G League To Up Salaries - Spurred By Obama and Rice Commission
-
@justanotherfan I just stated my thoughts on OAD. That’s not going to change the game either. It was that way before and CBB was just fine. Sure you will lose 10 or so players a year, but CBB will be just fine.
-
If we do get to the point where 100 guys a year are going straight to the NBA development farm out of HS then things will change but like I said I think that’s far off.
-
@BShark I can’t remeber but how many guys used to go OAD? 10 maybe… he had your obvious talents and then there was always a couple guys that declared that flamed…
So 10-15 guys a year is not going to affect college basketball.
-
My point is that right now it will be a handful. It will be more than that in a few years.
CBB can certainly survive if the top 3 or 4 players go pro and the rest go to college. CBB can even survive if the top 8 or 10 go.
But the G-League is developing an interim step where players don’t have to jump directly to the NBA, where they can actually develop while getting paid. You think a guy like Dedric Lawson would be at KU if he could have gone to the G-League last year instead?
If there’s a step between the NBA that is a true development step connected to NBA teams (each team will have their own G-League affiliate by 2020), it’s more likely that guys with potential will go that route and be developed by an NBA team rather than put into a college system that may not fit their NBA role.
There are, by my count, six guys on this year’s KU roster that could definitely benefit from this type of setup - Grimes, D. Lawson, K. Lawson, De Sousa, Azuibuke, McCormack. You could add Dotson and Vick to that list if you wanted to. That’s KU’s whole rotation minus Moore, Garrett and Mitch. So think about college basketball with KU now having a team built around Moore and Garrett, with a couple of recruits in the 40-75 range. Agbaji would likely be sixth man.
I’m not saying KU would be bad, but the overall quality of CBB would drop because that same thing would be true for Duke, UK, UNC, Arizona, etc.
A guy like Charlie Moore would be a likely conference POY candidate. That’s not a knock on Moore, but it’s a statement of how much different the talent level could be in CBB come 2023 and moving forward.
-
There are only so many players the G=League can absorb every year so it is not like we are going to see the top 100 HS prospects going there. Frankly, I just don’t think it will have that much influence.
-
@justanotherfan what I am telling you is that every single person that covers college basketball said yesterday that top players will NOT use the G League route. It will not benefit them more than going to college. I don’t think that is what you are understanding. I literally did not see one take where someone said this would be a good avenue for players. So assuming people that are in the game, cover the game, coached the game, etc… have a pulse then what you are saying is not going to happen.
-
I did a quick search and it looks like from 1995-2005 39 players who skipped college got drafted. Some not even first round. That’s like 3-4 a year. Again, people over grossly over estimating the impact that will have.
-
I’m not saying the top 100 players will leave. That’s not going to happen. We agree on that.
But I can envision a scenario where the top 10 or 12 recruits each year go that route, plus the top 30 or 40 players from the year before also leave for the NBA draft or to go into the G-League.
Basically, each year, 40-50 of the best players in the country are not on college rosters. Basically, take this list and take the top 35 names off it, plus a handful of others.
That’s what college basketball would look like. Does that kill the product? No. But it does change it quite a bit. Top guys like Malik Newman and don’t transfer anymore, they just go to the G-League.
Before OAD, the top incoming freshmen would skip college. A restructured G-League would mean not only that the top freshmen would skip college, but that some of the best returning talent would also leave. That’s the difference here. It’s not just cutting from guys that would never go to college. It also gives guys a reason to leave early and finish their development. College basketball would lose both incoming talent and returning talent. That’s the big difference.
And that doesn’t even account for the money difference. One of the things likely to come out of this trial is that top players may opt to take paydays from ShoeCos and go to the G-League, supplementing the salary. Because ShoeCos could legally pay those guys to do that, there’s not as much need to push money into college athletics. It doesn’t mean ShoeCos would get out of college athletics completely, but it changes the financial structure.
That’s the biggest change. It’s the incremental trimming around the edges. A little incoming talent here. A little returning talent there. A little TV money here. A little ShoeCo money there. Change is coming.
@Woodrow said
I did a quick search and it looks like from 1995-2005 39 players who skipped college got drafted. Some not even first round. That’s like 3-4 a year. Again, people over grossly over estimating the impact that will have.
That’s 3 or 4 that were judged to be ready to play in the NBA. So if 3 or 4 per year are ready to play in the NBA, plus another 6 to 8 ready to play in the G-League, plus a couple of projects, plus a slight increase in the number of players leaving college early because they are ready to play in the G-League as well, you get to 40-50 pretty easily.
The talent and development drop off from not having to be NBA ready immediately makes a huge difference.
-
justanotherfan said:
But the G-League is developing an interim step where players don’t have to jump directly to the NBA, where they can actually develop while getting paid. You think a guy like Dedric Lawson would be at KU if he could have gone to the G-League last year instead?
If there’s a step between the NBA that is a true development step connected to NBA teams (each team will have their own G-League affiliate by 2020), it’s more likely that guys with potential will go that route and be developed by an NBA team rather than put into a college system that may not fit their NBA role.
There are, by my count, six guys on this year’s KU roster that could definitely benefit from this type of setup - Grimes, D. Lawson, K. Lawson, De Sousa, Azuibuke, McCormack. You could add Dotson and Vick to that list if you wanted to. That’s KU’s whole rotation minus Moore, Garrett and Mitch. So think about college basketball with KU now having a team built around Moore and Garrett, with a couple of recruits in the 40-75 range. Agbaji would likely be sixth man.
I’m not saying KU would be bad, but the overall quality of CBB would drop because that same thing would be true for Duke, UK, UNC, Arizona, etc.
A guy like Charlie Moore would be a likely conference POY candidate. That’s not a knock on Moore, but it’s a statement of how much different the talent level could be in CBB come 2023 and moving forward.
Maybe, it depends how much the Lawsons are getting from this. Might be more than a G-League salary that he would have got.
I think McCormack would still be a college guy, but we will see.
-
-
You are assuming the shoecos will play HS kids to got to the G League; I don’t think this will be the case. Shoecos pay prospects to to go to certain schools because the programs are the ones that bring the exposure rather than individual players. The G Leagues has been on TV for a while and the actual audience is tiny and so is the TV audience. I just do’t think people are going to tune in to see meaningless games in empty arenas the way they tune in to see college games where the games mean something.
-
So how is the commission and Obama Commission? It was Condoleezza Rice.
Anyway, folks will still whine that players need to be paid in the NCAA.
And folks will still ignore that players still play CBB, this proving the true value of what players are given.
-
@HighEliteMajor Obama AND the Rice Commission. It’s two things, not one. It talks about it in the article.
And they play in CBB FOR MONEY.
Edited to not be as harsh.
-
Woodrow said:
I did a quick search and it looks like from 1995-2005 39 players who skipped college got drafted. Some not even first round. That’s like 3-4 a year. Again, people over grossly over estimating the impact that will have.
Check the difference in numbers pre and post LeBron. The number of players that jumped to the pros after LeBron was definitively higher in the post LeBron era and that’s why the NBA instituted the rule. Repeal that rule now and it would probably be 10 or so HS kids going pro per year with maybe 2-3 being ready at most.
2005 had 9 HS players drafted and 2004 had 8 HS players drafted. That’s a little under half of those 39 players in the final 2 year stretch of HS players being able to declare for the draft. Most of those players ended up as busts.
-
@HighEliteMajor Yea the corruption trial has proven the NCAA model is without flaw.
-
The only problem with the NCAA model is a lack of strict enforcement.
@BShark Thank you for the distinction. Your title did not say Obama and THE Rice commission. It said “Obama and Rice Commission”, which is different.
But it interestingly points out my belief that politics likely motivated this prosecution. Bill Self is in the crosshairs because of Obama’s view (surprise, surprise) that players are exploited. Chew on that possibility.
-
If it was enforced, I wonder if more players would skip college.
-
@HighEliteMajor Well is that part of the model or not? The NCAA is responsible for enforcement. Therefore, part of the model. No?
-
@Kcmatt7 No it’s not. The model is scholarships, no pay, student athlete. I have no qualms admitting that the model has been deteriorated by the lack of enforcement. I’m in favor of strict enforcement. But as you and others have correctly stated, it has been corrupted. .
-
The NCAA isn’t interested in enforcement, that’s clear.
-
@HighEliteMajor So, being a realist, knowing the NCAA won’t put the money required to strictly enforce the rules nor do they have the leverage to do so, do you think the status quo is the best option?
-
@Kcmatt7 @BShark The NCAA (and really the schools) have a choice. Either take enforcement seriously, or take the uncharted path that leads to professional athletes. The NCAA could, I guess, try to stay status quo. I can’t see that being realistic.
What’s cheaper - putting money into enforcement, or paying player? That might be the answer. I’d bet enforcement. In the wake of all of this, the NCAA could make a proclamation. It gives all coaches a pass on past indiscretions, and moving forward, here’s the hammer.
That would save CBB.
-
@HighEliteMajor You think enforcement is cheaper than moving to the olympic model?
-
I have never, and will never, say that the NCAA or schools should pay players themselves. I am only a proponent of allowing players to receive sponsorship dollars and whatever people are willing to pay for their likeness.
But the schools and NCAA provide plenty and they should not provide any monetary support.
-
Kcmatt7 said:
I have never, and will never, say that the NCAA or schools should pay players themselves. I am only a proponent of allowing players to receive sponsorship dollars and whatever people are willing to pay for their likeness.
But the schools and NCAA provide plenty and they should not provide any monetary support.
They already do. Players get a stipend.
-
@FarmerJayhawk Yea but we are talking a fundamental difference in amount.
-
Kcmatt7 said:
@FarmerJayhawk Yea but we are talking a fundamental difference in amount.
Oh sorry I thought you meant what you said.
-
@FarmerJayhawk Apologies for speaking in absolutes.
-
Kcmatt7 said:
@FarmerJayhawk Apologies for speaking in absolutes.
No worries man. Just giving you crap
-
The money is too big. The NCAA wants to make more cash, and that means letting the big time teams slide every now and then, or more often if necessary.
If you want to end the corruption, you have to get rid of the money, or put more money in the hands of the athletes. I don’t think the NCAA wants to do either, so corruption will be the rule, not the exception.
-
