OT - One and Done is for Losers

[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.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

Sorry, forgot a comma. Geez, who made YOU grammar police
I am not sure how I feel about it. On one hand, anyone can go "pro" at any time in different fields. People can finish up Med school, law school etc early. You can start your own business whenever, sort of like those Gates and Jobs fellows. On the other hand, I love college basketball and would like to see players and teams be identified with one another. This would make coaches have to 'coach up' players thus elevating overall NCAA basketball from top to bottom. Imagine if the UK players had stayed in the system for 2 or 3 years?
The only problem I would have had was if the tournament was extended to 96 teams. Thankfully they didn't do that!

[Adam]

I love college hoops, too, and would love for players to stick it out. The thing is, their lives aren't about making me happy, and I have no right to ask them to hang out in college longer than they want to.
Nothing you do is going to keep John Wall in college more than one year. The only thing these proposed solutions would do is keep him from going to college in the first place, and I think you would rather have players like him for one year than none. I know I would.

I just don't see a problem.

[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?

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

KY players were mentioned in the article as a group of 7.

[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?

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

While I understand your point, as the father of a college student, 3.0 is not THAT easy to attain and maintain, even if you're not a big time athlete!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by grunewar

While I understand your point, as the father of a college student, 3.0 is not THAT easy to attain and maintain, even if you're not a big time athlete!

And so much financial aid is not even tied to the university.

It should be pretty easy for the NCAA to regulate the loophole, however, by stating all athletes must meet the same academic standard regardless of who funds their education.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by grunewar

While I understand your point, as the father of a college student, 3.0 is not THAT easy to attain and maintain, even if you're not a big time athlete!

I didn't say that it was. Rather my point was that if one wants the school to give him/her money, then he/she should be exceeding the accomplishments of a normal student, otherwise one can pay his/her own way like the rest of them.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

You misread the man. He's talking about new coaches (like Calipari) who revoke the scholarships of the athletes who were there before they (the coach) arrived. Sort of like the new CEO who comes in and fires everyone so he can bring in his own staff.