Money Players

Neil Reed’s Courage Should Never Be Forgotten

2012-09-19T10:14:24-07:00

By Marc Isenberg

Earlier this year the NCAA took unusual steps when it leveled “unprecedented” penalties against Penn State. The NCAA was absolutely correct to send a clear, unambiguous message that criminal negligence from high-ranking university and athletic officials will not be tolerated. Yes, some of the penalties were excessive, but something had to be done. But why stop there? Let's look at other instances of abuse.

For starters, the NCAA should examine how Indiana University mishandled Neil Reed’s 1997 allegation that he was choked by Bob Knight and how Indiana’s leadership quashed these claims, which were later proven to be true.

In July, Reed tragically died from a heart attack at age 36, which spurred me to revisit the events surrounding the infamous incident that not only led to Knight’s dismissal, but also helped catapult the late Dr. Myles Brand to the presidency of the NCAA.

While it should not take his dying to realize this, Reed showed great courage. He challenged an all-powerful college coaching legend with just his word against Knight’s. It was not a fair fight, especially since the entire Indiana administration, including Brand, worked to destroy Reed’s claims. The backlash was fast and furious. But Reed stood firm – and brave. In a world filled with frivolous lawsuits, it is interesting that Reed, who had legitimate claims against Indiana and Knight, never sued for physical abuse or defamation.

It is important to remember that Reed first alleged that Knight choked him in 1997, not in 2000, when CNN/SI made it a national story. Respected journalist Gene Wojciechowski laid out the allegations in December 1997. According to Wojciechowski, Indiana "leaders" promised an inquiry, which turned out be a sham and just gave them more time to destroy Reed’s credibility.

If the NCAA is going to weigh in on the leadership failures at Penn State, they cannot ignore what happened at Indiana, even if it means turning a critical eye on Brand, their celebrated leader. Of course, the NCAA has its own legacy to protect.

(The NCAA didn't just build a statue like Penn State did to honor Joe Paterno. It named its HQ in honor of the late Dr. Myles Brand.)

So how do we know that Myles Brand was in on it? His chief PR flack was Christopher Simpson, now deceased, agressively denied Reed's claims. After CNN broke the story nationally in 2000, Simpson went to appalling lengths to discredit Reed. Said Simpson, “If CNN is saying Neil Reed said it, then I question anything Neil Reed says.” There's nothing subtle there: Reed is lying about being choked. Move along.

Reed’s allegations were confirmed when Ron Felling, a former Indiana assistant whom Knight fired during the 1999-2000 season, sent footage of the choking incident to CNN.

If you ever want to know the blueprint for sweeping serious allegations against NCAA members under the rug, Christopher Simpson, Dr. Brand and IU wrote the book.

Simpson admitted that the investigation of Reed’s claim undertaken in 2000 was designed to keep IU in control. Wrote Simpson, “We knew we would get hammered short term for investigating ourselves, but at least we would retain control of the investigation which we couldn't do if we had brought in an entirely objective outsider."

In 1998, Brand and IU trustee John Walda (whom Brand asked to lead that 2000 sham investigation) co-authored a bizarre op-ed defending Knight.

Sports Illustrated’s senior writer Alex Wolff responded to several softball questions posed in their article. Asked Brand and Walda: “So where is the 'unacceptable behavior' the media have honed in on so intently?”

Wolff’s answer: “Wiping your rear end to graphically demonstrate contempt for your team's play, as Knight allegedly did, is unacceptable. Guilt-tripping a player into not transferring – as Knight did to Luke Recker by threatening to quit as coach and thereby bring down the wrath of the state on Recker’s teenaged shoulders – is unacceptable. Verbally abusing people, whether they're your ‘students’ (if we're to accept the premise of Knight as educator) or your ‘boss’ (if we’re to accept the charade of Knight as subordinate), is unacceptable. As for the physical assault alleged to have occurred, it’s more than unacceptable. It’s criminal.”

At least at Penn State, they eventually commissioned the independent Freeh Report, which ventured to find out what happened without concern for legal liability and develop recommendations to ensure this never happens again. As they say, no good deed goes unpunished.

What should happen to Indiana? I am sure the NCAA and Indiana would like to bury this sad chapter. But, if NCAA and its members want to demonstrate that it is capable of protecting children, athletes and others, then it must address these inconvenient truths. After all, that is exactly why the NCAA was chartered to do when it was established over 100 years ago.

And Indiana should formally apologize to Reed’s family for how it treated him. I am not sure NCAA sanctions against Indiana would serve any purpose, but an independent investigation, which was thwarted under Brand's leadership, would help us understand how and why this was allowed to occur.

The NCAA could also require Indiana to set aside several million dollars to set up a fund to assist student-athletes who allege abuse or mistreatment by coaches. The NCAA should ensure that athletes who are mistreated are heard, rather than silenced. The NCAA should also match these funds. In other words, the NCAA could “put their money where their mission is.”

Let me conclude with a poignant email that I received from Dr. Ellen Staurowsky, a professor of sport management at Drexel and keen observer of social justice issues in sport:

“In the Freeh Report commissioned by Penn State, investigators noted that part of the failure in leadership at the very top of that institution was due to officials and trustees ignoring or missing several ‘red flags’ over the years. The college sport community has done the same. Neil Reed’s story, another red flag, offers a haunting reminder of how victims have been blamed, how the truth about the mistreatment of the least powerful has been swept aside and covered over, only to come to light because of the efforts of the brave few. Reed’s story should be remembered and included in a vow that these problems will be sincerely addressed and that no child, no young person will have to endure abuse at the hands of a coach. May he rest in peace while the rest of us have no peace until such a vow is realized.”

---------

Marc Isenberg
Email: marc.isenberg@gmail.com
Twitter: @marcisenberg

NCAA does something awesome; then denies it

2012-04-02T14:42:59-07:00

I do not typically break news on Money Players Blog, but this one is too good to pass on...

The NCAA--or perhaps its member conferences--is allowing schools to pick up the hotel tabs of the parents of players participating in the NCAA Men's Final Four.

How did I find this out? A few days before the Final Four a parent told me. I was a bit surprised, but I probed a little more. He read the email from the athletic department informing him that the school would, in fact, pick up the hotel tab at the Final Four.

Just to make sure, I spoke with an athletic administrator who corroborated the story. When I asked who approved this, I was told it came from the conference office with the understanding that all four schools were doing the same.

For years I've advocated that the NCAA should subsidize tournament travel. Why? Because it's the right thing to do. Think about it: The NCAA rakes in roughly $771 million PER YEAR from its television deal with CBS/TNT/TBS/Tru. The players get an opportunity to get an education and they great training and coaching. Parents? Well, they get to foot the bill for whatever the NCAA says cannot be covered by a full scholarship. The NCAA rattles off all the reasons why they cannot.

In reality, the NCAA can afford to pay. They just don't want to. Why don't they subsidize the travel of players' families? For starters, there's no money, amateurism, level playing field, Title IX, blah blah blah.

Instead, the NCAA would rather the families of those who make the Final Four possible pay--either with hard-earned cash or by credit card.

Schools picking up a $1,000 hotel tab is a nice gesture. I applaud the who ever did this. Does this mean I get to write something positive about the NCAA?

Well, not exactly. When I asked Ronnie Ramos, NCAA Managing Dir. of Digital Communications, he said, "Schools can reserve rooms at discounted rates, but not pay." Wow. The NCAA is denying it provided a similar extra benefit that has tripped up many college athletes every single year. Usually it's the agents who allegedly foot the bill. That's rich with irony.

Still this is terrific news, no matter how it went down. The NCAA should provide some sweet extra for the players and their families. Of course, they may not want the public to know about this. Why? Perhaps because it might not be kosher. Also, players might, heaven forbid, ask for more. First, hotel rooms for players' parents, then what?

The rate for a New Orleans hotel was approximately $250/night. Assume all 52 players' families (number of allowable basketball scholarships x four teams) to advantage of this offer and stayed four nights. The bill: $13,000 per team or $52,000 total. Chump change to the NCAA, but huge for the players' parents.

--Marc Isenberg

Twitter: @marcisenberg

Email: marc.isenberg@gmail.com

An Open Letter to NBA Rookies

2011-12-18T17:25:15-08:00

To: NBA rookies

From: Marc Isenberg

Date: December 18, 2011

___________________________

Your NBA career is about to start. Talk about being blessed! You've gotten to this point because you are ridiculously talented and genetically gifted. And most likely because you worked incredibly hard to become the best player you are capable of becoming. Enough with the accolades. This is no time to celebrate. Especially with your NBA career about to begin.

Transitioning from college or Europe to the NBA is fraught with peril. More so this season because of the lockout. Players will go through an abbreviated 3-week training camp, followed by a crazy 66-game season and a full slate of playoffs. It's not ideal, but it sure beats not playing.

Here's how crazy the year's NBA schedule is: In January, the Portland Trailblazers play an unprecedented 18 games, including 9 games in 13 days (7 road games, 2 home, and games on 3 straight nights). By comparison, last season the Trailblazers played 14 games in January.

This year's NBA rookies are at a clear disadvantage: Long lockout, shortened training camp, shortened season. But that's life.

If you're an NBA rookie, what are the keys to success?

1) Get in NBA shape...ASAP

Lack of conditioning shows lack of professionalism. Hopefully you took care of business during the lockout and showed up Day 1 in decent shape. If you didn't, the NBA can be a cruel place: simultaneously playing your way into shape and learning a new system is not a good strategy for endearing yourself to your coaches and GM. The key is to be sensible about your training. If you're behind in your conditioning, you can catch up. But you need to do it sensibly. Get in extra cardio, but do low-impact training, including bike, elliptical or swimming or water workouts.

2) Take care of your body

The NBA is a long season. In this abbreviated training camp and shortened season, there's an increased chance of getting hurt. Take care of your body like never before...or you will pay a steep price. My formula for (almost) guaranteed success: Get at least 8 hours a sleep a night, get off your feet a couple hours during the day (pregame naps are king!), significantly reduce soda, alcohol and fatty food intake, and increase CORE training. In other words: eat, sleep and breathe basketball.

3) Compartmentalize

The mark of a great NBA player is his ability to keep focused on basketball, even in situations when family and relationship issues develop. That does not mean focusing solely on basketball career and neglecting other aspects of your life. Just know that most of your waking hours, especially during the season, needs to be devoted to basketball--and nothing should interfere. Don't let outside distractions affect your focus and your performance. Think of basketball as your sanctuary from the "real world."

4) Prepare for the "rookie wall"

There is a high probability you will struggle as a rookie. Frustration, weariness and pain coupled with an insane travel schedule will likely take a toll on how you perform. Embrace the challenge. The keys are to stay positive, keep working hard, take care of your body and know that the adjustment to the NBA takes time. How you perform in April and May is a function of what you do now.

5) Play basketball, stay hungry

"Live as a poor man with lots of money." --Pablo Picasso

From now until the season ends, the only real necessities are a comfortable apartment, a decent car, a stocked fridge (preferably with healthy food), and wardrobe decent enough not to draw NBA fines. That's it. As a rookie, it's easy to give into the temptation to spend a lot of money, especially when your max-salary teammates are doing the same. If you're going to splurge on one thing, it should be healthy, gourmet food.

Keep in mind: Because the regular season has been reduced by 16 games, you're earning approximately 25% less. The money is still great, but this is not the time to blow your hard-earned income...especially in an uncertain economy. Go out and have a great rookie season. Then reward yourself with some of the money you earned. But do it sensibly.

6) Take care of your business

Your business is basketball. Most of your energy, especially during the season, should be devoted to improving your game and helping your team win games. That's what pays the bills. But neglecting your finances is a huge mistake. Hopefully you're already working with a team of qualified, competent advisors (agent, financial advisor, accountant/business manager, etc.). Their job should be to help you do your job--and to help you earn and save money. It should not be to enable you or shield you from the realities of business. You need to know what's going on and to take action if something is not handled appropriately.

If your goal is to make good financial decisions, read my booklet Go Pro Like a Pro. If you email me your address, I will send you FREE copy. That's right!! If you really want to delve deeper into these issues, make sure you get my book Money Players.

Or if you want "The More Fun Alternative to Money Players," try this:

--Marc Isenberg

Marc Isenberg is the author of "Money Players" and "Go Pro Like a Pro" and counsels athletes at all levels how to be successful in sports, business and life. Along with Nolan Smith and Sydney Smith, he founded Hoops Family to support basketball players and their families, which will debut in 2012.

Follow Marc on twitter: @marcisenberg

Email Marc @ marc.isenberg@gmail.com

Seth Davis misses on Taylor Branch rebuttal

2011-09-26T08:48:46-07:00

When the NCAA puts forth crazy stuff to defend its enterprise, I may not like what they say, but I understand their strategy: Defend their business enterprise at all costs--or perish...even if what they say makes virtually no sense. I am clearly not the NCAA's constituency. Sadly, neither are "student-athletes," who have no legal standing in the NCAA, no direct role in its governance structure and no real voice. The NCAA's stated mission is student-athletes, so at least they have that going for them.

I do get bothered when someone I respect parrots NCAA talking points. Here, I am talking about CNNSI's Seth Davis who wrote a rebuttal to Taylor Branch's acclaimed "The Shame of College Sports." In it, Seth expresses his disagreements using virtually the same shopworn arguments used by the NCAA to make his case.

Say it ain't so, Seth!

I consider Seth a friend. He gave me a tremendous endorsement for my book, Money Players, calling me a "tireless advocate for both professional and amateur athletes." We've also fought together against the National Letter of Intent by encouraging future collegiate athletes and their families to consider the benefits of not signing. Also, Seth's next book is on the late John Wooden, which I look forward to reading.

Still, Seth's rebuttal of Branch's piece is wrong on many levels, so let's go...

The true value of a college education
Seth writes, "Student-athletes earn free tuition, which over the course of four years can exceed $200,000. They are also provided with housing, textbooks, food and academic tutoring."

The real question should not be what a college education costs, but what is it worth to an individual student? To someone who maximizes their college experience, this exchange might be more than fair. On the other hand, it lacks intellectual honesty to argue that revenue-producing college athletes will, one day, have fond memories of the NCAA's educational and economic paternalism imposed on them.

Yes, athletes who are provided "full" athletic scholarships have a great advantage over students burdened by the enormous costs of college (The NCAA preferred term is "grant-in-aid," yet another contrivance used to avoid the appearance of quid pro quo). While this arrangement sounds great to Seth and many others, like a lot of things in life, "free" often comes with a hidden price tag.

Sorry, but just because a person assigns a high value to a full ride athletic scholarship does not make it so.

A degree or a meaningful education?

Seth suggests, "We spend way too much energy worrying about how the system affects a very small number of elite athletes, young men who are going to be multimillionaires as soon as they leave campus."

To suggest that impending wealth is reason to stop worrying about "small number of elite athletes" is completely off base. The huge number of college athletes participating under the NCAA umbrella provides ample opportunity to lie with statistics.

Let me quote...me, from a 2010 US News Op-ed:

The NCAA's incessant references to 410,000 athletes obscure the problem. Few think we need to reform lacrosse, field hockey, or other sports in which there is no economic incentive to have "student athletes" who are not really students. Just 13,000 (3 percent) of the 410,000 athletes support the NCAA and its member conferences and colleges through billions of dollars in TV revenue through major football and basketball programs. Even among that 3 percent, it's the much smaller number with NBA or NFL potential who galvanize the fans.

Also, many college athletes who are fortunate to go on to earn millions playing professional sports, don't become millionaires. Seth, re-read Money Players. This is well documented.

Seth continues his hyperbole, "As the father of three children under the age of eight, I can only pray that someone 'exploits' my sons someday by giving them tuition, room and board at one of America's finest universities."

As a father of an almost two year old, here's my view: No effen way. No one will exploit or "exploit" my daughter. If she plays sports in college, it will be because she wants to, not because she has to in order to fund her college education. In the meantime, I will unapologetically advocate for more fair treatment of all college athletes.

Is college athletics a lousy business?

Seth writes, "Myles Brand, the late NCAA president, frequently railed against [reckless expenditures]. They don't, however, begin to account for just how expensive it is to operate an athletic program. Branch derides college athletics as 'Very Big Business,' but the truth is, it's actually a 'Very Lousy Business.'"

Seriously? College sports is a lousy business? Back to reality: College athletics is a fantastic business for anyone fortunate enough to work in this enterprise, including coaches, administrators and also media.

As comedian Stephen Colbert once joked, “The NCAA basketball tournament has everything I like: corporate sponsorship, unpaid labor and blind partisan allegiance.” That's a funny punchline, but also spot-on accurate.

Can anyone think of a better business model? A legal (at least for now) cartel that conspires to define labor as students, caps the value of allowable aid, keeps athletes out as members (ensuring little pressure from within to change) and combines it with a devoted and vast fan base coveted by corporate sponsors. Absolutely brilliant, assuming you don't care about the rights of those who operate under these rules.

The NCAA is getting paid $10.8 billion from CBS and Turner Broadcasting in exchange for the broadcast rights to the next 14 NCAA men’s basketball tournaments. The Pac-12 signed a 12-year deal with ESPN and Fox for $2.7 billion ($225 million per year). There are at least 25 college football coaches earning at least $2 million dollars per year. Anyone who wants to argue that college sports is a lousy business is either an accountant named Max Bialystock (from "Springtime for Hitler" fame) or works in some aspect related to NCAA sports.

Seth works for CBS Sports. As Upton Sinclair wrote, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding."

If you don't like being an amateur, leave

Seth writes, "Left unsaid is the fact that the players do have access to the fair market. If they want to be compensated for their abilities, they can simply turn professional."

Perhaps Branch left it unsaid because the notion that college athletes have access to professional sports is completely dishonest. There is no competing market for football players until three years after they graduate from high school. Basketball players currently have a one-year restriction post-high school. They do have the options of Europe and the D League, but college is a better place to hone one's basketball skills, assuming eligibility can be maintained.

After Maurice Clarett sued the NFL in order to enter the league after only two years at Ohio State, the NCAA filed an amicus brief in support of the NFL position.

According to Wally Renfro, who still slings it at the NCAA: "The reason for filing the amicus brief had to do with...being supportive of education. The concern is not for those who go to professional sports, including the NFL, and are successful. Those folks are going to do just fine. The concern is for those who believe they can (and) probably have no real chances of being successful (as a professional) but abandon education in the process and wind up with neither a career nor education."

Nate Jones debunks this crazy theory in a Money Players post in response to a Len Elmore Op-ed.

The fact is the NCAA has actively lobbied and supported barriers to entering these professional workforces, while maintaining an opposite public stance.

--Marc Isenberg

On Twitter @marcisenberg

Branch article in The Atlantic lays college athletics bare

2011-09-23T14:33:47-07:00

Here's my October Basketball Times article.

If you are a frequent reader of my columns, you know that I often use this space to write about problems in big-time college sports. I point out an unfair rule or two, explain its unfair impact on players, spread some blame and offer a few solutions. But the NCAA remains elusive when it comes to criticism.

So a few members of the media and the academic world criticize the NCAA. It happens when you try to lord over the amateur world. Interestingly, the NCAA is remarkably thin-skinned when it is criticized. Especially if it Jay Bilas is talking or tweeting.

NCAA blogger-in-chief David Pickle once wrote, “Over the last six months, Bilas has written 13 posts focusing on the NCAA. The tone has ranged from a little negative to negative to hostile … (He) knows he can say whatever he wants, secure in the knowledge that he’s accountable for nothing.”

Interesting that an NCAA employee would play the accountability card, considering the NCAA really only has to please two constituencies: Congress and college presidents.

Congress can be plied with tickets. College presidents are slightly easier. Just keep the money flowing.

Shortly after the University of Miami scandal broke, NCAA president Mark Emmert rose to Miami president Donna Shalala’s defense: “She’s been a terrific leader in higher education, and I have great respect for her. I can only imagine how much she’s struggling with this, like I would have if this had happened on my watch.”

Wait, I thought college presidents were supposed to be in control of their athletic departments. And she’s already off the hook before the investigation begins in earnest? Meanwhile, several Miami players were suspended for dealing with a booster welcomed by the athletic department – and by Shalala.

When I saw the photo of Shalala cozying up with Ponzi schemer and Miami athletic supporter Nevin Shapiro, I remembered the enduring image of the 1991 photo of UNLV basketball players in a hot tub with Richie “The Fixer” Perry. That photo essentially ended Jerry Tarkanian’s reign at UNLV.

I promise you that Shalala will meet a better fate. Once you come to grips that the NCAA is hardly accountable to college presidents – and vice versa – it’s smooth sailing. Also, keep in mind, college athletes are not members of the NCAA, though athletes are NCAA’s stated primary mission. Ironic – and profitable.

The NCAA, if nothing else, is elusive. “We put our money where our mission is,” if you believe their words. It doesn’t matter what the usual suspects of NCAA “cynics” say.

But what happens when a new figure enters fray? And that person is Taylor Branch, who comes with impeccable credentials, including a Pulitzer Prize for his work chronicling the civil rights movement. As far as I know, Branch had never written a single word on college athletics. Then he pens “The Shame of College Sports,” a 15,000-word essay in The Atlantic, which Frank Deford called, "the most important article ever written about college sports."

Branch’s pièce de résistance is reminiscent of the Seinfeld series finale. For nine seasons, the main cast engaged in questionable behavior. But only a few people – like the irrepressible Newman (Newman!!! if your memory needs jogging) – knew that Jerry, George, Elaine and Kramer were up to no good. In the finale, the main characters were arrested for failing to help a carjacking victim.

Then their entire lives end up on trial. It does not end well. Judge Arthur Vandelay, reading his verdict: “I don’t know how, or under what circumstances, the four of you found each other, but your callous indifference and utter disregard for everything that is good and decent has rocked the very foundation upon which our society is built.”

Taylor Branch judgment reads like Judge Vandelay's verdict. He weaves it all together, laying college sports bare. With little room to mount a plausible defense, especially now that the masses are well versed in the “shame of college sports,” it will be interesting to see how (or if) the NCAA responds. [Interestingly, the NCAA has gone radio silent since the article was published over 10 days ago.]

Branch’s main thesis: “The NCAA today is in many ways a classic cartel. Efforts to reform it have, while making changes around the edges, been largely fruitless ... Threats loom on multiple fronts: in Congress, the courts, breakaway athletic conferences, student rebellion and public disgust. Swaddled in gauzy clichés, the NCAA presides over a vast, teetering glory.”

Branch’s article recalls an unsettling exchange at a Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics hearing in 1991 between Sonny Vaccaro, the former shoe impresario (and longtime BT columnist), and a college president, who asks Vaccaro: “Why should a university be an advertising medium for your industry?”

Vaccaro response, “They shouldn’t, sir. You sold your souls, and you’re going to continue selling them. You can be very moral and righteous in asking me that question, sir, but there’s not one of you in this room that’s going to turn down any of our money.”

Vaccaro added: “You’re going to take it. I can only offer it.”

Sports Illustrated’s Andy Staples tweeted a great idea: “They should actually inscribe that on the wall at NCAA HQ.”

Let me add: The majority who work in college athletics are good people. That includes those who work at NCAA headquarters, although the PR and media departments seem populated with propagandists hell-bent on perpetuating the myths that ultimately get translated into rules and even laws.

Not much more needs to be said than what Branch has already written (although, we can hardly wait for an extended version, which will be published as an e-book). A lot needs to be done. Not by NCAA “leaders,” but by those in a position to protect the legal rights of these athletes.

Vandelay?

California gets tough on agents and ham sandwiches

2011-08-08T12:41:44-07:00

Since 2001, the NCAA and its members have been instrumental in the passage of the Uniform Athlete Agent Act (UAAA) and other similar laws in 44 states (40 adopted the UAAA and 4 states have laws regulating agents).

So has it worked? Well, not exactly.

According to a 2010 review by the Associated Press, "more than half of the 42 states with sports agent laws didn’t revoke or suspend a single license, or invoke penalties of any sort. Neither had the Federal Trade Commission, which was given oversight authority by Congress seven years ago."

So did the NCAA admit defeat and move on? Heck no. It doubled down.

Some believe the problem with the state agent laws is they don't have any real teeth. Maybe if violators were subject to jail time and significant financial penalties, agents think twice about flouting NCAA rules.

That's apparently the theory behind California Senate Bill (SB) 238, signed into law last week by Gov. Jerry Brown. SB 238 strengthens penalties of agents who violate the Miller-Ayala Athlete Agents Act.

According to the bill’s author, California State Senator Kevin de León: "The dirty secret behind student athletes is that they toil for long hours pursuing their dreams but are often living in poverty. They are very vulnerable to unscrupulous agents preying on them in the hopes of a future reward. I am thrilled California is now one step closer to preventing student athlete victimization with the passage of this legislation."

First of all, it is a hardly a "dirty secret" that athletes are poor and work hard, but okay. Second, the notion that we are one step closer to "preventing student athlete victimization" is laughable.

In May, I was an invited speaker at an informational hearing held by Sen. de León.

The short version of my testimony:

Our government should be focused on far more important matters (e.g., jobs, the deficit!). It is absurd to elevate NCAA rules into law, especially if the NCAA consistently argues against outside intervention when it suits its purpose. There is virtually no enforcement of these laws. It is touted as protecting student athletes, but it's mainly about protecting NCAA institutions who see a correlation between agent contact and athletes turning pro early. There are no criminal penalties for coaches, athletic administrators and boosters who engage in similar activities. Last but not least, NCAA agent rules are completely unfair to begin with.

I am not really upset the bill passed, although if I knew the fix was in I would not have wasted my time testifying. I know the drill: Powerful people at powerful institutions usually get what they want. But...my state is drowning in a $26 billion budget deficit and they are worried about a few rogue agents who do not follow NCAA rules.

Actual steps to protect college athletes

Yes, the sports agent industry should be regulated in some fashion. I just do not believe the NCAA deserves governmental assistance when it comes to enforcing unfair (and likely illegal) rules that harm college athletes. If Sen. de León wanted to get one, maybe two steps closer to "preventing student athlete victimization," he should champion legislation that:

strikes down the NCAA's "no agent rule," which harms both athletes engaged in the negotiation of professional sports contract and those considering turning pro

allows schools to provide multi-year athletic scholarships

increases the value of such aid to the full cost of attendance

similarly encourages coaches, athletic administrators and boosters to follow NCAA rules (not that I am in favor of making NCAA rules into law, but if we're heading down that path, why not?)

California’s Miller-Ayala Uniform Athlete Agents Act

Why was Senator de León interested in protecting student athletes? For starters, I am sure the NCAA and its members lobbied hard. Since the Miller-Ayala Act was enacted in 1996, no agent has been charged with violating.

According to de León's press release, SB 238 "protects student athletes by requiring the courts to suspend or revoke the business privileges of an athlete agent convicted of violating the Miller-Ayala Athlete Agents Act. Additionally, athlete agents are required to disgorge all gross revenues received in connection with the violation. This bill not only applies to athlete agents, but also 'runners' who are often friends, family members, marketers, and real estate/financial advisors."

SB 238 clearly spells out possible penalties: "An athlete agent or athlete agent's representative or employee who violates any provision of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), or imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment."

Whoa! So a parent who does not follow NCAA rules can now be characterized as an agent and end up in the slammer? Writer Dennis Dodd once relayed what a former NCAA staffer told him, "If it wants to, the NCAA can make a ham sandwich a representative of a university's athletic interests." Surely NCAA enforcement can work the same magic with agents. (I doubt that was covered at the recent NCAA Enforcement Experience.)

One of my favorite cartoons from my book, Money Players, seems even more prescient...

This may close the so-called "Cam Newton Loophole" but think how this might play out going forward: The next version of Reggie Bush or Cam Newton could put a parent in jail for up to one year. That'll do wonders for recruiting.

UAAA background

Let's look at the whole issue of government interceding on the NCAA's behalf to address sports agents:

In the late 90s, the NCAA declared a virtual war against agents. The NCAA enlisted the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (I am sure at considerable cost) to draft a model law that would “provide a uniform system for regulating athlete agents.” That almost sounds reasonable. But the UAAA also, in effect, elevates violations of NCAA rules into violations of state laws carrying civil and criminal penalties. Clever.

Here part of a "sample letter of introduction", which the NCAA posted on its website to encourage its members to send to state legislators:

Unprincipled agent conduct presents a legitimate threat to the vitality of amateur athletics. While many agents perform a valuable service for their clients, dishonest agent conduct, intended to take advantage of the student athlete for financial gain, results in the loss of student-athlete eligibility, the imposition of financial penalties on the student-athlete's institution, and the taint of "scandal" on both the institution and the entire community of amateur athletes.

Very true, but the same can be said about "unprincipled" conduct by coaches, athletic administrator and boosters. Of course, the NCAA and its members would never want laws that could ultimately be used against their own.

And don't forget: When the NCAA wants to be left alone, it argues that it is a private, voluntary association, legally entitled to establish its own rules and regulations without outside interference. If you don't like, go work or play somewhere else. Take that, Jerry Tarkanian and anyone else who feels mistreated by the NCAA and sought justice through our judicial system. But...the NCAA can't effectively regulate sports agents. So the NCAA asks for government assistance. Nicely played. All this works, of course, because not many people track the NCAA or even care to bother. Exhibit A: I said all this at de Leon's hearing and see how much good that did.

For more information, my good friends Darren Heitner and Joshua Golka have have written extensively on the UAAA.

Mischaracterized problem

One of the main points I stressed at the hearing is that despite what the NCAA wants us to believe, this is not an agent problem. This is an amateur problem, created by a one-sided system that artificially caps athletic scholarships and denies college athletes the right to agent counsel. Ultimately, these rules encourage an unfortunate underground market for elite, mostly poor college athletes.

Also worth noting: With all the lobbying by the NCAA and its members to pass agent legislation, we are not talking about more than a couple hundred college athletes who are not only tempted to be bankrolled by agents, but actually accept such offers. And, perhaps most important of all, unscrupulous agents do not commit the worst crimes against broke college athletes. No, the worst offenses are committed against pro athletes who have actual money to steal.

Solutions?

Sorry, but there are none. At least not in its present form. Until the NCAA membership agrees to do an about-face on its agent and amateur rules, the underground market for players will continue to drive market force.

Yahoo! Sports' Dan Wetzel recently offered one, simple solution: "The way to end the selling of football/basketball recruits is to have schools stop buying them." Exactly.

The NCAA likes to claim that college athletes are entitled to talk with agents and even benefit from their services. Of course, there is some notable NCAA fine print:

“If you receive assistance from an advisor, you must compensate the advisor in an amount equal to the value of the services he or she provides you…without jeopardizing your eligibility, regardless of whether the advisor does not typically charge clients for such services.”

Translation: If the NCAA wants to bring down an athlete, a parent, an agent or a ham sandwich, this provision spells trouble.

--Marc Isenberg

Follow Marc on twitter @marcisenberg

NBA Draft rewind

2011-06-26T17:56:58-07:00

A few thoughts about the 2011 NBA Draft...

ESPN reported that it was the highest rated NBA Draft in 15 years. Why so popular?

The NBA is hot right now, but I don't think that explains why so many tuned in, especially for a draft that is, overall, considered weak. Twitter is probably the real reason. How else can so many people be engaged at the same time around a common interest? And you don't even have to pay a bar tab at the end. Maybe. That assumes, of course, that you are not participating in the now-legendary Jay Bilas Drinking Game, whereby you drink to certain oft-repeated comments describing draftees (e.g., a player's wingspan). My bet for most inebriated? Those who drank to, "Should've stayed in school."

The NBA is a journey, not a destination
The NBA Draft has a lot of drama. A few hoop dreams become reality. A few are shattered. But, folks, keep it in its proper perspective: Getting drafted in the first round is certainly a good thing, especially the guaranteed money that goes with it.

My advice for all the draft-night winners and losers...

If you're drafted in the first round, great, but don't believe the hype, stay humble and focused. And save money!

If you're drafted lower than hoped--or not drafted at all...best to shut up, get to work and prove the basketball pundits wrong.

For all, remember, it's not where you start, but where you finish. The best line is from Jerry West who once told me,"The goal is not to get to the NBA. It's to STAY in the NBA." The proper attitude is to accept whatever hand is dealt--and, of course, Go Pro Like a Pro (shameless plug for reading my booklet).

Rick Barnes is the reason Jordan Hamilton fell to 26, says Hamilton

According to Chris Tomasson, Hamilton believes the reason he slipped to the 26th pick is his coach, Rick Barnes, did not give him a good recommendation. Of course, there are three version to every story: yours, his and the truth.

Hamilton may have a legitimate gripe against Barnes. But blaming others for one's draft woes never plays well. As much as I reflexively like to take a player's side, if you make a coach think you are uncoachable, whether you are or not, that's his impression. And there's a good chance the coach will express his thoughts to all those who ask, including NBA GMs and scouts. In the end, college coaches definitely want their players to succeed in the NBA, even if they couldn't stand coaching certain guys.

Players need to understand, part of being coachable is playing the game, on and off the court: Do what the coach wants, buy into his system and generally act like team player. Or, at least, create that impression.

Jordan Hamilton Is fighting an uphill battle by making the case against Rick Barnes, no matter actually happened. Barnes has too many Texas-to-the-NBA success stories, including one of the most talented and coachable players in the NBA, Kevin Durant.

Best for Jordan Hamilton to shuddup and let his play talk for him.

F*$@ anyone who referenced Mr. Irrelevant

Mr. Irrelevant got its start in the NFL. The first recipient was was Kelvin Kirk, who was the last selection in the 17th round. Kirk was the number 487th pick. In 1976, the NBA had 10 rounds (220 picks). Back then, the last player selected had little to no shot at a pro career.

In the 2011 NBA Draft, the last pick was Isaiah Thomas, who was was 2011 First Team All-Pac-10. He was also the 2011 Pac-10 Tournament MVP. There is nothing irrelevant about Isaiah Thomas.

Dime Mag posted a good article on the topic, "Isaiah Thomas Is Not (Mr.) Irrelevant." In the last 10 NBA Drafts, four players made an NBA roster and two played "multiple seasons."

Should Thomas have waited another year? Who knows? I do believe players drafted in the second round should have the option to return to college for another year, assuming they've kept their eligibility in tact.

This leads me to my next issue: Those who criticize kids for turning pro too soon...

"Should have stayed in school"

Sure, more kids should stay in school. Same as every year. But, the real issue is not underclassmen declaring for the draft. It's the NCAA rules, which create this problem in the first place. And then the public blames these kids for making "bad" decisions without mentioning that the NCAA screwed borderline players when it eliminated testing of NBA waters.

For my entire diatribe on the subject read, "Mad as hell at the new NCAA draft declaration deadline."

I also reject the notion that players who turn pro early, but get drafted late did so because they received bad advice. Going pro versus staying is a game where some win, some lose. You just want those faced with this situation to make an informed, thoughtful decision without undue influence from either side.

It's also important to remember: One more year does not guarantee anything. It was great that Kyle Singler returned to Duke for his senior year, but did he improve his draft stock? If DeAndre Liggins returned to Kentucky, would he have used another season to showcase his talents? Not necessarily, especially if his minutes go down. Maybe Josh Selby should have stayed in school, but no one outside Josh and his inner circle really know his situation.

I certainly would have liked Tyler Honeycutt and Malcolm Lee to return, but they wanted out. When they were forced to make their final decision, both were legitimate 1st round prospects. If anything, this was the year for middle-of-the-pack college players to leave early once players like Harrison Barnes, Jared Sullinger, John Henson, Terrence Jones and Perry Jones decided to stay.

It is interesting to note: ESPN's Chad Ford Version 2.0 Mock Draft, which was posted May 17th, around the time of the NCAA-imposed deadline, included four college players (including three underclassmen) who projected as first rounders who fell to the 2nd round. It happens.

Let's look at the second round of the 2011 NBA Draft. 10 underclassmen were selected, 12 seniors, 7 foreigners and Jeremy Tyler.

2nd Round Underclassmen

34 Shelvin Mack

35 Tyler Honeycutt

36 Jordan Williams

41 Darius Morris

43 Malcolm Lee

37 Trey Thompkins

47 Travis Leslie

49 Josh Selby

53 DeAndre Liggins

60 Isaiah Thomas

Many of the foreign players drafted won't come immediately to the NBA. Some are under contracts. Others aren't ready. They'll wait until they are ready for the NBA.

About that kinder, gentler NCAA...Collegiate players should have the same flexibility to return to school. Would the NCAA model been hurt by Isaiah Thomas returning to University of Washington next season? Please, someone, make that case.

Rollin' with Nolan

It is a huge honor for your name to be called on draft night by David Stern and even Adam Silver. But I am happiest for Nolan Smith, who was drafted 21 by the Portland Trailblazers. Many of you are familiar with his incredible and bittersweet story. Hard not to root for Nolan, even if you are part of the "anti-Duke" sentiment. WaPo's Liz Clarke did a great piece on Nolan, his sister Syd, his mom Monica and his dad, the late Derek Smith. And make sure you check out the Sydney and Nolan Smith Foundation, which honors their father by turning family death "into a positive by sharing with other children who have suffered similar losses."

The 2012 NBA Draft Jay Bilas Drinking Game

I am going with: "Should have gone pro last year." Back when the talent pool wasn't so deep.

Follow Marc Isenberg on twitter @marcisenberg

South Park takes on the NCAA and student-atholeets

2011-05-31T07:00:00-07:00

When we're talking comedy and college sports, no one ever did it better than Stephen Colbert: "The NCAA basketball tournament has everything I like: corporate sponsorship, unpaid labor and blind partisan allegiance."

In just 16 words, Colbert provided a fairly accurate blueprint for why college sports is so darn successful.

Colbert's joke was funny. But did you see Comedy Central's South Park episode "Crack Baby Athletic Association"? It just eviscerated the NCAA. What do crack babies and the NCAA have in common? On the surface, nothing. But South Park dug deep and ended up striking comedy gold.

Even I, who has been known to criticize the NCAA on occasion, cringed a few times as watched. Of course, Trey and Matt offered a nasty portrayal of the NCAA, but that's how comedy works. When an institution offers unyielding, sometimes absurd arguments to justify its very existence, there's going to be pushback.

Who knew Matt and Trey were so well versed in the nuances of NCAA atho-letics and so capable of doing a full frontal on the NCAA in less than 22 minutes?

If you care about college athletes or are just have to find out what crack baby basketball is all about, enjoy the entire whole episode.

Or you can watch this instant classic scene below where Cartman pretends to be a slave owner looking for a legal way to not pay his slaves. He figured the University of Colorado president might have some unique insights. Just wow.

Crack Baby Athletic Association
Tags: SOUTH
PARK Eric Cartman,Kyle Broflovski,more...

Some memorable quotes...

Slave owner meets academia

Colorado president: "There are very good reasons our student-athletes can't be paid."

Cartman: "Now when we sell their likeness for video games, how do we get around paying our slaves.

President: "Student-athletes."

Cartman: "Student ath-o-letes? Oh, that is brilliant, Suh!"

Cartman: "If any government agency listening in on this conversation they should know we're not talking about slave ownership. [whispering] Alright, sir, how do you get around not paying your slaves?"

“I ain’t arguing. If they got paid then how would we make all that money, right?”

On the Crack Baby Athletic Assn. business model

"Got a constant flow of athletes that never dries up. Best of all, it's charity, so it's tax free."

"And it actually helps the crack babies. It's like volunteering, but we make just a little on the side.

"Welcome to The Firm."

On CBAA rules and an in-home recruiting visit

"Crack baby players can't make a salary based on the rules. I don't make the rules. I just think them up and write them down."

“Ma’am the Crack Baby Athletic Association is a storied franchise. It was founded over 12 days ago with a firm ethical code that strictly states benefits to players is detrimentalized to their well being. I cannot offer you or your child any cash. I can, however, offer you a little bit of crack.”

----

What do yo think? Did South Park go too far?

UPDATE: A few of the above quotes are courtesy of Darren Heitner at Sports Agent Blog, who transcribed my favorite new word "detrimentalized." Brilliant, Suh.

"Compete" booklet offered free on iHoops Website

2011-05-24T21:26:26-07:00

Rick Rhoads and I partnered with iHoops, the official youth basketball initiative of the NCAA and NBA, to educate prospective NCAA athletes and their families about the basketball recruiting process. The result of this collaboration is a FREE booklet titled, "Compete: A Guide for College-Bound Basketball Players."

The iHoops Website describes Compete:

"While the NCAA's Guide for the College-Bound Student-Athlete is heavily referenced in Compete, this booklet is different because it advocates the student-athlete first and foremost, and does so in the simplest wording possible."

Yes, Compete "advocates the student athlete first and foremost." And it does so in the simplest wording possible...aka plain English!

Despite a chilly relationship with a few NCAA folk, I am pleased that iHoops, which is funded in part by the NCAA, saw the value in working cooperatively. Special thanks to former iHoops CEO Kevin Weiberg for getting the ball rolling and current iHoops CEO Len Elmore for seeing this project to its completion.

As Elmore noted in his introduction to Compete: "The iHoops staff applauds the authors for their willingness to provide this assistance...iHoops understands the value that Compete represents. As a high school student-athlete, you can benefit enormously from the information on recruiting and eligibility which, in turn, will help you 'compete' successfully in the classroom and in basketball."

Let me reiterate: This booklet is free. Nada. They don't even charge "shipping & handling." Just click on the link. And it's yours. Act now!

While the examples used in Compete are basketball-specific, the booklet can benefit athletes in all sports, male and female.

Please spread the word!

After you read, let us know what you think.

--Marc Isenberg

Follow on twitter @marcisenberg

Mad as hell at the new NCAA draft declaration deadline

2011-05-05T10:46:45-07:00

Here's my most recent Basketball Times article, which addresses the NCAA membership's decision last week to gut what remained of the rule allowing basketball underclassmen the opportunity to "test the NBA waters."

But wait, I am not done attacking the rule change and the people who defended it.

The NCAA's board of directors voted to affirm the rule which will require underclasmen who wish to return to school to pull their name out by April 10th, which is conveniently the day before the spring signing date. The new date goes into effect in 2012. (There's a convoluted system by which this could be overriden, but don't hold your breath: The power conferences have already spoken.)

I am under no illusion that NCAA members would do anything other than what is in its best interest. (In case you don't know, student-athletes, who are arguably the key component in this multi-billion dollar enterprise, are not actually members of the NCAA.) I just get irritated when the NCAA and its members attempt to frame this as anything but self-serving.

It is impossible for those not already a consensus high-lottery pick to make a fully-informed decision without going through the entire pre-draft process. And then to remove the safety net for those who might later realize they made a bad decision is low-down dirty.

In an ideal world, only 7-10 underclassmen per year would leave early for the NBA. The rest would be patient, get a meaningful education and their hard work and perseverance would be financially rewarded.

And...now...back...to...reality. Think about the state lottery: It is a horrible bet, but that does not stop millions from playing ("A dollar and a dream," to quote a famous lottery slogan that ignores the long odds.) Yes, it makes sense for the vast majority of players to put their hoop dream on hold until after college, but try convincing a 19- or 20-year-old basketball player with stars in his eyes to wait another year. Every year 50 or so young men ignore the evidence and enter the draft even if they have little chance to make an NBA roster.

Defending an insane system

Does anyone in the NCAA governance structure with actual power take the side of athletes? What about the NCAA's Student Athlete Advisor Council (SAAC), which allegedly represents the interests of college athletes...did they offer any opposition during the last couple years when the NCAA all but eliminated the test period? Not that it even matters since the SAAC is powerless by design.

Florida State coach Leonard Hamilton publicly supported eliminating the evaluation period, telling the Associated Press in 2009: "Too many kids are putting their names in and they're taking their names out. Their names shouldn't be in there in the first place...You have so many kids making poor decisions, it's obvious some of these kids are getting poor advice."

Following Hamilton's twisted logic, that's like a parent saying, "Son, drugs are bad for you. And if you do them, you will suffer the consequences without my help." Back to reality: If someone you truly care about makes a bad decision, you don't kick them to the curb...you help them get back on track.

And do not forget: the only basketball players who would be able to return to school would be young men who actually want to be in school and took steps to protect their college eligibility. Imagine that.

When the NCAA's board of directors ratified the April 10th date, most coaches and administrators were smart enough to steer clear of defending the indefensible. One curious response was from David Pickle, who writes the official NCAA blog. He did what any good PR apparatus does when it can't argue on the merits: Claim media bias.

Pickle was responding to Percy Allen's article on the same issue. In Allen's lede, he went for the NCAA's jugular: "The NCAA is a greedy, money-sucking, self-serving, soulless entity that’s lost sight of its mission statement." After Allen's initial words, he settled into a well-reasoned attack on the new legislation.

Pickle avoided Allen's arguments entirely, instead writing, "This action was unpopular among basketball writers, many of whom used at as evidence to demonstrate that the NCAA shills for prominent coaches at the expense of student-athletes. Had the action gone the other way, writers would have been queued up taking the Board to task for not being sensitive to the plight of coaches (and returning athletes) as they struggle to determine their rosters for the following year."

Plight of coaches? Interesting phrase. I've always thought college coaches have pretty cush jobs, despite the constant complaining: million-dollar contracts, job security (at least compared to athletes who get one-year scholarships), country club memberships, free cars and a wee-bit of roster uncertainty if they are fortunate enough to attract NBA-caliber players. Tough plight.

This whole issue gets conflated into (Pickle's words) "we’ll-zing-you-one-way-or-the-other attitude"? A history lesson: The NCAA membership instituted various forms of underclassmen "testing the NBA waters” back in the mid-1990s. By Pickle's logic, the media should have been complaining about this athlete-friendly rule for the last 15 years. And yet...the media has spent the last 15 years not championing the cause of college basketball coaches who "struggle to determine their rosters."

This history will never repeat itself

Let's take a historical view of college players turning pro before their eligibility expires.

What if I told you, once upon a time there was a college basketball star selected 6th in the NBA draft who was offered a lucrative pro contract, but returned to school to play his senior season. Not only that, but this player led his team to a 33–1 record and lost in NCAA National Championship game.

Was this a compliance oversight? No way could an NBA-drafted player participate in an NCAA competition. Surely, the team's Final Four appearance was vacated. Or was it?

The player I'm talking about was Larry Bird who along with Ervin "Magic" Johnson, changed college basketball…for the better. Bird was selected in the 1978 draft by the Boston Celtics. Back then, this was legal: A player was automatically eligible to be drafted four years after high school, even if they still had college eligibility. Bird got to make a truly informed decision: The marketplace told him exactly how much his basketball skills were worth—and he could weigh that against the benefits of playing another season of college basketball.

And the college basketball world was better because Larry Bird was allowed to play his senior season.

So what is the solution?

First off, we don't need more NCAA rules. Institutions are perfectly suited to make these calls. A coach who does not want to be left in limbo can already force the issue: Don't renew a player's one-year scholarship. Just say, sorry, young man, if you can't decide by a certain date, we are moving on. Another coach may see the benefit of keeping the door open if a player's NBA hoop dream is not quite yet a reality. This is what some would call compassion. It's also good business, especially since the goal is to win games.

My overarching complaint against the system for underclassmen going pro is deeper than this particular rule. I actually do not think players should have to declare for the draft. You heard me. They ought to be allowed to find out what their actual market value is, then decide. Just like any other student exploring the job market. Get an actual offer, then accept the best one. Or forego immediate income and continue with school. The NBA will never tolerate a system that allows drafted players the option to return to school (like baseball). But there's a reasonable compromise: Follow the NBA's guidelines for withdrawing from the draft (currently set at 10 days prior to the draft). By this point in the draft process, there is far less uncertainty than in early April. Then watch college basketball spin off its axis. Or not.

A couple more points to consider...

The Al McGuire model for treating players

In 1972, Marquette star center Jim Chones signed a professional contract with an ABA team. In the middle of his college season. When his team was 21-0 and the number-2 ranked college team in the country. Can you imagine if this happened today?

Still, his coach must have been furious. How could a player abandon his team midseason? Of course, it's all how it gets framed. When Chones approached his coach, the legendary Al McGuire, he encouraged him to sign the pro contract, even if it was a devastating blow to his Marquette team. According to Chones: "Al says to me, 'Jimmy, you gotta leave, it’s a lot of money and it’s a great opportunity.' I told him that I didn’t think I was ready and you know what Al tells me? 'Jimmy, I don’t care and it doesn’t make a difference. You gotta go.' You see, Al had no fear. He wasn’t afraid to voice his opinion or stand up against anything or any institution. There will never be another Al McGuire or a revolutionary like he was...He saw the world not as people wanted to see it, but as it really was."

The always honest McGuire put it even more succinctly: “I looked in my fridge, and it was full. I looked in Jim’s, and it was empty. Easy choice.”

Contrast that with today's college coaches who want roster certainty for the following season just a few days after the last one ends, even if it means pushing a few dozen players over a deep cliff. Shameful.

A slight loophole (which the NCAA won't tell you)

Keep in mind, there are three important dates: 1) The NCAA's withdrawal date for those who want to return to college (as mentioned above, next year it is April 10th), 2) The NBA's date declaration date, which is 60 days prior to the draft, a date that is collectively bargained. (This year that date is April 24th) and 3) the NBA's withdrawal deadline, which is 10 days prior to the draft.

If a player is still on the fence or even if there is a slight chance he might want to return to college, the best strategy is not to file with the NBA prior to April 10th and keep the college option alive. I'm not sure how much additional information can be gathered in just two weeks, but after the NCAA's deadline passes, there's no turning back. Is this ethical? Please. If a player is turning pro, he should only be concerned with NBA rules, not NCAA rules. And a note to my friends at the NBA and NBPA: In the upcoming CBA negotiation, please shorten the official declaration date from 60 to 30 days, a move that would greatly reduce the burden of the NCAA's absurd rule.

--Marc Isenberg

Follow Marc on twitter @marcisenberg