PDA

View Full Version : Silver : End the One and Done Rule



Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
10-17-2017, 12:02 PM
Finally... A person with power in the right place says the right thing.

https://sports.yahoo.com/adam-silver-right-calling-end-one-done-rule-170421752.html

accfanfrom1970
10-17-2017, 12:14 PM
Finally... A person with power in the right place says the right thing.

https://sports.yahoo.com/adam-silver-right-calling-end-one-done-rule-170421752.html

I hope they go pure baseball. Straight out of high school or three years, or junior college.

Of course the cheats have a big advantage since they have a curriculum designed to keep guys eligible for three years, and a coach who turns one and dones into three year players anyway.

sagegrouse
10-17-2017, 12:21 PM
Finally... A person with power in the right place says the right thing.

https://sports.yahoo.com/adam-silver-right-calling-end-one-done-rule-170421752.html

Adam Silver's words as quoted by Dan Wetzel of Yahoo (https://sports.yahoo.com/adam-silver-right-calling-end-one-done-rule-170421752.html).


Silver, for his part, cited three things that have dramatically shifted. The scandals are one. “It’s clearly not working for the college game,” Silver said. Second is the increase in one-and-done players declaring for the draft. There were 16 last year. Silver said the average had been about eight per year.

And finally, it appears more top recruits don’t care about where they go to college and are just biding their time until draft night. This may be most concerning to the NBA because it impacts the league directly.

“What’s really interesting to me is the last two No. 1 picks in the NBA draft, Ben Simmons two years ago and Markelle Fultz last year, both played with teams that did not make the NCAA tournament [LSU and Washington, respectively],” Silver said. “And I don’t think enough people are talking about that. That seems to be a sea change.

“It’s become common knowledge that these so-called one-and-done players, maybe understandably, are almost entirely focused on where they are going to go in the draft lottery. Not to say they don’t badly care about winning but … the stakes are so high in terms of the amount of money they can make over a long NBA career.”

sagegrouse
10-17-2017, 12:23 PM
Adam Silver is saying, "Just end it," and don't replace it with anything from the NBA side. High school players can get drafted and signed. What do we think about that? One option, which the NCAA could do on its own, is to allow drafted players to play in college, like it does with hockey players drafted and signed by the NHL.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
10-17-2017, 12:29 PM
Well, here's a question...

With training regimens, dietary science, and AAU playing twelve months a year, freshmen are more battle tested than ever. Freshmen step onto top tier college squads and are physically equal to their teammates.

Perhaps the NBA no longer needs that year to evaluate talent. Maybe NBA GMs look at Bagley and say "how come this guy isn't in our league right now?"

Sports have changed a lot in the last ten years. Maybe there's less perceived risk in drafting 18 year old kids. If so, there's no barrier to them playing, right?

flyingdutchdevil
10-17-2017, 12:29 PM
Adam Silver is saying, "Just end it," and don't replace it with anything from the NBA side. High school players can get drafted and signed. What do we think about that? One option, which the NCAA could do on its own, is to allow drafted players to play in college, like it does with hockey players drafted and signed by the NHL.

Love it. Free market. Anything is better than this OAD era.

PackMan97
10-17-2017, 12:39 PM
Love it. Free market. Anything is better than this OAD era.

Agree, would love this.

I hate the three years rule.

Troublemaker
10-17-2017, 12:40 PM
I'm skeptical. I think the majority of owners want OAD because they want (a) draft prospects to have their weaknesses exposed against a higher level of competition, thus making it easier for scouting departments to sort the prospects, and (b) free marketing for these draft prospects through the college game.

Now, there probably are a minority of teams who believe they have a scouting edge and would salivate at the opportunity to draft players out of high school and take advantage of other teams' mistakes. (One of the teams ready to pounce on that opportunity might be the Spurs, who hired high school recruiting guru Dave Telep a few years ago. (https://sports.yahoo.com/news/nba--spurs-hire-respected-scout-dave-telep-045304067.html)) But if I'm right about the majority, nothing will change with OAD. They're not incentivized to change it.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
10-17-2017, 01:00 PM
But if I'm right about the majority, nothing will change with OAD. They're not incentivized to change it.

Except that freshmen are bigger, better, and stronger than they we're twenty, fifteen, or even ten years ago. I think NBA GMs would salivate at an extra year of Tatum or Bagley.

jipops
10-17-2017, 01:05 PM
Not all players who have ended up being one-and-done were seen that way going in to college. Two prime examples being our own Jones and Winslow. So though there would likely be some change to the dynamic of the elite top 5-10 recruit, how much would really change? I would certainly hope that should this ever come to pass the ncaa or some governing body would then look to institute some 2 year mandatory attendance rule if choosing to attend college, among other changes. HA! I just spit up in my soda. Something like that would just make too much sense, the ncaa would never go for it. And plus it would only be a mandatory 2 years of fake classes.

sagegrouse
10-17-2017, 01:10 PM
Not all players who have ended up being one-and-done were seen that way going in to college. Two prime examples being our own Jones and Winslow. So though there would likely be some change to the dynamic of the elite top 5-10 recruit, how much would really change? I would certainly hope that should this ever come to pass the ncaa or some governing body would then look to institute some 2 year mandatory attendance rule if choosing to attend college, among other changes. HA! I just spit up in my soda. Something like that would just make too much sense, the ncaa would never go for it. And plus it would only be a mandatory 2 years of fake classes.

Jipops, the NCAA has no power to decree a minimum of two years of play when accepting a scholarship. It would be a novel use of a "non-compete agreement," and I don't think it would work. Only the NBA can decree and enforce such a rule ("two years after HS class graduates"), and only if it is an outcome of the collective bargaining process. At least that's my opinion.

UrinalCake
10-17-2017, 01:18 PM
Dumping the one year rule would definitely help the system. It wouldn't eliminate all of the current problems, but it would fix some of them. Unfortunately I don't see the NBA owners voting for this. All of the reasons Silver cited apply to the college game, and NBA owners don't give a flip about college or the NCAA. They want the year to evaluate players. For every LeBron James who was ready to contribute in year one, there are probably 20 Jonathan Benders who would be complete busts, and NBA owners want to avoid that.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
10-17-2017, 01:18 PM
If the end result of this is that true NBA level players never set foot on a campus, and the players who do go to school tend towards four year players with less talent... Well, that sounds fine. Let the kids who see the NBA as a career at 18 follow that. Let the kids who are good, but also feel a four year degree for free is a bargain play for the schools.

When you say it that way, it doesn't sound revolutionary.

LasVegas
10-17-2017, 01:18 PM
If it does end, the very next draft class will be stacked. Elite HS players and elite one and done players who were forced to go to college for a year.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
10-17-2017, 01:22 PM
Dumping the one year rule would definitely help the system. It wouldn't eliminate all of the current problems, but it would fix some of them. Unfortunately I don't see the NBA owners voting for this. All of the reasons Silver cited apply to the college game, and NBA owners don't give a flip about college or the NCAA. They want the year to evaluate players. For every LeBron James who was ready to contribute in year one, there are probably 20 Jonathan Benders who would be complete busts, and NBA owners want to avoid that.

I don't think Silver would have uttered a peep if there wasn't growing interest from the owners. I think GMs are excited about young players today and would certainly put in their due diligence and homework. Sure, there will be a whiff or two, and some GMs might be shy about using top picks on younger players. That's okay in my book, if it gets the talent to the level where they can best compete and earn their paycheck.

This is a much more palatable solution than most we have considered here in recent weeks. I just underestimated the level of interest from owners in getting the young guys on their teams.

Troublemaker
10-17-2017, 01:29 PM
Except that freshmen are bigger, better, and stronger than they we're twenty, fifteen, or even ten years ago. I think NBA GMs would salivate at an extra year of Tatum or Bagley.

Why? Almost all NBA rookies are net negatives on the court, even the high lottery picks (http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/11340466/rookies-andrew-wiggins-rarely-make-sudden-impact). Tatum and Bagley after one year of college will likely be net negatives. Tatum and Bagley after zero years of college will even be likelier to be net negatives.

Now, if the players union would be willing to extend the length of rookie contracts by two years, that might actually incentivize the owners to get rid of OAD. But I don't see the players union agreeing to that. (I don't think extending by one year is large enough bait on the hook, and I'm not even sure the players union would be amenable to that much.)

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
10-17-2017, 01:32 PM
Why? Almost all NBA rookies are net negatives on the court, even the high lottery picks (http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/11340466/rookies-andrew-wiggins-rarely-make-sudden-impact). Tatum and Bagley after one year of college will likely be net negatives. Tatum and Bagley after zero years of college will even be likelier to be net negatives.

Now, if the players union would be willing to extend the length of rookie contracts by two years, that might actually incentivize the owners to get rid of OAD. But I don't see the players union agreeing to that. (I don't think extending by one year is large enough bait on the hook, and I'm not even sure the players union would be amenable to that.)

I could be wrong. I just see freshmen as bigger, stronger, and better prepared than even. 18 year old kids step onto the floor at Cameron and are running the show. Twenty years ago, freshmen we're lucky to see extended minutes.

18 year olds now are vastly different physically than they used to be. Pull of a pic of freshman Hurley and look at his arms. Or Grant Hill's. Then look at Tatum.

Rich
10-17-2017, 01:39 PM
I'm skeptical. I think the majority of owners want OAD because they want (a) draft prospects to have their weaknesses exposed against a higher level of competition, thus making it easier for scouting departments to sort the prospects, and (b) free marketing for these draft prospects through the college game.

Now, there probably are a minority of teams who believe they have a scouting edge and would salivate at the opportunity to draft players out of high school and take advantage of other teams' mistakes. (One of the teams ready to pounce on that opportunity might be the Spurs, who hired high school recruiting guru Dave Telep a few years ago. (https://sports.yahoo.com/news/nba--spurs-hire-respected-scout-dave-telep-045304067.html)) But if I'm right about the majority, nothing will change with OAD. They're not incentivized to change it.

Exactly, the OAD rule protects the owners from themselves and their own mistakes.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
10-17-2017, 01:40 PM
Exactly, the OAD rule protects the owners from themselves and their own mistakes.

Then why would Silver say this?

Rich
10-17-2017, 01:45 PM
Then why would Silver say this?

Because Coach K told him to? He is a Duke guy after all. :rolleyes:

Yeah, it's a good point. The Commissioner is generally the voice of the owners, but there are times when the Commissioner takes the lead and looks to the owners to follow. Maybe he thinks it's best for the game regardless of whether he has the backing of the owners (yet). Am I being naïve?

Kedsy
10-17-2017, 01:47 PM
I would certainly hope that should this ever come to pass the ncaa or some governing body would then look to institute some 2 year mandatory attendance rule if choosing to attend college, among other changes. HA! I just spit up in my soda. Something like that would just make too much sense, the ncaa would never go for it.

Why does this make any sense, much less "too much"? If a player is good enough to go pro after one year, why shouldn't he?

If after my freshman year, a potential employer had asked me to quit school for a million dollar salary at a legitimate job that I thought I'd love, I might have had some misgivings about leaving school but I almost certainly would have jumped at the million dollar opportunity. Why hold athletes to a different standard?


Why? Almost all NBA rookies are net negatives on the court, even the high lottery picks (http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/11340466/rookies-andrew-wiggins-rarely-make-sudden-impact). Tatum and Bagley after one year of college will likely be net negatives. Tatum and Bagley after zero years of college will even be likelier to be net negatives.

Now, if the players union would be willing to extend the length of rookie contracts by two years, that might actually incentivize the owners to get rid of OAD. But I don't see the players union agreeing to that. (I don't think extending by one year is large enough bait on the hook, and I'm not even sure the players union would be amenable to that much.)

Yeah, I agree with this. Most rookies don't even play in the NBA. It's hard to imagine the Jayson Tatum we saw at Duke making the Celtics rotation.

Troublemaker
10-17-2017, 01:52 PM
I don't think Silver would have uttered a peep if there wasn't growing interest from the owners.

There might be growing interest for a two-and-through rule, unfortunately :-) Last season's rookies were awful (https://www.google.com/search?q=2016+nba+rookies+bad), although that's partially because it was a weak draft class to begin with. It'll be interesting to see how well the 2017 draft class, regarded as strong, perform. I would still bet that most of the lottery picks are net negatives.


I could be wrong. I just see freshmen as bigger, stronger, and better prepared than even.

I understand you feel that way, but there's just no statistical evidence as of yet that rookies are making more of an immediate impact. I don't think NBA owners are keen on taking on the burden of an additional year of development without lengthening the rookie contract.

Wander
10-17-2017, 01:53 PM
Yeah, it's a good point. The Commissioner is generally the voice of the owners, but there are times when the Commissioner takes the lead and looks to the owners to follow. Maybe he thinks it's best for the game regardless of whether he has the backing of the owners (yet). Am I being naïve?

I agree. Part of the point of having leadership positions like this is to do what's best for the league in the long-term and think farther out than the shorter-term interests of coaches and owners. While the NBA is going to always look out the NBA first, it's in their best interest to have college basketball be somewhat functional and not completely go down the toilet. I've never really bought the argument that the NBA shouldn't care about college basketball at all.

JasonEvans
10-17-2017, 02:09 PM
Allowing guys who do not want to be in school to go directly to the league might finally turn the G-League into a true minor league. Fill teams with guys 1-2 years out of high school (3-5 of whom are tied to NBA teams via 2-way contracts) and you suddenly have a means of developing talent while not having kids sit on NBA benches. The cost to the NBA would be minimal (a 2 way contract costs $75k per season, which is nothing to NBA teams with annual payrolls that exceed $100 million). As an added bonus, the kids who do go to college for a few years would become more well-known and marketable, something that helps the NBA build its fan base.

-Jason "I think Silver's comment about Fultz and Simmons was telling... he wants the best prospects playing for high profile college programs and being on TV a lot!" Evans

JasonEvans
10-17-2017, 02:16 PM
I understand you feel that way, but there's just no statistical evidence as of yet that rookies are making more of an immediate impact. I don't think NBA owners are keen on taking on the burden of an additional year of development without lengthening the rookie contract.

The NBA owners would do anything to get an extra year or two into the rookie contract. The longer a team controls a player before he can bolt to the highest bidder, the better for the owners. Troublemaker is right that the first season or two of a rookie is rarely very useful to a team.

But, when we start talking about length of rookie deals and fundamental changes to the OAD era, we get into issues that are pretty major in the CBA. The NBA and the PA just reached agreement on a new CBA less than a year ago and the new contract is good until 2022 (or a couple years beyond if both sides don't opt out). I think big changes are fairly unlikely at this point.

elvis14
10-17-2017, 02:19 PM
If rookies are not that good and we allow players to go straight from high school then we end up with rookies who are a year younger and are not that good. These players get a year of full time hoops (like UNCheat) with no classes or distractions and become second year players about the same time they'd get drafted as a one and done. If I'm an NBA team, I'd like to think that I could better prepare a player in a year than a college could. Now, I'm not saying that would be true, fact is that different players react differently to different situations. Some would do better some worse but NBA people have to think they could do better.

So their 3rd year out of school players would have 2 years of NBA experience instead of 1 year of College experience and 1 year of NBA experience. If rookies are generally not that good, would it not then be OK if rookies and 2nd year players were not that good when they come straight from college?

One note, if a player is drafted out of HS and doesn't make it or only plays D-League, etc. it would be nice if they could get a basketball scholarship and get an education. Maybe we make them sit a year like a transfer or we take away a year of eligibility but I'd like to be able to protect these kids from themselves (and greedy relatives) a bit.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
10-17-2017, 02:24 PM
But, when we start talking about length of rookie deals and fundamental changes to the OAD era, we get into issues that are pretty major in the CBA. The NBA and the PA just reached agreement on a new CBA less than a year ago and the new contract is good until 2022 (or a couple years beyond if both sides don't opt out). I think big changes are fairly unlikely at this point.

So then, again, what's the impetus for Silver to say something now? If he knows no changes are coming for five years at least, is it just a PR move? "Hey. I know you guys are frustrated, but I am on your side?"

English
10-17-2017, 02:39 PM
Allowing guys who do not want to be in school to go directly to the league might finally turn the G-League into a true minor league. Fill teams with guys 1-2 years out of high school (3-5 of whom are tied to NBA teams via 2-way contracts) and you suddenly have a means of developing talent while not having kids sit on NBA benches. The cost to the NBA would be minimal (a 2 way contract costs $75k per season, which is nothing to NBA teams with annual payrolls that exceed $100 million). As an added bonus, the kids who do go to college for a few years would become more well-known and marketable, something that helps the NBA build its fan base.

-Jason "I think Silver's comment about Fultz and Simmons was telling... he wants the best prospects playing for high profile college programs and being on TV a lot!" Evans

This would be a fun experiment to see how the prospective athletes and their families value a college basketball scholarship. The G-League pays a small amount of money, by professional athletics standards, and currently has the popularity and cache in America of professional jai alai. Assuming the top-15/30ish prospects are draftable to NBA rosters (VERY generous figure, but whatever), would the next segment of rising college-age players view a college scholarship et al (room, board, facilities, television exposure, college coaching) as worth more than the semi-paltry, non-zero sum they'd expect in the G-League knowing they'd be playing without television eyeballs in places like Albuquerque or Des Moines or Sioux City, riding from city to city on buses or commercial coach? Would they consider the likelihood that they could raise their draft stock more playing for Duke, UK, KU, UCLA, etc. versus playing for the Indiana Pacers farm team? Would that even be true anymore?

I suppose some calculus in the decision-making would be exactly how badly a dude's family needed the $30k, and how badly he wanted to avoid the classroom. Of course, I'd guess others would relish the opportunity to play on ESPN every game, live a largely expense-free lifestyle among co-eds of similar age and proclivities. Still, it would have to give us a better empirical data set than we currently have arguing around these parts about how, for practical purposes, a college scholarship is worthless to these kids who are basically forced to faux attend college for a year before living the dream.

English
10-17-2017, 02:40 PM
So then, again, what's the impetus for Silver to say something now? If he knows no changes are coming for five years at least, is it just a PR move? "Hey. I know you guys are frustrated, but I am on your side?"

To be fair, this is not the first time the good Mr. Silver has waxed about changing OAD.

JasonEvans
10-17-2017, 02:53 PM
So then, again, what's the impetus for Silver to say something now? If he knows no changes are coming for five years at least, is it just a PR move? "Hey. I know you guys are frustrated, but I am on your side?"

Oh, they could change just OAD via an agreement they signed with the PA. It would not be difficult and could be wrapped into the existing CBA relatively easily.

But, something broader (involving the length of rookie contracts and structure of the G-League and so on) is likely too complex for them to tackle that without a fairly serious bargaining session. I think they are unlikely to do something more sweeping any time soon.

Still, I think rescinding OAD could happen before the CBA is up if both sides agree it makes sense.

-Jason "Silver isn't just doing this for PR, he wants to see OAD gone" Evans

RPS
10-17-2017, 02:56 PM
Now, if the players union would be willing to extend the length of rookie contracts by two years, that might actually incentivize the owners to get rid of OAD. But I don't see the players union agreeing to that. (I don't think extending by one year is large enough bait on the hook, and I'm not even sure the players union would be amenable to that much.)
If the goal is incentivizing players to stay in school, the rookie contract period is a huge problem because it "bigly" limits earnings for players with very short career earnings windows. Instead, I'd create a per player earnings cap during the rookie contract period and establish that period as continuing through age 23. That way, a player who stayed in school and demonstrated real value would have the potential to earn the same maximum amount over the rookie contract period as kids who go to the NBA out of high school. Players who stayed in school would have to wait for their money, but they wouldn't *necessarily* have to forego any.

DukieInBrasil
10-17-2017, 03:02 PM
If rookies are not that good and we allow players to go straight from high school then we end up with rookies who are a year younger and are not that good. These players get a year of full time hoops (like UNCheat) with no classes or distractions and become second year players about the same time they'd get drafted as a one and done. If I'm an NBA team, I'd like to think that I could better prepare a player in a year than a college could. Now, I'm not saying that would be true, fact is that different players react differently to different situations. Some would do better some worse but NBA people have to think they could do better.

So their 3rd year out of school players would have 2 years of NBA experience instead of 1 year of College experience and 1 year of NBA experience. If rookies are generally not that good, would it not then be OK if rookies and 2nd year players were not that good when they come straight from college?

One note, if a player is drafted out of HS and doesn't make it or only plays D-League, etc. it would be nice if they could get a basketball scholarship and get an education. Maybe we make them sit a year like a transfer or we take away a year of eligibility but I'd like to be able to protect these kids from themselves (and greedy relatives) a bit.

there are several factors, ahem, at play here. 1st if a player does the OAD thing, the NBA is not obligated to pay for that year of development, both skill wise and physically, which translate directly to quality of play, but also emotional and psychological development. 2nd, most players do improve during their one year (if OAD) in college and are therefore not quite not-as-good as they would have been as rookies strait from HS. So, while those players may in fact be better after one year in the NBA than one year in NCAA, the NBA doesn't have to take any risk financially on OAD players, plus they get a better player after OAD players go to the draft than they would get strait from HS. 3rd, draft risk goes down somewhat due to exposure to higher level of play in the NCAA. Although top-flight talent gets a lot more exposure these days via AAU and all star games etc, playing against bigger, stronger, better players allows NBA scouts to get a better handle on their talent/potential. Also, they get a chance to see how willing players are to work at their deficiencies, which i think would have to influence their desire to draft a player.
I like the idea in your "note" though, although i think simply offering up an NBA-financed scholarship for strait-from-HS draft "busts", or really any SF-HS player to, say, the flagship U. of that player's home state totally unconnected to athletics would be better than tying it to athletics.

AtlDuke72
10-17-2017, 03:16 PM
I could be wrong. I just see freshmen as bigger, stronger, and better prepared than even. 18 year old kids step onto the floor at Cameron and are running the show. Twenty years ago, freshmen we're lucky to see extended minutes.

18 year olds now are vastly different physically than they used to be. Pull of a pic of freshman Hurley and look at his arms. Or Grant Hill's. Then look at Tatum.

Last time I checked 18 year olds are still 18. Where do you get the information that there is a dramatic shift in their ability to step into the NBA our of high school?

lotusland
10-17-2017, 03:21 PM
I think this is an area where the long arm of the Feds might help. Not to design anything but, rather, to let the league and players union know that the status quo is not acceptable so fix it. I'm not sure the DOJ would do that but someone decided it was worthwhile for the G men to wire tap shoe companies. I assume the purpose was to clean up college basketball some.

I'm on the side of letting everyone declare for the draft whenever they feel they are ready. Changing the rookie pay scale and allowing undrafted kids to re-enroll in college is fine but, if college is only about getting ready for the NBA, it would be better if there was an attractive development league option for that purpose. I don't want anyone playing in college to feel like an indentured servant. If you want to go then go.

I'd like to think that would take care of the pay the players debate but, as long as collegiate sports make a ton of money, people like Jay Bilas will argue players should be paid. It's also harder to justify providing a free education instead of a salary in lieu of the UNC decision.

elvis14
10-17-2017, 03:23 PM
there are several factors, ahem, at play here. 1st if a player does the OAD thing, the NBA is not obligated to pay for that year of development, both skill wise and physically, which translate directly to quality of play, but also emotional and psychological development. 2nd, most players do improve during their one year (if OAD) in college and are therefore not quite not-as-good as they would have been as rookies strait from HS. So, while those players may in fact be better after one year in the NBA than one year in NCAA, the NBA doesn't have to take any risk financially on OAD players, plus they get a better player after OAD players go to the draft than they would get strait from HS. 3rd, draft risk goes down somewhat due to exposure to higher level of play in the NCAA. Although top-flight talent gets a lot more exposure these days via AAU and all star games etc, playing against bigger, stronger, better players allows NBA scouts to get a better handle on their talent/potential. Also, they get a chance to see how willing players are to work at their deficiencies, which i think would have to influence their desire to draft a player.
I like the idea in your "note" though, although i think simply offering up an NBA-financed scholarship for strait-from-HS draft "busts", or really any SF-HS player to, say, the flagship U. of that player's home state totally unconnected to athletics would be better than tying it to athletics.

Multiple factors at play for sure and I glossed over some of them. Note that I said that the NBA team has to think it can do better. I was also trying to equate the OAD player to the 2nd year NBA player who's from HS. I agree with what you are saying. I'd be happy if the OAD era ends but, like others, I don't see the incentive for the NBA.

sagegrouse
10-17-2017, 03:33 PM
Exactly, the OAD rule protects the owners from themselves and their own mistakes.

The primary protection for the owners is the draft system, including the salary scale. They are prevented from laying huge bucks on untested teenagers.

Silver also knows that the NBPA (players) don't want any restraints on the market, not even one-and-done. Therefore, he can probably get his proposal to eliminate OAD through the players and owners.

swood1000
10-17-2017, 03:48 PM
What if the NCAA passed a rule that required all freshmen to have a two year contract with the university. In case the athlete breached the contract after one year and went to play in the NBA there would be a liquidated damages clause that specified that the damages payable would be the first year’s salary earned in the NBA. According to one article dealing with liquidated damage clauses in employment contracts for college coaches (http://www.sportslawblogger.com/liquidated-damage-clauses-in-employment-contracts-for-college-coaches/),


A liquidated damage clause is generally enforceable if it is not a penalty. The Fleming court explained that in Ohio a liquidated damage clause will be treated as damages, and not a penalty, “if the damages would be (1) uncertain as to amount and difficult(y) [sic] of proof, and if (2) the contract as a whole is not so manifestly unconscionable, unreasonable, and disproportionate in amount as to justify the conclusion that it does not express the true intention of the parties, and if (3) the contract is consistent with the conclusion that it was the intention of the parties that damages in the amount stated should follow the breach thereof.”

I realize that this concept would be considered barbarous by those who think the players are currently being taken advantage of. I am just wondering whether it would be upheld. Such a clause is not upheld if it is considered to be a penalty, but the reason for using it in the first place is where it is too difficult to calculate actual damages. Would the first year’s NBA salary be a reasonable approximation of the value that the university lost when the player left?

lotusland
10-17-2017, 03:49 PM
The primary protection for the owners is the draft system, including the salary scale. They are prevented from laying huge bucks on untested teenagers.

Silver also knows that the NBPA (players) don't want any restraints on the market, not even one-and-done. Therefore, he can probably get his proposal to eliminate OAD through the players and owners.

I think the risk is wasting a high lottery pick on a bust more so than money.

ElSid
10-17-2017, 03:51 PM
One note, if a player is drafted out of HS and doesn't make it or only plays D-League, etc. it would be nice if they could get a basketball scholarship and get an education. Maybe we make them sit a year like a transfer or we take away a year of eligibility but I'd like to be able to protect these kids from themselves (and greedy relatives) a bit.

Hard agree. Time to stop penalizing players for testing options. Let them try. If it doesn't work out, go to college, get an education. Flexibility on both sides with minimal restrictions. Let the market work for what's best for the kids and for the quality of the game. Meanwhile, colleges get to maintain more semblance of adherence to academic charters.

Henderson
10-17-2017, 04:16 PM
I don't give a rat's patooey what effect this would have on the NBA. The owners and GMs are capable of looking out for themselves. No one is talking about forcing them to draft 18 year olds and put them on the NBA roster. They could respond to this any way they want: Either don't draft the player ("We don't think he's ready"), draft him and put him on the NBA roster if he's ready, or develop a place to "draft and stash" a player who's too good to pass on (as they do with internationals). Call it G-league or D-league or a European league or The Boston Celtics Basketball Development Program, focusing on skill development, physical training, and life skills. Whatever the owners want to do. They all seem capable of making their own complex personnel decisions. And all seem pretty invested in the concept of free enterprise (including free movement of labor) elsewhere in their lives. No one can ruin the NBA just by making more players eligible, because the NBA doesn't have to draft those players or put them immediately on an NBA roster.

I do care about the players, the college game, and the universities as educational institutions. That's where I think the focus of the discussion should be, not the impact on the NBA.

English
10-17-2017, 04:21 PM
Hard agree. Time to stop penalizing players for testing options. Let them try. If it doesn't work out, go to college, get an education. Flexibility on both sides with minimal restrictions. Let the market work for what's best for the kids and for the quality of the game. Meanwhile, colleges get to maintain more semblance of adherence to academic charters.

It's worth noting that there are no restrictions beyond admissions standards for a player that signed with an agent and entered the draft (and maybe even played a season or two in the League or G-League) to go on back to college. He just can't play the sport for which he received money and became a "professional." I don't quite understand why it's the schools' and the NCAA's obligation to maintain a fully open system where everyone can come and go as they please if the NBA doesn't work out.

Of course, I'm sure if it were made legal (vis-a-vis the NCAA) and would improve a school's chances for a natty, a coach would certainly oblige, and maybe even start recruiting the G-League for close-but-not-quite prospects to lure back to the college ranks. It'd be misguided to think it would be about adherence to academic charters, of course. And I'd have a hard time imagining it would solve any of the current problems we're witnessing now with corruption and cheating the system.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
10-17-2017, 04:25 PM
I do care about the players, the college game, and the universities as educational institutions. That's where I think the focus of the discussion should be, not the impact on the NBA.

Right... But the rule is an NBA rule, and Silver is in charge of the NBA. The only way it gets changed is if it in the best interest of the NBA.

Of course those of us on a Duke message board are much more concerned about how the rule affects college ball. But no matter if Silver gives lip service to it or not, it won't be the reason the rule does or doesn't change.

ElSid
10-17-2017, 05:04 PM
It's worth noting that there are no restrictions beyond admissions standards for a player that signed with an agent and entered the draft (and maybe even played a season or two in the League or G-League) to go on back to college. He just can't play the sport for which he received money and became a "professional." I don't quite understand why it's the schools' and the NCAA's obligation to maintain a fully open system where everyone can come and go as they please if the NBA doesn't work out.

Of course, I'm sure if it were made legal (vis-a-vis the NCAA) and would improve a school's chances for a natty, a coach would certainly oblige, and maybe even start recruiting the G-League for close-but-not-quite prospects to lure back to the college ranks. It'd be misguided to think it would be about adherence to academic charters, of course. And I'd have a hard time imagining it would solve any of the current problems we're witnessing now with corruption and cheating the system.

I get all this. But why not at least make it ok for a kid who has made a buck at basketball try to come back and get a scholarship too? I guess I don't see the harm.

Naive to think this system would improve the academic issues, I guess, but it could further filter in the kids who are really serious about both school and basketball.

The school wouldn't be obligated, I'd see it more as a benefit. Recruit a 19 year old G League drop out, what's the worst that could happen. Some restrictions could apply, but generally this would be a chance to reduce risk for the kid. Maybe there are risks / costs to the school I'm not realizing.

Henderson
10-17-2017, 05:11 PM
Right... But the rule is an NBA rule, and Silver is in charge of the NBA. The only way it gets changed is if it in the best interest of the NBA.


True enough. Kudos to Adam Silver for NOT focusing exclusively on what is good for his owners. I'm talking about where I think OUR conversation ought to be. And on that point, I don't think we should worry about NBA owners and their financial interests in restrictive labor practices. They obviously thought the current OAD rule is profitable for them. OK, but I'm not ready to limit the conversation to their needs. I don't think we should care about their needs. Because the draft/don't draft decision is 100% theirs, they can't complain about more people being eligible.

Silver has bridged the gap between NBA and other interests. Here are the questions by which I would judge any new NBA rule.

What's the best thing for young basketball players, all of them?
What's the best thing for universities, of which college athletics is just a part?

The NBA owners might have a different set of criteria, but I don't care. They say, "We would have too many applicants for our job positions." I say, "Really, Mr. Businessman? That's your problem? Deal with it. I'm concerned more about kids and universities than your ironic position on labor supply."

swood1000
10-17-2017, 05:43 PM
I can see an advantage for the NBA in requiring two years in college instead of one, but I can’t see an advantage for the NBA in allowing players to go pro out of high school, so I don’t see why they would do that. They just open themselves up to significant uncertainty with no upside to them, and I doubt that altruistic considerations will be found to compensate for this.

Silver talks about the possibility of making greater use of the G League, and perhaps making an increased investment in that league.


“From our standpoint, if the players in that one year of college aren’t getting the kind of development we’d like to see them get coming into the NBA, aren’t playing in the NCAA tournament, aren’t competing against top-notch competition, I think we have to take a step back and figure out whether we are better off taking those players at a younger age and working on their training and development full time,” Silver said.

Silver cited the improvement in the NBA’s developmental arm, the G League. It includes 26 clubs with parent teams and new two-way contracts that allow at least two players to earn as much as $250,000 a year. The NBA may finally, after decades of using the NCAA as its de facto minor league, be interested in real investment. In some cases, the actual coaching in the G League is better than the NCAA.

But if players are going to go into the G League out of high school it still opens the NBA teams up to the same uncertainty. They have to determine just based on high school competition whether player X is going to be a star in the NBA and should be offered a large salary, in order to avoid losing him to some other team, even if he’s going to spend time in G League.

RPS
10-17-2017, 06:00 PM
I can see an advantage for the NBA in requiring two years in college instead of one, but I can’t see an advantage for the NBA in allowing players to go pro out of high school, so I don’t see why they would do that.A HS player is a higher variance pick. For teams that are consistent contenders, more high variance options provide more opportunity to improve themselves via the draft.


They just open themselves up to significant uncertainty with no upside to them...Teams with better player evaluation systems should want more variance and more uncertainty. Moreover, the quality of the college game has been deteriorating. Thus, college is less of a benefit in terms of player development than it once was. Did Markelle Fultz gain much of anything by playing last season at U-Dub? As the #1 pick in the draft, one would think he ought to be able at least to start for the Sixers (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2017/10/17/markelle-fultz-isnt-receiving-the-usual-treatment-of-a-no-1-pick-that-might-be-good-for-him/?utm_term=.60b91af966ea) out of the gate...


But if players are going to go into the G League out of high school it still opens the NBA teams up to the same uncertainty. They have to determine just based on high school competition whether player X is going to be a star in the NBA and should be offered a large salary, in order to avoid losing him to some other team, even if he’s going to spend time in G League.The rookie scale deals with this problem reasonably well. First-year contracts are not a big outlay for teams in the overall scheme of things.

jipops
10-17-2017, 06:04 PM
Jipops, the NCAA has no power to decree a minimum of two years of play when accepting a scholarship. It would be a novel use of a "non-compete agreement," and I don't think it would work. Only the NBA can decree and enforce such a rule ("two years after HS class graduates"), and only if it is an outcome of the collective bargaining process. At least that's my opinion.

Part of the reason why I included "other governing body". But yea, not something the ncaa would have any power over. Wrong train of thought there.

RPS
10-17-2017, 06:11 PM
Part of the reason why I included "other governing body". But yea, not something the ncaa would have any power over. Wrong train of thought there.Plus, I doubt that even the NCAA would be willing to try to implement and enforce a liquidated damages clause (a) against those it goes to great lengths to avoid paying; and (b) that provides for liquidated damages far in excess of the "compensation" (scare quotes because the NCAA denies that it is compensation).

Then again, I keep being surprised at the level to which the NCAA will sink.

swood1000
10-17-2017, 06:18 PM
A HS player is a higher variance pick. For teams that are consistent contenders, more high variance options provide more opportunity to improve themselves via the draft.

I don't know what that means. Are you saying that since requiring NBA teams to make their choices after sixth grade would increase the variance even more, that they should find this desirable?


Teams with better player evaluation systems should want more variance and more uncertainty. Moreover, the quality of the college game has been deteriorating. Thus, college is less of a benefit in terms of player development than it once was. Did Markelle Fultz gain much of anything by playing last season at U-Dub? As the #1 pick in the draft, one would think he ought to be able at least to start for the Sixers (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2017/10/17/markelle-fultz-isnt-receiving-the-usual-treatment-of-a-no-1-pick-that-might-be-good-for-him/?utm_term=.60b91af966ea) out of the gate...

But, although there certainly are exceptions, don't most players who are good enough to make it into the NBA show enough promise at the end of high school to be offered a position on a team that can offer them a high level of coaching?


The rookie scale deals with this problem reasonably well. First-year contracts are not a big outlay for teams in the overall scheme of things.

Yes, but the greater question is which player to draft in the first place.

RPS
10-17-2017, 06:40 PM
I don't know what that means.A much wider range of potential outcomes.


Are you saying that since requiring NBA teams to make their choices after sixth grade would increase the variance even more, that they should find this desirable?Assuming you're serious, that isn't practical. The NBA is highly unlikely to allow 6th grade eligibility. No team is likely willing to pay players (in terms of salary and opportunity cost) for more than six years before they are likely to contribute. And not even the Spurs are likely to think that they can do decent player evaluation, within an NBA context, of 11-year olds.


But, although there certainly are exceptions, don't most players who are good enough to make it into the NBA show enough promise at the end of high school to be offered a position on a team that can offer them a high level of coaching?That's an open question. However, it seems beyond obvious to me that some NBA teams are much better than others at player development. Those which are good (or think that they're good) should want more high variance options.


Yes, but the greater question is which player to draft in the first place.Sure. But for late drafters (at least), the higher risk is worth it because of the high return possibility. Also, since late-drafting teams are more successful, they can generally better afford to be patient.

CDu
10-17-2017, 10:48 PM
I could be wrong. I just see freshmen as bigger, stronger, and better prepared than even. 18 year old kids step onto the floor at Cameron and are running the show. Twenty years ago, freshmen we're lucky to see extended minutes.

18 year olds now are vastly different physically than they used to be. Pull of a pic of freshman Hurley and look at his arms. Or Grant Hill's. Then look at Tatum.

I don't think your statement here is ingerently inconsistent with Troublemaker's point.

20 years ago, 18 year-olds were generally not ready physically, not ready emotionally, and not ready in terms of bball understanding. Now? They are still generally not ready emotionally and not ready in bball understanding, but less not-ready physically.

So, yes, today's freshmen are more physically ready for the NBA. But they are still a net negative as rookies, by virtue of not being ready in other areas. And there are still plenty who aren't ready physically either.

johnb
10-18-2017, 07:30 AM
Silver is a savvy guy. He’s not going to come out with a strong opinion that conflicts with owners or players. He is also no doubt capable of playing to his audience. To the owners, I assume he emphasizes draft risk and marketing: 2-3 years at Duke, and our stars are universally known by casual fans and more jerseys and tickets are sold. One year, not so much. He may also care about the 5-10 guys/year who go pro prematurely and then can’t retain their scholly, but I doubt he’s losing sleep, and that’s the NCAA’s decision to take away the right to play college b-ball if undrafted, isn’t it? Not sure what the leverage would be with current NBA players, but I’d emphasize that a draft delay slightly reduces competition and increases the pot of cash For current players by decreasing the cash that goes to busts.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
10-18-2017, 08:59 AM
Silver is a savvy guy. He’s not going to come out with a strong opinion that conflicts with owners or players. He is also no doubt capable of playing to his audience. To the owners, I assume he emphasizes draft risk and marketing: 2-3 years at Duke, and our stars are universally known by casual fans and more jerseys and tickets are sold. One year, not so much. He may also care about the 5-10 guys/year who go pro prematurely and then can’t retain their scholly, but I doubt he’s losing sleep, and that’s the NCAA’s decision to take away the right to play college b-ball if undrafted, isn’t it? Not sure what the leverage would be with current NBA players, but I’d emphasize that a draft delay slightly reduces competition and increases the pot of cash For current players by decreasing the cash that goes to busts.

Current players have vested interested in keeping the age limit because, quite simply, it is another "generation" of competition. Nothing more, nothing less. There are X number of roster spots in the NBA, and if kids age 18 can jump in, then there's Y fewer opportunities.

Owners have historically been in favor of the age limit to mitigate the risk associated with drafting unproven talent with high draft picks. They fear "missing out" on Kobe or Lebron, so they pass up on older, seasoned guys that are known quantities.

Silver's comments are one of three things:

A) A calculated PR/goodwill shout out to the college game, knowing nothing will change anytime soon, but positioning him as the "good guy."
B) Reflective of a change in the owners' point of view - they see college freshmen as an asset for their squads and feel they can now better evaluate talent from combines, AAU, and high school competition and want them as soon as possible.
C) He was talking and not thinking of the consequences.

Philadukie
10-18-2017, 09:36 AM
A HS player is a higher variance pick. For teams that are consistent contenders, more high variance options provide more opportunity to improve themselves via the draft.

Teams with better player evaluation systems should want more variance and more uncertainty. Moreover, the quality of the college game has been deteriorating. Thus, college is less of a benefit in terms of player development than it once was. Did Markelle Fultz gain much of anything by playing last season at U-Dub? As the #1 pick in the draft, one would think he ought to be able at least to start for the Sixers (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2017/10/17/markelle-fultz-isnt-receiving-the-usual-treatment-of-a-no-1-pick-that-might-be-good-for-him/?utm_term=.60b91af966ea) out of the gate...

The rookie scale deals with this problem reasonably well. First-year contracts are not a big outlay for teams in the overall scheme of things.

Yeah, it’s not so much the direct financial cost of drafting a bust, but the opportunity cost of missing out on a better player that the college evaluation period helps identify. Even that doesn’t assure success, but it helps teams in avoiding a guy like, say, Cliff Alexander, would’ve went top 3 out of high school.

sagegrouse
10-18-2017, 10:56 AM
Current players have vested interested in keeping the age limit because, quite simply, it is another "generation" of competition. Nothing more, nothing less. There are X number of roster spots in the NBA, and if kids age 18 can jump in, then there's Y fewer opportunities.

Owners have historically been in favor of the age limit to mitigate the risk associated with drafting unproven talent with high draft picks. They fear "missing out" on Kobe or Lebron, so they pass up on older, seasoned guys that are known quantities.

Silver's comments are one of three things:

A) A calculated PR/goodwill shout out to the college game, knowing nothing will change anytime soon, but positioning him as the "good guy."
B) Reflective of a change in the owners' point of view - they see college freshmen as an asset for their squads and feel they can now better evaluate talent from combines, AAU, and high school competition and want them as soon as possible.
C) He was talking and not thinking of the consequences.

Mtn.Devil, I would say the same thing about the interests of the NBPA but, in the past, the union has said that, as a matter of principle, it wants no restrictions on who can play in the NBA. I have said to myself, "Hmmm.... the union wants something in return to put in place a tougher age restriction." But I am not sure that's the case. Maybe it is a matter of principle.

Kindly,
Sage
'But surely, surely we can rise above principle....'

COYS
10-18-2017, 11:07 AM
I don't think your statement here is ingerently inconsistent with Troublemaker's point.

20 years ago, 18 year-olds were generally not ready physically, not ready emotionally, and not ready in terms of bball understanding. Now? They are still generally not ready emotionally and not ready in bball understanding, but less not-ready physically.

So, yes, today's freshmen are more physically ready for the NBA. But they are still a net negative as rookies, by virtue of not being ready in other areas. And there are still plenty who aren't ready physically either.

Another way to look at this is that even if 18 year-old's really are better skill-wise, physically, and emotionally now than they were twenty years ago, that means that 19 year-old's are ALSO better, as are 20 year-olds and so on, so any advantage the average 18 year-old of today might have over the average 18 year-old from 1997 is negated because, relative to the competition in the NBA, 18 year-old's are still behind the curve.

I am not one of those guys who thinks that the skill-level of current players is below the skill level of players "back in the day" (which stands in for whichever era one thinks was the best). If anything, players are more skilled now, especially with ball-handling and outside shooting. But it makes no difference in NBA-readiness because the NBA is also extremely skilled. Even if the players today aren't necessarily"better" than they were in the past, the age of advanced stats and SportsVU means that coaches can come up with game-plans to completely befuddle even the most skilled rookies (and vets, for that matter).

swood1000
10-18-2017, 12:43 PM
A much wider range of potential outcomes.

Assuming you're serious, that isn't practical. The NBA is highly unlikely to allow 6th grade eligibility. No team is likely willing to pay players (in terms of salary and opportunity cost) for more than six years before they are likely to contribute.

No, I’m saying that the draft each year would be from a pool of all previously undrafted players 6th grade and above, even though players will not be able to play in the NBA until they are 19. If you are saying that teams that are consistent contenders should prefer the increased uncertainty that would come from having to evaluate players solely on their high school play, wouldn’t they prefer the even greater uncertainty in having to evaluate solely on middle school play?


And not even the Spurs are likely to think that they can do decent player evaluation, within an NBA context, of 11-year olds.

So you are saying that teams with better player evaluation systems will do better in a high uncertainty environment but that when we keep adding uncertainty there comes a point at which there is so little information that the choice is really just random. The most this proves is that an equal number of teams will be for and against increasing the uncertainty, which results in a net zero perceived benefit and no net preference for increasing uncertainty.


That's an open question. However, it seems beyond obvious to me that some NBA teams are much better than others at player development. Those which are good (or think that they're good) should want more high variance options.

Don’t really follow this. Native ability is what is prized above everything else. Taken to a ludicrous extreme you seem to be saying that NBA teams that are better at player development should prefer that players be distributed to teams on a purely random basis. But if they are better at player development doesn’t that give them the same edge regardless of the variance?


Sure. But for late drafters (at least), the higher risk is worth it because of the high return possibility. Also, since late-drafting teams are more successful, they can generally better afford to be patient.

Are you saying that greater uncertainty as to the true ability of the athletes is to the benefit of the late drafters since it increases the probability that a diamond in the rough will still be there when their turn comes around? But then conversely this is to the detriment of the early drafters, with no net benefit or detriment overall, right?

RPS
10-18-2017, 02:24 PM
If you are saying that teams that are consistent contenders should prefer the increased uncertainty that would come from having to evaluate players solely on their high school play, wouldn’t they prefer the even greater uncertainty in having to evaluate solely on middle school play?A team may have an advantage over other teams with respect to HS players. That doesn't necessarily mean they have an advantage evaluating 11-year olds. Eventually the variance becomes essentially random.


So you are saying that teams with better player evaluation systems will do better in a high uncertainty environment but that when we keep adding uncertainty there comes a point at which there is so little information that the choice is really just random.Yup.


The most this proves is that an equal number of teams will be for and against increasing the uncertainty, which results in a net zero perceived benefit and no net preference for increasing uncertainty.This sort of evaluation isn't done in a vacuum. There are other factors involved. Besides, I was merely rebutting the claim that "the league" wants increased certainty. If I had the first pick, I'd want certainty. If I had the last pick, I'd want (relative) chaos.


Don’t really follow this. Native ability is what is prized above everything else. Taken to a ludicrous extreme you seem to be saying that NBA teams that are better at player development should prefer that players be distributed to teams on a purely random basis. But if they are better at player development doesn’t that give them the same edge regardless of the variance?We're talking about two separate (potential) advantages: player evaluation and player development. All other things being equal, teams with advantages in either or both of those areas should want more variance.


Are you saying that greater uncertainty as to the true ability of the athletes is to the benefit of the late drafters since it increases the probability that a diamond in the rough will still be there when their turn comes around? But then conversely this is to the detriment of the early drafters, with no net benefit or detriment overall, right?Yes. Different teams will surely think differently about the question even before other elements are factored in.

swood1000
10-18-2017, 04:22 PM
This sort of evaluation isn't done in a vacuum. There are other factors involved. Besides, I was merely rebutting the claim that "the league" wants increased certainty. If I had the first pick, I'd want certainty. If I had the last pick, I'd want (relative) chaos.

Apparently (https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05E6DB153AF93BA15755C0A9639C8B 63), in 2005 the NBA wanted an age limit of 20 while the Players Association wanted no age limit. So we can speculate about the role of “variance,” but unless you can point to changed circumstances it seems reasonable to suppose that "the league" holds the same view as it held in 2005, and wants increased certainty.

RPS
10-18-2017, 04:58 PM
Apparently (https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05E6DB153AF93BA15755C0A9639C8B 63), in 2005 the NBA wanted an age limit of 20 while the Players Association wanted no age limit. So we can speculate about the role of “variance,” but unless you can point to changed circumstances it seems reasonable to suppose that "the league" holds the same view as it held in 2005, and wants increased certainty.Why? Since we're talking about positions of parties to labor negotiations, I see no reason to assume that publicly stated positions are accurate. Moreover, even if the article is accurate, the league's position was arrived at via negotiations among multiple parties. There is no necessary unified position. Finally, 12 years is a long time for teams to have gotten a better handle on their systems and strengths. Jeff Bezos famously said that people who are right a lot change their minds a lot. Silver's comments suggest evolution and change. I have no doubt that teams have changed their collective minds on this over the past 12, perhaps more than once.

swood1000
10-18-2017, 05:50 PM
Why? Since we're talking about positions of parties to labor negotiations, I see no reason to assume that publicly stated positions are accurate. Moreover, even if the article is accurate, the league's position was arrived at via negotiations among multiple parties. There is no necessary unified position.

Well, since the Player’s Association clearly was not arguing in favor of an increased age requirement this had to be the position of a majority of owners.


Finally, 12 years is a long time for teams to have gotten a better handle on their systems and strengths. Jeff Bezos famously said that people who are right a lot change their minds a lot. Silver's comments suggest evolution and change. I have no doubt that teams have changed their collective minds on this over the past 12, perhaps more than once.

Your argument is that a majority of NBA teams now believe that their player evaluation systems are so superior to those of their rivals that they prefer more uncertainty involving athletes to be drafted because they believe they have a significant edge. But why wouldn’t they have had the same belief in themselves in 2005? Silver didn’t cite this as one of the things that have changed. You are saying that it is but you have not given a rationale as to why the views on this might have changed. Do you have any foundation for this belief or are you just saying that it could have happened? You must acknowledge that normally people agree that the status quo will remain constant and the burden is on the person who asserts that there has been a change to show evidence of it or at least provide a rationale that could have produced it.

ChillinDuke
10-18-2017, 06:16 PM
Well, since the Player’s Association clearly was not arguing in favor of an increased age requirement this had to be the position of a majority of owners.



Your argument is that a majority of NBA teams now believe that their player evaluation systems are so superior to those of their rivals that they prefer more uncertainty involving athletes to be drafted because they believe they have a significant edge. But why wouldn’t they have had the same belief in themselves in 2005? Silver didn’t cite this as one of the things that have changed. You are saying that it is but you have not given a rationale as to why the views on this might have changed. Do you have any foundation for this belief or are you just saying that it could have happened? You must acknowledge that normally people agree that the status quo will remain constant and the burden is on the person who asserts that there has been a change to show evidence of it or at least provide a rationale that could have produced it.

I'm not going to get majorly involved in this discussion between you fine folks. But I will cite one reason that would, it seem, amount to evidence of "change": media and social media.

12 years ago was nowhere like it was today in regards to media, social media, and the ability to share and find information. You couldn't even join Facebook in 2005 unless you had a recognized, university-sanctioned (.edu) email account. I would know, because I matriculated at Duke that year. Youtube was a relative unknown and wasn't even owned by Google at that time. And the first iPhone hadn't even come out. I don't know for certain, but I can only imagine it was much, much harder to gain access to these 16-year old kids as they rose up the basketball ranks.

I would hazard a guess that professional basketball franchises would rely on regional talent evaluators to get localized scoops on kids in certain areas in order to try to glean as much information as they could before making a reasoned judgment call (that probably amounted to little more than an educated guess) before drafting a kid out of high school. Such a construct would require a lot of legwork, connections, timing, interviews, etc. Where "etc" in this example means money.

In 2017, it's dramatically easier to get to know a potential high school draft pick. They are more available, you are more available, data is more available - Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, Snapchat, Wikipedia, iPhones, FaceTime, 4K videos via text message, the list goes on and on. I just can't imagine that the math (money-wise as well as logistics-wise) hasn't changed immensely in the past 12 years. And that's not even considering the fact that the NBA is more flush with cash than it has ever been.

So, while I'm not sure why Adam Silver would say what he said, and I'm not sure what exactly would change his (or NBA owners') view on the matter, I do believe that there has been an unquestionable shift in availability of data in the past decade+. That much seems certain, at least to me.

- Chillin

RPS
10-19-2017, 09:41 AM
Well, since the Player’s Association clearly was not arguing in favor of an increased age requirement this had to be the position of a majority of owners.I'm not fixated on the league's official bargaining position, then or now. To say that "the league" (meaning, generally, "the owners") took a particular position in collective bargaining does not mean that "the owners" (as in all of them) hold a particular position.


Your argument is that a majority of NBA teams now believe that their player evaluation systems are so superior to those of their rivals that they prefer more uncertainty involving athletes to be drafted because they believe they have a significant edge.No, I am not.

swood1000
10-19-2017, 12:08 PM
I'm not going to get majorly involved in this discussion between you fine folks. But I will cite one reason that would, it seem, amount to evidence of "change": media and social media.

12 years ago was nowhere like it was today in regards to media, social media, and the ability to share and find information. You couldn't even join Facebook in 2005 unless you had a recognized, university-sanctioned (.edu) email account. I would know, because I matriculated at Duke that year. Youtube was a relative unknown and wasn't even owned by Google at that time. And the first iPhone hadn't even come out. I don't know for certain, but I can only imagine it was much, much harder to gain access to these 16-year old kids as they rose up the basketball ranks.

I would hazard a guess that professional basketball franchises would rely on regional talent evaluators to get localized scoops on kids in certain areas in order to try to glean as much information as they could before making a reasoned judgment call (that probably amounted to little more than an educated guess) before drafting a kid out of high school. Such a construct would require a lot of legwork, connections, timing, interviews, etc. Where "etc" in this example means money.

In 2017, it's dramatically easier to get to know a potential high school draft pick. They are more available, you are more available, data is more available - Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, Snapchat, Wikipedia, iPhones, FaceTime, 4K videos via text message, the list goes on and on. I just can't imagine that the math (money-wise as well as logistics-wise) hasn't changed immensely in the past 12 years. And that's not even considering the fact that the NBA is more flush with cash than it has ever been.

So, while I'm not sure why Adam Silver would say what he said, and I'm not sure what exactly would change his (or NBA owners') view on the matter, I do believe that there has been an unquestionable shift in availability of data in the past decade+. That much seems certain, at least to me.

- Chillin

Do you think that this change in the availability of data would lead NBA teams to conclude that evaluating the NBA potential of high school players would be preferable to evaluating them after one year of college? Wouldn't they still want the decrease in uncertainty afforded by seeing how they do against college competition?

ChillinDuke
10-19-2017, 01:42 PM
Do you think that this change in the availability of data would lead NBA teams to conclude that evaluating the NBA potential of high school players would be preferable to evaluating them after one year of college? Wouldn't they still want the decrease in uncertainty afforded by seeing how they do against college competition?

I think your question(s) are valid but not focused enough. In other words, I think when faced with a question of relatively more or less uncertainty, an NBA team acting rationally would always opt for less uncertainty.

The question to me involves degree of uncertainty. Like I said previously, I don't particularly want to get too involved in this discussion. But my admittedly brief thoughts on the matter are that thanks to the increased availability of information today, the amount of uncertainty has materially dropped across the board. So much so that variance in potential outcomes for a given draft pick are much more contained within a reasonable band than they were 12 years ago.

If you agree with that, then the evaluation becomes one of weighing the incrementally increased uncertainty of a HS player (compared to a college freshman) versus the materially lower uncertainty of all basketball players' skill sets. I could see a reasonable NBA decision maker being more comfortable taking high schoolers today if the Kwame Brown's of today's world are materially less risky. Not saying that is definitively how it is, but I could see the argument going that way.

To be clear, none of this is to imply that the NBA Draft has become riskless. There is still obviously risk. And it exists whether or not you draft straight out of HS or out of college (hello, Anthony Bennett). But, again, I could see an NBA decision maker wanting to have an extra year of John Wall, Kyrie Irving, Anthony Davis, Andrew Wiggins, KAT, Simmons, or Fultz (the other #1 draft picks in the last 8 years; I arbitrarily stopped at 8 years) in exchange for some added risk by not seeing their (likely one year of) college experience - especially (enter: Adam Silver) when the last two examples on my list had arguably lackluster college experiences (by their own design) at least in regards to level of competition, exposure, and accomplishment.

I could see it go both ways, frankly.

ETA - I also think the dramatic increase in European players in the NBA has added a new wrinkle into the calculus.

- Chillin

English
10-19-2017, 03:04 PM
SNIP...

To be clear, none of this is to imply that the NBA Draft has become riskless. There is still obviously risk. And it exists whether or not you draft straight out of HS or out of college (hello, Anthony Bennett). But, again, I could see an NBA decision maker wanting to have an extra year of John Wall, Kyrie Irving, Anthony Davis, Andrew Wiggins, KAT, Simmons, or Fultz (the other #1 draft picks in the last 8 years; I arbitrarily stopped at 8 years) in exchange for some added risk by not seeing their (likely one year of) college experience - especially (enter: Adam Silver) when the last two examples on my list had arguably lackluster college experiences (by their own design) at least in regards to level of competition, exposure, and accomplishment.

I could see it go both ways, frankly.

ETA - I also think the dramatic increase in European players in the NBA has added a new wrinkle into the calculus.

- Chillin

Cherry picking a bit here, but I was surprised by Silver's singling out the last two #1 overall picks...I think their respective teams' abhorrent records cloud their individual performances a bit in our memories if we're talking about their accomplishments:

Fultz averaged a 23, 6, 6 last season at UDub. That's, uh, not bad for a freshman. And certainly his level of competition, while not NBA-level, was P5. Now, certainly, his teammates in practice likely didn't push him too much. His exposure, to scouts and to the public via ESPN, was sky high.

Simmons averaged a 19, 12, 5 in his one season in Baton Rouge. Samesies WRT competition (I guess some call the SEC a P5 hoops conference), and there wasn't a day that went by during CBB season that we didn't hear something about Ben Simmons re: exposure.

swood1000
10-19-2017, 04:37 PM
But, again, I could see an NBA decision maker wanting to have an extra year of John Wall, Kyrie Irving, Anthony Davis, Andrew Wiggins, KAT, Simmons, or Fultz … in exchange for some added risk by not seeing their (likely one year of) college experience …I could see it go both ways, frankly.

I guess I question whether the information revolution in the past twelve years has really added that much to the ability of the NBA decision maker to evaluate high school athletes. As of 2012 NBA commissioner David Stern said (http://www.espn.com/nba/draft2012/story/_/id/7771454/nba-commissioner-david-stern-hopes-change-draft-age-rule) "We would love to add a year, but that's not something that the players' association has been willing to agree to." In 2014 current commissioner Adam Silver gave (https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2014/02/13/adam-silver-commissioner-qa-age-limit/5458701/) “his strong opinion that the league's minimum age should be raised from 19 years old to 20.” According to a June, 2017 NYT article (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/sports/basketball/adam-silver-nba-draft-one-and-done.html) Silver said he has talked to many veteran players, who have a sense that the 19-year-olds “are not coming in game-ready.” Furthermore his recent statement didn’t say what his preferred solution to the problem is. Unless he’s been urging a position that is not supported by the owners it seems that they still don’t think that there would be a net positive in drafting players out of high school.

If they begin drafting high schoolers not only would the NBA have greater uncertainty but also greater cost since they would have to scout all the high schools and would have to foot the bill for player development of players not yet ready for the NBA. Furthermore, the NBA currently benefits from the fact that its best players were already household names by the time they were drafted.

ChillinDuke
10-19-2017, 05:05 PM
I guess I question whether the information revolution in the past twelve years has really added that much to the ability of the NBA decision maker to evaluate high school athletes. As of 2012 NBA commissioner David Stern said (http://www.espn.com/nba/draft2012/story/_/id/7771454/nba-commissioner-david-stern-hopes-change-draft-age-rule) "We would love to add a year, but that's not something that the players' association has been willing to agree to." In 2014 current commissioner Adam Silver gave (https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2014/02/13/adam-silver-commissioner-qa-age-limit/5458701/) “his strong opinion that the league's minimum age should be raised from 19 years old to 20.” According to a June, 2017 NYT article (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/sports/basketball/adam-silver-nba-draft-one-and-done.html) Silver said he has talked to many veteran players, who have a sense that the 19-year-olds “are not coming in game-ready.” Furthermore his recent statement didn’t say what his preferred solution to the problem is. Unless he’s been urging a position that is not supported by the owners it seems that they still don’t think that there would be a net positive in drafting players out of high school.

If they begin drafting high schoolers not only would the NBA have greater uncertainty but also greater cost since they would have to scout all the high schools and would have to foot the bill for player development of players not yet ready for the NBA. Furthermore, the NBA currently benefits from the fact that its best players were already household names by the time they were drafted.

I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion. You may well be right.

But I unquestionably disagree with the bolded. And maybe disagree is not the right word - but I don't see how it's even arguable. If the information revolution has greatly increased my ability to comparison shop couches from regional retailers that ship nationwide, learn about what movie I want to see before I even get to the theater, or watch a 50-minute documentary on the Komono Dragon at the push of a button (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhpFWJFj-GE), certainly an NBA exec has greatly benefited from YouTube videos, high school game broadcasts/live streams, video via text message, etc. IMO it's unquestionably easier to figure out / learn about "stuff" than it was 12 years ago. And I don't see why high school basketball players wouldn't be classified as "stuff".

Again, that doesn't mean that it's worthwhile to change OAD, at least to owners/franchises.

- Chillin

ChillinDuke
10-19-2017, 05:28 PM
Cherry picking a bit here, but I was surprised by Silver's singling out the last two #1 overall picks...I think their respective teams' abhorrent records cloud their individual performances a bit in our memories if we're talking about their accomplishments:

Fultz averaged a 23, 6, 6 last season at UDub. That's, uh, not bad for a freshman. And certainly his level of competition, while not NBA-level, was P5. Now, certainly, his teammates in practice likely didn't push him too much. His exposure, to scouts and to the public via ESPN, was sky high.

Simmons averaged a 19, 12, 5 in his one season in Baton Rouge. Samesies WRT competition (I guess some call the SEC a P5 hoops conference), and there wasn't a day that went by during CBB season that we didn't hear something about Ben Simmons re: exposure.

Well I admitted that I arbitrarily chose the last eight #1 picks. No particular reason to cut my sample there.

Re: Simmons/Fultz - I don't believe Silver's comments were meant to question the amount of marketing these guys got. Nor the amount of counting stats they obtained. My take was that he is concerned that kids are starting to "game" the system a bit and choose the path of least resistance to park themselves for their one year post high school. The NBA loves the current construct for a bunch of reasons, and one of those is growth in challenging circumstances - playing with and against the best. If kids are starting to do what Fultz/Simmons did (or, possibly more concerning, Mitchell Robinson), then that needs to be looked at by the NBA. Let's play logical extremes - this will never happen, but if the Top 10 HS kids all went into hiding for a year after they graduated and then declared for the draft, where does that leave the NBA on draft night? In Silver's eyes (again, my take), kids see the money one year away, and the last thing they want to do is risk the payday - so they (perhaps they're just beginning to; perhaps these examples are just outliers) choose suboptimal ways (for the NBA) to spend their one year that reduces the risk to that payday.

[I prefer not to get into the Teams v Players debate that seems to always erupt at this point.]

So, Silver is pointing out that there's a lot of money on the line for these kids. If they want that money, we need to figure out a better system that better aligns the NBA's long-term interests with the money that is being paid to players. Perhaps he's thinking that the kids getting smaller chunks of that big payday sooner in the G-League is a better construct. The kids get paid more than they do in college, and the NBA learns more about their skill sets and how they potentially stack up before they invest significantly more money in them. A win-win, potentially.

I have no idea if that's where Silver was coming from. But that's how it struck me.

- Chillin

swood1000
10-19-2017, 05:37 PM
I guess I question whether the information revolution in the past twelve years has really added that much to the ability of the NBA decision maker to evaluate high school athletes.
I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion. You may well be right.

But I unquestionably disagree with the bolded. And maybe disagree is not the right word - but I don't see how it's even arguable. If the information revolution has greatly increased my ability to comparison shop couches from regional retailers that ship nationwide, learn about what movie I want to see before I even get to the theater, or watch a 50-minute documentary on the Komono Dragon at the push of a button (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhpFWJFj-GE), certainly an NBA exec has greatly benefited from YouTube videos, high school game broadcasts/live streams, video via text message, etc. IMO it's unquestionably easier to figure out / learn about "stuff" than it was 12 years ago. And I don't see why high school basketball players wouldn't be classified as "stuff".

Again, that doesn't mean that it's worthwhile to change OAD, at least to owners/franchises.

- Chillin

But if “the information revolution in the past twelve years has really added that much to the ability of the NBA decision maker to evaluate high school athletes” then why would Stern in 2012 and Silver in 2014 not be on board? Isn't it the fundamental problem that there is a limit to how much one can learn from watching high school athletes demolish athletes from the local high school (who are not even good enough to be scouted for college)?

ChillinDuke
10-20-2017, 09:12 AM
That I don't know. Do as I do, not as I say, and all that.

It's possible the paradigm shift had occurred but they didn't want to tip their hand in negotiations or something. Who knows. Hard to opine on public statements these days. Or ever.

- Chillin

English
10-20-2017, 10:52 AM
Well I admitted that I arbitrarily chose the last eight #1 picks. No particular reason to cut my sample there.

Re: Simmons/Fultz - I don't believe Silver's comments were meant to question the amount of marketing these guys got. Nor the amount of counting stats they obtained. My take was that he is concerned that kids are starting to "game" the system a bit and choose the path of least resistance to park themselves for their one year post high school. The NBA loves the current construct for a bunch of reasons, and one of those is growth in challenging circumstances - playing with and against the best. If kids are starting to do what Fultz/Simmons did (or, possibly more concerning, Mitchell Robinson), then that needs to be looked at by the NBA. Let's play logical extremes - this will never happen, but if the Top 10 HS kids all went into hiding for a year after they graduated and then declared for the draft, where does that leave the NBA on draft night? In Silver's eyes (again, my take), kids see the money one year away, and the last thing they want to do is risk the payday - so they (perhaps they're just beginning to; perhaps these examples are just outliers) choose suboptimal ways (for the NBA) to spend their one year that reduces the risk to that payday.

[I prefer not to get into the Teams v Players debate that seems to always erupt at this point.]

So, Silver is pointing out that there's a lot of money on the line for these kids. If they want that money, we need to figure out a better system that better aligns the NBA's long-term interests with the money that is being paid to players. Perhaps he's thinking that the kids getting smaller chunks of that big payday sooner in the G-League is a better construct. The kids get paid more than they do in college, and the NBA learns more about their skill sets and how they potentially stack up before they invest significantly more money in them. A win-win, potentially.

I have no idea if that's where Silver was coming from. But that's how it struck me.

- Chillin

I don't think we have a disagreement on much of what you've said.

I'm curious why going to a lousy team for a season and missing the NCAAT would be considered the path of least resistance for these last two top picks and for the future hypothetical stars. I understand Simmons chose a fairly local option (from Montverde in FL to LSU)--some loose logic in that, I guess. Fultz is an east coast guy who ended up in the Pacific Northwest on a terrible team surrounded by overmatched teammates. No one but Markelle can speak to his rationale, but I don't understand the arithmetic. Perhaps the recruiting was just so much better than what these guys were hearing, but that's a bit of a leap.

ChillinDuke
10-20-2017, 11:48 AM
I don't think we have a disagreement on much of what you've said.

I'm curious why going to a lousy team for a season and missing the NCAAT would be considered the path of least resistance for these last two top picks and for the future hypothetical stars. I understand Simmons chose a fairly local option (from Montverde in FL to LSU)--some loose logic in that, I guess. Fultz is an east coast guy who ended up in the Pacific Northwest on a terrible team surrounded by overmatched teammates. No one but Markelle can speak to his rationale, but I don't understand the arithmetic. Perhaps the recruiting was just so much better than what these guys were hearing, but that's a bit of a leap.

"Path of least resistance" (my term) probably isn't the best way of describing it - but generally it gets to what I'm trying to say. If a guy like Fultz goes to Duke and is overshadowed by Tatum, Giles, and has to return for a sophomore year (sort of like Bolden), that could be viewed as a negative - by the press, the NBA, the kid, his family, a whole host of people. It could be viewed as negative. It doesn't mean it is a negative. But the simple fact that it could be more or less implies increased risk. Why would the kid risk that when it could amount to future millions? Why not just go somewhere where he's essentially guaranteed to be the leading scorer, play a ton of minutes, be the face of the program, etc?

The NBA wants to see how a player stacks up. They want a player like Fultz to be compared directly to Tatum, Giles, all the big boys. It reduces the draft pick risk.

People may get hung up on Fultz being really good and thus may miss the point I'm trying to make. So let's use Mitchell Robinson, he of Western Kentucky fame, or lack thereof.

Mitchell Robinson was a Top-10 HS recruit (#8 RSCI). He chose WKU. He has since decommitted and is taking the year off to prep for the draft. NBA teams will obviously do a lot of stuff to try to evaluate Robinson when the time comes to draft. But they will clearly lose valuable information about how Mitchell Robinson stacks up against college competition. Is he more similar to Kelly Oubre, Bam Adebayo, Malik Newman, or Alex Poythress (all former RSCI #8s). Clearly, an NBA team would like to know if they are getting an Adebayo (14th pick) or Oubre (15th pick) versus a Poythress (undrafted, but in the G-League; had a cup of coffee with Philly).

Will the NBA get enough information on Mitchell Robinson without him playing college basketball? Unclear. We'll never know. But I think it's safe to assume the NBA will get less information than it otherwise would have. That simple assumption, if true, is enough for the NBA to look at the construct and think, "Hmmmm, can we better devise this OAD rule? When kids were blindly opting for primetime college, we were getting a great deal. But now kids are opting for non-primetime college. Or perhaps not even choosing college at all. So maybe we should take another look at our construct to make it work better for us." That's how I take Silver's comments.

- Chillin

English
10-20-2017, 12:07 PM
"Path of least resistance" (my term) probably isn't the best way of describing it - but generally it gets to what I'm trying to say. If a guy like Fultz goes to Duke and is overshadowed by Tatum, Giles, and has to return for a sophomore year (sort of like Bolden), that could be viewed as a negative - by the press, the NBA, the kid, his family, a whole host of people. It could be viewed as negative. It doesn't mean it is a negative. But the simple fact that it could be more or less implies increased risk. Why would the kid risk that when it could amount to future millions? Why not just go somewhere where he's essentially guaranteed to be the leading scorer, play a ton of minutes, be the face of the program, etc?

The NBA wants to see how a player stacks up. They want a player like Fultz to be compared directly to Tatum, Giles, all the big boys. It reduces the draft pick risk.

People may get hung up on Fultz being really good and thus may miss the point I'm trying to make. So let's use Mitchell Robinson, he of Western Kentucky fame, or lack thereof.

Mitchell Robinson was a Top-10 HS recruit (#8 RSCI). He chose WKU. He has since decommitted and is taking the year off to prep for the draft. NBA teams will obviously do a lot of stuff to try to evaluate Robinson when the time comes to draft. But they will clearly lose valuable information about how Mitchell Robinson stacks up against college competition. Is he more similar to Kelly Oubre, Bam Adebayo, Malik Newman, or Alex Poythress (all former RSCI #8s). Clearly, an NBA team would like to know if they are getting an Adebayo (14th pick) or Oubre (15th pick) versus a Poythress (undrafted, but in the G-League; had a cup of coffee with Philly).

Will the NBA get enough information on Mitchell Robinson without him playing college basketball? Unclear. We'll never know. But I think it's safe to assume the NBA will get less information than it otherwise would have. That simple assumption, if true, is enough for the NBA to look at the construct and think, "Hmmmm, can we better devise this OAD rule? When kids were blindly opting for primetime college, we were getting a great deal. But now kids are opting for non-primetime college. Or perhaps not even choosing college at all. So maybe we should take another look at our construct to make it work better for us." That's how I take Silver's comments.

- Chillin

This is well reasoned, and I agree with the premise. If Silver's comments are based on three kids, though--and one of whom absolutely put himself in this position through a wildly convoluted and self-inflicted path (Robinson...he actually seemed to want to play high-level CBB at Kansas)--it sort of misses all the other dozens and dozens of prospective NBA players who go the same route toward the NBA that they have for decades. Throw in Mudiay and a couple of others that ended up overseas for various reasons unrelated to not wanting to play with the big boys, and you've got a handful on which the NBA didn't have as much to evaluate. Still, if that constitutes a sea change, I must be missing it.

When we start getting some double-digit percentage of the top HS recruits opting for non-P5 schools or schools devoid of any chance of making the NCAAT, or taking a PG year altogether, then I would better understand Silver's argument for change (or even including it as one of several arguments for change). It just strikes me as a bit disingenuous to say that two guys, now three or so, of the top-30 recruits of the last three years, have ended up in situations where they didn't consistently practice against other NBA-level players so it's time for a major shift.

All this said, for me this is merely a thought exercise. I'm not wedded to the current OAD rule, but just curious to Silver's explicitly referencing the past two overall No. 1's in his list of reasons to tear it down, er, rethink it.

ChillinDuke
10-20-2017, 12:13 PM
This is well reasoned, and I agree with the premise. If Silver's comments are based on three kids, though--and one of whom absolutely put himself in this position through a wildly convoluted and self-inflicted path (Robinson...he actually seemed to want to play high-level CBB at Kansas)--it sort of misses all the other dozens and dozens of prospective NBA players who go the same route toward the NBA that they have for decades. Throw in Mudiay and a couple of others that ended up overseas for various reasons unrelated to not wanting to play with the big boys, and you've got a handful on which the NBA didn't have as much to evaluate. Still, if that constitutes a sea change, I must be missing it.

When we start getting some double-digit percentage of the top HS recruits opting for non-P5 schools or schools devoid of any chance of making the NCAAT, or taking a PG year altogether, then I would better understand Silver's argument for change (or even including it as one of several arguments for change). It just strikes me as a bit disingenuous to say that two guys, now three or so, of the top-30 recruits of the last three years, have ended up in situations where they didn't consistently practice against other NBA-level players so it's time for a major shift.

All this said, for me this is merely a thought exercise. I'm not wedded to the current OAD rule, but just curious to Silver's explicitly referencing the past two overall No. 1's in his list of reasons to tear it down, er, rethink it.

Right, I agree. I don't think it's a "sea change." But I think it's potentially a piece of a much more complex development. When you add to it the growth of the G-League, the increased amount of international players in the NBA, two-way contracts, draft-and-stash, and what appears to be a whole lot more money floating around the system, it doesn't strike me as a huge leap to reconsider the current construct (OAD, mainly) and potentially find other options that are more beneficial to the NBA.

- Chillin

UrinalCake
11-07-2017, 12:19 PM
Great article about Bagley which gives some insight about him as a player and person and also discusses the larger context of OAD players. It explores the conundrum that the rule is completely unfair to the players, yet spending a year in college can also be a good thing for them. Worth a read.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/dukes-marvin-bagley-iii-explains-his-dueling-views-on-the-one-and-done-debate/

Troublemaker
11-07-2017, 12:38 PM
Great article about Bagley which gives some insight about him as a player and person and also discusses the larger context of OAD players. It explores the conundrum that the rule is completely unfair to the players, yet spending a year in college can also be a good thing for them. Worth a read.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/dukes-marvin-bagley-iii-explains-his-dueling-views-on-the-one-and-done-debate/

Liked seeing the quote below. Spread the word, Marvin.

"It's amazing," Bagley said. "It's the best decision I've made in my whole life, to come here and to play for Coach K and the coaching staff here at Duke. Every day I'm learning something new that I didn't know before. Coach K has been really honest with me in film, telling me when I'm messing up, telling me when I'm doing something good. Just teaching every single day about different defensive stuff, offensive stuff. I'm having fun, man."