re: Rule Changes you want to see

Much like the NFL, some sort of rule that works parity into recruiting. You could only have so many 5*s, so many 4*'s etc on a roster. It would have some interesting side effects like getting the top recruits to commit earlier as teams would only have so many spots for the best of the best. A leveling of the talent playing field would be good for the sport, and it would only really impact 4 or 5 programs across college football (Bama, Clemson, Ohio St, UGA (off the top of my head)) How many time do we really want to see Bama and Clemson in the playoffs anyway?

quote:

---

You could only have so many 5*s, so many 4*'s etc on a roster.

---

This is the dumbest thing I’ve seen posted on this forum in a long time and we have a lot of dumb posts. Who’s rating would you use? So a kid that grew up loving Georgia can’t go to Georgia because their are too many 4* already on the roster??? Coaches would be “processing” unsuccessful 5*’s and 4*’s constantly

It isn't targeting when an offensive player ducks his head at the last second.

Ineligible man downfield should be 1 yard instead of 3.

Add an additional layer of pass interference where it is only automatic first down if the defensive player grabs/trips an offensive player who is running by him for a touchdown.

quote:

---

Much like the NFL, some sort of rule that works parity into recruiting. You could only have so many 5*s, so many 4*'s etc on a roster. It would have some interesting side effects like getting the top recruits to commit earlier as teams would only have so many spots for the best of the best

---

This could be way, way too easily manipulated by a friendly staffer at Rivals.

quote:

---

This could be way, way too easily manipulated by a friendly staffer at Rivals.

---

That's why you would use a talent composite like the 24/7 that combines the ranking of all the major services. Additionally/alternatively the NCAA could set up their own rankings (because the are so good at everything else... :lol)

Nationally, on average, there are only 25 5* players per recruiting class. So, a theoretical rule could be, you can only sign 1 per class. That's 4 on any one teams roster at 1 time. There are about 300-400 4* players, so lets say for round number 5 or 6 per class (20-25 per roster at any one time). there are about 1200-1400 3* players so no limit on those. The concept would be there is a total talent composite index number for your signed players (walk-ons and the like don't count), that is a your talent cap number (much like a salary cap in the NFL). If could be reevaluated each year based upon the performance of the players on the roster. FWIW, 24/7 already has such an index. 24/7 talent composite. Based upon some of the data on that index, the best rosters would look like what Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Southern Cal, Oregon and Tennessee have today. As I said earlier, the only teams it would really effect would be UGA (16 5*), Ohio State (14 5*), Clemson (11 5*), and Alabama (12 5*). Some of the other teams would have to slim down on 4*'s, but that's not to onerous as you can only play 11 at 1 time.

I dunno, just spit balling. It's fun to think about when you know it's not going to happen.

quote:

---

That's why you would use a talent composite like the 24/7 that combines the ranking of all the major services. Additionally/alternatively the NCAA could set up their own rankings (because the are so good at everything else... :lol)

Nationally, on average, there are only 25 5* players per recruiting class. So, a theoretical rule could be, you can only sign 1 per class. That's 4 on any one teams roster at 1 time. There are about 300-400 4* players, so lets say for round number 5 or 6 per class (20-25 per roster at any one time). there are about 1200-1400 3* players so no limit on those. The concept would be there is a total talent composite index number for your signed players (walk-ons and the like don't count), that is a your talent cap number (much like a salary cap in the NFL). If could be reevaluated each year based upon the performance of the players on the roster. FWIW, 24/7 already has such an index. 24/7 talent composite. Based upon some of the data on that index, the best rosters would look like what Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Southern Cal, Oregon and Tennessee have today. As I said earlier, the only teams it would really effect would be UGA (16 5*), Ohio State (14 5*), Clemson (11 5*), and Alabama (12 5*). Some of the other teams would have to slim down on 4*'s, but that's not to onerous as you can only play 11 at 1 time.

I dunno, just spit balling. It's fun to think about when you know it's not going to happen.

---

That's good and all but way too complicated, just lower the scholarship numbers like I stated. You don't need 85 players.


I wouldn't mind allowing players a 1 time transfer after their freshman year. If they do that though they lose the grad transfer option.

quote:

---

That's good and all but way too comically, just lower the scholarship numbers like I stated. You don't need 85 players.

---

Did you just not watch LSU staggering through their entire schedule with less than 85? Yeah, get me some of that.

quote:

---

Did you just not watch LSU staggering through their entire schedule with less than 85? Yeah, get me some of that.

---

We were down to 50s through terrible roster management, that was on O.

Did you not watch bama, Clemson and Ohio state dominate college football the last decade. Hell you could even throw in LSU.

Those 4 teams, have won 9 out of 10 national championships this past decade. Pretty much one of the other out of Clemson or Alabama has finished second every year too.

Clemson and bama have aged 4 out of 5 years in cfl and are gonna play again this year.

Let's throw Oklahoma in cause they seem to make it a ton and out of 5 teams since the cfp has started

Out of 28 slots, those 5 have made up 21 from those 4 teams. Throw in notre Dame and it's 23 out of 28 slots. So 5 teams made up 75% of the playoff. Take lsu away and it's 4 teams made up 71%.

Bama, Clemson, osu has participated in the NC game every year since cfp started.



Yea give me some more Clemson vs Bama!!It's so fricking good for the health of the game to have the same two teams playing every year!!!

of course bama fans don't want it, it's not great for them, doesn't mean it's not great for overall health of cfb. Take off your bama glasses and look at overall health of the sport. It wouldn't really be good for LSU, but I can objectively say it would be good for overall health of the sport.

quote:

---

I could make a good argument that LSU has more talent year in and out than Clemson. My suggestion: Do better.

---

This year we didn't

LINK

Did you iss the part where I included lsu and said this

quote:

---

Take off your bama glasses and look at overall health of the sport. It wouldn't really be good for LSU, but I can objectively say it would be good for overall health of the sport.

---

How fuxking stupid are you? I just said objectively it would not be good for lsu, just like it wouldn't be good for bama/clemson/osu

But you can't make an argument why more parity would not be good for cfb overall. Just like you can make an argument that having all sections of the country involved in the cfp wouldn't not be good for cfb.

Plenty of arguments on why not to go to the playoff to begin with and I can honestly say, told you so, but now the cfp is killing the sport. Even those that benifit from it like herbie are recognizing it and calling it out.

So frick off with your be better comment and look out for the good of the sport or there will be no sport as the money will dry up.