OT: Were the 90s the best era of college football?

[LoveJeffersonFanClub]

I dont like how college football is today with the NIL and TV controlling conferences and the transfer portal. So I was wondering what you thought was the best decade of college football. My initial thought was the 1990s. Before you read on understand there are things that may cloud my judgement. I graduated in 92 and went to a boat load of games in the 1990s, even non-WSU games. Furthermore, I am making arguments not based on data but simple recognition as I type this. I am open to changing my opinion.

Here is my reasoning. The 90s seemed more egalitarian. You had programs who were historically bad rise up and do well in the 90s. Northwestern went to a Rose Bowl and Oregon State went to a NYD bowl game. Both of those schools were horrible in the 80s. A school like Kanasas State rose to prominence from generally not being that good to a solid program. The Pac 10 had several new teams go to the Rose Bowl in the 90s: ASU 96, WSU 97, Oregon 94. A team like Wisconsin went to 2 RBs in the 90s. Not a bad program but not great for the previous 2 decades. They set themselves up for success for many years after. Virginia Tech played in a title game. National Champs seemed to Traditional powers seemed to still do well such as Michigan and Nebraska. National championships were won by the Big 8, Big 10, Big East, Pac 10, and SEC.

I'm guessing the reduction of scholarships and prop 48 helped lesser schools challenge the Bluebloods with more success.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

It definitely felt more like "college" football more than whatever is going on today.

 

[whoisyaodaddy]

Now that we are the PAC 2, is there anyway that we can just forego any academic standards--get all the old Prop 48 players back in the fold. We may not be able to keep up with the NIL; however, we can promise kids that WSU will develop them as football players. Whether you want a degree is up to you. Go to class or not....we don't care!

 

[cr8zyncalif]

I like the 90's for several reasons, the biggest being the change from 95 to 85 roster limit in 1992. That helped us, since other teams could not stockpile as much talent on the bench. But I'd have to say the 80's with the ability to take academically borderline JC's for the full decade was every bit as good a time from the Coug's perspective. Yes, you could still do that early 90's, but the rules were changed by the end of that decade.

 

[ttowncoug]

The thing with the 90's that was difficult was the lack of TV coverage and exposure. You also had much more abuse of steroids so I am not sure the playing field was truly even.

 

[BiggsCoug]

I dont like how college football is today with the NIL and TV controlling conferences and the transfer portal. So I was wondering what you thought was the best decade of college football. My initial thought was the 1990s. Before you read on understand there are things that may cloud my judgement. I graduated in 92 and went to a boat load of games in the 1990s, even non-WSU games. Furthermore, I am making arguments not based on data but simple recognition as I type this. I am open to changing my opinion.

Here is my reasoning. The 90s seemed more egalitarian. You had programs who were historically bad rise up and do well in the 90s. Northwestern went to a Rose Bowl and Oregon State went to a NYD bowl game. Both of those schools were horrible in the 80s. A school like Kanasas State rose to prominence from generally not being that good to a solid program. The Pac 10 had several new teams go to the Rose Bowl in the 90s: ASU 96, WSU 97, Oregon 94. A team like Wisconsin went to 2 RBs in the 90s. Not a bad program but not great for the previous 2 decades. They set themselves up for success for many years after. Virginia Tech played in a title game. National Champs seemed to Traditional powers seemed to still do well such as Michigan and Nebraska. National championships were won by the Big 8, Big 10, Big East, Pac 10, and SEC.

I'm guessing the reduction of scholarships and prop 48 helped lesser schools challenge the Bluebloods with more success.

Reduce the scholarships/rosters to 70 and watch it get even more competitive.

 

[random soul]

Reduce the scholarships/rosters to 70 and watch it get even more competitive.

Drop scholarships to 70 and total roster size to 85. At this point some schools will have a handful of guys who will bankroll a prized 'walk-on'

 

[BiggsCoug]

Drop scholarships to 70 and total roster size to 85. At this point some schools will have a handful of guys who will bankroll a prized 'walk-on'

I think you will see teams just pay them NIL $ too. So technically a walk on? Yes. Are they really? No.

Imo you gotta have a hard cap on the rosters to keep the big $$$ teams from stockpiling talent. Whatever the number is that spreads the talent around more, find it.

If the NCAA wants to copy the NFL and have the big tv dollars… the one issue they are refusing to acknowledge is the competitive balance the NFL creates with its rules.

 

[ATACFD]

Reduce the scholarships/rosters to 70 and watch it get even more competitive.

That’s really the simplest and possibly the best solution to this mess. It would slow down the number of transfers, and stop the super rich teams from stockpiling talent away from everyone else. Although I’d even put it down at 65. Since CFB is becoming the NFL-lite, I’d like to point out the NFL does fine with a roster of like 53 people and a practice squad.
Of course, since it’s an obvious solution and could level the playing field , I have little faith that the NCAA will actually implement it.

 

[BiggsCoug]

That’s really the simplest and possibly the best solution to this mess. It would slow down the number of transfers, and stop the super rich teams from stockpiling talent away from everyone else. Although I’d even put it down at 65. Since CFB is becoming the NFL-lite, I’d like to point out the NFL does fine with a roster of like 53 people and a practice squad.
Of course, since it’s an obvious solution and could level the playing field , I have little faith that the NCAA will actually implement it.

I would disagree. I think the NFL has issues with its roster size. Especially when injuries happen and the drop off is sharp between the starter and the backup. Players get a limited amount of weeks on the practice squad. If memory serves once those weeks are used up… they can never be on a practice squad again. They either make the roster of they’re done. So its tough for the NFL to really invest in a player for much more than a season to develop him. I think the NFL would have a better product if their rosters were grown to 65.

For college, kids have to develop. They need time. 65 could be a few too little. It is a balancing act for sure to find the sweet spot.

At 70 guys you have a 3 deep at each position, a kicker and punter and 2 more for wherever you want. Prob a 4th qb and back.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

I would disagree. I think the NFL has issues with its roster size. Especially when injuries happen and the drop off is sharp between the starter and the backup. Players get a limited amount of weeks on the practice squad. If memory serves once those weeks are used up… they can never be on a practice squad again. They either make the roster of they’re done. So its tough for the NFL to really invest in a player for much more than a season to develop him. I think the NFL would have a better product if their rosters were grown to 65.

For college, kids have to develop. They need time. 65 could be a few too little. It is a balancing act for sure to find the sweet spot.

At 70 guys you have a 3 deep at each position, a kicker and punter and 2 more for wherever you want. Prob a 4th qb and back.

I could buy that. Maybe 75 just to add a little cushion. Still down 10 - 10 fewer scholarships to pay for, 10 fewer unis helmets, training table slots, seats on the plane, etc. Maybe one less coach.