1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Parity in college football

Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by SBG, Oct 6, 2013.

  1. SBG

    SBG Formerly known as EFNMB Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Messages:
    6,826
    Likes Received:
    504
    Is there no more parity in college football? Upsets are very few and far between. Perhaps I was just spoiled by last year, but ranked teams aren't losing to unranked teams unless they were overrated to start the season (UT & ND). There are 17 undefeated teams with most playing 5 games up to this point. It's nuts.

    UGA is a team to watch this year since they play to their opponents level every single game and I'm guessing they'll lose at least one more. The disparity between the haves and have nots is starting to show more and more, imo. Now teams like Tennessee and Mississippi are recruiting lights out and with the ability to oversign in the SEC so in the upcoming years when they beat one of the top teams in the conference it won't seem like the underdog vs a top dog.
     
  2. Bama Charlie

    Bama Charlie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2006
    Messages:
    2,880
    Likes Received:
    77
    I disagree with your parity 'theory'. Back in the 60s the big D1 schools gave unlimited scholarships and the football schools would have up to 150 on scholarship any year. That limit is 85 now. Of course your 'no upsets unless they were overrated' is some kind of circular reference.
     
  3. sackman

    sackman Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    48,411
    Likes Received:
    4,425
    I think you could make a good case that there is a lot more parity today than in the past. As chuck points out, scholarship limits have spread the talent around a lot.
     
  4. GridironNut

    GridironNut Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2011
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    16
    There may be "more parity" due to the 85 limit, but there will never be true parity in CFB. Open recruiting, where the most talented kids want to go to the most successful programs (championships, NFL placement), ensures that, generally, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. At best, programs stay status quo and it's a LONG time for gains in talent.
     
  5. Hugegroove

    Hugegroove Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,725
    Likes Received:
    121
    Not sure if this is a case for or against more parity, but only 2 (ASU & Mississippi) of the top ranked 25 teams lost yesterday.
     
  6. Bama Charlie

    Bama Charlie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2006
    Messages:
    2,880
    Likes Received:
    77
    There are no facts to back up your assertion. If "the rich get richer" what happened to USC and UT? They dominated CFA in the 2000s. In my youth Virginia Tech and Miami were homecoming fodder for Bama. This year they will be playing each other to win a major conference division. Just imagine college football today if there were not limit to the amount of players CNS could sign. "Parity" is a dream even in the NFL. I hope you are right because that would mean Bama will only get better but you aren't.
     
  7. jjbuffs13

    jjbuffs13 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    976
    Likes Received:
    67
    Lets look at it this way. 5 years, a fairly decent measurement. 5 years ago (2008-09) the top 5 teams as of today (Alabama, Oregon, Clemson, Ohio State and Stanford) were ranked 6, 9, unranked, 11 and unranked, respectively. Stanford actually was 5-7 and Clemson was 7-6.
     
  8. Bama Charlie

    Bama Charlie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2006
    Messages:
    2,880
    Likes Received:
    77
    10 years ago USC won the MNC and Alabama went 4-9. If you pick and choose your facts you can prove almost anything. I will guarantee you it is easier for a mid-level school to compete in tackle football today then it was before the scholarship rule changes. I really can't believe I am even having this discussion.
     

Share This Page