510 Bear said:Or to put it another way, if anyone's an "Always Sunny" fan:going4roses said:
My random guess kelly w/o Nike and uncle Phil = meh
Chip at Oregon: this clip before 2:23
Chip at UCLA: this clip after 2:23
Um....as you were.
Your first idea makes a lot of sense. But the relegation idea I don't think will. It will simply put the perennial losers in the lower tier and the winners will continue their dominance in the upper tier. Unless there are additional supports provided to the lower tiers so that they can be competitive and reach the upper echelons and be competitive.59bear said:
Another thought...to restore (or reshape) competitive balance: redistribute scholarships based on won-loss records. Teams with losing records get more; winners get fewer. Or, we could use soccer style relegation. Lose and go down a tier; win and move up
This is possibly one of the worst ideas I've ever heard on BearInsider. You are trying to solve a not very important problem (distributing wins among college football programs) by severely limiting freedom of choice between non-fungible schools which could have a major impact on these student's lives.TandemBear said:Yeah, it has some serious drawbacks from the college choice standpoint. But perhaps that's the trade-off. If you want to enter the big leagues (play for a P5 and/or BCS school team) and vie for a national championship experience, you have to agree to the rules. I don't think just because the kids aren't "professionals" means we can't expect parity in the league. The kids, while not being actually paid, are getting hundreds of thousands of dollars in scholarship monies and untold value in high-level training. In other words, they're getting a lot for their efforts. (And I"ll add that I do indeed think they should be paid. They're risking lifelong injury playing for free and players with promising NFL careers are prevented from long, lucrative careers in the NFL due to college injury. See Jahvid Best.)59bear said:
Another thought...to restore (or reshape) competitive balance: redistribute scholarships based on won-loss records. Teams with losing records get more; winners get fewer. Or, we could use soccer style relegation. Lose and go down a tier; win and move up
But I realize it'll probably never happen. I guess we should just be content to watch the Alabamas of the football world win year in and year out.
Oh, I'd say it's right on the money to compare Cal fans to battered spouses or people with Stockholm Syndrome. Like, dead on.510 Bear said:Yeah, I'm not sure it makes sense to compare Cal fans to battered spouses at this point in our new regime. Feel free to trot that one out if it's 2022 and we're back to losing with Wilcox and Beau still doing the exact same thing every year.SurvivorOf1and10fkaLEA said:
Deluded victims of domestic violence also have great (upbeat) analysis about how their abusive beaus are just a lucky break away from becoming the sweet, gentle, caring men they were always meant to be.
I was speaking somewhat tongue in cheek and most certainly don't seek increased professionalism at the college level...we have way too much as it is. I don't think legislation is the answer although the soccer relegation thing is hardly "lollipops for all", more Darwinian I would suggest. Clearly, we are rowing upstream against a powerful current. It's hard to win without getting better coaches and athletes and hard to get better coaches and athletes without winning but Stanford made the jump in recent memory, as did Oregon before them. UW has been resurrected and Utah is respectable without star-studded recruiting classes. Tedford got us close. I'm hopeful Wilcox can too.71Bear said:Instead of beating around the bush, just say it - you want college football to become more professional. No problem, just be honest about it....OdontoBear66 said:Two pretty good ideas, I would say.59bear said:
Another thought...to restore (or reshape) competitive balance: redistribute scholarships based on won-loss records. Teams with losing records get more; winners get fewer. Or, we could use soccer style relegation. Lose and go down a tier; win and move up.
As long as college sports remain (as the NCAA likes think) the bastion of amateurs, there should be no discrimination against the successful. Instead of whining about programs that function effectively and consistently vie for championships, why not raise your standard to meet theirs rather than drag them down to your inferior level.
I understand your suggestion reflects the overall national malaise that "dumbing down" is better than "reaching up" but hey, I would like to think Cal alums are a bit smarter. I guess I was wrong. Lollipops for everyone!
You may not get the best results, but you should hopefully be getting some better results. You need the ability to convince kids you can get somewhere (before you get somewhere) if you are going to be successful in recruiting.Another Bear said:Agree...sky isn't falling. Of course I'd like to see Cal recruit well but we have to be honest - Cal is still in a rebuilding phase and you don't get the best recruits until you're winning or have a perennial top 25 program. I was thinking the same thing - it's going to take a another year or two of winning before the better recruits sign on.510 Bear said:It's early to say this year's class is a disaster, but it's looking like Wilcox will have to pull off another winning year or two with so-so talent before we can start landing bigger fish. That's never easy but I like our chances - he's already shown this year that he can do more with less.71Bear said:
Quite frankly, this class is disappointing. It isn't a "sky is falling" disappointment but it should have been better. Wilcox is a great coach in most aspects of the job. The #1 unknown is whether he can recruit. To date, that is still an unanswered question.
One of the primary reasons why Cal has been so crappy over the last decade - lousy recruiting. Having said that, I guess the sky was falling all those years.
THE SKY IS NOT FALLING
Contrary to your reasoning, Cal had PLENTY of top talent in the Tedford years to rise to the top.TandemBear said:
I have never paid too much attention to the recruiting process in college, so please excuse my ignorance. But it seems readily apparent to me that college football (and probably other sports) need to implement a draft system similar to what the pros use. (And how many use it? NFL, MLB and the NBA, right?)
In other words, schools should be ranked and draft in reverse order; #1 pick goes to the worst team, on up. Now I realize it would be a challenge because of all the different league levels, but perhaps institute it for those teams in the top league.
Is it not totally obvious that with they way it works now, the top schools continuously get the pick of the litter which just ensures their dominance for years to come? Those perennial winners simply become football factories while the also-rans toil in perpetual obscurity.
If the pros utilize this, why not NCAA? Why isn't parity promoted so conferences have competitive games and the outcome isn't just a foregone conclusion - or at least for the most part? Why should programs like Cal, a big program with over a hundred years of history and half a billion dollar facilities and a huge fanbase wishing and hoping for success some day (that seems to never come) settle for not being competitive? Why agree to participate in this rigged system?
Again, if the pros use it, there must be reason why. I think it's to allow all teams to be competitive so that the league stays interesting. Otherwise, perennial powerhouses would just win and win and the other teams would be perennial losers. The rest of the country's fans would lose interest and thus the NFL would lose status, and more importantly, money!
So until this happens, I don't expect Cal to EVER land enough 4 or 5 star athletes to be competitive. Sure, we land the occasional DeSean Jackson and discover the diamond-in-the-rough Aaron Rodgers, but I don't think we'll ever challenge for the conference championship and definitely not a national championship with the system the way it is. Same old same old if you ask me.
But if anyone can provide a brief history of the issue, please educate me! Thanks!
I think the issue here is that under the current structure there are almost no disincentives to cheat. The NCAA does NOT ask for (the significant share) of $$ back. The revision of records is a joke. ADs are almost never sanctioned and there is a clear hierarchy (insert your conspiracy theory of choice as to why) in respect to the programs that get punished and those that do not.71Bear said:Instead of beating around the bush, just say it - you want college football to become more professional. No problem, just be honest about it....OdontoBear66 said:Two pretty good ideas, I would say.59bear said:
Another thought...to restore (or reshape) competitive balance: redistribute scholarships based on won-loss records. Teams with losing records get more; winners get fewer. Or, we could use soccer style relegation. Lose and go down a tier; win and move up.
As long as college sports remain (as the NCAA likes think) the bastion of amateurs, there should be no discrimination against the successful. Instead of whining about programs that function effectively and consistently vie for championships, why not raise your standard to meet theirs rather than drag them down to your inferior level.
I understand your suggestion reflects the overall national malaise that "dumbing down" is better than "reaching up" but hey, I would like to think Cal alums are a bit smarter. I guess I was wrong. Lollipops for everyone!
Some background...socaltownie said:I think the issue here is that under the current structure there are almost no disincentives to cheat. The NCAA does NOT ask for (the significant share) of $$ back. The revision of records is a joke. ADs are almost never sanctioned and there is a clear hierarchy (insert your conspiracy theory of choice as to why) in respect to the programs that get punished and those that do not.71Bear said:Instead of beating around the bush, just say it - you want college football to become more professional. No problem, just be honest about it....OdontoBear66 said:Two pretty good ideas, I would say.59bear said:
Another thought...to restore (or reshape) competitive balance: redistribute scholarships based on won-loss records. Teams with losing records get more; winners get fewer. Or, we could use soccer style relegation. Lose and go down a tier; win and move up.
As long as college sports remain (as the NCAA likes think) the bastion of amateurs, there should be no discrimination against the successful. Instead of whining about programs that function effectively and consistently vie for championships, why not raise your standard to meet theirs rather than drag them down to your inferior level.
I understand your suggestion reflects the overall national malaise that "dumbing down" is better than "reaching up" but hey, I would like to think Cal alums are a bit smarter. I guess I was wrong. Lollipops for everyone!
Then layer on the fact that member schools really do have different philosophies and standards when it comes to their CORE mission. Cal is, thankfully, not Auburn ( a school with an 84% acceptance rate).
The blob (to borrow a great term from discussions about the foreign policymaking elite) is way too institutionalized and, for good and for ill, the ones with the power to create change, have very little iincentive to try to come together to effect change. When you get evaluated on your ability to raise tens of millions for the latest science building, trying to make college SPORTS better (as opposed to a better business unit) is really a distraction.
If king for the day what I would do is blow up D1 but institute real revenue sharing. Everyone that satisfies certain minimum conditions for spending on athletic scholarships across Y sports gets $x/n from all the TV contracts. Like the NFL - we immediately reduce some of the advantages that derive from W-L. Then i would probably try to put in place something like the promotion/relegation standard from English Soccer. Taking away the "sting" of relegation, you would get movement where what would be on the field would be a competitive product. Arguably it is a safer sport - cause if I had time and a few millions to hire RAs I would LOVE to see how many injuries and damage is done when little sisters of Mercy play 'Bama in early September each year. Some traditional "rivaliries" would go by the way side but, to be frank, there are probably 50 schools where that really matters - the rest are stuck in a world of ever changing conferences.
Or, probably more straight forward, get colleges out of this game all together - recognizing that the idea of a "student-athlete" can be directly traced to the days of the 19th century British class system and the idea that "gentleman" (i.e. those of wealth who could afford such pursuits) would be best for the Empire if studying at Oxford while pursuing a narrowly proscribed set of physical activities that people believed would make them better agents of the crown in places with people with darker skin.
As the 1984 Washington Post article indicates, we are in the U.S. with federal anti-trust laws. The NFL draft as originally performed violated anti-trust laws. The only reason it passes muster today is because it is in the collective bargaining agreement (you can get around a lot of anti-trust stuff through collective bargaining).71Bear said:Some background...socaltownie said:I think the issue here is that under the current structure there are almost no disincentives to cheat. The NCAA does NOT ask for (the significant share) of $$ back. The revision of records is a joke. ADs are almost never sanctioned and there is a clear hierarchy (insert your conspiracy theory of choice as to why) in respect to the programs that get punished and those that do not.71Bear said:Instead of beating around the bush, just say it - you want college football to become more professional. No problem, just be honest about it....OdontoBear66 said:Two pretty good ideas, I would say.59bear said:
Another thought...to restore (or reshape) competitive balance: redistribute scholarships based on won-loss records. Teams with losing records get more; winners get fewer. Or, we could use soccer style relegation. Lose and go down a tier; win and move up.
As long as college sports remain (as the NCAA likes think) the bastion of amateurs, there should be no discrimination against the successful. Instead of whining about programs that function effectively and consistently vie for championships, why not raise your standard to meet theirs rather than drag them down to your inferior level.
I understand your suggestion reflects the overall national malaise that "dumbing down" is better than "reaching up" but hey, I would like to think Cal alums are a bit smarter. I guess I was wrong. Lollipops for everyone!
Then layer on the fact that member schools really do have different philosophies and standards when it comes to their CORE mission. Cal is, thankfully, not Auburn ( a school with an 84% acceptance rate).
The blob (to borrow a great term from discussions about the foreign policymaking elite) is way too institutionalized and, for good and for ill, the ones with the power to create change, have very little iincentive to try to come together to effect change. When you get evaluated on your ability to raise tens of millions for the latest science building, trying to make college SPORTS better (as opposed to a better business unit) is really a distraction.
If king for the day what I would do is blow up D1 but institute real revenue sharing. Everyone that satisfies certain minimum conditions for spending on athletic scholarships across Y sports gets $x/n from all the TV contracts. Like the NFL - we immediately reduce some of the advantages that derive from W-L. Then i would probably try to put in place something like the promotion/relegation standard from English Soccer. Taking away the "sting" of relegation, you would get movement where what would be on the field would be a competitive product. Arguably it is a safer sport - cause if I had time and a few millions to hire RAs I would LOVE to see how many injuries and damage is done when little sisters of Mercy play 'Bama in early September each year. Some traditional "rivaliries" would go by the way side but, to be frank, there are probably 50 schools where that really matters - the rest are stuck in a world of ever changing conferences.
Or, probably more straight forward, get colleges out of this game all together - recognizing that the idea of a "student-athlete" can be directly traced to the days of the 19th century British class system and the idea that "gentleman" (i.e. those of wealth who could afford such pursuits) would be best for the Empire if studying at Oxford while pursuing a narrowly proscribed set of physical activities that people believed would make them better agents of the crown in places with people with darker skin.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1984/06/28/supreme-court-breaks-ncaa-hold-on-televised-college-football-games/35c9aace-baf7-4dfd-af14-f7bcc702b0c9/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.03b4c78187d3
TV rights are owned by individual schools. In today's world, they have given their respective conference the right to collectively bargain on their behalf with TV networks. Each conference has chosen its own path regarding bargaining, etc. etc.
Personally, I prefer the current approach. Let the biggest dog eat the most. If you don't like where you stand in the food chain, don't whine, do something about it.
