Commission on College Basketball - Findings to be released Wednesday

[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-bas...endations-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-bas...endations-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-bas...endations-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/2...aign=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/2...aign=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.