The NBA Should Draft And Follow: Redux
hard decisions made easy [Marc-Gregor Campredon]
One-and-done has been an ongoing farce since its implementation for various reasons, but it seems like it may finally, finally, finally not be long for this world. NBA commissioner Adam Silver has bashed the current state of NBA draft eligibility in two separate forums over the past week. One was an interview with Colin Cowherd:
“It may surprise you, but I’m rethinking our position.
"Our historical position since we raised the age from 18 to 19 was that we want to go from 19 to 20, and the union’s position is they want to go from 19 to 18. …
"…. These young men, they’re followed so closely from the time they’re 13 or 14 on. They’re at the major shoe companies’ summer camps. They’re being watched closely by the league, by the college scouts. And so when they get to [college], now they’re in a unique situation. Talk about resting in the NBA, all of a sudden now they realize, even though they can buy insurance, their biggest concern, unfortunately, becomes not whether they can win the NCAA tournament, but whether they drop in the NBA Draft. So then they have to be worried about how their skills are showcased, how many minutes they get, whether they get injured. It’s not a great dynamic.”
Silver re-iterated that take in front of the press yesterday, stating that one and done was "not working for anyone."
Now, this sort of thing has been going on for years and years. Here's Mark Cuban complaining about one and done in 2012:
Stern said Tuesday that he'd like to add a year to the rule. Cuban wants to take it a step further, requiring players to wait three years after their high school class graduates to become draft-eligible.
"I just think there's every good reason to do it, which is obviously why we didn't do it," Cuban said sarcastically, adding that Kentucky fans were the only people who like the one-and-done concept.
There is a shift in tone here. Over the last five years the commissioner of the NBA has gone from supporting more restrictions to supporting fewer. Whether this is a push for the D-League to become relevant (not bloody likely) or a belated realization that restricting the economic freedom of guys who would be lottery picks out of high school doesn't help anyone isn't relevant. The NBA draft model is seemingly set to change.
When changes to the NBA draft come up, a lot of people mention baseball's zero-or-at-least-three model, but that's the wrong league to take your cues from. I wrote about this in 2012: the NBA should look to the NHL. The NHL auto-enrolls anyone vaguely draftable at age 18, which allows NCAA players to retain their eligibility despite the fact that they went to Phoenix in the third round. Players then negotiate with their clubs as to when they'll turn pro. This prevents players from burning their NCAA eligibility on a pipe dream, which is the whole reason one-and-done came into existence in the first place.
There are three main flaws with the current NHL system: the entry-level contract is based on when you sign and not how old you are, teams lose their rights a few months after a senior graduates, and teams can sign kids without committing a big-league roster spot to them. This results in guys signing early to get their ELC out of the way and NHL teams signing them so that they don't lose their rights*. The NHL teams can shove them into the AHL anyway.
*[An example of what NHL teams strive to avoid: Panthers draft pick Zach Hyman graduated from Michigan as a Hobey Baker finalist and announced his intent to become a free agent. He wanted to join Toronto and the Panthers traded for him for pennies on the dollar.]
An ideal NBA draft system is in that 2012 post. In a nutshell:
- Everyone relevant is auto-entered in the draft at 18, and 19 and 20 if they are passed over.
- The NBA team retains the drafted player's rights until one year after his college eligibility expires.
- A drafted player can be signed at any time. The contract lasts until the player is 23 and the NBA team in question commits to carrying that player on their roster for the duration of that contract. Graduated seniors are an exception to the roster rule.
- The NCAA and NBA come to some sort of agreement where the NBA team can have him in summer league and maybe sign him to some sort of pre-contract that gives the kid some spending money.
Lebron can go to the league and guys only leave college at the point where their NBA team thinks they're worthy of a big-league roster spot. That would seem to be the most sensible arrangement for everyone.
Bravo! This is one of the few times that an professional league has given me hope as a fan of both professional and college sports. Overcoming the unions will be a major hurdle, but the draft and follow concept could make things easier on the schools while still forcing some productivity out of the kids who stay in school.
The union should be in favor of this. Their role is to protect the jobs of current members. Allowing kids to stay in school provides more jobs for veteran players currently in the union.
Pardon my cynicism at anything NCAA rule related, but here's what Brian wrote compared to what I heard in my head: Brian writes "an ideal... system is", which translated as "the kind of system the NCAA opposes because it would be ideal is", and "[t]he NCAA and NBA come to some sort of agreement...", which I heard as "hell freezes over"...
It's a proposal that the NBA changes the way it does business.
The NCAA can continue to revoke amateur status if a player is drafted or even enters the draft, which nukes draft-and-follow.
In order to get to a draft-and-follow model, the NBA, NCAA and the player's union all have to agree.
The NBA has to negotiate changing the draft with the player's union (e.g. adding rounds for these draft-and-follow players) and allocating non-roster spots for draft-and-follow.
The NCAA and NBA have to agree that drafted players don't lose amateur status until they sign a deal that puts them on a big-league roster.
All three potentially have to negotiate over whether followed players can play in a summer D-league and if they get paid, insured, etc.
This is a promising step and coming from the top, so significant. There's still a lot of hurdles, and the biggest in my mind is the NCAA knee-jerk reaction of college-is-for-amateurs-money-is-for-us.
than allowing baseball and hockey players to keep their eligibility after getting drafted, something the NCAA already does. Obviously there is a big difference between having all players eligible and underclassmen having to declare for a draft.
Yes d-league participation would require NCAA involvement, but that's a very minor part of the proposal.
"This is a promising step and coming from the top, so significant. "
I have no idea what you mean by this. This is Brian's proposal. Top of MGoBlog, I guess.
I don't think they should be allowed in the league out of high school. With the way AAU is going and the coach / agents / shoe reps / mentors, I think it will do more harm than good. All these kids think they are good enough out of High school, and the people around them only make it worse with talk of riches and instant success. College for 2 years will give them some life lessons that will be useful down the road, and (selfish for myself) not negatively impact the college game. I wish they would use the NFL model, 3 yrs removed from HS.
why should they have to spend at least one year in something other than the NBA? if a team wants lebron on its roster out of high school what's a good reason for preventing that?
If the league decides that it is generally better for the league that players wait at least two years after HS despite the occasional LeBron, then there is nothing wrong with that. Every job in the world requires a set of standard metrics before people will hire you. Most white collar jobs require college graduation. Is that right?, Don't know--I'm sure I ciould have done well joining my company after two college years. But that's the rule. And they have the right to decide that, not the employee.
Has anyone ever looked at the success rate of players going pro straight out of high school? For example, were lottery picks who came in straight out of high school less likely to start in the NBA than lottery picks who spent a year (or two) in college?
All-World, ready from the cradle:
LeBron James, Moses Malone, Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant
Successful:
Darryl Dawkins, Tracy McGrady, Jermaine O'Neal, Shawn Kemp (sort of), Dwight Howard
Some would also classify Amar'e Stoudemire and Monta Ellis as successful. Let's say 11/44.
Of course, there are a lot of caveats about that number. The most notable is that until 1971, the NBA didn't let players join until four years after their high school class graduated; it took a Supreme Court case(!) to change that. From 1971-1995, you had to demonstrate financial hardship to justify the jump and so comparatively few players did. Those that did were self-selecting - they had to come from a financially-limited background and think that the chance of NBA riches now was better than four years of college financial aid and the (same) chance of NBA riches later. Thus the success rate is likely biased upwards here.
In 1995 Kevin Garnett came out and kicked off a mini-wave of players jumping early, most of whom flamed out early (Kwame Brown). The rate is biased downward here, because most of these people clearly weren't ready.
Then in 2005 the one-and-done rule was implemented. We have a large sample of relative success with players playing a year in college or overseas before entering the league, so if you ignore the small sample size the data suggest that one year makes a big difference.
Wikipedia sums it up pretty well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_high_school_draftees
Great piece Brian, this certainly is the best situation for the players. The losers here are the fans - this system would fizzle out much of the draft excitement and hype around rookies. For example if the Pistons draft a high school senior in the mid-1st round, and he becomes a bust in college - the fans witness this (and the player could face blowback). Also the drafted player who becomes a bust may never collect on his contract.
NBA teams will continue to draft on potential and I'd still expect a handful of high school players drafted every year with this system.
The draft would be less exciting, but college basketball could become significantly more exciting. Under this system, there could be a reason to watch some random college matchup if the Pistons have the rights to one or two of the players involved.
Fans woudn't lose. Teams would have prospects like in baseball. But they'd be on way bigger stages than minor league baseball so you could actually watch them.
Imagine a team trying to make a playoff push and fans arguing about if they should trade away Lonzo Ball's rights.
How is this any more disappointing than him being a bust in the pros?
has just about ruined college b ball. It has done nothing to help the nba.
Commit to college for at least 3 years like football and baseball, or go pro in china, europe, anywhere but college.
It's not about you. It's about the players.
If a guy is ready to play in the NBA and earn millions of dollars, I don't think it's ethical to force him to play for free for a couple years just because we like watching college basketball.
I think part of Silver's point is that many of the youngest players in the league are not ready to be there. Teams have to draft based on potential so they take the young guys, but mentally, emotionally, etc the kids are not ready and it's bad for the league. As Silver points out, he wants to address how these kids are "handled" going all the way back to middle school. Silver believes extending the time it takes to get to the NBA could adjust how early "the system" starts working these kids (who are really kids) when the hype begins.
This has never been about the players. They instituted the 19 year old/1 year out of high school rule because idiot teams couldn't get out of their own way and avoid taking high school seniors that crapped out (hi, Kwame!).
I think a hybrid model will be the most fair. Let high school seniors either join the draft or have to go to college/play abroad for at least two years. The ones that are ready, can play in the NBA and the ones that aren't have to at least pretend to be a student for 3 semesters instead of 1. You can also allow players to go through the draft and then enroll in college if they aren't selected/don't hire an agent. Maybe the NBAPA can even have "quasi" agents that can guide high school seniors through the process without impacting their eligibilty.
The hockey system also seems unfair. Why put a kid in the draft who doesn't want to go to the draft and then lock him into a "contract" for 4-5 years that is worth much less than if he was able to choose. Look at Stauskas or Caris LeVert. Assuming you did the draft and follow you would have to add more roundsto the draft, they would've been picked at the tail end of the draft and stuck with a poor contract for 4-5 years vs. the first round contract both ultimately received by increasing their skills and draft status
No, it's not about the players. They are not the ones making the rules. The draft s full of guys who aren't NBA ready. Pistons are picking 12th and nobody cares because they are going to get a guy who is going to sit the bench for three years and they have to hope he develops into something. The longer you make the players wait until they are draft elibigle, the more chance you have to scout them and the more time they have to develop. It might not be in the best interest of the players but it is in the best interest of the NBA.
(this was intended as a reply to Blueph, I mostly agree with the post immediately above)
Well that's just a silly point - OF COURSE it's about the people who consume the product, not the people who provide the service. What's best for the ticket buying, TV watching public that makes this such a lucrative potential career is what's BEST period.
Should we really decide one n done is actually ruining college hoops, and getting unprepared kids into the NBA (Anthony Bennett anyone?) is dulling that too - and I mean actually stop consuming said products - well won't they all be just Fucked then?
Not like I expect any of us to do more than bitch about it, but just sayin - IF we actually stopped watching, they'd do something then...
serious question. I'm personally more of a hockey/ football guy and not that familiar on why this helps Michigan. Is it mostly because it hurts a school like Kentucky?
Here is my opinion on why this would benefit Michigan, and it's also a super underrated part of the whole concept. In Brians model, super star recruits would be drafted out of high school, and many would still go to college to prepare. Does the NBA team then have a say in where they would go to college? I would have to imagine so, or at least have an opinion that would likely be followed.
If this was the case, I think they would look towards schools that have coaches that properly develop players into what they want. With the new model of NBA basketball being small ball and everyone being able to shoot the 3, I would image Beilein would be an enticing option for NBA teams, therefore would help recruiting in a lot of areas. Just my two cents.
The draft-and-follow system proposed here is great, but there's one significant flaw.
Let's say a player gets drafted by an NBA team after his freshman year of college and wants to join the NBA. But let's say the NBA team thinks he's still a little raw and needs to develop, and furthermore doesn't want to risk a guaranteed four-year contract on him. The NBA team could refuse to sign him, and hang onto his rights for another few years, which would basically preclude the kid from earning money playing basketball in the U.S. over that time. If the kid progressed over that time, the NBA team could sign him at any point, but if he didn't, then the NBA team could cut ties risk-free.
So basically, this system would give NBA teams too much input into when a player's contract value is determined. Right now, if a player decides to enter the draft, NBA teams are forced to assess whether he's worth drafting - and signing - at that time. If a boom-or-bust type prospect doesn't turn out, at least he would have gotten one guaranteed contract. In this proposed system, he might get drafted and get no contract at all if he turns out on the "bust" end of the scale.
If you're a bust, why did you deserve guaranteed money?
Because at some point, you had value (even if that value turns out to be unrealized potential), but the system prevented you from being paid for it.
Another example: Let's say the Blazers draft Greg Oden first overall, because he's the most dominant player in college basketball. But then he breaks his foot. The Blazers could tell him that they're not going to pay him yet, and they're going to wait and see if he recovers. Spoiler alert, he doesn't, and the Blazers never pay him a cent.
In my opinion, it's unfair to put all the downside on a broke 20-year-old. Under the current system, some team would be willing to take the risk and pay him. The Blazers signed him because if they didn't, he would have gone back into the draft the next year and they would have lost his rights. But under the proposed system, they could just wait and see.
really needs to die. The answer to the problem you present is that the player gets a signing bonus when they're drafted.
The other issue here is team's could try to control a player's rights to stash them and/or block other teams. If I have a top flight PG who 33 and have a solid back-up, I might draft a very talented bu very raw PG to have in 4-5 years whike another team in my division might be able to have him play now. By drafting him and retaining his rights I not only stash him away for when my older player starts to tail off, I also keep a rival team from signing him and possibly developing him quickly.
My solution works like this. Players get drafted at 18, 19 or 20 as Brian outlines. The team that drafted them can sign them at any time, but not during the NCAA season. Two years after being drafted (for 18-19, one year for 20) or anytime thereafter, a player can declare he is leaving college. At that point, the team that drafted him has to either sign him to a predetermined contract based upon his original draft position or he becomes a restricted free agent. Any team in the league can now offer him a contract. The drafting team will then have the ability to beat any offer given to the player. If the player receives no offers, the drafting team pays the player a pre-determined buyout amount and the player becomes an unrestircted free agent. Once a player signs a contract or takes the UFA buy-out collegiate eligibility would be over. ~5 years (may have to add some time to ensure it comes after their last collegiate season) after being drafted or at age 23, a player is automatically a UFA and the drafting team owes them nothing.
A few notes:
- Even if a player is a "bust" and fails to make an impact in college, once they graduate and/or exhaust their eligibility and declare for the NBA, they are guaranteed their buy-out amount.
- If a player is injured and the not able to play basketball, the NBA team would pay the buyout. NBA teams could purchase insurance for this purpose, much as players do for themselves now.
- While NBA teams would have the new expense associated with buy-outs and insurance policies for their various draft picks, I think in the long run that would be cheaper than a guaranteed contract for an occasional first round bust.
- One issue is how players make all of these decisions. It seems on some level that they would have to have agents while they are college athletes.
I like this idea so much that I am sure there is something wrong with it, else it would be everyone's preferred solution.
The player would need some advice to navigate such a system in his own interests, I agree. Maybe the NFLPA assigns a "mentor" (unaffiliated with any team) to each such player to provide him such advice? If each mentor has maybe 50 mentees, how many would be needed in such a system?
1. As a hockey fan, the reason that system works is that all NHL players that are college age have to initially sign a two way contract. The player can get over $900,000 (league minimum is something like $550,000) if they play in the NHL and a maximum of $70,000 if they're not playing in the NHL. Because players that go through the college system can come out better prepared and because the length of that first ELC contract is based on signing age, many players chose to play some college seasons to better prepare for their first NHL contract. Because most 18 year olds aren't ready to play in the NHL right away and aren't guaranteed a roster spot, many of them choose to spend an extra year (or two or three or four) developing in college. Through operation of the collective bargaining agreement, kids in the Canadian Junior system have to be sent back to junior if their NHL team doesn't want to keep them.
The NBA doesn't really have that minor league system or, to the best of my knowledge, two way contracts. That's the small flaw and it leads to the larger one.
Under Brian's system, a drafted basketball player is guaranteed a roster spot until he turns 23. Presumably, the player is still getting a yearly salary and will make more money if he jumps directly into the NBA. What that does is incentivize the player to join the NBA team the second that NBA team is willing to sign him to a contract.
2. Meanwhile, you've now got to convince NBA veterans that some of those coveted roster spots and NBA pay cheques have to be guaranteed to rookies. Team decides to sign a 20 year old second round draft pick? Under the old system, that guy likely gets a 10 day contract to see if he fits and it's still possible for a veteran to come back in and take that spot. Under this system, that guy now gets an NBA roster spot for the next 3 years.
TL;DR: The leagues that have made this work to any degree are leagues where they can sign and stash guys in the minors. If there's nothing comparable to that, the system likely doesn't work.
Yours is one. It gives teams a ridiculous amount of leverage, while giving the drafted players zero.
The second is the requirement that any signed player is guaranteed a roster spot until he's 23. That gives a tremendous disincentive to sign anyone not a surefire star before they have graduated. It also compounds the issue above. I can't imagine that the NBA would even discuss such a provision.
All sports, the college offers should be 2 year contracts - free college for 2 years and then the team/player can decide to option another 2 or go pro. Neither can break the 2 year contracts.
They should get the full out of state tuition, fees, room and board. After tuition and fees are paid, if they are not in a dorm then the rest is paid to the student for use as they see fit.
(By which I mean problems with how this proposal would be perceived).
1) This effectively turns the NCAA into a farm system for the NBA. This is the reason why it won't happen (even if it is better for literally everyone involved).
2) One issue I see here is how kids are being used and how teams might respond-- both pro and college. You can't tell me that a college coach that has a mid-first rounder isn't going to be pressured to play him by scouts/agents/GMs/Shady AAU creeps/The Player's family/the player himself that want him to develop ASAP so he can help a pro team and start cashing some checks.
You might be saying, "Meh, college hockey is OK," there is just flat-out more money, a more streamlined development process, and even more shady people around AAU basketball than the weird set up Hockey has.
Unless I missed something, in Brian's propsal, you could have an NBA team draft a guy after his freshman year, and decide he is not ready for the league. That player would then stay in college for his sophomore year. That NBA team could really struggle the next year, and after the all-star break, decide they need to keep fans in the seats so why not call up the sophomore from college who is now lighting it up to add a spark to the team. So in Feburary the NBA team calls their guy up leaving the college team down their star player heading into March Madness. Ok. That sucks.
I think Brian's proposal needs to limit the time frame in which a player could be signed. I know this restrains the players' economic freedom, but I don't like the idea of players leaving in the middle of the college season. By definition that college team could lose a "NBA-ready" player at any point in the season. That would be a huge hit to that college team and college hoops in general. I would've been crushed if DJ had left in the middle of our postseason run. Maybe Mo would've been signed after his performance against Louisville. I don't know if hockey has a restriction against players signing during the college season, but it seems like most players leave after the season ends. If you added a restriction that allows players to sign only in the offseason, I believe it would benefit college hoops.
Have the signing period be the NBA off-season. That means it won't interfere with college hoops at all.
Right. I kinda wondered the same thing. Trey Burke has a good/great freshman year. So let's say a contender drafts him in the summer of 2012. Trey, develops a POY game during his sophomore season - so much that the contender wants him on the roster to get ready for the playoffs *slash* give minutes to rest all-star PG before playoff run. So the contender signs Trey just before the B1G Tournament.
Does this sort of thing happen in college hockey?
I think a system along these lines is about the only feasible way to get money to NCAA athletes. If a professional team is the source of the funds, the school can avoid Title IX concerns that make most other ideas non-starters in the real world. Despite all of the "there's enough money to gou around" claims, there just isn't if the school has to pay every scholarship athlete the same amount (and heaven help you if you don't under Title IX). Michigan and a handful of other schools might be able to pay out a pittance to everyone, but the vast majority of NCAA schools couldn't even do that.
A draft-and-follow with pay, also legitimizes the source of the funds if the pay is only permitted to come from a professional sports team. That preserves at least a bit of spirit of the "amateur" concept, as opposed to allowing boosters to openly bid for players.
It also makes it more of a meritocracy and acknowledges the realities of the economics. Open it up to all sports and all genders. If your sport has a professional league, allow NCAA athletes to be drafted and receive some sort of compensation from the drafting team. If you're good enough and your sport is popular/lucrative enough, this would provide the athlete to monetize his/her potential much earlier in his/her career. If you aren't good enough or your sport can't support payments to draftees at the professional level, you weren't going to be reaping economic benefits from your chosed sport in any case.
Even as it seems the more fair or ethical path, direct pay for athletes is dumb. The Olympic model posited by Bill Connelly over at SB Nation makes more sense. Determining "salaries" or whatever we'd call them on a sport-by-sport, player-by-player basis would be a major headache.
Sure it means that the most elite players would go to the most elite (and wealthiest programs). Guess what? They already do! Would money earned from a school's top player to their #85 scholarship player (or #13 in basketball) be a fair difference? Maybe, maybe not. But that player, despite his work ethic, is very likely not driving the big revenue that the sport is creating.
There are still questions to be asked about such a system, but not nearly as much as pay-for-play.
The Olympic model is ripe for abuse. It would be nearly impossible to distinguish legitimate endorsement deals from boosters bidding for players under the guise of a phony endorsement. If you're willing to abandon all of the amateurism rules and let it be an open and free market for prospective college athletes, that's a principled position; but treating the Olympic model as somehow preserving a sense of amateurism seems wildly optimistic to me.
Of course the most elite players would continue to go the the most elite programs. What did I say to suggest otherwise?
Figuring out individual compensation might be a headache, but it wouldn't be the school's headache. It would be between the professional team and the drafted athlete. They do that all of the time and no one seems to gripe about it being too much of a headache.
I often wonder if developing in college basketball, or on the bench in the NBA is better. I know Beilein is a great coach, but not all of the skills translate to the pro grame. For example, Glen doesnt guard the post like he did Michigan. Also the systems are different in the NBA and there is more contact time with coaches. The idea of a player going to an NBA roster and not playing right away doesnt seem like its always a bad decision.
It's not a black and white issue. In the NBA, it's all about the situation. Developing on the bench, but with a great development staff and star role models is one thing (think Miami, San Antonio, Golden State). As is getting early playing time and growing up alongside a young core with a solid coach (think Minnesota, Milwaukee, Utah).
The other side of the coin is being drafted to a wasteland like Sacramento, New York, or Orlando have been. That can stunt development despite steady playing time with constantly changing coaching staffs, undefined roles, and headcase "stars" hogging the ball.
I do think people (particularly college hoops fans) overrate college development compared to the NBA, but context is key. Take Stauskas (though he did take a step forward this year to be fair) bouncing from Sacramento to Philly and languishing versus THJ getting moved from NY to Atlanta, who has a well-respected staff, and blossoming into a solid rotation piece.
Brian for Basketball Czar in 2017!
You have to pay them what they're worth if they're drafted. Otherwise you could be drafted by a great team, and not be called up until your a senior even if you're more than ready. Delaying your second contract by several years is a big deal. Could maybe have a pay scale that pays them a little bit less if they stay in college, but not that much. If the NCAA has a problem with often underpriveledged kids getting paid and getting college credits/board etc they can &^@%#%^
The slight down side is NBA scouts would have a year less to evaluate prospects and see how they're developing. Does that trump a kids right to be drafted. Probably not
Comments