Part 2 of the Overseas Experience
by Stop-n-Pop on Nov 10, 2009 2:00 PM CST
13 comments
Right before the Bucks game we had a post with a passing reference to Brandon Jennings and his decision to head to Europe and make money for himself rather than CBS and the NCAA. Jennings had some ups and downs but on the whole the EL experience seems to have been a good one for him and his NBA prospects. It's looking a bit different for Jeremy Tyler:
His coach calls him lazy and out of shape. The team captain says he is soft. His teammates say he needs to learn to shut up and show up on time. He has no friends on the team. In extensive interviews with Tyler, his teammates, coaches, his father and advisers, the consensus is that he is so naïve and immature that he has no idea how naïve and immature he is. So enamored with his vast potential, Tyler has not developed the work ethic necessary to tap it.
"The question is whether he’ll take responsibility of his career," Haifa Coach Avi Ashkenazi said. "If he thinks he’s going to be in the N.B.A. because his name is Jeremy Tyler and he was a very good high school player, he will not be."
There's a lot more in the NY Times article. There are a few ways this could work out for Mr. Tyler. He could have an epiphany (in the Holy Land no less) and realize his potential through hard work in a man's league or he could admit defeat and go back to beating up on overmanned high schoolers (he's skipping his senior year in HS) and college freshman.
The take away point, for me, is that the options for elite high school talents who want to get paid for their basketball skills right out of HS are still remarkably limited. The NBA is one of the rare professional leagues where a few high school grads can step right in and play. Its players deserve a good development league or feeder system that pays.
Should the D-League be able to draft high schoolers? Should more kids give overseas professional leagues a shot? What say you?
0 recs |
13 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I like it, but it would need to be well thought out
and probably NBA based, not team based. The minor leagues work for baseball because there are so many prospects and the large major league rosters give many people a remote chance, many of whom are willing to spend a couple years making $5k-10k in Rookie leagues and low-A ball.
I think with basketball the number of legitimate NBA prospects coming out of high school is much lower, so the NBA should have a system (perhaps the D-League) where about 100 guys can try out each year for a spot on 6-8 teams. Those who are cut either go to college or play overseas. I would limit each roster to 8 players since playing time will be important to these guys. This may seem like a small number of players, but the NBA only adds about 40-50 rookies each year, so it should be enough (plus there is still college and overseas talent).
Each person could qualify to play for two years, after which they have to move on to another league. After the first year they could declare for the draft, or if more development is necessary they could wait until after year two. With the limited number of players in the league (40-70) they should be able to get a decent paycheck. It would also be good for the NBA because they can see these guys play against top competition of similar age for forty or so games before drafting them. Also, the NBA would assign coaches and be able to chose coaches who are good with young people, both in terms of personality and also NBA fundamentals. Teams would also get insight on what these guys are like behind the scenes to assist in drafting and paying the right guys.
by Rumblebee on Nov 10, 2009 2:20 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Eighteen-year-olds should not have to live overseas to play professional basketball.
What would be wrong with giving them one year in the D-League that does not count against their college eligibility should they remain agent- and endorsement-free? It at least gives them an option if they want (or need to) make some basic money for themselves and their families. As a student at a prominent ACC school, I think one-and-done athletes are a mockery of the academic institution, and that the institutions themselves are the ones looking most stupid.
by TheH on Nov 10, 2009 2:22 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I doubt the NCAA will ever let them play college
once they have been paid as a pro, even at a low level. Plus, guys who are legit college material (academically) will be inclined to accept the scholarship for a least a year before turning pro. I think guys who go the alternate route have no interest in attending college anyway.
by Rumblebee on Nov 10, 2009 3:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess I'm trying to split the difference
Allow talented young men to make a marginal sum for themselves (and not just for their university), focus full-time on their efforts at reaching their dreams, give NBA teams a little more sample to work with at a level a cut above most college ball, and hold open the possibility that after this year of closely monitored financial stability the young men could still attempt to finance a college education with their talents if they so desired. At least then we wouldn’t have to put up with the sham “college experience” that these guys are going through just to pass a year in between high school and college. There absolutely should be a non-academic North American option if they are going to be legally prevented from joining the NBA.
by TheH on Nov 10, 2009 4:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That's a shame
I know the atheltes get thier education paid for, but seriously, if the Olympics are letting preofessionals play, why not let them play at the college level? The idea had been proposed elsewhere about letting a team draft a kid, send him to college and pay his way while he works on his game. That way, the teens aren’t coming in and ruining the game and thier chances (right away, anyway), the colleges get to keep the good talent for two or even three years and are not out any money and the NCAA gets to money and gets a more interesting tourney.
Sorry for the long paragraph.
Timberwolves - NBA champs 2013!
(used with permission - Wolf in MO)
by frankenhoops on Nov 11, 2009 11:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree that it is a shame
But University leaders do not think like the rest of us (they think that makes them better). They are insulated from the realities of real life and once tenured are led to believe they are beyond reproach, and that we as taxpayers owe them this life.
Frankly it becomes all about appearance, can’t have a “professional” playing sports on campus, even though money rules the athletic programs (whether through TV contracts, suites, or boosters behind the scenes). It’s like the University of MN, their leaders think by saying alcohol is banned from the masses at sporting events that they are protecting students, who walk pass tailgaters drinking, and the alumni center right across the street where alcohol is openly served. It’s all about appearance and the denial of reality.
by Rumblebee on Nov 11, 2009 4:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
A lot to be said
For the overseas approach compared to the one and done.
They are being paid but most importantly not cosetted. So if it isn’t an ideal playing preparation for an NBA career it is certainly an attitudinal adjustment for a group of guys who are rarely challenged in their junior days.
Judd: "...I've since watched some Steven Seagal movies and I realise that pressure points are no laughing matter.".
by Auswolf on Nov 10, 2009 2:50 PM CST via mobile reply actions 0 recs
Truehoop Covered This:
by themunzka on Nov 10, 2009 4:59 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
At first, it sounds like a breakthrough
Until you realize how minimal his NBA potential is. He’s not even considered a top-50 player in his class. In his case, it’s just an unfortunate last resort where a guy couldn’t make it to college academically or anywhere else abroad where he’d make a decent paycheck. Best case, he blows up or develops to the point where he gets picked up by an NBA team. And that would take some luck. Could be a viable option down the road, but right now it’s even less likely than the Jeremy Tyler/Brandon Jennings route.
by nja700 on Nov 10, 2009 5:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
College Hoops is a tough job for minimal pay
The scholarship is worth 10-40K a year, depending on the university, but being a full time student with passing grades and a half-time (at least) athlete is asking alot of people for a “student-athlete” ideal that expired several decades ago.
I love me some college basketball, so I’d like to retain NCAA Hoops, but I think a living wage to cover expenses beyond tuition would be a reasonable alternative and potentially cut down on some of the under the table money to recruits.
Say $20K a year on top of the scholarship and it would at least be reasonable on the athlete, though still pretty low pay compared to the economic benefit many of them give to the institution.
If I were a top basketball recruit coming out of HS I would probably go play in Europe for a year – have a great experience in another country, get paid 100K or more for one year, which is a nice hedge against an uncertain future, and get more development and time to practice my skills than I can get in college due to NCAA restrictions on practices. I really see very little downside and I think it’s the rational decision given the current system.
The current system is indefensible. There is no way basketball is any different than tennis or golf or figure skating or baseball as a sports business. We simply grant it special status and laws because of the overall fondness we collectively have for the tradition of college basketball. I’m actually unclear on why this wasn’t fought and overturned in the courts.
by Django Z on Nov 10, 2009 5:54 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Good idea, but a slippery slope
If you give Basketball paleyrs $20K a year, you’d have to do the same for other high revenue sports. Football, and definitely Hockey players at the U of M would want $20K, where do you draw the line?
Say you have approximately 100 players on scholarship between Football, Basketball and Hockey at the U and give them each $20K a year, that an extra $2 Million a year the Atheltic Department would need to find. Logically I would assume that the money could come from the exhorbitant coaching salaries these sports pay, but realistically that wouldn’t happen.
Essentially it would force to make extremely difficult decisions:
(1) Which sports players get the $20K and which don’t
(2) What sports would be cut as currently these revenue sports support most of the other minor sports
(3) Just like coaching salaries continue to increase in the College Football and Basketball “arms races”, would high revenue schools be able to offer their athletes more money?
(4) If you think enforcing the rules where payment of money is never allow is difficult, how would you review the bank accounts and transactions of players when $20K is allowed but $30K is not. Enforcing these rules would be extremely difficult.
It’s not that I don’t think your idea isn’t a good one, I just don’t know how to answer these questions.
by Ebomb on Nov 11, 2009 1:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
Those are excellent questions.
i think it forces the unpleasant task of facing them.
Right now we pretend as if all student-athletes are the same, when some contribute to sports that make considerable profit for their universities and some play sports that operate at huge losses and most play sports that operate at a loss, but not a massive one.
I also think the time requirements and stress on these student-athletes varies greatly.
So just for the heck of it, I’ll take a shot at answering these questions (poorly no doubt, but it’s a first attempt :) ):
1) Sports in which revenues exceed $1 million (as a starting point, could be adjusted by the NCAA each year, ala a salary cap in pro sports)
Or perhaps payment is graduated based on the sport – high revenue sports athletes simply get closer to 20K than low revenue sports.
2) There is another side to that question – which high revenue sports operating at a loss would be cut now that they have a greater expense? ;)
Thinking about these questions has gotten me thinking about the deeper question: why the heck do we have college sports and give academic scholarships to athletes? Now that I think about it, it’s all awfully weird. I can’t think of any justifications other than “college sports are fun to watch” and many of us derive pride from it. But how does that explain swimming and golf and those sorts of college sports??
The simple answer to your question is that each school would decide just as they have over the last two decades with Title IX and such. And frankly I don’t shed many tears over this. I don’t think obscure college sports are some hallowed institution to be preserved and the real issue isn’t that other sports cost more it’s that these sports are relics from a by-gone time and their university is on a tight budget period.
3) That would have to be tightly controlled – one salary per sport for all schools. Without a “hard cap” the whole thing doesn’t work and we’re looking at major league baseball. And that isn’t any fun at all.
4) Hmm, I don’t think this is as serious a concern. The payments would be very regulated and controlled. It’d be just as easy to slip in an extra “grant” payment today as an extra payment for this proposed system.
Ahhhh, all this thinking and noone will probably ever read this post.
Well, thanks for the thoughtful inquiries ebomb. :)
by Django Z on Nov 13, 2009 3:18 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Canis Hoopus
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
