Eliminate the one-and-done rule: An argumentative essay by THE JUICE
Bored as heeeeeellllllllllllllllll and I can't sleep, so here I go. I know nobody's gonna read the whole thing, but whatever.
The NBA's "one and done rule," stating that a player must be one year removed from their graduating high school class before applying for entrance into the NBA Draft, has sparked much controversy since its inauguration in 2006. Some are in favor of the rule, saying that players have become more physically and mentally ready to handle the rigors of the NBA. Others argue that players of legal age who are ready to make the jump straight from high school should have the right to make that decision. Either way, the NBA's one-and-done policy simply isn't good enough.
In my opinion, players who have the talent, or think they have the talent, should be allowed to enter the draft straight out of high school. Signing a contract worth millions of dollars just a couple of months after your prom is an extremely rare opportunity. There are only 60 spots in the NBA draft, and guys who think they're ready to compete should be allowed to try and claim one of those spots. Players who have the talent to be drafted by an NBA team straight out of high school are usually well aware of this fact by their senior year. Players with enough talent also have the opportunity to speak to sports professionals who can give them a clear estimate of their draft stock. Many of the league's former and current stars, such as Kevin Garnett, Tracy McGrady, Jermaine O'Neal, Amar'e Stoudemire, Dwight Howard and Kobe Bryant never suited up for a college team.
While spending one year in college can be a burden to many young phenoms, it does have its obvious advantages. Due to the much shorter and less strenuous college season, players have a greater opportunity to improve their skills and body during the off season. The NBA doesn't babysit players. They may give them a few years if they have potential, but they'll be replaced if they don't show improvement within a certain amount of time. Not only is it a good opportunity for the players, but it also makes college basketball more competitive and fun to watch. Kevin Durant and Michael Beasley, two players who surely would have made the jump to the NBA if they had the opportunity, gave us two of the most dominant college basketball seasons in recent memory.
In contrast, players are basically forced to spend one year in college straight out of high school, which isn't always a good idea. Recent eligibility and benefit issues (OJ Mayo, Derrick Rose, John Wall, Renardo Sidney, Lance Stephenson) would have never arose had these players been allowed to make the jump straight to the NBA. These players also show little to no interest in their classes, and are notorious for choosing easy majors and classes during their one year of college. It also doesn't really help the schools as much as it appears it would. For example, a big-time recruit can go to a college for a year, dominate, declare for the draft, and leave nothing behind for the school which he attended, thereby showing no long-term improvement for the school. While some players who may have shown interest in making the jump straight out of high school might not have had the talent to succeed in the NBA, they should at least have the opportunity to find out for themselves.
In conclusion, the NBA needs a better policy than the current one-and-done policy that they have now. Players should either be allowed to make the jump straight out of high school, or spend at least 3 years in college. Players who sign with an agent, yet are drafted below their expected value or undrafted, should be allowed to play college basketball, as long as they don't play a professional game first. The only contract that a drafted player who wants to play college basketball instead of NBA basketball should sign is a contract stating that he can practice with his respective NBA team during the college off season, as long as he doesn't receive any pocket money. If we continue with the current one-and-done policy, we will only exacerbate this issue, causing more kids to play overseas and more recruiting and on-campus violations.
And I'm DONE! It wasn't my best, but it sure did make the time fly!
my take on this issue is that it is fine the way it is right now. Let's consider the options:
1-allow them to come out of highschool
-plain and simple too many kids were doing this that were not ready. The nba was turning into a place to develop youngsters who were years away from being ready to contribute and were taking roster spots away from veterans. The NBA is billion dollar industry, and the reality is that if they desire to see a kid play 1 year at a higher level then they have that right. People can complain about how this is not fair to the kid, but just about any billion dollar corporation is gonna have requirments for potential employees, that is life. The owners have the right to look out for what is in their best interest. And it is not like making these athletes play ONE season of college/european/d-league ball is exactly keeping them from their dreams or rights. Notice that if they need immediate money or just don't have the grades or desire to play college, they can always go to europe or dLeague and make money for that one season.
2-Two + years of college
-Now while I defend the nba's rights to want one year of seasoning before allowing entry, 2 years or more is now pushing the limits of infringing on the players rights to make a living. Many players have proven time and time again that one season of college is enough time to be ready for the nba. Also, since the real issue is that teams want to evaluate these prospects before investing millions, that one season is plenty of time to do that. If the GM's still can't get right, then it is on them. Also, the number of on campus violations would only go up. With one year, it is easy to just keep your nose clean during the basketball season and then drop out after the season ends and start getting ready for the draft. If you start making these kids stay for 2 years or more, then all the sudden the illegal benefits and the inability to hide these situations will be far more frequent.
Keep it the way it is.
butt i dont understand why the let kids from overseas come and join the nba at 18
the real should apply to every one like of gallanari (or how ever u spell it )and batum
and others who names excape me .
i also like the idea of of having high school players come in from high school but most kids understand if they're not
ready for the nba, like my man brandon roy did and look where it got him and dont forget timmy duncan, and chris pual
college is a great thing that all im saying like john wall might suck donkey ass and kno will every know if he jump rite
into the nba until he played his first game u see what hapen to kwame brown if he would of went college for two years he might of been a top 10 pick and busting ass rite now but they should have rite to choose to go 2 college or to the nba
I dont like how it is but at the same time I understand all the reasons it was done. I would still vote against the one year rule but I can also see myself supported it because most Gm's are stupid and dont really know what they are doing. The Good Gm's would draft well and get quality young guys. Look at Sam Presti, Brian Conlango and a few others. The bad Gm's would continue to grab guys that can't play, need a lot of time to develop, and guys that are trouble makers. They would get mad and blame the player for them sucking at their job. ( I am a bad spellers so if I misspelled a name that is not my intention)
It's a stupid rule that benefits only the NBA. Please note, the overwhelming majority of college coaches also think it's a horrible. Here are several reasons why this rule is idiotic.
1. If a high school kid has the talent, no interest in college, and wants to make his living playing basketball, let him do it. Who are we to pretend we know better?
2. It makes a mockery of the already laughable "student athlete" moniker. Anyone who follows college basketball knows the majority of players on the starting five at major universities aren't legitimate students and will never graduate.
All a "One and Done" student does is take a few Phys Ed course in the fall semester, and a couple of more in the spring semester, and then drops out immediately after the basketball season ends.
The above scenario is pathetic. The young man doesn't even attend school for 2 semesters, so why waste his time and everyone else's pretending he's a student?
3. I don't think there should be an "either or rule". In other words, some people suggest you can go right out of high school, but if you opt for college, than you have to stay for x number of years. That's ridiculous. They should be free to apply for a job with the NBA just like other college students are free to drop out of school and apply for a job in the business world if they have a good opportunity.
Let's nor forget there's no rule stopping young men from joining the military and putting their lives on the line to fight for America. Why should it be any different for basketball?
4. Doing away with the rule doesn't force anyone to apply for the NBA straight out of high school. We're only talking about a handful of kids. It just gives them more realistic options and doesn't force them to do something they don't want to do. College isn't for everyone.
5. We have different rules for American and Foreign kids, that double standard would probably never stand up to a legal or common sense test.
Note: The only reason this rule is in existence is to help save face for many less than bright NBA GMs who were drafting kids out of high school and getting it wrong. With this rule, they can watch them play against the best in the nation for one season. It was a rule created for the benefit of the NBA, it has nothing to do with helping young men.
I think it's an idiotic rule for a number of reasons. I'm not alone, I think the overwhelming majority of college coaches also think it's a horrible. I can't think of all the reasons why I'm against it, but here are several that come to mind.
1. If a high school kid has the talent, no interest in college, and wants to make his living playing basketball, let him do it. Who are we to pretend we know better?
***(he can make a living playing basketball, overseas or in the dleague. And it's not about our opinion, it's the owners and GM's who are deciding this.)***
2. It makes a mockery of the already almost laughable "student athlete" moniker. Anyone who follows college basketball knows the majority of players on the starting five at major universities aren't legitimate students and will never graduate. So why force them go through the charade? All a "ONe and Done" student does is take a few Phys Ed course in the fall semester, and a couple of more in the spring semester, and then drops out immediately after the season ends.
I don't know about anyone else, but i think the above scenario is pathetic. The young man doesn't even attend school for 2 semesters, so why waste his time and everyone esle's pretending he's a student?
***(Again, they don't have to go to school. And unless you plan on making every student athlete stay 4 years, theat whole system is gonna be a mockery regardless. How many guys who play in the nba have a college degree regardless of how long they stayed in school, not many. At least this way, the school gets the financial benefit of bringing these guys in for one year and the player get's to develop as a player while getting national exposure.)***
3. I don't think there should be an "either or rule". In other words, some people suggest you can go right out of high school, but if you opt for college, than you have to stay for x number of years. That's ridiculous. Young men are free to join the military and put their lives on the line to fight for America.
They should also be free to apply for a job with the NBA just like other college students are free to drop out of school and apply for a job in the business world if they get a good opportunity.
***(I hate this "if they can go to war" argument. The kids can make money playing ball or doing whatever it is they want. If the NBA wants to make them stay out of highschool one year before drafting them, that's their right. If I try to become a lawyer and they say I need to take the bar exam first, I can't say "while if I can fight for my country" that's a lame argument. The owners don't want to commit millions to highschool kids, I don't blame them.)****
4. Doing away with the rule doesn't force anyone to apply for the NBA straight out of high school. We're only talking about a handful of kids. It just gives kids more realistic options.
****(These kids still have plenty of options. And if the oly kids declaring were the Kobe's and Garnetts, then this wouldn't even be an issue. The problem is all the kids that were not ready.)****
5. We have different rules for American and Foreign kids, that double standard would probably never stand up to a legal or common sense test.
***(No. The foreign kids don't go to highschool, they are playing pro ball against men. This allows the nba to evaluate them at a higher level which is exactly what the nba is trying to accomplish by making the american kids play one year outside of higschool. There is nothign illegal about it.)****
Note: The only reason this rule is in existence is to help save face for many less than bright NBA GMs who were drafting kids out of high school and getting it wrong. With this rule, they can watch them play against the best in the nation for one season.
Even thought the NBA pretends this rule is in place to help kids, that's a joke. What I described in the note above is the only reason for the implementation of the rule
***(this you are correct about. This is about the nba owners not investing millions in kids until they have seen them play at a higher level. What is wrong, unethical or unfair about that?)****
llperez22, I often agree with your excellent basketball assessments, but this is one time where we definitely disagree. I'm not going to get into all of the areas where we disagree, I will focus only on a couple.
The "Go to War" option is valid and relevant. If we as a culture have determined that high school graduates are responsible enough to decide if they want to risk their lives defending freedom, then they should also be capable of deciding whether they want to attend college or play basketball for a living. We don't force them to attend college for one year before they join the Marines.
The basketball decision is trivial when compared with going to Iraq or Afghanistan as my son did.
You wrote, "If I try to become a lawyer and they say I need to take the bar exam first."
Your lawyer argument is off base. If you want to be a police officer, attorney, doctor, or be certified for any profession that deals with and serves the public, society has a responsibility to ascertain that you meet specific requirements before you can serve the public.
Playing basketball is not a form of serving the public, no one is going to be damaged or injured if a guy isn't a good basketball player.
You made one of my arguments, this rule is solely for the benefit of the NBA who have the nerve to pretend they're doing it to help young men.
By the way, you did make an excellent point about the foreign players.
You also wrote, "The owners don't want to commit millions to highschool kids, I don't blame them.)****
Neither do I, nobody's forcing NBA GMs to draft high school players and spend millions on them. But the NBA is FORCING kids, who have no interest in school, to pretend they're a student and attend college so they can scout them for one season. I'm not sure why this doesn't bother you, but it certainly offends me and many others.
well, i think we able to respect each other's opinions on this, but disagree. I will reapeat though, that the players are not "forced" to go to college. The players are allowed to play overseas and make money. Jennings made a million there. If they don't want to go overseas, then they can play in the nbadl and make money. The truth is that most "choose" to go to college because it is the best way to stay in the spotlight and market themsleves to the media and NBA teams. Also, playing against college comp is a much easier transition then playing against grown men. These kids go to college becasue it benefits them more in the long term then to make some immediate money in dleague or overseas. The whole war thing is just irrelevant on this issue in my mind.
The players can make money, the nba is allowed a better tool to evaluate before investing money, which they are entitled to do. The colleges make money off these kids for one year. Everyone wins. The only people who don't win are the sorry players who would have gotten drafted high out of highschool but get exposed in the college game and see their stock drop. And for the guys who are gonna be pro's regardless like the Mayo's and Rose's, it's only ONE year.
Back in the 90's, I was all for allowing kids to come out for the draft because, as you put it, it's not like the nba has to draft these kids. But it was just getting way out of hand with the number of unqualified kids entering the draft. Something had to be done.
One area where we agree is that the rule benefits the NBA, not the young men. You're also right in that most kids attend college because it provides them with a number of benefits and thankfully most of the them choose to do such.
However, I don't buy you're play overseas option argument. How would you feel if you were graduating from high school and talented enough to receive a big time offer from IBM or GE, but the government made a rule saying you can't accept that job offer unless you attend college for at least one year? You don't have to pass any courses, you just have to be on a campus for a calendar year.
However llperez22, if you don't want to attend college for one year, you have the option of working for IBM or GE in Malaysia, Poland, or Belgium.
Reference your example of what happened back in the 90's we agree. But let me repeat, nobody forced the NBA to draft those kids. The NBA needs to accept responsibility for it's less than stellar GMs as opposed to blaming high school kids and placing restrictions on their ability to make a living.
If an 18 year old who isn't good enough for the NBA wants to declare for the draft, then let him. That's his decision to make, and he should be well aware of the consecuences and repercussions before making such a huge decision. Players can't simply go to the D-League or overseas if they aren't drafted. Not only is going overseas more difficult from a basketball standpoint, but the cultural obstacles are often enormous. Coaches of well-paying European clubs have a much higher preference towards older, more experienced players, even if they aren't nearly as athletic as the younger player. Players in the D-League who aren't signed to an NBA team make about 1/10th of the league minimum. I think that the NBA can offer those unsigned guys some more money, something like 60 or 70k a year.
Did you read my lengthy post entitled, "Orange_Juice_Jones - We Agree". If you did, do you have any comments?
Yeah, I read it, and you're absolutely right about the "either or" issue. Looking back at it, I didn't really make sense about that rule. Guys should just be able to do what they want at age 18. Foreign players actually do attend high school, but they don't play for their teams because there's no competition or exposure.
Great posts! Especially the one titled "llperez22 Supporting the NBA". I definitely understand where llperez22 is coming from, but I agree with you... GM's don't have to draft these kids. It's simple... If you don't think a kid is ready, DON'T draft him. They're not being forced to draft these kids, BUT these kids ARE being forced to do something other than enter the NBA draft straight out of high school. It's not fair. That "going overseas" argument is bologna.
If a LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Dwight Howard, etc are ready to land their "dream job" straight out of high school, then why shouldn't they be able to? I understand there are always going to be Lenny Cookes, etc but like I said... GM's do NOT have to draft them. If that kid doesn't get drafted, he'll have to deal with the outcome of his decision.
Teens are allowed to make a living in professional baseball, soccer, golf and tennis...
alot of the euros dont even attend highschool after there jr year...we had a couple on our team that went till they were about 16 then just played basketball full time
I don't really see anything wrong with that, as long as they know how to read and write and stuff like that. I mean, at my high school, the only courses most kids have to take during their senior year are English and Physical Education. If they want, they can just go to summer school and graduate early.
A few more thoughts:
rtbt, you make the comparison of an IBM or GE wanting to hire these kids but the government intervenes. But in this case the NBA is IBM it is GE, the owners in the nba are the ones paying the players and the owners are the ones who want them to play at a higher level before they "hire" these players and pay them millions. SO that comparison is way off. In fact what you are arguing is the exact opposite. You are saying that if IBM or GE does not want to hire these kids, the government, who has no stake in the matter, should intervene and make IBM or GE (NBA) hire these kids. Sure, the nba doesn't have to hire them, but if 15 kids come out and only 3-4 are NBA ready, then that means you have to work with these kids who are taking a veterans spot. And if you just don't draft them, then you will look silly for whenyou pass up a rashard lewis or someone. The NBA just wants a better way to evaluate them.
As for the players who are being screwed in this position, look at how much more well prepared guys like Mayo, Rose, Durant, Beasley, Love, etc were after one year of college. That one year does a lot to prepare you. Other then LeBron, not one highschool to the pros player was ever as polished as rookies as these guys i just mentioned. And i don't think one year of living on a campus where you are treated like a star and are national television and improving your game is exactly a travesty to these guys. I don't see any of those players i mentioned earlier being upset with having to go to college.
The reason I brought up the overseas and nbdl, for those who want to say that argument is bolona, is because i see people on here saying how these kids are being kept from making a living and supporting themsleves. Obviously that is not true. They can make money playing basketball, or if they really want, they can't get a job doing whatever they want to in any other area of life outside the nba. The money in the nbdl is not great, but i'm sure it will put food on the table if they can't wait a year. So no, they are not being kept from making money and being held down in life.
So let's weigh the two sides:
NBA-we want to watch them against touger comp, we want the players to mature and develop a little more after highschool, we as a billion dollar business have the right to make rules which benefit our industry and corproation.
players persepctive-I have to wait one year before I'm a millionaire while i go to college and am treated like a star and hook up with all the cheerleaders.
that's not close
We can't expect every guy who declares for the draft to be ready to contribute immediately. It might not be an awful experience, but they shouldn't be forced to go to college for a year. It can also take away from their earning potential. If a guy is projected as a lottery pick after his senior year of high school, even if he isn't as good as he appears to be, even if it could make the GM look dumb, then he should be allowed to make the decision to go to the NBA. Forcing him to go to school for a year can cause his draft stock to tank. Guys like Korleone Young and Lenny Cooke had plenty of people telling them to opt for college instead of the NBA. Did they listen? No. That's their fault, and they paid the price for it.
llperez22, we agree this rule is good for the NBA, that's why they created it. From the NBA perspective, everything you said is true.
What you're leaving out of the debate is one of the key factors that I personally despise. It makes a mockery of the already laughable "student athlete" moniker.
Anyone who follows college basketball knows the majority of players on the starting five at major universities aren't legitimate students and will never graduate. The "One and Done" rule takes this to a new level of abusrdity. All a "One and Done" student does is take a few Phys Ed courses in the fall semester and a couple of more in the spring semester, and then he drops out immediately after the season ends.
I don't know about anyone else, but i think the above scenario is pathetic. The young man doesn't bother to attend school for 2 full semesters and he doesn't have to achieve anything academically, so why waste his time and everyone else's pretending he's a student?
Throw in the fact that I think the player himself should decide whether to go to college and we still disagree. As I said earlier, college isn't for everyone.
And yes I know, kids are much better off going to college, even if only for a year. But this is America, not the old Soviet Union, let them make that decision.
lol..that was a pretty good point..couple of things though...we will never know if one year better prepares these kids or not because we dont know if they would have been able to come straight in if they would have played just as well. there isnt no proof for us to know this especially since some guys play 2,3,4 years and still dont do much in the nba...the nbdl does pay players but only the best make any real money(real being 30-25 thousand) which is better then a 10dollar a hr job but the downside to that is if they dont perform well then they drop in the draft and any agent will tell them thats not a chance they should take thats why you will see highschoolers heading overseas before heading to the d leauge.. the rule helps the nba as you said because they can better evaluate them. to be honest they actually would love to see the rule changed to two years or more like football because then they dont have to wait for the kid to develop and when they finally "get it" they are free agents and leave...basically the rule is much more benificially for the nba. if it was up to me id say let them be able to come in and let them develop..its not gonna hurt the teams since the ones drafting high arent that good anyway and the ones drafting lower are good enough. if a gm dont like then they can just decide to not draft the kid and deal with people talking about them passing on the kid if he develops. thats what happens anyway if they pass on one college kid for another
as for the the whole student/athlete thing being a mockery, what else is new. I personally know dudes who went to college for 4 years on athletic scholarship and just got by and didn't even get their degree, and they weren't even pro level players. I'm gonna guess a majority of college athletes who play basketball don't care about school and do what ever just to stay eligible. The whole thing is a mockery anyways, the rule change doesn't effect that.
Another thing, if the nba tried to make it 2 years, I would be right in the same boat with you guys saying that is bs and they are keeping perfectly capable players out the league. We would be on the same exact side then. But it's just ONE year guys, you know how fast that goes by. By the time the college season ends, they are preparing for the draft anyways.
And Orange Juice Jones, you are gonna argue for the players who are over hyped out of highschool losing draft stock because they get exposed in college? Yeah, let's forget about the owners, the GM's the coaches, the players losing roster spots and the fans who want to see a better product on the court. After all we need to protect these kids who are overhyped from losing money. Come on man.
As long as people argue this rule is good for the NBA and don't pretend it benefits the players, I'm in full agreement. NBA GMs can watch the guy play against top flight competition for one year and make a much better assessment.
But my point above about "One and Done" players taking the Student Athlete moniker to a new level of absurdity is just too much for me to accept. As I stated, they take a few Phys Ed courses, and then drop out of school halfway through their second semester. They don't even pretend to be a legitimate student.
This is worse than cruel joke, it's teaching kids the wrong lessons and encouraging schools like Memphis and Kentucky, who have horrible academic records, to scam even more.
I can see both sides of the argument. I think we're all in agreement that it benefits the NBA, but it's unfair towards high school players who ARE ready and it also doesn't really help the college game. Is there a middle ground?
I'm sure the great minds in basketball could develop some sort of evaluation process for high school players who think they're ready for the NBA. It's just unfair to me that a player who's ready to make millions right away and support his family is denied that opportunity.
Why make it worse? Anyone who follows college sports know that the most of the starting teams in football and basketball at major universities aren't legitimate students. Many of them can barely read, so we agree that it's already a bad situation. But why make a terrible situation even worse with this stupid "One and Done" rule where they don't even pretend to be a legitimate student?
"One and Done" guys already know they'll be taking Basketball 101, Basketball 102, and then drop out of school during the 2nd semester after the season ends. This just takes hypocrisy to a new level that even I find hard to believe.
I read numerous articles in magazines such as Sports Illustrated where various professional sports agents described their experiences with unnamed professional athletes who played college football and/or basketball for 4 years. They repeatedly described guys who could barely read, had virtually zero understanding of financial matters, and myriad other academic shortcomings. They essentially said that was the rule, not the exception.
There was an expose back in the 90's in Sports Illustrated where they detailed how college athletes remain eligible at major universities. They take only Phys Ed courses their first two years on campus and receive nothing but an A. One coach said, "Do you know how long it takes to work off 2 years worth of As? By the time that happens, guys lose their eligibility.
I also read story after story about college players who didn't make it in the pros and spent the rest of their lives doing menial work because they could barely read and/or had no skills off the football field or basketball court.
There was a study recently published which revealed 2/3 of retired NBA players are bankrupt. The most blatant example is Antoine Walker who earned $110 million in his career and is now bankrupt or on the verge. I think Latrell Sprewell falls into that category after making $14 million per year with the Knicks.
I can't remember their names but there were 2 Washington Redskins who played college ball for 4 years and both of them admitted they couldn't read.
My brother had a basketball scholarship and his roommate was an Italian guy who transferred from a prominent SEC University with an "A" average. My brother said the guy could barely read. He asked him how he got an "A" average and was told that he didn't even attend class, the basketball staff made sure he received nothing but A's in all of his courses.
Note: There are also many guys on athletic scholarships who are excellent students. But more often than not, they aren't the starters.
You said, "It just seems unfair to me that a player who's ready to make millions right away and support his family is denied that opportunity."
You're 100% right and the solution is very simple. The NBA should provide legal, accounting, and educational advice to these young men before they make a final decision and then leave it up to them to decide between college and the NBA Draft.
Honestly, everyone already knows these guys are not students. But the schools benefit by making money off them even if it is just for one year. The school then uses some of that money on other athleitc programs and facility improvements. And the whole athletic atmosphere helps with students feeling more in touch with their school. I know it sounds cheesy, but I don't care if these guys take "Underwater basket weaving 101" for their major. As long as the school doesn't get busted for anything, ain't no harm done. The school definitely benefits.
So now we know the nba benefits, the college benefits from having these star recruits. And while the player does not benefit, it's not like one year of college ball is gonna kill him or leave his family starving on the streets. Go to a big school. Get your face on tv and smile for all the future endorsement deals you might get. And stay healthy. And before you know it, your shaking the commsioners hand with a fat cheeser on your face because your about to be so paid it's silly.
Tell that to a school like USC who Mayo put under scrutiny because of his dealings with an agent. Tell that to Memphis who just lost all of their victories and achievements. Some players have no business even stepping foot on a college campus.
memphis defenitely bennefitted from having Rose there. They made a ton of money off him. The NCAA punishments are a slap on the rist compared to landing the number 1 recruit in the nation who leads you the title game. They wouldn't change a thing. As for USC, not sure if they benefitted as much, but the program is still up and running and everyone is doing fine. Again, the punishments are nothing compared to the benefits these kids bring to the schools.
The schools might publicly say how it is a shame, but behind the scenes, they are saying "cha ching". The only reason Tim Floyd got fired is becuase his dumb ass actually paid money to someone to help land Mayo. That was just dumb and he lost his job for it. The school is gonna be fine.
I love the NBA. I care about the game and a great product being placed on the floor. I do want the game to be protected. However, I also want fairness. There are some high school players who are not only ready to be drafted, they're also ready to contribute to a team right away. Those guys shouldn't be denied. Why wait one year when you can make millions and support your family now? That's over a million you could've earned, but instead your playing in college for free and risking injury or something awful (like the situation at IU with Kelvin Sampson, which was a horrible experience for Eric Gordon) that'll hurt your draft stock. I mean, you're not even there for an education. It's pointless.
oh well, I guess we disagree. Gotta go get my halloween costume. Later
You should dress up as David Stern.
im not sure i agree with the reading part because every player i know could read in college and all my teammates could read as well as my brothers and his friends and friends friends etc...im sure there are some that cant read but studies like sports illustrated cant tell you that most of the college kids cant read unless they interview most of the athletes which they didnt...as far as the finacial matters trust me they know but the thing is they think the money will always be there or that there skills will always be there to make the money and they just spend ..there are just as many people who have graduated college and had good jobs, or won the lotto and end up broke..there was a report on cnn or one of the other shows about accountants doctors and lotto winners who ended up being broke because they spent up all there money thinking it was gonna always be there
There are lots of exceptions on both ends of the spectrum. I was told that Charles Oakley is a brilliant business man who parlayed his NBA experience into building quite a chain of businesses.
There was a guy on our high school basketball team who played for Marquette many years ago and is a major success story in Milwaukee. I could go on and on with success stories, but unfortunately there are far too many who fail.
By the way Quincey, that was a good point about accountants and attorneys who go bankrupt, nobody has a monopoly on ignorance.
But here's something to consider. During the last NCAA tournament, they did a study of the men and women's programs and the results were so different. The majority of schools in the women's tournament had a 100% graduation rate! Compare that with the 20%, and 30% graduation rates for some of the men's teams.
I thought about that because the players come from the same inner city neighborhoods and the same environment. So why do the women do so much better academically? To me the answer is obvious, they have no illusions growing up about becoming an NBA or NFL star so they concentrate on academics. Yes I know it's more complex, but I think that's a very important factor.
exactly..most males have the dreams of pbecomming some sort of pro athlete or singer /rapper or something in the entertainment business
Finally someone that suffering from no sleep.