So how exactly do we fix college football?

We told you some of the major concerns and flaws in college football earlier this week, now let’s explore again on how to fix some of them.

First, make any FBS team which plays an FCS opponent be penalized. If you play an FCS opponent, it will be used against you when you’re evaluated. That will end these exhibition games like this week Alabama hosting The Citadel or earlier Furman at Clemson. A complete waste of time. The CFP can just come out and indicate as much. That’s what happened in basketball and it stopped teams from playing lower level non-Division I schools.

Next, we need to increase the college football playoff from its current four team format. This is not news. It’s not happening anytime soon but we’ll keep mentioning it. We need at least eight teams or as many as sixteen. Why? Because they’re just not an enough game during the season to conduct a detailed, thorough and comprehensive evaluation as to who the top four teams are. It’s usually all educated guesswork. While twelve games are a reasonable figure to evaluate, the quality and head to head challenging contests, is not there. There are not enough crossover games between conferences and September is like a preseason for most teams. Also, some Group of Five conference teams play nine games conference games while others play eight. I’ve been telling you the inequity in that repeatedly. It’s just plain wrong and we refer to it as a con job.

And then there is Notre Dame. An independent, they set their own schedule every year because everyone wants to play them. Playing five teams from the weak ACC so they are a full basketball member of the best basketball conference in America is a joke. The NCAA should not allow this. If you play at the same varsity level in football and in basketball, all the NCAA must do is mandate that any team play in the same league for both. It’s that simple. The Irish would have to make decision; play as an independent in both basketball and football or join a conference. Instead, they get the benefit of both worlds. Before anyone thinks we’re picking on the Irish, the same rules should apply to Brigham Young, which is a football independent and plays in the West Coast Conference in basketball. It’s just Notre Dame, with its own football network, a national football following and a rich history, sticks out like a sore thumb. Instead, the Irish, and yes, the Cougars, circumvent the system. A complete injustice. How do they get away with it? Because they’re Notre Dame and they can!
Just so we are crystal clear here, the NCAA should mandate every conference play a nine-game schedule. If they are independent, that team should play a 13th game.

The computer in some way should be brought back because it has no bias in it. It is controlled by the data which is processed. Now, everything is subjective. A computer is objective. I didn’t say use it as the primary factor, just make it a part of the decision-making process. That will reduce the inherent bias of some committee members who always consider the reputations and images of certain universities.

This next suggestion we told you about months ago and continue to endorse, relates to scholarships. Currently, each team is limited to 85 scholarship players. Teams can have walk-ons but that is the limit. Many of the top schools find ways to “beat” the system by not playing scholarship players which they don’t think can contribute, forcing them to transfer and allowing that school to have another open scholarship. It’s a practice made very popular in the Southeast. While we can’t change that kind of practice, we can reduce the amount of scholarships by the number of players which transfer from any individual team. In other words, when you offer a player a scholarship, you better be right. A player who transfers would have a negative impact on future recruiting, the bloodline for every school.

For instance, for every player who transfers, a school would lose 1/4 of a scholarship until that school accumulates a total of four. Then, for that year, the school will only have 84 scholarship players. I’m just suggesting 4:1 ratio but it could be very interesting at a 1:1 ratio. Lose a player, lose a scholarship.

Either way, we also propose a reduction of the 85 scholarships to 65 which will permit not only the bottom feeders of the power five conferences to compete but also the group of five conferences to elevate their play as well. The talent disparity would be reduced. The competitive balance would be on display and we would be closer to parity. The rich would always have an advantage but at least the deck would not be so stacked against the have nots.

There’s just so many obstacles to these reforms. First, the Bowls will object because it will reduce their power and importance with sixteen teams in the playoff. Second, the SEC, ACC and Notre Dame would almost certainly object because they are the ones benefiting from the system right now. They like the model. Finally, in what is the biggest obstacle of all, the blue blood programs want to continue to dominate college football both on the field and at the bank. Sacrificing power and money for the good of the game sounds great in theory but is riddled with obstacles in practice. What’s good for college football does not necessarily benefit these universities financially. For all these reasons, it’ll never happen.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *