This Week's Obsession: Juwan Recruiteth and the G League Taketh Away
The Prompt:
Isaiah Todd’s decision came down to money: a G League team was able to offer over the table, the kind of scratch even schools that bag can't cobble together. If that’s how it’s gonna be, how would this affect college basketball?
Matt EM: Talked to my spectrum guy—looks like G League deals are now going in excess of 200k annually. Essentially it looks like the wheels are in motion for college athletics to cease in its current form or all the top 50 or so kids will go G league or overseas. 75k is one one thing, but 200-300k is no longer chump change.
It looks like the CBB product is going to be one big melting pot of mid major basketball at some point unless things change soon. The product is declining every year.
Anthony Ciatti: I figured this would happen once they got the G League to a place where it was developing players. It makes too much sense to be able to develop your players the way you want and the additional expense seems to be worth it. I have wondered if they will ever try to go to academy system and start at 16 instead of 18.
Matt EM: Word is Jalen Green is getting close to 500k for G League. If that's the new standard, CBB is effectively over.
Seth: Or CBB could just pay the guys that much. Because they are a larger operation with more fans and more money.
[After THE JUMP: What happens to college basketball if the Dooks can't Dook?]
Matt EM: Just got word that Rod Strickland offered Dalen Terry (a top 30-50 kid) a G League contract. Silver is giving Strickland and Abdur-Rahim the $ to compete.
Marc-Grégor:
Reporting w/ @Draftexpress: Jalen Green is making the leap to a reshaped NBA professional pathway program, a G-League initiative that’ll pay elite prospects $500K-plus and provide a one-year development program outside of minor-league’s traditional team structure. Story soon.
— Adrian Wojnarowski (@wojespn) April 16, 2020
Matt EM: Basically an NBA Academy setting as opposed to playing in the actual G League full time.
Seth: Sounds like a good time in basketball to have a John Beilein.
Matt EM:
Five-star prospect Isaiah Todd, who decommitted from Michigan, is expected to sign an NBA G League deal and join the new Southern California team featuring Jalen Green, sources tell @TheAthleticNBA @Stadium.
— Shams Charania (@ShamsCharania) April 16, 2020
Smart move by Todd. With his physical profile, he's going to get drafted/signed regardless. Only he'll get 500k without the cloud of cheating hanging around.
Brian: This is what happens when the NCAA treats the NBA as an enemy and not a potential partner.
Matt D: Greed is a powerful motivator. Yeah...........its happening
The G-League also had a conference call with 5-star Briarcrest guard Kennedy Chandler’s parents this week, according to Kylan Chandler, his father.
— John Martin (@JohnMartin929) April 16, 2020
Going 2 years out at this point.
BiSB: I think the first question is, how many kids would this even be relevant for?
Ace: Yeah, the NCAA needs to give up the ridiculous facade of amateurism if they’re going to want to bring in elite talent, but it’s going to mostly be contained to the top 10-15 kids with the way it’s set up.
Brian: Not too many right now but could be more down the road:
The NBA has long-range hopes of growing its G League "Select Team" concept starring @JalenGreen into a "division" within the @nbagleague featuring multiple teams that can play against each other, league sources say
— Marc Stein (@TheSteinLine) April 22, 2020
Ace: That does seem inevitable. Even if it pulls in the top 50ish prospects, though, I think there’ll be a few guys who prefer college and it’s not like the game has totally benefited from a lot of players coming through for one season. Zions excepted, I don’t think the game is going to change that much.
Brian: Yeah, I don't watch college basketball because it's the most aesthetically pleasing form of basketball on the planet. I watch because it has stakes.
Ace: If you’re watching basketball to see the best basketball, it’s not the NCAA.
Depends on whom in this photo you find the most aesthetically pleasing. [Bryan Fuller]
BiSB: I question whether that would really draw that much attention. The novelty of a Zion-level player isn't enough to sustain an entire league.
Ace: If you’re watching for everything else, it’s enjoyably ludicrous.
BiSB: We won't ALWAYS be this starved for sports.
Ace: As an NBA fan: I’d 100% watch a division of top prospects. I watch out-of-market regular season games and I’m far, far from alone there.
Brian: I wonder how many "out of market regular season" NBA fans there are?
Ace: League Pass, man. It’s massive. They’ve sustained it since it was on satellite TV.
BiSB: But, again... NBA vs. what would essentially be a Mega-AAU
Ace: The coaching will be a huge, huge upgrade. Also, I’d assume, the production values.
Seth: If anything I think I'll enjoy college basketball more! If you don't follow the NBA that closely you don't care that much about one-and-dones. Anything that raises the time players in the NCAA tournament stick around the better. Storylines can last years instead of "Oh yeah, that guy played for Kentucky."
Matt D: I think the question is whether ADs are wiling to pay individual players in BB that much when it doesn't generate a ton of revenue. It creates tons of issues for MMs that don't have FB programs (Big East) that may equate to the cessation of CBB.
Brian: I don't get the upside from the NBA's perspective, seems like they probably made money on Zion Williamson being at Duke instead of the Fort Wayne Mad Antz.
Matt D: Exposure for their minor league and the ability to control development and pathway would be my guess.
Seth: CBB won't stop either way. It's a question of whether they will be substandard league.
Matt EM: Already are. Product is declining every year.
Seth: College hockey has been living this existence for decades. And they are horribly mismanaged with the worst postseason in sports. And while you can point to individual programs that don't have the following they used to, the effect of the OHL has mostly been to force coaches to get creative with over-agers.
Some guys will get half a million but the overwhelming majority of college basketball players are not going to the league and having a degree to fall back on is a better bet.
Matt EM: I don't follow hockey at all, does it have a following outside of the Midwest/Northeast?
BiSB: It's huge in Allentown, PA.
Yes, that is the look we are giving BiSB. Thank you Strauss. [JD Scott]
Anthony: In the US? The Canadian junior leagues have teams in Washington state and Portland and they all draw as well as major college hockey programs. The PNW has been underrated in that sense. The minute the Sonics left the NHL should have moved to Seattle.
Brian: Nobody watches CBB because it's the best possible basketball, I don't think not having 15 guys a year is going to make a ton of difference.
Anthony: I agree with Brian on that.
BiSB: And it would realistically only screw with the models of, say, five or six teams?
Brian: Honestly it might be better for tourney purposes because the difference between Zion and humans is less than the difference between really good humans and less good humans. And everyone likes to see Duke eat shit.
BiSB: Kentucky would be screwed, Duke and UNC and maybe Kansas would really have to adjust. But beyond that? It would only occasionally even make a difference.
Anthony: The big question would be is how many of your top 100 are being removed from the CBB equation every year? In a world where every NBA team has a G league team and is pulling one recruit each that removes the top 30. If you're taking 2 recruits each that is top 60. Thats a big difference.
BiSB: It would suck, though, given that Michigan is FINALLY entering that recruiting realm.
Alex Cook: I think this all might be kind of moot anyways if the NBA kills the one and done rule as expected.
BiSB: Presumably the G league isn't just taking high schoolers though.
Anthony: Matt, do you know about the daily operations in the G league? Their scheduling looks lighter than the NBA but more of a pro cadence than college. Do they work on skill development and have regular practices? Also I am deeply offended at the slight on the Fort Wayne Mad Ants.
Matt EM: Have no intel. I don't follow the G league. As an avid Lakers fan, I'm purely an NBA guy on that front. No real interest in watching G league players develop. I think the part being ignored by most is the domino effect. If the Select league takes the top 30 or so kids to fill out 5-6 teams, that means that prospects 30-50ish are now open season for the NBL
Ace: It’s certainly great for the NBA. They get more control over top prospects and no longer have to fly to New Zealand to see a lot of them. Plus this is a huge exposure boost for the G League, which totally lacks star talent.
Seth: The NTDP would beat most NCAA teams in head-to-head but how many people are nuts for NTDP versus, like, Merrimack?
Brian: The hockey analogy that makes sense is to point out that college hockey gets about 8 first round picks a year in a good year. Does that hurt its relative prominence in the sporting landscape? Absolutely. Does it torpedo the enterprise? No.
BiSB: SO, let's assume for the moment that we're talking the top 10-15 players. Minimal impact on the model of CBB, yes? With a disproportionate impact on the blue bloods?
Brian: Close to zero impact on the bottom line, with Zion type persons no longer existing in college being the "close to" part. But when Kobe, Kevin Garnett, and Lebron went right to the league NCAA basketball didn't get less popular.
Seth: More of an impact on the one-and-done factories, specifically. Nova gonna Nova.
The Ginger League: make this happen, NBA! [Bryan Fuller]
Ace: There’ll be a knockalong effect. Duke and UK going for more guys in the 20-50 range is gonna hurt, well, Michigan and Nova. Everyone’s gonna shift down a little bit. Won’t hurt the overall product too much, though.
Matt EM: I think the non one-and-done types being significantly worse these days will have an impact. High school basketball is at its worst right now nationally, since 2019 its declining every year and is a major factor in why CBB has been down.
Ace: Is there a systematic reason for that high school decline? It feels like a random dip to me.
BiSB: Not ALL of the top players will go the G-League route. For players who don't need the money (or are happy to take it under the table), there are advantages to being the biggest name on a college campus.
Matt EM: Really no explanation, but 3 years in a row certainly waters the talent level down for the future
Ace: To use the example we’ve been using, Zion benefited greatly from playing at Duke. He wasn’t even the highest-profile recruit in Duke’s class when he came in—that was RJ Barrett. Then again, New Orleans is now using Zion in about 30 ways Coach K didn’t or couldn’t because of his roster/system.
Matt EM: The key question IMO is how bad can CBB get in terms of quality before fans refrain from spending coin?
Ace: I think if that were going to happen, we’d have already passed that point, to be honest. If you’re looking at the game before the mid-1990s, the talent is on an entirely different level.
Matt EM: The last 2 years certainly point toward that being true.
BiSB: I doubt people would notice, unless you're watching Duke or UNC or Kansas.
Ace: The fans most impacted should be the ones least likely to give up on college basketball.
Louisville hasn't changed. [Marc-Grégor Campredon]
BiSB: College basketball is so random and inconsistent anyway, you'd have to watch a LOT to notice a systematic decline.
Brian: It's possible that college looks worse relative to the NBA than it has in the past but I can't countenance the idea that the game is overall sloppier and less watchable than it was in past years.
Seth: People don't tune into MAC games, but bubble team basketball is great. My own eyes drew the line at Michigan without X or Livers versus Nebraska last year. If Michigan is going to the Sweet 16 with teams of the Walton&Rahk&Zak&Duncan&Donnal quality I honestly don't care.
Matt EM: I can certainly notice the difference between lets say 2013/2014 Michigan vs 2018-2020 Michigan. Pretty large gap there between NC appearance teams.
Ace: I’d still chalk that up to randomness more than a massive shift in talent in that short a period of time.
BiSB: Y'all watch the clips from The Last Dance? People will watch some... uh... non-ideal basketball.
/jacks up 17 footer
Ace: The NCAA introduced the 45-second shot clock in 1985. It didn’t go down to 35 until 1994. People watched that!
Brian: Just looking at TO rate, in 2002 the national average was 21.5 and in 2020 it was 18.9. This is probably the best/most-attractive period of NCAA basketball even with the top talent getting siphoned off early.
Ace: It might be difficult to parse out the analytics-driven movement towards greater efficiency from the talent issue with those numbers, but yeah, both the NBA and NCAA feature more aesthetically pleasing basketball than in the past.
BiSB: Also...
Brian: I... may not have watched much of that.
No comment. [via UM Bentley Library]
Ace: Well. Some of us were impressionable youths. Anyway, unless the new recruiting landscape also involves the yearly cancelation of the NCAA Tournament, I have a hard time seeing this as the end of college basketball. It’s more the end of John Calipari being able to build teams the way he does. And hopefully the (continued) beginning of the end of the NCAA’s whole amateurism facade.
Seth: That would be swell.
BiSB: This is going to be a very weird year to try to draw conclusions, though.
Brian: Calipari's already branching out into being the transfer king. And honestly Everyone Transfers All The Time is a bigger drag on college basketball than a few guys leaving for the league. Mid-major darlings getting picked apart before they can execute their upsets is bad for business
Seth: There was a much bigger effect on college basketball in our lifetimes; even 20 years ago most players were expected to be in college four years. They've already drained half of the plausible NBA talent and college hoops is more enjoyable than it was during the Fab Five.
Ace: This could even help alleviate that a little bit. We’ve seen how the pursuit of one-and-dones can impact a roster. Kentucky may not have to do that as much if the top guys are already gone.
Plus said pursuit can also push guys to transfer even if you don’t end up getting them.
(clears throat)
NOT THINKING OF ANY SPECIFIC SITUATION OR ANYTHING.
BiSB: But now those absolute 1-and-dones are going to be replaced with hoping-to-be-1-and-dones-if-things-break-right
Brian: It might but the transfer numbers are so staggering that any NBA changes are a drop in the bucket.
Matt EM: So functionally, do we think more parity on the court is ultimately better for viewing purposes?
Ace: Not really. Parity is overrated.
Matt EM: ^^^^THIS
Ace: The Zion team was the first Duke squad I enjoyed watching in… a long time.
Brian: I dunno, I thought last year's Big Ten was a riot.
Fun! [Marc-Grégor Campredon]
Matt EM: I've always maintained you need a Goliath in order for David to be relevant.
Brian: Penn State was interesting!
Ace: That’s a tough sell for a lot of people.
Matt EM: March Madness just isn't the same without the threat of a massive upset.
Ace: Those will still happen, though. There’ll still be huge gaps between programs.
BiSB: Also, as someone pointed out earlier, this isn't necessarily gonna help parity. It's just going to slide everything down 10-15 guys.
Ace: Smart someone, that someone.
BiSB: Eh.
Ace: Fair.
Brian: It'll help a little bit because there's a bigger gap between Zion and humans than humans and other humans.
Seth: I don't think there will be that much more parity. The top teams will have to change their models a bit.
Ace: The top teams may even realize that stability isn’t the worst thing. Kentucky hasn’t been tearing it up of late by their recent standard.
BiSB: Betcha UNC wishes they had a little more continuity this year.
Seth: Izzo's going to love it. This setup is made for programs that can get top-50 players and neg them into staying four years.
Brian: There won't be any more Anthony Davis Kentucky teams. Personally, I don't care about superteams and would hate it if Michigan had a contender that ate it against one of them so good riddance.
Seth: You wanted to watch the 2014 game.
Brian: 2014 Kentucky was an eight seed
Ace: Yeah, that was in their weird in-between period. They’ve been… volatile.
Matt EM: On the court, we're talking about watching teams take plenty of semi-contested jumpers because nobody has The Guy
Ace: There’ll still be college guys. Cassius Winston wouldn’t be a candidate for this new league, for one example.
Matt EM: Good point.
Seth: And there will be fewer rim-protectors.
Ace: The current setup is going to remove, like, maybe three elite centers from the country. James Wiseman played for about five minutes this year.
Seth: That means two from the Big Ten then, right?
Ace: The Big Ten… doesn’t get those centers.
Brian: Here's this year's kPOY top ten:
BiSB: I'm assuming this league would pull the same style of players the NBA would pull. That typically doesn't include Enormous Statue Guy guys.
Brian: Exactly one of those guys would be a candidate for AAU++
Carey.
Seth: I also see some peacock feathers flashing a big "Hey, college basketball is still going to be pretty fun" sign.
Ace: College basketball has always been the home for basketball’s misfit toys and that’s not going to change. To me, it’s part of what makes the sport appealing. There’s never going to be a player like Zavier Simpson in the NBA and he was a lot of fun to watch.
Brian: Hell yeah, you get guys like X and Garza and Isaiah Washington
UNIQUE BASKETBALL TALENTS
Ace: (give me a moment to upload jacob young dot gif)
JACOB YOUNG, BABY
BiSB: "Irrational Optimism" is the heart and soul of college sports.
"MAYBE THIS IS THE TIME FOR nope never mind."
Ace: Even without Zions, there’ll be guys who think they’re Zions, and that’s something.
Brian: The RAC was packed and rabid to watch that team play. College basketball is an unkillable zombie that will barely notice this, the end.
BiSB: Yep, if there's one thing we've learned, it's that nothing can stop college basketball...
Brian: Dammit Bryan.
If the G League pulls in 15 guys every year, it won't change college basketball that much. College basketball already went through a period where the top guys skipped college and went to the draft. It survived just fine without Kevin Garnett or Lebron James (or Kwame Brown or Sebastian Telfair).
What would have more of an effect is if this G League experiment morphs into a full developmental program that draws a larger number of guys. If it becomes a legit parallel development route, you'll wind up with a lot more recruits considering it, and some guys dismissing the idea of prepping for college entirely.
If it becomes something that 30-50 guys a year want to get into, that's a bigger impact.
Yes and no. During that Garnett/James time, it was really only the top of the top that would go to the NBA because outside of the top (pick a number) guys people wouldn't be drafted at all or at least high enough to be a sure thing income wise. If they went to the draft and missed, they were screwed.
I think the G League will have a lower bar. With the G League, if you're top 30 (let's say) and the pay gets incrementally smaller each step down, you could still see more guys in the 20s-30s taking ~$50k (or whatever) and the development over playing for a year at Duke and then going to the draft.
I don't know if it will be a huge flight of guys going to the G League over college ball, but if the G League proves to be a legitimate pathway for guys like Green and Todd, I wouldn't be surprised to see more guys take a shot at it to at least get the cash up front with none of the academic hurdles.
I think I agree with most of this, but what happens in Year 2 for borderline guys in the G Leage? Maybe I just don't know enough about how this is supposed to work, but we talk about Todd or Green like they will obviously go pro in year 2, and that's great... but it's not ubiquitous. Are #30 guys going to sign for $50k and risk flaming out after one year? I wouldn't think they can go back to college then, so are they stuck going international or something?
I would think if you go to the G League you forfeit eligibility, so that will be something to consider.
But if you get into the G League and don't make the NBA the following season, it's not like you're done. Guys who don't make the NBA (Walton, Robinson before he lit up everything) end up in the G League anyways so those 19 year olds would just continue training.
April 23rd, 2020 at 11:19 AM ^
Yes, but without the connection to any massive enterprise. There is a big difference between an individual like Walton and a kid who goes straight from high school. Walton spent 4 years at a major university (even getting his degree) so that playing and training in the G-league for a few years to take his shot at his dream before falling back on those connections with Michigan is not a bad situation. When a high school kid who no-one knows flames out, what is the fallback?
A Walton type, or even a guy who only spends one year succeeding at a big university will be in a far better place to succeed outside of basketball than some kid who no one knows. Being recognizable as "that guy who played at Kentucky" has more benefits than people realize.
April 23rd, 2020 at 12:12 PM ^
Yeah I would think they would forego eligibility as well. Then again, this was the whole point right? Guys leaving HS and jumping right to the NBA. Being forced to attend college for a year, giving them an alternative to risking it all for the NBA dream.
For most of these elite prospects, it’s about the money, but don’t underestimate the power of not having to go to school. No rules, don’t have to worry about staying eligible, no papers or finals or group projects.
If the NCAA wants to let players benefit off of their likeness, ok. The only way we compete with the G-league for top prospects is paying equal and loosening academic standards. To me that means the end of college basketball. Let the G-league have their players, keep college b-ball mostly the same.
The big change will occur if the G-League can point to being a better developmental route than college. If so, then top players will take the money, "intern" in the G, and then land with an NBA team. I think there is zero way college could compete with either the money or the results.
The "pay the players or college sports are dead" argument is a complete fallacy.
I can't speak for everyone, but who watches college sports in order to see "the best athletes playing the game"? By definition, wouldn't those people rather be watching pro sports?
I would expect that most people (myself included) watch college sports because of the schools involved. The fans come to watch their school play and (ideally) beat their rivals. All that matters is that their team has better players than the opponent. If, for example, neither team has any 5 stars because they all forgo college to play pro instead - would it really matter to the fans? Winning seasons bring in the fans, regardless if it's our 5stars beating theirs or our 2stars beating theirs.
April 22nd, 2020 at 10:45 PM ^
Exactly. This whole discussion is so tired. CBB will be as good or better with the 1 and dones removed. And wish the same for football. Never have we watched because we had a superior product, Michigan football a prime example. We can lose every Ohio St game from here to eternity, yet we will still watch. We are "fans" and there is nothing rational about being one, particularly when it's your alma mater or a team you grew up rooting for.
I agree somewhat, but let's not undersell how important the impact of rooting for a winning team with really good players has on your fandom. Rutgers has rivalries and alumni yet they struggle to fill their stadium and, until they started to win a bunch of games, the RAC. People root for Michigan because for most of it's existence it's been one of the best programs in college football and had a ton of good players. I was at UM during the end of the Ellerbe and the beginning of the Amaker years and those were...dark and barely-attended. Fans started caring more when Beilein showed up and the team started playing well. So yes, relatively speaking I'm not sure if fans will care if their team is comprised of top-100 recruits vs. top-25 guys if they're still winning, but if there really is a massive talent drain and some degree of "parity" sets in where schools like UM don't look much different than dozens of other teams, fans will likely have less incentive to stay engaged.
While I don't think it's completely analogous, the previous one-and-done that culminated in Lebron is probably a good indicator of what the college talent level will be like. I am in the camp of folks who think it might actually be better to have the pro-level talent focus on being pros. I don't think the college game particularly suffered from missing out on Kwame Brown and Eddy Curry, and it generally helps sports teams when there isn't an outlier or two that's thinking about shoe deals when everyone else is worried about finals.
Brown and Curry would have also likely been fairly dominant college players.
I am 100% in agreement with this. It's not going to impact the draw of college basketball much. Lop off the top 30-50 guys in college basketball and there is no one would even be able to tell if they didn't know. Talent and skill is relative. Athleticism will be a tiny bit worse but quality of play will be higher if more guys are staying longer. Four star players in their third seasons are already generally better basketball players than freshman 5 stars.
I would take it even further that not only will it not have a significant impact on the draw of CBB, it also won't impact the Duke's and UK's and Kansas's of the world. It's not like they're not going to get the best players available anymore. If they're still willing to drop the heaviest bags, why wouldn't they?
I think it speaks to the idea that the majority of college fans root for the team because of a connection to the team, be they alumni or have family connections or just team-based fandom. Usually those fans are rooting for the school, and wouldn't really withdraw their fandom if the level of play went down.
It's actually, in my opinion, related to the football 3-star meltdown folks who cry about losing to OSU as if they have some personal stake in it besides being a baby. For most people with adult levels of executive functioning, they agree that losing to OSU sucks but can still enjoy college football and supporting M and the kids who put everything into the game.
In other words, I like Michigan teams, and when they're not as talented it might suck in a way, but I won't stop watching or supporting them. I think most (not all) college sports fans support their teams in a similar manner. Where I think the squeeze comes into play is will the hypothetical fan I describe watch a neutral game on CBS or ESPN on a given night? I can't imagine the game would change enough to diminish that viewership significantly either.
Holy smokes Matt EM is out of touch. Isn’t this the guy you hired to take college basketball ? Lmao.
People complained forever that we don't have enough different viewpoints on the site. Here's a different viewpoint instead of everyone being a mega college basketball fan who will watch Michigan if they're starting Max Bieldfeldt at center.
Matt watches more basketball in a year than I have in my lifetime. We're extremely lucky to have his input, even when we disagree.
I don’t doubt that Matt EM watches a lot of basketball. But it sounds like a lot of NBA basketball. Someone who enjoys watching the NBA wouldn’t understand the allure of college basketball. The NBA has amazing talent, but for me it’s completely boring to watch.
A different point of view on sports is always a welcome thing. It seems the bigger complaint is that it didn't come with any factual analysis in this particular post. It came across as Matt saying CBB was bad, because he said it was bad. He also doesn't seem to give any real credence to the idea that people watch CBB for entirely different reasons than they watch the NBA.
April 23rd, 2020 at 10:40 AM ^
It feels like people are having different arguments than Matt's point (and it must be said that Matt is a high school scout who watches for different things), and it's not like the people who are disagreeing with his assessment have offered any factual analysis to the contrary. The quality of the product is down, the game is slower, choppier, poorly officiated, less free-flowing, and overcoached. That being said, it is true that people who generally watch college basketball aren't necessarily here for the quality.
Matt knows the game and basketball talent better than all the others combined. The others are simply fans who like to hear themselves talk.
The idea that college basketball is more watchable because turnovers are down is insane. College basketball used to be significantly more fun to watch. This past year the top tempo team averaged 80.5 possessions per game, the team ranked 50th averaged 73.9, 100th 72.4. In 2000, with a longer shot clock those numbers were 82.2, 75.8, and 73.6. The game was more up tempo, higher scoring, and more fun. Virginia and Wisconsin might win a lot and be highly efficient, they fucking suck to watch as a neutral fan.
Not to mention parity is going to decrease. The gap between the #1 player and the #50 player is still smaller than #50 to #300. The reality is this will just mean less talent in college basketball overall, the same percentage of the top talent is going to go to the blue blood schools. On top of that Duke having a starting lineup of guys ranked 30th-50th who've been in the program for three years is going to eliminate the one advantage small schools had of being able to make up for being less talented by having 4 years of experience playing together and in their system.
There is no way you can slice less talent overall and the most interesting talent not being in college basketball as good for the sport. Which was more fun as a Michigan college basketball fan? The Fab Five for two years or four years of Courtney Sims and some NIT runs. The idea that you need to be with a player for four years to have an emotional attachment in the team and the game is false. Obviously completely turning over the roster every year isn't ideal but that is only like 2 schools a year so its not actually that common.
Virginia and Wisconsin might win a lot and be highly efficient, they fucking suck to watch as a neutral fan.
Neg away, but watching 1 on 1, pick and roll is the most annoying and boring thing ever. I hate the NBA.
I loved watching old JB teams running guys off screens and back doors instead of pick and roll/pop stuff over and over and over again.
I loved watching old JB teams running guys off screens and back doors instead of pick and roll/pop stuff over and over and over again.
I have a soft spot in my heart for watching creative basketball sets that involve back door cuts, sprinting shooters across court around multiple screens (a la Matt Painter), and multi-player read and react scenarios. That stuff is fun to watch.
I also really enjoyed watching Virginia's recent national championship team. Great shooters mixed with some great athletes. And they still played great team defense. IMHO, basketball at its finest.
Yes that Virginia team was fun to watch ! I hate the NBA because dunks and amazing plays are common place there. I don’t want too many dunks that’s for sure. I like basketball played beneath the rim. One of my favorite all time players was young Derrick Rose. That’s the style I like. And yes I know he can dunk, but I’m the NBA he often wasn’t able to do that with those huge rim protectors and guys coming behind to block shots. The way he jumped and found angles for layups was great. If only he was a better 3pt shooter he be perfect.
I haven't seen anything yet that worries me about this G-league movement significantly affecting the NCAA besides taking away the random Zion or AD seasons. First, I think we're still talking 10-15 kids. Trayce Jackson-Davis was the #30 guy last year....is he getting a G-League deal? Eh...not in the near future.
What would worry me more about the NCAA would be....
- Free Agency Transfer Rules - While I'm in favor of it for the players' sake...I think it will have a significant impact on the NCAA. There will be transfers both ways, but you can almost envision more teams looking like Kentucky this year with just one returning player and coaches will struggle to manage rosters or act like mercenaries.
- NBA GMs Being Idiots - If there is some success with this G-league movement, why would NBA GMs want these kids going to a pooled team rather than just letting them get drafted and stored on their own G-league teams? Then you have NBA GMs starting to draft guys like Eddie Curry or Darko and stashing all these raw kids in the G-League - thus going after more than 15 of the top kids and filling entire rosters with them
I do wonder what the economic impact of the pandemic will be on the NBA's model. Ultimately we'll have to see how players like Todd, who is very raw, play out. If we hear nothing more from him because he's playing in empty G-league arenas 30 times next year at midnight on league pass...then goes undrafted because he struggles...then what? The opposite could be true as well.
I feel like Matt EM is conflating "college basketball as a product" with "NBA early entry talent"
Basketball is just as if not more enjoyable to watch at the college level as it always has been.
College sports are also a lot more than absolute talent level, it's about relative talent level. As (Brian?) said, it's about stakes
Who cares if everybody is less talented, mostly you care about how your team performs relative to others
I can't see the G-league fundamentally shifting the landscape of college basketball. Sure, maybe some guys won't go to college. Big deal. Most will.
I'd rather have a guy for 2 or 3 years and watch him develop than get a ton of one and dones
Yep, as long as talent in college basketball is relative then no one is gonna stop watching. College basketball is about your allegiance to your school and team, watching players develop, the story lines, and the rivalries. As long as those are still there, I'm gonna watch
The NCAA had their chances. They could have easily adopted the NHL model a while ago and then considered NIL now. Heck, I think there could be an NHL system in place with the NBA where there's a slotted "draft bonus" that the teams can play players who stay in college without losing their eligibility.
Example: Todd is drafted this summer by the Mavericks right out of high school.
- His draft slot gives him a signing bonus of X. Let's say $1M.
- Todd and the Mavericks know he's not ready for the NBA.
- He signs with Michigan, though the Mavs will own his rights for 4 years and he can't be redrafted unless he says 4 years (or make it 3 like baseball or 2 if you want)
- He's allowed to get 50% of his draft bonus if he goes to college, the NBA controls the % and the slotting by pick...the NCAA agrees he is still eligible.
- He plays his freshman year at Michigan and does just okay. The Mavs talk to him about whether he wants to sit on the end of the bench or stay at Michigan another year. Maybe he gets more $ or maybe not.
By doing this, the NBA builds more fans in the NCAA and vice versa. The NBA can take more fliers on guys without having to directly support their development with a roster spot. Guys who aren't panning out can stay in school, get a little money, maybe get redrafted later, or just have a good college career like Simpson or Winston.
Adding NIL to the equation starts to make things interesting. Imagine Zion getting NIL at Duke where he was a national star versus Zion trying to get NIL money while playing in the G-league.
I've always appreciated Matt's input on here when it comes to basketball insight - it had been lacking for some time before he started to contribute. That being said, I have never understand his idea that college basketball is "bad" right now. When it gets brought up in this thread, his response is essentially "this year's Michigan team was not as good as the one's that made the Final Fours". Well....yea. I don't think anyone would argue that. But you can't make the connection that basketball (at both the college and high school levels) are down because Michigan isn't as good as they were a few years ago.
I'm not saying that the game itself isn't a lesser product right now than it has been in years past, but as someone who watches every Michigan game and quite a bit of other college games, I haven't noticed a decline in performance. I would bet most others feel the same.
Football Camps - Landmark legislation by NCAA
Elite McDs AA - Landmark G league contract and/or ASUs biggest signee in program history, also Landmark failure of Crystal Balls never before seen.
Player that never played a minute of said game being drug tested - Landmark Career ending suspension
Legendary coach - Landmark decision to coach .5 seasons at NBAs worst franchise
PURE MICHIGAN
As someone who grew up with college basketball as my number 1 sport it is much less fun to watch. Brian is judging quality by turnovers but that misses so much about the game. College basketballs best teams used to be up tempo teams that ran when they could, pushed the pace, gambled on defense for turnovers etc. The game today might be slightly more efficient but its also way more sterile, teams run the same sets, the pack line defense, and anti transition philosophy which focuses on forcing mid range jumpers over going for blocks and steals and never going for offensive rebounds leads to less possessions than the 90's and early 2000's even with a shorter shot clock, etc. Maybe big ten fans don't notice it as much because the big ten has always been a slower league but its just less enjoyable as a neutral fan to watch Wisconsin win a game in the low 50's than an up tempo game with a few more mistakes. Just look at our teams that 2012-2013 was an extremely mediocre defensive team but that run to the final four was way more fun to watch than 2017-2018 squeaking by FSU, houston, and Chicago in ugly defensive games.
I encourage every college basketball fan to watch replays of games from the 80’s. You will notice two things:
1) guys stayed in school minimum two to three years and often four. Think about this: Patrick Ewing stayed all four years. Akeem (there was no H then) Olajuwon three years. Michael Jordan three years. Jordan played on a team with James Worthy, Sam Perkins and Brad Daugherty. Larry Bird three years. Charles Barkley three years. Gary Grant stayed four years and he averaged 22/5/5 as a junior. Even into the 90’s. Glenn Robinson came back for a second year after averaging 24 a game as a freshman. He then averaged 30 a game as a sophomore.
2) the level of play was horrendous. Despite the best talent staying longer it was ugly. Yes some teams ran a lot, but they also chucked up a lot of bad shots. You also had teams still playing four corners for stretches of the game.
It was bad, but it was fun. Part of what made it fun was knowing you were going to see these same great players go up against each other for multiple years. The styles of play were also very different.
I think people only watch highlights of old games and get a skewed view of what it was really like. Go back and watch a full game of Michigan’s 89 NC team from the regular season. Other than Glen Rice, which let’s be honest, any shot was a good shot, they took a lot of bad shots and that team had 6 NBA level players.
Idk there may be something to it. Take a look at the 5 stars from the 2018 and 2019 recruiting classes and their stats. A vast majority of them had underwhelming or straight up bad seasons. Not sure if that's a indictment on basketball scouting or if the quality of recent recruits has just been straight up worse
College basketball is "bad" right now because it is vanilla, copycat basketball. Every offense and every defense is virtually the same.
Yeah I kinda thought he was full of shit on that too.
Edit. What the deuce? My reply was to cwoodismyboii. Huel rocks.
If you want to know what this does to college basketball, look no further than the PAC-12. UCLA and Arizona used to be dominant programs. Their games used to be nationally relevant. Now? Not as much, but they still draw a crowd and entertain the locals. If you like CBB, you’ll watch a Washington-Stanford Thursday night game. If you don’t, you won’t. The decisions of the top 15-20 players aren’t relevant to ~335 of the 351 schools.
This isn't the right comparison. There will still be a national champion, there will still be conference champions, there will still be a top 10 and a top 25 and a 68 team tournament field.
UCLA gets fewer fans mostly because they haven't even been part of that 68 team tournament field lately. They have become relatively worse, which is what fans care about.
Eliminating 30 or 40 of the top players will make each team a little less talented on an absolute basis (although there will be more experience at the top teams which could make for more crisp play), but there will be no change to CBB on a relative basis.
No one outside of people like Matt EM and a handful of others will care about the tiny decrease in absolute quality of play. People will still be rooting for their fans to beat other teams and win the same titles and advance in the same tournament.
I'd worry less about the top recruits not playing and more about the best players leaving to play. If the players that do develop on an NCAA team can shift to a G league team and make 50,000 that could draw a lot of good players that don't have the height or are just short of leaving for the draft.
I just don't get what the NBA is aiming for. Are they gonna open up a new $500 million/year salary pool for the G League which replaces their *free* NCAA development league to accomplish.........? If the NBA thinks people will stop watching college basketball for the G league in droves then they seriously underestimate how much loyalty people have to their favorite college teams and how big a staple March Madness is to American sports. I just don't get what the end goal is here
the point isn't to ruin college basketball
the point is to keep the top talent in the U.S. in the U.S. they don't want their top talent going to Australia, New Zealand, East Europe, etc
the NBA very much liked having a free developmental league. Now with kids going overseas, they realized they have to adapt.
The decline in quality of high school and college basketball isn't super surprising to me. A lot of players don't seem to care about fundamentals anymore. They care about flashy plays, dunking on people, and increasing their vertical. No one wants to learn how to shoot with proper form, make the right pass, or defend. We're reaching the generation of players who grew up on ESPN and mixtapes
Shooting percentages increase every year at all levels, even as shots are taken from a further distance. Are you sure that shooting form is decreasing?
I'm not saying shooting form is literally decreasing, I'm more saying that it seems like players are more interested in being flashy than playing quality basketball
Disagree wholeheartedly. Sure, there are some that are interested in being flashy, but the amount of time kids spend working on their craft these days is insane.
A huge part of this, in my opinion, is the staying power of this G League commitment to prospect development. Has anyone considered that the league might not see an appropriate ROI on these $500k offers to prospects? If they are going to take 30 prospects each season at a conservative average of $100k per contract, is that (plus marketing/promotion/increased expenses) going to pay off with television ratings and fan support? Is the NBA willing to do this at a loss and how much of one? I think it's reasonable to question how invested the league is in this long term if it isn't a money-maker. I think CBB long term would be fine with a bit of a talent drop off. Fans still care about their schools, traditions, etc. Obviously if the NBA hopes to really commit to this, that's at CBB's expense.
This is kind of where I’m at. There’s at least a small chance that this blows up in the NBAs face. I can see it getting to the point where they are throwing money at 17 year old, super athletic guy with high ceiling hoping they pan out. But is that really going to be a money maker? Pandemic aside, is the world starved for more basketball and an expanded minor league system? NFL and NCAA print money and yet we just saw 2 new startup leagues, trying to fill a niche between the two, fail. Is dumping money into an in between G league going to pay off? At a time when everyone keeps complaining about sports attendance falling. Isiah Todd in a Michigan uniform would have gotten eyeballs, do we really expect G league ratings to take off this year?
A few kids a year to the g league, sure why not. But I don’t see the league ever being more popular than college, and I’d be hesitant to start dumping money into a fringe league hoping it becomes mainstream.
Disagree, the G-League isn't abt making money, the billions the NBA makes offsets whatever losses easily.
Its about making scouting easier and taking earlier control of the product without tying teams to bad contracts. It could lose millions every year, and it won't matter.
There will always be a large percentage of the population that chooses to watch college hoops over the NBA....this doesn't change that....college hoops has survived this before...it will thrive through this again.
Yep, I want to watch kids graduate and play as multi-year teammates. I think a more robust G-League would be a great development for college hoops. Plus, dozens more kids going straight to the pros means more scholarships for kids who would love to get an education that they might not otherwise be able to afford.
Agree with Brian that I don't really get the NBA angle here. Their players will be less popular than if they had played for college teams. I think people underestimate that impact. People don't (can't) follow their favorite college players in hockey or baseball but they can in football and basketball and that's not an insignificant factor in the NFL and NBA being more popular than NHL and MLB, especially with younger fans.
How many of us watched the Pats over the last 20 years because of Tom Brady? I know I did and I certainly wouldn't have if he was developed in some petri dish minor league.
So the NBA is going to pay a lot of money to be less popular?
I thought the whole idea behind the 19 year rule was to take advantage of the free development (of skills and popularity) that CBB offers. And that made sense. This makes less sense.
Comments