Fixing College Football - podcast episode cover

Fixing College Football

Jan 21, 20211 hr 12 min
--:--
--:--
Download Metacast podcast app
Listen to this episode in Metacast mobile app
Don't just listen to podcasts. Learn from them with transcripts, summaries, and chapters for every episode. Skim, search, and bookmark insights. Learn more

Episode description

Ty and Dan react to suggestions from the Verballerhood about how to "fix" college football... in the most outlandish ways possible. Plus, an update on the coaching mess at Tennessee and assistant hires around the country.

Links from the show:

See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Support the show!: https://www.patreon.com/solidverbal

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Transcript

Speaker 1

Welcome to the solid verbal Hell that for me. I'm a man, I'm.

Speaker 2

For I've heard so many players say, well, I want to be happy.

Speaker 1

You want to be happy for a day? Edith Steak is that woo woof? And then and Tie?

Speaker 2

Welcome back to the solid verbal Boys and girls, My name is Ty Hildenbrand, joining me as always over there in Chili, Chicago, Illinois. The one and only Dan Rubinstein sirs, how are you?

Speaker 1

Some wise words?

Speaker 2

Tie?

Speaker 1

When you try your best but you don't succeed, when you get what you want but not what you need, Ty, when you feel so tired but you can't sleep, stuck in reverse? You want me to continue?

Speaker 2

Are we doing the New Age version or are we doing the cold Play version? Because I think there's like a new version of that song.

Speaker 1

I just know, my boy Chrissy Martin.

Speaker 2

Actually no, I lie, it's not a new version of Fix You is a cover that I think I saw somewhere out on YouTube.

Speaker 1

Oh okay, well I remember it from the OC. That's that's where I go back to. So thematically, Tie, You're you're recovering and I'm trying to fix you. You know That's who I am. Also for this show. We get inundated throughout the season with playoff fixes, with individual game fixes, with schedule fixes, with conference fixes, and that's never really

the right time. And I wanted to right now, as the season has ended, when all of those strong emotions are still fresh at our on our cortexes tie very fresh. I wanted to I wanted to fix you college football via verbaler's suggestions. I said, no, no, what's it called no postseason stuff? And you're gonna You're gonna give all of our fun solid verbal information here momentarily. But this is how I wanted to tie it all back together to Chris Martin and Marissa from the OC, and.

Speaker 2

I think that's an apt way to put it. Dan, we are the Soliverbol Thank you and me. My voice is recovering, recovering, although when we connect it up here it had a moment which I think was caused for alarm on both things.

Speaker 1

You got the black lung pop.

Speaker 2

But we're working through it. We're doing our best. To Soldier on Hello, welcome back, I'm Ty He's Dan. This is the Soliverble College Football Podcast. Just because there is no college football does not mean there is not a soliverable podcast. We'll be going twice a week Tuesday Thursday for the foreseeable future. At some point as we get closer to the season, maybe in like July, we're gonna ramp back up to three episodes per week. But got a couple of months here, We've got time to fill.

Got stuff to talk about an on tonight's show. Yeah, we're talking some serious stuff in many regards, this is one of the more important shows that we've ever done. In this podcast, we're talking serious subjects. How do we fix college football? We went out there, we pulled our wise and all knowing verballerhood to get their suggestions. We got some good ones that we I think need to chew on here over the course of like the next forty minutes or so Verballers dot com is our Patreon.

We've got bonus content that we're going to be dropping there all off season long. If you're interested again verballers dot com. You of course can follow along on all of our social media channels. We've got a Twitter and Instagram, a Facebook, a Twitch. All of it is at Solid Verbal, and we do have a YouTube channel where we post some of our clips as well. That is the the.

Speaker 1

Solid verbal by bonus content in the off season. You mean mainly the two of us playing Super Smash Bros. Mainly mainly, right, there is more to it than just that, But okay, it's an element, an element. Why don't we get to news before we do that? Fix things?

Speaker 2

I'm not doing the primal scream today, Dan breaking new That wasn't bad. You had a little bit of a of a vibrato. Yeah, yeah, going at the end there, which I appreciate. We've got a mess at Tennessee, don't we.

Speaker 1

I mean sort of status quo, but yeah.

Speaker 2

We've got well, a different kind of mess at Tennessee. Tennessee was conducting an internal investigation into its football program after I guess interviewing Jeremy Pruitt and finding what they found, they decided to get rid of him. Phil Fulmer, their ad is also stepping down. This presents a very unique circumstance on a number of different fronts, not the least of which is that Kevin Steele, who was just brought

over from Auburn after losing his job down there. He is now reinstalled as an interim head coach at another program because they needed somebody who could fill the gaps. So Kevin Steele is in there dutyflee, trying to bring over guys from Auburn who he thinks might be good for the staff. I don't think he's going to get that job. There is some confusion over whether he even has the authority to make hires at this point. All the while, we've got this NCAA investigation, we've got the

Tennessee self investigation. Jeremy Pruett and his lawyer are obviously pissed about this scenario, and presumably there is some sort of ongoing search for not only a new ad but also a head football coach.

Speaker 1

Jan what you would think?

Speaker 2

So, what a freaking mess in Knoxville.

Speaker 1

I was really hoping you were going to go to the point. And maybe you didn't read this, because it's the silliest part of this whole thing, and also the best part of this whole thing. Did you see the dan Patrick report about some of the brazen operations alleged by the recruiting staff and assistant coaches? Was this ledged?

Speaker 2

It was this, the thing about giving money out to recruits in McDonald's bags.

Speaker 1

I am infuriated by this allegation, and I'm not infuriated because of the money. And I'm not infuriated because of recruits getting money or family's getting whatever. Is McDonald's and their wrappings, their bags and the boxes that perhaps like a Big Mac comes in. Is that the best fast food solution for money donating payment? To me, it feels like Chipotle is the easy answer because of the shape of a burrito in foil. It would not that money in a brown bag would raise any eyebrows because you

can't see the money through the bag. And perhaps if it's in a Big Mac stacked box whatever, I just maybe Chipotle's too obvious. I don't know how close to Chipotle is to the Tennessee campus if all of this is true, which who knows. But what I'm trying to think, but fast food bag and or box vehicle pizza's too easily found, right, Pizza box?

Speaker 2

Well, I mean, look, it's not going to be in a Tennis Tennessee branded envelope.

Speaker 1

No, no, no, But but you just open a pizza box and you know every the food is naked to the eye. There's no unwrapping of a pizza after you open the box. But you could you could hide cash within a situation.

Speaker 2

So you're really you're going like you're you're going like deep cover with this thing you're talking about. Let's take the rolls of twenties, Let's position them accordingly, and then put the tinfoil around so it presents as a burrito.

Speaker 1

Honestly, I would find somebody, a friendly worker at Chipotle to actually make a burrito with rolls of twenties stuffed in. This is whatever.

Speaker 2

This is kind of like a Poyo situation. Yeah, at a breaking bad.

Speaker 1

Right, Yeah, I just I think you could have gotten more creative with the delivery mechanism than just the standard McDonald's bag.

Speaker 2

Like, eighty five percent of life is packaging, and they chose they chose McDonald's here allegedly, allegedly, which is one approach I have not given much thought to the best fast food packaging. Maybe this is something else that we can put to the verballer hood, because my guess is we're going to get some creative solutions here as well as for the mess at Tennessee beyond the packaging.

Speaker 1

Yeah, so you want to go over coaching candidates.

Speaker 2

Well, have you earned some of the names that are being thrown about because it's not the latest certainly it's not as late as we saw at Michigan State a year ago, but it's still pretty late in the game. What are some of the names being thrown about at this juncture.

Speaker 1

There are a few Knoxville area Chipotle Mexican Grills, but.

Speaker 2

Oh, terrific great there are.

Speaker 1

So there are options. Some of the names the more Jamie Chadwell Coast Carolina Tennessee connections. Billy Napier from the state certainly has succeeded in the area. I know his name went up on campus on the famous giant Tennessee rock. Bill O'Brien, even though he has the Alabama job right now as offensive coordinator under consideration because now he's willing to coach in the SEC. Perhaps he wants a head job.

Tom Herman, Gus Melson, I don't know. I mean, Kevin Steele's probably in that mix because he was in the mix at Auburn and he's on campus as the acting head coach. So a number of large names. It's a difficult job though, in terms of well, there's no athletic director right now, so we got to see who's hired and who that person might have connections to in the coaching world. But also you have two growing and now

established powers. Florida was in the SEC championship game. Georgia has been recruiting on another worldly level and it has been playing in some big games. And Tennessee, while they've recruited very well, it's another situation in which what they lost their final five games by double digits, and there is now I think a bit of a stigma about coaching Tennessee, how you'll be treated at Tennessee being let go pretty quickly. You know, guys just keep getting fired

and they haven't been the right answer for sure. But Jeremy Pruitt goes sixteen to nineteen and Tennessee searches, arguably successfully for a reason to get rid of him without paying him a buyout. And it just it seems like stability is the name of the game in terms of college football success, and Tennessee is whatever the opposite of stable is.

Speaker 2

Yeah. Well, in other news around college football, we'll we'll obviously stay on top of that one as best as we can. There are other openings around college football, not so much on that top line with the head coaching position, but big time defensive coordinator positions that are still open at LSU, at Oregon, at Washington as their guy went to Texas, your guy, mister Avelo set Oregon went back to Boise to be head football coach. So those are

three big ones in particular that we could discuss. We've also had some assistant hires. I think we talked about the Marcus Freeman move on one of our show. I like the move, yeah, I really do. I really like the move to get Marcus Freeman from Cincinnati to be the Notre Dame defensive coordinator. Doug Marone, a name that many in college football and just football fans are familiar with, had a run with Syracuse, was recently with the Jacksonville

Jaguars fired. Now he's going to Bama as an offensive line coach. Some other dan Enos dan Enos, the name who has been bounced around a bunch of times now over the last couple of seasons, had that stint at Miami and then he was with Cincinnati. He's going to Maryland as an offensive coordinator, which I think is an interesting high. Any other names to you that are of interest there?

Speaker 1

Well, yeah, South Carolina retained and then lost Mike Bobo to Auburn and now Marcus Aderfield, who is a Matt Ruhle guy who he was with him at Baylor and I think he was with him at Temple and with him with the Panthers as an assistant offensive line coach. He is the new offensive coordinator at South Carolina. A lot of NFL to college moves. Jim O'Neill, who was the Raiders defensive backs coach, and I saw Roger Sherman tweet this out because Jim O'Neill is heading to Northwestern,

is their new DC, replacing Mike Hankowitz. Jim O'Neil the architect of one of the all time worst NFL defenses for the forty nine Ers four years ago. I don't know enough about that stint, but that's a thing. Jesse Minter, the Ravens defensive backs coach, goes to Vanderbilt. So Clark Lee, we assume has a pretty good eye for defensive talent, so he's going to the NFL as well in search of his coordinator. Maurice Linguist, a Cowboys defensive backs coach.

I don't know enough about the Cowboys defense because I don't watch the NFL, but he is going to be a co defensive coordinator with Mike McDonald, who Jim Harbaugh hired away from John Harbaugh at the Ravens as well. Doug Marone, which is wild was an NFL head coach, is now going to be the offensive line coach at Alabama, replacing Kyle Flood, one of the absolute best offensive line coaches in the country. If you watch what Alabama did

this past year. He moves on to go to Texas and hang around with Sark, so moves all over the place there. That's just sort of a drop in the bucket because all sorts of position coaches, coordinators all over the sport. Those changes are happening every day. But those are some of the ones that stuck out to me. And Washington with a bunch of talent, organ with a

bunch of talent, LSU with a bunch of talent. LSU thought they were getting a Saints coach in the way that they got Joe Brady a couple of years ago. But Ryan Nielsen is returning to the Saints after it looked like he was going to go to LSU. So yeah, all sorts of movement that will keep happening, I'm sure even more after the full official signing day, so we'll see what happens.

Speaker 2

We will see what happens, all right? Shall we get to are more important business of the day.

Speaker 1

Our Chris Martin game.

Speaker 2

Yeah, we want to fix college football.

Speaker 1

We do. I like college football, but you know I'm open to ideas.

Speaker 2

Ty, How did how did we present this question to the verballer hood?

Speaker 1

We said, outside of the postseason, so bowls and playoff et cetera. What's your best idea to improve college football? The more out there the better. And I think between Twitter and email and wherever, we got about one hundred and fifty ideas. I paired it down to I guess six pages worth on this document.

Speaker 2

But how many resplects? Just did we get to this? Like one hundred and fifty?

Speaker 1

So I think we should. I posted the ones that were most intriguing. And here's how I want this exercise to go. This is my plan for us. Please, I want to some of these are sillier than others, but I want to approach it considering the positive change that this idea from whoever, from whomever, would bring about, and then we can poke holes in it. I don't want

to laugh at an idea for being silly. I want to look at what an idea addresses, what problem the idea addresses, talk about how it might result in a positive outcome for the sport, and then say, but this is also a consideration which makes it not make as much sense.

Speaker 2

Okay, there are three ideas that were sent to us that I would consider marrying over my wife whoa three ideas on here, and we can discuss them. I will make sure we discuss them. Three He don't tell her I said that I will not.

Speaker 1

I will not. She is not a patron. She's waiting to see more out of us before she fully commits.

Speaker 2

There are three ideas on here in particular that really would never work, but are things I had never previously considered. And I'm going let's talk about the problem they attempt to solve and evaluate. Okay, where do you want to start? Why don't we go first? You get to pick.

Speaker 1

I've seen this sentiment basically since the playoff came together in Alabama won their whatever number national championship, where people I've been saying, and I hate you know, that's sort of a straw man. People on Twitter are saying, but I have seen this from a number of a number of college football fans that something has to be done. Capital d about Alabama and the powers of the sport, Ohio State, Clemson, whatever, amassing too much talent, hogging all

of the five star talent. Okay, so I'll start here. Kimmi Lynn long long, long, long, long long time for baller says, limit the number of five star recruits a program can sign based on where they finish for the year. If you make the playoff, you cannot sign more than three five stars in the top ten outside of the college football plaoff, no more than five five stars and similar sentiments from both Bobby and Aquila Aquila, you know, lowering a scholarship limit and making all teams relevant and

recruiting more balanced. Ty, what say you about approaching that perceived problem head on and making actual changes to how a program can build its roster.

Speaker 2

It's very difficult. It certainly would impose a new challenge on the likes of Nick Saban and Dabo Sweeney. So I think let's put this way. If your goal, so.

Speaker 1

What are we talking twenty four to seven composite five stars?

Speaker 2

I'm assuming so we're basically putting the future of the sport in the hands of Bud Elliott, which I'm fine with because I love Budd.

Speaker 1

Totally good by me, totally totally good.

Speaker 2

Bud's smart dude, he knows what he's doing. Yeah, if the goal of this we are first to consider the positive change that this would bring about. Yes, m hmm. If the goal, the intended desire of this rule is to curb how much talent the have currently have on their roster, this would accomplish that very quickly. This would accomplish that within you know, a couple of years. I think for sure, at least at the top level, it wouldn't solve at all because I don't see anything here

about four stars and three stars. But in terms of five star talent, for sure, the teams the top would get fewer of those. The teams at the bottom would at least have more access to some of those five stars that you know wouldn't find favor with the likes of an Alabama, Clemson, Georgia.

Speaker 1

So we're talking essentially, we're talking if guys are unable to go to teams at the top of the sport, and it trickles down so all of a sudden, a team like Iowa State or Northwestern right, or exactly Oklahoma State, suddenly they're getting five star defensive linemen, they're getting a top top national quarterback most years or some years as opposed to never a team like NC State getting the number one running back in the country, and all you

game changing players at individual positions, not necessarily dramatically changing the complexion of their roster overall, but pieces they normally wouldn't.

Speaker 2

Have exactly, so like Northwestern could have ruined Hunter Johnson as a freshman, not as a transfer, that sort of thing.

Speaker 1

I mean, it's I don't want to say it's silly because I appreciate the problem it's trying to solve, and I don't know if it's a fixable problem. You can't just you have to let kids go where they want to go, right, because there are reasons, real reasons that you know, if they go to this power, they're going to be developed in a better way for the NFL. They're going to be practicing against higher level competition that better prepares them for both games and for their NFL goals,

especially if they're top level recruits. What do you do to discourage or even a playing field one. I don't know that the playing field needs to be even that has never really been a feature of the sport. It's never like how many national championships have those schools that I just rattled off one, I don't know if they've won any. And that's okay, because it's just a very

strange sport. What I will say, though, ty, if we went down a certain number of scholarships, and I'm I hear me out because I think the number of scholarships should remain the same. But if we went down the number of acceptable scholarships to say seventy five, and then for every scholarship you issue over seventy five, you have to pay some sort of luxury tax.

Speaker 2

Okay, so you're going Major League Baseball at this.

Speaker 1

Yeah, NBA does this, and there's like the repeater tax. And let's say we kill two birds with one stone and say that tax. Say it's twenty thousand dollars for every scholarship this is over seventy five. Continue, and then at the end end of the season, that all gets split to like the twenty four players who play the most snaps.

Speaker 2

Oh man, Okay, so.

Speaker 1

I want to include special teams. That's why I said twenty four and not twenty two, so we can include a specialist. Okay, well who dominates there.

Speaker 2

Look, the problem with this is that it doesn't say anything about four stars. And if you're Alabama, if you're Alabama, if you're Clemson, for sure you get a ton of five stars, but you get more four stars and you even get some really high level three stars there where they are because of their ability to develop.

Speaker 1

Talent, right, you're holding something against them for working hard and being talented exactly.

Speaker 2

So you know, just because you can pick a five star off the vine doesn't mean it's going to ripen into a superstar. And I think those schools in particular have proven very very good at doing that for a variety of reasons, coaching, just philosophy. We could talk about that until we're blue in the face. So I don't think this actually addresses the problem. I think furthermore, to punish teams that do really well in the playoff or

bowl season, whatever, that's not a sustainable system. If you're looking to try and raise the floor in a sense, then I think you have to respond not by taking away at the top, but maybe by adding at the bottom. So building in some incentives for those teams at the bottom, so that they could find ways to level the playing field, or maybe if you want to tie it back into the name, image and likeness thing, by improving the perks that you can offer outside of that upper echelon to

try and a tract talent. But as it stands right now, and I love the suggestion, but I just I don't think this actually achieves what it's supposed to.

Speaker 1

Also, we've had schools, arguably just as many schools recruit on a super high level and squander and not succeed, hook them, fight on, et cetera, et cetera. Next top So next topic, okay, next, next idea to fix college football every blue blood. That this is from Brian Fremo, who does a great job with some analytics with college football BCF toys, by the way, it does a great job. Yeah, FBI,

he's your boy, you love, he's my guy. Points for play or points for drive, points per drive, every blue blood goes independent Ooh okay, So what this addresses, I'm assuming because this is the entirety of his idea. What this addresses is the fact that the top schools, both in terms of size, scope, success money, are doing more for their conferences than their conferences are doing for them. Schools like Ohio State, Oklahoma, Alabama, Clemson, I mean blue

bloods I guess are more traditional. That includes Ohio State, Michigan, all those types of schools that they are bringing value to the conferences without the conferences. And we've seen some shaky leadership from conferences lately. We've seen some shaky realignment Maryland and Rutgers lately. No offense but kind of offense.

And so this allows schools to maximize their own value, like Notre Dame has going out and getting their own TV deal, you know, keeping all the revenue from bowl games, that kind of thing that schools, these types of schools are leaving money on the table by agreeing to share. And you know some of some of the conferences have more unequal splits with payouts. But this would allow schools to maximize their own ability. It's yeah, it's an interesting model.

I mean, I like it from a really high level.

Speaker 2

I like.

Speaker 1

So much of what we talk about is also they just keep winning those conferences, so there's less drama.

Speaker 2

They just keep winning the conferences. So much of what we talk about here is like Notre Dame joining a conference. Why haven't they joined the ACC or the Big ten or wherever, right, And it's fun to kind of think about this from a different perspective and have all the other teams go to the Notre Dame route.

Speaker 1

I like it from ZAG.

Speaker 2

Yeah, it is a ZAG. I like it from the perspective of it would certainly promote some really interesting scheduling. And you know, though I'm fine with the SEC schedule, it's obviously a gauntlet to make it through that, and sure Alabama did so wonderfully this year, but it would definitely produce some interesting matchups that we wouldn't otherwise see.

So I like that. We actually got another suggestion a couple of them that referenced maybe having a number of teams build in an automatic open date in week ten or eleven where they have to schedule another Power five team, which is Yeah, we got a lot of scheduling ideas, which which is cool and not on my top line that I would marry, mind you, but it's still an interesting concept. So I like this idea from a scheduling standpoint.

Where I guess I would poke some holes is in that notion that they're gonna make more or could make more on their own outside of the conference structure, because I think at least some of what we've seen with respect to Notre Dame over the last few years points in the direction that over the course of time, it will make more financial sense for them to join a conference. They're not quite able to maximize their own profit the

way they did. What before some of these conferences were pulling down such big bucks from networks.

Speaker 1

What if teams went the modern Notre Dame route. What if we'll use Ohio State for this? Because Ohio State has done really, really well in terms of TV ratings these past few years. They're like, if you want a highly rated game, it's a really good idea to have the Buckeyes playing that game. An enormous fan base nationally. What if Ohio State did the five Big Ten game thing and then scheduled the rest of their schedule themselves. Yeah, well,

I mean, that's that's cool. That'd be great. I don't know if it's rotating or you have, you know, a pseudo pod where every year Ohio State plays Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State. I don't know what game outside of those three feels necessary on an Ohio State Big Ten schedule. Maybe I'm forgetting somebody, but I don't think I am. Those feel like the biggies. If you're just a national college football fan and who you want to see Ohio State play, and who that fan base wants to see play,

I think maybe pseudo is the move. It gets us more interesting games. Now, all of these schools are still gonna want a path to a playoff. As it stands now, Notre Dame has a fantastic path in a normal year in that they can probably go eleven to one, and if they win a couple of those big games impressively, they're in a pretty good spot. Notre Dame is they don't have to play a conference championship game in a

normal year, so it makes sense to me. And plus we'll see Ohio State games on I don't know CBS, we'll see that. You know, we'll get some sort of network TV deal. Because it's an enormous, enormous program. I'm kind of okay with it because it especially if if we really really want and I'm not sure that I do, but if we really really want as a college football society, if we want a more competitive Big ten Ohio State now playing in that conference championship game. I think gets

us there. It seems win win, though there is just something to me like if we had all of a sudden, seven huge pseudo independent schools, it would throw me. Maybe I'm just old and I like am setting my ways. It would throw me in that we are not all in this together kind of thing with college football, which I know is the reality, but then it's sort of too baldly face.

Speaker 2

I sort of like the possibility of the Big Ten signing Ohio State to like a three year deal to have.

Speaker 1

Like so like NBA superstar free agents doing the like they have a player option.

Speaker 2

Interesting. Okay, I like it. Where we go.

Speaker 1

Next, Let's go with the silly one, which I absolutely love. Punts. Every punt that a team kicks themselves now cost one point. This is this is one of them. I would marry this idea.

Speaker 2

Okay, I I love it well. I love this idea with all my heart. I love this idea with all my heart. So we have been hearing Gosh for as long as we've done this show, for as long as we've had any advanced analytical bent to this show, we have been hearing teams need to go for it more on fourth down, we need to go for it more and fourth down. And I don't know to what end that's really materialize. Somebody smarter than I and you and whoever would would probably need to tell us our team's

going for it more and fourth down. I don't think they are, but it's it's long been the darling of the advanced analyst universe that this should be a thing. Certainly, if you make punts a deduction like in figure skating for a botched to loop, it would encourage you to go on out there and try to go forward and

fourth down. I think it would also discourage the up tempo play that we've come to know over the last decade or so, because the more times your offense is out there, the more opportunity you have to punt and potentially lose lose points. Yeah, I do wonder if like an arm punt counts here, that could be the loophole to get around this, Like just get get your dude

out there fourth and everybody go deep. Yeah, just get Joe Milton out there and try to heave the ball as far as you can and you know, right, the defense could obviously try to knock it down, but you still got to cover the guys because otherwise they could go for a touchdown. So we have a lot to work out with this rule, I think, But I like it from a really high level.

Speaker 1

I can tell you this. In twenty eleven, Duke led the nation with thirty six fourth down attempts three per game twelve games, thirty six if my math ads up, twenty nineteen thirteen and thirty nine thirteen games thirty nine attempts for army three a game. So has it necessarily you know, twenty eighteen twelve attempt twelve games, forty four attempts for FAU. It's all sort of within thirty eight to forty four. On the air, there's no to me statistical outlier. Teams don't seem to be going for it

all that much more on fourth down. They should be, especially if you're midfield ish and it's fourth and short. Mathematically believe it makes a ton of sense to so I love this idea. I would not. I mean, points are so important, Dan said, obviously unless you're within like inside your own fifteen or twenty. I don't think if

this were a rule, I don't think teams are punting. Yeh, I think this would encourage more active football twenty five percent more plays going fourth on fourth down, it's twenty five percent, I think, So.

Speaker 2

I think we could modify this rule to make it like, if you are inside the forty yard line and you punt, then it costs a point. I don't think you want to put other teams forty Yeah. Yeah, I don't think you want to put teams in a situation where they're on their own five and they have to go for it otherwise they'll lose a point because think of the

opportunity costs there. You can punt it away, or you could throw a long interception and maybe still get a stop, as opposed to turning it over on your own four and giving a team an easy six.

Speaker 1

So I think, I mean, you're just giving up a point. You can make it up.

Speaker 2

Well, you're giving up a point, and then if you turn it over on your own four, you give it to the other team they walton for a touchdown. Suddenly that's a pretty big swing.

Speaker 1

No, no, I'm saying that's when you go for a punt when you're that backed up, I guess take the point off. Yeah, all right, I love this.

Speaker 2

It is a great idea. Andrew. This is I don't know what Andrew does for a living, but he should be doing more than he is.

Speaker 1

The real weave revert back to pre alignment conferences. The problem, of course with that this addresses is we've lost rivalry games. Teams are sort of operating out of a desire, a more selfish desire than the good for the sport necessarily. And that's okay, that's understandable, but that is an issue, and teams have made moves that have probably set their program back just in terms of getting lost in the shuffle and a jumbo size conference.

Speaker 2

Can I can I issue? Can I can I issue a bit of a zag here on this one?

Speaker 1

Okay? And I'll say my interpretation of this is like two thousand and five college football, Yeah, because there were multiple steps of realignment.

Speaker 2

Here's what I want to see. And you you jog my memory talking about what problem? You think? This solves every single rivalry in college football, the rivalry rivalries that

we've come to know and love. I'll use Penn State, Pit, I'll use Texas, Texas, and m there are a thousands that we could list, yep, But inevitably, like we saw with Texas, Texas, A and M. You have this kind of cold war between programs when a rivalry stops being played as frequently, where each side wants to blame the other, right, we need to come up with some system where it is very clear who is to play for the rivalry ending.

Speaker 1

Okay, I mean A and M leaving the conference is a reason. But the reason they left is Texas and the Longhorn Network. So I don't know how you accurately point to the aggrieved party there.

Speaker 2

I'm thinking we need to have some sort of like publicly televised mediation session where it is very clear after hearing out both sides either who is at fault or that who decides or that they're a mutual Obviously, Bill Hancock, he's a decider for everything. But we need to have some sort of very transparent process by which we decide is this rivalry going to continue? Is it one of us to blame, both of us to blame. Are we going to mutually part ways? Are we just going to

continue this thing into perpetuity? Because rivalries, rivalries are the fabric of college football. Outside recruiting and outside rooting for your alma mater, it is rivalries that really are the engine behind this sport that make it so special. So the more I guess just hate that we could pump into that process, the more raw emotion that we can pump into rivalries, I think, the greater the health of college football in the long term. So whatever we can do on that front, I'm all about it.

Speaker 1

I think we just need to put a bunch of money on a table, ty. I think that's how we get these games happening again. And you mentioned a name in Bill.

Speaker 2

Hancock, which is obviously very funny.

Speaker 1

I've got another name, ty. Do you remember who was willing to put up money for a plus one playoff game? Way back when? Do you remember who was going to put up the money. I'm almost positive it was Michael Dell. I'm almost positive I could be making that completely up.

Speaker 2

I forget what year it was. Let's just go with it. Let's just go with Michael Dell. We're going with Michael Dell. He's got the money, he's a billionaire, he's in Texas, which is a football rich state.

Speaker 1

And basically, if he says I'm going to put up ten million dollars and it's going to go to whoever wins this game, and it's going to go specifically to a scholarship fund for underprivileged kids to attend that school. And then and then we will learn who actually is chicken shit, We'll actually learn which school because we've got an amazing cause with an amazing amount of money tied to it via Michael Dell, who I assume has a ton of cash.

Speaker 2

Should we should we secret verbal Michael Dell about this?

Speaker 1

Michael Dell does he have a Twitter account?

Speaker 2

His Twitter account is Michael Dell and it's got the blue check mark, So I'm fairly serry it's him. But what do we what do we see still had a fifty five He's got a lot of money for a fifty five year old dude. What How do we make our approach here virtually without getting people on the bad side of Michael Dell because we're I think we're looking for a diplomatic approach as opposed to the usual confusion that we're trying to create.

Speaker 1

Correct worth twenty seven B. I think you just tweet him and ask him can you put can you put ten million annual dollars on the table to get Texas and Texas A and M to play every year? He went to UT.

Speaker 2

He did go to UT. I'm looking, I'm looking at it.

Speaker 1

But he's from Houston, which is a and M country.

Speaker 2

So he's got a vested interest here.

Speaker 1

He does have a vested interest.

Speaker 2

I wouldn't totally be opposed to Michael Dell taking over college football.

Speaker 1

I don't know enough about Michael Hotel, Yeah, I don't.

Speaker 2

I probably need to do a little bit more research. But makes a good monitor and a decent laptop, right right, I mean that's already better than Bill Hancock. Right.

Speaker 1

His brother Adam is the longtime boyfriend of Pad Malakshmi. Okay, he's a prime This is a primetime family.

Speaker 2

This is a trimetime family.

Speaker 1

Okay.

Speaker 2

Michael Dell on Twitter.

Speaker 1

I don't know where we started revert to revert back to pre alignment conferences and we ended up with Pad Malakshman, which is I think.

Speaker 2

We've got to go. We've got a suggestion here, okay, to get rid of the fumble out of the back of the end zone rule. Now, okay, we saw this recently in the NFL playoffs with the Browns. It happened to the Browns, and you know, every time it happens, we see just this explosion of activity on Twitter and social media. Get rid of the rule. Don't get rid of the rule. Frankly, it's more people saying get rid of it than otherwise. I have always been okay with

the rule, and I understand the argument against it. I understand that the offense drives the field to get down in the end zone.

Speaker 1

And if that same thing happens anywhere before, then any of those one hundred.

Speaker 2

Yards right anywhere else. I totally understand the argument against the rule. I just think it is and I think it was Bill cal when I was watching the post game for that for the Browns game, he was the one who brought it up. I think it was a halftime actually, and he said, look, this, this would be, by any other standard, the most significant penalty levied against a team. Period. We don't see a twenty yard penalty

for pretty much anything else outside of pass interference. And it's just wrong to penalty possession.

Speaker 1

It's full possession, not.

Speaker 2

Just in possession, and full possession. Sure, yeah, so I take that point. I think it's valid. I guess the reason that I'm okay with it is because it is such a quirk. It is such a quirk And you know me, I'm all about the quirks. I want. I want to spring football because of the quirkiness of it. Yeah, so, I you know, that's not a compelling argument for I understand that people are yelling at their at their audio player right now. You're not making a case for it. No,

I'm not, of course I'm not. I like the fact that it is so quirky, and it is such a steep punishment that I think I'm in favor of keeping it. Maybe there's like a sadist quality to that, but I'm just I understand it okay with it.

Speaker 1

I understand where you're coming from, because what you're doing is you're punishing somebody for making a killer mistake where it matters the most. So you're saying, right, this part of the field is the most important part of the field to not fumble it. So if you do fumble it, tough luck. Everybody knows the rule going in, and so I understand the severity of it is not in line

with anything else in the sport. Man, when it happens to your team though, and it happened to Oregon in a key moment in two thousand and seven when it looked like they were on a national championship path, and ultimately, if they had won out after losing a game the way they did against Cal with I think it was Cameron Colvin fumbling it out of the end zone, they still would have gone to the national championship even with that move. So what happens to your team's brutal, But

it's even for everybody. I would be okay with. Did you ever play twenty one tie like the Driveway basketball game you'd play with your friends? Sure, And I think you have to get some way it goes for some iterations the game. You have to get exactly twenty one, so you get two points if you make it out on the court, you get one point when you make the free throw, and if you get to whatever it is. If you get to twenty and miss a free throw, obviously there's no way to get exactly twenty one, so

you go back to twelve or something like that. I'm okay with that too. I'm okay with being punished the twenty yards but maintaining possession. You fumble it out of the end zone on a scoring attempt, you have to go back to the twenty. I think I'm okay with that. I'm okay with it. I understand the appeal of the wrinkle where the stakes are just higher in this one by one foot area of the field. Yeah, I appreciate

the quirk of the rule. And you know, I was thinking about this looking over this list, But I may be more of a dick than I thought.

Speaker 2

I know, I don't really appreive that our next shirt. Yeah, I know, I don't really present as one. But one rule that I wanted to add to the list here is to reinstitute some use for margin of victory. I have long held the belief.

Speaker 1

And I've thought about this continue.

Speaker 2

I set it on our live stream during the National Championship when I lost my voice when we were talking to Michael Felder that and I've said this to you, Gosh, more times than I could ever count over the last

twelve years. The art of the blowout is very much like a dying breed, and a good blowout sometimes just as a palette cleanser, as a way to assert dominance, like it sucks when it happens to your team, but sometimes when you see a team like a Wisconsin drop eighty on another school, there is a certain show of force there that need not be overlooked. So I don't

know how we do that. I know that margin of victory has been boiled out of a lot of the advanced stuff that we like to look at, and for good reason.

Speaker 1

I mean, could you cap it. Could you say, let's take margin of victory into account, but we're not going to take it into account above thirty five.

Speaker 2

I think that's a possibility.

Speaker 1

Yeah, I think thirty five points is the maximum number that we would take into account your average margin of victory, and so you can blow out a team like old Big twelve Oklahoma Kansas style, Texas UCLA style. I think that went the UCLA way when I think about it. But where it's like seventy seven to six on the bottom line, you're like, ooh, yeah, it's definitely a week one. I like a good blowout.

Speaker 2

I love it.

Speaker 1

It's much it's a much better way to lose as well, no doubts.

Speaker 2

It's a quick death. And yeah, I could very easily see on some of those Tuesday night ranking shows or the reveal show at the end of the year talking about how many thirty five plus point victories a team like a.

Speaker 1

Well, it's also a very specific metric. It's not like, well, you know, this guy was missing, but they really showed out in the second half. No, like that is a number that is a specific number that can be pointed to.

Speaker 2

Yeah, it's maybe not great for a team like Bama. Bama's probably the worst example. But I'll say a team like Bama looking to get in the subs and build depth. But presumably they could build up that lead early and then but.

Speaker 1

They didn't lose this year. It didn't matter what their market didn't true and they don't think they won any of their games by single digits as well until the Florida Games.

Speaker 2

If they wanted to beat teams by thirty five, they very well could have right exactly the ones that they.

Speaker 1

Yeah, it's it's typically not the teams that have to worry about it that if they want to win by thirty five, they could. They're going to get in regardless if it's a choice at that point, they're going to get in. DIRP step pay the players more, pay the coach is less fine with this? Do you tie bonuses to both coaches and players something like, I mean, obviously a higher paid coach is going to do better in

the way of bonuses than an entry level coach. But do you tie you know, a coach getting one hundred thousand dollars for winning the conference and then two hundred thousand dollars more for making the playoff and two hundred and fifty thousand dollars more for winning a playoff game, and five hundred thousand dollars more for winning the national championship. Do we peel off some Do we peel off some bonus money for the players who play the most snaps.

Speaker 2

I'm all in favor of giving some of the power back to the players to change the balance of power, because right now it's all.

Speaker 1

Well, it's also incentive to go to those games as well.

Speaker 2

It's incentive based. Yeah, I you know, saying pay the players more. That's a lot to unpack. This isn't an actual idea. This is more of just a hope, just a hope. I do think that the way we are headed with this name, image and likeness legislation is a

good approach. I think it's a good approach. I don't know how the hell you regulate it, but I think it's a good approach because it essentially takes out of the equation schools having to pay the players, and it it's more of an Olympic model, right where you can go out and you can use your name and benefit off of off of whatever brand equity you have.

Speaker 1

Also, but it also passes off the responsibility, which I'm not a huge fan of that. Like, if you're not a big personality, if your left guard is incredible. I don't know what Quentin Nelson's personality was like at Notre Dame. I think he is like a fairly decent presence about him behind a microphone from what I've seen, But he wasn't a big, flashy, showy social media guy. But he

was the most important player arguably on that team. Right right, If he's not keen on doing a car commercial or going on Instagram and selling some sort of like soap for big men kind of thing, I don't think he should be punished financially. It's tough. I understand the quandary, and it's I think it's an entry point, a fairness entry point for players to take advantage of name, image and likeness. But I'm okay with that generally.

Speaker 2

I'm okay with trying to shift that balance of power away from coaches. We got a couple here suggestions for rules changes. Okay, so Johnny says, change the targeting rule two levels one in a two. This reminds me of like a flagrant one and two in basketball. He says, one is a twenty yard penalty no ejection. Two is a twenty yard penalty with an ejection for a clearly blatant district ard for a defenseless player. So that's that's one suggestion. We got another one here from Jack who

says no penalty for celebrations, which I love. This is one of the other ones. Yeah, I just look, football is a sport. It's fun. We watch for entertainment, and I'm as long as there are not players out there doing physical harm to their opponents defenselessly, I'm all about the celebration. Let them celebrate, let them have fun.

Speaker 1

That's fine.

Speaker 2

We have another one here to say that overtime drives should start at the forty, which I'm we talking about the targeting first, let's talk about tari go ahead.

Speaker 1

My only thing with the targeting is it needs to be an absolute rule. It either needs to not exist at all, and the game goes back to the level of violence. Good or bad depending on your worldview where they lived before, or it has to be a no nonsense, leave no doubt about anything close to targeting, you're out of the game. The problem is when you compare it

to the NBA. Is somebody running full speed and launching themselves with a helmet at the jugular of a slot receiver is different than somebody hitting somebody's arm really hard, going up for a layup on a fast break, or even hitting somebody mid air fast break. It's different. It's much more violent, and so that's why there are levels that sometimes somebody's just going for a block in an NBA game and it just it gets it's too much and you got to call it. But it's not worth

kicking them out. Football wise, we're talking knocking somebody out cold and saying, well.

Speaker 2

It's fifty yarder.

Speaker 1

The move is there to discourage that level of violence, and so what's to stop on a hail mary to decide a game just tackling a receiver just using the extreme level of targeting to make sure he doesn't come down with it, because you know you're only gonna be penalized fifteen yards and not kicked out of a game that there's no actual serious repercussion or you're knocking you know, DeVante Smith, you're only gonna get fifteen yards, And some rogue safety says, well, I'm not getting kicked out of

the game. I'm going to absolutely obliterate him in a clearly illegal way and knock him out of the game. Well, the I hear what you're saying, Like it doesn't. The rule is there to discourage extreme levels of violence and dirty plays. And I understand that kids are getting kicked out of games because they make mistakes that are not dirty.

But then you're leaving it on referees who don't necessarily have the best reputation to just decide something subjective that's going to change the tenor that's the entire ross's that's the issue. I like the spirit of this idea. I think the spirit of this idea is right on.

Speaker 2

Like what happened against James Skalsky and the justicelear start hit targeting by the rule that to me would qualify as like the twenty yard penalty no ejection.

Speaker 1

But isn't it also to protect him? It's to protect he put it m self in danger by lowering his head like that.

Speaker 2

I like the spirit of this rule. I think the hole if we're gonna poke it is you're leaving this up to the opinion of the referees. What is blatant disregard versus what isn't And that's where you get into that ugly gray territory. So next rule. Next rule.

Speaker 1

Here you mentioned overtime starting from the forty that would give us some long ass games.

Speaker 2

This one from Ken. Only the person who scores the touchdown can kick the extra point.

Speaker 1

It works for me.

Speaker 2

I would marry this rule. I love this rule so much.

Speaker 1

It absolutely works for me, especially because your mind immediately goes to running backs or a tight end or a quarterback running in about whatever. There are touchdowns that involve defensive tackles is so good falling on the ball. There are touchdowns involving an offensive lineman scooping up a fumble at the two and running it in whatever. I think large men kicking is an element to college football that we have not embraced enough. So yeah, this is all for it.

Speaker 2

This this has decided hack a shack feel to it. Okay, yeah, I mean it's not a direct line of site, but like there the notion that you would have a guy like a DeVante Smith and your team who is awesome at creating in the open field, scoring touchdowns, being electric on the field, and then just can't kick for crap exactly right. That to me is very interesting. I could say, like, let's institute this rule in the NFL. Instead of moving the kicks back, let's put it. Let's put it back

to where it was before. It's eighteen nineteen yard kick, and let's just whoever scores a touchdown gets to kick it. I love what I mean.

Speaker 1

Weren't there like way way back when, like quarterback slash punters. I think Sammy bad Norm Van Brocklin. Yeah, so it forces players to learn more skills. It also, let's say Minnesota is playing Indiana. Minnesota is down twenty seven to twenty. Minnesota is on the one yard line with a few seconds left. We're talking make or break, do or die all of the sudden. PJ. Fleck has to decide down seven, is it worth kicking an extra point after I score?

Perhaps with Tanner Morgan more going for two? Or you or die go for two? Or you like a good wrinkle, you like a good zag putting in his kicker at running.

Speaker 2

Back oh oh yeah, and have to.

Speaker 1

And just chance punching it in with a sneak or a hand on your quarterback, right, I mean it's at quarterback likely because why would you waste Everybody knows the kicker is going to be getting the ball. But then you also have a decoy element.

Speaker 2

With the kicker. There. Can you put like an eye formation of kickers?

Speaker 1

You absolutely could. Yeah, all of a sudden, you have to do end of game calculus in a way that nobody thought possible. You have your punter, your kicker, your backup kicker, your red shirting kicker in some sort of crazy formation.

Speaker 2

James Franklin would so screw this up. Yeah, of course he would.

Speaker 1

I love this rule so much. So now you have three choices. Chance Moe Ibrahim kicking the ball, chance giving it to your kicker on the goal line to score, or going for two in a.

Speaker 2

Do or die.

Speaker 1

Situation.

Speaker 2

This is so good, I think. What are Ron Dane scored something like seventy one touchdowns in his college career four years, obviously a storied career at Wisconsin. Of those seventy one touchdowns, how many kicks does Ron Daye make? Well?

Speaker 1

Going in? Does Ron Dane know that he is going like the summer before the or the summer when the rule is instituted, does he have to you know, does he have the warning to kick five hundred extra points that summer? Well, yeah, he's not thrust into it.

Speaker 2

No, no, no, it's not like it just happens in the first quarter and it's like, hey, Ron, we have breaking news. He knows he can plan for it, he can practice it. But of those seventy one attempts, how many does Ron Daye make? Does he make more than fifty percent?

Speaker 1

Yes?

Speaker 2

I think he does.

Speaker 1

Now you're also talking about somebody who's taking a bunch of hits, who's going to have tired legs at the end of a year the way that kickers don't. Right, So seventy one Ron day tremendous athlete. Could he learn to make eighty percent of his point afters? So you're talking about the timing of snap step step step, kick, kick it high enough, kick it down the middle. You

probably have more blocks. You definitely have more blocks. You're gonna have more shanky line drive situations that don't go anywhere near the uprights.

Speaker 2

Yeah.

Speaker 1

Yeah, of those seventy one touchdowns, scored. I think if he had a summer ahead of time.

Speaker 2

I say he makes fifty five of them.

Speaker 1

Yeah, that's where I'm leaning. I don't know what that number works out, two percentage wise, it's over fifty.

Speaker 2

It's over fifty percent.

Speaker 1

This.

Speaker 2

If I'm going to bat for any of the rules that we have listed off here, this is the one I would love it. We have another one here. We're running out of time and my voice is dying. Okay, let's do two more. Yeah, we have a bunch of the scheduling stuff. That couple of those. Yeah, I wanted to talk about the one that talked about Where was it about the on side kicks? Here we go, no more overtime, starting at the twenty five yard line after a coin toss. Start it with an on side kick

from the kicking team's forty. If the kicking team recovers and scores the game and scores, the game ends. Repeat until one team scores, recovers the kick, or holds their opponent from answering. I love this rule. I think on side kicks are only recovered like less than ten percent of the time. It's certainly less than twenty percent.

Speaker 1

Also, a violent play, you just violid play, throwing haymakers back and forth, don't worry about the safety.

Speaker 2

Just forget about that, all right. But I like this again as one of those wrinkles. It to include on side kicks because on side kicks are fun. They rarely work out, but they are fun to watch, So from a fans perspective, there's a lot upside there.

Speaker 1

I didn't put this one in there. Yeah, that doesn't do as much for me. I didn't put this one in there. Somebody suggested almost a shootout style after three overtimes. It's just a kick does a kickoff? Kick versus no kick versus yeah, kick off, not a kick a kickout. Just keep out, moving back, key, moving back five or ten yards at a time. It's not football deciding the game, but neither is it in hockey really when you're just doing a shootout or soccer.

Speaker 2

So that's interesting. Give me like a quick scheduling one or two.

Speaker 1

Okay, so we have a lot of them. Well, first of all, somebody said eliminate overtime, which I kind of love.

Speaker 2

I kind of love that one because the system, Yeah it's not the worst, not the worst.

Speaker 1

Does does the complexion of this past year change. If Notre Dame and Clemson in South Bend End in a tie, I don't think it does. They're both still making the playoff and ultimately losing.

Speaker 2

So if Notre Dame doesn't beat Clemson the first time, I think there's a chance that losing to Clemson in the a SEC Championship game knocks them out of the playoff.

Speaker 1

You think that would be enough to give A and M the NOD hypothetical?

Speaker 2

I think I think so hypothetically.

Speaker 1

Yeah, we have a lot of people calling for the normalization of schedules, which I mixed on. I would be okay with it if it meant pods Bill Connolly's system by which teams and I'm definitely paraphrasing and shortening all of this where you basically have three annual opponents in your conference that you know have the most tradition and zazz behind you know, Alabama would have Auburn, LSU, Tennessee, right, and then everything else within the conference rotates and you

end up playing more teams more often. I love that you play eight games total within the conference. What people have suggested is based on that Coastal Carolina BYU game is building in a flex week at some point we've got a lot of these pitches building in a flex week somewhere during the season and say player two or three non conference games early, then halfway through the conference part of the schedule you randomly play, or it's like a select it's a thirty two team tournament the top

thirty two teams, or it's just a whatever. However many teams EI. There's a Power five version, a G five version.

You have conference matchups Big ten, Pac twelve, and you just you rank everybody and you have you have teams play each other as sort of a challenge midyear to say okay, and maybe you flop who gets to play at home in certain years whatever, but you say, okay, Alabama's number four and Oklahoma states number I'm doing my math real quickly here that it's a four and a thirteen or something like that in an NCAA tournament style seed pairing, and they're just going to play each other

on October nineteenth and it's decided the week before. Yeah.

Speaker 2

I like the real time scheduling flex scheduling twist because again, like you could argue, the best game we saw a year was BYU Coastal and that happened as I like to say, sixty hours before kickoff. So anything that we can do, especially from our standpoint, Dan, what do we see as the year progresses? Inevitably the downloads go down and Hm, I don't think it's because of the show gets worse. I think it's because people lose interest. Their teams are out of it, they don't have as much

reason to watch. If suddenly you give folks a reason to watch in week twelve a game that we only found out about a week prior or some period prior. That's interesting. That injects new life into the sport. It certainly makes it harder for something.

Speaker 1

You mentioned the ticket market.

Speaker 2

But the ticket market, like, there's so much upside there from a fans perspective that I would want that absolutely.

Speaker 1

Imagine being a season ticket holder and you see the schedule, you see the like the Oregon schedule is you know, cal and UCLA and Arizona State. But then right there in late October wild Card.

Speaker 2

Yeah, well you could. I'm assuming charge much higher rates for ticket prices if you've got a random Wildcard game in there.

Speaker 1

We'll think about the speculation involved in that ticket market. Earlier on in the season, Obama coming Eugene.

Speaker 2

Yeah, yeah, I love this, I really love Let's let's put our name behind this one as well, so we'll go, we'll go.

Speaker 1

What do you think anything needs to be done about FCS scheduling. I've been all over the place with this.

Speaker 2

Yeah, I don't. I used to be staunchly anti FCS. Mm hmmm. We've actually gotten some good FCS games over the last couple of years. The overwhelming majority of them aren't, but you know, like it's good for the sport. We've seen North Dakota State contend and win. It is a good exception. They're an exception. It is good for the sport. So I don't know, I'm I'm very mixed on it as well.

Speaker 1

I think the big loser in this is obviously the fan, a fan playing paying to see a SOSO FCS opponent take on a paycheck game, you know, traveling to wherever, to Texas or to USC whatever. I know USC hasn't played a lot of these games, but you know, that's just an example of a team that would probably lay waste to Northern Arizona or whatever. But it's good for the sport and that it gets money in the lower

levels of the sport, and that's a positive thing. You want football to be popular on all levels if you're into the sport. Also, it's good for a team to have that opening week to sort out some kinks. We like to talk about the biggest improvement coming between week one and week two. And I know people we have some other ideas about scheduling. Okay, take all the you know, the top fifteen, the top twenty five teams from the previous year, and schedule them all in Week one and

random matchups whatever. All of the sudden, we have a Week one that should filled with TCU, Wisconsin and Minnesota, Florida State and we just get all these like incredible matchups week one. I don't love that because I don't think teams are anywhere near where they're going to be week one. So what I like is if we're going to have a normalized schedule, everybody in Week one gets an FCS opponent, work through some kinks, money gets paid.

You know, it's good for the health of the sport. Yes, fans lose, but at the same time, you get to tailgate, you get to go outside. It's still warm out everywhere, it's it's Okay, you get to watch college football, people are still excited even if the game ends thirty five to three. You're eating brought worst, you're with your buddies in a normal year. I think it's okay. I think we can get over it.

Speaker 2

Let's close out with this one from Ryan. Okay, I think this is something everyone can agree on. No clock stoppage after first downs except for the last two minutes of each half, because we need to try and keep game times closer to three hours. Some games drag on forever. Can we just do this one by unanimous consent?

Speaker 1

Dan, Yeah, I mean, this doesn't really change anything about the game, It just makes it shorter by keeping the clock going. I think I'm okay with it. I mean, I generally speaking, the games that get really out of hand are the ones on you know, the CBS games,

because they go to commercial every few minutes. It has nothing as much to do with the first down clock as its much as it's like, Okay, there was a punt right there, there was a first down play and it went out abound, right, you need that, thank you

very much. I think I'm alright with this one. And it's also the air raid games it's when we had those Sunny Dykes Mike Leach games out West that went four and a half hours because of all the passes and you guys going out of bounds or in complete passes, whatever. So I think I'm okay with this game. I don't think it would appreciate I don't think it would change the way the rhythm of a game in an appreciative way.

Speaker 2

So I don't think it would change the game that much. And I think think it would be a much better fan experience, much better fan experience because some of these games. He's right, come on, you.

Speaker 1

Want you want to maddox these games. You just want to Let's keep it roll. Let's keep it roll.

Speaker 2

Let's streamline this stuff. Man. You know it's if you're down twenty, you're probably not gonna win. Let's go, let's keep this, Let's get this show in the road.

Speaker 1

I think I don't know if there was any I'm looking through here. I don't know if it was any we have like the bracketbus ideas oh Davis says, this is the final one. The spring games should be scrimmages. They don't need to be against huge teams, but make it like a preseason game. Plenty of high schools do it. It would increase viewership and attendance.

Speaker 2

What do they when they vote?

Speaker 1

So maybe this is the FCS match but no, But I don't.

Speaker 2

Know when they vote in like the Senate or Congress. What is it? I I when they agree nay, yeah, can we just go?

Speaker 1

And a who we just go?

Speaker 2

I on this one too.

Speaker 1

So the reason you do it is because you get a real game in the spring. It's a it's a nice little treat. It's a friendly, right, It's it doesn't have you know, it doesn't have the stakes of a regular season game, but it's still the sport. The reason why I don't think it would be fully successful is why would you try play Trevor Lawrence in a late April game if you're colepsing, it's not going towards your record. It's fun to see early enrollees and red shirts and those types of people, but.

Speaker 2

You're you're assuming that the friendly is going to have normal football rules. What if you can't hit the quarterback? You know, what if it's essentially spring football but you're protecting What.

Speaker 1

If overtimes consists of only on side kicks?

Speaker 2

What if punts cost one point. Yeah.

Speaker 1

I was going to say, you risk somebody, you know, an outside linebacker, tearing their acl but that spring practice anyway. Yeah, that anyway.

Speaker 2

So as long as as long as you've got some protections in place here to make sure that these guys aren't out drilling each other and you're hurting your top talent, I don't see why you can do it.

Speaker 1

So the only reason why I think teams wouldn't be into it is I don't think guys are in game shape during the spring like there they go through winter conditioning. I think spring is a lot more for seeing what you have depth wise, installing new systems, getting new coaches ready, and it's just it's shaking off some rust. But it's not necessarily getting guys game ready. And so that's that could be the issue where it's sort of counterintuitive to

what spring football actually is. It's a series of practices for the sake of practice, not for the sake of preparing for a game. Fall camp is very different from spring camp. So that's that's the only reason why not. But I guess they are scrimmaging at the end and if everybody's on the same playing field, But man, then you're you're rarely talking about installing a new fall camp in the spring.

Speaker 2

At that point, I'm okay with this. I'm totally okay with this, But.

Speaker 1

I would understand why they're not, but I would be going. But especially if we are talking about, say, you know, a Scout team red shirt. You know it's guys wearing the uniform, it's guys that are contributors. But you know you're gonna get a bunch of guys sitting and maybe they're playing a D two school, local D two school, a way to get some money to other schools in the area. Oregon's playing willam At College. Shippensburg football has taken on Penn State and State.

Speaker 2

Well, now that we've got Mike Rsich, that's obvious Shippensburg connection.

Speaker 1

Oh man, I think I'm okay with it. I don't know. I it would be very strange to May still.

Speaker 2

By the way, I don't think we've talked about like your sitch taking over for.

Speaker 1

Replacing Kirk Shrock.

Speaker 2

Yeah, kind of came out of the blue. Rock.

Speaker 1

Yeah, I really didn't anticipate all sorts of crazy changes to coaching staffs, which just shows how dumb I am, But yeah, it obviously didn't work out. We don't know the nature of what occurred in the Penn State Football office and whether or not people got along or didn't. But no, apparently James Franklin wanted to hire Mike You're Sick last year and got beaten out by Texas and Tom Herman. So took advantage of his opportunity. Got a local smart football mind. And I think he played in

PA as well. Right, yeah, I think he played college football there. He's a PA dude.

Speaker 2

All right.

Speaker 1

Good for Penn State. I hope it works out for him.

Speaker 2

Follow us on social media at solid Verbal. Also check out our patreon at for Bowlers dot com. As they said at the top, two episodes a week for the foreseeable future. At some point in July, will scale back up to three to get you ready for the season. But for the time being, catching her breath, letting her voices, heal, getting back on the horse every Tuesday Thursday.

Speaker 1

That's the sky, sir, simple as that.

Speaker 2

Stay warm out there, a right, man.

Speaker 1

I woke up and it said negative zero on my I don't even know what that means.

Speaker 2

That's a singular. You're in the singularity Yeah, isn't there for that guy over there, my good friend Dan Rubenstein, for myself, Tie Hill, the brand. We will talk to y'all next week. In the meantime, stay safe, stay healthy, stay happy, enjoy your weekend.

Speaker 1

Stay soft, please,

Transcript source: Provided by creator in RSS feed: download file
For the best experience, listen in Metacast app for iOS or Android