Potential NCAA Policy Shift re the NBA draft, etc.

[4decadedukie]

Incoming NCAA President, Dr. Mark Emmert, is reported (by ESPN) to favor a baseball-approach agreement with the NBA: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5471101 (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5471101).

Key excerpts include:
1. Emmert indicated strong interest in a baseball-style rule that would allow college basketball players either to enter the NBA draft immediately from high school, or to commit to college for an established time period prior to NBA draft eligibility.
2. Emmert said he would "persuasively" discuss the matter with NBA and Players Association officials (both groups would necessarily have to concur for such a proposal to become effective).
3. Emmert said, "I much prefer the baseball model, for example, that allows a young person if they want to go play professional baseball, they can do it right out of high school, but once they start college they've got to play for three years or until they're 21."

Obviously, any potential changes of this type would have a SIGNIFICANT influence on college basketball. Personally, I hope it would help return the sport to the more-traditional "student-athlete" paradigm, with a far greater percentage of players completing degrees -- and remaining at their university for longer tenures -- before joining the NBA.

[CameronBornAndBred]

3. Emmert said, "I much prefer the baseball model, for example, that allows a young person if they want to go play professional baseball, they can do it right out of high school, but once they start college they've got to play for three years or until they're 21."

That would work for me. I long for the day again we don't have to worry about a player jumping at least until after his junior season. I hate the one and dones, and the attitude that they bring. It's why I don't care to have AR at Duke..I don't care how good a player is, I don't want to invest my support in a player that is not investing back to the school. I'm sorry, but they are not investing anything if they flat out state that they don't intend to be here for longer than one year..they are only playing becuase the NBA says they have to. It's not really fair to either party, and it's a sham.
Hopefully it would also stem the tide of kids making mistakes by declaring early only to be left empty handed on draft night. I'm sure the first year or two there will be double digit examples of this, but maybe after a couple years those failures will appear as tales of caution to those like minded folks that follow in their wake.

[dukebsbll14]

Incoming NCAA President, Dr. Mark Emmert, is reported (by ESPN) to favor a baseball-approach agreement with the NBA: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5471101 (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=5471101).

Key excerpts include:
1. Emmert indicated strong interest in a baseball-style rule that would allow college basketball players either to enter the NBA draft immediately from high school, or to commit to college for an established time period prior to NBA draft eligibility.
2. Emmert said he would "persuasively" discuss the matter with NBA and Players Association officials (both groups would necessarily have to concur for such a proposal to become effective).
3. Emmert said, "I much prefer the baseball model, for example, that allows a young person if they want to go play professional baseball, they can do it right out of high school, but once they start college they've got to play for three years or until they're 21."

Obviously, any potential changes of this type would have a SIGNIFICANT influence on college basketball. Personally, I hope it would help return the sport to the more-traditional "student-athlete" paradigm, with a far greater percentage of players completing degrees -- and remaining at their university for longer tenures -- before joining the NBA.

I'm liking what I see so far. I believe that when a student-athlete signs a scholarship, he's making a commitment to the school and I believe he should thoroughly honor that commitment to its fullest, not just until someone is ready to pay him the big bucks to play a sport. I really hope the NCAA makes these kind of changes soon.

[SilkyJ]

I'm liking what I see so far. I believe that when a student-athlete signs a scholarship, he's making a commitment to the school and I believe he should thoroughly honor that commitment to its fullest, not just until someone is ready to pay him the big bucks to play a sport.

I support the new NCAA prez's stance, but not for this reason. I don't see it as being about honoring a commitment to the school -- if you come to college and are serious about your education, but opportunity knocks, I don't blame a kid for jumping at it (see Deng, Luol).

But I do think this approach would put a renewed emphasis on the student part of student-athlete and would be a positive step in terms of cleaning up some of the sliminess of college athletics.

In terms of the details, I would vote for a 2-year over a 3-year minimum. I think a 2 year minimum would effectively achieve the same thing as a 3 year commitment in terms of getting rid of some of the sliminess and weeding out those kids who don't really belong in (or need) college without over-burdening those who do.

[CameronBornAndBred]

I support the new NCAA prez's stance, but not for this reason. I don't see it as being about honoring a commitment to the school -- if you come to college and are serious about your education, but opportunity knocks, I don't blame a kid for jumping at it (see Deng, Luol).

Opportunity knocking is one thing, but the prevalance of those stating one and done status is another. Those such as John Wall and Austin Rivers shouldn't be restricted to going to school if they know that's not what they want. John Wall is a good example, because by all accounts he was a good student and took school seriously..but obviously had he been given the choice he would have gone to the NBA first. Kyrie Irving has not stated that he is one and done, so with that glimmer of hope, I can get behind him. Rivers on the other hand has said he has no intention of staying longer than one year, so he shouldn't have to go. It's not advantageous to the player nor the school (plenty will argue that, but it's my opinion) that he be forced to play in a setting that he doesn't want to. I could even get behind a two year commitment like you suggest..in that way as fans at least we get to see some growth. K is a great teacher, I would like to see the results of his efforts that he puts into a player...it's hard to glean much when we only get to see one season..and it does nothing for team chemistry and continuity to have a rapid turnover rate. Kentucky will bear that truth out.

[Duvall]

I'm liking what I see so far. I believe that when a student-athlete signs a scholarship, he's making a commitment to the school and I believe he should thoroughly honor that commitment to its fullest, not just until someone is ready to pay him the big bucks to play a sport. I really hope the NCAA makes these kind of changes soon.

Make what changes? The NCAA can't force players to stay, and they have no way to force the NBA to change its entry requirements. They have no leverage and no power in this area. This is just posturing by a new NCAA president to get a bit of positive coverage. Nothing will come of this.

And I'll be honest - it's more than a little frustrating to hear people talking about requiring players to make a multi-year commitment to schools when schools are in no way required to make a reciprocal commitment to their players.

[Olympic Fan]

Duvall, you took the words out of my mouth.

Plenty of people -- coaches, administrators and college basketball writers -- have suggested or advocated something similar to this plan. But it's all a pipe dream.

THE NCAA HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NBA DRAFT ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.

When the commissioner of the NBA and the head of the NBA player's association start suggesting changing in the draft rules, I'll get excited. The rules are set by the NBA as part of their basic agreement with the player's association.

So far, I've not seen or heard any inclination by the NBA to change the rules as they now exist to help colleges. They LIKE the one-and-done requirement -- they found that the straight-from-high-school rules that were in place before 2006 caused them major problems. They had to spend a lot of money scouting high school prospects and even then they made A LOT of mistakes, investing huge sums in guys who could not play.

They still make mistakes with college kids -- but at a lower rate. And they still scout high school kids, but not nearly as extensively as they did before.

The current rules work great for the NBA, why would they want to change? You might convince them to put a two or three year requirement in place instead of the current one-year college requirement (that would make their scouting even easier and deliver more ready-made "stars" to the NBA), but without the option of allowing kids to come straight out of high school instead of taking the college option, it wouldn't work. And the NBA doesn't want to re-open the high school door.

And if they don't want to change, nothing the new NCAA president can do about it will change things.

PS Where in the world did the myth evolve that " John Wall ... because by all accounts he was a good student and took school seriously" If John Wall cared about school, he would have actually attended a real high school instead of Raleigh Word of God. He wouldn't have taken the SATs three times before getting a Derrick Rose pass. I know that the Kerntucky shills claim he did well in his one year there, but without having direct knowledge of his performance there (as opposited to excellent information about his lack of academic preperation in high school), I find those claims -- if true -- more an indictment of Kentucky's educational requirements than evidence that John Wall was serious about school.

[Reddevil]

Duvall, you took the words out of my mouth.

Plenty of people -- coaches, administrators and college basketball writers -- have suggested or advocated something similar to this plan. But it's all a pipe dream.

THE NCAA HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NBA DRAFT ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.

When the commissioner of the NBA and the head of the NBA player's association start suggesting changing in the draft rules, I'll get excited. The rules are set by the NBA as part of their basic agreement with the player's association.

So far, I've not seen or heard any inclination by the NBA to change the rules as they now exist to help colleges. They LIKE the one-and-done requirement -- they found that the straight-from-high-school rules that were in place before 2006 caused them major problems. They had to spend a lot of money scouting high school prospects and even then they made A LOT of mistakes, investing huge sums in guys who could not play.
They still make mistakes with college kids -- but at a lower rate. And they still scout high school kids, but not nearly as extensively as they did before.

The current rules work great for the NBA, why would they want to change? You might convince them to put a two or three year requirement in place instead of the current one-year college requirement (that would make their scouting even easier and deliver more ready-made "stars" to the NBA), but without the option of allowing kids to come straight out of high school instead of taking the college option, it wouldn't work. And the NBA doesn't want to re-open the high school door.

And if they don't want to change, nothing the new NCAA president can do about it will change things.


All of these points are spot-on. However, if the NCAA were to threaten freshman ineligibility, that would be a powerful bargaining chip. The NBA would be forced to rethink their position. Obviously there is no mention of that in this storyline, but if he is serious, the very mention of this would get the Association buzzing.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Plenty of people -- coaches, administrators and college basketball writers -- have suggested or advocated something similar to this plan. But it's all a pipe dream.

THE NCAA HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NBA DRAFT ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.


If you look at the original story, Emmert is looking at the baseball draft model, which apparently does have such a structure in place. Therefore if it applies to one sport, it CAN apply to another assuming that both sides agree to it.



"I much prefer the baseball model, for example, that allows a young person if they want to go play professional baseball, they can do it right out of high school, but once they start college they've got to play for three years or until they're 21," Emmert, who is leaving the University of Washington to take the helm of the NCAA, said in the interview. "I like that a good deal.

[pfrduke]

If you look at the original story, Emmert is looking at the baseball draft model, which apparently does have such a structure in place. Therefore if it applies to one sport, it CAN apply to another assuming that both sides agree to it.

This is your key phrase. It would require the NBA's agreement, which, as OF points out, they have absolutely no incentive to give. This is completely in the control of the NBA and their eligibility requirements.

[CameronBornAndBred]

This is your key phrase. It would require the NBA's agreement, which, as OF points out, they have absolutely no incentive to give. This is completely in the control of the NBA and their eligibility requirements.
Exactly..I'm just thinking that is not as impossible as some have implied. Highly unlikely..yes. I'm with Emmert in that I would like to see it happen, and if he comes into his office saying that, then at least the door is open for some talks.

[pfrduke]

Exactly..I'm just thinking that is not as impossible as some have implied. Highly unlikely..yes. I'm with Emmert in that I would like to see it happen, and if he comes into his office saying that, then at least the door is open for some talks.

Pardon the skepticism, but what exactly is Emmert going to take to the table when he goes and talks to the NBA? How is a "HS or 3 years" rule in any way more beneficial to the NBA than the current system?

[southgater]

I generally like the idea of high school players having the option of going directly to the NBA or, if not, spending a minimum of 2 years in college. However, I think to be fair to these young players, especially those who aren't obvious stars, it would be appropriate to allow them to wait to see where they are drafted and then allow them the option of still enrolling in college (for the 2 or 3 year minimum). This would limit the terrible outcome of kids declaring for the draft based on overly optimistic advice but going undrafted (or low 2nd round where they might well not make a team) and then not having a good alternative. I'm not sure how the NBA would deal with these cases - maybe the drafting team would retain rights for the future as they currently do for international players who stay overseas for 1 or more years. This would obviously add to the difficulty for universities, with a pool of very late signees, but on the whole I think this would be a reasonable sacrifice to make to achieve an improved overall system.

More generally, we have heard of the NBA interests and the NCAA interests, but who will be looking out for the high school players' interests? I suppose this would fall to the NBA Players' Association role, but will they really do this?

[DukeBlueNikeShox]

Nobody is forcing these kids to go to college. There are plenty of pro leagues around the world they can play for one season, then head to the NBA.

[toooskies]

Why would the NBA do this? Their entire reason for not taking players out of high school is to reduce the amount of un-developed players in the NBA. By switching to the baseball model, the NBA instead gets more players who declare early for the draft who would have waited 2 years. You then get more Desegana Diops making millions for riding the end of the bench as lottery picks, because teams wouldn't even see them in college for a year.

Baseball's system works for baseball because the college level is roughly equivalent to the minor leagues. Regardless of whether a player is drafted or not, they will spend time developing pro skills at similar rates. Whereas in basketball, new draftees immediately produce at the highest levels each year. Lebron James wasn't merely able to play as a pro coming out of high school; he was immediately better than 80% of the league. (Whether his maturity ever reached appropriate levels for an adult is, of course, debatable by anyone from Cleveland.)

But really, players are much worse off with this option than they would be. There would be a lot of pressure on players from low-income families to try to go pro before they're ready, leaving them with no educational benefit. Elliot Williams wouldn't have been able to go pro and afford better medical care for his mother after two seasons of basketball. Arguing that players would be "better off" in college instead of collecting NBA checks at the end of a bench aren't necessarily true, either.

If college basketball is really committed to keeping kids in school as long as they can, then they should start by letting players come back to school and play if they don't get drafted.

[TampaDuke]

Pardon the skepticism, but what exactly is Emmert going to take to the table when he goes and talks to the NBA? How is a "HS or 3 years" rule in any way more beneficial to the NBA than the current system?

As reddevil noted, if the NCAA wants to force the hand of the NBA and the NBAPA, they could threaten freshman eligibility. Won't happen, but there are ways the NCAA can pressure the NBA to at least consider change.

[TampaDuke]

Why would the NBA do this? Their entire reason for not taking players out of high school is to reduce the amount of un-developed players in the NBA. By switching to the baseball model, the NBA instead gets more players who declare early for the draft who would have waited 2 years. You then get more Desegana Diops making millions for riding the end of the bench as lottery picks, because teams wouldn't even see them in college for a year.

Baseball's system works for baseball because the college level is roughly equivalent to the minor leagues.

If anything like the baseball system were implemented in basketball, I think you'd see (virtually overnight) the development of a basketball minor league similar to what we have with baseball. If the NBDL and similar leagues don't quickly fill in that gap (or are unwilling to do so due to $$), then I surmise the overseas leagues would quickly take the opportunity to do so.

[pfrduke]

As reddevil noted, if the NCAA wants to force the hand of the NBA and the NBAPA, they could threaten freshman eligibility. Won't happen, but there are ways the NCAA can pressure the NBA to at least consider change.

That's simply not a realistic solution, and a threat that would never actually be followed through, if for no other reason than it would be a drastic overreaction to a small problem. Division I of the NCAA has ~345 basketball teams, all of whom, on average, get about 3-4 freshman a season. That's over 1000 kids who come on to campuses around the country every year to play basketball. Of those 1000, somewhere between 4-12 - that is, 0.4%-1.2% of the freshman entering class - leave after their first season to try to play in the NBA. Why in the world would (or should) the NCAA punish 99% of the freshman class because 1% only wants to play one season?

Also, what possible justification could the NCAA have for telling its basketball players - and none of its other student athletes - that they can no longer play as freshmen?

If I was running the players association, and Emmert came to me with that threat, I'd do whatever would be the respectful negotiating equivalent of laughing in his face and daring him to go try it.

[theAlaskanBear]

Sure, the idea is a long shot...but that doesn't mean there is no chance of it happening.

I have been a fan of this model since the NBA banned HS players. There is nothing to stop a team from drafting a kid and sending him to Europe or the D-League to get seasoned. It should function a lot more like soccer where NBA franchises can loan out their players to the Euro-leagues. The NBA can also write a salary-cap exception where rookie/draft contracts dont count against the cap until they play in X-number of NBA games...this would encourage them to develop farm teams.

Also, with many elite players spending 5yrs in highschool (prep school transfers)...age 21 is just two years in school for some of them.

[TampaDuke]

That's simply not a realistic solution, and a threat that would never actually be followed through, if for no other reason than it would be a drastic overreaction to a small problem. Division I of the NCAA has ~345 basketball teams, all of whom, on average, get about 3-4 freshman a season. That's over 1000 kids who come on to campuses around the country every year to play basketball. Of those 1000, somewhere between 4-12 - that is, 0.4%-1.2% of the freshman entering class - leave after their first season to try to play in the NBA. Why in the world would (or should) the NCAA punish 99% of the freshman class because 1% only wants to play one season?

Also, what possible justification could the NCAA have for telling its basketball players - and none of its other student athletes - that they can no longer play as freshmen?

If I was running the players association, and Emmert came to me with that threat, I'd do whatever would be the respectful negotiating equivalent of laughing in his face and daring him to go try it.

Oh I agree that freshman ineligibility won't happen and it's not realistic, but it does provide some leverage (albeit leverage that the NCAA would have to cultivate over the period of years to make it more believable/realistic). Obviously we're in a different era, but it's not as outlandish as it seems as freshman were previously ineligible decades ago (and, for a few of those years, freshman in sports other than football and basketball were permitted to play). An NCAA committee in the 80's even formally proposed to reinstate freshman ineligibility rules.

Also, in addition to tinkering with eligibility rules, I'm not so sure that there wouldn't be at least some NBA teams that wouldn't readily agree to a baseball type system. Deep pocket teams, for example, would have increased opportunities to draft "high potential" young players in later rounds or, if they're lucky, sign them as free agents after going undrafted. There'd be a need to build a system to develop such players, but several teams would jump at the chance. The Player's Association might even sign on with the right deal as it would mean more players being hired (i.e., more union members) and would also operate to loosen salary cap-type devices (a la MLB).

[pfrduke]

Sure, the idea is a long shot...but that doesn't mean there is no chance of it happening.

I have been a fan of this model since the NBA banned HS players. There is nothing to stop a team from drafting a kid and sending him to Europe or the D-League to get seasoned. It should function a lot more like soccer where NBA franchises can loan out their players to the Euro-leagues. The NBA can also write a salary-cap exception where rookie/draft contracts dont count against the cap until they play in X-number of NBA games...this would encourage them to develop farm teams.

Also, with many elite players spending 5yrs in highschool (prep school transfers)...age 21 is just two years in school for some of them.

But there's no need for the NBA to develop a farm system. This is not like baseball, where 40-50 players per team end up in the majors every season. Last season in the NBA, a grand total of 442 players logged minutes. That's less than 15 per team - 12 of whom for each team are on the active roster. There's simply no roster need for a stable of players (none of whom are, at present, NBA-level players) at a minor league level. We've seen this with the D-League to date - very NBA players have come up through the D-League. They're either good enough to stick from the get-go, or they simply aren't good enough.

Moreover, the developmental needs for basketball players - particularly those of whom are likely to fall within this rule (i.e., those who would, at 18, choose to go pro over at least 3 years of college) - is different than for baseball players. The top 18-21 year-olds are routinely able to contribute to an NBA team immediately, and are drafted for that purpose. That simply is not true of the top 18-21 year-old baseball players, who need multiple years of minor league seasoning before they're ready. And as long as college basketball stays at all viable, there's minimal incentive for NBA teams to develop farm programs, because the colleges do it better and for less ($0) cost to the NBA.

[CEF1959]

I think the NBA would be more receptive to a 2-and-done rule: 2 years of college basketball or overseas experience, or 21 years of age. They don't want HS players period. They want evaluable talent. 2 years would give them more than the 1 they get now, and the same players would still be available (at the same salary with a year's more development). College coaches would appreciate it too. Cal wouldn't, of course, but he's not a college coach in any respected sense of that term..

[TampaDuke]

But there's no need for the NBA to develop a farm system. This is not like baseball, where 40-50 players per team end up in the majors every season. Last season in the NBA, a grand total of 442 players logged minutes. That's less than 15 per team - 12 of whom for each team are on the active roster. There's simply no roster need for a stable of players (none of whom are, at present, NBA-level players) at a minor league level. We've seen this with the D-League to date - very NBA players have come up through the D-League. They're either good enough to stick from the get-go, or they simply aren't good enough.

Moreover, the developmental needs for basketball players - particularly those of whom are likely to fall within this rule (i.e., those who would, at 18, choose to go pro over at least 3 years of college) - is different than for baseball players. The top 18-21 year-olds are routinely able to contribute to an NBA team immediately, and are drafted for that purpose. That simply is not true of the top 18-21 year-old baseball players, who need multiple years of minor league seasoning before they're ready. And as long as college basketball stays at all viable, there's minimal incentive for NBA teams to develop farm programs, because the colleges do it better and for less ($0) cost to the NBA.

What about 15, 16 or 17 year old players? Perhaps an academy-type system like many soccer teams employ would be intriguing to NBA teams. Imagine what the Knicks' money could be used for if they put it toward developing youngsters as opposed to letting AAU "teams" do it. Draft rules would have to change, of course.

Not that I think any of these ideas will necessarily come to fruition, but the fact that the NBA might like the status quo doesn't mean that they can dictate its continuation indefinitely, particularly as other threats (most notably, the overseas leagues) continue to innovate.

[pfrduke]

What about 15, 16 or 17 year old players? Perhaps an academy-type system like many soccer teams employ would be intriguing to NBA teams. Imagine what the Knicks' money could be used for if they put it toward developing youngsters as opposed to letting AAU "teams" do it. Draft rules would have to change, of course.

Not that I think any of these ideas will necessarily come to fruition, but the fact that the NBA might like the status quo doesn't mean that they can dictate its continuation indefinitely, particularly as other threats (most notably, the overseas leagues) continue to innovate.

Well, if we're talking about a minor/ developmental league that cover hs age kids, that would be a different story. I'm not sure where I sit on taking 15 year olds and putting them in professional training programs. But that has nothing to do with the baseball-style eligibility rules being discussed here. And as far as the NBA is concerned, taking on a full minor league of 18-22 year olds is a very different story, and not something that seems in its best interests as long as college basketball is viable.

[Richard Berg]

If the NCAA wanted to make the system fairer, they would allow athletes to sign agents, play in summer leagues, promote products, and enter the drafts (plural -- it's a global talent market after all).


I don't care how good a player is, I don't want to invest my support in a player that is not investing back to the school.
In what way does a college sophomore playing for his varsity basketball team -- on the university's dime -- count as "investing in the school?"

[CameronBornAndBred]

If the NCAA wanted to make the system fairer, they would allow athletes to sign agents, play in summer leagues, promote products, and enter the drafts (plural -- it's a global talent market after all).


In what way does a college sophomore playing for his varsity basketball team -- on the university's dime -- count as "investing in the school?"
When a player states up front that he does not intend to be there for more than one year, that is to me is not an investment. It's only an opinion, but it's mine and it's how I feel. As I stated in the same post that you quoted, it will be very hard to be a fan of a player knowing that I will only be able to be a fan for a short period of time. If you look back at the players we have, or just graduated, would you not say that Scheyer, Smith, Singler, Thomas and Zoubs invested themselves in Duke? I feel that even Elton Brand, who only played for two years, invested himself in the school. Like I said, it's only an opinion, but it's mine.

[theAlaskanBear]

Well, if we're talking about a minor/ developmental league that cover hs age kids, that would be a different story. I'm not sure where I sit on taking 15 year olds and putting them in professional training programs. But that has nothing to do with the baseball-style eligibility rules being discussed here. And as far as the NBA is concerned, taking on a full minor league of 18-22 year olds is a very different story, and not something that seems in its best interests as long as college basketball is viable.

I agree, college functions as the de facto minor league system, and the NBA should be protecting that as much as possible because a) colleges foot the $$$ bills for training/housing/coaching these young men and b) the great ones arrive in the NBA with a fanbase and media exposure.

Hopefully, the NBA and NCAA can work out an agreement that is a little bit better than the one and done.

[4decadedukie]

. . . colleges foot the $$$ bills for training/housing/coaching these young men

I am not singling out or criticizing one of our esteemed members. However, please note the “Freudian slip” here. Unmentioned in the delineation of financial benefits provided is the entire academic element of scholarships: tuition, fees, books, and so forth. Can there be any doubt that revenue-sport “student athletes” are often perceived and “semi-pros” first, and serious undergraduates second? That is most regrettable.

[theAlaskanBear]

I am not singling out or criticizing one of our esteemed members. However, please note the “Freudian slip” here. Unmentioned in the delineation of financial benefits provided is the entire academic element of scholarships: tuition, fees, books, and so forth. Can there be any doubt that revenue-sport “student athletes” are often perceived and “semi-pros” first, and serious undergraduates second? That is most regrettable.

Regrettable, yes, but also an understandable statement. I fully support the academic endeavors of all student-athletes, but in elite programs like Duke, I bet most of the players themselves would consider themselves semi-pros. You don't have too many starting players coming to Duke who are NOT looking 1-2-3 years down the road and envisioning themselves in the NBA.

But more to the point -- my post solely concerned the relationship between the NCAA and NBA -- and presumably the NBA did not insert the 1-and-done rule to make players go to classes and get an education, but rather to improve their skills and mature physically.

Maybe is it sacrilegious to claim that colleges are the semi-pro league to the NBA, but it is the de facto reality. Heck, I could even make the case that some schools should treat their basketball players MORE like pros, because the purpose of a college education is preparing for your life beyond college -- this is why specialized sports degrees in contracts/finances/marketing/pr, etc. should be offered.

[CameronBornAndBred]

this is why specialized sports degrees in contracts/finances/marketing/pr, etc. should be offered.
Not a bad idea given the high number of NBA players who are completely broke a short time after their careers end.

[Richard Berg]

When a player states up front that he does not intend to be there for more than one year, that is to me is not an investment.
Just curious, what all counts as an investment? Going to class? Playing a non-revenue sport? Donating to the Annual Fund? Joining a sorority? Taking a work-study job at the library?

Not being snarky. I'm honestly not sure where you're going with this concept.

[Richard Berg]

Maybe is it sacrilegious to claim that colleges are the semi-pro league to the NBA, but it is the de facto reality. Heck, I could even make the case that some schools should treat their basketball players MORE like pros, because the purpose of a college education is preparing for your life beyond college -- this is why specialized sports degrees in contracts/finances/marketing/pr, etc. should be offered.
I agree in principle, but the practicalities don't work. The media hype directed at John Wall types makes us forget: 99% of student athletes will never play in the NBA. You can't field a new department or certificate program from a half-dozen potential students. (it would be open to non-athletes, of course, but you also have to remember that guys like Battier or Horvath would remain free to pursue subjects they find more interesting)

In any case, I don't mind the "semi-pro" treatment, as long as:
(1) the NBA-track players are treated right. the current system is full of obnoxious rules, some of them downright unfair
(2) even if their presence is primarily about basketball, it's a net benefit to the rest of the university community & its academic mission. positive branding is nice; contributing toward the general budget would be even nicer! (right now it's my understanding that the Athletic Dept receives funding from the Allen Building, not the other way around, despite their massive revenues)

[CameronBornAndBred]

Just curious, what all counts as an investment? Going to class? Playing a non-revenue sport? Donating to the Annual Fund? Joining a sorority? Taking a work-study job at the library?

Not being snarky. I'm honestly not sure where you're going with this concept.
I think those players who come to Duke with the intention of staying at Duke (at least for a couple of years) become more than just student-athletes. To me (and I'm sure to the school's administration) they become ambassadors for the school and to the local community. They commit their time and effort beyond what happens on the court and in the classroom. They learn the values that K teaches them, and share those values later. I don't view someone who comes in with the intention of only staying one year as an ambassador to anything, other than their self-serving needs. Obviously the one and doner has to go to school somewhere, I'd just rather it be to another school, like Kentucky. Calipari can have all of them for all I care.

[toooskies]

Can there be any doubt that revenue-sport “student athletes” are often perceived and “semi-pros” first, and serious undergraduates second? That is most regrettable.

Is your problem that there aren't competitive minor leagues for players to join for football and basketball, or is it that college sports generate revenue? In other words: do you have a problem with minor league baseball, or do you have a problem with collegiate athletics?

How many pre-med students are simply "semi-pro" doctors? How many engineering students are future engineers? Is your problem that just because some student-athletes' future profession is an extracurricular and is one associated with celebrity? I don't find it sad, necessarily, that players don't graduate; I find it more sad that a degree doesn't offer a compelling reason for players to even go to class (like Kentucky).

[pfrduke]

I think those players who come to Duke with the intention of staying at Duke (at least for a couple of years) become more than just student-athletes. To me (and I'm sure to the school's administration) they become ambassadors for the school and to the local community. They commit their time and effort beyond what happens on the court and in the classroom. They learn the values that K teaches them, and share those values later. I don't view someone who comes in with the intention of only staying one year as an ambassador to anything, other than their self-serving needs. Obviously the one and doner has to go to school somewhere, I'd just rather it be to another school, like Kentucky. Calipari can have all of them for all I care.

You do realize that someone who comes to a school - any school - with the intention of staying for just one year can, nonetheless, "commit their time and effort beyond ... the court and ... classroom," "learn the values that [coaches and others] teach them and share those values later," and act, during that year, as an "ambassador[] for the school and to the local community," right? And that someone who comes and stays for four years can nonetheless pursue nothing but "self-serving needs" throughout their career, not getting involved with anything outside of the gym or the classroom and forgetting about their school the second they get their degree? The comparisons you're drawing are not at all mutually exclusive. You're painting with a broad brush here and attributing intentions to a class of individuals - avowed one-and-doners - that I'm not sure have done anything to merit them.

[CameronBornAndBred]

You're painting with a broad brush here and attributing intentions to a class of individuals - avowed one-and-doners - that I'm not sure have done anything to merit them.
Sigh. I can only state my opinion so many times, so I'm done. I know it's not a popular one, but I've never been much of a conformist anyway. It's just how I feel. At least you have taken the time to debate, I appreciate that. Unlike the person who gave the negative response to my first comment as "embarrasing and judgemental". I don't see where it was judgemental, and it didn't embarrass me a bit, that's why I wrote it. I invite whoever that was to come actually back their thoughts up like some of the others here have. Nobody is wrong, but if you have an opinion at least state it openly.

[pfrduke]

Sigh. I can only state my opinion so many times, so I'm done. I know it's not a popular one, but I've never been much of a conformist anyway. It's just how I feel. At least you have taken the time to debate, I appreciate that. Unlike the person who gave the negative response to my first comment as "embarrasing and judgemental". I don't see where it was judgemental, and it didn't embarrass me a bit, that's why I wrote it. I invite whoever that was to come actually back their thoughts up like some of the others here have. Nobody is wrong, but if you have an opinion at least state it openly.

My point of view comes from a (perhaps naive) streak of incurable optimism; simply put, I presume the best in people until they show me otherwise. For that reason, I assume that even if, for example, Austin Rivers comes to Duke with the stated goal of leaving for the NBA after one season, during his time at Duke he will fully commit to his role as a representative of the University, a student on campus, and a member of the team. If he comes and behaves differently, so be it. I'll be disappointed. But I'd much rather assume the best intentions out of the kid than assume the worst.* And I feel at least somewhat bolstered in my assumption by the fact that Coach K is pretty darn good about getting kids to "unpack their bags," so to speak, even if it's only for a short period of time.


*I don't mean to say that you're necessarily assuming the worst.

[Reddevil]

The one thing we can (might) all agree on is that the one and done rule blatantly undermines the intent of our so called institutions of higher learning. A kid can come in and flunk out completely while staying eligible to play ball. A two-year rule would at least force some level of academic performance, and therefore at least some investment by the young man. The current system is a farce, and should embarrass everyone associated with any university. I know it's all about money, and the days of money and integrity coexisting are gone forever. I guess I've become old and cranky.:mad:

[theAlaskanBear]

The one thing we can (might) all agree on is that the one and done rule blatantly undermines the intent of our so called institutions of higher learning. A kid can come in and flunk out completely while staying eligible to play ball. A two-year rule would at least force some level of academic performance, and therefore at least some investment by the young man. The current system is a farce, and should embarrass everyone associated with any university. I know it's all about money, and the days of money and integrity coexisting are gone forever. I guess I've become old and cranky.:mad:

I agree 100%. If you are old and cranky, then I am your young and cranky counterpart.

[4decadedukie]

Is your problem that there aren't competitive minor leagues for players to join for football and basketball, or is it that college sports generate revenue? In other words: do you have a problem with minor league baseball, or do you have a problem with collegiate athletics?

How many pre-med students are simply "semi-pro" doctors? How many engineering students are future engineers? Is your problem that just because some student-athletes' future profession is an extracurricular and is one associated with celebrity? I don't find it sad, necessarily, that players don't graduate; I find it more sad that a degree doesn't offer a compelling reason for players to even go to class (like Kentucky).


First, toooskies, I don't have a problem; rather, the current collegiate athletic system has some serious issues (several recent DBR threads consider this at length, and I have delineated my position re the NCAA and potential improvements in these discussions).

Additionally, with this said, my concern is that there are only limited "seats" at reputable universities, and attendance is MUCH more constrained at the few elite higher educational institutions (certainly including Duke). Therefore, any individual who is not seriously committed to scholastic endeavors simply should not occupy one of those coveted positions. This absolutely does not suggest that one's academic-focus need be all-consuming -- a balance among undergraduate social, athletic, service, scholarship, and other activities is ideal -- however, to use a prominent example, this year's crop of Calipari/UK "one and dones" (several of whom purportedly never attended second semester classes) plainly do not belong at a university, even a mediocre one. How many qualified and committed Kentucky high school students were denied admission to UK so Cal's academically pathetic and disinterested "one and dones" could attend (recognizing that Wall, at least, was a reasonable freshman academically)? If your child failed to be admitted to UK so a "one and done" could use his freshman year only to promote an NBA career, would you feel that was reasonable or fair?

Further, you ask "How many pre-med students are simply 'semi-pro' doctors? How many engineering students are future engineers?". The obvious answer is "lots," but I suspect you miss the essential, overriding point. Universities fundamentally exist to promote scholarship, learning and research, with intercollegiate athletics only as a secondary mission. Reading Duke's indenture, among countless other documents, makes this abundantly clear. Thus, it is perfectly appropriate that the pre-med or engineering undergraduate are future professionals in those fields; however, the same is not true with athletes, because the primary, documented, and indisputably acknowledged (for many centuries) purpose of universities is academic (and ethical) preparation, not semi-pro sports.

[CameronBornAndBred]

First, toooskies, I don't have a problem; rather, the current collegiate athletic system has some serious issues (several recent DBR threads consider this at length, and I have delineated my position re the NCAA and potential improvements in these discussions).

Additionally, with this said, my concern is that there are only limited "seats" at reputable universities, and attendance is MUCH more constrained at the few elite higher educational institutions (certainly including Duke). Therefore, any individual who is not seriously committed to scholastic endeavors simply should not occupy one of those coveted positions. This absolutely does not suggest that one's academic-focus need be all-consuming -- a balance among undergraduate social, athletic, service, scholarship, and other activities is ideal -- however, to use a prominent example, this year's crop of Calipari/UK "one and dones" (several of whom purportedly never attended second semester classes) plainly do not belong at a university, even a mediocre one. How many qualified and committed Kentucky high school students were denied admission to UK so Cal's academically pathetic and disinterested "one and dones" could attend (recognizing that Wall, at least, was a reasonable freshman academically)? If your child failed to be admitted to UK so a "one and done" could use his freshman year only to promote an NBA career, would you feel that was reasonable or fair?

Further, you ask "How many pre-med students are simply 'semi-pro' doctors? How many engineering students are future engineers?". The obvious answer is "lots," but I suspect you miss the essential, overriding point. Universities fundamentally exist to promote scholarship, learning and research, with intercollegiate athletics only as a secondary mission. Reading Duke's indenture, among countless other documents, makes this abundantly clear. Thus, it is perfectly appropriate that the pre-med or engineering undergraduate are future professionals in those fields; however, the same is not true with athletes, because the primary, documented, and indisputably acknowledged (for many centuries) purpose of universities is academic (and ethical) preparation, not semi-pro sports.
http://crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/clap.gif (http://crazietalk.net/ourhouse/posting.php?mode=post&f=3#)http://crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/clap.gif (http://crazietalk.net/ourhouse/posting.php?mode=post&f=3#)http://crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/clap.gif (http://crazietalk.net/ourhouse/posting.php?mode=post&f=3#)
That was good stuff. I doubt that anyone is actually exlcuded from acceptance to make room for a couple of basketball players..but your point is well taken.