Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

IMHO the problem with any sort of CBA is simple...

Most of the time, the CBA exists to ensure the stability and viability of the sport. And a portion of that is in the service of parity. Yeah, there are traditional "doormat" programs in the NFL, because the competence of management is the one area where parity isn't controlled. But teams like the Lions this year are an example that a few straight years of quality management and coaching can turn a traditional doormat into a contender. You have to have at least a chance at parity for everyone to feel that the competition is legitimate. Letting one team just out-spend everyone else ruins it. 

But the powers of college football desperately want to avoid anything that introduces parity. They want the doormats to remain doormats forever. 

And there are only two ways to do that--either avoid a CBA that enforces parity via a player-selection model (i.e. a draft), or have a CBA that enforces parity via a player-selection model and restrict the top of the sport to maybe 36 or fewer teams so that the doormats simply go away. 

But even then... I'm not even sure how a CBA works, if you're still allowing things to be determined by recruiting rather than a draft? You need a draft to have any sort of continued parity. Because the myth of college football is that it's a "student-athlete" model, and now you're going to determine which university a student-athlete goes to based on which sport teams selects them?  

I talk a lot about the power of myth. Things that are powerful, whether they're true or not, because enough people agree on that. And one of the things in the foundation of college football is that the myth of the student-athlete is important. Even if they're "general studies" majors, we have the myth that going to class and getting a degree is at least the goal, maybe not for the 5* guys, but for the 3* and fewer guys who will likely never sniff the NFL. Knock that out by forcing players to go to "whatever school drafted them" and suddenly college sports just becomes a shitty development league for the pros. There'll be no difference between watching college football and watching the UFL. 

Personally I wouldn't mind a breakoff of the top 36 programs and Purdue being left out in the cold. It's better than lying to me and telling me that my team actually plays the same sport and has a seat at the same table as the helmets. 

I don't think anyone expects total parity.  But every change has only increased gap, since scholarship limits

It’ll be interesting how things evolve. This season was kinda heavier on parity. Is that how it’ll be?

Yes and no.  I think this might be what you meant but:

There seems to be a LOT of parity AMONG the elite but a widening chasm between the elite and everyone else.  

It is too early to tell, but I *THINK* that is due to NIL and the portal.  It is increasingly difficult to get substantially more talented than the rest because if you have too many talented QB's (tOSU a few years ago) some of them transfer and end up leading a contender somewhere else (Texas).  At the same time, it is less likely for an elite team to have a MAJOR weakness because if you strike out on QB's or LBers or OLmen or whatever for a couple years and end up with a weakness you just hit the portal and grab replacements.  

Overall, I think that contributes to parity among the elite and a widening chasm between the elite and everyone else.  

Looking at the elite in the B1G:

• Oregon went 9-0
• Penn State went 8-1, the loss was to fellow-elite tOSU
• Ohio State went 7-2; one loss was to fellow-elite Oregon.  The other loss was to Michigan.  They didn't perform at an elite level this year but they are a fellow helmet.  
• Michigan (5-4) and USC (4-5) obviously had rough years.  

Looking further afield at the SEC:

• Texas went 7-1, the loss was to fellow-elite UGA.  
• UGA went 6-2 and the losses were to fellow-elite Bama and near-elite Ole Miss.  
• Tennessee went 6-2 with one of the losses to a fellow-elite.  
• Bama went 5-3 with losses to Tennessee (elite), Oklahoma (like M - elite but not this year), and Vandy.  
• LSU went 5-3 with losses to Bama, aTm, and UF (all elite or eliteish even if not this year per se)

Most of the biggest upsets of the year were cases of elite teams (Michigan, Florida, Oklahoma) having mediocre years but jumping up and knocking off a contender.  

Yes and no.  I think this might be what you meant but:

There seems to be a LOT of parity AMONG the elite but a widening chasm between the elite and everyone else. 

It is too early to tell, but I *THINK* that is due to NIL and the portal.  It is increasingly difficult to get substantially more talented than the rest because if you have too many talented QB's (tOSU a few years ago) some of them transfer and end up leading a contender somewhere else (Texas).  At the same time, it is less likely for an elite team to have a MAJOR weakness because if you strike out on QB's or LBers or OLmen or whatever for a couple years and end up with a weakness you just hit the portal and grab replacements. 

Overall, I think that contributes to parity among the elite and a widening chasm between the elite and everyone else. 

Looking at the elite in the B1G:

• Oregon went 9-0
• Penn State went 8-1, the loss was to fellow-elite tOSU
• Ohio State went 7-2; one loss was to fellow-elite Oregon.  The other loss was to Michigan.  They didn't perform at an elite level this year but they are a fellow helmet. 
• Michigan (5-4) and USC (4-5) obviously had rough years. 

Looking further afield at the SEC:

• Texas went 7-1, the loss was to fellow-elite UGA. 
• UGA went 6-2 and the losses were to fellow-elite Bama and near-elite Ole Miss. 
• Tennessee went 6-2 with one of the losses to a fellow-elite. 
• Bama went 5-3 with losses to Tennessee (elite), Oklahoma (like M - elite but not this year), and Vandy. 
• LSU went 5-3 with losses to Bama, aTm, and UF (all elite or eliteish even if not this year per se)

Most of the biggest upsets of the year were cases of elite teams (Michigan, Florida, Oklahoma) having mediocre years but jumping up and knocking off a contender. 

Watching all those “elite” teams, all were eye test worse than a lot of recent elite teams.

That feels like a potential step to parity. It might not be, but it also could be.

We've never had parity. 

What we had was a system where the teams that didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being in the MNC discussion still had goals and aspirations. Where bowl games were exciting rewards for a good season, not poorly-watched and poorly-attended meaningless exhibitions--and by poorly-attended I mean by both the actual players from those teams and by the fans. 

For 30 years Wisconsin rose up and was relevant. That's over now. The portal and NIL is killed the program killing the sport

FIFY

I'm fading fast.  I don't give a damn about a team of mercenaries.
Love to cheer for one of your guys --- He gone.
New guy comes in, plays well, you begin to cheer for him --- wants a raise --- He gone.
F this nonsense.
I'm as big a CFB sicko as it gets, and if they are losing me, I'd advise someone get control real fast.  How, I don't know?  But it better happen ASAP.

Most would sign this manifesto