Money Players

Smart people in sports saying smart things

SI's Luke Winn interviews Klay Thompson, Wazzu basketball player currently playing on USA Basketball's U19s. Klay is also the son of former NBA player Mychal Thompson (#1 pick in the 1978 NBA Draft).

I love Klay's comment on "one and done."

"I'd just say, go [pro] whenever you want, because it makes no sense to force kids to go to just one year of college. I don't get that. If a kid is already planning on being one-and-done, then he's going to school for the wrong reasons. He's going to go for one semester, and then he's gone."

Also, John Thompson interviews Maryland coach Gary Williams.

They talked about the insanity of barring athletes who sign with agents from returning to school: John Thompson: Why is that if a kid tries out for a pro team and does not make it, even if he was paid something for doing that, why can't he come back to college based on the redefining of what an amateur is now and how inconsistent it is among all sports? Gary Williams: I'll give you an honest answer. I think the NCAA is really out of touch with the kids today. I'm 17, 18 years old, I think I am good enough to play. I sign with an agent, I may get $5,000 from that agent. I go tryout, get cut. Why can't I come back to school and be able to play? I've never understood this. We're supposed to be in this for the benefit of the student athlete...Things change. These kids think they can play. So let them try. If they can't, they'll be back...[and] more kids would get their degrees because they'll realize they may never make it [in professional basketball].

Basketball development: Europe vs U.S.

From this month's Basketball Times.

Ed. note: What are the differences between the U.S. and European developmental systems? Marc Isenberg visited the Reebok Eurocamp in Treviso, Italy, to find out. He discovered a system that has much to envy, and some parts to be ignored.

Article is posted below. Or you can read PDF version.

A thorough exam of the Euro

By Marc Isenberg

“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.”

—Mark Twain

We have a dysfunctional basketball development system in the United States. The Redeem Team might have gotten USA Basketball back on track last summer at the Beijing Olympics, but the problems run deeper. Youth development is lagging. There are too many disparate and self-serving agendas involved.

Yes, we want to be competitive in basketball and mold fine young men and women. But we also want to use basketball as a vehicle to drive revenue. Just like politics and business, we start out with great, noble concepts, then sell it, milk it, bid up the price and finally wonder why things go awry. It’s the American Way.

When a problem emerges in college athletics, the response is often predictable. Downplay controversy. Absolve blame. Shoot the messenger. Form a “blue-ribbon” task force. Rinse. Repeat.

I'm as Mad(off) as Hell: Ex athletes in financial peril

Today is a sad, dark day in New York City, even if the sun is finally shining. Hearing from the victims of Bernard Madoff was a stark illustration of the havoc this man wreaked on his financial victims. Glad he is going to jail for the rest of his life, but it's still small consolation to the hundreds of victims, including more than a few charities, whose banks and lives Madoff shattered.

Too many people wanted to believe Madoff was a financial genius. Madoff might have been the biggest, most brazen scammer of all time, but he's not the only one.

These are issues are issues I try to grapple with, in my book and in my consulting. How do we help everyone make better decisions about their financial futures? Yes, much of my work involves future, current and ex professional athletes, whose situations are somewhat unique. But too many people are falling prey to financial con artists. We can send Madoff and others to jail. We can tell people how to avoid financial scams. We can remember all horror stories about the victims. But, then what?

"One and done" is never done

I doubt there is anyone who has written more about "one and done" than I have. Click here if you don't believe me.

On one hand, it is absurd to get completely bent out of shape over a just a few players. On the other, "one and done" brings to light many of college basketball's dirty secrets. To name just a few: unscrupulous agents, shady coaches, academic shananigans, AAU "non-profits" funded by agents, financial advisers and, oh yes, boosters (Say it ain't so!). Many would love to see the NBA create a system similar to MLB, where players can go pro right out of high school, but if they choose college, they are not eligible NBA draft for three years. But, college basketball is no longer the only route to the NBA, so further restrictions could drive more American players overseas.

NBA commissioner David Stern deftly points out: "This is not about the NCAA. This is not an enforcement of some social program. This is a business decision by the NBA. We like to see our players in competition after high school."

The best solution, in my opinion? Let the marketplace decide. If being unproven translates to poor performance, then NBA GMs would just resist the temptation to select these young prodigies. Of course, that's not how it works. And, let's not forget an important reality: Players who turned pro when they first became NBA Draft-eligible have performed very well. See previous post on analysis by Grant Wahl and Michael McCann, from one of the earliest known Money Players posts.

Mike DeCourcy will undoubtedly email me to say that Kobe, LeBron, Dwight would have performed better if they went to college, even for just a year. And maybe that is true, but it's unprovable.

The often-wacky Dick Vitale actually makes a lot of sense on this issue, writing:

It is time to end the one-and-done, baby!

It is unfair to an athlete who has to go to school for one year when he has no desire to be in the classroom. College is supposed to be for those who want an education, for those who want to be there.

It is time to end this mockery. If these kids want to make themselves available for the NBA, then so be it. If the NBA sees fit to draft them, so be it. The league should determine which players legitimately have a chance.

Sunday's Outside the Lines focused on the impact of "one and done."

The comments from Jay Bilas are worth examining:

Nobody ever talks about agents being a problem in the Olympics. The problem is the puritanical view we've got of the NCAA rules. And if you violate their rules, they are made to be a criminal.

In other words, agents aren't the only problem. Yes, we don't want unscrupulous agents, but we also don't want unscrupulous coaches and boosters.

If you read the NCAA rule book, coaches are seen as bad influences on kids. The rules contemplate keeping coaches away, while agents and runners have complete access. College coaches are not bad influences. They have to be allowed more access.

I am totally in favor of getting rid of the two-hour per week limitation that coaches can workout current players during the offseason. We pay college coaches ridiculous salaries and then tell them they cannot coach. Total nonsense. If an elite player wants 20 hours of training, it should be mandatory that someone from the coaching staff is at their beck and call.

When it comes to players not yet in the program, I do not think we should declare open season. Coaches have proven that excess and pushing the bounds of NCAA rules are effective ways to sign players. They would engage in exactly the same activities as agents and runners...if they don't already (see previous post, It's the horse, not the jockey). Do we really want college coaches to become glorified agents? I understand the argument that college coaches need to develop closer ties to top players and their circles at earlier ages, but I would be careful "deregulating" the recruiting process.

--Marc Isenberg

Alan Stein's Money Player book review

Disclaimer I: I don't like to toot my own horn, but it is important to get the word out about Money Players.

Disclaimer II: Alan Stein and I are part of each other's mutual admiration society.

We were introduced earlier this year, I believe by Jim Tanner and David Bauman, two respectable basketball agents (yes, they exist!). Since that time, we have regularly emailed, tweeted and even engaged in some old-school telephonic communication. I love Alan's passion and depth of knowledge about basketball and training. But, more important, I truly appreciate his interest to help others become more knowledgeable about and empowered through basketball.

Alan wrote a much-appreciated book review on his website.

Some highlights...

It is hard to adequately describe how valuable the book Money Players is to my line of work and how much insight it has provided in helping me see inside the bubble of a pro basketball player’s career off the court. This book is an absolute must read for any aspiring basketball player and anyone involved (or going to be involved) in that person’s life; parents, siblings, AAU and HS coaches, trainers, agents, advisors, lawyers, accountants, and teachers. This book emphasizes so many of the issues discussed this past week at the NBA Players Association Top 100 Camp. In fact, I gave out 20 copies of this book to several of the camps top players. I hope they take my advice and read it!

I have read this book, cover to cover, twice now and refer back to it often. It is very well written and very user friendly (short chapters, gets right to the point). I love Mr. Isenberg’s writing style. Money Players provides a game plan and strategy for being successful both on and off the court and gives great insight to the steps necessary for starting and maintaining a long playing career along with sustained financial success and security.

After you read Alan's Money Player review, stick around and check out the rest of his site...there's some terrific information.

Also, follow him on twitter@

twitter.com/AlanStein

Here's Alan's short and sweet presentation at last week's NBA Top 100 Camp...definitely gets me jazzed about the value of competition, opportunity and preparation. 

-- Marc Isenberg

NCAA-NBA partnership eyes a name

In April 2008, the NCAA and the NBA announced a partnership to "to add new structure to youth basketball." It has been a long process, but they finally have a name -- iHoops -- and a web site that will officially launch in the Fall (shouldn't it be iHoops dot net??). When the partnership was first announced, John Feinstein yawned and made a great Gong Show analogy.

Right now, i am giving iHoops the benefit of the doubt. Yes, I am critical of NCAA and its members for the role its rules, its coaches, and its athletic representatives play in contributing to the mess of youth basketball. And by mess, I am not only referring to recruiting problems/scandals, but also to player development.

At the Reebok Eurocamp (much more on that later), an NBA scout and former longtime college basketball coach made this insightful point to me:

"The NCAA needs to look at itself in the mirror -- and change its behavior before it can change behavior of others. Look at how much money coaches make today versus five, 10 years ago. The NCAA and its members can talk all they want about educational values, but Calipari's salary alone sends a powerful message of what college basketball is really all about. And it's not just Cal...there are more than a handful of college coaches now making more than NBA coaches."

Obviously, it's not just how much college coaches are paid, but also the economic reality and institutional values (or lack thereof) that create this compensation structure.

Walking in Memphis on eggshells

I am coming to you from Treviso Italy, where I came hoping to get away from the morass of college basketball. I am here for the Reebok Eurocamp and looking forward to seeing some great basketball -- and learning more about a developmental system that does not include the sometimes crazy notion that sports and academics can sanely coexist.

I have defended athletes in all kinds of situations, not because I reflexively defend them, but because too often the process is rigged against them as they try to seek justice. That doesn't mean athletes shouldn't be held to the same academic and legal standards as others. But there is a flipside: situations where young athletes are unfairly and unjustly accused by the media and people in college athletics. I have certainly seen this first hand and I always caution not to jump to conclusions until justice runs its course. Money Players previously defended Memphis, Calipari and Derrick Rose, who now stands accused of having a stand-in take his SATs. ESPN and others are now reporting a similar situation with 4-year Memphis player Robert Dozier.

Yes, I am big on privacy rights, especially when high profile athletes are singled out for no other reason than because they are famous. I also think it is important to allow investigations to be carried out methodically and fully before reaching conclusions. As my friend Shane Battier, who co-founded the unfortunately now-defunct Student Basketball Committee, wrote in 2000, when he was at Duke:

"We are immediately concerned and highly disappointed about the image that a lot of players are getting due to perceived violations of NCAA rules," Battier said in a statement issued following the teleconference. "We feel that a lot of these players are getting a bad reputation and are being vilified in the eyes of the public when, in fact, nothing morally wrong has occurred. So, as a group, we are trying to come together and support our brothers who have been ostracized."

While I hope there is some reasonable explanation as to why two high-profile Memphis players have been accused of SAT impropriety, my active imagination fails me here. Even if the Rose allegations turn out to be true, there are potential mitigating circumstances that would bolster Memphis's case, including privacy laws (e.g. Calipari may never have been made aware of the allegations, especially if the matter was resolved), the fact that the NCAA Eligibility Center cleared Rose to play, and the fact that up until ESPN reported what took place with Robert Dozier, this was a one-time occurrence.

As far as Dozier is concerned, cheating on an SAT test is a very serious matter. But, it should not come with a form of a college sports death sentence. Yes, penalize him, but I think it would have been wrong to ruin the kid's life based on one serious mistake. Some school was going to take a chance on him, of course. And, assuming he worked to redeem himself academically, he deserved the opportunity to go to college and also play basketball.

With allegations of almost-identical nature, the "I didn't know" defense is weakened. Fool me once, as the saying goes. Note: The Dozier allegations will not be brought up in the current NCAA investigation, per NCAA rules (applause for this relatively recent bylaw).

My only defense of Memphis and Calipari -- and I am not sure this is a defense -- is college basketball might just be rotten to the core, even if the apple appears to have a nice, healthy skin.

Calipari may bring in multiple players with questionable backgrounds -- and he may take in more than other programs -- but there are plenty of other schools that take in these academically at risk athletes. As my father in law Art Spander wrote in this previously-linked article:

And as the sports sociologist Harry Edwards points out, “If you don’t get him, they’ll get him and use him against you.”

CBS Sportsline's Garry Parrish provides a nice run down of the Memphis allegations.

And, now it's time to get my morning cappuccino.

--Marc Isenberg

Jeremy Tyler just might be what’s right with basketball

Below is my May column in Basketball Times. Subscribe here. Click here to read the PDF version.

College basketball, as we often are reminded, is about academic achievement and molding fine young athletes. To quote one of the NCAA’s favorite aphorisms, college athletics is about the vast majority of the 400,000 NCAA “student-athletes” who “will be going pro in something other than sports.” Still, every year, there are a few “program changers” who attract extraordinary attention and stir passionate debate.

Last month, I wrote about the “Basketball Underground,” a term I have used to describe how big-time college basketball really operates. As the stakes increase, even in tough economic times, the Basketball Underground will continue to flourish. The big move last month was by Jeremy Tyler, who announced that he’s skipping his senior season of high school to go to Italy and play professional basketball. Tyler is a great talent. He wants – and should have every right – to maximize his abilities. The question is: What is the best use of Tyler’s time for the next couple of years? Some believe he’s making the right decision, given the many factors, including the sham of “one and done,” the decline of basketball development in the United States and NCAA rules. Others believe that not only is Tyler making a grave mistake himself, but he’s setting a bad precedent for young men who may follow Tyler off the same cliff. It’s a quick leap from Brandon Jennings to Jeremy Tyler to the ruination of basketball as we know it in the United States. To me, it’s absurd to make such a big deal about five to maybe 10 players a year. For the vast majority, college is absolutely a place for a young player to develop his or her game, gain maturity, receive a quality education and go on to achieve great things in life. But it’s not for everyone. Further, education is not the sole domain of the traditional classroom.

Art Spander on cheating in college sports

My father-in-law, Art Spander is one of the best sportswriters around. Some might say, Art has forgotten more sports than most of us will ever know. This would be true if not for the fact that Art does not forget much. He is a walking sports historian.

There have been several great articles written recently on the subject of college athletics, but none better than Art's column in Real Clear Sports, "Scandals Are as Old as College Sports Itself."

A few highlights:

It’s all a matter of talent. There’s a kid, runs the 40 in 4.4 and scored 30 touchdowns as a prep. Or maybe he’s 6-9 and averaged 25 points and 12 rebounds. Intellectually, he’s not Albert Einstein. But your rival is chasing him. And as the sports sociologist Harry Edwards points out, “If you don’t get him, they’ll get him and use him against you.”

“Football,” said a man named Elbert Hubbard, “is a sport that bears the same relationship to education that bullfighting does to agriculture.”

Ole! And back at you.

“A school without football,” said Vince Lombardi, “is in danger of deteriorating into a medieval study hall.” As if Vince, who went from Fordham to coach in the NFL, knew anything about medieval study halls. Now, blocking and tackling, that was different.

What will happen to USC or to Memphis is probably nothing. USC has been under a cloud for months – Bush has been on the New Orleans Saints since 2006 – and already Memphis is in full denial, insisting it found no proof Rose cheated on the exam. Derrick, of course, joined the NBA as soon as possible.

The people who buy the season tickets are remarkably unmoved by any and all accusations. They don’t care how you win, they just want you to win. And to hell with anyone looking for trouble.

It was in 1976 when Frank Boggs of the Oklahoma City Times, acknowledged to be the best sportswriter in the state, wrote a story that another NCAA investigation of the University of Oklahoma’s football program was under way.

Boggs, merely the messenger, not the cause, was harassed, threatened and had to have police protection. A caller said he would burn down Boggs’ home. Eventually, Boggs moved to Colorado.

Jack Taylor, who shared the byline with Boggs, had done pieces on the Mafia and corruption in government, but said public reaction to the football story was “much more controversial” than anything he ever had written.

People don’t want the truth. They want championships.

Indeed, fans don't much care about the truth, other than when it is needed to justify why a coach should be fired. Coaches and athletic administrators may talk about ethics and following rules, but the entire reward structure of intercollegiate athletics is tied to wins and championships. Certainly not education and "core values." The NCAA and its members supposedly want to truth. But, to paraphrase the famous line from A Few Good Men, "Their pocket books cannot handle the truth."

The Great Debate: DeCourcy v. Isenberg

As many of you know I am good friends with Sporting News senior basketball writer Mike DeCourcy. Mike is one of the best basketball writers around and an absolute must read for those interested in basketball and bigger picture issues.

We both have great passion for basketball at all levels. Mostly we agree, especially on big-picture issues, but not always. And when we disagree, we usually end up in long debates on the phone, via email or when we meet up along the basketball trail. But, it's always done with civility and respect. After I posted on Memphis and Derrick Rose, DeCourcy emailed me:

"Does the age limit lead to cheating? When Corey Maggette was admittedly accepting payments while in high school, the age limit wasn't even a gleam in David Stern's eye." Isenberg response: I should have posed the question, Does the age limit lead INCREASED cheating? (I actually changed the headline so that others would not infer the same thing.) If the top 6 or players per year bypassed college, the "program changers” would then be the players ranked 7 thru 13 -- and they would be the subject to these same temptations. But, the best players -- the one and doners -- still have the greatest value to programs and agents, so I do think there would be some positive benefits if we didn't force or encourage them to go to college. Those who wanted to go to school would go. And the others could go to Europe or the D League.