Ben Simmons

[Channing]

I'm sure many have seen Ben Simmons' rant against the NCAA. But, the OAD rule is an NBA rule, not an NCAA rule. Nobody forced him to college - he decided that was the best avenue for exposure. It all rings sort of hollow to me...

[BLPOG]

I'm sure many have seen Ben Simmons' rant (http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/17945257/ben-simmons-blasts-messed-ncaa-film-says-players-get-nothing) against the NCAA. But, the OAD rule is an NBA rule, not an NCAA rule. Nobody forced him to college - he decided that was the best avenue for exposure. It all rings sort of hollow to me...

added a link for reference

[UrinalCake]

I posted a long reply in the thread discussing the latest DBR podcast, but I don't think playing in Europe or going straight to the NBDL are really viable options. They can be done, but going to college is a much better path to get to the NBA. So while I disagree with Simmons' premise that he is being exploited and shouldn't have to put in the minimal work required to pass his classes, I do think he has a point that the system is broken and there are changes that could be made to provide better options for players in his position.

[Channing]

I posted a long reply in the thread discussing the latest DBR podcast, but I don't think playing in Europe or going straight to the NBDL are really viable options. They can be done, but going to college is a much better path to get to the NBA. So while I disagree with Simmons' premise that he is being exploited and shouldn't have to put in the minimal work required to pass his classes, I do think he has a point that the system is broken and there are changes that could be made to provide better options for players in his position.

Sure, totally agree. But the NCAA was the source of his wrath. This is an NBA issue, not an NCAA issue. If he chooses the NCAA avenue (albeit because it is markedly better than other options) he should be foreclosed from complaining about the NCAA's requirements.

[DukieInBrasil]

I'm sure many have seen Ben Simmons' rant against the NCAA. But, the OAD rule is an NBA rule, not an NCAA rule. Nobody forced him to college - he decided that was the best avenue for exposure. It all rings sort of hollow to me...

Dunning-Kruger effect. If he wasn't smart enough to know that the OAD is due to NBA and not NCAA rule, AND not weighing the value of NCAA vs NBDL or EuroLeague(s), well i would wager that he's not smart enough to be taken seriously about the grudge he's cultivating.

[DoubleDuke Dad]

It is his own fault. If he didn't want to attend classes he should have gone to UNC.

[luburch]

Sure, totally agree. But the NCAA was the source of his wrath. This is an NBA issue, not an NCAA issue. If he chooses the NCAA avenue (albeit because it is markedly better than other options) he should be foreclosed from complaining about the NCAA's requirements.

Couldn't he also take issue with how the NCCA treats players while they are there? I don't see the two as mutually exclusive.

[bob blue devil]

Couldn't he also take issue with how the NCCA treats players while they are there? I don't see the two as mutually exclusive.

Reasonable point. And the ncaa's defense, 'we didn't make the one and done rule' rings hollow in that context.

That said, I don't have an issue with how the NCAA treats players in general (if it's so bad go play somewhere else), and Simmons does come off like a fool with a megaphone.

[Channing]

Couldn't he also take issue with how the NCCA treats players while they are there? I don't see the two as mutually exclusive.

He knew what the rules were before he decided to go to LSU. In his mind, the benefit of playing a year in D-1 basketball outweighed the costs. Its not like (hopefully) he was sold a bill of goods and showed up and things were much different.

[Duke79UNLV77]

I posted a long reply in the thread discussing the latest DBR podcast, but I don't think playing in Europe or going straight to the NBDL are really viable options. They can be done, but going to college is a much better path to get to the NBA. So while I disagree with Simmons' premise that he is being exploited and shouldn't have to put in the minimal work required to pass his classes, I do think he has a point that the system is broken and there are changes that could be made to provide better options for players in his position.

Why aren't there other viable options, particularly for the truly elite players, who are also the ones who would argue they don't to cash in enough on their fame in college? Plenty of elite international players have no problem getting discovered by the NBA without going to college. A few American players have chosen the international route, and the NBA hasn't forgotten about them. Truly elite players also wouldn't be forgotten if they played in the NBDL for a year.

I think most players choose the NCAA route because it, on balance, is a better deal for them. They (1) get a much better marketing platform, particularly if they choose a school more like Duke than LSU, (2) they get what would be a very expensive year of college education for free, (3) they can benefit from some great coaching and competition, particularly if they choose a school more like Duke than LSU, and (4) they can have as much fun as they ever will in their lives, both from a basketball and personal perspective, particularly if the choose a school more like Duke than LSU.

I'm not saying there aren't adjustments that should be considered or made, but the arrangement already can be very mutually beneficial, particularly if the school and student take the education piece seriously for as long as the athlete is in school.

[Neals384]

added a link for reference

Thanks for the link, BLPOG. Here's the money quote from Simmons:

"if I'm there for a year, I can't get much education."

That pretty much says it all.

[Billy Dat]

Why aren't there other viable options, particularly for the truly elite players, who are also the ones who would argue they don't to cash in enough on their fame in college? Plenty of elite international players have no problem getting discovered by the NBA without going to college. A few American players have chosen the international route, and the NBA hasn't forgotten about them. Truly elite players also wouldn't be forgotten if they played in the NBDL for a year.

I think most players choose the NCAA route because it, on balance, is a better deal for them. They (1) get a much better marketing platform, particularly if they choose a school more like Duke than LSU, (2) they get what would be a very expensive year of college education for free, (3) they can benefit from some great coaching and competition, particularly if they choose a school more like Duke than LSU, and (4) they can have as much fun as they ever will in their lives, both from a basketball and personal perspective, particularly if the choose a school more like Duke than LSU.

I'm not saying there aren't adjustments that should be considered or made, but the arrangement already can be very mutually beneficial, particularly if the school and student take the education piece seriously for as long as the athlete is in school.

I don't know enough about the various levers of power in the NCAA-NBA-Agent-media company-Sneaker Company nexus to know if what I am about to propose is even possible, but wouldn't it be interesting if an tech-driven media company with deep pockets, let's say Facebook or Google, decided to disrupt the current system. Live sports are still a key way to draw live eyeballs and the aforementioned properties all want to control those eyeballs. They launch their own "one and done" league where they pay the top 24 players in each class somewhere between $250K - $1MM per year to play against each other. They provide coaches for each team, the games serve as content for their sites (maybe on a pay-per-view basis) - the only place to see these kids play for that year, they bring in sponsors not current affiliated with the NBA (upstart sneaker brands and others) and then they let them go to the league and start fresh with the next year. It's one year only, but the talent is immense.

[Duke79UNLV77]

I don't know enough about the various levers of power in the NCAA-NBA-Agent-media company-Sneaker Company nexus to know if what I am about to propose is even possible, but wouldn't it be interesting if an tech-driven media company with deep pockets, let's say Facebook or Google, decided to disrupt the current system. Live sports are still a key way to draw live eyeballs and the aforementioned properties all want to control those eyeballs. They launch their own "one and done" league where they pay the top 24 players in each class somewhere between $250K - $1MM per year to play against each other. They provide coaches for each team, the games serve as content for their sites (maybe on a pay-per-view basis) - the only place to see these kids play for that year, they bring in sponsors not current affiliated with the NBA (upstart sneaker brands and others) and then they let them go to the league and start fresh with the next year. It's one year only, but the talent is immense.

Perhaps that could happen, but I don't think people would have enough interest to make it economically work. People care about college sports in good part because of the college affiliation, which also makes it great marketing for players who go on to play for money, or even some who flop in their pro careers, like Tim Tebow. I don't think people would have a lot of interest in a league where the top 24 or so players (just 2 teams, more teams, but then lower talent level?) play each other, with a 100% turnover year-to-year. They'd rather just watch those players in the NBA the next year. Basketball junkies like us may watch the occasional high school game on TV to get a glimpse of the next phenom, but it's tough to watch the whole game, and it's certainly not enough to drive big profits. I think if there were a lot better option out there that made economic sense, it would already have been created.

[Wander]

Maybe we could get a rant of how early college players have to wake up from a team that WASN'T the most disappointing waste of talent of the past decade...

[bob blue devil]

Perhaps that could happen, but I don't think people would have enough interest to make it economically work. People care about college sports in good part because of the college affiliation, which also makes it great marketing for players who go on to play for money, or even some who flop in their pro careers, like Tim Tebow. I don't think people would have a lot of interest in a league where the top 24 or so players (just 2 teams, more teams, but then lower talent level?) play each other, with a 100% turnover year-to-year. They'd rather just watch those players in the NBA the next year. Basketball junkies like us may watch the occasional high school game on TV to get a glimpse of the next phenom, but it's tough to watch the whole game, and it's certainly not enough to drive big profits. I think if there were a lot better option out there that made economic sense, it would already have been created.

Agree. On the economics, the McDonald's AA game raises $2-3mm of net proceeds annually (assuming the article I found is accurate). That's roughly 80k per boy despite a lot of people/groups working for free.

[ChillinDuke]

I don't know enough about the various levers of power in the NCAA-NBA-Agent-media company-Sneaker Company nexus to know if what I am about to propose is even possible, but wouldn't it be interesting if an tech-driven media company with deep pockets, let's say Facebook or Google, decided to disrupt the current system. Live sports are still a key way to draw live eyeballs and the aforementioned properties all want to control those eyeballs. They launch their own "one and done" league where they pay the top 24 players in each class somewhere between $250K - $1MM per year to play against each other. They provide coaches for each team, the games serve as content for their sites (maybe on a pay-per-view basis) - the only place to see these kids play for that year, they bring in sponsors not current affiliated with the NBA (upstart sneaker brands and others) and then they let them go to the league and start fresh with the next year. It's one year only, but the talent is immense.

I agree that something like this could happen in the coming years. I think it makes a lot of sense on paper and at least would have enough potential earnings power for someone to give it a shot.

However, I think a venture like this would eventually peter out because I think a lot of people put too little value on the brand power that attracts people to a team (it's also entirely possible that I put too little value on a player's attractiveness). I'm sort of the case in point. I enjoy the NBA, when I have time. But I'm not an avid fan. I would go to a game if someone asked me. The Knicks are my team. I didn't care about Carmelo Anthony when he was in Denver. I certainly care (dislike) him now, but I didn't then. So who deserves my money from that game I attend? Carmelo or the Knicks?

The answer is obviously more complicated than I'm alluding to. But the point remains. People root for their teams. The players are a focal point of that, in some degree, hard to objectively quantify. But do you think those Cub fans out there today would not have shown up if their first baseman was Lucas Duda instead of Anthony Rizzo?

The kids playing on Team Facebook would be just that, kids, until they take on the association of a beloved team.

My sense is that currently there is a sociological dynamic out there swinging toward "power to the people". I don't know why, but it probably has to do with a society that is trying to grapple with the relative infancy of social media and having broadcast platforms that didn't exist until recently. I think that the farther this pendulum continues to swing, the "people" may start to realize that the individuals don't have as much power as the sum of the parts and that there is a good argument that the sum of the parts is the "organization".

This is all a complete conjecture on my part, but it was a fun hypothetical you threw out there. I have no idea if I'm completely off base or not - but the world will most certainly try some type of construct that you describe in some capacity somewhere. And I think media is one of the most likely places that it will manifest.

- Chillin

[duke74]

I agree that something like this could happen in the coming years. I think it makes a lot of sense on paper and at least would have enough potential earnings power for someone to give it a shot.

However, I think a venture like this would eventually peter out because I think a lot of people put too little value on the brand power that attracts people to a team (it's also entirely possible that I put too little value on a player's attractiveness). I'm sort of the case in point. I enjoy the NBA, when I have time. But I'm not an avid fan. I would go to a game if someone asked me. The Knicks are my team. I didn't care about Carmelo Anthony when he was in Denver. I certainly care (dislike) him now, but I didn't then. So who deserves my money from that game I attend? Carmelo or the Knicks?

The answer is obviously more complicated than I'm alluding to. But the point remains. People root for their teams. The players are a focal point of that, in some degree, hard to objectively quantify. But do you think those Cub fans out there today would not have shown up if their first baseman was Lucas Duda instead of Anthony Rizzo?

The kids playing on Team Facebook would be just that, kids, until they take on the association of a beloved team.

My sense is that currently there is a sociological dynamic out there swinging toward "power to the people". I don't know why, but it probably has to do with a society that is trying to grapple with the relative infancy of social media and having broadcast platforms that didn't exist until recently. I think that the farther this pendulum continues to swing, the "people" may start to realize that the individuals don't have as much power as the sum of the parts and that there is a good argument that the sum of the parts is the "organization".

This is all a complete conjecture on my part, but it was a fun hypothetical you threw out there. I have no idea if I'm completely off base or not - but the world will most certainly try some type of construct that you describe in some capacity somewhere. And I think media is one of the most likely places that it will manifest.

- Chillin

Well put. Disruption in much of society is the norm these days (hmm...disruption is the norm - almost paradoxical) - the extent and means just differ.

And kudos on the Lucas mention. LGM!

[Billy Dat]

This is all a complete conjecture on my part, but it was a fun hypothetical you threw out there. I have no idea if I'm completely off base or not - but the world will most certainly try some type of construct that you describe in some capacity somewhere. And I think media is one of the most likely places that it will manifest.

First off, you gave me a great laugh with the Carmelo line - kudos. As a fellow sufferer, I have actually grown to appreciate how he has matured, even though the start of this year is depressing. Based on the starters having no preseason together I am trying to give them 10 games to get their legs (and defense)

I think any whiff of success of my proposed Facebook/Google league and the NBA Players Association will kill one-and-done and these kids would be back to the NBA from high school. Carmelo has spoken of wanting more investment in the D-League to make it more viable/lucrative than Europe.

The reason I think basketball is the sport where it is possible is because it's the sport where the high school kids have the highest individual profiles. When is the last time SI put a high school athlete from any of the other major sports on the cover? It's happened in hoops many times.

[bob blue devil]

In the spirit of contributing ideas, regardless of quality... how about having one independent d league team made up exclusively of not draft eligible hot shots? Allows teams to still evaluate talent pre draft. I'll bet their games with the vets would be chippy. Although, there would be a lot of weird dynamics within the team, I suppose... turn it into a reality show and pay them!

[Duke79UNLV77]

The answer is obviously more complicated than I'm alluding to. But the point remains. People root for their teams. The players are a focal point of that, in some degree, hard to objectively quantify. But do you think those Cub fans out there today would not have shown up if their first baseman was Lucas Duda instead of Anthony Rizzo?

Not only that, but all of the players from the World Series played in the past in the minor leagues, with a number of them playing on the same team recently. Still, no one was paying $10K on stubhub to go watch them play. Their games weren't televised. Minor league baseball can be fun, but it's not a big money-maker. Occasionally, an NBADL game is on TV, and the crowds often look dead. But, people will pay top dollar to go to a basketball game in Cameron or a football game in Tuscaloosa. Jabari got a commercial before he'd done anything as a pro because he played at Duke. Battier and Jay Will got spots in the front of the line in sports media because people knew them from their college days, not because of NBA stardom. They also got a chance for some free education along the way, provided both they and the school valued it.

[ChillinDuke]

First off, you gave me a great laugh with the Carmelo line - kudos. As a fellow sufferer, I have actually grown to appreciate how he has matured, even though the start of this year is depressing. Based on the starters having no preseason together I am trying to give them 10 games to get their legs (and defense)

I think any whiff of success of my proposed Facebook/Google league and the NBA Players Association will kill one-and-done and these kids would be back to the NBA from high school. Carmelo has spoken of wanting more investment in the D-League to make it more viable/lucrative than Europe.

The reason I think basketball is the sport where it is possible is because it's the sport where the high school kids have the highest individual profiles. When is the last time SI put a high school athlete from any of the other major sports on the cover? It's happened in hoops many times.

I agree with a lot of your points ('specially the Knicks).

Don't agree with the allusion (bolded) that high school basketball players' "profiles" are the reasons they get put on an SI cover. The more likely reason, to me, why they get put on the cover is because basketball is the only major sport where one player can completely change the dynamic and fortunes of a team. So in my view, SI is profiting off the desire of every fan base in the country (or at least every depressed fan base) dreaming of said player growing up into a stud and shepherding their team a la Jordan for the next 15 years (minus the MiLB stint). People want their team to get this guy. They largely don't care about the guy's skills in and of themselves (transcendent talents notwithstanding).

I agree with you, however, that for the same reason above basketball is the sport where it is most possible. The nuance in my above paragraph is, again repetitively, that the value is on the team not the player. Players (and many innocent bystanders) believe that the player holds the profile, the cachet, the skills, the power. And so you get a lot of people that want to see the system change. I, on the other hand, think that if we tried to play into this dynamic, people would soon find out that the ability to profit off a player is much less than the ability to profit off of an organization/team/affiliation.

- Chillin

[duke74]

First off, you gave me a great laugh with the Carmelo line - kudos. As a fellow sufferer, I have actually grown to appreciate how he has matured, even though the start of this year is depressing. Based on the starters having no preseason together I am trying to give them 10 games to get their legs (and defense)

Not to hijack the thread, but....In the spirit of suffering comes in threes like bad events, I'm the third suffering Knicks fan here. Since the days at the old Garden in the student GA seats. Will all boil down to whether they remember that D is part of the alphabet.

And without venturing into PPB material, I will not find it easy to root for a team that has Noah on it after the disrespect he (unnecessarily) displayed at WP. And the lack of response by the team to it.

[arnie]

Not only that, but all of the players from the World Series played in the past in the minor leagues, with a number of them playing on the same team recently. Still, no one was paying $10K on stubhub to go watch them play. Their games weren't televised. Minor league baseball can be fun, but it's not a big money-maker. Occasionally, an NBADL game is on TV, and the crowds often look dead. But, people will pay top dollar to go to a basketball game in Cameron or a football game in Tuscaloosa. Jabari got a commercial before he'd done anything as a pro because he played at Duke. Battier and Jay Will got spots in the front of the line in sports media because people knew them from their college days, not because of NBA stardom. They also got a chance for some free education along the way, provided both they and the school valued it.

Well stated. Too bad Bilas doesn't recognize his good fortune playing at Duke. Similar scenario - if Jay played minor league BBall little chance he becomes the ESPN guru.

[ipatent]

I'm a college basketball fan and pro basketball (outside of a few games late in the playoffs) doesn't hold my attention. With that said, I don't blame Simmons for being resentful that he didn't have the option of going pro as early as a 15 year old women's tennis or golf phenom.

It's true OAD stems from NBA rules, not college rules, but it's also a fact that the college and pro games have many business nexuses involving television, sneaker companies and so forth that exert pressure on both not to cut too far into each other's business model.

College players in the power conferences are inexpensive labor for a business that makes a lot of money. It's worth something for the ones who actually get a degree, but for the ones who were never meant for college, have no intention of completing a degree and have the talent to earn a living in the pros, it amounts to mandatory indentured servitude.

[-jk]

...
It's worth something for the ones who actually get a degree, but for the ones who were never meant for college, have no intention of completing a degree and have the talent to earn a living in the pros, it amounts to mandatory indentured servitude.

And yet they routinely turn down international play and the D-League. There's a cost/benefit there that seems to be more appealing than a paycheck to 'em.

-jk

[killerleft]

And yet they routinely turn down international play and the D-League. There's a cost/benefit there that seems to be more appealing than a paycheck to 'em.

-jk

And that should be the defining post! There's nothing worse than a whining, rich crybaby. Oops, wrong thread?:)

[sagegrouse]

And yet they routinely turn down international play and the D-League. There's a cost/benefit there that seems to be more appealing than a paycheck to 'em.

-jk

I dunno, guys and gals, but: college campus, big crowds, adulation, tutors galore, great teammates, excellent coaching, outstanding athletic facilities, and beautiful girls. Sounds OK to me.

Perhaps a variation of the song lyric, "You got to be a football hero to get along with the beautiful girls."

Kindly,
Sage

[ipatent]

And yet they routinely turn down international play and the D-League. There's a cost/benefit there that seems to be more appealing than a paycheck to 'em.

-jk

Sure, they have those options, but it's not the top level competition. The hypothetical 17 year old women's tennis player can go right into the top tournaments if she's good enough.

How many 17 year olds feel comfortable going to Italy for a year, and how many Italian teams would think them worthwhile anyway? As far as the D-League is concerned, it is obscurity and won't build their brand like playing at a power conference school would. If a year in the D-League could count toward time put in for the "second contract," you'd no doubt see many of them doing that anyway. There's a reason it doesn't count, and that is the symbiotic relationship between the college game and the pros.

[-jk]

Sure, they have those options, but it's not the top level competition. The hypothetical 17 year old women's tennis player can go right into the top tournaments if she's good enough.

How many 17 year olds feel comfortable going to Italy for a year, and how many Italian teams would think them worthwhile anyway? As far as the D-League is concerned, it is obscurity and won't build their brand like playing at a power conference school would. If a year in the D-League could count toward time put in for the "second contract," you'd no doubt see many of them doing that anyway. There's a reason it doesn't count, and that is the symbiotic relationship between the college game and the pros.

Union labor. Whadya gonna do 'bout it...

I don't think there's a players' union in tennis.

Yeah, the NBA uses college ball to cull weak prospects (thanks, Michael!) for the owners/management to make better drafts. But the NBAPA doesn't seem care about them, either. The NFL and NFLPA are even harsher.

Brand is worth something, too. Sort of my original thought.

-jk

[Indoor66]

And that should be the defining post! There's nothing worse than a whining, rich crybaby. Oops, wrong thread?:)

I thought we were talking about men.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Union labor. Whadya gonna do 'bout it...

I don't think there's a players' union in tennis.

Yeah, the NBA uses college ball to cull weak prospects (thanks, Michael!) for the owners/management to make better drafts. But the NBAPA doesn't seem care about them, either. The NFL and NFLPA are even harsher.

Brand is worth something, too. Sort of my original thought.

-jk

Are we having this thread again? Must be almost basketball season.

To me, it is quite clear why the NBA loves the rules the way they are, and you nailed both my points.

It is much easier to evaluate talent during college competition than either in high school or overseas. College coaches frequently misjudge high school talent because of the vast difference in competition. Even smart board posters can be fooled by sharp YouTube videos of highlights...

Branding is the other piece. NBA fans - even those who might not follow college ball closely - get more excited when you draft the kid from Duke or from Kentucky than when you find a rare gem from Serbia they have never heard of. Fans go buy season tickets after their team picks up Brandon Ingram.

And I disagree with the above poster that the rules benefit both college and the NBA. It is clearly an NBA rule to protect NBA interests. I would argue it wreaks havoc on the college game - causing coaches to lose jobs, players to transfer, non-stop recruiting trails, teams that have no veteran leaders, etc etc on down the line. The OAD rule has deteriorated college ball, but it is the rule we have.

[bob blue devil]

How many 17 year olds feel comfortable going to Italy for a year, and how many Italian teams would think them worthwhile anyway? As far as the D-League is concerned, it is obscurity and won't build their brand like playing at a power conference school would. If a year in the D-League could count toward time put in for the "second contract," you'd no doubt see many of them doing that anyway. There's a reason it doesn't count, and that is the symbiotic relationship between the college game and the pros.

so you're saying that college basketball players, in addition to the education, etc., etc., get the intangible compensation of "branding"? and perhaps this compensation has material value to the player causing the player to choose to forego the "obscurity" of a paying alternative in order to gain the branding offered by involvement in college basketball? doesn't sound like "mandatory indentured servitude" to me...

[Indoor66]

so you're saying that college basketball players, in addition to the education, etc., etc., get the intangible compensation of "branding"? and perhaps this compensation has material value to the player causing the player to choose to forego the "obscurity" of a paying alternative in order to gain the branding offered by involvement in college basketball? doesn't sound like "mandatory indentured servitude" to me...

Branding is a concept that applys to what, about 1% of NBA players? Who, besides superstars, has a "brand"? High school kids, a la Le Pigeon, are dreamers and are way to enamored with their own alleged skill and their local fame.

[YmoBeThere]

There is branding going on well beyond the top 1% of NBA players. It goes on at the local level and doesn't involve 8 and 9 figure contracts. It is targeted at 4 and 5 figure money from the local auto dealership group, restaurant chain, etc. But to say that isn't branding well...

[bob blue devil]

Branding is a concept that applys to what, about 1% of NBA players? Who, besides superstars, has a "brand"? High school kids, a la Le Pigeon, are dreamers and are way to enamored with their own alleged skill and their local fame.

this is veering a bit off the topic at hand, since my post was in response to someone claiming the d-league isn't viable because players can't build a brand there like they can in the ncaa (i.e. i was playing along with the initial supposition that you can build a brand in the ncaa). that said, i think we can spend just a little time looking at college basketball media personalities (jason williams, jay bilas, mike gminski, etc.) and put to bed the debate about whether branding is part of your compensation in college basketball. to be fair, i think you are just using a different definition of branding - one that applies when you have an actual professional organization manage your brand, whereas i'm using a more generic definition that involves simple name recognition, etc.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

this is veering a bit off the topic at hand, since my post was in response to someone claiming the d-league isn't viable because players can't build a brand there like they can in the ncaa (i.e. i was playing along with the initial supposition that you can build a brand in the ncaa). that said, i think we can spend just a little time looking at college basketball media personalities (jason williams, jay bilas, mike gminski, etc.) and put to bed the debate about whether branding is part of your compensation in college basketball. to be fair, i think you are just using a different definition of branding - one that applies when you have an actual professional organization manage your brand, whereas i'm using a more generic definition that involves simple name recognition, etc.

Well, as I stated in my post, I think the "branding" that occurs in college basketball is a much bigger asset to the NBA than it is for the college players.

To be fair, since college kids can't capitalize on that branding until turning pro, it is difficult to gauge. Until the NCAA allows kids to make money off jersey sales or appearances at car lots, we don't really know.

[bob blue devil]

Well, as I stated in my post, I think the "branding" that occurs in college basketball is a much bigger asset to the NBA than it is for the college players.

To be fair, since college kids can't capitalize on that branding until turning pro, it is difficult to gauge. Until the NCAA allows kids to make money off jersey sales or appearances at car lots, we don't really know.

i'll agree that it is hard to know whether the nba or the player benefits more from the branding in college. but what does that have to do with any of the points being debated in my post - just curious why you quoted it in your comment and started with the apparent rebuttal, "well, as i stated..."?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

i'll agree that it is hard to know whether the nba or the player benefits more from the branding in college. but what does that have to do with any of the points being debated in my post - just curious why you quoted it in your comment and started with the apparent rebuttal, "well, as i stated..."?

I didn't meat it as a counter to your points, but rather as an additional position to consider. I think we are on the same side here.

[sagegrouse]

i'll agree that it is hard to know whether the nba or the player benefits more from the branding in college. but what does that have to do with any of the points being debated in my post - just curious why you quoted it in your comment and started with the apparent rebuttal, "well, as i stated..."?


I didn't meat it as a counter to your points, but rather as an additional position to consider. I think we are on the same side here.

Well, you have a single buyer ("monopolist"), the NBA, versus a single seller ("monopsonist"), the player with a distinctive "brand." They'll split the loot somehow, with the real stars limited by the mumbo-jumbo on the NBA salary cap.*

Kindly,
Sage
*There are eight players at $25 million or over for this season, with LeBron leading the way at $31 million. You will chuckle to be reminded that Harrison Barnes is tied for 15th at $22 million

[Wahoo2000]

......and (4) they can have as much fun as they ever will in their lives, both from a basketball and personal perspective, particularly if the choose a school more like Duke than LSU.

No offense to you guys, but I've been on a bunch of SEC campuses (and Duke's), and I think LSU definitely allows for waaaaaay more "personal" fun. They're as far ahead of you guys in the partying/ladies dept as you are ahead of them in the bball dept.

[bob blue devil]

Well, you have a single buyer ("monopolist"), the NBA, versus a single seller ("monopsonist"), the player with a distinctive "brand." They'll split the loot somehow, with the real stars limited by the mumbo-jumbo on the NBA salary cap.*

Kindly,
Sage
*There are eight players at $25 million or over for this season, with LeBron leading the way at $31 million. You will chuckle to be reminded that Harrison Barnes is tied for 15th at $22 million

Two words -shoe deal