If you can’t beat ’em, make ’em join you.

Jason Kirk takes note of something I’m sure is purely coincidental on certain folks’ part.

The ACC, Big 12, and Pac-12 have been kicking around the idea of reviving the ban on first-year players competing in, specifically, college football and men’s basketball. Sure, most pre-1972 rules about broad groups of people being barred from select activities would work great in modern settings. The Big Ten is also reportedly interested in the conversation.

No, this has nothing to do with Kentucky basketball being favored to win its second title in four years thanks to mastering the art of one-and-dones. The fact that the four conferences most interested in the idea are the power conferences Kentucky isn’t a part of? Happenstance. The fact that these four conferences also annually trail the fifth in freshmen who are ready to play college football is another coincidence.

Gives new meaning to the phrase “SEC Speed”, eh?

15 Comments

Filed under SEC Football

15 responses to “If you can’t beat ’em, make ’em join you.

  1. gastr1

    The irony of Kentucky and its dominance in basketball this year is that many of their “one-and dones” have stayed for second and third years, not one year, when other schools’ “one and dones” (Kansas, Duke, Arizona, UCLA) did in fact leave after the first year.

    Wouldn’t “mastering the art of one and dones” imply winning with first year players instead of sophomores & juniors?

    Like

  2. PTC DAWG

    Not a fan of one and done. It makes a mockery of true student athletes.

    Like

    • Macallanlover

      True, but the genie is out of the bottle on banning freshmen playing in football and basketball. But it would drive the “non-student” athletes who have no interest in a degree into developmental leagues and perhaps move everything back closer to amateurism. I have no issue with moving the talent level down a notch and cleaning up the game, the game will still be competitive and entertaining. Let the NFL and NBA pay for their minor league teams, I would watch a regional football team as long is it doesn’t conflict with CFB. I would prefer that over the NFL product as something to watch, although I think it would have to be a mid-week broadcast to get decent ratings. Give me a Tuesday night Southeastern vs Great Lakes Area matchup of 18-21 year old semi-pros, I would watch over the usual TV fare.

      Like

    • Bulldawg165

      The “student-athlete” term has already been made a mockery of. You aren’t going to save anything or anyone by placing more restrictions on the players.

      Like

      • Agree 100%. It would also mean that the value the school receives in exchange for its cost per athlete goes down. If a basketball player is ineligible for his freshman year and then leaves after his sophomore year, the school has two years of expense in the player and benefits for just 30 or so games. If he goes to school one year, cannot play, and goes pro after one ineligible year, the school has invested the recruiting costs, the scholarship costs, the cost of coaching, cost of strength and conditioning, cost of nutrition, cost of health insurance and any other costs of having him on scholarship with may or may not include his actual cost of living stipend and his share of name, likeness and image payments, and gets zero, nada, no games from him in return.

        Same for football.

        Yeah, geniuses, go for it.

        Like

    • charlottedawg

      Yeah! If i can make millions of dollars as a 19 year old lottery pick in the NBA i should spend more years in school while also cutting into my limited shelf life as a player because, well, education!

      Just because a four year college degree makes financial sense for the vast majority of us who aren’t blessed with freakish athletic ability doesn’t mean it’s not a colossally stupid decision for someone who does.

      Like

      • Bulldawg165

        Agreed.

        1) For those truly freak athletes, they likely aren’t going to apply themselves in school no matter how long you make them stay.

        2) for those athletes that think they are freaks but actually aren’t, at least the current system makes it more likely for them to actually go to college and figure this out against better competition as opposed to them declaring for the draft out of high school and getting nowhere while losing their ability to get an athletic scholarship

        Like

  3. W Cobb Dawg

    Since one-and-done doesn’t apply to football players, the argument is a waste of time. But basketball definitely needs to do something. Calipari is little more than a prostitute, albeit well paid, prosletizing on a corner for the next great bb player.

    Like

  4. Bulldawg165

    Let’s not kid ourselves here, folks. These basketball kids who go “one and done” aren’t going to value their education any more just because we make them waste an extra year before being able to play. In fact, it’s probably going to encourage kids to forego college and enter the draft straight out of high school, which will end up hurting a lot more kids than it helps.

    Like

    • Dawgoholic

      The way to fix this is limit the number of basketball players a school can sign over a 4 year period. I’m not sure of the number but maybe in the 15-17 range.

      Like

    • Doggoned

      Fine with me. If they’re not interested in going to college, go straight to the pros. Don’t pretend to be a student for a year.

      Like

  5. The cynic in me doubts the these conferences suddenly became sincerely more concerned with the academic environment of the players. After all, if they really were concerned about academics of the basketball and football players they would stop making them play football and basketball games on school nights. When they require all football games to be on Saturday and all basketball games on Friday night, Saturday and Sunday afternoon I will believe that they really are motivated by academic concerns.

    I suspect that this newfangled concern for academics is really in response to O’Bannon and the other antitrust cases. Will the conferences contend that since freshmen are not eligible it can immediately reduce the amount of money going to the players by more than one-fourth? Will it use this move as evidence that athletes are not participants in any relevant market and they are just intramural kids with nicer uniforms and free shoes?

    I will bet anyone the motive has nothing to do with concern about freshmen’s academics.

    Like

    • Bulldawg165

      “I will bet anyone the motive has nothing to do with concern about freshmen’s academics.”

      I don’t think anyone would bet against you lol.

      Like