OT: Big Ten Gauging Interest In Beginning Discussion On "Year Of Readiness"

Submitted by mgoblue0970 on February 19th, 2015 at 10:59 PM


The Big Ten also released a statement to Solomon on Thursday: "The Big Ten office has reached out to member institutions to gauge their interest in beginning a national discussion regarding a year of readiness for student-athletes, and also provided background information. There is no official proposal, but we look forward to continuing the conversation with our campus leadership moving forward."

MOD EDIT - The OP did not represent this correctly, so it shall be modified. - LSA



February 19th, 2015 at 11:55 PM ^

Even Jim Delany isn't arrogant or stupid enough to handicap his own conference like that.  I think he would be more interested in trying to influence the rest of the NCAA into agreeing with him or to gauge interest in case it is brought up at NCAA meetings.


February 19th, 2015 at 11:06 PM ^

There is a 0% chance the B1G would implement this if the rest of the NCAA wasn't doing the same. Nobody in the world would be stupid enough to put their conference or institution at a competitive disadvantage like that. The article said the B1G reached out to member institutions to see if they were interested in starting a NATIONAL discussion on the matter. It doesnt say the B1G reached out to member institutions to see if they were on board with being the only conference in college athletics to implement this rule.


February 19th, 2015 at 11:37 PM ^

Thank you. This is almost exactly what I was going to write. The OP should to be changed to reflect it. There is a big difference between being on board with a movement to try to get the NCAA to change a rule, and saying the B1G is going to implement the policy all by itself.


February 19th, 2015 at 11:09 PM ^

Would they still be able to play 4 seasons as if they were given a redshirt?


Edit: OP you may want to change your avatar lest ye be given the Banhammer or deducted precious MGoPoints


February 19th, 2015 at 11:10 PM ^

“And if you support it, you are basically saying very clearly the No. 1 priority is the education of the students.”

What? I was "redshirted" back in the day. I still had to practice every day, still had to lift, watch film, ect. Somehow playing in the actual game is now going to be too much?

This is BAD for B1G TEN business that even an iota of exploring it is on the table or in the media cycle. Recruiting kids to these schools in this climate is hard enough as is.

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad


February 19th, 2015 at 11:14 PM ^

If the B1G is the only one doing this then what is in it for the B1G? Everyone knows the kids want to play as soon as possible. We also know money is behind a lot of the NCAA and conference moves. Other conferences already have the leg up on the B1G with nicer weather. This just seems like another disadvantage.

Mr Miggle

February 20th, 2015 at 8:08 AM ^

to actually read more than the titles of the articles that you post. It's very clear that you didn't read this one, since you could hardly be more wrong.

"The Big Ten office has reached out to member institutions to gauge their interest in beginning a national discussion regarding a year of readiness for student-athletes, and also provided background information.

Three other conference comissioners have already brought up this idea, sparking a spirited discussion here. The Big Ten is polling its members to see if they want to join in.

No conference is even remotely considering the idea of doing this on their own. Anyone with half a brain knows it would absolutely kill their recruiting.


February 19th, 2015 at 11:22 PM ^

Lol if the B1G is dumb enough to go through with this, then I'm sure Michigan and Ohio State would be leading the charge on lending their services to another conference. 

In reality, I still don't get how the common sense approach isn't working here for basketball especially. 

Either go to the draft from high school and get drafted/DLeague 

or choose to go to college for 3 years like the NFL policy. 

What the hell is wrong with this proposal that the NBA/NCAA wouldn't do it? 

Mr Miggle

February 20th, 2015 at 8:17 AM ^

You lump in the NBA and NCAA, but what does the NCAA have to do with it? This proposal is meant to spur the NBA to change. The NCAA can neither force players to stay in school, nor make the NBA take them before hand.

Beyond that, why would the NBA go for it? They recently moved to raise the minimum age. They've talked about increasing it again. Why would they want to reverse that?


February 19th, 2015 at 11:17 PM ^

It would hurt if the big ten was the only conference to do this, but it wouldn't be the end of the world (at least for football). There are few players who are good enough to play as freshmen. It's obviously a bigger deal for recruiting, but I'm not sure Michigan pulls in that many recruits with the whole you'll play as a freshman thing being their top priority. It would mean no more burned red shirts, and probably more redshirt juniors and seniors starting in the conference in a few years.


February 19th, 2015 at 11:33 PM ^

Could you honestly imagine the hype people would have for recruits like Jabrill Peppers if they HAD to sit out a year? As hyped as he was with the majority of this fan base, imagine if we wouldn't get to see him dress at all until September. It would cause massive head explosions for some people.

Gucci Mane

February 19th, 2015 at 11:55 PM ^

thr title is very misleading, the article says some big ten members would support his on a national level. The big ten would not do this unless it was a ncaa wide thing.


February 20th, 2015 at 12:00 AM ^

From a minnesota fan on r/cfb

""will be the end of the college sports system"
I think that's the idea.
Obviously this wouldn't work.... so as the article says at that point you have to say they're a quasi-professional system. Once you admit that you might have a better chance at moving forward with more professional like options that otherwise as an educational only system you wouldn't do.
His proposal forces the decision, are you about education, or some sort of weird mix?
You can't pick the education choice with a forced redshirt thing here .... you just can't .... so now that moves the folks with their head in the ground pretending it is all about education to the other side.... maybe able to make some better decisions. Pay, benefits, different rules?"

Either the big ten administration is trying to stick their heads in the sand (sadly possible) or they are trying to get people to consider paying players by showing them the logical conclusion of a pure amateur model.


February 20th, 2015 at 7:03 AM ^

The document estimates the cost of the additional scholarships at about $94.5 million per year if the “Year of Readiness” program were implemented nationwide, which is less than 10 percent of football and men’s basketball postseason revenue distribution across all Division I programs.

That's from the Diamondback's article, and while it is great that many schools and conferences could probably cover it, I don't know that this is a rule you can revisit now that the nature and status of football and basketball are vastly changed from 1972.

As I recall, part of the motivation for removing the freshman rule initially was the economic downturn of the late 1960s and early 1970s and that it was deemed impractical from that standpoint, among others. Still, several programs - particularly in basketball - have since built and sustained their competitiveness on the backs of talented freshmen and I don't see anyone wanting to hamstring themselves unless everyone does it, which...well....that likely won't happen, and I can't believe that any one conference, even the Big Ten, would voluntarily self-impose it and watch recruits scatter to other corners. 

In any event, as the article posted by the OP clearly says, there is no proposal and they are reaching out to gauge interest in starting a discussion on the topic, so any proposal in any form is likely a long way out if anything ever comes of it. 

Mr Miggle

February 20th, 2015 at 8:32 AM ^

It's embarrassing to see that the OP and most of the comments are based on not reading past the title of the linked article. Not just that, but are jumping to conclusions not warranted even by the title. The title of the OP, for example.

Sorry, the board should be better than this.



February 20th, 2015 at 8:47 AM ^

I fixed the title and provided a more representative quote, so we'll see where it goes for a bit, although at this point, the thread might not be salvagable. I shall return to it in a little bit to see. (work-related delay in fixing this, also car not wanting to start when it is -12 outside, and now another meeting coming up).


February 20th, 2015 at 8:30 AM ^

I think Brian mentioned this in UV yesterday. This consideration seems like purely bluster to try to put pressure on the pro leagues, namely the NBA, to change up their one-and-done rules which the NCAA and especially the big ten hate. If freshman are ineligible, they can't very well go pro after one year in college unless they were good enough coming out of hs in which case there's no way they'd waste a year not playing competitively before becoming eligible for the draft.


February 20th, 2015 at 9:27 AM ^

First, this doesn't apply to football. The NFL already saw to that. Second, why is this such a big deal? They are student athletes on scholarship. Besides, when was the last time Michigan had a one-and-done player? Beilein already knows he isn't getting those guys. He gets the development projects and turns them into lottery picks. I don't think this would cripple the B1G, I think it would set a precedent and force the NBA to change their stupid rule.

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Perkis-Size Me

February 20th, 2015 at 11:10 AM ^

I don't know how much this would affect a program like Michigan, but let's say it gained any traction and started to become a possibility nationally. A school like Kentucky would be hit hard. They'd still get good players, but nowhere near as many, if you asked me. A lot of those top-10 players would sit there and wonder why they should now have to wait two years to collect a paycheck vs. just one.

I think if this gains any traction nationally, we're going to start seeing a lot of the top recruits leave to go play overseas every year, or if they're really good enough, try their luck and enter the draft after high school.

Mr Miggle

February 20th, 2015 at 1:48 PM ^

can't go directly from HS into the NBA draft?

The NBA would still find those same players. For the most part, they know who they are before they start college. Dante Exum didn't get much exposure. Wiggins and Parker would have been top picks in the last draft off of freshmen teams. They'd be scouting practices too.

That system would hurt Kentucky though. If they take the same players, a lot of them leave without ever playing varsity ball, but they took up a scholarship for a season. You can't afford big turnovers in your roster like we just had.



Crisler 71

February 20th, 2015 at 11:33 AM ^

Freshmen were ineligible in the NCAA until 1969 I think.  When the NCAA declared freshmen eligible the B1G didn't come around for another year.  There were cases of athletes in individual Olympic sports being ineligible for B1G championship but eligible for the NCAA championship.  Before that there was a Freshman team that played one or two games (home games at Ferry Field) against other freshman squads.  I don't know if they practiced less or not. But back then there were also over 110 scholarships to give out.

There was no redshirting then either.  The B1G and the PAC Eight were the last conferences to allow redshirts.  Then the PAC Eight began reshirting and the B1G only allowed them so that they would be on even footing in the Rose Bowl.

The B1G is not going to do this unilaterally.