http://www.wralsportsfan.com/voices/blogpost/7508030/
Printable View
it's an interesting standpoint, but frankly I'm not sure if there's anything he can do about it. Even if he makes a rule that if you come to school you have to stay two or three years, there's no recourse if a player says screw it and goes to the league anyway. You can't contractually obligate someone to stay in school.
Well, not stay in school, but the NBA can have a rule about not drafting or signing a player until he's of a certain age or at least a certain period after his high school graduating class. That's what the current set-up is...for one year, but it could conceivably be changed by the NBA to say two years.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazieDUMB
Just like the NFL's current system, except it's three years of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by roywhite
No, but you can penalize schools with a loss of scholarships when players leave after one or two years. That might make coaches think twice about the character and motives of who they recruit. Such a rule would not make it impractical to sign a few potential one-and-doners, but it would serve as a deterent to Calipari's recruiting strategy, which makes a mockery of "college" basketball and the concept of the student-athlete.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazieDUMB
I see what you're saying, but a change to a two-and-done (or three and done) would have to come from the NBA and David Stern, not the NCAA. As for penalizing schools that recruit one and dones, I don't see that as a viable alternative either. What are these kids supposed to do? Are we going to see an exodus of all the John Walls to Europe? More significant play in the D-League? It just seems unfair to me to punish exceptionally talented people because the system is broken.
True. The only way a kid can be prevented from going to the NBA is by an NBA rule. The NCAA has no right to determine how long a kid has to stay in college, or whether a kid plays in college at all.
The NCAA needs to step back and look at the facts:
1) They have no right, ethical or legal, to force an adult to play college basketball if the adult prefers to pursue gainful employment instead (ie: play professional basketball)
2) They are entirely dependent on the NBA and other professional basketball organizations to agree to restrict their own hiring (when, frankly, it doesn't make much sense for employers to voluntarily limit their own hiring pool)
3) The NCAA frankly isn't offering much incentive for kids to stay in school.
4) The NCAA hasn't honestly defined whether they are an organization of eduational institutions with sports teams, or a developmental league for professional athletes.
Bottom line: if the NCAA wants to keep top level basketball players in school, they'd better start figuring out what incentives they can offer those kids. Educational stipends, free disability insurance to cushion the financial loss of an injury like Desean Butler suffered, freestanding scholarship for kids that want to complete their education at some later date, profit sharing, etc. How about NCAA provided career counselling and networking services for kids who don't make the league? NCAA provided counselling and representation services to educate and protect kids in dealing with agents? How about helping kids contact and interview with agents while they are still eligible college players, with the colleges and NCAA helping to counsel kids on how to interview, select, and deal with these agents? NCAA and college sponsored and administered interviews and camps with pro scouts and coaches to give kids a better idea about their potential as professional players and what they need to work on? Assistance in preparing to play overseas (foreign language courses, cultural education, etc).
Not sure what of the above the NCAA may already do, but my perception is that the NCAA doesn't do much anything except (1) try to coerce kids to play ball in college for free, (2) profit off that, and (3) miserably mismanage enforcing a US tax-code sized book of "rules" (strictness of enforcement entirely dependent on profitability of the program involved)...
Accepting a multi-million dollar contract to play basketball for a living is not a sign of poor character, and isn't something we can expect coaches to avoid. You just can't predict which players will improve dramatically and get a chance to play the sport at its highest level.Quote:
Originally Posted by JG Nothing
Agree about this. It does say something, however, that the incoming NCAA President feels strongly about the current rule and sees some negative impact on the college game. How much leverage can he actually have on the NBA policy? Don't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazieDUMB
My own preference---something similar to current rules regarding baseball prospects. A top baseball prospect can sign with the pros directly out of high school. If he elects to go to college instead, he is not eligible for the draft again until 3 years have passed.
In practice, would this mean that more and more of the top 25 high school basketball recruits try to go pro right away rather than wait 3 years? Don't know. Maybe a more developed D-League system as a minor league? The NBA has its own economic problems, and is probably reluctant to subsidize the D-League additionally.
It is a tricky problem; the status quo doesn't appear to be popular on many fronts.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, but I don't think it's fair to question a kid's "character" or "motives" simply because he's blessed with enough ability to play in the League at the age of 19 or so. How could the NCAA actually enforce the rule you suggested anyway? What if a recruit is a top 20 recruit, isn't slapped with the "one and done" label coming out of high school, but blows up in college, resulting in a projected lottery selection? Is it fair to penalize the school for facilitating a kid's ultimate goal of playing in the NBA? The answer is that it's absolutely not fair.Quote:
Originally Posted by JG Nothing
Your notion that "the concept of the student-athlete" is dying is admirable, but - realistically speaking - the concept (in revenue sports, to be fair to others) has been questionable for some time now.
Regardless, the NCAA doesn't have any right in the matter. They can bellyache all they want, but it's the NBA's decision to make. I agree the 1 and done rule seems to be counterproductive on all ends, but that's what we have until the NBA decides it wants something else. But the notion of the NCAA requiring these athletes to stay longer is just asinine. Why not just require them to graduate? Shoot while we're at it, why not require them get a Masters degree?
But it is lucrative, which is probably enough to limit the NCAA to the occasional impotent whimper about one-and-dones.Quote:
Originally Posted by roywhite
Until the NBA gets serious about the D-league, any system and any changes will be trivial.
A good D-league would have an upper age limit, allow high school kids to join and be coached/shepherded closely and be at a salary point where college is still a great option.
There's no reason for a kid like Lance Stephenson to go to college for 1 year then bolt and bounce around. He should be allowed to make $45K in the D-league if he chooses and then enter the draft at a later date, or enter the drafta nd have a team park him in the D-league for 2-3 years until he grows up and polishes his game.
I think this is a good idea, but baseball is light years ahead of basketball in the minor league system. The change needs to come in the D League system before the rule as that will require more time to take shape. I don't think it would be tremendously beneficial to give kids the option of either (1) playing basketball for minimum 3 years in college or (2) taking a run at a weak minor league system, as I think most kids would choose the latter even in its current state. I think we can all agree there isn't a tremendous amount of development going on in the Developmental League and that would only introduce a truckload of overly-eager youngsters not prepared nor mature enough for the rigors of it all.Quote:
Originally Posted by roywhite
There seems to be an idea that there is nothing the NCAA can do about 1 and dones and must wait for the NBA to do anything.
Well what if you made freshmen ineligible for college basketball?
Or
Tie basketball scholarships to an individual for four years. So if you gave a scholarship to John Wall, then no one else could have that scholarship until Wall's class graduates. (I think next year Kentucky would be limited to 8 scholarships as they had 4 frosh and a junior go pro.)
I am sure if the NCAA really thought about it then they could come up with some other ideas.
SoCal
College basketball still has a strong appeal to many talented young players, even some that aren't serious about academics. The fan following, constant TV exposure, the "Big Dance"...many still want to be a part of it. Look at Enes Kanter the Turkish kid going to Kentucky; he had the option of getting paid pretty well in Europe but wants to play NCAA basketball for his own development and exposure.
Even in pure economic terms, it might make sense for a talented player to play in college with regular TV exposure to maximize his marketing potential, as opposed to spending ages 19-21 at the end of an NBA bench or riding a bus in the D-League.
I really think the whole "one-and-done" issue is far less of a big deal than people make it out to be. This season, there is a grand total of 29 freshmen and sophomores that have declared for the draft (I excluded juniors because there seems to be widespread support for the "three or none" idea), and it is likely that not all of them will stay in the draft at the end of the day. These numbers are similar to those in seasons past. There are somewhere between 3500 and 4000 Division 1 basketball players, probably close to half of whom are freshmen and sophomores. So basically, all this fretting and hand-wringing is about what should be done for ~1.5% of the underclassmen in the sport.
Yes, but that 1.5% are the ones that people get really excited about, the one's that garner TV attention (read: advertising money). I think making freshman ineligible is a pretty drastic move that would spur a mass exodus of American talent to Europe instead of college, which I don't think American fans want. I've seen a couple ideas that I do like, such as allowing players to be drafted out of high school, but if they choose not to then they can't be drafted again until they are 21.Quote:
Originally Posted by pfrduke
One thing I've wondered about is why the NCAA doesn't just pay their players (other than the obvious "they don't want to")? It wouldn't have to be multi-million dollar contracts, just a modest pay-check (by sport standards). Then they could compete with the NBA for talent, and those that would think they were better of in the NCAA would stay until they were ready.
Another idea which a friend of mine proposed that I found really interesting (though probably not without its own problems): why not allow universities or the NCAA to offer (in addition to scholarships) insurance policies to their really big name players, so that if they were debilitatingly injured in college they would be compensated? This would mitigate the risk of staying in college unpaid for an extra year or two and give the athletes more incentive to hone their skills in the college game. I don't know, it's just a thought.
But that 1.5% of the underclassmen accounts for over 50% of the marketability! Something MUST be done!Quote:
Originally Posted by pfrduke
oh. wait. we were talking about education. sorry.
Well, I'll bet those 29 players drastically altered the overall percentage of underclassmen (including nonathletes) who left school last year (flunked out, lost interest, ran out of money, found employment, etc). Yes, that is sarcasm.
I favor the rule where a scholarship grant binds a school for three years. If the player leaves earlier, the scholarship still counts against the school's limit for the duration of the three years. Schools cannot terminate the scholarship for the three years. The school can be released from the scholarship if the player receives another scholarship through transfer. There could also be a "walk-on" scholarship year-to-year for players who have been enrolled in school for a year.
The NCAA is the best farm league for American players for the NCAA, but it is also supposed to be an educational organization. Let's at least maintain the charade (facade?). Yes, much money flows in because of the entertaining display of the athletes' basketball prowess, but that money funds other athletic programs. If the players feel exploited, go find another league.
I always felt that this rule punishes the school for a player's decision to pursue his trade professionally. I never really liked it on two counts. First, it takes action against the university, who is not at all to blame. Second, I don't really think it is even a punishable act. There is nothing wrong with a person who wants to leave college early to start his career.Quote:
Originally Posted by BD80
I just don't buy into the "NCAA is totally using athletes" argument. First, the athletes get a free ride to 4 years of college if they want it. That's a $200K value or so for a kid going to Duke. I would gladly have taken it. Next, they can get a college degree. I've heard that averages to about a million dollars of higher expected earnings over a lifetime, which clearly would be higher for a Duke grad. They may also get into a school they would not academically be admitted to if they didn't happen to be exceptionally good at their sport. Money that football and basketball brings in subsidizes non-revenue sports that would not otherwise exist. The coaches make money, but they are not amateurs. The best could be making more money in the pros. As long as they graduate their athletes, I don't think they're using the kids. The best players get to develop their skills and marketability, get an education, and still play professionally. Others would not be able to play after high school otherwise anyway. Plus, there's no doubt that having played for a major univeristy is good for business networking. Is the Minor League baseball system better, where many play well into their 20s without making too much money and with no college education to fall back on?Quote:
Originally Posted by davekay1971