ADVERTISEMENT

This is why players might want to stay in college...

Aike

All-American
Mar 18, 2002
26,272
38,913
113
If they are projected as late second rounders.

Another poster linked an article detailing how well the top 10 picks in the second round of the NBA draft have done financially of late. Good for them.

But it got me wondering...what about the last 10 picks? After all, there’s a very fine line sometimes between 40th and 53rd. Especially as NBA teams start their draft and stash schemes.

So I pulled the numbers for the bottom 10 picks in each of the past 10 drafts. Those picked 51-60. I looked at games played, and money made. Here are some highlights (or lowlights) of what I found (if there’s anything else you’d like to know, let me know):

48 out 100 have played in the NBA, at least 1 game. So right off the bat, your odds of getting in the league at all are about 50/50.

Only 9/48 who have played 1 or more games have played 100 or more games.

And I know what some of you are thinking (I think). Only the players who have been around a while would be likely to play a lot of games.

Sounds true enough. But in reality, it’s kind of a mixed bag.

Only one player drafted in 2008 has played over 100 games. That’s Darnell Jackson, who played 138 career games but has been out of the league since 2011.

2009 has 3 guys. 2010 has 1. 2011 has 3 again.

From 2012 through 2017 - 6 drafts - 28 players have gotten clock in the league. Of those 28, only 2 have gone over 100 games. Robert Sacre from 2012, with 189 games, and Joffrey Lauvergne from 2013 with 208.

Of course no one from the last draft could have possibly played 100 games, but drilling down further we see that no one from the last 4 classes has played more than 64 games. That was Semaj Christon, class of 2014.

What about money? We all know the success stories. Isaiah Thomas with $23 million in career earnings, or Patty Mills with $15 mil. But the overall picture isn’t that rosy.

Of the 48 players drafted from 51-60 the past 10 years, the median number of games played is 35. The median career earnings are close to $600 thousand.

So get drafted among the bottom ten of the draft, and you can flip a coin about making the league at all. If you make it, your expectation should be playing around half a season and making half a million or so.

I know things are supposed to be getting better, and maybe they are. But here are the facts:

21 players from the bottom of the past 5 drafts have played in the NBA. 1 guy (Lauvergne) has made $5 million. 3 have made over a million. The other 17 have made less than a million, with several much much less than a million.

I would say the jury is still out. But I would also say that someone not projected in the first round (or very close to it) should think long and hard about how good they’ve got in in college. Especially at a program like UK.

Edit: Only 9/48 player over 100 games. I had incorrectly said 10/48 originally. Also shifted median games played to 35, and career earnings to $600k.
 
Last edited:
If they are projected as late second rounders.

Another poster linked an article detailing how well the top 10 picks in the second round of the NBA draft have done financially of late. Good for them.

But it got me wondering...what about the last 10 picks? After all, there’s a very fine line sometimes between 40th and 53rd. Especially as NBA teams start their draft and stash schemes.

So I pulled the numbers for the bottom 10 picks in each of the past 10 drafts. Those picked 51-60. I looked at games played, and money made. Here are some highlights (or lowlights) of what I found (if there’s anything else you’d like to know, let me know):

48 out 100 have played in the NBA, at least 1 game. So right off the bat, your odds of getting in the league at all are about 50/50.

Only 10/48 who have played 1 or more games have played 100 or more games.

And I know what some of you are thinking (I think). Only the players who have been around a while would be likely to play a lot of games.

Sounds true enough. But in reality, it’s kind of a mixed bag.

Only one player drafted in 2008 has played over 100 games. That’s Darnell Jackson, who played 138 career games but has been out of the league since 2011.

2009 has 3 guys. 2010 has 1. 2011 has 3 again.

From 2012 through 2017 - 6 drafts - 28 players have gotten clock in the league. Of those 28, only 2 have gone over 100 games. Robert Sacre from 2012, with 189 games, and Joffrey Lauvergne from 2013 with 208.

Of course no one from the last draft could have possibly played 100 games, but drilling down further we see that no one from the last 4 classes has played more than 64 games. That was Semaj Christon, class of 2014.

What about money? We all know the success stories. Isaiah Thomas with $23 million in career earnings, or Patty Mills with $15 mil. But the overall picture isn’t that rosy.

Of the 48 players drafted from 51-60 the past 10 years, the median number of games played is 39. The median career earnings are close to $550 thousand.

So get drafted among the bottom ten of the draft, and you can flip a coin about making the league at all. If you make it, your expectation should be playing around half a season and making about half a million.

I know things are supposed to be getting better, and maybe they are. But here are the facts:

21 players from the bottom of the past 5 drafts have played in the NBA. 1 guy (Lauvergne) has made $5 million. 3 have made over a million. The other 17 have made less than a million, with several much much less than a million.

I would say the jury is still out. But I would also say that someone not projected in the first round (or very close to it) should think long and hard about how good they’ve got in in college. Especially at a program like UK.
Excellent analysis and breakdown, per usual. I believe @FrankUnderwood would like to see some percentages thrown into the mix, though. I don't see any, @Aike. Fractions, but no percentages. [laughing]
 
1/2 a milllon dollars invested wisely at age 22 - 23. Too bad we are made to believe it is corrupt to expect them to be so smart. A magnificent early retirement . . . virtually guaranteed. Skimp some off the top to pay to finish school. Get a job. What?
 
  • Like
Reactions: awf and CatInNC
1/2 a milllon dollars invested wisely at age 22 - 23. Too bad we are made to believe it is corrupt to expect them to be so smart. A magnificent early retirement . . . virtually guaranteed. Skimp some off the top to pay to finish school. Get a job. What?

It’s fine. That’s also the median lifetime NBA earnings for the 48% of late picks who ever play in the league. Which means that players projected late 2nd have roughly a 1/4 chance of banking that much.

And I use the term “banking” loosely. Truth is, they’ve built up expenses, borrowed money from agents, etc. That first check will get them caught up, buy a nice car, get their mom something nice. Then the second check never comes.

Not saying they will all be ruined. Many will find a gig overseas. Some will do quite well. Just saying that if they have big money NBA dreams, it probably won’t work out if they drop this far in the draft. And being a rock star at UK may not be the worst option, all things considered.
 
If they are projected as late second rounders.

Another poster linked an article detailing how well the top 10 picks in the second round of the NBA draft have done financially of late. Good for them.

But it got me wondering...what about the last 10 picks? After all, there’s a very fine line sometimes between 40th and 53rd. Especially as NBA teams start their draft and stash schemes.

So I pulled the numbers for the bottom 10 picks in each of the past 10 drafts. Those picked 51-60. I looked at games played, and money made. Here are some highlights (or lowlights) of what I found (if there’s anything else you’d like to know, let me know):

48 out 100 have played in the NBA, at least 1 game. So right off the bat, your odds of getting in the league at all are about 50/50.

Only 10/48 who have played 1 or more games have played 100 or more games.

And I know what some of you are thinking (I think). Only the players who have been around a while would be likely to play a lot of games.

Sounds true enough. But in reality, it’s kind of a mixed bag.

Only one player drafted in 2008 has played over 100 games. That’s Darnell Jackson, who played 138 career games but has been out of the league since 2011.

2009 has 3 guys. 2010 has 1. 2011 has 3 again.

From 2012 through 2017 - 6 drafts - 28 players have gotten clock in the league. Of those 28, only 2 have gone over 100 games. Robert Sacre from 2012, with 189 games, and Joffrey Lauvergne from 2013 with 208.

Of course no one from the last draft could have possibly played 100 games, but drilling down further we see that no one from the last 4 classes has played more than 64 games. That was Semaj Christon, class of 2014.

What about money? We all know the success stories. Isaiah Thomas with $23 million in career earnings, or Patty Mills with $15 mil. But the overall picture isn’t that rosy.

Of the 48 players drafted from 51-60 the past 10 years, the median number of games played is 39. The median career earnings are close to $550 thousand.

So get drafted among the bottom ten of the draft, and you can flip a coin about making the league at all. If you make it, your expectation should be playing around half a season and making about half a million.

I know things are supposed to be getting better, and maybe they are. But here are the facts:

21 players from the bottom of the past 5 drafts have played in the NBA. 1 guy (Lauvergne) has made $5 million. 3 have made over a million. The other 17 have made less than a million, with several much much less than a million.

I would say the jury is still out. But I would also say that someone not projected in the first round (or very close to it) should think long and hard about how good they’ve got in in college. Especially at a program like UK.
Please post this to the twitter/ fb account of pj. No way in hell is he going to go anywhere before 32 I'm round 1. If that happens I'll gladly eat crow but no chance. I call bs with pjs dad. I think if he were to be selected at 40 which is a stretch, his dad will tell him to stay in the draft. His dad may mention the whole not if ideas round no leave for nba, but at this point. I see daddy telling him to go for it and ignoring his itital comments

Dude will be immediately sent to the g league and what's said is if he stayed one more yr, he is considered a top 20 pick. Why he can't stay one more year is crazy. There are plenty of guys that deserve to be drafted I'm round 1 pj clearly isn't one them
 
It’s fine. That’s also the median lifetime NBA earnings for the 48% of late picks who ever play in the league. Which means that players projected late 2nd have roughly a 1/4 chance of banking that much.

And I use the term “banking” loosely. Truth is, they’ve built up expenses, borrowed money from agents, etc. That first check will get them caught up, buy a nice car, get their mom something nice. Then the second check never comes.

Not saying they will all be ruined. Many will find a gig overseas. Some will do quite well. Just saying that if they have big money NBA dreams, it probably won’t work out if they drop this far in the draft. And being a rock star at UK may not be the worst option, all things considered.

Exactly plus I know for sure at 19 years old If I was getting checks for 50k they would be gone with nothing to show but a house and car maybe. They will prolly take the boys out and splash 5k at the club just because, stupid stuff.
 
How many of those guys that went 51-60 left college early? I assume that some had graduated and some might have been euro guys.

It’s a good question. Some did, but I didn’t pull that info and won’t go through it at the moment.

As to the Euro thing, there is definitely a lot of foreign representation at this point in the draft. I would look at that a few different ways.

Some of it is draft and stash, or even draft and forget. The better teams are drafting late second round, so why add players if they don’t need the infusion? And certainly some of this contributes to the low percentages who actually play in the league.

But another way to look at that is that every draft and stash steals a spot from an American college player. All the more reason to consider staying in college unless you are pretty sure about first round or early second at worst.

You could get signed as an undrafted free agent, and it might work out, but I’m not sure why you would want to start out that way unless you lacked other options. But I know some just want out regardless.

Also, some of those Euros and other foreigners are drafted because they happen to be BPA and the team drafting them actually wants them or at least wants their rights.
 
If they are projected as late second rounders.

Another poster linked an article detailing how well the top 10 picks in the second round of the NBA draft have done financially of late. Good for them.

But it got me wondering...what about the last 10 picks? After all, there’s a very fine line sometimes between 40th and 53rd. Especially as NBA teams start their draft and stash schemes.

So I pulled the numbers for the bottom 10 picks in each of the past 10 drafts. Those picked 51-60. I looked at games played, and money made. Here are some highlights (or lowlights) of what I found (if there’s anything else you’d like to know, let me know):

48 out 100 have played in the NBA, at least 1 game. So right off the bat, your odds of getting in the league at all are about 50/50.

Only 10/48 who have played 1 or more games have played 100 or more games.

And I know what some of you are thinking (I think). Only the players who have been around a while would be likely to play a lot of games.

Sounds true enough. But in reality, it’s kind of a mixed bag.

Only one player drafted in 2008 has played over 100 games. That’s Darnell Jackson, who played 138 career games but has been out of the league since 2011.

2009 has 3 guys. 2010 has 1. 2011 has 3 again.

From 2012 through 2017 - 6 drafts - 28 players have gotten clock in the league. Of those 28, only 2 have gone over 100 games. Robert Sacre from 2012, with 189 games, and Joffrey Lauvergne from 2013 with 208.

Of course no one from the last draft could have possibly played 100 games, but drilling down further we see that no one from the last 4 classes has played more than 64 games. That was Semaj Christon, class of 2014.

What about money? We all know the success stories. Isaiah Thomas with $23 million in career earnings, or Patty Mills with $15 mil. But the overall picture isn’t that rosy.

Of the 48 players drafted from 51-60 the past 10 years, the median number of games played is 39. The median career earnings are close to $550 thousand.

So get drafted among the bottom ten of the draft, and you can flip a coin about making the league at all. If you make it, your expectation should be playing around half a season and making about half a million.

I know things are supposed to be getting better, and maybe they are. But here are the facts:

21 players from the bottom of the past 5 drafts have played in the NBA. 1 guy (Lauvergne) has made $5 million. 3 have made over a million. The other 17 have made less than a million, with several much much less than a million.

I would say the jury is still out. But I would also say that someone not projected in the first round (or very close to it) should think long and hard about how good they’ve got in in college. Especially at a program like UK.

Great post. Excellent stuff
 
Those draft spots typically belong to the best teams as well. Meaning they have the fewest needs, fewer chances of taking a spot from an established player.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aike
Reason: they still like "jorts"
d60317d0b10a83defa5041f3ba5fda7a.png
 
Those draft spots typically belong to the best teams as well. Meaning they have the fewest needs, fewer chances of taking a spot from an established player.

That’s a good point...I actually mentioned it in one of my follow up posts.
 
1/2 a milllon dollars invested wisely at age 22 - 23. Too bad we are made to believe it is corrupt to expect them to be so smart. A magnificent early retirement . . . virtually guaranteed. Skimp some off the top to pay to finish school. Get a job. What?
Yep.
That is the scenario that at least 3/4 of those guys would/did do.
 
If they are projected as late second rounders.

Another poster linked an article detailing how well the top 10 picks in the second round of the NBA draft have done financially of late. Good for them.

But it got me wondering...what about the last 10 picks? After all, there’s a very fine line sometimes between 40th and 53rd. Especially as NBA teams start their draft and stash schemes.

So I pulled the numbers for the bottom 10 picks in each of the past 10 drafts. Those picked 51-60. I looked at games played, and money made. Here are some highlights (or lowlights) of what I found (if there’s anything else you’d like to know, let me know):

48 out 100 have played in the NBA, at least 1 game. So right off the bat, your odds of getting in the league at all are about 50/50.

Only 10/48 who have played 1 or more games have played 100 or more games.

And I know what some of you are thinking (I think). Only the players who have been around a while would be likely to play a lot of games.

Sounds true enough. But in reality, it’s kind of a mixed bag.

Only one player drafted in 2008 has played over 100 games. That’s Darnell Jackson, who played 138 career games but has been out of the league since 2011.

2009 has 3 guys. 2010 has 1. 2011 has 3 again.

From 2012 through 2017 - 6 drafts - 28 players have gotten clock in the league. Of those 28, only 2 have gone over 100 games. Robert Sacre from 2012, with 189 games, and Joffrey Lauvergne from 2013 with 208.

Of course no one from the last draft could have possibly played 100 games, but drilling down further we see that no one from the last 4 classes has played more than 64 games. That was Semaj Christon, class of 2014.

What about money? We all know the success stories. Isaiah Thomas with $23 million in career earnings, or Patty Mills with $15 mil. But the overall picture isn’t that rosy.

Of the 48 players drafted from 51-60 the past 10 years, the median number of games played is 39. The median career earnings are close to $550 thousand.

So get drafted among the bottom ten of the draft, and you can flip a coin about making the league at all. If you make it, your expectation should be playing around half a season and making about half a million.

I know things are supposed to be getting better, and maybe they are. But here are the facts:

21 players from the bottom of the past 5 drafts have played in the NBA. 1 guy (Lauvergne) has made $5 million. 3 have made over a million. The other 17 have made less than a million, with several much much less than a million.

I would say the jury is still out. But I would also say that someone not projected in the first round (or very close to it) should think long and hard about how good they’ve got in in college. Especially at a program like UK.
Nice research and great post.
I love numbers. They don't lie. They don't rely on emotions and "what ifs".
 
If they are projected as late second rounders.

Another poster linked an article detailing how well the top 10 picks in the second round of the NBA draft have done financially of late. Good for them.

But it got me wondering...what about the last 10 picks? After all, there’s a very fine line sometimes between 40th and 53rd. Especially as NBA teams start their draft and stash schemes.

So I pulled the numbers for the bottom 10 picks in each of the past 10 drafts. Those picked 51-60. I looked at games played, and money made. Here are some highlights (or lowlights) of what I found (if there’s anything else you’d like to know, let me know):

48 out 100 have played in the NBA, at least 1 game. So right off the bat, your odds of getting in the league at all are about 50/50.

Only 10/48 who have played 1 or more games have played 100 or more games.

And I know what some of you are thinking (I think). Only the players who have been around a while would be likely to play a lot of games.

Sounds true enough. But in reality, it’s kind of a mixed bag.

Only one player drafted in 2008 has played over 100 games. That’s Darnell Jackson, who played 138 career games but has been out of the league since 2011.

2009 has 3 guys. 2010 has 1. 2011 has 3 again.

From 2012 through 2017 - 6 drafts - 28 players have gotten clock in the league. Of those 28, only 2 have gone over 100 games. Robert Sacre from 2012, with 189 games, and Joffrey Lauvergne from 2013 with 208.

Of course no one from the last draft could have possibly played 100 games, but drilling down further we see that no one from the last 4 classes has played more than 64 games. That was Semaj Christon, class of 2014.

What about money? We all know the success stories. Isaiah Thomas with $23 million in career earnings, or Patty Mills with $15 mil. But the overall picture isn’t that rosy.

Of the 48 players drafted from 51-60 the past 10 years, the median number of games played is 39. The median career earnings are close to $550 thousand.

So get drafted among the bottom ten of the draft, and you can flip a coin about making the league at all. If you make it, your expectation should be playing around half a season and making about half a million.

I know things are supposed to be getting better, and maybe they are. But here are the facts:

21 players from the bottom of the past 5 drafts have played in the NBA. 1 guy (Lauvergne) has made $5 million. 3 have made over a million. The other 17 have made less than a million, with several much much less than a million.

I would say the jury is still out. But I would also say that someone not projected in the first round (or very close to it) should think long and hard about how good they’ve got in in college. Especially at a program like UK.
Thank you for taking the time to do the research and providing us with this information. This is how I learn. And thanks to others who do the same. It has got to take a lot of time, and I, for one, appreciate it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blueaz and Aike
1/2 a milllon dollars invested wisely at age 22 - 23. Too bad we are made to believe it is corrupt to expect them to be so smart. A magnificent early retirement . . . virtually guaranteed. Skimp some off the top to pay to finish school. Get a job. What?
That might be true if they were given a lump sum of .5M tax free, agent free, expense free. The reality is they owe 4% off the top to their agent. 20K gone. They owe taxes, probably to federal, state and local. That probably adds up to 33% so another 166K gone. They probably owe money to their agent for private trainers and other expenses. I'd guess that's another 20K. We're down to 294K spread out over 2 years or so and we haven't paid any living expenses, gotten a car and so on.

If they are cautious and smart they may have 150K left which is good and certainly makes taking their shot valid but it isn't enough to change one's life a whole lot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JPScott and Aike
Thanks for doing the research on the other side of the coin. It shows why this is always a tough decision for any player.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aike
Darius is a great mid 2nd round success story, obviously leaving as Sr. After next year he'll be up around 5.5M for his career and his numbers this year would seem to show he should be around the league for quite a while. It has taken some time but he has matured into his role which is the same thing most kids leaving early need - time. It's going to be interesting to see how all this plays out in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aike
Noticed a lot lot of posters are (not) surprisingly absent from the thread. If the data doesn't scream go as soon as possible and chase cash now now, they don't want to hear it. Same posters. Their agenda is bizarre. Why hang on a college message board with this mindset?
 
Noticed a lot lot of posters are (not) surprisingly absent from the thread. If the data doesn't scream go as soon as possible and chase cash now now, they don't want to hear it. Same posters. Their agenda is bizarre. Why hang on a college message board with this mindset?
Those posters seem to think they are toeing the company line or have a distorted sense of what is perceived as currently correct view of the value of college sports and it's relationship to pro sports(particularly college basketball)

Do they advocate playing as few years as possible in the pro league,then get out and live happily ever after?

There is no "one way fits all" when it comes to stay vs go.Somewhere along the way everyone has come to believe there is.There are several examples of UK players who probably would have been better off 3,4 or 5 years down the road if they had stayed an extra year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: morgousky and Aike
Noticed a lot lot of posters are (not) surprisingly absent from the thread. If the data doesn't scream go as soon as possible and chase cash now now, they don't want to hear it. Same posters. Their agenda is bizarre. Why hang on a college message board with this mindset?

I hear ya, but I’m not trying to call anyone out. The numbers are interesting though, and a little worse than I would have expected.

As someone mentioned in another thread, it would be nice to see a breakdown of earnings overseas. But I still have to question the logic of leaving somewhere like Kentucky as an underclassmam to go play overseas, unless you are from another country to begin with.

By all accounts those overseas jobs are the toughest grind of all, often with little patience for the Americans. I know it works out great for some, but I would like to look at the data. My gut is to question whether that’s really the best path for most underclassmen to take.
 
I hear ya, but I’m not trying to call anyone out. The numbers are interesting though, and a little worse than I would have expected.

As someone mentioned in another thread, it would be nice to see a breakdown of earnings overseas. But I still have to question the logic of leaving somewhere like Kentucky as an underclassmam to go play overseas, unless you are from another country to begin with.

By all accounts those overseas jobs are the toughest grind of all, often with little patience for the Americans. I know it works out great for some, but I would like to look at the data. My gut is to question whether that’s really the best path for most underclassmen to take.

You didn't call them out I did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aike
Noticed a lot lot of posters are (not) surprisingly absent from the thread. If the data doesn't scream go as soon as possible and chase cash now now, they don't want to hear it. Same posters. Their agenda is bizarre. Why hang on a college message board with this mindset?
I yield. But with three caveats. One being that some players taken in those final 10 spots may have had good reason to have expected being drafted sooner, another being that a porrtion of those have realized some reasonable success (it is their right to value what success is for them, not ours), and the last being (and most important) whatever portion of those final 10 spots were consumed by players with no remaining college eligibility (moot discussion for such persons).
 
  • Like
Reactions: morgousky
I yield. But with three caveats. One being that some players taken in those final 10 spots may have had good reason to have expected being drafted sooner, another being that a porrtion of those have realized some reasonable success (it is their right to value what success is for them, not ours), and the last being (and most important) whatever portion of those final 10 spots were consumed by players with no remaining college eligibility (moot discussion for such persons).

1. Agree that some expected to be drafted sooner. All the more reason to be extremely cautious in this grown man, billion dollar world of professional sports. Players at this level (late 2nd round) are little more than pawns.

2. Agree completely. People should do what they want to do. Just laying out a case for why remaining in college and reaping the benefits associated with that decision may be worthy of consideration.

3. This is a good point. While I didn’t go back and check on all the late second round picks, I did make a separate post about undrafted underclassmen and how they have faired. You can check it out here:

https://kentucky.forums.rivals.com/...afted-underclassmen-fair-more-numbers.266470/
 
Noticed a lot lot of posters are (not) surprisingly absent from the thread. If the data doesn't scream go as soon as possible and chase cash now now, they don't want to hear it. Same posters. Their agenda is bizarre. Why hang on a college message board with this mindset?
Also, in the past 5 NBA drafts there have been a total of 11 college underclassmen drafted in spots 51 - 60.

8 juniors, 3 sophomores, zero freshmen.

The remaining 39 have been seniors and international players.

The discussion we are having is about 3 out of 50 players, unless we want to believe another year was going to bump all 8 of those juniors up (more likely it would have bumped just as many of them completely out).

So, just 6 percent of the last 5 years, positions 51 - 60. That's what this discussion is about. Or, to be more precise, 1 percent of the entire draft for the past 5 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bthaunert
The biggest issue is these guys have people in their ears telling them they are above the average and will be the exception. By the time they realize the truth, it’s too late and the only winners were the agents and handlers how just added to their stack. For a lot of players going early makes more sense now than ever given the leagues desire to take chances on upside and potential. After the first round it gets questionable and this shows the risks really well.
Well done OP!
 
Also, in the past 5 NBA drafts there have been a total of 11 college underclassmen drafted in spots 51 - 60.

8 juniors, 3 sophomores, zero freshmen.

The remaining 39 have been seniors and international players.

The discussion we are having is about 3 out of 50 players, unless we want to believe another year was going to bump all 8 of those juniors up (more likely it would have bumped just as many of them completely out).

So, just 6 percent of the last 5 years, positions 51 - 60. That's what this discussion is about. Or, to be more precise, 1 percent of the entire draft for the past 5 years.

Actually, the discussion is about the success rate of players taken late in the second round. Some are underclassmen, some are not. But based on the lack of success of players taken late in the second round, someone who has a choice should probably think long and hard.

As I mentioned, I did make a follow up post specifically addressing underclassmen who declared and were not drafted. There are 36 of those in the last 10 years who have eventually played in the league.

So nice try moving the mark. If you don’t like this discussion of late second rounders, maybe mosey over and put your two cents in on the other discussion.
 
ADVERTISEMENT