So, the NBA G League has offered at least 2 of the top 10 Basketball recruits for 2020 contracts over 400k for 1 year. One has accepted the offer (Jalen Green) and one is thinking about it (Gregg Brown). They will forgo college, play in the G League for a year, be able to sign shoe deals immediately, and have NBA level player development without the time restrictions put on them by being in college.

So is this the beginning of a new era in college BBall? Will say the top 10 recruits start foregoing college and go for large contracts with the G League? How do programs like UK and Duke change up their philosophies when most for sure 1&D players skip college all together?

Seems to me that programs that have coaches that are known for player development (Mich St, UVA, Nova, etc) will be the new Blue Bloods. Now teams will be fighting for the 4* and 3* players that will need 2+ years to be NBA ready. I know there will be some exceptions of a few players having great Frosh years and leaving for the NBA, but those will be few and far between.

For fans, I think it is great. You get to see your fav players play for your college teams for multiple years and get to see them develop.

(04-17-2020 12:28 PM)SouthernBoiNOLA Wrote:  So, the NBA G League has offered at least 2 of the top 10 Basketball recruits for 2020 contracts over 400k for 1 year. One has accepted the offer (Jalen Green) and one is thinking about it (Gregg Brown). They will forgo college, play in the G League for a year, be able to sign shoe deals immediately, and have NBA level player development without the time restrictions put on them by being in college.

So is this the beginning of a new era in college BBall? Will say the top 10 recruits start foregoing college and go for large contracts with the G League? How do programs like UK and Duke change up their philosophies when most for sure 1&D players skip college all together?

Seems to me that programs that have coaches that are known for player development (Mich St, UVA, Nova, etc) will be the new Blue Bloods. Now teams will be fighting for the 4* and 3* players that will need 2+ years to be NBA ready. I know there will be some exceptions of a few players having great Frosh years and leaving for the NBA, but those will be few and far between.

For fans, I think it is great. You get to see your fav players play for your college teams for multiple years and get to see them develop.

Hope it is. An occassional one and done is one thing. 4 or 5 on a team really makes it hard to follow the team.

Im ok with it. It seems to me this is going to allow college basketball to go back to being college basketball. I like it.

I was tired of the rules being bent and twisted to conform to fit the odd circumstances surrounding a handful of one-and-done superstars. The college game will be just fine without them.

I’d like to see the one-and-done era end so I hope so. 18 year old players with that much talent don’t care about collegiate sports or the school they take up temporary residence at. It makes more sense for them year of true NBA prep, playing more games, and doing so in a setting that more closely resembles the NBA game.

It's an interesting experiment. Some questions still to be answered, mostly in this category: What best maximizes the career path and the money for the best players coming out of high school, a season on a college team, or going directly to the G-League (or a pro league in Europe or Australia)?

The shoe contract that one of these guys will get when he goes straight to the G-League -- will it pay more over the long haul than the shoe deal a one-and-done player gets after being selected in the NBA draft first round?

Will these players look like future superstars against G-League competition, or would they look better against the competition in college hoops? In college, they would be competing against 18-21 year old players whose experience is limited to high school, AAU, and college ball. In the G-League, they would be competing against many older players, some of whom have played in good European leagues, some of whom have gone back and forth between NBA teams and G-League teams. To use a baseball analogy, an 18-year-old player in college hoops is like an 18-year-old baseball player in Class A ball, while putting that same player in the G-League is like going from high school baseball straight to Class AAA.

Here’s a novel idea:

a draft where every NBA team gets 3 selections, 1 from each of the following pools:

US high school grads (straight from HS)
Collegiate draft (a player with at least 2 years of collegiate experience at a US university)
International (foreign born players with or without collegiate experience)

Players selected in the HS draft would have to spend at least 1 year in the D-league before joining the parent club.

I'm fine with it.

It has an interesting marketing implication. The G-League needs to find revenue to pay for these contracts. Right now 1/3rd filled arenas with many giveaway or near free tickets and the only media access via obscure streaming websites with fewer advertising dollars for them than 2am sci-fi theater TV on extended cable is not going to pay the bills. NBA teams already subsidize their G-league franchises a few $million a year and are loathe to throw too much more money at what is basically a holding room for the minimum salary replacement player pool.

What this means is the NBA has to figure out how to package and sell the G-League to get a real TV contract. Although the level of play is higher than college by a significant degree (half the NBA players coming up now have to spend a year or two simply getting polished enough to play in the NBA, and these include draft picks, the elite of college), the fan interest is next to zero. The NBA has not even figured out how to sell the WNBA well enough to give high enough salaries for it's stars to not play overseas in the off season where many get hurt.

Eventually I see the G-League developing as a sort of "junior team" model like in Europe, where the teams play tournaments. But the infrastructure and money are not there like Europe for their soccer teams.

College will be very different. I think John Calipari's Kentucky will be the most impacted, as his model was the pre-NBA warmup team. But others like Memphis who are banking on big time recruits off coach star power among elite playera will also fall victim, as will Arizona. And to be honest that is a good thing.

This is a great thing for both the NBA and for college basketball.

Some have already argued that there will be a talent drain at the college levels because the elite talent will be foregoing college entirely to go straight to the NBA (G-League). College basketball thrived before the one and done rule, and definitely evolved during the one-and-done era (especially seeing Coach K developing Duke into a full-on one-and-done program). However, many programs have developed into elite, national programs without the use of one-and-done players, focusing instead on player development that still leads to NBA potential and opportunity (see Villanova, Gonzaga and Virginia among other programs that have competed nationally with players going onto the NBA). There are also proven programs/coaches that have avoided falling into one-and-done-type programs, like Michigan State, who continue to compete at the highest levels without these one-off players. Programs like Kentucky, Arizona, Duke, Kansas, UCLA, USC, Texas and Ohio State over the past decade have thrived on one-and-done players; however, they have only won a combined four national championships since 2006 (and only Kentucky, Duke and Kansas have won a national championship- programs that won national championships before the one-and-done era).

Eliminating, either officially or unofficially, one-and-done players will be good for both levels. College programs need more players that can be developed long-term, and not teams that are brand-new every single season. The high-impact/elite young talent should be taken-in by the NBA via the G-League, trained, developed and educated by the professional services that the big teams have to offer.

(04-17-2020 01:41 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  I'm fine with it.

It has an interesting marketing implication. The G-League needs to find revenue to pay for these contracts. Right now 1/3rd filled arenas with many giveaway or near free tickets and the only media access via obscure streaming websites with fewer advertising dollars for them than 2am sci-fi theater TV on extended cable is not going to pay the bills. NBA teams already subsidize their G-league franchises a few $million a year and are loathe to throw too much more money at what is basically a holding room for the minimum salary replacement player pool.

What this means is the NBA has to figure out how to package and sell the G-League to get a real TV contract. Although the level of play is higher than college by a significant degree (half the NBA players coming up now have to spend a year or two simply getting polished enough to play in the NBA, and these include draft picks, the elite of college), the fan interest is next to zero. The NBA has not even figured out how to sell the WNBA well enough to give high enough salaries for it's stars to not play overseas in the off season where many get hurt.

Eventually I see the G-League developing as a sort of "junior team" model like in Europe, where the teams play tournaments. But the infrastructure and money are not there like Europe for their soccer teams.

College will be very different. I think John Calipari's Kentucky will be the most impacted, as his model was the pre-NBA warmup team. But others like Memphis who are banking on big time recruits off coach star power among elite playera will also fall victim, as will Arizona. And to be honest that is a good thing.

I think the NBA is pretty smart for doing this. I don't think the NBA cares too much about attendance for the league, they just want a farming system.

Let's say for example, Zion Williamson had have went the G League route last year. He goes in and is providing all these Highlight reel dunks. NBA gets to develop him in all facets of a future NBA star (trainers, shot coaches, professional nutritionist, financial advisors, public image managers), market the hell outta him and all they gotta pay him is 400k for a year. He comes into the league better prepared for the rigors of an NBA season. On the other side, if he is a bust in the G league (against better players than he would face in college), then they didn't have to pay him a rookie contract to find out.

Man, teams like UK, Duke, Memphis (my home team), Michigan, etc are gonna have to adapt real quick. I personally think Cal bolts to the NBA once the 1&D players skip college. No one wants to be on the hot seat at UK.

on another note....no one can market the WNBA, cause there really ain't enough people out there that wanna see it.

Article about Jalen Green and the G-League:

How Jalen Green’s decision to play in NBA G League could change the game

Quote:Prep basketball phenom Jalen Green’s decision to go to the G League on Thursday could go down as the moment where the NCAA’s greed finally caught up to it.

While the NCAA has made billions on college basketball for years, its student-athletes haven’t received a penny. Student-athletes who receive benefits can be severely punished, along with their schools.

The NBA, meanwhile, has offered an opportunity for elite prep stars to spend one year in the G League with the potential to earn more than $125,000 in salary and the ability to net sponsorship money as well. But sources told The Undefeated that the G League could pay more. ESPN.com reported there is a new G League initiative that can pay elite prospects more than $500,000 and provide a one-year development program outside of the minor league’s traditional team structure.

Quote:The HBO documentary The Scheme was a reminder that there is an underbelly to college basketball where prospects and their families are getting paid under the table because they can’t be paid by the NCAA or receive endorsements. The NBA has provided a way for 18-year-old superstars to stay in the United States to work on their game with NBA-caliber coaches and players while legally making a substantial salary and endorsements. (The G League also pays for living arrangements, offers $100 in Lyft credits per month and pays for continued education.)

As to the teams I follow ...

For Vanderbilt, there will be little if any change in recruiting philosophy. We are never going to get many one-and-dones (D. Garland and Simi Shittu being extreme exceptions). I like to watch players for at least three years, so it's nice to be a Commodore fan in that respect. I do feel Aaron Nesmith is doing the correct thing to go pro after two years.

For Indiana, Bob Knight likely would like a "return to normalcy," when many players actually cared about being student-athletes. IU will be fine.

Memphis and Hardaway will face a challenge. A change in recruiting focus will be needed.

DePaul ... who knows? DL does not seem able or interested in getting one-and-done types

UNC continues to recruit a mix of big-time players and "lesser rated" young men. Not a bad approach for a program of this level.

Belmont ... no change. Business as usual. Lots of "hustlers, fundamentally sound types" (read into that what you will).

Cincy ... should be fine. The Bearcats are not going to get a five star stud anyway.

MTSU. No change.

Georgetown ... this is an intriguing dynamic. Big Pat is doing a fine job of getting quality players who should end up staying three years at least (Mac McClung perhaps being an exception)

Louisville ... Could have to alter recruiting strategy a bit

N.C. State ... Business as usual

(04-17-2020 01:41 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  I'm fine with it.

It has an interesting marketing implication. The G-League needs to find revenue to pay for these contracts. Right now 1/3rd filled arenas with many giveaway or near free tickets and the only media access via obscure streaming websites with fewer advertising dollars for them than 2am sci-fi theater TV on extended cable is not going to pay the bills. NBA teams already subsidize their G-league franchises a few $million a year and are loathe to throw too much more money at what is basically a holding room for the minimum salary replacement player pool.

What this means is the NBA has to figure out how to package and sell the G-League to get a real TV contract. Although the level of play is higher than college by a significant degree (half the NBA players coming up now have to spend a year or two simply getting polished enough to play in the NBA, and these include draft picks, the elite of college), the fan interest is next to zero. The NBA has not even figured out how to sell the WNBA well enough to give high enough salaries for it's stars to not play overseas in the off season where many get hurt.

Eventually I see the G-League developing as a sort of "junior team" model like in Europe, where the teams play tournaments. But the infrastructure and money are not there like Europe for their soccer teams.

College will be very different. I think John Calipari's Kentucky will be the most impacted, as his model was the pre-NBA warmup team. But others like Memphis who are banking on big time recruits off coach star power among elite playera will also fall victim, as will Arizona. And to be honest that is a good thing.

College basketball has the fan appeal, while the G-League has the talent. Conversely, the G-League has next to no fan interest, while college basketball these days is an inferior product.

College basketball has two things going for it: passion for schools and programs, and a great post-season tournament. We've learned that we cheer for laundry. We are interested in the name on the back of the jersey, but we're really interested in the name on the front of the jersey. Fans of say, Kentucky, are still interested in their guys after they're gone, but they're most invested in the guys currently playing for the Wildcats. Likewise, they're not going to care a whole lot about a proverbial Lexington G-League team, even if the play is superior, unless there are a bunch of ex-UK guys playing for them. We cheer for laundry.

The G-League is between a rock and a hard place. They have a better product than college basketball, but it is not the NBA. Unlike baseball, where the minor league game has been established in smaller markets for generations, the G-League has been unable to find a footing outside of a handful of places. The G-League exists for player development first, marketing of the parent franchise second, and its own franchises after that.

This is also beneficial for mid-major teams who have been growing first the past few years. They now have the opportunity to present themselves more on a national stage since they usually have athletes playing for 3-4 years.

The NBA needs to come up with a format that makes the G-League compelling entertainment. I don’t know that low budget, family entertainment in small arenas in or near the parent club’s market is working.

Maybe a traveling circuit would be more successful. Have say 8 teams of the very best 18-24 year olds not on NBA rosters. I don’t know. I’m no expert on minor league sports marketing.

(04-17-2020 04:44 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The NBA needs to come up with a format that makes the G-League compelling entertainment. I don’t know that low budget, family entertainment in small arenas in or near the parent club’s market is working.

Maybe a traveling circuit would be more successful. Have say 8 teams of the very best 18-24 year olds not on NBA rosters. I don’t know. I’m no expert on minor league sports marketing.

Perhaps, on the current trajectory, the G-League will move towards bigger arenas for minor league teams, possibly stashing teams in potential expansion markets to test them out. Mexico City is already getting a team, as is Birmingham. Omaha was interested in a team.

Big cities that currently do not have NBA franchises like Seattle, Louisville, San Diego, Las Vegas, St. Louis, Tampa Bay, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Vancouver and Montreal could all be long-term NBA/G-League expansion cities.

(04-17-2020 02:13 PM)SouthernBoiNOLA Wrote:  on another note....no one can market the WNBA, cause there really ain't enough people out there that wanna see it.

College women's basketball, at least at the highest level, does well. I don't expect WNBA teams to replicate UConn or Tennessee attendance, but I think there's more of a market for high-grade professional women's basketball.

The WNBA's biggest problem is playing during the summer, after a long NBA season has tapped people's interest in basketball. Plus, indoor sports in the summer is a hard sell. Indoor/arena football had its little spurt of popularity but now it's a patchwork cotillion of minor leagues.

Ideally they'd play alongside the NBA and colleges, but that's a nonstarter unless and until the league can pay well enough to make it worth players turning down European league contracts. So the WNBA struggles along, successful enough to survive but neither reaching the popularity of the top college programs nor the financial viability of the Euros.

I hope so.

The game needs a return to the fundamentals. The lack of coaching in college by guys like Calipari has made the NBA almost unwatchable. How to shoot free throws and play defense with your feet instead of your hands need to be taught. I realize not everyone one can be Bob Knight, Dean Smith or Tony Bennett but come on. Simply rolling the ball out and trying to out athlete the other guy isn’t working.

Personally I would like to see freshman ruled ineligible again, across the board, in all intercollegiate athletics. That’s for a different conversation though.

(04-18-2020 05:40 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  I hope so.

The game needs a return to the fundamentals. The lack of coaching in college by guys like Calipari has made the NBA almost unwatchable. How to shoot free throws and play defense with your feet instead of your hands need to be taught. I realize not everyone one can be Bob Knight, Dean Smith or Tony Bennett but come on. Simply rolling the ball out and trying to out athlete the other guy isn’t working.

Personally I would like to see freshman ruled ineligible again, across the board, in all intercollegiate athletics. That’s for a different conversation though.

Agree on the lack of fundamentals. One of the most glaring examples is when a player launches a three and just stands in place looking to see if the ball goes through the net. After you shoot, you do one of two things: follow your shot for the rebound or get your tail back down court to play D. Even the long-ball shooters for Belmont (a team I strongly root for here in Nashville) sometimes fail to do either. But the Bruin players DO move well without the ball (another fundamental that is lacking with many players).

Another thing that baffles me is how teams that are, for example, leading (even by only one point) with less than a minute to play will jack up a three. Instead, they should go down low for a high-percentage shot and to possibly draw a foul.

I'm old enough to remember many of the legendary old-school coaches from the 60s, 70s and 80s (most of them were hard-assed): Bob Knight, Al McGuire, Dean Smith, John Thompson, John Wooden, Denny Crum, Ray Meyer, etc. They seemingly were better teachers of the game than the elite coaches today. But maybe I'm just being a crusty old cuss who is biased toward a different era of college hoops than today's brand of ball.

I wish basketball would adopt the same model as baseball. Kids can get drafted out of high school, but if you commit to a college then you’re locked in until your junior year or a certain age, whichever comes first.

(04-17-2020 04:55 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Big cities that currently do not have NBA franchises like Seattle, Louisville, San Diego, Las Vegas, St. Louis, Tampa Bay, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Vancouver and Montreal could all be long-term NBA/G-League expansion cities.

Cities like Columbus with 1m+ population that don't have NBA, NFL or MLB teams seem like reasonable targets ... though offhand I don't know how many that would be.