Here at Big Ten Geeks, we try to stick to the numbers. That's not to say basketball can be reduced to a spreadsheet, but frankly, that's what we're best at doing. So we generally try to stick to the math, and leave the subjective evaluations and opinions to others.
But I'm going to make an exception here, to talk a little about the "One Year Rule."
/Begin Soapbox
In 2005, David Stern and the NBA Players Union negotiated a new Collective Bargaining Agreement. There were lots of provisions in the new CBA, but the one everybody remembers is the "one year rule." Specifically, the rule states that entrants into the draft must be 19 years old and one year removed from high school before entering the draft. This rule was welcomed by NCAA President Myles Brand (who claimed it would spur more athletes to get an education), NBA Commissioner David Stern (who claimed it would provide the NBA with players who have better fundamentals), and NBA Players Association Executive Director Billy Hunter, well, Billy Hunter doesn't seem to have wanted this, but he didn't exactly fight it too hard. More on him later.
So now, in 2008, we should see plenty of talented players who could go early instead choose to stay in school, and the NBA should be a shining beacon of fundamental basketball, right?
Heh, right.
Surrounding the one-year rule (and now the advocacy about a two year rule) is dishonesty. Stern and Brand might care about education and fundamentals, but they care about something else much more: Money. Go back and take a look at that CBA. You'll see terms like "Salary Cap" "Mid-Level Exception" and "Right of First Refusal." Make no mistake, it took a big team of slick-suit-wearin'-lawyers on both sides, billing hundreds of dollars an hour, to generate that document. That document costs a lot of money. Nobody throws around that kind of cash in order to make sure that future millionaires take an introductory psychology class, or that the art of the free-throw-line-extended bank shot doesn't die with Tim Duncan's retirement.
Myles Brand makes money because superstars like Derrick Rose and Kevin Durant become his unpaid employees instead of opting to make millions elsewhere. David Stern likes the rule because superstar college players make a name for themselves beating up on inferior competition, so that by the time they suit up for their first NBA game, they are fully-formed marketable products. Quick - where did Amare Stoudemire go to high school? Not many casual basketball fans knew the answer to that question in 2002 - a great many more know where OJ Mayo went to college.
As for the Players' Union, well, that's somewhat of a mixed bag. Fringe players stand to gain from the rule - if the talent level is kept artificially low by keeping talented high schoolers out, these players will enjoy another year of private planes, entourages, and a $400k-$1.3M minimum salary. On the other hand, the rule cost a guy like Greg Oden a lot of money, and Hunter does answer to him (eventually) as well. Lately, Hunter has been a bit more vocal about his distaste for the rule.
So who loses? Well, that's easy - very good high school players. Imagine you worked in an industry that spit you out by the time you reached your late 30s. Career over, no more paychecks. You'd want to start making that money as soon as you could. If your industry kept you out for reasons that had nothing to do with your qualifications for the job, well, you'd probably wonder whether or not this was America.
Now, I know there are two sides to this argument. Maybe there are some benefits to the one year rule that I haven't recognized. But this issue is not as easy as Stern and Brand would have us believe. What's clear to me though is that Hunter seems to be the only one talking honestly. And for now, I'm content with being on that side of the debate.
/End Soapbox
We'll be back to our regularly-scheduled programming tomorrow...
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I wish they'd dump the one year requirement. It's ruining the college game. The Eric Gordon fiasco at IU is proof. Here in MN, Kris Humphreys (sp?) was known as "The Black Hole" because once the ball went to him, no teammate would ever see it again.
I'd much rather see a little less talent w/ a lot more heart.
Additionally, the notion that the rule is benefitting the kids by giving them at least one year of college education is bogus. The level of education they receive in that one year is practically zero since someone expecting to leave after one year to go to the NBA has no incentive to spend time studying, at the sacrifice of working on their game (in fact they should be working on their game and maximizing their talents and earning potential instead of going to class).
Additionally, and more importantly, if education was the real concern, then the one-year rule actually works against that goal. There is a limited number of athletic scholarships available. This means that when O.J. Mayo gets a scholarship at the top of the basketball spectrum, the loss of that scholarship eventually trickles down, and leaves one less scholarship available for a college athlete at the bottom of the totem pole. This athlete will almost certainly not be headed on to a professional basketball career, and will probably be using the scholarship to achieve a college education that he otherwise would not be able to afford. So by instituting the one-year rule, the NBA and NCAA are actually depriving individuals of a college education.
As a freshman, students are required to pass six hours of any credits to be eligible for the spring semester. That means, they can take 3 PE credits (1 credit each) and just have to pass one out of four classes to play in the spring. Every college has automatic classes.
There are requirements to be eligible for their sophomore season, but as you already pointed out...why? They don't even have to pass any classes in the spring to play in the NCAA tournament. They don't even have to attend a single class in the spring semester.
What do you think about a rule like baseball. You can declare out of high school, but if you go to college, you can't declare until after your junior year? I think this is a far better adjustment than a 2 and done rule.
I agree with all but one comment, Josh. Actually, I'm confused because in a private discussion with me, you mentioned that individual players (e.g., Roger Clemens) do not generally generate money for the franchise anymore than just winning. "Win and the fans will come" is a direct quote from you. However, here you say that the NBA makes more money with more marketable players.
trox - I completely disagree with baseball's 3-year rule. The truth is that the free market will dictate people's actions. True, many young players may go directly from high school to the NBA, but this would be short-term when the NBA gets flooded with talent. At that point, it's better to stay in college since you can't go in the draft, go undrafted, and return to school. Honestly, I'd like to see a system where there is no age limit on the draft and that players that are undrafted can return to college. That is assuming fronted money to agents is returned and (at least currently) no endorsement deals were made.
Truthfully, I don't know the team revenue dynamics of the NBA, and whether players mean as much as superstars in that context. Baseball players do make teams money, as individuals, but the real cash comes with winning. But I do know that the NBA makes quite a bit of money off jerseys and draft day ratings, for instance, and I think that the one year rule aids that.
Post a Comment