Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott speaks out against NBA one and done

Quote:"I'd like to see, like in baseball, if a person of that age decides that they want to be a professional basketball player, love to see them be able to go have that opportunity in the NBA or internationally. I hope those leagues will provide those opportunities for those students.

However, if they do decide to come to our universities, we want them to commit to a full college education. There is no reason why the systems that we have in football and in baseball can't also apply to basketball where student-athletes have to be 21 before they leave school and go to the pros."

Best option I have seen,

Basketball and baseball are different from football in that there are options available for players who aren't academically capable of playing college ball to prove themselves. Between the NBALDL and internationally there are plenty of opportunities for athletes to prove their worthiness without going to college. If a player doesn't take those opportunities he should be bound by the restrictions placed upon other college athletes. Three years from high school.

I bet he pissed off John Vincent Calipari and the University of Kentucky and their fans.

(03-20-2014 12:07 AM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott speaks out against NBA one and done

Quote:"I'd like to see, like in baseball, if a person of that age decides that they want to be a professional basketball player, love to see them be able to go have that opportunity in the NBA or internationally. I hope those leagues will provide those opportunities for those students.

However, if they do decide to come to our universities, we want them to commit to a full college education. There is no reason why the systems that we have in football and in baseball can't also apply to basketball where student-athletes have to be 21 before they leave school and go to the pros."

This may be a move to counter the anti-amateurism lawsuits. Players claim they are being forced to play college ball w/o pay - Scott says he'd like players to have the opportunity to go pro right out of high school...

Quote:I firmly believe in, is that if a 17 or 18-year-old has no interest in going to college, shouldn't be forced to go to college

I've said this for several years now...

This is a self-serving statement. The NCAA already has it within its power to solve this problem, but they are unwilling to do it.

One and done isn't the problem. On average, eight freshmen a year are drafted by the NBA. About the same number of sophomores. Eight. Does anybody think for one minute that there are only eight (or 16) kids playing college ball that are academically unqualified or uninterested to be there?

NCAA schools are already shamelessly exploiting unqualified kids for their own enrichment. Now, they want to make a rule to help them exploit the most talented of these kids for a couple of more years, just like they exploit the slightly less talented ones.

Here's an idea for the NCAA to consider. Do away with all athletic scholarships. All of them. Instead, allow them to offer to athletes low interest loans to cover up to six years of schooling, with one of the loan conditions being that the loan will be forgiven for every athlete who earns a degree within that time. Repayment of the loans should be guaranteed by a parent or guardian.

Do away with athletic scholarships and make them all employees of the university. Encourage a player's union, and negotiate a collective bargaining agreement which includes a hard salary cap so that teams like Texas and Ohio State can't just BUY a national championship. For the purists (if there are any left), you could give players the option of EITHER pay or scholarship, but not both.

I agree completely with Scott. That 21 mark would make all the difference in the world and it would elevate college basketball like few things ever have.

I like CBB a lot but I just hate the fact that you never seem to really get to know anyone before they're gone.

It was so much better in the days where you grew to known and loathe the Patrick Ewings and Christian Laettners of the world. Nowadays, it's like man that Jabari Parker is good but don't get too used to him because he'll soon be gone. That sucks and hurts the sport as a whole.

(03-20-2014 10:33 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Do away with athletic scholarships and make them all employees of the university. Encourage a player's union, and negotiate a collective bargaining agreement which includes a hard salary cap so that teams like Texas and Ohio State can't just BUY a national championship. For the purists (if there are any left), you could give players the option of EITHER pay or scholarship, but not both.

Seems much more radical than simply changing the draft rules to the already-used baseball draft rules.

(03-20-2014 02:04 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(03-20-2014 10:33 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Do away with athletic scholarships and make them all employees of the university. Encourage a player's union, and negotiate a collective bargaining agreement which includes a hard salary cap so that teams like Texas and Ohio State can't just BUY a national championship. For the purists (if there are any left), you could give players the option of EITHER pay or scholarship, but not both.

Seems much more radical than simply changing the draft rules to the already-used baseball draft rules.

The problem is that the NCAA can not do anything about this, since the rule is part of a collective bargaining agreement. I expect that it would even be difficult for the NBA to bargain to make entry more difficult in the absence of some evidence that the current rules harm future players (it doesn't matter if it harms college basketball, because they would have no standing in court). But I believe if the players union agreed to lock out players for two more years, that would be challenged immediately in court. And I believe the NBA and players' union would lose in court.

I doubt employee status is the answer, though, because that puts the question of amateurism on the table, and nothing scares the schools more than losing the presumption that they are amateur (and therefore not subject to taxation).

Point being the one is much more radical than the other.

The baseball rule in football will just result in more kids going straight to the NBA. Which at the end of the days, highlights what the real problem is; the the NBA and MBB have an acrimonious relationship.

As such, I think the best solution is for the NBA to implement a 20 year old age floor. The 18 y.o can burn those two years in college, the D-League or overseas, but IMO this ultimately protect the NBA from the bad bball from 1999-2004. If it helps college bball then that is just a great side benefit.

(03-20-2014 10:33 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Do away with athletic scholarships and make them all employees of the university. Encourage a player's union [among college athletes], and [then] negotiate a collective bargaining agreement [with the union] which includes a hard salary cap so that teams like Texas and Ohio State can't just BUY a national championship. For the purists (if there are any left), you could give players the option of EITHER pay or scholarship, but not both.

(03-20-2014 02:32 PM)ken d Wrote:  I doubt employee status is the answer, though, because that puts the question of amateurism on the table, and nothing scares the schools more than losing the presumption that they are amateur (and therefore not subject to taxation).

There are plenty of paid employees at these universities, but that has no affect on their tax status. Not paying the players won't continue to guarantee tax-exempt status, either, if they continue making all this money! 2 completely separate issues, IMO.

(03-21-2014 09:25 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-20-2014 10:33 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Do away with athletic scholarships and make them all employees of the university. Encourage a player's union [among college athletes], and [then] negotiate a collective bargaining agreement [with the union] which includes a hard salary cap so that teams like Texas and Ohio State can't just BUY a national championship. For the purists (if there are any left), you could give players the option of EITHER pay or scholarship, but not both.

(03-20-2014 02:32 PM)ken d Wrote:  I doubt employee status is the answer, though, because that puts the question of amateurism on the table, and nothing scares the schools more than losing the presumption that they are amateur (and therefore not subject to taxation).

There are plenty of paid employees at these universities, but that has no affect on their tax status. Not paying the players won't continue to guarantee tax-exempt status, either, if they continue making all this money! 2 completely separate issues, IMO.

The issue isn't whether they are paid or not, except for one thing. The issue is whether college football is an "unrelated business activity" with respect to the tax exempt purpose of the university. Today, it expressly is granted the legal presumption that it is an integral part of the school's educational mission because it is deemed to be amateur as other sports sponsored by the schools are. As a professional enterprise, it would not necessarily enjoy that presumption.

If football were at some point deemed to be professional, and therefore no longer integral to the school's tax exempt purpose, it would be subject to tax as if it were a for-profit corporation.