Tussin33 wrote:These kids do the same thing now.
For every Kwame Brown u have an Anthony Bennett. For every Eddie Curry there's a Sheldon Williams. The current system stops absolutely nothing but forcing kids to be in a classroom they have no interest in. Those are seats being taken up by someone who can actually utilize that knowledge for a career.
There are so many great players that came out of high school how is this even a discussion?
Lou Williams & Monta Ellis were late 2nd rounders... those are 2 absolute gems.
Andrew Bynum .... (Greg Oden)
Rashard Lewis (2nd round)
That's with only 10 years of eligibility. Multiple Hall of Famers that never needed college ball. Some players do need it yes, and those guys will stay in College until their stock rises to a level they're comfortable with... Think Buddy Hield & Justin Jackson (UNC)
So once again, why is this a discussion?
IMO, it isn't a discussion over whether it is better for the kids. It absolutely is. Get your money right away.
The question is whether it is better for the league. I don't think it is. The NBA, IMO, doesn't lose out on any value by having those guys play one year in college. Their names become bigger, they become stars, they get big fans who want to follow them. They enter the league pre-marketed.
The teams doing the drafting have way more data points to make a decision as they see everyone against much better competition and one more year of additional development and avoid lots of busts. Just go look at the RSCI rankings of any HS class and think if you drafted in that order how much more random the draft would be compared to where is now.
From a quality of play perspective, the guys who haven't grown into their bodies just yet have another year to mature as well and will be far more likely to be in a real strength program at a university for a year prior to entering the NBA as well.
If you mark up what the NBA loses and gains I'd say this:
Guys come in with way more marketing hype than they would otherwise
More consistent analysis of players giving worse teams better odds of improving and more consistent draft results
Guys come in at a higher skill level with more development
Guys come in with more mature bodies after being in a far more professional strength program for a year
League loses one year of a star player playing in the NBA (I'd argue this is only valuable in the most rare of cases though, given your list, only LeBron really was moving the needle in terms of generating profits his rookie season).
This isn't about whether its better for the players or not. Absolutely it is better for the players to come in out of HS, get that guaranteed money, get your 2nd contract faster, etc... It's not the league's responsibility to make it better for the players though. As players, they can go play in any league they want at any time. They can go to Europe and play, straight to the G-League and play, etc.
Players vastly over-estimate their value here. They can only generate large revenue numbers because of the league. The actual value of playing basketball well is near zero without a league to support it. It isn't intrinsically valuable, it is the machine which makes it valuable. They are free to market their basketball skills anyway they want and aren't owed a space in the value machine that can make them wealthy. That's up to the value machine to decide what its best interest is to remain a value machine.