Lots of high level discussion among conferences and between commissioners regarding freshman ineligibility. Nothing imminent, but it sounds like there is a lot of support for returning to a pre-1972 NCAA in which freshman athletes are ineligible, specifically for football and basketball. Sounds like the rationale is not 1 and done hoops players, but to try to ensure more athletes graduate.
A very interesting proposition. Most would immediately say this really impacts basketball, but not football. My overall opinion is the opposite. I think it would have a mild impact on basketball, but could have a massive, unforeseen effect on football.
In basketball, a hoops star would have to decide to spend 2 years in college or 1 year at a JUCO or overseas. I think a handful of stars would skip college. However, a lot more would still opt for college, play their sophomore year and then go pro. That would make their college teams better (1 year of practice and learning), and give better prospects to the NBA. Probably not too much difference for ND. Perhaps a couple of elite teams would take a slight step back, but we don't gain any advantage through this.
In football, a majority of frosh don't play, or play sparingly. So on the surface, this wouldn't be a big deal. However, there are 2 sneaky issues that could have a gigantic impact:
1) 4-year scholarships
The NCAA just voted that scholarships cannot be revoked for athletic reasons. This essentially makes 4-year scholarships the norm. You can still drop a player who fails to perform academically. Would a (unnamed SEC) university (based in a city that rhymes with Duspaloosa) give minimal academic support to an athlete that doesn't live up to expectations as a freshman in practice and meetings to intentionally make him ineligible? Thus, they could have an academic reason to cut them loose. This would defeat the purpose of the "year of readiness" and give said school a 1-year exclusive scouting combine for it's freshman every year. That could be horrible.
2) Scholarship limits
If you eliminate 20-25 scholarship players from eligibility, a football team would need more bodies to field a team. There would have to be an increase to the current scholarship limit of 85, or maybe the freshman don't count against the limit. Either way, that allows the traditional powers to stockpile talent the way ND, Nebraska, Oklahoma and others did before scholarship limits somewhat evened the playing field in 1973 (105), 1978 (95) and 1992 (85). I think it's no coincidence that some of the traditional powers took a step back after these reductions.
These changes could actually help ND. We could guarantee academic support, a degree and a 4 year scholarship. We could load up on talented players, and not have to worry about guaranteeing playing time to freshman, a source for several high profile recruiting misses.
Of course, I don't think it's fair to limit it to just 2 sports. Also, it would have to be accepted across the NCAA, not just within 1 conference. Can you imagine how fast Urban quits OSU if the B1G decides to declare freshman ineligible? The other conferences would absolutely tear it up recruiting!
Thoughts?
A Year of Readiness
A very interesting proposition. Most would immediately say this really impacts basketball, but not football. My overall opinion is the opposite. I think it would have a mild impact on basketball, but could have a massive, unforeseen effect on football.
In basketball, a hoops star would have to decide to spend 2 years in college or 1 year at a JUCO or overseas. I think a handful of stars would skip college. However, a lot more would still opt for college, play their sophomore year and then go pro. That would make their college teams better (1 year of practice and learning), and give better prospects to the NBA. Probably not too much difference for ND. Perhaps a couple of elite teams would take a slight step back, but we don't gain any advantage through this.
In football, a majority of frosh don't play, or play sparingly. So on the surface, this wouldn't be a big deal. However, there are 2 sneaky issues that could have a gigantic impact:
1) 4-year scholarships
The NCAA just voted that scholarships cannot be revoked for athletic reasons. This essentially makes 4-year scholarships the norm. You can still drop a player who fails to perform academically. Would a (unnamed SEC) university (based in a city that rhymes with Duspaloosa) give minimal academic support to an athlete that doesn't live up to expectations as a freshman in practice and meetings to intentionally make him ineligible? Thus, they could have an academic reason to cut them loose. This would defeat the purpose of the "year of readiness" and give said school a 1-year exclusive scouting combine for it's freshman every year. That could be horrible.
2) Scholarship limits
If you eliminate 20-25 scholarship players from eligibility, a football team would need more bodies to field a team. There would have to be an increase to the current scholarship limit of 85, or maybe the freshman don't count against the limit. Either way, that allows the traditional powers to stockpile talent the way ND, Nebraska, Oklahoma and others did before scholarship limits somewhat evened the playing field in 1973 (105), 1978 (95) and 1992 (85). I think it's no coincidence that some of the traditional powers took a step back after these reductions.
These changes could actually help ND. We could guarantee academic support, a degree and a 4 year scholarship. We could load up on talented players, and not have to worry about guaranteeing playing time to freshman, a source for several high profile recruiting misses.
Of course, I don't think it's fair to limit it to just 2 sports. Also, it would have to be accepted across the NCAA, not just within 1 conference. Can you imagine how fast Urban quits OSU if the B1G decides to declare freshman ineligible? The other conferences would absolutely tear it up recruiting!
Thoughts?
A Year of Readiness
