Make freshmen ineligible? Interesting. Your move Adam Silver.

[DawgatAuburn]

Interesting piece on some discussions being had to make freshmen ineligible. I also was not aware of the so-called "academic redshirt" coming up next year.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...lity-ncaa-commissioners-at-least-considering-

 

[57stratdawg]

I'd be fine with that.

 

[jakldawg]

That's going old-school.
I'm not sure I'm down with this. It's for all sports? Let's take it out on the baseball and volleyball teams that the NBA loves having a de-facto minor league system they don't pay for. Just seems kind of arbitrary and dickish. But, that's kind of the NCAA's "thing" now, so...

We now go live to Lexington: Coach Cal, what do you think...

 

[8dog]

They espouse other reasons in the article but if this is really about the one and done thats silly. No need to completely transform college athletics over 10 kids a year.

 

[Bulldogg31]

I'd like to implement this rule and make it retroactive for the following players:

Monta Ellis
Travis Outlaw
Johnathan Bender

Feel free to add others you would like to include in this action.

 

[seshomoru]

I never understood the need for the one year rule to begin with.

nt

 

[DawgatAuburn]

Because the NBA doesn't want them as high school seniors. It's too much of a crapshoot for owners and GMs who don't like the public floggings they get for drafting a HS bust or passing on a HS Hall of Famer. Of course there is similar risk for college players but I guess the thought is you can make a better pick after seeing them with a year of better competition. Unless you are the Pistons or some other terrible franchise. Plus if they draft them and sign them to the rookie contract, most aren't ready to contribute until at least halfway through that contract, then they are ready to leave you after you've done all the developmental work with them. From their side, I don't blame them for any of those reasons, but one year of college hoops should not be the fix. Like I said the other day, figure out a way to let them go straight to the D-League. Maybe let them go there but still be eligible for the draft after a year.

 

[RebelBruiser]

That's quite a huge step to take simply because a lot of them don't like Calipari.

My guess is that it gets zero traction whatsoever. However, I could see it being used as a negotiating point to try to get the NBA to either do away with their one year rule or to extend it to 2-3 years.

Ultimately, that's what I think this is. I don't think the colleges want to implement a freshman ineligibility rule for college basketball, but they do want to have some influence on the NBA rule.

The NBA clearly has an interest in college basketball remaining its free minor league system, and college basketball obviously has an interest in extending the window in which they get players. It seems they could work together.

Obviously, the only interest NOT represented in that discussion is the player interest, but who cares about them, right?

 

[Seinfeld]

I think that it would be in everyone's best interest for Silver to push the age restriction to two years removed from high school if it will avoid this. In my mind, the only thing freshman ineligibility will end up doing is to push high profile HS seniors to go sign overseas. Who's going to sign with a school and feasibly impact their draft status by not playing for a full year if they have an opportunity to get paid to play overseas? Furthermore, what school would spend all the time and effort(and money if you're Cal) recruiting a player that will most likely end up going pro after not even having played a game for you?

From the NBA's vantage point, they'd still be getting their hands on most players after one year if all this happened, but pulling guys from overseas can get really tricky and downright messy at times too. Of course, I guess that forcing guys to play two years in college could drive some of this behavior as well, but I think it would be the lesser of the evils.

Bottom line, whatever they decide to do about the age limit, it's not the thing that has destroyed college basketball. The thing that has killed it has been the AAU/shoe companies/Calipari model. I've gotta give the man credit... He was essentially the architect of a model that coaches across the country are exploiting today, but that doesn't make him any less of a piece of ****. He's like the guy that became a millionaire by selling weapons to underdeveloped countries but then when asked about the mass genocide of those areas, he says that he's never fired a single bullet

 

[johnson86-1]

They espouse other reasons in the article but if this is really about the one and done thats silly. No need to completely transform college athletics over 10 kids a year.

They're not transforming college athletics. They're threatening a change in one sport that won't impact most players. Right now NCAA basketball is getting really screwed up by the one and done rule (assuming it's not a coincidence that play got so much worse after it was implemented, which it may be). By making freshmen basketball players ineligible, they are greatly limiting the value of the one and done rule to the NBA. NBA GM's still don't get to see them in game play against college competition before drafting them, although they do get one more year of physical maturity before the clock on their rookie contract starts. If the NBA then goes to a two and done model, the NCAA can make freshmen eligible and have a guaranteed two years, and there won't be any incentive for the NBA to change back.

None of this will actually happen, but since it's in the NBA's best interest to have delay eligibility for drafting players, and its in the current players' interest to cut down on the supply of people trying to take their jobs, maybe this will nudge the NBA toward pushing for this with the players' union.

My ideal solution would be to mimic baseball with a twist. High school players can go to the NBA, but if they go to college, they are stuck for three years. After three years, they get drafted with a rookie salary cap modified upward to reflect the fact that on average, players are further in their career than before when they get drafted. The challenge is that you have to have to have a special salary scale applicable to players drafted right out of highschool. Otherwise, there will be too big of an incentive for marginal players to go to the draft right out of high school, so that they can get through their rookie contract and be eligible for big money. So if rookies that play 3 years of college ball won't be eligible for free agency for 3 years after being drafted, then high school players need to have restrictions for the first 6 years of their career. That could be hard to do.

 

[Irondawg]

The NBA just needs to decide what they want to do and here's what I think is the best thing for everybody:

1) Everybody is eligible for the draft after HS graduation or they turn 18.

2) Declaring for draft does not make you ineligible (have to work around some tricky agent rules but figure something out that makes sense)

3) Accepting a college scholarship doesn't preculde you from entering the draft the next year, but signing with an agent would make you NCAA ineligible. However, I'd implement some sort of buyout clause - maybe the drafting team has to contribute 500,000 to that school's general scholarship fund or something.

With #3 the problem I have is the schollies aren't guaranteed and you risk depriving someone of the opportunity to better themsevles. You could make the scholarship guaranteed and insert something like a non-compete clause but that seems overly complicated.

 

[DawgatAuburn]

I think that it would be in everyone's best interest for Silver to push the age restriction to two years removed from high school if it will avoid this. In my mind, the only thing freshman ineligibility will end up doing is to push high profile HS seniors to go sign overseas. Who's going to sign with a school and feasibly impact their draft status by not playing for a full year if they have an opportunity to get paid to play overseas? Furthermore, what school would spend all the time and effort(and money if you're Cal) recruiting a player that will most likely end up going pro after not even having played a game for you?t

The answer to your questions is Enes Kanter and Kentucky.

 

[8dog]

The discussions are actually not limited to basketball. It would impact eveyone that ever went to college to play. In fact the people least affected would be the one and dones.

 

[esplanade91]

If the one and done rule hadn't been put in place, college basketball would be 10000x worse than it already is.

College didn't use to be necessary, sure, but you also didn't have the player entourage and crazy *** agents to the level we do in 2015. 3% of something (D-League or Europe) is better than 3% of nothing. Every kid on the planet thinks he can play in the NBA right away. If they didn't have to play NCAA basketball (fully aware they can go to Europe, I still don't think that's a realistic option for most 17 years olds to make) they wouldn't over 1/2 the time. And because coaching has become so bad, I don't think it'll change until the NBA decides it needs to. This is something I think the NFL and MLB have done a better job with.

Adam Silver, by all accounts, seems to be a fan of basketball first, rule enforcer second. I think he'll do some dramatic stuff here soon. On the flipside, the NCAA needs to let kids transfer and not sit out if they're in good standing. Only in basketball. The cost of attendance should help, but not much.

Make it 2 years removed out of high school. Dozens of NBA starters only played 2 seasons. That's enough to prove to scouts you're legit and 60 hours is a respectable threshold to reach to not take a massive **** on education.

 

[johnson86-1]

The discussions are actually not limited to basketball. It would impact eveyone that ever went to college to play. In fact the people least affected would be the one and dones.

From the article: 7. Address the “one and done” phenomenon in men's basketball. If the National Basketball Association and its Players Association are unable to agree on raising the age limit for players, consider restoring the freshman ineligibility rule in men's basketball.

Doesn't mean they won't discuss it with other sports obviously, but the group that brought it up seems to be pretty clearly aiming it at men's basketball. But like I said, I seriously doubt anything will happen more than discussion.

 

[8dog]

I think you should read the whole article. Or for a shortcut just look at the pic at the top of it and caption

 

[Seinfeld]

Not really, though. Both parties were at least semi-confident that Kanter was going to be eligible or else Cal would most definitely have never wasted the time to get him to switch his commitment to KY at the last minute.

Only reason I remember this one so well is because I can still recall Cal's pathetic sob story about just wanting a kid to be able to play like it was yesterday

 

[DawgatAuburn]

I know but in the end, they both gambled and lost, much to my enjoyment.

 

[Go Budaw]

Not really sure how I feel about this. If this standard was applied across all sports, it would pretty much destroy college baseball. You'd see a lot more of the top prospects elect to go the draft route instead of going to school.

 

[Dogariffic]

Personally i think baseball has it pretty close to right.....except for the limited scholarship thing.
Dont think anyone should be kept from getting any job if someone wants to pay them so:
Out of high school you can sign pro. Any sport.
If you accept a college scholarship you are locked in for 3 years and the school honors the scholarship for at least that long. If you want to go pro after three years more power to you. If the school and you agree on a 4th year scholarship you have one. Same applies to a 5th year if player injured. If player and school agree to part ways after 3 years player can turn pro or seek scholarship at another school.