Lock/merge if posted already. http://kentucky.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1350736 I think this is a really interesting idea and would benefit the college game, NBA, and the players. What do yall think?
Thread Worthy? Is this not thread worthy? I mean I see it has been viewed but no one has commented on it yet. I think it would be interesting to give NBA bound players incentives for playing college ball. I mean a lot of jobs require a "college education". The higher your GPA, brand of school, and level of difficulty of said degree the more money you can ask for. So in basketball terms if you show multiple years of college ball with successful individual and/or team stats and capable of playing in the NBA then a reward can be given via NBA contract. 20 percent increase is a bit much especially being that most college players that stay in college beyond sophomore year are not the elite players but the shorter contract player option would be nice.
Not sure about this idea but I really like that players have a year of college first. There were too many high school busts being drafted that never panned out and the draft was becoming a crapshoot as everyone wanted to draft the next Kobe or Garnett and ended up with Jonathan Bender, Leon Powe, or Darius Miles.
How to move thread Well I thought since it deals with the NBA Draft and players going to college that it belonged here. Don't really care as long as good discussion is the results. So who has the power to move a thread?
I have a more radical idea: Allow teams to draft players immediately after they graduate high school, and pay them a slotted signing bonus in addition to their future rookie contract, BUT: Require all players to graduate with Bachelor's-level degree before they can come out and play in the NBA. (Guys like Patterson could come out after 3 years if they work their tails off at school.) Basically, you pay college players a set signing bonus for getting drafted based upon where they are picked (I don't know the exact amount, but enough to pay for their tuition & board at a minimum), and that number doesn't count against the salary cap. Then, you use college as a sort of farm system for young players. They can continue to develop without being on the NBA stage, and have the security of a degree if they wind up failing or getting injured at the NBA level. NBA teams get a more polished product stepping onto the court in his rookie season. No more teenagers coming in who don't know up from down and need a full year of coaching before they even see time in an NBA rotation. Either a guy can play, or he can't.
I like the idea of incentivizing NBA contracts based on college experience. it would get you out of the "right to work" arguments that people use against the current rules. However, I wonder if teams might back off "experienced" players because they would cost too much or have less control in terms of contract years. The idea of disability insurnace is fine, but how do you determine which are the "top players" who would need this? Pretty interesting to see Calipari, of all people, giving these kind of suggestions, but I agree that the current one-and-done system really serves no one well.
College is the best place to aggregate minor-league talent, and kids who have only been playing against high-schoolers can't be accurately evaluated. And black students, athlete or not, just don't graduate college in percentages that would allow for an integrated NBA. The disability insurance for college players seems like a good idea, but I don't know why it wouldn't go to all athletes; and the "hardship" loans to top talents is unseemly and easily corruptible, it would end up compensating parents. It would have been nice if trade schools, community colleges or the military had gotten the best athletic programs.
What if the player DOES NOT get a degree? You just pay for a BUM? What if its like Brandon Jennings who didnt even meet standards to qualify for Division 1 college? You can't draft him at all? Having the star player get payed NBA money on campus and no one else gets paid? Sounds like an easy recipe for more corruption in the college game. The only way that'd work is if the NBA basically picks up the scholarship tab and thats it. Wouldnt the NBA be then able to dictate WHICH school the player attends for THEIR OWN development purposes and not the PLAYER's best ACADEMIC interest? College would be farm systems. But what if a serious coach wants to kick the NBA drafted player off the team? Would the NBA be on his ass for ruining THEIR investment? Also, college players are SUPPOSED to be AMATEURS (by definition). In baseball either players either get drafted out of high school, or go to college and don't come back to the draft until after their junior season or after they turn 21. That way they get the best polished 21 year olds IMMEDIATELY READY. You don't have to pay for a cute 18 year old chick who might get fat on you by 21. You get the developed-out HOT chicks who SURPASSED her. Basically there's SOME LIABLITY to the team drafting a player who might FLAME OUT on THEIR DIME. The best a team would do is like the Euro "stash" picks, you own the RIGHTS to the player that can come over whenever they're ready
College Incentives I just thought about this again for some more ideas. If Stern REALLY wants to make it 2 years out of high school...then he should add incentives to encourage "student-athletes" to stay in school especially the ones who may need more seasoning. That way the only freshman coming out are the ones that are surefire stars. Contract Lengths TO(Team Option), PO(Player Option) (1st Round Picks): Freshman:4 years, 3rd and 4th years TO (same as now) Sophomore: 4 years, 3rd year TO, 4th year TO (same as now) Junior: 4 years, 3rd year TO, 4th year PO Senior: 4 years, 3rd year PO, 4th year PO (2nd Round Picks): Freshman:4 years, 3rd and 4th years TO (same as now) Sophomore: 4 years, 3rd year TO, 4th year TO (same as now) Junior: 4 years, 3rd year TO, 4th year PO Senior: 4 years, 3rd year TO, 4th year PO Why...it gives upperclassman more options to get better contracts as their games are probably more mature then the lowerclassmen who are drafted in the same draft class. Also job security as they are in control of if they stay with the team that drafted them with the PO. Also can leave a team in a bad situation sooner. If PO is used the player can get no more than the MLE perhaps or some other range to prevent players from leaving bad teams without good purpose. Contract Income Percentage Multiplier: Freshman: None Sophomore: 2.5% more starting salary and/or 2.5% more pay raise in the following year(s) Junior: 5% dido Senior: 7.5% dido Why...this gives the player more money starting out if you stay in college. It's like an appreciation to further evaluate your talent. Also if you increase your draft stock the following year or go from a stronger draft class to weaker one it could be well worth the wait. Maybe if they stay with their current team after the 1st contract without opting out it can add more percentage...not anything crazy but at least something to ponder over losing said amount of extra money. Maybe to add to money could be if you lead your conference and/or nation in a particular stat or won an award. Scoring Title: 0.5%(Conference); 1.0%(National) Dido for assist, steal, blocks, and any other relevant fields. Best Player: 0.5%(Conference); 1.25%(National) Something similar with other awards. So someone like Anthony Davis, even though a freshman, can get paid being the first pick with National Player of the Year and leading the nation in blocks. He is surefire. Jared Sullinger can get some of the money he lost not declaring last year by being a sophomore and whatever other awards he won in his two years. The percentages are debatable. Just arbitary numbers that just seemed ok with the eye test.
Love the idea of giving players going into the draft with a college degree more money. Would love to see the NBA and the Player's Association work on that. It would work best if that extra money didn't count against the salary cap so that there would be very little disincentive towards drafting college degreed kids.
Incentives not count against cap I like that idea. This is to reward collegiate players and not to dissuade NBA teams from drafting upperclassman later then they should be.
Passing on Upperclassman I see your point but GMs gamble all the time on freshman and sophmore then get burned. You know for the most part in what your getting when you draft an upperclassman. I think the upperclassman deserve some flexibility in contract negotiations. I don't think any GM who really wants Thomas Robinson is going to pass on him. They still can provide him the most money his 2nd contract.
i like this. i was going to change the contract length but i like simply switching which years are PO vs TO. my change would be that sophomores get the 4th year PO and juniors get the 3rd year PO like seniors. it seems like a good system. players probably get 4 years of security no matter when they come out (not many teams will cut even the most underperforming guy on a rookie contract), the good players can get paid a higher salary (if they deserve it) at a given age no matter when they declare so there isn't the need to rush to the nba, and thus teams might get more college time to evaluate guys since that incentive to start the clock on your 1st big contract isn't nearly as strong.
Disability Insurance I had to chime in again about the disability. If you are giving disability insurance to the top players then to determine you go by merit of year before. If they are a freshman then what rating are they in the nation? I say...guessing here...all 4 and 5-star recruits get the insurance starting their first year. Not sure if that is too many or not enough. Then you can get the insurance by your merits/stats in the previous year. Top 8-10 player in strong conference, top 5-7 in average conference, and top 2-3 in weak conference could be a determining factor. How many players enter the draft each year on average? Minus the seniors from that average and that may be a good minimum number that should be insured. I guess then how would a player lose the insurance?
Stupid idea. Calipari being himself no doubt to reach out to some new recruits. The NCAA is not a professional sports association, therefore it has no basis insuring a professional association's (NBA) potential talent pool.
Hurt playing the game I wouldn't say stupid idea but I do see your point on why should the NCAA insure NBA potential talent. Well as pouhe said it should probably go to all student athletes. I mean let's say you are playing for the school, you are a student without scholarship, and then you get injured bad during a game. Does the school have to pay for any of your medical bills as it is currently set up? If no, then I think that is wrong for them to make money off your work and putting yourself in potential risk for the sake of entertainment without some sort of compensation and/or security of what if you get hurt playing the game.
That's a nice idea and good principle, but I completely disagree with it. I'm going to show this from different angles. #1 - Unique Talent: Most athletes and entertainers have that for the most part, and do not necessarily need extra schooling. There's no point in requiring schooling for athlete, supermodel, musician, and actress, because one can be successful without schooling. In all of those arenas, we've seen people succeed without ever stepping foot into a high school or college. The NCAA is exploiting the talent of those young men (and women) for business and profit. I will say that some players are not fairly compensated for the talent they provide on the field or court. It makes sense to go to the pro-level of their occupations. Moreover, unlike being a doctor, scientist, or lawyer, alot of these kids have been in athletics, since childhood. Why isn't college required for baseball players, soccer, hockey, acting in Hollywood, becoming a professional singer, dancing, pro wrestling, golf, fishing, auto racing, and etc. There's a racial and an elitist element to that, and you cannot tell me otherwise. What is so special about NBA players going to college versus these other occupation? Could some people in these industries benefit somewhat from going to college? #2 - Those millions of regular kids out there who drop out of college/trade school for financial reasons, lack of interests, failing grades, and etc. Why can't we make them stay in college to get certain jobs or enter certain careers. If we do that for athletes, why can't we impose that on general pop kids who have bigger impact on society and economy (we also do not impose that other entertainers). Most of all, why can we not do that for people who are impoverished or worst convicted criminals (released from prison) or juvenile delinquents. Why are we putting athletes on pedestal again, I rather see one to nine NBA players bust in one draft than hundreds of thousands of kids who are struggling to pay college bills and living expenses and decide to drop out of school. I rather see a number of ex-felons or juvenile delinquents go to college and try to finish. Not having that opportunity to get the quality education they want and become a more desirable worker. That's why I do not mind NBA players coming out of high school or college earlier, IT"S specific and unique minority. #3 - People who aren't inspired to go to college, but want to play in NBA - It makes no sense to me for forcing a player to go to college. The NBA can set an age-limit, but requiring college I do not agree with. I'm going to say this, alot of the best college/high school players are wasting their time in college, especially when they aren't going for the education. Most of all, the college game is inferior to Euro basketball and the NBA. It's an inferior grade of basketball, you are not playing against the best level of competition most nights. You are not being pushed to the best of your ability, most of time, like you would in pro-league. Why do you keep exceptional level talents in college, when they have shown they are surpassing that level of play? It's like with a genius level child or a really advanced student, why do you want to keep them on a lower level of learning, when they've clearly shown a higher than average mental capacity and achievement. Students like that can get lazy, lose motivation, and fall into other bad habits. Which is why most parents decide to push them into more rigorous studies? #4 - Age Limits were set in the NBA for a number of years - It did not reduce the number of busts or players who weren't ready for the NBA. It's an issue of some people have it and some people don't, just as some people have the will as others do not. I want to challenge people to go back and watch games from the 1960s - 1970s and tell me is the game really much less polished now than it was in those eras. It's the biggest excuse in the world, yet it's always been a part of the game. Most college and high school do not pan out with expansive careers in the NBA, anyway. That's just life, it's a game for elite level talent. You even said with your own words, a guy can play or he can't. If he can play, what is the point of him going to college?
I disagree with that notion, why is upperclassman getting more money, when he or she is an inferior talent, compared to maybe high schooler, freshman, or sophomore. It doesn't make sense.
