OT - One and Done is for Losers

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I wasn't aware the one and done rule (not actually called that) required a year of college; only a year removed from high school. Nothing says these kids can't go play a year of low level pro ball somewhere.

Brandon Jennings of the Milwaukee Bucks and a Rookie of the Year candidate actually played overseas (Greece?) when he graduated from Oak Hill. His whole family went with him to help him adjust. I believe he was the first to do this since the new rule. Another kid went to do the same thing this year, but apparently his 'experiment' isn't going so well.
As much as he is loathed by some (unenlightened ones?!) Bobby Knight has the best read on the situation. He says that players should have to stay 2 years if they enroll. As it stands now, players just have to qualify to get into school, enroll in the minimum number of hours and that is it. After that they can carry "Incompletes" for first semester grades and just blow off the second semester. Since they are not coming back than who cares? Where as if they were required a minimum 2 years, they would at least have to pass one year of college level classes.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Judtech

Brandon Jennings of the Milwaukee Bucks and a Rookie of the Year candidate actually played overseas (Greece?) when he graduated from Oak Hill. His whole family went with him to help him adjust. I believe he was the first to do this since the new rule. Another kid went to do the same thing this year, but apparently his 'experiment' isn't going so well.
As much as he is loathed by some (unenlightened ones?!) Bobby Knight has the best read on the situation. He says that players should have to stay 2 years if they enroll. As it stands now, players just have to qualify to get into school, enroll in the minimum number of hours and that is it. After that they can carry "Incompletes" for first semester grades and just blow off the second semester. Since they are not coming back than who cares? Where as if they were required a minimum 2 years, they would at least have to pass one year of college level classes.

My feelings for Knight amount to a mixture of respect, pity, and disdain. Let me ask, though, has the enlightened one elaborated on just how, exactly, he plans on enforcing this two-year requirement?

If a requirement is going to be any good, there has to be some way of enforcing it or it's not really a requirement.

I don't think you can hold coaches responsible for this, because it's ultimately the student's choice of whether to stay in school.

Frankly, I don't see it as much of a problem to be honest. Each year you're going to have what, half a dozen players do this? So? Who cares? The school/coach gets what they want, and the player gets his prime time TV time along with glowing words from Dukie Vitale to help his NBA stock. The school may not be paying him, but some NBA team will gladly reward him for that year. If he wants paid, he can get paid in Bismarck or Athens. The NBA scouts will find him.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Let me ask, though, has the enlightened one elaborated on just how, exactly, he plans on enforcing this two-year requirement?

The solution is simply to change how scholarships are awarded.

Right now scholarships are one year deals and get renewed each summer.

If the NCAA required the member institutions to awarded two-year or even four-year scholarships which couldn't be transferred to another individual, then there would be a consequence to the school if the player left early. That team would then be down one scholarship player the next year (or for the next three years ). That would discourage the recruiting of "one-and-dones."

[Nevadaref]

Consider the impact of what I just proposed on Kentucky for next year.

They would have to compete with about five fewer scholarships than the rest of the teams. This would greatly decrease the likelihood of this team repeating the success of the prior year. That would increase parity.

Overall, I think that this would be good.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Consider the impact of what I just proposed on Kentucky for next year.

They would have to compete with about five fewer scholarships than the rest of the teams. This would greatly decrease the likelihood of this team repeating the success of the prior year. That would increase parity.

Overall, I think that this would be good.

And, by the same arguments, they should, instead of being penalized, get a bonus scholarship for one of those 5 actually completing their degree after 3 seasons. How many college graduates can say they've done that.

And note that one of the four one/dones just completed his freshman year with a 3.45 GPA (Wall). Looks like he was a serious student as well.

[Judtech]

SNAQalicous - Nevada hit on some of the points that Knight made. Here are some other interesting ideas and tidbits. Some of this would have to be coordinated with the NBAPA. In the NFL, players have to be out of school two years I believe. Remember the Maurice Clarett situation? Baseball players who enroll in college are ineligible for the MLB draft (even if they were drafted already) until a certain amount of time. So the precedence is out there as a model. If the NCAA wanted to work unilaterally, they could tie this into their academic model. Currently if academic and graduation benchmarks are not met over a set amount of time (5 years I believe) then that sport, usually football and basketball, are penalized by loss of scholarships etc. IF the NCAA wanted to do this, they very well could and have the precedence to back them up. IMO, the NBA doesn't want to 'play ball' b/c they are currently getting a free farm system from the NCAA.
As for paying the players, that is a great idea on the surface, however, there are several reasons that this is not practical. The first being that the majority, something on the scale of over 90% of the NCAA athletic departments lose money. While the dollars look big as a whole, when broken down they are not all that big. Football and Men's Basketball (as well as women's @UT and UCONN) make the money that fuels and funds the other programs. Which leads to the second point. If you are going to pay the football players what are you going to do with the women's track team? Title IX anyone? And if you can find someone clever enough to get around Title IX, how much do you pay players? Does the second team punter make as much as the starting point guard? Can Alabama pay more than Idaho since they bring in more money? So while it appears to be a good idea, the NCAA would have to slap on some ski's for the slippery slope.
On the other hand, student athletes are eligible for need based grants, NCAA sanctioned part time jobs and student loans. Sort of like the rest of the student body. I can neither confirm nor deny that it is sort of cool to have your tuition room and board paid for along with 'free' (loaner) books, free tutors and 10K a year in college. And at the end of it all you walk away with a BS (insert joke), graduate degree and only 40K in school loan debt. And if you wanna go pro, cool, have a clause in your contract that the team you sign with will pay for you to finish school when your playing days are done.

[Adam]

Like I said, I don't really see that it's a problem, so I really see no need for a solution.

And since when was a BS a graduate degree? I think you meant "undergraduate" degree.

[26 Year Gap]

I just read an interesting article on the revocation of 4 year scholarships that are actually one year renewable scholarships. Many of the transfers to get more playing time are kids being pushed out by present coaches, incoming coaches, etc and they keep clammed up about what is really happening because the coach is giving them a glowing recommendation.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

I just read an interesting article on the revocation of 4 year scholarships that are actually one year renewable scholarships. Many of the transfers to get more playing time are kids being pushed out by present coaches, incoming coaches, etc and they keep clammed up about what is really happening because the coach is giving them a glowing recommendation.

Didn't Cal do this with the players who were waiting for him at Kentucky?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by icallfouls

For those that support the 2 year scholarship offer. There is another option for the school and player. It recently happened with Kentucky ( ), Terrance Jones just received an financial aid commitment from UK. This is not the same as an athletic Scholly. Jones has much more options than he would if it was an athletic offer. If Calipari leaves, Jones can go anywhere. If he gets hurt or homesick, he can leave and accept another offer without having to sit out a year.

He would still be 1 and done and there would be no impact on the scholarships a school has to offer. The offer also doesn't subject him to the same level of success in the classroom that is required of other "athletes." My understanding is that the NCAA requires 2.25 AND satisfactory progress toward a degree.

You are just creating a different loophole.

Financial aid is an easy one to handle. Simply make it tied to academic performance. For example, if the student get less than a 3.0 in any semester, then the financial aid is lost. Not real hard.

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

I just read an interesting article on the revocation of 4 year scholarships that are actually one year renewable scholarships.

Hmmmm.... now where have I seen that before.... was it in post #10 in this thread?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The solution is simply to change how scholarships are awarded.

Right now scholarships are one year deals and get renewed each summer.

If the NCAA required the member institutions to awarded two-year or even four-year scholarships which couldn't be transferred to another individual, then there would be a consequence to the school if the player left early. That team would then be down one scholarship player the next year (or for the next three years ). That would discourage the recruiting of "one-and-dones."

Ah, this would work. It still punishes the coaches for something the players have the power to decide. I think 4 years would be a bit draconian, but 2 is interesting. Perhaps scholarships get issued, initially, as a two year deal but can be renewed one year at a time.

I still really don't see it as a big problem.

[BBrules]

I recently read an article pertaining to a speech Kareem Abdul-Jabbar gave where he advocated raising the age limit (to 21, I think) on entry into the NBA. His point was primarily that this would increase the maturity level of those going on to that level of play and being better able to handle the pressures that go along with being a high paid 'star'. It would also bring pressure to bear for completing college and maturing on the college court.