AJC > Sports > Blog > Archives > 2007 > August > 14 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USShould freshmen be ineligible?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
My good friend Tim Brando often says that one of the college football’s biggest problems is that it doesn’t speak with one voice. There is not one person looking out for the good of the entire sport. College football doesn’t need a commissioner. It needs a czar. If I were the czar of college football, here are five changes I would make today:
1. Freshmen are ineligible: Many of the ills in college football can be traced back to the decision to make freshmen eligible in 1971. Too many 18-year-olds become stars of the recruiting process (and their own minds) and have press conferences before they have attended a single college class. College coaches have to make promises of playing time that they know they can’t keep. Then they have to “de-recruit” the freshmen once they get on campus. Just end the silliness. You sit out the first year and prove you can handle the academics. Then you get four more years of eligibility.
2. Four team playoff using the bowls: It’s taken me a while to get around to this. I’m a traditionalist and I’m proud of it. But if it’s handled properly, this could be the biggest shot in the arm that college football has ever had. The calendar is in place to play the semifinals on Jan. 1 and the championship on Jan. 8. Rotate the semifinals and finals among four bowls and open up the process and allow other bowls to bid. And if the Big Ten and Pac-10 don’t want to play and stay in their own sandbox in Pasadena (Rose Bowl), that’s fine. As soon as a 12-0 Ohio State gets left out the national championship game, that tune will change.
3. You MUST win your conference championship: No team can play for the national championship or get into the four-team playoff without winning its conference championship. The idea of an Ohio State-Michigan rematch for the BCS title was silly. Michigan had their shot. College football has the healthiest regular season of any sport because conference championships are so important.
4. Polls don’t start until mid-October: This won’t happen because too many people have a financial interest in the current system. But there is a reason the BCS standings are not released until a number of games are played. If you’re going to use the polls to determine who plays in the national championship game, then the only fair thing to do is not to release then until after some games are played.
5. Early signing date: It’s bad for coaches. I’ll admit that. They will have to spend too much of their fall recruiting instead of taking care of the players they have. But it would be good for the high school players, who are committing earlier and earlier. And it would also take some of the pressure and the silliness out of the final weeks of recruiting. Too much money is being spent babysitting players who have already given a verbal commitment and are just waiting to sign. If they want to sign in December, then let them.
What changes would you make?
Services »
Comments
By teddybulldawg
August 14, 2007 9:11 AM | Link to this
I like the 4 team playoff too. I also line an 8 team playoff using the bowls. Then you could guarantee the Rose Bowl would have the big 10 and pac 10. Let them duke it out to see which one of them goes to the final 4.
Having said that, I’d love to see a playoff of some kind.
By Paul Hamilton
August 14, 2007 9:13 AM | Link to this
I can’t argue with any of those suggestions, but I doubt they will ever make freshmen ineligible. That’s why they allow the coaches to redshirt them. #’s 2-5 make too much sense, and it would make the SEC that much stronger. Too many people will b*tch and moan about that.
By BullDawg Rick
August 14, 2007 9:13 AM | Link to this
TB is “Mr. College Football” because you “hit it on the HEAD”…
All your ideas, suggestions are valid & well taken.. The problem is (as well meaning as it is) they all will fall on deaf ears.. ex. - What commish would give their lucrative position up for a czar? even though that’s what’s needed for continunity accross the board?
By BadDawg
August 14, 2007 9:25 AM | Link to this
Pretty good Tony but I have to disagree regarding freshman ineligibility. Some of the best players making the greatest impact I’ve ever seen were frosh (Herschel!). One of the greatest reasons for a recruit’s choice may be where they can play immediately. Maybe change some of the recruiting rules but let’s keep the freshmen on the field. Woof.
By Bubba and Earl on the 50 yrd line
August 14, 2007 9:43 AM | Link to this
Good article.You mention a bowl system would give CF a shot in the arm? I think CF doesn’t need a shot at all. From Sept to Dec. no season is more exciting. UGA has a 12 game postseason, every week is just as important. Nothing is better than that.
By Bubba and Earl on the 50 yrd line
August 14, 2007 9:43 AM | Link to this
Good article.You mention a bowl system would give CF a shot in the arm? I think CF doesn’t need a shot at all. From Sept to Dec. no season is more exciting. UGA has a 12 game postseason, every week is just as important. Nothing is better than that.
By RK
August 14, 2007 9:49 AM | Link to this
There’s one big problem with a 4 team playoff. Last year the teams would have been Ohio State, Florida, USC and Oklahoma. That’s a decent 4 teams except you’ve done nothing about the fact that an undefeated Boise State doesn’t get a shot at the title.
What there needs to be is a 12 team playoff where the top 4 teams get bye weeks. Give automatic spots to the 11 conference champions and 1 at large. Although Notre Dame would pay millions to avoid this senario.
By uga_b
August 14, 2007 9:51 AM | Link to this
The PAC 10 would learn to play defense.
By Jack
August 14, 2007 10:05 AM | Link to this
TB—-your suggestions make too much sense. But the fact is——the tail is wagging the dog and the tail is going to keep on wagging the dog as long as the big bucks are involved. Lets face it—-money is in control of college football.
By David-ATL14
August 14, 2007 10:41 AM | Link to this
100% agreement with Mr College Football.
College Football would be well heeded to take these suggestions.
The recruiting angles need to be re-examined. CFB recruiting is a cesspool.
By Dorsey Hill
August 14, 2007 10:57 AM | Link to this
Here’s some changes I’d make:
1) If the SEC Champ has 1 loss or is undefeated, then we’ll play whoever the hell the rest of the country says is #2.
2) Get rid of the goal posts. I hate that these guys break their backs for 3 1/2 hours and then the game comes down to a 150 lb. soccer player. Some teams have soccer players who can make it from 55. Some teams have guys who can’t make a 30 yarder under pressure. Do these outcomes tell you anything about the quality of the respective teams? I don’t think so. If you want to score, get 6. And you always have to go for two.
3) Call pass interference fairer. I can’t tell you how many times a defender barely touches a guy and he gets a flag, but a WR can rape a DB to make a play.
4) Outlaw finesse football. I know that the spread is all the rage and before that it was the run-n-shoot, but I hate that type of football. Either line up and punch someone in the mouth or take it to the basketball court.
By Steeledawg
August 14, 2007 11:02 AM | Link to this
Welcome back Mr. College Football! This is the type of article you are known for.
I agree with all of your ideas, and like you it took me a long time to embrace the idea of a playoff. However, the only way I would support a playoff is if it preserved the importance of the regular season. I have never understood why folks want to turn college ball into the NFL. By making only conference champs eligible for the playoff, it would keep the reguar season meaningful and not discourage interconference matchups.
I think we are more likely to see 5 years of eligibility, and the demise of the redshirt than we are freshman ineligibility. I am in favor of keeping some of these high school players egos’ in check.
Something I would like to see changed is that game times be announced earlier. I know the networks that pump a lot of $$$ into CF want the best matchup each week, but it makes it hard on the fans that acutally attend the games to make plans sometimes.
By joe
August 14, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this
Aren’t UGA’s freshmen ineligible all of the time anyway as they continue to mount jail time?? If you want a model program, look to the school 50 miles or so to the west…that is how you run a clean program…woof.
By War Eagle
August 14, 2007 11:59 AM | Link to this
I played during the time freshman were ineligible.At Auburn we played three freshman games, UGA, Florida and Bama. We were primarily used for the “Hill”, where we came from the hollow(freshman practice area) to scrimmage the Varsity or sometimes sent up to participate in nasty drills. It was like being a rat for a fraternity house. I was told of the situation during recruiting. All SEC teams were similar.The worst part was during game weekend, varsity got preparations, attention etc.Freshman looked for HOT dates.
By Jack
August 14, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this
Yes , make freshman ineligible for varsity , perhaps the Thanksgiving Tech-UGA JV game could come back then. Eliminate the field goal. Eliminate unlimited substitution & go back to 2 way players. Return the true student athlete to the field. Make kickoff times no earlier than 1 pm & no later than 6pm. Eliminate games being played on days of the week other than Thursday ( for Thanksgiving Day only) & Saturday. Always allow Georgia Tech to wear white jerseys & gold pants as their home uniform. Death penalty for any major recruiting violations, just one slipup & your school forfeits entire season for 1 year, more than 1 major recruiting violation 5 year death sentence. Make the tv networks show the bands at halftime(especially the majorettes) instead of all these opinionated talking heads they now have yelling at us. The National Anthem before the game must be performed the way it is written & no breathy singers allowed. No overtime , if the game is tied at the end of 4 quarters that’s OK. Allow defensive backs to play pass defense instead of throwing the flag for the slightest touch as they do now , when football is in the air it should be anybody’s ball that can get to it anyway they can. No playoff in college football, & limit the number of bowl games to the number of conference champions avaialble. I have more but you get my drift.
By Hersh
August 14, 2007 12:41 PM | Link to this
Everyone seems to agree that most of these items will not change because of money interest, etc. For the present, why not just concentrate on changing the early signing rule, maybe to a date before FB season begins if the prospect is sure if his choice, this way it would not conflict with a Coaches regular season obligations.
By NASCARfan
August 14, 2007 2:33 PM | Link to this
Why not force the Pac-1 (no, I didn’t forget the zero) and the Big-2 to add enough teams to have a conference championship game? Same with the Big East.
Also, Tony, you forget the BIGGEST thing that needs to be changed: Notre Lame NEEDS to be forced to pick a conference for football and stop getting special rules which allow them to play in BCS Bowl games they don’t deserve thanks to a ridiculously easy schedule complete with all the service academies.
I’m sick of seeing Notre Lame finish 10-2 every regular season, and then getting blown out in a BCS Bowl game they don’t deserve to be in, when usually, the second best SEC team gets sent to the Capitol One Bowl instead of playing as a Wild Card in a BCS Bowl.
By KR
August 14, 2007 2:52 PM | Link to this
Tony, I agree with your recommendations and I have one more that is bound to stir up controversy.
If a player is awarded a 4 year scholarship and chooses to leave for the NFL prior to completing 4 years of eligibility, he should be forced to pay the school an amount equal to the scholarship he has already used. There is a reason why it’s called a commitment.
By JD
August 14, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this
Tony, I agree with your comments except the playoff. A playoff in college football makes no sense. There are too many teams, most of which don’t play one another or have common opponents. If you can tell me who would have made it last year, I’d change my mind. Would it have been UM who got blown out by a 2 loss SC team or 1 loss Louisville or 2 loss LSU, etc. Basically all a playoff would do is move the disagreement further out.
By 2N4YEARS
August 14, 2007 3:27 PM | Link to this
1) I think Frosh should be able to play. Yeah, it gets silly. But if there wasn’t an audience then they wouldn’t hold those press conferences. 2) There should definitely be an 8-team play-off system, not a 4-team playoff system. I foresee a playoff system of some sort, even a ‘plus one’ system, within the next 10 years. 3) I’m all for a team winning their conference championship in order to be eligible to play for the National Championship. Nuff said. 4) While you can’t control who comes out with which poll, you can make rules that allow only polls published only after a certain part of the season can be used in the ‘official’ poll, such as the BCS. 5) I agree that players that want to commit should be allowed to sign with the school of their choice when they’re ready within their last year of High School. This alone would take care of Tony’s number one change (above). It would allow the ‘serious, mature’ student athletes to sign, leaving the others that want to play the ‘waiting game’ for the attention frowned upon.
By 2N4YEARS
August 14, 2007 3:42 PM | Link to this
JD , it’s really not that complicated. You would have the Conference Champion of each of the major conferences play each other in a play-off game, plus a ‘wild card’ game. That would’ve left out Mich & LSU last year. In order for this to work, the PAC-10 & BIG-10 need to add two teams a piece to their conferences so they can have a ‘true’ champion. (They need to do this regardless) ND would be one of them. Boise St. could be another, then we’d just need two more.
By Steeledawg
August 14, 2007 3:48 PM | Link to this
I have a few reservations regarding an early signing period. One, if for example August 1 becomes the early signing day doesn’t that really become signing day. Coaches will be pushing kids to sign then and not wait till Feb. As we all know a lot can happen in 6 months w/ a whole football season in between. Coaches get fired, move to better jobs. Kids can get hurt during their season, then what?
I don’t really see an answer to the signing day problem. I really wish that if a kid verbally commits other schools would respect that and back off. But we all know that ain’t gonna happen.
By DaddyDawg
August 14, 2007 4:27 PM | Link to this
Excellent thoughts Tony! I agree especially with no. 2…. use the existing bowl system to have a 4 team playoff for the championship. In that way, the bowl system is preserved (to appease the college presidents who are nothing more than bowl apologists or sychophants), and we have a bowl playoff system that is closer to deciding a true national champion than the BS BCS!!
Don’t know if you heard the head of the Pac 10 on Colin Cowherd within the last few weeks, but he made it clear that the Pac 10 didn’t want a conference championship game because that would hurt their chances of a Pac 10 team making the BCS Well, no kidding…..! All teams should have a conference championship game, so that teams are on an equal footing, as much as possible, coming out of their conferences, understanding that some conferences are stronger than others (in my opinion, the SEC East is stronger than the Big Ten this year!).
Keep up the good work, Tony!
By My View
August 14, 2007 5:34 PM | Link to this
Tony. I never thought about that aspect. Once a school from the pac-10 or the big-10 go unbeaten yet still get left out of the NC, then we can finally stop being held hostage by those conferences. That gives me new hope for a 4 team playoff. I am so tired of hearing this excuse about liking the controversy. Do any of those same people like controversy in their households. Why do we need it in college football.
By My View
August 14, 2007 5:37 PM | Link to this
DaddyDawg… the Big East is stronger than the big 10 this year!!!
By adawginpa
August 14, 2007 8:40 PM | Link to this
Lots of good topics Tony, but a playoff I disagree with. Look at last year. Who would you take as 3 &4? USC 2 losses LSU 2 losses Wisconsin 1 loss no Big 10 champ? Boise State no losses WAC champ no big wins. OSU & Florida won there conferences and deserved to be there.
And for anyone who says “if” USC had won they would have gone, they did not win. This is what makes College football the only sport to have a relivant regular season.
To play for a National Championship, either win your games against good opponents or be subject to a “lesser” bowl.
LSU was probably the best team in the SEC last year, but lost twice. That was their chance. Absolutley NO Playoff.
By DaddyDawg
August 15, 2007 12:42 AM | Link to this
My View:
You might be right about the Big East. My point is that half of the SEC (SEC East) is stronger by itself than the Big Ten. In the Big Ten, it’s usually a 2 team race…. Ohio State and Michigan, but Wisconsin made a move last year since its schedule was favorable because it did not have to play both Ohio State and Michigan. This year it will play Ohio State and Michigan, as well as Penn State on the road, and I expect Wisconsin to drop out of the Top 10. With its considerable loss of talent, OSU will have a difficult time fighting its way back to the top 10 as well, likely leaving Michigan as the only Big Ten team in the top 10. The Big East and the SEC East will easily have 2 in the top 10, and the SEC East should have at least 2 teams in the remaining top 20. The SEC East is the best division in the best conference (SEC) in college football.
By Mike
August 15, 2007 6:45 AM | Link to this
DaddyDawg,
Tech fan here, but I agree totally with your comments. The SEC East teams may suffer in the national polls because they will knock each other around so badly. I think the southeast plays the best college football in the country, and it seems most other leagues have 1 or 2 teams who are good, but the rest seem below average compared to the average teams in the SEC and (yes, I think) even the ACC.
What I would love to see in college football is some shift in the post-season bowls, so that you are not limited to the same few locations each year. Outside the BCS, league teams are limited to the handful of bowls that their league has contracts with. Heck, there are something like 20 bowls now (other than BCS bowls) some of them in more interesting locales, some less. I would love to see it more wide open, so that ou might have a shot at more bowl locations. The ACC and SEC both have a bit of a problem in that the loser of their championship game can wind up being invited back to that same site for a bowl game.
By Jay from Conyers
August 15, 2007 7:24 AM | Link to this
Umm, DaddyDawg, better retract your statement. Wisconsin DID play Michigan last year…it was their only defeat. I also laugh histerically when you people call the Big Ten the Big 2, like it’s Michigan, Ohio State, and then everyone else! The past 5 years have proven that the Big Ten can not only hang with the mighty SEC, but have a winning record against them: 8-6! There are at least 4 Big Ten teams that can play toe-to-toe with anyone on any given day (Michigan, Ohio State, last year’s butt-whipping notwithstanding, Wisconsin, and Penn State) and Iowa is no slouch either. FYI, you people may not know this, but who do you think has the most victories in the Big ten for the past 5 years? I’d bet 95% of you would say either Michigan or Ohio State, when in fact it is WISCONSIN. That’s fine, I’m sure most SEC people would expect Wisconsin to “drop out of the Top 10” but we’ll see! I will say this though, and I say it with much confidence…ANY team (and that includes teams from the SEC) that has to go TO Ohio State and Penn State and face both Michigan and Iowa at home would have a hard time getting through it unscathed…and that is what awaits Wisconsin this year. We’ll see what happens!
By Goberry
August 15, 2007 11:47 AM | Link to this
Get rid of the twelfth game (and DI-AA teams don’t count.) No conference championship games. Conference championships should be settled during the regular season (sorry SEC fans) even if that means an end to bifurcated 12 team conferences. No more than ten bowls per season.
By Grant79
August 15, 2007 12:18 PM | Link to this
The only thing wrong with college football is the emphasis on “the national championship.”
Play for the conference championships and let the bowl games go back to being rewards for the players.
Without concerns about out of conference losses affecting possible national chanpionship runs, maybe we could get more interesting out of conference match-ups.