PDA

View Full Version : What's wrong with college basketball



DukeBlueNV
07-22-2010, 03:01 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/story?columnist=oneil_dana&id=5398415

gread article with 20 college coaches speaking (with anonymity) about the state of college basketball recruiting.

Jderf
07-22-2010, 03:33 PM
Interesting read. The way I see it, the problem has to do with incentives. And the incentives go in two directions that foster a cheating atmosphere. First, you have a strong incentive for programs to cheat. Since it's illegal to pay the players anything at all, there is an immediate advantage for those who are willing to circumvent the rules. Second, there is a disincentive for people to expose or "rat out" people who are cheating at other programs, even if they know for certain that it is happening and don't approve, because they will be ostracized. So in addition to providing a huge advantage to those who are willing to break the rules, there is little chance that anyone will get caught because there is no advantage gained from exposing others (a disadvantage, in fact).

I wonder what would happen if the NCAA somehow found a way to incentivize exposing other cheaters. What if (and I realize this is extremely outlandish) the NCAA offered substantial cash bonuses to programs who correctly pointed out cheating where it was occurring. If all the programs acted as watchdogs for each other, maybe cheating would become far too difficult (since all these different illegal activities are happening in very close proximity). Doesn't really make sense, but it seems like one possible approach.

SMO
07-22-2010, 03:54 PM
So why, then, do most people think college basketball is like the Wild Wild West, full of outlaws and renegades?

Backstabbing.

"Here's what I think happens a lot -- a team loses a kid to someone else and all of a sudden that someone else is cheating. Every time North Carolina loses a kid, someone else is cheating. It's like there's so much arrogance with them; they can't believe someone would rather go somewhere else, so the other team has to be cheating.''

So it's not just us Duke fans, eh? What do you want to bet Izzo said this?

Duvall
07-22-2010, 04:05 PM
So why, then, do most people think college basketball is like the Wild Wild West, full of outlaws and renegades?

Backstabbing.

"Here's what I think happens a lot -- a team loses a kid to someone else and all of a sudden that someone else is cheating. Every time North Carolina loses a kid, someone else is cheating. It's like there's so much arrogance with them; they can't believe someone would rather go somewhere else, so the other team has to be cheating.''

So it's not just us Duke fans, eh? What do you want to bet Izzo said this?

I would be very surprised if it weren't Billy Donovan.

DevilHorns
07-22-2010, 04:54 PM
So why, then, do most people think college basketball is like the Wild Wild West, full of outlaws and renegades?

Backstabbing.

"Here's what I think happens a lot -- a team loses a kid to someone else and all of a sudden that someone else is cheating. Every time North Carolina loses a kid, someone else is cheating. It's like there's so much arrogance with them; they can't believe someone would rather go somewhere else, so the other team has to be cheating.''

So it's not just us Duke fans, eh? What do you want to bet Izzo said this?

Izzo popped into my head too.

Anyone figure out who this is from:

"I told a kid recently, 'If you say NBA one more time I'm walking out the door,''' a coach said. "If you're good enough, you'll leave after one year or two years or three years. I'm here to talk to you about coming to college and playing for me. I had six kids leave early. The ones who were all-in went [top 10]; the ones who had one foot out the door went late.''

Tim1515
07-22-2010, 05:18 PM
The UNC comment is interesting but how about this...

"One of my players [who left early for the draft] was working out with another top-five draft pick,'' a coach said. "They got to talking and my kid said something about not having money or whatever on campus. The other kid said, 'My coach set up expense accounts all over town for me. Yours didn't?'''

Top 5 this year...Wall, Turner, Favors, Cousins, Johnson

Just saying

SilkyJ
07-22-2010, 06:09 PM
The UNC comment is interesting but how about this...

"One of my players [who left early for the draft] was working out with another top-five draft pick,'' a coach said. "They got to talking and my kid said something about not having money or whatever on campus. The other kid said, 'My coach set up expense accounts all over town for me. Yours didn't?'''

Top 5 this year...Wall, Turner, Favors, Cousins, Johnson

Just saying

My thoughts exactly. Jim Boehim = no freaking way. Thad Matta? I doubt it. Hewitt? Wouldn't surprise me, but he's definitely not first on the list....Calipari? nah. reputation is too solid. :rolleyes:

Greg_Newton
07-22-2010, 06:51 PM
Izzo popped into my head too.

Anyone figure out who this is from:

"I told a kid recently, 'If you say NBA one more time I'm walking out the door,''' a coach said. "If you're good enough, you'll leave after one year or two years or three years. I'm here to talk to you about coming to college and playing for me. I had six kids leave early. The ones who were all-in went [top 10]; the ones who had one foot out the door went late.''

I was trying to figure this one out too. It's obviously not K or Roy... I'm trying to think who's had a few guys go lotto but only six early departures total. Possibly Beiheim, Izzo, Gary Williams? Has Bill Self had more than 6?

DukieBoy
07-22-2010, 06:51 PM
A great read about college basketball (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/story?columnist=oneil_dana&id=5398415)

Basically, ESPN interviewed 20 coaches and promised them secrecy. Then they revealed their answers. Some very interesting ones

My favorite? When asked how many programs were cheating and why no one snitches, one coach said this...


Every time North Carolina loses a kid, someone else is cheating. It's like there's so much arrogance with them; they can't believe someone would rather go somewhere else, so the other team has to be cheating

Duvall
07-22-2010, 06:59 PM
My thoughts exactly. Jim Boehim = no freaking way. Thad Matta? I doubt it.

What makes you say that?

hurleyfor3
07-22-2010, 10:55 PM
Anyone figure out who this is from:

"I told a kid recently, 'If you say NBA one more time I'm walking out the door,''' a coach said. "If you're good enough, you'll leave after one year or two years or three years. I'm here to talk to you about coming to college and playing for me. I had six kids leave early. The ones who were all-in went [top 10]; the ones who had one foot out the door went late.''

Pitino. Wouldn't be the first walking-through-door reference for him. :)

oldnavy
07-23-2010, 06:34 AM
So why, then, do most people think college basketball is like the Wild Wild West, full of outlaws and renegades?

Backstabbing.

"Here's what I think happens a lot -- a team loses a kid to someone else and all of a sudden that someone else is cheating. Every time North Carolina loses a kid, someone else is cheating. It's like there's so much arrogance with them; they can't believe someone would rather go somewhere else, so the other team has to be cheating.''

So it's not just us Duke fans, eh? What do you want to bet Izzo said this?

Well you knew it was just a matter of time before Ol Roy's behavior would start to hack off other coaches. This has to be Tom Izzo's statement. Right after that book Roy put out hit the stands, Izzo said something along the lines that Roy had picked on the wrong kid or something. Like SMO says, this is the best part of the article. UNC mentiond by name is very telling....

AnotherNYCDukeFan
07-23-2010, 09:20 AM
I was trying to figure this one out too. It's obviously not K or Roy... I'm trying to think who's had a few guys go lotto but only six early departures total. Possibly Beiheim, Izzo, Gary Williams? Has Bill Self had more than 6?

I thought it could be Paul Hewitt. Bosh and Favors as the lottery pics. Crittendon, Young, et. al. as going later?

DevilHorns
07-23-2010, 09:23 AM
I thought it could be Paul Hewitt. Bosh and Favors as the lottery pics. Crittendon, Young, et. al. as going later?

Good guess. According to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Hewitt

"Notable players coached" include:

Chris Bosh (4th Pick, 2003 NBA Draft)
Jarrett Jack (22nd Pick, 2005 NBA Draft)
Thaddeus Young (12th Pick, 2007 NBA Draft)
Javaris Crittenton (19th Pick, 2007 NBA Draft)
Will Bynum
Anthony Morrow
Derrick Favors (3rd Pick, 2010 NBA Draft)

I believe Favors, Bosh, Jack, Young, Crittenton, Bynum, and Favors went early...

4decadedukie
07-23-2010, 10:13 AM
I respectfully offer a few observations:

1. Most important, there's a lot that is "right" with college basketball, especially in its most crucial and fundamental elements that include (but are not limited to) a great spot capturing vast public support and many student-athletes (and programs) epitomizing all that is best in intercollegiate competition and teamwork.

2. However, top-level governance of college hoops is sorely lacking in effectiveness and innovation.

2a. The NCAA has issued voluminous regulations that are difficult fully to understand or integrate and -- much worse -- that are almost impossible for all relevant entities to adhere to, even when they sincerely want to. Here's a trivial example. As a Duke alumnus, an Iron Dukes member, and a AAAC undergraduate interviewer, each year I receive a synopsis of "contact regulations" from the Duke’s Athletic Department. They are convoluted and unrealistic. What happens if a stellar high school student (and/or his parents) ask me questions about Duke and a specific sports program in my neighborhood, at church, at local alumni event, or in the workplace? What if the student's family are long-term, dear friends (or even relatives)? What if I am taking this kid to lunch or breakfast at the time, or just buying him a cup of coffee? My point here is the NCAA's regulations -- although obviously well-intentioned -- simply do not recognize life's realities. Further, if this is true (and confusing) for me (an extremely non-basketball-associated alumni), how much more difficult is it for those who are directly involved with admissions and recruiting. In addition and obviously, this example torches on only one very inconsequential element of the NCAA's vast regulatory morass.

2b. The NCAA correctly (in my opinion) precludes remuneration for current and potential student-athletes (in cash, or anything else of value) by any universities or agents. However, some student-athletes come from disadvantaged backgrounds (perhaps more in college basketball than is some other sports) and their families frequently have legitimate, severe requirements. The NCAA's current system provides no methodology for these urgent needs to be met by a student-athlete, which clearly creates an incentive for illicit payments (and other possibly illegal acts). Why couldn't the NCAA establish a fund, capitalized by a tiny percentage of television revenues (for example), and openly adjudicated and managed by the NCAA itself, to meet these kids' valid and pressing family requirements? A student-athlete, whose family is about to be evicted from their home, is easy to exploit; however, an NCAA funded and administered program would both meet these undeniable needs and eliminate potential misconduct. It is my opinion that initiatives of this sort are easy to identify, worthwhile, simple to execute, and potentially would improve college hoops -- all of which causes me to question the why the NCAA has not, long ago, instituted such policies. After all, if I can come up with this idea (and I certainly am not alone in thinking of it), why can't the germane professionals, who are paid to be the stewards of intercollegiate athletics do so?

2c. Coordination -- particularly in the development of overriding objectives and a continuity of top-level policies -- among the NCAA and the NBA is disastrous and, in my judgment, is a basic cause for many key issues that plague the sport (at both the amateur and professional levels). If, as a society and a sport's community, we believe the entire concept of the "student-athlete" is worthy, these two governing bodies could coordinate their policies to, for example, preclude NBA play unless an athlete has completed his degree, has had four-years in the Developmental League, or some combination thereof (I do not suggest that this is a sound idea per se, but use it only to illustrate policy coordination among the NCAA and the NBA). Similarly, the character development, ethics, leadership, and community-focus that frequently seem so lacking among both collegiate and professional players (and sometimes coaches/administrators, as well) could be addressed in a continuous, harmonized program by both the NCAA and the NBA. If there is a single area that undermines the sport -- we see this so frequently in news reports and DBR posts, among other sources -- I suggest it is the outrageous "attitude of entitlement" (leading to serious criminal, community, and social problems) that alienates both fans and the general public from players and from basketball itself.

Permit me to conclude by indicating that illustrations in paragraphs 2a through 2c represent only the "tip of the iceberg" concerning the NCAA's well-meaning, but mismanaged, governance of the sport. I know that many other DBR participants could easily and productively add to this list.

JG Nothing
07-23-2010, 10:59 AM
The NCAA is ultimately controlled by the presidents of the member institutions. If the presidents really wanted to reform recruiting and minimize the cheating they could. However, they are more concerned with money and winning than the integrity of amateur college basketball.

Verga3
07-23-2010, 09:57 PM
I respectfully offer a few observations:

1. Most important, there's a lot that is "right" with college basketball, especially in its most crucial and fundamental elements that include (but are not limited to) a great spot capturing vast public support and many student-athletes (and programs) epitomizing all that is best in intercollegiate competition and teamwork.

2. However, top-level governance of college hoops is sorely lacking in effectiveness and innovation.

2a. The NCAA has issued voluminous regulations that are difficult fully to understand or integrate and -- much worse -- that are almost impossible for all relevant entities to adhere to, even when they sincerely want to. Here's a trivial example. As a Duke alumnus, an Iron Dukes member, and a AAAC undergraduate interviewer, each year I receive a synopsis of "contact regulations" from the Duke’s Athletic Department. They are convoluted and unrealistic. What happens if a stellar high school student (and/or his parents) ask me questions about Duke and a specific sports program in my neighborhood, at church, at local alumni event, or in the workplace? What if the student's family are long-term, dear friends (or even relatives)? What if I am taking this kid to lunch or breakfast at the time, or just buying him a cup of coffee? My point here is the NCAA's regulations -- although obviously well-intentioned -- simply do not recognize life's realities. Further, if this is true (and confusing) for me (an extremely non-basketball-associated alumni), how much more difficult is it for those who are directly involved with admissions and recruiting. In addition and obviously, this example torches on only one very inconsequential element of the NCAA's vast regulatory morass.

2b. The NCAA correctly (in my opinion) precludes remuneration for current and potential student-athletes (in cash, or anything else of value) by any universities or agents. However, some student-athletes come from disadvantaged backgrounds (perhaps more in college basketball than is some other sports) and their families frequently have legitimate, severe requirements. The NCAA's current system provides no methodology for these urgent needs to be met by a student-athlete, which clearly creates an incentive for illicit payments (and other possibly illegal acts). Why couldn't the NCAA establish a fund, capitalized by a tiny percentage of television revenues (for example), and openly adjudicated and managed by the NCAA itself, to meet these kids' valid and pressing family requirements? A student-athlete, whose family is about to be evicted from their home, is easy to exploit; however, an NCAA funded and administered program would both meet these undeniable needs and eliminate potential misconduct. It is my opinion that initiatives of this sort are easy to identify, worthwhile, simple to execute, and potentially would improve college hoops -- all of which causes me to question the why the NCAA has not, long ago, instituted such policies. After all, if I can come up with this idea (and I certainly am not alone in thinking of it), why can't the germane professionals, who are paid to be the stewards of intercollegiate athletics do so?

2c. Coordination -- particularly in the development of overriding objectives and a continuity of top-level policies -- among the NCAA and the NBA is disastrous and, in my judgment, is a basic cause for many key issues that plague the sport (at both the amateur and professional levels). If, as a society and a sport's community, we believe the entire concept of the "student-athlete" is worthy, these two governing bodies could coordinate their policies to, for example, preclude NBA play unless an athlete has completed his degree, has had four-years in the Developmental League, or some combination thereof (I do not suggest that this is a sound idea per se, but use it only to illustrate policy coordination among the NCAA and the NBA). Similarly, the character development, ethics, leadership, and community-focus that frequently seem so lacking among both collegiate and professional players (and sometimes coaches/administrators, as well) could be addressed in a continuous, harmonized program by both the NCAA and the NBA. If there is a single area that undermines the sport -- we see this so frequently in news reports and DBR posts, among other sources -- I suggest it is the outrageous "attitude of entitlement" (leading to serious criminal, community, and social problems) that alienates both fans and the general public from players and from basketball itself.

Permit me to conclude by indicating that illustrations in paragraphs 2a through 2c represent only the "tip of the iceberg" concerning the NCAA's well-meaning, but mismanaged, governance of the sport. I know that many other DBR participants could easily and productively add to this list.

This is a terrific post that should be read by the NCAA. Thanks, 4dd!

Richard Berg
07-23-2010, 10:47 PM
Great article.

The NCAA correctly (in my opinion) precludes remuneration for current and potential student-athletes (in cash, or anything else of value) by any universities
I understand why kickbacks from universities (and their boosters) to players (and their entourage) are regulated. Otherwise, top players would simply sell out to the highest bidder. An unbounded auction market would dramatically reduce talent parity throughout D1, while draining valuable dollars from equally worthy university activities like non-revenue sports and *gasp* academics.

I don't see why the limit needs to be set at $0, though. Why not institute a policy more akin to salary caps in the pros? Let each league come up with an annual figure that meshes with projected donations at member schools. Auditing the program wouldn't be easy, granted. But it should be easier than today's mess. Leagues would create standardized accounting procedures for bringing booster remunerations above-board, making it easier to spot outliers. And by relieving some of the (very real) financial pressure on kids, demand for under-the-table services should drop simultaneously.


or agents
I don't understand this restriction at all. If Nolan gets paid to wear Nikes during summer pickup games, who cares? Zoubek could've be a great spokesman for Gillette. And surely all the female fans out there would love to see Kyle in a Hanes commercial? :cool:

Seriously. Only in the wacky world of the NCAA would using your God-given talents to land an effortless side job be considered a bad thing. As far as I can tell, the dirtiest aspect of commercial interests in HS/college ball is the way they're forced to operate underground. Throw open the floodgates, and suddenly those shady back-room deals with second-tier companies don't look nearly as attractive as a shiny contract with the Fortune 500.

gep
07-24-2010, 12:29 AM
If Nolan gets paid to wear Nikes during summer pickup games, who cares? Zoubek could've be a great spokesman for Gillette. And surely all the female fans out there would love to see Kyle in a Hanes commercial? :cool:


Nolan... OK. Zoubs... NO, NO, NO... not Gillette. They will force him to shave off his beard. Not good. Kyle... GQ, man...

oldnavy
07-24-2010, 07:03 AM
I respectfully offer a few observations:

1. Most important, there's a lot that is "right" with college basketball, especially in its most crucial and fundamental elements that include (but are not limited to) a great spot capturing vast public support and many student-athletes (and programs) epitomizing all that is best in intercollegiate competition and teamwork.

2. However, top-level governance of college hoops is sorely lacking in effectiveness and innovation.

2a. The NCAA has issued voluminous regulations that are difficult fully to understand or integrate and -- much worse -- that are almost impossible for all relevant entities to adhere to, even when they sincerely want to. Here's a trivial example. As a Duke alumnus, an Iron Dukes member, and a AAAC undergraduate interviewer, each year I receive a synopsis of "contact regulations" from the Duke’s Athletic Department. They are convoluted and unrealistic. What happens if a stellar high school student (and/or his parents) ask me questions about Duke and a specific sports program in my neighborhood, at church, at local alumni event, or in the workplace? What if the student's family are long-term, dear friends (or even relatives)? What if I am taking this kid to lunch or breakfast at the time, or just buying him a cup of coffee? My point here is the NCAA's regulations -- although obviously well-intentioned -- simply do not recognize life's realities. Further, if this is true (and confusing) for me (an extremely non-basketball-associated alumni), how much more difficult is it for those who are directly involved with admissions and recruiting. In addition and obviously, this example torches on only one very inconsequential element of the NCAA's vast regulatory morass.

2b. The NCAA correctly (in my opinion) precludes remuneration for current and potential student-athletes (in cash, or anything else of value) by any universities or agents. However, some student-athletes come from disadvantaged backgrounds (perhaps more in college basketball than is some other sports) and their families frequently have legitimate, severe requirements. The NCAA's current system provides no methodology for these urgent needs to be met by a student-athlete, which clearly creates an incentive for illicit payments (and other possibly illegal acts). Why couldn't the NCAA establish a fund, capitalized by a tiny percentage of television revenues (for example), and openly adjudicated and managed by the NCAA itself, to meet these kids' valid and pressing family requirements? A student-athlete, whose family is about to be evicted from their home, is easy to exploit; however, an NCAA funded and administered program would both meet these undeniable needs and eliminate potential misconduct. It is my opinion that initiatives of this sort are easy to identify, worthwhile, simple to execute, and potentially would improve college hoops -- all of which causes me to question the why the NCAA has not, long ago, instituted such policies. After all, if I can come up with this idea (and I certainly am not alone in thinking of it), why can't the germane professionals, who are paid to be the stewards of intercollegiate athletics do so?

2c. Coordination -- particularly in the development of overriding objectives and a continuity of top-level policies -- among the NCAA and the NBA is disastrous and, in my judgment, is a basic cause for many key issues that plague the sport (at both the amateur and professional levels). If, as a society and a sport's community, we believe the entire concept of the "student-athlete" is worthy, these two governing bodies could coordinate their policies to, for example, preclude NBA play unless an athlete has completed his degree, has had four-years in the Developmental League, or some combination thereof (I do not suggest that this is a sound idea per se, but use it only to illustrate policy coordination among the NCAA and the NBA). Similarly, the character development, ethics, leadership, and community-focus that frequently seem so lacking among both collegiate and professional players (and sometimes coaches/administrators, as well) could be addressed in a continuous, harmonized program by both the NCAA and the NBA. If there is a single area that undermines the sport -- we see this so frequently in news reports and DBR posts, among other sources -- I suggest it is the outrageous "attitude of entitlement" (leading to serious criminal, community, and social problems) that alienates both fans and the general public from players and from basketball itself.

Permit me to conclude by indicating that illustrations in paragraphs 2a through 2c represent only the "tip of the iceberg" concerning the NCAA's well-meaning, but mismanaged, governance of the sport. I know that many other DBR participants could easily and productively add to this list.

Your ideas have merit. But, I guess the old fart in me looks at it this way. The kids are getting a full ride scholarship. Sometimes we tend to overlook the value of that. As a parent that is struggling with paying for two kids to go to college without athletic scholarships, I have a hard time finding sympathy for these situations. Albeit I realize that I am not poor like a lot of the families that these kids come from so I do not want to sound hard or uncaring. But look at it this way, suppose their kid was not an athlete. Suppose they were a math wiz. Would they not be in the same boat (still poor), but even worse off since there are not as many opportunities for math scholarships? So, by "paying" parents of kids who have athletic kids, would you not be in a sense providing them an unfair advantage over the other kids and their families who are just as poor and do not have the prospect of getting rich in a year or two???
I understand the difference between a math wiz and a basketball wiz in the sense of potential earnings and the corruption and nefarious figures that come out from under the rocks to prey on them. To me that answer is simple. Let them go pro out of high school. Get rid of this silly one year in college rule. That way they can negotiate with all the agents and handlers they want and get as much money for their families as they can as early as they can. Would college basketball be that worse off if John Wall had not played for UK last year??? Personally I hate the one and done, it is a joke and makes a mockery of the scholar athlete ideal. If the coaches and universities want stability, then require a kid that goes to school to stay for three years before going pro, like the baseball rule. I do not follow baseball, but I have never heard of these types of scandals in college baseball so it must be working out ok.

JohnGalt
07-24-2010, 08:15 AM
I respectfully offer a few observations:

1. Most important, there's a lot that is "right" with college basketball, especially in its most crucial and fundamental elements that include (but are not limited to) a great spot capturing vast public support and many student-athletes (and programs) epitomizing all that is best in intercollegiate competition and teamwork....

Permit me to conclude by indicating that illustrations in paragraphs 2a through 2c represent only the "tip of the iceberg" concerning the NCAA's well-meaning, but mismanaged, governance of the sport. I know that many other DBR participants could easily and productively add to this list.

4dd,

I've got a few comments:
Your 2a and 2b, in my view, are themselves somewhat contradictory. There is absolutely no question that the myriad regulations and statutes put out by the NCAA with regard to recruits and recruiting are, to put it mildly, voluminous. For someone who doesn't deal with them on a regular basis, they really are quite the challenge. However, if the NCAA were to institute a policy such as you describe in 2b, can you imagine how much more needless bureaucracy would be added? Would there be a tiered system according to each student's financial background? What if only one parent is alive? Or the other is alive, but there is no communication between him/her and the recruit? How could you ever accurately and fairly gauge how much money each athlete should receive? The NCAA would take that and run with it all the way into another labyrinth of regulation and rule-mongering.

4decadedukie
07-24-2010, 08:53 AM
4dd,

I've got a few comments:
Your 2a and 2b, in my view, are themselves somewhat contradictory. There is absolutely no question that the myriad regulations and statutes put out by the NCAA with regard to recruits and recruiting are, to put it mildly, voluminous. For someone who doesn't deal with them on a regular basis, they really are quite the challenge. However, if the NCAA were to institute a policy such as you describe in 2b, can you imagine how much more needless bureaucracy would be added? Would there be a tiered system according to each student's financial background? What if only one parent is alive? Or the other is alive, but there is no communication between him/her and the recruit? How could you ever accurately and fairly gauge how much money each athlete should receive? The NCAA would take that and run with it all the way into another labyrinth of regulation and rule-mongering.


I suspect you are giving my specific examples (paragraphs 2a, 2b, and 2c apply) far too much credit and contemplation; they were ONLY illustrations of potential innovations that could be fostered by and through the NCAA, and they were never intended to be fully vetted or thoroughly analyzed ideas.

The fundamental concepts I attempted to delineate were simple:
(a) despite all the issues – some serious – that plague college basketball, there is still a lot more that is “right” than “wrong” in the sport;
(b) the NCAA, although well-intentioned, is the inadvertent source of many problems;
(c) their regulations are very difficult to understand and to integrate, they lack realism, and they create an enforcement and governance quagmire;
(d) there appears to be little (if any) NCAA-NBA cooperation, even on the highest level of overriding objectives and values for the sport and its participants; and
(e) if a bunch of intelligent and concerned amateurs on DBR (and elsewhere) can surface potentially innovative enhancements, why can’t the pros at the NCAA’s Headquarters do so?

sagegrouse
07-24-2010, 10:05 AM
I am not an expert on the NCAA recruiting regulations, the U.S. Tax Code or Regulations, OSHA rules, or anything else of comparable complexity. That said, anyone who says that the rules are too complicated should consider why they were put in place. There is probably a good reason. The regs in both instances are designed to overcome the full scope of human ingenuity to (a) recruit college athletes, (b) avoid paying federal taxes, and (c) to operate a place of employment as the employer wishes.

What is in play is the type of regulation. When a close family member was at OSHA back in the 1990s, it was apparent that there were three separate ways of enforcing the OSHA rules:

1. "Paper the plant:" I.e., write up the employer for any and everything that violated the rules in an attempt to ensure discipline and attention to employee safety.

2. "Serious Violations:" Take note of minor violations with verbal comments but focus only on the situations that could be immediately hazardous to employees.

3. "The Dirty Dozen:" Noting that employee injuries and death were concentrated only in a few employers, land on them with both feet and ensure compliance or drive them out of business.

Why not all three? Well, there are not enough enforcement agents in the world to take on enforcement at every level. From articles and comments here, I take it that the NCAA is stuck in mode 1, with enforcement agents monitoring conversations, however brief, between coaches and prospects and issuing "parking tickets."

I think the real discussion is whether there is a way to shift the focus to serious violations or prolific violators.

sagegrouse

jimsumner
07-24-2010, 10:35 AM
"Personally I hate the one and done, it is a joke and makes a mockery of the scholar athlete ideal. If the coaches and universities want stability, then require a kid that goes to school to stay for three years before going pro, like the baseball rule"

The one-year rule is a part of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the NBA and the NBA Players Association. Any change in that rule would have to take place in that context. I do not believe that an NCAA attempt to require three years would stand up in court.

Richard Berg
07-24-2010, 09:59 PM
But look at it this way, suppose their kid was not an athlete. Suppose they were a math wiz. Would they not be in the same boat (still poor), but even worse off since there are not as many opportunities for math scholarships? So, by "paying" parents of kids who have athletic kids, would you not be in a sense providing them an unfair advantage over the other kids and their families who are just as poor and do not have the prospect of getting rich in a year or two???
Yet another reason to move past the silly "amateur" label. We all agree that math is more central to a university's mission, while basketball is more marketable. So let boosters, agents, and advertising firms do what they do best: take care of the marketing. Bring on the cash flow (within reason). If the net rewards for top bball recruits end up being more valuable than a math scholarship...well, that's life. At least the university could redirect some resources from the neverending "compliance" game and focus on its core competencies: recruiting, retaining, and educating students.

By the way, the prizes in the Putnam (national math contest) are quite nice: $2500 for students and $25,000 for the winning team. Nothing extravagant, and definitely not comparable to what Nike could offer, but that's still a lot of beer money for college kids. On a similar note, I saw a statistic once that 80% of former Putnam Fellows are millionaires. (can't find the source, sadly, but it makes sense -- who's most likely to understand compound interest, if not math whizzes? not to mention their widespread desirability on Wall Street) Of course, if math were regulated by the NCAA, students wouldn't be allowed to keep the prizes. Plus, all of their summer internships would have to be unpaid. Crazy :rolleyes:

Richard Berg
07-24-2010, 10:01 PM
Zoubs... NO, NO, NO... not Gillette.
Even the ZouBeard needs trimming ;)

oldnavy
07-25-2010, 05:44 AM
"Personally I hate the one and done, it is a joke and makes a mockery of the scholar athlete ideal. If the coaches and universities want stability, then require a kid that goes to school to stay for three years before going pro, like the baseball rule"

The one-year rule is a part of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the NBA and the NBA Players Association. Any change in that rule would have to take place in that context. I do not believe that an NCAA attempt to require three years would stand up in court.

How is it set up with baseball? Is that also done with the player's association? You are correct, if the NCAA attempted to do this it would be tossed in a hurry. What are the chances the NBA extends the age limit or implements something like the baseball agreement? I would bet the chances are slim at best. Why not just go back to the way it was and let kids go straight out of high school?

Richard Berg
07-25-2010, 09:45 AM
Why not just go back to the way it was and let kids go straight out of high school?
Much as I hate to admit, the one-and-done rule is win-win for the NBA.

* can't-miss prospects get a free head start on marketing. Greg Oden, Derrick Rose, and John Wall were already household names before the NBA spent a dime on them.
* prospects being considered on pure "potential" have to prove themselves a little bit. Would Darko have still looked like a #2 overall pick after a year of banging with Big East big men, as he did dominating the high schoolers? Had 1-n-done been in effect, my guess is his fate would've been more like Josh McRoberts. Meanwhile, hot names like Carmelo and Durant get to show they are the real deal. (Luol would be the closest Duke analogue)
* it shrinks the overall labor pool, leaving more roster slots for veteran players (i.e., the guys who actually negotiate the CBA)

Jderf
07-25-2010, 12:21 PM
Yet another reason to move past the silly "amateur" label. We all agree that math is more central to a university's mission, while basketball is more marketable. So let boosters, agents, and advertising firms do what they do best: take care of the marketing. Bring on the cash flow (within reason). If the net rewards for top bball recruits end up being more valuable than a math scholarship...well, that's life. At least the university could redirect some resources from the neverending "compliance" game and focus on its core competencies: recruiting, retaining, and educating students.

By the way, the prizes in the Putnam (national math contest) are quite nice: $2500 for students and $25,000 for the winning team. Nothing extravagant, and definitely not comparable to what Nike could offer, but that's still a lot of beer money for college kids. On a similar note, I saw a statistic once that 80% of former Putnam Fellows are millionaires. (can't find the source, sadly, but it makes sense -- who's most likely to understand compound interest, if not math whizzes? not to mention their widespread desirability on Wall Street) Of course, if math were regulated by the NCAA, students wouldn't be allowed to keep the prizes. Plus, all of their summer internships would have to be unpaid. Crazy :rolleyes:

I have to agree here. If I wanted, I could get a job my senior year working at Lilly Library. It would be perfectly legitimate for me to get paid as a "student-librarian" working for the university. I don't see why it should be fundamentally different for a "student-athlete." Now obviously there are tons of differences and a whole plethora of regulations would have to be introduced to keep the playing field even and fair, but on a fundamental level I think it's unfair to say that the librarian can be paid and the athlete cannot just for the sake of "amateurism."

drama10
07-25-2010, 12:41 PM
either let the kids go from HS to the NBA or make them stay for 2 years. This whole 1 and done thing is putting pressure on the college coaches who already don't have the best job security in the world.