Major NCAA Hoops Announcement Tomorrow?

Alums NCS Basketball87

I could see the early entry rule changed from one year to two years, but the NBA Player’s Association would have to sign off on that change first:

1:55 p.m. — A press release was just passed out. There’s a press conference at 1 p.m. on Monday here in San Antonio. It’s set up for “NCAA president Myles Brand and NBA commissioner David Stern to make a major announcement.”

About StateFans

'StateFansNation' is the shared profile used by any/all of the dozen or so authors that contribute to the blog. You may not always agree with us, but you will have little doubt about where we stand on most issues. Please follow us on Twitter and FaceBook

Alums NCS Basketball

87 Responses to Major NCAA Hoops Announcement Tomorrow?

  1. redfred2 04/06/2008 at 8:14 PM #

    From ^wxwolf’s article, and we knew this already, but it doesn’t look any better in print:

    “Two freshman, Indiana’s Eric Gordon and N.C. State’s J.J. Hickson have already decided to enter the draft. Kansas State’s Michael Beasley is expected to join them.”

    But to me, this next statement is even much more disturbing:

    “The NBA adopted a 19-year-old age limit in its collective bargaining agreement with the players’ association in 2006, which prevented high school players from jumping directly to the NBA.”

    Is that the patients running the asylum, or what?

  2. turfpack 04/06/2008 at 8:17 PM #

    Got the black edit bar too-Thanks SFN great edtion to the site- helps with typos and correcting long heated rants.

  3. redfred2 04/06/2008 at 8:21 PM #

    I hate the black bar! Now I don’t have any excuses for bad spelling, run on sentences, and now I feel I have to proof read my own crap. That is cruel and unusual punishment.

  4. turfpack 04/06/2008 at 8:32 PM #

    redfred2-Nothing surprises me about the NBA anymore-its all about the money,players and who controls it.
    Also-you my be right about the black bar -I have nothing to hide behind for my bad typing skills.

  5. StateFans 04/06/2008 at 8:37 PM #

    I don’t think that expanding the NCAA Tournament would hurt the Tournament. I think that it would ruin the regular season and significantly impact interest in the game.

  6. redfred2 04/06/2008 at 8:44 PM #

    Statefans, that’s the point, it’s easy enough now and what’s the use of even having a regular season if almost everyone gets in? The tournament would be all that matters.

    “clean up the NBA game some and force everyone back into the student-athlete mentality.”

    That would be just too good to be true there Highstick, but it’s really a pipe dream if we’re honest about it. We’ve both been around the game longer in comparison to most folks on here, but even I can’t remember too many players that were disqualified for academic reasons even way back when. Not anything like you’d think it would be if it were really on the up and up. That’s not just BB though.

    Can a kid play AAU basketball for two years after high school? If so, that needs to be changed so that there is no way to compete with that kind talent or in any kind of college or NBA-like setting.

  7. redfred2 04/06/2008 at 8:52 PM #

    ^I typed that last paragraph meaning that if the ultimate goal is to actually focus these kids back on school work and academics, not to punish them if the goal is to just clean up the NBA for Commissioner David Stern.

  8. highstick 04/06/2008 at 9:03 PM #

    I know, Fred, but I can dream with my “pipe”. I think your last post is really what I’d like to see happen, i.e. “focus these kids back on school work and academics” without punishment”, just preparation for life after BBall.

    I can’t help but believe some of the APR(is that the right term?) is going to come back and bite a bunch of college programs with the way things are structured right now. The diploma mills will continue to operate, but if you’ve got a third of your team leaving every year or so, that’s got to impact.

    Gosh, if we expand it to 96, does that mean that the Stanley Cup will now be in August??

  9. wolfman 04/06/2008 at 9:07 PM #

    If either were truly forced to clean up, both would be out of business. But they could start, and improve the quality of both, by forcing players to be older to enter the NBA, and require those that do leave to pro ball without graduating to pay back their scholarship money. After all, if they get a big contract it would just be a drop in the bucket, it would also force the Josh Powells of the world to think twice, and perhaps improve graduation rates and the academic progress rate that they’re using to grade institutions.

  10. Texpack 04/06/2008 at 9:51 PM #

    A two year rule would be a step in the right direction. Speaking of entering the NBA too soon Josh Powell is having a nice first half against the Rockets tonight. 10-12 points. The Clippers are getting shelled however.

  11. Noah 04/06/2008 at 10:15 PM #

    I’d be fine with a rule that said that anyone could go pro out of high school. I see no reason why Lebron James or Kobe Bryant or OJ Mayo should not be allowed to make a living playing basketball right away.

    But…if you enter school, there ought to be some minimum amount of time you have to stay. Three years works best for both players and scouts. It gives everyone a nice long look at who really is NBA material and who isn’t. If you know you’re stuck in school for three years, I would imagine that a lot of kids would probably work a little harder at school.

    I keep thinking of that doofus with Louisville that declared last week. Guy averaged 10 points and about four rebounds a game and he’s going pro.

    IF that guy gets drafted, doesn’t that speak really badly of the NBA?

  12. Wulfpack 04/07/2008 at 6:22 AM #

    “Again, the idea is making the round of 64 truly represent the best 64 teams in the country instead of the top 52 and 12 teams who have no business being in the tournament.”

    I completely agree with this and I think the selection committee would love to see expansion so they don’t continue to look like fools. If this championship truly is about the best teams, well put the 64 best in there for crying out loud.

    But I totally understand why you have to give the little guy an automatic bid, and that’s part of why this tournament is the best thing going in sports today. I guess I’d vote to leave it alone, as it isn’t “broke”, it’s just a little misrepresentative of what it intends to be.

    I can’t speak for the way things were back in the old days, but I have heard coaches in this era say ad nauseum that the competition is much better than it was — that we are getting much closer to parity. Interesting enough, I think the NBA debate fits right in with this notion. The big schools are securing the best talent, only to be left empty handed a year later. The little schools are keeping their kids four years and developing sound programs.

  13. haze 04/07/2008 at 6:46 AM #

    With respect to expanding the tourney, there’s the great line from The Incredibles… “When everyone is super, no one will be.”

    64 is watered down enough. For the most part, you still have to be a pretty good club to get in with an at large bid. Too many mid-majors? Need more BCS teams? Please. How about we need BCS teams to have meaningful goal, not some pre-punched ticket that obliterates both the reg season & conf tourney’s. Why play at all before March?

    Lastly, this Mike & Mike business about excluding tourney champs to favor reg season champs in small conferences is equally stupid. First, their tourneys are great (REALLY pure excitement) and it’s the only time any of them get on TV. Favor the reg season champ and you kill their tourney. Second, none of these conferences is likely to produce a champ anyhow and, if they do make a great showing (e.g. Davidson, G. Mason), the team that does the work is always a team that was good enough to get an at-large anyhow. G. Mason WAS an at-large, after all.

    Fixing something that isn’t broke is a very NCAA thing to do. Why support the effort?

  14. Astral Rain 04/07/2008 at 7:08 AM #

    Davidson with a conf.tourney loss would have been a top seed- in the NIT.

    If anything, the one expansion I”d agree with is expanding the play-in games to one day, four games, and either the bottom 8 teams, or the bottom 8 at-larges.

  15. BoKnowsNCS71 04/07/2008 at 8:19 AM #

    I think in the late 60’s and early 70’s it really diminished the ACC’s presence in the NCAAT when only the winner of the ACCT went to the big dance. Sure it was great when State upset a great South Carolina team but that SC team should have also gotten a shot. Maybe Maryland also getting to go in 1974 would have had them playing in the Final 4 against State.

    I like the fact that an underdog can get its act together and make a run like State did 25 years ago when it had to win the ACCT to move on to the NCAAT.

    So I would suggest letting the number one Conference teams go to the dance automatically as regular 1-64 seeds and the upset tournament winners could play in at least 3 more play-in games. If there is a need for more games than that, then schedule them.

    I don’t think leaving ASU or VT out this year was wrong. They went nowhere in the NIT. The travesty was this Arizona was even permitted to go at all.

  16. choppack1 04/07/2008 at 8:43 AM #

    It looks like the big story is that they are adding another year required before kids go pro.

    I don’t know if this is going to help the NBA and college basketball – and I really don’t believe it’s a fair policy.

    I have to agree w/ Noah here – the best overall idea is to allow some kids to go straight to the pros from high school – and if you don’t fall in that category – require that they are 3 years out of high school before entering the draft.

    This 2 year idea only makes the non-committed student stay another year. The kid will be a little better when he gets to the pros, but I don’t see college basketball as a big winner in this rule.

  17. highonlowe 04/07/2008 at 8:45 AM #

    All four #1 seeds make the Final Four yet some people are talking about parity? IMO, DISparity has been more prevalent since the transfer and draft rules were changed.

  18. jbpackfan 04/07/2008 at 8:54 AM #

    Does this impact John Wall’s decision to reclassify, so he can get a jump on his 2 year requirement? I would think he might want to speed things along.

  19. Wulfpack 04/07/2008 at 8:55 AM #

    Then how do you explain Davidson, Xavier, San Diego, Siena, or George Mason a couple years back? It’s happening all over the place. Compare those budgest of any of those programs against the big dogs. HUGE disparity.

    These smaller teams are proving year in and year out that they can play with the big boys. Yes, all four #1s made the Final Four, but that doesn’t mean in any way that all teams from BCS conferences fared equally well. If you look at the NIT, UMass made the championship game.

    If you want to take this to a micro level, I give you New Orleans, Davidson, East Carolina, Presbyterian.

  20. kyjelly 04/07/2008 at 9:16 AM #

    Forget it all they are talking about is youth basketball.

  21. Rochester 04/07/2008 at 9:20 AM #

    I vote for a baseball like rule. Go pro right out of HS or go to school for a minimum of 3 years. Any kids who don’t care about school can ride the busses in the NBDL.

    As for the tournament, if you’re going to expand it, make the bubble teams fight in the play-in round. I think it’s lame to make two conference champs play on Tuesday. The team that loses doesn’t really make it to the tournament, even though they earned a spot. Were they going to win the title? No, of course not. But under the rules they earned a bid and they should play on Thursday or Friday. If there are play-in games, they should be for the 12 seeds and involve eight bubble teams fighting for four spots. (And the ninth bubble team will still b*tch.)

  22. choppack1 04/07/2008 at 9:21 AM #

    George Mason is the only true “mid-major”/”low major” to make the final 4 since the tourney expanded to 64. While Utah and UNLV weren’t from power conferences, they weren’t really true Cinderella’s.

    A lot of these teams – Western Ky for example – advanced to the Sweet 16 by beating other dwarfs – Drake and San Diego.

    Davidson is not a typical low-major team. McKillop has built a mini-dynasty near Charlotte – and can get some of the best players that aren’t scooped up by the big boys.

    I do think that the mid to low majors have made some strides but they need more than 1 Final 4 participant in 22 years to really lay claim to great success.

  23. blackdom 04/07/2008 at 9:35 AM #

    The major announcement is that there is not really one ?
    Some type of marketing deal with usa basketball.

  24. Trip 04/07/2008 at 9:48 AM #

    I’m with Noah, let the Lebron’s of the world declare right after high school, everyone else has to stay 2-3 years. Most of the time kids that leave after one year would have gone right out of high school anyway.

    As long as low-major conferences are getting an automatic bid into the NCAA with a SIXTEEN seed they will never make it to the final four. That 16 seed low major might be able to knock out ANY team from the 4-15 seeds but not have the horses to keep up with the #1’s. I know its all about rewarding the #1’s with easier paths, but shouldn’t the #1 team in the bracket be able to take out any team from #2-16 with ease? There needs to be a better process in either seeding or tournament setup to give low majors a better chance to succeed rather than getting slaughtered in the first round by one of the 4 teams the NCAA committee thinks have the best chance of winning it all. I don’t know what can be done really, and what we have now may be the best option, but maybe someone else does.

  25. Trip 04/07/2008 at 10:03 AM #

    Blah, chalk up another post to spam. I must be the f’ing master of being moderated, I think 10% of my posts get spam-rejected…

1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply