Busting Brackets
Fansided

Freshman Ineligibility: Why not, Big Ten Conference? Why not?

By Daniel Tran

facebooktwitterreddit

Once upon a time up until 1972, the Big Ten Conference, like all of college basketball, ruled freshman players ineligible to play in NCAA games, but it may be what NCAA basketball needs right now.

The student athlete; a term that has caused much consternation and debate among coaches, administrators, athletic directors as to what it exactly means. The powers that be insist that the young men and women who are given athletic scholarships to attend educational institutions are students first and athletes second, but the actions of the NCAA administration have given nothing but mixed signals.

More from Big Ten

Just look at some of the dealings that the NCAA has had with its student athletes: up until this year, there was little to no movement on guaranteed four-year scholarships; other than the money that was being paid towards tuition, the athletes were getting no money towards living costs even though the athletes in the biggest sports were generating gobs of money for the university; and with travel and the latest “paper class” controversy at the University of North Carolina, education seems to be a lower priority than winning.

It seems the NCAA cannot make up their minds on whether their athletes should be primarily students or cash cows that bring in exposure and donors. Their actions have screamed that they only care about the latter, but the Big Ten Conference has publicly put forth a discussion that may change the NCAA’s money-grubbing reputation.

The Big Ten Conference has reached out to the schools that currently reside in their jurisdiction about making freshman athletes ineligible to compete while they adjust to college life and get a full year of education without the pressure and distraction of full-time athletics. This discussion has been limited to the athletes that will play football or basketball as their primary sports.

Obviously, this move affects basketball exponentially more than football because football players are still required to stay in school at least three years before considering leaving to join the NFL. Basketball, on the other hand, has athletes that can leave after just one year of college experience to try their hand at the NBA, basically forcing them to stay two years before making the jump to the pros.

A lot of analysts and experts have been asking “why.” Not a lot of them have been asking “why not.”

Is it really so bad to put the emphasis back on the “student” in student athlete and have it not be an empty gesture from the NCAA? Would requiring those athletes to concentrate on their studies for a year and building legitimate connections not limited to their sport really all that evil?

Yes, the freshman sensations that have been dubbed one-and-doners have been entertaining and great for the exposure of college basketball with their high-flying dunks and overall impressive play. However, the question remains: at what cost?

The education that these kids desperately need is not being properly provided to them because the emphasis is incorrectly put on wins and losses instead of A’s and F’s. What will happen when their bodies fail them after ten years and they do not have the education to provide a comfortable life after their athletic days are over?

Business Insider did an unofficial study on the odds of becoming an NBA player and found that there are an estimated 17,500 college basketball players. Of that massive number, only 48 will be drafted in the NBA, resulting in 1.2 percent of those athletes cracking a professional roster in the United States. With odds that low, it would be nice to have a back up plan just in case it turns out that you are not an NBA-caliber player.

Currently, college basketball players are asked to carry a full-time student workload (class, homework, etc.), while also handling a full-time athletic workload of practices, long road trips away from the university, and the pressures of game day. It is not hard imagining that since they were brought to the university for the athletic ability (and can lose their scholarship if they do not perform well) that they would take the easy way out in terms of concentrating on their education.

The University of North Carolina was rocked with an academic scandal where it was found that basically fake classes were made so that athletes could submit a paper and get any grade they needed in order to meet the minimum GPA requirement. Fake classes and fake grades that assured they got on the court, but did not assure that they would be better prepared for the critical thinking skills needed to succeed after sports.

At least if they were required to wait a year to play in their sport and given ample time to acclimate themselves with legitimate academia, there would be a greater chance that they have a year of actual education to build on and draw from if they decide to leave after a year.

NBA Commissioner Adam Silver has been adamant about raising the minimum draft age to 20 in order for the NBA to protect their teams from making huge mistakes on young, unproven talent. If Silver has his way, college players will be looking at two years at the collegiate level anyway. Instead of risking injury needlessly, preparing their bodies for the rigors of NCAA competition while concentrating on the free education that they have been given is a great alternative.

Fans will miss out on seeing the best athletes initially, but with a year of strength training and learning the game, the product will overall be better in the long run. Financially, the colleges may take a hit financially because they have their prized recruits sitting for the first couple years under a new rule, but once the ball gets rolling and those freshman turn into sophomores and return to the court, it will be business as usual in terms of revenue.

The NCAA has been perplexing in what the student athlete actually means. At least with the latest push for a discussion by the Big Ten Conference for freshman ineligibility, it shows that someone is willing to try for legislation that will actually benefit athletes on the education side rather than strictly using them to bring in money for the universities.

In a world where the NCAA is looked at that the big, bad profit hunting machine, skeptical commissioners and athletic directors should be thinking the exact same thing: why not?

Next: Big Ten And Their Massive Mistake Of The Readiness Rule

More from Busting Brackets

Home/Big Ten