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

[WhosYourDawggy]

The 12-team proposal was a well thought out draft but it was missing one major thing, money distribution. The revenue gap between the BIG/SEC is maybe big now but just wait until they're allowed 3-4 teams while everyone else gets in 1-2. I'm not surprise to see the ACC and BIG-12 not being in much of a rush to have their playoff share go from 25% to 8%-16%

Can you give me a citation for where the new plan didn't discuss money distribution? I am confident that isn't correct. At a minimum they simply agreed to at least continue to do as they do now.

As for your the playoff share going from 25% to 8% or 16%, you don't understand how distribution is currently done. I provide two cites below, but basically there are two types of payments - per team payments (which you assumed was the way all the money was distributed) and a per conference baseline amount. Your assumption that it is all based on per team is where you went wrong.

You can read the articles, but basically while the SEC will get more than the ACC because they have more teams get in to the CFP and to bowls in general. But, the ACC would still make way more money - like 3 times the money - under the 12 team CFP than now. So, yeah, cut off your nose to spite yourself applies here. Nothing to be proud about unless owning the SEC and losing money makes you feel happy.

How Much Money Can An Expanded College Football Playoff Generate?

College Football Playoff Payouts 2021-22

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

partial scholarships or open signing isn't going to help anyone but the elite schools. I'm lost on how you think this would help schools besides the elite recruiting schools?

Then how is it biased?

limiting the number of people you could sign by position (which will never happen) -- would absolutely help schools like Nebraska who recruit in the 15-30 range each year, as the top teams fill their spots, those recruits would trickle down to those teams in the 15-30 range. And I'm not talk about solely Nebraska -- I'm talking about a range of teams, which Nebraska is included in.

uh... yeah. That is the idea of ADDRESSING RECRUITING and creating parity. Idk if you know, but you don't get parity by only having a handful of teams get every recruit worth a damn. That is why 20 years ago the landscape was much better. This has nothing to do with Nebraska, this is a fact based on outcomes. I already laid out in other posts how different teams and different conferences rose every year. Since the mid 00's it hasn't been like that, that is a problem. Again, if you corner the market (in this context) you will kill the product.

I mentioned partial qualifiers because it won't happen in the B1G -- the B1G conference, as a whole, prides itself on the academics that goes along with student/athletes. So while personally, I'd love to see them loosen the rules on partial qualifiers -- I don't see it happening.

We need to get some woke people start screaming about discrimination. #GiveThemTheChanceToSinkOrSwim

So what is the scholarship limits you'd like to see? Should they go the FCS route and only allow 63 scholarships per team (I believe that is what it is). Now you'd have roughly 5,000 less players a year earning a scholarship for football and forced to pay for school out of pocket. So not sure 'nothing changes'?

1. Not sure the cost will matter too much with NIL.
2. I doubt every team fills their scholarship alottment with the players they would prefer. So this could very much add to players taking scholarships at other institutions merely for the scholarship offer, but in that context, it would affect the players at lower programs from getting scholarships they otherwise would because better players are available for them. Call it spreading the love lol, those lesser athletes that now wouldn't be getting a scholly because of better players being available can take their talents (if they really want a scholly) to G5 or FCS.
3. Idk if the actual number should change, especially if PQs were allowed. The only way to get parity, is to modify recruiting that at least attempts to spread the love around. As I said numerous times, if a student is set on what school they want, let them walk-on if they don't have available scholarships. If nothing is done to change recruiting for the modern day, you will eventually kill the sport. If you disagree with this, fine, no reason to keep it going. I feel like we are both just repeating ourselves at this point.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

You guys just got done talking about how you don't see how it would help or how it could help the top dogs, but somehow it is biased . Nothing I said hurts or helps any one team, nor does it give Nebraska an edge in any regard. Just because I would like to see this and am a Nebraska fan does not mean there is inherent bias. You comment is stupid.

You mention partial qualifiers as if that is somehow exclusive to Nebraska. It has NOTHING to do with Nebraska. I think it should be allowed because it is helpful to the people. As long as they can gain entry to the school (which I stated by having the school have their own qualifications), then everyone should be given the chance to meet the requirements to see the field. It is in no way biased or exclusively helpful to any one team and more athletes help the sport.

It doesn't debunk shit. Lol at you for thinking it does. You are either glossing over or willfully ignoring the point and the problem. I don't care to explain the obvious to you. So either be dumb or act dumb, that is on you.

The NCAA already limits the school the athletes can go to via the current limits, the athletes have to follow that or walk on.... nothing really changes. This talking point of 'forcing the kids to a certain school' is bullshit.

Now you are starting to call people dumb and names, so I'll move on. But, the one problem with the proposals you make aside from them not being practical to implement is that they aren't player friendly. Take for example the idea that a team can sign a player at any time - you actually said that way a team can sign a player before the big boys find out about them. That's anti-player ... let's tie down the player and make them use their one time transfer by grabbing a 17 year old before he understands his actual worth. Read the room - anything anti-player is dead on arrival. The idea that a player, once on a roster, can't switch positions if the team is already full at that position is anti-player, among other things. I know you've grown and put on weight and instead of playing OL we are going to move you to DL where you would excel and get to the league, but we can't because we are out of spots there. Anti-player. DOA.

Final question - can you show me one article, one person involved in college football that has advanced the ideas you came up with?

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

Now you are starting to call people dumb and names, so I'll move on. But, the one problem with the proposals you make aside from them not being practical to implement is that they aren't player friendly. Take for example the idea that a team can sign a player at any time - you actually said that way a team can sign a player before the big boys find out about them. That's anti-player ... let's tie down the player and make them use their one time transfer by grabbing a 17 year old before he understands his actual worth.

That's nonsense and you described something simple very poorly, makes me question if you understand what you are talking about. This was about early signing. Allow players to sign with a school at ANY time. That is not anti-player no matter how you want to spin it. No one is making them sign early, it is exclusively the players choice. Do I think that will help other schools? Possibly, I think it could equally help the elite schools. The one time transfer rule is fucking new, that shit just started recently, I don't think a kid using it to change where they go changes anything. Actually, because as it sits currently the only way for a kid to get out after signing is to get the school to allow it. This actually puts the power back into the hands of the player giving them the option of using their transfer option to get out of a signing. Miss me with this nonsense.

The idea that a player, once on a roster, can't switch positions if the team is already full at that position is anti-player, among other things. I know you've grown and put on weight and instead of playing OL we are going to move you to DL where you would excel and get to the league, but we can't because we are out of spots there. Anti-player.

Ok. Let them switch with another player, once per season. I love how you phrase it though 'iT's AnTi-PlAyEr' lol. It's like those people that endlessly watch Fox and hang on anything and anyone that says something is 'anti-capitalist' or woke people talking about people needing to be 'anti-racist'. It's nonsense.

Don't like it? Get over it or pick a different sport. But like I said, I get it. You benefit from the current system, let's not change anything as everything is impractical and anti-player.

Final question - can you show me one article, one person involved in college football that has advanced the ideas you came up with?

Maybe, but why would it matter? If I found an article that said nothing is wrong and Florida is the greatest team of all time, would that make it settled?

 

[NewPhoneWhoDis]

Don't like it? Get over it or pick a different sport. But like I said, I get it. You benefit from the current system, let's not change anything as everything is impractical and anti-player.

So is that what people should say to you? Get over it, Nebraska will never be able to recruit like the elite programs and to pick a different sport? Doesn't that sound crass?

Outside of instituting a NFL style draft, which will never happen, the top schools will continue to sign the majority of the top recruits.

 

[NewPhoneWhoDis]

1. Not sure the cost will matter too much with NIL.

It is a lot of money to go to college. To be an out of state kid at Michigan when you add together Tuition, Housing, Books/Supplies, meals -- you are looking at about $70,000 a year. When you add in miscellaneous expense -- you are looking at paying over $300,000 to go to Michigan
The overwhelming majority of recruits are making nothing even remotely close to that. I think you are seeing a select few players making big money and think it is the norm for every kid, which couldn't be further from the truth.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

That's nonsense and you described something simple very poorly, makes me question if you understand what you are talking about. This was about early signing. Allow players to sign with a school at ANY time. That is not anti-player no matter how you want to spin it. No one is making them sign early, it is exclusively the players choice. Do I think that will help other schools? Possibly, I think it could equally help the elite schools. The one time transfer rule is fucking new, that shit just started recently, I don't think a kid using it to change where they go changes anything. Actually, because as it sits currently the only way for a kid to get out after signing is to get the school to allow it. This actually puts the power back into the hands of the player giving them the option of using their transfer option to get out of a signing. Miss me with this nonsense.

Ok. Let them switch with another player, once per season. I love how you phrase it though 'iT's AnTi-PlAyEr' lol. It's like those people that endlessly watch Fox and hang on anything and anyone that says something is 'anti-capitalist' or woke people talking about people needing to be 'anti-racist'. It's nonsense.

Don't like it? Get over it or pick a different sport. But like I said, I get it. You benefit from the current system, let's not change anything as everything is impractical and anti-player.

Maybe, but why would it matter? If I found an article that said nothing is wrong and Florida is the greatest team of all time, would that make it settled?

Yeah, I understand what I am talking about.

You literally typed this, to which I responded:

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.

Your solution is designed to "remove" kids from being informed of perhaps better opportunities that they may have. That's anti-player, any way you look at it.

Fox News ... you know you are losing the argument when you accuse the other person of watching Fox News. I don't want Fox News, FWIW. And all the solutions you have pulled out of your ass that have zero chance of ever passing, are in fact, anti-player.

It's funny ... if you read my posts you'll find that I have long advocated for or supported changes in the game that would be against my best interest as a UGA fan. It's true. But you accuse me of pointing out weaknesses in your solutions that no one else supports or has even heard of because it goes against my interest. I am all for smart, reasonable solutions that drive parity in CFB. I am hoping that NIL, free agency, and CFP expansion do that. I'd love to see USC, UCLA, Nebraska, Texas, FSU, Miami, to name a few become relevant again. Your solutions, as best as I can understand them, are impractical, anti-player for the most part, and have zero chance of ever being discussed by the powers the be, let alone adopted. I prefer to deal with reality.

Also, you know you can't find any citation to support these supposed solutions that don't solve anything.

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

So is that what people should say to you? Get over it, Nebraska will never be able to recruit like the elite programs and to pick a different sport? Doesn't that sound crass?

Crass? Idc. It will have to be addressed or the sport will die.

Outside of instituting a NFL style draft, which will never happen, the top schools will continue to sign the majority of the top recruits.

Time will tell.

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

Yeah, I understand what I am talking about.

You literally typed this, to which I responded:


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.

Your solution is designed to "remove" kids from being informed of perhaps better opportunities that they may have. That's anti-player, any way you look at it.

No, it isn't. It's moronic. You are basing this nonsense on "perhaps" . You are saying it is anti-player even though it puts all the chips on the player because you want to think about a "possibility". Again, no one is forcing anything on the player. You want to tell a kid when and when he cannot sign with a school of his choosing, what if the school rescinds the offer because another player they thought was off the table showed interest? You don't give a fuck about players, you only care about continuing on as is... and destroying the sport. You want to be pro-player? Then give the PLAYER the choice. As I said initially, miss me with this nonsense.

Fox News ... you know you are losing the argument when you accuse the other person of watching Fox News.

I didn't accuse you of watching Fox News. Is reading difficult for you or are you just stupid?

... well, maybe there is no difference.

I don't want Fox News, FWIW.

That's cool. No one asked and no one said you did watch it. SMH.

And all the solutions you have pulled out of your ass that have zero chance of ever passing, are in fact, anti-player.

Except they aren't. But hey, at least you said that. Btw, what is more anti-player than being anti-sport?

It's funny ... if you read my posts you'll find that I have long advocated for or supported changes in the game that would be against my best interest as a UGA fan. It's true.

Like?

Tell me, do you think there is a parity issue currently?
Do you think the sport is better with only a handful of teams benefitting or quite a few?
Lastly, tell me what you would change to create parity.

But you accuse me of pointing out weaknesses in your solutions that no one else supports or has even heard of because it goes against my interest.

I never accused you of pointing out weaknesses lol... the only thing you have said is that it is anti-player, which I have repeatedly shown and stated is bullshit. Your lack of changing anything is what says you don't want to go against your own interest. But hey, I haven't been following you or reading all of your posts, so maybe you have suggested things and I have not seen it, so I will hold off until you answer the questions above.

I am all for smart, reasonable solutions that drive parity in CFB. I am hoping that NIL, free agency, and CFP expansion do that.

What is smart, reasonable and ultimately drives parity with NIL and free agency?
What is smart, reasonable and ultimately drives partiy with a 12 team CFP (I have seen you advocate for that dumb shit).

I'd love to see USC, UCLA, Nebraska, Texas, FSU, Miami, to name a few become relevant again.

This is my 'I believe you' face.

Your solutions, as best as I can understand them, are impractical, anti-player for the most part, and have zero chance of ever being discussed by the powers the be, let alone adopted. I prefer to deal with reality.

Must be why I haven't seen any of your proposals.

Also, you know you can't find any citation to support these supposed solutions that don't solve anything.

If they don't solve anything, then what is the worry? Secondly, what citation is needed for an op-ed about things that haven't happened? Is this a fucking joke? Not allowing PQs is essentially similar to the minimum wage in that both lock people out of options they would otherwise have... Anti-player? It is a literal advocation that would allow for MORE players. Please include a work cited section as well as all of your research methodology for your response to those questions, the literature must be vast

 

[NU_WTF?]

 

[NewPhoneWhoDis]

Crass? Idc. It will have to be addressed or the sport will die.

Time will tell.

It is humorous to hear you say "the sport will die", while conferences are signing record TV deals. Conferences may not like that SEC is the conference to beat right now, but that's life. Schools who used to be elite may not like it, but that's life.

YOU may stop watching, because Nebraska won't be able to compete as their fan base would like them to, as they can't compete in recruiting, but the sport isn't going anywhere. The overwhelming majority of schools are never winning a title no matter what changes they make. That is simply a fact.

And I agree -- time will tell, but what is said is the truth. Outside of instituting a NFL style draft -- there is little chance for parity. The top programs will continue to sign the top recruits -- the top schools located in talent rich states will continue to stack their roster year after year.

 

[NewPhoneWhoDis]

If they don't solve anything, then what is the worry? Secondly, what citation is needed for an op-ed about things that haven't happened? Is this a fucking joke? Not allowing PQs is essentially similar to the minimum wage in that both lock people out of options they would otherwise have... Anti-player? It is a literal advocation that would allow for MORE players. Please include a work cited section as well as all of your research methodology for your response to those questions, the literature must be vast

You want to allow partial qualifiers, while also suggesting to cut the number of scholarships -- how does that make sense?

Essentially you want to allow kids who can't meet the minimum requirements to be allowed to accept a scholarship, while cutting 1,000's of scholarships. Your response to the cut in scholarships was -- tell those kids to go to FCS or a lower level school. Why don't you petition Nebraska to move to FCS and then you can be nationally relevant again? Problem solved.

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

You want to allow partial qualifiers, while also suggesting to cut the number of scholarships -- how does that make sense?

Essentially you want to allow kids who can't meet the minimum requirements to be allowed to accept a scholarship, while cutting 1,000's of scholarships. Your response to the cut in scholarships was -- tell those kids to go to FCS or a lower level school. Why don't you petition Nebraska to move to FCS and then you can be nationally relevant again? Problem solved.

Where did I say to cut scholarship numbers? You said that.

 

[NewPhoneWhoDis]

Where did I say to cut scholarship numbers? You said that.

How are you going to change recruiting without changing the scholarship numbers? The talk of you can only sign so many at a position is ridiculous and WILL NEVER happen. 100's of kids a year are signed as simply "athletes" -- are you going to tell a school -- sorry, you have to pick a position for that recruit site unseen and he is stuck with that position. It isn't even a logical argument to make.

The only possible way to have any type of 'true parity' is to have a NFL style draft for recruits, which will never happen in college either. A 5 star recruit would get drafted Bowling Green and would enter the transfer portal 30 seconds later.

Simple fact is -- the top schools in the talent rich areas have ALWAYS brought in the best recruiting classes. The only difference now is -- with national HS camps, strength coaches position coaches, advanced coaching, HS programs playing national schedules -- you know more than ever what you are getting from a recruit. The days of building a team around diamond in the roughs, who you build up thru a college strength and conditioning programs is over. You still get a handful of guys each year who break that mold, but the days of bringing in top 25 recruiting classes and expecting to compete with the teams bringing in top 5 classes every year isn't happening.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

No, it isn't. It's moronic. You are basing this nonsense on "perhaps" . You are saying it is anti-player even though it puts all the chips on the player because you want to think about a "possibility". Again, no one is forcing anything on the player. You want to tell a kid when and when he cannot sign with a school of his choosing, what if the school rescinds the offer because another player they thought was off the table showed interest? You don't give a fuck about players, you only care about continuing on as is... and destroying the sport. You want to be pro-player? Then give the PLAYER the choice. As I said initially, miss me with this nonsense.

I didn't accuse you of watching Fox News. Is reading difficult for you or are you just stupid?

... well, maybe there is no difference.

That's cool. No one asked and no one said you did watch it. SMH.

Except they aren't. But hey, at least you said that. Btw, what is more anti-player than being anti-sport?

Like?

Tell me, do you think there is a parity issue currently?
Do you think the sport is better with only a handful of teams benefitting or quite a few?
Lastly, tell me what you would change to create parity.

I never accused you of pointing out weaknesses lol... the only thing you have said is that it is anti-player, which I have repeatedly shown and stated is bullshit. Your lack of changing anything is what says you don't want to go against your own interest. But hey, I haven't been following you or reading all of your posts, so maybe you have suggested things and I have not seen it, so I will hold off until you answer the questions above.

What is smart, reasonable and ultimately drives parity with NIL and free agency?
What is smart, reasonable and ultimately drives partiy with a 12 team CFP (I have seen you advocate for that dumb shit).


This is my 'I believe you' face.

Must be why I haven't seen any of your proposals.

If they don't solve anything, then what is the worry? Secondly, what citation is needed for an op-ed about things that haven't happened? Is this a fucking joke? Not allowing PQs is essentially similar to the minimum wage in that both lock people out of options they would otherwise have... Anti-player? It is a literal advocation that would allow for MORE players. Please include a work cited section as well as all of your research methodology for your response to those questions, the literature must be vast

I am pro-player ... I want them to get NIL. I want them to transfer without having to sit out a year. I want 12 teams in the playoff so that more players can go to schools that right now have to chance to get into the CFP. I don't want a school to be able to talk a player into signing with them before they have been able to examine all their possibilities. I don't want a player to not be able to go to the school of his choice because they already have X players at their position.

As for your questions:

Tell me, do you think there is a parity issue currently? Obviously, there is ... I would have thought that was evident by my posts in this thread. But there really never has been and never will be parity in CFB as there is in the NFL. So, it's a matter of degree, and right now the power is skewing heavily SEC and south.

Do you think the sport is better with only a handful of teams benefitting or quite a few? Again, and obviously, the sport would be better if there were more better teams.

Lastly, tell me what you would change to create parity. The problem is that you are limited in what you can do to control that. We in the south can't help it if the PAC fans, as example, aren't rabid football fans like we are in the south. We can't help it if your schools can't oo won't raise hundreds of millions to get your facilities better (not directed at NE, or other schools that have great facilities). Nothing you can do will change that. We can't help it that it is cold in the north, and their women are ugly (jk, jk). Nothing we can do will suddenly make southern black players want to go to school in Nebraska.

As I have posted dozens, if not hundreds of times, it is my hope that NIL, free agency, and CFP expansion will drive some parity. I am hoping teams like USC, UCLA, Neb, Miami, FSU, Texas, ATM, and the like will be able to get better by being able to offer NIL, take advantage of transfers, and get access to the CFP. I don't see anything else that can be done. Your suggestions, to me at least, are simply absurd on their face. No one is even talking about them, let alone close to enacting them. You know full well if you could find one article, or one sportswriter who had suggested what you suggest you could provide a citation in a second. You can't because your ideas can't practically be applied and aren't pro-player ... they are pro-school, and that won't fly.

When we first started discussing this, I said "I am discussing this in good faith. I'm interested in how this could get done. Let's not get into a pissing match." And, you just started pissing. When you calm down and act like an adult, I'll engage with you. Otherwise, I'm out on to talking to people interested in really talking issues.

 

[Deep Creek]

I am pro-player ... I want them to get NIL. I want them to transfer without having to sit out a year. I want 12 teams in the playoff so that more players can go to schools that right now have to chance to get into the CFP. I don't want a school to be able to talk a player into signing with them before they have been able to examine all their possibilities. I don't want a player to not be able to go to the school of his choice because they already have X players at their position.

As for your questions:

Tell me, do you think there is a parity issue currently? Obviously, there is ... I would have thought that was evident by my posts in this thread. But there really never has been and never will be parity in CFB as there is in the NFL. So, it's a matter of degree, and right now the power is skewing heavily SEC and south.

Do you think the sport is better with only a handful of teams benefitting or quite a few? Again, and obviously, the sport would be better if there were more better teams.

Lastly, tell me what you would change to create parity. The problem is that you are limited in what you can do to control that. We in the south can't help it if the PAC fans, as example, aren't rabid football fans like we are in the south. We can't help it if your schools can't oo won't raise hundreds of millions to get your facilities better (not directed at NE, or other schools that have great facilities). Nothing you can do will change that. We can't help it that it is cold in the north, and their women are ugly (jk, jk). Nothing we can do will suddenly make southern black players want to go to school in Nebraska.

As I have posted dozens, if not hundreds of times, it is my hope that NIL, free agency, and CFP expansion will drive some parity. I am hoping teams like USC, UCLA, Neb, Miami, FSU, Texas, ATM, and the like will be able to get better by being able to offer NIL, take advantage of transfers, and get access to the CFP. I don't see anything else that can be done. Your suggestions, to me at least, are simply absurd on their face. No one is even talking about them, let alone close to enacting them. You know full well if you could find one article, or one sportswriter who had suggested what you suggest you could provide a citation in a second. You can't because your ideas can't practically be applied and aren't pro-player ... they are pro-school, and that won't fly.

When we first started discussing this, I said "I am discussing this in good faith. I'm interested in how this could get done. Let's not get into a pissing match." And, you just started pissing. When you calm down and act like an adult, I'll engage with you. Otherwise, I'm out on to talking to people interested in really talking issues.

Dawg, do you ever see the so called "bottom dwellers" in both the B1G and SEC getting into the CFP? They are reaping the financial benefits of being "country club members" and really haven't ever sniffed the CFP. (I don't consider Sparty and Washington bottom dwellers.)

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

I am pro-player ... I want them to get NIL. I want them to transfer without having to sit out a year. I want 12 teams in the playoff so that more players can go to schools that right now have to chance to get into the CFP. I don't want a school to be able to talk a player into signing with them before they have been able to examine all their possibilities. I don't want a player to not be able to go to the school of his choice because they already have X players at their position.

So let's be as pro-player as possible. Fuck limits, let's open NIL for real, let universities use their own money too. Let's remove all transfer rules. Fuck this one time thing, anyone can transfer any time to any school. Why stop at limiting it to 12 teams, let's go balls deep and go for 64 teams. After all, your point was "so that more players can go to schools that right now have to chance to get into the CFP" - this would allow for even more. Don't puss out on me now.

As for your questions:

Tell me, do you think there is a parity issue currently? Obviously, there is ... I would have thought that was evident by my posts in this thread. But there really never has been and never will be parity in CFB as there is in the NFL. So, it's a matter of degree, and right now the power is skewing heavily SEC and south.

That's because CFB was never as lopsided as it is now. I made a post going back like 50 years demonstrating this. This is becoming monopolistic, which means that you will eventually suffocate the 'competition' (i.e. kill the sport) if it stays on this course. Why would parity need to reach NFL standards, no one is advocating for that, that is overboard. The NFL has 32 teams, FBS has 130. All I am saying is that the sport is at its best when 15-30 teams are in contention.

It's a matter of degree. What degree is necessary for change?

Do you think the sport is better with only a handful of teams benefitting or quite a few? Again, and obviously, the sport would be better if there were more better teams.

Lastly, tell me what you would change to create parity. The problem is that you are limited in what you can do to control that. We in the south can't help it if the PAC fans, as example, aren't rabid football fans like we are in the south. We can't help it if your schools can't oo won't raise hundreds of millions to get your facilities better (not directed at NE, or other schools that have great facilities). Nothing you can do will change that. We can't help it that it is cold in the north, and their women are ugly (jk, jk). Nothing we can do will suddenly make southern black players want to go to school in Nebraska.

Then you either aren't trying or don't care. It either matters or it doesn't. You can't sit here and claim that you want parity, that more teams are better, etc.. and do nothing, this is EXACTLY why I said that you are happy with the way things are. You don't really want change because you are benefitting, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

As I have posted dozens, if not hundreds of times, it is my hope that NIL, free agency, and CFP expansion will drive some parity. I am hoping teams like USC, UCLA, Neb, Miami, FSU, Texas, ATM, and the like will be able to get better by being able to offer NIL, take advantage of transfers, and get access to the CFP. I don't see anything else that can be done. Your suggestions, to me at least, are simply absurd on their face. No one is even talking about them, let alone close to enacting them. You know full well if you could find one article, or one sportswriter who had suggested what you suggest you could provide a citation in a second. You can't because your ideas can't practically be applied and aren't pro-player ... they are pro-school, and that won't fly.

No, I haven't bothered looking because it is irrelevant. I have read numerous articles talking about NIL being disastrous to CFB. You claim to have all of these subscriptions, so you would likely have seen them as well, but that doesn't seem to matter. You foolishly think that NIL is good for the sport.

Also, you haven't stated ONE single thing on any changes or how any of your BS is good for the sport, nor have you cited anything. Hypocrite.

When we first started discussing this, I said "I am discussing this in good faith. I'm interested in how this could get done. Let's not get into a pissing match." And, you just started pissing. When you calm down and act like an adult, I'll engage with you. Otherwise, I'm out on to talking to people interested in really talking issues.

In, out, IDGAF.

You've been copping out from the get go with a singular buzzword of 'anti-player' while completely ignoring that it's complete bullshit. Then you want to act like a baby douche and want sources while providing none. Then you say that you have been discussing this stuff forever, but when asked to provide a change you have literally nothing and just say nothing can be done. It's bullshit. You don't want anything to be done. That's fine, I don't blame you, but don't be fucking fake about it. "Good faith" and this is your response to making the sport better? Fuck outta here.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

Dawg, do you ever see the so called "bottom dwellers" in both the B1G and SEC getting into the CFP? They are reaping the financial benefits of being "country club members" and really haven't ever sniffed the CFP. (I don't consider Sparty and Washington bottom dwellers.)

I don't, and I went to THE SEC cellar dweller, Vandy.

That said, if you apply the 12 team CFP back to when it started (I read this a while ago, so don't hold me to the cutoff), 12 of the 14 SEC schools would have gone to a 12 team CFP at least once. I thought that was a wild fact. I think in that same time period the B1G would have had the most appearances - it was something like 21 appearances v. 19 for the SEC. This was primarily because in 2014, 2015 and 2016 the SECE was horrible.

I'd bet the B12 would have had most of its members in but Kansas.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

So let's be as pro-player as possible. Fuck limits, let's open NIL for real, let universities use their own money too. Let's remove all transfer rules. Fuck this one time thing, anyone can transfer any time to any school. Why stop at limiting it to 12 teams, let's go balls deep and go for 64 teams. After all, your point was "so that more players can go to schools that right now have to chance to get into the CFP" - this would allow for even more. Don't puss out on me now.

That's because CFB was never as lopsided as it is now. I made a post going back like 50 years demonstrating this. This is becoming monopolistic, which means that you will eventually suffocate the 'competition' (i.e. kill the sport) if it stays on this course. Why would parity need to reach NFL standards, no one is advocating for that, that is overboard. The NFL has 32 teams, FBS has 130. All I am saying is that the sport is at its best when 15-30 teams are in contention.

It's a matter of degree. What degree is necessary for change?

Then you either aren't trying or don't care. It either matters or it doesn't. You can't sit here and claim that you want parity, that more teams are better, etc.. and do nothing, this is EXACTLY why I said that you are happy with the way things are. You don't really want change because you are benefitting, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

No, I haven't bothered looking because it is irrelevant. I have read numerous articles talking about NIL being disastrous to CFB. You claim to have all of these subscriptions, so you would likely have seen them as well, but that doesn't seem to matter. You foolishly think that NIL is good for the sport.

Also, you haven't stated ONE single thing on any changes or how any of your BS is good for the sport, nor have you cited anything. Hypocrite.

In, out, IDGAF.

You've been copping out from the get go with a singular buzzword of 'anti-player' while completely ignoring that it's complete bullshit. Then you want to act like a baby douche and want sources while providing none. Then you say that you have been discussing this stuff forever, but when asked to provide a change you have literally nothing and just say nothing can be done. It's bullshit. You don't want anything to be done. That's fine, I don't blame you, but don't be fucking fake about it. "Good faith" and this is your response to making the sport better? Fuck outta here.

I told you want I think they can realistically change ... right now it's NIL, the transfer rule, and the CFP expansion. All three have the potential to create some level of parity, maybe not. I don't claim to have all the answers. If those don't work and the sport needs to try to get more parity, they will try other things. I hope people smarter than you and me will be able to comet up with some ideas. I am confident your ideas won't get consideration.

That said, you are being absurd to call me hypocrite and attribute all sorts of bad intentions to me. You don't know me, you don't know my heart. So, fuck off.

 

[Blackshirts BLVD]

I told you want I think they can realistically change ... right now it's NIL, the transfer rule, and the CFP expansion. All three have the potential to create some level of parity, maybe not. I don't claim to have all the answers. If those don't work and the sport needs to try to get more parity, they will try other things. I hope people smarter than you and me will be able to comet up with some ideas. I am confident your ideas won't get consideration.

.... lol k.

That said, you are being absurd to call me hypocrite and attribute all sorts of bad intentions to me. You don't know me, you don't know my heart. So, fuck off.

I called you a hypocrite because... well everything you say is practically hypocritical in some way. You talk about needing change, pose nothing. Say you hope NIL, transfer, CFP exp will change things, don't talk how.... so you just hope they will? That's nice . Admit parity is an issue, when discussing recruiting you're asked what to change, you say nothing. Ask for 'citations' while providing none. Claim to be pro-player, but thinks the player shouldn't be allowed to make THEIR OWN WILLFUL CHOICE at their own behest.

And you wonder why someone might think you're full of shit? You are right about one thing, I don't know your heart, but given what you have shown here, I know whatever you would say is likely bullshit.