After Irving & Rivers, How Do Duke Fans Feel About the One-and-Done Rule?

[KYtotheCore]

Cal still says he isn't a fan of the rule, but it's an NBA problem to address, and until they do, it's in-bounds.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

I would rather have had a full year of Kyrie on the court, but I'm fine with us having one or two each year. I wish they'd change the rule and make it 2 or 3 years, but that's just me being selfish. :cool:

[superdave]

Absent a D-League that's more useful than the one we've got, college is the minor leagues. I'd probably prefer something like baseball where you can either go pro straight out of high school or you have to stay in college three years.

[MChambers]

Absent a D-League that's more useful than the one we've got, college is the minor leagues. I'd probably prefer something like baseball where you can either go pro straight out of high school or you have to stay in college three years.

I'd like that alternative, but have to add that I think the root of the problem is the rookie salary cap. Makes it easy for NBA teams to draft on "upside" and also encourages players to go early, to burn off the relatively low salaries of the first few years.

[lotusland]

I don't like having players for just one season and I would prefer that they be able to go directly to the NBA if they want to. With that said, we've had two really good ones with Kyrie and Austin. The trade-off is that Dre played fewer minutes this year than he would have sans Austin and probably didn't progress as much as he could have otherwise. That probably will negatively affect the team next year (unless we score the next one and done phenom).

[cspan37421]

I really dislike it but don't begrudge anyone the decisions they have to make to maximize their chances for personal and/or team success.

It's a balancing act for college coaches. You balance the influx of raw talent vs. team cohesion. Sometimes raw talent wins out, sometimes raw talent makes rookie (freshman) mistakes and a veteran team can capitalize on that. And it's not easy to predict in advance which configuration of players/experience will end up the best for your program.

I'm no labor market legal eagle, so what follows next is subject to revision if/when I get a better understanding. But I'm not crazy about the NBA setting that rule. I think that if a player is an adult at 18 they should be able to enter the job market. The NBA is a private group, though, and I suppose with the labor agreement they can set their own rules for entry. Whether they're a monopoly and thus subject to some limitations on their market behavior - I don't know. But it seems that the talking heads agree that the rule was set because management made too many mistakes with kids right out of high school. Whose fault is that? Not the kids! So they set this rule to save themselves from ... themselves. Seems nutty to me - and I am surprised there aren't enough owners who would maintain "I'm not that dumb, I don't need the rule, give me [Prep Star X] now!"

All other things being equal, I'd rather have Duke be a program of 4 year players. All other things being equal, I'd like to see the NBA allow 18 year olds to come right in out of HS, perhaps to the NBDL first if necessary, so that college basketball is again for college students. But all else is not equal, and I am in no position to second-guess Coach K's judgment about whether a player would, even if they just came for 1 year, be a net benefit to the program (and university) or not.

I think if we made the Final Four either of the last 2 years we probably aren't having this thread.

[SoCalDukeFan]

I did not like the one and done when it went in and don't like it now.

Let kids who think they are ready for the NBA go pro right out of high school.

If a kid wants to go to college, have him go at least two years.

The current system lets a kid take minimal courses to be eligible his first semester, then drop out of school when the season ends. Hardly going to college.

One and done is good for the NBA as it lets NBA scouts see players in better competition than high school.

A stronger D League would help also.

SoCal

[CameronBornAndBred]

I feel the same way about it now as I did before Kyrie and Austin.
I think it sucks.

[MChambers]

But I'm not crazy about the NBA setting that rule. I think that if a player is an adult at 18 they should be able to enter the job market. The NBA is a private group, though, and I suppose with the labor agreement they can set their own rules for entry. Whether they're a monopoly and thus subject to some limitations on their market behavior - I don't know.
My understanding is that the NBA restrictions on when a player can go pro and the rookie salary cap would be illegal under antitrust law, but for the labor agreement with the NBA players union.

[Lar77]

I really dislike it but don't begrudge anyone the decisions they have to make to maximize their chances for personal and/or team success.

It's a balancing act for college coaches. You balance the influx of raw talent vs. team cohesion. Sometimes raw talent wins out, sometimes raw talent makes rookie (freshman) mistakes and a veteran team can capitalize on that. And it's not easy to predict in advance which configuration of players/experience will end up the best for your program.

I'm no labor market legal eagle, so what follows next is subject to revision if/when I get a better understanding. But I'm not crazy about the NBA setting that rule. I think that if a player is an adult at 18 they should be able to enter the job market. The NBA is a private group, though, and I suppose with the labor agreement they can set their own rules for entry. Whether they're a monopoly and thus subject to some limitations on their market behavior - I don't know. But it seems that the talking heads agree that the rule was set because management made too many mistakes with kids right out of high school. Whose fault is that? Not the kids! So they set this rule to save themselves from ... themselves. Seems nutty to me - and I am surprised there aren't enough owners who would maintain "I'm not that dumb, I don't need the rule, give me [Prep Star X] now!"

All other things being equal, I'd rather have Duke be a program of 4 year players. All other things being equal, I'd like to see the NBA allow 18 year olds to come right in out of HS, perhaps to the NBDL first if necessary, so that college basketball is again for college students. But all else is not equal, and I am in no position to second-guess Coach K's judgment about whether a player would, even if they just came for 1 year, be a net benefit to the program (and university) or not.

I think if we made the Final Four either of the last 2 years we probably aren't having this thread.

I agree with most of your points. If a person is 18, they have the legal ability to many things (except drink - different discussion). Most probably lack the maturity and experience to make a well informed decision, but that's also a different topic. Some are physically and mentally built for the jump to the pros - LeBron, Howard, for two recent examples - and some are not and could benefit from expert coaching and more importantly, playing against more physically mature players than the average high school player. I heard someone use Greg Oden as an example - that he never faced a guy of his size and ability until well into his college career and did not fare well that time. Perhaps the problem is not with the NBA but with the NCAA and its supposed devotion to amateur purity. Not advocating paying players per se, but what about allowing them back into college to play if they try the pros (even declare for the draft) and can't cut it or don't feel ready for it. It would affect many other things like recruiting and so forth and might engender some abuses, but isn't it a bit like interning? The high school kid - let's use Kyrie as an example - could go to a summer pro league and check his skills against future players in NBA-like conditions (like defense being played). If he is as good as a Kyrie, he can choose to move on, or go back to college and work on improving his skills (probably would have some issues with scholarships and so forth but that's beyond this post).

[Bojangles4Eva]

I personally don't like it. It makes freshman year in college like a tryout for the NBA. I think college bball should be reserved for players that at least buy into the idea of getting an education. If they got $$ on the brain or are ready to play NBA out of high school, let them do it. If they are not NBA ready but have no desire to go to college, they should be able to play in the D league or abroad (I guess they can still go abroad like Jennings did).

Some players explode their fr/so year, catch the eyes of scouts, and set sail on that ship. I am fine with that. It's the kids that are forced to go to school when they already have their minds set on going to the NBA after a year that I do not like. In a way, it kind of makes a joke out of our higher education system if schools are willing to accept kids that have no desire to get a degree.

[Tucknut]

I don't like it but we may as well accept it. Last year, it was Kyrie. This year, Austin. And if we're lucky enough to get him, next year it will be Shabazz.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

I don't like having players for just one season and I would prefer that they be able to go directly to the NBA if they want to. With that said, we've had two really good ones with Kyrie and Austin. The trade-off is that Dre played fewer minutes this year than he would have sans Austin and probably didn't progress as much as he could have otherwise. That probably will negatively affect the team next year (unless we score the next one and done phenom).

Not to hijack the thread, but I disagree with what you say about Dre. If he had played like he's capable of, like he did in a handfull of games, he would have played ~30 +/- minutes in every game. All he had to do was make his shots and play decent defense. He had his moments and his star shined brightly early in the season - the minutes were his to lose. And he did. Repeatedly. He needs to work hard this summer to become the superstar we (or at leat I) think he can be.

[sagegrouse]

The OP asked in the thread title, "After Irving & Rivers, How Do Duke Fans Feel About the One-and-Done Rule?"

Every college fan hates it! All college fans preferred a system with very limited eligibility for the pros until well after leaving high school.

But we don't have a vote in the matter, nor does the NCAA.

sagegrouse

[wsb3]

Absent a D-League that's more useful than the one we've got, college is the minor leagues. I'd probably prefer something like baseball where you can either go pro straight out of high school or you have to stay in college three years.

I would love the rule for basketball to be like the baseball rule.You want to go high school to NBA have at it. But if you sign on the dotted line to attend college you remain for 3 years minimum. It would bring stability to college basketball and I personally could care less about the NBA.

[ncexnyc]

The OP asked in the thread title, "After Irving & Rivers, How Do Duke Fans Feel About the One-and-Done Rule?"

Every college fan hates it! All college fans preferred a system with very limited eligibility for the pros until well after leaving high school.

But we don't have a vote in the matter, nor does the NCAA.

sagegrouse

Really, the NCAA doesn't have a vote in the matter. How about tightening up the rules on graduation vis a vis scholarships. Or maybe adapt a rule that penalizies an institution by docking them in the following fashion. If you have a player jump after a season, you lose 3 yrs worth of scholarship time for another player. If that team were to have 2 players jump after a year then the penalty would be 6 years and so on down the line.

Once a program gets burned by these type of players, they'd think long and hard about these type of kids.

How about contracts between incoming players and institutions. If the player reneges they are on the hook for X amount of dollars?

There is plenty that the NCAA can do, they've just got to sit down and make a decision.

[cspan37421]

All college fans preferred a system with very limited eligibility for the pros until well after leaving high school.
sagegrouse

Pardon me, but I'm a college fan and I do not prefer "a system with very limited eligibility for the pros until well after leaving high school."

If you read my post, you'll note that I favor immediate eligibility. For the players who can go pro at 18: let them go. For the players who want a college education: let them play college basketball.

If the NBA doesn't want 18yr olds that quickly, they should instead pass a rule that they have to go to the NBDL (or something like that) for a year. That way, they can get paid even more than they might in college and the NBA can still not be financially burdened by their massive mistakes.

[Furniture]

Do you hate it if you are a Kentucky fan?

I think you only hate it when you support a team like Duke when you have a nagging feeling that maybe your one and doner was only thinking about himself, his own stats and not the team!

Remember I said a nagging feeling no proof and probably not true....

[anon]

I would love the rule for basketball to be like the baseball rule.You want to go high school to NBA have at it. But if you sign on the dotted line to attend college you remain for 3 years minimum. It would bring stability to college basketball and I personally could care less about the NBA.

Two questions, because I hear a lot of people say this.

1. Why three and not four? Three has absolutely no meaning. Four is the number of years it typically takes to get a bachelor's degree.

2. Why not just go back to the old system, which was basically the same thing? If you are a one-and-doner in the current system, you're just going to go directly. If you aren't, you're probably going to stay for at least three years anyway. Obviously there are a few exceptions, but they seem to have worked out OK. (Luol / Corey)

Not trying to antagonize. Just wondering.

[sagegrouse]

Pardon me, but I'm a college fan and I do not prefer "a system with very limited eligibility for the pros until well after leaving high school."

If you read my post, you'll note that I favor immediate eligibility. For the players who can go pro at 18: let them go. For the players who want a college education: let them play college basketball.

If the NBA doesn't want 18yr olds that quickly, they should instead pass a rule that they have to go to the NBDL (or something like that) for a year. That way, they can get paid even more than they might in college and the NBA can still not be financially burdened by their massive mistakes.

You're right. I should have posted my insistent message with the caveat that "straight to the pros was OK," but college should have a commitment.

On another thread, someone said "why three, why not four," cuz that's the normal college lifetime. OK, but Duke has had a number of three-year players graduate, including JWill and Dunleavy and, if he wants, Mason. I believe the same thing happens in baseball, which does have a three-year commitment once a player goes to college.

sagegrouse

[Lord Ash]

I am happy for for Kyrie, Austin, Luol, and Corey. I am happy they are Dukies.

That said, the saddest day in my own history of Duke fandom is when the 99 guys declared early. I was always very proud that every Duke guy played four years until then. It somehow felt like it respected Duke as an educational institution.

[throatybeard]

I suppose the real question for Duke's sake to ask is, do you think if HS kids could go to the NBA straight, would KI and AR have stopped here at all? Did they help us?

I don't know. Let's ignore KI's injury. That's peripheral.

AR helped us against UNC. And other times, as much as this "addition by subtraction" meme has taken hold. I don't understand how people regard the loss of your best player as a good thing, but I've heard/seen too much of it to pretend it isn't there. The judgment on AR has been shocking.

If you think college BB is enriched by a year of these dudes vs none, then it helps college BB. Also, if a guy decides to go to the draft straight out of HS, there's no chance he stays for his sophomore year. But if he goes to college for one year, there's some nonzero chance he stays for year two. Might be low, but it exists.

I'm comfy with a year of a rental of a guy. Why are we so ready to act like 2 or 3 years is so much better than 1 year, from some 1977-purity-test perspective? Meh. I kind of think given how stacked the draft is this year, AR should come back. For his sake. But I'm all whatev by this point. We have to do what we have to do. And as long as we don't compromise the integrity of the program, I don't care whether a dude is here 1, 2, 3 or 4 years. Heck, Maggette did this thirteen years ago. I guess what I'm saying is, if Mike Krzyzewski is cool with a one-and-done, so am I. And I ain't nobody.

Come back Austin! (After those workouts). But if you don't, let's recruit more Austins. If they exist. It's 2012, not 1965.

[greybeard]

On this, I'm an Adam Smith guy all the way. One and dones will much, much more often than not be none and dones. I think that the college game would be btter it. When guycoold go straight t the pros, if I remember correctly, players didn't leave after one year (was there a rule against that) but rather seemed to have had a real interest in getting a start in life, you know, geting themselves a ood start on life fter basketball, maturing entallly, emotionally and physically for the challenges on the next level and, more importantly, for thbulk of their lives tht was to come long after their playing da ended.

As a fan, I'd like to think that there was one area of high level basketball in which good teams were not built on immediate dollars. In the pros, owners can radically change a deam by buying and selling players. College is becoming infected by the same disease--not the making of money, I'm all for that-tbuying players for one year's stardoom on the college level and then paying them what they would have earned straight out of high, but by forcing guys who wou signed straight out of high school. Those kids should have a chance to go for the dough as soon as the pros will draft them high and pay them a fortune.

In the main, those kids, unless that are grouped in a gaggle like Kentucky does, would be crazy if they didn't push their individual games, if for nothing else but to stave off losing ground. In the meantime, fans are left to root for the stars, who actually are pros in college garb, and miss out on seeing the guys who grow up as players, terammates and men right before out eyes. We get to appreciate the star coaches, and there are many, really be educators and team builders; heck, aside for the star coaches, the mid level ranks on up are filled with them. Probably on down as well.

Let them sign out of high school; those who don't will probably be like Dunlevy, Boozer, Brand, and so many others who get quite a lot oout of a college experience, things I should think are irreplaceable, while actually giving the fans something to be fans about.

[MADevil30]

Really, the NCAA doesn't have a vote in the matter. How about tightening up the rules on graduation vis a vis scholarships. Or maybe adapt a rule that penalizies an institution by docking them in the following fashion. If you have a player jump after a season, you lose 3 yrs worth of scholarship time for another player. If that team were to have 2 players jump after a year then the penalty would be 6 years and so on down the line.

Once a program gets burned by these type of players, they'd think long and hard about these type of kids.

How about contracts between incoming players and institutions. If the player reneges they are on the hook for X amount of dollars?

There is plenty that the NCAA can do, they've just got to sit down and make a decision.

Sure the NCAA could do that, but why would they? That policy would hurt everyone involved, including the NCAA. Schools - especially those that expect to compete for championships year in and year out - would shy away from potential one-and-done players just like you suggested. But where do those players go? They still can't go to the NBA for another year, so most likely to smaller schools that are willing to throw away three future years for one big run. So instead of Kentucky being full of one-and-dones, you would have say, Akron. When the bluebloods don't dominate, national interest in college basketball wanes and the NCAA looses out on exposure and revenue. Players loose out on the experience and exposure of playing for a big name school with a passionate fanbase. No one wins. Furthermore, punishing the school does nothing to incentivize the players to stay longer.

But I think a more important point to touch on is why we vilify players for leaving early in the first place. I think the recent Onion graphic on John Calipari (you cant find it here http://www.theonion.com/articles/john-calipari,27596/) put it best when they (sarcastically) said he "makes a mockery of higher education by helping students find multimillion-dollar careers in their chosen profession." Isn't that really the point of a college career in the first place? Lets not pretend that any one-and-done type player is at school (even Duke) to get an education. That one year is a chance to grow as a player to prepare for a future career NBA; just like the rest of us are here to prepare for careers in law, medicine, engineering, research, etc. Believe me, if I could have left school early to make a million dollars as a doctor, I would have. I have no problem with a basketball player doing the same.

[tommy]

On this, I'm an Adam Smith guy all the way. One and dones will much, much more often than not be none and dones. I think that the college game would be btter it. When guycoold go straight t the pros, if I remember correctly, players didn't leave after one year (was there a rule against that) but rather seemed to have had a real interest in getting a start in life, you know, geting themselves a ood start on life fter basketball, maturing entallly, emotionally and physically for the challenges on the next level and, more importantly, for thbulk of their lives tht was to come long after their playing da ended.

By and large, you're right that when guys could go straight to the pros from high school, there were relatively few who, having chosen to go to college, left after just one year. Here's the way it went:

In 1996, three freshmen came out: a juco guy nobody's heard of, plus Shareef Abdur-Rahim and Stephon Marbury. Three high schoolers, including Kobe Bryant, came out.

In 1997, two freshmen and one high schooler (Tracy McGrady) came out.

In 1998, three freshmen (one at a juco) and four high schoolers came out.

In 1999, four freshmen (including Corey Maggette) and two high schoolers came out.

In 2000, three freshmen and two high schoolers came out.

In 2001, nine freshmen and six high schoolers (including 3 of the first four draft picks -- Kwame Brown, Tyson Chandler, and Eddie Curry) came out.

In 2002, six freshmen (four of whom you've never heard of) and four high schoolers (including Amare Stoudemire) came out.

In 2003, three freshmen came out: a guy named Jonathan Hargett, and two guys named Carmelo Anthony and Chris Bosh. Five high schoolers came out, including LeBron James.

In 2004, five freshmen (including, sigh, Luol Deng and Kris Humphries) and nine high schoolers (including Dwight Howard and Shaun Livingston) came out.

In 2005, three freshmen (including Marvin Williams) and eleven high schoolers came out.



At this point, the "one and done" rule came into effect. So then:



In 2006, two freshmen came out.

In 2007, nine freshmen, including Greg Oden and Kevin Durant, came out.

In 2008, 14 freshmen, led by Derrick Rose, came out.

In 2009, five freshmen came out.

In 2010, eleven freshmen, led by John Wall, came out.

And in 2011, Kyrie Irving (again, sigh) led a group of nine freshmen to come out.


Summing it up, in the ten drafts where high schoolers could come out, 41 freshmen came out, so 4.1 per year.

In the six drafts since the one-and-done rule was instituted, 50 freshmen have come out, or 8.3 per year. Twice as many.

I think you're right. In the high school-straight-to-the-draft days, most of the kids who chose not to go that route, but rather tried it in college, ended up staying awhile -- at least two years. It seems like now, with the one-and-done rule, there are a lot more kids who are in college for that one year only because they're forced to. If they could've gone pro right out of high school, many would have (the numbers above show the average was 4.2 per year), therefore reducing the numbers of college players leaving after just one year.

I will say, though, that for all the hue and cry over freshmen leaving college, these are still pretty small numbers when viewed in the context of all the college ballplayers out there populating all these teams.

[wsb3]

Two questions, because I hear a lot of people say this.

1. Why three and not four? Three has absolutely no meaning. Four is the number of years it typically takes to get a bachelor's degree.

2. Why not just go back to the old system, which was basically the same thing? If you are a one-and-doner in the current system, you're just going to go directly. If you aren't, you're probably going to stay for at least three years anyway. Obviously there are a few exceptions, but they seem to have worked out OK. (Luol / Corey)

Not trying to antagonize. Just wondering.

Three years should get someone pretty close to a degree and even if they left hopefully many would want to obtain their degree. Also and I don't know that it has anything to do with this but I wonder if baseball went with the 3 years because it in most cases it would coincide with being age 21. I don't know that we will ever see it but I would love it if we followed the baseball rule. I think it is the most we could ever hope for but what may happen next is they have to stay two years. That seems to be the one rule change that is mentioned most. Regardless if they have no interest in going to school and are good enough go straight to the NBA.

One and done also creates a hired gun where some kids have zero interest in school and just try to stay eligible. Not at Duke which add that to the list of things I love about Duke.

[Buckeye Devil]

It might depend on what a one and done brings to the program in terms of success. KI was a great talent but the team did make the Sweet 16 last year basically without him and I never like the way Nolan's Duke time ended. He was doing a good job at the point and "Zona was a matchup problem for Duke with or without Irving. It might also depend on the team that the one and done joins. There was no way that AR was going to push this team over the top. He was good but not overwhelming and the players around him were not exactly vintage Duke. It was a lot different with Syracuse in 03 when Melo had a group of solid players around him. I am not trying to diminish this year's team but it was a bit sub-par and K did a whale of a job getting what he did out of them. I don't like the rule but what is a coach to do? He has to go after them and land them once in a while to keep the program relevant and on the national radar.

There is a good read on ESPN.com about the impact it will have if UK wins it all with its one and dones. It aint pretty IMO.

[gocanes0506]

This thread will stop if the NCAA enforces this graduation rate rule. If they do teams like UK will be screwed because they would have a graduation rate of about 10 percent or so. Then again UK could allow they too take basket weaving online so that they can get a degree later

[oldnavy]

I believe that the whole system is broken. I will say up front that I do not expect many to share my feelings.

I think it is obscene that NBA players and professional athletes in general make the amount of money they make. I know, I know, they make what the market will bear and I am a capitalist at heart so I understand what is happening. But, I don't like it. Teachers, police, fire, EMT, nurses, military personnel and yes even doctors earn way less money over their careers than most NBA players, even the ones that never make it big. To me something is wrong with this. I am not saying that other professions should make as much, but I do question why we value watching guys play a game way more than we do other less exciting yet much more meaningful professions. Is it (the NBA) really that entertaining??

I have heard the argument that they need to earn big dollars because their careers are short. My logic to that is, well get another job when you are done playing ball... who says that you need to earn enough money in 10 years so that you never have to work again? Are you telling me that Steve Nash will be unable to hold a job in the next 5 years after he retires? I spent 20 years in the Navy and retired, but guess what? I got another job and work about 50 hours a week because I have to in order to put two kids through college...

Sometimes I am an old grumpy man, this is one of those times. I can see a day in this country when the economy gets so bad that things like the NBA, NFL, MLB etc... will be luxuries that we cannot afford. I hope I am wrong, but I think it will not be long before they price themselves out of jobs. The average person cannot afford to go to a game now...

I think college should be for education. I think that if everyone spent as little (zero in direct $) on the NBA then the players would be making a lot less money and more likely to stay in college so they would be thankful they were able to get a "free" education that they can use in their second career after the playing days are over.

Getting down off the soap box now.... thanks for letting me vent.

[miramar]

Joe Nocera's take is worth a read:

It was amusing this week to watch [incoming NCAA president Mark] Emmert trot out “the collegiate model” as he was confronted with the reality of the “one and done” freshman. “One and done” freshmen — or players who have no interest in college and are enrolling only until they turn 19 and become eligible for the professional draft — have been a hot topic in the runup to this weekend’s Final Four. That’s because John Calipari, the Kentucky coach, has become the master of recruiting them — and his team is favored to win the championship. Calipari is completely upfront about what he is doing: He is gaming the system by bringing in players who need a way station until they are old enough to turn pro. Indeed, Calipari tells them when he is recruiting them that he doesn’t expect them to stay for more than a year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/31/opinion/nocera-orwell-and-march-madness.html?_r=1&hp

[FellowTraveler]

As a matter of principle, I find the idea of preventing people from going to the NBA straight out of high school, or at any other point at which they want to and at which an NBA team would hire them, objectionable. Talk of requiring two years of college, or players to sign contracts that would require them to pay penalties to schools if they leave before three years, strikes me as deeply wrong.

Obviously, not everyone shares my values and perspective on those matters. But even from the narrow self-interest of a college basketball fan, I find these “solutions” highly questionable. Here’s why:

The more you force or coerce players who don’t want to be in college to stay in college, the more you have college basketball teams made up of players who don’t want to be on college basketball teams.

That’s something college basketball fans want?

[SupaDave]

Joe Nocera's take is worth a read:

It was amusing this week to watch [incoming NCAA president Mark] Emmert trot out “the collegiate model” as he was confronted with the reality of the “one and done” freshman. “One and done” freshmen — or players who have no interest in college and are enrolling only until they turn 19 and become eligible for the professional draft — have been a hot topic in the runup to this weekend’s Final Four. That’s because John Calipari, the Kentucky coach, has become the master of recruiting them — and his team is favored to win the championship. Calipari is completely upfront about what he is doing: He is gaming the system by bringing in players who need a way station until they are old enough to turn pro. Indeed, Calipari tells them when he is recruiting them that he doesn’t expect them to stay for more than a year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/31/opinion/nocera-orwell-and-march-madness.html?_r=1&hp

And of course, Stern believes it's the colleges that should do better.

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/28/david-stern-takes-a-shot-at-the-ncaa-when-asked-about-one-and-done-players-in-college-basketball/

[PADukeMom]

Not a fan of the 1 & done rule but it's the rule. Yes it was nice having Kyrie & Austin for a year. Thing is the past 2 years having 1 & doners we failed to make it out of the second round last year & this year was...nevermind.

2010 team had zero 1 & doners. I am kind of partial to the 2010 team. Yes Austin & Kyrie gave us some great moments but nothing comes close to cutting nets at Indy. Neither can ever be a Nolan Smith to me because I never got the chance to enjoy them for 4 years. Yes they are part of the Duke family & I will shut-up until Midnite Madness.

Have a great summer everyone!

[Bluedog]

Summing it up, in the ten drafts where high schoolers could come out, 41 freshmen came out, so 4.1 per year.

In the six drafts since the one-and-done rule was instituted, 50 freshmen have come out, or 8.3 per year. Twice as many.

Thanks for supplying those numbers. Looking at it another way, though, before the one-and-done rule was instituted there were 8.8 players/year on average that came out before their sophomore year of college. (And it was trending up with 12.2 players/year for the 2001-5 timeframe.) Since the rule was instituted, there have been 8.3 players/year on average that came out before their sophomore year of college, a number smaller than the previous 8.8 average over the previous 10 years and much smaller than the 12.2 trend that was established for the previous 5 years.

Thus, it seems like the one-and-done rule that the NBA has instituted has successfully served its purpose from the NBA perspective. That is, teams are more easily able to identify players that can cut it in the NBA after a year of high quality competition in the NCAA rather than having to make that determination at the high school level where there are more variables involved. It was much more likely in the past for a franchise to take a risk on a high schooler and end up being a bust, since they obviously hadn't played against top notch competition. So, from a pure numbers perspective, it seems like the rule has made more players stay in college past their freshman year, which may or may not be meaningful/good depending on your perspective. But again, as you said, these numbers are still miniscule in comparison to how many participants there are at the DI level.

[AsiaMinor]

I hate it because I think it does harm to more players than it does good. The value of a full four years of education is priceless. If you're good, you'll be good after four years of maturity, education, better able to handle whichever imposter (success or failure) comes your way.

[DukieTiger]

My guess: Kyrie and Austin would have been one-and-done with or without the rule. How many guards have gone pro straight out of high school?

I don't really think the rule has had such a big impact, aside from guys like Oden, Durant, Rose, Beasley, Wall, Davis. We're talking a handful of guys in each class. I think it's been great for college bball to have those guys around, but negligible impact on Duke. Additionally how many one-and-dones have won a national championship? How many of those guys wouldn't have been in college, if it weren't for the 1-year rule?

[DukieTiger]

I hate it because I think it does harm to more players than it does good. The value of a full four years of education is priceless. If you're good, you'll be good after four years of maturity, education, better able to handle whichever imposter (success or failure) comes your way.

This rule has no bearing on whether players stay four years. If anything, theoretically, it makes them more likely to do so. And if 4 years of education is priceless, then how does it hurt guys like Kevin Durant to get 1 year of education- rather than none at all?

[Reddevil]

I believe that the whole system is broken. I will say up front that I do not expect many to share my feelings.

I think it is obscene that NBA players and professional athletes in general make the amount of money they make. I know, I know, they make what the market will bear and I am a capitalist at heart so I understand what is happening. But, I don't like it. Teachers, police, fire, EMT, nurses, military personnel and yes even doctors earn way less money over their careers than most NBA players, even the ones that never make it big. To me something is wrong with this. I am not saying that other professions should make as much, but I do question why we value watching guys play a game way more than we do other less exciting yet much more meaningful professions. Is it (the NBA) really that entertaining??

I have heard the argument that they need to earn big dollars because their careers are short. My logic to that is, well get another job when you are done playing ball... who says that you need to earn enough money in 10 years so that you never have to work again? Are you telling me that Steve Nash will be unable to hold a job in the next 5 years after he retires? I spent 20 years in the Navy and retired, but guess what? I got another job and work about 50 hours a week because I have to in order to put two kids through college...

Sometimes I am an old grumpy man, this is one of those times. I can see a day in this country when the economy gets so bad that things like the NBA, NFL, MLB etc... will be luxuries that we cannot afford. I hope I am wrong, but I think it will not be long before they price themselves out of jobs. The average person cannot afford to go to a game now...

I think college should be for education. I think that if everyone spent as little (zero in direct $) on the NBA then the players would be making a lot less money and more likely to stay in college so they would be thankful they were able to get a "free" education that they can use in their second career after the playing days are over.

Getting down off the soap box now.... thanks for letting me vent.

.........bring back the frosh ineligibility rule, and the rest will take care of iteslf.

[GoingFor#5]

I don't like it. I don't think players should be restricted from going to the NBA when they want, including directly from HS. Also, I think it is good for the college game because you wouldn't get players intending to be one-and-done (not nearly as many at least as many of them wouldn't attend college in the first place).

[dcdevil2009]

I think it is obscene that NBA players and professional athletes in general make the amount of money they make. I know, I know, they make what the market will bear and I am a capitalist at heart so I understand what is happening. But, I don't like it. Teachers, police, fire, EMT, nurses, military personnel and yes even doctors earn way less money over their careers than most NBA players, even the ones that never make it big. To me something is wrong with this. I am not saying that other professions should make as much, but I do question why we value watching guys play a game way more than we do other less exciting yet much more meaningful professions. Is it (the NBA) really that entertaining??

I definitely agree that some players are grossly overpaid and many doctors, nurses, firemen, etc. are underpaid, but don't think it's fair to say we value watching guys play a game more than other more meaningful professions. If you look at the professions in the aggregate, how much athletes get paid is much more reasonable. The lowest paid NBA player gets about $400k a year and the highest gets about $20 million, but there are also only 400-500 NBA players in the league compared with how many hundreds of thousands of people in the more important professions. Also, think how much more consumers spend on healthcare or than entertainment each year. It seems like it's just a matter of fewer athletes than nurses, firemen, teachers, etc., to spread the money around.


This rule has no bearing on whether players stay four years. If anything, theoretically, it makes them more likely to do so. And if 4 years of education is priceless, then how does it hurt guys like Kevin Durant to get 1 year of education- rather than none at all?

I disagree with this to some extent. Before the rule, there was a choice as to whether a player went to college in the first place, now players for the most part don't have a meaningful choice about whether to go to college. In effect, they had two choices, first whether to go to college and if yes, which college to go to. Now, the question for potential one and dones is where to spend a year, so they don't go in really committing to college over the pros, they go in committing to a particular program. If you don't have to go to college in the first place, but decide to instead of the NBA, then I would think you'd be going in with the mindset of spending multiple years there instead of bolting after a year. I'd imagine it's a lot harder to turn down millions of dollars the first time (out of high school) than the second time (after your freshman year).

[Chris Randolph]

Personally, I can't stand the rule. Just let them declare out of high school. When a person graduates high school and is 18 years old, he should be able to pursue his line of work. As far as recruiting one and dones, you'd be foolish not to. They are the best players in their high school class 98% of the time

[COYS]

Personally, I can't stand the rule. Just let them declare out of high school. When a person graduates high school and is 18 years old, he should be able to pursue his line of work. As far as recruiting one and dones, you'd be foolish not to. They are the best players in their high school class 98% of the time

Especially considering that not all the one and dones end up being one and dones. Jones at UK, Sullinger at Ohio State, and Barnes at UNC all stayed an "extra year." Duke has gotten lucky in this regard, too. McRoberts could have jumped (maybe he should have jumped) after his freshman season. Meanwhile, there are also surprise one and dones, like Moe Harkless of St. John's this year. Anyway, my point is that It is crazy to steer clear of a recruit just because you expect them to be one and done because there is no certainty that they will actually be one and done.

[tommy]

Thanks for supplying those numbers. Looking at it another way, though, before the one-and-done rule was instituted there were 8.8 players/year on average that came out before their sophomore year of college. (And it was trending up with 12.2 players/year for the 2001-5 timeframe.) Since the rule was instituted, there have been 8.3 players/year on average that came out before their sophomore year of college, a number smaller than the previous 8.8 average over the previous 10 years and much smaller than the 12.2 trend that was established for the previous 5 years.

Thus, it seems like the one-and-done rule that the NBA has instituted has successfully served its purpose from the NBA perspective. That is, teams are more easily able to identify players that can cut it in the NBA after a year of high quality competition in the NCAA rather than having to make that determination at the high school level where there are more variables involved. It was much more likely in the past for a franchise to take a risk on a high schooler and end up being a bust, since they obviously hadn't played against top notch competition. So, from a pure numbers perspective, it seems like the rule has made more players stay in college past their freshman year, which may or may not be meaningful/good depending on your perspective. But again, as you said, these numbers are still miniscule in comparison to how many participants there are at the DI level.

I think you may be misunderstanding one aspect of my post. I didn't indicate the number of players drafted straight out of high school or after one year of college. My numbers were the numbers of such players who made themselves available for the draft. There were quite a few who made themselves available, but were not drafted. Big mistakes by those players, obviously. But actually the NBA teams haven't made very many huge mistakes on high school players who came out. To wit, here are the draft positions of each of the high schoolers who have come out, and their NBA fates:

1996:
Kobe Bryant (round 1, selection 13): obvious all-time great
Jermain O'Neal (round 1, selection 17): solid long-time pro and All-Star
Taj McDavid: undrafted

1997:
Tracy McGrady (round 1, selection 9): multi-year all-star

1998:
Al Harrington (1, 25): solid pro
Rashard Lewis (round 2, overall selection 32): solid pro
Korleone Young (2, 40): nowhere
Ellis Richardson: undrafted

1999:
Jonathan Bender (1,5) bad knee injuries early, probably wasn't going to be great but never had a fair chance to find out
Leon Smith (1,29): nowhere. Psych problems. Sad.

2000:
Darius Miles (1,3): promising start, mainstay of a brief Clipper resurgence but it didn't last, he got hurt and was never the same. Never all that devoted to the game. Disappointment for sure.
DeShawn Stevenson (1,23) Not a star, but now in his 12th year in the league, so doing something right

2001:
Kwame Brown (1,1): bust who somehow is still hanging around the league
Tyson Chandler (1,2): defensive star and lockerroom stalwart, has a championship ring. Winning player.
Eddie Curry (1,4): immature and rarely in shape, never came close to his potential. Can't really call him a bust though, as he averaged 19 and 7 one year, 16 another year, 13-14 ppg a few others. Just coulda been so much more.
DeSagana Diop (1,8) servicable NBA big man backup, no more and no less. Still in the league at least.
Ousmane Cisse (2,47) nothing
Tony Key: undrafted

2002:
Amare Stoudemire (1,9): perennial NBA all-star
DeAngelo Collins: undrafted
Lenny Cooke: undrafted
Giedrius Rinkevicius: undrafted

2003:
LeBron James (1,1): Hall of Famer
Travis Outlaw (1,23): career rotation guy; still getting after it.
Ndudi Ebi (1,26): nothing
Kendrick Perkins (1,27): solid NBA starting center, has championship ring
James Lang (2,48): nothing. Only played 11 games in the NBA. Paralyzed now -- sad.

2004:
Dwight Howard (1,1): perennial NBA All-Star
Shaun Livingston (1,4):suffered horrific knee injury as a rookie, so we'll never know what he would've been.
Robert Swift (1,12): unmitigated bust
Sebastian Telfair (1,13): career backup, on his 6th or 7th NBA team. Supposed to be the next big thing.
Al Jefferson (1,15): solid starting NBA center
Josh Smith (1,17): solid NBA starter
JR Smith (1,18): solid NBA player
Dorrell Wright (1,19): averaged 16 for Golden State last year, double what he ever averaged for Miami in 6 yrs there
Jackie Butler: undrafted

2005:
Martell Webster (1,6): regular starter in only one of his 6 years, career avg of about 9 ppg. Not so great.
Gerald Green (1,8): bounced around between 4-5 NBA teams, then went overseas; not much of a career
Andrew Bynum (1,10): solid starting NBA center, All-Star this year
CJ Miles (2,34) role player for Utah for 6+ years, avg 8 ppg for his career. Can't expect much more than that from a second round pick.
Ricky Sanchez (2,35) never played in an NBA game, I don't think
Monta Ellis (2,40) high scoring starting NBA guard
Lou Williams (2,45): 6 yr pro, mostly a backup with 11 ppg average, but averaging a very nice 15 ppg this yr
Andray Blatche (2,49) improved his numbers each of his first 6 yrs; averaged 16 and 8 last year.
Amir Johnson (2,56) backup for his first 5 yrs before starting for Toronto last year, averaging 9 and 6.
Kyle Luckett: undrafted
Curtis Brown: undrafted



So: to me, the expectations for a second round pick almost always have to be low. Most of them don't even make the team, so I don't think it would be fair to categorize a high school kid who's picked in the second round, and doesn't make it, as a bust, because most college players who are drafted in the second round don't make it either.

So how many of those high schoolers who were drafted in the first round could fairly be called out and out busts? I'd say the following: Kwame Brown, Ndudi Ebi, and Robert Swift. Brown at least had a career, somehow. Ebi was drafted at the end of the first round. Swift was #12. Based on that, I'd say he was the worst high school draft pick ever. But more importantly, that's only 3 out and out whiffs (if you even want to count Brown -- if not, then it's only 2) by NBA teams on high schoolers in the first round. That's not very many in ten years of drafting.

Sure a number of other guys fell far short of expectations -- guys like Telfair, Webster, and Green and then guys who suffered bad injuries like Livingston and Bender and guys with other issues like Leon Smith, but those are different stories.

Totalling it up, 47 high schoolers declared. The NBA drafted 28 of them in the first round, 10 in the second round, and 9 of them were undrafted. Of the 28 first rounders, like I say, I only consider three of them to be out and out busts. And of the 10 second rounders, six have had careers I think have been better than what you'd have a right to expect out of a second rounder. That's damn good. And of course, none of the 9 who went undrafted ever made it into the league anyway. No "misses" there.

[heyman25]

No reason to whine about it. Until the NBA Players Associations votes to change the one and done it is staying.The next NBA commissioner will be a Duke grad, Adam Silver.

http://www.nba.com/nba101/adam_silver.html

[MarkD83]

tommy's analysis is really interesting and points out something else about the NBA.

The draft is like any market. The NBA wants as much supply so that they have lots of choices. If you do count the undrafted and the "busts" only about 1/2 the players that left early had long NBA careers.

This is exactly what the NBA wants more supply than demand. The teams with good scouting systems want this even more since teams with poor scouting systems usually take the players that end up being busts.

What does that mean to the players entering the draft. The NBA scouts and teams will over promise your standing in the draft. They absolutely do not want you to know that you will go undrafted or that you are a second rounder. The more supply the better off the good NBA teams are at getting what they need.

[Double DD]

So how many of those high schoolers who were drafted in the first round could fairly be called out and out busts? I'd say the following: Kwame Brown, Ndudi Ebi, and Robert Swift. Brown at least had a career, somehow. Ebi was drafted at the end of the first round. Swift was #12. Based on that, I'd say he was the worst high school draft pick ever. But more importantly, that's only 3 out and out whiffs (if you even want to count Brown -- if not, then it's only 2) by NBA teams on high schoolers in the first round. That's not very many in ten years of drafting.


And if you're going to account for injuries, Swift shouldn't count as a bust either. He blew out his knee after his sophomore season and missed a full year after looking like he might break out and never recovered properly from it.

[Richard Berg]

I don't mind the one-and-done rule so much. The NCAA's rules preventing student-athletes from earning a living are far, far more egregious. One could argue that the NBA is a bit sleazy to exploit the NCAA's well-known obsession with "amateurism", but the fault ultimately lies with the universities who support this utterly broken model for extracurricular activity.

[Chris Randolph]

I don't mind the one-and-done rule so much. The NCAA's rules preventing student-athletes from earning a living are far, far more egregious. One could argue that the NBA is a bit sleazy to exploit the NCAA's well-known obsession with "amateurism", but the fault ultimately lies with the universities who support this utterly broken model for extracurricular activity.

I don't think it is "egregious." As a matter of fact, I don't think college athletes (in this case lets just say D-1 basketball players) should receive more than they already do. These athletes receive a monthly living check that is PLENTY to support a college student, I had a friend who played women's basketball in the Missouri Valley Conference and her monthly check was $700. If a woman player in the MVC is receiving that, I would imagine a male athlete at a big time school is doing alright :) Also, these athletes are on full or close to full scholarship, provided their own training table for meals and given tons of free clothes/gear. I think they are doing alrigth for college students!

[Richard Berg]

I don't think it is "egregious." As a matter of fact, I don't think college athletes (in this case lets just say D-1 basketball players) should receive more than they already do.
Luckily it's not your decision. It's egregious that some people, including vested interests within the NCAA, think they have some kind of moral authority to restrict what legal adults can earn in their free time.


These athletes receive a monthly living check that is PLENTY to support a college student, I had a friend who played women's basketball in the Missouri Valley Conference and her monthly check was $700. If a woman player in the MVC is receiving that, I would imagine a male athlete at a big time school is doing alright Also, these athletes are on full or close to full scholarship, provided their own training table for meals and given tons of free clothes/gear.
I am fine with schools offering less generous scholarship packages. That is their perogative. If the reports of widespread losses in well-known athletic departments are to be believed, most schools should devote fewer resources to such perks.

[Chris Randolph]

Luckily it's not your decision. It's egregious that some people, including vested interests within the NCAA, think they have some kind of moral authority to restrict what legal adults can earn in their free time.


I am fine with schools offering less generous scholarship packages. That is their perogative. If the reports of widespread losses in well-known athletic departments are to be believed, most schools should devote fewer resources to such perks.

I definitely would agree with you that it is pathetic that these athletes are not able to hold some kind of job, whether it be in the off season or summer.

[kmspeaks]

I definitely would agree with you that it is pathetic that these athletes are not able to hold some kind of job, whether it be in the off season or summer.

I'm not sure where this athletes aren't allowed to work thing came from but it's simply not true.

From the NCAA Bylaws:

12.4 EMPLOYMENT
12.4.1 Criteria governing Compensation to student-Athletes. Compensation may be paid to a
student-athlete: (Revised: 11/22/04)
(a) Only for work actually performed; and
(b) At a rate commensurate with the going rate in that locality for similar services

so they have to actually work and get paid the same as any other person in their position, wow what terrible restrictions.

[Richard Berg]

That's a pretty misleading summary of Article 12 (http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/D110.pdf), which devotes dozens of pages to the myriad things student-athletes cannot do.

[turnandburn55]

Of the 28 first rounders, like I say, I only consider three of them to be out and out busts.

You left out Kevin Garnett ;)

That being said, I'd argue you're a bit generous with the guys who are "busts". I mean, I'd say Telfair is every bit as much of a disappointment as Kwame Brown, who at least has been a part-time starter long after he was written off.

I think your point is well-taken on the fact that the NBA generally evaluates their talent reasonably and drafts HSers appropriately, but the fact that they've instituted the "one-and-done" rule has given lie to the long-held belief that "the NBA can develop players just as well as college has". A guy like Korleone Young or CJ Young-- talented, athletic players with maturity problems-- could have benefited from a year or two playing at the college level before making the leap to an 82-game season against men, and likely would not have been 2nd round draft picks. Of course, it's a pure hypothetical, so we'll never know, but it seems as though the NBA buys it.

[dukeofcalabash]

I feel the same way about it now as I did before Kyrie and Austin.
I think it sucks.

I agree with this educated comment.

[MaxAMillion]

Cal still says he isn't a fan of the rule, but it's an NBA problem to address, and until they do, it's in-bounds.


I have no problem with athletes leaving school early for the pros. Baseball, Tennis, and Golf players all leave for the pros if they think they are ready. I see no reason to stay in school if you hae a chance to make millions playing sports. I know I would leave early.

[Wander]

The most dangerous type of person for college sports isn't John Calipari or David Stern. It's Jay Bilas.

I don't expect Stern or the NBA to do what's right for college basketball out of the goodness of their heart. And while I don't like Calipari, I see his presence as expected and maybe inevitable - as long as rules like the one-and-done thing exist, people are going to try to take advantage of it, and eventually, somebody is going to be really good at taking advantage of it.

What's there's absolutely no need for is voices of legitimate authority giving credibility to the idea of professionalizing college sports. Jay Bilas and Joe Nocera and other genuinely intelligent people have given life to the myth that college athletes are some poor exploited class of people that are treated more unfairly than the average college student. I know plenty of smart, good people I respect who believe this, just like I know smart, good people I respect who believe man has never walked on the Moon or that Bigfoot exists or that Bin Laden is alive, and my reaction is much the same in all these situations - it's such a laughable proposition to me that I don't even know where to begin.

College athletes get a free education, lots of free clothing, free food, free housing, free networking for jobs if they don't make it in the NBA or NFL or whatever, lots of free travel, and perhaps most relevantly free exposure to the professional leagues. To say nothing of the intangible social benefits. And I'm completely OK with all of this - I love college sports and most college athletes, and think they deserve very significant benefits. But how can anyone say that not only is all this not enough, but that it's not enough in such a fundamental way that it's a huge moral issue comparable to, at worst slavery and at best poverty? I wonder how many impoverished people there are out there who would kill to be exploited like Anthony Davis - or even the last guy on the Kentucky bench - is being exploited.

A common response is that college sports are already professionalized. If people here really believe that, tell me - or better yet, tell Jim Sumner or airowe - how much Austin Rivers was illegally paid to play at Duke. Tell me where the NCAA draft was that decided where everyone was going to play.

I'm not naive. I know there's a ton of sketchy things that go on, I know there are a lot of instances of individual athletes being treated unfairly, and I know there's a lot of really stupid NCAA rules. I think it's ridiculous that anyone would vilify Austin Rivers or Kendall Marshall for turning pro. I can support all kinds of reform - I've heard Bilas ask why we don't let undrafted players come back to school if they never played a minute of professional ball and our goal is truly education, and that seems like a reasonable change to make to me. There are countless other examples of things we can change. But the idea that we're just going to throw our hands up and professionalize the whole damn thing in response and completely give up on the very idea of college athletics is absurd.

No matter how many times this tired line gets repeated by Bilas or Nocera, amateurism isn't some awful, outdated, evil, corrupt concept. But what will eventually kill college sports is when enough people believe that it is.

[Chris Randolph]

Well said Wander, well said. I like what you are preaching!

[Richard Berg]

What is the advantage of amateurism? If our goal is education, why not let a guy like Allen Iverson come back to college, when he so clearly needs it?

[tommy]

That being said, I'd argue you're a bit generous with the guys who are "busts". I mean, I'd say Telfair is every bit as much of a disappointment as Kwame Brown, who at least has been a part-time starter long after he was written off.

Maybe so, but they're both still hanging around the fringes of the league. And I still think Brown has to be considered the far bigger bust if only because he was the #1 overall pick in the draft. #1 overall!! Telfair was #13.


I think your point is well-taken on the fact that the NBA generally evaluates their talent reasonably and drafts HSers appropriately, but the fact that they've instituted the "one-and-done" rule has given lie to the long-held belief that "the NBA can develop players just as well as college has".

I don't understand your point. Why does it follow from the fact of the NBA instituting the one-and-done rule that this means the NBA can't develop players as well as college? Are you saying that the reason the NBA instituted the rule is because it wanted the college coaches and programs to handle the first year of post-high school development, as some sort of admission that they (the NBA) couldn't handle it?

While wondering what your support is for that assertion, if that is what you mean to be saying, I'd say that the NBA has done a fine job of developing the following non-elite players who came into the league straight from high school:

Jermaine O'Neal (sat on Portland's bench, developing, a long time before being ready to contribute -- ended up an all-star in Indiana)
Rashard Lewis (second rounder to all-star)
DeShawn Stevenson
Tyson Chandler
Travis Outlaw
Kendrick Perkins
Al Jefferson
Josh Smith
JR Smith
Dorrell Wright
Andray Blatche (second rounder)
Andrew Bynum
Monta Ellis (second rounder)
CJ Miles (second rounder)
Lou Williams

[Mudge]

What is the advantage of amateurism? If our goal is education, why not let a guy like Allen Iverson come back to college, when he so clearly needs it?

Iverson can come back to college any time he wants-- that is, if he can come up with enough scratch to pay his own way-- seeing as he's dead broke. Iverson doesn't "clearly need college"-- he needs an attitude adjustment to lose his sense of entitlement, and he needs to kick his alcohol addiction... until he does that, I doubt he's going to do much learning in college, whether he comes back or not.

[Mudge]

Any argument about what should be done should first go back to the reason for athletics in colleges in the first place-- it was supposed to conform to the original Greek/Roman ideal of sound mind/sound body-- so any logic that uses the premise that it's OK for colleges to take in people who have no interest in training their minds for future careers (but only want to be professional athletes), should be tossed out immediately. If you don't want to learn anything of an academic nature while in college, then you don't belong in a traditional college-- go find a trade school somewhere, that focuses on training athletes for professional athletic careers (like circus clown school, or rodeo cowboy school, chef school, or some other physical profession-focused trade schools)-- Europe has plenty of these "gymnasiums" that are focused on training professional athletes... the US should never have let the academic environment be corrupted by people whose only interest was in pursuing big-time, professional athletics-- Europeans don't let those people pretend to be students at their universities, and neither should we.

Having said this, it's clear that the NBA doesn't care about colleges or the NCAA (and nor should they-- that's not the NBA's concern)-- David Stern has made this abundantly clear. The NBA (in cahoots with its NBA Players Association), not the NCAA, is responsible for the age 19/one year beyond HS graduating class date eligibility requirement that has created the current "one-and-done" situation. The NCAA could do a number of things to make it harder for the NBA to do what it is currently doing:

1) The NCAA should never tell a kid (even if he DOES hire an agent) that he can't come back to school, after staying in the draft, and even being drafted-- as long as he doesn't take any money from anyone, what difference does it make if a kid goes through the draft, and then comes back-- the NCAA is being stupid about this, and it is hurting their athletic product. A kid can be drafted out of HS by MLB, and it doesn't have the slightest effect on his college eligibility, if he doesn't sign-- why should it be any different for the NBA. If the NCAA really cares about agent contact (though I don't know why they care, as long as no money changes hands), then tell the kid that he must not communicate with the agent, once he comes back to school, and the whole thing should be fine.

2) The NCAA should penalize schools that have kids leave early-- severely-- within the scope of the Academic Progress Report program (that is about to sanction UConn). This will disincentivize schools from taking kids who are likely to leave early-- let them go to trade schools, or the NBA D-League-- make the NBA pay for developing their own players, just as MLB does. And if this leads to the creation of some kind of minor league teams linked to AAU teams, and the best kids not playing in college (just as they do not in gymnastics, tennis, etc.), so be it-- that's not what college is for.

3) Let colleges (maybe even push colleges to) sign scholarship contracts with kids out of HS that say, if you leave early before your 4 years are up, you cannot work in the professional athletic field related to the sport you came to college in, for a certain period-- just like professional people in things like broadcasting and investment banking have certain mandated periods in their contracts that prevent them from jumping from one competitor to another and working right away. This should be legal, if it's legal for other professions. The colleges should be able to sue, if a kid tries to break his contract, regarding competing employment as a professional athlete. The contract should even stipulate damages that would be high enough to consume whatever contract money the NBA pays to 1st Round lottery draft picks. (By the way, quid pro quo should apply-- athletic scholarships should be 4-years guaranteed-- none of this renewal year-by-year, that colleges get away with now.)

The bottom line is that Bilas, smart as he is, is full of BS on this issue-- nobody holds a gun to any kid's head, and makes him sign a college scholarship offer-- if you want to sign the contract, then you agree to the terms of the contract of that organization (the college) and its governing body (the NCAA)-- if you don't like it, then don't sign up. The colleges, if they really believe that bringing kids in to college to play intercollegiate sports is good for these kids (because the kids get an education as a by-product of the process), need to start walking the talk on academic education, and ensuring that some academic educating actually gets done-- the colleges need to take responsibility for their own outcomes in this environment, and start imposing their will on this situation, in the places that the colleges can actually influence-- and stop pretending like they are helpless victims in this situation... the sooner that colleges get kids who are professional athletes ONLY out of their institutions, the better it will be for all who remain at the colleges.

[UrinalCake]

I'm of a similar mindset as Mudge, although I'm not totally sold on point #3. Colleges are in fact serving as a minor league for the NBA and so many of these kids just don't belong there. Only a small percentage of the general American population goes to college (maybe 20%? 30%?) yet we expect 100% of basketball players to go there. How is it fair to expect that 100% of the people who want to play basketball for a living are eligible, able, and willing to attend an institute of higher learning? And I know some people will say that the purpose of college is to prepare someone for a job, and colleges are preparing these guys for the NBA, but if that's the case then why even make them go to class at all? Why not have "professional basketball player" be a major where all you do is practice? If I'm going to become a doctor or lawyer, I go to school to gain the knowledge and skills required to do these things. Yet we're taking people who want to become basketball players and putting them in programs that have no relevance to them just so that they can stay eligible to play. (Note that I'm talking about typical one-and-done type players here, not ALL b-ball players).

So IMO the solution to this problem from the NCAA's perspective is to institute stricter admissions and eligibility requirements. Have a rule that an incoming player has to meet academic standards that are within a certain percentile of the school's general student population. Require them to take a full courseload and to maintain more than just a passing GPA. If a player can't meet these requirements, then he doesn't belong in school in the first place and certainly doesn't deserve to be given a scholarship. This would bring some integrity to college sports and make it so that "student athlete" is no longer an oxymoron.

[Indoor66]

I have no problem with athletes leaving school early for the pros. Baseball, Tennis, and Golf players all leave for the pros if they think they are ready. I see no reason to stay in school if you hae a chance to make millions playing sports. I know I would leave early.

No doubt. Check your handle.

[sagegrouse]

Any argument about what should be done should first go back to the reason for athletics in colleges in the first place-- it was supposed to conform to the original Greek/Roman ideal of sound mind/sound body-- so any logic that uses the premise that it's OK for colleges to take in people who have no interest in training their minds for future careers (but only want to be professional athletes), should be tossed out immediately. If you don't want to learn anything of an academic nature while in college, then you don't belong in a traditional college-- go find a trade school somewhere, that focuses on training athletes for professional athletic careers (like circus clown school, or rodeo cowboy school, chef school, or some other physical profession-focused trade schools)-- Europe has plenty of these "gymnasiums" that are focused on training professional athletes... the US should never have let the academic environment be corrupted by people whose only interest was in pursuing big-time, professional athletics-- Europeans don't let those people pretend to be students at their universities, and neither should we.

Having said this, it's clear that the NBA doesn't care about colleges or the NCAA (and nor should they-- that's not the NBA's concern)-- David Stern has made this abundantly clear. The NBA (in cahoots with its NBA Players Association), not the NCAA, is responsible for the age 19/one year beyond HS graduating class date eligibility requirement that has created the current "one-and-done" situation. The NCAA could do a number of things to make it harder for the NBA to do what it is currently doing:

1) The NCAA should never tell a kid (even if he DOES hire an agent) that he can't come back to school, after staying in the draft, and even being drafted-- as long as he doesn't take any money from anyone, what difference does it make if a kid goes through the draft, and then comes back-- the NCAA is being stupid about this, and it is hurting their athletic product. A kid can be drafted out of HS by MLB, and it doesn't have the slightest effect on his college eligibility, if he doesn't sign-- why should it be any different for the NBA. If the NCAA really cares about agent contact (though I don't know why they care, as long as no money changes hands), then tell the kid that he must not communicate with the agent, once he comes back to school, and the whole thing should be fine.

2) The NCAA should penalize schools that have kids leave early-- severely-- within the scope of the Academic Progress Report program (that is about to sanction UConn). This will disincentivize schools from taking kids who are likely to leave early-- let them go to trade schools, or the NBA D-League-- make the NBA pay for developing their own players, just as MLB does. And if this leads to the creation of some kind of minor league teams linked to AAU teams, and the best kids not playing in college (just as they do not in gymnastics, tennis, etc.), so be it-- that's not what college is for.

3) Let colleges (maybe even push colleges to) sign scholarship contracts with kids out of HS that say, if you leave early before your 4 years are up, you cannot work in the professional athletic field related to the sport you came to college in, for a certain period-- just like professional people in things like broadcasting and investment banking have certain mandated periods in their contracts that prevent them from jumping from one competitor to another and working right away. This should be legal, if it's legal for other professions. The colleges should be able to sue, if a kid tries to break his contract, regarding competing employment as a professional athlete. The contract should even stipulate damages that would be high enough to consume whatever contract money the NBA pays to 1st Round lottery draft picks. (By the way, quid pro quo should apply-- athletic scholarships should be 4-years guaranteed-- none of this renewal year-by-year, that colleges get away with now.)

The bottom line is that Bilas, smart as he is, is full of BS on this issue-- nobody holds a gun to any kid's head, and makes him sign a college scholarship offer-- if you want to sign the contract, then you agree to the terms of the contract of that organization (the college) and its governing body (the NCAA)-- if you don't like it, then don't sign up. The colleges, if they really believe that bringing kids in to college to play intercollegiate sports is good for these kids (because the kids get an education as a by-product of the process), need to start walking the talk on academic education, and ensuring that some academic educating actually gets done-- the colleges need to take responsibility for their own outcomes in this environment, and start imposing their will on this situation, in the places that the colleges can actually influence-- and stop pretending like they are helpless victims in this situation... the sooner that colleges get kids who are professional athletes ONLY out of their institutions, the better it will be for all who remain at the colleges.

I appreciate the effort that went into this well-reasoned post. I have a few comments that go in a different direction.

The NCAA is the governing body for a multi-billion dollar enterprise. There are two labor inputs, coaches and athletes. The NCAA sets the terms under which athletes are eligible to compete. In an economics sense, it is a monopolist of the highest order (OK, monopsonist (single buyer)). Athletes receive something of value in terms of an enriched academic, social and athletic experience. Even athletes that learned very little in the classroom cherish their college experience.

When Bilas rages against the terms of the contract that athletes sign, he is right in doing so because the athletes have no alternative choices under the NCAA monopoly. Unfair exercise of monopoly power is prevented in other industries, and Jay is arguing that certain provisions of the "contract" are unfair and should be changed.

With respect to the NCAA tightening the rules even further, such as the introduction of "non-compete agreements" that prevent scholarship recipients from working in the competing professional leagues for four years -- well -- there are a host of problems. First the "collegiate model" is a house of cards that may come tumbling down any time soon. This would add yet another story or layer to a shaky structure. Second, it is blatantly unfair to prevent a young man (or woman) who can earn millions as an athlete from doing so. The explosions from doing so would likely destroy the house of cards, with Congress leading the way.

With respect to the reasons for athletics in college in the first place: you have expressed an ideal, but that is not where athletics stand in the US in the public eye. Americans love big-time college athletics. College sports are a multi-billion dollar enterprise, as I said, and it is certain to remain one. It would arguably be better to have a different model, and you are free to argue for it, but I don't see anything in the winds that suggest that college sports will radically change, except maybe to become more professional, in the direction that Jay Bilas argues.

sagegrouse

[FellowTraveler]

College athletes get a free education, lots of free clothing, free food, free housing, free networking for jobs if they don't make it in the NBA or NFL or whatever, lots of free travel, and perhaps most relevantly free exposure to the professional leagues. To say nothing of the intangible social benefits.

None of those things are free to the athletes. They are received in exchange for work. And the athletes have essentially zero ability to negotiate this compensation package.

[Wander]

None of those things are free to the athletes. They are received in exchange for work. And the athletes have essentially zero ability to negotiate this compensation package.

Scholarships aren't jobs.

[FellowTraveler]

Scholarships aren't jobs.

If Rasheed Sulaimon were to decide to never show up for a practice, a team meeting, a game, an autograph-signing session, team photos, or anything else having to do with Duke Basketball, will he continue to receive your list of "free" benefits? If not, you can call it -- or refuse to call it -- what you like, but they aren't "free."

[Wander]

If Rasheed Sulaimon were to decide to never show up for a practice, a team meeting, a game, an autograph-signing session, team photos, or anything else having to do with Duke Basketball, will he continue to receive your list of "free" benefits? If not, you can call it -- or refuse to call it -- what you like, but they aren't "free."

You're right, they do work hard, and probably harder than the average student. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. My exception to calling it a job had to do with your other statement - that athletes are owed more negotiating power in their agreement.

[dcdevil2009]

If Rasheed Sulaimon were to decide to never show up for a practice, a team meeting, a game, an autograph-signing session, team photos, or anything else having to do with Duke Basketball, will he continue to receive your list of "free" benefits? If not, you can call it -- or refuse to call it -- what you like, but they aren't "free."

He would for that year. However, he probably wouldn't be given another one year scholarship the following year. I know of a couple people who got sports-related academic scholarships, which are guaranteed for four years and quit playing their sports freshman year, but continued to receive the scholarship for all four years.

I know this is a thread about one-and-dones so I don't want to stray too far off topic, but now that we've sort of diverged to what benefits student-athletes should be able to get, I think that if you're going to restrict what they can do to earn more money during school (explicitly through amateurism rules, or implicitly through time commitment), then schools should be allowed to offer something closer to the true cost of attendance. Yes, they get free food, athletic apparel, room, board, etc., which is better than nothing, but it doesn't cover a lot of things that many non-athletes would consider necessary expenses. This might be what the schools were looking to do by allowing stipends to be included in part of the scholarship. I'm not saying that the NCAA should let schools pay the athletes anything close to what they bring in for their respective schools, but they should at least get something to buy some clothes that don't have the team sponsor's logo or to have a few nights out with their friends, or god forbid a meal paid for with something other than food points.

[Wander]

I'm not saying that the NCAA should let schools pay the athletes anything close to what they bring in for their respective schools, but they should at least get something to buy some clothes that don't have the team sponsor's logo or to have a few nights out with their friends, or god forbid a meal paid for with something other than food points.

This sounds fine in theory, but I think you may be trying to address a problem that doesn't actually exist.

[turnandburn55]

You're right, they do work hard, and probably harder than the average student. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. My exception to calling it a job had to do with your other statement - that athletes are owed more negotiating power in their agreement.

Really? My first job, I had all the negotiating power of "take it or leave it". I would imagine most people who are trying to break into their profession of choice have to jump through all sorts of hoops without getting a whole lot in return. A year out of high school (in which you have full control over where you go, get your cost of living covered, and essentially intern at your chosen profession) is a pretty light barrier to entry for a multimillion dollar job.

[dcdevil2009]

This sounds fine in theory, but I think you may be trying to address a problem that doesn't actually exist.

I'm not trying to say that college athletes aren't able to afford stuff like this across the board, and correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't a lot of the problems surrounding agents and boosters giving impermissible benefits tied to small ticket items like free meals or a couple hundred dollars here and there? Sure, there are scandals like the Reggie Bush and Chris Webber cases, but those are the outliers involving hundreds of thousands of dollars going to a few players. Those were huge stories, but stories like this one (http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/story/_/id/7737800/kansas-state-wildcats-frank-martin-paid-former-prep-players) come out where Frank Martin admits to paying his former high school players to cover their expenses in college and no one thinks twice. It might night be a problem for a lot of players, but for the ones who are coming from tough situations, a couple thousand dollars of expenses beyond what is covered by scholarship can be a huge burden.

[Wander]

Really? My first job, I had all the negotiating power of "take it or leave it". I would imagine most people who are trying to break into their profession of choice have to jump through all sorts of hoops without getting a whole lot in return. A year out of high school (in which you have full control over where you go, get your cost of living covered, and essentially intern at your chosen profession) is a pretty light barrier to entry for a multimillion dollar job.

No, I agree with you - the other poster seemed to implying that athletes don't have enough negotiating power, a proposition I find absurd.



Those were huge stories, but stories like this one come out where Frank Martin admits to paying his former high school players to cover their expenses in college and no one thinks twice. It might night be a problem for a lot of players, but for the ones who are coming from tough situations, a couple thousand dollars of expenses beyond what is covered by scholarship can be a huge burden.


I don't mean to sound unreasonable. I don't have a problem with a small need-based stipend to students, athlete or not. My understanding was just that the whole "athlete doesn't have any money to go see a movie with his friends once a month" thing is incredibly overblown - not because the kids don't often come from impoverished backgrounds, but because colleges already effectively provide for this kind of thing a lot of the time. In those cases where it really is an issue, that sounds fine.

[Bluedog]

Not to further derail this thread, but Duke is insanely generous with the perks it provides its student-athletes. Basketball players have enough food points that they could basically order pizza from Papa John's for 20 people and get it delivered every day if they wanted (although other sports aren't as generous as basketball/football in the food category; I recall non-scholarship fencers get like $12 max for dinner, for example). Obviously, there's only so much food you can eat...They also stayed in a $2000/night hotel on a trip that cost something like $30,000/player this summer (privately funded, I believe). I'm not saying they don't deserve it, though, and perhaps other schools aren't as generous as Duke. But I certainly don't feel bad for Duke athletes when it comes to compensation. Duke basketball players have no necessary expenses whatsoever. Obviously, reasonable minds can differ on this contentious topic, though.

[rfraley50]

I have always said that the NBA should cap Rookie and second year players and make them earn their big salaries in their third years. It would help the NBA teams save money and save face and might make some kids stay in school a little longer knowing they aren't getting that big payday any time soon. Plus this way a bust stays a bust.

[BigWayne]

Three years should get someone pretty close to a degree and even if they left hopefully many would want to obtain their degree. Also and I don't know that it has anything to do with this but I wonder if baseball went with the 3 years because it in most cases it would coincide with being age 21. I don't know that we will ever see it but I would love it if we followed the baseball rule. I think it is the most we could ever hope for but what may happen next is they have to stay two years. That seems to be the one rule change that is mentioned most. Regardless if they have no interest in going to school and are good enough go straight to the NBA.

One and done also creates a hired gun where some kids have zero interest in school and just try to stay eligible. Not at Duke which add that to the list of things I love about Duke.

The three year thing with baseball is in place partly because of the timing of the college and pro seasons vs. each other. NBA draft occurs during the offseason for both college and NBA teams. Baseball's draft happens during the MLB season, but out of season for HS and college baseball.

[FellowTraveler]

No, I agree with you - the other poster seemed to implying that athletes don't have enough negotiating power, a proposition I find absurd.

Mostly I was implying that it's absurd to describe as "free" things that are clearly and explicitly given in exchange for labor rather than, you know ... for free. As a secondary point, I was adding that in this case, labor has essentially no negotiating rights or power. You may think that doesn't matter because the NCAA chooses to compensate athletes in a way you find adequate, but that doesn't mean athletes really have any "negotiating power."

[dcdevil2009]

I don't mean to sound unreasonable. I don't have a problem with a small need-based stipend to students, athlete or not. My understanding was just that the whole "athlete doesn't have any money to go see a movie with his friends once a month" thing is incredibly overblown - not because the kids don't often come from impoverished backgrounds, but because colleges already effectively provide for this kind of thing a lot of the time. In those cases where it really is an issue, that sounds fine.

Obviously, me saying that "the athlete doesn't have any money to go see a movie with his friends once a month" is an oversimplification, but I disagree with your proposition that colleges effectively provide for this kind of thing a lot of the time. True, Duke basketball players get close to unlimited food points and they screen movies in the Bryan Center fairly often, but I wouldn't call that an effective replacement for the seeing a movie in an actual theater or the cost of dinner at a nice restaurant once in a while, something most college kids would consider a reasonable expense every now and then. I'm not necessarily advocating for paying players, just for increasing the scholarship limits to the true cost of attendance. Sometimes a school can provide that in ways other than a stipend, and in those situations, I would have no problem with the school doing so.

[sagegrouse]

No, I agree with you - the other poster seemed to implying that athletes don't have enough negotiating power, a proposition I find absurd.


Athletes offered a full scholarship have the terms dictated by NCAA rules. The Bilas position is that athlete's should have the right to earnings based on their own likenesses and images (jersey sales, for example). So, the most famous college athletes get nothing for jersey sales while the institutions get millions. That's the "collegiate model" propounded by the NCAA. I don't think it's "absurd" to say that athletes deserve better.


Mostly I was implying that it's absurd to describe as "free" things that are clearly and explicitly given in exchange for labor rather than, you know ... for free. As a secondary point, I was adding that in this case, labor has essentially no negotiating rights or power. You may think that doesn't matter because the NCAA chooses to compensate athletes in a way you find adequate, but that doesn't mean athletes really have any "negotiating power."

There are two kinds of definitions -- economic and legal.

In economic terms the athletes are given scholarships in return for their services to the university athletic program. The scholarships are clearly a form of compensation for these services, even if the athletes in other circumstances would be willing to play for nothing.

In legal terms, scholarships are not taxable income or earnings, and the relationship between the athlete and the university is not considered an employment relationship. Thus, the universities are spared many things, including the full application of federal and state labor laws, like OSHA.

Nevertheless, we have a market where hundreds of universities are competing for thousands of athletes in different sports under economic and other terms dictated by the NCAA. Thus, the universities compete on non-compensation matters -- quality of academics (value of scholarship), coaching, likelihood of winning championships, facilities, publicity (TV appearances) affecting future earnings, degree of preparation for pro careers, social life on campus, etc., etc.

sagegrouse

[Wander]

Obviously, me saying that "the athlete doesn't have any money to go see a movie with his friends once a month" is an oversimplification, but I disagree with your proposition that colleges effectively provide for this kind of thing a lot of the time. True, Duke basketball players get close to unlimited food points and they screen movies in the Bryan Center fairly often, but I wouldn't call that an effective replacement for the seeing a movie in an actual theater or the cost of dinner at a nice restaurant once in a while, something most college kids would consider a reasonable expense every now and then. I'm not necessarily advocating for paying players, just for increasing the scholarship limits to the true cost of attendance. Sometimes a school can provide that in ways other than a stipend, and in those situations, I would have no problem with the school doing so.

I completely agree. What I was referring to in my "effectively provide" comment was not food points or Bryan Center movies but players literally and legally receiving actual money.



Mostly I was implying that it's absurd to describe as "free" things that are clearly and explicitly given in exchange for labor rather than, you know ... for free. As a secondary point, I was adding that in this case, labor has essentially no negotiating rights or power. You may think that doesn't matter because the NCAA chooses to compensate athletes in a way you find adequate, but that doesn't mean athletes really have any "negotiating power."


I sometimes mention to friends that I get "free travel" to go to conferences or meetings in grad school. Everyone I've ever said that to understands that such "free" travel is of course conditional on me actually continuing to work toward my degree without me explicitly having to spell it out. It's just semantics and maybe I shouldn't use that word in this discussion, but it doesn't change the overall point. Athletes work really hard and they get a lot in return.

And I agree that college athletes don't have much negotiating power. And that's no moral outrage. I didn't when I applied to grad school (or Duke for undergrad, for that matter), turnandburn55 didn't in his first job, and any number of other people didn't when they were starting out their careers or education.

[Wander]

Athletes offered a full scholarship have the terms dictated by NCAA rules. The Bilas position is that athlete's should have the right to earnings based on their own likenesses and images (jersey sales, for example). So, the most famous college athletes get nothing for jersey sales while the institutions get millions. That's the "collegiate model" propounded by the NCAA. I don't think it's "absurd" to say that athletes deserve better.


I do.

[OldSchool]

The NCAA sets the terms under which athletes are eligible to compete. In an economics sense, it is a monopolist of the highest order (OK, monopsonist (single buyer)). Athletes receive something of value in terms of an enriched academic, social and athletic experience. Even athletes that learned very little in the classroom cherish their college experience.

When Bilas rages against the terms of the contract that athletes sign, he is right in doing so because the athletes have no alternative choices under the NCAA monopoly. Unfair exercise of monopoly power is prevented in other industries, and Jay is arguing that certain provisions of the "contract" are unfair and should be changed.

The athletes are free to organize their basketball activities and profit from them in any way they see fit.

If Anthony Davis and Marcus Teague and Michael-Kidd Gilchrist were to decide not to accept scholarships from the University of Kentucky but instead to rent out a basketball arena and charge the public money in exchange for displaying their basketball skills, they are free to do that.

The notion that there should be some sort of legal remedy on behalf of these basketball-playing individuals that should override the terms and conditions offered by the universities to persons considering accepting scholarships from them has no basis in any claim of "monopoly" power.

The market, properly defined, is the entire market for the display of basketball skills. There is a whole world of opportunities for someone to obtain compensation for their basketball-playing abilities beyond the NCAA and beyond the NBA. Nothing prevents any group of basketball players from forming their own league and charging admission, for example.

The reality is that what we would see if Davis and Teague and Gilchrist did that is little interest on the part of the public. In fact, they simply don't in fact bring to the table as much as what people who claim they are being unfairly oppressed by monopoly power argue they bring to the table, and that would be readily apparent if they went out into the market and offered their basketball services directly.

One could argue that the universities should not be allowed to collude on the terms and conditions of athletic scholarships through the mechanism of the NCAA (or otherwise), but that is a different argument entirely than the claim of abuse of monopoly power.

[MarkD83]

There is always the option to play overseas.

[sagegrouse]

The athletes are free to organize their basketball activities and profit from them in any way they see fit.

If Anthony Davis and Marcus Teague and Michael-Kidd Gilchrist were to decide not to accept scholarships from the University of Kentucky but instead to rent out a basketball arena and charge the public money in exchange for displaying their basketball skills, they are free to do that.

The notion that there should be some sort of legal remedy on behalf of these basketball-playing individuals that should override the terms and conditions offered by the universities to persons considering accepting scholarships from them has no basis in any claim of "monopoly" power.

The market, properly defined, is the entire market for the display of basketball skills. There is a whole world of opportunities for someone to obtain compensation for their basketball-playing abilities beyond the NCAA and beyond the NBA. Nothing prevents any group of basketball players from forming their own league and charging admission, for example.

The reality is that what we would see if Davis and Teague and Gilchrist did that is little interest on the part of the public. In fact, they simply don't in fact bring to the table as much as what people who claim they are being unfairly oppressed by monopoly power argue they bring to the table, and that would be readily apparent if they went out into the market and offered their basketball services directly.

One could argue that the universities should not be allowed to collude on the terms and conditions of athletic scholarships through the mechanism of the NCAA (or otherwise), but that is a different argument entirely than the claim of abuse of monopoly power.

Whoa! Back up! Back up! No one, least of all moi, has said that the athletes can and should get a "legal remedy". What the NCAA is doing, both in organizing the "market" and setting the terms of competition, is perfectly legal. It is not covered by the Sherman Antitrust Act or other statutes. The courts, if facing a novel claim, would probably defer to Congress to enact specific legislation governing NCAA-type activities. (Of course, I'm an economist, so what do I know about courts.)

The issue is that there is a case on the basis of fairness and equity to be more generous to athletes. That is what Bilas is saying, and I responded to the declaration that his position was "absurd." I am uncertain of where I come down, in that I like the stability in the current model and wonder whether certain athletes getting larger benefits would disadvantage my favorite team or the quality of competition. But I think it is a legitimate question.

Now, I encourage you to get away from your other argument, that a few individual players can go out create a team, rent an arena and charge admission. And whom would they play against? And, by the way, there are things like long-term TV contracts. This argument is perilously close to saying that if you don't like the deal given by a monopolist like Microsoft used to be, go write your own code. The fact is, institutions matter, leagues matter, and the power vested in individual actors in the big-time athletics market is vanishingly small. Now, similar advice to a group like the Players Association is more reasonable, in that the players could form their own league and that had some bearing on the negotiations last year, I expect.

sagegrouse

[uh_no]

Hasn't the paying players thing been beaten to death already this season?

[gep]

As far as I understand from reading these posts, the APR with respect to graduation rates does not count a player that goes professional, and also does not count for players in good academic standing to transfer and maintain good academic standing. As such, places like Kentucky can continue forever with their "model".

I suggest that ONLY if a player in good academic standing transfers AND maintains good academic standing AND graduates, then he does not count in the APR for ANY the school. But, then, if the player leaves the transferred school to go pro, he count against all of the schools APR.

So... a player in good academic standing transfers, goes to another school, maintains good academic standing and graduates... neither school gets dinged.

Another player, in good academic standing transfers to another school, maintains good academic standing, but goes pro before graduating... both schools get dinged. The first for recruiting a one-and-done, and the second one too.

Another player, in good academic standing, decides to go pro. The school gets dinged.

I think this will not perpetuate the Kentucky model.

So, schools like Duke will be very selective in recruiting... and in maintaining "relationships" to keep the player on the team, or at least, in good academic standing, where ever he goes. Thus, the "student" part of student-athlete.

If schools such as Kentucky ignores this, eventually, they lose all scholarships, and must rely on players "paying their own way" for the one or two years of pre-NBA development, rather than the "student-athlete". What does the player do if he has absolutely no interest in the "student" part? Well... NBDL, Europe, Asia, Australia...:confused:

Bpttom line... any player that doesn't maintain academic standing for the years (4) that he is eligible... that player counts against the APR for the school. I just don't like the "going pro is OK" part of the APR... although, I think the reason for that is the player is not just dropping out of school, but actually starting a career.

[turnandburn55]

Now, I encourage you to get away from your other argument, that a few individual players can go out create a team, rent an arena and charge admission.

I would tend to agree this is a bit off the deep end.




The issue is that there is a case on the basis of fairness and equity to be more generous to athletes.

I would similarly encourage you to find an example of a multimillion dollar profession-- with fairer, more generous, and more equitable terms to an 18-year old prospective employee-- even one of exceptional talent and motivation.

[OldSchool]

Whoa! Back up! Back up! No one, least of all moi, has said that the athletes can and should get a "legal remedy". What the NCAA is doing, both in organizing the "market" and setting the terms of competition, is perfectly legal. It is not covered by the Sherman Antitrust Act or other statutes. The courts, if facing a novel claim, would probably defer to Congress to enact specific legislation governing NCAA-type activities. (Of course, I'm an economist, so what do I know about courts.)[/B].


When someone fulminates that the NCAA is an oppressive monopolist "of the highest order" I can be excused for reading an implication that there should be a remedy applied for such claimed abuse.


The issue is that there is a case on the basis of fairness and equity to be more generous to athletes. That is what Bilas is saying, and I responded to the declaration that his position was "absurd." I am uncertain of where I come down, in that I like the stability in the current model and wonder whether certain athletes getting larger benefits would disadvantage my favorite team or the quality of competition. But I think it is a legitimate question.

Your position that the universities are being "unfair" and "inequitable" is necessarily premised on the idea that they are abusing a power that they have over these people (high schoolers with basketball ability).

People who choose not to play under the terms of an NCAA basketball scholarship have other options available to them to sell their basketball skills. There are professional leagues all over the world where these athletes can play. They can wait a year and go to the NBA if they are good enough.

It is not properly the burden of university presidents to have to rearrange how they structure their scholarship athletic programs to satisfy absurd claims that they are oppressing talented high school athletes.


Now, I encourage you to get away from your other argument, that a few individual players can go out create a team, rent an arena and charge admission. And whom would they play against? And, by the way, there are things like long-term TV contracts. This argument is perilously close to saying that if you don't like the deal given by a monopolist like Microsoft used to be, go write your own code. The fact is, institutions matter, leagues matter, and the power vested in individual actors in the big-time athletics market is vanishingly small. Now, similar advice to a group like the Players Association is more reasonable, in that the players could form their own league and that had some bearing on the negotiations last year, I expect.

Whom would they play against? Whatever other players they can persuade to join them in their endeavor. And they don't have to form their own league, they can go play in existing leagues or wait a year or do whatever they wish. The point is they are free actors and it is not the responsibility of the NCAA to provide them terms of basketball employment that you subjectively consider "fair."

If the NCAA were to attempt to use its claimed "market power" to remove other avenues high school athletes might choose to pursue to exploit their basketball skills, such as trying to shut down European leagues or prevent others from forming new professional leagues (if there were any such efforts), then maybe there might be some strained parallel that would make mentioning Microsoft relevant.

But the real point, as I mentioned before, is that the high value that you seem to perceive these high schoolers as having in an economic sense, they don't really have. If they did, then market actors in our free economy would be creating other opportunities for them to realize these values in the market.

The vast majority of the economic value in these circumstances is that created by the institutions and their students, alumni and supporters.

For example, if the NBA were to decide to accept all high schoolers who would like to turn pro and have the necessary talent, the economics of college basketball would change very little, even though the level of basketball skill would be a bit lower, at least at the highest level. This is because what is driving the value is not where in the gradient of basketball skill the level of play happens to fall, but rather the rivalry and enjoyment of athletic competition among the schools. If Austin Rivers and Harrison Barnes had never gone to Duke and Carolina, respectively, but instead became professional players, the teams would field players slightly less able but the emotions and support and competition (and the economic value of the college basketball product) would not be significantly different.

[Richard Berg]

Iverson can come back to college any time he wants-- that is, if he can come up with enough scratch to pay his own way-- seeing as he's dead broke. Iverson doesn't "clearly need college"-- he needs an attitude adjustment to lose his sense of entitlement, and he needs to kick his alcohol addiction... until he does that, I doubt he's going to do much learning in college, whether he comes back or not.
He could attend college, but he couldn't play NCAA basketball. Why not? A hard-nosed coach might be just the right motivation to kick his personal life into shape.


If you don't want to learn anything of an academic nature while in college, then you don't belong in a traditional college-- go find a trade school somewhere, that focuses on training athletes for professional athletic careers (like circus clown school, or rodeo cowboy school, chef school, or some other physical profession-focused trade schools)-- Europe has plenty of these "gymnasiums" that are focused on training professional athletes... the US should never have let the academic environment be corrupted by people whose only interest was in pursuing big-time, professional athletics-- Europeans don't let those people pretend to be students at their universities, and neither should we.

Agreed.


1) The NCAA should never tell a kid (even if he DOES hire an agent) that he can't come back to school, after staying in the draft, and even being drafted-- as long as he doesn't take any money from anyone, what difference does it make if a kid goes through the draft, and then comes back-- the NCAA is being stupid about this, and it is hurting their athletic product. A kid can be drafted out of HS by MLB, and it doesn't have the slightest effect on his college eligibility, if he doesn't sign-- why should it be any different for the NBA. If the NCAA really cares about agent contact (though I don't know why they care, as long as no money changes hands), then tell the kid that he must not communicate with the agent, once he comes back to school, and the whole thing should be fine.

Take it a step further: who cares whether they get drafted, or money changes hands, or a long-term contract is signed? Let the commercial entities bear that risk! It's of no concern to the NCAA, aside from a desire to micromanage their little nonprofit cartel. To the extent it brings additional $$ into the ecosystem, that's less money universities need to spend out of their own pocket (ultimately driving up student tuitions at institutions where athletics run a loss, which I understand is most of them).

For example, it's common for NBA teams to draft up-and-coming Euro players, who then elect to stay in their native country another year or two. The NBA gets the players' intraleague rights / upside, while they get the chance to hone their skills in a more familiar environment (with better quality of life than they'd get on a typical cycle of week-to-week contracts & waivers). Why can't this system apply equally to semi-pro athletes in the U.S.?

I agree we have a rather unwieldy arrangement between semi-pro athletics and college education in this country, but I don't see how the "amateur" provisions help matters in the slightest. At best, they let the NCAA consolidate its monopoly power and extract an unusually high % of its labor market value. Just can't see why you'd consider that laudable, or even acceptable. Meanwhile, the resources they waste making sure an agent didn't buy dinner for some kid are resources that could be spent enhancing & enforcing academic standards -- you know, the whole point of this unholy marriage.


2) The NCAA should penalize schools that have kids leave early-- severely-- within the scope of the Academic Progress Report program (that is about to sanction UConn). This will disincentivize schools from taking kids who are likely to leave early-- let them go to trade schools, or the NBA D-League-- make the NBA pay for developing their own players, just as MLB does. And if this leads to the creation of some kind of minor league teams linked to AAU teams, and the best kids not playing in college (just as they do not in gymnastics, tennis, etc.), so be it-- that's not what college is for.

I don't mind the speculation about independently-funded minor leagues, but the comments about paying for development make no sense. If universities aren't getting more value from elite athletes' presence than they give away in scholarships & perks, then they shouldn't be offering them in the first place. Put another way, if you're viewing the basketball program as a cost center that unfairly benefits the NBA, then a player like Battier or JJ is far worse for Duke than Maggette or Irving, sucking up 4X more of Coach K's (extremely expensive!) development staff time.

In reality, everything on campus short of the Bursar is a cost center. It's up to universities to allocate their resources in accordance with their educational mission. Either you believe athletics are intrinsicly educational, i.e. deserving of subsidy, or you must be willing to slash it until its marginal revenue (including goodwill, etc) == marginal cost. Proposal #2 is inconsistent with both models.


3) Let colleges (maybe even push colleges to) sign scholarship contracts with kids out of HS that say, if you leave early before your 4 years are up, you cannot work in the professional athletic field related to the sport you came to college in, for a certain period-- just like professional people in things like broadcasting and investment banking have certain mandated periods in their contracts that prevent them from jumping from one competitor to another and working right away. This should be legal, if it's legal for other professions. The colleges should be able to sue, if a kid tries to break his contract, regarding competing employment as a professional athlete. The contract should even stipulate damages that would be high enough to consume whatever contract money the NBA pays to 1st Round lottery draft picks. (By the way, quid pro quo should apply-- athletic scholarships should be 4-years guaranteed-- none of this renewal year-by-year, that colleges get away with now.)

This would never fly. It's straight-up illegal in a few states, including California, and would be very hard to enforce elsewhere.

You're wrong about monopoly status too. Courts have never considered "ok then, start your own railroad!" a legitimate defense, even a century ago, and they certainly don't today.

An alternative, if I may: shift athletic scholarships to a quasi-need-based formula, with clawback. If a student-athlete made $5000 playing in summer leagues and appearing in local commercials, her school should reduce the following year's scholarship value by some fraction of said earnings, similar to the expected payment formulas used by FAFSA et al. Money earned during the academic year should probably incur a higher "tax" in order to discourage excess profiteering at the expense of study time.

Furthermore, the initial scholarship should be structured as a loan. Schools would issue offsetting grants later, after certain academic milestones were met, perhaps on an exponential scale (like mortgage amortization) to put greater focus on underclassmen's decisionmaking. Most student-athletes would graduate effectively debt-free, like today, or petition for loan forgiveness in exceptional circumstances (family / health / academic dropouts)...but those who turned pro early would have to repay a large chunk of their expenses, with interest.

As a side benefit, this system would bring the true accounting of athletic costs vs benefits further into the sunlight. Part of today's problem is how universities obscure just how much they gain (or lose!) from having such tight ownership over these students' earning potential.

[Mudge]

I appreciate the effort that went into this well-reasoned post. I have a few comments that go in a different direction.

The NCAA is the governing body for a multi-billion dollar enterprise. There are two labor inputs, coaches and athletes. The NCAA sets the terms under which athletes are eligible to compete. In an economics sense, it is a monopolist of the highest order (OK, monopsonist (single buyer)). Athletes receive something of value in terms of an enriched academic, social and athletic experience. Even athletes that learned very little in the classroom cherish their college experience.

1) When Bilas rages against the terms of the contract that athletes sign, he is right in doing so because the athletes have no alternative choices under the NCAA monopoly. Unfair exercise of monopoly power is prevented in other industries, and Jay is arguing that certain provisions of the "contract" are unfair and should be changed.

With respect to the NCAA tightening the rules even further, such as the introduction of "non-compete agreements" that prevent scholarship recipients from working in the competing professional leagues for four years -- well -- there are a host of problems. 2) First the "collegiate model" is a house of cards that may come tumbling down any time soon. This would add yet another story or layer to a shaky structure. Second, it is blatantly unfair to prevent a young man (or woman) who can earn millions as an athlete from doing so. The explosions from doing so would likely destroy the house of cards, with Congress leading the way.

3) With respect to the reasons for athletics in college in the first place: you have expressed an ideal, but that is not where athletics stand in the US in the public eye. Americans love big-time college athletics. College sports are a multi-billion dollar enterprise, as I said, and it is certain to remain one. It would arguably be better to have a different model, and you are free to argue for it, but I don't see anything in the winds that suggest that college sports will radically change, except maybe to become more professional, in the direction that Jay Bilas argues.

sagegrouse

Regarding point #1 above, I don't think this is a correct statement-- it is quite possible for 18-year old basketball players to pursue their chosen profession in other ways than the NBA and the NCAA, if they choose-- one obvious proven route is the one that Jennings took, when he went to play in Europe for a year, before coming back to play with the Milwaukee Bucks... heck, he could have done that at an even earlier age (a` la Ricky Rubio).

Regarding point #2 above, you will have to be more explanatory-- I am not sure what the "house of cards" nature is that you refer to-- but I do believe you are correct that it is unfair/inappropriate/should be illegal (choose your own words) to prevent someone from pursuing their profession, when someone else wants to pay them to do it (assuming it is a legal activity)-- but this is the fault of the NBA/NBAPA-- and I have always believed that the rules that are being allowed to be enforced by collective bargaining are unfair, and should not be legal-- I think if kids want to go straight to the NBA (and the NBA team wants to sign them), there should be no way the NBA is allowed to prevent those two economic actors from coming to an agreement (short of child-labor laws for someone under say 16 or 18 years old). All the lawyers on this board will tell me that this NBA/NBAPA agreement preventing HS players from entering the league is perfectly legal-- that doesn't make it ethical, "right", or "proper", in the spirit of free enterprise that this country was founded on-- it's just wrong, from a principled point of view, regardless of whether it is legal or not.

On point #3, I think here you are arguing pragmatically, rather than arguing based on principle-- you seem to be saying "Well, this is the situation that we currently have, and Americans like it that way, so it is going to continue-- radical departures from this are not going to happen". I readily acknowledge that the current situation is unlikely to ever change back to the principled approach that I advocate, but that doesn't mean I can't articulate what I think "should" be happening-- just because we have a messed up system that is counter to the original ideals of higher education and corrosive to our country's economic well-being (I believe that big-time intercollegiate sports being harbored in our institutions of higher academic learning is one of several big reasons for the decline of American economic competitiveness in the modern world) does not mean that I can't or shouldn't argue for a return to the ideal state that I think we ought to have.

[Mudge]

The athletes are free to organize their basketball activities and profit from them in any way they see fit.

If Anthony Davis and Marcus Teague and Michael-Kidd Gilchrist were to decide not to accept scholarships from the University of Kentucky but instead to rent out a basketball arena and charge the public money in exchange for displaying their basketball skills, they are free to do that.

The notion that there should be some sort of legal remedy on behalf of these basketball-playing individuals that should override the terms and conditions offered by the universities to persons considering accepting scholarships from them has no basis in any claim of "monopoly" power.

The market, properly defined, is the entire market for the display of basketball skills. There is a whole world of opportunities for someone to obtain compensation for their basketball-playing abilities beyond the NCAA and beyond the NBA. Nothing prevents any group of basketball players from forming their own league and charging admission, for example.

The reality is that what we would see if Davis and Teague and Gilchrist did that is little interest on the part of the public. In fact, they simply don't in fact bring to the table as much as what people who claim they are being unfairly oppressed by monopoly power argue they bring to the table, and that would be readily apparent if they went out into the market and offered their basketball services directly.

One could argue that the universities should not be allowed to collude on the terms and conditions of athletic scholarships through the mechanism of the NCAA (or otherwise), but that is a different argument entirely than the claim of abuse of monopoly power.

^ Yeah, what he said!^ The bottom line for me regarding Bilas' specious argument about jersey sales or whatever, is that virtually no one would want a Chris Weber jersey, if he wasn't playing (or hadn't played) for the Univ. of Michigan-- let him sign a deal with some AAU team, or some semi-pro team not governed by the NBA/NBAPA agreement (e.g.- let him do what Wilt did, and sign with the Globetrotters), and see how many jerseys he sells and how much money he makes-- Bilas, Weber, and the rest of these delusionals want to take advantage of the equity and brand identity that colleges have built up with their fan bases through a variety of methods (whether it is through the affinity of having attended the school, or something else-- i.e.- UK fans), and then say that the players are being exploited against their will... if you don't like the deal, don't sign the scholarship agreement. Nobody wants a Bilas jersey if all it says is "Rolling Hills HS" on the front. Practically nobody wants a Chris Weber or Kyrie Irving AAU jersey.

[greybeard]

You can call a horse a camel but it wouold still be a horse. Calling one-and-doners "students" does violence to the term and anyone having to deal with the facts on the ground would have to know that. Now, would a court be willing to call one-and-doners independent contractors, and, if so, would the NCAA and its members be subject to lawsuits based upon the Sherman and/or Clayton antitrust acts, it seems like we are about to find out. Apparently a lawsuit on behalf of players to be freed of the collusive restraint of trade and seeking damages, including punative ones, for schools with NCAA cover and sanction abbrogating the players names and numbers on all sorts of pariphenalia sold to da fans, as well, one would suppose, for pricefixing.

College sports are big bigness, and fortunate for them, the sport that drives the bus, has plenty of political clout and it is difficult to imagine anyone in politics on any level would dare to try to get in the way of that runaway train. That said, I think that events are about to catch up with that game, college football, in a way that might well make this entire revenue issue, dare I say it, academic. Someone is going to come along and run the numbers, the incidents and types of injuries, including the collectivity of noncussive violent hits. and cost out the health care costs to those individuals, and others in the insurance pools that make those costs OUR costs, over a player's lifetime, the number of those individuals who can not care for themselves and the cost of caring for them, the loss of earning power due to their slowed cognitive abilities, some body's going to come up with those numbers and say, sort of what Justice Scallia said this past week, making kids who are less a risk of incuring significant health care risks participate in buying insurance that covers people with greater risks and that is like forcing people to buy broccoholi because they need food (my hair hurt when he started talking about vegatables in a case about so grave an issue as health care but I am getting off point). Actually, what someone is going to say, loud and clear is that this nonsense about college football being a big earner for colleges is only a fairytail based upon the public's being stupid enough to subsidize college football programs by picking up the tab for what I shouold think will likely prove to be a ruinous number of colleges were required to self insure to care for kids who play for them the health care costs they are likely to incur over a lifetime as a consequence of that participation.

I know that the rable in Rome loved the carnage in the arena, but, hey, the guys who lost died, which is to say all the guys who were forced to go into the arena died, and since they were slaves anyone, let them bleed, who cares. But, we are a caring nation and also a broke one, and when the masses, many of whom don't like football for ay number of reasons, see what the ticket is to root for their favorite college team in each of 20 games on Cable , and that's only countint Sundays, they are not going to want to pick up the tab for that. As a matter of fact, even Joe the fan, who has to play russian Roulette and fly uninsured to make ends meet is going to be pretty ticked off when he learns that his tax dollars are going to subsidizing a game in which ticket prices are so costly that they can't even afford to go to them.

So, I think that it will not be too long until universities are going to have to include in these scholarships paid to "student athletes" a promise of life time health care coverage. When that happens, one and done will be the least of the issues that both the NFL and the NBA need to be concerned about.

In the meantime, I think that the lid will be blown completely off any restriction other than what the market will bear on the amount of money a college played is entitled to demand, bargain for, when his name and fame are used to sell jerseys and other junk that has his name and/or number on it. Than, when the number crunchers come in and determine just how many KU shirts and hats are purchased because of the pros Cal has playing for Uof K's basketball team that would not otherwise be sold, don't these stars have a right to their fair share of those revenues too.

Before they are done cutting up the pie of revenues in this manner a school is lucky if any of its major sports programs are even marginally in the black. Then, maybe college sports will get back to what they used to be, games to be played by talented guys whom like they say in the commercials, we are NCAA athletes and will be turning pro but it won't be in sports.

A jumble I know, but I'm on a role and the hour is way to late.

[Mudge]

Whoa! Back up! Back up! No one, least of all moi, has said that the athletes can and should get a "legal remedy". What the NCAA is doing, both in organizing the "market" and setting the terms of competition, is perfectly legal. It is not covered by the Sherman Antitrust Act or other statutes. The courts, if facing a novel claim, would probably defer to Congress to enact specific legislation governing NCAA-type activities. (Of course, I'm an economist, so what do I know about courts.)

The issue is that there is a case on the basis of fairness and equity to be more generous to athletes. That is what Bilas is saying, and I responded to the declaration that his position was "absurd." I am uncertain of where I come down, in that I like the stability in the current model and wonder whether certain athletes getting larger benefits would disadvantage my favorite team or the quality of competition. But I think it is a legitimate question.

Now, I encourage you to get away from your other argument, that a few individual players can go out create a team, rent an arena and charge admission. And whom would they play against? And, by the way, there are things like long-term TV contracts. This argument is perilously close to saying that if you don't like the deal given by a monopolist like Microsoft used to be, go write your own code. The fact is, institutions matter, leagues matter, and the power vested in individual actors in the big-time athletics market is vanishingly small. Now, similar advice to a group like the Players Association is more reasonable, in that the players could form their own league and that had some bearing on the negotiations last year, I expect.

sagegrouse

I am one who absolutely believes that if you don't like the deal on offer, you can (and should, if you feel that strongly) "go write your own code". Many people felt that way about Microsoft, and tried to fight that "monopoly"-- it's the reason we have Linux today. I think most of the laws that we have written to take away property rights from so-called monopolists are misguided and ill-founded (this is where our resident phalanx of lawyers chime in to tell me why I am wrong, based on case law-- which misses the point entirely-- that I disagree with those court decisions, because I think they run counter to the protection of private property rights that were an essential element of the founding principles of our country.)

You absolutely can go found your own team, league, barnstorming exhibition, or whatever-- and would-be owners and players have done this many times in American sporting history-- the fact that you are unlikely to be as successful financially with this activity is both A) Too bad for you; and B) An emphatic underlining of the fact that these players are not economically successful because of their own identity, but rather because of the brand equity that has been built by the school or league/team that they join. Jennings has already proven that 18-year old HS players do have other professional options-- if you don't like the deal, don't join their organization. You are not entitled to live on Manhattan in a rent-controlled apartment, and you are not entitled to play basketball for money at an NCAA-member college.

[tommy]

Any argument about what should be done should first go back to the reason for athletics in colleges in the first place-- it was supposed to conform to the original Greek/Roman ideal of sound mind/sound body-- so any logic that uses the premise that it's OK for colleges to take in people who have no interest in training their minds for future careers (but only want to be professional athletes), should be tossed out immediately. If you don't want to learn anything of an academic nature while in college, then you don't belong in a traditional college-- go find a trade school somewhere, that focuses on training athletes for professional athletic careers (like circus clown school, or rodeo cowboy school, chef school, or some other physical profession-focused trade schools)-- Europe has plenty of these "gymnasiums" that are focused on training professional athletes... the US should never have let the academic environment be corrupted by people whose only interest was in pursuing big-time, professional athletics-- Europeans don't let those people pretend to be students at their universities, and neither should we.

Having said this, it's clear that the NBA doesn't care about colleges or the NCAA (and nor should they-- that's not the NBA's concern)-- David Stern has made this abundantly clear. The NBA (in cahoots with its NBA Players Association), not the NCAA, is responsible for the age 19/one year beyond HS graduating class date eligibility requirement that has created the current "one-and-done" situation. The NCAA could do a number of things to make it harder for the NBA to do what it is currently doing:

1) The NCAA should never tell a kid (even if he DOES hire an agent) that he can't come back to school, after staying in the draft, and even being drafted-- as long as he doesn't take any money from anyone, what difference does it make if a kid goes through the draft, and then comes back-- the NCAA is being stupid about this, and it is hurting their athletic product. A kid can be drafted out of HS by MLB, and it doesn't have the slightest effect on his college eligibility, if he doesn't sign-- why should it be any different for the NBA. If the NCAA really cares about agent contact (though I don't know why they care, as long as no money changes hands), then tell the kid that he must not communicate with the agent, once he comes back to school, and the whole thing should be fine.

2) The NCAA should penalize schools that have kids leave early-- severely-- within the scope of the Academic Progress Report program (that is about to sanction UConn). This will disincentivize schools from taking kids who are likely to leave early-- let them go to trade schools, or the NBA D-League-- make the NBA pay for developing their own players, just as MLB does. And if this leads to the creation of some kind of minor league teams linked to AAU teams, and the best kids not playing in college (just as they do not in gymnastics, tennis, etc.), so be it-- that's not what college is for.

3) Let colleges (maybe even push colleges to) sign scholarship contracts with kids out of HS that say, if you leave early before your 4 years are up, you cannot work in the professional athletic field related to the sport you came to college in, for a certain period-- just like professional people in things like broadcasting and investment banking have certain mandated periods in their contracts that prevent them from jumping from one competitor to another and working right away. This should be legal, if it's legal for other professions. The colleges should be able to sue, if a kid tries to break his contract, regarding competing employment as a professional athlete. The contract should even stipulate damages that would be high enough to consume whatever contract money the NBA pays to 1st Round lottery draft picks. (By the way, quid pro quo should apply-- athletic scholarships should be 4-years guaranteed-- none of this renewal year-by-year, that colleges get away with now.)

The bottom line is that Bilas, smart as he is, is full of BS on this issue-- nobody holds a gun to any kid's head, and makes him sign a college scholarship offer-- if you want to sign the contract, then you agree to the terms of the contract of that organization (the college) and its governing body (the NCAA)-- if you don't like it, then don't sign up. The colleges, if they really believe that bringing kids in to college to play intercollegiate sports is good for these kids (because the kids get an education as a by-product of the process), need to start walking the talk on academic education, and ensuring that some academic educating actually gets done-- the colleges need to take responsibility for their own outcomes in this environment, and start imposing their will on this situation, in the places that the colleges can actually influence-- and stop pretending like they are helpless victims in this situation... the sooner that colleges get kids who are professional athletes ONLY out of their institutions, the better it will be for all who remain at the colleges.

While I'm not sure about the legality of your suggestion #3, I really like a lot of the rest of what you have to say Mudge. Unfortunately, for too long the system has all been about university presidents, administrators, coaches, and even student-athletes themselves putting themselves in positions to make boatloads of money at universities that have been all-too-willing to sacrifice their integrity in order to make the alumni feel good about cheering for good ole' State U. in the belief that their happiness will translate into donations to the university, increased visibility, and prestige.

But I agree with you that anything they can do to return the universities back to their original raison d'etre, and sports to their proper place in the university community, would be a good thing. If only the schools' priorities were in order it seems that steps like those you propose would be so obvious.

One other idea, if one goal is to reduce one-and-dones: what about treating each of the 13 scholarships as a four-year "entity" regardless of whether the player to whom it is granted uses it for all for years. So let's say Kentucky signs DeMarcus Cousins. Cousins leaves after one year. That scholarship that Cousins was "on" is not available to be granted to another player until three more years elapse. It's "dead" for those three years, after which time it can be granted to another player. Kind of like dead money coming off an NBA team's books when a contract expires.

This would cause schools to think long and hard about signing kids who obviously have no intention of staying very long at the school. Might they sometimes calculate that it's worth it, that it's worth signing a transcendent talent like Kevin Durant or Derrick Rose or Kyrie Irving, knowing you're only going to get him for a year, if you think you can go the distance that year and sacrifice that scholarship for the next three years? Perhaps. But that would be pretty rare. Schools might do it when they have a pretty good team of veteran guys and need a superstar to put in the middle of it to make their run and hopefully put them over the top. And one school, like Kentucky, could never sign multiple one-and-dones like they do now, because they wouldn't have the scholarships to give out because they'd have so much dead time with their schollys all the time.

[Richard Berg]

I agree universities have the right to protect their own brand. Does Bilas really argue that student-athletes have equity in school jerseys? He's a smart guy, with a law degree to boot; I doubt he misunderstands trademark so profoundly.

But...

Practically nobody wants a Chris Weber or Kyrie Irving AAU jersey.
Perhaps, but what difference does that make? If Kyrie's independently-branded jerseys fail to sell, it's once again risk borne by a commercial entity like Nike. Doesn't hurt Duke.

If they do sell well, contrary to your expectations, it might cannabilize the market for Duke jerseys with #1 on it...but hey, that's life in a competitive market. NCAA regulations preventing this scenario are precisely what I mean by "consolidating monopoly power". It's not illegal; may or may not be sleazy, depending how you feel about amateurism; but it's definitely inefficient from an economics POV.

[Mudge]

When someone fulminates that the NCAA is an oppressive monopolist "of the highest order" I can be excused for reading an implication that there should be a remedy applied for such claimed abuse.



Your position that the universities are being "unfair" and "inequitable" is necessarily premised on the idea that they are abusing a power that they have over these people (high schoolers with basketball ability).

People who choose not to play under the terms of an NCAA basketball scholarship have other options available to them to sell their basketball skills. There are professional leagues all over the world where these athletes can play. They can wait a year and go to the NBA if they are good enough.

It is not properly the burden of university presidents to have to rearrange how they structure their scholarship athletic programs to satisfy absurd claims that they are oppressing talented high school athletes.



Whom would they play against? Whatever other players they can persuade to join them in their endeavor. And they don't have to form their own league, they can go play in existing leagues or wait a year or do whatever they wish. The point is they are free actors and it is not the responsibility of the NCAA to provide them terms of basketball employment that you subjectively consider "fair."

If the NCAA were to attempt to use its claimed "market power" to remove other avenues high school athletes might choose to pursue to exploit their basketball skills, such as trying to shut down European leagues or prevent others from forming new professional leagues (if there were any such efforts), then maybe there might be some strained parallel that would make mentioning Microsoft relevant.

But the real point, as I mentioned before, is that the high value that you seem to perceive these high schoolers as having in an economic sense, they don't really have. If they did, then market actors in our free economy would be creating other opportunities for them to realize these values in the market.

The vast majority of the economic value in these circumstances is that created by the institutions and their students, alumni and supporters.

For example, if the NBA were to decide to accept all high schoolers who would like to turn pro and have the necessary talent, the economics of college basketball would change very little, even though the level of basketball skill would be a bit lower, at least at the highest level. This is because what is driving the value is not where in the gradient of basketball skill the level of play happens to fall, but rather the rivalry and enjoyment of athletic competition among the schools. If Austin Rivers and Harrison Barnes had never gone to Duke and Carolina, respectively, but instead became professional players, the teams would field players slightly less able but the emotions and support and competition (and the economic value of the college basketball product) would not be significantly different.

Thank you, Old School-- I support all of the above-- it looks like I have a resident lawyer here to argue my side of this debate, using all of the properly vetted legal terms... the only thing you haven't gotten around to is the part where it should not be legal for the NBA and the NBAPA to get together and agree to keep Jennings and other 16-18 year olds from going straight to the NBA, if an NBA team wants them-- although I guess if NCAA-member organizations agree not to take professional athletes (in the salaried sense-- we all can see that scholarship athletes receive considerable compensation for their services), I guess NBA-member teams can be compelled to agree to a set of restrictions on potential players' ages, too-- and if the teams don't like it, then they can leave the NBA and start/join their own league. At a minimum, if the NBA/NBAPA can enforce that restraint on an alleged free labor market, then surely the NCAA has the right/power to enforce its own rule restrictions on prospective players on its (voluntary) member colleges.

[Richard Berg]

I think most of the laws that we have written to take away property rights from so-called monopolists are misguided and ill-founded (this is where our resident phalanx of lawyers chime in to tell me why I am wrong, based on case law-- which misses the point entirely-- that I disagree with those court decisions, because I think they run counter to the protection of private property rights that were an essential element of the founding principles of our country.)

Eh, I should've known...

I prefer to argue about the state of the real world, under real constraints, informed by real events. If you want to discuss some alternate history where abstract libertarian idealism reigns, step 1 should be returning all Duke jerseys (and every other bit of property in "our" country) to the Native Americans ;)

[Richard Berg]

It is not properly the burden of university presidents to have to rearrange how they structure their scholarship athletic programs to satisfy absurd claims that they are oppressing talented high school athletes.
You're right, they don't have to. Nobody has argued that strawman. I merely claim that they should reconsider their anticompetitive restrictions, lest they lose the moral high ground.

Remember, university presidents represent nonprofit, academic institutions. They are supposed to be guided by higher principles, striving to educate young men & women while enriching the broader world of ideas. In other words, there is a vast grey area between their stated ideals and robber-baron-like behavior. As alumni and donors, we have every right to demand that Duke and its peers keep to the former as closely as possible, above & beyond what the law might require.

Barring student-athletes from participating in the NBA draft, hiring an agent, playing in semi-pro summer leagues, renting their likeness, etc does nothing to promote teaching, research, or public awareness. Full stop. At best, these measures are a crude mechanism for schools to retain talented quasi-employees at reduced cost. At worst, they shun otherwise-qualified students from NCAA classrooms & gyms, in total opposition with their educational mission.

[OldSchool]

you haven't gotten around to is the part where it should not be legal for the NBA and the NBAPA to get together and agree to keep Jennings and other 16-18 year olds from going straight to the NBA, if an NBA team wants them--

... I guess NBA-member teams can be compelled to agree to a set of restrictions on potential players' ages, too-- and if the teams don't like it, then they can leave the NBA and start/join their own league.

Mudge, you've really put your finger on how it can be difficult to properly apply antitrust law concepts to sports leagues.

Should we look at the NBA as sort of a sports equivalent of, say, the Dr Pepper Snapple group? They are well-integrated economic unit that offers the market different brands -- are 7-up and Dr Pepper and A&W Root Beer and Canada Dry Ginger Ale like the Lakers and the Celtics and the Heat and the Thunder? It would be absurd for syrup suppliers to complain that 7-Up and Dr Pepper are colluding to treat them unfairly. If the syrup suppliers don't like the terms on which 7-Up and Dr Pepper offer them for their syrup, they can take their talents to an entity other than the Dr Pepper Snapple group, or make their own soft drinks and offer them directly to the public.

Or should we look at the NBA more as the situation that would exist if McDonald's, Hardees, Burger King and Wendy's all agreed on a set of ground rules by which to compete in offering hamburgers to the public with a negotiated split of certain revenues that were considered to be commonly generated? In that case, we would examine closely the rules by which they deal with, for example, beef suppliers to ensure that they are not acting in the manner of a cartel.

It's a thorny problem.

[Mudge]

Take it a step further: 1) who cares whether they get drafted, or money changes hands, or a long-term contract is signed? Let the commercial entities bear that risk! It's of no concern to the NCAA, aside from a desire to micromanage their little nonprofit cartel. To the extent it brings additional $$ into the ecosystem, that's less money universities need to spend out of their own pocket (ultimately driving up student tuitions at institutions where athletics run a loss, which I understand is most of them).

For example, it's common for NBA teams to draft up-and-coming Euro players, who then elect to stay in their native country another year or two. The NBA gets the players' intraleague rights / upside, while they get the chance to hone their skills in a more familiar environment (with better quality of life than they'd get on a typical cycle of week-to-week contracts & waivers). Why can't this system apply equally to semi-pro athletes in the U.S.?

I agree we have a rather unwieldy arrangement between semi-pro athletics and college education in this country, but 2) I don't see how the "amateur" provisions help matters in the slightest. At best, they let the NCAA consolidate its monopoly power and extract an unusually high % of its labor market value. Just can't see why you'd consider that laudable, or even acceptable. Meanwhile, the resources they waste making sure an agent didn't buy dinner for some kid are resources that could be spent enhancing & enforcing academic standards -- you know, the whole point of this unholy marriage.


I don't mind the speculation about independently-funded minor leagues, but 3) the comments about paying for development make no sense. If universities aren't getting more value from elite athletes' presence than they give away in scholarships & perks, then they shouldn't be offering them in the first place. Put another way, if you're viewing the basketball program as a cost center that unfairly benefits the NBA, then a player like Battier or JJ is far worse for Duke than Maggette or Irving, sucking up 4X more of Coach K's (extremely expensive!) development staff time.

In reality, everything on campus short of the Bursar is a cost center. It's up to universities to allocate their resources in accordance with their educational mission. Either you believe athletics are intrinsicly educational, i.e. deserving of subsidy, or you must be willing to slash it until its marginal revenue (including goodwill, etc) == marginal cost. Proposal #2 is inconsistent with both models.


4) This would never fly. It's straight-up illegal in a few states, including California, and would be very hard to enforce elsewhere.

You're wrong about monopoly status too. Courts have never considered "ok then, start your own railroad!" a legitimate defense, even a century ago, and they certainly don't today.

An alternative, if I may: shift athletic scholarships to a quasi-need-based formula, with clawback. If a student-athlete made $5000 playing in summer leagues and appearing in local commercials, her school should reduce the following year's scholarship value by some fraction of said earnings, similar to the expected payment formulas used by FAFSA et al. Money earned during the academic year should probably incur a higher "tax" in order to discourage excess profiteering at the expense of study time.

Furthermore, the initial scholarship should be structured as a loan. Schools would issue offsetting grants later, after certain academic milestones were met, perhaps on an exponential scale (like mortgage amortization) to put greater focus on underclassmen's decisionmaking. Most student-athletes would graduate effectively debt-free, like today, or petition for loan forgiveness in exceptional circumstances (family / health / academic dropouts)...but those who turned pro early would have to repay a large chunk of their expenses, with interest.

As a side benefit, this system would bring the true accounting of athletic costs vs benefits further into the sunlight. Part of today's problem is how universities obscure just how much they gain (or lose!) from having such tight ownership over these students' earning potential.

1) As an NCAA-member institution (a voluntary decision-- you don't have to be in the NCAA-- you can be NAIA or completely unaffiliated), you agree to play by their rules-- they have decided that athletes in their organization have to be "amateurs", and they get to define (and have, ad nauseum) what that means-- if you don't like it, as a college-- then don't join... if you don't like it, as a player-- then don't sign up with a member college.

2) I am one who believes that many so-called monopolists (whether they truly are monopolies or not), have worked hard to develop their franchise, brand equity, market position, or whatever, and most laws, rules, actions which are intended to limit their economic profits are just sour grapes from others who want to use the power of the state to unfairly (IMO) take private property rights away from these alleged monopolists... the NCAA has built up a pretty darn good gig-- if you don't like their rules, then don't play along with them-- take your ball, and go home (or somewhere else)-- but don't sit there and whine and cry about it (like Bilas), all the while you are profiting plenty off of what they have built (and here Bilas really looks bad, as he makes far more as a broadcaster, leeching off the economic ecosystem created by the NCAA, than he ever did or would working as a lawyer), and then try to use the power of the state/courts to unjustly take some more or all of those profits for yourself-- if you don't like the system, don't join it.

3) Whether you think the arguments about paying for NBA player development make sense or not, is somewhat irrelevant-- the NCAA-member schools have the right to make rules on their voluntary members which tend to limit the use of their member institutions as free training grounds for NBA teams and players, if the NCAA chooses to do so. Yes, if acting rationally, one would expect no college to operate a team that does not create an economic benefit for the school-- yet, as it turns out, most schools lose money on almost all sports they operate-- and even the alleged big dog of revenue and profits (football) is a money-loser at most schools (at least until difficult-to-measure reputational and goodwill benefits are counted)... so if NCAA members want to do things which limit the use of their schools as free (to the players and professional leagues) training grounds for professional athletes, it is well within their rights to do so.

4) I don't know the laws in California, but it is quite common for local TV or radio broadcasters to sign contracts which prohibit them from working in a particular market in particular capacities, for a certain period of time after leaving that employer. Similarly, investment executives regularly take "gardening leave" for a period of time after leaving one institution, before they are permitted (contractually) to work for another investment firm-- I don't see why the NCAA couldn't incorporate similar clauses in their scholarship agreements. If you don't like the terms, then don't sign the scholarship agreement... and yes, I think you should be told-- "Start your own railroad." The courts were wrong to do that then, and they are wrong today.

When Sen. Rockefeller tries to use the Surface Transportation Board and the power/threat of Senate legislation to compel railroads to offer lower shipping rates to West Virginia chemical companies, because his constituent companies don't like the "monopoly" prices that railroads want to charge them (when what they really mean is that they aren't willing to pay the even higher prices that would be entailed in shipping by truck, building their own pipelines, building their own railroads, or ensuring that they are on navigable rivers, so that they can ship by boat), I am totally unsympathetic-- the railroads built and/or acquired their rail networks expressly so that they could take advantage of the property rights that are incumbent in having a monopoly or near-monopoly on the most cost efficient means of transporting large bulk volumes of products from those areas-- the railroad owners wouldn't have built or acquired those properties, if they knew that their property rights were going to be improperly, unfairly, and unethically infringed by a taking through the power of the state-- to the benefit of the chemical company owners... so instead of alleged monopoly profits going to railroad owners, we have the much more untenable situation of chemical company owners being rewarded with excess profits by the state, because they didn't want to pay for other higher cost means of transporting their products... Heck yeah, I think you should start your own railroad, if you don't like it.

[Richard Berg]

Wow, I think Mudge's post says it all. If the best argument for the status quo is "NCAA won, others lost, tough luck" then we -- as graduates, representatives, and benefactors of those institutions -- have all truly lost.

[Mudge]

I agree universities have the right to protect their own brand. Does Bilas really argue that student-athletes have equity in school jerseys? He's a smart guy, with a law degree to boot; I doubt he misunderstands trademark so profoundly.

But...

Perhaps, but what difference does that make? If Kyrie's independently-branded jerseys fail to sell, it's once again risk borne by a commercial entity like Nike. Doesn't hurt Duke.

If they do sell well, contrary to your expectations, it might cannabilize the market for Duke jerseys with #1 on it...but hey, that's life in a competitive market. NCAA regulations preventing this scenario are precisely what I mean by "consolidating monopoly power". It's not illegal; may or may not be sleazy, depending how you feel about amateurism; but it's definitely inefficient from an economics POV.

It makes a difference because Bilas and Web(b?)er argue that Weber should get some cut of the profits on University of Michigan jerseys with Weber's name on the back-- I say, if Weber wants to market a jersey that does not infringe on the UM's hard-earned brand equity, with Weber's name on the back-- let him have at it-- oh by the way, he can't build up a clientele for that third-party jersey by playing for the UM anymore, while he is selling it. Weber and Bilas want him to be able to use the NCAA's and UM's bully pulpit to publicize himself, then sell a jersey which is mainly coveted because he is a member of those organizations... if Bilas and Weber think Weber's jersey is so coveted, let him/them prove it, by playing and working on his own, to build up the demand for the silly thing.

That's exactly the point-- almost no one will buy a Rivers or Irving jersey that has some non-familiar design with their name on it--people want a Duke jersey, THEN with Rivers' or Irving's name on the back-- Bilas and Weber need to stop acting like they created the demand for the Weber jersey out of whole cloth (pun intended)... and good luck selling that non-Duke, non-NBA team Irving #1 jersey... maybe it should have something like "Rahway All-Stars" or "Hoboken Generals" on the front, along with "Irving, #1" on the back-- yeah, that'll be a hot seller.

[OldSchool]

You're right, they don't have to. Nobody has argued that strawman. I merely claim that they should reconsider their anticompetitive restrictions, lest they lose the moral high ground.

Remember, university presidents represent nonprofit, academic institutions. They are supposed to be guided by higher principles, striving to educate young men & women while enriching the broader world of ideas. In other words, there is a vast grey area between their stated ideals and robber-baron-like behavior. As alumni and donors, we have every right to demand that Duke and its peers keep to the former as closely as possible, above & beyond what the law might require.

Barring student-athletes from participating in the NBA draft, hiring an agent, playing in semi-pro summer leagues, renting their likeness, etc does nothing to promote teaching, research, or public awareness. Full stop. At best, these measures are a crude mechanism for schools to retain talented quasi-employees at reduced cost. At worst, they shun otherwise-qualified students from NCAA classrooms & gyms, in total opposition with their educational mission.

Actually, somebody did complain that the current arrangements were unfair, and in fact I've heard that sentiment voiced by a number of people looking at the current landscape of big-time college sports. It's a common view. However, I argue that there is not a reasonable basis for claiming economic exploitation of talented high-school basketball players.

Setting aside the economic explotiation point, I am in general sympathy with the point you and Mudge are both making that universities should pursue athletics within a higher context, which is to say their overall educational mission.

Nevertheless, it may be worth pulling back a bit from a narrow focus on the plight of a small number of highly-talented prospective professional athletes and the magnitude of the revenue stream reaped by the university and take notice that a major athletics program is not inconsistent with the diverse range of fields that a modern university considers appropriate to cover and benefits many students beyond the elite athletes. Lots of students who participate in major college sports programs often find that experience directly relevant to, and an important part of the preparation for, careers in a field related to sports, such as coaching or broadcasting or sports medicine or sports management or a number of other fields, and given how broadly universities today define their scope, these fields are not outside the realm of what universities consider it appropriate to prepare students for.

[Mudge]

Wow, I think Mudge's post says it all. If the best argument for the status quo is "NCAA won, others lost, tough luck" then we -- as graduates, representatives, and benefactors of those institutions -- have all truly lost.

This is silly-- Duke is a voluntary, and highly willing member of the NCAA-- no one is making Duke stay in the NCAA. Duke (the institution which you are graduates, representatives, and benefactors of), by virtue of its actions, supports and endorses the NCAA's rules and operations. Duke is not by any means lamenting some loss, as a result of the NCAA's actions.

[Mudge]

Eh, I should've known...

I prefer to argue about the state of the real world, under real constraints, informed by real events. If you want to discuss some alternate history where abstract libertarian idealism reigns, step 1 should be returning all Duke jerseys (and every other bit of property in "our" country) to the Native Americans ;)

I am arguing about the real world-- and how it ought to be organized, IMO, not how it is organized. We have gotten way off the path, with intercollegiate sports in higher education-- they have long since departed from the original reason they were incorporated into colleges in the first place, and I believe that colleges (and America) would be better off, if they got rid of intercollegiate athletics, and returned to fielding only intramural teams.

Just because you don't like my opinions of the court cases regarding monopolies that have come down over the years since this country was founded (which was originally founded on principles that had the utmost respect for private property rights), doesn't mean I am not entitled to voice those opinions. I am not a lawyer, but it isn't only lawyers who get to say what seems fair, right, and just, in light of the original founding principles of this country.

Warren Buffett did not invest $40 billion in buying the BNSF railroad, just so Sen. Rockefeller (and others like him, with no respect for private property rights) could steal away the value of his purchase, by insisting that he not be able to charge what the market will bear for shipping goods on his railroad-- Buffett expressly bought the railroad because of its near-monopoly like economic presence in some markets, and the associated economic profits that that near-monopoly presence could/can generate-- it is neither fair, nor just, for the rest of society to take his property rights, after the fact of his purchase, by deciding to limit what he can charge for his property's services. If society wants to do that, then society should pay Buffett's asking price for his railroad, and buy it from him, and then operate it to serve Rockefeller's constituents-- imagine how well that will work out for rail transport in America (cf.- Amtrak, if you don't know or can't predict what will happen).

P.S.-- No doubt, it is a travesty what Europeans did/have done to the previous landholders here; I am all for efforts by native tribes to gain restitution on these matters. I love it when they gain the right to operate casinos near big cities, and inconvenience the Donald Trumps of the world.

[sagegrouse]

I am one who absolutely believes that if you don't like the deal on offer, you can (and should, if you feel that strongly) "go write your own code". Many people felt that way about Microsoft, and tried to fight that "monopoly"-- it's the reason we have Linux today. I think most of the laws that we have written to take away property rights from so-called monopolists are misguided and ill-founded (this is where our resident phalanx of lawyers chime in to tell me why I am wrong, based on case law-- which misses the point entirely-- that I disagree with those court decisions, because I think they run counter to the protection of private property rights that were an essential element of the founding principles of our country.)

You absolutely can go found your own team, league, barnstorming exhibition, or whatever-- and would-be owners and players have done this many times in American sporting history-- the fact that you are unlikely to be as successful financially with this activity is both A) Too bad for you; and B) An emphatic underlining of the fact that these players are not economically successful because of their own identity, but rather because of the brand equity that has been built by the school or league/team that they join. Jennings has already proven that 18-year old HS players do have other professional options-- if you don't like the deal, don't join their organization. You are not entitled to live on Manhattan in a rent-controlled apartment, and you are not entitled to play basketball for money at an NCAA-member college.

Every modern western country has laws that prevent monopolists from exercising monopoly powers -- essentially driving up prices and reducing quantities of goods and services traded either by monopoly power or by arrangements with other companies. These are "combinations in restraint of trade." Of course, being Dukies, we should have some appreciation of the wealth created by monopoly power and giant trusts -- the American Tobacco Company was founded in 1890 by James B. Duke by buying up a number of competitors. Other trusts that were also busted include U.S. Steel and Standard Oil.

Most people see competition law, or antitrust, as a requirement that companies "play fair," much as laws require companies to make and sell safe products. I wouldn't see this is as a "loss of property rights."

You are absolutely right that recruited athletes have no legal right to a better deal. But that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be greater benefits for athletes in some circumstances. I believe that is Bilas's point. I think the wealthier athletic programs would be OK with some changes and liberalization, but the NCAA represent hundreds of college, most of whom are hard-pressed to operate a program that breaks even.

sagegrouse

[UrinalCake]

One other idea, if one goal is to reduce one-and-dones: what about treating each of the 13 scholarships as a four-year "entity" regardless of whether the player to whom it is granted uses it for all for years. So let's say Kentucky signs DeMarcus Cousins. Cousins leaves after one year. That scholarship that Cousins was "on" is not available to be granted to another player until three more years elapse. It's "dead" for those three years, after which time it can be granted to another player. Kind of like dead money coming off an NBA team's books when a contract expires.

I like this idea a lot. You're not telling schools that they can't recruit any one and dones, but you are telling them that if they do they have to be prepared to lose some scholarship space after they leave. My guess is that under this system the top schools would bring in a one and doner every 2-4 years but then back off from those types of players in between. Also, the one and done guys would be forced to spread out across a lot of schools instead of all of them going to the same 3 or 4 schools like it is now, because those 3 or 4 schools would run out of space. So there's an added benefit of increased parity.

Some of the other ideas, such as straight up penalizing a school when a player leaves early, are kind of unfair to the schools because you don't always know for sure that a guy is going to leave after one year, especially at the time you start recruiting them early in their high school careers. So you'd bring a guy in, he'd leave, then you'd have to just give up on the guys you're currently recruiting and have already invested time into because of the actions of the current player. Under Tommy's system, you'd know that any time you bring a recruit in his scholarship is tied up for four years regardless, so you can plan your future recruits accordingly.

[dcdevil2009]

^ Yeah, what he said!^ The bottom line for me regarding Bilas' specious argument about jersey sales or whatever, is that virtually no one would want a Chris Weber jersey, if he wasn't playing (or hadn't played) for the Univ. of Michigan-- let him sign a deal with some AAU team, or some semi-pro team not governed by the NBA/NBAPA agreement (e.g.- let him do what Wilt did, and sign with the Globetrotters), and see how many jerseys he sells and how much money he makes-- Bilas, Weber, and the rest of these delusionals want to take advantage of the equity and brand identity that colleges have built up with their fan bases through a variety of methods (whether it is through the affinity of having attended the school, or something else-- i.e.- UK fans), and then say that the players are being exploited against their will... if you don't like the deal, don't sign the scholarship agreement. Nobody wants a Bilas jersey if all it says is "Rolling Hills HS" on the front. Practically nobody wants a Chris Weber or Kyrie Irving AAU jersey.

This argument goes both ways. While practically nobody wants a Chris Webber or Kyrie Irving AAU jersey, there aren't exactly a ton of people looking for a Duke Marty Pocious or Michigan Kirk Taylor jersey. The school might be the primary driver for jersey sales, but it doesn't follow that the player brings nothing to the table. Bilas isn't saying that the all jersey revenues should go to the players, just that there is a portion of the revenues that the athletes are driving and that they should be entitled to some of it.

...

Something I haven't really seen discussed in this thread is the effects letting players get paid would have on competitive balance. As it stands now, there's already a huge difference in exposure between the top tier programs and small to mid-major programs. If the NCAA were suddenly to allow players to sign endorsement deals on an individual basis before and during college, it would wreak havoc on whatever parity is left in the NCAA. To use Seth Curry as an example, wouldn't he be worth more to a sponsor now than he was at Liberty, even though he led all freshmen in scoring at Liberty and was the clear-cut best player on his team? If I'm a sponsor, I'd much rather pay someone who is going to be on TV every game and in the national spotlight than pay someone who might have 3-4 games a year on national TV, even if the latter is a significantly better player or the face of his team. Now from the other side of things, if I'm a recruit doesn't earning potential become a huge factor in the decision where to go to school? Maybe I'll be the man at somewhere like Villanova, where I might still compete for a Final Four, but if I know I can get bigger endorsements at Duke or Kentucky as the 3rd of 4th best guy, suddenly being the man isn't as important to me. It seems like allowing this to happen in college sports would create the same large market-small market problems that were a significant part of the NBA lockout last year. Miami's big three took pay-cuts to play together, but I'm sure it was made up for by endorsements (especially for Bosh).

So far, I've assumed that it would only be companies independent of the universities causing potential problems. However, if players were able to earn endorsement deals during school, I'm not sure what would stop wealthy boosters to give "endorsement" deals to players with the understanding that they'd go to a particular school or giving deals to all players at that school. I'm not sure what would prevent some one like Phil Knight or Kevin Plank from using Nike and UnderArmour to lure the top 10-15 players from every class to their alma maters, and these types of endorsements would even make business sense for their companies. There are already rumblings of this being a problem with Adidas and Nike sponsored AAU teams "guiding" their players to Nike and Adidas sponsored colleges, and this is without players receiving any of that money. If this can be done for individual players, I can only imagine this problem getting worse. I'm not saying that the athletes shouldn't be allowed to capitalize on the revenue they bring to their schools, but pointing out that letting them do so on an individual instead of collective basis might ruin whatever semblance of parity is left in the NCAA.

[bounce840]

I personally like Kyrie Irving and his breakout rookie season is good for Duke Basketball. Now, recruits can be attracted to Duke because of Irving. Irving is a beast. He was quick, could shoot, draw fouls, and a underated and smooth athlete. I liked it better when kids could go pro out of high school but think of the rules. Dibs. Opinions about Irving and the one year rule. Rivers was alright but Irving was my fav.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

It was discussed pretty thoroughly over here... (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?28197-After-Irving-amp-Rivers-How-Do-Duke-Fans-Feel-About-the-One-and-Done-Rule)

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

(mods, feel free to delete my previous post, I was re-directing the conversation to this thread)

One and done works great for the NBA - it creates pre-packaged "stars" who are already vetted for their league. Fans get much more excited about draft day and their teams picks when it's Kyrie Irving, Anthony Davis, Austin Rivers - whoever - when they are familiar with these players and have watched them on national television. For GMs and team executives, there's far less guess work than when they are drafting high school kids. Not so much for the extra year of "development and maturity" but because there's a much more predictable level of competition. High school competition can vary so wildly from state to state, metro area to metro area, and from division to division. High level college ball offers a way for a player's skills to be tested on a big stage.

However, as a Duke fan, I could give a rip about any of these things. I've found the NBA to be rather unwatchable for most of the last twenty years. I have had not one but two NBA teams I liked ripped away from where I lived (Charlotte and Seattle) and I dislike both the professional style of one-on-one play and the way that NBA teams tend to mail it in until the playoffs.

But I digress. What does "one and done" do for college basketball? Nothing good, unless you are a fan of one of those handful of franchises that has made their peace with their role as a de facto NBDL team. It penalizes four year players by having hot shot freshmen come in with the promise of one year of playing time and big exposure. It makes recruiting and coaching so much more difficult for those who try and play by the rules. It means fans have the narrowest of windows to "get to know" their team rather than watching player development and team chemistry over time.

Are there positives? Sure. Ask fans of Memphis - a middle program at best that watched their national exposure soar with a handful of top-level recruiting classes. It nearly netted them a (vacated) national championship. Ask Kentucky fans who get to use their teams as a veritable "who's who" of the top class year to year, with packed and enthusiastic stadiums full of fans who are eager to watch the top athletes in the nation every game.

How do I feel about Duke recruiting these players? Well, resigned I guess. The fact is, in order to compete at the highest level in this environment you have to take chances on these players. Especially with the arms race with UNC, every player Duke gets is a player that your rival doesn't get.

Unfortunately, I can't see a way it's going to change. I can sit here and carp about how much better college basketball was 20 years ago when your stud players usually at least stayed 2 or 3 years, but I might as well long for the 8 team ACC and the old home-and-home conference schedule. It's an NBA rule, not an NCAA rule. The NBA benefits immensely from some sort of requirement for college - it greatly reduces the draft mistakes you saw frequently with the 18 year old kids drafted in the 90's.

The only mutually beneficial solution I see to this situation would be for a legitimate and viable NBA "minor league" where kids can play at 18 (or 16, 17 like soccer players). In order for this to be a real alternative to one year of college basketball, this league would have to have the same exposure and prestige as college basketball's highest levels. If players could go "semi-pro" and play basketball for real money for a year or two in small markets as an alternative to having to sit in classes they aren't interested in and make a farce of college education, I'd wager they'd be very interested. The NBA would be dealing with a known quantity once these kids "graduated" to the NBA, colleges would get kids who were committed to being in school for more than a year and could learn the system of coaches and develop true chemistry, and we the fans would get to watch higher quality ball.

But it is completely unrealistic to think that the NBA would invest the time and money to create a developmental league that could rival the glitz and glamour of the NCAA - March Madness, high level rivalries, conference tournaments, holiday trips to Hawaii or Puerto Rice, games in Madison Square Garden, 9,314 rabid fans supporting you at a game in January, One Shining Moment...

In the meantime, I wouldn't be surprised if the NBA offers a breadcrumb to the NCAA by instituting a 20 year age limit, but it really doesn't change things that much and is still arbitrary and unfair to the players themselves. I'd expect that also more players might explore the possibility of playing overseas rather than choosing to play in college. Higher level of competition and the chance to make some decent pocket change.

Anyways, I'll stop my carping now. I feel like a prematurely old man. And I do still hope that Duke gets the Kyrie Irvings and Austin Rivers of the universe. They both seem like "Duke" kids and handled themselves very professionally throughout their short Duke careers. I don't fault them in any way for making the most of the system as it stands. I want Duke to hold to their high principles and standards, and I hope for them to do so while winning national championships.

Thanks for reading my ravings - it's been building up for a good long time.

[g-money]

Good essay out today by Steve Kerr on the age limit:

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7883540/steve-kerr-problems-age-limit-nba

Enjoy.

[greybeard]

It makes a difference because Bilas and Web(b?)er argue that Weber should get some cut of the profits on University of Michigan jerseys with Weber's name on the back-- I say, if Weber wants to market a jersey that does not infringe on the UM's hard-earned brand equity, with Weber's name on the back-- let him have at it-- oh by the way, he can't build up a clientele for that third-party jersey by playing for the UM anymore, while he is selling it. Weber and Bilas want him to be able to use the NCAA's and UM's bully pulpit to publicize himself, then sell a jersey which is mainly coveted because he is a member of those organizations... if Bilas and Weber think Weber's jersey is so coveted, let him/them prove it, by playing and working on his own, to build up the demand for the silly thing.

That's exactly the point-- almost no one will buy a Rivers or Irving jersey that has some non-familiar design with their name on it--people want a Duke jersey, THEN with Rivers' or Irving's name on the back-- Bilas and Weber need to stop acting like they created the demand for the Weber jersey out of whole cloth (pun intended)... and good luck selling that non-Duke, non-NBA team Irving #1 jersey... maybe it should have something like "Rahway All-Stars" or "Hoboken Generals" on the front, along with "Irving, #1" on the back-- yeah, that'll be a hot seller.

How come more Weber Jerseys were in all likelihood sold than others? How come more Fab Five Jerseys were probably sold during the two years they were at U or M than, I'm guessing, any 10 year period at U of M.?

The selling of Jerseys by the way is an exploitation that was completely, as in totally, foreign to college sports until Nike et al started giving free gear to colleges and paying college coaches more than they were earning from the colleges. I believe that that started happening when college games became ubiquitous on the Tube, that is, with the coming of cable, most particularly, with the coming of ESPN. Then onferences started getting contracts with cable companies. Now, is anyone going to argue that the Fab Five et al DID NOT MAKE the industry that is the NCAA/Shoe Company/Cable/big time prorams/big time coaches marriage much, shall we say solid, but in reality a fortune than that which would not have therwise have been there.

This NCAA of old was a different organization. It became a mega industry in bed with other mega industries once the selling of these stars became possible based upon what is close to being payola by the Nikes and ESPNs to anyone whom they could pay to increase their profits, except of course the kids. It starts in AAU, zips along to the private finishing schools, and then transforms into something gargantuin in the college game. Everybody associated gets big bucks except for the kids who get squadoosh.

The canard that the stars are getting paid in the form of a free ride to quality schools does not pass the laugh test. Before this unholy marriage began and the mega dollars started to flow, colleges gave free-rides and that was a different deal. Bill Bradley's first contract with the Knicks, the highest ever paid through that point, was maybe 10 times what a year at Princeton would have cost him. Princeton, I have to believe, was not on national television even once before it made the final four in Bradley's senior year, and I'm not sure that it was paid a dime by anyone for havig made it that far. There were no Jersey sales, and Alumni did have a way of making sure the kids were taking care of, Bradley aside of course. Heck, when Marquette would come to the Garden, Big Al himself handed out the cash (20 bucks) so that his guys could go out and do the town.

Look, Everybody Knows what the deal is here--the stars drive the bus. If the star is a coach, he gets paid millions by the school that employs him, more by the Shoe company he allows to advertise their gear by choosing them to outfit his guys (got to have 4 or 5 different uniforms, of course), who knows how much more for summer camps, speaking engagements, etc. If the star is a player, he gets to eat peanut butter. It's not right.

[azzefkram]

Not a fan of the one and done rule. I would prefer something similar to baseball. This is something that I'm sure the NBA and the union would have to hash out. Unfortunately I don't see it ever changing.

[greybeard]

The athletes are free to organize their basketball activities and profit from them in any way they see fit.

If Anthony Davis and Marcus Teague and Michael-Kidd Gilchrist were to decide not to accept scholarships from the University of Kentucky but instead to rent out a basketball arena and charge the public money in exchange for displaying their basketball skills, they are free to do that.

The notion that there should be some sort of legal remedy on behalf of these basketball-playing individuals that should override the terms and conditions offered by the universities to persons considering accepting scholarships from them has no basis in any claim of "monopoly" power.

The market, properly defined, is the entire market for the display of basketball skills. There is a whole world of opportunities for someone to obtain compensation for their basketball-playing abilities beyond the NCAA and beyond the NBA. Nothing prevents any group of basketball players from forming their own league and charging admission, for example.

The reality is that what we would see if Davis and Teague and Gilchrist did that is little interest on the part of the public. In fact, they simply don't in fact bring to the table as much as what people who claim they are being unfairly oppressed by monopoly power argue they bring to the table, and that would be readily apparent if they went out into the market and offered their basketball services directly.

One could argue that the universities should not be allowed to collude on the terms and conditions of athletic scholarships through the mechanism of the NCAA (or otherwise), but that is a different argument entirely than the claim of abuse of monopoly power.

huh?