Starting to be some discussion on freshman eligibility from several sources. Jim Delaney seems to be suggesting a revised version of Prop 48. http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9506460/big-ten-commisioner-jim-delany-pitches-ncaa-reform-plan http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25067832/freshman-ineligibility-ncaa-conference-commissioners-at-least-considering-it I can't imagine going back to no freshmen being eligible, first off it would cut the varsity to less than 65 players. Hello single platoon football. Also if you have a freshmen team that means more coaches and in the past they played a shortened schedule which means travel expenses. I'm not sure why they eliminated Prop 48 to tell you the truth, on the surface tt doesn't seem like a bad idea to bring in kids who were academic risks and give them a chance. Tony Rice was a Prop 48 kid. But I'm sure there were abuses and maybe these kids are truly better off doing a year or 2 in Jr. College and then moving up to Dvi1. Basketball is the one that really frosts me, and the new commish isn't going to help by raising the bar for NBA entry. I wish they would have the 3 year rule like baseball and football. That would be great. As it is a kid just has to do the bare min to stay eligible as freshman and really if he's a kid like the Okafor kid at Duke he doesn't have to even show up for classes or finals after the NCAA tourney is over.
I'm pro Prop 48 and I would be for taking away freshman playing time if it didn't mean to incredible increases in costs that Doc mentioned, as well as the matching dollars that will have to be spent on women's sports. At the same time, if we're really doing college athletics, I don't think it's a bad idea to let these kids get acclimated to college and do a bit of growing up. Our current model is not sustainable if your goal is actually educating and growing young men/women. in my opinion, at least.
No way I am in favor of freshmen not being eligible to play. Like Terry said that would cut down the eligible players for game day and would lead to increasing scholarships or in the worst case single platoon football. I am not in favor of either. I do see Corey's point about Prop 48 but going the Junior College route is a viable solution, and it keeps incentive out there for players to make themselves eligible.
I have a major problem with JUCO transfers, actually. I'd like to see JUCO transfers sit a year as well.. If you're going to a 4 year school, your first year there is spent being a student and getting acclimated... or at least it should be. I read reports about Cam Newton coming back to take classes and work on his degree, but I seriously doubt he ever attended class while he played at Auburn. He transferred in and was gone to the NFL before grades came out. Then again, you can't really legislate your way past all corruption. Folks will still find a way despite your best intentions.
I agree with you Corey about JUCO transfers. As I recall, Chad Johnson was a JUCO transfer at Oregon St. He played on season there and left school for the NFL immediately after their bowl game with ND. He never spent 1 minute in a class at the school.
You really have to wonder how much longer the NCAA can continue the concept of the "student athlete". It is becoming more and more difficult to accept the premise.
That's really the thing. You may find it hard to believe, but I do favor a stronger grip on the student-athlete by the NCAA. I want them to treat these kids as students first. That's something they've slowly gotten away from over the past 50 years until we've reached the point where we are now in which these guys really are semi-pro players who happen to go to class at your favorite school. I'd love to see the emphasis on academics back where it belongs. Which is why you often see my counterpoint, in that if we're not going to make them be students, why continue the charade?