Slive says, "let's wait and see"

[MuskogeeHogFan]

The Big Ten wants to move now on new Freshman eligibility rules and the Pac 12/Big 12 are open to discussing it, but Slive wants to wait and see what the impact is of the new rules that are to be implemented in 2016 before taking further steps to add more rules.

If in fact the reasoning of the other Commissioners truly has to do with their concern that Freshmen have a full first year to concentrate more on acclimating to educational responsibilities and requirements at the college level, rather than leveling the playing field in terms of talent on the field, one would think that they would be willing to wait a few years after the implementation of the new rules to ascertain what effect they may have and whether or not it is appropriate to move forward with more rules.

"A lot of thought and preparation went into the new initial eligibility rules that go into effect in 2016. It is more appropriate to implement these new regulations and understand their impact before applying additional eligibility restrictions that may be more cosmetic than effective," Slive said.

But is it really about the student athlete and what is best for them, or is it actually a move against "one and done"?

"If this proposal is about student-athletes turning professional, we need to be careful not to create rules for a few that penalize the many," Slive said. "The universe of student-athletes who leave early for professional sports is very small compared to the numbers that participate in football and men's basketball. And just because a student-athlete enters professional sports does not mean he or she has totally abandoned their academic pursuits."

Penalize the masses to deter the few?

I'm with Slive, wait and see. How about you?

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12410011/sec-commissioner-mike-slive-leery-making-freshman-athletes-ineligible

[Hawghiggs]

 I would prefer that all freshmen redshirt. I also would like to see scholarship limits increase from 85 to 100 with a hard cap of 25 per season.

[OldCoot]

Everything that was old is new again.  I understand what that means now.

This hurts the immediate freshman difference makers.  Immediate freshman difference makers only help teams like us. 

I understand the need to give the freshman a head start, but I dont think it will work.  Improve what you have instead of making mass changes like this.

Talking out of both sides of my mouth now, but Kentucky basketball would sure hate it.

[Chief Mac]

I would prefer that all freshmen redshirt. I also would like to see scholarship limits increase from 85 to 100 with a hard cap of 25 per season.

These are not bad ideas

[Peter Porker]

I would prefer that all freshmen redshirt. I also would like to see scholarship limits increase from 85 to 100 with a hard cap of 25 per season.

That means you'd have to add another women's spoet or eliminate a men's sport.

[Hogfaniam]

That means you'd have to add another women's spoet or eliminate a men's sport.

What women's sport is left that would need that many?

Field hockey?

[CDBHawg]

I would prefer that all freshmen redshirt. I also would like to see scholarship limits increase from 85 to 100 with a hard cap of 25 per season.

The Bamas of the world would then be that much deeper.

If anything, knock it down to 75-80.

The hard cap at 25, I agree with.

Also, just allow 5 years of eligibility.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I would prefer that all freshmen redshirt. I also would like to see scholarship limits increase from 85 to 100 with a hard cap of 25 per season.

I think that if you make Freshmen ineligible you have to go to 115 scholarship limit given concerns about attrition. Here's an article from 2012 that speaks to attrition, even among schools with highly ranked classes.

Consider the consensus top five hauls in 2007: Florida, USC, Tennessee, LSU and Higgins' pick, Texas. An analysis by The Associated Press showed that of the 123 high school players who sent in letters to those programs on signing day, only 59 (48 percent) were still on the teams' rosters as seniors in 2010 or '11 (depending on whether they redshirted).

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=ncf&id=7525479

[Inhogswetrust]

Everything that was old is new again.  I understand what that means now.

This hurts the immediate freshman difference makers.  Immediate freshman difference makers only help teams like us. 

I understand the need to give the freshman a head start, but I dont think it will work.  Improve what you have instead of making mass changes like this.

Talking out of both sides of my mouth now, but Kentucky basketball would sure hate it.

I'm old enough to remember when they were not eligible for the varsity and all programs had JV teams. Back then though no players left early for the draft. Very few started college early as some do now. Some would start school in the summer though but not many. Most showed up to start their college days in the fall. It was definitely different back then and had both good and bad issues for the players and teams. The fact is very few freshmen still to this day except in basketball have an immediate team changing impact. Yes there are some but it still isn't the norm. If a football team is having to start and play freshmen in meaningful amounts then that team usually isn't that great. The problem is with early entry to the drafts now then that could hurt some programs in some years.

[Inhogswetrust]

I think that if you make Freshmen ineligible you have to go to 115 scholarship limit given concerns about attrition. Here's an article from 2012 that speaks to attrition, even among schools with highly ranked classes.

Consider the consensus top five hauls in 2007: Florida, USC, Tennessee, LSU and Higgins' pick, Texas. An analysis by The Associated Press showed that of the 123 high school players who sent in letters to those programs on signing day, only 59 (48 percent) were still on the teams' rosters as seniors in 2010 or '11 (depending on whether they redshirted).

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=ncf&id=7525479

This^. Back when they were ineligible there were more scholarships available and thus programs had more players. With title 9 this would not happen though but it is the only way I see how it would work longterm.

[Inhogswetrust]

What women's sport is left that would need that many?

Field hockey?

That depends on the individual schools.

[Pork Twain]

I hate the idea of this new rule, but I would like to see a hard cap of 25 per season.  I am not really sure who this helps other than the universities killing 1-and-done, but it would likely hurt a lot.

[NaturalStateReb]

The Big Ten wants to move now on new Freshman eligibility rules and the Pac 12/Big 12 are open to discussing it, but Slive wants to wait and see what the impact is of the new rules that are to be implemented in 2016 before taking further steps to add more rules.

If in fact the reasoning of the other Commissioners truly has to do with their concern that Freshmen have a full first year to concentrate more on acclimating to educational responsibilities and requirements at the college level, rather than leveling the playing field in terms of talent on the field, one would think that they would be willing to wait a few years after the implementation of the new rules to ascertain what effect they may have and whether or not it is appropriate to move forward with more rules.

"A lot of thought and preparation went into the new initial eligibility rules that go into effect in 2016. It is more appropriate to implement these new regulations and understand their impact before applying additional eligibility restrictions that may be more cosmetic than effective," Slive said.

But is it really about the student athlete and what is best for them, or is it actually a move against "one and done"?

"If this proposal is about student-athletes turning professional, we need to be careful not to create rules for a few that penalize the many," Slive said. "The universe of student-athletes who leave early for professional sports is very small compared to the numbers that participate in football and men's basketball. And just because a student-athlete enters professional sports does not mean he or she has totally abandoned their academic pursuits."

Penalize the masses to deter the few?

I'm with Slive, wait and see. How about you?

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12410011/sec-commissioner-mike-slive-leery-making-freshman-athletes-ineligible

I think we should hold off for a while and then quit altogether.

This is a terrible idea. 

[TexasRazorback]

I think this rule change would be awful. Alot of these kids are getting opportunities to furthur their education and growth as an individual. But they are also being recrutied to play Football. they should be able to play as freshman just as they are able to attend classes. I agree that the transition is tough for some people but there has to be a better way to adjust to college then preventing a kid from playing a sport he loves.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

This^. Back when they were ineligible there were more scholarships available and thus programs had more players. With title 9 this would not happen though but it is the only way I see how it would work longterm.

One would think so, but the Big Ten Commish is wanting to limit this rule change of freshmen ineligibility to only football and basketball. So they want to limit and penalize only a selected group of athletes and that might be considered a discriminatory practice (Hogville licensed Attorneys please weigh in) and because of that, may never gain more traction.

[Smokehouse]

Letting freshmen have a year to adjust to college sounds nice, but how helpful would it really be? I've heard nothing but anecdotal arguments in favor of making them sit. Even if you ran a comparison between students who redshirted and those who didn't, you'd probably have some sampling bias affecting the results since we're really only concerned with students who wouldn't have redshirted anyway.

How many students would actually benefit from a forced redshirt year compared to those who could have contributed immediately and just potentially lost a year from their pro career?

[Pork Twain]

It should be left up to the coaches on who is ready to play and who is not, not the NCAA or some commission.

If you join the military, you are not given a year to adjust...that sounds like something the NCAA is coming up with.

[hawg IQ]

The Big Ten wants to move now on new Freshman eligibility rules and the Pac 12/Big 12 are open to discussing it, but Slive wants to wait and see what the impact is of the new rules that are to be implemented in 2016 before taking further steps to add more rules.

If in fact the reasoning of the other Commissioners truly has to do with their concern that Freshmen have a full first year to concentrate more on acclimating to educational responsibilities and requirements at the college level, rather than leveling the playing field in terms of talent on the field, one would think that they would be willing to wait a few years after the implementation of the new rules to ascertain what effect they may have and whether or not it is appropriate to move forward with more rules.

"A lot of thought and preparation went into the new initial eligibility rules that go into effect in 2016. It is more appropriate to implement these new regulations and understand their impact before applying additional eligibility restrictions that may be more cosmetic than effective," Slive said.

But is it really about the student athlete and what is best for them, or is it actually a move against "one and done"?

"If this proposal is about student-athletes turning professional, we need to be careful not to create rules for a few that penalize the many," Slive said. "The universe of student-athletes who leave early for professional sports is very small compared to the numbers that participate in football and men's basketball. And just because a student-athlete enters professional sports does not mean he or she has totally abandoned their academic pursuits."

Penalize the masses to deter the few?

I'm with Slive, wait and see. How about you?

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12410011/sec-commissioner-mike-slive-leery-making-freshman-athletes-ineligible

I think it should be left up to the coaches. rules, rules, too many of em already.
   By far the worse one yet is the targeting rule, what a joke that turn out to be.
Remember the old spearing somebody after they are down- anymore they just let that go.
  The replay booth is a joke these days. That was put in for the most outrageous bad calls to try and create a fair playing field. Now its just another tool for a ref to mess up a game by playing favorites.  The old it can't be overturned unless its beyond a shred of doubt had become a crock also.

  Even if they created a new rule concerning freshmen, the alabama. ohio state types would find a way to circumvent to benefit themselves. Ncaa has become anything but fair and balanced. its all about revenue now.

[bigdaddyhawg]

The Big Ten wants to move now on new Freshman eligibility rules and the Pac 12/Big 12 are open to discussing it, but Slive wants to wait and see what the impact is of the new rules that are to be implemented in 2016 before taking further steps to add more rules.

If in fact the reasoning of the other Commissioners truly has to do with their concern that Freshmen have a full first year to concentrate more on acclimating to educational responsibilities and requirements at the college level, rather than leveling the playing field in terms of talent on the field, one would think that they would be willing to wait a few years after the implementation of the new rules to ascertain what effect they may have and whether or not it is appropriate to move forward with more rules.

"A lot of thought and preparation went into the new initial eligibility rules that go into effect in 2016. It is more appropriate to implement these new regulations and understand their impact before applying additional eligibility restrictions that may be more cosmetic than effective," Slive said.

But is it really about the student athlete and what is best for them, or is it actually a move against "one and done"?

"If this proposal is about student-athletes turning professional, we need to be careful not to create rules for a few that penalize the many," Slive said. "The universe of student-athletes who leave early for professional sports is very small compared to the numbers that participate in football and men's basketball. And just because a student-athlete enters professional sports does not mean he or she has totally abandoned their academic pursuits."

Penalize the masses to deter the few?

I'm with Slive, wait and see. How about you?

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12410011/sec-commissioner-mike-slive-leery-making-freshman-athletes-ineligible

Call me cynical, but I believe this entire thing is nothing more than a PR ploy by the Big 10 to attempt to take what they believe is they God-given place in the world of CFB -- the true leader.

I believe they feel so inferior to the SEC they have become driven to find some way, any way, to make the SEC look bad or less than they do.

I say this because I don't believe there's any realistic way for this to ever happen, mainly because the financial hammer blow to the NCAA member institutions would be so great as to make it prohibitive.

[Pigsknuckles]

Was said somewhat differently earlier I admit, but teams immediately hurt would be those like us that need an immediate injection of freshman talent to facilitate a rebuilding program. Wouldn't want to be caught at the bottom of the rebuilding curve at the time of implementation. Not against increasing scholarship limits to help offset initial talent attrition from graduation (and other causes). However, that benefit would not be realized for at least a couple of seasons, at which time limits may need to be rolled back so as to lessen the economic impact of additional scholarships on smaller programs, and to not provide an inequitable advantage to the elite programs.

[JackJohnson]

none of this will help us

100 scholarships:  last thing we want is for the rich to get richer

Fr sitting: our advantage of early PT would go away.  instead of selling come here to play right away instead of sitting elsewhere is now gone.  you sit wherever so players are more likely to sit at the "name" schools then here. 
This also takes advantage of- presumably if we can actually start redshirting most players- us playing a bunch of RS Sr's and RS Jr 22-23 year olds against other teams 18-19 year olds.  Now everyone is going to have that

really hope this stuff doesn't get passed

[GoHogs1091]

It wouldn't really hurt a program who already redshirts a lot of players (for instance, Clemson, whose 2014 Roster shows a total of 70 players who have redshirted).

It would hurt programs such as Alabama, LSU, and Florida State who have to rely on True Freshmen because of such large groups of players leaving for the NFL at one time.

[Sportster365]

Why penalize anyone for their success or talents. There's nothing pretty about this situation. Preventing someone from earning any revenue for themselves just so that you can further capitalize off of them is worst then vindictive, it's diabolical.

[Dwight_K_Shrute]

none of this will help us

100 scholarships:  last thing we want is for the rich to get richer

Fr sitting: our advantage of early PT would go away.  instead of selling come here to play right away instead of sitting elsewhere is now gone.  you sit wherever so players are more likely to sit at the "name" schools then here. 
This also takes advantage of- presumably if we can actually start redshirting most players- us playing a bunch of RS Sr's and RS Jr 22-23 year olds against other teams 18-19 year olds.  Now everyone is going to have that

really hope this stuff doesn't get passed

Yep, it's stupid.  Freshman have been playing for what 40 years or so now and college athletics has flourished.  The freshman don't need a full year to get acclimated.  Scholarship athletes have more resources than the average student in terms of academic help and even leadership/mentorship.  This is why the scholarship athlete graduation rate is higher than that of the average student at almost every institution.

Also look at the number of incoming freshman that are coming in either Spring semester or first summer semester.  This is not just to hit the weight room, but guess what to get acclimated to college life.

And as pointed out raising scholarship limit would only help the Alabama's of the world hoard more talent. 

Coaches for the most part do a good job of playing the freshman that are ready to play and redshirting those that are not.  It's a knee jerk change for change sake idea to fix something that isn't even broken.  Or make everyone change because a few programs have an inordinate number of players that leave early.

[onebadrubi]

I think increasing the scholarship limit will only allow the talent rich schools or hoard more talent. 

[scorekeeper]

I think increasing the scholarship limit will only allow the talent rich schools or hoard more talent. 

Simple as that. We should be against this rule.

[scorekeeper]

To me it seems that rule change needs to be made in NCAA basketball or they should force the NBA to get their own real minor league system or build on the NBA-D league.

[The_Bionic_Pig]

Easy fix....20 or 21 to enter NBA or NFL draft + penalize after so many transfers (in/out) unless for family illness or death etc...to prevent programs from shuffling players as a way of getting around the rule. That would instantly alter a lot of the playing field.

World Wide Wes has made a mockery of collegiate basketball athletics.

[Sportster365]

Easy fix....20 or 21 to enter NBA or NFL draft + penalize after so many transfers (in/out) unless for family illness or death etc...to prevent programs from shuffling players as a way of getting around the rule. That would instantly alter a lot of the playing field.

World Wide Wes has made a mockery of collegiate basketball athletics.

Why penalize anyone. If a young man wants to take the risk of entering the draft let him. If you're going to contract them to a timeline then pay them.

[razorbrass]

This would stem the tide of entering freshman graduating high school early and coming to campus for spring ball.  That does not need to happen.  I believe it is in the all around best interest of the "student athlete" if they are allowed to mature physically and mentally for a year before being thrown into big time college athletics although it didn't do much for the maturity level of Jameis Winston.

[CDBHawg]

This would stem the tide of entering freshman graduating high school early and coming to campus for spring ball.  That does not need to happen.  I believe it is in the all around best interest of the "student athlete" if they are allowed to mature physically and mentally for a year before being thrown into big time college athletics although it didn't do much for the maturity level of Jameis Winston.

Or Manziel.

[Peter Porker]

Easy fix....20 or 21 to enter NBA or NFL draft + penalize after so many transfers (in/out) unless for family illness or death etc...to prevent programs from shuffling players as a way of getting around the rule. That would instantly alter a lot of the playing field.

World Wide Wes has made a mockery of collegiate basketball athletics.

That's not American. If someone can earn a living at 18, he should be able to. It's that life, liberty, pursuit of happiness thingy.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Easy fix....20 or 21 to enter NBA or NFL draft + penalize after so many transfers (in/out) unless for family illness or death etc...to prevent programs from shuffling players as a way of getting around the rule. That would instantly alter a lot of the playing field.

World Wide Wes has made a mockery of collegiate basketball athletics.

To me there is nothing wrong with the current NCAA football requirements, 3 years before you can choose to enter the NFL Draft. If a school chooses to R/S you, they risk only getting 2 years out of you. If they don't, they get 3 years to not only develop you, but you get you on the field in a manner that is productive and beneficial for their program. That is their choice.

Make it the same in baseball, basketball and every other sport and the "one and done" thing is history and you don't need a false premise of making freshmen ineligible for academic reasons.

OR, allow everyone to go whenever the Pro Leagues want to draft them, whether out of high school, first year of college or anytime thereafter and allow nature to take its course. After a few "stars" flame out early at the pro levels in various sports, everything will for the most part, correct itself.

If schools don't want to give scholarships to kids that might have the potential of being "one and done", then leave that up to them. Allow them to make their own assessment and the kids and their families to do the same.

[Hawgzinbowlz]

Wait and see, before we further restrict the options a player has to benefit from their God given talents.

" GO HOGS "

[texas tush hog]

This^. Back when they were ineligible there were more scholarships available and thus programs had more players. With title 9 this would not happen though but it is the only way I see how it would work longterm.

Back in my freshman year, we had a freshman team of over fifty players on it. Over 150 on the varsity, although I was too busy trying to survive to count. Don't remember for sure but I believe they gave out 45 to 50 scholarships per year, and we got "laundry money." Can't see colleges spending that kind of money in today's climate. Bob Bowlsby, John Swofford, Larry Scott, and their minions are not thinking this through.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Back in my freshman year, we had a freshman team of over fifty players on it. Over 150 on the varsity, although I was too busy trying to survive to count.Don't remember for sure but I believe they gave out 45 to 50 scholarships per year, and we got "laundry money." Can't see colleges spending that kind of money in today's climate. Bob Bowlsby, John Swofford, Larry Scott, and their minions are not thinking this through.

That must have been in days of unlimited scholarships, my era as well. Oklahoma and Texas would sign kids to scholarships just to keep kids from playing for the other team. Those were the days of talent mills where there wasn't any limit on practices in Spring or Fall, just "here are the dates when they start and end", no limit on practice hours and who made it was determined by who survived and emerged as the best on-field talent from the no-limit contact drills and scrimmage. Those days are dead and gone.

[Hawghiggs]

To me there is nothing wrong with the current NCAA football requirements, 3 years before you can choose to enter the NFL Draft. If a school chooses to R/S you, they risk only getting 2 years out of you. If they don't, they get 3 years to not only develop you, but you get you on the field in a manner that is productive and beneficial for their program. That is their choice.

Make it the same in baseball, basketball and every other sport and the "one and done" thing is history and you don't need a false premise of making freshmen ineligible for academic reasons.

OR, allow everyone to go whenever the Pro Leagues want to draft them, whether out of high school, first year of college or anytime thereafter and allow nature to take its course. After a few "stars" flame out early at the pro levels in various sports, everything will for the most part, correct itself.

If schools don't want to give scholarships to kids that might have the potential of being "one and done", then leave that up to them. Allow them to make their own assessment and the kids and their families to do the same.

Those aren't NCAA rules. Those are the rules that are set by each profession.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Those aren't NCAA rules. Those are the rules that are set by each profession.

I understand, but the professional leagues and the NCAA need to find a way to work together, the same as they did in football, or not at all in any sport.

[texas tush hog]

That must have been in days of unlimited scholarships, my era as well. Oklahoma and Texas would sign kids to scholarships just to keep kids from playing for the other team. Those were the days of talent mills where there wasn't any limit on practices in Spring or Fall, just "here are the dates when they start and end", no limit on practice hours and who made it was determined by who survived and emerged as the best on-field talent from the no-limit contact drills and scrimmage. Those days are dead and gone.

Oh, for the good old days. Actually I did do some checking. The Big 10 gave 30 with an overall limit of 105 (that's where the original NCAA limits originated from in 1973), the SEC gave 40, the Big 8 45 and the Southwest Conference gave 50. Could not find figures for the PAC 8 or the ACC. Damn, no wonder I got lost in the crowd. And yes, Texas did sign players to keep them from conference rivals, but so did Oklahoma, Bama and others. That's why this rule will never fly.

[BrassNunchucks]

On the one and done problem in college basketball, I think baseball has the best system. The best players have the option of going pro out of high school, and can retain eligibility even after being drafted, but players who go to college have to spend at least three years. That gives the guys who are truly ready for the NBA the chance to go, and it preserves continuity for NCAA basketball. But the NBA would have to agree.

[Razorback2010]

I really don't like this.  It's been my perception that a red shirt is more so about physical growth and development than academic eligibility (although this is not always the case).  College academics are harder than high school.  If you can't meet the minimum academic requirements when you enter college then you probably shouldn't be there.  Football more so than basketball and baseball is especially hard on the body.  I understand that essentially STUDENT athletes are taking a year off, but prolonging their stay in college with to 6 years seems ridiculous.  Forcing these students athletes to wait longer to play promotes risk of injury and prolongs their ability to enter the NFL, either as part of a team or on the practice squad. 

If this is about basketball, then they need to figure something else out.  I'm in agreement with others on here about baseball's eligibility rules.  I think it is a model system that college hoops could definitely benefit from.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I really don't like this.  It's been my perception that a red shirt is more so about physical growth and development than academic eligibility (although this is not always the case).  College academics are harder than high school.  If you can't meet the minimum academic requirements when you enter college then you probably shouldn't be there.  Football more so than basketball and baseball is especially hard on the body.  I understand that essentially STUDENT athletes are taking a year off, but prolonging their stay in college with to 6 years seems ridiculous.  Forcing these students athletes to wait longer to play promotes risk of injury and prolongs their ability to enter the NFL, either as part of a team or on the practice squad. 

If this is about basketball, then they need to figure something else out.  I'm in agreement with others on here about baseball's eligibility rules.  I think it is a model system that college hoops could definitely benefit from.

Take it one step further and make it policy for all athletes in all sports. If families had to make a critical decision like this about the future of their kids prior to signing with a school (roll the dice on a Pro career at a young age or wait three years, go to school, at least get some education and develop their athletic skills to a greater degree before going Pro), they might decide the best option is to matriculate for 3 years and then test the waters. Those that are exceptionally talented and developed athletes could go Pro right out of high school.

In any case, I think it needs to be equal treatment for all athletes in all sports.

[hawg IQ]

Any time a team or conference wants a rules change, it will benefit their team or conference. The NCAA will mess up enough crap on their own.

[NaturalStateReb]

One would think so, but the Big Ten Commish is wanting to limit this rule change of freshmen ineligibility to only football and basketball. So they want to limit and penalize only a selected group of athletes and that might be considered a discriminatory practice (Hogville licensed Attorneys please weigh in) and because of that, may never gain more traction.

I don't think freshman athletes are a protected class.

Still, it seems like a cannon-sized solution to a very small problem.  The number of one-and-dones is pretty small in comparison to the overall population of college basketball players.  Since 2006, only about 55 players have left after one year to be drafted in the NBA.

[hoghiker]

Any time a team or conference wants a rules change, it will benefit their team or conference. The NCAA will mess up enough crap on their own.

This is probably right but the one and done thing makes such a mockery of the student-athlete involved in college sports that the NCAA needs to do something. Would it hurt our conference? Nope. Might hurt Kentucky, maybe, in the short run but I'm pretty sure they'd find a way. They always do.

[bigdaddyhawg]

I don't think freshman athletes are a protected class.

Still, it seems like a cannon-sized solution to a very small problem.  The number of one-and-dones is pretty small in comparison to the overall population of college basketball players.  Since 2006, only about 55 players have left after one year to be drafted in the NBA.

Like I said above, it's not about what they are saying it's about.

It's about the BIG trying to gain a PR victory over the SEC and everyone else, to elevate their stature by "taking progressive steps to help the student athlete".

[scorekeeper]

I don't think freshman athletes are a protected class.

Still, it seems like a cannon-sized solution to a very small problem.  The number of one-and-dones is pretty small in comparison to the overall population of college basketball players.  Since 2006, only about 55 players have left after one year to be drafted in the NBA.

I wonder how many of those 55 came from the same team/same coach? To me it seems that a one and done would be a one and done no matter the school they went to. Why wouldn't they go to a school and break the single season scoring record or lead a 16 seed to victory over a 1 seed.

[12247]

I have been around long enough to remember the Freshmen team and I don't believe we need to return to that.  Its a fact that many players come out of High School with the ability to help their college team even if not starting. 

I do believe that playing football and taking a full study course can be taxing on the individual if that individual is serious about studies.  My personal choice would be to leave Freshmen alone and let them play if good enough.  I would like to see the scholarship limit moved to 60 and the total scholarships in any one season set at 20.  Each scholarship should be of paid in full plus spending money type agreement.  When NFL teams can make do with 40 to 45 players and colleges want 85 plus, it just doesn't make sense to me.  I realize that the NFL is a full time job but you should not need an additional 40 players in the pool to solve the problem.

[NaturalStateReb]

I wonder how many of those 55 came from the same team/same coach? To me it seems that a one and done would be a one and done no matter the school they went to. Why wouldn't they go to a school and break the single season scoring record or lead a 16 seed to victory over a 1 seed.

9 came from Kentucky.

[Inhogswetrust]

On the one and done problem in college basketball, I think baseball has the best system. The best players have the option of going pro out of high school, and can retain eligibility even after being drafted, but players who go to college have to spend at least three years. That gives the guys who are truly ready for the NBA the chance to go, and it preserves continuity for NCAA basketball. But the NBA would have to agree.

I like this as well. I think it should be the same for all sports.