Reusse looks at star ratings for Georgia, OSU, Bama, Gophs: "Not intended as shot at Gophs; just numbers showing why college FB sucks."

Donate To GopherHole
All of these schools are state funded, do the same thing that the professional schools do, require each state funded school be required to have between 80 to 90 % of the roster from the state and the rest can be recruited from all of the states.
 

That sounds like a way to spread the cream but probably wouldn’t help as much as you think.

First off, we aren’t exactly the first school in line to scoop up a 4 or 5 star not able to get into a maxed out Alabama or OSU. The next level would benefit first and yes we may get 4-5 4 stars but they ain’t coming just because top schools can’t take them.

Limiting us to 40 players also cuts us off at the knees. We have plenty of five star players when they graduate, because they have developed in the 85 man roster system over 2-3 years and made themselves into 4 and 5 star players by working with our coaches. So take that away and say goodbye to our guys like JMS who became all Americans through the system. Almost half our guys don’t play on Saturdays working for their chance.

40 man roster would deprive depth to build going forward.
 

College football is great if you are willing to be realistic. Realistically.....there are a handful of teams that will compete for national titles....with a TCU-like squad sneaking in every once in a while due to a blessed year. But overall....the talent disparity will always favor a few.

That's all fine. I understand what the Gophers can realistically expect.
 

At least for Georgia, they stuck with Richt for 10 years and as far as the fans and the UGA Administration were concerned the program was basically in the 8-9-10 wins/per year rut, not dissimilar to Nebbie's thinking during Pellini's tenure.

Georgia as a program did something about it and made the coaching hire that brought in even better 'cruts and the rest is history. Same can be said for Clemson and heck, even OH-IO State was pedestrian for a period in the 2000s.

Even 'Bama is coming down to earth (maybe) so yes, there's an imbalance but it's not necessarily immutable. Real case is that these types of program stratospheric success are not so much lightning in a bottle but a steady stream of great talent coupled with great coaching and all the other intangibles.

Every CFB coach knows this. Here's to Phillip J figuring it out maybe for us.
 

Otis said:
That sounds like a way to spread the cream but probably wouldn’t help as much as you think.

First off, we aren’t exactly the first school in line to scoop up a 4 or 5 star not able to get into a maxed out Alabama or OSU. The next level would benefit first and yes we may get 4-5 4 stars but they ain’t coming just because top schools can’t take them.

Limiting us to 40 players also cuts us off at the knees. We have plenty of five star players when they graduate, because they have developed in the 85 man roster system over 2-3 years and made themselves into 4 and 5 star players by working with our coaches. So take that away and say goodbye to our guys like JMS who became all Americans through the system. Almost half our guys don’t play on Saturdays working for their chance.

40 man roster would deprive depth to build going forward.
Click to expand...
Ok, how about each team is allowed a certain number of 5,4, 3 stars with half the roster form the state?
 


I have to wonder, when was the last time that anyone that was serious about sports actually cared what Reusse had to say about anything?
 

kg21 said:
I love the atmosphere of the Gophers more than the Vikings.

but the Vikings have an equal chance, as does everyone else in the NFL. If you screw it up, it's your own fault.

Not true for college football.

It's why I'll take the NFL over college football all day and all night.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, now that the athletes are essentially paid, we can drop the whole amateur schtick and start treating it like the billion dollar industry it is. I don't know if enacting NFL type rules would help or not, but I don't feel this current state of affairs is sustainable.

The NFL for all its warts has one helluva business model. Parity creates a lot more fan involvement and interest in the product, because every year, "my" team has a chance if they do things right. A few teams seem to perpetually be at the bottom, but they are also notoriously poorly run. Their suckitude is self-inflicted.

Unless of course college football wants to follow MLB's lead and have a league of perennial have and have nots, pretending to have parity when different teams from the exclusive elite tier of schools trade off winning the national championship.
 

BilldGopher said:
At least for Georgia, they stuck with Richt for 10 years and as far as the fans and the UGA Administration were concerned the program was basically in the 8-9-10 wins/per year rut, not dissimilar to Nebbie's thinking during Pellini's tenure.

Georgia as a program did something about it and made the coaching hire that brought in even better 'cruts and the rest is history. Same can be said for Clemson and heck, even OH-IO State was pedestrian for a period in the 2000s.

Even 'Bama is coming down to earth (maybe) so yes, there's an imbalance but it's not necessarily immutable. Real case is that these types of program stratospheric success are not so much lightning in a bottle but a steady stream of great talent coupled with great coaching and all the other intangibles.

Every CFB coach knows this. Here's to Phillip J figuring it out maybe for us.
Click to expand...
If he does that, I will personally lead a campaign to rename I-94 or I-35 the PJ Fleck Memorial Highway. :)
 




PMWinSTP said:
Are they dumb if that's the outcome they want?
Click to expand...
Yes.
Convincing your paying audience that what they’re watching is dumb is not great for long term revenue

How is readership at the strib the last 10 years? Up or down?
I’ll hang up and listen
 

MNVCGUY said:
College football is essentially MLB baseball. All the power and money is concentrated on a small number of teams. Other teams can jump up and contend from time to time but the big spenders are almost always going to be in the mix because they have the best overall talent.
Click to expand...
People keep parroting this comparison but MLB has and always has had way more parity than CFB.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
I don't know if what I said is technically an ad hominem slur but I might be wrong.

I thought it would be ad hominem if I was saying Reusse's stance was stupid because he's fat. I'm not saying Reusse's morbid obesity is the reason why he's dumb. I'm just saying he's stupid AND fat.

As far as rising above them, I'm not quite ready yet.
Click to expand...
Thank you for clarifying. I'll welcome the rise when you are ready.
 




Gophers1992 said:
People keep parroting this comparison but MLB has and always has had way more parity than CFB.
Click to expand...
It's also a system that has immense control over players who are picked in a draft. MLB only becomes haves vs. have nots at the tail end of the process.

They a ton of built-in team controls - arguably more than any other sport.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
MLB only becomes haves vs. have nots at the tail end of the process.
Click to expand...

And, even then, that's no guarantee of a World Championship.

The Yankees and Dodgers have spent the most money over the past two decades and have combined for a grand total of two titles in 20 years.

15 different teams have won a World Series in the past 22 years, with only the Giants, Cardinals, Astros and Red Sox winning multiple trophies in that span.

In that same 22 year period, there have only been 10 different College Football champions, with Texas and Auburn being the only one-time winners in the time frame. Every other title team has won two or more. Alabama has won six.

(disclaimer - that was a quick search, if my numbers are off slightly, apologies in advance)
 
Last edited:


FanSinceTheFifties said:
Can we rise above ad hominem slurs?
Click to expand...
Normally I would agree with you but Reusse is choosing to make a living taking digs at people and getting fans riled up, so I don't have a lot of sympathy when shots get fired the other direction.
 

LakevilleBro said:
College football is great and it does not suck.
Click to expand...
The Big Ten West, games between those teams, I agree. They're great and don't suck.

Those programs are "right-sized" for competition between them, and fairly compact geographically.


If it weren't for the fact that the Big Ten subsidizes all of those programs with unbelievable amounts of money, seemingly growing exponentially, I'd propose that group break off and do its own thing from the rest. Maybe take Indiana with, and add Kansas, K-State, Iowa State, and Missouri.

(No need to be angry about that, will never happen)
 

tjgopher said:
And, even then, that's no guarantee of a World Championship.

The Yankees and Dodgers have spent the most money over the past two decades and have combined for a grand total of two titles in 20 years.

15 different teams have won a World Series in the past 22 years, with only the Giants, Cardinals, Astros and Red Sox winning multiple trophies in that span.

In that same 22 year period, there have only been 10 different College Football champions, with Texas and Auburn being the only one-time winners in the time frame. Every other title team has won two or more. Alabama has won six.

(disclaimer - that was a quick search, if my numbers are off slightly, apologies in advance)
Click to expand...
The college football/MLB comparison isn't perfect but check out this story from 2019. 24 of the last 25 world series champions at that point had a payroll in the top half of the league and many were up near the top.

www.baseballamerica.com

World Series Champion Opening Day Payroll Ranks In The Wild Card Era

Spending money doesn't guarantee a World Series ring, but 24 of the last 25 champions all crossed one particular payroll threshold.
www.baseballamerica.com www.baseballamerica.com

I fully agree that there is more parity in Baseball then there is in college football but the fact remains that most of the power is consolidated around a handful of top level teams and more often than not those top level teams are going to be in the mix for the title even if they don't always win it.
 

Tommyboy said:
All of these schools are state funded, do the same thing that the professional schools do, require each state funded school be required to have between 80 to 90 % of the roster from the state and the rest can be recruited from all of the states.
Click to expand...
So you want low football participation/population states to be at a disadvantage? I get the idea, so we becom NDSU/SDSU competing at the B1G level.
 

MaxyJR1 said:
So you want low football participation/population states to be at a disadvantage? I get the idea, so we becom NDSU/SDSU competing at the B1G level.
Click to expand...
What could possibly go wrong under that scenario.... :)
 


MNVCGUY said:
The college football/MLB comparison isn't perfect but check out this story from 2019. 24 of the last 25 world series champions at that point had a payroll in the top half of the league and many were up near the top.

www.baseballamerica.com

World Series Champion Opening Day Payroll Ranks In The Wild Card Era

Spending money doesn't guarantee a World Series ring, but 24 of the last 25 champions all crossed one particular payroll threshold.
www.baseballamerica.com www.baseballamerica.com

I fully agree that there is more parity in Baseball then there is in college football but the fact remains that most of the power is consolidated around a handful of top level teams and more often than not those top level teams are going to be in the mix for the title even if they don't always win it.
Click to expand...

And as an aside, by its very nature, the game of baseball creates its own parity. The very best team in MLB will lose to the very worst team in MLB probably 25% of the time. The very best team in Big Ten football will lose to the very worst team in Big Ten football maybe 5% of the time??
 

DarthGopher said:
I don't know if enacting NFL type rules would help or not, but I don't feel this current state of affairs is sustainable.
Click to expand...
Most of the problems that college football has are the result of one single root cause: the NCAA is the governing body for the sport, but has virtually no power, resources, desire, or political will to regulate the sport in a way that makes any sense.

Everyone keeps talking about the CFP taking-over much of the NCAA’s governance responsibilities. That’s the best option to save the sport. But that can’t happen until after the 2025 season.

The way the CFP is currently comprised, the Big Ten and SEC would have little incentive for granting it more authority or power over the sport (for different reasons). If a new governing body is going to emerge that is specific to the sport it is going to be about 35% controlled by the SEC and Big Ten, and 5% by Notre Dame (not 9% each, as it is now).
 
Last edited:

MaxyJR1 said:
So you want low football participation/population states to be at a disadvantage? I get the idea, so we becom NDSU/SDSU competing at the B1G level.
Click to expand...
No. Small states do what small high schools do today - combine and hyphenate the hell out of the conglomerate. The North Dakota - South Dakota Fighting Habisojackyotes.
 

MNVCGUY said:
College football is essentially MLB baseball. All the power and money is concentrated on a small number of teams. Other teams can jump up and contend from time to time but the big spenders are almost always going to be in the mix because they have the best overall talent.
Click to expand...
Astros?
 

Gophers1992 said:
Normally I would agree with you but Reusse is choosing to make a living taking digs at people and getting fans riled up, so I don't have a lot of sympathy when shots get fired the other direction.
Click to expand...
I don't read nor listen to him so forgive me having to ask. Does he deride people's physical attributes? Does he call people derogatory names? I don't know -- he may. Even if he does, it would be better to refute his arguments rather than engage in childish retorts.
 


Some guy said:
Yes.
Convincing your paying audience that what they’re watching is dumb is not great for long term revenue

How is readership at the strib the last 10 years? Up or down?
I’ll hang up and listen
Click to expand...
It gets clicks. Strib seems more like a job for him these days. My guess is he's doing fine with his other streams of revenue.
 

I really think we are on our way to college football becoming more formalized as the AA and AAA minor league levels for the NFL. It's always been that to some extent, but I think with the advantages some programs will have with the NIL and the opportunities for players to move with the portal, it will become even moreso.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom