Coaches won't admit obvious about fifth-year ploy (oops, plan)

The cynic in all of us -- unless it was just me -- heard about the five-year eligibility plan proposed by college basketball coaches and immediately dismissed it as a bargaining chip to get what coaches really want: more access to high school recruits.

See, the proposed recruiting model unanimously approved last week by the National Association of Basketball Coaches has two main components: adding a fifth year of eligibility to improve graduation rates, and eliminating official recruiting visits for high school juniors in exchange for more phone contact between coaches and recruits.

Washington's Lorenzo Romar denies the five-year plan is a bargaining tool. (Getty Images)

There's no way the NCAA would OK a fifth year of eligibility, of course. As soon as president Myles Brand hears about it, he'll stomp on the proposal as if it were a Bob Knight-shaped cockroach.

"I'm supportive of the package in its entirety," Brand said last week from the Nike All-America Camp.

Oh.

Obviously, Brand is playing kissy-face with the coaches. Five years of eligibility? It would increase graduation rates, but so would easier classes. Let's look at that.

And while we're living in Xanadu, let's impose a minimum age on the NBA Draft, invite all 320-something schools to the NCAA Tournament and declare everyone but the country's top 15 players an honorable mention All-American.

Back on planet earth, let's be real. To decrease recruiting mistakes by increasing their opportunities to develop relationships, coaches want more than one call per week, in a good week, to prospects. To win that meaty concession, they're dangling some fat to be cut from their proposal -- the preposterous fifth year of eligibility.

Last week at the Nike Camp in Indianapolis, I was smart enough to see the five-year plan for the ruse it is, and dumb enough to say so to coaches. Starting with Washington's Lorenzo Romar.

"I don't think it's a bargaining tool at all," he said. "No one ever said, 'Let's push this. We won't get it, but we might get something else after they turn us down.' It's definitely different, and there might be some tweaking along the way, but it's real."

Pretty convincing -- but we're not convinced. Look, there's Ohio coach Tim O'Shea. He'll cave.

"We'd probably need eight or 10 years to look at it on a trial basis," O'Shea said. "But potentially it could have a really positive effect. Most players are within a quarter or a semester of graduating when their four years are up, but the ones good enough to play overseas leave, and they don't come back. This way, those players could stay a fifth year, get their degree, then go on and play."

Sounds sincere, but sincerely ... no way. The NCAA isn't about to approve a five-year plan for one sport, even one that contributes as much cash as Division I basketball, without doing the same for every sport in every division. Factor in Title IX, where female athletes get every opportunity afforded males, and this issue is bigger than the NABC.

Penn State's Ed DeChellis will see it that way.

"The real issue," DeChellis said, "is it takes kids 4.6 or 4.8 years to graduate. I think if we go to five years, you'll see graduation rates take off. Isn't that what everybody wants?"

Sure it is, and this show of solidarity among coaches is impressive -- very impressive. Ask around, and you'll hear the same benefits of a five-year plan: increased graduation rates, better mentoring opportunities between coaches and players, more parity.

Remember that 2002 Kent State team that reached the NCAA Tournament's Elite Eight with a bunch of seniors? Imagine it coming back in 2003 with a bunch of fifth-year seniors. With the country's elite teams losing underclassmen to the NBA, a mid-major could finally break through and reach the Final Four.

But is that what we want? Do we want one Gonzaga, or do we want a bunch of Gonzagas? Hey ... leaning on those bleachers is Gonzaga coach Mark Few. Let's see what he has to say about this bargaining ploy, er, five-year model, and the undermining impact it could have on his program's hard-earned niche.

"I think a fifth year would benefit everybody," he said. "There's a lot of solid players everybody would like to keep for a fifth year. In the past we used to redshirt players and graduate all of those guys, but as we've gotten more talented players into our program during this run, they're not redshirting as much. And in the spring of their senior year (not far from graduating) they're heading to Europe. I'd love to see a fifth year."

Jeez, the evidence is overwhelming, isn't it? Maybe our cynicism should be aimed in another ...

"But," Few said, "I do think it will be a hard rule to get passed."

Well, maybe coaches can get those extra phone calls. It's the least the NCAA can do.