I hate Jim Delany--Freshman ineligibilty edition
I hate Jim Delany. I've always hated him. I've never thought he was a very good conference commissioner. And while I can't deny that he seems to have tapped into a gold-mine (at least for now) with the Big Ten network, I even hate that it led to the Big Ten taking crap programs like Rutgers into the fold.
Now he is at the forefront of the movement to reinstate freshman ineligibility in college athletics, or at least football and basketball. I personally think this is ridiculous. These kids have been playing sports competitively for YEARS and now we are going to arbitrarily say that they can't handle playing them during their first year of college? That it is just too tough for them to adjust?
Look, I know college is tough and that big time college sports are even tougher, but that is what the redshirt is there for. Making it MANDATORY is ridiculous. The mechanism is in place for kids that need an adjustment period. Forcing every kid to sit out for a year just because a bunch of old men arbitrarily think that all kids can't possibly handle it is silly Coaches are still going to make the kids practice with the team, which means they are still going to be spending tons of time on team related activities. All Delany's stupid ban will do is make sure they dont get to actually play in any games. So yeah, it will save them from travel time, which I guess will help basketball players a bit. I don't see it helping football players much at all.
Anyone disagree? Anyone feel that mandatory ineligibility for freshman would somehow be a great thing? Or is this just yet another example of what a bonehead Jim Delany is?
Edit: including link to article about Freshman Ineligibility. Apologies, it is a FREEP link:
http://www.freep.com/story/sports/college/2015/04/17/big-ten-jim-delany…
the original "cool story bro"
I included the link to where Delany is pushing to get Freshman Ineligibily reinstated in the Big Ten sooner rather than later. You don't think this could have a massive impact on Michigan football & basketball?
It would be a disaster if the Big Ten was the only conference to do it, but it would be great if everyone did it. It would keep the one and done basketball players from entering school. It would totally ruin UK's business model.
However, it would only work if everyone does it. I would rather just see them stop stealing money and opportunity from kids and let them get paid by anyone who wants to pay them.
Now, I'm no rocket scientist...
*collective gasp*
but wouldn't one and dones still exist? wouldn't kentucky still be able to do the same thing they've been doing? you would just call it, two and done? I'm not seeing how it would completely dismantle the leaving early thing...
then again, I am no rocket scientist.
All Delany's stupid ban will do is make sure they dont get to actually play in any games.
No, all it will do is make sure they don't go to B1G schools. (For basketball, at least.)
The ban would be NCAA-wide, not strictly for the B1G.
So he would only do it if it were NCAA-wide? In that case, it just means all the players that believe they are early entrants will go to Europe.
You think they want to sit on the bench in Europe? Because there is zero chance they'll get meaningful playing time in Euroleague play.
And before you mention the Chinese leagues, remember that Mudiay tried it, couldn't start above Will Bynum, and hurt his draft stock.
All the mock drafts I have seen have Mudiay going #3. I don't think his decision to go to China hurt his draft stock,
before the year of him going 1 or 2 so it did hurt it, just not much
Depending on the lottery there is still a chance he goes #2.
No they did not. Okafor was the expected #1 pick and after that it was up for debate. The fact that Anthony-Towns is supposed to go ahead of him speaks more to the year Towns had.
April 18th, 2015 at 12:45 AM ^
But it will hurt his endorsement value. He is a no name now. He will get an endorsement, as everyone does that is drafted, but it will not be close to what he would have got if he went to college and was successful. In the end, I would bet it costs him more money not going to college.
if it only happens in the Big Ten, that is EXACTLY what it will do, it will completely gut Big Ten athletics. I think Delany is somehow hoping to get this immplemented across the entire NCAA.
Or did you just want to tell us how much you hate Delany
No, I didn't read the article. I just suddenly got the idea to make a post about Freshman Ineligibility on a Friday afternoon for no reason.
That's why I just said in my reply above that I believe Delany is hoping to get this implemented across the entire NCAA and isn't looking to make it happen in just the Big Ten. Did you not read my reply? Or were you too busy being snarky to do that?
Urban Meyer picks up phone
Meyer dials Delany's cell phone
Delany picks up
Meyer: Hi Jim. You like that national title I brought home to the Big 10 this year?
Delany: Hello Urban! Yes-
Meyer: You want to see another one?
Delany: Er, yes -
Meyer: You trying to sabotage my recruiting, pal?
Delany: No, never-
Meyer: I could still go to Notre Dame, you know.
Delany: Urban, I-
Meyer: Stop messing with a good thing, buddy.
Delany: *defeat in voice* Yes Urban, I get it.
*click*
Delany stares at phone
*phone rings*
Delany: Hello?
Jim Harbaugh: I will shove a boot up your ass with enthusiasm unknown to mankind-
Delany: ALL RIGHT!
He said there's no way the Big Ten is going at it alone.
I'm with Hollis on this one. Improving academic performance is a worthwhile goal and hopefully this leads to a broader discussion. I don't think a "year of readiness" is a good plan, though.
he would increase the scholarship limits (I'm for the 25 a year rule), and that he wants to
"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." [It doesn't say, but on the other they can develop and play in their sport while pursuing an education.]
i.e., you one and done / we ain't here to play school / UNC AFAM major crowd we'll pass thank you
I have no problem with this as long as everyone has the same rules, and there are still enough scholarship players eligible to play. I would prefer there is a minor league option like baseball and hockey.
April 18th, 2015 at 12:48 AM ^
Let's be very clear. Delany has only suggested this in the context of an and NCAA wide rule. He is not the first or only one to suggest such thing, as Brian had brought up in a post months ago. In no way is anyone suggesting the Big Ten should implement this alone. Please read the links before posting, it helps.
Also that crap program beat us, and as we improve I am happy to have that crap program on the schedule.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
can't argue with anything you said in the short term. But do you really think in 20 years we'll be looking back and be really glad that Rutgers is in the Big Ten? I sure don't think so, but I fully admit I could be wrong.
Rutgers is like adding CMU to the big ten. The big ten better hope cable doesn't unbundle because they are by far the worst all around athletic program in the big ten now.
I'm not convinced this isn't a ploy - an awkward one, but a ploy nonetheless - to try and get the NBA to move the 19-year-old age limit one way or the other.
So you think he's just threatening this to try and get the NBA to take action? Possible I guess. Would make a lot more sense as motivation than him actually caring about student athlete preparedness.
If the NBA maintains their current rules, high school players still wouldn't be eligible for the draft. If the NCAA made freshmen ineligible, the NCAA would have essentially made it a 2 and done rule. I'm guessing there are very few players that NBA teams would be interested in drafting if those players did not play as freshmen.
April 18th, 2015 at 12:05 AM ^
Because all possible scenarios, where the NBA keeps its 19-year age limit and the NCAA institutes freshman ineligibility, are bad for the NBA.
Players might bolt for the league after never playing a game in college. Tough to scout them that way.
Or they might skip college and go to Europe, where Brandon Jennings was paid $1 million to, as Jennings himself put it, play D and take open shots. And sometimes not get off the bench at all. Tough to scout them that way, too, and more expensive to boot.
Or they might stay in college two years, which is the best case for the NBA but makes them wait another year to draft a player they would've had a year ago.....but if they have to wait two years, surely they'd prefer the players be playing during both of them.
The NBA put a lot of political capital into that rule during CBA negotiations, because having high school players enter the draft and then bomb and/or take years to develop was hurting the league. It's tough for them to babysit a guy fresh out of high school. Just that one transition year in college is big for one's maturity. It might seem like they have other fish to fry, but that rule is important to them. The NCAA would prefer to either lose the rule or make it two years so they don't look like a stopover.
ok say big ten does it. how about the other schools. do they have to or not. seems a recruiting advantage to them.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
and you have to be a full-time student to be eligible.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Brennen Beyer played as a freshman and he was in engineering. It's a non issue. If it was an issue, we wouldn't have gone 40 years allowing freshmen to play. They take 12 credits in season anyways and take more over the summer. Club sports have freshmen play. Freshmen play intramurals.
We haven't had freshmen ineligibility for 40 years and people have managed just fine. The best players on a lot of teams tend to be freshmen like basketball. They spend a massive amount more of their time practicing than playing in games. So basically you're talking about 1-2 days per week for basketball and one of those is usually the weekend. Football they only play on weekends.
April 17th, 2015 at 11:49 PM ^
I guess I am the only one who knows about academic scandals at UNC, Syracuse, etc... and everyone knows Kentucky basketball players go to real classes.
it's basically saying --- you athletes, you are inherently dumber than your freshman peers.
They can all partake in unlimited partying, unlimited extracirrcular activity, unlimited jobs, unlimited whatever the heck they want. There is no restriction at all on what they can do: it is up to them to figure out how to "balance schoolwork with other stuff."
But you athletes --- you guys, you're inherently dumber than them. We have decided that you are incapable of figuring out how to "balance schoolwork with other stuff." We must restrict you. That restriction: no athletics for you.
Pathetic.
I am not in favor of making freshman ineligible, but the proposal doesn't even implicitly suggest that athletes are dumber than their freshman peers. Their freshman peers aren't spending 40 hours a week or more playing a Division 1 sport or a like job. Rather their freshmen peers are trying to figure out how to get beer and having squirt gun fights. Apples and oranges.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Perhaps we should institute mandatory nap time and recess as well.
But only if it applies to me too