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

[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?

[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.

[pfrduke]

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.

Again, I don't see it as a facade of an educational organization just because a handful of kids every year play college basketball with no intention of getting an education.

Look at it this way - I imagine that most NCAA member institutions experience less than 98.5% graduation rates in their entire student body over a 4-year, or even 5-year, period. People drop out. People flunk out. People decide that college isn't really right for them yet. Plenty of people in college skip classes, focus more on drinking/partying than learning, etc. And yes, people in other endeavors besides athletics leave early to follow professional aspirations (music, acting, etc.). The legitimacy of a school's educational mission is not undermined by any of those people. I don't think it's undermined by basketball players who leave early, either.

[airowe]

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.

So, this rule would punish schools and coaches for getting their student-athletes ready for their career faster than their peers. I don't agree with ideology behind this rule at all. Why would you punish someone for being successful at their job?

[jimsumner]

The current one-year rule is a by-product of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the NBA and the NBA Player's Association. It can only be amended or abolished in that context.

Professional baseball and professional basketball are apples and oranges. The former has a huge player-development infrastructure designed to take in numerous high school and college players every season and place them in a fiercely Darwinian system which promotes the worthy and weeds out the unworthy. Each Major League team controls more than a hundred professional players in the minor league system.

The NBA has nothing of the sort and no plans for one. Why create a multi-tiered farm system when the colleges already do it for you and it doesn't cost you a cent?

Making freshmen ineligible would send the John Walls and Michael Beasleys to Europe. It certainly wouldn't dissuade the NBA from drafting them nor would it encourage them to stay for a sophomore season.

Bringing back freshmen teams would only make sense if more scholarships were added and adding that level of expense in the current economic environment absolutely would never fly.

[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.).

[JohnGalt]

So, this rule would punish schools and coaches for getting their student-athletes ready for their career faster than their peers. I don't agree with ideology behind this rule at all. Why would you punish someone for being successful at their job?

Exactly, Airowe. I mentioned this in an earlier post. Let's not kid ourselves -nearly all D1 (well, all divisions really) players would play professionally if they could. Not only that, a large segment of the coaches' job is to prepare these kids for their future career. So if you have two people that are both accomplishing their ultimate goals, you penalize them for it? It's illogical.

[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.

[SCMatt33]

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.

I kind of doubt that the new TV contract would directly contribute to players salaries, even in the scenario described. I'm pretty sure that if players were payed, this money would come from the schools (who do receive a large cut of the TV money) and not the NCAA. Teams pay players, not leagues.

As far as the overall landscape, I don't think that the NBA will ever allow high school players to go directly to the league again. The one-and-done rule has done a great job at preventing Kwame Brown type scenarios. Teams get to see players at a higher level and can evaluate them better. There is also a numbers argument. From 1971-1995, there were four high school players in the NBA draft total. From 1996-2003, there was an average of 3.5 high school players per draft, with a maximum of 6 in 2001. In 2004, there were 10 high school players in the draft, and 11 in 2005. It just got to the point where players who had no business entering the draft entered, and would get taken for their "potential." The only way to stop this was the one-and-done rule. If the rule wasn't collectively bargained, I'm pretty sure that there would already be a two-and-done rule on the books, but the players union won't allow it. The league will have too many other pressing issues to make this a high priority in the upcoming negotiations.

From the NCAA side, the easiest coarse of action is to simply lobby Stern about the importance of his league for a two-and-done rule (sorry everyone who wants the baseball thing, but it will never happen for all of the reason stated before, I won't repeat them). The three or four year scholarship thing will never happen because one year renewables are too valuable to the schools and allow them to cut scholarships for a myriad of reasons without things getting messy. For example, if a school wanted to kick someone off of a team for behavior reasons and the player had a 4-year scholly, there could end up being a messy legal battle to prove cause, or the school could end up paying out a buyout or settlement. With a renewable, the school can simply decide not to renew, end of story. This is too valuable of a chip to give up in an attempt to discourage one-and-dones.

[kestrel]

It's clear that the simplest way to keep student-athletes students for longer is to get Stern and the Player's Association to fix the CBA, however unlikely though that may be. If that's not on the table, though, I feel like there should be some alternative available. I will freely admit that I have little to no knowledge of the wording on an athletic scholarship (my high school sport was Ultimate Frisbee), but is it theoretically possible that something could be written into the agreement that would make it prohibitively expensive for a student to sign a contract with the NBA for the first two years of enrollment? In that example, a student who wanted to go one-and-done could still do so, but would have to pay a penalty to the NCAA, who would then divvy up the proceeds in some palatable way. Something in the six-figure range would make freshmen think long and hard about their draft position and whether it's really worth the trouble. I imagine there are a number of problems with this scenario, but I'd like to think it's better than throwing up my hands and leaving it to David Stern.

[SoCalDukeFan]

The name of the game that we are talking about is Men's College Basketball, it is not pre professional basketball. The NCAA makes a big deal out of advertising how many athletes go into fields other than pro sports. They also take great pains to refer to the players as student-athletes.

So if making frosh ineligible would drive the one and doners to Europe, that is fine with me. I would rather have them in Europe rather than playing "college" basketball and not going to class.

The one and doners almost always are going to the NBA because of their perceived talent, not because of the great coaching they got in that one year. If they could they would have gone right after high school. I don't see tieing scholarships to a player for 3 or 4 years as any kind of a penalty for excellent coaching, maybe for excellent recruiting.

Right now the system is great for the NBA. The scouts don't have to go into high school gyms. The players get built up for a year. The scouts can watch them play against college competition.

Paying (beyond the scholarship) is a slippery slope. Do you pay football players? golfers? women's basketball players?

I do think that the influence of the shoe companies, runners, and marketing firms may be a bigger problem than the one and dones.

SoCal

[tallguy]

but is it theoretically possible that something could be written into the agreement that would make it prohibitively expensive for a student to sign a contract with the NBA for the first two years of enrollment?

No, there's not. For one thing, the scholarship is only guaranteed for 1 year, so there's no way any penalty clause could exist that punished a player for leaving school after one season. For another, why are people on this thread actively trying to figure out ways to screw over the student-athletes even more than they already are. They already get screwed as it is, why are you people advocating for more of it?

There's no solution to this problem...the John Wall's of the world shouldn't be forced to step foot on a college basketball court, but they are. The NCAA can whine and moan about it all they want, but they're getting a year's worth of free labor (it's basically free, considering how much they profit from the elite basketball players). This issue affects only an extreme minority of student-athletes, and it just seems self-serving to come on here and listen to people pontificate on how one and dones are ruining college basketball. They're not, and any further attempts to restrict them from using their talents to make money just comes off as mean spirited.

[El_Diablo]

(when, frankly, it doesn't make much sense for employers to voluntarily limit their own hiring pool)

Maybe in the abstract it doesn't make much sense.

But take one look at Kwame Brown and then tell me again it doesn't make sense for the NBA to force people to audition for a year before committing millions of dollars to a 3-4 year contract.

It makes perfect sense if you're an NBA owner.

[davekay1971]

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?

Not my point at all that the NCAA is totally using athletes. The athletes are getting the compensation you noted above for their play, and, for most of us, it's a really good deal. I would love to have had my Duke education paid for in exchange for me playing on the team, wearing the uniform, getting the babes, etc...

My point is more practical. See, no one was offering me millions of dollars a year to go play basketball professionally as an option, but that's the option presented to the best 19 year old basketball players. Since the NCAA has no right whatsoever to prevent a 19 year old from taking that option, the NCAA has two choices: (1) let the athletes go seek their fortune in professional ball, or (2) improve the incentives for those athletes to keep playing college ball.

[davekay1971]

Maybe in the abstract it doesn't make much sense.

But take one look at Kwame Brown and then tell me again it doesn't make sense for the NBA to force people to audition for a year before committing millions of dollars to a 3-4 year contract.

It makes perfect sense if you're an NBA owner.

No it doesn't. An NBA owner leery of committing a contract to an player who's never played above the high school level can choose to not draft said player.

[Duvall]

No it doesn't. An NBA owner leery of committing a contract to an player who's never played above the high school level can choose to not draft said player.

Thus leaving the next great player to be drafted by another team. The one-and-done rule protects teams from having to gamble on whether their draft picks will turn out to be Kwame Brown or Kevin Durant.

No one saying that it's fair, just that it makes perfect sense for the NBA.

[tallguy]

No it doesn't. An NBA owner leery of committing a contract to an player who's never played above the high school level can choose to not draft said player.

Exposing frauds isn't the only benefit. As it is, the NBA benefits greatly from the exposure the one and dones get- whichever team gets John Wall will sell more seats due to the publicity he got throughout the year than they would have if he was coming straight out of high school. Look at Derrick Rose and Durant- both had a considerably higher public image after one year in college than they did before they entered.

That reason was Stern's main driver for getting the one and done rule in place. It's also the main reason a 2 year requirement isn't likely- while it would increase exposure, the free marketing gain isn't nearly enough to to make it a bargaining issue compared to several other issues.

[LSanders]

First, the rule has to come from the NBA ... Period. Nothing the NCAA does on its own will work for all the reasons stated previously.

Second, the MLB model seems far better than the NFL. I'm pretty sure I've heard K make the same argument. The NFL rule is supposedly written because 18-19 year old bodies aren't ready for NFL pounding. So, the jump to MLB is a better comparison with the NBA.

MLB says you're eligible it:

1) You graduated from high school and have not attended college or junior college.

2) Players from 4-year colleges must complete at least their junior year or be at least 21 to make the jump.

3) Junior college players can jump any time.

The junior college rule makes no sense to me, but rules one and two do. If you're good enough to jump from HS and care nothing about college - Jump! However, if you enter college, commit to college. Get educated. Have fun. Get better at your sport. THEN ... Jump!

The NBA could easily do the same thing. The Kobes and Lebrons could jump away if they want to go straight for the cash. However, "student" athletes must actually put some effort into the student part.

MLB doesn't care which avenue a kid chooses and welcomes the cream from both crops. But, if you choose school, and the school in question invests money in you, you should fulfill your part of the bargain ... at least for awhile.

IMHO ... This is the only model that makes sense.