New NCAA Pres Doesn't Like 1-And-Dones

[airowe]

http://www.wralsportsfan.com/voices/blogpost/7508030/

[CrazieDUMB]

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.

[roywhite]

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.

[Big Pappa]

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.

Just like the NFL's current system, except it's three years of course.

[kingboozer]

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.

even if the NBA made a rule like that, what's stopping them from going overseas?

[JG Nothing]

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.

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.

[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.

[roywhite]

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.

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.

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.

[Duvall]

It is a tricky problem; the status quo doesn't appear to be popular on many fronts.

But it is lucrative, which is probably enough to limit the NCAA to the occasional impotent whimper about one-and-dones.

[superdave]

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.

[JohnGalt]

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.

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.

It is a tricky problem; the status quo doesn't appear to be popular on many fronts.

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.

[SoCalDukeFan]

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

[roywhite]

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.

[pfrduke]

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.

[Jderf]

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.

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.

[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.

The NCAA (or more accurately, the member institutions) absolutely do compensate their players through scholarships - free tuition, free room and board, etc. (I admit I don't know the full extent of what a scholarship covers).

Moreover, the NCAA should not set itself up as a "competitor for talent" with the NBA, because that's not its role. And I can almost guarantee that very, very few, if any, of the early entrants currently think they are better off in the NCAA, or would reach that conclusion if they had a modest paycheck waiting for them if they returned to school.

[Jderf]

The NCAA (or more accurately, the member institutions) absolutely do compensate their players through scholarships - free tuition, free room and board, etc. (I admit I don't know the full extent of what a scholarship covers).

Moreover, the NCAA should not set itself up as a "competitor for talent" with the NBA, because that's not its role. And I can almost guarantee that very, very few, if any, of the early entrants currently think they are better off in the NCAA, or would reach that conclusion if they had a modest paycheck waiting for them if they returned to school.

Yes, they compensate them but not with what the players in question want (I'm not discounting for a second that there are a few thousand players who relish the chance to get their education through basketball, only that these one-and-dones are not as interested).

I would say that many of these players jump to the NBA early, not necessarily because they think they are in a fantastic position to do so, but because they worry about the risks that another year in college entails or are forced by their economic situation. (Look at Elliot Williams, who should be a late first-rounder, I think. I'm pretty sure I read that he's declaring so that he can support his family.)

Also, I was never saying the NCAA's "role" was to compete with the NBA for talent, just noting the obvious fact that it does do so, even if only incidentally.

[Jderf]

Also, I wasn't saying that compensating the players monetarily would cause athletes to stay in college for an extra year to develop, only that it would be giving players more incentive to do so. It is, after all, their decision, and anybody who thought they were already an NBA-level talent would probably go anyway.

[pfrduke]

Yes, they compensate them but not with what the players in question want (I'm not discounting for a second that there are a few thousand players who relish the chance to get their education through basketball, only that these one-and-dones are not as interested).

I would say that many of these players jump to the NBA early, not necessarily because they think they are in a fantastic position to do so, but because they worry about the risks that another year in college entails or are forced by their economic situation. (Look at Elliot Williams, who should be a late first-rounder, I think. I'm pretty sure I read that he's declaring so that he can support his family.)

Also, I was never saying the NCAA's "role" was to compete with the NBA for talent, just noting the obvious fact that it does do so, even if only incidentally.

Well, I'm not sure the NCAA should dictate its decisions based on what a few dozen basketball players may want in the form of compensation. Beyond that, though, a player who is leaving for NBA millions to support his family is unlikely to return for a "modest" paycheck at the NCAA level. I'm not even sure what "modest" would be, but to use an example of $10,000 above and beyond the scholarship, that modest paycheck is a collective $40 million annual expense to the NCAA member institutions (because, to be equitable, if Duke is allowed to pay its players $10k a year, then so must Elon, etc.).

[Jderf]

Well, I'm not sure the NCAA should dictate its decisions based on what a few dozen basketball players may want in the form of compensation. Beyond that, though, a player who is leaving for NBA millions to support his family is unlikely to return for a "modest" paycheck at the NCAA level. I'm not even sure what "modest" would be, but to use an example of $10,000 above and beyond the scholarship, that modest paycheck is a collective $40 million annual expense to the NCAA member institutions (because, to be equitable, if Duke is allowed to pay its players $10k a year, then so must Elon, etc.).

Well, with a shiny new 11 Billion dollar contract with CBS, you would think they'd find a way to afford it. And I was thinking the top players would probably be paid much better, depending on a host of factors, maybe even in the 100K-200K range. Of course, this doesn't really matter, since it's all pretty wild speculation on my part and if such an idea like this were ever pushed through (which I don't think it would be), there are thousands of different ways it could play out. I don't think it can be denied though that these kids often bring much more to their school than their school brings to them. I mean, some kids are perfectly happy with it and that's great for them and their teams and their fans. For the others, though, don't be surprised or upset if they keep opting for the draft.