Texas Tech basketball coach Bobby Knight does not like the new NBA rule prohibiting high school players going directly to the NBA. Actually he despises the rule. Said Knight, it is "the worst thing that's happened to college basketball since I've been coaching," Given that Coach Knight has verbally cataloged every bad decision in college sports for 40-plus years, take note.
So why is he so bent out of shape over guys like UT frosh phenom Kevin Durant?
Knight told Associated Press, "Because now you can have a kid come to school for a year and play basketball and he doesn't even have to go to class. He certainly doesn't have to go to class the second semester. I'm not exactly positive about the first semester. But he would not have to attend a single class the second semester to play through the whole second semester of basketball. That, I think, has a tremendous effect on the integrity of college sports."
Bobby Knight is not my favorite college basketball coach, but he makes a good point about academic integrity. But who cares? Actually Myles Brand, his former boss at IU and current NCAA president, says he cares. I am sure Brand would appreciate more big time college basketball coaches who choose academics over winning at all costs.
Coach Knight means business when he talks about academics. But I wonder if this kind of attitude shows just how out of touch Coach Knight is. He won three NCAA Championships playing by the rules, working extremely hard, and graduating almost all his players -- and tormenting a few. But he hasn't won a Championship in almost 20 years.
Coach Knight should be applauded for his desire to win with integrity. But he has failed to grasp the new reality: We live in a society that rewards cheaters. As Jim Rome and others have said, "If you ain't cheating, you ain't trying." College basketball coaches don't even have to cheat. They just have to know how to game the system.
College coaches are paid millions to just win, baby. We can talk all day long about academic integrity, we can read the NCAA press releases on the importance of graduating athletes, we can honestly hope that college coaches follow NCAA rules and act in the athletes' best interest. But none of this matters to big shot boosters who wield great power over every coach with fewer than three championships.
Even the new NCAA reform which ties scholarships to graduation rates will not deter college basketball coaches from their own equivalent of scoring a supermodel (an almost clean, yet appropriate visual). Great looking players like Kevin Durant and Greg Oden are likely off to the NBA after one season in college basketball.
Is this exchange a deal with the devil? An NCAA Championship in exchange for a few negative articles and perhaps losing a 13th scholarship? This year's Carmelo Anthony straight up for next year's 1.7 point per game role player?
Hook 'em horns!
Related article
Dick "Hoops" Weiss on "one-year wonders."
© 2007 Marc Isenberg. All rights reserved.
I agree with the General. I do not like the one-and-done players, but it's the fault of the NBA. The NFL rule is much better for both college sports and for the athletes who get time to mature without the pressures of thinking about pro sports.
Posted by: Dan | February 21, 2007 at 11:30 AM
I agree with Knight on this one. The fact is, if a kid is good enough to make the jump to the pros out of high school, who are we...or the NBA to stop them? The hypocrisy is that from day one they are pushed (relentless practice schedules, etc.) to maximize their athletic ability...often at the expense of their academic development....and then when they get good enough to make millions of dollars as a result of that ability, then we say "Wait! This kid needs an education...School is too important! It's a farce.
Posted by: John Gerdy | February 21, 2007 at 01:54 PM
Coach Knight is right on. With the special treatment college athletes get, many of them just glide through as it is. It's going to be even worse with these guys that are forced to go one and done. In my opinion, better to leave college for the guys that want to go to learn and or develop as players. They'll stick around for 2, 3, 4 years and we won't have the constant player turn over.
Posted by: Ryan | February 22, 2007 at 03:17 PM
The interesting thing that's not mentioned in this discussion is how the influx of raw high school and short-term college talent has diluted the NBA game, both in terms of quality and appeal. Things like teamwork, court-sense and decision-making take a back seat to one-on-one basketball. The league remains competitive when that's the status quo, but it's becoming apparent that these kids can't compete on the international stage.
Posted by: Chigger | February 22, 2007 at 03:23 PM
I fully agree with Bobby Knight on this one. The fact that players can go to college for one year, basically not go to class, and be rewarded for it by being one of the highest picks in the NBA Draft is absurd. Sure, they are immensly talented, but by not essentially not going to college, they end up lacking discipline. Fact is, if they finished college, they would be more mature players, and gain more experience to become NBA ready, rather than sitting on the bench for their first few years in the league.
Posted by: Joe | February 22, 2007 at 10:12 PM
what difference does being a non-student rent-a-player for 1,2, or 3 years matter?--same principle--hypocrisy.Is not Durant leaving after 1 year less offensive than Elden Campbell going for 4 yrs. and being handed a self-admitted undeserved degree?
Posted by: andy fine | February 23, 2007 at 02:18 PM
This is not the NBA's problem. The age minimum was collectively bargained between owners and players. Great players can spend their "gap" year playing professional basketball (just not in the NBA) or going to college. If (and that's a very BIG IF) athletic programs were truly committed to the academic mission of the institution, they probably wouldn't take hired, one-year guns. But back to reality. Whatever criticism leveled against an institution is a small price to pay.
The question is whether Coach Knight makes a valid argument. Andy makes a great point...there are many other examples of athletes who spend far longer time in school without getting anywhere close to a meaningful education, but that's somehow not a big deal.
Posted by: Marc Isenberg | February 23, 2007 at 02:42 PM
There is one more thing to take in account here, and that is individual MATURITY.
If I'm not mistaken ALL of the players involved in the(NBA) fight at Madison square Garden were players that either left college early or did not attend at all. It is putting a gun in the hands of a teenager when the individual is expected to step into a adult world wthout any life training. A high school athlete like Labron James went from zero income a year too a multi million dollar income in less that 12 months.
Although I think Labron is one of the more mature young athletes in the game today the culture shock, good, or bad has to mess with his head.
What kind of false picture are these athletes getting of life, and will they be able to adjust when their careers come to an end?
Posted by: | February 24, 2007 at 08:33 AM
So staying in college 4 years equals maturity? Give me a break. If I am not mistaken ALL the players involved in the Miami-FIU football brawl were in COLLEGE. The fact is the majority of NBA players did not stay in school 4 years.
Posted by: Willie | February 24, 2007 at 09:37 AM
One word "STUDENT-athlete" Does that mean anything anymore? I know that my high school coaches stress academics similar to Coach Knight. The players have to understand that school comes first and playing ball is a privilege. They don't have to play ball, but they do need something to fall back on in case they can't get to the BIG STAGE.
Posted by: DeSean | February 24, 2007 at 10:20 AM
I don't agree that players should have to stay for one year. In fact it's bullshit.
Posted by: DS DS | April 16, 2007 at 05:24 AM