Not a fan of parity

18IsTheMan · 2026-10-19T07:45:23-0500

As a Gamecock fan, I suppose I should support parity, since it's the only thing that gives us a shot. We were never going to break through in a system where you had to earn it.

Everyone is chalking up the chaos from this past weekend to NIL and the portal, leading to a bunch of good teams with no great team(s). I don't know if it's an overreaction...most college football seasons have a bloodletting weekend. But, if it is accurate and a sign of the future of college football, it's disappointing.

Even though it never included us, I enjoyed watching excellent football. It was fun watching teams that had no discernible weakness. I'm not sure why people find that to be a bad thing.

I know it's anti-Gamecock, but I'd still rather see excellence in football, even if it's to our exclusion, than see a bunch of mediocre football.

Skuddy · 2026-10-19T08:13:34-0500

18IsTheMan said:
As a Gamecock fan, I suppose I should support parity, since it's the only thing that gives us a shot. We were never going to break through in a system where you had to earn it.

Everyone is chalking up the chaos from this past weekend to NIL and the portal, leading to a bunch of good teams with no great team(s). I don't know if it's an overreaction...most college football seasons have a bloodletting weekend. But, if it is accurate and a sign of the future of college football, it's disappointing.

Even though it never included us, I enjoyed watching excellent football. It was fun watching teams that had no discernible weakness. I'm not sure why people find that to be a bad thing.

I know it's anti-Gamecock, but I'd still rather see excellence in football, even if it's to our exclusion, than see a bunch of mediocre football.

And the few times we do earn it, there is always some reason we can't have it. Look at our 11 wins seasons, we didn't even make it to a major bowl. We have NEVER played in a major bowl.

18IsTheMan · 2026-10-19T08:17:28-0500

Skuddy said:
And the few times we do earn it, there is always some reason we can't have it. Look at our 11 wins seasons, we didn't even make it to a major bowl. We have NEVER played in a major bowl.

I doubt the new system will favor us much more. Maybe we can occasionally make a 24-team CFP b/c the bar is so drastically lowered, but we're still never sniffing a title.

I just enjoyed college football when you had dominant teams. Curse Saban as much as we want, his best Bama teams, from a pure football standpoint were amazing to watch.

kidrobinski · 2026-10-19T09:24:02-0500

18IsTheMan said:
I doubt the new system will favor us much more. Maybe we can occasionally make a 24-team CFP b/c the bar is so drastically lowered, but we're still never sniffing a title.

I just enjoyed college football when you had dominant teams. Curse Saban as much as we want, his best Bama teams, from a pure football standpoint were amazing to watch.

Disagree. I find dominant teams redundant and boring.

The top 24 teams in the country going at it are not a lowered bar. Its entertainment, drama, chance at glory.

18IsTheMan · 2026-10-19T09:31:48-0500

kidrobinski said:
Disagree. I find dominant teams redundant and boring.

The top 24 teams in the country going at it are not a lowered bar. Its entertainment, drama, chance at glory.

Of course it's a lowered bar. There's really no straight-faced argument to the contrary. When no team is great, and nobody is any longer aspiring to be great b/c greatness is no longer necessary, the bar has been lowered.

Some will find that entertaining, of course.

I've actually found myself nudged more towards watching the NFL this year, which I haven't really done in a long time. College football always had a core group of elite teams each year, which rotated in and out, of course. The overall product this year in college football has just been mediocre, though.

For me, sacrificing overall quality for more competitive games is a bad tradeoff, but we live in a society that celebrates dumbing everything down and appealing to the lowest common denominator.

Excellence is despised for some reason. Even though it was always out of reach, I always imagined maybe one day we too would become excellent, but now it'll never happen b/c excellence no longer exists.

Gamecock Jacque · 2026-10-19T09:38:04-0500

18IsTheMan said:
Excellence is despised for some reason.

Because it's hard. Most people pass on hard things.

18IsTheMan · 2026-10-19T09:44:43-0500

Gamecock Jacque said:
Because it's hard. Most people pass on hard things.

I believe you are correct. That is at the core of it.

It's the why the 24-team CFP came into existence. Well, aside from the money. It is 100% a money grab, pure and simple. But schools went along with it b/c even with 3 or 4 losses, they could say "Hey, we made the CFP!". There's no need to actually get better. Just lower the bar to our level so we can say we're a CFP team.

To the OP, people get so skittish when there's a team that's really good for a few years. Folks freaked in the 90s when FSU was dominant. But teams inevitably drop off. Always. Historically.....Michigan dropped off. Nebraska dropped off. Miami dropped off. ND dropped off. Alabama dropped off. etc. I don't know why, but it's never particularly bothered me. I guess it's how I view life. Some people view it as a crime to humanity that there are billionaires. It doesn't faze me.

I'm a Yankees fan and back when they were dominant in the late 90s, fans were losing their junk that baseball had to be "fixed". Of course, the dynasty fizzled out and they haven't done anything noteworthy for 17 years now. If a team wins more than two titles in a short period, folks lose their minds.

gamecock stock · 2026-10-19T09:48:08-0500

18IsTheMan said:
As a Gamecock fan, I suppose I should support parity, since it's the only thing that gives us a shot. We were never going to break through in a system where you had to earn it.

Everyone is chalking up the chaos from this past weekend to NIL and the portal, leading to a bunch of good teams with no great team(s). I don't know if it's an overreaction...most college football seasons have a bloodletting weekend. But, if it is accurate and a sign of the future of college football, it's disappointing.

Even though it never included us, I enjoyed watching excellent football. It was fun watching teams that had no discernible weakness. I'm not sure why people find that to be a bad thing.

I know it's anti-Gamecock, but I'd still rather see excellence in football, even if it's to our exclusion, than see a bunch of mediocre football.

When I was in graduate school at USC in the mid 1970s, one of my professors in class said something that astonished me and I considered nauseous. 50 years later I do not remember the subject matter that prompted him to say this. He said. "If you are being raped, lay back and enjoy it.". I looked at some of the female faces in the class at that time. From their expressions, they did not appreciate the comment. (Before anyone chimes in to say "those liberal professors, blah, blah, blah", the professor was a conservative Republican). I'm saying that though I was not in favor of going to 24 teams in a college football playoff, I'm going to enjoy watching it, especially if Carolina is in it.

18IsTheMan · 2026-10-19T09:57:32-0500

gamecock stock said:
When I was in graduate school at USC in the mid 1970s, one of my professors in class said something that astonished me and I considered nauseous. 50 years later I do not remember the subject matter that prompted him to say this. He said. "If you are being raped, lay back and enjoy it.". I looked at some of the female faces in the class at that time. From their expressions, they did not appreciate the comment. (Before anyone chimes in to say "those liberal professors, blah, blah, blah", the professor was a conservative Republican). I'm saying that though I was not in favor of going to 24 teams in a college football playoff, I'm going to enjoy watching it, especially if Carolina is in it.

It's appropriate that you compare the 24-team CFP to rape.

gamecock stock · 2026-10-19T10:02:49-0500

18IsTheMan said:
It's appropriate that you compare the 24-team CFP to rape.

Like I said, I was not in favor of going beyond 16. To me, that was the perfect number. That said, I'm not going to waste my time complaining about them going to 24. They are going to do what they want. Besides. it will probably mean more money for the schools. To quote Jack Nicholson, "And that ain't bad".

Piscis · 2026-10-19T10:03:26-0500

kidrobinski said:
Disagree. I find dominant teams redundant and boring.

The top 24 teams in the country going at it are not a lowered bar. Its entertainment, drama, chance at glory.

I guess you absolutely love rec league sports. Everyone gets a trophy and every team gets to play in their little championship tournaments.

Piscis · 2026-10-19T10:24:31-0500

18IsTheMan said:
I believe you are correct. That is at the core of it.

It's the why the 24-team CFP came into existence. Well, aside from the money. It is 100% a money grab, pure and simple. But schools went along with it b/c even with 3 or 4 losses, they could say "Hey, we made the CFP!". There's no need to actually get better. Just lower the bar to our level so we can say we're a CFP team.

To the OP, people get so skittish when there's a team that's really good for a few years. Folks freaked in the 90s when FSU was dominant. But teams inevitably drop off. Always. Historically.....Michigan dropped off. Nebraska dropped off. Miami dropped off. ND dropped off. Alabama dropped off. etc. I don't know why, but it's never particularly bothered me. I guess it's how I view life. Some people view it as a crime to humanity that there are billionaires. It doesn't faze me.

I'm a Yankees fan and back when they were dominant in the late 90s, fans were losing their junk that baseball had to be "fixed". Of course, the dynasty fizzled out and they haven't done anything noteworthy for 17 years now. If a team wins more than two titles in a short period, folks lose their minds.

It's all about money, TV money to be specific. Look at the NCAA basketball tournament, 76 teams is absurd. When it was 32 teams, making the NCAA tournament really meant something. Now, it pretty much means you had a winning record. MLB post season used to be two series to decide who won the AL and NL pennant and the World Series to determine an overall champion. Now, there is a wild card series where teams that didn't win their division, but had good records, can try and get into the division series, where the expanded divisions can have another series before they play for the league championship. Hell, the World Series used to be over by the first week of October. Now, if it goes 7 games it is almost into November. 14 NFL teams make their playoff, that is 44% of NFL teams. College football would have 57 teams in the playoff if they were the same as the NFL. One day, that might be the way it is. The NBA is the most ridiculous. 20 of 30 teams play in some sort of postseason game. Their season lasts 9 months.

I'm sorry, watching a lot of mediocre football has very little appeal to me. I don't watch much early season college football because the games are so bad. Seeing two bad teams play a close game is not entertaining to me. I like to see good teams play.

adcoop · 2026-10-19T11:13:29-0500

kidrobinski said:
Disagree. I find dominant teams redundant and boring.

The top 24 teams in the country going at it are not a lowered bar. Its entertainment, drama, chance at glory.

It's football which is entertainment at the end of the day. I don't get why people take it and some traditions so seriously. I was watching the upsets on Saturday and imagining some of the possibilities. It's cool for the traditional programs like a Notre Dame or an Alabama going out with their heads down once in awhile. It's better than the old days when good teams put together patsy schedules so they could get voted into a major bowl. All a team had to do is win one or two big games and they were playing for the National Championship. It's fun and different seeing a good swath of teams have a chance. Now, I think 24 is too many, but it's not the end of the world and it's more chances for something exciting to happen.

DeBoer31 · 2026-10-19T11:16:24-0500

18IsTheMan said:
As a Gamecock fan, I suppose I should support parity, since it's the only thing that gives us a shot. We were never going to break through in a system where you had to earn it.

Everyone is chalking up the chaos from this past weekend to NIL and the portal, leading to a bunch of good teams with no great team(s). I don't know if it's an overreaction...most college football seasons have a bloodletting weekend. But, if it is accurate and a sign of the future of college football, it's disappointing.

Even though it never included us, I enjoyed watching excellent football. It was fun watching teams that had no discernible weakness. I'm not sure why people find that to be a bad thing.

I know it's anti-Gamecock, but I'd still rather see excellence in football, even if it's to our exclusion, than see a bunch of mediocre football.

agree so much. I know it's antithetical to program history...but I much prefer excellent overall football and USC striving for that goal.
There have been plenty of 7-5 USC teams that would murder the last 4-5 years USC teams no matter their record.
CFB is definitely more homogenous and overall DOWN. The top/elite teams aren't nearly as good as some from 10,15 and more years ago.
X and Os better yes. Technically guys run faster and are a little bigger overall....but the edge/toughness/savvy and overall is definitely down.

USC2USC · 2026-10-19T11:19:11-0500

18IsTheMan said:
As a Gamecock fan, I suppose I should support parity, since it's the only thing that gives us a shot. We were never going to break through in a system where you had to earn it.

Everyone is chalking up the chaos from this past weekend to NIL and the portal, leading to a bunch of good teams with no great team(s). I don't know if it's an overreaction...most college football seasons have a bloodletting weekend. But, if it is accurate and a sign of the future of college football, it's disappointing.

Even though it never included us, I enjoyed watching excellent football. It was fun watching teams that had no discernible weakness. I'm not sure why people find that to be a bad thing.

I know it's anti-Gamecock, but I'd still rather see excellence in football, even if it's to our exclusion, than see a bunch of mediocre football.

I thought it was a great weekend of college football.

Longing for the days where 3 or 4 teams dominated and won everything is definitely interesting.

18IsTheMan · 2026-10-19T11:23:15-0500

DeBoer31 said:
agree so much. I know it's antithetical to program history...but I much prefer excellent overall football and USC striving for that goal.
There have been plenty of 7-5 USC teams that would murder the last 4-5 years USC teams no matter their record.
CFB is definitely more homogenous and overall DOWN. The top/elite teams aren't nearly as good as some from 10,15 and more years ago.
X and Os better yes. Technically guys run faster and are a little bigger overall....but the edge/toughness/savvy and overall is definitely down.

Sadly, there has been a generational shift from aspiring for excellence to just aspiring for the bar to be lowered. Unfortunately, the movement has critical mass.

18IsTheMan · 2026-10-19T11:31:15-0500

USC2USC said:
I thought it was a great weekend of college football.

Longing for the days where 3 or 4 teams dominated and won everything is definitely interesting.

I mean, I suppose it was great in that people just generally like to see upsets. I didn't see some of the late games, but none of the games I saw looked like truly good teams, aside from UT.

One of the top matchups, OSU/IU, was a terrible game, quality wise.

adcoop · 2026-10-19T11:31:51-0500

DeBoer31 said:
agree so much. I know it's antithetical to program history...but I much prefer excellent overall football and USC striving for that goal.
There have been plenty of 7-5 USC teams that would murder the last 4-5 years USC teams no matter their record.
CFB is definitely more homogenous and overall DOWN. The top/elite teams aren't nearly as good as some from 10,15 and more years ago.
X and Os better yes. Technically guys run faster and are a little bigger overall....but the edge/toughness/savvy and overall is definitely down.

Part of that is due to rule changes though. The rules sort of discourage toughness. You can't hit the QB at all. You can't crackback block. You have to be careful with your hands as a defender. So, for lack of better word, football is more of a finesse game today. I can't say which is better because I don't know how the players of years back would adjust to the rules of today. This yesteryear vs today argument goes on in every sport.

Jonesz2 · 2026-10-19T11:34:21-0500

Now all teams can buy players like the “top” teams have been doing for years.

adcoop · 2026-10-19T11:45:26-0500

18IsTheMan said:
Sadly, there has been a generational shift from aspiring for excellence to just aspiring for the bar to be lowered. Unfortunately, the movement has critical mass.

Exclusivity does not mean excellence. I lived during those times. The system was rigged back then too. Penn State used to play nobody but Pitt. That '81 Clemson championship was B.S. There were years when Georgia Tech and BYU were voted National Champions and no one really believed they were the best. So, there are flaws to every system. Unfortunately, none of us on here opining have a real say in what happens. I am going to do what a fan does. Sit back and enjoy.

KingWard · 2026-10-19T11:52:59-0500

18IsTheMan said:
As a Gamecock fan, I suppose I should support parity, since it's the only thing that gives us a shot. We were never going to break through in a system where you had to earn it.

Everyone is chalking up the chaos from this past weekend to NIL and the portal, leading to a bunch of good teams with no great team(s). I don't know if it's an overreaction...most college football seasons have a bloodletting weekend. But, if it is accurate and a sign of the future of college football, it's disappointing.

Even though it never included us, I enjoyed watching excellent football. It was fun watching teams that had no discernible weakness. I'm not sure why people find that to be a bad thing.

I know it's anti-Gamecock, but I'd still rather see excellence in football, even if it's to our exclusion, than see a bunch of mediocre football.

Parity never means improved median quality, only a proliferation of mediocrity.

Harvard Gamecock · 2026-10-19T11:53:02-0500

18IsTheMan said:
I believe you are correct. That is at the core of it.

It's the why the 24-team CFP came into existence. Well, aside from the money. It is 100% a money grab, pure and simple. But schools went along with it b/c even with 3 or 4 losses, they could say "Hey, we made the CFP!". There's no need to actually get better. Just lower the bar to our level so we can say we're a CFP team.

1) Schools are not going "along with it", the new CFP format is being dictated to them.
2) You can thank the commissioners of both the B1G and SEC for creating the expanded format and dictating the terms of the format. That is not opinion ,that is documented fact

KingWard · 2026-10-19T11:53:46-0500

kidrobinski said:
Disagree. I find dominant teams redundant and boring.

The top 24 teams in the country going at it are not a lowered bar. Its entertainment, drama, chance at glory.

It's a travesty.

kidrobinski · 2026-10-19T11:56:17-0500

Piscis said:
I guess you absolutely love rec league sports. Everyone gets a trophy and every team gets to play in their little championship tournaments.

Nonsense.

kidrobinski · 2026-10-19T11:57:37-0500

KingWard said:
It's a travesty.

Nonsense. It’s entertainment.

TheRoo · 2026-10-19T12:07:29-0500

18IsTheMan said:
As a Gamecock fan, I suppose I should support parity, since it's the only thing that gives us a shot. We were never going to break through in a system where you had to earn it.

Everyone is chalking up the chaos from this past weekend to NIL and the portal, leading to a bunch of good teams with no great team(s). I don't know if it's an overreaction...most college football seasons have a bloodletting weekend. But, if it is accurate and a sign of the future of college football, it's disappointing.

Even though it never included us, I enjoyed watching excellent football. It was fun watching teams that had no discernible weakness. I'm not sure why people find that to be a bad thing.

I know it's anti-Gamecock, but I'd still rather see excellence in football, even if it's to our exclusion, than see a bunch of mediocre football.

They were only "earning" a % of it previously.

The organic system where a player really digs a coaching staff/school/accomplishments and doesn't base their decision around money is gone.

With that said, that system was an echo chamber of established history and resources.

I find it highly ironic that schools like BAMA could possibly get upset that the Ole Miss, Oregon, Indiana, etc. can now use their resources (donor base) to put themselves in the equation.

gamecock stock · 2026-10-19T12:17:51-0500

People need to adjust to change. I'm old enough to remember when polls ranked only the Top 10 teams. They later expanded the polls to rank the Top 25. They used polls to determine the national champion. Except for NIL and the transfer portal (both of which I intensely dislike), I am as interested in college football outcomes as ever before. As the dog, voiced by Kevin Costner, in the great movie, "The Art Of Racing In The Rain" said, "You don't always get what you want".

kidrobinski · 2026-10-19T12:30:32-0500

adcoop said:
Exclusivity does not mean excellence. I lived during those times. The system was rigged back then too. Penn State used to play nobody but Pitt. That '81 Clemson championship was B.S. There were years when Georgia Tech and BYU were voted National Champions and no one really believed they were the best. So, there are flaws to every system. Unfortunately, none of us on here opining have a real say in what happens. I am going to do what a fan does. Sit back and enjoy.

Quite simple actually. Looking forward to it.

kidrobinski · 2026-10-19T12:31:37-0500

18IsTheMan said:
I mean, I suppose it was great in that people just generally like to see upsets. I didn't see some of the late games, but none of the games I saw looked like truly good teams, aside from UT.

One of the top matchups, OSU/IU, was a terrible game, quality wise.

Talked yourself right out of credibility there podner.

kidrobinski · 2026-10-19T12:37:33-0500

Jonesz2 said:
Now all teams can buy players like the “top” teams have been doing for years.

Not just that but the bigger teams would stock their rosters with the better players with no intention of getting them on the field asap, let the lesser ones weed themselves out and keep just the best, then let them flunk themselves out of school w/o intercession so they could bring in the next batch of better players. In those days there was obviously no transfer portal like there is now and those guys would end up at the Gardner-Webbs.

Uscg1984 · 2026-10-19T18:51:31-0500

Gamecock Jacque said:
Because it's hard. Most people pass on hard things.

Right. When you do win, it means more.

Fans of the "little guy" college teams can wax nostalgically about the time they beat Michigan, or Alabama, or Ohio State, or one of the other blue bloods and it doesn't really matter what year it was. The listener knows that was likely a big freaking deal no matter when it happened. They don't have to say "Oh, was Michigan good that year?"

You don't see that in the NFL. "Remember that time we beat the Steelers?" or "I was in the stadium when we went to Chicago and beat the Bears" just doesn't mean as much. Who cares?

KingWard · 2026-10-19T18:54:33-0500

kidrobinski said:
Nonsense. It’s entertainment.

Drama is a component of the entertainment aspect of competitive sports and elimination is part of the drama. A 24-team playoff diminishes the entertainment factor by reducing the elimination aspect from the rest of season.

Deathstar · 2026-10-19T19:10:22-0500

Even with the NIL money out there, there is not enough money to make college sports like the NFL, NBA or MLB. The money is already in those sports at the pro level. College is A to AAA level now.

Gamecock Jacque · 2026-10-19T21:36:21-0500

Deathstar said:
Even with the NIL money out there, there is not enough money to make college sports like the NFL, NBA or MLB. The money is already in those sports at the pro level. College is A to AAA level now.

Your avatar. You're just the cutest little Deathstar. Yes you arrre.

Not a fan of parity

Heisman

All-Conference

Heisman

All-Conference

Heisman

Joined Dec 20, 2020

Heisman

All-Conference

Heisman

All-Conference

All-Conference

All-Conference

All-Conference

Joined Jun 19, 2015

Joined Aug 6, 2001

Heisman

Heisman

All-Conference

Joined Aug 9, 2005

All-Conference

All-American

All-Conference

All-American

All-Conference

All-Conference

Joined Nov 3, 2021

All-Conference

All-Conference

All-Conference

All-Conference

All-Conference

All-American

Junior

Joined Dec 20, 2020