PDA

View Full Version : Coach K renews call for HS players to be NBA Draft Eligible



NM Duke Fan
06-21-2017, 01:55 PM
"In baseball, actually in theater, in music, if you're 16 and you're really good, you go on a different path," Krzyzewski said on radio. "I really think that high school players should be allowed to go. And once they get to college, if you don't do that, I think a two-year period -- so you legitimize being in college going for an education. You don't just kind of use the college system as a training ground."

http://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/mike-krzyzewski-renews-call-for-high-school-players-to-be-eligible-for-the-nba-draft/

This is a must read, some really important further comments by him in this article; some might passionately agree, others passionately disagree, a topic for some intelligent discussion here?

CameronBornAndBred
06-21-2017, 02:03 PM
"In baseball, actually in theater, in music, if you're 16 and you're really good, you go on a different path," Krzyzewski said on radio. "I really think that high school players should be allowed to go. And once they get to college, if you don't do that, I think a two-year period -- so you legitimize being in college going for an education. You don't just kind of use the college system as a training ground."

While I appreciate his comment, and think he is right, it is a bit disheartening to see him acknowledge that he has been recruiting kids that are doing exactly that.

Not that it is any big secret...he is one of many, but also, with Calamari, a forerunner in the practice. Cal would still be slimy even if he didn't tell kids to go to UK to chase their NBA dreams. And I'm not in any way suggesting that K is slimy. He is simply following the path he believes is necessary for success.

Wander
06-21-2017, 02:04 PM
Wait, it's called the G league now? And the G stands for.... Gatorade?

JasonEvans
06-21-2017, 02:14 PM
While I appreciate his comment, and think he is right, it is a bit disheartening to see him acknowledge that he has been recruiting kids that are doing exactly that.

I think that in the current climate, regarding kids who are clear one-and-done talents, K sees his role (and Duke's) to prepare them with the kind of habits and skills that will allow them to succeed at the next level. It is not that these kids are not interested in the educational aspect of college, it is that they are getting a different kind of education.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
06-21-2017, 02:14 PM
While I appreciate his comment, and think he is right, it is a bit disheartening to see him acknowledge that he has been recruiting kids that are doing exactly that.

Not that it is any big secret...he is one of many, but also, with Calamari, a forerunner in the practice. Cal would still be slimy even if he didn't tell kids to go to UK to chase their NBA dreams. And I'm not in any way suggesting that K is slimy. He is simply following the path he believes is necessary for success.

He has been pretty damn successful with the rules in place, yet advocates for a more "player first" system. At best, it's quite admirable that he wants to change the rules structure that he has benefitted from. At the least, it is a smart marketing move to keep endearing himself to young stars.

wsb3
06-21-2017, 03:04 PM
One thing among many traits I have admired Coach K for is his ability to change with the times. He has adapted to this era that many of us don't care for in regards to OAD.

I have long wished for the same rules that are applied to baseball. Coach K probably would not mind that either but in realistic terms probably sees his proposal as being as good as we could hope for in regards to College Basketball.

One thing I would add & this would take some cooperation from the NBA that doesn't show much concern for College Basketball. The dates for declaring changed or something to keep kids from signing to go to college...only to change their mind in May & go straight to the NBA. Shaun Livingston is a prime example that really knocked us back. I think at the time he was expected to stay at least two years. If that would have been the case we might have another Natty banner hanging..

kAzE
06-21-2017, 03:14 PM
He has been pretty damn successful with the rules in place, yet advocates for a more "player first" system. At best, it's quite admirable that he wants to change the rules structure that he has benefitted from. At the least, it is a smart marketing move to keep endearing himself to young stars.

I think you could argue Coach K was doing just as well, or perhaps even better pre-OAD. We certainly had more consistently dominant teams prior to the establishment of the one and done rule. Have we had a team in the OAD era on the level of the 2001 or 2002 teams? I would say no, even the 2011 team with a healthy Kyrie would have been slightly below that standard in my opinion.

K actually resisted (or had trouble landing OADs) it for awhile when it first became the rule. Coach K didn't REALLY get into the OAD game until 2011 with Kyrie (I'm aware Maggette was OAD, but Coach K was against that), and even then, it was just one per year (Kyrie in '10, Austin in '11, none in '12, Jabari in '13) until 2014, when he got Tyus, Justise, and Jahlil. He didn't go full Calipari until the 2014 high school class. And even then, I'm pretty sure he was only really expecting Jah to go pro after 1 year. The one and done rule started in 2005, so it took Coach K a minimum of 5 years, and perhaps almost 10 years to fully embrace it, despite obviously not liking it.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
06-21-2017, 03:16 PM
I think you could argue Coach K was doing just as well, or perhaps even better pre-OAD. He actually resisted (or had trouble landing OADs) for awhile when it first became the rule. Coach K didn't REALLY get into the OAD game until 2011 with Kyrie, and even then, it was just one per year (Kyrie in '10, Austin in '11, none in '12, Jabari in '13) until 2014, when got Tyus, Justise, and Jahlil. He didn't go full Calipari until the 2014 high school class. The one and done rule started in 2005, so it took Coach K almost 10 years to fully embrace it, despite obviously not liking it.

Okay, however you want to define "working for him," - he adjusted and it works currently and has won him a championship.

kAzE
06-21-2017, 03:25 PM
Okay, however you want to define "working for him," - he adjusted and it works currently and has won him a championship.

Well, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying it didn't work out for him for a long time. And he's actually only won 1 championship with OAD players, compared to 4 without. I also argued that he had more consistently dominant teams prior to OAD.

It's "working" for him because he's the best coach ever, and he's able to land these OAD guys now, but have we really had better teams (relative to the rest of the country) in the past 12 years than in the 12 years before OAD? Maybe I've got my rose-colored old school Duke glasses on, but I think the answer is no. We've probably had more talent (especially recently), but the quality of the teams have not been as good. Duke's one-time reputation as an elite defensive team has really taken a dive since 2011.

To cover my bases, I'm not saying we shouldn't go after OADs. You obviously have to do that nowadays. But I think it's not totally correct to say Coach K has "benefited" from OAD. He's just a really good coach, and has figured out a way to make it work. But he'd be just fine, if not better, without the rule. Coach K would continue to get top players whether they can go straight to the pros after high school or not. There's no inherent benefit for Duke directly as a result from the OAD rule.

kAzE
06-21-2017, 03:43 PM
I also argued that he had more consistently dominant teams prior to OAD.

To expand on this point, Duke has lost 3 times in the first round in the OAD era:

2007: VCU
2012: Lehigh
2014: Mercer

Prior to OAD, Duke had only lost once in the first round during Coach K's tenure, in 1996, when he was out for the entire year.

It's great that we won it all in 2015, but to view that championship as the thing that proves OAD is great for Duke while ignoring the struggles (by Duke standards) we've endured over these past 12 years is shortsighted.

Bluedog
06-21-2017, 03:53 PM
To cover my bases, I'm not saying we shouldn't go after OADs. You obviously have to do that nowadays.

I'm not sure that that is entirely true that you have to go after OADs to compete. UNC has only had one 1-and-done in the last decade (before this year) and just won the National Championship...Not like Gonzaga is loading up on them either. (UNC has mostly whiffed on 1-and-done prospects or their 1-and-dones have turned into multi-year guys, so it hasn't really been by CHOICE admittedly). Not saying I want to emulate UNC's recruiting or anything else they do in any way, but clearly the results show that it's not a critical ingredient to have OAD players on your team to reach the mountaintop.

I think Coach K has absolutely adjusted with the times with his strategies, but has always gone after top players basically. It's obviously much more difficult for Duke to be consistently dominant with as much transition as it's experienced as of late, as the top players used to stick around longer or we simply didn't have as many of them at once. Having two years from players who decide to go to college would be nice.

I agree with Coach K that in "theater, music" you don't have to necessarily go to college to get to the top of your profession, but I don't agree when people say "no other profession forces artificial age limits/qualifications on you." Uh, lawyers have to go to 4 years undergrad and 3 years of law school. Doctors have to go to 4 years undergrade, 4 years med school, 4+ years residency, and then fellowships potentially. Basically most white collar desk jobs require 4 year college degree. So, we impose basic qualifications ALL THE TIME in all facets of life. Yes, there are exceptions of people who start their own business and drop out and the like, but it is VERY VERY rare. Particularly because the NBA drafts simply based on potential instead of actually being able to deliver value to their team. A company doesn't hire Mikey in the hopes he's going to provide company value in 3+ years, but it's worth the "investment" up front. No, they want you to be able to deliver value now. Obviously, the market for NBA players is very different than the common workplace -- not trying to suggest they should be the same, just don't like that argument that sometimes people make. Coach K isn't making it though and I agree with his opinion in this case.

Tripping William
06-21-2017, 03:56 PM
Prior to OAD, Duke had only lost once in the first round during Coach K's tenure, in 1996, when he was out for the entire year.


Slight nit: 1996 was the year *after* K was sidelined for most of the season following back surgery. The year he actually was sidelined for most of the season, the team went 13-18 and missed The Big Dance.

CrazyNotCrazie
06-21-2017, 04:05 PM
One thing I would add & this would take some cooperation from the NBA that doesn't show much concern for College Basketball. The dates for declaring changed or something to keep kids from signing to go to college...only to change their mind in May & go straight to the NBA. Shaun Livingston is a prime example that really knocked us back. I think at the time he was expected to stay at least two years. If that would have been the case we might have another Natty banner hanging..

This is a great point. They would have to find the sweet spot such that the kids had enough time to thoroughly evaluate their options and make an informed decision, but they are giving the schools enough time to try to adjust. As far as the coaches are concerned, the deadline to declare would be very early, but that is not fair to the kids. I know this makes things very hard for baseball coaches, and basketball teams are even smaller so adjusting would be even harder.

The increasing strength of the D/G League also helps this, as it gives kids who want to play basketball and make some money and really don't want to be in college a viable option without having to go abroad at age 18. It will never happen, but I think the NBA should slightly decrease its bloated salary cap (money that is being wasted giving ridiculous contracts to the Mozgov's of the world) and increase D/G League contracts to a living wage. The D/G League salary cap this past season was $209k total per team with salaries of $19.5k and $26k per season. Doubling or tripling that is a drop in the bucket for the NBA but would be a meaningful increase for the players.

SCMatt33
06-21-2017, 04:29 PM
This is a great point. They would have to find the sweet spot such that the kids had enough time to thoroughly evaluate their options and make an informed decision, but they are giving the schools enough time to try to adjust. As far as the coaches are concerned, the deadline to declare would be very early, but that is not fair to the kids. I know this makes things very hard for baseball coaches, and basketball teams are even smaller so adjusting would be even harder.

The increasing strength of the D/G League also helps this, as it gives kids who want to play basketball and make some money and really don't want to be in college a viable option without having to go abroad at age 18. It will never happen, but I think the NBA should slightly decrease its bloated salary cap (money that is being wasted giving ridiculous contracts to the Mozgov's of the world) and increase D/G League contracts to a living wage. The D/G League salary cap this past season was $209k total per team with salaries of $19.5k and $26k per season. Doubling or tripling that is a drop in the bucket for the NBA but would be a meaningful increase for the players.

A couple of quick points here (I might return to this thread later for my standard rant on why we should be looking somewhere besides the baseball rule). Anyway, it's important to note that NBA salaries are collectively bargained as a percentage of revenue. Therefore, owners can't simply increase salaries by reducing NBA salaries. The players would have to agree to it (not likely) or the owners would have to pay for it out of their share of revenue (also not likely). It should be noted, though that there are some steps in the right direction. Under the new CBA, each team will be allocated three new roster spots for "two way players" who can be called up and sent down at will, without taking up a spot on the regular roster. These players will make a prorated portion of the NBA minimum when called up, and a prorated portion of between 50 and 75k when sent down. This move will likely entice a few more high level undrafted players to stay and play on the G-league rather than head overseas. Conversely, it will likely have a negative impact on players who aren't on a two way deal as 10-days will likely become less common as teams will likely opt for their own two way player much of the time.

CrazyNotCrazie
06-21-2017, 04:44 PM
A couple of quick points here (I might return to this thread later for my standard rant on why we should be looking somewhere besides the baseball rule). Anyway, it's important to note that NBA salaries are collectively bargained as a percentage of revenue. Therefore, owners can't simply increase salaries by reducing NBA salaries. The players would have to agree to it (not likely) or the owners would have to pay for it out of their share of revenue (also not likely). It should be noted, though that there are some steps in the right direction. Under the new CBA, each team will be allocated three new roster spots for "two way players" who can be called up and sent down at will, without taking up a spot on the regular roster. These players will make a prorated portion of the NBA minimum when called up, and a prorated portion of between 50 and 75k when sent down. This move will likely entice a few more high level undrafted players to stay and play on the G-league rather than head overseas. Conversely, it will likely have a negative impact on players who aren't on a two way deal as 10-days will likely become less common as teams will likely opt for their own two way player much of the time.

I agree - note I preceded my suggestion with the phrase "It will never happen" - current players who vote on the CBA want to maximize their piece of the pie, and will only reduce that piece in exchange for something else that directly benefits them. Having a more compelling G League product by increasing salaries and having better players likely will not generate enough marginal revenue to offset the marginal cost so owners won't do it out of their pockets.

coldriver10
06-21-2017, 04:47 PM
I know it's popular to compare the NBA draft system to that of the MLB (and to want the latter for the former), but there's more than just draft-eligible years to consider. For one thing, if you sign a baseball contract out of high school and after a few years it becomes clear you're not heading for the big leagues, you will retire and go to college on scholarship. Granted you'll be treated as any other applicant so you won't be given preference as an athlete, but you're going to college on full (usually) scholarship, paid for by the MLB. This makes going straight after HS much more palatable. Not to mention the baseball scholarship opportunities in college are much more limited than for basketball. Second, the NBA also doesn't have nearly the minor league system set up that baseball does. They're just two totally different situations, and I think comparing the two is consequently fraught with limitations. Coming up with a system that would benefit the NBA, colleges, and the rights and well-being of prospects is tough to do.

Duke95
06-21-2017, 04:48 PM
I agree with K that kids should be able to go pro right after high school. However, I don't think they should wait two years otherwise. They can't get a college degree in 2 years, so why the "education" argument? Let the kids go pro after 1 year too. The two-year requirement just benefits coaches, not the players.

kAzE
06-21-2017, 04:49 PM
Slight nit: 1996 was the year *after* K was sidelined for most of the season following back surgery. The year he actually was sidelined for most of the season, the team went 13-18 and missed The Big Dance.

Good catch. I'll admit that K definitely gets credit for both of those seasons, even the one he sat out.

Troublemaker
06-21-2017, 05:02 PM
I agree with K that kids should be able to go pro right after high school. However, I don't think they should wait two years otherwise. They can't get a college degree in 2 years, so why the "education" argument? Let the kids go pro after 1 year too. The two-year requirement just benefits coaches, not the players.

Why a 2-and-through rule (combined with allowing high school players to go straight to the NBA)?

To improve the college basketball product.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
06-21-2017, 05:16 PM
To expand on this point, Duke has lost 3 times in the first round in the OAD era:

2007: VCU
2012: Lehigh
2014: Mercer

Prior to OAD, Duke had only lost once in the first round during Coach K's tenure, in 1996, when he was out for the entire year.

It's great that we won it all in 2015, but to view that championship as the thing that proves OAD is great for Duke while ignoring the struggles (by Duke standards) we've endured over these past 12 years is shortsighted.

I think you misunderstand my point, or I didn't state it well. I also prefer the "old" system, and I imagine K does as well. If nothing else, recruiting didn't have to be a 365 endeavor.

I am meaning to say that Duke/K has adjusted, made the best, won lots of games, won recruiting battles. The one and done has "hurt" Duke less than other schools. Yet K advocates for a more player friendly system.

atoomer0881
06-21-2017, 05:33 PM
To expand on this point, Duke has lost 3 times in the first round in the OAD era:

2007: VCU
2012: Lehigh
2014: Mercer

Prior to OAD, Duke had only lost once in the first round during Coach K's tenure, in 1996, when he was out for the entire year.


While I agree with everything you've said, I personally wouldn't include the 2007 exit to VCU in this discussion. Yes, technically it was 2 years after the OAD era began, but Duke didn't have any OAD talent on that team. I suppose you could maybe include McRoberts in that discussion but as he was a sophomore, I'd tend not to. Whereas the 2012 team with Austin, and the 2014 team with Jabari I would absolutely include in the OAD era regarding times we failed to get out of the first round.


I agree with Coach K that in "theater, music" you don't have to necessarily go to college to get to the top of your profession, but I don't agree when people say "no other profession forces artificial age limits/qualifications on you." Uh, lawyers have to go to 4 years undergrad and 3 years of law school. Doctors have to go to 4 years undergrade, 4 years med school, 4+ years residency, and then fellowships potentially. Basically most white collar desk jobs require 4 year college degree. So, we impose basic qualifications ALL THE TIME in all facets of life. Yes, there are exceptions of people who start their own business and drop out and the like, but it is VERY VERY rare. Particularly because the NBA drafts simply based on potential instead of actually being able to deliver value to their team. A company doesn't hire Mikey in the hopes he's going to provide company value in 3+ years, but it's worth the "investment" up front. No, they want you to be able to deliver value now. Obviously, the market for NBA players is very different than the common workplace -- not trying to suggest they should be the same, just don't like that argument that sometimes people make. Coach K isn't making it though and I agree with his opinion in this case.

I'd just say there's a few differences between having to wait to become a lawyer or doctor and having to wait to play in the NBA. For one, being a lawyer/doctor requires a professional license a/k/a you need to take those years of schooling in order to gain the knowledge to take on those responsibilities. Doogie Howser aside, you couldn't expect an 18 year old HS graduate to be able to perform heart surgery, or look at patients and deduce what's wrong with them. The same with a lawyer - I wouldn't expect a HS graduate to be able to successfully pass the bar exam and practice law. It's specifically the time that's needed to complete their schooling that prepares them to do what they do. When it comes to these HS basketball stars, many of them (or at least some of them) are ready to contribute right now. To me, making a lawyer/doctor go to school is the same as making a recruit in the 60-100s range go to college where after some time he may then be able to make it to the big times. But if they're ready now, then why prevent them from earning a living?

Secondly, the other difference is if you become a lawyer/doctor when you are 25 or 30 you can practice for another 35-40 years. Basketball players only have a limited window where they can play before their bodies break down. So if a player is ready to play at 18, and wants to take care of his family, and he only has say a window of 18 years, why make him waste 4, or 2, or even 1 year of that playing in college where he can't earn anything?

For me, the biggest problem in the OAD era are the NBA GM's and execs. They're the ones who began drafting based on potential. You know how easy it is to prevent OADs? When freshmen who averaged 10 min a game and 5 ppg go to a combine, the GM can say listen we need to see more. If you don't have NBA personnel telling high school players that they're going to be the #1 pick one year from now, then they won't leave after 1 year. If the NBA started focusing more on drafting players who stayed in school and actually matured and showed what they could do on the college level, then we wouldn't be where we are today -- right now for the first time ever, we may have ZERO seniors drafted in the first round. NBA DraftExpress has the first 10 picks as being freshmen. The first sophomore is Donovan Mitchell at 11. I just think the NBA is more to blame for the OAD phenomena than anything else, regardless of the age limit. Yes before it was raised from 18 to 19, you had a few HS players trying for the draft, but the ones that went to college, stayed in college. And that's because GM's didn't draft based on potential.

Just my two cents.

duke4ever19
06-21-2017, 06:34 PM
I don't watch much college football, but my understanding is that for a person to be eligible for the NFL draft, he needs to be three years clear of high school and if he didn't play any college football, it's something like four NFL seasons have to have passed before you can enter the draft. I think once upon a time Ohio State's Maurice Clarett tried to get around the rule, but was ultimately unsuccessful.

I don't hear nearly the criticizing of that rule as I do about college basketball one-and-dones, but I am admittedly not tuned-in to that sport.

I understand that the NFL is an intensely physical game and that is at least partly (or maybe totally) why they steer clear of accepting high school products, but hey, I'm sure there have been dudes right out of high school who where absolute physical specimens and looked physically ready for the NFL. Jadeveon Clowney is a rather notable example.

In basketball, there are often guys drafted in the first round who are deemed "projects" because they haven't matured into their frames (Thon Maker comes to mind), but some guys - our own Justise Winslow comes to mind - absolutely look NBA-ready from a physical standpoint.

It's just interesting to me how NCAA Football and the NFL have largely been able to steer clear of this problem, while it's been a huge issue in basketball. Does it really just come down to the physicality of the game that separates football from having the same crisis?

lotusland
06-21-2017, 06:39 PM
I like Coach K's idea but there would still be issues. I guess a perfect solution doesn't exist. I think players should also be able to test the waters out of HS. In that case a coach wouldn't know if a guy is enrolling until the draft deadline after recruiting him for years.

Under K's system I'd guess Okafor, Tatum and Parker would not have played for Duke while Jackson, Winslow, T Jones, Magette and Deng would have played 2 years. I'm not sure which way Rivers, Irving, Giles and Ingram would have gone. My uninformed opinion is that Carter and Duvall would also be 0 and done.

The advantage would be having more roster stability with guys staying 2 years. The downside is trying to recruit the best players without investing recruiting time on guys who end up never playing a minute of college ball.

Duke95
06-21-2017, 07:56 PM
Why a 2-and-through rule (combined with allowing high school players to go straight to the NBA)?

To improve the college basketball product.

Don't see how that improves the product. You're going to set up indentured servitude for 2 years? If anything, that may prompt more kids who are not ready to "go pro" right out of HS.
2 and through has no nexus to education. Its sole purpose is to make life easier for coaches, not players.

kAzE
06-21-2017, 08:00 PM
While I agree with everything you've said, I personally wouldn't include the 2007 exit to VCU in this discussion. Yes, technically it was 2 years after the OAD era began, but Duke didn't have any OAD talent on that team. I suppose you could maybe include McRoberts in that discussion but as he was a sophomore, I'd tend not to. Whereas the 2012 team with Austin, and the 2014 team with Jabari I would absolutely include in the OAD era regarding times we failed to get out of the first round.

I think 2007 counts. You could maybe make a case that 2006 shouldn't, given that the rule had just been put into effect, but the 2007 team was put together with the OAD rule in place for 2 full years, so all recruiting and roster decisions were made with the knowledge of the existence of the OAD rule. If the OAD rule had not been in place, we may have gone after higher rated guys, and certain players that season may have skipped college altogether.

Furthermore, each team we played against during that season also had that knowledge, and some of them had OADs on their rosters. All of these factors had ripple effects on Duke and the college basketball season as a whole. It should absolutely count, whether or not Duke had a OAD on the roster or not.

Troublemaker
06-21-2017, 08:36 PM
Don't see how that improves the product. You're going to set up indentured servitude for 2 years? If anything, that may prompt more kids who are not ready to "go pro" right out of HS.
2 and through has no nexus to education. Its sole purpose is to make life easier for coaches, not players.

lol, I'm not sure you understand the meaning of indentured servitude.

In any case, the college basketball product would obviously improve. Two years to better form a connection with teammates, with coaches, with classmates, with the university, and with fans. Any kid who hates school or just doesn't belong in school can go pro out of high school. Take a poll of college basketball fans, and the vast majority would support this suggested system. It's not perfect by any means, but it would certainly be better.

duke4ever19
06-21-2017, 08:57 PM
Don't see how that improves the product. You're going to set up indentured servitude for 2 years? If anything, that may prompt more kids who are not ready to "go pro" right out of HS.
2 and through has no nexus to education. Its sole purpose is to make life easier for coaches, not players.

I've seen statements like yours ("indentured servitude") and its variations ("slavery" etc.) frequently used in connection with this issue . . . is that really what you think going to college on a free ride and getting room and board equal? If so, then okay, but I can't but help feel the comparison a bit tone-deaf.

Perhaps I'm wrong (I often am), but it's hard for me to fathom that being someone's slave is something equal to a free-ride to Duke University and playing under Coach K. These guys have another choice. They can go overseas for a year and make money doing it.

Like I said up-thread, I don't hear the college football people making a huge issue that players have to be three years out of high school to be eligible for the draft. Where's the outcry there?

Duke95
06-21-2017, 09:53 PM
I've seen statements like yours ("indentured servitude") and its variations ("slavery" etc.) frequently used in connection with this issue . . . is that really what you think going to college on a free ride and getting room and board equal? If so, then okay, but I can't but help feel the comparison a bit tone-deaf.

Perhaps I'm wrong (I often am), but it's hard for me to fathom that being someone's slave is something equal to a free-ride to Duke University and playing under Coach K. These guys have another choice. They can go overseas for a year and make money doing it.

Like I said up-thread, I don't hear the college football people making a huge issue that players have to be three years out of high school to be eligible for the draft. Where's the outcry there?

If you think athletes are getting a "free ride" by going to college, then I'd encourage you to examine the factual evidence. They work 40+ hours. The fact that what they do is work has been recognized by even the 1929 Carnegie Report. Yes, what colleges are doing amounts to little more than indentured servitude: abuse by coaches, minimal emphasis on education, but constantly pushed to perform so their coach can make money. They work in exchange for a chance at the passage to the pros.

As for the "they can go overseas", that argument has been tried in court and rejected. It's patently obvious that the antitrust market does not include foreign leagues. This is just NCAA PR nonsense.

Duke95
06-21-2017, 10:03 PM
lol, I'm not sure you understand the meaning of indentured servitude.

In any case, the college basketball product would obviously improve. Two years to better form a connection with teammates, with coaches, with classmates, with the university, and with fans. Any kid who hates school or just doesn't belong in school can go pro out of high school. Take a poll of college basketball fans, and the vast majority would support this suggested system. It's not perfect by any means, but it would certainly be better.

Well, I'm quite sure I know what it means. This issue is of particular interest to me, and one into which I've done considerable research. But to each his own. It will take a lot of effort to counteract the decades of pro-amateurism propaganda that has indoctrinated so many fans.

You're certainly not the first person to react negatively to my argument, nor will you be the last.

duke4ever19
06-21-2017, 10:04 PM
For the people that think student-athletes should be paid (beyond their room and board and school taken care of), why not do it like this: Any player out of high school can make himself eligible for the NBA Draft and on top of that, the NBA D-League will hold a two-round draft. Any player can make himself eligible for both. If it's really all about "getting paid" then hey, these guys can get paid, either by earning a spot on an NBA team and making millions, getting drafted by an NBA D-League team (which will pay far less, of course, but still pay), or go they can go overseas to play. The downsides to getting drafted to a D-League team at the moment are obvious. Less exposure making it harder to "grow a brand," but hey, you're "getting paid" and if you aren't good enough to get out of the D-League, then you shouldn't have a "brand." You are getting paid, but you won't earn millions if you don't play your why out of NBA purgatory.

College basketball is (and should be) a different animal than the NBA, the NBA D-League and pro-leagues overseas, so it will not pay players, and it demands at least a two-year commitment so that the system is not abused as an NBA halfway house. It sees a free education and room and board, its rich history and it's "March Madness" tournament and the press that comes with being a great college player etc. as it's perks. The cool thing is that in college, you can become a legend (in the sport, or in your school) and then get drafted by an NBA team and end up a complete bust. It happens all the time.

None of these players out of high school are forced to go to college in order to go to the NBA. It's the tried-and-true way of getting into the league, but it's certainly not the only way, and if it really is about "getting paid," then by all means, go overseas for a year and get paid and have a cool life-experience in a different culture, or hop over to the D-League and play in Sioux Falls and Reno. If it's money you want, go get it, but don't demand it of your college or the NCAA.

If a player out of high school really and truly thinks "Hey, the NCAA is going to use me to get a huge payday and I'm not going to get a piece of the pie," then there should be no one stopping them from avoiding what seems to them to be a horrible situation.

duke4ever19
06-21-2017, 10:11 PM
If you think athletes are getting a "free ride" by going to college, then I'd encourage you to examine the factual evidence. They work 40+ hours. The fact that what they do is work has been recognized by even the 1929 Carnegie Report. Yes, what colleges are doing amounts to little more than indentured servitude: abuse by coaches, minimal emphasis on education, but constantly pushed to perform so their coach can make money. They work in exchange for a chance at the passage to the pros.

As for the "they can go overseas", that argument has been tried in court and rejected. It's patently obvious that the antitrust market does not include foreign leagues. This is just NCAA PR nonsense.

Brandon Jennings and Emmanuel Mudiay say "hello." Are you telling me that these guys didn't choose to play overseas and then were later drafted? I'm not sure how this is a defensible point.

I'm not being cheeky either. Going overseas and making money absolutely is an option. If you aren't good enough to go overseas and play then that's too bad, but that might also be a hint that you weren't going to get drafted in the best basketball league in the world anyway.

Duke95
06-21-2017, 10:15 PM
For the people that think student-athletes should be paid (beyond their room and board and school taken care of), why not do it like this: Any player out of high school can make himself eligible for the NBA Draft and on top of that, the NBA D-League will hold a two-round draft. Any player can make himself eligible for both. If it's really all about "getting paid" then hey, these guys can get paid, either by earning a spot on an NBA team and making millions, getting drafted by an NBA D-League team (which will pay far less, of course, but still pay), or go they can go overseas to play. The downsides to getting drafted to a D-League team at the moment are obvious. Less exposure making it harder to "grow a brand," but hey, you're "getting paid" and if you aren't good enough to get out of the D-League, then you shouldn't have a "brand." You are getting paid, but you won't earn millions if you don't play your why out of NBA purgatory.

College basketball is (and should be) a different animal than the NBA, the NBA D-League and pro-leagues overseas, so it will not pay players, and it demands at least a two-year commitment so that the system is not abused as an NBA halfway house. It sees a free education and room and board, its rich history and it's "March Madness" tournament and the press that comes with being a great college player etc. as it's perks. The cool thing is that in college, you can become a legend (in the sport, or in your school) and then get drafted by an NBA team and end up a complete bust. It happens all the time.

None of these players out of high school are forced to go to college in order to go to the NBA. It's the tried-and-true way of getting into the league, but it's certainly not the only way, and if it really is about "getting paid," then by all means, go overseas for a year and get paid and have a cool life-experience in a different culture, or hop over to the D-League and play in Sioux Falls and Reno. If it's money you want, go get it, but don't demand it of your college or the NCAA.

If a player out of high school really and truly thinks "Hey, the NCAA is going to use me to get a huge payday and I'm not going to get a piece of the pie," then there should be no one stopping them from avoiding what seems to them to be a horrible situation.

Once again, neither the D-league nor overseas are judged to be in the same antitrust market. Those aren't actual substitutes. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever, other than "tradition" to bar athletes from being paid at the college level. But, I'll say this, I don't think there should be any link between the basketball/football teams and the academic side. None whatsoever. I favor the European sports academy system.

And "free education" is an absolute falsehood. These kids aren't getting anything "for free." Quite the opposite, really.

duke4ever19
06-22-2017, 12:31 AM
Once again, neither the D-league nor overseas are judged to be in the same antitrust market. Those aren't actual substitutes. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever, other than "tradition" to bar athletes from being paid at the college level. But, I'll say this, I don't think there should be any link between the basketball/football teams and the academic side. None whatsoever. I favor the European sports academy system.

And "free education" is an absolute falsehood. These kids aren't getting anything "for free." Quite the opposite, really.

So you are telling me that my daughter, who is a student-athlete at UM (Michigan) on a full-ride scholarship, is not getting a free education?

I'm glad you let me know, because my bank account is under the impression that I'm not giving UM a dime, yet you say that's not the case. Or is it just not the case in certain situations?

Is it a free education if a student-athlete is on a full-ride as a rower? How about a football player? Tennis? When does the whole "These kids aren't getting anything "for free" manifest itself? Just in basketball?

Ian
06-22-2017, 03:25 AM
Once again, neither the D-league nor overseas are judged to be in the same antitrust market. Those aren't actual substitutes. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever, other than "tradition" to bar athletes from being paid at the college level. But, I'll say this, I don't think there should be any link between the basketball/football teams and the academic side. None whatsoever. I favor the European sports academy system.

And "free education" is an absolute falsehood. These kids aren't getting anything "for free." Quite the opposite, really.


It seems like you live in a world where either people are paid huge salaries, or they are "slaves" and "indentured servants".


Have you not heard of the concept of apprenticeships?

The NBA aspiring player receives a hell of a lot more than just the academic scholarship, they receive training, equipment, coaching, real game experience, and promotion, all to enhance their future economic value.

The reason why most choose to go to college and not get paid professionally overseas, is that the college deal in the US is actually a pretty good deal.

bob blue devil
06-22-2017, 05:16 AM
Once again, neither the D-league nor overseas are judged to be in the same antitrust market. Those aren't actual substitutes. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever, other than "tradition" to bar athletes from being paid at the college level. But, I'll say this, I don't think there should be any link between the basketball/football teams and the academic side. None whatsoever. I favor the European sports academy system.

And "free education" is an absolute falsehood. These kids aren't getting anything "for free." Quite the opposite, really.

it feels like moralistic and legalistic arguments are being mixed here. not a lawyer, so could you please clarify what it means to be in the "same antitrust market" (which i'm assuming is a legal definition). from a moralistic side, having the opportunity to be paid over $1mm per year overseas (as Mudiay and Jennings did) seems like a very legitimate alternative to playing in college. i.e. overseas leagues are, in my opinion, in the same market for their talents regardless of what the law says.

sagegrouse
06-22-2017, 05:38 AM
Why a 2-and-through rule (combined with allowing high school players to go straight to the NBA)?

To improve the college basketball product.

I assume the zero/two rule is what K believes is attainable, and I agree with him that it's better than what we have now. I also assume he has had meaningful discussions with Commis Silver (Duke trustee) and the head of the NBPA.

Troublemaker
06-22-2017, 06:16 AM
Well, I'm quite sure I know what it means. This issue is of particular interest to me, and one into which I've done considerable research.

Of the considerable research you've done on indentured servitude, did you ever just try googling it?

The comparison doesn't make sense because of the many features of indentured servitude that are missing. Just one example -- if a college athlete wants to walk away from his/her athletic scholarship, then the consequence is merely that he/she joins the 98% of college students who must pay their own way (or earn a different type of scholarship). If an indentured servant wanted to walk away, the consequences were much more severe...


I assume the zero/two rule is what K believes is attainable, and I agree with him that it's better than what we have now. I also assume he has had meaningful discussions with Commis Silver (Duke trustee) and the head of the NBPA.

I agree. It's a year less than how baseball and football have it set up, but it's a baby step better than OAD.

CrazyNotCrazie
06-22-2017, 09:01 AM
If you think athletes are getting a "free ride" by going to college, then I'd encourage you to examine the factual evidence. They work 40+ hours. The fact that what they do is work has been recognized by even the 1929 Carnegie Report. Yes, what colleges are doing amounts to little more than indentured servitude: abuse by coaches, minimal emphasis on education, but constantly pushed to perform so their coach can make money. They work in exchange for a chance at the passage to the pros.

As for the "they can go overseas", that argument has been tried in court and rejected. It's patently obvious that the antitrust market does not include foreign leagues. This is just NCAA PR nonsense.

90+% of scholarship athletes do not go pro and enter college knowing they will not go pro in their chosen sport. As someone noted above, do you really think the scholarship volleyball player is there to enhance her chances of going pro? Yes, there are a number of basketball and football players who have no chance of going pro but are convinced by the people around them that they have a shot. But the numbers are tiny. A ton of breath and bandwidth is wasted on the incredibly small percentage of athletes for whom this is an issue. A scholarship to play a sport is a tremendous opportunity, particularly as a college education gets increasingly expensive. There is no way this should be compared to slavery, indentured servitude, or anything of the like.

I agree with the proposal that you can go pro out of high school, but if you go to college, you have to stay for 2-3 years (I'm not sure which). Truly transcendent prospects like LeBron can then go pro and do their thing. Kids who have no interest in school don't have to waste anyone's time in school. But for the rest of the athletes who say they are going to school, they will have to stay for a few years and make some minimal effort to fulfill the "student" part of "student-athlete." As I have noted above, for basketball I think that continuing the efforts to build out the D/G League would enhance this change, as it would provide a domestic place for kids who don't want to be in school and are great but not legendary players to play ball, make some money, and hopefully develop into NBA players.

But all parties in this process (NBA, college coaches, NBA players, college/HS players) have different incentive structures so it will be a difficult task to get them all to try to work together for the common good. College/HS players currently have very little say in the matter. NBA players have a bit of impact through the negotiation of the CBA, but they ultimately don't care too much about the players coming up behind them.

Duke95
06-22-2017, 09:54 AM
it feels like moralistic and legalistic arguments are being mixed here. not a lawyer, so could you please clarify what it means to be in the "same antitrust market" (which i'm assuming is a legal definition). from a moralistic side, having the opportunity to be paid over $1mm per year overseas (as Mudiay and Jennings did) seems like a very legitimate alternative to playing in college. i.e. overseas leagues are, in my opinion, in the same market for their talents regardless of what the law says.

Antitrust market is really both a legal and an economic concept. In terms of law, the words "relevant market" are used. When we look at antitrust markets, we look at the substitution that would occur should a small but significant non-transitory increase in price occur (the "SSNIP" test). The purpose is to find out whether market power exists. The reason why I say those are not in the same antitrust market is because the courts have already found this to be the case in O'Bannon. In other words, the NCAA can leverage its market power without fear of athletes substituting out to the D-leagues and overseas outside of very rare instances.

The reason why "overseas" is not an option is because 1) very few have done it (note, you're citing 2 examples out of tens of thousands), 2) there are significant transaction costs of doing so, and 3) loss of visibility to NBA scouts (among other reasons).

As for the person who asked whether their daughter is getting a "free education" here are some questions:

1) Does she have to do anything in return for it? If so, it's not free. Her "scholarship" is an exchange for her labor in a constrained market.
2) Is it a full scholarship, or just partial? This goes to the head count vs. equivalency sport issue.

And to the person discussing my "indentured servitude", I'm certainly not the first nor the last person to notice this resemblance (see Nocera & Strauss' book, "Indentured"). My research is on the collegiate system and antitrust, by the way. And, to that point, if the kid drops out of the sport, what are they going to do? Most can't pay their way through college. The "journey" to the professional ranks now becomes overwhelmingly difficult.

Highlander
06-22-2017, 10:11 AM
I assume the zero/two rule is what K believes is attainable, and I agree with him that it's better than what we have now. I also assume he has had meaningful discussions with Commis Silver (Duke trustee) and the head of the NBPA.

Jason Evans discussed this on a recent podcast, and in his opinion (Jason, keep me honest here) the problem with mandating years in college is the rookie wage scale. Rookie salaries are kept artificially low and are 4-5 years long. Kids are incentivized to go early because it "starts their clock" towards a second, free agent contract that could be a 5x or 10x multiplier of a rookie contract. Staying in College only delays the start of that rookie contract by a year, and if your draft position isn't significantly increased to offset that loss of revenue, you're basically sacrificing a lucrative playing year at the end of your playing days for a free one at the beginning. You need to incentivize people to stay in college. Jason's idea was to prorate the length of the rookie contract based on either the player's age or the # of years in College. So for example, if a player straight from HS signs a 5 year contract, maybe someone who stays 2 years in college gets the benefit of a shorter, 3-4 year contract. That could be justified b/c the teams have a better sense of what they are getting with this player because they have seen more.

Personally I like the idea rather than requiring a kid to stay in college X number of years. But if we do require a commitment, 2 years seems to be reasonable.

MarkD83
06-22-2017, 01:59 PM
A lot of these suggestions require the NBA to take action and we can assume they are frustrated by OAD because it is hurting the NBA.

In addition it was noted that the OAD rule is poor because of NBA GMs. However, they are doing what is in their best interest. Every year they want more players available than draft spots. They do this so that the worst GMs make mistakes on talent evaluation and the best ones get what they need. That means they have the inclination to lie to players about their draft potential.

A solution that the NCAA can adopt to help the players is change the eligibility rule The rule now (as I understand it) is if you sign with an agent you lose your eligibility or if you sign the piece of paper to stay in the draft you lose your eligibility. Instead change the NCAA rule to state if you are undrafted and don't take loans/money from an agent then you retain your eligibility. Only when draft day occurs do the players really know if they have a chance to play in the NBA or not.

This of course will create chaos for recruiting but we are already at the state of recruiting chaos.

3rd Dukie
06-22-2017, 02:51 PM
[QUOTE=kAzE;987955]I think you could argue Coach K was doing just as well, or perhaps even better pre-OAD. We certainly had more consistently dominant teams prior to the establishment of the one and done rule. Have we had a team in the OAD era on the level of the 2001 or 2002 teams? I would say no, even the 2011 team with a healthy Kyrie would have been slightly below that standard in my opinion.

K actually resisted (or had trouble landing OADs) it for awhile when it first became the rule. Coach K didn't REALLY get into the OAD game until 2011 with Kyrie (I'm aware Maggette was OAD, but Coach K was against that), and even then, it was just one per year (Kyrie in '10, Austin in '11, none in '12, Jabari in '13) until 2014, when he got Tyus, Justise, and Jahlil. He didn't go full Calipari until the 2014 high school class. And even then, I'm pretty sure he was only really expecting Jah to go pro after 1 year. The one and done rule started in 2005, so it took Coach K a minimum of 5 years, and perhaps almost 10 years to fully embrace it, despite obviously not liking it.]

I don't post very often because, truly, I don't feel as though I have much to add to the knowledge and expertise on these boards. I mean that sincerely.
However, I do have a question on this topic that I have been considering for a while. What would be the harm in letting a kid go to the NBA, or at least declare for the draft, for ONE year out of high school? After that one year, he could elect to stay pro and be banned from college basketball or return to the scholarship pool and be committed to a three year ban from the pros. It just seems a shame to me to not let the kids try to achieve their dream out of high school without depriving them of the chance for a college education. Is this idea as crazy as it might seem at first glance?

MaxAMillion
06-22-2017, 03:16 PM
To expand on this point, Duke has lost 3 times in the first round in the OAD era:

2007: VCU
2012: Lehigh
2014: Mercer

Prior to OAD, Duke had only lost once in the first round during Coach K's tenure, in 1996, when he was out for the entire year.

It's great that we won it all in 2015, but to view that championship as the thing that proves OAD is great for Duke while ignoring the struggles (by Duke standards) we've endured over these past 12 years is shortsighted.

Well ignoring the injuries that Duke has had over the last 6-7 years is a bit disingenuous. Would Duke have won national titles if Laettner, Hurley or Jay Williams got hurt? That is what Duke experienced last year and years when Ryan Kelly and Kyrie were injured. If you are going to judge the OAD era correctly, you must take into account games missed by starters. If last year's Duke team had been completely healthy (including Giles being 100%), I believe they would have won more than the ACC tournament.

kAzE
06-22-2017, 03:22 PM
Well ignoring the injuries that Duke has had over the last 6-7 years is a bit disingenuous. Would Duke have won national titles if Laettner, Hurley or Jay Williams got hurt? That is what Duke experienced last year and years when Ryan Kelly and Kyrie were injured. If you are going to judge the OAD era correctly, you must take into account games missed by starters. If last year's Duke team had been completely healthy (including Giles being 100%), I believe they would have won more than the ACC tournament.

Oh right, because injuries didn't exist before the OAD era. My mistake /s :rolleyes:

Injuries have always been part of the game, and they always will be . . . and also, Carlos Boozer's foot says hi

Matches
06-22-2017, 03:33 PM
However, I do have a question on this topic that I have been considering for a while. What would be the harm in letting a kid go to the NBA, or at least declare for the draft, for ONE year out of high school? After that one year, he could elect to stay pro and be banned from college basketball or return to the scholarship pool and be committed to a three year ban from the pros. It just seems a shame to me to not let the kids try to achieve their dream out of high school without depriving them of the chance for a college education. Is this idea as crazy as it might seem at first glance?

I guess the question that comes to my mind is why any kid would decide to leave the NBA to return to college. Even if a hypothetical kid decided he wasn't "ready" for the pros or needed more seasoning, why give up a paycheck to go play for free, with no guarantee of ever getting back in the league?

I do think it's fair to note as well that no one is deprived of a chance at a college education by going pro. Guys always have the option to go back to school at any point in their lives, and an NBA salary, even for a few years, can go a long way toward financing that.

sagegrouse
06-22-2017, 03:43 PM
Kaze: Didn't the one-and done era begin at Duke after the Singler class graduated -- say in 2012? Since then we have won one NCAA championship, which is better than the average of K's time at Duke (5 in 37 years). It's the wins, not the losses.

duke79
06-22-2017, 03:45 PM
[QUOTE=kAzE;987955]I think you could argue Coach K was doing just as well, or perhaps even better pre-OAD. We certainly had more consistently dominant teams prior to the establishment of the one and done rule. Have we had a team in the OAD era on the level of the 2001 or 2002 teams? I would say no, even the 2011 team with a healthy Kyrie would have been slightly below that standard in my opinion.

K actually resisted (or had trouble landing OADs) it for awhile when it first became the rule. Coach K didn't REALLY get into the OAD game until 2011 with Kyrie (I'm aware Maggette was OAD, but Coach K was against that), and even then, it was just one per year (Kyrie in '10, Austin in '11, none in '12, Jabari in '13) until 2014, when he got Tyus, Justise, and Jahlil. He didn't go full Calipari until the 2014 high school class. And even then, I'm pretty sure he was only really expecting Jah to go pro after 1 year. The one and done rule started in 2005, so it took Coach K a minimum of 5 years, and perhaps almost 10 years to fully embrace it, despite obviously not liking it.]

I don't post very often because, truly, I don't feel as though I have much to add to the knowledge and expertise on these boards. I mean that sincerely.
However, I do have a question on this topic that I have been considering for a while. What would be the harm in letting a kid go to the NBA, or at least declare for the draft, for ONE year out of high school? After that one year, he could elect to stay pro and be banned from college basketball or return to the scholarship pool and be committed to a three year ban from the pros. It just seems a shame to me to not let the kids try to achieve their dream out of high school without depriving them of the chance for a college education. Is this idea as crazy as it might seem at first glance?

If I understand what you're proposing (that a kid could go straight from HS to the NBA and then, after one year, if they flame out in the NBA or don't want to play professionally any more, they could go back and play college BB but could then not play professionally for three years?), it seems to be unusually complicated and not all that practical. My guess is that very few, if any, kids that go straight from HS to the NBA, get a guaranteed lucrative contract (to an 18-year old), live the NBA lifestyle for a year and then they decide they are going to then give all of that up to go back to college? I just don't see that happening.

I realize the NBA is a private association and can make up their own rules for how the league is run but my thought on the whole OAD issue is that if an NBA team believes a high school kid has the physical, mental, and emotional maturity AND has the requisite basketball talent to be able to play in the NBA right out of high school, why shouldn't they be able to sign that kid to a professional contract? Furthermore, in many cases, the kids and their family desperately NEED the money that a professional contract brings. It's almost cruel to make them wait one year before cashing in. I know this may not be a perfect analogy (but we do live, for the most part, in a free market job economy where people can choose, more or less, to do whatever line of work they want) but if there is an extremely bright high school senior who is a very talented computer programmer, Microsoft, Google or any other company could certainly hire that kid to work for them, right out of HS. Frankly, I view professional basketball (or any professional sport) as a money making business, just like any other company in the private sector. Why should there be artificial restrictions on whom an NBA team can hire or not hire? I just don't see the justification for it.

Furthermore, IMHO, the OAD rule has made a mockery and charade of college BB (and especially the "STUDENT/athlete" description that the NCAA likes to push) and I think it has hurt the college game and even Duke's own program. I don't know how others on this Board feel, but I certainly don't have the same level of interest in many Duke players when they come in for what seems like a very fast one season and then are gone, as soon as the season ends. Maybe it's just my untrained eye, but I have even found the games in recent years to be more disjointed, both offensively and defensively, as, I think, the coaches simply don't have the time to meld the five players into a cohesive unit. I've even lost some respect for Duke as an elite institution of higher learning that it would allow itself to be used in this fashion (although I don't underestimate the power that basketball and Coach K have over the Duke community).

COYS
06-22-2017, 03:58 PM
Jason Evans discussed this on a recent podcast, and in his opinion (Jason, keep me honest here) the problem with mandating years in college is the rookie wage scale. Rookie salaries are kept artificially low and are 4-5 years long. Kids are incentivized to go early because it "starts their clock" towards a second, free agent contract that could be a 5x or 10x multiplier of a rookie contract. Staying in College only delays the start of that rookie contract by a year, and if your draft position isn't significantly increased to offset that loss of revenue, you're basically sacrificing a lucrative playing year at the end of your playing days for a free one at the beginning. You need to incentivize people to stay in college. Jason's idea was to prorate the length of the rookie contract based on either the player's age or the # of years in College. So for example, if a player straight from HS signs a 5 year contract, maybe someone who stays 2 years in college gets the benefit of a shorter, 3-4 year contract. That could be justified b/c the teams have a better sense of what they are getting with this player because they have seen more.

Personally I like the idea rather than requiring a kid to stay in college X number of years. But if we do require a commitment, 2 years seems to be reasonable.

Leaving aside the issue of feasibility, this is an intriguing idea. I do wonder, though, if it would devalue seniors due to the shorter contract length. Part of the appeal of young NBA players to NBA GMs is that they don't take up much cap space and are under team control. If seniors are only on the books for two years before getting a big payday, it might deflate their draft value (kind of but not really like how signability issues often deflate the value of high school prospects outside the first few rounds in the MLB draft). Jayson Tatum is more valuable to a team as an 18 year old right out of HS and under team control for five years than he would be coming out a senior who is only tied to the rookie salary scale for two seasons, even if he's a better player as a 22 year old.

Perhaps the NBA could get around this by adding extra incentives for free agents to stay with their current team in the form of something like an extra year added to the contract or a smaller cap hit for resigning homegrown players.

jv001
06-22-2017, 04:04 PM
Well ignoring the injuries that Duke has had over the last 6-7 years is a bit disingenuous. Would Duke have won national titles if Laettner, Hurley or Jay Williams got hurt? That is what Duke experienced last year and years when Ryan Kelly and Kyrie were injured. If you are going to judge the OAD era correctly, you must take into account games missed by starters. If last year's Duke team had been completely healthy (including Giles being 100%), I believe they would have won more than the ACC tournament.

I believe that Hurley, Laettner and Grant Hill would have been OAD or the max two and done had they played in this era and there's could have been more. That means two of our National Championships may not have taken place. Just my opinion. GoDuke!

3rd Dukie
06-22-2017, 04:08 PM
I guess the question that comes to my mind is why any kid would decide to leave the NBA to return to college. Even if a hypothetical kid decided he wasn't "ready" for the pros or needed more seasoning, why give up a paycheck to go play for free, with no guarantee of ever getting back in the league?

I do think it's fair to note as well that no one is deprived of a chance at a college education by going pro. Guys always have the option to go back to school at any point in their lives, and an NBA salary, even for a few years, can go a long way toward financing that.

Both of those issues were presupposing that the kid might not make it in the NBA. If they were successful, I doubt that either of those issues would apply.

toooskies
06-22-2017, 06:31 PM
I agree with K that kids should be able to go pro right after high school. However, I don't think they should wait two years otherwise. They can't get a college degree in 2 years, so why the "education" argument? Let the kids go pro after 1 year too. The two-year requirement just benefits coaches, not the players.

You don't get a degree in 2 years, but 2 years + 3 summer sessions will probably get you close enough to a degree to finish via correspondence courses and future summer sessions. Kyrie I think originally planned to get a degree while being 1-and-done, but he just wasn't far enough into it to have the momentum to finish.

duke4ever19
06-22-2017, 09:55 PM
If you think athletes are getting a "free ride" by going to college, then I'd encourage you to examine the factual evidence. They work 40+ hours. The fact that what they do is work has been recognized by even the 1929 Carnegie Report. Yes, what colleges are doing amounts to little more than indentured servitude: abuse by coaches, minimal emphasis on education, but constantly pushed to perform so their coach can make money. They work in exchange for a chance at the passage to the pros.

As for the "they can go overseas", that argument has been tried in court and rejected. It's patently obvious that the antitrust market does not include foreign leagues. This is just NCAA PR nonsense.

You can officially add Terrance Ferguson to the list along with Mudiay and Jennings. It has been done three times now (that I know of) and based on the fact that all three were drafted, I would say it's a viable option if you want to avoid the "indentured servitude" :rolleyes:

Duke95
06-22-2017, 10:03 PM
You can officially add Terrance Ferguson to the list along with Mudiay and Jennings. It has been done three times now and based on the fact that all three were drafted, I would say it's a viable option.

Meanwhile, 15 freshmen have been drafted in THIS first round alone, so far. Sorry, you don't have a good argument here. Bilas explained why it's not really a viable option for the vast majority of athletes. I don't need to repeat myself again.

Ian
06-22-2017, 11:02 PM
Bilas is full of it, as usual. It's not a good option compared to college, which is why most don't go with it, but it's certainly a viable option

swood1000
06-23-2017, 10:51 AM
He’s saying that because of the college limits players can get much more coaching in the pros, so kids who are really after that shouldn’t have to go through a restricted coaching year (along with other college restrictions). But this would also be a way to get back to the good old days, where they could use coaching strategies (perhaps effective MTM) that take more than one season to learn properly. I think he resisted taking the OAD players because in his gut he believes that a fourth year player of lesser natural talent is more effective than the first year OAD, but if you’re offered the Ferrari for one year it’s hard to turn it down even though it comes with drawbacks. This would help with that dilemma.

Also, if you recruit OADs then the players just under that level will tend to shun your team because they see that each year the OADs get all the playing time, and you end up with a thin squad where you can really only play your top five or six players, and probably also morale problems. So taking OADs out of the mix will produce a more homogeneous and overall higher quality team, with better morale and an effectiveness determined to a greater extent by coaching than is the case when the people who actually play are only there for one year.

MartyClark
06-23-2017, 02:32 PM
You can officially add Terrance Ferguson to the list along with Mudiay and Jennings. It has been done three times now (that I know of) and based on the fact that all three were drafted, I would say it's a viable option if you want to avoid the "indentured servitude" :rolleyes:

Add Jeremy Tyler to the list. He played professionally in Israel after his Junior year in high school. Eventually drafted in the NBA, didn't stick and currently ( I think) playing in Japan.

kmspeaks
06-23-2017, 04:06 PM
As for the person who asked whether their daughter is getting a "free education" here are some questions:

1) Does she have to do anything in return for it? If so, it's not free. Her "scholarship" is an exchange for her labor in a constrained market.
2) Is it a full scholarship, or just partial? This goes to the head count vs. equivalency sport issue.


Dang, here I was thinking I got a great deal - a bachelor's degree, room and board, clothes, food, travel, access to weight training facilities, a training staff, and doctor's and all I "had" to do in exchange was play a game that I love. Guess I should have skipped that and have $400 a month student loan payments like my friends. What was I thinking?

Steven43
06-24-2017, 02:02 AM
2 and through has no nexus to education. Its sole purpose is to make life easier for coaches, not players.
Not so fast my friend. It would also make life easier for me as a fan. MUCH easier.

sagegrouse
06-24-2017, 02:15 AM
Don't see how that improves the product. You're going to set up indentured servitude for 2 years? If anything, that may prompt more kids who are not ready to "go pro" right out of HS.
2 and through has no nexus to education. Its sole purpose is to make life easier for coaches, not players.

Lessee... Two years of college plus two years of summer school for a college athlete -- sounds like about 60 percent of the requirements for a college degree. A college degree is a requirement for coaching jobs in HS and college and for any professional job. It would be good for the players who fall under that regime (play two years and leave). Looks to me like a strong nexus between two-and-done and education.

Indentured servitude? Holy cow! What are you talking about? This is something players do voluntarily and benefit in many ways outside the sport, including leadership, time management, enhanced reputation in the world at large -- and they can quit any time the pains outweigh the gains.

bob blue devil
06-24-2017, 07:33 AM
Antitrust market is really both a legal and an economic concept. In terms of law, the words "relevant market" are used. When we look at antitrust markets, we look at the substitution that would occur should a small but significant non-transitory increase in price occur (the "SSNIP" test). The purpose is to find out whether market power exists. The reason why I say those are not in the same antitrust market is because the courts have already found this to be the case in O'Bannon. In other words, the NCAA can leverage its market power without fear of athletes substituting out to the D-leagues and overseas outside of very rare instances.

The reason why "overseas" is not an option is because 1) very few have done it (note, you're citing 2 examples out of tens of thousands), 2) there are significant transaction costs of doing so, and 3) loss of visibility to NBA scouts (among other reasons).

As for the person who asked whether their daughter is getting a "free education" here are some questions:

1) Does she have to do anything in return for it? If so, it's not free. Her "scholarship" is an exchange for her labor in a constrained market.
2) Is it a full scholarship, or just partial? This goes to the head count vs. equivalency sport issue.

And to the person discussing my "indentured servitude", I'm certainly not the first nor the last person to notice this resemblance (see Nocera & Strauss' book, "Indentured"). My research is on the collegiate system and antitrust, by the way. And, to that point, if the kid drops out of the sport, what are they going to do? Most can't pay their way through college. The "journey" to the professional ranks now becomes overwhelmingly difficult.

sorry, but i remain unconvinced the ncaa has a monopoly over pre-nba basketball labor in an economic sense (again, you have focused on the legal definition). just focusing on the points you make about playing overseas not being a viable alternative: 1) who are these tens of thousands of college basketball players who have foregone 1+ million overseas to play in the ncaa? your statement confuses me. 2) the costs of moving overseas compared to a 7 figure initial salary are clearly manageable. 3) interesting debate, but it seems like the nba scouts do a pretty good job of filling the draft with well-scouted overseas players.

if you switch the debate to players below the 7 figure initial salary level, well then the fair value of the "compensation" the ncaa provides is quite close to what the fair market would bear (in fact, in the preponderance of cases, it is much much higher). so really, we are talking about the ~25 kids a year who could be making substantial monetary compensation playing professionally right out of high school. but, again, the overseas option is likely quite viable for them.