CFB51 College Football Fan Community

The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: ELA on July 18, 2018, 08:45:23 AM

Title: 2018 OT Tourney (2nd Round) - Academic ineligibility vs. CFP
Post by: ELA on July 18, 2018, 08:45:23 AM

SYSTEMIC CHANGES

End of TV monopoly

Recruiting coverage

Early NFL Draft entry

Conference networks

.

SYSTEM RULE CHANGES

Academic ineligibility

CFP

Conference championship games

Scholarship limits

.

GAME RULE CHANGES

OT

Narrower hashmarks

Tearaway jerseys banned

Play clock modifications

.

GAME PLAY CHANGES

Wishbone

SEC integration

Read option

Film study

Title: Re: 2018 OT Tourney (2nd Round) - Academic ineligibility vs. CFP
Post by: ELA on July 18, 2018, 08:46:49 AM

Since I'm voting based on the rule change I like better I'll go with academic ineligibility, even though I wish it went further.  Granted, that's sort of how I feel about the CFP.  The difference there being I want either less or more, where as with academic requirements I only want more.

Title: Re: 2018 OT Tourney (2nd Round) - Academic ineligibility vs. CFP
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on July 18, 2018, 08:42:46 PM

I've been voting based on which I think had the biggest impact on the sport.  That said, I'm going with academic ineligibility.  The CFP has a huge impact but academic ineligibility is much, much bigger.  Also, as a practical matter the rule is not nearly stringent enough.  I've posted before about this, but some publication did an article a while back about the enormous gaps between real students and scholarship football players at P5 schools.  Frankly, it is embarrassing for all of our schools.  The one I remember is that Michigan had one of the higher avg SAT scores for football players and even theirs was bad, REALLY bad.  Since Michigan had one of the higher averages, the rest of our schools are even worse.  

I would not like to see a rule that required schools to only take athletes who could get in to THAT school as legitimate students because I think that would disadvantage good schools.  Instead, I would simply like to see a minimum SAT score at probably the 50th percentile.  The unfortunate reality is that the rule I just proposed would probably eliminate 75% or more of the current football players.  

Title: Re: 2018 OT Tourney (2nd Round) - Academic ineligibility vs. CFP
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on July 18, 2018, 09:25:42 PM

I imagine if schools held football players to the same entrance requirements as everyone else, the football would resemble something like FCS at helmet programs.  I'm all for football players being held to that same standard, but the play on the field would suffer greatly.  

You'd also have thousands of poor, big, athletic dudes not going to college, and all that it entails.  

Title: Re: 2018 OT Tourney (2nd Round) - Academic ineligibility vs. CFP
Post by: ELA on July 18, 2018, 09:38:20 PM

I think you might be pleasantly surprised by the result if kids knew early on that they didn't just have to just meet the minimum academic requirements to play college ball.  Sure, some guys are out.  But others are the product of having the formative developmental years being told to just stay eligible but focus on the field. 

Title: Re: 2018 OT Tourney (2nd Round) - Academic ineligibility vs. CFP
Post by: 847badgerfan on July 18, 2018, 09:53:41 PM

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on July 18, 2018, 08:42:46 PM

I've been voting based on which I think had the biggest impact on the sport.  That said, I'm going with academic ineligibility.  The CFP has a huge impact but academic ineligibility is much, much bigger.  Also, as a practical matter the rule is not nearly stringent enough.  I've posted before about this, but some publication did an article a while back about the enormous gaps between real students and scholarship football players at P5 schools.  Frankly, it is embarrassing for all of our schools.  The one I remember is that Michigan had one of the higher avg SAT scores for football players and even theirs was bad, REALLY bad.  Since Michigan had one of the higher averages, the rest of our schools are even worse.  

I would not like to see a rule that required schools to only take athletes who could get in to THAT school as legitimate students because I think that would disadvantage good schools.  Instead, I would simply like to see a minimum SAT score at probably the 50th percentile.  The unfortunate reality is that the rule I just proposed would probably eliminate 75% or more of the current football players.  

Not all, and I'm not speaking to only mine.