Conference Commissioners Considering Freshman Ineligibility

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,502
46,845
187
Delany keeps opening his trap. I wonder if he realizes that Ohio State would never have sniffed a championship last year without the significant contributions of true freshman players and sophomores who got significant experience as true freshmen the previous season. The B1G would have gone another year without a championship and slipped further into mediocrity.
 

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
63,414
67,193
462
crimsonaudio.net
This would probably force the NFL to change their rule, making a person eligible four years-post HS instead of the current three. The NFL needs the FBS to act as a 'farm league' and less playing time = less development.
 

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
10,615
4,540
187
44
kraizy.art
Not likely. Think about it - HaHa wouldn't have played in 2011. The pro scouts would have only had two years of tape on him when he became draft eligible. He most likely would have stayed another year.
Oh come on, they're not going to pass up on top shelf talent because he only played two years. Heck, Winston has so much baggage, and he only played two years. Do you think he falls out of the first round?

This rule would have a massive negative impact on any program that actually sends guys to the pros on a regular basis. I disagree that it helps anyone, unless you want to look at it in terms of helping teams that can't compete without some stupid rule to help even the playing field. Treating all these athletes are though they are not ready to play is absurd and really unfair, to tell a Amari or TJ that they can't play because some kid goes to college one year to play basketball because he has to.

This really runs afoul of the other let's help everyone who can't compete otherwise rules, like scholarship limits. Players will still leave early, period. Now we're just saying they have to sit, no matter how ready they are.

If people are so worried about players being ready to play, then why don't I hear more talk about the stupid NCAA limit on coaches for instance? You want to get the kids ready, give them more coaches, what down side can there possibly be to having more coaches (other than the fact that programs already losing money can't afford it)?
 
Last edited:

RTR91

Super Moderator
Nov 23, 2007
39,407
6
0
Prattville
I may have missed it when I started the thread, but ESPN basketball guys talked about his last night. This rule would only apply to basketball and football. Yeah, it's not passing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,502
46,845
187
This would probably force the NFL to change their rule, making a person eligible four years-post HS instead of the current three. The NFL needs the FBS to act as a 'farm league' and less playing time = less development.
If this is a result of the change, I would fully support it.
 

alwayshavebeen

All-SEC
Sep 22, 2013
1,213
110
82
North Carolina
Given this one some thought and kind of wavered for a minute, but I go back to my first impression this is a terrible idea for football. Players are put in a system with tutors, etc that offers structure academically and gives them somewhat of an advantage versus the regular non-athlete student. Add to that another immeasurable of the value in being a member of a team, and the positive environment that creates. Now you may say they would get all that being a ineligible freshman, but I would disagree. Being treated as an eligible athlete versus a non-eligible athlete IMO are not the same.

Players that are not ready to play will likely be redshirted anyway, and the few that are future NFL talents are likely 3 and done anyway. I do not believe the NFL would change their rules to 4-years after high school and so in reality we would be looking at 2 and done. When I played it would have been very disappointing to have that high school momentum leading in to college only to be required to sit out a year regardless of talent level.

Lastly, as with so many things, why not look back at history and see why this rule was changed in the early 70's? Usually there were many very good reasons that people just don't remember.
 
Last edited:

CB4

Hall of Fame
Aug 8, 2011
9,457
13,445
187
Birmingham, AL
Given this one some thought and kind of wavered for a minute, but I go back to my first impression this is a terrible idea for football. Players are put in a system with tutors, etc that offers structure academically and gives them somewhat of an advantage versus the regular non-athlete student. Add to that another immeasurable of the value in being a member of a team, and the positive environment that creates. Now you may say they would get all that being a ineligible freshman, but I would disagree. Being held treated as an eligible athlete versus a non-eligible athlete IMO are not the same.

Players that are not ready to play will likely be redshirted anyway, and the few that are future NFL talents are likely 3 and done anyway. I do not believe the NFL would change their rules to 4-years after high school and so in reality we would be looking at 2 and done. When I played it would have been very disappointing to have that high school momentum leading in to college only to be required to sit out a year regardless of talent level.

Lastly, as with so many things, why not look back at history and see why this rule was changed in the early 70's? Usually there were many very good reasons that people just don't remember.
I remember the change taking place in football prior to the 1972 season. Prior to that schools had junior varsity squads that would play 5 or 6 games per season. I also remember some schools also had both a freshman team and a JV team. However, I can't recall a definite reason why they made freshman eligible unless it was seen as a cost saving measure by eliminating JV and frosh teams in football and travel expenses associated with those games.

Edit: Reading on RollTide.com, it seems the freshman football squad was eliminated in 1971 with the advent of freshman eligibility. However, Alabama continued to play JV games until 1981 (which I did not remember).
 
Last edited:

Al A Bama

Hall of Fame
Jun 24, 2011
6,658
934
132
An article, I think on ESPN.com, says the B1G is thinking about doing it. It will be trouble if it's not an NCAA rule. If it isn't an NCAA rule, then conferences can't afford to do it. They (B1G) would lose recruits if they do it and the SEC doesn't. Where would you go as a freshman: where you can play or where you know you will SIT!

If a freshman is ready to perform academically and athletically, it would be a crime to take away their eligibility. Some aren't ready. Coach Saban knows who is ready.
 

Blindside13

All-SEC
Oct 22, 2011
1,846
1
0
Near the Barn
This helps most athletes. It helps most schools. It hurts truly elite athletes and the schools who recruit them a consistent basis. Alabama, USCw, tOSU, and the like.

Keep in mind: the current rule about being out of high school a minimum of three years isn't an NCAA rule. It's part of the collective bargaining agreement between the NFL and the NFLPA.

It's a provision the players' union wants to protect its veterans from being replaced by younger, presumably less expensive, alternatives.

If this passes, it will be interesting to see if the NFLPA responds.
I agree this rule would effect schools who get the elite athletes year in and year out, alot more than it would other schools. If the freshmen are ready to play then they should be allowed to play. In my opinion this is another attempt to, try to get teams on a more even playing field especially in recruiting. Early playing time could not be offered and it would force recruits to, really look at a depth chart more.
 

colbysullivan

Hall of Fame
Dec 12, 2007
16,697
13,612
187
Gulf Breeze, FL
I'm more in favor of them getting rid of redshirting and giving players 5 years of eligibility. It would benefit 99% of college athletes. The other elite athletes will still leave early regardless.
 

RTR91

Super Moderator
Nov 23, 2007
39,407
6
0
Prattville
Mike Slive talks about the proposal.

"Let's step back and consider our goal. If we are trying to impact graduation rates and grade point averages, we have to remember that each college student has his or her own academic challenges. To put a blanket over these student-athletes with a year on the bench doesn't address those individual needs to incentivize academic progress. Many students do come to college prepared both academically and athletically ready to compete in the classroom and in competition, and to penalize those students with a universal policy may create unintended consequences not beneficial to many student-athletes.

"If this proposal is about student-athletes turning professional, we need to be careful not to create rules for a few that penalize the many. The universe of student-athletes who leave early for professional sports is very small compared to the numbers that participate in football and men's basketball. And just because a student-athlete enters professional sports does not mean he or she has totally abandoned their academic pursuits."
 

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.