ADVERTISEMENT

Will More Kids Go to Europe? And Other Questions.

What Would Jesus Do?

Hall of Famer
Nov 28, 2010
11,035
5,949
113
If the money now going to kids to get them to play for specific colleges dries up, will some of these kids choose Europe (with pay) instead of college (without pay).

Will the pressure to pay college student athletes increase if kids start looking overseas?

We tend to think of the better players being tempted by under-the-table money. But why not kids who are good but not likely to make it to the NBA. College ball may be the only time these guys can cash in. Seems to me that while the money may not be as good, mid majors might be happy to pay something to build a competitive program by paying good 4-star and 3-star players.

How much money does the AAU and others make from their games? Are those teams paying any of their players?
 
Europe and the New G league will see a marked increase in talent! AND he college game will be that much stronger since we will have multi-year players like the old days! Coaches who can actually coach on game day and develop players will once again rise to the top! (Roy, I'm looking at you!)
 
Europe and the New G league will see a marked increase in talent! AND he college game will be that much stronger since we will have multi-year players like the old days! Coaches who can actually coach on game day and develop players will once again rise to the top! (Roy, I'm looking at you!)

No offense cuz I don't think you meant it that way but hasn't Roy already "risen to the top"? Lol two straight national title games.. 3 championships in 12 years.
 
If the money now going to kids to get them to play for specific colleges dries up, will some of these kids choose Europe (with pay) instead of college (without pay).

Will the pressure to pay college student athletes increase if kids start looking overseas?

We tend to think of the better players being tempted by under-the-table money. But why not kids who are good but not likely to make it to the NBA. College ball may be the only time these guys can cash in. Seems to me that while the money may not be as good, mid majors might be happy to pay something to build a competitive program by paying good 4-star and 3-star players.

How much money does the AAU and others make from their games? Are those teams paying any of their players?

This is why I do not want to see NCAA programs be able to buy players or players able to make money off their image while in college. There are other options if they need to make money, they do not have to play in the NCAA. So why change the college model when it does not need to be changed, rules need to be enforced. Paying players does not stop any of what we have seen this past week, pay them some and they want more. What is missing is the weak kneed enforcement and frankly, the coruption within the offices of the NCAA.

Do ya really think allowing a kid to earn $200K for doing commercials means he will not take another $200K for committing to X-school under the table? The answer is no, the more you pay them the more they want, that is human nature and it applies to us all doesn't it. When was the last time anyone here turned down a raise, hey, appreciate it but I make all I need to? LOL
 
I've never understood why a highly rated high school recruit would attend college anyway. Marvin Bagleys stock can only go down. I'd hire my son a personal trainer and sit out the entire year. Harry Giles cost himself millions playing 1 year at Dook.
 
This is why I do not want to see NCAA programs be able to buy players or players able to make money off their image while in college. There are other options if they need to make money, they do not have to play in the NCAA. So why change the college model when it does not need to be changed, rules need to be enforced. Paying players does not stop any of what we have seen this past week, pay them some and they want more. What is missing is the weak kneed enforcement and frankly, the coruption within the offices of the NCAA.

Do ya really think allowing a kid to earn $200K for doing commercials means he will not take another $200K for committing to X-school under the table? The answer is no, the more you pay them the more they want, that is human nature and it applies to us all doesn't it. When was the last time anyone here turned down a raise, hey, appreciate it but I make all I need to? LOL
The point though is there'd be no incentive to take anything "under the table". Everything would be "over the table", because the players getting paid would be legal.

So yeah, it would stop the NCAA violations from occurring, and possibly many of the federal charges (people wouldn't evade taxes if they were allowed to accept the money and play). Players making $200k would certainly want $400k as you note, but they'd be allowed to earn that if someone is willing to pay them $400k.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TPFKAPFS
I've never understood why a highly rated high school recruit would attend college anyway. Marvin Bagleys stock can only go down. I'd hire my son a personal trainer and sit out the entire year. Harry Giles cost himself millions playing 1 year at Dook.
I don't necessarily think this is a bad idea either. Though the player may miss out on skill development, free publicity, and (besides the complete outliers who are #1-2 overall in their class) it may cost them some draft position. Plus college does come with some benefits for OAD's beyond playing (housing, food, better lifestyle, a network of people willing to help you succeed), though from a strictly short-term dollars perspective I think Europe wins out if you are going to play.
 
More and more, I simply don't care how many high school recruits choose to go to the NBDL or go overseas to play for pay. If they don't want to go to college, I'd prefer they not be there. There are plenty of quality players who do.
I agree. I don't see OADs playing elsewhere hurting the college game much, if at all.
 
The point though is there'd be no incentive to take anything "under the table". Everything would be "over the table", because the players getting paid would be legal.

So yeah, it would stop the NCAA violations from occurring, and possibly many of the federal charges (people wouldn't evade taxes if they were allowed to accept the money and play). Players making $200k would certainly want $400k as you note, but they'd be allowed to earn that if someone is willing to pay them $400k.

Are you saying you would support boosters and other entities steering kids to certain programs? No way I could support that...
 
doubt seriously the Euros would continue to smile at American teenagers coming over en masse, year after year..human nature/jealousy..now China may like..until Trump tweets smthg
 
Are you saying you would support boosters and other entities steering kids to certain programs? No way I could support that...
I'm not sure what I support in all honesty. I see pros and cons to both sides. I think the players getting paid somehow is indisputably better for them, so I lean that way.

However, even if the letter of the law is "players can only get paid for use of their likeness", I'm not sure how you enforce that at all. If a car dealership pays a player $50k to be a spokesperson for marketing purposes, how do you determine if that's abuse of the rules? You'd need to examine their sales data to see if the player really boosted sales enough to cover $50k of additional marketing expense, or if the owner of the dealership is just a big fan of the team and wants the player to commit there. What if the player only covered $25k in costs, but it was an honest overestimate of the effect he'd have? Of course, all of this is outside the NCAA's purview. Are they going to start reviewing the tax returns of thousands of businesses nationwide to determine legitimate payments?

I think the "pay for likeness" rule would be easily abused. But as we're seeing the current rules are being abused anyway. And schools already "pay" players, just indirectly via nicer dorms, planes, nutrition, coaching, facilities, etc. There's a reason UNC isn't worried about losing a recruit to UNC-Charlotte: we have way more money for all those things than they do.

Ultimately, keeping the current rules is the simplest strategy with the least risk. But the players are undeniably better off getting paid, and it's hard to see who is clearly harmed. These are all two way negotiations where both parties are happy with the deal.
 
You are right that I believe Roy is at the top. I don't believe that his peers, sports casters, casual fans, and elite recruits believe it though. Look at the polls that sometimes list him outside the top 10. Listen to the praises that flavor of the month and OAD factory coaches get on TV. And listen to the glowing words of elite recruits as they praise coaches for their ability to get them to the league.

Under the new system, I think substance and not image will drive these praises and Roy has more substance in his little finger than.......
 
Do ya really think allowing a kid to earn $200K for doing commercials means he will not take another $200K for committing to X-school under the table?
I was wondering exactly this.

I suspect that paying college students would eliminate some of the pressures to participate in shady schemes, but not all of them.
 
I was wondering exactly this.

I suspect that paying college students would eliminate some of the pressures to participate in shady schemes, but not all of them.
What would the shady schemes entail exactly, if the players were allowed to be paid?

Would anyone be complaining if a car dealership paid Emma Watson $50k to be their spokesperson while she was at Brown? Or even if an agent had paid $50k to have dinner with her and her acting coach, in the hopes of representing her in her next movie? I'm not a law expert, but I don't imagine these are crimes despite the similarities with college athletes (famous college student with a lot of future earning power being paid in a mutually negotiated deal).

The difference is the NCAA rules drive this stuff underground in order to avoid violations.
 
See this is the rabbit hole, it is why I do not like this pay the players unless it is governed by one central body and paid out equally to all players, like a stipend increase but not the highest bidder stuff. I just think it changes the college model to much to have kids go to the highest bidder, where only a few deep pocket programs can buy any player they want, even if we are one of those fortunate few.

What we have seen this week needs to be stopped, not accepted, those involved need to be punished and set as role models on how it is to be done. Increase stipends fine, pay all the kids for NCAA video games fine, but schools negotiating commercial deals so a kid plays for them or uses its sources to out bid others for a kid, not fine with that at all. Again, if kid needs money that bad go to the NBADL, go to Europe, put together a deal with an agent and sit out a year, or very soon be able to skip the college game and enter the NBA right out of high school again.

Other than the NCAA not doing anything about the rule breaking they knew was going on, the model is not broke, the existing rules just need to be enforced with teeth and the NCAA needs to stop trying to step outside of its authority and worry about the responsibility that is within its authority.
 
  • Like
Reactions: venom660turbo
See this is the rabbit hole, it is why I do not like this pay the players unless it is governed by one central body and paid out equally to all players, like a stipend increase but not the highest bidder stuff. I just think it changes the college model to much to have kids go to the highest bidder, where only a few deep pocket programs can buy any player they want, even if we are one of those fortunate few
I agree. Any system that enables the haves to participate in a bidding war is inherently flawed and will be abused.
What we have seen this week needs to be stopped, not accepted, those involved need to be punished and set as role models on how it is to be done. Increase stipends fine, pay all the kids for NCAA video games fine, but schools negotiating commercial deals so a kid plays for them or uses its sources to out bid others for a kid, not fine with that at all. Again, if kid needs money that bad go to the NBADL, go to Europe, put together a deal with an agent and sit out a year, or very soon be able to skip the college game and enter the NBA right out of high school again.
I'm fine with increasing stipends to these athletes so that they have the money to go on dates, go to the movies, etc... But IMO, it should be a fixed amount, say $5,000 a year. I'm not so sure the OAD rule is going away, owners actually prefer it be 2 years removed from high school and I can't blame them. Regardless, if a kid can't wait a year to get paid, no one is stopping him from going overseas or to the NBDL.
Other than the NCAA not doing anything about the rule breaking they knew was going on, the model is not broke, the existing rules just need to be enforced with teeth and the NCAA needs to stop trying to step outside of its authority and worry about the responsibility that is within its authority.
Couldn't agree more. The problem is that we may be discovering definitive proof that the NCAA is corrupt as well as incompetent, something that many have long suspected.

absolute-power-corrupts.jpg


Truer words were never spoken. Just look at politics of any time period. The NCAA has been too powerful for too long.
 
What would the shady schemes entail exactly, if the players were allowed to be paid?
Mainly more money. I wouldn't expect player compensation to be in the $100K+ range we've been hearing about for top players.

What I'm thinking is that some kids or their families who are financially strapped are tempted under current rules because they really need the help. But with some level of compensation, they may no longer really need to cross that line.

But big offers will probably still be dangled, and a few players or their families will still be tempted.

Which raise the question: if some level of pay is being considered, what should that level be? Do we, for example, pay student-athletes some proportion of the typical G League scale? Maybe something like free tuition and board plus half the base G League salary?
 
Mainly more money. I wouldn't expect player compensation to be in the $100K+ range we've been hearing about for top players.

What I'm thinking is that some kids or their families who are financially strapped are tempted under current rules because they really need the help. But with some level of compensation, they may no longer really need to cross that line.

But big offers will probably still be dangled, and a few players or their families will still be tempted.

Which raise the question: if some level of pay is being considered, what should that level be? Do we, for example, pay student-athletes some proportion of the typical G League scale? Maybe something like free tuition and board plus half the base G League salary?

Well, I have a great solution, I have detailed it before but no one really seems to want to think outside of the box. But my plan would not only give the players a lot of what they want but it would help the NCAA programs as well and it would actually have college players be students rather than pretend to be.
 
Well, I have a great solution, I have detailed it before but no one really seems to want to think outside of the box. But my plan would not only give the players a lot of what they want but it would help the NCAA programs as well and it would actually have college players be students rather than pretend to be.
Can you remind us of your plan?
 
Mainly more money. I wouldn't expect player compensation to be in the $100K+ range we've been hearing about for top players.

What I'm thinking is that some kids or their families who are financially strapped are tempted under current rules because they really need the help. But with some level of compensation, they may no longer really need to cross that line.

But big offers will probably still be dangled, and a few players or their families will still be tempted.

Which raise the question: if some level of pay is being considered, what should that level be? Do we, for example, pay student-athletes some proportion of the typical G League scale? Maybe something like free tuition and board plus half the base G League salary?
Oh I see. Well I never envision the player payments being capped, but they could be. I see a super marketable and skilled football player like say Tebow making $1M+ per year in college, while a bench player at many schools doesn't make much of anything. If the payments were capped or equalized, then sure there'd still be the incentive to take things under the table.
 
Simply reinstate Freshman ineligibility. Kids with no interest in college will turn pro.
Bring back the freshman games!

Our starting lineup
Felton
Platek
Brooks
Huffman
Manley
...or maybe Miller at SF

With the JV rounding out the team.

OTOH, if we couldn't play any freshmen this year we'd definitely be going small.

Could UK even field a full team if their frosh couldn't play? I don't think they could (without walkons).
 
Last edited:
Oh I see. Well I never envision the player payments being capped, but they could be. I see a super marketable and skilled football player like say Tebow making $1M+ per year in college, while a bench player at many schools doesn't make much of anything. If the payments were capped or equalized, then sure there'd still be the incentive to take things under the table.
Yeah, I was imagining equal pay.
 
Would I be correct in thinking that recruiters from European teams are free to offer money to HS kids or their families?

How about for recruiters for G League teams? They are part of the NBA, but they have no concern about amateur status, so why couldn't they offer these kids in HS? Then again what would that do to the draft? It would be a bummer to pay the kid, develop him for a year, and then see another team draft him.
 
Have kids go to whatever D league team they want. Pay them minimum of D league, and have them in draft following year. Agent then could pay for all the perks and extra training for one year. Got to get one and done out of college. Kids are going to class for one semester is well stupid.
 
Don't know what Dave's plan is/was... I've often said, the OAD rule was brought in to stop kids who weren't ready from declaring... mainly because the NBA teams couldn't help themselves, they were drafting unproven kids who could jump/run fast but weren't tested in tough competition.
I'd advocate much more contact between the NBA and High School Players - opportunities for those players to get real and valuable feedback on their draft status.
Once the delusions of grandeur are removed a young player should become more realistic about their Pro-tential and may realise going to school can help them.
Whether it's OAD, 2AT (two and through) or some other configuration, I believe college players need to see some of the massive dollars their sport generates. some form of pay for play option must be sorted out.
I agree with a lot of the sentiment above, a kid spending a couple of semesters in class makes a mockery of the colleges they go to.
 
Would I be correct in thinking that recruiters from European teams are free to offer money to HS kids or their families?

How about for recruiters for G League teams? They are part of the NBA, but they have no concern about amateur status, so why couldn't they offer these kids in HS? Then again what would that do to the draft? It would be a bummer to pay the kid, develop him for a year, and then see another team draft him.
European teams are free to pay them whatever they want. G-League teams are part of the NBA CBA though, so I believe pay is capped at $25k. The new two-way contracts pay up to $75k, but I don't believe someone would be eligible for those until they are 19. And as you mention, the team signing them would not get to keep their rights. Once the draft comes around the kid has to go to whoever picks him (see PJ Hairston). For those reasons, I don't really see too many players going to the G-League.
 
Can you remind us of your plan?

OK, one these days maybe I will just put it on word so I can copy paste it! LOL

It is multi faceted and does require the NCAA and the NBA to come together for the best interest of the players at that is a taller bar than it may seem.

Part 1 - Provide and education on what these kids are interested in rather than the standard college classes they really could care less about. What I am talking about is a program specifically geared for athletes looking to become professionals in the future. It would have top be standardized across the entire NCAA. IT would feature all aspects that a professional athlete should know ASAP, how to handle agents and those looking for future paydays off of them like investment guru's ect. Sports medicine and training techniques, how to communicate thru the media, the pitfalls of social media, how to transition to a world where you are no longer an active athlete, ect. Classes taught in part by former athletes to current athletes.

Kids may care less about math & science but they care very much about their days of being professional athletes. Teach a kid something he is interested in and he will become a student, teach him something he has no interest in and he is not going to do the work. I think an education has to be part of a college athletes experience, a real education, not just enough to get them thru so they can act like students.

I would have annual testing by a neutral 3rd party of all NCAA athletes to insure they are actually learning and not just acting as students but really can't read. So kids in high school have a real reason to learn.

Part 2 - $$$ for players from apparel companies - I would take ALL apparel money and have it 100% paid out to a central authority, like an NCAA bank. I would then have a annual lotto based on % of current apparel deals, for example NIke would have the most shots where the apparel contracts are draw for each year or for a span like 3yrs. That school for example drawing Addias would use Addias apparel for that span of time and then the lotto is redone. That way apparel companies would not have inducement to steer kids to specific schools, they would be dealing with the NCAA and not the individual schools. If that lotto was done yearly then they would not even have the time to know where to steer them, of course their ability to deliver the numbers of needed apparel would have to be worked out on a time line.

Next, ALL apparel money, meaning what is paid to coaches and schools is paid to the NCAA Central Bank and a % is worked out where part goes to the schools based on numbers of sports programs fielded and travel schedules and maybe an extra inducement for winning and running a clean program is a larger cut. None of the apparel money would be paid to coaches, NONE. Coaches make enough without the apparel money and any inducement to get in to the dirty tricks with apparel companies should be removed.

The % paid out to the players is an equal amount to every team member of every D-1 program, your star makes as much from this as your walk on does. 15 player limit, over 350 schools but the players would get a healthy check and especially so for the kid that will never be able to play pro ball for example.

Part 3 - Players drafted and $$$ - 2 problems exist today that force a lot of these kids to leave college early, the 1 and done rule for sure but maybe an even greater issue is the rookie salary cap scale and term. Most rookie NBA players spend the rookie contract term learning how to play, what they used to learn in 4yrs of college play they now must learn on the NBA's dime. Problem is the draft now is only 2 rounds so if you go undrafted, you can no longer improve your stock by playing in the NCAA and it is even harder to move up thru the NBADL. I think most will agree, the NBA got players more ready to produce back in the day the players played NCAA ball for 4yrs and then entered the draft. Back when they did that however, a kid could command full market value out of college and not the greatly reduced rookie scale now in place.

So, I would have kids able to enter the draft at anytime past high school, drafted or not, they would have the option to pick a college and play for that college. In other words Bagley could enter the draft and still play for duke. ALL of his rookie salary money, if he elected to play NCAA ball would be placed in an annuity, he would not have millions cash in hand. The drafting team would pay for the exact cost of his scholarship to the college team he plays for, it is a version of draft and stash that the NBA has done many times with the euro leagues. For every season of NCAA ball the kid plays it ticks down a year of rookie salary cap clock, that way if the kid plays 4yrs of college ball, the NBA has a great look at him so they know more what they are getting, and the kid learns from college coaches how to play the darn game. A kid that was drafted out of high school that plays college ball for 4yrs would have a really sweet annuity and could then get a market value contract because the rookie salary cap term had been served.

Now I would have a hardship clause in this, if a kid truly needed to help family, a reasonable amount depending on the need could be borrowed from that annuity, like the rules you have on your 401K now. That way family would not have to live on the streets or in high crime areas but I* am not talking about buying bling or hundred thousand dollar sports cars, i am talking true hardship without excess.

Maybe those kids that initially go undrafted can work their way back to draft status, it is only after drafted would they have the options I am talking about, like the rookie salary cap clock ticking, they would actually have to have a contract before that could happen. Now the team that drafts them would have their rights for the 1st 4yrs, no free agency for the 1st four years of playing in the NBA. To clarify, if the kid plays 4yrs of college ball and was drafted right out of high school, the drafting team would have his rights for 4more yrs after college ball.

NBA vets could hang in the league longer because their spots are not taken by cheap rookies, NBA coaches could spend less time teaching and more time coaching, which is why they are NBA coaches in the first place, they should not have to teach professional NBA players how to box out for example.

Part 4 - Apparel deals and sports agents - First any apparel company caught cheating would be suspended from the NCAA apparel lotto for 3yrs, want to risk that? Any sports agent cheating the system would receive a life time ban from the pro league and face criminal charges for anti trust.

Now I would allow only certified and approved sports agents negotiate apparel deals for a kid at any time after high school and the agent could go ahead and get his cut but ALL of the kid's money would again be stashed in his annuity and for example able to grow for 4yrs of college, kid would have a heck of a nice pay day after 4yrs of rookie salary, apparel money, and ability to get a market value contract. The sports agency would not receive any of the initial NBA contract money no matter if the kid played those 1st 4yrs in college or the NBA, that scale is already determined so there is no negotiation.

Conclusion, yes, lot to be worked out but I give the kids real reason to not only play in the NCAA but to stay for their entire eligibility. I give the players more money to live on while in college, I give them a course of study that is of unique interest to them, and I give them huge paydays after playing college ball for 4yrs, I give players across the board on NCAA teams a much bigger annual stipend. I give them the option if they chose to forego college and enter the league at any time but I give NBA teams the ability to stall that so they can get a better look at a kid and have him taught how to play by college coaches that have always been more teachers of the game.

I remove the reasons this steering scandal occurred, I give the kid the ability to get his family out of bad situations, I teach him what to expect as a millionaire pro player and not have to learn the hard way about how many women come at you looking to have you pay for their babies.

And I give fans what they want, more of the better athletes playing for 4yrs for the program they love and at the same time improve the quality of the NBA game as well as the college game. It is a radical change but we see what doing nothing has got us, a radical change is needed.
 
So, I would have kids able to enter the draft at anytime past high school, drafted or not, they would have the option to pick a college and play for that college. In other words Bagley could enter the draft and still play for duke. ALL of his rookie salary money, if he elected to play NCAA ball would be placed in an annuity, he would not have millions cash in hand. The drafting team would pay for the exact cost of his scholarship to the college team he plays for, it is a version of draft and stash that the NBA has done many times with the euro leagues. For every season of NCAA ball the kid plays it ticks down a year of rookie salary cap clock, that way if the kid plays 4yrs of college ball, the NBA has a great look at him so they know more what they are getting, and the kid learns from college coaches how to play the darn game. A kid that was drafted out of high school that plays college ball for 4yrs would have a really sweet annuity and could then get a market value contract because the rookie salary cap term had been served.

Now I would have a hardship clause in this, if a kid truly needed to help family, a reasonable amount depending on the need could be borrowed from that annuity, like the rules you have on your 401K now. That way family would not have to live on the streets or in high crime areas but I* am not talking about buying bling or hundred thousand dollar sports cars, i am talking true hardship without excess.

Maybe those kids that initially go undrafted can work their way back to draft status, it is only after drafted would they have the options I am talking about, like the rookie salary cap clock ticking, they would actually have to have a contract before that could happen. Now the team that drafts them would have their rights for the 1st 4yrs, no free agency for the 1st four years of playing in the NBA. To clarify, if the kid plays 4yrs of college ball and was drafted right out of high school, the drafting team would have his rights for 4more yrs after college ball.
My head hurts, but there are some gems in there. A few I have suggested in the past.

Some of the best parts might be hard to get the NBA on board.

Like you, I would like to see players be able to enter the draft any time they want, including straight out of HS, and keep entering it until drafted or they give up. With the option to go to college (or return to college, as the case may be) if not drafted.

If the kid is drafted, I think he should become the NBA team's responsibility. The team can bring him on board right away, send him to the G League, stash him overseas, OR send him to college. But if they choose to send him to college, they pay tuition and board. And they get to pick the college (assuming the college wants the kid).

So, for example, Bagley gets drafted by a team and they could choose to have him play for a year or more at Duke, if that's what the team thought would turn him into the player they want. Again, assuming Duke wanted him, and he otherwise qualified for admission.

But they might also choose to have him play at Monmouth, if they liked the way King Rice develops players like Bagley. Or maybe because they don't want their future star lost in a lineup loaded with ball hogs. Wouldn't that make things interesting?

It would make sense to expand the draft to more rounds, so teams could pick all the diamonds in the rough they wanted to experiment with, then send them to schools for coaching and experience.

One problem with this is what it would do to recruiting as we know it? Imagine K investing all that effort on recruiting Bagley, only to have the team that drafts him send him to Davidson.

Or what would happen if the team that owns a kid's rights decides he needs a 2nd year in college BUT they want him to play for a different coach so he can learn different skills?
 
Last edited:
My head hurts, but there are some gems in there. A few I have suggested in the past.

Some of the best parts might be hard to get the NBA on board.

Like you, I would like to see players be able to enter the draft any time they want, including straight out of HS, and keep entering it until drafted or they give up. With the option to go to college (or return to college, as the case may be) if not drafted.

If the kid is drafted, I think he should become the NBA team's responsibility. The team can bring him on board right away, send him to the G League, stash him overseas, OR send him to college. But if they choose to send him to college, they pay tuition and board. And they get to pick the college (assuming the college wants the kid).

So, for example, Bagley gets drafted by a team and they could choose to have him play for a year or more at Duke, if that's what the team thought would turn him into the player they want. Again, assuming Duke wanted him, and he otherwise qualified for admission.

But they might also choose to have him play at Monmouth, if they liked the way King Rice develops players like Bagley. Or maybe because they don't want their future star lost in a lineup loaded with ball hogs. Wouldn't that make things interesting?

It would make sense to expand the draft to more rounds, so teams could pick all the diamonds in the rough they wanted to experiment with, then send them to schools for coaching and experience.

One problem with this is what it would do to recruiting as we know it? Imagine K investing all that effort on recruiting Bagley, only to have the team that drafts him send him to Davidson.

Or what would happen if the team that owns a kid's rights decides he needs a 2nd year in college BUT they want him to play for a different coach so he can learn different skills?

I wouldn't want the NBA team directing a kid to a certain college, let the kid pick the college and the college extend the offers like we do now. Very important thing I left out, college scholarships should be for 4yrs and allow red shirt for an additional 1. Makes no sense to expect a kid to commit to you for 4yrs but you can only commit to him for 1.

Now an aspect I did not talk about is the AAU and year round play these kids get involved in, that should be handled. These prep schools that are nothing more than basketball schools that ship kids off to a real school for classes? You don't teach more than sport then you should not be called a school. But these kids are going from team to team, some times multiple times in a single week, they don't gain that real spirit of brotherhood with a single set of team mates. I think they over work their bodies as well as do not have the time to work on skill training.

I would require AAU programs to have a limited summer schedule and localish travel, more like typical high schools play, stop this coast to coast year round, play for several different teams nonsense.

The grade point factories, like laurenburg prep used to be, the feds need to shut them down totally and allow no grades to be certified by anybody from these places.

SATs and PSATs, clearly this system is being abused, that testing was supposed to be done by neutral 3rd parties and students were supposed to have proper picture ID, maybe a copy of their picture ID should be attached to SAT and PSATs to insure who took is the one that was supposed to and not someone using a fake id. When you have kids entering college that can not read then there is no freakin way they took the SATs with enough score to gain both admission and eligibility. Video tape the test taking at the very least.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gauchoheel
Part 1 - Provide and education on what these kids are interested in rather than the standard college classes they really could care less about. What I am talking about is a program specifically geared for athletes looking to become professionals in the future. It would have top be standardized across the entire NCAA. IT would feature all aspects that a professional athlete should know ASAP, how to handle agents and those looking for future paydays off of them like investment guru's ect. Sports medicine and training techniques, how to communicate thru the media, the pitfalls of social media, how to transition to a world where you are no longer an active athlete, ect. Classes taught in part by former athletes to current athletes.

Kids may care less about math & science but they care very much about their days of being professional athletes. Teach a kid something he is interested in and he will become a student, teach him something he has no interest in and he is not going to do the work. I think an education has to be part of a college athletes experience, a real education, not just enough to get them thru so they can act like students.

I would have annual testing by a neutral 3rd party of all NCAA athletes to insure they are actually learning and not just acting as students but really can't read. So kids in high school have a real reason to learn.
Kenan-Flagler (UNC's business school) had a Center for Sports Business, with research, speakers, and a few classes. Unfortunately the center was cut this year for budget reasons.

Even if you're ideas aren't perfect, I love the out of the box thinking. We need more of this rather than people being afraid of anything except the status quo. The idea of draft and stash in college is very interesting. The money for a scholarship is so small in NBA terms that I think they'd be for it, but there needs to be some advantage from NBA teams to bear that extra cost.

The four-year college players can't be reaching free agency upon graduation, as that's a huge loss in value for the NBA. Perhaps they could receive extra money in their rookie contract for each year of college they complete.

Another thought: what if there were a set age when everyone reaches free agency, no matter their service time? Say age 25? Then a 19 year old would have to do six years to reach free agency (compared to the usual 4), whereas a 22 year old would only have do 3. Can declare for the draft at any time, but your contract is set based on where you get drafted. So raising your stock lets you get additional money every year without delaying free agency.

One problem with this is that it raises even further the value of drafting someone young (from the team's perspective), because you control their rights for so long. Draft and stash mitigates the risk from the colleges' POV though. But the player's association would like it if it meant lowering the minimum age to 18, and for older players it actually decreases the time to free agency. You could sweeten the pot for the players by raising the value of rookie contracts and/or making the free agency age 24 instead of 25. If you did the latter move you could say you have to play at least 3 years or else your free agency is restricted (meaning your current team has right of first refusal).
 
Bring back the freshman games!

Our starting lineup
Felton
Platek
Brooks
Huffman
Manley
...or maybe Miller at SF

With the JV rounding out the team.

OTOH, if we couldn't play any freshmen this year we'd definitely be going small.

Could UK even field a full team if their frosh couldn't play? I don't think they could (without walkons).
Freshman ineligibility would mean fifth year seniors, but I doubt Meeks or Hicks would still be at UNC as fifth year seniors this year. Which is the exact reason why freshman ineligibility would be recruiting nightmare for a school like UNC.
 
Kenan-Flagler (UNC's business school) had a Center for Sports Business, with research, speakers, and a few classes. Unfortunately the center was cut this year for budget reasons.

Even if you're ideas aren't perfect, I love the out of the box thinking. We need more of this rather than people being afraid of anything except the status quo. The idea of draft and stash in college is very interesting. The money for a scholarship is so small in NBA terms that I think they'd be for it, but there needs to be some advantage from NBA teams to bear that extra cost.

The four-year college players can't be reaching free agency upon graduation, as that's a huge loss in value for the NBA. Perhaps they could receive extra money in their rookie contract for each year of college they complete.

Another thought: what if there were a set age when everyone reaches free agency, no matter their service time? Say age 25? Then a 19 year old would have to do six years to reach free agency (compared to the usual 4), whereas a 22 year old would only have do 3. Can declare for the draft at any time, but your contract is set based on when you get drafted. So raising your stock lets you get additional money every year without delaying free agency.

One problem with this is that it raises even further the value of drafting someone young (from the team's perspective), because you control their rights for so long. Draft and stash mitigates the risk from the colleges' POV though. But the player's association would like it if it meant lowering the minimum age to 18, and for older players it actually decreases the time to free agency. You could sweeten the pot for the players by raising the value of rookie contracts and/or making the free agency age 24 instead of 25. If you did the latter move you could say you have to play at least 3 years or else your free agency is restricted (meaning your current team has right of first refusal).

Understand, only way a 4yr college player would be able to get a market value contract right after his last year of NCAA ball would be if he was drafted right out of high school. See, you would have to be drafted and signed in order for the rookie salary term to have ticked away. Now free agency, in my way would not occur until the drafting team has had the kid for 4yrs of NBA play but that would be a market value 4yr contract.

The value to the NBA team is they get to see him play a lot at a higher level for 4yrs but on mutual decision can cut that term shorter, heck if they both agree the kid could play in the NBA right after high school but I don't think most teams would want that, they want to get that next super star locked in for them but they don't really want him as a 19yr old, they want him when he has matured his game as well as himself, physically and mentally.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT