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.
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.