SportingNews: John Calipari wants one-and-done rule changed

Donate To GopherHole
BleedGopher

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
61,972
Reaction score
18,166
Points
113
per the Sporting News:

Having coached a great number of players who entered the draft after a single college season, Calipari believes all levels of the game would be best served by extending the age limit a second year, to age 20 and two years out of high school. Now he can take that campaign inside the college game’s hierarchy and see if that can help to advance it.

“What I want to do is, how do we make sure we’re looking after these kids?” Calipari told Sporting News. “You talk about protecting the game, but first of all protect these kids. What are the ways, what are the ideas, that can make this a better experience and a better situation for these kids?

“And then protecting the game: What we’re trying to do, how we’re trying to do it. And a big part of that is the one-and-done rule.”

Calipari said he is “willing to listen” as a member of the board as much as he is eager to advocate his own positions. He did not give any specifics beyond the age limit rule as to how to help enhance the experience for the college player because he didn’t want to make any new cases in public before he discussed them with his colleagues on the NABC board.

“I’ll have ideas,” he said. “It’s got to be things … we also represent these players.”

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-ba...of-directors-kentucky-coach-one-and-done-rule

Go Gophers!!
 

Kids should be able to to enter the draft out of high school or go to college for two years. Cal wouldn't like that rule, but it is easily the best rule in my opinion and has seemed to gain support over the last few years.
 

I think if a kid wants to go out of high school than by all means, but if they sign they should have to stay three years, just like baseball
 


Haha. Yeah Cal I'm sure this is all in the interest of "protecting the game."
 


If a kid is just going to college to get ready for thye NBA, he should be able to leave any time he is ready. Specifically, I don't want a rule that just helps the progams getting all of the five star players. Calipari created his own little monster of getting guys who only want to be there for a year. I hope he enjoys it.
 



Interesting timing considering Cal's one and done implosion this past season.
 



Dr.Don said:
Why? Is it because he has had pretty good success at it or because he has left schools that had problems after he left?
Click to expand...

More the latter. Although he himself hasn't gotten nailed for anything too serious, he has had two final four berths vacated at two different schools. That's hard to do. It's hard for me to believe that everything is done with the highest level of integrity and for the good of the kid at Kentucky. Year after year he gets a top two or three recruiting class. Maybe I'm just envious. I don't know.

Hard to argue with his record though. Win/loss, that is.
 

Dr.Don said:
Why? Is it because he has had pretty good success at it or because he has left schools that had problems after he left?
Click to expand...

Because this rule change is only for Calipari's self-interests. If players stayed for 2 years he wouldn't have to field a new team every year and his talent would be forced to stick with him for another year. The ONLY reason Cal wants this rule is to help him win more games. He doesn't give a damn about the players or protecting the game.
 


I think all drafts should be eliminated as they depress wages and are a restraint on trade. Could you imagine if we allowed the tech industry (or any other industry) to draft people? Wages would drop massively, and people would be forced to work for one employer or find a new industry. Who would want to be forced to work for Microsoft instead of Google? Who would want their employer to have the ability to drive down your wages by retaining your work rights and prevent you from getting a better offer at a different company?

Instead of a draft, why not make all players per year free agents and create a separate rookie free agent pool? All teams have equal access to all players. A player could sign with whomever. You could even do what baseball does with their slot system and give worse teams more rookie free agent money. Teams could spend all their allotted money on one player, sign a lot of cheap players, or try to find a happy medium. It would lead to a lot more innovative ways to build teams, raise wages, and it wouldn't restrain trade. Isn't that the definition of the free market that we profess to love?

Drafts make me sick, as does the hypocritical NCAA.
 



Gopherguy0723 said:
I think all drafts should be eliminated as they depress wages and are a restraint on trade. Could you imagine if we allowed the tech industry to draft people? Wages would drop massively, and people would be forced to work for one employer or find a new industry. Who would want to be forced to work for Microsoft instead of Google? Who would want their employer to have the ability to drive down your wages by retaining your work rights and preventing you from getting a better offer at a different company?

Instead of a draft, why not make all players per year free agents and create a separate rookie free agent pool? All teams have equal access to all players. A player could sign with whomever. You could even do what baseball does with their slot system and give worse teams more rookie free agent money. Teams could spend all their allotted money on one player, sign a lot of cheap players, or try to find a happy medium. It would lead to a lot more innovative ways to build teams, raise wages, and it wouldn't restrain trade. Isn't that the definition of the free market that we profess to love?

Drafts make me sick, as does the hypocritical NCAA.
Click to expand...

You must not be a fan of a small market professional sports team. Every single quality rookie would be playing in New York or LA. The Timberwolves and Bucks of the world would either be horrible for the rest of time or more likely, completely fold. I am a free market supporter in every single instance except professional sports, where I am a devout socialist. Something has to be done to create a (somewhat) even playing field, otherwise what's the point? Who will tune in to see the same 2 or 3 teams win the championship every year? I know I wouldn't.
 

MadtownGopher said:
You must not be a fan of a small market professional sports team. Every single quality rookie would be playing in New York or LA. The Timberwolves and Bucks of the world would either be horrible for the rest of time or more likely, completely fold. I am a free market supporter in every single instance except professional sports, where I am a devout socialist. Something has to be done to create a (somewhat) even playing field, otherwise what's the point? Who will tune in to see the same 2 or 3 teams win the championship every year? I know I wouldn't.
Click to expand...

Thus an allotment system like the baseball draft without the draft. Let Wiggins decide if he wants to go to the worst team for the most money or go to the best team for the least money. Go for the titles right away or go for the money and hope titles come down the line. I don't see the problem. Once one team uses all their money, there are still tons of other players looking for jobs with 29 other suitors. Also, the draft isn't socialism, which isn't always the wrong choice. The draft is straight out worker exploitation. It is essentially a well compensated form of indentured servitude.
 

I like the way baseball does it. You can go straight professional or you have to play 3 years and then re-enter the draft. Why not allow basketball to work the same way.

I understand the idea of baseball have 400 rounds and the longer development time of baseball players, more professional opportunities in the minor leagues, etc. But then basketball has less unknown for top players ready to play immediately which counter balances the fewer places to play.

Expand the D-League and allow players who don't want to go to college to play pro. Economics and player success will decide the market and it expands the NBA brand and reach with more small market minor league teams (including playing more players worldwide).

So expand the amateur draft to 4 or 5 rounds. Still guaranteed contracts in first round. Players taken out of high school can go pro or go to school. If they choose school they must stay for two years and then can re-enter the draft after each season until they graduate but can't return to school once they re-enter the draft.

I, for one, enjoy the summer league bb games, like minor league baseball it is fun to watch players develop, kill themselves to make a team and not be corrupted yet by Nike and Buick.
 

Players are people, and drafting is weird when you think about taking away choice. But I bet without a draft, it would be like the Harlem Globe-Trotters vs. Whoever.

I dunno. I love watching sports. But when I think about the business side of it, it makes me sick to my stomach. When I think about the money, the exploitation, the disloyalty, and the cheating. At all levels it makes me sick.

So I try just lose myself in the games they play.



Sent from my PLAYSTATION PHONE using tapatalk
 

Free market... let them enter the workforce when they want to. Cal has the choice to recruit more kids who are less likely to be lotto picks after one year...he chooses not to!
 

The Brain Trust said:
Free market... let them enter the workforce when they want to. Cal has the choice to recruit more kids who are less likely to be lotto picks after one year...he chooses not to!
Click to expand...

I would tend to agree, I think the rule was implemented to help the both the NBA teams and college basketball but when you get 4 or 5 one and dones it probably works against you, change your recruiting if it is hurting you.

Not sure why someone like Andrew Wiggins should spend 1 minute in the college game.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GLsK-ZoL9sY?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

The Brain Trust said:
Free market... let them enter the workforce when they want to. Cal has the choice to recruit more kids who are less likely to be lotto picks after one year...he chooses not to!
Click to expand...

Agreed. That is what the Don had to deal on the hockey side of things. Players started leaving earlier for the pros and we were left with some teams almost completely devoid of upper class leadership. Now he has started recruiting some more roll players who are able to be productive and stay for 2, 3, 4 years which has helped the team, and he still takes some of the huge stars who will be 1 or 2 and done. I don't see why Cal can't make the same adjustment.
 

Gopherguy0723 said:
I think all drafts should be eliminated as they depress wages and are a restraint on trade. Could you imagine if we allowed the tech industry (or any other industry) to draft people? Wages would drop massively, and people would be forced to work for one employer or find a new industry. Who would want to be forced to work for Microsoft instead of Google? Who would want their employer to have the ability to drive down your wages by retaining your work rights and prevent you from getting a better offer at a different company?

Instead of a draft, why not make all players per year free agents and create a separate rookie free agent pool? All teams have equal access to all players. A player could sign with whomever. You could even do what baseball does with their slot system and give worse teams more rookie free agent money. Teams could spend all their allotted money on one player, sign a lot of cheap players, or try to find a happy medium. It would lead to a lot more innovative ways to build teams, raise wages, and it wouldn't restrain trade. Isn't that the definition of the free market that we profess to love?

Drafts make me sick, as does the hypocritical NCAA.
Click to expand...

1. There is no restraint of trade. Professional leagues are private entities that can set the barriers to and conditions for entry any way they see fit. If you don't like it, you are free to start a competing professional league.

2. Free market sports leagues would suck immensely for all the reasons Madtown outlined. Saying "teams will run out of money" doesn't mean much because certain teams have enormous advantages that are mitigated by salary caps and those advantages would be even more pronounced in a "free market" sports league.
 

This could hurt Cal as well. He could miss out on recruits because they know they won't be able to play right away with someone else in front of them. Losing players after their freshman year allows more playing time for the new players coming in the following year. Everyone knows the top recruits want to play a lot right away. If they can't at Kentucky they will be more likely to go elsewhere.
 

mattw1067 said:
Because this rule change is only for Calipari's self-interests. If players stayed for 2 years he wouldn't have to field a new team every year and his talent would be forced to stick with him for another year. The ONLY reason Cal wants this rule is to help him win more games. He doesn't give a damn about the players or protecting the game.
Click to expand...
Yeah, he would cut his costs in half with half as many top-10 recruits to buy off. :D

I think there is little the NCAA can do. The NBA is the one who made their rule. The NCAA can't keep players in college any longer than they want to be there. All the NCAA could do is make freshmen ineligible again and that would force the NBA's hand and they would have to revise their rule.
 

dpodoll68 said:
1. There is no restraint of trade. Professional leagues are private entities that can set the barriers to and conditions for entry any way they see fit. If you don't like it, you are free to start a competing professional league.

2. Free market sports leagues would suck immensely for all the reasons Madtown outlined. Saying "teams will run out of money" doesn't mean much because certain teams have enormous advantages that are mitigated by salary caps and those advantages would be even more pronounced in a "free market" sports league.
Click to expand...

It isn't a restraint of trade only because it is collectively bargained. The practice is classic restraint of trade that any worker in any other industry would revolt over. Drafts are good for television, but they're bad for players and arguably bad for most owners. A free agency system with a cap based on team performance would work wonderfully for leagues, and it would be much more fair for the players.

I also find it humorous when people who profess to love the free market reject it when it doesn't suit them, or even argue the free market doesn't work in one instance but proclaim the free market is always the answer in other instances.
 

dpodoll68 said:
1. There is no restraint of trade. Professional leagues are private entities that can set the barriers to and conditions for entry any way they see fit. If you don't like it, you are free to start a competing professional league.
Click to expand...

It is a restraint on trade, it just is not considered an illegal restraint. Pro Leagues are governed by the same laws that every association, corporation, charity, etc. that is set up to conduct trade are governed by.

All antitrust claims challenging restrictions on trade or commerce are brought under the
Sherman Act.13 Two threshold elements must be present in order for an act to be declared illegal
under the Sherman Act: (1) There must be some effect on “trade or commerce among the several
states,” and (2) there must be sufficient agreement to constitute a “contract, combination...or
conspiracy.”14 In addition, the Supreme Court has long held that not every act that is a restraint
on trade will be held to be unlawful under the Sherman Act.15 As a result, the Sherman Act
prohibits only those contracts or combinations in trade that amount to unreasonable restraints on
trade or commerce.
 


Gopherguy0723 said:
Thus an allotment system like the baseball draft without the draft. Let Wiggins decide if he wants to go to the worst team for the most money or go to the best team for the least money. Go for the titles right away or go for the money and hope titles come down the line. I don't see the problem. Once one team uses all their money, there are still tons of other players looking for jobs with 29 other suitors. Also, the draft isn't socialism, which isn't always the wrong choice. The draft is straight out worker exploitation. It is essentially a well compensated form of indentured servitude.
Click to expand...
They use to do this in baseball and teams like the yankees and cardinals would bury guys in AA and AAA who were clearly good enough to play in the majors, but crappy teams like the Cubs and the Senators couldn't sign them away
 

Make it just like college football .. can't come out until your junior season! The NBA would be better and college basketball would be a much better game.
 

The 2 year rule would be great for the players, college basketball, and the NBA. The college schools need to do a better job along with the players of getting them into class. If they are not going or doing the work they shouldn't be playing. These kids need to get some of the skills to run their lives and money better than they have in the past.
 

The coaches want to build a program and you can't with one & done. If you could buy these kids for what their worth and sell them for what they think they are worth, schools wouldn't have to fund raise!!
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom