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.
Didn't Gale Sayers used to carry the ball like that?
Broke my heart as a kid when he got hurt.
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.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.
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.They most certainly do (set their rules). That said, making players ineligible for legal behavior, won't end well for them.
I'd like to see "rocket surgery." I guess it would take a larger operating room?It's not rocket surgery: existing revenue sources. They're huge and generated largely by the kids.
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.
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!Didn't Gale Sayers used to carry the ball like that?
Broke my heart as a kid when he got hurt.
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.They most certainly do (set their rules). That said, making players ineligible for legal behavior won't end well for them.
Just a question, can someone explain how the NCAA sees the new California law as "unconstitutional".
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.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.
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.
...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...
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.
What does that even mean? The big ten conference makes millions of dollars that is distributed to all members in that conference yearly.
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
I kid, I kid, but do see the irony in this topic getting so much attention when Illinois has never had a 1ndone
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.What does that even mean? The big ten conference makes millions of dollars that is distributed to all members in that conference yearly.