2015 Basketball Recruiting Thread

[richardjackson199]

Yeah, that makes sense to me. Interestingly, though, the recruits Duke has been going after in the 2015 class project more as 3-4 year players, not the 1-and-dones that could become 2-and-dones if the NBA rule changes. Kennard, Jeter, Ingram, Ellenson all fit the 3-4 year mold. Stone would be nice to get but I'm not sure he has a firm scholarship offer yet, and getting Ebi might have affected our interest in him.

Does that mean Duke hasn't played it right with the 2015 class? No. 2015 is considered pretty weak at the top. I think the only player that could clearly be 1-and-done is Ivan Rabb. So whoever gets Ivan Rabb (Arizona?) might be able to enjoy his talents for two years, and that'd be a nice advantage to have. But I'm sure there are legitimate reasons why Duke hasn't recruited Rabb hard. Every other player in this class was probably going to stay at least two years anyway, even without the rule change.

The real prizes if 2-and-done gets implemented by the NBA are in the loaded 2016 class. If you can get Harry Giles for two years, wow. That's going to be an epic recruiting battle between Duke and UNC for him. Him and Jayson Tatum and Dennis Smith Jr and probably a few other names.

Absolutely. I love what we're doing with 2015. Also, with 20 & 2 we might see some players at Duke who make a decision like Jason Williams - "maybe I should just come back for a 3rd year, finish my Duke degree, and get my jersey retired." I won't hold my breath, but it happened with him.

But that is my point, by 2016 I'd love for Duke to have established a recruiting edge over Calipari, Roy, Self, and Miller. Kentucky will also likely be a player in the Giles sweepstakes. By then, let's hope it's Duke who is getting those 2016 studs for at least 2 years.

[tommy]

Yeah, that makes sense to me. Interestingly, though, the recruits Duke has been going after in the 2015 class project more as 3-4 year players, not the 1-and-dones that could become 2-and-dones if the NBA rule changes. Kennard, Jeter, Ingram, Ellenson all fit the 3-4 year mold. Stone would be nice to get but I'm not sure he has a firm scholarship offer yet, and getting Ebi might have affected our interest in him.

Does that mean Duke hasn't played it right with the 2015 class? No. 2015 is considered pretty weak at the top. I think the only player that could clearly be 1-and-done is Ivan Rabb. So whoever gets Ivan Rabb (Arizona?) might be able to enjoy his talents for two years, and that'd be a nice advantage to have. But I'm sure there are legitimate reasons why Duke hasn't recruited Rabb hard. Every other player in this class was probably going to stay at least two years anyway, even without the rule change.

Malik Newman in the 2015 class is also a one-and-done talent. I think Duke is a real longshot with him in any event, but we have been involved somewhat with him, according to my understanding. But I haven't heard much about this recruitment lately.

[COYS]

Yeah, that makes sense to me. Interestingly, though, the recruits Duke has been going after in the 2015 class project more as 3-4 year players, not the 1-and-dones that could become 2-and-dones if the NBA rule changes. Kennard, Jeter, Ingram, Ellenson all fit the 3-4 year mold. Stone would be nice to get but I'm not sure he has a firm scholarship offer yet, and getting Ebi might have affected our interest in him.

Does that mean Duke hasn't played it right with the 2015 class? No. 2015 is considered pretty weak at the top. I think the only player that could clearly be 1-and-done is Ivan Rabb. So whoever gets Ivan Rabb (Arizona?) might be able to enjoy his talents for two years, and that'd be a nice advantage to have. But I'm sure there are legitimate reasons why Duke hasn't recruited Rabb hard. Every other player in this class was probably going to stay at least two years anyway, even without the rule change.

The real prizes if 2-and-done gets implemented by the NBA are in the loaded 2016 class. If you can get Harry Giles for two years, wow. That's going to be an epic recruiting battle between Duke and UNC for him. Him and Jayson Tatum and Dennis Smith Jr and probably a few other names in 2016.

I also wonder if a 2/20 rule might make a difference in the decisions of non-top 10 draft picks deciding whether or not to return and play in the 2015-2016 season. While returning to college to improve your stock if you're already a solid 1st rounder can be risky, it is much less risky if the draft is artificially weakened by something like the 2/20 rule. Take the 2006 draft, which was the first after the current one and done rule was implemented. High school studs like Kevin Durant and Michael Beasley were not available for selection. The result? The underwhelming Andrea Bargnani went number 1. Adam Morrison and (I hate to write it, but it is true) Shelden Williams went in the top 5. If Joakim Noah had declared, he may very well have been the number 1 pick. GM's make mistakes every draft, but the fact of the matter is, the 2006 draft was generally really, really weak at the top. However, the underclassmen who decided not to enter the 2005 draft certainly benefited from the weak draft. The NBA success of the 2005 draftees aside, there is simply no way that Shelden would have gone as high with Bogut, Chris Paul, Marvin Williams (as terrible as he ended up being), Deron Williams etc., as competition. Also, no way Bargnani goes number 1 in that draft.

The same could happen next season. There will be a fair number of freshmen declaring next spring. Jahlil, Stanley Johnson, Emmanuel Mudiay, Karl Townes, Cliff Alexander, Kelly Oubre, and Myles Turner are all probably pretty dang likely to leave after one season. However, if the next wave of freshmen phenoms are prohibited from entering the 2016 draft, then any mid-2015 first rounders might be well served to come back. I could certainly see someone like Tyus Jones or Justise Winslow, guys who have NBA futures but either need to prove they can handle NBA physicality (Tyus) or prove they have they can refine their skills to match their physical abilities (Justise), deciding to come back because they have a real chance of shooting up the draft boards. They won't be competing with the high school class of 2015 for places in the first round.

The flip side, of course, is that there could be a lot of juniors who declare at the end of the 2016 season even if in past drafts they may have been borderline first rounders in a normal draft. This could cancel out the effect of the lack of freshmen in the draft.

[gam7]

I also wonder if a 2/20 rule might make a difference in the decisions of non-top 10 draft picks deciding whether or not to return and play in the 2015-2016 season. While returning to college to improve your stock if you're already a solid 1st rounder can be risky, it is much less risky if the draft is artificially weakened by something like the 2/20 rule. Take the 2006 draft, which was the first after the current one and done rule was implemented. High school studs like Kevin Durant and Michael Beasley were not available for selection. The result? The underwhelming Andrea Bargnani went number 1. Adam Morrison and (I hate to write it, but it is true) Shelden Williams went in the top 5. If Joakim Noah had declared, he may very well have been the number 1 pick. GM's make mistakes every draft, but the fact of the matter is, the 2006 draft was generally really, really weak at the top. However, the underclassmen who decided not to enter the 2005 draft certainly benefited from the weak draft. The NBA success of the 2005 draftees aside, there is simply no way that Shelden would have gone as high with Bogut, Chris Paul, Marvin Williams (as terrible as he ended up being), Deron Williams etc., as competition. Also, no way Bargnani goes number 1 in that draft.

The same could happen next season. There will be a fair number of freshmen declaring next spring. Jahlil, Stanley Johnson, Emmanuel Mudiay, Karl Townes, Cliff Alexander, Kelly Oubre, and Myles Turner are all probably pretty dang likely to leave after one season. However, if the next wave of freshmen phenoms are prohibited from entering the 2016 draft, then any mid-2015 first rounders might be well served to come back. I could certainly see someone like Tyus Jones or Justise Winslow, guys who have NBA futures but either need to prove they can handle NBA physicality (Tyus) or prove they have they can refine their skills to match their physical abilities (Justise), deciding to come back because they have a real chance of shooting up the draft boards. They won't be competing with the high school class of 2015 for places in the first round.

The flip side, of course, is that there could be a lot of juniors who declare at the end of the 2016 season even if in past drafts they may have been borderline first rounders in a normal draft. This could cancel out the effect of the lack of freshmen in the draft.

I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up being something other than a straight 2/20 rule. I have heard a couple of other ideas floated that I think would help balance the incentives without strictly acting as a restraint on trade. One such idea is to keep one and done (or implement 2/20), but if they stay a year longer than required, they get a year taken off of their rookie contract, so they hit their second contract at the same time as they would have if they left after the first (or if 2/20, the second) year. I like this idea a lot from a college basketball fan perspective. It limits the downside of staying in school to the first year contract, which is still a lot of money, but can be insured against. An even more college basketball friendly result would be if they drop a year from the rookie contract and also increase the dollar amounts in the first contract for those guys such that they'd make the same $$ over the life of their contract as they would have if they had come out as a one and done or 2/20, as the case may be. Depending on how this turns out, it could give even the projected top 10 guys an incentive to stick around.

The big potential downside (and it is HUGE and there is nothing the NBA or NCAA can do about it) is the shoe contracts (and other endorsements) that will be offered to the top players. If Nike or Adidas or Under Armour is flashing 9 figures to guys as soon as they are eligible to enter the draft, it'll be hard to turn that down. A nine-figure bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

And if anyone is still reading this post, I really don't like the baseball model as it applies to basketball (free to leave out of high school, but if choose college, must stay 2 or 3 years). I can't imagine the NBA would want that. The highly rated players would mostly go straight to the NBA, and this would take us back to the high school to the pros era. It would increase the riskiness of drafting on potential even more than the risk of drafting one-and-dones. The NBA wants to move in the opposite direction.

[lotusland]

I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up being something other than a straight 2/20 rule. I have heard a couple of other ideas floated that I think would help balance the incentives without strictly acting as a restraint on trade. One such idea is to keep one and done (or implement 2/20), but if they stay a year longer than required, they get a year taken off of their rookie contract, so they hit their second contract at the same time as they would have if they left after the first (or if 2/20, the second) year. I like this idea a lot from a college basketball fan perspective. It limits the downside of staying in school to the first year contract, which is still a lot of money, but can be insured against. An even more college basketball friendly result would be if they drop a year from the rookie contract and also increase the dollar amounts in the first contract for those guys such that they'd make the same $$ over the life of their contract as they would have if they had come out as a one and done or 2/20, as the case may be. Depending on how this turns out, it could give even the projected top 10 guys an incentive to stick around.

The big potential downside (and it is HUGE and there is nothing the NBA or NCAA can do about it) is the shoe contracts (and other endorsements) that will be offered to the top players. If Nike or Adidas or Under Armour is flashing 9 figures to guys as soon as they are eligible to enter the draft, it'll be hard to turn that down. A nine-figure bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

And if anyone is still reading this post, I really don't like the baseball model as it applies to basketball (free to leave out of high school, but if choose college, must stay 2 or 3 years). I can't imagine the NBA would want that. The highly rated players would mostly go straight to the NBA, and this would take us back to the high school to the pros era. It would increase the riskiness of drafting on potential even more than the risk of drafting one-and-dones. The NBA wants to move in the opposite direction.

I would like no restriction at all. I'd rather not have kids forced into college who don't want to be there and aren't invested in it. Also maybe people quit saying that schools should pay players since they are not allowed to play professionally.

[lotusland]

I also wonder if a 2/20 rule might make a difference in the decisions of non-top 10 draft picks deciding whether or not to return and play in the 2015-2016 season. While returning to college to improve your stock if you're already a solid 1st rounder can be risky, it is much less risky if the draft is artificially weakened by something like the 2/20 rule. Take the 2006 draft, which was the first after the current one and done rule was implemented. High school studs like Kevin Durant and Michael Beasley were not available for selection. The result? The underwhelming Andrea Bargnani went number 1. Adam Morrison and (I hate to write it, but it is true) Shelden Williams went in the top 5. If Joakim Noah had declared, he may very well have been the number 1 pick. GM's make mistakes every draft, but the fact of the matter is, the 2006 draft was generally really, really weak at the top. However, the underclassmen who decided not to enter the 2005 draft certainly benefited from the weak draft. The NBA success of the 2005 draftees aside, there is simply no way that Shelden would have gone as high with Bogut, Chris Paul, Marvin Williams (as terrible as he ended up being), Deron Williams etc., as competition. Also, no way Bargnani goes number 1 in that draft.

The same could happen next season. There will be a fair number of freshmen declaring next spring. Jahlil, Stanley Johnson, Emmanuel Mudiay, Karl Townes, Cliff Alexander, Kelly Oubre, and Myles Turner are all probably pretty dang likely to leave after one season. However, if the next wave of freshmen phenoms are prohibited from entering the 2016 draft, then any mid-2015 first rounders might be well served to come back. I could certainly see someone like Tyus Jones or Justise Winslow, guys who have NBA futures but either need to prove they can handle NBA physicality (Tyus) or prove they have they can refine their skills to match their physical abilities (Justise), deciding to come back because they have a real chance of shooting up the draft boards. They won't be competing with the high school class of 2015 for places in the first round.

The flip side, of course, is that there could be a lot of juniors who declare at the end of the 2016 season even if in past drafts they may have been borderline first rounders in a normal draft. This could cancel out the effect of the lack of freshmen in the draft.

I think it evens out in the end. UK won't get 5 OAD recruits every year if they know last year's crop will still be around. More recruits will wait until after everyone declares to announce where they will attend.

[Kedsy]

One such idea is to keep one and done (or implement 2/20), but if they stay a year longer than required, they get a year taken off of their rookie contract, so they hit their second contract at the same time as they would have if they left after the first (or if 2/20, the second) year. I like this idea a lot from a college basketball fan perspective. It limits the downside of staying in school to the first year contract, which is still a lot of money, but can be insured against. An even more college basketball friendly result would be if they drop a year from the rookie contract and also increase the dollar amounts in the first contract for those guys such that they'd make the same $$ over the life of their contract as they would have if they had come out as a one and done or 2/20, as the case may be. Depending on how this turns out, it could give even the projected top 10 guys an incentive to stick around.

What would the incentive be for either NBA management or the NBAPA to implement either of those rules?

[Matches]

What would the incentive be for either NBA management or the NBAPA to implement either of those rules?

I think even if they did, it would create a disincentive to draft guys who do stick around, because the drafting team would have them under control as (relatively) cheap labor for a shorter period of time.

[Kedsy]

I think even if they did, it would create a disincentive to draft guys who do stick around, because the drafting team would have them under control as (relatively) cheap labor for a shorter period of time.

I agree. That's why I asked my question. It's hard for me to see why either the owners or the players would want those rules. To gam7, did you hear those ideas were under serious consideration by NBA types, or were they just ideas tossed around on message boards (not that there's anything wrong with that )?

[johnb]

What would the incentive be for either NBA management or the NBAPA to implement either of those rules?

If I'm an average NBA player (and certainly if I'm a DNP-CD kind of guy who would love just another year or two of a contract, I'd want to reduce and delay the influx of talent as long as possible. I'd want the NBA to require everyone to have a college degree (as long as I was grandfathered in). I'd like everyone to have to make 75% of their free throws on draft day. I'd like rigorous drug screening for everything including cannabis (again, as long as I was grandfathered in). I'd like a rule limiting the number of tall guys (if I was short) or short guys (if I was tall).

For years, MLB players had no screens for PED while the minor leaguers were regularly and randomly tested (thereby restricting their ability to juice their ability into a 90 mph fastball). If I'm a juicing MLB player (or even if I'm not), I it would have been in my best interest to test the competition as often as possible.

Anyway, maybe it doesn't matter to Kobe, but for the majority of current NBA players, it is simply in their best interest to delay the influx of talent that will inevitably displace them and leave them generally unable to find a job that pays 10% of their current salary.

Oh, and if we really want freedom, get rid of the draft altogether. Google can buy talent, why can't the Knicks? It may be the only way my town can have a winner in my lifetime...

[johnb]

What would the incentive be for either NBA management or the NBAPA to implement either of those rules?

If I'm an average NBA player (and certainly if I'm a DNP-CD kind of guy who would love just another year or two of a contract, I'd want to reduce and delay the influx of talent as long as possible. I'd want the NBA to require everyone to have a college degree (as long as I was grandfathered in). I'd like everyone to have to make 75% of their free throws on draft day. I'd like rigorous drug screening for everything including cannabis (again, as long as I was grandfathered in). I'd like a rule limiting the number of tall guys (if I was short) or short guys (if I was tall).

For years, MLB players had no screens for PED while the minor leaguers were regularly and randomly tested (thereby restricting their ability to juice their ability into a 90 mph fastball). If I'm a juicing MLB player (or even if I'm not), I it would have been in my best interest to test the up-and-coming competition as often as possible.

Anyway, maybe it doesn't matter to Kobe, but for the majority of current NBA players, it is simply in their best interest to delay the influx of talent that will inevitably displace them and leave them generally unable to find a job that pays 10% of their current salary.

Oh, and if we really want freedom, get rid of the draft altogether. Google can buy talent, why can't the Knicks? Make it a free for all without any cap restrictions. Allow teams to have 20-player benches if they'd like. Let the NBA sign 16 year olds and then let the team pay the tuition to the college of their choice (where they could possibly still play on the college team, though perhaps we wouldn't want them drifting back and forth in the midst of a season). A really free market may be the only way my town can have a winner in my lifetime...

[Kedsy]

Anyway, maybe it doesn't matter to Kobe, but for the majority of current NBA players, it is simply in their best interest to delay the influx of talent that will inevitably displace them and leave them generally unable to find a job that pays 10% of their current salary.

I hear you, but the players' association has already shown they don't buy this logic when they opposed one-and-done and then repeatedly resisted the owners' attempts to push beyond one-and-done.

[gam7]

I agree. That's why I asked my question. It's hard for me to see why either the owners or the players would want those rules. To gam7, did you hear those ideas were under serious consideration by NBA types, or were they just ideas tossed around on message boards (not that there's anything wrong with that )?

I assure you that it was not a message board, but I've poked around a bit and can't immediately find the source. It's possible I heard it on the radio, which might be even worse than a message board. In any event, it's not inside information.

To paint with a finer brush, I recall seeing/hearing about the shorter rookie contract concept, not the idea of paying extra to those players who stay in college an extra year.

But, to answer your initial question as to who would want a rule like that, I would say this: Clearly, pushing for some reform on the age limit is now an owner-endorsed priority for the commissioner/league. The rationale at a high level of abstraction is that the longer kids develop in a setting other than the NBA (college or NBDL primarily), the better the quality of the NBA product. Silver has gone on record saying that this is going to be a three-way conversation (NBA, union, NCAA), so it's not going to be negotiated in isolation between the two parties (http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10...es-possibility). (As a side note, this begs the question of who the NCAA is really looking out for. Itself? Coaches? Conferences? Players?) But, to draw a parallel to civil litigation (and I defer to the trial lawyers and litigators on the board on this), sometimes it's difficult to understand how a jury arrives at a determination on damages because the determination is the result of compromises among jurors that happen behind the scenes. I just said that I wouldn't be surprised if the result is something other than a straight 2/20 rule across the board - it may be a more nuanced solution. And, if the goal is to give players more seasoning and an opportunity to take on more of a leadership role before getting to the league, then giving them an incentive to stay in school or spend an extra year in the NBDL would be a way to encourage it, which the NBA might support. Meanwhile, giving those players who do take the extra year of growth a year off of their rookie contract would be supported by union, wouldn't it? Their players get to free agency faster.

Then again, it could just be a straight 2/20 solution.

[Kedsy]

I assure you that it was not a message board, but I've poked around a bit and can't immediately find the source. It's possible I heard it on the radio, which might be even worse than a message board. In any event, it's not inside information.

To paint with a finer brush, I recall seeing/hearing about the shorter rookie contract concept, not the idea of paying extra to those players who stay in college an extra year.

But, to answer your initial question as to who would want a rule like that, I would say this: Clearly, pushing for some reform on the age limit is now an owner-endorsed priority for the commissioner/league. The rationale at a high level of abstraction is that the longer kids develop in a setting other than the NBA (college or NBDL primarily), the better the quality of the NBA product. Silver has gone on record saying that this is going to be a three-way conversation (NBA, union, NCAA), so it's not going to be negotiated in isolation between the two parties (http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10...es-possibility). (As a side note, this begs the question of who the NCAA is really looking out for. Itself? Coaches? Conferences? Players?) But, to draw a parallel to civil litigation (and I defer to the trial lawyers and litigators on the board on this), sometimes it's difficult to understand how a jury arrives at a determination on damages because the determination is the result of compromises among jurors that happen behind the scenes. I just said that I wouldn't be surprised if the result is something other than a straight 2/20 rule across the board - it may be a more nuanced solution. And, if the goal is to give players more seasoning and an opportunity to take on more of a leadership role before getting to the league, then giving them an incentive to stay in school or spend an extra year in the NBDL would be a way to encourage it, which the NBA might support. Meanwhile, giving those players who do take the extra year of growth a year off of their rookie contract would be supported by union, wouldn't it? Their players get to free agency faster.

Then again, it could just be a straight 2/20 solution.

I'm not sure how good the jury analogy is. Jurors aren't acting out of self-interest, or to the extent they are, their interests are things like getting the trial over with or other things that have little if anything to do with the amount of damages they award.

What the union supports gets tricky. Historically, they've seemed to be in favor of a total free market, even when it's against their interests -- for example, as someone posted earlier it's in the union's best interests to delay new blood into the marketplace as long as possible but it has consistently acted against that position. In addition, the plan you propose won't get any current member of the union to free agency faster -- these rules would only affect future union members. And to the extent it helps currently non-union members get to free agency faster, it almost necessarily depresses the salaries of current union members, since there's a salary cap in place.

From the management perspective, I doubt their interest in giving players more seasoning would eclipse their interest in keeping salaries down. Letting any player get to free agency faster means the teams have control over their low-cost assets for a shorter period of time.

Frankly, this proposal seems like a lose-lose proposition to me. I'd be very surprised if either side would support it. That said, I believe you if you've heard from a legitimate source that they do.

[rhynelander]

This is the first I've heard of Mr. Govan, so I apologize if this has already been posted. Seems like the 20/2 debate has temporarily fizzled and what's better than fantasizing about duke teams way down the road in the off season? The ol' zagsblog is saying that K was checking out another big for the 2015 class. At 6'10" and 260 lbs, reportedly, Govan would seem to complement Jeter well rather than compete too directly with him for minutes. Does this mean anything about our position with Mr. Stone? I'm not mad at the possibility of locking down two (at least they project currently as) 3-4 year big men who could learn under senior Plumlee III and Jefferson along with Obi.

http://zagsblog.com/articles/slew-of...-jessie-govan/

[tommy]

I read somewhere today that Marquette offered Matt Ryan today. Duke has been looking at him for awhile, until he got hurt last year, but no offer was made to my knowledge. Not that Duke has dropped him, not at all. But in any event, interesting that Wojo has stepped up and offered the smooth shooter now. Trying to take one right out from under the old man, huh Wojo?! I say good for him -- if he really likes Ryan, developed a rapport with him at Duke, and has carried that rapport on now that he's at Marquette, and feels he can take advantage of Duke's hesitation to offer, then hey, go for it Wojo!

[BlueTeuf]

The NCAA isn't compelled to accommodate the NBA. Nor is it compelled to be the tail that gets wagged by the NBA dog. The NBDL exists and is sufficient to allow the NBA an option other than taking kids directly out of high school.

There are multiple variety of approaches the NCAA could implement to constrain who is allowed to participate in March Madness. I would suggest a graduation metric.

If UK/KU/Duke continue to recruit even 25% OADs then they just don't qualify for the tournament.

Pick a grad metric that is appropriately severe - and OADs become very unattractive. 2-3 year "cram" degrees will spike - and then settle in at 3 yr approaches as the new normal solidifies. The NBA will get used to taking true OADs out of the NBDL (or, equally likely, eliminate the requirement).

Initially College basketball will be slightly worse as ~5-15 players opt not to play for a college. Within 10 years the college game will be better. More players will head to the NBDL out of high school - and more seasoned players with continuity in the college ranks will have yielded a more pleasurable fan experience for the college enthusiast.

[bob blue devil]

The NCAA isn't compelled to accommodate the NBA. Nor is it compelled to be the tail that gets wagged by the NBA dog. The NBDL exists and is sufficient to allow the NBA an option other than taking kids directly out of high school.

There are multiple variety of approaches the NCAA could implement to constrain who is allowed to participate in March Madness. I would suggest a graduation metric.

If UK/KU/Duke continue to recruit even 25% OADs then they just don't qualify for the tournament.

Pick a grad metric that is appropriately severe - and OADs become very unattractive. 2-3 year "cram" degrees will spike - and then settle in at 3 yr approaches as the new normal solidifies. The NBA will get used to taking true OADs out of the NBDL (or, equally likely, eliminate the requirement).

Initially College basketball will be slightly worse as ~5-15 players opt not to play for a college. Within 10 years the college game will be better. More players will head to the NBDL out of high school - and more seasoned players with continuity in the college ranks will have yielded a more pleasurable fan experience for the college enthusiast.

Not saying this is a bad idea, but it would further conflict the coach vs player relationship. It might put a lot of pressure on a guy not to jump to the nba. Not to be the guy that pushes a program over the limit.

[UrinalCake]

If I'm an average NBA player (and certainly if I'm a DNP-CD kind of guy who would love just another year or two of a contract, I'd want to reduce and delay the influx of talent as long as possible...

I disagree. Given that there's a fixed number of roster spots in the NBA, wouldn't you rather have a roster spot on your team filled with a skinny 18 year old kid who isn't ready to play but represents "potential"? Rather than having the first year guys come in already matured and ready to take your spot?

[tommy]

The NCAA isn't compelled to accommodate the NBA. Nor is it compelled to be the tail that gets wagged by the NBA dog. The NBDL exists and is sufficient to allow the NBA an option other than taking kids directly out of high school.

There are multiple variety of approaches the NCAA could implement to constrain who is allowed to participate in March Madness. I would suggest a graduation metric.

If UK/KU/Duke continue to recruit even 25% OADs then they just don't qualify for the tournament.

Pick a grad metric that is appropriately severe - and OADs become very unattractive. 2-3 year "cram" degrees will spike - and then settle in at 3 yr approaches as the new normal solidifies. The NBA will get used to taking true OADs out of the NBDL (or, equally likely, eliminate the requirement).

Initially College basketball will be slightly worse as ~5-15 players opt not to play for a college. Within 10 years the college game will be better. More players will head to the NBDL out of high school - and more seasoned players with continuity in the college ranks will have yielded a more pleasurable fan experience for the college enthusiast.

I don't think it's a bad idea to tie graduation rates to NCAA Tournament eligibility. That is already done, as Connecticut is well aware. It seems that your idea would have the result not of limiting the total number of one-and-dones, but rather limiting how many get recruited to a given program. In other words, it would result in spreading the OAD's out more -- those that don't go to the NBDL, that is.

My idea to spread the OAD's out is different. I'd like to see something like this: each scholarship that a school (we'll use Duke as an example) has is looked at as a four year unit. When you recruit Tyler Thornton, and he stays four years, great. But when you recruit Jabari Parker, and he leaves after one year, that scholarship is unusable, it is "dead" for the next three years. When a sophomore goes pro, his scholarship is dead for the next two years. A junior who leaves early, his scholly can't be used for the next year. Like that.

So if you want to take on Jabari or Wiggins or Randle, that's fine. But there's going to be a cost. If you want to take on two or three OAD's in the same year, that's fine, but you're really taking a chance that you're going to be hurting the following few years, assuming they do go pro after one year, because you'll be down a bunch of schollies until those three scholarships are alive and usable again three years down the road. I think this would have the effect of spreading the OAD's around a little more, as coaches would be quite reluctant to take on more than one (or at most two) potential OAD's at a time.