PDA

View Full Version : New NCAA Pres Doesn't Like 1-And-Dones



airowe
04-29-2010, 10:01 AM
http://www.wralsportsfan.com/voices/blogpost/7508030/

CrazieDUMB
04-29-2010, 10:10 AM
it's an interesting standpoint, but frankly I'm not sure if there's anything he can do about it. Even if he makes a rule that if you come to school you have to stay two or three years, there's no recourse if a player says screw it and goes to the league anyway. You can't contractually obligate someone to stay in school.

roywhite
04-29-2010, 10:17 AM
it's an interesting standpoint, but frankly I'm not sure if there's anything he can do about it. Even if he makes a rule that if you come to school you have to stay two or three years, there's no recourse if a player says screw it and goes to the league anyway. You can't contractually obligate someone to stay in school.

Well, not stay in school, but the NBA can have a rule about not drafting or signing a player until he's of a certain age or at least a certain period after his high school graduating class. That's what the current set-up is...for one year, but it could conceivably be changed by the NBA to say two years.

Big Pappa
04-29-2010, 10:19 AM
Well, not stay in school, but the NBA can have a rule about not drafting or signing a player until he's of a certain age or at least a certain period after his high school graduating class. That's what the current set-up is...for one year, but it could conceivably be changed by the NBA to say two years.

Just like the NFL's current system, except it's three years of course.

JG Nothing
04-29-2010, 10:26 AM
it's an interesting standpoint, but frankly I'm not sure if there's anything he can do about it. Even if he makes a rule that if you come to school you have to stay two or three years, there's no recourse if a player says screw it and goes to the league anyway. You can't contractually obligate someone to stay in school.

No, but you can penalize schools with a loss of scholarships when players leave after one or two years. That might make coaches think twice about the character and motives of who they recruit. Such a rule would not make it impractical to sign a few potential one-and-doners, but it would serve as a deterent to Calipari's recruiting strategy, which makes a mockery of "college" basketball and the concept of the student-athlete.

CrazieDUMB
04-29-2010, 10:31 AM
I see what you're saying, but a change to a two-and-done (or three and done) would have to come from the NBA and David Stern, not the NCAA. As for penalizing schools that recruit one and dones, I don't see that as a viable alternative either. What are these kids supposed to do? Are we going to see an exodus of all the John Walls to Europe? More significant play in the D-League? It just seems unfair to me to punish exceptionally talented people because the system is broken.

davekay1971
04-29-2010, 10:36 AM
True. The only way a kid can be prevented from going to the NBA is by an NBA rule. The NCAA has no right to determine how long a kid has to stay in college, or whether a kid plays in college at all.

The NCAA needs to step back and look at the facts:
1) They have no right, ethical or legal, to force an adult to play college basketball if the adult prefers to pursue gainful employment instead (ie: play professional basketball)
2) They are entirely dependent on the NBA and other professional basketball organizations to agree to restrict their own hiring (when, frankly, it doesn't make much sense for employers to voluntarily limit their own hiring pool)
3) The NCAA frankly isn't offering much incentive for kids to stay in school.
4) The NCAA hasn't honestly defined whether they are an organization of eduational institutions with sports teams, or a developmental league for professional athletes.

Bottom line: if the NCAA wants to keep top level basketball players in school, they'd better start figuring out what incentives they can offer those kids. Educational stipends, free disability insurance to cushion the financial loss of an injury like Desean Butler suffered, freestanding scholarship for kids that want to complete their education at some later date, profit sharing, etc. How about NCAA provided career counselling and networking services for kids who don't make the league? NCAA provided counselling and representation services to educate and protect kids in dealing with agents? How about helping kids contact and interview with agents while they are still eligible college players, with the colleges and NCAA helping to counsel kids on how to interview, select, and deal with these agents? NCAA and college sponsored and administered interviews and camps with pro scouts and coaches to give kids a better idea about their potential as professional players and what they need to work on? Assistance in preparing to play overseas (foreign language courses, cultural education, etc).

Not sure what of the above the NCAA may already do, but my perception is that the NCAA doesn't do much anything except (1) try to coerce kids to play ball in college for free, (2) profit off that, and (3) miserably mismanage enforcing a US tax-code sized book of "rules" (strictness of enforcement entirely dependent on profitability of the program involved)...

Duvall
04-29-2010, 10:36 AM
No, but you can penalize schools with a loss of scholarships when players leave after one or two years. That might make coaches think twice about the character and motives of who they recruit.

Accepting a multi-million dollar contract to play basketball for a living is not a sign of poor character, and isn't something we can expect coaches to avoid. You just can't predict which players will improve dramatically and get a chance to play the sport at its highest level.

roywhite
04-29-2010, 10:45 AM
I see what you're saying, but a change to a two-and-done (or three and done) would have to come from the NBA and David Stern, not the NCAA. As for penalizing schools that recruit one and dones, I don't see that as a viable alternative either. What are these kids supposed to do? Are we going to see an exodus of all the John Walls to Europe? More significant play in the D-League? It just seems unfair to me to punish exceptionally talented people because the system is broken.

Agree about this. It does say something, however, that the incoming NCAA President feels strongly about the current rule and sees some negative impact on the college game. How much leverage can he actually have on the NBA policy? Don't know.

My own preference---something similar to current rules regarding baseball prospects. A top baseball prospect can sign with the pros directly out of high school. If he elects to go to college instead, he is not eligible for the draft again until 3 years have passed.

In practice, would this mean that more and more of the top 25 high school basketball recruits try to go pro right away rather than wait 3 years? Don't know. Maybe a more developed D-League system as a minor league? The NBA has its own economic problems, and is probably reluctant to subsidize the D-League additionally.

It is a tricky problem; the status quo doesn't appear to be popular on many fronts.

JohnGalt
04-29-2010, 10:47 AM
No, but you can penalize schools with a loss of scholarships when players leave after one or two years. That might make coaches think twice about the character and motives of who they recruit. Such a rule would not make it impractical to sign a few potential one-and-doners, but it would serve as a deterent to Calipari's recruiting strategy, which makes a mockery of "college" basketball and the concept of the student-athlete.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but I don't think it's fair to question a kid's "character" or "motives" simply because he's blessed with enough ability to play in the League at the age of 19 or so. How could the NCAA actually enforce the rule you suggested anyway? What if a recruit is a top 20 recruit, isn't slapped with the "one and done" label coming out of high school, but blows up in college, resulting in a projected lottery selection? Is it fair to penalize the school for facilitating a kid's ultimate goal of playing in the NBA? The answer is that it's absolutely not fair.

Your notion that "the concept of the student-athlete" is dying is admirable, but - realistically speaking - the concept (in revenue sports, to be fair to others) has been questionable for some time now.

Regardless, the NCAA doesn't have any right in the matter. They can bellyache all they want, but it's the NBA's decision to make. I agree the 1 and done rule seems to be counterproductive on all ends, but that's what we have until the NBA decides it wants something else. But the notion of the NCAA requiring these athletes to stay longer is just asinine. Why not just require them to graduate? Shoot while we're at it, why not require them get a Masters degree?

Duvall
04-29-2010, 10:48 AM
It is a tricky problem; the status quo doesn't appear to be popular on many fronts.

But it is lucrative (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/2010-04-22-ncaa-tournament-cbs-turner-agreement_N.htm), which is probably enough to limit the NCAA to the occasional impotent whimper about one-and-dones.

superdave
04-29-2010, 10:55 AM
Until the NBA gets serious about the D-league, any system and any changes will be trivial.

A good D-league would have an upper age limit, allow high school kids to join and be coached/shepherded closely and be at a salary point where college is still a great option.

There's no reason for a kid like Lance Stephenson to go to college for 1 year then bolt and bounce around. He should be allowed to make $45K in the D-league if he chooses and then enter the draft at a later date, or enter the drafta nd have a team park him in the D-league for 2-3 years until he grows up and polishes his game.

JohnGalt
04-29-2010, 10:55 AM
Agree about this. It does say something, however, that the incoming NCAA President feels strongly about the current rule and sees some negative impact on the college game. How much leverage can he actually have on the NBA policy? Don't know.

My own preference---something similar to current rules regarding baseball prospects. A top baseball prospect can sign with the pros directly out of high school. If he elects to go to college instead, he is not eligible for the draft again until 3 years have passed.

It is a tricky problem; the status quo doesn't appear to be popular on many fronts.

I think this is a good idea, but baseball is light years ahead of basketball in the minor league system. The change needs to come in the D League system before the rule as that will require more time to take shape. I don't think it would be tremendously beneficial to give kids the option of either (1) playing basketball for minimum 3 years in college or (2) taking a run at a weak minor league system, as I think most kids would choose the latter even in its current state. I think we can all agree there isn't a tremendous amount of development going on in the Developmental League and that would only introduce a truckload of overly-eager youngsters not prepared nor mature enough for the rigors of it all.

SoCalDukeFan
04-29-2010, 11:12 AM
There seems to be an idea that there is nothing the NCAA can do about 1 and dones and must wait for the NBA to do anything.

Well what if you made freshmen ineligible for college basketball?

Or

Tie basketball scholarships to an individual for four years. So if you gave a scholarship to John Wall, then no one else could have that scholarship until Wall's class graduates. (I think next year Kentucky would be limited to 8 scholarships as they had 4 frosh and a junior go pro.)

I am sure if the NCAA really thought about it then they could come up with some other ideas.

SoCal

roywhite
04-29-2010, 11:17 AM
College basketball still has a strong appeal to many talented young players, even some that aren't serious about academics. The fan following, constant TV exposure, the "Big Dance"...many still want to be a part of it. Look at Enes Kanter the Turkish kid going to Kentucky; he had the option of getting paid pretty well in Europe but wants to play NCAA basketball for his own development and exposure.

Even in pure economic terms, it might make sense for a talented player to play in college with regular TV exposure to maximize his marketing potential, as opposed to spending ages 19-21 at the end of an NBA bench or riding a bus in the D-League.

pfrduke
04-29-2010, 11:53 AM
I really think the whole "one-and-done" issue is far less of a big deal than people make it out to be. This season, there is a grand total of 29 freshmen and sophomores that have declared for the draft (I excluded juniors because there seems to be widespread support for the "three or none" idea), and it is likely that not all of them will stay in the draft at the end of the day. These numbers are similar to those in seasons past. There are somewhere between 3500 and 4000 Division 1 basketball players, probably close to half of whom are freshmen and sophomores. So basically, all this fretting and hand-wringing is about what should be done for ~1.5% of the underclassmen in the sport.

Jderf
04-29-2010, 12:25 PM
So basically, all this fretting and hand-wringing is about what should be done for ~1.5% of the underclassmen in the sport.

Yes, but that 1.5% are the ones that people get really excited about, the one's that garner TV attention (read: advertising money). I think making freshman ineligible is a pretty drastic move that would spur a mass exodus of American talent to Europe instead of college, which I don't think American fans want. I've seen a couple ideas that I do like, such as allowing players to be drafted out of high school, but if they choose not to then they can't be drafted again until they are 21.

One thing I've wondered about is why the NCAA doesn't just pay their players (other than the obvious "they don't want to")? It wouldn't have to be multi-million dollar contracts, just a modest pay-check (by sport standards). Then they could compete with the NBA for talent, and those that would think they were better of in the NCAA would stay until they were ready.

Another idea which a friend of mine proposed that I found really interesting (though probably not without its own problems): why not allow universities or the NCAA to offer (in addition to scholarships) insurance policies to their really big name players, so that if they were debilitatingly injured in college they would be compensated? This would mitigate the risk of staying in college unpaid for an extra year or two and give the athletes more incentive to hone their skills in the college game. I don't know, it's just a thought.

BD80
04-29-2010, 12:26 PM
... all this fretting and hand-wringing is about what should be done for ~1.5% of the underclassmen in the sport.

But that 1.5% of the underclassmen accounts for over 50% of the marketability! Something MUST be done!

oh. wait. we were talking about education. sorry.

Well, I'll bet those 29 players drastically altered the overall percentage of underclassmen (including nonathletes) who left school last year (flunked out, lost interest, ran out of money, found employment, etc). Yes, that is sarcasm.

I favor the rule where a scholarship grant binds a school for three years. If the player leaves earlier, the scholarship still counts against the school's limit for the duration of the three years. Schools cannot terminate the scholarship for the three years. The school can be released from the scholarship if the player receives another scholarship through transfer. There could also be a "walk-on" scholarship year-to-year for players who have been enrolled in school for a year.

The NCAA is the best farm league for American players for the NCAA, but it is also supposed to be an educational organization. Let's at least maintain the charade (facade?). Yes, much money flows in because of the entertaining display of the athletes' basketball prowess, but that money funds other athletic programs. If the players feel exploited, go find another league.

Jderf
04-29-2010, 12:31 PM
I favor the rule where a scholarship grant binds a school for three years. If the player leaves earlier, the scholarship still counts against the school's limit for the duration of the three years. Schools cannot terminate the scholarship for the three years.

I always felt that this rule punishes the school for a player's decision to pursue his trade professionally. I never really liked it on two counts. First, it takes action against the university, who is not at all to blame. Second, I don't really think it is even a punishable act. There is nothing wrong with a person who wants to leave college early to start his career.

Duke79UNLV77
04-29-2010, 12:55 PM
True. The only way a kid can be prevented from going to the NBA is by an NBA rule. The NCAA has no right to determine how long a kid has to stay in college, or whether a kid plays in college at all.

The NCAA needs to step back and look at the facts:
1) They have no right, ethical or legal, to force an adult to play college basketball if the adult prefers to pursue gainful employment instead (ie: play professional basketball)
2) They are entirely dependent on the NBA and other professional basketball organizations to agree to restrict their own hiring (when, frankly, it doesn't make much sense for employers to voluntarily limit their own hiring pool)
3) The NCAA frankly isn't offering much incentive for kids to stay in school.
4) The NCAA hasn't honestly defined whether they are an organization of eduational institutions with sports teams, or a developmental league for professional athletes.

Bottom line: if the NCAA wants to keep top level basketball players in school, they'd better start figuring out what incentives they can offer those kids. Educational stipends, free disability insurance to cushion the financial loss of an injury like Desean Butler suffered, freestanding scholarship for kids that want to complete their education at some later date, profit sharing, etc. How about NCAA provided career counselling and networking services for kids who don't make the league? NCAA provided counselling and representation services to educate and protect kids in dealing with agents? How about helping kids contact and interview with agents while they are still eligible college players, with the colleges and NCAA helping to counsel kids on how to interview, select, and deal with these agents? NCAA and college sponsored and administered interviews and camps with pro scouts and coaches to give kids a better idea about their potential as professional players and what they need to work on? Assistance in preparing to play overseas (foreign language courses, cultural education, etc).

Not sure what of the above the NCAA may already do, but my perception is that the NCAA doesn't do much anything except (1) try to coerce kids to play ball in college for free, (2) profit off that, and (3) miserably mismanage enforcing a US tax-code sized book of "rules" (strictness of enforcement entirely dependent on profitability of the program involved)...

I just don't buy into the "NCAA is totally using athletes" argument. First, the athletes get a free ride to 4 years of college if they want it. That's a $200K value or so for a kid going to Duke. I would gladly have taken it. Next, they can get a college degree. I've heard that averages to about a million dollars of higher expected earnings over a lifetime, which clearly would be higher for a Duke grad. They may also get into a school they would not academically be admitted to if they didn't happen to be exceptionally good at their sport. Money that football and basketball brings in subsidizes non-revenue sports that would not otherwise exist. The coaches make money, but they are not amateurs. The best could be making more money in the pros. As long as they graduate their athletes, I don't think they're using the kids. The best players get to develop their skills and marketability, get an education, and still play professionally. Others would not be able to play after high school otherwise anyway. Plus, there's no doubt that having played for a major univeristy is good for business networking. Is the Minor League baseball system better, where many play well into their 20s without making too much money and with no college education to fall back on?

kingboozer
04-29-2010, 01:09 PM
Well, not stay in school, but the NBA can have a rule about not drafting or signing a player until he's of a certain age or at least a certain period after his high school graduating class. That's what the current set-up is...for one year, but it could conceivably be changed by the NBA to say two years.

even if the NBA made a rule like that, what's stopping them from going overseas?

pfrduke
04-29-2010, 01:13 PM
One thing I've wondered about is why the NCAA doesn't just pay their players (other than the obvious "they don't want to")? It wouldn't have to be multi-million dollar contracts, just a modest pay-check (by sport standards). Then they could compete with the NBA for talent, and those that would think they were better of in the NCAA would stay until they were ready.

The NCAA (or more accurately, the member institutions) absolutely do compensate their players through scholarships - free tuition, free room and board, etc. (I admit I don't know the full extent of what a scholarship covers).

Moreover, the NCAA should not set itself up as a "competitor for talent" with the NBA, because that's not its role. And I can almost guarantee that very, very few, if any, of the early entrants currently think they are better off in the NCAA, or would reach that conclusion if they had a modest paycheck waiting for them if they returned to school.

pfrduke
04-29-2010, 01:20 PM
The NCAA is the best farm league for American players for the NCAA, but it is also supposed to be an educational organization. Let's at least maintain the charade (facade?). Yes, much money flows in because of the entertaining display of the athletes' basketball prowess, but that money funds other athletic programs. If the players feel exploited, go find another league.

Again, I don't see it as a facade of an educational organization just because a handful of kids every year play college basketball with no intention of getting an education.

Look at it this way - I imagine that most NCAA member institutions experience less than 98.5% graduation rates in their entire student body over a 4-year, or even 5-year, period. People drop out. People flunk out. People decide that college isn't really right for them yet. Plenty of people in college skip classes, focus more on drinking/partying than learning, etc. And yes, people in other endeavors besides athletics leave early to follow professional aspirations (music, acting, etc.). The legitimacy of a school's educational mission is not undermined by any of those people. I don't think it's undermined by basketball players who leave early, either.

airowe
04-29-2010, 01:24 PM
I favor the rule where a scholarship grant binds a school for three years. If the player leaves earlier, the scholarship still counts against the school's limit for the duration of the three years. Schools cannot terminate the scholarship for the three years. The school can be released from the scholarship if the player receives another scholarship through transfer. There could also be a "walk-on" scholarship year-to-year for players who have been enrolled in school for a year.


So, this rule would punish schools and coaches for getting their student-athletes ready for their career faster than their peers. I don't agree with ideology behind this rule at all. Why would you punish someone for being successful at their job?

jimsumner
04-29-2010, 01:29 PM
The current one-year rule is a by-product of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the NBA and the NBA Player's Association. It can only be amended or abolished in that context.

Professional baseball and professional basketball are apples and oranges. The former has a huge player-development infrastructure designed to take in numerous high school and college players every season and place them in a fiercely Darwinian system which promotes the worthy and weeds out the unworthy. Each Major League team controls more than a hundred professional players in the minor league system.

The NBA has nothing of the sort and no plans for one. Why create a multi-tiered farm system when the colleges already do it for you and it doesn't cost you a cent?

Making freshmen ineligible would send the John Walls and Michael Beasleys to Europe. It certainly wouldn't dissuade the NBA from drafting them nor would it encourage them to stay for a sophomore season.

Bringing back freshmen teams would only make sense if more scholarships were added and adding that level of expense in the current economic environment absolutely would never fly.

Jderf
04-29-2010, 01:34 PM
The NCAA (or more accurately, the member institutions) absolutely do compensate their players through scholarships - free tuition, free room and board, etc. (I admit I don't know the full extent of what a scholarship covers).

Moreover, the NCAA should not set itself up as a "competitor for talent" with the NBA, because that's not its role. And I can almost guarantee that very, very few, if any, of the early entrants currently think they are better off in the NCAA, or would reach that conclusion if they had a modest paycheck waiting for them if they returned to school.

Yes, they compensate them but not with what the players in question want (I'm not discounting for a second that there are a few thousand players who relish the chance to get their education through basketball, only that these one-and-dones are not as interested).

I would say that many of these players jump to the NBA early, not necessarily because they think they are in a fantastic position to do so, but because they worry about the risks that another year in college entails or are forced by their economic situation. (Look at Elliot Williams, who should be a late first-rounder, I think. I'm pretty sure I read that he's declaring so that he can support his family.)

Also, I was never saying the NCAA's "role" was to compete with the NBA for talent, just noting the obvious fact that it does do so, even if only incidentally.

Jderf
04-29-2010, 01:38 PM
Also, I wasn't saying that compensating the players monetarily would cause athletes to stay in college for an extra year to develop, only that it would be giving players more incentive to do so. It is, after all, their decision, and anybody who thought they were already an NBA-level talent would probably go anyway.

pfrduke
04-29-2010, 01:45 PM
Yes, they compensate them but not with what the players in question want (I'm not discounting for a second that there are a few thousand players who relish the chance to get their education through basketball, only that these one-and-dones are not as interested).

I would say that many of these players jump to the NBA early, not necessarily because they think they are in a fantastic position to do so, but because they worry about the risks that another year in college entails or are forced by their economic situation. (Look at Elliot Williams, who should be a late first-rounder, I think. I'm pretty sure I read that he's declaring so that he can support his family.)

Also, I was never saying the NCAA's "role" was to compete with the NBA for talent, just noting the obvious fact that it does do so, even if only incidentally.

Well, I'm not sure the NCAA should dictate its decisions based on what a few dozen basketball players may want in the form of compensation. Beyond that, though, a player who is leaving for NBA millions to support his family is unlikely to return for a "modest" paycheck at the NCAA level. I'm not even sure what "modest" would be, but to use an example of $10,000 above and beyond the scholarship, that modest paycheck is a collective $40 million annual expense to the NCAA member institutions (because, to be equitable, if Duke is allowed to pay its players $10k a year, then so must Elon, etc.).

JohnGalt
04-29-2010, 01:54 PM
So, this rule would punish schools and coaches for getting their student-athletes ready for their career faster than their peers. I don't agree with ideology behind this rule at all. Why would you punish someone for being successful at their job?

Exactly, Airowe. I mentioned this in an earlier post. Let's not kid ourselves -nearly all D1 (well, all divisions really) players would play professionally if they could. Not only that, a large segment of the coaches' job is to prepare these kids for their future career. So if you have two people that are both accomplishing their ultimate goals, you penalize them for it? It's illogical.

Jderf
04-29-2010, 01:58 PM
Well, I'm not sure the NCAA should dictate its decisions based on what a few dozen basketball players may want in the form of compensation. Beyond that, though, a player who is leaving for NBA millions to support his family is unlikely to return for a "modest" paycheck at the NCAA level. I'm not even sure what "modest" would be, but to use an example of $10,000 above and beyond the scholarship, that modest paycheck is a collective $40 million annual expense to the NCAA member institutions (because, to be equitable, if Duke is allowed to pay its players $10k a year, then so must Elon, etc.).

Well, with a shiny new 11 Billion dollar contract with CBS, you would think they'd find a way to afford it. And I was thinking the top players would probably be paid much better, depending on a host of factors, maybe even in the 100K-200K range. Of course, this doesn't really matter, since it's all pretty wild speculation on my part and if such an idea like this were ever pushed through (which I don't think it would be), there are thousands of different ways it could play out. I don't think it can be denied though that these kids often bring much more to their school than their school brings to them. I mean, some kids are perfectly happy with it and that's great for them and their teams and their fans. For the others, though, don't be surprised or upset if they keep opting for the draft.

SCMatt33
04-29-2010, 03:51 PM
Well, with a shiny new 11 Billion dollar contract with CBS, you would think they'd find a way to afford it. And I was thinking the top players would probably be paid much better, depending on a host of factors, maybe even in the 100K-200K range. Of course, this doesn't really matter, since it's all pretty wild speculation on my part and if such an idea like this were ever pushed through (which I don't think it would be), there are thousands of different ways it could play out. I don't think it can be denied though that these kids often bring much more to their school than their school brings to them. I mean, some kids are perfectly happy with it and that's great for them and their teams and their fans. For the others, though, don't be surprised or upset if they keep opting for the draft.

I kind of doubt that the new TV contract would directly contribute to players salaries, even in the scenario described. I'm pretty sure that if players were payed, this money would come from the schools (who do receive a large cut of the TV money) and not the NCAA. Teams pay players, not leagues.

As far as the overall landscape, I don't think that the NBA will ever allow high school players to go directly to the league again. The one-and-done rule has done a great job at preventing Kwame Brown type scenarios. Teams get to see players at a higher level and can evaluate them better. There is also a numbers argument. From 1971-1995, there were four high school players in the NBA draft total. From 1996-2003, there was an average of 3.5 high school players per draft, with a maximum of 6 in 2001. In 2004, there were 10 high school players in the draft, and 11 in 2005. It just got to the point where players who had no business entering the draft entered, and would get taken for their "potential." The only way to stop this was the one-and-done rule. If the rule wasn't collectively bargained, I'm pretty sure that there would already be a two-and-done rule on the books, but the players union won't allow it. The league will have too many other pressing issues to make this a high priority in the upcoming negotiations.

From the NCAA side, the easiest coarse of action is to simply lobby Stern about the importance of his league for a two-and-done rule (sorry everyone who wants the baseball thing, but it will never happen for all of the reason stated before, I won't repeat them). The three or four year scholarship thing will never happen because one year renewables are too valuable to the schools and allow them to cut scholarships for a myriad of reasons without things getting messy. For example, if a school wanted to kick someone off of a team for behavior reasons and the player had a 4-year scholly, there could end up being a messy legal battle to prove cause, or the school could end up paying out a buyout or settlement. With a renewable, the school can simply decide not to renew, end of story. This is too valuable of a chip to give up in an attempt to discourage one-and-dones.

kestrel
04-29-2010, 04:36 PM
It's clear that the simplest way to keep student-athletes students for longer is to get Stern and the Player's Association to fix the CBA, however unlikely though that may be. If that's not on the table, though, I feel like there should be some alternative available. I will freely admit that I have little to no knowledge of the wording on an athletic scholarship (my high school sport was Ultimate Frisbee), but is it theoretically possible that something could be written into the agreement that would make it prohibitively expensive for a student to sign a contract with the NBA for the first two years of enrollment? In that example, a student who wanted to go one-and-done could still do so, but would have to pay a penalty to the NCAA, who would then divvy up the proceeds in some palatable way. Something in the six-figure range would make freshmen think long and hard about their draft position and whether it's really worth the trouble. I imagine there are a number of problems with this scenario, but I'd like to think it's better than throwing up my hands and leaving it to David Stern.

SoCalDukeFan
04-29-2010, 05:00 PM
The name of the game that we are talking about is Men's College Basketball, it is not pre professional basketball. The NCAA makes a big deal out of advertising how many athletes go into fields other than pro sports. They also take great pains to refer to the players as student-athletes.

So if making frosh ineligible would drive the one and doners to Europe, that is fine with me. I would rather have them in Europe rather than playing "college" basketball and not going to class.

The one and doners almost always are going to the NBA because of their perceived talent, not because of the great coaching they got in that one year. If they could they would have gone right after high school. I don't see tieing scholarships to a player for 3 or 4 years as any kind of a penalty for excellent coaching, maybe for excellent recruiting.

Right now the system is great for the NBA. The scouts don't have to go into high school gyms. The players get built up for a year. The scouts can watch them play against college competition.

Paying (beyond the scholarship) is a slippery slope. Do you pay football players? golfers? women's basketball players?

I do think that the influence of the shoe companies, runners, and marketing firms may be a bigger problem than the one and dones.

SoCal

tallguy
04-29-2010, 05:43 PM
but is it theoretically possible that something could be written into the agreement that would make it prohibitively expensive for a student to sign a contract with the NBA for the first two years of enrollment?

No, there's not. For one thing, the scholarship is only guaranteed for 1 year, so there's no way any penalty clause could exist that punished a player for leaving school after one season. For another, why are people on this thread actively trying to figure out ways to screw over the student-athletes even more than they already are. They already get screwed as it is, why are you people advocating for more of it?

There's no solution to this problem...the John Wall's of the world shouldn't be forced to step foot on a college basketball court, but they are. The NCAA can whine and moan about it all they want, but they're getting a year's worth of free labor (it's basically free, considering how much they profit from the elite basketball players). This issue affects only an extreme minority of student-athletes, and it just seems self-serving to come on here and listen to people pontificate on how one and dones are ruining college basketball. They're not, and any further attempts to restrict them from using their talents to make money just comes off as mean spirited.

El_Diablo
04-29-2010, 06:03 PM
(when, frankly, it doesn't make much sense for employers to voluntarily limit their own hiring pool)

Maybe in the abstract it doesn't make much sense.

But take one look at Kwame Brown and then tell me again it doesn't make sense for the NBA to force people to audition for a year before committing millions of dollars to a 3-4 year contract.

It makes perfect sense if you're an NBA owner.

davekay1971
04-29-2010, 06:06 PM
I just don't buy into the "NCAA is totally using athletes" argument. First, the athletes get a free ride to 4 years of college if they want it. That's a $200K value or so for a kid going to Duke. I would gladly have taken it. Next, they can get a college degree. I've heard that averages to about a million dollars of higher expected earnings over a lifetime, which clearly would be higher for a Duke grad. They may also get into a school they would not academically be admitted to if they didn't happen to be exceptionally good at their sport. Money that football and basketball brings in subsidizes non-revenue sports that would not otherwise exist. The coaches make money, but they are not amateurs. The best could be making more money in the pros. As long as they graduate their athletes, I don't think they're using the kids. The best players get to develop their skills and marketability, get an education, and still play professionally. Others would not be able to play after high school otherwise anyway. Plus, there's no doubt that having played for a major univeristy is good for business networking. Is the Minor League baseball system better, where many play well into their 20s without making too much money and with no college education to fall back on?

Not my point at all that the NCAA is totally using athletes. The athletes are getting the compensation you noted above for their play, and, for most of us, it's a really good deal. I would love to have had my Duke education paid for in exchange for me playing on the team, wearing the uniform, getting the babes, etc...

My point is more practical. See, no one was offering me millions of dollars a year to go play basketball professionally as an option, but that's the option presented to the best 19 year old basketball players. Since the NCAA has no right whatsoever to prevent a 19 year old from taking that option, the NCAA has two choices: (1) let the athletes go seek their fortune in professional ball, or (2) improve the incentives for those athletes to keep playing college ball.

davekay1971
04-29-2010, 06:10 PM
Maybe in the abstract it doesn't make much sense.

But take one look at Kwame Brown and then tell me again it doesn't make sense for the NBA to force people to audition for a year before committing millions of dollars to a 3-4 year contract.

It makes perfect sense if you're an NBA owner.

No it doesn't. An NBA owner leery of committing a contract to an player who's never played above the high school level can choose to not draft said player.

Duvall
04-29-2010, 06:13 PM
No it doesn't. An NBA owner leery of committing a contract to an player who's never played above the high school level can choose to not draft said player.

Thus leaving the next great player to be drafted by another team. The one-and-done rule protects teams from having to gamble on whether their draft picks will turn out to be Kwame Brown or Kevin Durant.

No one saying that it's fair, just that it makes perfect sense for the NBA.

tallguy
04-29-2010, 06:35 PM
No it doesn't. An NBA owner leery of committing a contract to an player who's never played above the high school level can choose to not draft said player.

Exposing frauds isn't the only benefit. As it is, the NBA benefits greatly from the exposure the one and dones get- whichever team gets John Wall will sell more seats due to the publicity he got throughout the year than they would have if he was coming straight out of high school. Look at Derrick Rose and Durant- both had a considerably higher public image after one year in college than they did before they entered.

That reason was Stern's main driver for getting the one and done rule in place. It's also the main reason a 2 year requirement isn't likely- while it would increase exposure, the free marketing gain isn't nearly enough to to make it a bargaining issue compared to several other issues.

LSanders
04-29-2010, 07:09 PM
First, the rule has to come from the NBA ... Period. Nothing the NCAA does on its own will work for all the reasons stated previously.

Second, the MLB model seems far better than the NFL. I'm pretty sure I've heard K make the same argument. The NFL rule is supposedly written because 18-19 year old bodies aren't ready for NFL pounding. So, the jump to MLB is a better comparison with the NBA.

MLB says you're eligible it:

1) You graduated from high school and have not attended college or junior college.

2) Players from 4-year colleges must complete at least their junior year or be at least 21 to make the jump.

3) Junior college players can jump any time.

The junior college rule makes no sense to me, but rules one and two do. If you're good enough to jump from HS and care nothing about college - Jump! However, if you enter college, commit to college. Get educated. Have fun. Get better at your sport. THEN ... Jump!

The NBA could easily do the same thing. The Kobes and Lebrons could jump away if they want to go straight for the cash. However, "student" athletes must actually put some effort into the student part.

MLB doesn't care which avenue a kid chooses and welcomes the cream from both crops. But, if you choose school, and the school in question invests money in you, you should fulfill your part of the bargain ... at least for awhile.

IMHO ... This is the only model that makes sense.

4decadedukie
05-01-2010, 03:30 PM
it's an interesting standpoint, but frankly I'm not sure if there's anything he can do about it. Even if he makes a rule that if you come to school you have to stay two or three years, there's no recourse if a player says screw it and goes to the league anyway. You can't contractually obligate someone to stay in school.

While I agree the NCAA cannot penalize the "one and done" player, they could -- and I believe they should -- impose sanctions on programs that have them (or perhaps have an inordinate number, thereby de facto documenting recruiting practices that are NOT focused on true student-athletes). Some of this has already been mentioned in this thread, however the NCAA could (I believe, should) mandate that:
1) For every one-and-done (up to two), a one-year scholarship is eliminated for the next incoming class (this would preclude any loss of scholarship for an already-matriculated student-athlete).
2) For more three or more one-and done players, a one-year suspension from post-season tournaments is added to the scholarship revocation.

Were sanctions of this magnitude imposed, many coaches and administrators -- at the behest of alumni, fans and boosters -- would certainly adopt an entirely new approach to recruiting, one that concentrates at least as much on character and scholarship as on athleticism.

The NCAA has the power to reverse intercollegiate hoops often dismal culture, and it constantly extols the "student-athlete" ideal. If they are not hypocrites, the organization will develop some truly effective policies. Failure to do so certifies that their platitudes are public relations hype only.

Jderf
05-01-2010, 04:01 PM
My point is more practical. See, no one was offering me millions of dollars a year to go play basketball professionally as an option, but that's the option presented to the best 19 year old basketball players. Since the NCAA has no right whatsoever to prevent a 19 year old from taking that option, the NCAA has two choices: (1) let the athletes go seek their fortune in professional ball, or (2) improve the incentives for those athletes to keep playing college ball.

Number (2) here is what I was trying to get at before. The NCAA can NOT force players to stay on campus for any extra period of time - ethically speaking, legally speaking, or sensibly speaking - nor should they. If the NCAA fears that the college scene has become a little too turbulent and unstable due to the NBA's introduction of the one-and-done rule, then the only way they can get college athletes to stay for more years is through davekay's suggestion.

How exactly one would go about that? I have no idea.

JohnGalt
05-01-2010, 04:14 PM
While I agree the NCAA cannot penalize the "one and done" player, they could -- and I believe they should -- impose sanctions on programs that have them (or perhaps have an inordinate number, thereby de facto documenting recruiting practices that are NOT focused on true student-athletes). Some of this has already been mentioned in this thread, however the NCAA could (I believe, should) mandate that:
1) For every one-and-done (up to two), a one-year scholarship is eliminated for the next incoming class (this would preclude any loss of scholarship for an already-matriculated student-athlete).
2) For more three or more one-and done players, a one-year suspension from post-season tournaments is added to the scholarship revocation.

Were sanctions of this magnitude imposed, many coaches and administrators -- at the behest of alumni, fans and boosters -- would certainly adopt an entirely new approach to recruiting, one that concentrates at least as much on character and scholarship as on athleticism.

The NCAA has the power to reverse intercollegiate hoops often dismal culture, and it constantly extols the "student-athlete" ideal. If they are not hypocrites, the organization will develop some truly effective policies. Failure to do so certifies that their platitudes are public relations hype only.

This is a great idea. Why stop there though? Let's just let the NCAA decide which players go to which colleges. That's the fairest idea, right?

Duvall
05-01-2010, 04:18 PM
Were sanctions of this magnitude imposed, many coaches and administrators -- at the behest of alumni, fans and boosters -- would certainly adopt an entirely new approach to recruiting, one that concentrates at least as much on character and scholarship as on athleticism.

Stop.

Is there any way to put an end to the tiresome belief that a player wanting to sign a multi-million dollar contract for his services is some kind of character flaw?

4decadedukie
05-01-2010, 05:08 PM
Stop.

Is there any way to put an end to the tiresome belief that a player wanting to sign a multi-million dollar contract for his services is some kind of character flaw?

Above all else, he is a STUDENT-ATHLETE, not a "pro-in-waiting;" if he fulfills all academic and community/character requirements, he -- like every other NCAA competitor, in all Divisions, and in all sports -- is a revered element of the collegiate community. If not, he should go to a for-pay athletic environment, such as the NBA's Development League. Incidentally, it is NOT a character flaw on the kid's part -- he is free to pursue his goals as he wishes -- however, it is a governance deficiency on part of the academic institution, at several managerial levels.

Would your pride in Duke University be reduced if our Men's Basketball program operated with standards similar to Calipari and Kentucky? Mine certainly would.

4decadedukie
05-01-2010, 05:39 PM
This is a great idea. Why stop there though? Let's just let the NCAA decide which players go to which colleges. That's the fairest idea, right?

Okay, Gault, you've convinced me. Let us completely the transition of Men's Division I Basketball to a "Roman Circus." Why not do away with any academic performance standards and with all scholastic entry requirements? Further, shouldn't we be entirely unconcerned with integrity or character? What the hell, if a great shooter, defender and rebounder has a few felony convictions, why should we, the academic institution, or the NCAA care as long as he is a catalyst to victories?

Yep, Marcus and Michael Vick -- undoubtedly stellar athletes -- are precisely sort of individuals in whom Virgina Tech -- and its leaders, alumni, faculty, fans, boosters, etc. -- should take great pride.

I give generously to Duke in several areas, including the Iron Dukes and endowing non-athletic scholarships. I would rather eliminate major, revenue sports than succumb to thuggishness, to laughable academic standards, and to willfully ignoring character, behavioral and criminal flaws. Moreover, I would rather see Duke annually finish in the middle of the ACC, than to see our team consist of individuals in whom we cannot have great pride -- and, especially, in the arenas that count the most in life's long journey: integrity, character, intellect, teamwork, leadership, selflessness, performance, decency, community service, and so on.

Jderf
05-01-2010, 06:26 PM
Above all else, he is a STUDENT-ATHLETE, not a "pro-in-waiting;" if he fulfills all academic and community/character requirements, he -- like every other NCAA competitor, in all Divisions, and in all sports -- is a revered element of the collegiate community. If not, he should go to a for-pay athletic environment, such as the NBA's Development League. Incidentally, it is NOT a character flaw on the kid's part -- he is free to pursue his goals as he wishes -- however, it is a governance deficiency on part of the academic institution, at several managerial levels.

He is a student-athlete on paper. For all intents and purposes, however, the basketball players in question are athlete-students. Let's be honest, these kids are recruited for the talent, not their academics. The reason they come to college, obviously, is because it provides better opportunities for development and a more reliable path to the league than the Development League. Kid needs school, school needs kid. They are operating within the rules and everyone is capable of making decisions for themselves, you cannot punish them (either the athlete or the university) for doing so.

If the athlete attends to his academics while at the university, he's fulfilled his obligation as a student-athlete anyway. So what if he leaves early? Then he simply stops being a student-athlete. Just as universities are not bound to their players by four year scholarships, players are not bound to their university beyond each year.

4decadedukie
05-01-2010, 11:46 PM
He is a student-athlete on paper. For all intents and purposes, however, the basketball players in question are athlete-students . . . So what if he leaves early?

Of course, I understand what all you fellows (Jderf, Galt, Duvall and many others) are saying; you are correct that current Men's Division I Basketball is largely ATHLETE-student, not STUDENT-athlete at many universities (even including some that otherwise have decent reputations). However, that's the problem, that's what I protest.

The reason I do so is the probable, adverse, and LONG-TERM implications for the youngster. I have repeatedly written about this on DBR at length, so I shall be concise. We have all seen the documentary Hoop Dreams. When a kid is convinced by a self-interested college coach (aided and abetted by others adults) not to take his undergraduate education seriously -- an education many could not otherwise afford, and an education many are not academically prepared to pursue -- he is likely to compromise severely his entire future.

Very few Division I basketball players (even those who are zealously recruited by name-coaches, including the Caliparis and the Tarkanians) will ever have lengthy, successful, or financially rewarding (one that ensure they never again will have to consider money) careers in the NBA. However, many young men are attracted to this path and forgo the opportunities (educational, intellectual, and in personal/character development) that could result in lifelong satisfactions, contributions, achievements, and fulfillment through careers that require higher education (teachers, accountants, engineers, medical professionals, managers, attorneys, you name it). They throw this splendid opportunity away -- and they suffer major, lifelong consequences -- because they opt to be ATHLETE-students. The adults who are complicate in their decision to do so are at best ignorant, at worst exploitative.

Some will suggest that these recruits are "adults" with freewill; therefore, it is perfectly fine for college coaches (and others) to "take advantage" of them -- after all, it is a bilateral transaction with both the university and the recruit providing and receiving tangible benefits. I don't see it that way, for two reasons: (1) they are barely adults, and their judgment, life-experiences, and understandings are less than ideal and (2) these coaches are supposed to be EDUCATORS and LEADERS (and leaders should ALWAYS be most-concerned with their subordinates' well-being, not with their own selfish attainments).

All of this returns me to the NCAA, its continuous self-lauding re "student-athletes" and hypocrisy. Regulations are possible (see my post #41) that could largely resolve this tragedy, and without causing any loss in fan enjoyment of the sport or in revenues. When the NCAA decides not to require such measures, it too becomes complicate in this exploitation.

SCMatt33
05-02-2010, 01:52 AM
While I agree the NCAA cannot penalize the "one and done" player, they could -- and I believe they should -- impose sanctions on programs that have them (or perhaps have an inordinate number, thereby de facto documenting recruiting practices that are NOT focused on true student-athletes). Some of this has already been mentioned in this thread, however the NCAA could (I believe, should) mandate that:
1) For every one-and-done (up to two), a one-year scholarship is eliminated for the next incoming class (this would preclude any loss of scholarship for an already-matriculated student-athlete).
2) For more three or more one-and done players, a one-year suspension from post-season tournaments is added to the scholarship revocation.

I have a couple of issues with imposing this type of rule. The first is logistical and the second is practical. Logistically, the NCAA could not impose a loss of scholarship until after a player either hires an agent or allows the NCAA withdrawal date to pass. The late signing period begins almost two weeks before the deadline for players to announce their entry in the draft making it possible for a coach to sign his replacement in advance of the player entering the draft, thus the penalty could force a school to strip a scholarship from a signed, but not yet matriculated player. The practical problem is that most teams rarely use all 13 scholarships in a single season. IIRC, the extra scholarships are often given to walk-on players for the year. So stripping a scholarship would effectively punish the walk-on who has done nothing wrong because of something his teammate did.

Another problem comes with the nature of one-and-done players. As I've mentioned in another thread, there are more than one type of one-and-done player. The one that you mean to punish is the John Wall/DeMarcus Cousins type. These guys are one-and-done players long before they step on campus, or even before they choose a school. The coach and team recruiting them knows what their getting, this is what most frown upon. The second type is the Eric Bledsoe type. Bledsoe was ranked #52 (based on the RSCI) in his class and only rivals had him as a 5-star player (and a borderline one at that). He was not projected to be in the 2010 draft and I'd bet that just about everyone, including Cal and maybe even Bledsoe himself, thought that he wouldn't be a one-and-done. His play during the season, however, changed his stock dramatically and thrust him into a position to leave. The third is the Daniel Orton type. He never really did much at the college level but because he has NBA potential, he has a chance to make his money and takes it. The fourth type is the Tommy Mason-Griffin type. He doesn't have the same NBA interest as the others, but he is in a bad situation at his school. He's really not interested in the whole college thing anyway so he turns pro rather than transfers. In only the first situation did a school knowingly recruit and sign a player who would leave to become a professional immediately. There is no way for the NCAA to legitimately distinguish between these guys, and would therefore punish them the same. Do you think that Duke should lose a scholarship if another Luol Deng comes around? Do you think that Kentucky deserves a postseason ban next year because Daniel Orton has an NBA sized body and Eric Bledsoe was better than expected?

When a kid is convinced by a self-interested college coach (aided and abetted by others adults) not to take his undergraduate education seriously -- an education many could not otherwise afford, and an education many are not academically prepared to pursue -- he is likely to compromise severely his entire future.

Very few Division I basketball players (even those who are zealously recruited by name-coaches, including the Caliparis and the Tarkanians) will ever have lengthy, successful, or financially rewarding (one that ensure they never again will have to consider money) careers in the NBA. However, many young men are attracted to this path and forgo the opportunities (educational, intellectual, and in personal/character development) that could result in lifelong satisfactions, contributions, achievements, and fulfillment through careers that require higher education (teachers, accountants, engineers, medical professionals, managers, attorneys, you name it). They throw this splendid opportunity away -- and they suffer major, lifelong consequences -- because they opt to be ATHLETE-students. The adults who are complicate in their decision to do so are at best ignorant, at worst exploitative.

I think you're making a faulty unstated assumption here that everyone if given the chance in a vacuum would or should take full advantage of an opportunity to get a full college education. Not everyone in the world is cut out for college and an academic environment. This has nothing to do with socioeconomic status, but rather the person's capabilities and attitudes towards college. I have several friends and family members, all of whom grew up in a middle or upper-middle class environment who either didn't go to college or didn't finish college for many different reasons, none of which were that they didn't have the opportunity to go. In many instances, these athletes will only go to college because they want to continue to participate in athletics. They may not have serious academic goals or intentions no matter what a coach may say. Many of these players in a vacuum, may not have accepted a college scholarship in the first place if sports were removed from the equation and made a separate issue. People may thrive in life in other areas besides academics and that's ok. A college athlete is not limited to NBA career, fall back on what he did academically, or fail. There is a wide range in between. For the more talented players, there are ways besides the NBA to make a living from sports (not all of which are playing). For the less talented, there are many paths in life that don't require a college degree and be just as fulfilling. Are there players who may have thrived in a college environment, but didn't because they were coaxed into not doing so, possibly. But you can't assume that all or even most players who don't graduate fall into this category.

JG Nothing
05-02-2010, 02:01 AM
Stop.

Is there any way to put an end to the tiresome belief that a player wanting to sign a multi-million dollar contract for his services is some kind of character flaw?

The easiest way to put an end to that "tiresome belief" is to quit putting words into people's mouths. No one said wanting to sign a multi-million dollar contract is a character flaw. Having no interest in an education is a character flaw, however, for college students. A player who does not want an education is more likely to declare for the draft even if he is not ready. Coaches should not be allowed to turn their programs into de facto training programs for the NBA.

JohnGalt
05-02-2010, 06:31 AM
Above all else, he is a STUDENT-ATHLETE, not a "pro-in-waiting;" if he fulfills all academic and community/character requirements, he -- like every other NCAA competitor, in all Divisions, and in all sports -- is a revered element of the collegiate community. If not, he should go to a for-pay athletic environment, such as the NBA's Development League. Incidentally, it is NOT a character flaw on the kid's part -- he is free to pursue his goals as he wishes -- however, it is a governance deficiency on part of the academic institution, at several managerial levels.

Would your pride in Duke University be reduced if our Men's Basketball program operated with standards similar to Calipari and Kentucky? Mine certainly would.

The part I emboldened is the crux of our disagreement. Who are you or me or anyone not directly involved with the University's operation to demand change? If the University of Kentucky so wishes to dilute its Academic Reputation by filing in players that you assume have zero interest in academics, it's their prerogative to do so. If you don't like it, move to the Bluegrass State and organize a sit-in. Or, if you're already there, move.

As for the last part...Fortunately for us (as Duke fans), Trinity seems committed to maintaining the reputation it enjoys around the country/world today. So for the foreseeable future, I'm not concerned.


Okay, Gault, you've convinced me. Let us completely the transition of Men's Division I Basketball to a "Roman Circus." Why not do away with any academic performance standards and with all scholastic entry requirements? Further, shouldn't we be entirely unconcerned with integrity or character? What the hell, if a great shooter, defender and rebounder has a few felony convictions, why should we, the academic institution, or the NCAA care as long as he is a catalyst to victories?

Yep, Marcus and Michael Vick -- undoubtedly stellar athletes -- are precisely sort of individuals in whom Virgina Tech -- and its leaders, alumni, faculty, fans, boosters, etc. -- should take great pride.

I give generously to Duke in several areas, including the Iron Dukes and endowing non-athletic scholarships. I would rather eliminate major, revenue sports than succumb to thuggishness, to laughable academic standards, and to willfully ignoring character, behavioral and criminal flaws. Moreover, I would rather see Duke annually finish in the middle of the ACC, than to see our team consist of individuals in whom we cannot have great pride -- and, especially, in the arenas that count the most in life's long journey: integrity, character, intellect, teamwork, leadership, selflessness, performance, decency, community service, and so on.

Did you hum the national anthem when writing this post? Or the Alma Mater? Both at the same time?

Again, I'm not sure how you can say that a young man following the most advantageous path toward achieving his goal of playing professionally is a character flaw. The athlete can't be blamed for the path laid before him. If a college is willing to accept him into their program and that program provides him the best chance of a career, how can you say he's a flawed human? Further, if the athlete attends the minimum amount of classes required and attains the the minimum GPA, while maintaining a clear criminal record, how is it fair to not label him a student-athlete? I know plenty of people that struggled in college, flunked out, and are doing something else now. I assume you would label them flawed humans, as well?


He is a student-athlete on paper. For all intents and purposes, however, the basketball players in question are athlete-students. Let's be honest, these kids are recruited for the talent, not their academics. The reason they come to college, obviously, is because it provides better opportunities for development and a more reliable path to the league than the Development League. Kid needs school, school needs kid. They are operating within the rules and everyone is capable of making decisions for themselves, you cannot punish them (either the athlete or the university) for doing so.

If the athlete attends to his academics while at the university, he's fulfilled his obligation as a student-athlete anyway. So what if he leaves early? Then he simply stops being a student-athlete. Just as universities are not bound to their players by four year scholarships, players are not bound to their university beyond each year.

I agree with the majority of this. I still think if he's in good standing academically with the university he should be called a "student athlete" regardless of what his intentions are. You can't judge on intentions or you start down an uber-slippery slope.



Of course, I understand what all you fellows (Jderf, Galt, Duvall and many others) are saying; you are correct that current Men's Division I Basketball is largely ATHLETE-student, not STUDENT-athlete at many universities (even including some that otherwise have decent reputations). However, that's the problem, that's what I protest.

The reason I do so is the probable, adverse, and LONG-TERM implications for the youngster. I have repeatedly written about this on DBR at length, so I shall be concise. We have all seen the documentary Hoop Dreams. When a kid is convinced by a self-interested college coach (aided and abetted by others adults) not to take his undergraduate education seriously -- an education many could not otherwise afford, and an education many are not academically prepared to pursue -- he is likely to compromise severely his entire future.

Very few Division I basketball players (even those who are zealously recruited by name-coaches, including the Caliparis and the Tarkanians) will ever have lengthy, successful, or financially rewarding (one that ensure they never again will have to consider money) careers in the NBA. However, many young men are attracted to this path and forgo the opportunities (educational, intellectual, and in personal/character development) that could result in lifelong satisfactions, contributions, achievements, and fulfillment through careers that require higher education (teachers, accountants, engineers, medical professionals, managers, attorneys, you name it). They throw this splendid opportunity away -- and they suffer major, lifelong consequences -- because they opt to be ATHLETE-students. The adults who are complicate in their decision to do so are at best ignorant, at worst exploitative.

Some will suggest that these recruits are "adults" with freewill; therefore, it is perfectly fine for college coaches (and others) to "take advantage" of them -- after all, it is a bilateral transaction with both the university and the recruit providing and receiving tangible benefits. I don't see it that way, for two reasons: (1) they are barely adults, and their judgment, life-experiences, and understandings are less than ideal and (2) these coaches are supposed to be EDUCATORS and LEADERS (and leaders should ALWAYS be most-concerned with their subordinates' well-being, not with their own selfish attainments).

All of this returns me to the NCAA, its continuous self-lauding re "student-athletes" and hypocrisy. Regulations are possible (see my post #41) that could largely resolve this tragedy, and without causing any loss in fan enjoyment of the sport or in revenues. When the NCAA decides not to require such measures, it too becomes complicate in this exploitation.

So every person who hasn't completed some level of higher education is incapable of making important lifelong decisions? And it's the duty of the NCAA to gobble up as many they can, whether fit or unfit, process them in the system, and send them on their merry way?

You make it seem as though earning salaries playing in the NBA is immoral. That, because they were given superior athletic (uh oh, that word) abilities and chose the best course in which to hone and project them, that they are at fault for this? That they are at fault for choosing what has proven to be the most direct way to get into the NBA? It seems that no one should be allowed a wealthy life unless they have framed pieces of paper indicating they had put in time and effort in a certain, specified manner (and only intellectually speaking). It seems if someone puts in a tremendous amount of time and effort in practicing and honing specific athletic abilities, training their bodies for the physical exertion, and rehabbing relentlessly following injuries, that somehow they aren't entitled to the same ends it gets them.


The easiest way to put an end to that "tiresome belief" is to quit putting words into people's mouths. No one said wanting to sign a multi-million dollar contract is a character flaw. Having no interest in an education is a character flaw, however, for college students. A player who does not want an education is more likely to declare for the draft even if he is not ready. Coaches should not be allowed to turn their programs into de facto training programs for the NBA.

Hmm, so by this chain of logic Bill Gates is the very embodiment of one who's character is flawed. That charlatan dropped out of Harvard just to start Microsoft. You know, there ought to be a Rule that everyone in the country has to go to college even if he or she is unfit to do so. Not only that, everyone should be made to take the same classes so everyone gets a fair shake. That way, those smart people who were unfairly given more brains than the rest can't take advantage over everyone else.

4decadedukie
05-02-2010, 07:37 AM
I think you're making a faulty unstated assumption here that everyone if given the chance in a vacuum would or should take full advantage of an opportunity to get a full college education.

I wholeheartedly agree (I have ALWAYS believed this) and I respect those who opt for a non-college path. However, they simply shouldn't enroll, thereby precluding an individual with a different (not necessarily a better) attitude toward higher education from capitalizing on the full-range of collegiate opportunities. Class sizes are limited, it's a "zero sum" game, so why squander a precious admission on anyone who truly doesn't want it and who will not gain much from it?

4decadedukie
05-02-2010, 08:37 AM
Who are you or me or anyone not directly involved with the University's operation to demand change? If the University of Kentucky so wishes to dilute its Academic Reputation by filing in players that you assume have zero interest in academics, it's their prerogative to do so.

When a major (albeit, not an excellent) university makes the decisions UK recently has, (IMO) it diminishes the aggregate reputations of higher education and intercollegiate athletics. I have strong stake-holdings in both (time, leadership, funding) and, therefore, I have the right to express opinions that suggest change is desirable. FAR MORE IMPORTANT, however, I believe we all have a stewardship responsibility to care for succeeding generations. When a kid (with limited experiences, formal education and judgment) and is lured into a lifelong vocational path that has a very low probability of full and successful execution by self-serving adults (and in selecting that course, he forecloses other, much more realistic opportunities), that (IMO) is simply wrong because it exploits the young person.


Did you hum the national anthem when writing this post? Or the Alma Mater? Both at the same time?

Both; and though you ridicule this, the values of national service (two decades plus as a Naval officer) and of Duke University (over fifteen years on senior volunteer leadership Boards, Executive Committees, and Councils) mean a great deal to me. I believe they will long endure and serve us well.


How can you say he's a flawed human?

While others have used the word "flawed," I never -- not even once -- suggested a character flaw. My concern is for that kid and my criticism is aimed at the adults (coaches, AAU officials, NCAA leadership, university decision makers, and so forth) who potentially exploit him by driving him toward a suboptimal career choice. Further, I respectfully suggest you re-read JGNothing's post (#50) re "character flaws," which I believe is entirely correct.


So every person who hasn't completed some level of higher education is incapable of making important lifelong decisions?

Once again, you state and intimate things I never even imagined, no less suggested in this DBR forum. With this said, however, my position is that kids in their teens are frequently vulnerable, due to their immaturity, their lack of experiences, their incomplete formal education, and sometimes their childlike judgment; please note, this applies just as much to the youngster who (for example) is convinced he or she has found the “love of their life” at sixteen or seventeen, as to the gifted hoopster (there are countless additional illustrations). Therefore, teenagers (and even some in their early-twenties) are more-easily preyed upon by individuals (such as unscrupulous coaches) who may place their own selfish interests -- not the young athlete's -- as the foremost priority.

This concludes my participation in this thread.

SCMatt33
05-02-2010, 01:05 PM
I wholeheartedly agree (I have ALWAYS believed this) and I respect those who opt for a non-college path. However, they simply shouldn't enroll, thereby precluding an individual with a different (not necessarily a better) attitude toward higher education from capitalizing on the full-range of collegiate opportunities. Class sizes are limited, it's a "zero sum" game, so why squander a precious admission on anyone who truly doesn't want it and who will not gain much from it?

While colleges limit the number of applicants accepted in an attempt to have the correct class size matriculate, there is no set number of students who can enter a particular incoming class. They will not stop someone who is accepted from matriculating on the last day just because a certain number already have. There is wiggle room for 13 people either way (the size of a basketball team). Furthermore, most of these guys who are clearly one-and-done and have no interest in college other than to get ready for the NBA sign during the late period which happens after the rest of the world gets acceptance letters. There is generally not a "spot" taken away by a Lance Stephenson type, which I'm assuming is the type of player you're criticizing more than an Eric Bledsoe type.

Duvall
05-02-2010, 04:30 PM
The easiest way to put an end to that "tiresome belief" is to quit putting words into people's mouths. No one said wanting to sign a multi-million dollar contract is a character flaw. Having no interest in an education is a character flaw, however, for college students.

Meanwhile, in this thread we were discussing players that choose to leave for the NBA, not player that have show no interest in education. No one has objected to the idea of sanctioning players that fail to attend or pass their classes, nor the idea of sanctioning programs whose players fail to do so. But that does not change the fact that opting to leave school for the NBA does not show that a player has no interest in an education, only that he has chosen to accept a golden opportunity offered to him.

JohnGalt
05-03-2010, 03:39 AM
This concludes my participation in this thread.
I'm not sure I understand this attitude in a forum that spurs the sort of debate as DBR does. I think your posts are very reasonable opinions on the subject; I just simply disagree. But if you feel you've said your piece, so be it.


When a major (albeit, not an excellent) university makes the decisions UK recently has, (IMO) it diminishes the aggregate reputations of higher education and intercollegiate athletics. I have strong stake-holdings in both (time, leadership, funding) and, therefore, I have the right to express opinions that suggest change is desirable.

You absolutely have the right to express your opinion. It seems to me though that over the last umpteen years the "aggregate reputation of higher education [Undergrad]" has diminished, regardless of the athletes who have moved in and out without graduating. Undergrad degrees just don't carry the same weight as yesteryear, which I'd argue is way more a function of the Average Joe, rather than the Star Athlete. More people going to college has translated to this diminished reputation. I'm not sure the 0.01% of college students that are the 1andDoners even approaches the culpability that the masses hold, which, I might add, is a good thing. Certainly the 1andDoners make headlines meaning their net effect in comparison to the overall college population should be weighed more heavily, but I think it's still negligible.


FAR MORE IMPORTANT, however, I believe we all have a stewardship responsibility to care for succeeding generations. When a kid (with limited experiences, formal education and judgment) and is lured into a lifelong vocational path that has a very low probability of full and successful execution by self-serving adults (and in selecting that course, he forecloses other, much more realistic opportunities), that (IMO) is simply wrong because it exploits the young person.


I wholeheartedly agree (I have ALWAYS believed this) and I respect those who opt for a non-college path.

I feel as though these two statements are contradictory. If a kid wants to use 1, 2, or 3 years of college as a stepping stone in order to get into the NBA and he can find a program that will facilitate that, more power to him. I'm not sure denying him this opportunity, forcing him to finish school and continue on into a job other than playing professionally is having his best interest at heart. Many people struggle following playing careers. However, many also succeed.


Both; and though you ridicule this, the values of national service (two decades plus as a Naval officer) and of Duke University (over fifteen years on senior volunteer leadership Boards, Executive Committees, and Councils) mean a great deal to me. I believe they will long endure and serve us well.

Careful. I'm a Naval Officer as well and a graduate of Kings Point. I thought your post was a little over the top so I poked fun at it. The fruits of my decision to attend KP are well known to me.


While others have used the word "flawed," I never -- not even once -- suggested a character flaw. My concern is for that kid and my criticism is aimed at the adults (coaches, AAU officials, NCAA leadership, university decision makers, and so forth) who potentially exploit him by driving him toward a suboptimal career choice. Further, I respectfully suggest you re-read JGNothing's post (#50) re "character flaws," which I believe is entirely correct.


No one said wanting to sign a multi-million dollar contract is a character flaw. Having no interest in an education is a character flaw, however, for college students.

You may not have explicitly said it, but if you agree with JG's post, you certainly agree with it. Again, I'm not sure how you can place the 'flawed character' label on a kid who wants to play in the NBA and as a result chooses the best path possible in achieving that goal. If he's in good academic standing while at the school (GPA, attendance, et al), he's certainly a student-athlete in my book, as he is in the NCAA's.


While colleges limit the number of applicants accepted in an attempt to have the correct class size matriculate, there is no set number of students who can enter a particular incoming class. They will not stop someone who is accepted from matriculating on the last day just because a certain number already have. There is wiggle room for 13 people either way (the size of a basketball team). Furthermore, most of these guys who are clearly one-and-done and have no interest in college other than to get ready for the NBA sign during the late period which happens after the rest of the world gets acceptance letters. There is generally not a "spot" taken away by a Lance Stephenson type, which I'm assuming is the type of player you're criticizing more than an Eric Bledsoe type.

This is very nicely put. Thanks, SCMatt.


Meanwhile, in this thread we were discussing players that choose to leave for the NBA, not player that have show no interest in education. No one has objected to the idea of sanctioning players that fail to attend or pass their classes, nor the idea of sanctioning programs whose players fail to do so. But that does not change the fact that opting to leave school for the NBA does not show that a player has no interest in an education, only that he has chosen to accept a golden opportunity offered to him.

This is it. No one is questioning whether the kids should have to be in good academic standing while in school. No one. If they aren't performing in the classroom, they shouldn't be allowed to perform on the court. But if he decides to leave in order to play Professionally, you'd deny him this opportunity, instead mandating he finish his degree?

You bring up a very good point about the alarmingly high percentage of professional athletes that find themselves in terrible financial situations following retirement. It's scary and I agree it is in dire need of attention. However - where we disagree - is the way in which to tackle the situation. The kids (adults at that point, I guess) get used to living exorbitant lifestyles while playing in the league simply because of the salaries. If the salaries were to be reduced, the lifestyles and resultant problems associated with them would be reduced as well. In Australia, the NRL's Cap is set around 4 million Aussies per team of 25 players. The minimum salary is 50K and the maximum salary is 500K. As long as the Player's Union has a stranglehold on the NBA though, I have a hard time believing much will change. They go on and on about their defending of the 'player's interests' - among various other things - even though it's painfully clear that they're just more of the leeches you mentioned in a previous post. Either way, it's all about the NBA. Real change needs to come from the top. It's out of the NCAA's jurisdiction.


Biggie said it all....Mo' Money, Mo' Problems...