The CardBoard
Pac 12 proposal for NCAA rule changes - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Pac 12 proposal for NCAA rule changes (/thread-7189.html)


Pac 12 proposal for NCAA rule changes - Extra Point - 05-20-2014

The presidents of the Pac 12 schools sent a letter to major conference schools about major changes to the NCAA rules:

http://collegefootball.ap.org/article/apnewsbreak-pac-12-presidents-back-new-ncaa-model

Re: Pac 12 proposal for NCAA rule changes - CTcard - 05-20-2014

(05-20-2014, 07:43 PM)Extra Point link Wrote:The presidents of the Pac 12 schools sent a letter to major conference schools about major changes to the NCAA rules:

http://collegefootball.ap.org/article/apnewsbreak-pac-12-presidents-back-new-ncaa-model

At least at the AP site I don't see the text of the actual letter. From what is in the article, it would seem that following the claim that "The time for tinkering with the rules and making small adjustments is over" the letter then proposes a bunch of tinkering with the rules and making small adjustments.

Re: Pac 12 proposal for NCAA rule changes - washingtonismoney - 05-20-2014

(05-20-2014, 08:06 PM)CTcard link Wrote:At least at the AP site I don't see the text of the actual letter. From what is in the article, it would seem that following the claim that "The time for tinkering with the rules and making small adjustments is over" the letter then proposes a bunch of tinkering with the rules and making small adjustments.

I dunno, stipends plus allowing kids to talk to agents is a pretty big change to previous NCAA precedent and business as usual. It might not go far enough for some, but it's a pretty big shift from the status quo.

Re: Pac 12 proposal for NCAA rule changes - CTcard - 05-20-2014

(05-20-2014, 08:09 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:I dunno, stipends plus allowing kids to talk to agents is a pretty big change to previous NCAA precedent and business as usual. It might not go far enough for some, but it's a pretty big shift from the status quo.

As always the devil is in the details.

Stipends in this case is apparently the "full cost of attendance" stance that the big conferences thought they had previously passed in 2012 but it was then voted down by the more numerous smaller programs. I don't think that upping the scholarship by $3-4K per year changes any of the issues as to whether athletes are employees or if they are getting a fair share of football income - and therefore won't forestall the suits and union drives. It would cost a school like Stanford about $1.2 million, and unlike tuition it would likely have to be real money, which is a moderate change on the scale of the AD budget.

Talking to agents is hard to tell. Just talking to agents doesn't change much - it's already done in baseball with a wink and a nod. If the proposal were actually to let athletes sign on with agents while maintaining eligibility then that would be a big change, but I don't think that is what the presidents are talking about.


There are several provisions in the letter that could be big changes.
"Guarantee scholarships for enough time to complete a bachelor's degree, provided that the student remains in good academic standing."
If that were to mean scholarships are open ended until a degree is finished, without regard to playing eligibility, it would help some kids. Even better if it mandated that all scholarship offers are a four year commitment that cannot be assigned to anybody else until the four years are up.

"Decrease the demands placed on the athlete in-season [and out of season]"
Actually making the current specified demands real would be a big change.

"Address the "one and done" phenomenon in men's basketball. If the NBA and its Players Association are unable to agree to raising the age limit for players, consider restoring the freshman ineligibility rule in men's basketball."
This one would be a big change. Would hurt some kids to spite the NBA, but it would be a change.

"Liberalize the current rules limiting the ability of student-athletes to transfer between institutions."
Really liberalizing - like removing all such restrictions - would be a big change.


But somehow, I don't get the impression that they mean the "big change" version of any of these - and who thinks the frosh-ineligible threat is going to happen?

On the other hand, maybe the cynicism lobe is just taking over my brain tonight.

Re: Pac 12 proposal for NCAA rule changes - CTcard - 05-20-2014

(05-20-2014, 08:13 PM)Mikeferrari link Wrote:I hate to contemplate it, but perhaps MLB's model is correct.  College is not for everyone, and those who do not want to be there, or shouldn't be there, shouldn't be forced to go there.

Why do you hate to contemplate it?

The MLB model would likely tamp down a lot of the corruption and moral-compromise associated with NCAA football and basketball (there isn't nearly as much in baseball).
It would probably be worse for a lot of kids who go the minor-league route and never get anywhere - plus have no start on an education. Though comparing misery for those who don't make it in different forms of exploitation is tricky. 
I suspect over time it would decrease the popularity of college football and basketball (see college baseball).

I also see no chance that the NFL would fund a large minor league system.


Re: Pac 12 proposal for NCAA rule changes - Rally - 05-20-2014

(05-20-2014, 09:18 PM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=Mikeferrari link=topic=10019.msg89840#msg89840 date=1400642004]

I hate to contemplate it, but perhaps MLB's model is correct.  College is not for everyone, and those who do not want to be there, or shouldn't be there, shouldn't be forced to go there.

Why do you hate to contemplate it?

The MLB model would likely tamp down a lot of the corruption and moral-compromise associated with NCAA football and basketball (there isn't nearly as much in baseball).
It would probably be worse for a lot of kids who go the minor-league route and never get anywhere - plus have no start on an education. Though comparing misery for those who don't make it in different forms of exploitation is tricky. 
I suspect over time it would decrease the popularity of college football and basketball (see college baseball).

I also see no chance that the NFL would fund a large minor league system.
[/quote]

The big issue is physical.  17/18 year old boys are not physically mature enough for the NFL, just plain and simple, baring the once in a generation extreme example, none of which come readily to mind.  As it is now, colleges provide the minor league system for the NFL, at no charge.  Colleges do, indeed, get a big bang for their buck, but the compromise between student and athlete has become laughable on many campuses.  So, what's the answer?  The kids aren't physically ready for their chosen profession yet they don't want to go, or shouldn't go, to college.  Age-restricted minor leagues?  Sort of an apprenticeship? With no future if you wash out?  A conundrum for sure.

As for why I fear change?  I love college football, rarely follow the NFL.  I nurture the belief within myself that these boys are giving their hearts and souls for Dear Old Alma Mater and I am right there with them all the way!  From my comfortable chair at the tailgate or, more likely, in front of the television, 4G no less.

Mea culpa. 

Re: Pac 12 proposal for NCAA rule changes - Bruce Wang - 05-21-2014

(05-20-2014, 09:39 PM)Mikeferrari link Wrote:The big issue is physical. 

Another issue is mental.  Football seems to be the most intellectually challenging of the major professional sports.  I've never heard of the Wonderlic in association with the MLB or NBA draft.  You don't have to be a rocket scientist (cough Cameron Fleming), to play the game, but it seems that college serves as some sort of filter (with varying levels of porousness depending on the school) in that regard for the professional ranks.

BTW when are we going to have brain surgeon from the team?  Or did we already have one?

Death to one-and-done! - Redrum - 05-21-2014

Lots of rules involved in NCAA regulation,  but one-and-done allowance is like the guy in shorts, sandals and Hawaiian shirt in a wedding photo of guys in tuxes.  As in that photo, it's SO out of bounds with the academic tie-in of athletics (or, for you cynics, for the kabuki play of academic tie-in)  that it's a no-brainer kind of change.  If the NBA has their eyes on a player from age 18, let those guys pay the cost of developing him for the  year or two they obviously think is enough time to gauge his potential.  I'm not sure that every player who had to stay and put in an extra year or two of academic work would make it to a degree, -- or even getting some benefit from time in the classroom-- but I know it's a far better chance than if he leaves after one year.

Of course, there's the whole issue of real college academics vs. faux college academics, but that's a rant for another time.

Re: Pac 12 proposal for NCAA rule changes - washingtonismoney - 05-21-2014

(05-21-2014, 07:28 AM)Publius link Wrote:Another issue is mental.  Football seems to be the most intellectually challenging of the major professional sports. ...

Not sure about this. Researchers have long made a distinction between fields that encourage precocious genius (e.g. music, chess) and fields that encourage a deep reserve of knowledge before participating (for example, the average ages of NIH grantees has been trending up, perhaps an indication that scientists have to master large swathes of knowledge before getting to the frontiers.). American football, it seems to me, is more in the latter category -- less improvisational, more skilled. How many street football games do you see on a daily basis? I see a lot more street soccer and street basketball, and those sports tend to cultivate mental skills that are in the former category. (Which is why you see soccer stars sometimes debut at age 16, 17, or 18.)

Re: Pac 12 proposal for NCAA rule changes - washingtonismoney - 05-21-2014

Nah, NBA is fine with high school stars going to college for a year or two -- they let Durant and Oden do it. And they let Wiggins et al. do it too.*

* (yes, the current one-and-done crop didn't blow anyone's minds this year. But they were perceived -- coming into the year -- as one of the best classes in ages.)

The reason's fairly simple -- NCAA does free promotion of players, and max players have fewer contracts. Dante Exum is one of the top five prospects in the upcoming class, but I'll bet most fans of his next team will go "Who?" when he's drafted. What would really disrupt this model would be the next high school superstar deciding to get paid and learn his craft abroad for a couple years. (It's my suspicion that Europeans are teaching the game better than college coaches, so I'm a bit biased here.)

Re: Death to one-and-done! - 82lsju - 05-21-2014

(05-21-2014, 08:31 AM)Mikeferrari link Wrote:Of course I think the whole concept of one and done is absurd, but don't see how colleges alone could eliminate it.  Nothing prevents any student, athlete or otherwise, from leaving school whenever they feel like, and some, of course, flunk out.  It would take the NBA raising their minimum age requirement and at some point that would be challenged in court (if it hasn't been already?)  a voluntary agreement among teams might be seen as an anti-trust violation, and besides, when the next Kobe or LeBron comes along that agreement would quickly be forgotten.

given the unsuccessful challenge of the NFL rule of having to wait for three years from when your class graduated from high school (see Maurice Claret and Mike Williams) I don't think the NBA has much to worry about.  The one and done rule was put in place to try and save NBA owners from themselves  the big contracts they gave to high school kids who never panned out and by the players to keep a few more jobs for players already in the league.

Re: Pac 12 proposal for NCAA rule changes - CTcard - 05-21-2014

(05-21-2014, 09:05 AM)garvin link Wrote:1. I certainly wouldn't call declaring freshman ineligible "tinkering."

Neither would I - that would be a brobdingnagian change and probably very good for what I think a university should be.
I also see approximately a 0.0% chance that the colleges would ever do that (Kentucky would have to drop basketball).

Quote:5. I don't think the point of a no-freshmen rule is what the NBA would think. It's what one-and-done freshmen would think. A year of practicing for a team you know you'll never play on? I think we might see a resurgence of semi-pro teams sponsored by shoe companies or something like that.

There are lots of different points, but the quoted text of the letter clearly intended this move to be a bargaining chip with respect to getting the NBA to raise their age limit.
I might postulate that a better solution would be to get the NBA to lower their age limit - or better have a two pronged approach as baseball does.

Re: Pac 12 proposal for NCAA rule changes - stupac2 - 05-21-2014

(05-21-2014, 10:42 AM)CTcard link Wrote:I might postulate that a better solution would be to get the NBA to lower their age limit - or better have a two pronged approach as baseball does.

They already do, right? I mean, the D-league is a thing. It's just not a thing that anyone really wants to be in.