Forgive me if it was already posted. Just saw on ESPN this morning:

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/12349646/big-ten-considering-ineligibility-freshmen

I guess all the conferences are mulling it over in one form or another. But if only one did then it'd have to be bad for recruiting, right? I just have a hard time relating to people that struggle with their freshmen year of college. Introductory courses like psych, sociology, English, etc. are designed to be simple and not overwhelming to students new to college. Most division one athletes have to be use to balancing intense regiments of training, practice, competition along with academics before they ever step foot on campus for the first time.

There is no way only one or two conferences do it. It'd fail and they'd have no kids. You do that and have a team with 4-6 seniors then tell them they can't play freshman, and they'd be screwed. This idea doesn't even make any sense. I'd rather them go back to not having to even go to college than pull this crap. How does this help the athlete? Having him only be able to practice for a year. What incintive is there for the kid? This idea is stupid.

Seems stupid to me. If they need the first year to adjust then redshirt them like a lot of kids do. This would have to be all conferences or none because any conference that would do it otherwise is just committing recruiting suicide. Honestly can't believe this is even a thought commissioners are having.

Yeah because a kid like Lebron really needs to just practice for a year. This is another stupid idea.

Dumb.

Hopefully they are only talking basketball because it would not work in all sports.

Uz2Bon36;1706855 wrote:Hopefully they are only talking basketball because it would not work in all sports.

basketball and football

I first read this early in the week and it was about the SEC wanting to do this.

It will have to be everyone, or it will not work one bit.
Remember...back in the day FROSH were initially ineligible to play in some sports. I think it is a dumb idea nowadays though as the kids are much more ready to play as frosh now then 40 years ago.

Won't happen.

friendfromlowry;1706795 wrote:Forgive me if it was already posted. Just saw on ESPN this morning:

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/12349646/big-ten-considering-ineligibility-freshmen

I guess all the conferences are mulling it over in one form or another. But if only one did then it'd have to be bad for recruiting, right? I just have a hard time relating to people that struggle with their freshmen year of college. Introductory courses like psych, sociology, English, etc. are designed to be simple and not overwhelming to students new to college. Most division one athletes have to be use to balancing intense regiments of training, practice, competition along with academics before they ever step foot on campus for the first time.

The problem isn't the kid coming from private-school education.
The problem is the kid coming from inner-city schools that never took college prep classes and thus aren't prepared.

I'd have to wager/guess that most of the kids playing major D1 sports aren't kids coming from college-prep schools; they're kids coming from inner-city schools lacking the college prep courses. Thus why there's so many college students (especially student-athletes) that are lagging behind in the "freshman year of college" acclamation.

Sure, for most of us, college intro courses like psych, sociology, English, etc. were a cake walk. But that's because we were taking harder courses in h.s. our Jr and Sr years. But that's not the case for plenty of 1st year college students, who were probably taking courses in h.s. that were equivalent to junior high for others.

This isn't to say that it was, or is, this way for ALL inner-city schools... but I think it's a fair assertion to say that it's more probable than not.

This idea is stupid and I doubt it ever happens.

Terry_Tate;1706798 wrote:Seems stupid to me. If they need the first year to adjust then redshirt them like a lot of kids do. This would have to be all conferences or none because any conference that would do it otherwise is just committing recruiting suicide. Honestly can't believe this is even a thought commissioners are having.

This.

Terrible idea! Can't think of one positive for this. Won't happen!

As stupid as this rule sounds to everyone, this used to be an NCAA rule. The NCAA lifted the freshman rule in the early 70's. However, based on an article I read recently, if the new academic guidelines that will be in use for 2016 were used this past year, over 40% of all major college freshman football players would have been ineligible, so there will likely be fewer freshman able to play even without this rule.

Delaney should be forced to step down for even entertaining the thought.

Ow! My Balls!;1706929 wrote:As stupid as this rule sounds to everyone, this used to be an NCAA rule. The NCAA lifted the freshman rule in the early 70's. However, based on an article I read recently, if the new academic guidelines that will be in use for 2016 were used this past year, over 40% of all major college freshman football players would have been ineligible, so there will likely be fewer freshman able to play even without this rule.

In the case of football, several schools have games before classes even start, and they play their seasons (except bowl games and playoff) before the end of the semester. What are the guidelines that would make them ineligible?

Scarlet_Buckeye;1706868 wrote:The problem isn't the kid coming from private-school education.
The problem is the kid coming from inner-city schools that never took college prep classes and thus aren't prepared.

I'd have to wager/guess that most of the kids playing major D1 sports aren't kids coming from college-prep schools; they're kids coming from inner-city schools lacking the college prep courses. Thus why there's so many college students (especially student-athletes) that are lagging behind in the "freshman year of college" acclamation.

Sure, for most of us, college intro courses like psych, sociology, English, etc. were a cake walk. But that's because we were taking harder courses in h.s. our Jr and Sr years. But that's not the case for plenty of 1st year college students, who were probably taking courses in h.s. that were equivalent to junior high for others.

This isn't to say that it was, or is, this way for ALL inner-city schools... but I think it's a fair assertion to say that it's more probable than not.

http://professionals.collegeboard.com/guidance/prepare/athletes/ncaa

If they're taking junior high equivalent courses, they probably aren't qualifying for college in the first place.

They have this thing called a redshirt. Not sure why the Big Ten (or any conference) has to hold a kid's hand. The Big Ten would be out of their fucking minds if they did this alone.

What problem are they trying to solve? That's what I dont understand.

"A year of readiness". Give me a fucking break. There's already 4 years of readiness. It's called high school.

Ridiculous idea to punish everyone to pander to the dumbasses who can't cut it.

There's no way they do this. I doubt we'd even hear about it if not for that Maryland student paper finding a copy

In basketball, kids just wouldn't go to college. They would seek out overseas opportunities or just spend a year training.

SportsAndLady;1706961 wrote:There's no way they do this. I doubt we'd even hear about it if not for that Maryland student paper finding a copy

I saw an article a week or two ago about the Pac 12 talking about the same thing, so the premise has been out there already.

se-alum;1706963 wrote:I saw an article a week or two ago about the Pac 12 talking about the same thing, so the premise has been out there already.

Link?

No one is actually serious about this.

I want to hear Kareem's thoughts.

Not really, just an all-around bad idea