Commission on College Basketball - Findings to be released Wednesday

[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/n...-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...

[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.

[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.

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?

Attachment 8328

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...dal/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/sport...dal/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/20...itative-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/20...itative-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.