You know, I wondered afterwards if I’d missed something in that post. My mistake.
Hasheem Thabeet, #2 pick in 2009, sent to the D-league in Feb. 2010.
His case illustrates another area where the NBA would benefit from controlling their own feeder league: uniformity of rules. In college, lumbering big men like Thabeet can just plant themselves in the lane and protect the rim; there’s no defensive three seconds rule, and few jump-shooting centers who can pull them away from the rim. A longer shot clock gives them more time to rumble upcourt and start an offensive set, where they contend with a restricted area that’s only 12 feet wide, as opposed to the NBA’s 16 foot lane. It’s a different game, which makes the NBA talent scout’s job a lot harder: both Thabeet and Anthony Davis were elite shot-blocking college centers who averaged a 14-10, but the college rules hid the flaws Thabeet possessed, and Davis didn’t.
The original point, I think, was that the D League doesn’t function as a feeder system for the NBA despite the NBA financing it, and that’s not accurate at all. The superstars aren’t the important population, as has been brought up with respect to the college athletes a number of times; it’s the fringe guys.
The D League is actually really fertile ground for those – randomly picking a good NBA team, the Pacers, CJ Watson and Ian Mahinmi are contributors, and there are five or six other guys who are in and out of the rotation who were also D League players. That’s pretty much the whole team other than the famous names. I haven’t done a comprehensive survey, but as a Sixers fan I have good reason to believe the worse a team is, the more likely its players are to have spent significant time in the D League, since off the top of my head I can think of I think seven guys who they signed directly from D League teams this year. The average NBA fan has at least heard of more than a handful of D League guys, and the average NBA fan in any given city knows who the Rafer Alstons, JJ Bareas, Danny Greens, and Birdmans are.
As of right now, 143 of the ~450 NBA players have D-league experience.
John Infante of The Sporting News wrote a recent column detailing his solution for colleges winning on the unionization front – simply dial back their controls and time required of the athletes. Stick to the 20 hour limitation and stop telling players where they can live, what time they can go to bed, where they can eat, who they can associate with, etc. In other words, treat them like students engaged in an activity instead of unpaid employees. That doesn’t cost anything.
If that’s not “realistic” for schools, then they deserve to reap the consequences.
I’m not sure that would be realistic. Consider this: no one cares how much time the guy who signed up to play badminton spends in the weight room or practicing his serve. He’s free to devote every waking moment to improving his badminton skills in any way he wants. And he can do so only because no one really gives a shit about badminton.
Schools would have to actively prevent basketball and football players from “volunteering” to practice “on their own time” (wink wink nudge nudge) in order for the highly competitive environs of each sport to remain such, lest some teams gain an advantage by having players who are, ahem, more prone to simply want to play, on their own with no encouragement from the program, coaches or boosters at all no sir all the livelong day.
And let’s face it, that would be stupid as hell. I know I personally think a lot of shitty things about people in general sometimes, but I don’t think we as a society are quite that stupid (yet?).
So the latest article I noticed about this:
“NCAA president Mark Emmert said Sunday the unionization of college athletes would be a “grossly inappropriate” solution to the problems facing amateur athletics and could produce dire consequences.”
So naturally the question arises as to how much a financial sacrifice this poor guy is making because he believes in amateur athletics?
His salary is a mere $1.7 million dollars a year:
Don’t forget that “amateur athletics” includes NCAA Divisions 2 and 3 (and note that the latter does not have any athletic scholarships), not to mention all of the Division 1 sports besides men’s basketball and FBS football (and “FBS football” can probably be reduced further to the top 5 or 6 conferences).
Pretty much everyone makes it sound like only FBS Football and Division 1 men’s basketball players could unionize. What stops any other team (e.g. Connecticut women’s basketball; LSU baseball) from doing the same thing?
For that matter, what good would a union do? If players go on strike, why would the school handle it any differently than if the players walked out now? Unions work only if there’s solidarity - and remember that public school athletes still can’t unionize.
My idea for solving the “big money college sports” problem: break all links between the teams and the schools, except that the school rents out its stadium to the local team. You don’t even have to require that the athletes attend the school in question (and I still wonder how many one-and-dones attend classes in their one Spring semester). Since the schools aren’t involved, they don’t have to worry about the Title IX implications of paying just the men. (Remember that excuses like “We only pay the men because only the men’s teams make money” are the primary reason Title IX exists and is enforced.)
Because colleges can very easily drop money losing sports (although because of Title IX they might have to drop both a male and a female sport), the only sports unionization might affect are men’s football and basketball.
Outside of the health coverage issue, the main goal of unionization is to procure a determination of what the scholarship athlete really is. Is he employee or is he student? If he’s an employee, he is due certain compensation and treatment. If he’s not an employee, then by process of elimination he must be a student and entitled to all the rights that every other student has, namely strict limits on the control his “activity” exerts over him and the right to procure whatever privately obtained income he can.
Right now the schools are treating them like employees and conspiring to fix their compensation at a scholarship. That’s a situation that must not be allowed to continue.
Northwestern appeals union ruling
The NCAA Invented The Term Student-Athlete To Get Out Of Paying Worker’s Comp
Interesting that as this thread developed, the NCAA Men’s Tournament boiled down to a championship game between a team of seven “1 and done” freshman vs. a team banned last year for poor graduation results (8% of UConn men’s bball players graduated, leading to the ban.)
Yes, that was a very representative group of “student athletes” out there on the court in the finals. Playing before 85,000 fans, btw. I did, however, enjoy young Mr. Napier snarling defiance at the NCAA during the postgame activities. Sort of “Ban us? Ban YOU, motherfuckers.”
I really loved this article. It illustrates pretty well the denial and mental gymnastics that people will go to in order to try and keep the status quo which works so well for them:
Does it really matter if they are “primarily students, and not employees”? A person taking 20 hours of classes and working a part time job is “primarily a student” but is also an employee. It really doesn’t matter what a person is “primarily”, it matters what a person is “actually”. And it’s pretty clear that these people fit the definition of employee.
Yes, because that is what always happen when you tell the truth and obey the law: chaos. /rolleyes
See? It’s really just that it would be so unfair to the players at state schools who aren’t covered by this ruling… they can’t organize, so no one should.
Those implications are not anything that the NLRB can or should consider. Those situations arise as a direct result of a decades long codified conspiracy to use young people’s labor and skills to create and sustain an industry which describes itself with lies. The NLRB isn’t responsible for any tax hardships just because it finally called “bullshit” on some lies.
Wow, it didn’t long for someone to invoke the whole “volunteering their time” thing I mentioned last post, did it?
What a stunning and apropos observation!
Not at all. I merely put it in so that later readers of the thread can chuckle at the people who subsequently argue the “student athlete” ideal.
They can talk intentions all they want, but the fact remains, for the big money games, the kids who go to UK or UConn for basketball are not interested (or even capable) of achieving a college degree. They are not, by any but the most vague definition of the term, “students.”
Oh yes, I get that. I just shared your status during a debate I was having with some pals.
Perhaps not ironically, Northwestern is likely one of the schools that is truly student first, athlete second. Like Stanford, Duke, Vanderbilt, Rice, and Nebraska.
In other news, the NCAA signed a $10.8 Billion contract with CBS and Turner Sports to broadcast its men’s basketball tournamet. A 14 year contract, but still … big money.
But the poor darlings got NO money to pay “student athletes.”
The transparent greed of the NCAA and the big colleges is kind of sickening, as is the sheer gullibility of their supporters.
Why should coaches be paid at all? Why not compensate them as Residence Assistants by giving them a dorm room and cafeteria meal tickets?
Much less being the highest paid government employee in some states.