Rice Commission recommendations to be released today

Submitted by canzior on April 25th, 2018 at 9:22 AM

For those who aren't aware (like I wasn't until recently) Condoleeza Rice has been hired by the NCAA and Mark Emmert to provide long term "fixes" to college basketball. Their findings are supposed to be released today. Some of the expected changes include: 

Ending One and done (although this is an NBA rule, not NCAA)

Changing summer league basketball by either disallowing coaches to attend shoe-sponsored camps, or the NCAA starting their own league.

Liberalizing agent rules: allowing players to have earlier contact with agents without having to declare for the draft. 

Transparent apparel deals, mostly with coaches compensation. 

Changing/removing "self-enforcement" of violations. 

5 year post-season ban on violators for the 1st offense, as well as loss of all postseason revenue during the ban. 


Baseball model is almost certanly not going to happen. 


Emmert would like to begin implementing the recommended changes this year and has said that he intends to follow through with everything they suggest, so there could be really big changes to basketball soon. 


Semi-relate article on the history of "student athletes" and where everything sits today. Really good article detailing the major legal cases that have brought us to where we are today.  Of note, The UNC issue, and how the NCAA couldn't go after UNC because fewer than half the students who took the fake classes weren't athletes, so it was a school issue, not an athletics issue. 

Talks about the supreme court cases that have shaped college sports, including the coinage of the term student athlete, and another SC Justice who mandated that college athletes not be paid.  Good read if you haev the time or inclination. 









April 25th, 2018 at 9:32 AM ^

would be to make freshmen ineligible or to lock the scholarship for 3-4 years, that is if the NBA/NBAPA refuse to change its one and done rule.

The report also calls for lifetime bans of coaches instead of show-cause orders for violators...like Pitino...and Boeheim. 

BTB grad

April 25th, 2018 at 9:53 AM ^

That doesn't make any sense. Back when the 1-and-done rule didn't exist, players who would have been 1-and-dones under today's rules like LeBron and Kobe went straight to the NBA. Those who attended college, however, generally stayed at least 2-3 years.

If they weren't good enough to get drafted in the first round out of high school, they most likely wouldn't be drafted in the first round after just one year of college.


April 25th, 2018 at 9:54 AM ^

Still don’t like it. Beilein should be punished for developing guys like Burke and Stauskas into NBA lottery picks? I don’t think spreading the one and done out helps college basketball. Was it good for anyone Ben Simmons was on LSU or Fultz went to UW?


April 25th, 2018 at 10:19 AM ^

Im sorry but how would Beilein be punished? 

In the hypothetical the scholorship is locked for 3-4 years. I.E if the student leaves in 1 or 2 years than you get a penalty. Neither of those players left after 2 years at Michigan. Beilein has had very few players leave after only 2 years so it would actually benefit beilein and other coaches that actually develop their players. 


April 25th, 2018 at 10:33 AM ^

Umm, didn't both Burke and Stauskas leave after 2 years?  Indeed, they did...  Beilein is then punished with an open scholarship for both of those players for the 2014 season, and for Stauskas on the 2015 season.  And what about McGary?  He left after one year - so Michigan is punished for 2-3 additional years because the NCAA is dumb.

I don't like locking scholarships, at all.  It punishes good player development in an unreasonably harsh manner.


April 25th, 2018 at 10:45 AM ^

it ENCOURAGES coaches to convince players to stay an additional year, continue to develop instead of washing out of the league, and puts greater emphasis on STUDENT athlete...it's a no brainer. Too many people caught up in the 'players need to get what they deserve' mindset. COLLEGE athletics has it's roots in COLLEGE with sports emphasis. Yes it does build the 'brand' and gives kids opportunity. Things went to shit once money/sponsors/contracts really came to the forefront. 

Plain and simple, force the kid to be a STUDENT who plays basketball, prepares himself for life, has the advantages of athlete lifestyle...and exposure, and move forward. Don't like those restrictions DON'T GO TO COLLEGE...join the BALL family overseas and get what's yours...


April 25th, 2018 at 12:25 PM ^

So fewer student-athletes get a shot at a scholarship because programs have sunk scholarships?  Programs that develop under-the-radar guys who leave early (see Michigan) get punished?  

The problem with guys leaving early has very little to do with the guys actually leaving and way more with the culture that surrounds AAU and high-level D1 programs.  This report gets to a couple of them, but making freshmen ineligible and punishing programs who develop players doesn't feel like useful changes; they just feel punitive.


April 25th, 2018 at 10:04 AM ^

... and likely few would agree with me, but I think if a player is offered an increasingly valuable scholarship at a major university he owes that University his best effort at obtaining a degree and remaining there as part of the bargain. Conversely, if a player is good enough out of high school to go directly to the pros, they should be allowed to do that. I think it should be either or. You're good enough to play pro ball? Then go for it. You need additional experience? Here's the collegiate offer. I hate the one and done policy.


April 25th, 2018 at 9:30 AM ^

Shouldn't this have been done BEFORE players made the decision to enter the draft (hire an agent) or not? Or doesn it not take effect for this year?

People in a situation like Wagner where they are projected to go in the second round could move down 10-15 spots if they let the normal 1-and-done enter the draft and might've made the choice to wait a year to enter a weaker draft...


April 25th, 2018 at 9:40 AM ^

Either way it's going to be unfair to one group, whether this year or next year... One year it's going to have 2 years worth of one-and-dones in a draft. If it's this year, players like Wagner might get moved down. If it takes place next year, then there's some players that might've not chosen to test the draft waters this year and they might want to now because the amount they're likely to improve by playing another year in collge might not cancel the effects of being in a stronger draft class.

If it does cause next year's class to be stronger, it could effect people like Matthews choice this year...


April 25th, 2018 at 10:00 AM ^

Although I guess the counter to that thought, if you're expecting to develop a year in the G league, then get your shot, that's going to be less likely to happen since whatever team you end up on would essentially be getting 2 first round picks that year.

Maybe it makes Matthews stick around 2 more years? Who knows...

Indy Pete - Go Blue

April 25th, 2018 at 9:33 AM ^

This all seems to be a step in the right direction for me. The players are the engine that makes this whole thing go, and they should have additional opportunities and freedoms in the spirit of justice.

Larry Appleton

April 25th, 2018 at 9:36 AM ^

Eventually, the one-and-done rule will be gone.  At that point, we should all be ready for college basketball to begin its decent into far less relevancy.  It will go the way of college baseball.  It will no doubt have its fans, and its championship will be hyped to some degree.  But eventually, the sport will be relegated to ESPNU levels of coverage.


April 25th, 2018 at 9:47 AM ^

making coaching deals more transparent seems a bit too utopian. nothing to stop companies from funneling additional money to coaches outside the rules. what do we really hope to gain here? just seems like buerocracy for the sake of buerocracy.


April 25th, 2018 at 10:52 AM ^

This would only punish the schools/coaches that do a good job developing players.  The ones that improve enough to see the NBA will go - there is no way in hell the NCAA would even try to inhibit that freedom of speech.  Imagine the NCAA telling the son of a poor, urban family that he cannot leave college to make millions of dollars...  For some reason, I don't see even the NCAA as being that stoopid!

Instead, the school/coach will have an open scholarship - and thus an open roster spot.  And that makes the team slightly less competitive for however long that roster spot is open.  This is a piss-poor reaction to a player that wants to earn money.  I mean, show me the penalty/restriction for a journalism major leaving early to work as a beat reporter at shade_diggity.com, or some such nonsense...

(I googled, it doesn't exist...)


April 25th, 2018 at 9:58 AM ^

Here's the PDF.

Regarding one-and-dones:

The one-and-done regime may have provided some benefts for the NBA and the NCAA in the past, but all stakeholders agree that the downsides now outweigh any benefts.

There have been mutterings from the NBA that the practice is no longer desired in some corners as well, mostly because of what some owners and even folks high up in the league called a lack of leadership on teams. I remember discussing these articles extensively on this very site last year at some point. 

Whole Milk

April 25th, 2018 at 12:03 PM ^

What do you mean by "lack of leadership"? I am confused as to how the one and done culture makes that worse. I assume that adding kids that are a year younger and therefore more likely to be immature, and asking them to be the key to your franchise can't possibly be helping with any leadership issues. Unless I am missing your point altogether which is why I am asking for clarification. 


April 25th, 2018 at 10:19 AM ^

I’m happy to see there is equal focus on cleaning up all parties involved, the NCAA, the schools, the coaches, the apparel companies, and the AAU circuit instead of simply calling for draconian rules making the lives of recruits harder.

It will be interesting to see if Emmert sticks to his word and implements everything suggested whether the outside entities change or not.

I especially like the focus on making college administrators reaponsible for their institutions. I doubt the sign off on as many questionable hires if they know they could lose their job because of an idiot coach or AD.


April 25th, 2018 at 10:23 AM ^

Having a predetermined punishment for first offenders is a good idea, and I love that it’s so severe (5 years), but the NCAA will probably just find another way to not enforce it like (i.e. giving an impeding traffic ticket for speeding 20 over).


April 25th, 2018 at 10:30 AM ^

The NCAA itself has cultivated this culture of bag men by not allowing their riches to reach the athletes responsible for generating it, and being too weak in their punishment of rule breakers. Instead of looking internally at their own faults, they want to place blame at the feet of others. Rice was on the damn College Football Playoff commitee. This isn't some outside investigation. It's propoganda being pushed by Emmert as an outside solution. 

Allow kids to make money off their likeness Mark. Get college football/basketball video games back into the fold. Put jersey sale money into a fund that grows interest, and pay out each player that gets a degree to dissuade 1 and done candidates. Provide your athletes an HSA at the very least. Once you pay players what they rightfully deserve, THEN you can come down as hard as you want on anyone who breaks the rules outside of that. 

Right now players and their familes need the money you are withholding from them. 


April 25th, 2018 at 12:47 PM ^

When the student athletes are fairly compensated, then you can hand out firmer punishments for anything above/beyond. I think it changes the equation significantly. 

The current situation is $0 paid vs. family financial security and a slap on the wrist if caught.

The proposed situation is $0 paid vs. family finacial secturity with more risk. The only thing that deters is the easiness of the money flow. The cheating will still go on. The money starved will still take money regardless of the consequences. All this proposal does is demand creativity out of the bag men. 

My proposed situation is family financial security vs. excess with the risk of losing that financial security. Cheating will still go on, as greed is powerful, but it should be limited comparitively. 


April 25th, 2018 at 12:49 PM ^

than just "it doesn't fix what I (who is in the minority opinion to pay players) think the issue is so ALL OTHER IDEAS ARE AWFUL.  Paying players isn't some magic solution that will fix all of college sports. If players are paid, they will still take money from shoe companies, because no one will say (Oh no thanks, I have enough money) Coaches will still find ways to cheat. You fix what you can, when you can fix it, and continue to move forward.


April 25th, 2018 at 2:28 PM ^

And how does anyone think cheating can be stopped? Even if bag men are made legal, the schools with similar bag men will develop new ways to get ahead. Anyways, back to Rice's recommendations.

Stop One and Done: By ruining college kids chance to make money when they can? 18/19 year olds can compete in the NBA physically. Let them if they want to. If kids are forced to go to college for three years and they cannot enter the NBA draft until 1 year removed from HS, then other options (European leagues, G leagues, whatever it is LaVarr Ball is working on) will be flooded with the talent, and the NCAA will be left with bag men fighting over non-NBA talent. 

Summer League Shoe Camps: Either stripping players of the chance to be scouted, or stripping player the chance at elite level coaching. Completely hypocritical as Michigan brings in  $173.8 Million to wear Jordan brand clothing & supplies free Jordans to it's players. Yet a kid is not allow to accept money to wear that brand by going to a school outfitted by that brand? If adidas is willing to pay a kid $20,000 to go to an adidas school and the NCAA is getting in the way of that, that is getting in the way of that kid being fairly compensated imo.

Allowing Certified Agent Contact: Good move. 

Transparency: I don't know what this is supposed to help and good luck. 

Removing self-enforcement: Why was this ever a thing to begin with? 

5 year ban for first time violators: Great they want to crack down on it but as I stated above, the equation still isn't even enough to lower the numbers drastically. SMU's death sentence didn't slow down bag men, they just went deeper underground. Got more careful.