Does CFB parity increase over time?
Just a thought for discussion:
Division 1-A was created in 1978 with 139 teams allowed 95 scholarships each. The scholarship limit was new, as prior to 1977 teams could offer as many scholarships as they pleased. This year features 120 teams allowed 85 scholarships each. Over the same time span, the U.S. population has increased from approximately 220 million to 310 million (although youth likely represent a slightly smaller proportion of the population today compared to '78).
I hear constant talk about the Big 10 being down, which okay yeah it's not like the league has looked impressive. But I hear the same rumblings about the SEC (we're talking overall, top-to-bottom strength), Pac-12, ACC, Big East, Big 12, MWC, and basically everybody but the MAC.
Is it possible that the effects of more kids competing for the same number of scholarships are finally becoming very obvious? Assuming the ceiling on prospects' ability has risen roughly uniformly (superior modern training and nutrition) and that football ability falls roughly on a bell curve, we have more kids (in raw numbers, not proportions) at a few standard deviations above the mean, so the talent becomes more evenly distributed across the FBS.
There are many other explanations for the apparent parity in the FBS, including items that come top-down rather than bottom-up such as coaching and schematic styles and rule changes, but I wonder if demographics may be the largest contributor to parity.
October 27th, 2011 at 2:53 PM ^
On top of that, with more money in the game comes better facilities for a school like Toledo or SDSU. A weightroom, locker room, ect. can only cost so much, so as more of the CFB world sees more cash, the disparity between programs will probably be lessened.
These days, I wouldn't be surprised one bit if a high-end MAC team could compete with a low-end BCS team when it comes to weightrooms, academic centers, film rooms, ect.
October 27th, 2011 at 3:06 PM ^
A bigger reason is the expansion of TV coverage to more of the mid-major programs. Many more schools can be seen playing on TV than 30 years ago and that makes a big difference in recruiting.
October 27th, 2011 at 3:22 PM ^
I liked Justin's point about TV and money above, but if the same coverage existed in '78 as did today, do you think there would be a similar situation in parity? That is, does equalizing recruiting advantages make as much of a difference as having a few million more bodies for fewer spots?
October 27th, 2011 at 3:32 PM ^
I think there is some some of both. There are more good players for sure but equalizing the TV and other advantages makes it more likely that a star player will go to a smaller program, knowing he can still get the exposure. Mid-level recruits will also be more likely to go to a smaller program which hurts depth at schools like Michigan, regardless of scholarship limitations.
October 27th, 2011 at 3:38 PM ^
Just because 95 scholarships was the limit, don't assume every school gave out that many; until the television contracts fattened the budgets, some Div 1 schools didn't give out all their schollies. Also, do you have a list of the 139 Div 1 schools from 1978? Thanks.
October 27th, 2011 at 4:01 PM ^
Good point on schools not using all of their allotted scholarships; that would be interesting to look into (although likely tedious!).
D-IA in 1978: http://www.jhowell.net/cf/cf1978.htm
October 27th, 2011 at 3:26 PM ^
After this weekend the big ten will most likely have three 7-1 teams. Probably all ranked in the top 15. It's been a down year at times but not too far off than the last few years. I'm an insecure jerk who only wants a big ten national champ if they are called Michigan so I'm good right now.
October 27th, 2011 at 3:33 PM ^
I definitely think it does. Justin's point sum up my own argument there. As for evidence, look at things like the cost of living scholarships and rumors of this super conference thing.
I see scholarship cost increases and the like as a way for the tradition powers to find another avenue to exploit their deeper pockets. Say Toledo just caught up in terms of the weight room, so now we'll introduce more costly scholarships to push them back behind the BCS teams.
The whole super conferences thing I think is a done deal in the long term. Four or five conferences splitting away from FBS to create an elite group of teams that don't have to share their bowl revenues or cachet with the rest of FBS.
October 27th, 2011 at 11:51 PM ^
I tend to see elite college football heading in the same direction, and I have mixed feelings about it. Breaking away from the NCAA and getting to write a new rulebook may solve many problems, but I wonder if it would also provide an opportunity for the revenue-obsessed ADs and conference commissioners to irreperably damage what college athletics is all about.
Of course, I still live in a fantasy world where major college football has some soul left.
October 27th, 2011 at 3:33 PM ^
The biggest thing is TV coverage. a 3star kid with eyes at the NFL has a choice. go to a Michigan or a Texas or a USC and fight to even make it into the 2 deep by his junior year and a chance a starting (not nessesarily the way it is now at Michigan but that was the norm in recent memory). or go to a Boise State, TCU, or hell even Toledo, Start as a Freshmen or Sophmore and have a chance to make a name for himself and creat some buzz.
Now do I think it will ever get to a point that a MAC as a conference will be on par with the big 10 or sec not a chance elite players will still go to elite schools because it doesn't matter who they play for they will see the field early and they will still get the spot light regardless of where they play so they will play for the big dogs.
October 27th, 2011 at 3:40 PM ^
I think one reason for parity might be the NFL's recent willingess to take chances on guys who don't come from BCS schools. If you're playing in a lower-tier conference but you can ball they will find you. That might give kids less fear about not getting noticed at a small school.
October 27th, 2011 at 11:48 PM ^
Interesting point (echoed below) in re: more NFL scouting effort results in kids seeing non-elite programs as viable paths to the league. I see the logic, but has there really been an increase of effort? This would be difficult to show, and I wonder if it would correlate. I don't mean to make too strong of a claim by this, but Jerry Rice went to Mississippi Valley State and he was noticed.
October 27th, 2011 at 4:12 PM ^
This is diary worthy but it needs stats and pretty charts. Without stats and pretty charts it's anyone's guess.
My take on this (which means little) is yes as well. Though I do think there are coaching/training/facility/money differences for athletes who are HS NFLers (4/5 star guys.)
As has been laid out by UpUpDownDown at BHGPs the B1G is better at prepping NFL talent. This data only goes back nine years based on Rivals info. His posts are worthy if you don't already read them.
He posted this chart which speaks to CRex's point and others. Cost is a driver here (and countervailing to parity) as well as schollies.
I would defer to anyone who has hard data on this though...
October 27th, 2011 at 4:22 PM ^
Kids can go anywhere to get on television now rather than just the big schools. And as said above, NFL scouts are looking all over. I'm in my 20s but I have to believe if you wanted to get noticed in the past, you had to go to the bigger schools that were on tv or radio or at a minimum had a large press following like UM, ND, USC, Texas, and OU.
October 27th, 2011 at 4:36 PM ^
The NFL is raking in so much more money recently and is an environment of almost constant parity. Therefore, NFL teams can't risk missing on under the radar prospect that might make the difference between a GM keeping or losing his job. This tends to spread out talent, since there's almost no chance that skilled players goes unnoticed.
October 27th, 2011 at 4:37 PM ^
better ability to grade recruits is leading to overall more parity. sites like rivals and scout, services like those oregon used, access to countless hours of tape on recruits, all this leads to coaches making better, more informed decisions about who to offer a schollie which is making some of these smaller schools more competetive
October 27th, 2011 at 11:41 PM ^
I agree that improved recruiting/scouting technology may make the game more competitive, but wouldn't that advantage apply at least as much to big schools? Or even more so, as they can throw more money at staff and infrastructure to utilize such technology?
October 27th, 2011 at 4:46 PM ^
Despite the increase in parity, the BCS National Championship is still dominated by traditional powers.
The BCS winners have been: Tennesse, FSU, Oklahoma, Miami, OSU, Florida, Texas, LSU, USC, Auburn, and Bama.
Teams in the middle might be more packed together, but at the very top it's been as it's always been.
October 27th, 2011 at 11:39 PM ^
Good point, but haven't Boise State, TCU, and Utah all finished undefeated in the BCS era but not had a chance at the championship?
For the record, I don't personally think that those teams were necessarily better than the champions, and a decent portion of why they don't get subjectively ranked high enough is that they play objectively terrible schedules, but I also can't say those teams weren't better than the champions.
October 27th, 2011 at 9:54 PM ^
Former Oklahoma State coach Pat Jones talked about this on an Oklahoma City sports radio station this morning. His take is that all the camps that kids go to now provide better preparation for a larger number of athletes than was available 20-30 years ago, and the average player is better prepared coming in to college than a generation or two ago.
I still think scholarship limitations are the main reason for parity, though.
October 27th, 2011 at 11:42 PM ^
The idea that competition is greater because of the dissemination of excellent football pedagogy pleases me as an educator!