Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 94

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Idea to replace the NBA one and done rule

    It seems silly to me that a player like Shabazz should have to play a year of college ball before going pro. It would have been absurd if Kobe or LeBron had been forced to bide their time for a year. On the other hand I suppose the NBA is trying to save themselves from their own possible stupidity by using a first round pick to draft a player who is not ready. My solution for the NBA would be to allow only the lottery teams to draft a player out of HS. If a player is good enough to be a lottery pick out of HS he should not have to wait a year. On the other hand, players who seem to have a lot of raw talent and "potential" but aren't presumed ready to contribute immediately would have to sit out a year. Personally I would prefer not to make anyone wait a year but maybe this compromise would palatable to the NBA. To make it work the NCAA/NBA would have to forget about asking incoming freshmen to "declare" for the draft. Bazz could accept a scholarship to UCLA but if he's a lottery pick and wants to go they are out of luck just like Duke was with Livingston. On the other hand if he is not a lottery pick then he still has his eligibility for one year at UCLA. It's not perfect - for instance HB might still have been selected as a lottery pick and ended up a bust - but I think most of the time those "sure thing" type players would work out at least as well as after 1-year of college. I don't know if that would be acceptable to the NBA but it sure would be better for college. Calipari would likely be nervous on draft night if he continued to go after those type players but, after all, it's his choice. Players like Bazz could actually just wait until after the draft to commit in case they were not drafted.

    So what do you think?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by lotusland View Post
    It seems silly to me that a player like Shabazz should have to play a year of college ball before going pro. It would have been absurd if Kobe or LeBron had been forced to bide their time for a year. On the other hand I suppose the NBA is trying to save themselves from their own possible stupidity by using a first round pick to draft a player who is not ready. My solution for the NBA would be to allow only the lottery teams to draft a player out of HS. If a player is good enough to be a lottery pick out of HS he should not have to wait a year. On the other hand, players who seem to have a lot of raw talent and "potential" but aren't presumed ready to contribute immediately would have to sit out a year. Personally I would prefer not to make anyone wait a year but maybe this compromise would palatable to the NBA. To make it work the NCAA/NBA would have to forget about asking incoming freshmen to "declare" for the draft. Bazz could accept a scholarship to UCLA but if he's a lottery pick and wants to go they are out of luck just like Duke was with Livingston. On the other hand if he is not a lottery pick then he still has his eligibility for one year at UCLA. It's not perfect - for instance HB might still have been selected as a lottery pick and ended up a bust - but I think most of the time those "sure thing" type players would work out at least as well as after 1-year of college. I don't know if that would be acceptable to the NBA but it sure would be better for college. Calipari would likely be nervous on draft night if he continued to go after those type players but, after all, it's his choice. Players like Bazz could actually just wait until after the draft to commit in case they were not drafted.

    So what do you think?
    Won't fly with the NBA. The two main reasons that they instituted the rule were as follows:
    1. financial gain from being able to market rookies whose faces the nation is familiar with
    2. helping the GMs keep from shooting themselves in the foot by allowing for better evaluation (against better competition)

    It's also not great from the college perspective. This would cause chaos in terms of recruiting. The coaches already hate the fact that they aren't sure who they'll have next year due to the draft. Now they'll not be sure if they have a guy until late June. And it wouldn't really fix the one-and-done problem anyway, because you'd still only have a guy for the one year.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    Won't fly with the NBA. The two main reasons that they instituted the rule were as follows:
    1. financial gain from being able to market rookies whose faces the nation is familiar with
    2. helping the GMs keep from shooting themselves in the foot by allowing for better evaluation (against better competition)

    It's also not great from the college perspective. This would cause chaos in terms of recruiting. The coaches already hate the fact that they aren't sure who they'll have next year due to the draft. Now they'll not be sure if they have a guy until late June. And it wouldn't really fix the one-and-done problem anyway, because you'd still only have a guy for the one year.
    I agree with #1 and that may be the sticking point. #2 would be mitigated IMO by only allowing the lottery team teams to draft out of HS. I don't think lottery teams would miss on HS players that much more than after one year of college but it could happen (HB).

    From NCAA standpoint the last issue you raised would be no different than if there were no one and done rule at all - think Shawn Livingston - except it would only effect the very elite prospects who were lottery considerations.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by lotusland View Post
    I agree with #1 and that may be the sticking point. #2 would be mitigated IMO by only allowing the lottery team teams to draft out of HS. I don't think lottery teams would miss on HS players that much more than after one year of college but it could happen (HB).
    Except that the lottery teams miss fairly frequently. Any additional bit of information helps make a more informed decision. The decisions still aren't perfect, but they're better. And they get to draft more marketable players. We're not going to see high schoolers eligible for the draft again for a long time.

    Quote Originally Posted by lotusland View Post
    From NCAA standpoint the last issue you raised would be no different than if there were no one and done rule at all - think Shawn Livingston - except it would only effect the very elite prospects who were lottery considerations.
    Yes, it is no worse than what was in place before the one-and-done rule. But there IS a one-and-done rule now. My point was that what you're suggesting is actually worse than what is in place now, not better. Now, you more or less know what your team will be by May 1 and have time to scour the transfer/late recruit market as needed. With this, you'd absolutely not know until late June, at which point it is very difficult to make adjustments.

    So because the NBA won't do it and because it makes colleges worse off, it seems like a complete no-go. It's great for the players, not great for the NBA, colleges, or college bball fans.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    I thnk the association is double dipping and loving the system just they way it is - colleges develope their young talent one, two maybe four years with absolutely no risk and then when the "League" says they are ready, they draft them to the teams that need the most help to keep things competitive.

    Do you think, really, even for a minute, the NBA wants to change this?

    Grow up, sister. Life is what it is.
    Last edited by pfrduke; 04-26-2012 at 04:11 PM. Reason: language

  6. #6
    I like the idea of this thread, even if it is just a distant dream at this point. Here's a three-part plan:

    1) I agree that the NBA should let players go pro out of high school.

    2) For its part, the NCAA should let any kid who isn't drafted out of high school come to college - if, that is, they have the intention of getting an education and are willing to commit to college for 3+ years to get their degree. I think the concept that kids who declare for the draft are somehow "professionals" is just plain silly in light of the charred landscape of contemporary college basketball.

    3) If not 1) or 2), the NBDA and Europe are always available.

    To me this would capture everyone's best interests - the players, the colleges, and the fans. I guess it's really the same system as baseball has... Hmmm, I could probably have just gone with, "we should just do what baseball does". Sorry for the time sink.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by g-money View Post
    I like the idea of this thread, even if it is just a distant dream at this point. Here's a three-part plan:

    1) I agree that the NBA should let players go pro out of high school.

    2) For its part, the NCAA should let any kid who isn't drafted out of high school come to college - if, that is, they have the intention of getting an education and are willing to commit to college for 3+ years to get their degree. I think the concept that kids who declare for the draft are somehow "professionals" is just plain silly in light of the charred landscape of contemporary college basketball.

    3) If not 1) or 2), the NBDA and Europe are always available.

    To me this would capture everyone's best interests - the players, the colleges, and the fans. I guess it's really the same system as baseball has... Hmmm, I could probably have just gone with, "we should just do what baseball does". Sorry for the time sink.
    You almost have it right, now if only every college would hold to a higher standard where all players were students first and athletes second there would be no need to worry about the NBA and it's draft. Those decisions are often made by the athlete and his family long before high school, much less college age and nothing will change that. Let those athletes go to work as that is what they are trained to do. I'm sorry, but I don't think I'm alone when I say that college basketball should not be a development league for the NBA!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Triad, NC

    Lightbulb

    If a kid isn't interested in an education, they can go straight to the Associate, D-League or overseas.
    If they want to go to college they should be required to stay 3 years and have some accountability for their grades/attendance to class.

    The NBA is using college as a free D-League, so maybe the NBA requires guys to play in the D-League for a year before being drafted??? This allows them the year to play at a much higher level than high school while being evaluated and still get paid a considerable amount.

    Seems like a win-win for everyone except Kentucky.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePublisher View Post
    If a kid isn't interested in an education, they can go straight to the Associate, D-League or overseas.
    If they want to go to college they should be required to stay 3 years and have some accountability for their grades/attendance to class.

    The NBA is using college as a free D-League, so maybe the NBA requires guys to play in the D-League for a year before being drafted??? This allows them the year to play at a much higher level than high school while being evaluated and still get paid a considerable amount.

    Seems like a win-win for everyone except Kentucky.
    And the NBA. Why would they give up having a year of free marketing and evaluation in order to have to pay more for a minor league? Yes, I'm sure D-League revenue would go up, but I'd be shocked if it would be profitable for the league, especially after how many of the owners claimed poverty in last summer's lockout. One reason college basketball makes so much money has a lot to do with the institutional association, something that the D-League couldn't develop no matter how much money owners sunk into it. If the NBA had to develop the D-League into true minor league, I'm sure it could happen, but the league is a for profit entity and right now, it just doesn't seem like it would make sense from a business standpoint to spend resources solving a perceived problem with the NCAA. I want to say David Stern said something along those lines in an interview a few weeks ago, but I'm not positive.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePublisher View Post
    If a kid isn't interested in an education, they can go straight to the Associate, D-League or overseas.
    You mean like this kid? http://www.zagsblog.com/2012/04/30/n...rd/#more-72539

    This California big man couldn't qualify at St. John's, still trying to "get his academics together" after trying it at the Phelps School in Malvern, PA for about a second and a half. Now he's interested in schools all over the map, from Rhode Island to New Mexico to DePaul to Nevada, but in the meantime, while he undoubtedly is mulling the course curricula of those and other institutions, he's with Buckets Academy, back in California. Buckets Academy, folks.

    All I know is what I read, but kids like this sure don't seem like they belong in four year universities.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Southern Pines, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by dukeofcalabash View Post
    You almost have it right, now if only every college would hold to a higher standard where all players were students first and athletes second there would be no need to worry about the NBA and it's draft. Those decisions are often made by the athlete and his family long before high school, much less college age and nothing will change that. Let those athletes go to work as that is what they are trained to do. I'm sorry, but I don't think I'm alone when I say that college basketball should not be a development league for the NBA!
    A little bit earlier in this thread some of us discussed an idea that might just kick off a move to force the NBA into a smart action, expand it's D league into a true minor league along the lines of baseball and hockey. The idea would have the NCAA establish what could be called scholarship contracts (with a stipend) that would run for at least three years with an option for a fourth year. This would replace the current practice of one year scholarships. It very well could solve the whole issue. High school athletes would initially face just two choices, go to college, or go pro. Wait for the draft and/or the recruiters to call. Next step for the athlete -- make the decision. Go pro, or go to college. Choose going pro, and the athlete can never be a student athlete. That's okay. Choose college, and three (or four) years later check out going pro.
    Ta da.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhead View Post
    A little bit earlier in this thread some of us discussed an idea that might just kick off a move to force the NBA into a smart action, expand it's D league into a true minor league along the lines of baseball and hockey. The idea would have the NCAA establish what could be called scholarship contracts (with a stipend) that would run for at least three years with an option for a fourth year. This would replace the current practice of one year scholarships. It very well could solve the whole issue. High school athletes would initially face just two choices, go to college, or go pro. Wait for the draft and/or the recruiters to call. Next step for the athlete -- make the decision. Go pro, or go to college. Choose going pro, and the athlete can never be a student athlete. That's okay. Choose college, and three (or four) years later check out going pro.
    Ta da.
    That makes way too much sense to ever be considered, much less adopted.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhead View Post
    A little bit earlier in this thread some of us discussed an idea that might just kick off a move to force the NBA into a smart action, expand it's D league into a true minor league along the lines of baseball and hockey. The idea would have the NCAA establish what could be called scholarship contracts (with a stipend) that would run for at least three years with an option for a fourth year. This would replace the current practice of one year scholarships. It very well could solve the whole issue. High school athletes would initially face just two choices, go to college, or go pro. Wait for the draft and/or the recruiters to call. Next step for the athlete -- make the decision. Go pro, or go to college. Choose going pro, and the athlete can never be a student athlete. That's okay. Choose college, and three (or four) years later check out going pro.
    Ta da.
    I like it. Not so sure the NCAA would go for the stipend, especially if they want to be consistent with all sports, but think this is well thought through. I would only add that a student-athlete leaving after the first or second year be required to reimburse the institution for the full cost of the scholarship year(s) left on the table by the next tuition due date. Bolters would harm the school's ability to recruit and build a unit, as well as the lost expected revenue. Make 'em sign on the dotted line!

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington DC
    Steve Kerr writes about upping the age to 20 here. He gives all the reasons why a second year in college would be beneficial. That's great, but he avoids addressing non-qualifiers and how the D-league fits in. He uses Kevin Garnett as an example of a young guy who produced a little as a rookie and could have used a year in college. But Garnett did not qualify for college. How does he fit in? Does he go to the D-league? Is the D-league ready to support a kid that young?

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by superdave View Post
    Steve Kerr writes about upping the age to 20 here. He gives all the reasons why a second year in college would be beneficial... He uses Kevin Garnett as an example of a young guy who produced a little as a rookie and could have used a year in college. But Garnett did not qualify for college. How does he fit in? Does he go to the D-league? Is the D-league ready to support a kid that young?
    In addition to the problem you raise, Kerr's argument has a variety of others.

    Kerr’s assessment of straight-to-the-NBA guys like Garnett is flawed. He compares the rookie seasons of Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, and Michael Jordan to those of Garnett, Kobe, Howard & LeBron, concluding Garnett & Bryant “needed the extra playing time” they would’ve gotten in college to develop and “LeBron and Howard were thrust into unfair positions as saviors of lottery teams, and after seeing how their careers have unfolded, maybe those burdens affected them more than we realized.”

    This is the wrong way of looking assessing the situation.

    If the question is “what’s best for Kevin Garnett’s development, going straight to the NBA or going to college?,”* looking at his rookie stats tells us nearly nothing, as we don’t know what they would’ve been had he gone to college. Kerr tries to use rookie seasons of college-goers Bird, Johnson & Jordan as proxies, but this is nonsense. Instead, Kerr should look later at Garnett’s career.

    Take Bird for example. Larry Bird at age 23 after three years in college put up a 20.5 PER and 11.2 Win Shares. Kerr compares that to Garnett’s 15.8 PER & 4.4 Win Shares as a 19 year old after zero years in college, and concludes that Garnett would’ve been better served going to college. What Kerr should do instead is look at Garnett at a comparable point in his own journey. Doing so, we see that Garnett at age 21 with two NBA seasons behind him put up a 20.4 PER and 9.6 Win Shares, which compares well with Bird at 23 with three years of college behind him. And Garnett's career from then on compares favorably to Bird’s.

    It isn’t exactly a great insight to note that a 23 year old player with three years of college experience outperformed a 19 year old straight out of high school. And it tells us nothing about which path (college vs. NBA) is better for a player’s development -- it merely suggests that having three extra years of development time is better than not having them. Hardly groundbreaking stuff, and not at all relevant to an assessment of whether those three years would be better spent in college or the NBA.

    Finally, Kerr suggests -- and I’ve seen this suggested elsewhere in this debate -- that Garnett and Bryant weren’t ready for the NBA and should’ve gone to college. But they were both, at 18/19 years old, league-average players. That’s really good! (For comparison: Garnett’s 15.8 rookie PER was better than the PERs of all but 5 of this year’s rookies, all of whom -- obviously -- are older and more experienced than he was.) Both made second-team all-Rookie team. I would contend that if you’re capable of being an average NBA at 19 years old, you’re ready (from a basketball standpoint) for the League. And both went on to have inner-circle Hall of Fame careers. So it’s awfully hard to buy the notion that their longterm development was stunted.

    Though Kerr suggests the players would’ve been better served by developing in college, his piece is really written from the perspective of the league, so his broader point is that it isn’t in the league’s interest to pay for development that could occur on someone else’s dime, and that the quality of basketball in the league would be higher if it didn’t have still-developing teenagers dragging it down. But Bryant, Garnett, James and Howard are terrible examples that undermine his point: All four were league-average or better performers as rookies. That means their presence in the league didn’t lower the quality of play -- it raised the quality of play, assuming teams behaved rationally and gave them PT at the expense of below-average players.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Southern Pines, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by superdave View Post
    Steve Kerr writes about upping the age to 20 here. He gives all the reasons why a second year in college would be beneficial. That's great, but he avoids addressing non-qualifiers and how the D-league fits in. He uses Kevin Garnett as an example of a young guy who produced a little as a rookie and could have used a year in college. But Garnett did not qualify for college. How does he fit in? Does he go to the D-league? Is the D-league ready to support a kid that young?
    Quote Originally Posted by FellowTraveler View Post
    In addition to the problem you raise, Kerr's argument has a variety of others.

    Kerr’s assessment of straight-to-the-NBA guys like Garnett is flawed. He compares the rookie seasons of Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, and Michael Jordan to those of Garnett, Kobe, Howard & LeBron, concluding Garnett & Bryant “needed the extra playing time” they would’ve gotten in college to develop and “LeBron and Howard were thrust into unfair positions as saviors of lottery teams, and after seeing how their careers have unfolded, maybe those burdens affected them more than we realized.”

    This is the wrong way of looking assessing the situation.

    If the question is “what’s best for Kevin Garnett’s development, going straight to the NBA or going to college?,”* looking at his rookie stats tells us nearly nothing, as we don’t know what they would’ve been had he gone to college. Kerr tries to use rookie seasons of college-goers Bird, Johnson & Jordan as proxies, but this is nonsense. Instead, Kerr should look later at Garnett’s career.

    Take Bird for example. Larry Bird at age 23 after three years in college put up a 20.5 PER and 11.2 Win Shares. Kerr compares that to Garnett’s 15.8 PER & 4.4 Win Shares as a 19 year old after zero years in college, and concludes that Garnett would’ve been better served going to college. What Kerr should do instead is look at Garnett at a comparable point in his own journey. Doing so, we see that Garnett at age 21 with two NBA seasons behind him put up a 20.4 PER and 9.6 Win Shares, which compares well with Bird at 23 with three years of college behind him. And Garnett's career from then on compares favorably to Bird’s.

    It isn’t exactly a great insight to note that a 23 year old player with three years of college experience outperformed a 19 year old straight out of high school. And it tells us nothing about which path (college vs. NBA) is better for a player’s development -- it merely suggests that having three extra years of development time is better than not having them. Hardly groundbreaking stuff, and not at all relevant to an assessment of whether those three years would be better spent in college or the NBA.

    Finally, Kerr suggests -- and I’ve seen this suggested elsewhere in this debate -- that Garnett and Bryant weren’t ready for the NBA and should’ve gone to college. But they were both, at 18/19 years old, league-average players. That’s really good! (For comparison: Garnett’s 15.8 rookie PER was better than the PERs of all but 5 of this year’s rookies, all of whom -- obviously -- are older and more experienced than he was.) Both made second-team all-Rookie team. I would contend that if you’re capable of being an average NBA at 19 years old, you’re ready (from a basketball standpoint) for the League. And both went on to have inner-circle Hall of Fame careers. So it’s awfully hard to buy the notion that their longterm development was stunted.

    Though Kerr suggests the players would’ve been better served by developing in college, his piece is really written from the perspective of the league, so his broader point is that it isn’t in the league’s interest to pay for development that could occur on someone else’s dime, and that the quality of basketball in the league would be higher if it didn’t have still-developing teenagers dragging it down. But Bryant, Garnett, James and Howard are terrible examples that undermine his point: All four were league-average or better performers as rookies. That means their presence in the league didn’t lower the quality of play -- it raised the quality of play, assuming teams behaved rationally and gave them PT at the expense of below-average players.
    These last two posts here keyed in on the problem quite well. Superdave raises the question of what an NBA prospect can do if he is not qualified to attend college. Good strong point, and Steve Kerr's point just doesn't fly. The NBA doesn't know how to handle the issue, or refuses to do so. Fellow Traveler does. He shows us that the NBA would rather have the colleges cover the expense of developing new talent. How do we fix that? Well, the NCAA can take a huge step to influence the NBA into doing something smart by establishing the scholarship contract in which the athlete commits to three years (with an optional fourth year) in college, and the colleges unlock some endowment money to provide a reasonable stipend. While we are at it, why not unlock some endowment money for financial aid to everybody?

    The kids that don't want to go to college get drafted by the NBA teams, and do their development on a minor league type team, financed by the NBA team that drafted them, sort of the way it is done in baseball and hockey. It generally answers a lot of the problems of player development for the NBA. and likewise solves problems colleges face with the one and done meme. Somewhere there are smart people that could get together on this, and work out all of the wrinkles.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhead View Post
    Well, the NCAA can take a huge step to influence the NBA into doing something smart by establishing the scholarship contract in which the athlete commits to three years (with an optional fourth year) in college.
    So I've seen this proposal elsewhere, including on these boards, and I don't see how this would really work. Say a kid who is interested in education like maybe a Brandon Knight decides to go to college instead of right to a D-league. He signs the scholarship contract for 3 years. But then he has a great freshman year and decides he's ready for the NBA, and he'll finish school later. He says, "sorry, but I'm breaking our contract" and submits his name for the draft. There's no NBA rule against that.

    What are the real consequences to the player for his breach of his contract? What are the actual, provable damages to the university? And even if the school goes to the trouble (and takes the PR hit) of actually filing a lawsuit against Knight, and then can somehow prove actual damages, doesn't Knight just write a check and move on?

    What am I missing here?

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by tommy View Post
    So I've seen this proposal elsewhere, including on these boards, and I don't see how this would really work. Say a kid who is interested in education like maybe a Brandon Knight decides to go to college instead of right to a D-league. He signs the scholarship contract for 3 years. But then he has a great freshman year and decides he's ready for the NBA, and he'll finish school later. He says, "sorry, but I'm breaking our contract" and submits his name for the draft. There's no NBA rule against that.

    What are the real consequences to the player for his breach of his contract? What are the actual, provable damages to the university? And even if the school goes to the trouble (and takes the PR hit) of actually filing a lawsuit against Knight, and then can somehow prove actual damages, doesn't Knight just write a check and move on?

    What am I missing here?
    Thanks, tommy. You are quite right, given your example. Some of the stars would just write the check. But, as policy, the message is sent that, "This is college...you are a student-athlete." Many young guys with stars in their eyes, but realistically "on the bubble" in regards to their NBA value would no doubt opt for college for 3+ years. Nothing to stop someone from leaving early (unless the NBA steps up and changes their protocol), but if this "proposed" NCAA scholarship contract is signed, it's likely binding. If, in your good example, Brandon Knight (or Kyrie Irving for that matter) goes back to school later to complete a degree (or get through the 3 or 3+ contractual years), then the school should embrace and honor that at some level (pro-rata or otherwise). Presumably, the athletic department could "escrow" some or all of the repaid scholarship money to fund future situations where the early departures return to school. The lawyers can weigh in, but it seems to me that an enforceable contract could be drafted by the NCAA. I'm not holding my breath on this one, however.

  19. #19

    The NCAA

    should do away with freshmen eligibility.

    And put the college Presidents on notice that athletes must be student-athletes.

    Might force the NBA to come to its senses regarding one and done.

    Athletes who have no interest in being students would have to opt to for a year in Europe or something unless the rule was changed.

    BTW there is no way to force players to stay in school for 3 years. What if they flunk out?

    Would put the college back in college athletics.

    SoCal

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Southern Pines, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by tommy View Post
    So I've seen this proposal elsewhere, including on these boards, and I don't see how this would really work. Say a kid who is interested in education like maybe a Brandon Knight decides to go to college instead of right to a D-league. He signs the scholarship contract for 3 years. But then he has a great freshman year and decides he's ready for the NBA, and he'll finish school later. He says, "sorry, but I'm breaking our contract" and submits his name for the draft. There's no NBA rule against that.

    What are the real consequences to the player for his breach of his contract? What are the actual, provable damages to the university? And even if the school goes to the trouble (and takes the PR hit) of actually filing a lawsuit against Knight, and then can somehow prove actual damages, doesn't Knight just write a check and move on?

    What am I missing here?
    Maybe you missed my last sentence, "Somewhere there are smart people that could get together on this, and work out all of the wrinkles." It is these smart people who come up with the actual set of rules and procedures. Once an athlete goes pro he is saddled with a host of restrictions that dictate what he can do and when, and he cannot ever play sports for an NCAA member institution.. On the other side there are similar restrictions, but I wouldn't expect damages being levied on an athlete that chooses to leave school prematurely. Once a decision is made it binds all of us to that decision, at least for a while.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 143
    Last Post: 09-08-2021, 10:15 AM
  2. Trip Durham To Replace Dr. Art Chandler
    By airowe in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-31-2010, 11:32 AM
  3. Boyle from UNC to Replace Bzdelik at Colorado
    By sagegrouse in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-19-2010, 06:11 PM
  4. Best Idea EVER!!!
    By JasonEvans in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-26-2007, 08:25 PM
  5. half serious idea about who to replace ted roof with
    By godukecom in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 09-10-2007, 08:11 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •