I have mocked things coming out of The Drake Group on more than one occasion, so when I tell you that this strikes me as an effective rebuttal of Big Jim Delany’s “year of readiness” proposal…
The Drake Group pointed out three negative impacts that would stem from the Big Ten’s proposal:
(1) academically capable students will be penalized by lack of access to extracurricular activities; (2) academically capable students who wish to complete four years of athletic eligibility will have to stay in school for one or two additional semesters, increasing the cost of education to these students or to institutions that provide athletic or other scholarship assistance (estimated to be $94.5 million); and (3) non-scholarship (walk-on) athletes who may be outstanding students will see their graduation dates delayed if they wish to compete for four years.
Absent a demonstrated positive academic impact and considering the adverse economic and academic consequences, freshmen ineligibility seems misguided for athletes generally, for all participants in revenue sports, or for football and men’s basketball players only.
The Drake Group said the Big Ten’s proposal “masks the real problem” that many of the athletes who are recruited to participate in big time Division I athletics are “unprepared” for the academic workload. These students, the paper said, are often admitted “by means of exceptions to normal admission standards, and then experience excessive athletically related time demands.”
… that ought to speak volumes about how weak Delany’s argument is. But, hey, if I’ve misjudged Delany’s sincerity about supporting the academic mission, all he needs to do is embrace even a part of this…
(1) full enforcement of the 20 hours per week limit on all athletically related activities when classes are in session; (2) no competition during final examination periods; (3) adoption of institutional policies by faculty senates approving the maximum percentage of classes that may be missed due to scheduled athletic competitions; (4) no athletic department requirement that athletes select majors and courses that are The Drake Group Position Paper: Freshmen Ineligibility in Intercollegiate Athletics April 20, 2015 Page 3 of 12 compatible with athletics practices, meetings or competitions, (5) the scheduling of football games on weekends exclusively, because both athletes and students who are non-athletes are likely to attend; (6) the provision of athlete academic support services by academic units only, not by the athletic department; and (7) adoption of NCAA continuing eligibility standards requiring that any athlete with a cumulative GPA less than 2.0 be ineligible to participate in athletics, be restricted to a maximum of 10 athletics practice or meeting hours per week, and remain ineligible until a cumulative 2.0 GPA is achieved.
… and I’ll be happy to acknowledge a correction. Not that I’ll be holding my breath about it.
Get The Picture 
Thanks. Hopefully, these reminders as to the NCAA rules will head off the Delany-induced stampede (?) he tried to start with his cap-gun. Even Drake’s Citizens Betterment League can walk out and stop it by showing the ordinances forbidding running your herd through town.
LikeLike
“the scheduling of football games on weekends exclusively, because both athletes and students who are non-athletes are likely to attend”
And ESPN will happily switch to broadcasting bowling on Thursday night. This would also be devastating to Tech’s chances of appearing on TV.
LikeLike
UT sports is a gigantic cash cow. They money they have is stupendous. The funny thing is the cow gonna get lost in the weeds with Patterson holding the rope. His hire smacked of the NCAA hiring Emmert. Nothing about them says they’re good or right for the job, Their performance is proving that out.
LikeLike
At least the real problem was addressed. Admitting kids into colleges they would not be admitted to based on their grades and test scores because they can run fast, jump high, catch a ball, etc. The problem for freshmen isn’t the athletic requirements, it’s that many freshmen athletes shouldn’t be admitted to the college they are attending because they don’t have the academic background or ability to be there.
LikeLike
Yep. And thinking that’s going to be all fixed simply by not letting freshmen play in games is a pipe dream, and another reason that Delany’s proposal isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.
LikeLike
I agree 100%. It’s time for the NCAA to step in and mandate that scholarship athletes in revenue sports have high school grades and test scores that are at least 80-90% of the average incoming freshman in their class. That move would immediately force the NFL and NBA to create a farm system and stop forcing colleges to be de facto “amateur” farm systems.
LikeLike
It would also greatly increase the talent at Auburn. 80-90% of the incoming freshman class is a very different number when you simply go around the SEC. That number is even more extreme when you start comparing schools like Georgia Southern and Duke. You’ve got to have an across the board minimum.
LikeLike
It might have a different impact … diluting the supremacy of Division I programs and strengthening lower division programs with lower normal academic requirements.
LikeLike
But it’s a two component problem. The admission issue is only a problem IF the university doesn’t put the necessary support services in place. I routinely see students go from “are-you-kidding-me” to college ready in 12 months through community college offerings. All it would take is 2 or 3 specialists with an MA to create a year-long college prep program for the few special admits (not all athletics) that a university typically accepts each year.
College success is far less about “smarts” and far more about soft-skill disciplines and familiarity with academic conventions than people like to think.
Not to say Delaney’s proposal works or has merit. Just that it’s meaningless without admitting that you have to set up a special curriculum with trained specialists to manage that transition for the special admits. Otherwise, all the time in the world won’t matter.
LikeLike
That would be a good plan if it was done through community colleges and was available to all students. Creating a special system for athletes to get extra attention so they could be admitted and play ball would quickly run afoul of NCAA and the legal system. I don’t think a state school could spend any tax money on a select group of students and not offer the program to all students with equal grades and scores.
LikeLike
Maybe. I am betting legislators would be more than happy to tweak the laws for a small number of people capable of making unique contributions through unique gifts to the diversity necessary for successful educational environments blah blah blah.
LikeLike
You are kidding, aren’t you. States just raised academic standards for college admission to cut down on the lost monies some experience before realizing they aren’t college material.
ASEF is correct. Soft skill discipline and familiarity with academic conventions is all that is needed for most to make a success out of college.
LikeLike
In theory, I completely agree with you. Reality is that the networks don’t spend billions to broadcast philosophy majors play sports for good old State U.
LikeLike
Game day has virtually no significant impact on academics. If anything, staying eligible is one of the few academic incentives that college athletes have. As a former college athlete I can tell you that the demands of practice time and training were a much greater academic challenge than game day.
In sum, the year of readiness is a dumb idea. Try admitting real students and stop bending the rules for athletes if you are serious about improving academic performance. The athletes who can’t qualify should go to prep school or community college and get ready for college level work.
LikeLike