PDA

View Full Version : Big Change Coming



dukelifer
03-05-2018, 09:08 PM
It is looking more and more like the NBA will get rid of one and done and start a development league for kids out of high school- meaning that elite college teams may be looking at a different type of player moving forward. Here is a quote

"A plan is expected to include the NBA starting relationships with elite teenagers while they are in high school, providing skills to help them develop both on and off the court. It would ultimately open an alternate path to the NBA besides playing in college and a way 18-year-olds could earn a meaningful salary either from NBA teams or as part of an enhanced option in the developmental G League, sources said."

Nothing set in stone- but looking like the recruiting class for 2019 will not be anything like 2018. This could explain some of the recent offers that Duke has made.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22615784/nba-making-plans-get-involved-high-school-level-once-again-espn

proelitedota
03-05-2018, 09:17 PM
Timetables discussed is 2024 and beyond. K won't need to adjust.

arnie
03-05-2018, 09:22 PM
Timetables discussed is 2024 and beyond. K won't need to adjust.

Not true - collective agreement expires in 2024 but Silver thinks he can get this through much sooner.

weezie
03-05-2018, 09:25 PM
So salaries somewhere between the 26k G league and 75k two way contracts? Or likely a whole new salary structure.

I would like the new development league to include a requirement that players are exposed to some financial education.

HereBeforeCoachK
03-05-2018, 09:26 PM
Not true - collective agreement expires in 2024 but Silver thinks he can get this through much sooner.

I have no problem with this idea, it's a big improvement on the OAD, but I'm not sure it will be that big of a big change for college. Think about it, if the top 50 freshmen were not in the college pool, Duke and Kansas and Villanova and so on would still have the best available, and there would still be 3 pointers and poster dunks and Cameron Indoor and all that, and people would still love the game.

I think what we'd see in five years or so is a whole lot of buyers' remorse on the part of kids who skipped college, never made the NBA, played in front of empty gyms for a few bucks, and now don't have a college scholarship offer.

El_Diablo
03-05-2018, 09:30 PM
Timetables discussed is 2024 and beyond. K won't need to adjust.

Maybe not now, but starting in 2024 (and for the couple decades remaining in his Duke coaching career thereafter) Coach K will have to adjust his approach. But I am confident that he will be able to pull it off.

Saratoga2
03-05-2018, 10:03 PM
I have no problem with this idea, it's a big improvement on the OAD, but I'm not sure it will be that big of a big change for college. Think about it, if the top 50 freshmen were not in the college pool, Duke and Kansas and Villanova and so on would still have the best available, and there would still be 3 pointers and poster dunks and Cameron Indoor and all that, and people would still love the game.

I think what we'd see in five years or so is a whole lot of buyers' remorse on the part of kids who skipped college, never made the NBA, played in front of empty gyms for a few bucks, and now don't have a college scholarship offer.


Yes, but the kids that do go to college and play ball will have a lot less chance of ever getting into the NBA as the star recruits to the NBA G league/academies/ other arrangement will fill the majority of the available slots, along with the foreign talent. Seems like it may make playing BB in college less attractive. They still get scholarships but the path to the pros would be very difficult.

Acymetric
03-05-2018, 10:08 PM
Yes, but the kids that do go to college and play ball will have a lot less chance of ever getting into the NBA as the star recruits to the NBA G league/academies/ other arrangement will fill the majority of the available slots, along with the foreign talent. Seems like it may make playing BB in college less attractive. They still get scholarships but the path to the pros would be very difficult.

The number of slots and the number of players to fill those slots are not changed by which path players take. The NBA will still appreciate the free player branding that comes with college. Not all top talent will go the pro route.

If anything, the new emphasis on the G-League might lead to more G-League teams (and thus MORE spots for college or straight-to-pro players).

dukelifer
03-05-2018, 10:10 PM
Not true - collective agreement expires in 2024 but Silver thinks he can get this through much sooner.

Well if 2024- that might as well be a lifetime from now. I suspect this may move faster if all sides are in agreement. It may not happen next year- but maybe by 2020.

Bluedog
03-05-2018, 10:16 PM
Would NBA players have to take a pay cut in order for these types of players to get paid $50k-ish a year? The paycut would be peanuts, but the NBA players assocation has shown in the past to fight for every last dollar to go to NBA players. Maybe they'd be okay with it if there's nearly universal disdain for the NCAA among them. Personally, I think this is a great development. Gives players who don't want to go to college another option and I don't think it'd impact the product /enjoyment fans get watching college basketball all that much. Only downside is having NBA scouts/agents in high school gyms again. As well as others who try to leech off elite talents.

cato
03-05-2018, 10:17 PM
The interesting part is the part about starting to have relationships between players and NBA teams in high school. Will AAU be revamped/replaced with a soccer model? Will the Warriors have a team for high school kids that features their offensive philosophy?

I’m not sure how far the analogy goes, but if the net result is better opportunities for kids to learn on- and off-court skills compared to what AAU and the attendant hangers-on offer, it may well be a big improvement.

flyingdutchdevil
03-05-2018, 10:21 PM
So salaries somewhere between the 26k G league and 75k two way contracts? Or likely a whole new salary structure.

I would like the new development league to include a requirement that players are exposed to some financial education.

So it’s more lucrative to play for Sean Miller at Arizona? Dev league can’t compete with college...

jv001
03-05-2018, 10:31 PM
Not attending class to stay eligible will not be enough at Cheatville, now they will have to pay recruits to get them to attend. That really sucks for old roy but he won't know about it. GoDuke

hallcity
03-05-2018, 10:43 PM
The number of slots and the number of players to fill those slots are not changed by which path players take. The NBA will still appreciate the free player branding that comes with college. Not all top talent will go the pro route.

If anything, the new emphasis on the G-League might lead to more G-League teams (and thus MORE spots for college or straight-to-pro players).

How many young players a year might end up entering these professional minor leagues? I'd guess less than a couple of dozen. Beyond that and you have such a low probability of making the NBA that I have a hard time seeing the NBA wanting to pay you. Minor professional leagues are never going to be money makers in their own right. Yes, NBA teams might make some money by selling the rights to their rejects to foreign teams but I doubt there's much money in that or they would have already been doing it. Divert off only a couple of dozen prospects a year from college to the NBA and you've hardly affected the college game at all. In any case, we don't watch college games for the names on the backs but for the names on the front, a point that people like Jay Bilas don't get.

kAzE
03-05-2018, 11:07 PM
I'm interested in knowing when the cutoff would be before you have to commit to either going to college or signing with this developmental league. I imagine most players will be entertaining both options, and that's a humongous decision to make as an 18 or 19 year old. Also, I wonder if there will be any requirement to stay in school for 2 or more years, or if players can still go pro after a single year.

niveklaen
03-05-2018, 11:08 PM
One concern I have is 16yr olds throwing away their ammeture(sp?) status by taking gifts from would be agents who then dont make the cut to go to the d league and are now barred from the college game - however many kids the nba actually pays there will be 5 times that number with leaches whispering in their ears when they are too young to know better.

Edouble
03-06-2018, 12:00 AM
So salaries somewhere between the 26k G league and 75k two way contracts? Or likely a whole new salary structure.

I would like the new development league to include a requirement that players are exposed to some financial education.

I believe that is already part of NBA Rookie onboarding.

Troublemaker
03-06-2018, 12:03 AM
It is looking more and more like the NBA will get rid of one and done and start a development league for kids out of high school- meaning that elite college teams may be looking at a different type of player moving forward. Here is a quote

"A plan is expected to include the NBA starting relationships with elite teenagers while they are in high school, providing skills to help them develop both on and off the court. It would ultimately open an alternate path to the NBA besides playing in college and a way 18-year-olds could earn a meaningful salary either from NBA teams or as part of an enhanced option in the developmental G League, sources said."

Nothing set in stone- but looking like the recruiting class for 2019 will not be anything like 2018. This could explain some of the recent offers that Duke has made.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22615784/nba-making-plans-get-involved-high-school-level-once-again-espn

Both the plans and the timetable seem pretty nebulous at this point, and the NBA sounds like they're still in the idea-gathering stage. Ultimately, any change would have to be negotiated between the owners and players where both sides get to benefit.

A lot of details have to be hammered out. For example, I would think the NBA would first have to add enough G-League franchises so that every NBA team is affiliated with one G-League team. I don't see the owners wanting to develop players out of high school unless those players can one day benefit the senior club. And the high-school players should want that affiliation as well because they'll receive better development if an NBA team has a vested interest in them. So, that means players will get drafted out of high school. But what does that mean for the rookie contract and when the service time "clock" can start towards a second contract? The owners will want any time spent in the G-league to not count towards a player's service time. What does the union say about that? And on and on. A lot of details have to be hammered out. Maybe the two sides get it all done in time to affect the 2019 recruiting class, but I doubt it as of now. Regardless, it does behoove college programs to start planning for the change.

UrinalCake
03-06-2018, 12:17 AM
One concern I have is 16yr olds throwing away their ammeture(sp?) status by taking gifts from would be agents who then dont make the cut to go to the d league and are now barred from the college game - however many kids the nba actually pays there will be 5 times that number with leaches whispering in their ears when they are too young to know better.

I had that thought too. So you're a pretty good 16 year old player, you're thinking of going the route of committing to one of these academies. But if you hire an agent to help you with this process, then that means you can never go to college. So the problem that we currently have - college players who are on the fence about declaring are unable to hire agents and get professional representation lest they forfeit their amateur status - is now being pushed from 19-21 year olds all the way back to 16 year olds. And the kids who do try this out and find out they're not good enough or get burned out by 19 no longer have college ball to fall back on.

In general I still like the idea though. Anything that would give an alternative to guys who just don't want to go to college for whatever reason. There are many questions still to be answered, but I'm glad the discussions are at least happening.

uh_no
03-06-2018, 12:21 AM
I had that thought too. So you're a pretty good 16 year old player, you're thinking of going the route of committing to one of these academies. But if you hire an agent to help you with this process, then that means you can never go to college. So the problem that we currently have - college players who are on the fence about declaring are unable to hire agents and get professional representation lest they forfeit their amateur status - is now being pushed from 19-21 year olds all the way back to 16 year olds. And the kids who do try this out and find out they're not good enough or get burned out by 19 no longer have college ball to fall back on.

In general I still like the idea though. Anything that would give an alternative to guys who just don't want to go to college for whatever reason. There are many questions still to be answered, but I'm glad the discussions are at least happening.

No, you can go to college just like anyone else....you just can't play. Baseball players make the same choice, though I can't say at what age that choice needs to be made.

HereBeforeCoachK
03-06-2018, 01:04 AM
Yes, but the kids that do go to college and play ball will have a lot less chance of ever getting into the NBA as the star recruits to the NBA G league/academies/ other arrangement will fill the majority of the available slots, along with the foreign talent. Seems like it may make playing BB in college less attractive. They still get scholarships but the path to the pros would be very difficult.

Well, first I am not sure it would work out like that. Second, even if true, you're still only talking a tiny percentage of over all potential college players. The NBA is not expanding exponentially just so they can absorb 500 players in their development leagues every year. There are less than 500 big time jobs in the NBA for players now.

HereBeforeCoachK
03-06-2018, 01:09 AM
Divert off only a couple of dozen prospects a year from college to the NBA and you've hardly affected the college game at all. In any case, we don't watch college games for the names on the backs but for the names on the front, a point that people like Jay Bilas don't get.

2 points that cannot be repeated enough...and no, Bilas doesn't get it, which is odd, because he's also said comments to this effect....I paraphrase.... that his entire career path has been made possible by the name on the front of his college jersey. He doesn't connect the dots somehow. Thirty some years later, he is still being paid because he played at Duke (to an extent).

Of course, none of this is understood (apparently) by William Rhoden, or LeBron James, or Colin Cowherd, or frankly, almost any of the so called experts on this.

MarkD83
03-06-2018, 06:48 AM
I concur with the comments about this affecting only a handful of players every year. The NBA and NCAA is also trying to "fix" this problem with systems that do not address the real problem.

The best players will make it in the G-league and then the NBA. The not so good players will go to college, get a scholarship, enjoy the college experience and never play pro. The marginal NBA players are the ones who take the risk of playing in the G-league for a few years, not making enough money for college, give up their amateur status and have no options.

Several possible solutions....

The NBA or the NCAA or both should endow scholarships for players who do not make it in the league. The players who lose their amateur status but did not pan out in the league would have a pool of money to pay for college.

or

The NCAA should redefine amateur status and let players return to school even after being paid in the G-league. There is a tangential precedent for this. Trajan Langdon played minor league baseball one (maybe two) summers while at Duke and was paid to do so. This did not affect his basketball eligibility. There are examples of other college athletes who have done the same thing.

Of course neither of these, nor the NBA's ideas get to the heart of the issue. There is a lot of money floating around in the "basketball business" and this attracts unethical people who will do anything to get a piece of the pie. These unethical folks could care less if players violate NCAA rules or don't go to class. The NCAA has shown that their penalties have no effect on the folks who violate them. Only when legal entities get involved (the FBI) do folks start to take action.

dukelifer
03-06-2018, 07:29 AM
Both the plans and the timetable seem pretty nebulous at this point, and the NBA sounds like they're still in the idea-gathering stage. Ultimately, any change would have to be negotiated between the owners and players where both sides get to benefit.

A lot of details have to be hammered out. For example, I would think the NBA would first have to add enough G-League franchises so that every NBA team is affiliated with one G-League team. I don't see the owners wanting to develop players out of high school unless those players can one day benefit the senior club. And the high-school players should want that affiliation as well because they'll receive better development if an NBA team has a vested interest in them. So, that means players will get drafted out of high school. But what does that mean for the rookie contract and when the service time "clock" can start towards a second contract? The owners will want any time spent in the G-league to not count towards a player's service time. What does the union say about that? And on and on. A lot of details have to be hammered out. Maybe the two sides get it all done in time to affect the 2019 recruiting class, but I doubt it as of now. Regardless, it does behoove college programs to start planning for the change.

Absent an FBI probe and all the implications- I agree this might take a while but I suspect there is some urgency to fix some things. I suspect it will move quickly but there are a lot of details to hammer out.

DtrainBuckshot
03-06-2018, 07:37 AM
How would the draft work? Mix of G league and college? Would G league players be committed to a team out of high school?

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
03-06-2018, 07:41 AM
I like this plan, taking a page from the soccer model. Don't want to pay top tier college athletes? Fine, we will take them out of college and develop them ourselves.

To me, this smells of Silver's exasperation towards the NCAA's ability to keep its house in order.

Personally, I would be happy rooting for a Duke team with a lower level of talent who have all chosen to go to college and want to be there for four years, perusing a degree and team goals. It sounds so... Familiar.

For those lamenting that a player who begins a relationship with a professional team at 16, flames our, and then cannot get an athletic scholarship to college... well, they have made their owns choices and followed their dreams. Every year players declare for the draft, aren't selected, can't go back to school. At least in this system, kids will be given honest appraisals and the opportunity to improve their skill set.

gocanes0506
03-06-2018, 07:44 AM
If this is a quick turnaround, it could hurt Duke and Kentucky. They will still get talent but they have less to make up the experience difference.

AAU was already bad, it will only get worse. Agents will come out of the trench coats and glasses to watch the games.

It will nice to see Duke have a few juniors and seniors again.

sagegrouse
03-06-2018, 08:15 AM
I like this plan, taking a page from the soccer model. Don't want to pay top tier college athletes? Fine, we will take them out of college and develop them ourselves.

To me, this smells of Silver's exasperation towards the NCAA's ability to keep its house in order.

Personally, I would be happy rooting for a Duke team with a lower level of talent who have all chosen to go to college and want to be there for four years, perusing a degree and team goals. It sounds so... Familiar.

For those lamenting that a player who begins a relationship with a professional team at 16, flames our, and then cannot get an athletic scholarship to college... well, they have made their owns choices and followed their dreams. Every year players declare for the draft, aren't selected, can't go back to school. At least in this system, kids will be given honest appraisals and the opportunity to improve their skill set.

We shall see, but Silver and NBPA executive director Michele Roberts have met with Condi Rice's Commission on Basketball (http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/21440530/adam-silver-nbpa-chief-discuss-one-done-draft-rule-commission-college-basketball), and Silver has said that the NBA won't make any decisions until the Commission completes its business. We'll see -- I am optimistic that there is a potential solution on the horizon that takes account of the needs of all parties. Anyway, it should have a "Duke flavor" and loads of input from Coach K, given the folks involved: Silver (Duke Trustee), Gen. Dempsey (former JCS head and K friend), Grant Hill, David Robinson, Mike Montgomery, etc. It is hard to believe that Bilas hasn't had substantial opportunity to make his views known to the Commission and that K and Bilas haven't talked extensively between themselves.

I think everything is one the table -- including the "definition of amateurism," where a player may try low-level pros but then return to college. Not predicting the outcome, just that major changes will be considered.

The only predictions I would make is that (a) there will be a new "Division I" with fewer than one-half as many teams and (b) there will be a Commish for college hoops, as K has been demanding for 20 years. A smaller Div. I won't disrupt March Madness, where all conferences would participate, but will greatly affect regular season scheduling, meaning more games among major conference teams, which fans and TV want.

Kindly,
Sage
'Back in the day, I worked with two presidential commissions as consultant or adviser. Man, I wish Condi Rice had asked me to get involved. I did chat with Gen. Dempsey at the Wash Duke recently, but we did small talk not business'

"Will someone tell by via PM if I am sounding like a broken record"

fraggler
03-06-2018, 08:20 AM
I like this plan, taking a page from the soccer model. Don't want to pay top tier college athletes? Fine, we will take them out of college and develop them ourselves.

To me, this smells of Silver's exasperation towards the NCAA's ability to keep its house in order.

Personally, I would be happy rooting for a Duke team with a lower level of talent who have all chosen to go to college and want to be there for four years, perusing a degree and team goals. It sounds so... Familiar.

For those lamenting that a player who begins a relationship with a professional team at 16, flames our, and then cannot get an athletic scholarship to college... well, they have made their owns choices and followed their dreams. Every year players declare for the draft, aren't selected, can't go back to school. At least in this system, kids will be given honest appraisals and the opportunity to improve their skill set.

Well put. Agree on all points. There is a cost to chasing a dream.

DavidBenAkiva
03-06-2018, 08:31 AM
Some thoughts about this proposal...

Even if this is implemented in the next 2-3 years, I wouldn't expect many of the top 25 or 50 players to go the NBA Academy (or whatever they call it) route at first. Change happens slowly, then suddenly. For the longest time, everyone stayed for 4 years in college. Then, a few guys started leaving early. Grant Hill and Tim Duncan were relics, guys that stuck around. Kevin Garnett was the first modern preps-to-pros player, but there were just a few high school kids that bypassed college until 2003. More and more joined, of course until LeBron James, Dwight Howard et al. were flooding the Lottery. The same thing happened in the one-and-done era. Then the first year of the one-and-done era arrives, and the 2006 NBA Draft is loaded with college juniors and seniors. LaMarcus Aldridge goes 2nd in the draft, but very few others joined him. The next year, it's Greg Oden, Kevin Durant, Mike Conley, and a few others. The next year, about half of the lottery is one-and-done players, including Derrick Rose, Michael Beasley, O.J. Mayo, Kevin Love, etc. The next few years, it's a mix of one-and-done and multi-year guys. If you look at the draft, it wasn't until 2017 that the majority of the lottery was one-and-done guys.

The truth is, most kids and their families want to be in college, if at least for a year. Every student in this country is having it drilled into their head - right or wrong - that they have to go to college to be successful. And Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, etc. have a far greater brand to offer kids than the NBA Academy or whatever brand new shiny object is created to address the current culture. A lot of kids will want to see a Kevin Garnett or Kevin Durant prove that they can become an NBA Superstar before they go that route. Someone has to be a trailblazer before it becomes the norm. In the meantime, Duke will still clean up with the Amile Jefferson, Grayson Allen, Javin DeLaurier, and Joey Baker types; top 15-50 guys but not necessarily 1st round lottery talents. And before all the top players go the route of the NBA Academy, Duke will still pull in its more-than-fair share of the top players.

My prediction about all of this is that 1) Duke will be fine. Duke has won at a high level in every era since the 1960s. 2) Not many players will go the academy route at first, so expect a transition period of 3-5 years or longer. And 3) this could be great if we can get sleazy middle men and go-betweens away from the kids and their families. It won't get rid of all the sleaze, but it may push it further away from more kids. That's a good thing.

HereBeforeCoachK
03-06-2018, 08:38 AM
Well put. Agree on all points. There is a cost to chasing a dream.

True, and there is also a value in producing one avenue of chasing that dream......something college hoops does, that tends to get ignored by some in this debate. (by some I mean nationally, not this board necessarily)

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
03-06-2018, 08:53 AM
Some thoughts about this proposal...

Even if this is implemented in the next 2-3 years, I wouldn't expect many of the top 25 or 50 players to go the NBA Academy (or whatever they call it) route at first. Change happens slowly, then suddenly. For the longest time, everyone stayed for 4 years in college. Then, a few guys started leaving early. Grant Hill and Tim Duncan were relics, guys that stuck around. Kevin Garnett was the first modern preps-to-pros player, but there were just a few high school kids that bypassed college until 2003. More and more joined, of course until LeBron James, Dwight Howard et al. were flooding the Lottery. The same thing happened in the one-and-done era. Then the first year of the one-and-done era arrives, and the 2006 NBA Draft is loaded with college juniors and seniors. LaMarcus Aldridge goes 2nd in the draft, but very few others joined him. The next year, it's Greg Oden, Kevin Durant, Mike Conley, and a few others. The next year, about half of the lottery is one-and-done players, including Derrick Rose, Michael Beasley, O.J. Mayo, Kevin Love, etc. The next few years, it's a mix of one-and-done and multi-year guys. If you look at the draft, it wasn't until 2017 that the majority of the lottery was one-and-done guys.

The truth is, most kids and their families want to be in college, if at least for a year. Every student in this country is having it drilled into their head - right or wrong - that they have to go to college to be successful. And Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, etc. have a far greater brand to offer kids than the NBA Academy or whatever brand new shiny object is created to address the current culture. A lot of kids will want to see a Kevin Garnett or Kevin Durant prove that they can become an NBA Superstar before they go that route. Someone has to be a trailblazer before it becomes the norm. In the meantime, Duke will still clean up with the Amile Jefferson, Grayson Allen, Javin DeLaurier, and Joey Baker types; top 15-50 guys but not necessarily 1st round lottery talents. And before all the top players go the route of the NBA Academy, Duke will still pull in its more-than-fair share of the top players.

My prediction about all of this is that 1) Duke will be fine. Duke has won at a high level in every era since the 1960s. 2) Not many players will go the academy route at first, so expect a transition period of 3-5 years or longer. And 3) this could be great if we can get sleazy middle men and go-betweens away from the kids and their families. It won't get rid of all the sleaze, but it may push it further away from more kids. That's a good thing.

I am also not worried about the Duke program. Even if I were, the health of the college game supercedes that on most levels.

This looks like a serious long term win for everyone. Let the most talented young men pursue their dream outside of the NCAA, let the rest of the players compete on a level playing field.

I suspect that very few fans will abandon the sport just because of a slight drop in talent.

Also, this reverts the system back to something I felt until recently really identified the college program: coaches are in control. In the NBA, players have the control. That's fine.

I have a lot of hope for this plan.

UrinalCake
03-06-2018, 09:01 AM
To me, this smells of Silver's exasperation towards the NCAA's ability to keep its house in order.

Perhaps I am just in a snarky mood this morning, but I disagree with this. I think Silver is doing what is best for the NBA. Being able to identify talent, develop them, create a brand around them, and get them to the NBA earlier will help the NBA. I don’t think he’s trying to help the NCAA out of benevolence.

Others have said that these academies will only affect as small number of players each season. I’d guess 5-10 would be identified at that early age. But looking through that expense report from Christian Dawkins last week, only a handful of the players were actually OAD-type players. Carter, Miles Bridges, Dennis Smith, maybe a couple others. (And no, I am not trying to group them together in terms of what they all did). Point being, even if you remove the top 10 players from the equation, there’s still going to be a bunch of players going to college and who could potentially be influenced by agents and shoe companies and such. We haven’t really solved anything.

Troublemaker
03-06-2018, 09:05 AM
After seeing a few posts mention the "academies," it should be noted that the article has the NBA ruling academies out, at least for now. Quote:

However, after discussions with teams and examining challenges and possible unintended consequences with establishing these operations in the U.S., the NBA has decided not to go down the academy path at this time, sources said. Instead, the league might be looking at how it can get in touch with prospects while they're playing in high school with camps, tournaments and other connection points as they move through high school, with the summer being a focus point.

The NBPA actually already runs a top-100 camp during the summer, so it sounds like they're maybe just going to increase the number of those camps that have NBA guidance to them.

But the biggest changes will occur post-high-school-graduation, it sounds like.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
03-06-2018, 09:11 AM
Perhaps I am just in a snarky mood this morning, but I disagree with this. I think Silver is doing what is best for the NBA. Being able to identify talent, develop them, create a brand around them, and get them to the NBA earlier will help the NBA. I don’t think he’s trying to help the NCAA out of benevolence.

Others have said that these academies will only affect as small number of players each season. I’d guess 5-10 would be identified at that early age as potential candidates. But looking through that expense report from Christian Dawkins last week, only a handful of the players were actually OAD-type players. Carter, Miles Bridges, Dennis Smith, maybe a couple others. (And no, I am not trying to group them together in terms of what they all did). Point being, even if you remove the top 10 players from the equation, there’s still going to be a bunch of players going to college and who could potentially be influenced by agents and shoe companies and such. We haven’t really solved anything.

Well, sorta. To a degree, there will still be incentives for colleges to land the trickle-down-next-tier talent, and I suppose boosters or dirty coaches might be inclined to bribe/pay/euphemism-for-cheat to get guys.

But for shoe companies or agents, isn't most of the impetus to pay these guys to try and have them on their roster at the next level? Doesn't an agent want to build a relationship with a top player as a way to have the inside track when he becomes a lottery pick?

If these top talents are shuffled off the NCAA track at an early age, the colleges by and large won't have these mega-superstars spinning their wheels for a year, waiting for their big contract. As keeps being pointed out over and over, this is a big problem that deals with a very small number of players. For most players, the college and NCAA system works great. I play ball, I get a free education, I go on with the rest of my life.

Sixty players are drafted every year. A larger and larger percentage of those players are European. In 2016, half the first round picks were international players.

In other words, the players with an extremely high marketable talent have no business dealing with the NCAA. Give them an alternative, and then let's look at what makes sense for the remainder of the players. We may find there isn't much that needs tweaking.

Saratoga2
03-06-2018, 09:16 AM
Looking at the European and World approach to bringing soccer talent forward (except in the US), you see youth academies where kids are identified at a very young age and are brought into the academies, where they receive free school tutoring,and soccer development. Some kids start this process at early ages like 7 and the effort appears to be applied to develop skills rather than play a lot of games. Its a business, and some clubs like Ajax in the Netherlands do this to ultimately sell their players to professional teams with a profit motive underlying the whole endeavor. As the kids age, less of them remain identified as future prospects and they are cut loose to return to normal school activities. This process goes on with fewer and fewer of the players in their late teens remaining in the program. Kind of resembles the slave trade and I wonder about the boys (their are no girls) who stay in the program for a long period but get discarded along the way.

What will the NBA final proposal resemble? Will they consider academies which enrol youngsters in the 14 or 15 year old range, give them school tutoring and bring along only those who have a chance of making an NBA team (with monitary value)? The rest having been in the program would be no longer needed, what of them? Will the World start academies for basketball similar to those already in existence for soccer? I would guess places like China already do this. The current US development model is playground/highschool or high level basketball academy (IMG) or other high level high school, AAU, College and then to the pros. Will it be playground, academy, G-league, pro? Will some provision be made for those rejects to go on to college and will they be academically prepared?

Lots of questions. Lets hope the individual kids don't get the short end of the stick in the plan going forward.

UrinalCake
03-06-2018, 09:17 AM
But for shoe companies or agents, isn't most of the impetus to pay these guys to try and have them on their roster at the next level? Doesn't an agent want to build a relationship with a top player as a way to have the inside track when he becomes a lottery pick?

If these top talents are shuffled off the NCAA track at an early age, the colleges by and large won't have these mega-superstars spinning their wheels for a year, waiting for their big contract.


yes, but from the standpoint of the shoe companies it makes sense to cast a wide net. Throw $10k at the top 50 players in each class. If one of them becomes Steph Curry, you’ve more than made your money back. Everybody has a shoe deal, not just the megastars. For agents it’s the same thing. If you don’t sign them, somebody else will.

I don’t have a solution, and again I’m not against what the NBA is proposing. I just don’t see it as fixing all of the current problems in the NCAA.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
03-06-2018, 09:30 AM
yes, but from the standpoint of the shoe companies it makes sense to cast a wide net. Throw $10k at the top 50 players in each class. If one of them becomes Steph Curry, you’ve more than made your money back. Everybody has a shoe deal, not just the megastars. For agents it’s the same thing. If you don’t sign them, somebody else will.

I don’t have a solution, and again I’m not against what the NBA is proposing. I just don’t see it as fixing all of the current problems in the NCAA.

I also don't see it in any way of fixing the NCAA. The NBA isn't in the business of fixing the college game. But I think the NBA is exasperated with the current situation and tired of waiting for the NCAA to self-correct. This is the NBA's proposal to fix the NBA. I just think there will be residual benefits for the NCAA, in that is removes the players that have the largest income potential, and thusly that have the biggest incentive to be financially influenced.

Avvocato
03-06-2018, 09:57 AM
2 points that cannot be repeated enough...and no, Bilas doesn't get it, which is odd, because he's also said comments to this effect...I paraphrase... that his entire career path has been made possible by the name on the front of his college jersey. He doesn't connect the dots somehow. Thirty some years later, he is still being paid because he played at Duke (to an extent).

Of course, none of this is understood (apparently) by William Rhoden, or LeBron James, or Colin Cowherd, or frankly, almost any of the so called experts on this.

This is misunderstood in the football context as well. When speaking of all the money the players generate, it's because they play for college teams. Whether football or basketball, if highly rated players went to some developmental league to play, no one but their families would likely be watching. If guys I don't know play for Duke, the Knicks, etc., I'll watch and root for them. The NBA players also felt this during the 1998-99 lockout, when they decided to stage a game in Atlantic City to put pressure on the league. They thought everyone would want to watch them. There was talk of starting their own league. Prices were high and no one cared. No one came. The jerseys matter.

I am for the NBA's idea, but I don't think it solves all of the problems. If the NBA implements this in some form:

(1) I can still see shoe companies steering other highly rated college kids to their schools.

(2) Someone will still pay kids to play at a school. Coaches want to win. Alumni want to win. Agents want players. Next man up in a way.

(3) Playing for $100K at a power 5 school may still sound more appealing (if they can get away with it).

Interesting stuff, and I think it makes sense. My issue is that I'm not convinced it actually solves the problem. Not sure you can ever eliminate these problems.

However, what I am still confused about is:

(a) If a high school kid enters this developmental program, when does he get drafted, or does he?

(b) If the kid can become draft eligible in a couple of years, the NBA may be willing to pay these kids, because after a year or two, they may realize that their $50K-100K investment just saved them millions from drafting the kid in the lottery or first round.

I also don't think it will severely damage the college game. Might even enhance it if those that come to school have to stay 2-3 years. The one issue I am curious about is when must a high school kid make a decision? If anyone ever saw the Lenny Cooke documentary (he was considered the best high school player until surpassed by Lebron James at a summer camp; decided to go pro out of high school, went undrafted, traveled around in minor leagues, played internationally, lived in a trailer, etc.). This was during the era of high school kids going straight to the NBA. Rick Pitino is interviewed during the film, and he talks about the risks of recruiting such athletes. He discusses going after such a player who at the last minute goes pro, and your recruiting class is destroyed, because you would have recruited other players. With Coach K/Duke recruiting the best players, we would have to adapt. I have confidence that we will, but it does become a different recruiting game.

In any case, I'll think about the above later. Turning my attention back to Thursday. Let's go Duke.

DarkstarWahoo
03-06-2018, 10:01 AM
After seeing a few posts mention the "academies," it should be noted that the article has the NBA ruling academies out, at least for now. Quote:

However, after discussions with teams and examining challenges and possible unintended consequences with establishing these operations in the U.S., the NBA has decided not to go down the academy path at this time, sources said. Instead, the league might be looking at how it can get in touch with prospects while they're playing in high school with camps, tournaments and other connection points as they move through high school, with the summer being a focus point.

The NBPA actually already runs a top-100 camp during the summer, so it sounds like they're maybe just going to increase the number of those camps that have NBA guidance to them.

But the biggest changes will occur post-high-school-graduation, it sounds like.

I'm glad folks brought up the soccer academies - it's one of the first places my mind went, and there was a lot of good discussion on the topic on other forums (and maybe here - I just didn't see) around the time the U.S. got bounced from World Cup qualifying. I don't think our culture lends itself to sending kids to a soccer (or basketball) academy at age 8 to train for a decade just to get the best 100 kids out of 20 million or whatever. (I also think it helps explain how Leo Messi appears to have no discernible personality, despite being as expressive and amazing as anyone to ever touch a soccer ball.) I don't think we'll ever, collectively, send our best kids to academies like that.

The American outlook is way more about making everyone feel included in youth sports - which is a good thing for nearly every kid! Individual sports like golf and tennis will still lend themselves to obsessives, which is why the U.S. can still compete in those globally. But I don't think we have the stomach to adopt the academy model, sending big groups of kids to live a sport 24/7 from the age of 8 with the expectation that 99.9 percent of them will fail.

It really is a brutal system in many ways. I have a friend from Newcastle whose cousin washed out of their academy around 16 some years back. No real education to speak of (although teams now do a better job at providing for that). He's now in his 40s, and he's a window-washer and petty criminal who dominates Sunday games in the park.

kmspeaks
03-06-2018, 10:06 AM
The number of slots and the number of players to fill those slots are not changed by which path players take. The NBA will still appreciate the free player branding that comes with college. Not all top talent will go the pro route.

If anything, the new emphasis on the G-League might lead to more G-League teams (and thus MORE spots for college or straight-to-pro players).


No, you can go to college just like anyone else...you just can't play. Baseball players make the same choice, though I can't say at what age that choice needs to be made.

Having the G-League start to look like minor league baseball could be an interesting prospect. The Marvin Bagleys could go straight to the G-League and probably end up in the NBA fairly quickly. The Alex O'Connells could still go to college for free and at least have 4 more years to entertain the idea that they could end up playing professional basketball. The Gary Trents and Trevon Duvals now have an interesting choice to make - am I better off spending my age 18/19 season as an Erie Bayhawk or a Duke Blue Devil?

How would the draft work? In baseball high school seniors (and college juniors) can be drafted and choose to go to school rather than sign a professional contract. The college coaches and NBA franchises would want to increase the certainty of who is actually going to be on their roster, it benefits the kids to have longer to decide.

What kind of salaries could G-League players earn? Will there be signing bonuses? I interned for the Mets rookie ball team 9 years ago and players got $1100 a month. The team arranged apartments for them which they shared for $200 and then clubhouse dues, out of which lunch and dinner on game days was provided, were $50 I think. If you're playing college baseball in a power conference you're probably eating and traveling better plus playing in nicer stadiums and have nicer practice facilities than the professionals in rookie ball.

Anybody who goes straight to the G-League should have it in their contract that the NBA Team will pay for their college degree if they choose to get one. Could this be required part of all G-League contracts?

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
03-06-2018, 10:11 AM
...good points and analysis deleted to focus on this:




However, what I am still confused about is:

(a) If a high school kid enters this developmental program, when does he get drafted, or does he?

(b) If the kid can become draft eligible in a couple of years, the NBA may be willing to pay these kids, because after a year or two, they may realize that their $50K-100K investment just saved them millions from drafting the kid in the lottery or first round.

I also don't think it will severely damage the college game. Might even enhance it if those that come to school have to stay 2-3 years....

Also, there will necessarily be fewer places in the draft for college kids. To wit: if the best and most talented, say, 20 kids every year are already in the NBA system since before they were 18, and 15+ international players are joining the NBA each draft, then you've got just over 20 spots available in rounds one and two together. That's for seniors, juniors, and whoever else the NBA decides to accept.

This is why I see it as peripherally handling more NCAA problems than it aims to - who cares if there is a one and done rule, if the best talent has already taken the NBA exit ramp long before their college years? There simply won't be enough spaces for dozens of early entrants.

hallcity
03-06-2018, 10:20 AM
We talk as if the European model of developing soccer talent would obviously be better than what the U.S. has now for developing basketball talent but that's ridiculous. The U.S. system with youth, high school, AAU and college teams with all its shortcomings is unquestionably the best in the world for developing basketball talent. We don't try to identify future NBA players at age 8. We cast a wide net. We allow anyone who wants to participate. Kids who look like duds at age 8 or 16 develop later into stars. Michael Jordan was cut from his high school team! Honestly, I think that if American football is ever banned because of CTE and we become a soccer mad country, our system will produce soccer talent that is the envy of the world.

If the NBA wants to drain off a few talented players into a development program that's fine but keep the U.S. system in place for the rest. It will still produce lots of talent.

kmspeaks
03-06-2018, 10:28 AM
We talk as if the European model of developing soccer talent would obviously be better than what the U.S. has now for developing basketball talent but that's ridiculous. The U.S. system with youth, high school, AAU and college teams with all its shortcomings is unquestionably the best in the world for developing basketball talent. We don't try to identify future NBA players at age 8. We cast a wide net. We allow anyone who wants to participate. Kids who look like duds at age 8 or 16 develop later into stars. Michael Jordan was cut from his high school team! Honestly, I think that if American football is ever banned because of CTE and we become a soccer mad country, our system will produce soccer talent that is the envy of the world.

If the NBA wants to drain off a few talented players into a development program that's fine but keep the U.S. system in place for the rest. It will still produce lots of talent.

This is neither here nor there and has nothing to do with your point but I just have to point it out whenever I see or hear it - Jordan was not cut, he was put on the JV team.

CDu
03-06-2018, 10:40 AM
This is neither here nor there and has nothing to do with your point but I just have to point it out whenever I see or hear it - Jordan was not cut, he was put on the JV team.

Yeah, and that was just as a sophomore, who apparently was just 5'9" at the time. Like many kids, he didn't start growing his sophomore/junior year of high school.

As for the proposed model, I don't think it would solve the "problems". It would potentially identify some of the future bball prodigies. But not all. Lots of kids don't emerge until late in their high school careers, or even after they reach college.

So there would still be college one-and-dones that the NBA misses in their development program. And there would still be an incentive for agents and shoe companies to get money into even the next few tiers of prospects below the clear prodigies.

RPS
03-06-2018, 10:46 AM
Interesting thread. Thank you.

I suspect that the baseball model is the best comp. Players can sign out of high school or go to college for at least three years. Top draft choices are very well paid; rosters are filled out with cheaper players. The trade-off for colleges is the lower level of talent overall in exchange for a minimum of three years of eligibility. Players who expect to be in the NBA within two years will almost certainly go pro -- their aspirations will be validated by high draft status, they will get better training and development, they will be paid, and they won't have to go to class. Players "on the bubble" will likely decide based upon how much they value education.

As with anything, things will likely turn out differently from what we expect -- unintended consequences and all that. But I think the baseball model or something like it would be a huge improvement and would be good for Duke basketball. I watch as much as ever but my wife has much less interest in watching Duke with all the OAD players. She thinks it has hurt the brand significantly.

53n206
03-06-2018, 10:54 AM
All kids "want their cake and to eat it too." Looks like they may get a few bites. No real solution, because when making the decision at 16-17 years there may not be the development in playing ability, or size they expected. So it seems to me let the pros make the decision. If they want to spend the money on certain kids let them. Make sure the players get minimum rookie pro salaries etc. Let these players not have salaries counted against caps, limit the number of such players per pro team. Guarantee cash for state university graduation if the player is dropped. But, if dropped, the player is ineligible to play NCAA ball.

CrazyNotCrazie
03-06-2018, 11:09 AM
As others have noted, I think the devil is in the details here. Would guys like Bagley be required to spend time in the G League (as I think others have implied)? I don't see why he can' t just go straight to the NBA. The G League option would be more for those who aren't quite ready for the NBA but aren't interested in college and/or need cash immediately. I'm not sure how they would handle the salaries, particularly vis a vis the NBA cap, of players who bounce back and forth - I think there is currently some precedent on this.

As others have noted, I think the baseball system is likely the best model. For baseball, high school kids have to make the decision between going pro or going to college without enlisting the help of an agent. The draft takes place before they make their final decision, so they have full information, though draft slotting is often informed by what the MLB teams think the player is going to do (i.e. if the top prospect in the country says that he is going to college no matter what, he will likely be drafted far behind less talented players). This model makes recruiting challenging for college coaches as there is no certainty about whether a recruit will actually show up - this is easier to absorb on a larger baseball team than on a smaller basketball team. A decision will also have to be made on how long someone must stay in college once they matriculate.

Some have suggested that all players who go straight to the pros have money set aside for their college education. I disagree with this. Going straight to the pros is a chance a kid takes and they have to live with the consequences. And at what point do you draw the line - how do you handle a kid who is not drafted?

Something needs to be done and this seems like a great start. The ideal solution will weed out some of the unsavory elements from college basketball and return it to being for kids who truly want to be in college and aren't being forced to be there - if the level of play in college goes down, I'm OK with that.

HereBeforeCoachK
03-06-2018, 11:17 AM
As others have noted, I think the devil is in the details here. Would guys like Bagley be required to spend time in the G League (as I think others have implied)? I don't see why he can' t just go straight to the NBA. The G League option would be more for those who aren't quite ready for the NBA but aren't interested in college and/or need cash immediately. I'm not sure how they would handle the salaries, particularly vis a vis the NBA cap, of players who bounce back and forth -

Some have suggested that all players who go straight to the pros have money set aside for their college education. I disagree with this. Going straight to the pros is a chance a kid takes and they have to live with the consequences. And at what point do you draw the line - how do you handle a kid who is not drafted?

Something needs to be done and this seems like a great start. The ideal solution will weed out some of the unsavory elements from college basketball and return it to being for kids who truly want to be in college and aren't being forced to be there - if the level of play in college goes down, I'm OK with that.

Well stated, and to answer your first question, my understanding is that they could go immediately to the G league or the NBA. I would imagine that as with baseball and hockey, a lot of sure fire stars will do a few months in the minors, even if they end up as rookies with the big club in short order. And yes, there is precedent already for "two way contracts" which contemplate players being moved from minors to bigs and back and so on.

The other point is the living with consequences....that's reality, and will come into play here. And I too am ok with slightly less talent in college, because it will almost not be noticeable. All of this only touches a tiny percentage of the players in a given year, so the over all quality will not be impacted to the point that the sport becomes less exciting or less popular. My interest in the sport is the DUKE on the front of the jersey, and how good Duke is, as is the same for most fans. And the big programs will still get the best players available, even after 50 or so players are no longer available.

Thus the pay the players crowd will still be unhappy. They'll have gotten what they wanted, but there will still be a very popular sport called college basketball, the big difference being that the players will lose any claim to having anything taken away from them, because either the NBA or they themselves decided they were not ready to be paid yet. And frankly, they will still have the option of being OAD, or 2AD or 3AD or 4AD.

I frankly think most players won't mind. I think most big time college FB and BB players love their college gig. Ask Grayson. Ask Grant Hill. Ask Jordan, who would not have made any of these big AAU teams in HS.

arnie
03-06-2018, 12:18 PM
Well stated, and to answer your first question, my understanding is that they could go immediately to the G league or the NBA. I would imagine that as with baseball and hockey, a lot of sure fire stars will do a few months in the minors, even if they end up as rookies with the big club in short order. And yes, there is precedent already for "two way contracts" which contemplate players being moved from minors to bigs and back and so on.

The other point is the living with consequences...that's reality, and will come into play here. And I too am ok with slightly less talent in college, because it will almost not be noticeable. All of this only touches a tiny percentage of the players in a given year, so the over all quality will not be impacted to the point that the sport becomes less exciting or less popular. My interest in the sport is the DUKE on the front of the jersey, and how good Duke is, as is the same for most fans. And the big programs will still get the best players available, even after 50 or so players are no longer available.

Thus the pay the players crowd will still be unhappy. They'll have gotten what they wanted, but there will still be a very popular sport called college basketball, the big difference being that the players will lose any claim to having anything taken away from them, because either the NBA or they themselves decided they were not ready to be paid yet. And frankly, they will still have the option of being OAD, or 2AD or 3AD or 4AD.

I frankly think most players won't mind. I think most big time college FB and BB players love their college gig. Ask Grayson. Ask Grant Hill. Ask Jordan, who would not have made any of these big AAU teams in HS.
Great post and you’re right, Bilas will be pissed. The coaches will be paid well, TV and gate revenue will be substantial and kids (like Bilas) that aren’t NBA material will only get a ‘free ride” in college. At least it will give him something to campaign against and still ignore UNC-type schools that cheat.

killerleft
03-06-2018, 01:35 PM
This is neither here nor there and has nothing to do with your point but I just have to point it out whenever I see or hear it - Jordan was not cut, he was put on the JV team.

Ask HIM if he was cut. I felt like I was cut when I was put on the Freshman team instead of the JV team when I was in high school.

MCFinARL
03-06-2018, 02:59 PM
I believe that is already part of NBA Rookie onboarding.

Yes--but I think Weezie makes a good point that the financial education should start in the G league (or whatever equivalent they develop). Probably useful for everybody, and maybe especially useful for the kids who come straight from high school and don't even have the support of a college coaching/advising staff [which may be minimal but, I suspect, is sometimes a lot more than that] to help them figure out how to handle their finances going forward.

kako
03-06-2018, 03:32 PM
Well, first I am not sure it would work out like that. Second, even if true, you're still only talking a tiny percentage of over all potential college players. The NBA is not expanding exponentially just so they can absorb 500 players in their development leagues every year. There are less than 500 big time jobs in the NBA for players now.


Having the G-League start to look like minor league baseball could be an interesting prospect. The Marvin Bagleys could go straight to the G-League and probably end up in the NBA fairly quickly. The Alex O'Connells could still go to college for free and at least have 4 more years to entertain the idea that they could end up playing professional basketball. The Gary Trents and Trevon Duvals now have an interesting choice to make - am I better off spending my age 18/19 season as an Erie Bayhawk or a Duke Blue Devil?




I suspect that the baseball model is the best comp. Players can sign out of high school or go to college for at least three years. Top draft choices are very well paid; rosters are filled out with cheaper players. The trade-off for colleges is the lower level of talent overall in exchange for a minimum of three years of eligibility. Players who expect to be in the NBA within two years will almost certainly go pro -- their aspirations will be validated by high draft status, they will get better training and development, they will be paid, and they won't have to go to class. Players "on the bubble" will likely decide based upon how much they value education.


A collection of quotes that my post references.

The reality is that minor league basketball, aka G-League, simply is not large enough to take in all the players that would want to go pro. Last time I checked, there aren't even as many G-League teams as NBA franchises. Also, minor league baseball has so many levels - rookie league, A-AAA leagues, all spread out across the country. For the most part, it's sustainable. It's been around more than a century and has a strong foothold in many parts of the country. Baseball, though it's taken an entertainment hit lately, still is what James Earl Jones said in Field of Dreams: "The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It has been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt and erased again. But baseball has marked the time." Fans in Pondunk, Small State America will support minor league baseball. I'm not so sure about minor league basketball. And the NBA owners are not going to want to immediately start ponying up for additional G-League-type teams that may be money losers in and of themselves. They do want to rely on college basketball as their minor league to a great extent. Silver may be talking about change, but in the end money talks - and that money will be good for owners, not the NCAA. And the NBA's direction is international, not getting more fans in the US. Anyway, is the baseball model it an ideal solution? Maybe in theory. Will it happen? IMHO not any time soon for a variety of reasons.

I don't have all the answers that are being sought out. But in the end, I think the free market should somehow take over and hypocrisy rooted in money should be put out. People should be allowed to pursue whatever profession they want whenever they want, including basketball. OK, maybe players who sign up for a scholarship should make some kind of commitment like baseball - it's then a business agreement, not some kind of student-athlete NCAA bs. But really to go overboard and limit people from pursuing basketball happiness is, dare I say, un-American. Now some will make it, some won't. Some will be stars from Day 1, like LeBron. Others may take more time to blossom - Seth Curry is a Duke example, or more classically like Ben Wallace (small school, undrafted, became a definite star). Others will flame out, like Kwame Brown or Washburn. But the NCAA doesn't really drive or own this train. They will have to make due and set its own rules if and when the dust settles, as it should not get in the way of people trying to pursue their careers. To do so to benefit itself financially at the expense of the players or just for alumni pleasure, i.e. donations, is wrong.

I'm watching all of this with interest, but I don't really have a dog in the fight. I'll support and watch Duke basketball because I love it, as long as they don't start anything unethical. I don't really care who plays for them - OAD, four-year starters, a team full of Bagleys or a team full of Buckmires. As long as the college landscape has the same playing level playing field for acquiring players, I'm rooting for Duke jerseys. Others may not as they want more, but honestly that's not my own concern. Start any 5 players in Cameron playing Carolina, and I'll be rooting as hard for them as I was on Saturday.

Finally, I pose these questions: As long as they are a student, fulfill student obligations and follow the same rules as the rest, why can't anyone play college basketball? Why couldn't Kwame Brown have gone back to college and played, as long as he went to class, maintained his GPA, etc.? Why can't someone who wasn't drafted go back to school? Why is amateur status so important? The money cow has left, and it's really impossible to close the barn doors now.

9F

Highlander
03-06-2018, 03:59 PM
Ask HIM if he was cut. I felt like I was cut when I was put on the Freshman team instead of the JV team when I was in high school.

There's a bit of truth to both sides of the story. According to Newsweek, Sophomore Jordan was 5'10" and couldn't dunk. His Sophomore buddy Leroy Smith was 6'7" and could. Jordan made the JV team, but not the Varsity. He used it as motivation and it fueled him. I've heard his coaches say that if he had played on the Varsity team he would mostly have sat the bench behind established senior starters for the entire year, and getting a chance to play on the court in JV was the best thing that could have happened to him. Jordan, however, never saw it that way. He always saw it as a slight.

http://www.newsweek.com/missing-cut-382954

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobcook/2012/01/10/the-reality-behind-the-myth-of-the-coach-who-cut-michael-jordan-in-high-school/#4337f2a8261c

http://www.espn.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/35291/the-man-who-cut-michael-jordan

It's a fascinating story all the way around. Jordan's competitiveness is legendary, as is his desire to one-up anyone who gets the better of him in anything. It's what made him the greatest basketball player of his generation, and also what makes him a tough person to be friends with, as he has to always prove he is better than you.

RPS
03-06-2018, 04:08 PM
Thus the pay the players crowd will still be unhappy.NCAA football and basketball players in the Power 5 conferences are badly exploited and I don't think there is a reasonable counterargument. But there are a variety of ways to make the system roughly equitable. Most of those discussed in this thread would do that and, if any were implemented, I would be very pleased indeed.

luvdahops
03-06-2018, 04:39 PM
There's a bit of truth to both sides of the story. According to Newsweek, Sophomore Jordan was 5'10" and couldn't dunk. His Sophomore buddy Leroy Smith was 6'7" and could. Jordan made the JV team, but not the Varsity. He used it as motivation and it fueled him. I've heard his coaches say that if he had played on the Varsity team he would mostly have sat the bench behind established senior starters for the entire year, and getting a chance to play on the court in JV was the best thing that could have happened to him. Jordan, however, never saw it that way. He always saw it as a slight.

http://www.newsweek.com/missing-cut-382954

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobcook/2012/01/10/the-reality-behind-the-myth-of-the-coach-who-cut-michael-jordan-in-high-school/#4337f2a8261c

http://www.espn.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/35291/the-man-who-cut-michael-jordan

It's a fascinating story all the way around. Jordan's competitiveness is legendary, as is his desire to one-up anyone who gets the better of him in anything. It's what made him the greatest basketball player of his generation, and also what makes him a tough person to be friends with, as he has to always prove he is better than you.

That legendary competitiveness also makes him a good guy to play golf against. Rumor has it that Jordan has lost staggering amounts of money betting (on himself) at golf.

HereBeforeCoachK
03-06-2018, 04:54 PM
NCAA football and basketball players in the Power 5 conferences are badly exploited and I don't think there is a reasonable counterargument. But there are a variety of ways to make the system roughly equitable. Most of those discussed in this thread would do that and, if any were implemented, I would be very pleased indeed.

Oh, there are reasonable counter arguments.

uh_no
03-06-2018, 04:56 PM
Oh, there are reasonable counter arguments.

and really no argument about that!

HereBeforeCoachK
03-06-2018, 05:00 PM
The reality is that minor league basketball, aka G-League, simply is not large enough to take in all the players that would want to go pro. Last time I checked, there aren't even as many G-League teams as NBA franchises... Fans in Pondunk, Small State America will support minor league baseball. I'm not so sure about minor league basketball. And the NBA owners are not going to want to immediately start ponying up for additional G-League-type teams that may be money losers in and of themselves....

I don't have all the answers that are being sought out. But in the end, I think the free market should somehow take over and hypocrisy rooted in money should be put out.


9F
That "reality" you described first....that IS the market operating. If the players are really the generators of this revenue, then people will flock to new G League teams. If the school names and allegiances are what generates the money, then the fans will still flock to the college game, whatever form it takes after this. I am pretty sure the reality is mostly option B. If this G league issue pans out, the evidence will be what it is.

RPS
03-06-2018, 05:17 PM
Oh, there are reasonable counter arguments.
and really no argument about that!I don't want to derail the thread. Suffice it to say that if you had a son play a major sport in a major conference, you would think differently. I've talked to dozens upon dozens of other parents of major sport D1 athletes and they are unanimous about that.

Ian
03-06-2018, 05:39 PM
I don't want to derail the thread. Suffice it to say that if you had a son play a major sport in a major conference, you would think differently. I've talked to dozens upon dozens of other parents of major sport D1 athletes and they are unanimous about that.

That's like saying everyone with whom I work with thinks they are underpaid. They fact they all believe it doesn't make it true.

Dev11
03-06-2018, 05:40 PM
That "reality" you described first...that IS the market operating. If the players are really the generators of this revenue, then people will flock to new G League teams. If the school names and allegiances are what generates the money, then the fans will still flock to the college game, whatever form it takes after this. I am pretty sure the reality is mostly option B. If this G league issue pans out, the evidence will be what it is.

It's a bit of chicken-and-egg. People feel strong affiliations with their schools because the schools have competitive sports teams, which, if you squint, kind of look like professional sports. Take away the top 20ish players every year, and it still probably looks the same, but keep removing talent and eventually we don't have the same passion for Duke Basketball because it's that far removed from "professional." Both the schools AND the talented players bring value to the institution, and I think it's disingenuous to say that the value that the athletes bring must be capped at the cost of attendance at the given school plus some room, board, and walking around cash. The top players may not make millions, but they may be entitled to more than they're currently allotted, so why not see what the market will bear for them?

HereBeforeCoachK
03-06-2018, 05:53 PM
It's a bit of chicken-and-egg. People feel strong affiliations with their schools because the schools have competitive sports teams, which, if you squint, kind of look like professional sports. Take away the top 20ish players every year, and it still probably looks the same, but keep removing talent and eventually we don't have the same passion for Duke Basketball because it's that far removed from "professional." Both the schools AND the talented players bring value to the institution, and I think it's disingenuous to say that the value that the athletes bring must be capped at the cost of attendance at the given school plus some room, board, and walking around cash. The top players may not make millions, but they may be entitled to more than they're currently allotted, so why not see what the market will bear for them?

I don't disagree wildly with anything you said there, only that I think we would differ on what the ratio of school to particular player value there is. Marvin could be earning big bucks now in the pros, if they would take him. That's not Duke's fault. And as a Duke fan, much as I love Marvin, and all the players, my allegiance to Duke and my interest in Duke and whatever time, money and emotion I might spend on Duke athletics is totally independent from any of them. I don't love Duke because of Grayson, I love Grayson because of Duke. Ditto every single player.

In the NBA, that is reversed, especially regarding LeBron or Steph and so on....but that is the market speaking, not something college is doing wrong simply because it is different.

As far as I can figure it, the cost of attendance at Duke, with the enhanced health care and health training, food, and so on is round figures 70-75 a year. That's not too bad for a few months work. Now, could Marvin make more? Yes. So do you pay Marvin more, but make Jack White pay part of that 75? Or make the golf and swimming and lacrosse and WBB teams raise their own money? Do you let the facilities slide? The money is big, it's not endless. If we're going free market, a whole lot of athletes will have to pay, because a whole lot of athletes cannot be shown to be worth 75K in the market.

And appropos of that, what about FB at Duke, Wake, and all the small schools. Short of the ACC share, football is probably a net loser at a lot of schools. Those athletes are generating expenses, not net revenues.

Lot more to think about here than I think is being done.

RPS
03-06-2018, 06:11 PM
That's like saying everyone with whom I work with thinks they are underpaid.In this case, however, they aren't paid at all.

Quip aside, if players could be compensated fairly, there would be no reason to cheat to obtain them (there might be reasons to cheat in other ways, of course). The fact that such cheating is routine is proof positive that the system is unfair. Other dislocations (e.g., coaches' pay is disproportionately higher in college than the pros even though the pros are the pinnacle -- e.g., Sabin couldn't cut it in the pros but is paid more money than any NFL coach except Belichick) are further evidence that the system is wildly imbalanced on account of (essentially) free labor (note that the scholarship "cost" of each Duke basketball player is essentially room and board -- the number of undergraduate slots is not capped).


They fact they all believe it doesn't make it true.Correct. But parents have first-hand knowledge of the ways players are exploited.

In my experience, fans mistake their (perfectly understandable) willingness to be exploited like that -- who wouldn't love to play basketball for Duke? -- with evidence of a lack of exploitation.

kako
03-06-2018, 06:17 PM
That "reality" you described first...that IS the market operating. If the players are really the generators of this revenue, then people will flock to new G League teams. If the school names and allegiances are what generates the money, then the fans will still flock to the college game, whatever form it takes after this. I am pretty sure the reality is mostly option B. If this G league issue pans out, the evidence will be what it is.

Right. So a baseball model as is now will likely not work for basketball. The NBA would continue to use college hoops as the main form of minor league development/showcase. So IMO unless clever people in the college ranks work on this with $$$ always in mind for the talent/players and management/owners, which to me includes totally rethinking the term amateurism with respect to college basketball, the "big change coming" actually won't be so big a change. We just have a new set of players who are OAD. Meet the new boss, the same as the old boss.

Saratoga2
03-06-2018, 06:19 PM
We talk as if the European model of developing soccer talent would obviously be better than what the U.S. has now for developing basketball talent but that's ridiculous. The U.S. system with youth, high school, AAU and college teams with all its shortcomings is unquestionably the best in the world for developing basketball talent. We don't try to identify future NBA players at age 8. We cast a wide net. We allow anyone who wants to participate. Kids who look like duds at age 8 or 16 develop later into stars. Michael Jordan was cut from his high school team! Honestly, I think that if American football is ever banned because of CTE and we become a soccer mad country, our system will produce soccer talent that is the envy of the world.

If the NBA wants to drain off a few talented players into a development program that's fine but keep the U.S. system in place for the rest. It will still produce lots of talent.

I originated the comparison with European soccer academies. In no way did I suggest it was better for the children who go through their approach. They are at risk of being left out of the pro league and left behind academically. I do believe those that make it through the program tend to become more skillful than those who come through the American program. That is not in the interest of the kids involved, just a way for those running the academies to develop a product which they can sell and also use on their pro programs.

I disagree that our soccer program will surpass those who teach kids real skills early on. Its not just a matter of getting the best athletes, but of the ones that get involved learning the skills necessary to play the game. I did coach for nearly 20 years in the youth soccer leagues and ran a 32 town program so have seen my share, including my teams playing againnst state level teams.

Dev11
03-06-2018, 06:25 PM
As far as I can figure it, the cost of attendance at Duke, with the enhanced health care and health training, food, and so on is round figures 70-75 a year. That's not too bad for a few months work. Now, could Marvin make more? Yes. So do you pay Marvin more, but make Jack White pay part of that 75? Or make the golf and swimming and lacrosse and WBB teams raise their own money? Do you let the facilities slide? The money is big, it's not endless. If we're going free market, a whole lot of athletes will have to pay, because a whole lot of athletes cannot be shown to be worth 75K in the market.

And appropos of that, what about FB at Duke, Wake, and all the small schools. Short of the ACC share, football is probably a net loser at a lot of schools. Those athletes are generating expenses, not net revenues.

Lot more to think about here than I think is being done.

I agree, there is more to figure out, but we choose to go to the moon not because it is easy, but because it is hard!

The powers that be need to question the allocation of resources in the system. Duke soccer players and Duke Basketball players aren't worth the same amount of money to the school, so I don't think it's unfair at all to give more money to basketball players than to soccer players. Each school can decide how it wants to do that, and schools will calculate value however they want and proceed accordingly.

RPS
03-06-2018, 06:36 PM
That "reality" you described first...that IS the market operating. If the players are really the generators of this revenue, then people will flock to new G League teams. If the school names and allegiances are what generates the money, then the fans will still flock to the college game, whatever form it takes after this. I am pretty sure the reality is mostly option B. If this G league issue pans out, the evidence will be what it is.I think this is the wrong way to look at it. If a scholarship were a fair approximation of fair value for services rendered, there would be little to no incentive to cheat. The unCheat experience shows otherwise. And another thing...I couldn't personalize a jersey with my son's number on it when he played (another name was fine), but do you really think it's a coincidence that every team in every sport sells "pre-made" jerseys with the best players' numbers by the case? When we buy a "Grayson Allen #3 jersey," Grayson doesn't see a nickel. If the key to value were merely the name on the front of the jersey, the number on the back would be irrelevant.

kako
03-06-2018, 06:38 PM
It's a bit of chicken-and-egg. People feel strong affiliations with their schools because the schools have competitive sports teams, which, if you squint, kind of look like professional sports. Take away the top 20ish players every year, and it still probably looks the same, but keep removing talent and eventually we don't have the same passion for Duke Basketball because it's that far removed from "professional."

Some people have passion for high school sports. Some people have passion for the MLS even though it's a really poor league compared to others worldwide. Some parents live and die about their 8 y.o. kids playing AYSO games like many of us do about Duke/UNC. Quality of play compared to "professional" has little to do with it. It's about allegiance. For me, it's allegiance to Duke, not the superb quality of play that might be considered close to "professional". I would hope that Duke hires staff that will recruit across the same talent base as other schools and do better than those other schools. But I don't need to see Redick bombing in 3's from 15-501 to get excited about Duke. Everyone has his/her own opinion here, and there might be those that would agree with you. I just don't think that can be a blanket statement.

RPS
03-06-2018, 06:45 PM
Quality of play compared to "professional" has little to do with it. It's about allegiance. For me, it's allegiance to Duke, not the superb quality of play that might be considered close to "professional".I'm passionate about Duke basketball too, so this is an appealing argument on its face. But I highly doubt we would care nearly as much and I am certain ESPN wouldn't broadcast games if there was no recruiting and each school's team looked indistinguishable from the school's best intramural team today.

ncexnyc
03-06-2018, 06:45 PM
I can't help but feel this is all smoke and mirrors on the part of Mr. Silver and the NBA. The NCAA scandal hits the media and suddenly we have the NBA talking about how they are going to do something. It couldn't be they're offering a plan, because they want to deflect attention from the fact that the OAD situation is of their making.

Let's be honest, they're quite happy with the status quo as it saves several GM's from wasting a top draft pick on some untested High School kid. If the current D-League players aren't being paid top dollar, why should we suddenly believe the NBA is willing to front the cash for this enterprise?

As I've said elsewhere on this forum, college sports has turned into a bigtime business. Where there's money to be made, there will always be crooks and other shady types looking for a piece of the pie. I don't understand the rush to change a system that works for 99% of the kids playing college sports.

I also don't understand the pity party some of you seem to be conducting for these young kids that have to make a decision that will effect their life. Do you feel the same for those young people who volunteer to serve their country and risk their life? It's called life and at some point in time every individual needs to be accountable for the choices they make.

MartyClark
03-06-2018, 06:54 PM
I can't help but feel this is all smoke and mirrors on the part of Mr. Silver and the NBA. The NCAA scandal hits the media and suddenly we have the NBA talking about how they are going to do something. It couldn't be they're offering a plan, because they want to deflect attention from the fact that the OAD situation is of their making.

Let's be honest, they're quite happy with the status quo as it saves several GM's from wasting a top draft pick on some untested High School kid. If the current D-League players aren't being paid top dollar, why should we suddenly believe the NBA is willing to front the cash for this enterprise?

As I've said elsewhere on this forum, college sports has turned into a bigtime business. Where there's money to be made, there will always be crooks and other shady types looking for a piece of the pie. I don't understand the rush to change a system that works for 99% of the kids playing college sports.

I also don't understand the pity party some of you seem to be conducting for these young kids that have to make a decision that will effect their life. Do you feel the same for those young people who volunteer to serve their country and risk their life? It's called life and at some point in time every individual needs to be accountable for the choices they make.

Good perspective. I endorse your message.

Ian
03-06-2018, 07:15 PM
I'm passionate about Duke basketball too, so this is an appealing argument on its face. But I highly doubt we would care nearly as much and I am certain ESPN wouldn't broadcast games if there was no recruiting and each school's team looked indistinguishable from the school's best intramural team today.

We would still care more than the top players wearing G-League jerseys with no school affiliations.

cato
03-06-2018, 07:35 PM
We would still care more than the top players wearing G-League jerseys with no school affiliations.

We who? Imagine in 20 years a minor league basketball team in Durham that plays at a higher level and against better competition than Duke or UNC. Who would draw more?

People argue that fans pull for the “name on the front of the jersey and not the back.” But that is the result of the curious fact that the best football and basketball players have always gone through college, rather than a professional farm system.

The talent (kids and coaches) made college sports big time. If the talent went elsewhere, a lot of attention would go along with them.

I doubt this will happen in a major way. Football is still much, much bigger than basketball, and the big companies pumping all this money into college sports offer too much in the way of exposure for all, and payment for some, for big changes to happen quickly.

HereBeforeCoachK
03-06-2018, 08:11 PM
I think this is the wrong way to look at it. If a scholarship were a fair approximation of fair value for services rendered, there would be little to no incentive to cheat. The unCheat experience shows otherwise. And another thing...I couldn't personalize a jersey with my son's number on it when he played (another name was fine), but do you really think it's a coincidence that every team in every sport sells "pre-made" jerseys with the best players' numbers by the case? When we buy a "Grayson Allen #3 jersey," Grayson doesn't see a nickel. If the key to value were merely the name on the front of the jersey, the number on the back would be irrelevant.

Hold on, let me clarify....because I have no problem with players getting a piece of their particular jersey sales, or any number of other tiny changes that are defensible. I think families on some of these small schools that make the Big Dance should also be flown to their kids' games if they cannot afford it, and some other things like that.

Still doesn't change the larger point. It's about the inherent fan base a college has.

Ian
03-06-2018, 08:17 PM
We who? Imagine in 20 years a minor league basketball team in Durham that plays at a higher level and against better competition than Duke or UNC. Who would draw more?

People argue that fans pull for the “name on the front of the jersey and not the back.” But that is the result of the curious fact that the best football and basketball players have always gone through college, rather than a professional farm system.

The talent (kids and coaches) made college sports big time. If the talent went elsewhere, a lot of attention would go along with them.

I doubt this will happen in a major way. Football is still much, much bigger than basketball, and the big companies pumping all this money into college sports offer too much in the way of exposure for all, and payment for some, for big changes to happen quickly.

We the people who follow college basketball. And if it were just about talent nobody in Texas would care about high school football and nobody in Minnesota would care about HS hockey.

RPS
03-06-2018, 08:41 PM
Still doesn't change the larger point. It's about the inherent fan base a college has.If your argument were true, Duke baseball should draw more fans than the Durham Bulls. The Bulls drew (http://www.milb.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?t=l_att&lid=117&sid=l117) nearly 8,000 per game in 2017. Duke's home opener this season drew 505 fans (http://www.goduke.com/fls/4200/stats/2017-18/baseball/022118_NCCU_Box.pdf) to the same ballpark the Bulls play in. Perhaps the much lower quality of play meant more than the name on the front of the uniform.

Edited to add: We didn't play Carolina at home last season, but the three-game series in Chapel Hill, a rivalry match-up which should have drawn both fan bases, barely drew the average of a single Bulls game.

ipatent
03-06-2018, 09:08 PM
If the talent went elsewhere, a lot of attention would go along with them.

A lot of the talent skipped college altogether in the mid 00s and college revenues increased. Individual teams were hurt when players unexpectedly never showed (as Duke was with SLiv), but other stars stepped forward at the schools concerned and on the national scene to put on a just as good show from the standpoint of fan interest down the stretch and into the tournament.

College fans root for the names on the front of the jerseys, and the coaches, not the pure athletic skills of the kids. As along as there is competitive balance (unlike the current status of women's hoops), I think fan interest will remain peaked.

I don't think a developmental league will ever develop a large popular following. Their best players will leave for the NBA after a season just like the current one and dones leave college. It will be like the old freshman teams in the 60s, with the NBA on the tail end instead of college.

cato
03-06-2018, 10:08 PM
We the people who follow college basketball. And if it were just about talent nobody in Texas would care about high school football and nobody in Minnesota would care about HS hockey.

I never said anything was *just* about talent. But college basketball has always featured a lot of talent. You cannot separate talent and quality from popularity.

Look no further than Duke. When football was best, that is what more people followed. And even after the basketball program passed football, it took Coach K to take the program to its current gravity.

That said, I don’t think there will be any drastic changes anytime soon. College basketball is great to watch, and I would guess it stays the most popular choice for players coming out of high school for the foreseeable future.

ipatent
03-06-2018, 10:39 PM
I never said anything was *just* about talent. But college basketball has always featured a lot of talent. You cannot separate talent and quality from popularity.

Look no further than Duke. When football was best, that is what more people followed. And even after the basketball program passed football, it took Coach K to take the program to its current gravity.

Relative talent matters in generating fan interest, objective talent might not. College basketball fans want their teams to have more talent than their rivals, but the popularity of the game has not decreased from the years when a Ralph Sampson might have stayed all four years.

cato
03-07-2018, 12:16 AM
Relative talent matters in generating fan interest, objective talent might not. College basketball fans want their teams to have more talent than their rivals, but the popularity of the game has not decreased from the years when a Ralph Sampson might have stayed all four years.

I sure read a bunch of complaining around here about people leaving school early, and how it impacts their love of college basketball.

But, I agree. College basketball puts out a great product that people want to watch, bet on and use to sell advertising, products and clicks. The increase of people leaving college early (or skipping it entirely) has not changed that fundamentally.

And I bet any further changes won’t fundamentally change that either.

HereBeforeCoachK
03-07-2018, 07:04 AM
If your argument were true, Duke baseball should draw more fans than the Durham Bulls. The Bulls drew (http://www.milb.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?t=l_att&lid=117&sid=l117) nearly 8,000 per game in 2017. Duke's home opener this season drew 505 fans (http://www.goduke.com/fls/4200/stats/2017-18/baseball/022118_NCCU_Box.pdf) to the same ballpark the Bulls play in. Perhaps the much lower quality of play meant more than the name on the front of the uniform.

Edited to add: We didn't play Carolina at home last season, but the three-game series in Chapel Hill, a rivalry match-up which should have drawn both fan bases, barely drew the average of a single Bulls game.

Not a valid analogy....college baseball is not at all like college basketball in any way, shape or form. The baseball analogy has little relevance to college basketball. And the Durham Bull's success has almost nothing to do with wins and losses - like a lot of minor league baseball, it's about the fan experience, a cheap game to take the kids to, and a chance to see future MLB players.

HereBeforeCoachK
03-07-2018, 07:08 AM
Right. So a baseball model as is now will likely not work for basketball.

It depends on what you mean by "working." It would solve a lot of the angst and the immediate problems for college basketball, so in that way it would work. It would not solve all the angst and all the problems however.

As for whether or not it would work for the G League and the NBA financially. No, it won't work for them, but I care not at all about that. And it not working for them would actually demonstrate the flaw in some of the assumptions underlying this debate - which would also be helpful as a huge object lesson in reality.

HereBeforeCoachK
03-07-2018, 07:18 AM
It's a bit of chicken-and-egg. People feel strong affiliations with their schools because the schools have competitive sports teams, which, if you squint, kind of look like professional sports. Take away the top 20ish players every year, and it still probably looks the same, but keep removing talent and eventually we don't have the same passion for Duke Basketball because it's that far removed from "professional."

Again, those strong affiliations with schools is the market. The market is, in short, customer (fan) preferences. It doesn't matter if those preferences are skewed by tradition, place of birth, habit or fair or unfair or what have you. Market realities are often unfair...but it's not intellectually sound to base an argument on "the free market" - but then define the free market as what you think it should be, not what it is. (I am not saying you did that, but some do that in this debate, including on ESPN).

Customer's preferences are the market, period. This is true with every single good or service. It's not 'fair' that UNC has more fans than Duke simply because that school has the built in massive fan base by virtue of being named after the entire state. But that's the market. True of all "University ofs" across the nation...and unfair, but very real advantage over every other college in that state.

As for losing the passion for Duke basketball because it is removed from "professional?" I don't think that would happen for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that a lot of non pro players develop in college into pro players. A number of 2 star recruits become pros in BB and FB. Baker Mayfield will go from walk on to highly paid pro. So I don't buy that premise.

However, if it did happen, then that dynamic would be the market. Markets shift all the time.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
03-07-2018, 07:36 AM
It depends on what you mean by "working." It would solve a lot of the angst and the immediate problems for college basketball, so in that way it would work. It would not solve all the angst and all the problems however.

As for whether or not it would work for the G League and the NBA financially. No, it won't work for them, but I care not at all about that. And it not working for them would actually demonstrate the flaw in some of the assumptions underlying this debate - which would also be helpful as a huge object lesson in reality.

Wow! I love reality lessons!

I agree that any positive effect on the NCAA and college game is ancillary for the NBA and their aims, no matter what they state. However, I seriously doubt that Adam Silver and the NBA Players Association will embark upon this path if they haven't found a pretty likely scenario in which they make piles of money.

I guess it is possible that they will see the academy/minor league as some sort of loss leader that allows for better talent evaluation, better training, and more secure contracts with players... But somehow the idea that they will do this for the young men out of the kindness of their hearts even if it loses short term money is pretty unlikely.

Also, people have been talking back and forth about the effects of this system on the NCAA and its viewership... I simply don't believe that any real Duke fan would turn on a game in a few years and see a senior playing center, watch for a few minutes, and say "Meh, he is no Marvin Bagley," before turning it off. That's just not how fandom works.

I suspect that if Duke was suddenly under performing because of a relative lack of talent compared to other teams, there would be a decline in Duke viewership. But most of us would stick around.

Point being, we enjoy the great talent (and we have been truly blessed in this regard), but we watch and root for the competition and the pride.

mpj96
03-07-2018, 07:42 AM
Doubt that sending 1 and dones elsewhere will hurt college ball at all.

Folks who want to watch the best basketball players watch the nba. Heck, the D League probably has better ball than college on average but who watches it?

Love watching our 1 and dones because they are some of the best players in the college game AND wear a Duke jersey. As long as Duke continues to compete at an elite level in whatever college basketball looks like we will have no problem filling seats.