• 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.

Restoring Parity to College Football

Mentally Red

Recruit
2 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:

CrabHusker

It rubs the lotion on its skin.
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.
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.
 

Greatest Fan of All

The Legend
10 Year Member
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.
 

jmatlock

Yo Quiero runzas
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.
You weren't complaining in the 90s were you pal?
 

Hville

Junior Varsity
5 Year Member
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.
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.
 

DuckTownHusker

Blackshirt Sith Lord
5 Year Member
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.
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.
 

Mentally Red

Recruit
2 Year Member
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.
I don’t know about that. It seems like we sometimes have trouble filling the spots we have now.
 

CrabHusker

It rubs the lotion on its skin.
5 Year Member
Exactly. That’s why we need something to offset that advantage so it’s more balanced and fair.
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.
 

Mentally Red

Recruit
2 Year Member
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.
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.
 

Mentally Red

Recruit
2 Year Member
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.
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.
 

HuskerGene

A work in progress
5 Year Member
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.
 
Top