Freshmen have been eligible to play in NCAA sports since 1972. But could the rule change again, barring freshman from participating in varsity-level sports?

 

 

 

It's a possible consideration, according to CBS Sports. As NCAA reform starts to happen following the vote to give the Power Five conferences greater power to set rules and structure, the Pac-12 sent the following suggestion to fellow Power Five conferences.

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.

Yes, the point specifically addresses basketball. But the CBS report raises these important questions.

There are many unanswered questions, of course. Would scholarships have to be added and increase costs? Would all freshmen have to sit, or only those who do not reach an academic benchmark? Would this only be for basketball, or for other sports as well? Would athletic skills become rusty without competition? Is the idea only to better prepare athletes academically or is it to also integrate them socially? Does freshman ineligibility even accomplish one or both of those goals? Could this idea help repair the widening cracks in the NCAA's model, which is being threatened by many sides?

 

Just how stupid is the NCAA?

That would be a great way to ruin college basketball.

Will not happen.

On a side note. If Calipari never comes to UK are we even having this conversation? Does the suggestion ever get made? I doubt it.

Perfect example of college coaches trying to put their own best interests over the kids

They would be much better off with "two-and-done".

This would be colossally stupid.

One and done kids belong in a professional development league, period. Scholarships are for those who are serious about pursuing higher education, clearly, these kids are not. Division 1 athletics in the Big 5 especially, is simple sports entertainment, nothing more. There are plenty of leagues in Europe that will take you at 18. Many of these leagues offer 7 figure contracts to play.That is where those on a professional track need to go.

One and done kids belong in a professional development league, period. Scholarships are for those who are serious about pursuing higher education, clearly, these kids are not.

 

So why do many of them go back and still earn their degrees in the summers throughout their NBA career?

 

Does that one year of college not help to better prepare them mentally and professionally for what's in store in their future?

We are really only talking about around what maybe 10 (8 first round freshmen last year) kids a year that are ready to go pro after one year.

 

Changing the entire thing based on what less than 1% of the kids playing Division 1 ball are doing is crazy.

 

IMO this whole thing is based on jealousy of the kids that have the chance to move on, when they are ready not when someone tells them they can move on.

 

The problem is that when people see academic issues like UNC it is assumed that it is common place at every school like that.

Put this in place, the NBA minor league becomes viable and the talent going into college basketball diminishes.

One and done kids belong in a professional development league, period. Scholarships are for those who are serious about pursuing higher education, clearly, these kids are not. Division 1 athletics in the Big 5 especially, is simple sports entertainment, nothing more. There are plenty of leagues in Europe that will take you at 18. Many of these leagues offer 7 figure contracts to play.That is where those on a professional track need to go.

 

Do we feel so strongly about all students that drop out of school or only basketball players? Students drop out of school all the time- the highest non-retention rates always come after freshmen year.

 

Heck, both Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg dropped out of Harvard during their Sophmore years. They seized finacial opportunities available to them. Should they have gone to a firm in Europe or Asia to collect a paycheck (and if you study their biographies, you know this was a viable option for each of them)?

 

This whole idea strikes me as so disingenuous. It is such a ridiculous ploy that doesn't have student interests at the core. The system isn't broken, IMO.

 

Would students be able to sue to overturn this type if ruling?

Incidentally, I hope this discussion leads to a change in the collegiate majors offered to students. I believe that a Dtudent should be able to major in their sport. Why not offered a major in your sport and provide tracks within the sport for pre-k through 12 teaching/ coaching, collegiate administration and professional coaching/ administration! Give students some class credit for their practices and games, allowing this commitment to count toward graduation. Just a thought :thumb:

One and done kids belong in a professional development league, period. Scholarships are for those who are serious about pursuing higher education, clearly, these kids are not. Division 1 athletics in the Big 5 especially, is simple sports entertainment, nothing more. There are plenty of leagues in Europe that will take you at 18. Many of these leagues offer 7 figure contracts to play.That is where those on a professional track need to go.

Then you will see the destruction of college basketball. If you bar fresh from playing and the best players go to Europe, you would have opened something you wished you didn't. As it wouldn't only be one and done's doing it, it will be all of the top players in each class.

 

Colleges are supposed to prepare people for their future, if a kid can go to a college for one year and then be offered millions, is it right to tell him no, he can't leave? If a kid is on an academic scholarship and after one year Microsoft offers the kid millions to join Microsoft, should he still stay in school?

By the same token, I waver on whether even one year of college should be required.