high school and college players leaving school

high school and college players leaving school

Post by Tom Fakehan » Fri, 09 Jul 1999 04:00:00


I read that the NBA is concerned about high school and college players
leaving school early to enter the NBA draft because they don't want to
see young lives and promising careers ruined.

The NCAA is concerned about the same thing, as they want college players
to stick around for more than one or two years. Yet, a solution to the
problem is hard to come up with, and it seems like a problem that will
continue to plague both organizations.

 The NBA is looking at the possibility of not letting players into the
league until they are 20. Letting kids right out of high school go to
the NBA isn't really doing the players themselves any good except
monetarily, as many of these players wind up sitting on the bench for a
couple of years. For those that go to college, NBA executives want them
to play at least two years of college ball.

 The problem is many high school and college players between the ages of
18 and 20 are too young to handle the pressures that come with being a
pro basketball players. NBA Commissioner David Stern feels a couple of
years of college will help mature them as people and athletes.

 The NBA Players Union doesn't like the idea, feeling a person should
have the right to do what he wants, so this 20-year-old age limitation
is already at a standstill. The Players' Union must approve such a
decision, and that doesn't seem likely at this point.  NCAA officials,
meanwhile, are toying with the idea of making freshman sit out their
first year of college ball. While that wouldn't be a bad idea in helping

 players mature and focus on grades, it doesn't make sense just for the
fact that many coaches depend on new recruits to fill out their rosters
and maybe be big contributors. Such a move would probably hurt the
college game, and give top high school players a reason for going right
to the pros.

 There is no clear-cut solution, but the basis of the problem is
obviously money. High school and college players don't leave school
early because they desire  fame - they desire the money. First round
draft picks get a guaranteed $1.8 million contract. Many players find
out if they will be first round picks before they enter the draft, and
if they are not they decide to delay going in.

 The only way to stem the tide is decide to give these players a
monetary incentive to stay in college or go to college, while cutting
the monetary incentive to go to the NBA.

 The NBA should set stipulations as to who gets what based on
experience. If you go to school for four years you should get the $1.8
million. Go to school for three years it's less, and so on down the
line. High school players should get a fraction of the $1.8 million even
if they are a first round pick. Base pay on experience for first-year
players. It's only logical and it's fair. A kid majoring in business
administration doesn't get a bunch of money his first time out in the
real world.

 As for the NCAA, they should consider not just giving basketball
players, but all athletes, a little of the dough they make from their
sports programs. College sports
 are big business. Colleges and universities at the Div. I level are
making money hand over fist, so it's time to once again consider paying
these athletes.

 Give players an incentive to stay in school. Paying athletes in
college, and basing their pay on merit their first year in the NBA, is a
joint solution. Whether or not
 it is feasible is another story.

 It's unlikely the NCAA will pay athletes. They've been fighting that
for years. But it would certainly clean up a lot of problems. The NBA
Players' Union probably
 wouldn't budge on their $1.8 million figure for first-year players
either.

 The NCAA and NBA each say they want a solution to the problem of
college underclassmen and high school players going to the NBA. If they
wanted to come
 up with a feasible solution they could. The powers that be cannot come
up with separate solutions. Rather, they must put their collective heads
together and
 come up with a joint answer to the problem.

 It's the only way a practical answer to the problem will be reached.

Your Comments.
Tom Fakehany/Malibu. CA

 
 
 

high school and college players leaving school

Post by L. Ravi Narasimha » Fri, 09 Jul 1999 04:00:00

Quote:

> I read that the NBA is concerned about high school and college players
> leaving school early to enter the NBA draft because they don't want to
> see young lives and promising careers ruined.

                        [ NBA/NCAA hand-wringing ]

Quote:
>  The only way to stem the tide is decide to give these players a
> monetary incentive to stay in college or go to college, while cutting
> the monetary incentive to go to the NBA.

Bullcrap.  Universities are places of education and scholarship, the
latter being explicitly NOT an athletic grant-in-aid.  They are not
holding pens for professional sports leagues, nor should they be.  The
idea of funding for needy-but-athletically-talented kids has mutated
into the monstrosity of modern collegiate sports:  Athletes get
mollycoddled, are excused and exempted from standards concerning gross
antisocial behavior, and in the minor sports, giving a free ride to the
offspring of the wealthy.

Boo freakin' hoo.

Quote:
>  The NBA should set stipulations as to who gets what based on
> experience.

The NBA should absorb the CBA and turn it into a farm system.

Quote:

>  As for the NCAA, they should consider not just giving basketball
> players, but all athletes, a little of the dough they make from their
> sports programs. College sports
>  are big business. Colleges and universities at the Div. I level are
> making money hand over fist, so it's time to once again consider paying
> these athletes.

Most programs run at a loss.  Even the ones on tv every weekend.

Quote:
>  Give players an incentive to stay in school. Paying athletes in
> college, and basing their pay on merit their first year in the NBA, is a
> joint solution. Whether or not
>  it is feasible is another story.

Tell them up front to come if they want a degree.  If not, let 'em go to
the appropriate farm league as baseball and hockey do.  If not there,
then, perhaps, to Hell.  On their own dime.

Quote:
>  The NCAA and NBA each say they want a solution to the problem of
> college underclassmen and high school players going to the NBA. If they
> wanted to come
>  up with a feasible solution they could. The powers that be cannot come
> up with separate solutions. Rather, they must put their collective heads
> together and
>  come up with a joint answer to the problem.

First, they would have to extract their collective heads from their
wallets.  It will take some hardheaded University Presidents with a
modicum of integrity (you know, the NCAA is only what its members make
of it) to tell the NBA to set up its own feeder league and then tell its
athletic departments to recruit according to the  spirit of the rules
that the NCAA trots out whenever the heat from the spotlight gets turned
up.  I'm not holding my breath.  

                                        --- Oski
                                            He stoops to canker

--
Ravi Narasimhan
Department of Physics and Astronomy, UCLA
http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~oski

 
 
 

high school and college players leaving school

Post by Bruno Wolff I » Fri, 09 Jul 1999 04:00:00

I don't see a problem with the current situation. The only ones who have
a problem are the NCAA which is using its monopoly on college athletics
to***over their student athletes. The maturity argument is bogus.
If the kids aren't ready to be in the NBA than teams aren't going to draft
them or they are going to be willing to let them take up a spot while
they develop.

It makes much for sense for these kids to go to the pros and make lots of
money. They can always go back to school later after they have a lot of
money in the bank.

 
 
 

high school and college players leaving school

Post by John S. Bubu » Sat, 10 Jul 1999 04:00:00

Quote:

>The NBA should absorb the CBA and turn it into a farm system.

The NBA is too wrapped up in its personal glorious PR campain called
the WNBA.  Thus the CBA, the Quote - UnQoute "Sister League" fails more
and more with each passing year.  

Heard a rumor....Isiah Thomas was considering buying the CBA and
running it his way.  God knows, the league is on a resporator and is
about to loose two of its longest and strongest teams if something is
not done soon.  

Curt

 
 
 

high school and college players leaving school

Post by WRI LEG » Sat, 10 Jul 1999 04:00:00

Quote:
>high school and college players leaving school

It's a tough issue.... we tell our kids that a college education is a necessity
if they want a chance at making a decent living ($$).... so a lot of kids go to
college for that reason.  Along comes a high school sports 'phenom' who is able
to attract a million (or two) contract to sign with the pros... Basketball,
Baseball... etc.  After a couple of years, they have perhaps made as much money
as the average worker will make in his/her lifetime.  Certainly, education is
important in my book but in all honesty, if someone had waved 1.8 Mill. in
front of me at age 18, I would have hopped into my new limo and reported to
camp.

Buz Bohmeyer

 
 
 

high school and college players leaving school

Post by Tom Fakehan » Sat, 10 Jul 1999 04:00:00

The issue of higher academic standards for volleyball playing athletes
and athletics in general
          has, unfortunately, widened the already huge chasm between the
races. Because standardized
          achievement tests have been a major part of attempts by the
NCAA to implement higher
          standards, the emotional debate will only get more intense.
For decades, all athletes have
          been viewed as "dumb jocks." That sign of contempt was even
more frequently attached to
          minorities. Athletes aren't expected to be as smart as other
students with lesser physical gifts
          but bigger brains. Jokes are made about bad grades. Media
exposure of low graduation rates
          was followed by a public outcry and threats of intervention by
the Congress. It all led to a
          movement for higher academic standards by the colleges and,
increasingly, by high schools.

          The reform movement was helped along by embarrassed and
enlightened college presidents.
          In 1983, the NCAA passed Proposition 48. Developed under the
leadership of the Presidents
          Commission, Prop 48 was designed to create new eligibility
standards for incoming freshmen.
          Under Prop 48, an incoming college freshman, in order to be
eligible to play a sport in the first
          year at any NCAA Div. I or I-A program, had to (1) maintain a
"C" high school average in 11
          core curriculum courses, and (2) score above a 700 on the
combined verbal and math sections
          of the Scholastic Aptitude Test or a 15 on the American
College Test. The new standards only
          referred to the athlete's academic record in high school. The
core curriculum and grade-point
          standards won widespread approval. However, the requirement
for minimum standardized test
          scores angered Minority educators and civil rights leaders.
Many educators agreed that
          standardized achievement tests are culturally and racially
biased. Minority leaders charged
          that Prop 48 would limit Minorities' opportunities to obtain
college athletic scholarships.

          The NCAA conducted an analysis prior to implementation which
seemed to bear out that fear.
          The study looked at entering freshmen in 1981. It showed that
86 percent of Minority players in
          men's basketball and 75 percent of Minority players in men's
football at the nation's largest
          schools would have been ineligible as freshmen. At the same
time, 33 percent of white players
          in men's basketball and 50 percent of white players in men's
football would have been
          ineligible (no poll was conducted using volleyball players).
Nevertheless, when implemented
          in the fall of 1986, Prop 48 actually sidelined far fewer
athletes. According to NCAA figures,
          only 10.3 percent of football players and 11.35 percent of
basketball players overall had to sit
          out in 1980-90. While the earlier NCAA study predicted that
more than 80 percent of Minority
          athletes would be ineligible, 16 percent were actually
ineligible in 1989-90. In previous years,
          the results were even better. While Prop 48 continued to have
a disproportionately heavier
          impact on Minorities (about 65 percent of all Proposition 48
admissions between 1986-87 and
          1989-90), the percentage of Minority athletes who failed to
meet Prop 48 requirements is about
          one-fifth the number predicted in the NCAA study. The
predictions of academic disaster proved
          wrong; student-athletes, Minority and white alike, have
convincingly met the new standards.
          The college presidents were apparently not satisfied and
helped pass Proposition 42 at the
          1989 NCAA convention. The reignited the fiery debate about
Prop 48. The new proposition,
          combined with the standards established by Prop 48, would have
meant that someone who did
          not qualify could not receive an athletic scholarship in the
first year. Under the original Prop
          48, the athlete could have received the scholarship but could
not have played in the first year.

          Considering that the large number of so-called "Prop 48
students" were Minority, the new rule
          reopened the issue with an intensity never experienced before
in college sport. John
          Thompson walked off the court at Georgetown's first game after
the NCAA convention to protest
          Prop 42. Thompson's enormous stature, coupled with the drama
his walkout created, forced
          academic and athletic officials to air the debate publicly.
Many coaches maintained that Prop
          42 would deny the student the chance to get an education if he
could not receive a
          scholarship. They would not have the chance to prove
themselves academically. Temple
          basketball coach John Chaney called it "racist." Proponents
such as Arthur Ashe said it would
          put increased pressure on high school players to study harder.
But the heaviest weight against
          Prop 42 came when that NCAA study mentioned earlier was
analyzed. Of the 79 percent of all
          Minority male athletes who would not have met Prop 48
standards, 54 percent graduated. This
          stood in dramatic contrast to the 31 percent of all Minority
male athletes in that class who
          graduated. In other words, the Minority students who came in
at risk graduated at a much
          higher rate than regular student-athletes. Many were given
that extra emphasis on academics
          in their first year. Delegates at the 1990 NCAA convention
effectively eliminated the problems
          with Prop 42 by allowing Prop 48-eligible students to receive
institutional aid based on need.
          This resolution came as a compromise from the Presidents
Commission.

          As the 1990s wore on, the reform movement sometimes sputtered,
only to be shocked back into
          high gear. The publication of graduation rates was an impetus
for the Presidents Commission
          to plant themselves in a position to control college sport
once and for all. Still, the legacy of
          the early days has left so much to do. race and gender were
still major question marks as
          NCAA delegates deliberated in San Diego in January 1995. Lines
were drawn between the
          presidents and the Minority coaches over a new set of initial
eligibility standards. The
          presidents backed Proposition 16, which requires either a
higher secondary-school grade point
          average (GPA) or higher standardized test scores than those of
Prop 48 to be eligible in the
          freshman year. If you had a 700 SAT score, Prop 16 mandated a
2.5 (C+) GPA in 13 core
          courses. If you had a 2.0 GPA, you would need a 900 on the
sats. Prop 16 was originally passed
          in 1994. When Minority college basketball coaches threatened
to walk out en masse five days
          later, federal mediation was set in motion to try to reach a
compromise. Discussions between
          the presidents, the NCAA and the Minority Coaches Association
took place throughout 1994.
          The coaches said their opposition was based on wanting more
opportunities for potential
          African-American student-athletes. They favored making all
freshmen ineligible so that
          freshmen would have a year to acclimate themselves to the new
academic and social realities
          of college life. I personally favor a policy under which all
freshman student-athletes in the
          revenue sports would be ineligible to participate in
competition. They would be allowed to
          practice with their teammates. This would allow them the
opportunity to adjust to college life
          without the demands of their sport to impede their progress.
If the student-athletes make good
          academic progress toward graduation, they could earn a fourth
year of eligibility. Such
          legislation would eliminate the need for Prop 48 and be fair
to everyone. Sport had the
          opportunity to do something about the racially charged climate
in America. To go ahead with
          legislation perceived by many to be tinged with a racial
intent without compromise leaves the
          leadership open to damaging criticism. What will
African-American students and
          student-athletes back on campus think? How will leaders in the
African-American community
          appraise the decision? The local repercussions are simply not
yet predictable. That is a
          problem that presidents, faculty and coaches can work on
together. But we can no longer wait
          until African Americans or any Minority arrive on our campuses
like immigrants arriving on our
          shores. They have been here and their parents have been here.
It is time to recognize that
          these are the children of our forefathers and fully entitled
to the American dream that now
          seems so elusive to so many.

 
 
 

high school and college players leaving school

Post by Tom Fakehan » Sat, 10 Jul 1999 04:00:00

The issue of higher academic standards for volleyball playing athletes
and athletics in general has, unfortunately, widened the already huge
chasm between the races. Because standardized      achievement tests
have been a major part of attempts by the NCAA to implement
higher          standards, the emotional debate will only get more
intense.

To continue go to http://home.earthlink.net/~tfakehany/academics.html

 
 
 

high school and college players leaving school

Post by Bob Carlso » Sat, 10 Jul 1999 04:00:00

Here's a simple suggestion for early entrants.  When the NBA drafts or signs
a player under 21, the team should immediately incur an obligation to pay
for up to 5 years of education minus any years already completed.  So Baron
Davis, who has two years of school (you suppose he actually earned 2 years
of credits?) would be eligible for 3 more years of scholarship.  This way
the NBA insures the the kid against wasting the opportunity to get an
education.  I understand that this might serve as an additional incentive to
come out early.  It could seem like a no lose situation, either they play
pro ball or they get a 5 year scholarship.  There is a big downside though.
These kids love to play basketball.  If they get drafted and flop, they may
get an education, but they miss out on the best 4 years of basketball they
would have in their lives.

Any kid not drafted should still be eligible in the NCAA.  That may already
be true, I can't remember.

I don't have any great suggestions for the Prop 48 problem.  Tom makes a
good case for Freshman not playing though.  On the other hand, I can't see
why anyone who can only score 700 on the SAT, even with any bias which is
present, should be attending a 4 year college or university.  I want them to
get an education, but that's what junior colleges are for.

I also share Ravi's sentiments completely.

Bob

 
 
 

high school and college players leaving school

Post by Tom Fakehan » Sun, 11 Jul 1999 04:00:00

The issue of higher academic standards for volleyball playing athletes
and athletics in general has, unfortunately, widened the already huge
chasm between the races. Because standardized achievement tests
have been a major part of attempts by the NCAA to implement
higher  standards, the emotional debate will only get more
intense.

To continue go to http://home.earthlink.net/~tfakehany/academic.html

 
 
 

high school and college players leaving school

Post by George Ye » Sun, 11 Jul 1999 04:00:00

Quote:

> I don't see a problem with the current situation. The only ones who have
> a problem are the NCAA which is using its monopoly on college athletics
> to***over their student athletes. The maturity argument is bogus.
> If the kids aren't ready to be in the NBA than teams aren't going to draft
> them or they are going to be willing to let them take up a spot while
> they develop.

> It makes much for sense for these kids to go to the pros and make lots of
> money. They can always go back to school later after they have a lot of
> money in the bank.

Problem is that fans are paying top dollars to attend the games, buy apparel,
etc. However, the quality of the game itself (NBA in particular) has dropped.
Is it because of the players leaving early for the pros, that they have not
fully
developed their skills? Who knows. But it does indicate that the fans are
being
cheated from getting quality games that they are paying for.

As for maturity, are there stats on professional players that have been
arrested
for drug/***/spouse abuse? If there is, they should break it down further
to indicate a discrepency between players that quit school and those that
stuck
it through.

As for going back to school, how many actually do go back after their career
was suddenly ended? Chances are by this time they have already "shared" their
wealth....and that may be due to the lack of maturity.

Tough topic to debate. Both pros and cons. But one thing is for sure,
Shaquille O'Neal
did not deserve the $100+ million contract. He hasn't proved anything. Helped
the
Magic to their first NBA Championship appearance, but never went back.
Currently
a liability for the Lakers: opponents need only to foul him when the game is
tight,
he won't make most of them.

This debate will never end as long as we are greedy.