Bo Pelini: All freshmen should be ineligible

[MrTitleist]

http://my.journalstar.com/post/Husker_E ... gible.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
An interesting take from Bo Pelini here. Basically saying that freshmen shouldn't be allowed to play football, or any sport, as a freshmen while they mature and adjust to college life. I can't say that I disagree with him.

[89Hen]

He should coach in the Ivy.

[93henfan]

89's avatar is the reason I disagree.

[aceinthehole]

It's not like this is a new idea, although I don't support it myself. Freshmen only became eligible in 1972, prior to that there were many restrictions on Frosh eleigibility over time.

The Digital Collegian - Published independently by students at Penn State
MAGAZINE
[ Friday, April 24, 1992 ]

Freshman eligibility
Age-old dilemma still debated

By FRANKLIN BERKEY
Collegian Magazine Writer

November 6, 1869, was a cold, autumn afternoon in New Brunswick, N.J. Braving the elements, nearly 100 fans gathered on a wooden fence surrounding a small, partially lined football field.

Donning hats, coats, vests and suspenders employed as belts, 50 college football players from Rutgers University and Princeton University took to the field shortly after 3 p.m.

Wearing red scarfs to distinguish themselves from their counterparts, the Scarlet Knights toppled the Tigers, 6-4. While the modern football fan would have barely recognized it as a football game, it was still intercollegiate football's inaugural game.

Out of the 25 players on the Rutgers squad, 10 of them were freshman. Out of those 10 freshmen, three of them were failing algebra. While their eligibility was not a concern to the 100 spectators, the case demonstrates the extensive history of the freshman debate. From the first game to today's ongoing Proposition 48 controversy, freshman eligibility has been a hot topic for debate.

Under current legislation, freshmen with 700 or higher on the SAT with a 2.0 grade-point average in 11 academic core courses in high school are eligible for varsity sports for four years beginning their freshman season. Unknown to many sports enthusiasts, however, freshmen athletes have not always been eligible. Additionally, with the recent debate over the effectiveness of Proposition 48, many coaches, administrators and experts are pushing for freshmen ineligibility.

The debate began about 20 years after the Rutgers--Princeton contest when Charles Eliot, president of Harvard University, proposed the first reforms to eliminate freshman eligibility. In 1903, Harvard became the first "big-time" school to install freshman ineligibility.

Three years later, the Big Ten and the Ohio Valley Conference prohibited freshman participation. In the same year, Harvard, Yale and Princeton agreed to freshman ineligibility in baseball, football, crew and track and field. In the next few years, seven additional conferences enacted similar legislation.

However, with the outbreak of World War I in 1917, the regulations regarding freshman participation changed. Due to declining college enrollment and increased enlistment in the army, several colleges began to allow freshmen to participate.

In 1943, the NCAA followed suit, repealing the freshman prohibition on account of World War II. When American involvement in the Korean War escalated in the early 1950s, most major conferences repealed the measure once again.

After several universities enacted regulations to limit freshman eligibility and set academic standards for athletes, the NCAA finally adopted legislation to allow freshman to participate in all sports except football and basketball in 1968.

In 1972, with the announcement of freshman eligibility in football and basketball, the debate came full circle. In 1983, an NCAA committee recommended making all freshmen ineligible. The proposition, however, was rejected. In that same year, the NCAA enacted Proposition 48, which would take effect in 1986.

In 1987, Ronald A. Smith, professor of exercise and sport science, and Jay W. Helman of Penn State University compiled a history of the freshman eligibility for the NCAA. In the 40-page document, Smith and Helman trace the history of the rule from the late 1800s to the present day Proposition 48 debate.

In the report, the authors emphasize the financial hardships of the late 1960s and early 1970s as the primary reason for the death of the freshman rule.

"Clearly, the reason freshman were granted varsity eligibility was the economic hardship faced by many schools in fielding freshman athletic programs," Smith and Helman wrote.

In addition, the researchers concluded that Proposition 48 was a compromise of the "century long debate of the freshman rule."

"In a sense, Proposition 48 embodied a comnpromise of the century long debate over the freshman rule. It recognized that, for various reasons, a majority of NCAA schools felt that they must allow freshman to compete immediately in order to sustain competitive programs," the duo wrote. "Yet it also recognized, at least in theory, that the demands of intercollegiate athletics create a burden on the education pursuits of the student athlete."

Despite its rejection in 1986, freshman ineligibility still has its share of advocates, both locally and nationally.

Penn State President Joab Thomas, who has always been in favor of stricter eligibilty rules, said that in general he would support the freshman rule, but with some reservations.

"'For the most part," Thomas said, "I think freshman would be better if they were not in the position where they were forced to compete. My reservation is, with the red-shirt rules, the student-athlete would be forced to stay for five years. We ought to give them a chance to compete and graduate in four years."

Penn State Assistant Athletic Director L. Budd Thalman also supports the idea, pointing out that a student's freshman year is a transitional year.

"I would definitely be in favor of giving those young people a transitional year," Thalman said. "The proponents feel that the freshman year is a year of becoming conditioned to college life, both academically and socially."

Assistant Athletic Director Frank Rocco agrees, but points out one possible drawback.

"It (freshmen ineligibility) would give the freshman athlete a chance to settle in and get their feet wet academically," Rocco said. "On the other side of the coin, there is the numbers aspect of it. If freshman were ineligible, you would probably have three or four less people. I bet most of the coaches and academic advisor would be in favor of it because of its positive aspects."

Some of Penn State's top football players were affected by the freshman rule. Running back Franco Harris, halfback John Cappelletti, and linebacker Jack Ham all had just three years of eligibility under the freshman rule at the time.

"I think it helped me," said former Penn State All-American linebacker Jack Ham. "It gave me a chance to get acclimated to college life and not have to worry about if my game was going to be on national television or not."

Ham received the last scholarship of the 1966 recruiting season. After sitting out the 1967 season, Ham took the field in the 1968 season. In his third and final year of eligibility, Ham recorded four interceptions and 91 tackles. After graduation, Ham went on to an 11-year professional career with the Pittsburgh Steelers.

"I think it was a real plus," Ham said. "I am all for it."

Donald Ferrell, an advisor in the Penn State Academic Support Center, also favors freshman ineligibility.

"I believe all freshman athletes should not play in their sport in their freshman year," Ferrell said. "They need one year to get ready. I think the most time is taken up with practice, so they should not play or practice. I think it is worth a try.
Sources: http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/19 ... 92cm-2.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[dbackjon]

It's not like this is a new idea, although I don't support it myself.

Freshmen only became eligible in 1972.

And when players in all sports stayed four years...

[Ivytalk]

He should coach in the Ivy.

Nice, Hen. First anti-Ivy cheap shot of the new season.

What is your problem? It has to go deeper than the "playoff thing."

[dbackjon]

He should coach in the Ivy.

Nice, Hen. First anti-Ivy cheap shot of the new season.

What is your problem? It has to go deeper than the "playoff thing."

Turned down by Penn

[Grizalltheway]

Nice, Hen. First anti-Ivy cheap shot of the new season.

What is your problem? It has to go deeper than the "playoff thing."

Turned down by Penn

And Newark Community College.

[Ivytalk]

Nice, Hen. First anti-Ivy cheap shot of the new season.

What is your problem? It has to go deeper than the "playoff thing."

Turned down by Penn

And that takes some doing!

[Ivytalk]

Turned down by Penn

And Newark Community College.

You are very wise, young Skywalker.

[JohnStOnge]

The NCAA has too many rules in general and eligibility rules in particular as it is.

[SuperHornet]

How about resurrecting the old JV concept? All freshpeople and the lower-tier sophs play against JCs and other JVs at four-year schools in a close travel radius, perhaps with a shorter schedule. That would allow them to get game experience, assimilate the playbook, and keep up grades, all without the pressures concomitant with being thrown into the frying pan immediately.

[Grizalltheway]

How about resurrecting the old JV concept? All freshpeople and the lower-tier sophs play against JCs and other JVs at four-year schools in a close travel radius, perhaps with a shorter schedule. That would allow them to get game experience, assimilate the playbook, and keep up grades, all without the pressures concomitant with being thrown into the frying pan immediately.

[DaBigBlue]

BCS schools would love this rule. FCS you have to pull from the Freshmen class every now and then because the lack of depth. Last year ODU had 74 Freshmen and Sophomores on the team, with only 19 upperclassmen, This rule would killed start-up programs, till they get their classes balanced out.

[alvin kayak]

I don't see shame in being rejected by an Ivy League school, even Penn. The Ivy is all about elitism, which means turning people down. As for no playoffs, I'm glad the SOCON, CAA, and Big Sky participate in the playoffs. What would the FCS be without the playoffs??? At least the FBS has some amusing bowl games.

[MrTitleist]

Freshpeople? What the fuck?

[Vidav]

Freshpeople? What the fuck?

[tampajag]

How about resurrecting the old JV concept? All freshpeople and the lower-tier sophs play against JCs and other JVs at four-year schools in a close travel radius, perhaps with a shorter schedule. That would allow them to get game experience, assimilate the playbook, and keep up grades, all without the pressures concomitant with being thrown into the frying pan immediately.

that's almost as great as his boys and girls basketball statements