Kentucky Basketball: The Courier-Journal Says Intentions Should Govern Recruiting
by Glenn Logan on Apr 10, 2010 2:04 PM EDT
in Commentary
Email
PrintThis is an unsurprising sentiment from the Louisville Courier-Journal, but it serves as a perfect vehicle to explore the issue of "one and done" players further. Consider this quote:
More important, however, one-and-done runs against the grain of what universities are supposed to be doing. Inevitably, some students will depart before graduation. But no university should seek out students, for any program, who have no intention of completing a degree program, and university officials should encourage students in good standing to stay in school. (Mr. Calipari counseled the freshmen to put their names in the draft, although he probably hopes some will be disappointed with the result and decide to return.)
Let's de-construct this bit of emotionalism (I hesitate to call it reasoning) and see if it makes sense.
The first sentence is unquestionably right. Universities are in the business of educating people, presumably to enable them to better do the things in their life's work that they want to do. Nobody is compelled to get a secondary education -- it is completely elective, assuming that the person who elects to attend college can afford tuition and is capable of earning the requisite academic credentials to enter and remain there.
The money aspect is instructive. Colleges are a business. They operate in order to make the money necessary to run the school, provide facilities, professors, and support staff. Even if they are not exactly "for profit," and all their resources are plowed back into the school to make it bigger, better, or more desirable, it is undeniably operating for the purpose of growth and improvement at the expense of those who attend.
But then there are college sports. When college sports were first begun, they were largely just intramural teams playing each other in their free time, after class. As time wore on, more and more people became interested, then willing to pay to see college sports. Sports scholarships were created, and we have now arrived at a place where college sports, at least some of them, are a huge industry generating billions of dollars per year in revenue.
Having established those things, what the Courier-Journal is telling us is that colleges essentially should not offer athletic scholarships to players who "... have no intention of completing a degree program ...".
I think you can easily see the problem with that statement. Very few players, given this restriction, would tell colleges that it is their intention to attend school only for as long as it takes them to get noticed and drafted by the professional leagues. But that is exactly the true intention of almost all college athletes in the "revenue" sports. Almost every one of them would gladly sacrifice whatever college eligibility they have left if they were sure to be drafted by the professional sports leagues. The few that would not are outliers -- there are no rules without exceptions.
So assuming we could hook up every prospective student athlete to an infallible lie detector and ask him/her, "Will you eschew the professional sports leagues and finish your education?", I'd be willing to bet that 95% who could be subject to earning millions of pro dollars would either answer "No" or be caught in a lie.
Does the Courier-Journal really believe what they say? The number of players that have eventually come back to finish their college careers, however brief their initial college experiences were, after leaving early for the professional leagues far exceeds the number who have done so without any exposure to college at all. That may be cold comfort, but it is comfort nonetheless.
Implicit in this argument is that colleges should reject otherwise qualified athletes who intend to leave school if they become viable candidates for the professional leagues. So then, what is to happen to these young men and women? Are they to work at a local McDonalds until they are old enough to be eligible? Travel overseas and try to play there? Play for the D-league? What? The Courier-Journal doesn't say, but I say that would look very bad for universities to have such a policy. It would send the message that a college education is more important than success, and that education, not the life goals a college education enables, is of paramount importance.
Is it ethical of a college coach who knows one or more of his charges are ready to be drafted in to a professional league to advise him to stay in school, ignoring the injury risk that might make them unable to realize their dream (financially and otherwise) to play professional sports? That seems not only a stretch, but a major ethical reach.
Encouraging an athletic talent sure to make millions to delay those millions (and their dreams) to stay in school and obtain a degree that will have the potential to earn them only a fraction of what they can make as a professional athlete seems unethical to me. College educations do not come with a time limit, or an expiration date. Professional sports do, although it does vary from player to player. Education is not an end in itself, for most people -- it is a means to an end, and if a better means to that end shows up mid-stream, should we advise him or her not to take advantage of it? Bill Gates? Bueller? Anyone?
I don't want you to think that I am unhappy with the Courier-Journal, or that I don't share their desire to see every student athlete get a college education. I am also sympathetic with their argument that "one and done" players are not consistent with the mission of an academic institution.
But the reality is, college athletics became incompatible with the mission of universities back in the 1970's. That the incompatibility has become wider and wider ever since is both predictable and regrettable in some ways, but to throw out the baby with the bath, or behave in an ethically challenged way as the C-J seems to suggest is not the answer.
72 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Another discipline
In my view, athletics are just another discipline to learn in college. You can take a swimming class, why not the basketball or football team? Gardner lists bodily-kinesthetic intelligence as just one of his many intelligences. Why not develop it if you have the gifts? There’s more to college than the library.
Meanwhile, these kids get the start of a well-rounded liberal arts education from their core curriculum in their first year, which is valuable. More would be better, but it’s tough to draw the line. Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard Business school because he had a better deal, and even haughty writer types would be hard pressed to say Bill G. made a bad decision.
Question?
Is this the beginning of “paid sports teams”? If the educational people want the revenue from sports but, can’t get the players to stay in school. They can pay young men and women to compete until they can move on up in their sport.
Happy Days are here again The sky is all ways BLUE again Happy days are here again !
A couple of thoughts:
1. Do you think MIT, Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, or any other prestigious universities would purposefully accept a student that both knew they didn’t plan to graduate? I think not.
2. Sure college sports are huge money-makers. So what? Almost w/o exception all that money is plowed back into sports.
3. Tuition and sports revenue do not typically add to a schools coffers. Endowments are funded through contributions.
4. If college was all about prepping for paying jobs, why do we have degrees in Women’s Studies, Philosophy, etc.?
I don’t see anything wrong at all for the C-J opinion. It’s refreshing and much needed at this time. When college sports exist for the primary purpose of feeding professional sports all should be concern.
'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'
by HozeKing on Apr 10, 2010 4:53 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
My responses:
- UK is not any of those institutions. Would Harvard, MIT, etc. accept someone like Stephen Hawking if they thought he might move on to something else? Probably. Different schools, different priorities.
- Most, but not all of it is. And direct money isn’t the only way a school benefits from a strong sports program.
- That makes no sense. What do they do with tuition, give it away? Why keep raising tuition if endowments are sufficient? This is a non-sequitur.
- I didn’t say it was “all about prepping for paying jobs.” What I said was colleges “enable [students] to better do the things in their life’s work that they want to do.” That encompasses the more altruistic professions.
We will agree to disagree about the rest.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
My response to your response:
First of all, you columns that reach past the basketball floor are your best and is what seperates this blogs from others.
1. Why can’t UK aspire to be better? Realistically, it may not reach the levels of a Harvard or Stanford but it should strive to be better than average or at least appear to act like it. You are missing the point. I doubt that a Stephen Hawking or Bill Gates type entered school knowing, in fact both the high schooler and the university knowing, that they would only matriculate for one year. That’s a distinction that the defenders of this strategy don’t seem to get.
2. Sure there are other benefits to a good basketball team. There are also benefits to having a tree lined campus or well polished floors. The ‘lets go crazy with sports’ argument is a well worned justification for allowing college sports to go overboard. I’m sorry, I just think there is a limit and some schools go past the limit. I think UK recruiting all these one-and-dones is over the limit. Sorry. And I am not the only one.
3. Think of tuition being cash flow. Tuition rises as operating costs rise. I suspect when UK built their library, it didn’t come from increased tuitions. I imagine most of it came from a specific fund drive or their endowment. Better question is: At a place like Harvard, why is the tuition ~$50,000 per year when it has an endowment of $26 billion dollars? I can’t explain it. I think it is wrong. I do think questions around tuition v. endowments should be brought up more often.
4. I never wrote that you said necessarily anything about point #4. Am I not allowed an original thought or is it some sort of rule that every thought play off your comment?
Look, in regards to this one-and-done recruiting, UK is venturing where no other college has gone before. It’s not against the rules but that doesn’t mean that the entire basketball world has to like it. It doesn’t necessarily stink, but it does kinda smell. Don’t expect everyone to embrace it.
BTW, I lipped out what would have been my first every hole-in-one yesterday.
'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'
Thank you ...
… for the praise. I appreciate it. Now, I’ll respond to your points:
- I suppose that depends upon what your definition of “better” is, doesn’t it? Is it better to have more four-year students who play basketball, or have basketball players exposed to education for one, two or three years? That’s a fair debate, but ultimately, saying one is “better” that the other is highly subjective. For the basketball players, the four-year degree is largely irrelevant in and of itself, but the exposure to academic rigor makes them feel like something is unfinished. That sometimes leads to a degree after the playing career is over. A good thing? I think, yes.
- I would point out that UK is not recruiting “one and dones.” At the beginning of last year, UK had one player who was going to leave — John Wall. Somebody was going to have him come to their campus and play. An argument against this cannot just include UK, it must include every other school as well. So what is to be done with Wall?, and maybe Cousins? Tell them “Sorry, go fish for some second-rate JUCO?” The other players were coached way up to one and done status. I think that is praiseworthy. Yes, Cousins, Orton and Bledsoe were talented, but nobody had them as one-year players (except maybe for Cousins, but he was on the edge).
- Businesses charge fees that change in proportion to their costs. This is what you are describing. As a business owner, I think I am fully qualified to comment on this matter. The reason Harvard charges what it does is because that’s the value they place on their education — Same as every other school. Tuition may not fund major expansions, but it funds all kinds of minor ones.
- Okay, that wasn’t really clear from your wording, but let’s look at it your way. Even the majors you mention, assuming they do exist, are valuable for academics who intend to go into the altruistic professions like teaching or social work. The bottom line is, college educations are designed to prepare you for whatever field of endeavor you choose, either altruistic or filthy lucre.
Very cool about the hole-in-on. I’ve never had one, either, although I’ve hung a few on the lip. My brother and best friend both have one, another friend of mine, who is a scratch, has never had one. Crazy.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
Ugh.
I accidentally hit “post” instead of “preview,” so please excuse the rampant grammar and style errors. The “no comment edit” feature comes back to bite one of its proponents.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
I think that is fair.
In retrospect, I am unfairly ‘blaming’ UK for actively recruiting a bunch of one-and-dones. You’re right, I think that view is an over-reach if I think this happened with all the freshmen players. Regardless, I just don’t think it is fair when a kid is offered a full scholarship when both parties know they will only be there one year. There are plenty of kids who would ‘kill’ for money to go to school. I know this is a silly, juvenile view of the world, but call me a dreamer if you’d like.
Also, in regards to the point in my below post about UK Athletic contribution to the general fund, that yearly amount would be equivalent of paying a $1,500/month mortgage and having someone drop off 75 cents each month to contribute. I guess it’s better than nothing.
'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'
Okay ...
… I absolutely appreciate where your heart is at. I really do. It is not silly or juvenile, I totally get and appreciate the sentiment behind that comment.
College basketball is unquestionably inconsistent with the academic mission of the University. As I said, it became that way in 1971, when the Supreme Court permitted hardship entries into the NBA draft.
The question is, what do we do about it. I am thinking about that. Maybe I’ll come up with something. :-)
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Glenn Logan on Apr 11, 2010 10:04 AM EDT up reply actions
The important thing is whether you made the birdie putt.
That’s the number that goes on the scorecard. I’m a golf pro. I know these things. ;-))
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena . . .who spends himself for a worthy cause . . ."
Even I am a sure bet on an 18"er.
So yes…and I won a greenie, too. :)
'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'
by HozeKing on Apr 12, 2010 8:10 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Hope to shout.
Losing a greenie from 18" would suggest you might be in a game with players above your head. :-)
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Glenn Logan on Apr 12, 2010 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions
Heck, that game would be above Mickelson's head.
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena . . .who spends himself for a worthy cause . . ."
bill gates quit school
to pursue his dream. Didnt work out too bad for HIM. And, I didnt hear Harvard nor C-J harping about that. How many people do you know that quit school to earn a living? Sports havent been the same since people started paying to see the games. These days, it’s naive to think that an NBA/NFL calibre player wont consider taking a shot at the big time. IF an education is REALLY a goal, then they will come back to school at some point. It’s been done already. These days, it’s an exception if a really good player stays. I laud them for it, but I wouldnt expect it. And, who are we to judge if a guy is good enuf to go pro? I remember thinking Rondo wasnt ready. All he’s done is make a ton of money and won a ring. Goes to show what I know :)
by bigbill992001 on Apr 10, 2010 8:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Lets say a very intelligent student has terminal cancer. They have 1 year, maybe 2, left to live. Do you really think MIT, Harvard, etc would not accept the student because he or she likely won’t graduate?
I think they certainly would. A ridiculous hypothetical perhaps, but it’s a ridiculous question in the first place. There’s a world of difference between sports and academics and a huge difference between admittance policy in ivy league schools and state universities with tens of thousands of students. Maybe in an ivy league school where spots are coveted and limited, you could make a good argument that you shouldn’t be admitting students who can’t or don’t intend to graduate. But that argument isn’t going to hold up in a state school.
What you're seeing is team spirit. It's like the Holy Spirit, but more powerful.
-Hank Hill
Not reality
The Courier-Journal author is not living in the real world. I have COUNTLESS friends who have been going to college or graduate school and have been presented opportunities to go into their chosen profession making enough money for them to justify leaving the institution without getting the degree. There is always a lot of second guessing by those people and those around them, but sometimes, the chance at an opportunity NOW is too good to pass up. How many internet businesses, for instance, have been started in the last 20 years by college kids who hit on something monumental and walked on their college education? As I said in an earlier post. Universities should exist to educate people towards their chosen profession… NOT to issue pieces of paper. If a person gets enough education in a semester or 10 years to “go pro in something other than sports,” then the university has done it’s job. Universities should not exist to promote themselves, but to promote the student, or in this case, the student-athlete! No university education is an end in itself. Those that are are lousy universities. They were created to enhance the professional potential of the population, including schools like Harvard and MIT AND UK.
Sheesh!
by BluebloodinNaptown on Apr 10, 2010 7:57 PM EDT reply actions
Well said.
Universities should not be thought of as four year road maps to success. That thinking is getting quickly outdated; just seems a lot of people are not up to that fact.
A New Record
I don’t know if anyone keeps track of such things but I’d bet that the above post has just set a new ASoB record for misstatements, misapprehensions, misconceptions, misjudgments, misinterpretations and, well, mistakes.
- A hypothetical if you will, Brandon Knight, an all-A’s student for 12 years with a greater than 4.0 GPA, goes to Tommy Amaker and says, Coach I’d like to play for Harvard, I have the grades, I might need financial aid, and, one more thing, if I have the opportunity to play professionally I might not stay until I receive my degree. Does Amaker say, come on, son, and wear the Crimson? Or does he say, sorry, can’t use you? Answer: Harvard challenges Cornell, Princeton and Penn for Ivy League title in 2011.
- Oh really, tell that to the coaches of track, cross country, lacrosse, swimming and diving, field hockey — well you get the picture. Plus consider this from the University of Kentucky site:
In the new fiscal year which begins on July 1, UK Athletics will donate an additional $500,000 to campus academic scholarship programs. This is on top of the $1.2 million annually that the UKAA has contributed toward the university’s general scholarship fund and in support of UK’s Singletary Scholars program, bringing the total to $1.7 million in the coming academic year.
- Appropriately designated as a non sequitur but since such devices are often used for comedic purposes I’ll assume the statement was just a feeble attempt at humor.
- Finally there appears a statement with a hint of truth and logic. The dichotomy of liberal education and vocational training has been discussed and debated since at least the time of Socrates with no clear winners thus far. It should be noted that there is a considerable distinction between the priorities of state supported institutions and those of a private/independent nature and much is determined by the interests and abilities of individual students. However I think it is safe to say that the policies of the school should, within legal and organizational boundaries, reflect the attitudes of those who support it. If you wish to read more go here.
"Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one's government is not necessarily to secure freedom" - Hayek
As long as we are keeping score of records....
I don’t think anyone as prefaced their opinion in such a high-minded as self-righteous manner as you just did. Seriously, does it ever get tiring wearing the crown of perfection? I hope you are targeting your mind power and insight to more worldly matters such as curing cancer or developing a plan for peace in the mideast. I guess we should just feel blessed that you offer your thoughts here so we can all be better people.
1. Yea, it is hypothetical. And no, I don’t think Harvard or Cornell would knowing bring a kid on to their basketball team that planned to stay only a year going in.
2. Okay, I’ll grant you that…somewhat. Although I used the word ‘typical’ a better word would have been "substantial’. Wow, UK Athletics gives $1.2M back to the school? Well that contributes exactly 0.05% to the operating budget. Whoop-de-do. Maybe another way of looking at it, if Cal took a 50% paycut he would still be a millionaire times two and it would allow the altruistic athletic department to double their yearly contribution.
I’ll just forget about the last two points. I’m exhausted just trying to keep up with you on the first two….as feeble as my attempt is. You’re just too smart.
'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'
Vocational Education?
“Encouraging an athletic talent sure to make millions to delay those millions (and their dreams) to stay in school and obtain a degree that will have the potential to earn them only a fraction of what they can make as a professional athlete seems unethical to me”
I don’t think a great university can find success operating its bachelor degree program as vocational education. Vocational education is the proper role for graduate & professional schools. If the University of Kentucky decides to pursue athletes who have no real interest in a college education, giving those athletes slots as students, the University is denying a real student an opportunity to matriculate. That is cheating the Commonwealth and limiting the opportunities of individual students. Surely the graduate and professional schools are admitting students who do intend to complete degrees.
I hope UK is asking athletic recruits, “Do you plan to pursue a degree”? A “No” should be followed by a small envelope from the admissions office. The D League is an honorable alternative for players not interested in degrees.
This argument is absurd on many levels.
In the first place, we are talking about a tiny minority of rare talents here, and you merrily generalize it to include every single student athlete. Don’t you find that absurd? I know I do.
The University of North Carolina, for whom you are a supporter, does exactly the same thing. If UNC had reached the Elite Eight last year, you would likely have wound up with many early departures.
By the way, there is no logical difference between a “one and done” and a “three and done” except as a matter of degree. Over recent history, UNC has had far more early draft entrants than Kentucky. Suggesting that two or three year players have one whit more interest in education over basketball is a purblind rationalization that is utterly indefensible. The old saying applies — in for a penny, in for a pound.
Of course, to be fair, many other people share this blind spot. It’s as if all of you are so happy to be able to take a self-righteous position that you ignore the obvious fallacy of your argument. But don’t bring it in here. It will not survive.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
More of My Absurdity, I Fear
Why admit students who do not express an interest in obtaining a degree? UK is listed as a university, not a basketball franchise, I think.
As for my school, UNC, I expect our coaches to sign only players who have committed to a degree. Perhaps that is unreasonable, but that is both my personal view and the actual practice of the coaches, as far as I can ascertain. Dean Smith was famously upbraided by a mother who objected to Smith’s encouragement of her son to enter the NBA draft after his junior year. Dean was reported to have replied with something like, “I’m not suggesting that he not get his degree, just that he find the time to complete his degree around his professional basketball activities.”
Roy Williams seems to have been less resolute with two freshmen, but I believe that even these two “one & done-ers” had committed to pursuing a degree. Maybe each applicant misrepresented his intentions, maybe each rethought his position in light of the opportunities that arose. Who knows?
Exploring the issue of player commitment a little further, it seems to be reasonable practice to talk with a prospective student about interrupting full-time studies if personal opportunities or obligations present themselves. For an LDS student, that might mean going on a church mission before completing the degree. For an athlete, it might mean summer school classes coupled with professional sports. If those plans are in place, I do not think a public university is cheating the state nor denying another student an opportunity. But I deplore the decision of any public university that admits a student who does not have the intention to receive a degree. That takes away an opportunity from someone else.
Let Stanford continue to admit athletes who provide publicity and have no intention to finish a degree; that is a private matter. But Cal should not do the same. Nor should UNC.
by Ford Prefect on Apr 12, 2010 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions
I am just curious,
What are you going to do with all of those kids who signed up for college just to keep mom and dad off their backs? Has UNC found a way to root all of those out?? Your argument is not only irrational, it is founded in fault. Especially considering you are the home of the most famous early exiting player of all time.
I AM THE CAT......The Cat In The Hat!!!
Think about it, Ford.
As for my school, UNC, I expect our coaches to sign only players who have committed to a degree.
This is neither a reasonable expectation, nor reality. As I have said, there are probably a vanishingly small number of division I athletes that would turn down a first-round draft selection to complete their education. So trying to “read their intentions” is just a wee bit like thought police. Requiring them to make such a “commitment” is an invitation to dissemble bordering on the unethical.
It is unreasonable to require a commitment to a degree from an athlete, especially since athletics scholarships are not granted for four years, but for one, and are ostensibly based on athletics performance as well as academics. If a University was truly committed to academics in that way, it would make a scholarship non-revocable except for a failure to keep up academic standards for four years. Dean Smith was right, of course, but that just illustrates perfectly the reality of the situation, and the contingencies involved.
If the “one and doners” committed to pursuing a degree, I would accuse them of fraud. If commitment to a degree is to mean anything, it must be enforceable and enforced. If North Carolina (or Kentucky) is going to require a commitment to pursue a degree, it cannot just be lip service, or it isn’t meaningful.
But I deplore the decision of any public university that admits a student who does not have the intention to receive a degree. That takes away an opportunity from someone else.
Does it really? As I said, I believe virtually every scholarship athlete except an insignificant minority would take the option to play professional sports if the opportunity arose, just like almost every college undergraduate would take it if an organization offered them their dream job before they graduated. Assuming I’m right, almost every one of those PSA’s commitment to a degree is contingent upon not being offered a job in the pros. That makes such a commitment a distinction without a difference.
I think that the state/private difference is no difference at all. Every school should take the position that some college is better than none, and leave it at that. A far greater number of students with some college come back to finish school than without.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
A Couple of Comments
1. Face it ,most universitiesin D-1 are part of the football and basketball farm system. As Tru so eloquently put it what’s left, D-league, Europe or in football Arena League or the Canadian League?
2. Speaking of other sports, check out how many baseball players hold a college degree. You find a tiny amount.
3. I agree that these students are truly gifted, but you are testing them in areas that their skills aren’t applicable. Most college students will not make the money professional athletes make. Of course if the average college student was assessed on their basketball giftedness their individual gifts might not come through either.
4. I wonder how many pro athletes give to the endowment of their alma maters. Oh you say they didn’t graduate so they don’t have an alma mater. Don’t try telling them that.
5. Finally, Am I hearing people say that the graduation rate for college graduates is a concern. Check out past graduation rates in the College of Nursing or better still look at how many collge freshmen actually graduate period. It is pitiful. So why are sports singled out? College is a business that depends on being a farm system for professional sports in order to make money. The NCAA is just too powerful to buck. Every school has to have representative teams.
graduation rates
are a constant source of concern among all students including non athletes. Look at the highlighted info in the middle of this article. AA athletes graduate at a higher rate than AA students who do not play at all in any game. Graduation rates are also examined typically for a six year period because graduation is difficult for many students. A complaint to the CJ author is why the exclusive look at athletes? Why not be concerned about single parents, returning veterans, disabled students, unprepared students or students who run out of money? How about that student who just made a wrong choice? College is not for everyone, even a talented athlete. Another point, any successful college experience is the gift of a lifetime to many. One great year like this one for our team – priceless.
The premise of the article CJ is responding is that a college education is "necessary" for a full and abundant life.
After earning two masters degrees and doing signnificant work on a doctorate, I have attended many thrilling and intellectually stimulating classes in various schools around the central Kentucky area. I have also slept through others. In preparation for college, I attended a private prestigious school founded in 1689 with 100% college acceptance rate, as well as having been afforded an excellent a public school education. What have I learned from all of this? People learn in different ways and have different talents and our national economy is not set up to develop and reward this variety of talents.
It is true the college degrees do help increase your earning power, but not all the time. It depends on your major. Some majors require an advanced degree in order for the undergraduate degree to be “useful” in gaining employment. A BS in in Psychology is a prime example. I have two children who have been working for over a decade; one who makes $25,000 and one who makes $125,000.. Both have college educations. Both have added to their college’s graduation rate. I ask “Does their income suggest one is better prepared for life”? The sad fact of it is that most people who do not finish college or high school get the underpaying jobs, but even if you do finish there are no guarrantees. Graduation rates just give us trends to discuss larger issues than college athletics.
by Blueobsessed on Apr 11, 2010 6:42 AM EDT up reply actions
But here is the distinction.
It’s the full scholarship a kid gets. For me it’s not a matter if a kid should or should not go to school, or if one degree or school is better than another. It’s a school telling a John Wall-type, ‘Hey, I know full well you have no intention of staying four years and in fact, just want to stay one…but what the heck, come on in and oh, here’s a full scholarship as well’.
'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'
Why is that a problem?
I guess I don’t get that. If Wall had been injured severely (always possible), he most likely would have stayed in school for as long as his injury prevented him from going to the next level, right up to graduation.
I think your premise here assumes a number of things that don’t always work out to be true. A fairly good example is Randolph Morris, who unquestionably aspired to be (and was considered by some to be) a one or two and done. He graduated. Joe Crawford, same. That was not their intention when they came here, though — trust me.
So the best laid plans of mice and basketball players often go awry. Wall and Cousins are an exception. Orton and Bledsoe are exceptions also, the other way.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Glenn Logan on Apr 11, 2010 10:09 AM EDT up reply actions
There are always exceptions.
Whatever the case, you make rules based on the good of the majority. You make decisions on intent and likely outcome. Deciding to give a kid a scholarship because he may graduate 10 years later or he may get injured would be silly.
I just think I’d gag if I offered a scholly to someone I knew didn’t give a tinker’s damn about being a sophomore, much less graduating. And this just isn’t a UK thing, although Cal seems to make this a cornerstone of his personal coaching strategy at the risk of hurting UK’s reputation. Certainly one can argue this on a personal level but if you doubt this is happening all one has to do is read the above opinion or a wide variety of other articles or listen to others’ thoughts.
'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'
by HozeKing on Apr 11, 2010 11:26 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Realistically, Hoze ...
… do you really think any Division I players give a tinker’s damn about being a sophomore? Don’t you think that 99% of them would go to the NBA at the earliest possible opportunity?
The fact that 90% of them will never get that chance is the only reason being a sophomore even matters to them.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Glenn Logan on Apr 11, 2010 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions
No, for many if not most, of them. Yes.
I don’t blame the kids, I blame the universities for being enablers. For being hypocrits. For pretending it is something other than it is.,,and that is no more than a farm club for the NBA with these one and dones, especially.
Whatever. I don’t like the fact that there are starving children in Chad. Not much I can do about it but it doesn’t make the reality any less ugly.
'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'
I disagree.
There is nothing inherently wrong in what the NCAA or its member schools are doing in this case. The schools offer the athletes the opportunity for an education, just as they do for academic scholarships. All too often, this opportunity is not taken advantage of. That is up to the person receiving the scholarship, be it an athlete or not.
What is actually happening is that athletes choose to take advantage of the colleges. Coming to a school and knowing you don’t intend to pursue an academic career is a decision made by the individuals in question, not by the schools. True, the schools make this possible by offering a scholarship, but just a second of introspection would tell a recruit with no interest in school that he was a willing participant in dishonesty that is largely under his or her control.
A recruit could always say, “Thanks, coach, but no thanks. I really would just be using your school as a waypoint, I really have no interest in schoolwork. I want to be a professional basketball player, and for me to come to your school under false pretenses just doesn’t seem right to me.”
Colleges, rightly or wrongly, have taken the position that graduation is not the be-all and end-all in these cases. Is that good or bad? I’d say it is inconsistent with what their stated mission is, as I have said before. Is that hypocrisy? Perhaps, but if so, there are many willing participants including the NCAA and the players themselves.
Quite possibly, schools should be more honest about what they provide, which is merely the opportunity to obtain a degree as well as varying levels of post-secondary education. That can vary from one year to eight or ten for advanced degrees, but who would argue that no college is better than one year? Nobody, in their right mind. What we perhaps should do is quit stigmatizing people who do not graduates as “drop-outs” or somehow less worthy. Sure, flunking out is worthy of some derision, but dropping out to pursue other opportunities should carry no stigma as long as the student leaves in good standing.
College coaches who sign good players, like UK, Louisville, UNC, Duke, Indiana and others know perfectly well the odds are against these kids staying if they develop. But they also know that some college is better than none, and they are willing to sacrifice graduation on the altar of successful teams. But that is what they are paid to do — win games within the rules. Colleges must sort out the effect of that charge on the perception of their institution.
Calipari is taking it a step further, effectively making basketball part of the curriculum. I think that is far more honest than attempting to deceive everyone by saying it is all about a degree, like many coaches who recruit similar players do.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
Last thought. Good discussion.
1. A university could say, ‘…hey you have no interest in school. We’re going to give this scholly to someone else.’
2. Kids taking advantage? Absolutely. College’s taking advantage? For sure. They are using each other which to me makes it even more unseemly…to me.
3. I think Cal needs to deliver more than fair wins for the $4M. I think he needs to represent UK well & proper like all coaches. I just don’t think this type of recruitment elevates a school’s reputation. In fact I think it hurts it.
Go, Freddie.
'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'
by HozeKing on Apr 11, 2010 2:39 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Concur in part, dissent in part.
- - true, but I think it’s incumbent upon the person who really knows what they feel to make the right call, not for the school to assume it.
- — Symbiosis unseemly? Why? I don’t get that. Both are getting benefit.
- — Calipari has delivered everything UK needs. All of it. The reputation of Kentucky has not been harmed except to the extent that Calipari’s reputation is bad, but quite frankly, that’s completely undeserved, as I’ve argued before.
Among it’s most important audience, which are the people of the Commonwealth, Kentucky’s reputation and that of the basketball program have never been higher.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
Ugh.
Once again, accidental post button prior to preview.
The second 1 should be 2, and the third 1, 3.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
I'm sorry?
I guess I got you either all worked up or nervous with my intimidating, yet vastly intelligent thoughts. ;)
'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'
by HozeKing on Apr 11, 2010 6:34 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Funny...
How the CJ gets all concerned about this AFTER UK has 5 declare for the draft…..anyone who would turn down millions of dollars to stay in school and get a degree that MIGHT get them a job after graduation is a fool.
Lets get it on!!!!
http://uknow.uky.edu/node/7776
Despite staying at UK through his senior season, Derek Anderson didn’t graduate, but now after 11 years in the NBA, he’s come back to finish it.
This is a prime example of two things:
1. It’s not about how many years you stay. Patrick Patterson has provided us with another great example of this.
2. Just because a “student-athlete” doesn’t graduate right away doesn’t mean they won’t come back to finish. In a different discipline, Ashley Judd was an example of this, and I suspect that even after he’s picked first in the draft, we’ll see John Wall back on campus at some point.
Michael Jordan
Left UNC in 1984 after junior season for NBA but ultimately returned to earn his degree many years later.
If MJ can, everyone SHOULD graduate.
by FortyYearCatFan on Apr 11, 2010 9:12 AM EDT up reply actions
NCAA
the rule was established by the NBA (and David Stern) to assist the NCAA in keeping top-flight, pro-level players at least for one year to help their March Madness ratings (ala Carmelo, Durant et.al)…but what the rule also does (especially in the cases of DeMarcus Cousins and John Wall) is open the eyes of the prospective-pro-level player into perhaps continuing their education during or even after their playing days by giving them the opportunity…now…should the NBA and NCAA get together to increase the limit to two to three years??? possibly…and then kids like Brandon Jennings (who played in Italy for a year) would become the norm if kids were truly only interested in playing for pay right away…I think the system breeds the current climate, but to disallow entrance into any university (assuming that the student-athlete fulfills the entrance requirements of that institution) is ridiculous, regardless of how long the student stays in school…and seeing as how the system is set up for scholarships to be one year propositions, it seems like the universities already have that discretion…so why shouldn’t the student-athlete…
One and Done
I don’t like one and done at all. If players are going to stay just one year,I would rather they just be allowed to go from high school to the pros. That would end all of the discussion about one and doners. But while it’s here I can’t blame any coach for going after these talented players. All the fuss about UK’s Fab Freshman is because they all went to one program and now they are all leaving. If they all had went to different schools and all decided to leave,we wouldn’t be having this discussion. But,would they all have gone pro if they had gone elsewhere? Probably not. And that’s because Coach Cal elevated their game,especially Bledsoe and Orton. Neither of those players were in no way considered to be one and done players before the start of the season. It’s hard for any media outlet to give Coach Cal any credit but even more so if it comes out of Louisville. But I will also say that if Coach Cal wants to have success at UK he has to bring in players who will stay longer and I think he will. And although it makes me choke to say this,Duke won a national title doing it the right way. One and dones can bring instant success. We saw that this year and it was needed because of the situation that was here. But now it’s time to build a lasting success.
Just a question.
What’s the difference between a “one and done” and a “three and done” (excepting, of course, the rare case of players like Patrick Patterson who actually graduates in three years?
I agree with you, though, that players should be allowed to go straight to the NBA if they are ready out of high school.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Glenn Logan on Apr 11, 2010 10:00 AM EDT up reply actions
Just as answer.
For me the big difference with one and dones is they have no intent at all in going to college for education. Because of the rule,they must attend college for one year. Many don’t even finish that one year. Once the season is over,so are they. They are going through the motions of a “student athlete”. Players who stay longer than a year at least have to have their education priorities in order so they can play because if they don’t make the grades they don’t get to play. Not that they are all going to become doctors or lawyers and I’m sure that is reflected in their class load but at least for 2 or 3 years they have to go to class.
And what Patrick Patterson did was amazing and he should be commended. It’s a shame he didn’t get more PR this season for his class room accomplishments and not just his triumphs on the hardwood.
by maysvilleblue on Apr 11, 2010 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Just like Hoze above ...
… I will ask you the question:
How many college basketball players at any level would turn down the NBA for school. I’d post almost zero. None of them have any intention of ever becoming a sophomore if the NBA comes calling.
This argument is simply untenable. When financial riches come calling, nobody in their right mind turns it down for an education that would only earn them a fraction of what they could earn as an athlete. And every thinking person knows full well that an education can always be obtained later — athletics have a really small window, and every year you wait represents potentially millions of dollars lost.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Glenn Logan on Apr 11, 2010 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions
I guess that makes Patterson crazy then.
I thought he was right minded, in fact.
I really need to focus on this little golf tournament…later.
'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'
by HozeKing on Apr 11, 2010 2:50 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Not crazy.
I have explained that there are a small percentage of people who will do it, even if it doesn’t appear to be a decision with their best interests in mind.
Patterson is an adult. If he were to elect to return, he would be doing so in contravention of conventional wisdom. He risks injury, and significant money. But he does so as a person of age, and competent to make his own decisions about his life.
But some people are less motivated by money than others, and as the old saying goes, there are some things that money won’t buy. But if he elects to return, it won’t be for a degree – he already has that (or will have, come May).
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
What little golf tournament?
Happy Days are here again The sky is all ways BLUE again Happy days are here again !
I agree
Of course they are going to take the money and I don’t blame them. And the window of opportunity is small plus the chance of career ending injuries. That’s why I admire Patterson so much. I’m not sure what kind of degree he has but maybe he is thinking he has it as a backup. Maybe there is something he wants to do after his playing days are over. Or maybe he just wanted to prove to himself,his family and others that he could play basketball and get a degree in three years. We just saw last week a national title game with zero one and dones and probably zero leave early’s. Most will never see the NBA. As a UK fan I want to see the best talent available but as we saw the best talent doesn’t always win a championship. The best TEAM wins a championship
by maysvilleblue on Apr 12, 2010 9:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Don't forget
that Duke really wanted John Wall. They will take one and done players. Has anyone else noticed the strange look in the Duke players’ eyes? I think they are cranking them out of some secret lab on their campus.
I woke up feeling BLUE this morning. It's gonna be a great day.
My oldest son.....
had a scholarship to the University of Central Florida’s School of Engineering. He decided to join the Navy and through one of their programs he was able to attend UCF for a semester while also getting paid by the Navy. Should he have been denied entrance to UCF since he was an academic “one and done”?
Another good example.
You know, this “one and done” argument is not really logically sound. It is aimed primarily at Calipari, not at the players. This is all designed to make Calipari look bad, nothing more or nothing less. It is a completely faux debate, even if it does have praiseworthy sentiments to support it.
But you cannot separate the outcomes from the people involved.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Glenn Logan on Apr 11, 2010 10:13 AM EDT up reply actions
I think Tru is right about this debate being aimed at making Cal look bad
Here are my thoughts. Let’s say a freshman comes in on a full academic scholarship. Summer comes and he takes a part-time job with a Fortune 500 company. They like him so much they offer him mega millions to join their company, full time. Does he turn that down because he thinks he owes it to the college? I think not, and I also think that no one would even care.
Blue... there is no other color to Bleed !!!
Or in many other fields.....
Would a theater major say no to an acting contract? A music major say no to a chance to perform professionally? Or many others whose profession doesn’t require a college degree to work in that chosen profession.
You cant blame the school or the coach...
for recruiting one and dones. If you want to blame someone, blame the NBA. Its their rule.
No one is to blame.
“One and dones” would exist even without the NBA rule. Do you think Bledsoe would have declared for the draft out of high school? Orton? Nope.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Glenn Logan on Apr 11, 2010 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Nope they would not have declared out of High School.
But John Wall would have and the NBA has the rule. Consequently, the NBA is at fault if anybody is at fault. If people want this to stop then the NCAA would need to step up and say either declare out of high school or stay for 2-3 years.
That's true ...
… but my point remains, we would still have “one and dones” no matter what the NBA does. We might have fewer of them, but we would still have them.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
Yeah.
I would be an expert on that subject. :-)
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
"Some" college is better than "none", even if that some is only one year.
Nor do I accept the assumption that a student fails to benefit from a college education unless he takes a degree. You don’t have to stay the magic four years and take courses in the officially sanctioned tracks to benefit greatly from the experience and become a better informed citizen.
As a public institution, I think the university’s goal ought to be to produce “good men and good citizens”, and that goal is not magically achieved with the conferring of a degree. Giving students the tools they need to be successful and productive means different things with respect to different professions.
Those who are gifted enough as athlete to be productive in sports should not be treated as ugly step-children just because their career paths do not include a four year degree.
Athletics is an honorable and often lucrative part of our national economy just like film making and music. Our universities would be failing us if they did not acknowledge this fact and mold their instructional programs to accomodate students who are talented in this area and have the capability of achieving great success and productivity without having to spend four years in school.
Indeed.
In my opinion, this is exactly right.
I wonder why so many seem to regard athletic achievement in such a negative light, or as somehow inferior to academic achievement? Both are laudable. Both have commercial and intrinsic value. Wealthy sportsmen are often among the most generous givers of their time and treasure to the less fortunate and worthy causes.
Academics and the pursuit of letters is certainly praiseworthy, but I think elevating it to the level of diminishing every other viable human endeavor is not rational.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
Why worry about intentions.........
ask instead, “would this athlete be accepted to this university as a student based solely on academic credentials from high school”?
Another good point.
Concerning oneself with intentions, quite honestly, is a little too close to “though police” territory for me.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
"Implicit in this argument is that colleges should reject otherwise qualified athletes..."
I think you hit the nail on the head with that. And besides, if the purpose of college is to allow someone to better their life through education, then why is it bad for college sports to allow someone a way to better their life through the use of their athletic gifts? I know basketball (and even baseball) is a little different than football since there are other options like going straight into the NBA (or MLB) or playing overseas, but early entry into the NFL is encouraged by Saban if the kid is considered a first round prospect. Not to sound shallow, but get money get paid while you can, and considering the horrible reality that a lot of kids coming into these athletic programs come from rough backgrounds you can’t really blame them for using their god given talents to help themselves. Really, I just don’t see a real difference in what “one and done” or “three year” players are doing in school than other students: they are taking advantage of their abilities (be it brains or athleticism) to help better their lives.
Roll Bama Roll - The Champagne of Bama Blogs.
Great comment, Todd.
There is nothing shallow about taking care of your future when the opportunity presents itself. But many of the “pointy heads” don’t seem to get this, God love ‘em. Altruism is laudable and praiseworthy as long as it’s not imposed on others. When it is, it becomes shallow and meaningless.
It’s facile to reject materialistic tendencies, particularly in a society like ours where it is in your face all the time. But the judgment of what is better is not only totally subjective, it is mostly irrelevant. They both have their place, and it’s easy to argue that sacrificing professional sports riches on the altar of obtaining a degree that can be obtained at any time is a form of insanity. Just think of all the altruistic good you could do with millions of dollars, if that’s your main motivator.
In the end, the worst thing about the argumentation of the critics of “one and dones” is that it implies that pursuing professional sports is less honorable than pursuing a degree that may or may not have any value at all. Since when did professional sports become a bad thing?
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
[UPDATED 01/18/2012]
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
