2014 NCAA Football Thread

[ummmm........]

The disparity between the teams has always been significant, but it's not like Auburn is terrible. For a football comparison, Southern Miss has four wins and a tie vs. Alabama over the same span of years in far fewer games . . .

 

[ummmm........]

Speaking of things that have nothing to do with CFB, UAB's men's basketball is tied for first in the conference -- and "UAB fans" are not showing up to their home games . . .

 

[Commodore]

Speaking of things that have nothing to do with CFB, UAB's men's basketball is tied for first in the conference -- and "UAB fans" are not showing up to their home games . . .

Is that out of protest for what happened with their football program or does their basketball program just not have that big of a following?

 

[ummmm........]

Their athletic programs generally do not have much of a following. They typically tend to do a little better in basketball than other sports as far as fan support goes . . .

 

[ummmm........]

Offseason rule changes, including one-yard ineligible receiver downfield, which is nice . . .

 

[ummmm........]

The Big Ten is mulling a return to freshman ineligibility. My reflex is to say this is just one more overreach by universities trying to take more ownership of the athletes generating their revenues, but what do I know . . ?

 

[Commodore]

The Big Ten is mulling a return to freshman ineligibility. My reflex is to say this is just one more overreach by universities trying to take more ownership of the athletes generating their revenues, but what do I know . . ?

Yeah that would be pretty stupid from just about every angle you could possibly look at the situation. From a competitive aspect, while Big 10 teams have their freshman phenoms sitting on the bench other conferences are going to be playing theirs. It also affects the depth chart as Big Ten teams will then have fewer players to draw from in the event of injuries or fatigue.

From a recruiting aspect, the Big 10 will start to lose some of the big talent since most of the best players want to get on the field as soon as possible. So if, say, Alabama can offer immediate playing time to a top player and OSU can't because of freshman ineligibility, who's that player going to commit to?

 

[MacAttack]

that would be a deathnail on the the big ten in recruiting.

 

[Martin Alvito]

The Big Ten is mulling a return to freshman ineligibility. My reflex is to say this is just one more overreach by universities trying to take more ownership of the athletes generating their revenues, but what do I know . . ?

I can't see that since the university is paying for the athlete's presence for a year without generating any revenue from the athlete. Under the NFL's current rules, it also means losing the most talented athletes (that could play as true freshmen) after only two years of revenue generation rather than three.

If the universities were out to exploit the kids through their 'ownership', we'd expect the plan to generate more revenue rather than less (or deny the kids a share of existing revenues). So I think it's fair to ascribe altruistic motives to the conference on this one.

In any event, it'll never fly because the SEC will not get on board, and you need the participation of all major conferences to make a proposal like this work. Since the SEC gets a disproportionately large share of the most talented athletes, the plan disadvantages them and they'll hold out as a result.

 

[Commodore]

that would be a deathnail on the the big ten in recruiting.

Exactly, which is why I don't see this actually happening unless the other conferences do it as well. I'd like to believe the Big 10 leadership isn't so stupid as to shoot themselves in the foot like this.

 

[downtown]

FWIW, the Big Ten is not the only conference that has had (or will have) this conversation. I can confirm that Pac-12 ADs have had similar conversations, and at least one ACC AD.

The Big Ten was just the first one to write something down that got picked up on a public records search.

And yeah, this isn't actually happening...although a move to abolish the redshirt, or provide additional carrots now that the NCAA has pretty significantly upped the minimum academic standards are possible.

 

[ummmm........]

How would abolishing the redshirt work? Give everyone five years of eligibility, or just count the first year whether you play or not . . ?

 

[downtown]

Yeah, that's the basic gist of it. Everybody gets five years no matter what, or everybody gets five years if they hit a certain academic benchmark.

 

[ummmm........]

Well that sounds like a pretty good idea . . .

 

[MacAttack]

What about grey shirts? Would they get rid of that concept too?

 

[ummmm........]

Well a grayshirt is just enrolling later. I'm not sure you can do much about that . . .

 

[MacAttack]

Well a grayshirt is just enrolling later. I'm not sure you can do much about that . . .

Well, like a kid committing to a program and on NSD being asked to grayshirt then. The kid's kinda backed into a corner there.

 

[ummmm........]

It's really rare that that happens, and there's already and out for it -- just don't sign your LOI. The athlete gets nothing out of it, but it binds him to the school. There's no reason for it . . .

 

[downtown]

It's really rare that that happens, and there's already and out for it -- just don't sign your LOI. The athlete gets nothing out of it, but it binds him to the school. There's no reason for it . . .

If you aren't a four-star kid, you pretty much have to sign it, since a school will be able to find a comparable talent who will, and you'll lose your spot. A kid can only not sign his LOI if he has leverage over the school.

 

[ummmm........]

But that's not an unfair advantage. More desirable candidates are going to have more desirable options. There are plenty of schools that would love to have a three star player, they just may not be that player's first choice. It's one thing to say everyone deserves a fair chance based on their ability, it's another to say everyone deserves their first choice on their terms . . .