Let's talk competitive balance........

[OG Goat Holder]

I don't even know how Saban's hypocritical a$$ could even halfway try to define this in college, as it's never been there. The only leagues in America who have ever had this are the pros (NFL, whatever), and your local youth rec leagues. For purposes of this discussion, I'll stick to football, but it can be spread to any sport.

So my question is, why do we start out 'fair' in the rec league, then venture into this 'talent accumulation' or consolidation, from select/high school to college, then get back to 'fair' when they go pro? What is best? What was the logic behind it? We actually flip-flop between the levels, I will explain:

- Kids start out in rec ball, split into different teams via a draft. Yes, it gets corrupted, but originally, it's meant to spread out the talent and keep teams fair, so there's some parity;
- We then split them into select teams sometimes, which is 'talent consolidation' rather than parity;
- We then get to middle/junior/high school, which is less so consolidation, as you play wherever you go to school, but in recent years, kids move around in school districts or private schools, so it's like slightly less consolidation, but still certainly there;
- Then we get to college, where one school could literally take the best 100 players (like Alabama or Georgia have been doing), no parity at all;
- Then they go pro, where a draft spreads out the talent again, and creates parity, and this is the most successful league in the world.

Just an interesting dichotomy. I think the NFL is a great product, but I've always been a college guy, so who knows what is best. I loved watching kids playing rec ball (parity), but travel ball (consolidation) is cool too. Talent consolidation takes less coaching, so that's why I think it's funny that people think Saban is some coaching innovator. He's not. He's a recruiter and simply teaches fundamentals. That's why he's up in DC bitching, he's losing his biggest advantage. And he's still got that advantage, just not to the level he's used to.

 

[FQDawg]

Interesting question. I think at the NFL level, owners want some degree of parity in an effort to protect their investment. No one is likely to buy the [insert team here] if that team doesn't have an avenue to get better through things like the draft or free agency. Spreading the wealth, figuratively speaking, seems to make all franchises more valuable.

But that's possible only because the NFL is a single entity that generally does a good job of building consensus among the franchises. Contrast that with college sports where things are more fragmented and no one is really in charge. The NCAA is fairly powerless and the various conferences seem to take the "it's better for only a few teams to be consistently good" approach.

 

[NukeDogg]

Interesting question. I think at the NFL level, owners want some degree of parity in an effort to protect their investment. No one is likely to buy the [insert team here] if that team doesn't have an avenue to get better through things like the draft or free agency. Spreading the wealth, figuratively speaking, seems to make all franchises more valuable.

The first part is probably true, but they rely on the salary cap to be the instrument that enforces the parity behind the curtain. You've got some owners that probably hate the cap because they cant go buy a superteam like the Yankees or Dodgers, and other owners hate the cap because it forces them to spend more than they really want to because there's a minimum spend associated with it. But they can all smile and talk about how the draft is what creates the parity, when it's the cap that's doing the heavy lifting there. If the NFL were to suddenly lift the salary cap I'd expect we'd see Jerry Jones start throwing $ all over the place and try to go buy himself a Super Bowl.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

But that's possible only because the NFL is a single entity that generally does a good job of building consensus among the franchises. Contrast that with college sports where things are more fragmented and no one is really in charge. The NCAA is fairly powerless and the various conferences seem to take the "it's better for only a few teams to be consistently good" approach.

Football especially.

I do think the NCAA does a good job with basketball, and probably because everyone across the board, in D1, can put in this investment.

Baseball still has the problem of a lot of teams not willing to invest, so you're seeing the SEC starting to become so dominant, like football. But NCAA baseball WAS also a good product, for a long time.

 

[FQDawg]

The first part is probably true, but they rely on the salary cap to be the instrument that enforces the parity behind the curtain. You've got some owners that probably hate the cap because they cant go buy a superteam like the Yankees or Dodgers, and other owners hate the cap because it forces them to spend more than they really want to because there's a minimum spend associated with it. But they can all smile and talk about how the draft is what creates the parity, when it's the cap that's doing the heavy lifting there. If the NFL were to suddenly lift the salary cap I'd expect we'd see Jerry Jones start throwing $ all over the place and try to go buy himself a Super Bowl.

That's an excellent point. You can contrast the NFL with the Premier League, where there isn't a salary cap and teams like Manchester City and Chelsea and now Newcastle just throw money around like it's made of paper.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

The first part is probably true, but they rely on the salary cap to be the instrument that enforces the parity behind the curtain. You've got some owners that probably hate the cap because they cant go buy a superteam like the Yankees or Dodgers, and other owners hate the cap because it forces them to spend more than they really want to because there's a minimum spend associated with it. But they can all smile and talk about how the draft is what creates the parity, when it's the cap that's doing the heavy lifting there. If the NFL were to suddenly lift the salary cap I'd expect we'd see Jerry Jones start throwing $ all over the place and try to go buy himself a Super Bowl.

Yeah I agree with this. When I said "draft", I was just talking generally, that the talent is spread out. And I think I saw where MLB and NBA don't have a cap? Either way, they are still at least more fair than college, which is my point.

 

[mcdawg22]

I will say one of the great byproducts of no parity and reduced playoff spots in college is the upset. In 1989 at the height of my NFL fandom I hated the 49ers. If in week two I saw a score where the Cowboys were up on them by two touchdowns in the 4th. I’d think that’s interesting but it wouldn’t be a rooting interest. But last year when I saw App State and A&M were tied going into the 4th you bet your *** I flipped over to watch that game and might as well have been a lifelong Mountaineers fan.

 

[The Cooterpoot]

It's 100% about money in college athletics. There's no salary cap or draft. Lots of shady stuff with NIL. It's 100% about the haves and have nots economically.

 

[thekimmer]

I don't even know how Saban's hypocritical a$$ could even halfway try to define this in college, as it's never been there. The only leagues in America who have ever had this are the pros (NFL, whatever), and your local youth rec leagues. For purposes of this discussion, I'll stick to football, but it can be spread to any sport.

So my question is, why do we start out 'fair' in the rec league, then venture into this 'talent accumulation' or consolidation, from select/high school to college, then get back to 'fair' when they go pro? What is best? What was the logic behind it? We actually flip-flop between the levels, I will explain:

- Kids start out in rec ball, split into different teams via a draft. Yes, it gets corrupted, but originally, it's meant to spread out the talent and keep teams fair, so there's some parity;
- We then split them into select teams sometimes, which is 'talent consolidation' rather than parity;
- We then get to middle/junior/high school, which is less so consolidation, as you play wherever you go to school, but in recent years, kids move around in school districts or private schools, so it's like slightly less consolidation, but still certainly there;
- Then we get to college, where one school could literally take the best 100 players (like Alabama or Georgia have been doing), no parity at all;
- Then they go pro, where a draft spreads out the talent again, and creates parity, and this is the most successful league in the world.

Just an interesting dichotomy. I think the NFL is a great product, but I've always been a college guy, so who knows what is best. I loved watching kids playing rec ball (parity), but travel ball (consolidation) is cool too. Talent consolidation takes less coaching, so that's why I think it's funny that people think Saban is some coaching innovator. He's not. He's a recruiter and simply teaches fundamentals. That's why he's up in DC bitching, he's losing his biggest advantage. And he's still got that advantage, just not to the level he's used to.

It seems pretty straightforward to me. The local rec league, HS and College (historically) are all amateur. Being amateur makes them somewhat regionally based. The rec league can draft because they have a captive pool of players from a 20 mile radius. HS players for the most part are going to also stay regional although I do know some 'elite' teams exist. A similar situation some what exists in college although I know it is much more nationwide. But the hardships associated with travel is never going to make a draft work for either. Perhaps NIL will create more parity IF certain guidelines are employed to control it. The pros are a different animal. Player's are well compensated within an established guidance so a national draft is perfectly feasible. The only thing that would possibly work for CFB is a system where scholarships are manipulated based on performance to try and increase parity.

 

[NukeDogg]

Yeah I agree with this. When I said "draft", I was just talking generally, that the talent is spread out. And I think I saw where MLB and NBA don't have a cap? Either way, they are still at least more fair than college, which is my point.

MLB does not have a cap, but NBA does. It's just much easier to build a superteam in the NBA because teams have so few players/starters. Two or three guys can be enough to turn a middle team into a title contender.

In MLB for years and years the Yankees were the most hated team because their owner George Steinbrenner outspent everyone and bought all the best free agents and won title after title. The Dodgers are kind of doing the same thing now, although it hasn't equated to titles yet. Some might say that's what the Padres are doing the last two years. My understanding is that the MLBPA won't agree to a salary cap and that's the only reason why there isn't one. There's already a lot more of the "anyone can beat anyone, one team can get hot and go on a run" type thing in baseball than there is in football, so true talent parity in baseball is probably less important for competitive balance.

Absolutely agree though that in football the NFL is much more fair/talent equal than in college. And I find myself more interested in NFL and less interested in college these days for precisely that reason.

 

[Maroon13]

So my question is, why do we start out 'fair' in the rec league, then venture into this 'talent accumulation' or consolidation, from select/high school to college, then get back to 'fair' when they go pro? What is best? What was the logic behind it?

I am sure you're looking for more of a solutions based conversation. However my thoughts are nobody, with the power to make change, cares if things are fair.

from the ADs to conference commissioners to the ncaa, the money is rolling in. They don't care if a few schools steam roll everyone else and others best chance is 7-5. Just keep the tv money coming is the name of the game now.

College has been around so long and the same teams have won. Those teams have created a brand. The tv wants those brands on tv. Therefore nothing will change to level the field and jeopardize those brands losing to lesser brands.

The only avenue I see, in which college football may happen to accidentally become more "fair", is if the top brands get so greedy that they want their own tv money. They get their own tv contract and leave their conference. That did not work for Texas. It seems to work for Notre Dame. Anyway, if that happens, the conferences as we know them bust up. Then a top league is formed with the top brands and the lesser brands have their own league with schools of similar resources.