Reply With QuoteYes
Their dominance has almost made this like Kentucky and basketball. I still enjoy watching State play but until Saban leaves - it's the Alabama Invitational.
I support thetwomost frustrating teamsin America:The New Orleans Saints andThe Mississippi State Bulldogs
Yes. I have been saying that for a few years now. It is just boring
With the help of the league office.....YES
Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State have ruined NCAA Football.... a 16 Team Playoff would help it a lot.
Alabama definitely has dominated SEC play, but I wouldnt say they are alone in ruining SEC football.
Bama has 5 NCs in the last 13ish years since Saban came to coach. They have won the division 9 times and finished 2nd 2 times. Total domination.
UGA is 24-4 in conference play since the 2017 season. You can definitely add them in as ruining SEC football because its 'if not for Bama, then UGA' in terms of most dominant.
But this is just whats happened in college football- this century's focus on conference realignment and TV rights has only further separated the haves and the have nots. And to be clear, all in the SEC are 'have', even if its a 1-3 MSU team.
So now the haves and the have nots are more separated than ever, and a select handful of dominant programs are controlling conferences year in and year out. Bama, UGA, Clemson, OSU, OU- these 5 teams, and maybe if you want to be kind you can toss LSU and Oregon into the mix, are who most anyone that follows college football would guess will be in the mix at the end of any given year for conference/playoff spots.
Reduce scholarships to 60 per team. Set a roster limit at the start of classes to 80.
To address common ignorant accusations against the above suggestions- the current system isnt a free market so dont compare it, scholarship reduction isnt socialism so dont compare it, and this actually is enough players to form a team that can play the game of football.
Spread out talent to make games more interesting. There will be less blowouts and more meaningful games. Of course there will still be really good teams and really bad teams because more than just roster count affects results on the field, but this change could go a long way towards improving college football as a whole.
Ruined is a strong word, but yes, they've definitely lessened the appeal.Originally Posted by dawgstudent
And I do think long term, college football is going to be hurt by the different rules applied to haves and have-nots. Assuming participation in high school football continues to decline over time, asking people that didn't play for their high school football team to be die hard about a college football team that can never compete is not the easiest ask.
It's an oligarchy. About a 7 team oligarchy. They control the dispersion of five star talent. The rest of us are fighting over the leftovers.
“I’m not going to take anything off the table at this point in time ... but I will tell you this,” Cohen began, “this person is going to have serious baseball experience as a head coach. This person is going to have made trips to Omaha, Nebraska. This person is going to have expertise in an area of the game and in all facets of the game. And this person is going to make our fan base very happy.” - Intense Bastard, April 5, 2018.
^This.
When Miami was steamrolling opponents during a comparable dynasty I remember Officials throwing the book at them every game for obvious reasons. They were also hated with gusto in part because they were so good and won in spite of any aid from the conference or officials.
This banner dynasty is different. The shit those bastards consistently get away with has completely calloused my expectation of any justice in any game they play. And every single other school has the right to hate them for preferential treatment on so many levels, except Auburn. 17 them too
Was talking about this with friends over the weekend. I am starting to like college football less and less because it is Bama, Clemson, Ohio St. and one or two other teams every year. No one else has a chance...it is a joke we are playing for the same national championship. I guess expanding the playoff to 16 would make it more interesting, but one of those three would still win. I know they would NEVER do this, but it seems the only solution is picking one recruiting ranking service and having a rule that a team can only have 5-10 five star recruits on their team. The talent needs to be spread out to make it competitive.
Agree with most all of this, especially about it not being a free market. And we should all hope it does NOT go in further in the free market territory. And less scholarships will make Saban have to coach more, rather than recruit.
And while we're at it, give those 25 extra scholarships to baseball.
Yep. Not much interest in it.
Nah. Hasn't it always been there's a dominant team in the SEC? And it isn't like they've won the league every year.
I'm more turned off by the role of the sport as a whole. Back in the 80's and even in to the 90's it felt like most of the roster was made up of local kids who were playing for their school. Sure there was rampant cheating going on but it was that special player here or there, not the whole damn team that was being imported from around the country. That feels like it has changed, along with the amount of resources that are swallowed by D1 football.
I'm a college professor who loves football so it is a conflict. We've basically had our salaries and department academic resources frozen since 2008, while we watch the administration build dorms with pools and weight rooms, coaches making 8 figures, etc. Feels like this isn't a sustainable or particularly desirable outcome.
At some point, when does it come back to the players? They are choosing to go sit on the bench over there. It's also proven that playing for them doesn't automatically equal success in the NFL. Somebody needs to be educating these kids that they need to go where they can play. The oligarchy does not have a gun to their heads making them come there.
You're hitting on something here. College sports definitely needs to get a little bit back to the 'college' aspect of it. I'm not sure the answer, but that's what it needs.
In my opinion, the SEC offices and Bama have:
* Lessened the experience for SEC fans - starting the year knowing who will win west and most likely the SEC turns games into simply something watch. You never get the feeling you're building toward something bigger.
* Lessened the appearance of SEC being the best conference in football - Many around the country see us as Alabama and the rest. The MSUs, Auburns, and even Floridas of this conference are seen as riding he coat tails of the one dominant school. We are still seen as the best conference, but most believe the gap isn't what it used to be. (I miss the days when there were usually 3-6 teams at the start of the season that most thought had a legitimate chance to win the natty)
* Lessened the "you can play in the SEC" recruiting pull for schools not named Bama.
Bama... and a couple others are doing the same in other conferences ... there's just little hope for anyone else in the west.
I would've thought this all SEC schedule and no preseason may give them some trouble, but it really hasn't. When you recruit to the point where you can roll out of bed and beat 98% of the teams in nation, you're only going to lose if you beat yourself.
Hail State, Braves, Panthers, Liverpool
Absolutely. The favoritism give AL by the SEC offices/refs is nothing short of organized crime. Auburn gets the second best preferential treatment. It's a State of Alabama thing. It will not change until the other SEC school presidents grow a pair and make it stop. But I am not holding my breath. As long as they get a big SEC check, it's ok with them.
It's weird because my gut answer is yes, but then I remember they've only won the West one of the last three years and it doesn't seem very sensical to say yes.
No. The system is rotten and they have figured out how to abuse it.
Start with scholarships. The ratio of starting players/total scholarship players is way out of line. Assuming you have 25 starters (11 offense, 11 defense, 3 ST), 85 scholarships is 3.4x your starting lineup size. The sport with the closest ratio is Hockey with 18 scholarships for 6 starters, so 3x. Basketball with 13 has 2.6x, and it gets worse from there on team sports, especially for men.
Setting football to the same 2.6 multiplier gets you to 65 scholarship players. Reduce the signing limit to 20. Take the 20 scholarships and send them to baseball and men's soccer.
FBS now has 130 teams. Even if there were something approaching parity (there clearly is not), having that many teams compete for 1 championship is absurd.
Saban is a once in generation kind of coach, but honestly, were it not for some really bad hires by Alabama, the brief respite in the 90's would not have been a thing. The Alabama brand draws so much talent that it will take someone particular terrible in all facets to kill that draw, or some rule change of substance. We can always hope...
This guy gets it.
Alabama isn't ruining college football. It's not their fault that the rules are set up for monopolies to form. Them, Ohio State, & Clemson are basically just the most ruthless that exploited the rules for their benefit.
Give me a break on OU & Oregon. They are hardly closer to being a national title contender as MSU. They just play in bad conferences that allows them to advance.
The monopolies are Alabama, Ohio State, & Clemson with LSU and Georgia has two teams with the ability to take the monopolies to court.
Everyone else is just playing exhibition games for mid level bowl games that are also exhibitions.
Recruiting rankings, recruiting combines, etc have made the public far more aware of how terrible the CFB system is.
Last edited by shotgunDawg; 10-26-2020 at 03:13 PM.
Bama won the West in '12, '13(tie), '14, '15, '16, '17(tie), and '18. And Bama is currently leading the West this year. 7 of the last 8 years they tied for 1st or outright finished 1st in the conference and they are on track to make it 8 of the last 9 years.
The system may enable Alabama via players just dying to go there and them having room to stockpile, but the draw to Alabama is the key thing. Kids throw away chances to play elsewhere to sit on the bench at Alabama.
Not really because they don't think they're going to sit the bench. They go there thinking they'll play
Yeeup.
Ive long been a pretty lonely voice against the rising coaching salaries, exponential spending on athletic buildings, etc.
The focus on college athletics and influx of money has been a hulluva double edged sword. Its brought easy access to MSU sports of all levels(not just football and basketball, but volleyball, baseball, etc). Its brought great publicity to the department(2014 season). But its also brought absurd football coaching salaries and a focus on what should be a secondary part of MSU.
Its brought a mentality that we have to keep up with the Joneses when its a losing battle- we cant keep up with the spending of Arkansas, LSU, A&M, Bama, or Auburn.
Obviously the towel shouldnt be thrown in, but itd be great if college sports were de-emphasized a bit. Maybe if it hadnt been so emphasized over the last 20 years, we wouldnt be on a collision course of athletes being paid for their likeness due to the legal battles within state legislatures and the NCAA's archaic views since $ flooded in.
agree. There are only 65 power 5 schools though.
There should be an attempt to create rules that make the largest point spreads between power 5 schools about 17-20 points. Anymore than that and you've got a non-competitive system
Welp, we are 32 point underdogs Saturday, so...
330 D1 volleyball teams play for 1 championship.
297 D1 baseball teams play for 1 championship.
yada yada yada.
those odds are worse.
Saban has ruined it.
Also absurd
I agree. Kids likely do think they were gonna play, even when the rest of the world is able to tell that they will not. Can't recall the name of the Germantown db that went there a few years back and never sniffed the field, but he's just one of many. SPS should offer recruiting advice services for high school seniors, because "we" nailed that one, if I recall.
This is where the new transfer portal rule could help. We'll see
yes, non competitive system
This is a really good point. If the league didn't protect them, they'd still be dominant, but how many more losses would they have had without things like the officials picking up their hat b/c Bama is in danger? That'd be enough to flip who is in Atlanta more often, but just as important if not more important, leave a lot more games uncertain. There are usually handful of SEC teams in any year that could upset Bama, but there is usually not but two or three at the most that could realistically upset Bama and the refs, and even in years where there are three, no more than two of them will be on Bama's schedule.
That's mostly two separate issues. If your coach is making 8 figures, that means you're at a P5 and football is most likely a net contributor to university finances (even if it's indirect through attracting students).
Administrative bloat and the arms race in amenities to attract more and more suckers willing to take out loans for amenities rather than an eduction is another issue (or possibly two separate issues).
Posting Permissions
