PDA

View Full Version : Wait One Year for the NBA Rule



SoCalDukeFan
03-29-2007, 11:35 AM
We are almost finished with the first season of the new NBA eligibility rule. I did not like it when it was developed and don't like it now. What do you think?

First of all I think that 18 year old high school graduates should be able to go directly to the NBA if they wish.

The rule certainly helps the NBA. It gives their scouts a chance to evaluate players against a higher level of competition. And the NBA gets the benefit of having rookies who have had a year of national exposure and publicity.

However it makes even more of a mockery of the term "student-athlete." I realize that a player who plans to be one and done can choose to maximize his one year in college, have a great experience, learn something, then go make his millions. While we may not have seen it yet, in the future there will surely be players who do the minimum to stay eligible their first semester and then just play basketball the second.

I can decide if college basketball is helped or not. It is certainly fun to watch the McD's game and know that these guys will play college ball next year. It is also fun to watch the freshmen starts. But how much do you want to invest in a guy who will be one and done?

SoCal

feldspar
03-29-2007, 11:39 AM
What do you think?

It should be three years or nothing.

jjasper0729
03-29-2007, 11:44 AM
Vitale has been the big proponent of doing it the baseball way. Everyone is available after high school. If they choose to go to college because they don't get drafted or dont' like where they're drafted, then they go to college for three years and then can come out again.

throatybeard
03-29-2007, 11:45 AM
In baseball, this also has the virtue (from labor's point of view) of allowing the junior-year kid to leverage the team that drafts him by threatening to go back to school for a fourth year.

Troublemaker
03-29-2007, 11:48 AM
I like it. The superstars like Kevin Durant improve the quality of the product for one year before leaving, and in return, they get to market themselves. The non-superstars like Darrell Arthur figure out that they're not ready and stay in college. There will be fewer Korleone Youngs, Jonathan Benders, and Ousmane Cisses.

mcdukie
03-29-2007, 11:49 AM
I can live with Vitale's rule. I don't agree that they should have to college 3 years with no option of going to the pros after high school.

feldspar
03-29-2007, 11:51 AM
Actually, I amend my previous stand.

My new stand is: whatever Jumbo thinks is right. ;)

Jumbo
03-29-2007, 11:53 AM
Actually, I amend my previous stand.

My new stand is: whatever Jumbo thinks is right. ;)

I'm going with whatever Feldspar says.

throatybeard
03-29-2007, 11:54 AM
In that case, I'm telling both of you how to think.

Patrick Yates
03-29-2007, 11:58 AM
I like the idea of making kids go to school, but it does not help Duke if it is for only 1 year. If it were 2years+ Duke would get 3-4 AAs every year as kids tried to be on TV/win as much as possible.

But now, it does not help. K has a system that kids do not always grasp right away. Also, K requires kids to play defense, unlike other schools (Tywon would have rarely gotten on court at Duke given his lax effort regarding D). This doesn't appeal to me-first, 1 and done players. They want to go somewhere and be showcased, and they would probably rather have a system adapted to them rather than vice versa, and many of them are allergic to defense.

For basketball and the league, the rule is great. Not so much (yet) for Duke

Patrick Yates

freedevil
03-29-2007, 12:04 PM
For the record, Tywon Lawson would've started at Duke. There is no question about that. But it's an irrelevant point regardless, 'cause he never came to Duke and because we don't know how he would've played had he come.

I think the best argument against the current rule is that it does make a mockery of the idea of going to college to get a degree. However, the potential punishment a school can face if a kid just ditches class once the season is over is a good deterrent for that.

Personally, I think Vitale's rule is more interested in letting the college game get better than it is interested in the needs and desires of the kids who play in the game. There should be a way to get out of school before your 4th season under his scheme - but he's also proposed that whole committee thing where a group will approve a certain list of people who are supposedly ready to make the leap.

The rule is fine for now though, in my opinion.

SoCalDukeFan
03-29-2007, 12:13 PM
if a kid ditches classes after the season is over?

And if there are any, does the kid care?

I thought college football players did that all of the time as they got ready for the draft. And I read that McRoberts is doing it at Duke (which may not be true).

SoCal

CMS2478
03-29-2007, 12:37 PM
Personally, I would like to see more kids playing college ball because it improves the college game tremendously. However, in any other profession if a kid is ready at the age of 18 nobody cares or tries to prohibit him. If you can choose whether to go to college in any other circumstance you should be allowed when it comes to going to the NBA. College is an opportunity for young people to prepare for their future. It is their decision on whether or not to go and if they even need college. If you can get drafted out of high-school you don't need college. I don't feel that we should decide on college for a young person, that should be their choice. Just my opinion.:D

Atlanta Duke
03-29-2007, 12:41 PM
Stern probably would have liked to get a 2 year requirement from the players association, but the 1 year deal is good for the NBA in terms of developing some publicity for top shelf players while they serve their 1 year sentence of college ball and allowing those players to develop some skills they might not develop if thrown straight into the NBA.

It also is good for the NCAA in terms of rebutting the contention that only stiffs go to college, raising the perceived quality of the game, and (most importantly) raising interest + ratings for the tournament. On this point, NBA shill/Duke hater/ESPN Sports Guy Bill Simmons sums up the party line:

Some readers wondered why I'd praise this year's NCAA Tournament (which has featured few upsets and a Final Four with two No. 1 seeds and two No. 2 seeds) and dismiss last year's tournament (which featured a ton of upsets and a Cinderella making the Final Four).

The answer is simple: I like watching good basketball.

That was the underlying theme of yesterday's blog -- for the first time in years, the quality of play has matched the excitement of the tournament itself.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/blog/index?name=simmons

Of course the one year rule has absolutely nothing to do with actually going to class or getting a classroom education, but that ship sailed a long time ago. And as far as whether it benefits the players and impairs their ability to choose when to start playing for pay, the NCAA and NBA could not care any less.

Overall, I think the one year requirement helps the NCAA and NBA but will hurt Duke unless K is able to make another big adjustment to his recruiting practices, as he did when the second stage of the K era was launched in the late 90s.

dukeimac
03-29-2007, 12:42 PM
Younger players entering the NBA before they have actually learned the game has caused the NBA's professionalism to crumble. Quit a few guys in the NBA that came out early (from college or right from high school) have damaged the NBA because they aren't mature enough to handle all the money.

For example: Kobe and his little girl in Colorado (and LA). He might be every bit as good as MJ but in the end he'll be remembered more for things like him & Shaq and other off court issues (there will be more to come).

Now we read how King James will have a casino in his house (or more like a hotel). He is already becoming more consumed with the money then the game. He is just primed for some off court stuff to happen in the next year or two.

Having said this, I believe if the guy wants to be dumb enough to go pro right out of high school let him. Imagine college basketball next year without Oden, Durant, Wright, and many more. IF guys like this jump after one or two years you can bet that more freshman will steel the spot light in college and more freshman will jump to the pros because they shined in college their first year. Because of this you won’t see college teams stay competitive year after year.

I can’t blame Durant for going pro after this year. Watching this guy was like watching a man amongst boys. Sure he faltered in the tourney but during the year he was super. And if he can make a few million a year why play college ball. Sure he would miss out on some fun times (older women are much better, college chicks think you need to do things for them) but since I started making some bucks college life doesn’t look so good, I like my toys a lot better than those handovers.

Things like what happened to Livingston could happen to someone playing college ball then what will they have to show for their career, look I played for Texas one year and was the POY in the Big 12, can I have the job now (then Wal-mart asks: do you have any experience)?

DevilWolf
03-29-2007, 12:52 PM
I think it's a short-sighted rule because it only takes care of the kids who want to leave early. Programs have to over-recruit positions because you never know who's leaving. As a result, a four year guy who typically would improve over time into a big time contributer might be recruited over once, twice, or even three times during his college career. It might be over-simplifying things, but I wonder if you'd ever see a situation where a coach would sign 7 or 8 guys each year for the purpose of showcasing the heck out of those players during their one year in college. The recruiting pitch could be "come to my school, hang out, party, skip class, play ball all day every day and go to the NBA after your freshman year".

I'd be interested to see a hockey system. Each draft consists only of 18 year olds. They get drafted and can either go pro right away, or they can choose to go to the NCAA and play while the team who drafted them maintains the rights to that player. Of course that means Hansbrough would have been drafted in 9th grade.

cato
03-29-2007, 01:26 PM
For the record, Tywon Lawson would've started at Duke. There is no question about that.

For the record, I will question that. For evidence, I will point to Coach K's stated plan to bring J-Will off the bench with Will Avery starting. Lawson had a nice season, but he wasn't exactly better than Jason. What makes you think he would have been handed the starting spot? Or do you think we would have earned it?

freedevil
03-29-2007, 04:09 PM
I think Lawson would have earned the spot, not from day one, but mid-way through the season. In turn, when Paulus was not playing well, one could argue that Paulus, not K, would've been giving him the spot. I think it's foolish to try and deny that Lawson is much better than Greg at the point, but that's not the point of this thread.

I think dukeimac makes some great points. You should all read the Sports Guy's column today on ESPN.com - while he drools over Kevin Love, much to my disgust (he doesn't seem to be aware of how much of a egomaniac the kid's father is), he rips the culture of the NBA apart.

His main theme: no one cares about winning. Among all the things that college provides to those who attend, one of the best things it does is instill within people a desire to succeed (not necessarily make money, but do what they want to do and do it well).

cato
03-29-2007, 04:39 PM
I think Lawson would have earned the spot, not from day one, but mid-way through the season. In turn, when Paulus was not playing well, one could argue that Paulus, not K, would've been giving him the spot. I think it's foolish to try and deny that Lawson is much better than Greg at the point, but that's not the point of this thread.


And I think it's foolish to state, as if it were a known fact, who Coach K would have started at PG. I agree that Lawson, on the Duke team, would have contend for Greg's spot. I disagree that the result would have been a foregone conclusion.

freedevil
03-29-2007, 04:44 PM
I regret that I was not clear, I did not mean to state that it was a foregone conclusion he would start, I should have stated that it would be highly likely that Lawson would, if not from the beginning of the season than at some point during the middle of the year.

I have been a diehard Duke fan, like most on this board, all my life, but I seriously doubt the basketball IQ of anyone who would let their love for Duke get in the way of recognizing and trying to argue that Paulus is better than Lawson, at least at this point in their careers.

You are entitled to your opinion Cato, but I don't think it's all that foolish to state that K may have easily gone with Lawson at some point in time during the 2006-2007 campaign.

jimsumner
03-29-2007, 06:58 PM
I'm not sure it's valid to compare the NBA to major league baseball or the NHL. Major league teams don't expect high school players to go directly to the majors. In fact, they don't even expect the best college players to go directly to the majors. Look at Andrew Miller last year and he was the best pitcher in college baseball.

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

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

johnb
03-29-2007, 07:17 PM
I hadn't heard that K planned to start Avery over Williams. I'd more often heard that Avery went pro at least partly because he had a feeling that Williams would take away his starting job and that he'd then never get drafted. Overall, I doubt K would have told either of them that they had a guaranteed starting spot.

kramerbr
03-29-2007, 07:37 PM
The rule helps out college programs alot more then before the rule was in place. How many coaches would sign a top recruit in their sophomore or junior year and then back off recruiting any more prospects because they had already landed their guy?

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

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

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

cato
03-29-2007, 08:06 PM
I hadn't heard that K planned to start Avery over Williams. I'd more often heard that Avery went pro at least partly because he had a feeling that Williams would take away his starting job and that he'd then never get drafted. Overall, I doubt K would have told either of them that they had a guaranteed starting spot.

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

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

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

SharkD
03-29-2007, 09:37 PM
I recall a very interesting article in Sports Illustrated from the late 1990s. It's premise was that the Timberwolves were a prime example of the folly of allowing star players to enter the NBA before they finished college. The T-Wolves had a huge amount of talent, most of them players who entered the draft before their senior year, and as a result, according to the article, lacked maturity and poise. So, it became every man for himself, with the team's "old man" being Laettner, who had gone from Duke superstar to Minnesota primadonna because there was no more "senior" players of note to show him the ropes. So, according to SI, all that talent and youth was a dangerous combination that led to lots of arrests, controversy, large salaries and a lackluster showing by the franchise.

---

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

Richard Berg
03-29-2007, 11:35 PM
I don't like the rule. It's a good example of a compromise that's actually worse than the two extremes. I'm not sure about "it should be 3 years or nothing" but I'd definitely prefer either of those rules to what we have now.


Younger players entering the NBA before they have actually learned the game has caused the NBA's professionalism to crumble. Quit a few guys in the NBA that came out early (from college or right from high school) have damaged the NBA because they aren't mature enough to handle all the money.
Sorry, I don't buy this. 20-year-olds are not much more mature than 18year-olds, if at all. In fact, I'll bet you can find far more examples of drunk & disorderly (& worse) behavior among college kids than among high school kids.

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

jimsumner
03-29-2007, 11:47 PM
"Meanwhile, I can't think of a single early entry who compares to Ron Artest, Jayson Williams, Dennis Rodman, etc. in antisocial behavior."

Kobe?

Jermaine O'Neal?

Actually, Ron Artest was an early entry.

gep
03-30-2007, 12:43 AM
Of course, in '01, Duhon eventually won a starting spot, with Nate becoming a key reserve, but that was very late in the season. And I can't remember if that shuffle was an outgrowth of Boozer's injury.

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

DukeBlood
03-30-2007, 03:29 AM
This is a tough subject. It should be enter the NBA draft or Stay in school for minum of two years. Two years of college is enough to have people well on their way to a degree. For those who dont wish to go to school, and make a mockery of it anyway(cutting classes, not doing HW etc,.) might as well go sit on the bench in the NBA.

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

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

BobbyFan
03-30-2007, 08:57 AM
Younger players entering the NBA before they have actually learned the game has caused the NBA's professionalism to crumble. Quit a few guys in the NBA that came out early (from college or right from high school) have damaged the NBA because they aren't mature enough to handle all the money.

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

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

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

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

Atlanta Duke
03-30-2007, 11:11 AM
This is a tough subject. It should be enter the NBA draft or Stay in school for minum of two years. Two years of college is enough to have people well on their way to a degree.


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

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

ikiru36
03-30-2007, 04:29 PM
It's hard to come up with a system that is equally fair to the players rights, encouraging educational opportunity, NCAA programs desire for greater continuity, and the NBA (developing its "product"). To me, the current rule is almost entirely to the benefit of the NBA as it:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ikiru36
03-30-2007, 04:49 PM
A two year rule may allow the college team to get a greater return on its investment in the recruit but I doubt it will result in any meaningful increase in the graduation rate of recruits that are putting in the minimum time until they can declare. For those players who would leave after serving the 2 year manadatory minimum sentence of college ball, they simply would need to maintain their eligibility through first semester of their sophomore year and then spend second semester playing hoops and preparing for the draft - that scenario has been known to have played out at Duke.

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

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

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