CollegeFootballPoll.com Message Board

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/12349646/big-ten-considering-ineligibility-freshmen

I see this as not what it seems to be, maybe it is. I see it as getting kids bigger faster stronger, giving them five years to play in school....not sure where red shirting plays in all of this...but I am too cynical to think it is because they care about the athlete.

I think that if a student goes to college, then he participate in activities. How are would it be, if this is what they want, to have freshman teams. High Schools figure this out long ago. The difference is, there is no money involved in High School sports, at least not in the amounts we are discussing. It always has to do with the money.

If the Big Ten does this they will never sign another good recruiting class.

I believe that athletes should be student athletes and they should have to keep up with their school work to be eligible. That said, why shouldn't a freshman play if he can win a spot and keep up with his work?

As an individual this is how I feel. I have contributed to colleges athletic funds, because it is a part of the school. If athletics separates itself from the school, just as you imply, Spence, I have no interest in contributing to those fund. (I have not contributed for about five years, what little I have has gone to a scholarship fund.)

So a kid can not play basketball, golf or baseball or wrestle...how did we get here. And it is just not the big ten supporting this.

I agree. If you remove everything butt the name from collegiate athletics.... Well I'm done with it. I will not pay that much to see minor league football. And as usual, I am on the side of Delany being an idiot.

I don't see why they can't leave well enough alone. Student athletes are just that....Students FIRST, athletes second.

Spence's analogy is right on....they want to treat this like the Minor leagues instead of giving folks an education, and if they are good enough, a lot of money to play in the Pro's.

I don't see this going any further. Given the timing of the comments tho, I think this was more a shot at Kentucky basketball than anything else. Hey come to the Big 10 for an education, go to the SEC to get out of school ASAP.

I'm torn on the issue. I like the idea of kids getting a chance to acclimate themselves to the town, university, class rigors etc. However, I think most can handle the situation very well anyway. It seems the ones that struggle are the ones that see themselves only as an athlete and don't care about the classes anyway. I know this is a broad statement and there are exceptions. I think there are better ways to take care of those that truly care about being a Student and athlete that struggle than this rule.

highfly24 wrote:However, I think most can handle the situation very well anyway. It seems the ones that struggle are the ones that see themselves only as an athlete and don't care about the classes anyway. I know this is a broad statement and there are exceptions.

Very true.

donovan wrote:As an individual this is how I feel. I have contributed to colleges athletic funds, because it is a part of the school. If athletics separates itself from the school, just as you imply, Spence, I have no interest in contributing to those fund. (I have not contributed for about five years, what little I have has gone to a scholarship fund.)

So a kid can not play basketball, golf or baseball or wrestle...how did we get here. And it is just not the big ten supporting this.

That was the way it was when I was in college. I started my college at the University of Arkansas (1963) and only could try to compete on the Freshman Golf Team. They cut the team to 4 players, all of them being on scholarship. I transferred to State College of Iowa (Northern Iowa) and had to sit out a year before being eligible. I then transferred to Iowa so that I could commute from home and again had to sit out another year before being eligible. Finally, in my 4th year of college, I had my first year of eligibility and played on the Iowa golf team.

As my eligibility expired 4 years after enrolling, I did not finish my degree and turned professional. I wound up spending the next 40 years working in the golf industry and everything worked out just fine.

But it was ridiculous that I only had 1 year of eligibility.

From a football perspective I think it's bad because it will add an additional year before teams see the recruits under a new head coach. It'll effective tender an additional year for any coach walking in to be able to build the foundations to turn the team around. It would also work in reverse since you wouldn't be able to tell for 2 years whether they were doing a good job recruiting or not.

They already have red-shirting and I think that's enough. If they want to add an academic red shirt where freshman are expected to meet certain requirements or be forced to red shirt, then I would be okay with that, in cases where the student is not meeting the academic expectations.

Vileborg wrote:They already have red-shirting and I think that's enough. If they want to add an academic red shirt where freshman are expected to meet certain requirements or be forced to red shirt, then I would be okay with that, in cases where the student is not meeting the academic expectations.

If there were some way to implement such a standard, I agree that this would be the best method.

The problem I see regulating this, however, is that we are referring to a freshman semester. I'm not so sure you could enforce this, as by the time you have enough criteria to evaluate a student athlete's academic progress, you would be at least 4 games into the season, wherein a window for red shirting this player would likely have expired.

.
.
.