Potential NCAA Policy Shift re the NBA draft, etc.

[4decadedukie]

Incoming NCAA President, Dr. Mark Emmert, is reported (by ESPN) to favor a baseball-approach agreement with the NBA: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5471101.

Key excerpts include:
1. Emmert indicated strong interest in a baseball-style rule that would allow college basketball players either to enter the NBA draft immediately from high school, or to commit to college for an established time period prior to NBA draft eligibility.
2. Emmert said he would "persuasively" discuss the matter with NBA and Players Association officials (both groups would necessarily have to concur for such a proposal to become effective).
3. Emmert said, "I much prefer the baseball model, for example, that allows a young person if they want to go play professional baseball, they can do it right out of high school, but once they start college they've got to play for three years or until they're 21."

Obviously, any potential changes of this type would have a SIGNIFICANT influence on college basketball. Personally, I hope it would help return the sport to the more-traditional "student-athlete" paradigm, with a far greater percentage of players completing degrees -- and remaining at their university for longer tenures -- before joining the NBA.

[CameronBornAndBred]

3. Emmert said, "I much prefer the baseball model, for example, that allows a young person if they want to go play professional baseball, they can do it right out of high school, but once they start college they've got to play for three years or until they're 21."

That would work for me. I long for the day again we don't have to worry about a player jumping at least until after his junior season. I hate the one and dones, and the attitude that they bring. It's why I don't care to have AR at Duke..I don't care how good a player is, I don't want to invest my support in a player that is not investing back to the school. I'm sorry, but they are not investing anything if they flat out state that they don't intend to be here for longer than one year..they are only playing becuase the NBA says they have to. It's not really fair to either party, and it's a sham.
Hopefully it would also stem the tide of kids making mistakes by declaring early only to be left empty handed on draft night. I'm sure the first year or two there will be double digit examples of this, but maybe after a couple years those failures will appear as tales of caution to those like minded folks that follow in their wake.

[dukebsbll14]

Incoming NCAA President, Dr. Mark Emmert, is reported (by ESPN) to favor a baseball-approach agreement with the NBA: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5471101.

Key excerpts include:
1. Emmert indicated strong interest in a baseball-style rule that would allow college basketball players either to enter the NBA draft immediately from high school, or to commit to college for an established time period prior to NBA draft eligibility.
2. Emmert said he would "persuasively" discuss the matter with NBA and Players Association officials (both groups would necessarily have to concur for such a proposal to become effective).
3. Emmert said, "I much prefer the baseball model, for example, that allows a young person if they want to go play professional baseball, they can do it right out of high school, but once they start college they've got to play for three years or until they're 21."

Obviously, any potential changes of this type would have a SIGNIFICANT influence on college basketball. Personally, I hope it would help return the sport to the more-traditional "student-athlete" paradigm, with a far greater percentage of players completing degrees -- and remaining at their university for longer tenures -- before joining the NBA.

I'm liking what I see so far. I believe that when a student-athlete signs a scholarship, he's making a commitment to the school and I believe he should thoroughly honor that commitment to its fullest, not just until someone is ready to pay him the big bucks to play a sport. I really hope the NCAA makes these kind of changes soon.

[SilkyJ]

I'm liking what I see so far. I believe that when a student-athlete signs a scholarship, he's making a commitment to the school and I believe he should thoroughly honor that commitment to its fullest, not just until someone is ready to pay him the big bucks to play a sport.

I support the new NCAA prez's stance, but not for this reason. I don't see it as being about honoring a commitment to the school -- if you come to college and are serious about your education, but opportunity knocks, I don't blame a kid for jumping at it (see Deng, Luol).

But I do think this approach would put a renewed emphasis on the student part of student-athlete and would be a positive step in terms of cleaning up some of the sliminess of college athletics.

In terms of the details, I would vote for a 2-year over a 3-year minimum. I think a 2 year minimum would effectively achieve the same thing as a 3 year commitment in terms of getting rid of some of the sliminess and weeding out those kids who don't really belong in (or need) college without over-burdening those who do.

[CameronBornAndBred]

I support the new NCAA prez's stance, but not for this reason. I don't see it as being about honoring a commitment to the school -- if you come to college and are serious about your education, but opportunity knocks, I don't blame a kid for jumping at it (see Deng, Luol).

Opportunity knocking is one thing, but the prevalance of those stating one and done status is another. Those such as John Wall and Austin Rivers shouldn't be restricted to going to school if they know that's not what they want. John Wall is a good example, because by all accounts he was a good student and took school seriously..but obviously had he been given the choice he would have gone to the NBA first. Kyrie Irving has not stated that he is one and done, so with that glimmer of hope, I can get behind him. Rivers on the other hand has said he has no intention of staying longer than one year, so he shouldn't have to go. It's not advantageous to the player nor the school (plenty will argue that, but it's my opinion) that he be forced to play in a setting that he doesn't want to. I could even get behind a two year commitment like you suggest..in that way as fans at least we get to see some growth. K is a great teacher, I would like to see the results of his efforts that he puts into a player...it's hard to glean much when we only get to see one season..and it does nothing for team chemistry and continuity to have a rapid turnover rate. Kentucky will bear that truth out.

[Duvall]

I'm liking what I see so far. I believe that when a student-athlete signs a scholarship, he's making a commitment to the school and I believe he should thoroughly honor that commitment to its fullest, not just until someone is ready to pay him the big bucks to play a sport. I really hope the NCAA makes these kind of changes soon.

Make what changes? The NCAA can't force players to stay, and they have no way to force the NBA to change its entry requirements. They have no leverage and no power in this area. This is just posturing by a new NCAA president to get a bit of positive coverage. Nothing will come of this.

And I'll be honest - it's more than a little frustrating to hear people talking about requiring players to make a multi-year commitment to schools when schools are in no way required to make a reciprocal commitment to their players.

[Olympic Fan]

Duvall, you took the words out of my mouth.

Plenty of people -- coaches, administrators and college basketball writers -- have suggested or advocated something similar to this plan. But it's all a pipe dream.

THE NCAA HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NBA DRAFT ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.

When the commissioner of the NBA and the head of the NBA player's association start suggesting changing in the draft rules, I'll get excited. The rules are set by the NBA as part of their basic agreement with the player's association.

So far, I've not seen or heard any inclination by the NBA to change the rules as they now exist to help colleges. They LIKE the one-and-done requirement -- they found that the straight-from-high-school rules that were in place before 2006 caused them major problems. They had to spend a lot of money scouting high school prospects and even then they made A LOT of mistakes, investing huge sums in guys who could not play.

They still make mistakes with college kids -- but at a lower rate. And they still scout high school kids, but not nearly as extensively as they did before.

The current rules work great for the NBA, why would they want to change? You might convince them to put a two or three year requirement in place instead of the current one-year college requirement (that would make their scouting even easier and deliver more ready-made "stars" to the NBA), but without the option of allowing kids to come straight out of high school instead of taking the college option, it wouldn't work. And the NBA doesn't want to re-open the high school door.

And if they don't want to change, nothing the new NCAA president can do about it will change things.

PS Where in the world did the myth evolve that " John Wall ... because by all accounts he was a good student and took school seriously" If John Wall cared about school, he would have actually attended a real high school instead of Raleigh Word of God. He wouldn't have taken the SATs three times before getting a Derrick Rose pass. I know that the Kerntucky shills claim he did well in his one year there, but without having direct knowledge of his performance there (as opposited to excellent information about his lack of academic preperation in high school), I find those claims -- if true -- more an indictment of Kentucky's educational requirements than evidence that John Wall was serious about school.

[Reddevil]

Duvall, you took the words out of my mouth.

Plenty of people -- coaches, administrators and college basketball writers -- have suggested or advocated something similar to this plan. But it's all a pipe dream.

THE NCAA HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NBA DRAFT ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.

When the commissioner of the NBA and the head of the NBA player's association start suggesting changing in the draft rules, I'll get excited. The rules are set by the NBA as part of their basic agreement with the player's association.

So far, I've not seen or heard any inclination by the NBA to change the rules as they now exist to help colleges. They LIKE the one-and-done requirement -- they found that the straight-from-high-school rules that were in place before 2006 caused them major problems. They had to spend a lot of money scouting high school prospects and even then they made A LOT of mistakes, investing huge sums in guys who could not play.
They still make mistakes with college kids -- but at a lower rate. And they still scout high school kids, but not nearly as extensively as they did before.

The current rules work great for the NBA, why would they want to change? You might convince them to put a two or three year requirement in place instead of the current one-year college requirement (that would make their scouting even easier and deliver more ready-made "stars" to the NBA), but without the option of allowing kids to come straight out of high school instead of taking the college option, it wouldn't work. And the NBA doesn't want to re-open the high school door.

And if they don't want to change, nothing the new NCAA president can do about it will change things.

All of these points are spot-on. However, if the NCAA were to threaten freshman ineligibility, that would be a powerful bargaining chip. The NBA would be forced to rethink their position. Obviously there is no mention of that in this storyline, but if he is serious, the very mention of this would get the Association buzzing.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Plenty of people -- coaches, administrators and college basketball writers -- have suggested or advocated something similar to this plan. But it's all a pipe dream.

THE NCAA HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NBA DRAFT ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.

If you look at the original story, Emmert is looking at the baseball draft model, which apparently does have such a structure in place. Therefore if it applies to one sport, it CAN apply to another assuming that both sides agree to it.

"I much prefer the baseball model, for example, that allows a young person if they want to go play professional baseball, they can do it right out of high school, but once they start college they've got to play for three years or until they're 21," Emmert, who is leaving the University of Washington to take the helm of the NCAA, said in the interview. "I like that a good deal.

[pfrduke]

If you look at the original story, Emmert is looking at the baseball draft model, which apparently does have such a structure in place. Therefore if it applies to one sport, it CAN apply to another assuming that both sides agree to it.

This is your key phrase. It would require the NBA's agreement, which, as OF points out, they have absolutely no incentive to give. This is completely in the control of the NBA and their eligibility requirements.

[CameronBornAndBred]

This is your key phrase. It would require the NBA's agreement, which, as OF points out, they have absolutely no incentive to give. This is completely in the control of the NBA and their eligibility requirements.

Exactly..I'm just thinking that is not as impossible as some have implied. Highly unlikely..yes. I'm with Emmert in that I would like to see it happen, and if he comes into his office saying that, then at least the door is open for some talks.

[pfrduke]

Exactly..I'm just thinking that is not as impossible as some have implied. Highly unlikely..yes. I'm with Emmert in that I would like to see it happen, and if he comes into his office saying that, then at least the door is open for some talks.

Pardon the skepticism, but what exactly is Emmert going to take to the table when he goes and talks to the NBA? How is a "HS or 3 years" rule in any way more beneficial to the NBA than the current system?

[southgater]

I generally like the idea of high school players having the option of going directly to the NBA or, if not, spending a minimum of 2 years in college. However, I think to be fair to these young players, especially those who aren't obvious stars, it would be appropriate to allow them to wait to see where they are drafted and then allow them the option of still enrolling in college (for the 2 or 3 year minimum). This would limit the terrible outcome of kids declaring for the draft based on overly optimistic advice but going undrafted (or low 2nd round where they might well not make a team) and then not having a good alternative. I'm not sure how the NBA would deal with these cases - maybe the drafting team would retain rights for the future as they currently do for international players who stay overseas for 1 or more years. This would obviously add to the difficulty for universities, with a pool of very late signees, but on the whole I think this would be a reasonable sacrifice to make to achieve an improved overall system.

More generally, we have heard of the NBA interests and the NCAA interests, but who will be looking out for the high school players' interests? I suppose this would fall to the NBA Players' Association role, but will they really do this?

[DukeBlueNikeShox]

Nobody is forcing these kids to go to college. There are plenty of pro leagues around the world they can play for one season, then head to the NBA.

[toooskies]

Why would the NBA do this? Their entire reason for not taking players out of high school is to reduce the amount of un-developed players in the NBA. By switching to the baseball model, the NBA instead gets more players who declare early for the draft who would have waited 2 years. You then get more Desegana Diops making millions for riding the end of the bench as lottery picks, because teams wouldn't even see them in college for a year.

Baseball's system works for baseball because the college level is roughly equivalent to the minor leagues. Regardless of whether a player is drafted or not, they will spend time developing pro skills at similar rates. Whereas in basketball, new draftees immediately produce at the highest levels each year. Lebron James wasn't merely able to play as a pro coming out of high school; he was immediately better than 80% of the league. (Whether his maturity ever reached appropriate levels for an adult is, of course, debatable by anyone from Cleveland.)

But really, players are much worse off with this option than they would be. There would be a lot of pressure on players from low-income families to try to go pro before they're ready, leaving them with no educational benefit. Elliot Williams wouldn't have been able to go pro and afford better medical care for his mother after two seasons of basketball. Arguing that players would be "better off" in college instead of collecting NBA checks at the end of a bench aren't necessarily true, either.

If college basketball is really committed to keeping kids in school as long as they can, then they should start by letting players come back to school and play if they don't get drafted.

[TampaDuke]

Pardon the skepticism, but what exactly is Emmert going to take to the table when he goes and talks to the NBA? How is a "HS or 3 years" rule in any way more beneficial to the NBA than the current system?

As reddevil noted, if the NCAA wants to force the hand of the NBA and the NBAPA, they could threaten freshman eligibility. Won't happen, but there are ways the NCAA can pressure the NBA to at least consider change.

[TampaDuke]

Why would the NBA do this? Their entire reason for not taking players out of high school is to reduce the amount of un-developed players in the NBA. By switching to the baseball model, the NBA instead gets more players who declare early for the draft who would have waited 2 years. You then get more Desegana Diops making millions for riding the end of the bench as lottery picks, because teams wouldn't even see them in college for a year.

Baseball's system works for baseball because the college level is roughly equivalent to the minor leagues.

If anything like the baseball system were implemented in basketball, I think you'd see (virtually overnight) the development of a basketball minor league similar to what we have with baseball. If the NBDL and similar leagues don't quickly fill in that gap (or are unwilling to do so due to $$), then I surmise the overseas leagues would quickly take the opportunity to do so.

[pfrduke]

As reddevil noted, if the NCAA wants to force the hand of the NBA and the NBAPA, they could threaten freshman eligibility. Won't happen, but there are ways the NCAA can pressure the NBA to at least consider change.

That's simply not a realistic solution, and a threat that would never actually be followed through, if for no other reason than it would be a drastic overreaction to a small problem. Division I of the NCAA has ~345 basketball teams, all of whom, on average, get about 3-4 freshman a season. That's over 1000 kids who come on to campuses around the country every year to play basketball. Of those 1000, somewhere between 4-12 - that is, 0.4%-1.2% of the freshman entering class - leave after their first season to try to play in the NBA. Why in the world would (or should) the NCAA punish 99% of the freshman class because 1% only wants to play one season?

Also, what possible justification could the NCAA have for telling its basketball players - and none of its other student athletes - that they can no longer play as freshmen?

If I was running the players association, and Emmert came to me with that threat, I'd do whatever would be the respectful negotiating equivalent of laughing in his face and daring him to go try it.

[theAlaskanBear]

Sure, the idea is a long shot...but that doesn't mean there is no chance of it happening.

I have been a fan of this model since the NBA banned HS players. There is nothing to stop a team from drafting a kid and sending him to Europe or the D-League to get seasoned. It should function a lot more like soccer where NBA franchises can loan out their players to the Euro-leagues. The NBA can also write a salary-cap exception where rookie/draft contracts dont count against the cap until they play in X-number of NBA games...this would encourage them to develop farm teams.

Also, with many elite players spending 5yrs in highschool (prep school transfers)...age 21 is just two years in school for some of them.

[TampaDuke]

That's simply not a realistic solution, and a threat that would never actually be followed through, if for no other reason than it would be a drastic overreaction to a small problem. Division I of the NCAA has ~345 basketball teams, all of whom, on average, get about 3-4 freshman a season. That's over 1000 kids who come on to campuses around the country every year to play basketball. Of those 1000, somewhere between 4-12 - that is, 0.4%-1.2% of the freshman entering class - leave after their first season to try to play in the NBA. Why in the world would (or should) the NCAA punish 99% of the freshman class because 1% only wants to play one season?

Also, what possible justification could the NCAA have for telling its basketball players - and none of its other student athletes - that they can no longer play as freshmen?

If I was running the players association, and Emmert came to me with that threat, I'd do whatever would be the respectful negotiating equivalent of laughing in his face and daring him to go try it.

Oh I agree that freshman ineligibility won't happen and it's not realistic, but it does provide some leverage (albeit leverage that the NCAA would have to cultivate over the period of years to make it more believable/realistic). Obviously we're in a different era, but it's not as outlandish as it seems as freshman were previously ineligible decades ago (and, for a few of those years, freshman in sports other than football and basketball were permitted to play). An NCAA committee in the 80's even formally proposed to reinstate freshman ineligibility rules.

Also, in addition to tinkering with eligibility rules, I'm not so sure that there wouldn't be at least some NBA teams that wouldn't readily agree to a baseball type system. Deep pocket teams, for example, would have increased opportunities to draft "high potential" young players in later rounds or, if they're lucky, sign them as free agents after going undrafted. There'd be a need to build a system to develop such players, but several teams would jump at the chance. The Player's Association might even sign on with the right deal as it would mean more players being hired (i.e., more union members) and would also operate to loosen salary cap-type devices (a la MLB).