Cuban's D League Proposal

[upstater]

I think Cuban is calling out the NCAA for the fraud that it is. Placing an age limit on these kids benefits everyone but the few kids that have a chance of getting drafted.

I don't understand this argument about the age limit. The NBA is a private business. Clearly they have the right to establish entry credentials.

 

[uconnfan68]

My general take on all this is, a kid with no interest in college shouldn't have to fake it in an attempt to get to the NBA or NFL.
But I realize the practical solution is hard to find. Good to hear a big business guy raise it as an issue. Maybe he could find away to put it together outside of his day job and Shark Tank.

I think that any kid that wants to be in the NBA (or NFL) should be able to try it... no matter what age. Baseball doesn't impose that. Soccer doesn't. Golf doesn't. Hockey doesn't. Just seems to be the NCAA cash cows that warrant professional leagues lending them a few players for a few years of glory for the good of old State U. The whole mess is absurd. I can't believe more lawsuits haven't been filed.

 

[djct1999]

I don't understand this argument about the age limit. The NBA is a private business. Clearly they have the right to establish entry credentials.

They actually don't. No change in the rules of draft entry can be made without the approval of the player's union. This was fought once before and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the player. This latest age rule of 19 was collectively bargained in 2005 after much resistance from the players union. Stern initially wanted the limit to be 20 but they finally agreed on 19 after the league conceded some things in the salary cap that favored existing players.

 

[David 76]

I think that any kid that wants to be in the NBA (or NFL) should be able to try it... no matter what age. Baseball doesn't impose that. Soccer doesn't. Golf doesn't. Hockey doesn't. Just seems to be the NCAA cash cows that warrant professional leagues lending them a few players for a few years of glory for the good of old State U. The whole mess is absurd. I can't believe more lawsuits haven't been filed.

What does that have to do with what I said?

 

[upstater]

I think that any kid that wants to be in the NBA (or NFL) should be able to try it... no matter what age. Baseball doesn't impose that. Soccer doesn't. Golf doesn't. Hockey doesn't. Just seems to be the NCAA cash cows that warrant professional leagues lending them a few players for a few years of glory for the good of old State U. The whole mess is absurd. I can't believe more lawsuits haven't been filed.

I can't think of a single baseball player that went directly to the majors. Not one. Granted, they don't impose an age limit in theory but in practice, these kids don't go to the majors after HS. The NBA has more kids like that playing right now than baseball has in the last few decades. Even Alex Rodriguez didn't play until he was 19 (actually just a few days short of his 19th birthday), and his first game was in the middle of the season 1 1/2 years after he was drafted. The prior season, he spent the entire year in the minor leagues. In soccer it's also a rarity. While you do have 18 and 19 year olds playing professionally in smaller leagues (the equivalent of the minors) they rarely get to the Spanish League or EPL before their 20s. The biggest soccer talent of this generation (Neymar) started playing in the top leagues just this year at age 22 after spending 3 years in the Brazilian lower and upper division. Of all the sports, hockey is like basketball in that there are players who began playing at the top level at age 18 but given the structure of Junior Hockey where players go away from home at an early age to play at the top level (you have paid professionals in the Juniors) the transition is easier for those top players.

 

[djct1999]

I can't think of a single baseball player that went directly to the majors. Not one. Granted, they don't impose an age limit in theory but in practice, these kids don't go to the majors after HS. The NBA has more kids like that playing right now than baseball has in the last few decades. Even Alex Rodriguez didn't play until he was 19 (actually just a few days short of his 19th birthday), and his first game was in the middle of the season 1 1/2 years after he was drafted. The prior season, he spent the entire year in the minor leagues. In soccer it's also a rarity. While you do have 18 and 19 year olds playing professionally in smaller leagues (the equivalent of the minors) they rarely get to the Spanish League or EPL before their 20s. The biggest soccer talent of this generation (Neymar) started playing in the top leagues just this year at age 22 after spending 3 years in the Brazilian lower and upper division. Of all the sports, hockey is like basketball in that there are players who began playing at the top level at age 18 but given the structure of Junior Hockey where players go away from home at an early age to play at the top level (you have paid professionals in the Juniors) the transition is easier for those top players.

Doesn't this sort of support what Cuban is suggesting? Most elite high school baseball prospects who forfeit college eligibility receive huge signing bonuses. If some NBA team is willing to invest that sort of money and time to a high school basketball player, while helping him develop on and off the court(like soccer in europe) than its well within that players rights.

 

[upstater]

Doesn't this sort of support what Cuban is suggesting? Most elite high school baseball prospects who forfeit college eligibility receive huge signing bonuses. If some NBA team is willing to invest that sort of money and time to a high school basketball player, while helping him develop on and off the court(like soccer in europe) than its well within that players rights.

Cuban is part of the NBA. Why is he hitting the NCAA for an NBA rule? That makes no sense. The NBA can do what it wants... maybe Cuban should take it up with his organization.

 

[djct1999]

Cuban is part of the NBA. Why is he hitting the NCAA for an NBA rule? That makes no sense. The NBA can do what it wants... maybe Cuban should take it up with his organization.

He is calling out the NCAA for the fraud that it is. If these kids are really student athletes, then why doesn't the ACC or Big Ten take up the same scheduling as the Ivy? Make these kids, like all students, take a full classload, and play games on fridays and weekends so they don't miss class. This will never happen. Why? Because elite athletes aren't students, but as long as the NCAA and universities say they are, maybe they can keep all the boatloads of cash these players generate!

 

[upstater]

He is calling out the NCAA for the fraud that it is. If these kids are really student athletes, then why doesn't the ACC or Big Ten take up the same scheduling as the Ivy? Make these kids, like all students, take a full classload, and play games on fridays and weekends so they don't miss class. This will never happen. Why? Because elite athletes aren't students, but as long as the NCAA and universities say they are, maybe they can keep all the boatloads of cash these players generate!

The academic side doesn't see a dime of that money--only the coaches do and the ADs (in fact, schools lose money on their athletic departments). Besides that, why would Cuban care that the NCAA is a sham?

 

[djct1999]

The academic side doesn't see a dime of that money--only the coaches do and the ADs (in fact, schools lose money on their athletic departments). Besides that, why would Cuban care that the NCAA is a sham?

People in support of an increased age limit say that the main reason would be to benefit the athlete. This is an absolute farce. Cuban is simply stating his opinion on what would actually benefit the athlete. He is speaking his opinion for them. Not the NCAA, NBA, or tv networks. For the athlete, there is absolutely nothing that is beneficial with an increase in the age limit.

 

[upstater]

People in support of an increased age limit say that the main reason would be to benefit the athlete. This is an absolute farce. Cuban is simply stating his opinion on what would actually benefit the athlete. He is speaking his opinion for them. Not the NCAA, NBA, or tv networks. For the athlete, there is absolutely nothing that is beneficial with an increase in the age limit.

This doesn't answer any questions.

I'm asking why he is critiquing the NCAA since the NCAA doesn't enforce any age limits at all.

 

[freescooter]

One major problem I have with Cuban's opinion is that he is attempting to paint an NBA regulation (one year after HS graduation before being draft eligible) as a fault of NCAA rules. The biggest reality here (also applies to football) is that for the entirety of their existence as major professional sports leagues, the minor league/developer & feeder system has been the NCAA and while MLB (and the NHL) invests millions each year to attempt to develop players from raw kids into major league talent, the NBA (and NFL) merely needs to scout these kids.

The NFL is really a completely different animal from the NBA or any other sport, so it doesn't make sense to even discuss that. And 1 and done really isn't much of an issue with football anyway. Every year you get a handful of Jrs who leave early, but for the most part guys stay 4 or 5 years. Basketball is where the issue is and where the college system is really abused and where a legitimate D-league system would make the most sense. There are players who are completely ready to play professionally but don't because the NBA simply won't draft them by rule, not based on ability. A well executed D-league system would ultimately be good for the NBA, good for college basketball and would end the charade that is the current system.

 

[UCweCONN]

More and more high school soccer players are signing with professional academies like those associated with MLS and some European clubs. Baseball already pulls the top prospects to the pros out of high school. There's no reason top basketball players should have to go to college and risk injury. College football is the only major college sport where college is needed for top players due to the complexity of the game and need to physically prepare to play at the next level.

 

[freescooter]

I pretty much agree with Cuban. His comment about the NCAA requiring a 1 year commitment is a little crazy, but other than that for elite players he's right on the button. I for one would love to see the NBA launch a true minor league. The issue though I think is money. Teams would have to take flyers on more guys, guarantee then "real money"not just some minimalD-league salary. It wouldn't have to be $15 million or what ever, but it would have to be similar to what baseball does. You'd still have college players who develop and are available and you'd have the possiblity of signing a guy out of high school (just say no to the 19 year old rule in the next player agreement). Then the NCAA would need to do its part and tell schools that every time a guy leaves early without graduating the school loses his scholarship until his class graduates. That 1 change would actually fix the current system. The coaches would scream bloody murder but it would work well and they would adapt pretty quickly. And wouldn't even bother recruiting 1 and dones. Which would help populate the D-league.

 

[djct1999]

This doesn't answer any questions.

I'm asking why he is critiquing the NCAA since the NCAA doesn't enforce any age limits at all.

The same reason why the likes of Boeheim and Coach K do. Are they critiquing the NBA or are their arguments self-serving? Cuban is contributing to the dialogue and is simply saying that keeping kids in school longer does not in any way help the elite kid. And he is right.

 

[upstater]

The same reason why the likes of Boeheim and Coach K do. Are they critiquing the NBA or are their arguments self-serving? Cuban is contributing to the dialogue and is simply saying that keeping kids in school longer does not in any way help the elite kid. And he is right.

His major point is that the NCAA is corrupt because it's keeping kids in school.

 

[djct1999]

His major point is that the NCAA is corrupt because it's keeping kids in school.

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.

 

[ctchamps]

His major point is that the NCAA is corrupt because it's keeping kids in school.

He didn't say corrupt. He said hypocritical. But your point is correct. The NCAA is not the entity that pulls the strings on this issue. It's the NBA that chooses the policy. And given that other sports (baseball, hockey) have a system in place which Cuban is advocating, his argument about it being the NCAA's choice is bogus. He might have been trying to express that it is foolish to believe these kids are getting an education, and that any expression by the NCAA to make a case for this is hypocritical (APR). But it didn't come across that way and it could have been his inability to say it well or the reporter not reporting it accurately.

 

[AZHuskiePop]

I can't think of a single baseball player that went directly to the majors. Not one. Granted, they don't impose an age limit in theory but in practice, these kids don't go to the majors after HS. The NBA has more kids like that playing right now than baseball has in the last few decades. Even Alex Rodriguez didn't play until he was 19 (actually just a few days short of his 19th birthday), and his first game was in the middle of the season 1 1/2 years after he was drafted. The prior season, he spent the entire year in the minor leagues. In soccer it's also a rarity. While you do have 18 and 19 year olds playing professionally in smaller leagues (the equivalent of the minors) they rarely get to the Spanish League or EPL before their 20s. The biggest soccer talent of this generation (Neymar) started playing in the top leagues just this year at age 22 after spending 3 years in the Brazilian lower and upper division. Of all the sports, hockey is like basketball in that there are players who began playing at the top level at age 18 but given the structure of Junior Hockey where players go away from home at an early age to play at the top level (you have paid professionals in the Juniors) the transition is easier for those top players.

I think Pele played his first World Cup at 16

 

[ctchamps]

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.

Two issues. One is the choice of the system in place is the NBA's choice and not the NCAAs. The NBA can change policy immediately with or without the NCAA's permission. The second is that given the system set up by the NBA, the NCAA is promoting the system by stating these kids are getting an education. And that is far from the truth. The hypocrisy is that people are promoting something that isn't happening and people are either buying it or not willing to look at things more critically.

I would think Cuban knows that the NBA's decision to let colleges develop kids is the primary engine driving the system, one the NCAA is exploiting with inaccuracies. And most of us Boneyarders are well aware of the NCAA hypocrisy particularly with the APR.

 

[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.