What Parity?

[Bob Saccamano]

This is a new article released today on scout.com. OSU is one of the featured teams in it. I found it quite interesting.

Scout.com


Edit: Links only for Scout/Rivals please--21

[Yertle]

I like it! Good article, and he makes some good points. I've often thought that the limited scholarships have made little impact in the overall scheme of things. It seems that the 70-0 blowouts are less frequent, but instead, the favorite still ends up winning 45-14. Same basic result, but maybe the game was interesting for a quarter.

[OregonBuckeye]

I noticed we were only credited with 4 NC's with the '57 title being excluded.

[BB73]

Originally Posted by OregonBuckeye

I noticed we were only credited with 4 NC's with the '57 title being excluded.

That's because he used only the AP poll finishes.

[IronBuckI]

Interesting read, but not even remotely accurate.

If he wants to base it solely on championships (which he shouldn't) the teams that he mentioned as being the only "new" teams to win a championship, along with the Florida schools, which can't be discounted just because he says so, have won 16 championships. That's 16 since 1973, when the rule was enacted. If my math is correct, and even if it isn't, about half of the championships have gone to schools that hadn't won before the rule was put in place.

Championships can't be the only measure of parity in a world with over one hundred teams. Being able to compete is huge. The little guy isn't going to build a program and win consistently due to money and exposure. Players and coaches want to go where the money is. A small program wins for a couple years, and the coach gets hired away. The big guys may not be getting all of the players, but they're still getting the best players. Teams in the MAC cannot get the big-time recruits in the quantity needed to win a championship, because of coaching turnover, not as nice of facilities, and nowhere near the exposure that players want, in order to make it to the NFL. With the 85 scholarship limit the little schools are able to play higher quality football, with the chance of occasionally upsetting a bigger school. The higher quality that they're able to play increases the interest in the smaller schools conference games, and increases attendance which increases revenue.

[tibor75]

Originally Posted by IronBuckI

Interesting read, but not even remotely accurate.

If he wants to base it solely on championships (which he shouldn't) the teams that he mentioned as being the only "new" teams to win a championship, along with the Florida schools, which can't be discounted just because he says so, have won 16 championships. That's 16 since 1973, when the rule was enacted. If my math is correct, and even if it isn't, about half of the championships have gone to schools that hadn't won before the rule was put in place.

Championships can't be the only measure of parity in a world with over one hundred teams. Being able to compete is huge. The little guy isn't going to build a program and win consistently due to money and exposure. Players and coaches want to go where the money is. A small program wins for a couple years, and the coach gets hired away. The big guys may not be getting all of the players, but they're still getting the best players. Teams in the MAC cannot get the big-time recruits in the quantity needed to win a championship, because of coaching turnover, not as nice of facilities, and nowhere near the exposure that players want, in order to make it to the NFL. With the 85 scholarship limit the little schools are able to play higher quality football, with the chance of occasionally upsetting a bigger school. The higher quality that they're able to play increases the interest in the smaller schools conference games, and increases attendance which increases revenue.

Agreed. Look at OSU in the early 70s...there is no way we could be THAT dominant today, not allowing more than 1 TD game after game after game...

[Yertle]

Maybe I misinterpretted his message, but I kind of thought that was his point. The little schools still can't compete on a year-in and year-out basis. They can get "lucky" and land a good coach with a solid recruiting class (such as Utah) and make some serious noise for a year or two, but the long-term success still goes to the big boys.

Personally, I think it's perfect the way it is. I really don't want to see the NCAA lose any more of it's parity. Granted, part of the reason is the Bucks are on the positive side of the parity, but the other reason is that some of the tradition will be lost with a more even playing field.

Let's forget about OSU and Michigan for a minute. I watch Oklahoma/Texas, or USC/UCLA, or Florida St/Florida, or Alabama/Auburn, or any of the "big Rivalry" games every year. Why? Because those are the big boys with big time traditions playing for bragging rights. For the most part, I really don't care who wins those games (ignoring the potential for the Bucks to move up in the polls with a timely loss by one of these teams). I watch because I grew up understanding that these teams are the elite of college football, and if you're going to be a serious fan, you get into big time games like this. If the parity was gone, the big games wouldn't be nearly as big. My son wouldn't grow up with the understanding that USC/Notre Dame is supposed to be a serious game with a lot on the line. And that would be kind of disappointing.

The way things are right now, the top teams are still relatively strong for most seasons, but there are more of the Utahs or Lousivilles or Miami (Oh) that can put together a one loss season, make a few major upsets, and win a serious bowl game. That's perfect in my mind.