Commission on College Basketball recommendations

[Second and Chalmers]

The NCAA basketball commission thing is out.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4445900-Commission-on-College-Basketball-Report-and.html
https://www.sbnation.com/college-ba...ions-nba-one-and-done-aau-paying-players-ncaa

Some good, some bad, steadfast refusal to even consider any changes to player compensation model, and of course none of these reforms will actually happen except for some saber rattling about harsher penalties for NCAA violations.

Par for the course.

 

[haasi]

Ugh


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MainelyIllini]

This part frustrates me when reading this on page 23: "inconsistency in the NCAA's application of rules (footnote 16)". Footnote 16 is the NCAA's ruling that they have no jurisdiction over the UNC academic scandal, but then they claim jurisdiction over ND and Georgia Southern's academic scandals...

I agree with S&C. Par for the course. Much ado about nothing.

 

[sacraig]

The AP has a nice breakdown of the findings:
https://apnews.com/a3394d90a6614623...n-calls-for-more-NCAA-oversight-of-AAU-events

I don't think it's necessarily par for the course, though. I think if they actually implement any of this it would be a very positive step, including better transparency in recruiting and using independent agencies to carry out investigations. Of course things like the one and done rule would need NBA cooperation and can't be done unilaterally by the NCAA.

I didn't think the report was status quo at all on its own. Whether it is status quo depends on whether or not the NCAA actually implements any of this.

Also, regarding paying players, the end of one-and-done plus allowing players to test the draft risk free might substantially alter the calculus there. I'm still not a huge fan of the NCAA and schools making billions without the athletes seeing a dime, but if any of the reformat we're implemented, there would no longer be rules in place forcing the people who could be making money in already to play for "free" for a year or more.

 

[Second and Chalmers]

The best aspect of this from a sheer fairness perspective would be allowing players to be represented by an agent throughout their time in college sports. You could see an NCAA "certification" system becoming a mess of course, but the way that everyone in the system is lawyered up to their eyeballs except for the one party that needs that guidance the most is egregious.

 

[sacraig]

I like the idea of sanctioning AAU events as well such that coaches are barred from attending those that haven't been certified. That whole scene is just a mess.

Ultimately, the best parts (if they are implemented) are efforts to give players some actual choice and efforts to make investigations more independent and thus more fair.

 

[Centennial Illini]

At no point was the main mandate of this commission to address player compensation. It was corruption. Some of their suggestions had merit. If the lifetime ban was in effect there would be no Calipari in college basketball.

If the one and done loss of scholarships carried over for 4 years, it definitely impact the Kentucky even Duke.

The loss of appearances for 5 years and the loss of all tournament revenue for that period would be massive. 8 figures for most schools.

There are actually some suggestions in that report that would grievously affect some programs.

Now the question is will the power at the NCAA implement any of this.

 

[champaignchris]

The NCAA doesn’t need any NBA permission to allow players who go undrafted or who don’t like their draft spot to retain their eligibility and go beack to school.

The NCAA likes to cry about these players more than anything, but it’s the NCAA rules, not the NBA rules that really screw these players over.

 

[champaignchris]

Oh, and if the NBA ends the 1 and done rule, it will be in a way that the NCAA doesn't like. Namely, they'll start drafting kids straight out of high school and have a more robust minor league system more geared towards the younger developmental kid than the post-collegiate marginal pro.

 

[Second and Chalmers]

Oh, and if the NBA ends the 1 and done rule, it will be in a way that the NCAA doesn't like. Namely, they'll start drafting kids straight out of high school and have a more robust minor league system more geared towards the younger developmental kid than the post-collegiate marginal pro.

The NCAA would love that. At least the University presidents and conference commissioners who run the show. They never asked for one-and-done in the first place.

 

[KrushCow31]

1 and done being removed would mean worse overall basketball skill but more competitive basketball. I am okay with that.

You should be able to return to school after being drafted. No reason why not. MLB does it. Hockey does it. Why not? What is the harm?

It would have to be different than MLB and more similar to hockey in the fact that once you are drafted, the team retains the rights to you like in hockey. To my understanding, in MLB you can go back to college and re-enter the draft a second time by a new team and the old team loses their rights to you. The NBA doesn't have enough rounds to justify using 1 of your 2 picks on a player who may just never show up. But an NBA team would definitely take a risk on a late 2nd round pick on a college freshmen or sophomore who has 2 more years to develop or go to the G-league if they want.

 

[Second and Chalmers]

You should be able to return to school after being drafted. No reason why not. MLB does it. Hockey does it. Why not? What is the harm?

None whatsoever.

You'd have to figure out whether you wanted to do it like hockey (where the pro team retains the player's draft rights indefinitely) or baseball (where the pro team loses the rights if the player doesn't sign and the player can then be drafted again later), but it makes plenty of sense.

(Of course, if you really wanted to create reform that frees players to capitalize on their talents the way any other profession would, you would get rid of the draft entirely. But I digress.)

 

[ChiefIllini]

The overall best practice is to do everything to better these kids. Let them get advice/combine workouts/etc. in high school, let them enter the draft, if they get signed, no more college eligibility. If they dont, let them go to school or choose to go overseas/G league. Once you sign a pro contract, its over, but short of that, they should be able to do whatever they want. Obviously, getting at least some college work will pull some kids in, though admittedly this is a small pool.

This, of course, is detremental to college basketball overall. Talent pool shrinks, and chaos increases heavily in the offseason. Coaches will have to work exponentially harder to get and retain talent, at least at the highest level. Being completely honest, this might make CBB more exciting, as this favors teams like Loyola/ISU that will almost never have multiple guys who will never sniff third tier Euro leagues. It should make competition more even as teams like Duke will have constant flux and mid/low majors should be full of experienced "system" guys.

 

[Second and Chalmers]

This, of course, is detremental to college basketball overall.

I think there's a valid question of whether the box office value of the college game is ultimately helped by having constant roster turnover at the premier programs.

Does a Marvin Bagley actually drive more viewership to the college game than a Grayson Allen? I'm dubious of that.

 

[KrushCow31]

I think there's a valid question of whether the box office value of the college game is ultimately helped by having constant roster turnover at the premier programs.

Does a Marvin Bagley actually drive more viewership to the college game than a Grayson Allen? I'm dubious of that.

I watch more college basketball when Illinois is more competitive. I personally am not watching because of the skill. I'm watching for the storyline of college basketball. I want competitive games of well executed plays. I think that happens with more 4 year players than 1 year. Watching Loyola execute their offense was college basketball dreamland. I'd watch more basketball like that. Less of the one man hero ball crap you get in the NBA.

 

[Illiini]

Why not just do away with the "student-athlete" fig leaf anyway? Let the kids be pros, and if the pro teams want a farm team, the university can give the team naming rights. The players wouldn't be students at all. No one would have to worry about classes. They could just play basketball.

People cheer for their hometown teams in pro sports. Chicago area people cheer for the Cubs, St. Louis for the Cardinals, yet these players have no more attachment to the city than (in many cases) local tax dollars buy that ball park that the games are played in.

Why wouldn't this model work for "college" sports? Bingo-bango, all your problems are solved.

 

[haasi]

Some very simple bullets to fix the system:
1. Allow full free market compensation for players. Whatever the market will bear. And let players have agents.
2. Let players transfer freely without having to sit.

That’s basically it. Lots of money will flow into college b-ball, but it already does. At that point, economics will decide whether it’s worth a kid going straight to NBA or parking himself at Kentucky for a year or four.

And before universities cry about this affecting their budget, the same boosters who are currently paying off the books will now be paying on the books- it’ll just be transparent without “cheating” or “corruption”.

And as far as I know, no impact on title 9- if universities or boosters decide to pay men, that has no impact on availability of sports for women. Title 9 doesn’t guarantee equal compensation as far as I know, just equal opportunities to play collegiate sports.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[haasi]

If anyone interested in the title 9 angle, here’s a nice short article by a law prof saying NCAA’s argument is essentially BS. There’s really not much supporting the notion that there’s a title 9 problem here except an extended reading of title 9 that courts haven’t endorsed but that the NCAA wants to exist in order to create a problem.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/marced...x-more-of-a-red-herring-than-a-pink-elephant/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ole 99]

You'd have to figure out whether you wanted to do it like hockey (where the pro team retains the player's draft rights indefinitely) or baseball (where the pro team loses the rights if the player doesn't sign and the player can then be drafted again later), but it makes plenty of sense.

Unless I'm mistaken, I think its up to the NBA to decide how long a pro teams retain a players draft rights. This is the overall problem the NCAA/colleges and universities are having as it relates to revenue sports. If you want to be the minor league system for a pro sport, you essentially cede decision making on talent to the pro sport.

 

[KrushCow31]

Some very simple bullets to fix the system:
1. Allow full free market compensation for players. Whatever the market will bear. And let players have agents.
2. Let players transfer freely without having to sit.

That’s basically it. Lots of money will flow into college b-ball, but it already does. At that point, economics will decide whether it’s worth a kid going straight to NBA or parking himself at Kentucky for a year or four.

And before universities cry about this affecting their budget, the same boosters who are currently paying off the books will now be paying on the books- it’ll just be transparent without “cheating” or “corruption”.

And as far as I know, no impact on title 9- if universities or boosters decide to pay men, that has no impact on availability of sports for women. Title 9 doesn’t guarantee equal compensation as far as I know, just equal opportunities to play collegiate sports.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Doesn't this destroy lower conference teams? Including a rebuilding Illinois? How would you rebuild if you don't have any money without the detriment of sitting out a year? Any player who plays somewhat decently in a lower reputation team would just immediately transfer up. It'd create a few ultra powerful teams and that's it. Imagine the amount of money Duke, Kentucky, and Kansas could pump in. They would poach the best players of every team every year easy. It doesn't matter if you have a decent coach who builds players. That player will just leave. I don't like that dynamic. Just my opinion.

 

[haasi]

Unless I'm mistaken, I think its up to the NBA to decide how long a pro teams retain a players draft rights. This is the overall problem the NCAA/colleges and universities are having as it relates to revenue sports. If you want to be the minor league system for a pro sport, you essentially cede decision making on talent to the pro sport.

The NCAA and NBA can each make their own decisions. The NCAA has no business telling players they can’t come back if they’re drafted but decide to return. It’s up to the NBA to decide what happens with players draft rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[haasi]

Doesn't this destroy lower conference teams? Including a rebuilding Illinois? How would you rebuild if you don't have any money without the detriment of sitting out a year? Any player who plays somewhat decently in a lower reputation team would just immediately transfer up. It'd create a few ultra powerful teams and that's it. Imagine the amount of money Duke, Kentucky, and Kansas could pump in. They would poach the best players of every team every year easy. It doesn't matter if you have a decent coach who builds players. That player will just leave. I don't like that dynamic. Just my opinion.

Schools could come up with contracts for players that require them to stay four years but it would be up to the player whether to accept, knowing what they know about the school, the coach, their abilities etc. free market. There would probably need to be some sort of CBA and college ball would need to be governed like a pro league. As of right now, the pro aspects are just hidden while they strip many players of fair comp.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ole 99]

Why not just do away with the "student-athlete" fig leaf anyway? Let the kids be pros, and if the pro teams want a farm team, the university can give the team naming rights. The players wouldn't be students at all. No one would have to worry about classes. They could just play basketball.

People cheer for their hometown teams in pro sports. Chicago area people cheer for the Cubs, St. Louis for the Cardinals, yet these players have no more attachment to the city than (in many cases) local tax dollars buy that ball park that the games are played in.

Why wouldn't this model work for "college" sports? Bingo-bango, all your problems are solved.

The logical extension of this argument is why are non-profit colleges/universities even in the pro sports business to begin with. I love college sports, but the more you entertain paying student athletes or try to justify the $ made off these kids under the current system, the more you have to question why the system is allowed to exist in the first place; especially for public schools. For as much love as our country purports to have for free market capitalism, we sure do a good job of suppressing it when it comes to sports.

 

[Illiini]

And as far as I know, no impact on title 9- if universities or boosters decide to pay men, that has no impact on availability of sports for women. Title 9 doesn’t guarantee equal compensation as far as I know, just equal opportunities to play collegiate sports.

If "college" basketball were minor leagues with paid players who aren't students, Title IX wouldn't come into effect. All the university would be providing is naming rights, and money--for the use of school's name and mascot--would flow into the university.

It would be a revenue sport in the truest sense of the word. Practice facilities and game venues could be rented by the teams, and they'd get to keep the gate.

And if anyone (alumni, local businesses) wanted to contribute to the team or individual players, what the heck, let 'em. And let the NBA run it. No worries then about NCAA intrigue, etc.

Making it a genuine pro sport rather what would be a sham student-athlete sport would solve all the problems everyone is getting tied up over.

 

[sacraig]

Doesn't this destroy lower conference teams? Including a rebuilding Illinois? How would you rebuild if you don't have any money without the detriment of sitting out a year? Any player who plays somewhat decently in a lower reputation team would just immediately transfer up. It'd create a few ultra powerful teams and that's it. Imagine the amount of money Duke, Kentucky, and Kansas could pump in. They would poach the best players of every team every year easy. It doesn't matter if you have a decent coach who builds players. That player will just leave. I don't like that dynamic. Just my opinion.

This. Allowing free-market compensation essentially destroys any semblance of competitive parity (such that it even exists at this point anyway) in college basketball. The richer the program, the better players it can buy.

IMO, the better option is to do the following:

• End one-and-done: the high-dollar players would end up going pro anyway, just like they used to, so there would be fewer true pros left in the NCAA just biding their time.
• Allow players to hire agents and be drafted without losing eligibility: MLB and NHL already do this with no detrimental effects, and it would let players test the market for what they are worth whenever. If they can get paid then they can just go pro and universities won't have to bear that burden.
• Allow players to profit off of their own names and likenesses: There's no reason why a player shouldn't be able to sell their own autographs or sign a deal that let's their name go on a jersey. Let them do that.

I feel like that would end up maintaining amateur status effectively at universities while still being fair for players.