Movement on One-and-Done in the Future

[sagegrouse]

Commissioner Adam Silver met today with the Commission on College Basketball today in Washington, DC. From Wojo's story (With momentum gathering to reshape the one-and-done draft entry rule, NBA commissioner Adam Silver and NBPA executive director Michele Roberts met with the new Commission on College Basketball in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, league sources told ESPN.) on ESPN.com:


With momentum gathering to reshape the one-and-done draft entry rule, NBA commissioner Adam Silver and NBPA executive director Michele Roberts met with the new Commission on College Basketball in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, league sources told ESPN.

The story says the NBPA wants to allow players to go the league directly from high school. The trade-off may be that those entering college will have to stay at least two years.


Nevertheless, there's a growing belief within the league that Silver's desire to end the one-and-done -- the ability of college basketball players to enter the NBA draft after playing one year in college -- could be pushing the sport closer to high school players having the opportunity to directly enter the league again. For that change to happen, though, the union would probably need to cede the one-and-done rule and agree to a mandate that players entering college must stay two years before declaring for the draft.

The union has long wanted players able to enter the NBA draft out of high school, but they ceded that in the 2006 collective bargaining agreement.

[Ultrarunner]

Commissioner Adam Silver met today with the Commission on College Basketball today in Washington, DC. From Wojo's story (With momentum gathering to reshape the one-and-done draft entry rule, NBA commissioner Adam Silver and NBPA executive director Michele Roberts met with the new Commission on College Basketball in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, league sources told ESPN.) on ESPN.com:

The story says the NBPA wants to allow players to go the league directly from high school. The trade-off may be that those entering college will have to stay at least two years.

The other change I would propose is that schools recruiting 1-and-done talent would be obligated to count that scholarship on their books for two years. In Duke's case, Tatum, Giles and Jackson would still count against the scholarship limit but Kennard would not. The net effect would be to spread talent across more teams as coaches became more selective. We'd also see teams gathering more not quite elite talent to play for more than a single season, increasing continuity. This change would not require approval from the NBA - The NCAA could institute this any time they please.

[JetpackJesus]

The other change I would propose is that schools recruiting 1-and-done talent would be obligated to count that scholarship on their books for two years. In Duke's case, Tatum, Giles and Jackson would still count against the scholarship limit but Kennard would not. The net effect would be to spread talent across more teams as coaches became more selective. We'd also see teams gathering more not quite elite talent to play for more than a single season, increasing continuity. This change would not require approval from the NBA - The NCAA could institute this any time they please.
Is your proposal meant as an alternative to Silver's proposal? Because under Silver's proposal Tatum, Giles, and Jackson would all have been required to stay a second year just by going to college. It's either go pro out of high school or go to college for at least two years.

Also, what would happen under your system with a Tyus Jones or similar player who was not expected to be 1-and-done when recruited?

My apologies if I misunderstood something ... late workday and little sleep last night.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

The other change I would propose is that schools recruiting 1-and-done talent would be obligated to count that scholarship on their books for two years. The net effect would be to spread talent across more teams.

Why in the world would you want that? I like Duke having almost all the talent! GTHc! 9F! :cool:

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Is your proposal meant as an alternative to Silver's proposal? Because under Silver's proposal Tatum, Giles, and Jackson would all have been required to stay a second year just by going to college. It's either go pro out of high school or go to college for at least two years.



Tatum and Giles would have never set foot on campus in this scenario.

[DavidBenAkiva]

Duke won at a high level when players could enter the NBA draft right out of high school and has continued to win during the one-and-done era. A system where a player is obligated to stay at least 2 years is better for the programs, but it's not a better situation for the players. There were players prior to the one-and-done era that were perfectly capable of going to the NBA after a year of college - Chris Bosh and Luol Deng come to mind. This system is good for coaches and fans, but not for the players.

The timing mentioned, that this could happen soon, seems like a great boon to Duke. I doubt they institute this with the 2018-19 class as that would be unfair. But they could institute it for the following class. During the 2019-20 season, Duke would have a bunch of juniors and seniors - Bolden (maybe), DeLaurier, Robinson, White, Goldwire, O'Connell, and Tucker - and would be in a very strong position to compete with the best in the country that season. And then Duke can go right along, winning with the best college players.

[sagegrouse]

Why in the world would you want that? I like Duke having almost all the talent! GTHc! 9F! :cool:

Cosine, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

[Billy Dat]

Selfishly, as others have said, I hope our glittering 2018 recruiting class is grandfather under the old rules.

I also think the players union would be crazy to agree to any rule that forces kids to stay two years. It's not fair. College basketball makes billions regardless of who is wearing the uniforms, and the coaches who have to navigate early entry are paid well enough to figure out how to adapt to kids leaving early.

What this brings back into play is the "wasted recruitment" effort of spending time on kids who wind up, often late in the game and after verbally accepting scholarship offers, leaving for the draft. If K keeps rolling, that will be the next challenge.

[fraggler]

The other change I would propose is that schools recruiting 1-and-done talent would be obligated to count that scholarship on their books for two years. In Duke's case, Tatum, Giles and Jackson would still count against the scholarship limit but Kennard would not. The net effect would be to spread talent across more teams as coaches became more selective. We'd also see teams gathering more not quite elite talent to play for more than a single season, increasing continuity. This change would not require approval from the NBA - The NCAA could institute this any time they please.

This wouldnt be up to the NBA, but the NCAA.

[Duke95]

As is readily obvious in this thread, fans are selfish. But man, they sure complain when kids put their own interests in front.

That's why it doesn't bother me one bit when college athletes are too. Let them go pro anytime they want. Any other student can do so at their own pleasure. Duke will be fine. If not, the athletic department will adapt.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I personally like the suggested plan but can see why it would bother others. Thinking out loud here (so I'm sure others won't like this idea), what about having the zero or two plan, but if a player wants to leave after one year, they can be drafted, but have to play in the G League at a G league base salary, and not accruing years towards NBA free agency. That way if a kid becomes great after one year and wants to leave, or they determine that they really hate being in school and/or really need some money, they have an out, but it is not as tempting or as lucrative as being a one and done. I think these situations will be few and far between as most of the true superstars will skip college and the kids who really want to be in school won't care about one year vs. two, but it is a bit less restrictive.

[NYBri]

I posted this on the previous OAD thread not too long ago. My opinions are unchanged:

"In order to solve this problem, all parties need to agree on what a "perfect system" would be and walk it backward to make it happen. That process is doomed at step one because there would be no agreement on what the "perfect system" looks like.

NBA looks at the present system and sees pretty much their "perfect system." They have a huge minor league/developmental program in the NCAA that they don't have any financial responsibility to maintain. Status Quo works well in that it gives their top tier talent a chance for one more year maturity (in all aspects) and still allows them to grab them at an early age to exploit.

From the players' perspective, a "perfect system" would mean that the earlier they get that rookie contract, the earlier they can get that first big payday in year 5. OR get rid of the rookie contract, which the NBA will never do.

Families want to get repayment for their life long investment ASAP. What would their "perfect system" look like? Pay to Play throughout their kids' childhood?

Shoe companies would LOVE to pay anyone anything at anytime as long as they make profits.

The NCAA "perfect system" would be to have a monopoly on the game for all 17-21 year olds and not pay them anything and grab all the TV and endorsement money so they can raise money for their schools from rabid fan alum.

Disagreement about the "perfect system" among the parties involved is the biggest obstacle to fixing this problem."

[sagegrouse]

Selfishly, as others have said, I hope our glittering 2018 recruiting class is grandfather under the old rules.

I also think the players union would be crazy to agree to any rule that forces kids to stay two years. It's not fair. College basketball makes billions regardless of who is wearing the uniforms, and the coaches who have to navigate early entry are paid well enough to figure out how to adapt to kids leaving early.

What this brings back into play is the "wasted recruitment" effort of spending time on kids who wind up, often late in the game and after verbally accepting scholarship offers, leaving for the draft. If K keeps rolling, that will be the next challenge.

With respect to the NBPA, it would be a trade -- HSers could go directly to the NBA; those enrolling in college have to stay at least two years. It sounds like the NBA will oppose elimination of one-and-done without some tenure guarantees for their partners in the NCAA.

[swood1000]

Is the downside of having to evaluate NBA potential based on high school play, along with the additional expense of having to scout high school games, compensated for by NBA teams having an additional year in college to evaluate players? It seems like the teams would be opening themselves up to more net risk without a compensating benefit (assuming they don't count the benefit to the college teams as their own benefit).

[duke79]

With respect to the NBPA, it would be a trade -- HSers could go directly to the NBA; those enrolling in college have to stay at least two years. It sounds like the NBA will oppose elimination of one-and-done without some tenure guarantees for their partners in the NCAA.

My thought and belief is, let the kids turn pro whenever they want.....after HS (or even before they graduate from HS), after one year of college, after two years of college, etc. Why shouldn't the basketball players (in conjunction with their family, coaches and other advisers) along with the NBA teams who will draft them and pay them make the decision what is best for the kids and NBA teams (and whether or not there should even be a draft is a whole other discussion)? I think it's ridiculous for the NBA and the NCAA to try to impose arbitrary rules on how and when these individuals can earn a living. It just creates all sorts of complications and injustices. One of the cornerstone principles of this country is "freedom of trade".

[swood1000]

Commissioner Adam Silver met today with the Commission on College Basketball today in Washington, DC. From Wojo's story (http://With momentum gathering to reshape the one-and-done draft entry rule, NBA commissioner Adam Silver and NBPA executive director Michele Roberts met with the new Commission on College Basketball in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, league sources told ESPN.) on ESPN.com:

A corrected link to the ESPN.com story.
(http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/21440530/adam-silver-nbpa-chief-discuss-one-done-draft-rule-commission-college-basketball)

[Ultrarunner]

Is your proposal meant as an alternative to Silver's proposal? Because under Silver's proposal Tatum, Giles, and Jackson would all have been required to stay a second year just by going to college. It's either go pro out of high school or go to college for at least two years.

Also, what would happen under your system with a Tyus Jones or similar player who was not expected to be 1-and-done when recruited?

My apologies if I misunderstood something ... late workday and little sleep last night.

Actually, as both. If the NBA changes the rules to 2&done, it would have no effect. Should they revert back, the rule already exists to increase competitiveness and restore a measure of the student-athlete paradigm that existed prior to early entry.

As for Tyus, the intent on entry doesn't matter. The net effect does.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Actually, as both. If the NBA changes the rules to 2&done, it would have no effect. Should they revert back, the rule already exists to increase competitiveness and restore a measure of the student-athlete paradigm that existed prior to early entry.

As for Tyus, the intent on entry doesn't matter. The net effect does.

So you recommend penalizing the school for developing talent quicker than their peers. Because that's what it sounds like.

[Ultrarunner]

Tatum and Giles would have never set foot on campus in this scenario.

I am okay with that. The kids should be allowed to make money from their time-limited skills.

[Ultrarunner]

So you recommend penalizing the school for developing talent quicker than their peers. Because that's what it sounds like.

Sure, if that is your perspective.

[AtlDuke72]

[QUOTE=Billy Dat;1015060]Selfishly, as others have said, I hope our glittering 2018 recruiting class is grandfather under the old rules.

I also think the players union would be crazy to agree to any rule that forces kids to stay two years. It's not fair. College basketball makes billions regardless of who is wearing the uniforms, and the coaches who have to navigate early entry are paid well enough to figure out how to adapt to kids leaving early.

I disagree entirely that this would not be fair. Kids get two years of college in exchange for all the time and money spent recruiting them, coaching them etc. Kids will have other options if they don't want to got to school such as the D-League or Europe if they can't make the NBA out of high school. What is unfair about letting them have a choice or a two year commitment?

[sagegrouse]

My thought and belief is, let the kids turn pro whenever they want...after HS (or even before they graduate from HS), after one year of college, after two years of college, etc. Why shouldn't the basketball players (in conjunction with their family, coaches and other advisers) along with the NBA teams who will draft them and pay them make the decision what is best for the kids and NBA teams (and whether or not there should even be a draft is a whole other discussion)? I think it's ridiculous for the NBA and the NCAA to try to impose arbitrary rules on how and when these individuals can earn a living. It just creates all sorts of complications and injustices. One of the cornerstone principles of this country is "freedom of trade".

Well, for one thing, the one-and-done practice has seriously debased the college game, and the NBA, including the Commish, knows it and is concerned. Taking off all restraints would be far worse. The colleges would recruit without knowing whether a player a they signed would show up the following summer, resulting in increased expense and more roster instability.

While I appreciate your "freedom of trade" argument, major league baseball and the NFL have stricter limitations on the access of youth to their leagues. All these rules are part of labor agreements, which the courts have tended to uphold.

[DavidBenAkiva]

I personally like the suggested plan but can see why it would bother others. Thinking out loud here (so I'm sure others won't like this idea), what about having the zero or two plan, but if a player wants to leave after one year, they can be drafted, but have to play in the G League at a G league base salary, and not accruing years towards NBA free agency. That way if a kid becomes great after one year and wants to leave, or they determine that they really hate being in school and/or really need some money, they have an out, but it is not as tempting or as lucrative as being a one and done. I think these situations will be few and far between as most of the true superstars will skip college and the kids who really want to be in school won't care about one year vs. two, but it is a bit less restrictive.

These are some good thoughts. I'm glad you made them "out loud."

Here's another idea to consider: Allow players to stay in the draft, even after the first year. If they don't get drafted, they retain their eligibility for another year. If they do get drafted, they can negotiate a contract with the team that drafted them. If the negotiations fall apart or no agreement is made, the player retains eligibility. This is the system that exists in baseball, if memory serves. If they go this route, it would help to expand the draft to 3 rounds. I do like the idea you pose of allowing the G League players to retain years towards NBA free agency. That provides some incentives for the NBA to sign the players in the 2nd and 3rd rounds for development.

In summary:

No limits on entering the NBA Draft
If not drafted, retain NCAA eligibility
If drafted without signing an NBA contract, retain NCAA eligibility
If drafted and signed, time spent in the G League does not count towards NBA free agency


I think this would be best for the players and would result in a better approach for college teams, too. More players would get a better sense of their value and weaknesses to potential NBA teams. College teams would be able to retain more players for 2, 3, or even 4 years. And the NBA teams would invest more in player development in the G League to maximize the return on their investments in the players.

[swood1000]

While I appreciate your "freedom of trade" argument, major league baseball and the NFL have stricter limitations on the access of youth to their leagues. All these rules are part of labor agreements, which the courts have tended to uphold.

Furthermore, complete freedom of trade has always been incompatible with a successfully functioning sports league.

[Hingeknocker]

In summary:

No limits on entering the NBA Draft
If not drafted, retain NCAA eligibility
If drafted without signing an NBA contract, retain NCAA eligibility
If drafted and signed, time spent in the G League does not count towards NBA free agency



Among other changes that desperately need to be made (i.e. whatever is decided about the One-and-Done, Zero-or-Two, etc. plan, the fact remains that college athletes deserve to be paid for the billions in value they create), I think this is the most obvious and beneficial change that could be made. I'd only actually quibble with the last two points. I'm not sure why the NBA would agree to take on the risk that a drafted player could return to college if they can't agree on a deal. I know it works this way in baseball, but I don't see the NBA agreeing to it. As for the second point, I don't think it makes sense from the players' perspective to give up service time in the G League as counting towards free agency. Again, it actually works this way in baseball already, so if the NBA and Players Union negotiated some parameters like these, with each side giving in on something, I can see a path where it happens.

But that aside, allowing the players the option to return to school if undrafted is the single most practical change that could be made to this entire process. This issue is just as important, if not more so, in college football. And players absolutely should be allowed to hire an agent throughout the entire pre-draft process without compromising their future NCAA eligiblity.

[swood1000]

And of course, most everything is negotiable. The trade-off for the mandatory two years in college could be something else that the players want. What modification of the 2017 deal (http://official.nba.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/01/NBA-2017-CBA-Principal-Deal-Points.pdf) might the players think would be worth this concession?

[duke79]

Well, for one thing, the one-and-done practice has seriously debased the college game, and the NBA, including the Commish, knows it and is concerned. Taking off all restraints would be far worse. The colleges would recruit without knowing whether a player a they signed would show up the following summer, resulting in increased expense and more roster instability.

While I appreciate your "freedom of trade" argument, major league baseball and the NFL have stricter limitations on the access of youth to their leagues. All these rules are part of labor agreements, which the courts have tended to uphold.

Not to get too theoretical here, but in a free market, capitalistic economy (that we SUPPOSEDLY have in the U.S.), should our concern be whether or not a college sport (basketball, football, or any other sport) is "debased" or upset by a particular set of laws and rules that that country sets up for how its economy is run. Should the NBA and the NCAA be allowed to create a set of rules that restrains the ability of individual to earn a living (mostly for the sake of enriching themselves at the expense of the players)?

I agree with you that the "one and done" rule has creates somewhat of a mess (or made life more complicated for coaches and administrators) for a few NCAA teams, but, in the overall scope of our country, who really cares? And I'm not sure that giving players and the NBA teams the right to make their own decisions about their lives and their right to earn a livelihood would necessarily make the situation worse than it is right now.

[cruxer]

I'm big on letting kids make money, but I am not bothered by a 2-year requirement for kids who opt to go to college, provided they had the opportunity to declare directly out of high school. Kids should be able to have real representation in high school and beyond to help them navigate this process. Kids should also be able to go through the NBA combine-process at any time to help assess their readiness.

Here's why I think this would work: 1) Kids who are good enough (and recognized as good enough) can sign right out of high school. 2) Kids who still need development, or for NBA teams to have the chance to recognize their abilities, actually need college to achieve that, so some commitment is reasonable in return.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I am okay with that. The kids should be allowed to make money from their time-limited skills.

I agree. The post I was responding to seemed to be suggesting that they would have to stay a second year under this proposal. I was pointing out that to the contrary, there never would have been a first year.

I am on the record in many other threads as a staunch player rights advocate and remain as such.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Among other changes that desperately need to be made (i.e. whatever is decided about the One-and-Done, Zero-or-Two, etc. plan, the fact remains that college athletes deserve to be paid for the billions in value they create...

I actually think that eliminating the age restriction for the NBA also creates a nice response to those (myself included) who tend to argue for some degree of payment for the college athletes. Currently, I look at the system and say "how come the persons responsible for creating the entertainment at colleges and universities that creates billions in revenue are not allowed to profit from it, while coaches, managers, referees, concession stand workers, TV networks, parking attendants and Dick Vitale are allowed to do so?"

That response is "well, if they feel they are talented enough, they would be in the NBA making their money," rather than some half-cocked mishmash of "well, they need more coaching/maturity/education," or "their tuition is adequate compensation," or "they are amateurs, and that's the way it has always been."

It's really a pretty effective conversation ender.

[johnb]

...

I also think the players union would be crazy to agree to any rule that forces kids to stay two years. It's not fair. ....

It's the players union, not the former players union or the prospects union or the fairness union. Current NBA players should want to keep as much money as possible for themselves. It would make sense to want to spend a limited amount on busts and/or underperformers who are out of the league after a single contract-- a couple of post-highschool years would likely minimize the likelihood of busts. If the union represents all players equally, then I'd also imagine that the rank and file players would edge toward rules limiting the percentage of cash and flexibility that might otherwise go to the superstars, who often would have been identified as such by the age of 17. In this, they would see the world differently from owners, who recognize that championships and full arenas are determined by elite talent, not by rank and file players who are only slightly better than many of the guys who are playing in Europe.

Oh, and the NCAA sets rules for eligibility. I don't really know why they don't let players return to school if they don't get drafted. I can see why the NBA would be irritated if the rule were even more flexible (you can retain eligibility even if you are drafted but decline the contract, since that would cost draft picks), but why hurt kids who want to return?

As for the proposal to take away scholarships if guys go pro after a year.... I can see such a proposal on any fan site other than ours or Kentucky's. Leaving that aside, why? I'd rather take away scholarships for overall poor graduation rates, epsecially when guys leave in poor academic standing, but why penalize teams for an event that is rare (well, not rare at Duke or KY) and not affecting anyone but the team which just lost a top player?

[sagegrouse]

Not to get too theoretical here, but in a free market, capitalistic economy (that we SUPPOSEDLY have in the U.S.), should our concern be whether or not a college sport (basketball, football, or any other sport) is "debased" or upset by a particular set of laws and rules that that country sets up for how its economy is run. Should the NBA and the NCAA be allowed to create a set of rules that restrains the ability of individual to earn a living (mostly for the sake of enriching themselves at the expense of the players)?

I agree with you that the "one and done" rule has creates somewhat of a mess (or made life more complicated for coaches and administrators) for a few NCAA teams, but, in the overall scope of our country, who really cares? And I'm not sure that giving players and the NBA teams the right to make their own decisions about their lives and their right to earn a livelihood would necessarily make the situation worse than it is right now.

I swear you must be duke95's uncle. This is not a competitive model; it is a monopoly and it seems everything gets negotiated, not set in an open market. The "competing teams" are really business partners. You didn't mention salary caps, which every sports league has. We are restricting the ability of 18-20 YOs to enter a major sports league without going through some hoops. The overall economic damage to the relatively few players at that age capable of competing at such a high level created by one-and-done and other restrictions is probably less overall than the rookie salary scale which limits salaries -- in some cases, tremendously -- until a player has been in the league 4-5 years.

This is a news thread more than a commentary thread -- one-and-done may be going.

[DavidBenAkiva]

Among other changes that desperately need to be made (i.e. whatever is decided about the One-and-Done, Zero-or-Two, etc. plan, the fact remains that college athletes deserve to be paid for the billions in value they create), I think this is the most obvious and beneficial change that could be made. I'd only actually quibble with the last two points. I'm not sure why the NBA would agree to take on the risk that a drafted player could return to college if they can't agree on a deal. I know it works this way in baseball, but I don't see the NBA agreeing to it. As for the second point, I don't think it makes sense from the players' perspective to give up service time in the G League as counting towards free agency. Again, it actually works this way in baseball already, so if the NBA and Players Union negotiated some parameters like these, with each side giving in on something, I can see a path where it happens.

But that aside, allowing the players the option to return to school if undrafted is the single most practical change that could be made to this entire process. This issue is just as important, if not more so, in college football. And players absolutely should be allowed to hire an agent throughout the entire pre-draft process without compromising their future NCAA eligiblity.

The last two bullet points are about incentives, one for the players and one for the NBA teams. You need to create an incentive for the NBA teams to invest in players. And there needs to be an incentive for the player to get on an NBA roster (beyond just getting to the NBA, of course).

A player like Javin DeLaurier, for example, has a bright future. Right now, he's like a less refined Jordan Bell, the player from last year's Oregon. But he needs refinement and an environment in which to develop his skills to get on an NBA roster. Should that be college or the NBA? If the draft rules gave him flexibility like I've proposed, he would have a tough choice to make.

The G League, as it is currently constructed, prioritizes playing games and traveling over skills development. It's a business. They don't practice a ton from what I hear. The status quo would not be best for Javin. In order to entice a player like Javin into the draft, give a player an option to go back to school to raise his draft stock so that the NBA team has to raise its investment in that player. 'We want you on our roster sooner, so here's a signing bonus.' The tradeoff is the last bullet point. The player got more money up front through negotiations, so they are locked into a G League salary until they hit the NBA roster. That's when the clock starts. It creates an incentive for the player to get to the NBA as quickly as possible. Is the team telling you that you need a reliable jumper to make the 15 man roster? Spend all you time working with the coaching staff on that jumper.

[Matches]

It's the players union, not the former players union or the prospects union or the fairness union. Current NBA players should want to keep as much money as possible for themselves.

The head of any of the major sports players unions would tell you that the unions are designed to represent the interests of prospective, as well as current, players. Who knows how or if that translates in practice, but it is part of the unions' mission statement.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

The head of any of the major sports players unions would tell you that the unions are designed to represent the interests of prospective, as well as current, players. Who knows how or if that translates in practice, but it is part of the unions' mission statement.

That is completely contrary to many arguments I have heard, in which players unions are FAR more vested in current players as opposed to potential players.

Not saying it isn't true, but I've never heard that as a stated goal before or seen it in practice.

[swood1000]

Clearly every one-and-doner currently playing college basketball has concluded that playing for a high-profile college team, with the increase in name recognition that brings with it, is worth more to them than the amount they would earn in G league. So players not guaranteed a place on an NBA team right out of high school, or at least guaranteed their second year, or given some kind of financial guarantee, would have an incentive to opt for college.

[Matches]

That is completely contrary to many arguments I have heard, in which players unions are FAR more vested in current players as opposed to potential players.



I suspect that in practice that's how it usually works out. Human nature and all that.

[cruxer]

I suspect that in practice that's how it usually works out. Human nature and all that.

Current players pay the dues and vote for officers and policies. IIRC the union accepted OAD+rookie salary caps because it meant more $$ for mid-level, established players. Both of those changes were at the expense of future NBA players, but the players were only opposed to OAD, and the rookie salary cap was the bargaining chip that got them to accept!

[Hingeknocker]

I actually think that eliminating the age restriction for the NBA also creates a nice response to those (myself included) who tend to argue for some degree of payment for the college athletes. Currently, I look at the system and say "how come the persons responsible for creating the entertainment at colleges and universities that creates billions in revenue are not allowed to profit from it, while coaches, managers, referees, concession stand workers, TV networks, parking attendants and Dick Vitale are allowed to do so?"

That response is "well, if they feel they are talented enough, they would be in the NBA making their money," rather than some half-cocked mishmash of "well, they need more coaching/maturity/education," or "their tuition is adequate compensation," or "they are amateurs, and that's the way it has always been."

It's really a pretty effective conversation ender.

I don't think it's a conversation ender at all. Regardless of what the NBA decides to do about their minimum-age draft requirements, the overwhelming majority of NCAA basketball players will be entirely unaffected. For example, Jordan Goldwire still deserves his fair share of the NCAA billions regardless of what decisions Marvin Bagley or a more fringe HS-to-NBA candidate like Gary Trent make. Anyone playing in the NCAA in 2017 is already talented enough to make money (the NCAA's money). Just because they aren't talented enough (yet, or ever) to make the NBA's money is not a good reason to deny them what they are worth now.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I don't think it's a conversation ender at all. Regardless of what the NBA decides to do about their minimum-age draft requirements, the overwhelming majority of NCAA basketball players will be entirely unaffected. For example, Jordan Goldwire still deserves his fair share of the NCAA billions regardless of what decisions Marvin Bagley or a more fringe HS-to-NBA candidate like Gary Trent make. Anyone playing in the NCAA in 2017 is already talented enough to make money (the NCAA's money). Just because they aren't talented enough (yet, or ever) to make the NBA's money is not a good reason to deny them what they are worth now.

But, the offer from the NCAA is "play for a free education." If you choose that option, that's fantastic. As it stands, it isn't really a choice; there are no other viable alternatives for an 18 year old kid locked out of the NBA because of his age.

If the restriction is gone, then kids are truly making a choice to go to college and play for an athletic scholarship instead of try out for the NBA.

[Hingeknocker]

But, the offer from the NCAA is "play for a free education." If you choose that option, that's fantastic. As it stands, it isn't really a choice; there are no other viable alternatives for an 18 year old kid locked out of the NBA because of his age.

If the restriction is gone, then kids are truly making a choice to go to college and play for an athletic scholarship instead of try out for the NBA.

So if you're not talented enough at 18, or ever, to enter the NBA and therefore play 1-4 years of college basketball, tough luck you don't get any of the billions that are being generated by the NCAA? Sorry, but that's not good enough for me.

The system you propose works for ~15 kids per year who are talented enough to go pro out of high school, and fails everyone else.

[duke79]

I swear you must be duke95's uncle. This is not a competitive model; it is a monopoly and it seems everything gets negotiated, not set in an open market. The "competing teams" are really business partners. You didn't mention salary caps, which every sports league has. We are restricting the ability of 18-20 YOs to enter a major sports league without going through some hoops. The overall economic damage to the relatively few players at that age capable of competing at such a high level created by one-and-done and other restrictions is probably less overall than the rookie salary scale which limits salaries -- in some cases, tremendously -- until a player has been in the league 4-5 years.

This is a news thread more than a commentary thread -- one-and-done may be going.

LOL, NOT duke95's uncle (as far as I know?) AND I realize the NBA is not a competitive marketplace (but why shouldn't it be MORE competitive?). For the record, I'm also opposed to salary caps. That is also a restraint of trade, IMHO, and denies someone the ability to earn what he might otherwise be able to in a free market. Is that fair or right? I realize I"m tilting at windmills, with these arguments, but, WTH, it's a discussion board and we're not drafting federal legislation.

[Duke95]

Well, for one thing, the one-and-done practice has seriously debased the college game, and the NBA, including the Commish, knows it and is concerned. Taking off all restraints would be far worse. The colleges would recruit without knowing whether a player a they signed would show up the following summer, resulting in increased expense and more roster instability.

While I appreciate your "freedom of trade" argument, major league baseball and the NFL have stricter limitations on the access of youth to their leagues. All these rules are part of labor agreements, which the courts have tended to uphold.

OAD hasn't debased the NBA at all. It has, however, further exposed the commercial nature of collegiate athletics.

And whether removing the OAD restraints places additional burdens on colleges' recruiting efforts is entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

[Duke95]

I swear you must be duke95's uncle. This is not a competitive model; it is a monopoly and it seems everything gets negotiated, not set in an open market. The "competing teams" are really business partners. You didn't mention salary caps, which every sports league has. We are restricting the ability of 18-20 YOs to enter a major sports league without going through some hoops. The overall economic damage to the relatively few players at that age capable of competing at such a high level created by one-and-done and other restrictions is probably less overall than the rookie salary scale which limits salaries -- in some cases, tremendously -- until a player has been in the league 4-5 years.

This is a news thread more than a commentary thread -- one-and-done may be going.

It's actually a monopsony (if you're referring to the NCAA). There is only one buyer of athletes' services: the monopsonistic cartel known as the NCAA. And if you're talking about the NBA, you've just refuted yourself. On one hand, you say it's a monopoly, on the other you say everything gets negotiated. Which is it? Monopolies don't usually negotiate. They're price setters.

But hey, carry on. You're obviously not going to let evidence to the contrary stand in the way of voicing your opinions.

[lotusland]

So you recommend penalizing the school for developing talent quicker than their peers. Because that's what it sounds like. I don't like this penalty because it's not needed. Still, giving Duke credit for "developing" the OAD talent is a little rich. Since the proposed rule would all but eliminate the recruitment of Jabari, Tatum, and Bagley and other draft ready High schoolers, I don't see the need for a penalty. Duke didn't know Tyus and Justise would be OAD. Even so they would have still been OAD at another school as they were pretty ready on day one. if anything Duke/Coach K should crow about developing the Plumlees, Lance, Quinn, Seth, etc.. Those are guys who weren't pros when they arrived.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

So if you're not talented enough at 18, or ever, to enter the NBA and therefore play 1-4 years of college basketball, tough luck you don't get any of the billions that are being generated by the NCAA? Sorry, but that's not good enough for me.

The system you propose works for ~15 kids per year who are talented enough to go pro out of high school, and fails everyone else.

I think it works for those fifteen kids and the VAST majority for whom "play for tuition" is a really good deal. The handful who have NBA aspirations can continue to work on their craft and get good coaching.

[JasonEvans]

Just so we are clear, we are all arguing back and forth with the same arguments we have been making for quite a while. It will be interesting to see how the three players in all this (NBA, NCAA, NBAPA) end up on this issue, but the teeth gnashing of us fans ain't gonna have much of an impact, I think.

[duke79]

Just so we are clear, we are all arguing back and forth with the same arguments we have been making for quite a while. It will be interesting to see how the three players in all this (NBA, NCAA, NBAPA) end up on this issue, but the teeth gnashing of us fans ain't gonna have much of an impact, I think.

No doubt you're correct. I don't expect to see any huge, global changes to the present system, other than, maybe, the OAD requirement goes away (in some form).

[lotusland]

It's actually a monopsony (if you're referring to the NCAA). There is only one buyer of athletes' services: the monopsonistic cartel known as the NCAA. And if you're talking about the NBA, you've just refuted yourself. On one hand, you say it's a monopoly, on the other you say everything gets negotiated. Which is it? Monopolies don't usually negotiate. They're price setters.

But hey, carry on. You're obviously not going to let evidence to the contrary stand in the way of voicing your opinions.

You keep saying that but the NCAA is NOT the only buyer. Players can go to the D league or Europe. The NCAA creates or maintains no barriers t entry for other pay leagues. There aren't MORE buyers because the players aren't talented enough to earn a profit sans any college affiliation. Europe and the D league don't make as much money as college because all they offer is the player's "value" as a basketball player WITHOUT a college affiliation. Why don't you just say what you mean - NCAA basketball takes in a lot of money therefore you think the players should be paid a portion of that money We'll never agree on that view but at least it will make sense.

[Duke95]

You keep saying that but the NCAA is NOT the only buyer. Players can go to the D league or Europe. The NCAA creates or maintains no barriers t entry for other pay leagues. There aren't MORE buyers because the players aren't talented enough to earn a profit sans any college affiliation. Europe and the D league don't make as much money as college because all they offer is the player's "value" as a basketball player WITHOUT a college affiliation. Why don't you just say what you mean - NCAA basketball takes in a lot of money therefore you think the players should be paid a portion of that money We'll never agree on that view but at least it will make sense.

Just because YOU think they're not the only buyer doesn't mean this issue has not been analyzed by both economists and the courts. You may want to actually read a few papers on this, so at the very least you'll be able to have an informed opinion. You may still disagree, but at least you'd have some basis other than ipse dixit.

And I've never been shy about saying what I mean.

[Ultrarunner]

I agree. The post I was responding to seemed to be suggesting that they would have to stay a second year under this proposal. I was pointing out that to the contrary, there never would have been a first year.

I am on the record in many other threads as a staunch player rights advocate and remain as such.

We're pretty much in agreement about the pay-the-players. The kids don't have to stay but the university does get a penalty for recruiting 1&D. By slowing the flux of 1&D players to Duke, as an example and not a criticism, more scholarships would open to players who are less athletically accomplished. Those players will receive a greater educational benefit. Since the primary mission should be education, I count this as a good thing.

The kids that can get paid, can do so. Those that need the educational benefit will find more opportunities at institutions such as Duke.

[sagegrouse]

It's actually a monopsony (if you're referring to the NCAA). There is only one buyer of athletes' services: the monopsonistic cartel known as the NCAA. And if you're talking about the NBA, you've just refuted yourself. On one hand, you say it's a monopoly, on the other you say everything gets negotiated. Which is it? Monopolies don't usually negotiate. They're price setters.

But hey, carry on. You're obviously not going to let evidence to the contrary stand in the way of voicing your opinions.

Actually, it is both, as the only high-profile professional basketball league and -- except for NY and LA -- teams in most cities. (I get enough grief here from the brotherhood and sisterhood without having to drop "monopsony" on their heads.)

[Duke95]

We're pretty much in agreement about the pay-the-players. The kids don't have to stay but the university does get a penalty for recruiting 1&D. By slowing the flux of 1&D players to Duke, as an example and not a criticism, more scholarships would open to players who are less athletically accomplished. Those players will receive a greater educational benefit. Since the primary mission should be education, I count this as a good thing.

The kids that can get paid, can do so. Those that need the educational benefit will find more opportunities at institutions such as Duke.

How many non-OAD players took fake classes at UNC to remain eligible? How many at Auburn? Michigan?
How many non-OADs at various schools took those online "classes" at Western Oklahoma State, even though they were enrolled elsewhere?

Reducing the # of OADs isn't going to improve educational quality. I wish it would, because I completely agree that education should be the mission of a university. But...here we are.

[Duke95]

Actually, it is both, as the only high-profile professional basketball league and -- except for NY and LA -- teams in most cities. (I get enough grief here from the brotherhood and sisterhood without having to drop "monopsony" on their heads.)

Well, the NBA would be a monopoly if it were the only place SELLING something.
So, what is the NBA selling? Professional basketball? Ok, that's true, but now we have to determine if the relevant market is just professional basketball or if it also includes college basketball. If it's the latter, it's not a monopoly. Now, it's true that there may be some geographic factors involved as well.

We're getting a bit far afield, but I thought I'd make that note.

[Ultrarunner]

How many non-OAD players took fake classes at UNC to remain eligible? How many at Auburn? Michigan?
How many non-OADs at various schools took those online "classes" at Western Oklahoma State, even though they were enrolled elsewhere?

Reducing the # of OADs isn't going to improve educational quality. I wish it would, because I completely agree that education should be the mission of a university. But...here we are.

The cheating that takes place at other schools is a separate topic and irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Also, you are conflating educational quality with opportunity.

It will improve the opportunity for a top-50/100 kid with very limited pro prospects to get an education at Duke if the school self-limits on 1&D. That will be true at the majority of upper-echelon non-cheating institutions. Last year's contributing institutions included Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, UWashington, NC State, FSU, Gonzaga, UCLA, Texas, Creighton, and UNC. Most of those are quality educational options.

Unfortunately, without NCAA regulation, no school will cheerfully disarm unilaterally. Hence the trend to basketball teams with a university rather than the reverse.

[throatybeard]

Furthermore, complete freedom of trade has always been incompatible with a successfully functioning sports league.

The Yankees would sign all the players so that no one could play against them, were there not restrictions on trade.

[jv001]

The cheating that takes place at other schools is a separate topic and irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Also, you are conflating educational quality with opportunity.

It will improve the opportunity for a top-50/100 kid with very limited pro prospects to get an education at Duke if the school self-limits on 1&D. That will be true at the majority of upper-echelon non-cheating institutions. Last year's contributing institutions included Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, UWashington, NC State, FSU, Gonzaga, UCLA, Texas, Creighton, and UNC. Most of those are quality educational options.

Unfortunately, without NCAA regulation, no school will cheerfully disarm unilaterally. Hence the trend to basketball teams with a university rather than the reverse.

It's hard to hear, opportunity, non cheating institutions and unc in the same post. I don't think all the so called student athletes at OJU had the opportunity to get an education while attending that fraudulent school. GoDuke!

[AtlDuke72]

Just because YOU think they're not the only buyer doesn't mean this issue has not been analyzed by both economists and the courts. You may want to actually read a few papers on this, so at the very least you'll be able to have an informed opinion. You may still disagree, but at least you'd have some basis other than ipse dixit.

And I've never been shy about saying what I mean.

Never shy even when you are wrong. If players can go straight out of high school (or out of the 5th grade if they are good enough), let them go. If they don't, and choose to play college ball, the colleges should be able to require two years of service for all that they spend on recruiting , coaching etc. Nobody will be forcing the kids to go to college since there are obviously other options.

[AtlDuke72]

My thought and belief is, let the kids turn pro whenever they want....after HS (or even before they graduate from HS), after one year of college, after two years of college, etc. Why shouldn't the basketball players (in conjunction with their family, coaches and other advisers) along with the NBA teams who will draft them and pay them make the decision what is best for the kids and NBA teams (and whether or not there should even be a draft is a whole other discussion)? I think it's ridiculous for the NBA and the NCAA to try to impose arbitrary rules on how and when these individuals can earn a living. It just creates all sorts of complications and injustices. One of the cornerstone principles of this country is "freedom of trade".

Requiring a two year commitment if a kid wants to get the benefit of two years of college is not an "arbitrary rule on how and when these individuals can earn a living" What is the value of two years of a college education? I know what I paid for my kids to go to Duke. Colleges provide a service and just like any organization or individual can set a price for that service.

[Bluedog]

From the players' perspective, a "perfect system" would mean that the earlier they get that rookie contract, the earlier they can get that first big payday in year 5.

We live in a strange world when getting paid $5M+ guaranteed simply based on potential job performance (of playing a sport) is NOT considered a "big payday." ;)

Not criticizing you as I realize the second contact is even bigger (by a significant margin), but just find the perspective a bit funny.

[Duke95]

The cheating that takes place at other schools is a separate topic and irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Also, you are conflating educational quality with opportunity.

It will improve the opportunity for a top-50/100 kid with very limited pro prospects to get an education at Duke if the school self-limits on 1&D. That will be true at the majority of upper-echelon non-cheating institutions. Last year's contributing institutions included Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, UWashington, NC State, FSU, Gonzaga, UCLA, Texas, Creighton, and UNC. Most of those are quality educational options.

Unfortunately, without NCAA regulation, no school will cheerfully disarm unilaterally. Hence the trend to basketball teams with a university rather than the reverse.

What the hell does educational "opportunity" mean if it isn't accompanied by any actual quality?

[Ultrarunner]

What the hell does educational "opportunity" mean if it isn't accompanied by any actual quality?

Are you saying that Duke does not offer a quality education?

[Duke95]

Are you saying that Duke does not offer a quality education?

Why are you answering a question with a question? This isn't just about Duke. And I know what education Duke offers, chief, I went there.

[Ultrarunner]

Why are you answering a question with a question? This isn't just about Duke. And I know what education Duke offers, chief, I went there.

I didn't. Go to Duke, that is. However, you're inability to grasp a simple concept concerns me.

[sagegrouse]

I didn't. Go to Duke, that is. However, you're inability to grasp a simple concept concerns me.

Duke95 was extremely cogent as an undergrad at Duke. It's when he wandered off to grad school that dementia began to set in, as it did for most of us.

[sagegrouse]

There is a proposal a-brewing that would allow HS seniors to go directly to the NBA, but require those who enrol in college to stay in college two years (or, in reality, delay their ability to enter the NBA by two years).

What are the pros and cons for Duke, or any program with top recruits?

Is this good or bad for college hoops as a whole? (I care more about the former questios.)

[Ultrarunner]

There is a proposal a-brewing that would allow HS seniors to go directly to the NBA, but require those who enrol in college to stay in college two years (or, in reality, delay their ability to enter the NBA by two years).

What are the pros and cons for Duke, or any program with top recruits?

Is this good or bad for college hoops as a whole? (I care more about the former questios.)

I think it's a pain in the patoot for the coaches recruiting but I think the kids should be able to go straight to the pros and cash in while they can. I'd like to see teams guarantee four years of tuition to players who skip school.

[kmspeaks]

So if you're not talented enough at 18, or ever, to enter the NBA and therefore play 1-4 years of college basketball, tough luck you don't get any of the billions that are being generated by the NCAA? Sorry, but that's not good enough for me.

The system you propose works for ~15 kids per year who are talented enough to go pro out of high school, and fails everyone else.


I think it works for those fifteen kids and the VAST majority for whom "play for tuition" is a really good deal. The handful who have NBA aspirations can continue to work on their craft and get good coaching.

Mtn.Devil nails it. They do get some of those billions, it just doesn't come in the form of a paycheck. They get a free education and since average student loan debt is somewhere around $30,000 I'd say that has some value, especially when we're talking about the kids who will never play professionally. They also get free travel, food, lodging, clothes, shoes, etc. Then there's the hard to quantify benefit of getting to play a sport you love at a competitive level for 4 more years before being limited to the giant tease that is adult rec sports. The vast majority of NCAA athletes are getting a good deal with their scholarship offers, it's those 15 or so who could go pro that could argue they're being shortchanged.


I think it's a pain in the patoot for the coaches recruiting but I think the kids should be able to go straight to the pros and cash in while they can. I'd like to see teams guarantee four years of tuition to players who skip school.

Baseball players often negotiate this into their contracts. I'd love to see it in basketball as well.

[AtlDuke72]

Mtn.Devil nails it. They do get some of those billions, it just doesn't come in the form of a paycheck. They get a free education and since average student loan debt is somewhere around $30,000 I'd say that has some value, especially when we're talking about the kids who will never play professionally. They also get free travel, food, lodging, clothes, shoes, etc. Then there's the hard to quantify benefit of getting to play a sport you love at a competitive level for 4 more years before being limited to the giant tease that is adult rec sports. The vast majority of NCAA athletes are getting a good deal with their scholarship offers, it's those 15 or so who could go pro that could argue they're being shortchanged.



Baseball players often negotiate this into their

contracts. I'd love to see it in basketball as well.

Seems like they could pay their own tuition out of multi million dolllar salaries.

[kmspeaks]

Seems like they could pay their own tuition out of multi million dolllar salaries.

The last pick in the 1st round of the NBA draft gets just over $1 million but you think there would be NCAA players who could command multi million dollar salaries? Remember we're talking about a scenario where kids can be drafted out of high school if they choose and I would have to assume there would be some sort of NCAA imposed limit or salary cap.

If schools wanted to pay kids and then have them pay their own tuition out of that salary then fine. Maybe there's a next tier of 50 players not good enough to get to the NBA out of high school that may be able to earn more than the value of a scholarship but that still leaves over 4000 D1 players worse off than they are under the current system. Not to mention that paying out millions in salaries could mean the end of non-revenue sports. Maybe they would survive at the D2 and D3 level if we're talking about different revenue streams but I don't know.

I couldn't find the total number of D1 athletes with a quick google search but there are around 460,000 across all divisions so we're talking about potentially taking away what is currently a really great opportunity from over 100,000 kids to address the 50 (I don't know if that's an accurate number I totally made it up but either way we're talking about a very small percentage of NCAA athletes) we believe are being underpaid.

That's a legitimate position to take but a) the potential ramifications for everybody else are rarely talked about
b) I'd disagree with it

[CDu]

One thing I haven't seen discussed about this is the potential short-term impact a change in the NBA's one-and-done policy would Duke. We're now extremely deep into the one-and-done model now, so much so that there is legitimate concern year-to-year about having ANY experienced players returning. This year, we were fortunate that Allen chose to return. Next year, we'll be reliant on DeLaurier (who might have logged less than 500 career minutes by then, and almost certainly will be below 750), MAYBE Bolden (ditto), and Vrankovic (almost certainly sub-300 minutes career) providing the veteran leadership unless one of our freshmen stars decides to come back. The following year could get even dicier.

A switch of policy to allow high schoolers to go pro could be problematic for us in the short-term. Imagine, for example, if said policy went into effect this coming summer. Presumably at least 2 of our recruits (and possibly all 3) would likely go pro. And they would have to grandfather in folks who are already in school, meaning we wouldn't get the benefit of our current freshmen stars being "forced" to come back for another year. So our roster would be - for one year at least, and probably for a few more - quite depleted.

I used this year as an example, but so long as we continue to rely heavily on landing top talent, the issue will apply every year.

That's neither a condemnation nor a recommendation for the proposed change in the system. Just noting that there are real short-term implications for Duke if we see such a switch. If it happens soon, it could really handcuff the some of the last years of Coach K's career.

[olegreg]

Hopefully it wont affect the 2019 class. Vernon carey is a must if we are going to compete for national championship

[flyingdutchdevil]

One thing I haven't seen discussed about this is the potential short-term impact a change in the NBA's one-and-done policy would Duke. We're now extremely deep into the one-and-done model now, so much so that there is legitimate concern year-to-year about having ANY experienced players returning. This year, we were fortunate that Allen chose to return. Next year, we'll be reliant on DeLaurier (who might have logged less than 500 career minutes by then, and almost certainly will be below 750), MAYBE Bolden (ditto), and Vrankovic (almost certainly sub-300 minutes career) providing the veteran leadership unless one of our freshmen stars decides to come back. The following year could get even dicier.

A switch of policy to allow high schoolers to go pro could be problematic for us in the short-term. Imagine, for example, if said policy went into effect this coming summer. Presumably at least 2 of our recruits (and possibly all 3) would likely go pro. And they would have to grandfather in folks who are already in school, meaning we wouldn't get the benefit of our current freshmen stars being "forced" to come back for another year. So our roster would be - for one year at least, and probably for a few more - quite depleted.

I used this year as an example, but so long as we continue to rely heavily on landing top talent, the issue will apply every year.

That's neither a condemnation nor a recommendation for the proposed change in the system. Just noting that there are real short-term implications for Duke if we see such a switch. If it happens soon, it could really handcuff the some of the last years of Coach K's career.

Undergrad transfers and grad transfers are going to see Duke as a really lucrative place to play! Also, the change in rule could signal retirement from our head coach. He's not "starting over" with the rule chance but certainly some "rebuilding" is involved. Would he want to be involved in that process? At 70+ in age, it certainly is a consideration.

[COYS]

One thing I haven't seen discussed about this is the potential short-term impact a change in the NBA's one-and-done policy would Duke. We're now extremely deep into the one-and-done model now, so much so that there is legitimate concern year-to-year about having ANY experienced players returning. This year, we were fortunate that Allen chose to return. Next year, we'll be reliant on DeLaurier (who might have logged less than 500 career minutes by then, and almost certainly will be below 750), MAYBE Bolden (ditto), and Vrankovic (almost certainly sub-300 minutes career) providing the veteran leadership unless one of our freshmen stars decides to come back. The following year could get even dicier.

A switch of policy to allow high schoolers to go pro could be problematic for us in the short-term. Imagine, for example, if said policy went into effect this coming summer. Presumably at least 2 of our recruits (and possibly all 3) would likely go pro. And they would have to grandfather in folks who are already in school, meaning we wouldn't get the benefit of our current freshmen stars being "forced" to come back for another year. So our roster would be - for one year at least, and probably for a few more - quite depleted.

I used this year as an example, but so long as we continue to rely heavily on landing top talent, the issue will apply every year.

That's neither a condemnation nor a recommendation for the proposed change in the system. Just noting that there are real short-term implications for Duke if we see such a switch. If it happens soon, it could really handcuff the some of the last years of Coach K's career.

On the other hand, this change would mean that players who aren't guaranteed to be drafted out of high school would stay at Duke for multiple years. Players would be forced to make their college/draft decision before stepping onto campus. In this scenario, Justise, Tyus, and Frank would likely have been at Duke for two seasons, each, because none of that group was a guaranteed first rounder out of high school. From this year's class, it's possible that Trevon and Gary would elect to come to college, as neither is a surefire top draft pick. So it's also possible that Duke's high level recruiting will simply continue, but with the kids who are more 50/50 on their prospects for being a one and done in the current environment. I would be extremely surprised if anyone agreed to change the rules prior to the 2018 HS class enrolling in college, since so much recruiting has already occurred with the assumption that OAD would be in place. So I would imagine that K and the staff will have time to adjust. Watching Kyrie, Bagley, Jabari, and others has been fun, I would hardly complain if the change in the rules meant that we got to keep talents like Tyus, Justise, and Frank for two seasons instead of one.

[summerwind03]

Also, because the first year will have so many players entering the draft, some of the current freshmen may decide to stay because they will no longer go as high.

[CDu]

On the other hand, this change would mean that players who aren't guaranteed to be drafted out of high school would stay at Duke for multiple years. Players would be forced to make their college/draft decision before stepping onto campus. In this scenario, Justise, Tyus, and Frank would likely have been at Duke for two seasons, each, because none of that group was a guaranteed first rounder out of high school. From this year's class, it's possible that Trevon and Gary would elect to come to college, as neither is a surefire top draft pick. So it's also possible that Duke's high level recruiting will simply continue, but with the kids who are more 50/50 on their prospects for being a one and done in the current environment. I would be extremely surprised if anyone agreed to change the rules prior to the 2018 HS class enrolling in college, since so much recruiting has already occurred with the assumption that OAD would be in place. So I would imagine that K and the staff will have time to adjust. Watching Kyrie, Bagley, Jabari, and others has been fun, I would hardly complain if the change in the rules meant that we got to keep talents like Tyus, Justise, and Frank for two seasons instead of one.

As I said, the point is not for 2018. The point is that, depending on the timing of the decision relative to implementation, we WON'T have time to adjust. It's doubtful that there will be a huge lag between when the decision is made and when the change is implemented. I would assume less than one year. At that point, it becomes very difficult to change your recruiting strategy mid-stride. While guys in the 20-50 range of the RSCI frequently sign late, there's no guarantee we'd be able to fill an entire class at the last minute in order to compete immediately. And furthermore, it's unlikely that guys in the 20-50 range would be able to carry a Duke team like the one-and-dones have, which is the reason why the model can work. So even if we are able to switch gears in time to get a recruiting class, it's not likely to be a strong enough class to make the first year or two go smoothly.

Again, the issue isn't so much with the incoming class. It's that years of one-and-done talent drains the quality of the returning players. Want to ignore 2018? Sure. How about 2019? Vrank would graduate. Reddish, Barrett, and Jones would likely go early. At that point, we MIGHT still have DeLaurier, MIGHT still have Bolden, and probably O'Connell as a junior. Who knows how good O'Connell will be? Furthermore, let's say Bolden and/or DeLaurier go pro or transfer between now and then. Same issue as if the change happened this summer. Or how about after 2020? Then, O'Connell is the only guy definitely on the squad. Presumably, we'd have a phenomenal 2019 recruiting class (that's been the case for the last three years, after all), and I'd expect the majority of those guys to go pro.

The reality of diving fully into the one-and-done era is that if the plug is pulled at any time, you could wind up with a very rough transition year (or two).


Undergrad transfers and grad transfers are going to see Duke as a really lucrative place to play! Also, the change in rule could signal retirement from our head coach. He's not "starting over" with the rule chance but certainly some "rebuilding" is involved. Would he want to be involved in that process? At 70+ in age, it certainly is a consideration.

Both of these points are on point. The last one of which I didn't want to broach, though I agree it would absolutely seem a possibility. If the change did happen and if Coach K did decide to stay on, he'd likely be forced to go the grad transfer and to a lesser degree undergrad transfer route to rebuild.

[ChillinDuke]

As I said, the point is not for 2018. The point is that, depending on the timing of the decision relative to implementation, we WON'T have time to adjust. It's doubtful that there will be a huge lag between when the decision is made and when the change is implemented. I would assume less than one year. At that point, it becomes very difficult to change your recruiting strategy mid-stride. While guys in the 20-50 range of the RSCI frequently sign late, there's no guarantee we'd be able to fill an entire class at the last minute in order to compete immediately. And furthermore, it's unlikely that guys in the 20-50 range would be able to carry a Duke team like the one-and-dones have, which is the reason why the model can work. So even if we are able to switch gears in time to get a recruiting class, it's not likely to be a strong enough class to make the first year or two go smoothly.

Again, the issue isn't so much with the incoming class. It's that years of one-and-done talent drains the quality of the returning players. Want to ignore 2018? Sure. How about 2019? Vrank would graduate. Reddish, Barrett, and Jones would likely go early. At that point, we MIGHT still have DeLaurier, MIGHT still have Bolden, and probably O'Connell as a junior. Who knows how good O'Connell will be? Furthermore, let's say Bolden and/or DeLaurier go pro or transfer between now and then. Same issue as if the change happened this summer. Or how about after 2020? Then, O'Connell is the only guy definitely on the squad. Presumably, we'd have a phenomenal 2019 recruiting class (that's been the case for the last three years, after all), and I'd expect the majority of those guys to go pro.

The reality of diving fully into the one-and-done era is that if the plug is pulled at any time, you could wind up with a very rough transition year (or two).



Both of these points are on point. The last one of which I didn't want to broach, though I agree it would absolutely seem a possibility. If the change did happen and if Coach K did decide to stay on, he'd likely be forced to go the grad transfer and to a lesser degree undergrad transfer route to rebuild.

I hear what you're saying. You're probably right to some degree. But for the avoidance of doubt, where are Jordan Goldwire and Jordan Tucker in the above hypotheticals? And what's to stop a similar strategy this coming spring/summer where Duke gets a few more mid-100/late-100/100+ ranked recruits. Couple that with an inevitable recruiting class in the following year (in some degree, maybe watered down if kids go straight to pros) and a grad transfer or two.

We'll have a team. And it won't be a terrible team. But I do agree it won't be Marvin Bagley Redux.

As for K retiring, I think he'll retire when he wants to retire. I don't think any rule changes will be the deciding factor. If there's one thing the guy has proven time and time again it's that he can make adjustments both to his recruiting strategy and his coaching strategy to weather whatever the heck is thrown at him. But agreed, let's not start turning this into a retirement discussion.

ETA - One last thing, I imagine if/when the rule is changed, I expect a lot of recruitments to reopen. I think there will be a total reshuffling of players as top players declare for the pros and the next tier consider leveling up in exposure / branding / coaching. I don't think it's going to be a simple situation if they change the OAD rule. Lot of things will happen. Hard to predict with any level of confidence.

- Chillin

[swood1000]

Presumably, high school players would also have until 10 days after the NBA's draft combine to remove their names from consideration for the draft, meaning that the best high school players would probably not be signing with anybody prior to mid-May. So colleges will have to gamble about whether to wait until then before filling a crucial position, which will work to the benefit of those programs that wouldn't have been in the running for the top players anyway.


12.2.4.2.1.1 Men’s Basketball. In men’s basketball, an enrolled student-athlete may enter a professional league’s draft each year during his collegiate career without jeopardizing eligibility in that sport, provided:
 
(a) The student-athlete requests that his name be removed from the draft list and declares his intent to resume intercollegiate participation not later than 10 days after the conclusion of the professional league’s draft combine. If the professional league does not conduct a draft combine, the student-athlete must request that his name be removed from the draft list not later than the end of the day before the first day of the spring National Letter of Intent signing period for the applicable year;

(b) The student-athlete’s declaration of intent is submitted in writing to the institution’s director of athletics; and

(c) The student-athlete is not drafted.

One wonders to whom the student-athlete’s declaration of intent would be submitted. The rule would be amended to supply this, no doubt.

[CDu]

I hear what you're saying. You're probably right to some degree. But for the avoidance of doubt, where are Jordan Goldwire and Jordan Tucker in the above hypotheticals? And what's to stop a similar strategy this coming spring/summer where Duke gets a few more mid-100/late-100/100+ ranked recruits. Couple that with an inevitable recruiting class in the following year (in some degree, maybe watered down if kids go straight to pros) and a grad transfer or two.

We'll have a team. And it won't be a terrible team. But I do agree it won't be Marvin Bagley Redux.

Yeah, I omitted those guys for a couple of reasons. One, because I don't see Goldwire as a key rotation player on top-tier D-1 team. The other is a frowned-upon topic of conversation at DBR. Still, I probably could have clarified a bit better on that.

Maybe those two guys are surprises over the coming years, but I wouldn't count on it. I think it is more likely that we'd just have a really young team minus the top-end talent. Barring wholesale acquisition of grad transfers/JuCo transfers/undergrad transfers, of course.

I don't think we'd be awful. But I would venture that we'd stand a good chance of being bubblicious, if not worse.


As for K retiring, I think he'll retire when he wants to retire. I don't think any rule changes will be the deciding factor. If there's one thing the guy has proven time and time again it's that he can make adjustments both to his recruiting strategy and his coaching strategy to weather whatever the heck is thrown at him. But agreed, let's not start turning this into a retirement discussion.

- Chillin

Yeah, I'm not expecting Coach K to retire over such a thing. I just wouldn't completely rule it out. On the other hand, it might be the type of challenge to reinvigorate him and keep him on for a few additional years.