Parity.

[Norm Peterson]

Three first-time Final Four participants for the first time since like 1970.

 

The second highest average seed in the Final Four in NCAA tournament history.

 

First time ever that there wasn't a single #1 seed remaining after the Sweet 16.

 

I could go on.

 

This season has been marked by parity. And, just on a hunch, I looked at San Diego State's roster. Know what I found?

 

Four of their rotation players, including their overall leading scorer, have played five seasons of college basketball. Some of them might be 6th year players, I don't know. But four of them have played five seasons.

 

I said it before and I'm repeating it now: Five seasons of playing eligibility is the best equalizer to offset against the teams who get all the one-and-done talent.

 

We'll have another couple of years of this before it filters all the way through. But I think the NCAA should make this the rule. Give players six years to play five. Just one extra season.

 

It will improve the game. It will tend to level the playing field between the recruiting haves and have nots. It will probably result in some greater roster stability, which the fans want (e.g. we get 3 seasons with Derrick Walker after he transferred from Tennessee.) And it would reflect the reality that college tends to be a 5 year gig these days.

 

I would love to see this happen.

 

Can anyone think of any downside?

[Navin R. Johnson]

I did not see the "i" in your title so I was going to RSVP for your party if you were buying, before I read it again.

 

As far as parity goes, one problem I could see is this would probably lead to more transfers with the extra year in play, but it looks like transfers will just be a fact of life in college sports so I could see it working.  I'm thinking now that if I was coaching I might shy away from high school kids or tell them to go to a South Dakota, work on their game and then we will re-recruit you in a couple of years.  Funny how the game has gone from Senior dominated teams with no freshmen to the Fab 5 and one and dones, to Senior dominated teams again.  Your idea very well could level the playing field.

[tcp]

it would likely dry up several hundred athletic scholarships for seniors in high schools every year. the extra year at the end means there's also one fewer going out that year. not sure how that might play out, but i could see it impacting marginal players the most. this take, by the way, isn't so much a hot one as it is a highly medicated one. but i just couldn't help but think what goes up must also come down. 

[AuroranHusker]

10 hours ago, Navin R. Johnson said:

I did not see the "i" in your title so I was going to RSVP for your party if you were buying, before I read it again.

 

As far as parity goes, one problem I could see is this would probably lead to more transfers with the extra year in play, but it looks like transfers will just be a fact of life in college sports so I could see it working.  I'm thinking now that if I was coaching I might shy away from high school kids or tell them to go to a South Dakota, work on their game and then we will re-recruit you in a couple of years.  Funny how the game has gone from Senior dominated teams with no freshmen to the Fab 5 and one and dones, to Senior dominated teams again.  Your idea very well could level the playing field.

 

 

I had been too busy checking of my various flights to have had time to party. Now, that's parody. Real life parity.