Better for college football, not from the perspective of a specific school.What do you consider fixed? Better for State?
Reduce scholarships/roster sizes
That was the post, limit scholarships AND roster sizes.With NIL in place, limiting scholarships won’t achieve anything. The big money schools will still sign most of the top players. They’ll just pay them with NIL I stead of scholarships. If that’s the route you’re going, you have to reduce roster size.
Eliminating the immediate eligibility for transfers is the only way to stop the “free agency” model that NIL has introduced to the game.
Absolutely, unquestionably the correct answer. Spreading talent around would make college football a better, more entertaining product and keep WAY more fanbases engaged. NiL, transfer portal, whatever, hardly any players are going somewhere where they aren't on scholarship.Reduce scholarships/roster sizes
I mean that's what we have for baseball. Seems to work fine. And it would still be popular. But NIL and immediate transfer would still exist, thus still making it frustrating to watch.Follow the Ivy League model for ALL of College Football, returning to games played between STUDENT-Athletes. Let the NFL create their own a minor league. Of course, shrinking the stadiums back to 30,000 seats and ticket prices back to $20 each!
This is like trying recycle plastic bottles. Shooting a BB gun at a freight train.Quit watching the blue bloods on TV. Watching an Alabama or Ohio State game is like voting for them. ESPN controls college football and they want to maximize their audiences. 90% of those watching are looking for the blue blood to lose which rarely happens. If the 90% quit watching then the blue bloods lose their luster.
Yep, but ESPN drives the train. Bottom line, we are screwed.This is like trying recycle plastic bottles. Shooting a BB gun at a freight train.