Go Across the Ocean, Young Man

Going to play professionally in Europe for a year or two certainly strikes me as a superior option for a talented 18 year-old American basketball player than going to play for a fake-amateur team affiliated with an American college or university. Indeed, it seems like something of a no-brainer. And maybe if more people did it, the NCAA would start feeling pressure to erode the cartel's rules against compensating athletes for the work they do on behalf of the college.

Or who knows, maybe some colleges might even decide that managing for-profit sports franchises is an odd side-business for institutions of higher education to be running.

Comments

an odd side-business for institutions of higher education to be running

Odd ... but lucrative!

My own modest proposal for the big-time college sports is to maintain their school affiliations -- same mascot, play in the same stadium, etc. -- but forbid students to play on the teams. If you're a good ball player, apply and get on the team. If you want to go to college after that, apply and get in the school.

Then the athletes could get paid something like a market rate, the school would still (surely) manage to make some money off the deal, and the debasement of higher education would be alleviated.

Posted by Anderson | June 24, 2008 9:24 AM

I really hope it works out for the kid. The deal that the NBA and the NCAA have worked out to transfer income from elite basketball players to NCAA coaches is nothing short of shameful. I think I'd be happier with a system that just taxed first contract NBA players to pay off the coaches. At least it would be more transparent.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 24, 2008 9:30 AM

Is there any actual data supporting this theory? Any substantial number of players who went to play European ball right out of high school, then returned to NBA success at any level? Name a few.

Is there any evidence that it would be likely that European teams would take even top 10 18 year old Americans? Much less somebody who's good enough to get a scholarship, even start, at say Seton Hall or the University of Colorado, but isn't a McDonald's All American? Where's the evidence that the European teams want to play this role in taking these young fellows off our hands?

Until then, the lowly Eastern League would appear to be a better route, but surely college is a better option from the standpoint of the actual players, isn't it? There are exceptions, but how many 18 year old boys are really ready to start riding busses (OK, probably pretty nice trains) all over Europe with a bunch of 30 year olds?

I grant your underlying point about the corrupting effect of athletics, but superior for the player? That's beyond a stretch.

Posted by drinkof | June 24, 2008 9:35 AM

For this to work the euro leagues will have to do their part and provide a good environment for 18 year olds to develop.

Posted by thehova | June 24, 2008 9:38 AM

Lets focus on the most important thing: Team USA is sure to be better, or at least more competitive than it has recently been, if there is a pool of Americans with international experience to draw from.

I'd really like to see a permanent Team USA, playing international ball year round. Bob Knight would be a perfect coach if he wasn't such an asshole; maybe Phil Jackson and Tex Winter (or someone similarly invested in fundamentals and team play) could take up such a project when the Kobe run is over.

Posted by kth | June 24, 2008 9:40 AM

Any substantial number of players who went to play European ball right out of high school, then returned to NBA success at any level?

They'll get paid over there.

There are exceptions, but how many 18 year old boys are really ready to start riding busses (OK, probably pretty nice trains) all over Europe with a bunch of 30 year olds?

There have been plenty of US soccer players who've done this, though for them, it's not riding the trains that holds them back; it's talent.

Posted by Ronnie Pudding | June 24, 2008 9:44 AM

I see Matt's quixotic campaign against college ball has taken a new and bizarre turn.

Here's a thought: many of these players (the 90% who aren't good enough for the NBA) want degrees and the higher lifetime income that comes with one.

Posted by Tom | June 24, 2008 9:45 AM

I agree with Yglesias on the theory. But in reality? I don't know. Would Derrick Rose be better off if he'd spent a year in Italy or Spain? Doesn't he benefit more by playing regularly on national TV here for a few months and then taking his team to the brink of a national championship in front of a huge television audience?

Posted by Matt M. | June 24, 2008 9:47 AM

Here's a thought: many of these players (the 90% who aren't good enough for the NBA) want degrees and the higher lifetime income that comes with one.

Yglesias, I assume, is talking about a very limited number of players--perhaps those that would be first round draft picks after high school plus a few more--going overseas. Or, cut with a different blade, those who could get contracts worth more than the cost of a college degree. No one is actually insisting that players be prevented from accepting college scholarship offers, or that Euro teams be required to offer every decent high school player a contract.

I think it would be great to move the players before they finish high school, but baby steps.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 24, 2008 9:52 AM

You can tell when a "basketball" fan has gone to a vastly inferior sports school.

If I had had to spend 4 years following Harvard basketball, I'd probably hate the entire sport. My 1 year of Dartmouth basketball was more than enough - now I'm a proud backer of the SEC.

Posted by Andy | June 24, 2008 9:54 AM

Would Derrick Rose be better off if he'd spent a year in Italy or Spain?

He'd be richer. And it's not as if we haven't seen foreign players go #1. Scouting departments that are entirely dependent on March Madness for player evaluations should be fired summarily.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 24, 2008 9:57 AM

Cain: Uh huh, now listen carefully. Do you think Shaq got rich playing in Orlando? Hardly. He made his fortune moving to LA. You know how much he makes now?
Remer: As much as he made playing in college?

Remer: All right, dude, listen to me carefully. Do you think Shaq got rich playing in Orlando?
Coop: No, he got rich playing in college. Everybody knows that.

-- Quoted from the movie "Baseketball", 1998

Posted by LFC | June 24, 2008 9:57 AM

And yet the basic truth remains: college basketball is vastly more fun to watch than the pro game.

Posted by J.B. | June 24, 2008 9:58 AM

Virtually no collegiate athletics program is 'for-profit' when all sports are considered together. In 2004-2005, only 22 of the 313 programs in Div-I were self-supporting (see link).

Posted by Scott P. | June 24, 2008 10:02 AM

And yet the basic truth remains: college basketball is vastly more fun to watch than the pro game.

This is why college basketball is so popular during the regular season.

Posted by mpowell | June 24, 2008 10:07 AM

drinkof - There's no history US HS players going to European pro leagues because the NBA only introduced it's draft ban of players under 19 years old in 2006. Mike Taylor of the Idaho Stampede (D-League) is in this year's draft after playing one year in the D-League out of HS. You get paid in the D-League the same as in Europe so it's going to be an option as more HS kids figure out the scam of NCAA basketball, ie Coachs and ADs get paid for their management but you don't get paid for labor.

From the Idaho Statesman: "He was never eligible for the draft and every player has to be eligible for one draft," Taylor's agent, Bill Neff, said. "If he is drafted - and I think he has a real good chance of being drafted - he would be the first NBADL guy ever drafted." Neff said Taylor is testing some uncharted waters with his unconventional path. "I'm surprised it hasn't generated more buzz," Neff said. "Because if you think of it logically, you have a situation where this could serve as another place for athletes to go and not go to college." Players must be 18 years old and their high school class must have graduated for them to be eligible for the D-League.

Substitute CSKA Moscow for the Idaho Stampede it's the same deal with mo' $$$.

Posted by joejoejoe | June 24, 2008 10:07 AM

The problem is, would a Euro team give a guy like Jennings enough PT to make a dent. He'll be there for a year, and then gone. It's not like college where he'll be the best player on the team and can showcase his talents. I'm not sure riding the pine will help his career much. (it'll probably help his bank account though

Posted by Andrew Fly | June 24, 2008 10:13 AM

I was going to add this to the assignment desk. Well done!

The question is if this will go one step further, and lead to the professionalization of the professional for everyone but the players AAU.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | June 24, 2008 10:14 AM

What Scott P. Said...

Also, consider the talented young men who do not have the grades to get into or stay in college, even with the academic support NCAA schools throw at these guys. By turning universities into NBA and NFL farm teams, we have tacked a nonessential qualification to play in the NBA - a minimal SAT score.

We need to consider MLB as well which have drafted high school graduates in addition to drawing from college teams.

Posted by Scott Ferguson | June 24, 2008 10:17 AM

Ok, doesn't it seem crazy that colleges run these junior league sports franchises under the auspices of education? Wouldn't it make more sense to have club teams like they do in Europe? I don't understand why we expect some 18 year old jock to become a scholar just so he can go out and be a professional jock.

Posted by freddiemac | June 24, 2008 10:18 AM

Scott,
75% of division I NCAA men's basketball and football teams make a profit.

"Handbook on the Economics of Sport" By Wladimir Andreff, Stefan Szymanski (http://preview.tinyurl.com/3kyugm)

Posted by Njorl | June 24, 2008 10:23 AM

Matt is obviously talking about a very small group of playes. This particular athlete seems to fit the bill perfectly. The only gamble would be to get stuck on a good European teams' bench. But as long as he's signed to a big enough contract, I doubt that would happen.

As far as college basketball being better to watch than the pros, I'd have to beg to differ, and I'm a big college fan. I fear that when a lot of people talk about college basketball being superior, they are really referring to March Madness. And yes, you'd have to be crazy to not like the tournament, but the regular season just isn't that great.

Posted by Sammy | June 24, 2008 10:27 AM

I thought that slavery was illegal in this country.

A coach recruits you to play for him and you agree.

Before you get a chance to play for him, he renegs on his contract and goes to another employer.

You are not allowed to transfer with him. You are not allowed to transfer to another school/master and be a slave to a different owner.

Posted by neil wilson | June 24, 2008 10:27 AM

Here's a thought: many of these players (the 90% who aren't good enough for the NBA) want degrees and the higher lifetime income that comes with one.

Yes, like the NCAA ads say, most of them go professional in something other than sports. But this post is addressing those players that have a legitimate shot at the NBA. For example, the backup point guard at the University of Montana probably doesn't have the same options as Brandon Jennings (the 18-year-old player going to Europe). And if we're talking about higher lifetime incomes then putting off professional basketball to go to college would be an especially stupid decision. If they are just going to join the league after one year why make them go to college? They have no incentive to actually be a student during that time, and if they want to get a degree they can study during the offseason or after they retire. If the NBA thinks there is something inherently good about starting college at 18, or finishing at 22, they shouldn't accept players until they have a degree instead of throwing the NCAA a bone by letting them have a few NBA-caliber players for a year. The idea that there is some loftier purpose behind denying 18-year-olds eligibility is a crock, and if anything it could eventually hurt the NBA. Obviously, most players will want to play in the NBA eventually, but if the NBA continues to deny players that Europe accepts they are eventually going to lose some of the edge they have in terms of talent.

Posted by ibid | June 24, 2008 10:35 AM

I thought that slavery was illegal in this country.

Ding! We have officially hit slavery, which is the equivalent of Godwin's law for college/pro athletics discussions.

I'm as pro-athlete/anti-school as anyone, but any comparison to slavery is just silly.

The problem is, would a Euro team give a guy like Jennings enough PT to make a dent. He'll be there for a year, and then gone.

I don't know from this kid, but Oden or LeBron would have been a full-time starter in any league at age 18.

Posted by Brad L | June 24, 2008 10:39 AM

75% of division I NCAA men's basketball and football teams make a profit.

Yes, and most of that profit goes to support other sports programs, particularly women's athletics. It's not some cash cow for the university as a whole.

Introduce compensation, and you'll likely have many universities eliminate athletic scholarships in lieu of pay. Since compensation would surely, not be subject to Title IX regulations (how would that work?), it would be a good way out of having to fund women's sports.

My own modest proposal for the big-time college sports is to maintain their school affiliations -- same mascot, play in the same stadium, etc. -- but forbid students to play on the teams. If you're a good ball player, apply and get on the team.

Once you divorce a college team from the students, there is nothing preventing selling of teams and relocation. The University of Phoenix has a lot of money to throw around. How would you like it if they purchased the team, mascot and history of your alma mater?

Posted by Scott P. | June 24, 2008 10:48 AM

But in reality? I don't know. Would Derrick Rose be better off if he'd spent a year in Italy or Spain? Doesn't he benefit more by playing regularly on national TV here for a few months and then taking his team to the brink of a national championship in front of a huge television audience?

This is a really interesting question. My guess is that it would be different for different players. College is going to allow some kids to live in an extended adolescent playground, which may not be conducive to the discipline that the NBA will require. And the quality of coaching varies dramatically, even among top-tier schools.

Besides the obvious advantage of getting paid, the Euro leagues will offer actual professional athletes to be around and to learn from. But the downside is that the player will likely be way outside their comfort zone: different language, far from family, etc etc.

In terms of game development, I bet the Euro league is a better place. Emotionally, though, it's a pretty big tossup. I'd love to see someone do it (and for a pretty fat contract, too), just to thumb the eye of the NBA, and the ridiculous age barrier they've constructed.

Posted by Brad L | June 24, 2008 10:48 AM

And a good point from the TNR comments: traveling and working in Europe for a year is a much more meaningful life experience than living on a college campus, particularly if you don't actually need to learn anything at college. Wouldn't you commend an 18-year-old for going out and seeing the world rather than following the insular, predetermined course others have set for him?

Posted by ibid | June 24, 2008 10:51 AM

The biggest question is what kind of coaching would one get in Europe. If he's able to get on a team with a coaching staff that is going to take the time to teach him, I think it would be better for his overall game as opposed to going to college for a year. Because of the international game, players from Europe are often times more fundamentally sound. With the right coach, a player like Jennings could definitely improve his game a great deal. Not saying this couldn't happen in college, but he'll simply have more time to play in Europe. More games, more downtime, etc...

Posted by Sammy | June 24, 2008 10:54 AM

Oh, its straightforward. The university incorporates the big money sports departments who licenses the right to use the University name and run on a for-profit basis. Reciprocal to the licensing is the right to take University courses for those players that wish to, provided they maintain good academic standing.

Running on a for-profit basis, there is an incentive to operate at a profit, rather than the current incentive to convert any operating profit into costs of operation.

Posted by BruceMcF | June 24, 2008 10:55 AM

Since compensation would surely, not be subject to Title IX regulations (how would that work?), it would be a good way out of having to fund women's sports.

Um, require compensation for women? It's not as if men's sports' compensation has a set schedule. In any case, at the moment, we're talking about removing players from the college system. The system would still exist, and if it's not just a straight income transfer from those players' pockets, the system could go on as it is now.

I'm as pro-athlete/anti-school as anyone, but any comparison to slavery is just silly.

Agreed.

ut the downside is that the player will likely be way outside their comfort zone: different language, far from family, etc etc.

Depending on the family/friend situation, this might be an upside.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 24, 2008 11:12 AM

Colleges have no reason to compensate star basketball players. They are incredibly fungible. Every year, huge stars like Carmelo Anthony, Marvin Williams, Kevin Durant etc. come through college for a brief year and then leave. The next year there's an entirely new crop of stars and the fans and money keep pouring in to watch. Why would they pay the players for this?

If they paid the student athletes, college basketball would probably become less fan-friendly and profitable not only because of the cost of paying the athletes but because a handful of richer schools would become the NY Yankees of college basketball and drive competition down.

Posted by Liberal Chris | June 24, 2008 11:15 AM

Why would they pay the players for this?

Ask the boosters who pass cash to players like Webber. Maybe they're just drunks.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 24, 2008 11:20 AM

A couple of things Matt may not be taking into account. One is playing time. European basketball is notorius for not putting the best players on the floor and any given time, but rather playing time is doled out for other reasons including seniority. An 18 year old coming with the experssed intention to play for one year is not likely to get alot. Also, a lot of the players playing overseas were not stars in college but rather good teammates. Your average 18 year high school star has enough trouble fitting into college, I don't think many would make the transition succesfully in Europe. In college you have coaches who need to make sure you stay elibile, so there is a vast support system of people.

Also in terms of moeny you are ignoring endorsements. Provided the lack of exposure in US Colleges would not hurt draft position (I'm not ready to make that assumption, but I'll give it to you) salaries for the first 3 years are not that high, a lot of the top people make some money off endorsements. You think those endorsement dollars would be reduced if no one had heard of this person?

Finally being a houshold name because of college helps people stick around longer. If a Euro flames out they tend to not stick in the NBA while it seems a guy with a name from college can always find a second chance.

Posted by nathaniel | June 24, 2008 11:23 AM

"Yes, and most of that profit goes to support other sports programs, particularly women's athletics. It's not some cash cow for the university as a whole."

That's what a cash cow is. It generates money that can be spent on things that the university would fund from other sources. If the men's program were running at a loss, the university would still fund the women's program. Therefore, the men's program is a cash cow for the university as a whole.

Posted by Njorl | June 24, 2008 11:34 AM

Lemme guess: You went to a college with a crappy/irrelevant basketball program? Should we eliminate college football as well?

Posted by trza | June 24, 2008 11:47 AM

One thing I haven't heard mentioned is what interest a European team would have in taking on an American kid for just one year. With a LeBron, who had enormous buzz coming out of high school, they would have made money off of him in just one year, but he's a once in a lifetime guy. For anyone else, my guess is that a European club would want a two or more year commitment, which changes the calculus a lot (so much so that I figure almost everyone would want to go to college unless they were really desperate to get their families out of a bad situation or were looking at a post-grad year because of inferior grades/SATs).

Posted by Sancho | June 24, 2008 11:52 AM

The obvious problem: if you go and play for a relatively poor Div I college, it'll end up on ESPN. If you go and play for Dynamo Oligarch or whatever, you get seen by people who watch Euroleague basketball.

Still, it needs to be emphasised that the college-as-development-league model is really strange. There are a lot of talented people in sport who are not that bright.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 24, 2008 11:52 AM

I agree with Tom. The cost of a college education is near $80,000 for a state school these days. A Harvard degree is closer to $200,000. Only a minor percentage (read less than 1%) actually get drafted and/or play in the NBA. Matt's suggestion about paying is crazy.

While the NCAA makes money, I can say with certainty from my days in the Sports Management field, only a small number of school actually make money with college athletics (This is usually the big football programs and a few big basketball programs). I think it is better to let the big sports subsidize the small sports and let the few people who think they have a shot take their one year and done and the let the rest get a degree to better the rest of their lives with.

Posted by craig | June 24, 2008 11:53 AM

There have been some efforts to create and/or expand minor league basketball associations in the US. Per this there appears to be about six of them active right now. But none appear to be as successful as arena league football, much less minor league baseball.

Posted by Kolohe | June 24, 2008 11:56 AM

If the degree and other educational benefits are sufficient compensation for playing big time college ball, why not make them meaningful.

The education is deliverable after the basketball career is completed, at whatever level it ends. This way the student has the time to actually take the courses. SAT shouldn't matter either. The benefit should be as much education as you need, starting from wherever you are, up to a BA, or to a vocational program if that is more appropriate.

Posted by snoey | June 24, 2008 12:00 PM

Hello? Has anyone really thought about this?

Think of the millions Derrick Rose, Mayo, and Beasley are going to get through endorsements right out of college. It won't be LeBron or Durant money but it will be multi-millions.

You may make more money in the short term in Europe, but nobody will know who you are until you prove yourself in the NBA.

Posted by Peter | June 24, 2008 12:01 PM

One type of compensation that college players get is television exposure that they would not get playing on a European team. Have a fantastic freshman year on a college team and get millions in the lottery. Have a fantastic year in Europe and maybe youg et noticed, maybe not.

Posted by Dave | June 24, 2008 12:11 PM

If they are just going to join the league after one year why make them go to college? .
===
A couple years back, when Maryland won the NCAA title, there was a lot of speculation about sophomore Chris Wilcox and whether he'd come back for his junior year. In May or so (when speculation was peaking) I asked a friend of a friend who worked in Maryland's AD department if he thought Wilcox would go pro. He said, "I hope so because he hasn't gone to class since February."

Can't say I blame him.

Posted by hubcap | June 24, 2008 12:22 PM

You may make more money in the short term in Europe, but nobody will know who you are until you prove yourself in the NBA.

1. The shoe market has apparently contracted, nearly in half. (Or so claims True Hoop.) The endorsement money is going to be dependent on the size of the market.

2. Various Europeans have money that spends just like American money, and they buy shoes, too.

3. On a bet, playing in a different market before coming to the NBA helps rather than hinders a player's ability to endorse.

4. I'd be astonished if there is more than a single drafted player per year who is signed to an endorsement deal of note on the basis of two years of NBA production. I suspect endorsers, like teams, are paying on potential rather than notariety. Nike famously made this bet on Jordan and now (according to True Hoop) as something like 93% of the basketball shoe market.

In short, I can't imagine that playing in college rather than in Europe would affect endorsements very much.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 24, 2008 12:32 PM

Before I left for work I read a few of the first comments. It's toned down some, but it's clear that few, if any, commenters have either played a D1 revenue-producing sport or is close to anyone who has/had.

First, I believe the TNR post is referring only to players who are clear "one-and-done'ers." The Beasley's, the Mayo's, etc., players who would have been drafted straight outta high school if not for the current NBA labor agreement. So any discussion of the "what about the 90% who aren't good enough for the NBA?" is beside the point. (BTW: it's more like 99%. There are only 60 or so players drafted each year. Maybe 10 at most stick around three years or longer).

Second, the endorsement argument is silly. The skeezy AAU circuit already makes a lot of these guys marketable before playing a second of college basketball. And Yao Ming had endorsements his first year in the NBA despite playing not a second of basketball in the US of A. One year in Europe isn't going to matter. Also, if you "disappoint" (as OJ Mayo did, i.e., not advancing far enough in the tournament), no one is going to see you "fail."

Also, why do some of you think only USA endorsements matter? Play a year in Europe, have a winning personality and you are on your way to being global brand, as well as getting paid in lucrative Euros rather than with the currently crappy dollar. Does anyone think that Zidane is sitting in his palatial home right now, looking at his insanely beautiful wife and attractive children and thinking, "Damn, if only football/soccer were big enough in America, then I could rake in endorsement dollars. I coulda been somebody, I tells ya!" Like everything else, the American sports endorsement market is on longer the be-all, end-all.

The only drawback I figure is whether a Euroleague team is willing to sign a kid for a year then play him. Usually, Euroleague teams require multi-year deals. And, as a commenter pointed out, Euro-league teams are notorious for not always playing the best players. If that can be worked out, I see know reason why not play overseas.

Posted by Shine | June 24, 2008 12:48 PM

"Nike famously made this bet on Jordan and now (according to True Hoop) as something like 93% of the basketball shoe market."

I remember way back in the stone age when most players wore Puma or Converse. The "big" Nike endorser at the time was John Woodin.

Posted by Njorl | June 24, 2008 12:52 PM

Anyone see this kid in the McDonald's All-American game? Easily the best point guard on the floor, an absolute terror in the open court.

He will be a big time NBA point guard, no matter if he plays college or not.

I'm with Matt - college athletics is a scam, and the NBA's rules on not allowing 18 year olds play are frankly un-American. A man has a right to earn a living regardless of his age. Certainly if he's 18.

Posted by Barackalounger | June 24, 2008 1:11 PM

The University of Phoenix has a lot of money to throw around. How would you like it if they purchased the team, mascot and history of your alma mater?

Given what Joe Paterno has already done to it, I'd say U of P should knock themselves out.

managing for-profit sports franchises is an odd side-business for institutions of higher education to be running.

Think of it as part of the PR department. George Washington U saw their application numbers something like triple after they made the basketball tournament for the first time in '92 (RIP Yinka Dare). For better or worse (I lean to the latter), athletics departments deliver a lot of value in terms of PR and alumni loyalty.

Posted by stuck in 200 | June 24, 2008 2:19 PM

Sorta off topic, I admit, but...

Because the WNBA pays for shit, most of the women in the league spend their 'off season' (sneer quotes, definitely) playing in Europe.

It's hellish for them -- they're playing near year-round, and the injury rate is rough -- but I think it's one of the reasons the state of play has risen so fast in the women's game. Thoughts?

Posted by sherrold | June 24, 2008 2:27 PM

There's a lot of comments above about whether college or europe will be better for his game, which drives me crazy. It's irrelevant.

Here's the only important point from where I'm standing: It's his life and his talent and his right to decide what to do with it all.

That a private enterprise is colluding with colleges to provide them free labor for a profitable enterprise (it doesn't matter whether they use the money to fund girls soccer, build laboratories, or rent more hookers for important boosters) is shameful.

The NBA also does this to avoid the costs associated with drafting younger guys (more likely to get a lemon when drafting young) and with developing a proper farm system that has been in place in baseball for generations and, until recent decades, has seen most prospective major leaguers go pro out of high school.

Posted by Dan | June 24, 2008 2:32 PM

There's a lot of comments above about whether college or europe will be better for his game, which drives me crazy. It's irrelevant.

Here's the only important point from where I'm standing: It's his life and his talent and his right to decide what to do with it all.

That a private enterprise is colluding with colleges to provide them free labor for a profitable enterprise (it doesn't matter whether they use the money to fund girls soccer, build laboratories, or rent more hookers for important boosters) is shameful.

The NBA also does this to avoid the costs associated with drafting younger guys (more likely to get a lemon when drafting young) and with developing a proper farm system that has been in place in baseball for generations and, until recent decades, has seen most prospective major leaguers go pro out of high school.

Posted by Dan | June 24, 2008 2:35 PM

Jennings is a real good player. Good for him. Hoops, money, Europe. Sounds great. I wish I'd had the option. (Old, talentless)

Colleges should keep to club and intramural sports. Stuff to keep their current students healthy rather than to prolong the college years of middle aged boosters.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 24, 2008 2:40 PM

Shine: comparing Euroleague basketball to European football is really apples/oranges. It's a much smaller and more regional market.

The appropriate comparison -- and this is actually an interesting development -- would be British prospects going to D1 soccer programs instead of the standard domestic schoolboy/academy route. It was the obvious route for female players, given the infrastructure for the women's game, but

(As opposed to college coaching, which is an increasingly attractive option for players after their careers are over.)

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 24, 2008 2:43 PM

Finish my sentence:

It was the obvious route for female players, given the infrastructure for the women's game, but it's considered a bit of a cop-out on the men's side.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 24, 2008 2:46 PM

It's important to note that many players give up lucrative contracts in Europe to play in the D-League in the US (which is supposedly a miserable experience).

Why? The world isn't exactly flat. NBA teams employ many more scouts in the states, watching high school, college and D-League games. It's much cheaper to focus on the US than Europe.

In less your a big, big, high school star, you'll receive more attention from the scouts playing in college.

Posted by thehova | June 24, 2008 2:52 PM

Best reason for a basketball prodigy to go to college? American pussy. They fuck like rabbits freshman year, and give out blowjobs like they were high fives. Plus they live right in your building. And that's if you are just a normal guy. If you are a famous basketball prodigy with an enormous schlong, look out!

No doubt!

Posted by Oh yeah! | June 24, 2008 3:03 PM

The tiny number of players who can go to Europe and play straight out of high school and make $200,000 per year now have the ability to tell Coach K "If I want to go to Duke, I'll pay my own way." If they make $80,000 per year they can tell Jim Calhoun at Connecticut the same thing. I think that's all Matt is trying to say. The balance of power is shifting to the player a tiny bit because of the 19 year old rule and the strength of other pro basketball leagues here in the US and abroad.

As for D-I programs funding the other programs that's nice and all but why should a 18 year old male basketball player practice his ass off in order to subsidize men's swimming or women's field hockey. Millions of Americans play in amateur sports leagues that they somehow manage organize themselves without a subsidy from more popular sports. Why the NCAA should do things differently (or exist at all) escapes me.

Posted by joejoejoe | June 24, 2008 3:20 PM

The problem is, Colleges aren't running a "for-profit" program. Ironically, almost every college LOSES money on athletics, largely due to the exhorbinant salaries paid coaches (my own school's athletic department lost $1.5 million last year - while paying the head football coach alone $1.8 million - more than all the faculty in my department COMBINED).

Athletes, if anything, are exploited by the system that creates a system that siphons off the surplus entirely to the coaching staff and athletic directors. NCAA transfer rules are analagous to the pre-1970s reserve clause in baseball, with transfer rules and compensation limits amounting to a salary cap on the income players can earn from their talent. The difficulties that are created for ANY student in transferring credits from one institution top another create a situation where schools can act as price discriminating monopolies, meaning that even the "scholarships" given student-athletes amount to no real expense to the University, as they are charged off to paying students.

Posted by George | June 24, 2008 3:30 PM

MOST college sports aren't for profit.

But certainly Men's College Basketball and Football are "for profit."

And for the most part, at large universities, they help support all the other programs.

And men's college football and basketball players are really the only ones that are exploited. Because really no other athletes make schools any money for the most part.

Posted by The Man | June 24, 2008 4:00 PM

And men's college football and basketball players are really the only ones that are exploited.

I'll go one step farther -- the only athletes that are exploited are the ones that could be making substantial money outside of college, but are prevented from doing so by agreement between the NCAA and the respective sports leagues.

Realistically, this is only a handful of players every year. But those players are severely harmed.

The rest? The actual student-athletes and the marginal pro prospects? That's a much more symbiotic relationship, and calling it exploitation is trickier.

Personally, I would be all for adding an optional "spending stipend" of some reasonable amount to the traditional scholarship money for some athletes (or, alternatively, allow extracurricular earning of up to, say, 15k/year without loss of eligibility), just so these kids don't have to run around with less money than many of their peers (or, instead, break the rules).

Posted by Brad L | June 24, 2008 4:11 PM

he appropriate comparison -- and this is actually an interesting development -- would be British prospects going to D1 soccer programs instead of the standard domestic schoolboy/academy route

No the appropriate comparison would be a youngster sitting on a MLS development squad. As Goldenballs showed that's a function of remuneration. Everybody understands money.

Nobody cares when baseball, hockey or soccer players go pro. The only thing that makes the NBA and NFL different is the melanin content of the player pool.

Posted by EmptyBucket | June 24, 2008 5:13 PM

This is almost certainly better for the a player like Jennings. He'll spend more time on basketball and develop better than if he played 30 games in college (against uneven competition). It may help US basketball. The US team has been lagging on the international scene. The US NBA professionals have been performing about as well in the FIBA world tournaments as the Denver Chevrolet team did in 1950. More international play by elite US players might help those players in future international competition.

This development would also probably improve college basketball. Although the athletic ability of players like Durant, Beasley and other is fun to watch, college basketball risks becoming an exercise in cheering for laundry.

Finally what nobody has pointed out is that this development is largely about shoes. Sonny Vaccaro (the "reformer" mentioned in the linked article) is affiliated with Reebok. College shoe contracts are negotiated on a team basis by the Coach or Athletic Director. All the time that Vaccaro spent in the development of that prospect may be lost if the prospect ends up at a Nike or Adidas school; Vaccaro won't be allowed within 100 miles of the player. On the other hand if Vaccaro places the kid with a European team and he does well, he may stay with Reebok for life.

Posted by rk | June 24, 2008 5:50 PM

Is there any actual data supporting this theory? Any substantial number of players who went to play European ball right out of high school, then returned to NBA success at any level? Name a few.

---

You might as well ask for proof that man has been on Mars. This would be the first instance of a US high school student going straight to Europe. Euroleagues have worked well for Euro players making it to the NBA and even some ex-US college ballers.

Posted by Joel | June 24, 2008 7:48 PM

The problem with most of these posts is that they and the comments they provoke are mostly ill-informed peregrinations from a series of thoughts that have no connection to the facts at hand.

Jennings doesn't want to go to Europe. If he did he would have already signed with an agent, not: signed a letter of intent; signed up for summer school at UA; and taken the SAT for the third time three days ago. He is the number one prospect in his class (though nothing close to a James-like prospect), and would probably have declaired for the draft had he been able--though he is an undersized pg, and the failure of last one of those to go directly from high school to the NBA, Sebastian Telfair, might from his example counter the craze of the dozens of swooning GMs suffing from Paul envy who are looking for their own shorty, and whom Matt so sternly comdemns for their flaws. His primary preference isn't an option, and his secondary one is also in doubt, so now he is rightly considering a tertiary one.

It should also be said that equating a kid who wasn't able to get a good enough score on his SATs, and decided that Europe was a better option than sitting out a year or playing in the d league, to Jackie Robinson is quite offensive.

As to the broader Euro option, it isn't as viable as it might seem. It is a huge adjustment for a limited period of time--and there is a huge downside. A star recruit can have a bad first year and still work his way back up to the lottery, and Europe is always a fallback for possible nbaers. Sign a one year deal, and don't impress, or sit on the bench...and then what? Take your chances of falling into the second round. Stay in a country you hate? Play in the d leauge with hordes of other failed prospects? There is no incentive for foreign teams to invest a lot of money for a player that probably won't dominate and will leave soon anyway. Since we are only talking about a handful of players each year, they won't invenst the resources into making it a viable option for American temp ex-pats.

Posted by Client #11 | June 24, 2008 11:53 PM

There's no doubt that playing for a year in Spain would be 8x as enriching as being a big man on campus for a year.

I've run into some young American basketball players in some weird corners of the world. Not NBA prospects or even mid-level European talent, but guys squeaking out $30-100k/yr in Beirut or Iran or Istanbul. Some even learned handball so they could play it pro during the off-season.

Posted by Mike | June 25, 2008 12:01 AM