Cuban's D League Proposal

[SWHuskyFan]

This is just a ploy to make the D league more watchable. Maybe you tune into the D league if a half dozen future stars are playing.

As for the financial implications for the kids, hard for me to get worked up about it either way. Would I like it better if these kids were forced to go to college for a few years before going pro, of course. Do I think they should actually be forced to go to college or wait 2 years, no.

Another thought is that it only makes sense for the D league to take the best kids who have a 'name'. The rest of them probably aren't good enough to play at 18 against guys who are mostly in their mid 20's. The name kids would at least draw viewers even if they weren't physically ready to play.

So in the end we're talking about the same few kids who normally mostly end up at Kentucky, Duke and NC. In the end, if those kids stop going to those schools, they'll take the best of the next group anyway. Better that we get the second tier kids who'll stay a few years while the top end recruiting schools take the one and done kids.

 

[upstater]

I think Pele played his first World Cup at 16

1958. He was almost 18 (17 and 11 months) and the youngest player ever.

 

[ctchamps]

I want this system to stay in play as it is just long enough to see the squid ridden out of town. After that I would love to see it changed.

 

[upstater]

Its corrupt because the NCAA is hiding behind the guise that they are providing a free education and that these kids are brought in as students first, basketball players second. Cuban is merely calling them out for what they are: A business, and these kids are being used. Most elite players are not attending schools for the education.

But they aren't a business. They really are schools--duplicitous, fraudulent, etc., but at the end of the day, they are schools and not for-profit businesses. Again, the ones who benefit are the ADs and coaches.

 

[upstater]

So in the end we're talking about the same few kids who normally mostly end up at Kentucky, Duke and NC. In the end, if those kids stop going to those schools, they'll take the best of the next group anyway. Better that we get the second tier kids who'll stay a few years while the top end recruiting schools take the one and done kids.

This is how things used to be before the NBA CBA. Lebron James, Kobe Bryant, many others currently in the league never went to college. Nor did Andrew Bynum!

So it's not like you'd see the NCAA's popularity drop drastically. No doubt the NCAA benefits from these stars going to college for one year, but the branding is even more important than the stars. The NBA instituted that rule because it got tired of the Stromile Swifts taking money from the veterans.

 

[ctchamps]

But they aren't a business. They really are schools--duplicitous, fraudulent, etc., but at the end of the day, they are schools and not for-profit businesses. Again, the ones who benefit are the ADs and coaches.

The AD's, compliance departments and the coaching staffs are making dollars. The rest of the monies are allocated to running the sports. Schools are not for-profit. But they are promoting sports success to increase school recognition to attract students and donations.

Their utilization of high profile sports is a form of not-for profit advertising.

 

[ctchamps]

This is how things used to be before the NBA CBA. Lebron James, Kobe Bryant, many others currently in the league never went to college. Nor did Andrew Bynum!

So it's not like you'd see the NCAA's popularity drop drastically. No doubt the NCAA benefits from these stars going to college for one year, but the branding is even more important than the stars. The NBA instituted that rule because it got tired of the Stromile Swifts taking money from the veterans.

Which branding are you talking about? Just confusion on my part.

This year more than any year, ESPN promoted the college freshman stars. Outside of Smart, a lottery pick who chose to return to college and Craft for reasons we all suspect, the hype was for the latest new thing. ESPN is constantly trying to keep things interesting in order to get it's $$$. Unless these "stars" do something in the tourneys, that hype will have been a failure and most likely be reduced next season.

 

[upstater]

The AD's, compliance departments and the coaching staffs are making dollars. The rest of the monies are allocated to running the sports. Schools are not for-profit. But they are promoting sports success to increase school recognition to attract students and donations.

Their utilization of high profile sports is a form of not-for profit advertising.

Well, it's dubious they are getting any marketing out of it. 10% of the schools do improve do to athletics marketing. Look at BC and Boise and many other schools. But for every BC and Boise, you can find a school that dropped sports and used the money to improve academics over the same period. The vast majority don't really get that bump. And some, as Andrew Zimbalist points out, actually get a negative impression (RU, for instance, is a fine academic school, that loses applicants because who wants to be associated with a perennial loser?). RU actually dropped precipitously in all rankings.

Finally, the donations are already counted as athletics revenues. Unless you're referring to blow-up stories like the Manziel dividend at Texas A&M (I grant you A&M is its own special place quite apart from most universities). Check out the finer details: $740 million in donations to A&M. A hefty amount. BUT, they included research grants as donations. I guess those are donations in a sense, but at the end of the day, they are won by faculty grant applications, and on the bottom line, they are included in the research budget, not the donations/endowment side.

The amount raised included 271.5m which is a huge amount, but it's geared toward the $450m renovation of Kyle Field. That's much to A&M's credit, BUT it's also an amount raised for facilities (not academic coffers). Again, it's good for A&M because they were bleeding red like Maryland for awhile, and in comparison to Texas and Michigan that relied on university funding for their $250m football stadium renovations, A&M managed to use private cash. One factor needs to be kept in mind: this money is pledged, and not raised. Given the %s of pledged versus raised, the actual number is considerably lower. Regardless, the money raised for the stadium will count as AD revenue, and not as money that goes to the academic side. The weird thing however is that it's going to be the academic side that provides the stadium funding and services the loan (assuming there's a loan).

 

[upstater]

Which branding are you talking about? Just confusion on my part.

This year more than any year, ESPN promoted the college freshman stars. Outside of Smart, a lottery pick who chose to return to college and Craft for reasons we all suspect, the hype was for the latest new thing. ESPN is constantly trying to keep things interesting in order to get it's $. Unless these "stars" do something in the tourneys, that hype will have been a failure and most likely be reduced next season.

University brands.

If Lebron James and Kobe Bryant had played college ball, ESPN would have hyped that as well.

 

[ctchamps]

Well, it's dubious they are getting any marketing out of it. 10% of the schools do improve do to athletics marketing. Look at BC and Boise and many other schools. But for every BC and Boise, you can find a school that dropped sports and used the money to improve academics over the same period. The vast majority don't really get that bump. And some, as Andrew Zimbalist points out, actually get a negative impression (RU, for instance, is a fine academic school, that loses applicants because who wants to be associated with a perennial loser?). RU actually dropped precipitously in all rankings.

Finally, the donations are already counted as athletics revenues. Unless you're referring to blow-up stories like the Manziel dividend at Texas A&M (I grant you A&M is its own special place quite apart from most universities). Check out the finer details: $740 million in donations to A&M. A hefty amount. BUT, they included research grants as donations. I guess those are donations in a sense, but at the end of the day, they are won by faculty grant applications, and on the bottom line, they are included in the research budget, not the donations/endowment side.

The amount raised included 271.5m which is a huge amount, but it's geared toward the $450m renovation of Kyle Field. That's much to A&M's credit, BUT it's also an amount raised for facilities (not academic coffers). Again, it's good for A&M because they were bleeding red like Maryland for awhile, and in comparison to Texas and Michigan that relied on university funding for their $250m football stadium renovations, A&M managed to use private cash. One factor needs to be kept in mind: this money is pledged, and not raised. Given the %s of pledged versus raised, the actual number is considerably lower. Regardless, the money raised for the stadium will count as AD revenue, and not as money that goes to the academic side. The weird thing however is that it's going to be the academic side that provides the stadium funding and services the loan (assuming there's a loan).

The reality is what you express. I'm just questioning why so many universities are driven to participate in the escalation of the monies allocated to get better AD's and coaches. Are so many under the false impression that they can be one of the 10%? From past post I've read by you, I'm assuming that the majority of the pressure and decision making is coming from BOT's and alumni.

BTW, I would say UConn has received a tremendous bump from its success.

 

[freescooter]

upstater, I believe Harmon Killebrew didn't play in the minors, but in recent years I can't think of anyone.

 

[MilliniumPrince]

upstater, I believe Harmon Killebrew didn't play in the minors, but in recent years I can't think of anyone.

If memory serves me, Dave Winfield always held it as a point of great pride he never spent a day in the Minors.

I think the age limit is a crock. Just more exploitation of these young men. No one complains about 17 year old hockey players, 17 year old pro golfers, and 15 year old pro tennis players (who travel the world alone in many instances). There are several reasons for the different treatment, the main one being owners know they can't trust each other or themselves. No one forces a team to draft a kid straight out of high school. So if you don't like young players on your team...don't draft them. But they know they won't be able to resist the next LeBron, Kobe, McGrady, KG, etc.

Stopping a kid, often one from poor financial cirucmstances, from becoming a millioniare simply because it suits you is anti-american. And don't bother with the "they need an education" crap. Have you seen what passes for education for a blue-chip athlete at most programs? We have passed the point where a major land grant institution like UNC has become so lazy...instead of having professors hand out "gentlemen's Cs" to athletes..they simply created false classes and gave them As.

 

[freescooter]

If memory serves me, Dave Winfield always held it as a point of great pride he never spent a day in the Minors.

I think the age limit is a crock. Just more exploitation of these young men. No one complains about 17 year old hockey players, 17 year old pro golfers, and 15 year old pro tennis players (who travel the world alone in many instances). There are several reasons for the different treatment, the main one being owners know they can't trust each other or themselves. No one forces a team to draft a kid straight out of high school. So if you don't like young players on your team...don't draft them. But they know they won't be able to resist the next LeBron, Kobe, McGrady, KG, etc.

Stopping a kid, often one from poor financial cirucmstances, from becoming a millioniare simply because it suits you is anti-american. And don't bother with the "they need an education" crap. Have you seen what passes for education for a blue-chip athlete at most programs? We have passed the point where a major land grant institution like UNC has become so lazy...instead of having professors hand out "gentlemen's Cs" to athletes..they simply created false classes and gave them As.

You might be right about Winfield, I can't recall. But I agree with you on the rest of your post.

 

[upstater]

The reality is what you express. I'm just questioning why so many universities are driven to participate in the escalation of the monies allocated to get better AD's and coaches. Are so many under the false impression that they can be one of the 10%? From past post I've read by you, I'm assuming that the majority of the pressure and decision making is coming from BOT's and alumni.

BTW, I would say UConn has received a tremendous bump from its success.

I think the academic administrators are clueless. This is not their area of expertise. A few are clued in. Most want to collect their $700k and focus on the $1 billion enterprise that is their domain. They are easily swayed by the most preposterous projections from their ADs. But if someone actually gets the gumption up to add 2+2 (as Elsa Benitez did at A&M when she asked the AD to lower its budget after an unexpected $15m loss) they could be tossed out on their ears. Even at MAC schools the programs are sacred elephants.

 

[upstater]

If memory serves me, Dave Winfield always held it as a point of great pride he never spent a day in the Minors.

I think the age limit is a crock. Just more exploitation of these young men. No one complains about 17 year old hockey players, 17 year old pro golfers, and 15 year old pro tennis players (who travel the world alone in many instances). There are several reasons for the different treatment, the main one being owners know they can't trust each other or themselves. No one forces a team to draft a kid straight out of high school. So if you don't like young players on your team...don't draft them. But they know they won't be able to resist the next LeBron, Kobe, McGrady, KG, etc.

Stopping a kid, often one from poor financial cirucmstances, from becoming a millioniare simply because it suits you is anti-american. And don't bother with the "they need an education" crap. Have you seen what passes for education for a blue-chip athlete at most programs? We have passed the point where a major land grant institution like UNC has become so lazy...instead of having professors hand out "gentlemen's Cs" to athletes..they simply created false classes and gave them As.

What 17 year old hockey players?

Aren't tennis and golf different than team sports (where size matters)?

 

[upstater]

You might be right about Winfield, I can't recall. But I agree with you on the rest of your post.

Dave Winfield went to college at Minnesota. He was 22 when he made his major league debut.

 

[MilliniumPrince]

What 17 year old hockey players?

Aren't tennis and golf different than team sports (where size matters)?

Many hockey players join semi-pro or minor leagues at 17. There was some kid named Wayne who did it back in the late 70s and he wasn't the exception.

You never here the size arguement in basketball. In football, it is a no-brainer. In basketball the arguments are usually about maturity, education, or the NCAA needing stars. I personally wish most of them went to college for several reasons. I am simply not in a favor of a policy the mandates they do so (or eliminates the option).

 

[upstater]

Many hockey players join semi-pro or minor leagues at 17. There was some kid named Wayne who did it back in the late 70s and he wasn't the exception.

You never here the size arguement in basketball. In football, it is a no-brainer. In basketball the arguments are usually about maturity, education, or the NCAA needing stars. I personally wish most of them went to college for several reasons. I am simply not in a favor of a policy the mandates they do so (or eliminates the option).

We're talking about kids being allowed into the NBA. It's very different than being allowed to play minor league or even Juniors in hockey. After all, there's nothing at all stopping a kid right now from going to the NBDL. Nothing stopping them. There is no restriction against a kid signing with the NBDL. Or the European leagues. The basketball kids can do exactly what the hockey kids do, but they choose not to.

 

[MilliniumPrince]

We're talking about kids being allowed into the NBA. It's very different than being allowed to play minor league or even Juniors in hockey. After all, there's nothing at all stopping a kid right now from going to the NBDL. Nothing stopping them. There is no restriction against a kid signing with the NBDL. Or the European leagues. The basketball kids can do exactly what the hockey kids do, but they choose not to.

I can list 20 players who started in the NHL under the age of 20. Can current high school basketball players do that?

 

[upstater]

I can list 20 players who started in the NHL under the age of 20. Can current high school basketball players do that?

Yes, yes they can. A lot of them do, including players from UConn like Andre Drummond. He was drafted as an 18 year old.

 

[MilliniumPrince]

Yes, yes they can.

...................................

 

[freescooter]

Dave Winfield went to college at Minnesota. He was 22 when he made his major league debut.

Right, but he went directly from college to the Padres. Its a rare thing. Even guys who play college ball usually end up in the minors for a few years. For what its worth Winfield was also drafted by the NBA (he played basketball at Minnesota, too) and the NFL although he didn't play college football.

As far as the NBA is concerned and kids jumping to the Dleague, you're right that it doesn't happen or rarely happens if it does. that's why i say it will be necessary to incentivize that with a system of bonuses somewhat like baseball uses. D-league salaries max out at $25,500. They have 3 tiers, that's the highest. The others are $19,00 and $13,000. My guess is if they paid a living salary or provided signing bonuses to guys they expect to move up the following season, it would be more attractive. The other part of this is that there isn't really a tradition of starting in the Dleague and moving up like there is in baseball or hockey. So something would have to happen to change the standard paradigm. bonuses would be one option. the other would be a change on the college side along the lines of what I've proposed or something else. I suspect a change that would allow high school players to be drafted out of high school without the 1 year wait would change the paradigm, too. Someone doing it and being exceptionally successful might as well. That hasn't really happened either.

 

[upstater]

Right, but he went directly from college to the Padres. Its a rare thing. Even guys who play college ball usually end up in the minors for a few years. For what its worth Winfield was also drafted by the NBA (he played basketball at Minnesota, too) and the NFL although he didn't play college football.

I think there have been several college players over the years that went right to the pros. I remember Pete Incavigilia came right out of college. Then there's also the story of David Clyde who went from HS to the majors in the mid 70s. I started watching the Sox as a 7 year old in 1975 but I don't remember Clyde at all. ESPN did a big story on him a while back. His career was basically ruined by him going from HS to the pros.

 

[David 76]

Yes, the student applications went up and now our students are smarter. I'm sure it helped move the state legislature to approve many new buildings.
Good side effects.
But the fact that colleges serve as the NBA's free minor league, even for kids not interested in college, remains a problem.

 

[Strummer]

Whatever happens, my only objection is to anybody claiming that a rule is "for the kids."
It's a zero sum game. For every 1 and done that bombs out of the NBA, there's some other person who makes it in and sticks. Don't cry for the 1 and doner who went too early - be happy for the kid who took his place.

At 18 you are a man by most standards (except a bizarre alcohol restriction). You can vote, you can join the army and kill people, you can marry, you can contract, you will be on the hook for 18 years of support if you impregnate some young lass - you should also have the right to do what you want with your career.

If the NBA wants to ban 18, 19 years old, or whatever, that's their choice. If the NCAA wants to ban a kid from returning if he tests the draft, that's their choice. But please don't tell me it's for the kid. That's complete horsesh-t.