Good article saying OADs should give the G League a look instead of college

theundefeated.com/features/elite-high-sc...nsider-the-g-league/

Good article, and I've thought the same thing for a while, that the NBA should promote it as a way for kids who have no interest in masquerading as students for a year to get exposure.

Some pros/cons from the article:

Pro:
-allows a kid to make money right away, and not just salary ($25k cap). A kid can also get endorsement deals and if an agent wants to take a risk on him, he can pay him outright as an advance on his future NBA deal. Totally legal.
-Helps get the dirty money out of college hoops.
-Gets kids in front of pro scouts and playing against current/former pros.

Con:
-A tough transition where nothing is handed to anyone, and competition is everywhere.
-NBA style schedule...can be grind
-No safety net. Get hurt or get cut, you don't get 4 years to earn a degree.

Anyway, I'd love to see this option out there. You just need a few blue chippers to take the leap. I don't think it would be hard to get it started. Options are straightforward:

Option A: Go to Kentucky. Don't get paid. Have to attend class and maintain minimum academic eligibility. Play in front of huge crowds and on TV twice a week.

Option B: Sign with the Westchester Knicks. Earn $100k ($25k league salary, $40k shoe deal, $35k between advance from agent, local appearances, etc.). Get to focus 100% on basketball, train with NBA trainers/coaches, and get full time exposure to NBA coaches/scouts/staff. Play in front of 400 people per game and on local access cable TV.

In either case, if the kid is looking at signing a multi-million dollar NBA deal in 12 months, I think they have a strong case. And if your agent wants to lease you a Porsche to drive around in, all the better. In fact, I'd love to see ALL of the dirty money funneled to the G League.

I'm not sure it's even THAT difficult to do the academic thing.....you need to do the school charade for the fall semester (there are tutors to get you thru AND you can probably make your attempt at academics with some pretty lite coursework (a la UNC)). If you are jumping in the summer draft.....why do you even have to go to class in the spring? Enroll and sleep in. Might look bad to some.....but so you flunk out in Spring? U r gone anyway.

Surely there isn't that big of a loophole? (Don't call me Shirley!)

I am strongly in the camp against paying college athletes. I am also fully supportive of a robust D-League. Here is my rationale on both accounts. I saw an argument from Jay Williams this weekend on the issue that echoes many others like Jay Bilas that players should be paid. The main argument is that players should "own their brand". I suppose the implied basis is that it is the players who create the value and they should be able to capitalize on the value they "uniquely" bring to the universities. I think this argument is invalid. Let me give an anecdotal reason and some basis reasons. The anecdotal reason is from my own experience. While at Kansas, I engaged in an undergraduate research project at the behest of one of my professors. I worked on it for three semesters ultimately publishing an article and also developed several work flows that were patented. KU retained all of the intellectual value and the patents. It never even crossed my mind that it should be otherwise. I felt immensely fortunate to have the opportunity to work under some well known academics on some important projects as an undergraduate. It benefitted me immensely in that it taught me a ton and certainly was a huge factor in getting me a job right out of college. I have always felt deeply indebted to that professor and to KU for that opportunity. The great force and power that was overriding in that opportunity was not my work ethic or my "brand" it was the ongoing behemoth that is a great research university with world class professors. My argument is that players are well known in today's world thanks to social media and the internet world but what enervates the interest in these players is not so much their "brand" but the specter that they might sign with the "brand" that really matter which is the history and heritage of the university that fans align with. Anyone remember Korleone Young? He was a high profile prep player from Wichita with lots of hype coming from high school. This is before the internet of things was in full bloom. He decided to forgo college and went into the draft. How is his brand now? Anyone ever heard of Devonte' Graham? Has the KU "brand" had any impact on his personal brand? My argument is that the brand that really matter is the university. If every one of the top 30 high school players went straight to a D-League, I argue there would be zero diminution of interest in college basketball. Perhaps the level of play would be ever so slightly diminished but it would not diminish the level of excitement and allegiance to college basketball. In fact, with the specter of one and done gone, I would argue the interest level in college hoops would increase. I do not watch KU basketball because of Josh Jackson (although I love my boy Josh) but I watch because it is KU basketball. That is the brand that really matters. And to argue that players are being "cheated" out of the benefits of their brand because they are unpaid is first of all not consistent with many other fields (as per my personal anecdotal story) nor does it carry the force of moral fairness. It is simply a preference. I have know very intimately some high level D-1 athletes. I can tell you that despite the protestations some may proffer, they live a very nice life. I worked 40 hours per week to put myself through school in engineering. I had no tutors, I had no meals prepared, I had no trainers to service my needs and desires. And because I must be some kind of weirdo, despite all that, I loved my time in college. I never viewed it as some sort of unfair life. As the first person in my family to attend college, I felt immensely fortunate to be living in a time (1970's) when opportunities existed for someone like me to make it to university. And it was a blast. So I have strong disagreement that the "brand" if these athletes is being undervalued. Let me give an example, let's say Trae Young decided to forgo college and enter the D-League. Does anyone (Bueller...Bueller...Beuller) think his "brand" would be anything remotely close to what it is right now. How many people would know about Trae Young aside from the pro scouts? I would offer the answer to this question is that Trae Young's "brand" is enhanced (almost totally) by his association with D-1 and the University of Oklahoma. Anyone recognize the name Emanuel Mudiay? Maybe a few of you but I suspect not all. He was some thought the top high school player in the country a couple years back. He was being recruited by SMU and others and decided to forgo college and play overseas for a year. He is now in the NBA and doing reasonably well. How is his "brand"? As for the G-league, I would argue that were a fair number of high school players to skip college and head straight to the D-League, that college basketball would not be diminished and possibly enhanced. And it may actually be better for all involved. Certainly the vast majority of high school basketball players benefit greatly from the opportunity to go to college and earn a degree which were it not for NCAA hoops they would not have that opportunity. Retirement at 28 or 30 0r 32 leaves a lot of life to be lived that a college education and degree can impact positively. The impact on college by the numerous one-and-dones is probably negative at least in terms of academics. So filtering out those handful of athletes who probably should not be in college and serve only to force universities to marginally corrupt their standards is probably a good thing. So I support a more robust D-League since it provides more options for players to align their individual interests. Let's face it, the NBA is by far and away the biggest benefactor of NCAA basketball. Why should they give that up? Why should the NBA cough up the kind of money to have a more robust D-League when they are getting all the benefits at no cost. Sure, the universities benefit as well but thanks to Title IV that benefit ultimately serves to benefit a large number of athletes that would not be possible otherwise. Yes, high level coaches and the elite of the elite programs make significant money off of college sports but that is just life and a small number in the big scheme of things. Finally, I am against paying college athletes because it will fundamentally change the sport in a way that I personally thing would be devastating. As I have proffered, I think the argument is weak on it's face but I argue that unintended consequences will be far more damaging than most people realize. Again, I have a personal example. Many of you are familiar with the RCC. I have now run the RCC for 21 years. I have spent 10's of thousands of dollars of my personal money on it. I have had some people very graciously and generously offer over the years to donate or suggest it be a small fee to play to cover the costs. But it is my firm belief that were I to charge 50 cents it would fundamentally change the way everyone views the game. Now people have "skin" in the game and would view it completely differently even for something as small as 50 cents. Ever see someone pissed off when a vending machine eats their quarter? Money changes things. The purity of college basketball is already gone to some degree. If you legitimize the financial gain aspect of college sports it will lose one of the ostensible beauties that draw many people to it. I personally would fear greatly that my interest in the sport would wane and possibly significantly. Sure, we are all different and some may not be affected. But I argue that paying players would fundamentally change the game and have unintended consequences far more debilitating and detrimental than people realize. Plus, as I said, I have known some high level D-1 athletes, The free tuition, tutors, trainers, managers, stipends, etc amounts to a pretty nice payday compared to my college experience.

Ok, so if we're going for word count, Corpus totally kicked Wheaty's tail in this one.

I agree with both of you though.

WSG summed up exactly what I believe to be the case. An OAD shows up and "stays eligible" my meeting minimum requirements for the 1st semester, so we're talking September - mid-December. Classes don't resume until mid-January and then it's less than 3 months until the season ends in early April. At that point the OAD skips down, goes and does his own personal workouts, hires an agent, and ha a month to get ready for the draft combine which happens around the time school lets out. Mid-term grades don't even come out until mid-March, so even if a guy is skipping classes and not studying, the grade police can be easily put off for pretty much the whole season.

Also agree with Corpus and have a couple things to add. First, these kids ARE compensated. They get full tuition, room and board. I know that might not seem like much to an OAD, but to a guy at a mid-level school who has no expectation of going to the NBA (in other words the VAST majority of the guys playing in D-1), but to MOST people, that's a significant amount of value. Then you throw in stipends, tutors and all kinds of other "benefits" and I don't feel sorry for any poor OAD who has to take a year and suffer like that.

That's why I think the G-League (formerly D-League) argument makes so much sense. All of those restrictive rules about grades and not getting paid go out the window. It's a win-win. If the G-League is competing for MDAA's, then maybe more people, who maybe don't have a strong college basketball affinity, will go to G-League games and become fans. And as you said, as a Kansas fan (or for 99.99% of diehard fans out there) it won't matter. College sports is about the name on the FRONT of the jersey since you can only keep a guy a max of 4 years anyway.

Another way to look at it: last year 14 OADs were picked up in the 1st round. Let's assume that the same amount were selected in the 2nd round and another 10 weren't drafted and essentially blew their college career on a pipe dream. That's 40 kids. Now let's say half of them went to the G-League out of high school instead. That would be a boost to the G-League, and can anyone really say that anybody would miss 20 top kids if they went to the pros? Our only top 20 kid was Billy Preston. Had he decided a year ago to skip college, I'm confident that Self would have gotten a pretty good roster together anyway, and I'm sure that 16,300 people would show up to watch the kids play every night.

To me, the solution to college basketball looks like this:
1.) either get rid of the NCAA or replace everyone there and being an absolute zero-tolerance policy. If you cheat, you're gone and the program suffers. If a kid wants to accept some free crap, get rid of 'em. In fact, I think that universities should be able to sue kids who damage the program. Imagine if Jackson's mom's alleged loans put us on probation...Ok, Josh, that's $10 million in damages due to lost revenue due to your family member's bad decision.

2.) Actively promote the G-League as an option to any kid who doesn't want to live up to this zero-tolerance lifestyle. Go ahead, be a pro, and let us know how it works out. Good luck and in the spirit of free enterprise go out and get as much money as you can get.

3.) Take all of the revenue that the NCAA rakes in through TV, the Tournament, merchandising, etc., pool it, and funnel it back into member institutions in the form of academic scholarships and grants for ALL students (not just athletes). I think everyone would be much happier having a kid get a $5000 merit scholarship funded by football and basketball.

Side note: I think that all high school and college coaches need to have some kind of licencing by an independent group (not the NCAA). In order to coach you'd need to meet certain guidelines and if you're caught in some kind of ethical scandal (ahem John Calipari, Rick Pitino, etc.) you can have your license to "practice" as a coach revoked. Just like the AMA or the Bar Association. Too many coaches embroil their universities in some kind of scandal, skip town, and then wind up coaching elsewhere while everyone else suffers the repercussions. With this, you could pull their license and maybe THEY could go get a gig in the G-League.

I kid you NOT! When I left work yesterday.....guess what David Bowie tune was playing on the radio!?

(twilight zone music).....

Turn and face the strange Wheatie!!

RC

Hopefully after the National Championship game you will driving home to David Bowie's "Dancing in the Streets."

I remember the video with Bowie and Jagger from the MTV days.

They recently re-mastered the whole thing. Worth a look if you like the song:

I LOVE this video and version of song! Got it on the iPod!!!

It was set up like a lob from Devonte to Dok. Had to go finish the play.