Started By
Message
re: 15 of the Top-100 just signed with 1 school.
Posted on 2/4/21 at 9:48 am to Lonnie Utah
Posted on 2/4/21 at 9:48 am to Lonnie Utah
quote:
With the 85 Scholarship limit and the 25 yearly cap, student athletes are already restricted in where they can go.
Which is already wrong IMO, but that is simply a blanket, objective rule that only considers numbers. A "talent cap" would be the NCAA telling Johnny 5 Star from Atlanta that he has to go to Georgia Tech because according to a couple of recruiting websites Clemson, Alabama, and Georgia are already maxed out on their talent allotments. Nevermind the fact that recruiting website rankings change constantly. I mean does that kid suddenly get to sign with Alabama if one of our commits has a mediocre senior season and gets dropped from #60 overall to #108? What happens if a dude who commits to Clemson as a 3* junior blows up as a senior and ends up as a 5* in the final 247 rankings? Does that kid suddenly no longer get to sign with the school he has been committed to for over a year because he's too good now? It's just so unbelievably stupid.
1
Posted on 2/4/21 at 9:50 am to coachcrisp
quote:
So basically you're saying even though everyone has the same number of recruits (25 yearly, with 85 total roster), Alabama should be restricted to how good they collectively are?...Who decides how good each player is?
A "talent cap"!WTF!
The concept is this, You take the 24/7 composite score for each athlete the year they sign. This is their base score. You can only have a total of so many point overall on your roster. FWIW, 24/7 already does this with their talent composite score. Based on the number there today, I think a good number would be around 850, which would be an average of a top 10-15 class every year. However the teams would want to structure their teams under the cap would be their choice.
Top teams would still get the (5*) top guys. Where this would start to kick in and start to equalize things would be with the 3* and 4* players. It would give more of those guys a shot at the top teams. It would make the talent evaluation process even more important. Teams would start to look for the undervalued players to give them relief under the cap.
I would also be open to a reevaluation process for players depending on their year performance.
It's just an idea. It's not perfect. But the object is to provide a little more parity for the teams in college football (like the NFL). Everyone is tired of the same 4-6 teams being in the CFP conversation every year. We can continue down the same path, or we can do something different.
This post was edited on 2/4/21 at 10:03 am
Posted on 2/4/21 at 9:55 am to Robot Santa
quote:
A "talent cap" would be the NCAA telling Johnny 5 Star from Atlanta that he has to go to Georgia Tech because according to a couple of recruiting websites Clemson, Alabama, and Georgia are already maxed out on their talent allotments.
No, it would make teams offer the players that can really help them vs sending our 50 million offers to every kid in the top 300. What it would also do is eliminate the "Bama bump" that kids get when they commit to one of the top teams. In fact, teams WOULDN'T want their players to get that bump as it would hurt them the next recruiting cycle.
And it's not a stupid idea, it's an idea that would attempt to level the playing field for everyone except about 5 or 10 teams (at the max). It would prevent teams from signing all the 5*'s in a class simply to have them sit the bench for 3 years or enter the transfer portal after 2. It does require a paradigm shift in how we think about talent and talent evaluation when it comes to high school athletes.
Posted on 2/4/21 at 9:58 am to Lonnie Utah
Yeah...well...Arkansas and Texas once dominated the college football landscape. Nothing lasts forever.
That said, I do think it is more fun for everyone when more parity exists....so I'm for that.
That said, I do think it is more fun for everyone when more parity exists....so I'm for that.
Posted on 2/4/21 at 9:58 am to Lonnie Utah
quote:
No, it would make teams offer the players that can really help them vs sending our 50 million offers to every kid in the top 300. What it would also do is eliminate the "Bama bump" that kids get when they commit to one of the top teams. In fact, teams WOULDN'T want their players to get that bump as it would hurt them the next recruiting cycle.
You do understand that this would basically allow Rivals, 247, and ESPN to manipulate college football rosters right?
quote:
And it's not a stupid idea
Giving an idiot like Mike Farrell the ability to dictate who various college football programs can sign is absolutely, unquestionably a stupid idea.
Posted on 2/4/21 at 10:02 am to Robot Santa
quote:
You do understand that this would basically allow Rivals, 247, and ESPN to manipulate college football rosters right?
You realize they already do right?
Look, I said the idea wasn't perfect, it's just a concept. You don't have to use those services per se, it's just an example of how it could be done. You could have your own independent evaluators much like the CFP committee. And yes, I would expect the recruiting sites to go in total revolt over that idea...
Posted on 2/4/21 at 10:02 am to Lonnie Utah
yeah. The ncaa is going to tell a kid where he can go to school. This, at a time when individual rights are more prevailing than ever before.
The ncaa might try to end athletic scholarships entirely, but telling a kid where he can go to school is never going to happen.
The ncaa might try to end athletic scholarships entirely, but telling a kid where he can go to school is never going to happen.
This post was edited on 2/4/21 at 10:04 am
Posted on 2/4/21 at 10:08 am to BLG
quote:
yeah. The ncaa is going to tell a kid where he can go to school. This, at a time when individual rights are more prevailing than ever before.
That's not it at all. The SCHOOL's would have to decide who'd they'd like to offer based on their needs and their current roster. You look at the offer list for the top 100-150-200 kids out there, they have offers from almost every Power 5 school. That's what would end. And the base level for the cap would be set high enough (a top 10-15 class yearly) it wouldn't have the catastrophic effect some of ya'll are claiming.
Look, this would be no different that the process for 99.99% of all college students. I would have loved to go to Harvard (well, not really but bare with me). The reality is, I didn't have the grades nor the SAT score. Just because you WANT to go to a school, it doesn't mean you'll get accepted by the school. That's reality for most perspective college students. This would really be no different that the SAT and GPA requirements that the NCAA already has in place.
This post was edited on 2/4/21 at 10:12 am
Posted on 2/4/21 at 10:11 am to Lonnie Utah
quote:
I would have loved to go to Harvard (well, not really but bare with me). The reality is, I didn't have the grades nor the SAT score.
And you seem to be a few neurons short on this subject as well.
Posted on 2/4/21 at 10:11 am to Lonnie Utah
quote:
I would have loved to go to Harvard (well, not really but bare with me). The reality is, I didn't have the grades nor the SAT score.
What if you're a player who wants to go to School A for Degree B because they have the best school for the field you want to go into, but can't because you're a composite four star and School A has too many of those on their roster?
Posted on 2/4/21 at 10:12 am to RollTide1987
quote:
What if you're a player who wants to go to School A for Degree B because they have the best school for the field you want to go into, but can't because you're a composite four star and School A has too many of those on their roster?
Walk on. The cap would only apply to scholarship players. Yes, it would be a loophole. The choice would then be on the player (and not the NCAA like ya'll are claiming). Free education or a specific degree from a specific school. The ultimate free market decision.
This post was edited on 2/4/21 at 10:15 am
Posted on 2/4/21 at 10:13 am to Lonnie Utah
quote:Lonnie, I've got just one question for you:
You realize they already do right?
Look, I said the idea wasn't perfect, it's just a concept. You don't have to use those services per se, it's just an example of how it could be done. You could have your own independent evaluators much like the CFP committee. And yes, I would expect the recruiting sites to go in total revolt over that idea...
Are you a Democrat?
Posted on 2/4/21 at 10:15 am to Lonnie Utah
the schools can't decide for a kid where he will go any more than the ncaa or any other entity can decide for him or her. It's never going to happen.
What will happen, if american type football survives at all, will be the NFL will establish a minor league of sorts, and college tuition for every player might be a policy.
What will happen, if american type football survives at all, will be the NFL will establish a minor league of sorts, and college tuition for every player might be a policy.
Posted on 2/4/21 at 10:15 am to coachcrisp
quote:
Are you a Democrat?
No. I can think for myself so I'm an independent. If I had to truly classify my self I'd say I'm a Constitutionalist.
Why does that matter per this conversation?
Posted on 2/4/21 at 10:16 am to Lonnie Utah
quote:
Walk on. The cap would only apply to scholarship players. Yes, it would be a loophole.
So basically the loophole (which has since been closed) Nebraska exploited in the 90s to get so dominant late in Osborne's career?
Posted on 2/4/21 at 10:17 am to RollTide1987
quote:
So basically the loophole (which has since been closed) Nebraska exploited in the 90s to get so dominant late in Osborne's career?
I said the concept wasn't perfect.
But's it's better than what we have now.
Look this is the quintessential offseason thread. Just something to discuss and debate until August gets here.
This post was edited on 2/4/21 at 10:19 am
Posted on 2/4/21 at 10:18 am to bamameister
quote:
Oklahoma has been in the playoff, so has Oregon, Washington, Michigan State, Notre Dame, LSU.
Lol, there’s going to be a random one that shows up, but Bama, OSU, and Clemson are “signing” all the top recruits and the only consistent ones getting in the playoffs.
For actual football fans, there’s not much interest in seeing the same teams playing each other.
Posted on 2/4/21 at 10:18 am to Lonnie Utah
quote:
You realize they already do right?
No they don't. Some kid getting bumped from #308 overall to #197 overall on 247 a month after committing to a top 5 program has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on that program's roster situation. The ranking number attached to that particular player on Rivals.com does not make him any better or worse at football.
quote:
Look, I said the idea wasn't perfect, it's just a concept. You don't have to use those services per se, it's just an example of how it could be done. You could have your own independent evaluators much like the CFP committee. And yes, I would expect the recruiting sites to go in total revolt over that idea...
It doesn't matter who is responsible for it. Either way you're using an incredibly subjective standard to determine who gets to sign which players. It's the equivalent of the NFL telling the team who wins the Super Bowl that they don't get to pick anyone who is a top 50 player in the draft according to Mel Kiper.
Posted on 2/4/21 at 10:22 am to Lonnie Utah
They’ll never cap it. It’s going to be the same teams for a long time in the playoffs.
That’s what sucks about CFB and why it’s losing its appeal.
NFL has a draft, so even the shitty teams get a chance at picking up good players and becoming playoff contenders.
College football is run by 5-6 teams.
That’s what sucks about CFB and why it’s losing its appeal.
NFL has a draft, so even the shitty teams get a chance at picking up good players and becoming playoff contenders.
College football is run by 5-6 teams.
Posted on 2/4/21 at 10:22 am to Lonnie Utah
quote:
Free education or a specific degree from a specific school. The ultimate free market decision.
The ultimate free market decision would be eliminating scholarship caps altogether and allowing any kid to go to any school willing to offer him a scholarship. Unlike your proposal, which is more along the lines of a command economy where talent is allocated based on the needs of each individual football team.
Page 8 of 10
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News