MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: ChicosBailBonds on February 15, 2015, 01:32:34 PM
-
Potentially interesting times ahead
http://www.sbnation.com/college-basketball/2015/2/14/8038431/freshmen-ineligible-college-sports-nba-age-limit
-
Potentially interesting times ahead
http://www.sbnation.com/college-basketball/2015/2/14/8038431/freshmen-ineligible-college-sports-nba-age-limit
Will be interesting to see if this happens. Men's basketball only seems to be a bit unfair however.
Also interesting is the re-emergence of a type of Prop 48.
"Raised academic standards are already coming to college basketball in 2016. A scholarship athlete will now need a 2.3 GPA in high school to compete. Previously, the bar was set at 2.0."
If they between a 2.0 and a 2.3, they get to come to campus and practice, but are forced to use a redshirt as a freshman.
-
Potentially interesting times ahead
http://www.sbnation.com/college-basketball/2015/2/14/8038431/freshmen-ineligible-college-sports-nba-age-limit
So, are the member schools prepared to raise the number of scholarships back up too to fill in freshmen teams and to avoid concussion lawsuits in football because teams are too thinly manned with only now 60 varsity football scholarships and 20 freshmen. Revenue and Olympic sports still to be in Title IV compliance? Or, will there just be only football for men and 10 women sports? Title IV changed things since 1972.
-
So, are the member schools prepared to raise the number of scholarships back up too to fill in freshmen teams and to avoid concussion lawsuits in football because teams are too thinly manned with only now 60 varsity football scholarships and 20 freshmen. Revenue and Olympic sports still to be in Title IV compliance? Or, will there just be only football for men and 10 women sports? Title IV changed things since 1972.
This looks like basketball only to me
-
This looks like basketball only to me
Sounds like a discrimination lawsuit waiting to happen if just one sport is singled out by the NCAA. What this will do is send freshmen overseas or to JUCOs for one year.
-
Sounds like a discrimination lawsuit waiting to happen if just one sport is singled out by the NCAA. What this will do is send freshmen overseas or to JUCOs for one year.
Maybe, but there are already different rules governing baseball, football, basketball around things like going pro, etc.
-
Sounds like a discrimination lawsuit waiting to happen if just one sport is singled out by the NCAA. What this will do is send freshmen overseas or to JUCOs for one year.
Yup, and the good ones won't be playing at Ky. as frosh if this happened.
-
Yup, and the good ones won't be playing at Ky. as frosh if this happened.
The oversees thing is an option today, and it is rarely used. Maybe this pushes others to go there, but half these kids can't get away from their posse enough to even got 2 hours away, going across the pond is too much for many of them.
As for the JUCO route, certainly some could and maybe they should. They'll love the 1,500 that attend the games and the bus rides, etc. People have to choose what they want.
-
So, let me get this straight.
These adult males - mostly black - will be banned from playing both Varsity college basketball and from the NBA.
Gotta luv Amurica!
PS - I am not saying they are talking about this move for racial reasons. I am saying that will be the perceived reason. And in this dumbed-down, TMZ lovin' country (and maybe everywhere for that matter), perception is truth.
-
This is a real joke -- get accustom to college life??? What about all the other athletes that don't play basketball - do they also need to get acclimated. I don't see how this passes but if it did across the 'power 5' - the Big East should immediately declare that they will let freshman play.
-
As usual the NCAA and other buereacrats with their heads up their rear ends in wanting to bring back a rule that was archaic and outdated back in the early 1970's when it was last overturned.
Penalize all freshman and make them sit a year under the stupid pretense that they need a year to adjust to college life and pretend it's going to help improve quality of play at the NCAA and NBA levels. It's night and day the different in 2015 than it was in the 1960's and early 70's when this rule was in place. Kids are exposed to so much more nowadays before they even reach college: academically, athletically, and socially.
You want to really improve quality of NCAA and NBA basketball? Do what baseball does. You want to go to college, fine, you're making a three year commitment, minimum. You want to go pro right out of high school and forfeit college eligiblity? Fine too. This is America, we shouldn't be artifically holding down for a whole year our best and most talented if they want to go to the NBA, either under the current system or bringing back frosh ineligibility. Sure, some will make stupid, ill-informed decisions in that regard, but that's life. It isn't, or shouldn't be a death sentence for life. You can still get your life back on track and do something if the NBA dream falls apart, which it will for some.
But in the meantime, you'll have kids far more ready for the NBA than they are under the current stupid, bad, one and done system, or bringing back the even more moronic system of forcing all kids to sit a year. I'd aruge it will harm college and NBA basketball even more to reinstitute this rule. How many top 50-100 guys coming out of high school are going to say yes to college and sit out a whole year? What world do these people live in, seriously? So then you'll get more kids than you have now going to the NBA and failing, and hurting the college game in the process.
And I'd argue too you'll still have plenty of kids choosing college with the three year commitment because of what would be at stake and the high risk/high reward sceanrio if you choose going pro.
The NCAA and it's stupidity just knows no bounds. They take a problem and just f*** it up more. It is so pathetic and really sad, and everyone is going to share in the abundance of this failure if it happens.
-
This is a real joke -- get accustom to college life??? What about all the other athletes that don't play basketball - do they also need to get acclimated. I don't see how this passes but if it did across the 'power 5' - the Big East should immediately declare that they will let freshman play.
The difference in the other sports is they aren't leaving after one year so it is "built in" that they will become adjusted to college life, as they have no other option. That would be my guess, anyway.
-
I tell ya, Swofford, the ACC commish's comments are enough to make you vomit, talking about educational, student life balance, blah, blah, blah. What a f***ing hypocrite, after his conference single handedly destroyed the Big East, not once, but twice (pre and post MU's membership). Yeah, sure, you're all about education and student athletes succeeding between the lines and in the classroom you phony.
-
The difference in the other sports is they aren't leaving after one year so it is "built in" that they will become adjusted to college life, as they have no other option. That would be my guess, anyway.
I hear you but why go fix the symptom instead of the problem. The 'power 5' or the NCAA needs to get their head checked. Freshman are a part of their product and make it more exciting.
-
The difference in the other sports is they aren't leaving after one year so it is "built in" that they will become adjusted to college life, as they have no other option. That would be my guess, anyway.
You aren't really being suckered in to the horse manure these creeps are trying to peddle to the public, are you???
-
I tell ya, Swofford, the ACC commish's comments are enough to make you vomit, talking about educational, student life balance, blah, blah, blah. What a f***ing hypocrite, after his conference single handedly destroyed the Big East, not once, but twice (pre and post MU's membership). Yeah, sure, you're all about education and student athletes succeeding between the lines and in the classroom you phony.
He obviously wasn't too worried about the student-athletes learning experience at UNC.
-
He obviously wasn't too worried about the student-athletes learning experience at UNC.
Exactly.
-
I'm sure this has been discussed, but has basketball ever considered going the baseball route?
High school seniors can go pro; however, if they opt not to, they can only go pro after their college junior season.
-
The difference in the other sports is they aren't leaving after one year so it is "built in" that they will become adjusted to college life, as they have no other option. That would be my guess, anyway.
Really???
They obviously aren't leaving from basketball. 5,500 BB players in Div. 1 last year and how many freshman left for the NBA?
I believe it was the whopping total of 9.
-
You want to really improve quality of NCAA and NBA basketball? Do what baseball does. You want to go to college, fine, you're making a three year commitment, minimum. You want to go pro right out of high school and forfeit college eligiblity?
I think the NCAA would be all for that.
Problem is that the NBA isn't. And the rule for baseball that you reference above is MLB's rule. The NCAA can't require a three year commitment unless the NBA gets it into the CBA with the union. And the union has made it clear they aren't going any further than one and done.
-
This is a real joke -- get accustom to college life??? What about all the other athletes that don't play basketball - do they also need to get acclimated. I don't see how this passes but if it did across the 'power 5' - the Big East should immediately declare that they will let freshman play.
That would be a brilliant move on the Big East's part.
-
Potentially interesting times ahead
http://www.sbnation.com/college-basketball/2015/2/14/8038431/freshmen-ineligible-college-sports-nba-age-limit
I think this is posturing by the college presidents. NBA Union will back down and eventually let it move to two and done.
-
I think this is posturing by the college presidents. NBA Union will back down and eventually let it move to two and done.
What motivation do they have for doing so?
-
What motivation do they have for doing so?
Improving their product, but they're too greedy, selfish, and short sighted to view it that way unfortunately.
-
I think the NCAA would be all for that.
Problem is that the NBA isn't. And the rule for baseball that you reference above is MLB's rule. The NCAA can't require a three year commitment unless the NBA gets it into the CBA with the union. And the union has made it clear they aren't going any further than one and done.
Yes, the second part of your post I didn't think of that, and you're right of course.
The first statement, uh, I truly wonder? You really believe the NCAA has the wisdom to do what's right? I sure have zero confidence. These guys are a bunch of empty suit bureaucrats who only care about their own expansion and power.
-
Yes, the second part of your post I didn't think of that, and you're right of course.
The first statement, uh, I truly wonder? You really believe the NCAA has the wisdom to do what's right? I sure have zero confidence. These guys are a bunch of empty suit bureaucrats who only care about their own expansion and power.
I think the NCAA would *love* if college basketball required at least three years like football. Everyone knows the quality of the game has suffered tremendously due to talent leaving and lack of continuity with the players. Can you imagine what next year's Duke team would look like with a third year Jabari Parker, and second year Okafor and Jones?
-
Improving their product, but they're too greedy, selfish, and short sighted to view it that way unfortunately.
Who? The players union? How is it being greedy for them to allow more players in the door?
-
You aren't really being suckered in to the horse manure these creeps are trying to peddle to the public, are you???
In my view it's a combination of them wanting to prevent kids from jumping early because it is hurting college basketball....call that selfish or just good business, but that's the main driver. I also believe they know as well as everyone here that some of these kids are not intellectually or emotionally ready to leave that early, but because their posse, family, or overvalued self believes they need to cash in....they do.
So it's a little bit of both, but no doubt there is plenty of self interest at play here by the conferences.
I didn't understand your ACC vs Big East stuff, to be honest with you. The enlarging of the conferences was about surviving and positioning yourself for the future. That's just the reality of it. If the ACC didn't do that, someone else would have (Big 12, etc).
-
Exactly.
I don't think that is true at all. That is being played out right now, but first and foremost that was a UNC issue....it then became an ACC and NCAA issue, which is where it sits right now.
-
I'm sure this has been discussed, but has basketball ever considered going the baseball route?
High school seniors can go pro; however, if they opt not to, they can only go pro after their college junior season.
Yup....good luck getting the NBA, the agents, etc to go for it, however.
-
Yes, the second part of your post I didn't think of that, and you're right of course.
The first statement, uh, I truly wonder? You really believe the NCAA has the wisdom to do what's right? I sure have zero confidence. These guys are a bunch of empty suit bureaucrats who only care about their own expansion and power.
The NCAA largely does what is right for the hundreds of thousands of student athletes under their auspices. People forget about all the sports, all the student athletes and only focus on men's basketball and football. They also forget that football had largely been governed outside of the NCAA, but people blame the NCAA anyway.
Plus, the NCAA is an organization of member institutions. The universities make up the membership and the universities set the rules.
-
Who? The players union? How is it being greedy for them to allow more players in the door?
No, I meant the league itself. The NBA has for a long time now been about marketing individual talent.
-
I didn't understand your ACC vs Big East stuff, to be honest with you. The enlarging of the conferences was about surviving and positioning yourself for the future. That's just the reality of it. If the ACC didn't do that, someone else would have (Big 12, etc).
Bull, it's been about power, influence, and maximizing money and profit, while pretending it's about student athletes. That's what kills me is their utter hypocrisy and crap about student athletes they blather on about. The ACC started the whole domino effect in college football and basketball. They were the corporate raiders gobbling up whatever they could sink their claws into. Everyone else felt compelled to react to what they had done. The survival of the ACC was hardly at issue in both of their expansions.
-
The NCAA largely does what is right for the hundreds of thousands of student athletes under their auspices. People forget about all the sports, all the student athletes and only focus on men's basketball and football. They also forget that football had largely been governed outside of the NCAA, but people blame the NCAA anyway.
Plus, the NCAA is an organization of member institutions. The universities make up the membership and the universities set the rules.
That all may be true, but seriously, reality is, it's a handful of power brokers that move and shake things. The article you linked was an example of that. I don't think the hypocrites quoted are too concerned about what their fellow member institutions want to do or not do. They know they're the ones with the leverage, power, and influence to change things the way they want.
-
Bull, it's been about power, influence, and maximizing money and profit, while pretending it's about student athletes. That's what kills me is their utter hypocrisy and crap about student athletes they blather on about. The ACC started the whole domino effect in college football and basketball. They were the corporate raiders gobbling up whatever they could sink their claws into. Everyone else felt compelled to react to what they had done. The survival of the ACC was hardly at issue in both of their expansions.
When I say surviving, I mean positioning themselves for the future. I don't literally mean not existing, but in order to part of the P5 future that was coming, that's what they had to do. In some cases, the educational paradigm for some institutions will improve immensely as a result...Louisville being one.
Let us not forget the Big East did this first with Virginia Tech, Miami (FL) and others back in the day for football. Then added a bunch of schools, including Marquette to shore things up in the mid 2000's.
-
Sounds like a discrimination lawsuit waiting to happen if just one sport is singled out by the NCAA.
How is this discrimination? Football and basketball are already singled out by the way the NCAA assigns "counters" and there have been no lawsuits over that waiting to happen.
What this will do is send freshmen overseas or to JUCOs for one year.
Which is exactly what the academics want.
The schools never asked for the NBA age limit rule--this was thrust on them by a bunch of NBA owners tired of spending millions on first round HS busts. THeir logic: let them prove themselves in college for a year--all in order to protect the owners from having to take that risk.
-
Problem is that the NBA isn't. And the rule for baseball that you reference above is MLB's rule. The NCAA can't require a three year commitment unless the NBA gets it into the CBA with the union. And the union has made it clear they aren't going any further than one and done.
Bingo!
The NBA loves having college basketball as a free minor league. NBA owners would make it two years (or three!) if the union would let them. But the union won't, not without the owners giving up something incredible in negotiations.
-
How is this discrimination? Football and basketball are already singled out by the way the NCAA assigns "counters" and there have been no lawsuits over that waiting to happen.
Which is exactly what the academics want.
The schools never asked for the NBA age limit rule--this was thrust on them by a bunch of NBA owners tired of spending millions on first round HS busts. THeir logic: let them prove themselves in college for a year--all in order to protect the owners from having to take that risk.
As to the first part, with this potential rule, the NCAA is singling out a specific sport, not the professional leaugue and/or the unions as was explained by other posters here. Guess what: of last year's Top 25 high school hoops recruits, who most will say are the most likely to be one and dones, 100% are African Americans who will now be excluded and singles out from making millions for a year.
A professional league and their union limiting entry is one thing as it is only for one sport. An organization who rules over all spirts is another thing. Have to be fair and equitable or it is discrimination.
As to the academics: lol. This is all about the P5 locking up more of the top talent, and keep the talent and money with the as this would require more basketball scholarships. If the academics really cared, Syracuse and UNC would be blacklisted.
-
Weird how hockey players can get drafted before going to college, then head to college for as long as they want (or until they run out of eligibility, whichever comes first) and it hasn't ruined the NCAA or NHL.
-
Weird how hockey players can get drafted before going to college, then head to college for as long as they want (or until they run out of eligibility, whichever comes first) and it hasn't ruined the NCAA or NHL.
Or, how a Chris Crawford or Danny Ainge could play professionally in one sport and be eligible in another as an amateur, but Darnell Autry couldn't act or model during the football offseason while at Northwestern.
-
Or, how a Chris Crawford or Danny Ainge could play professionally in one sport and be eligible in another as an amateur, but Darnell Autry couldn't act or model during the football offseason while at Northwestern.
Nothing weird about it at all. Crawford and Ainge played for other sports organizations in which those organizations had skin in the game and drafted those players. They used draft choices to obtain their rights.
The Autry example opens up a massive hole for boosters to pay recruits to come play for them. "Come on down and play for us, we'll let you also model and give you 6 figures to do so"
Not that hard really.
-
Weird how hockey players can get drafted before going to college, then head to college for as long as they want (or until they run out of eligibility, whichever comes first) and it hasn't ruined the NCAA or NHL.
Agreed. Just wait until those hockey posses get involved, they'll change things.
-
Nothing weird about it at all. Crawford and Ainge played for other sports organizations in which those organizations had skin in the game and drafted those players. They used draft choices to obtain their rights.
The Autry example opens up a massive hole for boosters to pay recruits to come play for them. "Come on down and play for us, we'll let you also model and give you 6 figures to do so"
Not that hard really.
Not that hard really...other than Autry sued the NCAA and won.
http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1996/Judge-Sides-With-Autry-In-Rushing-Star-Vs-NCAA/id-938ccdba2a9a106a810163738637c40d
-
Let us not forget the Big East did this first with Virginia Tech, Miami (FL) and others back in the day for football. Then added a bunch of schools, including Marquette to shore things up in the mid 2000's.
Not really fair to compare the Big East taking Miami and Va Tech for football as both were independents before joining the conference.
-
As to the first part, with this potential rule, the NCAA is singling out a specific sport, not the professional leaugue and/or the unions as was explained by other posters here. Guess what: of last year's Top 25 high school hoops recruits, who most will say are the most likely to be one and dones, 100% are African Americans who will now be excluded and singles out from making millions for a year.
I would back this down quite a bit, as the article Chico's posted noted that an average of 10 freshman per year enter the draft.
-
Agreed. Just wait until those hockey posses get involved, they'll change things.
Hockey players are traditionals, right?
-
Not that hard really...other than Autry sued the NCAA and won.
http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1996/Judge-Sides-With-Autry-In-Rushing-Star-Vs-NCAA/id-938ccdba2a9a106a810163738637c40d
I'm aware that he won the lawsuit, I was pointing out the answer as to why the NCAA didn't allow it....too big of a hole in which mischief can happen. Let's also not forget that all student athletes can work, but guidelines were in place because of the rampant cheating in the past.
-
Hockey players are traditionals, right?
They tend to be more grounded in the basics than basketball players, if that is what you are asking. You can't just "out athlete" someone on the ice, you need the fundamentals as a skater and as a player. A better way to put it, some guys in college hoops didn't even start playing basketball until high school and they still make major impacts because their athleticism translates to the game and they can dominate certain aspects of the game. For hockey, it's usually years and years of development.
-
If the power five were dumb enough to adopt this rule, they'd drop it within four years.
It would folly for the other conferences (like the BE, AAC, A10, etc) to choose to restrict themselves this way.
First, it would be a clear recruiting advantage for the non-power 5. If you were a 3- or 4-star 17-year-old from Green Bay, and could play at MU immediately instead of waiting a year to play at Wisky, where are you going?
Second, even if the NCAA let the power 5 increase their schollie limit (which I doubt), a team would be at a big disadvantage if they happened to have an unbalanced recruiting class one year.
-
If the power five were dumb enough to adopt this rule, they'd drop it within four years.
It would folly for the other conferences (like the BE, AAC, A10, etc) to choose to restrict themselves this way.
First, it would be a clear recruiting advantage for the non-power 5. If you were a 3- or 4-star 17-year-old from Green Bay, and could play at MU immediately instead of waiting a year to play at Wisky, where are you going?
Second, even if the NCAA let the power 5 increase their schollie limit (which I doubt), a team would be at a big disadvantage if they happened to have an unbalanced recruiting class one year.
I think a bunch of you are missing what they are proposing. They are saying a NCAA legislative rule, which would apply to all of the schools in the various divisions, not just the P5. It happens to be the P5 commissioners pushing this, but they would want this to be voted on by the entire membership and applied to the entire membership.
-
I think a bunch of you are missing what they are proposing. They are saying a NCAA legislative rule, which would apply to all of the schools in the various divisions, not just the P5. It happens to be the P5 commissioners pushing this, but they would want this to be voted on by the entire membership and applied to the entire membership.
Certainly would be a boon for the NDBL, CHL and minor-league baseball, but I'm not sure how it helps any NCAA programs.
-
If this is posturing to get the NBA to change their rules...ok.
However, to create a rule that no freshman gets to play because 10 people go one & done each year doesn't add up. 1. it does not solve the problem (player a. would just not go the NCAA route) and 2. it makes your product worse, 3. makes the cost to do business higher (likely need more schollies)
If the pushers of this are genuine it just seems like a power grab. The teams that are disadvantaged in the current system are the top 10 programs...they 'need' these players to compete but don't like the roster turnover (read K and others are tired of Cal getting all the kids). Second they are the ones that can afford holding extra schollies. Finally if there is less pressure from top kids to get playing time and more slots on the best teams -- they can take on more top kids leaving less players for everyone else.
So I understand this is an NCAA thing that the Power 5 may be behind...I stand by the comment though that the Big East (and others) should say publicly they will let Freshman play (or vote that way).
Look Coach K or anyone in the NCAA doesn't have to recruit one and done players.
-
Certainly would be a boon for the NDBL, CHL and minor-league baseball, but I'm not sure how it helps any NCAA programs.
Maybe, but I suspect a lot of these guys aren't going to be particularly thrilled about playing in Bakersfield for a few sheckles a game and even fewer fans in the seats. My assumption is that they feel that alternative is not reality for most, and they will go to school for multiple years instead.
Possibly a leverage play only to get the Association to move.
-
Maybe, but I suspect a lot of these guys aren't going to be particularly thrilled about playing in Bakersfield for a few sheckles a game and even fewer fans in the seats. My assumption is that they feel that alternative is not reality for most, and they will go to school for multiple years instead.
Possibly a leverage play only to get the Association to move.
Have you seen the attendance for college baseball? It's about the size of a middle school basketball game.
-
If this is posturing to get the NBA to change their rules...ok.
However, to create a rule that no freshman gets to play because 10 people go one & done each year doesn't add up. 1. it does not solve the problem (player a. would just not go the NCAA route) and 2. it makes your product worse, 3. makes the cost to do business higher (likely need more schollies)
If the pushers of this are genuine it just seems like a power grab. The teams that are disadvantaged in the current system are the top 10 programs...they 'need' these players to compete but don't like the roster turnover (read K and others are tired of Cal getting all the kids). Second they are the ones that can afford holding extra schollies. Finally if there is less pressure from top kids to get playing time and more slots on the best teams -- they can take on more top kids leaving less players for everyone else.
So I understand this is an NCAA thing that the Power 5 may be behind...I stand by the comment though that the Big East (and others) should say publicly they will let Freshman play (or vote that way).
Look Coach K or anyone in the NCAA doesn't have to recruit one and done players.
I dont think this is "posturing" by the P5. I think what the P5 is trying to do is raise the costs of athletics as much as possible so they can weed out the non-competitive programs.
This initiative is so unlikely to pass that its almost not even worth commenting on at this point. HOWEVER, it would be in the BE's best interests to follow whatever guidelines the P5 passes. If we dont play by their rules, we will likely lose all OOC games against them. That would hit our pocket book as well FS. Instead of UW, we get Arkansas-Pine-Bluff. Neat.
-
Have you seen the attendance for college baseball? It's about the size of a middle school basketball game.
Sure. I attend a number of games out this way for Cal State Fullerton....pretty good crowds depending on opponent and day of the week. 3K or so. I guess you guys get more at middle school basketball then we do out here.
-
More....Big Ten
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/12349646/big-ten-considering-ineligibility-freshmen
-
More....Big Ten
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/12349646/big-ten-considering-ineligibility-freshmen
Northwestern should just shut its program down now. The pomposity is dripping. Waiting for the UNC and Cuse outrage from the same folks which is by far the bigger issue.
-
Maybe, but I suspect a lot of these guys aren't going to be particularly thrilled about playing in Bakersfield for a few sheckles a game and even fewer fans in the seats. My assumption is that they feel that alternative is not reality for most, and they will go to school for multiple years instead.
Possibly a leverage play only to get the Association to move.
I suspect many would rather play for a few "sheckles" - and by sheckles we should note that a 10th round draft picks gets a six-figure bonus - than sit out a year for no pay at all. I guess for kids who have no option they'll still go to college, but more and more kids with a choice will abandon the college route.
Why would this give college leverage over the Association? I suspect the NBA wouldn't at all mind seeing its top young prospects playing in the NBDL - where the league can profit from their labor - instead of Duke and Kentucky.
-
More....Big Ten
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/12349646/big-ten-considering-ineligibility-freshmen
Recruiting advantage for the BE to ignore this stupid idea.
-
I think the NCAA would *love* if college basketball required at least three years like football. Everyone knows the quality of the game has suffered tremendously due to talent leaving and lack of continuity with the players. Can you imagine what next year's Duke team would look like with a third year Jabari Parker, and second year Okafor and Jones?
It would look like a good team from the 80's.
A couple years ago, after an 18-0 start (or something close to that) Boeheim was asked how the team compared to some of the great teams he had in the 80s. He just laughed and said the 18-0 team would lose by 50.
-
IF the entire P5 goes for this, not adopting it may be a non-conference death sentence. I'm not sure how they'd enforce it but it wouldn't surprise me if they refused home and homes or non-con games (outside tourneys) with any league not adhering to the same rule. Like it or not, we probably need those teams to keep our scheduling solid. Otherwise there may be a lot of scrambling to play teams from the A10, MVC, and other mid major leagues, and if they chose to adopt the same freshman rule, those games might be unattainable too.
-
One of the big problems with this potential rule change is it doesn't reflect the reality of a student athletes life. The freshman would still have to put in all the effort of being on the team and go through the same stress, Yet he/she would not get the satisfaction of playing.
-
I love and hate this idea.
As some one who works in support services for college athletics, I see how many struggle adjusting to the academic workload of college and figuring out how to be a successful college student. Through athletics on top of this and many college athletes miss the entire college part of being a college athlete. There are mountains of research that prove how beneficial a redshirt freshman year is for college athletes.
On the other hand, I'm not sure it will impact the sport the way the schools hope it to. As TW pointed out, they will have all the rigors, just minus the playing time. It doesn't have to be that way but most coaches would treat it as such. I think a lot more students would go the juco route or go overseas and thus impact the quality of the game. If this had stayed a rule from the 70s it would be fine, but we've been feeding the egos of young basketball players for too long for it to be effective. They believe that they should play max minutes from day 1 and think that they are going pro after one year.
-
I really have trouble taking seriously that college presidents are so concerned about the student athlete academic experience given all that has happened with regards to conference alignment and television deals over the past few years. Even now they could put in place travel scenarios that greatly limit the travel requirements - look what the Pac 12 does for instance with their travel partner concept.
I still think this is mostly a power play by the NCAA to get the NBA (and NBAPA) to agree to a "two and done" scenario. They want to improve the quality of play on court and boost their television ratings. I think that is their primary motivation here.
-
I really have trouble taking seriously that college presidents are so concerned about the student athlete academic experience given all that has happened with regards to conference alignment and television deals over the past few years. Even now they could put in place travel scenarios that greatly limit the travel requirements - look what the Pac 12 does for instance with their travel partner concept.
I still think this is mostly a power play by the NCAA to get the NBA (and NBAPA) to agree to a "two and done" scenario. They want to improve the quality of play on court and boost their television ratings. I think that is their primary motivation here.
Oh without a doubt. Anyone that thinks they are actually acting in the best interests of the students is an idiot. But that doesn't mean they won't still try it and attempt to bully the non-P5 to come along.
-
Recruiting advantage for the BE to ignore this stupid idea.
It would be a NCAA rule across the board if adopted, no way a conference will do it on their own. So no recruiting advantage.
-
One of the big problems with this potential rule change is it doesn't reflect the reality of a student athletes life. The freshman would still have to put in all the effort of being on the team and go through the same stress, Yet he/she would not get the satisfaction of playing.
Not all the effort. No travel, for example. Certainly not the same stress of playing, wondering if you are playing, preparing mentally to play.
-
Update from the Big Ten
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/big-tens-delany-lays-plan-freshmen-ineligibility-173730609--ncaaf.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
-
Update from the Big Ten
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/big-tens-delany-lays-plan-freshmen-ineligibility-173730609--ncaaf.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Well,there would be no one and dones. Kids would go overseas or to D-Eage.
-
This will kill Bo Ryan's recruiting!
-
The university presidents are all about the revenue... the $$$
So is the NBA.
This is the inherent conflict. The NBA wants the stars as soon as possible but has had lots of problems with the "too young".
The baseball system works great, except there's no money in college baseball so it's really not a comparison. It's a loss for most universities whereas Basketball can be a revenue generator for schools with good teams.
The hockey system works great. Except only Canadians watch hockey and both of them drank too much Labatts to care.
This leaves two options:
- The NBA teams develop their own "Academies" which provide schooling and basketball from age 16 with junior leagues and feeder programs into the pros. Similar to English Premier League football, which is the best parallel to the NBA in terms of money and prestige and global appeal. This would also clean up the AAU mess.
- The universities continue with their facade, yet host these athletes for minimum 2 years instead of one, but the kids need to be able to play both years!
Imagine if this freshman ineligible thing applied to all sports... A swimmer must go one year without participating in meets and doesn't get any competitive times for a year? What potential Olympic athlete would go for that? Same with a track/field athlete. Baseball... imagine going a year without seeing live pitching.
-
This will kill Bo Ryan's recruiting!
;) +1, made me laugh
-
Delaney is an idiot. His plan will kill college Basketball. The entire national game will become mid-major basketball.
And when the lawsuits start - from both players and the networks with the contracts, the whole thing will erupt in chaos. Players will have a case because only certain sports - the ones with the most minorities - are being affected. And CBS will not honor a contract if the NCAA takes away the star players. Delaney says "The increased costs would be covered with money from TV and media rights deals for the College Football Playoff and NCAA men's basketball tournament." This moron actually thinks CBS will pony up more money for a lesser product!!
People want to see the stars. They won't exist, for the most part, if freshmen are ineligible. The top HS players will no longer go to college.
What's left if you eliminate the top 25 -5- HS players coming in every year? They will have no motivation to go to college to sit for a year. Since they have to wait a year to get drafted anyway, they will go directly to the D-League. They can play right away and they will get paid.
-
This will not happen. Need consensus and it is not there. In many sports a large portion of the freshman class are red shirted already. Who cares if a few kids go one and done in basketball. College basketball is still far more appealing than the NBA. There is no need for the national conversation that Delaney suggests. People love college sports the way they are. The only modifications that I see are providing health care for athletes.The nature of many of the injuries sustained are permanent and there needs to be reasonable compensation.
-
Recruiting advantage for the BE to ignore this stupid idea.
I have vague memories of Al McGuire talking about freshman trying to keep their skills up by playing old guys in cutoffs at the YMCA. Division I players need to practice constantly just to retain let alone improve their skills. The time spent playing is a small portion of the time they have to devote to the sport, so if you still allow them to practice, how much better off are they really by just not playing in the games. I guess not doing the travel would be a plus.
And the better the student, the more unfair this change would be. It's all about the NCAA protecting its image against accusations of exploiting kids at the expense of those same kids. Creepy.
-
This will kill Bo Ryan's recruiting!
On the contrary, this is Bo Ryan's recruiting forced on all programs.
-
I'd like to see a true national discussion on it.
-
This will not happen. Need consensus and it is not there. In many sports a large portion of the freshman class are red shirted already. Who cares if a few kids go one and done in basketball. College basketball is still far more appealing than the NBA. There is no need for the national conversation that Delaney suggests. People love college sports the way they are. The only modifications that I see are providing health care for athletes.The nature of many of the injuries sustained are permanent and there needs to be reasonable compensation.
I agree it will not happen. I was just trying to point out the lunacy of Delaney.
-
One of the big problems with this potential rule change is it doesn't reflect the reality of a student athletes life. The freshman would still have to put in all the effort of being on the team and go through the same stress, Yet he/she would not get the satisfaction of playing.
No kidding. And how about the "Hey I don't have to play in the game tomorrow let's go out and party tonight." Not saying stuff like this doesn't happen already but is banning kids from playing in games really helping them adjust to a 'student-athlete's' life?
-
Delaney is an idiot. His plan will kill college Basketball. The entire national game will become mid-major basketball.
And when the lawsuits start - from both players and the networks with the contracts, the whole thing will erupt in chaos. Players will have a case because only certain sports - the ones with the most minorities - are being affected. And CBS will not honor a contract if the NCAA takes away the star players. Delaney says "The increased costs would be covered with money from TV and media rights deals for the College Football Playoff and NCAA men's basketball tournament." This moron actually thinks CBS will pony up more money for a lesser product!!
People want to see the stars. They won't exist, for the most part, if freshmen are ineligible. The top HS players will no longer go to college.
What's left if you eliminate the top 25 -5- HS players coming in every year? They will have no motivation to go to college to sit for a year. Since they have to wait a year to get drafted anyway, they will go directly to the D-League. They can play right away and they will get paid.
I think this is a little hyperbolic.
The players aren't going to have a case because, in return for them sitting a year, they are going to increase the number of scholarships offered. And I am sure they are going to talk with their television partners about this. I doubt it would impact college basketball all that much ratings wise. For college athletics, more people tune in for the school and the pagentry. Not the stars. Duke will draw eyeballs because they are Duke.
-
i think we all understand this is about money, but if you think back (to when i was a kid - ~90's), college basketball was such a different product. we would all buy jersey's because players were known nationally as they would be at a school for multiple years. i believe i follow college basketball closely, but i have no clue who will suit up for the blue bloods next year as anyone remotely good is going pro. the ncaa wants to fix that...because it means more $$$$.
-
i think we all understand this is about money, but if you think back (to when i was a kid - ~90's), college basketball was such a different product. we would all buy jersey's because players were known nationally as they would be at a school for multiple years. i believe i follow college basketball closely, but i have no clue who will suit up for the blue bloods next year as anyone remotely good is going pro. the ncaa wants to fix that...because it means more $$$$.
Wait ... you mean it's not about the student-athletes?
-
On the contrary, this is Bo Ryan's recruiting forced on all programs.
Sarcasm just posted from a phone so it wasn't worth doing teal
-
Great news for every program not in the Big Tenteen ... Delaney officially recommending freshmen ineligibility under the guise of "balancing academics and athletics."
http://files.ctctcdn.com/c7876417001/2bfcbc02-7b5f-4ff5-9229-4f2a0f2d620e.pdf
-
Great news for every program not in the Big Tenteen ... Delaney officially recommending freshmen ineligibility under the guise of "balancing academics and athletics."
http://files.ctctcdn.com/c7876417001/2bfcbc02-7b5f-4ff5-9229-4f2a0f2d620e.pdf
Yeah, shame on him for making the attempt. It's worth the discussion. You may agree or disagree with the pitch, but IMO it is worth the discussion on the merits.
-
Great news for every program not in the Big Tenteen ... Delaney officially recommending freshmen ineligibility under the guise of "balancing academics and athletics."
http://files.ctctcdn.com/c7876417001/2bfcbc02-7b5f-4ff5-9229-4f2a0f2d620e.pdf
I see he doesn't feel women basketball players need to stay in the classroom as freshmen (freshwomen?) - apparently they aren't having the academic problems the men do
-
Yeah, shame on him for making the attempt. It's worth the discussion. You may agree or disagree with the pitch, but IMO it is worth the discussion on the merits.
Yes, it is a shame that he's trying to weaken non-Big 10 programs like Kentucky and gain more control over student athletes under the false pretense of academics.
Do you honestly believe that not allowing a kid to play football for a few hours a week for a few months of the year is really going to help him academically?
-
It's going to be a justification for more scholarships.
-
Won't this just force more schools to take JUCOs and immediately eligible graduate transfers? What happens when a school graduates six, has two go pro, and has two transfers? Look at Washington this year, I believe they have 4 scholarship players coming back. If freshmen are ineligible, JUCOs and grad transfers are the only answer.
So if you favor this freshman ineligibility, you must also favor an increase in immediately eligible transfers, ai'na?
-
I see he doesn't feel women basketball players need to stay in the classroom as freshmen (freshwomen?) - apparently they aren't having the academic problems the men do
They aren't....that's a fact.
-
Yes, it is a shame that he's trying to weaken non-Big 10 programs like Kentucky and gain more control over student athletes under the false pretense of academics.
Do you honestly believe that not allowing a kid to play football for a few hours a week for a few months of the year is really going to help him academically?
Look back at the data when freshmen were ineligible......that's what he is eluding too. It's also not just a few hours a week, it's about the stress of performing, travel, etc. You are smarter than this.
Why do some schools forbid cars as freshmen? Force freshmen to live in dorms? Disallow more than 18 credits? Or any number of other freshmen only rules? Because they don't like freshmen?
-
Won't this just force more schools to take JUCOs and immediately eligible graduate transfers? What happens when a school graduates six, has two go pro, and has two transfers? Look at Washington this year, I believe they have 4 scholarship players coming back. If freshmen are ineligible, JUCOs and grad transfers are the only answer.
So if you favor this freshman ineligibility, you must also favor an increase in immediately eligible transfers, ai'na?
Forget Washington, what about us? Can you imagine if all of our freshmen were ineligible next season?
1: Duane
2: JjJ
3: Cohen
4: Wally
5: Luke
Bench:
The twins
Mini Marotta
I do actually appreciate the academic and personal benefit that this rule could bring to the students. I can see it's merit. I just don't see anyway that it would be practical.
-
I do actually appreciate the academic and personal benefit that this rule could bring to the students. I can see it's merit. I just don't see anyway that it would be practical.
The academic and personal benefit is vastly overstated, IMO.
Freshmen are still going to practice 20 hours a week. They're still going to attend meetings. They're still going have mandatory time in the weight room. They're still going to have to attend film study.
Literally the only extra time this gives them is game time. And, I'm guessing that most players will be watching their teammates play - either on TV or in the stands - during those few hours a week, rather than sitting in the library studying.
Also, if any Big 10 program or any other school believes a freshman athlete isn't ready to deal with college life while also playing, they're free to redshirt the kid. Why make this mandatory and essentially punish all freshmen athletes when there's already a reasonable option for dealing with this for the kids who truly aren't ready? Obviously some kids won't be ready. Others will play heavy freshmen minutes and wind up academic All-Americans (see: Stanford's Chasson Randle). There's no need for a one-size-fits-all solution here.
I think we know why they're doing this, and it has nothing to do with Jim Delaney or the Big 10 looking out for the best interests of athletes.
-
Look back at the data when freshmen were ineligible......that's what he is eluding too. It's also not just a few hours a week, it's about the stress of performing, travel, etc. You are smarter than this.
Why do some schools forbid cars as freshmen? Force freshmen to live in dorms? Disallow more than 18 credits? Or any number of other freshmen only rules? Because they don't like freshmen?
The only thing you like better than defending the status quo is petitioning for measures that take us backwards.
-
Look back at the data when freshmen were ineligible......that's what he is eluding too. It's also not just a few hours a week, it's about the stress of performing, travel, etc. You are smarter than this.
Why do some schools forbid cars as freshmen? Force freshmen to live in dorms? Disallow more than 18 credits? Or any number of other freshmen only rules? Because they don't like freshmen?
I don't remember that rule at MU as I took 18 credits both semesters as a freshman ('65-'66). I don't think they forbade cars back then either, but it was really difficult for a frosh to get a parking permit.
-
The academic and personal benefit is vastly overstated, IMO.
Freshmen are still going to practice 20 hours a week. They're still going to attend meetings. They're still going have mandatory time in the weight room. They're still going to have to attend film study.
Literally the only extra time this gives them is game time. And, I'm guessing that most players will be watching their teammates play - either on TV or in the stands - during those few hours a week, rather than sitting in the library studying.
Also, if any Big 10 program or any other school believes a freshman athlete isn't ready to deal with college life while also playing, they're free to redshirt the kid. Why make this mandatory and essentially punish all freshmen athletes when there's already a reasonable option for dealing with this for the kids who truly aren't ready?
I think we know why, and it has nothing to do with Jim Delaney or the Big 10 looking out for the best interests of athletes.
I understand what you are saying, but you are misguided. I work with college athletes on a daily basis. The players who redshirt are often required to go to a lot of the meetings, they don't always travel with the team, they go to team practices but often don't have the same level of individual attention that active players do, there are many events that they are not required to go to. Plus, the pressure is different and that makes a world of difference.
As a caveat, I will say there is less of a benefit for basketball players. Because the team is smaller, they are usually required to do all the things non-redshirts do. What I described is more common in sports like football, baseball, and the Olympic sports.
-
4 pages of debate on something that ain't gonna happen.
I love the interwebs!
-
Look back at the data when freshmen were ineligible......
Look at the reality of college basketball today. Would you be satisfied with Marquette having 5 eligible players next year? Because that'd be the reality without eligible true freshmen.
The ONLY ways around it would be JUCOs or immediately eligible graduate transfers, both of which you have spoken out against. So which is the lesser evil?
-
I don't remember that rule at MU as I took 18 credits both semesters as a freshman ('65-'66). I don't think they forbade cars back then either, but it was really difficult for a frosh to get a parking permit.
MU doesn't have it that I'm aware of, but some schools do. They want you to "ease into" your first year.
-
I understand what you are saying, but you are misguided. I work with college athletes on a daily basis. The players who redshirt are often required to go to a lot of the meetings, they don't always travel with the team, they go to team practices but often don't have the same level of individual attention that active players do, there are many events that they are not required to go to. Plus, the pressure is different and that makes a world of difference.
As a caveat, I will say there is less of a benefit for basketball players. Because the team is smaller, they are usually required to do all the things non-redshirts do. What I described is more common in sports like football, baseball, and the Olympic sports.
Exactly. That is also the same experience I had in my 7 years in intercollegiate athletic departments. Not nearly the same level of mandatory stuff, but the key is the pressure part. When you know you aren't going to play, it's completely different. I'd compare it to attending a meeting where you are giving an hour long presentation and leading the meeting vs just being a guy at the meeting. A totally different level of stress, pressure, etc, yet both are in the same meeting, or on the same team.
-
Look at the reality of college basketball today. Would you be satisfied with Marquette having 5 eligible players next year? Because that'd be the reality without eligible true freshmen.
The ONLY ways around it would be JUCOs or immediately eligible graduate transfers, both of which you have spoken out against. So which is the lesser evil?
I think the reality is that if this rule goes into effect it would be put into place several years down the road, that would allow for roster management to be impacted differently. I suspect you might also see some other changes with this rule, most notably extra scholarships to avoid what you are highlighting.