Modern College Football Parity (Ohio, record, teams, programs)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hey guys relative newbie trying to get a feel for the game.
I've read up on the history of NCAA gridiron and one word that gets bandied about alot these days is PARITY. My folks said it had to do with scholarship reductions partly. Many columnists have said it's a day when anyone can beat anyone. Opinons abound on wiether that is good or not, some alledge that the previous dynastys are none too happy about it (cause they couldn't do something called "redshirting" to max degree, forgive me if I misuse the term).
Apparently it's major news that places like BYU and Boise State can compete with the big boys (and that's leaving out the BCS bid controversy).
When was it that the game reached such a level of parity (I find this important when defending your team's record) and more importantly, do you think it's good or bad for the game?
I think that it is absolute sh*t that only 6 conference winners get automatic bids to BCS bowls. And even more sh*t that ND gets one if they win 10 games no matter who they play.
I think the NCAA should force those 6 conferences to expand to 12 teams (16 teams would be even better) and require a conference championship game.
Hey guys relative newbie trying to get a feel for the game.
I've read up on the history of NCAA gridiron and one word that gets bandied about alot these days is PARITY. My folks said it had to do with scholarship reductions partly. Many columnists have said it's a day when anyone can beat anyone. Opinons abound on wiether that is good or not, some alledge that the previous dynastys are none too happy about it (cause they couldn't do something called "redshirting" to max degree, forgive me if I misuse the term).
Up until 1973, you could have unlimited scholarships. So a team like Alabama or Notre Dame could amass a tremendous amount of talent, relative to other teams.
1973 started with a limit of 105 scholarships, then cut them to 95 in the 1980's, and have had a limit 85 since the early 1990's.
Meanwhile, the popularity of football is growing, and so is the U.S. population. So naturally you are going to have more parity in college football. I would say that it is a good thing. It isn't just teams like Cincinatti, USF, Boise State or Utah, it is also lower division teams like Appalachian State or Delaware that are much better than they used to be.
Quote:
Apparently it's major news that places like BYU and Boise State can compete with the big boys (and that's leaving out the BCS bid controversy).
When was it that the game reached such a level of parity (I find this important when defending your team's record) and more importantly, do you think it's good or bad for the game?
It is not really major news. There have always been teams that kicked ass against easy schedules. Look what happened when they threw Miami and Florida State into the same conference, suddenly they didn't look so amazing as they did when they dominated their respective conferences.
In the 12 years that Miami was in the big east, they played an easy schedule, and they won or shared the conference championship 9 times, with 2 national championships. They joined the "new ACC" in 2004, and have not won one ACC title yet.
Florida State played in the cupcake-version of the ACC from 1992 until 2003. 11 ACC titles in 12 seasons, and 2 national championships. When the ACC put on a little bit of meat in 2004, they have gone straight downhill ever since.
Point is, yes, there is parity, and yes, these smaller programs are getting better. But don't discount the fact that the college football media rewards an easy schedule, and penalizes a difficult one. That is a huge factor. Go do a "Where are they now' on the so-called "BCS busters" of the past - Tulane, TCU, Southern Miss, Fresno State, Hawaii, etc..
I was watching some HS football game and the announcer made a great point. Alot of kids realize they can go to some of the bigger schools like USC, Texas, Florida, OU, etc and ride the pine or they can go to a mid major and have a shot at the starting job right away. They see guys Like Big Ben, LaDainian Tomlinson, Greg Jennings ( who will explode this season) and say I can play and have a better shot at the NFL.
I think that it is absolute sh*t that only 6 conference winners get automatic bids to BCS bowls. And even more sh*t that ND gets one if they win 10 games no matter who they play.
I think the NCAA should force those 6 conferences to expand to 12 teams (16 teams would be even better) and require a conference championship game.
No sh*t. My bad. Bad choice of wording on my part I guess. I know the ACC, SEC, and Big 12 all have confernce championship games. What I meant was that the Pac10, Big East and Big 10 should be forced to expand and have a championship game as well. And ND should be forced to join a conference if they want to be able to get the opportunity to play a bowl game.
And I really think there should be 6 16team conferences. 8 teams in each division, with the division winners playing each other in the conf champ games.
No sh*t. My bad. Bad choice of wording on my part I guess. I know the ACC, SEC, and Big 12 all have confernce championship games. What I meant was that the Pac10, Big East and Big 10 should be forced to expand and have a championship game as well. And ND should be forced to join a conference if they want to be able to get the opportunity to play a bowl game.
And I really think there should be 6 16team conferences. 8 teams in each division, with the division winners playing each other in the conf champ games.
Why does the Pac-10 need to have 12 teams and a championship game?
Each team already plays each other and they have the toughest OOC schedule year in, year out. Although I'm not totally against it, the Pac-10 has its true champion at the end of the year (unless it is some bizarre three way tie...which never happens...sorry UT ).
I agree with ND joining a conference and a playoff.
So back in the day, if colleges could give unlimited scholarships, that would mean that they were only limited by their revenue (which would come from long terms fans expecting and used to long term success) and endowments correct?
So that's why only places like OU, OSU Texas, Notre Dame, Penn State etc. were the national powerhouses. They like, dominated the market share?
Places like Washington, Oregon, FSU, VTech, and Miami I read didn't really get into the dominant/nationally competitve game until the 70s when scholarship limitations were enacted. (Could be wrong).
Also, how do they "reward" an easy schedule? I hear that it's being criticized more and more often (except by certain schools that recieve payouts). I did hear that not too long ago, most teams had pretty rough out of conference lineups.
Interesting how rubber factory says the college game's popularity is on the rise, with the dominance of the NFL I thought that would contribute to the popularity's shrinking (if ever so small), especially in metro areas that are dominated by their pro teams. (Detroit, Atlanta, Ohio cities and LA are major exceptions)
In my teams, parity seems to be doing well for the Hokies less so for the Cavaliers. Apparently Virginia doesn't allow state funds to help fund college sports.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
