Sullinger pays $9m for a year of college

What about a national youth league for the NBA. Like the toyata cup NRL. Have collage basketball too, but have a NBA youth league as the pathway and pay the players in the NBA youth league. WOuld it sell and catch on maybe. you could bet in it like other leagues you can bet in college basketball and football. And after 1 year you can leave the youth league and go to put yourself up for the NBA draft. At least they get paid unlike in college basketball, . That to me in 2012 is a real constraint of trade and stuffing the young basketballers around not paying them in college, perhaps a NBA youth league would be a happy median, or you are allowed to paly int he nBA D-league instead but it is an issue that won't go away. Foricng the young players to go and play in the NBL or Euro basket after that 1st high school year is not the awnser either. SO what about a NBA youth league might capture fans attention, especially if sports betting is allowed in the league, i think you can bet on toyata cup in the NRL

Yep, that's a fair point actually. Because the time they didn't spend in college means they should be compared to players that did. I'll take that one on the chin.

It all depends on the individual player and situation, that's what I think we can agree on. If you're guaranteed to be a top 8-10 draft pick, you should declare for the draft, regardless of whether you're a high school player, freshman, sophomore or junior. Nothing can seriously be gained by having one year in college, or one more year in college. You only yourself up to injury, a drop off in production, a deeper draft, or anything else that will see you slip down, or even out, of the draft. But, again, depending on the individual, a year in college, or another year in college, can have its benefits too. Some players have dramatically improved their daft position by doing so. Sadly, I don't think Sullinger will fit that description, and that's your main point. He should have gone last year.

Oh I can see why the teams want it. The player develops even 5% more before they have to pay him then great for the team - horrible for the player but then that isn't Cubans concern.

But you are making a flawed comparison. You are comparing their rookie years rather than their 4th or 5th years as an adult basketball player. You are talking about a pre to pro rookie or a one and done rookie which isn't the right comp you should be comparing a one and done player with three years pro experience to a four year college player who is a rookie. If college made you a better defender four year college players would be better than three year professionals, but they aren't. All the data suggests that 2 year and under college players is where the cream of the nba come from so it is tough to see how we can justify staying in college improves your game

http://tracking.si.com/2012/04/05/mark-cuban-wants-top-prospects-to-stay-in-college-longer/#?sct=nba_t2_a5

It's a contentious rule, Johnno, because it's basically a restriction of trade. If, coming out of high school, you were such a mathematical genius that a company offered you a job straight away, it would be discrimination to prevent you from taking the job, based on your age. The same applies to LeBron. He was ready for the NBA as a teen, and didn't (and shouldn't) have had to wait a year. The flip side of the coin, is that the NBA was trying to protect its 'product', which they believed was being harmed by the number of players coming into the league who perhaps weren't ready, both physically and/or mentally. Their thinking was that this lowered the overall standard of the league, so they brought in the age rule. I don't neccassarily agree with it. As mushi pointed out, the preps to pros strike rate of quality players is 50%. That's not terrible, and it wouldn't be far off the same strike rate for lottery picks who attended college (for any amount of time). At the end of the day, the onus is on NBA team's scouts, GM's and coaching staff to ensure they pick, and then develop, players that they think can help their team.

This comment section and where it is going got me reading tonight about this subject about skipping college after high school, and by passing the tradiotnal development structures in basketball and if it is good to go straight to NBA. Now the NBA i red has a rule that you have to of left High School for 1 full academic year. Basically means in relaity you have to be 19 basically or just about to turn 19. I think it is good rule. The NBA did it to protect college basketball, and also to have more mature adults who are hungry and motivated and more mature and level headed. Becoz what wa sharpening was this some of the star high school kids post 2000 were basically getting signed up by the NBA teams thrown semi big money or big money and basically being lost in the hype , and basically just fading away in the celebrity lifestyle and ending up broke or washed up or both. And also hurting college basketball as a production line. To rectify both problems the NBA made the rules that you have to of left high school for 1 full academic year. Good decison too. You think about everyone, your 18 just finished high school and you get offered $1-$2million a year plus maybe an endorsement deal and sign on fee suddenly you have about after tax maybe $1 or $2million dollars before you know it while your high school mates are 1st year university working in fast food, and nightclubs, to pay the rent and food maybe only marginally better than frozen pizzas and 2-minute noodles or still a thoem with there parents in maybe a poor lower middle class to dirt poor area, and university books . And you have suddenly $2million dollars at 18 and all the girls and hangers on pretending to be your friend , when instead taking you for a ride. So I think this decision by the NBA was a good move. So it stopped the future le bron james, kobe bryants , kevin garnetts of this world just going straight out of high school and into the NBA. Better way as it develops maturity, more adult life experience, hunger and motivation , and more sensible attitude to being professional. And that's why i like the toyata cup rugby league under 20/s comp. it gives a clear pathway for the young adult 18-20 to become a senior pro at a slow and steady pace. Many rugby league coaches would like no player to play 1st grade before they turn 20, and I agre with that too, and the toyata cup at least gives that slow steady pace development pathway plan which is very good.

I think you need to slow down and actually read my comments. I never said 4 year guys make better NBA players. Never said it. I said "...another year of maturity can never be a bad thing." That's not definitively saying players should stay in school, its a comment about maturity. As for the defensive abilities of high school players, read my reply to Johnno. I'm referring to when they first come into the league, not once they're established, and especially not now in their respective careers. LeBron James as a rookie was poor defender, though it was sometimes masked by his elite athleticism. He worked very hard on that part of his game, and he's now an outstanding defender. Defense is the one area that almost every single prep to pros player has struggled with early in their career. This is just a fact. Most rookies struggle on D in the first year, regardless of age or college experience. But the prep guys normally struggle a touch more because they haven't played a lot of structured defense, nor have they had top level coaching. And before you jump on it, I'm in no way saying that that means they should have gone to college. You can learn defense in the NBA, just like James, Bryant, Garnett, etc did - all who beame outstanding defenders. But it is fact that most guys who went to college will have a leg up in terms of playing defense, and be better at things like rotations. This doesnt mean they're better defenders - everyone would pick LeBron over, say, JJ Redick, as a defensive player, but early on Reddick played better team defense due to the coaching he received in college.

Don't think you could be more wrong Howard garnet Kobe bron Bynum. Seriously I think your apprehensions are all built on conventional wisdom rather than analysis. James was rated by synergy sports as the second best defender in the league (breaking down every single isolation play last season) behind Howard who also happened to go prep to pro. Also if you are going to counter point where is your 4 year college guy? Also every piece of empiracal evidence suggests at best that college has 0 impact it is all a flawed assumption with 0 basis

Sorry Johnno, I should have qualified my comment by saying that prep to pro players are poor/terrible defenders when they first enter other league. I didn't meanthat they are poor defenders for their entire career. Bryant and James are both good defenders. Not great, but good. But equally, both of them were below average defenders in the first couple of seasons in the league, and I attribute this directly to the lack of coaching they received.

So Ryan would you say Kobe bryant and le bron James are seen average defenders for the NBA level, i don't know anything about there defensive reputation in the nBA just there offence reputation. I know about there offensive ability via the media, but don't know how they are viewed in the NBA defensive wise are they seen as scott pippen or dennis rodman or gary payton, or ron harper, standard type defenders. Micheal Jordan was a great defender he was just as well known for his defence as his offence.

Hhhhhmmm, irrelevant is a big call! What goes massively unnoticed or unaware is the fact that college teaches you about defense, specifically rotations. Almost every single prep to pro player has been a horrific NBA defender. I would say 100% almost! Whilst that may not be a big enough reason to stay in school, to not at least acknowledge that is a big call.

All good – not having a go just discussing back and forth. Whilst it’s hard to say this or this makes you better (as you can’t test the same player) I think there’s enough evidence to suggest college experience is irrelevant which ata couple of million a year is a pretty expensive exercise. I get the mentally ready point, just not sure I’ve seen too many guys that are off in the regard “get it” during their college years. Also if you are the kind of person who isn’t mature enough to handle things then you’re probably unlikely to be self aware enough to recognise it.

Oh mate, I wasn't disagreeing with you at all. I think you're right. But just as you can't empirically state that staying in college makes you better NBA player, I don't think you can also say that it definitely doesn't. Sometimes it's not so much that the college system makes you a better player, it's more that you're not ready mentally. In any case, it's up the NBA team to nurture and develop their young talent, and I think different individuals need development. Some just need to play and learn 'on the job', others need to be brought on slowly.

But today's one and done guys include people who would have been prep to pros right? Either way I was more using that to say I'm not sure there is any evidence to support staying in College longer provides a better platform for your NBA career. Once you have a “ready” game or body to be drafted does college provide you with any maturity that the professional world does not. The top ten players in PER last year 7 of them entered the NBA with the minimum college eligibility and 9 of the top 15. tim Duncan was the ONLY player with 3 or 4 years. the only player. If additional college is this panacea then why are the early leavers or the internationals the best players? Remeber Duncan elected to stay becuase he'd committed to get his degree rather than for basketball development. The "should have stayed" argument for those player that washed out relies on the notion that playing more college basketball would have better prepared them when no one can seem to produce any empirical evidence to suggest more college = better NBA player. It is this assumption I can’t understand. You play and practice far fewer minutes against inferior competition. You are playing a game at a lower level of athleticism and far inferior decision making. If I took NBA and college out of the scenario and described the two situations no one would say hey I think the one with less time and relevance would be more educational.

Preps to pros is a slightly different proposition though. You're then talking about players that were deemed so talented that they were potentially ready for the NBA at teenagers. Freshman, Sophmores & Juniors that enter the draft are different, as they were players that may have needed some college coaching, or maturity, or time for their bodies to fill out. I was actually surprised that the preps to pros hit rate was 50%, as I thought it would be lower. However, the list of players that came out early, when they potentially should have stayed around for another year, would be a lot different. (And harder to list, as there would literally be hundreds!). One thing I do disagree with is people who criticise players that come out early and say "they're doing it for the money". That's just naive and stupid. You go to University so that you gain qualifications to get a job - hopefully a well paying one. If you a contract worth millions of dollars ready to go, you take it. That's the idea!

The list I had I left out Bynum aswell.

Interestingly though sullinger being a higher pick means his team would be more likely to try to nurture him (barring using the Michael Jordan school of management) –but like you I’m not sure he is the kind of person that need’s that. It would be interesting to do the analysis of preps to pros taken in the lottery versus college players. My very cursory look at it has I think 16 guys since 1989 3 were MVPs, 6 All NBA, 2 more are top quality players (Chandler and Jefferson) so a 50% hit rate of a “quality” player. Of the 8 also rans Curry had an above average NBA career whilst Miles, Bender and Livingston were derailed by injury. For super stars I’m not sure another year of being pandered to in college is going to give them that much scope to mature as a person. That said for lottery bubble guys it potentially makes sense as you have room to move up but if you are a top 5 guy the only thing that scouts are going to focus on is your deficiencies.

The other point is just what was an extra year of taking Ohio State into the first rank of American college basketball teams worth to the coaches and assistant coaches who talked him out of being a paid full-time professional, and in favour of being an unpaid full time professional. My estimate is three million dollars, spread among the coaching staff. His cut of that was nil.