gread article with 20 college coaches speaking (with anonymity) about the state of college basketball recruiting.
Interesting read. The way I see it, the problem has to do with incentives. And the incentives go in two directions that foster a cheating atmosphere. First, you have a strong incentive for programs to cheat. Since it's illegal to pay the players anything at all, there is an immediate advantage for those who are willing to circumvent the rules. Second, there is a disincentive for people to expose or "rat out" people who are cheating at other programs, even if they know for certain that it is happening and don't approve, because they will be ostracized. So in addition to providing a huge advantage to those who are willing to break the rules, there is little chance that anyone will get caught because there is no advantage gained from exposing others (a disadvantage, in fact).
I wonder what would happen if the NCAA somehow found a way to incentivize exposing other cheaters. What if (and I realize this is extremely outlandish) the NCAA offered substantial cash bonuses to programs who correctly pointed out cheating where it was occurring. If all the programs acted as watchdogs for each other, maybe cheating would become far too difficult (since all these different illegal activities are happening in very close proximity). Doesn't really make sense, but it seems like one possible approach.
So why, then, do most people think college basketball is like the Wild Wild West, full of outlaws and renegades?
"Here's what I think happens a lot -- a team loses a kid to someone else and all of a sudden that someone else is cheating. Every time North Carolina loses a kid, someone else is cheating. It's like there's so much arrogance with them; they can't believe someone would rather go somewhere else, so the other team has to be cheating.''
So it's not just us Duke fans, eh? What do you want to bet Izzo said this?
Anyone figure out who this is from:
"I told a kid recently, 'If you say NBA one more time I'm walking out the door,''' a coach said. "If you're good enough, you'll leave after one year or two years or three years. I'm here to talk to you about coming to college and playing for me. I had six kids leave early. The ones who were all-in went [top 10]; the ones who had one foot out the door went late.''
43 min 10 FG 10 FGA 1 3PTA 1 3PT 10 FTA 10 FTM 7 REB 3 AST 2 STL 31 PTS
The UNC comment is interesting but how about this...
"One of my players [who left early for the draft] was working out with another top-five draft pick,'' a coach said. "They got to talking and my kid said something about not having money or whatever on campus. The other kid said, 'My coach set up expense accounts all over town for me. Yours didn't?'''
Top 5 this year...Wall, Turner, Favors, Cousins, Johnson
A great read about college basketball
Basically, ESPN interviewed 20 coaches and promised them secrecy. Then they revealed their answers. Some very interesting ones
My favorite? When asked how many programs were cheating and why no one snitches, one coach said this...
Every time North Carolina loses a kid, someone else is cheating. It's like there's so much arrogance with them; they can't believe someone would rather go somewhere else, so the other team has to be cheating
Cream and Crimson on the outside.
Duke blue on the inside.
"Notable players coached" include:
Chris Bosh (4th Pick, 2003 NBA Draft)
Jarrett Jack (22nd Pick, 2005 NBA Draft)
Thaddeus Young (12th Pick, 2007 NBA Draft)
Javaris Crittenton (19th Pick, 2007 NBA Draft)
Derrick Favors (3rd Pick, 2010 NBA Draft)
I believe Favors, Bosh, Jack, Young, Crittenton, Bynum, and Favors went early...
43 min 10 FG 10 FGA 1 3PTA 1 3PT 10 FTA 10 FTM 7 REB 3 AST 2 STL 31 PTS
I respectfully offer a few observations:
1. Most important, there's a lot that is "right" with college basketball, especially in its most crucial and fundamental elements that include (but are not limited to) a great spot capturing vast public support and many student-athletes (and programs) epitomizing all that is best in intercollegiate competition and teamwork.
2. However, top-level governance of college hoops is sorely lacking in effectiveness and innovation.
2a. The NCAA has issued voluminous regulations that are difficult fully to understand or integrate and -- much worse -- that are almost impossible for all relevant entities to adhere to, even when they sincerely want to. Here's a trivial example. As a Duke alumnus, an Iron Dukes member, and a AAAC undergraduate interviewer, each year I receive a synopsis of "contact regulations" from the Duke’s Athletic Department. They are convoluted and unrealistic. What happens if a stellar high school student (and/or his parents) ask me questions about Duke and a specific sports program in my neighborhood, at church, at local alumni event, or in the workplace? What if the student's family are long-term, dear friends (or even relatives)? What if I am taking this kid to lunch or breakfast at the time, or just buying him a cup of coffee? My point here is the NCAA's regulations -- although obviously well-intentioned -- simply do not recognize life's realities. Further, if this is true (and confusing) for me (an extremely non-basketball-associated alumni), how much more difficult is it for those who are directly involved with admissions and recruiting. In addition and obviously, this example torches on only one very inconsequential element of the NCAA's vast regulatory morass.
2b. The NCAA correctly (in my opinion) precludes remuneration for current and potential student-athletes (in cash, or anything else of value) by any universities or agents. However, some student-athletes come from disadvantaged backgrounds (perhaps more in college basketball than is some other sports) and their families frequently have legitimate, severe requirements. The NCAA's current system provides no methodology for these urgent needs to be met by a student-athlete, which clearly creates an incentive for illicit payments (and other possibly illegal acts). Why couldn't the NCAA establish a fund, capitalized by a tiny percentage of television revenues (for example), and openly adjudicated and managed by the NCAA itself, to meet these kids' valid and pressing family requirements? A student-athlete, whose family is about to be evicted from their home, is easy to exploit; however, an NCAA funded and administered program would both meet these undeniable needs and eliminate potential misconduct. It is my opinion that initiatives of this sort are easy to identify, worthwhile, simple to execute, and potentially would improve college hoops -- all of which causes me to question the why the NCAA has not, long ago, instituted such policies. After all, if I can come up with this idea (and I certainly am not alone in thinking of it), why can't the germane professionals, who are paid to be the stewards of intercollegiate athletics do so?
2c. Coordination -- particularly in the development of overriding objectives and a continuity of top-level policies -- among the NCAA and the NBA is disastrous and, in my judgment, is a basic cause for many key issues that plague the sport (at both the amateur and professional levels). If, as a society and a sport's community, we believe the entire concept of the "student-athlete" is worthy, these two governing bodies could coordinate their policies to, for example, preclude NBA play unless an athlete has completed his degree, has had four-years in the Developmental League, or some combination thereof (I do not suggest that this is a sound idea per se, but use it only to illustrate policy coordination among the NCAA and the NBA). Similarly, the character development, ethics, leadership, and community-focus that frequently seem so lacking among both collegiate and professional players (and sometimes coaches/administrators, as well) could be addressed in a continuous, harmonized program by both the NCAA and the NBA. If there is a single area that undermines the sport -- we see this so frequently in news reports and DBR posts, among other sources -- I suggest it is the outrageous "attitude of entitlement" (leading to serious criminal, community, and social problems) that alienates both fans and the general public from players and from basketball itself.
Permit me to conclude by indicating that illustrations in paragraphs 2a through 2c represent only the "tip of the iceberg" concerning the NCAA's well-meaning, but mismanaged, governance of the sport. I know that many other DBR participants could easily and productively add to this list.
Last edited by 4decadedukie; 07-23-2010 at 11:22 AM.
The NCAA is ultimately controlled by the presidents of the member institutions. If the presidents really wanted to reform recruiting and minimize the cheating they could. However, they are more concerned with money and winning than the integrity of amateur college basketball.
I understand why kickbacks from universities (and their boosters) to players (and their entourage) are regulated. Otherwise, top players would simply sell out to the highest bidder. An unbounded auction market would dramatically reduce talent parity throughout D1, while draining valuable dollars from equally worthy university activities like non-revenue sports and *gasp* academics.The NCAA correctly (in my opinion) precludes remuneration for current and potential student-athletes (in cash, or anything else of value) by any universities
I don't see why the limit needs to be set at $0, though. Why not institute a policy more akin to salary caps in the pros? Let each league come up with an annual figure that meshes with projected donations at member schools. Auditing the program wouldn't be easy, granted. But it should be easier than today's mess. Leagues would create standardized accounting procedures for bringing booster remunerations above-board, making it easier to spot outliers. And by relieving some of the (very real) financial pressure on kids, demand for under-the-table services should drop simultaneously.
I don't understand this restriction at all. If Nolan gets paid to wear Nikes during summer pickup games, who cares? Zoubek could've be a great spokesman for Gillette. And surely all the female fans out there would love to see Kyle in a Hanes commercial?or agents
Seriously. Only in the wacky world of the NCAA would using your God-given talents to land an effortless side job be considered a bad thing. As far as I can tell, the dirtiest aspect of commercial interests in HS/college ball is the way they're forced to operate underground. Throw open the floodgates, and suddenly those shady back-room deals with second-tier companies don't look nearly as attractive as a shiny contract with the Fortune 500.
I understand the difference between a math wiz and a basketball wiz in the sense of potential earnings and the corruption and nefarious figures that come out from under the rocks to prey on them. To me that answer is simple. Let them go pro out of high school. Get rid of this silly one year in college rule. That way they can negotiate with all the agents and handlers they want and get as much money for their families as they can as early as they can. Would college basketball be that worse off if John Wall had not played for UK last year??? Personally I hate the one and done, it is a joke and makes a mockery of the scholar athlete ideal. If the coaches and universities want stability, then require a kid that goes to school to stay for three years before going pro, like the baseball rule. I do not follow baseball, but I have never heard of these types of scandals in college baseball so it must be working out ok.