shipley00
Member
Interesting points. I donāt agree with most of them, but they raise interesting questions.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o
></o>
<o> </o>
http://www.cbssports.com/#!/collegefootball/story/14900090/action-needed-with-college-footballs-integrity-on-the-line<o></o>
<o> </o>
āIn need of repair The Ohio State Five. Cecil Newton. The Auburn Four. The sport has reached a tipping point. With scandals popping up weekly, the time has come to make changes to a broken system. Tony Barnhart has a few suggestionsā :lol:<o></o>
<o> </o>
#1 and #2 should be combined. One, all powerful, commissioner. Some would say itās not much different than to have the bureaucracy. That said, having had to put up with the UT loving/protecting Kramer for all those years I have NO FAITH that we wouldnāt either get stuck with a USC/Ohio State/Notre Dame homer or an Ivy League lawyer. Sure it works for the NFL, NBA, and MLB, but they only have to deal with teams in the 30ās not over 100.<o></o>
<o> </o>
#3 Freshman have to sit out their first year. I think it would benefit a lot of kids that donāt make. I see two BIG problems with this. I believe far more kids, than now, will skip their Sr year and even Jr year to go pro because they will ALL be eligible at that point. If that is the case, what is the difference? The kid still wonāt get a degree. If you do this, then it only makes sense to not allow them to declare until they have completed their Jr season. 2<SUP>nd</SUP> problem. If the kids graduate on time, then what? Are you going to force them into graduate school for one season? At this point, you will artificially increase the number of students in graduate school and either force the graduate programs to grow ($$$) or make it harder for non athletes to get into graduate school.<o></o>
<o> </o>
#4 Five year commitment. Why is this commitment only one way? (see above)<o></o>
<o> </o>
No oversigning: All well and good, but as everyone knows, oversigning is to hedge against the kids obtaining eligibility. If you are going to enforce a strict 25, then how about taking some of the guesswork out of it for schools. Push back the signing day, or push up the time limit for becoming eligible to BEFORE signing day. Better yet, have an early and late signing period (Nov and end of May). If you are already eligible, you CAN commit in Nov. If not, you HAVE to wait until the end of May. If you STILL are not eligible, the you can still sign, but you are REQUIRED to sit out your Freshman year and prove you can get the grades.<o></o>
<o> </o>
No Grayshirting: I think it is reprehensible for a school to sign a kid, and THEN tell him he has to grayshirt. However, if the school tells him upfront, before signing day that he will have to grayshirt, I have no problem with that. It is the athletes decision at that point. What is the big deal about that?<o></o>
<o> </o>
#5 Donāt want to touch it.<o></o>
></o><o
> </o>http://www.cbssports.com/#!/collegefootball/story/14900090/action-needed-with-college-footballs-integrity-on-the-line<o
></o><o
> </o>āIn need of repair The Ohio State Five. Cecil Newton. The Auburn Four. The sport has reached a tipping point. With scandals popping up weekly, the time has come to make changes to a broken system. Tony Barnhart has a few suggestionsā :lol:<o
></o><o
> </o>#1 and #2 should be combined. One, all powerful, commissioner. Some would say itās not much different than to have the bureaucracy. That said, having had to put up with the UT loving/protecting Kramer for all those years I have NO FAITH that we wouldnāt either get stuck with a USC/Ohio State/Notre Dame homer or an Ivy League lawyer. Sure it works for the NFL, NBA, and MLB, but they only have to deal with teams in the 30ās not over 100.<o
></o><o
> </o>#3 Freshman have to sit out their first year. I think it would benefit a lot of kids that donāt make. I see two BIG problems with this. I believe far more kids, than now, will skip their Sr year and even Jr year to go pro because they will ALL be eligible at that point. If that is the case, what is the difference? The kid still wonāt get a degree. If you do this, then it only makes sense to not allow them to declare until they have completed their Jr season. 2<SUP>nd</SUP> problem. If the kids graduate on time, then what? Are you going to force them into graduate school for one season? At this point, you will artificially increase the number of students in graduate school and either force the graduate programs to grow ($$$) or make it harder for non athletes to get into graduate school.<o
></o><o
> </o>#4 Five year commitment. Why is this commitment only one way? (see above)<o
></o><o
> </o>No oversigning: All well and good, but as everyone knows, oversigning is to hedge against the kids obtaining eligibility. If you are going to enforce a strict 25, then how about taking some of the guesswork out of it for schools. Push back the signing day, or push up the time limit for becoming eligible to BEFORE signing day. Better yet, have an early and late signing period (Nov and end of May). If you are already eligible, you CAN commit in Nov. If not, you HAVE to wait until the end of May. If you STILL are not eligible, the you can still sign, but you are REQUIRED to sit out your Freshman year and prove you can get the grades.<o
></o><o
> </o>No Grayshirting: I think it is reprehensible for a school to sign a kid, and THEN tell him he has to grayshirt. However, if the school tells him upfront, before signing day that he will have to grayshirt, I have no problem with that. It is the athletes decision at that point. What is the big deal about that?<o
></o><o
> </o>#5 Donāt want to touch it.<o
></o>
