NCAA one and done rule

[paul253]

I didn't want to hijack the Bucks thread or the College Basketball thread because I wanted to talk specifically about this rule.

 

Back when high school players were allowed to declare for the NBA draft I thought they needed a rule preventing that because I thought it was really watering down the NBA. Lots of players being drafted just to sit on the bench and "develop". The one year rule wasn't what I preferred but I liked it and thought it was better than nothing.

 

Boy was I wrong. The one and done rule is a joke. People like John Calipari have been taking advantage of it and basically telling recruits yeah if you only want to spend one year in college then go on to the NBA then come here. Schools (yes they are still schools) like Kentucky have basically brand new rosters each season because so many players come just to play basketball for a year. Meanwhile I still don't think the NBA quality has improved all that much because the games are played so differently and in only one year players don't really have time to improve their all around game.

 

I think the NBA needs to eliminate their one and done rule. It'd be really nice if they actually used their minor league system like MLBs where they draft players and stash them in the minors for a year or two rather them going to Kansas or Duke as "student athletes" who don't give two you know what's about college. They can even increase the number of rounds in their drafts to help fill in rosters. I just hate seeing people like Lonzo Ball give interviews like he did last night. He could not have cared less that they lost. His mind was on the NBA from the day he enrolled in UCLA. I used to think it was best for everyone involved to have these kids go to college. Now I admit I was wrong and believe the rule has really hurt the NCAA.

 

Anyway, was wondering what others thoughts were on this topic.

[superfly]

If I were a GM i'd be running in the opposite direction of Lonzo Ball. That being said I think the Kentucky one and done's were fully vested (Fox and Monk) so it's more of a case by case basis.

[paul253]

It is definitely a case by case basis and those Kentucky guys seemed leaps and bounds more talented than Ball last night. It's just a shame to me that so many of these players enter college with no interest in it whatsoever. These kids are usually the best in their area growing up and continually told how great they are and are often surrounded by greedy family members and coaches who give out terrible advice. Changing the rule won't fix that but at least it'll help keep it off the college campus. I hoped the year in college would help the kids grow up a bit but all it doesn't appear to be working much. Just let them go to the NBA and sign their big contract and leave school for the kids who want to be there.

[DHonks]

It might be nice to have a rule similar to baseball where it's come out after HS OR not until "jr or 21." College basketball has evolved into a free agency model. That's one thing unique about Wisconsin, as they've mostly avoided the transfers. It's possibly because Wisconsin doesn't usually land top recruits, so perhaps they are more likely to buy into the system and stay for 4 years.

 

Still, given that most American NBA players come from poverty, I can't blame them at all for pursuing the money when it first becomes available. It might be nice if the NBA expanded the draft for a round and allowed teams to draft the rights to a player, but still have him retain his NCAA eligibility (sort of like how they can draft European players and hold onto rights while they play in Europe). Then a lone team would be able to tell a player when they are ready to go pro.

[jerichoholicninja]

The problem is when people try to think of NCAA D1 football or basketball players as student athletes because they are not. They are athletes first and students only when it becomes clear they won't be going pro. And even then you have school athletics boosters who will just give these guys jobs after college even though they are no where near qualified. The whole idea of those that play major college athletics getting anything near an actual education is quite a joke.

 

I'll admit I'm biased since my college athletic experience really jaded me toward it. We had a coaching staff and athletic department that stressed academics and being responsible. Even though I made Dean's list 7 of 8 semesters and never was in kind of trouble our coaching staff and AD bent over backwards to make sure guys on academic probation or with underage drinking or drug citations never missed a game while I and others like me sat on the end of the bench. And this was D3. I'll admit they were all better players than I was but the fact that they made such a huge deal about grades and responsibility and then threw that all out the window when push came to shove didn't sit well with me at all. And I've heard the same story from other people who went to different schools.

 

As for the one and done rule, if I was a high school senior who could get drafted why would I want to waste my time in college? And if I was forced to go, I'd go where I would have to do the least academically which is I'm sure what they're doing at Kentucky. As for the NBA, I don't pay any attention to it so I have no idea what it affect it's having. Although with the success of the D-League it's makes sense that high school kids can be drafted and play there for a couple years.

[owbc]

The "one and done" players don't even have to go to class during their second semester. It's a joke.

 

The NCAA has repeatedly proven that it's all about the money, while retaining a guise of standards and accountability. Look what North Carolina was able to get away with. So I expect nothing to change.

[paul253]

"The problem is when people try to think of NCAA D1 football or basketball players as student athletes because they are not. They are athletes first and students only when it becomes clear they won't be going pro."

 

That's true. But the fact is it's still a school. And the vast, vast majority of players in basketball and football aren't going to turn pro. It just bothers me that these kids and their supporters feel they should be entitled to all this money and stuff becuase they are good at a particular sport while completely discounting all the advantages they are being handed on a silver platter. Hell half of these kids couldn't even get into these schools if it weren't for their ability, let alone afford it.

 

I am a huge fan of college football and basketball and I get it. At all about winning. But there are enough kids out there who want to both play and take school seriously becuase they aren't unrealistic morons who think they can make it to the pros just because they were good in high school. Plus, if I'm a college coach (thisnreally appies only to basketball) is much rather have a senior-laden team of good players, maybe one or two of which will get drafted (think Wisconsin), then a team full of one and dones who are generally in it for themselves. I wouldn't even recruit obviousone and dones because as guys like Henrey Ellenson, Ben Simmons and Markelle Fultz have proven they certainly don't guarantee success

 

As Dhonks said a rule similar to baseball would be ideal. Let them enter the draft after HS if they think they are that good. But if not make them stay at least three years in college. If all they care about js basketball then keep them the hell away from colleges, where many of them have no business being in the first place.

[brewcrewdue80]

This would be my idea to a solution. You want paid athletes in college. Well, since a scholarship and education isnt payment enough here you go:

 

If you're positive you wont stay in the school 4years, you take on a paid student athlete. You are paid twice the enrollment cost and not provided a scholarship. So you lose half to pay for your schooling every year you attend. 1 year? Well there you go. 2?, 3? Okay. But 4 is not paid to you. Your plan was to advance to the next level and not get your 4year education. Not taking a scholarship, allows you to leave school before your senior year.

 

You don't take that route, then you are given the 4year scholarship and you have to stay in the school not allowed to leave early. Guaranteeing the "student athletes" their ability to achive an education. An education that should lead to a successful career without entering professional level.

 

I don't know how that will affect the likes of Kentucky or Alabama for football. But you will have an answer to how long a recruit will be with the team. And since the paid student athlete, pays his years in that college, what he does in his schooling is his business. The school didnt give him a free ride, they paid him to perform for their school.

[DHonks]

college athletes should be paid.

[MrTPlush]

I really don't see any issue. There are only two criminal abusers of stacking up "one and done" players(Kentucky and Duke). Sure they are pretty successful every year(usually) it isn't like they are winning the championship or even making the final four at incredible rates. Also who freaking cares if Lonzo Ball doesn't go to class. I care what he is doing to entertain me on the court. I also don't think his interview was bad and definitely not something one should generalize all "one and done" players on. Most have the thought to wait a little bit to announce something like that.

 

 

Feels like one of those, "I don't like the rule because my team can't benefit from it". Because we all know if a Top 10 recruit picked Wisconsin the entire state would be jumping for joy.

 

I don't think it really benefits the NBA that much, but it sure benefits college basketball to have guys forced to come through them.

[MrTPlush]

college athletes should be paid.

 

I hope you are referring to the ones making their schools money and not money pit athletic teams. However how do you then base their salary? Surely the bench warmer isn't getting paid the same as the star player. Do you pay them at the end of the season? Because a lot of times you can't predict who is going to be "worth" the most. Also if we are paying them does that then allow selling the players name on merchandise? Do colleges then get to bid and the player goes to the school offering him more money?

 

A lot more complicated than just saying lets pay them.

[nodakfan17]

college athletes should be paid.

You could make an argument for college football and men's basketball players (the main revenue sports), but then you're poking a hornet's nest of equity issues. I sympathize with football players because there are no professional options aside from the NFL, but every other athlete has the ability to go pro after high school (including men's basketball players via the D-League or Europe). If you check your favorite university's financials, you will undoubtedly learn that over 95% of athletic teams lose money (and some of them lose a lot of money).

 

As for the topic at hand - I don't like it, but I'm not aware of any obvious solutions.

[Menotti80]

Nodak- technically there is the CFL and Arena league, but I see your point.

 

 

I would lean towards just getting rid of the 1 and done rule

[pacopete4]

If you allow payment, is there regulation for it? Who can pay them? The colleges themselves? Rich donators? Businesses? If the richer universities are allowed to sink even more money into acquiring players, what happens to the smaller universities?

[danzig6767]

I didn't want to hijack the Bucks thread or the College Basketball thread because I wanted to talk specifically about this rule.

 

Back when high school players were allowed to declare for the NBA draft I thought they needed a rule preventing that because I thought it was really watering down the NBA. Lots of players being drafted just to sit on the bench and "develop". The one year rule wasn't what I preferred but I liked it and thought it was better than nothing.

 

Boy was I wrong. The one and done rule is a joke. People like John Calipari have been taking advantage of it and basically telling recruits yeah if you only want to spend one year in college then go on to the NBA then come here.

Calipari isn't taking advantage of anything. He simply recruits the higher level available recruits and many choose Kentucky, but a lot also go elsewhere and leave after a year whether it's Duke or other power 5 conference schools. Henry Ellenson chose Marquette and everyone knew he was only staying on year.

 

I don't have a problem with the rule given high revenue college sports like basketball and football aren't anything close to amateur athletics which it was supposed to be. College basketball and football are multi-billion dollar businesses where the actual employees don't get paid beyond a scholarship and much of the revenue they generate instead goes to the coaches and to support the non-revenue generating sports.

 

If say they changed the rule so kids had to spend two years in college, high talent guys would leave then after two years of often taking bogus classes just to keep them eligible. North Carolina had a "scandal" where it came out that for years they were doing all kinds of shady stuff to keep basketball and football players eligible so the university could keep raking in millions. Everyone knows that this goes on elsewhere, North Carolina just got caught is all.

 

Low revenue sports seem like what amateur college athletics were designed for. Football and basketball though, they have billion dollar plus TV deals. High profile coaches make 5-10 million per, often as much or more than pro coaches. These are pro sports masquerading as amateur athletics, minus the ones on the court/football field getting paid like a pro athlete.

[paul253]

I absolutely positively disagree that college athletes, even basketball and football players, should be paid. For one, they already receive full scholarships which include tuition, room and board, books, and food. For a 4 year student, which most athletes are, you're talking probably close to or even over $100,000. If they choose not to value their education that's their problem. As someone who will be paying $800 a month for ten years to lay off my wife's students loans it just irritates the crap out of me when people act as though these scholarships aren't anything.

 

Additionally, even though these schools are making oodles of money off of the basketball and football programs, it's not like the athletes aren't benefitting either. Try making it to the NFL without an NCAA team giving you the opportunity to play. Good luck. The schools provide them with the exposure they need to showcase and improve their skills enough to make it to the NFL, where in turn they will make more money in one lousy year of playing a game then you or I will make in our entire lifetime. For those who don't make it to the pros, again, they receive tens of thousands of dollars in scholarship money to get heir degree. If they choose not to take advantage of that that's their problem And many of them are admitted into schools that they'd never in a million years have been able to go to if they weren't good at a sport.

 

I like Nigel Hayes as a player but I can't stand his little act. If he is such a "poor student athlete" who can't even afford his lunch.....if the NCAA is taking advantage of him and not giving him what he "deserves".....if being a college athlete is such a difficult and unfair thing.....then quit. Go do what 99.9% of us do and pay for school yourself. Do what I did and work a third shift job and go class afterwards and then tell us all how hard being an athlete is. Go pay student loans for the next ten or fifteen years of your life like the rest of us do. Im sorry but I don't think these players realize how much of a break they've gotten for being good at a sport. And don't get me wrong, I get how difficult the travel and the practice can be. But they signed up for it. They knew what to expect going into this thing. If it's too hard or too unfair then walk away.

[danzig6767]

If you allow payment, is there regulation for it? Who can pay them? The colleges themselves? Rich donators? Businesses? If the richer universities are allowed to sink even more money into acquiring players, what happens to the smaller universities?

The richer schools already do this. Take a look at the myriad of facilities of big time college athletics. A lot of them are as good or better facilities than pro teams have.

 

Lower revenue schools can't afford practice and stadium facilities like that, so it's just another reason among others why they can't land the higher level recruits. The big conferences also have their own TV channels.

 

The better recruits want to go to schools on TV all of the time, that have amazing facilities, and that win. Those end up being the high revenue universities and athletic departments.

 

Top 100 recruits in basketball or football aren't picking mid-majors with inferior facilities and with no TV deals over power five conferences.

[danzig6767]

 

I like Nigel Hayes as a player but I can't stand his little act. If he is such a "poor student athlete" who can't even afford his lunch.....if the NCAA is taking advantage of him and not giving him what he "deserves".....if being a college athlete is such a difficult and unfair thing.....then quit.

That's the last thing NCAA programs like Wisconsin and others would like if most of the better talents said screw the NCAA for making boatloads of cash off our talents. Good luck getting billion dollar TV deals to get people watching low talent athletes. What's the attendance and TV coverage for Division 2 and 3 basketball and football. Nonexistent.

 

If hypothetically every college basketball player in the power conferences said we aren't playing unless we get a bigger cut of those billions, the NCAA would be screwed. It would be akin to when the NFL players went on strike years ago and the league tried hiring replacement players. The product sucked because the talent did and fans didn't want to watch or attend.

 

It's not that these college athletes get nothing. A scholarship has financial value. That said, it's not close to equaling the financial value they bring their universities. That is the point. A kid gets caught say selling his autograph on a jersey for some spending money, he gets suspended, yet the school can sell that same jersey with the player's name on it for 120 bucks and he doesn't get a penny of it.

 

This is a racket where everyone involved makes a ton of cash from coaches, universities, networks, etc, all except the athletes themselves who are the product.

[paul253]

If hypothetically every college basketball player in the power conferences said we aren't playing unless we get a bigger cut of those billions, the NCAA would be screwed

 

I doubt this would ever happen because the majority of the kids realize how lucky they are to be given the scholarships and to play a game they love and receive the exposure they do. Most of them realize they have it pretty good. Plus, while NCAA may be screwed the schools sure as hell wouldn't be. Becuase they are schools. The people who would be hurt most by this would probably be athletes in non profit sports becuase the schools might not be able to afford the costs of travel and equipment costs for those sports. If they did that the schools could simply yank these guys scholarships and most of them wouldn't be able to afford to go to school there anymore. Send them a bill for a semesters worth of tuition and room and board and we'll see how long that strike lasts.

 

it's not that these college athletes get nothing. A scholarship has financial value. That said, it's not close to equaling the financial value they bring their universities. That is the point

 

So what. That's life. Name one company in America where the average employees gets an equivalent potion of their company's profits. If they don't feel this is fair, that they are being taken advantage of, then quit. Do what Brandon Jennings did and go play in Europe. Nobody is forcing them to go to school. College atheletes are amateurs. Meaning they do not get paid. They know this going in. If they don't like it then don't participate. Of course this would be much easier if the NBA changed their stupid one year rule.

 

A kid gets caught say selling his autograph on a jersey for some spending money, he gets suspended, yet the school can sell that same jersey with the player's name on it for 120 bucks and he doesn't get a penny of it

 

Just for clarity's sake I don't think stores are allowed to sell jerseys with players names on them. I think the NCAA prohibits that. I get your point, but again I go back to the argument that if you don't like it then you don't have to participate. If Nigel Hayes wants to sell his autographs then he can quit the team and he is free to do so.

 

this is a racket where everyone involved makes a ton of cash from coaches, universities, networks, etc, all except the athletes themselves who are the product

 

Except that the athletes get a scholarship worth tens of thousands of dollars and the opportunity to get an education from a school many of them would never ever be able to afford to or qualiify to get into. Again, people are so quick to discount the scholarship but anyone who is stuck paying hundreds of dollars a month for years and years can tell you how valuable a free college degree really is.

[jerichoholicninja]

If they would just allow the players to make money off of their own name by doing autograph signings and endorsements the majority of the problem would go away. Any other kid on any other scholarship at any school can get paid to do the thing that got them the scholarship. A kid on a music scholarship can go and play a concert or record an album and get paid for it. But a football player can't sell some signed 8x10's for $10 a pop.

[paul253]

It's a slippery slope. You need to make sure boosters aren't handing players $100 bills for a $10 autograph and telling them keep the change. I think maybe what i could get on board with is the NCAA taking their percentage of earnings, pooling it all together, then handing it out equally amongst every scholarship athlete. But again, these players are already getting a benefit. Some just don't see it as a benefit because they don't care about school.

[DHonks]

I absolutely positively disagree that college athletes, even basketball and football players, should be paid. For one, they already receive full scholarships which include tuition, room and board, books, and food. For a 4 year student, which most athletes are, you're talking probably close to or even over $100,000. If they choose not to value their education that's their problem. As someone who will be paying $800 a month for ten years to lay off my wife's students loans it just irritates the crap out of me when people act as though these scholarships aren't anything.

 

Additionally, even though these schools are making oodles of money off of the basketball and football programs, it's not like the athletes aren't benefitting either. Try making it to the NFL without an NCAA team giving you the opportunity to play. Good luck. The schools provide them with the exposure they need to showcase and improve their skills enough to make it to the NFL, where in turn they will make more money in one lousy year of playing a game then you or I will make in our entire lifetime. For those who don't make it to the pros, again, they receive tens of thousands of dollars in scholarship money to get heir degree. If they choose not to take advantage of that that's their problem And many of them are admitted into schools that they'd never in a million years have been able to go to if they weren't good at a sport.

 

I like Nigel Hayes as a player but I can't stand his little act. If he is such a "poor student athlete" who can't even afford his lunch.....if the NCAA is taking advantage of him and not giving him what he "deserves".....if being a college athlete is such a difficult and unfair thing.....then quit. Go do what 99.9% of us do and pay for school yourself. Do what I did and work a third shift job and go class afterwards and then tell us all how hard being an athlete is. Go pay student loans for the next ten or fifteen years of your life like the rest of us do. Im sorry but I don't think these players realize how much of a break they've gotten for being good at a sport. And don't get me wrong, I get how difficult the travel and the practice can be. But they signed up for it. They knew what to expect going into this thing. If it's too hard or too unfair then walk away.

 

 

This is an easy perspective for most of us, but it's also misguided. Growing up in a middle class family, I would have agreed with Paul253, but I've moved beyond that. Many college football and basketball players (along with other sports) are from situations of poverty. I've heard countless stories of college athletes that can't afford to go on a date, because they have no money. I've heard stories of athletes that HAVE to go pro because they can't afford their free college career (how weird to say). NCAA rules severely restrict job opportunities for athletes, or else Ohio St boosters would be paying football players $100k for answering phones during their summers. So the NCAA basically tells people they have to uphold the purity of amateur status while working crazy hours. I favor a tiered system where college football and basketball players would receive roughly $2-5k per year, lesser sports perhaps $1-2k per year. Maybe conferences would get together to set uniform amounts for their schools. In theory, I'd love to see college athletes working without pay, instead grateful for all they are receiving. It was pretty funny in South Park when Cartman went to a university to ask questions about their slave labor.

[WV Brew]

This would be an easy problem to fix. Just deny the school the replacement scholarship until the player's class graduates. One year--you lose a scholarship for 3 years. If the player doesn't go to class semester 2--lose the scholarship for 3 1/2 years (assuming one semester's successful study).

[nodakfan17]

This would be an easy problem to fix. Just deny the school the replacement scholarship until the player's class graduates. One year--you lose a scholarship for 3 years. If the player doesn't go to class semester 2--lose the scholarship for 3 1/2 years (assuming one semester's successful study).

That's a very interesting solution to curb the number of one-and-done basketball players and I'd entertain it.

 

You'd essentially be forcing Kentucky or Duke to go without a scholarship for 3 years if they recruit a NBA lottery pick. Does that mean that the blue chip programs recruit fewer one-and-done players? Maybe that helps bring lottery picks to other schools and boost parity? However, I could see someone making the argument that temporarily eliminating a scholarship only limits opportunities for other would-be student athletes - and the NCAA is all about the student athletes (sarcasm).

[nodakfan17]

If they would just allow the players to make money off of their own name by doing autograph signings and endorsements the majority of the problem would go away. Any other kid on any other scholarship at any school can get paid to do the thing that got them the scholarship. A kid on a music scholarship can go and play a concert or record an album and get paid for it. But a football player can't sell some signed 8x10's for $10 a pop.

In theory, I love this idea. It might even help reduce the number of one-and-done basketball players, as I could see the shoe companies signing future lottery picks to "holding deals." As a matter of principle, I think anyone should be able to profit from their own likeness (with few exceptions ... OJ's If I Did It comes to mind). However, what's stopping a wealthy alum / business owner from hiring an entire football team to appear in a commercial and paying each player a large "talent fee?" Suppose players start choosing this school because they want to appear in the "annual commercial" - now you're basically just paying players.