I would like to see this happen.
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/12349646/big-ten-considering-ineligibility-freshmen
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/12349646/big-ten-considering-ineligibility-freshmen
Big ten mulling year of readiness
- Thread starter MattFoleyHawk
- Start date
I don't think that would be the worst thing in the world, but the down side that I see is if no other conference out there does this, I just think it would make it that much tougher to recruit against them. A lot of these young kids come in thinking they are ready to go right out of HS. Most of these kids could use that Freshman year to adjust to college life and get stronger.
why am i not surprised that kf supports this, and why am i also not surprised that you agree with him?
just in case it wasnt hard enough to sell 17 and 18 year old young men on the idea of coming to the U of I and playing football for kf lets add to it that he goes and is quoted in an espn article that he thinks that freshman shouldnt even be eligible to play.
Yep, football ranking and playoffs is more important than college. How could anyone think otherwise?
The solution to the ever-trending-towards-the-nfl is to always trend towards the nfl.
The solution to the ever-trending-towards-the-nfl is to always trend towards the nfl.
Because we care about the kids and you care about....I have no idea what you care about or what your priorities are.
And I can't speak as to why you are not suprised, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
r-u you do realize the commissioners of the Pac 12 and the BT are supporting this, don't you? why do you feel the need to rag on KF about this?
While I do not think it is a terrible idea if everyone did it. It would be terrible for a conference or 2 to do it. Think about how hard it would be sell a school to a kid you are recruiting by saying you cannot play next year even if you are ready, but if you go to school over there you can/
I think it would be even bigger issue in basketball. True Freshman basketball players now more than ever come in physically ready to play. I mean look at what Kentucky has done year after year.
I think it would be even bigger issue in basketball. True Freshman basketball players now more than ever come in physically ready to play. I mean look at what Kentucky has done year after year.
I don't think anyone will do it unless the NCAA as a whole does it. Keep in mind this will bring on the call for more scholarships be allowed which wouldn't be good for schools like Iowa. Schools like OHIO State would stock pile more top athletes which would leave less for the schools outside the close recruiting area. Sometime things sound good but have a big downside.
This will most likely never happen. But the fact that there is an article on it, already hurts the recruiting of the BIG.
As if recruiting players to the BIG wasn't hard enough. They have to come out with something like this.
I'm sorry. but another fact is that some kids come ready to play as freshman. And if they can't play in the BIG as a freshman, then they will look elsewhere. More of those east coast kids will start playing for ACC and SEC teams.
As if recruiting players to the BIG wasn't hard enough. They have to come out with something like this.
I'm sorry. but another fact is that some kids come ready to play as freshman. And if they can't play in the BIG as a freshman, then they will look elsewhere. More of those east coast kids will start playing for ACC and SEC teams.
While you're up there answer this: Do you think the kids want this? Or do "we" not care what they want or need? Just "care about the kids"?
I think Kirk would make an excellent large high school coach or DIII coach. Seems to be what he wants to run the Iowa program like.
I have no idea what the kids want or what they think is best for themselves. Haven't heard or read anything on the subject. I'll bet there are people out there who are talking to kids and getting their input on it though. Don't know if 17 or 18 year kids always 'know' what is best for them though, probably at least partially why the drinking age is 21. I just personally think it is a good idea. I won't bore you with a long summation on why I think this, just my opinion.
What you see here is a subtle attack on the big ten by ESPN
The headline screams big ten and yet the are a few conference commissioners stating they are in favor. I didn't by the way see a quote from Delaney but I did see quotes from other conf commissioners
Gosh why would ESPN do this?
The headline screams big ten and yet the are a few conference commissioners stating they are in favor. I didn't by the way see a quote from Delaney but I did see quotes from other conf commissioners
Gosh why would ESPN do this?
Interesting point. Hmmm...Why would they?
And others are correct, it would be foolish, to say the least, for the B1G or any conf. to go this alone.
Good athletes never want to 'sit' or be idle or not compete, so my totally uneducated guess would be no to your first question.
Since I'm in my 50's, everyone under 30 is a kid to me
Plus, I don't think we do a very good job of defining when kid's become adults.
illhawkdvv posted on 2/20/2015...
I don't think anyone will do it unless the NCAA as a whole does it. Keep in mind this will bring on the call for more scholarships be allowed which wouldn't be good for schools like Iowa. Schools like OHIO State would stock pile more top athletes which would leave less for the schools outside the close recruiting area. Sometime things sound good but have a big downside.___________________________________________________________________________________________________
You do have a very valid point on the scholarships, and how this could potentially hurt the schools that are not in a habit of over signing kids. I think there would have to be some changes in the actually number of players you could have on scholarship, and these numbers would have to be strictly enforced, (absolutely no over signing, hard and fast limits) for this to even work. I just don't think the over signing policies would change, so in that case it probable wouldn't work. From an athletic and educational stand point, I think this would be good for a incoming freshman and colleges alike.
I think this could also hinder the schools that bring in marginal kids. If they have to sit a year to be eligible and can't make it
grade wise, they could lose the kid to academics. Just my thought, I know this hasn't even happened yet and may not, but if they would lose a kid that way, I would like to see the scholarship still count against them. Also this would hurt their score as a school and could potential cost them from being bowl eligible.
Just some thoughts, they definitely would have to do some thing to keep the playing fields level for all I would think.
I don't think anyone will do it unless the NCAA as a whole does it. Keep in mind this will bring on the call for more scholarships be allowed which wouldn't be good for schools like Iowa. Schools like OHIO State would stock pile more top athletes which would leave less for the schools outside the close recruiting area. Sometime things sound good but have a big downside.___________________________________________________________________________________________________
You do have a very valid point on the scholarships, and how this could potentially hurt the schools that are not in a habit of over signing kids. I think there would have to be some changes in the actually number of players you could have on scholarship, and these numbers would have to be strictly enforced, (absolutely no over signing, hard and fast limits) for this to even work. I just don't think the over signing policies would change, so in that case it probable wouldn't work. From an athletic and educational stand point, I think this would be good for a incoming freshman and colleges alike.
I think this could also hinder the schools that bring in marginal kids. If they have to sit a year to be eligible and can't make it
grade wise, they could lose the kid to academics. Just my thought, I know this hasn't even happened yet and may not, but if they would lose a kid that way, I would like to see the scholarship still count against them. Also this would hurt their score as a school and could potential cost them from being bowl eligible.
Just some thoughts, they definitely would have to do some thing to keep the playing fields level for all I would think.
18 year olds don't go fight till they have MONTHS of training, they just get handed a gun and then told to go kill straight out of Boot camp like they did with kids during the WW.
also 18 year olds can't get home sick and go home, in the military they have a SGT in their face telling them to suck it up.
and to the poster stop lying about KF not playing FR as that is the BIGGEST LIE on this board.
also 18 year olds can't get home sick and go home, in the military they have a SGT in their face telling them to suck it up.
and to the poster stop lying about KF not playing FR as that is the BIGGEST LIE on this board.
yes they are, and many times KF and other coaches like to have players RS. this would take the decision out of players hands like CJF who clearly not ready to play as a 4* TE and its showed,
would they need to expand the number of scholarship "NO" the NFL have just 48 players {I believe} on the active roster, this would severely hurt the SEC schools and coaches like Meyer at O$U that sign 25 players every year,
this would start to spread the talent out even more.
would they need to expand the number of scholarship "NO" the NFL have just 48 players {I believe} on the active roster, this would severely hurt the SEC schools and coaches like Meyer at O$U that sign 25 players every year,
this would start to spread the talent out even more.
how many athletes are the commissioners of the pac12 and B1G out there trying to recruit? i personally will not be effected by this at all as i am neither an 18 year old or the parent of one. however the athletes and parents that kf is trying to recruit will be. when he puts it out there that he is in favor of freshman ineligibility it makes it pretty hard to tell an athlete/parent that they will be given an equal opportunity to start their freshman year. it doesnt really matter if they will truly be given that chance or not, the perception will be that they will not. i really dont care if kf is for or against this proposal, i just think it is against his and the football programs best interest to be quoted as being in favor of freshman ineligibility.
i care about not restricting the opportunities of people. i care about people not be discriminated against because of their age, sex, religion, ect. i care about treating 18 year olds like the adults that they are and not like children. i believe that very few people learn from the mistakes of others and that they must be free to make mistakes on their own and learn from them. i believe that if a few d1 football and mens basketball players fail at school and sports then so be it, i believe that they will be given another opportunity at a different institution. i believe that not everyone can or will succeed in society.
if this is all about the kids than why is this only d1 football and mens basketball? are the players of these two sports some how less mature than the rest of their peers that are the same age and participate in other sports, or play the same sports at a different division of universities?
as to why i am not surprised, is because there are a few people on this board who will defend/agree with kf no matter what he says or does, and you seem to be one of them. if i am wrong in that assumption, i guess i am at fault.
Amen. I am a 101st airborne infantry vet who is a member of veterans for peace now and I think we should send 55-70 year old war-mongering politicians to war and let the 18 year olds have a life. Cowherd is a .......
your example for why players should not be allowed to play their freshman year, because it is detrimental to their development is cjf? he was ranked the 5th best tight end in his high school class. he was named 1st team all B1G by the coaches his senior year. he was drafted in the 3rd round, the 5th over all tight end taken in the nfl draft. he started 8 games and played in 15 games, taking 42.2% of the offensive snaps his rookie year. he signed a 4 year $3.95 million dollar contract, which included a $703,304 signing bonus. yep, sounds like a complete failure. he never should have been allowed to play as a freshman in college, he obviously didnt know what was best for himself. i feel bad that society didnt do what was best for cjf.
Even the people who run the BiG are not stupid enough to do this unilaterally. It would kill the league as a major player, and it would do so in just three or four years.
People should be talking more about money. One of the major reasons the NCAA changed the rules to allow freshmen to play was the cost of having them ineligible. Schools needed more scholarships in order to have a big enough varsity roster, and they also had to have coaches for the freshmen team and they had to have a schedule for it.
IIRC, in those days there were 18-20 kids on scholarship for basketball. For football, until the '70s there was no limit at all. I'm pretty sure Johnny Majors signed more than 70 freshmen to scholarships his first year at Pitt.
People should be talking more about money. One of the major reasons the NCAA changed the rules to allow freshmen to play was the cost of having them ineligible. Schools needed more scholarships in order to have a big enough varsity roster, and they also had to have coaches for the freshmen team and they had to have a schedule for it.
IIRC, in those days there were 18-20 kids on scholarship for basketball. For football, until the '70s there was no limit at all. I'm pretty sure Johnny Majors signed more than 70 freshmen to scholarships his first year at Pitt.
someone certainly does need to pay a little more attention when reading. this thread and article were clearly both posted originally on Thursday 2/19 and then edited to add the ncaa quote on Friday 2/20.
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/12349646/big-ten-considering-ineligibility-freshmen
Updated: February 20, 2015, 1:32 PM ET
"The rules surrounding freshmen ineligibility don't fall within the areas of autonomy, which means either conferences choose to adopt the policy on their own or the legislation is voted on by the entire division," the NCAA said in a statement issued Friday.
but dont let facts get in the way of your preaching from your soapbox.
Having headlines "Big ten mulling year of readiness" brings clicks and viewer's out in one of sports slow times of the year. In reality this becomes a proposal for all the NCAA to debate. Nobody is stupid enough to implement this in just their conference.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
no cecil you are stupid enough to believe the BT would go it alone, and all the members would need to vote yes to make it happen, and Smith of O$U would not vote for it as well as other BT AD's vote yes to go it alone.
Hawkeye2222,
Your entitled to your opinion of my intelligence. However, your read on this one is very funny. A little intuitiveness from you, and would understand I was addressing posters that glossed over what the NCAA, and other conference commissioners said, and thinking KF was HRIII-take 2.
Carry on big fella
Your entitled to your opinion of my intelligence. However, your read on this one is very funny. A little intuitiveness from you, and would understand I was addressing posters that glossed over what the NCAA, and other conference commissioners said, and thinking KF was HRIII-take 2.
Carry on big fella
