• You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.

HuskerMax readers can save 50% on  Omaha Steaks .

Restoring Parity to College Football

Mentally Red

Mentally Red

Got Huskers on my mind
5 Year Member
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I am weary of watching national championship games involving Clemson and/or Alabama (or some other sunbelt team). It can’t be good for TV ratings when the same teams dominate year after year. The teams that are closer to the talent geographically have a clear advantage. I think it would be in everyone’s best interest to take steps to negate that advantage and create more parity. It would make college football more interesting for everyone and probably increase viewership.

So what are some steps that the NCAA could take? One idea I have is to allow the schools to cover more travel expenses for the athletes and their families.
 
Last edited:

Mentally Red said:
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I am weary of watching national championship games involving Clemson and/or Alabama (or some other sunbelt team). It can’t be good for TV ratings when the same teams dominate year after year. The teams that are closer to the talent geographically have a clear advantage. I think it would be in everyone’s best interest to take steps to negate that advantage and create more parity. It would make college football more interesting for everyone and probably increase viewership.

So what are some steps that the NCAA could take? One idea I have is to allow the schools to cover more travel expenses for the athletes and their families.
Click to expand...

If the rest of the country would get better, that would help.

Honestly, it's cyclical to a degree, but the South and the coasts are always going to have a recruiting advantage.
 
The only way to restore a significant number of teams to a competitive status with the few elite teams remaining is to raise the scholarship limits back to at least 100. That would allow 15 more scholarships (about 50% of them producing good players) and would bring the old blue blood programs back to life. Imaging the Huskers with 7 or 8 more positions filled with a top flight player...yeah, they could compete again.
 



Mentally Red said:
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I am weary of watching national championship games involving Clemson and/or Alabama (or some other sunbelt team). It can’t be good for TV ratings when the same teams dominate year after year. The teams that are closer to the talent geographically have a clear advantage. I think it would be in everyone’s best interest to take steps to negate that advantage and create more parity. It would make college football more interesting for everyone and probably increase viewership.

So what are some steps that the NCAA could take? One idea I have is to allow the schools to cover more travel expenses for the athletes and their families.
Click to expand...
You weren't complaining in the 90s were you pal?
 
Greatest Fan of All said:
The only way to restore a significant number of teams to a competitive status with the few elite teams remaining is to raise the scholarship limits back to at least 100. That would allow 15 more scholarships (about 50% of them producing good players) and would bring the old blue blood programs back to life. Imaging the Huskers with 7 or 8 more positions filled with a top flight player...yeah, they could compete again.
Click to expand...
this would have zero effect. All we would do is add another 1800 players across the nation that were formally walk-ons. The top programs would dip into the elite pool more often with the additional scholarships with the lower programs missing out on those elite ones and settling for more of the bottom level talent.

There are only so many 4 and 5 star recruits. An example is Alabama in 2019. They had 3 five star and 23 four star recruits. They took one 3 star who they probably think is a diamond in the rough. If you allow them 3-4 more scholarships a year they will most likely grab more 4 and 5 star recruits that would have gone on to other lower ranked teams. It will do the opposite and make it unfairer just like before limitations.......which is exactly what has brought some parity.
 
Greatest Fan of All said:
The only way to restore a significant number of teams to a competitive status with the few elite teams remaining is to raise the scholarship limits back to at least 100. That would allow 15 more scholarships (about 50% of them producing good players) and would bring the old blue blood programs back to life. Imaging the Huskers with 7 or 8 more positions filled with a top flight player...yeah, they could compete again.
Click to expand...

Yup, raise the scholarship limits and let schools pick up the travel expense tab for kids and their families. Nebraska is one of the richer schools in FBS, so I have no problem with us throwing more money into football. This might pose a problem for schools like KState or Illinois but whatever.

Switzer used to claim that he'd recruit the top 5 running backs - and then bench four of them - just so feet didn't wind up on Nebraska's or Texas' rosters.
 




Greatest Fan of All said:
The only way to restore a significant number of teams to a competitive status with the few elite teams remaining is to raise the scholarship limits back to at least 100. That would allow 15 more scholarships (about 50% of them producing good players) and would bring the old blue blood programs back to life. Imaging the Huskers with 7 or 8 more positions filled with a top flight player...yeah, they could compete again.
Click to expand...
I don’t know about that. It seems like we sometimes have trouble filling the spots we have now.
 
Mentally Red said:
Exactly. That’s why we need something to offset that advantage so it’s more balanced and fair.
Click to expand...

The only thing I'd like to see is an increase in scholarship numbers. That's it. Again, it's cyclical. I'm not interested in the NCAA changing the rules because other than Ohio State, most of the middle America schools have been also rans.

It'll change when Nebraska, Notre Dame, Michigan, etc. start playing a part again.
 
Hville said:
this would have zero effect. All we would do is add another 1800 players across the nation that were formally walk-ons. The top programs would dip into the elite pool more often with the additional scholarships with the lower programs missing out on those elite ones and settling for more of the bottom level talent.
Click to expand...
Yep, agree. The rich would just get richer. Think of all the good players we have taken from states where the local powerhouse team passed because they only had a limited number of slots.
 



CrabHusker said:
The only thing I'd like to see is an increase in scholarship numbers. That's it. Again, it's cyclical. I'm not interested in the NCAA changing the rules because other than Ohio State, most of the middle America schools have been also rans.

It'll change when Nebraska, Notre Dame, Michigan, etc. start playing a part again.
Click to expand...
I’d take Michigan or Notre Dames level of performance in a heartbeat. They aren’t exactly chopped liver. But I see your point; they aren’t making the final four.
 

I think if the southern schools would play more games up north (ie SEC play B1G schools at our house) they may pick up a few more losses, especially if played in Oct. or Nov. Let's see how they handle the wind & cold conditions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

GET TICKETS


Get 50% off on Omaha Steaks

Back
Top