The NCAA Should Take on the NBA, not Just Lie Down and Roll Over

[sagegrouse]

I posted some of these ideas in another thread. The NCAA is surrendering to the NBA. Do you know its strategy to avoid losing players to the NBA is? It's to disqualify any player who enters the draft -- i.e., goes so far to as to get a job offer from the NBA. The stated reason is that (a) it doesn't want to police the issue of payments from agents and (b) the early entry date is to help coaches plan next year's roster because of the 12-24 month lead time to get a new player. Neither of these make any sense whatsoever in terms of protecting the game of college hoops from the depredations of the NBA.

Here are my thoughts on the subject:

a. CBB is a multi-BILLION dollar business. Why doesn't it have a CEO?

b. NCAA hoops is being eaten alive by a richer and more nimble competitor, and it doesn't have a plan to fight back. This is unilateral disarmament. It is done in the name of amateurism and equity among all 300 Div. I schools, but the outcome is slow suicide of the sport.

b. College hoops's biggest problem is that it is losing all of its best players to the competitor (NBA) after just one year. Yet it is doing nothing to retain them. In fact, it is driving them out the door by DQing them if they go get an offer from the competitor (enter the draft). The NCAA should quit doing that and allow any player to enter the draft and return to college if he doesn't like the offer. And BTW, if that screws up the NBA draft, that's another positive benefit.

d. The newly conceived NCAA Basketball Commissioner should award compensation for the ten most valuable college players (in terms of value to the NBA) if they stay beyond their first year. Like $250K to $1.0 million, either loan or grant. These would be funded by the NCAA out of March Madness money, not the schools or their boosters, and the recipients would be limited to ten players most likely to be drafted high after year one. If need be, this can be done by a private organization outside the NCAA with its payments not affecting eligibility, but I would just give the job to the new Commissioner.

e. Protect the marquis teams, who bring in all the dough and all the TV eyeballs, and are the heart and soul of the CBB "business." They are being decimated by the NBA (kill one in ten, as the Romans used to do to discipline their prisoners). But not only does it drain the colleges of star power and talent, but it also screws up their rosters because there is a 12-24 month lead to bringing in new players via recruiting or transfer.

f. Somewhat laughingly, the college coaches were so desperate and out of ideas that they petitioned the NCAA to have a drop-dead early NBA draft decision so they could plan their rosters. The pre-draft decision date is the tenth-best solution to the problem and exacerbates the problem rather than solves it. It forces players with poor NBA prospects to take the leap without having adequate information. And we are supposed to be helping not hurting these players?

g. The obvious solution is to allow transfers without a one-year sit-out period. And, yep, it could lead to some of the mid-majors being farm teams for the big boys, but so what? K says, "We don't have room for you, big guy, but so-and-so at Appal. State (or ODU or Montana) is a heckuva coach and we work together closely. Maybe you could join us for your junior year."

h. What about Title IX? What about jersey sales? Not hard problems.


Do the same thing for women but key the pay of both to the NBA and WNBA minimum salaries. Or else, ask (buy?) the Congress to amend the Title IX law, perhaps with an "experimentation clause" rather than a direct frontal attack.

Jersey sales profits (or a portion) should go into a central fund with payment after graduation or after five years. There would need to be formulas for allocations and payouts, but these can be worked out if there is a will to do so.

College hoops is dying a slow death, and the NBA is the enemy, not "our partner." And the NCAA -- supposedly our leader -- has chosen unilateral disarmament.

[Lar77]

I posted some of these ideas in another thread. The NCAA is surrendering to the NBA. Do you know its strategy to avoid losing players to the NBA is? It's to disqualify any player who enters the draft -- i.e., goes so far to as to get a job offer from the NBA. The stated reason is that (a) it doesn't want to police the issue of payments from agents and (b) the early entry date is to help coaches plan next year's roster because of the 12-24 month lead time to get a new player. Neither of these make any sense whatsoever in terms of protecting the game of college hoops from the depredations of the NBA.

Here are my thoughts on the subject:

a. CBB is a multi-BILLION dollar business. Why doesn't it have a CEO?

b. NCAA hoops is being eaten alive by a richer and more nimble competitor, and it doesn't have a plan to fight back. This is unilateral disarmament. It is done in the name of amateurism and equity among all 300 Div. I schools, but the outcome is slow suicide of the sport.

b. College hoops's biggest problem is that it is losing all of its best players to the competitor (NBA) after just one year. Yet it is doing nothing to retain them. In fact, it is driving them out the door by DQing them if they go get an offer from the competitor (enter the draft). The NCAA should quit doing that and allow any player to enter the draft and return to college if he doesn't like the offer. And BTW, if that screws up the NBA draft, that's another positive benefit.

d. The newly conceived NCAA Basketball Commissioner should award compensation for the ten most valuable college players (in terms of value to the NBA) if they stay beyond their first year. Like $250K to $1.0 million, either loan or grant. These would be funded by the NCAA out of March Madness money, not the schools or their boosters, and the recipients would be limited to ten players most likely to be drafted high after year one. If need be, this can be done by a private organization outside the NCAA with its payments not affecting eligibility, but I would just give the job to the new Commissioner.

e. Protect the marquis teams, who bring in all the dough and all the TV eyeballs, and are the heart and soul of the CBB "business." They are being decimated by the NBA (kill one in ten, as the Romans used to do to discipline their prisoners). But not only does it drain the colleges of star power and talent, but it also screws up their rosters because there is a 12-24 month lead to bringing in new players via recruiting or transfer.

f. Somewhat laughingly, the college coaches were so desperate and out of ideas that they petitioned the NCAA to have a drop-dead early NBA draft decision so they could plan their rosters. The pre-draft decision date is the tenth-best solution to the problem and exacerbates the problem rather than solves it. It forces players with poor NBA prospects to take the leap without having adequate information. And we are supposed to be helping not hurting these players?

g. The obvious solution is to allow transfers without a one-year sit-out period. And, yep, it could lead to some of the mid-majors being farm teams for the big boys, but so what? K says, "We don't have room for you, big guy, but so-and-so at Appal. State (or ODU or Montana) is a heckuva coach and we work together closely. Maybe you could join us for your junior year."

h. What about Title IX? What about jersey sales? Not hard problems.


Do the same thing for women but key the pay of both to the NBA and WNBA minimum salaries. Or else, ask (buy?) the Congress to amend the Title IX law, perhaps with an "experimentation clause" rather than a direct frontal attack.

Jersey sales profits (or a portion) should go into a central fund with payment after graduation or after five years. There would need to be formulas for allocations and payouts, but these can be worked out if there is a will to do so.

College hoops is dying a slow death, and the NBA is the enemy, not "our partner." And the NCAA -- supposedly our leader -- has chosen unilateral disarmament.

Great thoughts, Sage (no pun intended).

The NCAA does a great job at shooting itself in the foot. Every rule they have has had a root in trying to drive out an ill, but the unintended consequences are often awful. The organization's biggest problem is that it has too many constituents with too diverse agendas.

The lead should come from the 5 power conferences.

It's been suggested in the past that Coach K (and/or Shane Battier) has the respect and connections to get the NBA and NCAA on the same page. Let the two groups figure out how to make that work for them and for the athletes.

[SoCalDukeFan]

I posted some of these ideas in another thread. The NCAA is surrendering to the NBA. Do you know its strategy to avoid losing players to the NBA is? It's to disqualify any player who enters the draft -- i.e., goes so far to as to get a job offer from the NBA. The stated reason is that (a) it doesn't want to police the issue of payments from agents and (b) the early entry date is to help coaches plan next year's roster because of the 12-24 month lead time to get a new player. Neither of these make any sense whatsoever in terms of protecting the game of college hoops from the depredations of the NBA.

Here are my thoughts on the subject:

a. CBB is a multi-BILLION dollar business. Why doesn't it have a CEO?

b. NCAA hoops is being eaten alive by a richer and more nimble competitor, and it doesn't have a plan to fight back. This is unilateral disarmament. It is done in the name of amateurism and equity among all 300 Div. I schools, but the outcome is slow suicide of the sport.

b. College hoops's biggest problem is that it is losing all of its best players to the competitor (NBA) after just one year. Yet it is doing nothing to retain them. In fact, it is driving them out the door by DQing them if they go get an offer from the competitor (enter the draft). The NCAA should quit doing that and allow any player to enter the draft and return to college if he doesn't like the offer. And BTW, if that screws up the NBA draft, that's another positive benefit.

d. The newly conceived NCAA Basketball Commissioner should award compensation for the ten most valuable college players (in terms of value to the NBA) if they stay beyond their first year. Like $250K to $1.0 million, either loan or grant. These would be funded by the NCAA out of March Madness money, not the schools or their boosters, and the recipients would be limited to ten players most likely to be drafted high after year one. If need be, this can be done by a private organization outside the NCAA with its payments not affecting eligibility, but I would just give the job to the new Commissioner.

e. Protect the marquis teams, who bring in all the dough and all the TV eyeballs, and are the heart and soul of the CBB "business." They are being decimated by the NBA (kill one in ten, as the Romans used to do to discipline their prisoners). But not only does it drain the colleges of star power and talent, but it also screws up their rosters because there is a 12-24 month lead to bringing in new players via recruiting or transfer.

f. Somewhat laughingly, the college coaches were so desperate and out of ideas that they petitioned the NCAA to have a drop-dead early NBA draft decision so they could plan their rosters. The pre-draft decision date is the tenth-best solution to the problem and exacerbates the problem rather than solves it. It forces players with poor NBA prospects to take the leap without having adequate information. And we are supposed to be helping not hurting these players?

g. The obvious solution is to allow transfers without a one-year sit-out period. And, yep, it could lead to some of the mid-majors being farm teams for the big boys, but so what? K says, "We don't have room for you, big guy, but so-and-so at Appal. State (or ODU or Montana) is a heckuva coach and we work together closely. Maybe you could join us for your junior year."

h. What about Title IX? What about jersey sales? Not hard problems.


Do the same thing for women but key the pay of both to the NBA and WNBA minimum salaries. Or else, ask (buy?) the Congress to amend the Title IX law, perhaps with an "experimentation clause" rather than a direct frontal attack.

Jersey sales profits (or a portion) should go into a central fund with payment after graduation or after five years. There would need to be formulas for allocations and payouts, but these can be worked out if there is a will to do so.

College hoops is dying a slow death, and the NBA is the enemy, not "our partner." And the NCAA -- supposedly our leader -- has chosen unilateral disarmament.

In my opinion the NCAA is just completely screwed up. It has 2 huge businesses (football and men's basketball), some smaller businesses ( women's basketball, baseball, maybe some others), and a bunch of competitions. The NCAA wants you to believe that its main job is to run games between scholar athletes.

Recently, after a player complained on national TV, the NCAA has finally proposed to change the rules on meals. Not that change needs to go through further committees. If they can't fix that overnight, how can they ever implement some of these changes.

College basketball may be healthier than you think however. The NCAA Tournament got good ratings and had many great games. (The four play-in games and calling them the first round screws up brackets and is an example of the NCAA trying to screw it up in my opinion.) Three of the four Final Four teams had (as of this morning) no players who declared early for the draft and obviously no one and dones. Many of us got emotionally attached in some way to Jabari Parker as a player and a person and are unhappy that he will only play for Duke one year, but the fans of Florida, UConn, and Wisconsin do not have that a similar problem. (Wisconsin may lose Kaminsky after 3 years.) I would want to be careful as to not totally screw something up by fixing if its it not really broken.

There should be a way to compensate college basketball star players for the revenues they bring in and that compensation might keep them in school longer. Of course that might reduce the compensation for NCAA bureaucrats.

SoCal

[mgtr]

Sage, what a great thread. You edged into the idea that the NBA is the enemy of the college basketball, not a partner, and that the NCAA is a weak sister, run by fuzzy-headed college professors. Until one recognizes the facts, one cannot address the problem adequately. I agree with the need for a CEO for college basketball (and also one for college football, the problems and needs do not coincide). So, what are the chances of this happening in the next few years? Probably so close to zero it doesn't matter.

[sagegrouse]

Opening lede from an article (http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10803355/adam-silver-says-pushing-back-nba-age-limit-top-priority)today:


NEW YORK -- Armed with majority support from owners and saying "we're ready to go," NBA commissioner Adam Silver made it clear pushing back the league's age limit to 20 is at the top of his priority list.
The league's owners hosted NCAA president Mark Emmert to discuss the issue as part of their annual two-day spring meeting this week. Any changes wouldn't be in place by next season because the league is waiting for the players' association to name an executive director before formally starting negotiations. But it's clear there's a growing momentum to force this occasionally divisive issue through soon, possibly in time for the 2016 draft.

Just a shot across the bow from DBR and the NBA Paper Tiger begins to collapse in tatters.

[SoCalDukeFan]

I am sure DBR is the major impetus for this. Adam Silver is a Duke grad and I assume a regular DBR.

The only problem I have is what is the option for a kid who has no desire or interest in college or college basketball. I guess football has the same problem now.

Maybe let players go straight to the NBDL out of high school.

Two years will allow players to "unpack their bags." Also players really serious about a degree can get pretty close with summer school and perhaps come back for year 3 to finish the job or get that much closer. Obviously the NBA gets one more year to evaluate before drafting.

SoCal

[dukebluesincebirth]

Sagegrouse, I really appreciate this thread (and the fact that you motivated Silver to address the issue at hand😊)... I know it's not a brand new topic, but one that is very relevant to me and many college bball fans I've conversed with recently. The game is so far from what it used to be, and I almost feel like the game I was once so passionate about is being stolen. Change will be fueled by meaningful discussion (and money), no matter how long it takes. Great points you made, maybe others will follow. Thanks.

[Kdogg]

I don't see the NBA as the enemy. The real enemy is the NCAA. There is a huge distinction between NCAA basketball and the NBA. The NBA is a star driven league while college basketball is a program driven league. The NBA liked the old draft rules. They were getting pre-marketed star players from the get go. Back in the day, people would pay to see rookies like Patrick Ewing, Hakeem Olajuwon, Chris Webber and Shaquille O'Neil. It was a big deal when they came to town. It didn't matter that their teams were terrible, they were the draws. Today nobody is getting excited to see Anthony Bennett or even John Wall, Blake Griffin or Kyrie as ROOKIES. The NCAA on the other hand is program driven. Star players are great but people tune in to see Duke or UNC or UK or Kansas. Last season Duke had three of the highest rated games on TV. Most of the people watching probably could not name five players combined from both teams. It doesn't matter. The NCAA doesn't really care about the quality of basketball just that the programs continue to be the draw.

NBA management and ownership have always preferred having marketable players in the draft. They are not the ones opposed to raising the age limit. It's in their best interest to have 20+ year olds in the league. It's the Players Union that is adamantly opposed to it. Part of it is because it can be used as a bargaining chip in future CBA negations. Part is because they are philosophically opposed to restricting the right to work (but that's more for the PR show). And part is because management wants it so they are against it on principle.

[SoCalDukeFan]

I don't see the NBA as the enemy. The real enemy is the NCAA. There is a huge distinction between NCAA basketball and the NBA. The NBA is a star driven league while college basketball is a program driven league. The NBA liked the old draft rules. They were getting pre-marketed star players from the get go. Back in the day, people would pay to see rookies like Patrick Ewing, Hakeem Olajuwon, Chris Webber and Shaquille O'Neil. It was a big deal when they came to town. It didn't matter that their teams were terrible, they were the draws. Today nobody is getting excited to see Anthony Bennett or even John Wall, Blake Griffin or Kyrie as ROOKIES. The NCAA on the other hand is program driven. Star players are great but people tune in to see Duke or UNC or UK or Kansas. Last season Duke had three of the highest rated games on TV. Most of the people watching probably could not name five players combined from both teams. It doesn't matter. The NCAA doesn't really care about the quality of basketball just that the programs continue to be the draw.

NBA management and ownership have always preferred having marketable players in the draft. They are not the ones opposed to raising the age limit. It's in their best interest to have 20+ year olds in the league. It's the Players Union that is adamantly opposed to it. Part of it is because it can be used as a bargaining chip in future CBA negations. Part is because they are philosophically opposed to restricting the right to work (but that's more for the PR show). And part is because management wants it so they are against it on principle.

I never understood why the Players Union would be so opposed to raising the age limit. Keeping 19 year olds out of the NBA means that there should be more jobs for the old guys, who are the current members of the Players Union. I think its the bargaining chip aspect.

I am not sure if the NCAA is really the enemy, just totally inept, out of date, out of touch and completely unhelpful.

SoCal

[bob blue devil]

NBA management and ownership have always preferred having marketable players in the draft. They are not the ones opposed to raising the age limit. It's in their best interest to have 20+ year olds in the league. It's the Players Union that is adamantly opposed to it. Part of it is because it can be used as a bargaining chip in future CBA negations. Part is because they are philosophically opposed to restricting the right to work (but that's more for the PR show). And part is because management wants it so they are against it on principle.

So then why is silver making a fuss about raising the age limit? Management can't make it happen unilaterally and the more the union knows management wants it, the more they'll extract for making the concession. Is it all just posturing with some unknown agenda?

[g-money]

b. College hoops's biggest problem is that it is losing all of its best players to the competitor (NBA) after just one year. Yet it is doing nothing to retain them. In fact, it is driving them out the door by DQing them if they go get an offer from the competitor (enter the draft). The NCAA should quit doing that and allow any player to enter the draft and return to college if he doesn't like the offer. And BTW, if that screws up the NBA draft, that's another positive benefit.

Good stuff, Sage. I suspect part b) of your proposal could be the simplest/fastest/easiest way for the NCAA to combat the NBA in terms of reducing early entry. If a OAD-type player could simply go back to playing in college if he didn't like the team that drafted him, it sure would make NBA teams think twice about drafting kids who are still eligible to play in college.

I'm glad Adam Silver is working on the 2/20 thing. It would at least be something to help the college game. But it looks like any changes are at least a year out.

As a Duke fan, I think it's fair to ask how many more NCAA titles Coach K would have under his belt had early entry not become widespread in the 90's. It's depressing.

[Edouble]

As a Duke fan, I think it's fair to ask how many more NCAA titles Coach K would have under his belt had early entry not become widespread in the 90's. It's depressing.

But we didn't have any players go early until '99. Plus, it levels the playing field for everyone.

[g-money]

But we didn't have any players go early until '99. Plus, it levels the playing field for everyone.

Yeah, but let's be honest, '98 was the first year since '94 that we had any real candidates for early entry. I just feel like the phenomenon took hold right as Coach K was beginning to reel in a lot more big-time recruits.

Admittedly early entry did level the playing field, but as I Duke fan I like every advantage I can get!

[Des Esseintes]

I never understood why the Players Union would be so opposed to raising the age limit. Keeping 19 year olds out of the NBA means that there should be more jobs for the old guys, who are the current members of the Players Union. I think its the bargaining chip aspect.

I am not sure if the NCAA is really the enemy, just totally inept, out of date, out of touch and completely unhelpful.

SoCal

The Players Union opposes the age limit for two reasons, both completely legitimate:

1. A lot of NBA guys come from extremely distressed circumstances. They want the right to earn NBA money and help their families as soon as possible. Their bodies are their careers. An injury before their NBA career starts could mean no help for their family at all. Every year higher the NBA age limit is, the higher the chance of catastrophic injury to derail a career.

2. The union wants each player to have a full menu of options for his own career length. Each year of the age limit by definition means shortening every player's career by one year.

If you were an NBA player, I think you would see the value in both these considerations.

[bob blue devil]

The Players Union opposes the age limit for two reasons, both completely legitimate:

1. A lot of NBA guys come from extremely distressed circumstances. They want the right to earn NBA money and help their families as soon as possible. Their bodies are their careers. An injury before their NBA career starts could mean no help for their family at all. Every year higher the NBA age limit is, the higher the chance of catastrophic injury to derail a career.

2. The union wants each player to have a full menu of options for his own career length. Each year of the age limit by definition means shortening every player's career by one year.

If you were an NBA player, I think you would see the value in both these considerations.

well... i'm not sure these two reasons technically hold for an nba player's union member. remember, members of the union are already in the nba, so increasing the age minimum a) wouldn't delay their getting to the league (they're already there), and b) would potentially lengthen their career (just a touch) by reducing competition from the young guns (who are not yet union members) who are directly impacted. however, i could see an nba players union member being sympathetic to the causes of guys standing in the shoes they once stood, even though it is not in their own personal interests to have the minimum age kept low.

[Matches]

well... i'm not sure these two reasons technically hold for an nba player's union member. remember, members of the union are already in the nba, so increasing the age minimum a) wouldn't delay their getting to the league (they're already there), and b) would potentially lengthen their career (just a touch) by reducing competition from the young guns (who are not yet union members) who are directly impacted. however, i could see an nba players union member being sympathetic to the causes of guys standing in the shoes they once stood, even though it is not in their own personal interests to have the minimum age kept low.

The players' union is supposed to represent the interests not only of current players but also future ones. Whether they always *do* that faithfully, we could debate - but it is part of their mandate.

[Rickshaw]

i wonder if there are a lot of nba quality college bball players whose
careers are lost to catastrophic injury (while they are still in school)

[bob blue devil]

The players' union is supposed to represent the interests not only of current players but also future ones. Whether they always *do* that faithfully, we could debate - but it is part of their mandate.

interesting - i was unaware of that. is it delineated somewhere (like their charter)? this is all i could find on their website:



The National Basketball Players Association (NBPA) is the union for current professional basketball players in the National Basketball Association (NBA). Established in 1954, the NBPA mission is to ensure that the rights of NBA players are protected and that every conceivable measure is taken to assist players in maximizing their opportunities and achieving their goals, both on and off the court...


(emphasis mine)

[Kdogg]

So then why is silver making a fuss about raising the age limit? Management can't make it happen unilaterally and the more the union knows management wants it, the more they'll extract for making the concession. Is it all just posturing with some unknown agenda?

It's politics 101. By getting ahead of the issue, Silver gets to create the narrative. He gets to build support with the media and more importantly the fans. With them on his side he can put pressure on the Players Union and management gets to be seen as the "good guys." It's a smart move.

[bob blue devil]

It's politics 101. By getting ahead of the issue, Silver gets to create the narrative. He gets to build support with the media and more importantly the fans. With them on his side he can put pressure on the Players Union and management gets to be seen as the "good guys." It's a smart move.

good point. the narrative he seems to be creating right now is that he wants to push the age limit back and his give to the kids is an effort to make the ncaa a better alternative. of course that's 100% out of his control (irony alert!). while there might be a logical trade here - ncaa would cover more expenses for the kids, alter some of the rules (and their interpretations) to be more nba-like, while the nba creates some ncaa friendly draft rules - logic ain't part of our beloved ncaa. if silver can't get the ncaa to move (and be able to claim some credit for the move), then the narrative silver seems to be making could be counterproductive. is there any chance he has nbpa buy-in already - that is, he went to them asking what it would take to get them to move on this rule and they said fix the ncaa?

[Atlanta Duke]

The players' union is supposed to represent the interests not only of current players but also future ones. Whether they always *do* that faithfully, we could debate - but it is part of their mandate.

As you note, regardless of whether or not prospective employees may be getting screwed, the players' union agreeing to eligibility standards that restrict entry into the league is a collective bargaining issue. The appellate decision that upheld the NFL and NFLPA agreeing to bar players from entering the NFL until 3 years had elapsed since the player graduated from high school blesses this practice, assuming a player does not want to try to get another Circuit Court to disagree with the Second Circuit's opinion by now Justice Sotomayor.

[A college player seeking to enter a professional sports league] is in this respect no different from the typical worker who is confident that he or she has the skills to fill a job vacancy but does not possess the qualifications or meet the requisite criteria that have been set. In the context of this collective bargaining relationship, the NFL and its players union can agree that an employee will not be hired or considered for employment for nearly any reason whatsoever so long as they do not violate federal laws such as those prohibiting unfair labor practices.

Maurice Clarett v. NFL

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1111241.html

[tommy]

I posted some of these ideas in another thread. The NCAA is surrendering to the NBA. Do you know its strategy to avoid losing players to the NBA is? It's to disqualify any player who enters the draft -- i.e., goes so far to as to get a job offer from the NBA. The stated reason is that (a) it doesn't want to police the issue of payments from agents and (b) the early entry date is to help coaches plan next year's roster because of the 12-24 month lead time to get a new player. Neither of these make any sense whatsoever in terms of protecting the game of college hoops from the depredations of the NBA.

Here are my thoughts on the subject:




b. College hoops's biggest problem is that it is losing all of its best players to the competitor (NBA) after just one year. Yet it is doing nothing to retain them. In fact, it is driving them out the door by DQing them if they go get an offer from the competitor (enter the draft). The NCAA should quit doing that and allow any player to enter the draft and return to college if he doesn't like the offer. And BTW, if that screws up the NBA draft, that's another positive benefit.

That's a great idea. So great that I'm pretty sure I posted it in a similar thread last year or the year before! The NCAA needs to say, in effect, "OK, NBA. You don't want to change your age limit to help us (and help yourselves) then screw you. You're doing what you think is best for you, and we're going to do what we think is best for us. Any kid, even if drafted already, who has not received any money yet, can come back to college. Do whatever you want in terms of your draft and how long a player's rights are retained by a team that drafts him. That's not our problem. But any kid can come back to college so long as he hasn't already been paid to be a professional."

Now the coaches won't like this because of perceived inability to set their rosters, difficulties with recruiting, etc. But I say "too bad." First of all, most of the kids in the incoming class have committed long before the end of the current season. Like this year, only Myles Turner of all the top players is still uncommitted. Everyone's rosters are set for next year already. If someone is in the Myles Turner derby and wants to save a scholly for him on the chance he commits to them, fine. If they'd rather take somebody else to fill the spot, fine. If they want to risk the spot going unfilled, that's not the end of the world either. But the NCAA would just need to push back against the coaches by saying "we're putting kids first, ahead of you. You should be looking out for kids first too, and this 'return to school post-draft' rule is putting kids first. Deal with it."


d. The newly conceived NCAA Basketball Commissioner should award compensation for the ten most valuable college players (in terms of value to the NBA) if they stay beyond their first year. Like $250K to $1.0 million, either loan or grant. These would be funded by the NCAA out of March Madness money, not the schools or their boosters, and the recipients would be limited to ten players most likely to be drafted high after year one. If need be, this can be done by a private organization outside the NCAA with its payments not affecting eligibility, but I would just give the job to the new Commissioner.

Not sure how this would really work in practice. Who says who the ten top kids are? Wouldn't kids eleven through whatever just move up the list of those likely to go pro? And even if the top 10 were somehow chosen and got $1M, that pales in comparison to the amount they'd be giving up by being a lottery pick.


Protect the marquis teams, who bring in all the dough and all the TV eyeballs, and are the heart and soul of the CBB "business." They are being decimated by the NBA (kill one in ten, as the Romans used to do to discipline their prisoners). But not only does it drain the colleges of star power and talent, but it also screws up their rosters because there is a 12-24 month lead to bringing in new players via recruiting or transfer.

Protect them how? And which teams qualify for such protection?



College hoops is dying a slow death, and the NBA is the enemy, not "our partner." And the NCAA -- supposedly our leader -- has chosen unilateral disarmament.

You're right. Total failure of leadership and vision.

[sagegrouse]

That's a great idea. So great that I'm pretty sure I posted it in a similar thread last year or the year before! The NCAA needs to say, in effect, "OK, NBA. You don't want to change your age limit to help us (and help yourselves) then screw you. You're doing what you think is best for you, and we're going to do what we think is best for us. Any kid, even if drafted already, who has not received any money yet, can come back to college. Do whatever you want in terms of your draft and how long a player's rights are retained by a team that drafts him. That's not our problem. But any kid can come back to college so long as he hasn't already been paid to be a professional."

Now the coaches won't like this because of perceived inability to set their rosters, difficulties with recruiting, etc. But I say "too bad." First of all, most of the kids in the incoming class have committed long before the end of the current season. Like this year, only Myles Turner of all the top players is still uncommitted. Everyone's rosters are set for next year already. If someone is in the Myles Turner derby and wants to save a scholly for him on the chance he commits to them, fine. If they'd rather take somebody else to fill the spot, fine. If they want to risk the spot going unfilled, that's not the end of the world either. But the NCAA would just need to push back against the coaches by saying "we're putting kids first, ahead of you. You should be looking out for kids first too, and this 'return to school post-draft' rule is putting kids first. Deal with it."

Thanks.


Not sure how this would really work in practice. Who says who the ten top kids are? Wouldn't kids eleven through whatever just move up the list of those likely to go pro? And even if the top 10 were somehow chosen and got $1M, that pales in comparison to the amount they'd be giving up by being a lottery pick.

I give it to the new Commissioner of CBB, who probably convenes a panel. Nothing magic about ten, but I didn't see the need to go to 20, which would be about the # of college freshmen in the first round, 'cuz some guys will scoff at the "college retainer."

As far as I am concerned, this is war. The rate of turnover on the best teams, which draw the most attendance and TV viewers, hurts the sport. I'd look for any way to keep the players in college.


Protect them how? And which teams qualify for such protection?
.

It's the top teams, the marquee teams, that lose freshmen to the NBA. Therefore, the aforementioned payment protects these teams -- it's a two-fer.

[SoCalDukeFan]

The Players Union opposes the age limit for two reasons, both completely legitimate:

1. A lot of NBA guys come from extremely distressed circumstances. They want the right to earn NBA money and help their families as soon as possible. Their bodies are their careers. An injury before their NBA career starts could mean no help for their family at all. Every year higher the NBA age limit is, the higher the chance of catastrophic injury to derail a career.

2. The union wants each player to have a full menu of options for his own career length. Each year of the age limit by definition means shortening every player's career by one year.

If you were an NBA player, I think you would see the value in both these considerations.

I would personally like to see the two year rule, but also allow players to go to the NBA right after HS. Something like the baseball rule but 2 years instead of 3. However the NBA owners want to protect themselves and reduce the chances of making stupid draft picks a la Kwame Brown so they won't do that.

I think its bad enough that kids with zero interest in college are almost forced there for a year after HS, why make it 2? Of course I guess football is 3.

Its interesting that you have the NBA making proactive decisions on their own behalf, the NCAA who seems to have zero ability to do about anything in its behalf, and the players who have no voice.

SoCal

[Newton_14]

Thanks.



I give it to the new Commissioner of CBB, who probably convenes a panel. Nothing magic about ten, but I didn't see the need to go to 20, which would be about the # of college freshmen in the first round, 'cuz some guys will scoff at the "college retainer."

As far as I am concerned, this is war. The rate of turnover on the best teams, which draw the most attendance and TV viewers, hurts the sport. I'd look for any way to keep the players in college.



It's the top teams, the marquee teams, that lose freshmen to the NBA. Therefore, the aforementioned payment protects these teams -- it's a two-fer.

Great thread Sage. In addition to Tommy's rule to allow drafted or undrafted kids to come back (there are tons of kids that declare and don't get drafted by the way) I would add 1 more rule for the NCAA and make a suggestion to the NBA Commissioner.

NCAA Rule 2- A kid may accept payment for his likeness. Autographs for example. A kid can sign endorsement deals with anyone who chooses to pay him. If need be we can modify this rule such that the money has to go into a trust fund that the kid cannot have full access to until 4 years post his high school graduation year. Allow them to draw out a small monthly stipend from the fund to cover reasonable expenses. (in other words, being an "amateur" means you have never played in a professional league like the NBA/NBADL/Europe etc)

NCAA CEO/Commissioner suggestion to NBA Commissioner- Change your payscale such that an incoming player with college experience can get to the big money contract just as quickly as the OAD kid can. Each year spent in college gets you one year closer to being able to sign the big money NBA contract. In other words, being OAD will not get you to the big money any faster than playing 4 years in College would.

[tommy]

Great thread Sage. In addition to Tommy's rule to allow drafted or undrafted kids to come back (there are tons of kids that declare and don't get drafted by the way) I would add 1 more rule for the NCAA and make a suggestion to the NBA Commissioner.

NCAA Rule 2- A kid may accept payment for his likeness. Autographs for example. A kid can sign endorsement deals with anyone who chooses to pay him. If need be we can modify this rule such that the money has to go into a trust fund that the kid cannot have full access to until 4 years post his high school graduation year. Allow them to draw out a small monthly stipend from the fund to cover reasonable expenses. (in other words, being an "amateur" means you have never played in a professional league like the NBA/NBADL/Europe etc)

NCAA CEO/Commissioner suggestion to NBA Commissioner- Change your payscale such that an incoming player with college experience can get to the big money contract just as quickly as the OAD kid can. Each year spent in college gets you one year closer to being able to sign the big money NBA contract. In other words, being OAD will not get you to the big money any faster than playing 4 years in College would.

I like the concept of that last one Newt. But it would take some changes to the whole way the NBA structures things, with regards to how many years the initial contracts are for, the team options, the qualifying offers, when someone becomes a restricted free agent, an unrestricted free agent, etc., in order to be fair to the established guys if the new guys right out of 4 years of college are eligible for the big money contract. That would take a lot of doing, and again the problem is that the NBA is going to only do what is in its own interest. Not what the NCAA wants it to do.

Also, even if you make the 4 year college players immediately eligible for a big money contract, I'm not sure how much that would incentivize a lot of guys to stay in school. For one, a star freshman like Jabari would still be three (or more?) years away from the big contract, whether those years are spent in college or in the pros. Moreover, even if the big pro contract is three years away, he at least is making decent money for those three years should he go pro. Even if he's making "only" say $500K per year, or $1M per year, to most of these kids, that is more money than they or their families have ever dreamed of, and they'd be likely to grab it for the three years, and then get to the much bigger money at that point. If they stay in school, they get zippo for those three years. $1M/year is a lot better than nothing.

[greybeard]

I never understood why the Players Union would be so opposed to raising the age limit. Keeping 19 year olds out of the NBA means that there should be more jobs for the old guys, who are the current members of the Players Union. I think its the bargaining chip aspect.

I am not sure if the NCAA is really the enemy, just totally inept, out of date, out of touch and completely unhelpful.

SoCal

The 19-year olds we are talking about have pedigree, all are potential box office drawers, marketing tools. You stand against their entry, when they get in they get you out if they can. At least they give you no support. Guys who are on their way out will be out whether to a 19-year old from the States or one from somewhere else. Wrong play for the players union to stand idle or in concert with owners in raising the entry age. When a 20-year old enters and has lost s few mill because of that age-limit rule a supporter of the players association he won't be.

[tommy]

In the professional sports realm, the smart union leaders are the ones who realize that their members benefit when the union forges an effective partnership with the owners, rather than doing anything they can to antagonize them with knee-jerk rejection of any idea the owners put forth. The owners are greedy. Of course they are. But the union has to get past that and realize -- and start acting like --when the players and the owners have some semblance of a partnership, the whole revenue pie grows, and when the whole revenue pie grows, the players' gross revenues of course grow as well. It is in the players' interest to grow the whole pie. The whole pie grows when interest in the league is at its highest. Interest in the league grows when the young players coming into the league are better known, and are better players, than most of these one-and-dones, or two-and-dones for that matter are under the current system. Sure, it's in the owners' interest to have college act as a developmental league for the NBA, to introduce the new players to the nation for them at no cost to the NBA, and for those players to be more ready to contribute meaningfully when they get to the league. Even if the NBA owners at the moment are ignoring these realities by keeping the barriers to entry low, they are still realities, and the union should be pointing them out every chance they get, both publicly and privately. Because it's in the union members' long term interest to do so. Maybe not the short term, but the long term interest.

[Indoor66]

In the professional sports realm, the smart union leaders are the ones who realize that their members benefit when the union forges an effective partnership with the owners, rather than doing anything they can to antagonize them with knee-jerk rejection of any idea the owners put forth. The owners are greedy. Of course they are. But the union has to get past that and realize -- and start acting like --when the players and the owners have some semblance of a partnership, the whole revenue pie grows, and when the whole revenue pie grows, the players' gross revenues of course grow as well. It is in the players' interest to grow the whole pie. The whole pie grows when interest in the league is at its highest. Interest in the league grows when the young players coming into the league are better known, and are better players, than most of these one-and-dones, or two-and-dones for that matter are under the current system. Sure, it's in the owners' interest to have college act as a developmental league for the NBA, to introduce the new players to the nation for them at no cost to the NBA, and for those players to be more ready to contribute meaningfully when they get to the league. Even if the NBA owners at the moment are ignoring these realities by keeping the barriers to entry low, they are still realities, and the union should be pointing them out every chance they get, both publicly and privately. Because it's in the union members' long term interest to do so. Maybe not the short term, but the long term interest.

You must also acknowledge that the players are also greedy. Otherwise I mostly agree.

[Kedsy]

College hoops's biggest problem is that it is losing all of its best players to the competitor (NBA) after just one year. Yet it is doing nothing to retain them.

Personally, I don't think this is college basketball's biggest problem. Out of almost 4000 college basketball players, we're talking about how many each year? Eight or nine? Does the lack of those 8 or 9 players really hurt the NCAA's business? Have NCAA TV ratings gone down? Have they been unable to get advantageous contracts from potential business partners?

Also, how is this worse from when those same 8 or 9 players a year went pro straight out of high school? From a product standpoint, it would seem better, not worse.


The NCAA should quit doing that and allow any player to enter the draft and return to college if he doesn't like the offer.

How does this help the NCAA? Seems to me it would lead to more players testing the draft waters, and only a few returning after the draft. My guess it would end up a net-loss, player-wise for college basketball.


The newly conceived NCAA Basketball Commissioner should award compensation for the ten most valuable college players (in terms of value to the NBA) if they stay beyond their first year.

So you want to allow ten professional players to play in the NCAA but everyone else has to stay an amateur? Does making a handful of college teams that much better than the other 345 teams really help the game? Would it give the NCAA a financial advantage that would offset $10 million a year in additional expenses?


Protect the marquis teams, who bring in all the dough and all the TV eyeballs, and are the heart and soul of the CBB "business."

I don't see this at all. The "heart and soul of the CBB business" is the NCAA tournament. And people tune in to that to see (a) close games; (b) how their bracket is doing; and most importantly, (c) David knock off Goliath. If you make Goliath stronger, how does this help?


The obvious solution is to allow transfers without a one-year sit-out period. And, yep, it could lead to some of the mid-majors being farm teams for the big boys, but so what?

"So what" is you seem to be advocating a major league/minor league situation (or at least making it much worse than it already is). College basketball is made up of 350+ Division I teams. Why would the body as a whole agree to a solution that helps 10 schools to the detriment of the other 340+? More to the point, how would this bring more revenue to the NCAA or help it in any other way?


College hoops is dying a slow death, and the NBA is the enemy, not "our partner." And the NCAA -- supposedly our leader -- has chosen unilateral disarmament.

Here's my biggest question -- in relation to rules regarding early entry to the NBA draft, what real leverage does the NCAA have? A threat to screw up the draft by letting players go back to college if they don't like who drafted them? The NBA could easily counter that, either legally (by making the kid sign an agreement not to do it in exchange for being eligible for the draft) or just by throwing more money at the draftees, essentially making an offer they can't refuse.

The way I see it, the NCAA is holding a pair of deuces against the NBA's full house. You can try a bluff but it's not going to work. We can hope the NBA implements the two-or-20 thing, but if they do it'll probably be for reasons of their own. If they don't, the NCAA can't do anything about it. The NBA is holding all the cards.