New NBA pact could kill NCAA's one-and-done dilemma

November 28, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

College basketball may be one of the biggest benefactors of the soon-to-be ratified National Basketball Association labor settlement. Yes, that’s right, college basketball.

NBA owners and players are expected to approve the agreement rolled out by Commissioner David Stern and players association boss Billy Hunter over the weekend.

And while the deal has all types of provisions to save the owners $2.4 billion to $3.2 billion over 10 years and ensure competitive balance within the league, there are a bevy of so-called “B-list” issues—including drug testing and a minimum wage requirement for players to enter the draft—that still need to be ironed out.

The league’s current minimum age for players is 19, but NBA sources have said owners are quietly huddling about raising it to 20 starting with the new collective bargaining agreement. That would mean it would be in place for the current crop of college freshman and the 2012 draft.

The change would put an end to one of the NCAA’s most troubling problems; the one-and-done scenario in Div. I college basketball.

We should know for certain by week’s end. In the meantime, you can bet NCAA officials and men’s college basketball coaches everywhere are waiting anxiously.

Since the NBA instituted its minimum playing age to 19 in 2005, a host of star players have played one year in college and then jumped to the pros. The scenario means a player can come in, pass three or four classes during his first semester, then never attend a single class during his second semester on campus while playing out the season through March Madness, then bounce to the pros.

The players don’t have to go to class because flunking grades from their second semester wouldn’t render them ineligible until the following semester (or the beginning of the next season). By that time, these guys figure to have signed their first pro contract.

The one-and-done scenario, many have argued, totally distorts the notion of the student-athlete. Some argue that it gives an unfair advantage to schools willing to recruit such non-students, while others say it totally disrupts team-building and recruiting efforts to have such a revolving door policy.

While having players only two years may not be the perfect solution, it would at least afford college basketball programs a modicum of continuity while creating a situation where a player has to put in some type of effort to pass classes for three semesters.

And who knows? In that extra year, some star players might find that academics are a worthy pursuit after all.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Great article and post scripts by Mike L (Great addition to IBJ BTW). Bobby's stubborn as a mule, and doubt if he ever comes back to IU. But the love he would receive would be enormous. Hope he shows some time, but not counting on it.

  2. When the Indiana GOP was going around the State selling the Voucher bill they were promising people that the vouchers would only be for public charter schools. They lied. As usual.

  3. I am Mr. Morris Ray, a Legitimate And a Reputable money Lender. We lend funds out to individuals in need of financial assistance, we give loan to people that have a bad credit or in need of money to pay bills, to invest on business. Have you been looking for loan? you have not to worry, because you are in the right place i offer loan at low interest rate of 2% so if you are in need of a loan i want you to just contact me via this email Address: morris_ray123@outlook.com

  4. Jim, your "misleading" numbers comment is spot on. This is the spin these posers are putting on it. News flash, fans: these guys lie. They are not publicly traded so no one holds them accountable for anything they say. The TV numbers are so miniscule to begin with any "increase" produces double digit "growth" numbers. It's ridiculous to think that anything these guys have done has awakened the marketplace. What have they done? Consolidate the season so they run more races on consecutive weekends? And this creates "momentum." Is that the same momentum you enjoy when you don't race between August and March? Keep in mind that you are running teams who barely make ends meet ragged over the summer to accomplish this brilliant strategy of avoiding the NFL while you run your season finale at midnight on the East Coast. But I should not obfuscate my own point: any "ratings increase" is exactly what Jim points to - the increased availability of NBC Sports in households. Look fans, I love the sport to but these posers are running it off a cliff. Miles wants to declare victory and then run for Mayor. I could go on and on but bottom line for God's sake don't believe a word they say. Note to Anthony - try doing just a little research instead of reporting what these pretenders say and then offering an "opinion" no more informed than the average fan.

  5. If he's finally planning to do the right thing and resign, why not do it before the election? Waiting until after means what - s special election at tax payer expense? Appointment (by whom?) thus robbing the voters of their chance to choose? Does he accrue some additional financial advantage to waiting, like extra pension payments? What's in it for him? That's the question that needs to be asked.

ADVERTISEMENT