Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 105
  1. #81
    Well, one potential unintended consequence for the guys ranked 15-25 is that it will be even harder for them to "rise to the top" given the NCAA landscape won't have the top players. Sure, it's an uphill battle anyways to rise above those ranked ahead of you in high schoool, but it does happen occasionally --- but when the top guys don't even attend college, the "new top" of college can no longer "leapfrog" them as there's even less direct competition. (i.e. you're the "best of the rest" instead of the "best of the best")

  2. #82
    I know that we will just have to wait and see how the back and forth goes in negotiations, but my thought would that they change the age to 18 years old but leave the and one year out of high school in the final rule. If that happens, it won't be satisfying to folks that like a clear-cut solution, but it would remove their optics problem of having an age limit but still ensure an additional season of scouting. Understanding that I could be wrong, messy compromises like this often happen. Especially if it's not a make-or-break issue for either side.

  3. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by 9dukejames View Post
    I know that we will just have to wait and see how the back and forth goes in negotiations, but my thought would that they change the age to 18 years old but leave the and one year out of high school in the final rule. If that happens, it won't be satisfying to folks that like a clear-cut solution, but it would remove their optics problem of having an age limit but still ensure an additional season of scouting. Understanding that I could be wrong, messy compromises like this often happen. Especially if it's not a make-or-break issue for either side.
    But that would essentially change nothing. And, again, I maintain that high school scouting is leagues more improved than in the mid 90s.

    I think this happens and it's good for most of the entities involved. Duke will be forced to make some changes, but Duke has adapted extremely well over the years.

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    From what I've read, the "one year removed from high school" would be going away as well. Hence the reason folks are talking about the potential for the 2024 draft to be a "double draft" with twice the number of elite prospects in it (the top college prospects plus the top high school prospects).
    I would bet that it gets pushed back a bit. Teams have traded away a lot of 2024 picks already, and it is kinda unfair to them as they may not have made those trades had they realized that the talent pool available in that draft is going to be so much deeper as it would be with a "double draft."

  5. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 View Post
    But that would essentially change nothing. And, again, I maintain that high school scouting is leagues more improved than in the mid 90s.

    I think this happens and it's good for most of the entities involved. Duke will be forced to make some changes, but Duke has adapted extremely well over the years.
    I know that it would really not change anything, and I could be wrong, but I have seen many such resolutions. In reality. I wouldn't mind seeing your prediction come true. As you say, Duke would adapt.

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Jun 2022
    Location
    Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    Ultimately, I suspect that it will come down to wins and losses as to how most view the change. If Duke adapts and keeps on winning, most everyone will be pleased. If Duke starts struggling more, the general tenor of the board will be one of lamenting the lack of talent. Sort of like how there was a growing level discontent cerca 2009, as Duke wasn't landing the best talent on the recruiting trails and wasn't making Final Fours with their veteran rosters.

    Hopefully Scheyer and Duke can navigate the change well (if it even happens). And if they are successful, I suspect most will be pleased, as it will likely mean we have both a successful program AND one with more continuity. I just think there's more risk of it hurting Duke than folks have been acknowledging in this thread. Because trading off talent for continuity doesn't inherently mean similar success. Lots of teams have continuity, not a lot of teams have top-end talent.
    I was thinking this exact same thing; we would go back to something closer to the 2006 - 2010 era if this rule passes.

    Or, in other words, the recent era of having a few of the Top 5, even Top 15 HS players on our team as OAD freshmen each year has given us a pretty high floor (with regard to talent/competitiveness and wins-losses) and a more volatile ceiling, year-in year-out. With most of the top 5 to 15 HS players not available, our year-to-year floor for talent and wins-losses will be much lower. If we have, for example, 2 to 3 players in top 25 to 50 HS ranking each class year, the talent level will be more hit-or-miss and team success a lot more dependent on how players develop over 3-4 years. Some years, we will "hit" on those classes, and other years we will "miss". A possible outcome is that there will be more of a cycle in the program - 1 to 2 "re-building" years followed by 1 to 2 strong years, and repeat.

    In some ways, that may make the team more interesting and rewarding to follow over a number of years, but will likely result in some individual seasons that are more disappointing/frustrating than we've gotten used to recently - when, if nothing else, we'd have incredible young talent to both entertain and keep us competitive in pretty much every game, regardless of final season wins-losses.

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Mechanicsburg, PA
    I don’t see this as a huge problem for Duke. Overall talent will go down but year-over-year continuity should go up as we will have fewer OAD players. Parity may increase across college basketball a bit, but as long as Duke is a desirable destination for high school players and transfers then the coaches should have the players to succeed.

  8. #88
    Excuse me if this has already been covered in this thread, as I haven’t read every post yet. But if the changes that the nba are proposing goes through, will it affect the class of 2023 recruits that have already comitted? ( Foster, Mbako, McCain etc…. )

  9. #89
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    Quote Originally Posted by Music man55 View Post
    Excuse me if this has already been covered in this thread, as I haven’t read every post yet. But if the changes that the nba are proposing goes through, will it affect the class of 2023 recruits that have already comitted? ( Foster, Mbako, McCain etc…. )
    Not to the point that anyone will decommit. The first draft it applies to is in 2024.
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

  10. #90
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cary, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by tommy View Post
    I would bet that it gets pushed back a bit. Teams have traded away a lot of 2024 picks already, and it is kinda unfair to them as they may not have made those trades had they realized that the talent pool available in that draft is going to be so much deeper as it would be with a "double draft."
    I remember hearing on an NBA podcast two or three years ago that teams were starting to stockpile draft picks in 2024 with the expectation that we'd have the double draft when the OAD rule went away after the current CBA expired. Any trades that took place since then have placed a higher value on draft picks in that year. No idea how true this is, but I don't think NBA teams are getting caught completely off guard.

    As for things being "unfair" I really don't think that's a consideration. I remember once when David Robinson was told it was "unfair" that the Spurs got the #1 pick that was used to draft Tim Duncan, in large part because Robinson had been injured the previous season. His response was "Is it 'fair' that Michael Jordan and Scotty Pippen are on the same team?"

  11. #91
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cary, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    The 2020 team was great because Carey was a college superstar as a freshman. But he'd likely go pro without the one-and-done rule.
    As has been mentioned ad nauseum on this board, if Carey hadn't come then we probably get Bacot instead and maybe he stays for six years while getting his doctorate like he's apparently going to do for the CHeats. As much as I hate the guy for wearing the ugly shade of blue, I think we'd all be happy with outcomes like that.

  12. #92
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Music man55 View Post
    Excuse me if this has already been covered in this thread, as I haven’t read every post yet. But if the changes that the nba are proposing goes through, will it affect the class of 2023 recruits that have already comitted? ( Foster, Mbako, McCain etc…. )
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred View Post
    Not to the point that anyone will decommit. The first draft it applies to is in 2024.
    Yep. The only thing it might do would be discourage some of those guys from going pro after their freshman year (due to there being more top prospects going pro after their freshman year thanks to some high schoolers joining, and thus deflating their relative draft value). Not sure how likely that would be to truly deter them, but that's really the only angle I see as relevant to the 2023 recruiting class.

    Quote Originally Posted by UrinalCake View Post
    As has been mentioned ad nauseum on this board, if Carey hadn't come then we probably get Bacot instead and maybe he stays for six years while getting his doctorate like he's apparently going to do for the CHeats. As much as I hate the guy for wearing the ugly shade of blue, I think we'd all be happy with outcomes like that.
    Amazing the impact that decision had. Of course, had 2020's tournament not been cancelled, maybe we have a better taste in our mouths from that tradeoff. I think that team had legit tournament potential.

    Also worth noting that it might have meant either Bacot or Williams would have left at some point before last season. But 2021 probably looks a bit better with Bacot and Williams rotating at C, if nothing else.

  13. #93
    According to this article linked below, the #37 player in the 2023 class is moving up a year and signing for over $1 million with the G League.

    I listened to JJ's interview of Grant Hill on the "Old Man and the Three" recently, and Grant said he didn't even really start thinking about the NBA until he was a senior. He had grown up mainly dreaming about playing in college, not the NBA.

    I hope we don't reach a point of asking the last very talented player in college basketball to turn the lights out.

    https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...aign=editorial

  14. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by Duke79UNLV77 View Post
    According to this article linked below, the #37 player in the 2023 class is moving up a year and signing for over $1 million with the G League.

    I listened to JJ's interview of Grant Hill on the "Old Man and the Three" recently, and Grant said he didn't even really start thinking about the NBA until he was a senior. He had grown up mainly dreaming about playing in college, not the NBA.

    I hope we don't reach a point of asking the last very talented player in college basketball to turn the lights out.

    https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...aign=editorial
    Why does the G League want the #37 player (and that's BEFORE re-classification, so he'd be even lower in the new class) for >$1M/year? Honest question...Is the Ignite League basically the NBA front office or some combination of franchises or something else? Who is paying/subsidizing these contracts and is the ROI there for them?

  15. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluedog View Post
    Why does the G League want the #37 player (and that's BEFORE re-classification, so he'd be even lower in the new class) for >$1M/year? Honest question...Is the Ignite League basically the NBA front office or some combination of franchises or something else? Who is paying/subsidizing these contracts and is the ROI there for them?
    Yea, this news does not compute. I don't think that he would see significant playing time for Duke, unless I am completely missing something.

  16. #96
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluedog View Post
    Why does the G League want the #37 player (and that's BEFORE re-classification, so he'd be even lower in the new class) for >$1M/year? Honest question...Is the Ignite League basically the NBA front office or some combination of franchises or something else? Who is paying/subsidizing these contracts and is the ROI there for them?
    Yeah, I don't get it either. Who is paying this kid? How does this make sense?

  17. #97
    scottdude8's Avatar
    scottdude8 is offline Contributor, Zoubek disciple, and resident Wolverine
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Toronto
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluedog View Post
    Why does the G League want the #37 player (and that's BEFORE re-classification, so he'd be even lower in the new class) for >$1M/year? Honest question...Is the Ignite League basically the NBA front office or some combination of franchises or something else? Who is paying/subsidizing these contracts and is the ROI there for them?
    I think this makes a lot of sense, even if the $1M number is a bit jarring. There is value in the development that every player in a "minor league" contributes to, even if some are unlikely to make the big show themselves. It's one of the reasons I've argued for a long time that every NCAA athlete, including those at small schools, deserve to be paid in some fashion.

    The idea behind the G-League Ignite is that it's a non-college outlet for top talent to develop for a year. Obviously that requires an entire team for practices, as well as opponents to play against. I do not believe the goal of Ignite was ever to only have first round caliber players on the roster, but rather provide a rich development environment for a few of those caliber guys a year as well as more "fringe" players who aren't interested in the college route. Paying guys who aren't likely to be draft picks $1M is jarring, to be sure, but I'd argue that a six figure salary (like Shareef O'Neal got) isn't out of the question considering the value the NBA gets from having players who graduate from the G-League instantly impact the league (like Jalen Green did last year).

    TL;DR: If the NBA pays ~$5M a year (a number I'm pulling from thin air) to players on the G-League Ignite who don't have clear-cut NBA futures, but whose presence helps accelerate the development of projected first round picks, I think that's a really solid investment from the NBA's perspective.
    Scott Rich on the front page

    Trinity BS 2012; University of Michigan PhD 2018
    Duke Chronicle, Sports Online Editor: 2010-2012
    K-Ville Blue Tenting 2009-2012

    Unofficial Brian Zoubek Biographer
    If you have questions about Michigan Basketball/Football, I'm your man!

  18. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by scottdude8 View Post
    I think this makes a lot of sense, even if the $1M number is a bit jarring. There is value in the development that every player in a "minor league" contributes to, even if some are unlikely to make the big show themselves. It's one of the reasons I've argued for a long time that every NCAA athlete, including those at small schools, deserve to be paid in some fashion.

    The idea behind the G-League Ignite is that it's a non-college outlet for top talent to develop for a year. Obviously that requires an entire team for practices, as well as opponents to play against. I do not believe the goal of Ignite was ever to only have first round caliber players on the roster, but rather provide a rich development environment for a few of those caliber guys a year as well as more "fringe" players who aren't interested in the college route. Paying guys who aren't likely to be draft picks $1M is jarring, to be sure, but I'd argue that a six figure salary (like Shareef O'Neal got) isn't out of the question considering the value the NBA gets from having players who graduate from the G-League instantly impact the league (like Jalen Green did last year).

    TL;DR: If the NBA pays ~$5M a year (a number I'm pulling from thin air) to players on the G-League Ignite who don't have clear-cut NBA futures, but whose presence helps accelerate the development of projected first round picks, I think that's a really solid investment from the NBA's perspective.
    You're suggesting that basically ~$5M is worth it to pay for a "practice squad/sparring partners" to develop those high draft picks. I can maybe buy that it's worth some investment, but I would venture to guess there are many reasonably skilled guys willing to get paid a lot less to play basketball semi-professionally...baseball players get paid peanuts in minor leagues (way less than they should IMHO, although I think I recall salaries going up a bit) although there is a more established farm system, so perhaps that's something the NBA is aspiring to re-create, and needs to overpay now to establish it.

  19. #99
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Outside Philadelphia

    MLS/International Soccer Academy Model

    I think what we are seeing is the evolution of the NBA towards the Academy model of international soccer and now the MLS. The teams (or in this case the league) sponsor training squads where the players are paid (see Tyrese Proctor as a basketball corollary), and some of the most talented go pro early and others go to college for additional training as they age out of the academy. I haven't checked, but my guess is that a bunch of Duke's soccer players were in MLS or international academies, and either need more maturity, or just aren't ready for the pros yet. But some do well (Thor for Duke last year) and may go pro quickly, while others stay the full four years. What the NBA is doing is getting more control over the players, and prototyping what I think will become an academy model to compete with NYBL or AAU teams.

  20. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by Stwray View Post
    I think what we are seeing is the evolution of the NBA towards the Academy model of international soccer and now the MLS. The teams (or in this case the league) sponsor training squads where the players are paid (see Tyrese Proctor as a basketball corollary), and some of the most talented go pro early and others go to college for additional training as they age out of the academy. I haven't checked, but my guess is that a bunch of Duke's soccer players were in MLS or international academies, and either need more maturity, or just aren't ready for the pros yet. But some do well (Thor for Duke last year) and may go pro quickly, while others stay the full four years. What the NBA is doing is getting more control over the players, and prototyping what I think will become an academy model to compete with NYBL or AAU teams.
    I agree with you that the NBA is trying to go to that model. Except MLS academy players don't get paid ANYTHING. Even in Europe where obviously soccer is big money, academy players get something like $35k/year. Not the $1M that the G League is handing out...

    Source:
    https://soccerblade.com/youth-soccer-player-salaries/

    Despite immense talent, French academy players may earn the same in a year as the pro English player Raheem Sterling made in a week, which is £30k.
    MLS academy players are youth soccer players in the U.S.; thus, they do not get paid. Interestingly, the MLS earns money for MLS Academy grads who play professionally in Europe. Recently, the MLS opted to adhere to RSTP (FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players). The RSTP means that if a club from outside the league signs a former MLS Academy player, they must pay the MLS for player development.
    Academy players in the United States do not get paid, they pay to play. The amount that players must pay to play at the academy level is astronomical. For example, playing on a team in the Development Academy costs $2,800 just for membership. This number leaves out additional travel expenses to get to the games. The ECNL girls league is also very expensive, costing up to $10,000, including all travel expenses.

Similar Threads

  1. NBA collective bargaining agreement discussion
    By MarkD83 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-02-2009, 11:22 PM
  2. Impact of Early NBA Entries on ACC
    By gw67 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-30-2008, 10:32 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •