Thursday, June 18, 2009


It’s time to change NBA Draft rule


Kudos to Kansas University basketball coach Bill Self for coming down on the wise side on the issue of when basketball players should become eligible for the NBA Draft. Self, likely about to coach his first one-and-done player in Xavier Henry, could have kept his mouth shut on the issue, but as he’s known to do, he was asked a question and answered it.

He shared that he favors a system in which a player can opt to make himself eligible for the NBA Draft out of high school, but if he does not do so, must stay out of the draft for three years. In short, he favors the system that has worked so well for Major League Baseball.

As it stands now, high school basketball prodigies must pose as college students for a year before entering the NBA Draft.

“If someone wanted to make a mockery of our education system, they could with the one-and-done player,” Self said. “They could take six hours in the fall and not go to school in the spring, and the next thing you know they are still eligible to play the full year.”


So why won’t the NBA adopt such a system, which would have to be negotiated as part of a collective-bargaining agreement between the owners and players?

The knee-jerk reaction would be to say the players are against it, but that doesn’t really make sense. NBA veterans, who make up most of the union, should be in favor of delaying the entry of players who could steal their jobs. Sure, the select few high school players would come a year earlier, but adopting the system still would be a net gain for NBA veterans.

So what’s the holdup? When trying to determine the motivation for anything the NBA does, it usually pays to think marketing first. David Stern is considered history’s most ingenious commissioner of a professional sport because he understood the way to grow as a league was to market the league’s superstars.

Under the current system, the NCAA markets the next class of NBA stars, and it doesn’t cost Stern’s league a penny. It’s a completely one-sided deal that hinders the college game’s product by triggering high turnover and making a sham of the term student-athlete. The NBA gets a one-year head start on marketing stars and gets to make a more educated guess as to which players to hype.

College basketball coaches tend to know when to make an issue of something, and they tend to agree on major issues. Their voices can make things happen, but in this case, if stating a preference for the NBA changing the rule doesn’t bring about change, college coaches should band together and do something they never do: stick it to the NBA. How? By banning passes for all NBA scouts and selling their seats, which would raise more revenue for athletic departments and send the message that college basketball is more than a minor league for the NBA.

Meanwhile, as long as the rules allow for one-and-done athletes, Kansas might as well play the game. Look at it this way: KU has a better chance of winning its second national title in three years with Henry than without him. That chance grew slightly better with the news that Kentucky’s Jodie Meeks is staying in the NBA Draft.


Tribehawk 12 years, 5 months ago

I generally agree with Self on this one, but I don't think that such a plan would do much to increase the talent pool for the college game. In fact, it will likely deplete the talent pool. Savy high school kids who aren't a lock for the league will just take their game to Europe and make bank for three years and then enter the league after that. As it is now, at least some OADs come to school and end up staying longer than expected, e.g. Brandon Rush. Under this proposed system, Rush likely would have either gone L or gone to Europe and we never would have had his services, period. The real advantage to the college game under this MLB system is that fans will get to know and connect with their players without fear that they will be gone after a single year. I know I may take some flak for this next comment, but when I think about KU alum, I often overlook Julian and Darrell because they just don't feel like real jayhawk alums to me. Unless we win a championship with X, I'm not sure I'll ever really feel like he was a true Jayhawk either. Under this new plan, I like the idea that any player we sign will stay around long enough that I can become emotionally invested in him as a fan. Also, it will create stronger bonds between players and their alma maters as well. That means getting more Darnell Jacksons, which I'm all for, even if it means losing overall talent.

Marcia Parsons 12 years, 5 months ago

You make a good case, Tribehawk. However, I can't agree with your supposition that the college game talent pool would be decreased, at least after the first year or two. The first year would probably be a landslide. After that I believe the "savy" kids would take a look around at the failures and see that it's harder to make it in the league and in Europe than they thought, and that they aren't as superior as they've been told by their "advisors." For every Kobe or LeBron there are a hundred kids who would never make it right out of high school. In addition to the advantages you mentioned, they'd actually be forced to be a student instead of just an athlete and have a good start toward a degree. One-and-dones are not likely to ever be a part of their school because they are just putting in the time and, other than choosing a good spot to showcase their talents, it doesn't really matter where they go.

Scott Lippoldt 12 years, 5 months ago

Why jump to 3 years? Although I would love to see this, wouldn't a mandatory two years in college make more sense? At least then the "student" athletes would be required to make grades for a full year+ versus a semester. And perhaps the NBA could structure their rookie salaries to reward those who have spent more time being coached in college? Just my thoughts...

FairgroveJayhawk 12 years, 5 months ago

It would only impair the NBA's marketing of stars for the first 2 or 3 years it would take the first class under a new rule to become eligible for the draft. They would still retain a great deal of marketing capacity with further players entering the draft. It seems like the right thing to do for the student athlete.

keith horinek 12 years, 5 months ago

I agree with MichJayhawk. I would like to see a mandatory 2 or 3 years in college. Much like College football. These kids would get at least 3 years of college and if they wanted to come back and get their degree it wouldn't be quite as hard to do. Plus they would be much more mature when the do get in the NBA. There have been a number of high schoolers jump to the NBA and not make it. I also like structuring their rookie salary to the number of years of college. Maybe adding $$$ for each year of college attended.

kvskubball 12 years, 5 months ago

Except for a few players each year, high school players aren't anywhere near ready for the NBA, and even the very best usually struggle for a year or two as they continue to develop their games.

The problem is that NBA GM's have no self-control. They're afraid they'll miss out on a "potential' superstar. If they thought about it, unless the kid was one of the top 3 or 4 recruits in a given year, they should pass on him, and let some other team pay the kid for the first 3 year contract, then bid on him if he blossoms. Let the other guy take the risk. The reward just isn't there for the other high schoolers, at least not in the first several years of his NBA career.

If the NBA GM's would show some restraint, then most high schoolers would know that the route they should go is college.

The flip side of the coin is that the recruits keep hearing how good they are from runners, friends, family, for years before they are seniors in high school, and they decide they don't need an education (Here, I'm talking about high school ed., not college). So they don't work very hard at making sure they will be eligible to go to college. I mean, that's so MUCH work!

I like the idea of an age limit beyond high school for players to be eligible to play in the NBA. I watch very few NBA games these days, and I usually only watch those with KU players involved. There is too much one on one play, jacking shots up early in the shot clock, and seldom an iota of defense being played. A lot of that is because before the NBA's one year removed from high school rule, there were too many high schoolers going to the NBA and the one-on-one play was all they learned in high school. The NBA product has definitely deteriorated. The NBA brass made this move out of self preservation.

I think coach is wrong to support high schoolers going to the pros 'if they want'. Too many will make bad decisions. They will not even worry about getting a high school education, then if they don't get drafted, many of them will have nothing to show for their talent. There is a report of a junior in high school who is going to try to go pro in Europe and not even stay in school for his senior year!

The other point is that the NBA doesn't have a minor league system equivalent to baseball's. If they did, it would diminish the college game, imo. It would at the very least create a very competitive product which people would then have the choice of watching either college or minor league bball. So, I would tell coach to be careful of what he supports. His statement sounds good, and would be supported by a lot of naive high school kids because that is what they want to hear. They want to be paid to play, and I can't blame them. I would just say that I'm not willing to pay very much to watch the product, if it doesn't have a strong 'team' aspect vs one-on-one.

chriz 12 years, 5 months ago

Isn't the whole point of education to prepare people for employment? I happen to think that a career is much more important than an education. Someone tell Kobe, LeBron, Kevin Garnett (and etc.) how important a college education is to their careers. This decision should be left strictly to the NBA. The issue here is that the NBA doesn't care about the education process--they only care about the player. They want the player to have at least one year of experience at a higher level.

Now if the collegiate system really wants to put its money where its mouth is, I suggest that they implement more stringent eligibility requirements. But even the collegians know that it's not about knowledge. It's about money.

John Strayer 12 years, 5 months ago

The one think MLB has that the NBA doesn't is a well established minor league system. Yes high schoolers can get drafted by MLB teams, but they then go to work in the minor leagues. High schoolers drafted by the NBA more likely than not find themselves on an NBA bench and not having a chance to develop their game.

In order for the MLB rule to work in basketball, NBA would have to spend dollars and resources to come up with a minor league, which I suspect they are unwilling to do when NCAA will do it for "free".

ChicagoJHawk 12 years, 5 months ago

I think these kids should be allowed to try out for the NBA, straight out of high school. If they don't make it it's not like they don't have other options. There's always the NBA-D League & Europe, if the NBA doesn't work out.

Otherwise, if they decide to go to college and end up leaving early, that's fine too. I would just make it a rule that they have to pay the scholarship money back to the school. I mean, that's not asking much, especially if they're going to be making a million or 2.

Back to the high schoolers again...another thing we need to change is the rule that makes them inelligible for any scholarships if the NBA doesn't work out. Why not allow them to still go to college, but just wait 'til the next season? I realize it makes it a little tough for recruiting, but I still think it's a good idea.

Jaminrawk 12 years, 5 months ago

“If someone wanted to make a mockery of our education system, they could with the one-and-done player,” Self said. “They could take six hours in the fall and not go to school in the spring, and the next thing you know they are still eligible to play the full year.”

Hmmm, John Calipari anyone?

I think the NBA has definitely been rewarded by the one-year in college rule. For one, it seems to me that the level of NBA play has improved and I have to believe that part of it is these "one-and-done" players coming in with at least one year of "real" coaching and not just AAU and highschool coaching. In addition, as Keegan stated, the NCAA markets these guys for free. Derrick Rose wouldn't have been the massive star he was coming in w/o the NCAA tournament. The "Durant vs. Oden" argument definitely took those guys' "Q-Factor" to a new level.

Self is right (as usual), players should either go or have to stay three years in college. Having these kids opt for Europe and not even graduate high school might be opening a whole new can of worms and maybe changing the NBA rule would help avoid this.

K_Easthouse 12 years, 5 months ago

I think the NBA Player's Association has a lot more to do with it. Look at the Maurice Clarett situation from football a couple years ago: the NFLPA won the case, since it's a union-based organization, and any union has the right to restrict it's membership in order to protect it's members.

If the NBAPA would get on board with college coaches, then the rules would change. I like the idea of letting kids who think they'll make it in the NBA jump right away. However, we all know (and any draft analyst will tell you) there's only 2-5 kids each year that can do that. The rest would come to college for at least two years to work on their game.

Would some players just go over to Europe? It's possible. But these kids aren't treated like superstars overseas; sometimes they're treated simply as a means to an end for those teams. Why show loyalty to a kid who's leaving in a couple years?

Regardless, the key thing that needs to change is the access that these handlers have. I think the top programs in the country need to get together and focus on cutting them out of the system more than they need to get together over the draft age limit. Eliminating the handlers means you eliminate the corrupting influences a lot of these kids have.

justanotherfan 12 years, 5 months ago

Keegan's suggestion that college coaches ban NBA scouts from games is idiotic at best. If NBA scouts aren't in the arenas, they will still watch the games on TV like the rest of us. Maybe they won't get the closer look that you get when you are in the gym, but for scouts that know what they are doing, that wouldn't be a problem. If you think the NBA needs scouts at college games to find talent, you aren't very saavy.

Also, the age limit has very little to do with the player's association. Look at it this way. Every year, 60 players will be drafted by the NBA and perhaps another 60 will get free agent deals with a chance to make an NBA roster. Whether those 120 players are from overseas, college, high school, street ball, rec league, YMCA or otherwise makes no difference. Every year around 120 new faces are gunning for a job in the NBA. Some veterans will lose jobs because of that new crop. Some will keep their jobs. The talent pool will vary year to year regardless of who is eligible. Allowing OADs to jump after high school just means that instead of John Wall being a lottery pick next year, he's a lottery pick this year. Same with DeMarcus Cousins, Derrick Favors, Xavier Henry and others. It just defers their talent to the next year. It doesn't change the fact that another player (say, Wayne Ellington) will be drafted in the spot where X could have been.

Ryan Wood 12 years, 5 months ago

"Keegan's suggestion that college coaches ban NBA scouts from games is idiotic at best. If NBA scouts aren't in the arenas, they will still watch the games on TV like the rest of us. Maybe they won't get the closer look that you get when you are in the gym, but for scouts that know what they are doing, that wouldn't be a problem."

Considering your belief that NBA can do accurate scouting from a television broadcast, I think you're in no way qualified to call someone else's statements "idiotic at best."

dvo1990 12 years, 5 months ago

I don't see a problem with making it manditory that these athletes go to college for 3 years. Moody has to go to med school for 4 more years just to become a Dr.! That's 9 years of school!! and he has not been paid a dime. This should be the criteria to get in the NBA,same as most jobs you go to college for.

Marcia Parsons 12 years, 5 months ago

I maintain that the NBA DOES have a farm system. It doesn't cost them anything, and it's called college. As for scouts doing just as well watching a game on TV, remember that the TV watcher is restricted to seeing what the camera chooses to show and that's always the ball. A scout wanting to evaluate a player away from the ball may never get a look at him.

justanotherfan 12 years, 5 months ago


Ever heard of this stuff called game film? It's taken by people in arenas, who then send those tapes to other people, who use it to scout future opponents or potential players. Coaches and scouts at all levels use this intriguing technology to prepare their teams and recruit new talent. I believe Coach Self and his staff also make use of this new fangled idea. The amazing thing about game film is that you can pause it, rewind it and watch it over and over again so that the reports rendered from this film are as accurate as possible.

I'm on my lunch break so I can actually laugh out loud at that.

The reason scouts go to games isn't just to see the games, its to see the interaction between the players and their coaches, teammates, etc. I know this because I have friends who are basketball coaches and scouts. They go to watch prospects live to 1) be seen so the prospect knows they are interested and 2) to watch the prospect interact with his teammates and coaches. Does the player take instruction well, or does he pout when his coach gets on him? Does the player snap at teammates in sideline huddles, or is he a good teammate. That's the stuff scouts get live. Important stuff, definitely. But they can do their preliminary work to answer the question of whether or not a guy can play on film. That's what most do, until they have gotten down to the last few guys.

Coach Self has probably three dozen recruits that he is somewhat interested in for next year. He's only probably going to go see (at most) fifteen play live. Which fifteen will be determined based on what he sees ON FILM, not live.

chriz 12 years, 5 months ago

The first question is what's good for the NBA. This is all that matters. College basketball can complain all they want, but the NBA makes the rules. They're the ones with the job openings, so their criteria is what matters. Let's say that their criteria is to have at least one year of college or similar "training". Fine--that sounds reasonable. There are a lot of jobs that are like that. My job is like that.

The second is whether this is good for college basketball. The one-and-done thing is difficult for coaches in terms of recruiting and retaining, and it's difficult for some fans because of their ideal of students actually getting a textbook education. Is college basketball better off to have LeBron for one year as opposed to never having him?

The third question is who defines what is good for college basketball and how is it defined. As far as the NBA is concerned, what's good for college basketball is only good if it's good for the NBA. As far as some college coaches and fans, one-and-done with no real education is bad, even if it's good for the NBA.

The fourth question is who cares about the "integrity" of college basketball. Don't get me wrong--I'm a huge college basketball fan. But as a previous poster noted, it's an NBA farm league. In my opinion, college is a farm league for every profession. If you're a pro prospect, you go to college to play basketball, not to study English 101. If you don't have to go to college but you go anyway, you go to improve your draft status. Or maybe you just go because you like college.

But let's stop pretending that studying textbooks is really that important. If these people in academia really want to make a big deal out of it, why don't they increase the stringency of the eligibility requirements? My opinion is because of their fear of a) losing money due to players sitting on the bench for failing classes, or b) being caught for cheating.

So the NBA determines the qualifications. If they want a year of post-high school experience, fine. They, not the NCAA, determine the market. If academia really cares about whether students study, they should put their money where their mouth is and get strict. Otherwise, they should keep quiet. No one wants to listen to a hypocrite.

trmatlock 12 years, 5 months ago

I have been saying that for years. The present system is not fair for the college coaches. And it is not necessarily good for the athletes. The NBA is the only one who benefits . It is a seemingly can't lose situation for them.

jaybate 12 years, 5 months ago

People, people, people, the reasons the NBA likes the current rule are:

  1. 95% of players aren't physically, or emotionally, ready until after their sophomore years, so the one year rule makes it so the NBA teams are not carrying that year of costs;

  2. 99% bigs aren't ready till their sophomore years, so that is even more reason to shift that development cost off onto the colleges; and

  3. The rule holds down variance in the increment of talent entering the league each year (they want to minimize clumps created by competitive GMs nabbing all the great players in view in college and high school and junior high one year and then it taking 3-5 years for the talent to refill the pipeline).

They don't care about the players before they enter the league, or about the colleges. They never have. They have no reason to care about either. They don't pay for either. They only start caring about the players, when they are collecting NBA paychecks. The NBA is a business. Its raw material is players. Except for a very few, they are treated like what they are...fungible commodities. The NBA factory needs a steady supply. It seeks a just-in-time inventory approach, as all businesses tend to do, when they can safely shift carrying costs off onto others. The raw material of players needs to be valved each year to the latest group of lousy franchises, to try to improve the competition. They need to claim enough of the talent that comes out each year, so that there is not enough talent left over to form a directly competitive professional league.

Never overcomplicate the motivations of the NBA.

jaybate 12 years, 5 months ago

What should happen is that the players, teams and colleges should be totally free to approach each player on whatever basis each can agree upon.

It is okay if Player A at age 8 accepts being drafted on a futures contract.

It is okay if Player B signs as a high school senior and plays four years and goes pro.

It is okay if Player C negotiates a deal where he is paid during college by a pro team.

It is okay if Player D decides he does not want to go through the draft and would rather sign with a team, if the NBA is agreeable.

It is okay if a college decides it wants to pay a player over and above his scholie.

It is okay if players jump straight to the pros, bomb out, or just don't like it, and decide to come back and play in college.

It is all okay so long as the rules are written down and applied across the board.

What is not okay is forcing players, colleges and pro franchises to do what they do not want to do and thereby create a bunch of asymmetric benefits and costs, as exists today.

jaybate 12 years, 5 months ago

Coach Self wants a rule that lets great players go straight to the show, but binds lesser players to college for 3 years. Why bind the lesser players for three years? If they are lesser players, why shouldn't they be allowed to go to the L whenever they are ready, too? Why only three years? Is that because he wants to smooth out his raw material inventory? Is that because Coach Self knows that most players quit listening by their fourth year; that there isn't much improvement in most players between junior and senior years? Why not force them all to stay four years and then force the coaches and schools to see to it that these guys graduate! Why not prevent schools from giving out more rides until the guys they have on scholies do graduate! With all due respect, Coach Self's approach is no less self-serving than the one imposed by David Stern. It stabilizes his raw material supply by keeping it around longer, during the years it listens to him and improves. It doesn't keep them around long enough that he has to graduate them and has to put up with modest 4th year improvement.

I like regulation for many things, especially to prevent producer monopolies and oligopolies, though the producers have pretty much colluded in every sector now to impose oligopolies. But I like free enterprise and free markets when regulation cannot formulate constraint sets that are fair to everyone; this is one of those cases.

It is time to liberalize this market--open it up.

I have seen it regulated. I have seen it opened up part way. And I have seen it re-regulated part way. It worked better part-way open. I vote for opening it all the way. This is America.

Let freedom ring. Let's see just how much the pros and the colleges can afford to pay for players. The cost will not come out of most of our pockets now anyway. Most of us can't afford the cost of a season ticket. The corporations increasingly foot the bill. So let them really foot the bill. Maybe one of Spartacus descendants will finally be born economically free, too.

Who is Spartacus?

I am.

keith horinek 12 years, 5 months ago

Jaybate, the one problem I see with opening everything up is, colleges with unlimited money would "buy" the best young players and we would end up with the same 2 or 3 schools winning the national championship every year. I like the recruitment process we have now, (mostly). the one thing I would like to see changed is the ability of these college kids "testing" the draft. why not allow them to go all the way into the draft and if they don't like where they are drafted they are free to go back to school.

jaybate 12 years, 5 months ago


Good point about the rich schools buying up all the best players. But it seems to me that this already occurs. The schools with the biggest athletic budgets and the biggest commitments to particular sports get the best talent year in and year out and are the Cadillac programs.

kvskubball 12 years, 5 months ago


I'll use your numbers, because they make sense. Let's say that 120 players each year will have some kind of interest from professional teams. There are probably more than 20,000 high school ballers leaving school each year (I would say graduating, but many probably don't). So less than 1% (And probably much less than that) have any chance each year to make a living playing pro ball.

Many handlers sell kids on the idea that they are one of the few, whether they have any chance to be or not, because its like shooting a basketball, some you hit and some you miss.

My point is that too many athletes are told they can make a living at it when they've got very little chance to do so. They spend their efforts chasing smoke, when they could be using their skills to pay for an education, that would increase their chances of being able to make a reasonable living. I like the idea of people chasing dreams, but you need to put bread on the table and have a roof over your head. For almost all high school students, the real opportunity to make a living at the sport they are good at just isn't there.

They see sports as an end instead of a means to an end, which is the way almost all of them should look at it. Emphasis added!!

Coach Self is able to recruit the very best athletes each year, and yet over half of the recruits he gets to play for KU will not be able to make a living playing pro ball. So I think he does a disservice to the vast majority of athletes by being in favor of something that would help the very few, and probably have a negative impact on many more.

The rule change that he proposes would make recruiting more sane for him and a few of the best college coaches, and decision-making easier for the approximately 10 OAD's each year, but would imo, do more harm than good, unless we believe that 17 and 18 year olds are all of a sudden going to start making unanimously intelligent decisions when so many adults are misleading them???

By having a rule in place that requires athletes to wait one year, I think a lot of potential positives can come from it. It should have at least a slight positive impact on athletes staying in high school and working to keep themselves eligible for college. Yes there will some grade-related shennanigans because not all athletes will put enough effort into their education, but that's going to happen in any environment. The rule also makes a student wait a year. Think about that, it gives the kid a chance to experience college, which to me is most often a positive. The athlete will have another year to mature physically, mentally, and socially. The athletes that do go pro will be a year older and maybe able to more maturely handle the dough they'll be making.

kvskubball 12 years, 5 months ago

3000 word limit continuation....

We are talking about so very few that have an opportunity to play pro ball, that I think making those few wait one year, and try to keep the emphasis on educating them is better than letting the handlers mislead so many of them.

I see so many people say, isn't the purpose of an education to get a job? Yes, but education should also help you determine if there is a job to get!

When I was a child, I had a dream that I wanted to be 7 feet tall and be an NBA center. I wanted to be able to throw the hook shot. Well I never made it to even 6 feet tall, and I was much too slow to have any chance at playing any pro sport. So I'm an extreme case, right? NO. I'm one of the many who would have loved to play ball for a living. I just found out much sooner than many that I had no opportunity to do it! Reality Bites!

K_Easthouse 12 years, 5 months ago

Free market liberalization is all fine and dandy; I mean, look how well it worked for the banking industry. Let's do that with these kids getting ready to enter the workforce and treat them like a packaged good. Hooray!

/end sarcasm

Seriously, THAT is why the players union exists, so that they aren't treated like commodities being traded back and forth on a whim. I sure wouldn't want to see Boston and New York get into a bidding war over an 8-year-old prospect, who isn't even old enough to legally sign a binding, contractual agreement.

I'm still with Coach Self in protecting the players - and future players - of the league by requiring an age limit before they can join. There is a fair bit of mental maturity that these guys need to go through before stepping into the world of high-stress, high-bling ball. How much of the NBA's image problem would be around right now if half of these guys went to college and learned a bit of humility? I'm guessing there's be a lot more Tim Duncan's and a lot fewer Ron Artest's.

100 12 years, 5 months ago

According to Sports Illustrated, Harrison Barnes (consensus #1 2010 class) is a KU lean.

This is obviously good news, however he will take 5 visits next year and see the process through. UK's fans in particular seem to think Calipari will fork out some big money for him through the barmaids the UK team was caught having free drinks at (which should be a huge red flag to the NCAA investigations comittee considering the styles he's considering, KU, Minnesota & Duke).

Calamari's troubles aside, if Barnes decides to come to KU, what another awesome class!

Great job Coach Self!

kvskubball 12 years, 5 months ago


A true free market??? - arguably a great theory, not so great in practice. Time to leave your ivory tower, or maybe there is room for all of us? Your attitude reeks of a rich man's perspective, whither thou art or not. A free market works for those that have, not so well for those with nothing...

I'm certainly not for communism or even socialism in any kind of strict form, but a true free market economy is not without its own potential vices. I would contend that often, a true free market economy would probably evolve toward an oligopoly, because of the way it serves those with resources at the expense of those without.

Ah yes, my little chickadee (As WC Fields was wont to say), my experiences have changed me from my youthful conservative ideals to a more pragmatic moderate centrist, though many might label my ideas as leaning toward liberality. I have never yet been so poor that I have had to commit a crime to feed myself, but my education has allowed me to see that there are those that could be put in that situation if an economy has no safety nets, and because the safety nets are in fact fallible, I'm sure that it does happen to some people, here in the US of A.

Now, often people rag on the NCAA and its policies, but the NCAA does try to create as level a playing field as they can at each of the different levels, D1, D2, etc., but because they work with the universities and are not in control of them, discrepancies do occur. It goes back to your idea of a free economy, the universities are free to do as they choose, within boundaries. The D1 schools are often in many regards the 'sport elite' colleges. So guess which tail wags the dog? The richest one of course. Without some limits, I don't think very many people would enjoy the college basketball product we would receive. In D1 football, for instance, where it is very close to an oligopoly, with the BCS conferences dominating the sport, and in my opinion diminishing the competition, and definitely limiting access to non-BCS schools, I think many more fans are dissatisfied than with college bball, because in comparison, college bball is down-right egalitarian, at least at the macro level.

So count me as being in favor of some reasonable limits, and until heaven returns to earth, I guess we'll have to learn to live with the peculiarities of our moderated 'free' economy. I am for trying to improve the situation! Its just so dad-gummed hard to know what changes are for the better unless we are willing to try....So while I agree that the OAD rule may need tweeking, I'm not ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Are there any cliches that I've missed? I could try again....I bet some of you are saying.."Wow, a little education can sure go wrong, can't it?"

Sometimes, I try to have fun with my jabs and puns...

kvskubball 12 years, 5 months ago


I missed it... Who used such profanely banal language? Let's make them research true free market economies for jaybate! ~said with a smile~

KanKu 12 years, 5 months ago

Obviously, the NBA has been rewarded by the one-year in college rule. David Stern has said openly he'd like it at 2 years, which would benefit the NBA further. As MichJayhawk stated, I too would like to see it at 2 years. This would develop and showcase the best college players, while also giving them an out if they want after 2 years of college ball. 3 years is too long, and the players would either go to Europe or challenge it legally...eventually.

Go pro right away, or go to college for 2 years. It seems like the best scenario to me.

Marcia Parsons 12 years, 5 months ago

kvskubball: I am confused by your statement regarding Coach Self--"So I think he does a disservice to the vast majority of athletes by being in favor of something that would help the very few, and probably have a negative impact on many more." How is it hurting those poorly equipped for the NBA to stay in school for three years? I would expect them to improve enough that they might have a chance at the NBA, but at worst would have made substantial progress toward a degree to support themselves without going to the NBA. Are you talking about the ones who only THINK they are NBA ready who forego college only to find out they are left with nowhere to go? I think after the first year of the "baseball rule" many of those less skilled kids would see what happened to so many the year before and actually do some serious evaluating of their chances and not opt to go straight to the NBA. Whatever, I think we can all agree that the present system is bad for schools, bad for coaches, bad for kids, and good for the NBA.

kcblackhawk19 12 years, 5 months ago

"the one thing I would like to see changed is the ability of these college kids "testing" the draft. why not allow them to go all the way into the draft and if they don't like where they are drafted they are free to go back to school."

I would also suggest a variation of the MLB system. The players should have the opportunity to be drafted and still have the opportunity to go to college. Much in the same way that European players get to remain with their professional teams when they get drafted.

Drafting a player's rights would give the NBA what it really covets these days, additional salary relief. Lowering the salary of NBA teams, particularly the small market teams, along with marketing key players for FREE are excellent reasons to adopt this policy. The team gets either the player or the salary relief.

The player would have options:

  1. Going to college and playing for what would surely be a full scholarship until deciding to forego eligibility.

  2. Going to Europe and getting paid until the team needs them.

  3. Going to the NBDL and being able to remain in the States while also getting paid.

Each option would have its Pros and Cons, but the freedom to choose is priceless. Let us dispel this notion that these kids should not have the ability to support their families and start making their career decisions when there is obviously a market for their services.

We all know that in other sports players are given these option. Why should basketball be any different? I understand that some will make bad decisions, but does the current system prevent mistakes from being made? Will any system prevent mistakes from being made?

It is society's role to make sure that we all have the opportunity to pursue life according to documents that were meant to last an eternity. When you combine those fundamental rights with the free market that we all abide by; the atrocities that have been created by the "One-and-Done" rule are ASHAME!

This system is a stain on the NCAA and even more so on the civil rights of these young men. Let us get rid of it as soon as possible!!!!!

Robert Brock 12 years, 5 months ago

It has been established that the current system is the perfect system for the NBA, but it is ironic that a league whose brightest stars are players that came straight from high school, firmly restricts players from going that path. We have the huge busts engrained in our minds -- Kwame Brown, Tyson Chandler, Johnathan Bender -- but most of the "busts" who came out too early still eventually find a role in the league. Very few are completely out of the picture, and the ones that are are playing overseas. College basketball has had to pay for NBA GM's being sloppy and rolling the dice too many times and it is unfortunate.

At some point they will reevaluate this rule, but change will probably come slowly. In the short term, I can see them more likely moving to a required two years removed from high school, which David Stern has mentioned in the past year. But if they moved to a two year removed rule or a system where you can jump from high school or after 2-3 years of college, I wonder how this will affect college recruiting. Will it complicate things or make it easier? We know the usual suspects each year that would have gone straight from high school, but will many fringe, 2nd tier players (i.e. Brandon Rush) would make the jump even if they risk not being drafted? I want to see the end of players holding colleges hostage for a year and see a system that creates synergy on college teams. The dropoff in the product that is out on the court right now across the country is very poor in my opinion.

Robert Brock 12 years, 5 months ago

It has been established that the current system is the perfect system for the NBA, but it is ironic that a league whose brightest stars are players that came straight from high school, firmly restricts players from going that path. We have the huge busts engrained in our minds -- Kwame Brown, Tyson Chandler, Johnathan Bender -- but most of the "busts" who came out too early still eventually find a role in the league. Very few are completely out of the picture, and the ones that are are playing overseas. College basketball has had to pay for NBA GM's being sloppy and rolling the dice too many times and it is unfortunate.

At some point they will reevaluate this rule, but change will probably come slowly. In the short term, I can see them more likely moving to a required two years removed from high school, which David Stern has mentioned in the past year. But if they moved to a two year removed rule or a system where you can jump from high school or after 2-3 years of college, I wonder how this will affect college recruiting. Will it complicate things or make it easier? We know the usual suspects each year that would have gone straight from high school, but will many fringe, 2nd tier players (i.e. Brandon Rush) would make the jump even if they risk not being drafted? I want to see the end of players holding colleges hostage for a year and see a system that creates synergy on college teams. The dropoff in the product that is out on the court right now across the country is very poor in my opinion and the current system is to blame.

Brian Skelly 12 years, 5 months ago

The next NBA CBA will change from what it is now. To what? Who knows. Im very much of the "let'em go pro" outta High School if they want to. The Europe option is very real and will completely play a factor in kids decision making in the future. And it should to. The more options the better.

That said, the "one and done" rule is a joke. Either let them go straight outta high school or keep them for awhile. 2,3,4 years? At least then you'll know you'd have a seriously committed kid.

This is a NBA issue... but the NCAA is the only one who gets any downside. The upside is big too... Who didnt like watch KU playing against Blake Griffin, Michael Beasley, Kevin Durant the past 3 years?

Brandon Jennings has been riding hard pine for his European team. Is this making him better? Probably not. Practicing against other pros probably is though. Is better struggling there or putting up 20pts per at Arizona this past season?? And better for who?

Id let them do what they want prior to College... but if they do go to College make them committal. Id rather them go pro if they have no real interest in being in college.

KGphoto 12 years, 5 months ago

I'm going to be oddly brief for this post here.

Keegan: "David Stern is considered history’s most ingenious commissioner of a professional sport because he understood the way to grow as a league was to market the league’s superstars."

David Stern is considered history's most ingenious commissioner? Wow! You been watchin' sports long Keeg party? Because I to present you... Pete Rozell and his little MNF thing.

Every modern era commissioner (since Pete's success) has attempted to market superstars. They just used different methods. Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire and an unnamed list will vouch for Bud Selig's efforts.

Marketing superstars isn't ingenious. Finding a NEW way to market them is. And I'm sorry but puppet caricatures don't count. Changing the way we view the sport, is our Pete Rozell standard.

kvskubball 12 years, 5 months ago


Yes, I;m looking at those that are influenced to try for the NBA, when they don't have a legitimate shot out of high school. I would believe there are many more of these students than those that are drafted and bust out and those that would go and make it in the league, combined.

So I think you're only looking at the best part of his statement - requiring a longer stay in college. He also wants to allow kids to go pro right out of high school. If he was only in favor of an NBA requirement to have all athletes go to college for more than one year, then I wouldn't say that he is not doing a disservice. By saying he thinks they should be allowed to go pro out of high school, the message is that 'anyone' (And I know that's too broad, but I say it that way for emphasis) should be able to go pro from high school. Before the OAD rule was instituted, there were way too many high school athletes being led to believe they were good enough to go pro, when they weren't...By supporting both a 'go to college' and a 'go pro right out of high school' option, many athletes would again be misled to believe they were good enough out of high school, when that just isn't the case. There isn't any good way to seperate most of those that really have the talent from those that don't when they leave high school, except for a few each year.

Yes, I agree that the current system serves the NBA better than it does colleges and a few athletes (Those who have NBA talent). I think a rule that makes high schoolers defer the decision a year as it does currently isn't necessarily bad for most athletes, and isn't all bad for college. It is a variant on the old saying that He who has the money makes the rules. This version would go... The NBA that hath the jobs makes the rules...

My preference would be that ALL athletes be required to go to college for at least two years, but from what others are saying, I think I must in the miniscule minority. I just think that almost all 18 year olds are not really mature enough for the demands of the NBA season. We haven't even discussed the heightened possibility of injuries to the youngsters because they'll be playing against men. Look at Cole, he's only been playing against older college players, and his body hasn't held up...

kvskubball 12 years, 5 months ago


I'm sure someone said this before, but it bears repeating. Playing in the NBA isn't a right of citizenship, or any other right granted by the constitution or any other law, it is a privilege that is determined by the employers, the NBA teams. So I disagree with KCBLACKHAWK19 and those that say the player's rights are being infringed upon. Even the fact that the rule is written for only domestic players doesn't in and of inself make it an infringement. Companies can set different criteria for different labor markets(For instance, a high school diploma from the US probably isn't equivalent to one from say North Korea and if they aren't equivalent, then saying a company has an obligation to treat students from each country exactly the same isn't very logical, and is most likely legally insupportable), they do need to be very careful when doing so, or they will definitely get into litigation, which those with deep pockets try to avoid like the plague, lest they lose their dough with nothing to show for it.

And, I don't agree that it is absolutely a net negative for colleges to have one and dones. Does it make it more difficult for coaches in recruiting, and increase uncertainty, definitely, but the best players will almost all go to college now and will mostly benefit from it, as long as they aren't just light-blinded, starstruck NBA wanna-bes. Will some of them abuse the system, sure. Under any system there will almost always be someone willing to break the rules.

Also, before the rule, coaches were still spending a lot of time recruiting the very best players even with the knowledge that they probably would go pro, so at least now, they know that for the most part their effort in recruiting the best isn't likely to be almost totally wasted as it was before.

truefan 12 years, 5 months ago

I don't really know where I sit in this situation. I don't know how they got the three year rule to work in College Football, but if they can make College Basketball work the same way then I am all for it. I feel like College Baseball was ruined a bit by the rule because all of the best pitchers jump straight to the farm teams and we never get to see them pitch in college. If the rule causes kids to think about playing basketball over seas, we may not only miss out on seeing them play for our favorite college team, but we wouldn't even be able to watch them play in the states for a few years. This is all just too confusing, I don't know what they should do.

jaybate 12 years, 5 months ago


Ah, yes, the ivory tower rhetorical device. That's always a good lead in for disagreeing. I will have to try it sometime.

But a word to the wise.

All markets are instituted--what we call free ones are instituted as surely as what we call liberalized ones, and as surely as what we call centrally planned ones, and so on. Some of the rules and constraints are written. Some are unwritten. But there has to be supervision and observation of the rules, or there no market. A market is not a market unless it is agreed upon in some instituted sense and supervised to remain and operate as instituted. Anything else is chaos. Kris Kristofferson was once confused on this subject as well. He sang, "Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose/nothin' ain't worth nothin' but its free." Wrong Kris. Chaos is just another word for nothin' left to lose...

Freedom and slavery and all the incremental steps in between them, only means something in market sense, and they can only means something in a market sense when there is an instituted constraint set and supervision of it.

You, my playful, frisky, over-aged Holden Caufield looking up errantly for me in an ivory tower, are mistakenly calling a free market what would more aptly be called chaos. Free markets are free within limits and are regularly supervised to insure their freeness. In contradistinction, chaos is letting the players play without constraints and supervision. Chaos is not at all what I advocate, when I advocate a free market, a liberalization. I advocate for real freedom, not chaos.

Somewhat counterintuitively, a free market has to be rigorously policed to ensure the characteristics and equalities necessary to act freely; this is sometimes hard for persons to get the hang of. A free market has to have constraints to gain the efficiencies of players acting freely within the constraints.

In chaos, it is survival of the fittest without regard to whether players play freely or in slavery, with unfair advantage, or unfair disadvantage, or some combination of these and more.

So you see, my friend, it is not me who is in the ivory tower. I will leave for you to decide, if you are or not. I will only try to help you through this difficult traverse by sharing with you part of Bob Dylan's lyrics from My Back Pages:

"A self-ordained professor's tongue Too serious to fool Spouted out that liberty Is just equality in school "Equality," I spoke the word As if a wedding vow. Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now.

In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand At the mongrel dogs who teach Fearing not that I'd become my enemy In the instant that I preach My pathway led by confusion boats Mutiny from stern to bow. Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now."

Fearing not that I'd become my enemy In the instant that I preach...

Ah, good stuff. :-)

kvskubball 12 years, 5 months ago


I see, now, that when I disagree with you I'm pontificating. Whilst your diatribes are enlightening only? (and again, look the word diatribe up, before you again become all heart broken over my repeating it to describe your writing, I'll give you a hint, my meaning is the archaic use of the word)

You said first above and I quote: "...teams and colleges should be TOTALLY FREE to approach each player on whatever basis each can agree upon." and... " But I like free enterprise and free markets when regulation cannot formulate constraint sets that are fair to everyone; this is one of those cases.

It is time to liberalize this market--open it up.

I have seen it regulated. I have seen it opened up part way. And I have seen it re-regulated part way. It worked better part-way open. I vote for OPENING IT ALL THE WAY. " end quote

From these statements, I was supposed to somehow come to a conclusion that you were for anything other than a true free market, which as you say in your last post, can tend to be chaotic.

Then after I point out that a true free market doesn't work for all equally, then you rebut with a clarification that says....what? That I'm the one in the ivory tower. How cute of you!

A true free market is one where there are no checks and balances, it is let to go where ever it will, without intervention, like right before the Great Depression, when the government did not step in until way after it was clear that the market would not right itself on its own. Laissez faire. So when you say you are for a true free market, (I changed the specific parts from your original post to all-caps to highlight) That is what I expect that you are advocating, but now you say that isn't so. I guess I should fall down on my knees and apologize because I can't read your mind, and so when your digits dangle out in front of me 'totally free', then I am somehow supposed to know that you really mean "a liberalized, rigorously policed" system as you clarify lastly above? I would say that you have inanely used the term free market in your original arguments above, and can't backpedal fast enough from the original statements. So you argue that it is I who do not know what a true free market is. I would retort that you aren't advocating a true free market in your last post as you did in your first one. I'll try to give you the benefit of the doubt and say perhaps your last post is supporting something approaching a free market. I doubt however that many, such as Mr. Keynes, would say that your last post advocates a true free market.

kvskubball 12 years, 5 months ago

and more to jaybate,

When I indicate that true free markets act with caprice and thus I'm not for it, you reply with an argument that basically agrees that a true free market isn't always a pretty thing. But you place the onus for misunderstanding your clearly stated first position as being for a true free market, on me and chastise my statements as preaching, by quoting some BD at me. Mea culpa, not!

So, once again, you and I agree to disagree, and it is obvious that it must once again be I that hath no clear understanding of the written English language, to so misinterpret your clearly digitized original position. (chuckle)

What say you antithetical man?

kvskubball 12 years, 5 months ago


Drat, I forgot that this sight automatically changes All caps back to lower case.

The parts that I tried to put in all caps are...'totally free' in the first line of yours that I quote, and 'opening it all the way' in the last line.

Dyrk Dugan 12 years, 5 months ago

unfortunately, it's not a "free market"....there's only so many NBA teams...and there's only one NBA.

if you want to start a league, you'll be welcome to do so. just remember, you're competing with the oligarchy....the NBA. what happened to the ABA? folded, and four teams went to the NBA. USFL? WFL? totally folded.

all salaries, and the big money, and the guarantees...are all a product of the draft. a player, should he be 16, or 17, or 18...should be able to sign with an NBA a free agent. but the league minimum, is at 19. so players go a year at least, to college. that's the whole rule now.

3 years is good...that's the NFL way, and it's worked pretty well. but there should be additions.

  1. any player can be eligible for the 18...period.
  2. if said player declines that draft, and enrolls in college...he will play there at least 6 semesters (3 years.)

  3. Whenever a player faxes in the paperwork for the draft...whether at 18, or 21 or 22...he is in the "testing the waters."

  4. declaring for the NBA draft must be done no later than May 1 of the said draft year. Miss that deadline, and you're back in school...or you wait till next year.

again, players at any time, can sign free agent contracts with these teams. but there's no draft guarantees.

this isn't really that hard.

Jared Grillot 12 years, 5 months ago

Ok... NBA aside... I read a lot of sports message boards, and frankly, it warms my heart to read this one. Civility...reasoning...literary references...economics... you folks are awesome. It's good to be a Jayhawk, where message boards are legible, meaningful, and not page after page of cheap shots, insults, and ridiculously bad grammar.

Thank you all for a relief from the general public. Please... continue.

justanotherfan 12 years, 5 months ago

We had a pretty hearty discussion on the straight to the League phenomenon a couple of weeks ago. In that discussion, I posted a list of 39 of the straight to the NBA declarations.

It has since come to my attention that there were actual 45 such declarations. However, adding Taj McDavid, Lenny Cooke, Giedrius Rinkevicius, DeAngelo Collins, Ellis Richardson, and Tony Key does not change the fact that of the 45, 8 have been All Stars (just as many as have been undrafted). 34 of the 45 were on NBA rosters this year. 16 of those players (K. Garnett, K. Bryant, J. O'Neal, S. Jackson, A. Harrington, R. Lewis, D. Miles, E. Curry, A. Stoudemire, L. James, D. Howard, A. Jefferson, J. Smith, JR Smith and M. Ellis) have career averages in double figures.

justanotherfan 12 years, 5 months ago

As for busts and successes:

Kwame Brown is generally regarded as a bust, and for a number one pick, he is a bust. But he is still in the league as a solid backup. Michael Olowakandi (another #1 pick) is not in the league. He's a bigger bust, and he had three years of college.

Sebastian Telfair is regarded as a bust, and as a lottery pick, he is a bit of a bust. But he's a solid backup/ spot starter at the point. Luke Jackson (four year player at Oregon) went #10 the same year Telfair went #13. Telfair plays for the Minnesota Timberwolves. Jackson plays for the Idaho Stampede.

Here's another one. In 2000, the #3 and #4 picks were both forwards. One had three years of college, during which time he had accumulated such honors as All-Conference as a freshman, National Freshman team, first team all conference as a soph and junior, and first team All-American as a junior. He also led his conference in scoring as a junior. He was picked 4th. His career in the NBA lasted 289 games (starting 35), during which time he averaged 9.6 points and 4.6 rebounds in 21 mpg. He now plays overseas. This of course is Marcus Fizer.

The other player jumped straight from high school. He was a McDonald's All-American. He was picked third. His career has lasted 446 games (starting 190) in the NBA. In that time he has averaged 10.1 ppg, 4.9 rebounds in 26 mpg. He is still in the league. This is Darius Miles.

Miles is considered a bust, but he has had a longer (better?) career than Fizer, even overcoming a pretty significant injury that robbed him of two years in his career.

Who's a bigger bust among these #2 overall picks? Darko Milicic (EuroLeague), Tyson Chandler (high school), or Shawn Bradley (BYU)? Tyson Chandler is no worse than the 2nd best player on that list, and that's only because Shawn Bradley carved out a 12 year career in the league. However, Chandler's career numbers are similar or better than Bradley's, particularly his rebounding. In fact, I'd argue that, although none of those guys should have been #2 picks in their draft year, only Darko is a bust in the sense that he probably shouldn't be in the League.

jaybate 12 years, 5 months ago


Don't try to wiggle. Open it all the way to a free market...not a chaotic one, Holden. ;-)

justanotherfan 12 years, 5 months ago

So what should be done? Well, I think the system should be opened up more. At some point the NCAA has to realize that they are dealing with two different types of athletes. One set has serious pro aspirations. The other set is, as the commercials say, going pro in something other than sports. The NCAA rules are focused on the second set, but cause serious problems for that first set.

If a player decides to declare straight from high school they can. If they go undrafted, they are allowed to enroll in college, but must sit out one semester (maybe even a full year). This would make them actually be students if they went undrafted and wanted to go the collegiate route.

If a player decided to jump to the pros, they have to remain in the draft. The "testing the waters" thing just wastes time and causes confusion.

If a player decided to attend a four college out of high school, they would have to stay for two spring semesters. However, if a player wanted to be a "one and done" they could go the juco route, similar to what is done in baseball.

Also, I think players should be allowed (probably even advised) to carry insurance on themselves in the event of a career threatening basketball injury. This is particularly true of players ranked in the top 15 or so of their high school class. Check Rivals sometime and look at the top 15 or so ranked players in a given year. Typically at least 12 are NBA players now. For example, it would be nice if a guy like Willie Warren, a predicted lottery pick next year, had insurance in case he were to blow out his knee. Not just insurance to recover from the injury, but insurance to compensate him for a year or so of lost salary. I realize there is no guarantee that anyone will have a long career in the NBA, but I think all NBA prospects SHOULD carry at least $1.5 million in insurance against a career threatening basketball injury.

I think the pro leagues (especially in basketball, where standout talent is much easier to spot) should be allowed to advise potential players on their status and insurance options to protect themselves and their future earning potential. Right now, coaches are expected to do this. While some do a fine job, Coach Self shouldn't be expected to assemble and coach his own roster while also advising his standout players of their NBA status and making sure that they are protected in the future in case of injury. He has enough on his plate with coaching his own team without also advising a handful of NBA prospects as well.

kvskubball 12 years, 5 months ago


You're the one with the Sergio Garcia sized wiggle-waggles...

trmatlock 12 years, 5 months ago

Three years all the way!!! Or......let them take their chance and go straight from high school if they trust the NBA and think they can make it.

jaybate 12 years, 5 months ago


Saying I wiggle, don't make it so, just as saying chaos equals a free market don't make it so.

Keep your spirits up, kvskubball, as we work through this one together. It won't hurt and there will be no shame at all for you in being wrong. Many persons hold the same simplistic notions of markets and economics that you do. They just don't brag about it quite the way you do. :-)

So: let me help you some more. :-)

"A true free market is one where there are no checks and balances, it is let to go where ever it will, without intervention, like right before the Great Depression, when the government did not step in until way after it was clear that the market would not right itself on its own. Laissez faire."--Holden

To reiterate, what you describe here is chaos, not a market. There is no such thing as utter chaos in the advanced economies of today and for quite some time in the past. For instance, markets before and during the Great Depression 1.0 were extensively regulated and managed. If laissez faire means what you say, there was none of that in the 1920s. The Fed has never been a do nothing entity, certainly not from 1913-1929. Take a peak at money supply during those years.

What was going on in those days was just a different kind of regulation and management and a different philsophy, economic theory and politics filtering perception of problems, and animation of pro-actions and reactions to those problems. There was never a "true free market" what ever you may think you mean by that fuzzy headed terminology.

jaybate 12 years, 5 months ago

Regulation did not begin in 1932, Holden, only the versions of regulation that you are apparently familiar with and are willing to recognize began in 1932. This is your problem of recognition, not mine. :-)

Though it is not widely appreciated, the Hoover Administration in conjunction with the Fed took many regulatory steps to end the emerging Great Depression in its nascent stage well before Hoover left office; remedies that FDR continued and expanded on in most cases. Hoover, himself, though I dislike him quite a lot, was an experienced legal/political/economic/finance guy who had become well known for his activities in and notions about the instituted and supervised markets of the west and with contract letting actiivities particularly within those markets in Europe after World War I.

I drag in Europe to make sure you understand that not only American, but European markets were instituted and supervised during this by-gone era that you naively view as essentially chaotic (i.e., without institution, without regulation, without supervision, etc.)

Old Hoobert Heever could not have done what he did in chaos. Nor could Av Harriman and Prescott Bush done their often unseemly work when they began acting as contracting agents for Weimar Germany after WWI. There were instituted markets, Holden. There were rules and laws. There was supervision. There were international trade agreements. There were courts for adjudicating certain grievances. It just all favored some more than others. It has never been as you characterize it in any broad sense in America, or in Europe. These are the facts you must adapt to. Unless you do, you are just making stuff up.

Now back to Herbie for just a moment. Before the New Deal, everything was not the economic Monument Valley and financial Wild West of your dreams. President Herbie operated within laws and took steps to affect instituted markets that behaved within constraint sets and these markets had various kinds of supervision (whether all, or any, of it was sensible is quite another matter). This was so before the crash of 1929 and after, when he begn to try to fix the emerging Great Depression 1.0.

FDR and the Fed followed and continued some of what Hoover started, while adding many new institutions to the already extensive economic, financial and market institutions extant at the time.

jaybate 12 years, 5 months ago

Further, from 1913, when the Fed was created, to the crash of 1929 the Fed was intervening frequently in the markets to shape out comes and stimulate and retard economic activity. They doubled money supply to ramp up for WWI in one year. They contracted it afterwards. Their actions shaped the rises and falls of instituted stock markets, commodities markets, every kind of instituted market. They ramped it up again in the 1920s. They were supervising America's instituted markets all through this time. And all through the Great Depression 1.0 there were enormous market interventions by various foreign central banks, not just the Fed. These uncoordinated interventions, not into chaos, but into legacy markets with legacy institutions, led to much unintended consequence and some intended outcomes.

The Bank of England largely made the Great Depression 1.0 into the Great Depression 1.1 The Long Form in the mid 30s when a few signs of recovery had begun. BOE and Lord Montagu Norman (BOE chrm 1920-1944 decided (stupidly in retrospect) that anticipated inflation had to be nipped in the bud before it appeared. Note: as with Hoover's efforts before FDR, this sort of intervention is the exact opposite of the sort of thing you suggest went in with finanical Wild West of your imagination.

Anyway, Lord Norman decided to move counter to all common sense (unless one sought to deepen and extend the GD 1.0, which BOE perhaps wished to do for strategic reasons) and counter to Fed leader requests (odd since by then the House of Rothschild owned BOE and had installed affiliated agent bankers (Morgan, etc.), and raised interest rates and sent all the markets and economies of the world reeling into phase 2 of the GD 1.0. Remember, GD1.0 had several phases. It was not one long uniformity of price deflation. There were some false recoveries. And there were certain substantial problems triggered by the efforts at reform themselves, in addition to the underlying wrong headedness of much central bank policies and actions.

jaybate 12 years, 5 months ago

To call the early GD1.0 GD 1.1 periods unregulated, or unsupervised, or not intervened in is just the talk of someone who has not really studied GD1.0. It would be analogous to looking at the silly Bush years and saying that because deriviatives and the bogus insurance contracts on them were largely unregulated, that the markets of the silly Bush years were largely unregulated. The tail of unregulated margin buying eventually mushroomed and began to wag the dog of the pre1929 market crash, just as the tail of unregulated derivative arbitraging mushroomed and wagged the dog of the current Great Stagflation 1.0. But this unregulated activity in both cases took place with in the confines of strongly instituted markets with formidable supervision that intentionally looked the other way for reasons that could be debated ad nauseum and would undoubtedly have to veer into conspiracy theorizing to adequately explain.

Regardless, markets have been being regulated and manipulated (engineered, or managed, if you prefer) for as long as there have been instituted markets, I suspect.

Chaos has not ruled in advanced economies ever that I can tell. Instituted markets are part of what we mean when we talk about advanced economies.

I know, I know, I hear you whining now, saying, "But, but, jaybate, I'm talking about all of recorded history before the '29 Crash.

Ok, so back to the period 1880 to 1900, the supposed bad old days of the Gilded age, when your fanciful notions of the past would suggest there were no markets or institutions or supervision, just free markets in chaos.

Let's look at the big picture a moment and note that Great Britain's Empire period had tremendous economic and financial and trade institutions that asymettrically constrained insituted markets and trade and so benefitted and helped perpetuate an increasingly moribund English industrial base by this time. They had the Bank of England and the investment banks in the royally chartered district of London managing money supply and interest rates and the gold supplies used to back the currencies and debt instruments. The age of 19th Century liberalism was replete with instituted markets and supervision and intervention. They even had good old Lord Alfred Marshall running around rationalizing it all for kiddies to study at Oxford. Hardly the wild west you fantasize about, eh?

Now to the USA during this period.

Well, there was no formally authorized central bank called the Fed (Andy Jackson closed the first BOE dominated central bank of the USA in his term several decades early and another government central bank was not formally authorized until 1913 and secured with an income tax the following year).

But was this the wild west. Did everyone in America operate entirely free of the international trade constraints on markets and corresponding supervision of them by the Bank of England and its British Empire? Nope.

jaybate 12 years, 5 months ago

And internally, was there just a total absense of instituted markets and supervision over those markets? Was the entire USA economy just chaos? Nope.

The great investment banking financiers of the time (e.g., Morgan), working openly as agents for European investment banking houses, like Rothschild, etc., and in cooperation with Bank of England, then about the most influential central bank in the world, intervened in money and credit supplies to manage then instituted markets and broader economies. Several times they induced panics by shrinking currency supplies and by altering gold supplies. Inducement of panics is a form of institutionalized market management (partly formalized, and partly informal). And they expanded money supplies. And they set up regulations in transportation and in trade and and finance that asymmetrically favored the emergence of monopolies and oligopolies. You may not like the philosphy, theory, politics and economics of this regime for ordering and managing instituted markets, but it is the farthest thing from chaos that there is, or should I say was.

I would guess that since at least the time of the emergence of the central banks of Europe (Bank of England dates from 1694 or so), and likely back to the time of the emergence of the great trans generational investment banking houses of England and Europe (especially those royally chartered in London) markets have had institutions and supervision of one kind or another, just not the rather narrow and naive definition of such that you apparently ascribe to. And like, this sort of thing existed well before that, too. Instituted markets have existed partly through constraints of common law, partly through constraints of oligarchic collusion and partly through constraints of simple cooperative compliance of market participants, and they have been regulated and managed from above and beyond in various ways probably for as long as humans had minted media of exchange. And that goes way back.

But we don't have to go way back to refute your naive conception of the past.

jaybate 12 years, 5 months ago

And of free markets as laissez faire chaos.

You really need to read a little about economic and financial history, and not just spout the simplified, watered down version that is taught in undergrad Econ, before you talk down to me. :-)

When you do this, you will no doubt be more capable at discussing this sort of thing than me, and further open the world up to me and others in a useful way. You are no doubt quite bright, when you actually take the time to study a subject thoroughly. Vastly smarter than me I dare say.

Yes, I have strayed far from the liberalization of the instituted markets of D1 college basketball recruits and of the NBA draft (the draft is just one kind of market mechanism) that I encourage.

But I like to take these opportunities to bring the underpinnings of our economic system to light whenever I can. Persons who understand the broader game always think more clearly about the specific realms within it, once they are sensitized to it. You may never bring yourself to admit the facts I bring you, but I would be less than civilized, if I callously allowed you to continue to labor about today's issues under the enormous burden of historical fantasy that you now seem to accept as accurate history.

No, I have not babied you with persuasive finesse in rejecting your argument and its errant assumptions, but that is because I am merely trying to write to you in what I perceive to be your native tongue--the kind of language you use with me and others and so are probably most fluent in. Whether it persuades you to let these facts in, or not, I figure it is the tongue you are most likely to recognize at this moment.

We can get on the same least regarding the facts of free markets. I know we can. :-)

Rock chalk.

kvskubball 12 years, 5 months ago

Jaybate, or is it Jayflate?

You were the one that said that a true free market equaled chaos....

And as chaos does, you do rage on and on and on...

You said you were for what looked a lot like a true free market in college basketball, I said that a true free market wasn't always a pretty thing, you then said that a true free market was chaotic, and I agreed.

I gave an example, not in anyway saying that our economy was first regulated after the great deep. I said that for the longest time the government did hold it's hands in prayer and not do much of anything else before the market crashed in the big one. I then said that a true free market was left to go where it will. I mentioned the idea of "hands off" - laissez faire as a moniker to describe such a situation. I didn't say that is what we had as a market economy in the US at the time. I didn't say that the government wasn't regulating, but at the precise time that they should have been doing something, they didn't do anything significant for quite some time...

You sir could tie the wind into a sailor's knot, and then tell everyone it was the ocean's fault, or maybe the moon's, or perhaps Alpha Centauri's.

It's nice to see that someone does know more than a little about history, but to say that I said that there wasn't any regulation before the GD is just plain bogus. I gave an example of a moment in time where our government/regulators sat on their hands and didn't do anything to help a market that was clearly in disarray. And you take that small statement and turn into my saying that there wasn't any regulation ever before that, in the history of the modern world.


And it was you and not I that said - that you want things opened all the way up, which sounds a lot like a true free market. Then you misdirect and deflect from that fact by giving us a jayflated history of economics 1.01, and saying that my simplified version is soooo elementary. Sorry, jay I try not to write treatises or vomit tomes ad infinitum, ad nauseum, I try to be brief and get my point across. I don't feel the need to show all here the length and depth and breadth of my knowledge with a seeming effort to diminish others' statements by belaboring my knowledge before them, and then condescending to say that I'm not being condescending.

You are right that there hasn't been any 'true free market' since approximately the dark ages. I don't pretend to know all history, so I'm being brief and generalizing to save some time, rather than teaching people about the Chinese having developed a great civilization long before Europe was enlightened, when we aren't discussing that. Unlike you I feel no need to bring "Lord Norman?" into the discussion when he hadn't anything to do with free markets. Quite a bit of showmanship there my lad...

kvskubball 12 years, 5 months ago


What I would like to know, is that if you know all the economic history of the world, and you know that there isn't and hasn't been a 'true free market' since men formed national governments, then why did you ever say that you are for what amounts to a true free market in the context of college basketball????????? And then you diatribe, and this time I do use its crasser meaning, about me not understanding the finer points of economic theory, as a smoke screen to deflect from your statement that you wanted a true free economy which you say over and over again is chaos, but that it is not chaos that you are advocating.

Could you explain in less than 3000 words, oh go ahead and take 6000 (since I took 4000 in this reply), how you can be for something and yet not be for it??? Do you want a true free market or not???

I personally am not for a free market, or anything that approaches it. Not in the real world, and not in college basketball. So I am against your statement which I again quote from above:

"I have seen it regulated. I have seen it opened up part way. And I have seen it re-regulated part way. It worked better part-way open. I vote for opening it all the way."

jaybate 12 years, 5 months ago


Ah, now we are getting some where.

This is the part where we do it again. You need repetition.

To repeat, I want a totally free market, but a totally free market is not totally unconstrained, and not totally unsupervised. A totally free market is not an amarket. It is not chaos. It is a totally free market within limits.


That was the sound of your consistency burn pattern shorting out. :-)

Its coming. You will get it.

All real learning is painful.

But not too painful.

What you feel is the mind getting in shape.

Welcome to Neural Net Fitness 101.

I am expanding and contracting the length of my responses to help you limber up.

It is working. :-)

jaybate 12 years, 5 months ago


Share with us what you think about whether college and professional talent valving should be liberalized; i.e., should they operate with less micro management, but still within a clearly instituted, rigorously supervised free market, as I advocate (not chaos), or the continued highly regulated, very conservatively structured (i.e., players have heavily restricted rights of choice at most stages). Come on in, the water's fine. You can do it. :-)

Dyrk Dugan 12 years, 5 months ago


i've already posted on the subject. (you'll need to scroll up quite a ways.) i don't need to write a novel, like some folks :)

Commenting has been disabled for this item.