Develop a Real D-League Option

[pfister1]

I didn't see this posted. Whether it was or not I am posting again, maybe it will stimulate a different discussion regarding the guys that are declaring now that don't seem to be first round locks.

Arn Tellem outlines his proposal for changes to the D-League and draft system that are aimed at developing the D-League into a true minor league talent feeder for the NBA.

Among his ideas:

- Roll back the minimum draft age to 18
- Give teams salary cap relief for players they decide to send to the D league
- Instead of declaring and immediately losing further eligibility players would only lose eligibility if they were in fact drafted
- All early entry players would have the same declaration date; currently American players have to declare almost two months earlier than International players.
- First rounders would be paid rookie scale regardless of whether they played in the NBA or D-League. The Thunder's 1st Round pick Josh Heustis (29th overall) was forced to accept assignment to the D-League at a D-League scale salary for his rookie year.
- Teams would be forced to offer 2nd rounders a guaranteed minimum contract or lose the rights to a player; apparently that is not the case today.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/d...e-necessary-plan-to-fix-the-nbas-farm-system/


Does anyone know the NCAA's justification for forcing players to give up their eligibility to go through the draft process? I understand why the NBA would support this, but don't understand why the NCAA would other than the NBA wants them to.

 

[longislandcuse]

Does anyone know the NCAA's justification for forcing players to give up their eligibility to go through the draft process? I understand why the NBA would support this, but don't understand why the NCAA would other than the NBA wants them to.

Because they do whatever the NBA tells them to do.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

A lot of that makes sense. I also think they should add an additional round or two to the draft.

 

[CraigForth]

I keep hearing how the NBA needs to fix the D-League and make it a viable farm system. Some suggest mirroring the baseball model, where you enter the draft out of high school and go pro or choose college and go for three years. As a college basketball fan, can someone explain to me why having a legitimate D-League is a good thing for College Basketball. Doesn't it virtually assure every 5 and 4 star player skips college to go play in the D-League. I don't know about you but I don't want to watch 2 and 3 star players. I want to watch talented players and if that means for only one year then so be it.

I think I could be convinced to support a change in the NBA farm system, but, my knee jerk reaction is to believe college is better off without a viable D-League

 

[RandygoCuse]

The hardest part about developing a strong D-league is that college basketball has such a stronghold on quality coaching, media share, as well as better facilities. Minor league baseball and hockey don't have to deal with this.

 

[pfister1]

I keep hearing how the NBA needs to fix the D-League and make it a viable farm system. Some suggest mirroring the baseball model, where you enter the draft out of high school and go pro or choose college and go for three years. As a college basketball fan, can someone explain to me why having a legitimate D-League is a good thing for College Basketball. Doesn't it virtually assure every 5 and 4 star player skips college to go play in the D-League. I don't know about you but I don't want to watch 2 and 3 star players. I want to watch talented players and if that means for only one year then so be it.

I think I could be convinced to support a change in the NBA farm system, but, my knee jerk reaction is to believe college is better off without a viable D-League

Most college basketball fans root for the jersey. If you took the 5 stars out of the mix, you would be more likely to be left with kids that needed time and seasoning to develop, but they would be more likely to spend 4 years in college and over that time develop into more fundamentally sound basketball players. Better teams would have strong upperclassmen rather than be dominated by "shooting star" one and done players.

In theory you might sacrifice some of the tremendous individual one on one play and skills for better team play. You might actually end up with a better product in the end. For my money I'd rather watch a Syracuse team that plays great team ball and is capable of actually putting the ball in the basket than watching one that has a few guys capable of jumping out of the gym but almost no one capable of putting the ball in the basket. I'd give up the highlight dunks for more overall scoring in a heartbeat.

Whether you'd get that is obviously debatable.

 

[Fly Rodder]

If you want to watch exceptionally skilled basketball players, watch the NBA. That's what it's there for.

Edited to add: What most people want is to watch exceptionally skilled basketball players play on their team of choice. For example, I probably only watched about 10 minutes of Okafor during the regular season (outside of Syracuse games). I really didn't care to watch him play and certainly didn't go out of my way to do so.

I think the college game actually suffers because there is too much emphasis put on getting professional-level players to play for free for a year or two.

 

[CraigForth]

Most college basketball fans root for the jersey. If you took the 5 stars out of the mix, you would be more likely to be left with kids that needed time and seasoning to develop, but they would be more likely to spend 4 years in college and over that time develop into more fundamentally sound basketball players. Better teams would have strong upperclassmen rather than be dominated by "shooting star" one and done players.

In theory you might sacrifice some of the tremendous individual one on one play and skills for better team play. You might actually end up with a better product in the end. For my money I'd rather watch a Syracuse team that plays great team ball and is capable of actually putting the ball in the basket than watching one that has a few guys capable of jumping out of the gym but almost no one capable of putting the ball in the basket. I'd give up the highlight dunks for more overall scoring in a heartbeat.

Whether you'd get that is obviously debatable.

Ok, so I think for the most part I understand and can sympathize with the argument. However, if the D-League were actually viable, like if every NBA team had an affiliate and the 5 stars skipped college and either went directly to the NBA or to the D-League for some seasoning, all while getting paid, what is to stop the 4 stars from doing the same. And, if the D-League could attract the top talent, why would college basketball be televised. It seems to me the eyeballs would eventually go where the talent went. So for me, I subscribe to the slippery slope argument, that maybe it would be good for college ball in the short term, but, eventually who would care about college basketball, aside form students of the University. Especially when so few of these college players ever actually make it to the pros. It would basically make college basketball as we know it like Division III. No television network is going to pay billions for the rights to nationally televise a DIII tournament, goodbye March Madness.

I could be wrong, but big picture, I think a viable D-League ruins college basketball.

 

[Fly Rodder]

Why should it matter if college basketball makes billions? The vast majority of the money goes to coaches and administrators. Colleges shouldn't be in the business of competing with professional sports for market share.

 

[Col. Bleep]

Two points.

The system in place for basketball is problematic for two main reasons.

1. Unlike baseball, the big time professional league came before there was any real supporting minor league infrastructure.
As a practical matter today, that means NBA collective bargaining agreements constrain the establishment of a minor league set-up similar to baseball's. (Plus the NBA rosters are a lot smaller so there isn't going to be room for a lot of players).

2. The college game now has little to do with college as an educational institution and everything to do with TV $$$$. Colleges may actually be resistant to rules that mean fewer top players for them...even if they're players who may have no business being in college.

Personally, I prefer the old days when players were actually students (or tried to be) and did really live in dorms and hang out with the rest of us. But that's not coming back. The alternative is going to have to be to start paying college players. There's just TOO MUCH $$$ involved for "schools" to keep getting away with using (almost) free labor.

 

[CraigForth]

Why should it matter if college basketball makes billions? The vast majority of the money goes to coaches and administrators. Colleges shouldn't be in the business of competing with professional sports for market share.

Why should college sports not compete for market share? I don't understand. Doesn't that money help pay for chartered planes that allow teams in Syracuse to go play teams in North Carolina rather than the University of Rochester and other teams within bus range?

 

[CraigForth]

If you want to watch exceptionally skilled basketball players, watch the NBA. That's what it's there for.

Edited to add: What most people want is to watch exceptionally skilled basketball players play on their team of choice. For example, I probably only watched about 10 minutes of Okafor during the regular season (outside of Syracuse games). I really didn't care to watch him play and certainly didn't go out of my way to do so.

I think the college game actually suffers because there is too much emphasis put on getting professional-level players to play for free for a year or two.

I think this is absurd. Why can't I have both?

 

[NKR1978]

I've never seen a valid explanation for why the one-and-done system is bad for college basketball. The loudest complaints seem to be from people upset that their team isn't as good as it should be because kids leave early.

 

[Shark58]

the quality in college hoops is already diminished. part of that is the 1 & dones, another part is the terrible refs.

as long as the competition level is comparable among teams, most fans don't care. Fans of Duke, UK, etc. don't care how their teams this year stacked up against teams of 5, 10, 20 years ago. they just care about how they stack up to the competition today.

losing top players directly to the draft (or d-league) most likely will have little impact on the fans or the popularity of the sport. where is will more likely hurt is with a lesser built-in popularity and exposure for the no0bs trying to enter the NBA. I'm not saying that an Okafor would be a complete unknown going into the league, but he certainly wouldn't be the name he is today, with tons of potential fans willing to buy tickets, jerseys, posters, etc. based on the fact of who he is and where he went.

 

[OrangeFoo]

I've never seen a valid explanation for why the one-and-done system is bad for college basketball. The loudest complaints seem to be from people upset that their team isn't as good as it should be because kids leave early.

Because kids don't stay long enough to actually learn how to play basketball so watching college hoops is about as exciting as watching paint dry or watching the Pat Riley New York Knicks. A big part of the issues with college hoops is the refereeing but a lot of it also has to do with the fact that the kids who are really good don't stay long enough to really learn how to play offense as opposed to the hero ball most of them played in high school. Kids don't get it until their second or even third year in a system but the good ones don't get that far. The coaches know they're not going to have time to implement an offensive system so they spend all of their time practicing defense and try to micromanage games because they can't trust their best guys to know what they are doing. This is why it's so refreshing to watch teams like Wisconsin or mid-majors with lots of 2/3 year players who actually know how to run a system. This is also why college football is so much better... it's so much fun to see a 3rd year QB who knows the system like the back of their hand. Not that anyone at Syracuse would know what fun college football looks like.

I say get rid of the one and done rule entirely. Let them go pro right out of high school. As Coach K said he didn't recruit the high school players who were going straight to the pros because he didn't have to play them so he focused on guys who would be in his program for a few years. But with the advent of one and done he had to start recruiting them just to stay competitive.

 

[sufandu]

I keep hearing how the NBA needs to fix the D-League and make it a viable farm system. Some suggest mirroring the baseball model, where you enter the draft out of high school and go pro or choose college and go for three years. As a college basketball fan, can someone explain to me why having a legitimate D-League is a good thing for College Basketball. Doesn't it virtually assure every 5 and 4 star player skips college to go play in the D-League. I don't know about you but I don't want to watch 2 and 3 star players. I want to watch talented players and if that means for only one year then so be it.

I think I could be convinced to support a change in the NBA farm system, but, my knee jerk reaction is to believe college is better off without a viable D-League

It could work out ok as long as each team only has one farm team and not three levels like baseball. It wouldn't take long to fill one team with prospects. I suggested in another thread something similar to the MLB model where a guy declares straight out of high school are goes to college for at least years with the NBA having to guarantee the straight out of high school kids 3 years in the developmental league if they're not good enough to advance to the big league. Requiring a 3 year guarantee like that would force the NBA to be selective in who they really wanted straight out of high school and force some of the delusional guys to college. It wouldn't be perfect, nothing will be, but I think something like this would go a long way toward satisfying a number of parties. The elites get to bypass college if they want to, the NBA can't just draft some delusional kid and throw them away after one year, and colleges get some stability.

 

[NKR1978]

Because kids don't stay long enough to actually learn how to play basketball so watching college hoops is about as exciting as watching paint dry or watching the Pat Riley New York Knicks. A big part of the issues with college hoops is the refereeing but a lot of it also has to do with the fact that the kids who are really good don't stay long enough to really learn how to play offense as opposed to the hero ball most of them played in high school. Kids don't get it until their second or even third year in a system but the good ones don't get that far. The coaches know they're not going to have time to implement an offensive system so they spend all of their time practicing defense and try to micromanage games because they can't trust their best guys to know what they are doing. This is why it's so refreshing to watch teams like Wisconsin or mid-majors with lots of 2/3 year players who actually know how to run a system. This is also why college football is so much better... it's so much fun to see a 3rd year QB who knows the system like the back of their hand. Not that anyone at Syracuse would know what fun college football looks like.

I say get rid of the one and done rule entirely. Let them go pro right out of high school. As Coach K said he didn't recruit the high school players who were going straight to the pros because he didn't have to play them so he focused on guys who would be in his program for a few years. But with the advent of one and done he had to start recruiting them just to stay competitive.

Then that's the coaches fault. I don't know why the system has to protect coaches from themselves. Bo Ryan famously doesn't rent players and he seems to be doing just fine coaching his system. Jim Calhoun recruited 4 national championship teams built on the backs of primarily 3 and 4 year players (Hamilton, Okafor, Gordon, Walker and Napier).

College basketball officiating and allowing hand checking and defenders leaving no space between them and the ball handler is ruining the game. To this end, I seem to remember a couple freshmen coming in for Syracuse who made a difference on a national championship team that had absolutely no problem scoring. Carmelo was a transcendent player, in my opinion the best freshman I've seen in my 25 years of following college basketball and possibly the best college player in the 21st century. But Gerry was a great college player and didn't get a sniff from the NBA. A freshman doesn't need to be a 1-and-done talent to make an impact.

And I think it's silly to suggest that a few dozen players leaving early every year is the reason why college basketball is boring over the last 5 years. It's all on the officiating and the deference to defense.

 

[CraigForth]

the quality in college hoops is already diminished. part of that is the 1 & dones, another part is the terrible refs.

as long as the competition level is comparable among teams, most fans don't care. Fans of Duke, UK, etc. don't care how their teams this year stacked up against teams of 5, 10, 20 years ago. they just care about how they stack up to the competition today.

losing top players directly to the draft (or d-league) most likely will have little impact on the fans or the popularity of the sport. where is will more likely hurt is with a lesser built-in popularity and exposure for the no0bs trying to enter the NBA. I'm not saying that an Okafor would be a complete unknown going into the league, but he certainly wouldn't be the name he is today, with tons of potential fans willing to buy tickets, jerseys, posters, etc. based on the fact of who he is and where he went.

Agree to disagree I guess. If you think that college would remain as popular as it is today without really talented players (some of whom will be in the NBA someday) then I don't know how to respond. Its ok to be nostalgic about the good ole days when players stayed for 3 or 4 years, but, to assume that the sport would not decline in popularity if there was another league (viable D-League) that had the superior talent then I don't know what to say. I think you are creating a straw man by suggesting people have interest in college only because of the name on the Jersey. I think people choose to root for teams based on the name on the Jersey, they do not however choose to be interested in the sport in general based on a name on a Jersey.

 

[Fly Rodder]

I think this is absurd. Why can't I have both?

Because the only reason these guys are in college is because they're pretty much being forced to go there. There are two types of very good players - 1) those with talent and skill at 18 (LeBron James, Kyrie Irving, etc) and 2) those with talent, but needing 3-4 years to develop the skill (e.g., Rakeem Christmas, Rick Jackson).

The first set have no reason to spend a year in college. None. Except so that fans of a college program can watch them play wearing their team's uniform for one year and then complain that they leave early. The 2nd set should have the option of playing for pay in the minors or playing for stipend/scholarship in the college system. Did you not enjoy watching Rick Jackson's senior year? How can you say that college basketball will turn into a YMCA rec league game (and frankly, I've seen better referred games in a Y gym) when there is ample evidence that skilled players develop in college?

The first set is such a small subset of all college basketball players that removing them from college and allowing them to play pro will not affect the game. There are what 10-20 of them? Add in another 15-20 who find playing for the Maine Red Claws and making $35k more enticing than playing in Syracuse. 40 players out of the more than 4,000 Division 1 college basketball players, or about 1%. There are still plenty of highly skilled and talented players.

 

[Madbiker]

I didn't see this posted. Whether it was or not I am posting again, maybe it will stimulate a different discussion regarding the guys that are declaring now that don't seem to be first round locks.

Arn Tellem outlines his proposal for changes to the D-League and draft system that are aimed at developing the D-League into a true minor league talent feeder for the NBA.

Among his ideas:

- Roll back the minimum draft age to 18
- Give teams salary cap relief for players they decide to send to the D league
- Instead of declaring and immediately losing further eligibility players would only lose eligibility if they were in fact drafted
- All early entry players would have the same declaration date; currently American players have to declare almost two months earlier than International players.
- First rounders would be paid rookie scale regardless of whether they played in the NBA or D-League. The Thunder's 1st Round pick Josh Heustis (29th overall) was forced to accept assignment to the D-League at a D-League scale salary for his rookie year.
- Teams would be forced to offer 2nd rounders a guaranteed minimum contract or lose the rights to a player; apparently that is not the case today.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/d...e-necessary-plan-to-fix-the-nbas-farm-system/


Does anyone know the NCAA's justification for forcing players to give up their eligibility to go through the draft process? I understand why the NBA would support this, but don't understand why the NCAA would other than the NBA wants them to.

Arn Tellem is an agent. So it's not surprising that most of his ideas listed would put money into his pocket. Try to look at this from an NBA owner's perspective. I'm not saying I support ownership. As devil's advocate look at their perspective. How does this benefit my team or the league? Almost all of these points cost the team money. And what does the team gain? What is the benefit of spending more on a D league when the college "farm system" feeds the league talent at no cost? How is this D league idea that costs me money better? Why would I as an owner want to give all 2nd round picks guaranteed money when very few of them make rosters? Players retaining eligibility if not drafted is an NCAA issue not an NBA issue. The NCAA wants to avoid uncertainty such as if a player declares he's leaving school for the draft...the coach awards that now available scholarship to another kid and then the 1st kid if not drafted wants to come back but the ship isn't available. Seems to me that some rules could be developed to deal with this that would allow a re-entry if not drafted either with the original school (school's option if a ship is still available) or at another school.

 

[CraigForth]

Because the only reason these guys are in college is because they're pretty much being forced to go there. There are two types of very good players - 1) those with talent and skill at 18 (LeBron James, Kyrie Irving, etc) and 2) those with talent, but needing 3-4 years to develop the skill (e.g., Rakeem Christmas, Rick Jackson).

The first set have no reason to spend a year in college. None. Except so that fans of a college program can watch them play wearing their team's uniform for one year and then complain that they leave early. The 2nd set should have the option of playing for pay in the minors or playing for stipend/scholarship in the college system. Did you not enjoy watching Rick Jackson's senior year? How can you say that college basketball will turn into a YMCA rec league game (and frankly, I've seen better referred games in a Y gym) when there is ample evidence that skilled players develop in college?

The first set is such a small subset of all college basketball players that removing them from college and allowing them to play pro will not affect the game. There are what 10-20 of them? Add in another 15-20 who find playing for the Maine Red Claws and making $35k more enticing than playing in Syracuse. 40 players out of the more than 4,000 Division 1 college basketball players, or about 1%. There are still plenty of highly skilled and talented players.

I very much enjoy watching players grow a la Rik Jackson and Rakeem Christmas. My entire argument is based on the original post. If a viable D-League is formed, then many players will skip college and play there, including the Rick Jackson's and Rakeem Christmas' of the world. We will be left with mid major level talent playing for traditional high major programs. If that is what you want then good for you. I would prefer otherwise.

 

[Forza Azzurri]

Does anyone know the NCAA's justification for forcing players to give up their eligibility to go through the draft process?

I don't know the answer but, if I had to guess, I would guess that the coaches pushed for it so they could have more certainty as to their rosters.

Way back when, the only guys going were sure-fire high first round picks and I would think that coaches would have pushed to know as early as possible whether that player was leaving or not...

Just a guess...

 

[pearl31]

I don't know the answer but, if I had to guess, I would guess that the coaches pushed for it so they could have more certainty as to their rosters.

Way back when, the only guys going were sure-fire high first round picks and I would think that coaches would have pushed to know as early as possible whether that player was leaving or not...

Just a guess...

I believe you're correct. Coaches' perspective: It's awfully hard to get to work on next year's team, especially with regard to recruiting, when you don't even know who' s on the team until June.

 

[sufandu]

I very much enjoy watching players grow a la Rik Jackson and Rakeem Christmas. My entire argument is based on the original post. If a viable D-League is formed, then many players will skip college and play there, including the Rick Jackson's and Rakeem Christmas' of the world. We will be left with mid major level talent playing for traditional high major programs. If that is what you want then good for you. I would prefer otherwise.

Not if there isn't room for them. There's no way an NBA team would've taken Rick Jackson straight out of high school in my system. Maybe they take Rakeem, but he seems like someone that actually wanted to be in school since he graduated in three years. Did you not read my post or just disagree with it?

 

[CraigForth]

Not if there isn't room for them. There's no way an NBA team would've taken Rick Jackson straight out of high school in my system. Maybe they take Rakeem, but he seems like someone that actually wanted to be in school since he graduated in three years. Did you not read my post or just disagree with it?

I read it and I think you make a great point regarding how much room there may or may not be at the D-League level. If every team had one D-League affiliate then there would likely not be room for Rick Jackson out of high school. I also think you are making an argument based on a perfect version of hypothetical.