>Shit. I kind of forgot that was pretty much why that round of
>restrictions were adopted. The funny thing is that, if they
>were bold, the NBA could fashion a full minor league system
>like baseball's that could:
>
>a)shake loose the weirdly informal-yet-inviolable relationship
>they have with the NCAA
>
>b)hedge against the development problems that come freighted
>with teenage talent
>
>c)profit off ticket sales/merch while players develop
>
>d)ensure that players were maximally productive while on NBA
>rosters
>
>It's like they were too scared to just accept the risk of
>drafting 18 year olds *and* too scared for a big, blunt
>solution to that problem.

^^^ honestly, with Silver investing a lot more money into the D-League-- now called the G-League, thanks to a Gatorade sponsorship-- I'm wondering if this is the direction the NBA is considering going in. We're seeing more and more young second-round and undrafted talent end up in NBA uniforms because the league clearly values youth... so it makes sense that they want even *more* young players and/or marginally talented vets at their disposal by cranking up the worth of their minor league.

I also wonder if they're prepping themselves for a big turn of the tide. If the NBA thinks the NCAA's refusal to allow student-athletes to generate money will result in even more underclassmen declaring every year-- and the number has increased annually, setting a new record every year the last six or seven years, if memory serves-- then they need to brace themselves for when the NCAA pushes back so hard that 18 year olds just say "fuck it, this isn't worth it."

AND HERE'S MY FAVORITE LITTLE BIT OF TRIVIA THAT COULD MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE: right now, 18-year-olds ***are eligible to be drafted into the Developmental League.*** They just can't be called up to the pros until age 19. So if Silver is raising salaries and promoting this G-League more, maybe it's his way of attempting to lure some elite prospects to head to the G-League right away, start earning money, start developing relationships with people in the pros... while simultaneously meeting the chickenshit GMs halfway and not permitting those 18-year-olds to be called up for full rookie deals yet... while also simultaneously intensifying the spotlight on/improving the potential profitability of the G-League.

I've said for a few years now that, as student-athletes become more aware ("woke," one might say) of the exploitation of the NCAA, we'll see more and more look for alternate courses of action. We've seen a few kids play overseas in various places-- including Australia, so that the language gap isn't as intimidating for an 18-year-old. I think going straight to the "minors" is the logical next step for the kids who want to make some money and start their pro careers but who don't want to end up in Romania or what have you. The ones who will sacrifice the big payday for added comfort and the hopes of a soon-to-come payday.


>So, there's always going to be an ebb and a flow in the amount
>of talent in the NCAA. And those ups-and-downs obviously have
>something to do with the draft rules. But I've always kind of
>figured that a lot of the enterprise of big money NCAA sports
>is actually supported by sentimentality. That people care
>about Ol' Miss because of the laundry and not because of the
>aggregate talent in x, y, or z college sports. And that means
>that NCAA basketball maybe doesn't need to be protected as
>zealously as it is. Does that make sense? I'm perfectly open
>to be told I'm wrong here.

I think you're almost certainly right, if I understand your point correctly. I don't think there would be any significant fall-off regarding fan loyalty... or even, quite frankly, to the quality of the game. Duke fans will still tent months in advances for games regardless of the NBA talent level inside Cameron Indoor.

However, I do think-- especially in basketball more than football-- that ESPN/FOX/CBS/etc generate a lot of interest for the sport based on the premise of "look at these future NBA stars! they're doing special things!" This helps make casual fans sit and watch what they otherwise may dismiss as "inferior product." College football doesn't really have the reputation of being inferior product, because it's so offensively driven for the most part, fast-paced, tons of points on the board, etc. The rules benefit offense. College basketball, however, is still *really* defensively driven for the most part compared to the NBA. Lots of slow tempo, lots of grind-it-out defenses and zones, lots and lots of ugly games-- at the same time that the NBA is getting more offensively efficient and more uptempo than maybe ever before. The NCAA has tried to make the game more friendly to offenses with more freedom-of-movement rules in place, but this has mostly resulted in more foul calls and even slower and uglier games-- college defenders aren't fast enough to adjust against top offensive college players, and most offensive college players aren't skilled enough to know what to do with that freedom of movement other than drive into your opponent in hopes of getting free throws.

While this "the game is ugly" tide might be turning somewhat-- we saw a couple of next-level offenses last year-- the tide is turning WAY faster in the NBA, where offense's value rise well above defense's at an exponential rate. So I think colleges may be afraid that, without the Lonzo Balls, Luke Kennards, Lauri Markkanens, etc., the backlash against the game as being "ugly and slow" will continue to escalate, which would at least affect the total viewership, even if the collegiate fans will remain diehard. They won't lose their core, but they'd lose the casual basketball fans, and interest could eventually wane if college games end at 70-66 while NBA games are ending at 115-103. That's I'm sure what their fear is deep down, anyhow. I'm not sold it's as big a deal as others may think it is... but the game's reputation has definitely taken a hit the last couple of years.

(I also wonder if they're scared about TV revenue and its impact on their overhead as that entire landscape changes. I haven't thought through all of the effect that would have on the sport, though. It's just another monster looming on the horizon, and, like most corporations seeing volatility potentially coming down the pipeline, instead of taking a risk to try to adapt, they're holding firm and refusing to change anything until the spectre of bankruptcy forces them at gunpoint to do so.)

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide