NCAA one and done rule

[tmwiese55]

College basketball players essentially sign contracts with the university to play basketball for them, along with the other things that go along with just playing. HS kids do not and their admittance, attendance, and tuition (well besides some shady private schools) is not contingent on them playing ball. Pretty big difference to me.

[pacopete4]

Boy, if you don't see the difference between a college athlete and a high school one this debate might as well end.

[danzig6767]

Yes.....when they hold a job. Playing basketball isn't a job. It's an activity. It's a playing a game. It's something tens of millions of people do around the country for fun.

 

 

Tens of millions of people write code for fun. Should college students not get paid for doing that?

Tens of millions of people cook for fun, should college students not get paid for doing that?

 

The basis of your argument is flawed.

 

http://college.usatoday.com/2016/10/20/should-athletes-be-paid-to-play/

 

Athletes work more than most students. The NCAA has a regulation that is intended to limit training for players to 20 hours per week. Would you be surprised to learn that very few athletes reported only practicing 20 hours per week? According to an NCAA survey conducted in 2011, Division I football players averaged 43 hours a week. Baseball came in second with 42.1 hours and men’s basketball came in third with 39.2. These are in-season numbers. This means that on top of class work and homework, athletes are working a full-time job.....

 

...stipends average between $2,000 and $5,000 annually. How many of us can live off of $2,000 a year? To put this in context, let’s say I work for a company that offers tuition assistance. Let’s say that this company offers to assist my whole tuition for being a full-time employee, but my paycheck every two weeks works out to be $77. Could I live off that? Even as a full-time employee with access to the employee cafeteria? I don’t think many of us could, yet we expect athletes to do so.

Yea, to me this comes down to a simple monetary question.

 

You either believe believe that the college athletes/the actual product in multi-billion dollar businesses only deserve a sliver of the revenues generated, while the coaches, universities, and the NCAA deserve the rest or you feel they deserve a bigger share than that sliver.

 

The fact that some want to drone on about that they had to pay back hefty student loans and these college athletes don't have to is irrelevant to me. People with an in demand gift or skill are always a higher placed commodity compared to the average person and thus rightly so receive benefits that others don't.

[paul253]

Of course there are differences between high school and college athletes. I was speaking specifically in terms of how playing affects their status. If you are saying signing a contract that gives free tuition and other stuff in exchange for playing basketball makes them an employee of the university then does that mean people on music or academic scholarships are also employees? After all they receive scholarships and other perks which are contingent on certain things, usually grades. How are they different, other than the fact that they don't bring in as much money? And what about students who participate in research that brings in millions of dollars of grants? Are they employees too? Should they be getting paid?

 

As I said this all comes down to money. You can't legitimately argue these players are employees for no other reason then the fact that the school makes money off of the team they play for. They are not employees. Period.

[danzig6767]

 

I believe the new NBA CBA allows for a couple flex roster spots to bounce back and forth from the D league and the salary is going up to 75K in the D league as opposed to like 25k now. So this is the route the NBA seems to be taking to try and fix this argument along with keeping the best 'next tier' guys in USA easily accessed by the NBA rather than on a contract in Europe. This seems like a good first step to me. I guess I'm not sure if they'll allow HS kids to play a year there and then get drafted though, I mean, if they're going to allow that then why not just let them go to the NBA? Maybe that's the next step though, they want to establish the D league more and get a team affiliated with every NBA team and then they'll allow the rule to be dropped? Maybe IDK.

I think things are fine how they are.

 

The vast majority of college basketball players stay 2-4 years in school. Only a small percentage leave after one year and for those one and done players, i think they benefit from a year in college instead of going directly to the pros from high school. That year in college gives them a chance to play against a higher level of play compared to high school, get coaching, and spend a year living on their own to ease that shift at least somewhat for when they become a pro.

 

Sure, for fans of college basketball, they'd like to see the best talents play for more than a single season, but it shouldn't be about what fans want. Those high talent kids should be able to go into the draft and see where the NBA views their skillset. At least though college basketball fans do get to see them in that environment for a year vs never seeing them if they could go pro directly from high school.

 

So I don't see a big reason to change things given the current system is good for everyone involved from the players to college basketball and the NBA.

[FVBrewerFan]

Yea, to me this comes down to a simple monetary question.

 

You either believe believe that the college athletes/the actual product in multi-billion dollar businesses only deserve a sliver of the revenues generated, while the coaches, universities, and the NCAA deserve the rest or you feel they deserve a bigger share than that sliver.

 

The fact that some want to drone on about that they had to pay back hefty student loans and these college athletes don't have to is irrelevant to me. People with an in demand gift or skill are always a higher placed commodity compared to the average person and thus rightly so receive benefits that others don't.

 

It is that simple. And since it will be impossible to determine how much revenue Koenig is worth vs the backup punter on the football team, why even try? No matter what they get paid it won't make any sense. And if these guys were paid large sums of money, it would create all sorts of bad consequences.

 

Increase the stipend, sure, but then move on. If these basketball players want to get paid, they can go overseas and get paid instead of going to college here. Why don't they? Because they know darn well they're better off going to college here and being set with plenty of job offers when they graduate. As for the guys that actually make it the NBA, that's their payoff.

[danzig6767]

Increasing the stipend quite a bit would be reasonable. I wasn't saying the players should be getting say 250 thousand a year on top of their scholarship.

[paul253]

The fact that some want to drone on about that they had to pay back hefty student loans and these college athletes don't have to is irrelevant to me.

 

You're missing the point then. This isn't about me being jealous that I have student loan debt and they don't. It's about people completely discounting the $200,000 or so in benefits they already receive over the course of their career. It is relevant because it's part of compensation package. Just becuase they don't see the money in terms of a monthly check doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

People with an in demand gift or skill are always a higher placed commodity compared to the average person and thus rightly so receive benefits that others don't

 

Benefits like full scholarships and priority in getting into schools they couldn't normally get into? This isn't about them not being rewarded for their talent. It's about whether or not the rewards they already receive are enough.

 

stipends average between $2,000 and $5,000 annually. How many of us can live off of $2,000 a year? To put this in context, let’s say I work for a company that offers tuition assistance. Let’s say that this company offers to assist my whole tuition for being a full-time employee, but my paycheck every two weeks works out to be $77. Could I live off that

 

Do you also get free food, free rent to include cable and Internet , and free healthcare? Then I'd say yes.

 

Increasing the stipend quite a bit would be reasonable. I wasn't saying the players should be getting say 250 thousand a year on top of their scholarship.

 

I'm just curious but what do you think a good and fair number is?

 

Also, whatever they decide, the number should be the same throughout the NCAA. I realize the cost of living is different in California then it is in Norman Oklahoma but it's already being used as a recruiting tool and any greater disparity will only cause it to be used more as a tool for recruiting than as a basic lifeline, which is seems like it's supposed to be considered it's referred to as a cost of living payment.

 

Regarding the one and done. I realize it's an NBA rule causing it so the NCAA is pretty powerless to stop it. One thing they could do is mandate scholarships to be two (or three, whichever they prefer) years and if the player doesn't stay that long as is part of the scholarship agreement they are required to repay the school the full costs of the scholarship. I realize when the really good players sign huge contracts repayment will be a drop in the hat to them but I think it'll deter those borderline first round second guys who may not receive a guaranteed contract.

 

I personally would like to see elite talent remain in college three to four years but I don't think it'll kill the game if they aren't. Some of the best teams have nobody that'll end up in the NBA. And some of the best players are in teams that are horrible so clearly that aren't that much of a help. I personally don't really care if they let high schoolers enter the draft or make kids start at least three years but either is better than the current system.

[danzig6767]

 

Regarding the one and done. I realize it's an NBA rule causing it so the NCAA is pretty powerless to stop it. One thing they could do is mandate scholarships to be two (or three, whichever they prefer) years and if the player doesn't stay that long as is part of the scholarship agreement they are required to repay the school the full costs of the scholarship. I realize when the really good players sign huge contracts repayment will be a drop in the hat to them but I think it'll deter those borderline first round second guys who may not receive a guaranteed contract.

 

Why should a player leaving after only one season have to pay back a single penny to the school he played for?

 

That player will have provided more financial value to his university than the other way around, yet you want the player to be financially penalized. Hell, many of these schools don't care if these players go the class for the second semester.

 

I don't get why you and others have such an issue with a small percentage of each freshman class who declare for the draft? Or why you feel it hurts college basketball more than if kids could enter the draft straight from high school instead?

 

I'm very glad that i got to watch talents like Anthony Davis, Oden, Durant, Carmelo, Wall, Rose, Wiggins, Parker, Ball, and countless other guys like them on a college court and in the NCAA Tournament, even if it was only for one year instead of them going directly to the pros from high school. And i wish i could have seen others like LeBron, Kobe, and Garnett play a year in college instead of them going directly to the pros.

 

I just fail to see any big problem with the current set up for anyone involved.

 

1. It helps the college game by the best high school talent playing at least a year in college for fans of the sport to watch vs never seeing that.

 

2. The players get a year of playing better competition. Mature physically and mentally. Experience a new culture of people as they live alone for the first time before having to do so as a pro.

 

3. The NBA gets to evaluate these high school raw talents against much better competition in college before drafting them and those players get a year of seasoning on the court before entering the league.

 

So who exactly is losing out so much by this current set up? It's not perfect, but it's about as good as i can think of beyond wrongly forcing high talent college basketball players to stay in school longer at a fraction of their financial worth.

 

FWIW, I get mandating one year via the age requirement is arbitrary in it's own right, but overall i think it's a pretty good compromise for everyone involved.

[tmwiese55]

I agree with Danzig. Seems a good compromise overall even though I don't agree with the principal of it. I don't see how our being entertained better should outweigh the right of that person to do what's best for him

[paul253]

I don't get why you and others have such an issue with a small percentage of each freshman class who declare for the draft? Or why you feel it hurts college basketball more than if kids could enter the draft straight from high school instead

 

I think it hurts college basketball in a sense that certain players are there not becuase they want to be but because they have to be. And I think the rule pretty much assures the best kids are going to the same 8-10 schools every year (Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, North Carolina, Michigan St, UCLA, etc) becuase there is such a high turnover at those schools each year and they are basically NBA factories. I also think it's kinda of a joke to force kids who clearly don't want to be there to do it. They don't take school seriously, if they even bother to show up at all, which completely dumps on the fact that they are supposed to be students. To me the whole idea of college sports is for college students to play sports, not for colleges to serve as a minor league for the NBA and NFL, which is essentially what they have become.

 

That player will have provided more financial value to his university than the other way around, yet you want the player to be financially penalized

 

Maybe maybe not. Do you think Sacar Anim brings in $50,000 in financial value to Marquette each year? I sure don't. So now you get into which players are more valuable then others. How do you do that? And whats next? Each school gets to decide how valuable a player is and offer him that amount of money to go there?

 

And the "penalty" would be for essentially breaking a contract. It's not a new concept. The contract requires you to go to school for two years. If you choose not to do that you face the penalty. That's only a suggestion as to how to get kids to stay longer.

 

Hell, many of these schools don't care if these players go the class for the second semester.

 

Which is precisely the problem. These are still schools. If the kids are not even made to go to class what's the point of having them go to school in the first place?

 

. It helps the college game by the best high school talent playing at least a year in college for fans of the sport to watch vs never seeing that

 

I don't disagree. But I honestly don't really care if the really good ones would go straight to the NBA. There are more than enough talented players to play in college. And I get annoyed seeing players like Ben Simmons and Lonzo Ball who couldn't care less about their college career. I admit they are the exception but they shouldn't be in college.

 

. The players get a year of playing better competition. Mature physically and mentally. Experience a new culture of people as they live alone for the first time before having to do so as a pro.

 

Again I don't disagree. But shouldn't that be their choice? If they feel as though they are physically and mentally able to play in the NBA then shouldn't they have the right to make that decision?

 

The NBA gets to evaluate these high school raw talents against much better competition in college before drafting them and those players get a year of seasoning on the court before entering the league

 

Then the NBA can create their own minor league rather than having the NCAA serve that role for them. A kid shouldn't be in college for the sole purpose of becoming a more seasoned basketball player. That's not what college is for.

[danzig6767]

I don't get why you and others have such an issue with a small percentage of each freshman class who declare for the draft? Or why you feel it hurts college basketball more than if kids could enter the draft straight from high school instead

I think it hurts college basketball in a sense that certain players are there not becuase they want to be but because they have to be. And I think the rule pretty much assures the best kids are going to the same 8-10 schools every year (Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, North Carolina, Michigan St, UCLA, etc) becuase there is such a high turnover at those schools each year and they are basically NBA factories.

The best recruits have been going to the most popular and successful programs at the time forever. Today is nothing new. If anything, this one and done factor has hurt some of these upper tier programs because instead of the elite players staying multiple years, they leave after only one and then they have to play with a bunch of new freshman next season. Plus, outside of mainly Kentucky and Duke, the rest of the one and done kids tend to be spread out across the country. For all of Calipari's loaded recuriting classes, he has only one title at Kentucky. Same as Tubby Smith.

 

I also think it's kinda of a joke to force kids who clearly don't want to be there to do it. They don't take school seriously, if they even bother to show up at all, which completely dumps on the fact that they are supposed to be students.

Come on, this is far from a one and done issue. Your idealistic view of what college athletics should be when it comes to major conference football and basketball went out the window a long time ago when these sports became massive revenue streams.

 

For decades many schools have been cheating when recruiting players. They recruit kids with criminal, including violent criminal records. Cover up criminal activity on campus of athletes.

 

Have lowered academic standards to help admit elite recruits who aren't anywhere near prepared to handle a college curriculum. Pack those kids who aren't ready for college and don't care much about graduating into easy to pass classes solely to keep them eligible to play. Schools have been busted manipulating grades and/or having others do classwork of star athletes. And those were only schools who were caught. Etc etc to keep non-students eligible.

 

Granted, not all schools behave this way, but a large amount do in both sports. So to get bothered by the fact that maybe 30 kids a year in an overall freshman class of basketball players don't care about class work because they intend to go pro after one year when the whole college athletics system at so many schools is a cesspool of proof that the athletes are athletes first second and third before students is something i don't get.

 

Remove those 30-40 one and done kids a year and college basketball/football will remain the same cesspool of shady recruiting and a whole bunch of schools who care vastly more about what athletes can do on the court or field than their academic abilities or aspirations.

 

FWIW, this is a big reason why i think players deserve more. If the vast majority of these schools actually treated basketball and football as student first endeavors and cared more about graduating athletes instead of treating them much more as athletic commodities to advance their athletic department budgets, i'd feel less harshly about the NCAA in this.

A kid shouldn't be in college for the sole purpose of becoming a more seasoned basketball player. That's not what college is for.

Tell that to all of the schools who simply don't care as long as athletes help their team win games. They could demand any athlete enrolled has to be attending class. So could the NCAA. You know, the overseers these multi-billion dollar "amateur sports" where they claim the main objective is to educate kids who also happen to be talented athletes, but regularly show that's just word vomit..

[paul253]

If anything, this one and done factor has hurt some of these upper tier programs because instead of the elite players staying multiple years, they leave after only one and then they have to play with a bunch of new freshman next season.

 

All they do is replace them with more one and done players. Kansas, UNC, Kentucky and Duke are hardly being hurt from this rule.

 

For all of Calipari's loaded recuriting classes, he has only one title at Kentucky.

 

To go along with one other championship game appearance, four final four appearances and six elite 8s in 9 seasons. Not exactly struggling to find success with his new freshmen each year.

 

Come on, this is far from a one and done issue. Your idealistic view of what college athletics should be when it comes to major conference football and basketball went out the window a long time ago when these sports became massive revenue streams.

 

For decades many schools have been cheating when recruiting players. They recruit kids with criminal, including violent criminal records. Cover up criminal activity on campus of athletes.

 

Have lowered academic standards to help admit elite recruits who aren't anywhere near prepared to handle a college curriculum. Pack those kids who aren't ready for college and don't care much about graduating into easy to pass classes solely to keep them eligible to play. Schools have been busted manipulating grades and/or having others do classwork of star athletes. And those were only schools who were caught. Etc etc to keep non-students eligible.

 

This is an entirely different conversation. All this happens because he NCAA is powerless to stop it. But encouraging to happen more often doesn't seem likely the best idea to me.

 

FWIW, this is a big reason why i think players deserve more. If the vast majority of these schools actually treated basketball and football as student first endeavors and cared more about graduating athletes instead of treating them much more as athletic commodities to advance their athletic department budgets, i'd feel less harshly about the NCAA in this.

 

So instead we just go in the complete opposite direction and basically hire these specific kids to play basketball for a year? Why even keep up the facade of being student athletes then? Why not just make them all professional basketball players?

 

. They could demand any athlete enrolled has to be attending class. So could the NCAA. You know, the overseers these multi-billion dollar "amateur sports" where they claim the main objective is to educate kids who also happen to be talented athletes, but regularly show that's just word vomit

 

You're right they could. And I think they should. It doesn't seem like you agree.

 

As far as the NCAA goes their ability to enforce their own rules is a joke. Players have flat out come out and said "yes I took benefits" and the NCAA still can't complete a proper investigation. Without subpoena power they can't mandate anyone to testify and without that power their only real shot is to find someone who is bitter and looking to take down an entire school (think of what's happening at Ole Miss right now) but that rarely happens.

[danzig6767]

If anything, this one and done factor has hurt some of these upper tier programs because instead of the elite players staying multiple years, they leave after only one and then they have to play with a bunch of new freshman next season.

All they do is replace them with more one and done players. Kansas, UNC, Kentucky and Duke are hardly being hurt from this rule.

The big name basketball schools were getting the better recruits before this one and done situation and will keep getting them whether the rule stays in place or changes. It's not as if those programs sucked until the one and done kids turned them into powerhouses.

 

As for Calipari, those recruits he gets are available to other coaches to land. He's just the best recruiter in the game. Similar to Saban in college football.

 

Here is a list of all Final Four teams ever, nothing different about today vs the past. Prime time programs mixed in with other power 5 schools changing from year to year.

 

http://www.allbrackets.com/

 

This is an entirely different conversation. All this happens because he NCAA is powerless to stop it.

No it's not. It shows loud and clear the real main objective behind major college basketball and football at a significant number of schools, and it isn't about educating students who happen to also be good at sports. As for the NCAA, they aren't losing any sleep over this fact so long as those massive checks from the TV networks keep coming in.

 

So instead we just go in the complete opposite direction and basically hire these specific kids to play basketball for a year? Why even keep up the facade of being student athletes then?

Exactly my point. Why bother with the facade of major college basketball and football being about student athletes at so many schools. A more fitting terminology would be athletes who are students in theory so we can keep them on the court and field and in turn make piles of cash off them. Granted that's a bit long compared to the tidy student athletes phrase that large numbers of schools and the NCAA uses, but it's more accurate.

[Baldkin]

https://www.theplayerstribune.com/nigel-hayes-wisconsin-basketball-graduation/