Search
Log in
Register
Teams
Teams
Fan Sites
Forums
Shows
College
College Football News
College Football Player Rankings
College Football Rankings
College Football Playoff
College Basketball News
Women's Sports
NIL
NIL News
NIL Valuation
NIL Deals
NIL Deal Tracker
Sports Business
Transfer Portal
Transfer Portal News
NCAA Transfer Portal
Transfer Portal Rankings
Transfer Portal Team Rankings
Recruiting
Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Database
Team Rankings
Player Rankings
Industry Comparison
Commitments
Recruiting Prediction Machine
High School
High School News
Schools
Rankings
Scores
Draft
NFL Draft
NFL Draft News
Draft By Stars
College Draft History
College Draft Totals
NBA Draft
NBA Draft News
Pro
NFL
NASCAR
NBA
Culture
Sports Betting
About
About
On3 App
Advertise
Press
FAQ
Contact
Get a profile. Be recruited.
New posts
Menu
Install the app
Install
On3:
The $40 million myth: No college football roster has hit the mark (yet)
On3:
EA Sports' updated player contract creates complications for College Football 27
On3:
Is Alabama finished after early-season loss to FSU? History says no
On3:
Mark Ingram sends message to Mike Norvell after Florida State upset of Alabama
Texas:
Danny Kannel doubles down on his take of Arch Manning keeping Texas out of College Football Playoff
Reply to thread
Forums
West Virginia
Mountaineer Message Board
HOT DOO DOO CONFIRMED
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Volatility_rivals135605" data-source="post: 131561808" data-attributes="member: 1476288"><p>Not sure if you follow uncle lou much, but many in the sports podcast & personality world this year was extremely bearish on the BIG12 early this season. Now we are 5-0 in bowl games, and a few of these teams have significant starter %'s returning for next season, I feel comfortable rubbing their nose in it a little. UGA barely beat Cinnci, or Christmas would have came twice this year... I didnt think UF could have been more embarrassed, until I heard Mullen's post game, what a douchebag. It would be difficult for me to support a coach that would push that narrative after a loss.. </p><p></p><p>Several things need to happen:</p><p></p><p>1. Increase playoffs to 8 teams.</p><p>2. Give players a small $ bonus for making a bowl game. $ = to the type/level of bowl & end of year rankings. This would entice players to not opt out, if they know they could get some cash in their pocket.. $1k(FYI bowl)-$20k(Championship) would be sufficient.</p><p></p><p></p><p>3. This one probably would not fly, but to make everything a bit more equal, more participation, I would create a new HS recruit ranking system, 1-100 ranking method, potentially combining several methods, for the most accurate skillset+talent eval possible. </p><p></p><p>1. Each team can only recruit 5 players max per class with 96-100 ranking ( or 3)</p><p>2. Each team can only recruit 5 players max per class with 91-96 ranking ( or 5)</p><p>3. Each team can only recruit 5 players max per class with 86-91 ranking ( or 8)</p><p></p><p>Unlimited recruits allowed below 86 ranking.</p><p></p><p>This would spread the talent out a bit more, make recruiting process & program+team building more interesting, and increase participation diversity. Instead of the vast majority of high end players going to the same 4-6 Universities, it would smooth the talent distribution, making quality coaching, development, & talent evaluation even more important under this structure. You could increase the # of players per category, slightly, such as 3,5,8 or 5,5,8, or, 3,4,5, etc... You could use a historical avg/ratio of the total # of recruits per yr in each ranking category to determine what scaled incremental increase would be for each ranking reduction. This would spread talent out over a much larger # of schools, so increasing the playoffs to 8 would be even more exciting, because you know the talent gap between #1 & #8 isnt as significant as it would be under current structure, where Alabama, OSU, & Clemson alone take a significant % of high-end HS recruits on a yearly basis. This probably would not fly, but it would def make NCAA more exciting, for many more people/fans.. Ultimately increasing fan participation & revenues for the NCAA as a whole.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Volatility_rivals135605, post: 131561808, member: 1476288"] Not sure if you follow uncle lou much, but many in the sports podcast & personality world this year was extremely bearish on the BIG12 early this season. Now we are 5-0 in bowl games, and a few of these teams have significant starter %'s returning for next season, I feel comfortable rubbing their nose in it a little. UGA barely beat Cinnci, or Christmas would have came twice this year... I didnt think UF could have been more embarrassed, until I heard Mullen's post game, what a douchebag. It would be difficult for me to support a coach that would push that narrative after a loss.. Several things need to happen: 1. Increase playoffs to 8 teams. 2. Give players a small $ bonus for making a bowl game. $ = to the type/level of bowl & end of year rankings. This would entice players to not opt out, if they know they could get some cash in their pocket.. $1k(FYI bowl)-$20k(Championship) would be sufficient. 3. This one probably would not fly, but to make everything a bit more equal, more participation, I would create a new HS recruit ranking system, 1-100 ranking method, potentially combining several methods, for the most accurate skillset+talent eval possible. 1. Each team can only recruit 5 players max per class with 96-100 ranking ( or 3) 2. Each team can only recruit 5 players max per class with 91-96 ranking ( or 5) 3. Each team can only recruit 5 players max per class with 86-91 ranking ( or 8) Unlimited recruits allowed below 86 ranking. This would spread the talent out a bit more, make recruiting process & program+team building more interesting, and increase participation diversity. Instead of the vast majority of high end players going to the same 4-6 Universities, it would smooth the talent distribution, making quality coaching, development, & talent evaluation even more important under this structure. You could increase the # of players per category, slightly, such as 3,5,8 or 5,5,8, or, 3,4,5, etc... You could use a historical avg/ratio of the total # of recruits per yr in each ranking category to determine what scaled incremental increase would be for each ranking reduction. This would spread talent out over a much larger # of schools, so increasing the playoffs to 8 would be even more exciting, because you know the talent gap between #1 & #8 isnt as significant as it would be under current structure, where Alabama, OSU, & Clemson alone take a significant % of high-end HS recruits on a yearly basis. This probably would not fly, but it would def make NCAA more exciting, for many more people/fans.. Ultimately increasing fan participation & revenues for the NCAA as a whole. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Name
Post reply
Forums
West Virginia
Mountaineer Message Board
HOT DOO DOO CONFIRMED
Top
Bottom