Does "one and done" lead to increased cheating?

There has been a lot written about the allegations against Memphis and Calipari. Most of you know, I am a big believer in innocent until proven guilty. I won't try to sort out the allegations made by the NCAA against Memphis and the redacted player commonly known as Derrick Rose.

As far as Calipari is concerned, I personally like him. I think he does a fairly good job at putting his players' interests above the program. Would l vouch for Cal? No. But I wouldn't vouch for any other Division 1 basketball coach, either...including the Mount Rushmores of College Basketball, as Dick Vitale likes to call them. College basketball coaches may not be directly involved in cheating, but many do an effective job to make it their business to not know what is going on around them.

These days there is just no moral highground in basketball. Calipari's problem is not that he is a two-time ALLEGED cheater, but that his programs GOT` caught. And that makes it easy for his detractors to explain his incredible success coaching college basketball.

For the umpteenth time, I do not like cheating. I want athletes to play by the rules, even if we all think they are BS. But it is worth nothing that almost all the recent cases involving NCAA transgressions follow similar themes: a jilted agent or runner, a reporter from ESPN or Yahoo! who got someone to talk and an NCAA investigator who thinks there's enough smoke to start a fire. Sometimes I do wonder if we, er Yahoo! Sports, shined the same light on other high-profile programs or even mid-level programs on the rise, what NCAA transgressions would uncovered?

It is worth nothing that when amateur/college/pro players get caught up in these messes, they end up bearing the brunt in both the media and by the NCAA. Meanwhile, the schools and the coaches all have great cover: they knew nothing, they say nothing (or very little), and they bring expensive lawyers and PR flaks to provide the necessary cover.

The question is whether "one and done" is good for basketball? Perhaps it is good for the NBA. After all, the NBA and NBPA collectively bargained for it. But it pushes other, more serious problems down to the college level: what to do about players who don't want to be in school, plus various amateur and agent issues. As my good friend Terry Holland, the former Virginia basketball coach and current East Carolina athletic director, once emailed me: "Forcing young men to go to college simply does not work for anyone's long-term best interest. We should stop pretending that we can manage this situation. If we truly do not want pros in college with all the attendant agents and NCAA investigations, then we have to make it easier for them to go pro, not harder." While the NBA age restriction landed the best players at the doorsteps of our favorite college basketball programs, players always had the option to play professionally in the NBA Development League or in Europe. People get bent out of shape when Jeremy Tyler and Brandon Jennings follow a different path, but, on the other hand, what purpose does it serve to force (or even encourage) these talented few to go to college? As I said, I do not condone cheating, but Dan Wetzel raises an interesting point in another must-read article:

There is no statistical evidence that players are better on or off the court after a stint on campus. There is, however, a century of win-at-all-cost proof by coaches and boosters that the NCAA’s “high standards of honesty and sportsmanship” are a complete joke.

For the sake of argument let’s assume Rose did have a high school friend stand in and take his SAT. He was desperate to qualify because the clear path to his dream and the fortune that comes with it was on the line. Any other route (Europe, junior college) is unproven.

So facing a system rigged against him, he instead rigged the system.

He kicked down the door, clearing an academic hurdle that bears no relation to his character as a person or his ability as a performer.

In Hollywood they make movies about people who do that.

In basketball, they vilify them and humiliate them, although not before they cash in on them.

Love it. And Dan can write the book and screenplay, like he did for Glory Road, the story about the 1966 Texas Western basketball team. Or course, my Chicago Bulls would need to win some championships to make this a true Hollywood story.

--Marc Isenberg

Comments

[Miguel]

Why isn't the D-League the destination of choice for kids who don't want to go the ridiculous one-and-done route? In the NBA's (only) minor league, kids can get paid to play ball, unlike college ... Oh ... never mind.

[Claude]

To answer the question as why he would do such a thing, one merely needs to look at how rich he made all of the enablers that allowed it to happen, including the very media that's reporting it ... as you suggest here. It's not even news. It's not like faking a resume. Point shaving is another thing, but that's not this. He didn't fake a jumper or cheat on a crossover or have someone take his free throws. He went to college for basketball, and everyone got rich. I'm talking as much about the NCAA as his agents, coaches, handlers, media, etc. who stood to gain by his success. Therefore I really like what Mr. Wetzel wrote, and I like the idea of questioning this whole arbitrary and ideological system as you've done.