One-and-done poll

[JasonEvans]

A poster named hustleplays who is not able to make polls asked me to post this for him. He said:


My rationale for a poll on OADs is that while the issue has been thoroughly discussed, we don't have a current statistical profile of DBR member attitudes. I think it would be highly interesting to learn the percentages, along with follow-on commentary.

So, vote early and often so we can see what percentage of us favors each of these possible outcomes.

-Jason

[BD80]

Don't see the poll, so I'll write in: "No more discussion of the merits of OADs, in any form whatsoever. The topic has been run into the ground, treated like the Romans treated Carthage."

[mattman91]

Let them go straight out of high school. That was the way it was before and there were no issues with it.

I've never liked the idea of making kids commit to at least 2-3 years before leaving school. IIRC, athletic scholarships are technically one year commitments from the school that are (usually) renewed each year. It is not guaranteed over the one year, so why make the students commit to the institution longer than that? Sounds a bit selfish to me.

If you allow kids to go pro (NBA or abroad) there won't be as many one and done players because the kids that are concerned with making money immediately will pursue that goal without wasting time in college.

[left_hook_lacey]

Just put it back the way it was before the madness. If they want to go, let them go straight out of high school.

[kako]

Remove all age/educational requirements for NBA entry! I'm a free market guy. Putting restrictions on any given market creates problems and messes... like we have now in college hoops. If the market is free, it will evolve naturally.

I'd also go one further to stipulate that any player should also be able to enroll/re-enroll in college even if they have gone pro - assuming they have eligibility left. They would need to meet school entry requirements and keep up their academic standing. Again, no restrictions on the market...

[Wander]

The last option is closest to what I want, but not exactly.

With exceptions for over-the-top talents like Bagley, I think Duke should not recruit guys who know for sure they will be OAD regardless of how their season turns out. If a guy who wasn't 100% sure he would go pro has a good enough season such that declaring makes sense (like Tyus Jones), that's cool. But I'd like to avoid cases like Duval, Trent, and Jackson. I don't blame any of these individual players for going pro, but from the program's basketball-only perspective, they weren't good enough in one year of college to be worth the resources we invested into them.

[Reddevil]

Let them go if they want to go. The last option is not enforceable. The rest are at the mercy of the NBA and NBAPA. The only thing the NCAA can do is make freshmen ineligible or recreate the old JV program, and either option makes it more expensive because the scholarships would have to be expanded back to 17 or so which is why frosh eligibility was created to begin with. My wish is that they would make the minimum age 21, but that is purely selfish for my fandom. Letting kids that have no immediate interest in college skip it is best. Only a dozen or so will go each year and the college game will be fine.

[Troublemaker]

It's a layered answer from me. Speaking strictly as a Duke fan, I want OAD to last as long as Coach K's career lasts. I don't think a 71-yr-old like him is interested in building a team over a 3-4 year span 2010-style anymore (assuming he can even properly identify and successfully recruit those players that can become a champion in 3-4 years, as opposed to players who develop too fast and leave for the NBA early [Kennard] or are too impatient and transfer before the 3-4 year process is complete. [Remember that beloved 4-year guys like Nolan and Quinn both had transfer thoughts at certain points in their careers, and while we were lucky that they stayed, who knows if the next hypothetical 3-4 year would-be-champion will make the same choice?]).

But if I were choosing a system from scratch and didn't have a 71-yr-old legend coaching my team, I'd choose differently. I would hope the NBA removes the OAD restriction. And everyone should keep in mind it is an NBA rule, not a college rule.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Speaking strictly as a Duke fan, I want OAD to last as long as Coach K's career lasts. I don't think a 71-yr-old like him is interested in building a team over a 3-4 year span 2010-style anymore (assuming he can even properly identify and successfully recruit those players that can become a champion in 3-4 years, as opposed to players who develop too fast and leave for the NBA early [Kennard] or are too impatient and transfer before the 3-4 year process is complete. [Remember that beloved 4-year guys like Nolan and Quinn both had transfer thoughts at certain points in their careers, and while we were lucky that they stayed, who knows if the next hypothetical 3-4 year would-be-champion will make the same choice?]).

But if I were choosing a system from scratch and didn't have a 71-yr-old legend coaching my team, I'd choose differently. I would hope the NBA removes the OAD restriction. And everyone should keep in mind it is an NBA rule, not a college rule.

This ^^^^......right on all counts.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Free market, clap clap clap! Free market, clap clap clap! Free market, clap clap clap!

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Let them go straight out of high school. That was the way it was before and there were no issues with it.

I agree, go straight to the pros if you want. But, the idea that there were "no issues" is mistaken.

NBA execs count on that year in college to weed out high school talent. They draft these kids very high in the draft, for fear of missing out on Kevin Garnett. But sometimes you get Robert Swift. No way you draft Robert Swift if he has a year of college tape on him.

The one and done rule was implemented to protect NBA GMs from themselves. Which is smart.

It just butchers college ball. So I think it should go away.

[azzefkram]

Let them go if they want but have a 2 year commitment should the choose to go to college. Change the scholarship to 4 years instead of year to year.

[English]

I agree, go straight to the pros if you want. But, the idea that there were "no issues" is mistaken.

NBA execs count on that year in college to weed out high school talent. They draft these kids very high in the draft, for fear of missing out on Kevin Garnett. But sometimes you get Robert Swift. No way you draft Robert Swift if he has a year of college tape on him.

The one and done rule was implemented to protect NBA GMs from themselves. Which is smart.

It just butchers college ball. So I think it should go away.

Preface: I'm also among the free market voters.

I'd add that the straight-to-NBA system also had some negative impacts on the college game...namely that the NCAA had difficulty establishing a mutually agreeable declaration date for kids entering the draft. IIRC, Coach K (and others) publicly criticized the timeline by which players would need to enter their names in the NBA Draft, participate in the NBA pre-draft process, withdraw their names from NBA Draft, and retain NCAA eligibility because he cited difficulty recruiting players who were potential early entrants. He would sink time and resources into recruiting a kid, and there was a sort of built-in uncertainty that could be mitigated if the NCAA and NBA worked to sync their respective schedules. The uncertainty would still be there, just as it is now with OADs, but back then, it was rough on coaches.

And for anyone that might say, sure the current system is better for college coaches and NBA GM/owner interests, but what about the kids...there are plenty of cautionary tales about HS players who made questionable choices to enter the draft. It may be counter intuitive, and I don't want to get all paternalistic, but there's something to be said for providing more complete information for both sides (players, NBA teams) when making decisions of this magnitude. Maybe a year in college is too much to ask a kid to give up, but a week of NBA Combine and some team workouts may not be enough.

[UrinalCake]

I don’t like the 0-and-2 rule, there are too many cases of guys like Tre Young or Corey Maggette where they weren’t ready straight from high school but after one season in college it is clear that they are. So I vote for just removing the one year rule.

I will say that those who expect this to solve all of college basketball’s problems will be severely disappointed. Back before the OAD rule was implemented, we had one or two guys each year making the straight-from-high school jump. That was a while ago and maybe guys are more ready now. But that means maybe five guys go each year. It’s not like the top 25 of every class will skip college, there just aren’t enough spots.

So if the top 5 of every class goes straight to the pros, you still have the issue of what to do with everybody else. The question of paying players will still be there, as the NCAA will still be making millions and the players getting none of it. Agent involvement will still be there, as the best available players still have tremendous value to the schools and to the shoe companies. Kids who don’t want to go to class will still choose not to go, and some schools (cough, cough) will find ways to make that possible. Five kids every year will be happier than under the current system, but all of the same issues will remain.

[brevity]

Don't see the poll, so I'll write in: "No more discussion of the merits of OADs, in any form whatsoever. The topic has been run into the ground, treated like the Romans treated Carthage."

This seems overly harsh. Here is a fair compromise:

From this point on, everyone should be allowed exactly ONE post on the one-and-done issue. AND then they're DONE.


The one and done rule was implemented to protect NBA GMs from themselves. Which is smart.

Memo to NBA teams: eliminate the OAD rule, open the draft to high school graduates, and hire smarter GMs.

[camion]

So if the top 5 of every class goes straight to the pros, you still have the issue of what to do with everybody else. The question of paying players will still be there, as the NCAA will still be making millions and the players getting none of it. Agent involvement will still be there, as the best available players still have tremendous value to the schools and to the shoe companies. Kids who don’t want to go to class will still choose not to go, and some schools (cough, cough) will find ways to make that possible. Five kids every year will be happier than under the current system, but all of the same issues will remain.

I agree with part 1 of the bolded, but not with part 2. For the vast majority of college athletes a college scholarship and a college education are a good deal while a small percentage could make more in a free market. How do you balance the gain of the majority with the loss of the minority? An interesting question.

[Ian]

It's a layered answer from me. Speaking strictly as a Duke fan, I want OAD to last as long as Coach K's career lasts. I don't think a 71-yr-old like him is interested in building a team over a 3-4 year span 2010-style anymore (assuming he can even properly identify and successfully recruit those players that can become a champion in 3-4 years, as opposed to players who develop too fast and leave for the NBA early [Kennard] or are too impatient and transfer before the 3-4 year process is complete. [Remember that beloved 4-year guys like Nolan and Quinn both had transfer thoughts at certain points in their careers, and while we were lucky that they stayed, who knows if the next hypothetical 3-4 year would-be-champion will make the same choice?]).

But if I were choosing a system from scratch and didn't have a 71-yr-old legend coaching my team, I'd choose differently. I would hope the NBA removes the OAD restriction. And everyone should keep in mind it is an NBA rule, not a college rule.

I'm sorry, but that is not a particularly flattering picture you're painting of Coach K.

If Coach K being 71 prevents him from doing the traditional job of being a college coach, which is building a team of players who are also real college students who stay 3-4 years for a degree. Then maybe he shouldn't be a college coach at the age of 71? Maybe he should coach the NBA, or just stay the US National Team coach, positions that doesn't require him to recruit and develop young teams, just get the most of the talent given to him?

I love Coach K and he's the main reason I am a Duke fan at all, so I'd rather not belive that Coach K is no longer capable of some of the responsibilities of being a head coach but is finding ways around that so he can be the head coach a little while longer, hanging on like Bowden instead of gracefully walking away like Wooden, Smith, or Calhoun. (Who incidentally all left teams that were championship contenders, all made the FF the year after they retired)

I'd rather believe that Coach K choose this recruiting strategy because he genuinely believed it would be in the best interest of the Duke program (he could be mistaken, but that's a separate debate), not because it would extend his coaching career.

[Troublemaker]

I'd rather believe that Coach K choose this recruiting strategy because he genuinely believed it would be in the best interest of the Duke program (he could be mistaken, but that's a separate debate), not because it would extend his coaching career.

Huh? I definitely believe Coach K thinks this is in the best interest of the Duke program. Nowhere did I suggest that he's using this recruiting strategy to "extend his career." 71 is 71. He basically has limited years left no matter what. How does he want to spend them?


I'm sorry, but that is not a particularly flattering picture you're painting of Coach K.

If Coach K being 71 prevents him from doing the traditional job of being a college coach, which is building a team of players who are also real college students who stay 3-4 years for a degree. Then maybe he shouldn't be a college coach at the age of 71? Maybe he should coach the NBA, or just stay the US National Team coach, positions that doesn't require him to recruit and develop young teams, just get the most of the talent given to him?

I love Coach K and he's the main reason I am a Duke fan at all, so I'd rather not belive that Coach K is no longer capable of some of the responsibilities of being a head coach but is finding ways around that so he can be the head coach a little while longer, hanging on like Bowden instead of gracefully walking away like Wooden, Smith, or Calhoun. (Who incidentally all left teams that were championship contenders, all made the FF the year after they retired)

He's capable of a gradual build but he understandably wants to do it another way. Maybe he's wrong about that for reasons X, Y, or Z, but I doubt he'll be changing course.

[El_Diablo]

This seems overly harsh. Here is a fair compromise:

From this point on, everyone should be allowed exactly ONE post on the one-and-done issue. AND then they're DONE.

Your system is untenable and unfair. I think some people should be allowed to not make any post on the issue at all. But if they do decide to post about it, they should be required to make at least two posts on the topic.

[Bob Green]

I vote to allow them to go straight to the NBA out of high school. That eliminates the players who never unpack their bags.

This option befuddles me:


Players can go pro out of high school, but if they go to college they must stay at least 2 years

Why two years? The precedence has been set by both football and baseball which require players to stay 3 years. Why would basketball be different?

[rasputin]

Your system is untenable and unfair. I think some people should be allowed to not make any post on the issue at all. But if they do decide to post about it, they should be required to make at least two posts on the topic.

I couldn't spork El_Diablo for this, but if I could, I would.

[devildeac]

Your system is untenable and unfair. I think some people should be allowed to not make any post on the issue at all. But if they do decide to post about it, they should be required to make at least two posts on the topic.


I couldn't spork El_Diablo for this, but if I could, I would.

If I spork him/her for you, will you send me tuition/shoe/travel/meal/swag/book/BEER money?

(:rolleyes:)

[Indoor66]

If I spork him/her for you, will you send me tuition/shoe/travel/meal/swag/book/BEER money?

(:rolleyes:)

Who could afford the beer money?

[devildeac]

Who could afford the beer money?

Spread out over many year? A wise investment. :p

[hustleplays]

I vote to allow them to go straight to the NBA out of high school. That eliminates the players who never unpack their bags.

This option befuddles me:



Why two years? The precedence has been set by both football and baseball which require players to stay 3 years. Why would basketball be different?

Bob, Good point. I was trying to keep the poll simple -- not too many options -- so I settled on the "at least two years".

I think that two years would compel our "student athletes" to at least "unpack their bags," so to speak, and show some minimal commitment to the academic element of their college experience.

That said, I quaintly happen to think that a Duke degree ought to be the primary reason that all students enroll in Duke University, so that a requirement of three years or four years is okay with me. And I love college basketball.

[hustleplays]

Don't see the poll, so I'll write in: "No more discussion of the merits of OADs, in any form whatsoever. The topic has been run into the ground, treated like the Romans treated Carthage."

Dear BD80, I feel your pain. Perhaps we should have been more clear in emphasizing that posting a response to this poll is not obligatory. Any qualified DBRer is free to go straight to the 2019 recruiting thread titled "Next Year's NBA Prep Camp Roster."

I know that the OAD topic has been thoroughly discussed, from all angles, ad nauseum to some. But I am interested in the relative number of us who like or don't like the OAD approach. My sense was that a majority of DBRers don't like OAD, but I wanted to see some numbers. Thanks for understanding.

Also, I'm not sure: Do you approve or disapprove of the Romans' treatment of Carthage? It was rather harsh and took several years. OADs were not eligible to compete. :)

I hope that a little levity is acceptable.

[gep]

... The one and done rule was implemented to protect NBA GMs from themselves. Which is smart.
...


I'm not sure this is really smart. If you're stupid, I guess you want to protect yourself, in any which way you can.


...Memo to NBA teams: eliminate the OAD rule, open the draft to high school graduates, and hire smarter GMs.

I have always thought of the OAD rule *instituted by the NBA* was totally to "protect" stupid GM's. The just get on the bandwagon to get the "best" HS players without *any* thought... just to make sure they don't "miss" on the next MJ or LBJ. Yes... get smarter GM's, or GM's that are willing to go with their gut... and whatever happens, happens.

I vote for no restrictions at all.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I'm not sure this is really smart. If you're stupid, I guess you want to protect yourself, in any which way you can.



I have always thought of the OAD rule *instituted by the NBA* was totally to "protect" stupid GM's. The just get on the bandwagon to get the "best" HS players without *any* thought... just to make sure they don't "miss" on the next MJ or LBJ. Yes... get smarter GM's, or GM's that are willing to go with their gut... and whatever happens, happens.

I vote for no restrictions at all.

To be clear, I also vote for no restrictions. My point was simply that the OAD rule is named NBA rule put in place to protect the NBA. As a college basketball fan and player rights advocate, I am far less concerned about the rule "protecting" those poor little NBA execs - just pointing out that it does have internal logic.

[elvis14]

To be clear, I also vote for no restrictions. My point was simply that the OAD rule is named NBA rule put in place to protect the NBA. As a college basketball fan and player rights advocate, I am far less concerned about the rule "protecting" those poor little NBA execs - just pointing out that it does have internal logic.

I think that making the G-League a real minor league where each team has it's own team and the NBA puts more money into it would help take care of the "poor little NBA execs" playing CYA on poor draft choices (like any UNCheat player).

[jv001]

I vote to allow them to go straight to the NBA out of high school. That eliminates the players who never unpack their bags.

This option befuddles me:



Why two years? The precedence has been set by both football and baseball which require players to stay 3 years. Why would basketball be different?

I was hoping for the 3 year rule to vote on but since it wasn't listed, I voted for the next best option(to me). I just want something in place to get some of the best players to unpack their bags for more than one year. GoDuke!

[HereBeforeCoachK]

I have always thought of the OAD rule *instituted by the NBA* was totally to "protect" stupid GM's. The just get on the bandwagon to get the "best" HS players without *any* thought... just to make sure they don't "miss" on the next MJ or LBJ. Yes... get smarter GM's, or GM's that are willing to go with their gut... and whatever happens, happens.

I vote for no restrictions at all.

I think the rule is more for the players' union protecting current members by giving them a year of breathing room so to speak.....these OAD's will take some existing union jobs, and this is a year delay. Of course, it catches up to them over time, but I think this PLUS the "dumb GM" rule are both factors.

I agree on no restrictions. Then a college enrollment to play is purely either a realistic necessity as stated by 'the market' or is a personal choice.

[Truth&Justise]

Dear BD80, I feel your pain. Perhaps we should have been more clear in emphasizing that posting a response to this poll is not obligatory. Any qualified DBRer is free to go straight to the 2019 recruiting thread titled "Next Year's NBA Prep Camp Roster."

I know that the OAD topic has been thoroughly discussed, from all angles, ad nauseum to some. But I am interested in the relative number of us who like or don't like the OAD approach. My sense was that a majority of DBRers don't like OAD, but I wanted to see some numbers. Thanks for understanding.

Also, I'm not sure: Do you approve or disapprove of the Romans' treatment of Carthage? It was rather harsh and took several years. OADs were not eligible to compete. :)

I hope that a little levity is acceptable.

Appreciate the poll--it's the off-season, after all, might as well discuss something.

But I wanted to preserve an additional level of nuance: the question of whether someone likes the OAD rule is distinct from the question of whether Duke should recruit players intent on playing only one season of college basketball. I voted in the poll for no restrictions, mostly because I believe in autonomy for the players. But I'm in favor of Duke recruiting the best players. So long as the OAD rule is in place, I am an advocate for recruiting OAD players.

Just wanted to make that clear, as we will inevitably have future debates about whether to target OAD recruits, or just some, or none at all, etc., and I wouldn't want this poll to be used as evidence that "almost no one on this board wants OAD players here."

[Duke79UNLV77]

Back before the OAD rule was implemented, we had one or two guys each year making the straight-from-high school jump. That was a while ago and maybe guys are more ready now. But that means maybe five guys go each year. It’s not like the top 25 of every class will skip college, there just aren’t enough spots.

I could easily see 20-30 guys now declare out of high school, particularly if the alternative were that they couldn't declare for another 2 years.

More and more of the better players from older classes will already be gone, clearing the way for more and more from the younger classes to declare. I think we've seen this with more and more OADs, and it would carry over to high school seniors. The dream for most players is to make it to the NBA as fast as possible. Peer pressure/perception build up as players see others going. Most athletes have healthy egos and faith in themselves. People who surround the athletes will tell them they are ready. And, yes, 17 and 18 year olds sometimes make foolish decisions.

I think we would need to be okay with the idea that most of the top 25 players will declare, and perhaps most of the stars we see in the NBA never will have played in college. Some will be fine with that. Others will see the college game as a lesser product and lose some interest. I'm not sure how I would view it, but I can't imagine not being a Duke basketball lifer regardless.

Apart from the college requirement, I'd like to be able to see players sign with agents and come back after the draft if they don't like where they are picked, like they can in baseball.

[JasonEvans]

I know that the OAD topic has been thoroughly discussed, from all angles, ad nauseum to some. But I am interested in the relative number of us who like or don't like the OAD approach. My sense was that a majority of DBRers don't like OAD, but I wanted to see some numbers.

To be clear, if that was what you wanted, this poll does not come anywhere close to accomplishing that goal. It is measuring something entirely different.

[gep]

To be clear, I also vote for no restrictions. My point was simply that the OAD rule is named NBA rule put in place to protect the NBA. As a college basketball fan and player rights advocate, I am far less concerned about the rule "protecting" those poor little NBA execs - just pointing out that it does have internal logic.

Thanks... did not intend to misinterpret your reply. Just voiced my ideas on the GM's fears of screwing up.

I also thought, as posted above, that the players union also didn't want HS entries into the league to take up any space and money from them.

[Acymetric]

To be clear, if that was what you wanted, this poll does not come anywhere close to accomplishing that goal. It is measuring something entirely different.

Agreed. Two (and a half) separate issues:

1. Is the OAD rule unfair to players (or, I suppose, unfair to schools).
*Note: This conversation can be particularly frustrating because people use it as a launching point to lash out at the NCAA for taking advantage of athletes when this has absolutely nothing to do with the NCAA (ways that the NCAA may or may not take advantage of athletes is a third, separate discussion tangential to this topic).

2. Assuming OAD is in place, not changing, and ignoring any morality-related questions (it seems this is what the OP was trying to get at):
a) Is OAD the best strategy for a school to build a winning team/maintain a program?

b) Does OAD impact someone's enjoyment of or connection with the team

[hustleplays]

To be clear, if that was what you wanted, this poll does not come anywhere close to accomplishing that goal. It is measuring something entirely different.

I disagree, Jason, and I appreciate what we are seeing from the poll.

In my response to a poster, I was trying to avoid being overly lawyerly, in using the term "like." Preferring to "keep OAD as it is" [our first poll item] given other possible alternatives, is exactly what I was interested in, and I hope that other DBRers are as well.

Out of 174 responses, only one respondent so far prefers to keep OAD as it is. An overwhelming majority favor either [a] No NBA entry requirements or [b] No NBA entry requirements OR at least two years of college.

To me, those results are interesting, and I thank you for posting the poll.

Hustleplays

[lotusland]

Enter the draft out of HS or leave when you’re ready. However athletes who choose to attend college must maintain their academic eligibility.

[hustleplays]

Agreed. Two (and a half) separate issues:

1. Is the OAD rule unfair to players (or, I suppose, unfair to schools).
*Note: This conversation can be particularly frustrating because people use it as a launching point to lash out at the NCAA for taking advantage of athletes when this has absolutely nothing to do with the NCAA (ways that the NCAA may or may not take advantage of athletes is a third, separate discussion tangential to this topic).

2. Assuming OAD is in place, not changing, and ignoring any morality-related questions (it seems this is what the OP was trying to get at):
a) Is OAD the best strategy for a school to build a winning team/maintain a program?

b) Does OAD impact someone's enjoyment of or connection with the team

Hello Acymetric, I fully agree that the issues you raise are different than the primary issue of my poll: What are DBR posters' preferences among the current OAD and the several most commonly proposed alternatives? Seeing that only .56% of our respondents prefer the OAD option is pretty interesting, to me at least.

I've been told/admonished and have read that the entire OAD issue has been nauseatingly over discussed. Please forgive my ignorance, but has Acymetric's "2.a" [Is OAD the best strategy for a school to building a winning team/maintain a program?] been fully discussed in a recent thread? I am sorry if I missed it. This is a very relevant issue, IMO. I recently read how Villanova goes about its roster "succession planning." Very meticulous position-by-position filling the projected empty spots over a several year period.

[cato]

has Acymetric's "2.a" [Is OAD the best strategy for a school to building a winning team/maintain a program?] been fully discussed in a recent thread?

Looks like I picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue.

[I kid!]

[hustleplays]

Looks like I picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue.

[I kid!]

Oh dear, I hate to have a human life hanging in the balance due to my oversight. I am blaming this on my pesky day job, but will try to do better. Please hang in there, Cato.

[MarkD83]

In reading all of the recruitment threads and this thread there is a topic that we unbelievably have not discussed. In this age of one and dones, is this more stressful on the coaches? On the one hand they have to rebuild rosters every year. On the other hand they have to recruit players anyway so why not the entire starting line up

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

In reading all of the recruitment threads and this thread there is a topic that we unbelievably have not discussed. In this age of one and dones, is this more stressful on the coaches? On the one hand they have to rebuild rosters every year. On the other hand they have to recruit players anyway so why not the entire starting line up

I cannot imagine it not being more stressful. Rather than having 80% of your starting line up be known quantities with offseason tasks (Bagley, work on rim protection, Carter work on pivot foot, Gary focus on getting into passing lanes, Tre watch game tape and work on decision making) you have an entire roster of intangibles and unknowns.

Additionally, chemistry has to be reset every year, and we seem to suffer most on the defensive side of the ball as a result.

[Lar77]

I voted for getting rid of the NBA rule. If a player is good enough to try to make the move, why restrain him?

Don't think it will happen. As stated earlier, why would the teams want to risk a draft pick (and money) when they can wait a year to see how a player develops against better competition. And why would the players union want anything.

If it did, however, then I would also have the NCAA allow players to go through the draft (with or without professional advisors) without losing eligibility and be allowed to make financial arrangements with a pre-condition that it cannot infringe on stated NCAA/university rights (that's a can of worms and then there's Title IX considerations). For example, a player could get paid by outside parties for endorsements, but team names/uniforms would be the property of the university. I realize this approach would reopen a host of issues that the current rules were originally developed to address, but this is a complicated issue that can't be resolved in a couple of high level statements.

More likely, I can see the NBA extending the time before players can enter the draft out of self-interest of both the teams and the current players.

While the idea of a more robust G League is appealing for many reasons, it's easier said than done. Again, what benefit does the NBA gain and at what cost compared to the current use of the NCAA as an informal farm system?

On another note, I enjoy reading the debate here.

[Lar77]

I cannot imagine it not being more stressful. Rather than having 80% of your starting line up be known quantities with offseason tasks (Bagley, work on rim protection, Carter work on pivot foot, Gary focus on getting into passing lanes, Tre watch game tape and work on decision making) you have an entire roster of intangibles and unknowns.

Additionally, chemistry has to be reset every year, and we seem to suffer most on the defensive side of the ball as a result.

Agree with this. College sports have always had intangibles, such as developing chemistry, that are appealing to fans. Recruiting and coaching a team of 18/19 year olds that has one year to develop team and individual skills has to be very stressful (but also satisfying when it works out). Without rehashing old posts, imagine how our team would have developed if 2015 had stayed 3-4 years.

[Troublemaker]

Don't think it will happen. As stated earlier, why would the teams want to risk a draft pick (and money) when they can wait a year to see how a player develops against better competition. And why would the players union want anything.

I used to be skeptical as well, but I now believe it's possible because the makeup of NBA front offices has changed over the years. I mean, it's no secret that pro sports are much more geared towards hiring Ivy League, advanced analytics-based nerds for their front offices these days. People who didn't play professionally but are really, really smart and can analyze the sport at a high level. Baseball started it, and other sports have followed suit. And what I think has happened is that all these really smart people in these NBA front offices are okay with upping the risk factor / variability of NBA drafting because they've all created proprietary models for drafting that they believe will give them a competitive advantage over other franchises.

Essentially, what we've needed to get rid of OAD was for a majority of front offices to think that they're smarter than everyone else. And we may have that situation now.

[kako]

With "Players can go pro out of high school, but if they go to college they must stay at least 2 years" in mind, I throw out this scenario:

Say I'm a kid in high school and a brilliant coder. I've studied coding as long as I can remember, and I love it. I've played around and posted things in open source communities and even free apps on mobile stores like Apple's App Store (I haven't made any money with my coding). I did great in my very competitive high school, was valedictorian, and got a full academic scholarship to Duke. Duke really wants me to come, putting on parties for me as one of the incoming students, sending me emails and snail mail, and even making personal calls to me. But since I love coding, I wonder if I might just start to go into the job market. I have some connections, and I'm given an offer to actually start to work. But finally I decide that I should really go to school first. So I matriculate, start my studies in computer science and do great in my classes. In my freshman year, I participate in inter-college competitions based on coding, and Duke wins these challenges. In my free time, based on my classes and talking with superb professors at Duke, I'm still posting in open source and uploading free apps to the App Store (my submissions now are even more complex), and they are getting great reviews. I work with my professors on research papers, and get credited as one of the authors. Duke Magazine even does a story on me!

Now more companies start to notice me, and I'm contacted by them. They want me to come and work for them, even though I'm just a freshman. They offer me full time jobs, signing bonuses and huge 6-figure salaries to do so, as well as huge resources and environments where I could do so much more than on my own. After weighing the pros and cons, I decide to take a job offer. My family and I both feel it's best for me. I leave Duke grateful for the experience, but excited about the opportunities ahead of me. My Duke professors also wish me well and hope I'll come back to visit. I become a professional and get paid.

Wouldn't it be unfair if by taking the scholarship, I had to stay another year before I could go and get a job?

[Acymetric]

With "Players can go pro out of high school, but if they go to college they must stay at least 2 years" in mind, I throw out this scenario:

Say I'm a kid in high school and a brilliant coder. I've studied coding as long as I can remember, and I love it. I've played around and posted things in open source communities and even free apps on mobile stores like Apple's App Store (I haven't made any money with my coding). I did great in my very competitive high school, was valedictorian, and got a full academic scholarship to Duke. Duke really wants me to come, putting on parties for me as one of the incoming students, sending me emails and snail mail, and even making personal calls to me. But since I love coding, I wonder if I might just start to go into the job market. I have some connections, and I'm given an offer to actually start to work. But finally I decide that I should really go to school first. So I matriculate, start my studies in computer science and do great in my classes. In my freshman year, I participate in inter-college competitions based on coding, and Duke wins these challenges. In my free time, based on my classes and talking with superb professors at Duke, I'm still posting in open source and uploading free apps to the App Store (my submissions now are even more complex), and they are getting great reviews. I work with my professors on research papers, and get credited as one of the authors. Duke Magazine even does a story on me!

Now more companies start to notice me, and I'm contacted by them. They want me to come and work for them, even though I'm just a freshman. They offer me full time jobs, signing bonuses and huge 6-figure salaries to do so, as well as huge resources and environments where I could do so much more than on my own. After weighing the pros and cons, I decide to take a job offer. My family and I both feel it's best for me. I leave Duke grateful for the experience, but excited about the opportunities ahead of me. My Duke professors also wish me well and hope I'll come back to visit. I become a professional and get paid.

Wouldn't it be unfair if by taking the scholarship, I had to stay another year before I could go and get a job?

Certainly. But for your scenario to be truly applicable, that would be a rule put in place by the major potential employers, not by the University. The NCAA does not, and I suspect legally could not, require that kind of commitment in any sport now or in the future..

[azzefkram]

With "Players can go pro out of high school, but if they go to college they must stay at least 2 years" in mind, I throw out this scenario:

...

Wouldn't it be unfair if by taking the scholarship, I had to stay another year before I could go and get a job?

No, because it is part of a commitment. You had 3 options facing you; enter the workforce, go to Duke (pay your way), and go to Duke (Duke pays but you have to commit to a 2 year stay). The first 2 options give you the freedom of movement you desire.

[kako]

No, because it is part of a commitment. You had 3 options facing you; enter the workforce, go to Duke (pay your way), and go to Duke (Duke pays but you have to commit to a 2 year stay). The first 2 options give you the freedom of movement you desire.

But as I understand academic scholarships now, they are not binding whatsoever. Why should athletic scholarships be binding?

[kako]

Certainly. But for your scenario to be truly applicable, that would be a rule put in place by the major potential employers, not by the University. The NCAA does not, and I suspect legally could not, require that kind of commitment in any sport now or in the future..

True. But employers would never want to wait to bring in talent. If they think someone can do the job, they want them now.

[Ian]

In reading all of the recruitment threads and this thread there is a topic that we unbelievably have not discussed. In this age of one and dones, is this more stressful on the coaches? On the one hand they have to rebuild rosters every year. On the other hand they have to recruit players anyway so why not the entire starting line up

Of course it's more stressful, and time consuming, one of the reasons I don't like the OAD system is that a far larger percentage of the coaching staff's time is now tied up by recruiting. You read stories like how Jon Scheyer called up Cameron Reddish right after Duke won the title in 2015, and realize that it's a 3-4 years time invested in building relationships with a player through out their high school years to even get them to come, and many times they go somewhere else.

[Ian]

But as I understand academic scholarships now, they are not binding whatsoever. Why should athletic scholarships be binding?

Well, for one thing they are more limited. There is no rule that restricts the number of academic scholarships to 13. Athletic scholarships also entitle you to many more perks beyond that of a regular tuition paying student. So it coming with more strings attached is not unreasonable.

[Acymetric]

True. But employers would never want to wait to bring in talent. If they think someone can do the job, they want them now.

That may be true for most general workforce analogies used to compare against the NCAA/NBA one-and-done model, but obviously it is untrue for the actual case at hand, or there would be no OAD rule and we wouldn't be having this discussion (the problem with analogies is that they never map perfectly the the case being discussed). The employer (NBA) explicitly wanted to wait one extra year to bring in talent.

[kako]

Well, for one thing they are more limited. There is no rule that restricts the number of academic scholarships to 13. Athletic scholarships also entitle you to many more perks beyond that of a regular tuition paying student. So it coming with more strings attached is not unreasonable.

Well, the choice to limit the number of athletic scholarships is up to the school/NCAA. But I think most school have some limiting number of academic scholarships based on finances available.

What intrigues me is your statement about getting "many more perks". You say "beyond a regular tuition paying student", and without going into it I guess I could agree (tutoring, being able to take tests off campus, etc.). But would they also be beyond an academic scholarship? Academic scholarships could have perks, too. So what specific athletic scholarship perks do you have in mind here that would be different from an academic scholarship? I ask because I wonder if they are perks or if they are accommodations for the "student=athletes" in order to perform their specific athletic activity?

[azzefkram]

But as I understand academic scholarships now, they are not binding whatsoever. Why should athletic scholarships be binding?

That is not what we are talking about. You know the restriction going in. You can avoid the restriction by going into the workforce straight from high school. You chose to go to Duke. Your scenario would fit better if the best coding company had a rule that stated they would consider hiring you straight out of high school but, if you went to college, they wouldn't consider you until after your sophomore year.

[kako]

That may be true for most general workforce analogies used to compare against the NCAA/NBA one-and-done model, but obviously it is untrue for the actual case at hand, or there would be no OAD rule and we wouldn't be having this discussion (the problem with analogies is that they never map perfectly the the case being discussed). The employer (NBA) explicitly wanted to wait one extra year to bring in talent.

Agreed. But if there was some rule that he needs to wait until after his sophomore year, the problem still exists for my student coder.

Yes, it's not a perfect analogy. The student could just drop out of school and the market would still take him. But my point is that limitations can put unfair restrictions on the student/player/individual and only help the organizations. The NBA is trying to save itself from it's own poor decisions, e.g. Robert Swift, Leon Smith, etc. So like it or not, OAD may still continue for years to come. But I believe college wants 2AD/3AD or even 4AD to benefit itself. We may all want to see Bagley play another season in a Duke uniform, but that only helps Duke and us as fans, not him. Which again pits the individual vs. the organization. I believe in an individual free market. Put only meaningful restrictions, e.g. a student needs to maintain GPA just like other students, follow team rules, they can only practice certain amount of time, teams play a certain amount of games in a season, etc. Don't limit his earning capacity. To me, that's unfair and in our land of opportunity, un-American. <key up the Star-Spangled Banner now>

[kako]

That is not what we are talking about. You know the restriction going in. You can avoid the restriction by going into the workforce straight from high school. You chose to go to Duke. Your scenario would fit better if the best coding company had a rule that stated they would consider hiring you straight out of high school but, if you went to college, they wouldn't consider you until after your sophomore year.

My point is why have the restrictions. Who does that benefit?

[flyingdutchdevil]

My point is why have the restrictions. Who does that benefit?

The NBA. Full year of free scouting against better competition.

[kako]

The NBA. Full year of free scouting against better competition.

Yes, and that's their choice. No argument there. It's a private business, and they can do what they want.

But I think this 2AD proposal benefits "non-profit" colleges that use OAD first and the player second. Bagley's not a good example, since he would have gone pro out of high school. But keep Luol Deng in a Duke uniform for another year for our enjoyment. If he wanted to put his face on a t-shirt like Bagley, sorry man... no "Do All, Luol!" t-shirt sales for you for another year. Not to mention the millions in dollars you can't make even though you are ready. In the meantime, we will sell your jersey in the Duke Store for $150 a pop and take all the profits. And hope you get us to the Final Four so we can make more money. And get us another national championship, because it's all about Duke and not you.... OK, I'm being a little harsh. But I think the system should benefit the individual first and the organization second. IMO 2AD, even with going pro after high school, benefits colleges like Duke first and players second. The free market should be applied here.

[luvdahops]

The NBA. Full year of free scouting against better competition.

So there was an interesting page in the April 9th print edition of SI. It showed average career win shares by years of college for each player drafted since 2006. The breakdown was as follows:

Freshman (i.e. one and dones; 100 total picks) - 14.8
Sophomores (78 total picks) - 19.9
Juniors (64 total picks ) - 16.4
Seniors (61 total picks) - 12.7
Internationals (57 total picks) - 12.6

I found this pretty interesting, given the increasing prevalence of freshman and, to a lesser extent, international players in recent drafts. On the face, these data points would seem to be an indictment of these trends, as they suggest that players entering after 2 or 3 years of college ball have - on average - more impactful careers than those who played just 1.

Interestingly, Nate Silver came to a similar conclusion roughly 4 years ago using a slightly different approach and data set. Silver looked at average win shares per season (vs career), grouped high schoolers and freshman, and went back to the 1995 draft to capture KG, Kobe, Lebron, etc. He also found that while the HS/freshman cohort had the highest average win shares per season, the sophomores on average reached only a slightly lower peak, and did so more quickly, which made them significantly better values from a draft standpoint.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/drafting-sophomores-is-a-smart-strategy-for-nba-teams/

As an NBA fan, I believe that the league, for all of the analytical brainpower that has been added to front offices, suffers from a great deal of groupthink and copycatting when it comes to roster construction and on court strategy. And recent draft trends and philosophies clearly fall into this category.

I voted for having no restrictions because I think that is what is most fair. I also think the kids are too often blamed for a system that isn't necessarily rational. And it is the NBA primarily that bears responsibility for that.

[Matches]

So there was an interesting page in the April 9th print edition of SI. It showed average career win shares by years of college for each player drafted since 2006. The breakdown was as follows:

Freshman (i.e. one and dones; 100 total picks) - 14.8
Sophomores (78 total picks) - 19.9
Juniors (64 total picks ) - 16.4
Seniors (61 total picks) - 12.7
Internationals (57 total picks) - 12.6

I found this pretty interesting, given the increasing prevalence of freshman and, to a lesser extent, international players in recent drafts. On the face, these data points would seem to be an indictment of these trends, as they suggest that players entering after 2 or 3 years of college ball have - on average - more impactful careers than those who played just 1.



Was that for 1st round picks only? The total # of picks seem to suggest it was. It'd be interesting to see how adding in the 2nd round picks affects the analysis.

[BD80]

My point is why have the restrictions. Who does that benefit?

The players association - less competition for roster spots, which allows more spots for veterans that would be taken by high school kids with potential but who won't play for a year or so but they are so young and inexperienced.

The NBA - lets kids "develop their brand" on a national stage in college, making them bigger attractions when they enter the league.

The networks (the ones that finance the NBA and the NCAA) - keeps the college game filled with talent and a viable entertainment package that does not seem to diminish the demand for the NBA product, there is arguably a synergy, that success of the college product INREASES demand for the NBA product as popular players move to the next level.

[luvdahops]

Was that for 1st round picks only? The total # of picks seem to suggest it was. It'd be interesting to see how adding in the 2nd round picks affects the analysis.

The SI analysis was definitely first round only. Not sure about Silver.

[Ian]

Well, the choice to limit the number of athletic scholarships is up to the school/NCAA. But I think most school have some limiting number of academic scholarships based on finances available.



Sure, but it's a lot more than 13, scarcity is what makes a thing more valuable. And the demand for them are high.



What intrigues me is your statement about getting "many more perks". You say "beyond a regular tuition paying student", and without going into it I guess I could agree (tutoring, being able to take tests off campus, etc.). But would they also be beyond an academic scholarship? Academic scholarships could have perks, too. So what specific athletic scholarship perks do you have in mind here that would be different from an academic scholarship? I ask because I wonder if they are perks or if they are accommodations for the "student=athletes" in order to perform their specific athletic activity?

Those "accommodations" are perks. If you're on an academic scholarship, you get to go to class, get educated, get a degree, just like the other tuition paying students. Athletic scholarships also included training and coaching and nutrition and support and access to facilities to help you become a professional basketball player. The school doesn't hire a whole staff of people to help you become a better coder in addition to whatever you learn in class.

[kako]

Sure, but it's a lot more than 13, scarcity is what makes a thing more valuable. And the demand for them are high.



Those "accommodations" are perks. If you're on an academic scholarship, you get to go to class, get educated, get a degree, just like the other tuition paying students. Athletic scholarships also included training and coaching and nutrition and support and access to facilities to help you become a professional basketball player. The school doesn't hire a whole staff of people to help you become a better coder in addition to whatever you learn in class.

The demand for academic scholarships is also high. Just about every family will college-age kids is trying to get financial support. There are more than 13 academic scholarships, but there are a lot more kids trying to get them than trying to get a basketball scholarship. And 13 is the limit the school sets via the NCAA. They could provide more if they wanted to do so.

The accommodations are there because of basketball. So to me that's a wash - the school doesn't give that out of the goodness of its heart. It does so because it needs to do that to keep the player academically eligible while players travel, practice, weight train, watch film, etc. Training and coaching are just like tuition students - everybody's being trained and taught to become a professional. Practice facilities, weight rooms, etc. are like labs and classrooms, so to me that's a wash a well. Students can request extra support staff at schools, just like athletes are automatically given (you could argue the school provides the support staff at the athlete's convenience, but again that could be so that the athlete can practice, go to games, work out, etc.). There are TA's, office hours, tutors, learning centers, etc... a lot lot of staff to help students outside of class. The schools want those on scholarship to succeed. Is it totally apples to apples? No, but it's closer than I think you are intimating.

My point again is that students should not be limited by unnecessary restrictions in pursuing their profession. They should be able to leave at any time to do so. They should not be indentured servants. Now the NBA may say, no, we only want you after 1 year or 2 years or more - that's their right. But if another league came up (hey, free market!) and took those kids, paid them handsomely after their freshman year and signed them to long-term contracts, you can be sure that the NBA would drop their limits. Or if more kids start to take the Brandon Jennings route but end of staying in China, Italy, etc., the NBA might also rethink their limits. Restricting the free market causes problems (greetings, FBI shoe company investigation!). So arbitrarily creating a 2AD to me is just putting a free market restriction on a kid who is able to make money just to benefit the organizations in charge. Let the free market loose, and the college basketball world would settle into a steady state where kids can get better and pursue their professional careers, schools still compete for titles, coaching still matters and people will still watch and root for their teams.

[Ian]

The demand for academic scholarships is also high. Just about every family will college-age kids is trying to get financial support. There are more than 13 academic scholarships, but there are a lot more kids trying to get them than trying to get a basketball scholarship. And 13 is the limit the school sets via the NCAA. They could provide more if they wanted to do so.

The accommodations are there because of basketball. So to me that's a wash - the school doesn't give that out of the goodness of its heart. It does so because it needs to do that to keep the player academically eligible while players travel, practice, weight train, watch film, etc. Training and coaching are just like tuition students - everybody's being trained and taught to become a professional. Practice facilities, weight rooms, etc. are like labs and classrooms, so to me that's a wash a well. Students can request extra support staff at schools, just like athletes are automatically given (you could argue the school provides the support staff at the athlete's convenience, but again that could be so that the athlete can practice, go to games, work out, etc.). There are TA's, office hours, tutors, learning centers, etc... a lot lot of staff to help students outside of class. The schools want those on scholarship to succeed. Is it totally apples to apples? No, but it's closer than I think you are intimating.

My point again is that students should not be limited by unnecessary restrictions in pursuing their profession. They should be able to leave at any time to do so. They should not be indentured servants. Now the NBA may say, no, we only want you after 1 year or 2 years or more - that's their right. But if another league came up (hey, free market!) and took those kids, paid them handsomely after their freshman year and signed them to long-term contracts, you can be sure that the NBA would drop their limits. Or if more kids start to take the Brandon Jennings route but end of staying in China, Italy, etc., the NBA might also rethink their limits. Restricting the free market causes problems (greetings, FBI shoe company investigation!). So arbitrarily creating a 2AD to me is just putting a free market restriction on a kid who is able to make money just to benefit the organizations in charge. Let the free market loose, and the college basketball world would settle into a steady state where kids can get better and pursue their professional careers, schools still compete for titles, coaching still matters and people will still watch and root for their teams.

You keep using the term "free market", but you seem to have no idea what it means.

A free market means agents who act in the market are free to offer any deal to another agent and free to accept any deal that is offers by another agent in the market, without interference in anyway from any one else. That is all.
If a school offers a deal that says in order to earn the scholarship you have to stay for at least two years, that is not a violation of the free market principle. It's not indentured servitude to agree to a deal and then have to live up to the terms of it. If the terms are not agreeable, the person could have not agreed to it at all.

[hustleplays]

Appears that the OAD poll is winding down. As you can see, 206 posters have voted their preference, among the options given. Thank you for participating.

If I missed an option that should have been there, I would like to hear it. [I know that we didn't offer separate options for 2, 3 and 4 year college requirements, in the interest of keeping the poll simple.]

While it's been apparent that the OAD approach isn't popular, I think it's illuminating to see that only one out of 206 of us prefers OAD as an option, given the options presented.

I think that we can safely say that DBR posters represent one significant cohort of avid and informed college basketball fans, belonging to an allegedly important college basketball program. Yet, clearly, we are not the "target market" for those who set the eligibility rules. Nearly all of us are not getting one of the options we prefer.

Interesting to me that at least 200 of 206 respondents favor no NBA time-bound entry requirements [I chose the last poll option, and prefer allowing HS players to enter the NBA directly from HS.]. 101 of those respondents prefer the requirement of at least two years of college for those players who enter college.

And, yes, there are two lonely souls [me included] who prefer Duke establishing a two year minimum, regardless of what other schools do. :o Let the brickbats commence. This approach might be competition suicide, I don't know. I personally think that the OAD might not be the best and it certainly isn't the only strategy for building a championship team. My preference simply stems from my pride in Duke as a premier educational community and my desire to strengthen the student component of "student athlete."

Again, thanks all for participating. Jason, thank you for posting this poll on my behalf.

Go Duke!

hustleplays

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

While it's been apparent that the OAD approach isn't popular, I think it's illuminating to see that only one out of 206 of us prefers OAD as an option, given the options presented.


hustleplays

Just goes to show, nothing on DBR is ever unanimous.

[NM Duke Fan]

The whole question of leaving early and OAD is very interesting. College basketball has brought me much joy and entertainment over the years, and it has been great to watch both individuals and Duke teams grow and mature. I do miss the great Duke teams of the early 90's with many older, more experienced players. University education has been important in my live in general, I earned 3 degrees, 2 of them professional graduate degrees. That being said, I feel that college educations can be over-hyped. The most powerful and insightful education that I received was actually in other types of workshops and classes that offered no college credits per se, along with my world travels and wilderness journeys. This is a very different time in history, and there are so many ways to explore the nature of the universe and gain knowledge and understanding. If I had children of college age right now, I am not sure I would urge them to go the often very expensive and sometimes limiting college route. And I don't blame those with exceptional athletic talent and burning ambition if they find ways to make large sums of money while competing against the best in the world at their craft -- quite often under expert instruction from those who know how the whole system actually works at the present time, including former professional players.

[DukeandMdFan]

While it's been apparent that the OAD approach isn't popular, I think it's illuminating to see that only one out of 206 of us prefers OAD as an option, given the options presented.

I think that we can safely say that DBR posters represent one significant cohort of avid and informed college basketball fans, belonging to an allegedly important college basketball program. Yet, clearly, we are not the "target market" for those who set the eligibility rules. Nearly all of us are not getting one of the options we prefer.

Interesting to me that at least 200 of 206 respondents favor no NBA time-bound entry requirements [I chose the last poll option, and prefer allowing HS players to enter the NBA directly from HS.]. 101 of those respondents prefer the requirement of at least two years of college for those players who enter college.


hustleplays

I think this is especially telling since Duke has had tremendous success with recruiting OADs. If Duke fans don't like the current rules, then who would?

I probably need to follow the Duke OADs more closely throughout their NBA career to more fully enjoy the OAD experience.

I like the idea of Duke requiring all its players to stay for two years, regardless of what everybody else does, I couldn't think of a reasonable way to implement it.

I think it would be interesting if each school was allowed 3 scholarships per class and if schools chose to spend them on 3 OADs, then the rest of the team would be "walk-ons" who were later given scholarships and would likely to stay for four years. Of course, that rule would never be passed.