(02-19-2015 03:59 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 03:54 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think one thing if they say redshirt so they would still have 4 years of eligibility left is they better then close up the graduation loop-hole or you are going to have chaos with mass free agency senior years.

Why shouldn't any player in any given year be eligible to transfer anywhere without sitting out a year? If a non-athlete wants to tranfer schools, does he/she have to sit out a year?

Non-athletes mostly aren't on scholarship and don't have signed a contract with the school.

(02-19-2015 04:12 PM)Wedge Wrote:  This is a misguided pushback against the NBA one-and-done rule.

They'd be better off trying to persuade the NBA to modify its draft eligibility rule. Something like the MLB draft rule (draft-eligible after high school, and then not again until after a player's 3rd year at a "four year" college or after 2 years at a juco) would be best, but in any event the conferences need to find a way of pushing back other than just pushing all of the one-and-dones to Europe or the D-league.

There may also be an academic component to this.

I suspect their thinking would be something like "redshirting will help them focus on academics the first year and that sets a foundation to be successful the following years."

This totally to shut down of Kentucky and John Calipari!

(02-19-2015 04:19 PM)ken d Wrote:  I like the MLB system. I'm not sure it's an option for basketball. I believe baseball can do it without violating any labor laws because they have a long-standing antitrust exemption from Congress. I don't believe the NBA does. I'd like to know what someone conversant with labor law has to say about this.

Interesting thought.

The NCAA is saying to the NBA "dude, fix your friggin' rules so that they can't come out until later!"

And the NBA is saying to the NCAA "dude, we'll get sued for age discrimination! Why don't you guys make a rule??"

Then the NCAA says "we're already getting sued by former players! We can't do anything to further restrict them!"

(02-19-2015 05:10 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  This totally to shut down of Kentucky and John Calipari!

Don't really think so....Cal and Basketball is a afterthought to people like Jim Delany....

(02-19-2015 04:45 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  That's part of the problem. It always sounds good in theory that the NBA ought to have an MLB-style rule, but in practicality, it doesn't work because of the inherent differences in the sports. As you've noted, there is much more depth in the MLB draft both in terms of players and minor league teams to train them. You don't have stories of high school baseball players misguidedly entering the draft and losing their college eligibility in the way that you saw with basketball players in the pre-1-and-done era because the basketball system simply isn't large enough to accommodate that talent.

On the flip side, the sheer size of the MLB draft and minor league system also allows for a margin for error for team executives that doesn't exist in the NBA draft. When you screw up an NBA lottery pick, you might be screwing up your franchise for a generation. As a result, NBA GMs are mortified of missing out on the next Kevin Garnett or Kobe Bryant, so they start drafting athletic high school guys like Jonathan Bender.

I think waaaaaaaay too many sports fans have collective amnesia about the pre-1-and-done era of the NBA draft. It dragged down the quality of BOTH the NBA (with too many high school players drafted based on pure speculative athleticism) and college basketball (as it removed virtually all of the top talent completely). It would be one thing if only LeBron-types entered the draft out of high school and NBA GMs would then also only draft LeBron-types, but the pre-1-and-done era CLEARLY showed that neither the players nor the NBA GMs had any restraint (whether it was based on players seeking an immediate payday or GMs fearful of passing up the next great superstar).

From a pure selfish sports fan reason, I want to watch better NBA and college basketball, so I (a) hate the idea of freshman ineligibility, (b) hate the idea of providing an incentive for top players to skip college to play overseas or in the D-League and © hate the idea of going back to the days of high school players going directly to the draft in the way that occurred in the early-2000s. The 20-year old age limit is the best compromise from that sports fan viewpoint - it gets the top players into college for at least 2 years (which someone can't skate by academically in the way that 1-and-done players might be able to do) and improves the predictability of the careers of NBA draft picks along with getting more mature rookies, which improves the pro product.

Agreed.

So what the heck is the NBA thinking??

(02-19-2015 05:03 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  I'm OK with it. Whatever leads into way mitigating the 1 and done players. If those 3 conferences want to do that then that is up to them. In a way, they'll be seen as to keeping some academic integrity for basketball and that pretty much weighs a lot for the Big 10 and Pac 12 conferences.

But then why include football??

This past season, for example, Minnesota used a significant number of true freshmen players on the gridiron. Players that genuinely helped the team (granted, there were a ridiculous number of injuries last year, both pre-season and during the season).

(02-19-2015 05:05 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Non-athletes mostly aren't on scholarship and don't have signed a contract with the school.

The contract just says "so long as you're an enrolled student at this school, we can't take away your scholarship money."

I don't think it is (or is meant to be) binding the way around.

(02-19-2015 05:11 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  And the NBA is saying to the NCAA "dude, we'll get sued for age discrimination! Why don't you guys make a rule??"

I think the NBA's one-and-done rule is the result of an agreement with their players' union. I assume that means they won't be successfully sued over the rule, but it also means they need the players' ok to change the rule.

(02-19-2015 05:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 05:11 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  And the NBA is saying to the NCAA "dude, we'll get sued for age discrimination! Why don't you guys make a rule??"

I think the NBA's one-and-done rule is the result of an agreement with their players' union. I assume that means they won't be successfully sued over the rule, but it also means they need the players' ok to change the rule.

Yup...it is part of the CBA and the NBAPA Like it in it current form...the owners want a 20 year old limit to really protect themselves...the player want to keep it as is to get to their 2nd Contract faster.

(02-19-2015 05:05 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 03:59 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 03:54 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think one thing if they say redshirt so they would still have 4 years of eligibility left is they better then close up the graduation loop-hole or you are going to have chaos with mass free agency senior years.

Why shouldn't any player in any given year be eligible to transfer anywhere without sitting out a year? If a non-athlete wants to tranfer schools, does he/she have to sit out a year?

Non-athletes mostly aren't on scholarship and don't have signed a contract with the school.

College Athlete=College Student. The ACC is talking about dropping the 1 year penalty for transferring from one ACC school to another ACC school. Scholarship Athletes should have freedom of movement in the limited marketplace of the P5.

If you don't believe me, ask Wallace Loh (or at least the Diamondback).

Funny how that works isn't it?

I think all of the P5 should do it. let the G6 grab more of those kids who want to play right away.

(02-19-2015 05:34 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 05:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 05:11 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  And the NBA is saying to the NCAA "dude, we'll get sued for age discrimination! Why don't you guys make a rule??"

I think the NBA's one-and-done rule is the result of an agreement with their players' union. I assume that means they won't be successfully sued over the rule, but it also means they need the players' ok to change the rule.

Yup...it is part of the CBA and the NBAPA Like it in it current form...the owners want a 20 year old limit to really protect themselves...the player want to keep it as is to get to their 2nd Contract faster.

The interesting thing is that the NBAPA, for whatever reason, is actually acting *against* its own economic self-interest by opposing the 20-year old limit. The people that the NBAPA is protecting in this instance (future 19-year old one-and-done players) aren't members of the union at all right now - they're all just potential future union members. Meanwhile, there are plenty of current NBAPA at the bottom of NBA rosters and would be better served by not having more 19-year old rookies (all whom have very cheap contracts compared to veterans) coming in and competing with them for roster spots. The NBAPA might be one of the few unions in America where it's going out on a limb for people that aren't even members yet while putting their higher-paid veterans with much more seniority at a disadvantage.

Granted, I think enough current NBA players have a better of an understanding of this now and they'll agree to the change in exchange for some other currently unknown issue that will ultimately be more important to the NBAPA. It's a great leverage issue of the NBAPA in the next labor negotiation - the NBA owners want the higher age limit and the current NBAPA doesn't lose anything by giving it up, so it's the perfect issue to horse trade on.

There's only one group that really wants to push back against the 20-year old age limit: sports agents.

By the way, autonomy doesn't allow the P5 to make a change on this type of issue on its own. It would either be adopted by all of Division I or no one at all. As a result, fans of G5 and non-power conference schools shouldn't get starry-eyed about thinking they'll suddenly get a bunch of superstar underclassmen recruits. The P5 aren't unilaterally giving up superstar players and letting them go to G5 schools. Instead, in the *extremely* unlikely event that this would ever pass, think of what the P5 would inevitably push on top of it: larger scholarship limits akin to what were in place decades ago in order to compensate for freshmen no longer playing. That way, the P5 can stockpile all of the talented recruits en masse. Don't get hoodwinked into thinking that this proposal would be good for you, G5 fans.

(02-19-2015 06:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 05:34 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 05:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 05:11 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  And the NBA is saying to the NCAA "dude, we'll get sued for age discrimination! Why don't you guys make a rule??"

I think the NBA's one-and-done rule is the result of an agreement with their players' union. I assume that means they won't be successfully sued over the rule, but it also means they need the players' ok to change the rule.

Yup...it is part of the CBA and the NBAPA Like it in it current form...the owners want a 20 year old limit to really protect themselves...the player want to keep it as is to get to their 2nd Contract faster.

The interesting thing is that the NBAPA, for whatever reason, is actually acting *against* its own economic self-interest by opposing the 20-year old limit. The people that the NBAPA is protecting in this instance (future 19-year old one-and-done players) aren't members of the union at all right now - they're all just potential future union members. Meanwhile, there are plenty of current NBAPA at the bottom of NBA rosters and would be better served by not having more 19-year old rookies (all whom have very cheap contracts compared to veterans) coming in and competing with them for roster spots. The NBAPA might be one of the few unions in America where it's going out on a limb for people that aren't even members yet while putting their higher-paid veterans with much more seniority at a disadvantage.

Granted, I think enough current NBA players have a better of an understanding of this now and they'll agree to the change in exchange for some other currently unknown issue that will ultimately be more important to the NBAPA. It's a great leverage issue of the NBAPA in the next labor negotiation - the NBA owners want the higher age limit and the current NBAPA doesn't lose anything by giving it up, so it's the perfect issue to horse trade on.

There's only one group that really wants to push back against the 20-year old age limit: sports agents.

You might just have hit the reason why the Players Association is against any change...but you're correct the Union will use this as a bargining chip.

(02-19-2015 06:09 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  By the way, autonomy doesn't allow the P5 to make a change on this type of issue on its own. It would either be adopted by all of Division I or no one at all. As a result, fans of G5 and non-power conference schools shouldn't get starry-eyed about thinking they'll suddenly get a bunch of superstar underclassmen recruits. The P5 aren't unilaterally giving up superstar players and letting them go to G5 schools. Instead, in the *extremely* unlikely event that this would ever pass, think of what the P5 would inevitably push on top of it: larger scholarship limits akin to what were in place decades ago in order to compensate for freshmen no longer playing. That way, the P5 can stockpile all of the talented recruits en masse. Don't get hoodwinked into thinking that this proposal would be good for you, G5 fans.

Football it would have no effect...in Basketball around 10 to 15 players...

(02-19-2015 06:12 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 06:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 05:34 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 05:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 05:11 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  And the NBA is saying to the NCAA "dude, we'll get sued for age discrimination! Why don't you guys make a rule??"

I think the NBA's one-and-done rule is the result of an agreement with their players' union. I assume that means they won't be successfully sued over the rule, but it also means they need the players' ok to change the rule.

Yup...it is part of the CBA and the NBAPA Like it in it current form...the owners want a 20 year old limit to really protect themselves...the player want to keep it as is to get to their 2nd Contract faster.

The interesting thing is that the NBAPA, for whatever reason, is actually acting *against* its own economic self-interest by opposing the 20-year old limit. The people that the NBAPA is protecting in this instance (future 19-year old one-and-done players) aren't members of the union at all right now - they're all just potential future union members. Meanwhile, there are plenty of current NBAPA at the bottom of NBA rosters and would be better served by not having more 19-year old rookies (all whom have very cheap contracts compared to veterans) coming in and competing with them for roster spots. The NBAPA might be one of the few unions in America where it's going out on a limb for people that aren't even members yet while putting their higher-paid veterans with much more seniority at a disadvantage.

Granted, I think enough current NBA players have a better of an understanding of this now and they'll agree to the change in exchange for some other currently unknown issue that will ultimately be more important to the NBAPA. It's a great leverage issue of the NBAPA in the next labor negotiation - the NBA owners want the higher age limit and the current NBAPA doesn't lose anything by giving it up, so it's the perfect issue to horse trade on.

There's only one group that really wants to push back against the 20-year old age limit: sports agents.

You might just have hit the reason why the Players Association is against any change...but you're correct the Union will use this as a bargining chip.

The players' union should ask for earlier free agency in exchange for raising the draft-eligible age to 20. But the owners might not want to let the players who shine as rookies and 2nd-year players to cash in so early, though it would allow owners to be rid of draft busts after only two years, if the rookie contracts are that short.

Big Ten throws some cold water on this:

Quote:Stewart Mandel
@slmandel

Per the Big Ten, "no official proposal" on freshman ineligibility. It's gauging interest from members on "beginning a national discussion."

(02-19-2015 06:45 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Big Ten throws some cold water on this:

Quote:Stewart Mandel
@slmandel

Per the Big Ten, "no official proposal" on freshman ineligibility. It's gauging interest from members on "beginning a national discussion."

Regardless, the ACC is looking into changing the penalty for transferring from one ACC school to another. I would have to think that freedom of movement would be paramount for players. They only get ONE chance to prove/monetize themselves.
THE right system makes a player, the wrong system hurts his future earning potential. Players should be able to move programs as they see fit.......unless the university ownes their rights?

(02-19-2015 02:58 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  I would think this could hurt basketball recruiting in B1G, ACC and PAC while stregnthening the other two P5 schools and the G5s+Big East. Most of these kids believe they are good enough to be done in one to two years. A recruit staring at a final list of Syracuse, Georgetown and UConn might easily scratch the Cuse off the list if he knows he can't play for a whole year.

On the football side it will work differently. Freshmen rarely play anyway. Where we will see the difference is that after 5-6 years a lot of hte P5 schools have more fifth year seniors. The quality of play will go up as a whole.

You missed the significance of this being an announcement of THREE of the five major conferences that have control over realms of autonomy.

If this happened, it would happen in a way that would also affect the SEC.