Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="jncuse, post: 1007948, member: 1969"]
It comes down to what is best for the NBA.   They do rules to benefit themselves the most, not the NCAA.      Ironically, whatever the NBA does to look out for themselves will typically benefit the NCAA as well.
 
The one and done rule was better for the NBA than the old rule...the 2 and done rule would be much, much better.    Increases development, exposure, and most of all increases draft certainty.
 
I guess the 3 and done would be better, but that is pushing it too far.
 
The baseball model would absolutely stink for the NBA, as there would still be raw prospects coming into the draft as HS kids that force the hands of lottery teams.    There are more HS kids that play a nice role in basketball than baseball for various factors.   Failure rate is high as well - but kids may only look at successes.  This is what the NBA want to avoid.   You want your worst teams to get the best prospects, but at the same time reduce risk.      If you can get all your prospects with 2 years experience that is much better.
 
2 and done seems to make the most sense.   It will help the NBA, players association will probably be OK with it (and would amend the CBA with a few other small concessions).   And it will help the NCAA as well.
 
The IN OR 3 YEAR model is not good for the NBA - sure it would benefit the NCAA, but it is the NBA that is making the rule for their own benefit.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?