Time for the nba to have a two year rule !!!!
- Thread starter bigblue2243
- Start date
"must occur" for you. The NBA doesn't care about you or the NCAA. They're sitting pretty on a ton of TV money, decade high ratings, and a new crop of superstars, most of whom spent one year in college. They get to 1 year to see them in college and 4 years of dirt cheap evaluation time before they have to commit big money. WHY would they change? To make you happy?
They DGAF about the needs of a competing basketball brand.
If you want a two year rule, pay the players according to a binding two year contract. Make them pay it back if they leave before the contract expires. If you pay them well enough, that would take care of 99% of the problem.
If you want a two year rule, pay the players according to a binding two year contract. Make them pay it back if they leave before the contract expires. If you pay them well enough, that would take care of 99% of the problem.
That rule is a collectively bargained rule between the NBA and the players association and last I heard the players association will not let them go to a 2 year rule. So you, me the NCAA or who ever can cry all we want, that rule will be in effect for this next contract.
I agree. Hated having cousins, wall, davis, MKG, KAT, Fox, Monk, etc. etc. Its ruining the fun for us as UK fans and has made the last 8 years as a Kentucky fan basically unbearable!!!
Yep, agree here. NBA doesn't give a rats @$$ about the NCAA. NBA is basically using the NCAA as their proving ground.
If I were an NBA fringe player I would be doing everything in my power with the union to keep these players out as long as possible to preserve my job
Not completely accurate. They actually do very much.
One of the hidden inside all the discussion of the OAD is that by forcing kids to sit out a year, they 99% of the time will go to a college. The college affiliation then brings in fans wanting to watch their school's players.
That makes sense, but the union takes the opposite tack.
It's sold as a philosophical opposition to denying employment opportunities. I believe it has more to do with the agents wanting to get their hands on the players even earlier, and those agents influencing their top clients.
Probably doesn't hurt that the world's best player is so closely aligned with a top agent from a business standpoint.
i strongly believe that, if the two year rule is instituted, cal wins us a championship every four years minimum. he would crush everyone.
While they may not care about us.. the NCAA and the college game as a whole has SOME pull. If I were them, I'd push for a right-out-of highschool/2-years in college route. The NBA is going to continue to grab their John Wall's and Athony Davis' as fast as they can. That won't go away. And we as a whole, will only get better at talent evaluation as time goes on.
The 1AD, to many people, is already hurting the game. The NCAA needs to figure out how to bandage this thing any way they can. Find some way to keep players for 2+ years, even if it means we never see elite talent again. But even that has it's own problems.
Hard to say what the college game will look like in a decade or two.. I'm a bit concerned to be honest.
The 1AD, to many people, is already hurting the game. The NCAA needs to figure out how to bandage this thing any way they can. Find some way to keep players for 2+ years, even if it means we never see elite talent again. But even that has it's own problems.
Hard to say what the college game will look like in a decade or two.. I'm a bit concerned to be honest.
The draft will still pick 60 players either way.
I'm sure there are other bargaining chips the players could play in exchange for a 2 year rule.
FYI the NBA doesn't need to do anything with their own rules to satisfy a different affiliate. The NCAA can institute it easily but making it a 2 year contract. They just want to blame the NBA because they don't want to do it for whatever their reason is.
![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
You can't "pay them well enough" to pass up possible MILLIONS they can earn in the NBA.
And how do you "make them pay it back"? A legal contract. Are you going to sue them if they don't. That will go over really well with future recruits!
Even if you make it enough to change the decision of players who don't get 1st year contracts, which would probably take 5-digits, most non-major schools can't afford that. I assume you are wanting the payment to be a fixed amount, either for all players, or for all players in categories. If left up to the school then you no longer have even the slightest resemblance of an even playing field.
I've always said that the NCAA needs to pay these players to entice them to stay in school. Who in their right mind would forego money to stay in college? The times have changed but the NCAA hasn't.
This is the holdup. The thought that the NBA is some crappy product and that college basketball is the Sun. We aren't. The NBA is the sun, we're just revolving around it.
The sooner we accept that college basketball isn't the top dog, the better. We have to let go of that false notion. Cal did it. He did it to perfection. The NBA makes money, and it pays money. Kids want to play in the NBA, not for college for 4 years to wind up with a degree in communications. The ultimate goal is The League, and Calipari knew it and capitalized.
Nope, that would be unenforceable. If you try to sue a player for leaving early, you just screwed yourself with future recruits (even if they have no interest in leaving early).
First of all, the NBA ....AND.... the NBA players association have to both want a change. Or one want to change, and the other not care enough about the issue to fight on it or be willing to give it up in negotiations to get something else.
2AD would be better than OAD for college teams and fans. It would be better for some players, but not for all. What would it do for the NBA, it would give them a better evaluation of players, but in most cases isn't 1 year enough. What would it do for the players association, not much.
I think a better solution is more like MLB. NBA change to a Zo2 (Zero or Two year plan). The NBA now has the D-League which is like a minor league system, and a lot of players (even 1st round picks) play there. The NBA didn't need to see LeBron play college ball. Probably not Wall or Davis. And if they aren't quite ready yet, but you still know they will be impactful players, you can play them in the D-league for a bit. But after that top tier (say top 5-20 HS Seniors), you have guys that the NBA would like to see play some before taking a risk & drafting. They then go for 2 years.
Now what the NCAA can & should do is say, if you don't take any money from an agent, drafted or not, and you want to come back to school, then you can. Or if you take money, but give it back, then you can return also. Also they should use $ from the NCAA-Tourny to purchase plane tickets & a hotel room for players who have a workout for an NBA team.
2AD would be better than OAD for college teams and fans. It would be better for some players, but not for all. What would it do for the NBA, it would give them a better evaluation of players, but in most cases isn't 1 year enough. What would it do for the players association, not much.
I think a better solution is more like MLB. NBA change to a Zo2 (Zero or Two year plan). The NBA now has the D-League which is like a minor league system, and a lot of players (even 1st round picks) play there. The NBA didn't need to see LeBron play college ball. Probably not Wall or Davis. And if they aren't quite ready yet, but you still know they will be impactful players, you can play them in the D-league for a bit. But after that top tier (say top 5-20 HS Seniors), you have guys that the NBA would like to see play some before taking a risk & drafting. They then go for 2 years.
Now what the NCAA can & should do is say, if you don't take any money from an agent, drafted or not, and you want to come back to school, then you can. Or if you take money, but give it back, then you can return also. Also they should use $ from the NCAA-Tourny to purchase plane tickets & a hotel room for players who have a workout for an NBA team.
Then let's do away with college basketball.
Make the d-league 100 teams, so the players that aren't good enough can go make 24,000 a year.
Screw getting an education, and perhaps enjoying college.
The OP is just another misguided. And most of the replies have addressed his comments to fit. If he wants the NBA to do something to help the college game, he should make his plea for the elimination of all rules. No time to entry and, more importantly, no earnings restrictions. Re-create those conditions when new labor was not more desirable than re-signing existing. Allow the draft picks, lottery and otherwise, to bargain freely for their initial contracts. THIS is the only formula that ever kept players in school. It will re-extend avg NBA careers, greatly reduce annual turnover rate in the league, meaning fewer will make even larger amounts of money over longer periods of time . . . But it will keep many more in college longer, particularly those who have no business meddling with the NBA in the first place.
If they are 18, they can sign a contract. Seems like baseball does it. They would be bound the same. They can't break a contract just because they want to. It's legally binding.
We laugh about that.. but in reality, does the NBA *really* need the college game? Certainly, it doesn't need it as much as it did 30-40 years ago, when AAU wasn't a thing and scouting wasn't nearly as big.
I bet you could formulate the AAU circuit in a certain way, throw money into it to nail down the scouting, evaluations and other essential jobs, and make it a good enough glimpse into which players are NBA-ready and which aren't, to the extent that the Knicks wouldn't even need to bother with a college player.
Obviously, that won't happen. And I don't want it to. But it's not some crazy idea to imagine a world where college basketball didn't exist. We aren't as necessary to the game as some of you think. Thank God we have, what many believe, is the best "post-season" of all sports. Without March Madness, who knows what the state of college basketball would be.
The baseball rule is a collectively bargained agreement between the union and MLB therefore making it legal
In the current atmosphere of this country, we can all (probably forever) forget about this rule being changed. Lawyers are salivating and now throwing away their Viagra over the prospect of anyone attempting to restrict a person from making a living.
Yes but you can have a binding contract with an adult. Not saying they will but they most certainly can. Some would go over seas or sit, but the rest would play.
From Steve Kerr:
http://grantland.com/features/steve-kerr-problems-age-limit-nba/
Of course, that extra season pushes their moneymaking timetable back, which is why certain agents hate this idea so much. For NBA rookies drafted in the first round, there’s a four-year contract scale; after that, they become free agents (and eligible for much more lucrative deals). Had LeBron not been allowed in the NBA until he was 20, his first max deal wouldn’t have happened until 24 (not 22), and his second one would have happened at 28 (not 26). That’s why certain agents (some of whom influence collective bargaining more than anyone wants to admit) push to keep that age limit in the teens, even if it’s counterproductive for their clients. Do you think Tim Duncan or Ray Allen ever looks back at his career and says, “Man, I wish I’d skipped college and gotten my max contracts started earlier!” I’d bet anything that they look at it the other way — without college ball, they wouldn’t have been as good (and would have earned less money).
So why hasn’t the age limit been raised when David Stern is already on record saying he’d like to add a year? It’s an issue that, by law, must be collectively bargained with the National Basketball Player’s Association. During last year’s lockout, there were more pressing matters for both sides — really, the lockout was all about money, with each side fighting for its share of the pie. The league was fighting to shorten contract lengths, alter the percentages of raises, and bring down total salaries. Anything with a quantifiable price tag became a priority; since the financial impact of a raised age limit is so difficult to quantify, that issue was placed on the back burner. The union wasn’t giving that up without getting something in return; the league was doing a lot of taking and very little giving; and many of the agents certainly didn’t want to pursue it. That’s how the age limit slipped through the cracks.
http://grantland.com/features/steve-kerr-problems-age-limit-nba/
Of course, that extra season pushes their moneymaking timetable back, which is why certain agents hate this idea so much. For NBA rookies drafted in the first round, there’s a four-year contract scale; after that, they become free agents (and eligible for much more lucrative deals). Had LeBron not been allowed in the NBA until he was 20, his first max deal wouldn’t have happened until 24 (not 22), and his second one would have happened at 28 (not 26). That’s why certain agents (some of whom influence collective bargaining more than anyone wants to admit) push to keep that age limit in the teens, even if it’s counterproductive for their clients. Do you think Tim Duncan or Ray Allen ever looks back at his career and says, “Man, I wish I’d skipped college and gotten my max contracts started earlier!” I’d bet anything that they look at it the other way — without college ball, they wouldn’t have been as good (and would have earned less money).
So why hasn’t the age limit been raised when David Stern is already on record saying he’d like to add a year? It’s an issue that, by law, must be collectively bargained with the National Basketball Player’s Association. During last year’s lockout, there were more pressing matters for both sides — really, the lockout was all about money, with each side fighting for its share of the pie. The league was fighting to shorten contract lengths, alter the percentages of raises, and bring down total salaries. Anything with a quantifiable price tag became a priority; since the financial impact of a raised age limit is so difficult to quantify, that issue was placed on the back burner. The union wasn’t giving that up without getting something in return; the league was doing a lot of taking and very little giving; and many of the agents certainly didn’t want to pursue it. That’s how the age limit slipped through the cracks.
MLB doesn't have a flat three year rule, instead, it offers a choice:
1. You can enter directly out of high school, OR
2. After three years if you instead choose college.
You seem to be forgetting about option No. 1. If the NBA adopted the MLB's rule, we'd never see any 5 star prospects choosing to go to college again, because none of them nowadays want or expect to spend three years playing college ball for free. Hell, they'd rather go play in Europe or Asia than that.
We don't need the NBA all we need is NFL and College basketball.
You know your sport sucks when the players are running the owners.
I don't understand why the NBA players association doesn't adopt a union card type of deal. Basically if you get two teams to sign your union card "basically saying that they will draft you if your available in first round" . If you get a team to sign your card then you join the union and put your name in draft if you want. If no team is willing to commit to signing your card then obviously you should stay in school or if school isn't for you go elsewhere to play ball "overseas or other foreign lands" ?
Forget AAU. If the NBA wanted to sink money into it, they could kill college basketball by starting a real minor league for 18-21 year old players. Have 10-15 teams, pay an average of about 100K per player, keep operating costs reasonable.
If that happened, I think you would never see 60-75% of top 100 recruits play a game in college. But the NBA won't do it, because from a marketing standpoint, college basketball is vastly superior. And costs them nothing.
i'm hearing some NBA folk saw this thread and are now going to push for a rule change. the OP sold them.
That's a good point. There are some benefits of the college program. As you said, it's a free organization that develops talent and allows the NBA to evaluate from a distance.. a free distance.
However, the point is there none the less. The NBA doesn't *need* the college game. I don't love that the future of college basketball, in large part, rides on an idiot like Emmert.
Exactly. I'm not a big NBA fan and usually just watch during the playoffs but for fans in cities all around the U.S. the NBA is the big dog for basketball. Look at non-Kentucky SEC games and attendance and tell me how much schools love CBB. Outside of a few schools, no one is struggling to get good seats at games. The goal of any major D-1 player is to get to the league.
Imo, if a 2 year rule was implemented, the best of the best would never go to college, make money those 2 years playing ball somewhere and enter the draft. We would still get very good players, but the Walls and AD's of the world would cash in right out of high school.
Similar threads
