you realize how utterly retarded that sounds?

    Some of y'all are approaching this subject with the attitude of a damned loser. Maybe losing is all you've ever known, but if we were Alabama fans right now this would be a completely different conversation. You can't go through life expecting to drag the world down to your level. You either adapt, improvise and overcome, or you sit there in your squalor and suck. That's how real life works.


    Bowling in Orlando | Hooking in Tampa Yes | No

  37. #37
    You're reading my comment about Dak and Bernardrick more literally than intended.

    Reducing the number of full football scholarships by 20 for all 130 teams that play FBS football leaves 2600 student athletes without the opportunity to play for an FBS school. Yes, they would have the opportunity to go and play for an FCS school, but then that's 2600 FCS players who don't get the opportunity to play at that level, assuming the total FCS scholarships weren't reduced as well. If they were reduced as well, then you have several thousand young men who will not be receiving scholarships, many of whom may not have the opportunity to attend college at all.

    My example of Dak and McKinney is that both were low-to-mid-level recruits that went to State because the opportunity was there, but I could have used any lower-rated or lightly-recruited player who went to an FBS school, worked very hard, and ended up making a career in the NFL. The league is full of stories like that, not to mention former players who go on to be GA's, coaches, scouts, recruiters, etc.

    I would think of all the people that post here that you would be sensitive to the lost opportunities for young people that a scholarship reduction would bring. I believe in the big picture the scholarships and life opportunities they bring are more important than us being able to beat Bama.


    Bowling in Orlando | Hooking in Tampa Yes | No

  38. #38

    Ron Polk say we already have a limiting scholarship factor. Its called Title IX.

    Quote Originally Posted by bulldognation View Post
    We talk all the time about how 'Bama has 4 and 5 star players riding the bench. And while I agree it's their choice to do so, wouldn't it be in the best interest of College Football in general to limit the number that can be had on a roster at any given time?

    Go ahead and poke holes in this.
    The whole idea sounds communist to me, and honestly, MSU fans should be against it anyway. The way the system is set up now rewards those who "do more with less." And that fits us. We are pretty damn competitive in almost every sport, despite having the smallest budget in the SEC. Plus we get the benefit of being in the SEC, so we compare favorably nationally in a lot of ways. Facilities, salaries, etc.

    Now, if you were USM or most other schools, I'm sure this idea sounds good to them. But I'll take where we are and not complain.


    Bowling in Orlando | Hooking in Tampa Yes | No

  39. #39
    Well, heck fire....why even have scholarship limits? Let's just allow a school to sign as many prospects as they want. If 100 HS kids wanna play for Bama, that should be allowed. This is America right?


    Bowling in Orlando | Hooking in Tampa Yes | No

  40. #40
    If you can't see the difference between scholarship limits and denying a student athlete a college choice based on some arbitrary recruiting ranking then you are part of the problem with our fan base.


    Bowling in Orlando | Hooking in Tampa Yes | No

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
SixPack Sponsors









Disclaimer: Neither this message board nor its rules and regulations are associated with Mississippi State University or any other Mississippi State sports website. Neither this message board nor its rules and regulations are associated with Scottish & Newcastle PLC d/b/a Bulldog Strong Ale. The views and opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the post author. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by SixPackSpeak.com. The interactive nature of the SixPackSpeak.com Discussion Forums makes it impossible for SixPackSpeak.com to assume responsibility for any of the content, including photographs and/or images, posted by participants. The ideas, suggestions, thoughts, recommendations, opinions, comments, advice, and observations made by participants of the interactive Discussion Forums are not endorsed by SixPackSpeak.com.


Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties