PDA

View Full Version : Further discussions of One and Done



mgtr
03-02-2014, 10:29 AM
There are a bunch of branches to this tree. First, it is a condemnation of K-12 education -- if any "students" get through High School without a functional reading ability (and many do, not just athletes), it is a failure. Second, it is a strong argument for the baseball system -- either no college or three years. Third, there is an opportunity for expansion of the Juco system. Fourth, a draftee should be able to substitute a year of NBDL for a year in college. There are probably a bunch more easy solutions, but mostly they require concurrence of the NBA and its player's union. Somebody ought to be pushing a solution.

BigWayne
03-02-2014, 12:46 PM
Fourth, a draftee should be able to substitute a year of NBDL for a year in college.

This is currently an option. It's not as attractive for most that fall in the one and done category as it does not give as much marketing exposure. Current example is PJ Hairston. How much have you seen of him since he joined the NBDL? I'm guessing a lot less than you have seen Marcus Paige.

killerleft
03-02-2014, 01:08 PM
As much as I like to see UNC get their comeuppance, this isn't a problem indigenous to UNC, but rather a byproduct of the fact that college athletics are big money.
Football, basketball, baseball, etc. at the collegiate level are huge revenue sources for schools, so the decision to bend the rules becomes a cost-benefit analysis for them. I'm not justifying it by any means. Schools should be about academics, not sports. Our society would be better off that way.

You need to start another thread.

bob blue devil
03-02-2014, 05:08 PM
This is currently an option. It's not as attractive for most that fall in the one and done category as it does not give as much marketing exposure. Current example is PJ Hairston. How much have you seen of him since he joined the NBDL? I'm guessing a lot less than you have seen Marcus Paige.

and this is a major chink in the armor of the "the players should get paid argument". the players currently have that option (in the US and abroad), but are choosing to play basketball in college instead. nobody is forcing them to do this and they have pretty solid employment alternatives.

75Crazie
03-02-2014, 05:58 PM
nobody is forcing them to do this and they have pretty solid employment alternatives.
Please tell me what "solid alternatives" there are for a young player who has marginal learning skills and who wants to pursue an NBA career. There aren't any ... and I am including the NBA D-league, which is nothing near what it should be. The reality is still what it has been for decades now ... if a player wants an NBA career, he is forced to attend a college for at least a year and pay lip service to college class attendance, which many of these players have next to no interest in.

For years I have thought that Mark Cuban was a joke, but his interview on ESPN.com today (http://espn.go.com/dallas/nba/story/_/id/10538276/mark-cuban-says-nba-d-league-better-option-ncaa) carries a lot of truth and my opinion of him has risen significantly. He is advocating a significant upgrade of the D-league to act as a comparable alternative to the NCAA for advancement to the NBA, along with eliminating the incredibly stupid one-and-done rule. This seems so obvious to me that I cannot believe it has not occurred to a lot of other people with the power to make it happen -- but the power and inertia of the status quo is just too much to overcome.

sagegrouse
03-02-2014, 05:58 PM
There are a bunch of branches to this tree. First, it is a condemnation of K-12 education -- if any "students" get through High School without a functional reading ability (and many do, not just athletes), it is a failure. Second, it is a strong argument for the baseball system -- either no college or three years. Third, there is an opportunity for expansion of the Juco system. Fourth, a draftee should be able to substitute a year of NBDL for a year in college. There are probably a bunch more easy solutions, but mostly they require concurrence of the NBA and its player's union. Somebody ought to be pushing a solution.

You make a lot of sense, but I have a few comments.

First, let's don't try and establish broad principles from extreme cases. In this discussion, "extreme cases" are the top 100 HS basketball players in any class relative to the entire HS population. If failures to achieve functional literacy are much more common in the general school population (which they probably are), then address it there. Second, the "baseball system" is attractive to a lot of people, but it's adoption requires the agreement of the National Basketball Players' Association, which has not been agreeable -- yet -- to changes in the current system. IOW, it isn't that your view does not draw broad support -- the problem is in the approval of it. Third, the JUCO system is there for that purpose, but schools and players are pushing to get the best players into Div I hoops. You would need to have stronger and clearer requirements for eligibility. Fourth, the bad-economics NBDL is there, but IMHO (where the H is silent) players would probably be better off at a high-profile school.

Duvall
03-02-2014, 06:32 PM
Please tell me what "solid alternatives" there are for a young player who has marginal learning skills and who wants to pursue an NBA career. There aren't any ... and I am including the NBA D-league, which is nothing near what it should be. The reality is still what it has been for decades now ... if a player wants an NBA career, he is forced to attend a college for at least a year and pay lip service to college class attendance, which many of these players have next to no interest in.

For years I have thought that Mark Cuban was a joke, but his interview on ESPN.com today (http://espn.go.com/dallas/nba/story/_/id/10538276/mark-cuban-says-nba-d-league-better-option-ncaa) carries a lot of truth and my opinion of him has risen significantly. He is advocating a significant upgrade of the D-league to act as a comparable alternative to the NCAA for advancement to the NBA, along with eliminating the incredibly stupid one-and-done rule. This seems so obvious to me that I cannot believe it has not occurred to a lot of other people with the power to make it happen -- but the power and inertia of the status quo is just too much to overcome.

There are only thirty people in the world that have the power to get rid of the one-and-done rule, and Mark Cuban is one of them. Perhaps instead of giving yet another interview he should concentrate on doing that.

-jk
03-02-2014, 07:49 PM
There are only thirty people in the world that have the power to get rid of the one-and-done rule, and Mark Cuban is one of them. Perhaps instead of giving yet another interview he should concentrate on doing that.

I think a union deal takes more than management, by definition.

-jk

bob blue devil
03-02-2014, 08:18 PM
Please tell me what "solid alternatives" there are for a young player who has marginal learning skills and who wants to pursue an NBA career. There aren't any ... and I am including the NBA D-league, which is nothing near what it should be. The reality is still what it has been for decades now ... if a player wants an NBA career, he is forced to attend a college for at least a year and pay lip service to college class attendance, which many of these players have next to no interest in.


i'm disinterested in hijacking the thread, but, yes, i was referring to the nba d-league and europe in my alternative set. they may not sound like much vs. the nba, but, when you compare them to other entry level jobs one can get without an education in a field everyone would love to be in, they aren't so bad. the ncaa is not forcing these kids to go to college - they don't have a monopoly on basketball - if the kids want to get paid, they can. the market has established a fair value for a 19 year old's basketball services outside of the nba and it ain't much. since the kids choose to go to school, the value proposition must be better than the alternatives. just because college basketball makes a lot of money, doesn't mean that the players are entitled to it.

p.s. try to be more cordial in your comments. thanks.

Atlanta Duke
03-02-2014, 08:30 PM
I think a union deal takes more than management, by definition.

-jk

The Players Association is no fan of the current one year requirement. If management pushed to repeal the one year limit I doubt there would be any push back from the union, so repeal seems to be the owners' call.

But Mark Cuban may be playing another angle. New commissioner Adam Silver (Duke '84) has stated he wants to extend the one year requirement to two years. Maybe Cuban wants to hold throw out his views in order to hold the line at one year. Or maybe Cuban just wants to let Commissioner Silver know that in an ever changing world you can count on Mark Cuban being against whatever the NBA Commissioner is for.

sagegrouse
03-03-2014, 08:05 AM
The Players Association is no fan of the current one year requirement. If management pushed to repeal the one year limit I doubt there would be any push back from the union, so repeal seems to be the owners' call.



Sorry, but the National Basketball Players Association opposes changing the one-and-done rule or raising the age limit to 20. Here is an article (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/2005-05-12-hunter-age-limit_x.htm)on the subject.

Atlanta Duke
03-03-2014, 08:51 AM
Sorry, but the National Basketball Players Association opposes changing the one-and-done rule or raising the age limit to 20. Here is an article (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/2005-05-12-hunter-age-limit_x.htm)on the subject.

Former players association head Billy Hunter said in the article to which you linked that he opposed extending the limit to two years, not that the players favored keeping the current limit. During the 2011-2012 collective bargaining negotiations the players association stated its continuing opposition to the one year exclusion in the CBA. The limit stayed as part of give and take during the negotiations and lockout.

"We want to go back to the way it was," a source from the National Basketball Players Association said. "The players have always been philosophically opposed to it. The vast majority of players feel a player should have the right to make a living.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5899152
http://espn.go.com/nba/draft2012/story/_/id/7916278/national-basketball-players-association-needs-player-perks-age-limit-go-up

If Mark Cuban brought the other owners and Commissioner Silver around to getting rid of the age restriction the players presumably would agree. But since the owners sought a two year restriction in the last CBA negotiations and Commissioner Silver is pushing for it again repeal is not likely. The best the players can expect is the status quo to continue.

Henderson
03-03-2014, 08:56 AM
Sorry, but the National Basketball Players Association opposes changing the one-and-done rule or raising the age limit to 20. Here is an article (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/2005-05-12-hunter-age-limit_x.htm)on the subject.

You may very well be right about the union's position, but that linked article doesn't demonstrate it. For one thing, it's 9 years old. And it just quotes then-union head Billy Hunter as being opposed to raising the age limit, an issue he says he wouldn't let stand in the way of an otherwise good collective bargaining agreement. And let's not forget that Billy Hunter no longer heads the union; he was fired last year and has a nasty ongoing wrongful termination suit against the union.

Duke95
03-03-2014, 09:01 AM
You need to start another thread.

Good idea. I don't want to interrupt the fanboys.

Let's get this straight. What UNC did is inexcusable. They continue to perpetuate the fraud by covering up their misdeeds. They sold their academic souls for a bunch of athletic gold. Turns out, they didn't even get that, since their football team is crap, their basketball team is pretty average, and they're not exactly shooting the moon in any other sport. Moreover, their academic ranking is mediocre at best.

But you can't indict UNC without commenting on the cancer that is athletic money eating away at academia in this country. The problem is much bigger than UNC, and much bigger than basketball. It seems some of you want to score points with your buddies around the water cooler, but this is a bit more important than that. When I was at Duke, the SocPsych class was stacked with athletes. We all know that many are steered towards easier classes wherever they go.

Henderson
03-03-2014, 09:18 AM
If Mark Cuban brought the other owners and Commissioner Silver around to getting rid of the age restriction the players presumably would agree. But since the owners sought a two year restriction in the last CBA negotiations and Commissioner Silver is pushing for it again repeal is not likely. The best the players can expect is the status quo to continue.

I listened to an interview with Adam Silver the last couple days. He says that in the last round of negotiations, the league wanted to go to 20-and-2 (20 y.o. minimum and 2 years out of H.S.). But he and Stern dropped the issue to get the deal done, because it wasn't a religious issue for the league. Silver says he still wants to go to 20-and-2, but he sees the other side too. Stern used to tell people that his biggest complaint about players jumping from HS to the NBA was the presence of NBA execs, coaches, and scouts at HS games, which he called "unseemly."

What does it all mean going forward? Likely no change. Players would prefer to go back to none-and-done, and the league wants two-and-done. But both sides have come to live with the status quo -- the NBA isn't all over HS games, and players don't have to wait forever to cash in. Plus, I don't think it's a "religious" issue for either side. So they'll likely leave it be or find some creative solution such as 20-and-2 with a relief valve for exceptional cases (LeBron, Dwight Howard, Kobe). Not sure what that would look like, but Silver threw that idea out there during his recent interview.

Duke95
03-03-2014, 09:23 AM
Is there currently any requirement for students to complete a set number of years before they're allowed to take an employment offer in any other field other than athletics?

Why should there be for basketball? Just because fans want their school to score a bunch of wins doesn't mean they're allowed to restrict someone's employment and earning opportunities.
Fans created the demand, now they're complaining that it's ruining their alma mater's team. A bit hypocritical, IMO.

pfrduke
03-03-2014, 09:34 AM
Is there currently any requirement for students to complete a set number of years before they're allowed to take an employment offer in any other field other than athletics?

There are dozens of occupations for which a license is required, and most licensing requirements include some educational component. As just one example, to obtain a CPA license in NY, one must have a bachelor's or higher degree in accountancy or the equivalent.

Employers - and fields of employment (when governed by collective bargaining) - are free to impose virtually any criteria they wish so long as the criteria does not run afoul of the constitution or a federal/state statute. The notion that the NBA is the only organization that restricts freedom of employment is nearsighted at best.

sagegrouse
03-03-2014, 09:39 AM
Former players association head Billy Hunter said in the article to which you linked that he opposed extending the limit to two years, not that the players favored keeping the current limit. During the 2011-2012 collective bargaining negotiations the players association stated its continuing opposition to the one year exclusion in the CBA. The limit stayed as part of give and take during the negotiations and lockout.

"We want to go back to the way it was," a source from the National Basketball Players Association said. "The players have always been philosophically opposed to it. The vast majority of players feel a player should have the right to make a living.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5899152
http://espn.go.com/nba/draft2012/story/_/id/7916278/national-basketball-players-association-needs-player-perks-age-limit-go-up

If Mark Cuban brought the other owners and Commissioner Silver around to getting rid of the age restriction the players presumably would agree. But since the owners sought a two year restriction in the last CBA negotiations and Commissioner Silver is pushing for it again repeal is not likely. The best the players can expect is the status quo to continue.

I may have misread your post. What are you advocating? A two-year/age 20 rule or no restrictions whatsoever?

Duke95
03-03-2014, 09:44 AM
There are dozens of occupations for which a license is required, and most licensing requirements include some educational component. As just one example, to obtain a CPA license in NY, one must have a bachelor's or higher degree in accountancy or the equivalent.

Employers - and fields of employment (when governed by collective bargaining) - are free to impose virtually any criteria they wish so long as the criteria does not run afoul of the constitution or a federal/state statute. The notion that the NBA is the only organization that restricts freedom of employment is nearsighted at best.

A completely false argument.

First, the issue of licensing is one of ensuring candidates have the required job criteria. That is taken care of by the draft process. There is no "license" that is granted by spending one year in college vs. zero, or two years vs. zero. The only "license" granted is through graduation, and that isn't a job requirement.

Second, the issue here is not making sure athletes have the required skill. It is patently obvious that the concern here is that the influx of talent to the NBA can cannibalize revenues to the NCAA and its member schools. The NCAA wants some revenue before it permits athletes to make money off their own abilities.

There is no logical argument for forcing athletes to spend an arbitrary year in school before going to the NBA. The pretext is utterly transparent. This has NOTHING to do with the athlete and has everything to do with the beneficiary, which is the NCAA and the school, not the athlete. Heck, UNC athletes couldn't even read. You're telling me that Kentucky athletes are gaining some sort of "license" by being one-and-done? Seriously now.

Duvall
03-03-2014, 09:55 AM
A completely false argument.

First, the issue of licensing is one of ensuring candidates have the required job criteria. That is taken care of by the draft process. There is no "license" that is granted by spending one year in college vs. zero, or two years vs. zero. The only "license" granted is through graduation, and that isn't a job requirement.

Second, the issue here is not making sure athletes have the required skill. It is patently obvious that the concern here is that the influx of talent to the NBA can cannibalize revenues to the NCAA and its member schools. The NCAA wants some revenue before it permits athletes to make money off their own abilities.

There is no logical argument for forcing athletes to spend an arbitrary year in school before going to the NBA. The pretext is utterly transparent. This has NOTHING to do with the athlete and has everything to do with the beneficiary, which is the NCAA and the school, not the athlete. Heck, UNC athletes couldn't even read. You're telling me that Kentucky athletes are gaining some sort of "license" by being one-and-done? Seriously now.

What are you talking about? The one-and-done rule is an NBA rule put in place to benefit NBA franchises, who no longer have to make valuable draft picks with limited information. Any benefit to the NCAA is incidental, and probably marginal at that.

alteran
03-03-2014, 10:00 AM
A completely false argument.

First, the issue of licensing is one of ensuring candidates have the required job criteria. That is taken care of by the draft process. There is no "license" that is granted by spending one year in college vs. zero, or two years vs. zero. The only "license" granted is through graduation, and that isn't a job requirement.

Second, the issue here is not making sure athletes have the required skill. It is patently obvious that the concern here is that the influx of talent to the NBA can cannibalize revenues to the NCAA and its member schools. The NCAA wants some revenue before it permits athletes to make money off their own abilities.

There is no logical argument for forcing athletes to spend an arbitrary year in school before going to the NBA. The pretext is utterly transparent. This has NOTHING to do with the athlete and has everything to do with the beneficiary, which is the NCAA and the school, not the athlete. Heck, UNC athletes couldn't even read. You're telling me that Kentucky athletes are gaining some sort of "license" by being one-and-done? Seriously now.

Your argument has its share of falseness as well, IMHO.

Your second paragraph concludes with, "The NCAA wants some revenue before it permits athletes to make money..." Your third paragraph goes off in the NCAA about one-and-done as well.

The NCAA has NOTHING to do with one-and-done, the one-and-done rule IS A RULE BY THE NBA. If the NBA changes its rules and the NCAA objects, guess what? The one-and-done rule is gone. Reform the NCAA from here to doomsday, it won't effect one-and-done.

Blaming the NCAA here is a non-productive red herring.

Henderson
03-03-2014, 10:08 AM
Nearly every posted position at any major organization has "minimum qualifications" set by the organization. Many require a certain amount of work experience and education. You may be the perfect fit for the job (or so you think), but if you don't meet all the minimum qualifications, you aren't eligible. Period. And it's the organization that decides (rightly or wrongly) what the minimum qualifications are. The NBA is an organization and is acting like any other in setting its minimum qualifications. The only difference is that we fans care deeply about what those minimum qualifications are for the NBA, in part because they impact the college game so heavily. But we don't get to vote.

I'm ambivalent about the NBA's minimum qualifications. I can see both sides. But I'm not going to agree that the NBA has no right (or should have no right) to establish the minimum qualifications it (in conjunction with the union) decides are best for the organization as a whole. I may disagree with them, just as an applicant for a job might argue that XYZ Corp's minimum qualifications for a particular job are unduly restrictive of the applicant pool.

pfrduke
03-03-2014, 10:48 AM
A completely false argument.

First, the issue of licensing is one of ensuring candidates have the required job criteria. That is taken care of by the draft process. There is no "license" that is granted by spending one year in college vs. zero, or two years vs. zero. The only "license" granted is through graduation, and that isn't a job requirement.

Second, the issue here is not making sure athletes have the required skill. It is patently obvious that the concern here is that the influx of talent to the NBA can cannibalize revenues to the NCAA and its member schools. The NCAA wants some revenue before it permits athletes to make money off their own abilities.

There is no logical argument for forcing athletes to spend an arbitrary year in school before going to the NBA. The pretext is utterly transparent. This has NOTHING to do with the athlete and has everything to do with the beneficiary, which is the NCAA and the school, not the athlete. Heck, UNC athletes couldn't even read. You're telling me that Kentucky athletes are gaining some sort of "license" by being one-and-done? Seriously now.

No, I'm telling you that the NBA has made an employment decision (negotiated with the players through collective bargaining) that a player must be 19 years old and at least one year removed from his high school graduating class (for domestic players) to play in the NBA, and that employment decisions like these are commonplace in fields of employment. You took issue with the entire concept of a requirement in the first place, not just the specifics of the requirement.

Also, you don't understand the specifics of the requirement - it says nothing about education or "requiring students to complete a set number of years". Instead, it has two components: 1) 19 or older; 2) at least one year removed from the high school graduating class. College basketball has developed into the most efficient and sensible place for a player to spend that one year, but there is absolutely no requirement that anyone play in college at all before getting into the NBA. Brandon Jennings and Jeremy Tyler, for example, opted to play overseas for that year, and now are playing in the NBA.

And, as others have pointed out, this is a rule of the NBA only. The NCAA may like it and support it (and would probably love for it to be extended to 2 or 3 years, as the notoriety of the players is obviously beneficial to the NCAA) but has precisely zero control over it.

Atlanta Duke
03-03-2014, 11:04 AM
I may have misread your post. What are you advocating? A two-year/age 20 rule or no restrictions whatsoever?

My post was not advocating anything, only stating that if the 30 owners want to get rid of the age limit they will not have much trouble getting the players association to agree.

Age restrictions have been upheld as a legitimate subject of collective bargaining between a players association and a professional sports league in the Maurice Clarett v. NFL case.

In the context of this collective bargaining relationship, the NFL and its players union can agree that an employee will not be hired or considered for employment for nearly any reason whatsoever so long as they do not violate federal laws such as those prohibiting unfair labor practices..

http://www.freelawreporter.org/flr3d/f3d/369/369.F3d.124.04-0943.html

But just because age restrictions can be a subject of collective bargaining does not mean I agree with it. I think the one and done rule unfairly (not illegally) limits the ability of a young player to pursue his chosen occupation and corrupts college sports by having players enrolled in school with no pretense that they are there to pursue a college degree.

With regard to whether I prefer the current rule, an increase in the age limit, or allowing a player to declare for the draft whenever he sees fit, I favor none of those options. Instead, I prefer what I understand to be the current preference of Coach K.

Many coaches have espoused the benefits of a rule similar to baseball's, where players could get drafted out of high school, but if they choose to go to a four-year college they must stay at least three years.

Krzyzewski, Florida coach Billy Donovan and Michigan State coach Tom Izzo, among others, have been proponents of that type of a system.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2014/02/17/college-basketball-nba-draft-early-entry-one-and-done-rule/5552163/

From a pure basketball standpoint, having players stay for three years presumably would allow teams to develop. And as far as the college part of college basketball is concerned, it would at least eliminate the current impression of players who have no interest in college serving their one year sentence.

But as Coach K notes, it is about what benefits the NBA. The NBA may be willing to wait one year for Jabari Parker, but I doubt it wants to wait out three years.

“First of all college basketball doesn’t control college basketball. The NBA controls college basketball," Krzyzewski said. "They are the ones, along with the players’ union, that sets the [rules]."

http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2012-04-17/nba-draft-2012-mike-krzyzewski-duke-controls-college-basketball-austin-rivers

Kfanarmy
03-03-2014, 11:04 AM
Please tell me what "solid alternatives" there are for a young player who has marginal learning skills and who wants to pursue an NBA career. There aren't any ... and I am including the NBA D-league, which is nothing near what it should be. The reality is still what it has been for decades now ... if a player wants an NBA career, he is forced to attend a college for at least a year and pay lip service to college class attendance, which many of these players have next to no interest in.

For years I have thought that Mark Cuban was a joke, but his interview on ESPN.com today (http://espn.go.com/dallas/nba/story/_/id/10538276/mark-cuban-says-nba-d-league-better-option-ncaa) carries a lot of truth and my opinion of him has risen significantly. He is advocating a significant upgrade of the D-league to act as a comparable alternative to the NCAA for advancement to the NBA, along with eliminating the incredibly stupid one-and-done rule. This seems so obvious to me that I cannot believe it has not occurred to a lot of other people with the power to make it happen -- but the power and inertia of the status quo is just too much to overcome.

Perhaps Mark is simply advocating for a new venue to make himself more $. My impression is that he isnt terribly interested in anything that doesn't benefit him.

BigWayne
03-03-2014, 11:22 AM
Perhaps Mark is simply advocating for a new venue to make himself more $. My impression is that he isnt terribly interested in anything that doesn't benefit him.
Yes he is. That doesn't make what he says false. What he wants is NBA players that are qualified to be NBA players. The D league can help produce that. What I believe he is implying is that the way colleges are handling the one and dones is not working for him in the NBA. While these players get some better coaching and competition than they had in college and get a marketing boost from national TV exposure, they aren't learning anything off the court. He is putting it out there that these guys are not getting anything useful from being run through a few classrooms to maintain eligibility and they would be better off getting some basic "how to live as an adult" training they could set up for them in the D league.

OldPhiKap
03-03-2014, 11:35 AM
I think (okay, am sure) there is a "should players be paid?" thread or something like that. Any way to move all of this to that thread? Not taking away from the various points on this -- and yes, I understand it is somewhat related -- but my focus is on the UNC debacle and the rampant academic fraud they perpetuated. Allegedly, of course.

Thanks, OPK

ricks68
03-03-2014, 12:00 PM
I think (okay, am sure) there is a "should players be paid?" thread or something like that. Any way to move all of this to that thread? Not taking away from the various points on this -- and yes, I understand it is somewhat related -- but my focus is on the UNC debacle and the rampant academic fraud they perpetuated. Allegedly, of course.

Thanks, OPK

I strongly agree with OPK. Please move this discussion to another thread.

ricks

75Crazie
03-03-2014, 01:53 PM
Also, you don't understand the specifics of the requirement - it says nothing about education or "requiring students to complete a set number of years". Instead, it has two components: 1) 19 or older; 2) at least one year removed from the high school graduating class. College basketball has developed into the most efficient and sensible place for a player to spend that one year, but there is absolutely no requirement that anyone play in college at all before getting into the NBA. Brandon Jennings and Jeremy Tyler, for example, opted to play overseas for that year, and now are playing in the NBA.

I disagree with this assertion ... and I don't think that providing two examples of exceptions is going to prove it out. I continue to believe that the playing field is HEAVILY weighted towards college sports participation for anybody wanting to pursue a career in the NBA or NFL ... to the degree that the percentage of exceptions of the type you quote is practically negligible. Can you, in all honesty, see any advisor of a high-school-age player with obvious professional athletic abilities, but with serious learning impairments or even illiteracy, seriously recommending any post-high-school path other than NCAA? When the path through "college" participation has already been made so that learning impairments are no obstacle? At this time, I cannot ... but I think that those other alternatives such as D-leagues (or, as baseball calls them, farm leagues) need to be enhanced and made truly viable alternatives.

pfrduke
03-03-2014, 03:04 PM
I disagree with this assertion ... and I don't think that providing two examples of exceptions is going to prove it out. I continue to believe that the playing field is HEAVILY weighted towards college sports participation for anybody wanting to pursue a career in the NBA or NFL ... to the degree that the percentage of exceptions of the type you quote is practically negligible. Can you, in all honesty, see any advisor of a high-school-age player with obvious professional athletic abilities, but with serious learning impairments or even illiteracy, seriously recommending any post-high-school path other than NCAA? When the path through "college" participation has already been made so that learning impairments are no obstacle? At this time, I cannot ... but I think that those other alternatives such as D-leagues (or, as baseball calls them, farm leagues) need to be enhanced and made truly viable alternatives.

The rule does not force people to go to college. Period.

I agree with you that college basketball is, by far, the best approach for high-level basketball players, and thus most people choose what is the most attractive alternative. But a) that's not the NBA's problem and b) the NBA is not required to provide alternative employment opportunities to people ineligible for NBA employment.

Also, your learning impairment/illiteracy example is an odd one - wouldn't the easier environment for such a person be a professional environment where even the pretense of education requirements (and attendant eligibility requirements) are not an issue?

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
03-03-2014, 03:53 PM
I disagree with this assertion ... and I don't think that providing two examples of exceptions is going to prove it out. I continue to believe that the playing field is HEAVILY weighted towards college sports participation for anybody wanting to pursue a career in the NBA or NFL ... to the degree that the percentage of exceptions of the type you quote is practically negligible. Can you, in all honesty, see any advisor of a high-school-age player with obvious professional athletic abilities, but with serious learning impairments or even illiteracy, seriously recommending any post-high-school path other than NCAA? When the path through "college" participation has already been made so that learning impairments are no obstacle? At this time, I cannot ... but I think that those other alternatives such as D-leagues (or, as baseball calls them, farm leagues) need to be enhanced and made truly viable alternatives.

I don't disagree with you, but it is up to the NBA to make the D-League more attractive. The age limit is, and always has been, an NBA rule. The NBA can limit their draftees however they see fit (age, college degrees, hair length, what-have-you). I would see it as "in their interests" to have a good D-League (better players, better ratings, better ticket sales, better attendance) that is an option from the NCAA. The NBA can then make money off the young men without pretending to teach them things like some institutions.

Anyway, my point is, the NBA makes the rules and runs the D-League. If they make more stringent rules without beefing up the D-League, they risk losing players to Europe.

superdave
03-03-2014, 04:46 PM
I don't disagree with you, but it is up to the NBA to make the D-League more attractive. The age limit is, and always has been, an NBA rule. The NBA can limit their draftees however they see fit (age, college degrees, hair length, what-have-you). I would see it as "in their interests" to have a good D-League (better players, better ratings, better ticket sales, better attendance) that is an option from the NCAA. The NBA can then make money off the young men without pretending to teach them things like some institutions.

Anyway, my point is, the NBA makes the rules and runs the D-League. If they make more stringent rules without beefing up the D-League, they risk losing players to Europe.

How much is my good friend PJ Hairston making this year? $50k?

How does that compare with what Brandon Jennings made his one year in Europe? $100k or more?

Maybe if the gap closes here, and D-league salaries go up, then you may see a handful of kids spend their year playing in the de facto minor leagues. But there is less exposure if you do not enter into the world of college recruitment and less exposure playing in the DL than on Espn (or Espn2/U, FoxSports, ACCNetwork etc). So I do think this pool of kids might be limited to the PJ Hairston's of the world or the non-qualifiers.

I would assume there are plenty of non-qualifiers out there, but those kids go the Juco route. Is that an accurate assumption?

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
03-03-2014, 04:52 PM
How much is my good friend PJ Hairston making this year? $50k?

How does that compare with what Brandon Jennings made his one year in Europe? $100k or more?

Maybe if the gap closes here, and D-league salaries go up, then you may see a handful of kids spend their year playing in the de facto minor leagues. But there is less exposure if you do not enter into the world of college recruitment and less exposure playing in the DL than on Espn (or Espn2/U, FoxSports, ACCNetwork etc). So I do think this pool of kids might be limited to the PJ Hairston's of the world or the non-qualifiers.

I would assume there are plenty of non-qualifiers out there, but those kids go the Juco route. Is that an accurate assumption?

I don't know about the correctness of your assumption, but it seems very clear to me that in an increasingly "brand aware" age, a player certainly increases awareness of his image on a national level substantially more with time on ESPN wearing a Duke or Kentucky uniform than Erie Bay Hawks or Santa Cruz Warriors (yes, I had to look that up). If you do a cost benefit analysis of your life-time earnings with a few years at a major D1 university versus a few years with a five figure income from the NBADL, I'd wager you win big with college.

I'm saying though, I don't think that it's set in stone. If you had exciting young talent in the D league, if you had games worth watching with national exposure, if you had someone like a Wiggins or a Parker making noise in that league... the dynamics could change.

InSpades
03-03-2014, 04:58 PM
I don't know about the correctness of your assumption, but it seems very clear to me that in an increasingly "brand aware" age, a player certainly increases awareness of his image on a national level substantially more with time on ESPN wearing a Duke or Kentucky uniform than Erie Bay Hawks or Santa Cruz Warriors (yes, I had to look that up). If you do a cost benefit analysis of your life-time earnings with a few years at a major D1 university versus a few years with a five figure income from the NBADL, I'd wager you win big with college.

I'm saying though, I don't think that it's set in stone. If you had exciting young talent in the D league, if you had games worth watching with national exposure, if you had someone like a Wiggins or a Parker making noise in that league... the dynamics could change.

At it's best the d-league is going to be a really bad NBA. At it's best college basketball competes w/ the NBA (and some would argue beats it). No one cares about minor league baseball. I think there's far too much to overcome to make the d-league relevant and that's why all the kids will choose college.

75Crazie
03-03-2014, 05:42 PM
Also, your learning impairment/illiteracy example is an odd one - wouldn't the easier environment for such a person be a professional environment where even the pretense of education requirements (and attendant eligibility requirements) are not an issue?
Yes, exactly. I suspect I didn't get my point across very well. What I was trying to say was that, given the advancement opportunities available today, an adviser would most probably steer an athletic prospect towards an NCAA college, even if that prospect was illiterate or had learning impairments, just because that path is by far the most likely path for advancement to the NBA or NFL. My desire is to see the equivalent of a vibrant, meaningful farm system, something like what baseball has, as a viable alternative for football and basketball. I think the D-league could become that alternative for basketball, and I agree that the onus for making it work would fall on the NBA -- but I think most colleges are currently more than happy to serve as willing dupes of the NBA in order to keep the current system.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
03-03-2014, 05:46 PM
At it's best the d-league is going to be a really bad NBA. At it's best college basketball competes w/ the NBA (and some would argue beats it). No one cares about minor league baseball. I think there's far too much to overcome to make the d-league relevant and that's why all the kids will choose college.

Well, minor league baseball has local interest. I know folks who go once or twice a week (though there's not much else to do up here in the mountains).

But you are also talking to someone who cares very, very little about the NBA. I'm even less likely to care about the NBDL, but yes, you are right, it's an uphill battle. It's like playing bad college ball in front of tiny crowds with desperate players, only for a paycheck. Methinks it's the paycheck that might change minds...

Duke95
03-03-2014, 06:09 PM
No, I'm telling you that the NBA has made an employment decision (negotiated with the players through collective bargaining) that a player must be 19 years old and at least one year removed from his high school graduating class (for domestic players) to play in the NBA, and that employment decisions like these are commonplace in fields of employment. You took issue with the entire concept of a requirement in the first place, not just the specifics of the requirement.

Also, you don't understand the specifics of the requirement - it says nothing about education or "requiring students to complete a set number of years". Instead, it has two components: 1) 19 or older; 2) at least one year removed from the high school graduating class. College basketball has developed into the most efficient and sensible place for a player to spend that one year, but there is absolutely no requirement that anyone play in college at all before getting into the NBA. Brandon Jennings and Jeremy Tyler, for example, opted to play overseas for that year, and now are playing in the NBA.

And, as others have pointed out, this is a rule of the NBA only. The NCAA may like it and support it (and would probably love for it to be extended to 2 or 3 years, as the notoriety of the players is obviously beneficial to the NCAA) but has precisely zero control over it.

First, Tyler and Jennings are extreme outliers. They are 2 examples out of many who don't chose the D-league.
College has become the logical place for top athletes to spend that year, yes. But get this, college is an ACADEMIC institution, not an athletic one. The NBA could just as easily implement a plan that lets them draft a player but that player has to spend the first year in the D-league. Then we don't have this charade of athletes who often have zero interest in college having to go through the motions and having advisors try to create curricula commensurate with their lack of interest in schoolwork. I don't want to see colleges become farm systems for the NBA. That's not what academic institutions are supposed to be.

Article X hurts people like Nerlens Noel, Wiggins, and many others who would have that extra year of earning capacity. Now sure, the collective bargain is exempt from antitrust scrutiny, so it's safe for the time. But that doesn't mean it's a good agreement or that it promotes anyone's social welfare. And, I seriously doubt Stern wasn't made aware by the NCAA of how beneficial this article would be to the NCAA's coffers.

mgtr
03-03-2014, 06:34 PM
I don't want to see colleges become farm systems for the NBA. That's not what academic institutions are supposed to be.

I agree with this completely, but we have lost the fight. "Academic institutions" have become farm systems for American business, which includes the NBA. I went to a good private college (somewhat west of Duke) and there wasn't a whole lot of talk about employment possibilities (that was class of '62). Some kind of employment was assumed, and the idea was to get a good liberal education. Today, there is much greater concern about "how this course will help me get a job." So, in my view, the academic part has dwindled. In a sense, many colleges are becoming vocational prep schools, which is what industry wants. I am delighted that there are still good schools such as Duke (and others) which maintain standards and force academics upon a largely willing group of students. I am also delighted that there are still student-athletes who thrive in the college environment and succeed at athletics. But over time, I believe the number of schools and the number of students is, sadly, dwindling.

bob blue devil
03-03-2014, 07:48 PM
...but it seems very clear to me that in an increasingly "brand aware" age, a player certainly increases awareness of his image on a national level substantially more with time on ESPN wearing a Duke or Kentucky uniform than Erie Bay Hawks or Santa Cruz Warriors (yes, I had to look that up). If you do a cost benefit analysis of your life-time earnings with a few years at a major D1 university versus a few years with a five figure income from the NBADL, I'd wager you win big with college.

I'm saying though, I don't think that it's set in stone. If you had exciting young talent in the D league, if you had games worth watching with national exposure, if you had someone like a Wiggins or a Parker making noise in that league... the dynamics could change.

i'm going to take your point and go in a slightly different direction. in theory*, kids are doing the cost-benefit analysis you hint at in considering the ncaa vs. nbadl vs. overseas. for a variety of reasons (likely including what you say), the ncaa is the best route for virtually all of them. so the ncaa is offering the best deal, but everyone is screaming for the colleges to further pervert their mission, and sweeten their deal/pay the players. how does that make sense? maybe everyone should be screaming for the nbadl to sweeten its deal instead.

as a member of the duke community, i root for duke and any revenues from me are far more attributable to the university than the players - turn this team into the durham bulls basketball team and i'd probably never watch. take away the players and, well, i was still a duke football fan during the lost decade... i agree with all of those here who do not believe professionalism should be part of college athletics.

*haha, assuming rationale behavior from teenagers - i must be an economist!

gocanes0506
03-03-2014, 08:55 PM
The NBADL will a become a more attractive alternative to college when the compensation/pay is increased. The players in college that had a shot in the NBADL typically get compensated a great deal (some inside the rules, others additional illegal benefits). I dont see the compensation for the NBADL increasing until the TV contracts go up. So, do the owners of the teams eat some money to attract the better HS players or wait for tv money (which would come after better players enter the league and interest in the league increases) to come in to increase pay? The chicken or the egg argument.

I would like to see the one and done go away.

nocilla
03-04-2014, 11:49 AM
i'm going to take your point and go in a slightly different direction. in theory*, kids are doing the cost-benefit analysis you hint at in considering the ncaa vs. nbadl vs. overseas. for a variety of reasons (likely including what you say), the ncaa is the best route for virtually all of them. so the ncaa is offering the best deal, but everyone is screaming for the colleges to further pervert their mission, and sweeten their deal/pay the players. how does that make sense? maybe everyone should be screaming for the nbadl to sweeten its deal instead.

*haha, assuming rationale behavior from teenagers - i must be an economist!

I think this is the exact argument for why colleges don't need to pay athletes. People try to say there aren't any other 'real' options. Well there are other options that these kids can choose that would earn them money. The fact that they pass up on those oppurtunities to take the deal that colleges and the NCAA have laid out for them is overwhelming proof of what college is providing them. The free education, free training, free facilities, free food, free clothes/shoes, free exposure. Why would anyone pass that up just to get paid now when they know they will get paid a lot more down the road by taking the college route? Like bob blue devil said above, it's not the NCAA that needs to sweeten the deal.