muddybrazos said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

And they talkin a dude from acc lol

Expect to hear this a lot. Welcome to total irrelevance and obscurity.

I'm glad we at least had the Briles and Rhule years and that one time Aranda backed into some stuff. Imagine being say tech or others we could name

Good Memories.

---

The Big 12 is now generally perceived as second tier at the highest level, and that wouldn't really change regardless as to who is coaching a specific program. Baylor could run out Ang get Traylor or someone like that and it wouldn't change that perception.

---

Depends on the results. If you show up and out punch everybody, you're the best. Briles is the kind of guy who might have done that.

---

Depends on the results...if the Big 12 had teams that could actually win the national title. The Blue Chip ratio is seemingly real, and none of the Big 12 programs are really that close to reaching that threshold regardless of their coaching staff.

---

I will be interested to see how all of these sweeping changes to the sport impact parity. I think we've already seen the portal and NIL have had a pretty significant impact on the quality of play at the highest level. Both Georgia and Alabama, while still very good, weren't nearly as dominant as they were in previous seasons, and other elite programs, such as Clemson and Ohio State, had already fallen off some before that.

Now that the top programs can't hoard depth and everyone is rebuilding their roster annually, I think you're going to see a more level playing field, even as the power brokers (namely the SEC and Big Ten) try to tilt it in their direction monetarily.

With Saban and Harbaugh out of the college game, I think both of those programs will fall back to the pack, leaving Kirby Smart's Georgia Bulldogs as the only real dynastic program left. Add in a expanded playoff and it could democratize the sport further.

I don't think the key to parity in college football is making the mid-tier teams better. I think it's making the top-tier teams worse. And all of these changes that impact roster stability and continuity seem to be having that effect.

It will be funny if the SEC and Big Ten pull all this **** to double what everyone else is making only to get beat by teams from lesser conferences in the playoff. And I don't think that's completely out of the question if things continue in the direction they're headed and college football -- even at its highest levels -- becomes a sea of mediocrity.

---

Maybe I am being pessimistic but I don't see this happening. I see NIL as creating a top tier of teams with money all about even in terms of ability and then everyone else that can't compete. There may not be one or two dominant teams that just roll over everyone like before but there will be two top conferences and no one else can compete with them.

---

It has not had that effect so far ... in football or men's basketball. In fact, you've seen guys who would have always chosen blue blood programs in the past go to non-traditional powers because that's where they can make the most money.

We just saw a perfect example of this in men's basketball with Great Osobor. He went to a ****show of a program in Washington because he could make a record NIL haul.

And we've seen several cases in football already as well.

And because of the portal, it really doesn't matter what school any player chooses out of high school. Odds are that player will transfer at least once in his career, and the portal goes in all directions. NIL and the portal have already improved parity simply by making the top teams in the sports where they're prevalent worse. I suspect that will likely continue because it's hard to build an elite team when you can't do any real roster planning.

---

I think it has had that effect. Small schools that might have gotten the diamond are not getting them as often. Sure every once in a while they draw a bench player from one of the blue bloods because they want playing time, but that has always happened.

There has been no noticeable change to me. No new teams are building a roster through NIL/portal and challenging (even for one year) for a conference title or playoff. There have been a few that have rebuilt rosters with the portal and improved a few wins (Colorado or Tx State come to mind)

Small schools might get a player once in a while due to a high NIL deal but so far it hasn't shown results. Just like your example.

When a team can build a roster out of the portal and challenge for a playoff spot I will agree it has evened the field. Otherwise to me it is just draining the depth from the blue bloods so they are not as dominant but does not truly change the level of play or who is at the top.

---

Agreed with this in the sense there does not appear to be an opened window for teams not on the right side of the blue-chip ratio to compete. If Texas, Oregon, Georgia, and Ohio State are Tier 1 at chances of winning a national title in 2024, then Tier 2 would be some combination of Alabama, Michigan, FSU, Clemson, Penn State, LSU, USC, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, Texas A&M, Florida, Miami, and Auburn - i.e. the remaining positive blue-chip ratio teams (controlling for future changes and the pending 2024 update). There are no Oklahoma State's, Utah's, or Louisville's in that conversation regardless of the introduction of NIL and the transfer portal.

The only change is that the new hire of a coach can allow the coach to run off a bunch of players and replace them via the portal, but that's a quick fix and is not sustainable since the coach cannot repeat that process.

Lastly, challenging for a playoff spot doesn't mean anything since there are so many spots available and there are guaranteed spots. For example, Utah could win the Big 12 and make the CFP, but they aren't winning a national title.

---

I don't think anyone believes a Big 12 team is winning the national title in the next four or five years. But if current trends continue over the course of, say, a decade or so, power can shift pretty quickly.

If Alabama goes back to being pre-Saban Alabama and Michigan goes back to being pre-Harbaugh Michigan, those programs are no longer even title contenders. That leaves basically Georgia as the only program in America that is head and shoulders above the rest, and even they took a step back last year.

We'll have to wait and see where things stand in a decade IMO. Access to the playoff will open things up. When programs that were never invited to the party in the four-team playoff start to crash it consistently in a 12-team format, more players will go to those programs. And a multi-round tournament creates levels to this. Teams that were ridiculed for being blown out in the semifinals in a four-team playoff will be celebrated for making it to the semifinals in a 12-team.

We've seen all this with basketball. Access breeds parity. The more programs that can compete at the national level, the more spread out the talent becomes.

---

They didnt even really take a step back. They just lost at the wrong time and they wouldve beaten Michigan had they not lost to bama in that sec champ game. Yall are sleeping on Ole MIss next year. I think OM goes to the playoff. Also, Mizziou is very good. IMO Georgia, Texas, Mizz and Ole Miss are the top 4 of the SEC.

---

Georgia was still really good last year, but they weren't nearly as dominant as Smart's title teams. They struggled with several mid or worse teams that they would have buried before halftime in their best years.

bear2be2 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

And they talkin a dude from acc lol

Expect to hear this a lot. Welcome to total irrelevance and obscurity.

I'm glad we at least had the Briles and Rhule years and that one time Aranda backed into some stuff. Imagine being say tech or others we could name

Good Memories.

---

The Big 12 is now generally perceived as second tier at the highest level, and that wouldn't really change regardless as to who is coaching a specific program. Baylor could run out Ang get Traylor or someone like that and it wouldn't change that perception.

---

Depends on the results. If you show up and out punch everybody, you're the best. Briles is the kind of guy who might have done that.

---

Depends on the results...if the Big 12 had teams that could actually win the national title. The Blue Chip ratio is seemingly real, and none of the Big 12 programs are really that close to reaching that threshold regardless of their coaching staff.

---

I will be interested to see how all of these sweeping changes to the sport impact parity. I think we've already seen the portal and NIL have had a pretty significant impact on the quality of play at the highest level. Both Georgia and Alabama, while still very good, weren't nearly as dominant as they were in previous seasons, and other elite programs, such as Clemson and Ohio State, had already fallen off some before that.

Now that the top programs can't hoard depth and everyone is rebuilding their roster annually, I think you're going to see a more level playing field, even as the power brokers (namely the SEC and Big Ten) try to tilt it in their direction monetarily.

With Saban and Harbaugh out of the college game, I think both of those programs will fall back to the pack, leaving Kirby Smart's Georgia Bulldogs as the only real dynastic program left. Add in a expanded playoff and it could democratize the sport further.

I don't think the key to parity in college football is making the mid-tier teams better. I think it's making the top-tier teams worse. And all of these changes that impact roster stability and continuity seem to be having that effect.

It will be funny if the SEC and Big Ten pull all this **** to double what everyone else is making only to get beat by teams from lesser conferences in the playoff. And I don't think that's completely out of the question if things continue in the direction they're headed and college football -- even at its highest levels -- becomes a sea of mediocrity.

---

Maybe I am being pessimistic but I don't see this happening. I see NIL as creating a top tier of teams with money all about even in terms of ability and then everyone else that can't compete. There may not be one or two dominant teams that just roll over everyone like before but there will be two top conferences and no one else can compete with them.

---

It has not had that effect so far ... in football or men's basketball. In fact, you've seen guys who would have always chosen blue blood programs in the past go to non-traditional powers because that's where they can make the most money.

We just saw a perfect example of this in men's basketball with Great Osobor. He went to a ****show of a program in Washington because he could make a record NIL haul.

And we've seen several cases in football already as well.

And because of the portal, it really doesn't matter what school any player chooses out of high school. Odds are that player will transfer at least once in his career, and the portal goes in all directions. NIL and the portal have already improved parity simply by making the top teams in the sports where they're prevalent worse. I suspect that will likely continue because it's hard to build an elite team when you can't do any real roster planning.

---

I think it has had that effect. Small schools that might have gotten the diamond are not getting them as often. Sure every once in a while they draw a bench player from one of the blue bloods because they want playing time, but that has always happened.

There has been no noticeable change to me. No new teams are building a roster through NIL/portal and challenging (even for one year) for a conference title or playoff. There have been a few that have rebuilt rosters with the portal and improved a few wins (Colorado or Tx State come to mind)

Small schools might get a player once in a while due to a high NIL deal but so far it hasn't shown results. Just like your example.

When a team can build a roster out of the portal and challenge for a playoff spot I will agree it has evened the field. Otherwise to me it is just draining the depth from the blue bloods so they are not as dominant but does not truly change the level of play or who is at the top.

---

Agreed with this in the sense there does not appear to be an opened window for teams not on the right side of the blue-chip ratio to compete. If Texas, Oregon, Georgia, and Ohio State are Tier 1 at chances of winning a national title in 2024, then Tier 2 would be some combination of Alabama, Michigan, FSU, Clemson, Penn State, LSU, USC, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, Texas A&M, Florida, Miami, and Auburn - i.e. the remaining positive blue-chip ratio teams (controlling for future changes and the pending 2024 update). There are no Oklahoma State's, Utah's, or Louisville's in that conversation regardless of the introduction of NIL and the transfer portal.

The only change is that the new hire of a coach can allow the coach to run off a bunch of players and replace them via the portal, but that's a quick fix and is not sustainable since the coach cannot repeat that process.

Lastly, challenging for a playoff spot doesn't mean anything since there are so many spots available and there are guaranteed spots. For example, Utah could win the Big 12 and make the CFP, but they aren't winning a national title.

---

I don't think anyone believes a Big 12 team is winning the national title in the next four or five years. But if current trends continue over the course of, say, a decade or so, power can shift pretty quickly.

If Alabama goes back to being pre-Saban Alabama and Michigan goes back to being pre-Harbaugh Michigan, those programs are no longer even title contenders. That leaves basically Georgia as the only program in America that is head and shoulders above the rest, and even they took a step back last year.

We'll have to wait and see where things stand in a decade IMO. Access to the playoff will open things up. When programs that were never invited to the party in the four-team playoff start to crash it consistently in a 12-team format, more players will go to those programs. And a multi-round tournament creates levels to this. Teams that were ridiculed for being blown out in the semifinals in a four-team playoff will be celebrated for making it to the semifinals in a 12-team.

We've seen all this with basketball. Access breeds parity. The more programs that can compete at the national level, the more spread out the talent becomes.

---

They didnt even really take a step back. They just lost at the wrong time and they wouldve beaten Michigan had they not lost to bama in that sec champ game. Yall are sleeping on Ole MIss next year. I think OM goes to the playoff. Also, Mizziou is very good. IMO Georgia, Texas, Mizz and Ole Miss are the top 4 of the SEC.

---

Georgia was still really good last year, but they weren't nearly as dominant as Smart's title teams. They struggled with several mid or worse teams that they would have buried before halftime in their best years.

---

Like these games over the last few years (not exclusive to title winning seasons)?
2023 South Carolina - Georgia won by 10
2023 Auburn - Georgia won by 7
2023 Missouri - Georgia won by 9
2023 Georgia Tech - Georgia won by 8
2022 Missouri - Georgia won by 4
2022 Kentucky - Georgia won by 10
2020 Mississippi State - Georgia won by 7
2020 Kentucky - Georgia won by 11
2019 South Carolina - Georgia lost by 3
2019 Auburn - Georgia won by 7
2019 Texas A&M - Georgia won by 6

To be clear here, 2021 Georgia was the anomaly and not the standard.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

And they talkin a dude from acc lol

Expect to hear this a lot. Welcome to total irrelevance and obscurity.

I'm glad we at least had the Briles and Rhule years and that one time Aranda backed into some stuff. Imagine being say tech or others we could name

Good Memories.

---

The Big 12 is now generally perceived as second tier at the highest level, and that wouldn't really change regardless as to who is coaching a specific program. Baylor could run out Ang get Traylor or someone like that and it wouldn't change that perception.

---

Depends on the results. If you show up and out punch everybody, you're the best. Briles is the kind of guy who might have done that.

---

Depends on the results...if the Big 12 had teams that could actually win the national title. The Blue Chip ratio is seemingly real, and none of the Big 12 programs are really that close to reaching that threshold regardless of their coaching staff.

---

I will be interested to see how all of these sweeping changes to the sport impact parity. I think we've already seen the portal and NIL have had a pretty significant impact on the quality of play at the highest level. Both Georgia and Alabama, while still very good, weren't nearly as dominant as they were in previous seasons, and other elite programs, such as Clemson and Ohio State, had already fallen off some before that.

Now that the top programs can't hoard depth and everyone is rebuilding their roster annually, I think you're going to see a more level playing field, even as the power brokers (namely the SEC and Big Ten) try to tilt it in their direction monetarily.

With Saban and Harbaugh out of the college game, I think both of those programs will fall back to the pack, leaving Kirby Smart's Georgia Bulldogs as the only real dynastic program left. Add in a expanded playoff and it could democratize the sport further.

I don't think the key to parity in college football is making the mid-tier teams better. I think it's making the top-tier teams worse. And all of these changes that impact roster stability and continuity seem to be having that effect.

It will be funny if the SEC and Big Ten pull all this **** to double what everyone else is making only to get beat by teams from lesser conferences in the playoff. And I don't think that's completely out of the question if things continue in the direction they're headed and college football -- even at its highest levels -- becomes a sea of mediocrity.

---

Maybe I am being pessimistic but I don't see this happening. I see NIL as creating a top tier of teams with money all about even in terms of ability and then everyone else that can't compete. There may not be one or two dominant teams that just roll over everyone like before but there will be two top conferences and no one else can compete with them.

---

It has not had that effect so far ... in football or men's basketball. In fact, you've seen guys who would have always chosen blue blood programs in the past go to non-traditional powers because that's where they can make the most money.

We just saw a perfect example of this in men's basketball with Great Osobor. He went to a ****show of a program in Washington because he could make a record NIL haul.

And we've seen several cases in football already as well.

And because of the portal, it really doesn't matter what school any player chooses out of high school. Odds are that player will transfer at least once in his career, and the portal goes in all directions. NIL and the portal have already improved parity simply by making the top teams in the sports where they're prevalent worse. I suspect that will likely continue because it's hard to build an elite team when you can't do any real roster planning.

---

I think it has had that effect. Small schools that might have gotten the diamond are not getting them as often. Sure every once in a while they draw a bench player from one of the blue bloods because they want playing time, but that has always happened.

There has been no noticeable change to me. No new teams are building a roster through NIL/portal and challenging (even for one year) for a conference title or playoff. There have been a few that have rebuilt rosters with the portal and improved a few wins (Colorado or Tx State come to mind)

Small schools might get a player once in a while due to a high NIL deal but so far it hasn't shown results. Just like your example.

When a team can build a roster out of the portal and challenge for a playoff spot I will agree it has evened the field. Otherwise to me it is just draining the depth from the blue bloods so they are not as dominant but does not truly change the level of play or who is at the top.

---

Agreed with this in the sense there does not appear to be an opened window for teams not on the right side of the blue-chip ratio to compete. If Texas, Oregon, Georgia, and Ohio State are Tier 1 at chances of winning a national title in 2024, then Tier 2 would be some combination of Alabama, Michigan, FSU, Clemson, Penn State, LSU, USC, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, Texas A&M, Florida, Miami, and Auburn - i.e. the remaining positive blue-chip ratio teams (controlling for future changes and the pending 2024 update). There are no Oklahoma State's, Utah's, or Louisville's in that conversation regardless of the introduction of NIL and the transfer portal.

The only change is that the new hire of a coach can allow the coach to run off a bunch of players and replace them via the portal, but that's a quick fix and is not sustainable since the coach cannot repeat that process.

Lastly, challenging for a playoff spot doesn't mean anything since there are so many spots available and there are guaranteed spots. For example, Utah could win the Big 12 and make the CFP, but they aren't winning a national title.

---

I don't think anyone believes a Big 12 team is winning the national title in the next four or five years. But if current trends continue over the course of, say, a decade or so, power can shift pretty quickly.

If Alabama goes back to being pre-Saban Alabama and Michigan goes back to being pre-Harbaugh Michigan, those programs are no longer even title contenders. That leaves basically Georgia as the only program in America that is head and shoulders above the rest, and even they took a step back last year.

We'll have to wait and see where things stand in a decade IMO. Access to the playoff will open things up. When programs that were never invited to the party in the four-team playoff start to crash it consistently in a 12-team format, more players will go to those programs. And a multi-round tournament creates levels to this. Teams that were ridiculed for being blown out in the semifinals in a four-team playoff will be celebrated for making it to the semifinals in a 12-team.

We've seen all this with basketball. Access breeds parity. The more programs that can compete at the national level, the more spread out the talent becomes.

---

They didnt even really take a step back. They just lost at the wrong time and they wouldve beaten Michigan had they not lost to bama in that sec champ game. Yall are sleeping on Ole MIss next year. I think OM goes to the playoff. Also, Mizziou is very good. IMO Georgia, Texas, Mizz and Ole Miss are the top 4 of the SEC.

---

Georgia was still really good last year, but they weren't nearly as dominant as Smart's title teams. They struggled with several mid or worse teams that they would have buried before halftime in their best years.

---

Like these games over the last few years (not exclusive to title winning seasons)?
2023 South Carolina - Georgia won by 10
2023 Auburn - Goergia won by 7
2023 Missouri - Goergia won by 9
2023 Georgia Tech - Georgia won by 8
2022 Missouri - Georgia won by 4
2022 Kentucky - Georgia won by 10
2019 South Carolina - Georgia lost by 3
2019 Auburn - Georgia won by 7
2019 Texas A&M - Georgia won by 6

To be clear here, 2021 Georgia was the anomaly and not the standard.

---

Last year's South Carolina, Auburn and Georgia Tech teams are three of the four or five worst teams on that list, and they only beat an absolutely dreadful Vandy team by 17 as well.

Last year's Georgia team was the most "mortal" team they've had in a while. They still had some really impressive wins, but unlike past teams, they frequently played to the level of their competition.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

And they talkin a dude from acc lol

Expect to hear this a lot. Welcome to total irrelevance and obscurity.

I'm glad we at least had the Briles and Rhule years and that one time Aranda backed into some stuff. Imagine being say tech or others we could name

Good Memories.

---

The Big 12 is now generally perceived as second tier at the highest level, and that wouldn't really change regardless as to who is coaching a specific program. Baylor could run out Ang get Traylor or someone like that and it wouldn't change that perception.

---

Depends on the results. If you show up and out punch everybody, you're the best. Briles is the kind of guy who might have done that.

---

Depends on the results...if the Big 12 had teams that could actually win the national title. The Blue Chip ratio is seemingly real, and none of the Big 12 programs are really that close to reaching that threshold regardless of their coaching staff.

---

I will be interested to see how all of these sweeping changes to the sport impact parity. I think we've already seen the portal and NIL have had a pretty significant impact on the quality of play at the highest level. Both Georgia and Alabama, while still very good, weren't nearly as dominant as they were in previous seasons, and other elite programs, such as Clemson and Ohio State, had already fallen off some before that.

Now that the top programs can't hoard depth and everyone is rebuilding their roster annually, I think you're going to see a more level playing field, even as the power brokers (namely the SEC and Big Ten) try to tilt it in their direction monetarily.

With Saban and Harbaugh out of the college game, I think both of those programs will fall back to the pack, leaving Kirby Smart's Georgia Bulldogs as the only real dynastic program left. Add in a expanded playoff and it could democratize the sport further.

I don't think the key to parity in college football is making the mid-tier teams better. I think it's making the top-tier teams worse. And all of these changes that impact roster stability and continuity seem to be having that effect.

It will be funny if the SEC and Big Ten pull all this **** to double what everyone else is making only to get beat by teams from lesser conferences in the playoff. And I don't think that's completely out of the question if things continue in the direction they're headed and college football -- even at its highest levels -- becomes a sea of mediocrity.

---

Maybe I am being pessimistic but I don't see this happening. I see NIL as creating a top tier of teams with money all about even in terms of ability and then everyone else that can't compete. There may not be one or two dominant teams that just roll over everyone like before but there will be two top conferences and no one else can compete with them.

---

It has not had that effect so far ... in football or men's basketball. In fact, you've seen guys who would have always chosen blue blood programs in the past go to non-traditional powers because that's where they can make the most money.

We just saw a perfect example of this in men's basketball with Great Osobor. He went to a ****show of a program in Washington because he could make a record NIL haul.

And we've seen several cases in football already as well.

And because of the portal, it really doesn't matter what school any player chooses out of high school. Odds are that player will transfer at least once in his career, and the portal goes in all directions. NIL and the portal have already improved parity simply by making the top teams in the sports where they're prevalent worse. I suspect that will likely continue because it's hard to build an elite team when you can't do any real roster planning.

---

I think it has had that effect. Small schools that might have gotten the diamond are not getting them as often. Sure every once in a while they draw a bench player from one of the blue bloods because they want playing time, but that has always happened.

There has been no noticeable change to me. No new teams are building a roster through NIL/portal and challenging (even for one year) for a conference title or playoff. There have been a few that have rebuilt rosters with the portal and improved a few wins (Colorado or Tx State come to mind)

Small schools might get a player once in a while due to a high NIL deal but so far it hasn't shown results. Just like your example.

When a team can build a roster out of the portal and challenge for a playoff spot I will agree it has evened the field. Otherwise to me it is just draining the depth from the blue bloods so they are not as dominant but does not truly change the level of play or who is at the top.

---

Agreed with this in the sense there does not appear to be an opened window for teams not on the right side of the blue-chip ratio to compete. If Texas, Oregon, Georgia, and Ohio State are Tier 1 at chances of winning a national title in 2024, then Tier 2 would be some combination of Alabama, Michigan, FSU, Clemson, Penn State, LSU, USC, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, Texas A&M, Florida, Miami, and Auburn - i.e. the remaining positive blue-chip ratio teams (controlling for future changes and the pending 2024 update). There are no Oklahoma State's, Utah's, or Louisville's in that conversation regardless of the introduction of NIL and the transfer portal.

The only change is that the new hire of a coach can allow the coach to run off a bunch of players and replace them via the portal, but that's a quick fix and is not sustainable since the coach cannot repeat that process.

Lastly, challenging for a playoff spot doesn't mean anything since there are so many spots available and there are guaranteed spots. For example, Utah could win the Big 12 and make the CFP, but they aren't winning a national title.

---

I don't think anyone believes a Big 12 team is winning the national title in the next four or five years. But if current trends continue over the course of, say, a decade or so, power can shift pretty quickly.

If Alabama goes back to being pre-Saban Alabama and Michigan goes back to being pre-Harbaugh Michigan, those programs are no longer even title contenders. That leaves basically Georgia as the only program in America that is head and shoulders above the rest, and even they took a step back last year.

We'll have to wait and see where things stand in a decade IMO. Access to the playoff will open things up. When programs that were never invited to the party in the four-team playoff start to crash it consistently in a 12-team format, more players will go to those programs. And a multi-round tournament creates levels to this. Teams that were ridiculed for being blown out in the semifinals in a four-team playoff will be celebrated for making it to the semifinals in a 12-team.

We've seen all this with basketball. Access breeds parity. The more programs that can compete at the national level, the more spread out the talent becomes.

---

They didnt even really take a step back. They just lost at the wrong time and they wouldve beaten Michigan had they not lost to bama in that sec champ game. Yall are sleeping on Ole MIss next year. I think OM goes to the playoff. Also, Mizziou is very good. IMO Georgia, Texas, Mizz and Ole Miss are the top 4 of the SEC.

---

Georgia was still really good last year, but they weren't nearly as dominant as Smart's title teams. They struggled with several mid or worse teams that they would have buried before halftime in their best years.

---

Like these games over the last few years (not exclusive to title winning seasons)?
2023 South Carolina - Georgia won by 10
2023 Auburn - Goergia won by 7
2023 Missouri - Goergia won by 9
2023 Georgia Tech - Georgia won by 8
2022 Missouri - Georgia won by 4
2022 Kentucky - Georgia won by 10
2019 South Carolina - Georgia lost by 3
2019 Auburn - Georgia won by 7
2019 Texas A&M - Georgia won by 6

To be clear here, 2021 Georgia was the anomaly and not the standard.

---

Georgia actually should've lost this game. There was a blown call on a false start on 4th down in the 4th qtr that would've turned the ball back to mizz.

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

And they talkin a dude from acc lol

Expect to hear this a lot. Welcome to total irrelevance and obscurity.

I'm glad we at least had the Briles and Rhule years and that one time Aranda backed into some stuff. Imagine being say tech or others we could name

Good Memories.

---

The Big 12 is now generally perceived as second tier at the highest level, and that wouldn't really change regardless as to who is coaching a specific program. Baylor could run out Ang get Traylor or someone like that and it wouldn't change that perception.

---

Depends on the results. If you show up and out punch everybody, you're the best. Briles is the kind of guy who might have done that.

---

Depends on the results...if the Big 12 had teams that could actually win the national title. The Blue Chip ratio is seemingly real, and none of the Big 12 programs are really that close to reaching that threshold regardless of their coaching staff.

---

I will be interested to see how all of these sweeping changes to the sport impact parity. I think we've already seen the portal and NIL have had a pretty significant impact on the quality of play at the highest level. Both Georgia and Alabama, while still very good, weren't nearly as dominant as they were in previous seasons, and other elite programs, such as Clemson and Ohio State, had already fallen off some before that.

Now that the top programs can't hoard depth and everyone is rebuilding their roster annually, I think you're going to see a more level playing field, even as the power brokers (namely the SEC and Big Ten) try to tilt it in their direction monetarily.

With Saban and Harbaugh out of the college game, I think both of those programs will fall back to the pack, leaving Kirby Smart's Georgia Bulldogs as the only real dynastic program left. Add in a expanded playoff and it could democratize the sport further.

I don't think the key to parity in college football is making the mid-tier teams better. I think it's making the top-tier teams worse. And all of these changes that impact roster stability and continuity seem to be having that effect.

It will be funny if the SEC and Big Ten pull all this **** to double what everyone else is making only to get beat by teams from lesser conferences in the playoff. And I don't think that's completely out of the question if things continue in the direction they're headed and college football -- even at its highest levels -- becomes a sea of mediocrity.

---

Maybe I am being pessimistic but I don't see this happening. I see NIL as creating a top tier of teams with money all about even in terms of ability and then everyone else that can't compete. There may not be one or two dominant teams that just roll over everyone like before but there will be two top conferences and no one else can compete with them.

---

It has not had that effect so far ... in football or men's basketball. In fact, you've seen guys who would have always chosen blue blood programs in the past go to non-traditional powers because that's where they can make the most money.

We just saw a perfect example of this in men's basketball with Great Osobor. He went to a ****show of a program in Washington because he could make a record NIL haul.

And we've seen several cases in football already as well.

And because of the portal, it really doesn't matter what school any player chooses out of high school. Odds are that player will transfer at least once in his career, and the portal goes in all directions. NIL and the portal have already improved parity simply by making the top teams in the sports where they're prevalent worse. I suspect that will likely continue because it's hard to build an elite team when you can't do any real roster planning.

---

I think it has had that effect. Small schools that might have gotten the diamond are not getting them as often. Sure every once in a while they draw a bench player from one of the blue bloods because they want playing time, but that has always happened.

There has been no noticeable change to me. No new teams are building a roster through NIL/portal and challenging (even for one year) for a conference title or playoff. There have been a few that have rebuilt rosters with the portal and improved a few wins (Colorado or Tx State come to mind)

Small schools might get a player once in a while due to a high NIL deal but so far it hasn't shown results. Just like your example.

When a team can build a roster out of the portal and challenge for a playoff spot I will agree it has evened the field. Otherwise to me it is just draining the depth from the blue bloods so they are not as dominant but does not truly change the level of play or who is at the top.

---

TCU did exactly what you're saying no teams have done ... all the way to the national title game. They're basically the only non-blue blood program to break that glass ceiling and it happened two years ago.

---

They did not build a roster with only transfers though. They had some come in but not a rebuild or ones that came in and totally changed the team. Plus it was a new coach, new schemes, etc.

I was also talking about teams that are not often in the rankings/ not been in the top ten in the last few years suddenly becoming good and challenging for a spot simply because of transfers/nil.