There is such a massive chasm between AL and the rest of the field.
There is no parity and its boring.
How do others feel/think?
There is no parity and its boring.
How do others feel/think?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Did UCLA ruin college basketball?
Roll Tide!
Alabama will suck at football again one day. It just won’t be this year, or the next, or the next...
I don't know that Alabama has ever sucked. They were fairly mediocre under Shula, but I wouldn't say they sucked.
Ol 'Bammy's last losing record 6-7 was in 2003. Their last single digit win team (7-5) was 2007, Saban's first season. They have had only 1 finish with less than 11 wins, which was 10 wins, since 2008.
They're getting pretty old.
I don't know if they are ruining college football but they sure are ruining my evening.
Can’t be seriousShould have been aTm instead of asterisk tosu
There isn't any difference between OSU and A &M both got smoked by Bama.Can’t be serious
You do realize OSU is missing like 17 players? A healthy OSU beats A&M easilyThere isn't any difference between OSU and A &M both got smoked by Bama.
ND actually gave them a better game which isn't saying much.
Should have been aTm instead of asterisk tosu
You do realize OSU is missing like 17 players? A healthy OSU beats A&M easily
Alabama will suck at football again one day. It just won’t be this year, or the next, or the next...
Should have been aTm instead of asterisk tosu
LIke back when there were the Yankees and everyone else in baseball. Ruined the game.I'm all for celebrating excellence, but I'm also into competition and college football currently isn't a great product. About 3-4 teams annually have a legitimate shot at winning the whole thing. I am not sure what to do about it. The talent needs to be dispersed among more teams, but you can't force guys to go to certain schools. But this isn't interesting to watch.
agree 100%. When Iowa was winning titles year after year everyone said we were ruining college wrestling.Iowa wrestling was like this under Gable. Everyone hated Iowa and guess what, other programs improved with Iowa guys and started competing at a high level to either be more competitive or start beating Iowa.
They’ve played their fair share (and maybe then some) of dogs during those runs too. Both in and out of the conference.Ol 'Bammy's last losing record 6-7 was in 2003. Their last single digit win team (7-5) was 2007, Saban's first season. They have had only 1 finish with less than 11 wins, which was 10 wins, since 2008.
They're getting pretty old.
I don't know if they are ruining college football but they sure are ruining my evening.
Iowa wrestling was like this under Gable. Everyone hated Iowa and guess what, other programs improved with Iowa guys and started competing at a high level to either be more competitive or start beating Iowa.
One difference that is pretty major. I don’t know what the rule was in the 80s, but nowadays schools are only allowed 9.9 scholarships to be handed out for wrestling. There are 10 weight classes. That means that you can’t even put an entire lineup on full scholarship and have to tactically use fractional scholarships and walk ons to fill out your roster.agree 100%. When Iowa was winning titles year after year everyone said we were ruining college wrestling.
Other schools should endeavor to Iowa’s level. Iowa (Alabama) shouldn’t have to come down to theirs.
I think Clemson will continue to be right there with them. The loss of Lawrence will hurt for a bit but they will be back.There is such a massive chasm between AL and the rest of the field.
There is no parity and its boring.
How do others feel/think?
Bama will not be dominant forever. Same with the Patriots. Sports are more popular when there are dynasties to love or hate. Best case scenario is having another dynasty to compete with the. The Steelers/Cowboys rivalry of the 70s helped increase the NFL's popularity.
Get better, not bitter
Don't be bitter-get better. There is nothing Saban did at Bama that the right person at the right school couldn't replicate. Saban is a good coach who surrounds himself with outstanding coaches.
Lack of parity between one team and 130 others?There is such a massive chasm between AL and the rest of the field.
There is no parity and its boring.
How do others feel/think?
expanding the playoffs to several more teams will help tremendously with creating parity in the college game
Iowa Wrestling ruin college wrestling...Iowa was dominant for years , but I would argue it made college wrestling better....This is a cycle, it will even out.There is such a massive chasm between AL and the rest of the field.
There is no parity and its boring.
How do others feel/think?
It isn't an oversigning issue.There's a number of things that contribute to competitive imbalance.
- One is that while there are rules against paying players, it's well known not everyone follows that rule as well as others.
- Another is an issue with over-signing.
- Teams are allowed 85 scholarship players. If you expect players to stay at the program for 4-5 years, that would mean you'd average 17-22 scholarship players being signed every year.
- Comparing Iowa to Alabama, over the last 4 recruiting classes (2017-2020) averaged over 25 signees per year, whereas Iowa has averaged 22. That's an additional 12 scholarship players that Alabama has signed and ran through their program. Considering Alabama's signees are already ranked higher, allowing Alabama 3 more signees per period makes it virtually impossible for a program like Iowa to compete.
- While schools are generally supposed to honor scholarships for athletes so long as they are performing well academically and participating in mandatory athletic activities, it is well known that many coaches encourage "underperforming" players to transfer - essentially giving recruits a tryout period, and if they aren't cutting it then they'll promise their scholarship to an incoming freshman.
- Solution(s) to Over-signing:
- Perhaps we could revisit the need for scholarship limits at all. Scholarship limits were imposed to help improve competitive balance so that the top-tier schools couldn't simply hoard talent. However, now that the transfer portal makes it easier to transfer between schools and more leniency is given for players to play right away after their first transfer, the need for scholarship limits may no longer be necessary. All players want to play, and so long as players don't feel "stuck" at a school that they have little opportunity of seeing the field at, then maybe we don't need scholarship limits. This would allow schools like Iowa to sign a number of additional players that they think have potential, but perhaps they don't have available scholarships to offer.
- I don't think removing scholarship limits would help, however, and in fact could have the opposite effect. Instead, I think the scholarship limit should be amended to be an annual limit for incoming freshmen, rather than having a limit for 85 total players. For example, you could say that every school gets to sign 25 incoming freshmen every year. You don't get to sign more just because you had a number of guys transfer or leave early. I think this is a simpler scholarship limit to implement and removes incentives for coaches to promise Player 1 (Junior)'s scholarship to Player 2 (incoming freshmen) because the coach doesn't think Player 1 lived up to his potential.
- Comparing Iowa to Alabama, over the last 4 recruiting classes (2017-2020) averaged over 25 signees per year, whereas Iowa has averaged 22. That's an additional 12 scholarship players that Alabama has signed and ran through their program. Considering Alabama's signees are already ranked higher, allowing Alabama 3 more signees per period makes it virtually impossible for a program like Iowa to compete.