The Rest of College Football

[entropy]

I'm not trying to say the playing field is equal today, but you're going to seperate it more. And I'm not sure that is good for CF. MLB is a fail for that reason. NFL is not.

[Tony G]

The stipend would have to be on a fixed scale.

[Hannibal]

Correct. It would be a reversion back to the pre-scholarship limit days and THEN SOME. I'd argue, though, that under the rules, as they exist if perfectly enforced, M and OSU already enjoy a massively unfair advantage over Purdue in terms of tradition, name-value, facilities and coaching staffs. If you chucked the rules, how much worse does it get for the Purdues of the world? That's a fair question.

On the whole, it'd be worse, no doubt. That said, they're one uber-rich booster away from approaching parity (see Okie State/Oregon).

I guess where I come out on this is that there are roughly 15-25 college programs capable of winning a BCS title right now.

I don't think that it's that many. It's either got to be

A. A massively cheating program

or

B. A team in an area with so much talent that you can roll out of bed and lend a Top 10 class

Those teams are:

Auburn, Alabama, Florida, Oklahoma, Florida State, Miami, LSU, Texas, Texas A&M, USC, Oregon, OSU, and UCLA. UCLA and A&M have massively underachieved, but they belong on this list, because they can compete with the current rules.

Out of the past 11 national title games, a mere 11 of those teams have filled 21 out of 22 slots, with USC and Auburn winning a share in '03 and '04. So that's basically 23 out of 24 participants that have been just 11 teams.

[Hannibal]

I'm not trying to say the playing field is equal today, but you're going to seperate it more. And I'm not sure that is good for CF. MLB is a fail for that reason. NFL is not.

I'm not so sure. I think that what you would do is level the playing field for Top 200 talent. The recruiting relationships between the top tier of the SEC and the top tier non-cheating programs would change dramatically. The relationships between the lower tier of the Big Ten vs programs like Baylor or Ole Miss would probably change dramatically too. The 85 scholarship rule would still be in place, as would widespread TV, which is another huge equalizer.

With that said, I think that there are a lot of large universities with cash-flush almumni, but little history, that could become pretty competitive. The big programs in the Big Ten, like Illinois, Indiana, Minnehaha, MSU, and Wisconsin come to mind. As well as good large public universities arond the country like Cal and North Carolina.

[iam416]

Michigan, ND and Georgia should be on that list, Hanni. That's about all I would add with Penn State currently in the shitter.

[Pasadena Blue]

The stipend idea is about as stupid as it gets. Because all athletes (women's sports, etc) would need to have access to the same stipend, and because the NCAA would insist on a "level" playing field, to be affordable the stipend would be small. The cash suitcases under the table would still be in play to nab the star athletes.

I think there are very few (except the naive, like a Colin Cowherd who notes that Saban doesn't cheat because he has no NCAA violations ... LOL) who still believe SEC teams don't pay handsomely for players. Someone as meticulous as a Saban is not going to get caught by an organization as incompetent as the NCAA. Having said that, the number of players getting huge sums is probably pretty small. The SEC has many other advantages that they use to their full extent: hot hostesses (M is never going to be able compete here), lower admission standards that let in semi-pro athletes with no interest in an education, and geography (warm weather is more attractive to recruits and they have a greater abundance of talented players).

The reality is that the list of non-SEC teams that can truly compete against the SEC is going to continue to dwindle. Ohio, USC (after they dispatch Kif), Oregon --- these are the only teams I see as being legitimate competition moving forward.

I think I said before that M will not be in that mix because they do not have a culture of commitment. For example, Mary Sue Coleman would have never said what Gordon Gee said even in jest. M's commitment to football is do enough to keep the alumni/donor dollars flowing. That's why we are where we are and where we will probably always remain. I see the future B1G as having a Big One (flagship Ohio -- I concede to talent), Big in Name Three (Neb, M, PSU --- though will be a few years for PSU to recover), and rotating garbage (a Wisky or Sparty will periodically rise and slink back).

[entropy]

the SEC also has a culture where giving kids scholarships and then saying, sorry, we are full in the fall is ok...

the SEC also has a culture where parents are more interested in their kids playing for one of these schools, even to be cut, then getting an education...

the SEC also has a culture where graduation rates don't matter... to anyone, parents included

the SEC also has a culture where cheating = normal mode of business... it's not about agreeing or disagreeing, just whatever it takes to win

[entropy]

Never mind for a moment which college-football team is No. 1 on the field. Is Texas losing its grip on being No. 1 at the bank?

According to an annual analysis of the values of college-football programs, Texas remains the most valuable team in the sport. But the gap is narrowing: The Longhorns—whose 2011-12 valuation is $761.7 million—now are only slightly ahead of Michigan ($731.9 million).

Ryan Brewer, an assistant professor of finance at Indiana University-Purdue University Columbus, calculated the intrinsic valuations for 115 of the teams in the top-tier Football Bowl Subdivision. Among other factors, the study looked at each program's revenues and expenses and made cash-flow adjustments, risk assessments and growth projections for each school. The resulting figures represent what the teams might fetch if they could be bought and sold like pro franchises. (As a point of reference, the NFL's Jacksonville Jaguars sold in late 2011 for about $760 million.)

Texas still generates the most revenue in college football, but Michigan's valuation surged 18% over the year before because of improved cash flow, Brewer said. Texas' valuation fell by 5%. As for Monday night's title-game combatants: Notre Dame ranked fourth in the financial study ($597.4 million); Alabama was eighth ($476.0 million).

[hack]

Michigan's valuation surged 18% over the year before because of improved cash flow

I suspect at this point Brand-on doesn't even know the record was 8-5 this year...

[iam416]

I don't know what the hell is wrong with you people when it comes to M. It's one thing for me to belittle them and sass them, but for fuck's sake, they're still Michigan.

Really, the principal advantage Alabama has over M, OSU, ND, etc is The Nick's ruthless policy on cutting dead wood. OSU and M will, for two consecutive years, have recruiting classes that are absolutely on par with Alabama. ND, for that matter, too. The Nick, however, more ruthlessly filters out those who won't contribute. So he signs 140 players over 5 years will OSU signs 110 and ND signes 105 (and I'm assuming M is in the 105-110 range).

Competitively, that's where The Nick has his biggest advantage. But recruiting-wise, M is still M; OSU is still OSU -- those schools can walk into any recruits door. Period.

Aside from the "extra class" Alabama signs every 5 years, their other advantage is assistant coach salaries, though OSU is now on par with them.

That, and The Nick is a hell of coach.

So, get out of your fetal position. M is bringing in the talent to compete with anyone, especially up front.

[Tony G]

That, and The Nick is a hell of coach.

This more than anything. As the undisputed top dog in college coaching saban gets the chance to take the cream of the crop. He has built a machine that refuels itself very well.

[hack]

Nobody's fetal. But it is clear that winning football is an exercise in extreme attention to detail.

[iam416]

Nobody's fetal. But it is clear that winning football is an exercise in extreme attention to detail.

I think being elite at anything is. I think The Nick's practices are probably a case study in this.

I just don't get the "we can't compete" meme. I feel pretty good about UFM as a coach and UFM's ability to bring in elite talent. I feel pretty good about OSU competing with Alabama. Not next year, I don't think, but soon.

Coaching + talent. That's all it is. OSU and M can go out and get comparable talent. If they can coach it up as well, it's game on.

[whodean]

But it's easier to whine about the SEC cheating. ;-)

[hack]

Oh I don't know about that. If OSU weren't systematically cheating over the course of the 00s the record would have been significantly different than 8*-1, and that's not just empty trashtalk. Tressell still would have had a significant advantage because Lloyd was a tired dinosaur and Tressell was a modern and updated version in terms of the football-only stuff, but OSU broke lots of rules in a systematic way and benefited. Three signature offensive from that era had no business being on the field and may not even have been in Columbus in the first place without that system in place.