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.

Mike emailed back (my comments in red):

Not enough people who examine this issue worry about what's best for basketball.

The game has improved markedly since the age limit's introduction:

1. No NBA scouts in high school gyms (positive for HS). Agree, but there are still agents and runners. 2. Best players playing on college stage (positive for college). Absolutely. 3. Best players improving competitively from college experience (positive for NBA). Agree. 4. Best players gaining promotionally before they enter the pros (positive for NBA). That's a big fallacy. Most highly marketed players in the NBA are the best, most personable ones, whether they went to college or not. See LeBron, Dwight and Kobe. Not only did Kobe not go to college, but he had a rape charge...yet he's still quite marketable. 5. Best players forced to wait a year before getting paid (negative for players). Maybe not an actual paycheck, but they do get some benefits. 6. Increased potential for professionalized players in college basketball (negative for college). That's four up, two down. And I would add: 7. Increased chance school/program exposed as NCAA cheaters (negative for college) 8. Best players may not be interested in doing college academic work (negative for player and school) By my count, after I eliminate #4, that's three up, four down.

Are you referring to the NBA or college game? Or both?

DeCourcy

I'm referring to the game at all levels when I say the game is better. I don't agree that there's an increased chance of schools being exposed as cheating. I'd say there were many cases that existed during the preps-to-pros decade. The charges Yahoo! leveled against UConn don't involve that sort of player. And besides: that's double-jeopardy on No. 6. It's the same issue!

I don't think #4 is a fallacy at all.

I recognized this back in 2000 when I was at the NBA draft, walking out of the interviews for the top prospects. It dawned on me that Darius Miles was about to go No. 2 in the draft, and I was one of about 600 Americans who'd seen him play. That is not good for the NBA. Fans get excited about a Rose or a Durant coming to their team/league because they've seen him play.

LeBron was a most unusual case. There's never been a talent like him. But imagine how big he'd have been if he'd gone to college and dominated a Final Four.

Isenberg

2000 was the Dark Ages of high school basketball. Now, players are getting marketed in high school. We have games on ESPN, Youtube and Hoopmixtape. High school phenoms are celebrities before they finish high school. (Thanks 'Zo Weatherby for the tip).

I agree that the NBA is better off when players come into the league pre-marketed and older and wiser. In a perfect world, everyone wins with the NBA age restrictions. But we're not in Kansas anymore (home of the Myron Piggie Scandal you alluded to earlier). NCAA members are falling over themselves trying to land these prized (one-year) possessions. Programs need to balance the benefits against the risks, including the reality that every projected one and done player will get the full OJ Mayo treatment by the media and by the NCAA. Actually, it is worse (from the players' perspective), since the inquisitions are now coming before they enroll or even sign with a school.

Yes, I can imagine LeBron would be an unrestricted free agent two years from not, rather than after next season. You can have the last word.

DeCourcy

You're giving way too much credit to the American sports fan. To even the most ardent, John Wall is a name on a recruiting list. High school games are on ESPN and almost no one sees them, and almost no one can judge how great a player is because, well, they're high school games and because it takes a reasonably trained eye to spot what separates a LeBron from another 6-8 guy dunking over 6-2 kids. If John Wall were the No. 1 pick in the 2009 NBA draft, the fans of the team that drafted him would have no idea if he would be able to help them next season. And he very well might not. There are lots of great high school players that arrive in college not even understanding basic terms: back-screen, close-out, simple stuff. The NBA hasn't the time or inclination to teach that. Colleges turn over a freshman class every year. They're used to it. They know how to make it work. When Derrick Rose left Memphis, he had some basic training in the game and he'd had the experience of playing important games and having to fit into a team to win those games. It was pretty obvious he would be successful immediately. That's the part of college basketball that is least appreciated and most important in the process of developing great players. European guys can stay in the gym all day, but only the truly rare talent gets to play meaningful minutes in meaningful games by the time he is 20. Every U.S. college kid gets that chance as soon as he's good enough to start.

Isenberg

Mike, thank you for responding to all my emails.

We can go on forever on these issues -- and probably will, even if most of what we say doesn't end up in print. Speaking of unprintable, Money Players blog readers need to read Mike's latest column, "Memphis' failure was trusting NCAA to do its job."

Before putting [Rose] in the starting lineup, Memphis went through the initial eligibility process in great detail with the player in question -- now known to be Derrick Rose -- including special attention to the validity of his standardized test scores. Ultimately, as the report states, "He was certified by the NCAA eligibility center as a qualifier." That's kind of an important distinction that's being largely ignored.

There's a moment in the film [Animal House] when Matheson's character, Otter, admonishes one of the young pledges that he committed an egregious error in judgment by accepting the notion that his older fraternity brothers had his best interests in mind:

[DeCourcy writes that it can only be "half-quoted by those of us who care to keep our jobs." Well, I don't care...quoting lines from Animal House always makes for a good day.]

Courtesy of IMBD.

D-Day: Hey, quit your blubberin'. When I get through with this baby you won't even recognize it.

Otter: Flounder, you can't spend your whole life worrying about your mistakes! You fucked up - you trusted us! Hey, make the best of it! Maybe we can help.

Flounder: [crying] That's easy for you to say! What am I going to tell Fred?

Otter: I'll tell you what. We'll tell Fred you were doing a great job taking care of his car, but you parked it out back last night and in the morning, it was gone. We report it to the police, your brother's insurance company buys him a new car. D-Day takes care of the wreck.

Flounder: Will that work?

Otter: Hey, it's gotta work better than the truth.

Bluto: [thrusting six-pack into Flounder's hands] My advice to you is to start drinking heavily.

Otter: Better listen to him, Flounder, he's in pre-med.

D-Day: [firing up blow-torch] There you go now, just leave everything to me.

So, here we are. The future of of college athletics is in the hands of D-Day. Oy vey, as every Jewish grandmother, including mine, would say.

If you would like to join our discussion, please feel free to comment below. But keep it clean and respectful, of course.

Comments

[Seth Davis]

Love your stuff, Marc, but DeCourcy is right. Cheating in college basketball is as old as James Naismith's peach basket. I am personally against the NBA's age limit because I believe it unfairly limits opportunity, but to blame cheating on the one-and-done rule (as Andy Katz is also doing) I think is revisionist history.

[Miguel]

Athletic departments nationwide should just go ahead and "put on the red light" and be done with it. I suspect some of these one-and-done guys never saw the inside of a classroom. Why should they? And how is that good for COLLEGE basketball?

I think the D-League needs to step up and give kids a viable and financial alternative to the charade of college one-and-done.

[Terry Holland]

Mike and Marc - sounds like radio show hosts ready for their own morning show - continue the debate as you are both right much often than either of you is wrong. NCAA/NBA cooperation should be geared to what is best for the majority of college basketball players and fans, not to the miniscule number of players who are capable of playing professionally right out of high school. If the NBA wants these young people to mature physically or otherwise prior to playing in the league, the NBA should set up a REAL development league for these players rather than sending them to college for a year. The Development League should be designed to provide the best possible opportunity for these individuals to develop as basketball players and as people - a first class centrally located training facility, quality "coaching" in all areas of their lives, etc. etc. Putting youngsters on a bus for most of their day going from gym to gym is NOT developing them. The players in the Development League could be divided into teams that play exhibition games vs. each other (and against NBA teams?) who would come to the training site to play against them. 50% of the day would focus on personal development including college courses as well as practical information about balancing a check book, etc. After a year (or two?) the player could choose to try to play professionally (NBA, Europe, whatever)OR they could then decide they are not ready for professional basketball and go to college. They would have to then sit out the first year in residence at a college to regain their amateur status and then would be allowed to play four years of college basketball while getting a college degree. This format would provide the best opportunity for these young men to mature while recognizing their need to evaluate the professional opportunities versus the educational opportunities offered at the college level. If we really cared about the development and long term success of these young people, the NCAA and the NBA would work with USA Basketball to initiate such a development opportunity tommorrow. This would provide the NBA scouts with an opportunity to evaluate the prospects against each other while providing the prospects and their families with the opportunity to gather important information prior to making a commitment to professional basketball or college basketball.

Terry Holland

[Marc Isenberg]

Seth,

I don't blame one and done for cheating. Cheating existed long before the NBA age limits, as you point out. But the problems are exacerbated by the situation. I do think there is a causal relationship between the most egregious forms of cheating (academics, agents, boosters, etc.) and one and done.

I would just like to see the most talented/least academically motivated players ply their trade in something other than college institutions. That won't stop cheating, but it will reduce the academic sham of one and done.

[Clarence Gaines]

Does the age limit lead to Increased Cheating? No Way. Let's examine the logic that you used to formulate this question. NBA changes CBA. Colleges know they can have a player for at least one year to help their program. Programs willing to pull out all stops to get great player for at least one year.

Don't you think before it was in vogue for players to jump from High School to the NBA that college programs would do all they could to land talented players for their programs? They knew they would have them for at least three to four years, depending on the basketball era that one considers. Go read David Thompson's book about his recruitment. Norm Sloan's assistant (Eddie Bidenbach) literally lived in DT's hometown. N.C. State was put on a year's probation for some minor recruiting violations in regard to DT (that's DT's side). You can bet your bottom $ that somebody got paid for the right to sign that great talent. I could go on and on; but my main point is that a college program should be willing to do more for a great player that they know they will have for 3 years, than one that they will only have for 1 year.

I used to be an NBA scout. I was very adept at spotting high school talent that would excel in the NBA. I saw Penny Hardaway after his HS career in National Youth Sports Festival in LA and thought he would be a great talent. Saw Kevin Garnett in High School and ranked him as the number one talent in the draft. I've got the report to prove it. He was an amazing talent and basketball player in High School. On par with Lebron, and better in some respects because he could shoot. Loved Rashard Lewis(begged the organization I worked for to pick him) and hated Darius Miles. You say LeBron's an unusual case: I guess you didn't see Wilt,Oscar, and Lew in High School. Neither did I, but they were unbelievable. I do remember Moses Malone being on the cover of Sports Illustrated with a nice ride saying he was going to attend Maryland. Never got there. Successfully made the jump to the pros and had a Hall of Fame Career. I could go on and on. There have been and always will be great players that colleges will fawn over. The current rule structure has nothing to do with man's proclivity to cheat. Human nature never changes - Colleges will do whatever it takes to get a special talent.

On another front, DeCourcy brought up Corey Maggette to shoot down your argument about increased cheating. Corey Maggette went to Duke for one year. Got paid by Myron Piggie. Jaron Rush who was going to Kansas and eventually ended up at UCLA was paid. Kareem Rush was paid. Korleone Young, who I saw play in High School was also paid. Saw Korleone in High School and immediately called his agent advisor and told him to send him to College. Maggette's main recruiter at Duke was Quinn Snyder. Look at Quinn's history at Missouri. He's no angel. I bring all this up because I live in LA and I see USC's basketball program being devastated by the allegations made by a runner that OJ Mayo was paid. Please tell me what is the difference between Mayo & Floyd and Maggette & Coach K. Maggette's indiscretion caused little commotion at Duke; Floyd's program gets fired on from all corners. Where's the justice?

[Dan Wetzel]

The question is asked in slightly the wrong way.

Here's what undeniable, eliminating the age minimum would decrease both the amount and intensity of agent activity in college basketball.

It would not eliminate it. However, taking the most valuable prospects out the system -- many of whom are also the least committed to college ball and its rules -- takes a great deal of bait out of the water for the sharks to go after.

The current system expects NCAA rules to overwhelm captialism and human nature. It's never going to work. All you'll get is endless scandals and kids getting put in predatory situations.

[Clarence Gaines]

Dan,

If the question is asked in the wrong way, then how would you rephrase the question. Eliminating the age minimum will not decrease the amount and intensity of agent activity. First, on high level prospects, the intensity and amount of activity would just be transferred to the high school level. It's still there. Understand this, agents were involved with O.J. Mayo since 9th grade. Same thing with Jason Kidd. See if you can come up with the common link between Jason and O.J.

Agents are sharks. They go after all types of players in college. If they see a meal ticket, they will start working a kid and the people who are able to influence him. Because of the rookie salary cap, agents can make more off a fringe player by taking him Overseas to play ball. No matter the level (Club, AAU, High School, and College), when it involves elite players, it's like the Wild Wild West.

You're a big time writer, I know you know what time it is. Your comments on this blog come across as if you are a naive writer who believes in the Wizard of Oz.

[Marc Isenberg]

Clarence,

Not exactly sure why you think Wetzel's comments are naive. I think he is right to point out that the current system encourages dysfunction.

I get that cheating won't disappear if we eliminate one and done. If 5-10 guys elect to go overseas or play in the D League, schools will have just as much incentive to pursue the next best available players.

I also understand unscrupulous agents are a problem. But, unscrupulous boosters are also violating NCAA rules (although they are hardly exploiting athletes). Yes, agents have financial incentives to cheat, but so do coaches and programs. How many agents make $1 mil plus versus how many coaches make $1 million plus?

Cheating is, unfortunately, ingrained in the fabric of college athletics. Nothing will stop it short of lifting the prohibitions and bringing everything above board. In the meantime, it is quickly becoming a hostile environment for every top high school player who wants to go college. They may have done EXACTLY the same things that hundreds of players did in past years, but because Yahoo! and ESPN are examining the amateur "purity" of these players and calling out the NCAA for lax enforcement, the mood has changed. Even though going after top programs is bad for business, the NCAA seems focused on catching athletes and agents who don't follow the rules.

[Clarence Gaines]

What I meant by Dan being naive, and I know he is not naive, is that he thinks removing a few players from the equation will decrease the intensity and amount of agent activity at the NCAA level.

[Dan Wetzel]

Clarence,

The debate was about cheating in COLLEGE basketball.

When it comes to agent activity, they follow the money. As they should. So sure, the problem shifts to high schools (where it already is).

But letting Derrick Rose go pro -- as LeBron before him -- keeps him out of COLLEGE and the activity out of the COLLEGE game. College basketball will have less talent that agents will care about, hence, less activity at that level.

That was the debate. COLLEGE.

The one and done rule only benefits college basketball if it gives up on all of its rules. That's fine, but the NCAA ot only avoids billions in taxes because of these rules it markets itself as some bastion of purity that no one who spends anytime around it knows is true. The NCAA shouldn't have it both ways.