CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: fezzador on December 27, 2018, 04:44:01 PM
-
We all know that FBS schools are allotted a grand total of 85 scholarship athletes on their rosters. But for shits and giggles, let's change things up and see how dramatically it would change the college football landscape.
Of those 85 scholarships, a minimum of 50 of them must belong to in-state kids (this is based on the state where they graduated high school; it matters not if they've applied for in-state residence at some point after enrollment).
Some schools (Texas, Florida, Ohio State, etc) wouldn't be affected much, if at all. UT and UF may actually benefit from this since both their states currently bleed a significant amount of talent to out-of-state schools. Other schools, like Oklahoma, Oregon, and Alabama may struggle since out-of-state talent would be now at a premium, and now the fight to gain in-state talent would only intensify since those schools each have major in-state rivals that want the exact same players.
Honestly, this might not affect the B1G as much as other conferences. Ohio State and Penn State will still be perennial favorites. Wisconsin and Iowa will probably be about the same (both tend to maximize in-state talent). The Michigan-Michigan State rivalry may escalate since both will be going after the same recruits (and probably fighting for 3rd place in the East). If Rutgers and Maryland have competent coaches, they could become players. Indiana and Purdue will probably still struggle. Nebraska would have an even bigger hurdle to overcome, but maybe they can follow the Iowa/Wisconsin model by concentrating on instate OL, DL, and linebackers. They have enough of a brand name to recruit quality skill players from out of state. Minnesota probably would still be Minnesota, Northwestern probably would still be Northwestern, and maybe finally Illinois might become a player with the right coach since they would then have more in-state talent to themselves.
-
Get ready for a bunch of kids to transfer to prep schools.
UM and MSU wouldn't be fighting for third in the East either. Maryland has as much or more in state talent, and wouldn't have to share it. Hell, Rutgers too
-
Of those 85 scholarships, a minimum of 50 of them must belong to in-state kids (this is based on the state where they graduated high school; it matters not if they've applied for in-state residence at some point after enrollment).
Indiana and Purdue will probably still struggle.
F this noise. F it with a rusty railroad spike.
I just checked Notre Dame's roster. You know how many IN players they have? 7. Seven. Se-f'ing-ven.
So immediately Notre Dame gets roughly the next 11 highest rated players in state each year (assuming of course that they balance classes, so their 7 of 50 leaves ~44 schollies, spread over 4 years). And that's if Michigan and Ohio State don't poach some of the top 50 in state too to fill out their 35 out of state players.
Teams like Purdue and Indiana, which have to split a state with other FBS schools Notre Dame and Ball State, get screwed. Teams like Wisconsin or Minnesota, which are the only FBS school in their states, get rewarded.
So... No. This is a terrible idea.
-
would kill Nebraska and Iowa
-
College football would simply become a kind of representative government. The schools in CA, TX, and FL would dominate. Georgia, OSU, and LSU would be very good, too, but if you sort of cut off recruiting in SoCal, TX, and FL to a trickle for out-of-state schools, oh my.
The P5 would become the P1, a super-conference of UCLA, USC, Texas, A&M, Florida, FSU, and Miami.
-
the UCF Knights would be better
along with the Cal Golden Bears
Oregon would suck - again
-
What would be the advantage of this?
-
What would be the advantage of this?
For my school? None. For yours? A big one.
-
For my school? None. For yours? A big one.
It wouldn't matter for Georgia at all as they're already there pretty much every year.
I still don't see any advantage for anyone, and a lot of disadvantages, especially for folks in smaller states as noted and North Carolina (for example). What's the upside?
-
College football would simply become a kind of representative government. The schools in CA, TX, and FL would dominate. Georgia, OSU, and LSU would be very good, too, but if you sort of cut off recruiting in SoCal, TX, and FL to a trickle for out-of-state schools, oh my.
The P5 would become the P1, a super-conference of UCLA, USC, Texas, A&M, Florida, FSU, and Miami.
Actually, what I see is that you'd probably see FBS split just about immediately if this happened.
ND/Purdue/IU don't want Ball State taking their in-state recruits.
Do USC/UCLA/Stanford/Cal want to see Fresno State, SDSU, SJSU each having 50 CA recruits on roster?
Does Florida/FSU/Miami want to be battling FAU/FIU/USF/UCF for recruits?
Do Michigan and MSU want all the directional Michigan schools battling them?
Ohio State is the only "major" FBS school in the state, but there are 6 other FBS mid-majors in Ohio.
And Texas is possibly the worst, with 12 FBS programs.
So the P5 programs in those states would immediately move to knock the mid-majors out so they didn't have to share those in-state recruits.
So to me, the winners of this would be Wisconsin, Minnesota, Rutgers, Maryland, Syracuse, maybe Arkansas, UConn, Mizzou, and maybe Penn St / Pitt.
If you look at decent population states but with few FBS schools, those would be the immediate beneficiaries.
The secondary beneficiaries would be the mid-majors of the high-population w/ many FBS schools, as it would allow them to put a better fence around their borders and not lose the local kids to P5 schools from out of state.
-
For my school? None. For yours? A big one.
I don't think it would be a huge advantage for Georgia. Georgia isn't a "high" population state, per se, and they have 4 FBS schools in-state. Their roster is already heavily-dominated by GA kids.
The Alabamas of the world will still be able to recruit GA for top kids. The competition to pull the TOP in-state talent will still be national. But what will possibly happen is that Georgia Tech, Georgia Southern, and Georgia State will work harder to take away UGA's mid-level in-state talent.
-
It wouldn't matter for Georgia at all as they're already there pretty much every year.
I still don't see any advantage for anyone, and a lot of disadvantages, especially for folks in smaller states as noted and North Carolina (for example). What's the upside?
It would matter for Georgia for sure. It would mean that Tennessee or Kentucky or Auburn or ____________ couldn't come in and even take a kid who might be really good, but Georgia had no room for. The competition is therefore weaker.
This ain't happening anyway. Even a school like Bama would be made weaker if they had to rely on Alabama talent alone, and share it with Auburn on top of that.
-
FYI Wisconsin already has 54 kids from Wisconsin on roster. Now, a few of those might be walk-ons, but it's not like it would make it harder for Wisconsin to fill their roster. They've already met their limit.
And if Badge says, it reduces out-of-state competition for the top kids in the state, or even the 2nd-tier kids in the state that Wisconsin might not be able to build a fence around, Wisconsin could possibly even benefit.
-
absolutely no upside for recruits
except they wouldn't be so far from home
-
It would matter for Georgia for sure. It would mean that Tennessee or Kentucky or Auburn or ____________ couldn't come in and even take a kid who might be really good, but Georgia had no room for. The competition is therefore weaker.
Georgia is already WAY over 50 in-state kids. I did a rough check and probably 80% of their roster is GA kids.
So there's nobody that they "don't have room for". Alabama or Michigan or OSU or USC can still come in and pluck the 5* guys away; those schools will still have 35 scholarships for out-of-state kids and as helmets, can still recruit nationally.
Notre Dame would be the one hurt the most. Today they only have 7 in-state players. If they were FORCED to increase that to 50, it would mean that their average recruiting class would be much weaker as there isn't enough in-state talent to nail down and there are two other P5 (and one mid-major) schools vying for it.
-
I still don't see an upside to this, at all.
Georgia pretty much signs who they want in state. They MIGHT miss out on an occasional 5 star who goes to Bama or Clemson etc., but it's pretty rare, and limiting Bama and Clemson to 50 wouldn't matter anyway given they have 35 "other".
-
I still don't see an upside to this, at all.
Well, as Fezzador mentions, this is just a thought experiment for shits & giggles. It wasn't offered with a clear upside.
Of course, one possible upside is that it would largely destroy Notre Dame as a national power IMHO.
I also wonder what you'd do for the service academies? Would they be exempt from the limits?
-
Ignore some of my comments. I misunderstood the original post a bit.
-
absolutely no upside for recruits
except they wouldn't be so far from home
I would think it would depend on state. Kind of like the states that have rules mandating a minimum number of kids per in state county. I know Indiana had that rule when I was there, and dear lord, some of those kids that got in via that rule. My cousin had the same experience with the rule at UNC.
So the 40th best high school player in Iowa might like the rule. Or in Washington. Or Oregon. Or Kansas.
-
the top 3 high school players in those states would have some pressure to stay in-state
-
Be a great way to build programs at Cincinnati, Toledo, Ohio, and Youngstown State.
And, a great way to build up UCF, Florida Atlantic, USF, UAB, Georgia Tech, and Bethune Cookman.
Without looking, I would wager a substantial bet Iowa does not have 50 Iowa high school players on its football roster.
-
not on scholarship
Iowa State probably does not either
-
Without looking, I would wager a substantial bet Iowa does not have 50 Iowa high school players on its football roster.
Oops, I'd be wrong. Counted 58 Iowa players on the roster. Most have high jersey numbers.
-
not on scholarship
Iowa State probably does not either
This is probably true. Iowa had six Iowa players on the 2017 Rivals.com recruiting list.
-
I think the Huskers signed 5 players from in-state a couple weeks ago
and this was a good year
-
I've read somewhere that at least some public universities outside of power conferences have these kinds of quotas to reduce the cost of scholarships for their athletic departments. I think that was 10 years ago or so, so maybe that's changed, though. That said, it's no coincidence that the schools that have started football programs and/or moved to FBS since the 90s (UCF, USF, FAU, FIU, TX St, UTSA, UAB, Troy, S Alabama, Ga St, Ga Southern, App St, Coastal Carolina, Charlotte, Old Dominion, Liberty, UMass, UConn, Buffalo, Boise State, Marshall, WKU, MTSU) are primarily in the Southeast, while a lot of schools that have dropped football in that same period are mostly private schools in the Northeast (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defunct_college_football_teams), albeit they were only FCS programs in the first place.
On a related note, I've wondered how walk-ons who can get financial aid are accounted for. I've heard conflicting info about this.
That said, while this was meant as a hypothetical, you are seeing this kind of phenomenon to some extent with applications and admissions at public universities, including Michigan, which now offers more substantial financial aid to in-state students, depending on their family's income. Meanwhile, the number of out-of-state students has risen for a while, though it seems that they're trying to keep the percentage stable by admitting more in-state students, too, as the undergrad population has risen from 25k to almost 30k since I was in school (part of that may also be more students taking 5 to 6 years to graduate).... I don't mean to go on a complete tangent, but population of 18-22 year-olds has been in steady decline over the past 5 years and is expected to continue for awhile with declining fertility rates, and some people think that could put a lot of small colleges at risk of having to close or merge, which would primarily cause D3 and NAIA to shrink.
-
I think the Huskers signed 5 players from in-state a couple weeks ago
and this was a good year
I looked a few years back and 247, which generally lists profiles for most FBS signees, had 19 total for kids in Iowa.
-
Kids with an academic scholarship are counted against scholarship limits.
That may have kept me off the UGA JV bball team, or so the coach told me anyway.
-
A couple of years back, the starting Alabama QB was not on scholarship. Apparently he was from a well to do family who had donated significant sums in the past, so they agreed to foot his bill freeing up a spot for another player.
This looks like a potential item for abuse to me. Some Big Donor could give said family the money for college and it wouldn't be a scholarship, in theory. He'd have to pay gift tax to be legal.
Imagine having ten starters not on scholarship counting against that 85.
-
A couple of years back, the starting Alabama QB was not on scholarship. Apparently he was from a well to do family who had donated significant sums in the past, so they agreed to foot his bill freeing up a spot for another player.
This looks like a potential item for abuse to me. Some Big Donor could give said family the money for college and it wouldn't be a scholarship, in theory. He'd have to pay gift tax to be legal.
Imagine having ten starters not on scholarship counting against that 85.
UM had a situation like that with wrestling several years ago. Not sure exactly how all of that worked. I think in the wrestling situation it was three brothers, where the parents declined the partials so that they could offer more to some other high recruits
-
Get ready for a bunch of kids to transfer to prep schools.
UM and MSU wouldn't be fighting for third in the East either. Maryland has as much or more in state talent, and wouldn't have to share it. Hell, Rutgers too
Maryland/DC + NJ talent is very very good. Its a bit under the radar because HS sports are an afterthought in both areas. PA talent, while still decent is way overrated. I'd say NJ has left PA behind and Maryland despite being a smaller pop state is on par and/or better than PA.