I could give you five quick reasons why permitting a fifth season of eligibility for NCAA Division I basketball players is a really bad idea:
T.J. Cummings (UCLA), Travon Bryant (Missouri), Brody Boyd (Iowa), Scott Merritt (Marquette), Todd Billet (Virginia).
What fan could have endured another year of watching any or all of those guys play?
There are more important issues at stake, though, in the National Association of Basketball Coaches’ proposal–endorsed by NCAA President Myles Brand–to allow players five seasons of competitive eligibility. This idea, ostensibly designed to help raise graduation rates, is part of a package of changes that dramatically would impact the college game. Some of the new rules would be great, notably the opportunity for coaches to work with players during the summer.
But the change that would make the biggest difference would be the fifth season. And that fifth season is a bad idea for five big reasons:
Numbers games
Coaches constantly are assailed by bogus statistics regarding graduation rates that never provide an accurate picture of whether players are being properly educated. Those rates ignore incoming transfers’ accomplishments and punish schools for players who transfer out. They also fail to include players who graduate in more than six years.
Funny, then, that the coaches would herald another bogus statistic in supporting the five-year proposal. They claim the average student takes 4.8 years to graduate. According to the College Board, this 4.8-year figure is only for students at public institutions. At private schools, it’s 4.3 years. And in both cases, it’s taking students less time to graduate than a decade ago.
Shrinking opportunities
When coaches complained about restrictions such as Proposition 48 and the 5/8 rule–and they rightfully griped about them plenty–their primary argument was that such regulations robbed opportunities from young people. So what does the five-year plan do? It robs opportunities from young people.
As long as there is no accompanying increase in the number of scholarships programs can award, every player who stays for five years will occupy a vacancy that would have been available to an incoming freshman.
If every program were to fill its 13-player allotment each year, and if each player enrolled were to take advantage of a fifth season, that would be around 200 opportunities lost annually for Division I aspirants.
Lost control
The uncertainty of whether coaches will lose players to early NBA draft entry is tough enough to manage. When every player who reaches his fourth season becomes an either/or proposition, it will be a mess.
Coaches won’t know how many scholarships they’ll have to award for subsequent years. If they already have a full roster that includes three fourth-year senior role players, do they sign one, two or three new recruits? If they sign three McDonald’s All-Americans and all three seniors wish to stay, do some or all of the seniors get forced out? That’ll be lovely.
Blind ambitions
The vast majority of athletes who can make money playing after college–in the NBA or overseas–compete in major conferences. So here’s a theory: If there is any area in which a significant number of players do become interested in a fifth year, it will be at the mid-major level. And if mid-majors routinely field teams of 23-year-olds, they might routinely beat 19-year-olds at Duke, North Carolina and Texas.
Those upsets are fun when they happen occasionally. If they become common, it will undermine the sport’s popularity. Fans will consider the product diminished.
Unanswered questions
The oddest thing about this proposal is nobody seems to have asked the players if they’re interested in five seasons.
Anyone who has paid attention to the NBA draft in the past decade knows many players figure they’ve played enough college basketball after one or two years.
The NABC and NCAA should have surveyed Division I players to ascertain whether the interest in this concept was strong enough to support such radical change. If the game is about the players, shouldn’t they have a say?
The best and fairest way to raise graduation rates for basketball players would be to require all Division I schools to pay for their players’ summer school classes.
You’d be surprised how many refuse to do so because they don’t want to absorb the cost–even though it means their players would have a better shot at graduation.
An athlete carrying a full academic schedule each summer effectively will complete an extra year of schooling by the end of his senior season. If coaches are allowed to work with players while they attend summer classes, those months will be doubly productive.
That approach might chase some schools out of Division I. Fine. There are too many members already. Those not interested in competing at the highest level and properly educating their athletes would not be missed.
