Big East recommends replacing one-and-done with two-or-none

[The_Bionic_Pig]

Link: http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/22860872/big-east-replace-1-done-2-none

[jgphillips3]

I wish they would follow the baseball model of three or none but two or none is a LOT better than the ridiculous model we have now where elite athletes can't immediately go pro and also don't even bother trying to be students.

[The_Iceman]

I too like the baseball model of 3 or none. But 2 and none is better than one and done.

[Hawg Red]

This is an issue that needs less restriction on the players, not more.

[rude1]

Didn't the NCAA already lose in court trying to stop kids from leaving early in basketball years ago? Don't know if they would fare any better now. The NBA will have to be the ones to change their entry requirements I would think.

[bphi11ips]

I wish they would follow the baseball model of three or none but two or none is a LOT better than the ridiculous model we have now where elite athletes can't immediately go pro and also don't even bother trying to be students.

The NBA is with the Big East. The Players Association is violently opposed, though, and they may have control through the collective bargaining agreement:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nba.com/amp/league/article/2017/11/17/report-adam-silver-michele-roberts-discuss-one-and-done-rule-cba

What happens depends on how important the issue is to both sides. Negotiating a CBA is approached as a zero sum game.

I don't think the NBA's position is driven by any altruistic motive about player education. They are more interested in shifting the cost of development for players not ready out of high school to the NCAA. Owners also realize that the NCAA audience is huge, especially for the tournament. Two years in the NCAA can build celebrity. Celebrity sells tickets. Two years in the development league builds anonymity among all but hard core NBA junkies. Most teams there are in small markets with little television exposure. It benefits the owners to let colleges market and promote players. Two years is better than one.

The Players Association wants players to be paid to develop, or at least have that choice.

[HognitiveDissonance]

I wish they would follow the baseball model of three or none but two or none is a LOT better than the ridiculous model we have now where elite athletes can't immediately go pro and also don't even bother trying to be students.

Exactly what I was going to say. Baseball rule is best, but anything is better than one-and-done. Two or none would be a big improvement.

[hogsanity]

This is a NBA rule, so the Big East and the rest of the NCAA can want all day long.

The baseball model is not actually 3 or none, it is 3 UNLESS you turn a certain age before a certain date ( That is why Benentendi ( sp ) only played here for 2 years ).

The question is would a 2 or none rule just drive more players to declare out of HS because they really do not want to go to college for one year and certainly wont want to go for 2. 

[hog.goblin]

The NBA players association will prevent this from happening

[alohawg]

This is an issue that needs less restriction on the players, not more.

Two or none is pretty player friendly,plus it takes other factors into consideration.

[Hawg Red]

Two or none is pretty player friendly,plus it takes other factors into consideration.

In what world is forcing a kid out of the NBA for two years, after he's graduated high school, "pretty player friendly." Surely you didn't type that with a straight face.

Pretty player friendly. Give me a break.

[rude1]

This is a NBA rule, so the Big East and the rest of the NCAA can want all day long.

The baseball model is not actually 3 or none, it is 3 UNLESS you turn a certain age before a certain date ( That is why Benentendi ( sp ) only played here for 2 years ).

The question is would a 2 or none rule just drive more players to declare out of HS because they really do not want to go to college for one year and certainly wont want to go for 2.

Yes they would, everyone has forgotten why the one and done rule was put into place, even marginally talented kids were declaring for the NBA draft right out of high school, with  many of them never sniffing the league. The rule was really desired by the NBA because they were getting high school busts left and right with high draft picks, the new rule made the kids go to college yes, but it also gave them a year to watch and evaluate a kid before spending a high pick on him.

[311Hog]

The NBA is with the Big East. The Players Association is violently opposed, though, and they may have control through the collective bargaining agreement:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nba.com/amp/league/article/2017/11/17/report-adam-silver-michele-roberts-discuss-one-and-done-rule-cba

What happens depends on how important the issue is to both sides. Negotiating a CBA is approached as a zero sum game.

I don't think the NBA's position is driven by any altruistic motive about player education. They are more interested in shifting the cost of development for players not ready out of high school to the NCAA. Owners also realize that the NCAA audience is huge, especially for the tournament. Two years in the NCAA can build celebrity. Celebrity sells tickets. Two years in the development league builds anonymity among all but hard core NBA junkies. Most teams there are in small markets with little television exposure. It benefits the owners to let colleges market and promote players. Two years is better than one.

The Players Association wants players to be paid to develop, or at least have that choice.

imho i think both have a non altruistic motivation.  NBA for the reasons you mentioned, and Players Union because the "life" span of an NBA player is short just like any other pro sports athlete the sooner they can start the clock on their earnings the better and longer career of earnings they are likely to have.

[sickboy]

This is an issue that needs less restriction on the players, not more.

Agreed.

[alohawg]

In what world is forcing a kid out of the NBA for two years, after he's graduated high school, "pretty player friendly." Surely you didn't type that with a straight face.

Pretty player friendly. Give me a break.

Because it is the rarest of kids that are able to go straight from high school to the NBA and not have it negatively impact their career potential. Most kids aren't ready at that age, no matter how how many blood suckers around them say otherwise. Two years in college allows them to mature in all areas, ultimately to their benefit.

[Hawg Red]

Because it is the rarest of kids that are able to go straight from high school to the NBA and not have it negatively impact their career potential. Most kids aren't ready at that age, no matter how how many blood suckers around them say otherwise. Two years in college allows them to mature in all areas, ultimately to their benefit.

The only way to stop kids from trying to go to the NBA if they aren't ready is for the NBA to be brutally honest with kids. Even then, there's no stopping some of them. It simply does not make sense to punish the kids that maybe aren't quite good enough for the NBA out of high school but are after a year in college. Trying to stop kids from making a "mistake" is no excuse (and that's what it is) to block kids from going to the NBA. I can't wait for this to be challenged in court because the NBA would absolutely lose. It's unethical.

[hawg66]

If the requirement is based on age it's absolutely legal. All kinds of businesses have age requirements.

[hogsanity]

The only way to stop kids from trying to go to the NBA if they aren't ready is for the NBA to be brutally honest with kids. Even then, there's no stopping some of them. It simply does not make sense to punish the kids that maybe aren't quite good enough for the NBA out of high school but are after a year in college. Trying to stop kids from making a "mistake" is no excuse (and that's what it is) to block kids from going to the NBA. I can't wait for this to be challenged in court because the NBA would absolutely lose. It's unethical.

Many things are unethical but not illegal. Any group can have minimum age or other requirements to go to work there. Just like the USOC implemented age requirements to go to the olympics for the US. Just like US  laws that pretty much keep anyone under 14 from having a W2 job ( ie food service, etc ). There is even an age requirement to run for POTUS. So no, they would not lose if it went to court.

[hawginbigd1]

This is an issue that needs less restriction on the players, not more.

Do you see 2 or none as more restrictive, I don't. I don't really care either, I am a fan of college basketball, you don't want to go to school for 2 or 3 long years, nobody is forcing them they have options, maybe not good ones but there are options.

Like others have said baseball has it right, but I would accept the 2 or none as an acceptable option.

[bphi11ips]

Here's a simple solution to what is really a simple issue. 

NCAA regulations related to preserving "amateurism" are based upon an entirely different era in college sports that disappeared decades ago.  Those convoluted rules create the mess we see in college basketball. 

For example, why should an athlete be disqualified from college sports for hiring an agent?  Presumably the agent is a trusted advisor.  Hiring an agent doesn't mean an athlete must enter a draft.  An agent should be able to advance sums to an athlete in return for the exclusive right to serve as the athlete's agent. What is the harm to the sport or athlete if an agent wants to take the risk of advancing $100,000 to a 16-year-old in return for the exclusive right to serve as agent when the athlete enters the draft?

What purpose is served by a rule disqualifying an athlete from NCAA competition after he enters the draft?  Why shouldn't he be allowed to return to school, on scholarship, if he goes undrafted?  If he is drafted out of high school but is cut or wants to go to school, why shouldn't he be able to attend college on an athletic scholarship?  Maybe an outside age limit on eligibility might make sense for former professional athletes who want to go to or back to college, like 25 or so.

As long as a school is not paying an athlete to play - outside of a scholarship and a stipend, which is paid now - why perpetuate this silly distinction between "amateurs" and professionals?  The market will take care of those ready for the pros without punishing kids for making a mistake.  And we as fans would benefit from seeing more upperclassmen in all sports. 

[jgphillips3]

The only way to stop kids from trying to go to the NBA if they aren't ready is for the NBA to be brutally honest with kids. Even then, there's no stopping some of them. It simply does not make sense to punish the kids that maybe aren't quite good enough for the NBA out of high school but are after a year in college. Trying to stop kids from making a "mistake" is no excuse (and that's what it is) to block kids from going to the NBA. I can't wait for this to be challenged in court because the NBA would absolutely lose. It's unethical.

So are you fine with the current system blocking kids who are good enough out of high school to go to the NBA?  If you are fine with the current arbitrary mess then what is wrong with a slightly different arbitrary mess?  Point being, if these entities want to draft rules that they feel are best for them and only impact a handful of the thousands (tens of thousands?) of kids available in any one year, they should be free to set those rules.  One and done, none and done, two and done...someone is going to get screwed somewhere no matter how you do it so if you are reasonably trying to insure the health and vitality of the pro and college game, compromises will have to be made.

[From Tusk Till Dawn]

Serious question?  Does anyone watch the NBA?  I will watch once the playoffs get half done.  I'm not necessarily opposed to kids going straight out of high school but it just amazes me the money they have to throw at these players in the draft.  Because most people I know are sports fans but don't watch the NBA regularly.  Much more likely to watch the NFL.

[bphi11ips]

Serious question?  Does anyone watch the NBA?  I will watch once the playoffs get half done.  I'm not necessarily opposed to kids going straight out of high school but it just amazes me the money they have to throw at these players in the draft.  Because most people I know are sports fans but don't watch the NBA regularly.  Much more likely to watch the NFL.

I'll watch the fourth quarter of the seventh game of the championship series, sometimes.

[Letsroll1200]

In what world is forcing a kid out of the NBA for two years, after he's graduated high school, "pretty player friendly." Surely you didn't type that with a straight face.

Pretty player friendly. Give me a break.

I'm with you! Let them go to the NBA whenever they feel like they are ready. Should not be restricted for any reason.

[Letsroll1200]

Serious question?  Does anyone watch the NBA?  I will watch once the playoffs get half done.  I'm not necessarily opposed to kids going straight out of high school but it just amazes me the money they have to throw at these players in the draft.  Because most people I know are sports fans but don't watch the NBA regularly.  Much more likely to watch the NFL.

I don't watch the NBA during the regular season at all. I start watching some playoffs games and usually watch the conference finals and the NBA finals.

[Hawg Red]

So are you fine with the current system blocking kids who are good enough out of high school to go to the NBA?  If you are fine with the current arbitrary mess then what is wrong with a slightly different arbitrary mess?  Point being, if these entities want to draft rules that they feel are best for them and only impact a handful of the thousands (tens of thousands?) of kids available in any one year, they should be free to set those rules.  One and done, none and done, two and done...someone is going to get screwed somewhere no matter how you do it so if you are reasonably trying to insure the health and vitality of the pro and college game, compromises will have to be made.

If you had read my initial response...

This is an issue that needs less restriction on the players, not more.

...you would see that I do NOT support the current system. I also fail to see how anyone at all gets screwed by none-and-done. The NBA doesn't have to draft anyone. It was their problem that they were giving high draft slots to high school (and young international) players in the late '90s and early '00s. Bad talent evaluation. The NBA has embraced analytics in talent evaluation in such a fashion that most FOs are run much, much differently than when this ** age limit was instituted. Within the next 3 years (probably), every single NBA team will have their own G-League affiliate. So these players that were entering the NBA out of high school before one-and-done and getting drafted in the lottery or mid-first round that didn't quite become stars (but many of whom did become solid NBA players, by the way) can now be projected as late first-round or early second-draft players. All the teams have to do is not draft them too early. The players shouldn't be punished for that by being kept out of the NBA for two years if they had to foresight and self-awareness to make the decision to develop at a college program initially.

People that don't like the NBA are just not going to like the NBA no matter what. My personal opinion is that many of today's NBA players are unlikeable. But fans are also subjected to a wider array of NBA teams compared to in the '90s. In the '90s, you were pretty much only seeing playoff team vs playoff team even in the regular season. Now, the NBA wants to push their younger stars on bad teams, so you are seeing more bad basketball. That same bad basketball was there in decades past. You just weren't seeing it on national/cable TV. The biggest determent to the NBA right now is the super team. It is sapping interest further. Not sure how they accomplish that but what the Warriors were able to do under the salary cap was just too much.

[LRHawg]

I only watch the NBA finals, pretty much. The NCAA tournament has been great this year, because a lot of the blue bloods and their one and dones have gone down to teams that play good basketball.

[chiti66]

Serious question?  Does anyone watch the NBA?  I will watch once the playoffs get half done.  I'm not necessarily opposed to kids going straight out of high school but it just amazes me the money they have to throw at these players in the draft.  Because most people I know are sports fans but don't watch the NBA regularly.  Much more likely to watch the NFL.

Yes...I watch for the sheer fact that the players are the best in the world at their sport (MLB, NFL, etc.).  I am a true sports fan so I like to see perfection just as I like to see the amateurs. Is the college game more excited, in some ways, but it is also the most corrupted.  M2Cts

[alohawg]

I only watch the NBA finals, pretty much. The NCAA tournament has been great this year, because a lot of the blue bloods and their one and dones have gone down to teams that play good basketball.

The NBA isn't worth tuning in until the 2nd rd of the playoffs at the earliest, imo.

[From Tusk Till Dawn]

The NBA isn't worth tuning in until the 2nd rd of the playoffs at the earliest, imo.

Was just curious because of the money they still generate.  I'm sure that is largely based on tv money but still, feels like most people dont tune in regularly till the playoffs.

[NinoHogUNIA]

Was just curious because of the money they still generate.  I'm sure that is largely based on tv money but still, feels like most people dont tune in regularly till the playoffs.

The NBA isn't having the same problem as the NFL. Not to mention 16 games opposed to 82.   

Who watches every MLB  game?   

The NBA is very good right now they have to handle the tanking ordeal