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

[atoomer0881]

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.

While I agree with everything you've said, I personally wouldn't include the 2007 exit to VCU in this discussion. Yes, technically it was 2 years after the OAD era began, but Duke didn't have any OAD talent on that team. I suppose you could maybe include McRoberts in that discussion but as he was a sophomore, I'd tend not to. Whereas the 2012 team with Austin, and the 2014 team with Jabari I would absolutely include in the OAD era regarding times we failed to get out of the first round.

I agree with Coach K that in "theater, music" you don't have to necessarily go to college to get to the top of your profession, but I don't agree when people say "no other profession forces artificial age limits/qualifications on you." Uh, lawyers have to go to 4 years undergrad and 3 years of law school. Doctors have to go to 4 years undergrade, 4 years med school, 4+ years residency, and then fellowships potentially. Basically most white collar desk jobs require 4 year college degree. So, we impose basic qualifications ALL THE TIME in all facets of life. Yes, there are exceptions of people who start their own business and drop out and the like, but it is VERY VERY rare. Particularly because the NBA drafts simply based on potential instead of actually being able to deliver value to their team. A company doesn't hire Mikey in the hopes he's going to provide company value in 3+ years, but it's worth the "investment" up front. No, they want you to be able to deliver value now. Obviously, the market for NBA players is very different than the common workplace -- not trying to suggest they should be the same, just don't like that argument that sometimes people make. Coach K isn't making it though and I agree with his opinion in this case.

I'd just say there's a few differences between having to wait to become a lawyer or doctor and having to wait to play in the NBA. For one, being a lawyer/doctor requires a professional license a/k/a you need to take those years of schooling in order to gain the knowledge to take on those responsibilities. Doogie Howser aside, you couldn't expect an 18 year old HS graduate to be able to perform heart surgery, or look at patients and deduce what's wrong with them. The same with a lawyer - I wouldn't expect a HS graduate to be able to successfully pass the bar exam and practice law. It's specifically the time that's needed to complete their schooling that prepares them to do what they do. When it comes to these HS basketball stars, many of them (or at least some of them) are ready to contribute right now. To me, making a lawyer/doctor go to school is the same as making a recruit in the 60-100s range go to college where after some time he may then be able to make it to the big times. But if they're ready now, then why prevent them from earning a living?

Secondly, the other difference is if you become a lawyer/doctor when you are 25 or 30 you can practice for another 35-40 years. Basketball players only have a limited window where they can play before their bodies break down. So if a player is ready to play at 18, and wants to take care of his family, and he only has say a window of 18 years, why make him waste 4, or 2, or even 1 year of that playing in college where he can't earn anything?

For me, the biggest problem in the OAD era are the NBA GM's and execs. They're the ones who began drafting based on potential. You know how easy it is to prevent OADs? When freshmen who averaged 10 min a game and 5 ppg go to a combine, the GM can say listen we need to see more. If you don't have NBA personnel telling high school players that they're going to be the #1 pick one year from now, then they won't leave after 1 year. If the NBA started focusing more on drafting players who stayed in school and actually matured and showed what they could do on the college level, then we wouldn't be where we are today -- right now for the first time ever, we may have ZERO seniors drafted in the first round. NBA DraftExpress has the first 10 picks as being freshmen. The first sophomore is Donovan Mitchell at 11. I just think the NBA is more to blame for the OAD phenomena than anything else, regardless of the age limit. Yes before it was raised from 18 to 19, you had a few HS players trying for the draft, but the ones that went to college, stayed in college. And that's because GM's didn't draft based on potential.

Just my two cents.

[duke4ever19]

I don't watch much college football, but my understanding is that for a person to be eligible for the NFL draft, he needs to be three years clear of high school and if he didn't play any college football, it's something like four NFL seasons have to have passed before you can enter the draft. I think once upon a time Ohio State's Maurice Clarett tried to get around the rule, but was ultimately unsuccessful.

I don't hear nearly the criticizing of that rule as I do about college basketball one-and-dones, but I am admittedly not tuned-in to that sport.

I understand that the NFL is an intensely physical game and that is at least partly (or maybe totally) why they steer clear of accepting high school products, but hey, I'm sure there have been dudes right out of high school who where absolute physical specimens and looked physically ready for the NFL. Jadeveon Clowney is a rather notable example.

In basketball, there are often guys drafted in the first round who are deemed "projects" because they haven't matured into their frames (Thon Maker comes to mind), but some guys - our own Justise Winslow comes to mind - absolutely look NBA-ready from a physical standpoint.

It's just interesting to me how NCAA Football and the NFL have largely been able to steer clear of this problem, while it's been a huge issue in basketball. Does it really just come down to the physicality of the game that separates football from having the same crisis?

[lotusland]

I like Coach K's idea but there would still be issues. I guess a perfect solution doesn't exist. I think players should also be able to test the waters out of HS. In that case a coach wouldn't know if a guy is enrolling until the draft deadline after recruiting him for years.

Under K's system I'd guess Okafor, Tatum and Parker would not have played for Duke while Jackson, Winslow, T Jones, Magette and Deng would have played 2 years. I'm not sure which way Rivers, Irving, Giles and Ingram would have gone. My uninformed opinion is that Carter and Duvall would also be 0 and done.

The advantage would be having more roster stability with guys staying 2 years. The downside is trying to recruit the best players without investing recruiting time on guys who end up never playing a minute of college ball.

[Duke95]

Why a 2-and-through rule (combined with allowing high school players to go straight to the NBA)?

To improve the college basketball product.

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.

[kAzE]

While I agree with everything you've said, I personally wouldn't include the 2007 exit to VCU in this discussion. Yes, technically it was 2 years after the OAD era began, but Duke didn't have any OAD talent on that team. I suppose you could maybe include McRoberts in that discussion but as he was a sophomore, I'd tend not to. Whereas the 2012 team with Austin, and the 2014 team with Jabari I would absolutely include in the OAD era regarding times we failed to get out of the first round.

I think 2007 counts. You could maybe make a case that 2006 shouldn't, given that the rule had just been put into effect, but the 2007 team was put together with the OAD rule in place for 2 full years, so all recruiting and roster decisions were made with the knowledge of the existence of the OAD rule. If the OAD rule had not been in place, we may have gone after higher rated guys, and certain players that season may have skipped college altogether.

Furthermore, each team we played against during that season also had that knowledge, and some of them had OADs on their rosters. All of these factors had ripple effects on Duke and the college basketball season as a whole. It should absolutely count, whether or not Duke had a OAD on the roster or not.

[Troublemaker]

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.

lol, I'm not sure you understand the meaning of indentured servitude.

In any case, the college basketball product would obviously improve. Two years to better form a connection with teammates, with coaches, with classmates, with the university, and with fans. Any kid who hates school or just doesn't belong in school can go pro out of high school. Take a poll of college basketball fans, and the vast majority would support this suggested system. It's not perfect by any means, but it would certainly be better.

[duke4ever19]

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.

I've seen statements like yours ("indentured servitude") and its variations ("slavery" etc.) frequently used in connection with this issue . . . is that really what you think going to college on a free ride and getting room and board equal? If so, then okay, but I can't but help feel the comparison a bit tone-deaf.

Perhaps I'm wrong (I often am), but it's hard for me to fathom that being someone's slave is something equal to a free-ride to Duke University and playing under Coach K. These guys have another choice. They can go overseas for a year and make money doing it.

Like I said up-thread, I don't hear the college football people making a huge issue that players have to be three years out of high school to be eligible for the draft. Where's the outcry there?

[Duke95]

I've seen statements like yours ("indentured servitude") and its variations ("slavery" etc.) frequently used in connection with this issue . . . is that really what you think going to college on a free ride and getting room and board equal? If so, then okay, but I can't but help feel the comparison a bit tone-deaf.

Perhaps I'm wrong (I often am), but it's hard for me to fathom that being someone's slave is something equal to a free-ride to Duke University and playing under Coach K. These guys have another choice. They can go overseas for a year and make money doing it.

Like I said up-thread, I don't hear the college football people making a huge issue that players have to be three years out of high school to be eligible for the draft. Where's the outcry there?

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.

[Duke95]

lol, I'm not sure you understand the meaning of indentured servitude.

In any case, the college basketball product would obviously improve. Two years to better form a connection with teammates, with coaches, with classmates, with the university, and with fans. Any kid who hates school or just doesn't belong in school can go pro out of high school. Take a poll of college basketball fans, and the vast majority would support this suggested system. It's not perfect by any means, but it would certainly be better.

Well, I'm quite sure I know what it means. This issue is of particular interest to me, and one into which I've done considerable research. But to each his own. It will take a lot of effort to counteract the decades of pro-amateurism propaganda that has indoctrinated so many fans.

You're certainly not the first person to react negatively to my argument, nor will you be the last.

[duke4ever19]

For the people that think student-athletes should be paid (beyond their room and board and school taken care of), why not do it like this: Any player out of high school can make himself eligible for the NBA Draft and on top of that, the NBA D-League will hold a two-round draft. Any player can make himself eligible for both. If it's really all about "getting paid" then hey, these guys can get paid, either by earning a spot on an NBA team and making millions, getting drafted by an NBA D-League team (which will pay far less, of course, but still pay), or go they can go overseas to play. The downsides to getting drafted to a D-League team at the moment are obvious. Less exposure making it harder to "grow a brand," but hey, you're "getting paid" and if you aren't good enough to get out of the D-League, then you shouldn't have a "brand." You are getting paid, but you won't earn millions if you don't play your why out of NBA purgatory.

College basketball is (and should be) a different animal than the NBA, the NBA D-League and pro-leagues overseas, so it will not pay players, and it demands at least a two-year commitment so that the system is not abused as an NBA halfway house. It sees a free education and room and board, its rich history and it's "March Madness" tournament and the press that comes with being a great college player etc. as it's perks. The cool thing is that in college, you can become a legend (in the sport, or in your school) and then get drafted by an NBA team and end up a complete bust. It happens all the time.

None of these players out of high school are forced to go to college in order to go to the NBA. It's the tried-and-true way of getting into the league, but it's certainly not the only way, and if it really is about "getting paid," then by all means, go overseas for a year and get paid and have a cool life-experience in a different culture, or hop over to the D-League and play in Sioux Falls and Reno. If it's money you want, go get it, but don't demand it of your college or the NCAA.

If a player out of high school really and truly thinks "Hey, the NCAA is going to use me to get a huge payday and I'm not going to get a piece of the pie," then there should be no one stopping them from avoiding what seems to them to be a horrible situation.

[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.

Brandon Jennings and Emmanuel Mudiay say "hello." Are you telling me that these guys didn't choose to play overseas and then were later drafted? I'm not sure how this is a defensible point.

I'm not being cheeky either. Going overseas and making money absolutely is an option. If you aren't good enough to go overseas and play then that's too bad, but that might also be a hint that you weren't going to get drafted in the best basketball league in the world anyway.

[Duke95]

For the people that think student-athletes should be paid (beyond their room and board and school taken care of), why not do it like this: Any player out of high school can make himself eligible for the NBA Draft and on top of that, the NBA D-League will hold a two-round draft. Any player can make himself eligible for both. If it's really all about "getting paid" then hey, these guys can get paid, either by earning a spot on an NBA team and making millions, getting drafted by an NBA D-League team (which will pay far less, of course, but still pay), or go they can go overseas to play. The downsides to getting drafted to a D-League team at the moment are obvious. Less exposure making it harder to "grow a brand," but hey, you're "getting paid" and if you aren't good enough to get out of the D-League, then you shouldn't have a "brand." You are getting paid, but you won't earn millions if you don't play your why out of NBA purgatory.

College basketball is (and should be) a different animal than the NBA, the NBA D-League and pro-leagues overseas, so it will not pay players, and it demands at least a two-year commitment so that the system is not abused as an NBA halfway house. It sees a free education and room and board, its rich history and it's "March Madness" tournament and the press that comes with being a great college player etc. as it's perks. The cool thing is that in college, you can become a legend (in the sport, or in your school) and then get drafted by an NBA team and end up a complete bust. It happens all the time.

None of these players out of high school are forced to go to college in order to go to the NBA. It's the tried-and-true way of getting into the league, but it's certainly not the only way, and if it really is about "getting paid," then by all means, go overseas for a year and get paid and have a cool life-experience in a different culture, or hop over to the D-League and play in Sioux Falls and Reno. If it's money you want, go get it, but don't demand it of your college or the NCAA.

If a player out of high school really and truly thinks "Hey, the NCAA is going to use me to get a huge payday and I'm not going to get a piece of the pie," then there should be no one stopping them from avoiding what seems to them to be a horrible situation.

Once again, neither the D-league nor overseas are judged to be in the same antitrust market. Those aren't actual substitutes. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever, other than "tradition" to bar athletes from being paid at the college level. But, I'll say this, I don't think there should be any link between the basketball/football teams and the academic side. None whatsoever. I favor the European sports academy system.

And "free education" is an absolute falsehood. These kids aren't getting anything "for free." Quite the opposite, really.

[duke4ever19]

Once again, neither the D-league nor overseas are judged to be in the same antitrust market. Those aren't actual substitutes. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever, other than "tradition" to bar athletes from being paid at the college level. But, I'll say this, I don't think there should be any link between the basketball/football teams and the academic side. None whatsoever. I favor the European sports academy system.

And "free education" is an absolute falsehood. These kids aren't getting anything "for free." Quite the opposite, really.

So you are telling me that my daughter, who is a student-athlete at UM (Michigan) on a full-ride scholarship, is not getting a free education?

I'm glad you let me know, because my bank account is under the impression that I'm not giving UM a dime, yet you say that's not the case. Or is it just not the case in certain situations?

Is it a free education if a student-athlete is on a full-ride as a rower? How about a football player? Tennis? When does the whole "These kids aren't getting anything "for free" manifest itself? Just in basketball?

[Ian]

Once again, neither the D-league nor overseas are judged to be in the same antitrust market. Those aren't actual substitutes. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever, other than "tradition" to bar athletes from being paid at the college level. But, I'll say this, I don't think there should be any link between the basketball/football teams and the academic side. None whatsoever. I favor the European sports academy system.

And "free education" is an absolute falsehood. These kids aren't getting anything "for free." Quite the opposite, really.

It seems like you live in a world where either people are paid huge salaries, or they are "slaves" and "indentured servants".


Have you not heard of the concept of apprenticeships?

The NBA aspiring player receives a hell of a lot more than just the academic scholarship, they receive training, equipment, coaching, real game experience, and promotion, all to enhance their future economic value.

The reason why most choose to go to college and not get paid professionally overseas, is that the college deal in the US is actually a pretty good deal.

[bob blue devil]

Once again, neither the D-league nor overseas are judged to be in the same antitrust market. Those aren't actual substitutes. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever, other than "tradition" to bar athletes from being paid at the college level. But, I'll say this, I don't think there should be any link between the basketball/football teams and the academic side. None whatsoever. I favor the European sports academy system.

And "free education" is an absolute falsehood. These kids aren't getting anything "for free." Quite the opposite, really.

it feels like moralistic and legalistic arguments are being mixed here. not a lawyer, so could you please clarify what it means to be in the "same antitrust market" (which i'm assuming is a legal definition). from a moralistic side, having the opportunity to be paid over $1mm per year overseas (as Mudiay and Jennings did) seems like a very legitimate alternative to playing in college. i.e. overseas leagues are, in my opinion, in the same market for their talents regardless of what the law says.

[sagegrouse]

Why a 2-and-through rule (combined with allowing high school players to go straight to the NBA)?

To improve the college basketball product.

I assume the zero/two rule is what K believes is attainable, and I agree with him that it's better than what we have now. I also assume he has had meaningful discussions with Commis Silver (Duke trustee) and the head of the NBPA.

[Troublemaker]

Well, I'm quite sure I know what it means. This issue is of particular interest to me, and one into which I've done considerable research.

Of the considerable research you've done on indentured servitude, did you ever just try googling it?

The comparison doesn't make sense because of the many features of indentured servitude that are missing. Just one example -- if a college athlete wants to walk away from his/her athletic scholarship, then the consequence is merely that he/she joins the 98% of college students who must pay their own way (or earn a different type of scholarship). If an indentured servant wanted to walk away, the consequences were much more severe...

I assume the zero/two rule is what K believes is attainable, and I agree with him that it's better than what we have now. I also assume he has had meaningful discussions with Commis Silver (Duke trustee) and the head of the NBPA.

I agree. It's a year less than how baseball and football have it set up, but it's a baby step better than OAD.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

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.

90+% of scholarship athletes do not go pro and enter college knowing they will not go pro in their chosen sport. As someone noted above, do you really think the scholarship volleyball player is there to enhance her chances of going pro? Yes, there are a number of basketball and football players who have no chance of going pro but are convinced by the people around them that they have a shot. But the numbers are tiny. A ton of breath and bandwidth is wasted on the incredibly small percentage of athletes for whom this is an issue. A scholarship to play a sport is a tremendous opportunity, particularly as a college education gets increasingly expensive. There is no way this should be compared to slavery, indentured servitude, or anything of the like.

I agree with the proposal that you can go pro out of high school, but if you go to college, you have to stay for 2-3 years (I'm not sure which). Truly transcendent prospects like LeBron can then go pro and do their thing. Kids who have no interest in school don't have to waste anyone's time in school. But for the rest of the athletes who say they are going to school, they will have to stay for a few years and make some minimal effort to fulfill the "student" part of "student-athlete." As I have noted above, for basketball I think that continuing the efforts to build out the D/G League would enhance this change, as it would provide a domestic place for kids who don't want to be in school and are great but not legendary players to play ball, make some money, and hopefully develop into NBA players.

But all parties in this process (NBA, college coaches, NBA players, college/HS players) have different incentive structures so it will be a difficult task to get them all to try to work together for the common good. College/HS players currently have very little say in the matter. NBA players have a bit of impact through the negotiation of the CBA, but they ultimately don't care too much about the players coming up behind them.

[Duke95]

it feels like moralistic and legalistic arguments are being mixed here. not a lawyer, so could you please clarify what it means to be in the "same antitrust market" (which i'm assuming is a legal definition). from a moralistic side, having the opportunity to be paid over $1mm per year overseas (as Mudiay and Jennings did) seems like a very legitimate alternative to playing in college. i.e. overseas leagues are, in my opinion, in the same market for their talents regardless of what the law says.

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.

[Highlander]

I assume the zero/two rule is what K believes is attainable, and I agree with him that it's better than what we have now. I also assume he has had meaningful discussions with Commis Silver (Duke trustee) and the head of the NBPA.

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.