I'm fine with the new portal rules. If coaches can leave on the drop of a dime at the end of the year players should be able to also.

But something like this sucks for the fans. A QB is bringing hope to the team....and then shuts it down so he can keep a year of eligibility before leaving through the portal. That's a crappy situation for fans to digest. NC State was basically a farm system for one of the "major" teams.

This is wild. Morris literally just beat Miami on Saturday and now basically decided to shut it down to save a year of eligibility and presumably hit the portal. 🤯 https://t.co/YIvzSRejTG

— Jim Weber (@JimMWeber) November 7, 2023

Baylor's next QB?

ku's daniels is doing the same thing, methinks, looking for a big nil deal his senior year.

Every single meaningful change that's been made to college football in the last 20-30 years has been made to benefit the big money programs (in no order):

1. Adding a 12th regular season game
2. Adding a conference title game
3. Introducing the playoff (and the BCS before it)
4. Introducing the transfer portal
5. Removing class size limits
6. Expanding the playoff
7. Introducing NIL
8. New coaches being able to kick everyone off of a team
And the list goes on….

That's not to say that a smaller program cannot benefit from some of those things, but it is to say that big money programs benefit the most with their depth, NIL and other resources. Make no mistake - programs like Colorado, Georgia Tech and BYU wouldn't have won their (claimed) national titles in the BCS era, let alone the CFP era.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Every single meaningful change that's been made to college football in the last 20-30 years has been made to benefit the big money programs (in no order):

1. Adding a 12th regular season game
2. Adding a conference title game
3. Introducing the playoff (and the BCS before it)
4. Introducing the transfer portal
5. Removing class size limits
6. Expanding the playoff
7. Introducing NIL
8. New coaches being able to kick everyone off of a team
And the list goes on….

That's not to say that a smaller program cannot benefit from some of those things, but it is to say that big money programs benefit the most with their depth, NIL and other resources. Make no mistake - programs like Colorado, Georgia Tech and BYU wouldn't have won their (claimed) national titles in the BCS era, let alone the CFP era.

---

All of those moves except for the transfer portal and NIL were made to increase revenue. And the transfer portal and NIL were direct responses to increased revenue in college football.

College football sucks in many ways because money is the only priority. If the games themselves weren't entertaining, I'd freaking hate this sport.

bear2be2 said:

---

If the games themselves weren't entertaining, I'd freaking hate this sport.

---

So what I'm hearing you say is that you're freaking starting to hate BU football, because our team is so far from entertaining. I'm with you. BU football is like a train wreck that I don't want to watch but somehow I can't pull my eyes off of it.

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Every single meaningful change that's been made to college football in the last 20-30 years has been made to benefit the big money programs (in no order):

1. Adding a 12th regular season game
2. Adding a conference title game
3. Introducing the playoff (and the BCS before it)
4. Introducing the transfer portal
5. Removing class size limits
6. Expanding the playoff
7. Introducing NIL
8. New coaches being able to kick everyone off of a team
And the list goes on….

That's not to say that a smaller program cannot benefit from some of those things, but it is to say that big money programs benefit the most with their depth, NIL and other resources. Make no mistake - programs like Colorado, Georgia Tech and BYU wouldn't have won their (claimed) national titles in the BCS era, let alone the CFP era.

---

All of those moves except for the transfer portal and NIL were made to increase revenue. And the transfer portal and NIL were direct responses to increased revenue in college football.

College football sucks in many ways because money is the only priority. If the games themselves weren't entertaining, I'd freaking hate this sport.

---

Agreed to an extent, but to be clear here - (1) each additional game that is required to be won in order for a team to win a national title decreases the chances that a team that doesn't recruit at an elite level will win the national title*, (2) the official consolidation of national title winners into BCS/CFP prevents split titles which allowed several teams to claim national titles for any given year, and (3) for further clarity, the transfer portal and NIL were the ultimate NCAA outcomes/reactions from legal cases. So, while those changes may introduce more venue, they come at the cost of meaningful access to national titles for programs like Baylor.

*Imagine if a random new look Big 12 team needed to play 17 (or 16 w/bye) games in order to win a national title - that's asking for the moon from teams that recruits in the 30s-60s (composite classes that are inclusive of the transfer portal).

Baylor needs to go after him!

Good for him. It's not a privilege to carry a mid team for fewer opportunities. That's a dumb tradition. If he wants to play at the next level he needs to make that move. It just shows how smart he is.

Killing Floor said:

---

Good for him. It's not a privilege to carry a mid team for fewer opportunities. That's a dumb tradition. If he wants to play at the next level he needs to make that move. It just shows how smart he is.

---

He agreed to go there and play there but backed out of the deal when it mattered most.

If an HR recruiter offered you a better job with higher promotion ceiling and a huge salary increase that would vastly improve your ability to provide for your family and future would you consider it?
I would.

What does he owe NC State?
I'll grant he ought to finish the season. I specially since he's not going to play out all 4 years of eligibility anyway. But it's hard to expect someone to not wan to do better for themselves.

You're acting like Morris is some AA candidate. The dude has 7 TD passes to 5 picks… and a completion % well below 60. He's nothing special

boognish_bear said:

---

I'm fine with the new portal rules. If coaches can leave on the drop of a dime at the end of the year players should be able to also.

---

I agree, but coaches are also have contracts that need to be bought out. If players want to be treated like coached, then their contracts should be bought out as well.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Every single meaningful change that's been made to college football in the last 20-30 years has been made to benefit the big money programs (in no order):

1. Adding a 12th regular season game
2. Adding a conference title game
3. Introducing the playoff (and the BCS before it)
4. Introducing the transfer portal
5. Removing class size limits
6. Expanding the playoff
7. Introducing NIL
8. New coaches being able to kick everyone off of a team
And the list goes on….

That's not to say that a smaller program cannot benefit from some of those things, but it is to say that big money programs benefit the most with their depth, NIL and other resources. Make no mistake - programs like Colorado, Georgia Tech and BYU wouldn't have won their (claimed) national titles in the BCS era, let alone the CFP era.

---

I agreed with everything until the last sentence.

I think those teams would have still had a chance.

Colorado was in the Big 8 and beat some big teams that year. They beat: Tenn, Stanford, UT, Washington, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Notre Dame. 6 of those teams were ranked. Their 1 loss was to ranked Illinois by one point.

GT in the ACC beat: South Carolina, Clemson, Virginia (good at the time), Georgia and Nebraska. They beat Nebraska by 24. They tied North Carolina.

So both of those were conference champs. By the rules of the BCS, 4 team playoff or expanded playoff they would have been in the BCS games or BCS national title game and playoffs and had a chance.

BYU probably would not as they only beat one ranked team (preseason ranked) and that is it.

So two of them absolutely would have had a shot at winning a title in the BCS or playoff era.

cowboycwr said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Every single meaningful change that's been made to college football in the last 20-30 years has been made to benefit the big money programs (in no order):

1. Adding a 12th regular season game
2. Adding a conference title game
3. Introducing the playoff (and the BCS before it)
4. Introducing the transfer portal
5. Removing class size limits
6. Expanding the playoff
7. Introducing NIL
8. New coaches being able to kick everyone off of a team
And the list goes on….

That's not to say that a smaller program cannot benefit from some of those things, but it is to say that big money programs benefit the most with their depth, NIL and other resources. Make no mistake - programs like Colorado, Georgia Tech and BYU wouldn't have won their (claimed) national titles in the BCS era, let alone the CFP era.

---

I agreed with everything until the last sentence.

I think those teams would have still had a chance.

Colorado was in the Big 8 and beat some big teams that year. They beat: Tenn, Stanford, UT, Washington, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Notre Dame. 6 of those teams were ranked. Their 1 loss was to ranked Illinois by one point.

GT in the ACC beat: South Carolina, Clemson, Virginia (good at the time), Georgia and Nebraska. They beat Nebraska by 24. They tied North Carolina.

So both of those were conference champs. By the rules of the BCS, 4 team playoff or expanded playoff they would have been in the BCS games or BCS national title game and playoffs and had a chance.

BYU probably would not as they only beat one ranked team (preseason ranked) and that is it.

So two of them absolutely would have had a shot at winning a title in the BCS or playoff era.

---

Sure. The issue is actually winning and not having access. The upcoming expanded CFP will almost certainly give the Big 12 champ access every year, but that Big 12 team will need to have played 12 regular season games, a conference title game, and then 3-4 CFP games against the best teams in (generally) other conferences if it's going to win a national title. That's just not realistic for teams that recruit in the 30+ range to do with roughly at most 2 losses (and none in the CFP).

For Georgia Tech and Colorado in 1990, they both claim a national title for that season and that's just not possible now as (1) they don't recruit well enough and (2) either they would have either played each other in the BCS (unless Texas snuck in) and the winner would have been crowned or they would have most likely played against Texas and Miami in the 4 team CFP and who knows who would have ultimately won that (trying to determine who they would have played in the 12 team CFP is outside of my interest/time).

IowaBear said:

---

You're acting like Morris is some AA candidate. The dude has 7 TD passes to 5 picks… and a completion % well below 60. He's nothing special

---

Exactly this right here…his stats are rather unimpressive! He is quitting on his teammates and coaches…HARD PASS.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Every single meaningful change that's been made to college football in the last 20-30 years has been made to benefit the big money programs (in no order):

1. Adding a 12th regular season game
2. Adding a conference title game
3. Introducing the playoff (and the BCS before it)
4. Introducing the transfer portal
5. Removing class size limits
6. Expanding the playoff
7. Introducing NIL
8. New coaches being able to kick everyone off of a team
And the list goes on….

That's not to say that a smaller program cannot benefit from some of those things, but it is to say that big money programs benefit the most with their depth, NIL and other resources. Make no mistake - programs like Colorado, Georgia Tech and BYU wouldn't have won their (claimed) national titles in the BCS era, let alone the CFP era.

---

I agreed with everything until the last sentence.

I think those teams would have still had a chance.

Colorado was in the Big 8 and beat some big teams that year. They beat: Tenn, Stanford, UT, Washington, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Notre Dame. 6 of those teams were ranked. Their 1 loss was to ranked Illinois by one point.

GT in the ACC beat: South Carolina, Clemson, Virginia (good at the time), Georgia and Nebraska. They beat Nebraska by 24. They tied North Carolina.

So both of those were conference champs. By the rules of the BCS, 4 team playoff or expanded playoff they would have been in the BCS games or BCS national title game and playoffs and had a chance.

BYU probably would not as they only beat one ranked team (preseason ranked) and that is it.

So two of them absolutely would have had a shot at winning a title in the BCS or playoff era.

---

Sure. The issue is actually winning and not having access. The upcoming expanded CFP will almost certainly give the Big 12 champ access every year, but that Big 12 team will need to have played 12 regular season games, a conference title game, and then 3-4 CFP games against the best teams in (generally) other conferences if it's going to win a national title. That's just not realistic for teams that recruit in the 30+ range to do with roughly at most 2 losses (and none in the CFP).

For Georgia Tech and Colorado in 1990, they both claim a national title for that season and that's just not possible now as (1) they don't recruit well enough and (2) either they would have either played each other in the BCS (unless Texas snuck in) and the winner would have been crowned or they would have most likely played against Texas and Miami in the 4 team CFP and who knows who would have ultimately won that (trying to determine who they would have played in the 12 team CFP is outside of my interest/time).

---

I am confused by your argument.

Are you saying that as of right now those two teams would not have a shot at winning a national title or that the 1990 team would not have won a title in the playoff?

Of course neither of their current teams is good enough to win. But their 1990 teams were good enough to win in the playoff.

Colorado ALREADY beat Texas that year. So they could have done it again.

So to me it seems you are applying where they stand now to their chance of success in the playoff in 1990 when one of those teams beat 6 ranked teams, including Texas.

character traits we used to cherish like loyalty are no longer in vogue, in fact they are out of favor. today it's all about 'me' for many youngsters. although, deuce vaughn was said to have turned down a ton of texas money his junior year.

I agree one consequence of the portal and later, of NIL is exposing a lack of loyalty.

But I also fully understand there's not a reciprocal loyalty from the institution to the student athlete. There is a one way ticket to irrelevancy for an athlete who sits on the bench indefinitely and combine that with the fluff degrees many receive it's hard to convince a young person to sit and wait.

Looking at Deuce, he was loyal to KSU. But not loyal enough to finish his eligibility. And had he come to Austin, for example, he would have been RB3 behind Robinson and Johnson. His stats and film and therefore, his draft stock, would fall and he would not be on the Cowboys today.

A better example might be Richard Reese. His portal value is sunk after this year. Is that loyalty? He had a major role in every win in 2022 and he's been coached to the bench. Is there any value BU brings to him at this point?

Loyalty has to be 2-way or someone is on the losing end sometimes.

Killing Floor said:

---

I agree one consequence of the portal and later, of NIL is exposing a lack of loyalty.

But I also fully understand there's not a reciprocal loyalty from the institution to the student athlete. There is a one way ticket to irrelevancy for an athlete who sits on the bench indefinitely and combine that with the fluff degrees many receive it's hard to convince a young person to sit and wait.

Looking at Deuce, he was loyal to KSU. But not loyal enough to finish his eligibility. And had he come to Austin, for example, he would have been RB3 behind Robinson and Johnson. His stats and film and therefore, his draft stock, would fall and he would not be on the Cowboys today.

A better example might be Richard Reese. His portal value is sunk after this year. Is that loyalty? He had a major role in every win in 2022 and he's been coached to the bench. Is there any value BU brings to him at this point?

Loyalty has to be 2-way or someone is on the losing end sometimes.

---

Some very good points.

I would add the thing about before the portal a coach could jump ship and a player was stuck and the new coaches system might not have a spot for that player.

Also, the school isn't loyal in that many of them allow the fluff degrees or the athletes to basically never attend class or be a real student so then they graduate and are not prepared for a life after sports.

Finally, there is the school that can kick them out for anything like say stealing headphones and for some that could have been their one shot at a college degree.

cowboycwr said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Every single meaningful change that's been made to college football in the last 20-30 years has been made to benefit the big money programs (in no order):

1. Adding a 12th regular season game
2. Adding a conference title game
3. Introducing the playoff (and the BCS before it)
4. Introducing the transfer portal
5. Removing class size limits
6. Expanding the playoff
7. Introducing NIL
8. New coaches being able to kick everyone off of a team
And the list goes on….

That's not to say that a smaller program cannot benefit from some of those things, but it is to say that big money programs benefit the most with their depth, NIL and other resources. Make no mistake - programs like Colorado, Georgia Tech and BYU wouldn't have won their (claimed) national titles in the BCS era, let alone the CFP era.

---

I agreed with everything until the last sentence.

I think those teams would have still had a chance.

Colorado was in the Big 8 and beat some big teams that year. They beat: Tenn, Stanford, UT, Washington, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Notre Dame. 6 of those teams were ranked. Their 1 loss was to ranked Illinois by one point.

GT in the ACC beat: South Carolina, Clemson, Virginia (good at the time), Georgia and Nebraska. They beat Nebraska by 24. They tied North Carolina.

So both of those were conference champs. By the rules of the BCS, 4 team playoff or expanded playoff they would have been in the BCS games or BCS national title game and playoffs and had a chance.

BYU probably would not as they only beat one ranked team (preseason ranked) and that is it.

So two of them absolutely would have had a shot at winning a title in the BCS or playoff era.

---

Sure. The issue is actually winning and not having access. The upcoming expanded CFP will almost certainly give the Big 12 champ access every year, but that Big 12 team will need to have played 12 regular season games, a conference title game, and then 3-4 CFP games against the best teams in (generally) other conferences if it's going to win a national title. That's just not realistic for teams that recruit in the 30+ range to do with roughly at most 2 losses (and none in the CFP).

For Georgia Tech and Colorado in 1990, they both claim a national title for that season and that's just not possible now as (1) they don't recruit well enough and (2) either they would have either played each other in the BCS (unless Texas snuck in) and the winner would have been crowned or they would have most likely played against Texas and Miami in the 4 team CFP and who knows who would have ultimately won that (trying to determine who they would have played in the 12 team CFP is outside of my interest/time).

---

I am confused by your argument.

Are you saying that as of right now those two teams would not have a shot at winning a national title or that the 1990 team would not have won a title in the playoff?

Of course neither of their current teams is good enough to win. But their 1990 teams were good enough to win in the playoff.

Colorado ALREADY beat Texas that year. So they could have done it again.

So to me it seems you are applying where they stand now to their chance of success in the playoff in 1990 when one of those teams beat 6 ranked teams, including Texas.

---

Sure. It's unlikely that Colorado or Georgia Tech would have won the national title in the CFP era - whether 4 or 12 teams - at any point whatsoever because of the changes that have been implemented since that time. Remember, in the current era, Colorado (12 regular season games in 1990) would have needed to defeat Oklahoma/Nebraska in a conference title game (for the 2nd time in the season) and then play multiple opponents from other leagues in the CFP (Texas and Miami probably would have made the 4 team CFP). Georgia Tech (11 regular season games in 1990) would have needed to play an additional regular season game, Clemson in ACC title game (for the 2nd time in the season), and then play multiple opponents in other leagues in the CFP (i.e. Texas and Miami). This also leaves the possibility that they would play each other at some point in the CFP.

The net result is (1) the odds of either of those teams accomplishing those feats without a loss at some point is miniscule for a wide variety of reasons and (2) it wouldn't be possible for more than 1 team to claim a title.