CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: ELA on July 02, 2018, 09:48:03 AM
-
| SYSTEMIC CHANGES |
|
|
|
|
|
| SYSTEM RULE CHANGES |
|
|
|
|
|
| GAME RULE CHANGES |
|
|
|
|
|
| GAME PLAY CHANGES |
|
|
|
|
-
Hmmm, swing and a miss on the topic this year?
-
Hmmm, swing and a miss on the topic this year?
I have no idea what is being voted for... You're saying proposed rule changes, yes?
Do we want to bring back freshmen ineligibility? Ok, I at least understand the proposal here.
Academic ineligibility? What do you mean? Getting rid of academic ineligibility? Extending it in some way?
I just have no idea what you're trying to get across.
-
agree.. what is the vote?
-
That's why I every year I do the setup post before the tourney starts.
https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?topic=4443.0
I'll wait til Monday and do a double poll. Maybe I'll skip weekends and do double Monday-Tuesday polls thrughout on here to keep participation high.
This is a sports related year, so I'm going with College Football changes. As per usual, there is no criteria. You can vote based on your favorite, the one you think was best for the sport (and within that pick your criteria, best for the health of the sport, best for sustaining the sport, best for growing the sport) or the one you think had the biggest impact. Whatever you want.
Per Usual, there will be 4 brackets. This one was not as clean as some others, but more or less, here is what I tried to fit them into:
1.) Systemic Changes - Not rules either on or off the field that changes how the game was played, but managed to have an impact on the nature of the port anyway
2.) System Rules - Off Field Rule changes that either impacted how to field a team, or what the finish line was
3.) Game Rules - On field game rule changes
4.) Game Play - either on field or off field changes that impacted the game on the field, that weren't based on rule changes but on game evolution
-
I usually don't read your posts.... =)
-
Ok... But it's still a bit cryptic to me.
In the past, were players not rendered ineligible if their academics sucked? When did that change? Because it's been the case as far as I know for as long as I've followed CFB (1996 and beyond).
So what we're voting on is which was a better change:
1) Freshmen going from being ineligible to eligible.
2) Players being able to not get good grades and still play, to being ruled ineligible for not keeping up with academics.
Yes?
-
Well, you can vote on which was a better change, a more important change, a change you personally preferred. Same like when we did bands, TV shows, announcers, etc..., I don't like to set a criteria, people can vote as they wish. It could be your favorite band, or a better band, or a mor important band to music. You can set you own guidelines. People generally default to the one they liked the best.
-
that helps.. which was better...
-
Well, you can vote on which was a better change, a more important change, a change you personally preferred. Same like when we did bands, TV shows, announcers, etc..., I don't like to set a criteria, people can vote as they wish. It could be your favorite band, or a better band, or a mor important band to music. You can set you own guidelines. People generally default to the one they liked the best.
Understood. To some extent I was even having trouble figuring out what you were referring to.
I mean, if you put two band names next to each other and a vote button, that's pretty self-explanatory.
But perhaps my knowledge of college football history doesn't extend back far enough. I knew freshmen were once ineligible, but I thought there were effectively always academic guidelines. That if players didn't perform in the classroom, they weren't able to play on the field. When did that rule change go into effect?
-
Understood. To some extent I was even having trouble figuring out what you were referring to.
I mean, if you put two band names next to each other and a vote button, that's pretty self-explanatory.
But perhaps my knowledge of college football history doesn't extend back far enough. I knew freshmen were once ineligible, but I thought there were effectively always academic guidelines. That if players didn't perform in the classroom, they weren't able to play on the field. When did that rule change go into effect?
Well the early days of college football were littered with rosters of kids that didn't even attend the school. One of the major reasons the Big Ten (Western Conference) came into being was to enforce eligibility rules at a very minimal level. That was a major reason for Michigan leaving the conference early on, was that Yost fielded several players on his early teams that didn't attend Michigan. The NCAA began looking at academic eligibility in 1965, but the first meaningful legislation I believe was Prop 48 in the mid-80s which set minimum requirements for GPA and ACTs. You scored too low, you were a partial qualifier, you scored way too low, you didn't qualify. Glenn Robinson, Charles Rogers and Rumeal Robinson are some famous Big Ten partial qualifiers. Not even sure that portion of the rule exists anymore.
-
So in the other thread it was suggested that voters actually justify their decision. This one is less unanimous than the TV poll.
I chose "academic ineligibility", for two reasons:
- This is supposed to be a sport of student-athletes. I think from a purely aesthetic issue, you shouldn't have players who can't read or do their schoolwork playing college football. Because then it's "football at a college", not "college football". Now, this isn't always perfect [cough]UNC[/cough]... But it at least gives us a standard to be upheld.
- Freshman eligibility might help boost interest in recruiting, but there are a LOT of players that redshirt every year. Outside of skill positions, it's almost impossible for a player's body to be physically ready to play as a freshman. Given the NFL's 3-year out of high school requirement, those players would have played anyway.
So while I like the freshmen eligibility change, I think it fundamentally doesn't make a HUGE impact on the sport. Actually requiring players to remain academically eligible, however, is basically a foundational tenet of what it means to be a student-athlete. If you lose that, the sport would be even more hypocritical than it is now.
-
I voted for academic, because I'm viewing this as simply the change I personally like more.
Without the academic requirements, it's just minor league football. If it were up to me, I'd strengthen them, at the knowing expense of the product on the field.
-
This one's a close call for me. I suppose I feel like eligibility requirements are a given, and to not allow freshman to play, drives me bonkers. (Some) College athletics/fans of, are very strange on trying to control the college athlete (but only basketball and football).
-
I'll let it go a bit longer, then I'll break the tie