The recent talk of making freshmen ineligible for men’s basketball and football got a little more serious Thursday, when word leaked out that the Big Ten actually is giving the idea some thought. Given that commissioners Bob Bowlsby of the Big 12 and Larry Scott of the Pac-12 also have discussed the idea lately, it would appear that the so-called Power 5 leagues are mulling over the proposition at least.
If their goal is to improve the college basketball product, they actually might be on to something. Let me explain.
*
What is the problem?
Put simply, it’s the NBA’s age restriction on entering the NBA draft.
Marquee programs such as Kentucky, North Carolina, Duke and Kansas are building their programs around a revolving door of talented one-and-done players. That strategy works if your goal is to win games and keep boosters happy, so it’s no surprise that John Calipari and Roy Williams would welcome diaper dandies into their programs.
On the other hand, this approach sucks as a way of selling the sport to a broader audience of fans. The sport’s best players live in the public consciousness for about two months after the end of football season before they’re off to the NBA. The people trying to market the sport have a more difficult time connecting to players and teams. Not to mention, the mercenary nature of the system feels more like a business transaction than doing it for the love of old alma mater, which goes against the entire image the college sports industrial complex is trying to sell.
What would be best from the schools’ point of view?
Ideally, the schools would want to get elite talents to stay in school for as long as possible. In this environment, I think they’d take the NBA just adding another year to the age limit.
How would the NBA feel about that?
Keep in mind that there are two sides to consider when it comes to the age restriction in the pros, the owners (whose interests are represented by NBA commissioner Adam Silver) and the players (represented by the NBA Players Association).
The owners
The owners are already on board with upping the age limit to two years.
A robust college basketball platform actually benefits pro franchises immensely. Filtering talent through college gives them a better picture of who can thrive in the NBA and who can’t. Unlike high school, players are competing in a structured, high-stakes environment against better competition. They’re receiving training from (theoretically) expert coaches. The schools also market the players to fans, so there’s already a level of familiarity with the players once they reach the pro level.
The players
The players are on record as opposing any change to the age limit as a matter of principle.
So how would making freshmen ineligible change anything?
It wouldn’t – directly. The more important question when looking at the effect of this proposal on college basketball: How would the key stakeholders outside the college game react?
OK, how would the key stakeholders outside the college game react?
Let’s start with prospects.
Sitting out a year makes college less appealing for any prospect who harbors hopes of going pro early, not just for the elite one-and-dones. If you’re interested in playing pro basketball as soon as possible, you don’t gain much spending a year going to Spanish 101 and contracting mutant viruses living in a dorm.
Sure, some of these players would still opt to go to school. A large number would start looking for alternatives, though, be it the NBA Developmental League or overseas or upstart pro leagues in the United States.
What does that mean for the owners?
Their free minor league takes a hit. They will have to invest more in the D-League to cultivate prospects and fend off competition. (And everybody is watching the D-League now, right?) Overseas franchises might use the opportunity to become more aggressive in their pursuit of young U.S. prospects, diverting some talent away from the league and squeezing the NBA salary structure.
In other words, it will cost them money.
OK, so why not just drop the age limit entirely at that point?
Because that worked so well the first time.
Then raise the age limit and placate the schools.
If the owners want to do that, the players union can use the age restriction as a bargaining chip in the next labor negotiations to get more concessions (read: money).
Is it worth it for the owners to make that deal?
Who knows? Presumably they could put together a dollar-figure valuation representing what it would be worth to them.
You haven’t mentioned college basketball in a while. What happens if nothing changes on the NBA level? Are the schools prepared to live without all that elite talent?
Who knows? That’s the crux of the issue for the schools.
On its face, it sounds absurd. College basketball is getting hard enough to watch as it is. Discouraging the best players from coming through the system can’t help.
But, really, what do the schools have to lose?
They’d take a little of the “ick” factor away from the sport at a time when the principles of amateurism are under legal fire. Furthermore, they could still sell March Madness, which is increasingly becoming the focal point of the sport. It derives the majority of its value from the nature of the event itself, not the players. And it’s not like the sport didn’t survive back when the Lebrons and Kobes were heading straight to the league.
The schools might even find that the sport is more popular by trading some talent for greater roster stability. If they start losing money, they can always re-institute freshmen eligibility.
Even if the schools have no intention of following through on this, just floating the idea at least forces the NBA owners to consider what life would be like without their feeder system.
Ultimately, it’s a solid business move by Delany and company. Don’t think Jim Delany ever does something without a much larger endgame in mind.
