This is an interesting article on the current state of college football. You can argue that its a two team sport with Ohio State making the occasional cameo. The rest of the teams are cannon fodder for Alabama and Clemson. We Irish fans learned the difference between the 5* and 4* talent in Clemson II and tomorrow we will have that point driven home once again with an exclamation point. College Football Playoff: How to fix the broken postseason (yahoo.com)
Nothing revolutionary in that article, it's what everybody already knows. We need a bigger playoff 8 teams min, forcing Alabama and Clemson to play 3 game against top competition lessens their chances of winning it all. Happens all the time in other sports, the team with the best regular season doesn't always win, just look at the Dodgers. They've been loaded with talent for awhile now and have won their Division what 8 times in a row, but being forced to work through 3 levels of playoffs have ended up with them winning 1 WS in a shortened season. I disagree that the NIL money is going to have much impact, it's only going to be significant for a few players the rest will get pocket change. I do agree that right now it's Alabama, Clemson, and Ohio State, with the rest of the teams being like mid majors in basketball. The expanded playoff, esp if they went to a 16 team playoff like lower divisions would give more teams chances to make the final four and like the NCAA Basketball tourney every year there are upsets and break throughs. It would require that teams give up the bowl system, but the bowl system is on life support now anyway, so many teams have their top players opt out now if it's not a playoff.
I think the worm always turns. Eventually, USC, Oklahoma, Michigan will be on top and the argument will be that a 16 team playoff enables a 2nd level team to have one big game after losing 3 regular season games and topple a number 1 in a fluke game. I think 8 is probably the right number with no automatic bids. Ready, set, go!
I don't disagree that the more teams you add the more likely, like in basketball, the team that gets hot in the end could over come a bad start and beat a team that has been great all season. We've seen that in the NFL with wild card teams making and winning the Super Bowl. While we can't really draw any conclusions from the OU win yesterday, but they are a team that started slow and then by the end of the season were really good, if there was a play in game where ND had to play OU not sure OU wouldn't win, they might win the play in game if A*M was the opponent. Truthfully looking at the whole season we don't really even need a 4 team playoff this year, just let Clemson and Bama play for the title. I've always liked that the whole season meant something, lose your first 2 and then win 9 or 10 in a row and you might be the best team at the end of the season but we've always counted the whole season. Oh well it's not going to change till the current contract runs out.
I'm with kp. Think about all the dominant programs of past eras. Too many to name. In just about every situation, it was coaching that led to the dominance in recruiting and on the field. Great high school athletes with dreams of the NFL want to go where they can win and get drafted. Winning begets great recruiting which begets dominance. The one constant is that great coaches come and go. Can you say Urban Meyer? Currently Saban and Sweeney are at the top. In the future it will be some now-unknown great coaches. Who knew Dabo would become a great coach? Yes, it's unbalanced, as it always has been, but it's not broken. That said, I'm on record favoring an 8 team playoff.
I don't see college football balance in the future nor any return to what most of us remember in the 1970-2000 time frame. Why? Realignment of conferences changed the entire face of the game as old rivalries were extinguished and new ones really never developed. Media coverage made all teams familiar, diminishing the excitement of potential matchups. Expanded schedule from 10-12 games had a similar impact. Transfer rules make any player a free agent. You can leave for any reason, go anywhere you want and play immediately. Team directions can turn on a dime: look at Georgia and Ohio State. Red shirt rules have been bent, manipulated and extended to a fault. Players use them to leave early and stay late. The NFL "dream" guarantees that most star players are three and out or as Doc reminds us, many will opt out of their own bowl games to avoid injury simply bailing on their teams for a dollar more. The complete absence of the educational component. When was the last time you saw a player's major listed under his name on TV? When you heard a player even mention class in an interview? Or an announcer mentions a player's GPA? Now with new marketing rights and stipends coming to players will the balance of power shift? Now a player's "brand" is just as important as his time in the 40 or his vertical leap. Does this give the big media markets a new found advantage? Does Rutgers get an edge because a kid can put his face in Time Square? How does a midwestern school compete with Miami Beach or LA?
George, I agree with some of your points but some I don't. Some rivalries have dimmed due to being lopsided but not been extinguished. For Alabama, the Auburn rivalry is going strong, Tennessee has had a very bad run in the last 10 or 12 years but our team still smokes cigars after beating them. LSU is our other rival and that too, has been fine, but Auburn is our real rival and that one is going along just fine. I enjoy the TV availability. I'm sure you remember the days of one game a week on TV. Now, I can watch much of the top 10 every Saturday. We were only able to watch one or two games a season of any particular team. I don't think I want to go back to that. I agree with you on transfer rules. I agree with you on redshirt rules I agree with you on opting out. I think the contract should be enforced. If a player decides not to play anymore, his scholarship should be revoked. He can continue in school just at his own expense. He may not care but that shouldn't matter. During the SEC Championship game the sideline reporter mentioned Mac Jones 4.0 GPA while persuing a Masters Degree at Alabama. She did not say what the Masters degree was in. I'm not sure about the marketing thing. I don't know how pervasive it will be.
I feel the same way that KP and Sid do that college football has been cyclical. We've seen dynasties in USC, FSU and Nebraska. Those were mostly attributable to guys named Robinson, Bowden and Osborn. College football continues to change. It used to be that TV appearances were special. Now many teams are on every week. Kids used to want to play for the "home" state university, now they gravitate to regional powers like Alabama, OSU and Clemson. The Catholic HS feeders for ND have been greatly reduced in numbers. It takes real dedication by the administration of a university to produce a dominant football program. OSU and Bama have that, Mich. and ND do not. Few coaches can generate the total support a dominant football program needs. Dabo and Saban do. There's certainly enough talent in California to support a championship team at USC. The only question is, with a new Carroll will there also be eventual probation.
I agree mostly with the premise of this article as to needing to expand the playoffs and it will to a great degree help level the recruiting field. I am not sure about giving all conference champions a playoff berth. I would prefer the 8 best teams. I agree with the loosening of transfer rules and concur with George as to the players opting out. The opt outs certainly killed the Gators in our game against Oklahoma. Not that we would have won but we could have been much more competitive.
If you're a pro GM are you worried about a player who would just leave his team before an important game because he has other interests? If his team is eliminated from the playoffs will he try to avoid injury rather than play every game? Being an NFL player takes total commitment.
I would guess the difference is that if you are a professional and you refuse to play there would be repercussions. If you are a college player and you refuse to play there are no repercussions.
I agree with almost all of your post, George, and I would expand with one that is related to these, but was a big letdown for me when I saw it: most scholarship football athletes are not really students. I went to college in the 90s, sharing classes and experiences with the players of that era. Into the late 90s and early 00s, I would still make it back to campus and enjoy campus/extracurricular time with the players. There was a shared campus experience even into the early 00s at Wazzu. Now, most of the scholarship football players live off campus and may never attend a class in person. The only time they go to the campus is for football activities and don't really mingle with the student. When I realized that, the tie to my school really started to dwindle. The only thing connecting my school loyalty to those players is the shirt they decide to wear on Saturday, which more and more changes yearly. (Topped off by players quitting on the team at bowl season looking out for their career step.) This ties into free agency, pay for play allowances, and others you listed, and was another stick on the camel's back for me. This one really struck me to my core when I realized I no longer have anything in common with the school's student athletes.
The month of January is going to be a big month for players transferring. The NCAA has opened to gates for players to transfer and play immediately in 2021. I expect a number of players who aren't happy with their playing time at their current school look for greener pastures. I think we'll see a record number of player transfers this year.
The Irish are having a number of players either transfer or move on to the NFL. The team is going to look a lot different next year on both sides of the ball.
No doubt a lot of movement and we're probably not done. With the advantage of the free year and the ability to play right away next year, not just ND but all over college football you are going to see a record number of transfers I bet.
Texas being criticised in this article over the Tom Herman firing and Steve Sarkisian hiring. The total bill for firing Herman and hiring his replacement—Alabama offensive coordinator Steve Sarkisian—is going to be well north of $40 million. Perhaps north of $50 million. Herman’s buyout is in the $15 million range, plus an estimated $9 million for the rest of the staff. Texas’s vanity will not allow it to pay Sark anything less than $4 million a year—probably more—even though he hasn’t been a head coach since being fired at USC in 2015 and was making $2.5 million at Alabama. This is being shelled out four months after Texas laid off 35 people within the athletic department, left 35 other jobs unfilled, put some workers on furlough and had nearly 300 employees take a temporary pay cut. “An extremely difficult time for our department,” Del Conte said at the time. Four months later: We’re blowing money like tycoons over here, baby! Texas and the Hypocrisy of College Football Inc.