OT: CFB is so rigged that it's a joke

[kapyoche]

Do you know who which two teams made the super bowl last year out of 32 teams?

Do you know if the same two teams made the NFL playoffs this year?

Do you know which two teams made the CFB championship game last year out of over a hundred teams?

Do you know which two CFB teams made it to the championship game this year out of over a hundred teams?

This is a rigged system.

I will not be watching.

 

[SirScarlet]

Do you know who which two teams made the super bowl last year out of 32 teams?

Do you know if the same two teams made the NFL playoffs this year?

Do you know which two teams made the CFB championship game last year out of over a hundred teams?

Do you know which two CFB teams made it to the championship game this year out of over a hundred teams?

This is a rigged system.

I will not be watching.

Not sure if serious.

I don't think it's rigged but it certainly favors the existing heavyweights/blue bloods/big brands.

Is that what you're trying to say? Thats very different from being rigged

 

[Bagarocks]

Does this mean you don't think the games are played fairly?
Do the refs manage the games instead of call the games?
What room do the powers that be meet in and determine their plan?
How many institutions are needed to actually carry out your result?
Do the billionaire alumni and benefactors get together to determine the outcome?
If so how has Texas been left out, boy that's areal head scratcher there isn't it?
Boy you really do open up a lotta questions on this conspiracy.

 

[IvyLeagueFootball]

Do you know who which two teams made the super bowl last year out of 32 teams?

Do you know if the same two teams made the NFL playoffs this year?

Do you know which two teams made the CFB championship game last year out of over a hundred teams?

Do you know which two CFB teams made it to the championship game this year out of over a hundred teams?

This is a rigged system.

I will not be watching.

The Patriots have played in 5 straight AFC Championships and are the #1 seed this year.

 

[RUtix4me]

I think the P5 should initiate a draft of HS talent, then adjust the schedule year by year to create a parity in scheduling. Put in free agency as well, and the right to waive players.......then we can have this discussion.......

 

[RUtix4me]

I think the P5 should initiate a draft of HS talent, then adjust the schedule year by year to create a parity in scheduling. Put in free agency as well, and the right to waive players.......then we can have this discussion.......

Or lets flip it, let NFL coaches recruit, have players announce their pro teams via twitter, the GM set their schedule, allow 85 players on a roster.......

 

[RUPartisan]

Do you know who which two teams made the super bowl last year out of 32 teams?

Do you know if the same two teams made the NFL playoffs this year?

Do you know which two teams made the CFB championship game last year out of over a hundred teams?

Do you know which two CFB teams made it to the championship game this year out of over a hundred teams?

This is a rigged system.

I will not be watching.

Yeah it makes no sense how the best two teams made it again after beating two other pretty good teams. Judging by the scores those games were clearly rigged by the powers that be. Alabama and Clemson needed all the help they could get to squeek by OSU and Washington. As for those other 100 multiple lose teams they definitely should have been there over these two undeserving teams.

 

[RU848789]

Easy solution that saves money for every university and will make a ton of talent available to 2nd tier teams that are currently 2nd or 3rd string at the top 10-20 schools - go to 65 scholarships. Nobody needs 85 players on scholarship - the NFL seems to do ok with 53 man rosters (of which 46 are dressed for games).

 

[retired711]

I can't believe the OP is serious. If there *were* a conspiracy, then the results of the semi-final games would not have been so lopsided: close games are better for TV ratings. I think a lot of fans were disappointed that neither game was competitive.

 

[PhilaPhans]

Keep the politics off this board.

 

[albanyknight]

The "Conspiracy" is that first class organizations that are committed to a culture of winning spend the money and have to management structure to hire the best people and provide the best support systems.

 

[Kbee3]

The "Conspiracy" is that first class organizations that are committed to a culture of winning spend the money and have to management structure to hire the best people and provide the best support systems.

That doesn't sound very different than pro leagues. The big difference is that pro leagues have determined that a draft is required in order to help level the playing field and to help ensure that the same few teams don't get the best recruits at every position year after year. I don't think that option is available for the NCAA.

 

[AreYouNUTS]

 

[Caliknight]

The OP is a known troll. Not to be taken serious.

 

[superfan01]

Op is a known troll

 

[RUforester72]

NCAA would NEVER allow this :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

 

[koleszar]

Easy solution that saves money for every university and will make a ton of talent available to 2nd tier teams that are currently 2nd or 3rd string at the top 10-20 schools - go to 65 scholarships. Nobody needs 85 players on scholarship - the NFL seems to do ok with 53 man rosters (of which 46 are dressed for games).

I agree. They did this once already when the Alabama's of the world were stashing recruits just so the competition couldn't have them when the limit was over 100. Bear Bryant did this a lot. 65 is a little too steep maybe 75.

Don't forget that 53 man roster in the NFL is only active players you have guys on injured reserve and practice squads. Then you can always pickup guys off the street. The loss of 10 spots in college would divvy up the talent pool a little more.

 

[LotusAggressor]

The "Conspiracy" is that first class organizations that are committed to a culture of winning spend the money and have to management structure to hire the best people and provide the best support systems.

Who got to you? :)

 

[zappaa]

OP is a known shock poster that adds much levity to the CE board.
He's a comedian by trade.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, laugh at him.
He makes NYC broker look like Walter Cronkite

 

[knightfan7]

Easy solution that saves money for every university and will make a ton of talent available to 2nd tier teams that are currently 2nd or 3rd string at the top 10-20 schools - go to 65 scholarships. Nobody needs 85 players on scholarship - the NFL seems to do ok with 53 man rosters (of which 46 are dressed for games).

NFL teams also bring in free agents and players cut from other teams during the year when needed. No one goes thru the season with the same 53. They also don't have 18 year old freshmen who need time to grow and develop.

Not even close to the same thing.

 

[CERU00]

OP posts something like this every other day. Why are people responding like this is a serious post?

 

[PaKnight]

That doesn't sound very different than pro leagues. The big difference is that pro leagues have determined that a draft is required in order to help level the playing field and to help ensure that the same few teams don't get the best recruits at every position year after year. I don't think that option is available for the NCAA.

That does not mean it is rigged.

 

[rutgersdave]

Easy solution that saves money for every university and will make a ton of talent available to 2nd tier teams that are currently 2nd or 3rd string at the top 10-20 schools - go to 65 scholarships. Nobody needs 85 players on scholarship - the NFL seems to do ok with 53 man rosters (of which 46 are dressed for games).

Sounds like a good ideal or even 50 scholarships a team. Instead of 4-6 teams really vying for the championship, 30-35 teams would have a realistic chance of winning the championship.

 

[Caliknight]

That doesn't sound very different than pro leagues. The big difference is that pro leagues have determined that a draft is required in order to help level the playing field and to help ensure that the same few teams don't get the best recruits at every position year after year. I don't think that option is available for the NCAA.

How does the CFL do it?

 

[Purple-Ed]

OP is a known shock poster that adds much levity to the CE board.
He's a comedian by trade.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, laugh at him.
He makes NYC broker look like Walter Cronkite

I think you give him too much credit. I think he's just a
garden variety moron.

 

[AreYouNUTS]

OP is a known shock poster that adds much levity to the CE board.
He's a comedian by trade.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, laugh at him.
He makes NYC broker look like Walter Cronkite

An employed one?

 

[RU848789]

NFL teams also bring in free agents and players cut from other teams during the year when needed. No one goes thru the season with the same 53. They also don't have 18 year old freshmen who need time to grow and develop.

Not even close to the same thing.

Yeah, it's pretty close. The points you made are valid, but only argue for some more players in the pros, which is why I was proposing 65 vs. the 46/53 in the pros. The NFL also plays 20+ games vs. 12+ in college, which also argues for the differential not being so large. Plus, my main point was about making CFB more competitive than it currently is and cutting scholarships would absolutely do that.

 

[retired711]

Keep the politics off this board.

hear, hear!

 

[RUaMoose]

I agree. They did this once already when the Alabama's of the world were stashing recruits just so the competition couldn't have them when the limit was over 100. Bear Bryant did this a lot. 65 is a little too steep maybe 75.

Don't forget that 53 man roster in the NFL is only active players you have guys on injured reserve and practice squads. Then you can always pickup guys off the street. The loss of 10 spots in college would divvy up the talent pool a little more.

They need to do something to spread the wealth a little bit. CFB needs more parity.

 

[Scarlet_Scourge]

Yikes...

 

[knightfan7]

Sounds like a good ideal or even 50 scholarships a team. Instead of 4-6 teams really vying for the championship, 30-35 teams would have a realistic chance of winning the championship.

Come on Dave. Think about it. 50???

That's just not realistic in any regard.

 

[Abro1975]

With seasons going longer and longer 85 schollies are needed just to field competitive teams. Injury protocol now more careful so more players missing games so the need for more schollie players is more important than ever.
FCS teams are at 65 schollies.

If anything schollies will rise, not go down, for health of the players .

 

[retired711]

Abro, here is an empirical question that I find hard to answer: how many players on the typical college football team really have a significant number of minutes played? That might guide us about what the scholarship limit should be. I also think that if anything the number of scholarships will go down as college presidents try to cool the "arms race."

 

[albanyknight]

I think a reduction of scholarships would help........................a little. But at the end of the day, college football is not and probably will not remain an even playing field. Revenue sharing among the Big 5 Conferences is going a long way towards creating more parity but you will always have the Alabama's, Ohio State's and USC's of the world.

I think eventually seeing Rutgers on a level of Wisconsin, Washington, Virginia Tech is our realistic ceiling without turning RU into a football factory.

 

[TonyLieske]

Oddly enough its the NFL's "rigging" (via the draft, salary caps, smaller rosters, etc...) that makes things on the field more competitive. If NFL teams had unlimited salaries with twice the roster and could sign kids right out of college (rather than forcing the kids to certain teams via a draft) I suspect you would see something similar to the NCAA where a few teams tend to dominate the field of play.

 

[AreYouNUTS]

Oddly enough its the NFL's "rigging" (via the draft, salary caps, smaller rosters, etc...) that makes things on the field more competitive. If NFL teams had unlimited salaries with twice the roster and could sign kids right out of college (rather than forcing the kids to certain teams via a draft) I suspect you would see something similar to the NCAA where a few teams tend to dominate the field of play.

A few teams DO dominate the field of play in the NFL:

The Steelers (6), Cowboys (5), 49ers (5), Giants (4), Pats (4), and Packers (4), have combined to win 28 of the 50 SB's played thus far. Throw in The Raiders, Redskins, an Broncos - at 3 each - and 37 of 50 games have been won by the same 9 teams.

 

[Abro1975]

Abro, here is an empirical question that I find hard to answer: how many players on the typical college football team really have a significant number of minutes played? That might guide us about what the scholarship limit should be. I also think that if anything the number of scholarships will go down as college presidents try to cool the "arms race."

Good question, I'll take a look and see if I can find anything, after the 1pm games are over. Many players leave D1 programs before their 4 years are up, transferring, quitting, medical hardships etc.

Also, College presidents recently voted in 'Cost of Living' allowances, so the reducing scholarships from 85 for budget reasons, I just don't see it, at least not for P5, and G5 kind of forced to go along .

 

[huskersalways]

Abro, here is an empirical question that I find hard to answer: how many players on the typical college football team really have a significant number of minutes played? That might guide us about what the scholarship limit should be. I also think that if anything the number of scholarships will go down as college presidents try to cool the "arms race."

I agree with Abro that it actually needs to go up if you want to protect the players more. The fact that the NFL can add and cut players vs the NCAA not having that option makes any comparison apples to oranges to me. If schools want to succeed then they are just going to have to come up with the resources to compete. Some schools have built in advantages with location but history has shown that that can even be overcome at times. As most everyone on here says, it's about money, whether you are discussing conference revenue, donations, or any other income, that's what the successful schools do is spend the money to be successful. The interest level in college football is higher than it's ever been so I doubt you see much change in how scholarships are divided up or any other major changes in the game. Any school can raise their profile and be more competitive simply by out spending the others. Schools that invest $100's of millions int their facilities and stadiums are for the most part the most competitive. Look at Bama and OSU, I bet they spend as much annually on facility improvements as some schools spend in 25 years. I know what NU spends and it is less than them but it is a significant amount of money. To me the old adage of you have to spend money to make money(on field success) is a very accurate statement.

The presidents are all for the arms race if it isn't affecting the academic or student side in a negative manner. There are probably quite a few who will even sacrifice some of the students money to try and improve their athletic standing. The president know that successful athletic programs help with increased applications to enroll in their school. The athletic departments that have a near or balance budget, the presidents won't interfere and will let them spend what they need to improve their abilities to be competitive. Does it need reigned in some? Probably, but I think the horse is already out of the barn. A lot of schools are so far behind that regardless of what conference money they get, as it increases, gains them nothing because their conference mates are getting the same money and have shown they are willing to spend it to be elite. The donors of schools are the key to becoming a successful athletic program, not the conference or the conference money. That is where the difference is between schools. All P5 schools have the same opportunity to advance themselves if they are willing.

Schools always have the option to drop down to FCS if they feel they don't want to be in the arms race. There is no rule that says any G5 or P5 school can't just say in 4 years we are going to FCS to cut costs. It has become a Fortune 500 game and if you don't want to play it then a school doesn't have to.

 

[zappaa]

By the way, the OP has never responded in one of his own threads.

 

[koleszar]

A lot of schools are so far behind that regardless of what conference money they get, as it increases, gains them nothing because their conference mates are getting the same money and have shown they are willing to spend it to be elite. The donors of schools are the key to becoming a successful athletic program, not the conference or the conference money. That is where the difference is between schools.
.

Well I think we're in a little different situation when it comes to conference money here at RU. The most we've ever made was last year $11 million, while our conference mates next year will make somewhere around $55 mil. we get $14 mil.. Give RU $55 million next year and we can begin to catch up instead of fall further behind for the next 3 years. There's really only so many bells and whistles you can buy before those returns are diminished. We have a helluva lot of bells and whistles left to go.