An Interesting Idea

[RobToxin]

I figure most people here likely don't pay much attention to Jason Whitlock. But he actually said something very interesting. I'd be interested in hearing what some of you thought about this idea:

“If you force something on these guys, you got enough money where you can be the NIL people that keep the 15, 20 best college players in college, your number one draft picks, so that you can get this buzz back. If Caitlin Clark and Angel Reese and whoever these other girls are, if they can draw that type of buzz in the WNBA just because they stuck around for four years, just think what a group of high-profile male basketball players, the kind of buzz they could bring back to the NBA Draft, and just bring back to the NBA,” Whitlock continued.

An NBA sponsored NIL aimed at keeping star players in college to build up their hype for 3-4 seasons. (And perhaps improve their game and, as a result, improve the overall product in the NBA.)

Is it something the NBA needs?

Or is it just something the WNBA needed but it isn't necessary for the NBA itself.

I do think college basketball would absolutely benefit from having top stars that play more than one year.

 

[fightinfunbags]

Not a bad idea but a big area that needs to be flushed out is the idea that staying longer in college increases the wait time until the player is eligible for their second contract. The NIL dollars would have to be exorbitant, maybe like 50-60 million over 2 years to make up for lost time they’ll never get back with NBA contracts and future earnings staying in college longer.

 

[RobToxin]

Not a bad idea but a big area that needs to be flushed out is the idea that staying longer in college increases the wait time until the player is eligible for their second contract. The NIL dollars would have to be exorbitant, maybe like 50-60 million over 2 years to make up for lost time they’ll never get back with NBA contracts and future earnings staying in college longer.

So, the NBA would need for the NIL contract to count towards the player's actual NBA tenure for it to be truly worth it to the player.

That's an area to certainly take into consideration.

 

[fightinfunbags]

So, the NBA would need for the NIL contract to count towards the player's actual NBA tenure for it to be truly worth it to the player.

That's an area to certainly take into consideration.

Yes but that would still create an issue. So a team gets a rookie deal for a first round pick of 4 years. If they would have been a one and done that would mean a team drafts a player and then has a one year deal before they would have to renegotiate. That’s not fair to the team drafting him and could hurt the player’s value in the draft if the team knows it’s only getting one year to evaluate in the pros before a renegotiation for the rookie max.

 

[shopson67]

More so than in football, senior basketball players don't get drafted as highly as underclassmen. The bigger stars staying in college are risking at least that first contract being what it could be. Extra time in college could also reveal limitations on their upside, which NBA teams hold dear.

 

[RobToxin]

So, basically, the only way to make this financially work for the teams wouldn't work for the players.

And vice versa.

A much more beneficial concept for a financially struggling league like the WNBA.

 

[tlance]

So, the NBA would need for the NIL contract to count towards the player's actual NBA tenure for it to be truly worth it to the player.

That's an area to certainly take into consideration.

That is not in the best interest of NBA franchises though.

Don’t see them supporting it.

Giving up 2 years of team control on these young players is a huge concession.

 

[eaglesnut]

I figure most people here likely don't pay much attention to Jason Whitlock. But he actually said something very interesting. I'd be interested in hearing what some of you thought about this idea:

“If you force something on these guys, you got enough money where you can be the NIL people that keep the 15, 20 best college players in college, your number one draft picks, so that you can get this buzz back. If Caitlin Clark and Angel Reese and whoever these other girls are, if they can draw that type of buzz in the WNBA just because they stuck around for four years, just think what a group of high-profile male basketball players, the kind of buzz they could bring back to the NBA Draft, and just bring back to the NBA,” Whitlock continued.

An NBA sponsored NIL aimed at keeping star players in college to build up their hype for 3-4 seasons. (And perhaps improve their game and, as a result, improve the overall product in the NBA.)

Is it something the NBA needs?

Or is it just something the WNBA needed but it isn't necessary for the NBA itself.

I do think college basketball would absolutely benefit from having top stars that play more than one year.

This is a great idea.

I won't exactly call Whitlock a blind squirrel, but he found a nut.

This would improve both products.

The depth in the league is atrocious.

 

[eaglesnut]

So, basically, the only way to make this financially work for the teams wouldn't work for the players.

And vice versa.

A much more beneficial concept for a financially struggling league like the WNBA.

There are enough billions in both products to make this work. Just depends on the end goal.

If you want to improve the sport of basketball then you make the money work.

If you want to make money then you take it out of the overall value of basketball.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

i dont see it.... WNBA has an age limit... so everyone has to play 4 years....

NBA doesnt.... and its only the elite players that will get the buzz always... which is the problem with mens college/NBA...

it will always be more beneficial for an elite prospect to go to the NBA than to do another year in college...

and the buzz is never going to be bigger for the a second round talent than it is for a first round talent... so theres the bugaboo..

 

[trojanfan12]

Imo, the only way to get players to stay is for the NBA to adopt a rule similar to what the NFL has where players have to be 3 years removed from high school to be eligible.

I'd like to see them change the rule to something like, if you're ready, you can go to the NBA straight from high school, but if you take a scholarship, you can't come to the NBA until you're 2 years removed from high school.

That, or just make a blanket, have to be 2 years removed from high school to be eligible.

 

[redskinsfan1963]

I figure most people here lilp tem imokely don't pay much attention to Jason Whitlock. But he actually said something very interesting. I'd be interested in hearing what some of you thought about this idea:

“If you force something on these guys, you got enough money where you can be the NIL people that keep the 15, 20 best college players in college, your number one draft picks, so that you can get this buzz back. If Caitlin Clark and Angel Reese and whoever these other girls are, if they can draw that type of buzz in the WNBA just because they stuck around for four years, just think what a group of high-profile male basketball players, the kind of buzz they could bring back to the NBA Draft, and just bring back to the NBA,” Whitlock continued.

An NBA sponsored NIL aimed at keeping star players in college to build up their hype for 3-4 seasons. (And perhaps improve their game and, as a result, improve the overall product in the NBA.)

Is it something the NBA needs?

Or is it just something the WNBA needed but it isn't necessary for the NBA itself.

I do think college basketball would absolutely benefit from having top stars that play more than one year.

the kids would benefit more with an education to help them imo.

 

[trojanfan12]

the kids would benefit more with an education to help them imo.

Not even really about the education, at least not in terms of getting a degree. But more about having a couple of seasons to mature before heading to the NBA.

NIL could actually help them because they can spend a couple of seasons in college learning how to handle the large sums of money they're going to see in the NBA and also allows them a couple more seasons to develop physically and mentally.

If memory serves, later in his career, Kobe said that if he had it to do over again, he'd have gone to Duke for a year or 2.

 

[logic]

There is the whole issue of keeping them all academically eligible if they stay longer. Some take a cake walk load first term and don’t care second term because they know they are out plus it is the majority of the season.

 

[fightinfunbags]

the kids would benefit more with an education to help them imo.

No they wouldn’t. This hurts the players. If artificially takes away earning potential.

 

[shopson67]

The depth in the league is atrocious.

Get ready for expansion then...fun!

 

[shopson67]

the kids would benefit more with an education to help them imo.

Most of the star players you're trying to keep in college longer aren't taking worthwhile courses anyway. They're in the NCAA because they can't go directly to the NBA. Instituting this rule likely pushes college recruits into other options like playing overseas or the G-league.

 

[RobToxin]

Most of the star players you're trying to keep in college longer aren't taking worthwhile courses anyway. They're in the NCAA because they can't go directly to the NBA. Instituting this rule likely pushes college recruits into other options like playing overseas or the G-league.

Valid point!