Rice Commission recommendations to be released today
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.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/25/sports/ncaa-condeleezza-rice.html
https://www.aspeninstitute.org/blog-posts/history-behind-debate-paying-ncaa-athletes/
UPDATE: IT HAS BEEN RELEASED.
April 25th, 2018 at 11:18 AM ^
April 25th, 2018 at 11:31 AM ^
Understandable stance and I was probably too "hot take" with that but I guess I think it all starts with paying the players. If you can't get point A right, then how can you jump to point B?
The stuff with the coaches and removing the cheaters is good, but you're still not creating an environment that would get rid of it. If you allow the players to make their own money, then there would be a lot less cheating and reliance on agents, shoe companies, bag men, etc. As a player, why would you accept a $10,000 payment to go to Louisville or Arizona, when you can go to any power 5 school, get exposure, and make money off that exposure with literally no risk of being ruled ineligible?
Punishing the cheaters is good, but paying the players will remove the ability to cheat becuase it gives the players leverage and the dollar amounts needed to sway players would have to be so alarmingly high that it would be easy to catch.
April 25th, 2018 at 12:24 PM ^
I don't know if this really fixes things for the elite players. I don't believe that players will get paid enough from their likeness to make a difference in decision making based on the amount of money being thrown out there. Ayton got offered 100K to go play at Arizona. Would a small stipend of a few grand really make it so he is not going to be swayed by an offer like that.
If i was going to work a project for a 6 month period, your damn right that a $100K difference in what i'm going to make over that period is going to decide where I take my job.
I think you're greatly undervaluing the advertising a player like Ayton (who was widely seen as a top 5 pick before choosing a college) would receive if he was able to make money off of his likeness. How many small businesses in Ann Arbor would pay someone like Wagner or Burke around $10 - 15k to do some advertising? I would bet a fair number and thats only in Ann Arbor.
While yes, the player would have more commitments to make that money, would you really trade $50 - 80k coming from a few days of work for $100k that would potentially make you ineligble to play at all? Its a risk vs. reward question and I would think most athletes wouldn't sacrifice an entire year of playing competitively for a few thousand more; especially when they are only a few months away from getting paid millions for playing competitively.
I guess it depends on what they are truly allowed to do under the new rules. Would they be able to have sponsorships and do advertising like you are suggesting? Or are they simply allowed to get paid for being in video games, a portion of jersey sales, and other things that the school is now making money on in the current system?
April 25th, 2018 at 11:38 AM ^
April 25th, 2018 at 11:44 AM ^
This seems to be a report to say these are all the things we can do to make college basketball better without paying the players - my thoughts are paying the players will take care of a lot of the issues they are trying to deal with.
April 25th, 2018 at 12:00 PM ^
they discuss how that isn't on the table because of pending litigation. Also, soem unviersity presidents believe that the path to paying players would already be under way, if not for the attorneys involved in the pending cases.
Seems to me paying players helps in more desperate situations where kids want to do the right thing but are highly incentivized to take under the table money so their little siblings don't have to eat paint chips. I'm sure there are some of those, but I'd guess in most cases, if you pay players, then the cheating just adds $ on top of that. "Hey, kid why make the NCAA stipulated $x per year to play? Come to Cheating Ass U and they'll be envlepos of cash in your locker above and beyond the NCAA allowed amount."
April 25th, 2018 at 11:24 AM ^
It seems to me that these proposals will push forward the (inevitable?) change of the current pre-NBA basketball development model to a European soccer style development model, or a combination of MLB minor league and soccer youth development models. The NBA seems to be on their way already with the expansion and development of the G-league. Take away one-and-done, and NBA teams may be even more likely to use draft picks on guys that aren't quite ready and stash them in their G-league affiliate, especially in the second round. Or even sign high schoolers to free agent deals that don't get drafted. Long term, I wouldn't be shocked to see NBA expand the G-league to a true minor league system with a couple tiers, one perhaps as a youth division of only U-20 (or so) players. Could even see NBA or NBA affiliated youth academies develop.
I can only think of two things preventing this from happening: 1) the current structure of the draft, and 2) the "free" development system provided by college. But the draft could easily change, maybe slowly at first with an additional round or two to fill G-league rosters. And if the "free" development system at the College ranks is no longer the main route to the NBA, the league may be more willing to step into the development business to ensure that they are continuing to get properly developed talent.
I'd also wonder that if you start limiting the shoe company involvement in the youth ranks, by making it more difficult for them to influence college decisions, if shoe companies don't seek another route. Maybe they start supporting youth academies that aren't geared towards college scholarships, but getting kids into the NBA developoment system.
April 25th, 2018 at 11:32 AM ^
are you going to have better developmental coaches at Duke and Kentucky and Michigan...or in Sioux Falls and Tempe? 2 players, equal talent, one in g-league, one at a blue blood...Blue Blood likely develops more, will have better coaching, a college degree...not to say there's no value in the g-league, but I think that'll be another roadblock to an all out exodus to developmental leagues instead of college.
April 25th, 2018 at 12:01 PM ^
There are few things more overrated about college baskeball than the quality of coaching. In any case, a player is more likely to get better when he can devote his full time to, you know, actually getting better at basketball while playing an NBA-style game against better, more experienced players, opposed to having a full course load and NCAA limits on practice time.
April 25th, 2018 at 12:14 PM ^
But...there are a lot of really good coaches. They all aren't dirty or in it for the money. Some really know the game well, and can teach it well, even if they are at a small school or aren't in a position to recruit very well. And they don't have to be the best coaches, but I guarantee a really good coach will take $3m at a D1 school in a nice-sized college town, instead of what's likely a sub-200k salary coaching in Maine, or Delaware.
And if you think the quality of CBB coaching is overrated, do you think that g-league coaching would be better? Do you think there would be some college coaches trying to make the jump if the G-League becomes a true "minor" league akin to baseball?
April 25th, 2018 at 12:12 PM ^
You think college is better for development only really because that's been the only method available for decades. But just because you know Coach K and not your average g-league coach, does not mean a blue chip talent will develop better at Duke than in the g-league. A college coach's job is to win college basketball games. That's why sometimes a coach will play an illegal NBA defense, like Coach K resorted to when he couldn't get his team to play solid man to man. Plus, the main way a college coach wins is by recruiting the best players, which says nothing about NBA development.
There are several reasons why the g-league would be the better route for any blue chip with pro ambitions: 1) no practice limits; 2) training designed for the individual's NBA future overseen by actual NBA teams; 3) 50 regular season games against the best non-nba talent there is v. 35-40 games against college players, 5-10 of which come against teams with almost no g-league talent.
I see no reason why expanded NBA minor leagues wouldn't immediately become a heavily considered route for all basketball players with professional ambitions, as is already the case for hockey and baseball players.
April 25th, 2018 at 12:36 PM ^
Isn't it likely that it is better? At least for now? Of course if the NBA puts more resource sinto the G-league, that will tilt the scales, but you speak as though Coach K is a lesser coach because he recruits well and wins with a zone defense? He coaches Team USA just fine and is the most respected coach in the last 25 years by anyone professionally associated with the league. So since you brought up Coach K, are you suggesting that there is a G-League coach who can develop talent better than Coach K?
And you may be right, but I think Coach K (and others) play the cards they are dealt. Outside of guys like Pitino, I think a lot of college coaches love developing younger players but the pressure to compete forces them to compromise on things to win (ie zone defenses, one and done etc)
No, it's not likely that it's better. It's merely a historical artifact from college basketball developing before the NBA, and thus the NBA never having to extend the resources to create its own minor league system. Which is a position they seem to be reconsidering.
I don't know if Coach K can develop talent better than a g-league coaching staff. Nobody really does. It's not the g-league's job at the moment to develop 18-year olds. Some would argue, it isn't Coach K's job at the moment either. There's no doubt that Coach K can coach a talented group of players to win basketball games. He's shown that at Duke for 30 years with on average more talent than pretty much every other program. He's shown that at the olympics with even greater talent advantages. That doesn't by itself mean college is the better route for players with pro ambitions.
In a hypothetical world, with a broader NBA g-league, the biggest difference for a player seeking development would be that the individual's development is the number 1 priority of any g-league coach, whereas it is merely one part of a college coach's duties, along with a significantly higher emphasis on winning, and the time consuming process of recruiting. "Knowing more" or even being a slightly better teacher doesn't matter if the coach isn't able to dedicate as much resources to making the player better.
April 25th, 2018 at 12:10 PM ^
Thoughts on adopting the NHL model? This is whereby the players can get drafted once they are 18 (and/or subsequent years I believe) and their rights stick with that team for as long as they are in college. The players can agree to go pro after any season.
April 25th, 2018 at 12:38 PM ^
I wonder though for example, if the Pistons draft a guy, and he wants to go to Syracuse, but the NBA coach doesn't want their newly drafted player playing in a 2-3 for 2 or 3 years...how would that work? How does it work in hockey?
Right - but, in the NHL, even if you are 1st round draft choice, the team doesn't ever have to sign you. So you want to develop to their liking.
April 25th, 2018 at 12:12 PM ^
Nothing is going to change.
you have to think about all the side effects.
Equal pay for all college atheletes in all sports, men's and women's, or you will have an unending battle in the courts, where the lawyers are the only winners.
As it stands, the money goes to upgrading facilities in the universities for all sports, so the players/students benefit indirectly. Cut that revenue stream and universities will be forced to choose which sports to finance and which to cut. That would mean some universities that can't compete in the major sports, would then specialze in a few lesser sports, drawing/paying the best athletes and further creating an unbalance in the college sports world.
Finally, this would legalize bagmen. Organize an autograph session every month - 100 autographs at $100 would add up to a nice amount at the end of the year. Is the NCAA going to put a watchdog behind every organiser to make sure it's legal?
It's a gigantic can of worms, that will be hard to put the lid back on, once it's opened.
Due to salary caps/payroll taxes it is not an open arms race even at the professional level.