• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Wednesday, 4/30/97 Student-athletes: Should they stay or should they go now? Benefits include earning a degree, winning championships

In this column I will suggest that athletes should fulfill commitments to their college by staying for all four years (or at least until they graduate). I will be using UCLA's new prized basketball recruit Baron Davis (if you have not heard of him, where exactly have you been?) as an example of the kind of athlete who may be tempted to bypass his final few years of eligibility for the NBA. First and foremost, I am glad that Baron Davis chose to attend UCLA. As a Bruin basketball fanatic, I believe UCLA can now win a national championship. But for how long? Everyone I talk to believes that Davis will be the savior/messiah for the UCLA men's basketball program. But there is skepticism as to whether or not Davis' promise to stay all four years at UCLA and get a degree are for real. Davis may blend in with Toby Bailey and J.R. Henderson en route to an NCAA Championship. But if Davis reneges on his promise to stick with the program, Bruin coach Steve Lavin would have brought in a student who blemished UCLA as an academic institution. If Davis does intend to keep his promise and spend the next four years at UCLA, he will be a great college player for years to come. I firmly believe that next season, UCLA will have the best starters in college basketball - Davis at point, Bailey at shooting guard, Kris Johnson at small forward, Henderson at power forward and Jelani McCoy at center. But after Bailey, Johnson and Henderson graduate, McCoy will probably declare himself eligible for the NBA draft. Davis will then have to decide whether he wants to be part of the Bruin rebuilding process or be a possible lottery pick. If Davis leaves for the NBA, then UCLA was wrong to recruit him. UCLA is first and foremost an academic institution and should always remain so. But if UCLA's purpose is to be a minor league affiliate for the NBA, then something is obviously wrong with the system. If a high-school basketball player thinks he will be good enough to leave for the NBA before graduating college, why not declare himself eligible now? Kevin Garnett did it, Jermaine O'Neal did it and Kobe Bryant did it. Why would Davis not join the NBA straight out of high school if he is sure to go pro in a couple of years? If a basketball player is worried about not being paid enough money, then he should remember that once declared eligible for the NBA, he will still be subject to the rookie salary cap. He would have to wait three years before being rewarded with millions of dollars, so why prolong that wait? The only reason I can come up with is a college degree. But if Davis is serious about getting a college degree and won't leave school early, then I have all the more respect for him and wish him the best as a Bruin and as a pro. I would not approve of his choice to attend UCLA if he simply wishes to leave after one or two seasons (of course, this is all speculation). What did Stephon Marbury do for Georgia Tech? I have heard arguments that he led them to the NCAA Tournament. That may be so, but did he help the program? I think not. The Yellow Jackets have lately been unable to draw recruits and they missed the tournament last season. What if Davis stays here for two years? Well, after Allen Iverson left Georgetown, the Hoyas turned out to be not so strong. Is that the future for UCLA? If Davis comes here and stays only one or two seasons, he will be hurting his financial future by prolonging the amount of time he will be under the rookie salary cap and hindering UCLA's chances of remaining a powerhouse for seasons to come. But if someone like Davis stays all four years, his NBA stock will rise. This past season, three players stand out who decided to bypass the NBA draft to graduate and spend a fourth season trying to reach their goal of an NCAA Championship - Wake Forest's Tim Duncan, Stanford's Brevin Knight and Kansas' Jacques Vaughn. I believe that these athletes are all the better for their decision. They have fulfilled their obligation to the colleges and been rewarded with the chance to receive a top-of-the-line education, at no cost. Another reason for the Bruins to recruit a player who will remain here for four years is the fact that to win national championships, teams always need players willing to stay all four years. Tyus Edney, Ed O'Bannon and George Zidek played all four of their years and graduated with one national championship. Bailey, Johnson and Henderson will be here for their final years and will have a chance to win another national championship. But if UCLA begins recruiting players who leave before completing even two years of college, how are they to build a lasting basketball program? But what my argument really comes down to is the fact that college is an educational institution and not a breeding ground for NBA talent. Since top colleges like UCLA will still draw players who will undoubtedly be stars in the NBA, such as Karim Abdul-Jabbar and Reggie Miller, at least the athletes who come to UCLA should come both to play basketball and to get a good education. If they do not, I believe they are wasting the time of both parties. UCLA has accepted Davis and if he decides to remain here longer than two years and complete his college education, then he has fulfilled his promise to UCLA. But colleges should not accept 18-year-olds who leave college early to go into the NBA. If they do, they should not call themselves educational institutions. Mazeika is a Daily Bruin sports writer. Now a junior, he plans to keep his commitment to UCLA by staying here until he graduates.

Comments

Post a comment