The Way to Keep Good Players From Jumping to the NBA

[triplethrea]

That's the problem though. No one tunes into watch rakeem Christmas play. They tune in to watch Syracuse play. The value is in the Syracuse brand. The nba is different where Kobe is the brand.

It's not black and white, it's a scale. In college the brand may be more important than the player, but the player is still valuable.

The same in the NBA, the player may be more valuable than the brand, but there are still season ticket-holders regardless if Kobe is on the team.

 

[AZOrange]

It's not black and white, it's a scale. In college the brand may be more important than the player, but the player is still valuable. The same in the NBA, the player may be more valuable than the brand, but there are still season ticket-holders regardless if Kobe is on the team.

I don't disagree. But the degree is so hard to determine here. I think we're talking walking around money at best here.

The other issue her IMO is how much a uk benefits from an Anthony Davis type. I think the coach benefits far more and will pay 250k to get him to uk to get his 8 mil a year.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

It's not black and white, it's a scale. In college the brand may be more important than the player, but the player is still valuable.

Agreed. That's why they get scholarships and room and board, and the opportunity to advance their game and get to the next level. The college brand is absolutely more important than any player. Duke University is much bigger than Jabari Parker or Bobby Hurley or Johnny Dawkins.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

It's a developmental league with inferior players to the NBA. There are no fans of D leagues teams. They are purely there to develop, not to entertain fans.

Ok, but they are made up of the very same college players you think should be paid millions of dollars. Nobody cares because there is no Syracuse, Duke, Louisville, Kansas, or North Carolina on the front of the jersey. People show up to watch those programs, not necessarily the players that come and go.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

It doesn't matter if 99% of them can't make that much professionally. What matters is how much they are worth in college. How much a player is worth in the NBA does not need to have a relation to how much they are worth in college.

They may not "always" recruit great players. But they are still at least 4 star recruits (and once in a while 3 star recruits). They are still very desirable recruits. Ones that top schools would pay money for if they could.

The NBA drafted 42 kids out of high school when it was allowed (2 of which went #1 overall). I'd say they are still valuable to them even without the college experience.

You're naive if you think most kids go to college because it is a "fantastic alternative". They do it because that's what they have to do to go to the NBA. Going to Europe is absolutely extreme and has only been done twice I think. The fact that colleges are making millions off them and telling them to be happy with the "fantastic experience" is repulsive.

Sure it does. Those kids won't play pro ball or even come close. How much value did Ron Patterson provide last year? How much should he be paid? Did anyone show up to watch him play? I'm not sure why you think they deserve anything other than an education, room and board and the opportunity to showcase their talent. What are these kids worth in college? A scholarship. That's it. If they want to do better, go play pro ball. You think James Southerland thinks he got a raw deal? He's in the NBA right now, because of his experience at Syracuse. What would he have done out of high school? What would Andy Rautins have done? He wasn't very desirable out of high school. No top schools would be paying those kids to attend their school.

The NBA would draft a high school if they though he could be a star. Lebron, Kobe, Garnett, Dwight Howard, Tracy McGrady and Amare Stoudamire became stars. But guys like Sebastian Telfair, Kwame Brown, Robert Swift, Dorell Wright, Korleone Young and Amir Johnson did not. The NBA doesn't want the kids that are not going to help them.

You don't think playing college basketball is a "fantastic alternative" to playing in Europe? I do. I bet the players agree. Who wants to play in a foreign country where you don't speak the language?

These schools are making millions off of their own names, their own tradition, their own coaches, their own venues. That players are just a part of it. And they are paid in scholarships, which is more than enough.

 

[triplethrea]

Sure it does. Those kids won't play pro ball or even come close. How much value did Ron Patterson provide last year? How much should he be paid? Did anyone show up to watch him play? I'm not sure why you think they deserve anything other than an education, room and board and the opportunity to showcase their talent. What are these kids worth in college? A scholarship. That's it. If they want to do better, go play pro ball. You think James Southerland thinks he got a raw deal? He's in the NBA right now, because of his experience at Syracuse. What would he have done out of high school? What would Andy Rautins have done? He wasn't very desirable out of high school. No top schools would be paying those kids to attend their school.

The NBA would draft a high school if they though he could be a star. Lebron, Kobe, Garnett, Dwight Howard, Tracy McGrady and Amare Stoudamire became stars. But guys like Sebastian Telfair, Kwame Brown, Robert Swift, Dorell Wright, Korleone Young and Amir Johnson did not. The NBA doesn't want the kids that are not going to help them.

You don't think playing college basketball is a "fantastic alternative" to playing in Europe? I do. I bet the players agree. Who wants to play in a foreign country where you don't speak the language?

These schools are making millions off of their own names, their own tradition, their own coaches, their own venues. That players are just a part of it. And they are paid in scholarships, which is more than enough.

If you're so confident that nobody wants to pay players, why not just allow them to pay players? If you're right, then nobody will pay them more than a scholarship. Why completely deny the right?

Let the market decide. If you're right, you have nothing to worry about.

 

[sufandu]

No one is stopping them from becoming the next justin bieber, but if they want to be a millionaire playing basketball, they have to wait at least a year, it really isn't that big of a deal. People make it sound like it is some atrocity for these kids to go to college for a year.

And the truth is that they don't even have to go to college. They can sit at home eating cheetos if they want. That wouldn't be the best for their career prospects, but they have that right.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

I personally would be more in favor of a monthly stipend but I would have no problem if the player got a paid for local commercials. I just don't agree with the pay for play, maybe the amount of the stipend could be tied to different amounts for gpa the better the gpa the more the stipend is or you have to achieve a certain gpa to get the stipend

Recipe for academic fraud.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

If you're so confident that nobody wants to pay players, why not just allow them to pay players? If you're right, then nobody will pay them more than a scholarship. Why completely deny the right?

Let the market decide. If you're right, you have nothing to worry about.

They are paying the players with athletic scholarships and room and board. The NCAA can't even get a $2,000 stipend approved because smaller schools can’t afford the stipend. They certainly aren't going to pay Thomas Bryant a million dollars per year to attend their school. Can you imagine if Syracuse paid Rakeem Christmas or DeJaun Coleman that?

 

[triplethrea]

They are paying the players with athletic scholarships and room and board. The NCAA can't even get a $2,000 stipend approved because smaller schools can’t afford the stipend. They certainly aren't going to pay Thomas Bryant a million dollars per year to attend their school. Can you imagine if Syracuse paid Rakeem Christmas or DeJaun Coleman that?

If the smaller schools can't afford it, then they don't have to pay. Schools aren't forced to pay anything. It is strictly optional. Nobody forces you to buy an iPhone, you buy it because you want one and that's the price you need to pay.

Smaller schools are welcome to recruit players not good enough to be worth more than a scholarship. There are X number of spots available in the top conferences and schools willing to pay, all those not good enough for those spots will be worth less.

And the truth is that they don't even have to go to college. They can sit at home eating cheetos if they want. That wouldn't be the best for their career prospects, but they have that right.

Why is it one way or another? Go here and don't get paid or sit at home eating cheetos.

If a player is directly responsible for earning millions of dollars to a university and WOULD get paid if it was a free market, why is he not allowed to do so? Why is he denied the right, with alternate option to "sit at home and eat cheetos." This is a very common argument amongst anti-pay-for-pay and the logic does not make sense. If they deserve the right to earn money, they should earn money.

All this "sit at home" talk is directly related to the "student-athlete" nonsense that was invented by the NCAA so they would win a lawsuit in the 70s. The foundation of the argument is shaky, because "student-athlete" is shaky. Any opinion built on top of it, "stay at home", is shaky as well.

 

[triplethrea]

They are paying the players with athletic scholarships and room and board. The NCAA can't even get a $2,000 stipend approved because smaller schools can’t afford the stipend. They certainly aren't going to pay Thomas Bryant a million dollars per year to attend their school. Can you imagine if Syracuse paid Rakeem Christmas or DeJaun Coleman that?

If that's what they're worth, who cares? I'm used to seeing athletes get paid that much.

Are you playing the "schools are broke" card, like rrlbees did?

 

[sufandu]

If the smaller schools can't afford it, then they don't have to pay. Schools aren't forced to pay anything. It is strictly optional. Nobody forces you to buy an iPhone, you buy it because you want one and that's the price you need to pay.

Smaller schools are welcome to recruit players not good enough to be worth more than a scholarship. There are X number of spots available in the top conferences and schools willing to pay, all those not good enough for those spots will be worth less.



Why is it one way or another? Go here and don't get paid or sit at home eating cheetos.

If a player is directly responsible for earning millions of dollars to a university and WOULD get paid if it was a free market, why is he not allowed to do so? Why is he denied the right, with alternate option to "sit at home and eat cheetos." This is a very common argument amongst anti-pay-for-pay and the logic does not make sense. If they deserve the right to earn money, they should earn money.

All this "sit at home" talk is directly related to the "student-athlete" nonsense that was invented by the NCAA so they would win a lawsuit in the 70s. The foundation of the argument is shaky, because "student-athlete" is shaky. Any opinion built on top of it, "stay at home", is shaky as well.

I didn't say it was one way or the other. I said it's their right. These kids aren't forced to go college, but most realize it's in their best interest to go to college as a way of showcasing themselves to their potential employers (NBA teams). It's also their right to go to europe and get paid. Part of the reason these kids shouldn't get paid out of high school is because no one knows their value on the open market. It's the whole reason the NBA instituted their one year rule. They have a hard enough time evaluating elite talent when they play against other elite talent. It's impossible when they're still in high school playing against far inferior talent. No one knows how good or bad most of these players are coming straight out of high school.

One reason your system wouldn't be allowed is because part of the NCAA's job is provide some sort of equity. We know that's not completely possible, but under your system it wouldn't be possible in the least. You state SU's profitability as reason we could afford it. If schools were allowed to get into bidding wars over high school kids (think about how stupid that really sounds) SU would be way down the list. Every state school with large and wealthy alumni would crush SU in their ability to buy players. Now consider all of the schools with far less wealth than SU. Who would want to watch college sports with a system like that?

 

[triplethrea]

I didn't say it was one way or the other. I said it's their right. These kids aren't forced to go college, but most realize it's in their best interest to go to college as a way of showcasing themselves to their potential employers (NBA teams). It's also their right to go to europe and get paid. Part of the reason these kids shouldn't get paid out of high school is because no one knows their value on the open market. It's the whole reason the NBA instituted their one year rule. They have a hard enough time evaluating elite talent when they play against other elite talent. It's impossible when they're still in high school playing against far inferior talent. No one knows how good or bad most of these players are coming straight out of high school.

One reason your system wouldn't be allowed is because part of the NCAA's job is provide some sort of equity. We know that's not completely possible, but under your system it wouldn't be possible in the least. You list SU's profitability as reason we could afford it. If schools were allowed to get into bidding wars over high school kids (think about how stupid that really sounds) SU would be way down the list. Every state school with large and wealthy alumni would crush SU in their ability to buy players. Now consider all of the schools with far less wealth than SU. Who would want to watch college sports with a system like that?

I agree it is in the best interest of the players to go to college to showcase themselves. But that is solely because that is how the system is set up. I argue that because of that, they are "technically" forced to go to college, since the economic decision for most players is inarguable.

Door 1 pays 25k a year if you take the legal route or drug dealing/jail time/death if you take the illegal route (very easy route to take).
Door 2 pay millions of dollars and fame.

There is no decision. And to argue otherwise is completely disingenuous.

There is no such thing as the "NBA does not know their value on the open market". That's not how markets work. They don't freeze and look at each other confused. The market always figures it out for itself. The one year rule is in the interest of the NBA, sure. But it is not always in the interest of the players. Without the one year rule, the NBA would still draft high school players, they are just taking more risk (which will obviously affect draft order). High-end talent is an inelastic market. Teams will pay whatever they have to in order to get the best.

I can't think of one economic reason why bidding wars over high school kids are stupid. Please explain your logic. Why is it dumber than a bidding war over Lebron? If there is demand, there will be bidding wars.

Regarding "other schools crushing Syracuse". What does Syracuse do now? They crush other teams. This is a big conference system, the rich already get richer. This will change nothing, except a few other schools will now be in the mix.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

If that's what they're worth, who cares? I'm used to seeing athletes get paid that much.

Are you playing the "schools are broke" card, like rrlbees did?

You really think DeJaun Coleman and Rakeem Christmas are worth a million per year? I don't. I'd bet the open market wouldn't think either one is even close to that. Why do you think they are still playing college basketball?

Yes, a lot of schools don't make money off of their basketball programs. St. John's and Seton Hall and Rutgers for example.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

If the smaller schools can't afford it, then they don't have to pay. Schools aren't forced to pay anything. It is strictly optional. Nobody forces you to buy an iPhone, you buy it because you want one and that's the price you need to pay.

Smaller schools are welcome to recruit players not good enough to be worth more than a scholarship. There are X number of spots available in the top conferences and schools willing to pay, all those not good enough for those spots will be worth less.



Why is it one way or another? Go here and don't get paid or sit at home eating cheetos.

If a player is directly responsible for earning millions of dollars to a university and WOULD get paid if it was a free market, why is he not allowed to do so? Why is he denied the right, with alternate option to "sit at home and eat cheetos." This is a very common argument amongst anti-pay-for-pay and the logic does not make sense. If they deserve the right to earn money, they should earn money.

All this "sit at home" talk is directly related to the "student-athlete" nonsense that was invented by the NCAA so they would win a lawsuit in the 70s. The foundation of the argument is shaky, because "student-athlete" is shaky. Any opinion built on top of it, "stay at home", is shaky as well.

That's 75% of D1 basketball, which is why the stipend hasn't passed. If teams can't afford a $2,ooo stipend, they can't pay players anything more than a scholarship. Keep in mind, the players don't have a right to play college basketball. Nobody owes them anything. College basketball is not professional basketball. These kids can sit at home and eat cheetos or do nothing. They don't have to go to college to play basketball. If they want the opportunity to play college basketball and perhaps get to the next level, they can take advantage of it or not.

 

[sufandu]

I agree it is in the best interest of the players to go to college to showcase themselves. But that is solely because that is how the system is set up. I argue that because of that, they are "technically" forced to go to college, since the economic decision for most players is inarguable.

Door 1 pays 25k a year if you take the legal route or drug dealing/jail time/death if you take the illegal route (very easy route to take).
Door 2 pay millions of dollars and fame.

There is no decision. And to argue otherwise is completely disingenuous.

There is no such thing as the "NBA does not know their value on the open market". That's not how markets work. They don't freeze and look at each other confused. The market always figures it out for itself. The one year rule is in the interest of the NBA, sure. But it is not always in the interest of the players. Without the one year rule, the NBA would still draft high school players, they are just taking more risk (which will obviously affect draft order). High-end talent is an inelastic market. Teams will pay whatever they have to in order to get the best.

I can't think of one economic reason why bidding wars over high school kids are stupid. Please explain your logic. Why is it dumber than a bidding war over Lebron? If there is demand, there will be bidding wars.

Regarding "other schools crushing Syracuse". What does Syracuse do now? They crush other teams. This is a big conference system, the rich already get richer. This will change nothing, except a few other schools will now be in the mix.

1. Of course the rule is in the interest of the NBA. The company always gets to establish entry level criteria. In what other industry are people screaming, "Hand this person millions of dollars, despite having done nothing to show he's qualified?" The answer is none. In every other profession you prove yourself in some way before getting the big payday. In basketball it's in lower level professional leagues or college. There's nothing wrong with someone having to work for peanuts (peanuts being an education worth more than the national median income or at least a six figure income over seas) before cashing in on a massive payday at the age of 19.

2. Maybe you can't think of one economic reason (it's interesting you chose to boil down to only economics by the way), but not all reasons have to be economic. I know that some people thing economics rule all. I believe that is not the case.

 

[sufandu]

That's 75% of D1 basketball, which is why the stipend hasn't passed. If teams can't afford a $2,ooo stipend, they can't pay players anything more than a scholarship. Keep in mind, the players don't have a right to play college basketball. Nobody owes them anything. College basketball is not professional basketball. These kids can sit at home and eat cheetos or do nothing. They don't have to go to college to play basketball. If they want the opportunity to play college basketball and perhaps get to the next level, they can take advantage of it or not.

Exactly. I don't understand this movement to treat basketball players differently than any other potential employees in any other industry. "Hey you've been hyped since you were 12, you deserve a pay check without proving anything to anyone."

 

[rrlbees]

If that's what they're worth, who cares? I'm used to seeing athletes get paid that much. Are you playing the "schools are broke" card, like rrlbees did?

I didn't say the schools were broke. I said most athletic departments run in the red.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

Door 1 pays 25k a year if you take the legal route or drug dealing/jail time/death if you take the illegal route (very easy route to take).
Door 2 pay millions of dollars and fame.

There is no decision. And to argue otherwise is completely disingenuous.

Absolutely wrong. Did Trevor Cooney have this choice? CJ Fair? Tyler Ennis? Jerami Grant? Were they facing drug dealing/jail time/death if they didn't play college basketball? Cooney probably has almost zero shot to play in the NBA. If anything, college basketball provides an opportunity to get these kids on the right path. Colleges don't owe these kids money. These kids have a tremendous opportunity in front of them in college, which is why they still take it, knowing they won't get paid and 99% of them will never play in the NBA. Nobody was willing to guarantee CJ Fair a contract to play in the NBA the last 3 years, which is why he's still playing college ball. CJ could have left school after his junior year like Paul Harris and Eric Devendorf did. He had options and wasn't stuck at Syracuse. Syracuse was just his best option.

 

[EnnisEnvy]

IMO, these kids trying to become professional athletes are no different than any other kid majoring in what he wants to do for the rest of his life. They are just majoring in a specific sport. Pre-med or pre-law students are trying to make the grade to be good enough to get into law or med school. Some do, some don't but they are both paying for the opportunity. Doesn't the school make revenue from it's prolific graduates? In SU's case, look at the breadcasting professionals they have put out. Do kids try to get into SU's school of broadcasting b/c of the success rate of their graduates? Is SU selective of who they let in? If so, shouldn't these kids be paid for helping make the broadcasting school the name that it is? Where do you draw the line?

Also, if kids got paid to play I assume they would not get a scholarship so they would owe room, board, and tuition. I think, at best, it would be a wash.

 

[SWC75]

You could never pay players as much as they'll get in the NBA, so paying them to keep them here wouldn't work. I agree they ought to be able to profit from their own image, just as anyone else can.

I'd like to see players have the portion of returning to school to get their degree and play for the college team if they have any eligibitly left. if the colleges are the minor leagues of football and basketball, why allow players to get "sent down" on a voluntary basis to work on their game for another shot at the pros. Jonny Flynn could be out point guard next year, with Donte Green the starting forward. Maybe in a year or two, Jermai Grant would be back. It would be a way of getting some talent back.

 

[GardenOrange]

You can't do that because of title nine.

All you have to do is put the same rule into effect that baseball has. If you are good enough to go to the nba right out of hs, like lebron,kobe, kg, etc, then you should be allowed to go, if not you have to stay in school for 3 years.

This is exactly right. They should put this in tomorrow.

 

[GardenOrange]

why do we want to keep the good players from jumping to the NBA?

to save the college game from the nearly unwatchable mediocre 1 year proving ground for individuals that it has become.

 

[jncuse]

Assuming that the current framework in the NCAA will not change, the improvement in the college game can be driven by the NBA and the NBA Player Association.

As the NBA feels it is better for players to stay at school longer its time to work some creative things into the CBA. They know its better from a development, risk minimization (draft) and marketing perspecetive, so they can take some steps to encourage it.

1. Increase the rookie scale salary significantly for each year you stay in college.. for example if the rookie slot is $1 million, you get paid $750K if you enter as a high schooler, $1million as a frosh, $1.5 million as a soph, $2.0 million as a junior, and $2.5 million as a senior. The raises are more for a lotto pick, and even more for a top 5 pick. At the minimum, you make an extra $0,5 million a year extra for every extra year you stayed in school on your first three year contract. For a senior drafted in the first round, that is worth $4.5 million in total over your first 3 year contract.
2. Allow opt out's one year earlier for a player that entered the NBA only after his junior or senior year.
2. Only the base slot salary countw against the salary cap. So teams don't get punished from a cap perspective by drafting a senior.
3. The pay increases for staying are shared equally by the entire league and are not only borne by the drafting team. After all, this initiative helps get better players into the NBA, more mature players, allows teams to take less risks, and you get players that are more well known entering your league. This should be an initiative that all teams should be happy to fund.
4, Some loan programs from the NBA for those first round quality players whose family are in need, but who want to stick around in the NCAA.

You create a system where:
a) Players who really want to get out after one year because they hate college will still get out and get a nice payday.
b) Players who like the college experience but leave for financial reasons, will be given financial incentives to stick around a bit longer.

We are still stuck with the inherent cheating / academic issues caused by the NCAA system. And you some kids may stick around with manipulated grades.

But I think at a minimum it improves the quality of the NCAA and NBA product, and still provides an opportunity for an athlete to gain a salary earlier if he so desires.

 

[Stern]

The "paying players" argument is flawed on so many levels, but this proposal is simply preposterous. If players do start to get paid, it'll be in the hundreds or thousands -- not millions.

Agree. It's NEVER gonna happen! Once kids start getting paid by colleges to play sports then you bring in unions, agents, contracts, lawyers, Title IX, Workers Comp, FMLA and so much other stuff the list is endless. It will never happen, college athletes will never get paid. EVER!

It's a nice discussion on Talk Radio or message boards like this but the reality is it will NEVER happen!!!!