(01-01-2019 08:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-01-2019 08:23 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I think the obvious lack of parity (even limited parity) in the game is terrible. I'm amazed that the game is as popular as it is given the fact that year over year success at the top levels is more or less limited to the top 25 - 30 revenue generating schools in all FBS.

This is the attitude that fans of striver-G5 programs have that IMO reflects a lack of understanding of mainstream college football culture. Fans of schools like Memphis, Houston, Boise, USF, etc. that are trying to 'break in to the club' think its awful that the powers that be haven't created a diamond-lined red carpet for their schools to stroll in to the club, but it's really not that hard to understand: I've been following major college football for 50 years, and it has always been the way you describe it as 'awful', namely dominance by a few programs. In the 1970s, you could set your watch by Notre Dame and USC and Alabama being powerful, Oklahoma and Nebraska vying for the Big 8 title, Texas in the SWC, and Bo vs Woody battling for the Big 10. With independents Pitt and Penn State in the east fighting their way into the mix (they were the *original* independent outsider to crash the club).

The history of college football, kind of like of MLB, is a history of dominant programs and dynasties. And, the great bulk of football fans like it that way. That's why the sport became a major sport and has a 130 year legacy.

And it is a pattern not uncommon in other sports. E.g., college hoops and the NBA both became truly major in the 1960s, a time when the Celtics and UCLA were winning almost every year. People like dymasties and dominant historic programs.

The model that G5 fans prefer, a model that results in a "levelling" of sorts where schools like Memphis and ECU and San Diego State eventually rise up while schools like Michigan and USC and Alabama lose *relative* power is undesired by everyone but fans of those striver schools. I think it would result in the decline of college football as a whole.

I don't believe you can directly compare the 70s and 80s to today's game due to a number of factors - with the NCAA being booted from negotiating TV revenue contracts for the sport when Oklahoma won their lawsuit in the mid 80s. Couple that with the creation of the BCS that morphed into our current model and it's pretty clear that access is more limited. The barriers of entry to maintain a top flight FB program is much higher in today's world simply based on cost alone.

Ultimately, it comes to personal preference. I don't care for the MLB revenue model - which is what you get with FBS level college football - because there is a competition problem within the sport. Most years the big market teams dominate the sport and tend to win the World Series. This is what college football is like - only worse from a competition standpoint. Big market teams will always dominate, and barring the occasional year when a smaller revenue college finds "lightning in a bottle", nothing will ever change.

Saban is an OK coach. As pointed out already, his biggest skill is building and managing a system to keep the talent flowing. Take Saban out of Alabama and place him at ECU or Memphis and see if he can duplicate the success he sees today. It would be impossible for him to do so.

ETA: Excuse the grammar. I'm too lazy to fix it all.