Thursday, July 06, 2006
WHY THE PATRIOT LEAGUE MUST EXIST SLASH THE SOLUTION TO THE NCAAS BS THAT NO ONE WILL TAKE SERIOUSLY BUT WHICH ULTIMATELY MUST COME TO PASS
From Thursday's Washington Post:Recruits From Dubious Prep Schools Allowed To Play Next Season
Quote:
"Yesterday's announcement was a major victory for Lutheran Christian Academy in Philadelphia. The Post reported in February that Lutheran Christian, which sent players to Georgetown and George Washington, was operated out of a community center, has no textbooks and has only one full-time employee, basketball coach Darryl Schofield, a former sanitation worker with no college degree."
Look, as far as the Joe Knight thing sucked and made Lehigh look like scumbags, it was worlds upon worlds away from the kind of thing that is going on in any major basketball program, and most mid-major basketball programs. It is no longer a stretch to say that more than half of college basketball programs are little less than minor league programs for professional basketball. And that's not just major conference programs, either.
Who's to blame? Not the coaches who get the best players they can at a minimum of academic needs. They're just trying to do their job as best they can within the rules. When the NCAA rules get broken, then you can get mad at the coaches who break them. But coaches are recruiting under the type of NCAA rules like those above, where there is no such thing as academic standards.
The only group that is at fault is the NCAA leadership that has traded in academic excellence for better ratings during March Madness.
And money (via ratings) is what this is all about anyway. NCAA tournament ratings haven't been great in the last few years, with last year's finals rating the second worst of all time compared to 2004's UConn-GTech matchup. Much of that can be attributed justly to matchups that not many people were interested in (GMU, pulling 3-4k mid season last year to home games, didn't exactly have a built in fanbase). But part of the equation is that NCAA teams nowadays are less talented on average than NCAA teams in the past.
Part of the reason for their deficiency is a thinning of the talent pool. Division I basketball has been slowly expanding for over a decade, with the numbers somewhere in the 330s at this point. When Longwood University starts to offer scholarships, you know that the available talent out there are not going to be Blue Chip prospects.
As the number of teams that offer scholarships continues to expand (and have no doubt, the fact that 7 or 8 [help here on the exact numbers is appreciated] Patriot League teams have converted to scholarships in the last half-decade is a real influence here), the number of 18 year olds who can 1. Play basketball at a D-I level and can also 2. Compose a complete sentence to the extent that they are academically qualified for such fine institutions as IUPUI becomes fairly shallow.
As the talent pool at the bottoms starts to barrel out, the talent pool at the top starts to suffer as well. Think of it as reverse Reaganomics: this is trickle-down suck. As the poor get poorer, so they suck down the talent at the top.
Sure, early exits to the NBA play a very major role as well. But there is a problem in that there are too damn many NCAA teams, and it's creating a dearth of talent. That leaves the NCAA with two options: either watch the level of play steadily decrease as the talent gets spread thinner every year, or increase the talent pool by allowing anyone to play college hoops, regardless of whether they can spell their name.
I AIN'T GONNA WORK ON MILES BRAND'S FARM NO MORE
You know who really wins out on this decision? The NBA and, to a lesser extent, the European leagues. Instead of having to take chances on 18 year old kids who may or may not pan out (see much of the MLB draft), they get to have colleges develop talent for them, and then evaluate players 3-4 years later, at no cost to them. Meanwhile, by creating low academic standards, the NCAA does a disservice to the 18 year old basketball phenom who is interested in basketball and not books. If there were higher standards, then these players would be shut out of the college system, making it neccessary for the pro leagues to step in and pay the kid to play if they think he has any talent. Instead, under the current system the kid is essentially an apprentice for a few years, stuck having to prove himself at the college level before he sees dime one for his talent. If he doesn't pan out, sure, he might end up with a college degree. But more and more often, the kids that go to the Cincinnatis and Farleigh Dickinsons of the world end up dropping out instead.
The lack of academic standards eventually sets these kids up for disaster at the college level: regardless of whether or not they are smart enough for college, they often just do not have the background academically to take college-level classes. You can't jump into microeconomics if you haven't taken social studies for the past 12 years in grade and high school. So, unsurprisingly, they often struggle, despite whatever tutors or other support systems the schools try to implement.
And let's not fool ourselves about who the people getting screwed here are: it's mostly black kids. From the Lapchick study of 2005's tourney teams:
"More than two out of five (25, or 42 percent) of the men’s tournament teams graduated 60 percent or more of their white basketball student-athletes, while fewer than one in five schools (12, or 19 percent) graduated 60 percent or more of their African-American basketball student athletes...Less than three in 10 (17, or 28 percent) of the men’s tournament teams graduated 70 percent or more of their white basketball student-athletes, while only 10 (16 percent) graduated 70 percent or more of their African-American basketball student-athletes."
And that's not all: "Lapchick continued, “Among all college sports, men’s basketball has the worst track record for graduation rates. When we look at all 328 Division I teams, 45 did not graduate a single African-American basketball student-athlete in six years. This is in a sport in which 58 percent of Division I male basketball student-athletes are African-American."
Now there are a million things to talk about when it comes to that study, (for instance, whether college basketball is taking more from black athletes than it is giving, and whether anyone in charge at the collegiate level gives a shit) all of which I would like to address in the future, but for now let's just focus on the fact that lowered academic entrance standards are unlikely to improve the graduation rates of college basketball players, which is particularly harmful for young black men. I find that bothersome, but you can be your own judge here. The point is, college athletics is hurting kids where it ought to be helping them.
HERE'S WHERE YOU START TO DISAGREE WITH ME
So what is the NCAA committee to do about academic concerns brought on by an increase in demand for basketball players where supply stays constant? They can't simply continue to allow every school in the country to sponsor D-I basketball while continuing to lower standards. There is a reason D-II and D-III exist-- to keep kids that are out of their league away from kids that are a level above them. At some point, you reach a critical mass where there are too many teams in D-I and you need to get rid of some programs. We have reached that point.
My solution? Let me offer you this thought: college basketball academic standards have become a joke, thus we need something that sounds like a joke to fix them.
The NCAA should eliminate one team from division I basketball every year, via a "loser leaves town" NCAA tournament. Every year, the 8 teams ranked lowest in RPI should all get together for a seeded tournament in which the loser gets dropped to D-II. Last year, this would have included North Florida, The Citadel, Jacksonville, UMaryland-ES, Army, Prairie View A+M, Morgan State, and Savannah State. Every team would play until it won, with the first team to lose 3 in a row eliminated from D-I for the next 10 years.
Imagine the drama that would be involved. If the NCAA really wants to make money, they would put this event together in a heartbeat. While no one wanted to see who would come in 2nd between Florida and LSU, everyone would want to see kids fighting for their programs continued existence, moreover for their scholarships to continue to exist. This is survivor meets Knight School meets the Super Bowl. Jim Boeheim and a number of other coaches want to expand the NCAA tourney, so why not this way?
Think about it Miles. And save me the "serving the student-athlete" crap. Ultimately, no student is served by being given the lesson that failure is without consequences. Let's get this thing rolling. Call my agent.
As the number of NCAA teams drops, so will the demand for talent, therefore allowing the NCAA to increase academic standards, as they are no longer desperate for any warm body that can shoot a 12 foot jumper.
Or, alternatively, you could just have a little integrity and force schools to actually have student-athletes who know how to do their times tables (or at the very least, how to operate a calculator). But that would hurt the product. Which would lose colleges money. Which is what this is all about. @ 2:38 AM
From Thursday's Washington Post:Recruits From Dubious Prep Schools Allowed To Play Next Season
Quote:
"Yesterday's announcement was a major victory for Lutheran Christian Academy in Philadelphia. The Post reported in February that Lutheran Christian, which sent players to Georgetown and George Washington, was operated out of a community center, has no textbooks and has only one full-time employee, basketball coach Darryl Schofield, a former sanitation worker with no college degree."
Look, as far as the Joe Knight thing sucked and made Lehigh look like scumbags, it was worlds upon worlds away from the kind of thing that is going on in any major basketball program, and most mid-major basketball programs. It is no longer a stretch to say that more than half of college basketball programs are little less than minor league programs for professional basketball. And that's not just major conference programs, either.
Who's to blame? Not the coaches who get the best players they can at a minimum of academic needs. They're just trying to do their job as best they can within the rules. When the NCAA rules get broken, then you can get mad at the coaches who break them. But coaches are recruiting under the type of NCAA rules like those above, where there is no such thing as academic standards.
The only group that is at fault is the NCAA leadership that has traded in academic excellence for better ratings during March Madness.
And money (via ratings) is what this is all about anyway. NCAA tournament ratings haven't been great in the last few years, with last year's finals rating the second worst of all time compared to 2004's UConn-GTech matchup. Much of that can be attributed justly to matchups that not many people were interested in (GMU, pulling 3-4k mid season last year to home games, didn't exactly have a built in fanbase). But part of the equation is that NCAA teams nowadays are less talented on average than NCAA teams in the past.
Part of the reason for their deficiency is a thinning of the talent pool. Division I basketball has been slowly expanding for over a decade, with the numbers somewhere in the 330s at this point. When Longwood University starts to offer scholarships, you know that the available talent out there are not going to be Blue Chip prospects.
As the number of teams that offer scholarships continues to expand (and have no doubt, the fact that 7 or 8 [help here on the exact numbers is appreciated] Patriot League teams have converted to scholarships in the last half-decade is a real influence here), the number of 18 year olds who can 1. Play basketball at a D-I level and can also 2. Compose a complete sentence to the extent that they are academically qualified for such fine institutions as IUPUI becomes fairly shallow.
As the talent pool at the bottoms starts to barrel out, the talent pool at the top starts to suffer as well. Think of it as reverse Reaganomics: this is trickle-down suck. As the poor get poorer, so they suck down the talent at the top.
Sure, early exits to the NBA play a very major role as well. But there is a problem in that there are too damn many NCAA teams, and it's creating a dearth of talent. That leaves the NCAA with two options: either watch the level of play steadily decrease as the talent gets spread thinner every year, or increase the talent pool by allowing anyone to play college hoops, regardless of whether they can spell their name.
I AIN'T GONNA WORK ON MILES BRAND'S FARM NO MORE
You know who really wins out on this decision? The NBA and, to a lesser extent, the European leagues. Instead of having to take chances on 18 year old kids who may or may not pan out (see much of the MLB draft), they get to have colleges develop talent for them, and then evaluate players 3-4 years later, at no cost to them. Meanwhile, by creating low academic standards, the NCAA does a disservice to the 18 year old basketball phenom who is interested in basketball and not books. If there were higher standards, then these players would be shut out of the college system, making it neccessary for the pro leagues to step in and pay the kid to play if they think he has any talent. Instead, under the current system the kid is essentially an apprentice for a few years, stuck having to prove himself at the college level before he sees dime one for his talent. If he doesn't pan out, sure, he might end up with a college degree. But more and more often, the kids that go to the Cincinnatis and Farleigh Dickinsons of the world end up dropping out instead.
The lack of academic standards eventually sets these kids up for disaster at the college level: regardless of whether or not they are smart enough for college, they often just do not have the background academically to take college-level classes. You can't jump into microeconomics if you haven't taken social studies for the past 12 years in grade and high school. So, unsurprisingly, they often struggle, despite whatever tutors or other support systems the schools try to implement.
And let's not fool ourselves about who the people getting screwed here are: it's mostly black kids. From the Lapchick study of 2005's tourney teams:
"More than two out of five (25, or 42 percent) of the men’s tournament teams graduated 60 percent or more of their white basketball student-athletes, while fewer than one in five schools (12, or 19 percent) graduated 60 percent or more of their African-American basketball student athletes...Less than three in 10 (17, or 28 percent) of the men’s tournament teams graduated 70 percent or more of their white basketball student-athletes, while only 10 (16 percent) graduated 70 percent or more of their African-American basketball student-athletes."
And that's not all: "Lapchick continued, “Among all college sports, men’s basketball has the worst track record for graduation rates. When we look at all 328 Division I teams, 45 did not graduate a single African-American basketball student-athlete in six years. This is in a sport in which 58 percent of Division I male basketball student-athletes are African-American."
Now there are a million things to talk about when it comes to that study, (for instance, whether college basketball is taking more from black athletes than it is giving, and whether anyone in charge at the collegiate level gives a shit) all of which I would like to address in the future, but for now let's just focus on the fact that lowered academic entrance standards are unlikely to improve the graduation rates of college basketball players, which is particularly harmful for young black men. I find that bothersome, but you can be your own judge here. The point is, college athletics is hurting kids where it ought to be helping them.
HERE'S WHERE YOU START TO DISAGREE WITH ME
So what is the NCAA committee to do about academic concerns brought on by an increase in demand for basketball players where supply stays constant? They can't simply continue to allow every school in the country to sponsor D-I basketball while continuing to lower standards. There is a reason D-II and D-III exist-- to keep kids that are out of their league away from kids that are a level above them. At some point, you reach a critical mass where there are too many teams in D-I and you need to get rid of some programs. We have reached that point.My solution? Let me offer you this thought: college basketball academic standards have become a joke, thus we need something that sounds like a joke to fix them.
The NCAA should eliminate one team from division I basketball every year, via a "loser leaves town" NCAA tournament. Every year, the 8 teams ranked lowest in RPI should all get together for a seeded tournament in which the loser gets dropped to D-II. Last year, this would have included North Florida, The Citadel, Jacksonville, UMaryland-ES, Army, Prairie View A+M, Morgan State, and Savannah State. Every team would play until it won, with the first team to lose 3 in a row eliminated from D-I for the next 10 years.
Imagine the drama that would be involved. If the NCAA really wants to make money, they would put this event together in a heartbeat. While no one wanted to see who would come in 2nd between Florida and LSU, everyone would want to see kids fighting for their programs continued existence, moreover for their scholarships to continue to exist. This is survivor meets Knight School meets the Super Bowl. Jim Boeheim and a number of other coaches want to expand the NCAA tourney, so why not this way?
Think about it Miles. And save me the "serving the student-athlete" crap. Ultimately, no student is served by being given the lesson that failure is without consequences. Let's get this thing rolling. Call my agent.
As the number of NCAA teams drops, so will the demand for talent, therefore allowing the NCAA to increase academic standards, as they are no longer desperate for any warm body that can shoot a 12 foot jumper.
Or, alternatively, you could just have a little integrity and force schools to actually have student-athletes who know how to do their times tables (or at the very least, how to operate a calculator). But that would hurt the product. Which would lose colleges money. Which is what this is all about. @ 2:38 AM
