Bull-Plop!

Normally, I am not one to be easily swayed by conspiracy theories, but after delving into Eliot Asinof's Eight Men Out, I am convinced that anything is possible (in a much more troubling and somber manner than KG's interpretation of the phrase after winning the title) in the world of sports and the NBA could easily be fixing games and forcing action.  In case you didn't know,Asinof's book chronicles the fixing of the 1919 World Series, in which several of the Chicago White Sox' best players conspired with notorious gamblers and bettors to intentionally lose the World Series to the less talented Cincinnati Reds.

What is so chilling about this account is not the corruption of the players (in fact, I sympathize with them quite a bit), but the tacit (and frequently explicit) cooperation of the owners and President of the National League to cover up the dirty underside of baseball for the stated purpose of protecting the game and preserving the incredibly lucrative (albeit illicit) industry of sports betting, a central pillar in the foundation of American baseball.

Now, I'm not saying that I absolutely believe that the NBA is fixed, but I do think that it would be relatively easy for the league or other outside actors to influence games to maximize profits for the NBA.  The motivation is there (send Wade to the line 20 times in one night because Stern would rather die than hand Mark Cuban a trophy!), and the means to do so are available and effective.  Furthermore, the "fixing" of games only takes the tacit cooperation of the league, who, much like the National League during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, did turn a blind eye to serious problems in order to protect their reputation and maximize profits for the owners.  

It's all still a reach to believe any of the theories floating around, especially considering how fickle and just plain awful NBA referees are and how closely scrutinized every single action and decision is in today's media (even assholes like myself have a soapbox from which to cry "foul" at every possible opportunity).  I don't think that the NBA is as scripted or fixed as say, the NFL (that was for you, Ray), but I do think that the Association has serious problems with its officiating, transparency, flopping and a whole host of other controversial issues that it continually refuses to address, choosing instead to persecute players and coaches alike for their attire and expression (let Vince warm up with his ipod!  Why does this even deserve your attention, Commissioner Stern?).

Speaking of huge problems in the NBA that they refuse to acknowledge and deal with...

I'd like to wax poetic for a bit about the NBA's inane age limit and the pros and cons of sending promising, NBA ready players to college for one season.  First, a bit of background for those of you (mom and Lindsay if you're both reading) who aren't as enlightened about such important matters.   

In its continuing struggle to skirt the real issues and make token steps to cure an persistent problem, David Stern decided two years ago (when the league and Players Association were renegotiating the collective bargaining agreement of the NBA) they in order to protect young, vulnerable NBA talents from themselves (?) and the pitfalls of wealth, success and celebrity status, they should have one year of higher education to help them grow into fine young men in a collegiate environment.  I am absolutely not kidding about this, Stern actually expects these young players to a.) mature during their one year at college and b.) receive a valuable education somewhere in between practice, games, rallies, travel time and shooting various public service announcements designed to promote the image that most of the collegiate players have something besides sports to fall back on.

First off, I must contend that, despite having the opportunity for a good education, most division one college basketball players aren't making the most out of their university studies.  This is not to say that these players are stupid, unwilling or inherently unable to succeed at an institution of higher learning or are uninterested in an education, but that they are constantly pressured and pressed to put sports above every other aspect of college life.  The predominant culture with division I athletics (and basketball in particular) doesn't really allow student athletes enough time and space to really dedicate themselves to both areas of their lives.

Secondly, speaking from extensive personal experience (ear muffs, mom!), I can tell you that my first two and a half years of college were far more destructive to my maturity and development as a responsible adult than a regular job straight out of high school would have been.  I was put in a largely consequence free environment without any sense of duty or responsibility, zero supervision, no regular schedule, and then given access to a million different varieties of drugs, alcohol, women and other assorted "vices," and I was just a dime a dozen (or was that $100,000?) college kid looking to have fun.

Now, imagine the potential pitfalls if I would have been the most famous face at a school of 15,000 or more and putting up 20 and 10 on a nightly basis (I imagine my game as resembling a slightly more athletic Brian Scalabrine ). I'm not sure that it would be physically possible for me to mature, learn or even sleep in that kind of environment.  And I'd go to even fewer classes in that situation than I did normally (sorry, Jay).If you haven't picked this up already, my question is simple: how the hell is one year of college supposed to help these athletes grow up and improve as ball players and human beings?

I would argue that having a full time job with serious expectations, albeit an eccentric and exotic job, fosters an environment that is far more conducive to maturation and development than a collegiate setting can ever hope to offer.  Whether it happens in the NBA or in college, these young men all have to grow up at some point.  Why, then, should they have to sacrifice a guaranteed paycheck in order to go through this process?  The current eligibility rules of the NBA are stripping a small portion of the basketball population of their right to work when they are legally qualified to do so.  That is simply not fair, and I absolutely do not believe for one second the myth that college makes these players more mature or better human beings than they otherwise would be.

Though some players that leaped to the NBA from high school clearly were not ready to handle the demands of the league or the level of play, those examples are few and far between.  Additionally, it would be a misrepresentation of the bigger picture to resoundingly state that the early exit from academia was to blame for these failures.  Need a case study?  Here's an example:

Kwame Brown leapt straight to the NBA from high school and was the first overall selection in the 2001 NBA Draft and has done nothing aside form underwhelm us all ever since.  Sure, he sucks, but was his decision to skip college to blame for his  immense suckery on the pro level?

Think about it this way: if Kwame had (gulp) gone to college to play ball, he wouldn't have developed or been remotely coachable on even that level, and then would have completely missed out on his ever growing paycheck.  Sure, he'll be out of the league soon enough, but at least he'll be secure financially for the rest of his life.  At the very least, he's still only 25 and athletic, so some dumb GM will roll the dice on him.

Speaking of dumb GMs, that's where I place a good portion of the blame for this whole situation.  Actually, in fairness, I must admit that there is a vast and complex network of scouts, recruiters and the like that are fully responsible for filling these young kids with a great deal of false hope and a tragically warped perspective on the minute chances any player has of making it into the league.  But GMs and other executives are at the top of these chains and are ultimately responsible for the way in which players are recruited and scouted. 

As they are responsible for creating (or at least heading and fostering) the culture of this farm system, it should be up to NBA GMs, owners and other basketball executives to stop making such foolish mistakes on players that are clearly not ready for the NBA.  If they make a mistake, then they have to pay for it.  Who knows, occasionally, even players like Kwame Brown could end up as the bloated expiring contract that makes one of the most lopsided trades in NBA history possible (everyone's gotta have goals, you know). 

As of right now, sending all of these young players to college for a year fails dismally at all of the things it was established to do.  Despite the opportunity, the majority of the players involved in NCAA Division I basketball aren't receiving a complete education, and if anything they are placed in an even more treacherous environment than the NBA (need proof?  Find the pictures of college basketball's poster boy, Tyler Hansbrough, jumping off of a frat house balcony into a swimming pool). The only people institutions that the one-and-done policy seems to be doing is benefitting are the schools and the NBA, not the players that this system is designed to protect.

To me (and to most sportswriters out there today), it seems that this system is a useless sham that is designed primarily to benefit the college game and the schools that these otherwise NBA ready players attend.  This thinly veiled scheme to make money for division I schools was designed to help the college game, but in fact, the college game is suffering more now than in the days when high schoolers were allowed to leapfrog the NCAA and go straight to the pros.  Commissioner Stern's "fix" really only serves to skirt several larger issues and to protect the financial interests of TV stations, the NBA, and the NCAA.  

Finally, and most importantly, it is very important to point out the dearth of empirical evidence to support David Stern's assertions that college ball helps NBA players and skipping the NCAA level hurts them in the long run.  Clearly, there have been some players drafted straight from high school that were not and are not ready for life in the NBA, names like Darius Miles, Gerald Green, Kwame Brown and Sebastian Telfair all affirm that assertion.  While it is true that those players as well as several more were definitely not ready for the NBA, the same could be said for countless college ball players that tried to make the leap to the NBA.  The cold hard reality is that with only 30 teams and two rounds in the draft, a minuscule number of players actually make it into the Association when compared with the immensely diverse and deep pool of talent that the NBA draws from (not even every draft pick ends up getting signed either).

Additionally, while some high school players have been bad apples, there are countless other examples of players that skipped college to go straight to the NBA that are elite players and/or model citizens.  When David Stern talks about the need for high school players to go to college to mature, where do players like LeBron James, Martell Webster, Kobe Bryant, Jermaine O'Neal, Dwight Howard, Kevin Garnett, Tracy McGrady, Rashard Lewis, Amare Stoudemire, Monta Ellis or Al Jefferson fit in?  What about those guys with NBA ready bodies and/or minds?  Is it fair to keep them from something that they're obviously ready for just because some of their peers are not?  How can we really justify robbing those players (and many others) of several years (or potentially a lifetime, if a player gets hurt in college) of NBA salary?

The bottom line is that there is no reasonable justification to hold young basketball players back from the NBA given the logic and reasoning that David Stern uses.  Clearly, some players are ready, and clearly, some are not.  Those that aren't should go to college and try to grow, but that doesn't mean that it is ok to hold back the players that are ready.  To do so would be robbing them of their rights to work and of the best possible financial situation for them and their families.  That violates every core belief that we hold dear in America (except for the part about keeping African Americans poor and underemployed), and there should be no roadblock to the league for those that are truly ready.

If I haven't convinced you yet, here comes my knock out blow.  Saving the best for last, I think now is a good time to highlight a few of the NBA's most troubled and problematic players, and examine their roots and origins to fully test Stern's theory about the benefit of a college education for these young players.  Now, where to start?  I suppose the most appropriate place to begin would be the New York Knicks, since they had such a bad year this year and have so many players that prove me soooooo very right about David Stern's ridiculous hypothesis.

Does anyone know what a "truck party" is?  If you answered "a term used by Knicks' point guard Stephon Marbury (Georgia Tech) to denote an occasion where he and a Knicks intern get down in a car outside of a strip club," you're correct!  Among many other things, this former one-and-done college player solicited sex (full disclosure: it was consensual) from a team intern outside of a 2005 outing to a strip club and then testified about it in court this past year.  I thought that kids were supposed to learn in college, so then why would an educated and mature player like Marbury ever want to leave Kevin Garnett and Minnesota during the prime of the Big Ticket's career?  So that he wouldn't have to be Robin to KG's Batman?  That's something that an immature high school player would do!  Say it ain't so, Mr. "Self Proclaimed World's Greatest Point Guard."

Moving on (but not too far), we come to Zach Randolph.  Any Portlander can regale you (speak to Papa Doc, who has gotten Z-Bo wasted before at Aura) with stories about Zach Randolph that may or may not include sexual assault, battery, misleading police or riding around his property in Southwest Portland on an ATV with four women and at least two bottles of champagne (the Willamette Week absolutely loved to write about the portly Forward's exploits).  Needless to say, Randolph (wouldn't you know it, a one-and-done player from Michigan State!) is not the most mature person in the world, nor is he the best teammate, despite having attended an institute of higher learning and being coached by the legendary Tom Izzo.  What does this example say about the one-and-done system?  Is it appropriate or necessarily better than just letting the kids get paid to play ball right away?

Or how about Kadish's (and Shelby's too) beloved Carmelo Anthony?  As much as he can play (and as much as I hate to say it), 'Melo looks like he's headed down a bad road, he's had recurring problems throughout his professional career, from pot possession to DWIs, to more pot possession, to an appearance in a video designed to violently threaten police cooperators, to an on court brawl with the New York Knicks, to openly feuding with Larry Brown during the 2004 Olympics, the list just keeps on going.  Again, a one-and-done college player acting immature, selfish and emotionally unready for life on basketball's biggest stage.

The list goes on and on and on, until we reach the saddest example of all, Eddie Griffin.  Griffin entered the NBA Draft after one productive yet tumultuous year at Seton Hall and immediately stumbled and struggled on the pro level to maintain his personal life.  Griffin bounced around the league, struggled with alcohol abuse, refused to be coached and ended up dead at the age of 25 after being struck by a train while he was drunkenly driving his SUV through Texas.  A sad end to a troubled life, and unfortunately the ultimate proof that college and NCAA basketball do not a mature man make.

So then, what are we left with.  Is it simply that college basketball players should be forced to play three seasons at least before going pro like in the NFL?  No, unequivocally no.  Football players go to college to grow, train and lift weights until it is safe for them to go into the NFL.  They do not focus too heavily on character development (see "Cincinnati Bengals") in the NFL. 

What's the point then, what will work?  I don't know, but I do know that forcing players to go to college does not force them to grow up and be the mature players that David Stern wants to have representing the league.  The system of NBA recruitment and scouting is broken, and it only gets worse at the game's lower levels.  Forcing young basketball players to go to college to cure the NBA's attitude problem is a lot like putting a band-aid on a sucking chest wound, sure you "made" an effort to fix the problem, but what's been done is to small and too narrow to cure what really ails basketball once and for all.  

The only casualties now are the young players who do deserve to go pro and are ready to be in the NBA.  Not only are they being robbed of a substantial amount of money under the current system, but they are being subjected to an intense season (with at best an O.J. Mayo recruitment compensation package) where they could be irreparably injured or exposed as a weaker player against tougher competition.  The onus should be on the NBA GMs to sort the trash from the treasure, and they should have to pay for their mistakes with outlandish guaranteed contracts to players like Telfair and Brown.  There are much worse things things teams can and will do with their money than give financial security to a young man and his entire family.

Maybe I'm way off on this one, but to me it just seems wrong to rob these kids of good money and allow other institutions to profit from unpaid work in the name of making better human beings who are more prepared to deal with the trappings of life in the NBA.  I'm not denying that there is a huge problem here, but I just have to speak up and say that this solution is no solution at all.