What's wrong with college basketball

[JohnGalt]

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...

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.

4dd,

I've got a few comments:
Your 2a and 2b, in my view, are themselves somewhat contradictory. There is absolutely no question that the myriad regulations and statutes put out by the NCAA with regard to recruits and recruiting are, to put it mildly, voluminous. For someone who doesn't deal with them on a regular basis, they really are quite the challenge. However, if the NCAA were to institute a policy such as you describe in 2b, can you imagine how much more needless bureaucracy would be added? Would there be a tiered system according to each student's financial background? What if only one parent is alive? Or the other is alive, but there is no communication between him/her and the recruit? How could you ever accurately and fairly gauge how much money each athlete should receive? The NCAA would take that and run with it all the way into another labyrinth of regulation and rule-mongering.

[4decadedukie]

4dd,

I've got a few comments:
Your 2a and 2b, in my view, are themselves somewhat contradictory. There is absolutely no question that the myriad regulations and statutes put out by the NCAA with regard to recruits and recruiting are, to put it mildly, voluminous. For someone who doesn't deal with them on a regular basis, they really are quite the challenge. However, if the NCAA were to institute a policy such as you describe in 2b, can you imagine how much more needless bureaucracy would be added? Would there be a tiered system according to each student's financial background? What if only one parent is alive? Or the other is alive, but there is no communication between him/her and the recruit? How could you ever accurately and fairly gauge how much money each athlete should receive? The NCAA would take that and run with it all the way into another labyrinth of regulation and rule-mongering.

I suspect you are giving my specific examples (paragraphs 2a, 2b, and 2c apply) far too much credit and contemplation; they were ONLY illustrations of potential innovations that could be fostered by and through the NCAA, and they were never intended to be fully vetted or thoroughly analyzed ideas.

The fundamental concepts I attempted to delineate were simple:
(a) despite all the issues – some serious – that plague college basketball, there is still a lot more that is “right” than “wrong” in the sport;
(b) the NCAA, although well-intentioned, is the inadvertent source of many problems;
(c) their regulations are very difficult to understand and to integrate, they lack realism, and they create an enforcement and governance quagmire;
(d) there appears to be little (if any) NCAA-NBA cooperation, even on the highest level of overriding objectives and values for the sport and its participants; and
(e) if a bunch of intelligent and concerned amateurs on DBR (and elsewhere) can surface potentially innovative enhancements, why can’t the pros at the NCAA’s Headquarters do so?

[sagegrouse]

I am not an expert on the NCAA recruiting regulations, the U.S. Tax Code or Regulations, OSHA rules, or anything else of comparable complexity. That said, anyone who says that the rules are too complicated should consider why they were put in place. There is probably a good reason. The regs in both instances are designed to overcome the full scope of human ingenuity to (a) recruit college athletes, (b) avoid paying federal taxes, and (c) to operate a place of employment as the employer wishes.

What is in play is the type of regulation. When a close family member was at OSHA back in the 1990s, it was apparent that there were three separate ways of enforcing the OSHA rules:

1. "Paper the plant:" I.e., write up the employer for any and everything that violated the rules in an attempt to ensure discipline and attention to employee safety.

2. "Serious Violations:" Take note of minor violations with verbal comments but focus only on the situations that could be immediately hazardous to employees.

3. "The Dirty Dozen:" Noting that employee injuries and death were concentrated only in a few employers, land on them with both feet and ensure compliance or drive them out of business.

Why not all three? Well, there are not enough enforcement agents in the world to take on enforcement at every level. From articles and comments here, I take it that the NCAA is stuck in mode 1, with enforcement agents monitoring conversations, however brief, between coaches and prospects and issuing "parking tickets."

I think the real discussion is whether there is a way to shift the focus to serious violations or prolific violators.

sagegrouse

[jimsumner]

"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"

The one-year rule is a part of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the NBA and the NBA Players Association. Any change in that rule would have to take place in that context. I do not believe that an NCAA attempt to require three years would stand up in court.

[Richard Berg]

But look at it this way, suppose their kid was not an athlete. Suppose they were a math wiz. Would they not be in the same boat (still poor), but even worse off since there are not as many opportunities for math scholarships? So, by "paying" parents of kids who have athletic kids, would you not be in a sense providing them an unfair advantage over the other kids and their families who are just as poor and do not have the prospect of getting rich in a year or two???

Yet another reason to move past the silly "amateur" label. We all agree that math is more central to a university's mission, while basketball is more marketable. So let boosters, agents, and advertising firms do what they do best: take care of the marketing. Bring on the cash flow (within reason). If the net rewards for top bball recruits end up being more valuable than a math scholarship...well, that's life. At least the university could redirect some resources from the neverending "compliance" game and focus on its core competencies: recruiting, retaining, and educating students.

By the way, the prizes in the Putnam (national math contest) are quite nice: $2500 for students and $25,000 for the winning team. Nothing extravagant, and definitely not comparable to what Nike could offer, but that's still a lot of beer money for college kids. On a similar note, I saw a statistic once that 80% of former Putnam Fellows are millionaires. (can't find the source, sadly, but it makes sense -- who's most likely to understand compound interest, if not math whizzes? not to mention their widespread desirability on Wall Street) Of course, if math were regulated by the NCAA, students wouldn't be allowed to keep the prizes. Plus, all of their summer internships would have to be unpaid. Crazy

[Richard Berg]

Zoubs... NO, NO, NO... not Gillette.

Even the ZouBeard needs trimming

[oldnavy]

"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"

The one-year rule is a part of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the NBA and the NBA Players Association. Any change in that rule would have to take place in that context. I do not believe that an NCAA attempt to require three years would stand up in court.

How is it set up with baseball? Is that also done with the player's association? You are correct, if the NCAA attempted to do this it would be tossed in a hurry. What are the chances the NBA extends the age limit or implements something like the baseball agreement? I would bet the chances are slim at best. Why not just go back to the way it was and let kids go straight out of high school?

[Richard Berg]

Why not just go back to the way it was and let kids go straight out of high school?

Much as I hate to admit, the one-and-done rule is win-win for the NBA.

* can't-miss prospects get a free head start on marketing. Greg Oden, Derrick Rose, and John Wall were already household names before the NBA spent a dime on them.
* prospects being considered on pure "potential" have to prove themselves a little bit. Would Darko have still looked like a #2 overall pick after a year of banging with Big East big men, as he did dominating the high schoolers? Had 1-n-done been in effect, my guess is his fate would've been more like Josh McRoberts. Meanwhile, hot names like Carmelo and Durant get to show they are the real deal. (Luol would be the closest Duke analogue)
* it shrinks the overall labor pool, leaving more roster slots for veteran players (i.e., the guys who actually negotiate the CBA)

[Jderf]

Yet another reason to move past the silly "amateur" label. We all agree that math is more central to a university's mission, while basketball is more marketable. So let boosters, agents, and advertising firms do what they do best: take care of the marketing. Bring on the cash flow (within reason). If the net rewards for top bball recruits end up being more valuable than a math scholarship...well, that's life. At least the university could redirect some resources from the neverending "compliance" game and focus on its core competencies: recruiting, retaining, and educating students.

By the way, the prizes in the Putnam (national math contest) are quite nice: $2500 for students and $25,000 for the winning team. Nothing extravagant, and definitely not comparable to what Nike could offer, but that's still a lot of beer money for college kids. On a similar note, I saw a statistic once that 80% of former Putnam Fellows are millionaires. (can't find the source, sadly, but it makes sense -- who's most likely to understand compound interest, if not math whizzes? not to mention their widespread desirability on Wall Street) Of course, if math were regulated by the NCAA, students wouldn't be allowed to keep the prizes. Plus, all of their summer internships would have to be unpaid. Crazy

I have to agree here. If I wanted, I could get a job my senior year working at Lilly Library. It would be perfectly legitimate for me to get paid as a "student-librarian" working for the university. I don't see why it should be fundamentally different for a "student-athlete." Now obviously there are tons of differences and a whole plethora of regulations would have to be introduced to keep the playing field even and fair, but on a fundamental level I think it's unfair to say that the librarian can be paid and the athlete cannot just for the sake of "amateurism."

[drama10]

either let the kids go from HS to the NBA or make them stay for 2 years. This whole 1 and done thing is putting pressure on the college coaches who already don't have the best job security in the world.