Jason Whitlock may annoy people. but his idea to save college basketball is really interesting. | Syracusefan.com

Jason Whitlock may annoy people. but his idea to save college basketball is really interesting.

Alsacs

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
63,219
Like
90,068
Whitlock talks about race too much for my cup of tea, but he is a good writer and after being the only one to call out Mark Schwarz as an azzclown he earned my respect here is his idea to fix college basketball from his article . Only change I would make is that kids could leave after their Junior year like they can in college baseball.
http://msn.foxsports.com/collegebas...tes-can-work-if-you-follow-these-steps-041013

Here’s my project/proposal for Adam Silver, the NCAA and the NBA players association. This proposal is strictly for men’s college basketball. It’s a yearly $60 million proposal that should be split 50-50 between the NBA and the NCAA.
Step 1: Get the NBPA to agree to change the draft eligibility requirements to four years after you graduated from high school or age 22.
Step 2: The NBA starts the NBA Summer Internship Program, which is a one-month program that includes basketball instruction, classes about the NBA, professional athletics and life skills. This program would be paid for by the shoe companies and a TV network that would broadcast a small handful of games from the Summer Internship Program.
Step 3: The NBA and the NCAA — through scouting, recommendations and high school academic achievement — identify the top 100 high school seniors entering college basketball. Enroll those 100 players in the NBA Summer Internship Program that pays them $100,000 each. The players would receive half the money in two checks received at the start of each semester. The other half would be invested conservatively by the NCAA/NBA and given to player upon the completion of his four years of eligibility.
Step 4: The initial 100 class will be trimmed to 75 when they become sophomores. All college basketball sophomores at any level will be eligible to apply for the NBA SIP. The NBA and the NCAA — through scouting, recommendations and academic achievement as a college freshman — will identify the 75 sophomores. They will be ranked 1 to 75 based primarily on their NBA prospects but also on their academic achievement. The top 25 sophomores will be paid $175,000. The next 50 will be paid $125,000. Again, they’ll receive half of their money in two checks at the beginning of each semester. The other half of their money will be invested conservatively by the NCAA/NBA and given to the player upon the completion of his four years of eligibility.
Step 5: The following year the NCAA/NBA will identify 75 juniors using the same criteria. Everything will remain the same except the top 25 juniors will earn $275,000 and the next 50 will get $225,000.
Step 6: The senior class will be trimmed to 50. The top 25 receive $500,000 and the next 25 receive $350,000. Everything else remains the same.
By Year 4 of my system, there are 300 basketball players — 100 freshmen, 75 sophomores and juniors and 50 seniors — enrolled in the NBA SIP. That’s a payroll right around $60 million. It’s a bargain for the NBA and the NCAA. Instead of having unprepared, no-passionate-fans kids tying up space on an NBA roster, NBA owners would get 22-year-old TV stars and superstars entering their league. The NCAA and its television partners would get ratings-driving stars in their sophomore, junior and senior seasons.
College coaches wouldn’t lose their leverage over their best players. They would get kids incentivized to embrace the academic process and coaching because academic achievement and recommendations would play a role in whether a player could enroll in the NBA SIP. A player would be very reluctant to transfer because he wouldn’t be eligible for the NBA SIP during the year he sat out as a transfer. If a player ran into academic trouble and needed summer school, it would prevent him from participating in the NBA SIP.
The kids would benefit because the best players would earn $1 million over four years and half of it would be conservatively invested and given to them as they entered the workforce. They would also benefit from the chance to mature on a college campus.
Obviously, this plan would need to be refined and safeguards would have to be put in place to protect the athlete. I’d make the athletes sign an agreement forbidding them from taking out any loans (or co-signing) during their four years in college. No credit cards, either. You would want a wall to protect them from themselves and predatory lenders.
As for the non-NBA prospects and role players? I say grant any Division I player who doesn’t qualify for the NBA SIP as a junior or senior a fifth year of playing eligibility and one year as a full-time traditional student. That’s right. Six years of school. Many of the athletes arrive on campus academically unprepared. Why not give them two extra years to catch up? And why not give the prepared ones, two years to work on a graduate degree?
As much as I regret not playing football my fifth year at Ball State (and I deeply regret it), the chance to spend one year as a legitimate full-time student has paid off for me tremendously. I worked for the school newspaper and actually made good grades. All of these athletes, particularly at age 22 or 23 when they might appreciate it, deserve one year on campus solely as a student.
 
How does paying a kid $100,000 "incentivize" him into an education?
 
How does paying a kid $100,000 "incentivize" him into an education?
If the kid wants to money then he would have to complete his school work. 100k is twice what an average worker makes in a year, and if these kids knew they could potentially earn that money passing classes in college would actual matter. I don't necessarily agree with Whitlock's idea, but it gets the ball rolling into changing the status quo.
 
sure, just a measly $60M per year. lol.
http://content.usatoday.com/communi...es-14-year-deal-with-cbsturner/1#.UWbHsFejubk

You realize the NCAA signed a 14 year 11.8 BILLION dollar contract with CBS and Turner Sports. The NCAA gets 771 million dollars a YEAR to broadcast the NCAA tournament if they had to shell out 30 million half of that 60 million or the entire 60 million itself then that would only cost 7% of what the NCAA receives now for the tournament they could afford to give the players 100 million.
 
I give Whitlock credit for laying out a well thought out plan.

But my main issue with it is the top 100 recruits. What happens when you have players who aren't part of that group [i.e., Lawrence Moten], who quickly demonstrate that they belong amongst the top players in college basketball? Are they excluded from participating simply because they weren't rated highly coming out of high school?

And what about players who go to good programs and have to wait their turn? Would MCW have been "dropped" in the cut from 100 to 75 his sophomore year, due to the fact that he didn't garner playing time as a frosh?

Again, not knocking the concept, but there are a lot of holes.
 
Or just make the draft requirements like baseball. You can go pro out of high school but if you go to college you have to stay 3 years. This would easily raise the level of play in college and the surefire 1st rounders don't have to fake like they are going to college.
 
I give Whitlock credit for laying out a well thought out plan.

But my main issue with it is the top 100 recruits. What happens when you have players who aren't part of that group [i.e., Lawrence Moten], who quickly demonstrate that they belong amongst the top players in college basketball? Are they excluded from participating simply because they weren't rated highly coming out of high school?

And what about players who go to good programs and have to wait their turn? Would MCW have been "dropped" in the cut from 100 to 75 his sophomore year, due to the fact that he didn't garner playing time as a frosh?

Again, not knocking the concept, but there are a lot of holes.
Teams wouldn't be able to stack themselves with too much depth in one class or the kid would drop out. MCW wouldn't have come to Syracuse because Dion Waiters would still be there thus MCW would go to Providence, or Boston College or a team like that. Kentucky couldn't reload each year and the top 1 and dones would spread out more to get their playing time, but we would see teams like their were in the 1980's when Michael Jordan stayed 3 years, Patrick Ewing stayed 4 years, Chris Mullin 4 years, Pearl Washington 3 years.
With the kids who weren't top 100 recruits I am sure they could always leave a couple of open slots for kids who develop while in college and weren't top 100 out of high school.
 
Give the kids an option between:

1) Tuition, room and board, and all of the amenities currently offered, or

2) The full cost of those items paid to the player with no access to those resources or education.

Give them the opportunity to put the money for their work in their hands. Let's see what's more valuable in the long run for over 99% of athletes.
 
Not a bad idea but definitley holes. Would it really make the game better? To me it would lead to really selfish basketball. Example: CJ Fair is pretty unselfish but if he wanted to make that top 50 his senior year he may jack up a lot more shots this year to score more.

He says guys wouldn't transfer but does anyone think a freshman wouldn't be super pissed and transfer if he didn't get enough playing time and make that top 75?

And how many guys would take off to Europe until they are 22? Probably a lot.
 
Or just make the draft requirements like baseball. You can go pro out of high school but if you go to college you have to stay 3 years. This would easily raise the level of play in college and the surefire 1st rounders don't have to fake like they are going to college.

To me this in the only solution.
 
Do you realize that if you start to pay college athletes you will have to pay ALL college athletes the same regardless of sport or gender? If the day comes they ever start to have direct cash "stipends", that will be the day that virtually all non football and basketball sports will be eliminated. You will end up with only men's and women's basketball, men's football, and a handful of women's sports (because of the Title IX requirement) and that's it. These payments will not stop men's basketball players from entering the NBA draft after their freshmen and soph years because the discrepancy in dollars is just too substantial. You couldn't pay them enough to stop it. It's up to the NBA to modify their rules and business model if they want to preserve and improve the college game...and ultimately their no cost "farm system".
 
To me this in the only solution.
Baseball has a monopoly exemption, basketball does not. They can make what ever rules they want. Existing rules are hard to buck. The NBA would have to change from 1 year to 3 years of college. Could be a legal hassel of a kid blow up his freshman or junior year. I have a suggetion that doesn't involve the NBA. The NCAA should change their eligibility rules which allow kids to return to school if they don't get drafted even if they have an agent. Why should having professional finanical advice keep a kid from school? My other suggestion is to change the length of the first contract the kid signs based on years out of high school First contract now is 3 years. Make it 7 for hs grad then reduce it 1 year for every year after. Part of the push to get out is not necessarily the 1st contract but to get to free agency.
 
Honestly, this is all crazy talk! This is like Apple capitalizing on the success of the iPhone and People now think the Apple employees are underpaid and now need a salary increase! These college and universities are definitely making a ton of money, But they're also the same people who built the program and invested millions of dollars into creating a brand name. I agree with Bob stoops! As a student athlete you're treated like royalty for four years! Free room and board travel to many locations across the country, Along with top notch nutritionist athletic trainers and tutors! All To prepare you for a possible profession in the sport that you choose. I would say that's worth $250-$500,000 Over four years! Sounds like a fair deal to me!
 
Drop all the requirements and let college athletes return if they aren't drafted as long as they stay enrolled and meet the university and AD's requirements for eligibility. As for agents - require them to report all activity with student athletes to the NCAA and be given boundaries to what they can and can't do while the athlete is still a "student-athlete".

I think this is in the best interest of everyone. As long as the athlete stays committed to the school they can make an effort to obtain employment and if it does not workout they can return. Then let them retain an agent but the agent can not conduct any business on campus therefore ensuring minimal interference with the other student athletes. Additionally - the agent can broker endorsements but can only act as a trustee for any endorsements and not provide direct compensation upfront to the student athlete. I think connecing agents with the NCAA would be important for both to better understand one another instead of being at odds. I also think it could help set better standards so that kids don't end up with slimy handlers who are pseudo agents really just trying to hang off the athlete if they make it.

Finally - why not allow student athletes to try and make an NBA summer league team. Instead of a paid internship let them try to make a team and if they do let them play a few games as an unpaid internship. If their agent works out an endorsement because of it.. then so be it. With all the espn interviews and features they do on some student athletes I don't see how endorsements would change the lifestyles of the best players. It would also prepare them for life in the spotlight a little more. Honestly look how prepared Lebron was with everything he did in HS. He certainly was more mature dealing with it than Melo was right out of college.
 
http://content.usatoday.com/communi...es-14-year-deal-with-cbsturner/1#.UWbHsFejubk

You realize the NCAA signed a 14 year 11.8 BILLION dollar contract with CBS and Turner Sports. The NCAA gets 771 million dollars a YEAR to broadcast the NCAA tournament if they had to shell out 30 million half of that 60 million or the entire 60 million itself then that would only cost 7% of what the NCAA receives now for the tournament they could afford to give the players 100 million.

tell me a company that's willing to shell out 7% of their revenue?

And it's $60M now. What happens when they unionize and this selected group wants pension benefits or lifetime disability in case they get injured? All of this will happen once you start paying a collective body.
 
tell me a company that's willing to shell out 7% of their revenue?

And it's $60M now. What happens when they unionize and this selected group wants pension benefits or lifetime disability in case they get injured? All of this will happen once you start paying a collective body.
Let's see how the O'Bannon lawsuit ends up and you will have your answer. The NCAA should give them a small piece of the pie before the law costs them a lot more.
 
I give Whitlock credit for laying out a well thought out plan.

But my main issue with it is the top 100 recruits. What happens when you have players who aren't part of that group [i.e., Lawrence Moten], who quickly demonstrate that they belong amongst the top players in college basketball? Are they excluded from participating simply because they weren't rated highly coming out of high school?.

The way I read it is that the 75 sophomores don't all have to be from the original 100 freshman. Thus a Moten could be selected as one of the 75 sophs even if not one of the 100 freshman the year before.

Sent using my Commodore 64
 
2) The full cost of those items paid to the player with no access to those resources or education.
Huh?

A school would field a team consisting of players that don't actually attend that school?
 
The way I read it is that the 75 sophomores don't all have to be from the original 100 freshman. Thus a Moten could be selected as one of the 75 sophs even if not one of the 100 freshman the year before.

Sent using my Commodore 64


That's not how it read to me. It seems like they were suggesting that the initial list of 100 would be trimmed to 75.

Which is why I raised the point about the frosh who don't play on good teams. A kid could still be a stud with professional potential who has to wait his turn [MCW]. Now, depending on how they do the rankings, they might account for that somehow, but...
 
That's not how it read to me. It seems like they were suggesting that the initial list of 100 would be trimmed to 75.

Which is why I raised the point about the frosh who don't play on good teams. A kid could still be a stud with professional potential who has to wait his turn [MCW]. Now, depending on how they do the rankings, they might account for that somehow, but...

Read step 4. All sophs are eligible to be selected.

Sent using my Commodore 64
 
If players want to be paid, they're not amateurs.
If they're not going to class then they're not students. A school only fields teams consisting of students.
 
Or just make the draft requirements like baseball. You can go pro out of high school but if you go to college you have to stay 3 years. This would easily raise the level of play in college and the surefire 1st rounders don't have to fake like they are going to college.

This is best solution and seems simple and straight forward which is why I have no hope it will ever be instituted. Human nature dictates an overly complicated, red-tape filled, administrative mess be used instead.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
167,872
Messages
4,734,148
Members
5,930
Latest member
CuseGuy44

Online statistics

Members online
238
Guests online
2,680
Total visitors
2,918


Top Bottom