I got into a discussion with a friend a few weeks back about the quality of basketball that's played in the league. He thought the pro game was superior, I disagreed. I understand that the athletes in the NBA are amazing and don't doubt that for a second. But the lack of enforcement of traveling, the heavy focus on isolation and individual play, the fact that's is as much of a contact game as football at times all make it seem like a mere cousin of Naismith's original intent...not the same game. Plus, I like the fact that each game means something in college.
As J Money knows, I think baseball, basketball and hockey would all benefit greatly from contraction- not only the number of games, but the number of teams...but I might be the wrong guy to give advice as I don't think any of these three sports produce a product that worth consistently watching. That said, I'll still give it.
These problems aren't what I'm here to address. I want to look at the current rule that no player right out of high school can go straight to the pros (unless he wants to play in Lexington, of course).
In case you don't know it already, I'm an idealist, when it comes to Purdue athletes. I like to focus on the most-positive side of things- it makes it easier to really get behind the kids and the team. Granted, I'm not naive enough to believe there aren't problems behind closed doors for Matty and Co. But, this program has done a very good job at a couple of things- First, the players seem to be good kids are are likable...that's pretty simple, and I think it comes down to the type of player Painter likes to pursue. But secondly, the team is filled with true student athletes.
Look no further than the best top-to-bottom recruiting class Purdue has seen in the past 20 years. Hummel, Moore and Johnson all were great on the court and all have excelled in the classroom. When I talk to the players, I always let them know how much I respect that- I could barely keep a 3.0 GPA and I was just a student. I know these guys have a lot of tools at their disposal that I didn't, but it seems they're still working hard...that's heartening...and it's not the case everywhere.
Despite Painter's ability to win 25+ games with great consistency and stay in the top-25 for most of his time at Purdue, he still hasn't attracted a one...or two-and-done type of player. Some would argue that might be the reason Purdue hasn't been in the Final Four since I was five, but I don't know if that's the only reason. Painter's recruits buy in to what he's selling...and it's not glamorous...that's probably why the players in the program work out so well.
Programs like Kentucky, UNC, Kansas, Texas, Florida and others, find themselves with players who are just passing through nearly year-in and year-out. These kids get tremendous exposure, fast-paced systems to play in, and the precedent shows that if their game is geared for the NBA, they'll be in good position in a matter of months, not years, to be millionaires.

But the NBA's rules leave us with some players that think going to class for another day, let-alone another year, is just too much to bear. So the players scrape by for a semester as students in title only, and that's really all that's needed to get them through their sole collegiate season before heading to the draft. To me, that's a joke and makes the idea that academics in college basketball a farce. But, I don't fault the kids as much as I do the system and schools that allow it, and I'd prefer that the kids wouldn't have to go through the charade of pretending to be students for a few months. So what should be done?
I like the premise of making the kids play at a higher level before they get huge contracts- it's helped the NBA avoid a bust or two, there's no doubt about that. But, the current rule doesn't help the college game too much...and a successful NCAA career doesn't equate to one at the next level.
So my idea is this: Every player that plays in the NBA must turn 20 by December 1 of his rookie season...but, they are allowed to be drafted by a team out of high school in the US or abroad, if they declare themselves eligible. The catch is this: Until they're old enough, they play in the NBADL. They can still get large, guaranteed signing bonuses, like in MLB, but their salaries would be capped while playing in the feeder league at under $200K/year (a significant pay bump for most college athletes outside of Columbus)...once they enter the NBA, their salary would graduate significantly once the team with their rights activates them.
I think this system would help the struggling NBADL gain traction with the fans, it would help college basketball by all-but-eliminating players who aren't cut out for school while making programs, not just teams, stronger. Plus, it avoids the discussion that any rule denies a kid a chance to make a living and in turn, help his family situation.
The other, much more simple and logical option of course, is to re-instate the ability to draft kids right out of high school...but from what I hear the NBA really likes the built-in buffer before kids step on an NBA court...so that idea probably won't be going away soon.
Regardless of the draft eligibility rule, Purdue probably won't be affected directly.
10 comments:
Your solution is exactly what I've been saying for the past year (although I think I always had the NBADL salary cap at $250...).
I'm a huge NBA fan, too, and I think this would be as good for the quality of play in the NBA as it would the NCAA. Guys like Selby would take the money and not stink up the college game, but guys like Kevin Durant may have chosen college and we'd have gotten to see them for two years. This would elevate the NBA game because all players would be getting work on their game in the environment best suited for their personalities (I can't think that Selby fit in at Lawrence, nor that he worked on his game as much as party).
On a side note - it's okay to be a huge college bball fan and an NBA fan. They are different games not so much because of rules but because of talent differentials (although I'll give you the traveling thing, but I get over it when I get to see DRose fly into three bigs and convert a layup, or Durant sink a turnaround three in Kobe's face...). Check out B Simmons' 'book of basketball' and you may come around. It's all basketball, and it's all a wonderful game.
BDowd - that makes entirely too much sense for it to actually work in the NBA. Go back to your day job of of kicking puppies and robbing toddlers of their popsicles.
Well put, Paul- thank you.
Ben- I actually grew up around an ABA organization...and at one time, I like watching the NBA game for exactly what you talked about. But, when the NBA had the shortened season, I handled it like I did with baseball and pushed back from the table. Then, they put a ton of time/talent in developing Iverson and players like him as the face of the league and that bothered me- as a basketball fan...and as a judge of character. The Pacers riot was kind of the cherry atop the crap Sundae.
All that said, they have done a decent job trying to clean up their image...but loud sound effects DURING the game drive me nuts...the way officials completely steer series and games angers me...the fact that officials have been found guilty of cheating makes my conspiratorial mind believe I've always been right...and there are just too many guys that I don't like atop of all of it.
That said, guys like Rose and Brian Cardinal inspire awe. Did I not get your point? ;)
So the minimum age for the NBA DL is already 18, it's just not a option a lot of kids take. Probably because the NBA DL doesn't provide them with as much exposure as the college game does.
Oh yeah and I completely agree with everything you said about the NBA. The refs, the stupid sound effects (or even music!) being played during the game, the passive crowds, the one-on-one oriented offenses...the players in the NBA are obviously more talented than their college counterparts but to me the college game as a whole is way more compelling.
hank- I keep hearing the point that the current rule denies kids a way to make a living...which is true in some cases. But, I really believe almost every choice some of these kids make is driven by ego. So if they want to make money and not go to school- the Mad Ants might be their ticket out...but if they want their ego stroked, they might have to go pretend to be students at Kentucky for two full years.
The amount of money made in the NBADL is pretty low...the signing bonus is really the sticking point right now to me...and making the eligible for the draft would give them larger guaranteed contracts.
I think Bdowd hits on the key change that would make kids go to the NBADL - if it happened as they were drafted by an NBA team. So a highschool kid could get his ego stroked by being picked in the first round, as Bdowd said, and would have that guaranteed money coming after two years.
As for the NBA thing - I totally agree on all the things you mentioned as being impediments to enjoying the game. The season should be shortened, and as Simmons says, if you have to play music during play to get your fans 'pumped' then you don't deserve a franchise. They've solved the reffing problem, and the game is way less individualistic now - at least the good teams are.
My point is that when it is good, it's so good that as a basketball fanatic I can't help but watch. I love the NBA because it allows me to get my bball fix after the college season, and is often a welcomed antidote to the dissapointment and stress we're used to come March.
I've embraced the artificiality of the NBA business in order to enjoy the pure basketball aspects. So every year after March is over I pick a team or two that I want to root for in the playoffs - usually someone a little under the radar, or who has a few players I want to watch and respect - and follow them into the summer. This year it's the Bulls and the Thunder. Perkins, Hardin, and Noah could all get arrested for assaulting fans during the game and I'd still tune in to see Rose, Durant, Westbrook, and Boozer do work.
Plus my wife loves the Celtics and so it allows for the magic that is a birthday present for her being tickets to a Celtics / Wizards game. That's right. The 'best present ever,' as she claimed, was a trip to DC to watch basketball, drink heavily, and catch the second half of Purdue / MSU at a bar outside the arena.
Sounds like you're a lucky man...too bad she wastes her time on the Cs.
Boilerdowd is the only skirt I know who claims to be a sports fan but wishes the major sports leagues would play fewer games.
Though I guess this would allow more room in his DVR for programming like Friday Night Lights, Dancing With The Stars and American Idol.
J - Bdowd is right. It's not an absolute thing - as in a 1 game season is better than 100. It's about balance. Every NBA game would mean something if the season was shortened to even 70 games. Veterans wouldn't have to take nights off or coast through parts of the season preparing for the playoffs, every game could be televised on some semi-national cable channel, and we'd have more playoff teams with full and healthy rosters. It's really the same logic behind contraction. Better quality of play makes for a more profitable league.
The owner's greed explains why it doesn't happen, but I would argue they would make just as much if not more money if they shortened to a reasonable number like 65 or 70, simply because all the lost stadium revenue would be made up by the bigger TV contracts that a more vibrant league can get.
It's the secret to why the NFL is so popular. It's the dirtiest and most thuggish league in pro sports (the reasons given for why the NBA isn't more popular), but every game matters.
Post a Comment