Idea to replace the NBA one and done rule

[lotusland]

It seems silly to me that a player like Shabazz should have to play a year of college ball before going pro. It would have been absurd if Kobe or LeBron had been forced to bide their time for a year. On the other hand I suppose the NBA is trying to save themselves from their own possible stupidity by using a first round pick to draft a player who is not ready. My solution for the NBA would be to allow only the lottery teams to draft a player out of HS. If a player is good enough to be a lottery pick out of HS he should not have to wait a year. On the other hand, players who seem to have a lot of raw talent and "potential" but aren't presumed ready to contribute immediately would have to sit out a year. Personally I would prefer not to make anyone wait a year but maybe this compromise would palatable to the NBA. To make it work the NCAA/NBA would have to forget about asking incoming freshmen to "declare" for the draft. Bazz could accept a scholarship to UCLA but if he's a lottery pick and wants to go they are out of luck just like Duke was with Livingston. On the other hand if he is not a lottery pick then he still has his eligibility for one year at UCLA. It's not perfect - for instance HB might still have been selected as a lottery pick and ended up a bust - but I think most of the time those "sure thing" type players would work out at least as well as after 1-year of college. I don't know if that would be acceptable to the NBA but it sure would be better for college. Calipari would likely be nervous on draft night if he continued to go after those type players but, after all, it's his choice. Players like Bazz could actually just wait until after the draft to commit in case they were not drafted.

So what do you think?

[CDu]

It seems silly to me that a player like Shabazz should have to play a year of college ball before going pro. It would have been absurd if Kobe or LeBron had been forced to bide their time for a year. On the other hand I suppose the NBA is trying to save themselves from their own possible stupidity by using a first round pick to draft a player who is not ready. My solution for the NBA would be to allow only the lottery teams to draft a player out of HS. If a player is good enough to be a lottery pick out of HS he should not have to wait a year. On the other hand, players who seem to have a lot of raw talent and "potential" but aren't presumed ready to contribute immediately would have to sit out a year. Personally I would prefer not to make anyone wait a year but maybe this compromise would palatable to the NBA. To make it work the NCAA/NBA would have to forget about asking incoming freshmen to "declare" for the draft. Bazz could accept a scholarship to UCLA but if he's a lottery pick and wants to go they are out of luck just like Duke was with Livingston. On the other hand if he is not a lottery pick then he still has his eligibility for one year at UCLA. It's not perfect - for instance HB might still have been selected as a lottery pick and ended up a bust - but I think most of the time those "sure thing" type players would work out at least as well as after 1-year of college. I don't know if that would be acceptable to the NBA but it sure would be better for college. Calipari would likely be nervous on draft night if he continued to go after those type players but, after all, it's his choice. Players like Bazz could actually just wait until after the draft to commit in case they were not drafted.

So what do you think?

Won't fly with the NBA. The two main reasons that they instituted the rule were as follows:
1. financial gain from being able to market rookies whose faces the nation is familiar with
2. helping the GMs keep from shooting themselves in the foot by allowing for better evaluation (against better competition)

It's also not great from the college perspective. This would cause chaos in terms of recruiting. The coaches already hate the fact that they aren't sure who they'll have next year due to the draft. Now they'll not be sure if they have a guy until late June. And it wouldn't really fix the one-and-done problem anyway, because you'd still only have a guy for the one year.

[KenTankerous]

I thnk the association is double dipping and loving the system just they way it is - colleges develope their young talent one, two maybe four years with absolutely no risk and then when the "League" says they are ready, they draft them to the teams that need the most help to keep things competitive.

Do you think, really, even for a minute, the NBA wants to change this?

Grow up, sister. Life is what it is.

[g-money]

I like the idea of this thread, even if it is just a distant dream at this point. Here's a three-part plan:

1) I agree that the NBA should let players go pro out of high school.

2) For its part, the NCAA should let any kid who isn't drafted out of high school come to college - if, that is, they have the intention of getting an education and are willing to commit to college for 3+ years to get their degree. I think the concept that kids who declare for the draft are somehow "professionals" is just plain silly in light of the charred landscape of contemporary college basketball.

3) If not 1) or 2), the NBDA and Europe are always available.

To me this would capture everyone's best interests - the players, the colleges, and the fans. I guess it's really the same system as baseball has... Hmmm, I could probably have just gone with, "we should just do what baseball does". Sorry for the time sink.

[tommy]

It seems silly to me that a player like Shabazz should have to play a year of college ball before going pro. It would have been absurd if Kobe or LeBron had been forced to bide their time for a year. On the other hand I suppose the NBA is trying to save themselves from their own possible stupidity by using a first round pick to draft a player who is not ready. My solution for the NBA would be to allow only the lottery teams to draft a player out of HS. If a player is good enough to be a lottery pick out of HS he should not have to wait a year. On the other hand, players who seem to have a lot of raw talent and "potential" but aren't presumed ready to contribute immediately would have to sit out a year. Personally I would prefer not to make anyone wait a year but maybe this compromise would palatable to the NBA. To make it work the NCAA/NBA would have to forget about asking incoming freshmen to "declare" for the draft. Bazz could accept a scholarship to UCLA but if he's a lottery pick and wants to go they are out of luck just like Duke was with Livingston. On the other hand if he is not a lottery pick then he still has his eligibility for one year at UCLA. It's not perfect - for instance HB might still have been selected as a lottery pick and ended up a bust - but I think most of the time those "sure thing" type players would work out at least as well as after 1-year of college. I don't know if that would be acceptable to the NBA but it sure would be better for college. Calipari would likely be nervous on draft night if he continued to go after those type players but, after all, it's his choice. Players like Bazz could actually just wait until after the draft to commit in case they were not drafted.

So what do you think?

NBA GM's have made a number of mistakes on HS kids in the lottery -- so it's not like any HS kid who is chosen in the lottery is assured of being KG, Kobe, or Dwight Howard. The following were chosen in the lottery and had careers that have been at best mediocre and at worst, awful:

Martel Webster
Robert Swift
Sebastian Telfair
Kwame Brown
Eddie Curry
DeSagana Diop
Darius Miles
Jonathan Bender


(not sure if Swift and Telfair were tail end of their lotteries or top of the non-lottery. Right at the cutoff)

[lotusland]

Won't fly with the NBA. The two main reasons that they instituted the rule were as follows:
1. financial gain from being able to market rookies whose faces the nation is familiar with
2. helping the GMs keep from shooting themselves in the foot by allowing for better evaluation (against better competition)

It's also not great from the college perspective. This would cause chaos in terms of recruiting. The coaches already hate the fact that they aren't sure who they'll have next year due to the draft. Now they'll not be sure if they have a guy until late June. And it wouldn't really fix the one-and-done problem anyway, because you'd still only have a guy for the one year.

I agree with #1 and that may be the sticking point. #2 would be mitigated IMO by only allowing the lottery team teams to draft out of HS. I don't think lottery teams would miss on HS players that much more than after one year of college but it could happen (HB).

From NCAA standpoint the last issue you raised would be no different than if there were no one and done rule at all - think Shawn Livingston - except it would only effect the very elite prospects who were lottery considerations.

[lotusland]

NBA GM's have made a number of mistakes on HS kids in the lottery -- so it's not like any HS kid who is chosen in the lottery is assured of being KG, Kobe, or Dwight Howard. The following were chosen in the lottery and had careers that have been at best mediocre and at worst, awful:

Martel Webster
Robert Swift
Sebastian Telfair
Kwame Brown
Eddie Curry
DeSagana Diop
Darius Miles
Jonathan Bender


(not sure if Swift and Telfair were tail end of their lotteries or top of the non-lottery. Right at the cutoff)

What if only top 5 or top 3 picks could come from HS then? have there been many misses taken that early out of HS. I actually don't know the answer but I wouldn't have thought so.

[CDu]

I agree with #1 and that may be the sticking point. #2 would be mitigated IMO by only allowing the lottery team teams to draft out of HS. I don't think lottery teams would miss on HS players that much more than after one year of college but it could happen (HB).

Except that the lottery teams miss fairly frequently. Any additional bit of information helps make a more informed decision. The decisions still aren't perfect, but they're better. And they get to draft more marketable players. We're not going to see high schoolers eligible for the draft again for a long time.


From NCAA standpoint the last issue you raised would be no different than if there were no one and done rule at all - think Shawn Livingston - except it would only effect the very elite prospects who were lottery considerations.

Yes, it is no worse than what was in place before the one-and-done rule. But there IS a one-and-done rule now. My point was that what you're suggesting is actually worse than what is in place now, not better. Now, you more or less know what your team will be by May 1 and have time to scour the transfer/late recruit market as needed. With this, you'd absolutely not know until late June, at which point it is very difficult to make adjustments.

So because the NBA won't do it and because it makes colleges worse off, it seems like a complete no-go. It's great for the players, not great for the NBA, colleges, or college bball fans.

[Kedsy]

It would have been absurd if Kobe or LeBron had been forced to bide their time for a year.

Actually, Kobe wasn't really ready. His rookie year he managed 15 mpg and 7.4 ppg. He couldn't play defense. He could have used a year in college.


If a player is good enough to be a lottery pick out of HS he should not have to wait a year.

High school players drafted in the NBA lottery, 1999 to 2005:

Jonathan Bender
Darius Miles
Kwame Brown
Tyson Chandler (rookie #s: 6.1ppg, 4.8 rpg)
Eddy Curry (rookie #s: 6.7ppg, 3.8 rpg)
DaSagana Diop
Amare Stoudemire
LeBron James
Dwight Howard
Shaun Livingston
Robert Swift
Sebastian Telfair
Martell Webster
Andrew Bynum (rookie #s: 1.6 ppg, 1.7 rpg)

I'd say all but a few of those guys would have helped both themselves and their future NBA clubs by waiting a year.



EDIT: I see while I was looking this up others beat me to it. Oh well.

[monkey]

Actually, Kobe wasn't really ready. His rookie year he managed 15 mpg and 7.4 ppg. He couldn't play defense. He could have used a year in college.



High school players drafted in the NBA lottery, 1999 to 2005:

Jonathan Bender
Darius Miles
Kwame Brown
Tyson Chandler (rookie #s: 6.1ppg, 4.8 rpg)
Eddy Curry (rookie #s: 6.7ppg, 3.8 rpg)
DaSagana Diop
Amare Stoudemire
LeBron James
Dwight Howard
Shaun Livingston
Robert Swift
Sebastian Telfair
Martell Webster
Andrew Bynum (rookie #s: 1.6 ppg, 1.7 rpg)

I'd say all but a few of those guys would have helped both themselves and their future NBA clubs by waiting a year.



EDIT: I see while I was looking this up others beat me to it. Oh well.

Agree with others who say this rule doesn't help the NBA at all (and it is from the NBA clubs perspective that this rule was first initiated):
1) less polished players in NBA earning salary at end of bench
2) more of players described above in (1) being drafted because no GM wants to be known as the guy who passed up the next Kobe Bryant - drafting based on uncertain "potential" magnfies and more draft busts ensue

[Kedsy]

What if only top 5 or top 3 picks could come from HS then? have there been many misses taken that early out of HS. I actually don't know the answer but I wouldn't have thought so.

1999 to 2005:

TOP FIVE PICKS

Jonathan Bender (#5)
Darius Miles (#3)
Kwame Brown (#1)
Tyson Chandler (#2)
Eddy Curry (#4)
LeBron James (#1)
Dwight Howard (#1)
Shaun Livingston (#4)

SIX TO TEN

DaSagana Diop (#8)
Amare Stoudemire (#9)
Martell Webster (#6)
Andrew Bynum (#10)

[Ichabod Drain]

There is no rule stating players have to attend college for a year to be drafted. There is no rule resticting high school basketball players from going pro as soon as they graduate, they just can't do it in the NBA. Frankly i'm suprised more one and done prospects don't spend a year over seas then coming to the NBA. The NCAA is always going to try and do whatever is in it's best interest and the NBA will do the same for itself. Getting the two to collaborate on how to do what's best for the players is a long shot unless they both have something legitimate gain from it which i don't see happening.

[tommy]

There is no rule stating players have to attend college for a year to be drafted. There is no rule resticting high school basketball players from going pro as soon as they graduate, they just can't do it in the NBA. Frankly i'm suprised more one and done prospects don't spend a year over seas then coming to the NBA. The NCAA is always going to try and do whatever is in it's best interest and the NBA will do the same for itself. Getting the two to collaborate on how to do what's best for the players is a long shot unless they both have something legitimate gain from it which i don't see happening.

It seems to me that it would be in the NCAA's best interest to allow kids who declare for the draft, get drafted (or not), but then change their mind for whatever reason, so long as it's before they sign a contract and get paid, to come back to college. Good for the kids, who can further their on and off-court educations, good for the college game to have more experienced players, and good for the coffers -- meaning TV -- as the quality of the games would improve and the players would be more identifiable, as they'd be more known to the fans. And it just kinda feels like the right thing to do. You've accepted a young man into your university and he wants to resume there and continue to be a part of your community. Welcome him back.

Why the NCAA doesn't do this, I don't know.

[lotusland]

1999 to 2005:

TOP FIVE PICKS

Jonathan Bender (#5)
Darius Miles (#3)
Kwame Brown (#1)
Tyson Chandler (#2)
Eddy Curry (#4)
LeBron James (#1)
Dwight Howard (#1)
Shaun Livingston (#4)

SIX TO TEN

DaSagana Diop (#8)
Amare Stoudemire (#9)
Martell Webster (#6)
Andrew Bynum (#10)

Well obviously this is the real issue for the NBA. I would be curious to compare the rate of lottery or top 5 misses on players out of HS vs. players with at least 1-yr of college. To me a miss is a player who never cracks the rotation as a starter or key reserve not someone who got hurt like Greg Oden. If the rate of misses on players out of HS is significantly higher that one and done players or players with more than one year then I agree there is no incentive for the NBA to change. The question is how much more accurate are they after one year of college on the most elite prospects.

[Ichabod Drain]

It seems to me that it would be in the NCAA's best interest to allow kids who declare for the draft, get drafted (or not), but then change their mind for whatever reason, so long as it's before they sign a contract and get paid, to come back to college. Good for the kids, who can further their on and off-court educations, good for the college game to have more experienced players, and good for the coffers -- meaning TV -- as the quality of the games would improve and the players would be more identifiable, as they'd be more known to the fans. And it just kinda feels like the right thing to do. You've accepted a young man into your university and he wants to resume there and continue to be a part of your community. Welcome him back.

Why the NCAA doesn't do this, I don't know.

I agree it would be good for the players, but the NBA might put in some rule to prevent that (I dont know how specifically), because that just messes with their system so much. Imagine if ten kids go in the second round then they decide they want to go to college for a year to try and make it to the first round. Well that's ten draftees that just left the teams that drafted them hanging. I doubt that would sit well with the NBA. And does this go for just kids coming out of high school, or can anyone test it out see how high they get drafted then decide to take it or leave it. That would be pretty ridiculous.

[Kedsy]

Well obviously this is the real issue for the NBA. I would be curious to compare the rate of lottery or top 5 misses on players out of HS vs. players with at least 1-yr of college. To me a miss is a player who never cracks the rotation as a starter or key reserve not someone who got hurt like Greg Oden. If the rate of misses on players out of HS is significantly higher that one and done players or players with more than one year then I agree there is no incentive for the NBA to change. The question is how much more accurate are they after one year of college on the most elite prospects.

Since the one-and-done rule was instituted (2006 to 2011), here's a list of all freshmen drafted in the lottery:

Tyrus Thomas (#4)
Greg Oden (#1)
Kevin Durant (#2)
Mike Conley (#4)
Spencer Hawes (#10)
Thaddeus Young (#12)
Derrick Rose (#1)
OJ Mayo (#3)
Kevin Love (#5)
Eric Gordon (#7)
Jerryd Bayless (#11)
Anthony Randolph (#14)
Tyreke Evans (#4)
DeMar DeRozan (#9)
John Wall (#1)
Derrick Favors (#3)
DeMarcus Cousins (#5)
Xavier Henry (#12)
Kyrie Irving (#1)
Tristan Thompson (#4)
Brandon Knight (#8)

A couple of misses in the late lottery and one top five bust (Thomas) but overall it's a much more accomplished list than the previous list of high school players drafted in the lottery.

[moonpie23]

make ALL players spend their first year in the development league......just let that soak in.....ALL players must spend their first year in the NBDL....


imagine what we would have had over the past 5 years....letting them play for 30k, getting used to travel, more games, and no classes instead of having to go to an institute of higher learning when they don't want to...

the nba gets a MUCH better evaluation, the D-league becomes a very hot ticket, and the kids get to play whenever they are able to make the cut on a d-team...

[lotusland]

make ALL players spend their first year in the development league......just let that soak in.....ALL players must spend their first year in the NBDL....


imagine what we would have had over the past 5 years....letting them play for 30k, getting used to travel, more games, and no classes instead of having to go to an institute of higher learning when they don't want to...

the nba gets a MUCH better evaluation, the D-league becomes a very hot ticket, and the kids get to play whenever they are able to make the cut on a d-team...

I like your idea but I don't think the D leaugue becomes a hot ticket. Every year you may have 1 or two players out of HS that are thought to be future superstars but still mostly kids aren't ready for the NBA. If HS players were allowed to go immediatley to the development league how many of this years crop would bring you out to a minor league game? I would say very few who would not have gone anyway. But like I said I like the idea for thesake of the college game.

[Olympic Fan]

Everybody makes the mistake of thinking about what's best for the game ... or for the kids ... or even for colleges.The hard truth is that the NBA is not going to act for the game, for the kids of for the colleges. They are only going to do what is best for them.

As noted, for every Kobe or LeBron, there were a dozen unqualified high school kids drafted when they could be drafted. And even high school kids who did become students (such as Kobe) weren't impact guys in the NBA. Now, there are dozens of one-and-done players drafted who won't be make in the NBA (Daniel Orton? Marvin Williams?).

I think if the NBA had its way, they'd like to raise the requirement to two years out of high school ... but they have to get agreement on that from the player's association. The players association is not opposed to that, but they see the issue as a bargining chip. They want something from the owners in return -- more cap space, a better wage scale ... somethng. The owners want the extra year, but it isn't a pressing issue for them. They have not yet offered the player's association anything in return.

I like the suggestion that the NCAA change its approach and allow kids to go through the draft and then decide whether they come back or not. That would help a guy like Mason, who doesn't know if he's going to be first round or not. He could go through the draft and if he likes his draft spot, he could go ... if he doesn't, he would return to Duke. What I don't know is now much flexibility you have in signing negotiations. None of the first-round contracts are megotiable -- currently first-round money is slotted on where you are drafted. But suppose Mason went through the draft and was the first pick of the second round. He could say, give me a first-round contract (two years guaranteed) and I'll sign ... if not I'll go back to school. That kind of situation wouldn't improve the game and it would not help the colleges (it would be a nightmare for coaches wondering if their stars were returning or not ... imagine K trying to deal with the uncertainty over Mason. Does he go after an Oriakhi or that Polish big guy on the market ior not?).

But it would help the kids.

Maybe best of all, it would be a barginning chip the NCAA could use against the NBA. As much as colleges would have giving the kids that much freedom, the NBA would REALLY hate giving the draftees that much bargining power. Right now, there is nothing the NCAA can do to make the NBA accomodate them. Giving kids the freedom to go through the draft and come back might get the owners moving to negotiate a longer wait with the player's association. Of course, they might not -- one response could be to simply give NBA teams perpetual rights to their draftees (instead of the current one-year rights). In our scenario, Mason could go back to Duke after being a second round pick, but a year later, he'd still be owned by the team that picked him in 2012 and he' still be a second-round draft pick.

I know it's a fantasy, but in my ideal world:

(1) the NBA would expand the developmental league
(2) kids coming out of high school could have the option of signing a pro contract -- the rare Kobe or LeBron could go straight to the NBA; most would go to the Developmental League until they were ready -- or signing with a college.
(3) we would have the baseball rule -- you can be a pro right our of high school, but if you sign with a college, you have to stay at least three years (or until you are 21) before you were draftable.

I think that system would help the kids (many of whom don't belong in college in the first place), it would help college basetball by giving them stability (I believe our game is hurt far more by the one-and-dones than the Dwight Howards, Kobe Bryants and LeBron James that we never had) and it would help the NBA, which would have a chance to draft either raw talents then prep them in the minors, or more fully formed college veterans ... while still having the flexibility to rush that are superstar straight from high school to the pros.

Most of all, it would help the game of basketball. It's a lovely dream, but it would never be adopted.

[azzefkram]

Since the one-and-done rule was instituted (2006 to 2011), here's a list of all freshmen drafted in the lottery:

Tyrus Thomas (#4)
Greg Oden (#1)
Kevin Durant (#2)
Mike Conley (#4)
Spencer Hawes (#10)
Thaddeus Young (#12)
Derrick Rose (#1)
OJ Mayo (#3)
Kevin Love (#5)
Eric Gordon (#7)
Jerryd Bayless (#11)
Anthony Randolph (#14)
Tyreke Evans (#4)
DeMar DeRozan (#9)
John Wall (#1)
Derrick Favors (#3)
DeMarcus Cousins (#5)
Xavier Henry (#12)
Kyrie Irving (#1)
Tristan Thompson (#4)
Brandon Knight (#8)

A couple of misses in the late lottery and one top five bust (Thomas) but overall it's a much more accomplished list than the previous list of high school players drafted in the lottery.

While I don't necessarily think it's fair, you probably have to consider Greg Oden a bust.

[Kedsy]

While I don't necessarily think it's fair, you probably have to consider Greg Oden a bust.

Perhaps, but the person who framed the question specifically said he didn't want to count Oden as a bust for the purposes of his question.

[tommy]

While I don't necessarily think it's fair, you probably have to consider Greg Oden a bust.

Don't want to get off topic, but be careful when labeling guys as busts who had their careers cut short early by serious injuries.

Jason Williams?

Bobby Hurley?

Not busts in my book. Just got injured and never had a fair chance to improve and max out their talent. Same as Oden, really.

[superdave]

While I don't necessarily think it's fair, you probably have to consider Greg Oden a bust.

I'd consider Oden a tragedy more than a bust.

I really wish the NBA would spruce up the NBDL. They should recruit the young Euro kids over to play and make it an option for anyone who does not want to spend two years in college. Pay the kids $50k or so to make it tempting for those who really could not manage college, but not so tempting that many see it as more enticing than college.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

make ALL players spend their first year in the development league......just let that soak in.....ALL players must spend their first year in the NBDL....


imagine what we would have had over the past 5 years....letting them play for 30k, getting used to travel, more games, and no classes instead of having to go to an institute of higher learning when they don't want to...

the nba gets a MUCH better evaluation, the D-league becomes a very hot ticket, and the kids get to play whenever they are able to make the cut on a d-team...

This is what I would like. Or at least some universe where the D-League is a viable alternative to college. If kids were leaving early to go play D-League ball, it would be a different universe.

That, or draft them before they go to college, like in baseball. The system is so busted it's laughable.

[subzero02]

Two and done is the way to go in my opinion... This might result in some of the top flight talent opting for the NBADL or Europe right out of high school but I don't think it will become a heavy trend.

[tommy]

I agree it would be good for the players, but the NBA might put in some rule to prevent that (I dont know how specifically), because that just messes with their system so much. Imagine if ten kids go in the second round then they decide they want to go to college for a year to try and make it to the first round. Well that's ten draftees that just left the teams that drafted them hanging. I doubt that would sit well with the NBA. And does this go for just kids coming out of high school, or can anyone test it out see how high they get drafted then decide to take it or leave it. That would be pretty ridiculous.

The NBA is obviously not making decisions in consideration of what's best for college basketball. Nor is it obligated to. But by the same token the NCAA shouldn't be making ITS decisions then in consideration of what's best for the NBA. Allowing kids to return to school messes with your draft? Doesn't sit well with you? Sorry. Not our problem.



Maybe best of all, it would be a barginning chip the NCAA could use against the NBA. As much as colleges would have giving the kids that much freedom, the NBA would REALLY hate giving the draftees that much bargining power. Right now, there is nothing the NCAA can do to make the NBA accomodate them. Giving kids the freedom to go through the draft and come back might get the owners moving to negotiate a longer wait with the player's association. Of course, they might not -- one response could be to simply give NBA teams perpetual rights to their draftees (instead of the current one-year rights).

I don't think the players association would ever agree to that. Do you?

[moonpie23]

I like your idea but I don't think the D leaugue becomes a hot ticket. Every year you may have 1 or two players out of HS that are thought to be future superstars but still mostly kids aren't ready for the NBA. If HS players were allowed to go immediatley to the development league how many of this years crop would bring you out to a minor league game? I would say very few who would not have gone anyway. But like I said I like the idea for thesake of the college game.

i'm not talking about just high school players....i'm saying ALL players........that means Kyrie would be in the Dleague for a season...

before you just pooh-pooh it cause last years lottery class would be in the d-league, just imgaine what the dleague would be with all those rookies in it.....

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Also, don't forget that this really has nothing to do with the NCAA. It's an NBA rule, and it works great for them - mostly from a marketing standpoint. Do you realize how much Austin Rivers improved his branding at Duke? Do you think the fans of whatever franchise aren't going to be that much more interested in him because of his year with our team?

The only way the rule will change is if it makes more sense for the NBA. This means either more money or better talent evaluation so there are fewer "flops."

Keep this in mind when building scenarios. Otherwise, it's just chatter.

[lotusland]

i'm not talking about just high school players....i'm saying ALL players........that means Kyrie would be in the Dleague for a season...

before you just pooh-pooh it cause last years lottery class would be in the d-league, just imgaine what the dleague would be with all those rookies in it.....

Well yeah I would be more likely to go see D League teams with former Dukies on the roster. Would Cleveland want to risk injury to Kyrie in the D league? It doesn't seem fair to Kyrie to wait a year to make the big bucks while risking another injury but as others have said it's not really about the kids or the college game. I guess that I would be in favor of your plan.

[azzefkram]

Perhaps, but the person who framed the question specifically said he didn't want to count Oden as a bust for the purposes of his question.

My bad. I just saw your post.

[moonpie23]

Well yeah I would be more likely to go see D League teams with former Dukies on the roster. Would Cleveland want to risk injury to Kyrie in the D league? It doesn't seem fair to Kyrie to wait a year to make the big bucks while risking another injury but as others have said it's not really about the kids or the college game. I guess that I would be in favor of your plan.

Cleveland wouldn't "own" kyrie yet. teams would draft from the d league.

[azzefkram]

Don't want to get off topic, but be careful when labeling guys as busts who had their careers cut short early by serious injuries.

Jason Williams?

Bobby Hurley?

Not busts in my book. Just got injured and never had a fair chance to improve and max out their talent. Same as Oden, really.

Williams and Hurley were off court injuries.

Oden is a different case. There were numerous red flags before he was drafted. Additionally, bust I think depends on your perspective. For the trailblazers, oden was a bust. Why he did not reach his potential is irrelevant.

[lotusland]

Williams and Hurley were off court injuries.

Oden is a different case. There were numerous red flags before he was drafted. Additionally, bust I think depends on your perspective. For the trailblazers, oden was a bust. Why he did not reach his potential is irrelevant.

My thinking was that an injury bust happens with or without a year in college first so it isn't relevant to the discussion. Oden did play a year of college so his case doesn't strengthen the argument that the NBA benefits significantly by seeing the elite HS prospect for one year in school. I think others have shown that the lottery picks straight out of HS were more apt to bust than after one year in school so I agree that my idea probably doesn't solve the issue sufficiently from the NBA's point of view. I like the one year developement league idea too but being a NCAA stud for a year probably still increases a players maketing profile more than a year in the D league so maybe that isn't a solution either. I hope someone finds a solution because one and done is bad for college ball IMO and I hate that the UK championship has sort of changed the perception to be more along the lines that you must have these players to win now and also if a player doesn't go out after a year his NBA stock is diminished.

[Jarhead]

This is what I would like. Or at least some universe where the D-League is a viable alternative to college. If kids were leaving early to go play D-League ball, it would be a different universe.

That, or draft them before they go to college, like in baseball. The system is so busted it's laughable.

That's the ticket. The problem we have in basketball seems to be totally absent in baseball, and perhaps hockey. Football is a bit different, but the early departures are mostly after the third year because of the age restrictions, as I understand it. Rest assured that no reasonable changes are going to happen in the foreseeable future.

I think the NCAA could bring about change, though. My idea is that the NCAA should set up a system of three year contract scholarships with an option for a fourth year, and a fair stipend. That would force the hand of the pro leagues calling for draft rules that would, in effect, cause all pro leagues to go the way of baseball, and establish real minor leagues.

I'd also push the leagues toward changing the draft rules so that the leagues determine the draft eligibility list each year from high school, college, the AAU, and so on. The rules should be along the lines of baseball, but the NCAA would have to set its own rules to accommodate those of the pro leagues.

[greybeard]

Was in Boston one winter, maybe 2000, 2001, walked into a NiKe store and see two long, skinny giants looking at sneakers. I didn't recognize them, until I saw Derrick McKey babysitting. Yeap, you heard me, sneakers.

I think that there is another reason Stern won't change the rule. Save money on baby sitters and have a more mature individual, hopefully one who is more likely to give the NBA a better image and who is also less likely to blow up, lose all the dough thrown at them, and make even someone like Mikie look like a fool.

[Edouble]

Was in Boston one winter, maybe 2000, 2001, walked into a NiKe store and see two long, skinny giants looking at sneakers. I didn't recognize them, until I saw Derrick McKey babysitting. Yeap, you heard me, sneakers.

I think that there is another reason Stern won't change the rule. Save money on baby sitters and have a more mature individual, hopefully one who is more likely to give the NBA a better image and who is also less likely to blow up, lose all the dough thrown at them, and make even someone like Mikie look like a fool.

I don't understand this story. Who were the giants? What is the significance of the sneakers?

[Monmouth77]

That's the ticket. The problem we have in basketball seems to be totally absent in baseball, and perhaps hockey. Football is a bit different, but the early departures are mostly after the third year because of the age restrictions, as I understand it. Rest assured that no reasonable changes are going to happen in the foreseeable future.

I think the NCAA could bring about change, though. My idea is that the NCAA should set up a system of three year contract scholarships with an option for a fourth year, and a fair stipend. That would force the hand of the pro leagues calling for draft rules that would, in effect, cause all pro leagues to go the way of baseball, and establish real minor leagues.

I'd also push the leagues toward changing the draft rules so that the leagues determine the draft eligibility list each year from high school, college, the AAU, and so on. The rules should be along the lines of baseball, but the NCAA would have to set its own rules to accommodate those of the pro leagues.

I think this is a reasonable approach in theory, but that certain differences between the basketball and baseball markets make a baseball draft model, and comparable basketball minor league system less likely to materialize.

Unlike in baseball, where college games are sparsely attended, generate little or no revenue, and where the college game has never really featured top talent, basketball was born as a scholastic enterprise (invented by a gym teacher!), and the whole history of the sport runs through the college game. There are entranched interests from the schools themselves, to the huge alumni fanbases, to the televsion interests that broadcast and promote the games to keep college basketball as the primary "minor league." And as Duke fans, I think that's probably what we all want (or at least that's what I want)-- i.e., to keep talent in the college game.

Understanding that there are always guys for whom college is not particularly attractive, the NBA has to have some kind of minor league to take advantage of players who leave college too soon or who can't or don't wish to play in an academic environment. But I think we'll continue to see some form of the college-Europe-D-league "minor league" system for the NBA for the primary reason that people love NCAA basketball and want to maintain the conditions where it is the major repository for maturing elite basketball talent.

The thing I have never understood about the NBAPA is why they feel so strongly about keeping the age limit so low, when the rule is so fundamentaly opposed to the players' own financial interests. Every new lottery pick is a veteran without a job. Seems like they would want to move the age up to 20 (or 2 years post-high school) which would be enough of a win-win to finally resolve this issue. But I always hear that NBA guys (or the ones with clout in the players' association) feel this issue viscerally as one of freedom to work. I guess I get that, but I would think lots of veterans would have equally visceral feelings about not ceding their hard-earned dream jobs to 19 year-olds with "upside."

[lotusland]

I think this is a reasonable approach in theory, but that certain differences between the basketball and baseball markets make a baseball draft model, and comparable basketball minor league system less likely to materialize.

Unlike in baseball, where college games are sparsely attended, generate little or no revenue, and where the college game has never really featured top talent, basketball was born as a scholastic enterprise (invented by a gym teacher!), and the whole history of the sport runs through the college game. There are entranched interests from the schools themselves, to the huge alumni fanbases, to the televsion interests that broadcast and promote the games to keep college basketball as the primary "minor league." And as Duke fans, I think that's probably what we all want (or at least that's what I want)-- i.e., to keep talent in the college game.

Understanding that there are always guys for whom college is not particularly attractive, the NBA has to have some kind of minor league to take advantage of players who leave college too soon or who can't or don't wish to play in an academic environment. But I think we'll continue to see some form of the college-Europe-D-league "minor league" system for the NBA for the primary reason that people love NCAA basketball and want to maintain the conditions where it is the major repository for maturing elite basketball talent.

The thing I have never understood about the NBAPA is why they feel so strongly about keeping the age limit so low, when the rule is so fundamentaly opposed to the players' own financial interests. Every new lottery pick is a veteran without a job. Seems like they would want to move the age up to 20 (or 2 years post-high school) which would be enough of a win-win to finally resolve this issue. But I always hear that NBA guys (or the ones with clout in the players' association) feel this issue viscerally as one of freedom to work. I guess I get that, but I would think lots of veterans would have equally visceral feelings about not ceding their hard-earned dream jobs to 19 year-olds with "upside."

I don't understand the logic from the Players Association point of view either but I'm not really in favor of increasing the number of non-student pro-level prospects in college. I want the best student athletes at Duke but it doesn't bother me if Kobe, LeBron and Bazz or even AR and Kyrie never play college ball if they are good enough and choose to go pro out of HS. In other words I don't think the problem with One and is that these top level recruits only play one year and leave rather I think the problem lies more in the fact that they ever enroll in college at all. But I guess with the NBA's interest in mind, Two and Through or Three and Free is a more likely outcome.

[Monmouth77]

I don't understand the logic from the Players Association point of view either but I'm not really in favor of increasing the number of non-student pro-level prospects in college. I want the best student athletes at Duke but it doesn't bother me if Kobe, LeBron and Bazz or even AR and Kyrie never play college ball if they are good enough and choose to go pro out of HS. In other words I don't think the problem with One and is that these top level recruits only play one year and leave rather I think the problem lies more in the fact that they ever enroll in college at all. But I guess with the NBA's interest in mind, Two and Through or Three and Free is a more likely outcome.

I don't disagree with this, necessarily. And I am not totally against going back to the 18 year old age limit. My point is a little different.

Stipulating that the 19-year-old age limit is the rule (as it is), I would rather muddle through with the current amalgam of "minor league" options, which range from college, to playing abroad (see Jennings, Brandon), to heading straight to the present-day D-League (not common) than try to set the conditions for a baseball-type minor league that might siphon off more than just future hall-of-famers like KG, LeBron, and Kobe, but could instead (as in baseball) professionalize most of the top talent at age 18.

In other words I don't want to see a system that operates to really cut the top talent layer out of the college game and turn the whole NCAA into the Missouri Valley Conference.

But my larger point was that it is not likely to happen because of the love for NCAA basketball and the history and place of the college game in the sport.

I do think, however, that we ought to lift some of the pretenses we have about "student athletes," even at a place like Duke. I knew engineering students on campus that weren't great writers, and prioritized their majors, but benefited from required courses in the humanities. Not sure why basketball players cannot benefit from (even if they don't excel at) the liberal arts education that sits in the background of their -- let's be honest -- primary pursuit. Why is a Duke basketball player different from a film student at Southern Cal who wants to make it in Hollywood? Or the software engineering student at Stanford who wants to create something and leave school as soon as possible to join a Silicon Valley start-up?

[lotusland]

I do think, however, that we ought to lift some of the pretenses we have about "student athletes," even at a place like Duke. I knew engineering students on campus that weren't great writers, and prioritized their majors, but benefited from required courses in the humanities. Not sure why basketball players cannot benefit from (even if they don't excel at) the liberal arts education that sits in the background of their -- let's be honest -- primary pursuit. Why is a Duke basketball player different from a film student at Southern Cal who wants to make it in Hollywood? Or the software engineering student at Stanford who wants to create something and leave school as soon as possible to join a Silicon Valley start-up?

I agree but film students and software engineering students are expected to qualify and make minimal advancements toward a degree to remain enrolled and no one is suggesting that we pay them for performing in plays and completing course work. In fact no one ever speaks of a "pretense" regarding student actors or student engineers. Giving up the "pretense" usually comes just ahead of suggesting that players should be paid which I'm opposed to but that is an entirely different discussion for another thread. I'm in favor of treating athletes exactly the same as the other students and at the point academics become a "pretense" it is time to go pro.

[Monmouth77]

I agree but film students and software engineering students are expected to qualify and make minimal advancements toward a degree to remain enrolled and no one is suggesting that we pay them for performing in plays and completing course work. In fact no one ever speaks of a "pretense" regarding student actors or student engineers. Giving up the "pretense" usually comes just ahead of suggesting that players should be paid which I'm opposed to but that is an entirely different discussion for another thread. I'm in favor of treating athletes exactly the same as the other students and at the point academics become a "pretense" it is time to go pro.

My point was directed more to rebutting the concept that certain guys shouldn't go to college (I think you mentioned Kobe and leBron) if they are mostly (or even wholly) interested in going pro ASAP. I have a contrary view. I like the system that sets up incentives for guys to go to college, in part because I like the college game, and in part because I think just about everyone benefits from a liberal arts education. Of course they have to meet the required academic standards. But I think Kobe and LeBron would have gotten something very valuable out of college. No one should force them to do it. But I like the incentives in place to encourage college.

The "pretense" I speak of is the one about how elite college basketball players are also supposed to be very serious students of economics or italian. With some renaissance-man type exceptions (including a bunch of them at Duke-- like Langdon in my day, who was a very smart dude and serious student) that's not the case and it's not bad. That's my point about engineers and filmmakers-- they aren't on campus primarily to study economics and italian, but they may study those things, take them sort of lightly and get Cs in them. That's not bad! They are enriching campus life in other ways.

[Jarhead]

I don't disagree with this, necessarily. And I am not totally against going back to the 18 year old age limit. My point is a little different.

Stipulating that the 19-year-old age limit is the rule (as it is), I would rather muddle through with the current amalgam of "minor league" options, which range from college, to playing abroad (see Jennings, Brandon), to heading straight to the present-day D-League (not common) than try to set the conditions for a baseball-type minor league that might siphon off more than just future hall-of-famers like KG, LeBron, and Kobe, but could instead (as in baseball) professionalize most of the top talent at age 18.

In other words I don't want to see a system that operates to really cut the top talent layer out of the college game and turn the whole NCAA into the Missouri Valley Conference.

But my larger point was that it is not likely to happen because of the love for NCAA basketball and the history and place of the college game in the sport.

I do think, however, that we ought to lift some of the pretenses we have about "student athletes," even at a place like Duke. I knew engineering students on campus that weren't great writers, and prioritized their majors, but benefited from required courses in the humanities. Not sure why basketball players cannot benefit from (even if they don't excel at) the liberal arts education that sits in the background of their -- let's be honest -- primary pursuit. Why is a Duke basketball player different from a film student at Southern Cal who wants to make it in Hollywood? Or the software engineering student at Stanford who wants to create something and leave school as soon as possible to join a Silicon Valley start-up?

In my scenario, the pro leagues would have no need for an age limit. The idea of scholarship contracts (if the NCAA allows) would turn the tables on the idea of one and done, and make each athlete who comes aboard a true student athlete. The ones that are not that interested in getting a degree would find their own paths to development leagues or minor leagues or Eastern European leagues. Let the leagues draft as they please, but see to it that the athletes are free to then choose a path that suits them. Those that want an education can get it, but those not so inclined toward an education get to ride around on buses to near empty ball parks and gyms all over the country for a while until they get noticed. Guys like Lebron James would naturally fall outside of this, and should be allowed to take advantage of their skills whenever the can. They are magic and can produce immediately in their chosen professional sport.

[Verga3]

I think that waiting on the NBA to change anything is a futile exercise. I like what baseball has done, but what about this?

1. Allow kids to continue to apply for any draft out of high school. If they do, they have cast their die. No college.

2. All student-athletes entering college as a freshman must stay for at least three years (maybe four?). The NCAA would require all these entering freshman student-athletes to sign a contractual agreement to that end. If they leave early for the pros (NBA or overseas), the agreement would require the student-athlete to indemnify the school in an amount commensurate with the number of years of college remaining when they bolted. We all know that full scholarships are year-to-year, but in general practice, they all last four years.

The superstars could/would write the check, but this approach might give pause to the guys with stars in their eyes. It would also send the message that college is first and foremost an institution of higher learning and a place that young people grow, mature and prepare themselves for life. It's not a farm system for the pros.

Any thoughts? Attorneys?

[Johnny Chill]

While I don't necessarily think it's fair, you probably have to consider Greg Oden a bust.

I dont consider anyone that has injuries to slow the progress of their career or end their career is considered a bust.

A bust is someone that pretty much sucks at basketball, like Hasheem Thabeet.

Would you consider Bobby Hurley, Jason Williams, and Grant Hill's career a bust?

[sagegrouse]

I dont consider anyone that has injuries to slow the progress of their career or end their career is considered a bust.

A bust is someone that pretty much sucks at basketball, like Hasheem Thabeet.

Would you consider Bobby Hurley, Jason Williams, and Grant Hill's career a bust?

By any definition, Grant Hill's career has not been a bust. Let's look at the top six picks of the 1994 NBA draft. The amazing thing is that three of these guys are still playing, 18 years later.

Grant (#3) has played 34 thousand minutes and scored 17,044 points.

The #1 pick, Glenn Robinson of Purdue, retired with 25 thousand minutes and 14,234 points.

The #2 pick, Jason KIdd, has played 48 thousand minutes and scored 17,071 points.

The #4 pick, Donyell Marshall, played 25 thousand minutes and scored 10,716 points.

The #5 pick, Juwan Howard, has played 37 thousand minutes and scored 16,138 points.

The #6 pick, Sharone Wright, played under five thousand minutes and scored only 1,974 points.

Anyway, no player with 17 thousand points in the NBA is a bust.

sagegrouse

[azzefkram]

I dont consider anyone that has injuries to slow the progress of their career or end their career is considered a bust.

A bust is someone that pretty much sucks at basketball, like Hasheem Thabeet.

Would you consider Bobby Hurley, Jason Williams, and Grant Hill's career a bust?

A bust is someone who doesn't live up to the expectations placed upon them when drafted. Draft picks are opportunities. If a player doesn't develop as expected given their draft position, for whatever reason, that player is a bust.

[lotusland]

I think that waiting on the NBA to change anything is a futile exercise. I like what baseball has done, but what about this?

1. Allow kids to continue to apply for any draft out of high school. If they do, they have cast their die. No college.

2. All student-athletes entering college as a freshman must stay for at least three years (maybe four?). The NCAA would require all these entering freshman student-athletes to sign a contractual agreement to that end. If they leave early for the pros (NBA or overseas), the agreement would require the student-athlete to indemnify the school in an amount commensurate with the number of years of college remaining when they bolted. We all know that full scholarships are year-to-year, but in general practice, they all last four years.

The superstars could/would write the check, but this approach might give pause to the guys with stars in their eyes. It would also send the message that college is first and foremost an institution of higher learning and a place that young people grow, mature and prepare themselves for life. It's not a farm system for the pros.

Any thoughts? Attorneys?

This is an interesting idea but I would make one adjustment. If the 3-yr scholarship contract is broken, the player has to reimburse the school for the years they were enrolled not the years remaining. I don't like the idea that the player is reimbursing the school for lost basketball revenue or whatever from their departure after they leave. Instead the contract is for 3 years but, if the player leaves early, he didn't live up to his commitment so he has to pay back the scholarship he received.

[Jarhead]

I think that waiting on the NBA to change anything is a futile exercise. I like what baseball has done, but what about this?

1. Allow kids to continue to apply for any draft out of high school. If they do, they have cast their die. No college.

2. All student-athletes entering college as a freshman must stay for at least three years (maybe four?). The NCAA would require all these entering freshman student-athletes to sign a contractual agreement to that end. If they leave early for the pros (NBA or overseas), the agreement would require the student-athlete to indemnify the school in an amount commensurate with the number of years of college remaining when they bolted. We all know that full scholarships are year-to-year, but in general practice, they all last four years.

The superstars could/would write the check, but this approach might give pause to the guys with stars in their eyes. It would also send the message that college is first and foremost an institution of higher learning and a place that young people grow, mature and prepare themselves for life. It's not a farm system for the pros.

Any thoughts? Attorneys?


This is an interesting idea but I would make one adjustment. If the 3-yr scholarship contract is broken, the player has to reimburse the school for the years they were enrolled not the years remaining. I don't like the idea that the player is reimbursing the school for lost basketball revenue or whatever from their departure after they leave. Instead the contract is for 3 years but, if the player leaves early, he didn't live up to his commitment so he has to pay back the scholarship he received.

Verga3's plan is quite similar to mine, but I would reverse his #1 point. Instead I'd let the leagues draft whoever is available without any applications from the athletes, and then allow the athletes to accept the draft selection, delay their reply, or simply reject it. I also suggested that the NCAA should allow for 3 year scholarship contracts with an optional fourth year in lieu of the current year by year plan. On reimbursing the school for the years enrolled if leaving early, I don't know. This is a sticky point. Perhaps the contract should contain a legal restraint on the athlete prohibiting participation in professional sports until after the contract expires. Lawyers have the answer, I am sure, so I'll second Verga3's appeal to the legal community. This is all speculation, of course, but isn't that what we do around here.

As to reimbursing th college for the scholarship costs, somebody else can argue for it, but I can't.

[Johnny Chill]

A bust is someone who doesn't live up to the expectations placed upon them when drafted. Draft picks are opportunities. If a player doesn't develop as expected given their draft position, for whatever reason, that player is a bust.

So you would consider Oden, Hurley, and Williams a bust?

[Jarhead]

So you would consider Oden, Hurley, and Williams a bust?

There just has to be more than one kind of bust. Injury or off court accidents can really bust up a career. Then there is the self inflicted bust in which a player can't be coached, or is lazy, or can't get along with team mates, or messes with strange chemicals or people. That destroys career, reputation, or family. Finally we get the coach who screws up a player, or who screws up a trade or a draft choice and can't get it right. The player involved can't hack it, but he didn't screw up. His coach did it, and the player gets labeled a bust through no fault of his own. There's more, I guess, and that's why we only have 30 NBA teams, and a lot of them still have busts on their rosters.

[Verga3]

Verga3's plan is quite similar to mine, but I would reverse his #1 point. Instead I'd let the leagues draft whoever is available without any applications from the athletes, and then allow the athletes to accept the draft selection, delay their reply, or simply reject it. I also suggested that the NCAA should allow for 3 year scholarship contracts with an optional fourth year in lieu of the current year by year plan. On reimbursing the school for the years enrolled if leaving early, I don't know. This is a sticky point. Perhaps the contract should contain a legal restraint on the athlete prohibiting participation in professional sports until after the contract expires. Lawyers have the answer, I am sure, so I'll second Verga3's appeal to the legal community. This is all speculation, of course, but isn't that what we do around here.

As to reimbursing th college for the scholarship costs, somebody else can argue for it, but I can't.

Thanks, Jarhead. I still think that if high school prospects have to apply first, as a condition, that they would be encouraged to more carefully think through this huge step as an 18 year-old. My personal policy preference would be to always "err to college". By mandating high school kids to apply, rather than be drafted, it puts the ball in the player and parents hands from the start, rather than reacting (or being enamoured) to a professional franchise sending their love. I also like the 3+ year scholarship contracts for all sports. What happens now in practice is tantamount to that anyway.

I believe the contractual reimbursement would work, but I'm not an attorney either.

[Jarhead]

Thanks, Jarhead. I still think that if high school prospects have to apply first, as a condition, that they would be encouraged to more carefully think through this huge step as an 18 year-old. My personal policy preference would be to always "err to college". By mandating high school kids to apply, rather than be drafted, it puts the ball in the player and parents hands from the start, rather than reacting (or being enamoured) to a professional franchise sending their love. I also like the 3+ year scholarship contracts for all sports. What happens now in practice is tantamount to that anyway.

I believe the contractual reimbursement would work, but I'm not an attorney either.

There is some merit to your suggestion, but the part I don't care for is the automatic loss of college eligibility to the athlete who puts his name on the draft list. If the NCAA did something like this, I'm pretty sure that they would not take away college eligibility just for putting one's name on the list. As I understand the baseball draft system, the names go on the list automatically at a certain age. Many kids drafted early choose other paths without losing college eligibility. That works for me. Why not try it for all team sports?

There was, several years ago, a young high school baseball player who managed to hide from MLB when he was first eligible for the draft. Instead he and his dad gamed the system, he was not drafted, and started out his career as a free agent. He was able to go with the highest bidder, and I believe he had a pretty good career. There would be mayhem if that was the norm, and the Yankees would be the top team in every sport. The draft is essential for fair competition, so some controls are necessary. Maybe a national sports commissioner to set reasonable rules for all levels of all sports would work, or not.

[Verga3]

There is some merit to your suggestion, but the part I don't care for is the automatic loss of college eligibility to the athlete who puts his name on the draft list. If the NCAA did something like this, I'm pretty sure that they would not take away college eligibility just for putting one's name on the list. As I understand the baseball draft system, the names go on the list automatically at a certain age. Many kids drafted early choose other paths without losing college eligibility. That works for me. Why not try it for all team sports?

There was, several years ago, a young high school baseball player who managed to hide from MLB when he was first eligible for the draft. Instead he and his dad gamed the system, he was not drafted, and started out his career as a free agent. He was able to go with the highest bidder, and I believe he had a pretty good career. There would be mayhem if that was the norm, and the Yankees would be the top team in every sport. The draft is essential for fair competition, so some controls are necessary. Maybe a national sports commissioner to set reasonable rules for all levels of all sports would work, or not.

I don't disagree with you on the MLB model. I just don't believe the NBA will go there. The NCAA has been somewhat silent on this issue. I agree with you that any action taken should apply to all sports. Tough issue. But, I believe the NCAA can do something to that will better demonstrate that kids going to college are student-athletes (note that student always comes first). Thanks for your perspectives on this, Jarhead.

[Jarhead]

I don't disagree with you on the MLB model. I just don't believe the NBA will go there. The NCAA has been somewhat silent on this issue. I agree with you that any action taken should apply to all sports. Tough issue. But, I believe the NCAA can do something to that will better demonstrate that kids going to college are student-athletes (note that student always comes first). Thanks for your perspectives on this, Jarhead.

Looks like the leadership needs to take the lead, doesn't it?

[Verga3]

Looks like the leadership needs to take the lead, doesn't it?

Well put.

[dukeofcalabash]

I like the idea of this thread, even if it is just a distant dream at this point. Here's a three-part plan:

1) I agree that the NBA should let players go pro out of high school.

2) For its part, the NCAA should let any kid who isn't drafted out of high school come to college - if, that is, they have the intention of getting an education and are willing to commit to college for 3+ years to get their degree. I think the concept that kids who declare for the draft are somehow "professionals" is just plain silly in light of the charred landscape of contemporary college basketball.

3) If not 1) or 2), the NBDA and Europe are always available.

To me this would capture everyone's best interests - the players, the colleges, and the fans. I guess it's really the same system as baseball has... Hmmm, I could probably have just gone with, "we should just do what baseball does". Sorry for the time sink.

You almost have it right, now if only every college would hold to a higher standard where all players were students first and athletes second there would be no need to worry about the NBA and it's draft. Those decisions are often made by the athlete and his family long before high school, much less college age and nothing will change that. Let those athletes go to work as that is what they are trained to do. I'm sorry, but I don't think I'm alone when I say that college basketball should not be a development league for the NBA!

[ThePublisher]

If a kid isn't interested in an education, they can go straight to the Associate, D-League or overseas.
If they want to go to college they should be required to stay 3 years and have some accountability for their grades/attendance to class.

The NBA is using college as a free D-League, so maybe the NBA requires guys to play in the D-League for a year before being drafted??? This allows them the year to play at a much higher level than high school while being evaluated and still get paid a considerable amount.

Seems like a win-win for everyone except Kentucky.

[dcdevil2009]

If a kid isn't interested in an education, they can go straight to the Associate, D-League or overseas.
If they want to go to college they should be required to stay 3 years and have some accountability for their grades/attendance to class.

The NBA is using college as a free D-League, so maybe the NBA requires guys to play in the D-League for a year before being drafted??? This allows them the year to play at a much higher level than high school while being evaluated and still get paid a considerable amount.

Seems like a win-win for everyone except Kentucky.

And the NBA. Why would they give up having a year of free marketing and evaluation in order to have to pay more for a minor league? Yes, I'm sure D-League revenue would go up, but I'd be shocked if it would be profitable for the league, especially after how many of the owners claimed poverty in last summer's lockout. One reason college basketball makes so much money has a lot to do with the institutional association, something that the D-League couldn't develop no matter how much money owners sunk into it. If the NBA had to develop the D-League into true minor league, I'm sure it could happen, but the league is a for profit entity and right now, it just doesn't seem like it would make sense from a business standpoint to spend resources solving a perceived problem with the NCAA. I want to say David Stern said something along those lines in an interview a few weeks ago, but I'm not positive.

[tommy]

If a kid isn't interested in an education, they can go straight to the Associate, D-League or overseas.


You mean like this kid? http://www.zagsblog.com/2012/04/30/norvel-pelle-still-on-the-board/#more-72539

This California big man couldn't qualify at St. John's, still trying to "get his academics together" after trying it at the Phelps School in Malvern, PA for about a second and a half. Now he's interested in schools all over the map, from Rhode Island to New Mexico to DePaul to Nevada, but in the meantime, while he undoubtedly is mulling the course curricula of those and other institutions, he's with Buckets Academy, back in California. Buckets Academy, folks.

All I know is what I read, but kids like this sure don't seem like they belong in four year universities.

[Jarhead]

You almost have it right, now if only every college would hold to a higher standard where all players were students first and athletes second there would be no need to worry about the NBA and it's draft. Those decisions are often made by the athlete and his family long before high school, much less college age and nothing will change that. Let those athletes go to work as that is what they are trained to do. I'm sorry, but I don't think I'm alone when I say that college basketball should not be a development league for the NBA!

A little bit earlier in this thread some of us discussed an idea that might just kick off a move to force the NBA into a smart action, expand it's D league into a true minor league along the lines of baseball and hockey. The idea would have the NCAA establish what could be called scholarship contracts (with a stipend) that would run for at least three years with an option for a fourth year. This would replace the current practice of one year scholarships. It very well could solve the whole issue. High school athletes would initially face just two choices, go to college, or go pro. Wait for the draft and/or the recruiters to call. Next step for the athlete -- make the decision. Go pro, or go to college. Choose going pro, and the athlete can never be a student athlete. That's okay. Choose college, and three (or four) years later check out going pro.
Ta da. http://crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/41.gif

[Indoor66]

A little bit earlier in this thread some of us discussed an idea that might just kick off a move to force the NBA into a smart action, expand it's D league into a true minor league along the lines of baseball and hockey. The idea would have the NCAA establish what could be called scholarship contracts (with a stipend) that would run for at least three years with an option for a fourth year. This would replace the current practice of one year scholarships. It very well could solve the whole issue. High school athletes would initially face just two choices, go to college, or go pro. Wait for the draft and/or the recruiters to call. Next step for the athlete -- make the decision. Go pro, or go to college. Choose going pro, and the athlete can never be a student athlete. That's okay. Choose college, and three (or four) years later check out going pro.
Ta da. http://crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/41.gif

That makes way too much sense to ever be considered, much less adopted. :mad:

[Verga3]

A little bit earlier in this thread some of us discussed an idea that might just kick off a move to force the NBA into a smart action, expand it's D league into a true minor league along the lines of baseball and hockey. The idea would have the NCAA establish what could be called scholarship contracts (with a stipend) that would run for at least three years with an option for a fourth year. This would replace the current practice of one year scholarships. It very well could solve the whole issue. High school athletes would initially face just two choices, go to college, or go pro. Wait for the draft and/or the recruiters to call. Next step for the athlete -- make the decision. Go pro, or go to college. Choose going pro, and the athlete can never be a student athlete. That's okay. Choose college, and three (or four) years later check out going pro.
Ta da. http://crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/41.gif

I like it. Not so sure the NCAA would go for the stipend, especially if they want to be consistent with all sports, but think this is well thought through. I would only add that a student-athlete leaving after the first or second year be required to reimburse the institution for the full cost of the scholarship year(s) left on the table by the next tuition due date. Bolters would harm the school's ability to recruit and build a unit, as well as the lost expected revenue. Make 'em sign on the dotted line!

[superdave]

Steve Kerr writes about upping the age to 20 here (http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7883540/steve-kerr-problems-age-limit-nba). He gives all the reasons why a second year in college would be beneficial. That's great, but he avoids addressing non-qualifiers and how the D-league fits in. He uses Kevin Garnett as an example of a young guy who produced a little as a rookie and could have used a year in college. But Garnett did not qualify (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1006749/index.htm) for college. How does he fit in? Does he go to the D-league? Is the D-league ready to support a kid that young?

[FellowTraveler]

Steve Kerr writes about upping the age to 20 here (http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7883540/steve-kerr-problems-age-limit-nba). He gives all the reasons why a second year in college would be beneficial.... He uses Kevin Garnett as an example of a young guy who produced a little as a rookie and could have used a year in college. But Garnett did not qualify (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1006749/index.htm) for college. How does he fit in? Does he go to the D-league? Is the D-league ready to support a kid that young?

In addition to the problem you raise, Kerr's argument has a variety of others.

Kerr’s assessment of straight-to-the-NBA guys like Garnett is flawed. He compares the rookie seasons of Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, and Michael Jordan to those of Garnett, Kobe, Howard & LeBron, concluding Garnett & Bryant “needed the extra playing time” they would’ve gotten in college to develop and “LeBron and Howard were thrust into unfair positions as saviors of lottery teams, and after seeing how their careers have unfolded, maybe those burdens affected them more than we realized.”

This is the wrong way of looking assessing the situation.

If the question is “what’s best for Kevin Garnett’s development, going straight to the NBA or going to college?,”* looking at his rookie stats tells us nearly nothing, as we don’t know what they would’ve been had he gone to college. Kerr tries to use rookie seasons of college-goers Bird, Johnson & Jordan as proxies, but this is nonsense. Instead, Kerr should look later at Garnett’s career.

Take Bird for example. Larry Bird at age 23 after three years in college put up a 20.5 PER and 11.2 Win Shares. Kerr compares that to Garnett’s 15.8 PER & 4.4 Win Shares as a 19 year old after zero years in college, and concludes that Garnett would’ve been better served going to college. What Kerr should do instead is look at Garnett at a comparable point in his own journey. Doing so, we see that Garnett at age 21 with two NBA seasons behind him put up a 20.4 PER and 9.6 Win Shares, which compares well with Bird at 23 with three years of college behind him. And Garnett's career from then on compares favorably to Bird’s.

It isn’t exactly a great insight to note that a 23 year old player with three years of college experience outperformed a 19 year old straight out of high school. And it tells us nothing about which path (college vs. NBA) is better for a player’s development -- it merely suggests that having three extra years of development time is better than not having them. Hardly groundbreaking stuff, and not at all relevant to an assessment of whether those three years would be better spent in college or the NBA.

Finally, Kerr suggests -- and I’ve seen this suggested elsewhere in this debate -- that Garnett and Bryant weren’t ready for the NBA and should’ve gone to college. But they were both, at 18/19 years old, league-average players. That’s really good! (For comparison: Garnett’s 15.8 rookie PER was better than the PERs of all but 5 of this year’s rookies, all of whom -- obviously -- are older and more experienced than he was.) Both made second-team all-Rookie team. I would contend that if you’re capable of being an average NBA at 19 years old, you’re ready (from a basketball standpoint) for the League. And both went on to have inner-circle Hall of Fame careers. So it’s awfully hard to buy the notion that their longterm development was stunted.

Though Kerr suggests the players would’ve been better served by developing in college, his piece is really written from the perspective of the league, so his broader point is that it isn’t in the league’s interest to pay for development that could occur on someone else’s dime, and that the quality of basketball in the league would be higher if it didn’t have still-developing teenagers dragging it down. But Bryant, Garnett, James and Howard are terrible examples that undermine his point: All four were league-average or better performers as rookies. That means their presence in the league didn’t lower the quality of play -- it raised the quality of play, assuming teams behaved rationally and gave them PT at the expense of below-average players.

[Jarhead]

Steve Kerr writes about upping the age to 20 here (http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7883540/steve-kerr-problems-age-limit-nba). He gives all the reasons why a second year in college would be beneficial. That's great, but he avoids addressing non-qualifiers and how the D-league fits in. He uses Kevin Garnett as an example of a young guy who produced a little as a rookie and could have used a year in college. But Garnett did not qualify (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1006749/index.htm) for college. How does he fit in? Does he go to the D-league? Is the D-league ready to support a kid that young?


In addition to the problem you raise, Kerr's argument has a variety of others.

Kerr’s assessment of straight-to-the-NBA guys like Garnett is flawed. He compares the rookie seasons of Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, and Michael Jordan to those of Garnett, Kobe, Howard & LeBron, concluding Garnett & Bryant “needed the extra playing time” they would’ve gotten in college to develop and “LeBron and Howard were thrust into unfair positions as saviors of lottery teams, and after seeing how their careers have unfolded, maybe those burdens affected them more than we realized.”

This is the wrong way of looking assessing the situation.

If the question is “what’s best for Kevin Garnett’s development, going straight to the NBA or going to college?,”* looking at his rookie stats tells us nearly nothing, as we don’t know what they would’ve been had he gone to college. Kerr tries to use rookie seasons of college-goers Bird, Johnson & Jordan as proxies, but this is nonsense. Instead, Kerr should look later at Garnett’s career.

Take Bird for example. Larry Bird at age 23 after three years in college put up a 20.5 PER and 11.2 Win Shares. Kerr compares that to Garnett’s 15.8 PER & 4.4 Win Shares as a 19 year old after zero years in college, and concludes that Garnett would’ve been better served going to college. What Kerr should do instead is look at Garnett at a comparable point in his own journey. Doing so, we see that Garnett at age 21 with two NBA seasons behind him put up a 20.4 PER and 9.6 Win Shares, which compares well with Bird at 23 with three years of college behind him. And Garnett's career from then on compares favorably to Bird’s.

It isn’t exactly a great insight to note that a 23 year old player with three years of college experience outperformed a 19 year old straight out of high school. And it tells us nothing about which path (college vs. NBA) is better for a player’s development -- it merely suggests that having three extra years of development time is better than not having them. Hardly groundbreaking stuff, and not at all relevant to an assessment of whether those three years would be better spent in college or the NBA.

Finally, Kerr suggests -- and I’ve seen this suggested elsewhere in this debate -- that Garnett and Bryant weren’t ready for the NBA and should’ve gone to college. But they were both, at 18/19 years old, league-average players. That’s really good! (For comparison: Garnett’s 15.8 rookie PER was better than the PERs of all but 5 of this year’s rookies, all of whom -- obviously -- are older and more experienced than he was.) Both made second-team all-Rookie team. I would contend that if you’re capable of being an average NBA at 19 years old, you’re ready (from a basketball standpoint) for the League. And both went on to have inner-circle Hall of Fame careers. So it’s awfully hard to buy the notion that their longterm development was stunted.

Though Kerr suggests the players would’ve been better served by developing in college, his piece is really written from the perspective of the league, so his broader point is that it isn’t in the league’s interest to pay for development that could occur on someone else’s dime, and that the quality of basketball in the league would be higher if it didn’t have still-developing teenagers dragging it down. But Bryant, Garnett, James and Howard are terrible examples that undermine his point: All four were league-average or better performers as rookies. That means their presence in the league didn’t lower the quality of play -- it raised the quality of play, assuming teams behaved rationally and gave them PT at the expense of below-average players.
These last two posts here keyed in on the problem quite well. Superdave raises the question of what an NBA prospect can do if he is not qualified to attend college. Good strong point, and Steve Kerr's point just doesn't fly. The NBA doesn't know how to handle the issue, or refuses to do so. Fellow Traveler does. He shows us that the NBA would rather have the colleges cover the expense of developing new talent. How do we fix that? Well, the NCAA can take a huge step to influence the NBA into doing something smart by establishing the scholarship contract in which the athlete commits to three years (with an optional fourth year) in college, and the colleges unlock some endowment money to provide a reasonable stipend. While we are at it, why not unlock some endowment money for financial aid to everybody?

The kids that don't want to go to college get drafted by the NBA teams, and do their development on a minor league type team, financed by the NBA team that drafted them, sort of the way it is done in baseball and hockey. It generally answers a lot of the problems of player development for the NBA. and likewise solves problems colleges face with the one and done meme. Somewhere there are smart people that could get together on this, and work out all of the wrinkles.

[tommy]

Well, the NCAA can take a huge step to influence the NBA into doing something smart by establishing the scholarship contract in which the athlete commits to three years (with an optional fourth year) in college.

So I've seen this proposal elsewhere, including on these boards, and I don't see how this would really work. Say a kid who is interested in education like maybe a Brandon Knight decides to go to college instead of right to a D-league. He signs the scholarship contract for 3 years. But then he has a great freshman year and decides he's ready for the NBA, and he'll finish school later. He says, "sorry, but I'm breaking our contract" and submits his name for the draft. There's no NBA rule against that.

What are the real consequences to the player for his breach of his contract? What are the actual, provable damages to the university? And even if the school goes to the trouble (and takes the PR hit) of actually filing a lawsuit against Knight, and then can somehow prove actual damages, doesn't Knight just write a check and move on?

What am I missing here?

[Verga3]

So I've seen this proposal elsewhere, including on these boards, and I don't see how this would really work. Say a kid who is interested in education like maybe a Brandon Knight decides to go to college instead of right to a D-league. He signs the scholarship contract for 3 years. But then he has a great freshman year and decides he's ready for the NBA, and he'll finish school later. He says, "sorry, but I'm breaking our contract" and submits his name for the draft. There's no NBA rule against that.

What are the real consequences to the player for his breach of his contract? What are the actual, provable damages to the university? And even if the school goes to the trouble (and takes the PR hit) of actually filing a lawsuit against Knight, and then can somehow prove actual damages, doesn't Knight just write a check and move on?

What am I missing here?

Thanks, tommy. You are quite right, given your example. Some of the stars would just write the check. But, as policy, the message is sent that, "This is college...you are a student-athlete." Many young guys with stars in their eyes, but realistically "on the bubble" in regards to their NBA value would no doubt opt for college for 3+ years. Nothing to stop someone from leaving early (unless the NBA steps up and changes their protocol), but if this "proposed" NCAA scholarship contract is signed, it's likely binding. If, in your good example, Brandon Knight (or Kyrie Irving for that matter) goes back to school later to complete a degree (or get through the 3 or 3+ contractual years), then the school should embrace and honor that at some level (pro-rata or otherwise). Presumably, the athletic department could "escrow" some or all of the repaid scholarship money to fund future situations where the early departures return to school. The lawyers can weigh in, but it seems to me that an enforceable contract could be drafted by the NCAA. I'm not holding my breath on this one, however.

[SoCalDukeFan]

should do away with freshmen eligibility.

And put the college Presidents on notice that athletes must be student-athletes.

Might force the NBA to come to its senses regarding one and done.

Athletes who have no interest in being students would have to opt to for a year in Europe or something unless the rule was changed.

BTW there is no way to force players to stay in school for 3 years. What if they flunk out?

Would put the college back in college athletics.

SoCal

[Jarhead]

So I've seen this proposal elsewhere, including on these boards, and I don't see how this would really work. Say a kid who is interested in education like maybe a Brandon Knight decides to go to college instead of right to a D-league. He signs the scholarship contract for 3 years. But then he has a great freshman year and decides he's ready for the NBA, and he'll finish school later. He says, "sorry, but I'm breaking our contract" and submits his name for the draft. There's no NBA rule against that.

What are the real consequences to the player for his breach of his contract? What are the actual, provable damages to the university? And even if the school goes to the trouble (and takes the PR hit) of actually filing a lawsuit against Knight, and then can somehow prove actual damages, doesn't Knight just write a check and move on?

What am I missing here?

Maybe you missed my last sentence, "Somewhere there are smart people that could get together on this, and work out all of the wrinkles." It is these smart people who come up with the actual set of rules and procedures. Once an athlete goes pro he is saddled with a host of restrictions that dictate what he can do and when, and he cannot ever play sports for an NCAA member institution.. On the other side there are similar restrictions, but I wouldn't expect damages being levied on an athlete that chooses to leave school prematurely. Once a decision is made it binds all of us to that decision, at least for a while.

[tommy]

Maybe you missed my last sentence, "Somewhere there are smart people that could get together on this, and work out all of the wrinkles." It is these smart people who come up with the actual set of rules and procedures. Once an athlete goes pro he is saddled with a host of restrictions that dictate what he can do and when, and he cannot ever play sports for an NCAA member institution.. On the other side there are similar restrictions, but I wouldn't expect damages being levied on an athlete that chooses to leave school prematurely. Once a decision is made it binds all of us to that decision, at least for a while.

Not trying to pick a fight here at all. Just wanting to express that when some thought is given to this idea, I don't think it'll really have legs. Why? Because there would be no real consequences for a kid breaking his contract. In that situation, that is, when there are no consequences for breaking a contract, the binding effect of that contract is negated as well. I don't think this flaw is something that the "smart people" could just figure out somehow. I think there are going to have to be some better ideas put into place to achieve the desired result from the perspective of the NCAA, including possibly some ideas floated on these boards. The question is whether the NCAA really has the will to enact any innovative approaches to address this.

As an aside, as far as the restrictions the player would face from the NBA once he goes pro, those are going to exist whenever the player joins the league, so not sure how that's relevant here. No, he can't go back and play college ball again, but that of course has been the NCAA's rule forever.

[Jarhead]

Not trying to pick a fight here at all. Just wanting to express that when some thought is given to this idea, I don't think it'll really have legs. Why? Because there would be no real consequences for a kid breaking his contract. In that situation, that is, when there are no consequences for breaking a contract, the binding effect of that contract is negated as well. I don't think this flaw is something that the "smart people" could just figure out somehow. I think there are going to have to be some better ideas put into place to achieve the desired result from the perspective of the NCAA, including possibly some ideas floated on these boards. The question is whether the NCAA really has the will to enact any innovative approaches to address this.

As an aside, as far as the restrictions the player would face from the NBA once he goes pro, those are going to exist whenever the player joins the league, so not sure how that's relevant here. No, he can't go back and play college ball again, but that of course has been the NCAA's rule forever.

I wasn't as clear as I hoped. What I was trying to get across is that there are consequences whatever direction a player chooses. Sometimes a contract restricts what a person can do after bailing early out of a contract. And you are right. The NCAA is the blocking force on any change to the situation. By the way, neighbor's grand son got drafted by an MLB team some years ago. He went to a college in Delaware, played a little college football, and also played some minor league baseball before going to Medical School.

[Verga3]

Not trying to pick a fight here at all. Just wanting to express that when some thought is given to this idea, I don't think it'll really have legs. Why? Because there would be no real consequences for a kid breaking his contract. In that situation, that is, when there are no consequences for breaking a contract, the binding effect of that contract is negated as well. I don't think this flaw is something that the "smart people" could just figure out somehow. I think there are going to have to be some better ideas put into place to achieve the desired result from the perspective of the NCAA, including possibly some ideas floated on these boards. The question is whether the NCAA really has the will to enact any innovative approaches to address this.

As an aside, as far as the restrictions the player would face from the NBA once he goes pro, those are going to exist whenever the player joins the league, so not sure how that's relevant here. No, he can't go back and play college ball again, but that of course has been the NCAA's rule forever.

The consequences of the kid breaking the contract would be very real and VERY expensive at Duke (and at many schools). If the NCAA institutes this as a rule, what prospective student-athlete, parent or advisor would ever want a $60,000 per year contractual judgement hanging over his/her head, no matter the future pipe-dream? Instead, let's consider matriculating to Duke, play in the best college basketball atmosphere in the country, study at one of the top academic institutions in the world, and possibly graduate from college (a novel thought).

[tommy]

The consequences of the kid breaking the contract would be very real and VERY expensive at Duke (and at many schools). If the NCAA institutes this as a rule, what prospective student-athlete, parent or advisor would ever want a $60,000 per year contractual judgement hanging over his/her head, no matter the future pipe-dream? Instead, let's consider matriculating to Duke, play in the best college basketball atmosphere in the country, study at one of the top academic institutions in the world, and possibly graduate from college (a novel thought).

Hmm. How would Duke be damaged to the tune of $60,000 by a kid breaking his contract and leaving early? If hypothetically the kid signed a contract and DUKE broke it, reneged, etc. then I could see the kid having been damaged $60K, because he's lost the value of the tuition, books, room and board, and whatever else that he wasn't having to pay for and now, if he wants to continue at Duke, he'd have to come up with that money on his own. Those would be real damages.

But the other way around, seems like not so much. If the kid leaves early, how is Duke damaged financially by a kid declining to accept the university's gift of $60,000?

[Verga3]

Hmm. How would Duke be damaged to the tune of $60,000 by a kid breaking his contract and leaving early? If hypothetically the kid signed a contract and DUKE broke it, reneged, etc. then I could see the kid having been damaged $60K, because he's lost the value of the tuition, books, room and board, and whatever else that he wasn't having to pay for and now, if he wants to continue at Duke, he'd have to come up with that money on his own. Those would be real damages.

But the other way around, seems like not so much. If the kid leaves early, how is Duke damaged financially by a kid declining to accept the university's gift of $60,000?

What do you mean by Duke breaking the contract? I'm not understanding.

[tommy]

What do you mean by Duke breaking the contract? I'm not understanding.

Sorry. Not clear.

What I was trying to say was that in your proposed scenario, were the kid decides to go pro early and breaks his scholarship contract in order to do so, I don't see how the university is financially damaged by that -- it's just the kid declining to continue to accept a continuing gift -- tuition, room, board, books, etc. -- but that seems to be all it is.

On the other hand, if in a different scenario, let's just say hypothetically that after one year of play, the school decides to renege on the scholarship contract, and said to the kid, "we don't want you at this university anymore, we're revoking your scholarship, you're out of here," then I could see the player being financially damaged by that, as he'd no longer be receiving the free tuition, room, board, books, etc. that he contracted for, and that would be a loss to him of $60K for each of the years remaining on the contract.

[Verga3]

Sorry. Not clear.

What I was trying to say was that in your proposed scenario, were the kid decides to go pro early and breaks his scholarship contract in order to do so, I don't see how the university is financially damaged by that -- it's just the kid declining to continue to accept a continuing gift -- tuition, room, board, books, etc. -- but that seems to be all it is.

On the other hand, if in a different scenario, let's just say hypothetically that after one year of play, the school decides to renege on the scholarship contract, and said to the kid, "we don't want you at this university anymore, we're revoking your scholarship, you're out of here," then I could see the player being financially damaged by that, as he'd no longer be receiving the free tuition, room, board, books, etc. that he contracted for, and that would be a loss to him of $60K for each of the years remaining on the contract.

Thanks. Good points. My head was more on the players perspective. I appreciate your new take from the Duke reneging on the scholarship side, but I don't see that happening at Duke. Maybe a good NCAA rule to think through, though.

I think Duke can be said to be "financially damaged" if the "contractual" player bolts to the NBA before the 3+ year contract. He/she might owe Duke $120,000+ if they leave before their junior year. Good policy for any University. It will happen only if the NCAA grows some and actually believes their promos/TV ads.

[toooskies]

I'm waiting for someone to propose a system which is better for the players than the current one. All the discussed scenarios are based on the premise that the players somehow owe the schools more than they're already giving them (which for early entrants is NBA-level talent).

[Jderf]

I'm waiting for someone to propose a system which is better for the players than the current one.

To throw in a little pessimism, such a system honestly seems unlikely. When it comes to college athletics, there are simply too many different people, groups, and organizations pulling strings and trying to get their own piece of the pie: universities, coaches, the NCAA, the BCS, the NBA, the NBPA, the NFL, ESPN, CBS, ABC, agents, runners, the AAU system -- the list goes on. With all these different interests vying for influence, power, and money, the resulting system/situation is always going to be incredibly distorted and basically just really messy. But notice who isn't on the list of people pulling strings? Bingo: student-athletes. We can propose better systems for the players all we want, but someone has to enact that system, and of all the people with the power and influence to do that, students are not among them.

[UrinalCake]

What are the real consequences to the player for his breach of his contract? What are the actual, provable damages to the university? And even if the school goes to the trouble (and takes the PR hit) of actually filing a lawsuit against Knight, and then can somehow prove actual damages, doesn't Knight just write a check and move on?

I think the fundamental flaw in this player contract idea is that you're trying to solve the problem entirely from the side of the NCAA, with no cooperation from the NBA. Once a player leaves college, the school and the NCAA have no jurisdiction over him, so as you say there can't be any consequences for him. The only way to solve this issue IMO is for the NCAA and NBA to work together on a solution. Then we could implement something like the 0/3 rule where a player has to either go pro straight from high school or stay in college for three years.

The other issue I have with the player contract idea is that it gives an enormous advantage to the powerhouse schools who can afford to essentially pay their players. Mid-major teams can't do that, so you're taking away the parity that makes college ball so great.

[toooskies]

I think the fundamental flaw in this player contract idea is that you're trying to solve the problem entirely from the side of the NCAA, with no cooperation from the NBA. Once a player leaves college, the school and the NCAA have no jurisdiction over him, so as you say there can't be any consequences for him. The only way to solve this issue IMO is for the NCAA and NBA to work together on a solution. Then we could implement something like the 0/3 rule where a player has to either go pro straight from high school or stay in college for three years.

The other issue I have with the player contract idea is that it gives an enormous advantage to the powerhouse schools who can afford to essentially pay their players. Mid-major teams can't do that, so you're taking away the parity that makes college ball so great.

I think the fundamental flaw is that the players are treated as pawns instead of people. It's about the NCAA and the NBA, not the players who we all want to watch. Who cares if college is rewarding to them in and of itself, or they have more to learn? Who cares if the organization is making millions or billions of dollars which it uses for its own betterment? At least Steve Kerr tries to answer the question of whether it's better for the player to stay in college, from a professional legacy standpoint. Yeah, sure, the level of play in college might increase. But that just means the NCAA is improving its product at the expense of legal adults, because those adults don't have a better choice (but deserve one). Regular students aren't tied into three-year contracts-- why should student-athletes be?

[Jarhead]

I think the fundamental flaw is that the players are treated as pawns instead of people. It's about the NCAA and the NBA, not the players who we all want to watch. Who cares if college is rewarding to them in and of itself, or they have more to learn? Who cares if the organization is making millions or billions of dollars which it uses for its own betterment? At least Steve Kerr tries to answer the question of whether it's better for the player to stay in college, from a professional legacy standpoint. Yeah, sure, the level of play in college might increase. But that just means the NCAA is improving its product at the expense of legal adults, because those adults don't have a better choice (but deserve one). Regular students aren't tied into three-year contracts-- why should student-athletes be?

Yeah, right. Regular students aren't tied into three-year contracts, but their goals are the four year degree. This is an apple and orange comparison. Even with regular students there is a quantity of disappointments. How many people have graduated without finding a job in their chosen profession. What about that pre-med student that ends up as a pharmaceutical sales person. Why should athletes have total control in how they get to their goals? If one's goal is to be a point guard in the NBA, college is not necessarily the road to success, but if that is the way an athlete chooses to go, the college to which he goes has some requirements for him in exchange for the free ride he gets.

[toooskies]

Yeah, right. Regular students aren't tied into three-year contracts, but their goals are the four year degree. This is an apple and orange comparison. Even with regular students there is a quantity of disappointments. How many people have graduated without finding a job in their chosen profession. What about that pre-med student that ends up as a pharmaceutical sales person. Why should athletes have total control in how they get to their goals? If one's goal is to be a point guard in the NBA, college is not necessarily the road to success, but if that is the way an athlete chooses to go, the college to which he goes has some requirements for him in exchange for the free ride he gets.

You make a false analogy; you're claiming that students don't get to choose post-collegiate employers, so student athletes shouldn't have any control over how long they stay in college. Unless, of course, you're willing to call the NCAA or a college a student-athlete's employer, which is something that the NCAA has emphatically declared they are not.

College is the only real road to success. For an American kid to go to Europe and play for a year instead of college, there's one example of that-- Brandon Jennings. Counting 1st and 2nd round draft picks, that makes it a 200-1 chance for an American to go to Europe and also be drafted? 500-1? I'm not going to look it up, but it's way less than 1%. I don't know of anyone who has gone the D-League route. The options are hypotheticals; college is the only realistic choice for high school basketball players to develop skills for the NBA.

The difference between student-athletes and other students is that schools actively take advantage of the athletes for the school's gain. The school isn't making money off the pre-med other than tuition, which the student agrees to as price of admission. Duke makes millions off of the basketball program, and that's before you factor in the non-fiscal benefits of the program.

Athletes shouldn't be punished for having talents which schools want to make money off of; they should be rewarded.

I'm very much on the side of justice rather than the side of power in this argument.

[Indoor66]

You make a false analogy; you're claiming that students don't get to choose post-collegiate employers, so student athletes shouldn't have any control over how long they stay in college. Unless, of course, you're willing to call the NCAA or a college a student-athlete's employer, which is something that the NCAA has emphatically declared they are not.

College is the only real road to success. For an American kid to go to Europe and play for a year instead of college, there's one example of that-- Brandon Jennings. Counting 1st and 2nd round draft picks, that makes it a 200-1 chance for an American to go to Europe and also be drafted? 500-1? I'm not going to look it up, but it's way less than 1%. I don't know of anyone who has gone the D-League route. The options are hypotheticals; college is the only realistic choice for high school basketball players to develop skills for the NBA.

The difference between student-athletes and other students is that schools actively take advantage of the athletes for the school's gain. The school isn't making money off the pre-med other than tuition, which the student agrees to as price of admission. Duke makes millions off of the basketball program, and that's before you factor in the non-fiscal benefits of the program.

Athletes shouldn't be punished for having talents which schools want to make money off of; they should be rewarded.

I'm very much on the side of justice rather than the side of power in this argument.

How about presenting a definition of "justice" that we can all agree upon - or not - and then discuss the issue?

[lotusland]

.

College is the only real road to success. For an American kid to go to Europe and play for a year instead of college, there's one example of that-- Brandon Jennings. Counting 1st and 2nd round draft picks, that makes it a 200-1 chance for an American to go to Europe and also be drafted? 500-1? I'm not going to look it up, but it's way less than 1%. I don't know of anyone who has gone the D-League route. The options are hypotheticals; college is the only realistic choice for high school basketball players to develop skills for the NBA.



This may be true but it is not fault or the responsibility of the NCAA or their member institutions. It is not their mission to provide a "fair" path to the NBA. They are institutions of higher learning and to the extent that they "profit" from sports the revenue is filtered back into the institutions which I believe are, almost exclusively, not for profit. So you may accept or decline a scholarship offer but I see nothing wrong with adding "strings" that stipulate that, should you accept the scholarship, you must commit to 3 years of progress toward a degree (again this is the mission and the point of the scholarship). If you don't fulfill your commitment, you must refund the scholarship. I see nothing wrong with a kid "cashing in" early but why not pay your scholarship back into the institution of higher learning?

It's not like he didn't get the educational opportunity he's required to refund because he failed to fulfill his commitment. In exchange for his commitment he gets the best facilities, coaching and marketing in the amateur world. Let's not forget that these kids have almost zero market value outside of their college affiliation. As I've said before, if you put the same kids on the floor and call them the Durham Bluedevils, no one will care if or when they play. Heck they wouldn't even have scouts and college alumni at their HS and AAU games except for the potential that they might attend a particular school. I'm all for College taking back control. Let the NBA worry about how to develop players who aren't fit for college and let's put to bed the absurd idea that the "players" are the primary driving force behind the money in college football and basketball.

If Duke kicks Carolina's butt and has a great year I really don't care whether or not there are any future pros on the roster.

[Jderf]

This may be true but it is not fault or the responsibility of the NCAA or their member institutions. It is not their mission to provide a "fair" path to the NBA.

This argument gets a lot of airtime, but, although it is possibly a mitigating factor, I do not think it wholly exonerates the NCAA. Here's why:

While I do think the current state of affairs is unfair to players, I would actually agree that the NCAA gets branded as a purely evil party far too often. If the NCAA wants to provide college students with the opportunity to play amateur sports, then it is entirely within their rights as an organization to create and enforce regulations for such an amateur league. Personally, I have no problem with this concept in theory.

But the idea of amateur NCAA sports becomes problematic when considered in light of this country's lack of viable minor leagues in football and basketball. Without any development leagues as a better option, professional-caliber athletes must use college sports as their best (and only) avenue to the pros. Again, it is perfectly fair for the NCAA to allow athletes this option and say, "Okay, you may use our league, but you must respect our rules and traditions." After all, It is not the NCAA's fault that there is a void of minor leagues. (It's the NBA/NFL's)

However, such a position is no longer legitimate when the NCAA (and its member schools) stops prioritizing it's own rules of amateurism while still requiring its members to abide by those rules. Which is exactly what the NCAA has done by making the active decision to fill the minor league void -- signing major television contracts, selling merchandise, paying coaches and ADs millions of dollars. If the NCAA had remained purely amateur, there would have been no internal contradiction. But they didn't. They signed up for the big money and violated their own tradition of amateurism, all while telling the players that they couldn't have a piece of the pie -- specifically through the pretext of those same traditions being violated.

At least, that's my take. Thoughts?


They are institutions of higher learning and to the extent that they "profit" from sports the revenue is filtered back into the institutions which I believe are, almost exclusively, not for profit.

This point, too, I find to be misleading. True, these universities as a whole are not-for-profit institutions. However, universities have athletic departments, and athletic departments consist of employees, and employees receive salaries, and these salaries can go up or down depending on how much revenue the department pulls in. So while, yes, some of the money generated does go to paying for the non-revenue sports and funding university programs, a lot of it also goes to paying the salaries of the people who run the program. It goes to the million-dollar salaries of the head coaches and the athletic director, as well as to numerous hundred-thousand dollar salaries of assistant coaches, trainers, medical professionals, and many others.

Those people are definitely working "for profit," and in a very real sense. Think about it: between the cumulative salaries of all Duke's coaches (football & basketball), how many programs and clubs and events do you think the university could fund?

Look, I don't pretend to know how to fix the problem or have a simple solution. I don't even think there is a simple solution. There is always going to be some group that is unhappy with the situation. However, to pretend that there isn't a problem at all, or that there isn't a fundamental unfairness inherent in the current system -- that is equivalent to putting your hands over your ears and shouting, IMO. I don't mean that in an offensive way at all, as many people have made sophisticated arguments here. It's just that I ultimately don't think they hold up.

[Jderf]

Let's not forget that these kids have almost zero market value outside of their college affiliation. As I've said before, if you put the same kids on the floor and call them the Durham Bluedevils, no one will care if or when they play.

This is another one I like to think of as a bit of a red herring. It's sort of a chicken-and-egg type situation. Yes it is true that, if it weren't for the Duke and the NCAA, I would not care all that much about most of the recent high school graduates who choose to pursue basketball. However, what was the NCAA before it became what it is today? It wasn't always broadcasted around the country. The NCAA was nothing before Phi Slama Jama and Jordan, or before Magic and Larry. The players were what made NCAA basketball exciting to watch. They are what made it a national phenomenon. They are the product that the NCAA is selling.

[lotusland]

This is another one I like to think of as a bit of a red herring. It's sort of a chicken-and-egg type situation. Yes it is true that, if it weren't for the Duke and the NCAA, I would not care all that much about most of the recent high school graduates who choose to pursue basketball. However, what was the NCAA before it became what it is today? It wasn't always broadcasted around the country. The NCAA was nothing before Phi Slama Jama and Jordan, or before Magic and Larry. The players were what made NCAA basketball exciting to watch. They are what made it a national phenomenon. They are the product that the NCAA is selling.

I grew up on ACC basketball. It's not better now than it was 30-40 years ago. I think it has more of a national appeal and it makes more money but it isn't better. At my Middle School and High School we didn't even have classroom instruction during the ACC Tournament. We watched the tournament games instead. I can't speak for the rest of the country but I'm guessing it was always pretty big in KY and KS. I would say it is the other way around - the NBA was practically nothing before Larry and Magic.

[Jderf]

I grew up on ACC basketball. It's not better now than it was 30-40 years ago. I think it has more of a national appeal and it makes more money but it isn't better. At my Middle School and High School we didn't even have classroom instruction during the ACC Tournament. We watched the tournament games instead. I can't speak for the rest of the country but I'm guessing it was always pretty big in KY and KS. I would say it is the other way around - the NBA was practically nothing before Larry and Magic.

Whether or not you think "going national" made college ball better, it still made it more profitable. And that was a direct result of the players putting something on the court that people wanted to see -- and would pay to see. That is when the NCAA stopped being a fully legitimate institution of amateur sport: when they realized that their product was marketable, and began profiting from it, all while telling the athletes (who actually, physically generated the product) that they could have no part of it.

I'm not saying th evil or that there is a conspiracy to deprive athletes of their earnings or anything like that. But the NCAA does play a role in all of this and they're not exactly innocent.

[lotusland]

Whether or not you think "going national" made college ball better, it still made it more profitable. And that was a direct result of the players putting something on the court that people wanted to see -- and would pay to see. That is when the NCAA stopped being a fully legitimate institution of amateur sport: when they realized that their product was marketable, and began profiting from it, all while telling the athletes (who actually, physically generated the product) that they could have no part of it.

I'm not saying th evil or that there is a conspiracy to deprive athletes of their earnings or anything like that. But the NCAA does play a role in all of this and they're not exactly innocent.

The school is offering a free education as a reward for your skill on the court. If that is not enough then go pro. If you want to play college ball for 1 year using the valuable coaching, training and facilities to get prepared for the NBA then pay back the education scholarship that you didn't use. You still got free coaching, training and marketing. The first point I made was that it is not the responsibility of the NCAA or their member institutions to provide a "fair" path to the NBA. If your point is that the 3-year commitment is not "fair" then you are right. I'm in favor of kids going to the NBA straight out of HS if they are good enough but the NBA is in charge of that rule. If the NCAA implemented the 3-yr commitment rule then maybe the NBA would compromise about players like Shabazz coming straight out of HS so that they wouldn't have to wait 3-yrs. With the NBA's cooperation we could have a baseball type arrangement where you can either go straight out of HS or play 3-years of college ball and, if you're smart, get an education while you are there.

[Jderf]

If your point is that the 3-year commitment is not "fair" then you are right.

Well, first off, I'm not arguing for or against any particular solution. I'm not even sure if there is one. I'm only responding to earlier comments which seemed to imply that there isn't even a real problem -- or that the NCAA has no obligation whatsoever to conduct its business legitimately.


The school is offering a free education as a reward for your skill on the court. If that is not enough then go pro. If you want to play college ball for 1 year using the valuable coaching, training and facilities to get prepared for the NBA then pay back the education scholarship that you didn't use. You still got free coaching, training and marketing. The first point I made was that it is not the responsibility of the NCAA or their member institutions to provide a "fair" path to the NBA.

And my point is that I agree with you... sort of. As an educational institution, the NCAA has no responsibility to provide a fair path to the NBA. That would be the minor league's responsibility. However, I would argue that the NCAA is not an educational institution. At least, in part. With the way NCAA basketball and football are currently structured, they actually are minor leagues: they sign big-time television contracts and shoe deals, build professional-quality facilities, weild incredible resources, have nationally diverse fanbases, and of course, pay (some of) their employees multi-million dollar salaries. They make the NBDL look like a rec league.

These are not the activities of an academic institution that wants nothing more than to provide it's students with the option of modest inter-collegiate sports. No, this is the behavior of a sports organization looking to profit from its product. They maintain their extremely tenous link with the universities they represent for two (inordinately profitable) legal reasons: no taxes, plus free labor. Like I said above, not an illegal or purely evil thing to do, but you still have to recognize it for what it is, a charade.

Looking at this from a standpoint of pure rhetoric (and not from financial gain or general realism), the only justifiable move the NCAA and its member schools could make, according to their own "principles," would be to burn it all down and take us back to the stone ages. They would have to reneg on all their TV contracts, give up the shoe deals, discontinue athletic "scholarships" and recruiting, and start paying themselves salaries that actually reflect their positions (i.e. somewhat above highschool coaches). Full disclosure, I would be really upset if the NCAA did this, but unless they do they will continue to be hyprocrites every time they claim to "uphold the dignity of the student-athlete." The fact that they never, ever would do this shows you exactly what their real priorities are.

Like I said before, I don't know what the solution is. Certainly, anything as simplistic as "pay the players" is never going to work. The 3-year contract is interesting and I haven't seen it proposed before, but I ultimately think that any lottery pick would just sneeze at a $60,000 fine for going pro. To them, that is just one empty parking space in their 8-car garage.

In any case, however, what I cannot stand for is pretending that there is not a problem to begin with, as if the NCAA's position is completely and perfectly justified. It isn't. Again, they aren't evil, but they also certainly are not the last defenders of amatuer athletics. Recognizing that fundamental inconcsistency is the first step to finding a solution, whatever it may be.

(Can you tell how busy I am at work right now? ;))

[dcdevil2009]

With the three your contract idea, what happens to players who stop progress for reasons other than the NBA? I think we might be focusing on the more visible problem, the 20-30 underclassmen who are able to leave for the NBA and afford to pay for three years of college immediately, but what about the hundreds of transfers or people who leave school for academic issues? It seems like requiring three year commitments might actually create more inequity between student athletes than less.

[Indoor66]

With the three your contract idea, what happens to players who stop progress for reasons other than the NBA? I think we might be focusing on the more visible problem, the 20-30 underclassmen who are able to leave for the NBA and afford to pay for three years of college immediately, but what about the hundreds of transfers or people who leave school for academic issues? It seems like requiring three year commitments might actually create more inequity between student athletes than less.

It seems there may be some uninended consequences - as their usually are when trying to address only one aspect of a complex problem.

[toooskies]

You can't say that schools are nonprofits and then claim that the schools don't owe the students anything. The students are supposed to be the beneficiaries of the nonprofit, after all!

But yeah-- I definitely can't see how a coach of the people I watch on TV is worth millions in salary to hat nonprofit, but the players themselves are worth what goes for a market rate of about $50,000 a year. I don't know what define justice, but that's clearly not justice.

[lotusland]

You can't say that schools are nonprofits and then claim that the schools don't owe the students anything. The students are supposed to be the beneficiaries of the nonprofit, after all!

But yeah-- I definitely can't see how a coach of the people I watch on TV is worth millions in salary to hat nonprofit, but the players themselves are worth what goes for a market rate of about $50,000 a year. I don't know what define justice, but that's clearly not justice.

Paying players is a different argument. I will say that I have a hard time thinking of big time NCAA hoops players as victims of anything. It's a pretty enviable position for most of us and, of course, it's voluntary.

Also I see no reason the 3-yr scholarship commitment cannot make exception for transfers. The point would be to steer non-student athletes toward international ball instead of college.