- Thread starter
- #1
GenJac
Well-Known Member
While it’s nice to see the first class athletes compete for the national championship of college basketball, it is difficult to accept a college champion that has a preponderance of “one & done Freshmen” that are not necessarily in the institution for any advanced education outside of the court. So how should the NCAA adapt to this scenario that clearly favors the few schools and leaves most out of contention before the season begins? One suggestion is for the NCAA to regulate how many “one and done’s” schools can chase in the recruiting wars. It would work as follows:
When a recruit signs on with a school, that school awards three scholarship years per athlete. For a player that stays to the fourth year, there is a bonus scholarship awarded for that final year that does not impact the total scholarship count for that school. If the student-athlete decides he or she is a better athlete than student at the end of his/her freshman year and leaves, the school forfeits the remaining two scholarship years. So the more one & done’s that leave, the fewer remaining scholarships the school has. In effect, this will spread out the schools to which these athletes will migrate, as no school would risk a serious depletion of scholarships. No longer will two or three schools dominate every year based on consistently replenishing the one & done’s.
This is not a punishment of any school, as they remain free to recruit. However, the onus must also be placed on the incoming recruit to state in advance of entry that, they are likely to be a short termer, so that all parties are entering the scholarship agreement with their eyes open. There is no perfect solution here, but for the better of the game & competition, the NCAA needs to act.
When a recruit signs on with a school, that school awards three scholarship years per athlete. For a player that stays to the fourth year, there is a bonus scholarship awarded for that final year that does not impact the total scholarship count for that school. If the student-athlete decides he or she is a better athlete than student at the end of his/her freshman year and leaves, the school forfeits the remaining two scholarship years. So the more one & done’s that leave, the fewer remaining scholarships the school has. In effect, this will spread out the schools to which these athletes will migrate, as no school would risk a serious depletion of scholarships. No longer will two or three schools dominate every year based on consistently replenishing the one & done’s.
This is not a punishment of any school, as they remain free to recruit. However, the onus must also be placed on the incoming recruit to state in advance of entry that, they are likely to be a short termer, so that all parties are entering the scholarship agreement with their eyes open. There is no perfect solution here, but for the better of the game & competition, the NCAA needs to act.