Jump to content

One and Dones close to being Done?


Recommended Posts

https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/nba-nbpa-expected-to-agree-on-lowering-draft-eligibility-age-to-18-cba-negotiations-ongoing-per-report/

High School class of 24 might be eligible to go straight to the NBA, if the minimum age goes down to 18 as discussed in the attached article.  This will impact a dozen or so P5 schools and the two high school grad G League teams, but for the most part, won't create a seismic change in the NCAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-this returns the college game if only slighlty to not being the NBA's farm league but the college game will miss having some of the best players not in it so from my seat a bit of a negative

-guessing that with there likely being a dozen or less each year that the impact to rosters at the college level would be pretty small

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Cowboy II said:

-this returns the college game if only slighlty to not being the NBA's farm league but the college game will miss having some of the best players not in it so from my seat a bit of a negative

-guessing that with there likely being a dozen or less each year that the impact to rosters at the college level would be pretty small

 

There were 22 Freshmen drafted in this past NBA draft.  There are 60 draft slots (one got forfeited this year). 

The 2024 draft will be chaotic.  Going with say twenty 2024 College Freshmen being drafted, then add 10 to 15 HS Seniors to the list, you are looking at over half the draft slots taken by 18 to 19 year olds.  If you are a NCAA upperclassman, eligible for the 2024 draft, it might be wise to declare in 2023 before this 'double draft' happens.  I'm looking at someone like Gibson Jimerson, who would be eligible for the 2023-24 NCAA season, but then would have to evaluate his odds in the '24 draft versus the '23 draft.  There will be plenty of players in the same situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I think the NCAA should change is to give everyone 4 years of eligibility, up to a starting age of say 22, regardless of whether or not they receive any pro money. That way if a player starts the pro route, and things don’t work out, they can go back to college and play on scholarship for a degree ( as long as they are academically eligible). That way, if someone tries to go pro and it doesn’t work out, they still have a chance to play in the NCAA. Increases the pool of eligible players for all NCAA schools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Lord Elrond said:

One thing I think the NCAA should change is to give everyone 4 years of eligibility, up to a starting age of say 22, regardless of whether or not they receive any pro money. That way if a player starts the pro route, and things don’t work out, they can go back to college and play on scholarship for a degree ( as long as they are academically eligible). That way, if someone tries to go pro and it doesn’t work out, they still have a chance to play in the NCAA. Increases the pool of eligible players for all NCAA schools.

That would likely give college head coaches another headache.  Do you save a scholarship for a player that might or might not come back?  Yuri turned 21 on March 7.  If he made an NBA 20 summer roster, he would still be 'trying out' into October.  He gets cut from the roster in October, then wants to come back to SLU.  The Billiken roster is full and school has already started.  What do you do?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like it. Let them have the option. If they don’t make the show they still have options; G League or overseas ball. The college game will not suffer. Actually might make the game better as teams will get time to develop versus the revolving door we have today. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Lord Elrond said:

Take your chances. The big thing I see is a hundred kids straight out of high school entering the draft, and 80 of them not being drafted. Instead of saying they can’t play college under the old rules, give them a shot at college.

Why?  We went years without an age limit without this happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every year during the draft there are a lot of players not taken in the draft that have accepted money, or somehow otherwise are no longer eligible for NCAA play. I’m this age of NIL, it makes no sense to me that those players can’t change their minds and play NCAA Basketball ( and maybe get a degree if things don’t work out for them professionally). I’d like to see that change. This would give the NCAA access to players that today don’t have it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lord Elrond said:

Every year during the draft there are a lot of players not taken in the draft that have accepted money, or somehow otherwise are no longer eligible for NCAA play. I’m this age of NIL, it makes no sense to me that those players can’t change their minds and play NCAA Basketball ( and maybe get a degree if things don’t work out for them professionally). I’d like to see that change. This would give the NCAA access to players that today don’t have it. 

Where do you draw the line? It could work if it was only a one-time opportunity if the player is not drafted. However, your first post about it would seemingly allow someone to spend 5 years bouncing around the pros before returning to an NCAA team. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, HoosierPal said:

There were 22 Freshmen drafted in this past NBA draft.  There are 60 draft slots (one got forfeited this year). 

The 2024 draft will be chaotic.  Going with say twenty 2024 College Freshmen being drafted, then add 10 to 15 HS Seniors to the list, you are looking at over half the draft slots taken by 18 to 19 year olds.  If you are a NCAA upperclassman, eligible for the 2024 draft, it might be wise to declare in 2023 before this 'double draft' happens.  I'm looking at someone like Gibson Jimerson, who would be eligible for the 2023-24 NCAA season, but then would have to evaluate his odds in the '24 draft versus the '23 draft.  There will be plenty of players in the same situation.

I'm pretty sure the NBA has said that any change wouldn't happen until a year far off in the future.  There have already been a ton of NBA draft picks traded for the next several years and the NBA doesn't want to drastically change the value of those picks by making a year with picks already traded a "double draft" with HS players eligible.  NBA teams can trade picks up to 7 years in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, BilliesBy40 said:

Where do you draw the line? It could work if it was only a one-time opportunity if the player is not drafted. However, your first post about it would seemingly allow someone to spend 5 years bouncing around the pros before returning to an NCAA team. 

What’s wrong with that? Plenty of people go to work or do something else instead of going straight to college, and when they apply later in life, the college is happy to accept them as long as they qualify academically. One example, someone enlists in the Army right out of high school, gets out of the Army when there enlistment is up, and then applies for college, and the coach thinks he can play a sport. Are you saying the college shouldn’t accept them or let them play because they tried something else out of high school instead of going straight to college? What if someone gets a construction job out of high school, and then decides to get a college degree? I don’t see the difference between those examples and someone trying to play pro basketball, yet today the NCAA won’t let play today them because they got money from a pro team. How is someone getting money from some other source for a few years before going to college acceptable, but if it’s money for playing a sport it’s unacceptable?  Especially when NCAA players stay eligible despite getting NIL money for playing sports?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Lord Elrond said:

What’s wrong with that? Plenty of people go to work or do something else instead of going straight to college, and when they apply later in life, the college is happy to accept them as long as they qualify academically. One example, someone enlists in the Army right out of high school, gets out of the Army when there enlistment is up, and then applies for college, and the coach thinks he can play a sport. Are you saying the college shouldn’t accept them or let them play because they tried something else out of high school instead of going straight to college? What if someone gets a construction job out of high school, and then decides to get a college degree? I don’t see the difference between those examples and someone trying to play pro basketball, yet today the NCAA won’t let play today them because they got money from a pro team. How is someone getting money from some other source for a few years before going to college acceptable, but if it’s money for playing a sport it’s unacceptable?  Especially when NCAA players stay eligible despite getting NIL money for playing sports?

Those are absurd comparisons and you know it. We don't need to discuss further if you are advocating for a setup that would allow LeBron James to play four years at a college after his pro career is finished. It will never happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BilliesBy40 said:

Those are absurd comparisons and you know it. We don't need to discuss further if you are advocating for a setup that would allow LeBron James to play four years at a college after his pro career is finished. It will never happen.

That would be electric, though. 40-year old LeBron dunking on 18-year olds would be appointment television 

BilliesBy40 likes this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BilliesBy40 said:

Those are absurd comparisons and you know it. We don't need to discuss further if you are advocating for a setup that would allow LeBron James to play four years at a college after his pro career is finished. It will never happen.

In my original post I limited it to players under 22 years old, which would eliminate Mr James.

This would be aimed at those who tried pro ball and didn’t make it. There are a lot of those players out there. What is the logic of not letting them try college ball after not making it in the pro leagues? Right now, if you accept any pro money you are ineligible. What is the logic in that, especially in a world where NIL’s exist, and players are getting paid to play college ball (ok, it’s technically not pay for play, but if they weren’t playing don’t pretend they would still be getting those deals)? Why should accepting 1 dollar for playing as a pro make them ineligible for the NCAA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Elrond said:

What’s wrong with that? Plenty of people go to work or do something else instead of going straight to college, and when they apply later in life, the college is happy to accept them as long as they qualify academically. One example, someone enlists in the Army right out of high school, gets out of the Army when there enlistment is up, and then applies for college, and the coach thinks he can play a sport. Are you saying the college shouldn’t accept them or let them play because they tried something else out of high school instead of going straight to college? What if someone gets a construction job out of high school, and then decides to get a college degree? I don’t see the difference between those examples and someone trying to play pro basketball, yet today the NCAA won’t let play today them because they got money from a pro team. How is someone getting money from some other source for a few years before going to college acceptable, but if it’s money for playing a sport it’s unacceptable?  Especially when NCAA players stay eligible despite getting NIL money for playing sports?

The NIL exists precisely to avoid the scenario you're describing.  It pays players so they don't have to leave early to grab a paycheck.  What was the point of going through all this NIL chaos if we're just going to give them strings-free eligibility anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, 3star_recruit said:

The NIL exists precisely to avoid the scenario you're describing.  It pays players so they don't have to leave early to grab a paycheck.  What was the point of going through all this NIL chaos if we're just going to give them strings-free eligibility anyway?

I think the NIL was primarily created to avoid a really major law suit and avoid congressional oversight of college athletics. Schools were making money off of players talents, images, uniform numbers, bobble heads, etc and players were miffed they weren’t getting a piece of the action. I really don’t think an NIL is going to stop a player from going after professional dollars unless his/her NIL deal is so crazy it matches or exceeds what they could make as a pro. 

SLU_Lax and willie like this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, 3star_recruit said:

The NIL exists precisely to avoid the scenario you're describing.  It pays players so they don't have to leave early to grab a paycheck.  What was the point of going through all this NIL chaos if we're just going to give them strings-free eligibility anyway?

So we give them money so they won’t get a paycheck? That’s absurd. The NIL money is paying them to play, which is exactly what a paycheck in the NBA, the G-league, or playing for money overseas does, just in a different way. The NIL doesn’t exist to avoid paying players, it exists in order to pay the players to play. Do you really think that the same money for their Name, Image and Likeness would go to some chemistry or math student who couldn’t make a free throw if their life depends on it? And today, if someone who can play and got paid through an NIL deal at one university transfers to ours and gets a new NIL deal from us, we would welcome them with open arms if they could play. How is allowing someone who got pro money to get that same NIL money any different? The NCAA used the “if you get paid, don’t come back to us’” rule as a way to limit losing players to the pro leagues, but has that been a success? I would say not. There are a lot of good players who try to go pro who can’t cut it, but can still play at the NCAA division 1 level. Why not take them back in? Expanding the pool of eligible players should actually lower the amount of NIL money you need to pay them, if the law of supply and demand works. Increase the supply of players, the demand stays the same (same number of NCAA teams after all), then the free market says the price goes down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Elrond said:

In my original post I limited it to players under 22 years old, which would eliminate Mr James.

This would be aimed at those who tried pro ball and didn’t make it. There are a lot of those players out there. What is the logic of not letting them try college ball after not making it in the pro leagues? Right now, if you accept any pro money you are ineligible. What is the logic in that, especially in a world where NIL’s exist, and players are getting paid to play college ball (ok, it’s technically not pay for play, but if they weren’t playing don’t pretend they would still be getting those deals)? Why should accepting 1 dollar for playing as a pro make them ineligible for the NCAA?

Also, you're argument seems to assume that basketball players who choose the pros first are somehow shut out of returning to college.  They are not.  They can attend college just like anyone else can.  You gave examples of kids that go into the Army or work a construction job.  Kids who try pro basketball have the same right to attend college as the Army kid or the construction kid.  What you seem to be suggesting is that they should be able to go for free, the Army kid and the construction kid are very different in that regard, despite shunning that opportunity when it was first presented to them.

I'm a strong believer in the idea that kids should have options to go pro and avoid college.  They should also have the option to go to college and be an amateur.  For that system to work, they can't be given the option to do either whenever they choose.

3star_recruit likes this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, cgeldmacher said:

Also, you're argument seems to assume that basketball players who choose the pros first are somehow shut out of returning to college.  They are not.  They can attend college just like anyone else can.  You gave examples of kids that go into the Army or work a construction job.  Kids who try pro basketball have the same right to attend college as the Army kid or the construction kid.  What you seem to be suggesting is that they should be able to go for free, the Army kid and the construction kid are very different in that regard, despite shunning that opportunity when it was first presented to them.

I'm a strong believer in the idea that kids should have options to go pro and avoid college.  They should also have the option to go to college and be an amateur.  For that system to work, they can't be given the option to do either whenever they choose.

But they can’t play and get a scholarship. If someone enlisted in the Army, or worked construction for a few years, and could play basketball, why shouldn’t they get a scholarship? Same with anyone who goes pro. Why does that have to be a line that, once crossed, can never be undone?  Especially when we are effectively paying college players to play anyway, just in some obscure format instead of being straightforward with it.  The old Amateur/Pro line was always one built on illusions mostly.  I see no reason why the line has to be drawn like it is. It is a remnant of the old days, in which we thought there was this separation between the amateurs and the pros. Ever wonder why the Power 5 conferences were so quick to move on NIL? They already had the money flowing to the players, just under the table, all they had to do was re-route it. 

Edited by Lord Elrond
I’m stupid and pushed the wrong button
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Lord Elrond said:

Every year during the draft there are a lot of players not taken in the draft that have accepted money, or somehow otherwise are no longer eligible for NCAA play. I’m this age of NIL, it makes no sense to me that those players can’t change their minds and play NCAA Basketball ( and maybe get a degree if things don’t work out for them professionally). I’d like to see that change. This would give the NCAA access to players that today don’t have it. 

The whole point of the NCAA was stated as a means to keep young men from wasting time in a minor league and the intellectual cost to the country. No one really considered a situation where the money from sports would be good enough to eclipse an education for a young man in the immediate term. I don’t see why your proposal would be bad for the NCAA or the country. It would fit with the mission and intent of the NCAA. I honestly think that the current rules were intended to scare kids away from going to minor leagues, which also might have been to help the NCAA build a monopoly. Pretty anticompetitive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...