Potential Big Impact on OAD - New NBA Collective Bargaining Agreement

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

There will be guys that leave after one year if they significantly improve their profiles in that year. However, the ones that are today's 5 star recruits will mostly bypass the college game. The number of 4 star recruits that go to college for a year only will probably not be a big number. They will be competing for NBA spots with the next class of 5 stars.

Exactly. There won't be the reality or the perception that players are forced to go to college. In theory, kids who are at Duke will be choosing to be there instead of the draft.

Again, I see this as a very good thing overall - good for the college game, good for the players who are talented enough to jump, good for having players more vested in the college as well as the team. It will just mean some significant adjustments for schools like Duke who have been fortunate enough to be working with top level talent.

I mean, on top of the adjustments surrounding transfer portals, NIL money, new coach...

[tommy]

I see the end of OAD as nothing but a good thing all around.

From my point of view it's the right thing morally: imposing a year in college on young adults who are choosing to begin their pro careers is, IMHO, overly paternalistic and condescending. The G-League Ignite and other routes like OTE have been a step towards alleviating this, but they're half measures. In a perfect world, I would love to see high schoolers able to "test the waters" similarly to college players to make the most informed choice possible, but who knows whether that's in the cards. Yes, it would add additional uncertainty to creating college rosters, but that's already so high with the transfer portal I see that as a minimal downside.

Meanwhile, while the lack of OAD prospects means there will be less raw talent at the college level, it also means we're more likely to get multi year players, which most of us have craved. Yes, it will make recruiting more challenging in terms of identifying players who aren't going to go straight to the NBA to put your resources into, but recruiting was already challenging. I think having more older, developing players will distinguish NCAA basketball as something distinct from just the NBA minor leagues, which will take some getting used to but I think be a net positive in the long haul.

Two addition points to make here. First, I think NIL will make this transition less abrupt than we might have otherwise anticipated. Before NIL, high schoolers were going straight to the NBA and getting picked in the second round. With NIL, going to a high profile school for a year or two would make more sense on multiple fronts... so I think the players who we see going straight from high school to the draft will be primarily first round locks. Second, this could lead to further development of the G-League as a robust minor league, with teams investing in younger players expecting them to play in the G-League for a year or two. Players should have every right to make this decision, just like high school baseball players who get drafted in the first round, get huge signing bonuses, and then play in the minors for multiple years. Players who have NBA-ready games may go to the draft and develop in the G-League, while players who either don't have NBA-style games (i.e., smaller PGs or traditional bigs) or need time to develop into NBA prospects might go the college route.

It would take some getting used to, and not having Zion's and Paolo's will be disappointing, but I think this change would be a net positive on all fronts.

If the G-League expands to welcome more guys who, as you say, have NBA-ready games but still need to develop and actually be ready to contribute in the NBA, and if the money they're offered compares to NIL money, then college basketball is going to lose a lot more than just the Zions and Paolos.

[UrinalCake]

If the G-League expands to welcome more guys who, as you say, have NBA-ready games but still need to develop and actually be ready to contribute in the NBA, and if the money they're offered compares to NIL money, then college basketball is going to lose a lot more than just the Zions and Paolos.

It's possible that the G-League will also attract guys like Trevor Keels and DJ Steward, who were not NBA ready out of high school but clearly had their sights set on the next level. So maybe they choose to instead get drafted (or not) and develop in the G league instead of spending that first year in college. From the standpoint of Duke's program, and with all due respect to those two, would that be a bad thing?

[FastBreak]

I'm just sad we won't get to see the Boozer twins at Duke!

The post OAD era will be a real test of the Duke brand. The Brotherhood, the facilities and physical development program (which G-League teams are unlikely to parallel) and national exposure, I believe are becoming better recognized with Scheyer as coach. Agreed that the era of seeing Zion's and Paolo's at the college level will be over, but it will be an era of team development and growth (I hope).

[scottdude8]

If the G-League expands to welcome more guys who, as you say, have NBA-ready games but still need to develop and actually be ready to contribute in the NBA, and if the money they're offered compares to NIL money, then college basketball is going to lose a lot more than just the Zions and Paolos.

True. But, it's doubtful that the G-League will ever have the fan following that is well established in college basketball. Some players will choose to go the G-League route because they have no interest in the other elements of being a college athlete, including at least pretending to be interested in coursework. But others might rather develop in packed houses in games broadcast on ESPN, establishing their name and brand early, rather than play in mostly empty gyms with the rare game broadcast on NBA TV. Think about the difference in the coverage between Cade Cunningham, who starred at Oklahoma State, and Jalen Green, who played for G-League Ignite, coming into the 2021 Draft. Most casual basketball fans knew about Cunningham but not Green, and I think (although I'm not 100% sure since I'm stuck with Canadian Sports Centre, haha) that likely carried over into how they were covered by the media as rookies.

There will be pros and cons to both routes, and individual players will be able to choose which is best for them. That, I think, is the most fair system to the athletes, which is the most important thing in my book. I'd happily sacrifice some of the quality on the court if it means treating young athletes more fairly.

[HoKogan]

Exactly. There won't be the reality or the perception that players are forced to go to college. In theory, kids who are at Duke will be choosing to be there instead of the draft.

Again, I see this as a very good thing overall - good for the college game, good for the players who are talented enough to jump, good for having players more vested in the college as well as the team. It will just mean some significant adjustments for schools like Duke who have been fortunate enough to be working with top level talent.

I mean, on top of the adjustments surrounding transfer portals, NIL money, new coach...

We say this, but every season it always seems like there is one player that would clearly benefit by staying in college for myriad reasons, yet they still opt to declare and they are lucky to be in the league 3 years later if ever at all. I mean I agree with your thought in principle but its also relying on a 19 year old kid listening to sound advise and being self aware of their skillset and progression and not thinking they're the 1 in a million thats going to make it despite those naysayers. Maybe it will change, but in the short term (provided this came to pass) there will still be kids choosing Duke for just 1 year and its off to the league.

[scottdude8]

We say this, but every season it always seems like there is one player that would clearly benefit by staying in college for myriad reasons, yet they still opt to declare and they are lucky to be in the league 3 years later if ever at all. I mean I agree with your thought in principle but its also relying on a 19 year old kid listening to sound advise and being self aware of their skillset and progression and not thinking they're the 1 in a million thats going to make it despite those naysayers. Maybe it will change, but in the short term (provided this came to pass) there will still be kids choosing Duke for just 1 year and its off to the league.

I think this rationale is 100% well intentioned, but for whatever reason it seems to be selectively applied to young athletes. Would we say the same about a musical theatre major who gets a chance to be an understudy on a Broadway production? Or a comp sci major who gets a big investment in their app? If those types of kids left school early, they might make it big, or they might regret not getting their degree down the road (I can't help thinking about the story of Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes as an interesting parallel... BTW, definitely watch The Dropout and the documentary about her on HBO, both are fascinating and well done).

If we treat athletes like we do anyone else who is extremely, extremely gifted in their field, letting them make the decision that's best for them (once they're adults, of course) is the only route that seems fair.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

As someone who naively still longed for the ideal of the student-athlete this makes me happy. I want kids in college who want to be there. We will lose a few elite players but I am ok with that trade off.

The potential timing of this is interesting if it starts in the 2024 draft. The 2023 draft could feature some players who might have stick around but want to get out before the mega draft. Similarly, it is now too late for someone who might have wanted to reclassify into the current freshman class so they could be in the 2023 draft, again ahead of the mega draft.

[HoKogan]

I think this rationale is 100% well intentioned, but for whatever reason it seems to be selectively applied to young athletes. Would we say the same about a musical theatre major who gets a chance to be an understudy on a Broadway production? Or a comp sci major who gets a big investment in their app? If those types of kids left school early, they might make it big, or they might regret not getting their degree down the road (I can't help thinking about the story of Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes as an interesting parallel... BTW, definitely watch The Dropout and the documentary about her on HBO, both are fascinating and well done).

If we treat athletes like we do anyone else who is extremely, extremely gifted in their field, letting them make the decision that's best for them (once they're adults, of course) is the only route that seems fair.

Sure, except the NCAA doesn't treat athletes like they do other students. In your other examples, your theatre major, or your IT major, if they flame out in the real world, they can return to school if they so desire (and have the means) and still participate in those activities in college. They can still be in the university production of whatever play or musical they want. They can still complete their degree in HTML coding or whatever. The kid that chose Duke for basketball and played for a season, cannot come back and do that once he or she has passed that option for the pros, that door is closed from hereon out. They might be able to play overseas, but more than likely, they're going to have to consider a plan B and a life without professional sports in their future.

Its one of the things I really wish college sports would address, especially in a post NIL world. I honestly don't see a reason why if a player wasn't drafted and they want to return to school, why there has to be some arbitrary time limit or other restriction to where they can't return. Again, the theatre major and the IT person can return to school if those post college plans don't materialize like they hope. Not an option for the athlete.

[duke79]

As someone who naively still longed for the ideal of the student-athlete this makes me happy. I want kids in college who want to be there. We will lose a few elite players but I am ok with that trade off.

The potential timing of this is interesting if it starts in the 2024 draft. The 2023 draft could feature some players who might have stick around but want to get out before the mega draft. Similarly, it is now too late for someone who might have wanted to reclassify into the current freshman class so they could be in the 2023 draft, again ahead of the mega draft.

Totally agree here. Yea, it is somewhat naive to think that the BB players at the major basketball schools are STUDENT-athletes (maybe I should be watching Williams-Amherst games); I consider the top players to be basically paid mercenaries, who come in to help the team win games and then they're gone once the season is over. The overall level of basketball may decline but I'm perfectly fine with getting rid of the OAD's. I've always thought that OAD was an embarrassment to schools like Duke and I was somewhat surprised the university allowed it but, as we all should know, Coach K was the most powerful person on campus.

[tommy]

Totally agree here. Yea, it is somewhat naive to think that the BB players at the major basketball schools are STUDENT-athletes (maybe I should be watching Williams-Amherst games); I consider the top players to be basically paid mercenaries, who come in to help the team win games and then they're gone once the season is over. The overall level of basketball may decline but I'm perfectly fine with getting rid of the OAD's. I've always thought that OAD was an embarrassment to schools like Duke and I was somewhat surprised the university allowed it but, as we all should know, Coach K was the most powerful person on campus.

The university didn't "allow" it. NCAA and NBA rules allowed it, and Duke has played within those rules to the best of its ability to field the best team of basketball players it could. And I think it's fair to say we've done very, very well during this era. But the university and Coach K had no power to "disallow" a kid from leaving school and declaring for the draft after one year in school. A college scholarship is not indentured servitude.

[tommy]

It's possible that the G-League will also attract guys like Trevor Keels and DJ Steward, who were not NBA ready out of high school but clearly had their sights set on the next level. So maybe they choose to instead get drafted (or not) and develop in the G league instead of spending that first year in college. From the standpoint of Duke's program, and with all due respect to those two, would that be a bad thing?

Depends what your priorities are. Trevor Keels was probably the fifth best player on last year's team, was not a first round draft pick, and will start his NBA career on a two way deal. If players at that level (and above, of course) are going to go none-and-done, what will remain on a school like Duke's roster will be far below, in terms of basketball talent, than what all of us have become accustomed to. That may or may not be fine with any particular fan or alumnus.

[JayZee]

I think this rationale is 100% well intentioned, but for whatever reason it seems to be selectively applied to young athletes. Would we say the same about a musical theatre major who gets a chance to be an understudy on a Broadway production? Or a comp sci major who gets a big investment in their app? If those types of kids left school early, they might make it big, or they might regret not getting their degree down the road (I can't help thinking about the story of Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes as an interesting parallel... BTW, definitely watch The Dropout and the documentary about her on HBO, both are fascinating and well done).

If we treat athletes like we do anyone else who is extremely, extremely gifted in their field, letting them make the decision that's best for them (once they're adults, of course) is the only route that seems fair.

If a Broadway kid decides to postpone going to Duke and flames out, they could still decide to go back to school. They could even perform in school plays and then give Broadway a try again next year, or the year after.

Assuming CBA changes, I'd like to see how we could support kids who don't make it in the G-league/NBA return/go to college. If a kid declares, and doesn't get picked, let them go to school and still play. Heck, if a kid declares, goes 2nd round and doesn't make the team, let them go to college and play.

What are the rules about stashing international players. Could we copy some of that? Say you have a Keels who declares, and even signs a deal. Could we envision a way to have the Knicks "stash" him for a year at the school where he last played and still get paid? I'm sure there are some major negative externalities on ideas like this, but in the end, I'd prefer more player forward rules rather than NCAA or Duke favored rules. Duke has a lot of positive attributes to attract even the Zions and Paolos of the world. Zion is almost surely better off $ wise coming to Duke for a year rather than if he had gone pro immediately. #1 pick and a huge sneaker deal. Who knows about Paolo?

[FastBreak]

Interesting to think - someone like Paolo, what does he get drafted straight out of high school? Just wild guess but I think much lower than #1. Probably better example would be a player that is RSCI #5-10. What do they get drafted straight out of high school? Late first round is my guess there. So it probably behooves all but the very special talent to spend one year in college to develop and prove to the NBA you can play...

[9dukejames]

Admittedly, I don't pay much attention to the NBA so someone very well may correct me, but I believed there was an additional clause to the rule which stated, 'And one year removed from high school". Has this been mentioned? In addition, are we sure that any side in the NBA really wants this change badly or is it just a bargaining chip to be negotiated away in return for a more desired item.

[dm9e24]

Depends what your priorities are. Trevor Keels was probably the fifth best player on last year's team, was not a first round draft pick, and will start his NBA career on a two way deal. If players at that level (and above, of course) are going to go none-and-done, what will remain on a school like Duke's roster will be far below, in terms of basketball talent, than what all of us have become accustomed to. That may or may not be fine with any particular fan or alumnus.

There are plenty of fan bases happy in that scenario...Virginia and North Carolina come to mind.

[UrinalCake]

Interesting to think - someone like Paolo, what does he get drafted straight out of high school? Just wild guess but I think much lower than #1. Probably better example would be a player that is RSCI #5-10. What do they get drafted straight out of high school? Late first round is my guess there. So it probably behooves all but the very special talent to spend one year in college to develop and prove to the NBA you can play...

My guess is Paolo would have gone around 5. He was #3 in the RSCI and would have gone through the combine and looked great in the workouts and measurements. Zion is the best example of a guy who benefitted from college, he was ranked #4 RSCI but my guess is he would have been drafted around 10 because nobody knew how well his size would translate to the next level.

On the other side of the equation, consider that in last season's class Patrick Baldwin was #5 and Emoni Bates was somewhere in the top 10. There's a reason why GM's want the one year rule in place, there are just so many unknowns when it comes to evaluating high schoolers. The process has gotten better since 2013, but it's still not perfect.

[Edouble]

Interesting to think - someone like Paolo, what does he get drafted straight out of high school? Just wild guess but I think much lower than #1. Probably better example would be a player that is RSCI #5-10. What do they get drafted straight out of high school? Late first round is my guess there. So it probably behooves all but the very special talent to spend one year in college to develop and prove to the NBA you can play...

I think Paolo could still go #1. The playing field would be leveled. He's only be judged against other high schoolers, not college players. In the future, the majority of the lottery picks will be straight from high school.

[Edouble]

There are plenty of fan bases happy in that scenario...Virginia and North Carolina come to mind.

Except in this new scenario, where do the kinds of players whom were being recruited by Virginia end up? Probably at more marquee programs.

[freshmanjs]

I don’t understand why so many in this thread are talking about the end of OAD. There would still be lots of OAD players after this change.