MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: Tugg Speedman on June 13, 2017, 07:12:05 AM
-
Nothing decided on what to do but it sounds like they want to give players the option of going right out of high school and then "two-and-done" if they do to college.
If that is the way they do, they still have issues to work out, namely what happens to a high school player that declares and is not drafted? Can they still go to college?
The NFL rule is a player is eligible for the draft 4 years after his high school class graduates. So many football players redshirt and are injured (sometimes in addition to redshirting) which is why top players in the NFL draft they are juniors, and occasionally sophomores, when they declare.
Everyone seems to agree one-and-done is bad, but will it finally change?
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/19562936/the-conversation-one-done-rule-happening-again
College coaches have adapted to the turbulence that accompanies the one-and-done culture. Many would prefer more year-to-year stability, even if that would demand reopening the pipeline of high school athletes to the NBA, an idea Silver seems willing to analyze. That's why Silver said he wants college coaches to participate in the upcoming conversations about changing the rule.
"They're not happy with the current system," he said. "And I know our teams aren't happy either, in part because they don't necessarily think that the players coming into the league are getting the kind of training that they would expect to see among top draft picks in the league."
-
I hope so. If a kid is good enough to play in the NBA, let him make his money. Don't force them to enroll in 3/4 of a year of college.
While we're at it, the NCAA needs to let players make money off of their own likeness too. I'm not sure they necessarily need to be paid, but at least let them have some sort of financial earnings.
-
I hope so. If a kid is good enough to play in the NBA, let him make his money. Don't force them to enroll in 3/4 of a year of college.
While we're at it, the NCAA needs to let players make money off of their own likeness too. I'm not sure they necessarily need to be paid, but at least let them have some sort of financial earnings.
I think they should adopt a baseball approach ... let them hire an agent, get drafted (or not), play in the summer league and then decide before the end of August to go pro or come back to school another years.
Why they force them to make a decision with incomplete information when it is not necessary is baffling.
---
What about the old Larry Bird rule using a modern example ...
When couldn't the Pistons draft Henry, give him a couple of Shekels and then send him back to MU for a season or two (The Celtics drafted Bird after his junior year and then sent him back to school for another year).
-
Here is my solution:
Players can declare out of high school and be drafted, but then the pro team has a choice. Either sign them to a contract immediately, or have them enroll in college for a two year time frame. The NBA team still retains the rights to the player, but can no longer sign them to a contract for two years. At the end of the two year frame, if the team and player agree on a deal...bye bye. If not, the NBA team loses the rights and the college player can either continue with college, or he can reenter the draft. If he chooses to reenter at this point, or after his junior year, then he forfeits the rest of his eligibility. (Just like now.)
-
Here is my solution:
Players can declare out of high school and be drafted, but then the pro team has a choice. Either sign them to a contract immediately, or have them enroll in college for a two year time frame. The NBA team still retains the rights to the player, but can no longer sign them to a contract for two years. At the end of the two year frame, if the team and player agree on a deal...bye bye. If not, the NBA team loses the rights and the college player can either continue with college, or he can reenter the draft. If he chooses to reenter at this point, or after his junior year, then he forfeits the rest of his eligibility. (Just like now.)
They should just do what the NHL does. Everybody is draft eligible if they turn 18 before the Sept. 1 of the draft (i.e. a player who turns 18 on Aug. 27 this year is eligible for this year's draft).
If you get drafted, you can still go to college if you don't sign a pro contract. The team that drafted you retains your rights until mid-August of the year your class graduates or, if you leave early, the fourth June 1 after your were drafted.
-
I hope so. If a kid is good enough to play in the NBA, let him make his money. Don't force them to enroll in 3/4 of a year of college.
While we're at it, the NCAA needs to let players make money off of their own likeness too. I'm not sure they necessarily need to be paid, but at least let them have some sort of financial earnings.
Bitcoin? What?
-
The NBA needs to create a better minor league.
-
The NBA needs to create a better minor league.
Isn't that what they're doing now with the improved salaries and two way contracts in the G (formerly D) League?
-
The NBA needs to create a better minor league.
I was going to say this same thing. Give an option to players who don't want to attend college but have the ability to make money professionally in the US. Unfortunately, the motivation to create a legit minor league system hasn't been there because of the free "minor league" known as college basketball. There's also the issue of the NBA supporting the money-losing WNBA.
Personally, I'd like to see each NBA have its own D-League team with 12-15 players on the roster whose rights belong solely to the parent team. Teach those players the system and bring them up when they're more ready as opposed to having them play "me ball" in the D-League or ride the bench in the NBA.
I'd also like to see the NBA expand the draft to at least 4 rounds. Many teams don't want their 2nd Round picks (and sometimes 1st Rounders because of the guaranteed contracts) so let teams draft players who they can stash in the D-League without taking a roster spot and salary cap hit. Teams basically do this with Euro players anyway. Why not let them do something similar with American college and HS players.
I also like the so-called "baseball rule," where a player can be drafted right out of HS and decide whether he wants to go pro or go to college and if he chooses college, he's got to stay there for 3 years (for the NBA, I'd go with 2 years).
-
Agreed. Expand the draft, rights to a number of players, let the players improve in a developmental league, if they don't want a college degree.
-
The NBA needs to create a better minor league.
Why create a minor league when they've got the NCAA with the development infrastructure (quality coaching, facilities, etc.) already in place and willing to do it for them?
I don't mean that merely as snark. Rather than setting up a crappy minor league with lesser coaching and facilities, or continuing to take part in the NCAAs' amateurism sham, why not blend the two into a system that works for everyone?
Let kids who are good enough or who show enough potential be drafted. Give them a guaranteed future payout. Cash they'll get when their college career ends, whether they develop into a pro or not. Think of it as a rights fee for the drafting team.
Then, if they're not immediately ready for the NBA, let them play in the NCAA before signing a full professional contract if/when they're ready.
The NBA wins by being able to get the rights to potential players without having to commit significant cash or a roster spot immediately. The player wins by getting some guaranteed income plus a chance to develop under better circumstances or, if he's ready, to enter the league right out of high school. The NCAA wins because it will continue to get high-quality players and relevant basketball, with the associated revenues thereof.
-
What about the old Larry Bird rule using a modern example ...
When couldn't the Pistons draft Henry, give him a couple of Shekels and then send him back to MU for a season or two (The Celtics drafted Bird after his junior year and then sent him back to school for another year).
That would go against the nba minor league they are now building.
-
Personally, I'd like to see each NBA have its own D-League team with 12-15 players on the roster whose rights belong solely to the parent team. Teach those players the system and bring them up when they're more ready as opposed to having them play "me ball" in the D-League or ride the bench in the NBA.
This is currently being developed.
-
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The NBA is doing just fine. So is college basketball.
Only 5 guys are on a basketball court at one time. Only 8-10 play meaningful minutes. You don't need an entire minor league system like you do in baseball.
-
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The NBA is doing just fine. So is college basketball.
Only 5 guys are on a basketball court at one time. Only 8-10 play meaningful minutes. You don't need an entire minor league system like you do in baseball.
Read the first link in the first post as it says Adam Silver and many college coaches actually this it is broke.
So they think it is broke, why do you think they are wrong?
-
Read the first link in the first post as it says Adam Silver and many college coaches actually this it is broke.
So they think it is broke, why do you think they are wrong?
Because the product has never been better and the money is all the proof in the pudding anyone needs.
-
Because the product has never been better and the money is all the proof in the pudding anyone needs.
Besides, if Smuggles can think he knows more about investing than Warren Buffett, why can't you know more about basketball than Adam Silver?
Seriously, though ...
I like Pakuni's idea, but I don't ever see the NCAA's school presidents agreeing to be officially regarded as a professional minor league. They like to pretend they are all about educating "student-athletes" like Derrick Rose.
As for whether this gets changed, Adam Silver and college honchos can't do it unilaterally. This is a collectively bargained issue.
The NBA Players Association is a very powerful union, and owners would have to give up something of significant value for the union to consider forcing young players to wait another year to get into the league. After all, as we discussed endlessly when Henry was at MU, the sooner you get to the league, the sooner you can score your huge second contract. Union leaders already feel they made a major concession to go from preps-to-pros to the current system several years ago. They won't be anxious to make another major financial give-back to a league that is swimming in money.
I wouldn't be stunned to see a two-year rule, but I wouldn't bet on it, either.
-
Because the product has never been better and the money is all the proof in the pudding anyone needs.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but I hear all the time how much worse college basketball teams are now compared to the days of yesteryear. Personally, I think there's just more parity which improves the product IMHO.
Id like to get rid of one and dones, if only for selfish reasons of knocking Kentucky down a peg. Not sure what the best system is but am open to trying new things.
-
The NCAA presidents don't like the NBA's one and done rule. However they have to understand that it may be in their best interests to work with the NBA on a solution.
-
Because the product has never been better and the money is all the proof in the pudding anyone needs.
The product at both levels has been better, and money and the quality of the product frequently are unrelated (case in point: the Kardashians are fabulously wealthy and the 'Fast and Furious' franchise has generated more than $5.1 billion at the box office).
-
The NCAA presidents don't like the NBA's one and done rule. However they have to understand that it may be in their best interests to work with the NBA on a solution.
Also, they have zero choice. Zero.
It is a collectively bargained issue between league owners and its players' union. The NCAA doesn't even enter into the conversation.
It would be like the NBA trying to dictate which courses a college student must take.
I'm not even sure how much influence the NCAA can possibly have. If NBA owners bring NCAA honchos into the conversation, it would only be as a courtesy.
-
Because the product has never been better and the money is all the proof in the pudding anyone needs.
Wrong product, it is the college coaches that are pushing for the change and the NBA commish ageees with them.
-
I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but I hear all the time how much worse college basketball teams are now compared to the days of yesteryear. Personally, I think there's just more parity which improves the product IMHO.
Id like to get rid of one and dones, if only for selfish reasons of knocking Kentucky down a peg. Not sure what the best system is but am open to trying new things.
100% disagree. It is unbalanced teams that make it more popular.
It is perceisely because Cleveland with LeBron plays against Golden State with Curry and Durant every year (three straight so far and counting) that makes the product so popular. The NBA is about stars playing stars. It works best when realistically 5 to 10 teams have a legit chance for the finals and the rest play the role of the Washington Generals.
College basketball is similar. It is becuase the national champion is passed among 4 or 5 teams (loaded with one and dones) that make it popular. If true parity ever came, and 30ish teams had a legit shot at winning it all, the product would suffer.
The NBA/basketball is the opposite of the NFL. Basketball works best when parity does not exist and football works best when it has lots of parity.
-
I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but I hear all the time how much worse college basketball teams are now compared to the days of yesteryear. Personally, I think there's just more parity which improves the product IMHO.
Id like to get rid of one and dones, if only for selfish reasons of knocking Kentucky down a peg. Not sure what the best system is but am open to trying new things.
If players have to stay two years it would end up with Kentucky being something close to a true juggernaut with five or more NBA quality players who have a year of Division I experience under their belt on the team every year. Right now, Kentucky is losing that primo talent around the time they finally have Division I figured out.
-
100% disagree. It is unbalanced teams that make it more popular.
It is perceisely because Cleveland with LeBron plays against Golden State with Curry and Durant every year (three straight so far and counting) that makes the product so popular. The NBA is about stars playing stars. It works best when realistically 5 to 10 teams have a legit chance for the finals and the rest play the role of the Washington Generals.
College basketball is similar. It is becuase the national champion is passed among 4 or 5 teams (loaded with one and dones) that make it popular. If true parity ever came, and 30ish teams had a legit shot at winning it all, the product would suffer.
The NBA/basketball is the opposite of the NFL. Basketball works best when parity does not exist and football works best when it has lots of parity.
Wait, so in 1 post you're saying that I'm wrong that the product has never been better and then in the very next post you're claiming that exactly what is occurring in college and professional basketball is exactly when basketball is at its best? Yeesh. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here...
If players have to stay two years it would end up with Kentucky being something close to a true juggernaut with five or more NBA quality players who have a year of Division I experience under their belt on the team every year. Right now, Kentucky is losing that primo talent around the time they finally have Division I figured out.
Yup. You nailed it. Cal's had his best teams when he's had 1 and done freshman alongside guys who came back for a sophomore season and had that year of experience under their belts. If you give all the talent to Cal for 2 years and then have him getting the best freshman to go along with the best talent that has already been there for a year they'd be winning titles left and right.
-
Wait, so in 1 post you're saying that I'm wrong that the product has never been better and then in the very next post you're claiming that exactly what is occurring in college and professional basketball is exactly when basketball is at its best? Yeesh. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here...
Which post did you read? I said that college basketball coaches and Adam Silver disagree with you. That is why they are looking at changing the rule.
Restated in MU82 terms ... you know more than the NBA commissioner about what his league needs to do.
Buy Apple!!!
-
Get rid of the NBA draft altogether.
Implement a rookie cap allotment, teams that don't make the playoffs will get equal allotments (to discourage tanking). Teams in playoffs get less. Instead of trading draft picks, teams can trade rookie cap space. Technically everyone can test the waters every year, but I think you'll see fewer fringe first round players from college every year going to the league.
-
If players have to stay two years it would end up with Kentucky being something close to a true juggernaut with five or more NBA quality players who have a year of Division I experience under their belt on the team every year. Right now, Kentucky is losing that primo talent around the time they finally have Division I figured out.
A big part of Kentucky's recruiting model is that their one and dones never have to go to class. That becomes a lot harder to do when players have to stay for multiple years. And while Kentucky gets to keep their players, it also forces more talented players to go to other schools because of finite scholarships and not wanting to play behind talented 2nd years. No one would be more devastated by the end of one and dones than Coach Cal.
-
100% disagree. It is unbalanced teams that make it more popular.
It is perceisely because Cleveland with LeBron plays against Golden State with Curry and Durant every year (three straight so far and counting) that makes the product so popular. The NBA is about stars playing stars. It works best when realistically 5 to 10 teams have a legit chance for the finals and the rest play the role of the Washington Generals.
College basketball is similar. It is becuase the national champion is passed among 4 or 5 teams (loaded with one and dones) that make it popular. If true parity ever came, and 30ish teams had a legit shot at winning it all, the product would suffer.
The NBA/basketball is the opposite of the NFL. Basketball works best when parity does not exist and football works best when it has lots of parity.
First, I don't care about popular. I care about good basketball. Second, while I agree the NBA is fueled by super teams, I'm not sure that college basketball is. I think the idea that anyone can win in March is a huge part of the popularity of madness. Maybe super teams fuel the regular season ratings but I think the madness fuels March which is when college basketball makes its money.
-
First, I don't care about popular. I care about good basketball. Second, while I agree the NBA is fueled by super teams, I'm not sure that college basketball is. I think the idea that anyone can win in March is a huge part of the popularity of madness. Maybe super teams fuel the regular season ratings but I think the madness fuels March which is when college basketball makes its money.
Yep, Butler went to back-to-back title games, and that is part of the romance: "Maybe we can do it, too!" There is no way an NBA equivalent of Butler - say, the 2015-16 Charlotte Hornets or this season's Utah Jazz - goes to back-to-back NBA Finals.
-
Next year the collective bargaining agreement changes the roster size in the NBA from 15 to 17 players. The 2 extra players adds an additional 60 next year to the NBA. The catch is...these two additional players are on a Two-Way contract between the Development League and the NBA. These players are only allowed to spend 45 days with the NBA team. This puts the pay scale for these players between $75,000 - $100,000....but you are stuck with that affiliation. The better option for fringe players maybe to get the max contract on a D-League team (soon to be called G-League) which is $50,000 with the ability to be called up to any NBA team for a 10-day contract. A 10-day contract can be anywhere between $45,000 - $75,000 depending on the number of games that occur between those 10 days. A player would come out ahead if you happen to get 2 10-day contracts during the season. Should be interesting to see how this is used in the NBA next year.
-
Next year the collective bargaining agreement changes the roster size in the NBA from 15 to 17 players. The 2 extra players adds an additional 60 next year to the NBA. The catch is...these two additional players are on a Two-Way contract between the Development League and the NBA. These players are only allowed to spend 45 days with the NBA team. This puts the pay scale for these players between $75,000 - $100,000....but you are stuck with that affiliation. The better option for fringe players maybe to get the max contract on a D-League team (soon to be called G-League) which is $50,000 with the ability to be called up to any NBA team for a 10-day contract. A 10-day contract can be anywhere between $45,000 - $75,000 depending on the number of games that occur between those 10 days. A player would come out ahead if you happen to get 2 10-day contracts during the season. Should be interesting to see how this is used in the NBA next year.
You think NBA will allow players that flexibility I don't think they will.
-
First, I don't care about popular. I care about good basketball. Second, while I agree the NBA is fueled by super teams, I'm not sure that college basketball is. I think the idea that anyone can win in March is a huge part of the popularity of madness. Maybe super teams fuel the regular season ratings but I think the madness fuels March which is when college basketball makes its money.
Yep, Butler went to back-to-back title games, and that is part of the romance: "Maybe we can do it, too!" There is no way an NBA equivalent of Butler - say, the 2015-16 Charlotte Hornets or this season's Utah Jazz - goes to back-to-back NBA Finals.
There are only a handful of teams that have a realistic chance of actually winning it. They play on CBS. The rest hope to get to the second week, they play on TruTV.
In the end, Butler lost to Uconn and Duke. Bucky loses to Duke.
-
There are only a handful of teams that have a realistic chance of actually winning it. They play on CBS. The rest hope to get to the second week, they play on TruTV.
In the end, Butler lost to Uconn and Duke. Bucky loses to Duke.
82 just said win in march. Most fans know that their team isn't going to win the whole thing so they cheer for a sweet 16 or final four etc. America loves upsets in march especially from random teams.
-
There are only a handful of teams that have a realistic chance of actually winning it. They play on CBS. The rest hope to get to the second week, they play on TruTV.
In the end, Butler lost to Uconn and Duke. Bucky loses to Duke.
So Butler didn't have a realistic chance to win it all despite being an inch off of hitting the game winning shot? Bucky didn't have a realist chance of beating Duke despite leading for a large majority of that game? Interesting. I'd say they certainly had realistic chances.
-
There are only a handful of teams that have a realistic chance of actually winning it. They play on CBS. The rest hope to get to the second week, they play on TruTV.
In the end, Butler lost to Uconn and Duke. Bucky loses to Duke.
I don't agree with the idea that they didn't have realistic chances to win given how close they were but that's beside the point. I don't think people watch because only a few teams have a realistic shot. I think people watch because anyone has a shot. There's a reason people are always cheering for David and not for Goliath (unless it screws over their bracket).
-
There are only a handful of teams that have a realistic chance of actually winning it. They play on CBS. The rest hope to get to the second week, they play on TruTV.
In the end, Butler lost to Uconn and Duke. Bucky loses to Duke.
So if Hayward's shot goes in, that would have "proved" that the Butlers can win; because it went off the rim, it "proved" that they can't? Okey dokey then.
-
Yep, Butler went to back-to-back title games, and that is part of the romance: "Maybe we can do it, too!" There is no way an NBA equivalent of Butler - say, the 2015-16 Charlotte Hornets or this season's Utah Jazz - goes to back-to-back NBA Finals.
In college, you only need to beat the better team one time and upsets are not unusual.
In the NBA, you have to beat a better team 4 times and that rarely happens.
-
Over the weekend, a friend reminded me that the NBA's new collective bargaining agreement with its players hasn't even take effect yet - that happens in a few days. Then, it can't be re-opened by either side until after the 2022-23 season.
Given that rules pertaining to the draft are part of this agreement, all of the talk of potential changes in 1 & Dones - and pretty much any other labor issue - is just that: talk. Because it seems evident that nothing's gonna change for at least 5 more years.
Now, could both sides agree to re-open the draft portion of the agreement and renegotiate it? I suppose. But it would cost the owners a TON to get the players to agree on adding a second year before they can start earning dough-re-mi.
So chalk this up as another subject that's fun to talk about but that has little to do with reality. At least imminent reality.
-
Honestly, I think the players would be happy if the one and done rule changed. Less chance of young unproven players coming in and taking their minutes. It will help current players at the expense of future players but I don't think that would bother them at all. Of course, the players association will still use it as a bargaining chip to get something from the owners.
-
Honestly, I think the players would be happy if the one and done rule changed. Less chance of young unproven players coming in and taking their minutes. It wise help current players at the expense of future players bit I don't think that would bother them at all. Of course, the players association will still use it as a bargaining chip to get something from the owners.
Agreed that change needs to be made. Players develop well under college coaching in competitive programs.
Would love to see a 21 year old age limit to jump to the NBA.
Let's face it, college basketball is much more exciting than the NBA.
-
Let's face it, college basketball is much more exciting than the NBA.
In March.
-
Agreed that change needs to be made. Players develop well under college coaching in competitive programs.
Would love to see a 21 year old age limit to jump to the NBA.
Let's face it, college basketball is much more exciting than the NBA.
Out of curiosity, would you like a 21 year old age limit for all sports or just the NBA?
-
Honestly, I think the players would be happy if the one and done rule changed. Less chance of young unproven players coming in and taking their minutes. It will help current players at the expense of future players but I don't think that would bother them at all. Of course, the players association will still use it as a bargaining chip to get something from the owners.
TAMU, you really believe the Players Association would prefer to set a precedent of delaying that all-important second contract by a year? Hmmm.
Are there individual players who agree with you? I'm sure there are. But as a group? Hard to believe it. And even if the group does believe it, it won't give it away without getting something significant back from the owners. Most players I see quoted say the fairest thing would be to go back to letting kids go from preps to pros. (As an aside, Coach K just said that last week!!!!)
-
TAMU, you really believe the Players Association would prefer to set a precedent of delaying that all-important second contract by a year? Hmmm.
Are there individual players who agree with you? I'm sure there are. But as a group? Hard to believe it. And even if the group does believe it, it won't give it away without getting something significant back from the owners. Most players I see quoted say the fairest thing would be to go back to letting kids go from preps to pros. (As an aside, Coach K just said that last week!!!!)
Exactly. The owners would need to give up something significant. And if the argument is that kids are better served to develop in college then I don't think the pros will be worried about them coming up and stealing their money or minutes.
-
The NBA players union head made it clear a couple years ago that the NBA should "Be happy with one & done, it's not going to be two & done."
-
I thought one proposal a bit out of the box was to start the clock on the end of the first pro contract based on the players high school class.
If the player comes to the NBA straight out of high school, then he's under team control for 5 years. maybe a three year guarantee for first rounders, and two team option years.
One year of college ball before entering the NBA, the team has control for 4 years.
...
Four years in college and the NBA team has control for only 1 year after the player is drafted.
-
I thought one proposal a bit out of the box was to start the clock on the end of the first pro contract based on the players high school class.
If the player comes to the NBA straight out of high school, then he's under team control for 5 years. maybe a three year guarantee for first rounders, and two team option years.
One year of college ball before entering the NBA, the team has control for 4 years.
...
Four years in college and the NBA team has control for only 1 year after the player is drafted.
The problem with that is NBA teams would be even less likely to draft seniors. Even if the player is great, you might only have them for one year. What is the incentive?
My outside of the box proposal would be:
1. Let players turn pro out of HS.
2. 1st round picks get 6 year contracts with 4 years guaranteed and the last two years club options.
3. No restricted free agency; if the club declines the option the player is an unrestricted free agent.
4. After 4 years, there is an exclusive negotiating window where the player and team can agree to an extension of 4 or 5 years above the rookie pay scale. This would supersede the two option years but the exclusive negotiating window closes at the start of season 5. For example, Cleveland drafts Lebron. Cleveland gets him for 4 years then either A) Declines his options making him an UFA, B) Picks up both his option years, meaning they get him for 6 years on the rookie scale, or C) They agree to an extension with Lebron that nullifies the rookie scale in years 5 & 6. Lebron gets the benefit of making more money in years 5 & 6 but Cleveland locks him in for 8-9 years.
5. Some sort of rule 5 draft like baseball has. After 3 years, players who have failed to meet some sort of game appearance threshold (82? 100? 123?) are eligible for the rule 5 draft. Draft order matches NBA draft order and this could be either a 1 or 2 round draft. Teams that select a player forfeit a draft pick to the team a player was selected from. For former 1st round picks with option years, the first option year (year 5) on the player's contract becomes fully guaranteed and the 2nd option year (year 6) becomes 50% guaranteed; there would also be an exclusive extension window between years 5-6 of the players contract to sign a 3 year extension that nullifies the rookie scale in year 6.
6. Scrap the max contract and soft cap. Go to a pure hard cap. Make salary cap management matter.
-
TAMU, you really believe the Players Association would prefer to set a precedent of delaying that all-important second contract by a year? Hmmm.
Are there individual players who agree with you? I'm sure there are. But as a group? Hard to believe it. And even if the group does believe it, it won't give it away without getting something significant back from the owners. Most players I see quoted say the fairest thing would be to go back to letting kids go from preps to pros. (As an aside, Coach K just said that last week!!!!)
I don't think the NBAPA gives two craps about players. And if they do, they only care about current players, not future. I also don't think current players give two craps about future players. I think they would be all to happy to delay young guns from getting into the NBA because it means they have a better chance of getting more minutes and better contracts. I do believe that the NBAPA knows the owners want this badly and thus will use it as a huge bargaining chip, possibly meaning that this will never happen.
-
I don't think the NBAPA gives two craps about players. And if they do, they only care about current players, not future. I also don't think current players give two craps about future players. I think they would be all to happy to delay young guns from getting into the NBA because it means they have a better chance of getting more minutes and better contracts. I do believe that the NBAPA knows the owners want this badly and thus will use it as a huge bargaining chip, possibly meaning that this will never happen.
If the players and the NBAPA want it and the NBA owners want it it will happen. The NBAPA isn't going to pass up on something they consider to be a positive just because the owners want it. They'll ask for something they might be able to get in return.
I think the NBAPA and the players care (a lot) more than you think about current and future players.
-
If the players and the NBAPA want it and the NBA owners want it it will happen. The NBAPA isn't going to pass up on something they consider to be a positive just because the owners want it. They'll ask for something they might be able to get in return.
I think the NBAPA and the players care (a lot) more than you think about current and future players.
In my experience, people with power and privilege prioritize keeping their power and privilege even if its at the expense of others. In this situation, there are three groups, owners, current players, and future players. I believe "two and through" would benefit both the owners and current players at the expense of the future players. The only ones without a seat at the table is future players. Usually the group without a seat at the table gets the shaft.
As for the blocking something just because the owners want it? That's just the way business works now. Never give up something the other side wants more than you without getting something in return. How many bills pass through congress unanimously?
-
The problem with that is NBA teams would be even less likely to draft seniors. Even if the player is great, you might only have them for one year. What is the incentive?
Why should anyone care if they draft seniors versus anyone else?
-
A big part of Kentucky's recruiting model is that their one and dones never have to go to class. That becomes a lot harder to do when players have to stay for multiple years. And while Kentucky gets to keep their players, it also forces more talented players to go to other schools because of finite scholarships and not wanting to play behind talented 2nd years. No one would be more devastated by the end of one and dones than Coach Cal.
Is it? Even though they're one & done, don't they have to leave school in good academic standing or else the APR score tanks and they lose a bunch of scholarships? Freely admit I may be thinking about this wrong.
-
Is it? Even though they're one & done, don't they have to leave school in good academic standing or else the APR score tanks and they lose a bunch of scholarships? Freely admit I may be thinking about this wrong.
Its very easy with one year players to fill their schedules with study halls, independent studies, and physical education classes. In other words, all their class time is spent in the gym. I'm also not completely sure on this, but if a player leaves a semester early to get drafted, I don't think hurts the APR or doesn't hurt it as much. Many seniors who intend to go pro and most one and dones leave school as soon as the season is over to start preparing. If that hurts the APR, I don't know how Kentucky stays a float. So its really just about making sure they are taken care of for one semester.
-
Why should anyone care if they draft seniors versus anyone else?
Nobody. That wasn't my point.
The theory presented was that basing free agency start time on HS class would benefit college basketball, while also benefitting players by letting them get to the second contract at a set time. Someone like Henry Ellenson could stay in college 2-3 years, play more, improve, and still be in line for a 2nd contract at the same time as a one and done or HS to pros player.
However, there is still the lost income from those college years and the risk of hurting your draft stock by not developing. So there really isn't much of an incentive in staying anyway.
Further more, players like Jimmy Butler, Jae Crowder, and Draymond Green are hurt. As seniors, the proposed system would have them free agents after one year. What team is going to want to draft a player that they only have control of for one year? Plus, these players are basically given a make or break rookie season rather than having a few years to develop. Late bloomers that play 4 years of college and develop in their 2nd or 3rd NBA season would probably be in Europe after 1 season and they may never get that shot again. These players would be collateral damage.
-
I'm also not completely sure on this, but if a player leaves a semester early to get drafted, I don't think hurts the APR or doesn't hurt it as much. Many seniors who intend to go pro and most one and dones leave school as soon as the season is over to start preparing. If that hurts the APR, I don't know how Kentucky stays a float. So its really just about making sure they are taken care of for one semester.
This is incorrect. If a kid stops going to class once the season ends, the impact on the team's APR is the same as if in January, the player committed mass murders and was locked up.
Need to finish the semester. Kentucky sets that expectation with incoming guys. Now, they probably make it as easy as possible, but it must be done (relative to APR).
-
This is incorrect. If a kid stops going to class once the season ends, the impact on the team's APR is the same as if in January, the player committed mass murders and was locked up.
Need to finish the semester. Kentucky sets that expectation with incoming guys. Now, they probably make it as easy as possible, but it must be done (relative to APR).
That, and KY probably provides as much training assistance as guys might get elsewhere?
-
This is incorrect. If a kid stops going to class once the season ends, the impact on the team's APR is the same as if in January, the player committed mass murders and was locked up.
Need to finish the semester. Kentucky sets that expectation with incoming guys. Now, they probably make it as easy as possible, but it must be done (relative to APR).
Thought so. Thanks Jaybee & TAMU
-
This is incorrect. If a kid stops going to class once the season ends, the impact on the team's APR is the same as if in January, the player committed mass murders and was locked up.
Need to finish the semester. Kentucky sets that expectation with incoming guys. Now, they probably make it as easy as possible, but it must be done (relative to APR).
Appreciate the assist. I'm amazed that places like Kentucky can manage to keep their APR in range.
-
In my experience, people with power and privilege prioritize keeping their power and privilege even if its at the expense of others. In this situation, there are three groups, owners, current players, and future players. I believe "two and through" would benefit both the owners and current players at the expense of the future players. The only ones without a seat at the table is future players. Usually the group without a seat at the table gets the shaft.
As for the blocking something just because the owners want it? That's just the way business works now. Never give up something the other side wants more than you without getting something in return. How many bills pass through congress unanimously?
The latter is my basic point. Could the sides agree to discuss this before the next contract (which doesn't even take effect until Saturday) is up in 2022-23? Sure. Could they decide to change the rules before 2022-23? I guess, but only if the owners agree to give up something substantial in return. How badly do the owners want an end to 1-and-dones? I'm guessing not all that badly.
I do disagree with your insistence that the NBAPA doesn't care about players entering the league. You don't know that, nor do you have proof of that. I'd argue that the NBAPA has consistently given strong consideration to those players in the language it has insisted be part of the CBA. It would have been easy for 10-year veterans to throw college players under the bus and say, "We'll do it like the NFL; see you after your third year." But they haven't, and listening to NBAPA leaders talk, they feel no need to mandate a second year of college, either.
Neither of us has "proof" about how much NBA veterans give a rat's rump about college players/potential rookies. But the NBAPA's actions suggest more than the total disregard you say they have.