whaler11
Head Happy Hour Coach
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 44,353
- Reaction Score
- 68,192
The current arguments are already ridiculous for sure.
That's different than additional eligibility rules to enhance the quality of play.
OT - Solution for the One and Done??
- Thread starter BlueMAB
- Start date
- Status
The current arguments are already ridiculous for sure.
That's different than additional eligibility rules to enhance the quality of play.
Some college fans (mistakenly I agree) think it is a problem, but the real people who matter who say this situation is undesirable are the NBA owners. This is why the rule would change. They want to stop the selection of unproven players and want more time to evaluate players (also to continue not paying for that development). The Players Association want longer careers and to remove the age limit completely.
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/1...nticipates-clash-age-limit-nbpa-attorney-says
As always, the NCAA can do nothing but be dictated to (except extreme action that will upset sponsors, like banning freshmen) and many compromises are tough to reconcile with amateurism. Obviously the baseball and hockey models work with NCAA rules, but the NBA itself would have to adopt it. That seems the most obvious compromise between the two positions right now anyways, so we'll see.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 7,051
- Reaction Score
- 16,924
Exactly. I worded it poorly. But yes thats exactly my point.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 7,051
- Reaction Score
- 16,924
I couldn't agree more with the first point, but I'm not "requiring" anyone to go, or stay, in college. Those arguments are silly. Quite the opposite, I'm suggesting players be allowed to go to college, while not having to worry about their draft status.
Using the ratings is somewhat unfair. Two of the biggest names in the sport made the championship game.
Also, something doesn't need to be broken to be improved. The time to replace the roof is when the sun is shining.
whaler11
Head Happy Hour Coach
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 44,353
- Reaction Score
- 68,192
The entire tournament had it's biggest ratings in a while. Since this is really about money... the motivation isn't exactly huge.
I don't disagree the game could be improved - but the NCAA can't dictate rules to the NBA.
I'm no lawyer but I don't see how the NBA increasing the age limitation any further wouldn't have a lot trouble standing up in court.
.-.
My suggestions weren't really meant to "fix" college basketball. Perhaps my post is titled poorly. My suggestion accomplishes (IMO) a few things:
1) Improve the quality of play in the NBA by bringing guys that are more developed
2) Improve the student part of the student-athlete by requiring them to finish in good standing.. Also by removing some of the uncertainty of the draft.
3) Allowing players to get the draft part out of the way so they can focus on school and development. If they are drafted as freshmen, then there is no all or nothing choice. They've been drafted, the option to go pro is there for a couple years. BUT, the option to remain a student and develop their game is also still there.
I think any suggestion requiring players to commit to a school/scholarship for anything more than 1 year is ridiculous and a non-starter. Taking away scholarships from schools because a player succeeded in his dream of going pro is nuts. I'm trying to give the players more options, not fewer.
1) Improve the quality of play in the NBA by bringing guys that are more developed
2) Improve the student part of the student-athlete by requiring them to finish in good standing.. Also by removing some of the uncertainty of the draft.
3) Allowing players to get the draft part out of the way so they can focus on school and development. If they are drafted as freshmen, then there is no all or nothing choice. They've been drafted, the option to go pro is there for a couple years. BUT, the option to remain a student and develop their game is also still there.
I think any suggestion requiring players to commit to a school/scholarship for anything more than 1 year is ridiculous and a non-starter. Taking away scholarships from schools because a player succeeded in his dream of going pro is nuts. I'm trying to give the players more options, not fewer.
Fair enough. But my suggestions are nothing like many of the others in the thread. I don't think they would harm ratings in anyway.
whaler11
Head Happy Hour Coach
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 44,353
- Reaction Score
- 68,192
Your suggestions wouldn't harm the NCAA. They just don't make much sense for the NBA. Why would they add more risk to their process when they don't need to?
Why would they entrust their assets to be coached and trained by lesser staffs?
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2014
- Messages
- 5,289
- Reaction Score
- 19,755
You think having more teams play walk-ons is going to improve the quality of college basketball?
They wouldn't be adding risk, they'd be mitigating risk. If they are taking a reach on a second round pick, they send him to an international league to try and develop. Wouldn't those players be better off developing in college? If they were to draft a HS senior, he can still play in college for a year or two and develop. I contest that's a better option than sending a kid to China.
They already routinely allow their assets to be coached and trained by lesser staffs. The Raptors sent Deandre Daniels to Australia, you really think he played under a better coaching staff there than if would have been allowed to finish his last year at UConn? The Australian league is a decent pro league, but I think he would have played with/against more future NBA players than over there. I also don't think the D League has better coaching than college. The D-League has the advantage of more games, but the owners don't have to pay the players while they're in college.
And lastly, if they really don't want the kid to return to college, they can make him a financial offer he can't refuse. This would allow the players like Wiggins, Parker, Okafor, and a few others to go straight to the NBA and avoid college. But it would mostly impact the guys who are borderline second round picks, or obvious physical talents (Drummond) that just needed a few years to develop.
CL82
NCAA Woman's Basketball National Champions
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 63,652
- Reaction Score
- 249,497
You could change the risk reward ratio to teams if the NBA agreed that that the max contract you can sign an early departure to is limited to the number of years he played in college. So a one and done frosh could only be signed to a one year deal, a soph two years, junior three and senior could get a four year deal. You'd have to be pretty confident that a kid could help you right away to sign him as a freshman or even a sophomore. It would never happen though.
.-.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2014
- Messages
- 5,289
- Reaction Score
- 19,755
A lot of these "it would never happen" ideas would never happen because they're bad ideas. I'm not sure who this idea helps. The players get less security, and the teams are hamstrung.
The baseball model works because it allows the NBA to draft the players who are NBA-ready out of high school like they used to, but the rest of the kids actually have to go develop and get better for a few years. As a result, you're going to have a lot of polished, quality players entering the draft, which the NBA would like, and only the really elite players would be ready to compete with those guys out of high school, so those would be the only guys to go then. And, again, if they aren't drafted (or even don't sign), they should be allowed to go back and play in college, just like they do in baseball. That's a NCAA that the NCAA has the power to change. If they wouldn't do it, it's because of their fealty to the NBA, as this gives the players negotiating power, and the NBA doesn't want that.
CL82
NCAA Woman's Basketball National Champions
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 63,652
- Reaction Score
- 249,497
Mmm, it's a bad idea if you want the status quo. It's a good idea if you want to disincentivize (if it ain't a word, it ought to be) one and dones.
Who benefits? Well colleges and fans obviously would. If an institution makes an investment in a kid (and a year's worth of tuition and room and board, and instruction and travel is a pretty significant investment) they'd have a better chance to realize the reward that the kid would give them by playing longer. Fans would get to see kids play longer, that builds more loyalty, more enthusiasm and likely more money, both at the gate and via contributions.
The student athlete benefits if you accept the premise that being in school, maturing and getting an education is a good thing.
NBA teams benefit because they are more likely to get a decent return of their investment with a more mature player. The NBA owners as a whole benefits as it would likely slow down the ongoing escalation of salaries. Small market teams in particular would benefit from that but larger teams, who would no longer be forced to pick up a kid to keep an opponent from winning the lottery on him and then just dumping him in the D league, would benefit as well.
Now that I think through the pros and cons, I actually think it's not all that bad an idea. The player's union and big market teams would likely oppose it though.
You keep saying this, but when I counter that a player can get better coaching/training in college than he could in China, Australia, Spain, Germany, or the D-League, you have yet to respond. Tthey need to make changes to the game (reduced shot clock, better/tighter officiating) etc, but if/when they do, the borderline players that are drafted will be better off developing another year or two in college than they would be overseas.
whaler11
Head Happy Hour Coach
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 44,353
- Reaction Score
- 68,192
I didn't feel like typing. It's only a couple dozen players a year that matter to them. They don't care about marginal guys like Daniels.
If guys like Mudlay became a trend it would matter to them - but until it does it's just not a big deal.
It's not like they encourage internationals to come play college basketball.
There is a reason they don't make any of these changes and the one change they seem interested in is just increasing the age limit another year.
The NBA needs rules to keep their inept owners from running teams into the ground. It's why things like the Stepien rule still exist.
Then they should just get rid of the second round. Eliminate it entirely, and raise the minimum age to 20 or 21. The Lakers drafting Ater Majok after his stellar career at UConn should have made it obvious to me that the second round is mostly a waste of time. The few guys that make it out of the second round, could/would have made it as free agents. My impetus for this discussion was to give college players more freedom and options in picking between college and the draft, in a way that would also be beneficial to the NBA because they could get the NBA ready players immediately, and let the others get better coaching for a few years in college.
.-.
August_West
Conscience do cost
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 51,436
- Reaction Score
- 90,551
one and done solution?
If it bothers you, I'll take care of it. What you've got to do is cut the hamstring on the back of their leg right at the bottom. They'll never shoot J's again, because their weight displacement goes back, all their weight is on their right foot, and they'll push everything off to the right. they'll never come through on anything. They'll quit the game.
If it bothers you, I'll take care of it. What you've got to do is cut the hamstring on the back of their leg right at the bottom. They'll never shoot J's again, because their weight displacement goes back, all their weight is on their right foot, and they'll push everything off to the right. they'll never come through on anything. They'll quit the game.
- Status