Who is going to pay big bucks to steer a kid to a school he may never play for?

And college presidents can point to this as a way to improve the academic preparedness of its atlethes before they have to endure the rigors of playing on the big stage.

(09-28-2017 10:53 AM)ken d Wrote:  And college presidents can point to this as a way to improve the academic preparedness of its atlethes before they have to endure the rigors of playing on the big stage.

Then the cap on scholarships has to go up too.

I suppose it's not a bad idea.

I agree though that scholarship limits should be increased.

A freshman ineligibility rule would provoke immediate lawsuits against the NCAA and schools, and the public would be very sympathetic to the athletes caught up in that rule, and that's the last thing the NCAA needs at this point.

I think college basketball needs to go to the college baseball model. Players can either go pro directly out of high school but if they commit to a university they have to stay for a couple of years.

(09-28-2017 01:19 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  I think college basketball needs to go to the college baseball model. Players can either go pro directly out of high school but if they commit to a university they have to stay for a couple of years.

The "college baseball rule" is not an NCAA rule, it's a Major League Baseball draft rule. Here's the exact rule, from MLB's official rules for its draft:

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/draftday/rules.jsp

Quote:Certain groups of players are ineligible for selection, generally because they are still in school. The basic categories of players eligible to be drafted are:

-- High school players, if they have graduated from high school and have not yet attended college or junior college;
-- College players, from four-year colleges who have either completed their junior or senior years or are at least 21 years old; and
-- Junior college players, regardless of how many years of school they have completed

So it's up to the NBA to change its own draft eligibility rules, if they want to follow that model.

No matter what the NCAA does, public is going to hate it. The public blames the NCAA for the one and done rule, they blame the NCAA for football players having to have three years before being drafted.

I suspect it would not require a large amount of effort to find data that suggests that players who red-shirt end up with higher degree completion rates and are less likely to transfer.

As long as the NBA CBA is in place, I think it has real merit simply because the kid in high school who would be drafted but for the CBA can divert to junior college or the NAIA.

Successfully completing 30 hours is not an incredible burden. It isn't a big hit on kids with pro aspirations who play sports other than football or basketball since they are pro eligible out of high school already.

They player who wants to play 1 or play 3 and go pro can go to juco. It isn't a huge trend but I've seen some offensive linemen signing juco with the agreement that they will red-shirt their first year and play the second so they can transfer to FBS with three to play three on their eligibility clock

Here is what I like about freshman ineligibility--it eliminates the one and done kids and sends them to the NBA Gatorade league instead. Take these stars out and you get rid of a lot of the problems in collegiate sports.

(09-28-2017 03:55 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  No matter what the NCAA does, public is going to hate it. The public blames the NCAA for the one and done rule, they blame the NCAA for football players having to have three years before being drafted.

I suspect it would not require a large amount of effort to find data that suggests that players who red-shirt end up with higher degree completion rates and are less likely to transfer.

As long as the NBA CBA is in place, I think it has real merit simply because the kid in high school who would be drafted but for the CBA can divert to junior college or the NAIA.

Successfully completing 30 hours is not an incredible burden. It isn't a big hit on kids with pro aspirations who play sports other than football or basketball since they are pro eligible out of high school already.

Why would you make freshmen ineligible in sports other than men's basketball and, perhaps, football? What is accomplished by making water polo or soccer players sit out their freshman year?

And, even if that rule applied only to men's basketball, a very large number of athletes -- even those who are not aspiring one-and-doners -- would opt to play at a juco for one year and then transfer to an NCAA school. If I were a coach at an NCAA program, I would rather have a sophomore point guard who played in actual games his freshman year instead of one who just went an entire year without playing in a live game.

Yes, you could get around the "staleness" problem by only banning freshmen from the varsity team and having a separate freshman team for them, as many schools did way back when -- but in basketball that wouldn't stop the gray market stuff the US Attorney's office is prosecuting right now. Hell, if those were the ground rules and I was John Calipari, I might recruit and coach only a freshman team at Kentucky and let someone else handle the UK varsity. Calipari's freshmen-only team would probably be better than 99% of the no-freshmen varsity teams.

Who is going to give a scholarship knowing that the kid is leaving at the end of his freshman year anyway?

(09-28-2017 06:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 03:55 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  No matter what the NCAA does, public is going to hate it. The public blames the NCAA for the one and done rule, they blame the NCAA for football players having to have three years before being drafted.

I suspect it would not require a large amount of effort to find data that suggests that players who red-shirt end up with higher degree completion rates and are less likely to transfer.

As long as the NBA CBA is in place, I think it has real merit simply because the kid in high school who would be drafted but for the CBA can divert to junior college or the NAIA.

Successfully completing 30 hours is not an incredible burden. It isn't a big hit on kids with pro aspirations who play sports other than football or basketball since they are pro eligible out of high school already.

Why would you make freshmen ineligible in sports other than men's basketball and, perhaps, football? What is accomplished by making water polo or soccer players sit out their freshman year?

And, even if that rule applied only to men's basketball, a very large number of athletes -- even those who are not aspiring one-and-doners -- would opt to play at a juco for one year and then transfer to an NCAA school. If I were a coach at an NCAA program, I would rather have a sophomore point guard who played in actual games his freshman year instead of one who just went an entire year without playing in a live game.

Yes, you could get around the "staleness" problem by only banning freshmen from the varsity team and having a separate freshman team for them, as many schools did way back when -- but in basketball that wouldn't stop the gray market stuff the US Attorney's office is prosecuting right now. Hell, if those were the ground rules and I was John Calipari, I might recruit and coach only a freshman team at Kentucky and let someone else handle the UK varsity. Calipari's freshmen-only team would probably be better than 99% of the no-freshmen varsity teams.

Was pointing out that freshmen in those sports don't have to wait around in college to go pro.

But if freshman ineligibility were adopted, I think it holds some real value. Get 30 hours of credit out of the way without any game travel. The high school to college transition is difficult academically and athletically. Giving student-athletes a year to make the academic transition with reduced athletic demands is a positive.

(09-28-2017 11:30 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 06:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 03:55 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  No matter what the NCAA does, public is going to hate it. The public blames the NCAA for the one and done rule, they blame the NCAA for football players having to have three years before being drafted.

I suspect it would not require a large amount of effort to find data that suggests that players who red-shirt end up with higher degree completion rates and are less likely to transfer.

As long as the NBA CBA is in place, I think it has real merit simply because the kid in high school who would be drafted but for the CBA can divert to junior college or the NAIA.

Successfully completing 30 hours is not an incredible burden. It isn't a big hit on kids with pro aspirations who play sports other than football or basketball since they are pro eligible out of high school already.

Why would you make freshmen ineligible in sports other than men's basketball and, perhaps, football? What is accomplished by making water polo or soccer players sit out their freshman year?

And, even if that rule applied only to men's basketball, a very large number of athletes -- even those who are not aspiring one-and-doners -- would opt to play at a juco for one year and then transfer to an NCAA school. If I were a coach at an NCAA program, I would rather have a sophomore point guard who played in actual games his freshman year instead of one who just went an entire year without playing in a live game.

Yes, you could get around the "staleness" problem by only banning freshmen from the varsity team and having a separate freshman team for them, as many schools did way back when -- but in basketball that wouldn't stop the gray market stuff the US Attorney's office is prosecuting right now. Hell, if those were the ground rules and I was John Calipari, I might recruit and coach only a freshman team at Kentucky and let someone else handle the UK varsity. Calipari's freshmen-only team would probably be better than 99% of the no-freshmen varsity teams.

Was pointing out that freshmen in those sports don't have to wait around in college to go pro.

But if freshman ineligibility were adopted, I think it holds some real value. Get 30 hours of credit out of the way without any game travel. The high school to college transition is difficult academically and athletically. Giving student-athletes a year to make the academic transition with reduced athletic demands is a positive.

I don't think it's a bad idea.

I would add that this initial year shouldn't count towards the allotted number of eligible seasons an athlete has. Allow athletes a redshirt season regardless and the standard 4 years of eligibility. That's 6 in all that an athlete can be on campus.

There are multiple benefits to that. More athletes will have time to finish an undergrad at a slower pace which should increase graduation rates. Other students will have time to complete a graduate degree. For others still, they should have at least 2 years of eligibility remaining if they decide to transfer and pursue a grad degree at another institution.

For the handful of athletes that go pro early, there's nothing here that actually hinders their progress. It would help the vast majority of student athletes, I think.

(09-28-2017 06:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 03:55 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  No matter what the NCAA does, public is going to hate it. The public blames the NCAA for the one and done rule, they blame the NCAA for football players having to have three years before being drafted.

I suspect it would not require a large amount of effort to find data that suggests that players who red-shirt end up with higher degree completion rates and are less likely to transfer.

As long as the NBA CBA is in place, I think it has real merit simply because the kid in high school who would be drafted but for the CBA can divert to junior college or the NAIA.

Successfully completing 30 hours is not an incredible burden. It isn't a big hit on kids with pro aspirations who play sports other than football or basketball since they are pro eligible out of high school already.

Why would you make freshmen ineligible in sports other than men's basketball and, perhaps, football? What is accomplished by making water polo or soccer players sit out their freshman year?

And, even if that rule applied only to men's basketball, a very large number of athletes -- even those who are not aspiring one-and-doners -- would opt to play at a juco for one year and then transfer to an NCAA school. If I were a coach at an NCAA program, I would rather have a sophomore point guard who played in actual games his freshman year instead of one who just went an entire year without playing in a live game.

Yes, you could get around the "staleness" problem by only banning freshmen from the varsity team and having a separate freshman team for them, as many schools did way back when -- but in basketball that wouldn't stop the gray market stuff the US Attorney's office is prosecuting right now. Hell, if those were the ground rules and I was John Calipari, I might recruit and coach only a freshman team at Kentucky and let someone else handle the UK varsity. Calipari's freshmen-only team would probably be better than 99% of the no-freshmen varsity teams.

Correct me if I am wrong but a JUCO athlete can only transfer to a four year college and be eligible to play if they earn there 2 year degree which cannot be earned in 1 year.

(09-29-2017 03:11 PM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 06:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 03:55 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  No matter what the NCAA does, public is going to hate it. The public blames the NCAA for the one and done rule, they blame the NCAA for football players having to have three years before being drafted.

I suspect it would not require a large amount of effort to find data that suggests that players who red-shirt end up with higher degree completion rates and are less likely to transfer.

As long as the NBA CBA is in place, I think it has real merit simply because the kid in high school who would be drafted but for the CBA can divert to junior college or the NAIA.

Successfully completing 30 hours is not an incredible burden. It isn't a big hit on kids with pro aspirations who play sports other than football or basketball since they are pro eligible out of high school already.

Why would you make freshmen ineligible in sports other than men's basketball and, perhaps, football? What is accomplished by making water polo or soccer players sit out their freshman year?

And, even if that rule applied only to men's basketball, a very large number of athletes -- even those who are not aspiring one-and-doners -- would opt to play at a juco for one year and then transfer to an NCAA school. If I were a coach at an NCAA program, I would rather have a sophomore point guard who played in actual games his freshman year instead of one who just went an entire year without playing in a live game.

Yes, you could get around the "staleness" problem by only banning freshmen from the varsity team and having a separate freshman team for them, as many schools did way back when -- but in basketball that wouldn't stop the gray market stuff the US Attorney's office is prosecuting right now. Hell, if those were the ground rules and I was John Calipari, I might recruit and coach only a freshman team at Kentucky and let someone else handle the UK varsity. Calipari's freshmen-only team would probably be better than 99% of the no-freshmen varsity teams.

Correct me if I am wrong but a JUCO athlete can only transfer to a four year college and be eligible to play if they earn there 2 year degree which cannot be earned in 1 year.

According to this, an athlete can transfer into an NCAA Division I program from a juco without a two-year degree if they qualify academically:

http://www.athleticscholarships.net/juni...er-2-4.htm

Quote:To be considered a qualifier, you need to have registered with the NCAA Eligibility Center and have been certified by them as an academic qualifier. Generally, if you have attended a junior college and are graduating with your AA or general education degree you are going to be an academic qualifier. In Division I, if you are transferring from a two-year college and you have been certified as a final academic qualifier, the requirements to compete in your first year are:

Attend the two-year college full-time for at least one semester or quarter;

Achieve a minimum cumulative GPA of at least 2.000; and

Complete an average of at least 12 transferable credit hours per full-time term at the two-year college.

If you plan on playing baseball or basketball (men’s or women’s) after your transfer, you may not transfer during the middle of the year from a two-year college and play that same year. And in men’s basketball, you may only use two credit hours of physical education courses to meet these requirements, unless you will major in physical education.

There have been baseball players who transfer into D-I programs after one year at a juco.

(09-29-2017 10:57 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 11:30 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 06:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 03:55 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  No matter what the NCAA does, public is going to hate it. The public blames the NCAA for the one and done rule, they blame the NCAA for football players having to have three years before being drafted.

I suspect it would not require a large amount of effort to find data that suggests that players who red-shirt end up with higher degree completion rates and are less likely to transfer.

As long as the NBA CBA is in place, I think it has real merit simply because the kid in high school who would be drafted but for the CBA can divert to junior college or the NAIA.

Successfully completing 30 hours is not an incredible burden. It isn't a big hit on kids with pro aspirations who play sports other than football or basketball since they are pro eligible out of high school already.

Why would you make freshmen ineligible in sports other than men's basketball and, perhaps, football? What is accomplished by making water polo or soccer players sit out their freshman year?

And, even if that rule applied only to men's basketball, a very large number of athletes -- even those who are not aspiring one-and-doners -- would opt to play at a juco for one year and then transfer to an NCAA school. If I were a coach at an NCAA program, I would rather have a sophomore point guard who played in actual games his freshman year instead of one who just went an entire year without playing in a live game.

Yes, you could get around the "staleness" problem by only banning freshmen from the varsity team and having a separate freshman team for them, as many schools did way back when -- but in basketball that wouldn't stop the gray market stuff the US Attorney's office is prosecuting right now. Hell, if those were the ground rules and I was John Calipari, I might recruit and coach only a freshman team at Kentucky and let someone else handle the UK varsity. Calipari's freshmen-only team would probably be better than 99% of the no-freshmen varsity teams.

Was pointing out that freshmen in those sports don't have to wait around in college to go pro.

But if freshman ineligibility were adopted, I think it holds some real value. Get 30 hours of credit out of the way without any game travel. The high school to college transition is difficult academically and athletically. Giving student-athletes a year to make the academic transition with reduced athletic demands is a positive.

I don't think it's a bad idea.

I would add that this initial year shouldn't count towards the allotted number of eligible seasons an athlete has. Allow athletes a redshirt season regardless and the standard 4 years of eligibility. That's 6 in all that an athlete can be on campus.

There are multiple benefits to that. More athletes will have time to finish an undergrad at a slower pace which should increase graduation rates. Other students will have time to complete a graduate degree. For others still, they should have at least 2 years of eligibility remaining if they decide to transfer and pursue a grad degree at another institution.

For the handful of athletes that go pro early, there's nothing here that actually hinders their progress. It would help the vast majority of student athletes, I think.

It's not a bad idea, it's not a great idea either.

Really wouldn't change all that much in football, hoops you might see the one and done caliber player go juco. It's not Division I seasoning right now but better than high school.

The negative impact is equivalency sports where few players get a full ride, they are paying part of their costs and holding them out while they pay is a real burden on them.

I'd be okay with the directly to the pros or 3 years of ncaa rule if these kids could also be invited to the combine and be told what their actual chances of being drafted are. The NBA put the one year rule in place because too many HS kids were declaring for the draft well before they were even close to being ready and teams were drafting these 18 year old kids who weren't ready for the NBA lifestyle of all the travel and wear and tear.

(09-29-2017 04:56 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  I'd be okay with the directly to the pros or 3 years of ncaa rule if these kids could also be invited to the combine and be told what their actual chances of being drafted are. The NBA put the one year rule in place because too many HS kids were declaring for the draft well before they were even close to being ready and teams were drafting these 18 year old kids who weren't ready for the NBA lifestyle of all the travel and wear and tear.

I'd been even happier with what MLB does I believe MLS does as well. If you think an underclassman is the player you want, you use a draft choice to select them and then worry about signing them.

The players should not be forced to declare for the draft or undertake any action that can jeopardize their eligibility.

The pros are big boys and take the risk. If you think Joe Hoops is second round material, draft him and see what happens.

(09-28-2017 01:01 PM)Wedge Wrote:  A freshman ineligibility rule would provoke immediate lawsuits against the NCAA and schools, and the public would be very sympathetic to the athletes caught up in that rule, and that's the last thing the NCAA needs at this point.

As long as there is a 1-2 year grace period for this rule to begin, what legal grounds would there be for a lawsuit?

Non-sports fans would probably see this in a positive light. It would mean that athletes would actually have to prove they're students before they can participate in athletics.

(10-02-2017 06:21 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-28-2017 01:01 PM)Wedge Wrote:  A freshman ineligibility rule would provoke immediate lawsuits against the NCAA and schools, and the public would be very sympathetic to the athletes caught up in that rule, and that's the last thing the NCAA needs at this point.

As long as there is a 1-2 year grace period for this rule to begin, what legal grounds would there be for a lawsuit?

Non-sports fans would probably see this in a positive light. It would mean that athletes would actually have to prove they're students before they can participate in athletics.

I think a lot of college sports fans would see it that way, too. And maybe this isn't expressed as "freshman" eligibility. Maybe the requirement is set that an athlete must have completed 30 credits in required courses with at least a 2.5 GPA before he can compete. Then you can scrap all your rules about SAT scores and partial qualifiers. Make the President of the school personally certify the student's eligibility.

Let's say a bright high schooler, with some advanced placement credits, enrolls early (the spring semester). With AP, plus two full semesters and summer school, he could be eligible to play as soon as his fall semester grades are certified. These aren't the kids who are perceived as the problem. It is the marginal (or below marginal) student who is going to do the minimum necessary to be eligible for his first season and then bolt for the pros who is the problem.

With the current salary scale for the D league (or whatever it's called now) as a viable option for first year players, I can't see any legal challenge that could be successfully brought.

From the NBA's point of view, the one and done rule is as much about protecting the owners from their own foolishness as anything. If they can draft right out of high school, they will make a lot more mistakes, and expensive ones. We've seen that time and again. They won't pass on that 6'-10" player who isn't ready yet because of his "potential". The NCAA doesn't owe them anything.