ADVERTISEMENT

How to fix college football?

FirstDownB

All-American
Oct 12, 2015
9,764
13,880
113
Last night, Alabama won their 6th national title in 10 years. Since the inception of the college football playoff, they have won 3 of 7. The lack of parity doesn't stop at the champion level. A mere four programs (Alabama, Clemson, Ohio St, Oklahoma) have combined for 20 of the 28 total appearances in those 7 years. More than twice everyone else combined. Zoom in locally to the Big Ten conference and you'll find that Ohio St has won 4 in a row and 5 of the last 7.

Some say expanding the CFP to 8 eight teams is the answer. I think this would only prolong the inevitable. The problem is not that equally good teams are being excluded from the playoff, it is that there are no equally good teams to the few at the top. Many years it is difficult to find even a #4 team that can compete with the top 2-3. And, unlike many other sports, those few teams are the same ones year to year while everyone else burns through coaches and resources trying to get there.

So while expanding the CFP to include more participants isn't necessarily a bad idea, it isn't a fix to the fundamental problem of competitive balance. You'll see more massacres of teams like Notre Dame and Oregon with the same old teams ultimately playing for the championship. Last night was inevitable no matter how many hoops you make Alabama jump through. And in the Big Ten, Ohio St will remain the dominant team.

The main tool the NCAA has used in the past to promote competitive balance has been to reduce scholarships, and thereby spreading out the talent more evenly. But I don't think this is the answer now, as the transfer market has become the free agency of the sport used to fill in any recruiting gaps. And taking away scholarships is not something I see the NCAA promoting right now. And the more things like NIL compensation become a reality, the more attractive playing in the limelight at "helmet" schools will be.

So what is the solution? Or is there a solution?

Here are a few of my off-the-wall ideas:

(1) I have wondered about a salary cap for coaching staffs. That could potentially blunt the trend of power programs loading up on all the best assistant coaches and mega recruiting staffs. You want to pay Nick Saban $10M a year? Fine, but he might have to hire grad assistants for position coaches.

(2) Perhaps teams, at least within P5 conferences, could have a tiered stipend structure for student athletes. Among your 85 scholarships, you get to hand out 30 "starter level" stipends, 30 "backup level" stipends, and 25 "entry level" stipends. It is the 'positive reinforcement' alternative to restricting scholarships with the same end effect of spreading out the talent.

(3) Loosen up some of the overly restrictive recruiting rules. Allow schools without traditional advantages to be more creative in how they appeal to recruits. The use of the Purdue airport for bringing in recruits is just one example. Bring more things above board and the rule followers will not be punished for following the rules while rule breakers get a slap on the wrist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: boilermaker75
This would only make things worse, but I like the bulk of the team being from the state or region they represent.
 
One place to start that gets to your salary cap suggestion, is to limit the number of "staff" a football team can utilize or hire. Not even sure this is even possible.

Alabama has 45 staff and among them are several former head coaches (Sarkisian, Kyle Flood, Major Applewhite, Butch Jones etc) as well as 13 Football analysts. In comparison, Wisconsin has 26 staff members and this includes the graphics designers, marketing, office folks. Leveling that part could create parity.

The NIL & transfer rule legislation has been tabled for a later vote date. However, the NIL could alter the landscape for top football programs. Based on an athlete's ability to profit from endorsements, autographs, and side businesses, it would seem reasonable to expect programs in locations like LA, Miami, FL, TX etc to naturally have a larger local audience for athletes to generate revenue. I'd expect USC to be a top 5 program once NIL becomes reality. Miami could see a resurgence from NIL too. I'm not saying the SEC will see a downgrade because they are going to leverage the crap out of NIL, but that the top end prospects will get better offers from a wider variety of schools. NIL will be interesting and makes me wonder what Purdue's NIL program will involve.
 
Reduce the scholarships to 75. Even with transfers, it spreads the wealth.
In this day in age, you will not see scholarship reduction because of the demographic that is most likely to impact.
I agree that reduction of scholarships would be a non starter politically. It would come across as pulling money/opportunity out of the hands of poor student athletes so the schools can make a few extra bucks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Indy_Rider
Last night, Alabama won their 6th national title in 10 years. Since the inception of the college football playoff, they have won 3 of 7. The lack of parity doesn't stop at the champion level. A mere four programs (Alabama, Clemson, Ohio St, Oklahoma) have combined for 20 of the 28 total appearances in those 7 years. More than twice everyone else combined. Zoom in locally to the Big Ten conference and you'll find that Ohio St has won 4 in a row and 5 of the last 7.

Some say expanding the CFP to 8 eight teams is the answer. I think this would only prolong the inevitable. The problem is not that equally good teams are being excluded from the playoff, it is that there are no equally good teams to the few at the top. Many years it is difficult to find even a #4 team that can compete with the top 2-3. And, unlike many other sports, those few teams are the same ones year to year while everyone else burns through coaches and resources trying to get there.

So while expanding the CFP to include more participants isn't necessarily a bad idea, it isn't a fix to the fundamental problem of competitive balance. You'll see more massacres of teams like Notre Dame and Oregon with the same old teams ultimately playing for the championship. Last night was inevitable no matter how many hoops you make Alabama jump through. And in the Big Ten, Ohio St will remain the dominant team.

The main tool the NCAA has used in the past to promote competitive balance has been to reduce scholarships, and thereby spreading out the talent more evenly. But I don't think this is the answer now, as the transfer market has become the free agency of the sport used to fill in any recruiting gaps. And taking away scholarships is not something I see the NCAA promoting right now. And the more things like NIL compensation become a reality, the more attractive playing in the limelight at "helmet" schools will be.

So what is the solution? Or is there a solution?

Here are a few of my off-the-wall ideas:

(1) I have wondered about a salary cap for coaching staffs. That could potentially blunt the trend of power programs loading up on all the best assistant coaches and mega recruiting staffs. You want to pay Nick Saban $10M a year? Fine, but he might have to hire grad assistants for position coaches.

(2) Perhaps teams, at least within P5 conferences, could have a tiered stipend structure for student athletes. Among your 85 scholarships, you get to hand out 30 "starter level" stipends, 30 "backup level" stipends, and 25 "entry level" stipends. It is the 'positive reinforcement' alternative to restricting scholarships with the same end effect of spreading out the talent.

(3) Loosen up some of the overly restrictive recruiting rules. Allow schools without traditional advantages to be more creative in how they appeal to recruits. The use of the Purdue airport for bringing in recruits is just one example. Bring more things above board and the rule followers will not be punished for following the rules while rule breakers get a slap on the wrist.
So, let me get this right....You are advocating we punish winners because they win. Because they have a system that the top players want to play for. Because they have coaches who work that system. And because those teams work harder and smarter than those who don't.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Inspector100
So, let me get this right....You are advocating we punish winners because they win. Because they have a system that the top players want to play for. Because they have coaches who work that system. And because those teams work harder and smarter than those who don't.
Everyone on equal playing field and the ones who do their job the best win. Sounds nice. Problem is, that is a fairy tale. You really believe Alabama gets all the recruits because of the system they run?

I do think competitive balance should be promoted such that 95% of teams aren't eliminated before the first game of the season. I do think a multi level caste system is unhealthy for any sport. Do I consider that punitive? No.

Punishing winners is what every single pro sports league does, i.e. the winners draft last. But none of my suggestions are punitive. All promote a more equal playing field where those virtues you extol - hard work, being smart, creative, etc. - shine through more than the built-in advantages and disadvantages.

If we're not interested in promoting an equal playing field then why even have scholarship limits in the first place?

What is equal about one team having twice as many coaches as another? That is unheard of in most competitive sports.
 
The only way to introduce a pro-sports style salary cap in college would be to assign points to recruit star rankings and have a cap so the big boys can't just hoard all the 4 & 5 stars.

It's not going to happen though. Frankly because it's a dumb, subjective, and unworkable idea.

I think we just have to trust that everything is cyclical. No team/dynasty ever ends up being unbeatable. Bama wasn't in last year. OSU should've beaten Clemson last year. And LSU is was a one-off, apparently.

If I were to hazard a guess, OSU is on the way down (although fair to say from a pretty lofty height). They'll probably keep winning B1G championships, but I'm not sure they're going to be the juggernaut they've been. Bama will be harder to fall but this is Saban's first undefeated season since 2009. Those 1 & 2 loss seasons could very easily be 2 & 3 loss seasons and all of a sudden they're not in the CFP mix. They'd get replaced by a different SEC team most likely in those off years, but that's nothing new.

The real question is who are the candidates to be the next batch of semi-regular contenders. I don't really have any names off the top of my head, but no one stays winning forever.
 
The only way to introduce a pro-sports style salary cap in college would be to assign points to recruit star rankings and have a cap so the big boys can't just hoard all the 4 & 5 stars.

It's not going to happen though. Frankly because it's a dumb, subjective, and unworkable idea.

I think we just have to trust that everything is cyclical. No team/dynasty ever ends up being unbeatable. Bama wasn't in last year. OSU should've beaten Clemson last year. And LSU is was a one-off, apparently.

If I were to hazard a guess, OSU is on the way down (although fair to say from a pretty lofty height). They'll probably keep winning B1G championships, but I'm not sure they're going to be the juggernaut they've been. Bama will be harder to fall but this is Saban's first undefeated season since 2009. Those 1 & 2 loss seasons could very easily be 2 & 3 loss seasons and all of a sudden they're not in the CFP mix. They'd get replaced by a different SEC team most likely in those off years, but that's nothing new.

The real question is who are the candidates to be the next batch of semi-regular contenders. I don't really have any names off the top of my head, but no one stays winning forever.
I agree some twisted form of a player salary cap isn't feasible. But aren't there things in between that and throwing our hands up that can be done to even the playing field?

Coaching staff size seems like a simple and obvious place to start.
Coaching staff salary cap? Maybe
Recruiting budget cap? Possibly
Tweaking the stipend system? Seems reasonable
Reducing scholarships? Maybe, maybe not
Review outdated or ill-conceived recruiting regulations? Why not

I'm not saying any or even all of these things put together will "dethrone Bama", but the alternative I see is the rich keep getting richer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Indy_Rider and TMFT
I agree some twisted form of a player salary cap isn't feasible. But aren't there things in between that and throwing our hands up that can be done to even the playing field?

Coaching staff size seems like a simple and obvious place to start.
Coaching staff salary cap? Maybe
Recruiting budget cap? Possibly
Tweaking the stipend system? Seems reasonable
Reducing scholarships? Maybe, maybe not
Review outdated or ill-conceived recruiting regulations? Why not

I'm not saying any or even all of these things put together will "dethrone Bama", but the alternative I see is the rich keep getting richer.
To be clear, I wasn't calling anyone's ideas dumb. My star ranking "salary cap" was my own thought that I recognize is dumb.

Maybe reducing scholarships would be most effective, but would face incredible blowback. And, quite frankly, it would make it worse on the low P5 schools because they wouldn't get as many "swings" at recruits. They might get the trickle down of higher ranked ones, but no guarantee that any would pan out. As it is, if they get an additional 10 or 15 players, they have more chances to hit and excel.

Maybe doing like an inverse scholarship thing based on success? Like you get X points for conference wins, or rankings, or bowl, or CFP. After so many points accumulate on a rolling basis = scholarship reduced? No chance it'd happen either, I suspect. But maybe an outside the box idea.
 
Everyone on equal playing field and the ones who do their job the best win. Sounds nice. Problem is, that is a fairy tale. You really believe Alabama gets all the recruits because of the system they run?

I do think competitive balance should be promoted such that 95% of teams aren't eliminated before the first game of the season. I do think a multi level caste system is unhealthy for any sport. Do I consider that punitive? No.

Punishing winners is what every single pro sports league does, i.e. the winners draft last. But none of my suggestions are punitive. All promote a more equal playing field where those virtues you extol - hard work, being smart, creative, etc. - shine through more than the built-in advantages and disadvantages.

If we're not interested in promoting an equal playing field then why even have scholarship limits in the first place?

What is equal about one team having twice as many coaches as another? That is unheard of in most competitive sports.
Okay, I'm assured that with your plan every kid will get a trophy. Got it.
 
I agree some twisted form of a player salary cap isn't feasible. But aren't there things in between that and throwing our hands up that can be done to even the playing field?

Coaching staff size seems like a simple and obvious place to start.
Coaching staff salary cap? Maybe
Recruiting budget cap? Possibly
Tweaking the stipend system? Seems reasonable
Reducing scholarships? Maybe, maybe not
Review outdated or ill-conceived recruiting regulations? Why not

I'm not saying any or even all of these things put together will "dethrone Bama", but the alternative I see is the rich keep getting richer.
Better assistant coaches go on to head coaching positions. As the top teams lose them, that's what help to predicate their fall.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Indy_Rider
I have a solution. Don't allow all-time great coaches to coach! Once a coach wins a title make him either retire or switch teams.
 
College football sucks these days, that National Title game was an example of why I've lost interest in it. One way that might help with some parity is letting kids go pro after their Soph years, schools like Bama would lose more kids than most if this were to be implemented. One reason college hoops is more competitive is because the blue bloods lose their diaper dandies after one year.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: FirstDownB
Blah. Teams need to get better. No excuses. I do not understand this. Should Alabama have to divy out their recruits to make everybody happy? The colleges created this on their own and the fans commplain. Who cares? Anybody that thinks Purde will EVER compete in basketball or football on a championship level is just missing the reality. By the way, I am thrilled that Alabama smoked OSU as OSU did NOT deserve to be there other than the conference caving for a money grab.
 
One idea which would change some things, change scholarships to 75 then allow FCS schools to offer full 75 scholarships not just 63 and allow divisions 2-3 to offer them as well. Also allow only 20 in a year.

So increase the access to education but spread talent out a little more.
 
Blah. Teams need to get better. No excuses. I do not understand this. Should Alabama have to divy out their recruits to make everybody happy? The colleges created this on their own and the fans commplain. Who cares? Anybody that thinks Purde will EVER compete in basketball or football on a championship level is just missing the reality. By the way, I am thrilled that Alabama smoked OSU as OSU did NOT deserve to be there other than the conference caving for a money grab.
So, you’re saying OSU wasn’t one of the four best teams in the country? I agree teams just need to get better. Alabama can’t sign them all.
 
Last night, Alabama won their 6th national title in 10 years. Since the inception of the college football playoff, they have won 3 of 7. The lack of parity doesn't stop at the champion level. A mere four programs (Alabama, Clemson, Ohio St, Oklahoma) have combined for 20 of the 28 total appearances in those 7 years. More than twice everyone else combined. Zoom in locally to the Big Ten conference and you'll find that Ohio St has won 4 in a row and 5 of the last 7.

Some say expanding the CFP to 8 eight teams is the answer. I think this would only prolong the inevitable. The problem is not that equally good teams are being excluded from the playoff, it is that there are no equally good teams to the few at the top. Many years it is difficult to find even a #4 team that can compete with the top 2-3. And, unlike many other sports, those few teams are the same ones year to year while everyone else burns through coaches and resources trying to get there.

So while expanding the CFP to include more participants isn't necessarily a bad idea, it isn't a fix to the fundamental problem of competitive balance. You'll see more massacres of teams like Notre Dame and Oregon with the same old teams ultimately playing for the championship. Last night was inevitable no matter how many hoops you make Alabama jump through. And in the Big Ten, Ohio St will remain the dominant team.

The main tool the NCAA has used in the past to promote competitive balance has been to reduce scholarships, and thereby spreading out the talent more evenly. But I don't think this is the answer now, as the transfer market has become the free agency of the sport used to fill in any recruiting gaps. And taking away scholarships is not something I see the NCAA promoting right now. And the more things like NIL compensation become a reality, the more attractive playing in the limelight at "helmet" schools will be.

So what is the solution? Or is there a solution?

Here are a few of my off-the-wall ideas:

(1) I have wondered about a salary cap for coaching staffs. That could potentially blunt the trend of power programs loading up on all the best assistant coaches and mega recruiting staffs. You want to pay Nick Saban $10M a year? Fine, but he might have to hire grad assistants for position coaches.

(2) Perhaps teams, at least within P5 conferences, could have a tiered stipend structure for student athletes. Among your 85 scholarships, you get to hand out 30 "starter level" stipends, 30 "backup level" stipends, and 25 "entry level" stipends. It is the 'positive reinforcement' alternative to restricting scholarships with the same end effect of spreading out the talent.

(3) Loosen up some of the overly restrictive recruiting rules. Allow schools without traditional advantages to be more creative in how they appeal to recruits. The use of the Purdue airport for bringing in recruits is just one example. Bring more things above board and the rule followers will not be punished for following the rules while rule breakers get a slap on the wrist.
One thing that would help would be the NFL allowing kids to enter the draft earlier than 3 years from high school graduation. But not sure why they would ever want to do that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FirstDownB
Last night, Alabama won their 6th national title in 10 years. Since the inception of the college football playoff, they have won 3 of 7. The lack of parity doesn't stop at the champion level. A mere four programs (Alabama, Clemson, Ohio St, Oklahoma) have combined for 20 of the 28 total appearances in those 7 years. More than twice everyone else combined. Zoom in locally to the Big Ten conference and you'll find that Ohio St has won 4 in a row and 5 of the last 7.

Some say expanding the CFP to 8 eight teams is the answer. I think this would only prolong the inevitable. The problem is not that equally good teams are being excluded from the playoff, it is that there are no equally good teams to the few at the top. Many years it is difficult to find even a #4 team that can compete with the top 2-3. And, unlike many other sports, those few teams are the same ones year to year while everyone else burns through coaches and resources trying to get there.

So while expanding the CFP to include more participants isn't necessarily a bad idea, it isn't a fix to the fundamental problem of competitive balance. You'll see more massacres of teams like Notre Dame and Oregon with the same old teams ultimately playing for the championship. Last night was inevitable no matter how many hoops you make Alabama jump through. And in the Big Ten, Ohio St will remain the dominant team.

The main tool the NCAA has used in the past to promote competitive balance has been to reduce scholarships, and thereby spreading out the talent more evenly. But I don't think this is the answer now, as the transfer market has become the free agency of the sport used to fill in any recruiting gaps. And taking away scholarships is not something I see the NCAA promoting right now. And the more things like NIL compensation become a reality, the more attractive playing in the limelight at "helmet" schools will be.

So what is the solution? Or is there a solution?

Here are a few of my off-the-wall ideas:

(1) I have wondered about a salary cap for coaching staffs. That could potentially blunt the trend of power programs loading up on all the best assistant coaches and mega recruiting staffs. You want to pay Nick Saban $10M a year? Fine, but he might have to hire grad assistants for position coaches.

(2) Perhaps teams, at least within P5 conferences, could have a tiered stipend structure for student athletes. Among your 85 scholarships, you get to hand out 30 "starter level" stipends, 30 "backup level" stipends, and 25 "entry level" stipends. It is the 'positive reinforcement' alternative to restricting scholarships with the same end effect of spreading out the talent.

(3) Loosen up some of the overly restrictive recruiting rules. Allow schools without traditional advantages to be more creative in how they appeal to recruits. The use of the Purdue airport for bringing in recruits is just one example. Bring more things above board and the rule followers will not be punished for following the rules while rule breakers get a slap on the wrist.
The biggest hurdle to your solutions is the lack of control that the NCAA has over Power 5 football.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FirstDownB
Idea - 85 scolarships - reduced to 75 plus limit number of portal transfers to 10 or 15. One time portal entry with no penalty, second portal enrty a reduced scholarship. (Needs refinement - looking for ideas.)
 
One thing that would help would be the NFL allowing kids to enter the draft earlier than 3 years from high school graduation. But not sure why they would ever want to do that.
That's what I posted, I can see 2 years happening one day, that would help a lot.
 
No matter how many teams are involved in a championship playoff, if you really want to even the playing field do a random draw for original opponents and not seed them. and then play through the predetermined random brackets. Why make it simple for a team that is perceived to be best, and almost impossible for a perceived long shot? Perhaps in a multi-game playoff the perceived #1 team will then have to go through through the #2 and #3 teams, eliminating 2 of those three from a final. And then when the final occurs, perhaps that #1-3 team has been beaten up winning those prior games (which happens to a lower seed if seeding is used), and another team can win. No bias to help predetermine the winner.
 
That's what I posted, I can see 2 years happening one day, that would help a lot.
The libertarian part of me thinks there shouldn't be any out of HS requirement to begin with. If teams/kids want to take the risk, God bless. But the NFL isn't giving up their 100% subsidized minor league program (NCAA).

Even though the VAST majority of NCAA players have no business being on an NFL field from a health/safety standpoint, there are exceptions. Hershel Walker, Adrian Peterson, Deion Sanders, Rod Woodson, or basically a large number of RBs, WRs, & DBs that don't require that additional 35 lbs of muscle and "grown man strength" that lineman & LBs need to make the jump. It's particularly troubling for the RBs. Even though he had a long career, Adrian Peterson had quite a few miles on the tires before he ever got into the NFL where the shelf life for a RB is short to begin with.
 
One idea which would change some things, change scholarships to 75 then allow FCS schools to offer full 75 scholarships not just 63 and allow divisions 2-3 to offer them as well. Also allow only 20 in a year.

So increase the access to education but spread talent out a little more.
Interesting thought. I wonder if those schools in lower divisions can afford additional scholarships.
 
The libertarian part of me thinks there shouldn't be any out of HS requirement to begin with. If teams/kids want to take the risk, God bless. But the NFL isn't giving up their 100% subsidized minor league program (NCAA).

Even though the VAST majority of NCAA players have no business being on an NFL field from a health/safety standpoint, there are exceptions. Hershel Walker, Adrian Peterson, Deion Sanders, Rod Woodson, or basically a large number of RBs, WRs, & DBs that don't require that additional 35 lbs of muscle and "grown man strength" that lineman & LBs need to make the jump. It's particularly troubling for the RBs. Even though he had a long career, Adrian Peterson had quite a few miles on the tires before he ever got into the NFL where the shelf life for a RB is short to begin with.
That's a great point about running backs and probably worthy of a topic all of its own. It's mind blowing how much abuse some of those guys take before their first paycheck. Hope Colts fans enjoy JT the next 2-3 years. With the workload he got at UW, that's about when he'll start to break down.
 
That's a great point about running backs and probably worthy of a topic all of its own. It's mind blowing how much abuse some of those guys take before their first paycheck. Hope Colts fans enjoy JT the next 2-3 years. With the workload he got at UW, that's about when he'll start to break down.
If I’m a five star tailback, I’m going to Alabama and waiting for my turn like Najee Harris did. He probably had half the college carries that Taylor did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TMFT
Interesting thought. I wonder if those schools in lower divisions can afford additional scholarships.
Don't have to fill all the scholarships but I bet there are a lot of D1 football players that would play at UChicago if they could get a full ride. Would UChicago pop for 40? Would boosters be more interested? Not even a consideration now although I know some schools find "aid" for kids.
 
Don't have to fill all the scholarships but I bet there are a lot of D1 football players that would play at UChicago if they could get a full ride. Would UChicago pop for 40? Would boosters be more interested? Not even a consideration now although I know some schools find "aid" for kids.
How do scholarships work as far as paying tuition? I honestly have never given it much thought.

My grad school at PU was funded through the department. I didn't pay tuition and I got a monthly salary (which seemed HUGE at the time to 23 yr. old me) for TAing and/or teaching a class. I always just assumed that the dept. had X number "free rides" to give out and the school just gave up the tuition coming in.

So could UChicago handle to bring in 40 students that don't pay tuition? Sure, that's maybe an extra kid in every handful of classes on average. But if someone actually has to pay the going rate of tuition, that would be a whole other thing.
 
The libertarian part of me thinks there shouldn't be any out of HS requirement to begin with. If teams/kids want to take the risk, God bless. But the NFL isn't giving up their 100% subsidized minor league program (NCAA).

Even though the VAST majority of NCAA players have no business being on an NFL field from a health/safety standpoint, there are exceptions. Hershel Walker, Adrian Peterson, Deion Sanders, Rod Woodson, or basically a large number of RBs, WRs, & DBs that don't require that additional 35 lbs of muscle and "grown man strength" that lineman & LBs need to make the jump. It's particularly troubling for the RBs. Even though he had a long career, Adrian Peterson had quite a few miles on the tires before he ever got into the NFL where the shelf life for a RB is short to begin with.
Good points, from a safety standpoint though I can't see any way a kid fresh out of High School is ready for the NFL. Think there will be a push one day to see a drop to two years though, I doubt one and done ever happens.
 
Good points, from a safety standpoint though I can't see any way a kid fresh out of High School is ready for the NFL. Think there will be a push one day to see a drop to two years though, I doubt one and done ever happens.

The average career in the NFL is 3.3 years. Most will be out of the NFL about the same time they should have been finishing their degree.
 
As an old minor league baseball manager would tell his triple A players who were complaining they weren’t getting moved to the majors quick enough ... quit complaining and get better.
 
Reduce the scholarships to 75. Even with transfers, it spreads the wealth.

create something similar to the bodies that educate perspective pro athletes on their likely draft position. Someone who can say “hey you’re joining a program with 6 blue chip guys at your position. Only 7.3% of four stars ever become consistent starters At said school”

just An example. Good for everyone around. The kids get to make an informed decision about going to whatever school they go to. It also puts a premium on a school like Purdue not taking a four star headcase, because they would want to have their numbers show a greater opportunity.
 
How do scholarships work as far as paying tuition? I honestly have never given it much thought.

My grad school at PU was funded through the department. I didn't pay tuition and I got a monthly salary (which seemed HUGE at the time to 23 yr. old me) for TAing and/or teaching a class. I always just assumed that the dept. had X number "free rides" to give out and the school just gave up the tuition coming in.

So could UChicago handle to bring in 40 students that don't pay tuition? Sure, that's maybe an extra kid in every handful of classes on average. But if someone actually has to pay the going rate of tuition, that would be a whole other thing.
For sure. I know Purdue makes the AD pay the school for schollys. Other schools could forego tuition. I'm sure there are a lot of ways to skin it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TMFT
Good points, from a safety standpoint though I can't see any way a kid fresh out of High School is ready for the NFL. Think there will be a push one day to see a drop to two years though, I doubt one and done ever happens.
Allow kids to go to school if they don't get drafted. The league will take the kids they feel can impact and throw the rest back.
 
ADVERTISEMENT