Increasing the age limit to 20 is a priority for Adam Silver. It will be a topic of discussion once the union hires an executive director.
link
Increasing the age limit to 20 is a priority for Adam Silver. It will be a topic of discussion once the union hires an executive director.
southshoresoxfan said:I wish they'd go the baseball model. You can come out after hs, or you have to wait 3 years.
I assume under this scenario, if an 18 year old was drafted, they would make NBA money but play in the D-League until they were 20?Infield Infidel said:If the D-League minimum is still 18 I don't see what the problem is.
BigSoxFan said:Why should we care about giving veteran scrubs like Bogans one more year of an NBA paycheck in lieu of letting more talented players in the league? This is an entertainment business and I want to watch the most talented players even if they're raw 19 year-olds. I really don't have a problem with current the one-and-done environment. It makes college hoops better and gives fans a nice primer on who the elite prospects are prior to being drafted.
bowiac said:It's not clear to me how it's good for the owners without being good for NBA fans? It seems like their interests should be aligned here. Potentially it improves the quality of the NBA product, and fans are thrilled, increasing demand, and thus owner profits.
What's the scenario where it helps the owners but doesn't help the fans?
fairlee76 said:I assume under this scenario, if an 18 year old was drafted, they would make NBA money but play in the D-League until they were 20?
I think it's about the quality of the product and value of draft picks. I love watching guys develop too but the casual fans don't appreciate that process and want to see the final product. It also increases the value of top picks when the players come into the league more polished than raw because teams get more production out of those rookie contracts and the polished players are easier to project.BigSoxFan said:Why should we care about giving veteran scrubs like Bogans one more year of an NBA paycheck in lieu of letting more talented players in the league?
In the world where Lebron can't play at 19 then gets drafted by the Magic who get one more of his prime years at a bargain price and his NBA career is shortened by a year which equally hurts the fans and owners.bowiac said:What's the scenario where it helps the owners but doesn't help the fans?
Well, fix THAT problem then. A lot of this would go away if the way NCAA eligibility and NBA draft eligibility intersect was modified. Give every player a one-time 'Whoops!' mulligan if they declare for the draft and don't get a guaranteed contract. Or some refined iteration thereof.Infield Infidel said:I personally would prefer the baseball model, but where some kind panel of NBA experts say a HS player is ready. If not, go overseas or to college or the D-League. I don't want any old high schooler to declare for the draft, hire an agent, not get drafted, and have no hope of college.There were too many flame outs back in those days, when like 15 or 20 high schoolers would declare. The pure math made no sense. It's depressing just thinking about those days.
The X Man Cometh said:I don't know. I think the one and done structure is a great thing for the NCAA game. The experience gulf between the NBA feeder teams and the rest levels the playing field and makes the games more exciting IMO.
Brickowski said:I also predict that more top 18 year-olds will opt for Europe instead of college or the D-league. The college scholarship system is akin to slavery and the D-league pays chump change.
If the NCAA weren't so intent on punishing kids they perceive as a threat they could end that tomorrow, because they changed the rules to make undrafted kids ineligible to punish them in the first place.Infield Infidel said:If they aren't draft-eligible until 20, I'm presuming the options are
1. Go to the D-League, make D-League money, get drafted at 20
2. Go overseas, make overseas money, get drafted at 20
3. Go to college, get a scholarship, get drafted at 20
There are pluses and minuses to all these scenarios.
I personally would prefer the baseball model, but where some kind panel of NBA experts say a HS player is ready. If not, go overseas or to college or the D-League. I don't want any old high schooler to declare for the draft, hire an agent, not get drafted, and have no hope of college. There were too many flame outs back in those days, when like 15 or 20 high schoolers would declare. The pure math made no sense. It's depressing just thinking about those days.
Jeremy Tyler did it too. But he wasn't ready for life overseas as a 17 year old.moondog80 said:Why don't more kids do that now? Brandon Jennings is the only one, right? It's obviously a better finanical deal, and I would argue it's also better for their basketball development (the NCAA has strict regulations on how much college kids can practice). And personal growth wise, the year spend in Eurpoe is better tham the "education" they would get by going to school and being fawned over (though a 19 year old kid looking at a year of being BMOC and hooking up with whoever he wants might see that one differently).
nighthob said:If the NCAA weren't so intent on punishing kids they perceive as a threat they could end that tomorrow, because they changed the rules to make undrafted kids ineligible to punish them in the first place.
Ok, but that helps the Magic, but hurts the other 29 owners. That seems like a zero sum situation for the owners.wutang112878 said:In the world where Lebron can't play at 19 then gets drafted by the Magic who get one more of his prime years at a bargain price and his NBA career is shortened by a year which equally hurts the fans and owners.
Only one team gets Lebron at a time so that's zero sum ignoring market size factors. Anyway both the owners and the fans lose a year of Lebron. But the one owner that has Lebron on his rookie contract at 23 instead of paying him the max would benefit significantly but there is no benefit there for the fans. By my count the owners win one therebowiac said:Ok, but that helps the Magic, but hurts the other 29 owners. That seems like a zero sum situation for the owners.
Brickowski said:Like you, moondog80, I'm surprised that more kids haven't done it.
The X Man Cometh said:
Well he said it himself. Why would a 19 year old kid pass up the celebrity status, partying and "familiar territory" of going to college? Because "going to Europe would be better for his personal growth"? 19 year olds don't think like that.
Brickowski said:The hell with personal growth. It's about the 18 or 19 year-old's pocketbook-- and his agent's pocketbook. I suppose it could be daunting for an 18 year-old to deal with a European country, but its a better education than taking basketweaving 101 at some basketball factory.
I dunno, Barcelona or Istanbul or Tel-Aviv would be pretty "warm" at 18.southshoresoxfan said:
If i was a highly recruited HS kid I would have absolutely picked a warm weather school and gotten to know as many co-eds as possible while occasionally practicing basketball. ZERO chance I would have gone to Europe. I bet this is the prevailing thought in these situations, not "oh it will be better for my basketball growth".
Not to mention, these kids have been told for years they are the best thing since sliced bread, they probably think quick cup of coffee in college and on to the NBA
I think this would be the best of all options. It's a lot like how hockey teams treat the CHL.Zereck said:I really wish guys thinking about coming out of high school could enter the draft and teams could use picks on them and let them play a year or two in college.
Nick Kaufman said:Isn't the effect that it makes the NBA draft more efficient, i.e. less misses on the top?
Zereck said:I really wish guys thinking about coming out of high school could enter the draft and teams could use picks on them and let them play a year or two in college. You'd increase visibility in the college game and GM's and good scouting would hold an even higher emphasis in the league
The X Man Cometh said:
Well he said it himself. Why would a 19 year old kid pass up the celebrity status, partying and "familiar territory" of going to college? Because "going to Europe would be better for his personal growth"? 19 year olds don't think like that.
Dan to Theo to Ben said:I dunno, Barcelona or Istanbul or Tel-Aviv would be pretty "warm" at 18.
I'd take one of those over a place like Lexington, East Lansing, or Syracuse.
Actually it didn't ultimately protect their interests because it removed players from the pool. The move was all about intimidation. They really are a glorified mafia.wibi said:No. They made the rules to protect their business interests. Punishing the kids just happens to be a result of them protecting their business interests
wutang112878 said:
Thats one of many effects. Teams are going to get a better player at 20 than 19, and it locks the player up until they are 23 instead of 22, which makes the rookie contract more valuable. On the flipside, even if the player isnt a bust, drafting the 19 year old isnt the long-term 'project' type pick, it comes with more immediate production. Also when thinking of resigning the player at 23 teams have much more information and a much better NBA projection for the player. The quality of the game will improve when there are less project players getting minutes because of draft status and so they can develop. Bad teams should get more immediate impact players which should help teams turn around more quickly and increase parity. Its only a 1 year age change so all these effects are minor but they certainly exist.
You mean like Larry Legend? Fits your mold exactly. Indiana St got that amazing run, Celts got to get excited for what they would get. The Celts traded the pick so this didnt work out, but without Larry they only won 29 games so they were in position to get a great draft pick again and had Larry, so teams could come out with 2 major pieces if a player goes back to college and really kickstart rebuilding. The Celts ended up getting McHale the after Larrys rookie year, which had the same effect with slightly different timing.
However this rule would also have to come with an age limit because your blue chip prospects are not going to choose to go to college to develop.
Grin&MartyBarret said:
There seems to be this idea that the college game develops players, and I'm not sure it does so any better than the NBA does. Personally, I'd like to see the NBA increase their investment in the D-League and work to de-stigmatize the idea of high draft picks spending time there. A true development league, with true team affiliations and a real investment from parent clubs seems far preferable to me than using the exploitative NCAA as a conduit.
The X Man Cometh said:
But isn't the fact that Iowa State can hang with the big boys a good thing?? It's fun to watch a bunch of try-hard fifth-year seniors, who move the ball and have a telepathic understanding of where there teammates will be, go toe to toe with the lottery picks and hold their own.
I don't want to see the current system to change because as is, I find NCAA basketball enjoyable to watch. The more like the NBA the NCAA game becomes the better it will be for the guys with an NBA future. But it won't be as much fun anymore. To me CBB is a refuge from the endless free throws, ticky tack fouls and drive and dish that plague the NBA.
As long as only the first two years of the deal are guaranteed I don't see a problem.Infield Infidel said:The NBA wants no part of longer guaranteed contracts for rookies, even if it's for lower wages. A major point of the last CBA was to reduce the impact of rookie deals; they aren't going to all of the sudden backtrack, even for a year or two.
Grin&MartyBarret said:
The idea that more time in college will result in NBA teams getting better players seems logical, but I'm not sure how true it is, and that has a lot to do with why I dislike this idea (putting aside the how corrupt the NCAA is, etc.). The college game is not particularly good. It's popular to blame this on one and dones, but I think it's more structural than that. Defenses are allowed to play far too physically, particularly on the perimeter, and the free-throw-of-a-three-point-line hurts the game by limiting driving lanes. Couple that with overly physical defense, and the style of play for perimeter players is nothing like what they'll see in the NBA. It's not a coincidence that a guy like Michael Carter Williams is seemingly better in the NBA than in college; the NBA rewards skill, the college game doesn't always. I don't really buy the idea that there's much to gain for a Michael Carter Williams, and I think two more years at Syracuse would've been bad for him.
Likewise, I see absolutely no positive aspects of big men staying in school. What does Joel Embiid gain by facing non-NBA level big men every night? Iowa State's one of the better teams in the Big 12, and they don't start a guy over 6'7. Baylor can throw Isiah Austin at him, but Austin's a fringe NBA guy who'll be lucky to stick on a roster. Embiid doesn't need a post game to dominate in the paint in the NCAA, and Bill Self doesn't really have much motivation to teach him one. I can't even remember the last time a big man came out of college with a strong offensive post game.
There seems to be this idea that the college game develops players, and I'm not sure it does so any better than the NBA does. Personally, I'd like to see the NBA increase their investment in the D-League and work to de-stigmatize the idea of high draft picks spending time there. A true development league, with true team affiliations and a real investment from parent clubs seems far preferable to me than using the exploitative NCAA as a conduit.
wutang112878 said:
You have a great point because the style of play and goal of college basketball isnt to prioritize the long-term development of the blue chip players over everything else, not everyone is Kentucky. But there are players where just playing anywhere would help their development. Take Tristan Thompson, he wasnt awful as a rookie but really blossomed his 2nd year. Or Enes Kanter, who was completely clueless and it looks like he might now be developing into something. Some big guys are so raw that they just arent ready for the NBA game and getting some minutes somewhere helps them develop. The ratio of guys who need this compare to those who dont is probably weighted heavily in the later, but unfortunately some of the prospect guys go early in the draft and then get the NBA minutes due to draft status and that does indeed impact the quality of the product.
I like your D-league idea but the NBA has to make a huge, huge investment in terms of quality of the players to make that work. Even if there were just 4 teams the NBA has to have a significant amount of NBA caliber players playing there otherwise guys would be playing with 'professionals' who are college talent caliber players. With todays caliber of talent players arent getting better development opportunities than they do in college. And I think even with 4 teams you would probably have to have at least 10 NBA caliber players to make it better developmentally. Sending a raw C there to face up against Fab Melo is no different than the college conundrum.
Grin&MartyBarret said:
At least in the D-League they're playing in NBA systems. One of the hardest transitions big men have to make is learning to defend the pick and roll; in the D-League they're able to develop that footwork and technique. Standing in the Center of Jim Beoheim's zone, on the other hand, doesn't teach them NBA skills. So the benefit of the D-League over college ball isn't just in the quality of the matchups, but also in system. College big men in particular just aren't asked to do very many of the things than NBA big men need to do to be successful.
Incedentally, Enes Kanter is sort of the worst example you could present, because he left Europe to go play at Kentucky only to be ruled ineligible and had to miss a year. That's an example of a guy who was failed by the NCAA system and would have been way better off developing in Turkey.
Further, even at Kentucky there isn't an emphasis on developing NBA skills in their blue chippers. Nerlens Noel and Anthony Davis both entered the NBA without back to the basket games OR face-up games. Calipari's system just relies on sheer athleticism, and guys like Davis are able to dominate at that level based entirely on their physical gifts. Anthony Davis has improved twenty fold since arriving in the NBA, and were he a Junior right now I highly doubt his game would be nearly as well rounded as it is now.
wutang112878 said:
Ok, I'm with you on the system. Again solid point and dictating a system is something the NBA can do in the D-League.
Forgot about that with Kanter, but I will still say I think him playing anywhere rather than his rookie year in the NBA would have been a help.
What has Anthony Davis improved on in year 1 vs 2? I would think that would demonstrate how his skills have grown in the pros. His rebound %s are virtually the same, his FG% is the same but his TS% went up because he gets more FTs but, according to basketball reference, this year 39% of his shots are "At the Rim" vs 47% last year and you would think he would draw the most FTs on those. So, I will make the argument I make with a lot of players, his increased FTs seem to be a result of not getting rookie treatment anymore.
I'm going to disagree with this. I think this is pretty much the only thing Calipari does do. If this were the 80s he'd be turning out polished players, but you've essentially identified two one & doners who between them weighed 400 lbs. Add in the limited practice time for part of the year (not to mention that Noel missed most of the year with a catastrophic knee injury) and I'm not sure what you expect. Davis' face up game was certainly worlds better than it was going into Kentucky and he hit the ground running defensively. And defense is actually the more difficult part of the game.Grin&MartyBarret said:Further, even at Kentucky there isn't an emphasis on developing NBA skills in their blue chippers. Nerlens Noel and Anthony Davis both entered the NBA without back to the basket games OR face-up games. Calipari's system just relies on sheer athleticism, and guys like Davis are able to dominate at that level based entirely on their physical gifts. Anthony Davis has improved twenty fold since arriving in the NBA, and were he a Junior right now I highly doubt his game would be nearly as well rounded as it is now.