Illinois Hoops Recruiting Thread (September 2019)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mad Scientist
Arizona, USA
I don't see how a change in California law can change the NCAA's rules on amateurism. Membership in the NCAA is voluntary and I'd think that one requirement of membership is that you play by the rules of the NCAA. Now, enforcing those rules may be hit or miss, but lack of enforcement is not the same as invalidating the rules.
There are nearly 40 million people in CA, most of whom have TVs. That's a strong disincentive for the NCAA to simply let all CA schools be ineligible. Further, other states may follow CA's example once it passes and there's a 2+ year grace period.

It's not a legal pressure that will be on the NCAA, but an economic one.
 
There are nearly 40 million people in CA, most of whom have TVs. That's a strong disincentive for the NCAA to simply let all CA schools be ineligible. Further, other states may follow CA's example once it passes and there's a 2+ year grace period.

It's not a legal pressure that will be on the NCAA, but an economic one.
But the NCAA would not have to make the schools ineligible. They would just make players who get money for their likenesses ineligible, just like they do now in all fifty states. Private groups get to decide who their members are, and what their rules are. There are some obvious exceptions to this rule, but I don't see them applying here.

I feel like I must be missing something about the California law.
 
you feel me, dog?
Elmhurst
But the NCAA would not have to make the schools ineligible. They would just make players who get money for their likenesses ineligible, just like they do now in all fifty states. Private groups get to decide who their members are, and what their rules are. There are some obvious exceptions to this rule, but I don't see them applying here.
They most certainly do (set their rules). That said, making players ineligible for legal behavior won't end well for them.
 
Last edited:
Likes: KevinC
They most certainly do (set their rules). That said, making players ineligible for legal behavior, won't end well for them.
Isn't it kind of the same problem for the NCAA as they had when the SEC said they were going to give players a stipend. Agree or we will form our own agency is what I remember. The NCAA caved.
 
Likes: KevinC
Madison, WI
Because there is more to life than college athletics, and there is more to learn from college athletics than winning at all costs. There are rules and if you agree to be abide by those rules you should. That is the moral reason. Just because others cheat doesn't mean we should. Didn't we learn that in pre-school? We all are big fans and want the team to succeed, but I personally have just as much pride watching a guy like AJ play hard for four years and represent the university well.
I think the point he was trying to make was that the NCAA's rules aren't based in morality, so why should that be the reason to adhere to said rules. What is morality in this case?
 
Likes: KevinC
Rockford, IL
Didn't Gale Sayers used to carry the ball like that?
Broke my heart as a kid when he got hurt.
Thanks for posting that video. My favorite runner of all time. The way he would give them the dead leg, his vision up field and the way he would gallop, not run, gallop. And, who ever had a better nickname than the Kansas Comet!
 
They most certainly do (set their rules). That said, making players ineligible for legal behavior won't end well for them.
I think selling one's likeness has always been legal, and yet the NCAA has always been able to make players ineligible. There has to be something more to the Cali law that I am missing.
 
Likes: Illiniguy90
The one-and-done rule was enacted in 2005 and applied to the draft that year. Starting in 2006, North Carolina has won 3 championships, Kansas has won 1, Duke has won 2, and Kentucky has won 1. Those 4 schools account for 7 of the 14 championships since the one-and-done rule started. If you also look at opponents in those games, you have another several teams relying on one-and-dones. Those same 4 schools won 15 of the previous 45 NCAA tournaments to date, so while they were already overrepresented at 33% of all championships, but they are now sitting at 50%. That is a significant bump.
Hold on, all sounds good on the surface...but I'm not really buying this for a number of reasons., Also I'm a bit confused on UNC #3, which I think would be 2005, which seems to be rightfully excluded in text, but I don't get to 3 unless you include it. UNC also is the lion's share of the 3 of 7 and I wouldn't have thrown them in the schools relying on the 1 n done for there championship teams.

Simply throw in UCLA (11 prior - 0 post)as the missing Blue blood, and the 15 goes to 26 of 45, and you can argue the trend is the other direction...

Including UNC 2005 year as the 3rd UNC championship just as a reference point, here is another look on the rosters the year they won the championship:

2005 - Carolina - (Marvin Williams - 5th in points/5th in minutes - went to draft as freshman, 9th ranked 247, but was eligible to go straight to NBA - so I don't see a 1 n done here)
2008 - Kansas (highest Kansas recruit Cole Aldrich - #27 - (I'm not seeing a 1 n done impact)
2009 - Carolina (highest recruit Ed Davis - #10, Tyler Zeller - 16; - (Davis 6th in points & minutes; I'm not seeing a 1 n done impact )
2010 - Duke (highest recruit Ryan Kelly - 16, Mason Plumlee - 27 - (Plumlee 7th in minutes, Kelly insignificant; I'm not seeing a 1 n done impact)
2012 - Kentucky (highest recruit Anthony Davis - 1, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist - 3, Marquis Teague - 6, Kyle Wiltjer - 20 (*** clearly 1 n done impact)
2015 - Duke (Okafor - 1, Tyus Jones - 8, Justise Winslow - 13; (*** clearly 1 n done impact)
2017 - Carolina (Tony Bradley - 25) - (I'm not seeing a 1 n done impact)

So I'm only seeing 2 years where a high school draft clearly impacted the championship roster of the 6-7 championships seasons/teams you chose, of the other 5 I don't see anyone that I think would have been drafted straight from high school.
 
Part of my point, though, is that the top 15 to 20 players are typically far and away better than the next 100 players in a given class. There is a bigger difference in talent between player #10 and player #25 than there is between player #35 and player #50. Shoot, it's probably even a bigger difference that #35 and #95.

The point is that it would force them to recruit from a more even pool with the rest of us.
Understand your point, I'm just not sure it's accurate. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying we might be putting in a solution for a problem that doesn't really fix it. Of course IMO it's better to try something and fail rather than keep on keeping on with a KNOWN broken process.

I think one of the things the NCAA has shown over the years (BCS) is that they put in a "fix" to a situation and then lock themselves in to that solution for a period of time. We really need the ability to quickly review and refine these things. I'm not saying mid-season or mid-recruiting-cycle, but make changes after a year.
 
Scholarship players, major sports, get free education, room, and board. However, they get nothing in pay. My likeness belongs to me and me alone. Players should get money if their likeness is used. If they are good enough to get their likeness used then pay them for it. On that why should the NCAA be against it. The NCAA can get money from it also. Now, let's get Miller and Curbelo to complete our 2020 class.
 
Likes: KevinC
Illini optimist
Charleston
...I think one of the things the NCAA has shown over the years (BCS) is that they put in a "fix" to a situation and then lock themselves in to that solution for a period of time. We really need the ability to quickly review and refine these things...
I’m not sure about that... I’m ok with SOME things being/needing quick fixes. However, some situations require a bit of time to see the value of the change...
 
Hold on, all sounds good on the surface...but I'm not really buying this for a number of reasons., Also I'm a bit confused on UNC #3, which I think would be 2005, which seems to be rightfully excluded in text, but I don't get to 3 unless you include it. UNC also is the lion's share of the 3 of 7 and I wouldn't have thrown them in the schools relying on the 1 n done for there championship teams.

Simply throw in UCLA (11 prior - 0 post)as the missing Blue blood, and the 15 goes to 26 of 45, and you can argue the trend is the other direction...

Including UNC 2005 year as the 3rd UNC championship just as a reference point, here is another look on the rosters the year they won the championship:

2005 - Carolina - (Marvin Williams - 5th in points/5th in minutes - went to draft as freshman, 9th ranked 247, but was eligible to go straight to NBA - so I don't see a 1 n done here)
2008 - Kansas (highest Kansas recruit Cole Aldrich - #27 - (I'm not seeing a 1 n done impact)
2009 - Carolina (highest recruit Ed Davis - #10, Tyler Zeller - 16; - (Davis 6th in points & minutes; I'm not seeing a 1 n done impact )
2010 - Duke (highest recruit Ryan Kelly - 16, Mason Plumlee - 27 - (Plumlee 7th in minutes, Kelly insignificant; I'm not seeing a 1 n done impact)
2012 - Kentucky (highest recruit Anthony Davis - 1, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist - 3, Marquis Teague - 6, Kyle Wiltjer - 20 (*** clearly 1 n done impact)
2015 - Duke (Okafor - 1, Tyus Jones - 8, Justise Winslow - 13; (*** clearly 1 n done impact)
2017 - Carolina (Tony Bradley - 25) - (I'm not seeing a 1 n done impact)

So I'm only seeing 2 years where a high school draft clearly impacted the championship roster of the 6-7 championships seasons/teams you chose, of the other 5 I don't see anyone that I think would have been drafted straight from high school.
Yeah, Carolina has never really jumped on the 1 and done bandwagon, they seem to have built their program on that 10-50 talent and an entertaining style of basketball
 

IllFanInMi

I
Guest
One and done discussions on the Illinois Loyalty Board, it’s really getting dreamy around here. So much for worrying about burning OV’s, BU can’t recruit, and the Irvin’s! Such joy coming here now, can’t wait for the next 5 star to sign up!
 
Likes: OWWDig
Mad Scientist
Arizona, USA
One and done discussions on the Illinois Loyalty Board, it’s really getting dreamy around here. So much for worrying about burning OV’s, BU can’t recruit, and the Irvin’s! Such joy coming here now, can’t wait for the next 5 star to sign up!
You must have only skimmed since no one here implied that Illinois was going to start reeling in a bunch of one-and-dones.
 
Likes: Dude

IllFanInMi

I
Guest
You must have only skimmed since no one here implied that Illinois was going to start reeling in a bunch of one-and-dones

I kid, I kid, but do see the irony in this topic getting so much attention when Illinois has never had a 1ndone
 
Forgottonia
What does that even mean? The big ten conference makes millions of dollars that is distributed to all members in that conference yearly.
And we spend all of it while asking donors for millions and millions more. So where is the money for players coming from? That’s what I’m asking.
 
Have y'all read the Cali bill? Its pretty clear on some of the speculated points in this thread.

My own acronyms for brevity:
NIL = student's name, image, likeness
NCAA = An athletic association, conference, or other group or organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics, including, but not limited to, the National Collegiate Athletic Association
School = postsecondary educational institution, meaning any campus of the University of California or the California State University, an independent institution of higher education, as defined in Section 66010, or a private postsecondary educational institution, as defined in Section 94858
Rule = rule, requirement, standard, or other limitation

1. A school cannot uphold any rule that prevents a student from earning compensation as a result of the use of NIL. Earning compensation from NIL shall not affect the students eligibility.

2. The NCAA shall not prevent a student at a school from earning compensation for NIL.

3. The NCAA shall not prevent a school from participating in intercollegiate athletics as a result of a student earning compensation for NIL.

4. A school cannot provide compensation to a student for NIL.

5. Schools and the NCAA cannot prohibit a student from hiring attorneys and agents.

6. Agents and lawyers hired by a student must be licensed by the state.

7. Agents representing students must comply with federal laws.

8. A scholarship provided by a school is not considered compensation. A scholarship shall not be revoked as a result of a student earning compensation for NIL.

9. A student cannot enter into a contract for NIL that conflicts with one of their teams' contracts. A student that enters a contract must disclose it to the school. The school must respond identifying any conflicts.

10. A team's contract shall not prevent a student from using their NIL for a commercial purpose when the student is not engaged in official team activities.

11. This becomes operative 1/1/2023

Edit: it also convenes a working group to review Community Colleges with respect to these same issues and expects a report to be submitted prior to 7/1/2021.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.