Why Isn't the NBA more like the NFL?

[Kewlswim]

Hi,

One thing I never quite understood was how kids are able to go to the NBA after only one year of college, but the NFL requires 3 years? Is the NFL less greedy than the NBA? Is an NBA playing career so short that if it started 2 years later there would hardly be a career at all?

Just think, if Livingston had been forced to attend three years of college and matured physically maybe he wouldn't have had that haunting injury? It bears noting that he might have had the injury (or another even more severe) in college and never played in the NBA too.

GO DUKE!

[Welcome2DaSlopes]

Lebron James(and some other high school b-ball players) had/have an NBA body in high school. You can't show me anybody in high school is physically developed enough to go straight to the NFL.

[GoingFor#5]

NFL takes way more physical development than the NBA. That's the primary reason.

[dukelifer]

Lebron James(and some other high school b-ball players) had/have an NBA body in high school. You can't show me anybody in high school is physically developed enough to go straight to the NFL.

Except maybe Lebron James :)

[A-Tex Devil]

Except maybe Lebron James :)

The other reason is that (especially now) there are viable options. If the NBA doesn't let John Wall in the league, he goes to Europe. After all, he's older than Ricky Rubio, who was just drafted last year.

I think the 1 and done is a little "wink-wink, nudge nudge" between the NBA and the NCAA. It allows stars to at least be in the NCAA for a season and upgrade the product (imagine a tourney without Turner, Wall, Cousins, Xavier Henry, Devin Ebanks), and it gets these kids on TV so they are already famous and have built in marketing when they get to the NBA.

LeBron was an exception. Most of these kids in high school were only sort of well known, and none to the point where someone was ready to drop a million dollar shoe contract year one. John Wall and Evan Turner will get that.

[Kewlswim]

Hi,

Aren't players such as Kobe and Lebron really the exception and not the rule? Wouldn't most kids really get a lot out of playing in college for 3 or 4 years? Look at Omar Samhan at St. Mary's College, the guy is a beast. In his first year in college, if you look at those photos, he was more like a Pillsbury Dough-boy Beast. I think College really helped his body come along. His footwork is much better too. A year of college wouldn't have been enough to get him to this point.

GO DUKE!

[Welcome2DaSlopes]

Evan Turner's a Junior, far from a one and done type player.

[CDu]

Because it would be hard to dribble a football-shaped ball...

But seriously, I think the main reason is that the physical demands of the NFL are just so much that no NFL team has an interest in drafting kids straight out of high school. If there was a market for high school kids in the NFL, you might see them explore different rules. But even at the skilled positions, these kids are still too small and underdeveloped to handle the NFL.

There is certainly the argument that some of the kids drafted early in the NBA aren't physically ready for the NBA either (and Livingston and Bender are good examples of this). But there are also guys like James, Bryant, Garnett, Lewis, Durant, etc are physically ready to compete either straight out of high school or within one year of finishing high school. There's enough of a market for these kids that NBA teams will draft them.

[CDu]

Evan Turner's a Junior, far from a one and done type player.

Ebanks is also not a freshman.

[Kdogg]

Lebron James(and some other high school b-ball players) had/have an NBA body in high school. You can't show me anybody in high school is physically developed enough to go straight to the NFL.

This plus the NFL Players' Union generally does not cut its nose to spite its face like the NBA Players' Union.

[BobbyFan]

Football is also an inherently more difficult sport to evaluate individual talent in. A football player's stats are heavily dependent on his teammates. This leads to uncertainty about his true value, and therefore the correlation of production relative to draft position ends up being weaker in the NFL than NBA.

This is taken to another level when discussing high school players, and there is just no way NFL teams would risk drafting them as high as NBA teams do.

[theAlaskanBear]

Football is also an inherently more difficult sport to evaluate individual talent in. A football player's stats are heavily dependent on his teammates. This leads to uncertainty about his true value, and therefore the correlation of production relative to draft position ends up being weaker in the NFL than NBA.

This is taken to another level when discussing high school players, and there is just no way NFL teams would risk drafting them as high as NBA teams do.

My 2 cents is a combination of your idea and others.

First, the case against high schoolers in the draft:

ROSTER SIZE, and CAP SPACE. An NBA team can only carry like 13 or 15 players. So when teams gamble on kids straight out of high school who cant contribute, it is more detrimental to the product than if they could bury them in a roster of 30.

But equally important is the issue of the players union and the case of veterans, those role players who can still contribute but get dropped for roster and cap space for unproven talent.

But like the poster above said, its all about risk.

The case FOR high schoolers in draft:

Kobe, Garnett, LeBron, etc. Some can do it. Many can after a couple of years develop into usable parts or roleplayers. Also, knees, legs, feet, etc. typically only have so many miles in them (think running backs or pitchers arms). For talented individuals, the 4 years in college is physical mileage they probably wont get back in the NBA, add in the risk of college injury without ever seeing NBA $$$, it is less advantageous for players who can make it in the NBA out of highschool.


The bottom line is, the NBA would be an improved product skill-wise if they required longer college commitments. My opinion is that the NBA needed at least a 2 year college commitment. But they caved and compromised and its a 1-year system which is harmful because of the instability to the college game.

Personally, I would have players be allowed to declare out of high school. If teams are stupid enough to pick unproven players who cant contribute, then they should live with the consequences. It also undermined the amateur status of college by requiring kids who want to be paid and be pros to go to school. But the NBA collective is better served by college kids, because the talent is more easily evaluated, LESS RISK.

I am on record as stating the baseball model makes PERFECT sense for basketball. Let players declare out of high school if they want. The NBA can draft them and develop them either in the NBA or the NBDL or loan them to Europe like soccer. If they decide to go to school, then they will not be eligible for the draft for three years.

[Reddevil]

Because guys like Ray Lewis and Jared Allen would break them in half!

[monkey]

Personally, I would have players be allowed to declare out of high school. If teams are stupid enough to pick unproven players who cant contribute, then they should live with the consequences. It also undermined the amateur status of college by requiring kids who want to be paid and be pros to go to school. But the NBA collective is better served by college kids, because the talent is more easily evaluated, LESS RISK.

I am on record as stating the baseball model makes PERFECT sense for basketball. Let players declare out of high school if they want. The NBA can draft them and develop them either in the NBA or the NBDL or loan them to Europe like soccer. If they decide to go to school, then they will not be eligible for the draft for three years.

Here's the problem: after Kobe Bryant got picked in the middle of the first round, no one wants to risk missed the next Kobe so they are willing to take on highly skilled high schoolers who might blow up instead of worrying about what happens if they flame out. The teams all knew this so put into place at least some restriction on a league-wide basis to prevent the latter event from occurring, which was bound to happen more frequently as high school declaration changed from being the one special player to a regular occurrence for many players in the McD AA game.

The baseball model makes sense (from the perspective of the NBA) only if you have sufficient slots to accomodate the additional influx of highschoolers that will declare not only because they would have otherwise straitght out of high school, but those who would want to declare after one or two years of college - or think they might want to and don't want to be locked in (a larger number). Not sure the current system can accomodate this. Note also that having a larger minor league system causes the league as a whole, as well as individual teams, to incur larger costs with running that system. If the players are in college (e.g., if they simply extended the age restriction to a higher level instead of giving players the option), they pay nothing while the players on being developed on someone else's dime. They also don't have to pay the contractual costs to the players during such time period, which still getting, once the player is drafted at the older age, a more polished, finished, and in most cases (even in Kobe's case - compare rookie stats versus stats at 3 years in) ready product to showcase and charge fans for.

[bluedevil2012]

Interestingly enough, if you look at the 2000 NBA draft as an example (because it is long enough ago that many players' careers are over), you'll see that there's almost no correlation between how long a player stayed in college, and how long his pro career lasts. I was really bored a while ago and charted it (can't find the file right now).

I think it comes down to the fact that some high school players may be physically developed enough for the NBA, but have yet to refine the skill sets necessary to succeed at a higher level. Other players could go pro right away and succeed (the Kobes and Lebrons of the world). Neither of those two would have significantly benefited from going to college. However, there are a lot of players that wouldn't last in the pros without 3-4 years of college first.

Because of that, any rule requiring players to wait a fixed amount of time before going pro is going to be arbitrary (whether its 1 year or 3). Development differs so much from player to player. So, I think the 1 year rule offers the best balance of being fair to the player, and benefiting the college game.

[A-Tex Devil]

Evan Turner's a Junior, far from a one and done type player.

My bad on Turner and Ebanks. My point remains the same, though. I still think the NBA and NCAA are doing this partly for marketing purposes.

How big of a deal were Durant and Oden coming in from college? Derrick Rose? Etc., etc.

The one and done benefits both NCAA and NBA pocketbooks. It forces the best players to go through the NCAA process for a year so that they make headlines on ESPN and CBS in the tourney and become household names. This makes the NCAA product better (and, yes, the product is better with guys like Wall, Durant, Rose, etc. coming through). At the same time, the NBA gets these guys when they are known commodities as opposed to only quasi-famous high school athletes.

LeBron is the exception. Even Kobe was not nearly as well know as the players drafted ahead of him in the 96 draft.

[SoCalDukeFan]

I think the 1 and done is a little "wink-wink, nudge nudge" between the NBA and the NCAA. It allows stars to at least be in the NCAA for a season and upgrade the product (imagine a tourney without Turner, Wall, Cousins, Xavier Henry, Devin Ebanks), and it gets these kids on TV so they are already famous and have built in marketing when they get to the NBA.


I think that the 1 and done is very detrimental to college basketball and hope you are wrong that the NCAA is part of a wink wink agreement with the NBA on the rule.

Memphis just had its 2007-2008 season wiped out because of problems with Derrick Rose's SAT scores. USC sanctioned itself over issues with O. J. Mayo, another one and done player. College is not something that should be forced upon a kid who has no interest in going to college. Players with no real interest in college can be easily led by World Wide Wes or others to whatever school would most benefit Wes. Why worry about the school when its only one year?

The NCAA Tournament would still be a competitive and fun event without John Wall. I really don't see what the NCAA gains by having players for one year and then gone. I will still watch the Final Four if Kentucky gets beat this weekend, won't you?

For the NBA drafting players out of high school is a risky proposition. Do you get Lebron or Kwame Brown? One year of college gives the scouts time to evaluate a player against a higher level of competition. It also keeps the scouts out of high school gyms, at least in theory. And the NCAA gets to promote the players and make them bigger names their first season in the NBA.

The NCAA portrays itself as helpless. Personally I would like to see freshmen ineligible for basketball, which I know is not going to happen.

SoCal

[UrinalCake]

I think that the 1 and done is very detrimental to college basketball and hope you are wrong that the NCAA is part of a wink wink agreement with the NBA on the rule.

I agree and I don't believe that the NBA had the NCAA in mind when they created this rule. I think they implemented it for the aforementioned reasons - letting players develop for a year before coming into the league, and essentially using the NCAA as a minor league. The NCAA will thrive either way; I personally don't believe the college game is any more exciting than before the one year rule just because we have these John Wall types playing for a season.

Also agree that the players' union has a big role in this. Older NBA players don't like their roster spots being taken by high schoolers who are drafted on potential

[Kewlswim]

Hi,

Is it possible for a kid who does not want to go to college for a year to spend a year in the Developmental-League or is that only for drafted players who don't quite make rosters? Just curious. If players can't spend a year in the D-League unless they are drafted maybe the league could draft players that are good enough to play in the NBA and place them in teams for a year before being eligible to be drafted by an actual team?

They could have some sort of set salary and get their feet wet in an NBA like setting. The precedent of a player playing for one team and then going to another is set by the summer leagues where for example a player for the Lakers summer team spends the summer with the Golden State Warriors summer team. I don't like the idea of a kid who is only in college because of his wanting to play in the NBA is forced to go to college. I would prefer he get to play in the NBA or if that is not going to be allowed play in the D-League.

Ideally, I would like a kid to spend three years in college. I feel he is too young to make life decisions related to the NBA. They are often kids who have been taken advantage of by their AAU handlers or others just because of their basketball skills. Although maybe, and I doubt that is really true, but I will grant that point, a kid is mature physically I doubt he is mature psychologically. Three years in college would do a world of good for these kids. Walking around with professors, other kids, seeing what one can do if one does not play basketball are all very positive. Three years in college with a coach who cares about them would do a world of good for those kids. Just think if John Wall would spend three years at UK learning about investments, accounting (think they have that major) while expanding his basketball and interpersonal skills? I have no great love for the UK program, this was just an example.

GO DUKE!

[Kdogg]

Also agree that the players' union has a big role in this. Older NBA players don't like their roster spots being taken by high schoolers who are drafted on potential

You would think that would be true but it's not. The Player's Union fought against the one and done rule and are now fighting Stern's two and through proposal. The sole reason is because management wants it and agreeing would be a sign of weakness. Again cutting one's nose to spit the face.

[mgtr]

You would think that would be true but it's not. The Player's Union fought against the one and done rule and are now fighting Stern's two and through proposal. The sole reason is because management wants it and agreeing would be a sign of weakness. Again cutting one's nose to spit the face.

That is pretty darn unsanitary!!!:D

[UrinalCake]

If players can't spend a year in the D-League unless they are drafted maybe the league could draft players that are good enough to play in the NBA and place them in teams for a year before being eligible to be drafted by an actual team?

If I'm not mistaken, in baseball a team can draft whoever they want, regardless of year, but they just have to wait until the player becomes eligible before he can actually play for them. So you could draft a college freshman and retain his rights while he plays out his three years.

I might be totally wrong about this, so someone please correct me if I am. But I thought I remembered that Trajan Langdon had been selected by an MLB team (the Padres?) while he was still playing basketball for us.

At any rate, I wonder if this system could work in basketball. NBA teams wouldn't have to worry about passing on a player who turns out to be a star. They could draft a player like, say, Luol Deng, and let him develop for a year in college without having to pay him. Or maybe the player goes to Europe for a year. Then maybe you can do away with the whole one-and-done rule because players who aren't quite good enough to jump straight to the NBA out of high school have a little more motivation to go to college.

[UrinalCake]

You would think that would be true but it's not. The Player's Union fought against the one and done rule and are now fighting Stern's two and through proposal. The sole reason is because management wants it and agreeing would be a sign of weakness. Again cutting one's nose to spit the face.

Huh, well I stand corrected.

[studdlee10]

If I'm not mistaken, in baseball a team can draft whoever they want, regardless of year, but they just have to wait until the player becomes eligible before he can actually play for them. So you could draft a college freshman and retain his rights while he plays out his three years.

I might be totally wrong about this, so someone please correct me if I am. But I thought I remembered that Trajan Langdon had been selected by an MLB team (the Padres?) while he was still playing basketball for us.

At any rate, I wonder if this system could work in basketball. NBA teams wouldn't have to worry about passing on a player who turns out to be a star. They could draft a player like, say, Luol Deng, and let him develop for a year in college without having to pay him. Or maybe the player goes to Europe for a year. Then maybe you can do away with the whole one-and-done rule because players who aren't quite good enough to jump straight to the NBA out of high school have a little more motivation to go to college.

In baseball, all high school players are draft eligible. Teams can select high school players at any point in the draft. Once drafted, baseball players have 1 of 2 options. They can a) sign a pro contract, in which case they skip college and start playing for their respective club's minor league system until they are ready for the majors (Duke lost two baseball recruits this way last year) or b) forgo the pros and go to college (see Marcus Stroman on this year's baseball team). If they chose to go to college, they MUST play at least 3 years of college baseball or turn 21 before they are draft eligible again. The only exception to this is Junior College. Junior College players can enter the draft after any year, ie Lonnie Chisenhall and Bryce Harper. There are exceptions, such as the Washington National's Jack McGeary, who was drafted by Washington and still went to school. He signed a contract with the Nats and did not play college baseball, so he was "retained".

[theAlaskanBear]

In baseball, all high school players are draft eligible. Teams can select high school players at any point in the draft. Once drafted, baseball players have 1 of 2 options. They can a) sign a pro contract, in which case they skip college and start playing for their respective club's minor league system until they are ready for the majors (Duke lost two baseball recruits this way last year) or b) forgo the pros and go to college (see Marcus Stroman on this year's baseball team). If they chose to go to college, they MUST play at least 3 years of college baseball or turn 21 before they are draft eligible again. The only exception to this is Junior College. Junior College players can enter the draft after any year, ie Lonnie Chisenhall and Bryce Harper. There are exceptions, such as the Washington National's Jack McGeary, who was drafted by Washington and still went to school. He signed a contract with the Nats and did not play college baseball, so he was "retained".

Very succinct and clear explanation! Thank you.

I am all for young basketball players pursuing professional careers at any pace they choose, but I HATE the way the 1-done rule affects the academic side of the equation. Also, these are not minors. In our society, at 18 we assume the legal rights (most, except for alcohol) of an adult. I don't think that extraordinary players should be penalized by the inability of GMs and teams to make good draft decisions. If they don't want to miss out on the next Kobe, then they should live with draft failures.

The scholarships to John Wall and Demarcus Cousins could have gone to a gifted basketball player who intends to get a degree or at least a partial education. This isn't just Kentucky, but ALL schools who go after that kind of talent. Anyone want to guess what kind of academic records these men are going to have when they declare for the draft?

There has got to be a more rational way to set up this system, be it an expansion of the D league or a change in way the college system works. The system right now allows the NBA to pass the buck.

[UrinalCake]

They can a) sign a pro contract... b) forgo the pros and go to college

So if they go to college for three years, then afterwards are they still retained by the team that originally drafted them, or do they re-enter that year's draft?

[SoCalDukeFan]

So if they go to college for three years, then afterwards are they still retained by the team that originally drafted them, or do they re-enter that year's draft?

I think you are confused about one thing.

You can be pro in one sport but play college in another.
So Trajan was able to play minor league baseball and Duke basketball.
If Trajan had been drafted by baseball but not signed a contract in a period of time, I think a year, then the clubl would have lost his draft rights.

What you suggest about drafting and keeping the rights would be horrible in my opinion. You don't want the NBA telling college coaches how to develop their players. You would also have college coaches who will do anything the NBA wants, and in return the NBA will steer players to them.

A 2 and done rule would require the player to pass some classes. It would be great if the NCAA and college Presidents would then require real classes for the players.

Kids out of high school should be allowed to go to the D league.

SoCal

[UrinalCake]

Gotcha; thanks for clearing that up SoCal. I agree that kids should be allowed to go to the D league straight from high school. Realistically speaking though, a guy like John Wall will get more exposure playing in college than in the D-League. And as Bobby Knight often points out, all he has to do is take something like six credits worth of courses in the fall season and he can be eligible for an entire year. So unless the D-league develops into something much more marketable, or is able to pay some really big salaries, I think players will still choose to go to college for a year.

[SoCalDukeFan]

Gotcha; thanks for clearing that up SoCal. I agree that kids should be allowed to go to the D league straight from high school. Realistically speaking though, a guy like John Wall will get more exposure playing in college than in the D-League. And as Bobby Knight often points out, all he has to do is take something like six credits worth of courses in the fall season and he can be eligible for an entire year. So unless the D-league develops into something much more marketable, or is able to pay some really big salaries, I think players will still choose to go to college for a year.

if college Presidents required their athletes to be STUDENT-athletes than maybe those with no interest in being a student would go to the D League.

The D League also would allow the NBA scouts to evaluate players at a higher level of competition.

SoCal