A modest proposal

by FreewayBruin03 on Apr 19, 2008 10:24 PM PDT

Let's solve the one-and-done issue for everybody.

Maybe.

Here are some random ideas that just occurred to me.

NCAA and the NBA agree to mirror football and require college basketball players to stay in school for three years.

The NCAA gets serious about the student-athlete concept and aggressively pursues programs to help athletes earn their degrees within those three years.

The NBA, NFL and boosters set up an endowment fund to pay for athletes' educations if they get so severely injured within those three years that they can't play and would otherwise their scholarships. The NCAA repays the pro leagues somehow, possibly by giving the leagues free advertising at sporting events.

There are probably billions of reasons why this couldn't work out, and many of those reasons will be dollars.

I admit that I don't know much about the intricacies of the NCAA's relations with pro leagues, but thought I'd throw the idea out here while it's still on my brain.

Any thoughts?

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.

Tweet Comment 14 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

the specifics aren't perfect

but the concept is certainly better than the current one. i'm not a fan of regulation--i like incentives instead.

who cares about barriers? what's good in the long-run is what counts, and the little stuff will be overcome.

by jjreicher on Apr 19, 2008 10:55 PM PDT reply actions

Other ways...

Why can't schools sign Ks with kids? You leave, you have to pay. Playing in consideration for being in the national spotlight and getting an education (I know, this is worthless to some of you). I'm not sure I would like the results that would follow though.

2 and through rule: Stern says that he is for more time but the player's union or whatever is against it. I wonder how true this is given that it would cut down on the competition in the short term for the players in the league now.

And lastly, consider athletic excellence, competitive greatness, and academics as the highest goals of college athletics. Let lower caliber players play that will never see the pros and let those that are going to the pros extend what they do now. Basically, these elite players go to "prep schools" where they are part of a team that travels the country playing other "prep schools." Let them stay there and then go pro while college teams are composed of players that are actually students. Then someone like Howland, a great coach who wins with whatever talent he has, really shines.

Say what you want about your degree not meaning anything or that going to school for 7 months puts you on a par with someone who spends 4 years in college. You think it is meaningless and I think that manufacturing widgets for some big company or getting paid big bucks to play in the pros is meaningless.

Honestly, I seriously dislike professional sports. I think that it cheapens the athletic experience for all of humanity. Instead of encouraging people to get out and play, professional sports have evolved into a business which encourages people to sit on their asses and watch it instead of doing it.

I value college athletics as a more pure expression of everything that is great about athletics. However, it seems that the corruption of the professional leagues is now shaping college athletics more and more. I hope that the NBA will realize that people are becoming turned off by their policies. You may love it, but I'm one of those people that just doesn't watch it anymore. David Stern are you listening?

by Bruins100NCAA on Apr 20, 2008 2:11 AM PDT reply actions

Get off your high horse please

The snide little accusation that anyone that does what is in their best interest financially or sympathizes with those that do doesn't care about education and thinks of it as "worthless" is a fantastic non-sequitur and little more. Way to insult a whole bunch of alums.

I've seen comments that boil down to what you learn in college doesn't necessarily translate over to the real world. Is this a big secret? I don't think so. That doesn't make college nor a degree "meaningless". You think that "manufacturing widgets" and "playing in the pros" is meaningless. Good for you. Is fulfilling a childhood dream meaningless? Because for most of these guys, that's what this is. Even if they're doing it for money, lots of these guys come out of financially insecure families. Is finding a way to elevate your family members out of that state meaningless? As you can see, this extremist "one size fits all" approach doesn't hold up.

I happen to like professional sports. I think that being able to watch athletes at the highest level inspires millions of young kids to enter sports programs to try and emulate their heroes on TV. I must also warn against the glorification of college athletics as some sort of safe haven from the evils of money when college football is as close to (and is literally in SUC's case with Bushgate) a minor league professional system as any. College basketball is still big money with he NCAA tournament. Is it the policies of the professional leagues that cause this or is it that money generally follows public interest (advertising dollars don't just appear for unpopular events)? It is at least some of both, and pretending that it's all the fault of an organization that you dislike is disingenuous.

Again, enough with the assertion that money, happiness, and moral righteousness are mutually exclusive concepts. If that's the way you feel, then good for you, but it takes a special kind of arrogance to apply your values onto other people's decisions. It's the same arrogance that allows one to declare that because you don't like professional leagues, that those that participate in them or derive enjoyment from them are leading meaningless existences.

by Tydides on Apr 20, 2008 4:29 AM PDT up reply actions

Let me explain myself

Let first say that what I'm about to say isn't directed at anyone in particular. I think we can all have a rationale discussion on this subject. We happen to agree on many points

I'm not against money per se but rather money as the measure of one's success in life. Why is this such an offensive concept to some? It's okay to say that a college degree is merely a piece of paper and a college education doesn't mean anything in the "real" world (and I understand that you Tydides, do not suggest this) but when I start questioning the pursuit of money PURELY FOR THE SAKE of having it, I'm accused of being some sort of moralist blow-hard?

I merely choose this line of argument to explain that there is another POV. That is one thing that I have learned at UCLA, that there are many different perspectives. Sure, it is the attainment of these kid's dreams to play in the NBA but what if that doesn't happen? What if they don't make it? What if they don't pan-out? What happens then to these players that we claim to idolize? Do you think the NBA gives a rat's ass about a washed-up player? These are contingencies to consider for anyone. Sometimes, things don't turn out the way we want in life and we are forced to consider other concepts of self-worth besides the size of our bank accounts.

As far as professional sports are concerned, I agree that they help get people involved with sports. However, I question the overall effect this is having on our obese nation. Professional sports are more popular than ever and yet, our nation is fatter than ever. How is this?

A child plays sports and soon finds out that he won't be the next Reggie Bush or Michael Jordan. He or she isn't a "winner" or "sucks" at sports. They then stop playing sports and replace the interest in the sport with watching it on TV. This is not the purpose of athletics. I would suggest this is because of our society, the win at all costs mentality that forces one to stop doing those things that they will never be good at instead of persisting for the benefits that say athletics and competition bring.

I do not apply my values to others but I offer a differing viewpoint. You can take it for what it's worth. I am not arrogant either, I have given up long ago any notion of self-aggrandizement. I merely felt that I can offer a differing viewpoint from the "logical" decisions that these kids are seemingly forced to make. Is that against their interests?

by Bruins100NCAA on Apr 20, 2008 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions

I can see what you're getting at

I admit to being tempted to respond with the Gordon Gekko "Greed is Good" opposing extremist viewpoint to counterbalance your previous post, but that option was rather distasteful to me for reasons I'm sure you can imagine.

Your examples of "failure" in sports can apply equally to the academic realm. In fact, failure in academics in college is far more common than flaming out in the NBA. I don't see the "real world" caring about those that can't hack it academically either. There's a reason (at least in South Campus) that we have "weeder" courses and there are plenty of perfectly smart people that just aren't smart enough to not get weeded out. Maybe they simply decide that their original decision isn't what they thought it'd be. I wouldn't label this as "failure". For NBA athletes and these students alike, the only choice is to brush it off and pick yourself back up and go in a different direction.

I can't get on board at all with your obese nation example. There are probably hundreds of contributing factors to this problem. I'm sure you've heard of "correlation does not indicate causation". I could say that dorm food in colleges features longer open hours nowadays and food is thus more available, and yet our nation is more obese than ever. Therefore colleges and higher education are to blame for our nation's obesity.

I must also take issue with the notion that professional leagues create an atmosphere that only winners should play sports. Your example seems awfully specific, and is certainly the minority considering the prevalence of HS sports across the country. Perhaps some people played one of the "non-money" sports for four years in high school and had give it up in order to pursue academic studies. That is a rather specific example as well, but no more specific than the disenfranchised young kid who realizes that he won't be the next MJ or Kobe and gives up.

I think it's definitely important to once again highlight that I agree with you that the notion that pursuit of money for the sake of having it leads to an empty existence. The Declaration of Independence doesn't talk about Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Money as an inalienable right of men. I just don't think that our early entrants, based on what we know about their character, need a lesson on this.

Now what do we do about this? There is clearly concern out there about the moral implications of what our colleges become with this one and done rule. Overall, I really like what Baseball has done. You can declare out of HS if you are truly ready, but if you want to go to college, you must commit to three years, which should alleviate concerns about academic integrity as well as concerns about some of the other "life lessons" that college has to offer.

by Tydides on Apr 20, 2008 5:51 PM PDT up reply actions

No, we as a nation simply eat

in excess of what our body actually needs.

Prime example, the predecessor to Dubya. Yes he jogged with his global warming veep with news cameramen swooning over him customarily after the election. Then it was always milk shakes, big Macs & fries during his impromptu press conference after jogging. When the then German Chancellor Helmet Kohl, legendary in size and girdle humself, came to visit,you should read about that beer, bratwursts binge they engaged in at a luncheon reception in Milwaukee.

I am glad that triple bypass awakened him to his junk food habit.

by Htse005 on Apr 20, 2008 6:10 PM PDT up reply actions

Thank you

I appreciate your remarks.

by Bruins100NCAA on Apr 20, 2008 6:56 PM PDT up reply actions

Interests in professional sports vs Obesity

That's an interesting observation you made.

I don't claim to know the contributing factors myself. But give me a map, I can point out to you that wide swath of south and southestern states collectively known as cholesterol alleys of America.

Charles Barkely played well despite his weigh then. He talks even more ferociously now as his body mass continues to increase these days.

I agree with that win at all cost mentality that pervades our society.

by Htse005 on Apr 20, 2008 5:55 PM PDT up reply actions

Requirement: Passing Grades for Year

One thing that troubles me about the one and dones is that there is no way to know if they were "student" athletes or simply basketball players.

I don't think a player who enrolls in college should be eligible for the draft unless he goes to class and has passing grades during the time he is in school. I'd make him take all classes until June -- one full year.

Anything short of that is just being a professional basketball player on a deferred income basis.

Yes, I know that there are schools staffed with Senora Rosas,
but there are more who will take this seriously.

Kevin Love is the poster boy for "student" athlete. I wonder if this years crop of departing freshmen took class as seriously and made as big a contribution to both the community and the campus.

Summary: I don't want players to come for a year, blow off school, and then move on. It cheapens the concept of student athlete. Unless the player is a real "student" I don't want him in a Bruin uniform.

Yes, I understand the freedom to choose a path toward riches -- but no one should step on this campus unless he steps into the classroom as well as the gym.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Apr 20, 2008 7:21 AM PDT reply actions

I'm sure CBH

would have no problem with your proposal. Whenever he talks about recruiting, it seems that he makes sure that he discusses character and commitment in the classroom as well.

by Tydides on Apr 20, 2008 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions

I'm with Rye

(like baseball's rule) comment

Along with 66's requirements.

by Bruinut on Apr 20, 2008 9:08 AM PDT reply actions

Not a bad idea, but a few critiques

The first, and biggest problem is that the NCAA has nothing to do with the one and done rule, whatsoever. The current rule requiring players to be one year out of high school (or age 19+ if international) is part of the Collective Bargaining agreement (CBA) between the NBA and the NBA players association. To his credit, David Stern wants a higher age of entry into the league, but the union does not want it. They may be able to compromise on a 2-year rule, but the union will not allow 3 (though Stern likely would prefer this. If it were purely an NBA/NCAA issue, it would have already happened.

As far as the injury factor, there is already an allowance in the NCAA rules for a player who suffers a career-ending injury to retain his/her scholarship without counting toward the limit for that sport. How the rule works in practice varies depending on the finances of the athletic department at each school (the ability to pay for 'extra' scholarships), but UCLA has had a couple of football players do this in recent years, as have players at other schools.

by bruinhoo on Apr 20, 2008 10:27 AM PDT reply actions

SJH's suggestion re taking classes until June

Sure the rule is that of the NBA, not the ncaa (can't capitalize that group until they show they're for real, i.e., until they do something about bu$hgate, but I digress.) But the NCAA can enforce sjh's suggestion by having the scholarship be welded to the player until he completes the requirements for the year he played.

We have X guys coming out. Our ncaa compliance guru would have an incrementally small extra job of demonstrating to the NCAA at the end of the term that the kid actually completed the requisite number of classes to be progressing normally toward graduation, or however the criterion might be described. If that certification isn't met, then the school can't use that scholarship until it is met, or until the player's fourth year of eligibility expires.

I know I didn't dream this up, but I can't remember if I read it hear or somewhere else. It sure puts an onus on a Huggins or a Calimari or one of those guys who wants instant Mayoification. Go ahead and take an academically unsuited one-and-doner, go for the brass ring in one year, but understand that you won't have a full compliment of scholarships for the next year.

I think that puts the onus right where it belongs - on the coach and the institution and not on the player. I don't blame a kid who has no aspirations for a college degree, and who has no affinity for the college life, and who will make his fortune or go bust in the NBA if that kid just dropped out of school without completing the second semester. If a school wants to take a chance on that kind of player, so be it. But there should be a downside for the school.

This or something like this may already be a rule, for all I know. I doubt it, because it makes sense, and by definition nothing having to do with the ncaa makes sense.

by Fox 71 on Apr 20, 2008 8:19 PM PDT up reply actions

The current system is far less direct

If a player leaves while not in good standing, it merely has an impact on the team's overall academic performance rating as produced by the NCAA. If that metric, however it's determined, drops too low, then the school can start to face sanctions. Eventually that would lead to the loss of a scholarship.

I like the direct approach far better.

by jaffa on Apr 21, 2008 11:15 PM PDT up reply actions