Fixing college football

[MichaelWeston]

Sorry if this is uninteresting for you. I would love to see your insight but understand this topic does not fit with everyone's interest.

I love college football. Its my second favorite sport. NFL first, then college football, then college basketball. Everything else has kind of fallen by the wayside. I used to love the NBA but have always hated MLB because of the lack of a salary cap. This entire post is being done under the premise of one assumption. The NFL is amazing, in part, because there are so many legitimate contenders. The other leagues suck because I can tell you who several of the top teams will be in 2020. The more legitimate teams, The better the league. For many teams in the NCAA everything is good. OSU, USC and Oklahoma would all be ok with the status quo. But for the other half of division 1 things are not ok at all. Under that premise I want to construct a way for college football to improve. 4 ways actually. I would love your insight but please hold fast to the assumption that these areas are broken.

1. Ease the transfer rules. Players from bowl teams can transfer to non bowl teams without waiting out the season.
2. 16 team playoff including 11 conference champions and 5 at large bids.
3. Get rid of the coaches poll.
4. Balanced scheduling with 6 home games and 6 away games for every team.

Under that system lesser programs could level the playing field and build their programs. Under the current that is virtually impossible. Imagine if Kent state could build a program that could contend with everyone. The more Boise State's the better.

Some thoughts about each rule change.
1. This is one of my favorites. There are too many good players who make decisions at 18 that they regret by 20. They are buried on good teams where they get little playing time behind stud players. Imagine if that stud player who barely plays due to the first round pick signed the year ahead or before him got to go to a D1 team where they could start tomorrow. It would lead to more talent on the field undeniably and a better product for the fan. There are no losers in this scenario.
2. I have made too many posts about this one. A 4 week playoff with 11 conference winners and 5 at large bids would be excellent. Its very doable and there is no real argument against it IMO. The regular season would still be very very important for everyone because there would be so few bids. The breakdown would be Round of 16 at the higher seed site (December week 2), Round of 8 at the higher seed site (December week 3), Round of 4 at the bowls (December week 4) and Championship game at a bowl site (January week 1),
3. The coaches poll is awful. 1. Coaches don't really vote wisely because they don't have any time to watch anyone but the teams they play and 2. Coaches are affected by the teams they vote for. If an SEC team votes another SEC team higher to get them into the BCS they can get a share of the money that second SEC team gets for making it.
4. This one is also frustrating. Critics will argue that its a win win. The Big teams get more home games and the small teams get a big pay day. While this is true, the lower teams would benefit even greater from having the sellout and the home field advantage. Home teams currently win OOC games 75% of the time. A home game against a big name team is a huge draw for teams from smaller conferences. Take a look at BG. They are delighted to get Minnesota at home. Imagine if OSU had to go there. The idea that you break down a league and some teams play 8 home games and other 5 is absurd. Can you imagine if the Steelers played 8 home games and the Bengals 5. People would be outraged. That's how the system is now.

[sois]

Love rule #4

I would end oversigning, strict roster size limits and go back to the way scholarships used to be aka a scholarship dies with the player. If he goes pro, drops out... etc, the scholarship cannot be used until that player would have graduated.

[scharm]

[quote name='sois' timestamp='1338100442' post='1132775']
Love rule #4

I would end oversigning, strict roster size limits and go back to the way scholarships used to be aka a scholarship dies with the player. If he goes pro, drops out... etc, the scholarship cannot be used until that player would have graduated.
[/quote]

Wouldn't that end up taking away opportunities for deserving kids to go to college? If you applied that rule to division 1, how many lost scholarships would there be in a given year?

[sois]

[quote name='scharm' timestamp='1338301334' post='1132955']
Wouldn't that end up taking away opportunities for deserving kids to go to college? If you applied that rule to division 1, how many lost scholarships would there be in a given year?
[/quote]

Rules are designed to encourage behaviour. Eventually, you would hope it would be enough of a penalty having a scholarship dead for three+ years to instead make offers to legit students who intend to graduate instead of dudes who just want to come play sports. Right now, there is not enough weight on academics. This would change that a bit.

[Jason]

If by "fixing" college football you mean balancing power, the only way to do it will be fewer scholarships. The best players will always go to the big programs. And fewer scholarships means fewer kids going to college.

Also, if you are going to enforce a "balanced schedule" you will need to find a way to get more money to the smaller schools.

[MichaelWeston]

[quote name='Jason' timestamp='1338334878' post='1133011']
If by "fixing" college football you mean balancing power, the only way to do it will be fewer scholarships. The best players will always go to the big programs. And fewer scholarships means fewer kids going to college.

Also, if you are going to enforce a "balanced schedule" you will need to find a way to get more money to the smaller schools.
[/quote]

Even if that were true the transfer rule would let them trickle down to teams where they would play more often.

[scharm]

[quote name='sois' timestamp='1338302768' post='1132958']


Rules are designed to encourage behaviour. Eventually, you would hope it would be enough of a penalty having a scholarship dead for three+ years to instead make offers to legit students who intend to graduate instead of dudes who just want to come play sports. Right now, there is not enough weight on academics. This would change that a bit.
[/quote]

I think this is backwards thinking. Who cares what an athletes true motivation is? The point is scholarships to big D-1 schools is motivation for that individual to do better as a young adult to keep that dream alive. It doesn't really matter, IMO, if that kid only sees college football or basketball as a route to the pros.

A small percentage make it to the pros. Along that path there are kids that have that dream and ulitimately benefit from a by product of chasing that dream.

You take a top athlete in 7th grade. I'm sorry that kid is most likely thinking pros no matter how small the chances. He works hard at his sport. Does just enough to get by academically. Then let's say when he is a senior he's not D-1 material but rather D-3 and because he just got by he still has a chance to go to college.

IMO, you can't lessen the opportunity just because a small percentage are successful at chasing their no. 1 goal. There are probably millions of examples in which kids chased a D-1 scholly in hopes of being a pro athlete and then found themselves missing their no. 1 dream but also in a good position to chase another one.