Big Ten: NCAA sports is ‘house of cards’ if education can’t be defended – CBSSports.com

The Big Ten on Friday released a 12-page report presenting the idea for freshman ineligibility, arguing that college sports “stands as a house of cards” if the industry can’t demonstrate that educating athletes is paramount.

In acknowledging that freshman ineligibiliity may not be the answer, the conference created a forum for a “national discussion” that addresses the criticism that too few athletes in major college football and basketball are being properly educated. The paper states college sports is at a “critical moment” due to media scrutiny, Congressional scrutiny, litigation and unionization efforts that portray the NCAA’s stated educational mission is a facade. The NCAA recently got sued over the North Carolina academic scandal.

“Disagree as we may with such an assertion, the importance of the criticism cannot be overstated,” the Big Ten paper says. “If we cannot defend — through an examination of actions and results as opposed to words — that education is the paramount factor in our decision-making process (rivaled only by the health and safety of our student athletes), then the enterprise stands as a house of cards. Accordingly, the more educationally sound the collegiate experience, the more sustainable intercollegiate athletics becomes.”

The Big Ten says college sports faces a “systemic challenge” and must think “in terms of systematic solutions” and any idea should be on the table. Examples of ideas cited by the Big Ten include higher initial eligibility standards; financial incentives/disincentives tied to academic performance; changing playing and practice schedules; or commissioning “a standardized academic competency test that mitigates cultural biases to a greater degree than current standardized tests.”

Under the Big Ten freshman ineligibility idea nationally — the Big Ten wouldn’t go alone — football and men’s basketball players would have a choice of whether to turn pro. “It is not the responsibility of intercollegiate athletics to serve as professional minor leagues in any sport,” the report says.

The discussion about the return of freshman ineligibility — or a “year of readiness,” as the Big Ten describes — first surfaced in February. In all likelihood, it may never happen. Still, the Big Ten makes some attempts to address criticism of the idea.

Criticism: Academic redshirt years are already coming for college athletes who enroll in 2016, when initial eligibility standards increase.

The NCAA’s required minimum high school GPA is going to increase from 2.0 to 2.3, and high school athletes will be required to complete 10 of their 16 required core courses before their senior year of high school. SEC commissioner Mike Slive has said to let the new standards play out first.

“Despite these efforts, football and men’s basketball continue to lag behind other sports in terms of academic performance,” the Big Ten paper says. “Rather than continue chasing the right initial eligibility equation in an attempt to ensure that football and men’s basketball student-athletes are prepared, perhaps it is time to try a different approach.”

The Big Ten suggests it’s even possible initial eligibility standards could be eliminated in football and men’s basketball by making freshmen ineligible. “Current continuing eligibility rules could remain the same, in which case second-year eligibility would be achieved by meeting current standards (e.g., 6, 18 and 24-hour rules with a 1.8 GPA.)”

Criticism: Sitting all football and men’s basketball players as freshmen would hurt those who are prepared academically.

The Big Ten paper says this is “arguably the strongest objection” to requiring freshman ineligibility. But the conference argues “if enough student-athletes in these sports were prepared at such a level, the academic performance in these sports would be much better and measures to rectify the present imbalance would be unnecessary.”

The Big Ten says even if an athlete with “sterling academic credentials” doesn’t need academic remediation, “he can still benefit from a year of assimilation to college life, as even good students can struggle with the transition from high school to college.”

Why only football and men’s basketball? The Big Ten cites lower graduation and Academic Progress Rate scores in those sports. The Big Ten also says 32 of 37 academic fraud cases in the past 20 years involved football and/or men’s basketball, and 14 of the 20 current NCAA academic fraud cases involved one or both. Football and men’s basketball account for less than 19 percent of Division I participants, but those sports represent 80 percent of past or pending academic infractions cases, the Big Ten says.

Criticism: Requiring freshman ineligibility could be perceived as bias toward African-American students.

In Division I, African-American students represent the highest percentage of participants in football (47 percent) and men’s basketball (58 percent). The Big Ten acknowledges there’s a risk of negatively labeling athletes who sit.

“We should all make great efforts to avoid labeling anyone in a negative way,” the Big Ten says. “Therefore, we want to be clear as to what the purpose of requiring a year of readiness in football and men’s basketball would and would not be. The purpose would not be to label football and men’s basketball student-athletes; it would be to mitigate, if not eliminate, the likelihood of providing competitive opportunities in those sports without simultaneously providing a meaningful educational experience.”

The Big Ten says its idea would not deny eligibility, just delay it. Football and men’s basketball players would still have four years of eligibility after sitting out a year.

Criticism: Sitting freshmen will cost too much money by adding scholarships for athletes who aren’t playing.

Financial costs were the main reason why freshman ineligibility disappeared in the 1970s. The Big Ten estimated the following aggregate costs for all of the Football Bowl Subdivision if freshman ineligibility occurred again:

* $21 million in football

* $26.25 million in men’s basketball

* $47.25 million in women’s sports (the Big Ten says it would take 5.4 additional women’s scholarships across 350 universities to offset $47.25 million in men’s scholarships)

That would leave a total of $94.5 million in new scholarship funding for 3,780 new full-scholarship opportunities. The estimated dollar amount represents less than 10 percent of postseason football and men’s basketball revenue distribution.

“As a possible source of funding for these increased scholarship costs, money could be provided by off-the-top allocations from television revenue from both the NCAA men’s basketball tournament and College Football Playoff,” the Big Ten says. “This approach would allow money generated by institutions of high market value and competitive success to be distributed across all of Division I for investment in new scholarship opportunities.”

For people interested in discussing reform ideas, the Big Ten created an online message board at http://office.bigten.org/respond. The conference also created an email address (educationfirst@bigten.org) for interested parties to directly email the Big Ten office with thoughts.