Is Alabama ruining CFB?

[Wingman137]

Bama has changed the way recruiting is done and the type of players to go after. You either change or get swept away. B1G also needs to change scheduling so we can all have the gimme wins. 8 conference games is enough. Just change crossover games to play everyone. Nothing against PSU, but it would be nice to get someone else from the East now and then.

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

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?

I feel like I've been saying this since 2012........................

"Welcome to the party, pal!"

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

When you don't factor in players who leave after 3 years to the NFL for Alabama, which is easily 12 over 4 years, it makes this point completely invalid. They are missing out on the 4th year for all their top players.

It comes down to recruiting almost exclusively. They just have a ridiculous proportion of the very top recruits, which makes it nearly impossible to compete with them for 98% of the programs out there. Unfortunately the JJ Watt types who come out of no-where to be elite players are few and far between compared to the Najee Harris' of the world. It is what it is unfortunately.

Then more programs need to start banding together to convince the top recruits that they don't need to go to Bama if they want to go to the NFL, and that they shouldn't want to go to Bama to win national championships.

I feel like this is not something enough programs are doing...............

 

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

When you don't factor in players who leave after 3 years to the NFL for Alabama, which is easily 12 over 4 years, it makes this point completely invalid. They are missing out on the 4th year for all their top players.

It comes down to recruiting almost exclusively. They just have a ridiculous proportion of the very top recruits, which makes it nearly impossible to compete with them for 98% of the programs out there. Unfortunately the JJ Watt types who come out of no-where to be elite players are few and far between compared to the Najee Harris' of the world. It is what it is unfortunately.

(1) Iowa has seen a number of players leave after just 3 years as well. In the last two drafts, Iowa has had 6 players drafted after just 3 years in school.

(2) Regardless, implementing an annual limit on incoming freshmen scholarships would also make it more difficult for programs like Alabama to reload if a lot of players leave early.

(3) I agree that the quality (rather than quantity) of recruits is the biggest differentiator. However, we can't have a rule that says certain players can't go to certain schools because the player is too talented. But we can even the playing field in terms of how many incoming recruits each program can sign every year. Will this be world-changing? No, the richest programs will still get the best recruits, but it will make it more difficult to have a single program dominate the way Alabama has over the last decade.

 

[ChiDoc]

(1) Iowa has seen a number of players leave after just 3 years as well. In the last two drafts, Iowa has had 6 players drafted after just 3 years in school.

Okay, now do the amount of Iowa's 5 year scholarships vs Alabama's and the point remains.

It's not the amount of recruits they sign at all, has nothing to do with it, it's the amount of elite 4 (top 100 overall types) and 5 star recruits on their roster vs everybody else. Those elite 4 and 5 stars turn out to be college superstars at a much much higher rate than 3 star recruits do. Teams with mostly 3 stars like Iowa end up with a few college superstars and a ton of misses, and a team like Alabama ends up with a few misses and a ton of college superstars.

 

[stanzithemanzi12]

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?

People who make excuses and hate winning/success ruin everything. Alabama is greed, and greed is beautiful. Greed is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of evolutionary spirits.

 

[iafan44]

The NFL system mandates parity of talent with draft and free agency. Talent acquisition in college is unbalanced with programs like Bama enjoying a huge edge.
According to yesterday's Wall Street Journal since 2010 Bama has signed 10% of all top 100 recruits!
Imagine Iowa signing 10 top 100 recruits on a single year..or in a decade. I do not think the Hawks have ever signed a top.100 recruit outside of Epenesa.

The Hawks have signed more than a few top 100 guys. Granted, not all of them worked out as will happen anywhere.

 

[hawkfeever]

If ya ain’t cheat’n you’re not winning. Bama boosters put Alabama where they are.

It will magically come out when Saban retires and they will get to keep the trophies.

 

[hawkfeever]

Only way they could change it would be to cap the number of 4 and 5 star recruits a team could sign.

 

[hawkfeever]

Expanding playoffs would help because kids at least want a shot at going.

 

[hawkfeever]

More playoff teams won't create parity. It just means that Alabama will beat Coastal Carolina by 60 in the opening round on their way to winning it.

Don't agree. Gives more teams a chance to get in and can market it as such. If playoff is expanded, Iowa would have a better chance at getting in and you don't think that would not help recruiting a little bit? I think it will cause more of a divide between say the top 25 and the rest over time. And the way it is with the transfer portal deal now, those at the top can cherry pick some adds as needed from the lesser crowd. They get developed at the lesser teams and get noticed as being great players and get called up to the bigs for their last year or two.

 

[ChiDoc]

The Hawks have signed more than a few top 100 guys.

Not true, Epenesa is the only one over the past 10 years
(you have to use 247 composite that averages all services).

For comparison, Alabama has 14, 12, 10, 4 over the past 4 classes.

Ohio State: 12, 7, 4, 13

Clemson: 5, 10, 3, 7

Michigan: 5, 0, 3, 0

These are for 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018. So most recent number isn’t on campus yet, though these schools always use a huge number of early enrollees (so top guys get 3.5 years in system) when previous class leaves for draft so many will be arriving in next two weeks.

OSU has started on fire for 2022 with 6 top 100 guys already, though the same thing happened in 2021 and AL caught them.

OSU and Alabama are fighting furiously right now for 5 star DL JT Tuimoloau to finish their 2021 class, 6-5 280 but moves like a linebacker, thought to be next Chase Young/Bosa type dominant DE... OSU already has one 5 star DE in the class, so this would give them two elite Bosa edge types. Good luck with that Harbaugh....

 

[notlongago]

Should have been aTm instead of asterisk tosu

OSU is far and away #2 in the country.

 

[IowaHawkeyeFBnBB4Life]

I don't know that Alabama has ever sucked. They were fairly mediocre under Shula, but I wouldn't say they sucked.

3-8 and 4-9 in the early 2000s

 

[TRHawkeye145]

Don't agree. Gives more teams a chance to get in and can market it as such. If playoff is expanded, Iowa would have a better chance at getting in and you don't think that would not help recruiting a little bit? I think it will cause more of a divide between say the top 25 and the rest over time. And the way it is with the transfer portal deal now, those at the top can cherry pick some adds as needed from the lesser crowd. They get developed at the lesser teams and get noticed as being great players and get called up to the bigs for their last year or two.

Absolutely. Maybe initially the blowouts will happen. But once marketing/talent/recruiting disperses out a little more (and it will never be balanced obviously)... I see it helping tremendously

 

[grayhair81]

You guys and your lack of parity. Where else would you see a David like the Ragin Cajuns take down a Goliath like ISU in their best year ever?

 

[Muscles1989]

Does bama dominating recruiting and playoffs really affect Iowa? Iowa wouldn’t get those top guys even if bama wasn’t bama. Seems there’s always that team ppl strive to be. Makes it that much better once they fall.

 

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

Okay, now do the amount of Iowa's 5 year scholarships vs Alabama's and the point remains.

It's not the amount of recruits they sign at all, has nothing to do with it, it's the amount of elite 4 (top 100 overall types) and 5 star recruits on their roster vs everybody else. Those elite 4 and 5 stars turn out to be college superstars at a much much higher rate than 3 star recruits do. Teams with mostly 3 stars like Iowa end up with a few college superstars and a ton of misses, and a team like Alabama ends up with a few misses and a ton of college superstars.

I obviously agree with you that 4 and 5 star athletes are better than 3 stars. AJ Epenessa had a 6.1 Rivals Rating and was an instant contributor and bona-fide star in his 2nd and 3rd years in the program. Only AJ and Dan Doering (career inhibited by injuries) were ranked that high during the Ferentz-era. While AJ is clearly the crown-jewel recruit of the Ferentz-era, he would have a lot of company at Alabama with all the 5 stars they get every year.

However, it is also beneficial to a program like Alabama to be able to sign large recruiting classes when they have early departures and transfers by recruits that see that they won't get playing time. Is it the secret to their success? No, but it is at least a small advantage nonetheless. For example, Chris Allen was a starting linebacker this year and was one of the lower-rated recruits in Alabama's 2017 class that had 29 signees. With a scholarship limit based the annual incoming class, Alabama may not have had room for him.

Scholarship limits were put in place for a reason, and that was to help competitive balance. Yes it's true that even with scholarship limits, programs like Alabama can be dominant over the course of a decade. But that doesn't mean that scholarship limit rules don't work, and it doesn't mean that they can't be tweaked to improve competitive balance. It's not a silver bullet, but it's also not meaningless.

 

[Fsanford]

Warm weather schools have a huge recruiting advantage. Most of the top talent are located in those states with mild climates. Something to be said about wearing shorts and flip flops outside in Jan.

OSU bucks the trend, but they also are the only P5 school in heavily populated Ohio so this helps them.

 

[kceasthawk]

Did UCLA ruin college basketball?

Roll Tide!

Did Iowa ruin college wrestling? Did UConn women ruin the womens game. These arguments come up every time there is a dominant team for awhile. Expand the playoff and give some other teams a shot, and that would create some excitment to the end of the season.

 

[BlackNGoldBleeder]

3-8 and 4-9 in the early 2000s

Yes, two years.

 

[David1979]

(1) Iowa has seen a number of players leave after just 3 years as well. In the last two drafts, Iowa has had 6 players drafted after just 3 years in school.

(2) Regardless, implementing an annual limit on incoming freshmen scholarships would also make it more difficult for programs like Alabama to reload if a lot of players leave early.

(3) I agree that the quality (rather than quantity) of recruits is the biggest differentiator. However, we can't have a rule that says certain players can't go to certain schools because the player is too talented. But we can even the playing field in terms of how many incoming recruits each program can sign every year. Will this be world-changing? No, the richest programs will still get the best recruits, but it will make it more difficult to have a single program dominate the way Alabama has over the last decade.

There already is a limit on kids in a class

 

[EagleHawk]

Only way they could change it would be to cap the number of 4 and 5 star recruits a team could sign.

You get 60 stars per recruiting class, you want 5-stars? you get 12 recruits, or you can have 20 3-star recruits.

 

[scotthawk1964]

If the NCAA wants more parity, then they should consider cutting the scholarships down from 85 to 75 or 80, that way Bama, tOSU, Clemson ect. cannot take all the top 5* and 4* kids, unless some of them want to walk on. That would free up better recruits for the next tier of schools.

 

[Sett1997]

Not many people give a crap about wrestling.

They are missing out.

 

[mthawkeyes]

When you don't factor in players who leave after 3 years to the NFL for Alabama, which is easily 12 over 4 years, it makes this point completely invalid. They are missing out on the 4th year for all their top players.

It comes down to recruiting almost exclusively. They just have a ridiculous proportion of the very top recruits, which makes it nearly impossible to compete with them for 98% of the programs out there. Unfortunately the JJ Watt types who come out of no-where to be elite players are few and far between compared to the Najee Harris' of the world. It is what it is unfortunately.

I think the last bullet point would have potential, but I would put the number a little lower than 25. (22ish?) If you have great talent that leaves early, then it's a little tougher to replace if you have to wait an extra year or two to replace it. In a match up of Wisconsin and Ohio State, it means that it's more likely that a 5th-year senior somewhere on Wisconsin's OL is blocking a RS freshman on OSU's DL. That OSU player may have more talent and a great pro career down the road, but the veteran with good technique has a pretty good chance of winning the match up. More favorable match ups like this at 2-3 positions on each side of the ball makes for much more competitive football between the elite tier teams like OSU vs. the next tier of teams like Wisconsin. It would also push some signees from the elite tier teams to other schools.

 

[KFsdisciple]

What about locking up scholarships for 4 years? Whether or not a guy leaves early for the NFL or transfers out, his scholarship is spoken for, for 4 years.

 

[General Tso]

Colleges should have drafts. Whoever drafts you is where you go to school. Colleges can also trade players or give them walking papers .

 

[T. Kimball]

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.

That would be like saying football teams are only allowed 21.8 scholarships and allowing fractional scholarships. To fill out an 85 player roster you’ve got to get creative on distribution and rely on a lot of walkons. That would create a lot of parity in football because many players can’t afford college without that full ride, so that would spread the talent out to more schools.

This is pretty profound. I'm all for decreasing FB scholarships to achieve parity, however student athletes loose out. I'm guessing the revenue potential for each sport helps explain this.

 

[iafan44]

Not true, Epenesa is the only one over the past 10 years
(you have to use 247 composite that averages all services).

For comparison, Alabama has 14, 12, 10, 4 over the past 4 classes.

Ohio State: 12, 7, 4, 13

Clemson: 5, 10, 3, 7

Michigan: 5, 0, 3, 0

These are for 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018. So most recent number isn’t on campus yet, though these schools always use a huge number of early enrollees (so top guys get 3.5 years in system) when previous class leaves for draft so many will be arriving in next two weeks.

OSU has started on fire for 2022 with 6 top 100 guys already, though the same thing happened in 2021 and AL caught them.

OSU and Alabama are fighting furiously right now for 5 star DL JT Tuimoloau to finish their 2021 class, 6-5 280 but moves like a linebacker, thought to be next Chase Young/Bosa type dominant DE... OSU already has one 5 star DE in the class, so this would give them two elite Bosa edge types. Good luck with that Harbaugh....

View embedded media

Last ten years wasn't part of the original post. Dan Doering, Dave Richardson, moeaki and Blake Larson off top of my head were all top 100 but yes, they can get some 4 star and top 250 but not slot of top 100. Graves is in top 100 next year I believe.

 

[hawkfeever]

There already is a limit on kids in a class

But not on how many ex-head coaches you can have hanging around.

 

[hawkfeever]

Are they paying under the table in bitcoin yet? I hear it is hard to trace.

 

[Greenway4Prez]

If the NCAA wants more parity, then they should consider cutting the scholarships down from 85 to 75 or 80, that way Bama, tOSU, Clemson ect. cannot take all the top 5* and 4* kids, unless some of them want to walk on. That would free up better recruits for the next tier of schools.

This is the only way to do it.

 

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

There already is a limit on kids in a class

Correct, and I'm saying we might consider either/both (i) lowering the limit on kids per class, and/or (ii) make the limit on kids per class the sole limitation. For example, under current rules, the limit per class may be 25 and 85 scholarships overall. Thus, if Iowa has 65 scholarship players returning and Alabama only has 60, Alabama could sign 25 players in 2021 while Iowa could only sign 20.

We consistently see top teams, particularly in the SEC, sign more players annually, on average, than other schools. The idea is that by making the scholarship limit based only on annual signees, there's more of an incentive for schools to retain players. Theoretically, if a bunch of Alabama players leave early while a middle-tier school retains all their athletes for 4-5 years, the middle-tier school may have more scholarship athletes on its roster at a particular time even though both schools will have signed the same amount of athletes each year. It essentially would make it more difficult for a program like Alabama to reload.

 

[icantfindausernamethatisntused]

I think the last bullet point would have potential, but I would put the number a little lower than 25. (22ish?) If you have great talent that leaves early, then it's a little tougher to replace if you have to wait an extra year or two to replace it. In a match up of Wisconsin and Ohio State, it means that it's more likely that a 5th-year senior somewhere on Wisconsin's OL is blocking a RS freshman on OSU's DL. That OSU player may have more talent and a great pro career down the road, but the veteran with good technique has a pretty good chance of winning the match up. More favorable match ups like this at 2-3 positions on each side of the ball makes for much more competitive football between the elite tier teams like OSU vs. the next tier of teams like Wisconsin. It would also push some signees from the elite tier teams to other schools.

I used 25 because its a more round number, but you could adjust the number as you see fit. And I believe you and I are thinking similarly on the issue.

For simplicity purposes, if we assume the only scholarship limit is 25 annually, that means that if Team A's players always stay 5 years and Team B's players always stay 4 years, at any given time Team A could have up to 125 players on scholarship whereas Team B would only have 100. Team A gets "rewarded" for having retained the players it signed.

I'd also like to allow teams to give a scholarship to walk-ons who have been with the program for at least two (maybe 3?) years. Essentially I think such a system would (1) help developmental programs that do a good job of retaining players, and (2) would not harm student athletes by limiting the amount of total scholarships available. The current system where there's a cap on the total amount of scholarships on a team at any time essentially makes it easier for top programs to reload, and also incentivizes teams to not give scholarships to deserving walk-ons and/or tell players that they may want to transfer because they won't get any playing time.

 

[Pat McGroyne]

Colleges should have drafts. Whoever drafts you is where you go to school. Colleges can also trade players or give them walking papers .

Surely you aren't serious. You can't do that to guys making decisions about the years and future ahead of them. Something needs to be done, though.

 

[iasooner1]

You guys aren’t even close to Oklahoma State in man grab titles. (Okay, you are closer than OU is). The little b1g didn’t deserve to get in the final 4 back door.
I will give kudos to IA and Debby’s efforts to force your league to attempt a partial season.
Beat Northwestern !

 

[Pat McGroyne]

The Championship tv audience numbers were the lowest they have been in twenty years. I would say people are getting tired of the Alabama vs. (insert name here) show.

 

[mikesright]

Boosters are going to be allowed to pay players starting next year in Florida and over the next several years in other states. That should help the parity conversation, Alabama is a rich school but not rich enough to sign a class composed entirely of kids in the top 100 recruits like they are used to though.

 

[The Deplorable Sleeping Dog]

Restricting schollies to 60 would have an almost immediate impact on recruiting parity. In roundish numbers the top 100 players would go to 8 schools instead of 4, and that would continue to trickle down through all the programs. Alabama and the 5-10 media programs wouldn't be able to limit the market by grabbing such a large share of top flight players, plain and simple market economics It would also prevent the kind of stockpiling that goes on at the top 5-10 programs.

I think some scheduling rules could be created that require or incentivize southern schools to come north in November to maintain bowl eligibility. That would not only broaden the intersectional competition at the top level but reduce the big advantage southern schools have by playing in primarily warm weather. Their recruits would know they'd have to play at least a couple of games in potentially very cold weather. Maybe a 3 non conf, 8 conf play, 1 intersectional non conf game and then conference championships.

Even better, have a kind of wild card intersectional play where the schools aren't set until the mid point of conference competition. So like Big Ten West first place as of 11/1 plays SEC West first place, etc..... There are many possibilities. It would throw some excitement into the season, bring some surprise options before the playoff committee and help improve interest. Big budget cuts are yet to come so the conventional sports marketing, which has always focused around promoting a few national "franchises" is not going to be as effective. Creative ways to renew interest is going to be important.