Who's staying? Who's going?

SCCats · Post by **SCCats** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:16 am

Spaceman Spiff wrote:This operates on the false assumption (in my opinion) that college is the only place to learn and grow.

We can compare it to the other false assumption that sometimes seems to be bandied around that what kinda of pro you will eventually be is already predetermined by age seven and thus, extra years of college can't help or change the arc of a career.

ChooChooCat · Post by **ChooChooCat** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:17 am

Spaceman Spiff wrote:
This operates on the false assumption (in my opinion) that college is the only place to learn and grow.

This operates on the false assumption (not an opinion) that there's a better route than college (once you have already enrolled) to boost your stock to become a 1st rounder.

ChooChooCat · Post by **ChooChooCat** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:18 am

SCCats wrote:
Spaceman Spiff wrote:This operates on the false assumption (in my opinion) that college is the only place to learn and grow.
We can compare it to the other false assumption that sometimes seems to be bandied around that what kinda of pro you will eventually be is already predetermined by age seven and thus, extra years of college can't help or change the arc of a career.

Fair, but you can only be drafted one time, and extra years of college can help you raise your stock in the eyes of NBA executives to actually get a guaranteed contract.

rgdeuce · Post by **rgdeuce** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:19 am

CJ McCollum and Jimmy Butler are both four-year guys who are NBA stars. Some other solid to star players who stayed three or four years in recent years = Isaiah Thomas, Klay Thompson, Kemba Walker, Damian Lillard, Kenneth Faried, Jae Crowder, Victor Oladipo, Tim Hardaway Jr, Jordan Clarkson, Willie Cauley-Stein, Elfrid Payton, Reggie Jackson, Markieff and Marcus Morris, Nikola Vucevic. The game has changed so it skews your argument, but it does not mean you can rule out the need for some guys to stick around more than a year or two. Chance probably needs all four. Kobi probably needed just one more. Not sure why the measuring stick of "star" was used in the conversation with either, though Kobi has the tools that give him the potential to be a great player in the NBA.

Spaceman Spiff · Post by **Spaceman Spiff** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:26 am

SCCats wrote:
Spaceman Spiff wrote:This operates on the false assumption (in my opinion) that college is the only place to learn and grow.
We can compare it to the other false assumption that sometimes seems to be bandied around that what kinda of pro you will eventually be is already predetermined by age seven and thus, extra years of college can't help or change the arc of a career.

38 players were called up from the D League to the NBA this year. I agree that players can develop in college, but the same goes for the D League.

See, I don't disagree players get better in college, but I disagree that college is the only route for that. The D League used to be exile, but it isn't now. NBA teams are using it as a minor league, and players get a chance to develop there too.

Frankly, it's easy to argue the D League is a better developmental option. College coaches care about winning first and foremost. No D League coach is getting fired because they do more development than winning.

Longhorned · Post by **Longhorned** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:28 am

PHXCATS wrote:
Longhorned wrote:Grant Jarrett made a mistake only so far as he missed an opportunity for a college career. I think his pro career would have lasted as long as it did even with four years of college. His upside was overly ranked in high school.
So what are the lottery numbers for Wednesday?

Are you suggesting irrational predictability? A common view is that Jarret made a mistake for his NBA future when he left college after one year. That's a view that carries irrational predictability for an alternative route not taken. It's suspect to expect a different outcome for the same player by a different route that's less focused on developing NBA potential. Both the D-League and college expose limitations.

ChooChooCat · Post by **ChooChooCat** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:29 am

Spaceman Spiff wrote:
SCCats wrote:
Spaceman Spiff wrote:This operates on the false assumption (in my opinion) that college is the only place to learn and grow.
We can compare it to the other false assumption that sometimes seems to be bandied around that what kinda of pro you will eventually be is already predetermined by age seven and thus, extra years of college can't help or change the arc of a career.
38 players were called up from the D League to the NBA this year. I agree that players can develop in college, but the same goes for the D League.

See, I don't disagree players get better in college, but I disagree that college is the only route for that. The D League used to be exile, but it isn't now. NBA teams are using it as a minor league, and players get a chance to develop there too.

Frankly, it's easy to argue the D League is a better developmental option. College coaches care about winning first and foremost. No D League coach is getting fired because they do more development than winning.

Lol it's easy to argue is it? How many of those 38 call ups got a guaranteed contract for more than the rest of the season?

Legitimately the D League has "developed" 4 quality or somewhat quality NBA players in Hassan Whiteside, Danny Green, Chris Andersen, and Gerald Green. For G. Green's case he was a 1st rounder out of HS that needed to be developed desperately. The D League is a crapshoot and you know it. The vast majority of players in that league all were good to very good college players, but can't cut it in the league for one reason or another. The D League provides bandaids for teams that need a body for practice due to injuries more than anything at this point. To suggest otherwise is having your head in the sand. Now could it become more than that in time? Sure, but that doesn't mean it's a great developer of talent by any stretch of the imagination.

EVCat · Post by **EVCat** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:34 am

Spaceman Spiff wrote:The D League used to be exile, but it isn't now. NBA teams are using it as a minor league, and players get a chance to develop there too.

This is where I am coming from. The D-League is no longer your slightly older brother's D-League. Its role is expanding, and it is becoming (and is) an alternate path, especially if you wind up in a weird position where you are actually more valuable to the NBA than you are to your own school and don't want to wait 2 more years transferring and playing elsewhere (Kobi). The NBA is developing (no pun intended) this path to be less a place to bury 2nd round bodies and more an actual developmental league. They are putting more money and parent team roster spots up to make this work. It is a path for some..

I can't really come up with a good argument with foresight for Chance leaving, other than to say his leaving isn't the disaster it would have been even 5 years ago.

But he should come back. He is a big part of this team's plans, and I think he would have gotten plenty of PT/development. But it could happen at the D-League for him. I wouldn't advise him to go this route, but we have to see the game is changing...

Spaceman Spiff · Post by **Spaceman Spiff** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:35 am

ChooChooCat wrote:
Spaceman Spiff wrote:
ChooChooCat wrote: How small is the window exactly? I don't buy that statement at all. Excuse me while I shed a tear for those who stay in college for 4 years all the way to to the ripe age of 22-23 and still make plenty of money whether domestically or abroad in the sport of basketball. Channing Frye and his $58 million career earnings is playing the world's smallest violin right now.
It depends. In the "One and Done" 30 for 30, they referenced Dajuan Wagner, who had colitis and a colon removal basically kill his pro career less than two years in. 4 years of college would have killed all his earning potential.

The average NBA career is 4.5 years. The average contract is 4.6 million. Losing out on an average NBA career with injury is a real possibility. Just going in the first round guarantees 3 million.

God forbid a player earn market value from his talent without 4 years of college. If a student left early to pursue a lucrative career, no one would think twice. Add in basketball and it's bad?
Oh a reference to the Calipari 2 hour recruiting promo, that's a good start. Yeah I get that Wagner had colitis, but he was a no brainer lottery pick after his time at Memphis and no one is debating a guy should pass that up ever. I mean if we're going to use a guy getting colitis as an example then no player should ever take the huge risk that is playing college basketball or even waste their time playing HS basketball and should just go the Jeremy Tyler route if they can get paid immediately right? I could use Ray Smith's freak incident of blowing 3 ACLs in 3 years too, that doesn't make it a trend.

Yeah I understand the average length of a NBA career isn't long primarily due to the fact that most players wash out, but your argument was about players playing overseas as well. How short is their window exactly? Hell Isaiah Fox played professionally in Australia. If guys like him can make money playing the sport then certainly halfway quality players can make oodles of money overseas well into their 30s. Also if we're arguing 1st round then that would disqualify Grant Jerrett from this conversation and certainly Comanche as well. Last I checked no one was arguing against players leaving to be a 1st rounder.

If a guy's market value is set enough to where he can be a 1st round pick he'd be stupid not to go. If you're undraftable or at the very least can improve your stock enough to be a 1st round pick after 4 years then why exactly settle for less and a non-guaranteed contract? If a student left early to pursue a lucrative career before they were ready and washed out that would be a pretty dumb decision on their part. In basketball it's an equally pretty dumb decision.

Yes, a debilitating injury is rare, but players aren't statistics. When Ray's injuries took his pro career, that's it for him, and it doesn't matter how often it occurs on the whole.

Here's the thought pattern: I can develop in college or in a pro league (even if not the NBA). Even if you aren't a first rounder, is it crazy to want to get paid for that development? If you're not a first rounder, you have to play your way into a guaranteed deal. Is there a statistically higher chance of doing that in college vs overseas/D League?

I'm not saying it is right for all players, because it is an individual choice. I do reject the notion that staying in college is any guarantee of development and improving stock. Look at GJ, Ashley and Zeus. One year, three and four. Did the number of years they spent in college pay off proportionally?

ChooChooCat · Post by **ChooChooCat** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:44 am

Spaceman Spiff wrote:
ChooChooCat wrote:
Spaceman Spiff wrote:
ChooChooCat wrote: How small is the window exactly? I don't buy that statement at all. Excuse me while I shed a tear for those who stay in college for 4 years all the way to to the ripe age of 22-23 and still make plenty of money whether domestically or abroad in the sport of basketball. Channing Frye and his $58 million career earnings is playing the world's smallest violin right now.
It depends. In the "One and Done" 30 for 30, they referenced Dajuan Wagner, who had colitis and a colon removal basically kill his pro career less than two years in. 4 years of college would have killed all his earning potential.

The average NBA career is 4.5 years. The average contract is 4.6 million. Losing out on an average NBA career with injury is a real possibility. Just going in the first round guarantees 3 million.

God forbid a player earn market value from his talent without 4 years of college. If a student left early to pursue a lucrative career, no one would think twice. Add in basketball and it's bad?
Oh a reference to the Calipari 2 hour recruiting promo, that's a good start. Yeah I get that Wagner had colitis, but he was a no brainer lottery pick after his time at Memphis and no one is debating a guy should pass that up ever. I mean if we're going to use a guy getting colitis as an example then no player should ever take the huge risk that is playing college basketball or even waste their time playing HS basketball and should just go the Jeremy Tyler route if they can get paid immediately right? I could use Ray Smith's freak incident of blowing 3 ACLs in 3 years too, that doesn't make it a trend.

Yeah I understand the average length of a NBA career isn't long primarily due to the fact that most players wash out, but your argument was about players playing overseas as well. How short is their window exactly? Hell Isaiah Fox played professionally in Australia. If guys like him can make money playing the sport then certainly halfway quality players can make oodles of money overseas well into their 30s. Also if we're arguing 1st round then that would disqualify Grant Jerrett from this conversation and certainly Comanche as well. Last I checked no one was arguing against players leaving to be a 1st rounder.

If a guy's market value is set enough to where he can be a 1st round pick he'd be stupid not to go. If you're undraftable or at the very least can improve your stock enough to be a 1st round pick after 4 years then why exactly settle for less and a non-guaranteed contract? If a student left early to pursue a lucrative career before they were ready and washed out that would be a pretty dumb decision on their part. In basketball it's an equally pretty dumb decision.
Yes, a debilitating injury is rare, but players aren't statistics. When Ray's injuries took his pro career, that's it for him, and it doesn't matter how often it occurs on the whole.

Here's the thought pattern: I can develop in college or in a pro league (even if not the NBA). Even if you aren't a first rounder, is it crazy to want to get paid for that development? If you're not a first rounder, you have to play your way into a guaranteed deal. Is there a statistically higher chance of doing that in college vs overseas/D League?

I'm not saying it is right for all players, because it is an individual choice. I do reject the notion that staying in college is any guarantee of development and improving stock. Look at GJ, Ashley and Zeus. One year, three and four. Did the number of years they spent in college pay off proportionally?

Yes, I agree, but as you said it's rare. Ray's only other option was taking a paycheck overseas if available to him as opposed to going to college. Why go to college though outside of possibly earning a guaranteed contract, unless of course you've already got scouts eyes and you're a 1st rounder regardless like Terrance Ferguson. I mean look if we're going to advocate for guys skipping on college to go overseas even when they're not set to be 1st rounders then we might as well shut this whole forum down because college basketball would be dead.

I mean it's not crazy to want to get paid for that development, but you're certainly no closer to a guaranteed contract either way. As I mentioned for domestic players the most clear path to a guaranteed contract is playing in college, there's no debate in that statement whatsoever Spiff. I do think there's a statistically higher chance of doing that in college vs. Overseas/D League as most guys that get guaranteed contracts as rookies went to college and the number isn't even close.

Maybe all three of those guys just weren't pros. I mean if we look at the 2012 class overall it was not a very good class, so the fact that those 3 guys were rated so highly speaks more for the weakness of the class than anything. Jerrett had the highest ceiling of the group due to his 3 point shooting stroke and length and arguably had the most to gain by staying in college (not necessarily at Arizona) to bump up his draft stock, Ashley was a tweener and no college can fix that, and finally Zeus...well if you knew how to fix stone hands you'd be a millionaire and so would he.

gumby · Post by **gumby** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:47 am

Picture yourself in a boat on a river
With tangerine trees and marmalade skies
Somebody calls you, you answer quite slowly
A girl with colitis goes by

rgdeuce · Post by **rgdeuce** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:58 am

Spaceman Spiff wrote:
ChooChooCat wrote:
Spaceman Spiff wrote:
ChooChooCat wrote: How small is the window exactly? I don't buy that statement at all. Excuse me while I shed a tear for those who stay in college for 4 years all the way to to the ripe age of 22-23 and still make plenty of money whether domestically or abroad in the sport of basketball. Channing Frye and his $58 million career earnings is playing the world's smallest violin right now.
It depends. In the "One and Done" 30 for 30, they referenced Dajuan Wagner, who had colitis and a colon removal basically kill his pro career less than two years in. 4 years of college would have killed all his earning potential.

The average NBA career is 4.5 years. The average contract is 4.6 million. Losing out on an average NBA career with injury is a real possibility. Just going in the first round guarantees 3 million.

God forbid a player earn market value from his talent without 4 years of college. If a student left early to pursue a lucrative career, no one would think twice. Add in basketball and it's bad?
Oh a reference to the Calipari 2 hour recruiting promo, that's a good start. Yeah I get that Wagner had colitis, but he was a no brainer lottery pick after his time at Memphis and no one is debating a guy should pass that up ever. I mean if we're going to use a guy getting colitis as an example then no player should ever take the huge risk that is playing college basketball or even waste their time playing HS basketball and should just go the Jeremy Tyler route if they can get paid immediately right? I could use Ray Smith's freak incident of blowing 3 ACLs in 3 years too, that doesn't make it a trend.

Yeah I understand the average length of a NBA career isn't long primarily due to the fact that most players wash out, but your argument was about players playing overseas as well. How short is their window exactly? Hell Isaiah Fox played professionally in Australia. If guys like him can make money playing the sport then certainly halfway quality players can make oodles of money overseas well into their 30s. Also if we're arguing 1st round then that would disqualify Grant Jerrett from this conversation and certainly Comanche as well. Last I checked no one was arguing against players leaving to be a 1st rounder.

If a guy's market value is set enough to where he can be a 1st round pick he'd be stupid not to go. If you're undraftable or at the very least can improve your stock enough to be a 1st round pick after 4 years then why exactly settle for less and a non-guaranteed contract? If a student left early to pursue a lucrative career before they were ready and washed out that would be a pretty dumb decision on their part. In basketball it's an equally pretty dumb decision.
Yes, a debilitating injury is rare, but players aren't statistics. When Ray's injuries took his pro career, that's it for him, and it doesn't matter how often it occurs on the whole.

Here's the thought pattern: I can develop in college or in a pro league (even if not the NBA). Even if you aren't a first rounder, is it crazy to want to get paid for that development? If you're not a first rounder, you have to play your way into a guaranteed deal. Is there a statistically higher chance of doing that in college vs overseas/D League?

I'm not saying it is right for all players, because it is an individual choice. I do reject the notion that staying in college is any guarantee of development and improving stock. Look at GJ, Ashley and Zeus. One year, three and four. Did the number of years they spent in college pay off proportionally?

Here is the difference though: If GJ, Ashley and Zeus all played a pickup game tonight and suffered a career ending injury, who is in the best position to have financial stability for themselves and their family in say, 10 years? After taxes, GJ probably pocketed only $950,000 of what he earned in the NBA. That was arguably a poor decision but at least he made it into something and was smart with his money. If he blew most of it or is under (which happens all the time), you rank them Zeus, Ashley, GJ. Ashley can always get back into the classroom like Reggie Geary and finish in two or three semesters. GJ is looking at 3-3.5 years to get that degree.

Yes, the D League is not the death kiss it once was, but the odds are still stacked against you. My opinion, if you are not a guaranteed first round guy, don't go until you are at least halfway done with college. Big psychological difference of being halfway or past halfway to a degree vs. only going one year (and maybe not even finishing spring courses), and shaving another year off the cost of college is a huge deal these days.

Spaceman Spiff · Post by **Spaceman Spiff** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 10:05 am

Choo Choo, not to quote into infinity, I'll just respond in a new post.

In all fairness, I advocate allowing players to go HS to pro. I've never been a fan of an artificial limitation on choice.

I used GJ/BA/KT intentionally. You may be correct than none was destined for the NBA, but in that way, GJ's decision to leave early got him 3 more years of pay than Zeus. NBA teams will put money into a developmental prospect. GJ got some developmental money. Zeus showed development in college and didn't get that same money when he left.

That's the thing. From the player perspective, you can get $ as an investment. NBA teams are far less likely to invest it in a 4 year player than a young kid who has to have some development time.

Again, the decision should be the player. I just don't buy college as this cure-all.

Beachcat97 · Post by **Beachcat97** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 10:13 am

Not sure this is the right thread to pose this question, but I'm curious what everyone's thoughts are about the optimal solution to the OAD problem. Get rid of the age restriction and let the Lonzo Balls of the world go pro right out of HS again? Impose a greater age restriction that keeps guys out of the NBA until they're 20? Require student-athletes who accept scholarships to commit to 2 years of college? Who fixes this, the NBA or the NCAA?

ChooChooCat · Post by **ChooChooCat** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 10:21 am

Spaceman Spiff wrote:Choo Choo, not to quote into infinity, I'll just respond in a new post.

In all fairness, I advocate allowing players to go HS to pro. I've never been a fan of an artificial limitation on choice.

I used GJ/BA/KT intentionally. You may be correct than none was destined for the NBA, but in that way, GJ's decision to leave early got him 3 more years of pay than Zeus. NBA teams will put money into a developmental prospect. GJ got some developmental money. Zeus showed development in college and didn't get that same money when he left.

That's the thing. From the player perspective, you can get $ as an investment. NBA teams are far less likely to invest it in a 4 year player than a young kid who has to have some development time.

Again, the decision should be the player. I just don't buy college as this cure-all.

You and I agree on allowing guys go from HS to pro.

I get your point on GJ and to be fair I don't think his personality was going to change. From what I understand the guy wasn't a worker. Even though I think he could've eventually raised his stock to become a first rounder if he stayed in college and got more money, his career in the NBA was likely limited just based on the fact he didn't work hard.

I think NBA teams are more likely to use a throw away pick I.E. a 2nd rounder on a younger player than a 4 year player for sure as the risk is lower to the non-guaranteed contract and if you have to choose between a guy who isn't almost or nearly done developing vs. a guy who still has room to grow I'd go with the guy with room to grow as long as the 4 year college guy realistically couldn't help me. I just think whether it's 2 years, 3 years, or 4 years every player's timeline is different. My personal goal would be to get that guaranteed contract if at all possible and if it meant staying 4 years in college and I had a clear path to the playing time needed to accomplish that goal then I'd stay in college as opposed to going undrafted, but that's just me.

I don't buy college as a cure-all either my man, I just see it as the best opportunity to a guaranteed contract ASAP. Whether it be you worked your way into a 1st round pick or you're a 2nd round pick that can help a team immediately.

Merkin · Post by **Merkin** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 10:23 am

Has to be the NBA.

Mentioned this before, but not sure why the NBA Player's Association protects college athletes more than the current dues paying members. For every kid coming into the NBA, some vet has to go.

Beachcat97 · Post by **Beachcat97** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 10:31 am

Merkin wrote:Has to be the NBA.

Mentioned this before, but not sure why the NBA Player's Association protects college athletes more than the current dues paying members. For every kid coming into the NBA, some vet has to go.

So raise the age requirement to 20? Even though this would likely mean more elite HS players going overseas for 2 years, I'd be fine with that, as it would get rid of OADs. OADs have taken an awful toll on the college game.

Spaceman Spiff · Post by **Spaceman Spiff** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:07 am

Merkin wrote:Has to be the NBA.

Mentioned this before, but not sure why the NBA Player's Association protects college athletes more than the current dues paying members. For every kid coming into the NBA, some vet has to go.

I've got no issue with this. It's essentially altruistic and cares about future members even at the expense of current ones. Plus, moving back entrance doesn't change the number of new players taking spots after a year or two. It just restructures when they enter, but the same numbers will happen each year.

Responding to ChooChoo, maybe we aren't so far apart after all. Using Chance as an example, I think a lot of players are not seeing themselves as advancing to first round locks. In Chance's case, I'm not sure he ever becomes a first rounder, regardless of the length of his college career. Seeing that, is leaving a terrible choice?

GJ might have become a first rounder, but he easily might have never added size and just used college to show the limitations the pro career showed. In fact, I think he would have done that. I think Grant's issues would have kept his stock stagnant or falling.

I am more likely to say a player should stay when a year or two is legitimately something that could move them from second to first. I see Rawle in that situation, where a shallower draft in 18 plus his continued development can get him around #25.

Luuuuuuuute · Post by **Luuuuuuuute** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:08 am

gumby wrote:Picture yourself in a boat on a river
With tangerine trees and marmalade skies
Somebody calls you, you answer quite slowly
A girl with colitis goes by

Beachcat97 · Post by **Beachcat97** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:16 am

Spaceman Spiff wrote: It just restructures when they enter, but the same numbers will happen each year.

I'm not sure this is quite true, SS.

If guys have to wait two years, it's two more years that scouts have to watch and evaluate them. Some guys will continue to develop and reach their potential while others will turn out to be overrated. So that extra time between HS and the NBA does thin the pool of players, to some extent. Think of the many HS-to-NBA guys who turned out to be busts. If the NBA had two years to evaluate these guys, they'd never have been drafted.

gumby · Post by **gumby** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:16 am

ChooChooCat · Post by **ChooChooCat** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:22 am

Spaceman Spiff wrote:
Responding to ChooChoo, maybe we aren't so far apart after all. Using Chance as an example, I think a lot of players are not seeing themselves as advancing to first round locks. In Chance's case, I'm not sure he ever becomes a first rounder, regardless of the length of his college career. Seeing that, is leaving a terrible choice?

GJ might have become a first rounder, but he easily might have never added size and just used college to show the limitations the pro career showed. In fact, I think he would have done that. I think Grant's issues would have kept his stock stagnant or falling.

I am more likely to say a player should stay when a year or two is legitimately something that could move them from second to first. I see Rawle in that situation, where a shallower draft in 18 plus his continued development can get him around #25.

I think where you and I differ on specifically Chance is I could easily see him becoming a 1st round pick after 4 years. He was always a developmental big when we recruited him and he's currently displayed he's on a steady improvement curve for as much as 2 years can show. Obviously there's risk either way, but at the moment he's very likely not going to be drafted in the 2nd round, so I don't see much for him to lose in returning for another year of improvement and being the 3rd head in a post rotation for a year and then handed the reigns for his senior year. If Chance was a 2nd rounder today I'd be ok with him leaving and would cite your take as the very reason why I would be ok with that. At this point though I don't see a major difference for him in regards of development between the D league and College. If he stays in college though he has a better chance at eventually getting that guaranteed contract.

Yeah there's a lot of different ways GJ's career could've gone, I'll concede that.

I agree with you here and I would also end your first sentence by replacing the words second to undrafted and first to second.

gumby · Post by **gumby** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:23 am

Beachcat97 wrote:Not sure this is the right thread to pose this question, but I'm curious what everyone's thoughts are about the optimal solution to the OAD problem. Get rid of the age restriction and let the Lonzo Balls of the world go pro right out of HS again? Impose a greater age restriction that keeps guys out of the NBA until they're 20? Require student-athletes who accept scholarships to commit to 2 years of college? Who fixes this, the NBA or the NCAA?

Long discussion about this in this very thread, starting March 30.

Beachcat97 · Post by **Beachcat97** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:28 am

gumby wrote:
Beachcat97 wrote:Not sure this is the right thread to pose this question, but I'm curious what everyone's thoughts are about the optimal solution to the OAD problem. Get rid of the age restriction and let the Lonzo Balls of the world go pro right out of HS again? Impose a greater age restriction that keeps guys out of the NBA until they're 20? Require student-athletes who accept scholarships to commit to 2 years of college? Who fixes this, the NBA or the NCAA?
Long discussion about this in this very thread, starting March 30.

Thanks, gumb. I'll get caught up.

rgdeuce · Post by **rgdeuce** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:34 am

Beachcat97 wrote:
Merkin wrote:Has to be the NBA.

Mentioned this before, but not sure why the NBA Player's Association protects college athletes more than the current dues paying members. For every kid coming into the NBA, some vet has to go.
So raise the age requirement to 20? Even though this would likely mean more elite HS players going overseas for 2 years, I'd be fine with that, as it would get rid of OADs. OADs have taken an awful toll on the college game.

As of right now, I think the one and done is a happy medium between what was happening before and forcing these kids to stay longer (and likely making some want to go overseas instead). Miller has coached 8 seasons at Arizona. Not including the 2017 class, he has six straight top 7 recruiting classes. In all that time, we have lost Jerrett, AG, Stanley, Lauri, and Kobi. Five guys (Rawle could be #6). Yes, we have shit luck with not having lottery guys who want to stay, but it's not like we are Kentucky here.

A couple of things to consider: If you make it a two-and-done situation, likely two of those five (Kobi and GJ) leave anyhow via transfer or going overseas. If you bring it back to the old days where there is no minimum age, we may have never seen Lauri in an Arizona jersey. You can bet your bottom dollar we would never see Ayton. And an argument could be made that Kobi, Aaron Gordon, Grant Jerrett, and Stanley may have entered the draft out of high school. At least we get these guys for a year.

Beachcat97 · Post by **Beachcat97** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:40 am

rgdeuce wrote: At least we get these guys for a year.

See, I'm torn on this. Because as much as I love me some AG and SJ and Lauri, I'm not sure this is good for the college game. It makes a mockery of the term "student-athlete," and it makes college hoops into a de facto minor league for the NBA.

Which is better, the OAD system, or an alternate system where the best players rarely play college ball? The latter would mean many more 3 and 4 year players but a sharp drop-off in talent level.

EOCT · Post by **EOCT** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:47 am

EVCat wrote:As long as they are going into the decision with eyes wide open, and most are in this day of instant evaluation, it really is up to them to determine their path. If they want to do D-League instead of college, or play in Europe and start earning today, that is up to them. No one can really know if it was the right or wrong move until the journey is complete, and even if you know surface junk like total earnings, that doesn't tell you whether the player is happier with the path taken rather than the one we all wanted them to take. As long as they know the risks, this is their life. We all make mistakes...sometimes those "mistakes" are the best things for us.

There are more paths to happiness than the most travelled one. As long as they aren't getting screwed by someone, and know the risks and potential rewards of their decision, more power to them. They shouldn't stick around if this isn't where they want to be. If you don't graduate, there really is no difference in leaving college after one or two or three years, and most fans don't care if a player leaves without their degree after 3, so this isn't about them wasting an academic opportunity.

I think Chance serves himself and his career by coming back. Not sure Kobi would have been helped any. But, ultimately, it may work out for them. Or they may just be happier finding out now.

Out of the park on this one, EV! Thank for your wisdom!

Spaceman Spiff · Post by **Spaceman Spiff** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:51 am

rgdeuce wrote:
Beachcat97 wrote:
Merkin wrote:Has to be the NBA.

Mentioned this before, but not sure why the NBA Player's Association protects college athletes more than the current dues paying members. For every kid coming into the NBA, some vet has to go.
So raise the age requirement to 20? Even though this would likely mean more elite HS players going overseas for 2 years, I'd be fine with that, as it would get rid of OADs. OADs have taken an awful toll on the college game.
As of right now, I think the one and done is a happy medium between what was happening before and forcing these kids to stay longer (and likely making some want to go overseas instead). Miller has coached 8 seasons at Arizona. Not including the 2017 class, he has six straight top 7 recruiting classes. In all that time, we have lost Jerrett, AG, Stanley, Lauri, and Kobi. Five guys (Rawle could be #6). Yes, we have shit luck with not having lottery guys who want to stay, but it's not like we are Kentucky here.

A couple of things to consider: If you make it a two-and-done situation, likely two of those five (Kobi and GJ) leave anyhow via transfer or going overseas. If you bring it back to the old days where there is no minimum age, we may have never seen Lauri in an Arizona jersey. You can bet your bottom dollar we would never see Ayton. And an argument could be made that Kobi, Aaron Gordon, Grant Jerrett, and Stanley may have entered the draft out of high school. At least we get these guys for a year.

Any minimum will lead to people wanting more time. If it's two, people will want the CFB rule of 3.

There are pros and cons to any approach. Some players (LeBron, Kobe) are ready at 18. Some (Ndudi Ebi) aren't. We never really know whether they ever would have been either.

I think the reality is that there were 20 years where players could jump straight from HS and didn't (between Malone and KG). Why? NBA teams internally regulated it by not being interested. Then they realized people could regularly make it when KG, Kobe and Jermaine O'Neal came in back to back drafts. The game changed then, and it won't go back. No NBA team will ever not draft a kid based on him being too young nowadays.

TucsonClip · Post by **TucsonClip** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 12:50 pm

Im coming in pretty late on some of these posts so ill just leave a few thoughts in the wake.

You can make the argument that there arent a lot of players who have been signed directly out of the D-League (now G-League) who have made an impact. But there are more than enough to warrant the league as is. However, when you actually factor in player development (teams sending guys down), that number inflates quite a bit. Toss in injury rehab players and the number jumps even more.

Im probably the biggest G-League supporter/defender of the lot of people I know. Its on the way up and only growing/getting stronger and more viable in the coming years. Its a very important piece of the NBA development IMO. I tend to scoff at the reactions from people who dislike or discount it. Much akin to those who think late 1st round picks are worthless and its fine to toss them around in trades (Doc Rivers).

Finally, I posted this on the Scout board, but this would be my initial proposal to help fix the age limit rule, and one that is a little more outside the box, but tackles a lot of the issues (not all):

2 year age rule, but kids can declare out of HS. The catch being, if you declare out of HS and are a 1st round draft pick (cant be drafted in the 2nd round), the team drafting you either gets an extra year of control and/or has to guarantee every year on the contract with the cap hit multiplied in the first two years by x amount. If you arent a round 1 pick, you can go overseas, d-league, college.

I think this would be controversial, but accomplishes required goals from both sides.

1. It discourages NBA teams from taking fringe HS NBA prospects because they have to guarantee the deal for six years (RFA after 5, QO guaranteed year 6) and pay a cap tax on the pick.

2. Keeps players in college and keeps them involved for three semesters + summer classes.

Combine that with JMark's thoughts regarding compensation/branding/marketing to student-athletes and I think you make some headway on the subject. The problem, as usual, is getting the NBAPA to approve it. However, guaranteeing six years and allowing players to declare out of HS would help. Still, the NBA would have to change its stance, as they would prefer a strict two year rule.

gumby · Post by **gumby** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 1:41 pm

psiclist23 · Post by **psiclist23** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 1:54 pm

Beachcat97 wrote:
rgdeuce wrote: At least we get these guys for a year.
See, I'm torn on this. Because as much as I love me some AG and SJ and Lauri, I'm not sure this is good for the college game. It makes a mockery of the term "student-athlete," and it makes college hoops into a de facto minor league for the NBA.

Which is better, the OAD system, or an alternate system where the best players rarely play college ball? The latter would mean many more 3 and 4 year players but a sharp drop-off in talent level.

I don't think the talent drop-off would be that much. Sure, you'd miss out on the very best, but how many is that really? You would balance that by having teams together for four years. Teams would end up playing better team basketball. Recruiting would still be huge, as you would need to be able to find guys who can be great players after a couple of seasons. Ultimately, the games would be better, I think. Also, you would have the guys that can be great college players for four years who declare early and flame out now.

It would have made a better team to have had Derrick Williams, e.g., for four years. I don't think he would ever have gotten drafted out of h.s. yet was an awesome college player. You can probably think of many examples off the top of your head.

So, even without the very top players, you would have better teams and more enjoyable games, I think. Not to mention, not having to go through this "should I stay or go?" b.s. every year.

Jefe · Post by **Jefe** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 2:52 pm

Kokoskie on Ristic:

We're excited Dusan Ristic is coming back to Arizona for his Senior Year. He could have turned professional and signed a big deal in Europe. In my 16 years at Arizona he is truly one of the best kids I've worked with. First class in everything that he does. No one works harder and treats people better than him. Easy kid to root for!!

UAEebs86 wrote:I think GJ made a bad decision, but he did make 1.7 million from the Jazz. Wish my mistakes paid that much.

Now he's in China playing for the Beijing Ducks with Stephon Marbury. I thought I saw he was making about $700K but I cant find the article now

Beachcat97 · Post by **Beachcat97** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 2:58 pm

psiclist23 wrote:
Beachcat97 wrote:
rgdeuce wrote: At least we get these guys for a year.
See, I'm torn on this. Because as much as I love me some AG and SJ and Lauri, I'm not sure this is good for the college game. It makes a mockery of the term "student-athlete," and it makes college hoops into a de facto minor league for the NBA.

Which is better, the OAD system, or an alternate system where the best players rarely play college ball? The latter would mean many more 3 and 4 year players but a sharp drop-off in talent level.
I don't think the talent drop-off would be that much. Sure, you'd miss out on the very best, but how many is that really? You would balance that by having teams together for four years. Teams would end up playing better team basketball. Recruiting would still be huge, as you would need to be able to find guys who can be great players after a couple of seasons. Ultimately, the games would be better, I think. Also, you would have the guys that can be great college players for four years who declare early and flame out now.

It would have made a better team to have had Derrick Williams, e.g., for four years. I don't think he would ever have gotten drafted out of h.s. yet was an awesome college player. You can probably think of many examples off the top of your head.

So, even without the very top players, you would have better teams and more enjoyable games, I think. Not to mention, not having to go through this "should I stay or go?" b.s. every year.

Agree 100%, psiclist. Give me more 3 to 4 year players, and cut down on OADs, however this can happen. It makes the game more interesting and competitive when teams can keep their players this long.

Spaceman Spiff · Post by **Spaceman Spiff** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 2:59 pm

psiclist23 wrote:
Beachcat97 wrote:
rgdeuce wrote: At least we get these guys for a year.
See, I'm torn on this. Because as much as I love me some AG and SJ and Lauri, I'm not sure this is good for the college game. It makes a mockery of the term "student-athlete," and it makes college hoops into a de facto minor league for the NBA.

Which is better, the OAD system, or an alternate system where the best players rarely play college ball? The latter would mean many more 3 and 4 year players but a sharp drop-off in talent level.
I don't think the talent drop-off would be that much. Sure, you'd miss out on the very best, but how many is that really? You would balance that by having teams together for four years. Teams would end up playing better team basketball. Recruiting would still be huge, as you would need to be able to find guys who can be great players after a couple of seasons. Ultimately, the games would be better, I think. Also, you would have the guys that can be great college players for four years who declare early and flame out now.

It would have made a better team to have had Derrick Williams, e.g., for four years. I don't think he would ever have gotten drafted out of h.s. yet was an awesome college player. You can probably think of many examples off the top of your head.

So, even without the very top players, you would have better teams and more enjoyable games, I think. Not to mention, not having to go through this "should I stay or go?" b.s. every year.

Personally, I never thought CBB suffered much. Teams like UNC and Illinois in 2005, the Okafor/Gordon Uconn team and the MSU championship team would be good against anyone, and they were at the height of the HS exodus. We had some of our most stacked teams ever during that era.

I don't know if you want to go back as far as the UConn/Duke NC game in the HS exodus era, but that national championship may have had the most talent ever. Brand, Maggette, Battier, Hamilton, etc, there were a ton of future pros on the floor.

gumby · Post by **gumby** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 3:01 pm

Sidenote: Is Peking Duck now Beijing Duck?

TucsonClip · Post by **TucsonClip** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 3:43 pm

gumby wrote:

Im sure NBA GMs and coaches would disagree... Its the freaking playoffs. But yes, it would absolutely help the NCAA.

Longhorned · Post by **Longhorned** » Mon Apr 17, 2017 5:22 pm

gumby wrote:Sidenote: Is Peking Duck now Beijing Duck?

Not when Mr. Wade Giles calls in an order for takeout.

rgdeuce · Post by **rgdeuce** » Tue Apr 18, 2017 8:20 am

TucsonClip, I like your proposed plan quite a bit. The only I aspect I have a question about is allowing non-1st round picks to play overseas, in the d-league, or go to college for two years. I could see a ton of really good to great 17 and 18 year olds saying F school and just going that route thinking some money is better than no money and having to go to class, and then NCAA would inevitably miss out on quite a few top 30 in their class guys. What would prevent that from happening?

Merkin · Post by **Merkin** » Tue Apr 18, 2017 8:21 am

PennZona20 · Post by **PennZona20** » Tue Apr 18, 2017 8:32 am

Merkin wrote:

I have a feeling we are going to have a ship for him too. We will have anywhere from 2-4 ships open. Likely 3, and I don't see us adding 3 more to this class, transfer or otherwise.

Beachcat97 · Post by **Beachcat97** » Tue Apr 18, 2017 8:38 am

PennZona20 wrote: I don't see us adding 3 more to this class, transfer or otherwise.

Miller is a witch.

Beachcat97 · Post by **Beachcat97** » Tue Apr 18, 2017 8:39 am

Romar is a warlock.

PennZona20 · Post by **PennZona20** » Tue Apr 18, 2017 8:43 am

Hey I hope we don't have room to give Talbot a ship. No offense to him, but I am rooting for the team, and if there's no room for him our depth is better. We already fulfilled one free year for grad school. We don't owe him more. Tough luck w the ACL but if we can go grab a cam Johnson or McCoy w our 13th ship, sorry Talbot.

Talbot may be the first Arizona player to get "Romar'd". I kid , I kid.

rgdeuce · Post by **rgdeuce** » Tue Apr 18, 2017 8:59 am

Beachcat97 wrote:Romar is a warlock.

PennZona20 wrote:Hey I hope we don't have room to give Talbot a ship. No offense to him, but I am rooting for the team, and if there's no room for him our depth is better. We already fulfilled one free year for grad school. We don't owe him more. Tough luck w the ACL but if we can go grab a cam Johnson or McCoy w our 13th ship, sorry Talbot.

Talbot may be the first Arizona player to get "Romar'd". I kid , I kid.

I'm with you.

Merkin · Post by **Merkin** » Tue Apr 18, 2017 9:10 am

PennZona20 wrote:
Talbot may be the first Arizona player to get "Romar'd". I kid , I kid.

However, he was all academic at Lipscomb, and no doubt he has kept his grades up here, so that is good for the team's APR with Kodi and Chance not in class this semester. However moot, if both Kodi and Chance left in good academic standing, and not just quit showing up.

EOCT · Post by **EOCT** » Tue Apr 18, 2017 9:43 am

Longhorned wrote:
gumby wrote:Sidenote: Is Peking Duck now Beijing Duck?
Not when Mr. Wade Giles calls in an order for takeout.

"Ha ha ha ha hanyu pinyin!"

TucsonClip · Post by **TucsonClip** » Tue Apr 18, 2017 10:44 am

rgdeuce wrote:TucsonClip, I like your proposed plan quite a bit. The only I aspect I have a question about is allowing non-1st round picks to play overseas, in the d-league, or go to college for two years. I could see a ton of really good to great 17 and 18 year olds saying F school and just going that route thinking some money is better than no money and having to go to class, and then NCAA would inevitably miss out on quite a few top 30 in their class guys. What would prevent that from happening?

My premise is guys who dont want to go to college just dont want to go to college. However, the counter here is allowing student-athletes to make money off their likeness (as JMark, and others im sure) have brought up. I think thats a viable possibility to offset the money offered by the D-League and riding busses through the mid-west all winter.

gumby · Post by **gumby** » Tue Apr 18, 2017 6:10 pm

PennZona20 wrote:Hey I hope we don't have room to give Talbot a ship. No offense to him, but I am rooting for the team, and if there's no room for him our depth is better. We already fulfilled one free year for grad school. We don't owe him more. Tough luck w the ACL but if we can go grab a cam Johnson or McCoy w our 13th ship, sorry Talbot.

Talbot may be the first Arizona player to get "Romar'd". I kid , I kid.

Give it to him. (I know his dad).

PennZona20 · Post by **PennZona20** » Tue Apr 18, 2017 11:20 pm

gumby wrote:
PennZona20 wrote:Hey I hope we don't have room to give Talbot a ship. No offense to him, but I am rooting for the team, and if there's no room for him our depth is better. We already fulfilled one free year for grad school. We don't owe him more. Tough luck w the ACL but if we can go grab a cam Johnson or McCoy w our 13th ship, sorry Talbot.

Talbot may be the first Arizona player to get "Romar'd". I kid , I kid.
Give it to him. (I know his dad).

I'd say there's a strong possibility he will get his ship this year. I just don't see 4 more guys coming on board (including RA and CC)

Beachcat97 · Post by **Beachcat97** » Tue Apr 18, 2017 11:32 pm

PennZona20 wrote:
gumby wrote:
PennZona20 wrote:Hey I hope we don't have room to give Talbot a ship. No offense to him, but I am rooting for the team, and if there's no room for him our depth is better. We already fulfilled one free year for grad school. We don't owe him more. Tough luck w the ACL but if we can go grab a cam Johnson or McCoy w our 13th ship, sorry Talbot.

Talbot may be the first Arizona player to get "Romar'd". I kid , I kid.
Give it to him. (I know his dad).

I'd say there's a strong possibility he will get his ship this year. I just don't see 4 more guys coming on board (including RA and CC)

CC is gone; RA will be back.

Login • Register