[TonyLima]

B

How about this approach [which wouldn't work at Stanford, but might make sense pretty much anywhere else]?  Don't recruit any HS players; only recruit seniors [and maybe juniors].  That way, you're not the "minor league" training ground for, say, Harrison Ingram or Kiki Iriafen.  You don't have to spend money and effort on a player "with potential" -- who will turn in decent, but rarely dominant, performances as a frosh/soph and then leave you for the $$$ somewhere else just when the investment would finally pay off [potentially destroying your team for the following year <cough...Iriafen... cough>]  Conversely, with good planning [and enough money] you can build [and annually rebuild] your team of experienced and likely dominant players who have already proven themselves. 

As for 4-year player contracts, I imagine any school that required them would be at a disadvantage right off the bat to all schools that didn't, so that would only be viable if most/all schools required them.  Wait a minute, I've seen this movie before...

And, of course, if all schools got together and agreed to require them...  we'd have a lot more work for antitrust lawyers.

This is why I asked the question. Thank you.

---

interesting idea!

i wonder though if that puts athletes at an unjustified disadvantage compared to other students. if i get accepted to the typical college, i get to stay for 4 years if i meet requirements. i also get to transfer out if i so wish. 

why would athletes not have the same rights?

Let me suggest that the contract duration does not have to be 4 years.

[TonyLima]

B

How about this approach [which wouldn't work at Stanford, but might make sense pretty much anywhere else]?  Don't recruit any HS players; only recruit seniors [and maybe juniors].  That way, you're not the "minor league" training ground for, say, Harrison Ingram or Kiki Iriafen.  You don't have to spend money and effort on a player "with potential" -- who will turn in decent, but rarely dominant, performances as a frosh/soph and then leave you for the $$$ somewhere else just when the investment would finally pay off [potentially destroying your team for the following year <cough...Iriafen... cough>]  Conversely, with good planning [and enough money] you can build [and annually rebuild] your team of experienced and likely dominant players who have already proven themselves. 

As for 4-year player contracts, I imagine any school that required them would be at a disadvantage right off the bat to all schools that didn't, so that would only be viable if most/all schools required them.  Wait a minute, I've seen this movie before...

And, of course, if all schools got together and agreed to require them...  we'd have a lot more work for antitrust lawyers.

This is why I asked the question. Thank you.

---

interesting idea!

i wonder though if that puts athletes at an unjustified disadvantage compared to other students. if i get accepted to the typical college, i get to stay for 4 years if i meet requirements. i also get to transfer out if i so wish. 

why would athletes not have the same rights?

Let me suggest that the contract duration does not have to be 4 years.