Maybe my taking schollies away from the top teams each year will now gain traction

[Bulldog Bruce]

That is the only way I can see to have some sort of means for parity in FBS football. The NFL thrives on it. Most leagues realize that the more fan bases you can give hope to, the better it is for the league.

I stopped watching after not one of our players could hope to catch the Bama QB running around throw that TD to a receiver that no one on our team could keep up with.

 

[Croomonshrooms]

Nah, just put fbi agents in the sec officials room.

 

[Anon1665155225]

That is the only way I can see to have some sort of means for parity in FBS football. The NFL thrives on it. Most leagues realize that the more fan bases you can give hope to, the better it is for the league.

I’m not holding my breath. The powers that be don’t give a squat about the have nots. Big fan bases = big money. That’s all that matters.

They need to separate the bamas ohio states georgias etc of the world into a super league and then put the rest of us in a league below that.

 

[MaxwellSmart]

The only hope we have, especially under Leach is for some State football fanatic to hit the lottery.

 

[mstateglfr]

I dont want the top teams to lose scholarships.

I do want ALL teams to reduce scholarships.

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

I dont want the top teams to lose scholarships.

I do want ALL teams to reduce scholarships.

Fake balance. Those top teams need to lose 5 to 8 scholarships after a championship run. Decreasing our scholarships does not help achieve parity.

 

[mstateglfr]

Fake balance. Those top teams need to lose 5 to 8 scholarships after a championship run. Decreasing our scholarships does not help achieve parity.

I just disagree. I don't think harshly penalizing success is the smart path to parity.
The NFL and NBA don't limit how many players are allowed to be paid on recent sustained successful teams like the Pats or Warriors. This is akin to what you are suggesting.

You are advocating for something significantly more penal than the picking towards the end of the draft.

If all d1 fbs teams had 50 scholarships, then a significant amount of talent from the top 10 teams would find their way to other teams in the major conferences. And the edge players in the major conference would find their way into G5 conferences.

A couple more quick points.
- managing a constantly changing scholarship level would suck when it comes to providing equal opportunity in women's athletics. I do recognize that this would be reducing on the men's side.
- my suggestion would allow for a reallocation of scholarships to other sports.
- there is a certain level of irony when people who traditionally stop and kick at the idea of sharing the wealth are actually advocating for it because their team is one that would be helped.

 

[L4Dawg]

We are at a crossroads in NCAA football. Right now we are on the European soccer model. Soccer gets blasted as a Communist sport in the US, but big time European club soccer is the last unabashed unlimited capitalist sports environment left. It has become even MORE so in recent years. If you want to see what our current model in NCAA football will lead to just look at the big leagues in Europe. The other alternative is to come up with something that will promote NFL style socialist enforced parity.

 

[theoriginalSALTYdog]

We are at a crossroads in NCAA football. Right now we are on the European soccer model. Soccer gets blasted as a Communist sport in the US, but big time European club soccer is the last unabashed unlimited capitalist sports environment left. It has become even MORE so in recent years. If you want to see what our current model in NCAA football will lead to just look at the big leagues in Europe. The other alternative is to come up with something that will promote NFL style socialist enforced parity.

I'm not very familiar with the euro soccer model. Can someone explain in more detail? I thought they had a model where teams moved up and or down a league based on previous years performance but I'm sure there's more to it than that.

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

Relegation and promotion are not feasible in the NCAA model. Teams can already move up or down by choice. You have a very limited time with your personnel. So once you add forced relegation, how will it be possible for that relegated team to get the top talent to get promoted? You won't get the periodic Cam Newton, Vince Young, Dak Prescott phenomena were a team plays above history of that team if they got relegated.

 

[Hugh's Burner Phone]

That is the only way I can see to have some sort of means for parity in FBS football. The NFL thrives on it. Most leagues realize that the more fan bases you can give hope to, the better it is for the league.

I stopped watching after not one of our players could hope to catch the Bama QB running around throw that TD to a receiver that no one on our team could keep up with.

Can't blame that one on the defensive backs. You put my fat *** out there against Deion Sanders in his prime and give me 10.5 seconds and I'll get open. They're only expected to hold coverage for 3-4 seconds.

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

I just disagree. I don't think harshly penalizing success is the smart path to parity.
The NFL and NBA don't limit how many players are allowed to be paid on recent sustained successful teams like the Pats or Warriors. This is akin to what you are suggesting.

You are advocating for something significantly more penal than the picking towards the end of the draft.

If all d1 fbs teams had 50 scholarships, then a significant amount of talent from the top 10 teams would find their way to other teams in the major conferences. And the edge players in the major conference would find their way into G5 conferences.

A couple more quick points.
- managing a constantly changing scholarship level would suck when it comes to providing equal opportunity in women's athletics. I do recognize that this would be reducing on the men's side.
- my suggestion would allow for a reallocation of scholarships to other sports.
- there is a certain level of irony when people who traditionally stop and kick at the idea of sharing the wealth are actually advocating for it because their team is one that would be helped.

Football, or any sport, is not on the level of societal construct. The problem with wealth sharing in a societal construct it the people who are in charge of the sharing, don't share very well. Also since Human Beings are made as selfish creatures, incentive to go above and beyond is retarded. There becomes no one to make the money to share.

 

[aTotal360]

Once you accept the fact the powers in charge don't want parity, you'll be better off.

 

[Pilgrimdawg]

Nah, just put fbi agents in the sec officials room.

The FBI is just as corrupt as the SEC officials so this won’t help.

 

[patdog]

I'm not very familiar with the euro soccer model. Can someone explain in more detail? I thought they had a model where teams moved up and or down a league based on previous years performance but I'm sure there's more to it than that.

Revenue sharing is more limited than in American sports and there are no salary caps. The top 6 clubs have won all but 2 of the Premier League titles over the past 30+ years, and have taken something like 110 of the 120 Champions League spots. That’s where the real money is & they don’t share it with the other clubs. Smaller clubs get relegated & promoted, but they have virtually no chance to finish in the top 4. And if they develop a star player, he will just be bought by one of the big clubs. Jack Grealish grew up an Aston Villa fan & loves the club. But he was bought by Manchester City & plays for them now.

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

Once you accept the fact the powers in charge don't want parity, you'll be better off.

Yes because they are short sighted and selfish as I stated all Humans are. However the NFL proves parity works for the overall good of the sport.

It is better for 10 million different people to see your ad than the same 1 million people each week, right? So when that game comes on and it is obvious that one team has no chance and those fans go do something else, you lose eyes. We, as Mississippi State fans, know how different the amount of people that follow is based on winning and losing. We have increased our following as we have become more of a winning program.

How many people turned on that Tenn v Bama game in the second half and in the fourth quarter? Here is an article about that. it was the highest rated game next to the Texas v Bama 20-19 game. So you not only had the two fanbases, but you had the Bama haters and then the people who want to see something historical or different.

Overall, yes you could grow the fanbase of 10 teams, but that is limited growth. It is better, like the NFL realizes, to grow the hope of 120 fanbases. Keep them all intrigued for a longer period of time.

 

[Pars]

Congrats

 

[aTotal360]

Yes because they are short sighted and selfish as I stated all Humans are. However the NFL proves parity works for the overall good of the sport.

It is better for 10 million different people to see your ad than the same 1 million people each week, right? So when that game comes on and it is obvious that one team has no chance and those fans go do something else, you lose eyes. We, as Mississippi State fans, know how different the amount of people that follow is based on winning and losing. We have increased our following as we have become more of a winning program.

How many people turned on that Tenn v Bama game in the second half and in the fourth quarter? Here is an article about that. it was the highest rated game next to the Texas v Bama 20-19 game. So you not only had the two fanbases, but you had the Bama haters and then the people who want to see something historical or different.

Overall, yes you could grow the fanbase of 10 teams, but that is limited growth. It is better, like the NFL realizes, to grow the hope of 120 fanbases. Keep them all intrigued for a longer period of time.

I'm not saying you are wrong. I just know how **** rolls down hill.

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

That is the only way I can see to have some sort of means for parity in FBS football. The NFL thrives on it. Most leagues realize that the more fan bases you can give hope to, the better it is for the league.

I stopped watching after not one of our players could hope to catch the Bama QB running around throw that TD to a receiver that no one on our team could keep up with.

Reducing the scholarships for all teams would be a better and a more fair solution because then the top teams can’t stockpile talent. You’re spreading it out.

 

[Mobile Bay]

That is the only way I can see to have some sort of means for parity in FBS football. The NFL thrives on it. Most leagues realize that the more fan bases you can give hope to, the better it is for the league.

I stopped watching after not one of our players could hope to catch the Bama QB running around throw that TD to a receiver that no one on our team could keep up with.

Scholarship numbers no longer matter. Reduce Alabama to zero scholarships and the boosters will just give the kids enough extra NIL money to cover everything a scholarship used to do.

 

[Ibdancin]

Until the NIL and Portal issues are fixed, a reduction will not help much. The top money teams will rob rosters of the best players and the results end the same.


I think applying an NFL model without their caps etc will be useless.

 

[Podgy]

Football, or any sport, is not on the level of societal construct. The problem with wealth sharing in a societal construct it the people who are in charge of the sharing, don't share very well. Also since Human Beings are made as selfish creatures, incentive to go above and beyond is retarded. There becomes no one to make the money to share.

Really? Where and when has this happened in any society with a market-based economy? And football is a social construct, not sure what you mean by societal construct, though. It's a game constructed by people in a society, the same people who created the rules and alter the rules. We have wealth sharing, or redistribution in America and so does Europe and much of Asia. Those are pretty successful societies. The SEC shares wealth to some degree. So does the NFL. So tell me what specific societies in the modern age, and ones with market-based economies that have welfare states, progressive taxation and wealth redistribution policies, ended up with on one making money to support those programs?

 

[Cantdoitsal]

Salary Caps enhanced parity and viewership in professional sports so if we could figure out a way where croots didn't have so much incentive to follow the money trail, that would help out a lot.

 

[Podgy]

That is the only way I can see to have some sort of means for parity in FBS football. The NFL thrives on it. Most leagues realize that the more fan bases you can give hope to, the better it is for the league.

I stopped watching after not one of our players could hope to catch the Bama QB running around throw that TD to a receiver that no one on our team could keep up with.

The NFL gets by with a smaller roster. Do the same with college football, maybe 65 on scholarship and let freshman play. I suspect some of those schollies could be handed to the gals in sports no one really cares about or watches to meet Title IX requirements and/or given to men's baseball.

 

[thatsbaseball]

Is NIL money restricted to scholarship players ? I guess I'm asking do schollies even matter anymore ?

 

[Croomonshrooms]

The FBI is just as corrupt as the SEC officials so this won’t help.

Excellent point

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

Really? Where and when has this happened in any society with a market-based economy? And football is a social construct, not sure what you mean by societal construct, though. It's a game constructed by people in a society, the same people who created the rules and alter the rules. We have wealth sharing, or redistribution in America and so does Europe and much of Asia. Those are pretty successful societies. The SEC shares wealth to some degree. So does the NFL. So tell me what specific societies in the modern age, and ones with market-based economies that have welfare states, progressive taxation and wealth redistribution policies, ended up with on one making money to support those programs?

I am obviously not talking about a market-based economy. Football is entertainment which is a part of a society but not the most important thing. You can put rules in place to try and balance it out so more people are entertained. Those rules can try to "even the playing field" and that automatically treats each team differently. The structure of College football does not allow for the "normal" solutions like drafts and salary caps. I would like to affect the players the least. I don't want to limit their NIL money and I don't want to force them to go somewhere they don't want to go. This rebalance of incoming talent is the only means I can see. Bama will still get the best players, just limit that to 17 instead of 25 after they win it all.

 

[onewoof]

Respectfully, it ain't scholarships that are bringing in the 4 and 5 stars. It's hundreds of thousands of dollars. They could be walk ons

 

[WilCoDawg]

Nah, just put fbi agents in the sec officials room.

But who will monitor parents fussing at the school board meetings then?

 

[Podgy]

Once you accept the fact the powers in charge don't want parity, you'll be better off.

Smart, rich people tend to get what they want and they know how to arrange outcomes in their favor.

 

[mstateglfr]

Football, or any sport, is not on the level of societal construct. The problem with wealth sharing in a societal construct it the people who are in charge of the sharing, don't share very well. Also since Human Beings are made as selfish creatures, incentive to go above and beyond is retarded. There becomes no one to make the money to share.

What now?

- What is a 'societal construct'?
- Football is a social construct.
- We have wealth sharing in the US right now. Many countries that are successful have it. Many countries with better social statistics(higher health, higher education, less poverty) than the US have MORE wealth sharing.
- Reducing scholarships for ALL programs will move talent away from the elite 10ish teams which will help improve parity. It will also free up scholarships for non-revenue generating men's sports.

 

[Maroon13]

Once you accept the fact the powers in charge don't want parity, you'll be better off.

Bingo. The current model is working perfectly for Alabama, OHSt etc etc. They couldn't care less about State or Indiana etc etc. Blue bloods want the little schools to be bad to pad their schedule and their path to the NC. Alabama is playing Austin Peay this year.... TV and conferences seem to like things just the way they are too. $$$$$$$

only chance is for the little schools, State, Indiana, OkSt etc etc to break away and form their own league. But guess what.... they won't do that either. Why? $$$$$$$$$

 

[L4Dawg]

I'm not very familiar with the euro soccer model. Can someone explain in more detail? I thought they had a model where teams moved up and or down a league based on previous years performance but I'm sure there's more to it than that.

They do have promotion and relegation. What they don't have is salary caps or any real limits on spending. They have a rule that basically says clubs have to pay their own way buy it is never enforced. You have clubs that get bought by hugely wealthy people that just start throwing money at them till they win championships. Manchester City is the poster child in England at the moment, with Newcastle about to be the same.

 

[operch]

65/70 players per team per year.

B I N G O