menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Basketball Topic
Topic: The hypocracy of one and dones
Page: 1 of 1
mail
person
giacomo
10/31/2016 6:29 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/31/sports/basketball/ben-s...

New documentary about Ben Simmons year as a one and done at LSU
mail
OUVan
10/31/2016 6:56 PM
The rule is there for one reason and one reason only. To protect the NBA from itself. If Kwame Brown had played one year of college he might not have even been a lottery pick. But the current system doesn't help the players and it certainly doesn't help college basketball.

The NBA should take the money they throw into the WNBA and use it to make a system like MLB. Have minor league teams for the kids that don't to play in college and let the colleges have kids that truly want to be there. The overall skill level in college basketball might suffer but it's all relative. I love watching high schools play so I'm sure I'd like the new version of college.
mail
person
giacomo
11/1/2016 6:51 PM
Van, I completely agree. They won't spend the money because they don't have to. They already have the NBDL, but colleges are in cahoots with the NBA in this situation.
mail
bornacatfan
11/1/2016 8:33 PM
The Players association has a bit of a part in this as well. GO back to letting them go out of HS and deal with it. I think the biggest barrier to that is the Players Assn. or should I say....their agents. http://www.forbes.com/sites/darrenheitner/2014/05/18/the-...
mail
OU_Country
11/2/2016 10:37 AM
I've often thought that a good approach would be to have a system similar to baseball, in that you either enter the pro-ranks out of HS, or you wait until after your Jr. year of college.

Establishing the D-League a little better to allow for the young drafted guys would be a big help. Also having the NCAA allow kids to enter college if they go undrafted, regardless of circumstances in money taken related to amateur status, would go a long ways.
mail
person
rpbobcat
11/2/2016 10:54 AM
Funny coincidence,a bunch of guys I was with last night were just talking about this.

There's any easy way for the NCAA to stop "one and done" in basketball if they want too.

Just lock up a player's scholarship for 4 years.

Except for specific, extenuating, circumstances,if a player leaves early,that scholarship is gone till his graduation year.

I personally think this should apply to football too.

Thing is,the NCAA makes a lot of money off basketball,especially the tournament,so it ain't gonna happen.
mail
OU_Country
11/2/2016 3:15 PM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
Funny coincidence,a bunch of guys I was with last night were just talking about this.

There's any easy way for the NCAA to stop "one and done" in basketball if they want too.

Just lock up a player's scholarship for 4 years.

Except for specific, extenuating, circumstances,if a player leaves early,that scholarship is gone till his graduation year.

I personally think this should apply to football too.

Thing is,the NCAA makes a lot of money off basketball,especially the tournament,so it ain't gonna happen.
The way I read your comment is that the school/program should go without the scholarship is a player leaves early. Explain why an entire program should be punished for a guy choosing to leave early to earn a living? That doesn't make much sense to me.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
11/2/2016 4:50 PM
OUVan wrote:expand_more
The rule is there for one reason and one reason only. To protect the NBA from itself. If Kwame Brown had played one year of college he might not have even been a lottery pick. But the current system doesn't help the players and it certainly doesn't help college basketball.

The NBA should take the money they throw into the WNBA and use it to make a system like MLB. Have minor league teams for the kids that don't to play in college and let the colleges have kids that truly want to be there. The overall skill level in college basketball might suffer but it's all relative. I love watching high schools play so I'm sure I'd like the new version of college.
Actually it's there to create more jobs for veterans, who have more sway in the NBAPA than 18 year olds.

I suspect as the D-League expands, and more jobs are created, the arbitrary 1 and done rule will disappear. Once the infrastructure exists, NBA teams will prefer developmental control to making them play a year at an inferior level with a whole different set of rules.
mail
person
Kevin Finnegan
11/2/2016 5:06 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
The rule is there for one reason and one reason only. To protect the NBA from itself. If Kwame Brown had played one year of college he might not have even been a lottery pick. But the current system doesn't help the players and it certainly doesn't help college basketball.

The NBA should take the money they throw into the WNBA and use it to make a system like MLB. Have minor league teams for the kids that don't to play in college and let the colleges have kids that truly want to be there. The overall skill level in college basketball might suffer but it's all relative. I love watching high schools play so I'm sure I'd like the new version of college.
Actually it's there to create more jobs for veterans, who have more sway in the NBAPA than 18 year olds.

I suspect as the D-League expands, and more jobs are created, the arbitrary 1 and done rule will disappear. Once the infrastructure exists, NBA teams will prefer developmental control to making them play a year at an inferior level with a whole different set of rules.
I can't see the NBA wanting to get rid of using the NCAA as a defacto minor leagues. Why would they? With the system as it is now, they get a minor league for free plus they get fantastic marketing of incoming players. I don't think that the NBA would prefer a D-League call-up of Derrick Rose over a 1st round pick Derrick Rose who just competed in the national championship game on national television. That sells jerseys and tickets from day one. D-League call-ups only sell tickets to mom and dad.
mail
person
rpbobcat
11/2/2016 8:38 PM
OU_Country wrote:expand_more
Funny coincidence,a bunch of guys I was with last night were just talking about this.

There's any easy way for the NCAA to stop "one and done" in basketball if they want too.

Just lock up a player's scholarship for 4 years.

Except for specific, extenuating, circumstances,if a player leaves early,that scholarship is gone till his graduation year.

I personally think this should apply to football too.

Thing is,the NCAA makes a lot of money off basketball,especially the tournament,so it ain't gonna happen.
The way I read your comment is that the school/program should go without the scholarship is a player leaves early. Explain why an entire program should be punished for a guy choosing to leave early to earn a living? That doesn't make much sense to me.


I thought that the purpose of a scholarship was to permit an individual to use their athletic talent to get an education.
Its not meant to be a one year NBA training program.
(I also believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny)

The loss of a scholarship would push coaches to offer scholarships to a true student/athlete.

If you want to make a living as a pro, and have the talent to do it,that's great.
Go and do it. Europe or other avenues out side of college are available.

Just don't deprive a true student athlete from his opportunity.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
11/3/2016 8:50 AM
finnOhio wrote:expand_more
The rule is there for one reason and one reason only. To protect the NBA from itself. If Kwame Brown had played one year of college he might not have even been a lottery pick. But the current system doesn't help the players and it certainly doesn't help college basketball.

The NBA should take the money they throw into the WNBA and use it to make a system like MLB. Have minor league teams for the kids that don't to play in college and let the colleges have kids that truly want to be there. The overall skill level in college basketball might suffer but it's all relative. I love watching high schools play so I'm sure I'd like the new version of college.
Actually it's there to create more jobs for veterans, who have more sway in the NBAPA than 18 year olds.

I suspect as the D-League expands, and more jobs are created, the arbitrary 1 and done rule will disappear. Once the infrastructure exists, NBA teams will prefer developmental control to making them play a year at an inferior level with a whole different set of rules.
I can't see the NBA wanting to get rid of using the NCAA as a defacto minor leagues. Why would they? With the system as it is now, they get a minor league for free plus they get fantastic marketing of incoming players. I don't think that the NBA would prefer a D-League call-up of Derrick Rose over a 1st round pick Derrick Rose who just competed in the national championship game on national television. That sells jerseys and tickets from day one. D-League call-ups only sell tickets to mom and dad.
Derrick Rose isn't the use case here. Coming out of both high school and Memphis, he had elite size and athleticism at his position, and was always bound to be a lottery pick that would have an NBA roster spot of day one.

The D-League is for the edge cases, the guys with the physical tools but who need more development time. The NBA can develop players better than the NCAA can for a couple of simple, straightforward reasons.
mail
OU_Country
11/3/2016 10:52 AM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
Funny coincidence,a bunch of guys I was with last night were just talking about this.

There's any easy way for the NCAA to stop "one and done" in basketball if they want too.

Just lock up a player's scholarship for 4 years.

Except for specific, extenuating, circumstances,if a player leaves early,that scholarship is gone till his graduation year.

I personally think this should apply to football too.

Thing is,the NCAA makes a lot of money off basketball,especially the tournament,so it ain't gonna happen.
The way I read your comment is that the school/program should go without the scholarship is a player leaves early. Explain why an entire program should be punished for a guy choosing to leave early to earn a living? That doesn't make much sense to me.


I thought that the purpose of a scholarship was to permit an individual to use their athletic talent to get an education.
Its not meant to be a one year NBA training program.
(I also believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny)

The loss of a scholarship would push coaches to offer scholarships to a true student/athlete.

If you want to make a living as a pro, and have the talent to do it,that's great.
Go and do it. Europe or other avenues out side of college are available.

Just don't deprive a true student athlete from his opportunity.
I agree with the purpose of the scholarship, but eliminating that scholarship if a player goes pro takes away the shot at an education for someone else who might fit exactly the type student athlete you're asking for. Seems counter productive to me.
mail
person
rpbobcat
11/3/2016 12:42 PM
OU_Country wrote:expand_more
Funny coincidence,a bunch of guys I was with last night were just talking about this.

There's any easy way for the NCAA to stop "one and done" in basketball if they want too.

Just lock up a player's scholarship for 4 years.

Except for specific, extenuating, circumstances,if a player leaves early,that scholarship is gone till his graduation year.

I personally think this should apply to football too.

Thing is,the NCAA makes a lot of money off basketball,especially the tournament,so it ain't gonna happen.
The way I read your comment is that the school/program should go without the scholarship is a player leaves early. Explain why an entire program should be punished for a guy choosing to leave early to earn a living? That doesn't make much sense to me.


I thought that the purpose of a scholarship was to permit an individual to use their athletic talent to get an education.
Its not meant to be a one year NBA training program.
(I also believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny)

The loss of a scholarship would push coaches to offer scholarships to a true student/athlete.

If you want to make a living as a pro, and have the talent to do it,that's great.
Go and do it. Europe or other avenues out side of college are available.

Just don't deprive a true student athlete from his opportunity.
I agree with the purpose of the scholarship, but eliminating that scholarship if a player goes pro takes away the shot at an education for someone else who might fit exactly the type student athlete you're asking for. Seems counter productive to me.
The point of this thread is how to stop "one and done".

Unless there's a penalty, schools that recruit someone just to play one year,
then go pro,have no incentive not to.

My point is that,with that penalty, they'd be more inclined to offer a scholarship to a true student athlete in the first place.
mail
OUVan
11/3/2016 1:37 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
Actually it's there to create more jobs for veterans, who have more sway in the NBAPA than 18 year olds.

I suspect as the D-League expands, and more jobs are created, the arbitrary 1 and done rule will disappear. Once the infrastructure exists, NBA teams will prefer developmental control to making them play a year at an inferior level with a whole different set of rules.
That's why the Player's Association agreed to it but no why the NBA wanted it.
mail
OUVan
11/3/2016 1:39 PM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
The point of this thread is how to stop "one and done".

Unless there's a penalty, schools that recruit someone just to play one year,
then go pro,have no incentive not to.

My point is that,with that penalty, they'd be more inclined to offer a scholarship to a true student athlete in the first place.
What about transfers or guys like Alex Kellogg, who just decide to step away?
mail
person
rpbobcat
11/3/2016 6:31 PM
OUVan wrote:expand_more
The point of this thread is how to stop "one and done".

Unless there's a penalty, schools that recruit someone just to play one year,
then go pro,have no incentive not to.

My point is that,with that penalty, they'd be more inclined to offer a scholarship to a true student athlete in the first place.
What about transfers or guys like Alex Kellogg, who just decide to step away?
In my first post I said "except for specific, extenuating circumstances".
The NCAA could establish conditions to deal with just what you mentioned.
Last Edited: 11/3/2016 6:33:00 PM by rpbobcat
mail
OU_Country
11/4/2016 11:40 AM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
The point of this thread is how to stop "one and done".

Unless there's a penalty, schools that recruit someone just to play one year,
then go pro,have no incentive not to.

My point is that,with that penalty, they'd be more inclined to offer a scholarship to a true student athlete in the first place.

[/QUOTE]
I wish you luck in this approach then. While they also recruit kids that they expect to be with them for all four years, and recruit guys they hope will be good young people, the bottom lines is this: Coaches recruit to win. That's also what fans primarily ask for, and what keeps them in a job more than anything else.

I don't disagree that it's silly that the NBA does this one year thing, forcing guys like Ben Simmons to go to school when he doesn't want to. At the same time, as a college basketball fan, I actually like seeing these guys play, if even for a year. And some of them, for example Melo Trimble, wise up and realize they weren't ready for the league right out of high school.



[QUOTE=OUVan]

What about transfers or guys like Alex Kellogg, who just decide to step away?
In my first post I said "except for specific, extenuating circumstances".
The NCAA could establish conditions to deal with just what you mentioned.
This was a good point by Van, IMO. Defining such circumstances might create a mess similar to what we have now with some kids being granted "exceptions" to not have to sit a year when transferring, while others do. We all know the NCAA isn't terribly proficient at consistency in these kids of situations.
mail
person
rpbobcat
11/4/2016 1:14 PM
OU_Country wrote:expand_more
[QUOTE=rpbobcat]

This was a good point by Van, IMO. Defining such circumstances might create a mess similar to what we have now with some kids being granted "exceptions" to not have to sit a year when transferring, while others do. We all know the NCAA isn't terribly proficient at consistency in these kids of situations.
My position is that the requirement that,under most circumstances,if a kid transfers, he sits a year, stays.

Not locking up the scholarship at the school he transfers from would be one of the exceptions I referred to earlier.

Not to go off on a tangent,but I also believe that if a kid wants to transfer,because of a change in the coaching staff,that shouldn't require sitting for a year.
mail
person
giacomo
11/9/2016 4:36 PM
If you look at it another way, let's say a kid gets an academic scholarship to the college of engineering and decides to transfer or leave school. Nobody cares what that kid does. Why should we care so much about scholarship athletes? They are like any other student. The only issue is does the kid merit academically to be admitted and takes courses that are appropriate to graduate.
Showing Messages: 1 - 19 of 19
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)