Adam Silver: End of one & done

[weatherbird]

That's pretty much the only way the NCAA will be able to combat the NBA if the NBA really decides to put some effort into developing their own talent.

We're all college basketball fans here, but the reality is that college basketball (and football, really) are unnatural. The NBA and the NFL are the only 2 professional sports leagues on the planet that rely on colleges to develop players, and that happened only because the college versions of those sports were popular before the professional versions, with the professional versions actually being created expressly to profit from the popularity of the college versions. Baseball never had that, because the professional version of the game preceded the college version.

All of that was a long, long time ago now, though, and the reality is that the NFL and the NBA don't really need the college game any more. Especially the NBA, because of the limited roster size needed for a team. The truth is that dozens of the best players every year would gladly skip college entirely if they could make 100K a year for 2-3 years in an NBA developmental program. Spending 5-10 million dollars a year to run a minor league franchise would be pocket change for any NBA team, and honestly, if they went whole-hog into it, maybe made it mainly a summer thing, they could very possibly turn a profit.

College basketball needs to stop fighting reality. If college basketball is still going to be a good place for future professionals to develop, they need to stop throwing up so many ridiculous roadblocks based on the asinine "student-athlete" concept.

While I agree with this for the most part, here lies the problem. College Basketball and College Football are more popular than the minor leagues, for a couple of reasons. One is college based fans. Those are the 2 biggest sports in college, and honestly most of the fans will continue to watch those teams regardless of what players are on them. The minor leagues in other sports work, because they are paying salaries comparable to what the G-League is paying now, so not much. Most of them give away a bunch of tickets and do a lot of stuff on the side just to get people to attend the games. The G-League will be the same way, only it appears that Silver thinks the salaries could go much higher. The thing I don't think Silver realizes is that there will be almost no market for the G-League. Where will the fans come from?? The kids that didn't go to college won't bring any extra fans with them, and the great ones that have followings will be in the real league. I would also expect after 8-10 years, once most of the college alums are out of the NBA, a lot will quit following. There is a good percentage of fans that follow the NBA just to keep up with players that played for their college. You will lose that. NFL isn't going to do something like that, because their minor league system will pale in comparison to college football. I expect that Silver will find out that minor league basketball will as well.

In all, I actually don't think Silver wants to have the league drafting straight out of HS. I think he is promoting this idea, hoping to leverage changes at the college level, and quite possible strike a deal between the NBA and the NCAA. College basketball has the following the NBA would love to have for it's development league, and the NBA holds the cards for the talent going to college. In the end, I could see a deal where the NBA gets a profit center from the NCAA, while the NCAA gets a chance to keep many of the players that aren't NBA ready yet in return.

 

[kyjeff1]

My friends

@Dablueman @TexKat @Wildcatfan2381 @catzcan @Jmeeks54thebest @TeoJ @MbergCat @Chuckinden @Pulaski Cat Fan @KentuckyRLD @Cowtown Cat @sluggercatfan @blubo @yoshukai

I am anxious to hear your responses to the above quotes.


This doesnt stop any schools from cheating.

Those of you thinking that only 4-5 kids will leave again are totally wrong. Raising D/G league salaries to $250k will result in way more players leaving. Overseas teams have already jumped into the mix the last few seasons when given the opportunity.

So, we may be missing out not only on the John Walls, Cousins, KATs and Anthony Davis', but also Fox, Monk, Knox, etc.

How many times will Calipari be played to the end of the recruiting season like Pitino was with Telfair?

And as mentioned, Cal went to 1 FF in 14 years pre-OAD, he's been to 5 since. Parity becomes a much bigger issue.

NCAA will be void of any superstar players.

If your ideal college basketball is a remake of Hoosiers, then I guess this is for you.

Other than you can't handle players leaving and roster turnover, why is getting rid of the OAD a good or even an acceptable thing?


Interested in your thoughts.

Damn, that's a telling take right there.
Can you imagine how bad CBB would be if Jimmy Chitwood was our best player? Ouch.

 

[brianpoe]

While I agree with this for the most part, here lies the problem. College Basketball and College Football are more popular than the minor leagues, for a couple of reasons. One is college based fans. Those are the 2 biggest sports in college, and honestly most of the fans will continue to watch those teams regardless of what players are on them. The minor leagues in other sports work, because they are paying salaries comparable to what the G-League is paying now, so not much. Most of them give away a bunch of tickets and do a lot of stuff on the side just to get people to attend the games. The G-League will be the same way, only it appears that Silver thinks the salaries could go much higher. The thing I don't think Silver realizes is that there will be almost no market for the G-League. Where will the fans come from?? The kids that didn't go to college won't bring any extra fans with them, and the great ones that have followings will be in the real league. I would also expect after 8-10 years, once most of the college alums are out of the NBA, a lot will quit following. There is a good percentage of fans that follow the NBA just to keep up with players that played for their college. You will lose that. NFL isn't going to do something like that, because their minor league system will pale in comparison to college football. I expect that Silver will find out that minor league basketball will as well.

In all, I actually don't think Silver wants to have the league drafting straight out of HS. I think he is promoting this idea, hoping to leverage changes at the college level, and quite possible strike a deal between the NBA and the NCAA. College basketball has the following the NBA would love to have for it's development league, and the NBA holds the cards for the talent going to college. In the end, I could see a deal where the NBA gets a profit center from the NCAA, while the NCAA gets a chance to keep many of the players that aren't NBA ready yet in return.

I dont think Silver is at all worried about the G-League being profitable, the investment is extremely low.

Your theory on Silver having an alternative plan is very intriguing.

 

[weatherbird]

I dont think Silver is at all worried about the G-League being profitable, the investment is extremely low.

Your theory on Silver having an alternative plan is very intriguing.

The G-League not being profitable is exactly why I think he actually has alternative plans. Get rid of a pure cost center, get a cut of the NCAA profits, all while protecting his customers (NBA teams). All he has to do is scare the NCAA into believing the end is near, and they will cut a deal to salvage it. It's at least an interesting thought.

 

[ZenCatFan73]

I think he's posturing and any major changes are a ways off.

 

[mj2k10]

While I agree with this for the most part, here lies the problem. College Basketball and College Football are more popular than the minor leagues, for a couple of reasons. One is college based fans. Those are the 2 biggest sports in college, and honestly most of the fans will continue to watch those teams regardless of what players are on them. The minor leagues in other sports work, because they are paying salaries comparable to what the G-League is paying now, so not much. Most of them give away a bunch of tickets and do a lot of stuff on the side just to get people to attend the games. The G-League will be the same way, only it appears that Silver thinks the salaries could go much higher. The thing I don't think Silver realizes is that there will be almost no market for the G-League. Where will the fans come from?? The kids that didn't go to college won't bring any extra fans with them, and the great ones that have followings will be in the real league. I would also expect after 8-10 years, once most of the college alums are out of the NBA, a lot will quit following. There is a good percentage of fans that follow the NBA just to keep up with players that played for their college. You will lose that. NFL isn't going to do something like that, because their minor league system will pale in comparison to college football. I expect that Silver will find out that minor league basketball will as well.

In all, I actually don't think Silver wants to have the league drafting straight out of HS. I think he is promoting this idea, hoping to leverage changes at the college level, and quite possible strike a deal between the NBA and the NCAA. College basketball has the following the NBA would love to have for it's development league, and the NBA holds the cards for the talent going to college. In the end, I could see a deal where the NBA gets a profit center from the NCAA, while the NCAA gets a chance to keep many of the players that aren't NBA ready yet in return.

You're right that a minor league would never, ever approach the popularity of the college game, but here's the thing about that: How does the NBA currently profit from the college game? In a direct financial sense, they don't, at all, so if the potential is there to make a profit from a minor league, no matter how small, it's still something they currently don't have.

Of course, that needs to be measured against what the NBA does currently gain from the college game: name recognition for draft picks, and 0 expenditure on developing 18 year old players. And those are 2 not-insignificant things. However, I think they're becoming less and less significant, and I think that's where Adam Silver is coming from. If Markelle Fultz goes to Washington and loses 22 games, him playing college basketball is doing next to nothing that the NBA couldn't do itself. He was barely seen nationally, and there's not a lot of evidence that his year in college did much to improve his game. Silver is looking at that and asking "what's the point?".

And there are so many avenues where a player becomes known now that anyone who cares knows about these guys before they ever play in college. The NFL drafts a ton of guys, even ones from big schools, that a majority of fans now next to nothing about. The NBA has reached a point where it can probably do the same without taking a huge hit in terms of popularity. Whether they actually want to do that (because really, why completely overhaul a system that is working relatively well?) is a valid question.

 

[LineSkiCat14]

If you take away the top10 recruits, the cream still rises to the top. I have to imagine that your 20-11 guys become the college stars and could be very compelling players in the 2nd season. Imagine our current lineup for the up coming season. All but Diallo and Knox would be here for 2 years. Fans like it because they can identify more with players who stay longer (this was a hurdle for many fans in the 1AD era).

I'm not so sure the college product dies just because the top5-10 guys never play a game. Now, what that means for the sport when college talent becomes LESS tied to the NBA, where the payday is, is another story. But I still think the product remains solid.

 

[Cowtown Cat]

@brianpoe Let me start off by saying that if this expanded D (G) League comes to fruition, college basketball will be done. The talent level will be exponentially weaker. Second, this will not "force" programs not to cheat. It is simply damage control on the part of the Commissioner, IMO. He's trying to put something at fault here and he's claiming it's the OAD system. The problem, as we all know, is the big time shoe companies. As far as Cal and UK are concerned, I think it hurts the program for obvious reasons. The only hope I have is the fact that Cal is exceptional at developing talent. Only problem there is if they expand the D League, how big will the actual talent pool be? Seems to me that all the borderline NBA talent will be playing in the D League as opposed to college. I think this is an absolutely terrible idea. It will kill off college ball.

 

[weatherbird]

You're right that a minor league would never, ever approach the popularity of the college game, but here's the thing about that: How does the NBA currently profit from the college game? In a direct financial sense, they don't, at all, so if the potential is there to make a profit from a minor league, no matter how small, it's still something they currently don't have.

Of course, that needs to be measured against what the NBA does currently gain from the college game: name recognition for draft picks, and 0 expenditure on developing 18 year old players. And those are 2 not-insignificant things. However, I think they're becoming less and less significant, and I think that's where Adam Silver is coming from. If Markelle Fultz goes to Washington and loses 22 games, him playing college basketball is doing next to nothing that the NBA couldn't do itself. He was barely seen nationally, and there's not a lot of evidence that his year in college did much to improve his game. Silver is looking at that and asking "what's the point?".

And there are so many avenues where a player becomes known now that anyone who cares knows about these guys before they ever play in college. The NFL drafts a ton of guys, even ones from big schools, that a majority of fans now next to nothing about. The NBA has reached a point where it can probably do the same without taking a huge hit in terms of popularity. Whether they actually want to do that (because really, why completely overhaul a system that is working relatively well?) is a valid question.

As I said at the end of my rambling, I think Silver is ultimately posturing for making a deal with college basketball, where instead of actually separating the two, he more links them together, and adds a cut of the big money college basketball is making now. Imagine a world where Silver cuts a deal to make College Basketball a draft and stash situation. All players become immediately eligible after one year removed from high school. Once drafted, a decision could be made about whether that player needs to be called up or not. This way the top 30 or so prospects will generally get called up, but everybody else remains in college. Now the player would have the option obviously of dropping out of college, but the chances to get called up become very slim. Once the player is called up, a contract is signed, eligibility over. If the player is drafted and never called up, then the player receives a payout upon completing a degree. Players like the Harrisons and Dakari remain in college 3 or 4 years developing which helps eliminate the need for the cost center G-League. It keeps more talent in college making it more marketable. In return for this deal, the NBA will promote the college game, and receive a cut of the major profits. Players are protected as they are allowed to stay in college after being drafted to help get a degree that they may one day have to use while also getting a little bonus for graduating if they don't make it, the NBA gets a more mature player that has built his brand (in most cases), and the college game gets to keep borderline players longer. Obviously, the deal would be more complex than this, and there would be issues to work out, but it would really benefit both sides.

The issue with either the current rule or allowing kids to go straight from high school is that handlers and agents are causing kids today to make bad decisions. There are a lot more kids leaving early who aren't ready now than there ever was before. If kids are allowed to go straight from high school, you can count on just about every 5 star kid entering the draft, either because they think they are good enough, or they have no choice as they have already jeopardized their eligibility.

 

[brianpoe]

If you take away the top10 recruits, the cream still rises to the top. I have to imagine that your 20-11 guys become the college stars and could be very compelling players in the 2nd season. Imagine our current lineup for the up coming season. All but Diallo and Knox would be here for 2 years. Fans like it because they can identify more with players who stay longer (this was a hurdle for many fans in the 1AD era).

I'm not so sure the college product dies just because the top5-10 guys never play a game. Now, what that means for the sport when college talent becomes LESS tied to the NBA, where the payday is, is another story. But I still think the product remains solid.

I disagree with your assessment that it will only be 5-10 guys.

Richards would be gone based upon being 7' and extremely athletic. If UK is willing to take a chance on a kid you better bet the NBA will for only a $100k.

You will see the top 15 consider it and then all the way up to #40 for those kids with great size (over 6'9) and athletic ability despite basketball skills.

I would bet you see a much shorter college game as time goes on.

 

[kydmb99]

@brianpoe Let me start off by saying that if this expanded D (G) League comes to fruition, college basketball will be done. The talent level will be exponentially weaker. Second, this will not "force" programs not to cheat. It is simply damage control on the part of the Commissioner, IMO. He's trying to put something at fault here and he's claiming it's the OAD system. The problem, as we all know, is the big time shoe companies. As far as Cal and UK are concerned, I think it hurts the program for obvious reasons. The only hope I have is the fact that Cal is exceptional at developing talent. Only problem there is if they expand the D League, how big will the actual talent pool be? Seems to me that all the borderline NBA talent will be playing in the D League as opposed to college. I think this is an absolutely terrible idea. It will kill off college ball.

This. Can't believe the "This will be great for college basketball!" takes. This plus the expanded, revamped developmental league will effectively kill college basketball as we know it.

 

[The_Answer1313]

Before the one and done was in effect Cal coached 14 years and went to one final four

In 11 years of the one and done Cal's been to 5 Final 4s

Yeah but let’s be honest here. He didn’t have the resources he has at UK back then either.

But I do agree it hurts us

 

[The_Answer1313]

If you take away the top10 recruits, the cream still rises to the top. I have to imagine that your 20-11 guys become the college stars and could be very compelling players in the 2nd season. Imagine our current lineup for the up coming season. All but Diallo and Knox would be here for 2 years. Fans like it because they can identify more with players who stay longer (this was a hurdle for many fans in the 1AD era).

I'm not so sure the college product dies just because the top5-10 guys never play a game. Now, what that means for the sport when college talent becomes LESS tied to the NBA, where the payday is, is another story. But I still think the product remains solid.

The cream still rises
We still get the best available guys.

But the gap in talent shrinks. And that is where it hurts

 

[brianpoe]

Yeah but let’s be honest here. He didn’t have the resources he has at UK back then either.

But I do agree it hurts us

Absolutely, he will do better than UMass of course. But it wont help to level the talent playing field.

 

[LineSkiCat14]

Because you are wrong in your assessment that it will only be 5-10 guys.

Richards would be gone based upon being 7' and extremely athletic. If UK is willing to take a chance on a kid you better bet the NBA will for only a $100k.

You will see the top 15 consider it and then all the way up to #40 for those kids with great size (over 6'9) and athletic ability despite basketball skills.

I would bet you see a much shorter college game as time goes on.

You think it's going to be more than 5 to 10? It was never that many before 2005 in a given year.

Kentucky taking a chance is NOT the same as the NBA. The NBA has one shot, Kentucky has many. They can stack a roster with five top10 guys but the Celtics can't. I'm not sure an NBA team would take Richards, but he does have that upside. Maybe? More importantly, I guess, WHEN do they take him? What's the sweet spot where anything later would make sense for a guy like Richards to play a year of college and grow?

Also, do early draft entrants scare off others? If all the top10 guys go, plus international draft and whatever is in college (Obviously college becomes watered down).. does the 11th guy take the risk? What if the top15 go? Can the 16th guy afford to take a chance?

 

[Joneslab]

Don't think an expanded minor league would kill college basketball. Mainly because the fan involvement is relatively nil with a lot of these teams.

The franchises will have to dump an enormous amount of money into the league to entice these players, and then they'll have to keep the better players in the minor leagues to entice the fans. A lot of these more high-profile players aren't minor league players; they're ready for the NBA on day one.

You just don't see a lot of fans clamoring for edge-of-the-lottery talent in Delaware on a random Thursday night.

 

[LineSkiCat14]

I want to say that I'm not in the camp that thinks this is a great thing, either. Kentucky will fall back to earth a bit without that top talent. Rosters become more stable.

But this won't kill college basketball. They survived, very well, when players could jump out of Highschool. I don't think a cevelopmental league that no one will watch, will do much damage. It's us, as Kentucky fans, expecting an elite team, that could suffer... and that does suck.

 

[brianpoe]

You think it's going to be more than 5 to 10? It was never that many before 2005 in a given year.

Kentucky taking a chance is NOT the same as the NBA. The NBA has one shot, Kentucky has many. They can stack a roster with five top10 guys but the Celtics can't. I'm not sure an NBA team would take Richards, but he does have that upside. Maybe? More importantly, I guess, WHEN do they take him? What's the sweet spot where anything later would make sense for a guy like Richards to play a year of college and grow?

Also, do early draft entrants scare off others? If all the top10 guys go, plus international draft and whatever is in college (Obviously college becomes watered down).. does the 11th guy take the risk? What if the top15 go? Can the 16th guy afford to take a chance?

Why are you comparing this to 2005? The risks of 2005 have been eliminated.

The draft has nothing to do with the conversation.

The situation could realistically be 450 open spots in the G-League with salaries reaching $250K, 24/7 basketball with NBA coaches, and the opportunity to be called up to the league at any time versus being stuck in school for 2 years...


What are your thoughts on this?

 

[Joneslab]

It's definitely not a great thing.

People who say "At least we can go back to four-year players!" have no idea what they're talking about.

We've had years and years of four-year players. It isn't as good as this. It simply isn't.

What Kentucky fans tend to be drawn to is the idea of four-year players. It's a romantic idea. But if the field is evened out and the world becomes flat without these superstars, not only is the game watered-down but Kentucky's amenities and all these things we have to sell become a little less enticing. We're built to recruit elite, top-of-the-line, NBA talent. That's the point of all this stuff.

 

[brianpoe]

Don't think an expanded minor league would kill college basketball. Mainly because the fan involvement is relatively nil with a lot of these teams.

The franchises will have to dump an enormous amount of money into the league to entice these players, and then they'll have to keep the better players in the minor leagues to entice the fans. A lot of these more high-profile players aren't minor league players; they're ready for the NBA on day one.

You just don't see a lot of fans clamoring for edge-of-the-lottery talent in Delaware on a random Thursday night.

The highest profile players will get drafted, the rest will go to the g league.

If NBA teams pay every G-League player $100k that is only $1.5m per year - to stash multiple potential lottery picks - cheap and easy investment.

Fans for the G-League dont matter.

 

[Darkmyst00]

The only people who want the 1 and Done rule are the NBA player's agents. That's who you have to get on board with the change and I don't see how any of what's going on now will alter their view.

 

[Joneslab]

The highest profile players will get drafted, the rest will go to the g league.

If NBA teams pay every G-League player $100k that is only $1.5m per year - to stash multiple potential lottery picks - cheap and easy investment.

Fans for the G-League dont matter.

I'm not convinced the NBA can sustain that sort of thing. In the short-term, yes. Long-term...not sure.

Some of these franchises are pretty modest. It wasn't that long ago that the NBA was trying to figure out ways to save a handful of the smaller-market teams because they were flailing.

 

[brianpoe]

The only people who want the 1 and Done rule are the NBA player's agents. That's who you have to get on board with the change and I don't see how any of what's going on now will alter their view.

Every UK fan should want the OAD rule or the 2AD rule without the straight to the league option.

 

[JonathanW]

The reason the football and baseball models don't work is because they're for football and baseball.

A kid drafted in baseball straight out of high school knows he's a handful of years away from playing in the majors. He gets his signing bonus, but he's not going to see MLB action for a while.

In basketball, the top rookies are often handed the keys to the franchise.


Obviously, the NBA is trying to build a paid minor league system in the G-League. If that succeeds, college basketball is done.

The reason this idea is paired with two and done instead of one and done is because the NBA eventually *wants* to push more players into the G-League and they know the best guys won't commit to two years in college instead of a few hundred thousand dollars plus a signing bonus.

It grows the talent pool and makes the G-League more marketable and competitive. Plus, the two-way contract means they can call a kid up at any time they need him. It takes all of the risk away from reaching for unproven 18 year olds but lets you own their rights and reap the benefits if he pans out.

And honestly, it's fair and smart. It's just bad for something we all love.

You are right that the sports are different, and so one model may not work for different sports.
BUT...
You are wrong in saying that if the G-League succeeds, then college basketball is done.

Professional sports has some players that play for 10+ years not only in the league, but for the same team. This makes it easier (compared to college players who play for 1 to a max 4 years) for fans to build an interest in the player & thus the team. Despite that, and despite that pro sports is more popular than college sports, I would argue that fans of college sports teams are more loyal to their team than pro sports fans are. You see some pro sports fans (bandwagon) jump from one team to another because the player changed teams, or because the fan moved to a new city. You rarely if ever see that in college sports.

Secondly, even if you just remove the top 30 HS Seniors every year, there are still a lot of good and impactful players out there. Actually what it might do is lesson the gap between the top teams & those at the lower tiers, creating a better competitive balance. And in about any sports league, competitive balance almost always leads to more fan interest (that is why pro leagues strive for competitive balance with their draft order and FA rules & salary caps).

Just since Cal has been here, even with a revamped G-league and new NBA draft rules, UK would still likely have brought in the following players:
maybe Bledsoe
Lamb
Wiltjer
WCS
Lee
Willis
Hawkins
Ulis
Booker
Matthews
Humphries
Wynyard
SKJ
maybe Gabriel
Green
SGA
Baker
Richards
maybe Washington

 

[Cowtown Cat]

Why are you comparing this to 2005? The risks of 2005 have been eliminated.

The draft has nothing to do with the conversation.

The situation could realistically be 450 open spots in the G-League with salaries reaching $250K, 24/7 basketball with NBA coaches, and the opportunity to be called up to the league at any time versus being stuck in school for 2 years...


What are your thoughts on this?

This right here is the big issue @LineSkiCat14

 

[brianpoe]

I'm not convinced the NBA can sustain that sort of thing. In the short-term, yes. Long-term...not sure.

Some of these franchises are pretty modest. It wasn't that long ago that the NBA was trying to figure out ways to save a handful of the smaller-market teams because they were flailing.

Look at all those inflated salaries for non-stars:

Jrue Holiday 5 years $131M
Reggie Jackson 3 yrs $51M
Tyler Johnson 3 yrs $44M
Evan Fourier 4yrs $68M
Nick Batum 4 yrs $99M

I could go on and on...

And you dont think a franchise can spare $1.5M for 15 players of which 3-5 could be potential lottery picks had they gone to college? This is super cheap, money is not the issue.

 

[Cowtown Cat]

Now, IF the D League doesn't expand I believe UK and college ball will be fine. If it does expand, well it's curtains.

 

[LineSkiCat14]

Why are you comparing this to 2005? The risks of 2005 have been eliminated.

The draft has nothing to do with the conversation.

The situation could realistically be 450 open spots in the G-League with salaries reaching $250K, 24/7 basketball with NBA coaches, and the opportunity to be called up to the league at any time versus being stuck in school for 2 years...


What are your thoughts on this?

Well to start, not everyone is going to make $250,000/year. That's the max, right? And we've already heard most won't make near that. Do we know of an average? I'm gonna guess 70's to 80's? Also, keep in mind there's already the D-league, all those players go to the G-league correct? Or do we have two different leagues.. ALso, what about those so-so players who arent' good enough for the NBA, but can make good money in the G-League. Jimmer comes to mind. He'd start in the G-league, and that's a spot that makes good money. Not many of those to go around..

What's the goal? We all agree it's to make at least a few milly, right? The G-league can get you part of the way there, but all you're guaranteed is maybe a few thousand dollars. You effectively want to show just enough, but not too much, to get a few million from the NBA.

Is the G-League some automatic better decision for this? I'm not sure.

 

[brianpoe]

You are right that the sports are different, and so one model may not work for different sports.
BUT...
You are wrong in saying that if the G-League succeeds, then college basketball is done.

Professional sports has some players that play for 10+ years not only in the league, but for the same team. This makes it easier (compared to college players who play for 1 to a max 4 years) for fans to build an interest in the player & thus the team. Despite that, and despite that pro sports is more popular than college sports, I would argue that fans of college sports teams are more loyal to their team than pro sports fans are. You see some pro sports fans (bandwagon) jump from one team to another because the player changed teams, or because the fan moved to a new city. You rarely if ever see that in college sports.

Secondly, even if you just remove the top 30 HS Seniors every year, there are still a lot of good and impactful players out there. Actually what it might do is lesson the gap between the top teams & those at the lower tiers, creating a better competitive balance. And in about any sports league, competitive balance almost always leads to more fan interest (that is why pro leagues strive for competitive balance with their draft order and FA rules & salary caps).

Just since Cal has been here, even with a revamped G-league and new NBA draft rules, UK would still likely have brought in the following players:
maybe Bledsoe
Lamb
Wiltjer
WCS
Lee
Willis
Hawkins
Ulis
Booker
Matthews
Humphries
Wynyard
SKJ
maybe Gabriel
Green
SGA
Baker
Richards
maybe Washington

I dissagree with:

Bledsoe - no way he can turn down 6 figures after living in a car.

Richards, Gabriel, Washington, and WCS could all go based upon incredible measurables. Every athletic big man could become a prime target - you cant teach size and athleticism. 2 years of 24/7 NBA coaching and getting paid?

So UK is left with:

Wiltjer, Lee, Willis, Hawkins, Ulis, Humphries, Wynard... some exiting fast paste action there....

 

[LineSkiCat14]

If anything, the G-league hurts the eurogame the most.. Well, let me ask, what are the salaries of playing in Turkey or China? If you can make comparable money in the US, you're going to stay here.

 

[JonathanW]

That's pretty much the only way the NCAA will be able to combat the NBA if the NBA really decides to put some effort into developing their own talent.

We're all college basketball fans here, but the reality is that college basketball (and football, really) are unnatural. The NBA and the NFL are the only 2 professional sports leagues on the planet that rely on colleges to develop players, and that happened only because the college versions of those sports were popular before the professional versions, with the professional versions actually being created expressly to profit from the popularity of the college versions. Baseball never had that, because the professional version of the game preceded the college version.

All of that was a long, long time ago now, though, and the reality is that the NFL and the NBA don't really need the college game any more. Especially the NBA, because of the limited roster size needed for a team. The truth is that dozens of the best players every year would gladly skip college entirely if they could make 100K a year for 2-3 years in an NBA developmental program. Spending 5-10 million dollars a year to run a minor league franchise would be pocket change for any NBA team, and honestly, if they went whole-hog into it, maybe made it mainly a summer thing, they could very possibly turn a profit.

College basketball needs to stop fighting reality. If college basketball is still going to be a good place for future professionals to develop, they need to stop throwing up so many ridiculous roadblocks based on the asinine "student-athlete" concept.

The NCAA has just 1 bargaining chip. It's not a huge chip, so they should select how they should try to spend (negotiate with) it wisely. That chip is what also should be the morally right thing to do anyway. And that is to allow players to be drafted, and return to school (& play) if they aren't drafted, or even if they don't like their draft position, just as long as they don't sign a contract. NBA teams want to limit risk, and the NCAA allowing players to return who were drafted late 1st or in the 2nd round is added risk they would prefer to avoid.
So the NCAA should meet w/ Silver and say we want to see your options, and say we will do the above if you employ options X or Y (or unless you employ options A, B or C).

 

[Joneslab]

And you dont think a franchise can spare $1.5M for 15 players of which 3-5 could be potential lottery picks had they gone to college? This is super cheap, money is not the issue.

Maybe not when you project it forward a decade and start thinking about the sustainability of the thing.

We're about to enter into an era in the NBA that mirrors baseball. I.e. a situation where you have five to seven monoliths and a lot of little fish.

I mean, have you ever watched a d-league game? Know anybody who has? I know basketball-crazy fools, and am one, but I have never tuned into a d-league game in my life and would never.

If you think about how the NBA could sustain this you have to start thinking about revenue, and then you think about what sort of market there is for basketball like this; e.g. developmental "practice" basketball nestled in tiny markets. It's a nice idea theoretically but I think when the rubber meets the road they'll balk at it.

It's a much different deal than baseball because baseball has this enormous amount of players, and because farm baseball is stitched in to the overall game. Also because, as others have pointed out, 18-year-olds right out of high school don't often make it to the Majors. That could happen commonly in the NBA if there weren't a OAD rule in effect.

 

[brianpoe]

Well to start, not everyone is going to make $250,000/year. That's the max, right? And we've already heard most won't make near that. Do we know of an average? I'm gonna guess 70's to 80's? Also, keep in mind there's already the D-league, all those players go to the G-league correct? Or do we have two different leagues.. ALso, what about those so-so players who arent' good enough for the NBA, but can make good money in the G-League. Jimmer comes to mind. He'd start in the G-league, and that's a spot that makes good money. Not many of those to go around..

What's the goal? We all agree it's to make at least a few milly, right? The G-league can get you part of the way there, but all you're guaranteed is maybe a few thousand dollars. You effectively want to show just enough, but not too much, to get a few million from the NBA.

Is the G-League some automatic better decision for this? I'm not sure.

You are correct we dont know very much, but even at $70-80k, 24/7 basketball, NBA coaches, the opportunity be called up at any time is still a much more attractive option to many than no money in college and having to wait 2 years.

Automatic better decision? Who knows? I'll always prefer the college route for multiple reasons.

 

[brianpoe]

Maybe not when you project it forward a decade and start thinking about the sustainability of the thing.

We're about to enter into an era in the NBA that mirrors baseball. I.e. a situation where you have five to seven monoliths and a lot of little fish.

I mean, have you ever watched a d-league game? Know anybody who has? I know basketball-crazy fools, and am one, but I have never tuned into a d-league game in my life and would never.

If you think about how the NBA could sustain this you have to start thinking about revenue, and then you think about what sort of market there is for basketball like this; e.g. developmental "practice" basketball nestled in tiny markets. It's a nice idea theoretically but I think when the rubber meets the road they'll balk at it.

It's a much different deal than baseball because baseball has this enormous amount of players, and because farm baseball is stitched in to the overall game. Also because, as others have pointed out, 18-year-olds right out of high school don't often make it to the Majors. That could happen commonly in the NBA if there weren't a OAD rule in effect.

Projected out over years it is hard to say, but anything under a couple of million in the near future would be a steal for the rights to multiple quality players.

 

[Cowtown Cat]

I know if I was 18 years old again and had the option of going to college or going to a farm team for close to $100,000; I'm going to get that money.

 

[Blueaz]

The G-League not being profitable is exactly why I think he actually has alternative plans. Get rid of a pure cost center, get a cut of the NCAA profits, all while protecting his customers (NBA teams). All he has to do is scare the NCAA into believing the end is near, and they will cut a deal to salvage it. It's at least an interesting thought.

IMO...Silver thinks the NBA will be more profitable...off setting the G league cost.
I disagree...there won't be guys like me buying season tix for the suns to see my ex-cats play

edit...or watching of TV....or buying apparel, etc

expanding the "base player" (and losing 20-40 good to great college players) in the G-league will hurt the NBA revenue in the long term and CBB. It's a lose, lose

 

[JonathanW]

I dissagree with:

Bledsoe - no way he can turn down 6 figures after living in a car.

Richards, Gabriel, Washington, and WCS could all go based upon incredible measurables. Every athletic big man could become a prime target - you cant teach size and athleticism. 2 years of 24/7 NBA coaching and getting paid?

So UK is left with:

Wiltjer, Lee, Willis, Hawkins, Ulis, Humphries, Wynard... some exiting fast paste action there....

Just how many rounds are you having the NBA draft?

Bledsoe was ranked #57 in Rivals, and at 6'1 he would not have been drafted in a 5 round draft.
WCS had great measureables, and very limited basketball skill, he was considered a project. I was higher on him than most thinking he had good hands because he was a WR. Most on this board thought he was a 4 yr player.
I said "maybe" w/ Gabriel, as we saw he was pretty raw. But a team might have taken a flier on him.
Washington will be here for his SOPH year. Yes he has great reach, but he's 6'7. He is undersized for his position!
Richards, well see WCS above, although Richards was rated higher, so he could be a "maybe"

 

[Joneslab]

I know if I was 18 years old again and had the option of going to college or going to a farm team for close to $100,000; I'm going to get that money.

Silver pointed out how Fultz and Porter have gone to lesser-known schools the last two years.

I think his point is that those players are essentially trying to hide on non-NCAA Tournament teams, bide their time in obscurity for a year, and then be drafted. The instruction they need may not be there, and the NBA may be getting them as basically unchanged players from what they were at 18.

The comeback to this, and the best-case scenario for everyone, is to quash this idea of the NCAA as a bastion of amateurism. Let college basketball become developmental basketball, let it operate like the Euroleagues, allow the NBA and the colleges to work hand in hand, and let some of these kids make money if they're good enough.

There's too much talk of fairness and equity. We should treat college as a have-/have-not and let the best players rise to the top if they have the skill. Only way to do this is to root out once and for all the NCAA.

 

[Dablueman]

My friends

@Dablueman @TexKat @Wildcatfan2381 @catzcan @Jmeeks54thebest @TeoJ @MbergCat @Chuckinden @Pulaski Cat Fan @KentuckyRLD @Cowtown Cat @sluggercatfan @blubo @yoshukai

I am anxious to hear your responses to the above quotes.


This doesnt stop any schools from cheating.

Those of you thinking that only 4-5 kids will leave again are totally wrong. Raising D/G league salaries to $250k will result in way more players leaving. Overseas teams have already jumped into the mix the last few seasons when given the opportunity.

So, we may be missing out not only on the John Walls, Cousins, KATs and Anthony Davis', but also Fox, Monk, Knox, etc.

How many times will Calipari be played to the end of the recruiting season like Pitino was with Telfair?

And as mentioned, Cal went to 1 FF in 14 years pre-OAD, he's been to 5 since. Parity becomes a much bigger issue.

NCAA will be void of any superstar players.

If your ideal college basketball is a remake of Hoosiers, then I guess this is for you.

Other than you can't handle players leaving and roster turnover, why is getting rid of the OAD a good or even an acceptable thing?


Interested in your thoughts.

Honestly i think you will see more go pro than 12 years ago more along the lines of 7 or 8 probably 5 or 6 that need too and a couple who don't.

just don't think the league pulls the kids that people think. Those individual g league teams dont have the money to pay those 250 thousand dollar salaries meaning that an NBA team will have to draft them and place them there and pay them how many NBA teams will actually waste one of their 2 draft spots on a project that you know will have to go to the g league?

All these kids first real money isn't their first contract its their first endorsement deal. Cal sells these kids on Maximizing their value. I still say for a certain group (the group Cal seems to be focused on) the value of going to UK getting your name out there and well known getting better draft position is still gonna sway a handful of real difference makers in college to play college ball. Most likely will be UK and Duke raking those up.

Now you already have foreign teams offering these kids more than 250grand. Wasn't China who offered our highest rated player a million dollars? He turned it down. We all thought we would have a bunch of kids go that route. Plus the gleagues salaries dont really mean anything dont tell me a top ten kid in hs who could havd opted for the g league all along wouldnt have a 7 figure shoe contract. Right off g league or not. So the money has always been there for a kid to go to the g league.

That being said we have a coach who is a master at finding a kid about to be a late bloomer. Even if its worse case scenarios and most of the top 20 goes pro. ur still gonna see the Devin Bookers the Vanderbilts (who may be our best player if u listen to people) WCS, SGA, Gabriel, Jones, Ullis to go with the one or 2 top 15 guys that will opt for college meaning this isn't Memphis this is UK the caliber of talent Cal will bring in will still be way better than every div one team not named Duke. This year for example we still get almost our entire recruiting class including Knox. Only One we probably dont get is diallo who I am not sure wouldn't still want to be coached by Cal to maximize his draft position.

Something that is forgotten in this a little is ego. A kid going to UK gets to still be in the white hot spotlight and have ur highlights on sportscenter and be on national TV not only maximizing that endorsement dollar but allowing them to be the man while they prep for the pros

 

[weatherbird]

Projected out over years it is hard to say, but anything under a couple of million in the near future would be a steal for the rights to multiple quality players.

The problem is that the couple of million only pay the players. The actual cost of doing this would be much higher than that. I would guess in the 10 million range by the time they secure sites to play, travel, facilities, coaches, management and so on. Maybe that is nothing to them, but it is more than they are paying now. Still believe Silver is posturing.