There is no parity in College football

I am so sick of seeing Clemson and Alabama in the "NC" game. The former BCS now P5 conferences have all the money, get all the recruits and that gets them more money and more recruits. Something needs to happen to fix this or maybe force Nick Saben to get another NFL job.

This will be the third time in the last four years that it will be Clemson and Alabama meeting for the national title. And the only reason it won't be the fourth time in four years is because they met in the semi-final in the missing season.

I wonder if a 16 team playoff would add some parity. I think the size of the men's bball tournament adds some parity to bball. You don't have to play for NC, Duke KY, or KS to make the tourny and you get to star on a team instead of sit on a bench and watch. Imagine if bball only allowed eight teams to play in the final tournament.

I sometimes find it ironic that in the U.S. where in general we have a capitalist economy we love our sports teams to have "parity" or a sort of forced socialism/communism (see NFL/NBA, MLS, etc), yet in Europe where socialism is very big they love their soccer leagues to have more of a capitalist feel where the rich teams get richer and the lower poorer teams really struggle competitively.



In some ways you could say that Alabama and Clemson "earned" their elite status the good 'ol American way and why should that be taken away from them? I get that from a sports fan perspective it gets boring watching the same two teams dominate, but from a freedom and business perspective, they've done a great job and should be rewarded for that.

Other countries have a relegation system. Seems more fair than our name/history-based rewards.

I can't remember too much parity ever existing in College Football. Sure there are some teams that break the top echelons at times and others fade, but with the built in structures, TV deals, and geography, it is hard to say there is or has ever been parity....

byufan4ever wrote:

I sometimes find it ironic that in the U.S. where in general we have a capitalist economy we love our sports teams to have "parity" or a sort of forced socialism/communism (see NFL/NBA, MLS, etc), yet in Europe where socialism is very big they love their soccer leagues to have more of a capitalist feel where the rich teams get richer and the lower poorer teams really struggle competitively.



In some ways you could say that Alabama and Clemson "earned" their elite status the good 'ol American way and why should that be taken away from them? I get that from a sports fan perspective it gets boring watching the same two teams dominate, but from a freedom and business perspective, they've done a great job and should be rewarded for that.

This is all based on the premise that the polls are a capitalist system where anyone can work their way to the top. Ask UCF how they feel about that premise.

Sammich wrote:

I sometimes find it ironic that in the U.S. where in general we have a capitalist economy we love our sports teams to have "parity" or a sort of forced socialism/communism (see NFL/NBA, MLS, etc), yet in Europe where socialism is very big they love their soccer leagues to have more of a capitalist feel where the rich teams get richer and the lower poorer teams really struggle competitively.



In some ways you could say that Alabama and Clemson "earned" their elite status the good 'ol American way and why should that be taken away from them? I get that from a sports fan perspective it gets boring watching the same two teams dominate, but from a freedom and business perspective, they've done a great job and should be rewarded for that.

This is all based on the premise that the polls are a capitalist system where anyone can work their way to the top. Ask UCF how they feel about that premise.

Look at UCF's schedule and compare them to any of the top 4 teams this year. They are "free" to schedule tougher opponents or to try to switch conferences to work their way up and improve their chances. Now, are the P5 like a consortium/cartel/oligarchy? Probably. But I laugh when people play UCF as a victom. I've watched parts of several of their games. Their team is nowhere near the quality of the 4 playoff teams.

byufan4ever wrote:

byufan4ever wrote:

I sometimes find it ironic that in the U.S. where in general we have a capitalist economy we love our sports teams to have "parity" or a sort of forced socialism/communism (see NFL/NBA, MLS, etc), yet in Europe where socialism is very big they love their soccer leagues to have more of a capitalist feel where the rich teams get richer and the lower poorer teams really struggle competitively.



In some ways you could say that Alabama and Clemson "earned" their elite status the good 'ol American way and why should that be taken away from them? I get that from a sports fan perspective it gets boring watching the same two teams dominate, but from a freedom and business perspective, they've done a great job and should be rewarded for that.

This is all based on the premise that the polls are a capitalist system where anyone can work their way to the top. Ask UCF how they feel about that premise.

Look at UCF's schedule and compare them to any of the top 4 teams this year. They are "free" to schedule tougher opponents or to try to switch conferences to work their way up and improve their chances. Now, are the P5 like a consortium/cartel/oligarchy? Probably. But I laugh when people play UCF as a victom. I've watched parts of several of their games. Their team is nowhere near the quality of the 4 playoff teams.

UCF is a victim just like BYU is a victim. College Football is not a free market.



Florida “graciously” offered to schedule a 2 for 1 with UCF. That kind of math does not work out.

Parity is good for capitalism.

byufan4ever wrote:

byufan4ever wrote:

I sometimes find it ironic that in the U.S. where in general we have a capitalist economy we love our sports teams to have "parity" or a sort of forced socialism/communism (see NFL/NBA, MLS, etc), yet in Europe where socialism is very big they love their soccer leagues to have more of a capitalist feel where the rich teams get richer and the lower poorer teams really struggle competitively.



In some ways you could say that Alabama and Clemson "earned" their elite status the good 'ol American way and why should that be taken away from them? I get that from a sports fan perspective it gets boring watching the same two teams dominate, but from a freedom and business perspective, they've done a great job and should be rewarded for that.

This is all based on the premise that the polls are a capitalist system where anyone can work their way to the top. Ask UCF how they feel about that premise.

Look at UCF's schedule and compare them to any of the top 4 teams this year. They are "free" to schedule tougher opponents or to try to switch conferences to work their way up and improve their chances. Now, are the P5 like a consortium/cartel/oligarchy? Probably. But I laugh when people play UCF as a victom. I've watched parts of several of their games. Their team is nowhere near the quality of the 4 playoff teams.

UCF is one of countless examples I could give from previous years, though it could be argued that they are in the same place BYU was at in 1984---years of great/perfect seasons against a mixed/weaker schedule leading up to this, but now they have a system in place that is designed to keep them from getting the ranking that BYU had at the time. I can't dispute that Alabama and Clemson both look really good this year, and probably deserve to be in the national championship game. But did they get there without any help from biased parties in places of power over the last decades of the BCS system? I think that would be a hard argument to make. Arguing that we have a system that gives everyone a fair shot based on performance, requires ignoring a sea of factors that get a team into those top four poll spots.

I don't like the repeat matchup, but how can you take it away from them? Notre Dame had a legitimate team and all the opportunity to change that outcome. Got to give Dabo Swinney his props for the win. Oklahoma showed an inkling of hope near the end of the third quarter, but the OU defense just wasn't up to the task. That isn't a conspiracy, it's just reality. Is this the reality that recruiting is really all that matters in CFB? I had hoped Notre Dame would prove otherwise.



One thing I noticed is that no BYU team in the past 20 years would have been able to do any better than ND or OU did in that game. Mmmmaybe the 96 offense would get 14 points, and mmmaybe the 96 hold Clemson to less than 30, but I can't see a win from that team. Alabama? Don't even bother talking about it.



My questions is what are the other coaches around the country going to do to break through?

It should be noted that the purpose of capitalism is not to create a rich elite class that will hold down others from progressing.

I have no problem with Alabama and Clemson playing in the championship. I have a problem that we don’t have a legit playoff in college football.

Yzzazz wrote:

I don't like the repeat matchup, but how can you take it away from them? Notre Dame had a legitimate team and all the opportunity to change that outcome. Got to give Dabo Swinney his props for the win. Oklahoma showed an inkling of hope near the end of the third quarter, but the OU defense just wasn't up to the task. That isn't a conspiracy, it's just reality. Is this the reality that recruiting is really all that matters in CFB? I had hoped Notre Dame would prove otherwise.



One thing I noticed is that no BYU team in the past 20 years would have been able to do any better than ND or OU did in that game. Mmmmaybe the 96 offense would get 14 points, and mmmaybe the 96 hold Clemson to less than 30, but I can't see a win from that team. Alabama? Don't even bother talking about it.



My questions is what are the other coaches around the country going to do to break through?

If we are going to have a playoff, add more teams to it--then more coaches can tell them there's a chance to play in the playoffs? Right now, Clemson and AL can legitimately tell the five star that the only safe bet to play in the playoffs is with them....the others a crapshoot. Spreading the legit players around is the bes hope....

BoiseBYU wrote:

I don't like the repeat matchup, but how can you take it away from them? Notre Dame had a legitimate team and all the opportunity to change that outcome. Got to give Dabo Swinney his props for the win. Oklahoma showed an inkling of hope near the end of the third quarter, but the OU defense just wasn't up to the task. That isn't a conspiracy, it's just reality. Is this the reality that recruiting is really all that matters in CFB? I had hoped Notre Dame would prove otherwise.



One thing I noticed is that no BYU team in the past 20 years would have been able to do any better than ND or OU did in that game. Mmmmaybe the 96 offense would get 14 points, and mmmaybe the 96 hold Clemson to less than 30, but I can't see a win from that team. Alabama? Don't even bother talking about it.



My questions is what are the other coaches around the country going to do to break through?

If we are going to have a playoff, add more teams to it--then more coaches can tell them there's a chance to play in the playoffs? Right now, Clemson and AL can legitimately tell the five star that the only safe bet to play in the playoffs is with them....the others a crapshoot. Spreading the legit players around is the bes hope....

Yes to this.

Everyone on those lists at the link below should be brought up on racketeering, conspiracy, and restraint of trade charges. With the presidents and athletic directors of every P5 school named as unindicted co-conspirators.

I'm not joking.



https://collegefootballplayoff.com/sports/2016/10/11/_131504729614425311.aspx

If undefeated teams don't make it, it's not a true playoff, period.



UCF asked for entrance to the Big 12, and were told no.

UCF asked for a home-and-home with Florida, and were told No.



UCF was able to schedule Pitt, and they killed them. Pitt won their P5 conference division title.



Did UCF deserve a shot more than Oklahoma? Hell yes they did! But the crooked system is rigged, and there was nothing that UCF could do about it.

Oklahoma's defense was not worthy of being in the playoff. That was the softest, worst defense I have ever seen in college football. I have never seen a defense where a guy would turn his back on a ball carrier in order to avoid contact, but they did that all game long. The poster who posted that Clemson and Alabama are the only two teams who can tell a 5 star recruit that he will get to play in the playoff if he comes to one of those 2 schools Is correct and that is the problem I was pointing out. Monopoly's are not good for capitalism and that is what college football is. It has always been this way in some way but right now it is at its worst. We have a government regulated capitalist economy and it has not regulated college football. Any time Cam Newton can blatantly accept the highest bidder to come play for Auburn and the NCAA says that "he didn't know his dad was accepting money" so Auburn doesn't get punished then BYU has to forfeit games because Nick Emery drove around a car and went to Disneyland with a booster (I know not college football but still governed by the same body), the system is screwed up.

Jarhead wrote:

Sammich wrote:

I sometimes find it ironic that in the U.S. where in general we have a capitalist economy we love our sports teams to have "parity" or a sort of forced socialism/communism (see NFL/NBA, MLS, etc), yet in Europe where socialism is very big they love their soccer leagues to have more of a capitalist feel where the rich teams get richer and the lower poorer teams really struggle competitively.



In some ways you could say that Alabama and Clemson "earned" their elite status the good 'ol American way and why should that be taken away from them? I get that from a sports fan perspective it gets boring watching the same two teams dominate, but from a freedom and business perspective, they've done a great job and should be rewarded for that.

This is all based on the premise that the polls are a capitalist system where anyone can work their way to the top. Ask UCF how they feel about that premise.

Look at UCF's schedule and compare them to any of the top 4 teams this year. They are "free" to schedule tougher opponents or to try to switch conferences to work their way up and improve their chances. Now, are the P5 like a consortium/cartel/oligarchy? Probably. But I laugh when people play UCF as a victom. I've watched parts of several of their games. Their team is nowhere near the quality of the 4 playoff teams.

UCF is a victim just like BYU is a victim. College Football is not a free market.



Florida “graciously” offered to schedule a 2 for 1 with UCF. That kind of math does not work out.

If they were serious about making the playoffs they would take that deal. If you know that you are playing in a weaker conference then you need to go above and beyond in your nonconference scheduling if you want to make the playoffs. See Northern Illinois’ nonconference schedule this year as an example.