The NCAA News - Comment

August 5, 1996

• Guest editorial -- An overlooked aspect of the NBA draft rule ...By Christopher D. Schoemann, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
• Letters to the Editor -- Take a different approach on field sizes
• A Bald Mistake
• Opinions -- Reaction to new bowl arrangement mostly favorable

Guest editorial -- An overlooked aspect of the NBA draft rule

BY CHRISTOPHER D. SCHOEMANN
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

The 42 NCAA student-athletes and high-schoolers who declared themselves eligible for the recent National Basketball Association draft created an outcry from both the collegiate and NBA communities, as well as the media. Recently, there has been plenty of talk regarding the Association's NBA draft rule, and now it may be high time either to remove it from the NCAA Manual or to modify it with the help of the NBA.

The current NBA collective-bargaining agreement has been structured so that those selected in the recent draft will have to abide by a rookie salary cap beginning with this year's draft class. The salaries are slotted depending on draft position, and the duration of these pre-set contracts is for three years. Gone will be the multimillion-dollar deals for rookies of years past, and in their place will be deals that are not as lucrative for either the player or the agent until those three years are up.

The current makeup of the NBA is 29 teams. Therefore, that left only 58 draft positions available in the recent two-round draft. If a player was selected in one of those 58 spots, the negotiating rights for the player were controlled by the selecting franchise, even if the player elected to use the NCAA's exception and return to college. A player from the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, went through that exact scenario in the rule's first year.

If, by chance, an NBA draft-eligible student-athlete is not selected with one of those picks and the player decides to use the Association's exception and return to college, the NBA now considers that player to be an unrestricted free agent from the date following the draft forward. In essence, that means that the player now would be free to be wooed by any of the 29 franchises at any point of collegiate enrollment.

For instance, let's assume a player declared eligible for the NBA draft after his freshman year at an NCAA school. The player went through the recent draft, was not selected in one of the 58 slots and elected to return to school under the NCAA exception.

The player is, in most opinions, a viable NBA talent but for whatever reason was not selected. Following the conclusion of the draft, any NBA team may follow that player's progress and development through the remaining three seasons of eligibility and elect at any time to offer the player a contract with no limitations on salary or duration. Theoretically, the player could have a college uniform on one night and a professional uniform on the next.

It seems to some in the basketball community that the current flooding of the marketplace by underclassmen and high-school players could lead to just such a scenario. In a year in which there is bound to be some viable NBA talent that was not selected, there is no protection for our member institutions to preclude such an instance from occurring.

The NCAA Professional Sports Liaison Committee should be applauded for its efforts in trying to create a rule that is workable for the student-athlete and the institution. Unfortunately, in this case, the rule is not one that is workable for the student-athlete and the institution. The NBA should finally sit down with the Professional Sports Liaison Committee and create a draft system that works so that student-athletes, as well as institutions, are protected.

Let's return to a draft system whereby a student-athlete could enter the draft at any time but forfeits his eligibility in doing so.

The NCAA's current draft rule was a grand experiment, and it may be time for that experiment to be over.

Christopher D. Schoemann is director of athletics compliance at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities.

Letters to the Editor -- Take a different approach to field sizes

Here is a new principle for discussion: The size of a field should be related to the number of teams that have a chance to finish first in the "standings" if they win every playoff game.

The first problem with the principle is that we currently have no system of standings in most sports, so we have to ask the question with reference to the polls instead.

The current NCAA football playoffs are of size 16 in Divisions I-AA, II and III. But I have some system of standings for football that has been distributed for decades (I am a mathematical statistician). I've often observed a situation like the one in Division I-AA in 1995.

In that case, the University of Montana (final record 13-2) was placed ninth in standings before the playoff. They won every game and became champion, but still finished behind McNeese State University (13-1).

This kind of situation has happened before, and would, if we followed the proposed principle, be evidence that the field should be reduced to 12 or eight. Of course, any college winning a playoff would still be champion regardless of any ranking.

My proposal (for size of the field) may seem odd. But current nominal NCAA policy, the 8:1 rule, is truly ridiculous. How can you have a rule that ignores completely the number of games played during a season? (Taking an extreme case, for example, we have no difficulty demonstrating that a season of zero games requires a 1:1 rule from which every team is eligible. And, if an infinite number of games were played, we would have only one team left to be eligible for the playoff, because the true best team would have been determined already with no uncertainty.) A better crude rule might be to have (t+g)/(1+g) teams, where t is the original number of schools and g is the average number of games in a season.

The basketball tournament would be a lot smaller!

David Rothman
Hawthorne, California

A BALD MISTAKE

In the July 22 issue of The NCAA News, a photo was published of Albright College baseball coach (and sports information director) Stan Hyman having his head shaved by his players in celebration of his team winning its first Middle Atlantic Conference championship in 29 years. Let the record show that Albright College did not win the Middle Atlantic Conference championship in 1996.

The MAC is divided into two leagues -- the Freedom and Commonwealth. Albright did indeed win the MAC Commonwealth title, but was defeated in two games in the four-team conference tournament.

While Albright did enjoy a fine year and should be congratulated on its efforts, the facts must be set straight that they did not win the overall MAC title. It should also be pointed out that Albright's head-shaving spree came before its MAC playoff loss to King's College (Pennsylvania), not after celebrating its fictitious MAC championship.

Bob Ziadie
Sports Information Director
King's College (Pennsylvania)

Opinions -- Reaction to new bowl arrangement mostly favorable

Lou Holtz, football coach
University of Notre Dame

"I think it's great the championship is going to be determined on the field. As a football coach, your only concern is getting to the championship game. I don't care where it's played or how it's determined....The difficulty is going to be where there are three teams. It's always going to be a judgment call who gets in there, as long as it's determined by voters. I hope they allow the computers to enter into it somewhat."

John Cooper, football coach
Ohio State University

"I've thought for years that after the bowls are all over, they ought to have one more game, but that's not the case. This sounds like the bowls are going to stage a national-championship game, as opposed to a playoff or a game after the bowl games are over. Just like the Fiesta this year. Now the Rose Bowl is in the mix."

John Robinson, football coach
University of Southern California

"This should be something that will be good for college football and for the fans of the game. I'm a big fan of the Rose Bowl, but I'm also a big fan of finding a way to crown a true national champion."

Joe Paterno, football coach
Pennsylvania State University

"As someone who's long supported a national-championship game, I'm delighted by (the) announcement. It's always been my contention that teams should have the opportunity to win championships on the field."

Tom Osborne, football coach
University of Nebraska, Lincoln

"Eventually, I would like to see some type of computer poll to determine the top two teams. I think that would limit some of the regionalism, campaigning and politicking that goes on."

John Mackovic, football coach
University of Texas at Austin

"This meets the objective that so many of the coaches felt was important -- to have a game that decided the national championship and not destroy the bowl structure. It accomplishes everything we could want at this time."

Joe Roberson, athletics director
University of Michigan

"The first thing I don't like about it is that it turns the Rose Bowl, in years it doesn't have the national title game, into a loser's bowl.

"All the attention and focus will be on that title game. The Orange Bowl and Sugar Bowl certainly weren't strengthened by the bowl alignment last season.

"Another thing I don't like about it is that the first year we have three or four claimants to those first two spots, there will be a lot of complaining and that will result in more pressure, more demands for an NFL-style playoff.

"This is another step in the professionalization of college athletics. There are a lot more important things for these kids to be worrying about than who's No. 1.

"Here's what'll happen -- schools will now be inclined to schedule preseason opponents they know they can not only beat, but beat badly. The ratings will be more important than ever before.

"Two years ago, we played Notre Dame, Boston College and Colorado in the preseason. Under this setup, we'd be crazy to do that."

Rick Neuheisel, football coach
University of Colorado, Boulder

"It's great. To say the Rose Bowl would be diminished by this is folly. I think this is going to make the Rose Bowl that much better. The tradition of the Rose Bowl is to have two great teams play. This will just enhance it.

"The only thing I hope it doesn't do, and it might, is have a trickle-down effect in lessening the importance of the other bowls. The system as it is now is great in that a lot of teams get to play a final game."

Rick Taylor, athletics director
Northwestern University

"If the Big Ten or Pac-10 is displaced from the Rose Bowl in a year when they won conference championships, we'll all just have to learn to live with it. But really, getting No. 1 vs. No. 2 instead isn't too bad.

"This has been a very hot, very behind-the-scenes project for the last 18 months.

"Overall, I think it's a positive, with minimal downside and tremendous upside. It preserves the integrity of the bowl system and still provides what everyone seems to want--No. 1 vs. No. 2."

Mike Bellotti, football coach
University of Oregon

"I'm a West Coast guy, so I've always thought of the Rose Bowl as our private reserve, or our back yard. Now, with the possibility of winning the Pac-10 and then having to play...somewhere else, that's a shame.

"But I've also believed we need a national-championship game, without a long playoff, and this gives us one. And there's a big plus here recruiting-wise for the Pac-10. Now, other schools can't tell kids that the Pac-10 schools are shut out of a national-championship game."