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

[4decadedukie]

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.

While I agree the NCAA cannot penalize the "one and done" player, they could -- and I believe they should -- impose sanctions on programs that have them (or perhaps have an inordinate number, thereby de facto documenting recruiting practices that are NOT focused on true student-athletes). Some of this has already been mentioned in this thread, however the NCAA could (I believe, should) mandate that:
1) For every one-and-done (up to two), a one-year scholarship is eliminated for the next incoming class (this would preclude any loss of scholarship for an already-matriculated student-athlete).
2) For more three or more one-and done players, a one-year suspension from post-season tournaments is added to the scholarship revocation.

Were sanctions of this magnitude imposed, many coaches and administrators -- at the behest of alumni, fans and boosters -- would certainly adopt an entirely new approach to recruiting, one that concentrates at least as much on character and scholarship as on athleticism.

The NCAA has the power to reverse intercollegiate hoops often dismal culture, and it constantly extols the "student-athlete" ideal. If they are not hypocrites, the organization will develop some truly effective policies. Failure to do so certifies that their platitudes are public relations hype only.

[Jderf]

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.

Number (2) here is what I was trying to get at before. The NCAA can NOT force players to stay on campus for any extra period of time - ethically speaking, legally speaking, or sensibly speaking - nor should they. If the NCAA fears that the college scene has become a little too turbulent and unstable due to the NBA's introduction of the one-and-done rule, then the only way they can get college athletes to stay for more years is through davekay's suggestion.

How exactly one would go about that? I have no idea.

[JohnGalt]

While I agree the NCAA cannot penalize the "one and done" player, they could -- and I believe they should -- impose sanctions on programs that have them (or perhaps have an inordinate number, thereby de facto documenting recruiting practices that are NOT focused on true student-athletes). Some of this has already been mentioned in this thread, however the NCAA could (I believe, should) mandate that:
1) For every one-and-done (up to two), a one-year scholarship is eliminated for the next incoming class (this would preclude any loss of scholarship for an already-matriculated student-athlete).
2) For more three or more one-and done players, a one-year suspension from post-season tournaments is added to the scholarship revocation.

Were sanctions of this magnitude imposed, many coaches and administrators -- at the behest of alumni, fans and boosters -- would certainly adopt an entirely new approach to recruiting, one that concentrates at least as much on character and scholarship as on athleticism.

The NCAA has the power to reverse intercollegiate hoops often dismal culture, and it constantly extols the "student-athlete" ideal. If they are not hypocrites, the organization will develop some truly effective policies. Failure to do so certifies that their platitudes are public relations hype only.

This is a great idea. Why stop there though? Let's just let the NCAA decide which players go to which colleges. That's the fairest idea, right?

[Duvall]

Were sanctions of this magnitude imposed, many coaches and administrators -- at the behest of alumni, fans and boosters -- would certainly adopt an entirely new approach to recruiting, one that concentrates at least as much on character and scholarship as on athleticism.

Stop.

Is there any way to put an end to the tiresome belief that a player wanting to sign a multi-million dollar contract for his services is some kind of character flaw?

[4decadedukie]

Stop.

Is there any way to put an end to the tiresome belief that a player wanting to sign a multi-million dollar contract for his services is some kind of character flaw?

Above all else, he is a STUDENT-ATHLETE, not a "pro-in-waiting;" if he fulfills all academic and community/character requirements, he -- like every other NCAA competitor, in all Divisions, and in all sports -- is a revered element of the collegiate community. If not, he should go to a for-pay athletic environment, such as the NBA's Development League. Incidentally, it is NOT a character flaw on the kid's part -- he is free to pursue his goals as he wishes -- however, it is a governance deficiency on part of the academic institution, at several managerial levels.

Would your pride in Duke University be reduced if our Men's Basketball program operated with standards similar to Calipari and Kentucky? Mine certainly would.

[4decadedukie]

This is a great idea. Why stop there though? Let's just let the NCAA decide which players go to which colleges. That's the fairest idea, right?

Okay, Gault, you've convinced me. Let us completely the transition of Men's Division I Basketball to a "Roman Circus." Why not do away with any academic performance standards and with all scholastic entry requirements? Further, shouldn't we be entirely unconcerned with integrity or character? What the hell, if a great shooter, defender and rebounder has a few felony convictions, why should we, the academic institution, or the NCAA care as long as he is a catalyst to victories?

Yep, Marcus and Michael Vick -- undoubtedly stellar athletes -- are precisely sort of individuals in whom Virgina Tech -- and its leaders, alumni, faculty, fans, boosters, etc. -- should take great pride.

I give generously to Duke in several areas, including the Iron Dukes and endowing non-athletic scholarships. I would rather eliminate major, revenue sports than succumb to thuggishness, to laughable academic standards, and to willfully ignoring character, behavioral and criminal flaws. Moreover, I would rather see Duke annually finish in the middle of the ACC, than to see our team consist of individuals in whom we cannot have great pride -- and, especially, in the arenas that count the most in life's long journey: integrity, character, intellect, teamwork, leadership, selflessness, performance, decency, community service, and so on.

[Jderf]

Above all else, he is a STUDENT-ATHLETE, not a "pro-in-waiting;" if he fulfills all academic and community/character requirements, he -- like every other NCAA competitor, in all Divisions, and in all sports -- is a revered element of the collegiate community. If not, he should go to a for-pay athletic environment, such as the NBA's Development League. Incidentally, it is NOT a character flaw on the kid's part -- he is free to pursue his goals as he wishes -- however, it is a governance deficiency on part of the academic institution, at several managerial levels.

He is a student-athlete on paper. For all intents and purposes, however, the basketball players in question are athlete-students. Let's be honest, these kids are recruited for the talent, not their academics. The reason they come to college, obviously, is because it provides better opportunities for development and a more reliable path to the league than the Development League. Kid needs school, school needs kid. They are operating within the rules and everyone is capable of making decisions for themselves, you cannot punish them (either the athlete or the university) for doing so.

If the athlete attends to his academics while at the university, he's fulfilled his obligation as a student-athlete anyway. So what if he leaves early? Then he simply stops being a student-athlete. Just as universities are not bound to their players by four year scholarships, players are not bound to their university beyond each year.

[4decadedukie]

He is a student-athlete on paper. For all intents and purposes, however, the basketball players in question are athlete-students . . . So what if he leaves early?

Of course, I understand what all you fellows (Jderf, Galt, Duvall and many others) are saying; you are correct that current Men's Division I Basketball is largely ATHLETE-student, not STUDENT-athlete at many universities (even including some that otherwise have decent reputations). However, that's the problem, that's what I protest.

The reason I do so is the probable, adverse, and LONG-TERM implications for the youngster. I have repeatedly written about this on DBR at length, so I shall be concise. We have all seen the documentary Hoop Dreams. When a kid is convinced by a self-interested college coach (aided and abetted by others adults) not to take his undergraduate education seriously -- an education many could not otherwise afford, and an education many are not academically prepared to pursue -- he is likely to compromise severely his entire future.

Very few Division I basketball players (even those who are zealously recruited by name-coaches, including the Caliparis and the Tarkanians) will ever have lengthy, successful, or financially rewarding (one that ensure they never again will have to consider money) careers in the NBA. However, many young men are attracted to this path and forgo the opportunities (educational, intellectual, and in personal/character development) that could result in lifelong satisfactions, contributions, achievements, and fulfillment through careers that require higher education (teachers, accountants, engineers, medical professionals, managers, attorneys, you name it). They throw this splendid opportunity away -- and they suffer major, lifelong consequences -- because they opt to be ATHLETE-students. The adults who are complicate in their decision to do so are at best ignorant, at worst exploitative.

Some will suggest that these recruits are "adults" with freewill; therefore, it is perfectly fine for college coaches (and others) to "take advantage" of them -- after all, it is a bilateral transaction with both the university and the recruit providing and receiving tangible benefits. I don't see it that way, for two reasons: (1) they are barely adults, and their judgment, life-experiences, and understandings are less than ideal and (2) these coaches are supposed to be EDUCATORS and LEADERS (and leaders should ALWAYS be most-concerned with their subordinates' well-being, not with their own selfish attainments).

All of this returns me to the NCAA, its continuous self-lauding re "student-athletes" and hypocrisy. Regulations are possible (see my post #41) that could largely resolve this tragedy, and without causing any loss in fan enjoyment of the sport or in revenues. When the NCAA decides not to require such measures, it too becomes complicate in this exploitation.

[SCMatt33]

While I agree the NCAA cannot penalize the "one and done" player, they could -- and I believe they should -- impose sanctions on programs that have them (or perhaps have an inordinate number, thereby de facto documenting recruiting practices that are NOT focused on true student-athletes). Some of this has already been mentioned in this thread, however the NCAA could (I believe, should) mandate that:
1) For every one-and-done (up to two), a one-year scholarship is eliminated for the next incoming class (this would preclude any loss of scholarship for an already-matriculated student-athlete).
2) For more three or more one-and done players, a one-year suspension from post-season tournaments is added to the scholarship revocation.

I have a couple of issues with imposing this type of rule. The first is logistical and the second is practical. Logistically, the NCAA could not impose a loss of scholarship until after a player either hires an agent or allows the NCAA withdrawal date to pass. The late signing period begins almost two weeks before the deadline for players to announce their entry in the draft making it possible for a coach to sign his replacement in advance of the player entering the draft, thus the penalty could force a school to strip a scholarship from a signed, but not yet matriculated player. The practical problem is that most teams rarely use all 13 scholarships in a single season. IIRC, the extra scholarships are often given to walk-on players for the year. So stripping a scholarship would effectively punish the walk-on who has done nothing wrong because of something his teammate did.

Another problem comes with the nature of one-and-done players. As I've mentioned in another thread, there are more than one type of one-and-done player. The one that you mean to punish is the John Wall/DeMarcus Cousins type. These guys are one-and-done players long before they step on campus, or even before they choose a school. The coach and team recruiting them knows what their getting, this is what most frown upon. The second type is the Eric Bledsoe type. Bledsoe was ranked #52 (based on the RSCI) in his class and only rivals had him as a 5-star player (and a borderline one at that). He was not projected to be in the 2010 draft and I'd bet that just about everyone, including Cal and maybe even Bledsoe himself, thought that he wouldn't be a one-and-done. His play during the season, however, changed his stock dramatically and thrust him into a position to leave. The third is the Daniel Orton type. He never really did much at the college level but because he has NBA potential, he has a chance to make his money and takes it. The fourth type is the Tommy Mason-Griffin type. He doesn't have the same NBA interest as the others, but he is in a bad situation at his school. He's really not interested in the whole college thing anyway so he turns pro rather than transfers. In only the first situation did a school knowingly recruit and sign a player who would leave to become a professional immediately. There is no way for the NCAA to legitimately distinguish between these guys, and would therefore punish them the same. Do you think that Duke should lose a scholarship if another Luol Deng comes around? Do you think that Kentucky deserves a postseason ban next year because Daniel Orton has an NBA sized body and Eric Bledsoe was better than expected?

When a kid is convinced by a self-interested college coach (aided and abetted by others adults) not to take his undergraduate education seriously -- an education many could not otherwise afford, and an education many are not academically prepared to pursue -- he is likely to compromise severely his entire future.

Very few Division I basketball players (even those who are zealously recruited by name-coaches, including the Caliparis and the Tarkanians) will ever have lengthy, successful, or financially rewarding (one that ensure they never again will have to consider money) careers in the NBA. However, many young men are attracted to this path and forgo the opportunities (educational, intellectual, and in personal/character development) that could result in lifelong satisfactions, contributions, achievements, and fulfillment through careers that require higher education (teachers, accountants, engineers, medical professionals, managers, attorneys, you name it). They throw this splendid opportunity away -- and they suffer major, lifelong consequences -- because they opt to be ATHLETE-students. The adults who are complicate in their decision to do so are at best ignorant, at worst exploitative.

I think you're making a faulty unstated assumption here that everyone if given the chance in a vacuum would or should take full advantage of an opportunity to get a full college education. Not everyone in the world is cut out for college and an academic environment. This has nothing to do with socioeconomic status, but rather the person's capabilities and attitudes towards college. I have several friends and family members, all of whom grew up in a middle or upper-middle class environment who either didn't go to college or didn't finish college for many different reasons, none of which were that they didn't have the opportunity to go. In many instances, these athletes will only go to college because they want to continue to participate in athletics. They may not have serious academic goals or intentions no matter what a coach may say. Many of these players in a vacuum, may not have accepted a college scholarship in the first place if sports were removed from the equation and made a separate issue. People may thrive in life in other areas besides academics and that's ok. A college athlete is not limited to NBA career, fall back on what he did academically, or fail. There is a wide range in between. For the more talented players, there are ways besides the NBA to make a living from sports (not all of which are playing). For the less talented, there are many paths in life that don't require a college degree and be just as fulfilling. Are there players who may have thrived in a college environment, but didn't because they were coaxed into not doing so, possibly. But you can't assume that all or even most players who don't graduate fall into this category.

[JG Nothing]

Stop.

Is there any way to put an end to the tiresome belief that a player wanting to sign a multi-million dollar contract for his services is some kind of character flaw?

The easiest way to put an end to that "tiresome belief" is to quit putting words into people's mouths. No one said wanting to sign a multi-million dollar contract is a character flaw. Having no interest in an education is a character flaw, however, for college students. A player who does not want an education is more likely to declare for the draft even if he is not ready. Coaches should not be allowed to turn their programs into de facto training programs for the NBA.

[JohnGalt]

Above all else, he is a STUDENT-ATHLETE, not a "pro-in-waiting;" if he fulfills all academic and community/character requirements, he -- like every other NCAA competitor, in all Divisions, and in all sports -- is a revered element of the collegiate community. If not, he should go to a for-pay athletic environment, such as the NBA's Development League. Incidentally, it is NOT a character flaw on the kid's part -- he is free to pursue his goals as he wishes -- however, it is a governance deficiency on part of the academic institution, at several managerial levels.

Would your pride in Duke University be reduced if our Men's Basketball program operated with standards similar to Calipari and Kentucky? Mine certainly would.

The part I emboldened is the crux of our disagreement. Who are you or me or anyone not directly involved with the University's operation to demand change? If the University of Kentucky so wishes to dilute its Academic Reputation by filing in players that you assume have zero interest in academics, it's their prerogative to do so. If you don't like it, move to the Bluegrass State and organize a sit-in. Or, if you're already there, move.

As for the last part...Fortunately for us (as Duke fans), Trinity seems committed to maintaining the reputation it enjoys around the country/world today. So for the foreseeable future, I'm not concerned.

Okay, Gault, you've convinced me. Let us completely the transition of Men's Division I Basketball to a "Roman Circus." Why not do away with any academic performance standards and with all scholastic entry requirements? Further, shouldn't we be entirely unconcerned with integrity or character? What the hell, if a great shooter, defender and rebounder has a few felony convictions, why should we, the academic institution, or the NCAA care as long as he is a catalyst to victories?

Yep, Marcus and Michael Vick -- undoubtedly stellar athletes -- are precisely sort of individuals in whom Virgina Tech -- and its leaders, alumni, faculty, fans, boosters, etc. -- should take great pride.

I give generously to Duke in several areas, including the Iron Dukes and endowing non-athletic scholarships. I would rather eliminate major, revenue sports than succumb to thuggishness, to laughable academic standards, and to willfully ignoring character, behavioral and criminal flaws. Moreover, I would rather see Duke annually finish in the middle of the ACC, than to see our team consist of individuals in whom we cannot have great pride -- and, especially, in the arenas that count the most in life's long journey: integrity, character, intellect, teamwork, leadership, selflessness, performance, decency, community service, and so on.

Did you hum the national anthem when writing this post? Or the Alma Mater? Both at the same time?

Again, I'm not sure how you can say that a young man following the most advantageous path toward achieving his goal of playing professionally is a character flaw. The athlete can't be blamed for the path laid before him. If a college is willing to accept him into their program and that program provides him the best chance of a career, how can you say he's a flawed human? Further, if the athlete attends the minimum amount of classes required and attains the the minimum GPA, while maintaining a clear criminal record, how is it fair to not label him a student-athlete? I know plenty of people that struggled in college, flunked out, and are doing something else now. I assume you would label them flawed humans, as well?

He is a student-athlete on paper. For all intents and purposes, however, the basketball players in question are athlete-students. Let's be honest, these kids are recruited for the talent, not their academics. The reason they come to college, obviously, is because it provides better opportunities for development and a more reliable path to the league than the Development League. Kid needs school, school needs kid. They are operating within the rules and everyone is capable of making decisions for themselves, you cannot punish them (either the athlete or the university) for doing so.

If the athlete attends to his academics while at the university, he's fulfilled his obligation as a student-athlete anyway. So what if he leaves early? Then he simply stops being a student-athlete. Just as universities are not bound to their players by four year scholarships, players are not bound to their university beyond each year.

I agree with the majority of this. I still think if he's in good standing academically with the university he should be called a "student athlete" regardless of what his intentions are. You can't judge on intentions or you start down an uber-slippery slope.

Of course, I understand what all you fellows (Jderf, Galt, Duvall and many others) are saying; you are correct that current Men's Division I Basketball is largely ATHLETE-student, not STUDENT-athlete at many universities (even including some that otherwise have decent reputations). However, that's the problem, that's what I protest.

The reason I do so is the probable, adverse, and LONG-TERM implications for the youngster. I have repeatedly written about this on DBR at length, so I shall be concise. We have all seen the documentary Hoop Dreams. When a kid is convinced by a self-interested college coach (aided and abetted by others adults) not to take his undergraduate education seriously -- an education many could not otherwise afford, and an education many are not academically prepared to pursue -- he is likely to compromise severely his entire future.

Very few Division I basketball players (even those who are zealously recruited by name-coaches, including the Caliparis and the Tarkanians) will ever have lengthy, successful, or financially rewarding (one that ensure they never again will have to consider money) careers in the NBA. However, many young men are attracted to this path and forgo the opportunities (educational, intellectual, and in personal/character development) that could result in lifelong satisfactions, contributions, achievements, and fulfillment through careers that require higher education (teachers, accountants, engineers, medical professionals, managers, attorneys, you name it). They throw this splendid opportunity away -- and they suffer major, lifelong consequences -- because they opt to be ATHLETE-students. The adults who are complicate in their decision to do so are at best ignorant, at worst exploitative.

Some will suggest that these recruits are "adults" with freewill; therefore, it is perfectly fine for college coaches (and others) to "take advantage" of them -- after all, it is a bilateral transaction with both the university and the recruit providing and receiving tangible benefits. I don't see it that way, for two reasons: (1) they are barely adults, and their judgment, life-experiences, and understandings are less than ideal and (2) these coaches are supposed to be EDUCATORS and LEADERS (and leaders should ALWAYS be most-concerned with their subordinates' well-being, not with their own selfish attainments).

All of this returns me to the NCAA, its continuous self-lauding re "student-athletes" and hypocrisy. Regulations are possible (see my post #41) that could largely resolve this tragedy, and without causing any loss in fan enjoyment of the sport or in revenues. When the NCAA decides not to require such measures, it too becomes complicate in this exploitation.

So every person who hasn't completed some level of higher education is incapable of making important lifelong decisions? And it's the duty of the NCAA to gobble up as many they can, whether fit or unfit, process them in the system, and send them on their merry way?

You make it seem as though earning salaries playing in the NBA is immoral. That, because they were given superior athletic (uh oh, that word) abilities and chose the best course in which to hone and project them, that they are at fault for this? That they are at fault for choosing what has proven to be the most direct way to get into the NBA? It seems that no one should be allowed a wealthy life unless they have framed pieces of paper indicating they had put in time and effort in a certain, specified manner (and only intellectually speaking). It seems if someone puts in a tremendous amount of time and effort in practicing and honing specific athletic abilities, training their bodies for the physical exertion, and rehabbing relentlessly following injuries, that somehow they aren't entitled to the same ends it gets them.

The easiest way to put an end to that "tiresome belief" is to quit putting words into people's mouths. No one said wanting to sign a multi-million dollar contract is a character flaw. Having no interest in an education is a character flaw, however, for college students. A player who does not want an education is more likely to declare for the draft even if he is not ready. Coaches should not be allowed to turn their programs into de facto training programs for the NBA.

Hmm, so by this chain of logic Bill Gates is the very embodiment of one who's character is flawed. That charlatan dropped out of Harvard just to start Microsoft. You know, there ought to be a Rule that everyone in the country has to go to college even if he or she is unfit to do so. Not only that, everyone should be made to take the same classes so everyone gets a fair shake. That way, those smart people who were unfairly given more brains than the rest can't take advantage over everyone else.

[4decadedukie]

I think you're making a faulty unstated assumption here that everyone if given the chance in a vacuum would or should take full advantage of an opportunity to get a full college education.

I wholeheartedly agree (I have ALWAYS believed this) and I respect those who opt for a non-college path. However, they simply shouldn't enroll, thereby precluding an individual with a different (not necessarily a better) attitude toward higher education from capitalizing on the full-range of collegiate opportunities. Class sizes are limited, it's a "zero sum" game, so why squander a precious admission on anyone who truly doesn't want it and who will not gain much from it?

[4decadedukie]

Who are you or me or anyone not directly involved with the University's operation to demand change? If the University of Kentucky so wishes to dilute its Academic Reputation by filing in players that you assume have zero interest in academics, it's their prerogative to do so.

When a major (albeit, not an excellent) university makes the decisions UK recently has, (IMO) it diminishes the aggregate reputations of higher education and intercollegiate athletics. I have strong stake-holdings in both (time, leadership, funding) and, therefore, I have the right to express opinions that suggest change is desirable. FAR MORE IMPORTANT, however, I believe we all have a stewardship responsibility to care for succeeding generations. When a kid (with limited experiences, formal education and judgment) and is lured into a lifelong vocational path that has a very low probability of full and successful execution by self-serving adults (and in selecting that course, he forecloses other, much more realistic opportunities), that (IMO) is simply wrong because it exploits the young person.

Did you hum the national anthem when writing this post? Or the Alma Mater? Both at the same time?

Both; and though you ridicule this, the values of national service (two decades plus as a Naval officer) and of Duke University (over fifteen years on senior volunteer leadership Boards, Executive Committees, and Councils) mean a great deal to me. I believe they will long endure and serve us well.

How can you say he's a flawed human?

While others have used the word "flawed," I never -- not even once -- suggested a character flaw. My concern is for that kid and my criticism is aimed at the adults (coaches, AAU officials, NCAA leadership, university decision makers, and so forth) who potentially exploit him by driving him toward a suboptimal career choice. Further, I respectfully suggest you re-read JGNothing's post (#50) re "character flaws," which I believe is entirely correct.

So every person who hasn't completed some level of higher education is incapable of making important lifelong decisions?

Once again, you state and intimate things I never even imagined, no less suggested in this DBR forum. With this said, however, my position is that kids in their teens are frequently vulnerable, due to their immaturity, their lack of experiences, their incomplete formal education, and sometimes their childlike judgment; please note, this applies just as much to the youngster who (for example) is convinced he or she has found the “love of their life” at sixteen or seventeen, as to the gifted hoopster (there are countless additional illustrations). Therefore, teenagers (and even some in their early-twenties) are more-easily preyed upon by individuals (such as unscrupulous coaches) who may place their own selfish interests -- not the young athlete's -- as the foremost priority.

This concludes my participation in this thread.

[SCMatt33]

I wholeheartedly agree (I have ALWAYS believed this) and I respect those who opt for a non-college path. However, they simply shouldn't enroll, thereby precluding an individual with a different (not necessarily a better) attitude toward higher education from capitalizing on the full-range of collegiate opportunities. Class sizes are limited, it's a "zero sum" game, so why squander a precious admission on anyone who truly doesn't want it and who will not gain much from it?

While colleges limit the number of applicants accepted in an attempt to have the correct class size matriculate, there is no set number of students who can enter a particular incoming class. They will not stop someone who is accepted from matriculating on the last day just because a certain number already have. There is wiggle room for 13 people either way (the size of a basketball team). Furthermore, most of these guys who are clearly one-and-done and have no interest in college other than to get ready for the NBA sign during the late period which happens after the rest of the world gets acceptance letters. There is generally not a "spot" taken away by a Lance Stephenson type, which I'm assuming is the type of player you're criticizing more than an Eric Bledsoe type.

[Duvall]

The easiest way to put an end to that "tiresome belief" is to quit putting words into people's mouths. No one said wanting to sign a multi-million dollar contract is a character flaw. Having no interest in an education is a character flaw, however, for college students.

Meanwhile, in this thread we were discussing players that choose to leave for the NBA, not player that have show no interest in education. No one has objected to the idea of sanctioning players that fail to attend or pass their classes, nor the idea of sanctioning programs whose players fail to do so. But that does not change the fact that opting to leave school for the NBA does not show that a player has no interest in an education, only that he has chosen to accept a golden opportunity offered to him.

[JohnGalt]

This concludes my participation in this thread.

I'm not sure I understand this attitude in a forum that spurs the sort of debate as DBR does. I think your posts are very reasonable opinions on the subject; I just simply disagree. But if you feel you've said your piece, so be it.

When a major (albeit, not an excellent) university makes the decisions UK recently has, (IMO) it diminishes the aggregate reputations of higher education and intercollegiate athletics. I have strong stake-holdings in both (time, leadership, funding) and, therefore, I have the right to express opinions that suggest change is desirable.

You absolutely have the right to express your opinion. It seems to me though that over the last umpteen years the "aggregate reputation of higher education [Undergrad]" has diminished, regardless of the athletes who have moved in and out without graduating. Undergrad degrees just don't carry the same weight as yesteryear, which I'd argue is way more a function of the Average Joe, rather than the Star Athlete. More people going to college has translated to this diminished reputation. I'm not sure the 0.01% of college students that are the 1andDoners even approaches the culpability that the masses hold, which, I might add, is a good thing. Certainly the 1andDoners make headlines meaning their net effect in comparison to the overall college population should be weighed more heavily, but I think it's still negligible.

FAR MORE IMPORTANT, however, I believe we all have a stewardship responsibility to care for succeeding generations. When a kid (with limited experiences, formal education and judgment) and is lured into a lifelong vocational path that has a very low probability of full and successful execution by self-serving adults (and in selecting that course, he forecloses other, much more realistic opportunities), that (IMO) is simply wrong because it exploits the young person.

I wholeheartedly agree (I have ALWAYS believed this) and I respect those who opt for a non-college path.

I feel as though these two statements are contradictory. If a kid wants to use 1, 2, or 3 years of college as a stepping stone in order to get into the NBA and he can find a program that will facilitate that, more power to him. I'm not sure denying him this opportunity, forcing him to finish school and continue on into a job other than playing professionally is having his best interest at heart. Many people struggle following playing careers. However, many also succeed.

Both; and though you ridicule this, the values of national service (two decades plus as a Naval officer) and of Duke University (over fifteen years on senior volunteer leadership Boards, Executive Committees, and Councils) mean a great deal to me. I believe they will long endure and serve us well.

Careful. I'm a Naval Officer as well and a graduate of Kings Point. I thought your post was a little over the top so I poked fun at it. The fruits of my decision to attend KP are well known to me.

While others have used the word "flawed," I never -- not even once -- suggested a character flaw. My concern is for that kid and my criticism is aimed at the adults (coaches, AAU officials, NCAA leadership, university decision makers, and so forth) who potentially exploit him by driving him toward a suboptimal career choice. Further, I respectfully suggest you re-read JGNothing's post (#50) re "character flaws," which I believe is entirely correct.

No one said wanting to sign a multi-million dollar contract is a character flaw. Having no interest in an education is a character flaw, however, for college students.

You may not have explicitly said it, but if you agree with JG's post, you certainly agree with it. Again, I'm not sure how you can place the 'flawed character' label on a kid who wants to play in the NBA and as a result chooses the best path possible in achieving that goal. If he's in good academic standing while at the school (GPA, attendance, et al), he's certainly a student-athlete in my book, as he is in the NCAA's.

While colleges limit the number of applicants accepted in an attempt to have the correct class size matriculate, there is no set number of students who can enter a particular incoming class. They will not stop someone who is accepted from matriculating on the last day just because a certain number already have. There is wiggle room for 13 people either way (the size of a basketball team). Furthermore, most of these guys who are clearly one-and-done and have no interest in college other than to get ready for the NBA sign during the late period which happens after the rest of the world gets acceptance letters. There is generally not a "spot" taken away by a Lance Stephenson type, which I'm assuming is the type of player you're criticizing more than an Eric Bledsoe type.

This is very nicely put. Thanks, SCMatt.

Meanwhile, in this thread we were discussing players that choose to leave for the NBA, not player that have show no interest in education. No one has objected to the idea of sanctioning players that fail to attend or pass their classes, nor the idea of sanctioning programs whose players fail to do so. But that does not change the fact that opting to leave school for the NBA does not show that a player has no interest in an education, only that he has chosen to accept a golden opportunity offered to him.

This is it. No one is questioning whether the kids should have to be in good academic standing while in school. No one. If they aren't performing in the classroom, they shouldn't be allowed to perform on the court. But if he decides to leave in order to play Professionally, you'd deny him this opportunity, instead mandating he finish his degree?

You bring up a very good point about the alarmingly high percentage of professional athletes that find themselves in terrible financial situations following retirement. It's scary and I agree it is in dire need of attention. However - where we disagree - is the way in which to tackle the situation. The kids (adults at that point, I guess) get used to living exorbitant lifestyles while playing in the league simply because of the salaries. If the salaries were to be reduced, the lifestyles and resultant problems associated with them would be reduced as well. In Australia, the NRL's Cap is set around 4 million Aussies per team of 25 players. The minimum salary is 50K and the maximum salary is 500K. As long as the Player's Union has a stranglehold on the NBA though, I have a hard time believing much will change. They go on and on about their defending of the 'player's interests' - among various other things - even though it's painfully clear that they're just more of the leeches you mentioned in a previous post. Either way, it's all about the NBA. Real change needs to come from the top. It's out of the NCAA's jurisdiction.


Biggie said it all...Mo' Money, Mo' Problems...