Skip to content
Link copied to clipboard

Restoring freshman ineligibility may restore idea of 'student-athlete'

It might be time to give young adults the chance to get used to college life before they jump into high-profile athletics.

IT'S AN INTERESTING proposal.

Last week, The Diamondback - the University of Maryland student newspaper of which I am proud alum - broke a story that the Big Ten Conference was going to discuss making football and men's basketball players spend a year in college before they would be eligible to compete.

Certainly, a lot of ground must be covered between discussing a "Year of Readiness" proposal to something concrete actually happening, but I would ask, "Why not?"

I understand the concerns, and if I were a men's basketball or football coach in the Big Ten, I'd be just like Michigan State basketball coach Tom Izzo in saying, "I'm not sure I'd do that."

It would be competitive suicide for the Big Ten to be the lone wolf, as the only conference to do such a thing. In fact, nothing short of an agreement by all members of the NCAA could allow such a proposal to come into existence.

My question is, why couldn't everyone agree with that?

Why should we be of the mindset of Syracuse coach Jim Boeheim, who recently said about freshman ineligibility, "That will never happen, so I don't know why people are talking about it?''

You talk about it, because people should always talk about things that could potentially improve collegiate athletics and move it more in line with what the original mission and concept of "student-athlete" were supposed to be about.

The merit behind having freshmen ineligible makes sense, because there is a huge adjustment to college life. It likely would help most freshmen if they had a yearlong period to adjust academically and socially without the additional burden of participating in high-profile collegiate athletics.

It certainly could not hurt.

In the evolving multibillion-dollar business that college sports has become, I would be under no delusion that making freshmen ineligible again would be done solely for altruistic reasons to benefit the student-athlete.

It would be a smart business decision. The fact that the Big Ten proposal is directed only at the two cash-cow sports - football and men's basketball - tells you the real motivation.

What freshman field hockey players don't need a year to adjust to college life?

I would go so far as to say that the primary focus is college basketball, because that is the only sport hurt by super-talented freshmen making a 1-year pit stop on college campuses before entering the NBA draft.

Not only does the collective bargaining agreement in the NFL prevent players from entering the draft until after they have been out of high school for 3 years, but the nature of a sport that rewards physical maturity also makes it virtually impossible for an athlete to advance to the NFL without at least 2 years of college experience.

Many college freshmen redshirt their first season already, so, in essence, if they enter the NFL draft as a "redshirt" sophomore, they have still spent 3 years in college.

But the NBA's collective bargaining agreement says players can enter the draft one season after their high school class graduates. While the league has pushed for a higher age limit, the National Basketball Players Association has shown no interest in adjusting the "one-and-done" phenomenon.

College coaches have little choice but to sell their programs to elite players who view one season in college as just a necessary evil on their way to the pros.

The "one-and-done" system is bad for the overall growth of college basketball and the NBA, but the NBA has shown that it has little ability to eliminate it through collective bargaining.

So really, it is up to the colleges to decide whether they want to fulfill their mission of academic pursuit through the use of athletics or just want to be a feeding system for the NBA.

Making freshman athletes ineligible would not be about punishing or controlling the player.

It would be about making the player decide whether he is serious about college or going only because the NBA won't let him enter the draft right out of high school.

Freshman ineligibility effectively would weed out those players who have no interest in higher education and want simply to play professional basketball.

It is one thing to have to play in college for a year, but something different to have to sit out a year of competition before resuming play. This would be unfair to the players, because they have other options besides a year in college and then the NBA draft.

I think elite players should do what Detroit Pistons guard Brandon Jennings and 2015 lottery prospect Emmanuel Mudiay did, by going to a foreign professional league and making a year's worth of money rather than spend a year in college.

The NBA Development League does not have the same restrictions as the NBA. Playing in that league for a year might not be as lucrative, but it is an option.

College should be for players who want to be in college, not the ones forced to be there because of the NBA's collective bargaining agreement.

The first step toward NCAA reform is for college athletic departments to take back control of their ideals and identity.

Making freshman athletes ineligible might not be a solution, but it is certainly worth discussing, and not only by the Big Ten, but by all conferences and member institutions.

Columns: ph.ly/Smallwood