mark emmert new ncaa president

[xubrew]

the one thing i know about this guy is something that i like. he is a long term proponent of an fbs playoff that is sanctioned by the ncaa, not the bcs. that doesn't mean that it will happen any time soon, but it's a step in the right direction.

this article from usa today addresses one-and-dones.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2010-04-28-one-and-done_N.htm

something people don't seem to fully grasp about this is that one-and-dones are more the result of an nba rule than anything else. there is no denying that two-and-dones or three-and-dones would be better for college basketball. no question at all. however, if it's not better for the nba, then it isn't likely to happen. it's their rule and the change would have to come on their end. if emmert really wants this changed then the only way he can really do it is to convince the nba that it is a better deal for them.

still, i'm happy with the choice....at least for right now. i like having a football playoff guy in indianapolis. at this rate, we should have one in the next twenty years or so. :rolleyes:

[SixFig]

I think the one and done benefits the "mid majors" for sure. While Kansas and Kentucky and UNC focus on top 10 studs, a Xavier or even a Dayton can actually come in and take a couple top 50 prospects that would normally have ended up there. If there was no one and done rule, would Dezmine Wells be a Tar Heel?

That being said there should be a rule that you can go straight to the NBA from HS or you have to wait 3 years. I would be willing to compromise on 2.

[xu95]

I think the one and done benefits the "mid majors" for sure. While Kansas and Kentucky and UNC focus on top 10 studs, a Xavier or even a Dayton can actually come in and take a couple top 50 prospects that would normally have ended up there. If there was no one and done rule, would Dezmine Wells be a Tar Heel?

That being said there should be a rule that you can go straight to the NBA from HS or you have to wait 3 years. I would be willing to compromise on 2.

How can the NCAA make a rule like that since the NBA won't accept people right out of high school. THat would mean everyone would have to go to college for three years.

As it has been mentioned numerous times. The one and done thing is because of the NBA, and not the NCAA.

xu95

[SixFig]

How can the NCAA make a rule like that since the NBA won't accept people right out of high school. THat would mean everyone would have to go to college for three years.

As it has been mentioned numerous times. The one and done thing is because of the NBA, and not the NCAA.

xu95

Of course the NBA would have to revert back to the old days and accept HS players again.

[xubrew]

Of course the NBA would have to revert back to the old days and accept HS players again.

i can't be certain, but i think the nba's logic was that drafting players out of high school meant that they had less of idea about their potential. also, bringing in players that were so raw that most fans had not seen before wasn't helping the quality or interest of the game. now that players play a year in college, fans know who they are and scouts have a better idea of how good they are.

why is the players union against the idea of making it two years out of highschool instead of one?? i'm sure they have a reason. i just have no clue what it is.

[SixFig]

why is the players union against the idea of making it two years out of highschool instead of one?? i'm sure they have a reason. i just have no clue what it is.

http://commnowllc.com/images/lots+of+money.jpg

[smileyy]

i can't be certain, but i think the nba's logic was that drafting players out of high school meant that they had less of idea about their potential. also, bringing in players that were so raw that most fans had not seen before wasn't helping the quality or interest of the game.

Much more the latter, not the former. The NBA wanted free marketing for incoming players.

NBA executives, on the whole, are stupid. You can't save them from themselves, no matter what you do.

[xubrew]

http://commnowllc.com/images/lots+of+money.jpg

i guess i'm missing how money ties into this. why would the league's current players that make up the union be effected by this one way or the other?? it seems to me like they'd be indifferent.

i'm not disagreeing with you. i'm just saying i don't understand.

[SixFig]

i guess i'm missing how money ties into this. why would the league's current players that make up the union be effected by this one way or the other?? it seems to me like they'd be indifferent.

i'm not disagreeing with you. i'm just saying i don't understand.

One more year in college means one less year of money for incoming players. You are right in presuming that current players stand little to gain, but the Union would be looking to make an extra year's worth of money for its future members as well.

A player's career is only so long. Start at an earlier age = more time in league = mo money

That's just my theory.

[DoubleD86]

A player's career is only so long. Start at an earlier age = more time in league = mo money.

Not really pertinent to this conversation at all, but some have recently argued that your thinking is false. I have read a couple of articles recently that believe a body has certain amount of mileage in the NBA, regardless of age. They say a guy like Kobe had certain amount of minutes played regardless of if he had gone to college or not.

I don't really know what I think, but interesting none the less. Does earlier entrance to NBA matter in length of career or do you have x amount of minutes to play in the NBA regardless of when you enter (within reason)?