If You Were Hoping For CFP Expansion You’re Going To Have To Wait A Few Years

[Deep Creek]

I contend that the difference between teams 5 and 12 isn't much.

Like not a damn bit. Could probably rearrange all 8 of them and be just as correct.

 

[jjc2009]

But are you really trying to argue that the SEC isn't the most dominate conference?

No. In fact I said the exact opposite.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

No. In fact I said the exact opposite.

Ok, then I am not following what's going on in the thread and am bowing out. My bad.

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

CFB will remain a joke going forward until something is done to bring parity. I believe a recruiting overhaul needs to happen. Leaving it as it is now is only going to further kill the sport.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

CFB will remain a joke going forward until something is done to bring parity. I believe a recruiting overhaul needs to happen. Leaving it as it is now is only going to further kill the sport.

- CFB has always been dominated by certain programs at certain times. Your team did so for a few decades. You didn't think it was a joke then, I assume?

- Currently it is being dominated by a "region" - the south. How do you propose bringing equity? You can't make student athletes go to schools they don't want to go to. You can't make southern kids go to Nebraska or the north or midwest. What are your ideas?

 

[NewPhoneWhoDis]

CFB will remain a joke going forward until something is done to bring parity. I believe a recruiting overhaul needs to happen. Leaving it as it is now is only going to further kill the sport.

How exactly are they going to overhaul recruiting? Telling kids where they can and can't get an education? Only way it will EVER be overhauled is if they start paying the players a salary and they institute a salary cap. If you aren't paying the kids, you have zero pull in deciding where they can and can't go to school.

I don't see that ever happening at the collegiate level, because then it is no longer an amateur sport. Recruits would have to hire agents to secure them the best deal. Just don't see it ever happening.

Best chance would be for some schools to move their universities to new cities in talent rich areas. I volunteer to move Michigan to the state of Georgia.

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

- CFB has always been dominated by certain programs at certain times. Your team did so for a few decades. You didn't think it was a joke then, I assume?

Nebraska never dominated recruiting. And this isn't just any ebb and flow of CFB, never in history has the sport seen such lopsidedness.

- Currently it is being dominated by a "region" - the south. How do you propose bringing equity? You can't make student athletes go to schools they don't want to go to. You can't make southern kids go to Nebraska or the north or midwest. What are your ideas?

No one would force them to do anything. Stricter recruiting limiting over signing, limiting players for position groups, allow partials, open signing, all violations are recruiting penalties/removal of scholarships. No one would force them to go anywhere, but if the school they want isn't allowed to take them because they are full for taking someone else or that group is already full or they had violations and are limited, then they will either opt to go somewhere else or they will choose to walk on. If they choose to walk on at UGA rather than take a scholarship at Minnesota, that's fine. But I swear, it is as if you SEC folk can't see the impending doom. Corner the market long enough and you will see a breakaway (likely SEC/ACC and B1G/PAC/B12) and there will be limited, but likely zero crossover. They will eventually turn into two separate leagues for the sport.

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

How exactly are they going to overhaul recruiting? Telling kids where they can and can't get an education? Only way it will EVER be overhauled is if they start paying the players a salary and they institute a salary cap. If you aren't paying the kids, you have zero pull in deciding where they can and can't go to school.

I don't see that ever happening at the collegiate level, because then it is no longer an amateur sport. Recruits would have to hire agents to secure them the best deal. Just don't see it ever happening.

With NIL, it's no longer an ammy sport anyway. And again, no one needs to force them. Pick from what is available or walk on. Maybe that will lead to 1000% increase in walk ons... if that happens, the sport will eventually die anyway.

Acting like nothing is wrong is part of the problem.

 

[NewPhoneWhoDis]

Nebraska never dominated recruiting. And this isn't just any ebb and flow of CFB, never in history has the sport seen such lopsidedness.

No one would force them to do anything. Stricter recruiting limiting over signing, limiting players for position groups, allow partials, open signing, all violations are recruiting penalties/removal of scholarships. No one would force them to go anywhere, but if the school they want isn't allowed to take them because they are full for taking someone else or that group is already full or they had violations and are limited, then they will either opt to go somewhere else or they will choose to walk on. If they choose to walk on at UGA rather than take a scholarship at Minnesota, that's fine. But I swear, it is as if you SEC folk can't see the impending doom. Corner the market long enough and you will see a breakaway (likely SEC/ACC and B1G/PAC/B12) and there will be limited, but likely zero crossover. They will eventually turn into two separate leagues for the sport.

You are simply wording it different, but it is no different than telling a kid he can or can't go to a school. How are you going to tell a kid -- I know Alabama wants you to go to school there and you want to go to Alabama, but they already have 6 DT's, so you can't go there.

They already put a limit on oversigning, it is why you don't see schools signing 35 players in a class anymore. The top schools handle their rosters like a pro team, if a kid is a bust, they simply tell him, you won't be playing here, so you can either transfer or the school comes up with a medical issue where he keeps the scholarship, but is no longer on the team.

I'm not sure what open signing or partials is? Can you explain what that is? I'd think partials would be partial scholarships, but that doesn't make any sense, so not sure what it is.

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

You are simply wording it different, but it is no different than telling a kid he can or can't go to a school. How are you going to tell a kid -- I know Alabama wants you to go to school there and you want to go to Alabama, but they already have 6 DT's, so you can't go there.

Then Alabama should have made room for that kid or tell him he has to walk on. Nothing says the kid absolutely cannot go there. Hell, with NIL, someone will probably pay their tuition for them anyway. What's the problem here?

I'm not sure what open signing or partials is? Can you explain what that is? I'd think partials would be partial scholarships, but that doesn't make any sense, so not sure what it is.

open signing to allowing a kid to sign any time he wants/has been offered.

Partials, yes is referring to partial scholarships. Allow the school the discretion to use any number of their scholarships to bring a kid that has not met the standards yet, practice, attend meetings and obviously classes and allow the student the opportunity to get their grades up to an acceptable level to see game time.

 

[NewPhoneWhoDis]

With NIL, it's no longer an ammy sport anyway. And again, no one needs to force them. Pick from what is available or walk on. Maybe that will lead to 1000% increase in walk ons... if that happens, the sport will eventually die anyway.

Acting like nothing is wrong is part of the problem.

What you seem to miss is - It hasn't changed anything in the sport -- the popularity of CFB has never been bigger. The B1G just signed a television deal where they will make $1 billion a year to broadcast B1G sports.

You are mixing up your personal feelings, because Nebraska is one of the schools hit hardest, as they have no in state talent and you want to see changes, so Nebraska can try to return to glory. It isn't happening though. Schools like Nebraska, Michigan, Oklahoma, ND are blue bloods, but they will never recruit like the elite recruiting teams, as Nebraska, Michigan, Oklahoma and Indiana do not have a talent at home base. It is what it is. I've said this for a few years now and was told I don't know what i'm talking about.

Reality is -- Those schools will get to the CFP occasionally and who knows, maybe one year the stars align and all the bounces go their way and they win a title, but it will be an anomaly. Nebraska will have much harder time than the other 3 because:
Michigan and Notre Dame can sell recruits on elite academics and they are at the top of list for Midwest recruits (along with OSU)
Oklahoma is right next to Texas and they are closer to alot of recruits in Texas than the Texas universities are.
Nebraska is in the worst spot of any of the Blue Bloods -- they now play in the Midwest, they have no in state talent and they don't have a state around it that is rich with recruits.

Way I see it -- Notre Dame, Michigan and Oklahoma will continue to bring in top 10-15 recruiting classes with the occasional top 5 class. Nebraska will bring in top 15-25 recruiting classes, but getting into the top 10 will be extremely difficult for them to do and top 5 would be damn near impossible for them.

Michigan's only chance to ever recruit like a Georgia or Bama is the NIL deals. They have a TON of uber rich alums, all itching to give away money. If UM gets the stick out of their ass, there isn't many schools who could match the type of money UM could put up for NIL, but rumor is -- the school has been against it. So IMO, they get what they deserve -- it sucks as I'm a fan, but the archaic approach needs to go.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

Nebraska never dominated recruiting. And this isn't just any ebb and flow of CFB, never in history has the sport seen such lopsidedness.

No one would force them to do anything. Stricter recruiting limiting over signing, limiting players for position groups, allow partials, open signing, all violations are recruiting penalties/removal of scholarships. No one would force them to go anywhere, but if the school they want isn't allowed to take them because they are full for taking someone else or that group is already full or they had violations and are limited, then they will either opt to go somewhere else or they will choose to walk on. If they choose to walk on at UGA rather than take a scholarship at Minnesota, that's fine. But I swear, it is as if you SEC folk can't see the impending doom. Corner the market long enough and you will see a breakaway (likely SEC/ACC and B1G/PAC/B12) and there will be limited, but likely zero crossover. They will eventually turn into two separate leagues for the sport.

Last point, first. I see the problem, and I hope NIL, free agency, and CFP expansion will help. I can also see - Miami, FSU, Texas, USC, TAMU as 5 teams that could break into top tier, in that they have the southern advantage. And, I am concerned about the health of the sport, even if my team is currently doing well. Most of my SEC brethren see it to. You act like we are doing something to corner the market other than just investing on our sport, and emphasizing it. It does mean more in the south ... you have to do better on that. The geographic advantage we can't do anything about ... it is what it is.

I never said you dominated recruiting, but you were a dominant team at one point in time, and I doubt you were worried that the poor southern schools weren't as good.

To your points:

- Over signing - that's not a thing any more. There 25/85 limits. Everyone has to live under those same rules. Over signing used to be a thing when the conferences were all different and the SEC allowed teams to sign way more than 25. That doesn't exist any more. What are you referring to?

- Limiting position groups ... how would that work in real life? What if I lose a bunch of DL in one year? How do I replace that if you have limits on what I can recruit? I am open to something like that if it makes sense. The problem is that roster management is really hard in real life. Doesn't the transfer portal make this a non-issue?

- I don't understand partials, or open signing. What are those and how would that drive parity.

- What violations are the better teams doing that would drive parity? You are proposing a rule for some type of violations. What are those?

I am discussing this in good faith. I'm interested in how this could get done. Let's not get into a pissing match.

 

[NewPhoneWhoDis]

Then Alabama should have made room for that kid or tell him he has to walk on. Nothing says the kid absolutely cannot go there. Hell, with NIL, someone will probably pay their tuition for them anyway. What's the problem here?

open signing to allowing a kid to sign any time he wants/has been offered.

Partials, yes is referring to partial scholarships. Allow the school the discretion to use any number of their scholarships to bring a kid that has not met the standards yet, practice, attend meetings and obviously classes and allow the student the opportunity to get their grades up to an acceptable level to see game time.

You are in the wrong conference if you want to allow non-qualifiers to sign. The B1G is more strict on that than any other conference. Michigan has lost out on many recruits because of this. Xavier Worthy comes to mind. He had no problem getting into Texas though.

I know WHY you want to place limits, but it is never happening to that extent. They will never limit position groups and if, by some miracle, they did. That DT you wanted to sign will now be a TE when he signs. Or that QB you wanted to sign will be signed as fullback. Who is going to determine the position for the kids?

And open signing sounds good, but unless they allow kids the opportunity to break the contract if they change their mind -- that will never happen either. Kids simply wouldn't sign until the last second.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

Then Alabama should have made room for that kid or tell him he has to walk on. Nothing says the kid absolutely cannot go there. Hell, with NIL, someone will probably pay their tuition for them anyway. What's the problem here?

open signing to allowing a kid to sign any time he wants/has been offered.

Partials, yes is referring to partial scholarships. Allow the school the discretion to use any number of their scholarships to bring a kid that has not met the standards yet, practice, attend meetings and obviously classes and allow the student the opportunity to get their grades up to an acceptable level to see game time.

How does open signing drive parity? To me that will help the big boys tie down the best players.

Same with partials. How does that help? Also have to consider Title IX if this increases the number of schollies.

I am either not understanding anything you are proposing, very possible, or what you are proposing doesn't seem like it would make a difference. The problem is that the best players are predominantly in the south. Most kids will stay close to home. The south has a football culture ... it does mean more. How does anything you propose change any of that. Absent telling kids where they have to go - and we agree that isn't happening - how does any of these ideas make a dozen southern kids want to go to Nebraska, as an example?

 

[NewPhoneWhoDis]

Last point, first. I see the problem, and I hope NIL, free agency, and CFP expansion will help. I can also see - Miami, FSU, Texas, USC, TAMU as 5 teams that could break into top tier, in that they have the southern advantage. And, I am concerned about the health of the sport, even if my team is currently doing well. Most of my SEC brethren see it to. You act like we are doing something to corner the market other than just investing on our sport, and emphasizing it. It does mean more in the south ... you have to do better on that. The geographic advantage we can't do anything about ... it is what it is.

I never said you dominated recruiting, but you were a dominant team at one point in time, and I doubt you were worried that the poor southern schools weren't as good.

To your points:

- Over signing - that's not a thing any more. There 25/85 limits. Everyone has to live under those same rules. Over signing used to be a thing when the conferences were all different and the SEC allowed teams to sign way more than 25. That doesn't exist any more. What are you referring to?

- Limiting position groups ... how would that work in real life? What if I lose a bunch of DL in one year? How do I replace that if you have limits on what I can recruit? I am open to something like that if it makes sense. The problem is that roster management is really hard in real life. Doesn't the transfer portal make this a non-issue?

- I don't understand partials, or open signing. What are those and how would that drive parity.

- What violations are the better teams doing that would drive parity? You are proposing a rule for some type of violations. What are those?

I am discussing this in good faith. I'm interested in how this could get done. Let's not get into a pissing match.

I think NIL will help, but it is going to help a select few schools with the deepest pockets, who also happen to be some of the top recruiting teams anyways.

The transfer portal is great for the sport/players, until you look at it and see it is the top teams getting the top recruits. Bama lost a bunch of guys who weren't going to be playing for them -- in return, they are bringing in the #1 WR in the portal, the #1 RB in the portal and the #1 CB in the portal, all who should walk on campus and start for them.

It is what it is. Not much the NCAA or CFB can do to force parity. College is the first 'adult choice' these kids get to make and I don't see the NCAA putting in restrictions to stop them from attending schools that want them.

The rest of CFB just has to find a way to break thru and start pulling some of those big time recruits out of the south. It is an uphill battle, but that is the best shot anyone has. OSU built a pipeline from Florida and Texas -- when you add in the Ohio recruits they sign -- it has helped them recruit like the top schools. Other programs need to try and do the same.

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

Last point, first. I see the problem, and I hope NIL, free agency, and CFP expansion will help. I can also see - Miami, FSU, Texas, USC, TAMU as 5 teams that could break into top tier, in that they have the southern advantage. And, I am concerned about the health of the sport, even if my team is currently doing well. Most of my SEC brethren see it to. You act like we are doing something to corner the market other than just investing on our sport, and emphasizing it. It does mean more in the south ... you have to do better on that. The geographic advantage we can't do anything about ... it is what it is.

No, I don't blame the SEC or any school for the current state. Do what you have to do, but it isn't good for the sport.

I never said you dominated recruiting, but you were a dominant team at one point in time, and I doubt you were worried that the poor southern schools weren't as good.

Nebraskas dominance doesn't compare to the Bamas currently or the SECs as a whole. This is apples to oranges. I mean shit, look up the winningest team in the 80's and #1 is Nebraska, irony is that Nebraska didn't claim a single title in the 80's.

To your points:

- Limiting position groups ... how would that work in real life? What if I lose a bunch of DL in one year? How do I replace that if you have limits on what I can recruit? I am open to something like that if it makes sense. The problem is that roster management is really hard in real life. Doesn't the transfer portal make this a non-issue?

Say you have 10, but lose 6 due to NFL/graduation... well then now you have 6 open spots to add to.

- What violations are the better teams doing that would drive parity? You are proposing a rule for some type of violations. What are those?

I am discussing this in good faith. I'm interested in how this could get done. Let's not get into a pissing match.

I am not calling out any violations. I am just speaking in general. I think taking wins or trophies away is asinine, I would also eliminate 'post-season bans'. If a program cheats or violates the rules, they need to be hit where it hurts going forward. Decrease their scholarships significantly. Harsher penalties to deter violations.

 

[NewPhoneWhoDis]

How does open signing drive parity? To me that will help the big boys tie down the best players.

Same with partials. How does that help? Also have to consider Title IX if this increases the number of schollies.

I am either not understanding anything you are proposing, very possible, or what you are proposing doesn't seem like it would make a difference. The problem is that the best players are predominantly in the south. Most kids will stay close to home. The south has a football culture ... it does mean more. How does anything you propose change any of that. Absent telling kids where they have to go - and we agree that isn't happening - how does any of these ideas make a dozen southern kids want to go to Nebraska, as an example?

I thought the same. The issue is -- the kids in the south grow up on SEC football. They grow up dreaming of playing for Georgia, playing for Alabama, etc. It is no different in the Midwest with the B1G, the Big 12 in the Southwest, the Pac 12 in the West. When kids grow up cheering on a school or a program and they get the chance to play for them -- it will be next to impossible to sway them.

As you said also -- it has to do with location to home too. They want their families to be able to come and see them play. Or they want to go away, but still be close enough to go home on the weekend or have their family drive up to see them.

It is a tough situation for the overwhelming majority of teams, but it isn't changing any time soon and there isn't much the NCAA can do. I say -- just enjoy the success you do have when you get it. I was ecstatic UM got to the CFP, but I also bet on Georgia, as I didn't think we'd have shot with the huge talent difference between the 2 teams. I was right. Didn't ruin my season though.

I actually loved watching Bama and Georgia play -- it is like watching a scrimmage for the NFL draft.

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

How does open signing drive parity? To me that will help the big boys tie down the best players.

It absolutely could, it could also allow other schools to lock down players before the big schools come in trying to clean up. But allow the kid to sign his NLI and scholarship aid papers whenever he wants (so long as the offer exists obviously) and remove that kid from even being reached out to by other programs. The kid and the university are responsible to each other at that point. If a kid wants out after signing, let him utilize his 'one transfer' option at that time.

Same with partials. How does that help? Also have to consider Title IX if this increases the number of schollies.

Not talking about increasing the number of scholarships, but increasing the number of athletes on the market.

I am either not understanding anything you are proposing, very possible, or what you are proposing doesn't seem like it would make a difference. The problem is that the best players are predominantly in the south. Most kids will stay close to home. The south has a football culture ... it does mean more. How does anything you propose change any of that. Absent telling kids where they have to go - and we agree that isn't happening - how does any of these ideas make a dozen southern kids want to go to Nebraska, as an example?

This isn't a pitch for Nebraska.

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

You are in the wrong conference if you want to allow non-qualifiers to sign. The B1G is more strict on that than any other conference. Michigan has lost out on many recruits because of this. Xavier Worthy comes to mind. He had no problem getting into Texas though.

Sorry, ya'll started responding so fast, I think I lost track.

Sure, but this is dumb and morally wrong in my opinion, thus I think it should change. Why should a kid that struggles acadmically, but is athletically gifted not be given an opportunity to get a better/higher education with tutors than he otherwise would have and advance his aspirations for the game that he loves at the same time. Fuck the conference, let the schools dictate their own entry qualifications.

I know WHY you want to place limits, but it is never happening to that extent. They will never limit position groups and if, by some miracle, they did. That DT you wanted to sign will now be a TE when he signs. Or that QB you wanted to sign will be signed as fullback. Who is going to determine the position for the kids?

I thought about that too. What if a kid just signed to change a position, then he would be required to play the position that he signed for. Only allowing to change positions in the off season AND when a spot has become available.

And open signing sounds good, but unless they allow kids the opportunity to break the contract if they change their mind -- that will never happen either. Kids simply wouldn't sign until the last second.

That was why I said the kid can use his 'one time transfer option' as a means to withdrawal his signed commitment to the school. I think some kids would wait for sure, but I think a lot of kids would sign immediately.

 

[NewPhoneWhoDis]

Sorry, ya'll started responding so fast, I think I lost track.

Sure, but this is dumb and morally wrong in my opinion, thus I think it should change. Why should a kid that struggles acadmically, but is athletically gifted not be given an opportunity to get a better/higher education with tutors than he otherwise would have and advance his aspirations for the game that he loves at the same time. Fuck the conference, let the schools dictate their own entry qualifications.

I thought about that too. What if a kid just signed to change a position, then he would be required to play the position that he signed for. Only allowing to change positions in the off season AND when a spot has become available.

That was why I said the kid can use his 'one time transfer option' as a means to withdrawal his signed commitment to the school. I think some kids would wait for sure, but I think a lot of kids would sign immediately.

As far as the academic part -- Not much can be done about it. Most B1G schools curriculum would be way too much for a kid to handle if he even be a min qualifier. It is why it is rare for exemptions to be given out. The B1G and the ACC are way up there academically comparatively speaking. Nebraska's problem is -- That over half the B1G are ranked in the top 100 universities in the nation academically. Nebraska is ranked 275th. The only B1G school even remotely close to Nebraska in academics is Iowa ranked 199th.
That's why I said the exemptions aren't likely to happen in the B1G. Academics are a huge headache for B1G teams in regards to sports.

I understand your thought process regarding position and changing positions, but it wouldn't stop anything because majority of recruits redshirt anyway, so a school could call a top 100 recruit a long snapper, let him redshirt and then move him to his natural position. And what do you do with defenses who run hybrid players out? Those who have safeties who drop down to LB or a LB who moves down to safety or a DT who moves out to DE. It'd be an enormous headache not only for the NCAA, but individual schools to track. So not sure that'd ever be an option.

I also get what you are saying with the open signing, but I don't think it would have the effect you think it would. The elite recruits aren't going to visit a single school and decide to sign on the spot. These kids know they get 5 trips paid for, they use them and enjoy the perks that go along with them. I think you may be able to get some kids outside the top 300 to sign on the spot, but with the option to get out of it -- it will only take a school like Bama, Georgia, etc. to say, we want you and they'd opt out. So I am not sure how that'd help out?