Bama fatique killing college football???

It was a pretty disconnected year in college football. Seasons started late, early season losses meant a lot more, VERY limited pre-season practices caused for poor football, COVID had many games cancelled, little to no fans at games, etc.

I just think most people weren't engaged as usually happens, so when the championship game came, there was lessened interest.
 
SlinkyRedfoot said:
I know this isn't the reason, but I'd just like to point out that Monday is a hella gay day to have the CFP Championship Game.
Click to expand...

It seems like they do this often. Is it just to avoid the NFL on the weekend? It seems like it is always on a Monday.

This year was different due to the COVID delays, but usually the conference championships are played the first week of December. Why do they need to wait so long to play the playoff games? Have the first round played a few days before Christmas, and the championship game played around January 1st. I'm sure there are financial reasons for their current timing, but I hate the Monday games 6-10 days into January.
 
College football has come somewhat predictable and that's led to a level of fatigue. That leads to two questions:

1) Should anything be done about it?
2) If so, what would help?

Also note that ratings were down across the board this year. It was a mess of a season and that impacted interest.
 
Belcherboy said:
It seems like they do this often. Is it just to avoid the NFL on the weekend? It seems like it is always on a Monday.
Click to expand...
It doesn't "seem like it," it is always on a Monday, and it's hella gay.
 
Last edited:
duckboy33 said:
College football has come somewhat predictable and that's led to a level of fatigue. That leads to two questions:

1) Should anything be done about it?
2) If so, what would help?

Also note that ratings were down across the board this year. It was a mess of a season and that impacted interest.
Click to expand...

I think they could do two things to shake it up:

* Limit scholarships to 70-75. This would give less margin for error in recruiting in the top programs, and open up a lot more high end recruits to other teams. Bama, Clemson, Ohio State, etc. wouldn't have as many players sitting on the sidelines that would start for 95% of college teams.

* Allow players to transfer one time and play immediately at the new school. This would make it VERY difficult on the top teams to retain talent. They can recruit top players, but if those players don't get significant time in the first or second year, they could lose them. I may even be in favor of allowing for more scholarships under this plan.

Both of those ideas have a lot of pros and cons to them, but it could shake up the top programs, and make it more difficult on them.
 
Belcherboy said:
I think they could do two things to shake it up:

* Limit scholarships to 70-75. This would give less margin for error in recruiting in the top programs, and open up a lot more high end recruits to other teams. Bama, Clemson, Ohio State, etc. wouldn't have as many players sitting on the sidelines that would start for 95% of college teams.

* Allow players to transfer one time and play immediately at the new school. This would make it VERY difficult on the top teams to retain talent. They can recruit top players, but if those players don't get significant time in the first or second year, they could lose them. I may even be in favor of allowing for more scholarships under this plan.

Both of those ideas have a lot of pros and cons to them, but it could shake up the top programs, and make it more difficult on them.
Click to expand...

I agree. The solution that's commonly floated is to expand the playoffs to 8. However, as someone who supports that, that does nothing to solve the parity problem. I like both of your solutions. I've thought about limiting scholarships even more so. That was done in the 90s (I believe) and it helped. I really like the idea of allowing people to transfer once without penalty. I support player autonomy and this could help with the parity issue as well.
 
duckboy33 said:
I agree. The solution that's commonly floated is to expand the playoffs to 8. However, as someone who supports that, that does nothing to solve the parity problem. I like both of your solutions. I've thought about limiting scholarships even more so. That was done in the 90s (I believe) and it helped. I really like the idea of allowing people to transfer once without penalty. I support player autonomy and this could help with the parity issue as well.
Click to expand...

The biggest downside to the "transfer and immediately play" idea is that the top teams could steal key players much more easily. For instance, Georgia struggled at QB this year after Jake Fromm left for the draft. It would be easy to poach a top QB from a lesser program if you can pretty much guarantee they will start at a top 10 team. It could strengthen the top programs in all areas (instead of recruiting kickers, developing them, Bama just takes the best kicker from a non top 25 program every year, a program like Stanford would have a tough time keeping a kid like Luck from leaving after he was recruited and developed there)

So in other words, a free transfer system could easily turn into a minor league system for the top programs where the sub 30 ranked teams could see their best players leave every year for a chance at a national and/or conference title. That may make things worse, rather than better.
 
Belcherboy said:
I think they could do two things to shake it up:

* Limit scholarships to 70-75. This would give less margin for error in recruiting in the top programs, and open up a lot more high end recruits to other teams. Bama, Clemson, Ohio State, etc. wouldn't have as many players sitting on the sidelines that would start for 95% of college teams.

* Allow players to transfer one time and play immediately at the new school. This would make it VERY difficult on the top teams to retain talent. They can recruit top players, but if those players don't get significant time in the first or second year, they could lose them. I may even be in favor of allowing for more scholarships under this plan.

Both of those ideas have a lot of pros and cons to them, but it could shake up the top programs, and make it more difficult on them.
Click to expand...
I thought they could transfer without sitting now?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Me
gobucks0409 said:
I thought they could transfer without sitting now?
Click to expand...

Only sometimes. Depends on when the NCAA grants a waiver and it seems like the NCAA flips on coin on whether to grant a waiver or not. There's no rhyme or reason to it.
 
RubinRock said:
That's what happens when Clemson isn't in the title game. People want big names.
Click to expand...
The Chi Burn GIF by Showtime
 
With the transfer rule HIGHLY likely to change in the next few weeks, it will make it more difficult for the top programs to hold onto talent. In other words, they have a lot more to lose than other teams, when everyone is snipping at your unused/underused talent.

I'm sure they will steal their fair share of players from other programs though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Me
duckboy33 said:
College football has come somewhat predictable and that's led to a level of fatigue. That leads to two questions:

1) Should anything be done about it?
2) If so, what would help?

Also note that ratings were down across the board this year. It was a mess of a season and that impacted interest.
Click to expand...
First of all, I'm not so sure it is "Bama Fatigue" as much as it is the "Same old, same old" fatigue.

Not sure what can be done about it but if ratings fall (or flat), it is logical to assume the networks will offer less in the next round of negotiations. Attendance was falling prior to COVID so that is another issue. Decreasing revenue will get their attention fo sho. There are only a handful of schools that don't really have to worry about money.

I do think we will continue to see the "same old, same old" until more schools compete better in the recruiting arena. More widely dispersed talent instead of having most of it concentrated in a few schools could help competitive balance. Not sure if that would translate to more viewer interest or not. People seem to like dynasties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top