Wait One Year for the NBA Rule

[jimsumner]

I'm not sure it's valid to compare the NBA to major league baseball or the NHL. Major league teams don't expect high school players to go directly to the majors. In fact, they don't even expect the best college players to go directly to the majors. Look at Andrew Miller last year and he was the best pitcher in college baseball.

But MLB has a huge minor-league infrastructure. So does the NHL. Everybody that's drafted and wants to sign is assured that they will have a spot in a professional league somewhere. The NBA doesn't have that. So the devil is in the details. Does a high-school player have to declare? Is there a limit to how many high school players an NBA team can sign? What happens when someone is signed out of high school but cut?

College basketball is the primary feeder system for the NBA.
College baseball is not the primary feeder system for MLB. Minor league baseball is. That's a huge difference and it has to be bridged for the NBA to use the MLB model.

[johnb]

I hadn't heard that K planned to start Avery over Williams. I'd more often heard that Avery went pro at least partly because he had a feeling that Williams would take away his starting job and that he'd then never get drafted. Overall, I doubt K would have told either of them that they had a guaranteed starting spot.

[kramerbr]

The rule helps out college programs alot more then before the rule was in place. How many coaches would sign a top recruit in their sophomore or junior year and then back off recruiting any more prospects because they had already landed their guy?

Duke would of certainly recruited another player had they know about Livingston, etc.

Another example, is Rajon Rondo wanted to go to Louisville but Pitino had already signed Telfair so he went to Kentucky...

At least now a coach can expect a player to stay for one year and recruit accordingly...

[cato]

I hadn't heard that K planned to start Avery over Williams. I'd more often heard that Avery went pro at least partly because he had a feeling that Williams would take away his starting job and that he'd then never get drafted. Overall, I doubt K would have told either of them that they had a guaranteed starting spot.

Well, since it was a while ago, I am not sure that I can dig up quotes, but when Jason was a frosh, K noted that his development was especially pleasing, since the plan had been for him to learn the ropes while Avery was still in school.

I agree that K wouldn't guarantee starting spots to anyone, but at the same time, it has been difficult for even stud frosh (like Maggette) to beat out upperclassmen for the starting job.

Of course, in '01, Duhon eventually won a starting spot, with Nate becoming a key reserve, but that was very late in the season. And I can't remember if that shuffle was an outgrowth of Boozer's injury.

[SharkD]

I recall a very interesting article in Sports Illustrated from the late 1990s. It's premise was that the Timberwolves were a prime example of the folly of allowing star players to enter the NBA before they finished college. The T-Wolves had a huge amount of talent, most of them players who entered the draft before their senior year, and as a result, according to the article, lacked maturity and poise. So, it became every man for himself, with the team's "old man" being Laettner, who had gone from Duke superstar to Minnesota primadonna because there was no more "senior" players of note to show him the ropes. So, according to SI, all that talent and youth was a dangerous combination that led to lots of arrests, controversy, large salaries and a lackluster showing by the franchise.

---

IMHO, the baseball model of 0/3-years of college is the way to go, though I'd prefer not to see kids jumping straight to the NBA from high school.

[Richard Berg]

I don't like the rule. It's a good example of a compromise that's actually worse than the two extremes. I'm not sure about "it should be 3 years or nothing" but I'd definitely prefer either of those rules to what we have now.

Younger players entering the NBA before they have actually learned the game has caused the NBA's professionalism to crumble. Quit a few guys in the NBA that came out early (from college or right from high school) have damaged the NBA because they aren't mature enough to handle all the money.

Sorry, I don't buy this. 20-year-olds are not much more mature than 18year-olds, if at all. In fact, I'll bet you can find far more examples of drunk & disorderly (& worse) behavior among college kids than among high school kids.

As for your specific claim about the NBA, I think it's bunk too. It wouldn't take long to examine the complete list of players who went to the NBA after 0-1 years of college and compare their success (on & off court) with the general NBA population. I've seen a few such comparisons attempted here on the DBR boards over the years, and every time the youngsters came out ahead. Meanwhile, I can't think of a single early entry who compares to Ron Artest, Jayson Williams, Dennis Rodman, etc. in antisocial behavior.

[jimsumner]

"Meanwhile, I can't think of a single early entry who compares to Ron Artest, Jayson Williams, Dennis Rodman, etc. in antisocial behavior."

Kobe?

Jermaine O'Neal?

Actually, Ron Artest was an early entry.

[gep]

Of course, in '01, Duhon eventually won a starting spot, with Nate becoming a key reserve, but that was very late in the season. And I can't remember if that shuffle was an outgrowth of Boozer's injury.

If I remember correctly from that season and reading Coach K's book, Carlos' injury was probably the only reason Chris started. Coach K wanted to go "quicker"... with Shane as the "double-team" trapper. And, they blew away UNC in that very next game. Sweet... If Carlos didn't get hurt, I don't think Chris would have started, and the rotation would not have changed... In retrospect, that may have been one of the main reasons for the NC that year.

[DukeBlood]

This is a tough subject. It should be enter the NBA draft or Stay in school for minum of two years. Two years of college is enough to have people well on their way to a degree. For those who dont wish to go to school, and make a mockery of it anyway(cutting classes, not doing HW etc,.) might as well go sit on the bench in the NBA.

I just dont like the thought of the OJ Mayo's running schools, You know he wont take hard classes, and he will skip most of the time. Too me its a disgrace to the colleges.

Sometimes people have to leave for the NBA for financial reasons, and that I can understand(Loul Deng, Nate Robinson etc,.) Nate Robinson had a baby girl when he entered the draft, and needed the money to provide for the wife and kid. So if this is the case, I would hate to see a family struggly because someone wanted to get a education... So im not sure what I think is right.

[BobbyFan]

Younger players entering the NBA before they have actually learned the game has caused the NBA's professionalism to crumble. Quit a few guys in the NBA that came out early (from college or right from high school) have damaged the NBA because they aren't mature enough to handle all the money.

How do the examples you provide prove this claim? They don't. What evidence suggests that Kobe and Shaq would have gotten along if Kobe went to college? Michael Jordan spent three more years in college than Kobe did, but had problems with gambling and a reported affair. Or maybe you feel that if Jordan stayed one more year in college, these incidents would have never happened?

Isiah Rider didn't leave college early. Neither did Dennis Rodman, Derrick Coleman or Latrell Sprewell. But if they had, and continued to have similar legal and behavioral issues as they otherwise did, they would have been erroneously made poster boys as to why kids should go to college.

To prove your point, you need to do or find a statistical analysis which demonstrates that players with less college experience are more prone to encounter legal troubles, show lack of professionalism, or whatever you are hypothesizing. Even then, all you would have is correlation, not causation.

Needless to say, I don't like the rule at all.

[Atlanta Duke]

This is a tough subject. It should be enter the NBA draft or Stay in school for minum of two years. Two years of college is enough to have people well on their way to a degree.

A two year rule may allow the college team to get a greater return on its investment in the recruit but I doubt it will result in any meaningful increase in the graduation rate of recruits that are putting in the minimum time until they can declare. For those players who would leave after serving the 2 year manadatory minimum sentence of college ball, they simply would need to maintain their eligibility through first semester of their sophomore year and then spend second semester playing hoops and preparing for the draft - that scenario has been known to have played out at Duke.

Papering over the chasm between recruiting future NBA players who are in school solely to play ball and any pretense of mandating academic achievement for those players is a lost cause.

[ikiru36]

It's hard to come up with a system that is equally fair to the players rights, encouraging educational opportunity, NCAA programs desire for greater continuity, and the NBA (developing its "product"). To me, the current rule is almost entirely to the benefit of the NBA as it:

a) reduces the player's right to fair earning (especially since the Semi-pro circuit in the U.S. has minimal support at present and the Eurpoean system doesn't mesh with a U.S. high-schooler joining them for just one year)
b) barely helps program continuity (only protecting schools from players who sign and then still leave prior to matriculation, fairly rare, though it did sting Duke)
c) doesn't help at all re: educational opportunity as school's have especially little incentive to encourage academics for a kid who is known to intend to be "one and done." It's also a particularly hypocritical set-up as it encourages non-academically interested talents to fake an interest for just one semester which is really an insult to every other student and student-athlete at the school.
d) the NBA gets players who have begun to develop their own marketing fan-base with school alumni and through college notoriety. Without any cost to the NBA, they have a pre-made and widely televised farm system, receiving an extra free year to evaluate talent (without paying them) while reducing NBA's risk drafting directly out of high school.

It's difficult to compare with sports like hockey and baseball which have established semi-pro/farm systems. As for football, most players simply aren't physically ready (even for practice, given the nature of the sport) until they are 21+ years old anyways. In basketball, the most skilled players can at least play and practice with veteran pros, by the time they are, say 19, or so. Even those future all-stars who skipped college (say, Garnett, Kobe, T Mac, Nowitzki-and alot of the other young European players) didn't become first options for their teams until they were at least in their second or third year in the league (Lebron notwithstanding, I guess). From an NBA standpoint, why not avoid having to pay them that first year, then receive a more proven, seasoned and famous commodity the next year when they are more physically capable of competing too.

Don't know if it's doable, but what seems the most reasonable to me is giving players the option to be drafted after high school, but if they sign a letter of intent with a school and don't withdraw from it by, say, January of their Senior year, then they need to wait at least two more years to enter the draft again.

As an aside, though it's probably not an option, the NBA should also, as part of an agreement, be paying into the NCAA general student-athlete scholarship fund. At least this would acknowledge the costs they are saving by not developing their own serious farm system (or, perhaps, these could be the funds used specifically to provide some modest need or non-need based stipend to ALL NCAA D-1 hoops players).

I agree that a three year wait would be yet better for College Basketball, but it seems unfair to the player's right to seek fair compensation, should (by the end of their sophomore year) their economic opportunity to pursue basketball far outweigh their educational opportunity being provided.

Anyways, just a few thoughts. Basically, I agree with DukeBlood and appreciate the Luol Deng, Nate Robinson concern. To me this could at least partly be offset if restrictions were reduced on money earned through summer play or camps (while remaining regulated). There is no perfect solution, especially once the potential for corruption/cheating is considered, but the current system, from the moment it was announced, seems only to really benefit the NBA.

I would definitely prefer the old system (with improvements, allowing regulated but fair compensation for summer camp work/play) or the minimum two-year restriction described above.

Go Duke!!!!!!!!! Go Blue Devils!!!!!!!!! GTHCGTH!!!!!!!!!

[ikiru36]

A two year rule may allow the college team to get a greater return on its investment in the recruit but I doubt it will result in any meaningful increase in the graduation rate of recruits that are putting in the minimum time until they can declare. For those players who would leave after serving the 2 year manadatory minimum sentence of college ball, they simply would need to maintain their eligibility through first semester of their sophomore year and then spend second semester playing hoops and preparing for the draft - that scenario has been known to have played out at Duke.

Papering over the chasm between recruiting future NBA players who are in school solely to play ball and any pretense of mandating academic achievement for those players is a lost cause.

I may be mis-representing DukeBlood, but I don't think that s/he is recommending a "2 year mandatory minimum," at least taking into account that what is proposed also revives the opportunity to go straight to the NBA from high school.

Also, to me, the point about two years being "enough to have people well on their way to a degree" is as much about encouraging schools to at least provide educational opportunity, as about increasing graduation rates. If a kid, even if basketball is his career dream, happens to enjoy and appreciate the value of a college education/degree, two years and being 1/2 way to his degree seems like way more of a push in that direction than one year is. There are many great basketball players who, despite leaving early, valued their college educations enough to either accelerate their coursework to finish early or eventually returned to school in the summer to complete their degree. It may not be the rule but it is not the absolute exception either. From this standpoint, a three year minimum would definitely be even more recommended, but two years is still a dramatic improvement from one year.