College Football Discussion - Franklin to Virginia Tech

[ReasonablySober]

90% of college football is trash. Battle of ranked opponents Bama/Mizzou, Oregon/Illini, ND/Navy, all unwatchable garbage.

The games all went as they should've. Human rankings are dumb. Look at the spreads.

This argument makes my point for me. If consensus Top 25 teams are that far apart statistically, that shows how bad the product is. And it will only get worse with NIL. It will reach MLB pre-salary cap levels of bad unless it is fixed.

They're not. Parity is more widespread than ever. The sport has never been better.

[coolhandluke121]

In the past, I think the helmet schools got more than their fair share of the best recruits and it was hard for them to transfer if they didn't get playing time. All the top recruits probably have a ton of confidence and think they'll rise to the top, but when they don't win a spot in the rotation, now they can easily transfer. That wasn't the case in the past. I think there is slightly more parity.

However, when the richest schools have gaps, they can just poach players to fill those gaps, so it does work both ways. I just think the overall trend of distributing talent *slightly* more evenly (in the name of getting playing time) is having a larger effect. It's harder to hoard talent if you can't find playing time for all of them, and you're only going to spend so much NIL money on players who aren't in your regular rotation.

[Kerb Hohl]

90% of college football is trash. Battle of ranked opponents Bama/Mizzou, Oregon/Illini, ND/Navy, all unwatchable garbage.

The games all went as they should've. Human rankings are dumb. Look at the spreads.

This argument makes my point for me. If consensus Top 25 teams are that far apart statistically, that shows how bad the product is. And it will only get worse with NIL. It will reach MLB pre-salary cap levels of bad unless it is fixed.

Here’s a tip: if you want to know how good teams actually are, stop paying attention to top 25 polls that are only based on “when did you last lose a game?”

I will agree that the top 5ish teams are still a huge gap ahead of everyone else. There are more teams that can knock them off now, I guess…but still not many that close.

[ReasonablySober]

The games all went as they should've. Human rankings are dumb. Look at the spreads.

This argument makes my point for me. If consensus Top 25 teams are that far apart statistically, that shows how bad the product is. And it will only get worse with NIL. It will reach MLB pre-salary cap levels of bad unless it is fixed.

Here’s a tip: if you want to know how good teams actually are, stop paying attention to top 25 polls that are only based on “when did you last lose a game?”

That's been the case as long as there's been polls. In an ideal world in BB and FB you wouldn't have preseason rankings, or really any rankings until a month or so into the season. But that'll never happen because TV networks wouldn't be able to hype of #1 vs #5 in September. Until then we all just go by what we think we know.

[Kerb Hohl]

This argument makes my point for me. If consensus Top 25 teams are that far apart statistically, that shows how bad the product is. And it will only get worse with NIL. It will reach MLB pre-salary cap levels of bad unless it is fixed.

Here’s a tip: if you want to know how good teams actually are, stop paying attention to top 25 polls that are only based on “when did you last lose a game?”

That's been the case as long as there's been polls. In an ideal world in BB and FB you wouldn't have preseason rankings, or really any rankings until a month or so into the season. But that'll never happen because TV networks wouldn't be able to hype of #1 vs #5 in September. Until then we all just go by what we think we know.

I'm fine with the fact that they exist and just like advanced baseball stats, I don't expect the general fan to judge based on them...but if you really want to know how close most games will be, look at the spread/predictive ratings (they're the same thing)...especially early in the year when one team is ranked #12 because they have 4 close wins over creampuffs, don't be surprised when they're an underdog against the unranked 3-1 team who has played a brutal schedule really tough.

[Mags FTW]

In the past, I think the helmet schools got more than their fair share of the best recruits and it was hard for them to transfer if they didn't get playing time. All the top recruits probably have a ton of confidence and think they'll rise to the top, but when they don't win a spot in the rotation, now they can easily transfer. That wasn't the case in the past. I think there is slightly more parity.

However, when the richest schools have gaps, they can just poach players to fill those gaps, so it does work both ways. I just think the overall trend of distributing talent *slightly* more evenly (in the name of getting playing time) is having a larger effect. It's harder to hoard talent if you can't find playing time for all of them, and you're only going to spend so much NIL money on players who aren't in your regular rotation.

The problem is that NIL has ended recruit and develop for the non-helmet schools. If you recruit a diamond in the rough, or develop a 3-star into a 4/5, they are bolting for a bag.

[coolhandluke121]

In the past, I think the helmet schools got more than their fair share of the best recruits and it was hard for them to transfer if they didn't get playing time. All the top recruits probably have a ton of confidence and think they'll rise to the top, but when they don't win a spot in the rotation, now they can easily transfer. That wasn't the case in the past. I think there is slightly more parity.

However, when the richest schools have gaps, they can just poach players to fill those gaps, so it does work both ways. I just think the overall trend of distributing talent *slightly* more evenly (in the name of getting playing time) is having a larger effect. It's harder to hoard talent if you can't find playing time for all of them, and you're only going to spend so much NIL money on players who aren't in your regular rotation.

The problem is that NIL has ended recruit and develop for the non-helmet schools. If you recruit a diamond in the rough, or develop a 3-star into a 4/5, they are bolting for a bag.

Not sure why you're replying this way when I clearly acknowledged the poaching. For one thing, teams like UW can poach too. More importantly, good players can also leave richer programs if they're not getting opportunities or NIL deals. I clearly said it works both ways.

The lack of continuity affects everyone. It's not a uniquely anti-parity phenomenon. OSU can't keep a 4-star recruit that they spent 3 years developing if they're not giving him playing time for 3 years either.

[Kerb Hohl]

In the past, I think the helmet schools got more than their fair share of the best recruits and it was hard for them to transfer if they didn't get playing time. All the top recruits probably have a ton of confidence and think they'll rise to the top, but when they don't win a spot in the rotation, now they can easily transfer. That wasn't the case in the past. I think there is slightly more parity.

However, when the richest schools have gaps, they can just poach players to fill those gaps, so it does work both ways. I just think the overall trend of distributing talent *slightly* more evenly (in the name of getting playing time) is having a larger effect. It's harder to hoard talent if you can't find playing time for all of them, and you're only going to spend so much NIL money on players who aren't in your regular rotation.

The problem is that NIL has ended recruit and develop for the non-helmet schools. If you recruit a diamond in the rough, or develop a 3-star into a 4/5, they are bolting for a bag.

They ended it for different reasons, IMO. I don't think your example happens that often. I think it's this:

Wisconsin was the recruit-and-develop team.

What happened? If you spend 2-3 years developing a very solid D-lineman and also try to keep depth behind him with other great development, you have 2 problems:
1. Indiana, Minnesota, and Illinois just walk over to New Mexico State's roster or Texas A&M's bench and pick up a transfer that takes 0 years to develop and is every bit as solid as the guy you developed over several years.
2. The depth you are trying to create - the guy on the bench waiting behind your developmental starter - that is the guy that gets impatient and bolts for a starting job elsewhere (for only a little bit of $, if anything).

[ReasonablySober]

In the past, I think the helmet schools got more than their fair share of the best recruits and it was hard for them to transfer if they didn't get playing time. All the top recruits probably have a ton of confidence and think they'll rise to the top, but when they don't win a spot in the rotation, now they can easily transfer. That wasn't the case in the past. I think there is slightly more parity.

However, when the richest schools have gaps, they can just poach players to fill those gaps, so it does work both ways. I just think the overall trend of distributing talent *slightly* more evenly (in the name of getting playing time) is having a larger effect. It's harder to hoard talent if you can't find playing time for all of them, and you're only going to spend so much NIL money on players who aren't in your regular rotation.

The problem is that NIL has ended recruit and develop for the non-helmet schools. If you recruit a diamond in the rough, or develop a 3-star into a 4/5, they are bolting for a bag.

Not sure why you're replying this way when I clearly acknowledged the poaching. For one thing, teams like UW can poach too. More importantly, good players can also leave richer programs if they're not getting opportunities or NIL deals. I clearly said it works both ways.

The lack of continuity affects everyone. It's not a uniquely anti-parity phenomenon. OSU can't keep a 4-star recruit that they spent 3 years developing if they're not giving him playing time for 3 years either.

Yea, it's weird to see a Wisconsin fan (I think?) complaining about poaching when they've been the ones doing it to other bigger programs.

There are only so many roster spots available at Alabama, Ohio State, Tennessee, Georgia, and USC. Those spots are usually reserved for the very best of the best recruits that Wisconsin isn't getting anyway. But those backups and sophomores who aren't playing have to go somewhere, and Wisconsin is an ideal place to turn. Upper tier Big 10, history of sending guys to the pros, high revenue and big spending athletic department.

[ReasonablySober]

Last week was very bad. If you squint you can see some potentially interesting games here. Despite it being #3 vs #4 I don't really care who wins between PSU and Ohio State.

[MickeyDavis]

I don't like either Ohio State or Penn State but OSU fans will lose their **** with another loss so go Penn State I guess. No other games I plan to watch, I'll just do what I usually do. Monitor scores and tune in the 4th quarter of close games, whoever is playing.

[BUCKnation]

I hate Big Noon. No aura on these games

[ReasonablySober]

I hate Game Day a lot more. The McAfee of it all.

[BUCKnation]

I hate Game Day a lot more. The McAfee of it all.

I dont care about the show, just hate putting one of the best games, if not the best like today, at 11 am. This should 100% be a night game with a psu white out.

[MikeIsGood]

Why is Gus Johnson just entirely incapable of talking like a human being?

[MickeyDavis]

Poor play calls Penn State

[ReginaldDwight]

Poor play calls Penn State

All time bad play calls. The lineman in motion didnt block anyone every single play.

[ReasonablySober]

Cam Ward came through, now it'd be nice to see Oregon throw it all over the field in the Big House.

[MickeyDavis]

Florida hanging in there

[Mags FTW]

Indiana running it up again. I guess they are trying to prove a point and move up in the rankings, but its pretty crazy how much they are throwing up 30.