Freshmen Ineligibility Potentially Returning?

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoot...t-considering-

Basically to stop the one-and-dones in college basketball. I guess that would make every freshman use their redshirt that year.

Also, did anyone realize that starting in 2016 they are bringing back a version of the "partial qualifier" rule? From the article above:

"Academic redshirt years are already coming for college athletes who enroll in 2016, when initial eligibility standards increase. The NCAA's required minimum high school GPA is going to increase from 2.0 to 2.3, and high school athletes will be required to complete 10 of their 16 required core courses before their senior year of high school.

Players who meet the old academic standards -- but not the new ones -- can receive an academic redshirt. It's a new version of the old partial qualifier with one important exception -- the player does not lose a year of eligibility. Academic redshirts can receive a scholarship and practice with their teams but cannot compete. If they pass nine credit hours in their first semester, they can compete the next season as a redshirt freshman."

The NCAA should use the baseball model for college basketball. You should be able to go straight to the NBA (or D-league) from high school, but if you choose the college route, you can't turn pro for at least 3 years. It would eliminate the one-and-done model, get rid of the players who have zero desire to ever be a student, and would force those choosing the college route to actually become college students.

Do they really need to do this for the 10 basketball players a year that are one and done?

I guess if all frosh had to redshirt, you could easily see upwards of 30 of the top players every year just going juco or the D-League route.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DCwarrior

The NCAA should use the baseball model for college basketball. You should be able to go straight to the NBA (or D-league) from high school, but if you choose the college route, you can't turn pro for at least 3 years. It would eliminate the one-and-done model, get rid of the players who have zero desire to ever be a student, and would force those choosing the college route to actually become college students.

---

The problem is that those aren't the NCAA's rules. They are MLB's eligibility rules. MLB can draft a player out of high school, but if they don't sign and head off to a four year school, they are no longer eligible to be drafted until they complete at least their junior year and are 21 years old. If MLB decided to change this to sophomore year and 20 years old, the NCAA couldn't stop players from leaving.

The NBA would have to be a party to that rule change for this to occur, and they have shown no inclination to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goose85

Do they really need to do this for the 10 basketball players a year that are one and done?

I guess if all frosh had to redshirt, you could easily see upwards of 30 of the top players every year just going juco or the D-League route.

---

I think what the NCAA is doing is trying to force the NBA's hand. The NBA likes the "one and done" rule because they can see how players perform against better competition and coaching environments. They don't want to go back to high school eligibility where they have to go to high schools and AAU teams to scout players.

The NCAA wants them to lift it up to "two and done" and I think they are using freshman eligibility as a threat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DCwarrior

The NCAA should use the baseball model for college basketball. You should be able to go straight to the NBA (or D-league) from high school, but if you choose the college route, you can't turn pro for at least 3 years. It would eliminate the one-and-done model, get rid of the players who have zero desire to ever be a student, and would force those choosing the college route to actually become college students.

---

Completely agree. Many highly rated recruits coming out of high school feel the pressure to be in the NBA sooner rather than later (expectations from family, friends, people in the community, etc). As we have seen through the years, if these players do not develop as quickly as expected, they come out early anyway because that has always been the plan. This new rule would allow the Kobe Bryants, LeBron James and Kevin Garnetts that are truly special to start playing in the NBA right away, but prevent the multitude of guys not ready to look back and wish they had stayed in college.

Those noises you hear in the background are hound dogs in Kentucky wailing at the news. One-and-dones are not helpful to college ball in general. Great for someone like Calipari, but not for schools. Take the latest FF he had to give up. Derrick Rose, who saved Memphis and Cal a fair amount of grief by not hitting free-throws since they did not have to give back a national championship, had to cheat his way into a bad school, stay eligible for one semester, and split. So it is for all the OADs at Kentucky now. There is no incentive for players to even be on campus the second semester. We have all seen players, and good students, effectively quit school their final semester so that they can prepare for the draft. I do not see it happening. Too many schools would not like it. But I agree with the analysis that the idea is to put some pressure on the NBA.

The NBA is supportive of upping it to two years - it's the player's association that is against adding another year - they would have it right out of high school again if given the chance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaribouJim

The NBA is supportive of upping it to two years - it's the player's association that is against adding another year - they would have it right out of high school again if given the chance.

---

I don't understand why the players association (at least the players themselves) would be against upping it to 2 or 3 years. They should be all about protecting the rights and increasing the longevity of players currently in the league, not those who may play in the league in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DCwarrior

I don't understand why the players association (at least the players themselves) would be against upping it to 2 or 3 years. They should be all about protecting the rights and increasing the longevity of players currently in the league, not those who may play in the league in the future.

---

Yes and no. They do have to look out for players who are going to be in the league very shortly. And changing the rules will not have a great effect on current players anyway. Yes, some might get beaten out for a roster spot by someone coming into the league a year or two earlier, but those are few. The players association wants to look out for players, present and future, and that means trying to get as much money out there as possible. There is a big incentive for players to get into the league as early as possible. Whenever a player leaves early, some of the fans complain. It is not fair to the school that recruited him and gave him a chance! We heard some of that when Wade left. Now take your typical NBA player. I do not know what the average career is, but let's say ten years, which might be about right. It is at any rate the longest most players can hope to play. Players' salaries are set and restricted for the first three years, which is why Jimmy Butler is just now looking for a big payday, and was not two years ago. Wesley Matthews OTOH benefited from not being drafted. He was not on a three-year contract, and could sign with whoever he wanted for whatever he could get. So players want to get past that first contract as quickly as they can.

Now figure that the years they are going to lose are not the ones at the beginning of their contract, but the ones at the end. Of course, if a player starts later, his body does not take quite the toll, but age does take its toll, so if a player has to sit out an extra two years before he can start playing, he is probably losing at least one year in the league. And that is a year off his last contract, when minimums go up, when veterans who are nearing retirement are getting overpaid based on past performance, etc. Not always the case. For some players, their last year will be the league minimum as they hang around for another season. But even then, it is the veteran minimum, a lot more than the rookie minimum. So assuming that average career of ten years, a player is looking at perhaps losing ten or twenty percent of his prime earning years. And again, he is probably looking at losing it from the high end of those years. For somebody like DWade or Lebron or Kobe, you have to wonder if it makes much difference. It's Monopoly money. How high can you count? But not necessarily for the guy who does not turn out to be a star, but is good enough to stick around.

The league really pushed for the one-year rule. Too many high school kids turned out to be complete busts. For every Lebron or Kobe, you had the kid who went to Dallas and was bought out before the season started. Lots of kids who got big three year contracts, but did not pan out. the league would love to push that back another year. I do not think the players necessarily do. And besides, it is one more thing for the players to fight about. Another bargaining chip.