A Modest Proposal (for leveling the playing field)

We keep seeing the same teams vying for the national championship. Why is that? The answer is undoubtable multifaceted, but list at least includes money, coaching and talented players.
Money enables schools to build better facilities to house and feed the student-athletes. Money can be used to improve practicing facilities and stadiums. Money will also draw talented coaches and staff.
Some coaches are just better than others. A few come up with innovative play concepts that work on the field. Some are more adept at adapting their programs to the personnel they have. Some coaches can make in-game changes better than others. All try, but not all are successful at connecting with the players and motivating the team.
And then there are the players that are faster, stronger, and/or smarter. Some have leadership skills that are critical to creating winning programs. In other words, more talented.
So, IF folks wanted to level the playing field, how could that be done? I imagine that there could be ways to limit the amount money available to the teams. In my opinion, any scheme that would attempt to do that would be complicated and some schools would find ways to "cheat". How do you limit the abilities of a coach? I think it might be easier to impact the player quality available to teams.
My suggestion is to temporarily increase the number of scholarships available to teams that finish at the bottom of their conference. The conference champion would not be "punished" for winning and would retain their 85 scholarships but the schools that finished below them would be temporarily allotted proportionally more scholarships up to a maximum of (suggested) 88. Any of these temporary scholarships would expire at the end of 4 years.
This change would not obviate the power of money nor the talent of Sabin-like coaches, but making more scholarships available to schools without those advantages could add to a larger pool of quality players for them and has the potential to add some intrigue to the national championship.
As an added bonus, coaches would be more inclined to rest a marginally injured player because other talented players would be available to play.

DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.

Comments

The problem is that the people with the power in college football aren't interested in "leveling the field".

Some teams being more equal than other teams is good for business.

Some teams being more equal than other teams is good for some people's business

Yeah, like the people who run college football (conferences and cable networks).

You can only fuck that chicken so many times before people stop watching.

I don't know about you all, but lately unless it's VT or directly related to VT, I barely watch college football anymore. I have no desire to watch the 50th time someone is trying to beat Alabama or Clemson only to see it be a 30 point whipping. The major games just aren't entertaining when the result is known before kickoff. And the playoff has only made things worse by putting in something that allows either of those two to lose and still be ok, effectively putting them in the playoff before the season starts. The intrigue is gone and the sport is going to see some major hits once the average viewers realize this and turn away. It's every bit as bad as the NBA with the Warriors, but worse because the high roster turnover keeps top players funneling to those two with everyone else holding their dicks.

"Some days you’re a horse and some days you’re a horse’s ass. I’ve been a horse’s ass for a little while." - Roy Halladay

Dude, I'm not watching chicken fucking even one time.

Let's have a better metaphor outta you, pal.

Leonard. Duh.

Same. I love college football and I couldn't bring myself to watch hardly any games this year. It's just same old same old and it's getting boring. The NFL this year was actually more exciting for once

Recruit Prosim

Is that a fancy way to say "Someone is stacking the deck" in NCAA football?

Yes, that's certainly happening, however you feel about poultry.

This is my first attempt at a forum post. Be gentle, kind family.
I admit upfront that this kind of change would face a very steep incline to be accepted, but I am tired of seeing the same teams over and over again.

Ut Prosim Ad Dei Gloriam

I'm not entirely sure I agree with you, but it would be fascinating to watch it unfold. Leg for the idea and post.

I found TKP after two rails from TOTS then walking back to my apartment and re-watching the 2012 Sugar Bowl. I woke up the next day with this username.

Fascinating idea and great first post.

Giving the worse schools more scholarships wouldn't necessarily lead to more parity as they would just get more of the lower rated players.

Now, if you were to limit the scholarships of the top teams, say reduce the number of scholarships of the teams in the playoff for two years after their current recruiting class, then you would have more top rated players to spread around to the other schools in the future.

"Sooner or later, if man is ever to be worthy of his destiny, we must fill our heart with tolerance."
-Stan Lee

"Never half-ass two things. Whole-ass one thing."
-Ron Swanson

"11-0, bro"
-Hunter Carpenter (probably)

The way you'd do it would be to limit the number of 5 star and 4 star scholarships on any given team.

Alabama, Clemson, and Ohio State would argue how unfair that would be.

I would accept that but I am not sure that that wouldn't somehow violate some portion of constitutional law.

My original concept was trying to avoid taking anything away from the powerhouse programs. I think that might result in long legal battles. (I am not sure that is the way things work.) Instead, I tried to come up with a way to add to the opportunities of the non-powerhouse programs.

Ut Prosim Ad Dei Gloriam

Constitutional Law?

The teams need to abide by NCAA bi-laws. Getting the NCAA off the blue blood tit is something I don't think will ever happen.

What's
Important
Now

I am not a lawyer, so this is a true amateur speaking. I was thinking of the problems of denying a kid the choice of going to the school he wanted.

Ut Prosim Ad Dei Gloriam

People are denied the right to go to colleges all the time. Some requirements are stretched to get athletes in. It's no different then right now, where a team only has a certain amount of scholarships available.

What's
Important
Now

But would there being a legal issue with denying someone the right to go to the school of his choice because he was too skilled? [Again, I have no legal background, just asking)

Ut Prosim Ad Dei Gloriam

I don't have a law degree either, but people are judged and denied things all the damn time.

There are scholarship limits already and the denies talented kids from joining the team if their dreams already. They enforced it back when Miami was a powerhouse for this exact reason.

What's
Important
Now

Nobody is denied the "right" to go to college. Nobody has that "right" in the first place.

Leonard. Duh.

You are correct.

What's
Important
Now

You 100% have the right to go to college. If the government said I can't go to college, that is a violation of my natural rights

Recruit Prosim

Well, the government mostly does say that you can't go to college if you don't graduate high school.

You're mixing up rights and privileges. In America you have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That last one is the important one. The pursuit of happiness doesn't mean you have the right to be happy... you just have the right to try. You absolutely can apply to every college in the country. However, unless you were diligent in your pursuits, you'll probably get turned down at MIT, among others... which is OK. That's MIT expressing its right to be selective according to a merit system.

I'm buzzing from some hair of the dog. If I missed sarcasm in your post, sorry, and that'll just be one fine 5th grade Civics lesson down the drain.

Leonard. Duh.

I'm not saying I am entitled to go to college. That is up to the college. You have more rights than just life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Rights are inherent and DO NOT come from the government.

Recruit Prosim

What Leonard is saying is correct, you seem to be confusing rights with privileges. Going to college, like driving, is a privilege. You can't just say that because you were born that you can go to college, you have to first meet the requirements of the college you wish to attend. And even if you do so you may not get accepted. I know that with the number of colleges out there it seems like anyone can go to college just because they want to, but there are still minimum requirements and costs, that must be met. Which is what makes it a privilege.

To go back to the driving analogy, just because you're 16 doesn't mean you have the right to drive. You earn that privilege by passing the tests. And that privilege can be revoked if you prove yourself unworthy of it. The same is true with college. That privilege can be revoked if you're unworthy, not by the government, but by the college itself.

There is nothing in the world like Thursday night in Blacksburg!

I think you don't understand what a right is tbh. You clearly have the right to freedom to own a firearm as listed in the bill of rights. That does not mean that they will be provided for you or that you are entitled to one. According to your definition, that would be a privilege, which it's not.

I am not saying you automatically get to go to college. I'm saying that a third party other than you or the college preventing you from going to college is infringing on your right to seek education

Recruit Prosim

No misunderstanding here, I know perfectly well what are rights and what aren't. And rather than writing a long reply on that part, I defer to the reply that Leonard left below.

I do want to comment of your gun analogy, as that does fit well to prove my point. Yes, a person in this country has the "right" to own a gun. Provided that they can afford a gun, and are worthy (pass background check, no major felonies, etc), and that right can be revoked. Which in a way makes ownership of a gun more of a privilege than a right.

Anyway, good discussion, not wanting an argument. Have a good night.

There is nothing in the world like Thursday night in Blacksburg!

I mean if the state can put you to death, then by your definition everything is a privilege and we have no rights

Recruit Prosim

"Recruit Prosim" is a glorious signature.

Mileage varies based on if you say OOT or UTT

"Why gobble gobble chumps asks such good questions, I will never know." - TheFifthFuller

Thanks man. Which JHS is that?

Recruit Prosim

Not really.

You have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Doesn't mean you can't go to jail if you don't abide by our laws. (Because in that case you've impeded on the life, liberty, or happiness of someone else)

I was replying to

and that right can be revoked. Which in a way makes ownership of a gun more of a privilege than a right.

Recruit Prosim

Rights you perceive as "inherent" are, in this country, codified by, and supported and enforced by, the "government". The Bill of Rights didn't write itself, and it took agreement, compromise, and governmental action to produce it. And we, the people, are the government, like it or not, and have the power to change what rights we do allow our country to grant and support.

Reel men fish on Wednesdays

You are correct. Rights are inherent, and do not come from the government. Of course some governments would have their citizens believe otherwise, but that's why the USA is a pretty cool place.

Your inherent rights are in fact the three that were discussed above, if you base it on John Locke and the Magna Carta, which is what our founding fathers did when they wrote the Declaration and the Constitution. The Declaration states these three rights as having been endowed by the Creator, which means they are natural. If you cobble those up with the all men are created equal thing, you get the basis for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

You confused me at "I absolutely have the right to go to college." I think you mean that "I have the right to apply to college." That would fall under the "pursuit of happiness" category.

I guess now I don't understand your point. Do you need more natural rights than those three, and "all men are created equal? I mean... Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness covers a shit ton of bases. I guess you could bring up the Bill of Rights, but those are pretty much based on the L, L, and POH.

Leonard. Duh.

We're saying the same thing just not on the same page. When talking about college absolutely a college can reject you. Admission is an agreement you and the college enter. I'm referring to a third party preventing you from attending. That would infringe on your rights

Recruit Prosim

In the case above, the third party would only be limiting the number of scholarships for football, not the ability to attend the college.

"with all due respect, and remember I’m sayin’ it with all due respect, that idea ain’t worth a velvet painting of a whale and a dolphin gettin’ it on" - Ricky Bobby

I agree and never disputed that.

Recruit Prosim

well, historically people have been denied the right to pursue higher education and that was deemed unconstitutional. It's not a fundamental right, as I think you're implying, but you can't deny the right to pursue higher education on a discriminatory bases, such as on the basis of race, religion or gender.

🦃 🦃 🦃

Corrrect.

I would clarify that the Constitution offers equal protection of the laws, and has specific provisions to protect certain classes of people from discrimination, which is different from offering higher education as a right.

I would accept that but I am not sure that that wouldn't somehow violate some portion of constitutional law.

This has nothing to do with the constitution. There are no college athletic scholarship guarantees in the Bill of Rights.

although the premise of this question wasn't firmly grasped, there is a constitutional issue revolving around granting/removing scholarships in regards to gender equality.

Legally, equality of scholarships for each gender is upheld by statute (Title IX). Theoretically, if the statute didn't exist, granting unequal scholarships between genders could have some Constitutional issues based under the Fourteenth Amendment.

🦃 🦃 🦃

But it gives those schools a slightly better opportunity to find the diamond in the rough

This is going to be great for the ACC.

Part of my idea, just better phrased.

Ut Prosim Ad Dei Gloriam

When I read the title of this thread, I thought that this post was going to be a Swiftian satire type of deal.

So, I'll steal from Vonnegut and say how about we just Harrison Bergeron college football and strap weights and anchors to the best athletes. The higher the players star rating, the more weight gets strapped on their backs. You run a 4.5sec 40m out of high school? Not anymore! Here's 40 pounds and a parachute. Everyone runs a 5.2 and likes it or no free scholly for you kid.

"Sooner or later, if man is ever to be worthy of his destiny, we must fill our heart with tolerance."
-Stan Lee

"Never half-ass two things. Whole-ass one thing."
-Ron Swanson

"11-0, bro"
-Hunter Carpenter (probably)

I was expecting the same thing. Thank you for the satire!

"That move was slicker than a peeled onion in a bowl of snot." -Mike Burnop

Like a handicap race in the sport of horse racing.

Capitalism at its worst is what college football is. It's getting more boring every year. I shouldn't be able to tell my Uncle that Notre Dame is going to get blown out and Oklahoma has no chance a few hours before the game and be absolutely right.

Schools that abide by the rules get hurt for running a clean program and the ones that have bagmen and cheat get ahead or slaps on the wrist when they get caught. Coruption rules the roost.

The playoffs has made it worse, because now these schools in them year after year are racking in a ton more money and it's putting Bama and Clemson in another stratosphere of money.

It will never change because the blue bloods have alumni that will not let them. They make to much money and god forbid someone else has a taste.

What's
Important
Now

Schools that abide by the rules get hurt for running a clean program and the ones that have bagmen and cheat get ahead or slaps on the wrist when they get caught. Coruption rules the roost.

Ding ding ding ding! We have a winner!

Let's Go

HOKIES

Depends on how the success of the program is defined. If it's filling up a trophy case at any cost, then that's one metric. If it's graduating student-athletes, creating a culture of a a team and a "home" atmosphere where the kids are sent off into the world ready to succeed at anything they do, that's another.

I think goals do need to be tempered. You realize the last time there was a National Champion that was a first timer was 1993 and F$U. Ever since then it's bee repeat offenders. The Blue Bloods are definitely in a league of their own. Period.

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

You should stop talking to your Uncle about these predictions and start talking to a sports book.

That's capitalism at its finest.

Leonard. Duh.

I think you're misunderstanding capitalism.

I can tell your uncle that Google is going to earn more money than duckduckgo every day of the week and be right.

And except for Bama, Clemson and perhaps a few other teams it seems to me that the parity in college football has increased not decreased.

Not at the top. That's for sure. The playoffs have made it worse then it was before.

What's
Important
Now

Plenty of NC games have been blow outs as have other top tier bowl games (what we now call NY6). Momentum is a killer in sports, so blowouts happen even between evenly matched teams. That's not to say that the 1st round this year was "evenly matched", since Bama was a clear top dog all year and Clemson established the same level after Lawrence got some real game experience. In prior years, the teams were more even. Heck we've even seen 4th seeds win the natty (and there were blow outs in CFP games that year).

There's always a top that is better than the rest. Bama wasn't it for a long time. Clemson has never really been it until now. Things change.

I wouldn't worry about who's at the top until we are in a position to challenge them.

I have many thiughts on how you can try

1- First off, allow all players to transfer and start at another school without sitting out a year. When you have situations like Manny Diaz being Temple's coach for 17 days and signing a class before bolting to Miami with no penalty, it's absurd we still force players to sit out when transferring. Allow them to move freely. This would help prevent teams from stockpiling talent by allowing players who are buried but could start elsewhere to do just that.

2- Expand the playoff to 6 and immediately implement auto bids for all conference championship to be the only entry into it. Introduce chaos to the equation, allow for a situation where a key loss by one of these super teams during the year ruins a season. Force ND to join a conference, and invite the best G5 conference champion to round out the playoff field. No more situations with mutliple teams from one conference stuffing the field. This would help encourage talent to spread out and not concentrate to certain teams or certain conferences.

And now for some outside the box thinking

3- Split the P5 away from the G5 to create its own division and move toward insular scheduling. Along with this have one body in charge of sponsorship and TV rights for all conferences and implement revenue sharing across all teams and not just within conferences. Keep the money in the places which still keeps people happy but you're trying to encourage parity here where it's not the same programs playing the big games year after year.

4- likewise, once you've created this P5 division, implement a recruiting 'cap' based recruiting rankings where you only have so many allocation points per cycle to prevent teams from loading up on the best. Allow more allocation points for the worse teams to help pick them up off the ground when they are bad. This wouldn't punish players but would help force the talent to spread across the board. Work with 247, Rivals, etc to come up with an industry standard ratings system.

"Some days you’re a horse and some days you’re a horse’s ass. I’ve been a horse’s ass for a little while." - Roy Halladay

I really like 3/4. I was thinking of some conferenceless grouping that just included all the P5 teams.

You want to keep the non blue blood fans interested because they make you money too.

What's
Important
Now

You have more money to make by pulling up the 'lower' programs and making more games actually meaningful than ensuring the best of the best is allowed to grow the gap.

It's a tried and trusted path that has been proven in major leagues over time. It's why we haven't seen a major pro team fold in the us since the 60s or 70s. It's why you have teams like the Carolina Hurricanes in hockey sell for an absurd $500m despite being a franchise that loses money pretty much every year.

"Some days you’re a horse and some days you’re a horse’s ass. I’ve been a horse’s ass for a little while." - Roy Halladay

The more complex, the more it will be gamed and opens opportunity for corruption.
The moneyed teams will find the ways to wield undo power.

I like the OP. Simple and only 1 way to game it, lose on purpose.

This is going to be great for the ACC.

What if there were a salary cap on coaches?

Money would still pour into programs, but then it would be used on other aspects of the program.

Cant do that, the coaches already took this to court in like the 80s.

Step 1: Strict limit on support staff members. Something like 10 on field coaches, 2 analysts, 3 GAs, 4 S&C coaches, 3 recruiting cordinators. That way Alabama and tOSU can't stockpile all these former coaches and assistants and have 100 recruiters
Step 2 allow students more flexibility with transferring l, especially with Coaching changes

ome coaches are just better than others. A few come up with innovative play concepts that work on the field. Some are more adept at adapting their programs to the personnel they have.

I'm drunk! No free passes next year!

"Hey Bud, you wont have to hold the opponent to 17 points anymore."

My first instinct before reading the OP was: Joy, another post based on hating someone else's success, and some bitter utopian solution.

But then you made an interesting submission that gives more kids an opportunity to get a college degree and I'm like, yeah, this has merit regardless of the motivation.

Bravo sir. Great first forum post!

Thank you for the kind comment.

Ut Prosim Ad Dei Gloriam

TL;DR

Ban Saban from coaching. He's reached the sumit. He should go out on top. Which is now.
Force Alabama to play a non-conference game at another major teams home. No more of this "Atlanta is a neutral site". That's just like us saying FedEx is a neutral site game for us. When was the last time they played a good opponent outside of the south? Like actually went to any non-conference P5 team's campus to play??

agree with some of what Alum07 said above too. Players should be allowed to adjust due to coaching changes with no penalty.

I really think we are gonna have to wait till Saban retires. I don't know how he does it. It doesn't matter the staff he has or anything they just reload in players and coaching staff. It's crazy. We may get to the top one day but I don't ever think we'll be a dynasty team and probably not as long as Saban is around. We almost got Dabo once. We can get him again one day.

If you don't want to recruit clowns, don't run a clown show.

"I want to punch people from UVA right in the neck." - Colin Cowherd

Penn State in 2011 and Duke in 2010

From the 2018 VT-uva game-"This is when LEGENDS are made!"

Great post and interesting topic.

IMO it's all about the money:
$$$=better facilities, coaches, exposure =better athletes=success=$$$.....

Why would the NCAA mess with success?.....The NCAA had a record revenue of > $ 1 BILLION last year!
(and that's above board monies....)

I don't think it will change voluntarily.

Either change will have to come by court/legislation..... or organically, of which there are signs:

Bowls are not well attended, the Natty/playoffs are predictable, season ticket prices are increasing with decreasing attendances and many frustrated fan bases with unrealistic expectations.

To quote my Gamecock wife (hey now!): 'they just raised ticket prices! Why would anybody pay to watch them lose to uva?'

SO.....what about changing fan expectations, experiences?
The models are there in business:
Consumers are increasingly spending their dollars on products from companies that grow the greater good, rather than focus just on the product.

Imagine if VT, knowing we're not likely to compete for the NC soon, start competing for better things: donate $1/ticket to the children's home, donation spots at tailgates, pick a charity at away sites for visiting fans to support, etc.
Then....imagine the ACC sponsoring shelters, disaster relief, disadvantaged scholarships, etc.
Then, imagine an NCAA giving a big check to the chosen charity on behalf of the winning team, rather than the individual schools.

That levels the field a bit and has many more winners than losers.

The current arms race protected by the NCAA is getting stale.

I love watching the Army/Navy game every year for the simple reason that it doesn't mean anything, but the players play it like it means everything.

My niece...a sophomore at Bama just said today 'if we win, we'll have 2 Natty's since I'm there.....I wonder what we can re-name for Saban?'

Cool, but while we're waiting for VT to win it all, what else can we be winning?

(Not trying to be pollyanna, and of course I want my Hokies to compete/win, but CFB has been lackluster for me this year.....)

So the scholarship idea is interesting but i think it will only helps for fringe kids that are diamonds in the rough. Four more scholarships doesnt get VT another 5* player, at best we get another Sam Rogers. I don't see how that closes the gap to Bama-Clemson.

I am not sure how you close the gap, but some gap has always been there, look at FSU in the 90s. They probably would have had a 15 year run in the playoffs. Miami in the 80s.

I would love to limit coaching compensation, but that's illegal.

I would love for scholarships to be 4 years guaranteed.

I would love for players to get better compensation.

Limiting staff is a good idea. But teams will find away around that. Bama has law students reviewing NCAA rules for loop holes, they arent football staff.

Right now there are too many hands in the cookie jar. Bowl game executives get million dollar salaries for a 3.5 hour event, and maybe a parade. It's some work, but a million dollars? I really think if the P5 teams create their own division outside of the NCAA then there is a chance, they create the rules and distribute the money evenly, run the bowls, run the playoffs. All P5 teams have same tv deal. Scheduling is handle by formula/rotation some other way than two schools talking.
It wont happen but one can dream ( dont care if g5 comes with but I dont see that happening) Allow for real punishments too. Once all the parasites have their hands off the money there will be so much money that punishing Bama from a post season wont even show up on the ledger.

I would truly love to see VT win the National Championship in Football, but what I was looking for was something to shake up the playoff picture. I am so sick of Alabama and the SEC crowd crowing about being the best. I will be rooting for Clemson if for no other reason but that, Outside of that game, I would be glad to see Clemson stumble for the same reason that they have won and won and won... If both teams are taken down a few notches, other teams might be playing for the big prize with the added benefit that VT might get a chance to be part of the discussion.

Ut Prosim Ad Dei Gloriam

One other thought on the additional 5 football scholarships. That school would also probably have to add another 5 in a ladies sport to compensate for potential Title IX issues..

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Good point and something I had not considered. I am sure that there might be other costs, as well.

Ut Prosim Ad Dei Gloriam

I thought about that and I also thought that adding schollys or something to other sports might be a good idea as well.

Say 4-5 for football and an additional number of scholarships for a non-revenue sport, schools choice.

But don't do this just for football. Say also do it for, BB, soccer or some Olympic type sport too.

This is going to be great for the ACC.

Edit: I'm an idiot

Warning: this post occasionally contains strong language (which may be unsuitable for children), unusual humor (which may be unsuitable for adults), and advanced mathematics (which may be unsuitable for liberal-arts majors)..

If it's all about money, why have Texas and USC kind of sucked for awhile now?

(Disclaimer - Texas does seem to be getting their shit together lately.)

Leonard. Duh.

My solution would be to stop televising college football games.

Not the bagman VT deserves, but the bagman VT needs right now.

Vote with your eyes. Quit watching boring predictable games and ESPN will do something to bring back fans. Remodel FBS on the concept of FCS and the NCAA basketball tournament and allow everyone a chance to make the playoffs. The current playoffs is for the "elites" only.

#Let's Go - Hokies

What about getting rid of the "3 years removed from high school" rule to enter the NFL draft? Bama has freshman and sophomores that have NFL bodies. Perhaps allowing them into the NFL earlier would provide more parity? It may just allow them to attract more players since their upperclassmen would move on faster. Just a thought.

I like this topic, but hard to find answers. I think Alum had some good input above.

Money definitely plays a major factor in this, and there is one area that has always bothered me about college sports. Big-name programs are allowed to skew their schedules toward having more home games than road games. I think there was a recent season (<10 years ago) where either Ohio State or Wisconsin had eight home games. This gives the big programs more money through tickets, merchandise, etc. - the same losses VT realized with the ECU cancellation. Not to mention the advantage of extra home games in the win column which directly translates to CFP potential.

Every major sports league forces an even split between home/road games except college sports. If some schools are playing 7-8 home games, then the smaller programs are scheduling very low tier games to fill their slots which likely attract small crowds which doesn't maximize their revenue. Yes, LA Tech gets a hefty check to travel to Tuscaloosa to get beat but is still probably less than the revenue that would bring in if Alabama was required to travel to an actual college campus for a non-conference game.

Maybe in place of the allotted extra scholarships for poor-performing teams give them the ability to schedule an extra home game in the future. Logistics here would be a nightmare since schedules are largely set in advance, but there's plenty of shuffling that can be accommodated. This would allow more revenue for the smaller schools which could translate to facilities, recruiting, etc as well as slightly less money for programs who don't necessarily need it to operate smoothly.

If you can't win change the rules?

So you think a monopoly is ok?

Wet stuff on the red stuff.

Join us in the Key Players Club

Everyone has the same rules. Bammer (and to some extent a few others) has figured out how to flourish and prosper with the same parameters as all others. A monopoly is completely eliminating the competition. There are 129 other FBS teams out there...

Give it some time and this will pass for Bammer. "Dynasties" don't last. They fall hard. See https://thegruelingtruth.net/college-football/15-greatest-dynasties-college-football-history/

To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
@BuryHokie #ThanksFrank

I'd simply eliminate signing day and allow binding commitments any time after a recruits' junior year in HS. Otherwise all the same visitation, eligibility, and scholarship count rules apply.

Okay, so say this was already implemented...for this recruiting class, Bama has three 5 stars, twenty two 4 stars, 1 3 star. Last place Arkansas has zero 5 stars, eight 4 stars, nineteen 3 stars. How does adding 3 more 3 stars to Arkansas' roster even the playing field against Bama?

I know stars aren't everything, but they are something

Now finish up them taters; I'm gonna go fondle my sweaters.

I dont care how many scholarships UT gets...Alabama with Saban will kick everyone's a** up and down the field.

Never crimp your blasting caps with your teeth. - Dr Haycocks

Its always 110 Holden...said every mining engineer ever.

Salary cap.