Pac-12 presidents propose new NCAA model in letter to other university leaders

Donate To GopherHole
BleedGopher

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
61,972
Reaction score
18,166
Points
113
per the AP:

Pac-12 university presidents have sent a letter to their colleagues at the other four major football conferences calling for sweeping changes to the NCAA model and autonomy for those leagues.

A copy of the letter was obtained by The Associated Press on Tuesday night. It was sent last week to the other 53 university presidents from the Southeastern Conference, Big Ten, Big 12 and Atlantic Coast Conference.

The full list of proposals included in the letter are:

— Permit institutions to make scholarship awards up to the full cost of attendance.

— Provide reasonable ongoing medical or insurance assistance for student-athletes who suffer an incapacitating injury in competition or practice. Continue efforts to reduce the incidence of disabling injury.

— Guarantee scholarships for enough time to complete a bachelor's degree, provided that the student remains in good academic standing.

— Decrease the demands placed on the athlete in-season, correspondingly increase the time available for studies and campus life, by preventing the abuse of organized "voluntary" practices to circumvent the limit of 20 hours per week and more realistically assess the time away from campus and other commitments during the season.

— Similarly decrease time demands out of season by reducing out-of-season competition and practices, and by considering shorter seasons in specific sports.

— Further strengthen the Academic Progress Rate requirements for postseason play.

— 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.

— Provide student-athletes a meaningful role in governance at the conference and NCAA levels.

— Adjust existing restrictions so that student-athletes preparing for the next stage of their careers are not unnecessarily deprived of the advice and counsel of agents and other competent professionals, but without professionalizing intercollegiate athletics.

— Liberalize the current rules limiting the ability of student-athletes to transfer between institutions.

Pac-12 presidents are asking for a response to the proposed reforms by June 4. Crow said the decision by Pac-12 presidents to send the letter was unanimous and the initial feedback from university presidents has been positive.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/gophers/260036321.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Go Gophers!!
 

Big Changes are a-coming. And it would suck to be a little school who will be left out to dry in the new paradigm. It has been mentioned before, but it wouldn't surprise me to see the big conferences leave the current structure and become their own level. Will be interesting to watch...
 


Sparlimb said:
Big Changes are a-coming. And it would suck to be a little school who will be left out to dry in the new paradigm. It has been mentioned before, but it wouldn't surprise me to see the big conferences leave the current structure and become their own level. Will be interesting to watch...
Click to expand...

Agree 100%.
 

Sparlimb said:
Big Changes are a-coming. And it would suck to be a little school who will be left out to dry in the new paradigm. It has been mentioned before, but it wouldn't surprise me to see the big conferences leave the current structure and become their own level. Will be interesting to watch...
Click to expand...

What is in these rules that every school at the DI FBS (or DI for sports other than FB) level would not want to see happen and follow. The only restriction to the Lower conferences in following this same set of rules would be spending/budgets. Why would these rules necessarily create a new level? I can see it helping recruiting in the P5 because they have more to spend, but it wouldn't necessarily create a new level within or outside the current DI of the NCAA. Those rules are a ++ for every school that would adapt them.

The P5 is now bullet proof, and is making demands on the ncaa that have never been made before. What is suggested in this list, other than spending that some will not be able to afford, are good things for all colleges at the DI level. Wouldn't you agree?

The differenciator in college athletics has always been scholarships. If the P5 and the L5 both stay at 85, what separates them to a different championship level? They have propsed good ideas for all of DI/DI FBS it would seem. It could lead to separation, time will tell.
 


In terms of the student athletes those changes look great. Football coaches would hate some of them though because, they rely on those so called "optional" practices and meetings to get even more time in with the players.
 

I like a lot of these. Someone help me understand the benefit of the freshman eligibility rule for men's basketball? I'm not sure I understand how this invents elite basketball prospects from jumping anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

mcgi0024 said:
I like a lot of these. Someone help me understand the benefit of the freshman eligibility rule for men's basketball? I'm not sure I understand how this invents elite basketball prospects from jumping anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The only thing that freshmen ineligibility would accomplish would be to 100% eliminate the elite high school players from the picture as they would almost certainly all go to the D-League before they would sit for a year without playing.

NCAA needs the NBA to do something similar to what baseball did and say that if you enroll in college you must play at least 2 years (I believe it is 3 in baseball) before you are eligible for the draft again.
 

mcgi0024 said:
Someone help me understand the benefit of the freshman eligibility rule for men's basketball? I'm not sure I understand how this invents elite basketball prospects from jumping anyway.
Click to expand...

What elite prospect is going to practice (and lift, attend study table and team functions, etc.) for a year with a college team, knowing full well he'll never get game action? What NBA team is going to draft an 18 year old who hasn't taken the court for a year? The thought here is that these kids will either bypass college altogether to play a year overseas OR they'll stick it out for their sophomore year, which gives programs more stability. The added benefit is that these freshman will also have to stay eligible academically in order to participate as sophomores, so you won't have future NBA draft picks who just stop attending classes altogether once fall grades have posted. School will actually matter that first year.
 



MNVCGUY said:
The only thing that freshmen ineligibility would accomplish would be to 100% eliminate the elite high school players from the picture as they would almost certainly all go to the D-League before they would sit for a year without playing.

NCAA needs the NBA to do something similar to what baseball did and say that if you enroll in college you must play at least 2 years (I believe it is 3 in baseball) before you are eligible for the draft again.
Click to expand...

Precisely.
 

I don't see what this does for a basketball program. First it will motivate most elite players to look elsewhere. Secondly those that do enroll will certainly leave after their second year, since they will have had a year of maturing, weight training and practice before playing. For this the university gets to pay for 2 years of college life for 1 year of play.

Equally puzzling to me is exactly how the NBA (or NFL) can agree to prevent a young man for earning a living. Pro basketball isn't a life threatening occupation, though Magic Johnson might be the contrary indicator.
 

I'm not a huge men's basketball fan so maybe this makes sense. It just seems interesting to me that the college hoops community would prefer a model similar to baseball compared to the one they have. Particularly given the lack of popularity currently experienced by college baseball. Just seems interesting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

ncgo4 said:
Equally puzzling to me is exactly how the NBA (or NFL) can agree to prevent a young man for earning a living. Pro basketball isn't a life threatening occupation, though Magic Johnson might be the contrary indicator.
Click to expand...

They are private businesses and can set limitations on who can work there. Just like a 3 year old can't work for 3M and a paraplegic can't be a fire fighter.
 



Sparlimb said:
They are private businesses and can set limitations on who can work there. Just like a 3 year old can't work for 3M and a paraplegic can't be a fire fighter.
Click to expand...

I can quote at least one major federal law that contradicts your major premise. Yet, we all know what you say is true in essence. Continue under the illusion that you are correct and I'll play along.
 

ncgo4 said:
Equally puzzling to me is exactly how the NBA (or NFL) can agree to prevent a young man for earning a living. Pro basketball isn't a life threatening occupation, though Magic Johnson might be the contrary indicator.
Click to expand...

Collectively bargained age limits have been upheld by courts. Since the age limits have been in place through collective bargaining, they are legal.
 

Somebody needs to start a MJFL and a MJBL. It will stop a lot of the problems.
 

I'd rather have the elite recruits go to the D-League rather than being one-and-done. I like these changes, although I'm not sure about the guaranteed scholarships. What happens if a player just kicks back and doesn't put in any effort with the team, will he still get his four guaranteed years? I can see not cutting players if they aren't as good as you expected, but if a player just goofs off at practice, that's different.

Cutting back on semi-voluntary off-season practice isn't a bad thing, but it has to be NCAA-wide, otherwise some teams will have an advantage.
 

ncgo4 said:
Equally puzzling to me is exactly how the NBA (or NFL) can agree to prevent a young man for earning a living.
Click to expand...

Because it's a private organization and it can impose any barriers to entry that it wants, so long as those barriers are imposed equally and without prejudice. If you don't understand that, you must not understand why someone must have an MD to practice as a physician.
 

So they choose to not hire minorities if they wanted because they are a private organization? That would be false. The courts have upheld the age requirement but that are protected classes private organizations could not discriminate against without penalty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

mcgi0024 said:
So they choose to not hire minorities if they wanted because they are a private organization? That would be false. The courts have upheld the age requirement but that are protected classes private organizations could not discriminate against without penalty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

"Without prejudice"
 


I 'm not really sure the details of how they came to that conclusion. It does seem odd to me as well. Especially on behalf of a group like the NFL that enjoys an anti-trust exemption.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

GopherJake said:
Within the context you provided, denial of an adult based upon age isn't prejudice?
Click to expand...


Again, is 3M going to hire a 3 year old?

How many 100+ year old fire fighters are there?

Age can be the basis of prejudice, but often is allowed to be used as a hiring criteria. If not, child labor laws would be gone.
 

Sparlimb said:
Again, is 3M going to hire a 3 year old?

How many 100+ year old fire fighters are there?

Age can be the basis of prejudice, but often is allowed to be used as a hiring criteria. If not, child labor laws would be gone.
Click to expand...

First of all, you are prejudging my position on this issue. Secondly, your examples can be easily dismissed. If a 100+ year old is capable of performing the physical and mental duties required of a firefighter, do you see any reason they should not be hired? The 3 year old would be covered by this argument and child-labor laws.

Neither of these arguments apply to an 18 year old Lebron James.
 

All of this hoopla is PR management. They understand they're behind the curve in public opinion in some quarters. I wouldn't hold your breath on a lot of these proposals.

Pick any industry with PR problems and you'll find similar tactics. One of the more high-profile would be the banking reforms after the recent economic turmoil. A lot of blathering and ultimately no meaningful change, perhaps some window dressing.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom