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. PJ - Mall operators like Simon, and most developers/ land owners, establish individual legal entities for each property to avoid having a problem location sink the ship, or simply structure the note to exclude anything but the property acting as collateral. Usually both. The big banks that lend are big boys that know the risks and aren't mad at Simon for forking over the deed and walking away.

  2. Do any of the East side residence think that Macy, JC Penny's and the other national tenants would have letft the mall if they were making money?? I have read several post about how Simon neglected the property but it sounds like the Eastsiders stopped shopping at the mall even when it was full with all of the national retailers that you want to come back to the mall. I used to work at the Dick's at Washington Square and I know for a fact it's the worst performing Dick's in the Indianapolis market. You better start shopping there before it closes also.

  3. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  4. If you only knew....

  5. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

ADVERTISEMENT