question for cole and some of you experts

[aubiefifty 16,754]

if you were to make recruiting fair so everyone had a even shot at getting decent players without paying them how would you do it? some cat on the4 sec network said something about the ncaa looking into changing recruiting rules but i was half asleep. and does the ncaa put a lid on money spent on recruiting where everyone has the same budget? i understand the downside of not playing for the school you love or attending the uni that has the right degree for you. now it is almost the norm for high schools to recruit so i imagine it would be a nightmare.

[AUpreacherman22 3,885]

I’m the furthest thing from an expert, so with that said, my first thought would be to cap the money to “level the playing field”.  That creates more problems, and you can’t level the fields of tradition, fan support, already existing facilities, etc.  

I get it, what bama has done over the last 13 years has sucked a lot of fun out of the game.  And that Clemson, okie, and tosu, are always the other 3 teams in the playoff hasn’t helped.  It’s monotonous and boring.  But it is what it is.  

[AUCE05 369]

Scholarships need to be reduced to 60.  8 team playoff.  6 conference winners.  Two at large teams.  We need a way to reorg every 5-10 years based on results.  Tennessee is no longer an elite team, yet they are credited as such in division rankings.  

[slyinsocal 831]

8 minutes ago, AUCE05 said:

Scholarships need to be reduced to 60.  8 team playoff.  6 conference winners.  Two at large teams.  We need a way to reorg every 5-10 years based on results.  Tennessee is no longer an elite team, yet they are credited as such in division rankings.  

THIS^^^. Not sure about 60, but a reduction.

[cole256 17,043]

I don't think it can ever be fair, but one thing that would help is make all violations penalties really mean something. Also when rules are broken if the process was faster and more transparent as far make everything pubic. The violations and the penalty.

But you probably know I'm very pro player. I think there should be much more freedom allowed throughout this entire process and I think players should be able to get something out of the profit that is made off their blood, sweat, and tears. 

I also think coaches and front offices of the school should have some sort of penalty that's harsh on them as well. I feel that they should have some sort of restrictions when they walk away from a team just like the players get. So all in all I think that if every position from coach to the player should have the same penalties and rewards. I think that would stabilize a bunch of things. Right now people are dumb and they think the kids/players owe and are obligated to fall in line with other people's authority. And it's some rite of passage to let other people make money off of them before they can go and make money for themselves. And since some will make a bunch of money they should be appreciative of the fact they will be allowed to one day make money. It's very stupid.

[cole256 17,043]

Oh and there aren't any experts I don't believe. Some people specialize in certain areasand some people are more consistent than others. But expert? I wouldn't say so. But that's my opinion of course. 

[aubaseball 2,592]

I do believe that a reduction in scholarships would distribute the talent out a little better.   The top schools would still get the majority of the top talent, but the rest would be divided amongst the rest.  

I’m not a big fan of paying players.   I do think that there are other ways to help.   Like paying for players immediate family to attend the games (transportation and hotel).   Maybe add additional money to the scholarship for incidentals.   

I would also be in favor of a one time free transfer rule.   Eligible immediately upon transfer.    Could also keep the graduation rule in place.   

[aubiefifty 16,754]

2 minutes ago, aubaseball said:

I do believe that a reduction in scholarships would distribute the talent out a little better.   The top schools would still get the majority of the top talent, but the rest would be divided amongst the rest.  

I’m not a big fan of paying players.   I do think that there are other ways to help.   Like paying for players immediate family to attend the games (transportation and hotel).   Maybe add additional money to the scholarship for incidentals.   

I would also be in favor of a one time free transfer rule.   Eligible immediately upon transfer.    Could also keep the graduation rule in place.   

what if you are a first or second rounder and get hurt bad enough to ruin your career? and what if the kid is not super book smart and took basket weaving as a class? do you say sorry young man but you are screwed? but since you were such a stud playing college ball you can always get a job selling cars ? i understand life is hard and not fair a lot of times. so we ask these kids to give body and soul for a chance at winning some kind of football lotto? i am just thinking out loud.

cole on paying players i believe it would slow down and maybe stop a lot of cheating. if a kid got the same amount of money to play at any div one college they might go play for a school they loved versus a school that will help them pay the bills if they are married and have kids or those kind of problems. but then what about amateur status versus pro status and the changes they would inflict on universities? man so much to ponder..............

[CodeRocket 410]

Definitely do not favor a reduction in the number of scholarships or the total number on scholarship. Any reduction will exacerbate the problem of players getting "processed" out of the system and off of the roster to make room for new recruits. Think Nick Saban at Alabama. I think a better solution would be a cap on the total points allowed for each school for a recruiting class. I have listed the final points for the top four classes in the 2021 cycle as listed by Rivals below:

1) Alabama       - 3555 points

2) Ohio State   - 2988 points

3) Texas A&M  - 2736 points

4) Oregon        - 2726 points

Seems like a point maximum of around (2900) would be a good place to start. This would produce a more equal distibution of talent and not reduce the number of scholarships (think opportunities) available to young people coming out of high school. Twenty nine hundred might not be the right number but there is an optimal number. 

[aubiefifty 16,754]

19 minutes ago, CodeRocket said:

Definitely do not favor a reduction in the number of scholarships or the total number on scholarship. Any reduction will exacerbate the problem of players getting "processed" out of the system and off of the roster to make room for new recruits. Think Nick Saban at Alabama. I think a better solution would be a cap on the total points allowed for each school for a recruiting class. I have listed the final points for the top four classes in the 2021 cycle as listed by Rivals below:

1) Alabama       - 3555 points

2) Ohio State   - 2988 points

3) Texas A&M  - 2736 points

4) Oregon        - 2726 points

Seems like a point maximum of around (2900) would be a good place to start. This would produce a more equal distibution of talent and not reduce the number of scholarships (think opportunities) available to young people coming out of high school. Twenty nine hundred might not be the right number but there is an optimal number. 

i like that.

[gr82be 14,423]

48 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

on paying players i believe it would slow down and maybe stop a lot of cheating. if a kid got the same amount of money to play at any div one college they might go play for a school they loved versus a school that will help them pay the bills if they are married and have kids or those kind of problems

I'm pretty sure cheaters and going to cheat despite the rules or lack thereof. Paying players will help all of the players but it won't stop the extra benefits that the deep pocket schools freely give. The rich will still be richer. It's not a question of cheating, it's a question of the level of cheating that's going on. 

[Swamp Eagle 5,131]

1 hour ago, CodeRocket said:

Definitely do not favor a reduction in the number of scholarships or the total number on scholarship. Any reduction will exacerbate the problem of players getting "processed" out of the system and off of the roster to make room for new recruits. Think Nick Saban at Alabama. I think a better solution would be a cap on the total points allowed for each school for a recruiting class. I have listed the final points for the top four classes in the 2021 cycle as listed by Rivals below:

1) Alabama       - 3555 points

2) Ohio State   - 2988 points

3) Texas A&M  - 2736 points

4) Oregon        - 2726 points

Seems like a point maximum of around (2900) would be a good place to start. This would produce a more equal distibution of talent and not reduce the number of scholarships (think opportunities) available to young people coming out of high school. Twenty nine hundred might not be the right number but there is an optimal number. 

This is a socialist solution if I ever saw one..😉

Seriously, all this does is move the corruption to the point system. 
 

Cant you visualize the phone call?

Nick: “Hey, you know that guy you have as a 5 star? I need him to be 3 star, aight?...”

[TigerCatcher 182]

I'm not the resident message board expert, but I'm at a loss as to how penalizing coaches/AD's/front office personnel(?) would "make recruiting fair so everyone had a[n] even shot at getting decent players without paying them".  Generally, they leave because they're fired, which seems to be punishment enough. 

Under the current system, the reduction of scholarships is the only plausible option to accomplish the OP's desired result.  One small problem however, is that option would really hurt the marginal players.  The upside is those guys aren't the money makers, so maybe those guys don't really matter...?

[Tigerpro2a 5,650]

I think there is only one way to fix College Football and keep it from falling further and further into the depths of irrelevance and regional.

I do not think the reduction of Scholarships will do anything. I am in the belief that it will lead to more players being processed and blue shirted by the Bamas of the world. Another problem I have with Scholarship reduction, is it will have a major impact on the lower level recruits losing scholarship opportunities. Many of these kids take that opportunity with the knowledge that they will probably never make it to the NFL, but they can change their life and earn a free degree from a good school. Many of these kids would never be able to pay for school on their own or even their families. So I disagree with cutting scholarships.

They could definitely try to limit funds spent in recruiting, but at this point I believe it is a little late for that.

The only way to add parity is to expand the playoff and take the words "eye-test", "Human element", and "best teams" out of the criteria. That is what has ruined it for me. We had more parity in the BCS system by far than we have with 4 teams in the playoffs. You have to do it with Conference Champions. Trips to the playoffs have to be earned when it counts. Bama would have 2 less championships. I personally believe a 6 team playoff would be good. Power 5 Conference Champs and if there is an unbeaten G5 school then they get it, otherwise the highest ranked school outside the 5 power5 champs. Seed them based on BCS and seeds 1 and 2 get a bye. The other option is 8 which I am not against either. Do it the same way with no bye weeks for any team. The one reason I like 6 over 8, is because with a 6 team format we are less likely to wind up with Alabama, Clemson, Oh St, Etc. sneaking in again like Bama did in 2017. 

I know there are problems with all of this, but I don't think there is a perfect solution.

[Zeek 16,649]

17 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

if you were to make recruiting fair so everyone had a even shot at getting decent players without paying them how would you do it? some cat on the4 sec network said something about the ncaa looking into changing recruiting rules but i was half asleep. and does the ncaa put a lid on money spent on recruiting where everyone has the same budget? i understand the downside of not playing for the school you love or attending the uni that has the right degree for you. now it is almost the norm for high schools to recruit so i imagine it would be a nightmare.

Frankly it's like hoping more gun laws will keep the mafia from having guns. All it would do is make it even harder for rule followers while the biggest and most corrupt programs wouldn't miss a beat.

[dyehardfanAU 2,117]

Players are already compensated  to the tune of $100s of thousands of dollars a year at a school like Auburn.  Scholarship reductions penalize prospective SAs from earning a degree to improve their lives.  Fixing recruiting is the only thing that fixes CFB, but that's more than likely not going to happen.  Much like many aspects of our lives, we've seen the peak and we're heading towards the valley.

[creed 1,635]

How about establishing a college draft. 😏

Use the money from broadcasting the event to distribute to the players.

[Hank2020 3,199]

Probably only directionally help would be expanding the playoffs (a lot). Follow College Basketball model as much as possible. Their blue blood programs still get in, but gives other programs a shot.

[Hydro-Logic 49]

I'm certainly not one of the experts but will share my opinion nonetheless. This doesn't necessarily apply to recruiting only but more to the overall landscape of current college football. What is "fair" will begin to take shape when, and if, an organized collection of the players decides to use their weight as a group to push for what THEY want; not what us fans want. When all parties are at the table and no one gets everything they desire, something resembling "fair" will likely take shape. And the "cheating" won't stop with that either; still too much to gain with pushing the envelope. Although, I will say that Cole's idea of consistent penalties along with a swift and transparent assessment process would go a long way.

[1auburn1 1,110]

I just don’t have much optimism that college football is going to resemble the sport we’ve grown to love within the next few years.  It already doesn’t now in actuality due to the talent concentration at the top.  I don’t see how expanding the playoffs is going to help anything except make TV deals bigger.   #4 isn’t competitive with #1 now...#8 certainly won’t be.   And I loathe the idea where “making the playoffs” is the Holy Grail for programs which is what it will turn into for all but the same few programs over and over.   The more games it takes to win a championship just favors the schools with stacked talent even more.    And the NIL, the ncaa may as well dissolve because any power they have will be gone once players can sign whatever deals they want.   The Feds will ensure this happens without restraint, and I don’t think that there should be restrictions on what an individual can earn legally, but the the “name” programs are going to align themselves with big corporations that will ensure money flows to difference maker players that go to the right schools.    It won’t be Billy Bob’s BarBQ endorsements, it will be the Tua’s, Trevor’s, etc wearing their school gear for Nike, Ford, Amazon, whomever, that will keep the biggest names at the prominent programs.  And I don’t see Auburn benefiting from this.  We’re not even the biggest name in our own state.   The cache factor will reside other places along with the really big money and top players.   Sorry to be a downer but soon college ball will really just be pro ball with a school sticker on the helmet and only a few are going to stay on the mountain top. 

[Mikey 16,576]

Reducing scholarships from 125 to 85 didn't produce parity. Reducing them further won't either.

If you want to legislate equal results for all teams, just limit everybody to six wins per season. Every win over six is declared a forfeit. "Poof, just like that, every team is equal". The Chinese Communists can show us how to set that up.

 

[Hank2020 3,199]

20 minutes ago, 1auburn1 said:

I just don’t have much optimism that college football is going to resemble the sport we’ve grown to love within the next few years.  It already doesn’t now in actuality due to the talent concentration at the top.  I don’t see how expanding the playoffs is going to help anything except make TV deals bigger.   #4 isn’t competitive with #1 now...#8 certainly won’t be.   And I loathe the idea where “making the playoffs” is the Holy Grail for programs which is what it will turn into for all but the same few programs over and over.   The more games it takes to win a championship just favors the schools with stacked talent even more.    And the NIL, the ncaa may as well dissolve because any power they have will be gone once players can sign whatever deals they want.   The Feds will ensure this happens without restraint, and I don’t think that there should be restrictions on what an individual can earn legally, but the the “name” programs are going to align themselves with big corporations that will ensure money flows to difference maker players that go to the right schools.    It won’t be Billy Bob’s BarBQ endorsements, it will be the Tua’s, Trevor’s, etc wearing their school gear for Nike, Ford, Amazon, whomever, that will keep the biggest names at the prominent programs.  And I don’t see Auburn benefiting from this.  We’re not even the biggest name in our own state.   The cache factor will reside other places along with the really big money and top players.   Sorry to be a downer but soon college ball will really just be pro ball with a school sticker on the helmet and only a few are going to stay on the mountain top. 

IMO we will eventually see things change (as we have in basketball) to even things out in some way. Just too much money on the table to be made to bring interest in more games at the end of the year that have an impact. The bowl games have lost some luster in the last few years but I believe something will be done to bring back interest in more than the 3 games.

[gabo4au 227]

Not sure this idea would totally fix the disparity, but it would fix the issue of "paying players" and I think would help parity as well. 

 

That is to allow players to go to the NFL at age 18, just like any other job. If they want to make money and think they can, let them go. That will mean that the best of the best players, that now go to AL, OSU, Clemson, etc. will all go to the pros and skip college. Good for them. 

 

The old adage was that players at that age aren't ready for the type of contact and physicality of the pros. But these days the physicality of College is just as dangerous to their heath and there have been many rules put in place for player safety. Actually there are more rules for player safety in the NFL than in college. 

 

Take the "pay players" thing out of NCAA sports and put it where it belongs, in the pros. And take the best of the best players, which there are far fewer of, away from the 5 best teams. The product might not be quite as good, but the fans of the college teams will cheer just as hard and watch just as much. 

 

gabo

[meh130 1,043]

19 hours ago, slyinsocal said:

THIS^^^. Not sure about 60, but a reduction.

I never thought about scholarship reductions, but I could see how it could work. I read that the NCAA once stated 65-75 scholarships was the ideal number for a football program.

The big impact would be in smaller annual recruiting classes.

Fewer scholarships would also allow for the re-tightening of transfer rules, as fewer scholarship athletes would lack playing time.

The last thing it would help is Title IX issues. If we reduced football scholarships it might be possible to give more full scholarships to baseball, or to make men’s soccer plausible for football schools.

The counter argument would be the reductions would roll downhill to a point where football players who might have been competitive for a Division II scholarship will not be able to get one.

[meh130 1,043]

3 minutes ago, gabo4au said:

Not sure this idea would totally fix the disparity, but it would fix the issue of "paying players" and I think would help parity as well. 

That is to allow players to go to the NFL at age 18, just like any other job. If they want to make money and think they can, let them go. That will mean that the best of the best players, that now go to AL, OSU, Clemson, etc. will all go to the pros and skip college. Good for them. 

The old adage was that players at that age aren't ready for the type of contact and physicality of the pros. But these days the physicality of College is just as dangerous to their heath and there have been many rules put in place for player safety. Actually there are more rules for player safety in the NFL than in college. 

Take the "pay players" thing out of NCAA sports and put it where it belongs, in the pros. And take the best of the best players, which there are far fewer of, away from the 5 best teams. The product might not be quite as good, but the fans of the college teams will cheer just as hard and watch just as much. 

I would love to see a return of a developmental league for the NFL, like NFL Europe was.

Could such a league get big enough to allow for a high-school draft? Running backs and wide receivers would have a shot.