2 Year Rule Coming to NBA?

[Aughnanure]

Diamond Stone for two years? Yes please.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10538140/adam-silver-open-changing-format-nba-playoffs-draft

http://insider.espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/10584873/bilas-goodman-lots-winners-nba-age-change-college-basketball

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft2014/story/_/id/10584657/aaron-gordon-tyler-ennis-part-nba-last-freshman-draft-class-nba

[Nukem2]

Players union needs to agree.  Not happening very soon.

[brandx]

Players union needs to agree.  Not happening very soon.

2017

[GooooMarquette]

Play-in games, lol.

Take the one round of the tournament that nobody pays attention to, and emulate it.  And add it to playoffs that already last way too long.  Next thing you know, he'll have the NBA Finals starting on Labor Day weekend....

[bilsu]

Players union needs to agree.  Not happening very soon.

It would make sense for them to agree, because they represent current players. Do not represent college players. Having college players stay in college an extra year protects maybe 10 current players' jobs.

[CTWarrior]

It would make sense for them to agree, because they represent current players. Do not represent college players. Having college players stay in college an extra year protects maybe 10 current players' jobs.

Agree.  Not sure why the players would not agree to this.  I think this would lead to more kids (maybe a couple a year - not great numbers) going to Europe for money and seasoning rather than the NCAA. 

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

It would be interesting to see how this would affect the likes of Kentucky. 2 and through isn't as easy of a sell as one and done.

[Windyplayer]

It would be interesting to see how this would affect the likes of Kentucky. 2 and through isn't as easy of a sell as one and done.

The market would adapt. Meaning Kentucky might miss out on the true talents that go overseas--as would every other DI school--resulting in a diluted talent pool in the NCAAs, but Kentucky would still be scraping off the top. It would just be a lower top. Kentucky is only competing against other DI schools subject to the same rule so I don't think the new rule would effect them any more than it would other blue bloods.

[keefe]

Two and Screw

[MU82]

Agree.  Not sure why the players would not agree to this.  I think this would lead to more kids (maybe a couple a year - not great numbers) going to Europe for money and seasoning rather than the NCAA. 

The sooner players can get to their second contract, the more they make -- and the more everybody makes, by extension.

Derrick Rose was 19 when he came out of college and 20 when he made his NBA debut. He got his big contract extension when he was 24.

To the Players Assn, that's better than being 25 or 26 when you get your big contract extension.

Getting the players to agree to this is possible, but to make it happen the NBA will have to agree to something else -- such as a higher salary cap or other financial giveback.

Everything is negotiable, but don't expect the players to just say, "Oh, OK."

[Big Papi]

I have always felt that a pay scale based on experience is the way to go.  Reward those that go the college route with a much higher salary scale and then let players come out whenever they want for the draft.  Those that go from high school to the NBA start off at a much lower rate.  Rewards those that go the college route and can afford to wait for their pay day.  i would also allow for those that don't get drafted to be allowed to go the college route after the fact or get assigned to the NBDL if they have no desire to go to school. 

Why force them to wait 1 or 2 years or force them to go to Europe.  it solves everybody's problem. 

[jeffreyweee]

I have always felt that a pay scale based on experience is the way to go.  Reward those that go the college route with a much higher salary scale and then let players come out whenever they want for the draft.  Those that go from high school to the NBA start off at a much lower rate.  Rewards those that go the college route and can afford to wait for their pay day.  i would also allow for those that don't get drafted to be allowed to go the college route after the fact or get assigned to the NBDL if they have no desire to go to school. 

Why force them to wait 1 or 2 years or force them to go to Europe.  it solves everybody's problem. 

What...? Their trade is basketball and they should be paid based on their basketball performance - not whether they spent 2 or 4 years getting a communications degree. I do like the idea of being able to come out after high school and then go the college route. However, once drafted you cannot return.

[bilsu]

I wish they would go back to taking players directly from high school. I see no reason to be happy about Kentucky keeping their McDonald's all-americans two years instead of one.

[Sunbelt15]

I wish they would go back to taking players directly from high school. I see no reason to be happy about Kentucky keeping their McDonald's all-americans two years instead of one.

+1

[ChicosBailBonds]

Diamond Stone for two years? Yes please.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10538140/adam-silver-open-changing-format-nba-playoffs-draft

http://insider.espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/10584873/bilas-goodman-lots-winners-nba-age-change-college-basketball

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft2014/story/_/id/10584657/aaron-gordon-tyler-ennis-part-nba-last-freshman-draft-class-nba

So the NBA Commissioner is saying the NCAA tournament is a crapshoot, the best team doesn't always win, lots of upsets.   Smart man

[Big Papi]

What...? Their trade is basketball and they should be paid based on their basketball performance - not whether they spent 2 or 4 years getting a communications degree. I do like the idea of being able to come out after high school and then go the college route. However, once drafted you cannot return.

Correct, they should be paid based on basketball performance.  Unfortunately, most players are not capable to make the leap from high school to productive first year NBA player.  But in the current system they get drafted after one year get paid big bucks based on potential, not basketball performance and a large chunk of them end up being busts.  That is why the NBA commisioner and the owners want an age limit of 20?  Players are not ready and yet they have to draft on potential, pay them big bucks and hope to capitalize 4 to 6 years down the line after spending an insane amount of money?  Hoping that they reach their potential and are able to produce only to have to spend even more crazy money.    A differing pay scale based on experience is like an incentive plan.  You know you are not ready for the NBA but you at least have options.  Nothing wrong with going to college for 2 or 3 years to get you on that road to a degree if things don't work out.  Those that don't want anything to do with school can go to the NDBL right away and hope they develop there instead of pretending to be students for one semster or three.  

And whats wrong with allowing someone like Vander Blue to enter the draft and if he is not selected, he has the option of playing another year with MU or allow him to sign a professional contract elsewhere?  

 

[Lennys Tap]

So the NBA Commissioner is saying the NCAA tournament is a crapshoot, the best team doesn't always win, lots of upsets.   Smart man

There is NO tournament, NO playoff, NO sports event period where "the best team always wins". Wild cards (lowest seeds) win Super Bowls and World Series. Stanley Cups are won by 8 seeds (lowest). The lowest seeds in the NCAA tournament have never even won one game! A number 1 seed wins the tourney (I'm guessing, no time to look it up) probably 80+% of the time, more often than #1s win in baseball, football or hockey. Crapshoot? Every athletic event that isn't fixed is, but the dice are more loaded in the NCAA tournament than in the baseball or football playoffs and the Stanley Cup.

[ChicosBailBonds]

There is NO tournament, NO playoff, NO sports event period where "the best team always wins". Wild cards (lowest seeds) win Super Bowls and World Series. Stanley Cups are won by 8 seeds (lowest). The lowest seeds in the NCAA tournament have never even won one game! A number 1 seed wins the tourney (I'm guessing, no time to look it up) probably 80+% of the time, more often than #1s win in baseball, football or hockey. Crapshoot? Every athletic event that isn't fixed is, but the dice are more loaded in the NCAA tournament than in the baseball or football playoffs and the Stanley Cup.

You are correct, and I've said that often.  The best team often doesn't win, regardless of sport. But statistically it happens a hell of a lot more often that the best team wins when a 7 game series is used to decide it rather than a one game series.  Factor in multiple best of 7 game series, the better (or best) team comes out on top much more often.  

Your example, by the way, is really weak.  There are FOUR #1 seeds.  Are you suggesting there are FOUR best teams.  No.  In other sports, at MOST there are two #1 seeds, one in each conference.  So if you're going to double the population before it even starts, that's stacking the deck.  Furthermore, to win the NCAA title you only have to win 6 games.  To win a title in the NHL, NBA, MLB you have to win 12 games.  Your comparison just isn't valid as you are comparing apples to oranges.

To answer your question, since the field began seeding teams in 1979 there have been 34 winners.  The number one seeds to win it all are 20.....58.8% of the time....despite having 4 #1 seeds each year to inflate that number.

The randomness of events that happens in a one game playoff lessens in a 7 game series, and even more so in multiple 7 game series to be crowned a champion.

I have a couple of good books for you to read....they explain it quite well.  They also agree, the best team doesn't always win, but explains quite well why in some playoff structures the best team wins MUCH more often than in the NCAA tournament and other one game playoff structures like the NFL.

Scorecasting

The Drunkard's Walk:  How Randomness Rules Our Lives

And as I have said often here and got ripped for it, the NCAA champion is the champion, but not always the best team.  Even Al McGuire said this.  Gee wiz

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

There is NO tournament, NO playoff, NO sports event period where "the best team always wins". Wild cards (lowest seeds) win Super Bowls and World Series. Stanley Cups are won by 8 seeds (lowest). The lowest seeds in the NCAA tournament have never even won one game! A number 1 seed wins the tourney (I'm guessing, no time to look it up) probably 80+% of the time, more often than #1s win in baseball, football or hockey. Crapshoot? Every athletic event that isn't fixed is, but the dice are more loaded in the NCAA tournament than in the baseball or football playoffs and the Stanley Cup.

Sounds like you are saying it is a crapshoot, lol

[ChicosBailBonds]

Sounds like you are saying it is a crapshoot, lol

Shhhh.....he'll get there eventually.


By the way, college hoops is a guard's game, too.

[Lennys Tap]

Your example, by the way, is really weak.  There are FOUR #1 seeds.  Are you suggesting there are FOUR best teams.  No.  In other sports, at MOST there are two #1 seeds, one in each conference.  So if you're going to double the population before it even starts, that's stacking the deck.  Furthermore, to win the NCAA title you only have to win 6 games.  To win a title in the NHL, NBA, MLB you have to win 12 games.  Your comparison just isn't valid as you are comparing apples to oranges.

Wow. Just Wow. You're a smart guy but this is incredibly weak. 4 #1 seeds out of 68 teams makes them more likely to win than 2#1s out of 12 or 16 teams? And in your math world, "only" having to win 6 straight is easier than winning 3 straight (pro football) or 12 out of 21 (hockey) or 11 out of 19 (I think) in baseball? In what freaking universe is going 6-0 not harder than going 12-9 or 11-8? Wow. Talk about weak.

I'll look at the stats tomorrow to compare % of times 1s win in hockey, baseball and football versus college basketball. I'm sure it will be interesting.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Wow. Just Wow. You're a smart guy but this is incredibly weak. 4 #1 seeds out of 68 teams makes them more likely to win than 2#1s out of 12 or 16 teams? And in your math world, "only" having to win 6 straight is easier than winning 3 straight (pro football) or 12 out of 21 (hockey) or 11 out of 19 (I think) in baseball? In what freaking universe is going 6-0 not harder than going 12-9 or 11-8? Wow. Talk about weak.

I'll look at the stats tomorrow to compare % of times 1s win in hockey, baseball and football versus college basketball. I'm sure it will be interesting.

58.8% of the time one of four top seeds has won the tournament, not 80%.  With FOUR #1 seeds, you are claiming FOUR best teams.  Now you're going to do research to see how many times the TWO 1's have won it all.  OK, that's fine.

You're helping to make a lot of my argument over the last few years.  It's a crapshoot.  Always has been, always will be.   You should read those books, plenty of others out there as well.  Randomness of a one game playoff is lessened and the better team typically (NOT ALWAYS) has a better shot of getting through.

By the way, I assume you know how fundamentally flawed your approach is going to be when you say the #1 seed in the NHL didn't make it.  The seeding is based on record, but if you play in a sorry division you can rack up the wins.  Vancouver has done this time and again.  Or let's just look at this year's NBA, where would Indiana or Miami fit if they played in the west?  Just because you rack up a bunch of wins to get a 1 seed, doesn't make you the best team....but I'm sure you knew that.      It isn't a committee of experts looking at the records of those teams and seeding them.  Schedule strength, etc, means nothing.  Have the most wins or points, you get the #1 seed.  So let me know how you plan on adjusting for that.  Thanks 

[ChicosBailBonds]

By the way Lenny, since 1950, the #1 seeds in the NBA have won the title 49 times.  That's 77.8% of the time.  You are welcome.  Much less for NHL and MLB, of course that is because often the "number one seed" wasn't the best team....great books on this if you want to read about these things.  Who was considered the actual best team in certain years vs who had the most points or wins do to soft schedules.  Or you have situations where a team finishes with the best record that is TIED with another team, but only one team can get a 1 seed....curious how you are going to adjust for that.  


I can recommend some books...hell, I'll even send them to your kindle if you wish.





EDIT:   If you expand the NBA to the "top 4 teams" as you are wanting to do with the NCAA example you used.  The percentage goes to 85.7% of the time they win the NBA title.

[CTWarrior]

By the way Lenny, since 1950, the #1 seeds in the NBA have won the title 49 times.  That's 77.8% of the time.  You are welcome.  Much less for NHL and MLB, of course that is because often the "number one seed" wasn't the best team....great books on this if you want to read about these things.  Who was considered the actual best team in certain years vs who had the most points or wins do to soft schedules.  Or you have situations where a team finishes with the best record that is TIED with another team, but only one team can get a 1 seed....curious how you are going to adjust for that. 


I can recommend some books...hell, I'll even send them to your kindle if you wish.

It's always been my opinion that the NBA is the one pro league where the best team usually wins.  Baseball and Hockey, by the nature of their sports are much more difficult for the best team to win consistently.  Football is a one and done scenario, so a couple of poorly timed turnovers can kill the best of teams.  NBA Basketball is the one sport where, if there is a dominant team, it pretty much always wins.

[MUMonster03]

Agree.  Not sure why the players would not agree to this.  I think this would lead to more kids (maybe a couple a year - not great numbers) going to Europe for money and seasoning rather than the NCAA. 

I have to agree that not many would go overseas.

Many teams over there have a limit on the number of non countrymen that can play on the teams in that league.

There are a lot of foreign players who are not good enough to be in the NBA but are still better than a player coming out of high school.

A lot of foreign teams prefer to use these spots, if they can, on players with name recognition.


And, unless the high school players are going to one of the premier foreign leagues the money won't be that great and the talent level they are playing against will not get them ready for the NBA.