If one and done is eliminated, how will that affect UK?
- Thread starter Primedfor9
- Start date
The NBA does have a little interest in changing it because they'd get better players coming out after two years but they really don't care that much and since the player's association is dead set against it it probably is not going to happen for the foreseeable future.
Imagine how watered down if would be without OAD? The best players wouldn't even play one year.
I dont get this, if they get let kids go straight from high school, we lose the best and yet the others can still leave after one year.... how is this more enjoyable?
Last edited:
Ahh, but you forget to mention why we would not get Brandon Knight... we would have John Wall for two years.
Thus you must look at it this way.. lose Knight but get another year from JWall and two for Teague. In our case, Teague's 2nd year had no PGs worth a hoot so we would have made out like bandits.
We also would have had AD for 2 years. Worked out well for us with Jones and Lamb.
Let kids come back after draft if they don't get picked or sign with an agent.
I think that's the quick easy way to look at it, but (depending on when the 2 and done started in this scenario) I wouldn't want to give UNC, Duke, kansas, etc more opportunities at our blue chips. Wall never went to a final four, that was Brandon knight. I don't want knight at Florida for two years under Donovan.
Cal owns the OAD. there's no reason for me to want is best recruiting tool gone. I think if people really observe the other side to the coin, they'll leave it alone. Why give all those other teams half of the players we've brought in?
I don't think the two and done is some slam dunk for cal the way others do. It would spread out half the players we've brought in. How would other rosters look then?
It would be way more competative. No, I think cal has it the best way possible right now. Me personally, I wouldn't change anything. I don't want Duke keeping last years team two years straight either.
Cal is great at selling the ONE and done. Two and done opens it up. Two and done when cal is gone is what I'd like. It would make the game better but cal can could keep his recruiting pitches while here.
First off, LOL at the notion that anything other than OAD benefits UK and Cal. By going to a 2 year plan or longer it only benefits 2nd and 3rd tier schools like UofL, Florida and Indiana etc. UK, Duke and Kansas will not get the players they currently get and the Competition will only get tougher. With our current recruiting model we need to pray that the NBA never changes their policy. Cal is Great at getting these kids, but he only has so many spots and even he slips up at times so we could be stuck with a dud for four years that prevents us from getting a superstar.
So every other school not named UK, Duke and Kansas wants the OAD rule changed... We should not. However it would improve the quality of BB and the tournament would become more balanced and you would see a lot more upsets. Parity would grow so much that UK wouldn't reach 4 FF's in 5 years (I believe that's the stat line now, which is crazy anyways).
Now, in the spirit of this thread, what could be done is this: (Assuming the NBA would adopt this rule of course) The NCAA needs to allow a camp for HS players so that NBA scouts can come in and evaluate them and give the kids feed back. Perhaps make it a week long process after the HS season finishes but before the spring signing period and only invite HS seniors that haven't committed to a school yet (generally these are the ones that have the best shot at being a OAD anyway, but not always). I would suspect that this would cause a lot more kids to wait until the spring signing period so that could be a negative.
At that point the HS player can decide whether to jump straight to the NBA or go to college , if chooses the latter he has to stay in college for 2 years. This system benefits everyone involved (except the agents). The NBA gets a full evaluation of HS talent, then they get 2 full years at minimum of in game evaluation of each player. The player gets at minimum a college degree if he stays 3-4 years and even if he busts at the next level he will have that to fall back on. He also gets 2+ years of experience, training and improvement so that when he does jump to the league he is more prepared to take on the challenges. The NCAA benefits from having a stronger league. More parity means more involvement from the fans and more involved fans mean more money and advertising.
As mentioned above, the Players not getting to their 2nd and 3rd contract as fast is a downer for them. However I'm sure that if the NBA adjusted its rookie contracts some it could compensate for this. Admittedly I am not familiar with NBA contract issues so I could be off base on this assumption though.
However as stated many times in this thread, the talent would just spread out more and would strengthen our competition.
So every other school not named UK, Duke and Kansas wants the OAD rule changed... We should not. However it would improve the quality of BB and the tournament would become more balanced and you would see a lot more upsets. Parity would grow so much that UK wouldn't reach 4 FF's in 5 years (I believe that's the stat line now, which is crazy anyways).
Now, in the spirit of this thread, what could be done is this: (Assuming the NBA would adopt this rule of course) The NCAA needs to allow a camp for HS players so that NBA scouts can come in and evaluate them and give the kids feed back. Perhaps make it a week long process after the HS season finishes but before the spring signing period and only invite HS seniors that haven't committed to a school yet (generally these are the ones that have the best shot at being a OAD anyway, but not always). I would suspect that this would cause a lot more kids to wait until the spring signing period so that could be a negative.
At that point the HS player can decide whether to jump straight to the NBA or go to college , if chooses the latter he has to stay in college for 2 years. This system benefits everyone involved (except the agents). The NBA gets a full evaluation of HS talent, then they get 2 full years at minimum of in game evaluation of each player. The player gets at minimum a college degree if he stays 3-4 years and even if he busts at the next level he will have that to fall back on. He also gets 2+ years of experience, training and improvement so that when he does jump to the league he is more prepared to take on the challenges. The NCAA benefits from having a stronger league. More parity means more involvement from the fans and more involved fans mean more money and advertising.
As mentioned above, the Players not getting to their 2nd and 3rd contract as fast is a downer for them. However I'm sure that if the NBA adjusted its rookie contracts some it could compensate for this. Admittedly I am not familiar with NBA contract issues so I could be off base on this assumption though.
However as stated many times in this thread, the talent would just spread out more and would strengthen our competition.
I am definitely not saying that the OAD isnt great for us. However, Cal will still get more than most with a 2AD.
Cal has proven he is the best with freshmen add them to a strong sophomore class and you get 38-1.
If the 2AD had been in place instead of the OAD since Cal arrived we may have looked like this, and if so, I dont care who anyone else would pickup:
2010:
Wall
Bledsoe
Miller
Paterson
Cousins
Orton
2011 Title
Wall
Bledsoe
Miller
Jones - replace PPat
Cousins
Orton
2012 Title
Teague - replace Wall
Beal - Lacy - Caldwell-Pope ? - replace Bledsoe
MKG
Miller
Jones
Davis - replace Cousins
2013 Title
Teague
Beal - Lacy - Caldwell-Pope ?
MKG
Davis
WCS
2014 - actual lineup
Harrison
Harrison
Young
Randle
WCS
Johnson
2015 - if Kat comes this is a Title team.
Harrison
Harrison
Young
Randle
WCS
Johnson
KAT*
Booker*
Ulis*
* May or may not have come, believe KAT would due to relationship
Easily see a 3peat with these lineups.
I think I agree Brian. Whether kids have to stay 2 years or not I still think Cal is the best recruiter in the game and would pick up more top kids than anyone else. As much as his team's improve from November to March, a team with stud sophomores would be ridiculous even if we missed out on one or two top guys because of lack of space.
But look at our incoming class now. Fox and Monk have signed even though Ulis and Briscoe leaving are not sure things. I still think Skal and Lee are gone, but it's not a sure thing and others disagree. Yet Bam and SKJ are signed and we may well lead for Bolden too. Other teams would also be better, yes, but I kinda feel like we'd be better better, if that makes any sense.
I think we would have more players staying at least two years. If that happened, it would minimize us losing an entire starting five and not have to see a new team every year.
What is the reasoning behind this though Chuck?
Skal would have went pro this year.
Briscoe and Murray most likely not. But both will leave after one year. Same with Booker, Lyles and Dakari - having the opportunity to go straight to the pros out of HS would have had zero effect on these guys but they still left after one year.
So the very very top players go (5-7 max in my opinion) but the ones borderline kids would still only stay one year if they get the opportunity.
I only see the straight to pros from HS as a negative for NCAA. The OADs will still be here and leave it just wont be a rule.
As much as the players don't want to raise the one-and-done rule, it is a possibility because it's one of those somewhat mid-importance issues that could be used as a bargaining chip.
"We'll only make the salary cap so high if we raise the minimum age" kind of thing.
Not a definite but definitely a possibility.
"We'll only make the salary cap so high if we raise the minimum age" kind of thing.
Not a definite but definitely a possibility.
First off, claiming that a team will win a NC just based off of the roster is ludicrous. I think we would have learned our lesson after the last 2 seasons. The only one you can say for sure we win is 2012, all the others are pure guessing and they don't hold water.
Second, I don't get why everyone just assumes that just because Cal gets the best players now that in a 2AD system he would still succeed. Think about it... Even if he got 2 out of the top 15 recruits every year he is still hampered by limited space. Half of those classes you have listed would not have come here because they want to be in the league in 2 years and to do that most players aren't willing to play behind other talented kids. Yeah it works now because they know it is only for a season and next year if they are still here they will have their shot. But ask those same kids to sit for 2 seasons and they will find PT elsewhere.
As such other teams will grow with the talent as well, not just ours, even their backups will progress because they are practicing every day against top notch NBA talent. So then in 2/3 years when it's their turn they are better themselves because of that time. Thus our opponents get deeper as well and stay good longer than they do now.
The 2AD system will benefit other teams un-proportionally to us. We will have the same amount of talent or just a little bit more than we do right now. Other schools talent will improve 100 fold and so our battle becomes much much tougher. You see all those possible lineups and I see all those possible competitors because there is no way that we get even half of what we've gotten over the last 7 years in the 2AD system.
Cal's strengths will be minimized due to Scholarships, no way around it.
Last edited:
Who's to say Cal would stay if they changed the rule? He has said he turned down Cleveland because he gets to change players' lives here. So they implement the 3-year rule next year and the only UK player that gets drafted is Alex. Then next year it's Tyler and Marcus. Then Isaiah, Skal, and Jamal. Quite a difference from the 3-7 players a year he put in from 2010-2015.
If the NBA was really serious about getting players to stay in school longer, then they would develop a rookie pay scale that was a hell of a lot more flexible than the highway robbery that's going on right now. But they're not really interested unless they can get a system in place in which they minimize risk while locking rookies into a structure where, no matter how good they turn out to be, they won't really get paid (by NBA standards) until they've been in the league 5 years. Yeah, forcing players to stay out of the draft until they're 20 is enticing to owners, but nowhere near as enticing as never, ever having to play a rookie 10 million dollars a year again (like Glenn Robinson, over 20 years ago now).
I've always been in favor of a system that offers incentives for staying in school and maximizing draft position. Lessen restrictions on free agency based on years played in college, increase the raises available in the 2nd-4th year of rookie contracts. Nothing in a system like that would increase guarantees to unproven talent, but it would offer a lot more incentive for non-lottery picks to stay in school longer.
I've always been in favor of a system that offers incentives for staying in school and maximizing draft position. Lessen restrictions on free agency based on years played in college, increase the raises available in the 2nd-4th year of rookie contracts. Nothing in a system like that would increase guarantees to unproven talent, but it would offer a lot more incentive for non-lottery picks to stay in school longer.
Saved me a ton of time. I don't know why it's so hard to understand. You give up the OAD you give up Cals best advantage and you load down other rosters who compete against you. It's a terrible idea for a UK fan with Calipari. Terrible idea.
NCAA could enforce a different rule from their side. Scholarships could be a minimum of 2 or 3 years, so schools would be penalized for early exits. Would be bad for UK, and I don't think they would do this, but certainly one possibility that doesn't rely on NBA making changes.
People saying UK and Cal would struggle without the one and done are just delusional. Keep on keeping on though. UK would still get the best players every year.
How? Let's say Anthony Davis-MKG-Marquis Teague-Kyle Wiltjer have to come back a second and third year. We don't get Nerlens, Willie, or Alex. Probably don't get half the 2014 class either. We might get some kids who don't mind backup minutes for two years until it's their turn. Then when it's their turn because Davis and MKG have gone pro, do you stick with them or "get the best player"?
Now you could counterargue that we have AD and MKG for three years, so who needs anyone else? But we wouldn't get a new set of toys every year. And there would be more pressure to get it right with each high profile recruit. What if instead of AD-MKG-Teague you started out with Goodwin-Young-Skal?
I for one am not saying he would struggle. But he would lose his best recruiting tool, and rosters would even out. There's no way Cal actually prefers a two and done. No way.
And no we wouldn't get the best players every year. Cal wouldn't be able to really recruit to a high standard every single season in that setting. That's the point some of us are making.
or, you could look at it this way:
maybe not lose Knight after all - he comes anyway, plays limited minutes off the bench, and is the starting PG his sophomore year, after spending a year practicing against a sophomore Wall and Bledsoe.
Then Teague comes in and the same thing happens - we wouldn't have what happened in 2013. The only issue is that maybe we wouldn't get the Harrisons.
Ok, ok I know - there would be a lot of other "ifs" and "maybes" - but it's nice to daydream about, yes?
You can call my opinion ludicrous.
I can state that saying Wall and company coming back for a second year against the weakest final four in history not being an overwhelmingly huge favorite is ludicrous.
Same thing in 2013 with AD, MKG and Teague.
I did not add any player that did not have a spot open.
I believe we would do just as well, depending on the year the rule starts.
Players would have to get more money which owners refuse to do already to change the rule because the veterans are against young players taking there jobs no matter what they say publicly. It'll never change, just possible the dleague might get more valuable to the ones who are in dire straights.
Brianpoe the problem is all of these kids want to be the man. To suggest Knight or Teague would come here and sit behind Wall for a year when they could start at Florida or Louisville is a stretch, wouldn't you say?
You're thinking like a fan. These recruits are looking out for their best interests, not ours.
You're thinking like a fan. These recruits are looking out for their best interests, not ours.
When did I ever say Knight or Teague would sit?
My post didnt have Knight coming to UK, you have posts confused.
I just liked one that asked if it is ok to dream.
There is absolutely zero chance knight comes to UK if Wall is here.
Knight went to a final four here. Wall did not. Making absolutes in the opposite direction is a tad ludicrous IMO.
I understand the appeal of keeping guys 2 years. But IMO it would be a negative after all is said and done. I do not want players like Brandon knight competing against UK. I'm sorry.
Knight went to a final four here. Wall did not. Making absolutes in the opposite direction is a tad ludicrous IMO.
I understand the appeal of keeping guys 2 years. But IMO it would be a negative after all is said and done. I do not want players like Brandon knight competing against UK. I'm sorry.
I agree Knight would not come with Wall here.
However, a freshman Knight would have a hard time beating Wall and company in their second year.
I would gladly take that option. Especially the squads i mentioned previously which were, imo, realistic.
What if the rule started in 2011? Think of what could have been messed up...
Even though we would have been in the hunt with these scenarios, I'd rather leave it be and take ALL of those players while keeping them away from other rosters.
Watching this discussion bounce around, you can't look at this question as to whether we have the rule or not and whether it would be good or not. When it comes, it comes. When its here you make the best of it. Sure it might be better now, but if the rule changes, then there is darn little point in wasting time whining about it. Gotta deal with reality not complain about what you lost.
When the rule changes, sure, it spreads out the talent. I still have to think that Cal gets the best of whats available to fill the spots he needs to fill. He'll have more experience on the roster to bring along the incoming players. Frankly, Cal seems to do better with returning guards and I can see why. Brian's chart detailing the players available each year versus open slots will be the norm from year to year. It was always this way years before. I think one just needs to look a top flight football program like Alabama, LSU, FSU, Ohio St., etc to see that the situation is workable. Certainly Alabama proves that it is possible to be a dominant program from year to year.
Competition in the tournament gets grim again. Parity (and yes, it has been very real all along) will be even more widespread. Close games will be more common. Ultimately, it will be good for college basketball as a whole. I don't buy the watered down scenario at all. College basketball will never miss players it never had. Essentially, if a player goes to the NBA straight out of high school, to the college ranks, it will be as if they never existed. A tongue in cheek reference here would be that I didn't miss Anthony Davis at all in the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's or 2000's. There is half a century where he was irrelevant. The point here is that a player that never played can never have an impact.
When the rule changes, sure, it spreads out the talent. I still have to think that Cal gets the best of whats available to fill the spots he needs to fill. He'll have more experience on the roster to bring along the incoming players. Frankly, Cal seems to do better with returning guards and I can see why. Brian's chart detailing the players available each year versus open slots will be the norm from year to year. It was always this way years before. I think one just needs to look a top flight football program like Alabama, LSU, FSU, Ohio St., etc to see that the situation is workable. Certainly Alabama proves that it is possible to be a dominant program from year to year.
Competition in the tournament gets grim again. Parity (and yes, it has been very real all along) will be even more widespread. Close games will be more common. Ultimately, it will be good for college basketball as a whole. I don't buy the watered down scenario at all. College basketball will never miss players it never had. Essentially, if a player goes to the NBA straight out of high school, to the college ranks, it will be as if they never existed. A tongue in cheek reference here would be that I didn't miss Anthony Davis at all in the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's or 2000's. There is half a century where he was irrelevant. The point here is that a player that never played can never have an impact.
Starting year would be critical. That is why I used 2010, that would have been perfection. What if it were 2016-17...?
Of course Cal would get the best talent available, that's not the issue. The point is that he will be fighting with one hand tied behind his back. There will be years where he can only bring in one or two players. So while we only improve slightly our opponents improve drastically. Anything other than OAD system will be a net negative for us, however it would drastically improve the sport in general.
The only change that wouldn't hurt us is if they go back to letting the kids jump straight to the league.
Edit: Notice that I never say that we couldn't succeed in in another system... Just that it would be much much more difficult even with the best scenario of players. See it's not just our team that would gain experience with second and third year players, every other team improves much much more. Because now they aren't just gaining experience to their current roster, they are throwing in a highly touted recruit that would've been on our roster.
In the tourney you never know who is going to get hot or cold. so saying that just because we kept our players it doesn't mean we wont run into a buzz saw on poor shooting night.
The only change that wouldn't hurt us is if they go back to letting the kids jump straight to the league.
Edit: Notice that I never say that we couldn't succeed in in another system... Just that it would be much much more difficult even with the best scenario of players. See it's not just our team that would gain experience with second and third year players, every other team improves much much more. Because now they aren't just gaining experience to their current roster, they are throwing in a highly touted recruit that would've been on our roster.
In the tourney you never know who is going to get hot or cold. so saying that just because we kept our players it doesn't mean we wont run into a buzz saw on poor shooting night.
Last edited:
Go to a 2 and done, but cut one year off NBA rookie salary length so they can get paid on their second contract in same time.
What the people that whine about OAD don't understand is if it goes away, that just means Cal will get the next best group of kids that's available and other teams will be left with even worse talent.
