Cliff Alexander case shows how NCAA rules need to evolve

The rule exists, and considering where this column is going, if that rule was broken it’s probably best to acknowledge right here at the top that penalties are justified.

Because if a loan was taken out using the future professional basketball earnings of Kansas freshman Cliff Alexander as collateral, this represents a violation of NCAA rules, which means an NCAA punishment. That is presumably true even if the loan was taken by a family member without Alexander’s knowledge, and if that’s as far as you want to go with this story, fine, the rule is on your side.

For now, and barely.

But if we can move beyond technicalities and into realities, it is plainly obvious this is a bad and outdated rule that is unnecessarily limiting college athletes.

In a time of massive change for college sports, this is one of those rules that should and probably will be changed to more closely mirror common sense — but only after effectively ending Alexander’s time at KU, and forcing him into a bad decision to enter the NBA Draft.

Alexander should be a success story for the NBA’s so-called one-and-done rule. He might have been a mid-first round pick if allowed to enter the draft out of high school, but a slow and underwhelming season against college players shows that would have been a mistake.

There still is a lot of talent and potential in Alexander, and another season to develop would do some good. The NBA has shortened rookie contracts, emphasizing guys who can contribute quickly, and it is clear that Alexander could use more time to develop his offensive skills, footwork and athleticism.

But that is now likely a story of regret and what may have been. Alexander’s college experience is effectively ruined, and a bad decision all but forced on him.

NCAA rules should encourage athletes to stay in school, but here the opposite is being done — and for what?

There is no protection of athletes or schools going on here. There are many ways for kids or their families to get money. Loans from licensed institutions aren’t harming anyone. They also come with the benefit of easy oversight and regulation — more manageable than gifts from boosters, for instance.

Big programs don’t have recruiting advantages over midmajors here, and allowing these types of loans does not cost a cent for any school of any size.

If anything, allowing loans could be an indirect moneymaker for schools if good (and marketable) athletes are encouraged to stick in college a little longer. That’s good for the schools, obviously, and it would also be good for professional leagues who would be drafting better and more polished players.

If this all sounds impossible, or unfeasible, or otherwise like the sort of thing college sports should not be about, it’s worth mentioning that this is actually something college sports has chosen to be about.

The changes adopted in January’s vote for power-conference autonomy included a proposal to allow athletes to borrow against future professional earnings to purchase loss-of-value insurance.

These pricy policies have been available to college athletes for years as protection from injuries that would prevent or significantly limit their professional careers. The proposal includes draft projections on both sides — future earnings and insurance policy value — which could easily be used for licensed loans.

Using future earnings for a loan instead of an insurance policy could be smarter for the athlete, anyway, because it is believed that no athlete has been able to successfully cash a loss-of-value policy.

Again, where is the harm? This is a rule that’s past its expiration date, and at least one major college administrator thinks it would have been cleanly adopted in the autonomy vote if anyone would have thought of it at the time.

In that way, Alexander’s case is being highlighted a few months too late. He has missed the last three games, and there are no indications that the NCAA’s investigation will conclude in time for the Big 12 Tournament this week or even the NCAA Tournament after that.

It would be sad and unnecessary for this to be how Alexander’s time at Kansas and in college ends. That would be doubly so if he didn’t know about the loan, but either way is an example of NCAA rules outreaching reason and purpose.

The rules of college sports are being rewritten almost constantly. The trend is moving to a place where a loan based on future earnings will someday be allowed.

That movement won’t happen in time to help Alexander, whose college career probably will end in street clothes and his professional career likely will begin with a diminished value.

But there will be another athlete like Alexander, someone at KU or K-State or Missouri or somewhere else. It doesn’t have to be too late for him.

This story was originally published March 9, 2015 at 8:48 PM with the headline "Cliff Alexander case shows how NCAA rules need to evolve."