Is NFL like parity possible in college football?
The basic problems concerning FBS and how to possibly solve them
I have been an NFL fan for years and only follow college football on a visceral level. That is to say, if I know roughly who the top 10 teams are in any given week of college football, that may be all I know. The problem for me is parity. In the NFL, while there may be some teams that you can reasonably predict to win it all, it usually comes down to at least 5 potentials and there are always surprises and underdogs. That’s because with a hard salary cap, teams can’t stack themselves like they can in the NBA or MLB or in this case, college football. I try to watch, but I have trouble watching massive blowouts and coming away excited (let alone awake).
Rarely does a week go by that you don’t see multiple 30+ point margin wins in college football. Last season, for example, Ohio State whipped Toledo 77-21. I’m sure Ohio State fans were happy and beating their chests, but again, what is so exciting about that. It’s not a one-off. Georgia, Michigan, Ohio State, Alabama and Tennessee all have an average margin of victory for 2022 (according to Warren Nolan) of above 20 points. The next 12 highest margins of victory are over 10 points. And these stats only include games against division 1 opponents. Here’s a quick hit of other things wrong with college football:
Only 13 different teams have appeared in the final four in eight years.
Rules have been amended mid-week to decide who gets into a conference title game
Those with direct financial interest get to pick the playoff games (i.e., athletic directors that sit on the selection committee)
Ultimately decisions come down to how many eyes will be watching the game.
Why does that make college football so exciting? I have no answer to that. My thought says, “If it’s this popular now, imagine if there was true parity”. For years we begged for a playoff and we got one, 4 teams. In 2024-25, the plan will be to expand to a 12 team playoff. It will contain 6 conference champions (selected by committee) and the next 6 ranked teams not among the champions (also selected by committee).
First, could you imagine if the NFL did this? The outcry would be tremendous and if you recall, after the handling of the Damar Hamlin case (Bengals/Bills), there was much outcry over favoritism or unfairness in the system that was devised to sort out the cancelling of a regular season game. This happens every week in college football and no one really cares.
So, let’s out line the major power holders limiting the ability to have college football parity and see if we can go about solving them.
College football polls
A lot of money and time is allocated by news outlets, columnists and talking heads to argue about the various polls, mostly the top 25 poll. This is big money in terms of getting people engaged to argue over their teams right to be ranked in a certain position. In the end, the poll determines who’s the best, not the record, which is the very definition of non-parity.
In the NFL, your record is your record, you own it and their is not arguing in the end. An 8-9 team makes the playoffs (with potential home games) and a 10-6 team gets left out? No big deal, that’s the rules, you should’ve played better and won the right games. Solution: some of the following changes will make polls irrelevant.
Money
The top 10 money schools won’t surprise you much, so I won’t bother to list them, but they are all north of $50 million and the top (Oklahoma) is above $100 million. They have a variety of revenue streams, much like the NFL (endorsements, sponsorships, tickets, etc.). The athletes don’t have a salary, instead they get paid by scholarships, housing, food, etc., though now they are at least eligible for NIL money. The biggest revenue piece though, is the television money. It’s negotiated by the various conferences and sold to the highest bidder (network), then the school negotiate with each other to determine the slice each team will take. Therefore, Texas will always have a much bigger slice than Kansas, for example. With more money available, everything changes. More money equals better equipment, facilities, higher staff salaries and amenities. How is a Kansas team ever going to compete with Texas? Well, they won’t, period. Same goes for many secondary teams in the various power 5 conferences and beyond. Solution: Distribute television money equally amongst the conference schools (this won’t be enough, so I’ll expand in the next section).
Schools each have 85 scholarships to give, and that’s a lot. Consider that NFL teams are 53 in size, college scholarships are 62% higher and that’s not counting walk on players. It’s estimated that there are roughly 50 five-star players in college football every year and maybe 250 four-star players. This gives those with the best facilities, coaches, amenities, etc. the edge in recruitment. So, how can lesser schools compete? Solution 2: We treat the scholarship as the equivalent to the NFL salary cap. Here’s how…contract an independent company to rank the players coming out of high school (Scouts.com for example). Each FBS team is allowed only 2 five-star athletes and maybe 8-10 four-star athletes to be recruited each year. Their growth or diminishing throughout their college career will be irrelevant, only applying to their senior year in high school. So, if a team recruits well, they develop players and grow their player base.
Power of the School
Besides the power of money, the schools are able to control their schedules as well, to a large extent. The conferences will send out pre-approved schedules of conference games, with no dates and allow the teams to work it out for themselves. Those that negotiate well, get the better schedule. Translation: the more powerful the school, the more the lesser school will lose out. They are also ENTIRELY in control of their non-conference schedule. So, Michigan plays a tune up game at Little Sisters of the Poor, no problem! Michigan gets a 70 point margin of victory and Little Sisters gets ($X)million get their teeth kicked in. Solution: NCAA must take control of the schedule in it’s entirety. Will be covered in the NCAA section.
College football playoff committee
Here’s how it works. The complicated process begins with each of the 13 members submitting their list of the top 30 teams. They then argue about it and eventually arrive at the top 25. Here’s the kinds of things I imagine are said in this type of “discussion”:
“But Alabama’s strength of schedule is….”
“If Joe Schmuckatelly had played, they would’ve won by 25”
“Cincinnati doesn’t pass the eye test though…”
“The tailgating is better at the Texas stadiums…” (I have to believe this actually occurs)
The best part about this committee is that many of its members are actually….ATHLETIC DIRECTORS OF THE MAJOR SCHOOLS! How is this not a conflict of interests? Well, it is and there’s no way around it. Solution: Disband this group as soon as possible. Build a way to determine seeding and playoffs that is sustainable if this group gets put out to pasture, I’ll elaborate in the last section.
And the biggest problem of them all…the NCAA
There are way too many things to discuss when it comes to what’s wrong with the NCAA, so I’ll list the solutions that they absolutely need to be a part of the discussion, if you want parity in college football.
The NCAA need to take control of the schedule and conference make up in it’s entirety.
This means that they determine the schedule, when, where and who you play for every team. In the generation of AI, even the least of us could make a more parity filled schedule than the current set up. The conferences hold all the power to add to, kick out, slice out pieces of revenue of any of the teams in their group, so the NCAA needs to do a study of how to break up these various groups in conferences that make sense. Either by region or something that adds in the size of the school vs. the many other factors that will allow all schools to grow into viable programs.
All conferences play the same number of conference and non-conference games.
Much like the NFL, who plays 6 division games and an expected number of opposite conference games, the NCAA could make this happen for each conference. With 12 games in the year, perhaps 6 and 6. A rotational type play could make this work, rotating who you play each year, which conferences to play against each year. It’s on a much bigger scale, but it could still work.
Limit the FBS teams and make the conferences a reasonable size.
The power 5 conferences contain 68 schools, let’s say 70 for round numbers. If you expand outside of that a bit because some decent football schools do exist out there, maybe we push it to 80. Could you have 8 conferences of 10, or 10 conferences of 8? I don’t know the final number, but there has to be some structure set somewhere. We are finally at a place where most of the power 5 have 14 schools (Big 10 = 14, makes sense right?). I think 8 conferences of 10 makes sense, but regionally it probably doesn’t make sense. There would have to be a huge undertaking to get this right, but I believe it can be done. But it must be done, by the NCAA, not the current schools and conferences.
Take control of the TV contracts.
No longer should these be negotiated by the conferences. This should be a one size, fits all approach, involving many outlets (streaming and over-the-air) to get exposure to all the top college games. It could be by conference if you re-make the conferences (as discussed), then sell them out to the various networks. In the end, though, we would need the revenues to be distributed equally to all the teams at the end of the season. Teams keep their other revenues (tickets, merchandise (?)), but all teams get the same TV revenue. Quick math: the NCAA generated $870 million in licensing rights for games in 2022. If there were 80 FBS schools in 8 conferences, each conference would get ~$108.7 million and each team would get ~$10.8 million per year. That doesn’t sound like a lot, but with the teams retaining everything else, that still doesn’t break the parity barrier, but it’s a start.
Reduced the scholarships for 4- and 5-star athletes.
This could be done. An outside, independent firm determines the rankings of eligible high school seniors. Schools are allowed only 2-3 5-star athletes and 8-10 4-star athletes. All other stars (3 and under) have not limit, except that each team only gets 55 scholarships total. They cannot kick off a scholarship athlete in order to make room for a better athlete later. So, little Jeffy is a 3 star, but he gets booted in year 2 for another 5 star, no no no. If Jeffy gets booted, the scholarship is locked down until the original 4 years passes. However, if a 3 or 4 star athlete gets better or worse, it doesn’t affect your count. The only ranking that matters is the initial recruitment ranking, not in year two or three. This would also be a per year limit, so in theory you could recruit 2-3 5-star athletes each year, not in total.
Other caps?
Could there be caps on other things to create parity? Here’s some of the options: Staff salary caps, amenity caps, or even merchandise revenue sharing are all possibilities, but with their own pitfalls and problems. Still, a discussion could be had around these areas.
Seeding for playoff is strictly by record.
The 8 conference winners are automatically in the playoffs, seeding determined by record. Ties are broken by head-to-head, conference record, strength of schedule, etc. The remaining 4 teams are wild cards selected by record as well, just like the NFL. What a playoff that would be! There would be no committee, disband the playoff committee and hire a couple of people with math skills and the ability to build a simple Excel sheet equation to determine the seeds.
That is my attempt to bring parity to the college football series and make it more watchable for people like me. I have no doubts that the NCAA will immediately get to work on this and implement many of these recommendations, HA!
Thanks for reading and I’m anxious to hear your thoughts.