The one less traveled by

[swood1000]

Suppose there is a college basketball player who is good enough to be one of the top three chosen in the lottery, if not the first. He reads http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/specials/fortunate50/index.html and sees all the endorsement earnings of the superstar athletes but concludes that while he’ll be a solid player in the NBA he probably will not become a superstar there. However, he thinks that he might be able to achieve superstar status (and therefore hefty endorsement contracts) a different way.

He decides that if he stays in college he will be able to rise to the superstar level as a big fish in a little pond: everyone else good enough to go pro has gone pro, putting him head and shoulders above the remaining college players. By staying in college and putting on dazzling performances for a team that is a national champion contender he figures that he will get much more national attention than he would have gotten in three years in the NBA, especially if he leads his team to one or more national championships. His presence on the team also will help recruiting, increasing the championship possibilities as well as the attention focused on the team. He will try to maximize his national media exposure by speaking and doing work on behalf of popular causes.

Also suppose that he is the kind of person whom companies want as a representative: articulate, squeaky clean personal life, likable, engaging. How likely is it that this approach would generate additional endorsement income over the course of his life at least equal to the three years of player salary that he gave up to stay in college? How important should it be to his decision that this form of income is more stable in that it tends to continue even if he stops playing because of injury?

Should a player with significant talent think of this as a legitimate alternative route – building up star power in college which probably would not have been available to him had he started from scratch in the NBA (especially if (a) he might sit idle a large part of his first year in the NBA because of a labor dispute, and (b) he wanted a college degree for other reasons)?

[Starter]

If this is about Kyrie -- it seems like it is? -- he has as good a chance as any to be a star in the NBA.

But to address the rest of it, what a player does in college doesn't affect their national profile most of the time after they leave, except for very special cases -- such as Laettner perpetually making commercials alluding to his shot against Kentucky. Jay Williams mostly has his college career to hang his hat on, and his congenial nature and college greatness almost certainly has propelled his broadcasting career, but that probably still would have been true had he left a year (or two) early.

Other than that, players who are figureheads on the college level but aren't necessarily good enough to be stars in the NBA don't really achieve a high national profile. This has been proven many times over.

Battier and Hansbrough come to mind as players who were college superstars and were basically forgotten about. Battier, in particular, has had a very solid NBA career, and true fans of the game know about his value. (Especially if they read the Michael Lewis piece on him). But he's generally not thought about by the casual fan. Redick is sort of in the same boat.

[SCMatt33]

Suppose there is a college basketball player who is good enough to be one of the top three chosen in the lottery, if not the first. He reads http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/specials/fortunate50/index.html and sees all the endorsement earnings of the superstar athletes but concludes that while he’ll be a solid player in the NBA he probably will not become a superstar there. However, he thinks that he might be able to achieve superstar status (and therefore hefty endorsement contracts) a different way.

He decides that if he stays in college he will be able to rise to the superstar level as a big fish in a little pond: everyone else good enough to go pro has gone pro, putting him head and shoulders above the remaining college players. By staying in college and putting on dazzling performances for a team that is a national champion contender he figures that he will get much more national attention than he would have gotten in three years in the NBA, especially if he leads his team to one or more national championships. His presence on the team also will help recruiting, increasing the championship possibilities as well as the attention focused on the team. He will try to maximize his national media exposure by speaking and doing work on behalf of popular causes.

Also suppose that he is the kind of person whom companies want as a representative: articulate, squeaky clean personal life, likable, engaging. How likely is it that this approach would generate additional endorsement income over the course of his life at least equal to the three years of player salary that he gave up to stay in college? How important should it be to his decision that this form of income is more stable in that it tends to continue even if he stops playing because of injury?

Should a player with significant talent think of this as a legitimate alternative route – building up star power in college which probably would not have been available to him had he started from scratch in the NBA (especially if (a) he might sit idle a large part of his first year in the NBA because of a labor dispute, and (b) he wanted a college degree for other reasons)?

I think the problem with this reasoning is that except for a very few, who you can just about count on one hand, earning power relates to current star power. Being the best in college basketball for a year or two does not necessarily bring later earnings. First, I don't think that there has ever been a guy who was projected by scouts as a top three pick, but didn't think that he could be a star in the NBA. There are plenty of guys who don't expect to be Kobe or LeBron, but they all expect to be much more than a "solid player."

I think a better analogy would be guys like JJ and Hansbrough. Both could have been certain first round picks, and possible lottery picks after their junior years, but came back for an extra year as the face of college basketball on a championship favorite. For these guys, I don't think their decision mattered all that much in terms of dollars, especially for endorsements. On a national level, I can only come up with one guy, Laettner, who can still earn money based off of what he did in college, and even that is only because he created arguably the all-time greatest college basketball moment in history (an unreasonable expectation for anyone with this decision). Both JJ and Hansbrough built up about as much star power as can be expected in their extra year, but I doubt that it has done too much to add to their endorsement deals. Look at some other recent examples of guys who have come out. John Wall immediately got a national endorsement deal from Reebok because he is expected to be a big deal in the NBA. Evan Turner, who was just as big of a deal on the college level, but had lesser NBA expectations, did not. Look at Blake Griffin. He was a big time star on the college level, but hasn't gotten the national exposure from endorsements until he became a nightly fixture on Sportscenter for his exploits at the NBA level. Jimmer Fredette could probably get a few endorsement deals right now, but come this time next year, everyone will have moved on to the next thing, unless he can somehow (not likely) keep this up at the NBA level.

The reality is that, outside of local car dealership commercials, and a contract to finally put your name on the back of a college jersey, there is little money to be made on being a former college star. Unless the NCAA for some reason accepts the "Jay Bilas model" in which current college players can earn endorsement money, it doesn't make sense from a starpower point of view to return to college. That isn't to say that there aren't possible financial benefits to staying. You can improve your draft stock (if possible) and earn a bigger rookie deal, or polish your game to get off the bench sooner in your career, but I don't think that extra college star power will do too much for your wallet in the long run.

[Starter]

Small correction: Evan Turner signed a deal with Li-Ning back during the summer. Unless things have changed, I think they have a signature shoe planned for him at some point. Not quite Reebok, but they have Baron Davis too, so there's that.

[swood1000]

I think the problem with this reasoning is that except for a very few, who you can just about count on one hand, earning power relates to current star power. Being the best in college basketball for a year or two does not necessarily bring later earnings. First, I don't think that there has ever been a guy who was projected by scouts as a top three pick, but didn't think that he could be a star in the NBA. There are plenty of guys who don't expect to be Kobe or LeBron, but they all expect to be much more than a "solid player."

I think a better analogy would be guys like JJ and Hansbrough. Both could have been certain first round picks, and possible lottery picks after their junior years, but came back for an extra year as the face of college basketball on a championship favorite. For these guys, I don't think their decision mattered all that much in terms of dollars, especially for endorsements. On a national level, I can only come up with one guy, Laettner, who can still earn money based off of what he did in college, and even that is only because he created arguably the all-time greatest college basketball moment in history (an unreasonable expectation for anyone with this decision). Both JJ and Hansbrough built up about as much star power as can be expected in their extra year, but I doubt that it has done too much to add to their endorsement deals. Look at some other recent examples of guys who have come out. John Wall immediately got a national endorsement deal from Reebok because he is expected to be a big deal in the NBA. Evan Turner, who was just as big of a deal on the college level, but had lesser NBA expectations, did not. Look at Blake Griffin. He was a big time star on the college level, but hasn't gotten the national exposure from endorsements until he became a nightly fixture on Sportscenter for his exploits at the NBA level. Jimmer Fredette could probably get a few endorsement deals right now, but come this time next year, everyone will have moved on to the next thing, unless he can somehow (not likely) keep this up at the NBA level.

The reality is that, outside of local car dealership commercials, and a contract to finally put your name on the back of a college jersey, there is little money to be made on being a former college star. Unless the NCAA for some reason accepts the "Jay Bilas model" in which current college players can earn endorsement money, it doesn't make sense from a starpower point of view to return to college. That isn't to say that there aren't possible financial benefits to staying. You can improve your draft stock (if possible) and earn a bigger rookie deal, or polish your game to get off the bench sooner in your career, but I don't think that extra college star power will do too much for your wallet in the long run.

OK, the players you mentioned were JJ, Hansbrough, Turner, Wall, Fredette. Of those, only Wall was good enough, in his freshman year, to be picked first in the lottery. Those are the only ones I'm talking about. Now, it could be that anyone good enough to be picked first in the lottery in his freshman year is guaranteed to land lucrative endorsement contracts but is that the case?

It seems to me that endorsement deals are based on whether the buying public admires the guy right now and wants to be associated with him. You can have two people with equal basketball skills and one earns much more in endorsements purely because of PR reasons: more people know who he is and more people associate him with success. Furthermore, Wall's deal shows that good PR in college can have immediate results.

[SCMatt33]

OK, the players you mentioned were JJ, Hansbrough, Turner, Wall, Fredette. Of those, only Wall was good enough, in his freshman year, to be picked first in the lottery. Those are the only ones I'm talking about. Now, it could be that anyone good enough to be picked first in the lottery in his freshman year is guaranteed to land lucrative endorsement contracts but is that the case?

It seems to me that endorsement deals are based on whether the buying public admires the guy right now and wants to be associated with him. You can have two people with equal basketball skills and one earns much more in endorsements purely because of PR reasons: more people know who he is and more people associate him with success. Furthermore, Wall's deal shows that good PR in college can have immediate results.

The problem is that when it comes to their decision, it doesn't matter what the player's actual potential is at the next level. It only matters what he perceives his potential to be. I don't think that there is anyone who has the combination of talent, drive, and ego to make himself a top three pick in the draft, but think little enough of himself to say that he will never be a top earner in the league. Let's be honest, if Kyrie didn't have the drive and ego (not too much ego, but you still need some ego to want the ball in your hands) to get himself in top three, he probably thinks that he can be a star at the next level. The guys who come back are the ones who figure that they will be a star no matter when they come out and are willing to wait for the pay day because they want to.

[dball]

Battier and Hansbrough come to mind as players who were college superstars and were basically forgotten about.

I knew Hansbrough would be mentioned in a thread about traveling :)

[SCMatt33]

I knew Hansbrough would be mentioned in a thread about traveling :)

Good call, but is it still appropriate when the title is about "less traveled"

[swood1000]

The problem is that when it comes to their decision, it doesn't matter what the player's actual potential is at the next level. It only matters what he perceives his potential to be. I don't think that there is anyone who has the combination of talent, drive, and ego to make himself a top three pick in the draft, but think little enough of himself to say that he will never be a top earner in the league. Let's be honest, if Kyrie didn't have the drive and ego (not too much ego, but you still need some ego to want the ball in your hands) to get himself in top three, he probably thinks that he can be a star at the next level. The guys who come back are the ones who figure that they will be a star no matter when they come out and are willing to wait for the pay day because they want to.

I'm thinking of the guy who is realistic. He has a high opinion of his capabilities but also recognizes that there have been many players who were at his level but for some reason just never got the recognition and acclaim that they expected and deserved in the NBA. He's seen highly qualified people end up with not much in the way of endorsement deals. To get the good deals a person has to rise above the crowd enough to be noticed by the public and associated with victory. For those who are not Kobe Bryant or Lebron James that's a lot easier to do in college. Furthermore, as a superstar in college he can stand out as much as Lebron James does in the NBA since everyone else at his level has left college.

To get name recognition and positive public association in the NBA he has to compete with professional players. In college he only has to compete with college players. The latter seems to have a greater chance of getting him into John Wall's position immediately upon graduation. And somebody in advertising would be better to speak to this, but it seems to me that the acclaim and aura of success will get him the good endorsement deal despite the fact that he got it in college against "only college students."

[slower]

If this is about Kyrie -- it seems like it is? -- he has as good a chance as any to be a star in the NBA.



If the original post is referring to Kyrie, it's way off base.

[swood1000]

If the original post is referring to Kyrie, it's way off base.

Is it way off base because history shows that every player with Kyrie's skills has achieved a top level endorsement contract, and it is therefore a done deal? Is it off base because there is no way that Kyrie could enhance his image in college in a way that would significantly increase his endorsement potential after college?

[RoyalBlue08]

Wait, I thought this was about Harrison Barnes? I was fooled by the big fish in a small pond argument. Kyrie will be a big fish in any pond or ocean he ever plays in. And because of that I wish him the best whenever he decides he wants to play in the NBA.

[Richard Berg]

If college athletes were allowed to cash those endorsement checks without losing their eligibility, this thread would make a lot more sense. Alas, the NCAA is not exactly known for making sense.

[swood1000]

If college athletes were allowed to cash those endorsement checks without losing their eligibility, this thread would make a lot more sense. Alas, the NCAA is not exactly known for making sense.

You misunderstand. The point is not that anyone will get rich while in college. The question is whether, by staying in college, an exceptional athlete can significantly increase his marketability so that upon graduation and afterward he will be able to negotiate a much more lucrative endorsement contract than if he gone earlier into the NBA.

[PADukeMom]

I have always said that having an education is never a bad thing. My youngest son recently informed me he is going to go back to school for his 3rd degree.

If this thread is about a player who plays happens to play for Duke University, how could staying at DUKE & learning for one of the greatest basketball geniuses of all time. Studying under him would probably only elevate your game. An added bonus is a top notch education from an premier college.

If this is in any way about Kyrie, i think he is coming back. Those award banquets can be pretty inspiring & the video Mrs. K does for the seniors are motivating.

Okay so I can only hope. The Daytona 500 is boring & it is too early for the game.

[slower]

Is it way off base because history shows that every player with Kyrie's skills has achieved a top level endorsement contract, and it is therefore a done deal? Is it off base because there is no way that Kyrie could enhance his image in college in a way that would significantly increase his endorsement potential after college?

Your opening paragraph said "...but concludes that while he’ll be a solid player in the NBA he probably will not become a superstar there."

Are you not aware that Kyrie is almost universally projected as a Top 3 pick this year and is most often compared to Chris Paul? Why would anybody conclude that Kyrie will NOT become a superstar there? While it's true that he MAY not, it's even MORE true of almost everybody else. My quarrel is with your highly questionable assertion that Kyrie (and others) are assuming that he WON'T become a superstar (relative to the chances of anybody else).

The best path to superstar income is superstar performance IN THE NBA. Most of the NBA players on the list are there because of large salaries, not large endorsement incomes (at least, not relative to golfers, etc.).

Sounds to me like a case of wishful thinking that Kyrie will stay at Duke rather than go pro after this season. Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE for him to stay. But your logic seems flawed.

[Richard Berg]

You misunderstand. The point is not that anyone will get rich while in college. The question is whether, by staying in college, an exceptional athlete can significantly increase his marketability so that upon graduation and afterward he will be able to negotiate a much more lucrative endorsement contract than if he gone earlier into the NBA.
No, I understand, I just disagree. The way things stand, a player of Kyrie's caliber can make more money during his N years in the NBA than he would by spending C years "pre-marketing" himself in college plus (N-C) years in the NBA. Frankly, I don't think the numbers are very close.

All I'm saying is, if circumstances were different and college players were allowed to earn income above-board, the equation would change in favor of your argument. We don't know exactly what the economics of a semi-professional NCAA would look like, since it's never been tried (Reggie Bush et al aside), but it would at least give the "Kyrie makes more money by staying an extra year" hypothesis a fighting chance.

[swood1000]

Your opening paragraph said "...but concludes that while he’ll be a solid player in the NBA he probably will not become a superstar there."

Are you not aware that Kyrie is almost universally projected as a Top 3 pick this year and is most often compared to Chris Paul? Why would anybody conclude that Kyrie will NOT become a superstar there? While it's true that he MAY not, it's even MORE true of almost everybody else. My quarrel is with your highly questionable assertion that Kyrie (and others) are assuming that he WON'T become a superstar (relative to the chances of anybody else).

The best path to superstar income is superstar performance IN THE NBA. Most of the NBA players on the list are there because of large salaries, not large endorsement incomes (at least, not relative to golfers, etc.).

Sounds to me like a case of wishful thinking that Kyrie will stay at Duke rather than go pro after this season. Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE for him to stay. But your logic seems flawed.

If Lebron James were in college I would assume that his ability to land a highly lucrative endorsement contract in the NBA would be a done deal. Strike "superstar" and replace it with "those for whom a highly lucrative endorsement contract is a done deal." Of the remainder, I am referring only to those at the top.

You appear to be saying that for basketball players endorsement income should not be thought of as a significant revenue source. I guess that is one of the questions I'm raising. Why should that be the case?

Of course, there are other factors that go into one's marketability. Among the important ones would be whether the person is articulate, whether he is likable, and whether the buying public can identify with him personally. Those who can't pass these barriers need not give much thought to the question.

Another problem would be the difficulty of enhancing one's image and name recognition given the level of competition that there is in the NBA. However, it is possible for a person to greatly enhance his marketability through his play as a college player, since that's what John Wall did. The question is whether players are too quickly overlooking that option.

[slower]

If Lebron James were in college I would assume that his ability to land a highly lucrative endorsement contract in the NBA would be a done deal. Strike "superstar" and replace it with "those for whom a highly lucrative endorsement contract is a done deal." Of the remainder, I am referring only to those at the top.

You appear to be saying that for basketball players endorsement income should not be thought of as a significant revenue source. I guess that is one of the questions I'm raising. Why should that be the case?

Of course, there are other factors that go into one's marketability. Among the important ones would be whether the person is articulate, whether he is likable, and whether the buying public can identify with him personally. Those who can't pass these barriers need not give much thought to the question.

Another problem would be the difficulty of enhancing one's image and name recognition given the level of competition that there is in the NBA. However, it is possible for a person to greatly enhance his marketability through his play as a college player, since that's what John Wall did. The question is whether players are too quickly overlooking that option.

My point is that, based on the SI list you linked, the total income of almost all the NBA players on that list is heavily weighted toward salary, not endorsements. And my main point is that endorsement income will follow performance in the NBA, not in college. If John Wall gets injured or plays like a scrub, they won't be buying his shoes anymore. Even for a once-in-a-generation talent like LeBron, if he wasn't producing IN THE NBA, there go the endorsements.

[swood1000]

No, I understand, I just disagree. The way things stand, a player of Kyrie's caliber can make more money during his N years in the NBA than he would by spending C years "pre-marketing" himself in college plus (N-C) years in the NBA. Frankly, I don't think the numbers are very close.

Well, John Wall landed a $25M contract after only one year in college. http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=Am4ld8Dvq9ZFbI9ox46AoLM5nYcB?slug=aw-wallreebok060910

Of course, there are many factors that go into something like this, and he might even have qualified as a "done deal." But why should we assume that, unlike golfers, basketball players are not eligible for the big time endorsement contracts? And wouldn't the right person be able to cultivate his image quite successfully playing for a high-profile championship caliber college team?

[slower]

But why should we assume that, unlike golfers, basketball players are not eligible for the big time endorsement contracts?

Compare the price of basketball shoes to a set of golf clubs and apparel and accessories. Also, note the relative disposable income of civilian golfers compared to people who buy basketball shoes.

[swood1000]

My point is that, based on the SI list you linked, the total income of almost all the NBA players on that list is heavily weighted toward salary, not endorsements. And my main point is that endorsement income will follow performance in the NBA, not in college.

This certainly has been the way people have approached it, but isn't a different approach worth consideration? John Wall got his endorsement contract after no time in the NBA.


If John Wall gets injured or plays like a scrub, they won't be buying his shoes anymore. Even for a once-in-a-generation talent like LeBron, if he wasn't producing IN THE NBA, there go the endorsements.

Joe Dimaggio was endorsing Mr. Coffee well after he stopped playing baseball.

[Channing]

any player projected in the top 3 is going to get a lucrative endorsement deal. Coming back is not going to enhance his first endorsement deals, and only his play in the league is going to enhance his second.

To play devils advocate - what about a player who played 10 games in college, had an injury that really made him take stock of his career, and has seen his national profile sky rocket because of people contemplating "what could have been" if he had been healthy. He has a chance to capitalize on all that positive energy, or he can run the risk of coming back and potentially not performing up to expected levels, and seeing his national profile slip off...

wouldn't that player be well served to leave early and strike while the iron is hot, knowing that everyone and their father predict him to be a star at the next level?

[slower]

Joe Dimaggio was endorsing Mr. Coffee well after he stopped playing baseball.

That was MANY years ago. Joe was an American icon in a different time, you could even say a different America. Strikes me as an apples and oranges comparison. Sadly, I'd also venture that Joe resonated with White America in a way that almost no NBA player can.

[swood1000]

Compare the price of basketball shoes to a set of golf clubs and apparel and accessories. Also, note the relative disposable income of civilian golfers compared to people who buy basketball shoes.

Why do we limit it to basketball shoes? Joe Dimaggio sells Mr. Coffee. George Foreman sells electric grills. The principal impediment seems to be whether the person buying a particular product can identify with a given athlete. Some athletes may only be appealing to those buying basketball shoes. Not all athletes, though.

[swood1000]

Sadly, I'd also venture that Joe resonated with White America in a way that almost no NBA player can.

Sadly, I would agree with you. But the key word is "almost." Take a basketball player, black or white, who is highly educated, very articulate, and charismatic, and a whole different set of possibilities is in play.

[Orange&BlackSheep]

Sadly, I would agree with you. But the key word is "almost." Take a basketball player, black or white, who is highly educated, very articulate, and charismatic, and a whole different set of possibilities is in play.

I just don't agree with the original premise to which you responded even in the slightest. Sure, circa 1960 America would not have dreamed of a non melanin-deficient individual repping a major ad campaign, but the 80's/90's saw that change and the 2000's cemented that notion as one best suited to college classes on the history of racial perception in America. Pitchmen/women are there because they are representative of our aspirations. It is clear that sports and music are filled with people graced with melanin who represent the dreams of the purchasing public.

Given how rapidly the racial climate in this country has changed, we are in the most amazing position of having the oldest generation alive remembering the overt racism of the 1960's and before, a middle generation who was born as that was changing and so grew up in a society that was responding to that change, and finally a younger generation that has no real concept of what the oldest generation is talking about when it comes to race.

Even as a teenager, I always felt the core of the solution to melanin-based bigotry was just a matter of time -- for time would bring the death of those generations poisoned by bigotry. I am by no means saying that the legacy of slavery and the racial prejudice which underpinned it does not live on quite strongly in a variety of ways. But to argue that longevity as a pitchman (Dimaggio, Palmer, etc.) is strongly correlated to the person's race simply misses the sea change that has happened in the lifetime of anyone older than about thirty in this area.

[yancem]

I think it is unlikely that a player who would be a top 3 pick after his freshman year would increase his endorsement value significantly enough to offset 3 years of nba salary. That being said I can think of one example where that may have happened: Tim Duncan. I'm not sure where he would have been drafted after his freshman year but he was a consensus top pick after his sophomore year but stuck around for 2 more seasons anyway. He a) wasn't a finished project after his first 2 season so he probably would not have been the instance success he became a few years later and b) being a quite guy probably wouldn't have gotten the initial endorsements he got becoming the face of ncaa basketball for 3 years. The star power of being the guy who said no to nba riches 3 times may have made up for the 3 years of lost salary. Unless the rookie salary scale hadn't come into play at that point, then I'm not sure it would have.

There are also a few players that if they had stuck around an extra year may have made up for the lost salary with endorsements. One player that comes to mind is Maggette. Because Duke was so loaded in '99, he didn't get a ton of publicity but if he had come back for his sophomore year and had the monster year that was expected he may have been the darling of the 2000 draft (which was quite lack luster BTW). With his smile he may (may being the key word) have become a marketing hit and more than made up unpaid season.

Irving could be in a similar situation, at least if he doesn't come back this season. Because he missed most of the season and there are bound to be questions about his health, companies may be (may the key word again) hesitant to sign large endorsement deals. If he came back and showed his winning personality and game, the endorsement value could be huge. Large enough to offset 3 years salary though, I highly doubt it.

[swood1000]

any player projected in the top 3 is going to get a lucrative endorsement deal. Coming back is not going to enhance his first endorsement deals, and only his play in the league is going to enhance his second.

I'm not sure that everyone would agree that a lucrative endorsement contract is a "done deal" for the top three, nor whether the contract could be made more lucrative by further exposure in college.


To play devils advocate - what about a player who played 10 games in college, had an injury that really made him take stock of his career, and has seen his national profile sky rocket because of people contemplating "what could have been" if he had been healthy. He has a chance to capitalize on all that positive energy, or he can run the risk of coming back and potentially not performing up to expected levels, and seeing his national profile slip off...

wouldn't that player be well served to leave early and strike while the iron is hot, knowing that everyone and their father predict him to be a star at the next level?

It will always be the case that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. The question is how many there are in the bush and how likely it is that they can be gotten.

[swood1000]

I just don't agree with the original premise to which you responded even in the slightest. Sure, circa 1960 America would not have dreamed of a non melanin-deficient individual repping a major ad campaign, but the 80's/90's saw that change and the 2000's cemented that notion as one best suited to college classes on the history of racial perception in America. Pitchmen/women are there because they are representative of our aspirations. It is clear that sports and music are filled with people graced with melanin who represent the dreams of the purchasing public.

Given how rapidly the racial climate in this country has changed, we are in the most amazing position of having the oldest generation alive remembering the overt racism of the 1960's and before, a middle generation who was born as that was changing and so grew up in a society that was responding to that change, and finally a younger generation that has no real concept of what the oldest generation is talking about when it comes to race.

Even as a teenager, I always felt the core of the solution to melanin-based bigotry was just a matter of time -- for time would bring the death of those generations poisoned by bigotry. I am by no means saying that the legacy of slavery and the racial prejudice which underpinned it does not live on quite strongly in a variety of ways. But to argue that longevity as a pitchman (Dimaggio, Palmer, etc.) is strongly correlated to the person's race simply misses the sea change that has happened in the lifetime of anyone older than about thirty in this area.

It seems to me that when it comes to endorsements the question is cultural more than racial, and it comes down to whether the buying public can identify with the athlete. If he comes from a culture with different norms, and if he speaks in a vernacular that is difficult to understand, and if he appears to be not as well educated, these things can inhibit the kind of identification that is necessary to effectively promote a product. It's a complicated business, of which I am no expert.

[mgtr]

It will always be the case that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. The question is how many there are in the bush and how likely it is that they can be gotten.

And, of course you have to factor in how bird doo all over your hand matters!:)

[swood1000]

If he came back and showed his winning personality and game, the endorsement value could be huge. Large enough to offset 3 years salary though, I highly doubt it.

One reason we don't know is that nobody has tried it. We don't know what a sensation would be created if a number one pick stayed around that long, and what effect it would have on his marketability.

Another uncertainty is the amount of a year of salary, currently under negotiation. But suppose we are talking about the current levels http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=9302. If we can say confidently that it is very unlikely that could increase his endorsement value over his lifetime by significantly more than that amount then the question has been answered. The wall I keep running into is my ignorance of how difficult is is to get things to happen in the marketing and promotion area.

[swood1000]

And, of course you have to factor in how bird doo all over your hand matters!:)
I thought that was a given.

[slower]

I just don't agree with the original premise to which you responded even in the slightest. Sure, circa 1960 America would not have dreamed of a non melanin-deficient individual repping a major ad campaign, but the 80's/90's saw that change and the 2000's cemented that notion as one best suited to college classes on the history of racial perception in America. Pitchmen/women are there because they are representative of our aspirations. It is clear that sports and music are filled with people graced with melanin who represent the dreams of the purchasing public.

Given how rapidly the racial climate in this country has changed, we are in the most amazing position of having the oldest generation alive remembering the overt racism of the 1960's and before, a middle generation who was born as that was changing and so grew up in a society that was responding to that change, and finally a younger generation that has no real concept of what the oldest generation is talking about when it comes to race.

Even as a teenager, I always felt the core of the solution to melanin-based bigotry was just a matter of time -- for time would bring the death of those generations poisoned by bigotry. I am by no means saying that the legacy of slavery and the racial prejudice which underpinned it does not live on quite strongly in a variety of ways. But to argue that longevity as a pitchman (Dimaggio, Palmer, etc.) is strongly correlated to the person's race simply misses the sea change that has happened in the lifetime of anyone older than about thirty in this area.

You're correct. Poorly worded on my part. I just don't think the original Joe DiMaggio/Mr. Coffee example (as it was presented as a rebuttal to my statement about John Wall) is a good comparison, in this case.

[OldSchool]

Louis Williams

Sebastian Telfair

Shaun Livinston

Brandon Jennings

All high school wunderkind guards.

If any one of these players had gone to a basketball powerhouse with lots of national media exposure, playing in Final Fours and contending for national championships, a much bigger part of the basketball-viewing world would pay attention and take an interest in following the success or failure of that player. The popularity resulting from being a high-profile college star can be an advantage in a number of ways, not simply signing endorsement deals.

Look at Jay Williams. He had a much too short NBA career, but his recognition and association with Duke basketball and the University I believe helped him greatly in pursuing other career paths, such as professional sports agency and broadcasting.

Of course, I am not arguing that the college experience is for everyone. Not everyone has intellectual curiosity and an interest in the wider world and meeting other intelligent people from a variety of backgrounds, such that the college experience would be valuable in and of itself. People with no such interests may find college such a drag that even though the name recognition and popularity from college play might be advantageous, they would nevertheless be happier just skipping it altogether or minimizing it.

But once you build that connection with a school like Duke over a multiple-year period, you will be a part of that university community and basketball family for the rest of your career, indeed life.

[Indoor66]

This certainly has been the way people have approached it, but isn't a different approach worth consideration? John Wall got his endorsement contract after no time in the NBA.



Joe Dimaggio was endorsing Mr. Coffee well after he stopped playing baseball.

Joe Dimaggio was an icon.

[pfrduke]

One reason we don't know is that nobody has tried it. We don't know what a sensation would be created if a number one pick stayed around that long, and what effect it would have on his marketability.

Well, Jason Williams was reputed to be a top 3 pick after his sophomore year, and he came back. It didn't translate into immediate endorsement dollars after his junior year, and we don't know how the rest of it would have played out given his injury.

[swood1000]

You're correct. Poorly worded on my part. I just don't think the original Joe DiMaggio/Mr. Coffee example (as it was presented as a rebuttal to my statement about John Wall) is a good comparison, in this case.

Instead of Jo DiMaggio we can use O.J. Simpson running through airports on behalf of Hertz. My point is that when an athlete retires he does not immediately lose all the positive associations that make him marketable. It seems clear that there are an abundance of retired athletes who are still endorsing products. Of course, if the athlete doesn't retire soon enough and begins to be thought of as second-rate, then he loses his endorsement potential. I'm wondering whether it wouldn't be in fact easier in some cases to reach the necessary level of name recognition and positive association in college.

[swood1000]

Joe Dimaggio was an icon.

O.J. Simpson running through airports for Hertz. There are any number of retired athletes who are still endorsing products quite profitably.

[swood1000]

Well, Jason Williams was reputed to be a top 3 pick after his sophomore year, and he came back. It didn't translate into immediate endorsement dollars after his junior year, and we don't know how the rest of it would have played out given his injury.

Staying around one year as a top pick would have some impact, but not as much as staying around three years as a top pick. After three years of being constantly in the news, constantly the focus of intense national attention, adulation and speculation, and especially if one or more national titles were won, a person's name recognition and positive association would probably improve dramatically. Whether that improvement would translate into sufficiently increased endorsement potential is the question.

Also, the endorsement dollars need not be immediate. Suppose the increased name recognition translates into endorsement dollars that are 1/10 of the salary that he gave up, but the endorsement potential lasts for twenty years. Furthermore, the increased name recognition could simply provide a base upon which to build in the NBA. So he starts out with X instead of zero. And if he improves his name association he has X + Y instead of zero plus Y. Or in some cases it could give him the ability to do national endorsements since he now has national name recognition, whereas without this he would have been stuck doing only local endorsements and without an easy way of getting national recognition.

[Indoor66]

Staying around one year as a top pick would have some impact, but not as much as staying around three years as a top pick. After three years of being constantly in the news, constantly the focus of intense national attention, adulation and speculation, and especially if one or more national titles were won, a person's name recognition and positive association would probably improve dramatically. Whether that improvement would translate into sufficiently increased endorsement potential is the question.

Also, the endorsement dollars need not be immediate. Suppose the increased name recognition translates into endorsement dollars that are 1/10 of the salary that he gave up, but the endorsement potential lasts for twenty years. Furthermore, the increased name recognition could simply provide a base upon which to build in the NBA. So he starts out with X instead of zero. And if he improves his name association he has X + Y instead of zero plus Y. Or in some cases it could give him the ability to do national endorsements since he now has national name recognition, whereas without this he would have been stuck doing only local endorsements and without an easy way of getting national recognition.

You are making assumptions that have no basis in any empirical data or fact.

[DukeDevilDeb]

O.J. Simpson running through airports for Hertz. There are any number of retired athletes who are still endorsing products quite profitably.

How about OJ Simpson running from the cops? :p

[swood1000]

You are making assumptions that have no basis in any empirical data or fact.

Whether they have basis in fact is the question. That there are no empirical data is the problem.

I have said all along that I do not purport to have answered all the questions or solved all the problems. I am merely proposing the possibility that a player who is at a high enough level, and who has the requisite personal characteristics, might receive significant benefit by staying in college. Is it possible that he could become much more celebrated than if he had spent those three years in the NBA? He likely will receive much more positive attention being compared to college players than he would being compared to NBA players. But whether that could that be converted into endorsement revenue is the question, along with what types of people would be able to benefit from this.

[swood1000]

How about OJ Simpson running from the cops? :p

That too.

[turnandburn55]

Surprised Grant Hill's name hasn't come up in this thread yet.....

I think we also need to caveat these assumptions by saying that it only works for players with a specific type of game and/or personality. Guys like Redick and Hansborough just have a limited appeal to your average NBA watcher.

[swood1000]

I think we also need to caveat these assumptions by saying that it only works for players with a specific type of game and/or personality. Guys like Redick and Hansborough just have a limited appeal to your average NBA watcher.

Unquestionably true. Here's an article: http://www.magicjohnson.com/index.php?/site/inthenewsposting/magic_johnson_tops_athlete_business_endorsement_su rvey/ which made a couple of interesting observations:


The current list shows former athletes, such as NBA legend Magic Johnson, have the greatest appeal to corporate executives over all.
and


"It takes a certain type of personality to be comfortable with giving a keynote speech or schmoozing with clients in a business setting. When you are interacting with executives it’s nice that you can hit a baseball 500 feet, but you also have to be able to hit it off with your audience," says Tuchman.

[swood1000]

Surprised Grant Hill's name hasn't come up in this thread yet.....

Here's some commentary on the 2004 SI Endorsement List, http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writers/pete_mcentegart/05/14/money.list/, in which Grant Hill was tenth:


Consider the case of oft-injured Orlando Magic forward Grant Hill, who has barely played in three seasons but still clocks in at No. 10. By staying squeaky clean, Hill has held onto his endorsement contracts even if he's not often used as a pitchman these days.

[Jarhead]

Here's some commentary on the 2004 SI Endorsement List, http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writers/pete_mcentegart/05/14/money.list/, in which Grant Hill was tenth:

It can be noted that Grant ranks #6 in endorsement money. Golly, I have a Duke hat signed by him. I wonder if it is worth anything.

[swood1000]

It can be noted that Grant ranks #6 in endorsement money. Golly, I have a Duke hat signed by him. I wonder if it is worth anything.

So, Grant Hill stays around for four years, leads the team to consecutive national championships, then


No one in the Hill family was surprised when Grant Hill was chosen third in the first round of the 1994 NBA draft by the Detroit Pistons. He inked an eight-year, $45-million contract to play ball, and almost immediately reaped significant contracts for commercial endorsements from Fila athletic wear, Sprite, Chevrolet, and other major corporations. His debut in the NBA earned more press coverage than perhaps any other player before him, and--having been raised in a sports spotlight--he accepted all the acclaim with good cheer. Describing his arrival in the NBA as a "dream come true," he was thrilled to be treated as a peer by players he had long admired. http://www.answers.com/topic/grant-hill-1

[swood1000]

any player projected in the top 3 is going to get a lucrative endorsement deal. Coming back is not going to enhance his first endorsement deals, and only his play in the league is going to enhance his second.

Do you think that Grant Hill would have gotten all this attention and all those endorsement deals anyway if he had gone pro after his freshman year? I really wish there were a listing somewhere of the endorsement deals for all the NBA players, not just the ones at the top.


To play devils advocate - what about a player who played 10 games in college, had an injury that really made him take stock of his career, and has seen his national profile sky rocket because of people contemplating "what could have been" if he had been healthy. He has a chance to capitalize on all that positive energy, or he can run the risk of coming back and potentially not performing up to expected levels, and seeing his national profile slip off...

wouldn't that player be well served to leave early and strike while the iron is hot, knowing that everyone and their father predict him to be a star at the next level?

Of course, if Kyrie decides that he is currently over-hyped, and that his actual skill level would not support a number one pick, then the most money lies in "not quite recovering" enough this year to play and then immediately going pro.

But let me turn the question around. Suppose Kyrie does actually have the skill level to be a number one pick (which seems to agree with some of Coach K's comments about him). And suppose he could leave now and receive the rookie contract amounts but without significant endorsement deals and no promise of ever having any major deals. If he stays around for three years there is a chance that he will be permanently injured and lose any chance of going pro. But suppose he becomes convinced that, because of his skill level, his personality, and the national attention focused on his team, and because of lessons learned from Grant Hill, if he stays around for three more years and is not injured he would be able to immediately land endorsement contracts of $10 million per year. What should he do?

[Matches]

Do you think that Grant Hill would have gotten all this attention and all those endorsement deals anyway if he had gone pro after his freshman year?


Right off a NC and the big win over UNLV? Yeah, probably.

I'm not sure how fair a comparison point Grant is, though. His freshman year was 20 years ago. There have been major changes in media coverage since then - HS players and recruiting get a lot more press now than they did back then. Even Tim Duncan is questionable as a point of comparison IMO.

[swood1000]

I'm not sure how fair a comparison point Grant is, though. His freshman year was 20 years ago. There have been major changes in media coverage since then - HS players and recruiting get a lot more press now than they did back then. Even Tim Duncan is questionable as a point of comparison IMO.

How do the changes in media coverage change the equation for a player? Are you saying that a player now can receive in one year the intensity of media coverage that used to take four years to receive? But if we can agree that the media coverage on the number one college player, who plays for a national contender, is golden when it comes time to negotiate endorsement contracts, and if we are saying that such coverage has become even more intense and effective in the last twenty years, then wouldn't that argue in favor of staying in college to receive as much of it as possible?

[Matches]

How do the changes in media coverage change the equation for a player? Are you saying that a player now can receive in one year the intensity of media coverage that used to take four years to receive? But if we can agree that the media coverage on the number one college player, who plays for a national contender, is golden when it comes time to negotiate endorsement contracts, and if we are saying that such coverage has become even more intense and effective in the last twenty years, then wouldn't that argue in favor of staying in college to receive as much of it as possible?

I'm saying that it's much more workable now for a player with little or no college bball experience to become a household name, at least in basketball circles, than it was 20 years ago. Aside from the occasional Damon Bailey, there was little national coverage of HS players 20 years ago, so a college freshman was "new" to most folks. That's why Grant's not a good comparison - he played in a different era.

These days many of the top HS players are followed by the national media for years before ever stepping onto a college campus. Everyone knew who Oden and Durant were, for example, before they ever suited up in college. Guys at that level don't raise their profile by staying in school.

[swood1000]

Guys at that level don't raise their profile by staying in school.

Agreed. That's why I suggested a cutoff point at "those for whom a highly lucrative endorsement contract is a done deal." Players above that point have no uncertainty about their endorsement revenue. Of the ones below that point I am referring only to those at the very top, the ones who are big celebrities in college basketball but who will not necessarily be big celebrities right away in the NBA.

[Matches]

Agreed. That's why I suggested a cutoff point at "those for whom a highly lucrative endorsement contract is a done deal." Players above that point have no uncertainty about their endorsement revenue. Of the ones below that point I am referring only to those at the very top, the ones who are big celebrities in college basketball but who will not necessarily be big celebrities right away in the NBA.

OK - but most of the thread has been discussion about guys who are top five picks. Those guys ARE big celebrities right away in the NBA.

Unless, of course, they suck, which some of them end up doing. (Hello, Darko.) But in those cases, the underlying problem is that the player isn't very good, not that he didn't stay in college long enough. We could debate all day about the relative effects on development of more college, less college, etc. - no one can really prove one way or another what's the best course, and likely it's different for different players. JJ Redick probably benefitted from returning to school; Josh McRoberts didn't.

[swood1000]

OK - but most of the thread has been discussion about guys who are top five picks. Those guys ARE big celebrities right away in the NBA.

It's a mistake to use terms such as "big celebrity" and "superstar" because they mean something different to everybody. I'll stick with "those for whom a highly lucrative endorsement contract is a done deal." My only point is that there are freshmen for whom that is not true, and who will not be on the receiving end of a huge endorsement deal, but for whom it could become true if they spent three more years in college basking in the limelight as the media darling.


Unless, of course, they suck, which some of them end up doing. (Hello, Darko.) But in those cases, the underlying problem is that the player isn't very good, not that he didn't stay in college long enough. We could debate all day about the relative effects on development of more college, less college, etc. - no one can really prove one way or another what's the best course, and likely it's different for different players. JJ Redick probably benefitted from returning to school; Josh McRoberts didn't.

I'm really not talking about the development of player skills. I'm talking about development of player PR. JJ and Josh probably didn't qualify because they were not among the top three pro prospects throughout their college tenure.

[Matches]

It's a mistake to use terms such as "big celebrity" and "superstar" because they mean something different to everybody. I'll stick with "those for whom a highly lucrative endorsement contract is a done deal." My only point is that there are freshmen for whom that is not true, and who will not be on the receiving end of a huge endorsement deal, but for whom it could become true if they spent three more years in college basking in the limelight as the media darling.



Fair enough, and I think most would agree the above is true for some players. No doubt that some players benefit PR/ endorsement-wise from staying in school. I just don't think guys who are top 5 picks are the ones who fall into that category. Usually it's the JJs who benefit from that additional exposure.

[swood1000]

Fair enough, and I think most would agree the above is true for some players. No doubt that some players benefit PR/ endorsement-wise from staying in school. I just don't think guys who are top 5 picks are the ones who fall into that category.

This is where it would be helpful to see an endorsement earnings list that includes players farther down on the list. You appear to be assuming that the lucrative endorsement question is a "done deal" for the top three and I'm assuming that it is not.

You are also assuming that the media attention received by a number one pick would be equivalent in his first three years in the NBA to what it would have been as the number one player in college, and that the endorsement deal he could be expected to command would not particularly benefit from the unique exposure that the number one college player on the contending team gets. The foundation of my argument is that it would.


Usually it's the JJs who benefit from that additional exposure.

They benefit from the additional exposure but they can't sufficiently dominate at the college level to command the type of media attention I am thinking about.

[swood1000]

Right off a NC and the big win over UNLV? Yeah, probably.

If a NC and big wins in college can give a significant boost to a player's endorsement potential then it must be worth while to evaluate how much of a boost can be achieved by what kinds of events in college, and whether the likelihood and value of those events justifies remaining in college to pursue them.

[thenameisbond]

If the original post is referring to Kyrie, it's way off base.

It sounds a lot like Nolan to me.

[swood1000]

It sounds a lot like Nolan to me.

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

[SCMatt33]

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

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

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

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

[swood1000]

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

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

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

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

[Kedsy]

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

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

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

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

[SCMatt33]

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

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

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

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

[Matches]

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



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

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

[Indoor66]

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

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

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

[crimsonandblue]

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

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

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

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

[swood1000]

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

Yes. The more the better.


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

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



Year end Person A Person B
Year 1 5,500,000 0
Year 2 11,550,000 0
Year 3 18,205,000 0
Year 4 25,525,500 11,000,000
Year 5 33,578,050 23,100,000
Year 6 42,435,855 36,410,000
Year 7 52,179,441 51,051,000
Year 8 62,897,385 67,156,100
Year 9 74,687,123 84,871,710
Year 10 87,655,835 104,358,881The above does not take into account the fact that a person who is well-known will continue receiving endorsement and speaking fees long after he retires. Nor does it take into account the enjoyment or other benefit a person might receive from his college experience and from being a higher profile celebrity for the rest of his life.

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

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

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

[swood1000]

Josh's draft stock ended up taking a hit just by stepping on campus in the first place.
I agree completely. There were expectations for him that weren't met. Kyrie might decide that the expectations for him have gotten way out of control. If his realistic appraisal reaches that conclusion then, from a financial standpoint, he would clearly be best advised to go pro without delay.


That made me start thinking that you have to factor into the equation that coming back doesn't automatically equate to the positive exposure and brand building talked about, even if there isn't an injury.
No question about it. But initially we need to determine whether there would be anybody for whom it would make sense. If so, we need a list of factors that should be considered when a person is determining whether to take the risk.


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

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


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

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


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


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

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


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

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

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


When a player is going to be a top 3 pick, he probably has some buzz about him in the league and will likely get some endorsements.
The only useful thing I could find about endorsement rates was this: http://jonesonthenba.com/2008/06/top-nba-player-marketing-figures-for.html which did not suggest that super high endorsements are standard for those outside the top.

[swood1000]

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

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

[swood1000]

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

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

[Kedsy]

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

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

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


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



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

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

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

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

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

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

[snowdenscold]

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

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

[swood1000]

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

[swood1000]

In addition to what Kedsy said about changing the #'s around and having Player A come out ahead - it's also not factoring in expected value due to probabilistic conditions such as injury. You would have to know the person's risk threshold.
It’s not factoring in anything. It just gives a simplistic example of how the numbers could work. See my response to SCMatt33.


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

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

[DukieinSoCal]

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

[swood1000]

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

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