(02-19-2015 03:34 PM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 03:10 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 03:00 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 02:47 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 02:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The P5 could do this autonomously if they wish. If they do, its one place where I would suggest that the G5 not follow.

It's hard to imagine an NCAAT in which some schools can use players that others may not. Picture a world where Kentucky and Duke can't sign the top high school players, but UConn can. I think this is going to need to be adopted for all D-I or nobody. Which is a shame, because I think nobody is the preferred option.

If the P5 did this on an autonomous basis it would be just fine. The NCAA wouldn't be telling the P5 freshman couldn't play---the P5 will have independently decided to implement that policy (and would be free to ditch the policy whenever they wished). Frankly, I don't think it would pass the D1 as a whole. Too many non-power schools utilize freshman. That's about all a G5 school can offer a recruit that a P5 cannot---early playing time. Besides, we are about to enter an NCCAT age where power schools will be able to offer players lost of things most of D1 cannot. I don't see where this would be any different. If it causes the P5 problems, Im sure the P5 would just reverse course. Isnt that the whole point of autonomy?

Play as a Freshman in the G5 and if your good, transfer to a P5 school and be eligible immediately. Seems like that takes a lot of risk off the P5 recruiting.

Would have to sit out one year. P5 can not change that rule all by themselves. Does the P5 want to burn one scholly for that year that the player has to sit.

What rules can the P5 change?

(02-19-2015 02:46 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 02:29 PM)ECBrad Wrote:  This is just a Blackfoot way to increasing scholarship limits

I have Blackfoot blood on my mom's side. I don't know what you are implying by this?

Sorry I meant to say back door but I'm phone posting and it messed me up

I think one thing if they say redshirt so they would still have 4 years of eligibility left is they better then close up the graduation loop-hole or you are going to have chaos with mass free agency senior years.

(02-19-2015 03:54 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think one thing if they say redshirt so they would still have 4 years of eligibility left is they better then close up the graduation loop-hole or you are going to have chaos with mass free agency senior years.

Why shouldn't any player in any given year be eligible to transfer anywhere without sitting out a year? If a non-athlete wants to tranfer schools, does he/she have to sit out a year?

(02-19-2015 03:49 PM)ECBrad Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 02:46 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 02:29 PM)ECBrad Wrote:  This is just a Blackfoot way to increasing scholarship limits

I have Blackfoot blood on my mom's side. I don't know what you are implying by this?

Sorry I meant to say back door but I'm phone posting and it messed me up

I don't know why but this came to mind.

(02-19-2015 03:59 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 03:54 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think one thing if they say redshirt so they would still have 4 years of eligibility left is they better then close up the graduation loop-hole or you are going to have chaos with mass free agency senior years.

Why shouldn't any player in any given year be eligible to transfer anywhere without sitting out a year? If a non-athlete wants to tranfer schools, does he/she have to sit out a year?

The question becomes is athletics a right or a privilege.

I just do not think we want to see mass free agency each year- that would make an absolute mockery of college sports.

(02-19-2015 03:49 PM)ECBrad Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 02:46 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 02:29 PM)ECBrad Wrote:  This is just a Blackfoot way to increasing scholarship limits

I have Blackfoot blood on my mom's side. I don't know what you are implying by this?

Sorry I meant to say back door but I'm phone posting and it messed me up

I liked it better when it was Blackfoot. I think that we all know how fanatically sneaky the tribes can be about increasing athletic scholarships.

(Heads up: Before anyone gets mad at me, I'm clearly joking about tribes sneakily wanting to increase athletic scholarships.)

(02-19-2015 03:16 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 02:58 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  I would think this could hurt basketball recruiting in B1G, ACC and PAC while stregnthening the other two P5 schools and the G5s+Big East. Most of these kids believe they are good enough to be done in one to two years. A recruit staring at a final list of Syracuse, Georgetown and UConn might easily scratch the Cuse off the list if he knows he can't play for a whole year.

On the football side it will work differently. Freshmen rarely play anyway. Where we will see the difference is that after 5-6 years a lot of hte P5 schools have more fifth year seniors. The quality of play will go up as a whole.

Absolutely. Here's my theory, though:

There will be a trickle down effect. Some elite players will go overseas. However, I think that most will stay home. That means that more elite players will trickle down to less elite schools. For instance, if UK can only churn out a fab 5 every other year (as opposed to every year), then there are 2-3 players going elsewhere every year. Assume that they go to a good but not elite school like Michigan instead. That means 2-3 very good players, who would otherwise go to Michigan, go to an average school instead. That then bumps 2-3 average players from an average school to a poor school and so on and so forth.

At the end of the day, the difference between elite schools and everyone else narrows. Since most schools in any confernce aren't elite, most conferences should support this proposal for competitive reasons (plus it's generally a good idea for the sake of the kids).

I would assume that, if the P5 adopted this and the G5 did not, then UK not only wouldn't churn out fab 5 classes every other year, they wouldn't likely churn them out ever. Neither would Duke, UNC, Louisville, etc. Instead, I would imagine that most of the top 30 or so high school seniors would either go overseas or play at G5 schools.

It's one thing for the P5 if their no freshmen policy meant that those top high school players all go overseas or directly to the D-league. It's quite another if they go to a G5 school and play against the P5 in the NCAAT. If that were to happen, the P5 would have little choice but to scrap the policy.

If you are a G5 school, you might prefer to go along with the P5 on this, because they are the ones now getting nearly all of those 30 kids. Wouldn't it be better for you, competitively speaking, if the P5 got none of them and you got none of them? Because them getting none and you getting all isn't going to last long.

This is a misguided pushback against the NBA one-and-done rule.

They'd be better off trying to persuade the NBA to modify its draft eligibility rule. Something like the MLB draft rule (draft-eligible after high school, and then not again until after a player's 3rd year at a "four year" college or after 2 years at a juco) would be best, but in any event the conferences need to find a way of pushing back other than just pushing all of the one-and-dones to Europe or the D-league.

(02-19-2015 03:49 PM)ECBrad Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 02:46 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 02:29 PM)ECBrad Wrote:  This is just a Blackfoot way to increasing scholarship limits

I have Blackfoot blood on my mom's side. I don't know what you are implying by this?

Sorry I meant to say back door but I'm phone posting and it messed me up

(02-19-2015 04:12 PM)Wedge Wrote:  This is a misguided pushback against the NBA one-and-done rule.

They'd be better off trying to persuade the NBA to modify its draft eligibility rule. Something like the MLB draft rule (draft-eligible after high school, and then not again until after a player's 3rd year at a "four year" college or after 2 years at a juco) would be best, but in any event the conferences need to find a way of pushing back other than just pushing all of the one-and-dones to Europe or the D-league.

I like the MLB system. I'm not sure it's an option for basketball. I believe baseball can do it without violating any labor laws because they have a long-standing antitrust exemption from Congress. I don't believe the NBA does. I'd like to know what someone conversant with labor law has to say about this.

(02-19-2015 03:39 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 03:34 PM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 03:10 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 03:00 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 02:47 PM)ken d Wrote:  It's hard to imagine an NCAAT in which some schools can use players that others may not. Picture a world where Kentucky and Duke can't sign the top high school players, but UConn can. I think this is going to need to be adopted for all D-I or nobody. Which is a shame, because I think nobody is the preferred option.

If the P5 did this on an autonomous basis it would be just fine. The NCAA wouldn't be telling the P5 freshman couldn't play---the P5 will have independently decided to implement that policy (and would be free to ditch the policy whenever they wished). Frankly, I don't think it would pass the D1 as a whole. Too many non-power schools utilize freshman. That's about all a G5 school can offer a recruit that a P5 cannot---early playing time. Besides, we are about to enter an NCCAT age where power schools will be able to offer players lost of things most of D1 cannot. I don't see where this would be any different. If it causes the P5 problems, Im sure the P5 would just reverse course. Isnt that the whole point of autonomy?

Play as a Freshman in the G5 and if your good, transfer to a P5 school and be eligible immediately. Seems like that takes a lot of risk off the P5 recruiting.

Would have to sit out one year. P5 can not change that rule all by themselves. Does the P5 want to burn one scholly for that year that the player has to sit.

What rules can the P5 change?

Officially, autonomy should focus on the well being of student athletes.

Quote:Autonomy doesn't give them the right to change the terms of autonomy," Hatch said.

It will not dictate rules related to on-field play, transfers, scholarship limits or the recruiting calendar.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...convention

(02-19-2015 04:19 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 04:12 PM)Wedge Wrote:  This is a misguided pushback against the NBA one-and-done rule.

They'd be better off trying to persuade the NBA to modify its draft eligibility rule. Something like the MLB draft rule (draft-eligible after high school, and then not again until after a player's 3rd year at a "four year" college or after 2 years at a juco) would be best, but in any event the conferences need to find a way of pushing back other than just pushing all of the one-and-dones to Europe or the D-league.

I like the MLB system. I'm not sure it's an option for basketball. I believe baseball can do it without violating any labor laws because they have a long-standing antitrust exemption from Congress. I don't believe the NBA does. I'd like to know what someone conversant with labor law has to say about this.

baseball can do it because they have a multi-level flourishing minor league system to throw these guys into. The NBA doesn't have that. They have the D-League, which is a start, but that's not even a full minor league team for each NBA team, let alone 5 like MLB has for each of their teams.

It's all posturing. No one takes seriously the thought of making freshmen ineligible in this day and age with billions of TV dollars riding on conference deals and the NCAA Tournament. They simply want the NBA to push through the 20-year old age limit.

(02-19-2015 04:28 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It's all posturing. No one takes seriously the thought of making freshmen ineligible in this day and age with billions of TV dollars riding on conference deals and the NCAA Tournament. They simply want the NBA to push through the 20-year old age limit.

Is it that big of a deal for the NBA not to consider it? How many NBA are really that good year 1 via a one and done from the college ranks?

(02-19-2015 04:26 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 04:19 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 04:12 PM)Wedge Wrote:  This is a misguided pushback against the NBA one-and-done rule.

They'd be better off trying to persuade the NBA to modify its draft eligibility rule. Something like the MLB draft rule (draft-eligible after high school, and then not again until after a player's 3rd year at a "four year" college or after 2 years at a juco) would be best, but in any event the conferences need to find a way of pushing back other than just pushing all of the one-and-dones to Europe or the D-league.

I like the MLB system. I'm not sure it's an option for basketball. I believe baseball can do it without violating any labor laws because they have a long-standing antitrust exemption from Congress. I don't believe the NBA does. I'd like to know what someone conversant with labor law has to say about this.

baseball can do it because they have a multi-level flourishing minor league system to throw these guys into. The NBA doesn't have that. They have the D-League, which is a start, but that's not even a full minor league team for each NBA team, let alone 5 like MLB has for each of their teams.

They have to do something, I'll agree with that. The number of men's basketball players who enroll in college in the fall and withdraw from school the following March after their basketball season is increasing to the point that it makes it even more difficult for the college powers-that-be to maintain their myth of amateur collegiate athletics.

(02-19-2015 04:06 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 03:49 PM)ECBrad Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 02:46 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 02:29 PM)ECBrad Wrote:  This is just a Blackfoot way to increasing scholarship limits

I have Blackfoot blood on my mom's side. I don't know what you are implying by this?

Sorry I meant to say back door but I'm phone posting and it messed me up

I liked it better when it was Blackfoot. I think that we all know how fanatically sneaky the tribes can be about increasing athletic scholarships.

(Heads up: Before anyone gets mad at me, I'm clearly joking about tribes sneakily wanting to increase athletic scholarships.)

FWIW, my mom was always one step ahead of me.

(02-19-2015 04:26 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 04:19 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 04:12 PM)Wedge Wrote:  This is a misguided pushback against the NBA one-and-done rule.

They'd be better off trying to persuade the NBA to modify its draft eligibility rule. Something like the MLB draft rule (draft-eligible after high school, and then not again until after a player's 3rd year at a "four year" college or after 2 years at a juco) would be best, but in any event the conferences need to find a way of pushing back other than just pushing all of the one-and-dones to Europe or the D-league.

I like the MLB system. I'm not sure it's an option for basketball. I believe baseball can do it without violating any labor laws because they have a long-standing antitrust exemption from Congress. I don't believe the NBA does. I'd like to know what someone conversant with labor law has to say about this.

baseball can do it because they have a multi-level flourishing minor league system to throw these guys into. The NBA doesn't have that. They have the D-League, which is a start, but that's not even a full minor league team for each NBA team, let alone 5 like MLB has for each of their teams.

That's part of the problem. It always sounds good in theory that the NBA ought to have an MLB-style rule, but in practicality, it doesn't work because of the inherent differences in the sports. As you've noted, there is much more depth in the MLB draft both in terms of players and minor league teams to train them. You don't have stories of high school baseball players misguidedly entering the draft and losing their college eligibility in the way that you saw with basketball players in the pre-1-and-done era because the basketball system simply isn't large enough to accommodate that talent.

On the flip side, the sheer size of the MLB draft and minor league system also allows for a margin for error for team executives that doesn't exist in the NBA draft. When you screw up an NBA lottery pick, you might be screwing up your franchise for a generation. As a result, NBA GMs are mortified of missing out on the next Kevin Garnett or Kobe Bryant, so they start drafting athletic high school guys like Jonathan Bender.

I think waaaaaaaay too many sports fans have collective amnesia about the pre-1-and-done era of the NBA draft. It dragged down the quality of BOTH the NBA (with too many high school players drafted based on pure speculative athleticism) and college basketball (as it removed virtually all of the top talent completely). It would be one thing if only LeBron-types entered the draft out of high school and NBA GMs would then also only draft LeBron-types, but the pre-1-and-done era CLEARLY showed that neither the players nor the NBA GMs had any restraint (whether it was based on players seeking an immediate payday or GMs fearful of passing up the next great superstar).

From a pure selfish sports fan reason, I want to watch better NBA and college basketball, so I (a) hate the idea of freshman ineligibility, (b) hate the idea of providing an incentive for top players to skip college to play overseas or in the D-League and © hate the idea of going back to the days of high school players going directly to the draft in the way that occurred in the early-2000s. The 20-year old age limit is the best compromise from that sports fan viewpoint - it gets the top players into college for at least 2 years (which someone can't skate by academically in the way that 1-and-done players might be able to do) and improves the predictability of the careers of NBA draft picks along with getting more mature rookies, which improves the pro product.

I'm OK with it. Whatever leads into way mitigating the 1 and done players. If those 3 conferences want to do that then that is up to them. In a way, they'll be seen as to keeping some academic integrity for basketball and that pretty much weighs a lot for the Big 10 and Pac 12 conferences.

I want this to be a NCAA rule.