Not sure how likely this is too happen, but if the Big Ten was the only conference to adopt this I would assume it would hurt their basketball recruiting fairly significantly. I don't know if there would be much of a trickle down effect to the HL, but if a few of the power conferences mentioned in the article adopted it there could be an advantage for some "mid-major" conferences that don't adopt it.
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/12349646/big-ten-considering-ineligibility-freshmen (http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/12349646/big-ten-considering-ineligibility-freshmen)
This will not happen. If you and I can see that it will hurt their recruiting, I am sure the B10 recruiters know that as well.
I understand the focus of getting all athletes the best chance to graduate. They discuss only Men's Basketball and Football, though. If this happens, the Big Ten will not get athletes that are ready to compete as freshmen - they will all go elsewhere.
If the B1G does that then they will be lower than a mid-major by 2020. No 4 star recruit would consider going to a school only to red shirt his first year, a 5 star recruit might as well play overseas over sitting out a year.
I have to agree. If the Big Ten goes this route, they won't get recruits as much as they'll get walk-ons. It's like their begging for transfers from other schools to make up their rosters. Freshmen come in with playing time egos anyway, if they are going to have to sit out a year, they'll get lazy and discouraged from wanting to compete for the school. I also don't see any other power conferences doing this, as it would be equivalent to what they already get with the one-and-dones.
They aren't really meaning this; it's a shot fired at the NBA to get them to change one-and-done.
What about an NHL-like policy where you can draft players but let them develop on a college team?
Quote from: LaPorteAveApostle on February 20, 2015, 07:33:13 PMWhat about an NHL-like policy where you can draft players but let them develop on a college team?
How in the world is the NCAA okay with this in hockey? Is that just happening in Canada? The NCAA has always kept themselves a long distance from anything having their athletes associated with professional sports. Associate with pros and you were out of the NCAA. Even just to hire an agent was taboo.
I think the NCAA allows it because the NHL teams get the player's draft rights, but don't have to sign the player drafted until after college eligibility ends. I see it often where a player gets drafted, but stays in school to keep playing/training, making NCAA hockey like a training center for the NHL prospects. Plus, the NHL wants the players to develop, not just come into the league ready, when there are so few roster spots available for a player that still needs some development, and not as much pressure to live up to a contract at 18 to 22 years old.
I wouldn't mind the NCAA's rules with hockey, but I think baseball rules would be even better, you draft high school talent but if you decide to go to college then you must play 3 years before you can be drafted again.
I don't think they're considering going from 4 years eligibility to 3. They're talking about 5 year scholarships instead of 4, with year-1 being an "academic redshirt" year. This is not new. The idea was first tossed around the BCS world probably 3 or 4 years ago. I would be surprised if they pull the trigger on it, but stranger things have happened I suppose. If they ever did, my guess is they would start with football where redshirting is already in regular use.
I still do not understand how the NBA can have a policy that essentially states, "you are a legal adult and someone would pay you for a job, but you cannot take it because you are only 18". It wouldn't hold for a software genius and thus it doesn't seem like it should for the NBA. Thus, I agree that the current baseball format would be the way to go. Players can get drafted out of high school and they get made offers to sign a contract with an NBA team. If the deal is not good enough, the player makes the decision to go to college and meet a commitment (2 or 3 years) and can then be drafted again.
I think that the required redshirt year idea is totally driven by football. If the big schools are signing guys and having them sit out a year, they don't want the next tier having any ability to offer immediate playing time. This is not driven by academic intent, it is a push for more power by the big football conferences/teams. The Big Ten only brings this up in the hopes that it gains traction as an NCAA rule for all D1 football programs.