College presidents, athletic directors and coaches have been discussing everything from restructuring Division I to rules changes in individual sports at conference spring meetings, and much of what has been proposed will enhance the future for student-athletes.
But not everything on the table is a good idea. In fact, every now and then these folks go overboard in trying to correct perceived problems to the point of stupidity.
The Pac-12 presidents and chancellors provided an example last week when they sent a letter to their counterparts in the other four power conferences outlining 10 points of emphasis they believe should be priorities for the immediate future for the power five conferences.
The seventh item on the list suggested that if the NBA and its players association can't come to an agreement on increasing the minimum age to be eligible for the draft, colleges should make freshmen ineligible to compete in men's basketball.
It's an attempt to put an end to the 'one-and-done' player. These are phenoms who are good enough to be drafted into the NBA directly out of high school, but since the NBA requires a player to be at least 19 or one year removed from high school, they choose to attend college for one year.
The proposal to make freshman ineligible is a massive overreaction to an issue that really only affects a dozen or so freshmen around the nation each year. In some years, it might be a half-dozen.
That alone should make the presidents think twice.
There is no legitimate reason to enact a rule that affects hundreds of young men to solve a problem limited to just a few. If this rule was in place last season, CU coach Tad Boyle would have had four players sitting on the bench in street clothes for every game. It would have been six the year before.
None of those players had any hope of being drafted at the time they came out of high school and they shouldn't have to sit their first year of college because a handful of guys at Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, Syracuse or North Carolina are that talented and are only in college for one year.
The fact the presidents are painting with too broad a brush is only part of the problem with this proposal. They're assuming that by simply making freshmen ineligible they would be forced to attend at least two years of college, one in which they practice and attend classes but don't travel or play and one in which they are fully eligible.
The idea that they think this is a realistic solution shows how out of touch they are.
The few players each year who are capable of playing in the NBA as 18 year olds are well-known to every NBA scout and general manager before they ever step foot on a college campus. Just making those players ineligible for one year wouldn't prevent NBA teams from drafting them.
These guys are basketball players who are already among the elite players in the world. They're not going to stunt their growth in the sport and their future career to attend college for a year, especially with the risk of injury in a practice without the reward of game days.
They're much more likely to avoid college altogether and go overseas to play or workout with personal coaches.
Hey, at least they're in school for a year. Perhaps, it will make an impression and encourage them to return and earn a degree at some point after their basketball career ends. If not, so be it.
Some of these young men come out of high school expecting to be in college for just a year but discover along the way that they need a little more work and time than they first thought.
A silly rule like this would certainly prevent at least of few of them from ever getting to college in the first place.