College Basketball and the NBA

[The Drunk Girl]

College basketball has become only a stepping stone into the NBA...and I am pissed! To some this might come as a no-brainer and they could say, "duh..why yeah, what did you think?" but there is more to it than just that.

Prior to the 2006 NBA draft players were allowed to enter the draft straight out of high school if they desired. Since then the rules have changed and players have to be 19 years of age and at least one year removed from high school. This is where the problem kicks in with me....

Instead of these players going straight into the pros, the players are coming to colleges and universities for one year and leaving. The players are highly recruited by the top schools and coaches, and although they help each program tremendously they are "one and done." All the effort, time, and money spent recruiting is just for one year and programs and fans are suffering in the long run.

I am a die-hard UK fan...probably to the extent of annoyance to some, but I hate to see talent just walk out the door after one season. Our team this year was great. It was refreshing to see UK basketball back on top in the NCAA and competing with the passion and power that has given UK such a high name throughout college basketball history. Yet, we are back to square one and UK isn't the only program like this. After this season, UK had 5 players declare for the NBA draft; 4 of those being just freshman.

Sure, we got some more highly recruited guys but they will be one and done, too. A top recruit, Josh Selby, who signed with Kansas University stated in an interview that he will just be there one year and hopes the program can improve his game for the NBA. All over ESPN, more and more college guys are deciding to leave for pro and more and more of these young men are freshman.

This truly is disheartening to me as a sports fan. The years of cheering on the same group of guys for four years is long gone. It has now become, "lets keep up with the top high school recruits so we know their name for the one year they stay with our team."

I am not a fan of kids going straight into the pros, but the point is if they want to do it that badly then just let them. Sure it would have been nice to see Kobe, or LeBron or Dwight Howard play ball, but in reality college basketball didn't miss anything. The game kept going and fans had teams that they knew and could depend on.

[Non Sequitur]

College basketball has become only a stepping stone into the NBA...and I am pissed! To some this might come as a no-brainer and they could say, "duh..why yeah, what did you think?" but there is more to it than just that.

Prior to the 2006 NBA draft players were allowed to enter the draft straight out of high school if they desired. Since then the rules have changed and players have to be 19 years of age and at least one year removed from high school. This is where the problem kicks in with me....

Instead of these players going straight into the pros, the players are coming to colleges and universities for one year and leaving. The players are highly recruited by the top schools and coaches, and although they help each program tremendously they are "one and done." All the effort, time, and money spent recruiting is just for one year and programs and fans are suffering in the long run.

I am a die-hard UK fan...probably to the extent of annoyance to some, but I hate to see talent just walk out the door after one season. Our team this year was great. It was refreshing to see UK basketball back on top in the NCAA and competing with the passion and power that has given UK such a high name throughout college basketball history. Yet, we are back to square one and UK isn't the only program like this. After this season, UK had 5 players declare for the NBA draft; 4 of those being just freshman.

Sure, we got some more highly recruited guys but they will be one and done, too. A top recruit, Josh Selby, who signed with Kansas University stated in an interview that he will just be there one year and hopes the program can improve his game for the NBA. All over ESPN, more and more college guys are deciding to leave for pro and more and more of these young men are freshman.

This truly is disheartening to me as a sports fan. The years of cheering on the same group of guys for four years is long gone. It has now become, "lets keep up with the top high school recruits so we know their name for the one year they stay with our team."

I am not a fan of kids going straight into the pros, but the point is if they want to do it that badly then just let them. Sure it would have been nice to see Kobe, or LeBron or Dwight Howard play ball, but in reality college basketball didn't miss anything. The game kept going and fans had teams that they knew and could depend on.

I generally agree with you, but I like the NBA better than college so i'll play devil's advocate :D

1. For the NBA, it's great. Kids get training. Quality of play goes up.
2. Quality of play for the NCAA goes up. schools get access to kids they wouldn't normally get who are better players.
3. kids get a year of maturity before they enter the draft to get paid. It's a big difference is maturity between a high school senior and a college freshmen

Ok so, generally i agree with you. I would like the NBA to require players to be college graduates or at least finish their junior year like the NFL.

[Americano]

I view it as a non-spectator sports fan. We're discussing individuals who have been gifted with ability to possibly dominate their chosen profession and be financially and emotionally rewarded for that effort. Would one year of college not serve the purpose of shrinking the pool of potential NBA players by process of elimination in elevated competition? It's applying baseball minor league farm system methodology using private and public school funding. In my opinion, an effective decision by NBA management that benefits the NBA and its customers.

[The Drunk Girl]

I generally agree with you, but I like the NBA better than college so i'll play devil's advocate :D

1. For the NBA, it's great. Kids get training. Quality of play goes up.
2. Quality of play for the NCAA goes up. schools get access to kids they wouldn't normally get who are better players.
3. kids get a year of maturity before they enter the draft to get paid. It's a big difference is maturity between a high school senior and a college freshmen

Ok so, generally i agree with you. I would like the NBA to require players to be college graduates or at least finish their junior year like the NFL.

Sure the quality of play goes up, but all the elite schools are typically left with young teams who lack experience. Look at UNC a few years back (umm...the team that won the championship prior to the Hansburogh era. :tape:) They started out as freshman and stuck it out and played together longer than their freshman years. Most were juniors or seniors when they left? Having these young teams is fun to watch, but they will never reach the potential they could have. This leads to teams like Butler making it to the Final Four or even possibly winning the whole thing (not saying this is an entirely bad idea).

Maturity doesn't matter much either in my opinion. Gilbert Arenas pulling a gun on a teammate...Kevin Garnett getting in a fight (or pick any fight you want)...guys aren't going to mature that much between the ages of 19 and 20, especially with all the publicity, money, and pussy they are getting.
I totally agree with you. The leagues should have a rule intact much like the NFL and college football. I love the sports, but I am not liking how money is taking it over.

[The Drunk Girl]

I view it as a non-spectator sports fan. We're discussing individuals who have been gifted with ability to possibly dominate their chosen profession and be financially and emotionally rewarded for that effort. Would one year of college not serve the purpose of shrinking the pool of potential NBA players by process of elimination in elevated competition? It's applying baseball minor league farm system methodology using private and public school funding. In my opinion, an effective decision by NBA management that benefits the NBA and its customers.

Check out the 2005 NBA draft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_NBA_Draft) and see the difference of upperclassman compared to this years mock draft (http://www.nbadraft.net/2010mock_draft)

[Michael]

I love the sports, but I am not liking how money is taking it over.

You do realize that the college basketball system is a government tax subsidized system that operates as a cartel?

Why the taxpayer ought to be funding a college basketball cartel is beyond me.

Take away all those tax subsidies and cartel rules, and college basketball goes out the window.

Same applies to College Football - a big fat tax subsidy and a cartel.

[Americano]

Check out the 2005 NBA draft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_NBA_Draft) and see the difference of upperclassman compared to this years mock draft (http://www.nbadraft.net/2010mock_draft)

Why would that be of any interest? Isn't the ruling intended to narrow the pool of NBA candidates through physical injury and playing ability attrition to get the best players?

[The Drunk Girl]

You do realize that the college basketball system is a government tax subsidized system that operates as a cartel?

Why the taxpayer ought to be funding a college basketball cartel is beyond me.

Take away all those tax subsidies and cartel rules, and college basketball goes out the window.

Same applies to College Football - a big fat tax subsidy and a cartel.


Yes, I understand this. It's always been about the money. Who can we get...who has the best team(s)...who has the most banners equals fans/publicity which equals money.

With the way things are set up now within the league it has become more prevalent. The schools want to bring in these top recruits for just one year every year. They don't care about the cost on either side of the spectrum.

(By the way I was wondering between you and Americano, who would bring up the financial aspect first ;))

[Americano]

You do realize that the college basketball system is a government tax subsidized system that operates as a cartel?

Why the taxpayer ought to be funding a college basketball cartel is beyond me.

Take away all those tax subsidies and cartel rules, and college basketball goes out the window.

Same applies to College Football - a big fat tax subsidy and a cartel.

Much like 'Real American' voters who follow the herd, spectator sports fans could care less about what it costs them to subsidize major business entities playing to their emotions. Most 'teams' even have the public finance their stadiums with complex road improvements and are provided with traffic control when events are staged at those stadiums. Mindless entertainment is an important ingredient in civil order.

[Americano]

Yes, I understand this. It's always been about the money. Who can we get...who has the best team(s)...who has the most banners equals fans/publicity which equals money.

With the way things are set up now within the league it has become more prevalent. The schools want to bring in these top recruits for just one year every year. They don't care about the cost on either side of the spectrum.

(By the way I was wondering between you and Americano, who would bring up the financial aspect first ;))

It's all about money as the NBA is a for-profit business. The players are assets, depreciated just like cattle. That NBA franchises can use higher education facilities as their farm clubs goes right to the bottom line in eliminating the expense of culling the herd.

[The Drunk Girl]

Why would that be of any interest? Isn't the ruling intended to narrow the pool of NBA candidates through physical injury and playing ability attrition to get the best players?

2005 was the last year players were allowed to head straight to the pros from high school. There were less underclassman in collegiate ball to head to the pros compared to this year's draft where it is chalked full of underclassman, who could have went straight on if the rules were different. My point being, in 2005 there were more players that stayed longer in the collegiate field than what they do now. Why waste the time, talent, and spend more money?

Some controversy arose after a boy aged 16 or 17 wanted to enter the draft. It wasn't too much longer after that, the rules changed for players to play at least one year of college ball or be 19.


The NCAA isn't going to lose money letting these guys do whatever they want. They're probably not losing any money this way either, but they are definitely spending more. UK's coach became the highest paid college basketball coach in the league after signing on: 31.5 million over 8 years plus incentives, and a 2.5 million sign on bonus. Not to mention the mansion they put him up in, and the bank ads, and the Kroger ads, etc., etc. All of this money to recruit players who are going to stay one year.

[Michael]

It's all about money as the NBA is a for-profit business. The players are assets, depreciated just like cattle. That NBA franchises can use higher education facilities as their farm clubs goes right to the bottom line in eliminating the expense of culling the herd.
I don't have a problem with the NBA taking advantage of this.

I object to the massive tax subsidies and cartel-monopoly that the Government operates for college basketball (and football). That's nonsense and the government has no business subsidizing spectator sports like this.

Pull the tax subsidies and let these colleges compete with private market farm teams.

That would eliminate about 3/4 of the budget used for bribery bonuses.

[Americano]

2005 was the last year players were allowed to head straight to the pros from high school. There were less underclassman in collegiate ball to head to the pros compared to this year's draft where it is chalked full of underclassman, who could have went straight on if the rules were different. My point being, in 2005 there were more players that stayed longer in the collegiate field than what they do now. Why waste the time, talent, and spend more money?

Some controversy arose after a boy aged 16 or 17 wanted to enter the draft. It wasn't too much longer after that, the rules changed for players to play at least one year of college ball or be 19.


The NCAA isn't going to lose money letting these guys do whatever they want. They're probably not losing any money this way either, but they are definitely spending more. UK's coach became the highest paid college basketball coach in the league after signing on: 31.5 million over 8 years plus incentives, and a 2.5 million sign on bonus. Not to mention the mansion they put him up in, and the bank ads, and the Kroger ads, etc., etc. All of this money to recruit players who are going to stay one year.

I don't think anyone would call those running the NBA stupid. If the general public is foolish enough to foot those costs for what is nothing but NBA franchise farm club subsidization, so be it.

[Michael]

I don't think anyone would call those running the NBA stupid. If the general public is foolish enough to foot those costs for what is nothing but NBA franchise farm club subsidization, so be it.

The secret of the massive amounts of government tax subsidies in the US private market is the fact that they are very well hidden. Americans routinely proclaim the US economy to be the most free market economy on the planet - this isn't true at all because of all these private market subsidies.

Indeed, if one really doesn't like "socialism" one really ought to pull the plug on these "socialist" market interventions by the government (aka Congressional "pork").

It is generally understood that if the taxpayer were to be made aware of all the subsides to millionaires and billionaires they pay for, those subsidies would likely end.

For example, Exxon-Mobil collects billions in US taxpayer subsidies annually - to the point that they pay ZERO net taxes in the USA. Apparently this is called 'free enterprise' in the USA. Everywhere else on the planet, this is called "socialism". :lol:

[Americano]

I don't have a problem with the NBA taking advantage of this.

I object to the massive tax subsidies and cartel-monopoly that the Government operates for college basketball (and football). That's nonsense and the government has no business subsidizing spectator sports like this.

Pull the tax subsidies and let these colleges compete with private market farm teams.

That would eliminate about 3/4 of the budget used for bribery bonuses.

Bribes are just another cost of doing business. The general public actually believes it derives benefit from being fiscally raped and that seems to be a way of life with most spectator sports. All industries support the easy pickings as corporations own most of the best seats/boxes, a tax deduction.

[Americano]

The secret of the massive amounts of government tax subsidies in the US private market is the fact that they are very well hidden. Americans routinely proclaim the US economy to be the most free market economy on the planet - this isn't true at all because of all these private market subsidies.

Indeed, if one really doesn't like "socialism" one really ought to pull the plug on these "socialist" market interventions by the government (aka Congressional "pork").

It is generally understood that if the taxpayer were to be made aware of all the subsides to millionaires and billionaires they pay for, those subsidies would likely end.

For example, Exxon-Mobil collects billions in US taxpayer subsidies annually - to the point that they pay ZERO net taxes in the USA. Apparently this is called 'free enterprise' in the USA. Everywhere else on the planet, this is called "socialism". :lol:

Information like that scares the general public. They want their favorite teams/players at any cost. Even though they have no idea of the magnitude of that cost.