College Football Is Getting Toxic

[Uncle Ken]

**** Baylor!


Am a doing it right?

You're not doing it wrong.

 

[goalline]

What I think needs to be considered here is that the sport has seen several drastic changes that affected the very core of how the games works in the last ~10 years. I think that up until the 2010 alignment round the biggest change the sport saw was the introduction of the BCS championship game so that there could be a consensus national champion. Since then we have seen the following

- Unprecedented realignment
- the introduction of a four team playoff
- the transfer portal
- NIL

I think all these factors have led to higher stakes and the stakes are higher because the schools wanted them to be.

You left out increased TV exposure. Games all used to be at roughly the same time and only 5 or 6 a weekend would be broadcast. Now there’s many more channels, each trying to show 3 games a weekend. Increased ad revenue and increased payout to conferences.

 

[hokiehead]

14 schools have made the playoffs since it's inception 10 years ago.

Only 7 schools have made the CG

If "win it all" means the CFP, I'm not sure I agree more teams than ever have a chance

 

[goalline]

CFB has less parity than ever because the top 10 teams in recruiting have a much higher percentage of the top players than the rest of the teams. When Alabama has several 5 stars in each class there is no parity with the 79 or so teams that have no 5 star recruits. It’s definitely become a rich get richer system. The top 10 or so teams have the top half of the talent.

The only equalizer is the transfer portal, but even that is generally filled with the cast offs from the top teams.

 

[Buffnik]

Playoff expansion causes parity. Like in college hoops. In the old days with a smaller field you had dynasties. Now, while a Duke, Kansas, UNC, Kentucky, UCLA or UConn has significant advantages that doesn't stop programs like Loyola-Chicago from a magical Final Four run or for little Gonzaga to become a national power.

We've gone from a 2-team championship game to a 4-team tournament and are going to a 12-team. No doubt the next step is 16 because there's no way they can resist the money that comes from more drama & relevant games at the end of the regular season plus gaining additional playoff games which would draw big ratings from featuring the top teams in the 1st round.

That opens up such opportunity that we will see more parity and the sport will be better. Bowl games will be the equivalent of making the hoops NIT.

 

[Bliff Cranch]

Playoff expansion causes parity. Like in college hoops. In the old days with a smaller field you had dynasties. Now, while a Duke, Kansas, UNC, Kentucky, UCLA or UConn has significant advantages that doesn't stop programs like Loyola-Chicago from a magical Final Four run or for little Gonzaga to become a national power.

We've gone from a 2-team championship game to a 4-team tournament and are going to a 12-team. No doubt the next step is 16 because there's no way they can resist the money that comes from more drama & relevant games at the end of the regular season plus gaining additional playoff games which would draw big ratings from featuring the top teams in the 1st round.

That opens up such opportunity that we will see more parity and the sport will be better. Bowl games will be the equivalent of making the hoops NIT.

Most of the bowl games needed to die a long time ago.

 

[FM-Buff]

Most of the bowl games needed to die a long time ago.

Why?

 

[MiamiBuffs]

This is a powerful tweet, and true, too. There is very little celebration of anything anymore, just everyone trying to tear everyone else down. See the response to what CU is doing under Prime. What did Norvell do? What did Lanning do?

What did the fanbases do in response? Obviously most of this is due to social media, and also the toxic "hot take" sports shows, but I wonder if people are just making college football a lot more "high stakes" than it used to be. There seem to be fewer and fewer people to remind others that at the end of the day, it's a game played by 18-22 year olds (mostly).

You should visit our lovely Politics forum….

 

[4BienemyTDs]

Why?

Bowl Games need to continue because just like NIT Basketball, it gives teams a chance to practice more, and hopefully get more playing times for young guys. One rule change should be that a Redshirt ends during the regular season and Bowl Games are exempt, so you can play your redshirts.
If the Broncos had a roof on the stadium, we could have a bowl game in Denver and that would not be a bad thing for Denver. I think the problem is the bowl games are in non-college locations too often

Would love to see Spring Games become the games against FCS or G5 Teams

 

[manhattanbuff]

One of the biggest improvements has been resources that fund every P5 program to a level where we are unlikely to ever again see programs like pre-Snyder KSU.

The biggest benefits are the Covid eligibility rules and the transfer portal freedom…

 

[Bliff Cranch]

Why?

I said most, not all.

80% of them are cringy bad. Half empty stadiums. From an entertainment perspective, they’re awful. I realize I maybe in the minority.

 

[hokiehead]

Bowl Games need to continue because just like NIT Basketball, it gives teams a chance to practice more, and hopefully get more playing times for young guys. One rule change should be that a Redshirt ends during the regular season and Bowl Games are exempt, so you can play your redshirts.
If the Broncos had a roof on the stadium, we could have a bowl game in Denver and that would not be a bad thing for Denver. I think the problem is the bowl games are in non-college locations too often

Would love to see Spring Games become the games against FCS or G5 Teams

I think bowl games need to have some meaning behind them. IMO, the problem with bowls is that other than the CFP, there's nothing at stake. Teams give most of the practice reps to next year's projected starters.

win/lose -- same money
win/lose -- still not playing for the CFP
win/lose -- doesn't impact conference standings
win/lose -- doesn't impact recruiting

I'm not sure the solution. I'd say give more money to the winning team, but every year I read about how most teams lose money on bowl appearances anyway, so that doesn't seem realistic. Maybe if there was a way to directly reward players of the winning team with a cash bonus.

 

[Medford M.]

The biggest benefits are the Covid eligibility rules and the transfer portal freedom…

I'm really excited honestly for when the covid super seniors are finally gone

 

[Alfred91]

I'm really excited honestly for when the car vid super seniors are finally gone

Nix and Penix are both beneficiaries of that, aren't they?

I know Penix got a medical redshirt one year too, though.

 

[Medford M.]

Nix and Penix are both beneficiaries of that, aren't they?

I know Penix got a medical redshirt one year too, though.

I'm not sure on either, but while the Covid super senior has probably improved the level of play a bit, it's probably hurting a lot of borderline FBS level players from getting scholarships, and I'm totally ok with the level of play dropping a bit

 

[Medford M.]

Nix and Penix are both beneficiaries of that, aren't they?

I know Penix got a medical redshirt one year too, though.

I'm not sure on either, but while the Covid super senior has probably improved the level of play a bit, it's probably hurting a lot of borderline FBS level players from getting scholarships, and I'm totally ok with the level of play dropping a bit

 

[DBT]

College Football is greater today than it has ever been. There’s more parity, more exposure, and more content. These are the glory days.

Meh. Conferences are falling apart. Rivalries are gone. Players are going to the highest bidders. The really great bowl games are getting ruined. New Years bowl game day sucks.

 

[96 Buff]

 

[Townie]

Sometimes the old men have a point.

 

[Go Buffs]

Sometimes the old men have a point.

True

 

[hawg1]

It always strikes me how so many people watch games from a grievance perspective (so and so sucks, ha ha ha on bad loss, he’s terrible on a turnover). I don’t get it. I just like watching games.

 

[Bison]

Playoff expansion causes parity. Like in college hoops. In the old days with a smaller field you had dynasties. Now, while a Duke, Kansas, UNC, Kentucky, UCLA or UConn has significant advantages that doesn't stop programs like Loyola-Chicago from a magical Final Four run or for little Gonzaga to become a national power.

We've gone from a 2-team championship game to a 4-team tournament and are going to a 12-team. No doubt the next step is 16 because there's no way they can resist the money that comes from more drama & relevant games at the end of the regular season plus gaining additional playoff games which would draw big ratings from featuring the top teams in the 1st round.

That opens up such opportunity that we will see more parity and the sport will be better. Bowl games will be the equivalent of making the hoops NIT.

Sure more teams will get in but the same old teams will still contend for the championship. More rounds of playoffs means those teams get more weeks of meaningful practice reps while the teams that are knocked out do not get those meaningful practice reps.

 

[Buffnik]

Sure more teams will get in but the same old teams will still contend for the championship. More rounds of playoffs means those teams get more weeks of meaningful practice reps while the teams that are knocked out do not get those meaningful practice reps.

If you're arguing that a larger playoff won't give more opportunity and parity, I absolutely disagree.

If you're simply saying that this doesn't make Iowa State the equal of Ohio State, sure. No one is claiming absolute parity and I'd argue that isn't even desirable.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

It always strikes me how so many people watch games from a grievance perspective (so and so sucks, ha ha ha on bad loss, he’s terrible on a turnover). I don’t get it. I just like watching games.

You’re in the minority. Fans of non-blue bloods love watching blue bloods fail, for reasons that should be fairly obvious. True rivalries make it so fans have active rooting interests against those programs. Then you add in the rooting against conference opponents because it could help your team’s position.

The mentality you speak of of “I just like watching games” is great, but it reminds me of this.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Sure more teams will get in but the same old teams will still contend for the championship. More rounds of playoffs means those teams get more weeks of meaningful practice reps while the teams that are knocked out do not get those meaningful practice reps.

When more programs, outside of the likes of Ohio State, Bama, Georgia, Clemson, OU, Michigan, etc are playing in bigger, more meaningful games every year, it not only produces more revenue for those other programs, but more exposure and allows coaches to realistically tell recruits that they will be able to play for the national championship. Not only that, but if they ensure the first couple rounds of playoff games are on campus, you'll get teams like Georgia and Alabama and LSU having to actually travel outside of the South and play in Columbus, OH or Ann Arbor, MI in December.

As buffnik said, it's not going to make it so bottom feeders are all of the sudden on the same level as blue bloods, but that's not the point. The real point is to keep 25-30 teams and their fan bases engaged and playing for something meaningful throughout the year. Doing so will have an impact on NIL and exposure, which will then have an impact on recruiting.

 

[manhattanbuff]

Meh. Conferences are falling apart. Rivalries are gone. Players are going to the highest bidders. The really great bowl games are getting ruined. New Years bowl game day sucks.

 

[Bison]

If you're arguing that a larger playoff won't give more opportunity and parity, I absolutely disagree.

If you're simply saying that this doesn't make Iowa State the equal of Ohio State, sure. No one is claiming absolute parity and I'd argue that isn't even desirable.

When more programs, outside of the likes of Ohio State, Bama, Georgia, Clemson, OU, Michigan, etc are playing in bigger, more meaningful games every year, it not only produces more revenue for those other programs, but more exposure and allows coaches to realistically tell recruits that they will be able to play for the national championship. Not only that, but if they ensure the first couple rounds of playoff games are on campus, you'll get teams like Georgia and Alabama and LSU having to actually travel outside of the South and play in Columbus, OH or Ann Arbor, MI in December.

As buffnik said, it's not going to make it so bottom feeders are all of the sudden on the same level as blue bloods, but that's not the point. The real point is to keep 25-30 teams and their fan bases engaged and playing for something meaningful throughout the year. Doing so will have an impact on NIL and exposure, which will then have an impact on recruiting.

My argument is based on what I have seen from I-AA/FCS for years. Expanded playoffs is not a surefire way to increase parity in college football.

 

[hawg1]

You’re in the minority. Fans of non-blue bloods love watching blue bloods fail, for reasons that should be fairly obvious. True rivalries make it so fans have active rooting interests against those programs. Then you add in the rooting against conference opponents because it could help your team’s position.

The mentality you speak of of “I just like watching games” is great, but it reminds me of this.
View attachment 66250

I get rivalries. Fandom. Supporting teams. I don’t get “Riley sucks, I hate Michigan State, Oregon unis look stooped, stoops is horrible, Sark must be back on the bottle”.

Just me.

 

[Highlander]

I get rivalries. Fandom. Supporting teams. I don’t get “Riley sucks, I hate Michigan State, Oregon unis look stooped, stoops is horrible, Sark must be back on the bottle”.

Just me.

If you can’t enjoy a soul crushing Fusker loss put yet again on the corn faithful, there is something wrong with you, IMO.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

I get rivalries. Fandom. Supporting teams. I don’t get “Riley sucks, I hate Michigan State, Oregon unis look stooped, stoops is horrible, Sark must be back on the bottle”.

Just me.

I think most of that is just hyperbole from fans (so and so sucks), and that’s just a big part of fandom, IMO, and I think comments about hating MSU or Baylor, etc are rooted more in off field antics rather than football reasons.