What has OAD done for the NBA game?

[Duke95]

I realize that the NBA has many problems, but how much has OAD contributed to the garbage product currently being peddled as "professional basketball" in the NBA?

Watched the Jazz-Grizzlies game last night for a bit, until it became clear that whatever I was watching didn't deserve the time I was spending doing so. OTOH, watching the Spurs during their championship run was a pleasure. I wonder how much of this deterioration of the NBA product is a consequence of the rush to get potential stars to the league.

I'm sure some of it is due to the refereeing. I mean, look at this. 9 steps. Not from a star, but from basically a nobody.

https://vine.co/v/eBQO0nLx9mK/embed

[blazindw]

I realize that the NBA has many problems, but how much has OAD contributed to the garbage product currently being peddled as "professional basketball" in the NBA?

Watched the Jazz-Grizzlies game last night for a bit, until it became clear that whatever I was watching didn't deserve the time I was spending doing so. OTOH, watching the Spurs during their championship run was a pleasure. I wonder how much of this deterioration of the NBA product is a consequence of the rush to get potential stars to the league.

I'm sure some of it is due to the refereeing. I mean, look at this. 9 steps. Not from a star, but from basically a nobody.

https://vine.co/v/eBQO0nLx9mK/embed

This isn't a good example. The player doing the 9-step travel, Kendrick Perkins, was one who went to the NBA straight out of high school. So, this play doesn't really provide anything to show that OAD is hurting the NBA.

Plus, OAD is the NBA's rule, not a college rule. You also don't have to spend it in college. You can try out for the NBDL or go to Europe for a year. College basketball, however, provides athletes the greatest stage to showcase their talent to the NBA teams they hope will draft them. If it were up to college, most programs would want all players to be eligible out of high school to enter the NBA. But, if they come to college, like in baseball, they should have to stay at least 2-3 years. OAD isn't contributing to any deterioration of the NBA product. Teams would rather take chances on younger talent and try to develop them into the player they need. That's why younger players with 1-2 years of college experience are generally rated higher on the draft boards than college juniors and seniors.

[Troublemaker]

Watched the Jazz-Grizzlies game last night for a bit, until it became clear that whatever I was watching didn't deserve the time I was spending doing so.

The Jazz and the Grizzlies are two of the NBA's best defensive teams. The only thing you found out there is just that you don't like watching defensive battles. Which is fine. But not reflective of the quality of product the NBA is producing. The current NBA is the most entertaining, well-played basketball in the history of the sport.

But yes, styles make fights. Instead of playing each other, I would prefer to see the Jazz and the Grizzlies play a great offensive team instead. If the Grizzlies and Clippers meet in the playoffs, that would be a wonderful playoff series, for example.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

What has the OAD done to the NBA? Handed them well-vetted, pre-marketed superstars.

[Henderson]

What has the OAD done to the NBA? Handed them well-vetted, pre-marketed superstars.

My ranking of priorities:

1. What is best for the kids?

2. What is best for the college game?

3. What is best for the NBA?

But it's not as easy as that, because the three groups work in symbiosis. Having a commissioner of college basketball who sees that symbiosis would be good for all three groups in my view.

[Wander]

What does this game have to do with the one and done rule? Out of the 10 starters in that game:

Courtney Lee, Jeff Green, Gordon Hayward, Rodney Hood were great college basketball players who stayed multiple years. Dante Exum, Rudy Gobert, Beno Udrih, and Marc Gasol were international players who weren't really affected by the rule. Zach Randolph went to college before the rule. That leaves only one guy, Derrick Favors. Is having one out of ten players in a game be a OAD ruining the game for you?

[MaxAMillion]

I don't know see much evidence that the NBA game is hurting. I think people who refer to it as garbage won't like the game under any circumstances. It is no more garbage than watching some college games that end 53-48.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

My ranking of priorities:

1. What is best for the kids?

2. What is best for the college game?

3. What is best for the NBA?

But it's not as easy as that, because the three groups work in symbiosis. Having a commissioner of college basketball who sees that symbiosis would be good for all three groups in my view.

Oh, I hate the rule. I'm just saying that suggesting that the rule doesn't have massive benefit for the NBA is absurd. I guarantee Jah jerseys will sell like crazy before he takes a step onto an NBA floor.

I also don't care anything about the NBA, but you can see why they keep the rule.

[vick]

I realize that the NBA has many problems, but how much has OAD contributed to the garbage product currently being peddled as "professional basketball" in the NBA?

Watched the Jazz-Grizzlies game last night for a bit, until it became clear that whatever I was watching didn't deserve the time I was spending doing so. OTOH, watching the Spurs during their championship run was a pleasure. I wonder how much of this deterioration of the NBA product is a consequence of the rush to get potential stars to the league.

I'm sure some of it is due to the refereeing. I mean, look at this. 9 steps. Not from a star, but from basically a nobody.

https://vine.co/v/eBQO0nLx9mK/embed

Considering the quality of play in the NBA is, by almost any standard except "back in my day" nostalgia, better than it has ever been, this underlying premise is wrong.

Teams turn the ball over less, foul significantly less, and have much better rebounding discipline than in the so-called golden era of the '80s. This notion of a skills deterioration (because 20 year olds develop basketball fundamentals better in sociology class than with professional coaches, I guess) is pure fantasy.

[gurufrisbee]

One and done as compared to....

...when they came straight from high school?

or

...from if they stayed for all four years? Or at least three?

It's not complicated. The longer they stay in college, the more mature they will be - as a person and as a player. The more coaching they will have received and the more developed their game will be. There is no downside to the NBA pushing it back more. It's just dumb that they do not.

And it's unfortunate for the college game.

[Henderson]

Oh, I hate the rule. I'm just saying that suggesting that the rule doesn't have massive benefit for the NBA is absurd. I guarantee Jah jerseys will sell like crazy before he takes a step onto an NBA floor.

I also don't care anything about the NBA, but you can see why they keep the rule.

I completely agree with you, except for not caring anything about the NBA. And I don't hate the current system, though I think it could be improved with some rebalancing of voices.

The players are vested in what the NBA does, and so is the college game. So disregarding the NBA and player assocition voice would be a mistake for both college basketball and the players, both current and potential.

And the NBA is vested in college basketball. It's their cost-free proving ground. In addition, the Players Association is vested in both college basketball and the potential of younger guys who might displace veterans and might be either good or bad for the NBA.

Of those three groups (players coming in or not, the NBA, and the college game), there's an imbalance of representation. The NBA is heavily represented in the discussion, no doubt. The players' union is partly about the NBA game and partly about treating young guys fairly, and they are represented, no doubt. But the college game is left sucking hind tit, dependent upon what the NBA and the players union do.

I'd like to see a commissioner of college basketball that has in mind both the college game on which the NBA so relies and the players/potential players in the college game. A person who understands the importance of the NBA (and international leagues) to the college game and college (or potential college) players.

Symbiotic issues require symbiotic solutions. And guys like Mark Emmert aren't in a position to fill that role.

[Des Esseintes]

I realize that the NBA has many problems, but how much has OAD contributed to the garbage product currently being peddled as "professional basketball" in the NBA?

Watched the Jazz-Grizzlies game last night for a bit, until it became clear that whatever I was watching didn't deserve the time I was spending doing so. OTOH, watching the Spurs during their championship run was a pleasure. I wonder how much of this deterioration of the NBA product is a consequence of the rush to get potential stars to the league.

I'm sure some of it is due to the refereeing. I mean, look at this. 9 steps. Not from a star, but from basically a nobody.

https://vine.co/v/eBQO0nLx9mK/embed

Poster watches "a bit" of a single game featuring a single player who qualifies for the issue under discussion. Poster uses this "evidence" to indict entire NBA, one-and-done rule, officiating standards. Laziest, least-informed thread topic in DBR history?

[Duke95]

This isn't a good example. The player doing the 9-step travel, Kendrick Perkins, was one who went to the NBA straight out of high school. So, this play doesn't really provide anything to show that OAD is hurting the NBA.


Well, as I pointed out in my post, that example was to show the effects of refereeing, not OAD.

With regard to the other comments, perhaps, I haven't the NBA enough, but if you're telling me that this game was representative of the best league on the planet, I'm sorry, I don't buy it. This is garbage basketball.

I'm not placing the blame fully on OAD, but it certainly does not seem to have helped. Then again, to counter my own argument, I suppose it helps to view the average age. It hasn't changed much over the years. Then again, again, perhaps it's not simply age, but the actually basketball knowledge that has declined.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats.html

[Duke95]

Poster watches "a bit" of a single game featuring a single player who qualifies for the issue under discussion. Poster uses this "evidence" to indict entire NBA, one-and-done rule, officiating standards. Laziest, least-informed thread topic in DBR history?

Poster doesn't understand argument and proceeds to attack thread. :rolleyes:

[Henderson]

It'll be interesting to see how Mudiay does in the draft and whether/how that impacts the discussion. It's a big world out there.

[Duke95]

It'll be interesting to see how Mudiay does in the draft and whether/how that impacts the discussion. It's a big world out there.

Yep, agreed. If Mudiay does well, we may be seeing "none and done" more often. Apparently, the option was floated to Newman, who doesn't seem to be inclined to take it.

[ChillinDuke]

It'll be interesting to see how Mudiay does in the draft and whether/how that impacts the discussion. It's a big world out there.

That's why I use the Capital One card.

- Chillin

[jdk]

One and done has given NBA teams a free stage to evaluate top young talent for a year against people their own size before spending millions on them.

Perennial lottery teams were getting burned by the Sebastian Telfairs and Kwame Browns who looked great in H.S. against kids half their size and speed.

Based on high school rankings, if one and done didn't exist, Austin Rivers could have been the top pick in 2012 over Anthony Davis.

The NBA has nothing to lose from the one and done rule. I think colleges should stop pretending that the kids really need English 101 or sociology, and better utilize that year by preparing their one and dones for adult life with financial management classes, basic accounting, investing, and public relations, etc. while they are on campus.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I completely agree with you, except for not caring anything about the NBA. And I don't hate the current system, though I think it could be improved with some rebalancing of voices.

The players are vested in what the NBA does, and so is the college game. So disregarding the NBA and player assocition voice would be a mistake for both college basketball and the players, both current and potential.

And the NBA is vested in college basketball. It's their cost-free proving ground. In addition, the Players Association is vested in both college basketball and the potential of younger guys who might displace veterans and might be either good or bad for the NBA.

Of those three groups (players coming in or not, the NBA, and the college game), there's an imbalance of representation. The NBA is heavily represented in the discussion, no doubt. The players' union is partly about the NBA game and partly about treating young guys fairly, and they are represented, no doubt. But the college game is left sucking hind tit, dependent upon what the NBA and the players union do.

I'd like to see a commissioner of college basketball that has in mind both the college game on which the NBA so relies and the players/potential players in the college game. A person who understands the importance of the NBA (and international leagues) to the college game and college (or potential college) players.

Symbiotic issues require symbiotic solutions. And guys like Mark Emmert aren't in a position to fill that role.

Quite true the Emmert isn't in any sort of position for bargain, but I would reiterate that as far as the NBA is concerned there is no problem to fix. The system as it stands works fine. If the OAD rule is changed, it will be changed in such a way to better benefit the NBA, not the better benefit college. They have absolutely zero interest in helping/protecting/assisting the NCAA at their own expense.

Personally, I think the NBA would be BEST served by growing the brand of their NBDL teams and developing that into a viable alternative for the college game. That way they can make money off those kids as well. But, they are clearly far from that being reality.

The OAD rule is an NBA rule make to protect current NBA players and GMs. That is all.

[Karl Beem]

Oh, I hate the rule. I'm just saying that suggesting that the rule doesn't have massive benefit for the NBA is absurd. I guarantee Jah jerseys will sell like crazy before he takes a step onto an NBA floor.

I also don't care anything about the NBA, but you can see why they keep the rule.

The NBA doesn't like the rule. The players agents love the rule.

[Henderson]

The OAD rule is an NBA rule made to protect current NBA players and GMs. That is all.


The NBA doesn't like the rule. The players agents love the rule.

I think Mountain Devil is right, with the understanding that the Players Association agreed to OAD too. This current system isn't an NCAA construct. The NCAA doesn't even get a vote in the decisions reached by the the NBA and Players Association on this critical issue affecting the college game and college players or would-be college players.

The NCAA needs a stronger voice to help ensure other relevant voices are heard.

And even then I'm not sure who speaks for the HS seniors and college freshman. Maybe they too need a mechanism for a collective voice.

But first things first: An NCAA Men's College Basketball Commissioner willing to inject himself into the distortingly intramural NBA conversation and the clout to be heard.

[lotusland]

[QUOTE=Mountain_Devil_91_92_01_10_15;801019]Quite true the Emmert isn't in any sort of position for bargain, but I would reiterate that as far as the NBA is concerned there is no problem to fix. The system as it stands works fine. If the OAD rule is changed, it will be changed in such a way to better benefit the NBA, not the better benefit college. They have absolutely zero interest in helping/protecting/assisting the NCAA at their own expense.

Personally, I think the NBA would be BEST served by growing the brand of their NBDL teams and developing that into a viable alternative for the college game. That way they can make money off those kids as well. But, they are clearly far from that being realityhat way they can make money off those kids as well. But, they are clearly far from that being reality.

The OAD rule is an NBA rule make to protect current NBA players and GMs. That is all.[/QUOTE
How could the development league ever grow to become an alternative to college ball?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

[QUOTE=Mountain_Devil_91_92_01_10_15;801019]Quite true the Emmert isn't in any sort of position for bargain, but I would reiterate that as far as the NBA is concerned there is no problem to fix. The system as it stands works fine. If the OAD rule is changed, it will be changed in such a way to better benefit the NBA, not the better benefit college. They have absolutely zero interest in helping/protecting/assisting the NCAA at their own expense.

Personally, I think the NBA would be BEST served by growing the brand of their NBDL teams and developing that into a viable alternative for the college game. That way they can make money off those kids as well. But, they are clearly far from that being realityhat way they can make money off those kids as well. But, they are clearly far from that being reality.

The OAD rule is an NBA rule make to protect current NBA players and GMs. That is all.[/QUOTE
How could the development league ever grow to become an alternative to college ball?

Beats me. I didn't mean to suggest it was likely, but rather would make sense for the NBA to have a legitimate "developmental league" that they can control where players of OAD caliber can get paid real money and not have to pretend to be interested in an education for a semester and a half. I'd wager that minor league baseball gets far more eyes than college baseball, so it isn't such a ridiculous idea.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I think Mountain Devil is right, with the understanding that the Players Association agreed to OAD too. This current system isn't an NCAA construct. The NCAA doesn't even get a vote in the decisions reached by the the NBA and Players Association on this critical issue affecting the college game and college players or would-be college players.

The NCAA needs a stronger voice to help ensure other relevant voices are heard.

And even then I'm not sure who speaks for the HS seniors and college freshman. Maybe they too need a mechanism for a collective voice.

But first things first: An NCAA Men's College Basketball Commissioner willing to inject himself into the distortingly intramural NBA conversation and the clout to be heard.

I can't imagine what would compel the NBA to give the NCAA a seat at the table. I'd love it to happen, but I simply don't see the impetus there for the league to budge.

[Henderson]

I can't imagine what would compel the NBA to give the NCAA a seat at the table. I'd love it to happen, but I simply don't see the impetus there for the league to budge.

Sometimes a door gets opened from outside, not by the graciousness of those inside.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Sometimes a door gets opened from outside, not by the graciousness of those inside.

I don't disagree, but what's the scenario in which that would happen?

[Henderson]

I don't disagree, but what's the scenario in which that would happen?

Totally fair question, and I don't know the answer.

Maybe a catalytic event? Maybe the movement of public opinion? Maybe an NCAA commissioner with a strong relationship with both the NBA commissioner and key NBA players? I don't know.

But things happen. And they often surprise. The world shifts a bit, and that which seemed unimaginable suddenly demonstrates our collective lack of imagnination.

Especially where, as in basketball right now, so many things are happening, strong voices are speaking, and old principles are being questioned. It's going to be an interesting 10 years going forward.

Or maybe nothing will change. That seems a sucker's bet to me though.

[lotusland]

[QUOTE=lotusland;801029]

Beats me. I didn't mean to suggest it was likely, but rather would make sense for the NBA to have a legitimate "developmental league" that they can control where players of OAD caliber can get paid real money and not have to pretend to be interested in an education for a semester and a half. I'd wager that minor league baseball gets far more eyes than college baseball, so it isn't such a ridiculous idea.

That may or may not be true but neither college baseball nor minor-league baseball are very big in comparison to college hoops. I Think the very nature of a minor league sport prevents it from ever rivaling a college revenue sport in either interest or revenue. Might be the big happening in Cedar Rapids on a given night but it won't ever have a national audience of any magnitude. How do you build a team when the best players always get moved up to the bigs?

[Henderson]

That may or may not be true but neither college baseball nor minor-league baseball are very big in comparison to college hoops. I Think the very nature of a minor league sport prevents it from ever rivaling a college revenue sport in either interest or revenue. Might be the big happening in Cedar Rapids on a given night but it won't ever have a national audience of any magnitude. How do you build a team when the best players always get moved up to the bigs?

I think what people envision as the successful model of a rejuvinated D League is that there would be stars there. Not just guys who are struggling to make it in the NBA, but guys who will be the superstars of the future.

And I'm not sure baseball minor leagues are the best alternative models, for a lot of reasons. But even there, if a dead-on superstar is on his way through the Triple-A city, people will go to see.

A redesigned D League could be better compared to college without the academics but with the cash.

Would that draw enough fans to make it pay? Would it develop national interest? I don't know, but it might with good administration and marketing, given the talent pool.

College fans are already (and increasingly) used to players not being there long. But they still show up to watch the great ones come through.

My longer-term concern would be what any move in that direction might have for the college game.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I think what people envision as the successful model of a rejuvinated D League is that there would be stars there. Not just guys who are struggling to make it in the NBA, but guys who will be the superstars of the future.

And I'm not sure baseball minor leagues are the best alternative models, for a lot of reasons. But even there, if a dead-on superstar is on his way through the Triple-A city, people will go to see.

A redesigned D League could be better compared to college without the academics but with the cash.

Would that draw enough fans to make it pay? Would it develop national interest? I don't know, but it might with good administration and marketing, given the talent pool.

College fans are already (and increasingly) used to players not being there long. But they still show up to watch the great ones come through.

My longer-term concern would be what any move in that direction might have for the college game.

What about a 22 year old age limit, and players can either spend those four years in college or in the NBDL?

[vick]

What about a 22 year old age limit, and players can either spend those four years in college or in the NBDL?

What possible good would it be for LeBron James--who was one of the five best players on the planet at age 21--to be stuck playing minor league basketball? What would we be even trying to accomplish by that point?

[NYBri]

I haven't watched an NBA game in 10 years.

Last I looked in, I saw a bunch of guys punching a time clock, killing time before they collected a paycheck from a team they didn't choose to play for.

The game without soul or passion, IMHO.

The only news I will get about our frosh will be from posts here. I didn't know Jabari blew his knee out until I read it here. Previous to that, I hadn't watched him play a single second in the NBA.

Contrast that to the fact that I watched every second of every Duke game this season....along with quite a few other college games of note.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

What possible good would it be for LeBron James--who was one of the five best players on the planet at age 21--to be stuck playing minor league basketball? What would we be even trying to accomplish by that point?

Hey now, I didn't say it was a good idea, just an idea. :)

Not sure how you can say the NBDL needs stars in order to become a bigger deal, and then ask why the NBA would let stars languish in the NBDL.

I stand by my original point - the NBA is not going to change the OAD rule until it makes monetary sense for them to do so. The Players Association will never push this, because their priority is current players, not "potential one day players." The NCAA is powerless.

[freshmanjs]

I stand by my original point - the NBA is not going to change the OAD rule until it makes monetary sense for them to do so. The Players Association will never push this, because their priority is current players, not "potential one day players." The NCAA is powerless.

then why does the PA oppose increasing the age limit?

[Karl Beem]

then why does the PA oppose increasing the age limit?

Their agents oppose it.

[Pghdukie]

I can't see how the NBA Players Assoc can approve Any type of contract that is going to cost current membership their job in favor of upcoming wanna-be's. Born and raised in a strong union town, a dues paying member protected his job religiously. Why would an NBA vet vote to give his job to an unproven 19yr old kid? The NBA Heirarchy may want the OAD to come in for influx of hype, marketing, etc, but there is only so many jobs for thousands of applicants

[freshmanjs]

I can't see how the NBA Players Assoc can approve Any type of contract that is going to cost current membership their job in favor of upcoming wanna-be's. Born and raised in a strong union town, a dues paying member protected his job religiously. Why would an NBA vet vote to give his job to an unproven 19yr old kid? The NBA Heirarchy may want the OAD to come in for influx of hype, marketing, etc, but there is only so many jobs for thousands of applicants

and yet the NBAPA is against raising the age limit.

[BlueTeuf]

How about we make college about education, even for basketball players. I'm ok with college basketball having to limp by without the top-flight talent.
Eliminate freshman eligibility and see it all shake out.

[YmoBeThere]

Laziest, least-informed thread topic in DBR history?

Hey, I tried to do that in my 2015 Masters Off-Topic thread...

[Des Esseintes]

I can't see how the NBA Players Assoc can approve Any type of contract that is going to cost current membership their job in favor of upcoming wanna-be's. Born and raised in a strong union town, a dues paying member protected his job religiously. Why would an NBA vet vote to give his job to an unproven 19yr old kid? The NBA Heirarchy may want the OAD to come in for influx of hype, marketing, etc, but there is only so many jobs for thousands of applicants


and yet the NBAPA is against raising the age limit.

Every year there is a draft. Every year the same size crop of applicants tries to break into the league, thus endangering veterans' jobs. It doesn't matter to the veteran losing his job whether he loses is to a 19-year-old or a 21-year-old. So, first off, the union has little reason to oppose younger players in the draft.

As for why it actively seeks allowing younger players into the draft, the union wants players to have the freedom to earn as much money as possible during the years in which they are athletically capable of doing so. If a guy is good enough to play in the NBA, earn a check, and help his family, the union wants that guy to be able to do so. The logic isn't particularly curious from where I'm standing.

[freshmanjs]

Every year there is a draft. Every year the same size crop of applicants tries to break into the league, thus endangering veterans' jobs. It doesn't matter to the veteran losing his job whether he loses is to a 19-year-old or a 21-year-old. So, first off, the union has little reason to oppose younger players in the draft.

As for why it actively seeks allowing younger players into the draft, the union wants players to have the freedom to earn as much money as possible during the years in which they are athletically capable of doing so. If a guy is good enough to play in the NBA, earn a check, and help his family, the union wants that guy to be able to do so. The logic isn't particularly curious from where I'm standing.

it is undeniably true that it is better for *current* nba players if the age limit is higher. it lengthens their careers. yes, there will still be a draft with the same number of people it, but it will be lower quality competition. of course, this reaches steady state after a few years.

[Des Esseintes]

it is undeniably true that it is better for *current* nba players if the age limit is higher. it lengthens their careers. yes, there will still be a draft with the same number of people it, but it will be lower quality competition. of course, this reaches steady state after a few years.

Sure, but the numbers of players involved in such a stratagem is so small as to make it almost valueless. How many freshmen will be in the draft this year that would otherwise be shifted to a later year? About 15? So, at most, about 15 end-of-the-bench vets would get to extend their careers a single year. And that assumes teams would keep all of those vets rather than simply sign a young guy regardless of the weakness of the draft pool. All young players are cheap, and unlike old guys, they at least have the potential to improve. The union will not (nor should it) execute a high profile betrayal of its future members to benefit such a tiny number of extremely minor dudes.

[Newton_14]

then why does the PA oppose increasing the age limit?
Because they see it as a key bargaining chip. They actually don't care much either way. They just know it is important to the owners and that the Commish and the owners want a 20 yr old/2 and done rule.

Sadly, I think it will be a long time before the rule is ever changed. I think it would be better to go to either the Football Rule or the Baseball Rule, but I doubt either ever happens. If it changes at all, it will move to 20 yr old minimum, for a 2 and Done.

It is what it is. As much as I enjoyed watching Justise Winslow this season, and he is one of my favorite players in a very long time, I resigned myself early on that it would be a one year thing and I would never get to see him play a Duke game again once the Tourney would come to an end. Sitting in Cameron for the last home game against Wake and watching Jahlil, Tyus, and Winslow as they each came out of the game for the last time, it looked clear to me by their body language and emotions, that I was seeing all 3 in Cameron for the last time.

That's pretty much when I resigned myself to losing all 3.

That said, I do not begrudge them, and wish them well. I do fear Tyus is taking quite a high risk, but he is so good in the clutch I think it possible he stays out of the D League next season and plays his way into the normal rotation. The other two guys will be stars and make an impact from Day 1.

[Duke95]

Because they see it as a key bargaining chip. They actually don't care much either way. They just know it is important to the owners and that the Commish and the owners want a 20 yr old/2 and done rule.

Sadly, I think it will be a long time before the rule is ever changed. I think it would be better to go to either the Football Rule or the Baseball Rule, but I doubt either ever happens. If it changes at all, it will move to 20 yr old minimum, for a 2 and Done.

It is what it is. As much as I enjoyed watching Justise Winslow this season, and he is one of my favorite players in a very long time, I resigned myself early on that it would be a one year thing and I would never get to see him play a Duke game again once the Tourney would come to an end. Sitting in Cameron for the last home game against Wake and watching Jahlil, Tyus, and Winslow as they each came out of the game for the last time, it looked clear to me by their body language and emotions, that I was seeing all 3 in Cameron for the last time.

That's pretty much when I resigned myself to losing all 3.

That said, I do not begrudge them, and wish them well. I do fear Tyus is taking quite a high risk, but he is so good in the clutch I think it possible he stays out of the D League next season and plays his way into the normal rotation. The other two guys will be stars and make an impact from Day 1.

I agree with this sentiment. I resigned myself to losing all 3 awhile ago and just decided to enjoy the season and watching them play in a Duke uniform. I don't begrudge them one bit for going to the NBA. Look at Spieth. The guy just won the Masters after being what, a year and change and done? Okafor and Winslow will be instant impact players, I agree. Tyus has incredible in-game instincts, but will need a bit of an adaptation period to the NBA game. The guards in the league are taller, very fast, and exceptional handlers.

In any case, we talk about what more can Tyus do in college? Achievement-wise, short of a repeat, not much. But, one extra year under K will give him a lot of extra maturity and attention that he may not get in the league. It's a tough call, but either way, this kid will be successful in the long run.

[freshmanjs]

Because they see it as a key bargaining chip. They actually don't care much either way. They just know it is important to the owners and that the Commish and the owners want a 20 yr old/2 and done rule.



I'm not saying you're wrong, but if that's the case, then the NBAPA are terrible negotiators. That is not at all the way to play an issue where you don't care and the other side cares a lot.

[Saratoga2]

I agree with this sentiment. I resigned myself to losing all 3 awhile ago and just decided to enjoy the season and watching them play in a Duke uniform. I don't begrudge them one bit for going to the NBA. Look at Spieth. The guy just won the Masters after being what, a year and change and done? Okafor and Winslow will be instant impact players, I agree. Tyus has incredible in-game instincts, but will need a bit of an adaptation period to the NBA game. The guards in the league are taller, very fast, and exceptional handlers.

In any case, we talk about what more can Tyus do in college? Achievement-wise, short of a repeat, not much. But, one extra year under K will give him a lot of extra maturity and attention that he may not get in the league. It's a tough call, but either way, this kid will be successful in the long run.

There really has been little mention on the boards about who has committed to the NBA draft so far. In looking at those committed in the NBA list, I only find Okafor to date.

[Matches]

OAD hasn't materially changed the NBA game but it has made it a bit easier for teams to draft. In most cases now they at least have a year of college play to use when scouting/ evaluating players, as opposed to having to make choices entirely based on high school play.

The quality of play in the NBA right now is at an historic high but that has far more to do with the on-court rules changes the league has implemented in the last decade or so than it does with OAD.

I know some folks here lament players leaving after one year but in many cases the only reason they're here at all is the OAD rule. In the pre-OAD days guys like Okafor and maybe Winslow would have just gone pro right out of high school.

[cato]

One and done has given NBA teams a free stage to evaluate top young talent for a year against people their own size before spending millions on them.

Perennial lottery teams were getting burned by the Sebastian Telfairs and Kwame Browns who looked great in H.S. against kids half their size and speed.

Based on high school rankings, if one and done didn't exist, Austin Rivers could have been the top pick in 2012 over Anthony Davis.

The NBA has nothing to lose from the one and done rule. I think colleges should stop pretending that the kids really need English 101 or sociology, and better utilize that year by preparing their one and dones for adult life with financial management classes, basic accounting, investing, and public relations, etc. while they are on campus.

On your last point, I'm sympathetic to the argument, but can't get on board. English 101, followed up by English 102, would serve everyone well.

[Duke95]

OAD hasn't materially changed the NBA game but it has made it a bit easier for teams to draft. In most cases now they at least have a year of college play to use when scouting/ evaluating players, as opposed to having to make choices entirely based on high school play.

The quality of play in the NBA right now is at an historic high but that has far more to do with the on-court rules changes the league has implemented in the last decade or so than it does with OAD.

I know some folks here lament players leaving after one year but in many cases the only reason they're here at all is the OAD rule. In the pre-OAD days guys like Okafor and maybe Winslow would have just gone pro right out of high school.

Wait, how are you measuring "historic high"? I'm not all that impressed with the quality of the NBA game. I will admit though, watching the Spurs in the finals was sheer basketball joy, and I have no reason to be a San Antonio fan. That was just beautiful basketball.

[Billy Dat]

I agree with the statement that NBA play is at a historic high and base that on a bias for beautiful offense and commitment on defense. I agree that the basketball the Spurs played in games 3-5 in the finals last year is the game elevated to its highest level, and the fact that most of the really good teams are trying to replicate that style right now bodes well for the future. I understand if people are less thrilled with the number of 3s being shot and the general sunset of traditional post play, but the emphasis on ball movement and player movement being shown by most teams is, to me, sublime. I watched the Celtics/Lakers 80s, and those teams basically played no defense. I watched the defensive era of the Pistons/Knicks/Bulls/Heat-Phase-I and my only attachment is that it was the only time in my life that the Knicks were relevant. I didn't love the Shaq/Kobe Lakers or the early Spurs, but i did like those Kings teams that were blueprints of the kind of ball being played now.

Anyway, as for one-and-done and the NBA, the following quote from a recent excellent Chris Ballard profile of Matt Barnes in SI provides interesting perspective to one of the core angles:

http://www.si.com/nba/2015/04/10/matt-barnes-los-angeles-clippers-kobe-bryant-lakers-chris-paul
"There are, Barnes explains, two NBAs. There’s the one you see on TV, populated by LeBron and KD and Chris and Cliff Paul, a world where every paycheck bubbles with zeros, millions of Chinese teenagers rock your jersey and, if you don’t like a coach, you can just get him fired. And then there’s the NBA where Barnes resides, a, Darwinian landscape where the average playing career is 4.8 years, you’re always one injury away from irrelevancy and to survive is to succeed."

The minute a kid decides to go pro, he enters "the NBA where Barnes resides" because even if he is the #1 pick, the pressure to show he belongs is immediate and unforgiving. With rookie contracts only guaranteed for 2 years, the clock starts ticking immediately, ask Nolan Smith. So, the question becomes, do you have a better chance to develop the skills to be a long term NBA player in college or in the pros?

This is no easy question, because the first question really is, "Am I good enough to be a long term pro?" Naturally, every player thinks the answer is "Yes" because part of being good enough to be a pro is having an ego that successfully shuts out doubt. Also, it's pretty rare that a player is going to accept, out of the gate, that they are destined to be a role player and to work toward fulfillung that mandate. Kyle Singler was very smart about that and immediately focused on what it would take to stick. Someone like JJ, for example, needed a little more time to recognize what he needed to do to maximize his career.

The D-League has come a long way from where it was, but it is no party. Most of the best run franchises now treat the league and their teams like a true minor league, whereas a bunch of the teams still have connections to multiple NBA franchises. Houston uses its D-League team strategically, but sometimes that's not what's best for player development. For example, they are testing playing style and have recently had their coach have the team jack as many 3s as they could every game to see if it panned out for the positive. If you are a player in that system struggling to make the league, is that your best way forward? It would be great to get perspective from Seth Curry on his time at Duke vs his time in the D-League. Whole role in his potential to find a "long term" home in the NBA did each experience play?

Bottom line, I think there is no correct answer, it really comes down to the individual. If Tyus Jones leaves and is picked between 20-30 as projected, he'll sign a contract worth roughly $2MM with a third year option for another million. If he does well, whoever picks him will probably want to lock him up to an extension and he'd be making somewhere in the neighborhood of $8MM - $12MM per, or more, starting in year 4 when he's 22. Or, if he bombs, he might catch on somewhere else making close to the league minimum or be playing overseas somewhere. Most agree that his draft status will never be more robust, so in leaving now he's maximizing his rookie deal. But, is he maximizing his overall long term value. Would another year+ under K's eye make a difference? It honestly depends on where he lands next year. If he winds up with a crap organization, maybe he stagnates. If he winds up with a great organization, perhaps he continues to flourish. Did any of us, watching Anthony Morrow, think we were looking at a guy who, 6 years post Tech, would be a $3MM per year player? Did any of us think Nolan Smith wouldn't be able to stick in the NBA?

I am glad these kids come to college. As a student of these boards, I have observed very little nostalgia for 2003 - 2010 save for the title we won. If we don't win that title, but still managed to win this one, are people still pining for 4 year guys like Ewing, Paulus, Scheyer, Singler, Shelden, Duhon, Melchionni, Dockery, et al? Perhaps a small minority. I love those guys, but I don't mind mixing them in with the cream of the crop, and actually think the impact it's had on K, testing the limits of his ability to innovate and customize his approach, has been a big plus for him.

[Matches]

Wait, how are you measuring "historic high"? I'm not all that impressed with the quality of the NBA game. I will admit though, watching the Spurs in the finals was sheer basketball joy, and I have no reason to be a San Antonio fan. That was just beautiful basketball.

Billy Dat summed up my thoughts pretty well. I've been following the NBA off and on since the 80's. I loved and was invested in Celtics/ Lakers but the league had a deserved rep for not playing defense back then. The Bulls were IMO the only watchable team for most of the 90's, and once MJ retired things got really abysmal with all the one-on-one play. The current incarnation of the game values spacing, ball movement, and (shocker) defense, and is IMO a lot of fun to watch.

That's not to say there are no stinkers or that it's perfect. The season is still too long so you still have the problem of players pacing themselves to an extent. The Knicks also still exist, so there's that. But a random February game is IMO far more watchable than it's been at any other point I can recall.

By contrast I have a really hard time watching college ball these days unless it's a NCAAT game or Duke is involved. The good games are still really good - Duke/ Wisconsin was played at a really high level - but the average games are really dull.

[ChillinDuke]

I agree with the statement that NBA play is at a historic high and base that on a bias for beautiful offense and commitment on defense. I agree that the basketball the Spurs played in games 3-5 in the finals last year is the game elevated to its highest level, and the fact that most of the really good teams are trying to replicate that style right now bodes well for the future. I understand if people are less thrilled with the number of 3s being shot and the general sunset of traditional post play, but the emphasis on ball movement and player movement being shown by most teams is, to me, sublime. I watched the Celtics/Lakers 80s, and those teams basically played no defense. I watched the defensive era of the Pistons/Knicks/Bulls/Heat-Phase-I and my only attachment is that it was the only time in my life that the Knicks were relevant. I didn't love the Shaq/Kobe Lakers or the early Spurs, but i did like those Kings teams that were blueprints of the kind of ball being played now.

Anyway, as for one-and-done and the NBA, the following quote from a recent excellent Chris Ballard profile of Matt Barnes in SI provides interesting perspective to one of the core angles:

http://www.si.com/nba/2015/04/10/matt-barnes-los-angeles-clippers-kobe-bryant-lakers-chris-paul
"There are, Barnes explains, two NBAs. There’s the one you see on TV, populated by LeBron and KD and Chris and Cliff Paul, a world where every paycheck bubbles with zeros, millions of Chinese teenagers rock your jersey and, if you don’t like a coach, you can just get him fired. And then there’s the NBA where Barnes resides, a, Darwinian landscape where the average playing career is 4.8 years, you’re always one injury away from irrelevancy and to survive is to succeed."

The minute a kid decides to go pro, he enters "the NBA where Barnes resides" because even if he is the #1 pick, the pressure to show he belongs is immediate and unforgiving. With rookie contracts only guaranteed for 2 years, the clock starts ticking immediately, ask Nolan Smith. So, the question becomes, do you have a better chance to develop the skills to be a long term NBA player in college or in the pros?

This is no easy question, because the first question really is, "Am I good enough to be a long term pro?" Naturally, every player thinks the answer is "Yes" because part of being good enough to be a pro is having an ego that successfully shuts out doubt. Also, it's pretty rare that a player is going to accept, out of the gate, that they are destined to be a role player and to work toward fulfillung that mandate. Kyle Singler was very smart about that and immediately focused on what it would take to stick. Someone like JJ, for example, needed a little more time to recognize what he needed to do to maximize his career.

The D-League has come a long way from where it was, but it is no party. Most of the best run franchises now treat the league and their teams like a true minor league, whereas a bunch of the teams still have connections to multiple NBA franchises. Houston uses its D-League team strategically, but sometimes that's not what's best for player development. For example, they are testing playing style and have recently had their coach have the team jack as many 3s as they could every game to see if it panned out for the positive. If you are a player in that system struggling to make the league, is that your best way forward? It would be great to get perspective from Seth Curry on his time at Duke vs his time in the D-League. Whole role in his potential to find a "long term" home in the NBA did each experience play?

Bottom line, I think there is no correct answer, it really comes down to the individual. If Tyus Jones leaves and is picked between 20-30 as projected, he'll sign a contract worth roughly $2MM with a third year option for another million. If he does well, whoever picks him will probably want to lock him up to an extension and he'd be making somewhere in the neighborhood of $8MM - $12MM per, or more, starting in year 4 when he's 22. Or, if he bombs, he might catch on somewhere else making close to the league minimum or be playing overseas somewhere. Most agree that his draft status will never be more robust, so in leaving now he's maximizing his rookie deal. But, is he maximizing his overall long term value. Would another year+ under K's eye make a difference? It honestly depends on where he lands next year. If he winds up with a crap organization, maybe he stagnates. If he winds up with a great organization, perhaps he continues to flourish. Did any of us, watching Anthony Morrow, think we were looking at a guy who, 6 years post Tech, would be a $3MM per year player? Did any of us think Nolan Smith wouldn't be able to stick in the NBA?

I am glad these kids come to college. As a student of these boards, I have observed very little nostalgia for 2003 - 2010 save for the title we won. If we don't win that title, but still managed to win this one, are people still pining for 4 year guys like Ewing, Paulus, Scheyer, Singler, Shelden, Duhon, Melchionni, Dockery, et al? Perhaps a small minority. I love those guys, but I don't mind mixing them in with the cream of the crop, and actually think the impact it's had on K, testing the limits of his ability to innovate and customize his approach, has been a big plus for him.

With no available sporks to provide, I had to chime in that this is one heck of an excellent post.

- Chillin