RebKell's Junkie Boards

[Ex-Ref]

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/12349646/big-ten-considering-ineligibility-freshmen

Wow. Seems like a good way to destroy your athletic programs.

[summertime blues]

Dumb. Especially for women's programs; women have traditionally accepted sports and athletic scholarships as a means of getting an education, since until recently there wasn't much opportunity for a professional athletic career.

_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom

[purduefanatic]

I highly, highly doubt the Big Ten, who have been leaders among many things including having a network, expansion, etc, would be foolish enough to put this into play without the other Power 5 leagues also getting on board.

And if you read the article, they haven't even discussed it yet but are planning on doing so...it's not like they have decided anything. Good lord. And the article specifically mentions that the piece that was sent to the member schools discussed men's basketball and football only...nothing about women's sports.

[ArtBest23]

The article quotes both the Big12 and PAC comissioners as well. Obviously the Big10 would do it alone. I suspect this either is or will be on the "autonomy" agenda for the Power 5 to consider instituting.

I actually think it's a good idea. And everything I've heard about it, they would add a year of eligibility so you could still play 4, not go back to the three years of varsity eligibility of the pre-72 era.

Really, is it so bad to give players another year of free education and a year to get acclimated to college studies without travel and other distractions? I have no objection to things that place more emphasis on education. It would improve the quality of play as well, and probably aid parity in WCBB by putting more emphasis on coaching and development during that year and less on signing ready-to-start "bonus babies". How many more women could be impactful on the court if they had a whole year in the gym, the workout room, and the film room, to develop before starting their playing career? As it now stands there just isn't time to develop players once the season starts. They should let them add another assistant specifically for freshmen development.

If it means a few players who weren't interested in a college education anyhow take the Emmanuel Mudiay route and sign a pro contract in Europe right out of High School, that's probably a net plus for college sports.

[pilight]

[ArtBest23]

[summertime blues]

When I was a kid that used to be the rule. In fact, the UW *freshman* football coach was our next door neighbor for a number of years. However, it changed before I was in high school and Fred Marsh then became the JV coach.

It's a stupid idea, IMO, and I think it'll get voted down.

_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom

[ArtBest23]

If it was going to get voted down I doubt that so many P5 commissioners would be talking it up.

"Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby said there is "almost a uniform acknowledgment that there's kids in college that don't have any interest in an education and don't have the proper education to take advantage of an education." Bowlsby said freshman ineligibility would have a "profoundly positive effect" on football and men's basketball by easing the transition from high school without the distractions of competition. I think there's a growing interest in a robust debate, and I think we ought to drag it to the ground and consider it any way we can," Bowlsby said. "I think it is the one change that could make an absolutely dramatic difference in college athletics."

"ACC commissioner John Swofford said he has many questions about freshman ineligibility but believes now is the time to vet the issue. "I don't think it's looked upon as radical an idea as it seemed to people five years or 10 years ago because it makes so much sense educationally," Swofford said. "We're in a period now where everybody is trying to get a hold of the student-athlete experience and a recommitment, if you will, to balance academics and athletics."

“I’ve had conversations with several commissioners about (freshman ineligibility),” Pac-12 Commissioner Larry Scott told Solomon. “We are pushing, and I think you will see much more serious conversations about it in the coming months and year.”

"Freshman ineligibility "would do a lot to restore credibility and integrity to college basketball," said Scott, whose conference is also studying the potential impact in other sports. "It would demonstrate they're students first on those teams and they're in class and getting grades that would keep them eligible. The reality of one-and-done is it's not even one. It's like half or three-quarters [of a school year] and done."

My guess is that by the time it gets this much push and attention by these folks, it's already a done deal. If it doesn't pass, the biggest reason will be the extra cost of additional scholarships and years. Probably wouldn't have happened without P5 semi-autonomy because of cost concerns of smaller schools, but if the P5 can do this themselves, I expect they are going to.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25067832/freshman-ineligibility-ncaa-conference-commissioners-at-least-considering-it

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2015/02/13/some-ncaa-conferences-want-to-explore-idea-of-freshman-ineligibility/

I think it would be great in helping unprepared kids cope with college and increase the likelihood of staying in school; would help eliminate some kids who don't want to be, and don't belong, in college anyhow; and would improve the quality of play.

Maybe this would help solve Clay's problem - it would give girls who have been pushed to just use their superior athleticism to win HS and AAU games a chance finally to learn how to make a layup, to move without the ball, and to shoot from 15 feet.

[mzonefan]

Two quick thoughts:

1) If implemented, the teams that already have established experience will dominate at first because the "One and done" MBB schools will have to wait an extra year to play the next star cast.

2) How long would it take a new coach to make a school "their program" when it would take two years to get his/her recruits on the floor?

[beknighted]

There's a more cynical way to think of this - it's being floated to demonstrate concern about the "student" part of "student athlete" as college sports are being criticized for not caring enough about that, and the clamor will die down once it's served its purpose.

I'm not saying that's right, but I can think of so many reasons this won't happen that I'm looking for explanations for why it's coming up now.

[ArtBest23]

[ClayK]

Never one to doubt the cynical factor ... but if everyone did it, it would still be a positive.

Except what about redshirt years and medical hardships? If the clock started after the freshman year, now it could be seven years of after high school and you're still playing (freshman year, two medical redshirts and four years). That would mean 25-year-olds competing against 19-year-olds ....

_________________
Oṃ T�re Tutt�re Ture Sv�h�

[mzonefan]

http://buckeyextra.dispatch.com/content/stories/2015/02/22/OSU_men_Matta.html

Buckeye Men's coach Thad Matta says even the idea of this has hurt his recruiting.