Commission on College Basketball - Findings to be released Wednesday

[UrinalCake]

Remember that committee that was formed last fall after the FBI indictments were handed down? Condoleezza Rice is the chair and Grant Hill is on the committee. They have spent the past few months looking into college basketball (whatever that means) and are scheduled to release their recommendations on Wednesday morning. A live stream will be available through the NCAA via Twitter.

Does anybody want to offer any guesses/predictions as to what they're going to come up with? The level of snark already being thrown out by the general public regarding this committee is fairly high. College basketball is a broken system and the problems are not going to be fixed in six months by a committee. If anything, this seems like an effort to pass the buck onto somebody else so that the NCAA can say "we tried." Thoughts?

8328

[richardjackson199]

Not sure of the details, but I'm guessing they'll recommend NBA remove age requirement for going pro out of high school, to get the obvious OAD's targeted by shoe companies out of the NCAA landscape.

[UrinalCake]

Not sure of the details, but I'm guessing they'll recommend NBA remove age requirement for going pro out of high school, to get the obvious OAD's targeted by shoe companies out of the NCAA landscape.

That seems like a likely recommendation. I'm not sure it will really eliminate the shoe companies and/or agents, but at least it would take the extreme cases out of the equation.

I saw another tweet that one of the upcoming recommendations will be to reduce the live recruiting window for college coaches. If the committee actually thinks this will cause coaches to spend less time in contact with recruits, and therefore clean up the process of recruiting, then I may have actually overestimated how in touch they are with the system.

[cruxer]

Not sure of the details, but I'm guessing they'll recommend NBA remove age requirement for going pro out of high school, to get the obvious OAD's targeted by shoe companies out of the NCAA landscape.

This seems both likely and naive. MBB is a very valuable commodity and shoe companies pay the top universities millions of dollars. It's in their interest to see those universities stay at the top. The shoe companies will still be tempted to "encourage" the best athletes available to attend their beneficiary universities. The problem is the money in the sport and an inefficient economy that doesn't allow the natural allocation of that money. Anything that doesn't address either the money or the inefficient allocation is doomed to fail.

-c

[lotusland]

And of course the NBA created and maintains the OAD rule so I’m not sure how the committee’s recommendation matters. Coach K seems to want a Commish. Wonder if that is in the cards.

[JasonEvans]

I hope there are tons of recommendations about things we don't regularly talk about. Sure, it is easy to focus on OAD, but that is a problem that affects maybe 20 kids a year. There are 350+ D1 teams with 12 or so guys on each team meaning there are 4200 college basketball players at the D1 level. I truly hope this commission talks about issues that affect a much higher percentage of the players.

In addition to the relationship with the NCAA, I really hope the commission will address the following:


Should players be paid something?
Should practice time be reduced or altered?
Are schools supporting the educational side of the student-athlete?
Are the transfer rules fair?
Are the scholarship rules fair?
Is the LOI fair?
Do we need to alter recruiting rules?
Is there excessive travel?
Should players share in merchandising profits?

That's just a list of stuff off the top of my head. The committee has had many months to look into this stuff. I expect them to be thorough and a lot smarter than I am.

-Jason "I think the committee seemed to have decent representatives of all sides of the game so I hope they will take everyone's perspective into consideration" Evans

[Owen Meany]

Given the composition of the commission, it seems that Coach K was heavily involved in its formation. Form this reason, I expect them to propose abolishing OAD (as a recommendation for the NBA), allowing coaches increased contact time with their players in and off season, and the creation of a basketball commissioner/czar. Coach K has talked about the need for this for many years and I can see him wanting to set the college game in order before passing it on to others just as he did with Team USA. I have always wondered if the commissioner position would be Coach K's eventual post-Duke position and was a concerned when the make up of the commission was announced. The departure of Jeff Capel lessened this concern since it seems to have increased the likelihood Coach K doesn't plan to leave in the very near future.

[sagegrouse]

Given the composition of the commission, it seems that Coach K was heavily involved in its formation. Form this reason, I expect them to propose abolishing OAD (as a recommendation for the NBA), allowing coaches increased contact time with their players in and off season, and the creation of a basketball commissioner/czar. Coach K has talked about the need for this for many years and I can see him wanting to set the college game in order before passing it on to others just as he did with Team USA. I have always wondered if the commissioner position would be Coach K's eventual post-Duke position and was a concerned when the make up of the commission was announced. The departure of Jeff Capel lessened this concern since it seems to have increased the likelihood Coach K doesn't plan to leave in the very near future.


Commissioner for college hoops -- Bilas is the obvious choice, but Emmert and DBR will have a cow over it -- so maybe not
Players allowed to have advisers -- even agents -- at any time in the process.
Expanded and more legal role for equipment/shoe companies, but I haven't thought about the details
Extensive loosening of financial compensation matters re players, families, agents and shoe companies. On second thought, this will be delayed until there is a commissioner, who can consider the details more carefully
Smaller division I -- probably a super division I of about 150 teams (vs. 350)
Regular season play among super div. I teams; NCAA tournament, however, open to everyone
Expanded limits on hoops practice, both individually and as a team -- if best players are going after one year, there needs to be an earlier start to practice (July?); also maybe some sort of pre-season competition
No request to the NBA and NBPA to change the rules re eligibility for the draft, 'cuz it just makes the college game look weak

[MCFinARL]

Commissioner for college hoops -- Bilas is the obvious choice, but Emmert and DBR will have a cow over it -- so maybe not



Wow--I knew we were influential here at DBR, but maybe not that influential. :)

[chrishoke]

To whom would a Commissioner report?

[jv001]

To whom would a Commissioner report?

If it's Jay, he would only report to God. GoDuke!

[cato]

If it's Jay, he would only report to God. GoDuke!

Did Jay lose Coach K’s number?

[Bluedog]

In addition to the relationship with the NCAA, I really hope the commission will address the following:


Should players be paid something?



Good list of questions, Jason.

Wanted to call out this one because I feel like nobody has given credit (or even acknowledges/is aware) of the recent changes that have been made. Even Coach K mentioned the recent changes to policy when asked about it during one of the pre-game NCAA press conferences saying (paraphrasing), "I don't know if you are aware [talking to the reporter], but there have been huge changes to what we can give our players over the last few years. And we give them significantly more. It's significant. Not small, but significant." (Yes, I recall him saying "significant" three times).

The most obvious change being the 2015 decision by the NCAA to allow the P5 conference schools to pay their athletes an additional stipend above their scholarship. Now, one could certainly argue semantics on if that's "paying the players" or not as it's technically just to cover all expenses beyond tuition+room&board, and is certainly not "market rate" for the top basketball athletes, but it is still money that they weren't receiving before. (The amounts ranged from $1,400 to $5,666 in 2015 with Boston College somehow being the lowest in BCS.) It's based on the cost of attendance formulas (used in federal financial aid calculations), which somehow for Alabama changed significantly the year they implemented it. Football players using the old cost of attendance were only going to get a $1600 stipend and instead ended up with $4000+ when the NCAA announced they were going to use that to determine how much to give athletes. Hmmmmm. :rolleyes:


The stipend differences within conferences are stark, even for schools from the same state. Tennessee pays $5,666, Vanderbilt $2,780. California offers $3,552, Southern Cal $1,580 [...] The question is whether the cachet of the BCs, Notre Dames, and Georgia Techs will offset the thousands of dollars more that the Louisvilles, Florida States, and Clemsons can offer. Louisville pays $5,202, FSU $3,884, and Clemson $3,608 according to figures from the Chronicle of Higher Education. By contrast, Notre Dame pays $1,950, Georgia Tech $1,720, and BC $1,400, the lowest of the 65.

“Unfortunately, it’s not going to be a balanced playing field,” said Syracuse football coach Scott Shafer, whose school pays $1,632, the third-lowest among the Power 5. “There’s nothing we can do about that right now. You live in the now, you live with the reality of what is.”

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/09/01/paying-stipends-college-athletes-remains-divisive-issue/eQV4hEW5A0wbTfw3S1KgKO/story.html
(Note that this article is from 2015, so those figures are NOT the latest and I assume they have gone up.)

[hallcity]

I'd suggest:
1) Require shoe companies to be certified by the NCAA and make it contractual so the NCAA could sue and use civil discovery if a company is suspected of improper behavior;
2) Require NCAA certification of AAU, summer basketball and HS all-star games and, again, make it contractual so there's a way to enforce the rules;
3) Reduce the number of all-star games that HS players can participate in;
4) Require NCAA certification of coaches and make it contractual so they're liable for monetary damages if they break the rules and so the NCAA could use civil discovery;
5) Reduce practice time;
6) Ask the NBA to draft players out of HS;
7) Allow schools to pay more transportation expenses for families of players -- it's now limited to the Final Four

I don't see a "czar" as a practical idea. I don't know what such a "czar" would even do. The NCAA is unlikely to allow players to be paid much or to share in merchandise money, at least not while they're students, because the non-P5 schools couldn't keep up.

[BigWayne]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned anything related to enforcement changes. The current methodology of regulation enforcement is at the root of many of the problems showing up above. Surely this commission would be looking at improving enforcement and compliance.

[sagegrouse]

To whom would a Commissioner report?

The Commissioner would report to a Board of Directors -- perhaps the NCAA board, perhaps a different one. Would Emmert and his successors be left out in the cold? I suspect Emmert's lack of involvement would be masked by various bureaucratic shenanigans.

[UrinalCake]

Paying the players is something that seems almost inevitable, just as it was for the Olympics many years ago. However, there are two different avenues for paying players and I think the distinction is important to make.

- In the first case you have the schools directly paying students in return for their play. I think this model would be extremely difficult to implement for a variety of reasons, and will never happen. The schools would become employers and subject to a host of legal ramifications. While many fans will causally suggest that paying players is an easy fix, in reality it is much more complicated.

- In the second case you have players being allowed to make money on their own - using their likeness, signing endorsement deals, etc. I think this should be on the table for discussion. The money isn't coming from the school, so nothing changes in that respect. The NCAA would simply be saying that if a player goes out and gets their own source of income, they do not forfeit their amateur status. This would allow more of a free market economy where players can go out and get whatever they're worth.

So I think the second scenario would be the appropriate first step. There are still questions to be answered, such as what happens when a school's booster says to a recruit "come to school X and I'll pay you a million dollars for a t-shirt with your name" or something like that. There would be all kinds of roundabout ways for schools to achieve the same end goal of paying the players via boosters or agents. But it's at least a starting point.

The other big issue that I think will be addressed is that of agents. K made comments last fall in which he foresaw a scenario where he might visit a high school recruit and the player is allowed to have an agent in the room to help advise him. Seems to make a lot of sense, and honestly the fact that players are not allowed to hire agents to help advise them either at the high school level or through the draft entry process has always struck me as asinine.

[Kfanarmy]

Commissioner for college hoops -- Bilas is the obvious choice, but Emmert and DBR will have a cow over it -- so maybe not
Players allowed to have advisers -- even agents -- at any time in the process.
Expanded and more legal role for equipment/shoe companies, but I haven't thought about the details
Extensive loosening of financial compensation matters re players, families, agents and shoe companies. On second thought, this will be delayed until there is a commissioner, who can consider the details more carefully
Smaller division I -- probably a super division I of about 150 teams (vs. 350)
Regular season play among super div. I teams; NCAA tournament, however, open to everyone
Expanded limits on hoops practice, both individually and as a team -- if best players are going after one year, there needs to be an earlier start to practice (July?); also maybe some sort of pre-season competition
No request to the NBA and NBPA to change the rules re eligibility for the draft, 'cuz it just makes the college game look weak


Only if one wants to have the players in/from the top 10 or so programs in the NCAA decide everything. Personally think he would be one of the worst possible choices...extremely well spoken, but logically broken.

[sagegrouse]

Only if one wants to have the players in/from the top 10 or so programs in the NCAA decide everything. Personally think he would be one of the worst possible choices...extremely well spoken, but logically broken.

See. It's just what I said. DBR is opposed to Bilas as Commissioner of Hoops -- he has no chance.

[Indoor66]

See. It's just what I said. DBR is opposed to Bilas as Commissioner of Hoops -- he has no chance.

I admire a sense of confidence and being articulate; I detest arrogance and self-certainty. Where does Bilas fit?

[sagegrouse]

I admire a sense of confidence and being articulate; I detest arrogance and self-certainty. Where does Bilas fit?

I think Bilas's ESPN act is a schtick, not his true persona. But others here have different views.

[chrishoke]

I have to say, watching Bilas suddenly own all the problems he's been carping about for years could be a lot of fun.

[Eternal Outlaw]

I think Bilas's ESPN act is a schtick, not his true persona. But others here have different views.

So you think the obvious choice for commissioner is a guy who hasn't been genuine for how many years? If he isn't genuine announcing games, how would anyone be able to take anything in that role seriously from him? This shouldn't become a professional wrestling angle where the heel (or face if you like his announcing) announcer all of a sudden controls the show.

[kAzE]

I know this is all speculation, but if Bilas really did become the college basketball czar, we'd have a Duke alum as the NBA Commissioner, WNBA Commissioner, and College Commissioner.

Add all that to having perhaps the most well respected coach in the history of the game (who, I imagine, still has significant influence within USA basketball), and that is some serious power and influence within the sport all affiliated with our university.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

I have to say, watching Bilas suddenly own all the problems he's been carping about for years could be a lot of fun.

It would....but I stumbled upon this note blowing around campus:

"Please please don't put Bilas in charge.....signed,
The baseball team, soccer teams, track teams, swim teams, Lacrosse teams, field hockey team, cross country teams, fencing teams, golf teams tennis teams, rowing team, volleyball team, wrestling team.....and our coaches....

[lotusland]

I admire a sense of confidence and being articulate; I detest arrogance and self-certainty. Where does Bilas fit?

Bilas is like really smart.

[Indoor66]

Bilas is like really smart.

A lot of people on this board are like really smart. That does not, in and of itself, qualify one to do any particular job.

[lotusland]

A lot of people on this board are like really smart. That does not, in and of itself, qualify one to do any particular job.

I feel like he would hire all the best people.

[WiJoe]

If it's Jay, he would only report to God. GoDuke!

meaning he'd look in a mirror.

[Neals384]

Ok, if you guys don't like Bilas for Commish, how about Swofford?

Ducks.

[weezie]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned anything related to enforcement changes. The current methodology of regulation enforcement is at the root of many of the problems showing up above. Surely this commission would be looking at improving enforcement and compliance.

A girl can dream...

[sagegrouse]

From the AP (http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/23311712/commission-college-basketball-shares-recommendations-ncaa), which received an advance copy:


INDIANAPOLIS -- The Commission on College Basketball sharply directed the NCAA to take control of the sport, calling for sweeping reforms to minimize one-and-done, permit players to return to school after going undrafted by the NBA and ban cheating coaches for life.

Many words, apparently, on the NCAA's taking responsibility for the "toxic" mix of summer league play and shoe company involvement.

60 pages -- I won't get a lot of work done today.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

From the AP (http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/23311712/commission-college-basketball-shares-recommendations-ncaa), which received an advance copy:



Many words, apparently, on the NCAA's taking responsibility for the "toxic" mix of summer league play and shoe company involvement.

60 pages -- I won't get a lot of work done today.

Looks like the Commission held some surprises for the audience. I appreciate that they didn't let the NCAA off the hook by saying "well, it is an NBA rule." They called for the restriction to be lifted, but also sounded the bell to keep amateurism and clean up the sport rather than overhaul the system and pay players.

I will be interested in to see how this plays out

[sagegrouse]

Quick reactions:

Colleges told to take control of summer basketball ("non-scholastic") either by running their own leagues or certifying AAU teams.

Minimize one-and-done, and put some pressure on the NBA and the NBPA to act. If they don't then consider such actions as making freshmen ineligible or "locking scholarships" for three-to-four years after a freshman leaves for the NBA.

Scathing assessing of "toothless" NCAA enforcement (clear there were a lot of Duke guys on the Commission). Suggests outsourcing the enforcement function.

Allow access to agents in both HS and college. These would have to be "certified."

[UrinalCake]

The entire section on reform of punishments for violations, especially academic fraud, was basically written specifically for UNC.

[House P]

Quick reactions:

Minimize one-and-done, and put some pressure on the NBA and the NBPA to act. If they don't then consider such actions as making freshmen ineligible or "locking scholarships" for three-to-four years after a freshman leaves for the NBA.



While the 'one-and-done" is an NBA rule, the NCAA has at least some ability to influence NBA decision makers.

The threat of making Freshman ineligible would definitely get the NBA's attention. While I think there is very little chance the NCAA would ever go back to making Freshmen ineligible, the threat of doing so could be an effective negotiating tactic.

The main reason behind the one-and-done rule is to force players into a one year "evaluation period" (in college). Without the opportunity to use the NCAA as a "pre-draft evaluation and marketing tool" for prospective players, the value of the one-and-done rule is greatly diminished for NBA owners.

I wonder what other rules the NCAA could change (or threaten to change) which would also get the NBA's attention.

Of course, this assumes that there is some entity which can effectively represent the NCAA's interests in a negotiation with the NBA owners and player's association. I am surprised that the article didn't seem to mention the creation of an NCAA basketball "commissioner". That would be the logical person to negotiate with the NBA.

[UrinalCake]

I don’t think freshmen ineligibility will ever happen, you’d be asking the NCAA to voluntarily give up a ton of marketing potential and therefore money and that’s not going to happen. Locking scholarships for players who leave early is a reasonable idea, but it wouldn’t really fix the problem. It would just mean that the OAD’s get spread out across lots of schools because each school could only have one or two of them per year before they ran out of scholarships.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I don’t think freshmen ineligibility will ever happen, you’d be asking the NCAA to voluntarily give up a ton of marketing potential and therefore money and that’s not going to happen. Locking scholarships for players who leave early is a reasonable idea, but it wouldn’t really fix the problem. It would just mean that the OAD’s get spread out across lots of schools because each school could only have one or two of them per year before they ran out of scholarships.

Yeah, I am no big fan of OAD rules, and I have some concerns about how Duke builds their team in this current era, but I don't see any benefit to anyone if Bagley sits the bench this year.

[tteettimes]

Methinks JB ain’t gonna like this report 🤨🤨

[Duke79UNLV77]

I don’t think freshmen ineligibility will ever happen, you’d be asking the NCAA to voluntarily give up a ton of marketing potential and therefore money and that’s not going to happen. Locking scholarships for players who leave early is a reasonable idea, but it wouldn’t really fix the problem. It would just mean that the OAD’s get spread out across lots of schools because each school could only have one or two of them per year before they ran out of scholarships.

So, let's take Tyus Jones and Winslow as examples. They both want to go to college and earn All-ACC academic honors, so they are serious students. Neither is projected as a one-and-done when we recruit them. They both have great years and earn and take the opportunity to leave after one year. We then are punished by losing 2 scholarships for the next 3 years? How does that make sense?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Methinks JB ain’t gonna like this report 🤨🤨

I am not sure. We will find out soon enough.

I can see Bilas appreciating that the commission doesn't let the NCAA off the hook by saying it is an NBA rule. He will certainly be in favor of licensing rights. He might be upset that they didn't flat out say "pay the players," but absent a great fleshed out explanation of how that would be feasible, it is a had line to take.

I don't think Bilas is as illogical as most folks here seem to; I do think he is a staunch player advocate and he is extremely cynical about anything the NCAA does. Here sure isn't an idiot though.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

So, let's take Tyus Jones and Winslow as examples. They both want to go to college and earn All-ACC academic honors, so they are serious students. Neither is projected as a one-and-done when we recruit them. They both have great years and earn and take the opportunity to leave after one year. We then are punished by losing 2 scholarships for the next 3 years? How does that make sense?

Yeah, I don't think that passes the straight face test. K has historically been supportive of player decisions (Avery was a long time ago now) and this would put coaches in a terrible spot of deterring players who would otherwise be perfectly ready for the NBA.

[Duke95]

I am not sure. We will find out soon enough.

I can see Bilas appreciating that the commission doesn't let the NCAA off the hook by saying it is an NBA rule. He will certainly be in favor of licensing rights. He might be upset that they didn't flat out say "pay the players," but absent a great fleshed out explanation of how that would be feasible, it is a had line to take.

Not really. Not a hard line to take, at all.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Not really. Not a hard line to take, at all.

Well, it is where I fall on the issue, but I get bashed for it all the time for not having the solution.

[BD80]

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/23311712/commission-college-basketball-shares-recommendations-ncaa

A summary of the report.

Looks like a good effort.

The OAD and AAU are squarely under fire. If the NBA and NBAPA don't end OAD by the "next" season, potential for NCAA action, freshman ineligibility or locking a scholly for 3 or 4 years if a player leaves after 1.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/23311712/commission-college-basketball-shares-recommendations-ncaa

A summary of the report.

Looks like a good effort.

The OAD and AAU are squarely under fire. If the NBA and NBAPA don't end OAD by the "next" season, potential for NCAA action, freshman ineligibility or locking a scholly for 3 or 4 years if a player leaves after 1.

These sound like serious bluffs. I see zero actual leverage that the NCAA has in this situation.

[BD80]

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/23311712/commission-college-basketball-shares-recommendations-ncaa

A summary of the report.

Looks like a good effort.

The OAD and AAU are squarely under fire. If the NBA and NBAPA don't end OAD by the "next" season, potential for NCAA action, freshman ineligibility or locking a scholly for 3 or 4 years if a player leaves after 1.

Also. don't pay players, set up NCAA recruiting showcases, certify agents to help high school kids with choices.

My favorite, require administration AND coaching contracts to include NCAA compliance provisions.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I do like the proposed "lifetime ban" for cheating coaches, whatever that means. Zero impact on the NBA, but does seem like impactful.

[CameronBornAndBred]

These sound like serious bluffs. I see zero actual leverage that the NCAA has in this situation.

Looks like the NBA/NBPA are taking it seriously. They are looking into an end of the OAD rule by the 2020 draft.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2772448-report-nba-nbpa-targeting-2020-nba-draft-for-end-of-1-and-done-rule?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=editorial

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Looks like the NBA/NBPA are taking it seriously. They are looking into an end of the OAD rule by the 2020 draft.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2772448-report-nba-nbpa-targeting-2020-nba-draft-for-end-of-1-and-done-rule?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=editorial

That's all well and good, but if they do, it will either be for their own reasons ($) or out of goodwill for the game. To suggest that the NCAA has any weight in this is naive, as I see it. They are the younger sibling wanting their older brother to let them ride in their Porsche.

And yes, that is one of my worst DBR analogies ever. And I have espoused many.

[UrinalCake]

So, let's take Tyus Jones and Winslow as examples. They both want to go to college and earn All-ACC academic honors, so they are serious students. Neither is projected as a one-and-done when we recruit them. They both have great years and earn and take the opportunity to leave after one year. We then are punished by losing 2 scholarships for the next 3 years? How does that make sense?

I think the idea is that Duke couldn’t recruit five OAD’s every year, we could only bring in one or two. The rule would only really affect us and Kentucky.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I think the idea is that Duke couldn’t recruit five OAD’s every year, we could only bring in one or two. The rule would only really affect us and Kentucky.

Isn't there a pretty serious trickle down effect? If we had two OAD players each year, after four years we have eight empty seats on the bench.

Again, I also think that sets up a really detrimental dynamic between coaches and players when it comes to draft advice.

[House P]

Yeah, I am no big fan of OAD rules, and I have some concerns about how Duke builds their team in this current era, but I don't see any benefit to anyone if Bagley sits the bench this year.

I completely agree with the bolded text, at least as a potential permanent solution.

However, if having Bagley sit the bench (or, more likely, threatening to have the future Bagley's of the world sit the bench) gets the NBA to change the one-and-done rule to something more favorable to the NCAA and future top 10 prospects, then I can see how there may be beneficiaries (though, I don't see much upside for Bagley himself or the 1000 or so other Freshmen who may have to sit out).

The threat of Freshmen ineligibility could be a bit like the threat of a worker's strike. Sure, it is probably not in the worker's interest to stop working permanently, but a temporary work stoppage can be an effective tool for improving work conditions going forward.

Now whether the the elimination of the one-and-done rule is a good enough cause to temporarily institute Freshmen ineligibility is an entirely different question.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I completely agree with the bolded text, at least as a potential permanent solution.

However, if having Bagley sit the bench (or, more likely, threatening to have the future Bagley's of the world sit the bench) gets the NBA to change the one-and-done rule to something more favorable to the NCAA and future top 10 prospects, then I can see how there may be beneficiaries (though, I don't see much upside for Bagley himself or the 1000 or so other Freshmen who may have to sit out).

The threat of Freshmen ineligibility could be a bit like the threat of a worker's strike. Sure, it is probably not in the worker's interest to stop working permanently, but a temporary work stoppage can be an effective tool for improving work conditions going forward.

Now whether the the elimination of the one-and-done rule is a good enough cause to temporarily institute Freshmen ineligibility is an entirely different question.

I dunno. I appreciate your optimism, but this feels less like the threat of a workers strike and more like a kid who says he is going to hold his breath forever if mom makes him eat broccoli.

[Duke79UNLV77]

I think the idea is that Duke couldn’t recruit five OAD’s every year, we could only bring in one or two. The rule would only really affect us and Kentucky.

But, we thought we were only recruiting one OAD in Okafor’s class, but ended up with 3 because Jones and Winslow played so well, while also earning academic honors. So, we should be penalized 3 scholarships for the next 3 years?? Or infinity times the punishment for decades of systemic academic fraud and free rental cars from felons? Should we not recruit any top 50 players to be safer (though still not entirely safe)?

[UrinalCake]

Should we not recruit any top 50 players to be safer (though still not entirely safe)?

I think one of the intended side effects is a disincentive to recruit OAD players, because they would be costly for your program. But again, none of this would actually fix the issue of OAD players not belonging in college, it would just spread them out so that programs cannot build their system around OAD’s.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Well, it is where I fall on the issue, but I get bashed for it all the time for not having the solution.

Before we can have a solution, we need to see what we want. We, in the collective, the consensus, or as close at one can be reached:

The bargain college fans, athletes, administrators, coaches and media have made over the past 40 years or so is that the football and basketball revenues will pay for the entire athletic department, all the immense costs of not only providing a big time football and basketball program, but all the non revenue sports costs as well.

Non rev sports have taken tremendous strides forward thanks to FB and BB money. All athletes have as well, for example, the 55 million dollar Clemson athletic complex for students recently opened. This is where we are. For crying out loud, I think Duke baseball has new uni's for every game...(okay, exaggeration, but you get the point). They're not paying for any of that. Neither is this new softball team.

Now you can make the argument that the FB and BB team shouldn't pay for those others. You can make the case that coaches and administrators are over paid. Those are points to be considered.

But the irony is, many of the hardest core pay the player types are also very much adamant about Title IX and other non revenue sport benefits.
What you can't do is have the cake and eat it too...and it seems to me that a lot of pay the players advocates seem to think the money is there to do that, while not touching the rest of the sports. That's absurd. As Boeheim said, at Syracuse, even with big time revenues in FB and BB, much of it the ACC contracts, their athletic department barely breaks even.

And we have a post from Jim Sumner - paraphrasing - where Kevin White said Duke can't afford to renovate Coombs Field...unless Jim writes the check....because the money isn't there.

So before a solution can even be discussed, we need to figure out if we want a vibrant non revenue sports sector in addition to the revenue sports, or not?
BTW, this would include probably every women's team in the nation not named UCONN basketball. Or do we want to pay the rev sport players and let the others become club level sports again. Unless you can fill an 80,000 seat football stadium 7-8 times a year, and get a big bowl check, you can't have both.

I can live with either outcome at this stage of life. What I really don't like is the notion, and it's widespread, that "the NCAA is making billions" and not sharing it. The NCAA shares it with the schools, and the schools run their entire athletic departments off of it. I can't stand the NCAA for the most part, but this is how the system works. To hear Jay Bilas, one would have to assume he's not aware of it.

[jimsumner]

Before we can have a solution, we need to see what we want. We, in the collective, the consensus, or as close at one can be reached:

The bargain college fans, athletes, administrators, coaches and media have made over the past 40 years or so is that the football and basketball revenues will pay for the entire athletic department, all the immense costs of not only providing a big time football and basketball program, but all the non revenue sports costs as well.

Non rev sports have taken tremendous strides forward thanks to FB and BB money. All athletes have as well, for example, the 55 million dollar Clemson athletic complex for students recently opened. This is where we are. For crying out loud, I think Duke baseball has new uni's for every game...(okay, exaggeration, but you get the point). They're not paying for any of that. Neither is this new softball team.

Now you can make the argument that the FB and BB team shouldn't pay for those others. You can make the case that coaches and administrators are over paid. Those are points to be considered.

But the irony is, many of the hardest core pay the player types are also very much adamant about Title IX and other non revenue sport benefits.
What you can't do is have the cake and eat it too...and it seems to me that a lot of pay the players advocates seem to think the money is there to do that, while not touching the rest of the sports. That's absurd. As Boeheim said, at Syracuse, even with big time revenues in FB and BB, much of it the ACC contracts, their athletic department barely breaks even.

And we have a post from Jim Sumner - paraphrasing - where Kevin White said Duke can't afford to renovate Coombs Field...unless Jim writes the check...because the money isn't there.

So before a solution can even be discussed, we need to figure out if we want a vibrant non revenue sports sector in addition to the revenue sports, or not?
BTW, this would include probably every women's team in the nation not named UCONN basketball. Or do we want to pay the rev sport players and let the others become club level sports again. Unless you can fill an 80,000 seat football stadium 7-8 times a year, and get a big bowl check, you can't have both.

I can live with either outcome at this stage of life. What I really don't like is the notion, and it's widespread, that "the NCAA is making billions" and not sharing it. The NCAA shares it with the schools, and the schools run their entire athletic departments off of it. I can't stand the NCAA for the most part, but this is how the system works. To hear Jay Bilas, one would have to assume he's not aware of it.

You mean the field-hockey program doesn't pay for itself with gate receipts?

Some great points here. The non-revenue (I'm sorry, Olympic Sports) programs are so-called for a reason.

[House P]

I dunno. I appreciate your optimism, but this feels less like the threat of a workers strike and more like a kid who says he is going to hold his breath forever if mom makes him eat broccoli.

The broccoli analogy is excellent. If the threat is not taken seriously, it is meaningless.

I do wonder if there are other potentially effective 'negotiating positions' which might be taken seriously enough to influence the one-and-done decision makers. I have some ideas, but they are probably completely unworkable.

[lotusland]

Yeah, I am no big fan of OAD rules, and I have some concerns about how Duke builds their team in this current era, but I don't see any benefit to anyone if Bagley sits the bench this year.

I think it would either push the NBA to eliminate the rule or you push the OADs to the G league. That seems ideal for Bagley and College basketball. Not so much for AOD and JGold though.

[CameronBlue]

I do like the proposed "lifetime ban" for cheating coaches, whatever that means. Zero impact on the NBA, but does seem like impactful.

I think it's problematic, depends on how you define cheating. A "lifetime ban" is severe. Given its severity it will be rarely used, if ever, resulting in more administrators "looking the other way" or re-defining what cheating actually is, as UNC was able to do. Irrespective the blue bloods will be as immune as ever to a punishment that justly fits the crime. Wherever you draw the line, history suggests that coaches will get as close to the line as possible and occasionally step over it. In cases like UNC, contemptuously so.

[cruxer]

Many words, apparently, on the NCAA's taking responsibility for the "toxic" mix of summer league play and shoe company involvement.

This framing, and the commission report itself, fails to take a broader look at the basketball economy and why the college sports is in such trouble. Let's assume apparel companies routinely pay kids playing in summer leagues and AAU. Outside of the context of the NCAA rulebook, what's toxic about that arrangement? Certainly there are shady fraudsters involved in the summer leagues these days, but that's largely a product of a forced underground economy. Being above-board and transparent would solve most of that without requiring the NCAA to "takeover" summer leagues. E-sports is one of the fastest growing forms of entertainment globally (currently close to $900M market and growing!). Companies that make gaming equipment or want to appeal to gamers who enjoy e-sports routinely sponsor and pay teams who compete. A kid doesn't even have to be out of high school to be on a team. I think I can safely assume that nobody thinks e-sports is "toxic."

The Olympic model is instructive. Amateurism for amateurism's sake is a 19th-century, elitist concept. Moreover, you can't claim to be an amateur endeavor when you generate billions of dollars in revenue. Any attempt to reform that doesn't tackle these 2 major problems will fail.

-c

[sagegrouse]

This framing, and the commission report itself, fails to take a broader look at the basketball economy and why the college sports is in such trouble. Let's assume apparel companies routinely pay kids playing in summer leagues and AAU. Outside of the context of the NCAA rulebook, what's toxic about that arrangement? Certainly there are shady fraudsters involved in the summer leagues these days, but that's largely a product of a forced underground economy. Being above-board and transparent would solve most of that without requiring the NCAA to "takeover" summer leagues. E-sports is one of the fastest growing forms of entertainment globally (currently close to $900M market and growing!). Companies that make gaming equipment or want to appeal to gamers who enjoy e-sports routinely sponsor and pay teams who compete. A kid doesn't even have to be out of high school to be on a team. I think I can safely assume that nobody thinks e-sports is "toxic."

The Olympic model is instructive. Amateurism for amateurism's sake is a 19th-century, elitist concept. Moreover, you can't claim to be an amateur endeavor when you generate billions of dollars in revenue. Any attempt to reform that doesn't tackle these 2 major problems will fail.

-c

"Being above-board and transparent" won't happen without some serious adult supervision and under the current framework of AAU basketball and the teams and coaches.

If the NCAA, the NBA, and/or the NBPA sponsored summer basketball, there would be a chance of transparency.

[luvdahops]

So you think the obvious choice for commissioner is a guy who hasn't been genuine for how many years? If he isn't genuine announcing games, how would anyone be able to take anything in that role seriously from him? This shouldn't become a professional wrestling angle where the heel (or face if you like his announcing) announcer all of a sudden controls the show.

I overlapped with Bilas at Duke, and think his ESPN persona is heavy on schtick. He is a very bright, knowledgeable guy underneath at all.

But I am generally against the idea of putting career entertainers/media types in positions of real responsibility. I wouldn't want to see Rachel Maddow or Rush Limbaugh in a cabinet role, for example. Bilas for czar would be analogous to that in my view.

[Ian]

I completely agree with the bolded text, at least as a potential permanent solution.

However, if having Bagley sit the bench (or, more likely, threatening to have the future Bagley's of the world sit the bench) gets the NBA to change the one-and-done rule to something more favorable to the NCAA and future top 10 prospects, then I can see how there may be beneficiaries (though, I don't see much upside for Bagley himself or the 1000 or so other Freshmen who may have to sit out).

The threat of Freshmen ineligibility could be a bit like the threat of a worker's strike. Sure, it is probably not in the worker's interest to stop working permanently, but a temporary work stoppage can be an effective tool for improving work conditions going forward.

Now whether the the elimination of the one-and-done rule is a good enough cause to temporarily institute Freshmen ineligibility is an entirely different question.

I don't think Bagley would sit on the bench for a year, I think he'd play overseas professionally.

[sagegrouse]

Jay is trying hard to hide his disappointment at not being named College Hoops Commissioner after being vetoed by DBR posters. He had some substantive comments, however. Via the Washington Post:


ESPN analyst Jay Bilas said he felt the commission “got a lot right” — particularly in calling for athletes to be able to confer with licensed agents and declare for the draft without losing their college eligibility. Bilas also favors the idea of an independent entity to investigate NCAA infractions, as well as the addition of outside professionals to the NCAA governing board to get away from the college sports “echo chamber” in which nothing ever changes.

But he was disappointed that the report didn’t tackle college basketball’s commercialization head on. College basketball is a multi-billion dollar industry in which coaches and schools make millions from shoe companies, Bilas noted, but paying players — or providing them anything more than a cost-of-living stipend and chance at an education — is cast by the report as “morally wrong.”

“There are a lot of positive things, and if the NCAA adopts these recommendations, things can get better,” said Bilas, a lawyer and former Duke player. “But we’re still operating from a flawed premise. The Rice Commission doubled-down on this idea that there is something called the college [amateur] model, and there isn’t one.”

[Ian]

Why stop at being undrafted allows a player to go back to college, I think if a player is drafted but doesn't like where he is drafted, or doesn't like the team he is drafted by (too many players ahead of him at his position), he should be allowed to come back if he doesn't sign with the team.

[cruxer]

"Being above-board and transparent" won't happen without some serious adult supervision and under the current framework of AAU basketball and the teams and coaches.

If the NCAA, the NBA, and/or the NBPA sponsored summer basketball, there would be a chance of transparency.

This is true, but there are known solutions to the problem. I think the NCAA could either 1) get into the agent accreditation business or 2) just use the NBA Players Association accredited list and allow players (even high school!) to be eligible even if they've signed with an accredited agent. Players, especially top-notch players who are close to turning pro, should have professional advice as early as possible about how to progress their career. That advice could include which leagues to play in and who is an honest broker. Furthermore, if a player has a large enough following in high school (or college, though that's trickier due to the university taking apparel money) for an apparel company to sponsor them, let them be sponsored without losing eligibility! Make the process as transparent as possible. Of course a sponsored kid will go to a university that shares the same sponsor, but that's not too different today. It's just underground today. Disinfect by bringing the transactions into the light!

Again these concepts are only controversial due to the NCAA rulebook. Why is that rulebook sacrosanct? What value do we derive by assuming that rulebook as a given? No other sporting endeavor in the world restricts itself to this model. From the outside, it sure looks a lot like the few who jealously keep the gates of the rulebook profit quite handsomely because of it. If summer leagues are toxic, the NCAA looks like a superfund site.

[53n206]

Why stop at being undrafted allows a player to go back to college, I think if a player is drafted but doesn't like where he is drafted, or doesn't like the team he is drafted by (too many players ahead of him at his position), he should be allowed to come back if he doesn't sign with the team.

Agree. But Boston, NYC, SanFran, and LA would be impossible to beat.

[Ian]

Agree. But Boston, NYC, SanFran, and LA would be impossible to beat.

Doubt it, no first rounder will turn down the money.

[Devil2]

Jay is trying hard to hide his disappointment at not being named College Hoops Commissioner after being vetoed by DBR posters. He had some substantive comments, however. Via the Washington Post:

There is a college amateur model except for football and men's basketball. For almost all others (as well as a good percentage of those two) the model works: the athletes receive a free education plus a small stipend and probably make little or no money for the university. The athletes make a lot more money via the college degree than their sports ability. Twisting all of the remainder of college athletics to deal with a few elite athletes in two sports makes no sense

[ChillinDuke]

There is a college amateur model except for football and men's basketball. For almost all others (as well as a good percentage of those two) the model works: the athletes receive a free education plus a small stipend and probably make little or no money for the university. The athletes make a lot more money via the college degree than their sports ability. Twisting all of the remainder of college athletics to deal with a few elite athletes in two sports makes no sense

That's probably downplaying the complexity, but I do by and large agree.

I told this story before, but cliffnotes version is I have a work colleague that played basketball at Brown. He absolutely concedes that college basketball is a full-blown business and a monstrous commitment. That said, he believes he got a more than fair shake, as the experiences he got, the people he met, the lessons he learned, and the general enjoyment he had (let alone the education received) were well worth the commitment.

He was a starter, not a benchwarmer, for what it's worth. I looked up his stats - they were quite respectable. Although he could have used a haircut.

That's one guy on a non-power conference team. But I think his view is interesting context.

- Chillin

[Indoor66]

Twisting all of the remainder of college athletics to deal with a few elite athletes in two sports makes no sense

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner. IMO, you have hit on the point that most adults find as the flaw in most pay them ideas or plans.

[cruxer]

Why stop at being undrafted allows a player to go back to college, I think if a player is drafted but doesn't like where he is drafted, or doesn't like the team he is drafted by (too many players ahead of him at his position), he should be allowed to come back if he doesn't sign with the team.

The league itself handles this situation, as do most professional leagues. Teams retain the draft rights to players for multiple years specifically to discourage cherry picking by the drafted. The NCAA doesn't need to manage this for them.

[UrinalCake]

A "lifetime ban" is severe. Given its severity it will be rarely used, if ever

Just think, if these rules had been in place a year ago, then Julius Nyan’goro would have received a lifetime ban from ever coaching a college basketball team!

[sagegrouse]

Ol' Sage here is a bit disappointed by the fairly narrow scope of the CCB recommendations. Essentially, they applied anti-fungal ointment to the shoe-company fungus and cortisone cream to the NBA-itch crowd of one-and-done players. Of course, We should not, hover, overlook the slap in the face to the sanctimonious UNC.)

Left un-discussed is the utterly unmanageable mess that is Division I basketball. 350+ teams and no effective governing organization. Where's the commissioner? Where's the slimmed down Division I that feature fewer than one-half as many teams?

[ChillinDuke]

Ol' Sage here is a bit disappointed by the fairly narrow scope of the CCB recommendations. Essentially, they applied anti-fungal ointment to the shoe-company fungus and cortisone cream to the NBA-itch crowd of one-and-done players. Of course, We should not, hover, overlook the slap in the face to the sanctimonious UNC.)

Left un-discussed is the utterly unmanageable mess that is Division I basketball. 350+ teams and no effective governing organization. Where's the commissioner? Where's the slimmed down Division I that feature fewer than one-half as many teams?

My question on the bolded becomes, If you cut D-I down by 1/2, aren't you cutting the half where there are by and large no issues and thus need very little oversight? Maybe I'm utterly naive on this subject, but my sense was that the Eastern Michigan's of the world aren't creating a whole host of problems that are stressing the system.

- Chillin

[Devil2]

My question on the bolded becomes, If you cut D-I down by 1/2, aren't you cutting the half where there are by and large no issues and thus need very little oversight? Maybe I'm utterly naive on this subject, but my sense was that the Eastern Michigan's of the world aren't creating a whole host of problems that are stressing the system.

- Chillin

The NCAA, because of a desire to pocket some of the NCCAA men's badketball money,has become as unmanageable as the United Nations. Too many participants with too many agendas/ differences but all with equal voice. It has resulted in a lot of paralysis

[CameronBlue]

Just think, if these rules had been in place a year ago, then Julius Nyan’goro would have received a lifetime ban from ever coaching a college basketball team!

His legacy is secure. Tyler Hansbrough speaks Swahili.

[weezie]

...If you cut D-I down by 1/2, aren't you cutting the half where there are by and large no issues and thus need very little oversight? ... my sense was that the Eastern Michigan's of the world aren't creating a whole host of problems that are stressing the system.



The NCAA, because of a desire to pocket some of the NCCAA men's badketball money,has become as unmanageable as the United Nations. Too many participants with too many agendas/ differences but all with equal voice. It has resulted in a lot of paralysis

Imagine the howls!

And then, where would we get our delightful Cinderellas from come March?

[sagegrouse]

Imagine the howls!

And then, where would we get our delightful Cinderellas from come March?

Weezie, the proposal (or, at any rate, the only proposals I have seen for narrowing Div I) would still let the other conferences participate in March Madness.

[duke79]

There is a college amateur model except for football and men's basketball. For almost all others (as well as a good percentage of those two) the model works: the athletes receive a free education plus a small stipend and probably make little or no money for the university. The athletes make a lot more money via the college degree than their sports ability. Twisting all of the remainder of college athletics to deal with a few elite athletes in two sports makes no sense

I think you're right here. But, obviously, the problems and abuses at the highest levels of college football and basketball get almost all the attention and press (and, no surprise, that is where almost all the money generated from colleges sports originates). I'm just not sure that the proposed changes will really make much of a difference to the reality of college football and basketball (at the highest levels). Getting rid of the OAD rule would help some in basketball but there is simply too much money sloshing around those two sports and too many people and institutions benefiting from all that money for any real reform to take place. Call me cynical and pessimistic but I just don't see major changes coming down the road.

[BigWayne]

There is a college amateur model except for football and men's basketball. For almost all others (as well as a good percentage of those two) the model works: the athletes receive a free education plus a small stipend and probably make little or no money for the university. The athletes make a lot more money via the college degree than their sports ability. Twisting all of the remainder of college athletics to deal with a few elite athletes in two sports makes no sense

A large percentage of that amateur model goes away if not for the revenue brought in by Football and the hoops tourney. Without that money, a lot of these other athletes are going to be at the club level.

[NM Duke Fan]

"The NBA and NBPA conversations on eliminating the one-and-done draft rule -- which would allow high school seniors to enter the NBA -- are centered on the 2020 Draft as the earliest possible date for change, league sources tell ESPN."

If this is indeed the cse, what impact will this have on Duke's immediate recruiting and strategic planning? Some of us are hoping the change will happen soon, so we can get back to college basketball more like it was, with many players staying at least 3 years..


https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/nba-one-and-done-rule-change-reportedly-wont-happen-until-2020-at-the-earliest/

[lotusland]

So this is the OAD discussion thread now?

[sagegrouse]

Belongs in Commission thread.

[weezie]

Weezie, the proposal (or, at any rate, the only proposals I have seen for narrowing Div I) would still let the other conferences participate in March Madness.

Ok, a mashup of Div I, II and III. Sounds like none of it will ever happen, especially in light of the G League stepping up pay and benefits.

[devildeac]

My question on the bolded becomes, If you cut D-I down by 1/2, aren't you cutting the half where there are by and large no issues and thus need very little oversight? Maybe I'm utterly naive on this subject, but my sense was that the Eastern Michigan's of the world aren't creating a whole host of problems that are stressing the system.

- Chillin

Ask Cleveland State...

:rolleyes:

[sagegrouse]

Ok, a mashup of Div I, II and III. Sounds like none of it will ever happen, especially in light of the G League stepping up pay and benefits.

Not really. Just today's Division I with a new designation for the major conferences.

[weezie]

Not really. Just today's Division I with a new designation for the major conferences.

Ok.

But who gets custody of Roger Ayers?

[devildeac]

Ok.

But who gets custody of Roger Ayers?

KU might claim him. :mad:

[Troublemaker]

Ol' Sage here is a bit disappointed by the fairly narrow scope of the CCB recommendations. Essentially, they applied anti-fungal ointment to the shoe-company fungus and cortisone cream to the NBA-itch crowd of one-and-done players. Of course, We should not, hover, overlook the slap in the face to the sanctimonious UNC.)

Left un-discussed is the utterly unmanageable mess that is Division I basketball. 350+ teams and no effective governing organization. Where's the commissioner? Where's the slimmed down Division I that feature fewer than one-half as many teams?

Interesting, sage. You were initially skeptical of the Commission, IIRC, based on your prior experience working on similar commissions. You actually influenced me to lower expectations for the Commission's impact and recommendations, and so what was released yesterday was pretty much what I expected. Recommendations that were toothless in some cases, nonsensical in others, given by folks who now seem to be out of touch with the sport and what the root problems are. ESPN gave a scathing review of the Commission's recommendations here (http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/23304802/condoleezza-rice-commission-recommendations-one-done-nba-draft-corruption-recruiting).

Somewhere along the way it looks like you got your hopes raised, but at least your initial instinct was right :-)

[campered]

Remember that committee that was formed last fall after the FBI indictments were handed down? Condoleezza Rice is the chair and Grant Hill is on the committee. They have spent the past few months looking into college basketball (whatever that means) and are scheduled to release their recommendations on Wednesday morning. A live stream will be available through the NCAA via Twitter.

Does anybody want to offer any guesses/predictions as to what they're going to come up with? The level of snark already being thrown out by the general public regarding this committee is fairly high. College basketball is a broken system and the problems are not going to be fixed in six months by a committee. If anything, this seems like an effort to pass the buck onto somebody else so that the NCAA can say "we tried." Thoughts?

8328https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2018/04/25/basketball-commission-doesnt-want-another-north-carolina-academic-scandal/549723002/ Forgive me if this is already mentioned. USA Today article mentions specifically those chumps over at the hill and what the commision has to say..

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2018/04/25/basketball-commission-doesnt-want-another-north-carolina-academic-scandal/549723002/ Forgive me if this is already mentioned. USA Today article mentions specifically those chumps over at the hill and what the commision has to say..

Interesting. Would be more impressive if they had called them out by name.

[dyedwab]

I'm surprised Bilas was as positive about the report as he is, but agree that, while there are some good recommendations they don't get to the heart of the problem

1) The focus on One and Done fatally flaws this report, imho. The entire NBA salary structure (slotting, max contracts, etc) makes an OAD type system inevitable, even if you require students to stay in college for two years, or take away scholarships, etc. For pete's sake, Luke Maye is testing the waters. You can not tell me that that would have happened in the mid-90s (before OAD) - and it stands to reason that OAD is not the singular issue. The issue for players is getting to the league as quickly as possible so they can get to the 2nd contract, and for teams, its to have as much high-level, low cost talent as possible. Again, OAD is not the singular issue, but part of a system that encourages high-level players to get to the league as soon as possible after they are eligible

2) It elides the question of whether players can get paid for names/likenesses. I realizes that they punted by saying its still being litigated, but this is crucial - and if the so-called "Olympic" model becomes an option, this issue is definitive.

3) Trying to grab ahold of the summer basketball system is a good idea. It's a bigger task and requires all interested parties (USA Basketball, NBA, NBPA, NCAA, AAU, Apparel companies) to work together to reform what has become a lucrative, but unwieldy, system that leaves too much space for unscrupulous actors

4) Letting players have agents - who are somehow vetted - is a common sense idea that should be implemented ASAP. As is allowing undrafted players to return to school, regardless of whether they hire an agent or not

5) I'm not gonna go with good try here. I think the Commission successfully spent 7 months compiling ideas that are mostly already being discussed, and focused on exactly the wrong central issue.

[UrinalCake]

I've had some time to digest the report and read some followup commentary, and I agree that it fails to address the fundamental core issue that is corrupting the sport, which is the billions of dollars that the NCAA is making and not sharing with the players. And to be honest, they really have no reason to give up that money. There's nothing really wrong with the current system from the NCAA's standpoint. This committee feels to me like an attempt to LOOK like they're trying to "fix" the sport, when in reality they have no desire to do so. Just like their investigation of UNC was made to give off the impression that they are serious about maintaining academic integrity, but the truth is that they didn't want to punish them.

It's a joke that the committee would spend six month investigating the problems in the sport and would then make zero mention of the players' free market value relative to what they are being paid. They completely punted on the issue of allowing players to sell their own likeness, using the ongoing lawsuits as an excuse. They said they want the NCAA to certify agents and make them available to the players, but made no mention of agents being allowed to pay or make loans to them. What exactly do you think is going to happen when you have agents competing for the services of high school players who are worth millions, but aren't allowed to provide them with any form of payment? They're going to break the rules just like they do now.

The committee also blasted the apparel companies, made them out to be evil enterprises corrupting their sport. Yet the NCAA gladly accepts hundreds of millions of dollars from them, paid out to their member institutions. If the NCAA really wanted to "clean up" the sport, they would simply end all of those contracts and stop taking that money. But obviously that isn't going to happen.

So while some good suggestions were made, the committee's recommendation seem like a lot of fluff.

[NM Duke Fan]

Viewpoint from a writer at The Gaurdian, which is often quite leftist in orientation in terms of bias. Will be interesting to see what others think of it:

"The problem with Rice’s commission is that it was rigged from the start – filled with lawyers, politicians, athletic department officials and well-to-do former players who hail from decades inside the establishment. They are not activists looking to blow up a bad system but protectors of the structure that takes advantage of players. They weren’t looking to end the inequalities of college basketball. They were searching for external villains they could charge with defiling the purity of the NCAA’s amateur system. "

"The unfortunate thing is that Rice’s commission held such promise. For once, it seemed, college basketball understood the system has problems. They said they wanted to be better. They finally appeared to get the optics of poor kids getting nothing while everyone else gets rich. For once it seemed they weren’t going to brag about free college for players whose sports commitments barely allow them to get to class.

Instead, they barricaded the walls of the old system against attacks from the outside. They blamed and shamed the victims. At some point you’d think they noticed the smell of a system rotting all around them."

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/apr/26/new-college-basketball-guidelines-only-strengthen-a-rotten-exploitative-system

[dyedwab]

Viewpoint from a writer at The Gaurdian, which is often quite leftist in orientation in terms of bias. Will be interesting to see what others think of it:

"The problem with Rice’s commission is that it was rigged from the start – filled with lawyers, politicians, athletic department officials and well-to-do former players who hail from decades inside the establishment. They are not activists looking to blow up a bad system but protectors of the structure that takes advantage of players. They weren’t looking to end the inequalities of college basketball. They were searching for external villains they could charge with defiling the purity of the NCAA’s amateur system. "

"The unfortunate thing is that Rice’s commission held such promise. For once, it seemed, college basketball understood the system has problems. They said they wanted to be better. They finally appeared to get the optics of poor kids getting nothing while everyone else gets rich. For once it seemed they weren’t going to brag about free college for players whose sports commitments barely allow them to get to class.

Instead, they barricaded the walls of the old system against attacks from the outside. They blamed and shamed the victims. At some point you’d think they noticed the smell of a system rotting all around them."

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/apr/26/new-college-basketball-guidelines-only-strengthen-a-rotten-exploitative-system

I generally agree with this take. The Commission, in my mind, blamed everyone else for the problems in college basketball, while essentially "plea bargaining" it's own role. And it certainly started from the premise that the system itself was fine

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Viewpoint from a writer at The Gaurdian, which is often quite leftist in orientation in terms of bias. Will be interesting to see what others think of it:


The UK Guardian is useless when it comes to understanding American college sports. What amazes me about the public conversation is how many phony templates are assumed by so many people who should know better.

The analogy would be the BCS controversy. Everyone hated the BCS....but the BCS wasn't the problem. The BCS was a step in the right direction from the old bowl dominated system. The designers of the BCS knew that there's was stopping point that would eventually lead to a tournament style playoff. Not every member of the BCS knew that, but the people who put it in place did. To hear the sports media talk about that issue, one would assume the world of college football championships was great until some spaceship landed and forced the BCS on an otherwise perfect world.

Nonsense.

Here, with the NCAA, there is a universe of people who don't want to recognize that for all the rotten-ness of the NCAA, and it is rotten, that this big money funds amazing opportunities for student athletes in sports that simply cannot create its own revenues. They don't want to recognize that for all the money big time FB and BB bring in, that most athletic departments still only break even.

We should at least debate this in honesty and reality.

[Ian]

I've had some time to digest the report and read some followup commentary, and I agree that it fails to address the fundamental core issue that is corrupting the sport, which is the billions of dollars that the NCAA is making and not sharing with the players.

I think this statement is too extreme. The fact is they are sharing it, just not necessarily enough with basketball and football players, they are sharing it by using it to provide for all the other scholarship sports.

So the colleges are essentially acting like the non-profit charity organization, except you may take exception to the percentage they skim off the top to pay the administrators and coaches. Which is no different than say the head of the Red Cross making millions.

[Bluedog]

I think this statement is too extreme. The fact is they are sharing it, just not necessarily enough with basketball and football players, they are sharing it by using it to provide for all the other scholarship sports.

So the colleges are essentially acting like the non-profit charity organization, except you may take exception to the percentage they skim off the top to pay the administrators and coaches. Which is no different than say the head of the Red Cross making millions.

Agreed. Also note that the NCAA doesn't make much money from football as that is governed by the BCS and the NCAA does not share in the proceeds. So, basically, it's just men's basketball that is the cash cow for the NCAA that it utilizes to fund all the other sports and championship events.

[UrinalCake]

I think this statement is too extreme. The fact is they are sharing it, just not necessarily enough with basketball and football players, they are sharing it by using it to provide for all the other scholarship sports.

That's a fair point, and I guess I should clarify. The committee was started in response to the FBI investigation and subsequent indictments that revealed payments being made to high schoolers and to assistant coaches. The goal of the committee was to "clean up" college basketball and to make sure these types of things don't happen. But the things that they proposed don't actually address these issues.

Agents and shoe companies are willing to pay players because players have value, and the players aren't receiving that value by attending college. You are right that we are only talking about a small percentage of basketball and football players, and that the vast majority of college athletes do receive a lot in terms of an education, a scholarship, the chance to play, etc. And Condeleeza Rice did open her statement by pointing out the many great things that college athletics provides for thousands of student-athletes. But the issue that the committee was supposed to be addressing was the small percentage of players who are vulnerable to corruption because of how the rules are currently made. And I'm not just talking about the OAD players, this trickles down to players like Brian Bowen and even lower-ranked players at mid-major schools, the types who appeared in that infamous expense report a couple months ago. Yes they are receiving a lot by getting to attend college for free, but when a guy like Bagley could potentially be making millions then the system is still broken in the sense that he's not able to receive what he is worth. Any time you have a gap between what a person is worth and what he is able to receive, there is going to be an opportunity for corruption and that is where we are now.

[sagegrouse]

A couple of things about the limits on the Commission's work and findings.

1. Football and men's basketball are the major financial support for athletic departments and, through them, women's sports and Olympic sports.

2. This is the report of the Commission on College Basketball. It had enough to do without trying to restructure the financial model for all of college sports. Therefore, it is reasonable that it restricted its vision to college hoops and did not try to reduce the net revenue coming from men's hoops to the rest of the university.

Therefore, "paying the players," if not off-limits, was a rabbit hole that the CCB wanted to avoid. Moreover, such payments raise some broad questions -- is the revenue generated by college hoops because of the names on the front of the jerseys or the players' names on the back of the jerseys? Moreover, if the CCB gets its way and HSers go straight to the NCAA, doesn't that also change the calculus of what players earn? Yep, I suppose there are market forces that can be brought to bear, but every league in the world seems to have some version of salary caps or limitations on player compensation -- I don't know why the CCB would wander into this particular swamp.

Now I see that most of the commentators are levying heavy criticisms on the CCB report. Well, isn't it sort of like politics -- no one ever gets punished for voting AGAINST a piece of legislation, but be very careful of what you vote FOR?

I was disappointed in the sense that I thought the CCB would do something about the governance of college hoops. Maybe the group felt that it had consensus on what it did recommend and not enough time to sort out conflicting views on a very different subject.

Now if I can only get down off the soapbox without breaking my neck...



3. The NCAA tournament is the major funder of the NCAA, the organization never being part of the college football bowl revenue scheme. While much of the revenue is distributed to the schools and conferences, enough sticks to the NCAA to pay the administrative costs of the operation, including enforcement.

[cruxer]

A couple of things about the limits on the Commission's work and findings.

1. Football and men's basketball are the major financial support for athletic departments and, through them, women's sports and Olympic sports.

2. This is the report of the Commission on College Basketball. It had enough to do without trying to restructure the financial model for all of college sports. Therefore, it is reasonable that it restricted its vision to college hoops and did not try to reduce the net revenue coming from men's hoops to the rest of the university.

Therefore, "paying the players," if not off-limits, was a rabbit hole that the CCB wanted to avoid. Moreover, such payments raise some broad questions -- is the revenue generated by college hoops because of the names on the front of the jerseys or the players' names on the back of the jerseys? Moreover, if the CCB gets its way and HSers go straight to the NCAA, doesn't that also change the calculus of what players earn? Yep, I suppose there are market forces that can be brought to bear, but every league in the world seems to have some version of salary caps or limitations on player compensation -- I don't know why the CCB would wander into this particular swamp.

...
3. The NCAA tournament is the major funder of the NCAA, the organization never being part of the college football bowl revenue scheme. While much of the revenue is distributed to the schools and conferences, enough sticks to the NCAA to pay the administrative costs of the operation, including enforcement.

If the CCB was created to address the "scandal" of apparel companies covertly sponsoring high school athletes through shady intermediaries, they have failed in every respect. We can argue all we want that the talent is being compensated, but the market vehemently disagrees and is expressing itself through corruption of the existing rules. If Adidas thinks it's worth paying Dennis Smith Jr $40k cash to go to NC State for a year, on what economic theory does the NCAA disagree? I've said this a million times up-thread, but if not for the NCAA rulebook, there would be nothing shady about that arrangement. Adidas didn't give that money as charity, they think they got their money's worth. Maybe they did and maybe they didn't, but that's the kind of decision made in a free market all the time.

A bold commission would have either reduced the rulebook or the revenue. Those 2 things are in eternal conflict in the current model and cannot be reconciled. Saying that the marquee athletes have to sacrifice to support the non-rev sports seems noble, until you realize that it's mostly millionaires forcing that sacrifice on mostly thousandaires who get no say in the matter. There's nothing noble about that.

Salary caps exist in professional sports in the context of collective bargaining, where labor has an equal say to the structure of the economy. Otherwise it would be illegal collusion by ownership, and it would look a heckuva lot like the NCAA.

-c

[sagegrouse]

If the CCB was created to address the "scandal" of apparel companies covertly sponsoring high school athletes through shady intermediaries, they have failed in every respect. We can argue all we want that the talent is being compensated, but the market vehemently disagrees and is expressing itself through corruption of the existing rules. If Adidas thinks it's worth paying Dennis Smith Jr $40k cash to go to NC State for a year, on what economic theory does the NCAA disagree? I've said this a million times up-thread, but if not for the NCAA rulebook, there would be nothing shady about that arrangement. Adidas didn't give that money as charity, they think they got their money's worth. Maybe they did and maybe they didn't, but that's the kind of decision made in a free market all the time.

A bold commission would have either reduced the rulebook or the revenue. Those 2 things are in eternal conflict in the current model and cannot be reconciled. Saying that the marquee athletes have to sacrifice to support the non-rev sports seems noble, until you realize that it's mostly millionaires forcing that sacrifice on mostly thousandaires who get no say in the matter. There's nothing noble about that.

Salary caps exist in professional sports in the context of collective bargaining, where labor has an equal say to the structure of the economy. Otherwise it would be illegal collusion by ownership, and it would look a heckuva lot like the NCAA.

-c

Oh, my. I don't believe the NCAA needs an "economic theory" to agree with its actions. It is a voluntary association of colleges that administers athletic competitions and enforces the rules set by the colleges. If you believe the actions of this not-for-profit entity are illegal under US law, you can follow (or, heck, join) some of the cases going on. I expect that if the colleges begin to experience legal liability within the parameters of what we think of as "college sports," Congress would give the NCAA and the colleges a legal exemption.

[cruxer]

Oh, my. I don't believe the NCAA needs an "economic theory" to agree with its actions. It is a voluntary association of colleges that administers athletic competitions and enforces the rules set by the colleges. If you believe the actions of this not-for-profit entity are illegal under US law, you can follow (or, heck, join) some of the cases going on. I expect that if the colleges begin to experience legal liability within the parameters of what we think of as "college sports," Congress would give the NCAA and the colleges a legal exemption.

lol @ non-profit. Anyway. The NCAA has already considered lobbying for an anti-trust exemption (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/21/as-ncaa-fends-off-challenges-antitrust-exemption-d/) because they fear their situation is untenable. My argument isn't a primarily a legal one, although i stand by the assertion that clearly illegal collusion to supress labor compensation by professional owners would look a lot like the current NCAA. My argument is against all this moral aspersions I see cast about the "corruption" of the current system. That's the context of my economic theory comment. The NCAA member institutions have consulted among themselves and decided to cap the compensation of a labor pool that generates billions in revenue (I'm including CFB here since the caps are no different).

While the organization and its voluntary member institutions nominally make no profit, the actual people who make these decisions make up to millions of dollars a year. Even lesser adults in the system rake it in. The head volleyball coach at Clemson made $90k in 2016. The Director of Football Video & Tech also made $90k. Assistant MBB coaches made ~160k. That likely excludes sponsorships and vehicle allowances these guys get. The head of the NCAA made $1.9M in 2015. The Pac12 commish made $3.4M in 2014. Big Ten - $3.1M. Big 12 - $2.3M. SEC - $2.1M. ACC - $2.0M. These are the very brokers who decide that for "amateurism" players should continue to have no say in their own compensation. It sure looks to me like these power brokers are in fact deciding to pocket the money rather than share. How can we continue to call those compensation levels a-OK while calling Dennis Smith Jr's 40k shady? Again I ask, under what economic theory is Smith's $40k shady?

[Kfanarmy]

Ok, if you guys don't like Bilas for Commish, how about Swofford?

Ducks.

That would be great....Carolina would have a written exception to following NCAA rules and wouldn't have to pretend anymore.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

While the organization and its voluntary member institutions nominally make no profit, the actual people who make these decisions make up to millions of dollars a year. Even lesser adults in the system rake it in. The head volleyball coach at Clemson made $90k in 2016. The Director of Football Video & Tech also made $90k. Assistant MBB coaches made ~160k. That likely excludes sponsorships and vehicle allowances these guys get. The head of the NCAA made $1.9M in 2015. The Pac12 commish made $3.4M in 2014. Big Ten - $3.1M. Big 12 - $2.3M. SEC - $2.1M. ACC - $2.0M. These are the very brokers who decide that for "amateurism" players should continue to have no say in their own compensation. It sure looks to me like these power brokers are in fact deciding to pocket the money rather than share. How can we continue to call those compensation levels a-OK while calling Dennis Smith Jr's 40k shady? Again I ask, under what economic theory is Smith's $40k shady?

You bring up the biggest topic in the PTP movement....the salaries of the administrators and coaches. I'd suggest holding off on slamming the 90K volleyball coach - that is a point against PTP - in that there is excellent coaching now for the non rev sports.

That said, these salaries are a drop in the bucket for the totality of an athletic department's budget, and probably in line with CEOs of similar sized corporations.

[cruxer]

You bring up the biggest topic in the PTP movement...the salaries of the administrators and coaches. I'd suggest holding off on slamming the 90K volleyball coach - that is a point against PTP - in that there is excellent coaching now for the non rev sports.

That said, these salaries are a drop in the bucket for the totality of an athletic department's budget, and probably in line with CEOs of similar sized corporations.

There is excellent coaching (and bad coaching...) at all levels of sport. In 2013 (http://www.businessinsider.com/college-sports-revenue-athlete-scholarships-2014-9), coaches' compensation at the top 10 revenue universities averaged about 35% of the expenses. Scholarships averaged about 10%. A quick perusal of more recent data (http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/) doesn't show much change in that ratio. No matter how good that volleyball coach is, their value is inflated by the bizarre economic rules of college athletics.

The NCAAs main argument for their ruleset is that these institutions are educational, non-profit entities, so I'm not sure what "similarly sized corporations" have to do with it. Texas A&M had revenues north of $194M in the 2015-2016 academic year. They paid coaches about $40.6M and expensed scholarships worth $9.7M. Can you name a similarly sized corporation who paid their management 21% of revenue while paying labor 5%?

I'm not expressly arguing the universities must pay the players. I am, however, insisting that we look at this economy with empirical eyes. If we want to solve the problems and "corruption," either the money has to change or the rules have to change. It simply isn't sustainable to maintain both. If you look far down that USA Today revenue list, you'll find that as you leave the big money programs, the coach compensation and player compensation line up far more equitably. #68 Arkansas State pays coaches about $7.2M and expenses about $6.8 in schollys. I'd bet those guys magically have much less "corruption." Trying to address the problem without acknowledging that is (spitting) in the wind.

[sagegrouse]

There is excellent coaching (and bad coaching...) at all levels of sport. In 2013 (http://www.businessinsider.com/college-sports-revenue-athlete-scholarships-2014-9), coaches' compensation at the top 10 revenue universities averaged about 35% of the expenses. Scholarships averaged about 10%. A quick perusal of more recent data (http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/) doesn't show much change in that ratio. No matter how good that volleyball coach is, their value is inflated by the bizarre economic rules of college athletics.

The NCAAs main argument for their ruleset is that these institutions are educational, non-profit entities, so I'm not sure what "similarly sized corporations" have to do with it. Texas A&M had revenues north of $194M in the 2015-2016 academic year. They paid coaches about $40.6M and expensed scholarships worth $9.7M. Can you name a similarly sized corporation who paid their management 21% of revenue while paying labor 5%?

I'm not expressly arguing the universities must pay the players. I am, however, insisting that we look at this economy with empirical eyes. If we want to solve the problems and "corruption," either the money has to change or the rules have to change. It simply isn't sustainable to maintain both. If you look far down that USA Today revenue list, you'll find that as you leave the big money programs, the coach compensation and player compensation line up far more equitably. #68 Arkansas State pays coaches about $7.2M and expenses about $6.8 in schollys. I'd bet those guys magically have much less "corruption." Trying to address the problem without acknowledging that is (spitting) in the wind.

There is a difference, isn't there, between "certitude" and "certainty?"

I would offer that the NCAA schools' (the NCAA being but a subordinate body) main arguments for the current system of rules is (a) the systmn almost magically provides funding for lots and lots of athletic scholarships in sports that do not generate revenue; (b) it provides a high level of competition in almost all sports, which excites the constituents of the universities (and -- for football and men's hoops -- is part of the magic behind point a.); (c) it provides a college education for many students who would not otherwise be able to attend; (d) although a tortuous path, it links the present to the earliest days of college sports, providing tradition and building support.

If you are saying there are stresses in the current system that will be very difficult to solve, I agree with you. If you are saying the situation is hopeless, and we should scrap the entire system and start over, I refer you to points a, b, c, and d. That, kind sir or madam, is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

There is excellent coaching (and bad coaching...) at all levels of sport. In 2013 (http://www.businessinsider.com/college-sports-revenue-athlete-scholarships-2014-9), coaches' compensation at the top 10 revenue universities averaged about 35% of the expenses. Scholarships averaged about 10%. A quick perusal of more recent data (http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/) doesn't show much change in that ratio. No matter how good that volleyball coach is, their value is inflated by the bizarre economic rules of college athletics.

The NCAAs main argument for their ruleset is that these institutions are educational, non-profit entities, so I'm not sure what "similarly sized corporations" have to do with it. Texas A&M had revenues north of $194M in the 2015-2016 academic year. They paid coaches about $40.6M and expensed scholarships worth $9.7M. Can you name a similarly sized corporation who paid their management 21% of revenue while paying labor 5%?

I'm not expressly arguing the universities must pay the players. I am, however, insisting that we look at this economy with empirical eyes. If we want to solve the problems and "corruption," either the money has to change or the rules have to change. It simply isn't sustainable to maintain both. If you look far down that USA Today revenue list, you'll find that as you leave the big money programs, the coach compensation and player compensation line up far more equitably. #68 Arkansas State pays coaches about $7.2M and expenses about $6.8 in schollys. I'd bet those guys magically have much less "corruption." Trying to address the problem without acknowledging that is (spitting) in the wind.

You make a few analogy mistakes with all due respect. First of all, coaches ARE labor....only the Athletic Director would be management under this comparison. That would change your figures completely. Second, I bet the 2013 figures are significantly wrong now. Third, while your statement on good and bad coaching is of course true in a vacuum, please tell me you aren't seriously doubting that the over all increase in coaching compensations for the non revenue sports hasn't raised that level on the whole. Of course it has. Fourth, to only count scholarships as a player compensation is simply not correct. Room, board, medical, other training, etc. Fifth, are facilities not spending on the players? To have state of the art facilities?

And then how do you factor in, for example, Clemson's 55 million dollar athletic center for players?

[UrinalCake]

Yesterday’s draft (and Duval in particular) got me thinking what would have happened had the proposed rule been in place to allow undrafted players to return to school. Would Duval have chosen not to hire an agent, leaving the door open to return? He seems like the perfect example of why that rule would be good for college players. Malik Newman would be another example, as another poster brought up in the draft thread. Kansas would be preseason #1 had he returned. My guess though is that Duval would have hired an agent anyways, because an agent is really helpful in navigating the process and setting up workouts with teams.

[sagegrouse]

Yesterday’s draft (and Duval in particular) got me thinking what would have happened had the proposed rule been in place to allow undrafted players to return to school. Would Duval have chosen not to hire an agent, leaving the door open to return? He seems like the perfect example of why that rule would be good for college players. Malik Newman would be another example, as another poster brought up in the draft thread. Kansas would be preseason #1 had he returned. My guess though is that Duval would have hired an agent anyways, because an agent is really helpful in navigating the process and setting up workouts with teams.

My working assumption about Trevon, and Gary as well, is that they like Coach K and their teammates, appreciate their fans and aren't staying in college more than one year, no matter what.

Maybe it's really simple: as Big John Thompson said on his radio show a few years after Allen Iverson went early to the draft, "Sometimes players hate to go to class."

[75Crazie]

Maybe it's really simple: as Big John Thompson said on his radio show a few years after Allen Iverson went early to the draft, "Sometimes players hate to go to class."
My corollary: Sometimes players do not belong in class.

It continues to elude my understanding as to why one year's participation in college classes is a prerequisite for participation in the NBA; similarly, why three years participation is a requirement for the NFL.

[Sir Stealth]

My working assumption about Trevon, and Gary as well, is that they like Coach K and their teammates, appreciate their fans and aren't staying in college more than one year, no matter what.

Maybe it's really simple: as Big John Thompson said on his radio show a few years after Allen Iverson went early to the draft, "Sometimes players hate to go to class."

I agree with the overall sentiment but think it's more than just not wanting to do college work. Their goal is to play basketball professionally. As Duke fans we place a high value on what the program can do to improve players and aid in the goal of being professional basketball players. But there are other ways to go about growing as a player, and an increasing number of opportunities to progress outside of college basketball. For players like Tre and Gary who believe in their talent and have been singularly focused on their goal well before coming to Duke, they want to move forward with their careers whether they have to go to class or not. It's not that they don't value the Duke experience, but they came here based on the idea that one year got them into the brotherhood for life. They put their names on the big stage, did an internship of sorts under Coach K, and are ready to get on with moving toward their ultimate goals.

I'm just about 100% certain that Trevon would not have come back for another year of college basketball even if he knew he was going undrafted. He was always going to be focused on moving forward. I think that if you told him he still had to go to classes but could move on toward his goal of playing professionally, vs. going to a UNC-like school where he didn't have to go to class but would still have to play amateur basketball, he would still go pro.

Edit: thought that Duval hadn't participated in combine scrimmages, but it looks like I may have been mistaken.

[UrinalCake]

Silver made some comments that the league is ready to move the age limit down to 18, and that it will be discussed with the Players Union. Some reports say it could happen as early as 2021. This would be a welcome change IMO. It won’t solve all of college basketball’s problems, but it will be a good first step.

[sagegrouse]

Silver made some comments that the league is ready to move the age limit down to 18, and that it will be discussed with the Players Union. Some reports say it could happen as early as 2021. This would be a welcome change IMO. It won’t solve all of college basketball’s problems, but it will be a good first step.

Silver implicitly cited the Commission on Basketball, headed by Condi Rice and featuring a number of commissioners with Duke ties (Grant, David Robinson, Gen. Dempsey).

Here is its first block of recommendations:


Create Realistic Pathways for Student-Athlete Success

Separate the collegiate track from the professional track by ending one-and-done.
Allow student-athletes to test their professional prospects and maintain their eligibility if they do not sign a professional contract.
Permit students to receive meaningful assessment of professional prospects earlier with assistance from certified agents.
Provide resources to make the promise of a college education real.