The Future of College Basketball now that Kentucky has won

[slower]

Interesting piece by Chuck Klosterman. Possibly a bit hysterical and hyperbolic. Possibly true.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7744477/john-calipari-anthony-davis-kentucky-march-final-four-means-college-basketball


NOTE: This was written before the Final Four.

[mgtr]

What was the old line? Winners never cheat, and cheaters never win. Well, of course that doesn't always hold true, but I sure hope that Kansas wins. Wipe that smirk off Calipari's face!

[_Gary]

That's actually a fantastic article and I do think the write hits on some very real points, and makes some very astute observations. Thanks for sharing!

[SmartDevil]

Good read. I'd strongly prefer Kansas win as well. But if Calipari loses, he'll likely hang around for at least as many years as it takes to get vindication for all things past by winning a national championship. If he wins, I think it could well shorten his college career and make him more receptive to going back to the NBA for more money, exposure, and seeking vindication of sorts at that level. Nothing's cerrain of course but the sooner he's done at Kentucky the less damage done to college basketball.

[superdave]

Interesting article on graduation rates. (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/tournament/2012/story/_/id/7677681/2012-ncaa-tournament-teams-show-grad-rate-improvement-study-says) I dont really know where I fall on this, but college should be more college than it is right now.

I guess two plans to address this would be to keep kids in school for 2-3 years or to reduce scholarships or have a post-season ban for schools below certain graduation rates.

[Lord Ash]

Interesting article, but I don't think it will happen.

I think most fan bases would not accept it.

I think most schools (to whom academic reputations do matter) would not accept it.

I don't think there are enough players who are true one-and-dones to fill up several teams a year.

So yeah... I think this will happen with Cal at Kentucky as long as he is there, and then no longer.

[Wildcat]

I believe this is just the ebb and flow of life. Some people remain the same-while others make adjustments. In the 21st century; the traditionalists view is severely challenged, if not threatened. Diversity

[UrinalCake]

Shouldn't the APR catch up to Kentucky pretty soon? When you send 3-4 freshmen to the NBA every year, there's no way you can graduate enough players. The hammer fell on UCONN this year, hopefully it will fall on Kentucky too (at which point Cal will likely leave for the NBA).

[superdave]

Shouldn't the APR catch up to Kentucky pretty soon? When you send 3-4 freshmen to the NBA every year, there's no way you can graduate enough players. The hammer fell on UCONN this year, hopefully it will fall on Kentucky too (at which point Cal will likely leave for the NBA).

Is the requirement to maintain a minimum graduation rate?

Or is it to maintain a minimum rate of players on track to graduate?

[dukelifer]

I expect KY to win but not because of the one-and-done model- but because the right phenom can make a huge difference. Davis has been the difference maker this year. I do not believe this model can win every year. If Kansas can get Davis in foul trouble and off the floor for a chunk of time- KY is vulnerable.

[Bluedog]

Shouldn't the APR catch up to Kentucky pretty soon? When you send 3-4 freshmen to the NBA every year, there's no way you can graduate enough players. The hammer fell on UCONN this year, hopefully it will fall on Kentucky too (at which point Cal will likely leave for the NBA).


Is the requirement to maintain a minimum graduation rate?

Or is it to maintain a minimum rate of players on track to graduate?

As long as you leave the university in good academic standing, APR doesn't penalize the school. Thus, early departures for the NBA or transfers don't harm the school unless the student stops going to classes second semester because they know they're going to the NBA. So, while the two components for APR are 1. academic eligibility (i.e. straight A student or straight C students makes no difference whatsoever in the point system) and 2. retention, the NCAA makes exceptions for those transferring with a sufficiently high GPA or leaving for professional sports while still in good academic standing.

[UrinalCake]

Is the requirement to maintain a minimum graduation rate?

Or is it to maintain a minimum rate of players on track to graduate?

I've done some piddling around and haven't managed to completely understand how the APR is calculated. But here's what I've learned so far:

According to wikipedia,


The APR is calculated by allocating points for eligibility and retention -- the two factors that research identifies as the best indicators of graduation. Each player on a given roster earns a maximum of two points per term, one for being academically eligible and one for staying with the institution. A team's APR is the total points of a team's roster at a given time divided by the total points possible. Since this results in a decimal number, the CAP decided to multiply it by 1,000 for ease of reference. Thus, a raw APR score of .925 translates into the 925 that will become the standard terminology.[1]

So if a player stays one year, remains in good academic standing and then leaves for the NBA, they earn their school 3 out of 4 points (2/2 for the first semester, 1/2 for the second semester since they are in good academic standing but did not return). If your entire team consists of one and done'rs, you'd have an APR of 750 which is below the minimum requirement of 925.

According to the NCAA's website, the APR is calculated as a four-year rolling window. What I don't know is whether they players that left early continue to factor into the calculation for the years after they are gone.

Kentucky was able to produce an excellent APR score of 948 for the 2009-2010 season, Calipari's first at Kentucky and the most recent season for which data has been released. I'll be curious as to what it looks like for the next two years.

EDIT: according to Bluedog's post, players that leave early for the NBA in good standing do not penalize the school. If this is true, then Kentucky can continue with their rent-a-player model indefinitely.

[lotusland]

I don't think the model is sustainable. A mixture of players who have their eye on cashing in and no interest in graduating combined with a rabid, win at all cost environment fueled by alumni and boosters will eventually self-destruct. I hope Calipari doesn't get a championship that sticks but it would serve UK right to have one vacated.

[Bluedog]

EDIT: according to Bluedog's post, players that leave early for the NBA in good standing do not penalize the school. If this is true, then Kentucky can continue with their rent-a-player model indefinitely.

Correct.

NCAA:

The Division I Committee on Academic Performance continues to examine data produced by the Academic Progress Rate and has adjusted the calculation over the years in response. Changes have included exceptions for student-athletes in good academic standing who leave school early to pursue a professional career, student-athletes who transfer to another school while meeting minimum academic requirements and student-athletes who return to graduate at a later date.
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Academics/Division+I/How+is+APR+calculated

NBADraft.net:

The NCAA even makes an exception to APR (the yearly academic progress report) for those players that leave school to pursue careers in professional athletics.
http://nbadraft.net/ncaas-shameful-early-entry-rule

Hoopsworld:

[Kentucky] Wildcats administration has to be as happy as anyone that there are no changes planned to the Academic Progress Rate that would penalize them for having guys leave early to play professionally. They would have been in serious trouble if there were; bringing in seven top-20 recruits is the only way Calipari can stay in the national championship mix with the kind of talent he loses year in and year out.
http://www.hoopsworld.com/nba-draft-scouting-the-final-four

[roywhite]

I don't think the model is sustainable. A mixture of players who have their eye on cashing in and no interest in graduating combined with a rabid, win at all cost environment fueled by alumni and boosters will eventually self-destruct. I hope Calipari doesn't get a championship that sticks but it would serve UK right to have one vacated.

Well, you're probably right (and that's certainly Calipari's history), but this current model is working so well that there may be less inclination to provide illegal benefits.
A very select group of prospects, those who are in the top 10 to 15 players in their class with a realistic chance of being one-and-done 1st round NBA draft choices, like the way things are set up at Kentucky.
They get good coaching, tremendous fan support, play with top talent, don't sweat the academics if they don't care, win a bunch of games, and cash in early with a high draft position. Less temptation to take illegal benefits when that big payday is just a year or two away.

That's the theory anyway.

[SoCalDukeFan]

Well, you're probably right (and that's certainly Calipari's history), but this current model is working so well that there may be less inclination to provide illegal benefits.
A very select group of prospects, those who are in the top 10 to 15 players in their class with a realistic chance of being one-and-done 1st round NBA draft choices, like the way things are set up at Kentucky.
They get good coaching, tremendous fan support, play with top talent, don't sweat the academics if they don't care, win a bunch of games, and cash in early with a high draft position. Less temptation to take illegal benefits when that big payday is just a year or two away.

That's the theory anyway.

Calipari is also well connected with LeBron James. So go to KY for a year, play for Cal, no pressure to stay in school two years, go to the NBA, sign a deal with LeBron's marketing company. Hey Life is Good.

I think the only thing the NCAA can do is to make freshmen ineligible for varsity basketball. Not sure I like the idea but it might bring the NBA to the table and get something negotiated that is fair to all parties. Right now kids who don't want to go to college have no place to play, colleges have to deal with one and done, and the NBA gets the benefits of fan exposure for future players and better evaluation of their talents.

SoCal

[sagegrouse]

As long as you leave the university in good academic standing, APR doesn't penalize the school. Thus, early departures for the NBA or transfers don't harm the school unless the student stops going to classes second semester because they know they're going to the NBA. So, while the two components for APR are 1. academic eligibility (i.e. straight A student or straight C students makes no difference whatsoever in the point system) and 2. retention, the NCAA makes exceptions for those transferring with a sufficiently high GPA or leaving for professional sports while still in good academic standing.


I don't think the model is sustainable. A mixture of players who have their eye on cashing in and no interest in graduating combined with a rabid, win at all cost environment fueled by alumni and boosters will eventually self-destruct. I hope Calipari doesn't get a championship that sticks but it would serve UK right to have one vacated.

Under the current rules, the UK model can sustain itself indefinitely. A couple of conditions, however: Who thinks Calipari will stick around for a decade? Also, any other school can horn in on the act. Why should players develop faster at UK than at KU or DUKE or UNC or other places?

I would not be surprised if the extreme form of one-and-done recruiting practiced by Calapari and Kentucky reslts in a rejiggering of the rules. The justification is that it is not in keeping with the educational mission of the NCAA (year, I know, there is a lot of hypocrisy here and everywhere else). One could easily keep a running total of one-and-done players and, beyond a certain point, start reducing scholarships. The trigger could be "more than one per year" of departures after a single year. The penalty could be the loss of one or more scholarships for three years.

sagegrouse

[superdave]

Under the current rules, the UK model can sustain itself indefinitely. A couple of conditions, however: Who thinks Calipari will stick around for a decade? Also, any other school can horn in on the act. Why should players develop faster at UK than at KU or DUKE or UNC or other places?

I would not be surprised if the extreme form of one-and-done recruiting practiced by Calapari and Kentucky reslts in a rejiggering of the rules. The justification is that it is not in keeping with the educational mission of the NCAA (year, I know, there is a lot of hypocrisy here and everywhere else). One could easily keep a running total of one-and-done players and, beyond a certain point, start reducing scholarships. The trigger could be "more than one per year" of departures after a single year. The penalty could be the loss of one or more scholarships for three years.

sagegrouse


Calipari is only 53. He could be around for a while at UK. Remember that he was only 72-112 as a coach in the NBA, so the Knicks may not be that big of a draw for him, especially with Amare Stoudemire's knees prominently featured.

I think a likely end to the UK model is conference realignment. That could be the one thing that blows up this whole system and creates an opportunity to re-write all the rule. Cataclysmic change I suppose.

If the major college football teams achieve four 16-team conferences like they seem to want, they can start dictating to the NCAAs what they want and set about the end of the NCAA as a meaningful institution. This could lead to football being set on one path with one set of rules (ie $ for players, less restrictive admissions standards) and all other sports on another path. Basketball would be caught in-between somehow. The NCAA tournament is great and needs no tweaking (so stop tweaking it already!). But college basketball is not quite as revenue hungry as football, in my estimation, even though they generate a lot of cash. It will be interesting to see how conference realignment plays out and where basketball lands as a result.

I think keeping a kid in college a 2nd year would be good, but it is not a game-changer that would stop Calipari/UK from doing what they are doing.

[NSDukeFan]

Calipari is only 53. He could be around for a while at UK. Remember that he was only 72-112 as a coach in the NBA, so the Knicks may not be that big of a draw for him, especially with Amare Stoudemire's knees prominently featured.

I think a likely end to the UK model is conference realignment. That could be the one thing that blows up this whole system and creates an opportunity to re-write all the rule. Cataclysmic change I suppose.

If the major college football teams achieve four 16-team conferences like they seem to want, they can start dictating to the NCAAs what they want and set about the end of the NCAA as a meaningful institution. This could lead to football being set on one path with one set of rules (ie $ for players, less restrictive admissions standards) and all other sports on another path. Basketball would be caught in-between somehow. The NCAA tournament is great and needs no tweaking (so stop tweaking it already!). But college basketball is not quite as revenue hungry as football, in my estimation, even though they generate a lot of cash. It will be interesting to see how conference realignment plays out and where basketball lands as a result.

I think keeping a kid in college a 2nd year would be good, but it is not a game-changer that would stop Calipari/UK from doing what they are doing.

Although Calipari is only 53, I still can't see him at UK for that long. If he goes a couple of years without getting elite recruits, he could be in for a some lean years, as he has not had the stability of many four year players thus far. That's a lot of pressure for each year's recruiting. He has also mentioned that the UK head coaching job is a pretty intense one that he may not want to do for that long as that is a very intense fanbase. There is also always the possibility that violations may lead to an early exit from the program and, of course the lure of the pros.

This year is interesting recruiting-wise. If he doesn't get any more recruits, he could still have a top 3 recruiting class, but because it is not like the Wall-Cousins, or Davis-Kidd-Gilchrist classes the team could struggle a bit. I expect he will probably get someone else and have the top class again, but if he doesn't get Shabazz and Noel, the team will be in the title mix along with a whole bunch of other teams.

That leads me to the title of the thread. My prediction if Kentucky wins...is that Duke basketball will be one of the top 3 programs in the country as long as Coach K keeps koaching and will likely continue to get top 10 recruiting classes most years and be a top 15 team most years. Unfortunately, my prediction is not that Duke makes the elite 8 in the single elimination NCAA Tournament every single year, even if the team is ranked in the top 10 most years.

Of course, my predictions are worth the paper they are printed on. I had Duke winning it this year, as usual.

[lotusland]

Well, you're probably right (and that's certainly Calipari's history), but this current model is working so well that there may be less inclination to provide illegal benefits.
A very select group of prospects, those who are in the top 10 to 15 players in their class with a realistic chance of being one-and-done 1st round NBA draft choices, like the way things are set up at Kentucky.
They get good coaching, tremendous fan support, play with top talent, don't sweat the academics if they don't care, win a bunch of games, and cash in early with a high draft position. Less temptation to take illegal benefits when that big payday is just a year or two away.

That's the theory anyway.

I think you need someone who puts the program ahead of a particular team or an individual player minding the store to even possibly prevent violations in that environment and Calipari's history suggests that he is never "aware" of the violations when they occur. i don't think you can keep a program like UK out of trouble for very long being conveniently ignorant of what is going on around you. My UK friends have a Nascar mentality about cheating which is that it aint cheating unless you get caught. There are plenty of willing corrupters among their fans so I think it's just a matter of time.

[hq2]

I think you need someone who puts the program ahead of a particular team or an individual player minding the store to even possibly prevent violations in that environment and Calipari's history suggests that he is never "aware" of the violations when they occur. i don't think you can keep a program like UK out of trouble for very long being conveniently ignorant of what is going on around you. My UK friends have a Nascar mentality about cheating which is that it aint cheating unless you get caught. There are plenty of willing corrupters among their fans so I think it's just a matter of time.

Well, in the end, what do you call the UK program anyway? Is it really college athletics, or is it a semi-pro program? I mean, the players stay only one
year or two at the most, concentrate mostly on B-ball, and mostly go to the pros. Do they count as real college students in any meaningful sense of
the word? The great thing about Duke basketball, is that usually (with some more recent exceptions) the Duke players are also actually real students.
They go to class, they (mostly) graduate, and they go on to other careers besides basketball. That to me has always been one of the great appeals
of the program. Now, it appears that keeping that up and winning too may get much harder. It will be very hard to resist the one-and-done Kentucky model
for long, especially as we've basically already started doing it with Kyrie (who admittedly was pro-ready) and Austin.

[sbroc012]

calipari has already said he doesn't expect to be at UK for.more than a decade...it was an ESPN article earlier this year..cant find it right now cause im on my phone

[dukelifer]

A few years ago- the talk was the way to win now is to keep guys until they are seniors, sprinkle in one star player and have the team develop. This is effectively tinkering with the mid major model. Butler was great because they had guys who played together and had a star player in Hayward. Duke also took that approach and won it with a senior heavy team in 2009. UNC took an experienced team and won it all in 2008. Now the one and done model seems like the way to go. What I saw yesterday was a good team with a difference maker on defense. Davis gave KY tons of opportunities - by blocking or altering shots and getting rebounds and starting a break. They won because of a phenom player. KY did not win because of one and done rule- they won because they had a unique player who excelled when it counted. If KY wins it again next year- I may chance my opinion- unless, of course, Davis comes back.

[mkline09]

Here is my take on the Kentucky win which I feel, combined with the NBA age restriction rule, is bad for college basketball. Not necessarily because Kentucky won or that they won with a lot of freshman but because one and dones to me are devaluaing the college in college basketball.

http://dukesportsblog.com/2012/04/03/why-kentuckys-win-nba-rules-are-bad-for-college-basketball.aspx

I'm no Kentucky fan but I have to give them credit. I'm definitely no fan of Calipari, but he did get his team to play very well despite all that talent and the egos that went with it. They were very good defensively and Anthony Davis obviously had something to do with that.

[Saratoga2]

Congratulations to Kentucky for winning the championship. They had superior players at every position and a phenom in Davis. With that said, I wonder how it is that one program has landed so many top rated players two years running. Given that Calipari has recently coached two teams that had to give back wins due to rules violations, I wonder if something may come up to taint his current Kentucky teams. I hope not for college basketball's future. I guess time will tell.

[rtnorthrup]

The primary problem isn't necessarily with Calipari or the rule requiring high school kids to wait one year before becoming eligible for the NBA draft. The real problem is the NBA game itself, which ultimately values athleticism over basketball skills. The NBA game is so radically different from the college game that it does not value the type of coaching that players get at the college level. Fundamentals and basketball skills have almost no correlation to where a player will get drafted. Why would anyone continue in school when doing so adds no legitimate value to a professional career.

The secondary problem is that the entire concept of amateurism is outdated, if it ever existed in the first place. Look at the Eurpoean football model, or that of Golfers and tennis players. The idea that there is any correlation between post-secondary education and excellence in the sport has been completey dropped.

[dukeENG2003]

The real problem is the NBA game itself, which ultimately values athleticism over basketball skills.

You must not watch much NBA. IMO, the NBA game values basketball skill MORE than the college game, if for no other reason the game is far less physical. If you are talking about the way that NBA teams evaluate talent for the draft, that is different.

[MaxAMillion]

You must not watch much NBA. IMO, the NBA game values basketball skill MORE than the college game, if for no other reason the game is far less physical. If you are talking about the way that NBA teams evaluate talent for the draft, that is different.

I agree...basketball skill has a great deal to do with success in the NBA. Teams are just having to draft based on potential since kids come out early after a year or two of college.

I don't know why any athlete would stay in school if they knew millions awaited them playing professional sports. I would sure leave early if I had the chance to make millions.

[mgtr]

I agree...basketball skill has a great deal to do with success in the NBA. Teams are just having to draft based on potential since kids come out early after a year or two of college.

I don't know why any athlete would stay in school if they knew millions awaited them playing professional sports. I would sure leave early if I had the chance to make millions.

So do you favor eliminating the one and done rule, and letting the NBA draft kids directly out of high school? I sure favor that over the current situation. Maybe the baseball plan is best (go directly after high school, or stay in college three years). I would have to say that almost any plan is better than what we now have.

[Rich]

So do you favor eliminating the one and done rule, and letting the NBA draft kids directly out of high school? I sure favor that over the current situation. Maybe the baseball plan is best (go directly after high school, or stay in college three years). I would have to say that almost any plan is better than what we now have.

You may favor it, but the NBA doesn't. Why should they? They have the best of both worlds. If they get rid of the one year rule then they have a bunch of unknowns coming out of high school with zero marketability (except for the occasional freak phenom such as Lebron James). Would anyone but the diehard recruiting geek know anything about Anthony Davis or Kidd-Gilchrest last year? No. So they enter the NBA out of HS as unknowns.

However, now that they've played collegiate ball for one year in a D1 program and have been all over ESPN, and in the NCAA Tourney, which was watched by millions of people, and have received tons of press for their accomplishments, they enter the NBA as lucrative commodities from a marketing standpoint. The NBA is all about marketing its players. So by having the one year rule, the NBA is optimizing its product from a marketing standpoint, regardless of what's better for the NCAA, collegiate athletes, or the schools. That's not the NBA's concern nor, as a business, should it be. The NBA doesn't need to force the kids to stay 2 or 3 years for its marketing success, but having them play college for one year sure does help and makes sense from a business/marketing perspective.

I agree with you that I would prefer to see kids go straight from HS or unpack their bags and play college for 2-3 years. I hate the one year rule. But it's the NBA's rule and they have no incentive to change it.

[SoCalDukeFan]

You may favor it, but the NBA doesn't. Why should they? They have the best of both worlds. If they get rid of the one year rule then they have a bunch of unknowns coming out of high school with zero marketability (except for the occasional freak phenom such as Lebron James). Would anyone but the diehard recruiting geek know anything about Anthony Davis or Kidd-Gilchrest last year? No. So they enter the NBA out of HS as unknowns.

However, now that they've played collegiate ball for one year in a D1 program and have been all over ESPN, and in the NCAA Tourney, which was watched by millions of people, and have received tons of press for their accomplishments, they enter the NBA as lucrative commodities from a marketing standpoint. The NBA is all about marketing its players. So by having the one year rule, the NBA is optimizing its product from a marketing standpoint, regardless of what's better for the NCAA, collegiate athletes, or the schools. That's not the NBA's concern nor, as a business, should it be. The NBA doesn't need to force the kids to stay 2 or 3 years for its marketing success, but having them play college for one year sure does help and makes sense from a business/marketing perspective.

I agree with you that I would prefer to see kids go straight from HS or unpack their bags and play college for 2-3 years. I hate the one year rule. But it's the NBA's rule and they have no incentive to change it.

Which is why the NCAA should make freshmen ineligible for college basketball.

SoCal

[gumbomoop]

Can't say I've thought of it this way, but worth reading.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/tournament/2012/story/_/id/7769299/final-four-2012-college-basketball-match-kentucky-wildcats-level-excellence

[Atlanta Duke]

Which is why the NCAA should make freshmen ineligible for college basketball.

SoCal

Bob Costas agrees with you

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/22825103/vp/46945504#46945504

[Ping Lin]

Bob Costas agrees with you

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/22825103/vp/46945504#46945504

Costas is being a little naive here, I think.

Freshmen ineligibility means players will go to Europe or elsewhere outside the US for one year before declaring for the draft, and the pool of good players for college hoops will shrink even more.

[sagegrouse]

Which is why the NCAA should make freshmen ineligible for college basketball.

SoCal


Bob Costas agrees with you

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/22825103/vp/46945504#46945504


Costas is being a little naive here, I think.

Freshmen ineligibility means players will go to Europe or elsewhere outside the US for one year before declaring for the draft, and the pool of good players for college hoops will shrink even more.

Let's see.... The problem is that high schools are turning out a few basketball players each year who are good enough to go directly to the NCAA or, at the very least, are highly desired by the NBA after just one year of college. So the solution is not to let HS players go to college and play. Rather, they should sit out the first year of varsity competition. This is because they are too good? I must be missing something.

The "Freshman Ineligible" ship sailed decades ago, and it ain't coming back to NCAA competition.

sagegrouse

[MIKESJ73]

It would be great if Noel, Bazz, and Bennett all chose to play elsewhere. IMHO, Kentucky would still be a borderline 25 team though.

My solution to the one and done problem would be to make eligibility for the NBA draft three years removed from high school just like football. The difference is that the NBDL already exists (or so I hear). Players that don't want to go to school, fail out, or just can't get in go into a NBDL draft. They would get paid, but in the 5 to 6 figure range depending on draft position. This would eliminate the monetary risk of NBA GM's selecting an unproven commodity. Only 1 or 2 of these guys are NBA ready immediately anyway. Because there is not a NBDL team for every NBA team, a player would be eligible for the NBA draft once three years removed from high school. I think it would work because there are so few NBDL teams.

Imagine the popularity of the NBDL if John Wall, Kyrie Irving, Austin Rivers, Anthony Davis....all played in it.

Of course the reality would be that most of these guys would still be in school.

[sagegrouse]

Let's see.... The problem is that high schools are turning out a few basketball players each year who are good enough to go directly to the NCAA or, at the very least, are highly desired by the NBA after just one year of college. So the solution is not to let HS players go to college and play. Rather, they should sit out the first year of varsity competition. This is because they are too good? I must be missing something.

The "Freshman Ineligible" ship sailed decades ago, and it ain't coming back to NCAA competition.

sagegrouse

Dumb, dumb, dumb, Sage Grouse. Of course, I meant to say "who are good enough to go directly to the NBA." - sage

[pfrduke]

Let's see.... The problem is that high schools are turning out a few basketball players each year who are good enough to go directly to the NBA or, at the very least, are highly desired by the NBA after just one year of college. So the solution is not to let HS players go to college and play. Rather, they should sit out the first year of varsity competition. This is because they are too good? I must be missing something.

The "Freshman Ineligible" ship sailed decades ago, and it ain't coming back to NCAA competition.

sagegrouse

I agree with this completely. There are 345 Division I basketball schools, each of whom on average probably adds ~3 freshmen every season. That's over 1,000 kids every season who get to play (or at least be eligible to play) NCAA basketball as freshmen. Of those 1,000+, fewer than 10 - that is fewer than 1% - leave after a single season to go play in the NBA. Even if we assume that 10 freshmen leaving for the NBA is an affront to the system of NCAA basketball, stripping 1,000 kids of a season of playing college hoops as a reaction to those 10 leaving is the epitome of cutting of your nose to spite your face.

[mgtr]

You may favor it, but the NBA doesn't. Why should they? They have the best of both worlds. If they get rid of the one year rule then they have a bunch of unknowns coming out of high school with zero marketability (except for the occasional freak phenom such as Lebron James). Would anyone but the diehard recruiting geek know anything about Anthony Davis or Kidd-Gilchrest last year? No. So they enter the NBA out of HS as unknowns.

However, now that they've played collegiate ball for one year in a D1 program and have been all over ESPN, and in the NCAA Tourney, which was watched by millions of people, and have received tons of press for their accomplishments, they enter the NBA as lucrative commodities from a marketing standpoint. The NBA is all about marketing its players. So by having the one year rule, the NBA is optimizing its product from a marketing standpoint, regardless of what's better for the NCAA, collegiate athletes, or the schools. That's not the NBA's concern nor, as a business, should it be. The NBA doesn't need to force the kids to stay 2 or 3 years for its marketing success, but having them play college for one year sure does help and makes sense from a business/marketing perspective.

I agree with you that I would prefer to see kids go straight from HS or unpack their bags and play college for 2-3 years. I hate the one year rule. But it's the NBA's rule and they have no incentive to change it.

OK, there are three principal actors here - the NBA, the NCAA, and the colleges. The NBA is, as you say, probably not going to act. A few of the colleges might act alone (eg, Ivy League), but the pressure on the administration by the athletic would be intense in big time schools. So, the real hope is the NCAA. They could act to at least enforce existing rules (such as the much-discussed but little understood) -- at least by me -- academic progress rule. I think the biggest problem is the person who gets into college (perhaps barely), skates by the first semester, and then stops bothering to make an effort. So college becomes sort of a showplace for new NBA talent. I favor treating college more favorably than that. Fortunately, Duke hasn't had many basketball players who fit that mold.

[Rich]

OK, there are three principal actors here - the NBA, the NCAA, and the colleges. The NBA is, as you say, probably not going to act. A few of the colleges might act alone (eg, Ivy League), but the pressure on the administration by the athletic would be intense in big time schools. So, the real hope is the NCAA. They could act to at least enforce existing rules (such as the much-discussed but little understood) -- at least by me -- academic progress rule. I think the biggest problem is the person who gets into college (perhaps barely), skates by the first semester, and then stops bothering to make an effort. So college becomes sort of a showplace for new NBA talent. I favor treating college more favorably than that. Fortunately, Duke hasn't had many basketball players who fit that mold.

I just don't see that making much of a dent in the system. First, it's a vague standard and easy enough for an athletics department to overcome. Second, many of these kids are decent students. For example, I read that this year's Kentucky bball freshman class were all very good students and didn't have any issues academically. Doesn't mean they will (or should) stay in school rather than pursue their dream to play in the NBA.

[gwlaw99]

Let's say the NBA gets the players union to raise the age to 20 or even 21. One and done players who want to get a year of college coaching and exposure could still leave after a year. Then they could go to Europe and make a few hundred thousand to a few million dollars, then head to the NBA.

[Rich]

Let's say the NBA gets the players union to raise the age to 20 or even 21. One and done players who want to get a year of college coaching and exposure could still leave after a year. Then they could go to Europe and make a few hundred thousand to a few million dollars, then head to the NBA.

The NBA just went through a lockout and significant collective bargaining sessions. This is not an issue the players union or the NBA seem to care about, at least not enough to force a change last summer when they had the chance to address it.

[gwlaw99]

The NBA just went through a lockout and significant collective bargaining sessions. This is not an issue the players union or the NBA seem to care about, at least not enough to force a change last summer when they had the chance to address it.

I realize that, but my point was that even if it was changed, players could still leave early and play in Europe.