Who is most responsible for college football being so screwed up?

[GTME87]

Pure/true capitalism has ruined College Football. Capitalism is great and it is the survival of the fittest in true form, but without basic regulations one enterprise or two will kill off the competition and then corner the market and then control pricing - basic economics. That is why we have anti-trust laws to protect the consumer and why major sports have some type of salary cap and the worst team drafts first .

 

[boozinbuzz]

Pure/true capitalism has ruined College Football. Capitalism is great and it is the survival of the fittest in true form, but without basic regulations one enterprise or two will kill off the competition and then corner the market and then control pricing - basic economics. That is why we have anti-trust laws to protect the consumer and why major sports have some type of salary cap and the worst team drafts first .

This. Socialism makes for great sports. Not so much for other things.

 

[rosebud]

Your mom

 

[GEETEELEE]

College football used to be a team sport where the players shared the university experience with the rest of the students. Camaraderie between student athletes and regular students was part of what created loyalty and excitement to the school for both athletes and students. Now the athletes attend school online (if at all) with little or no interaction or commonality with actual students. D1 football (and basketball) are now truly professional minor league and have been for awhile. The difference is college football and basketball is hugely popular and hence arises the issue of money.

Should the NCAA drop the pretense of “student athlete” and simply become actual professional team with the associated college name as sponsor (or beneficiary) of the pro team, similar to how cities benefit from their name being applied to NFL/NBA reams?

 

[GTLiebs]

I’m not convinced that parity should be the goal for CFB. Underdog stories are one of the best parts of college sports, and outside of GT football, big upsets are the most intriguing thing out there. You just don’t get that in pro sports.

This probably won’t be a popular idea, but I see European soccer is a much better model for what CFB could be if we do go the capitalist route. Since the Premier League was formed in 1992, only 7 teams have won it, and only 4 teams have won it more than once. It’s still the most popular league in the world. IMO one of the biggest reasons for this is that winning the league is not the only goal. Not only are there multiple opportunities to win trophies, promotion/relegation keeps things interesting for everyone until the end, and gives smaller markets a chance to jump up and play with the big boys.

Conference titles and bowl games used to serve a similar purpose for CFB, but now we’ve severely devalued both. College football has always been about the haves and have nots, but winning the national championship wasn’t the end-all-be-all in terms of being the only goal. Teams celebrated winning conference championships or getting the opportunity to play bowl games. Now no one seems to care much about either.

Maybe not flat parity, but it needs more parity than current. Probably some sort of selection bias involved, but I feel like the occurrence of underdog teams beating actual top teams (and not just teams bloated on pre-season rankings) has been trending down. Beyond just a single game thing and into stories, there just isn't anywhere good for them to end. These underdog teams with special years either get stuck on the outside looking in for the most part (and hard to believe the expanded playoff will really change that after this year) and even if they don't, the expectation and likely reality is getting plastered by a top team in postseason. This sort of thing has also been devaluing conference titles; who cares about going undefeated and winning the Sun Belt or C-USA or w/e if the greater CFB world says that's still just small time anyway? Or the ACC/Big12 for that matter.

In terms of Premier League and promotion/relegation, how does that work there with TV rights money and such? That's where I'd see the biggest issue in adapting it to CFB

 

[johncu]

Maybe not flat parity, but it needs more parity than current. Probably some sort of selection bias involved, but I feel like the occurrence of underdog teams beating actual top teams (and not just teams bloated on pre-season rankings) has been trending down. Beyond just a single game thing and into stories, there just isn't anywhere good for them to end. These underdog teams with special years either get stuck on the outside looking in for the most part (and hard to believe the expanded playoff will really change that after this year) and even if they don't, the expectation and likely reality is getting plastered by a top team in postseason. This sort of thing has also been devaluing conference titles; who cares about going undefeated and winning the Sun Belt or C-USA or w/e if the greater CFB world says that's still just small time anyway? Or the ACC/Big12 for that matter.

In terms of Premier League and promotion/relegation, how does that work there with TV rights money and such? That's where I'd see the biggest issue in adapting it to CFB

I think you hit the nail on the head with regards to selection bias. IMO that is a far bigger issue than a lack of parity. I think most people are okay with a team like Alabama winning a lot if they are just that much better than everyone else. The problems arise when a team like FSU (who supposedly plays by the same rules as Alabama) goes undefeated and is denied an opportunity to compete based purely on an opinion-based vote.

Getting promoted or relegated has significant financial implications in soccer. Each time you ascend a level, the “pie” that is split between teams gets much bigger. I don’t know much more than that in terms of details, but I do know that it makes for much more intriguing games at lower divisions and teams not in the title hunt. It might not change who wins championships in CFB, but it could certainly reduce the number of massive blowouts if division sizes were reduced and overmatched teams got relegated.

Ultimately it will never happen because it’s not an American tradition, but I think it’s fun to think about.

 

[WREKedinTexas]

The first person that I can remember openly identifying the NCAA as a Deep State organization was Brian Bosworth with his NCAA t-shirt (National Communists Against Athletes, Welcome to Russia). Got to love the Boz. From devastating hitter to Dr.Pepper sheriff.

 

[bandman]

I had already voted, but UNCheat hiring their new DC created another disturbance in the force. I didn't realize just how screwed up things really are. Not sure what category now - maybe just old, senile, retread coaches and administrators should be added to the list?

 

[GoldZ]

cFB isn't dead because it is still played in college stadiums, but CFB is in intensive care at the moment and should Congress get involved, it's likely headed for the morque. When strikes start, there's your sign.

 

[USCJacket]

Of course you are right in what you said, but do you really believe the Bama and Dawg fans (and all other elite teams) will stop doing these things?

The problem is that in the current system the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

If this thing is going to be run like a professional sport then there needs to be a draft, and there needs to be contracts. College teams have neither, and allows a concentration of talent in the hands of the few, and prevents teams from developing depth due to the transfer at will.

The excuse given for this in the past has always been that they are amateurs and aren't being paid. Well that is no longer true, so bring on the draft and bring on contracts of at least 2 years for those being drafted.

I hear what you’re saying, but there a few differences obviously. One could argue there is already a “Draft” in CFB. It’s a combination of annual HS recruiting and the Portal.

Also in order to go down a path like you have suggested, GT, ND, Stanford, NW, Vandy, UVA, Cal, etc would all have to drop their minimum requirements for entrance and start allowing any perspective SA regardless of grades. Do you really think that would ever happen? There is already a segment of the GT base who can’t fathom the idea of the school creating a more SA friendly degree or 2. Because somehow by doing that it would in some way devalue their own degree.

I 100% agree on the contracts. But both parties need to be held accountable for the 2, 3, 4 year contract. And right now it seems people are ignoring the fact coaches are pushing kids into the Portal to open up opportunities for others.

 

[USCJacket]

In terms of Premier League and promotion/relegation, how does that work there with TV rights money and such? That's where I'd see the biggest issue in adapting it to CFB

This idea has been floated for a few years on numerous College Sports shows on XM Radio. The idea would be the top tier P5 conference would have a partnership with a G5 conference.

B1G > MAC
ACC > AAC
B12 > CUSA
PAC > MW
sec > Sun Belt

Bottom 2 of the P5 would play a relegation game the same day as the MAC, AAC, CUSA, MW, Sun Belt Championship game. Loser of the bottom 2 P5 game is relegated down, winner of the G5 game is promoted.

So the team relegated loses the P5 $$$, while the promoted G5 program gets the $$$.

Example in 2023 ACC > AAC would have been (Note: SMU is already ACC bound, so just an example):

ACC #13 vs #14 game:

#14 Wake @ #13 UVA

AAC Championship game:

SMU (8-0) @ Tulane (8-0) - SMU won 26-14

SMU is promoted to the ACC getting a full share of $$$ starting January 1. Loser of Wake @ UVA is relegated to AAC getting AAC $$$ starting January 1.

It definitely creates made for TV drama. It will also show who truly wants to be competitive in CFB, and who just wants to collect a conference paycheck.

 

[GTLiebs]

This idea has been floated for a few years on numerous College Sports shows on XM Radio. The idea would be the top tier P5 conference would have a partnership with a G5 conference.

B1G > MAC
ACC > AAC
B12 > CUSA
PAC > MW
sec > Sun Belt

Bottom 2 of the P5 would play a relegation game the same day as the MAC, AAC, CUSA, MW, Sun Belt Championship game. Loser of the bottom 2 P5 game is relegated down, winner of the G5 game is promoted.

So the team relegated loses the P5 $$$, while the promoted G5 program gets the $$$.

Example in 2023 ACC > AAC would have been (Note: SMU is already ACC bound, so just an example):

ACC #13 vs #14 game:

#14 Wake @ #13 UVA

AAC Championship game:

SMU (8-0) @ Tulane (8-0) - SMU won 26-14

SMU is promoted to the ACC getting a full share of $$$ starting January 1. Loser of Wake @ UVA is relegated to AAC getting AAC $$$ starting January 1.

It definitely creates made for TV drama. It will also show who truly wants to be competitive in CFB, and who just wants to collect a conference paycheck.

There are a couple issues I could see with that with college football though. My gut says that missing out on that higher money amount could put teams in a hole they won't be able to climb out of.. At the least I think a promoted team would need immunity from relegation for at least a couple years to raise their competitiveness, otherwise you likely just see a lot of the same teams cycling up and down over and over.

Another big issue would be coaches salaries. Their contracts would need built in levels of salary depending on which level they are playing in and this may also have to apply retroactively in some way to money owed fired coaches. Otherwise a team could get relegated and suddenly have to go bankrupt to pay off various owed money. Even if you do that, it will still contribute to that difficulty of teams trying to raise their status as coaches will likely avoid teams that are more likely to get relegated.

Just a lot of possible issues with the extreme swings of money. Then another issue is those conference tie ins, where there would be huge competition to be the G5 conference tied to the SEC/Big10 vs any others, a kind of disparity that is likely not seen in any other leagues that use relegation.

 

[coit]

I hear what you’re saying, but there a few differences obviously. One could argue there is already a “Draft” in CFB. It’s a combination of annual HS recruiting and the Portal.

Also in order to go down a path like you have suggested, GT, ND, Stanford, NW, Vandy, UVA, Cal, etc would all have to drop their minimum requirements for entrance and start allowing any perspective SA regardless of grades. Do you really think that would ever happen? There is already a segment of the GT base who can’t fathom the idea of the school creating a more SA friendly degree or 2. Because somehow by doing that it would in some way devalue their own degree.

I 100% agree on the contracts. But both parties need to be held accountable for the 2, 3, 4 year contract. And right now it seems people are ignoring the fact coaches are pushing kids into the Portal to open up opportunities for others.

First, we don't have a draft because the teams don't have equal opportunity to pick the players. Minimum requirements wouldn't be an issue because a team with that issue could just choose not to select a player that would not meet those requirements.

 

[USCJacket]

A surprisingly great article by CNN on “The end of CFB as we know it…”

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/06/opinions/college-football-playoff-championship-leitch/index.html