The one less traveled by

[swood1000]

It sounds a lot like Nolan to me.

No, I think that only a player who has been one of the top three college players since freshman year would be dominant enough at the college level to generate the huge media attention that would be necessary to affect the player's endorsement value enough to compensate for the loss of salary by staying in college.

[SCMatt33]

JJ Redick probably benefitted from returning to school; Josh McRoberts didn't.

I know this is getting away from the topic a bit, but I would argue that the reverse is true for these guys. JJ Didn't do much to develop skills that he would need at the next level in his senior year. He already had his greatest asset, shooting, and didn't need much work there. From what I saw, his defense didn't remarkably improve. He did improve his ability to create his own shot, but that is something that was never going to be a weapon for him at the NBA level anyway. Mentally, JJ probably regressed by staying the extra year. He admittedly was very cocky throughout college and needed some time on the bench in the NBA to mature and learn just how hard it is to succeed at that level. If he had come out a year earlier, he would have still needed that time to mature, but he would have been a year ahead of the curve. Now, I'm sure he has no regrets about his decision given the accolades and records set during his senior year, but from strictly an NBA personnel perspective, it may not have been the right thing to do.

To make the argument that Josh benefited from coming back takes a little...ok, a lot of out of the box thinking. Had Josh not stuck around for a second year, he could have been a lottery, or near lottery pick. Josh's problem has never been his skill level or physical tools, it was always his attitude and leadership ability. As a lottery pick, he would have had much higher expectations thrust upon him to the point where he could have been a total bust and ended up out of the league by now. By coming back, NBA teams clearly saw that he was not a leader, and he was drafted accordingly. He got to play close to home and is developing into a solid player, which is what should be expected out of a second round pick. If he continues to develop and eventually makes decent money in the league, coming back for a second year and having his stock fall could have been a blessing in disguise. The NBA isn't like the NFL where rookie pay is off the charts. Of coarse, if he doesn't develop, he should have probably just taken the money while he could.

I know those aren't the most rock solid arguments, but it does show that these decisions can really go either way, and there is never a "better" choice when deciding. Each person has to simply sit down with those closest to him and decide his best path for the future with what information is available to him at the time.

[swood1000]

I know this is getting away from the topic a bit, but I would argue that the reverse is true for these guys. JJ Didn't do much to develop skills that he would need at the next level in his senior year. He already had his greatest asset, shooting, and didn't need much work there. From what I saw, his defense didn't remarkably improve. He did improve his ability to create his own shot, but that is something that was never going to be a weapon for him at the NBA level anyway. Mentally, JJ probably regressed by staying the extra year. He admittedly was very cocky throughout college and needed some time on the bench in the NBA to mature and learn just how hard it is to succeed at that level. If he had come out a year earlier, he would have still needed that time to mature, but he would have been a year ahead of the curve. Now, I'm sure he has no regrets about his decision given the accolades and records set during his senior year, but from strictly an NBA personnel perspective, it may not have been the right thing to do.

To make the argument that Josh benefited from coming back takes a little...ok, a lot of out of the box thinking. Had Josh not stuck around for a second year, he could have been a lottery, or near lottery pick. Josh's problem has never been his skill level or physical tools, it was always his attitude and leadership ability. As a lottery pick, he would have had much higher expectations thrust upon him to the point where he could have been a total bust and ended up out of the league by now. By coming back, NBA teams clearly saw that he was not a leader, and he was drafted accordingly. He got to play close to home and is developing into a solid player, which is what should be expected out of a second round pick. If he continues to develop and eventually makes decent money in the league, coming back for a second year and having his stock fall could have been a blessing in disguise. The NBA isn't like the NFL where rookie pay is off the charts. Of coarse, if he doesn't develop, he should have probably just taken the money while he could.

I know those aren't the most rock solid arguments, but it does show that these decisions can really go either way, and there is never a "better" choice when deciding. Each person has to simply sit down with those closest to him and decide his best path for the future with what information is available to him at the time.

I can't disagree, but for the person I'm talking about the question is not whether he's ready for the NBA but whether he could arrange a greater financial reward by staying in college in order to reap the benefits of media adulation.

[Kedsy]

I can't disagree, but for the person I'm talking about the question is not whether he's ready for the NBA but whether he could arrange a greater financial reward by staying in college in order to reap the benefits of media adulation.

You say you're asking a question, but you appear to be attempting to justify your own conclusion. You started with a tenuous theory based on questionable assumptions, and yet you continue to argue with everyone who disagrees with you (which appears to be pretty much everyone).

Big endorsement deals go to players whom the advertiser's target audience admires. Why would they admire the player? I can think of four things: (1) skill; (2) good looks; (3) personality; and (4) exposure. You are speaking only about the fourth item; the other three are more or less constant whether you stay one year or four. And I would argue that exposure is the least important of the four -- especially since a lot of pro basketball fans don't really pay much attention to college ball, and the likelihood is the player will be playing in a different region of the country, so the only exposure that matters is national (rather than regional). Not only that, but Kyrie (assuming that's who you're talking about) is getting plenty of national exposure now, even though he isn't playing.

Especially when you take into account the time value of money, the additional exposure from staying in school for three more years cannot possibly outweigh three additional years of salary and endorsement money. I don't think there is any rational argument that would support your contention.

[SCMatt33]

I can't disagree, but for the person I'm talking about the question is not whether he's ready for the NBA but whether he could arrange a greater financial reward by staying in college in order to reap the benefits of media adulation.

I know, that's why I prefaced it by saying it was a little off topic. To bring it back on topic, I know Josh had a chance to go pretty high coming out of high school, though not quite in the range mentioned originally. Of course, at the time, this same question applied to whether or not one would attend college at all. Josh's draft stock ended up taking a hit just by stepping on campus in the first place. That made me start thinking that you have to factor into the equation that coming back doesn't automatically equate to the positive exposure and brand building talked about, even if there isn't an injury. There aren't many examples that I can think of in Basketball where something like this happened to a top 3 pick, but it has happened in football. Just last year, NFL teams were slobbering over Jake Locker. Had he come out, he would have been a top pick and likely had endorsement deals waiting. Instead, he had a sub-par season, gained nothing new in terms of brand building, and will probably not just lose money from draft position, but endorsements as well. This year, Andrew Luck has put himself in the same position. He is super smart, squeaky clean, and a beast on the football field, the perfect recipe for endorsements, but he loses his coach next year, and if he doesn't perform, his endorsement value could take a hit. We like to think that coming back is a sure thing for college kids. After all, if they have already dominated at this level and and have an extra year to get better, what could go wrong if he doesn't get hurt. Unfortunately, things don't always work out that way.

Since this thread is (not so) vaguely about Kyrie, let's take him as a possible example. Let's say that he wants to come back next year to play with Austin. If Mason comes back, and Seth and Andre step up a little, it wouldn't be implausible to see Kyrie's scoring go down even if he has a great year. He's already seen as more of a passing pg than a scoring pg, but next year would cement that reputation. The draft next year will also be much deeper than this year's draft, so it's possible that he could be drafted later without getting much worse. It's also generally true that scorers are going to get more endorsements than passers. To compare pg's, lets look at Deron Williams and Chris Paul vs. Derrick Rose. Paul and Williams are two of the best pure pg's in the league, but they don't get quite the same level of endorsements that Rose gets, not that they don't get good money by any stretch. I could definitely envision a scenario where Kyrie comes back, plays great, but has his endorsement value go down as a result.

When a player is going to be a top 3 pick, he probably has some buzz about him in the league and will likely get some endorsements. Even if you could reach higher, there is always a gamble to coming back to school.

[Matches]

I know this is getting away from the topic a bit, but I would argue that the reverse is true for these guys. JJ Didn't do much to develop skills that he would need at the next level in his senior year. He already had his greatest asset, shooting, and didn't need much work there. From what I saw, his defense didn't remarkably improve. He did improve his ability to create his own shot, but that is something that was never going to be a weapon for him at the NBA level anyway. Mentally, JJ probably regressed by staying the extra year. He admittedly was very cocky throughout college and needed some time on the bench in the NBA to mature and learn just how hard it is to succeed at that level. If he had come out a year earlier, he would have still needed that time to mature, but he would have been a year ahead of the curve. Now, I'm sure he has no regrets about his decision given the accolades and records set during his senior year, but from strictly an NBA personnel perspective, it may not have been the right thing to do.

I believe JJ improved his draft status pretty significantly during his final year. We'll never know for sure, of course, but I saw JJ as a late 1st-round pick after his junior year. He went 11th after his senior year. Shelden Williams also made a big jump.

And to bring it full circle, I think that's a big reason why the decision to stay or go can't be evaluated quite the way the OP seems to suggest. There are a lot of factors that play into a decision, some related to $ and some related to player development. They really can't be separated from one another, and since each player is different it's hard to draw any kind of definitive conclusion. (For example, one player who is almost universally believed to have left too early is William Avery, the thinking being that he would have had a better NBA career with another year of development under K - but who's to say he wouldn't have been exposed in another year at Duke and dropped out of the lottery altogether? Maybe he just wasn't that good.)

[Indoor66]

I believe JJ improved his draft status pretty significantly during his final year. We'll never know for sure, of course, but I saw JJ as a late 1st-round pick after his junior year. He went 11th after his senior year. Shelden Williams also made a big jump.

And to bring it full circle, I think that's a big reason why the decision to stay or go can't be evaluated quite the way the OP seems to suggest. There are a lot of factors that play into a decision, some related to $ and some related to player development. They really can't be separated from one another, and since each player is different it's hard to draw any kind of definitive conclusion. (For example, one player who is almost universally believed to have left too early is William Avery, the thinking being that he would have had a better NBA career with another year of development under K - but who's to say he wouldn't have been exposed in another year at Duke and dropped out of the lottery altogether? Maybe he just wasn't that good.)

Isn't that the meaning of each player runs his own race?

[crimsonandblue]

What if Grant Hill had started suffering his ankle injuries in his junior year? What if Kyrie were to get injured again? What if Shaun Livingston had suffered his knee injuries while at Duke instead of jumping straight to the pros?

There are real risks to future earning power involved beyond the exposure threshold. Take a look at Randy Livingston. Top high school guard with incredible pro potential. Goes to LSU in the days before rampant early entry. Suffers multiple knee injuries and plays in only 32 games total in college. Drafted in the middle of the second round. Knocks around the NBA before devolving to lesser leagues.

If you're Blake Griffin and you suffer some injuries in year one and don't get to really showcase your stuff and your brother is still in the program, probably makes sense to come back for a sophomore year. But there are too many risks to blame kids who are assured lottery money, for making the jump.

If you could control for injury, the economy, the labor situation, NBA GMs understanding your reluctance to jump, and be assured endorsements, you could envision the scenario where a guy like Kyrie could do better staying four years. But you can't control or know all that.

[swood1000]

You say you're asking a question, but you appear to be attempting to justify your own conclusion. You started with a tenuous theory based on questionable assumptions, and yet you continue to argue with everyone who disagrees with you (which appears to be pretty much everyone).

Well, Kedsy, I appreciate your taking the time to respond, if not the discourteous tone. Most of those disagreeing have just said “It won’t work” and left it at that. You provided some reasons for your conclusion and that is helpful. Our disagreement seems to come down to two main points.

Big endorsement deals go to players whom the advertiser's target audience admires. Why would they admire the player? I can think of four things: (1) skill; (2) good looks; (3) personality; and (4) exposure. You are speaking only about the fourth item; the other three are more or less constant whether you stay one year or four.

This is our first area of serious disagreement. You say that public admiration is based on four factors, three of which are constant. I say that exposure is not one of four but is the process by which the other three become known to the public. You say that we are talking about the person’s skill, good looks and personality, which are constant. I say that we are instead talking about the perception of those qualities by the public. Whether that perception remains constant is the subject of public relations. It does not remain constant by some law of nature. But let’s move on.

And I would argue that exposure is the least important of the four -- especially since a lot of pro basketball fans don't really pay much attention to college ball, and the likelihood is the player will be playing in a different region of the country, so the only exposure that matters is national (rather than regional).

This is our second major area of disagreement. You are saying that when a player leaves college and sits down to negotiate an endorsement contract the company who is deciding how much to offer him does so without reference to how much public recognition and how large a fan base the player has already, and this is because basketball fans don’t really pay much attention to college ball and the ones who do are restricted to one region. To illustrate how much we disagree, I am quite certain that John Wall’s $25 million endorsement deal was driven by national fan interest, and that the national buying public was paying a great deal of attention to him and to Kentucky. I say that a team like Duke appears on national television twice a week and has an avid national audience. Furthermore, as we close in on the national championship a contender is ablaze in the media spotlight – television, print, Internet.

I say that if one person gets an endorsement deal of X and another person gets 1000X, the difference cannot be entirely accounted for by three constants (the person’s actual skill, good looks and personality) but is rather primarily controlled by a variable: public perception. It’s about appearances, and while it is certainly reality-based (it will be difficult to convince the public that an unskilled player is the equal of a skilled player, and it’s going to be hard to get around being inarticulate) it is also undeniable that if there are two players of comparable skill, looks and personality, one of them can be much better known and admired than the other and consequently able to command much higher endorsement and speaking rates. But let’s move on.

Not only that, but Kyrie (assuming that's who you're talking about) is getting plenty of national exposure now, even though he isn't playing.

Yes. The more the better.

Especially when you take into account the time value of money, the additional exposure from staying in school for three more years cannot possibly outweigh three additional years of salary and endorsement money. I don't think there is any rational argument that would support your contention.

Well, let’s take the simplest example. Person A makes $4,900,000 per year in salary and $100,000 per year in speaking and endorsement fees for a total of $5 million per year. (If you have different information about the average endorsement rates for the top picks over the last ten years please provide the link. All I could find was this: http://jonesonthenba.com/2008/06/top...gures-for.html which made it look like there is a steep dive after the big names at the top.) Person B begins three years later. He receives the same salary but $5,100,000 in annual speaking and endorsement fees, for a total of $10 million per year. We will assume that salary and fee payments are received at the beginning of the year, 10% interest is received at the end of the year, compounded annually, and there are no subtractions for living expenses or taxes.

Year end       Person A      Person B
  Year 1      5,500,000             0 
  Year 2     11,550,000             0 
  Year 3     18,205,000             0
  Year 4     25,525,500    11,000,000
  Year 5     33,578,050    23,100,000
  Year 6     42,435,855    36,410,000
  Year 7     52,179,441    51,051,000
  Year 8     62,897,385    67,156,100
  Year 9     74,687,123    84,871,710
  Year 10    87,655,835   104,358,881

The above does not take into account the fact that a person who is well-known will continue receiving endorsement and speaking fees long after he retires. Nor does it take into account the enjoyment or other benefit a person might receive from his college experience and from being a higher profile celebrity for the rest of his life.

Now, since some people do walk out of college eligible for $5 million in annual endorsement and speaking fees (it is clear that celebrities who are articulate and engaging are paid handsomely for public appearances and delivering speeches) I proposed a discussion to center around what steps a top player could take, if any, to turn himself into the level of celebrity who can command these amounts.

Suppose, just briefly, that the buying public is paying attention to college basketball, and that for public relations purposes the public’s perception of an athlete carries the most weight, and that this public perception can be modified significantly. A top college player is inundated by publicity, especially if he plays for a high-profile team and the question is this: if he did not dash away from the spotlight at the first opportunity but rather stayed and basked for years in the intense media attention and acclaim that the top players get, and also took steps to actively cultivate his image, such as by becoming a spokesman for a popular national cause, are there conditions under which it would be worth the gamble and what would they be?

You have told me that you disagree with my presuppositions. You say “No, a person is what he is. Three additional years of intense media attention in college would not affect the endorsement/speaking rates he could command, regardless of any other PR efforts, even if anybody were paying attention.” OK, I get it. And if everyone else shares your view of the matter then I’ll stop posting in this thread. Sometimes there is such a chasm between the presuppositions of two people that continuing the dialogue is nothing but an exercise in futility, and you and I appear to be there.

[swood1000]

Josh's draft stock ended up taking a hit just by stepping on campus in the first place.

I agree completely. There were expectations for him that weren't met. Kyrie might decide that the expectations for him have gotten way out of control. If his realistic appraisal reaches that conclusion then, from a financial standpoint, he would clearly be best advised to go pro without delay.

That made me start thinking that you have to factor into the equation that coming back doesn't automatically equate to the positive exposure and brand building talked about, even if there isn't an injury.

No question about it. But initially we need to determine whether there would be anybody for whom it would make sense. If so, we need a list of factors that should be considered when a person is determining whether to take the risk.

There aren't many examples that I can think of in Basketball where something like this happened to a top 3 pick

Can you think of anyone in college basketball who would have been a top 3 pick after each of his four years? It strikes me that we are in uncharted territory.

The draft next year will also be much deeper than this year's draft,

Then stay around, and drive his celebrity value through the roof (assuming his qualifications justify the risk).

It's also generally true that scorers are going to get more endorsements than passers.

That's an excellent point. Would top players whose dominance rests on their defensive performance and in their assisting role on offense be advised against staying in college in order to increase their name recognition and celebrity value? It is true that blocked shots, steals and assists are noteworthy, but the answer, I think, is driven in large part by what we could envision television commentators saying about such a player. Would commentators be expected to notice him, and would he be pointed out over and over and over? Would they be constantly showing plays in slow motion to point out the outstanding defensive or assisting moves? Would they be saying things like "Do you see how he did that? You kids just starting out should pay attention. That saved a bucket for sure. What an awesome move!" PR is the bottom line. If the commentators are not constantly praising the guy and pointing out how much better he is than the others, then his stock is not rising and there is no financial reason for remaining in college.

To compare pg's, lets look at Deron Williams and Chris Paul vs. Derrick Rose. Paul and Williams are two of the best pure pg's in the league, but they don't get quite the same level of endorsements that Rose gets,

This tends to show that, other things being equal, the pure pg is not as celebrated. But what if we make other things unequal, and we take a pg and subject him to three extra years of unremitting positive national PR? Maybe it wouldn't be enough. Maybe people just need scoring. I don't know.

I could definitely envision a scenario where Kyrie comes back, plays great, but has his endorsement value go down as a result.

No question about it. We're talking here about a risk, and asking what the factors are, if any, that would make the risk worth taking. One factor would be whether Kyrie is overrated as he currently stands (the Harrison Barnes Syndrome). Another factor would be whether Kyrie is a truly dominant player, who could expect commentators to be pointing that out relentlessly. Another would be whether we think that Kyrie's injury will linger or return. Another factor would be whether Kyrie has a platform that will provide him with maximum exposure. If he played for a middle-of-the-pack mid-major then we might have a different answer. Another factor would be whether Kyrie has the type of personality and lifestyle that is necessary, and whether he is articulate enough. In addition to endorsements there is a lot of money to be derived from public appearances, public speaking, giving keynote addresses and so on. And of course, Kyrie's comfort level with risk and his level of self-confidence would be critical, along with a reasonable assessment of the level of celebrity that could be within his reach, the likely endorsement/speaking rate that he would be able to command, and how long his income stream could be expected to last.

At the end a judgment has to be made: is the potential benefit worth the potential risk? Those who are risk-averse, are insecure, have high levels of self-doubt, or who determine that they lack the necessary requirements, would not be willing to take the risk. When the stock market goes up some people need to take their profits immediately and others don't. In some cases taking one's profits immediately is the smartest thing to do.

When a player is going to be a top 3 pick, he probably has some buzz about him in the league and will likely get some endorsements.

The only useful thing I could find about endorsement rates was this: http://jonesonthenba.com/2008/06/top...gures-for.html which did not suggest that super high endorsements are standard for those outside the top.

[swood1000]

And to bring it full circle, I think that's a big reason why the decision to stay or go can't be evaluated quite the way the OP seems to suggest.

See my response to SCMatt33. Would like your input on the factors.

[swood1000]

But there are too many risks to blame kids who are assured lottery money, for making the jump.

See my response to SCMatt33. I don't think that it can be categorically said that the risk is to great for anybody to take. It depends on the person's situation, what his priorities are, what level of risk he sees and what level of potential benefit he sees.

[Kedsy]

To illustrate how much we disagree, I am quite certain that John Wall’s $25 million endorsement deal was driven by national fan interest, and that the national buying public was paying a great deal of attention to him and to Kentucky. I say that a team like Duke appears on national television twice a week and has an avid national audience. Furthermore, as we close in on the national championship a contender is ablaze in the media spotlight – television, print, Internet.

I say that if one person gets an endorsement deal of X and another person gets 1000X, the difference cannot be entirely accounted for by three constants (the person’s actual skill, good looks and personality) but is rather primarily controlled by a variable: public perception.

John Wall left college after one year. Are you suggesting if he'd stayed in school his endorsement would have been 1000x bigger? Or 50x bigger as in your example? Or even 2x bigger? Obviously I can't prove it, but my guess is his endorsement money would have been the same or less.

Well, let’s take the simplest example. Person A makes $4,900,000 per year in salary and $100,000 per year in speaking and endorsement fees for a total of $5 million per year. (If you have different information about the average endorsement rates for the top picks over the last ten years please provide the link. All I could find was this: http://jonesonthenba.com/2008/06/top...gures-for.html which made it look like there is a steep dive after the big names at the top.) Person B begins three years later. He receives the same salary but $5,100,000 in annual speaking and endorsement fees, for a total of $10 million per year. We will assume that salary and fee payments are received at the beginning of the year, 10% interest is received at the end of the year, compounded annually, and there are no subtractions for living expenses or taxes.

Year end       Person A      Person B
  Year 1      5,500,000             0 
  Year 2     11,550,000             0 
  Year 3     18,205,000             0
  Year 4     25,525,500    11,000,000
  Year 5     33,578,050    23,100,000
  Year 6     42,435,855    36,410,000
  Year 7     52,179,441    51,051,000
  Year 8     62,897,385    67,156,100
  Year 9     74,687,123    84,871,710
  Year 10    87,655,835   104,358,881

I understand you're saying this is the only link you can find, and I didn't go into the list in great detail, but it looked to me like everyone on that list has been an NBA All-Star multiple times, except I guess Durant, but he was the only one I noticed anywhere near his rookie year, and he left college after just one season. It's hard to imagine him making more if he'd stayed four years at Texas.

To me it seems absurd to suggest that a well known rookie with 4 years of college would get a $5 million a year endorsement deal while a slightly less well known rookie (with everything else about him except years of college being identical) would make $100,000. Not only that, I didn't check your math, but if you changed your annual endorsement excess to $2 million a year higher (which is still way high in my opinion), my guess is the kid who came out after one year of college will end up with more money.

So, feel free to correct me if I misunderstand your argument, or if my quick attempt at math is wrong, but it seems to me it hinges on whether Kyrie's endorsements, etc., would be $3 million higher a year if he stayed in school through his senior year? Obviously nobody can prove it one way or the other, but there are only 13 people on your list (which is from 2008 for those who didn't click on it) making more than $3 million at all: LeBron, Durant, Yao, Kobe, Dwight Howard, Shaq, Wade, Garnett, Iverson, McGrady, Vince Carter, Dirk, and Tim Duncan. Not too many rookies would have any chance of breaking into that group, and the few rookies that would be capable of it (e.g., Kevin Durant or John Wall) would also get a huge deal after one year of college, and probably not $3 million dollars less than if they stayed in school.

One more thing -- on the list of those making $3 million or more a year in endorsements, only 5 of 13 spent more than a year in college and only two (Shaq and Duncan) spent more than two years in college (and 2008 was years after they left school). So it's possible that staying four years in college would actually reduce a player's endorsement power as a rookie, because the coolness factor disappeared or whatever.

So I'm sorry about my discourteous tone but I still think your argument makes little sense.

[snowdenscold]

In addition to what Kedsy said about changing the #'s around and having Player A come out ahead - it's also not factoring in expected value due to probabilistic conditions such as injury. You would have to know the person's risk threshold.

This whole thread (which was obviously conceived of with Kyrie in mind, but not explicitly stated) seems like an attempt to find a logical reason why he should stay. I guess then you can convince yourself that he will because it makes the most strategic sense, despite the fact that almost no one else (and therefore unlikely for Kyrie too) came to this conclusion. Should he leave, I hope you don't spend too long grumbling about how he made the wrong choice.

[swood1000]

John Wall left college after one year. Are you suggesting if he'd stayed in school his endorsement would have been 1000x bigger? Or 50x bigger as in your example? Or even 2x bigger?

No, my point about John Wall was that the buying public is paying attention to college basketball, that a player can build up a fan base in college, and that the size of that fan base will determine to a great extent how much he can make outside of salary.

Obviously I can't prove it, but my guess is his endorsement money would have been the same or less.

And this is the bottom line difference between us. I think that a top player, by staying in college, might be able to dramatically increase his name recognition and his fan base, and that this might translate into much higher endorsement and speaking fees. You think that a player will max out at the end of one year, and that three additional years of being the focus of attention will not increase his name recognition or his fan base, or if it did that would not translate into higher endorsement rates.

I understand you're saying this is the only link you can find, and I didn't go into the list in great detail, but it looked to me like everyone on that list has been an NBA All-Star multiple times, except I guess Durant, but he was the only one I noticed anywhere near his rookie year, and he left college after just one season. It's hard to imagine him making more if he'd stayed four years at Texas.

This link shows somebody’s attempt to come up with a list showing what players make just in marketing dollars, apart from salary. So if everyone on the list has been an NBA All-Star multiple times and the bottom one on the list is down to $270,000 per year, my assumption was that the typical first year rookie is making well under that in marketing dollars.

To me it seems absurd to suggest that a well known rookie with 4 years of college would get a $5 million a year endorsement deal while a slightly less well known rookie (with everything else about him except years of college being identical) would make $100,000.

Again, it’s our preconceptions. You believe that three additional years of intense media exposure would make only a “slight” difference. I think otherwise.

Not only that, I didn't check your math, but if you changed your annual endorsement excess to $2 million a year higher (which is still way high in my opinion), my guess is the kid who came out after one year of college will end up with more money.

At $2 million person B doesn’t catch up until year 15. Certainly, the key question person B has to ask is whether he would be able to increase his name recognition and fan base, by how much, and how that would translate into greater endorsements and speaking fees. You say there would be no increase. You and I are just in a logjam. Neither of us has any relevant data he can point to.

So, feel free to correct me if I misunderstand your argument, or if my quick attempt at math is wrong, but it seems to me it hinges on whether Kyrie's endorsements, etc., would be $3 million higher a year if he stayed in school through his senior year? Obviously nobody can prove it one way or the other, but there are only 13 people on your list (which is from 2008 for those who didn't click on it) making more than $3 million at all: LeBron, Durant, Yao, Kobe, Dwight Howard, Shaq, Wade, Garnett, Iverson, McGrady, Vince Carter, Dirk, and Tim Duncan. Not too many rookies would have any chance of breaking into that group,

The problem rookies have is a lack of exposure. I just have a belief in the effectiveness of good PR. However, I’m not saying that it would be for everyone, and I am not saying that it would necessarily be the right thing for Kyrie.

and the few rookies that would be capable of it (e.g., Kevin Durant or John Wall) would also get a huge deal after one year of college, and probably not $3 million dollars less than if they stayed in school.

Again, your assumption is that a person’s name recognition and fan base will remain constant after his freshman year in college. My suggestion is that three years of being touted as head and shoulders above the rest of the field would enable significantly better PR than three years of a middling-high position in the NBA.

One more thing -- on the list of those making $3 million or more a year in endorsements, only 5 of 13 spent more than a year in college and only two (Shaq and Duncan) spent more than two years in college (and 2008 was years after they left school). So it's possible that staying four years in college would actually reduce a player's endorsement power as a rookie, because the coolness factor disappeared or whatever.

I certainly don’t deny that a player’s endorsement power could go down, although I don’t see how your example demonstrates that, and my guess is that the “coolness factor” would be linked to whether he was performing in a dominating manner and how he was conducting himself off the court.

So I'm sorry about my discourteous tone but I still think your argument makes little sense.

No hard feelings. I think we’re at an impasse until we can locate some sort of study concerning (a) the factors that make one athlete more effective for marketing purposes, and (b) whether three years spent as a truly dominant figure would have a significant effect on name recognition, fan base and marketing power.

[swood1000]

In addition to what Kedsy said about changing the #'s around and having Player A come out ahead - it's also not factoring in expected value due to probabilistic conditions such as injury. You would have to know the person's risk threshold.

It’s not factoring in anything. It just gives a simplistic example of how the numbers could work. See my response to SCMatt33.

This whole thread (which was obviously conceived of with Kyrie in mind, but not explicitly stated) seems like an attempt to find a logical reason why he should stay. I guess then you can convince yourself that he will because it makes the most strategic sense, despite the fact that almost no one else (and therefore unlikely for Kyrie too) came to this conclusion. Should he leave, I hope you don't spend too long grumbling about how he made the wrong choice.

I really don’t see why people have such great difficulty understanding my position. I am not arguing that the proper conditions exist and so Kyrie should stay for three more years. Read my response to SCMatt33. I am saying that it seems to me that we could define some conditions under which by staying in college a top basketball player might realize a benefit that would outweigh the risks. What would the conditions be? Then, do they exist in a particular case?

[DukieinSoCal]

Chad Ford reports on espn.com that the Cavaliers are targeting KI with their top pick, which may be the #1 pick depending on the lottery. If that's not a compelling reason to return to Duke, I don't know what is.

[swood1000]

Chad Ford reports on espn.com that the Cavaliers are targeting KI with their top pick, which may be the #1 pick depending on the lottery. If that's not a compelling reason to return to Duke, I don't know what is.

I can't tell you what a pleasure it is not to be faced with yet another disgruntled post in this thread!