Is College Football fixable?

[Spartanmack]

Herbstreit and Fowler were talking about the number of five star recruits between the two and Georgia had more by magnitudes.

That said, winning the Big Ten finally and making to the CFP can only help Michigan in recruiting.

Like go time said, the buckeyes get good classes, a lot of the reason is they have been successful.

I think Mitch Rapp is right in that it was an atypically bad day for Michigan.

Also it was our guys first time on that big stage and maybe they weren?t quite psychologically ready for it.

So just keep on winning Big Ten championships and get to the CFP more often and things should go better as that happens more often.

that's not been Notre Dame's experience in the playoffs...

 

[Sbee]

I lot of us won?t even watch the finals now. Watching the semifinals it was apparent to me that the other leagues are light years behind the SEC. I guess I knew that but I did think Michigan could keep it close. Glad I don?t bet anymore.
Lol.

The talent level is just so much better in the Sec. Bama and Georgia have 2 deeps that can start at Cincinnati and some at Michigan.

Georgia had a depleted secondary and Michigan could still not exploit it. Georgia looked bigger and faster then Michigan at just about every position. I do think getting more teams in the playoffs in theory should open up kids to other schools outside the sec. Osu Recruits at SEC level but that?s about it outside the Sec. Michigan and Georgia May have similar ranking numbers but when one team has 20 five star Recruits, and the other team has 3 you and I know who is going to win that game 99/10 times.

My question is
How can the sec recruit so much better then the other conferences and how do we fix it ?

Is it Admission standards ?
Money ?
Peds?
Coaching ?
Weather ?
Something I?m over looking

Just because someone is better than you doesn't mean the system is broken. OSU is as good as anyone except Bama. There are years where a team like Michigan or MSU can beat them, but they're like the roman empire. You might win the occasional battle but you don't expect more than that.

Bama is on one of the best runs in the history of college football, whatever conference had a team like that would be considered the best because that one team is so dominant, they skew the records/results. OSU has been better than Georgia for years.

 

[Sbee]

Michigan obviously does have some disadvantages that some other teams do not, not the least of which is the fact that they hadn't had the level of success that others have in the lifetime of the kids they're recruiting. I think that they are close with talent but the gap exists and in order to compete on that stage with the teams they're likely to play they will need to get more talented and it starts with the lines and QB. There is a huge difference between beating Georgie/LSU/Bama/Clemson in back to back games while also having a virtual CFP first round the Saturday after Thanksgiving every year and winning one game at home with the benefit of having a touchdown taken off the board. Deny it all you want because that's what spartans do, but it is a fact that the Big Ten as well as the CFP selection committee all acknowledged. You can take several 3 stars and turn them into stars but having a roster built on nothing but is a problem. And saying "well michigan sent 35 players to the NFL" is misleading when only 5 of them have been first rounders while Bama, OSU and Georgia have 3-4 first rounders every year.

Michigan is not going to relax their academic standards which is probably their biggest obstacle to acquiring talent. They need to figure out something though because the transfer portal is here to stay and going forward it will be just as important as high school recruiting. They can't burn bridges when a recruit commits elsewhere and they need to have scouts dedicated to both high school and college with the college group monitoring who is in the portal and whether or not they can help.

Michigan has the ability to level the playing field in a few short years if they open up the money bags. Other schools aren't following the rules for NIL and Michigan by all accounts is. Jackson State just landed the number 1 overall recruit by blatantly committing a recruiting violation and not a damn thing is being done about it. Yes, a Michigan degree is a powerful thing to have in life, but trying to sell 16/17/18 year old kids on a degree when OSU, Bama. UGA. Clemson etc are openly setting kids up with millions in NIL and their entire pitch is getting you to the NFL that degree is only going to resonate with a select few kids. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, but michigan still won't allow their student athletes to take online classes whereas OSU and LSU QBs are talking in press conferences about how they've never even set foot on their campus.

Michigan plays the same game as everyone with academics, I remember about 3/4 of the football team being listed as "general studies" majors which is just a collection of course meant to be easy on athletes. That's since changed and they're all listed as LAS, but I remember a certain coach from stanford about 12 or 13 years ago saying that UM bends academic standards just like everyone else.

Georgia was simply a much better team, it was JV vs Varsity. I'm not saying MSU would have fared any better, but let's just admit that big ten teams other than OSU aren't good enough to compete in the CFP

 

[tomdalton22]

I disagree on group of 5. There's plenty of examples of better teams at the top of group of 5 than at the middle or bottom of power 5. The American was 2-1 against the SEC in bowls this year for example. But you want to give credit to Georgia and Bama for beating Florida and Auburn and not give credit to Cincinnati for beating UCF and Houston? Michigan gets a pass for barely beating Rutgers at home but Cincinnati "doesn't belong" for struggling with Navy in Annapolis?

FWIW, Cincinnati was more competitive than Michigan in the CFP. Neither were particularly close, but discounting the group of 5 isn't the answer. At the very least you can include the top ranked group of 5 as an AQ in a 12 team playoff since there's generally 1-2 G5 teams that are legitimately top 10-15 teams each year.

I'm talking big picture...not hand picking one school that had a once in a decade run. Collectively, the group of 5 conferences are not on the same level as the power 5. If some of them want to get serious about competing with the power 5 schools, join a power 5 conference. Let the Mac and the rest of the power 5 schools have a chance at their own national championship...just like DII and DIII schools do.

 

[Michchamp]

I disagree on group of 5. There's plenty of examples of better teams at the top of group of 5 than at the middle or bottom of power 5. The American was 2-1 against the SEC in bowls this year for example. But you want to give credit to Georgia and Bama for beating Florida and Auburn and not give credit to Cincinnati for beating UCF and Houston? Michigan gets a pass for barely beating Rutgers at home but Cincinnati "doesn't belong" for struggling with Navy in Annapolis?

FWIW, Cincinnati was more competitive than Michigan in the CFP. Neither were particularly close, but discounting the group of 5 isn't the answer. At the very least you can include the top ranked group of 5 as an AQ in a 12 team playoff since there's generally 1-2 G5 teams that are legitimately top 10-15 teams each year.

So based on three meaningless bowl games, and the fact that a single Group of 5 team finally put together a good enough resume to make the playoff (it only took 8 seasons), we should give the American, Conference USA, MAC, Mountain West etc, equal consideration to the Big Ten and SEC.

if only there were more games played beyond those we could use as evidence here.

and claiming Cincinnati was more competitive than Michigan is so pointlessly argumentative, there's really no point in discussing.

 

[Michchamp]

The best scenario would be for the power 5 and group of 5 to each have their own division. No play outside of your division. No more playing Youngstown state, MAC teams, etc. If you want a 16 game playoff it would probably limit the regular season to 10 games if you keep the conference championship games and 11 of you get rid of them.

The group of 5 could do the same...or whatever D2 does. Nobody would watch the group of 5 and a lot of the programs would probably end because they lose their "power 5 paydays" but that's fine.

You know, in his book that's basically what Walter Byers said would need to happen... at the time there were 80 or so D-1 (now FBS) schools, and he said about 40 of them put up the resources to compete, and the rest just kinda went through the motions.

The problem is they're not aligned exactly by conferences, and those conferences are governed by contracts between the member schools, so there's just no easy way to break them apart and create a more balanced playing field. so the Big Ten can't just decide to boot Northwestern, Rutgers, and Indiana to bring in (say) Cincinnati, Houston, and Coastal Carolina or whatever Group of 5 schools just got windfalls and decided to blow them on making a play for football glory

Another problem is that no one (especially not the coaches) wants to admit that winning in college football is basically just a function of how much money your athletic department (and the attached university) is willing to shell out.

Whether that money is "above board" in the form of nicer facilities, scholarships, dorms, etc. or "below board" in the form of cars and untraceable cash handouts is another problem still, because all the conferences have different standards of what they police, and all are in favor of stronger regulations only the other guys because reasons

 

[Mitchrapp]

I disagree . More teams and keep playing with less breaks like d2

Are you really going to watch South Dakota vs Maine? The Michigan game was the first playoff game I ever watched.

 

[Michchamp]

Are you really going to watch South Dakota vs Maine? The Michigan game was the first playoff game I ever watched.

Since your posing the question to a guy who follows all sports, both mens and womens, very closely, I'm guessing the answer would be "yes."

And if you posed the same question to me, a guy who ignores almost all sports except for Michigan football, basketball and sort of baseball... the answer would be "no."

You need to ask someone in between, who is more in touch with the common sports fan.. somebody who really has his finger on the pulse.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Since your posing the question to a guy who follows all sports, both mens and womens, very closely, I'm guessing the answer would be "yes."

And if you posed the same question to me, a guy who ignores almost all sports except for Michigan football, basketball and sort of baseball... the answer would be "no."

You need to ask someone in between, who is more in touch with the common sports fan.. somebody who really has his finger on the pulse.

You're right. I asked the wrong guy.

 

[Michchamp]

You're right. I asked the wrong guy.

Maybe tinsel?

 

[tomdalton22]

Since your posing the question to a guy who follows all sports, both mens and womens, very closely, I'm guessing the answer would be "yes."

And if you posed the same question to me, a guy who ignores almost all sports except for Michigan football, basketball and sort of baseball... the answer would be "no."

You need to ask someone in between, who is more in touch with the common sports fan.. somebody who really has his finger on the pulse.

I think most sports fans are casual. They like their teams but don't watch many events that don't include their favorite teams. My guess is college football and MLB baseball might be the two "major sports" where this is the case.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Are you really going to watch South Dakota vs Maine? The Michigan game was the first playoff game I ever watched.

Those are hockey powerhouses.

ESPN shows D II and D III playoff games, so somebody must be watching.

 

[Mitchrapp]

I think most sports fans are casual. They like their teams but don't watch many events that don't include their favorite teams. My guess is college football and MLB baseball might be the two "major sports" where this is the case.

For me it is. Though for some reason I enjoy NHL playoffs even when the Wings aren't in it.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Those are hockey powerhouses.

ESPN shows D II and D III playoff games, so somebody must be watching.

You expand the playoffs and one day we'll get a game like this. Its already bad enough with 6 and 6 teams getting a bowl game.

 

[bphillips4gg]

So based on three meaningless bowl games, and the fact that a single Group of 5 team finally put together a good enough resume to make the playoff (it only took 8 seasons), we should give the American, Conference USA, MAC, Mountain West etc, equal consideration to the Big Ten and SEC.

if only there were more games played beyond those we could use as evidence here.

and claiming Cincinnati was more competitive than Michigan is so pointlessly argumentative, there's really no point in discussing.

It's not just 1 specific team or 1 specific year. Those Scott Frost UCF teams won against "superior" competition. Utah, Boise State and countless other examples of teams that weren't given a shot but beat the supposed third best teams in a given year. The point is that the current system has led to all of like 3 1 score games out of 20 and the G5 team that gets a new year's 6 game has won those games more than they've lost them.

Why not just have the SEC's top 4 teams have their own playoff and let the other power 4 conferences have their own? Why not just stop after conference championships? Why even play the games at all! Maybe we should just keep putting Notre Dame in to lose by 30.

 

[tomdalton22]

It's not just 1 specific team or 1 specific year. Those Scott Frost UCF teams won against "superior" competition. Utah, Boise State and countless other examples of teams that weren't given a shot but beat the supposed third best teams in a given year. The point is that the current system has led to all of like 3 1 score games out of 20 and the G5 team that gets a new year's 6 game has won those games more than they've lost them.

Why not just have the SEC's top 4 teams have their own playoff and let the other power 4 conferences have their own? Why not just stop after conference championships? Why even play the games at all! Maybe we should just keep putting Notre Dame in to lose by 30.

The "new years six" has been around for 8 seasons. G5 teams are 3-5

 

[Mitchrapp]

It's not just 1 specific team or 1 specific year. Those Scott Frost UCF teams won against "superior" competition. Utah, Boise State and countless other examples of teams that weren't given a shot but beat the supposed third best teams in a given year. The point is that the current system has led to all of like 3 1 score games out of 20 and the G5 team that gets a new year's 6 game has won those games more than they've lost them.

Why not just have the SEC's top 4 teams have their own playoff and let the other power 4 conferences have their own? Why not just stop after conference championships? Why even play the games at all! Maybe we should just keep putting Notre Dame in to lose by 30.

Those UCF teams put them in a top 5 and see how they do year after year. Any team can beat anyone else in a given year and from time to time they might beat some highly ranked teams but over the long haul I don't know. The place where Boise St. plays there are so many traditional awful teams that Maryland and Rutgers look pretty good.

 

[biggunsbob]

Until we figure out a way to spread that Sec talent around to other schools those semifinal scores will continue sadly.

 

[tomdalton22]

maybe expanding the playoffs isn't the answer. I just clicked on ESPN and see ND State is winning 21-0. They are the same team that has won 8 of the last 10 DI FCS national championships. They have a large playoff and it doesn't seem to change the balance of power.

 

[tinselwolverine]

The Bison!

Wooooooo!