NBA rule change

[OregonShocker]

I read where the NBA is considering doing away with the "one and done" rule as their response to the FBI/NCAA fiasco. If so, do you view this as overall helping us, hurting us, or neutral effect? I can see several scenarios where we'll be recruiting against more blue bloods and where more players build up experience, which could weaken our previous strengths. Mixed feelings on the effect but I would love to see the rule changed.

[BOBB]

Small pool of one and done talents. Will change little in our recruiting.

[ShockTalk]

I've always felt that quality programs that could not compete at the highest levels of recruiting, but had programs led by very solid Juniors/Seniors had certain advantages that partially countered programs that relied heavily on athletically gifted one-and-done freshmen and other soon to go pro underclassmen.

I've also believed that if one-and-dones no longer played in the college ranks, their holes would be filled by simply moving the remaining players "up the ladder". We are in a much better position to weather this in the American than we would have been in the Valley.

However, if the NBA expands their G-League to more of a MLB style minor league, the greater the negative effect on down the ladder of teams. If this happens, I feel that D-I basketball should be reduced to no more than about 120-140 teams in 8 to 10 leagues. This should help the "bottom" teams in these leagues to be more competitive with the top by more likely getting the best of the rest players. Any teams in this league would have to "commit", if you will, to certain levels that would greater guarantee their relative success against the top half teams of this division. Hopefully, this would keep all the leagues in this division more competitive with one another.

I'm not sure the masses would respond well to fewer teams/leagues. To much history of underdogs beating the big boys.

[Slykryck]

NBA draft is only 60 players, taken from all over the globe. I was surprised to find only 44 players have went to the league straight from high school, with 9 being the most in one year (2005-Final year). The G League will allow that number to grow, but even if that number grew to 30, I don’t think it’s enough to impact all of college basketball too drastically, let alone our recruiting.

An expanding G-League has the most potential to impact college basketball recruiting. If it ran like MLB as ShockTalk said, it could be a detriment to college ball.

Steve Kerr suggested that kids be allowed to return to school if undrafted (instead of being to required to remove their self from consideration prior to the draft). Overall, I think this could be a good idea. There are two pitfalls, however, that immediately jump out at me: 1.) Getting drafted without an agent is not wise. Even this was allowed, the risk of taking money while waiting for the draft could increase and jeopardize eligibility. 2.) The draft is in June. Could leave some teams scrambling when losing a player this late.

[OregonShocker]

Slykryck true, but one of my counter thoughts is that if a team spent a lot of time/effort recruiting a player who jumped to 5he pros (even G league) they lose out on others. I’m thinking of our history in college baseball as an example. You’ll have to decide if you’re gonna go after a high talent that may go pro vs the mid talent who could go pro after a few years. I believe it could impact recruiting clear down the line.

[Slykryck]

OregonShocker I don’t disageee with your point. However, I’m all in favor of changes to the system that benefit players.

I roughly equate the current system to being an unpaid intern who signs a non-compete agreement. You control what you can and try to outwork the other interns/players. If you feel the opportunities aren’t a fit, you can’t transfer to another company/team without major consequences. And at the end of your internship/college career, if you don’t land the high paying gig, while you gained a lot of experience (ie. degree) you leave with zero dollars in your pocket.

[WheatShock]

You also leave without the thousands of dollars in student loan debt that many students today do.

[Slykryck]

Show me the student that is responsible for boosting school attendance and bring in millions of dollars for their school. That’s why I compared them to unpaid interns and not students.

[ShockTalk]

Slykryck true, but one of my counter thoughts is that if a team spent a lot of time/effort recruiting a player who jumped to 5he pros (even G league) they lose out on others. I’m thinking of our history in college baseball as an example. You’ll have to decide if you’re gonna go after a high talent that may go pro vs the mid talent who could go pro after a few years. I believe it could impact recruiting clear down the line.

The question I have with your answer is just what is high talent that may go pro (assume after their sophomore year) vs the mid talent who could go pro after a few years (assume 3-4 years)? I say this because I'm also assuming almost all potential one-and-dones are not going to college as well as some who think they are one-and-done, or at least, would rather play G-League if they didn't make the roster the first year rather than go to college (because they're now doing so because they pretty much have to).

Take a look at WSU this year. They were really good (top 25 good) because they had a lot of things in their favor. 6 seniors, a RS soph (junior age wise) that could get drafted 1st round, a junior who has NBA potential, along with one of those seniors going from good to very, very good in his last year. You're not going to have this type of combo every year. You're going to need year in and year out quality recruits every year or accept a really top notch team every 2 out of 3 or 4 years.

The very top teams are going to go from having to reload every year or two to having more balanced recruiting classes each and every year, probably having freshmen, and some sophs, that may not play much their first year or 2. In other words, they have players sitting that could be on other teams' rotation and starting by their sophomore year. Before, many these players weren't even considering the top teams because the likelihood of them playing much before their senior year, if at all, was reduced by the one-and-dones.

The "advantage" of experienced, deep teams that a WSU had against inexperienced, not as deep teams is gone. Those teams are all going to become more experienced and deeper. While the effect of these top teams on lesser teams won't be that great due to the low numbers of players not going to college, I believe it will have at least a minimal effect. The more players you have skipping college the greater the effect on down through all of the D-I, IMO.

[Slykryck]

ShockTalk I think you really illustrated how it could truly change the college basketball game. However, the G league still has limited rosters as do NBA teams, meaning NBA players have to leave allowing G league call-ups which in turn allows more players to enter the G league. You’re talking a 26 team farm league vs the 351 your currently have. It would truly have to expand exponentially like MLB as you previously stated.

All that being said, I wonder would players look at schools that have a history of developing players long term vs schools that regroup each year differently. Let’s face it, if you stay on the Kentucky roster four years, your NBA chances are not high (ie Alex Poythress). We develop players. I think we’ve had as many four year guys make NBA rosters in recent years as the likes of UK, Duke, and similar schools.

[ShockTalk]

The last part of my first post on this thread addressed a true expansion of the G-League. However, there are degrees of expansion. I believe that most players who believe they can go pro after their first year of college will not go to college at all if they don't have to. This means there will be early wash-outs with some who are now one-and-dones or who think they are.

There may be a "first level" league that is less than the current G.. This would replace what colleges do now. Obviously, players who have to go here first wouldn't be paid much. In fact, there may be an agreement with the NCAA and NBA that players who wash-out from this league would be allowed to enter college as long as they meet high school qualifications to enter college (also include Jucos). Also, they would have to go for at least 2 years before being draft eligible, just like players who go directly to college. If the player doesn't like this path, they can go overseas or go on with their life, but 2 years must pass before being NBA eligible again. I'm just spit-ballin' here.

[Shocktoberfest]

All I’ll say is going to the G league would be lame city vs the fun and exposure of playing in a big time NCAA environment. Nobody gives a crap about G league games. Those are so weak.

[Downtown Shocker Brown]

But you get paid, legally.

[Shocktoberfest]

Yep. That’s true.

[Shockm]

All I’ll say is going to the G league would be lame city vs the fun and exposure of playing in a big time NCAA environment. Nobody gives a crap about G league games. Those are so weak.

There are some who aren't motivated to go to school. The only reason they do is because they don't have a real choice and going to class isn't a priority. Those need to be weeded out. The reforms have to continue with agents too. They kick a couple of shady agents to the curb and they'd clean up the game. And they prolly need to make it so that jerseys with a name on them can make money in a trust.

[OregonShocker]

Well, a whole nuther side argument is whether this would clean up college basketball. I don't think so; more kids would wear the sneakers on the feet of their favorite college player than on their favorite G league player in Amarillo. But, the recruiting landscape will change. Again, I think of college baseball; how many recruits did we skip over because we knew they'd "go pro" and how many did we recruit and hold our breath seeing if they would sign a pro contract? I can forsee the same thing in college basketball recruiting, but with more of the "blue bloods" getting in the mix. (We used to be a "blue blood" in baseball.)