Big Ten Would Be Signing Death Contract If It Makes Freshmen Ineligible

On Sept. 6, 2014, the Big Ten died. On Jan. 1, 2015, nearly four months later, it came back to life in dramatic fashion. Naturally, now that the conference has momentum, the quintessential Big Ten thing to do would be to keel over again from a self-inflicted wound. 

And freshman ineligibility would be the ricin in the tea.  

On Thursday, Aaron Kasinitz and Ellie Silverman of The Diamondback, the University of Maryland's independent student newspaper, reported that the Big Ten wants to lead a "national discussion" about making freshmen football and men’s basketball players ineligible their freshman year. The primary talking point revolved around graduation rates and Academic Progress Rate scores in those respective sports: 

"

Men’s basketball and football players lag behind other sports in terms of academics, according to data provided in the document. Among the 34 sports listed in the Graduation Success Rate data, football and men’s basketball ranked last in the 2004 to 2007 cohort, according to the document. Among the 38 sports listed in the Academic Progress Rate data from 2009 to 2013, those two sports also ranked last.

The proposal examines “the imbalance observed in those two sports” and cites that football and men’s basketball student-athletes account for less than 19 percent of Division I participants, yet they account for more than 80 percent of academic infraction cases.

"

First, a couple of key points: Freshman ineligibility, should it ever pass, would have to be done at the Power 5 conference level for the Big Ten to go through with it; the whole "A Year of Readiness" concept is what's being examined at the conference level. That proposal would act as a mandatory redshirt for freshmen, essentially reinstating a previous NCAA rule which was eliminated in 1972. 

There's a reason that rule has been defunct for more than 40 years. 

To understand why the idea is getting resistance from guys like Tom Dienhart of the Big Ten Network—who lives in the conference's own back yard—you have to understand that freshmen are an important part of college football. They have been for some time.

Last season, two big-name running backs—Samaje Perine of Oklahoma and Nick Chubb of Georgia—finished in the top 20 in rushing, according to cfbstats.com. Both were freshmen. One of the more dynamic pass-catchers in the Big Ten, Mike Dudek of Illinois, was a true freshman. 

Even if they're not stars right away, freshmen have their place as key reserves and special teams contributors. As Rutgers head coach Kyle Flood noted, via Chris Vannini of coachingsearch.com, the college football season got longer with the playoff and the 85-man scholarship limit isn't about to be raised any time soon.

Now imagine being, say, a Big Ten coach on the recruiting trail, going into living rooms and telling potential freshmen contributors that they'll have to wait a season before seeing the field. 

It's not just coaches who would be hesitant to get on board. Ohio State linebacker Darron Lee, who played in limited time as a freshman but made a huge impact last year as a redshirt freshman, doesn't see the logic: 

"

@11W  what genius thought of this idea

— Darron Lee (@DLeeMG8) February 19, 2015"

To be clear, the Big Ten is not on an island in this endeavor. Jon Solomon of CBSSports.com reported a week ago that Bob Bowlsby, John Swofford and Larry Scott—the commissioners of the Big 12, ACC and Pac-12, respectively—were among those who were, at the very least, interested in vetting the possibility. 

Still, this is the kind of thing that further pushes the narrative that the Big Ten is determined to live in the past. 

But Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany isn't dumb. In fact, simply saying Delany is smart does him a disservice. He's brilliant. Don't ever let the Big Ten jokes—though there are many—allow you to think otherwise. 

Consider the following: There's an academic redshirt coming in 2016, as determined by the NCAA. That applies to '16 freshmen who meet the NCAA's old academic requirements but not the new ones. Almost for that reason alone, it behooves conferences to wait and see how new academic standards affect eligibility before proceeding with a solution for something there's not a problem with. 

Tom Pennington/Getty Images

So why is there suddenly pressure to take something that would apply to only part of a freshman class and make it widespread?

Because admins are so concerned over men's college basketball and the one-and-done rule, eliminating freshmen eligibility is on the table. Never mind that only a minuscule number of freshmen percentage-wise declare for the NBA draft after one year. It's the textbook definition of overkill.  

College football is different because athletes have to wait three years before they can declare. Thus, the impact of freshman ineligibility relative to going pro early decreases some. Still, it's being looped into the discussion.

Why are those two sports being cherry picked and not men's lacrosse or women's gymnastics? Don't they all face the same challenges as freshmen student-athletes?

These are deliberate moves, and it's enough to warrant a side-eye glance. As Zach Barnett of Footballscoop.com points out, the timing of this discussion shows admins are still fighting the fight about academic prioritization in the post-Ed O'Bannon antitrust ruling:  

"

The timing of these discussions is curious at best and disingenuous at worst. The NCAA’s hallowed amateurism model has been under serious attack through lawsuits filed by former UCLA basketball player Ed O’Bannon and antitrust lawyer Jeffrey Kessler. Northwestern football players appealed for the right to unionize less than a year ago. The door has felt the force of the battering ram, and it isn’t going to hold.

"

The following quote from Maryland President Wallace Loh to the The Diamondback seems to corroborate as much: 

"What I like about the concept of the proposal is it puts right up front the basic issue: Are we basically a quasi-professional activity or primarily an educational activity?" Loh said. "And if you support it, you are basically saying very clearly the No. 1 priority is the education of the students."

In other words, college admins would have you believe that the bubble in which they live is still based in academics, not big-time athletics, and they're willing to come up with some wild ideas to prove it. The last thing NCAA members would ever want to do is admit they created a marketplace that serves as a de facto minor league for pro sports. 

Do that and prepare to pay out to football and men's basketball players. 

Sure, eliminating freshman eligibility is an answer. It's just not the right one because it doesn't serve athletes on a widespread basis nearly as much as it serves college admins. 

What those admins should focus on is not taking away a year of playing time, but adding to the overall number. That's something Mississippi State athletics director Scott Stricklin suggested on his Twitter account:

By doing so, freshmen retain their eligibility, provided they meet the academic standards and move forward with confidence that they have five years to complete their degree. 

For as much chatter as the Big Ten generates about academic integrity, removing freshmen from the field could have significant negative affects on the recruiting trail. That's the bread and butter to building championship teams. 

Is the Big Ten, or anyone else in the Power 5 for that matter, willing to lose out on that? The honest answer is probably no. 

Ben Kercheval is a lead writer for college football. All quotes cited unless obtained firsthand.