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

Fans being committed is changing fast.

Yup.

As a fan of a almost-have-but-never-quite-there Team I am ambivalent about it.  In some ways I don't like it, in other ways I do.  I think we're in about year 4 of this and we've got Indiana playing for the NC and Ole Miss came >< <--this close.  

I know I'm not the only one that is super tired of the same old Georgia, Alabama, LSU, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Michigan rotation of champions.  It would really be akin to what New England did under Tom Brady from 2001-2020 except for about 50 years straight.  

At any rate, in CFB, you're lucky to have one good or great player starting for two years.  Rarely, 3 year starters, and extremely rare, a 4 year starter.  Next year, A&M will have a 3rd year starter at QB.  I'm even hoping the NCAA will give in and push the time to 5 years of competition and do away with all redshirts and even medical redshirts.  If  you can't play 3 years out of 5 maybe it just wasn't meant to be.  5 years to play 5 years.  Athletes that are that good will go PRO just like they always do, athletes that are late developers can get paid late in their career just like Diego Pavlavia and others.  Cam Ward  (local kid, #1 Draft Pick) is a perfect example of how the portal and the new landscape has helped his career tremdously.  Without the portal I doubt he would ever get enough exposure to be the #1 pick.  Certainly not at Incarnate Word or Washington State (or was it Oregon State?).  

But what I'm getting at is that the CFB world has always been full of 1-2 year starters.  With NIL, it may shrink some, but I think the average will remain somewhere around 1-2 years, occassionally 3 years, and rarely 4 years just like now.  

Even the lower programs will benefit in the long term, because the portal is full of former 3 and 4 star players that didnt' cut it at whatever level they were at and even if they lose their best players they can get other talented players.  

I agree with most of what @Gigem has to say, with one big caveat. With the loss of regionalism that is coming with this landscape, and with the player movement, I think the schools--my school at least, and I think Nebraska as another example--are losing their local flavor. And yeah, Wisconsin to win a national championship in the old model was a real longshot, but Wisconsin having a bunch of Wisconsin kids who grew up in the Wisconsin program and represented the home state well? That was pretty cool. Similar to the basketball program's run in 2015, even though they came up short against Duke (and the same thing is happening in basketball), the years like 1999, 2011, and 2017 were seasons that the program had worked the way it was supposed to, with a bunch of homegrown talent, some breakthrough stars, and a lot of player development, and they were "this" close to playing for it all. As a fan of a team like that, I had hope that every few years we might break through, and that was a great feeling. Those years seem to be relegated to the dustbin of history. That makes me sad.

The state of the Badger program also makes me sad.

But, as you say, I'm an alumnus, I love UW and Madison, and I will always cheer for my school.

I see two issues: (1) as has been pointed out ad nauseum, players are moving where the money is, regardless of where they are from. I think your retort--that 1-2 year starters has generally been the norm anyway--is a good one, but the money and the free transfers has made a huge change in keeping players over their career. (2) Wisconsin is a smaller state than Michigan and Ohio--by a decent margin (Ohio more than double, Michigan nearly double). More importantly, UW doesn't have the donor base that those schools have. Your response--that Ole Miss and Indiana are hardly the traditional rich kids--is, again, fair. I agree with you. Right now, Wisconsin doesn't have the donor base supporting the program the way Mark Cuban is supporting Indiana. That may change. Wisconsin is a sports-mad state, and the donors may come.

Right now, if a 2- or 3-star recruit falls under the radar for Ohio State, Michigan, Oregon, etc., they may stay in Wisconsin for a couple of years, but after a breakout season, a program like Wisconsin may have real trouble keeping up with those bigger kids to write the kinds of checks that the player can now expect. That's the financial market working properly--as you also pointed out--which is probably ok. But it's frustrating change for us old fogies.

Now, the converse--as you point out--is that if Wisconsin really wants to keep that kid who is now a star, they just need their donors to pony up. And maybe that's fine. But...change. This is different than J.J. Watt becoming a home grown super star (which, to be fair is a terrible example, because JJ Watt transferred from a directional Michigan school after his first season, and left with a year of eligibility remaining because of $$ in the NFL).

As I said, I largely agree with you, but it is change, and I think that regionalism is a victim of the new system.