The Way to Keep Good Players From Jumping to the NBA

[triplethrea]

By paying them.

So we're recruiting Thomas Bryant, for example. Let's say his top three teams are Ohio State, Syracuse, and Seton Hall.

Ohio State offers:
1st year: 1.1M, 2nd year: 1.3M, 3rd year: 1.5M, 4th year: 1.7M
Full scholarship (obviously included, it's like signing an NBA player and telling him he has to pay a membership to play for the team. You begin to see how nonsense the "scholarship is priceless" logic is in economic terms.)
Off campus house
100k signing bonus/Buyout clause

Syracuse offers:
1st year: 1M, 2nd year: 1.5M, 3rd year: 2.0M, 4th year: 2.5M
Full scholarship
Off campus house
75K signing bonus/Buyout clause

Seton Hall offers:
1st year: 500k, 2nd year: 750k, 3rd year: 1M, 4th year: 1.25M
Full scholarship
Off campus house
50K signing bonus/Buyout clause

All price increases are dependent on pre-agreed achievements (minutes played, points, awards, etc.). If a player has injury issues or does not turn out like expected (Dajuan Coleman), they can be bought out of their contract for a price and are free to join another college team while they are eligible, or jump to the professional ranks. Most likely they will sign with a college team.

They are receiving money right away. There is no more jumping to the NBA to "get mom out of the bad neighborhood". Jerami Grant is not leaving this year to help his family's financial problems, since he would be getting paid at Syracuse. Players are getting paid while they are developing. Now on to the big stars:

Tyler Ennis

Let's say his freshman year he had a contract for 450k and was due 650k for his sophmore year. Let's say he outplayed it and is now looking for top college PG money, which will be on par with the NBA rookie wage scale. Let's say Ennis is projected to go between 12th-18th in the draft. The wage scale for those draft positions ranges from 1.2M-1.6M. Now Syracuse has the leverage to offer him a new contract with increased pay on par with the NBA. Why in the world would Tyler Ennis leave now?

Wiggins, Randle, Embiid, and Smart would all stay 2-4 years. They would jump into the NBA Larry Bird/Magic Johnson/Michael Jordan style with 4 years of college experience behind their belt. The "College lifestyle" for these players would be similar to the "NBA lifestyle". Money, groupies, partying, cars, houses. Why the rush to jump to the NBA? CJ Fair wouldn't have even thought about the NBA after his Junior year. For most players, this is the most money they will earn in their lives.

The main reasons I could see the very top players leaving early is that an NBA contract gives them a jump start to their 2nd NBA contract which is where the SERIOUS money is. So now we are talking about only the VERY ELITE players at risk to leave, rather than any good player with NBA potential. But in a free economy, teams like Kentucky or Duke can counter--act this by offering contracts high above the NBA rookie wage scale. If this forces the NBA to raise the rookie wage scale, WELL WELL WELL, turns out these players are worth more than they are paying them.

The NCAA loves to talk about how most of these college athletes never go pro. That's completely true. How many college football and basketball stars can you remember that graced magazine covers in college and then went undrafted or flamed out in 1-2 years? They may have been worth millions of dollars to the university for those 1-4 years but didn't get a penny. They never have a chance to earn that kind of money again in their lives. This way, they may never make the pros, but they'll still get what the market says they deserve for at least a short while.

I'll leave you with this little history lesson:
Look into the Plan B free agency the NFL had between 1987-1992 that restricted player movement between teams. During the anti-trust lawsuit against the NFL, the NFL lawyer was quoted as saying that "Ending Plan B free agency may be the destruction of the NFL". Pure fear-mongering by the corporate institution in order to keep wage leverage in their favor. Sound familiar?

Not only will paying players NOT ruin college basketball, it will IMPROVE the game by keeping the best players around most of their college careers.

 

[triplethrea]

Thinking about it, the biggest threats to jump to the NBA become players like Lillard who would outperform their contracts for mid-majors, but play for schools that don't have the capital to compete with the rookie wage scale. In this case Lillard should have the option to transfer to a better paying school or jump to the NBA.

People may complain about this being unfair, but if I work at McDonalds for $9/hour and show great management ability and Burger King offers me $15/hour, I should be free to move up. Of course, there will be clauses in contracts but it will be sorted out in time.

 

[Briancuse]

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.

 

[triplethrea]

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.

Nonsense. It can easily be done. People use that excuse to grasp at straws for why we "can't" do it, when they just don't want it to be done.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/4/14/5613112/ncaa-title-9-ed-obannon

The NCAA's membership can, in fact, enact rules that would save non-revenue sports. It's really quite simple: Mandate that a certain percentage of football money go to fund non-revenue sports if they cannot be funded elsewhere. This means coaches' salaries might decrease and locker rooms might not have waterfalls, but the playing field would be relatively similar to what it is now.

 

[Todd Gack]

By paying them. So we're recruiting Thomas Bryant, for example. Let's say his top three teams are Ohio State, Syracuse, and Seton Hall. Ohio State offers: 1st year: 1.1M, 2nd year: 1.3M, 3rd year: 1.5M, 4th year: 1.7M Full scholarship (obviously included, it's like signing an NBA player and telling him he has to pay a membership to play for the team. You begin to see how nonsense the "scholarship is priceless" logic is in economic terms.) Off campus house 100k signing bonus/Buyout clause Syracuse offers: 1st year: 1M, 2nd year: 1.5M, 3rd year: 2.0M, 4th year: 2.5M Full scholarship Off campus house 75K signing bonus/Buyout clause Seton Hall offers: 1st year: 500k, 2nd year: 750k, 3rd year: 1M, 4th year: 1.25M Full scholarship Off campus house 50K signing bonus/Buyout clause All price increases are dependent on pre-agreed achievements (minutes played, points, awards, etc.). If a player has injury issues or does not turn out like expected (Dajuan Coleman), they can be bought out of their contract for a price and are free to join another college team while they are eligible, or jump to the professional ranks. Most likely they will sign with a college team. They are receiving money right away. There is no more jumping to the NBA to "get mom out of the bad neighborhood". Jerami Grant is not leaving this year to help his family's financial problems, since he would be getting paid at Syracuse. Players are getting paid while they are developing. Now on to the big stars: Tyler Ennis Let's say his freshman year he had a contract for 450k and was due 650k for his sophmore year. Let's say he outplayed it and is now looking for top college PG money, which will be on par with the NBA rookie wage scale. Let's say Ennis is projected to go between 12th-18th in the draft. The wage scale for those draft positions ranges from 1.2M-1.6M. Now Syracuse has the leverage to offer him a new contract with increased pay on par with the NBA. Why in the world would Tyler Ennis leave now? Wiggins, Randle, Embiid, and Smart would all stay 2-4 years. They would jump into the NBA Larry Bird/Magic Johnson/Michael Jordan style with 4 years of college experience behind their belt. The "College lifestyle" for these players would be similar to the "NBA lifestyle". Money, groupies, partying, cars, houses. Why the rush to jump to the NBA? CJ Fair wouldn't have even thought about the NBA after his Junior year. For most players, this is the most money they will earn in their lives. The main reasons I could see the very top players leaving early is that an NBA contract gives them a jump start to their 2nd NBA contract which is where the SERIOUS money is. So now we are talking about only the VERY ELITE players at risk to leave, rather than any good player with NBA potential. But in a free economy, teams like Kentucky or Duke can counter--act this by offering contracts high above the NBA rookie wage scale. If this forces the NBA to raise the rookie wage scale, WELL WELL WELL, turns out these players are worth more than they are paying them. The NCAA loves to talk about how most of these college athletes never go pro. That's completely true. How many college football and basketball stars can you remember that graced magazine covers in college and then went undrafted or flamed out in 1-2 years? They may have been worth millions of dollars to the university for those 1-4 years but didn't get a penny. They never have a chance to earn that kind of money again in their lives. This way, they may never make the pros, but they'll still get what the market says they deserve for at least a short while. I'll leave you with this little history lesson: Look into the Plan B free agency the NFL had between 1987-1992 that restricted player movement between teams. During the anti-trust lawsuit against the NFL, the NFL lawyer was quoted as saying that "Ending Plan B free agency may be the destruction of the NFL". Pure fear-mongering by the corporate institution in order to keep wage leverage in their favor. Sound familiar? Not only will paying players NOT ruin college basketball, it will IMPROVE the game by keeping the best players around most of their college careers.

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.

 

[triplethrea]

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.

Preposterous? Why? Let's do some math.

Syracuse basketball revenue was $25.9M in 2013, 2nd in the country.

Now let's take a professional NFL team such as the Buffalo Bills who rake in approximately $256M a year including revenue sharing and pay $166M in player salaries. In other words, 64.8% of revenue goes towards salaries.

Let's take it easy on Syracuse and say that 50% goes towards player salary. Hell, let's rip the players off completely and give them 25%. That leaves 6.475M (!) to split amongst 13 scholarship players.

The fact that people can't wrap their heads around how bad these kids are getting ripped off is preposterous. The only explanation I have is age discrimination. The market speaks for itself. Justin Beiber is worth millions, and college basketball players bring in similar amounts of money to their programs. Being 19 and a millionaire is not illegal in this country.

Get used to seeing millions next to college players names. It's what they have earned. And they're the ones who deserve the money that you're paying for your tickets and merchandise.

Sources:
http://www.nunesmagician.com/2013/1...-no-2-in-revenue-louisville-ahead-of-the-pack
http://www.forbes.com/teams/buffalo-bills/

 

[dasher]

Preposterous? Why? Let's do some math.

Syracuse basketball revenue was $25.9M in 2013, 2nd in the country.

Now let's take a professional NFL team such as the Buffalo Bills who rake in approximately $256M a year including revenue sharing and pay $166M in player salaries. In other words, 64.8% of revenue goes towards salaries.

Let's take it easy on Syracuse and say that 50% goes towards player salary. Hell, let's rip the players off completely and give them 25%. That leaves 6.475M (!) to split amongst 13 scholarship players.

The fact that people can't wrap their heads around how bad these kids are getting ripped off is preposterous.

Sources:
http://www.nunesmagician.com/2013/1...-no-2-in-revenue-louisville-ahead-of-the-pack
http://www.forbes.com/teams/buffalo-bills/

And what does Syracuse do with that money? Fund the non revenue sports. Colleges can't compete with pros on paying players. Silly to think they can.

 

[rrlbees]

Preposterous? Why? Let's do some math. Syracuse basketball revenue was $25.9M in 2013, 2nd in the country. Now let's take a professional NFL team such as the Buffalo Bills who rake in approximately $256M a year including revenue sharing and pay $166M in player salaries. In other words, 64.8% of revenue goes towards salaries. Let's take it easy on Syracuse and say that 50% goes towards player salary. Hell, let's rip the players off completely and give them 25%. That leaves 6.475M (!) to split amongst 13 scholarship players. The fact that people can't wrap their heads around how bad these kids are getting ripped off is preposterous. The only explanation I have is age discrimination. The market speaks for itself. Justin Beiber is worth millions, and college basketball players bring in similar amounts of money to their programs. Being 19 and a millionaire is not illegal in this country. Get used to seeing millions next to college players names. It's what they have earned. And they're the ones who deserve the money that you're paying for your tickets and merchandise. Sources: http://www.nunesmagician.com/2013/1...-no-2-in-revenue-louisville-ahead-of-the-pack http://www.forbes.com/teams/buffalo-bills/

That is revenue that goes a long ways towards funding all the non profit sports. Apples and oranges with pro sports. I have no problem with players getting some stipend for walking around money. But if they want to get "paid" in the numbers you speak, let them go pro. Nobody is making them go to college.

 

[triplethrea]

A lot of one sentence rebuttals here.

Put the money aside to fund the non-revenue sports. What's left over? Coaches salaries? Stadium improvements? Syracuse has the 2nd highest college basketball revenue in the country. They have no money left over to give to the players? Get out of here.

It's a business. Chances are, once the NCAA is discredited in court, there will be changes in the law, including eliminating the funding of non-revenue sports. If I earn $10, should my boss take it all away to help support my co-workers? Or am I entitled to the money because I earned it? Why do we treat college athletes different?

What did colleges do before the money boom? There were still non-revenue sports, right?

 

[triplethrea]

That is revenue that goes a long ways towards funding all the non profit sports. Apples and oranges with pro sports. I have no problem with players getting some stipend for walking around money. But if they want to get "paid" in the numbers you speak, let them go pro. Nobody is making them go to college.

Giant bluff. Without good players, college basketball revenue declines. Nobody watches Marist games for a reason.

Pro-NCAA arguments have played the "we don't care, don't play basketball" card for a while. The NCAA/Big Schools need these players as bad as the players need them. Mike Hopkins and Red Autry are grown ass men who attends dozens of high school games each year to recruit, pitch, and sell 17 year olds to come here. Colleges are desperate for these players and the market will prove it once players will be allowed to be paid.

And you know damn well the players have no choice.

 

[Briancuse]

Nonsense. It can easily be done. People use that excuse to grasp at straws for why we "can't" do it, when they just don't want it to be done.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/4/14/5613112/ncaa-title-9-ed-obannon

It isn't nonsense, it is a reality, you would have to pay every scholarship athlete.

 

[Briancuse]

Preposterous? Why? Let's do some math.

Syracuse basketball revenue was $25.9M in 2013, 2nd in the country.

Now let's take a professional NFL team such as the Buffalo Bills who rake in approximately $256M a year including revenue sharing and pay $166M in player salaries. In other words, 64.8% of revenue goes towards salaries.

Let's take it easy on Syracuse and say that 50% goes towards player salary. Hell, let's rip the players off completely and give them 25%. That leaves 6.475M (!) to split amongst 13 scholarship players.

The fact that people can't wrap their heads around how bad these kids are getting ripped off is preposterous. The only explanation I have is age discrimination. The market speaks for itself. Justin Beiber is worth millions, and college basketball players bring in similar amounts of money to their programs. Being 19 and a millionaire is not illegal in this country.

Get used to seeing millions next to college players names. It's what they have earned. And they're the ones who deserve the money that you're paying for your tickets and merchandise.

Sources:
http://www.nunesmagician.com/2013/1...-no-2-in-revenue-louisville-ahead-of-the-pack
http://www.forbes.com/teams/buffalo-bills/

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.

 

[perdurabo]

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/b...s-nba-draft-prospect-career-article-1.1839546




Days before NBA draft, Isaiah Austin diagnosed with Mafran syndrome, career-ending genetic disorder
Baylor announced Sunday that Austin, a projected second-round pick, will no longer be able to play basketball. Complications from Marfan syndrome can lead to heart issues.

 

[rrlbees]

A lot of one sentence rebuttals here. Put the money aside to fund the non-revenue sports. What's left over? Coaches salaries? Stadium improvements? Syracuse has the 2nd highest college basketball revenue in the country. They have no money left over to give to the players? Get out of here. It's a business. Chances are, once the NCAA is discredited in court, there will be changes in the law, including eliminating the funding of non-revenue sports. If I earn $10, should my boss take it all away to help support my co-workers? Or am I entitled to the money because I earned it? Why do we treat college athletes different? What did colleges do before the money boom? There were still non-revenue sports, right?

You talk like revenue equals profit.

 

[triplethrea]

You talk like revenue equals profit.

You're right, there is no profit from revenue when you give all the leftover money to coach salaries, unnecessary stadium improvements, and non-revenue sports.

Once we pay the players what they deserve, there will be no profit leftover either.

 

[rrlbees]

Giant bluff. Without good players, college basketball revenue declines. Nobody watches Marist games for a reason. Pro-NCAA arguments have played the "we don't care, don't play basketball" card for a while. The NCAA/Big Schools need these players as bad as the players need them. Mike Hopkins and Red Autry are grown ass men who attends dozens of high school games each year to recruit, pitch, and sell 17 year olds to come here. Colleges are desperate for these players and the market will prove it once players will be allowed to be paid. And you know damn well the players have no choice.

You do realize that the type of player SU recruits do have a choice for the most part. They can get paid right out of high school. NBA, D League, overseas, etc. Nobody is holding them hostage.

 

[triplethrea]

You do realize that the type of player SU recruits do have a choice for the most part. They can get paid right out of high school. NBA, D League, overseas, etc. Nobody is holding them hostage.

Technically, they're not. But realistically, they are.

It isn't nonsense, it is a reality, you would have to pay every scholarship athlete.

Why? I've been doing a lot of explaining here. Please explain your logic for once.

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.

Because they generate millions for the university in the meantime. They are getting screwed.

 

[Todd Gack]

Preposterous? Why? Let's do some math. Syracuse basketball revenue was $25.9M in 2013, 2nd in the country. Now let's take a professional NFL team such as the Buffalo Bills who rake in approximately $256M a year including revenue sharing and pay $166M in player salaries. In other words, 64.8% of revenue goes towards salaries. Let's take it easy on Syracuse and say that 50% goes towards player salary. Hell, let's rip the players off completely and give them 25%. That leaves 6.475M (!) to split amongst 13 scholarship players. The fact that people can't wrap their heads around how bad these kids are getting ripped off is preposterous. The only explanation I have is age discrimination. The market speaks for itself. Justin Beiber is worth millions, and college basketball players bring in similar amounts of money to their programs. Being 19 and a millionaire is not illegal in this country. Get used to seeing millions next to college players names. It's what they have earned. And they're the ones who deserve the money that you're paying for your tickets and merchandise. Sources: http://www.nunesmagician.com/2013/1...-no-2-in-revenue-louisville-ahead-of-the-pack http://www.forbes.com/teams/buffalo-bills/

My first job out of college was as a paralegal at a top DC law firm -- I was billed out at $150 an hour, while making $28K a year (this was in 2000). I never felt exploited -- moreover, I was thankful I was there. I'm certainly in the most liberal 1/3 of this board -- and so if only to dispel a myth, we admire hard work and paying your dues.

 

[rrlbees]

Technically, they're not. But realistically, they are. Why? I've been doing a lot of explaining here. Please explain your logic for once. Because they generate millions for the university in the meantime. They are getting screwed.

Company I work for had $45B in sales last year. Think I got my fair share?

 

[rrlbees]

You're right, there is no profit from revenue when you give all the leftover money to coach salaries, unnecessary stadium improvements, and non-revenue sports. Once we pay the players what they deserve, there will be no profit leftover either.

Most schools run in the red including SU lately. And SU doesn't pay their coaches ridiculous amounts of money. If we don't have good coaches or nice facilities, we won't have to worry about paying players, because we won't be competitive anyways.

And those non profit sports you talk of not funding? Without them there is no football. Something called Title 9. You talk like it's so easy to just give every football and basketball player 100's of thousands or millions of dollars. The whole infrastructure would collapse and there'd be no football and basketball programs.

 

[Briancuse]

Technically, they're not. But realistically, they are.



Why? I've been doing a lot of explaining here. Please explain your logic for once.



Because they generate millions for the university in the meantime. They are getting screwed.

Are you familiar with title nine? If you pay the bball players, you have to pay the girls soccer players, if you pay the football players, you have the pay the field hockey team.

How are they getting screwed? They are getting an education for free, as well as room and board and their meals. God forbid they have to wait one year to get some money.

 

[triplethrea]

Most schools run in the red including SU lately. And SU doesn't pay their coaches ridiculous amounts of money. If we don't have good coaches or nice facilities, we won't have to worry about paying players, because we won't be competitive anyways.

And those non profit sports you talk of not funding? Without them there is no football. Something called Title 9. You talk like it's so easy to just give every football and basketball player 100's of thousands or millions of dollars. The whole infrastructure would collapse and there'd be no football and basketball programs.

Sounds a lot like this:
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/09/11/s...agency-system-is-found-unfair-by-us-jury.html

The case was widely viewed as a key to the financial future of the N.F.L. A lawyer for the league warned in closing arguments that a verdict for the players could mean "the destruction of the National Football League as we know it."

Company I work for had $45B in sales last year. Think I got my fair share?

Are you among the 100 best employees at your job in the world? Did your company make $45B in sales directly due to your position at the company? If so, I'd say you aren't getting your fair share.

Are you familiar with title nine? If you pay the bball players, you have to pay the girls soccer players, if you pay the football players, you have the pay the field hockey team.

How are they getting screwed? They are getting an education for free, as well as room and board and their meals. God forbid they have to wait one year to get some money.

A scholarship with room and board costs anywhere from $20k-50k depending on the university. If the players are worth more than that, and would be offered more than that in a free economy, then they deserve more than that. "People want to buy my painting for $1000!" "Too bad, they're not allowed. Here is a pretty frame instead. The frame is protects the painting and is priceless".

Title IX might be a legal and bureaucratic roadblock, but doesn't make the process any more right. If the women produce enough revenue for colleges to want to pay them, they should be allowed to. No reason to think that colleges wouldn't have paid for Brittany Griner.

My first job out of college was as a paralegal at a top DC law firm -- I was billed out at $150 an hour, while making $28K a year (this was in 2000). I never felt exploited -- moreover, I was thankful I was there. I'm certainly in the most liberal 1/3 of this board -- and so if only to dispel a myth, we admire hard work and paying your dues.

It sounds like the market for your job was $28k and that's what you were paid. In the case of the NCAA, a market is not allowed. Your top DC law firm would have billed you out for $150/hour, gave you room and board and told you to be happy with that.

 

[Todd Gack]

a market is not allowed

This is categorically untrue. Ask Kobe. Or Andre Blatche. You don't need to go to college -- but if you do, you abide by certain rules. I think a lot of people get wrapped up in the trap of the NCAA being corrupt. It is. But that doesn't make paying players make sense.

 

[strumpfasaurus]

I don't understand why the NCAA can't copy the olympic model. The school only gives them a scholarship but they can make money off jersey sales, autographs, appear in commercials, shoes sales, and pretty much profit off of their like-ability. This is a win all for everyone because the school doesn't lose any money no title XI violations and the players still get to make money and it will go to the players that deserve it the most.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

By paying them.

So we're recruiting Thomas Bryant, for example. Let's say his top three teams are Ohio State, Syracuse, and Seton Hall.

Ohio State offers:
1st year: 1.1M, 2nd year: 1.3M, 3rd year: 1.5M, 4th year: 1.7M
Full scholarship (obviously included, it's like signing an NBA player and telling him he has to pay a membership to play for the team. You begin to see how nonsense the "scholarship is priceless" logic is in economic terms.)
Off campus house
100k signing bonus/Buyout clause

Syracuse offers:
1st year: 1M, 2nd year: 1.5M, 3rd year: 2.0M, 4th year: 2.5M
Full scholarship
Off campus house
75K signing bonus/Buyout clause

Seton Hall offers:
1st year: 500k, 2nd year: 750k, 3rd year: 1M, 4th year: 1.25M
Full scholarship
Off campus house
50K signing bonus/Buyout clause

All price increases are dependent on pre-agreed achievements (minutes played, points, awards, etc.). If a player has injury issues or does not turn out like expected (Dajuan Coleman), they can be bought out of their contract for a price and are free to join another college team while they are eligible, or jump to the professional ranks. Most likely they will sign with a college team.

They are receiving money right away. There is no more jumping to the NBA to "get mom out of the bad neighborhood". Jerami Grant is not leaving this year to help his family's financial problems, since he would be getting paid at Syracuse. Players are getting paid while they are developing. Now on to the big stars:

Tyler Ennis

Let's say his freshman year he had a contract for 450k and was due 650k for his sophmore year. Let's say he outplayed it and is now looking for top college PG money, which will be on par with the NBA rookie wage scale. Let's say Ennis is projected to go between 12th-18th in the draft. The wage scale for those draft positions ranges from 1.2M-1.6M. Now Syracuse has the leverage to offer him a new contract with increased pay on par with the NBA. Why in the world would Tyler Ennis leave now?

Wiggins, Randle, Embiid, and Smart would all stay 2-4 years. They would jump into the NBA Larry Bird/Magic Johnson/Michael Jordan style with 4 years of college experience behind their belt. The "College lifestyle" for these players would be similar to the "NBA lifestyle". Money, groupies, partying, cars, houses. Why the rush to jump to the NBA? CJ Fair wouldn't have even thought about the NBA after his Junior year. For most players, this is the most money they will earn in their lives.

The main reasons I could see the very top players leaving early is that an NBA contract gives them a jump start to their 2nd NBA contract which is where the SERIOUS money is. So now we are talking about only the VERY ELITE players at risk to leave, rather than any good player with NBA potential. But in a free economy, teams like Kentucky or Duke can counter--act this by offering contracts high above the NBA rookie wage scale. If this forces the NBA to raise the rookie wage scale, WELL WELL WELL, turns out these players are worth more than they are paying them.

The NCAA loves to talk about how most of these college athletes never go pro. That's completely true. How many college football and basketball stars can you remember that graced magazine covers in college and then went undrafted or flamed out in 1-2 years? They may have been worth millions of dollars to the university for those 1-4 years but didn't get a penny. They never have a chance to earn that kind of money again in their lives. This way, they may never make the pros, but they'll still get what the market says they deserve for at least a short while.

I'll leave you with this little history lesson:
Look into the Plan B free agency the NFL had between 1987-1992 that restricted player movement between teams. During the anti-trust lawsuit against the NFL, the NFL lawyer was quoted as saying that "Ending Plan B free agency may be the destruction of the NFL". Pure fear-mongering by the corporate institution in order to keep wage leverage in their favor. Sound familiar?

Not only will paying players NOT ruin college basketball, it will IMPROVE the game by keeping the best players around most of their college careers.