One and Done's ???

Do you like the current "One and Done" rules?

  • Total voters
    45
Donate To GopherHole
Gopher Warrior said:
Geezus, get a clue. Read the rest of that paragraph where a point can be removed from both the numerator and denominator. Do you honestly still disagree with this?:
....

I can't tell if you're trying to be cute with semantics, are thick-headed and don't want to admit that you're wrong, or are just slow.
Click to expand...

I don't know what the hell either one of you are talking about, but based upon the jocularly patronizing language GW is using, I think he's got to be winning. Maybe FOT should stick to statistics. He seems pretty good with those.
 

Gopher Warrior said:
Not directly. You could talk theory for days (for example, 'balanced classes' being good - having a good mix of freshman/sophomores/juniors/seniors is better than 10 seniors or 10 freshman in your program, planning, etc.) about how it's a negative with regard to how your scholarships are used.. but, nothing directly.

The players are on one year scholarships. If a guy leaves, that's simply a scholarship you don't renew.

With regard to the APR... I think* the calculation is essentially based on (players in good academic standing + players staying in school) divided by (players + players that could stay in school)... 1 point for each player's academic standing and, if applicable, 1 point for retention of that player. If a guy leaves early to go pro, and is in good academic standing, the school get the point.. obviously they don't get the retention point, however, they are not penalized the retention point either. So, if you think of a player that is in good academic standing and returns, you'd get 2 out of 2 points, or 100%. If you think of a player that is in good academic standing and goes pro, you'd get 1 out of 1 point, or 100%.

So again.. not a direct impact.. but, if you have other issues in your program, not getting the additional 1/1 could 'hurt' your calculation mathematically.

The short answer is no. A guy going pro early doesn't hurt your scholarship count.
Click to expand...

It has played a significant part in costing OSU two scholarships this year, but part of that is because OSU is on quarters still and two guys (Oden and Kosta Koufos) started the spring quarter and dropped out after the school's cutoff for dropping out without academic penalty while "testing the waters," so they were 0-2s. I wish they would get rid of the testing the waters part - it's even turned into an attention-grabbing exercise for some such as a few guys on Texas A&M and walk-on blogger Mark Titus from OSU last year. I think the NBA will want to keep the 1-year rule because it helps them evaluate guys such as BJ Mullens so they don't waste as much money on those types of guys & they end up the #24 pick instead of the #1 or #2 pick (although somehow three years of college didn't help them avoid drafting Hasheem Thabeet #2!). A baseball-esque rule would be better for college basketball, but the NBA holds all the cards here, and they don't care about what's better for the college game.
 

GJ

GopherJake said:
I don't know what the hell either one of you are talking about, but based upon the jocularly patronizing language GW is using, I think he's got to be winning. Maybe FOT should stick to statistics. He seems pretty good with those.
Click to expand...

I happen to enjoy and appreciate BOTH GW and FOT as they both know far more about college hoops than I. That is one reason I come to the GH.

Still, I admit to finding an occasional food fight between knowledgeable folks sometimes "amusing".

:)
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom