PonyFans.com

Imagine the effect this would have on recruiting battles against schools from other conferences:

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story ... y-freshmen

Does this give SMU the advantage of allowing freshmen to play their first year, if they wish?

Boston Pony wrote:Does this give SMU the advantage of allowing freshmen to play their first year, if they wish?

As the article says it is something that would have to be voted on by all schools, so it is not going to give one school or conference an advantage over another.

there is zero chance of one conference unilaterally making freshman ineligible-there are going to be a bunch of freshman who will be required to take a mandatory freshman academic redshirt due to substantial increased academic standards starting with the Class of 2016 which is being recruited right now. Interestingly a lot of these kids will know in a few months that it is impossible to qualify even before their Senior year because they now have to have 10 of the required 16 core credits before the start of their Senior year and those credits are then frozen

If this were to happen, either the studs are going to head overseas or someone is going to take the NBA to court about the age requirement. I can't see it ever happening.

I can't imagine it happening, either. Every Big 10 coach would jump ship in a heartbeat, right?

PonyGirl wrote:I can't imagine it happening, either. Every Big 10 coach would jump ship in a heartbeat, right?

You should read the article. Or for that matter just all the posts on this thread. Or even just the third one really.

I think its more likely a shot across the bow of the NBA trying to get them to add another year before they can be drafted. Not realistic and not necessary. It just creates more problems to force players to play where they don't want to be-let the NCAA go-focus on raising the standards so that kids have a reasonable chance to get an education-this means returning to an SAT/ACT floor. Otherwise, the changes in 2016 are the biggest changes since Prop 48. Next is to fairly and reasonably come up with a plan to educate kids that may still score 400-600 less on the SAT than the average student. They may not end up as a Phi Beta Kappa but we can at least provide an environment where they can materially improve their lifetime prospects. But please get the kids who don't want to be in the classroom out of the system as soon as they "think" they are ready.

Stallion wrote:I think its more likely a shot across the bow of the NBA trying to get them to add another year before they can be drafted. Not realistic and not necessary. It just creates more problems to force players to play where they don't want to be-let the NCAA go-focus on raising the standards so that kids have a reasonable chance to get an education-this means returning to an SAT/ACT floor. Otherwise, the changes in 2016 are the biggest changes since Prop 48. Next is to fairly and reasonably come up with a plan to educate kids that may still score 400-600 less on the SAT than the average student. They may not end up as a Phi Beta Kappa but we can at least provide an environment where they can materially improve their lifetime prospects. But please get the kids who don't want to be in the classroom out of the system as soon as they "think" they are ready.

I don't see how this forces the NBA to do anything. They just wait for them to turn 19 and get them whether they go overseas or not.

yeah I don't think it will work either but I don't think the NBA wants these 18 years running around Europe either. The first 2 sure things that jumped to Europe dropped off big time in NBA Draft. We will see with Mudiay but its been a wasted year for him. But I think the NBA would rather have them coached by a Coach K, Larry Brown etc in a quality NCAA program. Better coaching.

Whether it forces the hand of the NBA or not, freshmen ineligibility and a 3 year minimum isn't a crazy idea. We know it can be done, just look at baseball. No single conference will do this alone...as was clearly indicated in the article for those who chose to read. Also noted that other conferences have already discussed this. Can definitely see this getting more traction, with the key component being whether you can mandate it solely for football and basketball or it has to be universal.

I don't think they do it.

There is a zero per cent chance of this happening. Its just posturing. Baseball is different because they can already sign straight out of high school. The only possible area of more freshman ineligibility is increasing standards for marginally academic freshman recruits-and that is essentially already in place

too much money on the table (and under?) to move back to the 70s with the view to freshman eligibility. Players would move around it (Europe/Russia/Canada), and schools would too. It plays well in the media and the minds of folks that want SCHOLAR athletes, but the sad reality is that when money is the ultimate idol, all schools will bow down.

Stallion wrote:I think its more likely a shot across the bow of the NBA trying to get them to add another year before they can be drafted. Not realistic and not necessary. It just creates more problems to force players to play where they don't want to be-let the NCAA go-focus on raising the standards so that kids have a reasonable chance to get an education-this means returning to an SAT/ACT floor. Otherwise, the changes in 2016 are the biggest changes since Prop 48. Next is to fairly and reasonably come up with a plan to educate kids that may still score 400-600 less on the SAT than the average student. They may not end up as a Phi Beta Kappa but we can at least provide an environment where they can materially improve their lifetime prospects. But please get the kids who don't want to be in the classroom out of the system as soon as they "think" they are ready.

I share Stallion's concern for long term welfare of the admitted students. When the student is unprepared for college studies, it is appropriate to defer their competitive contributions. Focusing on workouts and academic progress for their initial year is a step in the right direction.

When I competed in the sixties, everyone was ineligible in their first year. I recognize that is it financially impractical to return to those days for both revenue and non-revenue sports, but the concept had merits.

As for the NBA, their one year deferment helps no one but themselves. If the super star high school BB players has no intention or interest in remaining in college for more than a year, then university should not have the obligation to support "one and done." Let the 18 year old go to the Development League for BB and earn his pay check. In CFB, physical maturity is needed, so remaining in school for two or more years is more likely and reasonable.

I am not a fan of colleges renting a "student-athlete" for one year. Student and university gain little out of this bargain. Collectively, universities need to take the higher road and at least make the appearance of caring for this young adults.