Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 96
  1. #1

    SEC recruiting so far (is it time for change)?

    As expected Saban is leading the country another year. His patented booster program PAYS off in a big way. The next two SEC schools in the rankings also use his program for influencing players. LSU and UGA. If you noticed LSU has been top 5 recruiting since Saban left using his system. Kudos to Dan Mullen for being next in line without the "system".

    So, expect the same results as we've seen since Saban came back to the SEC. Same stacked deck playing against the have nots. Is it time to change the way college football players are recruited to create a more balanced playing field like the NFL? After all, I have grown weary of seeing the same 4 or 5 teams playing for the national championship each year. Wouldn't it be great if you finished last in the SEC to be able to sign a 5 star player that you needed to improve your chances

    I understand that we are in a socialist conference where it benefits us for Alabama to play in the NC every year for the money sharing.


    2 out of 3 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  2. #2
    Well Pirate, what might you suggest as an option as to level the playing field?


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  3. #3
    Reduce schollies to 65. Emphasize developing what you sign. Give 15 more schollies to baseball and spread the remaining 5 to whatever.
    Im 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.


    19 out of 19 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  4. #4
    Biggest 2 things they could do to level the playing field a little:
    1 - Reduce scholarships to 65-70 and cap signings/transfers to 20
    2 - Cap the size of off-field football staff like on-field assistants are capped

    I'm not holding my breath for either of these to happen.


    3 out of 3 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  5. #5
    Goat Version 372.0
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    1,350
    Not only this, but regarding MSU (and Ole Miss), we seem to be in a season where the top MS players do not want to stay at home like they used to in the early mid 2010s. This may have been due to Mullen, or just the overall vibe of the instate programs, who knows. I guess this is one good reason to have these 'system' coaches, because they tend to attract talent (at least offensively) from everywhere more than Mullen's 'fundamental' schemes.

    A little bit black helicopter on the Saban stuff, in my opinion. He's just a good recruiter, plus he has the backing of a historical program, and his own name recognition. LSU and Georgia are similar without the 'name' coach, but the programs are just as attractive if not more.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  6. #6
    Obviously recruiting is a process and I have never seen anyone that excels at it as consistently as Saban. Kirby obviously learned something from him on that.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  7. #7
    College football is by far the most non-competitive major sport anywhere and will continue to be. OF COURSE it is time for change but the PTB like the same ol' same ol' in the playoffs every year and have no desire to let anyone else have a shot at the party. Until we get further reductions in scholarships where 8 to 10 programs can't gobble up every elite football player in the country it will continue to be as it is. I also believe the spread of information and recruiting sites have made the problem WAY worse. Twenty years ago, there were still some prospects in rural areas that flew under the radar that less high profile programs could sign because the blue bloods didn't know much about them. That is no longer the case today. A guy like say a Chris Jones will now ALWAYS be someone that everyone will know about and get offered by top programs before signing day. Very few secret recruits out there any more that in days gone by an MSU could have signed because the elites weren't aware of. Too much video available on the internet and recruiting coverage available today.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by patdog View Post
    Biggest 2 things they could do to level the playing field a little:
    1 - Reduce scholarships to 65-70 and cap signings/transfers to 20
    2 - Cap the size of off-field football staff like on-field assistants are capped

    I'm not holding my breath for either of these to happen.
    2 great suggestions.

    I think 70 is the right number. And 15 fewer scholarships would ease the burden of non revenue, title 9 sports.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  9. #9
    aTotal360's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Starkville, MS
    Posts
    12,914
    ...and forbid trophy rooms.
    90 percent of college football teams do not cheat...the other 10 percent are ranked.


    1 out of 1 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  10. #10
    Dawg1976's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    East Central MS
    Posts
    5,189
    Same old teams equals boredom. Something certainly needs to change.


    2 out of 2 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  11. #11
    WilCoDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Carpetbagger City, TN
    Posts
    1,669
    This is part of what makes college baseball so great. You can have teams just show up in Omaha that you would not have thought twice about at the beginning of the season. (Looking at you, Coastal Carolina)


    2 out of 2 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Russ Wheeler View Post
    Not only this, but regarding MSU (and Ole Miss), we seem to be in a season where the top MS players do not want to stay at home like they used to in the early mid 2010s. This may have been due to Mullen, or just the overall vibe of the instate programs, who knows. I guess this is one good reason to have these 'system' coaches, because they tend to attract talent (at least offensively) from everywhere more than Mullen's 'fundamental' schemes.

    A little bit black helicopter on the Saban stuff, in my opinion. He's just a good recruiter, plus he has the backing of a historical program, and his own name recognition. LSU and Georgia are similar without the 'name' coach, but the programs are just as attractive if not more.
    Lack of coaching staff continuity is the #1 driver in more MS kids leaving IMO


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by WilCoDawg View Post
    This is part of what makes college baseball so great. You can have teams just show up in Omaha that you would not have thought twice about at the beginning of the season. (Looking at you, Coastal Carolina)
    Correct, but the blue bloods are also good consistently in college baseball.

    There's just a path for the little guy to compete. That's all anyone wants in college football


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  14. #14
    IBleedMaroonDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Leander, TX
    Posts
    12,349
    Twitter
    @stephenedavis
    Quote Originally Posted by patdog View Post
    Biggest 2 things they could do to level the playing field a little:
    1 - Reduce scholarships to 65-70 and cap signings/transfers to 20
    2 - Cap the size of off-field football staff like on-field assistants are capped

    I'm not holding my breath for either of these to happen.
    We do need something adjust the scholarship level and the loop holes they have in football and I think it is safe to have around 20-25 scholarships for baseball.

    Usually these things go in cycles but we have not previously had the MONEY that we have in the game now and football teams are now brands that bring in tons of money for the NCAA, conferences, and schools themselves. This is a problem. The only schools that want change are those on the outside looking in.
    It's easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled.- Mark Twain



    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  15. #15
    Goat Version 372.0
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    1,350
    Quote Originally Posted by shotgunDawg View Post
    Correct, but the blue bloods are also good consistently in college baseball.

    There's just a path for the little guy to compete. That's all anyone wants in college football
    Who is the actual little guy? Many people will say it's the G5. Is it? I would present the idea that they can go undefeated and possibly sneak in a playoff easier than us. But, we also benefit from much more money.

    Before anyone says UCF, I would retort with Boise State, who would have made multiple playoffs in they had existed during their elite run in the late 2000s and early 2010s.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by PirateDawg View Post
    SEC recruiting so far (is it time for change)?
    I understand that we are in a socialist conference where it benefits us for Alabama to play in the NC every year for the money sharing.


    We arent in a socialist conference. That 17ing term is perhaps more misused than 'could care less'.

    And of course it is time for change. Its been time for 15 years.
    This has been discussed for years now- reduce the scholarships. Finally, people seem to have largely stopped claiming a reduction in scholarships is socialism(there is that misused term again). So when the lazy thinkers are even on board, its well past 17ing time to change.


    1 out of 3 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by mstateglfr View Post
    [/COLOR]We aren't in a socialist conference.
    Technically true. The SEC isn't a socialist conference. It's a communist conference.


    3 out of 3 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  18. #18
    Goat Version 372.0
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    1,350
    Quote Originally Posted by HoopsDawg View Post
    2 great suggestions.

    I think 70 is the right number. And 15 fewer scholarships would ease the burden of non revenue, title 9 sports.
    You all do recognize that this will create less opportunities for football players around the country, right?

    It's fine, and it'll help parity, but just remember that it will also affect real people.


    1 out of 5 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  19. #19
    Maroon Eagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    A Vienna Sewer Tunnel
    Posts
    10,082
    Da, tovarishch


    2 out of 2 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Shmuley View Post
    Reduce schollies to 65. Emphasize developing what you sign. Give 15 more schollies to baseball and spread the remaining 5 to whatever.
    Solved 2 of the biggest problems in college athletics in 3 sentences.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by IBleedMaroonDawg View Post
    The only schools that want change are those on the outside looking in.
    That is sort of a humorous statement given those on the 'outside looking in' is about 90% or more of all schools that play Division 1 football.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Russ Wheeler View Post
    Who is the actual little guy?
    The little guy encompasses all but about 10 programs in the country. Maybe less


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Russ Wheeler View Post
    You all do recognize that this will create less opportunities for football players around the country, right?

    It's fine, and it'll help parity, but just remember that it will also affect real people.
    Then create a general scholarship fund for 15 scholarships a year called "HS football players that weren't good enough to play D1,D2,or JUCO Football Scholarship" and that fund has to go to kids from families that make under a certain amount of money.

    Problem solved. The reduction in scholarships would only effect the absolute worst potential college football players in the country due to a cascading effect of the worst D1 players going to D2 or JUCO, and so on and so on.

    Thus, if you don't end up with a college football scholarship, it's highly likely that you suck at football & need to get on with your life anyway, BUT, since we don't want to take away scholarships from HS school football players that need it, you just give them the scholarship I just created that will be paid for by Athletic Departments across the country.

    For a better on field product, it's worth it for everyone


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Russ Wheeler View Post
    You all do recognize that this will create less opportunities for football players around the country, right?

    It's fine, and it'll help parity, but just remember that it will also affect real people.
    Honestly, that's what I came here to type.
    There are 130 FBS programs.
    Taking 15-20 scholarships away from every FBS program means taking an opportunity away from 1,950 to 2,600 kids.

    Assuming you dropped the yearly limit to 19 or 20, that's 650 to 780 kids a season.

    That starts cutting well past the two stars into the three stars. These are going to be guys like Darius Slay, Preston Smith, and Dak for God's sakes and that's BEFORE you take into account the leftovers from the bluebloods that were previously unattainable.


    1 out of 1 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  25. #25
    Goat Version 372.0
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    1,350
    Quote Originally Posted by shotgunDawg View Post
    Then create a general scholarship fund for 15 scholarships a year called "HS football players that weren't good enough to play D1,D2,or JUCO Football Scholarship" and that fund has to go to kids from families that make under a certain amount of money.

    Problem solved. The reduction in scholarships would only effect the absolute worst potential college football players in the country due to a cascading effect of the worst D1 players going to D2 or JUCO, and so on and so on.

    Thus, if you don't end up with a college football scholarship, it's highly likely that you suck at football & need to get on with your life anyway, BUT, since we don't want to take away scholarships from HS school football players that need it, you just give them the scholarship I just created that will be paid for by Athletic Departments across the country.

    For a better on field product, it's worth it for everyone
    That might be the dumbest shit I've ever read


    1 out of 3 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  26. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Russ Wheeler View Post
    You all do recognize that this will create less opportunities for football players around the country, right?

    It's fine, and it'll help parity, but just remember that it will also affect real people.
    Some of those guys should be playing soccer for a soccer scholarship and the betterment of American soccer.***kinda


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by maroonmania View Post
    That is sort of a humorous statement given those on the 'outside looking in' is about 90% or more of all schools that play Division 1 football.
    I would bet 95%


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  28. #28
    Logan Young


    An anomaly?


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  29. #29

    Yeah, and I have heard

    that there will be a vote at the next NCCA stuff, to move the portal tranfers, to one time a year.

    This will help end the total kayos currently underway.
    Jack may be gone, but he is "EVER PRESENT"


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  30. #30
    So? What's magical about 85 being the right number? If we're really concerned about giving opportunities to more players, why not increase the limit to 105 or have no limit at all like in the old days when Jackie Sherrill signed 76 players in his first signing class at Pitt? You want to talk about giving opportunities to players.
    Last edited by patdog; 12-01-2020 at 08:43 PM.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  31. #31

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Starkville
    Posts
    4,647
    Reducing to 75 would help a lot.
    75 and sign 20/year. Process 5 every 4 years.

    Give 5 to baseball.

    Id probably be ok with dropping to 70 and 19/year but I dont think you wanna go much lower than 19/year.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  32. #32
    Goat Version 372.0
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Posts
    1,350
    Quote Originally Posted by patdog View Post
    So? What's magical about 85 being the right number? If we're really concerned about giving opportunities to more players, why not increase the limit to 105 or have no limit at all like in the old days when Jackie Sherrill signed 76 players in his first signing class at Pitt? You want to talk about giving opportunities to players.
    I dont particularly care. Id rather baseball have those scholarships personally. Im just pointing out that it has more effect than just narrowing the playing field for disgruntled fans of have not college football programs.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  33. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Russ Wheeler View Post
    That might be the dumbest shit I've ever read
    The dumbest shit to me is the argument that football scholarships have to be kept artificially inflated above what a football program actually needs so it can serve as a 'scholarship program'. I bet this same red herring argument was made back when scholarships were cut from unlimited to the 85 limit we have today. I mean look at all the extra players that could have gotten scholarships but no, we had to cut it to just 85. A college exists first and foremost for an academic purpose. It would absolutely make more sense to give extra scholarships to underprivileged kids who have achieved in the academic area than to give out extra scholarships to guys that have marginal college football talent just to give them an opportunity. And the scholarships would actually all trickle down. The only guys that would get totally left out of a scholarship opportunity might be the ones that play at the lowest D3 levels of college football. Plus you would still have the same walk-on opportunities that would allow additional players a chance to earn a scholarship if they justify having one.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  34. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Russ Wheeler View Post
    You all do recognize that this will create less opportunities for football players around the country, right?

    It's fine, and it'll help parity, but just remember that it will also affect real people.
    It'll create less opportunity for football players in a minor way, perhaps.
    And it'll improve the opportunity for others in different sports since the scholarships would go elsewhere. So it can be seen as benefitting student athletes in other sports.
    All just a matter of perspective.

    Players that would be fringe P5 players will go to G5 schools. Players that would be fringe G5 players will go to FCS schools.
    Players that would be fringe FCS players will go to D2 schools.
    Players that would be fringe D2 players will go to NAIA schools.

    It'll trickle down and affect players for sure- some guys won't be able to live their dream of playing college football at the NAIA level.
    A scholarship reduction is hardly unprecedented as the current scholarship number is lower than it used to be.


    Your devils advocacy is weak.


    2 out of 3 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  35. #35
    Again, so what? Is this a welfare program or a major sport? It wont be so major going forward if the same teams keep making the playoffs every year.


    2 out of 3 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  36. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Dawgg View Post
    Honestly, that's what I came here to type.
    There are 130 FBS programs.
    Taking 15-20 scholarships away from every FBS program means taking an opportunity away from 1,950 to 2,600 kids.

    Assuming you dropped the yearly limit to 19 or 20, that's 650 to 780 kids a season.

    That starts cutting well past the two stars into the three stars. These are going to be guys like Darius Slay, Preston Smith, and Dak for God's sakes and that's BEFORE you take into account the leftovers from the bluebloods that were previously unattainable.
    Its not like those 2400+/- student athletes will never have a chance to play college football under scholarship. They could go to FCS, D2, or NAIA.

    And the reduction in football scholarships would lead to an increase in scholarships elsewhere so it'll benefit other student athletes.
    As for Dak, he was offered by MSU and LSU- he was hardly some lowly diamond in the rough recruit. And if a reduced scholarship amount had kept him from playing in the SEC, there is still the Sunbelt, CUSA, etc. He wouldn't have been at risk of not playing college football.


    0 out of 1 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  37. #37
    IBleedMaroonDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Leander, TX
    Posts
    12,349
    Twitter
    @stephenedavis
    Quote Originally Posted by maroonmania View Post
    That is sort of a humorous statement given those on the 'outside looking in' is about 90% or more of all schools that play Division 1 football.
    Yes it is and I meant it to be that way. Think about it if you are the NCAA. All you have to do is look the other way for a few select schools that have built their programs to the elite level and you are making bank with them. Are you going to listen to the other 95% of schools bitching or keep the cash cows eating in the preferred pastures and spanking the occasional Ole Miss that breaks into the top 5 recruiting?
    It's easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled.- Mark Twain



    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  38. #38

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Starkville
    Posts
    4,647
    If you moved the other scholarships to baseball, it would probably be better.

    Id imagine baseball players are a lot more likely to get and use a degree.


    1 out of 1 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  39. #39

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Starkville
    Posts
    4,647
    I think creating some parity would help generate more money for the ncaa.

    Imagine having 2 or 3 big games a weekend.

    Even the non big games would be more competitive/exciting.


    1 out of 1 sixpackers like this post
    Towel Whips | Busted Lips Yes | No

  40. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by paindonthurt View Post
    I think creating some parity would help generate more money for the ncaa.

    Imagine having 2 or 3 big games a weekend.

    Even the non big games would be more competitive/exciting.
    This is a huge part of the reason it needs to change.

    With growing TV options and sports, college football has to evolve for the next generation. The NFL, MLB, and NBA have all created more and more rules to encourage parity. It's simply a better product.

    If college football doesn't evolve in a way that allows more parity, better games, and thus more quality inventory, it'll simply begin to die.

    The entire country can't be Bama, Ohio State, and Clemson fans because not everyone can go to 3 schools. You need more parity to maximize profits and sustainability in the future.


    Towel Whips | Busted Lips 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.