Austin Rivers and the one and done rule

[MChambers]

Interestingly, here's an article speculating that the new CBA will change the rule to two and see you, or something like that:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=mc-austin_rivers_nba_age_limit_duke_draft_040811

[Lord Ash]

Interesting. I wonder what impact this would have on Kentucky, who feature SO many one-and-dones. Would Cal do something like alternating classes of one-and-dones or something?

[yancem]

This could have a serious impact on Duke. If we sign Daniels, that would put us with 12 scholarships for next season with only 1 senior. We already have 2 commitments from the '12 class (Murphy and Sulaimon) so if MP2 decided to stick around for his senior year we would be done recruiting for the '12 class. No Parker and no Muhammad. Granted a second year of Rivers would be awesome but it does put the recruitment of Daniels in a different light.

[Olympic Fan]

While I have no idea how likely the adoption of a 2-year rule is, it does have interesting ramifications for the current crop of college players.

If adopted -- and that's a big IF -- it means that the draft class of 2012 will be one of the weakest in memory. The top current freshmen from this class will be in the 2011 draft this June ... the next wave of great players (Rivers, Gilchrist, Anthony Davis, etc.) will have to wait until 2013 to be eligible.

That leaves a one-year gap without any great prospects on the horizon (unless there are some foreign guys who slip into the picture). Maybe Sullinger as the overwhelming favorite to be No. 1 in 2012.

How does this translate into the real world?

Well, if I were projected as a borderline lottery pick or a late first-round pick this year, it would make a lot of sense to wait until 2012. Guys like John Henson and Mason Plumlee (not to mention Tyler Zeller, Jordan Williams, CJ Leslie, Reggie Jackson, Chris Singleton and Iman Shumpert) would all almost certainly go much higher in 2012 than 2011.

Unfortunately, that doesn't help to much with Kyrie Irving ... yeah, he's be a likely No. 1 pick in 2012 ... but he's a likely No. 1 pick now (depending on who wins the lottery). Pretty much the same for Harrison Barnes, who is a top five guy this year anyway.

Of course, I'll believe the two-and-done rule when I see it.

[Jderf]

While I have no idea how likely the adoption of a 2-year rule is, it does have interesting ramifications for the current crop of college players.

If adopted -- and that's a big IF -- it means that the draft class of 2012 will be one of the weakest in memory. The top current freshmen from this class will be in the 2011 draft this June ... the next wave of great players (Rivers, Gilchrist, Anthony Davis, etc.) will have to wait until 2013 to be eligible.

That leaves a one-year gap without any great prospects on the horizon (unless there are some foreign guys who slip into the picture). Maybe Sullinger as the overwhelming favorite to be No. 1 in 2012.

How does this translate into the real world?

Well, if I were projected as a borderline lottery pick or a late first-round pick this year, it would make a lot of sense to wait until 2012. Guys like John Henson and Mason Plumlee (not to mention Tyler Zeller, Jordan Williams, CJ Leslie, Reggie Jackson, Chris Singleton and Iman Shumpert) would all almost certainly go much higher in 2012 than 2011.

Unfortunately, that doesn't help to much with Kyrie Irving ... yeah, he's be a likely No. 1 pick in 2012 ... but he's a likely No. 1 pick now (depending on who wins the lottery). Pretty much the same for Harrison Barnes, who is a top five guy this year anyway.

Of course, I'll believe the two-and-done rule when I see it.

The only problem with this, from the perspective of a potential draftee, is that none of the players you mentioned will know if the rule is going to change until after this year's draft. They won't be able to take it into account while they are making their decisions. If it factors in at all, it will only do so as speculative guesswork.

[lotusland]

Interesting. I wonder what impact this would have on Kentucky, who feature SO many one-and-dones. Would Cal do something like alternating classes of one-and-dones or something?

Cal would actually have to make sure players go to class or at least "earn" sufficient credit hours to remain eligible for 2 years. I could see a new degree program started for "Sports Center Analysis" or "PS 2 Management".

[MChambers]

Unfortunately, that doesn't help to much with Kyrie Irving ... yeah, he's be a likely No. 1 pick in 2012 ... but he's a likely No. 1 pick now (depending on who wins the lottery). Pretty much the same for Harrison Barnes, who is a top five guy this year anyway.

Of course, I'll believe the two-and-done rule when I see it.
I think Kyrie and Barnes have (or had) very different decisions. Irving is assured going in the top 3, Barnes not so quite high. I really wonder, given how mapped out his career seems to be in his mind, whether he's wavering on the draft this year because he doesn't want to go lower than 3.

[Starter]

This could have a serious impact on Duke. If we sign Daniels, that would put us with 12 scholarships for next season with only 1 senior. We already have 2 commitments from the '12 class (Murphy and Sulaimon) so if MP2 decided to stick around for his senior year we would be done recruiting for the '12 class. No Parker and no Muhammad. Granted a second year of Rivers would be awesome but it does put the recruitment of Daniels in a different light.

Interesting, thanks for taking inventory. It sounds like we don't have a whole lot of flexibility for a bit unless there are transfers. Regardless of whether Muhammad and Parker reciprocate Duke's interest, as we're seeing with Daniels, it'd be good to have the ability to explore promising situations.

Rivers would almost certainly go pro after one year if the rules allowed him to, but it's not like I'd take any 2012 recruit over him. Mason... I mean, who knows? Anything could happen there.

This is sort of why despite the family ties, I have to admit that I wasn't crazy about the Marshall Plumlee recruitment. Though they've each most certainly had their moments, it's not like either of his brothers have set the world on fire, and Marshall -- from what I understand, and feel free to set me straight -- is a bigger project than either Miles or Mason that we shouldn't expect to see extensive time for a while.

All that said... I have to think Krzyzewski has taken all of this into account and has his ducks in a row. Let's see how everything works out.

[Kedsy]

It sounds like we don't have a whole lot of flexibility for a bit unless there are transfers.

We don't need any transfers. It will all work out. IF we get DeAndre and everyone else stays, it's true we'll be up to 13 scholarships for 2012-13. But if Mason is seriously thinking about leaving this year (as reported) he would almost certainly leave next year (especially if the draft is as weak as postulated here). So if Austin is forced to stay (and I think we could all live with that), that would leave us with one scholarship for either Tony P or Shabazz. The odds of us getting both are pretty much of a long shot anyway. I'd be thrilled with one of them, along with our stellar returning cast.


If it factors in at all, it will only do so as speculative guesswork.

This, as opposed to non-speculative guesswork? :D

[Starter]

We don't need any transfers. It will all work out. IF we get DeAndre and everyone else stays, it's true we'll be up to 13 scholarships for 2012-13. But if Mason is seriously thinking about leaving this year (as reported) he would almost certainly leave next year (especially if the draft is as weak as postulated here). So if Austin is forced to stay (and I think we could all live with that), that would leave us with one scholarship for either Tony P or Shabazz. The odds of us getting both are pretty much of a long shot anyway. I'd be thrilled with one of them, along with our stellar returning cast.


Pretty good rationale here. And I agree, I just hope one of those guys comes, with Parker clearly being a bigger need. I hate to say it, I haven't gotten good vibes from clippings on either one, so maybe it's all a moot point for the wrong reasons.

As for Mason, to be honest, I currently don't see him as an NBA player at all. I'm not 100% sure I'm going to after next year either. But that isn't to say he won't find success if he leaves either this year or next in terms of his draftability, given the current state of the NBA and its draft.

[davekay1971]

Pretty much the same for Harrison Barnes, who is a top five guy this year anyway.
.

Now now! Roy would like to remind you (and Harrison) that Barnes could slip all the way to number 11. Maybe lower. You never know! Certainly probably almost certainly not likely to be as high as top 5...maybe. Anyway, yeah, better for Harrison to return to Chapel Hill for another year because he'll probably go all the way from number 11, or 15, or whatever, to number 1. It's all in the best interest of the Falcon. Thanks for your time. Roy just wanted me to clear up that little misunderstanding in your post.

[MarkD83]

Would a new CBA effect this year's draft? By that I mean could they tell all current freshman that they have to go to school for another year?

This is not a "wish and a prayer" that Kyrie comes back because signing with an agent has already made him a pro. Just a question.

[MCFinARL]

Would a new CBA effect this year's draft? By that I mean could they tell all current freshman that they have to go to school for another year?

This is not a "wish and a prayer" that Kyrie comes back because signing with an agent has already made him a pro. Just a question.

Kyrie has not signed with an agent yet. He has simply announced that he will sign with an agent, to make it clear he doesn't plan to withdraw from the draft.

[coldriver10]

I would love to see this rule go into effect. I think the forced-to-go-to-college-for-one-year rule has hurt the college basketball landscape and how players are recruited. Personally, I like how the MLB and the NFL do it, and I hope the NBA heads in either direction.

[Richard Berg]

If the new CBA raises the age requirement, they should:
- allow HS kids to be directly eligible again, like MLB
- not make the new restrictions take effect until 2013, so that '11 players are not unfairly penalized

[Duke: A Dynasty]

I do not think this would affect anyone who is already in school by the time this goes into affect. It would not be fair to the players like Rivers. They probably would allow anyone who had signed a LOI before this was put out to go ahead and be a one and done if they so choose and it would take full effect on Murphy's class.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

I do not think this would affect anyone who is already in school by the time this goes into affect. It would not be fair to the players like Rivers. They probably would allow anyone who had signed a LOI before this was put out to go ahead and be a one and done if they so choose and it would take full effect on Murphy's class.
Why would the NBA or current players, those negotiating the new CBA, care about a single class of college players?

[Duke: A Dynasty]

To keep and enire draft from being watered down.....

[Newton_14]

Why would the NBA or current players, those negotiating the new CBA, care about a single class of college players?

Have to agree with Oz here. If they move to the new rule, I think the NBA will implement it immediately, rather than pushing out the date for the 2011 freshman class.

[Duke: A Dynasty]

Have to agree with Oz here. If they move to the new rule, I think the NBA will implement it immediately, rather than pushing out the date for the 2011 freshman class.

They would only be hurting their own draft by doing that though. Idk just my thoughts though.

[MartyClark]

Why would the NBA or current players, those negotiating the new CBA, care about a single class of college players?

That's a good question. I don't know. How important is this issue to the future CBA? I would have to think that it is not all that import. What are the issues in this CBA? I think the NFL CBA problems are better understood by most of us. Are there revenue sharing formulas in the current CBA? Is that the issue?

I'm not raising rhetorical questions. I honestly don't know what the heart of the conflict is between the union and the NBA. Any insight is appreciated.

Whatever the context, I am torn on the issue of of "one and done". I think college basketball would be better if it had an NFL type rule, three years after high school graduation before draft eligibility. The "free market" part of me says that we should let high school kids go to the NBA immediately if they want to. We know that this won't work for some young men but I'm not sure about the wisdom of protecting people from their own bad decisions.

[Jderf]

This, as opposed to non-speculative guesswork? :D

Haha, oops. Yet another example where me trying to sound smart just doesn't pan out. :D

[fgb]

I'm not sure about the wisdom of protecting people from their own bad decisions.

what about the wisdom of protecting the nba from bad basketball?

[uh_no]

what about the wisdom of protecting the nba from bad basketball?

well it hasn't done that for 20+ years.....why should it start now?

edit: it=the NBA, that=protect itself from bad basketball

[yancem]

They would only be hurting their own draft by doing that though. Idk just my thoughts though.

If they delayed the implementation of the rule it would just move the weak draft from 2012 to 2013. Sometimes its better to take your medicine quickly.

[dcdevil2009]

If it does add a year, I don't see how it would be affect the draft quality any differently than when they adopted the one and done rule in the June 2005 CBA. That CBA was signed after the draft entrance and withdrawal deadlines so the '05 draft class had already decided whether to enter the draft or go to college for at least one more year. The NBA showed it was willing to take the hit on the draft class if it would lead to a better product in the long run. Granted that draft was one of the worst ever (2 all stars and 1 all nba team member), but the NBA has only gotten more popular since then.

[MCFinARL]

what about the wisdom of protecting the nba from bad basketball?

Well, if the NBA had that wisdom, they wouldn't have had to adopt the one and done rule in the first place. The impulse to draft untested players who almost certainly weren't mature enough to play well in the league for a couple of years (if then) to make sure no one else got them was just too strong. The rule was not really designed to protect the players, rather than the teams, from their own bad decisions.

[JG Nothing]

Well, if the NBA had that wisdom, they wouldn't have had to adopt the one and done rule in the first place. The impulse to draft untested players who almost certainly weren't mature enough to play well in the league for a couple of years (if then) to make sure no one else got them was just too strong. The rule was not really designed to protect the players, rather than the teams, from their own bad decisions.

Two words: prisoners' dilemma.

[fgb]

The rule was not really designed to protect the players, rather than the teams, from their own bad decisions.

the original query was facetious. however, i have to say that while that may have been the "official" reasoning behind the rule, i've always felt that the real driving force was simply for the nba to give itself a free year of player evaluation.

[MCFinARL]

the original query was facetious. however, i have to say that while that may have been the "official" reasoning behind the rule, i've always felt that the real driving force was simply for the nba to give itself a free year of player evaluation.

Facetious, but accurate. Whether under your free evaluation theory or my similar, but not identical, "protect us from our own competitive stupidity" theory, the NBA did, indeed, adopt this rule in the hope of protecting itself from bad basketball.

[roywhite]

the original query was facetious. however, i have to say that while that may have been the "official" reasoning behind the rule, i've always felt that the real driving force was simply for the nba to give itself a free year of player evaluation.

That seems about right.

Probably also has to do with protecting older players near the end of the bench. When teams draft a 19-year old who is not ready to play, they often give him a roster spot that would otherwise go to a veteran who is still capable of spot duty.

I'm torn on this. On one hand, I think college basketball will certainly be enhanced if the best players are there for at least two years (and I prefer college to pros). And, for that matter, it probably enhances the quality of NBA play also to have more veterans on the roster as noted above.

On the other hand, it doesn't seem fair to very talented young players who want to make the most of their pro opportunities at a young age and don't care much about college.

[JimBD]

Cal would actually have to make sure players go to class or at least "earn" sufficient credit hours to remain eligible for 2 years. I could see a new degree program started for "Sports Center Analysis" or "PS 2 Management".

Cal has been pretty good at finding someone to take a player's SATs and getting grades changed so that a player can qualify. Why would Cal need to make sure that players go to class? He just needs to pay someone to say they went to class and give the players the grades they need to stay eligible. Of course, he needs someone else to do the dirty work so he can have plausible deniability in case Kentucky (not Cal) gets caught.

[MChambers]

That seems about right.

Probably also has to do with protecting older players near the end of the bench. When teams draft a 19-year old who is not ready to play, they often give him a roster spot that would otherwise go to a veteran who is still capable of spot duty.

I'm torn on this. On one hand, I think college basketball will certainly be enhanced if the best players are there for at least two years (and I prefer college to pros). And, for that matter, it probably enhances the quality of NBA play also to have more veterans on the roster as noted above.

On the other hand, it doesn't seem fair to very talented young players who want to make the most of their pro opportunities at a young age and don't care much about college.
I agree with you on the competing factors. Of course, the rookie salary cap makes it economical to put new players on the roster, as they are cheaper than veterans. For that reason, I'd like to see the rookie salary cap repealed, or at least give players some sort of credit for time in college. Otherwise, they have every incentive to go pro soon as possible, so that they can burn off the years in the rookie salary cap and get to the big bucks as soon as possible.

[tylervinyard]

I still say let them go straight to the pros if they feel they are capable, but if they don't go immediately they have to stay 2-3 years in college before testing the waters again. And if you test the waters directly after high school, no college basketball for you as you have lost your eligibility.

[moonpie23]

I still say let them go straight to the pros if they feel they are capable, but if they don't go immediately they have to stay 2-3 years in college before testing the waters again. And if you test the waters directly after high school, no college basketball for you as you have lost your eligibility.

D-league, folks, the solution is the D-league....

[Jderf]

D-league, folks, the solution is the D-league....

The solution? Or the problem?

[yancem]

D-league, folks, the solution is the D-league....

I absolutely agree. If the nba would invest more in the D league and use it properly, it would be a win - win for both the nab and college games. First, the nba needs to provide better salaries in the D league (current salaries are averaging below $20K) . Next the nba more frequently utilize the D league for players under nba contract. Let high school players enter the draft and if they are not ready for the big stage "develop" them in the D league. Structure their contracts so that the draft contract doesn't kick in until they are competing in the big league but pay them enough that they're comfortable ($75-100k). This way the nba isn't paying out millions for "potential" and the kids that don't want to go to college can still make a comfortable salary while the train for their real job. It would kinda be like a paid internship.

If a player elects to go to college, he would have to wait 2-3 years before entering the draft. The decision would come down to do you want your $75-100k in salary while playing in less than half full arena but being able to work on your game full time. Or do you want your $75-100k in the form of a scholarship where you play in packed arena and get an education but you are some what limited in the amount of time you can spend in the gym.

[Exiled_Devil]

They would only be hurting their own draft by doing that though. Idk just my thoughts though.

The draft isn't the 'players draft' though. It would be up to the owners and GM's to care about the quality of the draft in a given year. And frankly, I don't see them being too concerned - the quality of the draft would be universally hurt, so no one would get a competitive advantage.

[Dukeface88]

I absolutely agree. If the nba would invest more in the D league and use it properly, it would be a win - win for both the nab and college games. First, the nba needs to provide better salaries in the D league (current salaries are averaging below $20K) . Next the nba more frequently utilize the D league for players under nba contract. Let high school players enter the draft and if they are not ready for the big stage "develop" them in the D league. Structure their contracts so that the draft contract doesn't kick in until they are competing in the big league but pay them enough that they're comfortable ($75-100k). This way the nba isn't paying out millions for "potential" and the kids that don't want to go to college can still make a comfortable salary while the train for their real job. It would kinda be like a paid internship.

If a player elects to go to college, he would have to wait 2-3 years before entering the draft. The decision would come down to do you want your $75-100k in salary while playing in less than half full arena but being able to work on your game full time. Or do you want your $75-100k in the form of a scholarship where you play in packed arena and get an education but you are some what limited in the amount of time you can spend in the gym.

The problem is that the NBA has no incentive to do this. Why spend money promoting and developing players when someone else (namely, the NCAA) is willing to do so for you? Sure, it would improve college basketball (on and off the court), but the owners don't care about that at all. If anything, they have an interest in keeping the quality of NCAA play as low as possible - the NCAA is their main competitor for the attention (and money) of basketball fans.

[Dev11]

The decision would come down to do you want your $75-100k in salary while playing in less than half full arena but being able to work on your game full time. Or do you want your $75-100k in the form of a scholarship where you play in packed arena and get an education but you are some what limited in the amount of time you can spend in the gym.

Dude, what college in Dubai are we talking about here for 75K?

Seriously though, if you put players like Kyrie Irving into the D-League for a year, attendance would improve dramatically. Right now the product is dominated by guys like Lance Thomas, who we love because of his contributions to Duke, but its not like people were ever coming out to see just him. (Please do not jump on me for that comment, I love Lance and consider him a friend)

[oldnavy]

D-league, folks, the solution is the D-league....

I do not follow the NBA at all, so I have little knowledge about the d-league.

But I do wonder, how many guys actually progress up through the d-league to the NBA each year??

I know players in the NBA get sent down to the d-league from time to time to rehab and such, but how many non NBA ready players actually improve enough in the d-league to make it to "The Show"?

Any stats or idea?

[COYS]

I do not follow the NBA at all, so I have little knowledge about the d-league.

But I do wonder, how many guys actually progress up through the d-league to the NBA each year??

I know players in the NBA get sent down to the d-league from time to time to rehab and such, but how many non NBA ready players actually improve enough in the d-league to make it to "The Show"?

Any stats or idea?

If I may jump in here, I think other posters have been arguing that the problem with the d-league is that it is NOT currently set up to help young players drafted in the first round develop. It is more like a destination for undrafted college seniors to prove their worth or for NBA teams to stash an underperforming player for a few games or so each year. Scheyer toils in the D-League while a guy like Daniel Orton out of UK uses up an NBA roster spot. It is true that Orton spent a while in the D-League, but for only a few games. I don't think he's seen the court for the Magic this year. He's exactly the type of player who would have benefited from going straight to the D-league and getting consistent playing time. As things currently work, NBA teams have to gamble on guys like Orton, hoping they can become contributors in the future while spending 1st round money on them while they sit on the bench and take up roster space. Obviously, there's no guarantee that Scheyer would make an NBA roster, but I would think that there are many teams that would rather sign a seasoned player like Scheyer who could contribute as a backup or potentially even a rotation player on the big league roster while sending younger players whose value is in their potential to the minor leagues where they can develop. It makes no sense to have someone on the active NBA roster who doesn't play but to whom you have to pay 1st round money.

[yancem]

Dude, what college in Dubai are we talking about here for 75K?

Seriously though, if you put players like Kyrie Irving into the D-League for a year, attendance would improve dramatically. Right now the product is dominated by guys like Lance Thomas, who we love because of his contributions to Duke, but its not like people were ever coming out to see just him. (Please do not jump on me for that comment, I love Lance and consider him a friend)

Well, schools like Duke cost around $50k a year for normal students. Factor in food, trainers, extra tutors, chartered planes for long road trips and what other benefits that athletes receive and $75k probably isn't that far off.

[yancem]

The problem is that the NBA has no incentive to do this. Why spend money promoting and developing players when someone else (namely, the NCAA) is willing to do so for you? Sure, it would improve college basketball (on and off the court), but the owners don't care about that at all. If anything, they have an interest in keeping the quality of NCAA play as low as possible - the NCAA is their main competitor for the attention (and money) of basketball fans.

Sure there is an incentive. If you're the nba would you rather pay a highly athletic and talented player $1-3m to sit on your bench while he figures out the game or pay 3-4 highly athletic and talented players $75-100k to play and develop in the D league while paying an older more experienced (although probably not as athletic) player the league minimum to sit on your bench but capable of contributing a couple of productive minutes in a game even during crunch time?

[UrinalCake]

Just my opinion here, but the D-league as a whole is conceptually flawed. Basketball is a team sport, so how to you convince a bunch of guys - who are only there because they want to prove they belong in the NBA - to play together? How is there any motivation to play defense? If you sent Shane Battier down to the d-league and changed his name, would he ever get called up?

The minor leagues work in baseball because baseball is, fundamentally, an individual sport. That may sound ludicrous but what I mean is that when each player tries to do what is best for himself, that ends up simultaneously benefitting the team. Yes there are sacrifice bunts, but those types of plays make up a small portion of the game. In basketball, it's really difficult to have a minor league as a way of developing or evaluating players.

I read somewhere that in the D-league you're only allowed to pass the ball two times per possession before you must put up a shot. My guess is that they want to keep the game entertaining so that some people will actually want to watch these games. But wouldn't that essentially turn the game into a series of one-on-one matchups (even more so than the NBA already is)?

[superdave]

I agree on the D-league being a necessary component, filling any gaps in the high school-college-NBA path. The D-league is good for two different reasons. First, lots of high school kids overestimate their abilities and fall through the cracks. The D-league is a place for them to get a season or two to show what they can do. Second, lots of kids mature a little more slowly, or have been injured, and could really use a season or two to show they are ready to make the leap. So the D-league can be both a spring board for some and a soft landing for others.

[oldnavy]

I agree on the D-league being a necessary component, filling any gaps in the high school-college-NBA path. The D-league is good for two different reasons. First, lots of high school kids overestimate their abilities and fall through the cracks. The D-league is a place for them to get a season or two to show what they can do. Second, lots of kids mature a little more slowly, or have been injured, and could really use a season or two to show they are ready to make the leap. So the D-league can be both a spring board for some and a soft landing for others.

This is the point of my question. How many guys go into the d-league and actually play their way onto a NBA roster??

I have no idea...

[superdave]

This is the point of my question. How many guys go into the d-league and actually play their way onto a NBA roster??

I have no idea...

Here you go (http://www.nba.com/dleague/tracker/index.html). This is the current list - probably more guys who have fallen out of the NBA.

[bdeviled11]

It seems like the D-League has a negative connotation, which in some (most) cases is deserved.

How many guys go into the d-league and actually play their way onto a NBA roster??

The odd part is the number of high, to somewhat high draft picks are actually playing or played in that league. And these are recent draft picks. A guy like Daniel Orton may indeed be on an NBA roster, but a guy like Hasheem Thabeet, or Solomon Alabi, or even International Marcin Gortat (who to me have much better credentials) had to toil in the D-League despite being lottery picks. Some of it is expectations, and some of it is team needs. This also helps to show the disconnect between some college basketball fans, and what they perceive, deservedly, of the NBA.

With the stringent salary cap in place for NBA rookies it is conceivable for a team to try and stash a player in the D-League. The problem with that strategy is the limited amount of time on a players first contract, specifically a first rounders guaranteed contract. But by the same token if they keep that player in the NBDL for the length of the contract it would certainly have a negative impact.

The real problem with the D-League is like most fledgling sports leagues is limited exposure. I know the D-League is on the NBA channel, but I don't see it else where. I would even venture to say that by calling it the "D-League" unofficially of course, it is doomed to fail from the start. The only thing worse would be the "F League". I asked my wife who actually said this.

The MLS is on ESPN every week. Brilliant move on their part, even though the product is inferior to the EPL which is also on ESPN. I rarely if ever see a promo or commercial for the D-League. If they packaged the product differently it would become more significant, and accepted.

[throatybeard]

I find it highly amusing that the other thread (a) linked this thread and that (b) people were already hyperventilating over Austin's 1-done status before he matriculated.