Thursday, March 26, 2015


Column: NCAA needs to fight back


The one-and-done rule, a one-way street in favor of the NBA, has flattened college basketball’s nose, and it’s time for a counter-punch.

As the rule stands, the NBA gets a year of free marketing and vetting of talent without spending a nickel. College basketball often gets a player whose effort needs to be coached or game is raw or does not have the same drive to win as four-year players.

It’s true that the NBA collective-bargaining agreement between the owners and the players’ union sets the rules that prohibit high school players from jumping to the NBA and allow them to declare for the draft one year later.

Still, college basketball does have a counter-punch within reach.

Here it is:

The NCAA needs to allow players who declare for the NBA Draft to hire agents certified by the players’ union. That might clean things up a little and point players toward reputable agents, instead of clowns claiming to be agents. The downside? When you can think of one, let me know.

Next, allow players who don’t like their draft positions to return to their schools. Why not? If a player who thinks he’s a definite first-round pick finds out otherwise on draft day, he can head back to his school. If he’s no longer wanted, he’s a free agent who can take a scholarship at any other school without sitting out a year.

The NCAA could make that change overnight and need not need consult the NBA before doing so. The NBA would have no say, just as college basketball has no say now.

The NCAA could even share such a plan with the NBA and see if that might motivate the owners and union to make a revision to the collective-bargaining agreement (CBA), such as allowing players to either go to the NBA out of high school or go to college and not be allowed to join the NBA until two years later. Major League Baseball has that rule, except that the period is three years, not two.

It seems the high school/two-year option would be good for college basketball, fair to the athletes and a better outcome for the NBA than drafting a player and then losing him.

If the NBA and players’ union don’t want to get together to discuss such an arrangement, the NCAA needs to go ahead and implement the rule that allows players to return to school if they don’t like the outcome of the draft. The NBA then likely would negotiate a revision to the CBA that would allow clubs to retain a drafted player’s rights for a defined period of time, be it one, two, or three years.

Or, figuring that only in rare circumstances would a player taken in the first round and therefore guaranteed two years of a hefty salary return to college, the NBA could limit the draft to one round.

The college game would have more experienced players playing, and they would be more realistic about their games, even more open to coaching once the reality of their NBA value has slapped them in the faces on draft day. Since doing it their way didn’t land them the draft spot they desired, maybe they actually would understand that it might be smart to listen to a coach with far more experience at readying players for a professional career.

The status quo’s not working for college basketball, so it’s time to get proactive.


Gavin Fritton 5 years ago

I have been saying for years that the NCAA should allow a player who doesn't like his draft position to return to school, just as proposed here. It would certainly get the NBA's attention f they drafted someone like Josh Selby and he realized that he had overestimated his value and decided to come back. Do they still take him if they know he is a risk to not sign? Is the player boxed in to living with a regrettable decision?

And I agree that there is no downside. From everything I have heard and read, Selby would have been welcomed back by the KU staff. But let's say he wouldn't. Are you saying there was no other school in the country that would have taken him? Of course not. Such a rule change would work for both the member institutions and the "student-athletes" the NCAA pretends to care about protecting. Even if it doesn't get the NCAA to change it's CBA on one-and-done players, this is still a net benefit for the schools and the players.

Joe Joseph 5 years ago

I'm not sure the NCAA pretends to "protect" their student-athletes :)

Gavin Fritton 5 years ago

Fair enough. I was trying to be generous. Let's say that they "pay lip service to the notion of caring about protecting the student-athlete," shall we?

Walter Bridges 5 years ago

What happens when a player signs with an agent who will undoubtedly pay the kid as and incentive or advance him money from his future NBA contract?

The only way for this to work would be to not allow players to sign with agents until after the draft or to disallow players with agents from returning to college.

Rick Glover 5 years ago

Then what happens to a new recruit who went to a university because a "Josh Selby" left and now returns, to be fair to that player would allow them to go to another school. We will never make it fair for everyone. The NCAA needs to do is to make players play for at least 2 years. The reason I like this is because it will spread players out over the country and stop teams like Kentucky getting the best one and done players every year.

Benz Junque 5 years ago

The problem is that these kids are getting benefits from the agents trying to win their services and if they return to school after that there is a problem with the ncaa's beloved amateurism.

Ross Hartley 5 years ago

If the kid goes through the draft and decides to return, the NBA team still owns the rights. I don't see how this improves the kids position. He would not get to go through the draft again unless the NBA would cooperate and change their contractual rules. Sasha is still owned by the Cavs because he went through the draft. He can't get drafted again.

Steve Jacob 5 years ago

Why does the NCAA need to change anything? It, and the universities are making more money then they know what to do with.

Rodney Crain 5 years ago

I Like your ideas Tom. The NCAA needs to take some control back for the betterment of the college game.

Two other things also need to be addressed.

  1. The rules committee needs to have an equal share of Div. 1, 2 and 3 schools. Right now only one Div. 1 school out of 12 positions are represented and it is showing in a delayed approach to rule changes and a shorter shot clock. The smaller schools do not want the expense for changing the game and are holding back improvements that would increase scoring, reduce fouls and shorten the game by reducing time outs.

  2. The current college referee program needs to be thrown out and replaced by a more centralized and supportive organization that will attract better referees due to improved job security, salary increases, and better benefit packages. Having referees who work together as a team would also shorten official reviews and enabled a better called game.

Walter Bridges 5 years ago

My only problem with most of these ideas is like taking back power from Satan and giving it to Lucifer.

Rodney Crain 5 years ago

I understand but sometimes for the sake of progress you have to make some tough choices.

Rules committee there is no reason for Div. 2 and 3 to have a free run.

Referee's, this is actually run by the conferences to a degree, not the NCAA, their current stucture, nomads, with no specific conference affilation, is hurting the game. There is no consistency. Look at the NFL, espcially the replacement refs for an example. Also the NHL before they orgainzed and put teams of refs together. Those are two leagues where for the most part the referees are considered the best in sports. What we have now is not the answer that is for sure.

Walter Bridges 5 years ago

All solid points Rodney but I think there needs to be a truly independent arbitrator to make sure there is REAL change and that it is in the best interests of the students - not the NCAA, the Universities or the professional organizations.

Rodney Crain 5 years ago

A nobel ideal but unlikely and extremely difficult to accomplish. An arbitrator guides two parties that agree to be bound by their decision within a agreement, rule or law. Determining the best interest of the students is going to be next to impossible since this is an arbitrary perspective. How do you possibly get consensus? There is no determination of best interest as per a law or rule, but in what each student, and or their family views as their specific interest versus what the NCAA or the Schools have as theirs. The NCAA decides their rules, the schools accept them to play within, the students can either do so as well or seek to play in some other league. No one is being forced to play college athletics. It is a choice.

If the NCAA needs to be removed or replaced from the equation that is fine, I don't like them either, but expecting them to be bound by an arbitrators decision is highly unlikely. It would be nightmare to organize and costly to administer.

Walter Bridges 5 years ago

Again, all good points. I just think someone should represent the players before unwarily making decisions about their future. I know you've been paying attention to the top 5 power conferences and their talks about leaving the NCAA..

Doubt it will ever happen but it's not outside the realm of possibility. College basketball is losing popularity season after season. The status quo isn't working.

I do not know the best way to make the changes, just know their needed.

Randy Williams 5 years ago

"The status quo’s not working for college basketball, so it’s time to get proactive." Tru dat.

Bryce Landon 5 years ago

Stay tuned for a million-bottle giveaway!

Suzi Marshall 5 years ago

If the NCAA/NBA does not take immediate action, they will kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, i.e. the collegiate "farm" system. When hard core fans, like me, reach the point of not wanting to watch their decades long team because of the godawful poor play viewership and sponsorship will surely drop dramatically. I feel for Self because this year's team was so poor and obviously refused to take to any coaching.

With regards to your proposals:

  1. The NBA should only be able to "certified" agents. They should not be able to dictate that those certified agents are the only reps a player can employee.

  2. I'm not so sure that a player should be able to re-enter college after accepting money from agents and going through the draft. That could open a whole new kind of woes, but you're right that the the NCAA needs to do something fast about this OAD rule.

  3. Cliff Alexander is the poster boy for the kid that enters college simply to punch that one year clock. He gave a pathetic effort and when his market value dropped his performance venue was taken away. Draft Express and both have Alexander out of the first round or guaranteed money. A review of Alexander's mock draft history is staggering ( Immediately following HS, he was steady at the projected second pick, when his mother/family decided they could not wait 8 months to capitalize. Oubre's performance vs. WSU might also be a reference because he certainly didn't show much competitive spirit or interest in the WSU game, much like Wiggins vs Stanford.

I'm wondering how Haase might feel about UAB if IU or UT knocks on his door.

Ethan Berger 5 years ago

I'll take a couple issues. Saying this team isn't coach-able isn't fair. The only real way to see that is if you personally witness practices. Now if you did and you saw that then it's fair. Second issue is all the drag on Alexander. I think everyone is being unfair to him like he wanted this. It's the double standard with our fan base. We yell that we don't want one and done players but when Freshman don't play like seniors, we thrown them under the bus. Go watch the study habits of a Freshman vs a Senior in College. I can promise on most cases, Seniors study better and with a better sense of urgency. In sports, the same concept applies. Freshman most times do not have the same sense of urgency that older players do. How fans interpret that is that the player doesn't care. You college basketball usually dominated their high school leagues and aren't used to having to give 100% all the time. When most college freshman enter school, they also don't know how to give it 100%. It's why so many Freshman drop out or transfer. The other ones are learning how to be independently motivated. Does this mean Freshman don't care about school? NO, they just aren't mature enough yet to have that sense of urgency. I never came away with the impression that Cliff didn't care. In fact, I fully believe he does care. I certainly also believe that Cliff didn't play with a sense of urgency. Our 05/06 team had the same problems. They didn't bring it all every game, they overlooked teams and didn't play well together. They lost in round 1 to an older team. Fast forward two years and that same team won the national championship. Let's not blame Cliff for his family mistakes and accuse him of not caring unless their is hard evidence of that. Which usually happens by having personal conversations with him. Most people think they read body language well but they don't. Everyone acts differently and it's unfair of us to assume that just because some reacts one way that it means they don't care.

Joe Joseph 5 years ago

Agreed. I think Alexander cared plenty. He just lacked the ability to defend well in the post. That's something will take time for him to develop. Most freshmen struggle defensively under Self because that's the skill freshmen are typically the least developed in, but also the skill that Self demands the most of from his athletes.

Mike Crosbie 5 years ago

I think you hit it right on regarding Alexander lacking HS he was a beast among boys, then he comes to division one, where guess what Cliff, you have to go against beasts who have more experience. Cliff had a lot to learn from people like Ridley, Rico Gathers, Niang and the list goes on. To think Cliff can dominate them as a freshman is ridiculous... Only after a season or two getting more mature and experience can he dominate against other "beast" type players.

Greg Lux 5 years ago

Oubre and Wiggens not playing well in the NCAA Tournament is a perfect example of a player headed to the draft who doesn't want to get a major injury. Neither player drove hard to the basket of got into a position of possible injury. Strange how both ended their KU couriers. I don't blame them I blame the system that puts players in this position.

Len Shaffer 5 years ago

Their KU couriers??? Seriously???

Greg Lux 5 years ago

To little coffee and spell checker on my computer ... I just didn't see it ... Sorry CAREER .. Seriously!!!

John Pritchett 5 years ago

If the game was being officiated properly, players wouldn't need to worry about possible injury as a result of good, solid play. What happened to the officials trying to clean up the game and allow less contact? These games are brutal. Just ask Ellis with his bloody nose from that no-call elbow to the face.

Ron Prichard 5 years ago

I also take exception to the assertion this team didn't take to Self's coaching. I think it is difficult to make that statement not having any inside knowledge. At the same time, I do think there are signs that some of the players bought in more than others. To have players come out and say that they need to actually do what the coaches say and not just say they are going to do it is kind of a telling statement. Nevertheless, I think several players on this team listened to Self and tried to do what he asked. In regard to your specific points: 1. If the NBA certifies agents, the players association can be the defacto regulatory agency. In the end, it will only be the certified agents that are able to sign players with any regularity. 2. I agree that if a player accepts money, he is done. However, I think if Keegan's suggested change is implemented, it would be easy to say the kid can return to school as long as he hasn't accepted any money. Sign an agreement of representation, declare for the draft, but hold off on receiving all of the advance perks/money until after the draft. Those who know they will be drafted in the lottery and for sure aren't coming back will take advance money, but those who are unsure of their draft stock can simply hold off on accepting money even if they have signed with an agent.
3. I think before the NCAA eligibility issue arose, Alexander likely would have returned for another year of school. I got the impression he knew he had some work to do and would improve his position significantly by staying. However, his parents have now changed that and I really don't think he has a choice.

I saw an interview with Haase and I know he loves UAB, but I definitely got the impression he would listen to other schools if it was the right situation.

Benz Junque 5 years ago

Only problem with that is that so long as we continue to buy ESPN in our cable package and so long as ratings are good for the tourney (they are record breaking this year) there is no realistic end to it. Hard core fans will not EVER reach the point of not wanting to watch. N-E-V-E-R.

Matthew Pyle 5 years ago

Oubre's comments after the embarrassing WSU game were telling...."he felt sorry for the guys." Pathetic... absolutely pathetic.

Robert Brown 5 years ago

If you look objectively, college basketball as a product is deteriorating. Offenses doe not flow very well. Teams either bomb away trying to hit three point she's or have someone drive inside hoping to pick up a foul. That described KU this year and was pretty apparent in most games I watched. The skill set for most of the players is not that great and neither is the basketball IQ.

Can you blame that entirely on one and done? Probably not, but it is a factor. One reform that could be done, that the Big 10 was considering, was to make freshmen ineligible to play varsity. That would eliminate any one and dones from going to college and probably create a better product on the court because the varsity players would have the advantage of a year to understand the systems and develop chemistry with teammates.

Clara Westphal 5 years ago

In the 1940s - '50s era, freshmen did not play. There was a freshman team and a varsity team of sophmores, juniors and seniors. KU had some great teams then; had a NCAA championship and some Final Four teams.

Bville Hawk 5 years ago

Tom writes a player could return to "any team" if their current school chooses not to continue their scholarship.

" he can head back to his school. If he’s no longer wanted, he’s a free agent who can take a scholarship at any other school without sitting out a year."

Ludwig Supraphonic 5 years ago

Tom's approach would allow a player to avert sitting for a year to transfer. Unhappy or uncoachable folks could declare and decline and relocate immediately.

John Boyle 5 years ago

The problem with allowing them to come back to college if they don't like their spot in the draft is: the team they left has probably already filled that scholarship with someone else. You can't wait around to sign someone just in case your previous player decides to come back. The plan sounds great on paper but doesn't work well in a practical setting.

Mike Mainzer 5 years ago

Great point! Self and the other coaches are undoubtedly out recruiting for Alexander and Oubre's positions despite no official word on their draft status.

Tom Keegan 5 years ago

Brett, I wrote that the returning player only could become a free agent if the school he left does not want him back. In other words, if Alexander declared for the draft and didn't get chosen in the first round and wanted to return, but Kansas already had filled the scholarship, he then could become a free agent.

Mike Riches 5 years ago

A similar (although not identical) plan has already been proposed and could be in effect next year. Nothing in the bureaucracy which is the NCAA happens overnight, and there are aspects of Tom's ideas I like better personally, but I think this will be a step in the right direction.

Ethan Berger 5 years ago

My main question is why was this not an issue during the 80s? Jordan, Bird, Johnson, Thomas, Ewing and many other stars stayed in school multiple years. The NBA did not have rules at the point that restricted high school seniors or freshman to enter, yet most players stayed a couple years. The NCAA was still making a ton of money, not nearly as much but still a lot. Yet, we didn't hear of players asking for pay to play? Or complaining of unfair NBA rules? Why is it suddenly a big deal?

Education has shifted in our culture from being a privilege to being a right. We don't emphasize the importance of education so why should these young players? I agree that they should let players return to school if they don't like their draft stock. However, if they commit and receive money from agents, then no.

The MLB is a bad comparison because the MLB has a farm league. Going strait out of high school is still a risk because farm league doesn't pay that well. If a high school baseball player declares for the draft and doesn't like where was drafted, can he go to a D1 school to improve stock? If yes, then basketball players should be allowed also. However, it is the NBAs right to have requirements for employment. While LeBron, Howard, Bryant and KG have all been very successful, there are more names of players who didn't make it. The difference between a player in the 80s whose pro career didn't pan out and those of the 00s who didn't pan out was a college education.

Armen Kurdian 5 years ago

Maybe the agents they hired have more of an internal financial incentive to get a player signed, because now the agent makes a ton of money.

Aaron Paisley 5 years ago

You seriously think players didn't get paid 30 years ago? Go watch the 30 for 30 "Playing for the Mob" about the Boston College point shaving scandal. There's other point shaving stuff before that as well as boosters who would pay players as well back then. If you seriously think the game was cleaner back then, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

Ethan Berger 5 years ago

I'm also assuming that many athletes still do get back behind closed doors somehow. What you're arguing is a whole different subject. While there was a lot of dirty stuff going on, those circumstances were against the rules. Point remains is that kids didn't go to college to receive those things. They most likely would have gone to college not matter what and just happened that accepted some benefits. Something that we all know still happens. The issues is the rules. Should the NCAA adopt those ideas? Should the NBA? My arguments isn't about the illegal activity rather the legal one.

Aaron Paisley 5 years ago

I think you're very naive on the matter if you think there wasn't shady stuff happening 30 years ago and beyond in regards to players making money in ways the NCAA frowned upon.

Ethan Berger 5 years ago

I'm confused. Not once did I state shady things didn't go on, in fact I did the opposite. I invite you to tell me where I said that. And your last sentence is my point. Those were situations the NCAA frowned upon. I am STRICTLY talking about what rules should or shouldn't be passed. 30 years ago players went to school for multiple years without a dime from the NCAA and had the ability to play pro ball. While there were many backdoor deals, that's not the matter I'm speaking of.

Cody Riedy 5 years ago

The problem with the idea of letting players return if they don't like the draft result is that:

1) the draft isn't until the end of June (this year June 25th). How many coaches are going to let a scholarship sit vacant in the hopes of a player returning? If they player doesn't return, that scholarship is going to have to set vacant for a year (not counting giving it temporarily to a walk-on).

2) letting the kid go to any school he wants is just recycling the OAD issue and passing it on to another school. People already don't like the 5th year grad transfer rule, how are they going to like kids doing the same thing after their freshman or sophomore year? Further, how would you know if a kid wasn't just using the cover of a draft to transfer?

3) What is the kid doing between the time he declares and the draft? I'm not entirely sure what the off-season for players involves, but I'd assume that the off-seasons are different for guys returning to the team and guys who are leaving.

4) Lastly, there's just no need for such a rule. It's not like there's a shortage of information regarding a player's draft stock. Things don't change that much between April (or whenever the deadline to declare is) and June. No player goes from a second round projection to a lottery pick or vice versa between April and June.

Walter Bridges 5 years ago

This is an exceptional response. I agree completely

Cody Riedy 5 years ago

Interesting article in the KC Star about Greg Marshall. This might not be news to others, but I didn't really know anything about his career besides his recent years and success with Wichita State. To summarize:

  1. He's only two months younger than Bill Self.

  2. He's coached at two places: 1) Winthrop and 2) Wichita State.

  3. At Winthrop he made the NCAA tournament 7 out of 9 years and had a tournament record of 1-7.

  4. He's been at Wichita eight seasons now. They didn't make the NCAA field his first four seasons, but have now made it four years in a row. In that stretch they've made it to the round of 32, final 4, round of 32, and now Sweet 16. So in the last four years, his tournament record is 8-3 and counting (half those wins coming from the final 4 run). In the same period, KU is 9-4 in the tournament.

  5. Conclusion: The notion that he's some sort of up and coming coaching genius is not accurate. He's a veteran coach (Self has only 1 more year of HC experience), he's been good at lower-tier programs, but only in the last three years (final 4, round of 32, sweet 16), has he had outstanding results. He took WSU to the NCAA tournament for the first time in his 5th season and to the final 4 in his 6th season. For reference, Self took Tulsa to the elite 8 in his 3rd season there. Then left for Illinois and took them to the Elite 8 his first year there.

Bruce Oothout 5 years ago

The one and done rule is most obviously ruining college basketball, and the Jayhawks are proof positive. Coach Self feels the need to recruit one and dones in order to remain competitive, and his teams have suffered proportionately.

Mark Lindrud 5 years ago

Anyone pay attention to the baseball plan? It works for a reason and the NCAA/NBA can put its own version together real quick:

  1. Seniors can get drafted out of high school.
  2. If you don't go pro after your senior year, you must stay 2 years.
  3. Seniors can't play in the NBA for 2 years and must either: a. Play in college for 2 years. b. Play in the D League for 2 years.

This helps develop young players, and gives more credibility to both men's basketball and the D League. Also, for those young men who need some money, then they can get paid D League money for 2 years helping out their families and can do endorsements, but the NBA money can't happen until after 2 years where they have developed their game, and will be better prepared for success.

John Boyle 5 years ago

The NBA doesn't have near the minor league system as baseball. So you are really comparing apples to oranges. But I think the NBA could help out by having a true minor league system with all the D League teams having direct ties to one NBA team each.

Mark Lindrud 5 years ago

I have felt for the longest time that the D League could be its minor league, with each NBA Franchise having one team with development players such as a AAA club in baseball. Let's make those apples and oranges into a similar concept lol.

Dale Rogers 5 years ago

Keegan, you need to send your thoughts to the NCAA. They don't seem to be able to come up with answers on their own.

As for Alexander, it is not his fault his mother took a loan. The kid has a lot of potential.. He should have the opportunity to develop that potential in college, if he so chooses. Keegan's ideas would give him the opportunity to see his actual draft stock and then decide to go pro or return to KU. Enough dissing on Alexander, people. It's not his fault.

Doug Cramer 5 years ago

Free market.

The NBA and NCAA acts like they are the U.S. government, wanting to manipulate college sports and it's transition into pro-sports.

Let a free market reign. If a player has the skill set to make millions of dollars in the pros, let the player make that decision himself.

If that player fails and they don't have the opportunity to play college, then thats the consequence of his decision.

Cody Riedy 5 years ago

Out of curiosity, how do you define "free market"? For example, you say that the NBA and the NCAA act like the U.S. government? Like how the U.S. government grants artificial monopolies to protect profit through the patent system? Is that a "free" market? Or how the judicial system is used to recuperate money for lenders who made the wrong decision in regards to who to give credit to? Is it a "free" market when the government arranges trading pacts with foreign nations to grease the wheels of corporate money flowing internationally? Is it a "free" market when a artificial legal categories are created so that some people can operate in the market as "corporations" with limited liability? Why can corporations be "people" when it comes to donating money to politics by are not like regular people who can have their belongings taken and their wages garnished when they go bankrupt, but corporate "people" walk away unscathed (or even bailed out)? Or why can an individual go to jail for killing someone in a car accident, but corporate "people" can sell faulty air bags that kills hundreds of people without criminal responsibility? My point isn't that any of the above things are necessarily good or bad, but that the government is heavily involved with the economy and much of the "free" market is a legal creation.

Bville Hawk 5 years ago

Cody, you been main-lining MSNBC, bro?

Cody Riedy 5 years ago

Bro, you're response is akin to name calling not an answer. I'm on pins and needles waiting for your intelligent response to the actual questions I asked. Questions I asked in good faith, because I'm actually curious to understand how people define the concept of a "free" market. And no, I don't watch MSNBC. I actually got a degree from KU and am not just a fan of the sports teams so I learned a long time ago about "credible sources" and don't get my views from infotainment via TV or satellite radio. If you really want to know where my thinking comes from, I could start by providing you with a reference list of books. You may need access to an academic library or to utilize an interlibrary loan system to get all of them. Of course, most developed opinions on a subject don't come strictly from a small set of books devoted specifically to the topic, but its a good starting point.

John Boyle 5 years ago

Cody, Thanks for your insight. NOT!

Cody Riedy 5 years ago

I asked a question about how to define "free markets" and then gave examples of why I think the concept is hazy. It's a genuine question. If you are not capable of answering the question, don't reply. There's no reason to get upset. NOT! Wait, I mean NOT NOT!

Walter Bridges 5 years ago

What a ridiculous diatribe, "Like how the U.S. government grants artificial monopolies to protect profit through the patent system?". Why would any company invest millions/billions into research and development if they weren't protected through the patent system?

" Is it a "free" market when a artificial legal categories are created so that some people can operate in the market as "corporations" with limited liability?". I guess you don't like small businesses. The artificial (in your mind at least) categories you refer to are S corporations and C corporations. These are SMALL businesses that protect the little guy from being sued by frivolous lawsuits and losing everything they own.

I will give you credit for loading in the most BS in any response to a basketball discussion in my memory. You know what he meant and it does come down to supply and demand a.k.a. the free market

Cody Riedy 5 years ago

Walter - to quote myself "My point isn't that any of the above things are necessarily good or bad". All of the examples of law I cited have reasonable purposes. They also each have benefits and some drawbacks. The reason I asked the question I asked and gave the examples I gave is that the concept of the "free" market is invoked all of the time in our national political debates and elsewhere, as in right here on this message board. Personally, I think it is a convoluted concept used in convoluted ways. Some talk about the "free market" as if it was a physical law of nature. Some talk about it in near religious terms, trusting that the unfettered "invisible hand", will benevolently guide us in all of our ways. Because the ideal of the "free market" is so important to the ideology of many people, especially conservatives, I think it's productive to understand what people mean by "free market". For example, your own answer "supply and demand" isn't very illuminating. There is supply and demand in any economic system. Do you simply mean that a "free market" is any economic system in which supply and demand determine prices? But that's not clear either - supply and demand is almost always somewhat artificially controlled and often by government for the benefit of business. For example, a trade tariff is government intervention undertaken to protect some business' profits. Again, not saying it's good or bad, just giving an example.

My opinion is that what a lot of people ascribe as defining a free market, is not "free" at all, it is decisions made by humans with a specific purpose in mind. Your own answers explain the purposes of these laws. I call such laws "artificial" because they are social creations - they do not exist in nature and such legal definitions can and have been changed. For conservatives it seems to me, that what they call "free" is government intervention that normalizes market behavior, making it as predictable as possible, limits risks, and maximizes profit, particularly for those at the top. That is, conservatives use the term "free market" as a rallying cry against government intervention. I think that is dishonest. They don't want a "free market", they want a market rationally controlled for their own benefit. It's free when profit flows, but its not free if the government impinges upon individual profit for say, the sake of the environment or the rights of workers. Or another example, it's free if people pursue their interests collectively through a corporation, but its unfree if people pursue their interests through a labor union.

In short, in my opinion, some use the term "free market" to obscure the real argument, which is about who benefits when and how. By using the term "free" market, they can make it sound like an argument between government control and personal liberty, when in reality, the argument is more about how the government negotiates power between differing interests.

Walter Bridges 5 years ago

This is obviously an issue that you have a well thought out position and have a better base of knowledge than I have. When I say 'supply and demand' I am referring to the 'invisible hand' in Adam Smith's theory of economics.

The Laissez-faire philosophies are without doubt from an other era when government intrusion was truly seen by conservatives to be detrimental to the economy. Now they are campaign slogans.

I apologize for calling your post a diatribe though I rarely want to discus economics, politics or anything not related to Jayhawk basketball. I do appreciate the time and thought put into your reply. Not saying I agree completely, partially or none at all.

I will say i enjoy your posts on basketball.

Cody Riedy 5 years ago

Thanks for the reply. I understand why people are loathe to talk about politics at all, yet alone on a site such as this. I know its almost always best to refrain from the impulse to make it political. I try, but its a weakness of mine. Nobodies perfect, right? Thanks for letting me say my peace and hearing me out. I've had my politics binge so I should be good for sticking to Jayhawk athletics for awhile.

Aaron Paisley 5 years ago

The two biggest changes I would make would be to move the NBA draft withdrawal date way back which is likely going to happen in January next year. The second one is that I would make it to where players cannot sign with an agent until after the NBA draft because that potentially allows kids to return to school who went undrafted. Players can still meet with agents to determine who they will sign with like free agents can do with teams, but the players can't receive benefits from the agent until they sign and agents caught in violation of this rule risk losing their certification from the NBA.

Jeffery Brown 5 years ago

Unfortunately, I don't see how this "solves" anything. First off, allowing a player to pick an agent solves nothing. Agents get their info from the same sources that head coaches use; an NBA GM is as likely to mislead an agent as a HC. In addition, agents may represent several players, and use one player as a pawn to better his other client. No advantage, and maybe worse. Next, allowing a player to return will NEVER be allowed by the NBA. If a kid doesn't want to play for the Minnesota TWolves, he simply decides to return to college. Minnesota says, "WTF? We just lost our #3 draft pick?" The kid doesn't get "re-drafted", he gets to sign with Minnesota WHENEVER he comes out of college. No advantage. Unfortunately, as long as the NCAA sticks to THEIR stance as supporting college athletes, things won't change. This is a BUSINESS, no matter what you want to believe. What WILL cause change is perhaps holding member schools to scholarships for 4 years. Imagine if you drafted 3 One and Done's and tied up 3 scholarships for 4 years each? By that 4th year, you'd have a team of 8 players and 5 walk-on's! Coaches would think twice about recruiting one and done players. Or, radically, pay the players.

David Meredith 5 years ago

I agree with your point where the NBA would not accept having a guy in the draft who could just decide to go to college instead... does the team just lose that draft pick altogether?

Jeffery Brown 5 years ago

No; they retain signing rights when/if they ever decide to return to the NBA; at least they retain the rights for several years. That's why you'll hear of teams occ trading "rights" to a player.

John Stowell 5 years ago

It seems like the one thing the NCAA does with regard to student athletes that people agree with is preventing schools or their boosters from paying players to come to their school. I don't see a real reason why a player couldn't enter the draft out of high school, play in the NBA for a year or two, and if it doesn't work out they retain the option to return to college to play. What difference does it make if their job between high school and college is flipping burgers or playing in the NBA? So long as their job isn't just a way for a booster to pass them some cash to influence their decision, what's really the problem? I suppose you could place a limit on their age or how long after high school they could play, but so long as their decision to attend one school over another isn't influenced by money, why not allow them to truly test the professional waters?

Adam Ewald 5 years ago

If graduated high school students want to go the NBA, let them enter the draft out of high school and go to the NBA if that is what they want to do. Kids that choose to go to college, make them stay for 2 or 3 years.

David Meredith 5 years ago

Maybe any player who wants to try NBA after high school can enter themselves into a NBA developmental league draft... and if chosen can join that team for a salary. Each developmental team can have a parent team, who could promote that player at any time if they are good enough..... any player not selected in draft must play 2 years of college before being eligible for NBA draft....

Michael Lorraine 5 years ago

From a fans perspective I don't care for OAD's but it does allow for a small minority to use college instead of college using athletes.

Joe Ross 5 years ago

Here's my position (and it's always been):

The OAD rule is bad for college basketball. The NBA gets players who are less polished, NCAA schools suffer from teams not developing the greatest chemistry and the potential for a revolving door exists, and players dont mature as well as they could. Here's the rub: as long as the OAD rule exists Kansas had better get in on it.

A TAD rule seems like the best compromise to me. It gives time to correct all of the problems of the OAD rule above and it enjoys some support from the NCAA and NBA.

With respect to Tom's article, I appreciate a new perspective to solving some of the issues with the age limit rule as it is; however, I don't like the idea of letting a player come back to a different school. I think he should be able to return only to his school and only then if the coach wants him back (when a player decides to declare he must accept that there are certain liabilities that come with that decision, and it makes it difficult for a coach to juggle which players to recruit and how many). If a Coach doesn't want him back after declaring he could go to the D-league or overseas for year.

One consequence of Tom's suggestion is that it would extend the decision time for recruits. Everyone would be like Andrew Wiggins and declaring at the last minute, because new recruits would not know if a player is leaving or not, and that often affects their decision. So coaches may not have an idea of who is going to be on their team until a couple of months before the season, and it extends the pressure on them to recruit over a longer period of time.

Michael Lorraine 5 years ago

I think we will see an increase in the number of athletes declaring for the draft since they have nothing to lose. My guess is Tom’s plan won’t be embraced by coaches because of the uncertainty and confusion it might create with recruiting. I would rather see high school kids get drafted in the D League but that is not within the NCAA’s authority. If the NCAA sees the OAD rule as a problem and I don’t think they do, they will have to create a rule that forces the hand of the NBA.

Eric TheCapn 5 years ago

The downside you asked for is that a family member or friend should be allowed to be your agent if you please. Eden Hazard is one of the best and wealthiest soccer players in the world. His dad manages him and his two pro-soccer brothers. Why should you be forced to fork over a large portion of your wealth to someone you haven't known and trusted your whole life if you don't want to? Because a "REAL" agent might get you more dough? Maybe, maybe not. But so what if you can give your dad, someone who has YOUR interests in mind, not his own, a high-paying job and be able to spend more time with him, plus he'll probably take a lower percentage.

John Brown 5 years ago

All of this sounds a little like broken bracket whining. First, you can't give special NCAA treatment to a guy who miscalculates his draft position by giving them an "oops" exception back into the NCAA. If other transfers need to sit out a year, then Mr. NBA hopeful should sit out a year before re-entering the NCAA. There should be a personal cost to Hubris. Just like the "Domestic Violence" ads, "No More He's Got So Much Potential" lSecond, Bill Self needs to examine his strategy and determine if chasing these "One and Done" prospects is worth the effort. I'm not seeing the big return. This was the worst team of the Bill Self era. They weren't bad players but the "One and Done" mentality is taking a toll on the team chemistry and his authority. This was evident more than ever this year. Third, Did y'all really think Kansas was a #2 seed? Really? This team looked vulnerable through out the season. How many 15 to 20 point leads did they need to blow? If they were down, they had no heart! The reason why they play the actual game is because what's on paper is usually BS. WSU out played KU. WSU wanted it more. Bill Self has significant influence over the team's mentality by his recruiting efforts. How would you feel as a talented, hard working third year if the annual ritual is to play up to the incoming class of unproven star freshmen.

Joe Ross 5 years ago

By the way, it should be mentioned that the OAD rule had zero net effect on Kansas this year.

Some could argue that Cliff Alexanders situation was a negative, because presumably his mother banked on a OAD status of her son and used it as collateral to secure an illegal (per NCAA regulations) private loan. I grant that, even not knowing the details of the transaction.

But inasmuch as Cliffs situation was a negative, Kelly Oubre was a positive. One of our best defenders this season, a solid contributor in the conference schedule, and one of our most reliable players.

Now in math, you guys were all taught in sixth grade that when you add a negative and a positive, you simply find the difference of the two numbers and apply the sign of the number with the greater magnitude to the answer of the problem. In essence, was Kelly's positive MORE POSITIVE than Cliffs negative, or was it the other way around? I say its a wash. Here's why.

Cliff Alexander wasnt giving us much before he was benched for eligibility concerns. Had he been a "12 and 8" guy, I think someone might have a case. But since his monster air dunk followed by the Hulk Hogan flex, his numbers dwindled precipitously. Still, I might concede that Cliff may have progressed some in his final few games if he were allowed to play. "Maybe". Even so, Cliff's poor performance with no eligibility concerns = hypothetical improved performance in hypothetical play. Cliff's situation is therefore a mitigated negative. It shall be weighed against Oubre as a positive and the scales tip neither way.

Bottom line? The collective status of Kelly Oubre and Cliff Alexander had zero net effect on the team with respect to their being OAD prospects.

John Brown 5 years ago

New Math, If you play bad in College your draft status drops. If your draft status drops so does your 1st year paycheck. The NBA game is faster than the college game which is faster than in High School. If you don't up your game in College, you'll get a rude awakening at the NBA level. This knowledge is a mixture of finance and physics. KU has reached a OAD developmental peak to climax at stagnation. We don't have an official big man and can't afford to lose the little man.

Joe Ross 5 years ago

This comment is clear neither grammatically nor point-wise. But if you think KU has reached a peak with OADs you're sadly mistaken; unless, of course, Adam Silver and the Players Association bail you out by increasing the age limit. Short of that you've placed yourself on the wrong side of a philosophical divide...with Coach Self.

Big man? Little man?

Walter Bridges 5 years ago

I'm NOT saying we reached a peak but what have we gained? Michigan St is one game away from a Final 4. In 7 of last 8 years they have made the Sweet 16. They have a 24th and 25th ranked player on the roster. 5 star players but NOT OADs.

I'm only pointing out that OADs are not the only way of achieving tournament success. When a good coach goes after the players who will have more success when spread out over 4 years than 1 and are the type of players he can coach up IS a legit method for success.

Joe Ross 5 years ago

why do our multiyear players not bear the burden of responsibility for our recent outcomes? they far outnumber the one and dones who, for the most part, have performed vastly better than their counterparts. the thinking here boggles my mind endlessly

Walter Bridges 5 years ago

In the last 2 years we've had 5 protected OADs who all have been starters taking away time that could have been used to develop players like Andrew White. For the one player who returned, Selden, has made improvements and hopefully will be next years best player. All 5 have been starters which is 50% over two years..what have we gained? Neither team made it into the Final Four and left huge holes that needed to be filled. What did we gain Joe?cc

You say the blame is w/multi year players ie Lucas, Mason, Graham, Ellis, Greene, Hunter and Svi. I believe if they had been given the minutes used by Wiggins, Embiid, Oubre and Alexander that we would have a much better team than the what we have now. I would much rather have top 60 - #15 recruits over the OADs every time.

I don't completely disagree with you in that you recruit the best player possible esp. if in a position where we need someone to fill. You continually state that by disagreeing with you "that you've placed yourself on the wrong side of a philosophical divide...with Coach Self." As much as I like HCBS. so what? Bill Self is a great coach but look at both our Final 4 teams. Those teams were veteran led teams. I look at his early success without OADs and compare it to these latter years and find it wanting. We should also remember BMac was the #34th ranked recruit the exact same as Frankamp.

We just got our butts kicked by WSU, a team led by veterans none of which will make it into the NBA. You're a smart guy Joe and I agree w/your posts more often than not but on this issue maybe we should just agree to disagree.

Joe Ross 5 years ago

Look how many players played in the game despite the presence of the OADS who didnt develop well. Naadir Tharpe, Anrio Adams, Tarik Black, Justin Wesley, Conner Frankamp, Sviatoslav Mykhailuk, and Jamari Traylor,

But there's more than that. If you say we "could have developed" the mulityear players, the question is whether or not at their developed state they would have outperformed the OADS. If the answer is "No" then the case is busted. So the second class of players is those who actually did develop but did not exceed the performance of their OAD counterparts: Landen Lucas, Jamari Traylor, Hunter Mickelson, and Brannen Greene.

But there's even more than that! There are mulityear players who have developed despite playing alongside OADs, and they will continue to be here. We still have the benefit of their services, and here's the clincher that no one is talking about: their games unquestionably elevate by virtue of the fact that they played alongside phenomenally talented OADs. This simply cannot be denied. This is particularly the case for Perry Ellis and Frank Mason, who are the sole representatives of this year's roster who out-performed the OADs. Thats 2 cases against a plethora of other players who did not.

Guess what. There's still more. When a OAD leaves, its not like his scholarship was wasted. OADs bring great talent to the game and their turnover is expected. Their exit can be filled with another talented OAD. Its not like we have to develop talent at their position. Its instant. Like some coffee. Or oatmeal.

I respect you Walter. Dont take it any other way. And I appreciate the effort to be conciliatory. I agree with your last statement on this one though: we are too far apart philosophically with respect to OADs to find much common ground. Its not personal. Just a difference of opinion.

Todd 5 years ago

I can't say I oppose this idea outright, because I do think something needs to change. People may say the basketball is better now than it has ever been, but I miss the days of getting to know players and hating/loving them. You always have rivals schools or programs/coaches you like/dislike, but what about the days when a guy was at a school for 3-4 years? You really got to know them and if they played against you, it made the rivalry that much better.

There will never be a perfect system. Even the one Tom is proposing is full of holes. You would have to come up with pretty specific language to prevent kids, who think their coach is being too tough on them, from declaring for the draft simply to be able to leave. Players moving from school to school isn't much better than moving to the NBA. If nothing else, the NBA and NCAA need to move forward with the proposal I read about a few weeks ago. Basically, the college player would have a bit longer to decide if they were officially declaring and the NBA would reorganize their draft camp in a way that basically said if you didn't get an invite, you're likely not going to be drafted. Kids with invites would get a much clearer idea of their draft stock from people who will actually draft them (instead of agents filling their heads with high hopes) and guys who were borderline would return to school.

Walter Bridges 5 years ago

Look at players like Travis Releford. He stayed 5 years. Buying into the the team he redshirted one year. His last 2 years showed just how much a player with a hard working mentality could improve. I want more players from his mold on the team.

Brad Watson 5 years ago

I wish Coach Self would stay away from recruiting those that fit into the one and done category. The problem is the recruit in here for the wrong reasons......whatever you have to do to get the edge....I would prefer having veteran players that fans can embrace for a few years ....just a little below a pro prospect trajectory...but smart kids that want to get a hard earned education along with being part of a great tradition and being spoiled by the community while they are here But winning at all costs is the game unfortunately...and it goes all the way back to Wilts' era.....Just win baby!......The NCAA needs to step up and stand up to the NBA and tell them that they aren't going to allow the few lottery picks to ruin the amateur game for the majority of the other student athletes that were recruited to play for the right reasons Also ...a 21 year old rule should apply as well...that's just common sense Actually the problem is easily solvable..

Commenting has been disabled for this item.