I think you could make the numbers work out pretty easily with advertising if people wanted to watch. I can't see how it's watchable.
College isn't for everyone. New option for 1 & dones.
- Thread starter hawkin
- Start date
who was the Florida player who ended up leaving mid-season because a (I think) a European pro-team offered him? This was some years ago.
I am not crazy about this concept either - because it doesn't allow the kids to have that year to evaluate themselves - or be evaluated, and know whether they can move on or not. If they wash out of this semi-pro league, they obviously aren't ready (and may never be) to go to the NBA - and college is no longer an option. Do they then transfer over seas to the European or Asian leagues?
It's almost inevitable that someone in the States will find a way to cash in on the OAD rule. Even a lot of the guys who go to college, go to class, and make good grades would probably prefer to begin playing for money at 18. If this venture proves successful we'll probably see another, or other's give it a try.
I'm sure the shoe companies would go after the kids aggressively, but that's not going to help the team pay the bills. These kids will be professionals, so the college model where the shoe money goes to the team/coach won't apply. The shoe companies will make deals directly with the players instead.
While I appreciate the ingenuity of the concept in an attempt to fill a void in the marketplace, it just won't work financially. You say scouts are going to attend the games...OK, let's assume they all attend every home game - there's a 100 tickets a game sold. Where are all of the other ticket sales going to come from? From Vegas tourists? OK, sure, you might attract some on a regular basis, but there is plenty of competition from other forms of entertainment in Vegas. To support those kinds of salaries and expenses (traveling Europe for a month won't be cheap) you need a TV deal, lots of corporate sponsors/advertisers, and big home attendance numbers. To have any of those things, you have to have an embedded, loyal fan base that is emotionally invested in the outcome of the team's games. To have that, you have to be competing to actually win something of value against opponents that your fans actually care about beating.
This is essentially just a series of exhibition games. We already see how much trouble the HS all-star games have just filling the lower arenas at the venues where they're played and that's with the intense interest from the college fanbases where these players are headed to play.
The market just won't support this model unless several such teams could be created and fan interest quickly created and developed. They would have to basically create the college model without the actual education part - a league full of UNC's.
I think it could make the college game better. It could go back to the way it used to be where you had guys staying multiple years. You would get to watch a better team product as players got more experience.
I like it....
I like it....
I've seen AAU crowds get louder than NBA summer league crowds. I mean look at all the people that came out to watch Julius Randle last summer.
Totally wrongheaded.
There has almost never been college basketball without a good portion of the best players on the planet ages 18-21 participating. The time when that has become a reality (about 94 until now) has seen a decline in the national popularity of the sport. Create an extended situation in which none of the 10 best HS players are ever setting foot on a college campus, and then yes, you eventually end up with something along the lines of college baseball. Which, BTW, has pockets of intense fan interest (just like college basketball has always had), but almost 0 national presence. Basketball will be spared the "0" part of that because of the popularity of the tournament, but it will pretty much drop off the map until March.
College basketball has been professionalizing itself for decades now, and became an ingrained part of the American sports' culture by doing so. If you really think you can take a big chunk of the best players out of that equation with no ill effects, then I think you're deluding yourself.
I actually agree that the specific model being proposed here is doomed to fail. One team playing an exhibition schedule with an over-inflated payroll? I don't see how that works. However, if a company like Nike or Adidas decided they wanted to do an expanded version of something like this, maybe thinking it could end up a better use of the millions they spend on promotion? They could end college basketball as we know it in a few weeks time. Say a 10 team league, with payrolls in the 1-2 million dollar range, just for players 18-21 years old. Nike could make that happen, could get media coverage of it, could drain college basketball of a minimum of 50% of the top 50 recruits in any given year, and could probably find a way to turn a profit.
Well this is easiler solved the McDonald's all game won't be played any longer because NCAA can say kids who participate in the game will automatically be ineligible to play college ball. Most would be on the fence wether to play in the new vegas league or college when the Mcdonalds game is played anyways and wouldn't chance accepting a invitation risking college eligiblility. There for the 700k dollar contract would be void if there is no McDonald's all Americans. Vegas leagues system would be challenged quickly by NCAA and maybe even Adam Silver. He definitely won't like this new league.
Essentially, they are funding a development league that has commitments for them to sign with this agency. Not a bad move as it is like a payday loan for the players.
Seriously somebody needs to stop this B.S. If I'm Cal, this is when I get an agent (WWW) and some boosters up and ruining and see if the little Las Vegas boys could match what we offer. There's always a way to take of things son.
The way I read it they're not talking about playing games in the States. Their talking about playing 35-50 games in Europe. They wouldn't need a venue or a fan base in the States. Many of the European teams are very popular and have their own fan bases which would attend the games. I'm guessing they are counting on a percentage of the TV revenues/gate for those games, or the European teams playing them a flat fee for the games. Either way a group whose saying they are willing to put up $3.5 million minimum plus travel, lodging, and other cost is likely smart enough to have already talked with European teams, and has put together a business plan that shows, or at least they believe, they can make money. They'd likely add to those 5 OAD's with some guys recently cut from the NBA. The big difference vs playing for a European team, at least as I see it, is the guys would be playing and traveling with a bunch of other American's. That's probably more palatable to 18 year olds then the prospect of living overseas, and playing with say a bunch of Chinese many of whom might not speak your language.
It might have a chance at longterm success if the guy has enough of a cash reserve to handle losing money for a few years until it turns profitable (and that's obviously no given by any means)
I guess there could be a worse take on all of this but I'd have to see one to believe it.
I think it's a good idea. A lot of these kids have no desire to play college ball so why should they be forced to? If they want to earn some money right now let them do it and they won't have to waste a year pretending to be interested in an institution that is just using them anyway.
It will be about as much of a threat as Europe is to college hoops. The kids with no other option will use it, the rest will take the proven path.
Who's going to coach this team? Will he develop guys? What if the four McD's AA are all centers? What if the shoe companies don't play ball because they like the system that's in place? What if the shoe companies play ball too much and don't want someone else getting their hooks in a kid who they've paid for since he was 14?
No one is going to give it a shot until it's proven to work, and it can't prove itself into someone gives it a shot. Parents also aren't going to like the idea of sending their son to Vegas and Europe in some slimeball start up league that locks him in to an agent. Not with all that risk, and not when Coach Cal and Coach K are calling every night.
Who's going to coach this team? Will he develop guys? What if the four McD's AA are all centers? What if the shoe companies don't play ball because they like the system that's in place? What if the shoe companies play ball too much and don't want someone else getting their hooks in a kid who they've paid for since he was 14?
No one is going to give it a shot until it's proven to work, and it can't prove itself into someone gives it a shot. Parents also aren't going to like the idea of sending their son to Vegas and Europe in some slimeball start up league that locks him in to an agent. Not with all that risk, and not when Coach Cal and Coach K are calling every night.
a two year rule would counter this. betting that two years of no exposure would hurt their stock more than attending college for two years, where you can actually complete a degree. but the nba and ncaa would also need the stipend thing and all that so no one "goes hungry". definitely going to be problematic.
the scouting thing i'm not sure on either. they would be watching them play european teams, when for the most part they are use to scouting the kids in college and through high school here in america. i guess they would have to take care of them in vegas too. it's probably a brilliant idea, except where are they making money lol? wonder if there are any agenda driven sponsors involved.
the scouting thing i'm not sure on either. they would be watching them play european teams, when for the most part they are use to scouting the kids in college and through high school here in america. i guess they would have to take care of them in vegas too. it's probably a brilliant idea, except where are they making money lol? wonder if there are any agenda driven sponsors involved.
quote
="BigBlueDiehard, post: 1663671, member: 4004"]I'm sure the shoe companies would go after the kids aggressively, but that's not going to help the team pay the bills. These kids will be professionals, so the college model where the shoe money goes to the team/coach won't apply. The shoe companies will make deals directly with the players instead.
While I appreciate the ingenuity of the concept in an attempt to fill a void in the marketplace, it just won't work financially. You say scouts are going to attend the games...OK, let's assume they all attend every home game - there's a 100 tickets a game sold. Where are all of the other ticket sales going to come from? From Vegas tourists? OK, sure, you might attract some on a regular basis, but there is plenty of competition from other forms of entertainment in Vegas. To support those kinds of salaries and expenses (traveling Europe for a month won't be cheap) you need a TV deal, lots of corporate sponsors/advertisers, and big home attendance numbers. To have any of those things, you have to have an embedded, loyal fan base that is emotionally invested in the outcome of the team's games. To have that, you have to be competing to actually win something of value against opponents that your fans actually care about beating.
This is essentially just a series of exhibition games. We already see how much trouble the HS all-star games have just filling the lower arenas at the venues where they're played and that's with the intense interest from the college fanbases where these players are headed to play.
The market just won't support this model unless several such teams could be created and fan interest quickly created and developed. They would have to basically create the college model without the actual education part - a league full of UNC's.[/QUOTE]
It seems to me this is based loosely on what baseball does. They give the best kids an option of getting paid coming out of HS or signing with a college though its a 3 year deal with a 4 year school but only 2 with a JUCO. I don't really see it having much effect at all for the overall college game even if it goes over. 5 of the top 25 don't attend college, the next 5 become part of the top 25, everyone will recruit them just like they did the first 25. No idea what kind of interest he can get from selling tickets and merchandise, really hard to see how this is suppose to be a money making venture, and this will ultimately be the downfall.
But kids will likely be signing shoe deals, some for more than the team owner is probably them, and I could see how it would make heading to Europe and playing for that 1 year. If it does, college fans will still cheer for their teams even if they jump a few inches lower, takes a little longer to get from one end to the other, its what fans do.
="BigBlueDiehard, post: 1663671, member: 4004"]I'm sure the shoe companies would go after the kids aggressively, but that's not going to help the team pay the bills. These kids will be professionals, so the college model where the shoe money goes to the team/coach won't apply. The shoe companies will make deals directly with the players instead.While I appreciate the ingenuity of the concept in an attempt to fill a void in the marketplace, it just won't work financially. You say scouts are going to attend the games...OK, let's assume they all attend every home game - there's a 100 tickets a game sold. Where are all of the other ticket
sales going to come from? From Vegas tourists? OK, sure, you might attract some on a regular basis, but there is plenty of competition from other forms of entertainment in Vegas. To support those kinds of salaries and expenses (traveling Europe for a month won't be cheap) you need a TV deal, lots of corporate sponsors/advertisers, and big home attendance numbers. To have any of those things, you have to have an embedded, loyal fan base that is emotionally invested in the outcome of the team's games. To have that, you have to be competing to actually win something of value against opponents that your fans actually care about beating.This is essentially just a series of exhibition games. We already
see how much trouble the HS all-star games have just filling the lower arenas at the venues where they're played and that's with the intense interest from the college fanbases where these players are headed to play.The market just won't support this model unless several such teams could be created and fan interest quickly created and developed. They would have to basically create the college model without the actual education
part - a league full of UNC's.[/QUOTE]It seems to me this is based loosely on what baseball does. They give the best kids an option of getting paid coming out of HS or signing with a college though its a 3 year deal with a 4 year school but only 2 with a JUCO. I don't really see it having much effect at all for the overall college game even if it goes over. 5 of the top 25 don't attend college, the next 5 become part of the top 25, everyone will recruit them just like they did the first 25. No idea what kind of interest he can get from selling tickets and merchandise, really hard to see how this is suppose to be a money making venture, and this will ultimately be the downfall.
But kids will likely be signing shoe deals, some for more than the team owner is probably them, and I could see how it would make heading to Europe and playing for that 1 year. If it does, college fans will still cheer for their teams even if they jump a few inches lower, takes a little longer to get from one end to the other, its what fans do.
I think its pretty clear you don't have much of a background and understanding of basketball tradition, particularly Kentucky's. As far as the decline of the national popularity is concerned, you are going to have to back that up with data. That's just silly.
I'm actually an advocate of taking those players out of the mix, by the way. I'd be much in favor of a "straight from high school to NBA" with a commitment to play college at least 2 - 3 years.
One thing you clearly are wrong headed about would be the basic fact that any population of players has a top 25 list. You pull out that top 25 and its just a new population with a different top 25. The colleges will recruit them. The fans will turn out to watch them. The sports analysts will rave over them. Just like it has always been.
And you will be wrong. . . . Headed.
I think it's pretty clear that you are completely ignorant of the fact that college basketball was, for the most part, a small, regional sport throughout most of its history, and could easily go back to being that if you remove it as the breeding ground for future superstars. It expanded to what it is today precisely BECAUSE it was the place to see future greats in a highly entertaining, competitive environment. But there is no law that says that college basketball has to remain what it has been. You drain enough talent out of a sport, and people will no longer be as interested.
You seem to be operating under the completely idiotic assumption that players are disposable commodities. As if you can take a John Wall or Anthony Davis out of the equation, replace them with someone else, and have everything be more or less the same. You're actually right that fan interest in UK basketball, specifically, would withstand that type of thing, because UK basketball is a fairly unique entity, but the idea that the college game as a whole wouldn't suffer from losing top players is insane. There probably is a threshold where college basketball won't feel much effect (maybe 5-10 guys a year), but there is also a threshold where college basketball ceases to mean anything (or at least anywhere near as much as it traditionally has) because it's just a dumping ground for players who aren't talented enough for the NBA.
If you take the top 25 players out of the NBA, or the NFL, or MLB, you can't just come up with "a new population with a different top 25". The game fundamentally changes, because the quality of the game takes a direct blow. You really think college basketball is that much different?
I think this is a great option for the money hungry kids. I'd rather see players stay all four years like they did back in the day. Just sick seeing kids use college as a NBA stepping stone.
We're not talking about the nba, nfl or mlb. Stay on topic if you want to debate. I don't have time to fuss over Godzilla beating King Kong as might be expected from a childish argument.
Yes, you can easily extract the 25 top players out of the D1 basketball population and not notice any difference. I can actually prove this. Combine all the d1 players over the last 50 years. Using your logic, those 25 players are critically important to the overall success of basketball. However at least half of those years had no such player in the top 25 all time. In those so called down years, the sport should have had a significant down turn or collapsed. However, it clearly did not. Further, we can assume that all years are not equal. Anecdotally I would offer Anthony Davis as proof. Clearly a singular player, he should have had an impact of approximately 4% free he left D1 basketball. However, no such impact is demonstrable before or since his departure. I'll restate a point which you failed to comprehend initially. One and dones deplete the D1 ranks of these falsely critical players. Rather than accummulate year over year, now that group often leaves. If you were remotely correct, we should see a downward trend which is not demonstrable. Further, there are teams that never see players of this caliber. In fact the great majority of teams do not. Most teams in the NCAA tournament do not. But the sport thrives.
The dilution effect of such a diminutive sample by the overall population is ultimately what kills your argument. Sorry. If it's any consolation, you might have an argument if 25 percent or more were taken out of d1 basketball but not merely 25 players. That's just silly.
I'm done arguing with someone so obtuse that he thinks that college basketball can't be compared to professional sports. Someone like that has their head stuck so far up their butt that they'll never see daylight. You're living in some 1950's fantasyworld of "pure amateurism" while talking about a sport where the average coach at a power conference school measures his salary in the millions, and TV contracts are measured in billions.
The most viewed game in college basketball history was the 79 title game between Michigan State and Indiana St. Why do you think that was? The viewership for NCAA finals games was at its highest from that 79 title game until the early 2000's, when it dropped sharply. The early 2000's, not so coincidentally, was the time when college basketball really started to feel the effect of constant early departures and non-arrivals. Also, not so coincidentally, there's been a general uptick in viewership since the NBA forced the best players to play in college for at least a year.
People pay money to see the best athletes in any sport. Anyone can come up with a thousand examples that illustrate the truth of that. But if you want to deny that, and act like the loss of superstar talent would have no effect, then I can't help you.
Interesting concept.
I hear a lot of chatter worried about growing league to 10 teams and stealing lots of players. I don't see that being a financially viable option as that would just be another nbdl and those players don't make that sort money (except guaranteed guys like young). That is because they get little TV money and small crowds. Would never work financially to make this a big league with big salaries.
Only way to work is to have players that are first rate but can't be in nba, like OAD players. That is just enough for one team
NBA is only entity that could halt. Just do away with OAD.
But They like OAD because they get a year to evaluate talent in something other than aau (no defense games) of high school (against no competition). So if these guys get good coaching and play legitimate games against European teams where they can be evaluated then NBA will let it go.
This concept will need an old college coach with issues that keep him out of good jobs (kelvin Samson) or an NBA coach between jobs who wants $2M salary to spend a year or two developing players.
Bottom line. Would do no more to college game than none and done did.
That didn't bother me.
I hear a lot of chatter worried about growing league to 10 teams and stealing lots of players. I don't see that being a financially viable option as that would just be another nbdl and those players don't make that sort money (except guaranteed guys like young). That is because they get little TV money and small crowds. Would never work financially to make this a big league with big salaries.
Only way to work is to have players that are first rate but can't be in nba, like OAD players. That is just enough for one team
NBA is only entity that could halt. Just do away with OAD.
But They like OAD because they get a year to evaluate talent in something other than aau (no defense games) of high school (against no competition). So if these guys get good coaching and play legitimate games against European teams where they can be evaluated then NBA will let it go.
This concept will need an old college coach with issues that keep him out of good jobs (kelvin Samson) or an NBA coach between jobs who wants $2M salary to spend a year or two developing players.
Bottom line. Would do no more to college game than none and done did.
That didn't bother me.
I figured you'd struggle with the discussion if not permitted to ramble incoherently. When you get to college, presuming you are admitted, I'd recommend a few courses in statistics. Perhaps you can continue this discussion with your father.
I am sorry to hear that the fate of college basketball hangs in the balance of the whims of the NBA players union. I really did enjoy the sport.
This whole idea was a joke by the person that was fishing. It's beyond ridiculous. I don't know though.......I might be persuaded to pay 100 bucks to see a USA, AAU team put it on Paraguay, Portugal, or Yemen. And those 20 dollar huge pretzels might work. Probably not though.
I forgot to add, that previous posters made great points, that I agree with. Everyone wants to watch quality, but in the end it really is about affiliations. You want to see "your" teams do well. It kind of trumps everything else.
I forgot to add, that previous posters made great points, that I agree with. Everyone wants to watch quality, but in the end it really is about affiliations. You want to see "your" teams do well. It kind of trumps everything else.
Last edited:
The impact isn't really small if you only recruit outliers who are on the far end of the bell curve. If all those players 3-4 SDs away from the mean are gone, then UK, Duke, Kansas, Arizona are suddenly set back much more than the other guys. They go from 99.9th percentile kids to 95th percentile kids, which is a much bigger fall than the next four schools who will then be scooted back from 95th to 92nd or whatever.
Last edited:
Similar threads
