NBA Establishes G-League Select Team for Top HS Prospects

[Indoor66]

That makes a bit more sense. While I wouldn't expect sky high TV ratings, I suspect that the TV ratings and attendance will be higher when the Maine Red Claws play the NBA Academy team than when they play the Fort Wayne Mad Ants.

I would guess the audience would be die hard fanatics and bored people and few others. Who watches the G League now? What would be the draw of players few ever heard of or if they did, have mostly forgotten?

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I would guess the audience would be die hard fanatics and bored people and few others. Who watches the G League now? What would be the draw of players few ever heard of or if they did, have mostly forgotten?

I equate the audience for one of these G League games to people who might have tuned into a Euroleague game a few years ago to check out Luka Doncic because they heard he was a special player who would be a top pick, or who watch the HS games that ESPN occasionally shows. And I don't think there are many of those people. If there was a truly transcendent player like a LeBron who had a ridiculous amount of hype (beyond people like DBR readers who are naturally inclined to care about such things) the numbers might perk up a little more, but not much.

[wsb3]

It would not shock me to see the G League to really go after the top players in the 2021 class. this is just a small sample with the 2020 class and now that they have enough time and the resources (money) I think we will hear more and more about the payers they have contacted.

I don't know if the G League will go after the top players in 2021 or not. But to your point, once this process begins there are no promises it will not grow and rob college basketball of more and more talent in the years to come.

Just think about how the OAD has changed many of our way of thinking. We are thrilled now if a player like Tre gives us 2 years instead of 1. There was a time, not that long ago when we were happy if they stayed unless they were going to be a lottery pick. Then it was if they are in the first round for sure. It's guaranteed money. Go ahead. And now they leave for the G league.

Of all the many things that Coach K has spoke about over the years. I could not agree with him more that College Basketball sorely needs a commissioner.

[JasonEvans]

I would guess the audience would be die hard fanatics and bored people and few others. Who watches the G League now? What would be the draw of players few ever heard of or if they did, have mostly forgotten?

I may be wrong, but I did a quick perusal of the G-League schedule and I could not find a single game that was broadcast on anything more than a smaller regional sports network. I mean, even NBA TV did not carry G-League games. So, it would appear that the very, very limited audience for G-League games is almost exclusively for die-hard followers of the NBA teams connected to each G-League franchise.

I equate the audience for one of these G League games to people who might have tuned into a Euroleague game a few years ago to check out Luka Doncic because they heard he was a special player who would be a top pick, or who watch the HS games that ESPN occasionally shows. And I don't think there are many of those people. If there was a truly transcendent player like a LeBron who had a ridiculous amount of hype (beyond people like DBR readers who are naturally inclined to care about such things) the numbers might perk up a little more, but not much.

It is worth noting that those HS games that ESPN sometimes takes have a built in audience of fans of the college programs who are recruiting them. The GL500K players are not going to be connected to either a college team or a pro one. There will be some curiosity-seekers who will watch some of the games next season, because it is new, but I strongly suspect that after the first couple games, you won't see much of an audience for these games and they will likely only be available via streaming.

[jv001]

I equate the audience for one of these G League games to people who might have tuned into a Euroleague game a few years ago to check out Luka Doncic because they heard he was a special player who would be a top pick, or who watch the HS games that ESPN occasionally shows. And I don't think there are many of those people. If there was a truly transcendent player like a LeBron who had a ridiculous amount of hype (beyond people like DBR readers who are naturally inclined to care about such things) the numbers might perk up a little more, but not much.

This^. I'm not a big fan of the NBA and if it's not a game with a Duke player playing big minutes, I won't watch a regular season game. Now the playoffs that's another thing. I don't have a favorite team in the NBA. That wasn't the case long ago. The Celtics and Lakers were my two favorite NBA teams and I loved the ABA games. Got to see many Duke players. I will not be watching any G-League games unless there's a Duke player on one of the teams.


GoDuke

[UrinalCake]

I’ve been struggling with trying to understand the NBA’s motivation for offering these contracts. They’re not going to just throw money and time at a kid out of the goodness of their own heart, they must believe that it is a profitable move. And what they currently have going is a pretty good gig - the NCAA markets and develops these kids for a year, they become household names through ESPN, the busts get weeded out, and they arrive in the pros a slightly more finished product. Why mess with that? I have since learned that they are going to essentially build an entire G league team around Jalen Green, and probably other elite players, so maybe they believe they can sell tickets and turn that into a profitable business. But most of the concerns that have been mentioned - losing out on a hype train like Zion, losing potential players to the overseas market - could be addressed by simply eliminating the age restriction.

My theory is that the NBA is offering these contracts AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO REMOVING THE AGE RESTRICTION. I think they are doing this so they can keep the one year rule in place. And it makes sense. A blanket removal of the one year rule would open up all the problems that led to the rule in the first place - too many players enter the draft, there’s not enough information to know who the busts will be, teams draft out of fear of missing out on the next big thing rather than who the actual better players are, and then get stuck with a high dollar, five year contract for someone like Michael Okiwokandi.

The G league contracts make way more sense. They can hand pick three or four players each year, and everyone else has to go through college and be weeded out. If one of those players turns out to be a bust, they have only wasted half a million dollars rather than $40M for a four year deal. And as an added bonus, the G league teams get an added boost in ticket sales.

[Indoor66]

I’ve been struggling with trying to understand the NBA’s motivation for offering these contracts. They’re not going to just throw money and time at a kid out of the goodness of their own heart, they must believe that it is a profitable move. And what they currently have going is a pretty good gig - the NCAA markets and develops these kids for a year, they become household names through ESPN, the busts get weeded out, and they arrive in the pros a slightly more finished product. Why mess with that? I have since learned that they are going to essentially build an entire G league team around Jalen Green, and probably other elite players, so maybe they believe they can sell tickets and turn that into a profitable business. But most of the concerns that have been mentioned - losing out on a hype train like Zion, losing potential players to the overseas market - could be addressed by simply eliminating the age restriction.

My theory is that the NBA is offering these contracts AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO REMOVING THE AGE RESTRICTION. I think they are doing this so they can keep the one year rule in place. And it makes sense. A blanket removal of the one year rule would open up all the problems that led to the rule in the first place - too many players enter the draft, there’s not enough information to know who the busts will be, teams draft out of fear of missing out on the next big thing rather than who the actual better players are, and then get stuck with a high dollar, five year contract for someone like Michael Okiwokandi.

The G league contracts make way more sense. They can hand pick three or four players each year, and everyone else has to go through college and be weeded out. If one of those players turns out to be a bust, they have only wasted half a million dollars rather than $40M for a four year deal. And as an added bonus, the G league teams get an added boost in ticket sales.

I agree with most of your post until the bolded. You make an assumption without any evidence. The G League is a TV and marketing bust.

[chrishoke]

I’ve been struggling with trying to understand the NBA’s motivation for offering these contracts. They’re not going to just throw money and time at a kid out of the goodness of their own heart, they must believe that it is a profitable move. And what they currently have going is a pretty good gig - the NCAA markets and develops these kids for a year, they become household names through ESPN, the busts get weeded out, and they arrive in the pros a slightly more finished product. Why mess with that? I have since learned that they are going to essentially build an entire G league team around Jalen Green, and probably other elite players, so maybe they believe they can sell tickets and turn that into a profitable business. But most of the concerns that have been mentioned - losing out on a hype train like Zion, losing potential players to the overseas market - could be addressed by simply eliminating the age restriction.

My theory is that the NBA is offering these contracts AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO REMOVING THE AGE RESTRICTION. I think they are doing this so they can keep the one year rule in place. And it makes sense. A blanket removal of the one year rule would open up all the problems that led to the rule in the first place - too many players enter the draft, there’s not enough information to know who the busts will be, teams draft out of fear of missing out on the next big thing rather than who the actual better players are, and then get stuck with a high dollar, five year contract for someone like Michael Okiwokandi.

The G league contracts make way more sense. They can hand pick three or four players each year, and everyone else has to go through college and be weeded out. If one of those players turns out to be a bust, they have only wasted half a million dollars rather than $40M for a four year deal. And as an added bonus, the G league teams get an added boost in ticket sales.

I agree. I actually raised this point way up thread.

[clinresga]

And you seem to think there are going to be high TV ratings and viewer interest in this stuff. What on Earth makes you think that is going to happen? G-League games don't generate good TV ratings. Why would adding a few guys who might be lottery picks to play in exhibition games (these games will not count in the standings) suddenly bring out fans in droves? I just don't see it happening. If you are a fan of a NBA team that is not in the lottery, there is no reason to watch.

Lots of pushback on my comments, most of which are justified. I agree that these changes in G League structure will not lead to the implosion of college basketball. But I am looking with a longer term perspective, and wondering, more than predicting, if over time there may be an erosion in NCAA viewership. But between a gradually enhanced G League, and the eventual elimination of the OAD rules (and I saw the comments suggesting that the G League changes might be a way for the NBA to avoid having to do this, which I find intriguing), I wonder if the gradual talent drain might indeed lead to a further shift of viewership to the NBA/GL at the expense of the college game.

...ask us if we would rather watch a game featuring: James Wiseman, Anthony Edwards, Isaiah Stewart, Nico Manion, and RJ Hampton versus watching: Tre Jones, Cassisus Stanley, Gary Trent, Matthew Hurt, and Vernon Carey. I know my answer and I suspect a lot lot lot of Duke fans here would agree with it.

-Jason "Go Duke!!!!!" Evans

Maybe the point I wanted to make the most is that of course this DBR community will always choose to watch Duke basketball over any other alternative. I certainly will. We are collectively the most fanatical Duke hoops fans out there. Most of us have a personal and enduring connection to Duke that will always trump just watching generic hoops. But perhaps we look at college hoops through Duke Blue-colored glasses? What about casual fans who don't have a specific college loyalty, just channel surfing on a Saturday? Would it take much for those casual fans to drift over to multiple top-50 recruits playing each other, instead of, say, the BYU--Santa Clara game? If OAD goes away, will the lure of seeing the next year's Zion or Trae Young trump watching a college game with an at least moderately depleted talent pool? Or to take your hypothetical, wouldn't some guy in Oklahoma with no college loyalty choose to watch your Wiseman-Edwards-Stewart et al team over the Tre-Cassisus-GT et al team? Maybe?

Personally, I think it's irrelevant. I'll watch Duke guys regardless, which sort of is the opposite of the poster's point.

Yeah, I'll watch Zion - he's a Duke guy? Would I watch him if he didn't go to Duke? Probably, he's generational talent. But I wouldn't watch him (or anyone else) at the cost of watching my current Duke team, ever.

Again, I get that. You're a DBR guy. Of course you'll watch Duke. But we are a tiny fraction of the total basketball fanbase. My arguments center more on the casual viewer, who really represents the bulk of the total viewership. And remember even that is a tiny group, relatively. These are old data (2015) as on short notice, I didn't have time to research deeply, but at that time, per the Sporting News:

"Few other sports (NCAA men's basketball) have such a discrepancy between the regular and postseasons. Regular season games averaged approximately 434,000 viewers across ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNEWS, NBCSN, FS1, FS2, FOX and CBS — a fraction of the 9.9 million for the tournament to date. Excluding Fox Sports 2, which is in less than 50 million homes, the regular season average climbs up to a still minuscule 441,000...By comparison, NBA games averaged approximately 2.0 million viewers on ESPN/ABC and TNT." And that's over an 80 game season."

The men's NCAA viewer base is quite small. The NBA viewer base is much larger. Could we not see increasing interest in NBA and G League hoops as more and more of the best talents head there directly (assuming OAD goes away)?

I would guess the audience would be die hard fanatics and bored people and few others. Who watches the G League now? What would be the draw of players few ever heard of or if they did, have mostly forgotten?

Well, I might say the same thing about, say, the 2019-2020 Nebraska Cornhuskers team

[camion]

"Few other sports (NCAA men's basketball) have such a discrepancy between the regular and postseasons. Regular season games averaged approximately 434,000 viewers across ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, ESPNEWS, NBCSN, FS1, FS2, FOX and CBS — a fraction of the 9.9 million for the tournament to date. Excluding Fox Sports 2, which is in less than 50 million homes, the regular season average climbs up to a still minuscule 441,000...By comparison, NBA games averaged approximately 2.0 million viewers on ESPN/ABC and TNT." And that's over an 80 game season."

The men's NCAA viewer base is quite small. The NBA viewer base is much larger. Could we not see increasing interest in NBA and G League hoops as more and more of the best talents head there directly (assuming OAD goes away)?



Well, I might say the same thing about, say, the 2019-2020 Nebraska Cornhuskers team

One question on the stats. How many televised NCAA regular season games were there and how many televised NBA games?

[uh_no]

All I know is, the more I read this thread, the more I think K is right: NCAA basketball needs a commissioner. They need someone to negotiate with the NBA and look out for the strategic interests of the NCAA's billion-dollar franchise.

The NBA really doesn't care what the NCAA wants. a figurehead isn't going to change that.

If the NCAA doesn't formulate a coherent counter-strategy, they are at risk of losing their cash cow.

You're going to still watch the tournament, I'm still going to watch the tournament. The tournament was a cash cow long before the OAD rule, and it will be one after. We'll watch it because we're big duke fans, Average people will watch it for the same reason they watch the kentucky derby and indy 500, despite not knowing a thing about it. The doom and gloom here is a bit silly. The only way it becomes less valuable is if the schools with big national draws...duke, UNC, ku, uk, etc, are no longer able to succeed...and I doubt that will be an issue.

[House P]

And as an added bonus, the G league teams get an added boost in ticket sales.

I agree with most of your post until the bolded. You make an assumption without any evidence. The G League is a TV and marketing bust.

I guess it probably depends on how much of a boost in ticket sales you expect. I am fairly confident that attendance will increase when the local G League team faces the NBA Academy team (made up of guys who may end up in the draft lottery) compared to when they face a “normal” G League team (made up of guys who may end up with a 10 day contract). No, I don’t think the games are going to start drawing 10,000+ fans*, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see an attendance bump of 10-20% for games vs the NBA Academy team.

One thing to consider is that many G League teams play in mid-sized cities like Des Moines, Sioux Falls, Fort Wayne, Erie, and Portland Maine. The places don’t regularly host games featuring potential future NBA All-Stars. So the chance to go see a potential future All Star play in your hometown “before he was a star” likely has enough allure to increase tickets sales, at least somewhat.


*The exception being if the “next LeBron” ends up playing for the NBA Academy team. After all, the “first LeBron” regularly played in front of crowds that size in High School.

High School Sophomore Emoni Bates is already being touted as the next LeBron, so we may get a chance to find out relatively soon if he signs with the NBA Academy. Heck, if the NBA really wants to increase the profile of the NBA Academy they may want to get Emoni Bates involved while he is still in high school. After all, would there really be much of a difference between the IMG Academy and NBA Academy?

[House P]

The NBA really doesn't care what the NCAA wants. a figurehead isn't going to change that.

No, but a single, highly capable person working solely to advance the long term interests of college basketball is probably better than what we have now.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

No, but a single, highly capable person working solely to advance the long term interests of college basketball is probably better than what we have now.

That's true. But the NCAA or any entity thereof has zero leverage to move the needle with the NBA. The NBA will proceed in their own timetable.

[Indoor66]

I guess it probably depends on how much of a boost in ticket sales you expect. I am fairly confident that attendance will increase when the local G League team faces the NBA Academy team (made up of guys who may end up in the draft lottery) compared to when they face a “normal” G League team (made up of guys who may end up with a 10 day contract). No, I don’t think the games are going to start drawing 10,000+ fans*, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see an attendance bump of 10-20% for games vs the NBA Academy team.

One thing to consider is that many G League teams play in mid-sized cities like Des Moines, Sioux Falls, Fort Wayne, Erie, and Portland Maine. The places don’t regularly host games featuring potential future NBA All-Stars. So the chance to go see a potential future All Star play in your hometown “before he was a star” likely has enough allure to increase tickets sales, at least somewhat.


*The exception being if the “next LeBron” ends up playing for the NBA Academy team. After all, the “first LeBron” regularly played in front of crowds that size in High School.

High School Sophomore Emoni Bates is already being touted as the next LeBron, so we may get a chance to find out relatively soon if he signs with the NBA Academy. Heck, if the NBA really wants to increase the profile of the NBA Academy they may want to get Emoni Bates involved while he is still in high school. After all, would there really be much of a difference between the IMG Academy and NBA Academy?

I am curious as to how many on this board have every heard of Emoni Bates before your post. I, for one, had not and still have no knowledge about him.

[fraggler]

I’ve been struggling with trying to understand the NBA’s motivation for offering these contracts. They’re not going to just throw money and time at a kid out of the goodness of their own heart, they must believe that it is a profitable move. And what they currently have going is a pretty good gig - the NCAA markets and develops these kids for a year, they become household names through ESPN, the busts get weeded out, and they arrive in the pros a slightly more finished product. Why mess with that? I have since learned that they are going to essentially build an entire G league team around Jalen Green, and probably other elite players, so maybe they believe they can sell tickets and turn that into a profitable business. But most of the concerns that have been mentioned - losing out on a hype train like Zion, losing potential players to the overseas market - could be addressed by simply eliminating the age restriction.

My theory is that the NBA is offering these contracts AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO REMOVING THE AGE RESTRICTION. I think they are doing this so they can keep the one year rule in place. And it makes sense. A blanket removal of the one year rule would open up all the problems that led to the rule in the first place - too many players enter the draft, there’s not enough information to know who the busts will be, teams draft out of fear of missing out on the next big thing rather than who the actual better players are, and then get stuck with a high dollar, five year contract for someone like Michael Okiwokandi.

The G league contracts make way more sense. They can hand pick three or four players each year, and everyone else has to go through college and be weeded out. If one of those players turns out to be a bust, they have only wasted half a million dollars rather than $40M for a four year deal. And as an added bonus, the G league teams get an added boost in ticket sales.

Sorry to nitpick. I get that Olowokandi was a bust relative to being a number one pick, but he played in college 3 years and was the Big West player of the year. There was reasonable evidence he might produce in the NBA. He actually was reasonably productive (12pt, 9reb, 2blk) by the end of his rookie contract but injuries derailed the rest of his career. Not sure he was the best example. Maybe Kwame Brown, but the odds were against him trying to develop as a high schooler picked by Michael Jordan.

[uh_no]

No, but a single, highly capable person working solely to advance the long term interests of college basketball is probably better than what we have now.

K is undoubtedly "that person" and I wouldn't be surprised if after he retires, he takes on some sort of advisory role for the NCAA...but i doubt having that be an official capacity will have much affect. K and Silver already have what is believed to be a very good relationship...Silver's on the duke board of trustees for goodness sake. I'm sure they have eachothers' ear often enough...and if K saying "hey lets work some of this stuff out" is not enough to move silver now, adding a fancy title of "commissioner of college basketball" ain't going to do a darn thing.

That said, I think there are OTHER problems in college basketball that a commissioner could help solve that the NCAA WOULD be fully in control of.

- more organized start of season
- loosen the BS around NCAA tournament travel (have to fly home at 3am after hours of pressers instead of staying the night)
- better alignment of conference schedules so we can get some january/february marquee OOC matchups
- figure out the freaking transfer rules, which are a sham (case in point: uconn picked up hurley as a coach. one of his recruits from URI transferred to follow him and has to sit out a year. that's so dumb that the coach can ditch his players and coach immediately, but the player ends up punished if he wants to follow the coach. There are many other instances)
- Perhaps loosening requirements if kids don't get drafted...maybe allow an agent in an advisory role pre-draft, and if the kid doesn't get drafted, no-harm-no-foul so long as the agent isn't paying him, and he can go back to school. Agent takes a risk on the kid getting drafted, Kid has a fall-back plan


Stuff like that. There's a ton of it that such a position could help resolve. It won't mean jack for the NBA.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

K is undoubtedly "that person" and I wouldn't be surprised if after he retires, he takes on some sort of advisory role for the NCAA...but i doubt having that be an official capacity will have much affect. K and Silver already have what is believed to be a very good relationship...Silver's on the duke board of trustees for goodness sake. I'm sure they have eachothers' ear often enough...and if K saying "hey lets work some of this stuff out" is not enough to move silver now, adding a fancy title of "commissioner of college basketball" ain't going to do a darn thing.

That said, I think there are OTHER problems in college basketball that a commissioner could help solve that the NCAA WOULD be fully in control of.

- more organized start of season
- loosen the BS around NCAA tournament travel (have to fly home at 3am after hours of pressers instead of staying the night)
- better alignment of conference schedules so we can get some january/february marquee OOC matchups
- figure out the freaking transfer rules, which are a sham (case in point: uconn picked up hurley as a coach. one of his recruits from URI transferred to follow him and has to sit out a year. that's so dumb that the coach can ditch his players and coach immediately, but the player ends up punished if he wants to follow the coach. There are many other instances)
- Perhaps loosening requirements if kids don't get drafted...maybe allow an agent in an advisory role pre-draft, and if the kid doesn't get drafted, no-harm-no-foul so long as the agent isn't paying him, and he can go back to school. Agent takes a risk on the kid getting drafted, Kid has a fall-back plan


Stuff like that. There's a ton of it that such a position could help resolve. It won't mean jack for the NBA.

Good point. One other thing to note is that as NCAA Czar (though NCAA would be considered a four-letter word and we would come up with a different name), one-and-dones would be pretty low on the list of priorities. We as Duke fans live in a bubble. For the vast majority of schools, one and dones are not on their radar and not a concern. There are hundreds of D1 basketball schools and most of them will never sniff a one and done caliber player. Right now, I think paying the bills is likely the biggest concern for many programs.

[JosephReidBooks]

The proposals in Dan Wetzel's article may merit their own thread, but this seemed to be the active discussion where they fit best:

https://sports.yahoo.com/how-college...183806821.html

Essentially, he's telling the NCAA that the proper response to the NBA's move is to mirror college hockey. Let players wait until after the draft to decide whether they're abandoning their college career, instead of forcing them to do it beforehand (which gives the NBA all the leverage). He's also got some interesting ideas at the end of the piece, like letting college players play in NBA summer leagues as a sort of internship.

All of this seems like the kind of thing that the "basketball czar" K has been calling for forever would be in a position to implement.

[Indoor66]

Good point. One other thing to note is that as NCAA Czar (though NCAA would be considered a four-letter word and we would come up with a different name), one-and-dones would be pretty low on the list of priorities. We as Duke fans live in a bubble. For the vast majority of schools, one and dones are not on their radar and not a concern. There are hundreds of D1 basketball schools and most of them will never sniff a one and done caliber player. Right now, I think paying the bills is likely the biggest concern for many programs.

Call it the OverArching PowerCenter.