College Sports Draft Rules Stir Debate
Thursday, July 9th, 2009One of the college sports topics that we keep seeing come up on our radar over and over again is the debate over different policies for drafting young athletes into college sports. Specifically, our college sports search tends towards the theme of whether or not the NBA’s 1 year-of- college requirement is legit. But the argument goes deeper. Here’s the gist of the problem people have: 
So, both the NBA and the NFL have a requirement that an athlete needs to be out of high school for a certain number of years before they can be drafted and turn pro. For the NBA this minimum is one, although some people in the NCAA are trying to make it 2. For the NFL, this minimum is three. The other two major North American team sports (in terms of revenue) are hockey and baseball. The NHL and MLB respectively do not have any such requirements on years out of high school for the athletes they draft. As a result very few players and managers and coaches (since most of them started their careers as players) have a college degree.
On the surface, the reasoning behind the requirements in the NBA and NFL is that its a good thing because it forces athletes to get an education. Second, it lets the players get better and play in a more competitive environment so that a pro team drafting them will feel better about investing millions in a rookie. If the college- drafted player can’t cut it at the pro level, at the very least, he can fall back on a college degree.
This hints at the real reason for minimum requirements for drafting into these two sports. College athletes, poised from the start to turn pro are essentially celebrities. Their skills can give the team an entirely different competitive edge. Some of these guys are as close as it gets to celebrities, with the eyes of national sports fans avidly watching where they might end up (especially in basketball). Having these stars on their teams brings in millions of dollars for the institutions involved and the coach. Think of all the merchandise sold for USC with OJ Mayo’s name emboldened on back. The players don’t make a dime. Entering here is the whiny response, that at least they get a free education. Besides the fact that restricting players from turning pro violates a slew of anti-trust laws about fair competition, these policies really speak to mechanics of professional sports, which, for those in charge, is driven by money (not that we blame them, this has been the prevailing ideology of our society).
People take up a lot of blog and print space discussing if and how to change the one-and-done system for college sports in football and basketball. Many are against the idea of paying the players while they’re in college because that would even further remove the traditional idea of a college athlete (by the way, what exactly is the typical traditional college athlete? Just out of curiosity?).
One blog writer Clay Travis at Fanhouse.com suggests that the reason for the draft age requirements in the NBA and the NFL have to do with the deep rooted racial paternalism. Where 65 to 80% of players in both sports are black, compared to about 2% in hockey, his argument goes that the rules were put in place due to a paternalistic view that black athletes should go to college first because they weren’t prepared enough to make career decisions yet. Of course this ties in nicely with the whole indentured labor concept of NCAA athletes for soon-to-be pros. I think this argument is spurious, however thought provoking it may be.
This is an issue with no obvious solution. And the beast that has become football and basketball college drafting has proven to be a tough one to tame. Even when the NCAA decides to involve itself in various scandals and schools suffer penalties, those receiving the penalties are the other team members. Without looking too deeply into it though, I’m inclined to say, let’s keep the status quo. It’s hard to feel bad for unpaid college athletes who essentially get a free ride and unparalleled career opportunities. Either way, we’d love to hear what you think.
Next up, we’ll discuss the bowl championship series. This serious issue was recently brought up at a senate hearing. It’s just not fair that the financial crisis should take away from this defected championship system.
