Originally Posted by
4decadedukie
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.