PDA

View Full Version : *** 2 years in college/20 age limit ***



Sanjay
07-10-2014, 01:55 AM
It is widely publicized NBA Commissioner Adam Silver wants a two years in college/20 age limit on players entering the league. I personally agreed with the move to make it compulsory for players to play college for at least one year because I think players need to prove themselves at college level before being accepted into the NBA.

For example, a player may be extremely skilled, but not as physically strong, but he still may be able to be the best high school player. If he went straight to the NBA this would be shown up immediately, whereas if he went to college he could develop his strength. What do you guys think?

tredigs
07-10-2014, 02:01 AM
I'd prefer they have to play 2 years in one of the top foreign professional leagues if they're forced to do anything. They'd likely learn more than in their chosen "college".

GREATNESS ONE
07-10-2014, 02:03 AM
The kids should get paid too, minimum wage.

goingfor28
07-10-2014, 02:10 AM
I think it's stupid you can't go high school to the nba anymore.

scissors
07-10-2014, 02:11 AM
I picked high school only because it was the least restricting option. My real choice would be NO requirement.

scissors
07-10-2014, 02:15 AM
I think it's stupid you can't go high school to the nba anymore.

Its ruining college basketball.

jerellh528
07-10-2014, 02:47 AM
4 year college degree first

Sanjay
07-10-2014, 02:52 AM
I picked high school only because it was the least restricting option. My real choice would be NO requirement.

Oh by high school I just meant you could go straight from high school to the NBA, I did not mean foreign players had to play high school in the USA or anything.

Sanjay
07-10-2014, 02:55 AM
4 year college degree first

I think this is the best idea in theory, but I do not believe it is realistic in today's NBA. That would effectively make rookies the superstars of the league.

5ass
07-10-2014, 03:14 AM
1 year college, and 1 year d-league.

5ass
07-10-2014, 03:15 AM
Give them the option between 2 yrs college or 1 yr college, 1 yr d-league

5ass
07-10-2014, 03:16 AM
Or even high school to 2 years d-league.

VendettaRed07
07-10-2014, 03:17 AM
Players should get a choice. Either go to college, or don't.

These 1 and dones aren't helping anyone. Every now and then, we get a player who comes out of high school who is good enough to play right away.. Let them go to the nba.

those who aren't.. Have them spend 2 years in college. That is best for everyone. Good for the kids who don't have to spend a year in a college they never wanted to go to in the first place.. and good for colleges who get to hold on to players for another year if they do really well the first time around.

TheNumber37
07-10-2014, 04:04 AM
I would prefer 2 years... to watch stronger players come in, however I think 1 year is fair. Guys like Durant and Melo didn't need multiple years. Imagine if Wade stayed longer... his NBA career would be almost completely over by now.

Sssmush
07-10-2014, 04:04 AM
somebody should start a schoolboy pro-league, for players 17-21.

6 teams, have some cool promotions, 30 game season, players get paid. Try to make it really fun and flash, and add in some cool innovations like proper instant replay, emphasis on fundamentals, headband or jersey cams, etc.

Maybe attach a reality TV show to it the way UFC does with the Ultimate Fighter.

Yeah it's ridiculous, a guy like Wiggins is worth $100M to Adidas essentially right out of high school, but he has to spend a year at "Kansas University" wasting his time and money. There is serious value there and somebody should invest in it. A lot of fans are actually a lot MORE interested in seeing these very young exotically super talented players than watching the same old NBA vets slogging up and down the court for 82 games.

For instance if somebody had had a pay-per-view 3 on 3 game in February with Dante Exum, Wiggins, Randle, Smart, McDermott and Embiid and charged $39 I bet it would've sold at least a million buys. At the very, very least.

College hoops has lost a ton of prestige because of all the "one and done" stuff, which thus makes it less valuable for the top players to play college ball. Meanwhile the top players are more valuable than ever, and Silver's plan to save college ball by ****ing over the top high school players just isn't fair. (or legal).

The NBA can do what it wants but somebody from the outside could capitalize.

TheNumber37
07-10-2014, 04:06 AM
I like 1 year in college or 2 years in D league or 2 years abroad professionally... of course this only helps the NCAA.

5ass
07-10-2014, 04:21 AM
I like 1 year in college or 2 years in D league or 2 years abroad professionally... of course this only helps the NCAA.

It helps the d league and the NBA as well.

Clippersfan86
07-10-2014, 04:35 AM
I'm pro 2 or 3 years as extreme as that sounds. Back when guys spent more time in college, players came in far more NBA ready it seemed. For ever HS player like Kobe, JO, KG, Dwight you had that became a superstar... there were many more busts. The odds of a player who's played 2-3 years of college being a serviceable NBA player seem significantly higher.

kingsdelez24
07-10-2014, 04:37 AM
I would prefer 2 years... to watch stronger players come in, however I think 1 year is fair. Guys like Durant and Melo didn't need multiple years. Imagine if Wade stayed longer... his NBA career would be almost completely over by now.

Wade played at least 3 years in college , his first knee surgery was in college. He's turning 33 next season

c.c.
07-10-2014, 05:40 AM
Its ruining college basketball.

So! Every time some kinda major cooperation is struggling they find some way to effect others. These guys trying to get paid not help college basketball programs get better. I understand college basketball is struggling but I also understand these dudes trying to sign a nba deal before they suffer a major injury that would drop they stock. The NCAA would start bringing in more money but these college players wouldn't be seeing any of it.

Clippersfan86
07-10-2014, 06:08 AM
Wade played at least 3 years in college , his first knee surgery was in college. He's turning 33 next season

Not sure how that relates to the generality that players who spend time in college are more NBA ready. Is it even debatable? Guys right out of HS like Kobe, KG, Dwight, JO etc that have been stars... took 2-3 seasons to take their game to another level. Lebron is pretty much the only HS player in the modern era to dominate out of the gate. That was largely because he's the biggest freak athlete in NBA history arguably and was a 6'8 240 pound HS senior who was as fast as an NFL running back.

PurpleJesus
07-10-2014, 06:13 AM
20 age limit, or two years removed from highschool is different than 2 years in college.

This is what I would prefer, because most of these players would choose college as the option, and I am a college basketball fan.

However, graduating highschool is widely considered your entrance to adulthood, and adults should be able to make their own decisions. 2 years in college would make most players better (of course there are the select few who are ready for the NBA right away), but if an 18 year old is just as capable, or more capable of a job than a 20 year old, why deny that job candidate an opportunity.

JasonJohnHorn
07-10-2014, 06:31 AM
Its ruining college basketball.

You mean its ruining the league that makes billions of dollars off of a group of kids (predominantly Black) WITHOUT PAYING THEM?

I'm ok with that actually.

Colleges make BILLIONS collectively and millions of dollars each off of basketball programs and the kids get nothing. Is that the 'American' way? Work for free and let somebody profit hugely off of your work and talent?


If a kid is GOOD enough than an NBA team would draft him, then he should be allow to earn a living. PERIOD.

The money these colleges make id disgusting. The the NCAA refuses to pay these kids what they are worth, then they can watch their level of play drop. They deserve it frankly.

You wouldn't say to a 18 year old: Hey, you are really good a factory work. We'll let you go to our college if you work for us for free and the work you do will greatly interfere with your studies so that you aren't actually getting anything out of program. How's that sound?

JasonJohnHorn
07-10-2014, 06:39 AM
I think the NBA should open up a sister league in Europe/Asia/Africa and ship their D-League teams there to merge with existing Euro teams. Then they can either let the 18-year-olds go overseas and get PAID for working their @$$3$ off. If the league wants to say: 21 is the age min. in the NBA but you can still make millions in Europe between 18-21, then I'm cool with that.

They can either have affiliate teams in Europe where NBA teams send their 18-year draft picks to Europe for two or three years under the equivalent of a rookie contract, or and then start their official NBA rookie contract once they are old enough, OR they can let the Europe league work by itself with its own draft and let the kids enter the NBA after two or three seasons overseas.



More kids should do what Brandon Jennings did and just skip college and go over seas to play until they are eligible. I don't know why they don't.


Bottom line, if an adult has a skill that somebody is willing to pay for, they should be able to sell if they want.

You aren't going to tell a working-class kid that he can start work at a factory until he's 21, why would you do the same to an NBA player?

KnicksorBust
07-10-2014, 10:45 AM
What right do we have to restrict a person's ability to get a job? An extremely well compensated job. The correct answer is "no limit."

slashsnake
07-10-2014, 11:02 AM
What right do we have to restrict a person's ability to get a job? An extremely well compensated job. The correct answer is "no limit."

What right do they have to get whatever job they want without the experience their company wants though? They can play pro ball if they want. Just not in the NBA. It's their business and they have the freedom in the US to set the hiring requirements they want if they feel it makes their business better. Just because I am a genius at math doesn't mean I can get on with NASA as an engineer without a degree. 2 years of college or experience in a similar field (D league or overseas) is fine to me.

kingkenny01
07-10-2014, 11:04 AM
I know players don't want this but as college basketball fan the more years the better. Im selfish but it would be awesome to see anthony davis, andrew wiggins, jabari parker, nerlins noel, bradley beal, andre drummond, joel embiid, julius randle still in college

ManRam
07-10-2014, 11:07 AM
This is something I'm not too opinionated on actually. The NBA has the right to create whatever standards they want for playing in their league and it certainly does make sense for them to bump it up to 2 years. However, at the same time I tend to always sympathize more with the players than the league/owners.

ManRam
07-10-2014, 11:08 AM
What right do we have to restrict a person's ability to get a job? An extremely well compensated job. The correct answer is "no limit."

Disagree. All jobs have certain things that make you qualified or not. Some jobs require a certain degree. Some jobs require a certain amount of experience. And so on. The NBA absolutely has the right to require a certain amount of experience/education/age...like any other company.

KnicksorBust
07-10-2014, 11:26 AM
What right do they have to get whatever job they want without the experience their company wants though? They can play pro ball if they want. Just not in the NBA. It's their business and they have the freedom in the US to set the hiring requirements they want if they feel it makes their business better. Just because I am a genius at math doesn't mean I can get on with NASA as an engineer without a degree. 2 years of college or experience in a similar field (D league or overseas) is fine to me.


Disagree. All jobs have certain things that make you qualified or not. Some jobs require a certain degree. Some jobs require a certain amount of experience. And so on. The NBA absolutely has the right to require a certain amount of experience/education/age...like any other company.

You are both confusing qualifications with rights. Jobs choose not to hire people without certifications/experience/etc. because it would negatively impact the individual's performance at the job. The difference is that NBA teams would draft players out of high school and it's the rule that is preventing them from doing it. This rule creates a restriction on an individual's ability to acquire a job that he WOULD GET if the rule did not exist and I think that's fundamentally wrong.

SportsFanatic13
07-10-2014, 11:48 AM
I've always said let them choose between going straight from high school to the NBA or they can go to college but they would have to stay 2 years. Nobody would choose the college route but I don't think it would be as much of the NBA's fault if they end up being busts since they had an option.

NYCkid12
07-10-2014, 11:50 AM
You mean its ruining the league that makes billions of dollars off of a group of kids (predominantly Black) WITHOUT PAYING THEM?

I'm ok with that actually.

Colleges make BILLIONS collectively and millions of dollars each off of basketball programs and the kids get nothing. Is that the 'American' way? Work for free and let somebody profit hugely off of your work and talent?


If a kid is GOOD enough than an NBA team would draft him, then he should be allow to earn a living. PERIOD.

The money these colleges make id disgusting. The the NCAA refuses to pay these kids what they are worth, then they can watch their level of play drop. They deserve it frankly.

You wouldn't say to a 18 year old: Hey, you are really good a factory work. We'll let you go to our college if you work for us for free and the work you do will greatly interfere with your studies so that you aren't actually getting anything out of program. How's that sound?

The perception that colleges make "billions" of dollars is way off base. The majority of colleges break even or only make a small profit from sports teams, definitely not billions of dollars.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/schools/finances/

The top colleges in NCAA obviously will make big profits but even some big time programs don't. The most profitable sports (Basketball and Football mostly) pay for all the other sports the school has that doesn't make money.

Anyways, to answer the OPs question, I think 2 years is a good idea for the benefit of the product of the NBA.

slashsnake
07-10-2014, 12:02 PM
You are both confusing qualifications with rights. Jobs choose not to hire people without certifications/experience/etc. because it would negatively impact the individual's performance at the job. The difference is that NBA teams would draft players out of high school and it's the rule that is preventing them from doing it. This rule creates a restriction on an individual's ability to acquire a job that he WOULD GET if the rule did not exist and I think that's fundamentally wrong.

Not really.. You are forgetting franchisee's don't make the rules. If you own a Ford dealership you may want to put a bunch of Chevy's on the front row that you know will sell quickly or catch customers eyes, but you can't as Ford is looking out for their best interests as a company first, and mandates Fords have to take those spots.

The NBA owners voted in Silver as their CEO to makes the rules that are best for the company, not the individual franchise.

Lets say Lebron just loved weed and wouldn't stop smoking it. The Miami heat would want to stop all drug testing at their franchise. Clearly what would be best for their team is having Lebron there, not suspended. But that isn't what is best for the company as a whole so they can't do things how they want all the time.

Same if an owner got a call from Kim Jung Il to buy 10% of their franchise for 2 billion dollars. They would jump on that as a franchise owner, but the league would restrict them from making that sale as while it was best for that franchise, for the NBA it wouldn't be

Same if you run a McDonalds and your best friend grows lettuce. You can't hire him on as an outside contractor, as the franchise sets the rules on who are approved vendors. That way their corporate quality group is inspecting and ok'ing the farms you get your food from. Your big mac tastes exactly the same as the one halfway across the country and consistency in knowing you are getting the same meal helps the franchise as a whole. They know the farms passed their audits, they have tabs on their USDA, FDA, state, SQF, and other visits. They know the risk of that farm shipping lettuce tainted with salmonella. And they know a foodborne illness outbreat at your own franchise will hurt the company as a whole as well. So there's a rule in place that stops you from a franchise owner making the choice you want to make.

This is no different. The owners believe that having players with a year (or two) in a similar field (NCAA or overseas) makes their business stronger. They put in this rule so that franchises can't make their own decisions and take someone who may make their individual franchise better at the cost of the company. If they feel different, they would let Silver know and he would change the rules (or end up looking for another job).

My company ran into this a few years ago. Had a guy apply for a supervisor job we all thought would do well. But coorporate set the rules of 6 years experience, or a food science or similar degree and he was not hired for the position. Had another time where I hired a guy and he came in the next day to go take his pre employment screenings and mentioned he told his dad about his new job. His dad said that his brother whom he wasn't close at all with also happened to work there. Well, I couldn't get a waiver from corporate to hire him because of our anti nepotism rules that don't allow family in the same plants. I would have made that hire, but our companies rules prohibited it.

This is life. It comes with the freedom we get, not only as people to find work, but as companies to run their hiring practices.

JWO35
07-10-2014, 12:10 PM
I've always said let them choose between going straight from high school to the NBA or they can go to college but they would have to stay 2 years. Nobody would choose the college route but I don't think it would be as much of the NBA's fault if they end up being busts since they had an option.
The smart ones that realize that they may not be the next LeBron or even get drafted would go to college...I think this is the best idea.

To expand on it, I would try to make it similar to the MLB draft(someone correct me if I'm wrong) in the MLB you can draft HS players and they still have the option to go to college(they have their rights). This seems like a good idea that would solve a lot of NBA & NCAA problems(if it can work in college baseball it can work in college basketball). It's basically just like drafting a guy and sending them overseas, only now they can go to college and continue their education as well. I would even go a step further and say said players that is drafted out of HS has no "guaranteed contract" in terms of if you're drafted 1st overall you will get this amount, 2nd this amount, 3rd, etc. The teams can offer the player any amount they feel right(only a limit to what you can offer is in place). If the player feels it's not enough he can either go to college, d-league, or overseas. College would be the best option because after 3yrs of college the player can re-enter the draft. D-league & Overseas would result in a 4yr re-entry wait. No matter what option is selected the NBA team holding the players right can always negotiate a new deal to bring him to the NBA at the end of the season.

Sly Guy
07-10-2014, 12:11 PM
highschool is fine. You can't force college on a kid, and you can't deny him a paycheck if he really wants it.

NYCkid12
07-10-2014, 12:22 PM
highschool is fine. You can't force college on a kid, and you can't deny him a paycheck if he really wants it.

No one is denying them a paycheck, there's plenty of jobs in the United States that would hire them with a high school diploma. However, the NBA, like a lot of other companies, have requirements to obtain a job in their organization.

Playing in the NBA is not a right, it's a privilege; just like college sports is.

Also, they can go and play overseas for a year if they are that interested in making money when playing (like Brandon Jennings did).

JNA17
07-10-2014, 12:25 PM
I vote High School.

Colleges have been becoming a huge scam anyway. Both education wise and "experience" wise. Degrees are getting more useless by the year as well as colleges getting more expensive by the year.

Sure, a hotshot high school player gets in a college for free with the full scholarship but then what? What does one year of college do for this kind of player? You think he will actually attend all of his classes and take all of his tests? No he's going to have help both from a smart student or from professors. The school just wants him there for one purpose: to play the game. Which is wrong IMO as I think Colleges should be for education primarily but I digress.

As for the people that say "they should be getting paid", well they kind of are. That's what full scholarships are for. They get in to college with room and board, lunch meals, etc. all for free. You're all making it sound like these guys are slaves lol.

Now I feel like I'm going all over the place but what I was trying to say before is that colleges for these basketball athletes have been hurting the game more than it is helping it and the players. The players don't get the "experience" from college off the court and the education they get in college is laughable. Just look at guys like Derrick Rose for example. He had someone take the SATs for him for **** sake lol.

Just get rid of the restriction. 18 years old is a young adult age. They are capable of making decisions on their own especially if they are old enough to get other jobs or join the army.

DR_1
07-10-2014, 12:37 PM
Personally, I'd love to see the limit go as high as possible - the more years in college, the better. Look at the maturity levels of guys like Tim Duncan and Kyle Korver as opposed to Dwight Howard and LeBron James. Increasing the college year requirement will make the league better for everyone, especially little kids who look up to these NBA stars. I'd much rather have more Tim Duncans influencing my kids than LeBron Jameses.

Lo Porto
07-10-2014, 12:37 PM
For football, it's 3 years. The 1 year situation has been a disaster. Kids take remedial classes for the fall and don't even attend in the spring. It's borderline pointless.

Just make it two years and move on. If a kid thinks he's good enough to go pro right away, then he can play DLeague or go to Europe for two years.

slashsnake
07-10-2014, 12:46 PM
I vote High School.

Colleges have been becoming a huge scam anyway. Both education wise and "experience" wise. Degrees are getting more useless by the year as well as colleges getting more expensive by the year.

Sure, a hotshot high school player gets in a college for free with the full scholarship but then what? What does one year of college do for this kind of player? You think he will actually attend all of his classes and take all of his tests? No he's going to have help both from a smart student or from professors. The school just wants him there for one purpose: to play the game. Which is wrong IMO as I think Colleges should be for education primarily but I digress.

As for the people that say "they should be getting paid", well they kind of are. That's what full scholarships are for. They get in to college with room and board, lunch meals, etc. all for free. You're all making it sound like these guys are slaves lol.

Now I feel like I'm going all over the place but what I was trying to say before is that colleges for these basketball athletes have been hurting the game more than it is helping it and the players. The players don't get the "experience" from college off the court and the education they get in college is laughable. Just look at guys like Derrick Rose for example. He had someone take the SATs for him for **** sake lol.

Just get rid of the restriction. 18 years old is a young adult age. They are capable of making decisions on their own especially if they are old enough to get other jobs or join the army.

Don't worry, I feel all over too. If I had the ability to get drafted out of high school, that is what I would want. But as a fan of basketball, I would love to see a 3 year minimum in college, just to keep the players there and raise that level of play for me (completely selfish of me, but hard to feel unselfish for guys that will get millions for the most part).

My thoughts on paying college athletes is simple. Sign a 4 year contract, stipulated with a no compete clause (can't play basketball elsewhere for money), early out only if you attain a 4 year degree, must maintain a 2.5 (or whatever) GPA in a college degree program to keep getting paid, and with similar drug/off-field issue deals as pro sports. Or sign an amature athlete contract with the college, you can leave whenever you want (basically how they are currently). You've given your players a financial commitment if that is what they want, but gained a commitment from them as well that way. Would never happen and as a selfish fan again, I say keep it how it is currently with no pay (not all schools could pay the same, would send any sense of parity out the window).

It's an easy choice for the NBA. They get a year in a lesser spotlight to adjust but still in the national media's eye. They get better coaching and learn to play against better competition. The NBA has a better opportunity to scout them and run a lower risk of busts. They get better training to get physically ready for the NBA (and a longer season to get ready).

For the union, I don't see them ever fighting this. Do you think Shane Battier or another vet wants to see his roster spot and salary going to the next Sean Livingston? Diop? Bender? Telfair? Swift? Curry? Kwame? Miles? A year in college has a good shot at exposing them as not worthy of being picked as high as they were and given those spots over other guys in the NBA. Not calling it perfect, there will still be busts, but a few games against Amare Stoudemire, Kaman, West, Tyson Chandler, and others may have raised more questions about Kwame than playing a 6'4" 175 lb center in high school. So sure JR Smith loved that he could be drafted out of college, but I doubt he would fight for it now as a current NBA player.

Stinkyoutsider
07-10-2014, 12:53 PM
There should be no age limit because the NBA, yet again, is protecting franchises from their decisions. If there's a franchise that wants to draft a kid out of high school, let them. If the club blows it and the kid never develops into a top player, it's their fault. I bet there's plenty of owners/cities who are begging to break into the NBA. One franchise out, another in.

And for the player who gets chosen out of high school, they still have the decision on whether to accept being drafted or going to college if that's their wish. Each NBA team probably already has invested in some sort of young player/rookie program to help these young players adjust to life in the league already.

I'm not sure if every team in the NBA is represented in the D-league but if not, every club needs a D-league affiliate. If you want to draft players from high school with lots of potential and these players want to be pros, then send them to your affiliate club for a year or 2. Then, when you think it's time, bring them up into the senior team (NBA). This affiliate can also have older players on the roster in case a key player or 2 in the NBA team gets injured.

I'm kind of tired of the NBA's desire to protect these franchises from making poor decisions. I would wish there would be an NBA league 2 and/or league 3 with franchises playing in lower leagues who are ready and willing to be placed in the NBA if one of the clubs makes a bad decision and has to fold.

QueensG_718
07-10-2014, 12:56 PM
I guess I'm old school. I think if your talented enough you should be able to come out of highschool. Give that scholarship to someone that's going to put it to good use...1 yrs minimum in college is pointless.

QueensG_718
07-10-2014, 12:57 PM
Theres been more successful straight out of highschool players then not.

NYKnickFanatic
07-10-2014, 01:13 PM
Should be out of high school. If you can go into the military at 18, I think you should be able to play in the NBA at 18.

Dumb rule.

elizur
07-10-2014, 01:14 PM
Don't worry, I feel all over too. If I had the ability to get drafted out of high school, that is what I would want. But as a fan of basketball, I would love to see a 3 year minimum in college, just to keep the players there and raise that level of play for me (completely selfish of me, but hard to feel unselfish for guys that will get millions for the most part).

My thoughts on paying college athletes is simple. Sign a 4 year contract, stipulated with a no compete clause (can't play basketball elsewhere for money), early out only if you attain a 4 year degree, must maintain a 2.5 (or whatever) GPA in a college degree program to keep getting paid, and with similar drug/off-field issue deals as pro sports. Or sign an amature athlete contract with the college, you can leave whenever you want (basically how they are currently). You've given your players a financial commitment if that is what they want, but gained a commitment from them as well that way. Would never happen and as a selfish fan again, I say keep it how it is currently with no pay (not all schools could pay the same, would send any sense of parity out the window).

It's an easy choice for the NBA. They get a year in a lesser spotlight to adjust but still in the national media's eye. They get better coaching and learn to play against better competition. The NBA has a better opportunity to scout them and run a lower risk of busts. They get better training to get physically ready for the NBA (and a longer season to get ready).

For the union, I don't see them ever fighting this. Do you think Shane Battier or another vet wants to see his roster spot and salary going to the next Sean Livingston? Diop? Bender? Telfair? Swift? Curry? Kwame? Miles? A year in college has a good shot at exposing them as not worthy of being picked as high as they were and given those spots over other guys in the NBA. Not calling it perfect, there will still be busts, but a few games against Amare Stoudemire, Kaman, West, Tyson Chandler, and others may have raised more questions about Kwame than playing a 6'4" 175 lb center in high school. So sure JR Smith loved that he could be drafted out of college, but I doubt he would fight for it now as a current NBA player.

Serious changes need to be made to the NCAA: Did you know that division 1 athletes can not get a job or they lose eligibility. That means there is no way possible for these people to earn money. If that's the rule that all division 1 schools are signing up( including ones who don't make enough money to pay athletes) for than there needs to be some sort of revenue-sharing agreement where the billions that are earned by the NCAA can be shared to pay for those athletes, otherwise let them get jobs.

In what world would a college player get better coaching/competition/training than joining the NBA. Answer: They would not

Also, The NBA teams do not need to spend lottery picks on H.S. players. They can wait and use their second round pick to minimize the risk.

Whats the difference between the success that Amare and Tyson have achieved as high-school players and those "bust" of Kwame and co.? Clearly, it made perfect sense for those players to join the league and they were playing against similar "6/4// 175 lb centers.

The scouts need to step their game up or the teams need to make it less of a risk to draft them. If that means that these players increasingly go later or undrafted then so be it, at least they can get in the NBA, get moving towards professional success for them and their families.

slashsnake
07-10-2014, 01:25 PM
There should be no age limit because the NBA, yet again, is protecting franchises from their decisions. If there's a franchise that wants to draft a kid out of high school, let them. If the club blows it and the kid never develops into a top player, it's their fault. I bet there's plenty of owners/cities who are begging to break into the NBA. One franchise out, another in.

And for the player who gets chosen out of high school, they still have the decision on whether to accept being drafted or going to college if that's their wish. Each NBA team probably already has invested in some sort of young player/rookie program to help these young players adjust to life in the league already.

I'm not sure if every team in the NBA is represented in the D-league but if not, every club needs a D-league affiliate. If you want to draft players from high school with lots of potential and these players want to be pros, then send them to your affiliate club for a year or 2. Then, when you think it's time, bring them up into the senior team (NBA). This affiliate can also have older players on the roster in case a key player or 2 in the NBA team gets injured.

I'm kind of tired of the NBA's desire to protect these franchises from making poor decisions. I would wish there would be an NBA league 2 and/or league 3 with franchises playing in lower leagues who are ready and willing to be placed in the NBA if one of the clubs makes a bad decision and has to fold.

But this is standard business out here today for any company with franchises. It's just common sense that a corporation would want to protect its business by putting rules in place on franchise owners that help keep them successful. Guy wants a burger from Jack in the Box cooked rare, no matter if the franchisee owner thinks that is the best way to make a burger, he has rules that say he can't. That keeps not only his franchise doing well, but everyone elses if one franchise owner serves up an E Coli burger.

That is one of the big reasons you buy a franchise. You don't need to reinvent the wheel, they have a successful set of rules and policies in place for you.

And the owners don't want to see each other fail. As a Nuggets fan I don't want to see my franchise fail. That's what? a half billion dollar investment flushed down the drain if the NBA doesn't protect its business? Why would you want that? And if they throw out a new Denver Mountains franchise the next year, sorry, I'm not going out and seeing their games as much, and buying their merchandise. A team failing does nothing but hurt league (and player) revenue. It would be the worst business decision in the world to have a business that didn't try to do the most to help their franchises succeed.

As for the D league, I don't see a bright future there. They lose money and already pay their players crap. To build one which would be successful, they would need to invest a LOT more and there's no guarantee at all that their players would be better off than had they played overseas or in college. Playing for Duke, or the LA Dfenders. Duke has thousands of fans and a national TV presence to build your personal brand. The Dfenders play in front of 200 fans. If you are a great coach where are you going too there? Remember while franchise values are up, the year to year income for most teams isn't spectacular. If you are paying those guys $500k a year and spending 2 mil on your coaching staff, you still aren't competing with European leagues financially, and just blew 7 mil in profit on the hope of bringing along 1-2 guys out of high school better than college could. And you are doing this with lower quality training than top colleges... It is a huge financial investment for a system that isn't financially broke, and may not give any return.

slashsnake
07-10-2014, 01:44 PM
Serious changes need to be made to the NCAA: Did you know that division 1 athletes can not get a job or they lose eligibility. That means there is no way possible for these people to earn money. If that's the rule that all division 1 schools are signing up( including ones who don't make enough money to pay athletes) for than there needs to be some sort of revenue-sharing agreement where the billions that are earned by the NCAA can be shared to pay for those athletes, otherwise let them get jobs.

In what world would a college player get better coaching/competition/training than joining the NBA. Answer: They would not

Also, The NBA teams do not need to spend lottery picks on H.S. players. They can wait and use their second round pick to minimize the risk.

Whats the difference between the success that Amare and Tyson have achieved as high-school players and those "bust" of Kwame and co.? Clearly, it made perfect sense for those players to join the league and they were playing against similar "6/4// 175 lb centers.

The scouts need to step their game up or the teams need to make it less of a risk to draft them. If that means that these players increasingly go later or undrafted then so be it, at least they can get in the NBA, get moving towards professional success for them and their families.

Like I said, I am selfish on this. The players that make the NCAA billions are the ones heading to pro sports and making millions themselves for the most part. The rest are getting a quarter million or so in free education. The 12th man on Duke isn't making the NCAA any money. He is however getting a half million dollars invested in him. I'm not feeling bad that Kyrie Irving had to play for a year free before making 25 million in 4 years.

And nobody is forcing them to go to school. They can make that choice. If they are great at basketball (aka the ones actually making money for college sports) they can also choose to play overseas. Brandon Jennings signed 2 million to play basketball and another 2 million in endorsements by passing on college. Sorry, I am not crying that he "didn't have options to make money".

And you are scouting him against those high school guys and not ever really seeing how he competes against better competition. Remember based on that scouting they saw they thought he was a star. He wasn't going to be a second round pick, just like Amare Stoudemire wasn't.

Of course the NBA competition and coaches are the best. But to get them there you have to make that huge investment financially, and risk spending a pick on a guy you aren't able to get great scouting on, nowhere near what you would get if he was playing in college.

Look, nobody as a whole is getting short changed here. Sure, guys have to go play in college. But the NBA still needs 360 players and still pays 77 million in salary a year whether they get drafted out of high school or not. Just that money goes to players a year out of college instead. Instead of Kwame Brown making a huge pile of money that's going to Bradley Beal. Guys wait a year to come in, means guys who have proven they can play the game are kept on rosters one more year.

And sure it makes the scouts do better. Ok, their job is to make your league better. Why not put rules in place that help them there. Keep them out of the high school gyms? Again, why would you want to shoot your business in the foot?

KnicksorBust
07-10-2014, 01:45 PM
Not really.. You are forgetting franchisee's don't make the rules. If you own a Ford dealership you may want to put a bunch of Chevy's on the front row that you know will sell quickly or catch customers eyes, but you can't as Ford is looking out for their best interests as a company first, and mandates Fords have to take those spots.

The NBA owners voted in Silver as their CEO to makes the rules that are best for the company, not the individual franchise.

Lets say Lebron just loved weed and wouldn't stop smoking it. The Miami heat would want to stop all drug testing at their franchise. Clearly what would be best for their team is having Lebron there, not suspended. But that isn't what is best for the company as a whole so they can't do things how they want all the time.

Same if an owner got a call from Kim Jung Il to buy 10% of their franchise for 2 billion dollars. They would jump on that as a franchise owner, but the league would restrict them from making that sale as while it was best for that franchise, for the NBA it wouldn't be

Same if you run a McDonalds and your best friend grows lettuce. You can't hire him on as an outside contractor, as the franchise sets the rules on who are approved vendors. That way their corporate quality group is inspecting and ok'ing the farms you get your food from. Your big mac tastes exactly the same as the one halfway across the country and consistency in knowing you are getting the same meal helps the franchise as a whole. They know the farms passed their audits, they have tabs on their USDA, FDA, state, SQF, and other visits. They know the risk of that farm shipping lettuce tainted with salmonella. And they know a foodborne illness outbreat at your own franchise will hurt the company as a whole as well. So there's a rule in place that stops you from a franchise owner making the choice you want to make.

This is no different. The owners believe that having players with a year (or two) in a similar field (NCAA or overseas) makes their business stronger. They put in this rule so that franchises can't make their own decisions and take someone who may make their individual franchise better at the cost of the company. If they feel different, they would let Silver know and he would change the rules (or end up looking for another job).

My company ran into this a few years ago. Had a guy apply for a supervisor job we all thought would do well. But coorporate set the rules of 6 years experience, or a food science or similar degree and he was not hired for the position. Had another time where I hired a guy and he came in the next day to go take his pre employment screenings and mentioned he told his dad about his new job. His dad said that his brother whom he wasn't close at all with also happened to work there. Well, I couldn't get a waiver from corporate to hire him because of our anti nepotism rules that don't allow family in the same plants. I would have made that hire, but our companies rules prohibited it.

This is life. It comes with the freedom we get, not only as people to find work, but as companies to run their hiring practices.

You lost me a little bit with the "you run a McDonalds your best friend grows lettuce..." section but I respect that you came back with a real response. I understand that the NBA as a company is protecting themselves but in my opinion it is to the detriment of individuals that are prevented an opportunity to earn a living and be compensated for an exceptional skill that they have developed through hard work and talent. We will just have to agree to disagree here. :)

NYCkid12
07-10-2014, 01:59 PM
Theres been more successful straight out of highschool players then not.

you're also not taking into account high school guys who entered the draft and never were drafted. A pretty known example is Lenny Cooke

slashsnake
07-10-2014, 02:59 PM
You lost me a little bit with the "you run a McDonalds your best friend grows lettuce..." section but I respect that you came back with a real response. I understand that the NBA as a company is protecting themselves but in my opinion it is to the detriment of individuals that are prevented an opportunity to earn a living and be compensated for an exceptional skill that they have developed through hard work and talent. We will just have to agree to disagree here. :)

It was more about that franchises don't get to make the moves that they believe is best for their individual franchise when the company as a whole sees the big picture.

I am not against players making more money or getting more advantages. My view is I'd rather see better basketball (the selfish view here). I'd rather see Tmac, Kobe, Shawn Kemp, Rashard Lewis, and Jermaine Oneal tear it up in college than see a developmental NBA season with them averaging 5 a game. To me, it makes NCAA and NBA basketball better. Give those guys a year where they have to shoot, and don't get 30 a game off of dunks and layups. Even Lebron who made the easiest transition I've seen, and was as NBA ready as anyone really struggled with shooting against better competition.

I am fully agreeing from a players perspective that a year or two can cost them a lot. Granted other players will be seeing that cash, so it isn't like that money is lost overall, we maybe see that player who could have made the jump, and say he lost 20 mil. We don't see that extra money going into contracts for current players. Sure, the NBA prevents some opportunity there.

From a players perspective we both agree. From a fans, I think more NCAA years leads to better basketball with better equipped players, and from an NBA perspective I think it is an easy business choice for them.

MrfadeawayJB
07-10-2014, 06:07 PM
I think it's stupid you can't go high school to the nba anymore.

This.

Sanjay
07-10-2014, 07:05 PM
1 year college, and 1 year d-league.

Isn't college better than the d-league?

Sanjay
07-10-2014, 07:11 PM
Players should get a choice. Either go to college, or don't.

These 1 and dones aren't helping anyone. Every now and then, we get a player who comes out of high school who is good enough to play right away.. Let them go to the nba.

those who aren't.. Have them spend 2 years in college. That is best for everyone. Good for the kids who don't have to spend a year in a college they never wanted to go to in the first place.. and good for colleges who get to hold on to players for another year if they do really well the first time around.

I agree, but then we get high school players who think they are ready for the NBA, but are actually not and then struggle to find their way (e.g. Brown, Telfair).

Sanjay
07-10-2014, 07:21 PM
I've always said let them choose between going straight from high school to the NBA or they can go to college but they would have to stay 2 years. Nobody would choose the college route but I don't think it would be as much of the NBA's fault if they end up being busts since they had an option.

Wouldn't this decrease the quality of the NBA with more busts?

IndyRealist
07-10-2014, 07:37 PM
No age restriction beyond being 18+. Adults shouldn't be forced to go to college if they already qualify for their job. I would prefer a true minors, where teams draft a high schooler and assign them to an affiliate without impacting their payroll, until they call the player up.

If some NBA teams are too stupid to thoroughly vet high schoolers, they deserve to get burned. It's natural selection.

Jamiecballer
07-10-2014, 07:42 PM
The only two options I support are these:

1) 21 years of age.

Or

2) Players can play as early as they'd like under the following scenario:

- the NBA draft is expanded to 5 rounds
- each NBA team has their own farm team, staffed by their own people, developing their own players.

With a pipeline of their own players whose development is being directed by their own organization, teams would be able and willing to exercise patience bringing players along who might not be as ready as initially thought.

The only thing I am not cool with is teenagers and one and dones.

Jamiecballer
07-10-2014, 07:44 PM
You are both confusing qualifications with rights. Jobs choose not to hire people without certifications/experience/etc. because it would negatively impact the individual's performance at the job. The difference is that NBA teams would draft players out of high school and it's the rule that is preventing them from doing it. This rule creates a restriction on an individual's ability to acquire a job that he WOULD GET if the rule did not exist and I think that's fundamentally wrong.
I think you are the one confused. The rule is created by the same entity offering the job - the NBA. What teams would do is irrelevant.

JNA17
07-10-2014, 08:03 PM
I guess I'm old school. I think if your talented enough you should be able to come out of highschool. Give that scholarship to someone that's going to put it to good use...1 yrs minimum in college is pointless.

Another great point. Colleges are wasting their full scholarships on someone who would only attend for one year where they could use for it for students who really do need it for their four year education. Or athletes that actually plan on staying for the full four years.

JNA17
07-10-2014, 08:05 PM
Isn't college better than the d-league?

You make money playing in the d-league though, which is already much better than college.

Sanjay
07-10-2014, 08:13 PM
You make money playing in the d-league though, which is already much better than college.

True, but I think 5ass was saying 2 years in the d-league or 1 year in the college and then 1 year in the d-league would make players better NBA players, opposed to making money.

PhlyHighPhilly
07-10-2014, 08:23 PM
You mean its ruining the league that makes billions of dollars off of a group of kids (predominantly Black) WITHOUT PAYING THEM?

I'm ok with that actually.

Colleges make BILLIONS collectively and millions of dollars each off of basketball programs and the kids get nothing. Is that the 'American' way? Work for free and let somebody profit hugely off of your work and talent?


If a kid is GOOD enough than an NBA team would draft him, then he should be allow to earn a living. PERIOD.

The money these colleges make id disgusting. The the NCAA refuses to pay these kids what they are worth, then they can watch their level of play drop. They deserve it frankly.

You wouldn't say to a 18 year old: Hey, you are really good a factory work. We'll let you go to our college if you work for us for free and the work you do will greatly interfere with your studies so that you aren't actually getting anything out of program. How's that sound?

I really hate this mentality. These athletes for the most part DO get paid. It's called scholarships. I know there are select athletes who are walk-ons and don't get scholarships, but those guys usually aren't the best. They get to go to a school FOR FREE, get free food and get use of the best equipment for training. Don't give me this "wahh college players are starving and struggling while schools make millions"

Sssmush
07-13-2014, 03:01 AM
I know players don't want this but as college basketball fan the more years the better. Im selfish but it would be awesome to see anthony davis, andrew wiggins, jabari parker, nerlins noel, bradley beal, andre drummond, joel embiid, julius randle still in college

yeah, well I think it would be awesome if Brad Pitt, Jessica Alba, Gwyneth Paltrow, Matt Damon, George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Max Kellerman, Shaq, Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez all star in an unpaid season long reality TV show where they would act out live stage plays and make music videos for our enjoyment.

The networks could make $7 Billion dollars or so televising it and selling merchandise, and we would all enjoy the entertainment very much. None of the actors would be paid any money, not even a single dollar, however they will all have their food and housing costs covered for the duration of the show, and the usual fee for participating in the show will be waived for them (assuming they are good citizens and follow all of the rules).

Sssmush
07-13-2014, 03:05 AM
I really hate this mentality. These athletes for the most part DO get paid. It's called scholarships. I know there are select athletes who are walk-ons and don't get scholarships, but those guys usually aren't the best. They get to go to a school FOR FREE, get free food and get use of the best equipment for training. Don't give me this "wahh college players are starving and struggling while schools make millions"

yeah, it's perfectly fine if athletes want to get an athletic scholarship, and let's not get it twisted, an athletic scholarship is a very exalted and prestigious thing, a very beneficial thing that is really great for those who make the grade.

But it has to be a CHOICE. Not having a choice = un-free = un-American.

Also, it is a very different thing to embark on a college education under athletic scholarship than to be forced by the rules to essentially burn a year in college playing basketball without even the pretense of getting a college education.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of those athletes literally get reprimanded by their coaches if they attend classes or stay up late at night doing homework. Tell me I'm wrong.

slashsnake
07-13-2014, 10:16 AM
But it has to be a CHOICE. Not having a choice = un-free = un-American.

Also, it is a very different thing to embark on a college education under athletic scholarship than to be forced by the rules to essentially burn a year in college playing basketball without even the pretense of getting a college education.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of those athletes literally get reprimanded by their coaches if they attend classes or stay up late at night doing homework. Tell me I'm wrong.

There is a choice. Brandon Jennings took it. Jeremy Tyler, Latavius Williams, Jackie Butler. Want to be paid to play basketball straight out of high school, go for it, that opportunity is there. It may not be the opportunity you most want, but you have a choice.

If you feel that the NCAA offers you a better chance to build up your name, coach you better, etc. that choice is there as well. But if you are good enough out of high school then your choices are make millions playing basketball immediately, or go to college.

Now what about students that work in other fields? Research students, med students.. Their work invents things like Gatoraide, cures for diseases, fluoride toothpaste, the computer, seatbelts... Colleges and companies make billions off of those students hard work as well. Should they get a cut too of the university profits?

I am fine with those college players wanting to go straight to the NBA. I would if I was them as well. But as a fan of basketball, I don't want to see it. As a fan I'd rather see the NBA not being used to develop guys straight out of high school, and would rather see those players at the college level.

Sssmush
07-13-2014, 05:42 PM
There is a choice. Brandon Jennings took it. Jeremy Tyler, Latavius Williams, Jackie Butler. Want to be paid to play basketball straight out of high school, go for it, that opportunity is there. It may not be the opportunity you most want, but you have a choice.

If you feel that the NCAA offers you a better chance to build up your name, coach you better, etc. that choice is there as well. But if you are good enough out of high school then your choices are make millions playing basketball immediately, or go to college.

Now what about students that work in other fields? Research students, med students.. Their work invents things like Gatoraide, cures for diseases, fluoride toothpaste, the computer, seatbelts... Colleges and companies make billions off of those students hard work as well. Should they get a cut too of the university profits?

I am fine with those college players wanting to go straight to the NBA. I would if I was them as well. But as a fan of basketball, I don't want to see it. As a fan I'd rather see the NBA not being used to develop guys straight out of high school, and would rather see those players at the college level.

I don't think that students need to get profit share directly from universities. Being a university student is xtremely prestigious in itself. But some academic superstars could be compensated, as they effectively are. That could be next level say if u bring in a mark zuckerberg or something. I mean there has to be a line between university and private corporations somewhere but it is a permeable line, right?

As for athlete's getting paid, the answer is fairly simple. The answer is the NCAA just goes away. Universities and/or boosters can pay athletes over the table if they want to. The end.

The olympics has pro athletes now, every international competition has pro athletes. The hard designation of "amateur athlete" is a meaningless construct outside the framework of the "NCAA." But I've analyzed this and I don't see anything the ncaa actually does and I don't see where it's authority comes from. It's not necessary. Every university could disconnect from the ncaa tomorrow and nothing bad would happen. And all if these self inflicted problems would dissolve into thin air.

slashsnake
07-13-2014, 06:30 PM
As for athlete's getting paid, the answer is fairly simple. The answer is the NCAA just goes away. Universities and/or boosters can pay athletes over the table if they want to. The end.

The olympics has pro athletes now, every international competition has pro athletes. The hard designation of "amateur athlete" is a meaningless construct outside the framework of the "NCAA." But I've analyzed this and I don't see anything the ncaa actually does and I don't see where it's authority comes from. It's not necessary. Every university could disconnect from the ncaa tomorrow and nothing bad would happen. And all if these self inflicted problems would dissolve into thin air.

The only problem, which as a Gator fan I probably shouldn't care about is it really really hurts the teams that aren't elite programs that can't afford to pay students like the SEC and other big programs can do.

I have no idea also how the finances would work. Ok Johnny Manziel makes T A&M millions, but his backup makes that school nothing. Do both get paid similarly? Do we pay based on performance or does everyone get an even cut?

I would love the colleges to break from the NCAA. That one I have no problem with at all. Worst playoff system ever, and just tease you with "well here's a 4 game playoff". Put in a system which only has control over rules, PED/drug suspensions, and scheduling/playoffs, the basics. Let the conferences run themselves, and vote any additional powers possibly needed to them as they are found.

I still think my idea is the one I would like the most (as a greedy fan). Tired of one and done's or two and done's in college sports. You get the option.

1. Be an amateur athlete. Same as current status. You get free ride, food, room and board, great training, the best tutors, etc. Play as long as you want, leave whenever you want to go pro.

2. Be a paid athlete in college. Sign your contract. As a professional student athlete, you must:

sign a 4 year contract with a no compete clause. Just like anywhere else, want to break your contract and run, you need the university's ok first.

be enrolled in a 4 year program taking classes towards that degree full time.

Maintain a 2.5 gpa or higher (1 time 1 semester extension if a 2.0 to get it back up)

Drug/PED/behavior clauses of course.

And for that you get paid handsomely as a student athlete.




I think that's fair. You aren't just going "here's a pile of money" to them, but saying "here's the contract" like any other sport. Want to be one and done... your choice. Want financial stability over a 4 year period, there's that too. Not giving up the best of both worlds to the student, but also making the game better.

Sssmush
07-14-2014, 12:52 AM
The only problem, which as a Gator fan I probably shouldn't care about is it really really hurts the teams that aren't elite programs that can't afford to pay students like the SEC and other big programs can do.

I have no idea also how the finances would work. Ok Johnny Manziel makes T A&M millions, but his backup makes that school nothing. Do both get paid similarly? Do we pay based on performance or does everyone get an even cut?

I would love the colleges to break from the NCAA. That one I have no problem with at all. Worst playoff system ever, and just tease you with "well here's a 4 game playoff". Put in a system which only has control over rules, PED/drug suspensions, and scheduling/playoffs, the basics. Let the conferences run themselves, and vote any additional powers possibly needed to them as they are found.

I still think my idea is the one I would like the most (as a greedy fan). Tired of one and done's or two and done's in college sports. You get the option.

1. Be an amateur athlete. Same as current status. You get free ride, food, room and board, great training, the best tutors, etc. Play as long as you want, leave whenever you want to go pro.

2. Be a paid athlete in college. Sign your contract. As a professional student athlete, you must:

sign a 4 year contract with a no compete clause. Just like anywhere else, want to break your contract and run, you need the university's ok first.

be enrolled in a 4 year program taking classes towards that degree full time.

Maintain a 2.5 gpa or higher (1 time 1 semester extension if a 2.0 to get it back up)

Drug/PED/behavior clauses of course.

And for that you get paid handsomely as a student athlete.




I think that's fair. You aren't just going "here's a pile of money" to them, but saying "here's the contract" like any other sport. Want to be one and done... your choice. Want financial stability over a 4 year period, there's that too. Not giving up the best of both worlds to the student, but also making the game better.

You make some really good points and I agree with a lot of what you say. However I would argue against any kind of stringently administered system being introduced. Eventually that just becomes NCAA 2.0, a big bureaucracy banning athletes and schools and having all this power that is totally unnecessary.

What I mean by letting schools pay athletes is just let them pay athletes if they want to. Or not. I would ban athletic school transfers and maintain a four year eligibility rule, and try to exclude the potential for something like agents or god forbid unions, which would just make it a gross circus of corruption. (Im not anti-union but in this context it would just lead to more rules, regulations, etc and a systematized method of player compensation, which becomes burdensome. You hinted at it straight off: if manziel gets x, shouldnt johnny nobody get that too? No, not unless u think he's worth it).

For instance, if Texas Tech boosters are giving top players dollars and cars. Ok, so what? That in itself doesnt make them win games. They might even lose games. Will some schools put out big dollar bids for some athletes? Maybe. But then that begs the question why do dont those guys jump right to the NFL. And some schools will have a different culture, some schools wont allow athletes to get money.

But the point is there just wont be any rules around it. If USC is a rich school and a top player can get a free car from a booster, ok, so be it. Or you want to hand out cash bonuses to players at Alabama, or cut them checks to cover family expenses if you deem it necessary. None of that requires a full unionization of college sports and an institutional salary system. Instead you just allow schools maximum freedom and the athletes might benefit if they are worth it. This might keep some players in school. And again the players dont have to be paid, schools are free to not pay, but there's no rules against giving gifts or supporting the team.

Figuring out how to equitably pay all student athletes is a difficult problem, but it is an unnecessary self imposed problem. Youre asking the NCAA to craft a pay structure for you and a vast new set of regulations. It's much, much easier to simply say goodbye to the NCAA and return college football or basketball to the way I guess it was in the 1920s or something like that. Great sport, great teams, great perks for some top guys (and girls) and no weird communist bureaucratic church of rules like the NCAA threatening to punish everybody. What happened to USC losing that national title because of the Reggie Bush thing was totally corrupt. At that point you have a corrupt system you should waste no more time with it. Disconnect, play an open schedule, let the NCAA sue, whatever.