Pooh Pooh the Draft [Archive]

DukeWarhead

04-21-2009, 08:40 AM

I'm sure this will raise the ire of many a Duke fan, and that's fine. But I for one am not one of those that go out of my way to wish those players well that bolt early for the NBA. Don't get me wrong, I would never wish ill on a Duke player or even spend time crying over the NBA draft milk that gets spilled now quite frequently. However, I think Duke fans are much more supportive of players decisions to leave early than I ever would be. As stupid and inane as it may sound to some, I think there should be an element of loyalty to team, school, tradition, and coach that I wish could win out in these situations more than they do. I know people are saying "You can't judge somebody for taking a once in a life opportunity, etc. etc." OK, maybe not, but I certainly don't have to applaud it or pretend everything is cool.
This year makes my point. UNC won the championship with players that spurned the draft and returned. Florida won its second championship because players decided to return and forgo the NBA. Duke won its previous championships because it had players that played together for three years (or more.) Let's be honest, I want Duke to win another title. Heck, I'd settle for a final four appearance at this point.
But if we keep hemmoraging NBA talent before senior seasons, then we constantly have to rebuild a bit to get back to where we were.
Yes, I realize that is life in college basketball today, and yes, I realize that other schools deal with the same problems. But you will not see me sending "thanks for the memories, and best of luck" posts to those that decide that their lifelong dream can't wait. Again, I won't curse G or any Duke player that opts to leave early - and I want to see them do well, but I will never view them the same as other Duke players that could have left and stayed. In my Blue Devil coated mind, the Grant Hills, the Jay Williams (yes, he left after three years, but could have left sooner), the Sheldens will be remembered with a bit more shimmer than the others - right or wrong.
So go ahead, call me childish, selfish, stupid, out of touch, bitter, and everything else reserved for people who don't put forth the stiff upper lip....
but I can't bring myself to force the fake smile and "Good for you, Man!" for a player who makes the decision to leave the team for an early start at money and fame. (Please, please, please don't give me the piece about its just about competing at the next level.. the next level aint going nowhere..)
So G, if you are listening, here's sincerely hoping that you listen to the devil on your shoulder... the blue devil. Don't kid yourself, the team needs you.

moonpie23

04-21-2009, 08:53 AM

while i feel your pain....let me say that, those unc guys didn't "spurn the NBA"....the NBA "spurned" them......they tested the waters and all found out that their services were not quite as in demand as they would have hoped.

this situation is about entertainment. the nba is just that. Suppose there was an actor, or musician in the pep band that really excelled. Most entertainment entities have a "shelf life". You really couldn't begrudge them an opportunity to capitalize on what is the here and now of making an absolute fortune.

i wish it wasn't so, but that's the way it is.......i fault the nba for devising this method of purgatory to somehow temper their own poor impulse control when it comes to exploiting young talent..

RPS

04-21-2009, 09:15 AM

I can't bring myself to force the fake smile and "Good for you, Man!" for a player who makes the decision to leave the team for an early start at money and fame.I can relate to your view and, as a fan, would love players to stay longer. Moreover, I think we can all agree that a number of those who declare for the draft are exploited and are making a big mistake. But from the moment a player signs a letter of intent until the moment his eligibility ends or he declares for the NBA draft, he has essentially nothing to say about his athletic career and his future. A free education is a terrific benefit (at least for players who care about education), but the system is designed to keep all the money and all the clout in the hands of the plantation owners, er, schools. Not only do I have no problem with a player seeking emancipation, I think it's hypocritical to think otherwise.

DukeWarhead

04-21-2009, 09:24 AM

....let me say that, those unc guys didn't "spurn the NBA"....the NBA "spurned" them......they tested the waters and all found out that their services were not quite as in demand as they would have hoped.

I wouldn't say that. Ellington, maybe. But Lawson would have been a lottery pick and Hansborough's stock was as high as it was going to get and everybody knew it. No, I give them credit for returning - others have made the jump with much less going for them..

this situation is about entertainment. the nba is just that. Suppose there was an actor, or musician in the pep band that really excelled. Most entertainment entities have a "shelf life". You really couldn't begrudge them an opportunity to capitalize on what is the here and now of making an absolute fortune.

My point exactly. I'd like to see Duke players put team before fortune for a year. No player's "shelf life" is going run out because they didn't leave college a year early. I don't see anyone saying "Man, its a good thing Josh McRoberts left early, he'd be too old to start now..."

I just don't buy the "take it when you can get it" attitude, eventhough it is reality and here to stay. The Lawsons, Hansboroughs, and Jay Williams have shown that it is possible to put something else ahead of "absolute fortune.."

DukeWarhead

04-21-2009, 09:34 AM

" but the system is designed to keep all the money and all the clout in the hands of the plantation owners, er, schools. Not only do I have no problem with a player seeking emancipation, I think it's hypocritical to think otherwise."

OK, I'm really not buying the whole exploitation bit. So, does that make those players that decide to stay for four years just hapless pawns? College athletes in any sport are playing because they chose to do so. they're volunteers. Spare me the "plantation owner" reference, please. Coach K hardly fits that notion..

Kfanarmy

04-21-2009, 09:46 AM

I can relate to your view and, as a fan, would love players to stay longer. Moreover, I think we can all agree that a number of those who declare for the draft are exploited and are making a big mistake. But from the moment a player signs a letter of intent until the moment his eligibility ends or he declares for the NBA draft, he has essentially nothing to say about his athletic career and his future. A free education is a terrific benefit (at least for players who care about education), but the system is designed to keep all the money and all the clout in the hands of the plantation owners, er, schools. Not only do I have no problem with a player seeking emancipation, I think it's hypocritical to think otherwise.
Equating the schools--administrations--to plantation owners and players being emancipated is totally uncalled for. Given that some 90+ percent of college athletes will not go pro and get free education or substantially less costly education to play sports for schools, they should remain the focus of these institutions. The players are not forced to play. For those who use their college attendance as training and preparation for the professional sports ranks, more power to them, but they are taking no less advantage of the college than it is of them. These learning institutions existed before professional sports and the NCAA. The players can easily "emancipate" themselves by doing something else. Most folks who have the abilities to successfully graduate from Duke and other similar quality institutions could achieve elsewhere if they wanted to. It is fascinating that someone can be considered "exploited" playing a game for a whole lot more money than a teacher makes in a year, if even for a year riding the pine. I just don't get this kind of thinking.

RPS

04-21-2009, 10:15 AM

OK, I'm really not buying the whole exploitation bit. So, does that make those players that decide to stay for four years just hapless pawns? College athletes in any sport are playing because they chose to do so. they're volunteers.If they want to play basketball, what realistic or worthwhile choice do they have?

Spare me the "plantation owner" reference, please. Coach K hardly fits that notion..K is not the system.

That said, doesn't something smell fishy about a system where the coaches can make millions of dollars a year, the schools can make millions of dollars a year and the players can get room, board, tuition and books (which many -- most? -- don't care about) but not even money for a movie?

Given that some 90+ percent of college athletes will not go pro and get free education or substantially less costly education to play sports for schools, they should remain the focus of these institutions.If you think college sports is all ( or even at all) about educational opportunity I think you're delusional. And, by the way, according to the NCAA (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/resources/file/eb0f0549143c301/How%20do%20Athletic%20Scholarships%20Work.pdf?MOD= AJPERES&attachment=true), only 1.2% of men's college basketball players "go pro."

For those who use their college attendance as training and preparation for the professional sports ranks, more power to them, but they are taking no less advantage of the college than it is of them.A few end up getting an acceptable outcome -- those who make money playing pro basketball and those who get an excellent free education are examples. But even those acceptable outcomes don't diminish the fundamental unfairness of a system that puts all the money and all the clout in other hands and sets up elaborate preventative measures to try to make sure that the players (the focus of what we all pay to see) don't share in any of it.

The players can easily "emancipate" themselves by doing something else.So can prostitutes, but that doesn't mean they aren't exploited.

roywhite

04-21-2009, 10:41 AM

I just can't get too worked up about the "exploitation" ol college athletes, in this case basketball players.

Let's say for example that there was a more viable minor league system for aspiring professionals who didn't have any interest in college life or going to class. That would presumably be fairer, that they could play basketball and get paid. But would playing for the Raleigh Durham "Inter-nets" be similar to playing for UNC or Duke? Do you think Ty Lawson would have half the attention that he got playing for UNC?

Minor league basketball doesn't interest me, but college basketball, particularly for my school, interests me a lot. And attendance, interest, television coverage---way different for college basketball than minor league pro basketball.

So does a Ty Lawson go into a minor league opportunity as soon as possible, or choose to go to a high profile program like UNC? I understand that such a choice is nice to have. But, in practical terms, the UNC alternative can be more attractive, even though he doesn't draw a salary. And, if he chooses to go into the NBA draft after one year, he can do it.

I'd personally prefer a 2 year or 3 year commitment for players choosing to go to college (with the option of turning professional right away), rather than the current 1-year rule the NBA has. But I hardly think the system is broken.

-jk

04-21-2009, 10:54 AM

[I thought this made an interesting discussion separate from the specifics of G's draft status. Please resume the discussion in progress. Civilly.]

RPS

04-21-2009, 10:55 AM

I just can't get too worked up about the "exploitation" ol college athletes, in this case basketball players.Few can. 'Tis a pity.

Let's say for example that there was a more viable minor league system for aspiring professionals who didn't have any interest in college life or going to class. That would presumably be fairer, that they could play basketball and get paid. But would playing for the Raleigh Durham "Inter-nets" be similar to playing for UNC or Duke? Do you think Ty Lawson would have half the attention that he got playing for UNC?Nope. But you're missing a far better alternative: reform the college system to allow players to share in the wealth they are largely responsible for creating.

I'd personally prefer a 2 year or 3 year commitment for players choosing to go to college, rather than the current 1-year rule the NBA has. But I hardly think the system is broken.My guess is that's because you are not one of the ones being exploited.

COYS

04-21-2009, 11:01 AM

I wouldn't say that. Ellington, maybe. But Lawson would have been a lottery pick and Hansborough's stock was as high as it was going to get and everybody knew it. No, I give them credit for returning - others have made the jump with much less going for them..

After Lawson's MUI or whatever they call it, his already shaky stock took an even bigger hit. There were a lot of point guards and combo guards in the draft last year (Rose, Mayo, Gordon, Westbrook, Augustin . . .). It was far from automatic that he was going in the lottery. In fact, he was more likely to be picked in the late first round and possibly even in the second, much like where Hansbrough would've gone. It remains to be seen how high he will go this year, assuming he declares, but there is a big difference between turning down late first round money and turning down sure-fire lottery money. I share your feeling that it would be awesome if we could keep everyone around for four years, but it ultimately still is a selfish wish on our part and doesn't factor in family financial situations, player career goals, and other factors that should be more important considerations for underclassmen considering making the jump.

flyingdutchdevil

04-21-2009, 11:08 AM

Players leave not because they hate you and want to piss you off, but because they feel that what they do is in they're best interest. I find it so petty that so many fans get upset when a player leaves. That player clearly knows what is better for him that you. Bottom line. He has talked to his coach, his family, his friends, his teammates - I'm sure that what he does is right. That said, there are some terrible calls that everyone knows are terrible, but they are the exception rather than the rule and I'm sure they have a reason we are unaware of.

Be happy for them and while you may put on a "fake" smile, put it on anyway. They gave you a hell of a show for the 1-3 years that they worked their butts this. off for your entertainment.

roywhite

04-21-2009, 11:12 AM

Nope. But you're missing a far better alternative: reform the college system to allow players to share in the wealth they are largely responsible for creating.

Well, I'm not against such an idea, though it seems challenging to design a fair way to do that. Do you marginally improve the situation for major sport athletes by giving them a few hundred dollars a month in additional spending money? Or try to do something on a larger scale? Same for every school? Just for football and basketball?

One of my points is that the popularity and economic features of college basketball are more related to interest/support for the school than for specific players. The old "we root for the name on the front of the jersey" concept. So there's some logic in the economic benefits going to the schools in large part.

jimsumner

04-21-2009, 11:13 AM

"I wouldn't say that. Ellington, maybe. But Lawson would have been a lottery pick and Hansborough's stock was as high as it was going to get and everybody knew it. No, I give them credit for returning - others have made the jump with much less going for them"

I suspect Lawson would not have been a lottery pick. But I have no doubt that he would have gone pro if he were assured of being in the top ten. He put his name in the hopper and didn't hear what he hoped he would hear. Same with Danny Green.

Would Lawson, Green, Hansbrough, and Ellington have gone any higher in the 2008 draft than Henderson or Singler? Henderson, Lawson, and Ellington are all likely to go NBA following their junior seasons. Singler will be around at least as long.

So, I'm sorry, I don't share your indignation.

Kfanarmy

04-21-2009, 11:33 AM

If they want to play basketball, what realistic or worthwhile choice do they have?
That said, doesn't something smell fishy about a system where the coaches can make millions of dollars a year, the schools can make millions of dollars a year and the players can get room, board, tuition and books (which many -- most? -- don't care about) but not even money for a movie?
It may smell fishy, but the coach has a lot more responsibility to the players, parents, institution, NCAA and audience than each individual players, not to mention the coach is usually the one that builds or sustains a winning/financially successful program. The individual player contributes sweat, athletic ability, and game prowess and most are not intellectually capable of building and running a successful program...for the most part our economic system rewards business acumen and/our extreme talent.

If you think college sports is all ( or even at all) about educational opportunity I think you're delusional. And, by the way, MOD=AJPERES&attachment=true"]according to the NCAA[/URL], only 1.2% of men's college basketball players "go pro."

A few end up getting an acceptable outcome -- those who make money playing pro basketball and those who get an excellent free education are examples. But even those acceptable outcomes don't diminish the fundamental unfairness of a system that puts all the money and all the clout in other hands and sets up elaborate preventative measures to try to make sure that the players (the focus of what we all pay to see) don't share in any of it.

Your issue seems to be more about the fact that all are not born economically equal than about whether or not NCAA players recieve an equitable payment: college education for their contribution. If 98% of players don't go pro, then they better see the educational opportunity as what NCAA sports are all about. You see BBall and Football as big money makers. How about soccer, tennis, etc. etc. etc. where programs make little or no money and coaches are not paid so well. Don't let the big dollars, driven by fans, color your perspective on what each player should receive....should players on teams that don't make money share the negative expense incurred by the school? I believe a free year of education is a good "share" for a season of sports.

so can prostitutes, but that doesn't mean they aren't exploited. A fascinating statement. In all the tv shows, news and magazine articles I've ever seen on the subject, I've never heard a prostitute say they were being exploited. This is routinely used by people supporting some other argument without acknowledging that most prostitutes chose to do what they are doing and continue to do what they are doing, in spite of the exploitation, because to them most alternatives are worse. BBall players choose to play. The system may not be perfect, but then again most are not working the long hours at minimum wage jobs to help get through college like many of their non-athlete peers.

dukelifer

04-21-2009, 11:38 AM

There was a time when Freshman were not eligible and only played three years. So when a current players plays three years and seems ready to make the jump- not going to learn more from playing another year of college ball- the leap does not seem that outrageous. For G, he has to ask himself if Duke will get a NCAA championship with him on the floor to attain something special- or if he really loves being in college and feels he wants to soak in more. He is also asking whether his draft position will be higher if he waits- and a lot depends on who stays and who goes. I can see why he is struggling with this decision. Duke could be good enough to win it all, but certainly it is not a lock. A number of lottery picks have in recent days said no to the NBA and his position is getting more certain. So G is doing the smart thing here. This is not a player contemplating making the leap who has no business doing so. G is NBA caliber for sure.

Chicago 1995

04-21-2009, 11:51 AM

UNC won the championship with players that spurned the draft and returned.

I know that others have pointed out this falsity, but let me join the chorus.

Lawson was a late first rounder at best before his arrest. Hansbrough was likely no better than a late first rounder. Ellington was a second rounder and Green likely wouldn't have been drafted. These guys aren't to be lionized for spurning the draft the way that Noah/Horford/Brewer did at UF. The UNC guys had no place to go, and I think it's pretty clear that had any of them (save Tyler) gotten a first round guarantee, they'd have been gone, gone gone. These guys shouldn't be made into heroes for not making a choice they didn't have the opportunity to make. They were a collection of not-quite good enough talent, and that paid off better than I, for one, thought it would.

I think there should be an element of loyalty to team, school, tradition . . .

Why is leaving for the NBA disloyal? Aren't the team and coach being selfish asking a player to turn down the opportunity to be a lottery pick? Why is it okay for the team and coach to be selfish, but it's disloyal for the player?

Let's be honest, I want Duke to win another title. Heck, I'd settle for a final four appearance at this point. But if we keep hemmoraging NBA talent before senior seasons, then we constantly have to rebuild a bit to get back to where we were.

So Gerald should risk millions of guaranteed dollars and a chance to fulfill a life-long dream so that you can feel better about Duke basketball? Right. Loyalty to teammates isn't a good reason to argue Gerald should come back, but it's a whole lot better than this one.

This will likely derail this thread, and raise the ire of a lot of fans on this board, but Gerald coming back won't make us a national championship caliber or even Final Four caliber team. So it's a bad reason as applied to Gerald not only because it is fundamentally no basis to suggest he should return, but it's also not applicable to this situation.

Please, please, please don't give me the piece about its just about competing at the next level.. the next level aint going nowhere..

The next level very well could "go someplace" if a player lands funny. It's not a sizeable risk, but it is a risk just the same. Players do suffer catastrophic injuries. There's also a year of lost income and the lost use of the money earned next year. That all assumes that Gerald (or anyone about whom we could have this discussion) retains the same draft status from one year to the next. Players who stick around can and do hurt their stock. Tyler Hansbrough's best chance at maxmizing his draft position was after his freshman year. To analyze this as though there's no reason to go pro when you have the chance, and that there's no risk if you don't isn't a very clear examination of the decision.

studdlee10

04-21-2009, 11:52 AM

I loved my 4 years at Duke. But if some investment bank or start up had offered me a guaranteed $10-11 million over 3 years after my freshmen or sophomore years, I would have left Duke in a heartbeat. Would you begrudge me in this situation?

This is essentially the same thing. Yes, they have a free ride, but given how much universities profit off these kids, I see nothing wrong with them taking advantage of available opportunities.

Good luck to G if he does indeed decide to go pro. He picked Duke and gave us 3 exciting years. As with Deng, Maggette, and even Livingston, I'll cheer him on and watch him in the NBA when I can.

As far as hemorrhaging NBA talent goes.....that's just the way the game works now. If you want to compete, you need the elite athletes (something Duke has been lacking in recent years). Unfortunately, these are the kids who have first round contracts ready for them in the pros. So, you can either have a team full of good guys, who will stay four years, think Scheyer, McClure, etc, and be out in the sweet sixteen every year...or you can have a team with some flight risks with the potential to be champions. There really is no middle ground these days in the NCAAs and EVERY school as to go through ti.

bill brill

04-21-2009, 11:58 AM

I usually try and stay out of these debates, but sometimes (always?) they go too far. for any of you in the triangle area, if u ever listen to 850 the buzz, u have heard bomani jones consistently bemoan the failure of players to get paid. he urged tim tebow to turn pro and grab the money now (a prospect I believe tebow never considered). nor did hansbrough, even though he may have cost himself financially while winning a national championsonship. [I] have participated over the years in a number of formal debates on this issue, including a couple for the ncaa. in a nutshell, there is no way to pay the players even if everybody wanted to do it. all we would do is enrich lawyers. there is no way, as I heard from several distinguished lawyers, that a school could only pay football and/or basketball players even a modest stipend. every scholarship athlete would be so entitled. and any school that lost money on athletics (meaning virtually all of them) would argue they shouldn't pay a dime and win. just because duke basketball makes money (I think, although I have never seen all the figures) despite whatever Coach K makes doesn't mean the school could, or should, pay basketball players. [I] have even heard suggestions that the better players should get more than the subs (poor Paulus!). no matter what anybody thinks, it won't happen.

TampaDuke

04-21-2009, 12:06 PM

I wouldn't say that. Ellington, maybe. But Lawson would have been a lottery pick and Hansborough's stock was as high as it was going to get and everybody knew it. No, I give them credit for returning - others have made the jump with much less going for them..

As others have referenced, Lawson not only was definitely NOT going to be a lottery pick last year, but there was a good possibility he would not even be picked in the first round. IIRC, there were reports that a team drafting in the 20's even pulled their guarantee after his arrest just a week prior to the draft.

The consensus was that Lawson, Ellington and Green last year all wanted to stay in the draft (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/story?columnist=katz_andy&id=3415036) assuming they could get drafted high enough, which they ultimately realized was not going to happen. Roy Williams even flew to Orlando to try to talk them into coming back once the writing on the wall started to indicate that they weren't being valued as high as they thought. Far from loyalty, Lawson (http://blogsarchive.newsobserver.com/accnow/index.php?title=lawson_bristles_at_disgruntled_unc _fans&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1) and Green (http://blogsarchive.newsobserver.com/accnow/index.php?title=website_unc_s_green_says_he_ll_ret urn_un&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1) openly criticized the UNC program while they were "testing the waters."

studdlee10

04-21-2009, 12:17 PM

Not to belabor the point http://hoopshype.com/draft.htm

Shows the salary difference between a lotto pick and a late first rounder. Also, 2nd round picks do not have guaranteed contracts. So when Lawson, Ellington, Green, etc...were being told that they were no better than late 20's-30's that is absolutely reason enough to stay in school. This has nothing to do with loyalty. You go to a school like Duke to be a lawyer, doctor, or professional...in other words, make some money. When that opportunity presents itself whether early or late, you kind of have to take it. You'd be stupid not to.

I'm sorry about ranting, but it rubs me the wrong way when fans say that a player "owes" them anything. They are representing the school in a way that none of us ever will and as long as they do so with dignity and class, these players don't owe us a damned thing.

With or without G, Duke will not be a championship team next year unless they land John Wall. Wall will not be at Duke for more than year. Despite that, there is nothing I want to see more than John Wall donning Duke blue and throwing down some nasty dunks on Larry Drew...nothing.

As others have referenced, Lawson not only was definitely NOT going to be a lottery pick last year, but there was a good possibility he would not even be picked in the first round. IIRC, there were reports that a team drafting in the 20's even pulled their guarantee after his arrest just a week prior to the draft.

The consensus was that Lawson, Ellington and Green last year all wanted to stay in the draft (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/story?columnist=katz_andy&id=3415036) assuming they could get drafted high enough, which they ultimately realized was not going to happen. Roy Williams even flew to Orlando to try to talk them into coming back once the writing on the wall started to indicate that they weren't being valued as high as they thought. Far from loyalty, Lawson (http://blogsarchive.newsobserver.com/accnow/index.php?title=lawson_bristles_at_disgruntled_unc _fans&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1) and Green (http://blogsarchive.newsobserver.com/accnow/index.php?title=website_unc_s_green_says_he_ll_ret urn_un&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1) openly criticized the UNC program while they were "testing the waters."

SupaDave

04-21-2009, 12:18 PM

I loved my 4 years at Duke. But if some investment bank or start up had offered me a guaranteed $10-11 million over 3 years after my freshmen or sophomore years, I would have left Duke in a heartbeat. Would you begrudge me in this situation?

This is essentially the same thing. Yes, they have a free ride, but given how much universities profit off these kids, I see nothing wrong with them taking advantage of available opportunities.

My view in a nutshell but in reality I would take ONE million dollars for a couple of years of service in the NBA. The good that can be done with that is palpable - no matter who you are.

Otherwise, the rest of this talk is just plain selfish and it sounds like someone has just a different shade of blue envy right now...

These kids put more time into representing the school than most of the professors and even when they get to their prospective leagues - continue to do so... (or perhaps you don't know any UNC fans and have thusly never had THAT conversation).

Billy Dat

04-21-2009, 12:24 PM

I wonder if DukeWarhead and those that agree with his/her opinion feel the same way about players that transfer...or is it just the guys who will have a dramatic impact on the team's fortunes? Marty Pocius decided to forgo his final year of eligibility, he would have had a positive impact on the team as a practice player. Ditto Taylor King. Do they fall into the same category as G? What about Shav?

A kid like G, a budding superstar in high school, is driven by dreams of playing in the NBA. That's the goal. College is an important stop on the railway, but it's not the destination. Also, the money is hugely important. Yeah, G 's family is rich, but that's not his money. He wants his own money. It's easy to say the NBA will always be there, but career threatening injuries happen all the time....and G is a kid who has already been under the knife a few times.

It's also crazy to expect these kids to be innocent of the business side of college hoops. They see AAU coaches getting paid to direct players to programs, they see scholarship holders get run off, the see coaches living and dying by their W-L record and the lengths those same coaches, and their schools, will go to succeed.

Whether your view is G helped Duke and Duke helped G or G used Duke and vice versa...he owes us nothing.

MarkD83

04-21-2009, 12:28 PM

studdlee10

04-21-2009, 12:33 PM

Legacy is an outdated concept in the college basketball world. What do JJ, Shelden, and Battier have in common in the NBA?

They are role players, average impact players at best, some of whom (Shelden) may not even be in the league next year.

Sorry, but I don't Kevin Durant, Michael Beasley, or Derrick Rose are crying at night that they aren't legacy players at Texas or Memphis. I agree with you that JJ and Shane will be forever loved at Duke in a way that Luol and Maggette never will be, but honestly, in this day in age, I'm not sure kids really care about that. Not when the ultimate goal/league is the NBA, not the NCAA.

RPS

04-21-2009, 12:36 PM

Well, I'm not against such an idea, though it seems challenging to design a fair way to do that. Do you marginally improve the situation for major sport athletes by giving them a few hundred dollars a month in additional spending money? Or try to do something on a larger scale? Same for every school? Just for football and basketball?I agree that it won't be easy. But in terms of making the system work, my general proposals are (1) to follow the money (try to let the market work); (2) provide rules primarily for transparency; and (3) let the system develop "bottom-up" as much as possible.

One of my points is that the popularity and economic features of college basketball are more related to interest/support for the school than for specific players. The old "we root for the name on the front of the jersey" concept. So there's some logic in the economic benefits going to the schools in large part.I agree. That said, jerseys with specific names on the back sell really well, and the players whose names those are should share in the return. Moreover, if Duke were to start putting a mid-level intermural team out on the floor at CIS with "Duke" on the jersey front, I wouldn't expect the sell-outs and the TV appearances to continue.

It may smell fishy, but the coach has a lot more responsibility to the players, parents, institution, NCAA and audience than each individual players, not to mention the coach is usually the one that builds or sustains a winning/financially successful program. The individual player contributes sweat, athletic ability, and game prowess and most are not intellectually capable of building and running a successful program...for the most part our economic system rewards business acumen and/our extreme talent.By the measure of the market, your assertion doesn't make sense. Compare what coaches and players make where the markets are relatively free and talk to me about again about "value."

Your issue seems to be more about the fact that all are not born economically equal than about whether or not NCAA players recieve an equitable payment: college education for their contribution.For non-revenue sports, it's often a reasonably fair trade (though scholarships are most often partial).

If 98% of players don't go pro, then they better see the educational opportunity as what NCAA sports are all about.It's a nice ideal, but not really real most of the time. How many programs do you think push educational opportunity as opposed to staying eligible? How many programs will allow a player to miss some practice time for a very important academic commitment or class? How many D1 athletes spend nearly as much time on their schoolwork as they do on their sport? How many programs really limit their time commitment to the mandated hours? How many "voluntary" work-outs are really voluntary?

You see BBall and Football as big money makers. How about soccer, tennis, etc. etc. etc. where programs make little or no money and coaches are not paid so well. Don't let the big dollars, driven by fans, color your perspective on what each player should receive....should players on teams that don't make money share the negative expense incurred by the school?I'm willing to try to let the markets have more to say in this area.

I believe a free year of education is a good "share" for a season of sports.According to the NCAA (link above), the average value of a state school scholarship is $14,000 a year (private schools obviously higher). In my experience (and I spent Saturday evening with D1 athletes at a major university who play five different sports, so my data points are recent), D1 college athletes spend around 40 hours a week in-season and almost that off-season year-round preparing for and playing their college sport. That means that many athletes receiving full scholarships are essentially receiving the minimum wage while coaches and schools are being paid millions. Moreover, that "payment" isn't in cash and is often something the athlete doesn't even want. Where is the good "share" in a player working incredibly hard to help create revenue for the coaches and the school but not being able even to afford going to a movie and out to eat with his girlfriend?

A fascinating statement. In all the tv shows, news and magazine articles I've ever seen on the subject, I've never heard a prostitute say they were being exploited.How many times have you ever heard a little girl say she wanted to be a prostitute when she grows up?

BBall players choose to play.If they want to play, the current system is essentially their only option.

The system may not be perfect....Duh.

...but then again most are not working the long hours at minimum wage jobs to help get through college like many of their non-athlete peers.How many of those do you think are at Duke today? More to the point, if those same students had equivilent skills in another marketable area, they could readily earn the money to pay for school without limitation or restriction. Imagine that -- a relatively free market.

I have participated over the years in a number of formal debates on this issue, including a couple for the ncaa. in a nutshell, there is no way to pay the players even if everybody wanted to do it. all we would do is enrich lawyers.You may be right, but since the NCAA is set-up for the benefit of the schools, I wouldn't except it to look to and look for ways to change the status quo.

and any school that lost money on athletics (meaning virtually all of them) would argue they shouldn't pay a dime and win. just because duke basketball makes money (I think, although I have never seen all the figures) despite whatever Coach K makes doesn't mean the school could, or should, pay basketball players.I keep hearing about schools losing money yet they keep spending more and more on the revenue sports. Maybe this country's academic leadership really is that stupid, but I suspect that value is received and I'd like to allow some good forensic accountants to have a go at seeing what that value might be.

no matter what anybody thinks, it won't happen.Again, you may be right, but I'd like to see a real effort made to make the current system much fairer to the athletes.

I wonder if DukeWarhead and those that agree with his/her opinion feel the same way about players that transfer...or is it just the guys who will have a dramatic impact on the team's fortunes? Marty Pocius decided to forgo his final year of eligibility, he would have had a positive impact on the team as a practice player. Ditto Taylor King. Do they fall into the same category as G? What about Shav?

A kid like G, a budding superstar in high school, is driven by dreams of playing in the NBA. That's the goal. College is an important stop on the railway, but it's not the destination. Also, the money is hugely important. Yeah, G 's family is rich, but that's not his money. He wants his own money. It's easy to say the NBA will always be there, but career threatening injuries happen all the time....and G is a kid who has already been under the knife a few times.

It's also crazy to expect these kids to be innocent of the business side of college hoops. They see AAU coaches getting paid to direct players to programs, they see scholarship holders get run off, the see coaches living and dying by their W-L record and the lengths those same coaches, and their schools, will go to succeed.

Whether your view is G helped Duke and Duke helped G or G used Duke and vice versa...he owes us nothing.What Billy said.

shoutingncu

04-21-2009, 01:50 PM

I think a point DukeWarhead was trying to make that is getting lost in other interesting discussions is a player's legacy.

In 15 to 20 years when a player's NBA career is over what type of legacy will they have at the college they attended.

If Shane Battier, JJ or Shelden (among others) walked back on campus every fan would have a higher respect for them than perhaps we would have for Luol Deng or William Avery. I still appreciate what Luol and William did while they were at Duke but I view them differently than I do Shane, JJ and Shelden.

The higher respect is not about winning games, getting to Final Fours or winning championships, it is about the commitment to stay for 4 years.

Any future player can make the choice about going pro early based on what is best for them which includes the money they would make. It is the legacy issue that is hard to value and is hard to rank as a factor affecting the decision to go pro.

I agree with DukeWarhead's view about legacy. If Gerald returns for his senior year regardless of whether he wins a championship or not his legacy will be stronger at Duke than if he leaves early. This is true of any future college player making this decision. My current belief is that Gerald is still undecided because he is stuggling with how to value and rank his legacy at Duke versus all of the other factors he is considering when making this decision.

The legacy issue is an interesting one... I don't know that anyone would argue that Shane and company are ahead of Luol in Duke lore, but what about Boozer and Dunleavy? Where does their three years put them? How does that championship factor in? Because that seems to be the only difference between them and G. What about Elton Brand? It seems you can have legacy in fewer than three years, and in fact, without a ring.

One of my favorite JJ lines was in an interview regarding Adam Morrison. When asked what advice he could give, having gone through the "stay or declare" decision, JJ said that he wasn't projected to be a top five pick, so he wasn't in the same boat as Morrison. Apparently, he had more than legacy in mind when he opted to come back.

As for the Carolina guys, well, there are a couple flaws in comparing. Obviously the first is what everyone's mentioned, they weren't going to be drafted where they thought. But the second is that Ty and Wayne are juniors. Some seem to be using their example of "coming back to win a championship" as being the model for college players. Does that cheapen their contribution if, as expected, they fail to return for their senior years?

And there are a couple guys in the light blue that left after three years who will forever define Carolina basketball... MJ, of course, and Antawn.

So legacy is an interesting thought, but I truly believe that if Gerald had led the team to the Final Four this past year, with or without winning it, no one would be complaining about the thought of him bolting.

JStuart

04-21-2009, 01:54 PM

Gosh, Bill, I would have thought you had put in enough time in sports writing to where you didn't have to subject yourself to Bomani Jones' feeble attempts at 'journalism'! I hope you just tune in to chuckle at his ranting and raving
Incidentally, I think your preface to the book you wrote with Coach K on the Back-to-Back season ranks up there with the best essays on sports ever.
Those of you who haven't read it are in for a masterful summary of how the NCAA ran the tournament before the 64-team system we have now, and how UCLA had a relatively easy route to the Final Four for many years.
Thanks, Bill for your contributions.
JStuart

I usually try and stay out of these debates, but sometimes (always?) they go too far. for any of you in the triangle area, if u ever listen to 850 the buzz, u have heard bomani jones consistently bemoan the failure of players to get paid. he urged tim tebow to turn pro and grab the money now (a prospect I believe tebow never considered). nor did hansbrough, even though he may have cost himself financially while winning a national championsonship. [I] have participated over the years in a number of formal debates on this issue, including a couple for the ncaa. in a nutshell, there is no way to pay the players even if everybody wanted to do it. all we would do is enrich lawyers. there is no way, as I heard from several distinguished lawyers, that a school could only pay football and/or basketball players even a modest stipend. every scholarship athlete would be so entitled. and any school that lost money on athletics (meaning virtually all of them) would argue they shouldn't pay a dime and win. just because duke basketball makes money (I think, although I have never seen all the figures) despite whatever Coach K makes doesn't mean the school could, or should, pay basketball players. [I] have even heard suggestions that the better players should get more than the subs (poor Paulus!). no matter what anybody thinks, it won't happen.

SupaDave

04-21-2009, 02:01 PM

The legacy issue is an interesting one... I don't know that anyone would argue that Shane and company are ahead of Luol in Duke lore, but what about Boozer and Dunleavy? Where does their three years put them? How does that championship factor in? Because that seems to be the only difference between them and G. What about Elton Brand? It seems you can have legacy in fewer than three years, and in fact, without a ring.

Let's not forget J. Will whom I think may have MORE of a legacy than JJ for sure.

And what about ALL the four year players who get zilch at the end? Melchionni, the great Patrick Davidson, or even Demarcus?

RPS

04-21-2009, 02:20 PM

And what about ALL the four year players who get zilch at the end? Melchionni, the great Patrick Davidson, or even Demarcus?Surely you mean Gary Melchionni (http://www.dukeupdate.com/Alumni/gary_melchionni.htm), right?

Shammrog

04-21-2009, 02:21 PM

Let's not forget J. Will whom I think may have MORE of a legacy than JJ for sure.

And what about ALL the four year players who get zilch at the end? Melchionni, the great Patrick Davidson, or even Demarcus?

Mind you that I have nothing against players who leave early, BUT - J. Will *did* get a ring.

Acymetric

04-21-2009, 02:32 PM

Let's not forget J. Will whom I think may have MORE of a legacy than JJ for sure.

And what about ALL the four year players who get zilch at the end? Melchionni, the great Patrick Davidson, or even Demarcus?

Another important question (since you bring up Jason):

What if they graduate early?

Or, what if they graduate later? Does that change anything?

RPS

04-21-2009, 03:03 PM

there is no way, as I heard from several distinguished lawyers, that a school could only pay football and/or basketball players even a modest stipend.Again, Bill, you may be right. But it isn't hard to find legal and academic authorities that disagree. A few examples I found quickly follow.

The Myth of the Student-Athlete: The College Athlete as Employee (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=893059)

College Athletes for Hire (http://books.google.com/books?id=1k8E3s2d_KQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_similarbooks_r&cad=3_1#PPA125,M1)

Unpaid Professionals (http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=13uxdOkl-ToC&oi=fnd&pg=PP11&dq=paying+college+athletes&ots=Nnrcz0GFM9&sig=11AystMlO2GtuNvENT23La3jDxA#PPA196,M1)

I also recall Duke's own John Weistart, the authority on sports law in general and college sports law in particular, as speaking in favor of pay-for-play, though I might be mistaken about that.

JasonEvans

04-21-2009, 03:16 PM

With or without G, Duke will not be a championship team next year unless they land John Wall. Wall will not be at Duke for more than year. Despite that, there is nothing I want to see more than John Wall donning Duke blue and throwing down some nasty dunks on Larry Drew...nothing.

Lets confine the conversation to the topic at hand and not pretend like we actually have any idea of what the future holds. Projecting anything about a recruit-- from where he will play to what kind of impact he will have -- is just absurd. History is littered with "sure things" that were busts and "certain one-and-dones" that stayed 2, 3, or even 4 years.

--Jason "that's why they play the games" Evans

Chicago 1995

04-21-2009, 03:31 PM

I think a point DukeWarhead was trying to make that is getting lost in other interesting discussions is a player's legacy.

Do you think leaving early have negatively impacted the legacy that Carmelo Anthony left at Syracuse? That Kevin Durant left at Texas? That Isiah Thomas left at Indiana?

Do you think playing four years gave JJ Redick more of a legacy at Duke than Jason Williams crafted in three years?

Legacy's just another way of trying to define "Those guys did what I thought was right" in less selfish terms.

SupaDave

04-21-2009, 03:35 PM

Surely you mean Gary Melchionni (http://www.dukeupdate.com/Alumni/gary_melchionni.htm), right?

Nope - Lee - his son. Did Lee do something extraordinary that I'm unaware of?

RPS

04-21-2009, 04:07 PM

Nope - Lee - his son. Did Lee do something extraordinary that I'm unaware of?I was simply riffing to the idea that those of us of a certain age immediately think of Gary rather than Lee.

Carry on.

Reddevil

04-21-2009, 04:39 PM

mph

04-21-2009, 05:02 PM

I loved my 4 years at Duke. But if some investment bank or start up had offered me a guaranteed $10-11 million over 3 years after my freshmen or sophomore years, I would have left Duke in a heartbeat. Would you begrudge me in this situation?

This is essentially the same thing. Yes, they have a free ride, but given how much universities profit off these kids, I see nothing wrong with them taking advantage of available opportunities.

I think this is pretty much the sum of it. We're all aware of the way college athletics subsidize and operate as a farm system for professional sports. The truth is, a college basketball or football player's role in the university system isn't any different than just about any other college student's role. For a long time now a college education has primarily been a vehicle to a particular career and little else. I don't think it's something to be celebrated, but it's also kind of silly to pretend that athletes have less loyalty or less love of education that the rest of the student body.

I was going to post a lengthy quote from Wendell Berry's 2007 commencement address at Bellarmine University, but I don't want to move the thread too far in the direction of the PPB. For those interested, you can find a video and transcript of the speech here (http://www.bellarmine.edu/studentaffairs/Graduation/berry_address.asp).

MarkD83

04-21-2009, 05:25 PM

Do you think leaving early have negatively impacted the legacy that Carmelo Anthony left at Syracuse? That Kevin Durant left at Texas? That Isiah Thomas left at Indiana?

Do you think playing four years gave JJ Redick more of a legacy at Duke than Jason Williams crafted in three years?

Legacy's just another way of trying to define "Those guys did what I thought was right" in less selfish terms.

The issue is improvement in one's legacy. If Carmelo, Kevin and Isiah had spent one less year in college their legacy would be less than what it is. (This is hypothetical so Carmelo and Kevin could have played pro in Europe instead of going to college.)

In the case of Jason and JJ if they had left a year earlier their legacy's would have been diminished. (Again hypothetical since you could argue that neither would have been drafted a year earlier but they still could have made a bad decision and left.)

Jason Williams is an interesting case since he actually made his intentions known before his third year at Duke. I gained respect for him because he said he was graduating in 3 years and he did.

I agree that "legacy" is a selfish view from a fan's perspective. It is also something most players in this day and age do not consider.

However, if the goal of a famous athlete is to be remembered...perhaps legacy should be a big deal. Back to Jason...because of the motorcycle accident his best playing days were at Duke and that is his basketball playing legacy.

Kfanarmy

04-21-2009, 05:46 PM

By the measure of the market, your assertion doesn't make sense. Compare what coaches and players make where the markets are relatively free and talk to me about again about "value."

logical fallacy: this isn't a free market...If it were there would be a miniscule number of these players making any money. Only a few teams would exist and it would be called the NBA. Your proposal would ultimately result in having the schools with the richest alumni in having competitive teams, because the best players would go where there "fair share" is highest.

It's a nice ideal, but not really real most of the time. How many programs do you think push educational opportunity as opposed to staying eligible? How many programs will allow a player to miss some practice time for a very important academic commitment or class? How many D1 athletes spend nearly as much time on their schoolwork as they do on their sport? How many programs really limit their time commitment to the mandated hours? How many "voluntary" work-outs are really voluntary?

Your argument here is astounding; the academic institution pushes staying eligible, meaning passing grades - grades that will allow you to matriculate to graduation- and therefore they aren't pushing academics? Your focus is solely on that top percentage of folks who think they will go pro in BBall or Football, not on the greater good of getting a degree that will assist the other 98% in getting better jobs in the future.

I'm willing to try to let the markets have more to say in this area.

No you aren't. What you are describing and what you want are the trappings of the NCAA, the competition provided by the NCAA, the atmosphere of the college setting. You just want the NCAA to be forced to revenue share. If the free market were to prevail, most of these teams would not exist. You would end up with another small set of minor league professional teams. Free market is not what you envision.

According to the NCAA (link above), the average value of a state school scholarship is $14,000 a year (private schools obviously higher). In my experience (and I spent Saturday evening with D1 athletes at a major university who play five different sports, so my data points are recent), D1 college athletes spend around 40 hours a week in-season and almost that off-season year-round preparing for and playing their college sport. That means that many athletes receiving full scholarships are essentially receiving the minimum wage while coaches and schools are being paid millions. Moreover, that "payment" isn't in cash and is often something the athlete doesn't even want. Where is the good "share" in a player working incredibly hard to help create revenue for the coaches and the school but not being able even to afford going to a movie and out to eat with his girlfriend?

OM goodness. So these young men and women have to live within a budget? They have some of the same constraints as their non-athlete peers, as their coaches had in college, as their parents did? How terrible! The school and the coach have invested far more in the program, facilities, fan base, fellow students who buy tickets, memorabilia, etc. I can't believe they are being compensated in return.

Tell me the names of all these D1 athletes you've known in the past 25 years playing 5 sports. I aint buying.

How many times have you ever heard a little girl say she wanted to be a prostitute when she grows up?

How many times have you heard a little boy say he wants to work as a garbage man, night shift security, stocking shelves in WalMart, etc, etc, etc. Are they all being exploited?

If they want to play, the current system is essentially their only option.

This statement probably signals the basic disagreement we have on this subject. The constitution of these united states does not give everyone the right to be happy, what it declares is the right to PURSUE happiness. They don't have a right to play organized basketball in front of a large fan base and compete for recognized titles. these are privileges offered by the existence of college institutions willing to build the facilities, and invest in all that comes with having a team. There are other options, just not ones more favorable to players who want to play in college. That fact doesn't make them er plantation owners.

How many of those do you think are at Duke today? More to the point, if those same students had equivilent skills in another marketable area, they could readily earn the money to pay for school without limitation or restriction. Imagine that -- a relatively free market.

This is inaccurate. If other students had similar level skills in another marketable area, they would have to leave the college to take advantage of them. Your student-athletes who want to be paid are essentially being taught their trade while in college and receiving additional education and a degree in case their first choice doesn't work out.

RPS, you started this discussion implying that college BBall players not being paid was akin to slavery. Your argument however simply implies that you think these guys should be paid. I disagree with both unless you can present a system wherein all student athletes are paid comensurate with their contribution to the team they are on; where cross-conference and cross-university revenue sharing enables everyone to benefit relative to hours spent. If after all, this is really about the hardships of not having enough spending money, it should be available to all athletes.

BTW. I don't have a problem at all with Gerald Henderson leaving early or staying. His own personal interest as a man led him to Duke and will lead him wherever he goes next year. I am glad that he was on this team, this year.

RPS

04-21-2009, 06:51 PM

logical fallacy: this isn't a free market...If it were there would be a miniscule number of these players making any money. Only a few teams would exist and it would be called the NBA.There's no basis for that conclusion. One alternative to the present system would be to play players a share of the spoils, with little else being different. That would require the end of the world as we know it how, exactly?

Your proposal would ultimately result in having the schools with the richest alumni in having competitive teams, because the best players would go where there "fair share" is highest.I'm not convinced that's true (for example, a player might choose a school for a coach, or to play with a particular player, or to be close to home, or any number of other reasons). But even if it were, it's different from the current system how?

Your argument here is astounding; the academic institution pushes staying eligible, meaning passing grades - grades that will allow you to matriculate to graduation- and therefore they aren't pushing academics?As should be obvious from the disparity between that class of players who remain eligible for substantial periods of time, often for a full four years of eligibility plus a redshirt year, and that class of players who graduate (the first class being wildly larger than the second), staying eligible isn't nearly the same as educational advancement. Think Terps. Players bear some responsibility for themselves, surely, but the systemic problems are obvious.

Your focus is solely on that top percentage of folks who think they will go pro in BBall or Football, not on the greater good of getting a degree that will assist the other 98% in getting better jobs in the future.Even if I bought your premise, it merely proposes a major revenue transfer from the top players (largely poor and minority) to the masses of players (much less so, particularly when non-revenue sports and the role revenue sports play in financing them are factored in).

You just want the NCAA to be forced to revenue share.No, I want the NCAA to pay fairer value for services rendered.

OM goodness. So these young men and women have to live within a budget? They have some of the same constraints as their non-athlete peers, as their coaches had in college, as their parents did? How terrible!An athletic scholarship doesn't cover incidentals or spending money. Some players' families don't have the financial ability to provide that money. In the context of the schools making millions of dollars based in large measure on the efforts of the players, the idea that they ought to be compensated such that they can afford to go out on a date shouldn't be seen as radical.

The school and the coach have invested far more in the program, facilities, fan base, fellow students who buy tickets, memorabilia, etc. I can't believe they are being compensated in return.You would have made a great baseball owner pre-Curt Flood.

Tell me the names of all these D1 athletes you've known in the past 25 years playing 5 sports. I aint buying.Please read what I wrote a bit more carefully. I was referring to five separate D1 athletes from five different sports (as it happens, football, swimming, volleyball, gymnastics and field hockey).

How many times have you heard a little boy say he wants to work as a garbage man, night shift security, stocking shelves in WalMart, etc, etc, etc. Are they all being exploited?My kids all wanted to be garbage collectors once upon a time. But my point is simply that the fact that some people might choose an exploitive endeavor for any number of reasons doesn't mean it's not exploitive.

This statement probably signals the basic disagreement we have on this subject. The constitution of these united states does not give everyone the right to be happy, what it declares is the right to PURSUE happiness. They don't have a right to play organized basketball in front of a large fan base and compete for recognized titles. these are privileges offered by the existence of college institutions willing to build the facilities, and invest in all that comes with having a team. There are other options, just not ones more favorable to players who want to play in college. That fact doesn't make them er plantation owners.You're missing a crucial point. Via the NCAA, the colleges have set up a cartel and a mechanism to prevent any individual school from changing the status quo. When Memphis paid $15,000 per year to John Calipari for a clothing allowance on top of a huge salary, that was seen as paying market rates (which UK later blew out of the water). If Duke so much as bought a suit for a player to wear at a job interview, that would be cheating. Calapari's new annual salary at UK would pay for the scholarship costs of all the players on his roster with millions left over. If you don't see the fundamental unfairness of such a system, I really don't know what to say.

If other students had similar level skills in another marketable area, they would have to leave the college to take advantage of them.So if Taylor Swift or Miley Cyrus went to college they'd be required to give up singing?

Your student-athletes who want to be paid are essentially being taught their trade while in college and receiving additional education and a degree in case their first choice doesn't work out.The Confederacy similarly argued that slavery was a benevolent enterprise.

I disagree with both unless you can present a system wherein all student athletes are paid comensurate with their contribution to the team they are on; where cross-conference and cross-university revenue sharing enables everyone to benefit relative to hours spent.Why do you assume that hours spent correlates to value?

jimsumner

04-21-2009, 07:28 PM

RE: paying college football and basketball players.

How do you think those field-hockey and golf scholarships are funded? Out of gate receipts? TV revenues?

Very few college athletic departments actually make money. It's very difficult to conceive of a system that pays athletes in the few revenue-producing sports without eliminating the non-revenue-producing sports.

dgoore97

04-21-2009, 07:39 PM

DukeWarhead

04-22-2009, 12:54 AM

I had no idea that my original post would launch this journey into the morals and ethics of NCAA sports and players getting paid. Good grief, Charlie Brown.

Let me dumb it down again:

As a loyal Duke fan, I want to see Duke win another championship.
In order to do so I think our best talent will have to forgo the NBA for a year or two.
My old-fashioned, naive self is hoping that our NBA prospects can do that in the near future.
I think any fan wants to see their team win it all.
I cannot and will not pretend that early departures from the team are no big deal. Yes, of course, the players need to choose their own path in life ... this is America. Here's hoping that their path includes sticking with the team, and then moving on to fame and millions..

That's all. Pretty basic. Nothing profound....

Warhead out.

Wheat/"/"/"

04-22-2009, 07:57 AM

Legacy is an outdated concept in the college basketball world.

That is probaby a pretty fair statement, but I think Tyler Hansbrough absolutely considered his legacy before deciding to return to UNC last year, and in the long run, I think it will come back to him in spades via speaking engagements, camps, marketing/advertising, business opportunities...etc... due to the name recognition and legacy he built upon...if he chooses to work at it that way.

It wasn't a bad choice as some will try to say just because he may get drafted a few spots lower.

I've also read some posts where Lawson, Ellington, and Green had basically no choice but return after last season, but that's just not accurate. Sure they had a choice. All three would have easily made, at the very least, strong six figure salaries somewhere playing hoops had they left last year... whether is was in the NBA or Europe. They had a choice, maybe not the choice they hoped to have, but a choice.

That's still a lot of money to bounce a ball, and not easy to turn down.

dukelifer

04-22-2009, 08:12 AM

That is probaby a pretty fair statement, but I think Tyler Hansbrough absolutely considered his legacy before deciding to return to UNC last year, and in the long run, I think it will come back to him in spades via speaking engagements, camps, marketing/advertising, business opportunities...etc... due to the name recognition and legacy he built upon...if he chooses to work at it that way.

It wasn't a bad choice as some will try to say just because he may get drafted a few spots lower.

I've also read some posts where Lawson, Ellington, and Green had basically no choice but return after last season, but that's just not accurate. Sure they had a choice. All three would have easily made, at the very least, strong six figure salaries somewhere playing hoops had they left last year... whether is was in the NBA or Europe. They had a choice, maybe not the choice they hoped to have, but a choice.

That's still a lot of money to bounce a ball, and not easy to turn down.

Hansbrough is a unique case for sure- but a chance of being the all time leading scorer at UNC and ACC and winning a NC would as you say - make Hansbrough a legend in CH forever. Just getting a free meal for the rest of his life when in town and probably getting that statue in front of the Dean Dome may have been worth it :D

JStuart

04-22-2009, 09:49 AM

Hmmm.....will the statue show him shuffling his pivot foot, or falling down after a vicious bump by Paulus? I would have a hard time choosing.

Kfanarmy

04-22-2009, 10:36 AM

I get the point of what you envision, I simply disagree that the current system is "unfair." Scholarship athletes have the information available to make their choices like everyone else deciding what to do when they leave home. The fact is these guys, solely because of height and athletic ability, get educational opportunities unavailable to their peers, from whatever walk of life. That some may not be able to take their girlfriends on a date is unfortunate. It is however, no different than a lot of other folks who come from the same neighborhoods...some of whom are more capable academically but they don't have this academicaly unrelated skill getting them to school. The hyperbole inherent in your continued references to slavery does not help your argument. Nor does comparison to free markets because we all know that these teams don't exist in a free market. These BBall and FBall dollars pay for many other programs within a university as required by law. Yes, I think coaches are overpaid. Again, I haven't seen anything that works for everyone in trying to achieve what you suggest. Most suggestions would lead to widespread fraud and potentially end these venues. And yes, I do think athletic scholarships are both economic and benevolent. The players you are focused on would not be going to school, living in nice dorm rooms, and playing games were it not for athletic scholarships. They would be working, or not, in much less glamorous circumstances.

RPS

04-22-2009, 11:42 AM

I get the point of what you envision, I simply disagree that the current system is "unfair."Understood, but the fact that college football and basketball teams, which produce tremendous revenue, are getting incredibly cheap labor should be obvious to anyone who cares to look.

Scholarship athletes have the information available to make their choices like everyone else deciding what to do when they leave home.I agree, but would add that their choices are wrongly and artificially limited by the NCAA cartel.

The fact is these guys, solely because of height and athletic ability, get educational opportunities unavailable to their peers, from whatever walk of life.Some skills are more highly valued in the market than others.

That some may not be able to take their girlfriends on a date is unfortunate. It is however, no different than a lot of other folks who come from the same neighborhoods...some of whom are more capable academically but they don't have this academicaly unrelated skill getting them to school.I don't contend that market forces point in any way toward what is best or moral. More to the point, that poor kids with athletic skills might be better off than similarly situated kids with more academic but less athletic talent is irrelevant to whether it is right for the cartel to keep the fruits of their labor away from those who (in large measure at least) produced them.

The hyperbole inherent in your continued references to slavery does not help your argument.I'll let others decide that.

Nor does comparison to free markets because we all know that these teams don't exist in a free market.I have tried to be careful to be endorsing freer markets.

These BBall and FBall dollars pay for many other programs within a university as required by law.Indeed. Their efforts are used, via wealth transfer, to benefit others. I am not opposed to that concept entirely, but I think the extent to which it is applied is unfair in the extreme. That the wealth transfer, overall, tends to benefit financially better off white kids to the detriment of less well off black kids gives me some pause too.

Yes, I think coaches are overpaid.Since I don't pretend that the markets can or should legislate morality, I don't (necessarily). However, if the system weren't set up to prevent players from being compensated more fairly, coaches' salaries might go down some. There are only 100 cents in a dollar.

Again, I haven't seen anything that works for everyone in trying to achieve what you suggest.If your point is that no system can be perfect, we agree.

Most suggestions would lead to widespread fraud and potentially end these venues.Every system has costs and benefits. But the current system is beset by "widespread fraud."

And yes, I do think athletic scholarships are both economic and benevolent. The players you are focused on would not be going to school, living in nice dorm rooms, and playing games were it not for athletic scholarships. They would be working, or not, in much less glamorous circumstances.I don't think this claim has any basis. The NBA and the NFL are complicit in the current arrangement because it works so well for them. They get a free minor league system, a convenient means to evaluate prospective talent in a similar and very competitive environment, players entering their leagues with a built-in marketing base, and lower risk (because they don't have to make their investment choices as early as they otherwise would). What a deal! But if colleges weren't in the minor league sports business, pro sports teams would adjust. We can't possibly say what the resulting system might look like and how individual players or the players overall would be impacted thereby.

Shammrog

04-22-2009, 12:05 PM

Every system has costs and benefits. But the current system is beset by "widespread fraud."

What kind of fraud? :eek:

RPS

04-22-2009, 12:47 PM

What kind of fraud?I'm thinking of fraud in three senses. Firstly, there are certain actions and policies that (at least) seem to pass muster under the rules but skirt the intent of the rules. For example, there is the fraud of seeming to require academic progress in order to retain athletic eligibility with some schools, all the while, keeping the vast majority of their athletes eligible to play without graduating very many of them. I'm looking at you, Terps. I'm also thinking of package deals, payments to AAU coaches under the guise of charity, "bumps" and any number of other examples.

Perhaps the most widespread fraud is the patent dishonesty that premeates the recruiting process and the entire system. When my son was being recruited, he (we) were lied to constantly. In some cases we knew and could tell that we were being lied to immediately. In many cases we learned it later. Recruiting is sales and, to make it even more difficult, sales to fickle, full-of-themselves teenagers who often have needy and dishonest families, advisors and hangers-on. Coaches routinely say and do what they think they have to say and do to close the sale. Their careers depend upon it.

Thirdly, I'm thinking of more overt fraud. Some of it is discovered and known -- payments to players, improper payments to AAU coaches, rule-breaking of various other sorts, academic fraud, etc. Much (probably most) of it is unknown, but we have very good reason to think it's true.

Shammrog

04-22-2009, 12:55 PM

I'm thinking of fraud in three senses. Firstly, there are certain actions and policies that (at least) seem to pass muster under the rules but skirt the intent of the rules. For example, there is the fraud of seeming to require academic progress in order to retain athletic eligibility with some schools, all the while, keeping the vast majority of their athletes eligible to play without graduating very many of them. I'm looking at you, Terps. I'm also thinking of package deals, payments to AAU coaches under the guise of charity, "bumps" and any number of other examples.

Perhaps the most widespread fraud is the patent dishonesty that premeates the recruiting process and the entire system. When my son was being recruited, he (we) were lied to constantly. In some cases we knew and could tell that we were being lied to immediately. In many cases we learned it later. Recruiting is sales and, to make it even more difficult, sales to fickle, full-of-themselves teenagers who often have needy and dishonest families, advisors and hangers-on. Coaches routinely say and do what they think they have to say and do to close the sale. Their careers depend upon it.

Thirdly, I'm thinking of more overt fraud. Some of it is discovered and known -- payments to players, improper payments to AAU coaches, rule-breaking of various other sorts, academic fraud, etc. Much (probably most) of it is unknown, but we have very good reason to think it's true.

I agree. It is sleazy; you really gotta watch your back and latch on to someone that you at least think/hope has integrity.

I think the worst thing - all around for everyone, except maybe the NBA itself - is the "one and done" rule. You basically force top talent to go make a token appearance in college with no intention of really being a student. Just so the NBA gets a look at you first.

The kids become a captive if they want to go to the NBA, colleges are left to compete in a(n even more mercenary) environment, and the quality of basketball all around is hurt in college with at best a push even in the League... What a crock.

RPS

04-22-2009, 01:38 PM

I think the worst thing - all around for everyone, except maybe the NBA itself - is the "one and done" rule. You basically force top talent to go make a token appearance in college with no intention of really being a student. Just so the NBA gets a look at you first.Whatever else may be true, David Stern is really smart. He realized that without any restriction on the age of players coming into the league, NBA teams were paying big money for talented players who weren't ready yet. Moreover, the opportunities to evaluate those players in an appropriate competitive environment were very limited, increasing the number of mistakes being made. He also recognized that the college (his minor league) product was being diminished with so many players skipping that level. Solution: give those players (back) to the minor league for a year. Arguably (though I'm not convinced that the one-and-done rule helps college basketball), the only ones being disadvantaged are the players, whose choice to get paid sooner and to get their free agency clock running sooner is thus foreclosed. For the NBA and the colleges, it's a win-win.

Underdog5

04-22-2009, 01:48 PM

I've always felt a good solution would be similar to what just about all other corporates do... paid summer internships. Would be at no cost to the school, allow the NBA to really evaluate talent, give the kids some spending dough. For those concerned about kids getting "unfair" benefits, could be regulated so comp would be capped. I see plenty of benefits and I think would reduce speculation by kids with their future and help mitigate one of the main incentives for athletes to jump early.

Shammrog

04-22-2009, 01:55 PM

Whatever else may be true, David Stern is really smart. He realized that without any restriction on the age of players coming into the league, NBA teams were paying big money for talented players who weren't ready yet. Moreover, the opportunities to evaluate those players in an appropriate competitive environment were very limited, increasing the number of mistakes being made. He also recognized that the college (his minor league) product was being diminished with so many players skipping that level. Solution: give those players (back) to the minor league for a year. Arguably (though I'm not convinced that the one-and-done rule helps college basketball), the only ones being disadvantaged are the players, whose choice to get paid sooner and to get their free agency clock running sooner is thus foreclosed. For the NBA and the colleges, it's a win-win.

I agree. Personally I think it hurts college basketball by making it even more mercenary than it already was.

BUT, it is totally to the advantage of the NBA. I don't think most players develop that much, per se, in just one year of college. But, it does give the NBA a free "test drive," to see top high school players much more and against better competition.

Kfanarmy

04-22-2009, 02:03 PM

RPS

04-22-2009, 03:39 PM

While I get and respect the argument for affording some incidental cost payments, notwithstanding the whole slavery schtick, I would need to see hard facts for the following statement. Considering that most track programs, almost all women's programs (bball included) are supported through funds siphoned from the profitable programs. How exactly does the current system unequitably benefit "better off white kids?" Don't they all receive the same benefits (scholarships) or is the inequity you suggest derived from not giving the least wealthy more, in effect a school welfare program? If you are a poor white, oriental, hispanic, eskimo, indian, or other minority kid are you not entitled to the same benefit under your imagined scheme? Is black the cause du jour or are you focused there because of the extreme ratio of black players in BBall and Football relative to the general population?That's a fair question even though this matter isn't central to my overall argument. I think we can all agree that for most schools, the revenue sports are football and basketball and that the players in those sports are largely black -- typically disproportionately so relative to the student body as a whole. Non-revenue sports include black players, surely, but in much lower percentages overall (think sports like swimming, lacrosse, golf, baseball, softball, cross-country, water polo, volleyball, gymnastics, ice hockey, field hockey, crew, soccer, tennns, etc.). That means, in general and in effect, that black players (often poor) are in large measure producing the revenue that funds programs for white players (typically less poor, if for no other reason than there are far fewer scholarships, though the reality of "rich kids sports" can't be discounted). That's effectively a wealth transfer. Given the history of black exploitation in this country, that gives me pause.

Wheat/"/"/"

04-22-2009, 04:40 PM

Hmmm.....will the statue show him shuffling his pivot foot, or falling down after a vicious bump by Paulus? I would have a hard time choosing.

A simple statue of TH standing squared at the line, bug eyes focused on the rim will do...:)

As for the debate going on...while I am not as strongly opinionated as he is, I agree with RPS that the Elite players are currently being taken advantage of by "the system".

So, let me get this straight...an elite basketball player player can't graduate from HS and go to work in his profession where "company A" would pay him millions, if they only could.

So he has another company, "company B", that is the only other true option, give him "free" access to a nice education, but refuses to pay for his service. All the while banking millions from his service until "company A" is "allowed" to pay him what he's worth a year later.

As was noted earlier, if we were talking about an investment banker or a scientist that was in such demand, it would be considered an "outrage" in a capitalistic society.

For the majority of college players, the system is OK. For the elite guys, they are getting screwed.

Somebody please answer me these questions...

Why shouldn't an Elite player be allowed to sign with the NBA for whatever $ he can get, and then be allowed to go to college? The NBA team can pay for his ride or the player can pay for it himself. The NBA could allow the player to mature, without risking losing him if they don't sign him early. It would save a scholly, that could then be offered to an inner city kid that's a math prodigy...or whatever.

There would need to be rules.

(1)They would have to be students. Meaning they would have to maintain a standard GPA, while attending a certain % of classes in order to play.

(2) The commitment would be for the entire school year, each year, no "calling them up" to the league.

(3) Maybe a rule where no team may have more than two "under contract" elite players on the roster at one time...to keep the playing field level and avoid the NBA from stacking up a particular team.

This is an off the cuff post...what am I missing here?

jimsumner

04-22-2009, 04:49 PM

"For the NBA and the colleges, it's a win-win."

It also must be a win for the NBA Player's Association, inasmuch as they agreed to it as part of their Collective Bargaining Agreement with the NBA.

Please note that David Stern doesn't exactly decide this stuff by decree.

Wheat/"/"/"

04-22-2009, 04:57 PM

Hansbrough is a unique case for sure- but a chance of being the all time leading scorer at UNC and ACC and winning a NC would as you say - make Hansbrough a legend in CH forever.

Don't forget the accomplishment of going 4 for 4 at Cameron, he cemented his legacy in Durham too. ;)

Kfanarmy

04-22-2009, 05:03 PM

That's a fair question even though this matter isn't central to my overall argument. I think we can all agree that for most schools, the revenue sports are football and basketball and that the players in those sports are largely black -- typically disproportionately so relative to the student body as a whole. Non-revenue sports include black players, surely, but in much lower percentages overall (think sports like swimming, lacrosse, golf, baseball, softball, cross-country, water polo, volleyball, gymnastics, ice hockey, field hockey, crew, soccer, tennns, etc.). That means, in general and in effect, that black players (often poor) are in large measure producing the revenue that funds programs for white players (typically less poor, if for no other reason than there are far fewer scholarships, though the reality of "rich kids sports" can't be discounted). That's effectively a wealth transfer. Given the history of black exploitation in this country, that gives me pause.
This is reaching in the extreme to find a cause to support paying players. Potentially a good way to gain support, but it is grasping at the thinnest moralistic straws to support an microeconomic argument. An odd mix of reasoning, wherein you would focus impacts only on black players on mens BBall and FBall teams arguing at once that those who produce the wealth should share in it, and at the same time that somehow richer (or as you say rich white) kids don't need the money. Should GH receive compensation while a poor white or hispanic kid running a 4 minute mile isn't? While there are clearly differences in the ethnic distribution of kids in college sports, I think your argument would be much more sustainable if it were based solely on the economic circumstances of the individual players. One could just as easily argue that the correct way to fix the wealth transfer you suggest is to insure that teams are racially representative of the population. after all isn't it as likely that hispanic kids in the U.S. aren't given the same chance to play BBall as black players are? We see latin players in the pros; why so few hispanic players on college NCAA teams? Perhaps we are simply causing one group of people to have a much greater shot at success at the expense of another. In the end, I don't think the discriminator for which, if any, players to pay should be their ethnicity/minority status.

If they are good enough to be paid, let them go get paid. If they aren't, let them be compensated iaw the scholarship deal they signed up for.

RPS

04-22-2009, 05:22 PM

what if the coaches set aside 10-20% of their shoe contracts as a kind of pension/graduate education fund for athletes on their teams that don't end up playing professionally (mcclure, dockery, etc)? wouldn't affect the school's athletic budget or funding for non-revenue sports since it's outside the budget. seems fair to me for the kids actually wearing the sneakers to receive some benefit.. i think if it was legal, k would do it. maybe i'm way off base..

I've always felt a good solution would be similar to what just about all other corporates do... paid summer internships. Would be at no cost to the school, allow the NBA to really evaluate talent, give the kids some spending dough. For those concerned about kids getting "unfair" benefits, could be regulated so comp would be capped. I see plenty of benefits and I think would reduce speculation by kids with their future and help mitigate one of the main incentives for athletes to jump early.

Why shouldn't an Elite player be allowed to sign with the NBA for whatever $ he can get, and then be allowed to go to college? The NBA team can pay for his ride or the player can pay for it himself. The NBA could allow the player to mature, without risking losing him if they don't sign him early. It would save a scholly, that could then be offered to an inner city kid that's a math prodigy...or whatever.These all seem like interesting ideas worth exploring.

It also must be a win for the NBA Player's Association, inasmuch as they agreed to it as part of their Collective Bargaining Agreement with the NBA.

Please note that David Stern doesn't exactly decide this stuff by decree.You're right and I should have noted that. The PA is fine with it because it keeps more of its current membership employed (in the same way the rookie cap keeps more of the team cap in the pockets of the current membership).

This is reaching in the extreme to find a cause to support paying players.You may be right. But since the USA has a long and sordid history of exploiting people of color I'd prefer to err on the side of excessive caution.

An odd mix of reasoning, wherein you would focus impacts only on black players on mens BBall and FBall teams arguing at once that those who produce the wealth should share in it, and at the same time that somehow richer (or as you say rich white) kids don't need the money.It has nothing to do with who needs or doesn't need the money. It's more like a situation where, say, (largely black) rap artists and (largely white) country artists were all required to be part of a particular record label with the country artists receiving benefits disproportionate to their sales.

While there are clearly differences in the ethnic distribution of kids in college sports, I think your argument would be much more sustainable if it were based solely on the economic circumstances of the individual players.I have no problem with athletic scholarships being entirely merit based. I'd simply prefer that the distribution of benefits be more value based.

If they are good enough to be paid, let them go get paid. If they aren't, let them be compensated iaw the scholarship deal they signed up for.A truer market mechanism is okay for the NBA (them) but not for the colleges (us). I hear that kind of reasoning a lot.

Kfanarmy

04-22-2009, 05:36 PM

You may be right. But since the USA has a long and sordid history of exploiting people of color I'd prefer to err on the side of excessive caution.

I am not aware of any other country whose history doesn't include sordid history of exploiting people. In our case it is just more black and white than most. We can discuss the grander history of ethnic relationships on another thread. As with the choice whether or not to play college basketball based on what is acceptable, there are other choices in countries as well...but again so many choose to come/stay here while opining its imperfections and claiming exploitation. As with college sports rarely do they choose the righteous alternative to this terrible history, this terrible exploitation to live more freely on far away and less opulent lands.

RPS

04-22-2009, 06:45 PM

I am not aware of any other country whose history doesn't include sordid history of exploiting people. In our case it is just more black and white than most.True enough.

As with the choice whether or not to play college basketball based on what is acceptable, there are other choices in countries as well....True, but they aren't as good (even with the exploitation), Ricky Rubio notwithstanding.

...but again so many choose to come/stay here while opining its imperfections and claiming exploitation.This isn't a version of love it or leave it, is it?

As with college sports rarely do they choose the righteous alternative to this terrible history, this terrible exploitation to live more freely on far away and less opulent lands.I remember back to the day my principal announced JFK's assasination over the loudspeaker and I think that Ronald Reagan was the greatest president in my lifetime, but I think you're over the line here (if I understand you correctly). Dissent can be patriotic too.

MarkD83

04-22-2009, 09:22 PM

So, let me get this straight...an elite basketball player player can't graduate from HS and go to work in his profession where "company A" would pay him millions, if they only could.

So he has another company, "company B", that is the only other true option, give him "free" access to a nice education, but refuses to pay for his service. All the while banking millions from his service until "company A" is "allowed" to pay him what he's worth a year later.

There is another option. Play overseas. This is not an appealing option but an option nonetheless.

Wheat/"/"/"

04-22-2009, 09:30 PM

There is another option. Play overseas. This is not an appealing option but an option nonetheless.

Note I said... "true option" in my previous post.

I considered the overseas option, but forcing a player to leave the country for a job that should be available here is just not right, imo.

Edit: Forcing is probably the wrong word...but denying a player fair options is my point.

MarkD83

04-22-2009, 10:13 PM

Note I said... "true option" in my previous post.

I considered the overseas option, but forcing a player to leave the country for a job that should be available here is just not right, imo.

Edit: Forcing is probably the wrong word...but denying a player fair options is my point.

Perhaps the reason the bargaining agreement is safe is that even though we may not consider that the overseas option is a fair option it is an option. So the NBA is not denying anyone from pursuing their basketball profession they are just saying not in the NBA until you meet some requirements.

Wheat I believe you are a professional fisherman. So this might be a good example. I had heard that if you want to get a commercial fishing liscense in Alaska you must first live in Alaska for a year. Alaska is not denying you the right to fish, you can do that in the lower 48. You just can't fish in Alaska unless you stick around for a year.

DukeWarhead

04-22-2009, 11:04 PM

As the initiator of this thread, I apologize for what it has become.

I still think its possible to have a discussion about fan reaction to players leaving early without having it devolve into a theortical melee involving the nation's history with slavery, the "fairness" of NCAA rules, the quality of European ball, etc.

I really don't think the situation involves that much nuance, I really don't.

I also think noted British Historian Sir Michael Howard said it correctly when he claimed that "analogy is the lazy substitute for true analytical thought." So enough with the business school what ifs...

I feel like Gavrilo Princip. "Sorry for starting all this...."

turnandburn55

04-22-2009, 11:36 PM

These all seem like interesting ideas worth exploring.

You're right and I should have noted that. The PA is fine with it because it keeps more of its current membership employed (in the same way the rookie cap keeps more of the team cap in the pockets of the current membership).

You may be right. But since the USA has a long and sordid history of exploiting people of color I'd prefer to err on the side of excessive caution.

It has nothing to do with who needs or doesn't need the money. It's more like a situation where, say, (largely black) rap artists and (largely white) country artists were all required to be part of a particular record label with the country artists receiving benefits disproportionate to their sales.

I have no problem with athletic scholarships being entirely merit based. I'd simply prefer that the distribution of benefits be more value based.

A truer market mechanism is okay for the NBA (them) but not for the colleges (us). I hear that kind of reasoning a lot.

Out of curiosity, could you please apply your argument to the gender situation (ie revenue-producing sports being primarily male), and the impact, if any, it should have on Title IX??

Wheat/"/"/"

04-23-2009, 12:27 AM

Perhaps the reason the bargaining agreement is safe is that even though we may not consider that the overseas option is a fair option it is an option. So the NBA is not denying anyone from pursuing their basketball profession they are just saying not in the NBA until you meet some requirements.

Wheat I believe you are a professional fisherman. So this might be a good example. I had heard that if you want to get a commercial fishing liscense in Alaska you must first live in Alaska for a year. Alaska is not denying you the right to fish, you can do that in the lower 48. You just can't fish in Alaska unless you stick around for a year.

It all sounds good, and fair, that the NBA has the right to say you must reach some requirements, until you are the player with the talent and realize that this US monopolistic business denies you the opportunity to challenge another player for his roster spot, and $, just because you are not a year out of HS.
Isn't that the only "requirement"?

My opinion is let the players compete for the roster spot, and allow the NBA teams to compete for their service,(draft them), and then pay them to go to school and play(with rules) if they wish.

While I am a professional fisherman, I'm not a commercial fisherman. I fish in tournaments and guide for entertainment, commercial guys fish for supply quota's.

I'm no expert on Alaska license procedures by any means, but I think you are correct, Alaska has what they call "limited entry". Which means there are only so many licenses allowed, and they only allow so many pounds of fish/crab each season be harvested. If you want a license, you have to jump through many hoops and spend lots of money to buy one of the current license holders out. I don't think they create any new licenses now. This is done more to protect a limited resource than to deny a fisherman the right to pursue a living in a free market.
There are federal laws involved there too. That's not really a situation that relies on talent to reach the top, so I don't think the analogy works here.

I don't mean to hijack this thread, but we face many of these same sort of issues in the Pro Bass fishing world. The current system (Tours) takes advantage of the talent (anglers) because they own the system.

At some level, I understand that he who has the gold rules, but ...

While the NBA stands alone, we have to deal with two organizations.

And we have choices too, two bad ones, and the choice to do our own thing. Not an easy one either.

It had gotten so bad that we have started our own, angler owned tour, (The Professional Anglers Association (http://fishpaa.com/)) because we felt we were so often being taken advantage of by the ESPN owned B.A.S.S. (http://espn.go.com/outdoors/bassmaster/) Tour, and the Irwin Jacobs owned Wal-Mart FLW Tour (http://www.flwoutdoors.com/).

It's their way or the highway, so we are attempting to blaze a trail.

It is a huge uphill battle a bunch of anglers to go against those two, as it would be for a bunch of players to challenge the NCAA and the NBA, but we are slowly making progress. This is our first year, and we have a series of 3 events that pay $50,000 to win, and a championship (http://fishpaa.com/tournaments/paa_toyota_texas_bass_classic.htm) that will have a $500,000 payback to the field for the 60 who qualify. Toyota and the state of Texas are the primary sponsors, and we just picked up Evan Williams Burbon today as a sponsor so things are looking up, for now.

Remains to be seen what will happen when sponsors start pressuring the anglers....after the two entrenched tours pressure the sponsors... when we really do become competitive with them.