Disagree

The 3 years or nothing rule is pointless. It restricts good players from being able to go to the league. I don't know how baseball puts up with it. If this happened in basketball it would just mean more guys declaring out of high school. Less talent in college and more duds in the NBA.

The only reason people are mad with the "one and dones" are because we get just a taste of these players, then they are gone. Under the old rules, all of them would have bypassed college anyway.

The current system is no worse than the old one and better than the "3 or nothing" rule

(07-10-2013 02:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 01:44 PM)Poliicious Wrote:  http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/draftday/rules.jsp

Found this info on the MLB site regarding players eligible for the draft and the 3 year rule only applies to NCAA athletes not NJCAA athletes. NJCAA players can be drafted after Frosh or Soph years.

This is a large recruiting advantage for JC programs vs NCAA programs.

It's not an advantage. Or, it's more than offset by many other advantages the NCAA teams offer. NCAA baseball is deeper and more talented than it's ever been, and still improving.

In the 2013 draft, there were 21 players drafted out of NCAA schools in the first round plus the first-round supplemental picks (first 39 players drafted). There was only one player picked from a juco out of those first 39; the other 17 were HS players. The 20th player drafted directly out of a juco was not chosen until the 11th round of the MLB draft. Source: http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/events/draft/y201...round&fv=1

In other words, the vast majority of the best baseball players that don't go pro out of high school end up on an NCAA team; most don't go to a juco at all, some go to a NCAA school after attending a juco.

I agree with you on this Wedge. Last Spring we had some ML scouts at one of the Auburn home games. They equated NCAA baseball with Double A ball on average and Triple A ball for the contenders. They also like the maturity that most of the better college athletes approach the game with. They feel that college ball helps them with coach-ability coming out of high school.

I'd support a 2 year minimum for all players.

I think high school geeks who come up with killer software that will make millions (or at least thousands) of dollars shouldn't be able to sell that software until they've completed ___ years of college.

(07-10-2013 06:37 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I think high school geeks who come up with killer software that will make millions (or at least thousands) of dollars shouldn't be able to sell that software until they've completed ___ years of college.

I understand the analogy, but the main difference is that the killer software is being sold in a legit free market, whereas a pro sports draft is explicitly a closed market that would be a collusive anticompetitive practice in any other venue. (Imagine all of the top investment banks getting together and holding a draft for the best MBA students amongst themselves.)

To be sure, I agree that there's a real tension here. As a theoretical matter, I think that if you're good enough to play in the NBA at 18 years old, then you should be able to play. Like I've said before, if only the LeBron-type players would enter into the draft out of high school and the NBA teams would only draft such LeBron-types (as opposed to 18-year olds purely based on potential instead of the ability to play immediately), then having no age restrictions in the NBA draft would work. In a real free market, that type of self-selection process would generally occur at a macro level.

The problem is that it has been proven that it doesn't work in practice because the draft is the antithesis of a free market: too many high school kids that aren't good enough ended up entering the draft and too many of those kids were drafted on a speculative basis by teams. This can work in baseball because high school draftees are expected to spend several years developing in the minors and the wheat can be cut from the chaff in relative obscurity. In contrast, the NBA is a star power sport where lottery picks are expected to contribute immediately, a bad first round draft pick bust can set a franchise back for 5 to 10 years, and it's all being done in front of huge ESPN and TNT audiences from day one.

To go back to your software developer analogy, it's true that a college dropout like Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg can go out and develop and sell that software without any restrictions. However, if you're a programming wunderkind that attempted to apply for a job at Microsoft or Facebook today without a college degree, your resume would most likely get thrown in the trash. Same thing if you have shown to be a financial wizard in high school - a bank or trading house on Wall Street still isn't hiring you without a college degree.

Plenty of people (including many of us here) could probably have done our jobs with on-the-job-training straight out of high school as opposed to going to college, yet the fact is many of those jobs simply require a college degree as a minimum to apply at all. So, I don't see how a "normal" company having a requirement of a college degree (or higher) to apply for a position as any different than an age restriction by the NBA where there are only 60 draft spots for the most widely-played American sport and there's a lot of high risk and investment by each team for each draft pick.

That's a reflection that established entities (like major corporations or the NBA) can't afford to take risks on unknowns in the same way that a startup firm that's based in a garage.

(07-09-2013 03:13 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-09-2013 02:53 PM)psualltheway5 Wrote:  

(07-09-2013 02:50 PM)john01992 Wrote:  absolutely

part of being a college sports fan is bonding with the players and watching them grow. its fun watching todays stars interact with tomorrows stars as teammates and it makes rivalry games much better when these same players played against each other before.

UK fans have no idea how much they are missing out

Next year's Kentucky team will be scary good with the Harrisons, Poythress, Randle, Cauley-Stein, and company.

remind me again what UKs preseason ranking was this year.......

one & dones are high risk high reward.
the 2012 team had 1 & dones, but experience to back it up
the 2013 team had nothing but 1 & dones
and so does the 2014 team......im predicting the same problems for uk that they faced this year as they faced last year

Hope so.

Calipari, the King of One and dones, needs to be reined in.

One and dones aren't hurting the college game nearly as much as "defense" coaches.

It is understandable why coaches with lesser talent go this route, it allows them to "keep it close" with even the best teams which helps them keep their jobs and avoid the criticism of being crushed. But the emphasis on grinding it out and playing super physical has really made the game ugly.

(07-24-2013 06:35 PM)tigertom Wrote:  

(07-09-2013 03:13 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-09-2013 02:53 PM)psualltheway5 Wrote:  

(07-09-2013 02:50 PM)john01992 Wrote:  absolutely

part of being a college sports fan is bonding with the players and watching them grow. its fun watching todays stars interact with tomorrows stars as teammates and it makes rivalry games much better when these same players played against each other before.

UK fans have no idea how much they are missing out

Next year's Kentucky team will be scary good with the Harrisons, Poythress, Randle, Cauley-Stein, and company.

remind me again what UKs preseason ranking was this year.......

one & dones are high risk high reward.
the 2012 team had 1 & dones, but experience to back it up
the 2013 team had nothing but 1 & dones
and so does the 2014 team......im predicting the same problems for uk that they faced this year as they faced last year

Hope so.

Calipari, the King of One and dones, needs to be reined in.

If Noel stays healthy it is a very different team last year.

(07-24-2013 07:01 PM)ULdave Wrote:  One and dones aren't hurting the college game nearly as much as "defense" coaches.

It is understandable why coaches with lesser talent go this route, it allows them to "keep it close" with even the best teams which helps them keep their jobs and avoid the criticism of being crushed. But the emphasis on grinding it out and playing super physical has really made the game ugly.

The problem is that the solution to this (having the refs call enough fouls to discourage overly physical play) makes TV executives and conference officials nervous. They may not mind one or two early season games being a parade to the foul line in a PR-minded attempt to show that the NCAA "means business" about cleaning it up, but they're terrified at the prospect of too many ugly games turning off viewers. Coaches who favor that style of play know that if it's ever clamped down on it would be for just a game or two, and they're willing to sacrifice that rather than give up the style.

If the NCAA ever showed enough intestinal fortitude to have the refs continue to call games appropriately (not ticky-tacky, mind you, but not allowing games to devolve into sumo matches) throughout the whole season, while we may have an ugly season for a year, it would sink in that they're not going to allow it, and coaches would be forced to adapt or get destroyed at the line and from playing their 3rd string guys because everyone else has fouled out.

My solution is to allow all athletes enter the NBA draft. When drafted, the NBA franchise can determine whether the athlete stays at school or moves up to the franchise.

Of course, once drafted, the NBA franchise picks up all the cost for schooling.

So, the Lakers draft you but do not need you at this time. They tell you to stay at Duke for another year and work with Coach K.

(07-24-2013 07:01 PM)ULdave Wrote:  ...But the emphasis on grinding it out and playing super physical has really made the game ugly.

...especially in the tournament.

It's turned into a game of who can make the most 3's.

The NCAA should really reach out to the NBA and the NBAPA on this one. Kids are rushing to turn pro simply to start the clock on their tenure in the NBA. If the NBA would reduce the tenure requirement for kids who stay in school, the number of one and dones would be reduced to those players ready to be lottery picks.

Larry Scott said at Pac-12 media day that he's had enough of one-and-done: He said one-and-done "threatens our credibility and the goal of balancing academics and athletics. It's time to reconsider a system that currently allows student-athletes to be on our campuses for less than 12 months."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca...l/2590273/

Agree

Right now the NCAA teams are getting more quality talent than the NJCAA teams but there are several players getting drafted out of JC ball:

The White Sox have taken 13 & 11 first round picks from the JC ranks.The other big edge JC's have is cost. Most NCAA players are only getting partial scholarships (1/4 or 1/3) of the cost. Most JC's cost only $3500 to $4000 a year for Tuition, fees and textbooks, get a partial JC scholarship and your cost is down to only $2K plus room and board.

http://www.njcaa.org/athletes_of_distinc...rd&cmenu=4

CWS 2013 1st round pick Tim Anderson SS.(#17)
CWS 2011 1st round pick Keenyn Walker OF (#47)

http://www.njcaa.org/newsArticle.cfm?articleId=19800

9 former NJCAA players selected to the MLB allstar game 2013.

http://www.njcaa.org/newsArticle.cfm?articleId=19748

124 NJCAA players taken in 2013 MLB draft. Or 1 out of 9!

Considering there are only 176 NJCAA Division 1 programs and 125 NJCAA D2 programs, that's alot of players drafted.

There are nearly (294) NCAA D1 baseball programs as there are D1 & D2 NJCAA combined.

I don't know that one-and-done's have ruined the game. For every Kentucky that has a revolving door for McDonald's All Americans to the NBA, the rule has also created an opportunity for programs with 4 and 5 year players to succeed in a way that they couldn't before when elite programs had 3-4 year All Americans. I don't think it's any coincidence that we've had programs from non-power conferences making it to the Final Fours in recent years in numbers that we haven't seen in a long time - Butler, Wichita State, VCU, George Mason, and Marquette.

Even in power programs, it was great to see a 4-year player like Peyton Siva shine in this year's tournament and team up with a 3-year player like Gorgui Dieng to lead their team to a national championship.

I think that the rule is a 2-edged sword that has helped the mid majors as much as it's hurt the power programs. I think that the net result is a plus for college basketball because it improves opportunities for true student athletes and gets rid of players who don't want to be there much faster. Not as fast as when players could go directly to the NBA, but it does force many players who are not NBA ready to come to college, realize their limitations and then become 3 or 4 year college players, thereby enriching the college talent pool by keeping players who would have been lost to the college ranks otherwise.

I don't like the rule. If the kid's only purpose is to go to the NBA, the NBA has a developmental league. The kids who go to school for a year before hitting the NBA don't have any feeling or association for the school they attend for a season that extends beyond the practice facility...