If you want to talk Big South smack or ramble ad nauseum about your favorite pro or major college teams, this is the place to let it rip.
By cruzan_flame13
#534403 I wasn't sure where to directly put this post, but this thread seemed to be the closest one. I read an article that was a Q+A with an UCLA athlete. He made some interesting points in which defines universities and their football program. I'm sure this has been talked about before but I believe that the statements discussed are still relevant when it comes to the topic of Academia and football. Here's the article on what I'm talking about:

Rosen: 'Raise the SAT requirement at Alabama and see what kind of team they have'
https://www.thescore.com/news/1346859

I would like to know some of y'alls (sounds weird but it supposedly fits) thoughts on this.
User avatar
By Class of 20Something
#534408 I think missing out on a kid that thinks like that will haunt LUs recruiting staff. Ginnie a QB that's a beast on the field with the President's Twitter game.

Kidding aside, The Herd was discussing this earlier too. Notre Dame, Stanford, Wisconsin, and Northwestern all make it work. ND has averaged 7.5 wins per season in the past 20 years. Cowherd was making the argument that that wasn't good enough, but I would be thrilled that my team was never looked at like UVa or any other school with a dying football program.

I think it's probably harder to recruit "players" that are high character and with high academics. I think that's part of why this recruiting season is off to a slow start for LU.

In the "public Ivies" with good football, I would expect pro style offense and large playbooks. You might miss out on the higher star recruits, but you can make up for it in intellectual gameplay.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
#534411
cruzan_flame13 wrote:I wasn't sure where to directly put this post, but this thread seemed to be the closest one. I read an article that was a Q+A with an UCLA athlete. He made some interesting points in which defines universities and their football program. I'm sure this has been talked about before but I believe that the statements discussed are still relevant when it comes to the topic of Academia and football. Here's the article on what I'm talking about:

Rosen: 'Raise the SAT requirement at Alabama and see what kind of team they have'
https://www.thescore.com/news/1346859

I would like to know some of y'alls (sounds weird but it supposedly fits) thoughts on this.


Substitute SEC for Alabama and you could make the same argument
User avatar
By Sly Fox
#534413 Rosen could be #1 overall pick in next summer's draft.
User avatar
By RubberMallet
#534439 you've got a college kid complaining about the imbalance in college enrollment practices. he's right in alot of it but ultimately just venting without any real solution and quite frankly its not his job to have a solution.

there is an issue that will eventually boil over here and universities and college football are set to be screwed if they don't figure out a way to deal with it.

schools have programs designed specifically to accept and pass unintelligent athletic superstuds through their academic system. state schools offering classes like basket weaving and personal hygiene and crap like that that have no place in academia are rampant in these universities. meanwhile, ND and other more prestigious institutions are competing for the same top of the mountain as these other schools and i agree its probably not fair.
User avatar
By Sly Fox
#534492 Notre Dame built its football program from 1930s to 1960s taking kids who couldn't get into B1G schools. They righted the ship the other direction and have paid a price in being competitive. The General Studies "major" is what is keeping kids in these schools today.

One proposal I have heard mentioned is to create a new major in football. You could have pro track for those who believe they will be entering the pro ranks and would be focued on managing that career from financial/foundation/business perspective. Unlike Sport Mgt that focuses on the organziation toward the player ... this would be focused on player toward organization. You could also have a coaching track for those who see standing on the sidelines of a college or high school after their playing days are over that would have heavier emphsas on the coaching than the education track most take right now. That way it could be clear that these student athletes are not trying to pretend to be something that they are not. I see plenty fo holes in this idea but it is getting discussion going on campuses across the nation.
By ballcoach15
#534501 UCLA's academics are not any better than Alabama's. Stanford may have higher academics than the Crimson Tide, but that was a stupid comment for Rosen to make. In case Rosen did not know it, Nick Saban improved academics when he got to Alabama.

NCAA should leave academics alone, other than eliminate basket weaving classes and any other classes that are not really a class.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
#534504
ballcoach15 wrote:UCLA's academics are not any better than Alabama's. Stanford may have higher academics than the Crimson Tide, but that was a stupid comment for Rosen to make. In case Rosen did not know it, Nick Saban improved academics when he got to Alabama.

NCAA should leave academics alone, other than eliminate basket weaving classes and any other classes that are not really a class.


So there should be no GPA eligibility? No minimum entrance requirements? No minimum numbers of hours needed a semester/year?
By flamehunter
#534508
Purple Haize wrote:
ballcoach15 wrote:UCLA's academics are not any better than Alabama's. Stanford may have higher academics than the Crimson Tide, but that was a stupid comment for Rosen to make. In case Rosen did not know it, Nick Saban improved academics when he got to Alabama.

NCAA should leave academics alone, other than eliminate basket weaving classes and any other classes that are not really a class.


So there should be no GPA eligibility? No minimum entrance requirements? No minimum numbers of hours needed a semester/year?

Well, not for Alabama any way.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
#534510
flamehunter wrote:
Purple Haize wrote:
ballcoach15 wrote:UCLA's academics are not any better than Alabama's. Stanford may have higher academics than the Crimson Tide, but that was a stupid comment for Rosen to make. In case Rosen did not know it, Nick Saban improved academics when he got to Alabama.

NCAA should leave academics alone, other than eliminate basket weaving classes and any other classes that are not really a class.


So there should be no GPA eligibility? No minimum entrance requirements? No minimum numbers of hours needed a semester/year?

Well, not for Alabama any way.


Are you saying there currently are? :rofl
By ballcoach15
#534515 Yes there should be GPA requirements, entrance requirements and eligibility requirements. When I stated ,NCAA should leave academics alone, I meant they should leave them as they are now. Just eliminate basket weaving classes and any other non classes.
User avatar
By RubberMallet
#534516 academia regarding quality of education and academia regarding eligibility are 2 different things.
User avatar
By Purple Haize
#534517 Well he said the NCAA should leave academics alone. GPA's and entrance requirements etc fall under Academics
User avatar
By RubberMallet
#534518
Sly Fox wrote:Notre Dame built its football program from 1930s to 1960s taking kids who couldn't get into B1G schools. They righted the ship the other direction and have paid a price in being competitive. The General Studies "major" is what is keeping kids in these schools today.

One proposal I have heard mentioned is to create a new major in football. You could have pro track for those who believe they will be entering the pro ranks and would be focued on managing that career from financial/foundation/business perspective. Unlike Sport Mgt that focuses on the organziation toward the player ... this would be focused on player toward organization. You could also have a coaching track for those who see standing on the sidelines of a college or high school after their playing days are over that would have heavier emphsas on the coaching than the education track most take right now. That way it could be clear that these student athletes are not trying to pretend to be something that they are not. I see plenty fo holes in this idea but it is getting discussion going on campuses across the nation.


football from the 30's to the 60's is the east and today's world of football is the west comparitively.

I think you could create 1-2 year programs where being a a successful professional athlete is a good idea.

the problem i feel remains for the 3rd/4th string players who are required the same level of time committment as those probably making it to the pros who have to major in actual majors because they'll actually need it. the education they are getting as payment i feel is not a good one because it literally take a full time job worth of committment to do it well.
User avatar
By Class of 20Something
#534520 If the NFL lifted the 3 years separated from high school, none of this would be a problem.

Your Gronks aren't going to choose school. Maybe your Peyton Manning does though. It might be naive to think that solves the problem, but it already happens successfully in baseball and basketball. Sadly there are some of these kids out there that need the $$$ first. There are a plethora in low income families that can't wait three years for their son to go to college for free then suffer a career ending injury before a dime is earned.

I don't think there is enough talent to warrant a farm system for the NFL to compete with the NCAA. I think that one adjustment to the system alone kills all of this conversation. If they have the option to go direct, then it isn't effectively being a slave to the system in place.
User avatar
By Sly Fox
#534587 18-year-olds getting physcially destroyed by grown men is not a good situation for anyone. So adjusting the rule is not practical under current circumstances.

The NFL has shown zero interest in investing in a developmental league for kids who want to bypass the college game. And why would they since the college system costs them nothing?

It is in the college game's best interests to come up with reasonable solutions or they become vulnerable to the NFL pulling the rug out from under them.
By Just John
#535392 [quote="ballcoach15"]UCLA's academics are not any better than Alabama's. Stanford may have higher academics than the Crimson Tide, but that was a stupid comment for Rosen to make. In case Rosen did not know it, Nick Saban improved academics when he got to Alabama.

NCAA should leave academics alone, other than eliminate basket weaving classes and any other classes that are not really a class.[/quote]

As a UCLA fan I have to throw a penalty flag. The average high school admission GPA is 4.29 with a 17% acceptance rate. Alabama is 3.6 and 54%. But Alabama is the superior football team.
By JK37
#535396 A couple things...

Athletic programs often get a number of exemptions to the school's usual admissions benchmarks. So one cannot equate an admissions department's regular acceptance statistics to those of the football program's. Fact is, if the admissions benchmarks are above the NCAA Initial Eligbility sliding scale, then football is probably 8-10 exemptions per year who wouldn't get into school if they didn't play football.

College Football is not a full-time job. CARA hours are limited to 20 per week in-season. And contrary to popular public opinion, these are monitored like a hawk at major schools. S-A's are too well-educated in it to mess around with it.

The better argument is that some of these schools take in many millions, and it's not clear that is all returns to the student-athletes. I hate it when I hear, "well they're getting a free education." Most aren't. FCOA was a step in the right direction. There's no easy solution.