I haven't moved the goalposts a single time. You are wrong. I asked about their ongoing education and then I asked about the details of the scholarship offer. Just so you know, "full scholarship" usually, but not always, refers only to tuition. So, my second question is still pertinent though not overly important, what all does this full scholarship pay for? Pretty simple. I think the answer is no one knows.
Bobby Reagan Tweet
- Thread starter RickyAllen19_rivals
- Start date
I did. First he said it was about exposure, then he said it isn't about exposure, then he said its a better path to the NBA. OK, so what makes it a better path and since he first said its about exposure, I questioned that position. Close enough?
The G League is already offering full scholarships to the kids taking the new pathway.
If the NCAA is worried about the kids (they aren't), let them pass a rule allowing kids to come back.
The NBA can't pass a rule forcing a kid to honor their college choice, nor do they have any reason to set a deadline date to help the colleges.
If the NCAA wants to pass a rule establishing a deadline, similar to the draft entry and withdrawal rule, they can. But nothing will stop kids from leaving after that time because if they choose to leave, then by nature, the rule won't apply to them anymore.
G league is better than college for developing. No restrictions on practice time, going against better competition everyday and get paid.
"Don’t have to go to classes and spend more time developing."
I agree and the only college where you can this type of attention is North Carolina.
If by saying "it was not then", you are denying that the sport was in better shape back then ...well, you are simply wrong. And, like really really wrong. By all metrics used to measure the health of a sport (TV ratings, average attendance, national interest, etc.), college basketball was clearly doing better before the one and done rule than it is now. This is not disputable to rational people.
That's why this G-League thing doesn't bother me. If college basketball was still able to thrive without a token season from guys like Lebron, McGrady, Garnett, Kobe, Dwight Howard, etc., then I'm pretty sure it can also survive without the likes of Jalen Green and Daishen Nix. Hell, I think it might even be better without players who clearly don't want to be there.
Last edited:
Agreed and to further the point, with rare exceptions like AD, I think these OAD's actually hurt the sport. Those kids have tons of potential but they aren't yet who they will be and the college game will never see it. What we get to see is the occasional fantastic play and the obvious raw talent. College ball will be better when the kids playing it are able to mature into their games. Many of them will still go on to pro careers.
It's probably past time for all of us to come to grips with the fact that college basketball is on its last legs.
I know that's hard to imagine, but the reality is that both the quality of play and interest in the sport was already fading. Even a fanbase as dedicated and passionate as UK's isn't as invested as it once was, so you can imagine what it's like at places that didn't care as much to begin with.
And to be frank, last year was the worst quality of basketball I've seen in the 36 years I've been following the sport closely. Removing the best players from the equation might make it seem like guys care more, but it's isn't going to improve the quality of play.
I know that's hard to imagine, but the reality is that both the quality of play and interest in the sport was already fading. Even a fanbase as dedicated and passionate as UK's isn't as invested as it once was, so you can imagine what it's like at places that didn't care as much to begin with.
And to be frank, last year was the worst quality of basketball I've seen in the 36 years I've been following the sport closely. Removing the best players from the equation might make it seem like guys care more, but it's isn't going to improve the quality of play.
i dont think anyone is suggesting it wont exist. it is just likely going to suck and the only people who will be interested is die hard fans. and its not a sport that will bring in new/young people.
I meant exposure to the pro business, scouts, coaches. Not public exposure. The way I posted it was confusing.
I wrote that confusingly. I meant public exposure isn't important. Exposure of the NBA business to the player is.
You are missing my point. yes the G-League is looking out for #1, BUT they have to have some form of guidelines in place. They do not want any and every high school kid who thinks he is the next Kobe or Lebron jumping to the G-league. They ONLY want a select few. the guys they can market and make money off of. You think they really want guys like Kahlil Whitney bypassing 1 year of college ? They would like to have their cake and eat it to meaning that for the guys who are not the upper talent, they can get a year to evaluate them on the NCAA's dime. they only way that can work, is to work WITH the NCAA. If I was the NCAA (if possible) if the NBA did not try and at least be somewhat or a "partner" in this, I would ban any NBA scouts, coaches, GM's from NCAA sanctioned events and college campuses. The two have worked together in the past, and will continue to do so. To be honest with you, I would venture to say the NCAA is glad to rid them self of the One and Done. yes they lose the elite of the elite kids. But they also loose all of the drama that comes with them. From paying the kids, kids getting paid, coaches and handlers, and all the other underbelly stuff. Now they can go back to being "Student Athlete" ******** they pretend to be. And they will still print money. College basketball was very popular and profitable before One and Done, and it will be after.
i dont know why its impossible to realize that one and done will always be a thing. if there is a player like SGA, Herro, Bledsoe etc that has a great 1st year or 2nd year (Quickley/PJ), they can leave college and go pro.
Well, let me address your point by posing some rhetorical questions.
How many top 10 caliber recruits were on last year's national champion Virginia team? ZERO. How many were on ANY of the four teams in last year's final four. ZERO. How many were on the Villanova team that rolled to the title the year before. ZERO. The players who have been winning titles are not the ones who'd have been affected by this.
So I have a hard time buying the notion that the sport will turn to **** with fewer one and dones. First, it was NOT **** before the one and done rule, instead it was better. Second, the teams that have dominated the sport in the one and done era have largely been the ones that do NOT have one and dones. Hell, there have only been two teams (2012 UK and 2015 Duke) in the 14 years of the one and done era to win a title with one and dones.
You know what that says to me? The sport's still gonna be damn good, and the best teams will largely be just as good with fewer of those guys around.
Last edited:
When the OAD kids are gone do you think the best 4 star players won't be demanding payment? Louisville paid Bowen 100k and he was ranked outside top 15 players in HS.
Kids were getting paid before the OAD, they will continue to be paid (within or outside of the rules).
winning titles is completely irrelevant. its about what is best for the sport. the sport will always have a title winner. its how its designed. doesnt mean the product is good or people are watching.
NCAAT title game ratings:
2019: 11.6
2018: 9.2 (it was on Turner)
2017: 13.2
2016: 10.6 (it was on Turner)
2015: 16
2014: 12.4
2013: 14
2012: 12.3
2011: 11.7
2010: 14.2
the game you referenced drew the worst viewership (not counting turner games) in the past decade. why? because it was two teams no one cares about (uva/texas tech), terrible style of play, and no one to watch.
Sorry, it was not that many then...the numbers of guys going straight into the league.
Some how “many” got left out.
More than likely, my fat thumb...
Do you fans who didn't want perks and prizes being given to players have any reservations about that now?
Just wait until they start nabbing UK commits.
The entire "ethical" recruiting philosophy of some our fans is about to prove itself most malleable.
Just wait until they start nabbing UK commits.
The entire "ethical" recruiting philosophy of some our fans is about to prove itself most malleable.
I'd rather lose that game by 50 than gave this G League reality at our doorstep.
This thing has the potential to annihilate college basketball's elite programs and their recruiting endeavors.
We need to allow college players to earn money from their brand; let Nike have its own "select team" of guys who go to Duke and Kentucky (they could play their own version off the Jordan Brand game) and allow Nike to sign them up early to endorsement deals. Nike, Kentucky, and Duke could monopolize the best players early on.
Amateurism is a myth and always has been.
Even if a few players from each class choose the G League, UK will still be getting the best prospects that choose college. It will be no different from how we recruit now.
Agree with the amateur thing, though. It's a sham and always has been.
The kid will make about $350,000 after taxes in one season. He's a Kendall Marshall-level player who isn't a guaranteed top 10 pick like Green or Clarke. Why not take his chances now, get publicity, and start off his earnings when the chance is there?
He'll bring in about 10x what the average American makes and he'll get publicity/marketing opportunities simply for being seen as a "pioneer" of this thing. .
If I'm his father, I see it as a no brainer.
Bottom line: as long as the G-League is offering this type of money, no commitment UK has or will have is safe. Keep that in mind. The only way to beat this thing is to let college basketball eradicate the amateurism guidelines.
Wouldn't you rather have to face guys like Nix in a somewhat meaningless December game than constantly have to worry about the G-League targeting the Clarkes or Bostons of the world?
Seem like winning a battle but losing the war on the whole. This thing is going to diametrically change UK's paradigm, and sadly college basketball is still about a decade behind the times.
Eliminating the amateurism gulf is the first step.
Has anyone from the NBA actually gone on record that they're unhappy with developmental issues on the college level?
The latest articles that I read basically said that most NBA personnel are still content with the free farm system that is featured within the overseas or college route.
I think this is more about your first point: trying to make the G-League legitimate in the eyes of the general public.
The NCAA should allow a "match" to your point I quoted.
College basketball does better when it has Zion catching lobs from the baseline or Derrick Rose trying to will his team to a title in the closing seconds of the championship game.
Those fans who think it's a good thing to omit that type of player from the tournament are a bit shortsighted. We're not going back to the 1990s (or even that fabled early 2000s when OAD didn't exist) where Tony Delk and McCarty will be helping UK care out 30 wins/season or whre a guy like Tayshaun Prince or Bogans sticks around four years. Elite freshmen have become one of the only reasons the nominal college basketball fan ultimately watches the sport.
I don't think so, it's just a shift. Instead of recruiting starting with the #! guy it will start with the #20 guy or whatever. The top programs will still get the top players available.
If the day comes when we are paying players most viewers will stop watching. I certainly will.
I'd imagine there would be the occasional sulky player in that last scenario you painted, but we've already seen the "Fake amateurism" element with guys like Bazz Muhammed, Ben Simmons, Michael Porter Jr., etc. Their teammates know the player is getting money but still remain their teammates and in many cases, like to be around the hype. Remember what Lonzo Ball said? He noted that it's common knowledge as to who is getting money.
The bottom line: do guys like Dorsey and Antonio Anderson get pissed at the next Derrick Rose when they're only making $50,000 to play in college and he's getting $500,000? I think they'd all like the chance to earn some form of compensation in a free market over the option of being condescended to by university elitists who are shoveling out the nonsense about "free education" as some form of fairness.
That's not operating from a position of strength. College basketball has no leverage. That's the point I'm making.
Calipari was worried enough to call Clarke and Rod Strickland in the same 12 hour window. UK came within a whimsical family decision of losing it's most prized recruit since Karl Towns.
From a strategic standpoint, that seems very much like moving uphill and without a supply line or adequate knowledge of the terrain.
So we dodged a bullet with Clarke and the G League this time. How many times do you want to play Russian Roulette with the G League before it comes back to bite UK in the butt?
Fairness? Almost a decade ago USA Today wrote a very good article on the value of this "condescension", it was 140K then, per year at a top program. That would be closer to 160K today which is over 600K over 4 years plus the value of the stage they are on. Pretending that is somehow exploiting players is absurd.
You wouldn't watch the 38-0 2015 team against Wisconsin if you knew Towns, Booker, and the twins were pulling in compensation for their efforts?
I doubt many of the current puritanical fans would stay with your philosophical tribe in such a scenario.
Nope - when you literally have hired guns you lose all the aspects of pride. The name on the front of the jersey no longer matters, the paycheck does. I'm not interested in that and I think you would be shocked at the number who agree with me. It would absolutely decimate college basketball.
A college scholarship is worth what is worth based on what its value is in a current market. The current market sees the average college grad making about half of what the trades are paying within the first year of graduation for both fields. There are many who already have been signaling the warning signs about the demise of the current college educational paradigm. Going to college just isn't worth what it used to be if you're choosing between the trades or a liberal arts education.
Ultimately, I'm making a case for the elite players to get more of the free market pie. If the NCAA opened up that door, there isn't an ethical argument in the world that anyone would take seriously. That's also my point. The line between the "Good"/ "Bad" value judgment here is largely arbitrary and based on an antiquated tradition of naively adhering to a line that never existed in actuality.
So you're a purest in this sense?
It's common knowledge that Derek Anderson and Ron Mercer were given brand new cars while they attended UK.
If this could be objectively proven through a real investigation, would you favor the NCAA retroactively punishing UK for giving them improper benefits?
I'm just curious to see what type of hard line you actually draw on these issues.
Maybe, but setting up this entirely new pathway, a separate team, individual trainers, college scholarships, etc seems to suggest that they realize the current model doesn't work for the elite high school kids.
The NBA realizes who is in the G League and what is on the line for a lot of those guys. If they were trying to legitimize the G League, they'd be adding this influx of star young talent to it, not keeping it separate.
This is about getting your hands on young talent as early as you can. Train them like you would their rookie year, except the clock hasn't started ticking on free agency and a max deal yet.
Instead, the NBA pushes the value of the best deal in their salary structure another year down the line, which helps the teams who can't compete in free agency.
This assumes so much though.
1. It assumes UK will be able to identify the players that are interested in the G-League early on and that a clear and divided line will develop in the recruiting process.
2. It assumes that the G-League recruitment of players isn't malleable and won't target players who develop over their senior seasons to a degree that warrants interest from the league at a later time.
3. It assumes that committed players won't have a change of heart because of any number of factors.
Like I said before, it's easy for our fan base to "walk tall" on this issue after the assurances presented by Calipari and Clarke last week, but we all know the reality of that situation is that Kentucky came dangerously close to losing a guy who is capable of leading our team next year.
I reiterate this point again: the situation was dangerous enough for Cal to field calls to both the Clarke family and Rod Strickland. Cal leads our program, knows all the ins and outs that are available, and even he could hear the first cracks of the ice breaking.
The reality is that the G-League doesn't care about Kentucky's interests. We have no leverage and given enough time, this thing will ultimately hurt our program unless there are some serious alterations from an NCAA level.
well i guess we will NEVER see you around here then right? since NIL is going to pass and all these kids will be making thousands and thousands of dollars while playing football, basketball, tennis, hockey, etc. so you are done right.....
I really don’t care what happens with the G-League. I am not worried about it’s effects on college basketball. It will survive in some form. As long as there are teams representing universities with fans (students, alumni, etc.) there will be college basketball.
I’m more worried about the pandemic stealing college basketball than the G-League.
I’m more worried about the pandemic stealing college basketball than the G-League.