Reply With Quote
actually a good interview.. yeah one and dones need to be axed.
https://sports.yahoo.com/adam-silver...170421752.html
Silver going raw on NCAANBA commissioner Adam Silver has observed a sudden shift in market trends in college basketball just as a massive scandal involving agents, coaches and shoe companies has overwhelmed the sport.
The combination, he said Monday, will likely cause the end of the NBA’s so-called “one-and-done” rule, which would dramatically alter how young basketball talent is developed while changing how college teams are built.
[]
Since 2005, a player has had to be at least 19 years old or one year past high school to be eligible for the NBA draft. The days of that rule appear numbered. The era of LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, and, indeed, any number of unprepared busts going straight from the prom to the pros will likely return in some form.
“It’s clear a change will come,” Silver said Monday on ESPN’s “Mike & Mike” show.
This won’t eliminate cheating and corruption in college basketball. That’s been going on for generations and will continue as long as money and compe ive humans are involved. And yes, losing out on the most talented of players is never a great thing. Getting to watch Lonzo Ball, Josh Jackson and others is good for college basketball’s entertainment value.
Yet the current system is unsustainable, the proof being last month’s FBI-led investigation into bribery and fraud. Ten men were arrested, seven schools were swept up in at least potential NCAA violations and the career of Hall of Fame coach Rick Pitino ended. The scandal promises to widen if any of those currently facing charges wants to start flipping for leniency.
The issue is simple. The market shows that top players who project to be high draft picks are worth a great deal more than the NCAA’s amateurism rules allow. Their future value is so great, parties interested in doing business with them, whether negotiating their contracts, managing their millions or employing them as endorsers, don’t feel they can wait until they turn pro to try to retain them as clients.
Yet, the NBA all but forces American players to enter into a system that is attempting to stop the wheels of capitalism. It doesn’t work and never will. The market will go wherever it needs.
The NCAA needs a complete overhaul, but in the interim, having players who are worth the most bypass its artificial stopgap will at least take some heat out of the system. Adidas, which saw two executives arrested in the current scandal, is far less likely, for example, to offer a recruit $150,000 if he’s a projected second-round choice three years from now. (While it may still pay some recruits because it needs the schools it sponsors to win, the amount of money and players involved should decrease.)
Right now, even honest coaches don’t know where to turn in recruiting. You need top-20, likely one-and-done recruits to win big. Yet the vast majority, if not all of them, are being heavily pursued by agents and shoe companies. So even if you want to recruit them by the NCAA book, they may have taken payouts outside your knowledge. You either hope they didn’t, pray they don’t get caught, or you try to win with lesser talent.
Just letting them go pro would at least be more honest.
Silver, for his part, cited three things that have dramatically shifted. The scandals are one. “It’s clearly not working for the college game,” Silver said. Second is the increase in one-and-done players declaring for the draft. There were 16 last year. Silver said the average had been about eight per year.
And finally, it appears more top recruits don’t care about where they go to college and are just biding their time until draft night. This may be most concerning to the NBA because it impacts the league directly.
“What’s really interesting to me is the last two No. 1 picks in the NBA draft, Ben Simmons two years ago and Markelle Fultz last year, both played with teams that did not make the NCAA tournament [LSU and Washington, respectively],” Silver said. “And I don’t think enough people are talking about that. That seems to be a sea change.
actually a good interview.. yeah one and dones need to be axed.
Putting an arbitrary age for young players to become professionals is re ed. If a kid is good enough to become a pro, he should be allowed to become one. It doesn't matter if it's at 20, 19, 18, 17, 16 or whatever. This idea that if you become pro too young is bad for your development is some of the most re ed bull I have ever heard. Since when playing in high school or collage against ty amateur players is better for your development than playing in the NBA against pros? Any sport outside US sports lets youngsters become pros when they are good to go and it works just fine.
when is the last time a rookie 18 years old got his team to the playoffs while significantly contributing? Porzingis maybe, and then..? The amount of nonready players that teams are forced to take and develop is very bad for the compe iveness of the league, not to mention, these guys become rich by their first contract after the rookie one, by default. Clearly it isn't working.
this post is ing
1. the best talent goes to the worst teams, so it's hard for these teams to go from 15 wins to 40 ... not even young lebron did that, so no playoffs.
2. the teams themselves pick them over other candidates with 2-3-4 years of college, nobody is forced. If the draft offers all players willing to play then smart teams can add good pieces faster.
3. many examples of great impact from rookies : KAT, porzingis, anthony davis, cj mccollum, lillard, kyrie and thompson, klay thompson, kwahi, wall, paul george, griffin, rose .... all these players greatly contributed really quickly (<3 years).
4. I highly doubt that NCAA is that helpful in growing players tbh. A G-league would be much better imo.
5. Young players would get paid for their work .. this is just, not paying people for their work, by giving them an "education" worth 1/100 of their value.
6. players become rich if they are good .. if somebody is good at their job isn't it fair for them to seek market value contracts?
Just
Did Porzy make the playoffs and i missed it? Am I really that down on the East?
agree with dfens if you are good ...well great league is best place for you ...if you are not physically ready or mentally soft then its different college would be better for most.this post is ing
1. the best talent goes to the worst teams, so it's hard for these teams to go from 15 wins to 40 ... not even young lebron did that, so no playoffs.
2. the teams themselves pick them over other candidates with 2-3-4 years of college, nobody is forced. If the draft offers all players willing to play then smart teams can add good pieces faster.
3. many examples of great impact from rookies : KAT, porzingis, anthony davis, cj mccollum, lillard, kyrie and thompson, klay thompson, kwahi, wall, paul george, griffin, rose .... all these players greatly contributed really quickly (<3 years).
4. I highly doubt that NCAA is that helpful in growing players tbh. A G-league would be much better imo.
5. Young players would get paid for their work .. this is just
6. players become rich if they are good .. if somebody is good at their job isn't it fair for them to seek market value contracts?
Just
let them earn ...leave the scholarships for those that want or need it.
uhhh you just went full re with this comment.. who said anything about what is good for the talent.. i'm saying it's worse for the teams and the compe iveness of the league. Not to mention, young players playing 82+ games per year is not good for their knees..this post is ing
1. the best talent goes to the worst teams, so it's hard for these teams to go from 15 wins to 40 ... not even young lebron did that, so no playoffs.
2. the teams themselves pick them over other candidates with 2-3-4 years of college, nobody is forced. If the draft offers all players willing to play then smart teams can add good pieces faster.
3. many examples of great impact from rookies : KAT, porzingis, anthony davis, cj mccollum, lillard, kyrie and thompson, klay thompson, kwahi, wall, paul george, griffin, rose .... all these players greatly contributed really quickly (<3 years).
4. I highly doubt that NCAA is that helpful in growing players tbh. A G-league would be much better imo.
5. Young players would get paid for their work .. this is just
6. players become rich if they are good .. if somebody is good at their job isn't it fair for them to seek market value contracts?
Just
son it's easy, even a child can understand:
more players enter draft -> teams have a larger selection pool -> teams have more options and can better pick what is best for them -> better teams + great/good players get another year of NBA development/payment/contracts/work experience/etc.
nobody forces team X to draft a certain player, to play him any number of games/minutes or to even draft at all, it's just increased options for both teams and players. It's all benefit no risk. The only risk comes from doing stupid like drafting Anthony Bennet #1 or a player declaring for draft when they're still very rough, but there is no cure for going full re , as you probably know.
whether there's an age restriction or not, the same amount of players will declare each year...
son different generations have a different number of people declaring for the NBA draft ... this variation happens with or without the one and done.
whether there's an age restriction or not, the same amount of players will declare each year...
Without the one and done some people will declare without college while others will do 1/2/3 years of college... so the NBA teams get the choose as fast as possible, maximizing both their and the players access to the basketball market. That's what I meant with more people, ALL people willing have access to the market place, not like today where the access to the marketplace is restricted by an idiotic age rule.
I hope you finally get it.
yes i get that you made a dumb comment and you're now reaching.. The players that were going to go to the nba at 18, would go to the nba when they are 21 just the same.
Good riddance to that rule. The NCAA is crap basketball anyways, they don't deserve the top tier talent that could get drafted straight out of high school.
HOLY son, how dumb can you be? of course they'd reach the same market but that isn't the point ... the point is that the NBA is a market where 7 years is the average employment duration for players and it's logical to maximize (bring them as early as possible, 18) their playing opportunities, both for the employees (players) and for the employers (teams).
and just ing lol, I said this from the first post, you're dumb and can't understand a basic point and then call me out for backpedaling
the whole thread is about silver acknowledging that this is a system that fails both nba teams and nba players, from which only the NCAA benefits.
here is the first post with bolded parts, where am I backpedaling ? smh tbh.2. the teams themselves pick them over other candidates with 2-3-4 years of college, nobody is forced. If the draft offers all players willing to play then smart teams can add good pieces faster.
3. many examples of great impact from rookies : KAT, porzingis, anthony davis, cj mccollum, lillard, kyrie and thompson, klay thompson, kwahi, wall, paul george, griffin, rose .... all these players greatly contributed really quickly (<3 years).
4. I highly doubt that NCAA is that helpful in growing players tbh. A G-league would be much better imo.
5. Young players would get paid for their work .. this is just
6. players become rich if they are good .. if somebody is good at their job isn't it fair for them to seek market value contracts?
2 talks about early market availability without the age limitation
4. talks about the facts that NCAA doesn't actually develop players (but systems or corrupt farms, see pittino)
6. talks about how talented players would get paid from the get go without losing time in college, and getting exposed to injuries without financial insurance.
which is exactly what you are not doing by signing them when they are not ready.HOLY son, how dumb can you be? of course they'd reach the same market but that isn't the point ... the point is that the NBA is a market where 7 years is the average employment duration for players and it's logical to maximize (bring them as early as possible, 18) their playing opportunities, both for the employees (players) and for the employers (teams).
and just ing lol, I said this from the first post, you're dumb and can't understand a basic point and then call me out for backpedaling
the whole thread is about silver acknowledging that this is a system that fails both nba teams and nba players, from which only the NCAA benefits.
here is the first post with bolded parts, where am I backpedaling ? smh tbh.
2 talks about early market availability without the age limitation
4. talks about the facts that NCAA doesn't actually develop players (but systems or corrupt farms, see pittino)
6. talks about how talented players would get paid from the get go without losing time in college, and getting exposed to injuries without financial insurance.
When was the last time a 20/21/22 or 23 year old rookie lead a team to the playoffs? Why are you expecting rookies to lead teams to the playoffs?
this smh
some players are ready (physically+mentally+skill) at 18 and others some need college, why not let the ones that are ready to join the market as soon as possible since they'd be in demand on that market (e.g KAT one year early)?
Last edited by dfens; 10-18-2017 at 07:59 AM.
I agree it's pretty stupid to "force" HS players to play in College or overseas before going to the NBA.
as far as I know there are 27 G-league teams right now with plans for a full 30 teams (1 farm team per NBA team) in 2-3 years ... so it's definitely happening tbh.
the truly funny thing is that it'll also help the NCAA as it'll bring longevity to programs, which will result in an increased game quality, so the NCAA misses out on the big names but wins qualitatively because they get more team-play.
because teams need to look for upside, this is the nba where talent is very hard to find, if you give the teams the chance to sign 12 year olds, not only they will do it but they will actually feel forced to do it.this smh
some players are ready (physically+mentally+skill) at 18 and others some need college, why not let the ones that are ready to join the market as soon as possible since they'd be in demand on that market (e.g KAT one year early)?
first
teams will feel forced
If that is the case then Karl Malone will become an exec and out in extra work.
Forced to as in matching other stupid GMs move to avoid getting fired in the future in case that one single player blossomed into a superstar. Like how Garnett and Kobe made it big and teams were forced to be stupid and draft Kwame.first
teams will feel forced
The difference is that the US needs to keep its college sports racket going and the only way to do that is with bull rules forcing kids into 1-3 years of slavery as a "student athlete".
I still don't see the NBA reversing this rule, the owners are enjoying the free minor league system they get out of the NCAA, and the players don't care enough to bargain for it during CBA negotiations since it doesn't affect them. If anything the rule will get expanded to 2 years and done.
Thing is, the NCAA isn't preparing these kids as players. They go to Kentucky or ty small schools and nobody teaches them a thing about basketball.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
