🏈 Big Ten gauging interest in making freshmen ineligible (Yahoo Sports)

[BAMANEWSBOT]

​

The Big Ten is studying whether freshmen athletes should be ineligible to compete while they adjust to college life. The league said Friday it has reached out to members to see if they are interested ''in beginning a national discussion regarding a year of readiness for student-athletes.'' The Big Ten says it has provided background information to its schools, but no proposals have been made. The University of Maryland's student newspaper, The Diamondback, reported Thursday that the Big Ten has distributed a document titled ''A Year of Readiness'' that explores the idea of making freshmen ineligible in football and men's basketball. For decades, the NCAA barred freshmen from competing in all sports.

Continue reading...

 

[planomateo]

A better read below. Seems like this plan is going to backfire on the Big Ten from a competitive standpoint.




The Big Ten is hoping for support from its member institutions to begin a “national discussion” about ruling freshmen ineligible for football and men’s basketball, according to a document obtained by The Diamondback.

“What I like about the concept of the proposal is it puts right up front the basic issue: Are we basically a quasi-professional activity or primarily an educational activity?” university President Wallace Loh said. “And if you support it, you are basically saying very clearly the No. 1 priority is the education of the students.”

The University Athletic Council met this afternoon to discuss a proposal the Big Ten is titling “A Year of Readiness,” which equates to a mandatory redshirt season to examine “the health of the educational experience.”

“I want to listen to the council,” said Nick Hadley, athletic council chairman and physics professor. “As a faculty member, it’s hard for me not to support something that would increase academic performance.”

The document, which shows football and men’s basketball as the only sports with graduation rates less than 75 percent across the NCAA, states that a push for freshman ineligibility would benefit athletes academically.

Men’s basketball and football players lag behind other sports in terms of academics, according to data provided in the document. Among the 34 sports listed in the Graduation Success Rate data, football and men’s basketball ranked last in the 2004 to 2007 cohort, according to the document. Among the 38 sports listed in the Academic Progress Rate data from 2009 to 2013, those two sports also ranked last.

The proposal examines “the imbalance observed in those two sports” and cites that football and men’s basketball student-athletes account for less than 19 percent of Division I participants, yet they account for more than 80 percent of academic infraction cases.

It also suggests applying current academic eligibility standards for freshman student-athletes to sophomores if the “Year of Readiness” is approved.

An NCAA rule prohibited true freshman from competing in all sports up until 1972, and the decision to make first-year students eligible was financially rooted, according to the document.

The proposal addresses the additional funds necessary to keep athletes on scholarship for the one year of ineligibility and four years of play. It also acknowledges the need to balance scholarship increases for women’s sports.

The document estimates the cost of the additional scholarships at about $94.5 million per year if the “Year of Readiness” program were implemented nationwide, which is less than 10 percent of football and men’s basketball postseason revenue distribution across all Division I programs.

“If they do well because they spend more time, get more academic advising … their freshman year, they’re going to graduate,” Loh said. “And I think it’s worth spending an extra year of financial support to ensure that they graduate.”

According to Forbes, the Big Ten brought in an estimated $318 million in 2014, the most revenue of all conferences nationwide, taking into account income from television deals as well as payouts from football bowl games and the NCAA basketball tournament.

Still, many athletic departments, including this university’s, have experienced economic troubles in recent years. This university's athletic department reported $3.5 million in operating losses in 2014 and cut seven varsity sports teams in 2012 in an attempt to balance its budget and begin to climb out of debt.

On Wednesday, Terrapins men’s basketball coach Mark Turgeon said he’s concerned about his players’ academic performance as time-consuming postseason tournaments draw closer.

“This time of year, you’re really worried about [academics] as a coach, making sure your kids don’t get too far behind,” Turgeon said.

Terrapins football coach Randy Edsall, meanwhile, voiced more direct support for such a proposal in August when responding to a question about Damian Prince, a highly touted offensive lineman who redshirted this past season.

“All the freshmen should be redshirted,” Edsall said. “If we're in a true collegiate model that we talk about or people like to talk about, it's hard. It is hard for these kids. School is going to start next week. Now they’ve got the added weight of taking 15 [credits] and getting acclimated in terms of time management, taking these classes and reaching the expectations that we have for them in the classroom.”

Early next week there will be a Big Ten meeting with representatives from each member institution where this topic will be one of many discussed, Hadley said.

“This is really the starting point of a discussion,” Hadley said. “And the concern is how can we have the graduation rates or academic performance of all our student athletes, but in particular the ones that seem to be lagging behind, which would be football and men’s basketball. How can we have those improvements and what’s the best way to do that, but at the same time be fair and not deny people opportunities.”

 

[UAgrad93]

This should receive as much if not more criticism than what Saban received for wanting to slow the game down.

 

[rammerjammer]

Only way this will ever have a chance is if they convince the other 4 of the power conferences to join with them in this endeavor. That would handicap them something fierce with recruiting.

 

[psychojoe]

I realize that the U of A has a pretty good sized staff to assist its athletes academically, but we can be justifiably proud of our athletes academic performance and graduation rates. We even have a significant number of our athletes who graduate in four years or fewer, a feat not often matched in the student body at large. It is a matter of holding the youngsters accountable for academic as well as athletic performance.

Expense would be an issue. When we had no freshmen eligibility, schools had freshmen teams that played an abbreviated schedule, and they still practiced as much as the varsity did. Saving money was one of the justifications for making them eligible back then.

Some are suggesting this as a way to combat 'one and done' among men's basketball players. To me the best solution here would be to use the threat of making frosh ineligible to work out a deal with the NBA and its player association.

 

[JoshB]

This is the stupidest thing I've heard in a while. It made no sense for freshmen to be ineligible back in the day let alone now.

 

[TerryP]

This is the stupidest thing I've heard in a while. It made no sense for freshmen to be ineligible back in the day let alone now.

I can't agree with this being the stupidest thing heard in a while. There's clearly a problem/issue with the "one and done" cases seen in basketball. It hits B1G schools harder I think...at least it seems to me the bigger stars we've seen that played one year and then left for the league seems to happen more in that area of the country.

This reads to me like these administrators want to end the one and done but they are trying to pass this under the guise of an academic issue more than a competitive one.

I pause when I see things like "the rules up until 1972 were financially rooted." True frosh weren't allowed to compete in games but they did participate in all the other activities the other members of their teams did, right? Assuming I'm right here, how exactly were they saving money? The cost of education was lower, as was the amount spent on a football player (as one example) but it certainly seems like the later was still greater...

I have other questions about where this is headed...as in:

It also acknowledges the need to balance scholarship increases for women’s sports.

Balance scholarship increases for women's sports? Balance against what? If this is a measure to see baseball getting the same number of scholarships as softball, or men's and women's basketball teams have the same number, I can definitely get behind this move.

I fear it isn't.

The document estimates the cost of the additional scholarships at about $94.5 million per year if the “Year of Readiness” program were implemented nationwide, which is less than 10 percent of football and men’s basketball postseason revenue distribution across all Division I programs.

Here's that slippery iced over slope again. Sure, that's a small part of the TOTAL of all D1 programs...doesn't take into account how many are already losing money, doesn't take into account those monies are used to support all the other programs...

It's akin to the "look how much football makes, we should pay all the players" without taking everything into account; again.

 

[TerryP]

BTW, the PAC is floating the same idea but they are calling it exactly what it is:

The item was No. 7 on a 10-point list for NCAA reform ideas that Pac-12 presidents and chancellors sent their Power Five colleagues last May.

7. Address the “one and done” phenomenon in men's basketball. If the National Basketball Association and its Players Association are unable to agree on raising the age limit for players, consider restoring the freshman ineligibility rule in men's basketball.

Several conference commissioners say it's time to consider making freshmen -- or at least some of them -- ineligible, again, for the first time since the NCAA rule changed in 1972.

One-and-done players in men's basketball are the main reason some commissioners want this discussion to occur, and it's not clear whether freshman eligibility interest would decrease should NBA commissioner Adam Silver get his way by pushing the NBA's age limit from 19 to 20 years old.​

http://www.rolltidebama.com/forum/i...sion-one-and-dones-create-discussions.310754/

 

[BAMANEWSBOT]

Steve Greenberg editorial: AthleticBusiness.com

——————

I like reacting to things in knee-jerk fashion as much as anybody, but I'm going to slow my roll on this burgeoning issue of major college conferences - including the Big Ten - creating a new (old) rule that would make all freshman football and basketball players ineligible to play.

My temptation is to come right out and say the idea is nuts. Why? Because it's nuts. Unless it isn't. Proponents of the idea, particularly those in the academic realm, are saying this would help student-athletes get off to better starts as members of university communities and, ultimately, graduate at higher rates. Is that true? I have serious doubts that it is. But I want the chance to soak in and understand the "academic argument," let's call it, before I ignore a compelling quote like this one from Maryland president Wallace Loh:

"What I like about the concept of the proposal is it puts right up front the basic issue: Are we basically a quasi-professional activity or primarily an educational activity?" Loh told The Diamondback, a Maryland student newspaper. "And if you support it, you are basically saying very clearly the No. 1 priority is the education of the students."

On the surface, though, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, for a few reasons:

First and foremost, there are many football and basketball players across the country who arrive at school as freshmen fully prepared to take on the challenges of the modern major-college athlete. Hundreds of football players, for example, graduate high school early in order to start college in the spring semester. They participate in spring ball as part of their well-thought-out, impressively executed plans to take full advantage of their strengths not only as athletes but, yes, as students. Why dissuade any of them from aggressively tackling such an important, opportunity-rich stage of their lives? Of course, there are even more freshmen who didn't enroll early yet are strong students, ready to play right away and well-rounded enough to handle all else that comes with the territory.

There also are many freshmen who'd benefit from being eased into the process. That's what redshirts are for. It's up to the coaches and the schools to make use of them for all the right reasons.

Also, I'm not sure taking away the incentive of playing time is a wise move in this day and age. It's like teaching a young person to drive, then setting him free but saying, "Keep it under 40 miles per hour for the first year." Seriously? Leave a group of 18-year-old college freshmen to their own devices more than you are now, and let's see how many of them make some bad decisions.

Schools are equipped to help freshman football and basketball players succeed. There are academic advisors and tutors, counselors and others. There are coaches, too, who are supposed to be equipped for the totality of their sweet-paying gigs. How about this? To everyone in State U.'s village who has a hand in "raising" freshman student-athletes, do your job. Because you're almost always where the real problems start.

 

[UAgrad93]

I wonder what the exact number of freshmen in football actually play their first year anyway as opposed to being redshirted. I would think our number sits somewhere around 10-12 per class actually get on the field.
I understand the idea of getting rid of the "one and done" basketball player but I feel the idea for football is misguided.

 

[TerryP]

I understand the idea of getting rid of the "one and done" basketball player but I feel the idea for football is misguided.

Looped in due to revenue stream is what I'm thinking...

 

[BAMANEWSBOT]

Rob Stone, Kevin O'Neill & Austin Croshere discuss freshmen ineligibility for football and basketball in the Big Ten.

Continue reading...

 

[UAgrad93]

Nice take by those guys! It is STUPID!!

 

[TerryP]

Nice take by those guys! It is STUPID!!

Correct me if I'm wrong here, please. It's not the end result that you're calling stupid, it's the manner in which they are going about getting to that result, right?

This reminds me of the 10 second rule discussion. We all saw the issues and pointed to them; illegal men downfield, chain gangs/officials more than a step behind, and substitution discrepancies.

The later was addressed before last season. Ole Miss, two years ago, made it a point to run their hurry up when they were on their side of the field. That was corrected.

We saw the illegal men downfield. That's being finally addressed with the final vote on March 5th. The eight official...very well may take care of these crews being behind.

Approaching it through safety—even though logic says that should come into play—was a misguided approach. They are beginning to reel these other things in.

Going under an "academic guise" may be the quickest way to get a vote. I don't know. IF I'm correct and the ultimate goal is to get rid of the one and done...that's not stupid. There are far, far too many examples of kids leaving too early.

Mentioned yesterday was the starting five at UK that were all drafted in the first round. One of those five have proven they were ready—Anthony Davis. The rest of them? Should have stayed in school for development.

 

[UAgrad93]

It is the manner in which they are trying to do a way with the "one and done" basketball player is stupid. To drag football into it, is even dumber than another Jim Carey and Jeff Daniels movie! Out of a signing class of 25-28 each year, only around 10-12 have their eligibility clock started their first year because the rest are redshirted.

 

[TerryP]

It is the manner in which they are trying to do a way with the "one and done" basketball player is stupid.

There's the difference in how the B1G perceives itself (we're all about academics) and the way the PAC is approaching this (it's about the one and done.)

Symbolism over substance...used that before now that I think about it.

 

[psychojoe]

If this somehow passes, it will have an impact elsewhere. When freshmen were ineligible in basketball, there were 15 scholarships for men. Today that is 13. In football the number is 85, then it was 95. With the cost of athletics being an issue at so many places, would the schools be willing to pony up. If the average 'full ride' costs the school 25k, then that is an extra 300k to be paid for. As I mentioned in an earlier post, these athletes, at least back then, practiced just as much as the varsity did. They played an abbreviated schedule, which was four games as remember it, with maybe one or two games off campus. So the only extra time they gained to 'adjust' to college life and academics was when the varsity was playing on the road. In basketball there was a similar abbreviated schedule, but you get the idea.

At least the discussion has highlighted the phony justification for the rules change. The best way to resolve 'one and done' is to negotiate it with the NBA. The threat of a rule change would be a powerful negotiating tool. If helping these youngsters adjust to college life is the objective, there are ways to do it. Leaving a bunch of 18 year olds on campus while the varsity travels to a road game, thus taking the support staff the freshmen would need, doesn't sound like it would do much at all to help these kids mature.

 

[planomateo]

Seems to me there is more to this. Wouldn't surprise me if they are trying to outflank a lawsuit with regards to education vs athletics. I just have the feeling there is more to this story.

If the NBA clamps down to the Pac-12's request of increasing the age limit, does Europe become the new suitor for these one and dones?

 

[TerryP]

does Europe become the new suitor for these one and dones?

Nice point!

 

[riz]

I'm more amused that the B1G considers a discussion among it's members a "national discussion."