I hate Jim Delany--Freshman ineligibilty edition

Submitted by JamieH on

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…

MGoBoard

BlueHills

April 17th, 2015 at 9:22 PM ^

In the old days (when I was at Michigan) Freshmen played ball, but on the Freshman Team. The big schools all had Freshmen teams, that were slightly less demanding than Varsity Teams, so the kids god acclimated to the University life.

It was the small schools who couldn't afford to equip, coach, and maintain Frosh teams that objected to the rule, and pushed for Freshman eligibility.

There are a lot of folks who think that Freshman eligibility is a bad idea. I can see the arguments on both sides.

 

 

Joined: 10/31/2010

MGoPoints: 7466

LSAClassOf2000

April 17th, 2015 at 6:10 PM ^

''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,'' - from Delany's letter

I understand what he is trying to say here, and fortunately this is not a proposal as he mentioned, but say in basketball for example, if the NCAA as whole really felt this way, I would have to think they'd try to work with the NBA (which would need to somehow amend its CBA) to go back to the old rules, if you will (they do not feel this way, of course). That wouldn't mean freshmen ineligibility, of course, but no one would go for it after over 40 years without it, especially with the way the very nature of collegiate athletics has changed. 

Joined: 01/07/2011

MGoPoints: 130561

tolmichfan

April 17th, 2015 at 7:02 PM ^

That's exactly what I think this freshman ineligibility thing is about. The schools, which are supposed to be non profit entities, have been run by businessmen/women. They found a cash cow and want to protect it.
Now with lawsuits like Obannan's (sp) the schools scared they are gonna loose it. So now they have to come up with a way to keep the appearance of amateurism up, and this is their bright idea. Delaney is only going to push what the schools in his conference want, so don't be mad at him, but be mad at Michigan and all the other schools in the big ten.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 11/26/2010

MGoPoints: 1433

AlwaysBlue

April 17th, 2015 at 7:05 PM ^

it to force the NBA's hand. If kids don't want to sit as freshmen let them go toil overseas or the D league. The quality of college ball will improve.

Joined: 11/23/2008

MGoPoints: 7854

Sinsoftheschafer

April 17th, 2015 at 7:53 PM ^

I agree with some of the other posters.  This likely isn't about Freshman eligibility.  I think, like all things in college sports recently, it's about protecting the enterprise and the cash flows.  This is a defensive move intended to head off the anti-trust and anti-competitive landslide heading their way.  They are trying to bolster their claims of amateurism and educational mission by this cosmetic rule.  I really doubt Delaney cares about anything other than protecting the massive inflows of cash he is generating.

Joined: 10/03/2010

MGoPoints: 1100

vablue

April 18th, 2015 at 12:57 AM ^

If one were to believe the athletes were in fact student athletes, then you would have to think this is a good idea.  Time to adapt to college and the pace of classes before having the additional pressure of games and all that comes with it would almost certainly benefit the athletes in the classroom.  Though those athletes would still have to take advantage of that opportunity.  And a potential fifth year for all athletes would always be a plus. 

I would be there are some players on Michigan that would have much preferred that someone would have forced Hoke to redshirt them.  In fact, I think you could make an argument that this rule does nothing but help the athletes.

Follow me here for a second.  In football, this rule would give a year less of full game contact for all players.  Those that are good enough for the pros can still go after three years and have one less year of pounding on their bodies from games.  Those not good enough for the pros have the potential for a fifth year and hopefully all at least had more time to adapt.  And none of them had a redshirt blown up to play a couple downs in a meaningless game.

In basketball, they receive a year of good coaching, more time to maybe learn something in classes.  And have much less risk of injury in games and, quite frankly, less chance their stock will drop because they actually are no good on the floor.  That last point would benefit many more than most think, though not the NBA.

The only people this might actually hurt is college fans, as its one less year of seeing many of the best athletes on the college fields/courts before they leave for the pros.

Just an alternative thought.

Joined: 11/28/2011

MGoPoints: 6131

WolvWild

April 18th, 2015 at 9:46 AM ^

The timing of this seems odd to me.  This isn't something the Big Ten has been pushing in the past (at least that I am aware of), so what brought it out so out of the blue?

 

Perhaps the string of demands for reform and change in the NCAA?  Those calls would seem to drown this one out, however.  I am just not sure how seriously Delaney expects this to be discussed.  Seems like it's almost an afterthought.

 

 

Further, what real positive change would we expect from a proposal like this?  Is Delaney hoping for higher GPAs from these student athletes?  Does he expect to see it result in a higher graduation rate as a whole?  I am just not sure I am following his thought process.

Joined: 11/12/2013

MGoPoints: 486