Big Ten to propose freshman ineligibility in men's basketball, football?

[Duvall]

From Maryland's student paper: (http://www.diamondbackonline.com/news/article_02376858-b858-11e4-b662-db4b843c100a.html)


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 is meeting 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.”

[FerryFor50]

From Maryland's student paper: (http://www.diamondbackonline.com/news/article_02376858-b858-11e4-b662-db4b843c100a.html)

Love how they spin it into an academic issue when they're really trying to take on the NBA and the one and done phenomenon.

Yes, while OAD players "use" the system and don't really fit into the student-athlete narrative, this rule would affect plenty of other freshmen who have and can handle the academics and atheltics.

This is solely a $$ decision to keep kids at schools longer.

[OldPhiKap]

The OAD's will simply go play in Europe or somewhere else.

And the NFL doesn't allow freshmen to go right to the pro ranks anyway, so that doesn't make sense either.

They don't need a national discussion among the schools. They need the NBA and player's union to bump out a year. Call them.

[Duvall]

Love how they spin it into an academic issue when they're really trying to take on the NBA and the one and done phenomenon.

Yes, while OAD players "use" the system and don't really fit into the student-athlete narrative, this rule would affect plenty of other freshmen who have and can handle the academics and atheltics.

This is solely a $$ decision to keep kids at schools longer.

I guess. I don't see how it would work, though. Won't it just drive one-and-done players out of college basketball?

I also don't see how it helps academically - are the demands on the time of a redshirting freshman that much less than the demands of a playing freshman? I guess the playing freshman has to deal with the emotional demands of the season, but still. Both have to balance practice time with their studies.

[Seattle Hoo]

Didn't that used to be the rule? Why was it changed? Is there data out there that freshmen are struggling academically compared to when they were ineligible?

I'm not sure driving the OAD players to Europe would be bad for college basketball. Ok, so the most talented players would not play college ball. Wouldn't plenty of other very talented players stay? An awful high percentage of players, even very talented players, recognize that the degree is worth something in its own right and that they can use ball to get a free one. Also, with the OADs not in the game, and a larger percentage of the players sticking around longer, we can get better coached teams.

I don't really know all the pros and cons of the proposal. I am merely positing that one question re: the assumption that we don't want the OAD players to not come to college. I also don't see the proposal going anywhere.

[conmanlhughes]

Didn't that used to be the rule? Why was it changed? Is there data out there that freshmen are struggling academically compared to when they were ineligible?

I'm not sure driving the OAD players to Europe would be bad for college basketball. Ok, so the most talented players would not play college ball. Wouldn't plenty of other very talented players stay? An awful high percentage of players, even very talented players, recognize that the degree is worth something in its own right and that they can use ball to get a free one. Also, with the OADs not in the game, and a larger percentage of the players sticking around longer, we can get better coached teams.

I don't really know all the pros and cons of the proposal. I am merely positing that one question re: the assumption that we don't want the OAD players to not come to college. I also don't see the proposal going anywhere.

I believe it changed because of a man named Lew Alcindor. Better known as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.

[left_hook_lacey]

Love how they spin it into an academic issue when they're really trying to take on the NBA and the one and done phenomenon.

Yes, while OAD players "use" the system and don't really fit into the student-athlete narrative, this rule would affect plenty of other freshmen who have and can handle the academics and atheltics.

This is solely a $$ decision to keep kids at schools longer.

As soon as I read the title of the article I thought, "Oh, ok, someone is finally trying to force the NBA's hand about it's age rules." I was suprised to find out they're trying to gain support under the academic umbrella.

That being said, I'm all for it, if it works. I do think the one and done players hurt college basketball for more than one reason that I won't get into right now.

A couple observations off the top of my head...

1.) One and dones probably will go play overseas for a year(Brandon Jennings), but that may be exactly the Big Ten's thinking. They know programs can start building 3-4 year stars like the old days, and they know the NBA doesn't want a large pool of talent to start migrating overseas. It forces the NBA to make a change.

2.) Will it be a traditional redshirt? As in, will the player(s) be able to practice and be coached by the head coach for a year? If so, I don't think it's too far out of the realm of possibility that some OAD's would be willing to show up on campus, take under water basket weaving 101 followed by 102, in order to be coached by legendary Coach(insert HOF coach here) work on fundementals and get in great shape. In this case the Big Ten's faux claim that it's all about the kids and education is blown out of the water.

[Lar77]

It was the rule up to 1972 and Kareem (formerly Lew Alcindor) was one of the reasons behind the original change. Back then, freshman played on freshman teams, had less rigorous schedules (there was less travel and fewer games), and so forth. Kareem's UCLA freshman team in 1966 might have been the best team in the country. It beat the UCLA varsity pretty easily. Back then, the NBA had rules that discouraged college players leaving early.

The rules changed. Don't know whether the genie is now out of the bottle.

If it means some players will not play in college, then the game will adjust. Think of the players that skipped college to go to the pros and whether that hurt the college game.

But the discussion, if it occurs, should look at the points that some have raised so far. For example, is it a redshirt or is it truly going to try to help people get an academic foundation before hitting the challenges of D1 ball? Will it address exploitation concerns? Will it allow players to "test the waters" without giving up eligibility? Will players have greater mobility in transferring? Will colleges guarantee a scholarship for 4+ years? Will colleges try to circumvent the rules and have fraudulent classes?

I like that the B10 is at least raising the issue.

[FerryFor50]

I guess. I don't see how it would work, though. Won't it just drive one-and-done players out of college basketball?

I also don't see how it helps academically - are the demands on the time of a redshirting freshman that much less than the demands of a playing freshman? I guess the playing freshman has to deal with the emotional demands of the season, but still. Both have to balance practice time with their studies.

Well it then becomes the Euro and APAC leagues that become "farm teams." And if they start throwing crazy money at these kids, the NBA might have to wait a while to reap the rewards. Already see it now with project Euro players. They stick around and wait for a buyout to get to the NBA, collecting tons of money doing it. That might force the NBA's hand to change the age minimum to a higher age. Or maybe they just create their own minor league (or expand the D-league). At any rate, it's no longer the college's headache and they still get to make tons of money off the kids that do choose to go to college.

[Matches]

I guess it's a fair response to the NBA's age limit. I don't really think it would accomplish the stated goal(s) though. The clear OAD guys would skip college altogether, and the marginal OAD guys would still just play one year and then leave. And a few of those marginal OAD guys would still leave after their freshman seasons.

[lotusland]

Love how they spin it into an academic issue when they're really trying to take on the NBA and the one and done phenomenon.

Yes, while OAD players "use" the system and don't really fit into the student-athlete narrative, this rule would affect plenty of other freshmen who have and can handle the academics and atheltics.

This is solely a $$ decision to keep kids at schools longer.

I think you're right this is strictly aimed at basketball's OAD players. I didn't open the linked article but I had already read one on Yahoo after listening to Gary Parrish rant about it on his podcast. It may call the NBA's bluff so to speak but I don't think it is a good idea. As much as I hate the OAD phenomenon, I don't think this is a good idea. At least half of the players that end up being OAD would not have gone pro straight out of school anyway. There are maybe only a handful of players every year that are just biding their time for a year before they go pro.

Parrish pointed out that the schools and conferences are being totally hypocritical by trying to spin this as if it were about academics. Hard to argue you’re concerned about student athlete's studies when you create conferences that require women’s golf teams at The U to travel to BC and Syracuse for conference games and you schedule games without any regard for classes all for more TV money.

I think it may have been Swofford who countered that we should do away with red-shirts and allow revenue athletes to play right away, as long as they meet some minimum academic criteria that would be higher than NCAA Minimum eligibility standard, but also allow them 5-years of eligibility to both play and complete their degree. That way they can take a lighter load during the season and still devote the necessary hours to their sports. I like that idea. There’s no guarantee but maybe guys like Murphy, Semi and Silent G stick around if they know they have an extra year to improve and earn PT. I think a team with a couple of talented OAD players mixed with some 5th year seniors might make for some good basketball.

I would like to see the NBA do away with OAD but not replace it with two and done. I’d rather let those few players who are good enough and don’t want to go to college at all declare for the draft out of HS. But that’s another kettle of fish…

[wavedukefan70s]

I'd love to see a three year rule.you can get a degree in three.if your wanting to claim for academic reasons.then to me three only makes sense.i really can't watch nba ball.it doesn't appeal to me anymore.like it did with bird and magic .i love college and highschool sports where they supposedly play for pride not money .
I'm not sure exactly what would shore up the college game.i hope it happens though.

[Tripping William]

From Maryland's student paper: (http://www.diamondbackonline.com/news/article_02376858-b858-11e4-b662-db4b843c100a.html)

Coming from Wallace Loh, this part strikes me as just rich:

“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.”

UMd's jump to the Big Number-Du-Jour was motivated by "the education of the students." Riiiiiiiight. :rolleyes:

[OldPhiKap]

Sounds to me like they're scared they may have to start paying players something, and they are trying to cut that exposure by 25%.

[throatybeard]

I have a proposal for the Big Ten. Learn how the hell to count to fourteen.

[Olympic Fan]

It was the rule up to 1972 and Kareem (formerly Lew Alcindor) was one of the reasons behind the original change. Back then, freshman played on freshman teams, had less rigorous schedules (there was less travel and fewer games), and so forth. Kareem's UCLA freshman team in 1966 might have been the best team in the country. It beat the UCLA varsity pretty easily. Back then, the NBA had rules that discouraged college players leaving early.

Considering that Alcindor was a freshman in 1965-66 and the rule wasn't passed until the winter of 1972 (before the 1972-73 school year), it's hard to see him as more than a secondary inspiration for the rule.

There was a MUCH more immediate inspiration -- David Thompson, who was a freshman at NC State in 1971-72. Thompson was a phenomenon -- Fred Schaus, who coached Jerry West at West Virginia, then coached the Lakers for seven years, said that Thompson was better as a freshman than West was as a senior. He declared him one of the top 10 players in the world -- at any level.

The attention garnered by Thompson came at a critical time --

The NCAA leaders were facing financial problems because of Title IX (they had to pour millions into women's sports without an increase in revenue -- a classic unfunded government mandate). Making freshman eligible would allow them to cut scholarship limits -- this saving tons of money. To those who argued that freshmen weren't ready, the leaders pointed to Thompson as clearly as freshman who didn't need a year of freshman ball.

At the time, early entry to the pros was such a minor matter than it had little impact.

[Henderson]

Wait until they realize that most of the best players play only freshman ball, attention flows to freshman teams, no one cares about varsity as much, and the best players go pro without ever playing varsity. There would be a freshman tourney, freshman team polls, and freshman AA team. And no way the NCAA stops it, because there would be sponsors lined up with baskets of cash. The freshman-only track would be the non-academic farm league for the NBA.

So what problem exactly were we trying to solve?

[Pghdukie]

Very good, valid, strongpoints. But then comes WWWes.and another can of worms. Money,Greed,Power syndrum.

[SoCalDukeFan]

Personally I like 3 and done or go out of high school.

The proposal for football is basically redshirt all recruits. Not sure that does much.

For BBall I like none and done more than OAD.

SoCal

[Newton_14]

Personally I like 3 and done or go out of high school.

The proposal for football is basically redshirt all recruits. Not sure that does much.

For BBall I like none and done more than OAD.

SoCal
I agree but to think this absurd freshmen ineligible rule would fix anything is asinine in my opinion. It would make things far worse. For all of our wailing and knashing of teeth of the OAD and no longer getting to see the players grow and develop over 3 to 4 years in college, the percentage of OAD players is still very very small. The vast majority of college players stay in school for 3-4 years. Even the number of schools whose rosters turnover greatly year over year is small. Duke is certainly in that group now, as is Kentucky, and Kansas. Outside of those 3, even most of the top 25 schools year in and year out have consistent rosters for 2-4 years in cycles, and have maybe 2 or 3 guys over the course of 4 years leave. I am probably forgetting a school or two that has a lot of turnover year over year but there aren't that many.

As much as I miss the old days, I have come to accept the current landscape with one exception. It bothers me none at all to see a Jabari go after one year. He was good enough to go Top 5 and be a longtime player who will make millions for years to come while never seeing the end of a bench. What does bother me is the players that declare, throwing away what would have been a great college career and legacy, and they are not in anyway ready. The William Avery's, the Tyler Ennis', the Kendall Marshall's, and worse, the guys that go, never get drafted, and end up out of the league and either in the D League or Europe forever. Those are the guys that need to be saved from themselves and the hangers on in their ear.

I would rather they let kids go out of High School and if they choose college they are not eligible for the draft for at least 2 years. 3 would be great but I doubt that would ever fly. Or the NBA gives in, and moves the age up to 20.

I think it a moot point though cause hell will freeze over before this rule gets reinstated.

[ricks68]

Kudos for them. At least they are going in the right direction. In the day of the Crusties, there were no freshmen players on varsity. I think we can all agree that the longer our players play together as a team, the better we become. Even if they cannot play on the varsity, they will still learn to play together during practice, and receive instruction in the fundamentals that are so often lacking in many instances. When they do get to the varsity level, they will also be much more mature basketball-wise in regards to the Duke system. The result will be that our teams will be even better against our opponents due to our superior coaching.

"Back in the day", it was a lot of fun getting to the games early to watch the freshmen play and earning the privilege of procuring the best seats by showing our support for the program. Also, it really got our juices flowing anticipating the addition of the new guys to the varsity the next year. We really had a blast cheering for our frosh and even some really neat opposing players like the kid with the floppy hair and socks that scored 40 points against us.

Additionally, I really dislike the system of "ringers" that Calamari brings in every year. I think that it really detracts from the college game to have all these OAD's----even ours.

Let the kids go to the pros right away and have the NBA pay for their only year of development instead of the colleges, instead of having our treasured players being "ripped away" from the Duke experience after we just begin to appreciate them and them appreciate being at Duke.

Of course, the simple solution would be for the NBA to change their minimum to 2 years or going pro again out of high school. I would certainly prefer that over the above. At least the Big Ten is trying, whatever their reasoning.

ricks

[Henderson]

Kudos for them. At least they are going in the right direction. In the day of the Crusties, there were no freshmen players on varsity. I think we can all agree that the longer our players play together as a team, the better we become. Even if they cannot play on the varsity, they will still learn to play together during practice, and receive instruction in the fundamentals that are so often lacking in many instances. When they do get to the varsity level, they will also be much more mature basketball-wise in regards to the Duke system. The result will be that our teams will be even better against our opponents due to our superior coaching.


Aren't you assuming that star freshman players will stay to play varsity?

[freshmanjs]

Personally I like 3 and done or go out of high school.

SoCal

how would that benefit the nba?

[hurleyfor3]

The proposal for football is basically redshirt all recruits. Not sure that does much.

Don't the big-time programs redshirt most frosh already? For this reason I, like many others here, saw this as forcing the issue on basketball.

[mo.st.dukie]

That doesn't solve anything. They'll still be able to go pro after their freshman year or after their sophomore year. If they go back to the way it used to be and actually have freshmen teams then it will obviously be no different than it is today. It's just that each school will have two teams and as a poster already pointed out, people would much rather watch a freshman team led by Okafor, Jones, and Winslow than a varsity team led by Cook, Jefferson, and Plumlee.

The NBA holds the power here, they are the reason players started leaving school early in the first place and they are the reason players have to at least be one year removed from high school graduation before getting drafted.

[ricks68]

Aren't you assuming that star freshman players will stay to play varsity?

Definitely. They would leave out of high school or go to a developmental league instead of playing on a freshman team. Where's the exposure for the NBA if all they will have to judge their talent against is playing with other freshmen---some of which may not make it to varsity? They could just as well play on the AAU circuit and get more exposure.

ricks

[toooskies]

Once again, colleges maintain that their education is so valuable that it should overwhelm any other aspect of their athletes' lives, to the athletes' detriment.

[mo.st.dukie]

Yeah, it's strange that the only time people talk about the university as being solely about education is when they are talking about football and men's basketball. Nevermind the frats and sororities, dorm life, intramurals, and the number of other things about college that are not directly related to academics. College has never been and should never be strictly about education. People are just really uncomfortable with the money aspect of it which I find odd. Educational institutions have always been about money, everything is about money. Even what is held as the most moral of institutions, religion, is about making money. Why are people so uncomfortable with the idea that college athletics is about making money?

[Olympic Fan]

There is an interesting dynamic at work here -- the battle between the handful of rich teams/conferences against the rest of the NCAA.

In some ways, the rich 10 percent can impose their will on the rest. For instance, on the matter of a full scholarship or player payments, if the Big Ten or SEC do it, the rest of the Division 1 world (at least) will have to do it to keep up -- or else all the top kids will end up in those two leagues.

But on this issue, the rich schools are going to lose, because the dynamic works the other way.

Understand that freshman ineligibility costs money -- if you can't fill out your rosters with freshman, you have to increase roster sizes. Instead of 13 basketball players on scholarship, you'll have to go to 16-17. Instead of 85 football scholarships, you'll have to go to 100 or so.

That's why freshman eligibility was instituted in the first place -- to save money.

Now, the rich schools can afford to expand rosters ... but it will really hurt most schools/conferences.

But what happens if the Big Ten and SEC unilaterally decide that freshmen are ineligible? All of those kids choosing between, say, Kentucky and Duke have to decide whether they want to play freshman ball for Calipari or play varsity ball at Duke in front of huge crowds and millions on national TV? Which school do you think they choose?

The point is that on this issue, the rich schools can't go it alone and force the rest to follow. They have to win by persuading the other power 5 conferences to go along with it. And for all the talk about academic benefits, it comes down to money (as everything does in college sports) -- and the money says freshmen stay eligible.

[AIRFORCEDUKIE]

All the NBA would have to do is keep that rule for the NBA and then allow freshman or OAD's to play in the D League for a year. Which could be a death blow to college hoops. The advertisement money would shift from the college game to the D League, because everyone wants to see Jah playing for Grand Rapids or something. I don't know if thats actually possible, and the hardcore college basketball fans would keep watching their teams. But, it is a dangerous move that could backfire easily on the NCAA.

[indy1duke]

Here is a link to a ny times article today talking about bringing back freshman ineligibility. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/21/sports/ncaabasketball/conferences-consider-restoring-freshman-ineligibility-rule-for-basketball.html?ref=sports&_r=0
It is an intriguing idea for college basketball to thumb its nose at the NBA. Duke would have a fine frosh basketball team this year. Under the guise of academics various conferences are considering restoring freshman ineligibility. The current NBA self-serving rule benefits only the NBA, protecting the GM's from making poor draft decisions based on high school performance. Today the one and dones audition for the NBA in college as freshmen. Under this proposed rule they would do so as sophomores or in the D league or overseas. I personally don't think this rule has a snowball's chance of passing, but I am curious to see what the board thinks of this proposal.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Here is a link to a ny times article today talking about bringing back freshman ineligibility. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/21/sports/ncaabasketball/conferences-consider-restoring-freshman-ineligibility-rule-for-basketball.html?ref=sports&_r=0
It is an intriguing idea for college basketball to thumb its nose at the NBA. Duke would have a fine frosh basketball team this year. Under the guise of academics various conferences are considering restoring freshman ineligibility. The current NBA self-serving rule benefits only the NBA, protecting the GM's from making poor draft decisions based on high school performance. Today the one and dones audition for the NBA in college as freshmen. Under this proposed rule they would do so as sophomores or in the D league or overseas. I personally don't think this rule has a snowball's chance of passing, but I am curious to see what the board thinks of this proposal.

I don't think there is a single rule the NCAA would or could pass that matters a whit to the NBA. The NBA rules, on the other hand, make significant differences to the college game.

[TampaDuke]

Isn't this all just an attempt to encourage/bluff the NBA and NBAPA to change the 1-year rule to a 2-year rule in their upcoming negotiations? I'm finding it hard to fathom that there is any serious intent behind this proposal.

[bob blue devil]

i think folks aren't thinking like the ncaa here:
1) is freshman ineligibility good for the student-athlete? obviously not
2) is freshman ineligibility good for the schools? obviously not
of course the ncaa passes this!

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Isn't this all just an attempt to encourage/bluff the NBA and NBAPA to change the 1-year rule to a 2-year rule in their upcoming negotiations? I'm finding it hard to fathom that there is any serious intent behind this proposal.

The NCAA has zero leverage with the NBA. None.

[lotusland]

All the NBA would have to do is keep that rule for the NBA and then allow freshman or OAD's to play in the D League for a year. Which could be a death blow to college hoops. The advertisement money would shift from the college game to the D League, because everyone wants to see Jah playing for Grand Rapids or something. I don't know if thats actually possible, and the hardcore college basketball fans would keep watching their teams. But, it is a dangerous move that could backfire easily on the NCAA.

No that is not at all what would happen. The negatives effect on college ball would be negligible. The positive effect on the D league would be negligible. The pay to those OAD players would be less than the value of a college scholarship + the name recognition of playing a year of big time college hoops. A few OAD players per year won't make minor league basketball much more profitable and certainly not enough to pay huge salaries to the players. OAD players can choose the D league now instead if college but they never do because a year of college ball with "no pay" is better.

[ricks68]

No that is not at all what would happen. The negatives effect on college ball would be negligible. The positive effect on the D league would be negligible. The pay to those OAD players would be less than the value of a college scholarship + the name recognition of playing a year of big time college hoops. A few OAD players per year won't make minor league basketball much more profitable and certainly not enough to pay huge salaries to the players. OAD players can choose the D league now instead if college but they never do because a year of college ball with "no pay" is better.

Bazinga! Not to go overboard here, but this seems like very sensible reasoning. (Not to say that other things mentioned on this thread do not.)

ricks

[ricks68]

i think folks aren't thinking like the ncaa here:
1) is freshman ineligibility good for the student-athlete? obviously not
2) is freshman ineligibility good for the schools? obviously not
of course the ncaa passes this!

Kudos for bbd here for stating the obvious that we all missed.:rolleyes:

ricks

[ricks68]

There is an interesting dynamic at work here -- the battle between the handful of rich teams/conferences against the rest of the NCAA.

In some ways, the rich 10 percent can impose their will on the rest. For instance, on the matter of a full scholarship or player payments, if the Big Ten or SEC do it, the rest of the Division 1 world (at least) will have to do it to keep up -- or else all the top kids will end up in those two leagues.

But on this issue, the rich schools are going to lose, because the dynamic works the other way.

Understand that freshman ineligibility costs money -- if you can't fill out your rosters with freshman, you have to increase roster sizes. Instead of 13 basketball players on scholarship, you'll have to go to 16-17. Instead of 85 football scholarships, you'll have to go to 100 or so.

That's why freshman eligibility was instituted in the first place -- to save money.

Now, the rich schools can afford to expand rosters ... but it will really hurt most schools/conferences.

But what happens if the Big Ten and SEC unilaterally decide that freshmen are ineligible? All of those kids choosing between, say, Kentucky and Duke have to decide whether they want to play freshman ball for Calipari or play varsity ball at Duke in front of huge crowds and millions on national TV? Which school do you think they choose?

The point is that on this issue, the rich schools can't go it alone and force the rest to follow. They have to win by persuading the other power 5 conferences to go along with it. And for all the talk about academic benefits, it comes down to money (as everything does in college sports) -- and the money says freshmen stay eligible.

While I have also thought about it the same way as OF, and concur with his assessment in general, it's the direction that the Big Ten is pursuing that has put a glimmer (small as it may be) of hope that maybe there will some kind of positive change in the OAD situation. (I am certainly not holding my breath, however.)

ricks

[lotusland]

Here is a link to a ny times article today talking about bringing back freshman ineligibility. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/21/sports/ncaabasketball/conferences-consider-restoring-freshman-ineligibility-rule-for-basketball.html?ref=sports&_r=0
It is an intriguing idea for college basketball to thumb its nose at the NBA. Duke would have a fine frosh basketball team this year. Under the guise of academics various conferences are considering restoring freshman ineligibility. The current NBA self-serving rule benefits only the NBA, protecting the GM's from making poor draft decisions based on high school performance. Today the one and dones audition for the NBA in college as freshmen. Under this proposed rule they would do so as sophomores or in the D league or overseas. I personally don't think this rule has a snowball's chance of passing, but I am curious to see what the board thinks of this proposal.

Of course other side of having a fine freshman team is that we would not currently have enough scholarship players to field a varsity team without the frosh. As other people have mentioned this would require schools to offer more scholarships.

[MarkD83]

All the NBA would have to do is keep that rule for the NBA and then allow freshman or OAD's to play in the D League for a year. Which could be a death blow to college hoops. The advertisement money would shift from the college game to the D League, because everyone wants to see Jah playing for Grand Rapids or something. I don't know if thats actually possible, and the hardcore college basketball fans would keep watching their teams. But, it is a dangerous move that could backfire easily on the NCAA.

This brings up a good discussion. Do we watch college basketball for the individual talent or the passion shown by the team. If I want to be wowed by talent I watch the NBA not the d league. If I want to see passion and energy I watch college bball. In addition in January February and March college basketball is the premier sport from a marketing perspective and the teams are what are marketed not the players. So if freshman are ineligible it will take a few years for coaches to adapt but the allure of college bball won't be diminished

[MarkD83]

One amendment. The NFL is tops in January with college bball 2nd

[ricks68]

All the NBA would have to do is keep that rule for the NBA and then allow freshman or OAD's to play in the D League for a year. Which could be a death blow to college hoops. The advertisement money would shift from the college game to the D League, because everyone wants to see Jah playing for Grand Rapids or something. I don't know if thats actually possible, and the hardcore college basketball fans would keep watching their teams. But, it is a dangerous move that could backfire easily on the NCAA.

I don't think that there is, or would be, any kind of advertising that could successfully steer bball fans to watch Grand Rapids over a college team. The college brand means so much more than anything out there other than the top pro level in each sport-----and in many cases, the colleges beat out the top pro brand. Secondary, or below top level pro sports just wouldn't draw anything away from the eyeballs, I believe. I know that I would not watch Duke one iota less if Jah wasn't on the team, and I wouldn't go out of my way to watch him play for Grand Rapids. (In no way judging the merits of the city of Grand Rapids.) But that's just me, right? Do you honestly think that any of the people watching college sports are going to switch from their game to a lower level pro team playing in Grand Rapids or somewhere comparable? My thoughts are that people watch college sports to see teams play other teams the vast majority of times, just as in watching the pros play. The players are secondary in that respect. Attendance is way up for Cleveland this year because the fans are anticipating a possible NBA Championship, not mainly due to Lebron returning. Given the choice of Cleveland winning a championship without Lebron, versus having Lebron and not winning the championship, which do you think they would choose? Same for Jah. Which would you choose?


ricks

[jv001]

This brings up a good discussion. Do we watch college basketball for the individual talent or the passion shown by the team. If I want to be wowed by talent I watch the NBA not the d league. If I want to see passion and energy I watch college bball. In addition in January February and March college basketball is the premier sport from a marketing perspective and the teams are what are marketed not the players. So if freshman are ineligible it will take a few years for coaches to adapt but the allure of college bball won't be diminished

Me, I'll continue to watch my favorite Blue Devils compete in the NBA, but my main attention would be on Duke sports. Major League Baseball (Cardinals) and playing golf will have my interest. GoDuke!

[TampaDuke]

The NCAA has zero leverage with the NBA. None.

Probably not much, but to the extent the NBA does benefit from having their players play in college for at least a year, might this proposal just be a bluff to shut down that benefit in the hopes of getting a two-year rule?

[mkirsh]

I don't think there is a single rule the NCAA would or could pass that matters a whit to the NBA. The NBA rules, on the other hand, make significant differences to the college game.

If the NCAA really wants to push the NBA, what they need to do is allow players to enter the draft but retain eligibility until they sign a contract. Then players could see where they actually get drafted and decide if it's worth leaving school. It would be the NBA's problem to figure out how long draft rights last, etc.

[MarkD83]

If the NCAA really wants to push the NBA, what they need to do is allow players to enter the draft but retain eligibility until they sign a contract. Then players could see where they actually get drafted and decide if it's worth leaving school. It would be the NBA's problem to figure out how long draft rights last, etc.

Back in the ancient history days, Larry Bird was drafted after his junior year by the Boston Celtics. He then went back to Indiana State for his senior year. Of course the NBA then changed their rules only allowing teams to draft players that were ready to sign. So while I totally agree with the NCAA allowing players to retain eligibility, the NBA has already taken a stance on this.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

If the NCAA really wants to push the NBA, what they need to do is allow players to enter the draft but retain eligibility until they sign a contract. Then players could see where they actually get drafted and decide if it's worth leaving school. It would be the NBA's problem to figure out how long draft rights last, etc.

Ah ha! You are right! That is the one slim piece of leverage the NCAA has. Well played.

The down side is that it puts coaches and programs on an even longer "waiting period" to see who is on their roster.

Good twist though - I shall sporketh thee.

[AIRFORCEDUKIE]

I don't think that there is, or would be, any kind of advertising that could successfully steer bball fans to watch Grand Rapids over a college team. The college brand means so much more than anything out there other than the top pro level in each sport-----and in many cases, the colleges beat out the top pro brand. Secondary, or below top level pro sports just wouldn't draw anything away from the eyeballs, I believe. I know that I would not watch Duke one iota less if Jah wasn't on the team, and I wouldn't go out of my way to watch him play for Grand Rapids. (In no way judging the merits of the city of Grand Rapids.) But that's just me, right? Do you honestly think that any of the people watching college sports are going to switch from their game to a lower level pro team playing in Grand Rapids or somewhere comparable? My thoughts are that people watch college sports to see teams play other teams the vast majority of times, just as in watching the pros play. The players are secondary in that respect. Attendance is way up for Cleveland this year because the fans are anticipating a possible NBA Championship, not mainly due to Lebron returning. Given the choice of Cleveland winning a championship without Lebron, versus having Lebron and not winning the championship, which do you think they would choose? Same for Jah. Which would you choose?


ricks

obviously hardcore fans like the ones on this board would continue to watch. I am more worried about casual fans, who might rather watch Jah, winslow, and Jones playing for a D League team at 7pm than watch Duke vs Boston College at 7pm. Its just a scenario that could happen, College hoops needs to grow its brand to protect itself. We have March Madness and people will always tune into that, but we could lose casual fans during the regular season. I may be over estimating the power of the casual fan, and perhaps the hardcore fans are enough to keep College Hoops viable.

[MarkD83]

obviously hardcore fans like the ones on this board would continue to watch. I am more worried about casual fans, who might rather watch Jah, winslow, and Jones playing for a D League team at 7pm than watch Duke vs Boston College at 7pm. Its just a scenario that could happen, College hoops needs to grow its brand to protect itself. We have March Madness and people will always tune into that, but we could lose casual fans during the regular season. I may be over estimating the power of the casual fan, and perhaps the hardcore fans are enough to keep College Hoops viable.

Being viable is an interesting term. One definition to me is whether it is worth broadcasting the games. ESPN or some other channel broadcasts nearly all of Duke games. I can't find any D league games on my cable provider right now. Another way to look at it is if you have a consistent and growing fan base. In college, there is a built in fan base that grows every year (students and alumni). In the D league if attendance is predicated by the talent that is there for one year, then any given team will have an up and down fan base. One year you might have Jah, the next year you might have a high school student who thinks he is good but after a few games is exposed as being over-rated. This is a recipe for a fan base that will lose interest quickly.

[Olympic Fan]

Jamie Dixon was asked about the freshman ineligibility proposal on today's ACC teleconference.

He said that that very morning, Pitt had held a breakfast for every scholarship athlete in every sport. Their AD asked for a show of hands -- how many preferred freshman eligibility and how many would prefer a new rule making freshmen ineligible.

The vote was unanimous -- every athlete preferred the current setup.

So if we're going to listen to the athletes ...

Most of the coaches were asked about the proposal -- they all laughed at the idea.

It's not going to happen.

[NSDukeFan]

Jamie Dixon was asked about the freshman ineligibility proposal on today's ACC teleconference.

He said that that very morning, Pitt had held a breakfast for every scholarship athlete in every sport. Their AD asked for a show of hands -- how many preferred freshman eligibility and how many would prefer a new rule making freshmen ineligible.

The vote was unanimous -- every athlete preferred the current setup.

So if we're going to listen to the athletes ...

Most of the coaches were asked about the proposal -- they all laughed at the idea.

It's not going to happen.

I don't know if what's best for the athletes is always what is done.

[Seattle Hoo]

I don't know if what's best for the athletes is always what is done.

What I have not seen any discussion of is whether there is data that freshman athletes are suffering academically. If not, then there's no need for this.

[MarkD83]

As I understand the freshman eligibility issue...football players can not leave for the NFL until they have spent 2 years in school. Baseball players must stay 3 years. Basketball players have to stay one year. In the other sports where you can make money in your sport, tennis, golf, soccer, hockey and lacrosse I do not believe there is any limit on how long you have to stay in school. In any event, none of these sports generate appreciable revenue for a university so I am not sure the athletic departments worry about players in these sports leaving early.

So that really leaves basketball players as the ones who would not play any college athletics if there was no freshman eligibility and they left early for the NBA. Furthermore if we look at the NBA drafts there are perhaps 5-10 "one and done" basketball players on average each year that go to the NBA. So does their have to be any debate about an issue that would impact 5-10 student athletes each year. I believe we are over sensitive to this issue because as Duke fans we have had a high proportion of one and done players on recent Duke teams.

Now if you want to declare freshman ineligible to put a monkey wrench in the way Calipari runs the Ky program than I am all for freshmen being ineligible. ;)

[lotusland]

What I have not seen any discussion of is whether there is data that freshman athletes are suffering academically. If not, then there's no need for this.

The point would be gaining some leverage to persuade the NBA to change the OAD rule. It might work too but I agree with Olympic Fan that it will never happen. If they did do it and it worked, how could they change it back after claiming that it would provide freshmen athletes the best opportunity to succeed in classroom? If the NBA raised their restriction to 2-years out of HS after freshman were ruled ineligible, it would actually re-create the one (season of eligibility) and done scenario they wanted to address to begin with.

[throatybeard]

One amendment. The NFL is tops in January with college bball 2nd

Doesn't the NBA kick college basketball's butt in the ratings all the time except the second half of March?

[jimsumner]

Ah ha! You are right! That is the one slim piece of leverage the NCAA has. Well played.

The down side is that it puts coaches and programs on an even longer "waiting period" to see who is on their roster.

Good twist though - I shall sporketh thee.

College baseball coaches go through this all the time, at least at the highest levels. Signed high school players and juniors are drafted and can either go with the pros or not, leaving top programs floundering to sign late prospects when top ones sign on the dotted line.

And it is not easy.