NBA Draft Rule -- What should it be?

[MChambers]

Maybe I shouldn't start this thread, since the season has one more game, but we're already discussing who is going pro, so here goes:

What should the rule be about players going to the NBA? I see four basic options:

1. The one year of college rule, which we now have. Benefit is that it keeps many kids from trying to go directly from high school to the NBA who aren't ready. (See Brown, Kwame. Note that it is nice, however, that Michael Jordan had such a historically bad #1 pick as GM.) Downsides: you have kids going to school taking classes in Athletics and Masculinity for a semester, then skipping classes in the spring. Also, you keep players like Oden and James out of the NBA, when they clearly are ready.

2. Two years of college. Someone here said Stern wants that, but Jumbo says it is unlikely and at least several years off. Not sure how it is better than #1.

3. No limit (the old rule.)

4. Give players some sort of credit for college, by adjusting the length of the rookie salary cap for players who play college ball. Allows the Odens and James to go directly to the NBA, while giving the Battiers some credit for their college years.

Feel free to suggest other options.

[Channing]

I personally would like to see the Baseball rule. Option to go pro out of high school, but you must wait three years if you attend college.

This allows those who feel they are ready and want to go straight out of high school. At the same time, it prevents kids from going to college and making a mockery of the academic system (theoretically). If there is a three year requirement, the "student" part of student athlete can't be thrown to the wind. A kid would still have to take classes and make passing grades to remain eligible.

[jjasper0729]

I agree with the Vitale opinion on this one. Do basketball the same way they do baseball. Everyone is eligible for the draft out of high school. If you're drafted and go, no college, if you're drafted and don't like where, you can go to college (presuming you don't get an agent) but have to stay there for 3 years. if you're not drafted, you can go to college and have to stay at least 3 years in college before you're eligible for the draft again.

[jjasper0729]

the big downside to this is the recruiting obviously... but people, if they're smart, can adjust to it.

[eddiehaskell]

I'd like to see them stay atleast 2 years.

[JasonEvans]

The baseball rule is clearly the best way to do it. Not even a close call.

All other ideas are either really unfair to the kids or really unfair to the schools.

-Jason "I like everyone being elligible for the draft too-- let NBA teams sweat if the kid they pick is going to turn pro or go to school" Evans

[MChambers]

The baseball rule is clearly the best way to do it. Not even a close call.

All other ideas are either really unfair to the kids or really unfair to the schools.

-Jason "I like everyone being elligible for the draft too-- let NBA teams sweat if the kid they pick is going to turn pro or go to school" Evans

Why would #4 be really unfair to the kids or the schools?

[jjasper0729]

part of th eproblem too, as I see it, is the rookie salary scale. If I remember, the intention of it was to lock the amount and time for the first contract in. The theory was that the high schoolers wouldn't be able to get the outrageous contracts that were being provided to draft picks (like glenn robinson or kevin garnett) who left early or jumped straight from HS, so they'd go to college, get seasoned and get better that way. Unfortunately, the law of unintended consequences hit and the HS players flocked to the draft to get the first contract, start the clock and then use the second contract to get the big pay off.

I actually think it would be better to go back to no rookie pay scale. This would make the teams evaluate talent better and more than likely go with someone that has proven ability and talent rather than take someone on potential. If you combine that, with the baseball method, it might reduce the volatility of it all. You'll still get kids that have hangers-on that tell them they are the greatest thing since sliced bread but that would probably be the minority.

Anyway, tha'ts my $0.02.

[Matches]

I like the baseball option too. If a kid right out of high school is ready for the NBA (or thinks he is), and wants to make a go of it - more power to him. I dislike the notion of using a college as a one-year stopping point with no intention of graduating. IMO that makes a mockery of the "student" half of "student-athlete".

[Jumbo]

The baseball rule is clearly the best way to do it. Not even a close call.

All other ideas are either really unfair to the kids or really unfair to the schools.

-Jason "I like everyone being elligible for the draft too-- let NBA teams sweat if the kid they pick is going to turn pro or go to school" Evans

I like the baseball rule as well, but you also need a fully functioning NBDL to make it work. The bottom line for me is that the NBA rule should be about whatever is best for the NBA. Period.

I've said this before, but I'd enjoy Duke hoops just as much if we were watching D-III caliber players, as long as the rest of the nation worked the same way and we were watching true student-athletes.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

The baseball rule is clearly the best way to do it. Not even a close call.

All other ideas are either really unfair to the kids or really unfair to the schools.

-Jason "I like everyone being elligible for the draft too-- let NBA teams sweat if the kid they pick is going to turn pro or go to school" Evans

I agree with Jason (and others) who favor the baseball rule. Some kids take the money and sit in the minors for years (and never make it), others make the jump to the show fairly quickly. Others, like the big center/pitcher from NC State whose name escapes me) who opted not to play bball his junior year for fear of injury, hurt his throwing shoulder anyway, got drafted by the Yankees and now is on the DL for the second straight year. At least he's got 3 years of college to fall back on (and his money from the Yankees) if he never pitches in another game. That would be a shame for him, but he can go back to State and get his degree.

Shortening the "rookie contract length" for kids who go to college makes some sense.

[JasonEvans]

Why would #4 be really unfair to the kids or the schools?

Sorry, I was not addressing that one. I do like the notion of a sliding pay scale for experience as it woudl appear more likely that a more experienced player will be able to contribute right away.

--Jason "I do worry that if the compensation is too large, that rule may discourage teams from taking seniors versus less experienced players" Evans

[Jumbo]

I agree with Jason (and others) who favor the baseball rule. Some kids take the money and sit in the minors for years (and never make it), others make the jump to the show fairly quickly. Others, like the big center/pitcher from NC State whose name escapes me) who opted not to play bball his junior year for fear of injury, hurt his throwing shoulder anyway, got drafted by the Yankees and now is on the DL for the second straight year. At least he's got 3 years of college to fall back on (and his money from the Yankees) if he never pitches in another game. That would be a shame for him, but he can go back to State and get his degree.

Shortening the "rookie contract length" for kids who go to college makes some sense.

You're thinking of Andrew Brackman. The Yankees drafted him knowing he needed Tommy John surgery, so the "DL for the second straight year" thing is misleading. TJ surgery generally takes about 1.5 years for a full recovery. Brackman is very much in the Yankees' future plans.

[Duvall]

The baseball rule is clearly the best way to do it. Not even a close call.

All other ideas are either really unfair to the kids or really unfair to the schools.

Which is why it will never happen - the NBA, in conjunction with the players, are the only ones who get to set the rules, and they'll do what's best for them.

[MChambers]

Which is why it will never happen - the NBA, in conjunction with the players, are the only ones who get to set the rules, and they'll do what's best for them.

I've never understood why the players' union was opposed to limits on players going directly to the NBA. Wouldn't the players in the union today want to restrict competition?

[MChambers]

part of th eproblem too, as I see it, is the rookie salary scale. If I remember, the intention of it was to lock the amount and time for the first contract in. The theory was that the high schoolers wouldn't be able to get the outrageous contracts that were being provided to draft picks (like glenn robinson or kevin garnett) who left early or jumped straight from HS, so they'd go to college, get seasoned and get better that way. Unfortunately, the law of unintended consequences hit and the HS players flocked to the draft to get the first contract, start the clock and then use the second contract to get the big pay off.

I actually think it would be better to go back to no rookie pay scale. This would make the teams evaluate talent better and more than likely go with someone that has proven ability and talent rather than take someone on potential. If you combine that, with the baseball method, it might reduce the volatility of it all. You'll still get kids that have hangers-on that tell them they are the greatest thing since sliced bread but that would probably be the minority.

Anyway, tha'ts my $0.02.

Seems like the rookie salary cap has some perverse effects. It encourages players to go pro early, to burn off the cap, and it encourages teams to take a chance on young, unproven players.

[Karl Beem]

I've never understood why the players' union was opposed to limits on players going directly to the NBA. Wouldn't the players in the union today want to restrict competition?

They're doing what their agents want.

[RelativeWays]

The NBA needs to do something because the quality of the product has suffered from the talent pool being diluted (too many teams) and now the over saturation of young players drafted on pure potential, not experience. The young players are really making themselves more disposable when every year you have a crop of 6'6 -6'8 any position players thats have loads of potential, but they are getting less and less time to develop that potential. There are a lot of college stars who played in the NBA as great role players, Danny Ferry was one. I'm not sure he gets his chance to come off the bench for either Cleveland or SA in today's NBA. He's be out in 2-4 years. At the very least, there needs to be a 2 year wait if you go to college. The ones who are really ready to go have maxed out their college game by then anyway.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

You're thinking of Andrew Brackman. The Yankees drafted him knowing he needed Tommy John surgery, so the "DL for the second straight year" thing is misleading. TJ surgery generally takes about 1.5 years for a full recovery. Brackman is very much in the Yankees' future plans.

Yup, Brackman. I thought (as a Yankee fan) that Brackman would be back this year in the minors. I believe they put him on the 60 day DL. I think putting him on the DL is a 40-man or perhaps 60-man roster move (is there a 60 man roster?), as players on the DL frequently have rehab stints in AA or AAA before returning to the active roster.

Thanks Jumbo.

[Kdogg]

part of th eproblem too, as I see it, is the rookie salary scale. If I remember, the intention of it was to lock the amount and time for the first contract in. The theory was that the high schoolers wouldn't be able to get the outrageous contracts that were being provided to draft picks (like glenn robinson or kevin garnett) who left early or jumped straight from HS, so they'd go to college, get seasoned and get better that way. Unfortunately, the law of unintended consequences hit and the HS players flocked to the draft to get the first contract, start the clock and then use the second contract to get the big pay off.

I actually think it would be better to go back to no rookie pay scale. This would make the teams evaluate talent better and more than likely go with someone that has proven ability and talent rather than take someone on potential. If you combine that, with the baseball method, it might reduce the volatility of it all. You'll still get kids that have hangers-on that tell them they are the greatest thing since sliced bread but that would probably be the minority.

Anyway, tha'ts my $0.02.

The rookie salary scale was a way to protect the owners from themselves. It will never disappear. IMHO, Glen Robinson was the catalyst not because he left college early, but because of his demands. He was a great college player but he wanted an unprecedented 13 year, $100 million dollar contract as a rookie. At the time the Bucks were not even worth $100 million. The Bucks eventually negotiated a 10-year, $68 million deal. It didn't matter that he left early. The owners didn't like the power play and the domino effect on veterans' contracts. Garnett's rookie contract by comparison was reasonable. Garnett's second contract combined with Glen's rookie contract lead to the lockout which gave us the rookie scale and max length/value contracts.

You can not get rid of the rookie scale without getting rid of the max length/value contracts (which will never happen). The limits on the length of the contract encourage players to leave early. They also mitigate bad draft choices for teams. Teams can take more chances knowing they will not be out tens of millions of dollars.