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. Really, taking someone managing the regulation of Alcohol and making himthe President of an IVY Tech regional campus. Does he have an education background?

  2. Jan, great rant. Now how about you review the report and offer rebuttal of the memo. This might be more conducive to civil discourse than a wild rant with no supporting facts. Perhaps some links to support your assertions would be helpful

  3. I've lived in Indianapolis my whole and been to the track 3 times. Once for a Brickyard, once last year on a practice day for Indy 500, and once when I was a high school student to pick up trash for community service. In the past 11 years, I would say while the IMS is a great venue, there are some upgrades that would show that it's changing with the times, just like the city is. First, take out the bleachers and put in individual seats. Kentucky Motor Speedway has individual seats and they look cool. Fix up the restrooms. Add wi-fi. Like others have suggested, look at bringing in concerts leading up to events. Don't just stick with the country music genre. Pop music would work well too I believe. This will attract more young celebrities to the Indy 500 like the kind that go to the Kentucky Derby. Work with Indy Go to increase the frequency of the bus route to the track during high end events. That way people have other options than worrying about where to park and paying for parking. Then after all of this, look at getting night lights. I think the aforementioned strategies are more necessary than night racing at this point in time.

  4. Talking about congestion ANYWHERE in Indianapolis is absolutely laughable. Sure you may have to wait in 5 minutes of traffic to travel down BR avenue during *peak* times. But that is absolutely nothing compared to actual big cities. Indy is way too suburban to have actual congestion problems. So please, never bring up "congestion" as an excuse to avoid development in Indianapolis. If anything, we could use a little more.

  5. Oh wait. Never mind.

ADVERTISEMENT