OT - Solution for the One and Done?? | Page 3 | The Boneyard

OT - Solution for the One and Done??

Status
Not open for further replies.
I love how half the posts are to require anyone who goes to college to play basketball becomes an employee of the college for x amount of years - but if we cross referenced with the threads about paying players I'm sure the inconsistencies in logic would be hilarious.

The title game was the highest rated basketball game since what 1998? You guys are trying to fix something that isn't broken in the eyes of the people who run it.
 
It is
whaler11 said:
I love how half the posts are to require anyone who goes to college to play basketball becomes an employee of the college for x amount of years - but if we cross referenced with the threads about paying players I'm sure the inconsistencies in logic would be hilarious.

The title game was the highest rated basketball game since what 1998? You guys are trying to fix something that isn't broken in the eyes of the people who run it.
Expand ...
The only inconsistencies here is your childish perspective of the world. A scholarship is a payment for playing sports. A
scholarship to Notre Dame for one year has probably $60,000 value. Ninety-five percent of the kids who sign up for a scholarships
will not earn $60,000 dollars playing a pro sport and certainly will not earn $60,000 living in mom's basement. Schools want a return for their investment, hence the years.
Scholarships evolved as a way to serve two purposes, one is to supply entertainment and a brand name for a college and the other is to give someone who could not afford college the opportunity to attend college.

And part of this "not being broken thing" you are smirking at is leaving UConn out of the picture all together.
 
pnow15 said:
It is

The only inconsistencies here is your childish perspective of the world. A scholarship is a payment for playing sports. A
scholarship to Notre Dame for one year has probably $60,000 value. Ninety-five percent of the kids who sign up for a scholarships
will not earn $60,000 dollars playing a pro sport and certainly will not earn $60,000 living in mom's basement. Schools want a return for their investment, hence the years.
Scholarships evolved as a way to serve two purposes, one is to supply entertainment and a brand name for a college and the other is to give someone who could not afford college the opportunity to attend college.

And part of this "not being broken thing" you are smirking at is leaving UConn out of the picture all together.
Expand ...

Listen genius: One and done is not harming anyone beyond the feelings and tastes of some fans.

Nobody makes schools recruit individual players. If you don't want your program 'harmed' by someone leaving after a year, don't offer them a scholarship.

It's a bit more inconsistent to pursue or hang on every word that Diamond Stone utters. Since you are a bit dense I'll point out that I'm referring to Ryan's comments and a few thousand posts on the Boneyard.
 
I like the one and done rule. Helps all 3 parties out IMO. The kids mature and learn about life even if they only stay in college for one year. NCAA in ensured that they get the best players for at least a year. NBA gets better developed prospects.
 
We've won two championships in this recent era of one and done's. I'm perfectly fine with the way it is now. We just need to continue to recruit a sprinkling of one or two AA's and surround them with some hard working lunch pail 4 year team player guys. We may not be in FF every single year but we will set ourselves up for NC's.
 
How about the NBA has a one week camp for high school seniors to show what they got. Based on their play, and body of work during their four years of high school, the NBA designates X number of players eligible for the draft if they so choose to. The others are forced to go to college for a minimum of 2 years before they're eligible for the draft. The NCAA would allow these high school players to go to the camp on the NBA's dime and not lose their immature eligibility, if you want to call it that.

If the player is selected in the first round, he's not eligible to go to college protecting the NBA team from ever losing that player. If one of the eligible draftees is not selected in the first round, they can choose to go to college but would have to stay for 2 years. And the NBA team that drafted that player in the second round would lose the rights to that player, if they did not sign that player before some designated date right before the draft two years later. That way it protects the player whose stock has risen dramatically to be able to get guaranteed first-round money. But would also allow the teams that drafted players that are still second round caliber to sign them.

I think this approach is a win-win for all. The player coming out of high school who is ready to play in the NBA or at least very close to playing at that level can choose to enter the draft. That keeps the quality of the NBA game solid. But it also protects NBA franchises from making mistakes and drafting players that aren't ready and may never be ready. Lastly it maintains a level of quality for the NCAA where very good players have time to develop while maintaining the quality of play in the college game that's hurt by one and done players who leave before leaving a solid or very high impact for their college program.

Granted this leaves the door open for a program to recruit a high school player that doesn't end up fulfilling his scholarship, but would prevent programs like Kentucky who might try to stockpile a bunch of top picks and end up losing multiple recruits leaving empty scholarships. For example maybe UConn would not have lost Andrew Bynum in this situation, while the team that signs a LeBron James would end up losing him.

They could do something similar for the college players after their sophomore and junior years to attend a camp that is invitation only to be further evaluated but this time rated for draft selectability. This way it gives them an idea where they stand. Unlike the current rule that doesn't allow them to return to college if they enter the draft, let these rising juniors and seniors choose to do so, but just once. Similar to the above, if the player is selected in the first round they can't return protecting the NBA franchise, but if selected in the 2nd round or not drafted, they can return, but the NBA team would retain their rights till some designated date before the next draft.

Doesn't that sound like a win-win for everyone?
 
Last edited:
The NCAA can't make eligibility rules to enhance the 'quality' of the sport. Once they do that - their arguments on 'amaturism' fly out the window.
 
whaler11 said:
The NCAA can't make eligibility rules to enhance the 'quality' of the sport. Once they do that - their arguments on 'amaturism' fly out the window.
Expand ...
Hasn't it already?
 
The solution to the problem is to stop calling it a problem.

There are thousands of college basketball players and as of right now, ten of them have decided to go pro after their freshman year.

That's not a problem.
 
DogMania said:
Hasn't it already?
Expand ...

The current arguments are already ridiculous for sure.

That's different than additional eligibility rules to enhance the quality of play.
 
Fishy said:
The solution to the problem is to stop calling it a problem.

There are thousands of college basketball players and as of right now, ten of them have decided to go pro after their freshman year.

That's not a problem.
Expand ...

Some college fans (mistakenly I agree) think it is a problem, but the real people who matter who say this situation is undesirable are the NBA owners. This is why the rule would change. They want to stop the selection of unproven players and want more time to evaluate players (also to continue not paying for that development). The Players Association want longer careers and to remove the age limit completely.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/1...nticipates-clash-age-limit-nbpa-attorney-says

As always, the NCAA can do nothing but be dictated to (except extreme action that will upset sponsors, like banning freshmen) and many compromises are tough to reconcile with amateurism. Obviously the baseball and hockey models work with NCAA rules, but the NBA itself would have to adopt it. That seems the most obvious compromise between the two positions right now anyways, so we'll see.
 
freescooter said:
You mean they wouldnever do it, because CBS and ESPN would howl. It absolutely would solve the problem and it would result in better quality NCAA basketball.
Expand ...
Exactly. I worded it poorly. But yes thats exactly my point.
 
TheChamps990411 said:
I think we need to start being realistic about this. First let me just say that imho )and the opinion of many in the league)the college game DOESN`T do much to prepare kids for the pros and seeing the state of the college game right now i dont see how this could really be argued. My simple solution is kids can go pro out of hs. If they go to college theyre locked in for 2 years. If they go to college and have a monster fr season and they dont want to be in college they can leave to play in europe for a year if theyre that desperate. I dont see the issue with this. if anyone does im all eyes.
Expand ...
 
whaler11 said:
I love how half the posts are to require anyone who goes to college to play basketball becomes an employee of the college for x amount of years - but if we cross referenced with the threads about paying players I'm sure the inconsistencies in logic would be hilarious.

The title game was the highest rated basketball game since what 1998? You guys are trying to fix something that isn't broken in the eyes of the people who run it.
Expand ...

I couldn't agree more with the first point, but I'm not "requiring" anyone to go, or stay, in college. Those arguments are silly. Quite the opposite, I'm suggesting players be allowed to go to college, while not having to worry about their draft status.

Using the ratings is somewhat unfair. Two of the biggest names in the sport made the championship game.

Also, something doesn't need to be broken to be improved. The time to replace the roof is when the sun is shining.
 
WingU-Conn said:
I couldn't agree more with the first point, but I'm not "requiring" anyone to go, or stay, in college. Those arguments are silly. Quite the opposite, I'm suggesting players be allowed to go to college, while not having to worry about their draft status.

Using the ratings is somewhat unfair. Two of the biggest names in the sport made the championship game.

Also, something doesn't need to be broken to be improved. The time to replace the roof is when the sun is shining.
Expand ...

The entire tournament had it's biggest ratings in a while. Since this is really about money... the motivation isn't exactly huge.

I don't disagree the game could be improved - but the NCAA can't dictate rules to the NBA.

I'm no lawyer but I don't see how the NBA increasing the age limitation any further wouldn't have a lot trouble standing up in court.
 
My suggestions weren't really meant to "fix" college basketball. Perhaps my post is titled poorly. My suggestion accomplishes (IMO) a few things:

1) Improve the quality of play in the NBA by bringing guys that are more developed
2) Improve the student part of the student-athlete by requiring them to finish in good standing.. Also by removing some of the uncertainty of the draft.
3) Allowing players to get the draft part out of the way so they can focus on school and development. If they are drafted as freshmen, then there is no all or nothing choice. They've been drafted, the option to go pro is there for a couple years. BUT, the option to remain a student and develop their game is also still there.

I think any suggestion requiring players to commit to a school/scholarship for anything more than 1 year is ridiculous and a non-starter. Taking away scholarships from schools because a player succeeded in his dream of going pro is nuts. I'm trying to give the players more options, not fewer.
 
whaler11 said:
The entire tournament had it's biggest ratings in a while. Since this is really about money... the motivation isn't exactly huge.

I don't disagree the game could be improved - but the NCAA can't dictate rules to the NBA.

I'm no lawyer but I don't see how the NBA increasing the age limitation any further wouldn't have a lot trouble standing up in court.
Expand ...

Fair enough. But my suggestions are nothing like many of the others in the thread. I don't think they would harm ratings in anyway.
 
WingU-Conn said:
Fair enough. But my suggestions are nothing like many of the others in the thread. I don't think they would harm ratings in anyway.
Expand ...

Your suggestions wouldn't harm the NCAA. They just don't make much sense for the NBA. Why would they add more risk to their process when they don't need to?

Why would they entrust their assets to be coached and trained by lesser staffs?
 
freescooter said:
You mean they wouldnever do it, because CBS and ESPN would howl. It absolutely would solve the problem and it would result in better quality NCAA basketball.
Expand ...

You think having more teams play walk-ons is going to improve the quality of college basketball?
 
whaler11 said:
Your suggestions wouldn't harm the NCAA. They just don't make much sense for the NBA. Why would they add more risk to their process when they don't need to?

Why would they entrust their assets to be coached and trained by lesser staffs?
Expand ...

They wouldn't be adding risk, they'd be mitigating risk. If they are taking a reach on a second round pick, they send him to an international league to try and develop. Wouldn't those players be better off developing in college? If they were to draft a HS senior, he can still play in college for a year or two and develop. I contest that's a better option than sending a kid to China.

They already routinely allow their assets to be coached and trained by lesser staffs. The Raptors sent Deandre Daniels to Australia, you really think he played under a better coaching staff there than if would have been allowed to finish his last year at UConn? The Australian league is a decent pro league, but I think he would have played with/against more future NBA players than over there. I also don't think the D League has better coaching than college. The D-League has the advantage of more games, but the owners don't have to pay the players while they're in college.

And lastly, if they really don't want the kid to return to college, they can make him a financial offer he can't refuse. This would allow the players like Wiggins, Parker, Okafor, and a few others to go straight to the NBA and avoid college. But it would mostly impact the guys who are borderline second round picks, or obvious physical talents (Drummond) that just needed a few years to develop.
 
You could change the risk reward ratio to teams if the NBA agreed that that the max contract you can sign an early departure to is limited to the number of years he played in college. So a one and done frosh could only be signed to a one year deal, a soph two years, junior three and senior could get a four year deal. You'd have to be pretty confident that a kid could help you right away to sign him as a freshman or even a sophomore. It would never happen though.
 
CL82 said:
You could change the risk reward ratio to teams if the NBA agreed that that the max contract you can sign an early departure to is limited to the number of years he played in college. So a one and done frosh could only be signed to a one year deal, a soph two years, junior three and senior could get a four year deal. You'd have to be pretty confident that a kid could help you right away to sign him as a freshman or even a sophomore. It would never happen though.
Expand ...

A lot of these "it would never happen" ideas would never happen because they're bad ideas. I'm not sure who this idea helps. The players get less security, and the teams are hamstrung.

The baseball model works because it allows the NBA to draft the players who are NBA-ready out of high school like they used to, but the rest of the kids actually have to go develop and get better for a few years. As a result, you're going to have a lot of polished, quality players entering the draft, which the NBA would like, and only the really elite players would be ready to compete with those guys out of high school, so those would be the only guys to go then. And, again, if they aren't drafted (or even don't sign), they should be allowed to go back and play in college, just like they do in baseball. That's a NCAA that the NCAA has the power to change. If they wouldn't do it, it's because of their fealty to the NBA, as this gives the players negotiating power, and the NBA doesn't want that.
 
CallMeBruce said:
A lot of these "it would never happen" ideas would never happen because they're bad ideas. I'm not sure who this idea helps. The players get less security, and the teams are hamstrung.

The baseball model works because it allows the NBA to draft the players who are NBA-ready out of high school like they used to, but the rest of the kids actually have to go develop and get better for a few years. As a result, you're going to have a lot of polished, quality players entering the draft, which the NBA would like, and only the really elite players would be ready to compete with those guys out of high school, so those would be the only guys to go then. And, again, if they aren't drafted (or even don't sign), they should be allowed to go back and play in college, just like they do in baseball. That's a NCAA that the NCAA has the power to change. If they wouldn't do it, it's because of their fealty to the NBA, as this gives the players negotiating power, and the NBA doesn't want that.
Expand ...
Mmm, it's a bad idea if you want the status quo. It's a good idea if you want to disincentivize (if it ain't a word, it ought to be) one and dones.

Who benefits? Well colleges and fans obviously would. If an institution makes an investment in a kid (and a year's worth of tuition and room and board, and instruction and travel is a pretty significant investment) they'd have a better chance to realize the reward that the kid would give them by playing longer. Fans would get to see kids play longer, that builds more loyalty, more enthusiasm and likely more money, both at the gate and via contributions.

The student athlete benefits if you accept the premise that being in school, maturing and getting an education is a good thing.

NBA teams benefit because they are more likely to get a decent return of their investment with a more mature player. The NBA owners as a whole benefits as it would likely slow down the ongoing escalation of salaries. Small market teams in particular would benefit from that but larger teams, who would no longer be forced to pick up a kid to keep an opponent from winning the lottery on him and then just dumping him in the D league, would benefit as well.

Now that I think through the pros and cons, I actually think it's not all that bad an idea. The player's union and big market teams would likely oppose it though.
 
The NBA has a salary cap that is tied to a percentage of revenues. There isn't any escalation of salaries they need to solve for.

Almost nothing here makes sense for the NBA - which is who makes the rules.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
229
Guests online
2,024
Total visitors
2,253
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
163,999
Messages
4,378,067
Members
10,169
Latest member
ctfb19382


.
..
Top Bottom