Follow TSS on Twitter @TheStudentSect
In 1998, there was an “X-Files” episode in which David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson encountered a situation where some telemarketer basically saw his boss as a giant insect who was out to kill people. Duchovny’s character likened the situation to other assumed delusional people in the past who had similar stories in different cities who worked for the same dude who was being accused of being said giant insect out to kill people.
Anderson’s character scolded Duchovny’s as succumbing to a “Folie a Deux,” or shared delusional psychosis. I’ll tie it in here at the end. Don’t worry.
The same can be said for this absurd Freshman Ineligibility rule that is taking college sports talk by storm since admittance by the Big Ten that it’ll explore the idea in the coming months. This isn’t a knock on Jim Delany, the last true pioneer of college sports, who was out in front of more things than can ever be mentioned in one column.
But this is an abhorrent talking point, one fostered not on the logic of the betterment of student athletes so much as it is about the betterment of the NCAA wallet. Money is undefeated, after all. However, the Folie a Deux is between what’s better for networks and what’s better for the NCAA, facts be damned. The delusional psychosis is the idea that this is done at its root for what is more beneficial to student athletes, because so long as you beat that drum with self-assurance, you can get a few extra on your side.
It’s a waste of time listening to the national media on this one as well, no matter what hard line stance they take. National media will decry the lack of payment to college athletes as some sort of criminal act yet not even consider someone suggesting this move has anything to do with the betterment of college student athletes, facts be damned or in support.
Networks are about advertising; the NCAA is about network contracts; the media is about eyeballs. They’re all after the same thing at the root of it: money.
But like anything else, go into this one with an open mind. Maybe there’s research that suggests it’s good … like college athletes in football and basketball showing graduation rates which are declining annually and freshman dropout rates subservient to those of the general student populace.
The problem is, none of that stuff exists. In fact, there’s plenty of evidence which suggests in basketball, letting folks go pro whenever they want is much, much more financial beneficial to the people doing it than not giving them the choice. It also shows that not letting them have that autonomy is significantly more beneficial to the suits more worried about money than any student-athlete success.
This is lengthy, but come along, and let’s deconstruct this thing.
*
For the betterment of student athletes … because it sounds good
“College football and basketball can’t just be a minor league system for pro sports,” Michigan State athletic director Mark Hollis told ESPN’s Andy Katz. “Too many times the focus is on the three or four individuals who are viable for pro sports. It’s worth a conversation about what gives them the best opportunity [to graduate], but I’m not defending a move toward freshman ineligibility.”
So you read that, and the assumption is that there’s something suggesting freshman ineligibility and graduation rates show empirical evidence that moving this way means we’re correcting a huge flaw in the system, a system that’s seeing college student-athletes fall by the wayside into a ditch of failure.
Because that’s pretty much what college is as a whole … a minor league system for companies to pick future talent that will lead to continued success for them. It’s not any different in accounting or telecommunications, it’s just that no one watches those students ply their trade on national television for millions of dollars.
The problem with proponents of freshman ineligibility for freshman athletes in football and basketball is that none of it is rooted in anything other their their own selfish benefit.
Since 2003-2004, when incoming athletes had to face new eligibility requirements, graduation statistics have moved forward for college athletes … particularly those in the cash cow sports of football and basketball. In 2011, the single year graduation success rate reached 82 percent, three percentage points better than when it was studied a decade prior.
What that means is that NCAA reforms have worked, and they’ve seen increases in both football and basketball, which are the sports relevant to this discussion. Why are they the sports relevant to this discussion? Money. No one’s talking about whether a water polo or field hockey student athlete should be ineligible as a freshman. Why? Because the people forwarding this salty narrative aren’t making bank on those sports.
March Madness, television, and the almighty dollar
The devil in the details here lies in television ratings for these sports. While college football is flourishing — with this past championship game posting the second largest rating in over 15 years and throughout the BCS era — college basketball is trying to figure out how to mitigate a steep drop in viewership that started when players began testing their NBA futures earlier and earlier.
March Madness ratings peaked in 1993 at 9.4 and took a sharp decline annually until 2000, as preps to pros became commonplace for any elite high school player and any prospect with an NBA lottery shot was bolting school for the draft. By the time the carnage had ended and ratings sort of leveled out, it had dropped to 6.5, and it’s maintained that same stagnant pace since.
Last year saw a 6.7 rating, second only to 6.9 in 2005 in that time span. Since then, the tournament has failed to go above 6.5 a staggering 11 times, one and done rule be damned. Why? Because there’s some truth to the idea that household names in the NCAA tournament mean more people are watching and paying attention, and back in the early 1990s, players stayed three or four years with regularity. You got to know them — there was a personal rooting interest for the casual fan.
Now that’s gone, so obviously, the logic is to hamper the student-athlete rather than figure out a way to work around it. The above research already established that graduation rates are rising and the whole betterment of the college athlete argument is fairly bunk. A quick scan of the ultra-important money-making television ratings show this is where the argument lies.
For once, football is just collateral damage to someone else, because people are watching college football no matter what, freshmen or not. There would be little to no impact on the viewership of the sport. One does wonder about the shrapnel effect on the teams, however. Take Ohio State, which won the championship this year. One of its standout players was a true freshman named Ezekiel Elliott. Do the Buckeyes win the title without him? Hard to tell. Should they be forced to not have the option? Not hard to tell. No.
The ruse of the preps to pros argument
The amicable solution, so people say, to this whole deal is a “two years and turn pro” deal for college basketball players, because all of this crap is about college basketball rather than football for a change. But how much of the One and Done rule had to do with what is best for players, and how much had to do with what is best for people trying to line their pockets?
The assumption was that forcing these high school players who could declare for the NBA draft to choose between playing ball overseas in a cloud of cigar smoke in Latvia or playing ball for a year in college before they could go make money doing it would boost college basketball’s woebegone ratings.
But exactly how true is the idea that preps to pros is bad for the guys jumping … or bad for the product drafting them and then the product they’re skipping? Kids, get ready for reality.
*
For the purpose of this, we’re starting with Kevin Garnett in 1995, as that was mostly the beginning of the infusion of preps-to-pros prospects, up until it ended in 2005. In that time, 39 high school players were drafted. Of those 39 players drafted, 29 were picked in the first round. The other 10 in the second round, obviously.
Why is that significant? Because any first-round pick in the NBA is afforded at the very least, a 3-year deal. The league minimum in 1995 was $200,000, which is less than any first-round pick would ever bother signing for without a back-street brawl. So at minimum, in 1995, you’re getting $600,000 to not go to college right out of high school and play sports. You can go later. You can go whilst you work. But you just can’t go play sports if you say yes.
Go back to age 18. You taking that deal?
As of 2005, the last year high school players were allowed in the NBA draft, the league minimum was $398,762. That means that at MINIMUM, you’re getting $1.2 million to play basketball for three years and not do it in college. Again, are you signing up for that?
The numbers get even more skewed considering that in 2005, of the 10 high school players declaring for the draft that were drafted into the second round since 1995, SIX of them were in the final year. That means if you take away that final year, when it was pretty well known this rule was coming and panic was in effect, 29 of 33 preps-to-pros players were picked in the first round, guaranteeing them basically $1 million.
What no one will also mention is that of the six second-round players in that 2005 draft, five of them are still in the league… which means they’ve managed to secure at least 1-3 more subsequent contracts to stay in the league.
Suddenly, being a high school player going pro doesn’t seem like such a bad gig, right? Guaranteed million, likely more, just can’t play basketball in college? Seems like a fair trade.
So with all of these high school kids to pros working out, what’s the big deal?
For one, NBA scouts suck. They’re the people who tell us that Darko Milicic and Nikoloz Tskitishvili are better than Carmelo Anthony and Amar’e Stoudemire, respectively.
To the NBA writer or fan, guys like C.J. Miles or Gerald Green are busts. To anyone with a functioning brain, guys playing in the league for 10 years making millions of dollars, that’s considered a success.
However, forcing players to go to school for a year allows scouts to have their job partially done for free with absolutely no risk to the employer. It’s like giving someone an internship out of school for a year to see how they do and then allow them to apply at your company.
I know, I know, we’re talking about a small minority of players really who can either go to the pros from high school or be one and done, but eventually, you’re trimming the fat from somewhere. Those players are taking scholarships away from fringe players who need that opportunity, which domino effects to D-II, D-III, and the NAIA. Somewhere along the line, someone isn’t getting the chance he either needs or deserves, even if it’s only a handful of folks.
The real issue is the narrative that prep to pro ruined the NBA and college basketball. It did not. Guys that treat one semester of college with all the intensity of stumbling to the bathroom at 3 a.m. in the dark isn’t helping college basketball. As for the NBA and its scouts, DO YOUR JOB. Evaluate players and pick them where they need to be picked; don’t cry foul on preps to pros hurting the product because they’re not polished enough or ready to play immediately.
The cold, hard reality of this is that guys going prep to pro succeeded, and wildly. Wildly better than it’s made out to be.
Folie a Doh
The “X-Files” episode ends the way so many do … with Duchovny’s character looking bat-ass crazy about something, with no one able to necessarily disprove or prove his theory, and then a final scene where you find out he’s right and no one will actually know it. The insect-man thing moved on to a new town to terrorize someone else, and Duchovny’s character had to fight for his own sanity.
Which is what this argument will end up coming down to regarding freshman ineligibility. You can see the steam it’s gaining already.
The Folie a Deux here is in the fact that the delusion lies in restrictions leading to more money, which is what this is all about. There’s probably a better way, it just needs to be found. Otherwise, we’re just looking for giant insects terrorizing people across the country without any knowledge it’s going on. That’s a metaphor for this situation. Not a Folie a Deux.
