B12 coaches propose 3 year minimum stay for b-ball; 5 yrs. of eligibility for f-ball.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I like both of these ideas for collete football and basketball.

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/story/630553.html

Big 12 basketball coaches aren’t fans of one-and-done rule
By BLAIR KERKHOFF
The Kansas City Star
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. | One size fits all generally is the NCAA approach.

Everybody starts with four years of eligibility. Basic recruiting rules apply to all sports.

That thinking is starting to change, though.

The NCAA is creating a separate division within enforcement dedicated to men’s hoops. Three people in the 20-member department will become better versed in the sport’s problems, and it comes in the wake of the O.J. Mayo saga.

Mayo, the Southern California freshman star, allegedly accepted $30,000 in cash and gifts from an event promoter to acquire his representation rights. Big 12 coaches were decrying a system that has greatly benefited their conference at their annual spring meeting.

“You’ll see more and more of this because of the ‘one-and-done,’ rule,” Kansas State’s Frank Martin said.

How so? The 19-year-old minimum-age rule puts high school prospects in college for one year. The Big 12 has taken full advantage, with Texas’ Kevin Durant becoming the national player of the year in 2007, and Kansas State’s Michael Beasley becoming the Big 12’s player of the year for 2008.

Neither would have played in college under the two-year-old minimum-age rule.

Top high school prospects are potential targets for sleazy agents, and that connection could follow the athletes on campus and into the NCAA web of recruiting rules.

“It could make a mockery of college athletics,” Texas Tech coach Pat Knight said.

Big 12 coaches strongly support a three-year college stay before becoming eligible for professional basketball, and Martin supports eliminating the minimum-age rule.

“Make it like baseball,” Martin said. “An athlete can sign professionally out of high school, but if he comes to school, he becomes a student for three years.”

Knight said under those circumstances, college basketball would miss out on some of the top talent. But he’s not as concerned with those players.

“This wouldn’t be about the Beasleys and Durants,” Knight said. “It’s for the kids not as gifted, ones that don’t get drafted and are stuck without a degree and left bouncing around.”

Meanwhile, Big 12 football coaches agreed to move forward with an idea that would fundamentally change their sport — five years of eligibility.

Eliminating the redshirt year in football isn’t new. Former Nebraska athletic director Steve Pederson had studied the change, presented it to groups and found wide appeal among coaches. Resistance has been met on the administrative level, and the issue mostly has been a non-starter.

But Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe wants to push it forward. Beebe hopes the Big 12 can sponsor a plan to take before the NCAA.

“The argument against it is: If you do it for football, you have to do it for all other sports,” Beebe said. “But every sport is a little unique. Let’s address the issues that are unique to that sport and work with it. I think five years of football eligibility makes sense.”

Studies show the average time for a football player in college is 4.7 years.

“I’m for it,” Baylor athletic director Ian McCaw said. “There would be some issues to work out, but it’s an idea that’s worth considering.”

[Huckleberry]

Football eligibility is one thing, but the basketball issue is nothing but whining. Do they really think they're going to tell the NBA what to do? The NCAA has no control over what the NBA does, and public bitching by the Big 12 coaches doesn't seem like a good negotiation starting point if diplomacy is the tactic they're going to use.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Football eligibility is one thing, but the basketball issue is nothing but whining. Do they really think they're going to tell the NBA what to do? The NCAA has no control over what the NBA does, and public bitching by the Big 12 coaches doesn't seem like a good negotiation starting point if diplomacy is the tactic they're going to use.

I think the very public problems with Mayo, Beasley, and Bill Walker are going to bring about some changes. Those situations have highlighted just how far the NCAA has allowed the schools to push the rules. The NCAA has to make a stand at some point to avoid becoming irrelavant from a rules standpoint.

[Eaglesfan27]

I think at most the NBA may decide to push back their limits a year. But with the success of so many young stars, I think colleges are dreaming if they think they are going to successfully demand that the NBA force players to remain in college for 3 years.

[Young Drachma]

I'll support this once coaches are forced to honour their contracts and scholarships become guaranteed. And no, I don't have a problem with the free market at all. This is self-serving crap to allow them to milk free labour for the benefit of their coffers.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I think the very public problems with Mayo, Beasley, and Bill Walker are going to bring about some changes. Those situations have highlighted just how far the NCAA has allowed the schools to push the rules. The NCAA has to make a stand at some point to avoid becoming irrelevant from a rules standpoint.

The problem (well one of many) with the NCAA is that they are willing to punish schools harshly, if and only if, they aren't a spotlight school. I don't remember the exact details, mainly because I was still young, but I'm sure the stuff that got SMU the death penalty back in the 80s is no worse than some of the stuff that is going on today.

Problem is that the NCAA doesn't have the balls to punish these schools because they (the NCAA) are making too much money. Hence one of the reasons we don't have a football playoff.

I asked Myles Brand in a podcast last year about the procedure they follow when investigating a team they feel did something wrong. This was all around the time the Reggie Bush stuff came out. The process is way too slow, and the NCAA drags its feet when investigating which allows those under the gun time to cover up and us the fans, time to forget what has happened.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

I think at most the NBA may decide to push back their limits a year. But with the success of so many young stars, I think colleges are dreaming if they think they are going to successfully demand that the NBA force players to remain in college for 3 years.

It would be no different than the current setup in NCAA baseball. Either go directly to the pros or hang around for 3 years. I also believe that the number of kids who aren't pro prospects who suddenly would be 1st round material by the end of their second year in school would be VERY small.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It would be no different than the current setup in NCAA baseball. Either go directly to the pros or hang around for 3 years. I also believe that the number of kids who aren't pro prospects who suddenly would be 1st round material by the end of their second year in school would be VERY small.

I know it wouldn't be any different, but didn't the NCAA get MLB's cooperation with that agreement?

I don't see them getting the same level of cooperation from the NBA which views this issue as a "college problem." Read McHale's recent comments about Mayo and that seems to capture the feel of a lot of NBA execs.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

I know it wouldn't be any different, but didn't the NCAA get MLB's cooperation with that agreement?

I don't see them getting the same level of cooperation from the NBA which views this issue as a "college problem." Read McHale's recent comments about Mayo and that seems to capture the feel of a lot of NBA execs.

I definitely agree with the 'college problem'. As I mentioned in a previous post, the NCAA has really let the institutions get away with highway robbery of late. These same coaches who are calling for change are the ones who are also bending (or breaking) every rule in the NCAA rulebook because the rewards for cheating are much greater than the punishments for breaking those rules.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

Read McHale's recent comments about Mayo and that seems to capture the feel of a lot of NBA execs.

I would not put too much importance on that.
He is just doing the prep pr work so he can draft him without getting killed in the media.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by Surtt

I would not put too much importance on that.
He is just doing the prep pr work so he can draft him without getting killed in the media.

I know that, but I also think it is indicative of the general feeling about the NBA on this issue. The NCAA violations didn't hurt the NBA careers of Webber, Rose, etc and it seems from Stern's previous statements (and non-statements) that this isn't high on his list if it is on it at all.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I'll support this once coaches are forced to honour their contracts and scholarships become guaranteed. And no, I don't have a problem with the free market at all. This is self-serving crap to allow them to milk free labour for the benefit of their coffers.

Yup - and the "fans" like Mizzou-B-ball seem to think its okay to force atheletes into this kind of thing. Its BS of the highest order. Hell, I'll support it once players get the income commiserate with their efforts.

[stevew]

I wouldn't mind if they switched to a 0 or 3 split. They would have to expand the roster sizes though. Maybe give each NBA team 2 roster exceptions that they can use for players <21 so that they can stash a couple young dudes in the DLeague.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Utter horsebleep.

Don't want to deal with one-and-done's? Don't sign 'em.

And five year eligibility for football only is just laughable. "Screw everybody else, we want rules just for us so we can make our jobs easier, we need another 15-20 players every season." The problem isn't how little time football players get to play, it's how long it takes students to finish college which is an institutional issue not an athletic one, but I see no reason to allow coaches to take advantage of it. As a group college football coaches seem to get a little scummier every day.

[st.cronin]

Isn't the 3 year proposal a little bit like Mexico proposing changes to US immigration policy?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Isn't the 3 year proposal a little bit like Mexico proposing changes to US immigration policy?

More like Massachusetts legalizing gay marriage in an attempt to convince the federal government to adopt a similar law, by feigning the idea that there is support for a measure in the higher ed community.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Isn't the 3 year proposal a little bit like Mexico proposing changes to US immigration policy?

More like Massachusetts legalizing gay marriage in an attempt to convince the federal government to adopt a similar law, by feigning the idea that there is support for a measure in the higher ed community.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Utter horsebleep.

Don't want to deal with one-and-done's? Don't sign 'em.

And five year eligibility for football only is just laughable. "Screw everybody else, we want rules just for us so we can make our jobs easier, we need another 15-20 players every season." The problem isn't how little time football players get to play, it's how long it takes students to finish college which is an institutional issue not an athletic one, but I see no reason to allow coaches to take advantage of it. As a group college football coaches seem to get a little scummier every day.

We have a winner.

[Groundhog]

If nothing else, this should make the European basketball leagues very happy.

[Sgran]

Under the current system, the Michael Beaslys attend one semester of classes. Can you remember how much you studied during your first semester of college? I pulled 2 Bs and 2 Cs in intro level classes, and I knew that I would be there 4 years. The current system is a farce, so anything else would be an upgrade. The 0 or 3 rule isn't perfect, but it would be an improvement, because the studnet-athletes would at least have to make grades to be eligible. The problem is that the NBA would be back where it started. Personally I say that there should be no restrictions, but we should remember that the players union agreed to this provision, so there's basically noone but NBA fans in favor of allowing preps-to-pros. What really needs to happen is a serious minor league system, which might be happening with the D-league.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Utter horsebleep.

Don't want to deal with one-and-done's? Don't sign 'em.

And five year eligibility for football only is just laughable. "Screw everybody else, we want rules just for us so we can make our jobs easier, we need another 15-20 players every season." The problem isn't how little time football players get to play, it's how long it takes students to finish college which is an institutional issue not an athletic one, but I see no reason to allow coaches to take advantage of it. As a group college football coaches seem to get a little scummier every day.

First, there's no increase in the number of football scholarships available. You don't get 15-20 players extra. It's really not going to affect the game at nearly the level you imply. Most of those players aren't going to play their first year whether their redshirted or not. It also gets rid of the silly 'medical redshirt' rules where some kids only play a game or two and are awarded another year, while other kids in similar situations are not.

In regards to graduation time periods, your comments don't seem to mesh with the actual statistics. You're using an inaccurate stereotype that doesn't match reality. Overall, NCAA Division I athletes have a higher graduation percentage and a lower drop-out rate than the overall student bodies. If anything, college athletes perform better than the average student.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

In regards to graduation time periods, your comments don't seem to mesh with the actual statistics. You're using an inaccurate stereotype that doesn't match reality. Overall, NCAA Division I athletes have a higher graduation percentage and a lower drop-out rate than the overall student bodies. If anything, college athletes perform better than the average student.

Not only is that true but since athletes stay at the campus all year round (the majority) they take classes in the summer and graduate earlier. Which prompts them to go for advanced degrees.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

First, there's no increase in the number of football scholarships available. You don't get 15-20 players extra.

Bzzzzt. Wrong.

You have access to additional players for an additional season, whatever number that would have been redshirted. Even the most creative math doesn't change that. But speaking of scholarships, since they want five years per player with no redshirts taking up scholarships while they're unavailable for action, it does seem like a reduction in scholarships might be in order if this foolishness were ever actually implemented.

In regards to graduation time periods, your comments don't seem to mesh with the actual statistics. You're using an inaccurate stereotype that doesn't match reality. Overall, NCAA Division I athletes have a higher graduation percentage and a lower drop-out rate than the overall student bodies. If anything, college athletes perform better than the average student.

Bzzt. You're 0-for-2. I was referrring to the figure cited in the original story (4.7 yrs IIRC). Nowhere did I say, or even imply, the problem of extended time for graduation was limited to football players or college athletes. I even referred to it as an institutional problem, not an athletic one, so I really don't know how you managed to misinterpret it.

I've seen absolutely nothing even remotely compelling the sort of change they suggest, leaving this to be nothing more than whining from some coaches looking to make their lives a little easier. And just FTR, in this case it happens to be the B12, but I'd say the same thing if it were coming from Paul Johnson at GT, Fat Phil at UT, or anybody else wearing a whistle & bad polyester pants.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Bzzzzt. Wrong.

You have access to additional players for an additional season, whatever number that would have been redshirted. Even the most creative math doesn't change that. But speaking of scholarships, since they want five years per player with no redshirts taking up scholarships while they're unavailable for action, it does seem like a reduction in scholarships might be in order if this foolishness were ever actually implemented.

Bzzt. You're 0-for-2. I was referrring to the figure cited in the original story (4.7 yrs IIRC). Nowhere did I say, or even imply, the problem of extended time for graduation was limited to football players or college athletes. I even referred to it as an institutional problem, not an athletic one, so I really don't know how you managed to misinterpret it.

I've seen absolutely nothing even remotely compelling the sort of change they suggest, leaving this to be nothing more than whining from some coaches looking to make their lives a little easier. And just FTR, in this case it happens to be the B12, but I'd say the same thing if it were coming from Paul Johnson at GT, Fat Phil at UT, or anybody else wearing a whistle & bad polyester pants.

We're just going to agree to disagree then. Neither of those were 'wrong' as you state. The players are still likely to only play around 3 years at the most. Players who manage to play 5 years will be ridiculously rare. Injuries and general development curves will keep that to a minimum.

As far as graduation goes, if it's not an athletic problem, it doesn't belong in this discussion. Many institutions have players that get both their bachelor and masters' degrees in the 5 year window that they are at the university. Kudos to them for taking advantage of the opportunity presented to them. Players aren't taking 4.7 years to complete their degree. If anything, it's helping these students reach an advanced level of education.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Players aren't taking 4.7 years to complete their degree.

Studies show the average time for a football player in college is 4.7 years.

While it's certainly true that some complete advanced course work in addition to their degree, there's also about 1 in 3 who don't graduate at all.

Given that, I'd be amazed if it didn't average out to around a bachelor's degree worth of credits at most, which seems likely to average things out to 4.7 years for a 4 year degree.

As for the extra players issue, whether the coach uses them falls under "Coach's Decision" ... but there are still extra players available each season under this proposal. How anybody can try to deny that boggles my mind.

[st.cronin]

College football needs fewer players, not more.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

While it's certainly true that some complete advanced course work in addition to their degree, there's also about 1 in 3 who don't graduate at all.

Given that, I'd be amazed if it didn't average out to around a bachelor's degree worth of credits at most, which seems likely to average things out to 4.7 years for a 4 year degree.

As for the extra players issue, whether the coach uses them falls under "Coach's Decision" ... but there are still extra players available each season under this proposal. How anybody can try to deny that boggles my mind.

As far as your point about degrees, the facts that I presented show a much different picture, but if you have some info about how it averages out to around a bachelor's degree at most, feel free to post it. Certainly, not all players graduate, but the number is smaller amongst athletes than the general student population, so that weighs in as a positive rather than a negative.

I haven't seen anyone deny that more players are available, but as I mentioned before, injuries and the fact that most freshman aren't ready to play as a true freshman push the actual number of game-ready players to a lower level. It's a very negligable difference.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

While it's certainly true that some complete advanced course work in addition to their degree, there's also about 1 in 3 who don't graduate at all.

Given that, I'd be amazed if it didn't average out to around a bachelor's degree worth of credits at most, which seems likely to average things out to 4.7 years for a 4 year degree.

As for the extra players issue, whether the coach uses them falls under "Coach's Decision" ... but there are still extra players available each season under this proposal. How anybody can try to deny that boggles my mind.

If you want to count the 1 in 3 who as athletes don't graduate, you should also count the endless amount of (non-athlete) students who go to school for a semester or two and drop out. When giving graduation rates, athletic departments are forced to report everyone who started out, even if they left after a semester or two or left early to go pro. So if you want to compare apples to apples you have to do that for the general student population too.

[TroyF]

This is one of the most asinine proposals I've seen in a long time.

B12 coaches need to stop with making policy and worry about coaching.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by bsak16

If you want to count the 1 in 3 who as athletes don't graduate, you should also count the endless amount of (non-athlete) students who go to school for a semester or two and drop out. When giving graduation rates, athletic departments are forced to report everyone who started out, even if they left after a semester or two or left early to go pro. So if you want to compare apples to apples you have to do that for the general student population too.

Except that they really aren't relevant to the matter at hand.

The figured stated in the article was 4.7 years in college for the average football player.

That doesn't break down whether they got their degree or worked on an advanced degree beyond their first or if they simply graduated with a degree.
Some vague claim about the existence of players that go beyond their bachelor's degree -- which I readily agreed exist -- doesn't constitute any sort of proof that they outweigh the number of players who don't graduate at all. My contention is that there are at least as many who leave without a degree in D1 as there are who study past their initial degree ... essentially meaning they balance each other out ... leaving us with 4.7 years for what was traditionally referred to as "a four year degree". And whose to say that the average wouldn't go even higher if this foolishness were to ever come to pass? Hell, a free ride, play football, avoid reality for another year ... you could bet your ass the time spent on campus would go up.

What the coaches seem to be saying is "they're here anyway, so let 'em play the whole time". And my response is that just because it takes longer for players to complete their degree doesn't mean they should have additional eligibility.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

My contention is that there are at least as many who leave without a degree in D1 as there are who study past their initial degree ... essentially meaning they balance each other out ... leaving us with 4.7 years for what was traditionally referred to as "a four year degree".

Of course, you're totally ignoring the fact that players are often there because they redshirt for a year, not because they're needing that extra year to graduate. The 4.7 year figure is a measure of how many years they are at the institution, not how long it takes the average player to get his degree. You're stating that the 4.7 year number is the average graduation time and that's not even accurate.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Of course, you're totally ignoring the fact that players are often there because they redshirt for a year, not because they're needing that extra year to graduate. The 4.7 year figure is a measure of how many years they are at the institution, not how long it takes the average player to get his degree. You're stating that the 4.7 year number is the average graduation time and that's not even accurate.

But the difference is that I'm erring on the side of giving them the benefit of the doubt. If 30% don't graduate at all then that leaves 70% to earn a degree. The average time on campus for a football player is 4.7 years.

If that's the average then (given the existing time limit on being a football player) the majority, i.e. those 70% who earn a degree of some type at some point, seems nearly certain to cluster around the average. The low end (non degrees) is taken care of, the high end has a cap that leaves the middle for most.

Look, if you honestly believe that most D1 football players -- or even a number equal to those who do not complete a degree at all -- graduate in less 4 years or & then move on to higher course work in their remaining time, more power to you I guess. I think that would indicate you're delusional, but that's your deal not mine.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Look, if you honestly believe that most D1 football players attending the University of Georgia -- or even a number equal to those who do not complete a degree at all -- graduate in less 4 years or & then move on to higher course work in their remaining time, more power to you I guess. I think that would indicate you're delusional, but that's your deal not mine.

Fixed.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Fixed.

Umm ... you think I'm going to dispute that one?
(waits for MBbf to remember where my loyalties are & which school I have the most hatred for)

[Logan]

I bet you wish Reggie Ball played for Georgia.