Coach K renews call for HS players to be NBA Draft Eligible

[MarkD83]

A lot of these suggestions require the NBA to take action and we can assume they are frustrated by OAD because it is hurting the NBA.

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

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

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

[3rd Dukie]

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

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

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

[MaxAMillion]

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

2007: VCU
2012: Lehigh
2014: Mercer

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

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

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

[kAzE]

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

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

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

[Matches]

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

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

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

[sagegrouse]

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

[duke79]

[QUOTE=3rd Dukie;988132]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[COYS]

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

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

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

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

[jv001]

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

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

[3rd Dukie]

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

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

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

[toooskies]

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

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

[duke4ever19]

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

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

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

[Duke95]

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

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

[Ian]

Bilas is full of it, as usual. It's not a good option compared to college, which is why most don't go with it, but it's certainly a viable option

[swood1000]

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

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

[MartyClark]

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

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

[kmspeaks]

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

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

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

[Steven43]

2 and through has no nexus to education. Its sole purpose is to make life easier for coaches, not players.

Not so fast my friend. It would also make life easier for me as a fan. MUCH easier.

[sagegrouse]

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

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

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

[bob blue devil]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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