Potentially good news on the One and Done rule with the NBA

[MU82]

It will go to a 2 year cap because both the NBA and the players union want it to be that. The union opposes it in public as a negotiating ploy so they can "give something up" that they wanted. A union is always interested in the needs of the current membership not future potential members and if they can reduce the available pool of talent (18-40 years is a bigger pool than 20-40 year) that drives up the value of the pool (supply and demand).

At the end of the day, the NBA will find a legal justification to do it and they will do it while window dressing it as doing the right things for the kids. Which is crap, they are doing it so the NCAA can be both their development and talent assessment tools.

What will be interesting is what happens when the new rules are in effect and some LBJ 2.0 comes along, a can't miss talent out of high school that doesn't want to go to college. One and dones work in college because the APR is weight just so that you can take a couple of those hits, but to keep a kid eligible for two years and not negatively impact the APR is really tough if they don't want to be there. So does this LBJ 2.0 go the Europe or China route. Once someone successfully goes professional overseas and gets drafted into the NBA at 20....those "can't miss" talents will go that route and forgo college all together. Not saying whether that's a good or a bad thing, but a 2 year rule will eventually lead to talent skipping college and going overseas.

mu03eng:

You know I respect you, and we have had many great conversations. But I don't know how you can state as some kind of fact that the union will accept a second year in college. They publicly state they are against it but they are secretly for it? The union has every reason to support the current 1-and-done rule, which has helped today's players become multimillionaires a year sooner than a 2-and-done rule would. And which in turn has helped with the second and third contracts. So it DOES benefit current players. And, as an aside, it also is more fair to the super-talented young man trying to earn a living in his chosen profession.

But that's only my opinion, just as what you said is only your opinion. I guess we'll see when the next CBA comes out.

I do agree with the rest of what you say. Certainly, if the NBA gets the union to buy in, it will fend off any legal challenges, just as the NFL has done.

I also think it would lead to plenty of two-year Brandon Jennings situations.

I don't agree with Chicos that going from 1 year to 2 would be "good news" for the athletes. It would be yet another way for the power and the money to keep the indentured servants down.

[mu03eng]

mu03eng:

You know I respect you, and we have had many great conversations. But I don't know how you can state as some kind of fact that the union will accept a second year in college. They publicly state they are against it but they are secretly for it? The union has every reason to support the current 1-and-done rule, which has helped today's players become multimillionaires a year sooner than a 2-and-done rule would. And which in turn has helped with the second and third contracts. So it DOES benefit current players. And, as an aside, it also is more fair to the super-talented young man trying to earn a living in his chosen profession.

But that's only my opinion, just as what you said is only your opinion. I guess we'll see when the next CBA comes out.

I do agree with the rest of what you say. Certainly, if the NBA gets the union to buy in, it will fend off any legal challenges, just as the NFL has done.

I also think it would lead to plenty of two-year Brandon Jennings situations.

I don't agree with Chicos that going from 1 year to 2 would be "good news" for the athletes. It would be yet another way for the power and the money to keep the indentured servants down.

You are totally right....you do respect me cause I'm awesome 

Kidding aside, you are right it's not a fact it is expressly my opinion(should have been more clear) but one I base off the NBA unions behavior in previous negotiations(that's how we ended up with a one and done) as well as observing union negotiations in general. Take Kohler in Wisconsin, they negotiated a two tier pay system where the current employees would get higher wages but in exchange new union employees would get lower wages and couldn't achieve the wages of the current employees. Human nature to protect the now and not the future.

So at the end of the day I think the player's union trades an issue they really don't care about that impacts future players for an issue that impacts the current players and we have a 2 and done rule.

The great irony(and somewhat sickening) stance of those like Chicos and the union/NBA, NCAA officials, etc. is that they profess to be looking out for these kids when really they are padding their own wallets with money generated off the back of these student athletes. Limiting a persons potential to earn money is in no way a "good news" scenario

[CTWarrior]

mu03eng:

The union has every reason to support the current 1-and-done rule, which has helped today's players become multimillionaires a year sooner than a 2-and-done rule would. And which in turn has helped with the second and third contracts. So it DOES benefit current players.

I agree with a lot of your points, but how does it help any current NBA player to keep the post high school requirement at one year?  Continuation of the current rule would only benefit future union members, not current ones.  In fact, as was pointed out, the few extra guys that make it the first year will take jobs from current members.  A union that was interested in what is best for their members in perpetuity would not want post high school expansion to two years, but selfishly the current NBA players would be very slightly better off if the rule was changed to two years.  My guess is that their opposition to the rule is more of a bargaining chip to get something else in exchange for allowing the rule to change.

[kmwtrucks]

I think the question is:  How many kids that get 2 full years and 1 summer end up graduating compared to 1 year?  My guess is its a pretty big difference.   its not about getting drafted and sitting at the end of the bench its about being drafted and playing and staying in the NBA for 10 years.   My guess is guys that are drafted 1 and done from # 5- #30 compared to 2 or 3 and years drafted between # 5-#30 what do you think the success rate is?  My guess is it probably doubles.   Also how many 1 and done wash out players end up broke? I think its pretty alarming.  Henry is the exception, many of the these kids do not have allot of direction.    I think it should be either no years or 2 years.   You can make a argument either way.   For every Lebron that the no college helps them make millions how many players does that rule hurt?   you can make a good case either way.  It works I the NFL?  they do 3 years.

[mu03eng]

I agree with a lot of your points, but how does it help any current NBA player to keep the post high school requirement at one year?  Continuation of the current rule would only benefit future union members, not current ones.  In fact, as was pointed out, the few extra guys that make it the first year will take jobs from current members.  A union that was interested in what is best for their members in perpetuity would not want post high school expansion to two years, but selfishly the current NBA players would be very slightly better off if the rule was changed to two years.  My guess is that their opposition to the rule is more of a bargaining chip to get something else in exchange for allowing the rule to change.

[MU82]

I agree with a lot of your points, but how does it help any current NBA player to keep the post high school requirement at one year?  Continuation of the current rule would only benefit future union members, not current ones.  In fact, as was pointed out, the few extra guys that make it the first year will take jobs from current members.  A union that was interested in what is best for their members in perpetuity would not want post high school expansion to two years, but selfishly the current NBA players would be very slightly better off if the rule was changed to two years.  My guess is that their opposition to the rule is more of a bargaining chip to get something else in exchange for allowing the rule to change.

I guess I am assuming that the faster the kids come to the pros and earn, the faster and higher the salaries go for current pros. Maybe that is an incorrect assumption, but I don't think it is.

[mu03eng]

I guess I am assuming that the faster the kids come to the pros and earn, the faster and higher the salaries go for current pros. Maybe that is an incorrect assumption, but I don't think it is.

I think it's net neutral at best. For every new player that shows up on a roster that means a current player that isn't on the roster since roster size is fixed.

[MU82]

I think it's net neutral at best. For every new player that shows up on a roster that means a current player that isn't on the roster since roster size is fixed.

Fair enough.

Although I do wonder if the union really cares more about a fringe pro -- a guy who is the 15th man on a team's roster today -- vs, say, Ben Simmons or whomever the Next Great One (and next great earner) is going to be.

Yes, the union is supposed to care more about the fringe pro, but does it?

[mu03eng]

Fair enough.

Although I do wonder if the union really cares more about a fringe pro -- a guy who is the 15th man on a team's roster today -- vs, say, Ben Simmons or whomever the Next Great One (and next great earner) is going to be.

Yes, the union is supposed to care more about the fringe pro, but does it?

I don't think they do as evidenced by the fact that rookie contracts are fixed. So regardless of straight out of high school or one or two years later...if 20 year old Lebron was drafted now he would be making less than any number of mid-level guys that have been in the league a couple of years. 20 year old Lebron should be making more than Khris Middleton, but wouldn't under the current CBA...ergo, union don't care about rooks.