NCAA Running the show

[Yeofoot]

Realistic or not, what rule would you like to change/add/delete from the books?

[Yeofoot]

I would definitely take off the cap on how many scholarships you can give out. Is it worth so many scholarships not given out so the small schools can compete? That's why they limit it, and the small schools don't compete anyway. Yeah, there is a Cinderella team every once in a while, but think about how many kids would get scholarships if they could give more out.

I won't get started on Title IX. I hope someone else does though.

Maybe even reward the colleges somehow for every scholarship player that graduates in five years. Perhaps for every two students that graduate on time that school is rewarded with another 5 year scholarship. If the student drops out or doesn't finish in those 5 years, they lose that scholarship. I'll guaruntee the coaches will start taking more of an interest in their academics. It'll create a good balance for teams that want to win, because the academics can help the athletics.

[colorado_loves_football]

Yeofoot, I don't understand Title IX well enough to make an educated opinoin.
I do however believe that as student-athletes, those who are qualified enough to make the team, maybe ought to be 'compensated' or at least given some kind of scholarship, provided they meet the criteria.
Some of those guys don't graduate, and that's too bad. In fact, I'm sure a lot of them are there to 'earn' their way into the NFL.
I would like to think that in today's world there would be more of a 'push' to make sure those who are involved in athletics also are given sufficient education to be influential citizens, after their careers are over.
I never played competitive football after high school, in fact, my 'career' was over before it began, I never really played then, either, but I did make the freshman team, before being injured.
That's something I'll likely take with me forever. I hardly played a down, but representing something 'bigger' than myself, was an honor.
And that's what I would like to see happen everywhere.
Award scholarships, but require those individuals to graduate, then they can do something with their education.
That's a better solution than paying them to play football, in my opinion.

[Spence]

I would definitely take off the cap on how many scholarships you can give out. Is it worth so many scholarships not given out so the small schools can compete? That's why they limit it, and the small schools don't compete anyway. Yeah, there is a Cinderella team every once in a while, but think about how many kids would get scholarships if they could give more out.

I won't get started on Title IX. I hope someone else does though.

It has more to do with Title IX , then it has to do with helping the smaller schools compete. I have to admit that I liked the days when we kept 200 on scholarship, but 85 on scholarship with up to 20 walkons hasn't worked out badly in my opinion. It has impoved the over all quality of the game.


If I could change one rule, I would change the clock stopping after first downs. I like the NFL rule better.

[openSkies]

Does changing the BCS to an all-computer ranking count? =]

What about an all-computer-only-CFP ranking? =] =]

//

Eh, I've got no beefs with college football right now. If anything, I'd go back a few years in time before they got so darned technical about everything. College football just seemed to be more fun in the early to mid-90's. For me at least.

[Spence]

Does changing the BCS to an all-computer ranking count? =]

Everything counts as long as we're not accountable.

[colorado_loves_football]

Actually, I think that's a valid question.
BCS ranking relied heavily on the computer component until LSU and USC weren't paired together, now it only counts toward 1/3, which was ok until the AP wanted out. So, the 'alternative' would be to make it a 50/50 proposition.
The fact about computers is as good as they are in assembling a large amount of information, they are still only as good as the information they process. It's possible I suppose, computer might even 'know' in advance how good a team likely is, but no computer I can think of can play the game.
Eventually, I wouldn't be surprised if someone isn't able to review old footage and make 'reliable' estimates about how well a team from say the 1970s might have done had they been around in the 1990s. Artificial intelligence, probably could make a reliable estimate of how a team might fare against a team from the modern era, so computers definitely are likely a 'better' reference than any one human being.
I like some of what's happened, technology is now being applied to make the game more appealing to the fan.
Consider, for example how a computer now is 'superior' to any human being as applied to chess. That means that a computer might make better strategic decisions over the course of a game, that if applied could give a team a competitive 'edge'. I know computers are already being used in the NFL. You can't beat your opponent if you dont' know who they are, and a computer will likely give you the 'edge' needed to win.

[Spence]

Eventually, I wouldn't be surprised if someone isn't able to review old footage and make 'reliable' estimates about how well a team from say the 1970s might have done had they been around in the 1990s.

Teams from the 70's would get killed by teams from the 90's if they played. Today's players are bigger, faster, and stronger then they were in the 70's. O - Lineman in the 70's were 265-285. Today that is a tightend.

Computers can't out think people, they just think faster and have better memories. People still have to give the computer the correct info. They aren't capable of learning on their own-----Yet.

[openSkies]

Eventually, I wouldn't be surprised if someone isn't able to review old footage and make 'reliable' estimates about how well a team from say the 1970s might have done had they been around in the 1990s.

Actually, I'm 99% sure it's possible.

I bet CFP Admin could stick in the numbers (wins, losses, returning starters, etc) if he had all the info from that team that year, match them up against similar opponents (if '78 Alabama played teams ranked #1, #2, #18, he makes their schedule changed to be against Texas, USC, etc).

I'll ask him if that would work =] Maybe we can do a weekly segment on some of the historic teams.

[Spence]

You could probably compare the teams based on how good they were against players of their time against how good these teams are against players currently, but if you factor in size and speed now vs. then, they wouldn't match up at all. Also the years of coaching experience would make it a blow out.

If you took, say Woody Hayes or Bear Bryant and plucked them from their time and put them up against coaches from this era, they wouldn't even recognize the game. I am not saying given time they couldn't catch up or maybe even pass todays coaches, but their game planning philosophies wouldn't stand up to todays offenses or defenses.

[Howdy]

I can remember when players had to play on both sides of the ball.
When the ball changed hands you could only send in two sub.on each play.
The question to ask is can the players of today play under those rules.

[Jason G]

I think the game itself is pretty good the way it is now, but I would like to see a couple of the rules tweaked.

First of all, make it so a player has to have two feet in bounds when making a catch, fumble recovery, etc... I just like the NFL way better here.

I would also like to see the overtime rules adjusted just a little. I like the format of OT but I think the teams start each possession too close to the end zone. I'd like to see them move starting field position back another 10 or 20 yards. As it is now they start in very makeable field goal range for a good kicker.

Also, as stated in another thread, I would like to see the way non-conference games are scheduled changed so that it is more fair for all 1-A schools and there would be less of a need to schedule 1-AA schools.

[Spence]

I can remember when players had to play on both sides of the ball.
When the ball changed hands you could only send in two sub.on each play.
The question to ask is can the players of today play under those rules.

Howdy, I'm not saying those guys weren't tough or that they didn't play a good brand of football. I'm saying that there is just so much difference between those players(size, speed, strength), then the players of today.

I like the old style game. Running the iso, option, or passing when there was no other choice. It is just if you put one of todays O-lines(300 + average) up against one of their D-lines (265 average) it wouldn't be fair. Todays players have better fitness training, weight training, diets, and even speed coaches. They are also more spoiled then the older guys, but that is a topic for another day.

[mountainman]

Let's see here ..... 'What rules would I like to see added, changed, or deleted?'

Rule Added - at the end of the regular season a Strength of Schedule component that is incorporated into the the Final BCS Rankings.

Rule Changed - the rule that allows the TV and talking head guys on the field doing interviews or 'spots' before or during the game. Put them in the press box where they belong and limit their interviews and 'spots' to post game.

Rule Deleted - the 'Coach's Challenge'.

[colorado_loves_football]

Thanks, Mountainman, for staying on topic.
I didn't know the coach's challenge was part of NCAA football?
I thought the WAC experimented with it, but in general I like it, especially if it reverses a bad call by the officials (remember the Alamo?)

What rule would I most like to see changed? That's a toughie, but again referring to the Alamo Bowl, I thought the 'simultaneous' collision was a dumb rule, myself. Chad Henne's fumble I thought was an incomplete forward pass, so I would get rid of the 'tuck' rule. If the ball goes forward it's a pass.

But, by-and-large I thought replay did a good job in that game, in effect making up for what might have been seen by some as 'sloppy' officiating.
Reply got it right in the end, so don't take it away! Even that last play, the one where Michigan nearly scored, would have held up, so I'm all for replay!