Advertisement

Big Ten pens paper discussing idea of freshman ineligibility

Nick Bromberg
·College football and motorsports writer

The Big Ten isn't backing down from its stance that freshmen should be ineligible.

The league released a 12-page paper on Friday titled "Education First, Athletics Second: The Time for a National Discussion is Upon Us" that elaborated on a possible recommendation of potential freshman ineligibility for football and men's basketball players.

The league made sure to explicitly say that the idea was not a proposal. Rather it portrayed it as an examination of the current state of the main revenue-producing college sports. It cited the O'Bannon lawsuit and the efforts at Northwestern to unionize, two movements that highlighted the revenue and attention that athletes bring in to universities. It also called the NCAA a "house of cards" if education was not prioritized among athletes and cited data that said football and men's basketball were last in academic progress and graduation rate.

You can view the entire paper here.

Despite the good intentions, it must be acknowledged that a shortcoming of adopting a year of readiness in football and men’s basketball is that to do so would treat student-athletes in those sports differently than student-athletes in other sports. Notwithstanding the fact that there already are eligibility rules that treat football and men’s basketball student-athletes differently than student-athletes in other sports (9-hour rule in football; transfer restrictions in both sports), such an eventuality would have to be acknowledged when considering any idea for addressing the imbalance present in football and men’s basketball. At the same time, any shortcoming associated with maintaining the status quo must also be acknowledged. If we are comfortable that the current system is providing an adequate educational experience to student-athletes in football and men’s basketball at a level commensurate with what is being asked of them athletically, we should not change course. On the other hand, if maintaining the status quo presents a greater risk, then we should be open to changing course, even if it requires treating football and men’s basketball differently than other sports..

The "year of readiness," per the Big Ten's paper, would also give players the option of heading to the professional ranks immediately out of high school. While it certainly presents a solution for those who lament players going to college for a season and declaring for the NBA draft, it's not a feasible option for the NFL without a radical shakeup of the league's format. Few, if any, NFL teams would risk a roster spot on an 18-year-old kid if high schoolers were eligible for the NFL draft.

A year of readiness is responsive to the issues that are not purely academic in nature. First and foremost, requiring a year of readiness would make clear to prospects that they have a choice. On one hand, they would be free to pursue their sport as a vocation, where development in the sport is their primary—if not sole—objective. To the extent such avenues are limited in the sports of football and men’s basketball, it is the responsibility of the professional leagues in those sports to provide such opportunities. It is not the

responsibility of intercollegiate athletics to serve as professional minor leagues in any sport.

On the other hand, prospects would be free to choose intercollegiate athletics with the understanding that participation in athletics is incidental to a long-term educational commitment, not the primary purpose for attending college. Specifically, the year of readiness would allow student-athletes to have a year ofassimilation to campus life before worrying about competition and the pressures and scrutiny that would follow. Provided the year of readiness were accompanied by corresponding limitations on required>athletically related activities (e.g., no travel to away contests), it would provide an opportunity for these individuals to be students before being asked to compete.

The purpose of the paper was for a "national discussion," something the league also mentioned in February when the idea was first brought up. The paper is fairly self-aware and addresses criticisms of the idea while openly admitting the move to make freshmen eligible in 1972 was motivated by financial gain.

The motivations behind the initial move are why going back to the old system of freshman ineligibility is quite the long shot. You shouldn't expect to see Kentucky's basketball recruiting style drastically change or players like LSU RB Leonard Fournette have to sit out for a season anytime soon.

While the educational wellbeing of football and men's basketball athletes may truly be at the center of this letter, it's not hard to wonder if the only reason the topic is being discussed is because the NCAA's revenue-producing model is being challenged and open to change. Poor academic performance among athletes in the two sports isn't a brand-new development, and if academics are indeed a priority, this is likely just one of many proposals we'll see in the coming months and years to change the NCAA's current structure.

- - - - - - -

Nick Bromberg is the assistant editor of Dr. Saturday on Yahoo Sports. Have a tip? Email him at nickbromberg@yahoo.com or follow him on Twitter!