Week 4 NCAA Football | Page 4 | The Boneyard

Week 4 NCAA Football

Status
Not open for further replies.
Also lol at a field storming over an unranked win? Tearing down the goal posts?
 
JMick said:
What a way to lose. Hail Mary and fumble at the goal line in OT.
Expand ...
Yeah that was a punch to the guts. No actually it was a kick to the nuts to lose that game in that fashion.
 
gsmooth said:
That's why when I looked at the live score of the JMU-North Carolina game I got an uneasy feeling like missing out on a stock I could have purchased at a low price. Although I don't get into too many debates on the BoneYard, I did push back on people that stated UConn's lack of money is why football is so bad, which I think is BS. They should never have been historically bad like they have been for some of the years between 2012-2023 (i.e. 2017, 2018, etc.) Sure, UConn does not have a conference that the G5 schools do, but they have more money and brand recognition. There are schools doing far more with much less money and definitely less brand recognition.
Expand ...
JMU has some decent fb history, is a football school, and has been a top FCS school for some time.
 
.-.
UConnJim said:
I understand the payroll difference, but the talent between the 2 rosters is similar. And, they had the #3 recruiting class in 2014 and the #5 recruiting class in 2024. The money is only keeping them in their position in college football.
Expand ...

A few differences that fall under two big headings:

1) Recruiting classes will be much less relevant going forward with the transfer portal. Coaches have blown it on recruiting classes over the years (Mack Brown could hold clinics on it during his time at Texas), but the transfer portal is much lower risk. A staff can bring in an experienced player that can play now, rather than have to project a 17 year old kid out 3 or 4 years. Where would you rather spend your money?
2) In 2014, the experience for a star player was not that much different at tOSU than it was at Georgia Tech or even Boise State. Players would pick their school on several factors, including how good a team was projected to be, playing time available, and the coach. Going forward, money is #1, #2 and #3. Everything else is secondary or tertiary. The schools that have the money to spend will dominate with the top talent, and with the bench players. Top schools will be able to pay preferred walkons more than they would make starting at other schools.


Unless there is revenue sharing or a salary cap, the difference between the top schools and even the schools just outside the top is going to be massive.

This problem will be much worse for football because the rosters are so big and so many players contribute every game.
 
Back in Nebraskas heyday with Tom Osborne, there were no roster limits and scholarship limits were higher, if not non existent. They had a system whereby they stockpiled kids first at their regional campuses and then on the rosters, I think 150 rings a bell. They were able to keep the talent away from you and I, and somehow, the $$ worked out for the kids to make that decision. You(Nelson) are describing a similar effect, but with alot more money. Back then, there was more money than we knew, but hidden.
 
AllHusky said:
Back in Nebraskas heyday with Tom Osborne, there were no roster limits and scholarship limits were higher, if not non existent. They had a system whereby they stockpiled kids first at their regional campuses and then on the rosters, I think 150 rings a bell. They were able to keep the talent away from you and I, and somehow, the $$ worked out for the kids to make that decision. You(Nelson) are describing a similar effect, but with alot more money. Back then, there was more money than we knew, but hidden.
Expand ...
well that was also back when you were "home state or bust" and the idea of playing for other schools was foreign. Sure you'd do it if somebody else paid for your school but if you had dreams and a scholarship you kept riding your dreams.
 
.-.
nelsonmuntz said:
A few differences that fall under two big headings:

1) Recruiting classes will be much less relevant going forward with the transfer portal. Coaches have blown it on recruiting classes over the years (Mack Brown could hold clinics on it during his time at Texas), but the transfer portal is much lower risk. A staff can bring in an experienced player that can play now, rather than have to project a 17 year old kid out 3 or 4 years. Where would you rather spend your money?
2) In 2014, the experience for a star player was not that much different at tOSU than it was at Georgia Tech or even Boise State. Players would pick their school on several factors, including how good a team was projected to be, playing time available, and the coach. Going forward, money is #1, #2 and #3. Everything else is secondary or tertiary. The schools that have the money to spend will dominate with the top talent, and with the bench players. Top schools will be able to pay preferred walkons more than they would make starting at other schools.


Unless there is revenue sharing or a salary cap, the difference between the top schools and even the schools just outside the top is going to be massive.

This problem will be much worse for football because the rosters are so big and so many players contribute every game.
Expand ...
I get what you are saying but I think we still have to wait to see how it shakes out. The Portal will cut both ways.

Alabama e.g. always had a deep bench with players who would rather ride the pine than start at a lesser program. They will still have that except now those players will make more money. With the portal those same bench players could start right away at a lesser program and make a name for themselves. Then they could enter the portal if they want to move to a better program. So they'll have a choice between getting paid more for sitting, or getting paid less for playing with a bigger payoff later. Just one scenario but I could see kids taking the option of playing right away with the portal as a future option. Alabama can stack its bench with a bunch of proven upper classman so maybe the lesser programs will be grabbing the high school studs.

In the end, there are only a limited number of slots available and a talent pool big enough to feed everyone. Hence, NIU beating ND.
 
Kolumbo said:
I get what you are saying but I think we still have to wait to see how it shakes out. The Portal will cut both ways.

Alabama e.g. always had a deep bench with players who would rather ride the pine than start at a lesser program. They will still have that except now those players will make more money. With the portal those same bench players could start right away at a lesser program and make a name for themselves. Then they could enter the portal if they want to move to a better program. So they'll have a choice between getting paid more for sitting, or getting paid less for playing with a bigger payoff later. Just one scenario but I could see kids taking the option of playing right away with the portal as a future option. Alabama can stack its bench with a bunch of proven upper classman so maybe the lesser programs will be grabbing the high school studs.

In the end, there are only a limited number of slots available and a talent pool big enough to feed everyone. Hence, NIU beating ND.
Expand ...
I think Nelson is right about this. Furthermore, the big schools should be able to take surplus football money and fund basketball, unless big boy football becomes separate from "not football." Assuming it won't, then big boy football schools will also dominate hoops. Buh-bye, Big East teams winning natties.
 
.-.
I think we can win against Buffalo but Lembo is a great coach. Will be a tough game.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,160
Messages
4,555,228
Members
10,438
Latest member
UConnheart


Top Bottom