Big ten mulling year of readiness

[Urohawk]

Sometimes I just want to blow up the whole College football system. This could be a start. P10 and B10 could start to limit freshmen eligibility. Next step is to drop out of the NCAA and start paying players some reasonable reimbursement beyond tuition, room, and board. Conference champions play each other. SEC and B12 can just suck it.

 

[ClarindaA's]

Terrible idea unless it's global.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[bdg8]

Originally posted by IowaHawkeyeFBnBB4Life:
Might as well push for it, KF doesn't play freshman anyways

Or he will play them for ten plays the entire season and kill their redehirtm

 

[MattFoleyHawk]

Originally posted by bdg8:

Originally posted by IowaHawkeyeFBnBB4Life:
Might as well push for it, KF doesn't play freshman anyways

Or he will play them for ten plays the entire season and kill their redehirtm

I don't know what a redehirtm is, but it sounds scary and if one comes around me, I'll probably kill it!

This post was edited on 2/23 1:05 AM by MattFoleyHawk

 

[DianaMoonGlampers]

Originally posted by who r u:

Originally posted by MattFoleyHawk:

Originally posted by who r u:

Originally posted by MattFoleyHawk:

I would like to see this happen.
https://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/12349646/big-ten-considering-ineligibility-freshmen

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.

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.

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.

I agree with your assessment here. If a person can sue and be sued in our country, be held accountable for his actions, he is an adult and needs to be treated as one. This is my biggest gripe about the drinking age as well. Which ever number you choose, 18 or 21, it should match the age of maturity.
As for this topic in particular, if I was a guy impacted by this, I would immediately file a case under Title IX. How is it that we are only talking about applying this to football and men's basketball? This either has to be enforced against all sports or none of them. We would hate to have a system that treats one sex differently than the other, correct?
Finally, if the NCAA really gave a shit about these kids and their academics, they would have passed rules long ago about scholarships being tied to graduation rates. Imagine how college sports would change if a team is only allowed a scholarship for every player who graduated the previous year. Unless and until that is factored into scholarships, I am going to continue to view college sports as a cash cow for the universities and a D league for the professional ranks, while the players are more like indentured servants than "student athletes".

 

[MattFoleyHawk]

Originally posted by DianaMoonGlampers:

Originally posted by who r u:

Originally posted by MattFoleyHawk:

Originally posted by who r u:

Originally posted by MattFoleyHawk:

I would like to see this happen.
https://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/12349646/big-ten-considering-ineligibility-freshmen

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.

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.

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.

I agree with your assessment here. If a person can sue and be sued in our country, be held accountable for his actions, he is an adult and needs to be treated as one. This is my biggest gripe about the drinking age as well. Which ever number you choose, 18 or 21, it should match the age of maturity.
As for this topic in particular, if I was a guy impacted by this, I would immediately file a case under Title IX. How is it that we are only talking about applying this to football and men's basketball? This either has to be enforced against all sports or none of them. We would hate to have a system that treats one sex differently than the other, correct?
Finally, if the NCAA really gave a shit about these kids and their academics, they would have passed rules long ago about scholarships being tied to graduation rates. Imagine how college sports would change if a team is only allowed a scholarship for every player who graduated the previous year. Unless and until that is factored into scholarships, I am going to continue to view college sports as a cash cow for the universities and a D league for the professional ranks, while the players are more like indentured servants than "student athletes".

Good assessment. I spoke earlier about consistantly defining what is an adult. A child of 12 can be 'tried'' as an adult for capital offenses, a 15 yr. old girl can marry in many states, and a 17 yr. old may start their military training (I think it's even younger with a waiver). But an 18 yr. old is not 'mature' enough to drink? The contradictions are mind boggling to me. I really wish we'd make up our minds, and it is on 'us', not the government. They will apply it however it suits their given agenda.
And I will add an 'amen' to you views that college sports is a 'cash cow', but don't forget how much the NCAA itself makes off of the kids. I believe it only exists to make money. I also enjoyed the 'identured servants' analogy.
This post was edited on 2/23 11:16 AM by MattFoleyHawk

 

[David1979]

Originally posted by Urohawk:
Sometimes I just want to blow up the whole College football system. This could be a start. P10 and B10 could start to limit freshmen eligibility. Next step is to drop out of the NCAA and start paying players some reasonable reimbursement beyond tuition, room, and board. Conference champions play each other. SEC and B12 can just suck it.

The problem is this move is meant to combat paying players not a move towards paying them.

 

[DianaMoonGlampers]

Originally posted by David1979:

Originally posted by Urohawk:
Sometimes I just want to blow up the whole College football system. This could be a start. P10 and B10 could start to limit freshmen eligibility. Next step is to drop out of the NCAA and start paying players some reasonable reimbursement beyond tuition, room, and board. Conference champions play each other. SEC and B12 can just suck it.

The problem is this move is meant to combat paying players not a move towards paying them.

I am not so sure about that, and I think that this move could lean in favor of giving the "student athletes" more of a voice. This would be an enormous shift in the current system, and if this shift is made without giving the players themselves a voice, it is just another example of how they need a seat at the table when things are being discussed.

 

[David1979]

Originally posted by DianaMoonGlampers:

Originally posted by David1979:

Originally posted by Urohawk:
Sometimes I just want to blow up the whole College football system. This could be a start. P10 and B10 could start to limit freshmen eligibility. Next step is to drop out of the NCAA and start paying players some reasonable reimbursement beyond tuition, room, and board. Conference champions play each other. SEC and B12 can just suck it.

The problem is this move is meant to combat paying players not a move towards paying them.

I am not so sure about that, and I think that this move could lean in favor of giving the "student athletes" more of a voice. This would be an enormous shift in the current system, and if this shift is made without giving the players themselves a voice, it is just another example of how they need a seat at the table when things are being discussed.

You think making players sit out their freshman year is giving them more of a voice? This move is a direct result of the O'Bannon case and other recent developments in favor of the athletes. They are trying to reassert the idea that these kids are really students first aka student athletes. It is about control over the athletes not about giving them a voice, and also about attempting to leverage more power from the NBA. It is really a smoke screen to divert attention from the idea that the athletes are in any way employees and therefore should be paid and get other employee rights.

 

[SoDakHawk]

This is a great idea for football. A majority of players who step foot on campus as freshman are redshirted and spend time on the scout teams anyways. This just makes it official, takes the pressure off these kids, and gives them a chance to get their footing in the classroom.

It is obvious a majority of the posters on here never played college football and far too many view college athletics like its professional sports. If you had experienced a college football career for yourself you would see that this is a good thing. The added boost is it would be good for Iowa and the Big Ten as rules like this would make it even harder for SEC schools to oversign and greyshirt.

 

[TDJ7]

Then in 5 years they will be wondering why ticket sales are down because of all the walk-ons playing.

 

[Bill_D]

Originally posted by illhawkdvv:

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.

Bingo. I suspect when the President's Committee looks at like that it will be a dead issue.