WRAL: Freshman ineligibility in basketball a topic again
Very interesting read. Looks like they're trying to push this for ONLY basketball right now, and for the time being, its only being considered for the Pac-12, but you know if they ratify it, it'll spread quickly. The reason they are proposing the change is to curb the 1-and-done aspect of basketball players, and to try and actually have these kids get an education while they are in school. Specifically, its a move to try and eliminate the college levels as being incubators for their professional counterparts. They say this would ultimately force the major leagues (NBA, and potentially NFL, MLB if they choose to go down that path as well) into creating a true development league where kids coming out of high school who want to jump straight to the league have somewhere to go in order to directly learn their craft without having to deal with the facade of trying to be a student as well.
Personally, I like this. I think its a step in the right direction. My ONLY concern is that if you immediately make all freshmen ineligible, if you're sitting in a situation like we are right now with a coaching staff undergoing turnover with a complete overhaul of the roster with players transferring out, you'd be completely hosed going into the next season. Under this proposed rule, I think we would only have 5 eligible players going into this season. That is something that would certainly need to be addressed.
Comments
IF that were to happen I think they would have to make transfer rules even more strict so that players would not want to transfer.
There may also be a rise in more top prospects to one and dones overseas. unless they take that away too.
I do agree this will hurt the Caliparis of CBB which I wouldn't mind seeing.
A player having to sit out a year because he is a freshman is ridiculous. A lot of the kids that they are making this rule for are the best players on their teams, even if they are freshman. I think they should just make the baseball rule. 3 years or no years.
Agree. Its not their freshman status that's the issue. Address the real issue which would be to have a policy consistent with how its handled for football players with the NFL. Having a different rule for the NBA is what's ridiculous.
Just want to clarify that the NBA makes this rule, not the colleges. The NBA decided that forcing players to wait just one year before entering the league is in the NBA's best interest.
I do believe that it would best for college sports (and student athletes) to give them the option to enter directly out of highchool, or wait three years. Ideally, this rule would apply to all sports.
well, it's a different sport.. and baseball has minor leagues, so it's hard to try to compare the two or to use the sames rules for both.... I personally don't like the NBA rule, if a kid is NBA ready out of high school then I don't see the need in having him wait a year... but I also don't like the baseball rule, if a kid is ready after 1 or 2 years then he shouldn't have to wait to go pro
The problem isn't the players that are ready out of high school. They are the exceptions. It's the 50 or so players that apply for the draft straight out of high school because they think they are ready, but in reality are not even close. The NBA changed the rule because the league was filling up with Kwame Browns, not Kobe Bryants. If allowed to continue on the course they were on, the future quality of the NBA would have been at risk. I personally think that the minimum should be two years of college, just to make less of a joke of the idea of basketball players "attending" school. Two years of development would benefit most players both on and off the court.
As for the idea of a minor league, the NBA has their own developmental league, but I think the age restrictions are the same as the regular NBA. If a player really wants to play straight out of high school then there are plenty of leagues in Europe and Asia that are viable options.
I don't think this would effect the MLB at all. They have the minor leagues as well as the most productive draft restrictions. Honestly, if the colleges want to stop the one and dones to the nba and other professional leagues I would suggest they follow either the NFL or preferably the MLB's draft rules.
the entire list of proposals
Permit institutions to make scholarship awards up to the full cost of attendance
Provide reasonable ongoing medical or insurance assistance for student-athletes who suffer an incapacitating injury in competition or practice. Continue efforts to reduce the incidence of disabling injury.
Guarantee scholarships for enough time to complete a bachelor's degree, provided that the student remains in good academic standing.
Decrease the demands placed on the athlete in-season, correspondingly increase the time available for studies and campus life, by preventing the abuse of organized "voluntary" practices to circumvent the limit of 20 hours per week and more realistically assess the time away from campus and other commitments during the season.
Similarly decrease time demands out of season by reducing out-of-season competition and practices, and by considering shorter seasons in specific sports.
Further strengthen the Academic Progress Rate requirements for postseason play.
Address the "one and done" phenomenon in men's basketball. If the NBA its Players Association are unable to agree to raising the age limit for players, consider restoring the freshman ineligibility rule in men's basketball.
Provide student-athletes a meaningful role in governance at the conference and NCAA levels.
Adjust existing restrictions so that student-athletes preparing for the next stage of their careers are not unnecessarily deprived of the advice and counsel of agents and other competent professionals, but without professionalizing intercollegiate athletics.
Liberalize the current rules limiting the ability of student-athletes to transfer between institutions.
All causes worth supporting. The problem is enforcing.
Frankly, I think that the framework kinds of things are what the NCAA could do pretty well (numbers of scholarships, eligibility requirements, etc.) and enforce. Where it struggles is in extremely detailed, difficult to observe or otherwise stupid rules (like what you can and can't do on a recruiting trip, what kind of food someone can be given, simulating a game day experience, whose church got a donation from a booster, etc.). If you can't readily observe it, count it, measure it, etc. they pretty much can't handle it. So when they find a violation and pounce on it, like punishing Boise and Radford for providing minimal, unapproved aid to prospective players of limited means, and then turn a blind eye to rampant academic fraud at UNC, they lose all credibility.
Note to NCAA, don't pass rules that require voluntary compliance. Do pass rules that you can readily enforce or that are otherwise violations of the law. Instead of trying to decide whether a school misses a bowl, turn the money launderers over to the feds.
This is the only one I don't like. We are already at a current state where college transfers are at 35% every offseason. More than 1 in 3 players will be at a new school next year than the one they're at now. Its out of control right now, and needs to be reeled back in, not expanded upon. If you're going to propose to overhaul the system so that colleges have more of a duty to help these students out, then you should restrict transfer policies to actually force these kids to adhere to and commit to the contracts that they sign during the recruiting process.
Outside of that, I don't have any issues with any of the above.
I'd like to see data about why student athletes transfer, their academic/athletic success after transfer, etc. I'm also curious as to how that percentage compares to the average student (non-athlete) and post college success for transfers.
I suppose I'd need more data regarding how transfer affect a student athlete before saying I'd want to limit it.