The one less traveled by

[Indoor66]

Staying around one year as a top pick would have some impact, but not as much as staying around three years as a top pick. After three years of being constantly in the news, constantly the focus of intense national attention, adulation and speculation, and especially if one or more national titles were won, a person's name recognition and positive association would probably improve dramatically. Whether that improvement would translate into sufficiently increased endorsement potential is the question.

Also, the endorsement dollars need not be immediate. Suppose the increased name recognition translates into endorsement dollars that are 1/10 of the salary that he gave up, but the endorsement potential lasts for twenty years. Furthermore, the increased name recognition could simply provide a base upon which to build in the NBA. So he starts out with X instead of zero. And if he improves his name association he has X + Y instead of zero plus Y. Or in some cases it could give him the ability to do national endorsements since he now has national name recognition, whereas without this he would have been stuck doing only local endorsements and without an easy way of getting national recognition.

You are making assumptions that have no basis in any empirical data or fact.

[DukeDevilDeb]

O.J. Simpson running through airports for Hertz. There are any number of retired athletes who are still endorsing products quite profitably.

How about OJ Simpson running from the cops?

[swood1000]

You are making assumptions that have no basis in any empirical data or fact.

Whether they have basis in fact is the question. That there are no empirical data is the problem.

I have said all along that I do not purport to have answered all the questions or solved all the problems. I am merely proposing the possibility that a player who is at a high enough level, and who has the requisite personal characteristics, might receive significant benefit by staying in college. Is it possible that he could become much more celebrated than if he had spent those three years in the NBA? He likely will receive much more positive attention being compared to college players than he would being compared to NBA players. But whether that could that be converted into endorsement revenue is the question, along with what types of people would be able to benefit from this.

[swood1000]

How about OJ Simpson running from the cops?

That too.

[turnandburn55]

Surprised Grant Hill's name hasn't come up in this thread yet....

I think we also need to caveat these assumptions by saying that it only works for players with a specific type of game and/or personality. Guys like Redick and Hansborough just have a limited appeal to your average NBA watcher.

[swood1000]

I think we also need to caveat these assumptions by saying that it only works for players with a specific type of game and/or personality. Guys like Redick and Hansborough just have a limited appeal to your average NBA watcher.

Unquestionably true. Here's an article: http://www.magicjohnson.com/index.ph...sement_survey/ which made a couple of interesting observations:

The current list shows former athletes, such as NBA legend Magic Johnson, have the greatest appeal to corporate executives over all.

and

"It takes a certain type of personality to be comfortable with giving a keynote speech or schmoozing with clients in a business setting. When you are interacting with executives it’s nice that you can hit a baseball 500 feet, but you also have to be able to hit it off with your audience," says Tuchman.

[swood1000]

Surprised Grant Hill's name hasn't come up in this thread yet....

Here's some commentary on the 2004 SI Endorsement List, http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...14/money.list/, in which Grant Hill was tenth:

Consider the case of oft-injured Orlando Magic forward Grant Hill, who has barely played in three seasons but still clocks in at No. 10. By staying squeaky clean, Hill has held onto his endorsement contracts even if he's not often used as a pitchman these days.

[Jarhead]

Here's some commentary on the 2004 SI Endorsement List, http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...14/money.list/, in which Grant Hill was tenth:

It can be noted that Grant ranks #6 in endorsement money. Golly, I have a Duke hat signed by him. I wonder if it is worth anything.

[swood1000]

It can be noted that Grant ranks #6 in endorsement money. Golly, I have a Duke hat signed by him. I wonder if it is worth anything.

So, Grant Hill stays around for four years, leads the team to consecutive national championships, then

No one in the Hill family was surprised when Grant Hill was chosen third in the first round of the 1994 NBA draft by the Detroit Pistons. He inked an eight-year, $45-million contract to play ball, and almost immediately reaped significant contracts for commercial endorsements from Fila athletic wear, Sprite, Chevrolet, and other major corporations. His debut in the NBA earned more press coverage than perhaps any other player before him, and--having been raised in a sports spotlight--he accepted all the acclaim with good cheer. Describing his arrival in the NBA as a "dream come true," he was thrilled to be treated as a peer by players he had long admired. http://www.answers.com/topic/grant-hill-1

[swood1000]

any player projected in the top 3 is going to get a lucrative endorsement deal. Coming back is not going to enhance his first endorsement deals, and only his play in the league is going to enhance his second.

Do you think that Grant Hill would have gotten all this attention and all those endorsement deals anyway if he had gone pro after his freshman year? I really wish there were a listing somewhere of the endorsement deals for all the NBA players, not just the ones at the top.

To play devils advocate - what about a player who played 10 games in college, had an injury that really made him take stock of his career, and has seen his national profile sky rocket because of people contemplating "what could have been" if he had been healthy. He has a chance to capitalize on all that positive energy, or he can run the risk of coming back and potentially not performing up to expected levels, and seeing his national profile slip off...

wouldn't that player be well served to leave early and strike while the iron is hot, knowing that everyone and their father predict him to be a star at the next level?

Of course, if Kyrie decides that he is currently over-hyped, and that his actual skill level would not support a number one pick, then the most money lies in "not quite recovering" enough this year to play and then immediately going pro.

But let me turn the question around. Suppose Kyrie does actually have the skill level to be a number one pick (which seems to agree with some of Coach K's comments about him). And suppose he could leave now and receive the rookie contract amounts but without significant endorsement deals and no promise of ever having any major deals. If he stays around for three years there is a chance that he will be permanently injured and lose any chance of going pro. But suppose he becomes convinced that, because of his skill level, his personality, and the national attention focused on his team, and because of lessons learned from Grant Hill, if he stays around for three more years and is not injured he would be able to immediately land endorsement contracts of $10 million per year. What should he do?

[Matches]

Do you think that Grant Hill would have gotten all this attention and all those endorsement deals anyway if he had gone pro after his freshman year?

Right off a NC and the big win over UNLV? Yeah, probably.

I'm not sure how fair a comparison point Grant is, though. His freshman year was 20 years ago. There have been major changes in media coverage since then - HS players and recruiting get a lot more press now than they did back then. Even Tim Duncan is questionable as a point of comparison IMO.

[swood1000]

I'm not sure how fair a comparison point Grant is, though. His freshman year was 20 years ago. There have been major changes in media coverage since then - HS players and recruiting get a lot more press now than they did back then. Even Tim Duncan is questionable as a point of comparison IMO.

How do the changes in media coverage change the equation for a player? Are you saying that a player now can receive in one year the intensity of media coverage that used to take four years to receive? But if we can agree that the media coverage on the number one college player, who plays for a national contender, is golden when it comes time to negotiate endorsement contracts, and if we are saying that such coverage has become even more intense and effective in the last twenty years, then wouldn't that argue in favor of staying in college to receive as much of it as possible?

[Matches]

How do the changes in media coverage change the equation for a player? Are you saying that a player now can receive in one year the intensity of media coverage that used to take four years to receive? But if we can agree that the media coverage on the number one college player, who plays for a national contender, is golden when it comes time to negotiate endorsement contracts, and if we are saying that such coverage has become even more intense and effective in the last twenty years, then wouldn't that argue in favor of staying in college to receive as much of it as possible?

I'm saying that it's much more workable now for a player with little or no college bball experience to become a household name, at least in basketball circles, than it was 20 years ago. Aside from the occasional Damon Bailey, there was little national coverage of HS players 20 years ago, so a college freshman was "new" to most folks. That's why Grant's not a good comparison - he played in a different era.

These days many of the top HS players are followed by the national media for years before ever stepping onto a college campus. Everyone knew who Oden and Durant were, for example, before they ever suited up in college. Guys at that level don't raise their profile by staying in school.

[swood1000]

Guys at that level don't raise their profile by staying in school.

Agreed. That's why I suggested a cutoff point at "those for whom a highly lucrative endorsement contract is a done deal." Players above that point have no uncertainty about their endorsement revenue. Of the ones below that point I am referring only to those at the very top, the ones who are big celebrities in college basketball but who will not necessarily be big celebrities right away in the NBA.

[Matches]

Agreed. That's why I suggested a cutoff point at "those for whom a highly lucrative endorsement contract is a done deal." Players above that point have no uncertainty about their endorsement revenue. Of the ones below that point I am referring only to those at the very top, the ones who are big celebrities in college basketball but who will not necessarily be big celebrities right away in the NBA.

OK - but most of the thread has been discussion about guys who are top five picks. Those guys ARE big celebrities right away in the NBA.

Unless, of course, they suck, which some of them end up doing. (Hello, Darko.) But in those cases, the underlying problem is that the player isn't very good, not that he didn't stay in college long enough. We could debate all day about the relative effects on development of more college, less college, etc. - no one can really prove one way or another what's the best course, and likely it's different for different players. JJ Redick probably benefitted from returning to school; Josh McRoberts didn't.

[swood1000]

OK - but most of the thread has been discussion about guys who are top five picks. Those guys ARE big celebrities right away in the NBA.

It's a mistake to use terms such as "big celebrity" and "superstar" because they mean something different to everybody. I'll stick with "those for whom a highly lucrative endorsement contract is a done deal." My only point is that there are freshmen for whom that is not true, and who will not be on the receiving end of a huge endorsement deal, but for whom it could become true if they spent three more years in college basking in the limelight as the media darling.

Unless, of course, they suck, which some of them end up doing. (Hello, Darko.) But in those cases, the underlying problem is that the player isn't very good, not that he didn't stay in college long enough. We could debate all day about the relative effects on development of more college, less college, etc. - no one can really prove one way or another what's the best course, and likely it's different for different players. JJ Redick probably benefitted from returning to school; Josh McRoberts didn't.

I'm really not talking about the development of player skills. I'm talking about development of player PR. JJ and Josh probably didn't qualify because they were not among the top three pro prospects throughout their college tenure.

[Matches]

It's a mistake to use terms such as "big celebrity" and "superstar" because they mean something different to everybody. I'll stick with "those for whom a highly lucrative endorsement contract is a done deal." My only point is that there are freshmen for whom that is not true, and who will not be on the receiving end of a huge endorsement deal, but for whom it could become true if they spent three more years in college basking in the limelight as the media darling.

Fair enough, and I think most would agree the above is true for some players. No doubt that some players benefit PR/ endorsement-wise from staying in school. I just don't think guys who are top 5 picks are the ones who fall into that category. Usually it's the JJs who benefit from that additional exposure.

[swood1000]

Fair enough, and I think most would agree the above is true for some players. No doubt that some players benefit PR/ endorsement-wise from staying in school. I just don't think guys who are top 5 picks are the ones who fall into that category.

This is where it would be helpful to see an endorsement earnings list that includes players farther down on the list. You appear to be assuming that the lucrative endorsement question is a "done deal" for the top three and I'm assuming that it is not.

You are also assuming that the media attention received by a number one pick would be equivalent in his first three years in the NBA to what it would have been as the number one player in college, and that the endorsement deal he could be expected to command would not particularly benefit from the unique exposure that the number one college player on the contending team gets. The foundation of my argument is that it would.

Usually it's the JJs who benefit from that additional exposure.

They benefit from the additional exposure but they can't sufficiently dominate at the college level to command the type of media attention I am thinking about.

[swood1000]

Right off a NC and the big win over UNLV? Yeah, probably.

If a NC and big wins in college can give a significant boost to a player's endorsement potential then it must be worth while to evaluate how much of a boost can be achieved by what kinds of events in college, and whether the likelihood and value of those events justifies remaining in college to pursue them.

[thenameisbond]

If the original post is referring to Kyrie, it's way off base.

It sounds a lot like Nolan to me.