Gopher_In_NYC
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2010
- Messages
- 17,878
- Reaction score
- 12,608
- Points
- 113
On a recent podcast, you mentioned that an expanded playoffs might lead to more parity in college football. On a less recent podcast, you mentioned that recruits look mainly at which schools can get them in the NFL. Do you think a top recruit is going to forgo NFL Draft factory Alabama to play in Ames, Iowa, because an eight-team playoff gives Iowa State a better chance to play a meaningful postseason game? (I don’t, nor do I think that a bigger playoff is the cure-all that it’s made out to be.) — Dan K.
You’re right. I have said both of those things and believe one much more than the other. The one I believe the most is that players ultimately are most influenced in the recruiting process by which program is more likely to develop them into an NFL Draft pick. Program tradition, stadiums, competing for national titles, facilities, education and whatever other criteria you can come up with certainly matter. But the bottom line for prospects, is, well, the bottom line. They all want to be pros, and they all want to be rich.
But it’s a cycle, right? The best players in high school football are going to the same six programs. So, of course, those programs are going to produce more pros. For some hard statistics, 56 of the top 100 players in the 2021 class signed with one of six schools — Ohio State, Alabama, Clemson, Georgia, Oklahoma and LSU. That number can still go up, too, since a few players have yet to sign. That’s more than half of the most elite prospects going to only six schools. Yes, outstanding coaching and development is a factor, but the biggest factor in this whole business is natural talent and the potential that comes along with it. But given the aforementioned numbers, which schools do you think are going to have the most draft picks for the next four years?
The discussion, then, has to be about breaking that cycle. What has to happen in the world of college football for the talent coming out of high school to be more evenly distributed? How can more programs get in with these top 100 players? The answer is that this is a process and it isn’t going to happen overnight, and that shift — if it ever happens — isn’t going to start with the top 100 players.
This brings us to the other comment I made on the podcasts about expanding the Playoff. That was one of the things I think could make these middle-tier teams such as Iowa State more attractive to the players in the top 500 who would be the lowest-ranked players in Alabama’s class. Maybe in the world of an expanded Playoff, the ability to go build something at a new place will be more attractive to the very good football players who are sometimes afterthoughts to the big programs. They can sign with a program such as Iowa State and think, “Hey, I can go there and compete at the highest level and play in big games rather than being the low man on the totem pole at Alabama.’”
That doesn’t address the NFL aspect of this, but these kids have to go somewhere, and the more spots there are in the Playoff, the more the talent may be spread out. Sticking with the Iowa State example — since the Cyclones are truly elite at talent evaluation — maybe they sign higher-rated players out of that second tier and put more players into the NFL. If this continues year after year, you have a program that can gradually improve before it hypothetically could arrive as a real contender for those top 100 players.
An expanded playoff would make Group of 5 teams more attractive, as well. It would make the teams that finish second, third and fourth in their conference every year more attractive. The hope is that it would create more parity.
This is a very difficult problem to solve, and my response is just a theory. Another theory would be to cut scholarship limits so the Alabamas of the world can’t take as many players, thus resulting in the spreading of wealth, but that is flawed because it would take opportunities away from the high school athletes who have earned them.
The real takeaway is this: There is a problem in college football because the football factories are monopolizing the talent, and I’d be down for a conversation about anything that could help the sport gain more parity through a more even distribution of elite-level high school talent.
I basically agree with his overall premise that this may loosen up the Top 100 recruits and had a cascading effect from the Top 500 players as well.
I think Fleck is uniquely situated because of his wholistic approach and has found a niche where he can excel. I think this recruiting cycle is good indicator as we are starting to get high end West Coast recruits (which hasn't happened since 19??/ever??) and the high end transfers.
You’re right. I have said both of those things and believe one much more than the other. The one I believe the most is that players ultimately are most influenced in the recruiting process by which program is more likely to develop them into an NFL Draft pick. Program tradition, stadiums, competing for national titles, facilities, education and whatever other criteria you can come up with certainly matter. But the bottom line for prospects, is, well, the bottom line. They all want to be pros, and they all want to be rich.
But it’s a cycle, right? The best players in high school football are going to the same six programs. So, of course, those programs are going to produce more pros. For some hard statistics, 56 of the top 100 players in the 2021 class signed with one of six schools — Ohio State, Alabama, Clemson, Georgia, Oklahoma and LSU. That number can still go up, too, since a few players have yet to sign. That’s more than half of the most elite prospects going to only six schools. Yes, outstanding coaching and development is a factor, but the biggest factor in this whole business is natural talent and the potential that comes along with it. But given the aforementioned numbers, which schools do you think are going to have the most draft picks for the next four years?
The discussion, then, has to be about breaking that cycle. What has to happen in the world of college football for the talent coming out of high school to be more evenly distributed? How can more programs get in with these top 100 players? The answer is that this is a process and it isn’t going to happen overnight, and that shift — if it ever happens — isn’t going to start with the top 100 players.
This brings us to the other comment I made on the podcasts about expanding the Playoff. That was one of the things I think could make these middle-tier teams such as Iowa State more attractive to the players in the top 500 who would be the lowest-ranked players in Alabama’s class. Maybe in the world of an expanded Playoff, the ability to go build something at a new place will be more attractive to the very good football players who are sometimes afterthoughts to the big programs. They can sign with a program such as Iowa State and think, “Hey, I can go there and compete at the highest level and play in big games rather than being the low man on the totem pole at Alabama.’”
That doesn’t address the NFL aspect of this, but these kids have to go somewhere, and the more spots there are in the Playoff, the more the talent may be spread out. Sticking with the Iowa State example — since the Cyclones are truly elite at talent evaluation — maybe they sign higher-rated players out of that second tier and put more players into the NFL. If this continues year after year, you have a program that can gradually improve before it hypothetically could arrive as a real contender for those top 100 players.
An expanded playoff would make Group of 5 teams more attractive, as well. It would make the teams that finish second, third and fourth in their conference every year more attractive. The hope is that it would create more parity.
This is a very difficult problem to solve, and my response is just a theory. Another theory would be to cut scholarship limits so the Alabamas of the world can’t take as many players, thus resulting in the spreading of wealth, but that is flawed because it would take opportunities away from the high school athletes who have earned them.
The real takeaway is this: There is a problem in college football because the football factories are monopolizing the talent, and I’d be down for a conversation about anything that could help the sport gain more parity through a more even distribution of elite-level high school talent.
I basically agree with his overall premise that this may loosen up the Top 100 recruits and had a cascading effect from the Top 500 players as well.
I think Fleck is uniquely situated because of his wholistic approach and has found a niche where he can excel. I think this recruiting cycle is good indicator as we are starting to get high end West Coast recruits (which hasn't happened since 19??/ever??) and the high end transfers.
