1 Year Freshman Ineligibility

[saevel25]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/25074134/report-big-ten-open-to-exploring-freshman-ineligibility-for-basketball-football

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. ... 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.

Here is were this is misguided. I do not think this sends a message that education is first. Here is the question I ask. Does requiring an athlete to sit out a year to start his/her degrees make him want to finish that degree? I am not entirely sure it does.

Also, unless this is a broad ruling on all conferences it would create a huge recruiting advantage for the conferences who do not have this rule.

Does sitting out a year deter them from playing the sport all together?

In the NBA, I would think some of the high school athletes might find it better to go play for a Euro team over college. They can get one year in a professional league and enter the NBA Draft. Heck some college players are playing a few years in the Euro leagues right now because they didn't pan out right out of college. This would pretty much kill the "one and done" in college. in that regard, does it really matter if a "one and done" goes to your college? Why not let them play and make the team better for the other players and bring prestige to your school?

As for football. I think this would be a health risk. In a lot of cases freshman have to play because of depth at a position. This old rule was at best decent when schools could recruit over 100 players . With the recruiting restrictions now you are talking about getting near NFL team size for the depth chart if freshman can not play. I am not sure I like that idea for schools, who get 85 scholarships to have to sit out about 1/4 their team for a year. Now you would be down to about 63 scholarships that could play. That is getting pretty close to the NFL 53 players on an active roster.

I think a more in depth study on it would be required to actually determine why the graduation rates are lower. Dredging up this rule seems more of the academia side of things wanting to take a chunk out of the big time sports.

[dsc123]

I suspect that this is really about the unionization issue.  If kids have to study for a year before playing, it strengthens their argument that the school treats them as students, not employees.

I think they could deal with the scholarship issue by just increasing the number available.

[saevel25]

I suspect that this is really about the unionization issue.  If kids have to study for a year before playing, it strengthens their argument that the school treats them as students, not employees.

I think they could deal with the scholarship issue by just increasing the number available.

I think that is a stretch. This was brought up before by other conferences in the past. It is an old rule that use to be in place. I think it is more the academia side of things wanting to keep the whole, "Student Athlete" false image going.

I personally think this will get no traction unless they up the scholarship limit, and mandate this for all Division I schools. No way two conferences give up this much of an advantage in the two primary college sports.

If they do they are idiots.

[Slowcelica]

This would be a mistake, many of these student athletes come from underprivileged families and use the money from the nba or nfl to change their families lives. Eric Bledsoe of the suns is a great example of this, the guy was living in a car in high school and look where he is now after one year of college sports. What is the reason any of us go to college? To get a better job. Many people do it by going to a trade school, other e's do it by going to a 4 year college. In the end going to school and playing sports is the same thing. If you leave after one year and make it good for you, if you stay all 4 years and get your degree then go good for you too, many players who don't graduate do go back and get their degree. I'm curious what the percent of students that are not student athletes actually finish their degree? I'd bet the percentage is worse than the 77%.

[newtogolf]

It's all about the fine print which we're not seeing at this point.  Kids who are superstars in H.S. aren't going to want to ride the bench all season.  Coaches and Athletic directors are not going to be happy that they recruited a superstar who can't play.  Are these kids going to be ineligible to participate with the team or just not play in any games?  Seems like perfume on body odor to me.

[saevel25]

I'm curious what the percent of students that are not student athletes actually finish their degree? I'd bet the percentage is worse than the 77%.

At Ohio State as case study,

Freshman that stay on to be Sophomores: 92%

Sophomores that stay on to be Juniors: 88%

Juniors that stay on to be Seniors: 83%

Seniors that stay on to graduate or go to a 5th year: 59%

5th years that stay on to 6th year or graduate: 80%

So, they are saying that only 77% of the student athletes stay on to earn a degree, when only 59% of people finish their degree in 4 years or stay on to their 5th year.

Given that you have 83 scholarships for football and I think 13. So you have 97 scholarships each given year. Ohio State has 58,000 students at the main campus.

I mean come on, this is nit picking to the nth degree here. No way a chunk of that 59% is caused by student athletes in football and basketball. These are big time state schools that have this issue. I doubt Northwestern and the smaller schools have this retention and graduation issue with sports athletes because not many of them ever jump ship to the NFL before their senior year. Meaning that the sample size is small that it has near minimal effect on the overall campus average for retention and graduation.  They are complaining about the bottom 0.25% of students. When in fact those athletes graduate at a higher rate than the college average.

The bigger issue is getting people to finish their degrees in 4 years and cutting the cost of education. Look at that jump from 4th year to 5th year. Clearly says something is wrong with the overall structure of the education when you see a 20% drop in the 4th year retention and graduation.

Tell these academia idiots to work on something more important than trying to make an issue about student athletes that isn't there.

[Slowcelica]

At Ohio State as case study, Freshman that stay on to be Sophomores: 92% Sophomores that stay on to be Juniors: 88% Juniors that stay on to be Seniors: 83% Seniors that stay on to graduate or go to a 5th year: 59% 5th years that stay on to 6th year or graduate: 80% So, they are saying that only 77% of the student athletes stay on to earn a degree, when only 59% of people finish their degree in 4 years or stay on to their 5th year.  Given that you have 83 scholarships for football and I think 13. So you have 97 scholarships each given year. Ohio State has 58,000 students at the main campus.  I mean come on, this is nit picking to the nth degree here. No way a chunk of that 59% is caused by student athletes in football and basketball. These are big time state schools that have this issue. I doubt Northwestern and the smaller schools have this retention and graduation issue with sports athletes because not many of them ever jump ship to the NFL before their senior year. Meaning that the sample size is small that it has near minimal effect on the overall campus average for retention and graduation.  They are complaining about the bottom 0.25% of students. When in fact those athletes graduate at a higher rate than the college average.  The bigger issue is getting people to finish their degrees in 4 years and cutting the cost of education. Look at that jump from 4th year to 5th year. Clearly says something is wrong with the overall structure of the education when you see a 20% drop in the 4th year retention and graduation.  Tell these academia idiots to work on something more important than trying to make an issue about student athletes that isn't there.

It boils down to $$, if they were so concerned about student athletes graduating they would continue their scholarships after they leave for the nfl or NBA or wherever.

[saevel25]

It boils down to $$, if they were so concerned about student athletes graduating they would continue their scholarships after they leave for the nfl or NBA or wherever.

That or players who get cut or have too many injuries to play the team and they can't finish school because of the cost.

I think this is were 4 year scholarships would help a lot of players who do not end up going to the NFL or NBA.

Still, it isn't about money because the numbers show that there is a higher graduation rate for sports athletes versus the college average. In reality these scholarships are helping the players get a degree. A lot of cases much more because a good amount of these guys would not be able to go to college unless they get a sports scholarship.

To me this isn't a money issue, it is an academia being a hater issue.

[Slowcelica]

That or players who get cut or have too many injuries to play the team and they can't finish school because of the cost.

I think this is were 4 year scholarships would help a lot of players who do not end up going to the NFL or NBA.

Still, it isn't about money because the numbers show that there is a higher graduation rate for sports athletes versus the college average. In reality these scholarships are helping the players get a degree. A lot of cases much more because a good amount of these guys would not be able to go to college unless they get a sports scholarship.

To me this isn't a money issue, it is an academia being a hater issue.

I agree they are being haters, but I think it is a money issue too, and to be honest I think they are just haters and don't feel like they can compete anymore. I'm biased because my college team has seen great success with the one and done and has a great graduation rate, this article is from 2013 http://www.aseaofblue.com/2013/4/30/4285734/kentucky-basketball-john-calipari-touts-100-graduation-rate-correctly

And lets be real, this rule is for basketball not football, football players don't leave after one year basketball players do, I think you have to be a junior to go pro? Most football players end up being red shirted their first year.

So lets look at who this is designed for the one and done's. So you are going to make them lose a year of what 2-4 million dollar earnings because you want to play mommy and daddy and make a decision for them? All this will cause like the article says, is they will go to Europe play for $$ for a year and comeback and enter the draft.