Why do women's basketball players stay in school four years?

Story about Brittner Griner today asks that question:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/sports/ncaabasketball/womens-college-basketball-needs-griner-but-can-she-afford-to-stay-at-baylor.html

I don't understand why you wouldn't leave if you could go to Europe and make $1 million a year to play. Someone needs to just take the plunge so it becomes the new norm. Seems like inertia and peer pressure are keeping it the way it is now. A little bit of concern trolling by the Notre Dame coach who just wants to make sure her players get their degrees. There's no reason they can't come back for that or work on it in the offseason.

 

Candace Parker left Tennessee with a year of eligibility remaining.

 

The exception that proves the rule, though, at this point.

 

Someone NEEDS to take the plunge? Why?

 

“Everybody tells me I can make millions, but money isn’t everything,” Griner, a junior, said Monday. “Money doesn’t buy happiness. And I made a commitment. When I make a commitment, I keep my word. And these are your best years, in college. I’m just trying to have my full experience. It was never tempting. I never really even had to think or debate about it.”

How dare she not go for the quick buck in a country she's unfamiliar with? Has college basketball taught her nothing?

 

Good for her.

 

Because right now the players don't realize that they have the option to exercise their own leverage.

This is baseball under the reserve clause. Except there isn't actually a reserve clause. Just inertia.

Yet another example of the real producers believing that their benevolent overlords are kindly granting them this wonderful opportunity. Loyalty lorded over them. Something we should all be able to relate to, from our own industry.

 

Because they can't stay five?

 

I'm wondering about the socio-economic angle here. I've covered inner city girls' basketball and very few of those players were getting attention for D-1 scholarships, vs. their male counterparts. And you also aren't making silly, silly money like you would if you were hopping into the NBA.

 

Playing overseas is not nearly as glamorous as you may think. The money may be nice, but with what you spend to live there (especially if you want to have any communication with family back home) and the toll it takes on your body, I don't think it's something a lot of American players are eager to jump into.

If there were a viable alternative in the states, I think more players would leave early.

 

Oh please. I've known dozens of college athletes good enough to turn pro, in a variety of sports.

Some of them left early. Family needed the money. They had degrees in hand. They felt leaving early would maximize their earning power (high pick in a draft). Good for them.

Some of them were in position to leave early but stayed four or five years. And 99.99% of those kids knew they had options to flee their "overlords." :

Yet they stayed voluntarily and it didn't have a damn thing to do with inertia.

They stayed because they didn't value a contract as much as those arrogantly telling them they'd be foolish not to turn pro early; they believed coming back to get a degree down the road wouldn't feel the same as getting it on the first crack; and/or they simply weren't ready to walk away from college life. Good for them, too.

This may come as a surprise to some folks, but a lot of athletes don't view themselves as the real producers who are getting shafted daily by their overlords.

Do you really believe Griner or some of the studs from UConn were unaware they could make decent money by leaving school early?

 

I believe they do. Folks like Griner just choose not to do so.