Jeff82 said:

---

This is never going to happen, because the NCAA thinks it will kill off their tournament golden goose because of casual fans who only watch to see who the upcoming NBA stars are. I disagree, since most of the tournament interest is in the first two weeks when upsets can occur. I also don't care. College basketball should return to primarily being the province of the schools, the players, the non-playing students and the alumni. If casual fans have an interest, that's fine, but should not be the primary audience.

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

If the NCAA were serious it would be easy. You get to replenish your scholarships according to a simple formula: Number of graduates/% of overall undergraduate grad. rate as reported to the Department of Education. Of course that is about as likely as hell freezing over because what matters MOST to the NCAA is keeping the cash cow that is March madness going like mad. As long as TV ratings are going great they will do absolutely NOTHING and the University Presidents - a spineless lot of markedly lower abilities, will do NOTHING.

---

SCT:

The proposal to tie scholarships to grad rate has been around forever, but as you say there is slightly less than ZERO chance of it every happening for the reason you state.

---

OaktownBear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

If the NCAA were serious it would be easy. You get to replenish your scholarships according to a simple formula: Number of graduates/% of overall undergraduate grad. rate as reported to the Department of Education. Of course that is about as likely as hell freezing over because what matters MOST to the NCAA is keeping the cash cow that is March madness going like mad. As long as TV ratings are going great they will do absolutely NOTHING and the University Presidents - a spineless lot of markedly lower abilities, will do NOTHING.

---

SCT:

The proposal to tie scholarships to grad rate has been around forever, but as you say there is slightly less than ZERO chance of it every happening for the reason you state.

---

I'm sorry but it is a naive proposal that would only serve to give a bigger advantage to the cheaters. The schools are in total control of who graduates. If anyone doesn't believe Alabama will achieve 100% grad rates every year starting the year that rule goes into place, including NFL and NBA players somehow completing their degrees online, they are kidding themselves. The only schools that would be impacted are those with a modicum of academic integrity.

---

Jeff82 said:

---

parentswerebears said:

---

The NBA just needs to get rid of the one and done rule. Simple. Then basketball needs to go with the baseball system or something similar. You either go to college or you don't.

I hate the idea of making basketball a minor league thing. That would defeat a lot of the purpose for me. For me, the tradition is a big part of it. If the sport is merely "affiliated' with the university, then it changes everything.

---

That's my view also. It doesn't make sense to me that the solution to the current environment of secret mercenaries is to have open mercenaries. I agree the stipend should be enough to allow college athletes, if they're from poor families, to have a similar experience to other students. But paying them based on market value is just going to remove any incentive to go to class, and will probably make the playing field among schools in basketball even less level that it is now.

My solution would be draconian enforcement of scholarship rules, so that if a school recruits a kid, and the kid leaves early, the school loses access to that scholarship until the four-year eligibility period is over. That eliminates the incentive to recruit kids who aren't interested in a college education. Those kids should go to the NBA, the D League or oversees, as they are able.

This is never going to happen, because the NCAA thinks it will kill off their tournament golden goose because of casual fans who only watch to see who the upcoming NBA stars are. I disagree, since most of the tournament interest is in the first two weeks when upsets can occur. I also don't care. College basketball should return to primarily being the province of the schools, the players, the non-playing students and the alumni. If casual fans have an interest, that's fine, but should not be the primary audience.

---

Quote:

---

I disagree, since most of the tournament interest is in the first two weeks when upsets can occur.

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

If the NCAA were serious it would be easy. You get to replenish your scholarships according to a simple formula: Number of graduates/% of overall undergraduate grad. rate as reported to the Department of Education. Of course that is about as likely as hell freezing over because what matters MOST to the NCAA is keeping the cash cow that is March madness going like mad. As long as TV ratings are going great they will do absolutely NOTHING and the University Presidents - a spineless lot of markedly lower abilities, will do NOTHING.

---

SCT:

The proposal to tie scholarships to grad rate has been around forever, but as you say there is slightly less than ZERO chance of it every happening for the reason you state.

---

I'm sorry but it is a naive proposal that would only serve to give a bigger advantage to the cheaters. The schools are in total control of who graduates. If anyone doesn't believe Alabama will achieve 100% grad rates every year starting the year that rule goes into place, including NFL and NBA players somehow completing their degrees online, they are kidding themselves. The only schools that would be impacted are those with a modicum of academic integrity.

---

You can adjust the rule so that only in residence graduation counts. The point is to discourage the 1 and done and 2 and dones.

---

BearSD said:

---

Quote:

---

I disagree, since most of the tournament interest is in the first two weeks when upsets can occur.

---

No, the March Madness ratings are higher in the later rounds. The national championship game last year had twice as many viewers as were watching all four games combined in any of the first-round time slots, even the ones in prime time. Scroll through the numbers compiled at http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/category/college-basketball-m/

---

Jeff82 said:

---

parentswerebears said:

---

The NBA just needs to get rid of the one and done rule. Simple. Then basketball needs to go with the baseball system or something similar. You either go to college or you don't.

I hate the idea of making basketball a minor league thing. That would defeat a lot of the purpose for me. For me, the tradition is a big part of it. If the sport is merely "affiliated' with the university, then it changes everything.

---

That's my view also. It doesn't make sense to me that the solution to the current environment of secret mercenaries is to have open mercenaries. I agree the stipend should be enough to allow college athletes, if they're from poor families, to have a similar experience to other students. But paying them based on market value is just going to remove any incentive to go to class, and will probably make the playing field among schools in basketball even less level that it is now.

My solution would be draconian enforcement of scholarship rules, so that if a school recruits a kid, and the kid leaves early, the school loses access to that scholarship until the four-year eligibility period is over. That eliminates the incentive to recruit kids who aren't interested in a college education. Those kids should go to the NBA, the D League or oversees, as they are able.

This is never going to happen, because the NCAA thinks it will kill off their tournament golden goose because of casual fans who only watch to see who the upcoming NBA stars are. I disagree, since most of the tournament interest is in the first two weeks when upsets can occur. I also don't care. College basketball should return to primarily being the province of the schools, the players, the non-playing students and the alumni. If casual fans have an interest, that's fine, but should not be the primary audience.

---

HearstMining said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

If the NCAA were serious it would be easy. You get to replenish your scholarships according to a simple formula: Number of graduates/% of overall undergraduate grad. rate as reported to the Department of Education. Of course that is about as likely as hell freezing over because what matters MOST to the NCAA is keeping the cash cow that is March madness going like mad. As long as TV ratings are going great they will do absolutely NOTHING and the University Presidents - a spineless lot of markedly lower abilities, will do NOTHING.

---

SCT:

The proposal to tie scholarships to grad rate has been around forever, but as you say there is slightly less than ZERO chance of it every happening for the reason you state.

---

I'm sorry but it is a naive proposal that would only serve to give a bigger advantage to the cheaters. The schools are in total control of who graduates. If anyone doesn't believe Alabama will achieve 100% grad rates every year starting the year that rule goes into place, including NFL and NBA players somehow completing their degrees online, they are kidding themselves. The only schools that would be impacted are those with a modicum of academic integrity.

---

You can adjust the rule so that only in residence graduation counts. The point is to discourage the 1 and done and 2 and dones.

---

I'm not a fan of 1 and dones. But basing it on grad rates will just promote the creation of sham majors that keep these guys/gals (well, virtually all guys - other than Missy, who can name another n<4 and done female athlete? And I'm not gonna dump on her!) in the program. I was at the U of Michigan 1978-1980 and there were a suspiciously large number of football players who were education majors. Not saying it was a sham, but I had a friend who was an Ed major and she did call the program "a joke". Stanfurd has the most creative approach: just let students create their own majors so there is never a pattern.

---

TheSouseFamily said:

---

Wilner has a take on Sean Miller's situation. Says they should part ways even if the ESPN is not true. Can't say I agree with him. If Zona was comfortable enough when the Book Richardson stuff came out (not to mention his reputation in the sport to begin with), I can't see why they wouldn't be comfortable with him now (asssuming ESPN is wrong).

---