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

[Atlanta Duke]

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.

As you note, regardless of whether or not prospective employees may be getting screwed, the players' union agreeing to eligibility standards that restrict entry into the league is a collective bargaining issue. The appellate decision that upheld the NFL and NFLPA agreeing to bar players from entering the NFL until 3 years had elapsed since the player graduated from high school blesses this practice, assuming a player does not want to try to get another Circuit Court to disagree with the Second Circuit's opinion by now Justice Sotomayor.

[A college player seeking to enter a professional sports league] is in this respect no different from the typical worker who is confident that he or she has the skills to fill a job vacancy but does not possess the qualifications or meet the requisite criteria that have been set. In the context of this collective bargaining relationship, the NFL and its players union can agree that an employee will not be hired or considered for employment for nearly any reason whatsoever so long as they do not violate federal laws such as those prohibiting unfair labor practices.

Maurice Clarett v. NFL

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1111241.html

[tommy]

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:




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.

That's a great idea. So great that I'm pretty sure I posted it in a similar thread last year or the year before! The NCAA needs to say, in effect, "OK, NBA. You don't want to change your age limit to help us (and help yourselves) then screw you. You're doing what you think is best for you, and we're going to do what we think is best for us. Any kid, even if drafted already, who has not received any money yet, can come back to college. Do whatever you want in terms of your draft and how long a player's rights are retained by a team that drafts him. That's not our problem. But any kid can come back to college so long as he hasn't already been paid to be a professional."

Now the coaches won't like this because of perceived inability to set their rosters, difficulties with recruiting, etc. But I say "too bad." First of all, most of the kids in the incoming class have committed long before the end of the current season. Like this year, only Myles Turner of all the top players is still uncommitted. Everyone's rosters are set for next year already. If someone is in the Myles Turner derby and wants to save a scholly for him on the chance he commits to them, fine. If they'd rather take somebody else to fill the spot, fine. If they want to risk the spot going unfilled, that's not the end of the world either. But the NCAA would just need to push back against the coaches by saying "we're putting kids first, ahead of you. You should be looking out for kids first too, and this 'return to school post-draft' rule is putting kids first. Deal with it."

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.

Not sure how this would really work in practice. Who says who the ten top kids are? Wouldn't kids eleven through whatever just move up the list of those likely to go pro? And even if the top 10 were somehow chosen and got $1M, that pales in comparison to the amount they'd be giving up by being a lottery pick.

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.

Protect them how? And which teams qualify for such protection?

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.

You're right. Total failure of leadership and vision.

[sagegrouse]

That's a great idea. So great that I'm pretty sure I posted it in a similar thread last year or the year before! The NCAA needs to say, in effect, "OK, NBA. You don't want to change your age limit to help us (and help yourselves) then screw you. You're doing what you think is best for you, and we're going to do what we think is best for us. Any kid, even if drafted already, who has not received any money yet, can come back to college. Do whatever you want in terms of your draft and how long a player's rights are retained by a team that drafts him. That's not our problem. But any kid can come back to college so long as he hasn't already been paid to be a professional."

Now the coaches won't like this because of perceived inability to set their rosters, difficulties with recruiting, etc. But I say "too bad." First of all, most of the kids in the incoming class have committed long before the end of the current season. Like this year, only Myles Turner of all the top players is still uncommitted. Everyone's rosters are set for next year already. If someone is in the Myles Turner derby and wants to save a scholly for him on the chance he commits to them, fine. If they'd rather take somebody else to fill the spot, fine. If they want to risk the spot going unfilled, that's not the end of the world either. But the NCAA would just need to push back against the coaches by saying "we're putting kids first, ahead of you. You should be looking out for kids first too, and this 'return to school post-draft' rule is putting kids first. Deal with it."

Thanks.

Not sure how this would really work in practice. Who says who the ten top kids are? Wouldn't kids eleven through whatever just move up the list of those likely to go pro? And even if the top 10 were somehow chosen and got $1M, that pales in comparison to the amount they'd be giving up by being a lottery pick.

I give it to the new Commissioner of CBB, who probably convenes a panel. Nothing magic about ten, but I didn't see the need to go to 20, which would be about the # of college freshmen in the first round, 'cuz some guys will scoff at the "college retainer."

As far as I am concerned, this is war. The rate of turnover on the best teams, which draw the most attendance and TV viewers, hurts the sport. I'd look for any way to keep the players in college.

Protect them how? And which teams qualify for such protection?
.

It's the top teams, the marquee teams, that lose freshmen to the NBA. Therefore, the aforementioned payment protects these teams -- it's a two-fer.

[SoCalDukeFan]

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.

I would personally like to see the two year rule, but also allow players to go to the NBA right after HS. Something like the baseball rule but 2 years instead of 3. However the NBA owners want to protect themselves and reduce the chances of making stupid draft picks a la Kwame Brown so they won't do that.

I think its bad enough that kids with zero interest in college are almost forced there for a year after HS, why make it 2? Of course I guess football is 3.

Its interesting that you have the NBA making proactive decisions on their own behalf, the NCAA who seems to have zero ability to do about anything in its behalf, and the players who have no voice.

SoCal

[Newton_14]

Thanks.



I give it to the new Commissioner of CBB, who probably convenes a panel. Nothing magic about ten, but I didn't see the need to go to 20, which would be about the # of college freshmen in the first round, 'cuz some guys will scoff at the "college retainer."

As far as I am concerned, this is war. The rate of turnover on the best teams, which draw the most attendance and TV viewers, hurts the sport. I'd look for any way to keep the players in college.



It's the top teams, the marquee teams, that lose freshmen to the NBA. Therefore, the aforementioned payment protects these teams -- it's a two-fer.

Great thread Sage. In addition to Tommy's rule to allow drafted or undrafted kids to come back (there are tons of kids that declare and don't get drafted by the way) I would add 1 more rule for the NCAA and make a suggestion to the NBA Commissioner.

NCAA Rule 2- A kid may accept payment for his likeness. Autographs for example. A kid can sign endorsement deals with anyone who chooses to pay him. If need be we can modify this rule such that the money has to go into a trust fund that the kid cannot have full access to until 4 years post his high school graduation year. Allow them to draw out a small monthly stipend from the fund to cover reasonable expenses. (in other words, being an "amateur" means you have never played in a professional league like the NBA/NBADL/Europe etc)

NCAA CEO/Commissioner suggestion to NBA Commissioner- Change your payscale such that an incoming player with college experience can get to the big money contract just as quickly as the OAD kid can. Each year spent in college gets you one year closer to being able to sign the big money NBA contract. In other words, being OAD will not get you to the big money any faster than playing 4 years in College would.

[tommy]

Great thread Sage. In addition to Tommy's rule to allow drafted or undrafted kids to come back (there are tons of kids that declare and don't get drafted by the way) I would add 1 more rule for the NCAA and make a suggestion to the NBA Commissioner.

NCAA Rule 2- A kid may accept payment for his likeness. Autographs for example. A kid can sign endorsement deals with anyone who chooses to pay him. If need be we can modify this rule such that the money has to go into a trust fund that the kid cannot have full access to until 4 years post his high school graduation year. Allow them to draw out a small monthly stipend from the fund to cover reasonable expenses. (in other words, being an "amateur" means you have never played in a professional league like the NBA/NBADL/Europe etc)

NCAA CEO/Commissioner suggestion to NBA Commissioner- Change your payscale such that an incoming player with college experience can get to the big money contract just as quickly as the OAD kid can. Each year spent in college gets you one year closer to being able to sign the big money NBA contract. In other words, being OAD will not get you to the big money any faster than playing 4 years in College would.

I like the concept of that last one Newt. But it would take some changes to the whole way the NBA structures things, with regards to how many years the initial contracts are for, the team options, the qualifying offers, when someone becomes a restricted free agent, an unrestricted free agent, etc., in order to be fair to the established guys if the new guys right out of 4 years of college are eligible for the big money contract. That would take a lot of doing, and again the problem is that the NBA is going to only do what is in its own interest. Not what the NCAA wants it to do.

Also, even if you make the 4 year college players immediately eligible for a big money contract, I'm not sure how much that would incentivize a lot of guys to stay in school. For one, a star freshman like Jabari would still be three (or more?) years away from the big contract, whether those years are spent in college or in the pros. Moreover, even if the big pro contract is three years away, he at least is making decent money for those three years should he go pro. Even if he's making "only" say $500K per year, or $1M per year, to most of these kids, that is more money than they or their families have ever dreamed of, and they'd be likely to grab it for the three years, and then get to the much bigger money at that point. If they stay in school, they get zippo for those three years. $1M/year is a lot better than nothing.

[greybeard]

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 19-year olds we are talking about have pedigree, all are potential box office drawers, marketing tools. You stand against their entry, when they get in they get you out if they can. At least they give you no support. Guys who are on their way out will be out whether to a 19-year old from the States or one from somewhere else. Wrong play for the players union to stand idle or in concert with owners in raising the entry age. When a 20-year old enters and has lost s few mill because of that age-limit rule a supporter of the players association he won't be.

[tommy]

In the professional sports realm, the smart union leaders are the ones who realize that their members benefit when the union forges an effective partnership with the owners, rather than doing anything they can to antagonize them with knee-jerk rejection of any idea the owners put forth. The owners are greedy. Of course they are. But the union has to get past that and realize -- and start acting like --when the players and the owners have some semblance of a partnership, the whole revenue pie grows, and when the whole revenue pie grows, the players' gross revenues of course grow as well. It is in the players' interest to grow the whole pie. The whole pie grows when interest in the league is at its highest. Interest in the league grows when the young players coming into the league are better known, and are better players, than most of these one-and-dones, or two-and-dones for that matter are under the current system. Sure, it's in the owners' interest to have college act as a developmental league for the NBA, to introduce the new players to the nation for them at no cost to the NBA, and for those players to be more ready to contribute meaningfully when they get to the league. Even if the NBA owners at the moment are ignoring these realities by keeping the barriers to entry low, they are still realities, and the union should be pointing them out every chance they get, both publicly and privately. Because it's in the union members' long term interest to do so. Maybe not the short term, but the long term interest.

[Indoor66]

In the professional sports realm, the smart union leaders are the ones who realize that their members benefit when the union forges an effective partnership with the owners, rather than doing anything they can to antagonize them with knee-jerk rejection of any idea the owners put forth. The owners are greedy. Of course they are. But the union has to get past that and realize -- and start acting like --when the players and the owners have some semblance of a partnership, the whole revenue pie grows, and when the whole revenue pie grows, the players' gross revenues of course grow as well. It is in the players' interest to grow the whole pie. The whole pie grows when interest in the league is at its highest. Interest in the league grows when the young players coming into the league are better known, and are better players, than most of these one-and-dones, or two-and-dones for that matter are under the current system. Sure, it's in the owners' interest to have college act as a developmental league for the NBA, to introduce the new players to the nation for them at no cost to the NBA, and for those players to be more ready to contribute meaningfully when they get to the league. Even if the NBA owners at the moment are ignoring these realities by keeping the barriers to entry low, they are still realities, and the union should be pointing them out every chance they get, both publicly and privately. Because it's in the union members' long term interest to do so. Maybe not the short term, but the long term interest.

You must also acknowledge that the players are also greedy. Otherwise I mostly agree.

[Kedsy]

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.

Personally, I don't think this is college basketball's biggest problem. Out of almost 4000 college basketball players, we're talking about how many each year? Eight or nine? Does the lack of those 8 or 9 players really hurt the NCAA's business? Have NCAA TV ratings gone down? Have they been unable to get advantageous contracts from potential business partners?

Also, how is this worse from when those same 8 or 9 players a year went pro straight out of high school? From a product standpoint, it would seem better, not worse.

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.

How does this help the NCAA? Seems to me it would lead to more players testing the draft waters, and only a few returning after the draft. My guess it would end up a net-loss, player-wise for college basketball.

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.

So you want to allow ten professional players to play in the NCAA but everyone else has to stay an amateur? Does making a handful of college teams that much better than the other 345 teams really help the game? Would it give the NCAA a financial advantage that would offset $10 million a year in additional expenses?

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."

I don't see this at all. The "heart and soul of the CBB business" is the NCAA tournament. And people tune in to that to see (a) close games; (b) how their bracket is doing; and most importantly, (c) David knock off Goliath. If you make Goliath stronger, how does this help?

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?

"So what" is you seem to be advocating a major league/minor league situation (or at least making it much worse than it already is). College basketball is made up of 350+ Division I teams. Why would the body as a whole agree to a solution that helps 10 schools to the detriment of the other 340+? More to the point, how would this bring more revenue to the NCAA or help it in any other way?

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.

Here's my biggest question -- in relation to rules regarding early entry to the NBA draft, what real leverage does the NCAA have? A threat to screw up the draft by letting players go back to college if they don't like who drafted them? The NBA could easily counter that, either legally (by making the kid sign an agreement not to do it in exchange for being eligible for the draft) or just by throwing more money at the draftees, essentially making an offer they can't refuse.

The way I see it, the NCAA is holding a pair of deuces against the NBA's full house. You can try a bluff but it's not going to work. We can hope the NBA implements the two-or-20 thing, but if they do it'll probably be for reasons of their own. If they don't, the NCAA can't do anything about it. The NBA is holding all the cards.