In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 222
Online now 1054 Record: 7224 (2/22/2012)
The place to talk about the Texas Longhorns
The place for off topic discussion on Hookem
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
In a recent thread, someone asked why the NCAA doesn't do anything to stop basketball players from leaving school after one year. Of course, the NCAA can't stop anyone, athlete or ordinary student, from leaving school. However, the idea behind the question made me think about the problem from a different perspective.
NFL and MLB draft rules prevent teams from drafting college players until after they complete their junior season (or a third year) of college. The NBA rules allow players to be drafted one year out of high school, no matter what they are doing at the time. Only the respective pro leagues and their players can agree to change these rules.
However, the NCAA could impose a rule that would either make coaches think twice about recruiting a large number of these players, or at least give the coaches the incentive to encourage the players to stay in school. The NCAA could state that, once a scholarship has been granted to a student athlete, barring injury or a transfer to another school, that scholarship will not be available until three years after it was originally granted.
I read a quote from John Calipari recently that he could have as many as 6 players from this year's team turn pro early. A couple of years of that, and Kentucky would not be able to issue enough scholarships for a starting lineup.
I really just think it should be like College Baseball/MLB. Either let them go pro straight out of high school, or make them play 3 years in college.
Agree, but the NBA and its players would have to agree to that as part of a CBA. I'm suggesting that the NCAA does not have to sit on its hands and let this happen. while the NBA continues to pluck freshmen out of college.
How does the school get a guarantee that any player it recruits will stay for 3 years? It can't. Recruiting becomes a crapshoot. At least now when you lose, you keep ships, I mean chips, to play with.
XoGisele, Ashley Sky, Niki Skyler
You have to be more diligent about the type of player you recruit. You encourage them to stay in school rather than encourage them to leave early. You could recruit a couple of players likely to leave early, but not a whole starting lineup, like Kentucky is doing.
Why not just make freshmen ineligible unless they agree in a binding contract to play two years? I don't know why that wouldn't hold up, consideration is given by the schools.
The point is, if the NCAA and member schools really want to stop this, or slow it down, they could figure out a way. Allowing the NBA to control this situation is working out poorly for college basketball.
Which means only that one and dones would be more evenly spread, so everyone would share the pain.
No one has a gun to Rick Barnes's or Bill Self's or Roy Williams's or Mike Krzyzewski's or Thad Matta's or John Calipari's head forcing them to try to sign a guy who is likely to go to the NBA after a single season. They choose to do so because they think those players can help them win in the single year or at most two that they will be on campus.
Are they wrong? Would Texas have beaten KU in Lawrence and been a top 5 team for a good part of the year had it not been for the presence of Thompson and Joseph? Would Texas have been anything but an NIT team the year Durant was in Austin? Would Texas have made the Final Four without TJ Ford or the Elite Eight without Aldridge? It isn't the temporary presence of Tristan Thompson and Cory Joseph and Avery Bradley that hurt the Texas program, it's the absence of quality talent at the present. Last year Texas managed to get within a bad call of going farther in the tournament than it has since 2008 all on the strength of a couple of one and done guys, a two and through guy, and guy who was still allergic to defense, and some stuff.
Since universities aren't paying scholarship athletes their worth in money generating sports, they should be happy with what they get. If they want guarantees of players sticking around, they need to pony up several million dollars. Anything else they do to try to restrict the presence of short time players will only serve to chase exciting talent away from college basketball.
You know, I don't hear many people associated with the University of Kentucky Athletic Department complaining about the one and done rule and Calipari's recruiting practices. I hear faculty members are upset, but it isn't because the basketball team isn't stable.
Simple answer is CBA says no
Correct. Because it's Kentucky, they can recruit a new starting lineup of top tier talent every year. Most schools, including Texas, can't. If the one-and-done players were more spread out, wouldn't that be a good thing for competition?
The critics at Kentucky aren't comfortable with what looks to them like they are essentially recruiting pre-professional players who have no interest in pursuing an education or a UK degree. As for the notion that basketball coaches want to help their players "pursue their dreams" (both Caliperi and Barnes have said something similar), none of my professors at UT ever suggested any interest in helping me pursue my dreams. They did tell me that if I attended class, paid attention, and read my assignments, that I would get a degree and be prepared for the real world outside of academia. Pursuing my dreams was up to me, as it should be. In other words, the "pursuing their dreams" mantra has a fuzzy, sociable feel-good sound to it, but probably is not exactly in tune with the student-institution relationship.
Players who want to be paid for playing basketball can go overseas. Nobody has a gun to their heads making them accept college scholarships. One of the things that we forget in this era of the uber-athlete is that basketball has always been a game of execution, where teamwork (born of years of playing together) can often overcome superior ability.
I'd just like the opportunity to get a few of the good years out of a player before he moves on. It's more fun to watch.
I applaud you for outside the box thinking
I completely agree that it's more fun to watch players with whom we as fans have developed a familiarity and a history, but it seems that you want amateur athletics to be a labor of love for the athlete but a matter of proprietary interest for the fan.
I think the NCAA has taken some steps to eliminate the joke student--raising the minimum academic standards for freshmen--but it could go much farther by implementing strict progress toward degree requirements for freshmen that are applied after the first semester. The Daniel Ortons of the world wouldn't be playing in February and March.
Your rule (or the rationale) now seems to be breaking up the recruiting monopoly of Kentucky rather than purge the one and done from the NCAA. You correctly point out that players have options other than college. They can play overseas. You don't mention the fact that they can play d-league, which doesn't pay great, but the pay, with the other benefits still has to beat living in a dorm, but the players don't get a year in the limelight.
Maybe what the NCAA should do is even simpler--go back to the 60s and limit varsity play to sophomores and up. Maybe there's the way to chase Calipari to the NBA. I don't think it will happen, since the NCAA wants to protect the cash cow called the tournament, but there isn't any way that I can think of that is better guaranteed to ensure that the teams feature students who have invested time in their schools than by returning to the rules that had Lew Alcindor playing for a freshman team.
This post was edited by bierce 2 years ago
Maybe we should have just let them continue to declare right out of high school if they wanted to.
Maybe that is beyond the control of the NCAA, and matters within the control of the NCAA are the subject here.
The talent pool just isn't what it was 30 years or so ago and it seems you have more kids taking chances and leaving early when back nearly 30 years ago guys like Drexler and Olajuwon played at least three seasons because the talent in the NBA didn't lead them to believe that they would be top picks.
Because of this, there is a lot of "raw" basketball being played in both the NBA and NCAA currently. I think rules need to be changed and there are some very good ideas in this thread.
I think the NBA should allow them to come out of HS or force them to stay 2 years, but until they do that it is a moot point.
I don't think the NCAA can, or should, try to enforce such a rule. People leave school for various reasons all the time. The whole point of going to college is to better your chances of securing a career. If a kid can make millions of $ after one year of college, great!
Basketball should operate as it does in football, in that it's a one year scholarship, with school holding the option to renew after each season.
Disciplina praesidium civitatis
I think all scholarships are one year only
I took a fascinating sports business class at UT.
One central argument made by the professor was that it was in the NBA's best interest unless in extreme circumstances (Lebron) for these kids to remain in college for as long as possible in order to build marketability for themselves so that would carry into the league in their first season (as well as developing).
I heard an interview with Stern with Darren Rovell I think where he echoed similar thoughts.
But at the end of the day no change.
Why would the NCAA want to make changes that drive the best talent overseas? They are making money and the whole March Madness thing is more marketable with premium players. Look at college baseball... Nobody outside of die hard CBB fans give a shit about it because it's a lot of 2nd and 3rd rate players as most of the top guys sign out of HS and go into the pro farm system. I guarantee the NCAA doesn't want College basket ball to turn into college baseball just because some fans are bitter their team sucked this season because guys left after one year.
Agree that players should have the option to go pro whenever they want, however, the baseball model has antitrust exemption backed by congress. The NBA has already been slapped once by the supreme court for antitrust violations by requiring players to wait 4 years before they could go to NBA (essentially 5 years before they could play pro after graduating). That is why they started drafting high school players in the '70s.
agree 100%. People should be able to get paid for work whenever they can. Should the PGA or tennis put a moratorium on allowing teenagers from going pro?
THIS is the whole reason for the one year wait imposed by the NBA. The argument that was made that teenagers were not physically ready was preposterous if the evaluation is done correctly. IIRC, Moses Malone was very effective right out of high school scoring 17 ppg and 12 rpg in his rookie year. The problem was/is that they could not help themselves from taking risks on players and paying too much for that risk. If one owner wanted to hold off, he wanted all owners to hold off on overpaying for a risky evaluation and since that wasnt going to happen, they needed an across the board moratorium on all early evaluations. This type of antitrust collusion works in a monopoly situation and should not be allowed.
This post was edited by SoldierHorn 2 years ago
Here is the professor's book if anyone wants an interesting read:
I started to respond to this, then pulled back, but because your later posts repeat erroneous legal and factual arguments that were made in 2005 and that you advanced last summer when we discussed this, I will go ahead and respond.
With the introduction of a collective bargaining agreement, the antitrust issue disappears. One's protection against monopolistic practices is not a constitutional right but a creature of statute--statutes that were originally challenged for being UNconstitutional. Just as Congress can make a law, it can make exceptions to those laws. In this case, the labor relations acts take collective bargaining agreements out of the scope of ant-trust laws. When the Supreme Court struck down the NBA draft rules, it was not faced with a rule that had been incorporated into a collective bargaining agreement. Now there is such an agreement. Maurice Clarett tried to challenge a more restrictive requirement by the NFL and lost.
Golfers and tennis players have not formed collective bargaining units, as far as I understand, nor are they likely to, for they have an entirely different kind of compensation system with an entirely different kind of training and management. If there is a big enough purse, then players show up to compete. If there isn't, then they don't. Players train according to their own schedules and play according to their own calendars. The players generally don't answer to owners or get paid salary; they answer to themselves and win purses based on individual performance. Tennis and golf are about the antithesis of a situation that clamors for collective bargaining.
Finally, you cite Moses Malone as a guy who could go pro effectively right out of high school. You have to reach back 40 years for an example? And you have to pick a guy that started in the freak show that was the ABA? A place with red, white and blue balls, official scorers that gave more assists than the guy for the Aggies, and rebounding champs that got there by regularly dribbling the ball off the backboard a few times before scoring an uncontested layup? When Malone got to the NBA as a 21 year old, he was a 13/13 player in his first season.
More importantly, a court asked to examine the collective bargaining agreement against an age discrimination claim won't care that an individual or two in the past might have the physical and mental tools to compete at a high level in spite of not meeting the age requirement. It will look at the requirement, the purposes of the collective bargaining agreement, and weigh the discriminatory effect on an individual against the purposes of the agreement. You should ask yourself why the age limit hasn't been challenged in 7 years, and wonder whether there is a reason for that.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports