forums

An IDEA for Creating Parody in CFB

Advertisement
The only realistic way to add a little parity is to lower the number of scholarships from 85 to around 65-70. It really penalizes the kids who now aren’t getting a scholarship because there are less to give out but it keeps teams from stock piling talent. I’m against this idea but it would be a quick and easy way for talent to be spread around more
 
Chunknrun said:
The only realistic way to add a little parity is to lower the number of scholarships from 85 to around 65-70. It really penalizes the kids who now aren’t getting a scholarship because there are less to give out but it keeps teams from stock piling talent. I’m against this idea but it would be a quick and easy way for talent to be spread around more
Click to expand...
It would fail, like everything else.

Right now there are 130 D1 teams and 85 scholarships per. That’s a bit over 11,000 D1 football scholarships. Your idea is to reduce it overall by >2000 spots? That isn’t in the interest of kids, amd won’t actually do what you want. It would backfire. Top programs will still have top talent. Teams with better boosters and bags would build up a good PWO program and still get talent. Schools with big student bodies would do way better with walk ons generally. UM would pretty much lose on all accounts. Our problem is NOT that Alabama has too much talent. It’s that we have failed at running a program for 2 decades. Crap coaches, crap culture, crap infrastructure, crap recruiting, crap evals.
 
Ethnicsands said:
We'd have mass forfeits everywhere.

Arkansas would be undefeated.
Click to expand...
Ethnicsands said:
You're just wrong. This has nothing to do with controlling costs. Do you just say that or did you think about it?

Your stated goal is to support competition. Salary caps control costs but actually entrench the positions of highest revenue teams - they just improve the economics of the non-competitive teams.

That you lived through the Nixon era is irrelevant. The question is whether you learned from it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, what I learned from the era is there is always dumb asses who think they are smarter than the rest and then get proven wrong...Be it hiring people for a botched robbery while working for an organization known as CREEP or sports board posters.

https://www.athleticdirectoru.com/articles/limit-spending-to-save-college-sports/

Glad to see the AD's have caught on to my idea. Since reading something beyond a page seems to be chore for you, here is an excerpt:

Limit Spending For Long-Term Sustainability​

We must make changes to our economic system to ensure broad-based college athletics can survive over the long-term. The most important change we can make is to create rules to limit athletics department spending. Limits on spending help for three reasons. \

First, they break the direct link between revenue and expenses that problematically drives up costs in non-profit college sports. Slowing down cost growth eases the financial pressure on schools that aren’t at the very top of the revenue generating pyramid.

Second, a limit on spending effectively caps the maximum resources available to any team, thereby limiting the size of possible resource differences between teams. Athletics departments experiencing a financial setback can support teams at slightly reduced levels of investment – i.e., rather than eliminating them – without subjecting themselves to an unreasonable competitive disadvantage.

And third, spending limits create a point above which money cannot be spent on yet another urgent short-term priority. Excess income can thus be saved for emergency use and more athletics departments will be able to build up meaningful reserve funds."

I guess despite your brilliance the ADs are not consulting you, which begs a question: What is YOUR framework for a plan to save CFB from its (as I predicted over FOUR years ago) descent into its current uncompetive malaise.

I'll wait...
 
Advertisement
CaneFan79 said:
Yeah, what I learned from the era is there is always dumb asses who think they are smarter than the rest and then get proven wrong...Be it hiring people for a botched robbery while working for an organization known as CREEP or sports board posters.

https://www.athleticdirectoru.com/articles/limit-spending-to-save-college-sports/

Glad to see the AD's have caught on to my idea. Since reading something beyond a page seems to be chore for you, here is an excerpt:

Limit Spending For Long-Term Sustainability​

We must make changes to our economic system to ensure broad-based college athletics can survive over the long-term. The most important change we can make is to create rules to limit athletics department spending. Limits on spending help for three reasons. \

First, they break the direct link between revenue and expenses that problematically drives up costs in non-profit college sports. Slowing down cost growth eases the financial pressure on schools that aren’t at the very top of the revenue generating pyramid.

Second, a limit on spending effectively caps the maximum resources available to any team, thereby limiting the size of possible resource differences between teams. Athletics departments experiencing a financial setback can support teams at slightly reduced levels of investment – i.e., rather than eliminating them – without subjecting themselves to an unreasonable competitive disadvantage.

And third, spending limits create a point above which money cannot be spent on yet another urgent short-term priority. Excess income can thus be saved for emergency use and more athletics departments will be able to build up meaningful reserve funds."

I guess despite your brilliance the ADs are not consulting you, which begs a question: What is YOUR framework for a plan to save CFB from its (as I predicted over FOUR years ago) descent into its current uncompetive malaise.

I'll wait...
Click to expand...
if you think athletic directors are economically literate, generally highly intelligent or unbiased on this topic, you’re probably waiting in line to buy a bridge from the bathroom guy at a night club.

your whole porst is idiotic. Of course ADs want someone to ‘help them’ control costs. As I’ve been trying to tell you, ceos of regulated companies learn to love their regulators. doesn’t in any way mean the regulation is net beneficial, pro competitive or anything of the sort.

seriously, you citing ADs as a basis for defending regulation as pro competition is one of the funnier things I’ve read here.
 
I think all cars given should be no newer than 4 years old
any mortgages paid can be no more than 10 grand
All bags given can be no bigger than a hefty sandwich bag
And any no show job would require the parent to actually show up for said job

these several things would level things out considerably
 
Ethnicsands said:
if you think athletic directors are economically literate, generally highly intelligent or unbiased on this topic, you’re probably waiting in line to buy a bridge from the bathroom guy at a night club.

your whole porst is idiotic. Of course ADs want someone to ‘help them’ control costs. As I’ve been trying to tell you, ceos of regulated companies learn to love their regulators. doesn’t in any way mean the regulation is net beneficial, pro competitive or anything of the sort.

seriously, you citing ADs as a basis for defending regulation as pro competition is one of the funnier things I’ve read here.
Click to expand...


As I figured, nothing constructive, just tired ad hominem attacks. You spout off stuff about CEO's but can't even address the numbers brought up in the story. Don't think the AD is competent? Then let's here your incredible plan that keeps the status quo and allows a competitive CFB. I'm sure it will be the usual story of some incredible coach walking through the door for Miami...Too bad that even if he and his incredible staff never sleep, they still won't be able to match Saban and his consulatants in the man hours needed to gameplan:

https://tdalabamamag.com/2019/10/01/alabama-analysts/
 
I did not read thru all four pages but I'll add the two obvious items:

1) Its parity, not parody, OP.

2) The idea that the NCAA would want parity is laughable. The role of the NCAA is to protect the haves from the have-nots. In short, the role of the NCAA is similar to the role of the federal government in the war on drugs.




1611024822353.png
 
Advertisement
I really don’t think things will change until teams,whatever how many,break away from the NCAA and form their own organization.Then those schools will be left to police themselves and the people in charge ,whether a commission or a sole entity has to have the balls to penalize the schools that break the rules.

As long as CFB is under the footprint of the NCAA and Emmett is in charge they are not going to penalize the teams that fill their coffers.

once teams do break away then they can set their own rules and ALL of those teams can police each other to keep things semi-equal.Until then it’s gonna be what it is now...a boring CFB season with the same 4-5 teams in the mix with an occasional outlier team sneaking in every now and then to challenge them..jmo
 
CaneFan79 said:
As I figured, nothing constructive, just tired ad hominem attacks. You spout off stuff about CEO's but can't even address the numbers brought up in the story. Don't think the AD is competent? Then let's here your incredible plan that keeps the status quo and allows a competitive CFB. I'm sure it will be the usual story of some incredible coach walking through the door for Miami...Too bad that even if he and his incredible staff never sleep, they still won't be able to match Saban and his consulatants in the man hours needed to gameplan:

https://tdalabamamag.com/2019/10/01/alabama-analysts/
Click to expand...
No offense but you sound ridiculous. Universities are non-profit institutions (not generally attuned to economics) and athletic directors are a long way from CEOs and CEOs themselves tend to love regulators. None of which means isht about whether regulation actually accomplishes much, let alone the things those who advocate for it claim they want. If you are interested in learning about the failed history of price controls and regulations, go learn about it. Telling me athletic directors want cost control is not remotely interesting. Of course they do. All businesses want daddy to help their profit line. None of them ever really think through competitive dynamic when they say they want it, either. ADs asking for cost help are like children writing letters to santa. Capitalism, as they call it, works for a reason. Talent flows to its highest and best use. The NCAA won't deliver you to some promised land of competition. Most it could accomplish is cause UM a bunch of challenges it's too stupid to even figure out in advance.
 
SFbayCane said:
I did not read thru all four pages but I'll add the two obvious items:

1) Its parity, not parody, OP.

2) The idea that the NCAA would want parity is laughable. The role of the NCAA is to protect the haves from the have-nots. In short, the role of the NCAA is similar to the role of the federal government in the war on drugs.




View attachment 141511
Click to expand...
QP prolly thinks it's moron, not moran. Doesn't even know what a pre madonna is.
 
Advertisement
CaneFan79 said:
Yeah, what I learned from the era is there is always dumb asses who think they are smarter than the rest and then get proven wrong...Be it hiring people for a botched robbery while working for an organization known as CREEP or sports board posters.

https://www.athleticdirectoru.com/articles/limit-spending-to-save-college-sports/

Glad to see the AD's have caught on to my idea. Since reading something beyond a page seems to be chore for you, here is an excerpt:

Limit Spending For Long-Term Sustainability​

We must make changes to our economic system to ensure broad-based college athletics can survive over the long-term. The most important change we can make is to create rules to limit athletics department spending. Limits on spending help for three reasons. \

First, they break the direct link between revenue and expenses that problematically drives up costs in non-profit college sports. Slowing down cost growth eases the financial pressure on schools that aren’t at the very top of the revenue generating pyramid.

Second, a limit on spending effectively caps the maximum resources available to any team, thereby limiting the size of possible resource differences between teams. Athletics departments experiencing a financial setback can support teams at slightly reduced levels of investment – i.e., rather than eliminating them – without subjecting themselves to an unreasonable competitive disadvantage.

And third, spending limits create a point above which money cannot be spent on yet another urgent short-term priority. Excess income can thus be saved for emergency use and more athletics departments will be able to build up meaningful reserve funds."

I guess despite your brilliance the ADs are not consulting you, which begs a question: What is YOUR framework for a plan to save CFB from its (as I predicted over FOUR years ago) descent into its current uncompetive malaise.

I'll wait...
Click to expand...
This is nothing but select ADs advocating to make their jobs easier.
 
Ethnicsands said:
No offense but you sound ridiculous. Universities are non-profit institutions (not generally attuned to economics) and athletic directors are a long way from CEOs and CEOs themselves tend to love regulators. None of which means isht about whether regulation actually accomplishes much, let alone the things those who advocate for it claim they want. If you are interested in learning about the failed history of price controls and regulations, go learn about it. Telling me athletic directors want cost control is not remotely interesting. Of course they do. All businesses want daddy to help their profit line. None of them ever really think through competitive dynamic when they say they want it, either. ADs asking for cost help are like children writing letters to santa. Capitalism, as they call it, works for a reason. Talent flows to its highest and best use. The NCAA won't deliver you to some promised land of competition. Most it could accomplish is cause UM a bunch of challenges it's too stupid to even figure out in advance.
Click to expand...
“It is not the critic who counts, not the one who points out how the strong man stumbled or how the doer of deeds might have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred with sweat and dust and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, if he wins, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”

-Theodore Roosevelt

Ole' Teddy was talking about you in the first line.

BTW, Please contact Roger Goodell, Adam Silver and Gary bettamab and thel them about their failed salary caps...Don't call Rob Manfred though, he is trying to keep his a (worst kept) secret.
 
LMAO at a folks thinking the right solution to anything is to tell a bunch of kinds where they're allowed to go to school. What's the purpose again? Bunch of FANS who have confused their emotions with what's good for other people's lives.

When UM was winning regularly I don't think Miami fans thought we needed parity. And frankly, other than Alabama, we actually have it. Alabama aside, in the last 25 years, a lot of schools have won 2 titles, Florida has won 3, that's it. A few with 1. Maybe LSU gets a defaulted one from USC in '03, not sure how that worked. Basic point is we have a ton of parity other than Alabama, which has a won a lot.
 
Advertisement
Ethnicsands said:
LMAO at a folks thinking the right solution to anything is to tell a bunch of kinds where they're allowed to go to school. What's the purpose again? Bunch of FANS who have confused their emotions with what's good for other people's lives.

When UM was winning regularly I don't think Miami fans thought we needed parity. And frankly, other than Alabama, we actually have it. Alabama aside, in the last 25 years, a lot of schools have won 2 titles, Florida has won 3, that's it. A few with 1. Maybe LSU gets a defaulted one from USC in '03, not sure how that worked. Basic point is we have a ton of parity other than Alabama, which has a won a lot.
Click to expand...
https://collegefootballplayoff.com/sports/2019/5/22/history.aspx

40 total appearances by Div 1 FBS schools in the CFP, 29 of these appearances have been by Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State and Oklahoma, an over 72% rate...Yeah, so much for your parity argument too.
 
CaneFan79 said:
“It is not the critic who counts, not the one who points out how the strong man stumbled or how the doer of deeds might have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred with sweat and dust and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, if he wins, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”

-Theodore Roosevelt

Ole' Teddy was talking about you in the first line.

BTW, Please contact Roger Goodell, Adam Silver and Gary bettamab and thel them about their failed salary caps...Don't call Rob Manfred though, he is trying to keep his a (worst kept) secret.
Click to expand...
You are really dense. And quoting TR on a subject you're a boiled ham on is really rich.

Professional sports leagues aren't in the maximize competition business, they're in the maximize value business. The NFL has some form of parity because careers are very short, contracts aren't guaranteed, revenues are heavily socialized, and rosters are relatively large (compared to the NBA and MLB).

To the contrary, baseball had a lot more 'parity' in the '80s before the current salary cap concepts were put in place. Since then, the Yankees have 5 world series titles (7 appearances), the red sox 4 and the giants 3 (4 apperances). The Cardinals have also been there 4x (2 titles).

The NBA is much less competitive. Since MJ retired from the Bulls, you have the Lakers and the Spurs with 5 titles each, the Heat and Golden State with 3 each. The Lakers have 7 Finals appearances, Heat and Spurs with 6 each, Golden State with 5. Go back to the '90s and you had the Bulls with 6 titles. The 80s was pretty concentrated too.

These leagues aren't doing 'competition.' They're doing whatever the **** they want to make money in a weird semi-oligarchical structure. Sports leagues are also franchises treated differently legally from colleges. So the NCAA wouldn't even be allowed to do what you fancy, putting aside it wouldn't do what you claim you want.
 
CaneFan79 said:
https://collegefootballplayoff.com/sports/2019/5/22/history.aspx

40 total appearances by Div 1 FBS schools in the CFP, 29 of these appearances have been by Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State and Oklahoma, an over 72% rate...Yeah, so much for your parity argument too.
Click to expand...
You can't admit when you're wrong. It's funny.

You're counting a 10 year period and pointing to the teams that were mostly up over that period. Clemson didn't do **** before 2015. Oklahoma hasn't done a lot at all, either way. Ohio State is a top program and has the run of a **** conference. But LSU and Florida have won more than they have the past 25 years. In the '80s and '90s, you had Nebraska, Miami, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, FSU. Not really Ohio State or Alabama or Clemson. Success follows the programs that do it well. The pendulum swings over time.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top