The NCAA Should Take on the NBA, not Just Lie Down and Roll Over

[sagegrouse]

I posted some of these ideas in another thread. The NCAA is surrendering to the NBA. Do you know its strategy to avoid losing players to the NBA is? It's to disqualify any player who enters the draft -- i.e., goes so far to as to get a job offer from the NBA. The stated reason is that (a) it doesn't want to police the issue of payments from agents and (b) the early entry date is to help coaches plan next year's roster because of the 12-24 month lead time to get a new player. Neither of these make any sense whatsoever in terms of protecting the game of college hoops from the depredations of the NBA.

Here are my thoughts on the subject:

a. CBB is a multi-BILLION dollar business. Why doesn't it have a CEO?

b. NCAA hoops is being eaten alive by a richer and more nimble competitor, and it doesn't have a plan to fight back. This is unilateral disarmament. It is done in the name of amateurism and equity among all 300 Div. I schools, but the outcome is slow suicide of the sport.

b. College hoops's biggest problem is that it is losing all of its best players to the competitor (NBA) after just one year. Yet it is doing nothing to retain them. In fact, it is driving them out the door by DQing them if they go get an offer from the competitor (enter the draft). The NCAA should quit doing that and allow any player to enter the draft and return to college if he doesn't like the offer. And BTW, if that screws up the NBA draft, that's another positive benefit.

d. The newly conceived NCAA Basketball Commissioner should award compensation for the ten most valuable college players (in terms of value to the NBA) if they stay beyond their first year. Like $250K to $1.0 million, either loan or grant. These would be funded by the NCAA out of March Madness money, not the schools or their boosters, and the recipients would be limited to ten players most likely to be drafted high after year one. If need be, this can be done by a private organization outside the NCAA with its payments not affecting eligibility, but I would just give the job to the new Commissioner.

e. Protect the marquis teams, who bring in all the dough and all the TV eyeballs, and are the heart and soul of the CBB "business." They are being decimated by the NBA (kill one in ten, as the Romans used to do to discipline their prisoners). But not only does it drain the colleges of star power and talent, but it also screws up their rosters because there is a 12-24 month lead to bringing in new players via recruiting or transfer.

f. Somewhat laughingly, the college coaches were so desperate and out of ideas that they petitioned the NCAA to have a drop-dead early NBA draft decision so they could plan their rosters. The pre-draft decision date is the tenth-best solution to the problem and exacerbates the problem rather than solves it. It forces players with poor NBA prospects to take the leap without having adequate information. And we are supposed to be helping not hurting these players?

g. The obvious solution is to allow transfers without a one-year sit-out period. And, yep, it could lead to some of the mid-majors being farm teams for the big boys, but so what? K says, "We don't have room for you, big guy, but so-and-so at Appal. State (or ODU or Montana) is a heckuva coach and we work together closely. Maybe you could join us for your junior year."

h. What about Title IX? What about jersey sales? Not hard problems.

Do the same thing for women but key the pay of both to the NBA and WNBA minimum salaries. Or else, ask (buy?) the Congress to amend the Title IX law, perhaps with an "experimentation clause" rather than a direct frontal attack.

Jersey sales profits (or a portion) should go into a central fund with payment after graduation or after five years. There would need to be formulas for allocations and payouts, but these can be worked out if there is a will to do so.

College hoops is dying a slow death, and the NBA is the enemy, not "our partner." And the NCAA -- supposedly our leader -- has chosen unilateral disarmament.

[Lar77]

I posted some of these ideas in another thread. The NCAA is surrendering to the NBA. Do you know its strategy to avoid losing players to the NBA is? It's to disqualify any player who enters the draft -- i.e., goes so far to as to get a job offer from the NBA. The stated reason is that (a) it doesn't want to police the issue of payments from agents and (b) the early entry date is to help coaches plan next year's roster because of the 12-24 month lead time to get a new player. Neither of these make any sense whatsoever in terms of protecting the game of college hoops from the depredations of the NBA.

Here are my thoughts on the subject:

a. CBB is a multi-BILLION dollar business. Why doesn't it have a CEO?

b. NCAA hoops is being eaten alive by a richer and more nimble competitor, and it doesn't have a plan to fight back. This is unilateral disarmament. It is done in the name of amateurism and equity among all 300 Div. I schools, but the outcome is slow suicide of the sport.

b. College hoops's biggest problem is that it is losing all of its best players to the competitor (NBA) after just one year. Yet it is doing nothing to retain them. In fact, it is driving them out the door by DQing them if they go get an offer from the competitor (enter the draft). The NCAA should quit doing that and allow any player to enter the draft and return to college if he doesn't like the offer. And BTW, if that screws up the NBA draft, that's another positive benefit.

d. The newly conceived NCAA Basketball Commissioner should award compensation for the ten most valuable college players (in terms of value to the NBA) if they stay beyond their first year. Like $250K to $1.0 million, either loan or grant. These would be funded by the NCAA out of March Madness money, not the schools or their boosters, and the recipients would be limited to ten players most likely to be drafted high after year one. If need be, this can be done by a private organization outside the NCAA with its payments not affecting eligibility, but I would just give the job to the new Commissioner.

e. Protect the marquis teams, who bring in all the dough and all the TV eyeballs, and are the heart and soul of the CBB "business." They are being decimated by the NBA (kill one in ten, as the Romans used to do to discipline their prisoners). But not only does it drain the colleges of star power and talent, but it also screws up their rosters because there is a 12-24 month lead to bringing in new players via recruiting or transfer.

f. Somewhat laughingly, the college coaches were so desperate and out of ideas that they petitioned the NCAA to have a drop-dead early NBA draft decision so they could plan their rosters. The pre-draft decision date is the tenth-best solution to the problem and exacerbates the problem rather than solves it. It forces players with poor NBA prospects to take the leap without having adequate information. And we are supposed to be helping not hurting these players?

g. The obvious solution is to allow transfers without a one-year sit-out period. And, yep, it could lead to some of the mid-majors being farm teams for the big boys, but so what? K says, "We don't have room for you, big guy, but so-and-so at Appal. State (or ODU or Montana) is a heckuva coach and we work together closely. Maybe you could join us for your junior year."

h. What about Title IX? What about jersey sales? Not hard problems.

Do the same thing for women but key the pay of both to the NBA and WNBA minimum salaries. Or else, ask (buy?) the Congress to amend the Title IX law, perhaps with an "experimentation clause" rather than a direct frontal attack.

Jersey sales profits (or a portion) should go into a central fund with payment after graduation or after five years. There would need to be formulas for allocations and payouts, but these can be worked out if there is a will to do so.

College hoops is dying a slow death, and the NBA is the enemy, not "our partner." And the NCAA -- supposedly our leader -- has chosen unilateral disarmament.

Great thoughts, Sage (no pun intended).

The NCAA does a great job at shooting itself in the foot. Every rule they have has had a root in trying to drive out an ill, but the unintended consequences are often awful. The organization's biggest problem is that it has too many constituents with too diverse agendas.

The lead should come from the 5 power conferences.

It's been suggested in the past that Coach K (and/or Shane Battier) has the respect and connections to get the NBA and NCAA on the same page. Let the two groups figure out how to make that work for them and for the athletes.

[SoCalDukeFan]

I posted some of these ideas in another thread. The NCAA is surrendering to the NBA. Do you know its strategy to avoid losing players to the NBA is? It's to disqualify any player who enters the draft -- i.e., goes so far to as to get a job offer from the NBA. The stated reason is that (a) it doesn't want to police the issue of payments from agents and (b) the early entry date is to help coaches plan next year's roster because of the 12-24 month lead time to get a new player. Neither of these make any sense whatsoever in terms of protecting the game of college hoops from the depredations of the NBA.

Here are my thoughts on the subject:

a. CBB is a multi-BILLION dollar business. Why doesn't it have a CEO?

b. NCAA hoops is being eaten alive by a richer and more nimble competitor, and it doesn't have a plan to fight back. This is unilateral disarmament. It is done in the name of amateurism and equity among all 300 Div. I schools, but the outcome is slow suicide of the sport.

b. College hoops's biggest problem is that it is losing all of its best players to the competitor (NBA) after just one year. Yet it is doing nothing to retain them. In fact, it is driving them out the door by DQing them if they go get an offer from the competitor (enter the draft). The NCAA should quit doing that and allow any player to enter the draft and return to college if he doesn't like the offer. And BTW, if that screws up the NBA draft, that's another positive benefit.

d. The newly conceived NCAA Basketball Commissioner should award compensation for the ten most valuable college players (in terms of value to the NBA) if they stay beyond their first year. Like $250K to $1.0 million, either loan or grant. These would be funded by the NCAA out of March Madness money, not the schools or their boosters, and the recipients would be limited to ten players most likely to be drafted high after year one. If need be, this can be done by a private organization outside the NCAA with its payments not affecting eligibility, but I would just give the job to the new Commissioner.

e. Protect the marquis teams, who bring in all the dough and all the TV eyeballs, and are the heart and soul of the CBB "business." They are being decimated by the NBA (kill one in ten, as the Romans used to do to discipline their prisoners). But not only does it drain the colleges of star power and talent, but it also screws up their rosters because there is a 12-24 month lead to bringing in new players via recruiting or transfer.

f. Somewhat laughingly, the college coaches were so desperate and out of ideas that they petitioned the NCAA to have a drop-dead early NBA draft decision so they could plan their rosters. The pre-draft decision date is the tenth-best solution to the problem and exacerbates the problem rather than solves it. It forces players with poor NBA prospects to take the leap without having adequate information. And we are supposed to be helping not hurting these players?

g. The obvious solution is to allow transfers without a one-year sit-out period. And, yep, it could lead to some of the mid-majors being farm teams for the big boys, but so what? K says, "We don't have room for you, big guy, but so-and-so at Appal. State (or ODU or Montana) is a heckuva coach and we work together closely. Maybe you could join us for your junior year."

h. What about Title IX? What about jersey sales? Not hard problems.

Do the same thing for women but key the pay of both to the NBA and WNBA minimum salaries. Or else, ask (buy?) the Congress to amend the Title IX law, perhaps with an "experimentation clause" rather than a direct frontal attack.

Jersey sales profits (or a portion) should go into a central fund with payment after graduation or after five years. There would need to be formulas for allocations and payouts, but these can be worked out if there is a will to do so.

College hoops is dying a slow death, and the NBA is the enemy, not "our partner." And the NCAA -- supposedly our leader -- has chosen unilateral disarmament.

In my opinion the NCAA is just completely screwed up. It has 2 huge businesses (football and men's basketball), some smaller businesses ( women's basketball, baseball, maybe some others), and a bunch of competitions. The NCAA wants you to believe that its main job is to run games between scholar athletes.

Recently, after a player complained on national TV, the NCAA has finally proposed to change the rules on meals. Not that change needs to go through further committees. If they can't fix that overnight, how can they ever implement some of these changes.

College basketball may be healthier than you think however. The NCAA Tournament got good ratings and had many great games. (The four play-in games and calling them the first round screws up brackets and is an example of the NCAA trying to screw it up in my opinion.) Three of the four Final Four teams had (as of this morning) no players who declared early for the draft and obviously no one and dones. Many of us got emotionally attached in some way to Jabari Parker as a player and a person and are unhappy that he will only play for Duke one year, but the fans of Florida, UConn, and Wisconsin do not have that a similar problem. (Wisconsin may lose Kaminsky after 3 years.) I would want to be careful as to not totally screw something up by fixing if its it not really broken.

There should be a way to compensate college basketball star players for the revenues they bring in and that compensation might keep them in school longer. Of course that might reduce the compensation for NCAA bureaucrats.

SoCal

[mgtr]

Sage, what a great thread. You edged into the idea that the NBA is the enemy of the college basketball, not a partner, and that the NCAA is a weak sister, run by fuzzy-headed college professors. Until one recognizes the facts, one cannot address the problem adequately. I agree with the need for a CEO for college basketball (and also one for college football, the problems and needs do not coincide). So, what are the chances of this happening in the next few years? Probably so close to zero it doesn't matter.

[sagegrouse]

Opening lede from an article today:

NEW YORK -- Armed with majority support from owners and saying "we're ready to go," NBA commissioner Adam Silver made it clear pushing back the league's age limit to 20 is at the top of his priority list.
The league's owners hosted NCAA president Mark Emmert to discuss the issue as part of their annual two-day spring meeting this week. Any changes wouldn't be in place by next season because the league is waiting for the players' association to name an executive director before formally starting negotiations. But it's clear there's a growing momentum to force this occasionally divisive issue through soon, possibly in time for the 2016 draft.

Just a shot across the bow from DBR and the NBA Paper Tiger begins to collapse in tatters.

[SoCalDukeFan]

I am sure DBR is the major impetus for this. Adam Silver is a Duke grad and I assume a regular DBR.

The only problem I have is what is the option for a kid who has no desire or interest in college or college basketball. I guess football has the same problem now.

Maybe let players go straight to the NBDL out of high school.

Two years will allow players to "unpack their bags." Also players really serious about a degree can get pretty close with summer school and perhaps come back for year 3 to finish the job or get that much closer. Obviously the NBA gets one more year to evaluate before drafting.

SoCal

[dukebluesincebirth]

Sagegrouse, I really appreciate this thread (and the fact that you motivated Silver to address the issue at hand&#128522... I know it's not a brand new topic, but one that is very relevant to me and many college bball fans I've conversed with recently. The game is so far from what it used to be, and I almost feel like the game I was once so passionate about is being stolen. Change will be fueled by meaningful discussion (and money), no matter how long it takes. Great points you made, maybe others will follow. Thanks.

[Kdogg]

I don't see the NBA as the enemy. The real enemy is the NCAA. There is a huge distinction between NCAA basketball and the NBA. The NBA is a star driven league while college basketball is a program driven league. The NBA liked the old draft rules. They were getting pre-marketed star players from the get go. Back in the day, people would pay to see rookies like Patrick Ewing, Hakeem Olajuwon, Chris Webber and Shaquille O'Neil. It was a big deal when they came to town. It didn't matter that their teams were terrible, they were the draws. Today nobody is getting excited to see Anthony Bennett or even John Wall, Blake Griffin or Kyrie as ROOKIES. The NCAA on the other hand is program driven. Star players are great but people tune in to see Duke or UNC or UK or Kansas. Last season Duke had three of the highest rated games on TV. Most of the people watching probably could not name five players combined from both teams. It doesn't matter. The NCAA doesn't really care about the quality of basketball just that the programs continue to be the draw.

NBA management and ownership have always preferred having marketable players in the draft. They are not the ones opposed to raising the age limit. It's in their best interest to have 20+ year olds in the league. It's the Players Union that is adamantly opposed to it. Part of it is because it can be used as a bargaining chip in future CBA negations. Part is because they are philosophically opposed to restricting the right to work (but that's more for the PR show). And part is because management wants it so they are against it on principle.

[SoCalDukeFan]

I don't see the NBA as the enemy. The real enemy is the NCAA. There is a huge distinction between NCAA basketball and the NBA. The NBA is a star driven league while college basketball is a program driven league. The NBA liked the old draft rules. They were getting pre-marketed star players from the get go. Back in the day, people would pay to see rookies like Patrick Ewing, Hakeem Olajuwon, Chris Webber and Shaquille O'Neil. It was a big deal when they came to town. It didn't matter that their teams were terrible, they were the draws. Today nobody is getting excited to see Anthony Bennett or even John Wall, Blake Griffin or Kyrie as ROOKIES. The NCAA on the other hand is program driven. Star players are great but people tune in to see Duke or UNC or UK or Kansas. Last season Duke had three of the highest rated games on TV. Most of the people watching probably could not name five players combined from both teams. It doesn't matter. The NCAA doesn't really care about the quality of basketball just that the programs continue to be the draw.

NBA management and ownership have always preferred having marketable players in the draft. They are not the ones opposed to raising the age limit. It's in their best interest to have 20+ year olds in the league. It's the Players Union that is adamantly opposed to it. Part of it is because it can be used as a bargaining chip in future CBA negations. Part is because they are philosophically opposed to restricting the right to work (but that's more for the PR show). And part is because management wants it so they are against it on principle.

I never understood why the Players Union would be so opposed to raising the age limit. Keeping 19 year olds out of the NBA means that there should be more jobs for the old guys, who are the current members of the Players Union. I think its the bargaining chip aspect.

I am not sure if the NCAA is really the enemy, just totally inept, out of date, out of touch and completely unhelpful.

SoCal

[bob blue devil]

NBA management and ownership have always preferred having marketable players in the draft. They are not the ones opposed to raising the age limit. It's in their best interest to have 20+ year olds in the league. It's the Players Union that is adamantly opposed to it. Part of it is because it can be used as a bargaining chip in future CBA negations. Part is because they are philosophically opposed to restricting the right to work (but that's more for the PR show). And part is because management wants it so they are against it on principle.

So then why is silver making a fuss about raising the age limit? Management can't make it happen unilaterally and the more the union knows management wants it, the more they'll extract for making the concession. Is it all just posturing with some unknown agenda?

[g-money]

b. College hoops's biggest problem is that it is losing all of its best players to the competitor (NBA) after just one year. Yet it is doing nothing to retain them. In fact, it is driving them out the door by DQing them if they go get an offer from the competitor (enter the draft). The NCAA should quit doing that and allow any player to enter the draft and return to college if he doesn't like the offer. And BTW, if that screws up the NBA draft, that's another positive benefit.

Good stuff, Sage. I suspect part b) of your proposal could be the simplest/fastest/easiest way for the NCAA to combat the NBA in terms of reducing early entry. If a OAD-type player could simply go back to playing in college if he didn't like the team that drafted him, it sure would make NBA teams think twice about drafting kids who are still eligible to play in college.

I'm glad Adam Silver is working on the 2/20 thing. It would at least be something to help the college game. But it looks like any changes are at least a year out.

As a Duke fan, I think it's fair to ask how many more NCAA titles Coach K would have under his belt had early entry not become widespread in the 90's. It's depressing.

[Edouble]

As a Duke fan, I think it's fair to ask how many more NCAA titles Coach K would have under his belt had early entry not become widespread in the 90's. It's depressing.

But we didn't have any players go early until '99. Plus, it levels the playing field for everyone.

[g-money]

But we didn't have any players go early until '99. Plus, it levels the playing field for everyone.

Yeah, but let's be honest, '98 was the first year since '94 that we had any real candidates for early entry. I just feel like the phenomenon took hold right as Coach K was beginning to reel in a lot more big-time recruits.

Admittedly early entry did level the playing field, but as I Duke fan I like every advantage I can get!

[Des Esseintes]

I never understood why the Players Union would be so opposed to raising the age limit. Keeping 19 year olds out of the NBA means that there should be more jobs for the old guys, who are the current members of the Players Union. I think its the bargaining chip aspect.

I am not sure if the NCAA is really the enemy, just totally inept, out of date, out of touch and completely unhelpful.

SoCal

The Players Union opposes the age limit for two reasons, both completely legitimate:

1. A lot of NBA guys come from extremely distressed circumstances. They want the right to earn NBA money and help their families as soon as possible. Their bodies are their careers. An injury before their NBA career starts could mean no help for their family at all. Every year higher the NBA age limit is, the higher the chance of catastrophic injury to derail a career.

2. The union wants each player to have a full menu of options for his own career length. Each year of the age limit by definition means shortening every player's career by one year.

If you were an NBA player, I think you would see the value in both these considerations.

[bob blue devil]

The Players Union opposes the age limit for two reasons, both completely legitimate:

1. A lot of NBA guys come from extremely distressed circumstances. They want the right to earn NBA money and help their families as soon as possible. Their bodies are their careers. An injury before their NBA career starts could mean no help for their family at all. Every year higher the NBA age limit is, the higher the chance of catastrophic injury to derail a career.

2. The union wants each player to have a full menu of options for his own career length. Each year of the age limit by definition means shortening every player's career by one year.

If you were an NBA player, I think you would see the value in both these considerations.

well... i'm not sure these two reasons technically hold for an nba player's union member. remember, members of the union are already in the nba, so increasing the age minimum a) wouldn't delay their getting to the league (they're already there), and b) would potentially lengthen their career (just a touch) by reducing competition from the young guns (who are not yet union members) who are directly impacted. however, i could see an nba players union member being sympathetic to the causes of guys standing in the shoes they once stood, even though it is not in their own personal interests to have the minimum age kept low.

[Matches]

well... i'm not sure these two reasons technically hold for an nba player's union member. remember, members of the union are already in the nba, so increasing the age minimum a) wouldn't delay their getting to the league (they're already there), and b) would potentially lengthen their career (just a touch) by reducing competition from the young guns (who are not yet union members) who are directly impacted. however, i could see an nba players union member being sympathetic to the causes of guys standing in the shoes they once stood, even though it is not in their own personal interests to have the minimum age kept low.

The players' union is supposed to represent the interests not only of current players but also future ones. Whether they always *do* that faithfully, we could debate - but it is part of their mandate.

[Rickshaw]

i wonder if there are a lot of nba quality college bball players whose
careers are lost to catastrophic injury (while they are still in school)

[bob blue devil]

The players' union is supposed to represent the interests not only of current players but also future ones. Whether they always *do* that faithfully, we could debate - but it is part of their mandate.

interesting - i was unaware of that. is it delineated somewhere (like their charter)? this is all i could find on their website:

The National Basketball Players Association (NBPA) is the union for current professional basketball players in the National Basketball Association (NBA). Established in 1954, the NBPA mission is to ensure that the rights of NBA players are protected and that every conceivable measure is taken to assist players in maximizing their opportunities and achieving their goals, both on and off the court...

(emphasis mine)

[Kdogg]

So then why is silver making a fuss about raising the age limit? Management can't make it happen unilaterally and the more the union knows management wants it, the more they'll extract for making the concession. Is it all just posturing with some unknown agenda?

It's politics 101. By getting ahead of the issue, Silver gets to create the narrative. He gets to build support with the media and more importantly the fans. With them on his side he can put pressure on the Players Union and management gets to be seen as the "good guys." It's a smart move.

[bob blue devil]

It's politics 101. By getting ahead of the issue, Silver gets to create the narrative. He gets to build support with the media and more importantly the fans. With them on his side he can put pressure on the Players Union and management gets to be seen as the "good guys." It's a smart move.

good point. the narrative he seems to be creating right now is that he wants to push the age limit back and his give to the kids is an effort to make the ncaa a better alternative. of course that's 100% out of his control (irony alert!). while there might be a logical trade here - ncaa would cover more expenses for the kids, alter some of the rules (and their interpretations) to be more nba-like, while the nba creates some ncaa friendly draft rules - logic ain't part of our beloved ncaa. if silver can't get the ncaa to move (and be able to claim some credit for the move), then the narrative silver seems to be making could be counterproductive. is there any chance he has nbpa buy-in already - that is, he went to them asking what it would take to get them to move on this rule and they said fix the ncaa?