ESPNU commentators re CFB over the last couple years

[blion72]

Neuheisel, Packer, Huard, et.al. comments re CFB over the last couple years

• 2020 created some parity based on how teams and leagues handled COVID. BIG was pretty conservative, and there were even differences among teams which changed the normal competitive landscape.
• NCAA granting 2020 as a "free year" has allowed some teams to get very old temporarily. Teams like Illinois had over 40 players who were "super seniors". This will diminish as each year it winds out. One of the commentators actually likes this and feels we should keep this as a forever rule = 6 years to play 5 idea. His feeling was it created parity, so a good idea.
• Transfer portal created along with the elimination of sitting out a year created parity as it took from the rich backup group. Of course this means the rich get younger and must have FR and Soph totally ready to play and impact. The portal of course just facilitates the process. The real key is elimination of sitting out a year - at least one time/cannot do it more than once. I believe JF thinks that you should have to still sit out.
• Transfers are allowing a mid-tier team to get experience and old against a team like say OSU that is loaded with 4/5* players who are 18-19. I think Illinois avg age on their team was 22-23. So some parity is created by older teams playing younger teams with high star players.
• 4-5* players transfer faster than 2/3* players. High star players do not sit. So a team like Northwestern can keep a team together and get old and experienced. Then they hit a high cycle where they compete, and drop off in between.
• NIL$$$ - creates funny moves by players. They said it allows a fan base to buy recruits. I am not sure that is true, and that is not how NIL works. Even if it did, that would favor the rich over the mid-tier.
• The early signing period has somehow got conjoined with the coaching changes, and created more chaos. Colin Cowherd made the comment that PSU had to sign JF so you kept a class together. If that it is the thinking by schools, then the early signing period mixed with when coaching changes already were occurring creates an almost panic buying culture. Huard said that a program can go from top 20 to oblivion by losing the recruiting class meaning that the recruits are to coaches not schools.
• Much of the commentary seems to be that this is all good for CFB as it creates parity. I think Packer said what would be wrong with a player transferring during the season......does he not know they have to move to a new school? This is not free agent pros. Personally, I don't think most of this is good for CFB, but just MHO.

 

[Nohow]

Neuheisel, Packer, Huard, et.al. comments re CFB over the last couple years

• 2020 created some parity based on how teams and leagues handled COVID. BIG was pretty conservative, and there were even differences among teams which changed the normal competitive landscape.
• NCAA granting 2020 as a "free year" has allowed some teams to get very old temporarily. Teams like Illinois had over 40 players who were "super seniors". This will diminish as each year it winds out. One of the commentators actually likes this and feels we should keep this as a forever rule = 6 years to play 5 idea. His feeling was it created parity, so a good idea.
• Transfer portal created along with the elimination of sitting out a year created parity as it took from the rich backup group. Of course this means the rich get younger and must have FR and Soph totally ready to play and impact. The portal of course just facilitates the process. The real key is elimination of sitting out a year - at least one time/cannot do it more than once. I believe JF thinks that you should have to still sit out.
• Transfers are allowing a mid-tier team to get experience and old against a team like say OSU that is loaded with 4/5* players who are 18-19. I think Illinois avg age on their team was 22-23. So some parity is created by older teams playing younger teams with high star players.
• 4-5* players transfer faster than 2/3* players. High star players do not sit. So a team like Northwestern can keep a team together and get old and experienced. Then they hit a high cycle where they compete, and drop off in between.
• NIL$$$ - creates funny moves by players. They said it allows a fan base to buy recruits. I am not sure that is true, and that is not how NIL works. Even if it did, that would favor the rich over the mid-tier.
• The early signing period has somehow got conjoined with the coaching changes, and created more chaos. Colin Cowherd made the comment that PSU had to sign JF so you kept a class together. If that it is the thinking by schools, then the early signing period mixed with when coaching changes already were occurring creates an almost panic buying culture. Huard said that a program can go from top 20 to oblivion by losing the recruiting class meaning that the recruits are to coaches not schools.
• Much of the commentary seems to be that this is all good for CFB as it creates parity. I think Packer said what would be wrong with a player transferring during the season......does he not know they have to move to a new school? This is not free agent pros. Personally, I don't think most of this is good for CFB, but just MHO.

IMO portal is good for players in that it gives more a chance to play and good for the game itself in that it creates parity. I don’t agree that players should have to sit out - do coaches have to sit out after getting a raise or changing teams?

 

[NewEra 2014]

Neuheisel, Packer, Huard, et.al. comments re CFB over the last couple years

• 2020 created some parity based on how teams and leagues handled COVID. BIG was pretty conservative, and there were even differences among teams which changed the normal competitive landscape.
• NCAA granting 2020 as a "free year" has allowed some teams to get very old temporarily. Teams like Illinois had over 40 players who were "super seniors". This will diminish as each year it winds out. One of the commentators actually likes this and feels we should keep this as a forever rule = 6 years to play 5 idea. His feeling was it created parity, so a good idea.
• Transfer portal created along with the elimination of sitting out a year created parity as it took from the rich backup group. Of course this means the rich get younger and must have FR and Soph totally ready to play and impact. The portal of course just facilitates the process. The real key is elimination of sitting out a year - at least one time/cannot do it more than once. I believe JF thinks that you should have to still sit out.
• Transfers are allowing a mid-tier team to get experience and old against a team like say OSU that is loaded with 4/5* players who are 18-19. I think Illinois avg age on their team was 22-23. So some parity is created by older teams playing younger teams with high star players.
• 4-5* players transfer faster than 2/3* players. High star players do not sit. So a team like Northwestern can keep a team together and get old and experienced. Then they hit a high cycle where they compete, and drop off in between.
• NIL$$$ - creates funny moves by players. They said it allows a fan base to buy recruits. I am not sure that is true, and that is not how NIL works. Even if it did, that would favor the rich over the mid-tier.
• The early signing period has somehow got conjoined with the coaching changes, and created more chaos. Colin Cowherd made the comment that PSU had to sign JF so you kept a class together. If that it is the thinking by schools, then the early signing period mixed with when coaching changes already were occurring creates an almost panic buying culture. Huard said that a program can go from top 20 to oblivion by losing the recruiting class meaning that the recruits are to coaches not schools.
• Much of the commentary seems to be that this is all good for CFB as it creates parity. I think Packer said what would be wrong with a player transferring during the season......does he not know they have to move to a new school? This is not free agent pros. Personally, I don't think most of this is good for CFB, but just MHO.

Thanks for posting. I agree with your opinion that most of this is not good for CFB. It is also arguably mostly bad for the players, except for the select few who come out "better" in the short term via playing time or NIL money. In the long term, many of these players are being conditioned to bail from a commitment and/or a tough situation. On the other hand, it has become a good thing for those coaches who are not run off prematurely in the race for programs to remain relevant.

If we look at football as the dying sport that it is in our society, the last region of the country where football has maintained popularity for youth participation is the southeastern US. Now we are seeing increased regionalization of the sport in the southeast due to the "playoff". Under the old bowl system before any playoff was implemented, each region of the country had something to shoot for: the Pac 12 and BIG had the Rose Bowl, the SEC had the Sugar Bowl, the Big 12 had the Cotton Bowl, the ACC had the Orange Bowl. If you win your conference, you make the big bowl game regardless of record. In that scenario, several bowl games also potentially mattered regarding who was selected as the Mythical National Champion after January 1. The current system has taken that incentive away for huge portions of the country. In some sense, the old bowl system was "better" for the popularity of CFB, but the selection of a true CFB champion was hugely flawed.

Now, we have an SEC that has aggressively and brilliantly used its conference's scheduling to get 2 out of 4 teams into the "playoff" every year, while other conferences have not done the same. This has perpetuated a cycle where the SEC dominates the postseason discussion and increases in strength even further, and the other bowl games, most sadly the traditional NY6 games, have become irrelevant.

We are never going back to the pre-playoff old bowl system. But in order to preserve CFB for as long as possible, each conference champion needs to be granted a spot in the playoff, regardless of record. Personally, I would have a 12-16 team playoff that includes all (ten?) conference champs. If you continue to bifurcate CFB between the Power 5 conferences and everyone else, you make the sport even more unattainable for all but the very top youth participants. Part of the allure of CFB is keeping people's dreams alive, and why Rudy was such a popular story. Every 10-year-old boy believes he will become a pro, but the more you make that dream unattainable, the less popular your sport will become. The next iteration of the CFB postseason need to take that into account if it wants to stave off irrelevancy.

 

[Lionville]

Lost in all of this is the education component of college football. Kids are still supposed to be going to college to get an education and ultimately, to graduate.

 

[ApexLion]

Neuheisel, Packer, Huard, et.al. comments re CFB over the last couple years

• 2020 created some parity based on how teams and leagues handled COVID. BIG was pretty conservative, and there were even differences among teams which changed the normal competitive landscape.
• NCAA granting 2020 as a "free year" has allowed some teams to get very old temporarily. Teams like Illinois had over 40 players who were "super seniors". This will diminish as each year it winds out. One of the commentators actually likes this and feels we should keep this as a forever rule = 6 years to play 5 idea. His feeling was it created parity, so a good idea.
• Transfer portal created along with the elimination of sitting out a year created parity as it took from the rich backup group. Of course this means the rich get younger and must have FR and Soph totally ready to play and impact. The portal of course just facilitates the process. The real key is elimination of sitting out a year - at least one time/cannot do it more than once. I believe JF thinks that you should have to still sit out.
• Transfers are allowing a mid-tier team to get experience and old against a team like say OSU that is loaded with 4/5* players who are 18-19. I think Illinois avg age on their team was 22-23. So some parity is created by older teams playing younger teams with high star players.
• 4-5* players transfer faster than 2/3* players. High star players do not sit. So a team like Northwestern can keep a team together and get old and experienced. Then they hit a high cycle where they compete, and drop off in between.
• NIL$$$ - creates funny moves by players. They said it allows a fan base to buy recruits. I am not sure that is true, and that is not how NIL works. Even if it did, that would favor the rich over the mid-tier.
• The early signing period has somehow got conjoined with the coaching changes, and created more chaos. Colin Cowherd made the comment that PSU had to sign JF so you kept a class together. If that it is the thinking by schools, then the early signing period mixed with when coaching changes already were occurring creates an almost panic buying culture. Huard said that a program can go from top 20 to oblivion by losing the recruiting class meaning that the recruits are to coaches not schools.
• Much of the commentary seems to be that this is all good for CFB as it creates parity. I think Packer said what would be wrong with a player transferring during the season......does he not know they have to move to a new school? This is not free agent pros. Personally, I don't think most of this is good for CFB, but just MHO.

The early signing period has somehow got conjoined with the coaching changes, and created more chaos. Colin Cowherd made the comment that PSU had to sign JF so you kept a class together.

FALSE

 

[Corner Room Breakfast]

The early signing period has somehow got conjoined with the coaching changes, and created more chaos. Colin Cowherd made the comment that PSU had to sign JF so you kept a class together.

FALSE

Yet the network doesn't take responsibility for the UT and OU to the SEC fiasco that it started, not to mention the lack of expanding the playoffs to 8-12 or 16 teams. No bashing of the playoff committee and their bias either.

 

[BobPSU92]

“4-5* players transfer faster than 2/3* players. High star players do not sit. So a team like Northwestern can keep a team together and get old and experienced. Then they hit a high cycle where they compete, and drop off in between.”

PSU under JoePa was like Northwestern today just with better talent. Back then, most kids stayed at one school for four years. They paid their dues and worked their way to the starting lineup, if they were good enough. PSU had down years, relatively speaking, and then would win again when the talent came of age. Different time for sure.

 

[Nohow]

Thanks for posting. I agree with your opinion that most of this is not good for CFB. It is also arguably mostly bad for the players, except for the select few who come out "better" in the short term via playing time or NIL money. In the long term, many of these players are being conditioned to bail from a commitment and/or a tough situation. On the other hand, it has become a good thing for those coaches who are not run off prematurely in the race for programs to remain relevant.

If we look at football as the dying sport that it is in our society, the last region of the country where football has maintained popularity for youth participation is the southeastern US. Now we are seeing increased regionalization of the sport in the southeast due to the "playoff". Under the old bowl system before any playoff was implemented, each region of the country had something to shoot for: the Pac 12 and BIG had the Rose Bowl, the SEC had the Sugar Bowl, the Big 12 had the Cotton Bowl, the ACC had the Orange Bowl. If you win your conference, you make the big bowl game regardless of record. In that scenario, several bowl games also potentially mattered regarding who was selected as the Mythical National Champion after January 1. The current system has taken that incentive away for huge portions of the country. In some sense, the old bowl system was "better" for the popularity of CFB, but the selection of a true CFB champion was hugely flawed.

Now, we have an SEC that has aggressively and brilliantly used its conference's scheduling to get 2 out of 4 teams into the "playoff" every year, while other conferences have not done the same. This has perpetuated a cycle where the SEC dominates the postseason discussion and increases in strength even further, and the other bowl games, most sadly the traditional NY6 games, have become irrelevant.

We are never going back to the pre-playoff old bowl system. But in order to preserve CFB for as long as possible, each conference champion needs to be granted a spot in the playoff, regardless of record. Personally, I would have a 12-16 team playoff that includes all (ten?) conference champs. If you continue to bifurcate CFB between the Power 5 conferences and everyone else, you make the sport even more unattainable for all but the very top youth participants. Part of the allure of CFB is keeping people's dreams alive, and why Rudy was such a popular story. Every 10-year-old boy believes he will become a pro, but the more you make that dream unattainable, the less popular your sport will become. The next iteration of the CFB postseason need to take that into account if it wants to stave off irrelevancy.

Football is dying? News to me.
So the kids are getting a minor share of the profits and have more flexibility to change schools, just like coaches? No problem.
I do agree with you on playoff structure.

 

[Nohow]

Lost in all of this is the education component of college football. Kids are still supposed to be going to college to get an education and ultimately, to graduate.

When coaches are making 50 times as much as profs, the education component is dead.