team, it looks like grown men playing against boys. It's just incredible how Calipari can get these guys to come to whatever school he is coaching. His recruiting guru, the non coach who brings these kids to him, is one of those people who gives college basketball a bad name.

The "one and done" thing is a travesty. They need to do what the NFL has done, and make the players wait until a few years after their class graduates to play in the NBA. If the kid isn't a student, then if he's that good, let him go overseas for a few years and not waste time in college, when there is a kid out there who wants an education and will stay four or five years and become a good college player.

If a kid is a pro player, let him play in the pros. Once he enrolls in college, he should have to stay at least three years. Totally distorts the game.

That would seem reasonable but, I wonder if such a rule would pass the constitutional test. But, I agree about Kentucky and some of the others. Their players look more like NBA than college players. Compared to what we see in the SBC, they look like older and much more physically mature.

(03-26-2010 09:50 PM)DollarBill Wrote:  That would seem reasonable but, I wonder if such a rule would pass the constitutional test. But, I agree about Kentucky and some of the others. Their players look more like NBA than college players. Compared to what we see in the SBC, they look like older and much more physically mature.

It depends on an agreement with the Players Union

And ............... that's Memtucky Thank You

.

As I recall, when the running back from Ohio State challanged the NFL rule, it was upheld as reasonable in part because football is such a violent game that a rule that prevented 18 or 19 year olds from competing against older and more mature men could be accepted by the court. A limiting rule in basketball, even the one year rule they have now, likely would be difficult to defend. Of course baseball has a rule that if you don't sign out of high school and go to college you cannot be drafted for 3 more years. I am not sure how that is justified.

(03-27-2010 08:44 AM)hb8 Wrote:  As I recall, when the running back from Ohio State challanged the NFL rule, it was upheld as reasonable in part because football is such a violent game that a rule that prevented 18 or 19 year olds from competing against older and more mature men could be accepted by the court. A limiting rule in basketball, even the one year rule they have now, likely would be difficult to defend. Of course baseball has a rule that if you don't sign out of high school and go to college you cannot be drafted for 3 more years. I am not sure how that is justified.

I think the deciding factor could be that a young person right out of high school doesn't have the maturity to be traveling all over the country with all the temptations they would be enduring, with no adult supervision, which he wouldn't have in the pros, but would have, somewhat, in college. I don't think the pro teams would allow parents to ride on the planes with them to keep tab on their sons. Most young men who play pro baseball begin in the minor leagues with not much money, and without all the fanfare that NBA players receive. Can you imagine being 18 years old and having access to $10-20 million dollars?
It's difficult enough at 30 years of age, much less 18. But it would be looked on as a racial issue by some, and you would be accused of preventing minorities from making large sums of money, so it probably won't fly.

There could be other ways to handling it. Some sort of penalty for teams who sign "one and done" players. If a player leaves for the pros after one year, you lose three scholarships the next season. If a player leaves for the pros after two years, you lose two scholarships for the next season. You're clear after that. How would coaches like Calipari enjoy playing with 10 players or less each year. For each player leaving for the pros after one season, after the three scholarships you lose for the first player, you lose one scholarship for each after that, so if two players left for the pros, you'd lose four scholarships; five for three, etc.
And it would carry over until those scholarships were used up. That would cut this crap out.

(03-27-2010 09:18 AM)outsideualr Wrote:  

(03-27-2010 08:44 AM)hb8 Wrote:  As I recall, when the running back from Ohio State challanged the NFL rule, it was upheld as reasonable in part because football is such a violent game that a rule that prevented 18 or 19 year olds from competing against older and more mature men could be accepted by the court. A limiting rule in basketball, even the one year rule they have now, likely would be difficult to defend. Of course baseball has a rule that if you don't sign out of high school and go to college you cannot be drafted for 3 more years. I am not sure how that is justified.

I think the deciding factor could be that a young person right out of high school doesn't have the maturity to be traveling all over the country with all the temptations they would be enduring, with no adult supervision, which he wouldn't have in the pros, but would have, somewhat, in college. I don't think the pro teams would allow parents to ride on the planes with them to keep tab on their sons. Most young men who play pro baseball begin in the minor leagues with not much money, and without all the fanfare that NBA players receive. Can you imagine being 18 years old and having access to $10-20 million dollars?
It's difficult enough at 30 years of age, much less 18. But it would be looked on as a racial issue by some, and you would be accused of preventing minorities from making large sums of money, so it probably won't fly.

There could be other ways to handling it. Some sort of penalty for teams who sign "one and done" players. If a player leaves for the pros after one year, you lose three scholarships the next season. If a player leaves for the pros after two years, you lose two scholarships for the next season. You're clear after that. How would coaches like Calipari enjoy playing with 10 players or less each year. For each player leaving for the pros after one season, after the three scholarships you lose for the first player, you lose one scholarship for each after that, so if two players left for the pros, you'd lose four scholarships; five for three, etc.
And it would carry over until those scholarships were used up. That would cut this crap out.

Apparently we think their mature enough to send them to Iraq, Afganistan, etc.

(03-27-2010 04:08 PM)mjs Wrote:  

(03-27-2010 09:18 AM)outsideualr Wrote:  

(03-27-2010 08:44 AM)hb8 Wrote:  As I recall, when the running back from Ohio State challanged the NFL rule, it was upheld as reasonable in part because football is such a violent game that a rule that prevented 18 or 19 year olds from competing against older and more mature men could be accepted by the court. A limiting rule in basketball, even the one year rule they have now, likely would be difficult to defend. Of course baseball has a rule that if you don't sign out of high school and go to college you cannot be drafted for 3 more years. I am not sure how that is justified.

I think the deciding factor could be that a young person right out of high school doesn't have the maturity to be traveling all over the country with all the temptations they would be enduring, with no adult supervision, which he wouldn't have in the pros, but would have, somewhat, in college. I don't think the pro teams would allow parents to ride on the planes with them to keep tab on their sons. Most young men who play pro baseball begin in the minor leagues with not much money, and without all the fanfare that NBA players receive. Can you imagine being 18 years old and having access to $10-20 million dollars?
It's difficult enough at 30 years of age, much less 18. But it would be looked on as a racial issue by some, and you would be accused of preventing minorities from making large sums of money, so it probably won't fly.

There could be other ways to handling it. Some sort of penalty for teams who sign "one and done" players. If a player leaves for the pros after one year, you lose three scholarships the next season. If a player leaves for the pros after two years, you lose two scholarships for the next season. You're clear after that. How would coaches like Calipari enjoy playing with 10 players or less each year. For each player leaving for the pros after one season, after the three scholarships you lose for the first player, you lose one scholarship for each after that, so if two players left for the pros, you'd lose four scholarships; five for three, etc.
And it would carry over until those scholarships were used up. That would cut this crap out.

Apparently we think their mature enough to send them to Iraq, Afganistan, etc.

They're sure as hell not on their own there. Drill Sergeant, platoon leaders, etc. are watching their every move. I guarantee you they have more supervision then if they were living at home. Not making light of war. Not good for any age person. But I'm not trying to change the world. Only college basketball. I'll leave the other for people smarter than I am who have been trying to solve this problem since time began.