OT - One and Done is for Losers

[grunewar]

An argument against Coaches/Schools signing "the stud" out of HS for a year if they want to win it all......

'One and Done' Is for Losers -- NCAABB FanHouse

[rockyroad]

Good read. Thanks for posting that!

[grunewar]

Dana O'Neil: Academic reform in college basketball has a long way to go - ESPN

[Adam]

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.

[Altor]

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.

Even the low level pro ball championship games don't offer the same prestige and draft raising possibilities of a good Sweet Sixteen game.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Altor

Even the low level pro ball championship games don't offer the same prestige and draft raising possibilities of a good Sweet Sixteen game.

True enough, the point was not what would be in the best interest of a few players. My point was the NBA does not require a year of college, as the article states it does. Most of the complaining about the NBA rule has been of this caliber; either poor research or poor wording. David Stern has made his point clear, and I agree with it. The onus is not on the NBA to fix any issues the NCAA is having. They were having issues with academic infants playing college basketball long before the NBA rule was put into place.

If the NCAA wanted the problem solved, they could do it with academic standards. The fact is, they don't, because this rule gives them two things:
1. A chance to let their fans watch the John Walls and Carmello Anthony's of the world for one year.
2. The ability to blame the NBA for their own failure to address what many consider a problem.

Personally, I don't really consider it a problem. College coaches will shy away from these guys for the same reason they are careful with Juco players. Their short tenure makes them a quick fix to what in many cases is a long term problem.

Players were doing "one and done" before the rule, too. Carmello Anthony and Ricky Davis (Iowa) are just two examples. Neither of those players ever intended to stay past their freshman season, the way I recall.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

College coaches will shy away from these guys for the same reason they are careful with Juco players.

Does the name "John Calipari" sound familiar?

Hell, Calipari buys a coupla of these guys every year. He always makes sure that he's at a school that can afford to make them the top offer too. SAT's included. They go to classes for 4 weeks or so in the fall to get eligible, and then bag 'em until they leave in March. And the classes that they go to are all in the same general mode as Music Appreciation. That's where they listen to rap music for an hour a day and then say "Hey, I appreciated that". I have no idea why they don't just pay these kids instead of perpetuating the sham.

[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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I have no idea why they don't just pay these kids instead of perpetuating the sham.

That's my position as well. Hire them as university employees, and give them benefits accordingly, including (lifetime) tuition waivers if they choose to educate themselves and health insurance. Career-ending-injury insurance would be a plus, especially in football.

The notion of a "scholarship athlete" in the big-revenue sports has become a farce.

[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.

[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.