doclinkin wrote:payitforward wrote:doclinkin wrote:... I think the drain will result in 3-4 years of short drafts....
Unless my brain is malfunctioning (wouldn't be the first time), I believe the effect can only last one year. After all, the young guys who lay out in year 1 will be in the draft in year 2 -- replacing the young guys who lay out that year.
Now, if guys lay out 2 years, then yeah the effect can last that long. But there will be relatively few of those.
Some will stay one year. Some will stay 4. JT Toppin could have jumped last year. He’s going back for his junior season. ...
But still, he's only added 1 year to his college career.
doclinkin wrote:When staying in a year means your draft slot actually slips, then players can earn more by sticking in school than they would by declaring for the draft.... The tendency of most players who return to school is their draft status slips a bit.
But no one stays in college hoping his draft slot will slip, & if data indicates this is a statistically significant effect, that will inevitably figure into the calculus, causing fewer guys to stay the extra year. As to previous data, surely kids were staying precisely because it would allow them to improve -- hopefully upping their draft spot & above all lengthening their NBA careers.
doclinkin wrote:Our guy Yaxel has a $3m offer from Michigan. That’s more than picks 25-30 earn on the rookie scale....
But, being picked at, say 26, gives you two years & a (team) option for a third. Plus it means that you negotiate your second contract a year earlier. OTOH, more money now is appealing.
Really, the big thing this does is increase the number of promises from NBA GMs -- you pointed this out yourself in the case of Thomas Sorber. If, for example, Will Dawkins tells Yaxel's agent, "we're very likely to pick your guy at 18," the information will inform his decision.
The order of R1 post lottery will be be fixed earlier & become more predictable.
doclinkin wrote:...We’ve barely begun to see the effects. As college kids stay longer and if a dominant team manages to cut its own TV deals etc there will be more NIL $ for college ‘stars’. Some team with a big dollar backer or its own savvy marketing will be able to flat out buy the best talent.
There is no rookie scale in the NCAA. Instead of buying an NBA team as a vanity toy Michigan state alum Mat Ishbia could have rented one for his alma mater. Or Ted cut a deal with Georgetown to siphon the best players here and make Hoyas the must see TV that draws an audience to his Monumental media network.
We are only beginning to see the potential arms race in college. A handful of players are getting paid. But some smart AD will figure the best way to hire college talent then squeeze the best deal out if the market to make a real contest with the NBA. They are already paying some players better than many Euro pro clubs. And the bottom 3rd of the rookie scale. Where does that stop?
If there is an arms race, the NBA will win.
But there won't be, because this is really only good for players! Not for any of the institutions, "amateur" or pro. By competing with each other, all the NCAA & NBA can do long-term is increase their own costs & make kids richer. They have no interest in that outcome!
