MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: WarriorDad on July 11, 2018, 08:26:41 AM
-
Adam Silver supports the removal. Positive step. https://www.thescore.com/nba/news/1569700
-
But does the NBAPA support it?
-
I think it would be good to get rid of the rule. But, I think that the NCAA should let high school kids test the waters, much like they do with college kids who consider coming out early but not hiring agents. I'd even go so far as to say that they ought to let them declare for the draft, and if not selected, go to college.
In an interview I saw with Silver a few weeks ago, he mentioned that one challenge the NBA has is that teams are trading picks, but they don't know when the change will be made. The first draft after they get rid of the rule will be totally stacked, and those picks -- which might already have been traded -- will be extremely valuable.
-
I think it would be good to get rid of the rule. But, I think that the NCAA should let high school kids test the waters, much like they do with college kids who consider coming out early but not hiring agents. I'd even go so far as to say that they ought to let them declare for the draft, and if not selected, go to college.
Why not let them enter the draft, get selected and still go to college? Works for the NHL and MLB, why not the NBA?
-
Why not let them enter the draft, get selected and still go to college? Works for the NHL and MLB, why not the NBA?
I don’t think the NBA teams would go for that.
-
Why not let them enter the draft, get selected and still go to college? Works for the NHL and MLB, why not the NBA?
Not sure about NHL, but for MLB it's my understanding that if you're drafted and then you go to college, the team loses your rights, and you will eventually need to re-enter the draft, i.e. MLB no longer has the "draft-and-follow" where a team could draft someone and essentially let them go to college instead of the minors, and when he's finished with school, he's still in your system.
That said, the NHL has 7 rounds and MLB has 40. When you only have two rounds of the draft in the NBA, you can ill-afford to be risking those picks on someone who isn't going to contribute for 1-4 years, if ever.
Unless they drastically increase the number of rounds in the draft (which is unlikely given the average talent pool each year), it would be improbable for the NBA to go to a draft-and-follow model.
-
College coaches (and most fans I talk to) were hoping for a rule mandating at least 2 years in college.
That simply isn't going to happen.
If the 1-and-done rule goes, it will mostly mean a return to the Garnett-LeBron-Eddy Curry days of a select few high schools coming out early, and an even more select few actually being good enough to have NBA careers.
They could tweak it a little in a way or two mentioned earlier in this thread, but don't expect the NBA to cede much to colleges. And definitely don't expect the NBAPA to cede anything that will prevent players from getting to their second contracts as soon as possible.
-
With the growth of the G-League, and the changes to draft eligibility, I wonder if the NBA would ever go to three rounds for the draft. It would give each franchise more picks, obviously, but it would also guarantee another draft pick slot to stash in the G-League for developmental purposes.
-
Not sure about NHL, but for MLB it's my understanding that if you're drafted and then you go to college, the team loses your rights, and you will eventually need to re-enter the draft, i.e. MLB no longer has the "draft-and-follow" where a team could draft someone and essentially let them go to college instead of the minors, and when he's finished with school, he's still in your system.
Yes, an MLB team loses a player if he doesn't sign before enrolling in college. But a team does receive a compensatory pick in the next draft one slot below the pick they made (i.e. if you take a high school kid #3 overall and he doesn't sign, you get next year's #4 overall pick). But there's a huge incentive for a kid to sign. Moreso, I think than for the team to sign him.
That said, the NHL model makes more sense. If a drafted kid goes to college (as will seven first-round picks from this year's draft), the drafting team retains his rights until 30 days after he leaves college.
That said, the NHL has 7 rounds and MLB has 40. When you only have two rounds of the draft in the NBA, you can ill-afford to be risking those picks on someone who isn't going to contribute for 1-4 years, if ever.
Well, there's nothing stopping the NBA from expanding its draft and the pool of talent - just from the game's global expansion, not to mention its growth in popularity domestically - is significantly larger today than it was back when there were 10 rounds.
And, in reality, the great majority of guys taken in the first two rounds of the NHL draft (95 percent of them being 18 years old) are 3-4 years away from even making the big club. Same with baseball, where the average age of an MLB debut is 24 years old.
-
Go to 4 rounds. Let 3rd and 4th rounders decide if they'd rather go to college or the G League.
-
I suppose there's an argument to be made for expanding the NBA draft so long as you have somewhere to put these kids, especially considering that for every player drafted who never plays in the NBA, there are 2-3 undrafted players who do make it to the NBA.
But I wouldn't count on international pool to help round things out... there are typically 5-10 draft picks in any given year who never play in the NBA, the of which are international players. Additionally, of the (typical) 1-2 dozen undrafted players who do end up playing in the NBA, very few are international players.
But even if the pool can be expanded with NBA-caliber talent, it just doesn't seem like there's as much turnover in the NBA as there is in the other three pro sports, i.e. the average career of players seems like it's much longer in the NBA, thereby reducing the number of opportunities for minor league talent to eventually break through. Granted, I don't have anything to back this up, that's just what my gut tells me.
-
With the growth of the G-League, and the changes to draft eligibility, I wonder if the NBA would ever go to three rounds for the draft. It would give each franchise more picks, obviously, but it would also guarantee another draft pick slot to stash in the G-League for developmental purposes.
Go to 4 rounds. Let 3rd and 4th rounders decide if they'd rather go to college or the G League.
Doubtful the union would agree to draft expansion.
-
Yes, an MLB team loses a player if he doesn't sign before enrolling in college. But a team does receive a compensatory pick in the next draft one slot below the pick they made (i.e. if you take a high school kid #3 overall and he doesn't sign, you get next year's #4 overall pick). But there's a huge incentive for a kid to sign. Moreso, I think than for the team to sign him.
Our neighbor's kid got drafted by the Cleveland Indians a few years back. As part of his signing deal, they agreed to pay for his college once he left pro baseball. He never made it out of A-ball. So technically, he did go to college on a full ride baseball scholarship.
-
Adam Silver supports the removal. Positive step. https://www.thescore.com/nba/news/1569700
Terrible idea. It will mean the end of competitive college basketball. It the one and done rule passes, the next step will be to add more draft rounds to fill up the NBA's expanded minor league system to develop the players. Goodbye NCAA basketball.
-
Terrible idea. It will mean the end of competitive college basketball. It the one and done rule passes, the next step will be to add more draft rounds to fill up the NBA's expanded minor league system to develop the players. Goodbye NCAA basketball.
Uh ok.
-
Terrible idea. It will mean the end of competitive college basketball. It the one and done rule passes, the next step will be to add more draft rounds to fill up the NBA's expanded minor league system to develop the players. Goodbye NCAA basketball.
How did NCAA basketball survive between Kevin Garnett going from high school to the NBA in 1995 until 2006, when the one-and-done rule was imposed?
-
Our neighbor's kid got drafted by the Cleveland Indians a few years back. As part of his signing deal, they agreed to pay for his college once he left pro baseball. He never made it out of A-ball. So technically, he did go to college on a full ride baseball scholarship.
Excellent. Always good to see a kid taking advantage of the system rather than the other way around.
-
While Brother Stretch is hyperbolizing, I do think in today's day and age we will see a lot more high schoolers declare for the draft then we did in the 90s and 00s. I hope that if the one and done rule goes away that the NCAA rethinks eligibility for players who declare for the draft. I would love a system like NCAA hockey.
-
While Brother Stretch is hyperbolizing, I do think in today's day and age we will see a lot more high schoolers declare for the draft then we did in the 90s and 00s. I hope that if the one and done rule goes away that the NCAA rethinks eligibility for players who declare for the draft. I would love a system like NCAA hockey.
I think they would have to. Which is a good thing.
Like you, I don't see why basketball players need to be treated differently than hockey players.
-
Terrible idea. It will mean the end of competitive college basketball. It the one and done rule passes, the next step will be to add more draft rounds to fill up the NBA's expanded minor league system to develop the players. Goodbye NCAA basketball.
You do realize there was competitive college basketball before the rule was implemented, right?
-
Our neighbor's kid got drafted by the Cleveland Indians a few years back. As part of his signing deal, they agreed to pay for his college once he left pro baseball. He never made it out of A-ball. So technically, he did go to college on a full ride baseball scholarship.
Honestly, good for him. Smart.
-
Doubtful the union would agree to draft expansion.
Not sure why. Current undrafted players are just as much of a threat to a current NBA player's job than a 3rd rounder would be.
-
I actually think that providing more continuity to college basketball rosters is a good thing from a fan's perspective.
-
High school seniors should be able to see where they get drafted before making a decision whether to play college ball or go for the pros. Eligibility should not be lost until they are signed.
I say go to four rounds because a bunch of 3rd and 4th rounders would probably end up choosing to go to college rather than play in the G League. You wouldn't actually get 4 rounds worth of players entering the pro ranks. But let them see where they would land before making the decision.
-
I actually think that providing more continuity to college basketball rosters is a good thing from a fan's perspective.
I completely agree with this point.
-
Excellent. Always good to see a kid taking advantage of the system rather than the other way around.
How is someone in baseball's draft "system" taken advantage of? Or vice versa? If you're looked upon as a top prospect and drafted in the early rounds out of high school you have leverage. It's common practice for those kids to have an "after baseball" scholarship to college as part of their contract. Nothing wrong with the "system" - I don't see kids or organizations being "taken advantage of", though I guess that's not an uncommon knee jerk reaction.
-
Not sure why. Current undrafted players are just as much of a threat to a current NBA player's job than a 3rd rounder would be.
Because any sports union is against anything that restricts a player's freedom of movement or to maximize earnings. If it were up to unions, there would be no draft whatsoever.
-
Because any sports union is against anything that restricts a player's freedom of movement or to maximize earnings. If it were up to unions, there would be no draft whatsoever.
Not sure I buy that logic. The players union is made up of current NBA players. How the NBA treats prospective players vis a vis a draft is probably of very little concern to them. For better or worse, unions typically represent and are concerned with the interests of only one party...their members.
-
Because any sports union is against anything that restricts a player's freedom of movement or to maximize earnings. If it were up to unions, there would be no draft whatsoever.
That's true, but I doubt the NBAPA goes to war over the expansion of the draft by one or even two rounds. It may be a minor bargaining chip to get something else they want, at most. The NBa and its players association have the best player-management relationship in all of professional sports, by far, and everyone has gotten exceptionally rich as a result. No way they fracture that over an additional draft round.
-
Not sure why. Current undrafted players are just as much of a threat to a current NBA player's job than a 3rd rounder would be.
The function of professional athlete unions are nothing like labor unions... the NBAPA cares nothing about "threats" to their jobs. If an undrafted player is being considered to replace a seasoned veteran, the union isn't going to do anything to help the veteran keep his job. Not to say that labor unions aren't at all merit-based, but PA unions are laser focused on the concept of merit-based advancement... in other words, maximizing talent = maximizing earnings.
-
Not sure I buy that logic. The players union is made up of current NBA players. How the NBA treats prospective players vis a vis a draft is probably of very little concern to them. For better or worse, unions typically represent and are concerned with the interests of only one party...their members.
Then why is the NBPA advocating for the lowering of the draft age? I'm not sure there is logic to "buy" here. The union would be opposed to any draft expansion.
That's true, but I doubt the NBAPA goes to war over the expansion of the draft by one or even two rounds. It may be a minor bargaining chip to get something else they want, at most. The NBa and its players association have the best player-management relationship in all of professional sports, by far, and everyone has gotten exceptionally rich as a result. No way they fracture that over an additional draft round.
I agree with this too. My point is that the NBA wouldn't be able to unilaterally increase the number of draft rounds.
-
I actually think that providing more continuity to college basketball rosters is a good thing from a fan's perspective.
I'm fine with high school direct to the NBA, but I would like players who do enroll to play two seasons before being draft eligible again.
I'm not sure how practical that is, and I understand it would restrict entry options for some players, but it would solve the one-and-done complaints as well as the roster consistency.
-
The function of professional athlete unions are nothing like labor unions... the NBAPA cares nothing about "threats" to their jobs. If an undrafted player is being considered to replace a seasoned veteran, the union isn't going to do anything to help the veteran keep his job. Not to say that labor unions aren't at all merit-based, but PA unions are laser focused on the concept of merit-based advancement... in other words, maximizing talent = maximizing earnings.
Hmm. Disagree.
The NBAPA went along with the one-and-done rule in part to protect veteran players from losing roster spots to high school kids.
Likewise, the mid-level exception was created to protect the jobs of average veteran players who would lose roster spots to cheaper, younger players without it (as occurs regularly in the NFL).
The NBAPA is led by older, veteran players, and as such it ultimately looks out chiefly for the interests of older, veteran players.
-
I'm fine with high school direct to the NBA, but I would like players who do enroll to play two seasons before being draft eligible again.
I'm not sure how practical that is, and I understand it would restrict entry options for some players, but it would solve the one-and-done complaints as well as the roster consistency.
I don't know. I think that just creates the same problems but a year later for the players. For example, a guy like Zhaire Smith was nowhere near NBA radars a year ago. He was a 3 star kid ranked around the 200th best player in his high school class. So he's obviously going to go to school. He then breaks out in a big way, is a big time NBA prospect, but he has to stay in school another year and waste a year of earnings in a career where your earnings window is pretty small.
I think you just let them go at any point. Really, if kids can go straight from high school to the NBA, how many kids would be one-and-done out of college? Most one-and-dones are the kinds of kids who would be top picks out of high school anyways (Ayton, Bagley, Bamba). In the first round this year you had Zhaire Smith, maybe Trey Young, maybe Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, and then some second rounders who would've probably been one-and-done if going straight from high school to the pros was an option.
-
But wasn't the age restriction put in to basically save the teams/GM's from themselves?
Drafting on potential is a risky business. One more year with 18 years olds being under scrutiny hopefully leads to fewer draft blunders. Like that has actually happened. However without the restriction, a couple years ago NBA scouts would have been crowding in to watch Skal Labissiere and Cliff Alexander in high school. Both probably top 5 picks.
-
Hmm. Disagree.
The NBAPA went along with the one-and-done rule in part to protect veteran players from losing roster spots to high school kids.
Likewise, the mid-level exception was created to protect the jobs of average veteran players who would lose roster spots to cheaper, younger players without it (as occurs regularly in the NFL).
The NBAPA is led by older, veteran players, and as such it ultimately looks out chiefly for the interests of older, veteran players.
You're free to disagree, but that would make you wrong... the NBAPA openly opposed the one-and-done rule largely because it limited the opportunity for multiple maximum contracts during a career. The only reason the PA eventually allowed it was as a bargaining chip in the 2005 CBA.
-
You're free to disagree, but that would make you wrong... the NBAPA openly opposed the one-and-done rule largely because it limited the opportunity for multiple maximum contracts during a career. The only reason the PA eventually allowed it was as a bargaining chip in the 2005 CBA.
Yep.
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/sports/basketball/nba-draft-will-close-book-on-high-school-stars.html
"The last debate on the issue ended last week, when the National Basketball Players Association agreed to the league's request to put the 19-year-old limit in the new labor agreement. It represented a compromise on both sides. Stern lobbied for years for an age minimum of 20, saying he wanted his league's scouts and executives out of high school gyms."
-
The NBA players union wants the least restrictive eligibility/draft/contract rules possible. They want each player getting his first contract as quickly as possible so he can get to the second contract -- the biggie -- as quickly as possible.
And that does affect veterans. If a potentially good (but definitely not great) young player gets $78 million in his second contract (hello, Zach LaVine!), then a far more proven veteran has more bargaining power. The whole "rising tide lifts all ships" deal.
As others have pointed out, there was nothing altruistic about the NBA and its PA agreeing to abandon preps-to-pros for 1-and-done. It was a business negotiation, a compromise. They didn't care a rat's rump about its effect on college basketball, nor should they have.
The same will be true of the next negotiation. The NBA cares about its product, and the PA cares about players' pay, benefits and issues.
As for Stretch's "It will mean the end of competitive college basketball," I'm hoping he's like me and just doesn't believe in using teal.
-
I am not too worried about the rule change and the more I thought about it actually think it is the right thing to do given the current state of affairs.
Markets have a way of self correcting. There will be a handful of young kids who are drafted and play in the big time. The vast majority will end up in the G - League.
Over time many of these talented kids and their parents will start embracing the college experience of playing before big crowds and getting the media exposure over the minor league experience , which is not the greatest . It will end up with the true super stars like Moses Malone, Lebron , Kobe , Mcgrady etc opting to go pro right away which is how it worked for many years . The players who chose to go the college route will then be doing it for legitimate purposes even if they don't plan on staying all four years of their eligibility. The college game will be better for this as the top players will likely be more spread out instead of concentrating in the one and done factories.
-
I am not too worried about the rule change and the more I thought about it actually think it is the right thing to do given the current state of affairs.
Markets have a way of self correcting. There will be a handful of young kids who are drafted and play in the big time. The vast majority will end up in the G - League.
Over time many of these talented kids and their parents will start embracing the college experience of playing before big crowds and getting the media exposure over the minor league experience , which is not the greatest . It will end up with the true super stars like Moses Malone, Lebron , Kobe , Mcgrady etc opting to go pro right away which is how it worked for many years . The players who chose to go the college route will then be doing it for legitimate purposes even if they don't plan on staying all four years of their eligibility. The college game will be better for this as the top players will likely be more spread out instead of concentrating in the one and done factories.
Yeah, playing in a small gym in Oshkosh with a so-so coach is not exactly a road to fame.
-
It will end up with the true super stars like Moses Malone, Lebron , Kobe , Mcgrady etc opting to go pro right away which is how it worked for many years . The players who chose to go the college route will then be doing it for legitimate purposes even if they don't plan on staying all four years of their eligibility. The college game will be better for this as the top players will likely be more spread out instead of concentrating in the one and done factories.
The first sentence forgets about all the busts: Darius Miles, Kwame Brown, Korleone Young, Jonathan Bender, Leon Smith, Robert Swift, etc.
Of course, they were busts only because they didn't pan out as players. Each got millions of dollars ... though I wonder how many millions (or dollars) they still have.
Despite this, I am very much in favor of eliminating any kind of mandated waiting period between high school and the NBA. It's capitalism. If you're good enough to make it (or try), there should be no barriers. If I'm a gifted 18-year-old tuba player and the London Philharmonic wants me, I can tuba out to my hearts content and make a nice living doing so. If I flame out (lip steroid scandal?), so be it.
As for the rest of your post, 9-9-9, we are in agreement. Not only will this not be the end of college basketball, but it very well might make the game better. It certainly won't hurt the game one iota.
-
No way does college basketball get seriously hurt by this. Only a handful of schools benefit from casual fans watching to see the next big NBA draft class, for 90% of the fans it's about seeing a school you're affiliated with on TV.
-
I don't know. I think that just creates the same problems but a year later for the players. For example, a guy like Zhaire Smith was nowhere near NBA radars a year ago. He was a 3 star kid ranked around the 200th best player in his high school class. So he's obviously going to go to school. He then breaks out in a big way, is a big time NBA prospect, but he has to stay in school another year and waste a year of earnings in a career where your earnings window is pretty small.
I think you just let them go at any point. Really, if kids can go straight from high school to the NBA, how many kids would be one-and-done out of college? Most one-and-dones are the kinds of kids who would be top picks out of high school anyways (Ayton, Bagley, Bamba). In the first round this year you had Zhaire Smith, maybe Trey Young, maybe Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, and then some second rounders who would've probably been one-and-done if going straight from high school to the pros was an option.
Zhaire Smith was a huge exception, though. How often do you see first round one-and-dones from nowhere?
I'll be blunt, my primary interest is the college game, and I like having more roster consistency. I feel for the obvious talents it gives them the immediate pro option and for guys that do go to college, two years isn't an eternity.
-
Zhaire Smith was a huge exception, though. How often do you see first round one-and-dones from nowhere?
I'll be blunt, my primary interest is the college game, and I like having more roster consistency. I feel for the obvious talents it gives them the immediate pro option and for guys that do go to college, two years isn't an eternity.
I guess that's kind of my point, that if you get rid of the 1 and done rule and don't have any kind of requirement on the number of years out of high school a player must be to be drafted in the NBA you'd get rid of almost all of the roster turnover that you get from the one and done rule and there will be, for the most part, the roster continuity. But I also don't think we should limit any person who unexpectedly turns out to be a pro prospect from making money as soon as he can.
-
I guess that's kind of my point, that if you get rid of the 1 and done rule and don't have any kind of requirement on the number of years out of high school a player must be to be drafted in the NBA you'd get rid of almost all of the roster turnover that you get from the one and done rule and there will be, for the most part, the roster continuity. But I also don't think we should limit any person who unexpectedly turns out to be a pro prospect from making money as soon as he can.
Are one and done players really the issue when it comes to roster continuity? Outside of the Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, and sometimes Arizona, it really is not a big deal for 95% of the college teams. What was the stat, the average team will have just over 2 transfers every season. If you care about roster continuity you would say no transfers (not advocating for that) instead of supporting a one and done rule.
Ultimately players, just like coaches, should have the right to make a change whenever they want. And I do not care about the coaches getting paid millions of dollars a year being left short handed, that is part of the reason you get paid that much money, it is not supposed to be easy.