PDA

View Full Version : The sad saga of Josh Selby (the one-and-done rule)



g-money
04-22-2011, 11:24 PM
Pat Forde with a great article on the one-and-done phenomenon:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=6407176

A question for those who know a lot more about this than I do. It is clear that right now the NCAA has no say in determining when a kid may leave for the NBA. But how does this play out in college baseball? Does MLB have some sort of a "three or none" rule in its CBA, or is it merely frowned upon for a college baseball player to leave after one or two years?

In any case, I'm with the General on this one: One-and-done has been a disaster for college hoops. Anything the NCAA can do to hone in on kids who have a bona fide interest in a college education would be a huge improvement over the bus stop system we have now. My two cents.

darjum
04-23-2011, 01:53 AM
Pat Forde with a great article on the one-and-done phenomenon:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=6407176

A question for those who know a lot more about this than I do. It is clear that right now the NCAA has no say in determining when a kid may leave for the NBA. But how does this play out in college baseball? Does MLB have some sort of a "three or none" rule in its CBA, or is it merely frowned upon for a college baseball player to leave after one or two years?

In any case, I'm with the General on this one: One-and-done has been a disaster for college hoops. Anything the NCAA can do to hone in on kids who have a bona fide interest in a college education would be a huge improvement over the bus stop system we have now. My two cents.

Would you prefer the current 'one and done' or a 'three or none' rule. I would prefer the later, but then we may miss out on seeing the likes of D.Rose, K.Durant, G.Oden...K.Irving...A.Rivers (argh)!

rotogod00
04-23-2011, 08:44 AM
Pat Forde with a great article on the one-and-done phenomenon:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=6407176

A question for those who know a lot more about this than I do. It is clear that right now the NCAA has no say in determining when a kid may leave for the NBA. But how does this play out in college baseball? Does MLB have some sort of a "three or none" rule in its CBA, or is it merely frowned upon for a college baseball player to leave after one or two years?

In any case, I'm with the General on this one: One-and-done has been a disaster for college hoops. Anything the NCAA can do to hone in on kids who have a bona fide interest in a college education would be a huge improvement over the bus stop system we have now. My two cents.

Players at four-year colleges are eligible after completing their junior years, or after their 21st birthdays.

And I agree with you that the one-and-done rule is terrible for college basketball. High schoolers should be allowed to go straight to the NBA if they so choose, but if they do go to college, they need to stay for a minimum of 2 years.

JasonEvans
04-23-2011, 04:38 PM
I have not combed the boards to see if others have linked to this story, but there is a really nice column (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=6407176) up on ESPN from Pat Forde (I usually find him detestable, but he does nice work here) that talks about the silliness of Josh Selby being forced to go to college for one year.

It really is worth a read for the discussion of how going to college ended up hurting Selby more than helping him. But, the part that really struck home with me was the following--


Selby's failure to finish the spring semester should theoretically hurt the program's Academic Progress Rating, but Self was quoted as saying at the time of Selby's announcement that he "worked with his professors to complete his work for the second semester."

If that's true -- that a borderline student out of high school was able to finish his semester's work weeks ahead of time without attending class -- then every degree the school has ever granted has been cheapened.

Color me less than surprised that Kansas has arranged for Selby to pass his classes, even though he is not going to class. Sigh. It is just part of running a big time program these days. Ridiculous.

Still, the larger point of the article remains -- why do we force kids to go to school who have no interest in being there? Now the NBA is said to be considering a rule that would require players to be in school for 2 years before turning pro. Why?!?!

What we need is a system similar to baseball -- if you want to turn pro out of high school, fine. But, if you decide to go to school, then really go to school and stick around for 3 years. Please, please, please do this!!

-Jason "I have been looking around, and most mock drafts now say Selby will go late first or early second round-- shocking he could slip that much" Evans

JasonEvans
04-23-2011, 04:43 PM
What we need is a system similar to baseball -- if you want to turn pro out of high school, fine. But, if you decide to go to school, then really go to school and stick around for 3 years. Please, please, please do this!!

By the way, at the end of the article, Pat Forde and Bill Self make this very same suggestion about the baseball rule. Just to be clear, I have been advocating this for years. I am no Pat Forde copy-cat ;)

-Jason

blazindw
04-23-2011, 05:43 PM
I think the college baseball rule is exactly the model that the NCAA/NBA should adapt. That really makes a player "unpack his bags" and get fully integrated with the college experience. Schools, like Duke, can then put players on a track to graduate in 3 years so that if they consider the draft, they can then do so with a degree.

MaxAMillion
04-23-2011, 05:52 PM
I have not combed the boards to see if others have linked to this story, but there is a really nice column (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=6407176) up on ESPN from Pat Forde (I usually find him detestable, but he does nice work here) that talks about the silliness of Josh Selby being forced to go to college for one year.

It really is worth a read for the discussion of how going to college ended up hurting Selby more than helping him. But, the part that really struck home with me was the following--



Color me less than surprised that Kansas has arranged for Selby to pass his classes, even though he is not going to class. Sigh. It is just part of running a big time program these days. Ridiculous.

Still, the larger point of the article remains -- why do we force kids to go to school who have no interest in being there? Now the NBA is said to be considering a rule that would require players to be in school for 2 years before turning pro. Why?!?!

What we need is a system similar to baseball -- if you want to turn pro out of high school, fine. But, if you decide to go to school, then really go to school and stick around for 3 years. Please, please, please do this!!

-Jason "I have been looking around, and most mock drafts now say Selby will go late first or early second round-- shocking he could slip that much" Evans

I don't understand it. Kids in other sports can go pro right out of high school. It shouldn't be any different for basketball players. It is their lives to live. If they make bad choices by leaving out of high school then so be it. This is more about the NBA attempting to protect itself than anything else.

Duvall
04-23-2011, 06:36 PM
I don't understand it. Kids in other sports can go pro right out of high school. It shouldn't be any different for basketball players. It is their lives to live. If they make bad choices by leaving out of high school then so be it. This is more about the NBA attempting to protect itself than anything else.

It's *entirely* about the NBA trying to protect itself. That's why the rule isn't going to change any time soon.

WakeDevil
04-23-2011, 07:09 PM
Why is it anyone's business to make a player go to college? Why is it anyone's business to tell anyone else they have to get any secondary education? Some of you are very good at trying to run the lives of others.

It's called paternalism.

roywhite
04-23-2011, 07:14 PM
I don't understand it. Kids in other sports can go pro right out of high school. It shouldn't be any different for basketball players. It is their lives to live. If they make bad choices by leaving out of high school then so be it. This is more about the NBA attempting to protect itself than anything else.

Well, football is actually more restrictive; 3 years from high school to the NFL, and there's not much of a minor league alternative.

And baseball historically has had an extensive minor league system for young prospects who do not go to college.

We'll see if there is any change to the current basketball system.

sagegrouse
04-23-2011, 08:01 PM
It's *entirely* about the NBA trying to protect itself. That's why the rule isn't going to change any time soon.

The NBA has a problem the other leagues don't face.

Football players, especially the "big boys," are in no way ready to compete in the NFL coming out of high school. Yeah, there are a few 20 YOs who make it, but even 21 YOs are usually not physically mature enough to compete.

Baseball doesn't put HS players in the majors. Even 3-4 year college players rarely rise to the majors without a couple of years in the minors. The baseball apprenticeship is well-established through the minor leagues.

The NBA is geared to guys coming out of college -- roster size is limited to 15; publicity is oriented towards players that are already well-known from their college careers; and absent a true minor league, the NBA has no ready-made way to baby sit 18YOs until they are ready for the league. It is reasonable -- and legal -- for the NBA and the players' union to preserve a system where players play some time in college before coming to the league. And the colleges support it as well.

I also think it is good for the young players to take it one step at a time: dominate HS, star in college, then go to the NBA. And I do think that players who skip steps may ruin their professional careers. And life for an 18YO on an NBA bench or in a hotel ain't so sweet. There are bound to be bad headlines from rich teenagers gone bad.

Now, could the NCAA develop a minor league system and bypass the colleges totally? You bet, but I think it would be inferior and more costly to the league than a working partnership with the NCAA and the schools. It sure is great to have well-known college players from big-time programs come into the league with built-in recognition and bring their fans with them. And I think players benefit in many ways from time in college -- including, believe it or not, getting an education.

sagegrouse

Jim3k
04-23-2011, 08:40 PM
The NBA has a problem the other leagues don't face.

Football players, especially the "big boys," are in no way ready to compete in the NFL coming out of high school. Yeah, there are a few 20 YOs who make it, but even 21 YOs are usually not physically mature enough to compete.

Baseball doesn't put HS players in the majors. Even 3-4 year college players rarely rise to the majors without a couple of years in the minors. The baseball apprenticeship is well-established through the minor leagues.

The NBA is geared to guys coming out of college -- roster size is limited to 15; publicity is oriented towards players that are already well-known from their college careers; and absent a true minor league, the NBA has no ready-made way to baby sit 18YOs until they are ready for the league. It is reasonable -- and legal -- for the NBA and the players' union to preserve a system where players play some time in college before coming to the league. And the colleges support it as well.

I also think it is good for the young players to take it one step at a time: dominate HS, star in college, then go to the NBA. And I do think that players who skip steps may ruin their professional careers. And life for an 18YO on an NBA bench or in a hotel ain't so sweet. There are bound to be bad headlines from rich teenagers gone bad.

Now, could the NCAA develop a minor league system and bypass the colleges totally? You bet, but I think it would be inferior and more costly to the league than a working partnership with the NCAA and the schools. It sure is great to have well-known college players from big-time programs come into the league with built-in recognition and bring their fans with them. And I think players benefit in many ways from time in college -- including, believe it or not, getting an education.

sagegrouse

I certainly agree with Sage's analysis. But I would add that basketball players who have no real interest in a bachelor's degree can still get pretty fine coaching in junior/community college for a year or two. These schools often offer many programs which are technical or vocational -- leading to an associate's degree (or not). The NBA will not miss them if they are playing well and have a coach's backing. Those two years will give them at least some maturity that they would not otherwise have had. And, if they don't make it to the League, they might still get to the NDBL or a foreign team.

Plus, they would have some sort of non-BB skill or education to fall back on.

I notice that UCLA has just found a recruit at a community college, De'End Parker (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/13/sports/la-sp-0414-basketball-signing-day-20110414).

True, Parker may not be a pro, but consider how a 2-year rule might change the landscape.

The players not academically college material, and ineligible both because of academics and a two-year rule, would route themselves to community colleges. Afterwards, they get their shot as pros. In the meantime, assuming a baseball-type 3-year rule, the four year schools and their players both benefit because: for the players, their degree and four years of well-coached development; for the schools, the degree and the higher level of play from more mature players. And the quality of the college game improves. It's win-win.

Starter
04-23-2011, 08:43 PM
It's funny with baseball -- usually that sort of thing sorts itself out, in terms of a player's draftability. If a player gets drafted high, he almost always goes pro, unless a team drafts a player they know isn't going to come to save money. If a guy thinks he can improve his stock and signing bonus, like he's a 22nd-round pick or something, he can go to college. You see guys drafted really late all the time, and then three years later they're a first- or second-round pick.

It's sort of the opposite in basketball, where a lot of the time, a guy can actually hurt his stock simply by showing up and exposing holes in his game or whatever, like Selby, if you're hellbent on only staying a year. I think an instant entry or two mandatory years sounds about right.

PumpkinFunk
04-23-2011, 08:43 PM
I also think it is good for the young players to take it one step at a time: dominate HS, star in college, then go to the NBA. And I do think that players who skip steps may ruin their professional careers. And life for an 18YO on an NBA bench or in a hotel ain't so sweet. There are bound to be bad headlines from rich teenagers gone bad.

It varies a lot. There are players that have come out of high school and been dominating. Admittedly, their games have weaknesses that a few years of college could have helped (LeBron would've benefited from gaining both some post-up moves and some better perimeter play - his 3FG% is awful, Dwight Howard's offensive post moves have been weak until this season, Kobe just wasn't a team player for a while, etc.) but they were physically and mentally ready. On the other hand, there have been some high school-to-NBA players who flopped. The list of high school to NBA players (Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_high_school_draftees) is filled with some major busts (Brown, for one) or guys who were immature and talented but managed to out in a few years (Eddy Curry).

There are freshman who have gone to the NBA after getting hyped up and busted, too, and others who have been dominant. But staying for 4 years of college has hurt some players, monetarily or otherwise. Ralph Sampson most notably. It's a mixed bag. There's economically less risk to drafting guys who may not be ready, though. So the NBA does it.

Scorp4me
04-23-2011, 09:56 PM
Why is it anyone's business to make a player go to college? Why is it anyone's business to tell anyone else they have to get any secondary education? Some of you are very good at trying to run the lives of others.

It's called paternalism.

No one is telling a kid they have to go to college. A business (in this case the NBA) has every right to choose who they hire. If they want to say they won't hire anyone only one year removed from high school they can do it. As others have said this is about protecting the NBA, not the player. As for getting a secondary education, a kid doesn't have to attend college. They can take a year off or play in the D-league. It just happens to be that neither of those options are as lucrative to your career at this time.

Personally I (and I assumed you) don't like the one and done rule, but I do prefer (like others) the 3 or none rule. Looked at from simply the perspective of the player your argument makes alot of sense. Unfortunately the perspective of the NBA is the one in charge.

sagegrouse
04-23-2011, 10:17 PM
Why is it anyone's business to make a player go to college? Why is it anyone's business to tell anyone else they have to get any secondary education? Some of you are very good at trying to run the lives of others.

It's called paternalism.

No, but the NBA and the players' union have the legal right to set a minimum age or similar restriction on players that play in the NBA.

sagegrouse

anon
04-23-2011, 10:49 PM
Why is it anyone's business to make a player go to college? Why is it anyone's business to tell anyone else they have to get any secondary education? Some of you are very good at trying to run the lives of others.

It's called paternalism.

Personally, I would be much happier going back to the mandatory 4-years rule (with no straight-from-HS option) than what is in place now. You might call it paternalism, but I see it as looking out for the well-being of these kids. Many of them aren't mature enough to make such a huge life decision on their own, and many more of them are surrounded by parents or "handlers" who have their own interests in mind.

Just my two cents...

turnandburn55
04-23-2011, 11:59 PM
No one is telling a kid they have to go to college. A business (in this case the NBA) has every right to choose who they hire. If they want to say they won't hire anyone only one year removed from high school they can do it.

Could you name a few players that the NBA "hires"?

uh_no
04-24-2011, 01:12 AM
Personally, I would be much happier going back to the mandatory 4-years rule (with no straight-from-HS option) than what is in place now. You might call it paternalism, but I see it as looking out for the well-being of these kids. Many of them aren't mature enough to make such a huge life decision on their own, and many more of them are surrounded by parents or "handlers" who have their own interests in mind.

Just my two cents...

Clearly Kobe Bryant was too immature to make the decision to go to the NBA....despite winning an NBA title in what would have been his senior year in college, and was an allstar in what would have been his sophomore year.

Despite the bogus rape case, he's handled himself as well as any other NBA player, and likely better than some who did go to college.

I understand every kid is NOT kobe bryant, but you'd be doing a disservice to a lot of kids if they weren't able to take their skills to the highest level when they are ready. (and oh yes, I do agree that there are a lot of kids who are not ready when they do try to make that move)

I 'left' school after 3 years (and yes...i did graduate). It would have been a great disservice to me had I been told I couldn't do what I wanted to after only 3 years despite being qualified(whether that be graduate school or industry or research)

darjum
04-24-2011, 07:03 AM
College fans don't really have much or any leverage against the NBA. You pay millions of dollars for someones services then they come when you call. As a college fan I'm more worried about the D-League getting itself together and poaching kids right out of high school. If high school kids can get paid even a few hundred thousand a year and get to practice basketball all day everyday without worrying about study I think the temptation would be too much.

Would it actually be in an 18 year old's best interests to skip college, bomb out in the D-League and never get a degree, of course not, but who said all teenagers do what's best for themselves!

AluminumDuke
04-24-2011, 09:07 AM
I agree with all of the others who have posted that the one-and-done rule, and any consideration of a two year equivalent, is purely designed for the NBA to protect itself. Whatever great ideas that we or anyone else can come up with to improve the college game will never be enacted by the NBA unless they are convinced that their league would benefit significantly.

There are, occasionally, kids who come out of high school with enough skills and notoriety to make it in the NBA without an intermediate step. There are many more who think that they have the skills to make it and do not. These are the players that the NBA is trying to protect itself from. They neither want to be burned by taking a kid who dominated in high school but then becomes a monumental bust in the NBA nor be burned by passing on a kid who dominated in high school only to see that kid become an NBA star on another team. They see the one-and-done rule as somehow reducing that risk and presumably see that a two year rule would diminish the risk further by exposing those players who have flaws in their games that are too significant to allow NBA success.

If I were to propose a system to allow the NBA to capture the rare Lebron James or Dwight Howard type player while protecting itself from the others, I would allow early draft entry by invitation only. Let each NBA team blindly (i.e., without conferring with other NBA teams) designate one underclassman who, if they were available at their draft position, they would draft. If there were no such underclassman, they could defer. Presumably, many NBA teams would designate the same player, so the list would probably be pretty short. Send invitations to these players only, and the NBA could then capture the occasional superstar and protect itself from much of the risk. Players would be similarly protected from entering the draft only to go undrafted and being unable to return to college.

Scorp4me
04-24-2011, 09:19 AM
Could you name a few players that the NBA "hires"?

Seriously? The players play, the NBA pays. Some are drafted, some are traded, they're all hired or fired. If you wanna get technical it's the teams that actually pay, but that's getting pretty snippy for something that seems pretty obvious:cool:

darjum
04-24-2011, 09:22 AM
If I were to propose a system to allow the NBA to capture the rare Lebron James or Dwight Howard type player while protecting itself from the others, I would allow early draft entry by invitation only. Let each NBA team blindly (i.e., without conferring with other NBA teams) designate one underclassman who, if they were available at their draft position, they would draft. If there were no such underclassman, they could defer. Presumably, many NBA teams would designate the same player, so the list would probably be pretty short. Send invitations to these players only, and the NBA could then capture the occasional superstar and protect itself from much of the risk. Players would be similarly protected from entering the draft only to go undrafted and being unable to return to college.

An interesting idea. Maybe the league could hire a panel of independent, invisible experts to judge the incoming high school players to determine which/if any are 'ready' for the jump. If it were up to teams and I had a team that was good and had little chance of getting a top draft pick I would sabotage the process so that the kid has to go to college and who knows, by the time he is allowed to come to the NBA, my team may stink and we land him!

Dr. Rosenrosen
04-24-2011, 09:32 AM
It would be interesting if someone did a study of kids who left college after 1 (and maybe 2) years to go to the nba to see what happened to them. How did their careers pan out? What are they doing now? And most importantly to interview them and find out in retrospect if they still think they made the right decision. I wonder what sort of majority opinion or insights might emerge.

InSpades
04-24-2011, 09:42 AM
No one is telling a kid they have to go to college. A business (in this case the NBA) has every right to choose who they hire. If they want to say they won't hire anyone only one year removed from high school they can do it. As others have said this is about protecting the NBA, not the player. As for getting a secondary education, a kid doesn't have to attend college. They can take a year off or play in the D-league. It just happens to be that neither of those options are as lucrative to your career at this time.


I agree with this. In some ways college basketball is a victim of it's own success. If college basketball wasn't so popular and so competitive then there wouldn't be as much interest in being a "1 and done". These kids are able to go to college for 1 year, prove themselves against their peers and at the same time make a marketable name for themself. There's just no better option right now and you can't fault the kids for taking advantage of it. If the D-league was on TV every night and had their playoffs televised prominently then maybe things would be a bit different. Instead the place to go for those things is college. College is the real NBA minor leagues.

pless55
04-24-2011, 10:35 PM
I liked the old rule better when high schoolers could go straight to the NBA. I liked it better than the one and done rule. Otherwise it's like wasting a scholarship on a one year player. Just let the kids go to the NBA if they want to. Otherwise institute system like the NFL or MLB. I hope the NBA gets the two and done rule passed in this collective bargaining agreement. I would let them have a choice. Go straight out of high school or two years of college.

darjum
04-25-2011, 12:12 AM
It would be interesting if someone did a study of kids who left college after 1 (and maybe 2) years to go to the nba to see what happened to them. How did their careers pan out? What are they doing now? And most importantly to interview them and find out in retrospect if they still think they made the right decision. I wonder what sort of majority opinion or insights might emerge.

Agreed, but most 18 year old's still have a superman complex and would believe they are the exception, not the rule.

ice-9
04-25-2011, 12:52 AM
Clearly Kobe Bryant was too immature to make the decision to go to the NBA....despite winning an NBA title in what would have been his senior year in college, and was an allstar in what would have been his sophomore year.

Despite the bogus rape case, he's handled himself as well as any other NBA player, and likely better than some who did go to college.

I understand every kid is NOT kobe bryant, but you'd be doing a disservice to a lot of kids if they weren't able to take their skills to the highest level when they are ready. (and oh yes, I do agree that there are a lot of kids who are not ready when they do try to make that move)

I 'left' school after 3 years (and yes...i did graduate). It would have been a great disservice to me had I been told I couldn't do what I wanted to after only 3 years despite being qualified(whether that be graduate school or industry or research)


It happens all the time in "real life." I didn't need to graduate from school or even go to college to have the skills to be a decent investment banker or management consultant, but no bank or consulting firm would have hired me without that degree.

uh_no
04-25-2011, 01:38 AM
It happens all the time in "real life." I didn't need to graduate from school or even go to college to have the skills to be a decent investment banker or management consultant, but no bank or consulting firm would have hired me without that degree.

To put a better comparison to kobe bryant, nobody told bill gates he couldn't start microsoft without graduating college. Much like most basketball players, most of us 'common' folk go through the motions of college. The greats don't have to, whether they need to or not.

camion
04-25-2011, 06:10 AM
I'm impressed, not by the post, but by the sig.

obĚjecĚtive (b-jktv) - Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices

Very few fans are capable of holding objective opinions.
Even fewer possess the wisdom do discern their own objectivity.
Almost none have the confidence to proclaim it publicly.

Dukeface88
04-25-2011, 09:58 AM
To put a better comparison to kobe bryant, nobody told bill gates he couldn't start microsoft without graduating college. Much like most basketball players, most of us 'common' folk go through the motions of college. The greats don't have to, whether they need to or not.

There are two problems with your analogy. First, Gates wasn't trying to be hired; he was trying to set up his own company. The one-and-done rule doesn't prohibit a player from trying to start his own competing organization. It probably won't work, but it isn't technically impossible. Second, Gates was in fact a "two and through".

Edit: And isn't "objective opinion" an oxymoron? You can have an opinion supported by objective evidence, but that isn't the same thing.

mkirsh
04-25-2011, 10:02 AM
The baseball rule that I would like to see applied to NCAA hoops is the notion that players can be drafted but still retain college eligibility. I think that is one way the NCAA can influence the process, as it allows the kids to make the most informed decisions possible (where did I get drafted, how much money is that slot worth, is the contract guaranteed, what is the team situation, etc), but still return to school if they choose. Also, it would incentivize the NBA to only draft players that they were confident would come, resulting in a situation where kids who were best positioned to contribute to the NBA would be drafted high and go, and kids who were not drafted as high as they like could choose to return to school to improve. NBA would likely be slightly worse off since it would risk players getting drafted and not showing up, NCAA would likely be slightly better off since good but not great players would stick around, and the players would be the most benefitted as the second round / undrafted limbo situation could be avoided. Not sure why the NCAA changed the rule to the early declaration date (or why they treat baseball high school draftees differently), but it seems to really put the players in a bad spot and needs to go.

kmspeaks
04-25-2011, 10:15 AM
The baseball rule that I would like to see applied to NCAA hoops is the notion that players can be drafted but still retain college eligibility. I think that is one way the NCAA can influence the process, as it allows the kids to make the most informed decisions possible (where did I get drafted, how much money is that slot worth, is the contract guaranteed, what is the team situation, etc), but still return to school if they choose. Also, it would incentivize the NBA to only draft players that they were confident would come, resulting in a situation where kids who were best positioned to contribute to the NBA would be drafted high and go, and kids who were not drafted as high as they like could choose to return to school to improve. NBA would likely be slightly worse off since it would risk players getting drafted and not showing up, NCAA would likely be slightly better off since good but not great players would stick around, and the players would be the most benefitted as the second round / undrafted limbo situation could be avoided. Not sure why the NCAA changed the rule to the early declaration date (or why they treat baseball high school draftees differently), but it seems to really put the players in a bad spot and needs to go.

I'm not disagreeing with you entirely here because I don't really know that a perfect solution is possible but the flip side of this is what about the coaches trying to fill out their team. A kid is drafted and hasn't decided whether or not he's coming back and now the coach is stuck in a position of do I have another scholarship available or not. I know this is a huge issue in college baseball. The draft is in June and then they have until August to sign. Which of course is when the fall semester starts. On top of that college baseball has another set of problems with only 12 scholarships and a roster at least double that. A draft and return would benefit the players no doubt, but it could also open a whole new can of worms.

AluminumDuke
04-25-2011, 10:23 AM
A draft and return would benefit the players no doubt, but it could also open a whole new can of worms.

I agree but also think that this may be the only way that the NCAA can make rules that affect the process rather than just adjusting to the NBA's rules. If the NCAA were to change the rule to allow drafted players to return and then encouraged all eligible players to declare for the draft, the NBA would be so overwhelmed with draftable players that they would have to come up with something better.

UrinalCake
04-25-2011, 10:52 AM
A three-and-done rule wouldn't solve the issue of what to do with players who simply don't have the academic makeup for college. It would fix things for the Kobe's and Lebrons who can go straight to the NBA, but what about players who are neither ready to go straight out of high school (basketball-wise) nor willing or able to make the academic commitment in college? In a way, a three year rule would be WORSE for these in-between players because now instead of making a joke out of college for one or two years (after which point they could have improved enough to leave for the NBA) they're instead making a joke for three full years. And now they're filling a seat in an upper-level class that should be occupied by a real student.

Forcing players who shouldn't be in college to stay there even longer isn't the answer.

SoCalDukeFan
04-25-2011, 11:05 AM
The problem with adopting the baseball system is that baseball has an alternative for the guy who wants to play ball but not go to the college, the minor leagues. In football I think for most of those guys the colleges find some way to keep them in school and eligible until their last game, then they drop out. Or they get arrested.

It is the rare 18 year old who is ready for the NBA. Adopt the baseball system and those who don't care about school but are not ready for the NBA will just have to hang on for 3 years at some college, even if they are ready after one or two years of college.

The NBA needs a stronger and larger D League. Then the baseball rule.

SoCal

SoCal

AluminumDuke
04-25-2011, 11:15 AM
The NBA needs a stronger and larger D League. Then the baseball rule.

I agree with the first sentence. But I'm not sure that I believe a stronger and larger D League is possible except in response to a rule like the baseball rule. In other words, if they draft players based on potential who are not yet ready for the league, then they will need a system in which those players can develop. For many players that would mean leaving them in college to develop (wouldn't you rather have your investment developing under Coach K than in the D-league), but there would also be players for whom colllege is not a good option.

The San Antonio Spurs use their D-league team (the Austin Toros are owned by the same investment group) this way, especially for European players that they've drafted who aren't quite NBA ready but are close enough to not want them locked up in a foreign contract.

Nugget
04-25-2011, 12:13 PM
The problem with adopting the baseball system is that baseball has an alternative for the guy who wants to play ball but not go to the college, the minor leagues. In football I think for most of those guys the colleges find some way to keep them in school and eligible until their last game, then they drop out. Or they get arrested.

It is the rare 18 year old who is ready for the NBA. Adopt the baseball system and those who don't care about school but are not ready for the NBA will just have to hang on for 3 years at some college, even if they are ready after one or two years of college.

The NBA needs a stronger and larger D League. Then the baseball rule.

SoCal

SoCal

I think this is generally correct, but I see the timing working the opposite way -- the D League would become "stronger" after there was a baseball-type rule in place.

sagegrouse
04-25-2011, 12:51 PM
I think this is generally correct, but I see the timing working the opposite way -- the D League would become "stronger" after there was a baseball-type rule in place.

Boy, there is a 100 years of history in the way the professional leagues are organized.

Baseball is one of a kind (is that, sui generis, Jason?). It was the original organized sport, and the National League got started before colleges had intervarsity athletics. As a true national pasttime, every town had a team. After awhile, these got roped together into farm systems (thank you, Branch Rickey), and a whole feeder system was created.

Pro football and pro basektball seemed to grow up as a way of taking advantage of the popularity of college football and basketball. I have heard, although I am not expert, that Red Grange was the key to the success of the fledgling National Football League. Admittedly, the early NFL teams, when they went to the big cities, simply copied the names of the pro baseball teams. Thus, not only the New York Giants, but also the NY Yankees and the Brooklyn Dodgers (where Duke's Ace Parker played). The Bears were a frank imitation of the Cubs, and the Chicago Cardinals borrowed the nickname of the most popular and successful National League team.

Basketball was less obviously derivative, in that the NBA didn't start until 1946-47 and was very much a hand-to-mouth league until George Mikan (of DePaul) came along. But Russell, the Big O, Jerry West, and Chamberlain were famous as collegians (heck, Chamberlain was famous as a high schooler) and brought that fame (and gate attractiveness) to the NBA.

Anyway, the NFL and the NBA grew up and continue with the colleges as the feeder system. I really don't think that's gonna change. There is a huge amount of money in college basketball (literally billions) and only a fraction of that would be available in a greatly expanded development league. The same holds, but much more strongly, for pro football. But again, physical maturity dictates that not too many 19YOs are gonna suit up and survive in the NFL.

My two cents -- change freely given.

sagegrouse

Indoor66
04-25-2011, 12:58 PM
Boy, there is a 100 years of history in the way the professional leagues are organized.

Baseball is one of a kind (is that, sui generis, Jason?). It was the original organized sport, and the National League got started before colleges had intervarsity athletics. As a true national pasttime, every town had a team. After awhile, these got roped together into farm systems (thank you, Branch Rickey), and a whole feeder system was created.

Pro football and pro basektball seemed to grow up as a way of taking advantage of the popularity of college football and basketball. I have heard, although I am not expert, that Red Grange was the key to the success of the fledgling National Football League. Admittedly, the early NFL teams, when they went to the big cities, simply copied the names of the pro baseball teams. Thus, not only the New York Giants, but also the NY Yankees and the Brooklyn Dodgers (where Duke's Ace Parker played). The Bears were a frank imitation of the Cubs, and the Chicago Cardinals borrowed the nickname of the most popular and successful National League team.

Basketball was less obviously derivative, in that the NBA didn't start until 1946-47 and was very much a hand-to-mouth league until George Mikan (of DePaul) came along. But Russell, the Big O, Jerry West, and Chamberlain were famous as collegians (heck, Chamberlain was famous as a high schooler) and brought that fame (and gate attractiveness) to the NBA.

Anyway, the NFL and the NBA grew up and continue with the colleges as the feeder system. I really don't think that's gonna change. There is a huge amount of money in college basketball (literally billions) and only a fraction of that would be available in a greatly expanded development league. The same holds, but much more strongly, for pro football. But again, physical maturity dictates that not too many 19YOs are gonna suit up and survive in the NFL.

My two cents -- change freely given.

sagegrouse

Another interesting factoid with the development of the NBA was the territorial picks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_territorial_pick)that were used until 1966. A lot of big names were territorial picks (Chamberlain, Bill Bradley, Walt Hazzard....)