Money Players

Basketball Times article

Starting in the August issue, I became a Basketball Times regular contributor. It is an honor to be associated with a publication that includes such stellar basketball writers as John Akers, Dick "Hoops" Weiss, Bob Ryan, Chris Rivers and Dick Vitale. My BT column is an opportunity to delve deeper into the issues we cover here on the Money Players Blog.

Below is an excerpt from my first article that includes what I think could be a step in the right direction on the "one and done" issue ...

NBA's age limit creating red, blue differences of opinion

By Marc Isenberg

The “one and done” debate has raged since 2006, when the NBA—in agreement with the NBA players union—began requiring players who enter the NBA Draft to be 19-years old and one year removed from high school. 

It’s become basketball’s “red state, blue state” issue, where reasonable minds differ with seemingly no middle ground.

When it comes to solutions, people either want additional age restrictions or want these restrictions removed entirely. From the NBA’s perspective, the age restriction makes sense…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.

Two (more points of view) and done (for the day)

Got two interesting comments/e-mails regarding my earlier post "One and not quite done." The first is from Mike DeCourcy, one of my favorite college hoops writers (even if we don't agree on every issue), and Majorie Leunen, mother of 4 sons, including Maarty (former Oregon player and current Houston Rockets draft pick). Mike, who interviewed me after the O.J. Mayo story broke, disagrees with my view:

They're not forced to go to school. If they prefer Europe or the D-League, they can try it that way. Obviously, the best means of building both an NBA-worthy game and a world-class brand is going through college basketball. But nobody's forcing anything on anybody. After 10 years of allowing players the "freedom" to enter the league out of HS, David Stern realized this policy was killing his product. Too many players entered the league as unknowns, and the league had no mechanism to train these players to reach their full potential. It took 13 years for one of these HS guys to be the principle force on an NBA champion; meanwhile Duncan wins four titles and a team of low-first-round college guys (Detroit) makes six straight conference finals. That's no accident. The NFL realized it had a great deal with the colleges and never let it come to this -- and the game has exploded to heights hard to imagine 25 years ago. The NBA decided college basketball was more a competitor than an ally -- and the league wound up damaging itself more than the colleges. Stern thus made a business decision regarding the age limt. It was a wise one. If the Players Association wanted to make an investment in the future income and stability of their members, they'd be on board and pushing for two years, also.

I agree that college basketball is a great place for players to build their own brand and to develop their games. While players are not forced to go to college, until the NBDL and/or Europe become viable alternatives to college, most great players will choose college. My big issue is that the NCAA should not lobby either way. The NBA and the NBPA will hash this out in the next collective bargaining agreement and the NCAA membership should decide how it should respond. Unless schools agree to look the other way when it comes to the activities often associated with these great players, we're just asking for more problems.

And this from Marjorie Leunen:

Dear Marc: It was wonderful to sit and chat with you at the NBA Summer League games in which my son, Maarty was playing. I am enjoying reading your "Money Players" book. I wish I had read it before Maarty graduated from the University of Oregon, but now is better than never. I feel the same way that you do. Don't push a kid into college if they have no interest in getting a meaningful education. My son got his degree in Econ, but he really liked college life and he was not ready for the NBA right out of high school. I totally think it should be on the athlete and his family to make that 1 to 4 year commitment to college. The NCAA should not lobby when players should leave for the NBA...the NBA can figure that out just fine. Remember they picked my kid.........haha. Thank you, Marjorie Leunen Mother of 4 sons

I appreciate Marjorie's plug for my book -- and also her view of "one and done." If the NBA does not want these young players in the league because, as DeCourcy suggests, they can't win big games, NBA GMs should discount these players in the draft by not selecting them so early. That would provide a strong financial incentive to stay in school, wouldn't it? But in reality, NBA GMs draft these young players presumably to help them do one thing -- WIN CHAMPIONSHIPS. I do think the longer players stay in school, the more the NBA community and media pick apart their game. (Perhaps Michael McCann will share his view here.) Interestingly, when it comes to the NBA Draft, the marketplace does just the opposite of what DeCourcy says should happen -- the younger players historically get picked earlier than the 3- and 4-year guys. On a related note, Maarty played very well in NBA Summer League and definitely showed he was worthy of being drafted higher.

What do you think? Send your comments and/or questions to Marc Isenberg via e-mail at marc.isenberg@gmail.com

One and never-quite done

Speaking before a "Play It Smart" Conference NCAA president Myles Brand made an impassioned case for the benefits of the NBA's age requirement. And, surprise, Dr. Brand would love see the NBA extend its restriction to 2 or even 3 years. (I've already written a lot on this issue, for example here and here.)

In Brand's world, this is not about the money, but about the kids who would otherwise blow off their educational opportunities if they had the freedom to go straight to the NBA. Brand views the NBA's rule as a net positive. He says the real benefits of one and done are "not often recognized." Come on media, do your job!

See if you agree with Brand's logic: "So in the old view, you have hundreds of kids blowing off high school, thinking they're going to be one of the 10 kids who is going directly from high school to college. Now, believe it or not, not everyone is Lebron James and not everyone is going to be able to play at that level. So you have hundreds of kids who get disappointed and they blew off high school and they're not going to graduate from high school, they're not prepared for college and once they don't get into the NBA, what are they going to do? Flip hamburgers at best?"

Let's put Dr. Brand's theory to the test. Brand believes that by denying the ten or so players the right to go straight to the NBA, we are saving hundreds of kids who will undoubtedly see their hoop dream become a nightmare. Brand's argument is heavy on truthiness, rather than any hard evidence, but give him credit for not backing down.

As an aside, in my opinion (and Warren Buffett will back me), LeBron is a savvy, smart, responsible young man, despite the fact that he never attended college. By any measure, LeBron has been successful, both on and off the court. But he's a bad role model, according to Brand, because he was freakishly talented coming out of high school and because he will cause hundreds of other hoop hopefuls to have unreasonable expectations. Therefore, we must not allow 18 to 19 (and maybe one day 20) year olds to succeed -- or fail -- in any other environment other than the billion-dollar-a-year college basketball enterprise.

When people make the argument for or against requiring players to go to college, there are certain names that pop up. For every Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Tracy McGrady and Dwight Howard, there is MJ, Shane Battier, Grant Hill and Brandon Roy. And for every example used to support the benefits of college (Korleone Young, Leon Smith, Taj McDavid), there are players who screwed up in the NBA after attending college.

Two names off the top of my head: Latrell Sprewell and Jason Caffey. Collectively they spent 8 years on college campuses (I hope it was ironic that they both went to the same school). Did college prepare Sprewell and Caffey for life in the NBA? Both have had financial problems and both filed bankruptcy protection. Sprewell infamously choked his NBA coach. Caffey sadly has an assault on his record too. In the NFL, players must go to school for at least three years. Rae Curruth, Tank Johnson and Michael Vick did their time in college and then did time. For every good example why someone should go to college, there's a bad example. There's no one-size-fits all, as much as we'd like to there to be.

Is college a great place to develop as a person and as an athlete? Absolutely. But there are corrupting influences in college ESPECIALLY for those who have no interest in school, but are forced to attend against their will.

The NCAA has repeatedly told us college sports is a privilege, not a right. So I wonder what valuable educational experience did LeBron James not miss that helped him thrive so extraordinarily. In the final analysis, a college education does not guarantee success by any measure. Nor does lack of a college experience put someone on the fast track to flipping burgers.

Sure, Brand would like a system that forces the best players to go to college (and be real students and real amateurs) for one, two or even three years. But is that fair to the players? And how does forcing players to go to school support the NCAA's mission? Of course, if Brandon Jennings succeeds in Europe he might throw a wrench in Brand's vision to control the teen basketball market.

--Marc Isenberg

Related article

A 76% Success Rate Not Enough? Brandon Hoffman crunches the numbers of players who declared for the NBA Draft straight out of high school. (The success rate is even higher when you throw out Taj McDavid's bogus declaration for the NBA Draft.)

Show me the money trail

Los Angeles Times writer Ben Bolch writes on summer basketball, connecting the dots for the top players from high school to college and to the pros.

Similar articles have been written before, so there's not much new ground covered here. There's the usual questionable characters mentioned (especially Rodney Guillory), the vague job description of runners and the now-regular staple of these articles: an anonymous sports agent pointing out the hypocrisy and corruption of this dirty business.

I like what John Wall, a top high school player, has to say:

"If you let one person into your circle, they can mess everything up. They would tell me I had a good game, I'm a good player and they want to start helping me out basketball-wise," Wall said. "I was like, 'Nah. If you weren't there before I had anything, there's no point in you coming around now.' "

Bolch writes:

"Some observers compare a coach who purports to guard a player's best interest with the fox guarding the henhouse."

And then there's Pat Barrett, who runs Southern California All-Stars. Bolch states that Barrett is a "controversial figure in local basketball circles, is quick to acknowledge that he's 'not affiliated with any rules. . . . I have no kids in school, I'm not a booster, I'm not alumni.' "

Had no idea that rules (or laws for that matter) are something we are or aren't affiliated with.

There is also an accompanying article on agents and intermediaries that mostly quotes an anonymous "prominent sports agent." I love this agent's reason for not identifying himself: He is apparently concerned "that his comments might be construed as an admission he had engaged in wrongdoing." Personally, I would prefer these agents who purport to follow the rules stand up and identify themselves. "Hey, look at me, I follow the rules, I don't jeopardize an athlete's eligibility."

The supposedly prominent sports agent on just how sleazy the sports agent biz is:

"Overwhelmingly, 95% of the time, there's a third party involved. If agents could get players in a fair, representative way without paying money they would, because everyone is a bottom-line businessman. But they can't."

"Most of the time the runner tells a kid, 'I'm just taking care of business so that we can do what we need to do.' "

This is probably my biggest problem with the entire sports agent industry: Agents and runners operating without disclosing the nature of this relationship with the targeted player.

The anonymous agent also thinks the NBA Players' Assn's oversight of agents is "loosey-goosey" and that "the union's investigation into whether Bill Duffy Associates Sports Management engaged in wrongdoing during its recruitment of Mayo should serve as the litmus test for whether the league is willing to get tough."

Litmus test? So if BDA is not found guilty, the NBPA is not doing its job. There were bad actors in the Mayo case, no doubt, but that doesn't mean it's fair to automatically reach these conclusions. I'm guessing this is the real reason this agent wouldn't come forward: He wanted to slam Duffy on the record. As I've said several times on Money Players, if it is proven that BDA did anything wrong, they should pay a heavy penalty. But we haven't seen that evidence yet. Only Louis Johnson showing ESPN Guillory's receipts.

--Marc Isenberg

The Brandon Jennings Experiment

Those who follow college basketball are split on the implications of star basketball player Brandon Jennings' decision to go off overseas, rather than follow the traditional, established path to the NBA. I have a tough time criticizing someone who decides that college basketball and college are not for him. I think it is premature to judge Brandon, mostly because the public and the media does not know all the factors that went into his decision. Clearly, he is not academically motivated, which for 99.999% of the population is not a good thing, but in Brandon's situation this may turn out to be fine. Hopefully, he is motivated to learn about those things that most directly impact his responsibilities and opportunities as a professional basketball player. The college basketball community and media will be watching to see how the Brandon Jennings Experiment turns out. If he succeeds in Europe, basketball's most likely "one and done" prospects will have a viable option. If Brandon fails he might end up becoming a cautionary tale, although the population of one does is still not a sufficient sample to reach any meaningful conclusion.

Let's look at a sampling of opinions:

ESPN's Doug Gottlieb (subscription required) thinks Brandon is getting in over his head, writing "Jennings is not ready for the culture shock of playing overseas, for the challenge of playing grown men as opposed to over-matched high schoolers, for the huge drop in the NBA draft stock. Yet that might not be enough to deter him from skipping school. And in the long run, he might end up a lower-rated NBA prospect but a better player and more well-rounded, grounded person."

Jason Whitlock "Why risk being the next O.J. Mayo, the USC one-and-done-er done in by sloppy ESPN reporting, a former, opportunistic friend/ex-drug-dealer and antiquated NCAA rules?" Comment: The problem going forward is every top basketball must be prepared to the get the full O.J. Mayo Treatment. If they have any skeletons in their closet or even just some questionable associations, the media and rival fan sites will bury the kid.

Sports agent David Bauman (and an Emory classmate of mine) on how the college basketball might change if Brandon succeeds: "College would be a bunch of nobodies. TV interest would drop and the overall product would suffer."

Comment: College basketball will be fine, even if the top 5 to 7 players bypass college. In fact, I think it might be even better. The focus can turn to those who want to be in college and have the ability, the interest and the motivation to do the academic work.

Several interesting comments from a Washington Post article on the topic:

Syracuse basketball coach Jim Boeheim

"[Jennings is] only doing it because he's desperate. He wants to be a one-and-done player. So he doesn't sit out [a year] some place, he wants to go play. I'm not even sure he'll be that wanted in Europe. He's a thin, little guard, and European basketball is pretty good these days. It's not like he's going to go over there and be a star."

Comment: Sour grapes. Was Syracuse's most famous one-and-done any more academically prepared and motivated than Brandon? From my perspective it is inappropriate for a college coach to comment on a player's academic background, especially since he has no direct connection to him. Also, while I respect Boeheim's coaching ability and also his international experience, since when did he become an expert on European professional basketball?

NCAA president Myles Brand

"Before the rule took effect and we had some young men jump from high school to the pros, we had a successful game and March Madness pulled in millions of dollars. After the rule, we've had some success and March Madness has pulled in millions of dollars. Either way for us is fine. It's up to the young man."

Comment: Agreed! For those who accuse the NCAA of being a monopoly, the argument weakens if players have viable options.

--Marc Isenberg

UPDATE: Sporting News college basketball writer Mike DeCourcy emailed: "Any idea if this David Bauman fellow was living in Singapore or something from 1995-2005, a period during which college basketball missed out on Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant and LeBron James -- and still landed a $6 billion TV contract for its postseason tournament alone?"

Comment: College basketball is a marketing juggernaut. The D-League unquestionably has more talented basketball players, but how many people follow the league? The college basketball consumer is not savvy enough to figure this out, nor do they even care. DeCourcy also writes one of the more well-reasoned articles on the topic. David may not understand the popularity of college basketball, but he certainly understands NBA free agency.

More O.J., agents, runners and baseball draft

Jason Whitlock, the love-him-or-hate sportswriter, offers some interesting points about how the media and the public view college basketball and baseball players.and their interactions with agents. Writes Whitlock:

When the NCAA enacted its new, get-tough Academic Progress Report standards, a little-known fact that the media ignored is that college baseball programs traditionally performed far below basketball programs. Let me translate that for you: Baseball players were less likely to graduate from college than basketball players. The APR forced baseball coaches to bring their kids back to campus for summer school rather than allowing them to audition in front of scouts and agents in the Cape Cod League. Yeah, the "cesspool" of street agents, runners, handlers, scouts and agents we love to rail against in basketball co-mingle in baseball at high school All-American games without raising a word of dissent.

Conquest Chronicles, a USC fan blog, weaves some of my earlier comments on agents and the baseball draft to make his case that college athletics could be improved if we "Make it above board!". Writes Conquest Chronicles:

I am not naive enough to think that this sort of thinking work have stopped the alleged benefits that an O.J. Mayo might have received but instead of being a watch dog why not consider some sort of partnership with the pro leagues and agents with stiff penalties for those that break the rules.

The product would be so much better if the "minimum" requirements helped nurture the players into more responsible solid citizens that can also play at that level. I also agree that rookies should play one year in the "D" league before getting to the big dance. Surely some legitimate compromise can be made..

Money Players reader and frequent commenter Garrett Sanders emails some interesting points:

Guillory allegedly was given $250k to recruit OJ by BDA, but "only"30k ended up in his pocket. Clearly, if OJ took money from Guillory, he was wrong for this...but the larger point is that there is economic system that compensates people who have deep relationships with top players. For college coaches, the market determines what college coaches can are paid. For runners, agents can have them on the payroll (even if the practice is generally frowned upon). And then for the players, the ones who create economic value for both sports agents and athletic departments, are conveniently cut out of the deal. I am not sure I want college athletes to be paid, the  schools and the NCAA are the ones who have turned this into a big money game. So if they take the one and done players, they're telling the public it's about the money, not the education. And if they don't pay them, someone else will step in. Everyone can do their typical hand wringing, but should anyone expect a different outcome.

It's the horse, not the jockey

ESPN's Andy Katz reports that K-State gave assistant basketball coach Dalonte Hill a $420,000 a year deal. Hill was one of Michael Beasley's AAU coaches for DC Assault and is responsible for bringing Beasley to K-State..

Apparently this deal makes Hill the highest-paid paid assistant coach in all of college basketball. ESPN's Andy Katz described Hill's deal as "stunning" and "whopping" and points out that the basketball community is "beffuddled." Cue the ole Casablanca standby, including the far more instructive part where Captain Renault proves that commerce (shocking) prevails over moral outrage:

Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds?
Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here! [a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]
Croupier: Your winnings, sir.
Captain Renault: Oh, thank you very much.

Let's look at Hill's deal rationally. K-State's athletic director Bob Krause seems to have an excellent grasp of the economics of college basketball:

"A youngster like Michael Beasley is a once-in-a-lifetime [player]. We have youngsters in the queue, and Dalonte and the entire staff is a big part of that. We're looking at a long-term investment. You can throw money at stuff but that's not the point. You're making an investment to keep the momentum going."

Success in college sports is pretty simple. Bring in the best available players and give them good coaching. In the era of "one and done" the premium is on recruiting. No doubt "x and o's" coaching matters, but it's more important to devote resources to recruiting activities. If athletic departments are investing in private jets to make it easier for head coaches to recruit, why not invest in assistant coaches who have deep relationships with top recruits? In the final analysis paying an assistant coach $420k reflects the marketplace for those at the top of the player procurement game.

Curious thought: What's the difference between an AAU coach, a runner, a college recruiter, and an agent? The skills seem very interchangeable and, in fact, I know several who have worked their way up the career ladder -- or down, depending on how you view this whole business.

--Marc Isenberg

The unintended consequences of trying to protect athletes

Darren Heitner, who is on top of all things agent related, provides an excellent analysis about yet-another- college athlete/agent situation. It is definitely not as high profile as O.J. Mayo, but it does raise some interesting issues. It involves Oklahoma State University sophomore star pitcher Andy Oliver, who was declared ineligible in the middle of the College World Series. Rather than set up the situation, read Darren's story and analysis.

Let the judgment begin...except here
The facts surrounding Andy Oliver's are not clear to take sides, but my views expressed in the O.J. Mayo situation apply here: Don't rush to judgment, wait for the facts to come out and let the appropriate authorities conduct their investigation.

My analysis will focus on amateur baseball players and their involvement with so-called "family advisers" and NCAA rules governing these relationships. For most student-athletes agent prohibitions make sense. However, baseball players drafted by MLB teams are unique from other college athletes because they are automatically entered in MLB's amateur draft (rather than declaring for the draft like basketball and football players). While I am a big fan of MLB's system for drafting players, drafted ballplayers should have the opportunity to receive quality representation in negotiating their first professional contract. Maybe I am alone on this, but I think everyone's interests (players, schools, NCAA, agents) would be well served if the system for "advising" amateur baseball players is brought above board, rather than devising ways around NCAA rules (athletes and agents certainly aren't the only ones figuring out loopholes).

Not all agents wear horns
The intersection of amateur athletes, agents and the NCAA is complex. There are bad agents out there. The overarching question is, How can we come up with ways to improve the system? I would love to think that education is the primary tool to deal with the "agent problem," especially since my book, Money Players, would, of course, be an essential part of the solution. But it will take more than just well-constructed educational programs laced with strong admonitions to refrain from taking money from agents and runners. (No, I am not advocating that athletes be paid.) I'm actually not sure what the solution is for college basketball and football. But I firmly believe the rules governing agents for amateur baseball players need to be restructured.

NCAA rules are supposed to protect student-athletes. And for the most part they do. NCAA rules prohibit an NCAA athlete from having any oral or written agreement for representation by an agent. They also prohibit an athlete from retaining an agent to represent his athletic interests. These rules make sense for amateur football and basketball players. But baseball players drafted by MLB teams are in a completely different situation, yet governed by the same agent prohibitions.

IMO, amateur baseball players absolutely need above-board, expert representation by someone who is not only well versed in the legalese of MLB contracts, but also understands the marketplace. And who possesses these skills? Agents! But student-athletes who wish to retain their amateur status are not allowed to retain agents. A baseball player drafted by a MLB team, even with the help of his family, is unlikely to be capable of effectively negotiating a contract, let alone obtaining full market value. It would be so sensible -- and truly demonstrate that the NCAA is more "kinder, gentler" these days -- if they would allow a small window for agents to negotiate MLB deals on behalf of drafted baseball players.

So-called family advisers
In doing research for my book Money Players, I spoke to a several baseball agents. They all agree that the concept of "family adviser" is a sham. Baseball players selected by major league teams need some form of professional counsel. What they really need is an agent, but NCAA rules prohibit amateur athletes from retaining. So these advisers work behind the scenes, but they do not sit at the negotiating table (probably the most essential agent function). Good, reputable agents won't do anything to jeopardize an athlete's collegiate eligibility. They'll do whatever they possibly can to assist an athlete and their families, but they won't "agent" an amateur athlete. Of course, that's all a fine line and open to wide interpretation. My primary advice to athletes is: Don't break NCAA rules. Secondary: Don't scorn a b-list agent!

Who says it doesn't pay to be an alleged student-athlete?
Interestingly NCAA rules empower individuals from members institutions to negotiate with professional sports teams. There are obvious conflict of interests, although I find most coaches and athletic directors honorable when it comes to advising athletes on the decision to stay or go pro. But baseball is different: For players drafted after their senior year in high school and/or their college junior year, they are in the unique and enviable situation where they can negotiate with a MLB team and use the leverage of another offer (the opportunity to go to college) against the MLB team. And, magic, baseball teams offer more money rather than risk losing the rights to a coveted draft pick.

Fiduciary responsibility of those negotiating professional sports contracts

NCAA bylaws empower athletic departments to act as agents.

12.2.4.3 Negotiations. An individual may request information about professional market value without affecting his or her amateur status. Further, the individual, his or her legal guardians or the institution's professional sports counseling panel may enter into negotiations with a professional sports organization without the loss of the individual's amateur status. An individual who retains an agent shall lose amateur status.

Let's look at the concept of fiduciary. The word comes from the Latin fides, meaning faith. It has been said that fiduciaries must conduct themselves "at a level higher than that trodden by the crowd." A fiduciary is legally required to put their clients' interests above all else, and is certainly not allowed to profit at the expense of his or her clients.

I am not familiar enough with baseball to know if it is commonplace for a representative from a school's professional sports counseling panel to negotiate with MLB teams, but it is hard to fathom that a university employee, even with impeccable academic and practical experience, could be a fiduciary for a student-athlete. Knowing the potential liability, would a school's legal counsel even allow? And what about players associations' regulations that stipulate that only "certified" agents negotiate playing contracts?

The early analysis
The only reason the public knows about Andy Oliver's alleged involvement with an agent is because one agent was left at the altar for another agent (the fact that it is Scott Boras certainly gives this story added juice). What about all the other baseball agents who acted as "family advisers"? The only difference is they typically do not send 6-figure invoices. And to compound the issue, it probably was not a good idea to have Boras's deputies intervene on behalf of an amateur ballplayer in the middle of his college baseball season. Scott Boras, George Vujovich and Ryan Lubner are attorneys and, I assume, licensed to provide legal services. Keep in mind this issue is over a legal bill, not whether an agency relationship has or has not be established.

Of course, there's an alternative approach to this problem...

"Agents, please keep away from our student-athletes!"

--Marc Isenberg

Building a better mouse-release

In an article on the "one and done" phenomena in the The Athens Banner-Herald, Tennessee basketball coach Bruce Pearl is quoted:

"It's not working. Both the NBA and the NCAA coaches, we all want a good system that gives the players an opportunity and the colleges some sanity and let the NBA be able to have the best players that can play. We know that what we have now isn't working for us and we don't think it's working for the players."

Amen, my fellow lonsman. The current system that doesn't work. This issue is not that complicated, folks. Players who want to go to college and play basketball should. And players who don't should have viable options. This whole issue has been often framed in absolute terms by the stakeholders: Players believe they should have the right to earn a living whenever the market signals they are ready. The NBA wants mature, pre-marketed players entering the Association. The NCAA wants real student athletes. Boosters just want to win. And athletic departments have to find the proper balance: Keep well-heeled boosters happy without completely abandoning their academic mission.

It's like Baseketball, but better
The amateur baseball draft is the best system. Players are eligible to be drafted after their senior year of high school. They don't declare for the draft. They are simply drafted. Then if a Major League team offers them enough money, they sign. Otherwise, if they are not offered a sufficient contract they can go to an NCAA school...BUT THE PLAYERS MUST AGREE TO A 3-YEAR ENLISTMENT. Perhaps the NBA should consider this approach.

The marketplace decides who's ready. What a concept! And players don't have to rely on an agent or runner promises and hype. Everybody wins. Why not hold a supplemental NBA draft for high school players? NBA teams select players they think are worth signing. Drafted players either sign according to a rookie scale or they go to college. If a player signs, he goes to the NBDL for at least one season. If he opts to go to an NCAA school, he is not eligible for the NBA draft for three years. And to boot we can rid  "declaring for the draft," "testing the waters" and "agent/outside influence" from our sports vernacular.

Feasting on agents and runners
And finally...along with James Tanner, David Thorpe, and Jason Levien, I participated in TrueHoop's "Runners and Recruiting: A Roundtable." There's so much to chew on, it took two sittings. Second helping is expected on Thursday.

--Marc Isenberg

NCAA Enforcement and the blame game

Several articles have been written on the realities of NCAA enforcement. Many have pointed out that the NCAA is mostly powerless when it comes to punishing former student athletes. There are thirty-six states which have passed some form of Uniform Athlete Agents Act (UAAA), which raises the level of an NCAA transgression to a criminal matter. It also provides civil remedies to schools that have been damaged by athletes and agents who violate NCAA rules.

Rules are great...especially when they can be followed and enforced
The NCAA has some wonderful, lofty ideals about integrity and fair play. But just in case its members can't figure out right from wrong, it has a phonebook-sized rules manual. And that doesn't stop coaches and others from exploiting loopholes. The NCAA does not have subpoena powers, so it typically has a tough time getting people outside the NCAA (former NCAA athletes, agents, runners, etc.) to cooperate. Meanwhile, an athletic department's best defense when it comes to avoiding the short-arm of NCAA enforcement is plausible deniability. The school explains that the reason it didn't know that some renegade athlete cheated was because that same renegade athlete lied on the affidavit saying the didn't cheat. It is a shop-worn defense, yet works quite effectively.

We didn't start the fire, but Jerry Tarkanian knows who's going to get burned
NCAA enforcement is a system predicated on the wonderful intentions that schools will be diligent when it comes to monitoring athletes, coaches, boosters, etc., that it will self-report violations and, above all, maintain "institutional control" over the athletic department. When the NCAA is hammered by the media for rules that seemingly make no sense, the NCAA does have a fairly decent defense: We're only enforcing the rules agreed on by the membership. That is a fair argument, but the NCAA has long been accused of selective enforcement. USC is on the hot seat for the yet-to-be-resolved Reggie Bush case and now the O.J. Mayo situation. The media has already judged USC guilty, but what will ultimately happen? Jerry Tarkanian made a side career handicapping NCAA penalties for big-time schools accused of violations. When a school like Kentucky was accused violating NCAA rules, he was nonplussed. Said Tark: "The NCAA is so mad at Kentucky, it's going to give Cleveland State two more years' probation." Tark also substituted UCLA and Cal-State Northridge.

The New NCAA
The NCAA is different today. It is more "student-athlete friendly," as NCAA president Myles Brand likes to say. And there are no sacred cows. If a NCAA member gets caught cheating, it will be punished...at least according to Dr. Brand.

From an Associated Press report:

"Saying the NCAA has 'new information,' president Myles Brand promised to investigate former Southern California basketball star O.J. Mayo, who allegedly received thousands of dollars in gifts from money given to an event promoter by a sports agency.

"Brand said he won't be afraid to sanction USC or any other high-profile school caught in violation of NCAA rules."

The O.J. Mayo Case is not just any case
The NCAA's standard policy is not to comment on possible or pending investigations. Doesn't telling the public that his organization has "new information" sound prejudicial? Rarely would "new information" exonerate anyone so this cannot be good news for USC, Mayo and others. Also, saying "he wouldn't be afraid to punish USC or any other high-profile school caught in violation of NCAA rules" is inappropriate. FYI, Myles Brand does not mete out NCAA punishment. The NCAA Committee on Infractions has the honor.

No more NCAA rules, please
Jim Haney, the executive director of the National Association of Basketball Coaches, provides the best answer yet: "From my perspective, there is no silver bullet to all this. It’s all about ethics and character. You can’t legislate that." Thank you.

--Marc Isenberg