Howland's answer on fixing NBA draft issue

I still don't know that this fixes the problem. At least with one and dones you know what you need to recruit. Last year we needed to look for someone to replace Love. This year we should have been looking for someone to fill Jrue's role (PG). The problem is people like Westbrook who have a great year and leave - you don't have the time to find/recruit someone at a high level (remember some of these relationships go back several years in recruiting). The only issue with Jrue is that we don't have depth at PG to replace him if he leaves - I see that as Howland's issue, not a problem with the system.

The way Howland words it is most likely to be accepted. Several players/coaches or people in sports wiriting/broadcasting have said that it should be two years if you go to college vs turn pro. Dohn is one example of those who say this. Others (like myself) don't want to throw out the position that three years is within the realm of possibility, and why not strive for that ideal? But giving the 'deciders' the option to make it 2 or 3 yrs is the first step in walking in the right direction. IMHO the majority closer to the game than we here on the blog agree with BH's view.

Here is what I perceive would be the BEST solution: A HS player would be allowed to go from HS to the NBA, but if he chooses to take a schollie, he MUST commit to at least 2 years. Then, if he wants to leave after 2 or 3 -- and not stay for the entire 4 years of eligibility, he MUST: (1) make his decision no later than 30 days after the NCAA Championship game is played; (2) agree that his decision is not revocable (i.e., no 'withdrawing' of his name); and (3) must agree to repay the University for at least 75% of the cost of his schollie to date out of his first NBA contract, if he is a lottery pick, or 50% if he is a first round pick.

Agree with (1) and (2) but not (3).

To the point that this does not solve any issue, I disagree. If you have player staying at least two years, in UCLA's case, it gives a chance for a lesser recruit to learn the ropes and be ready to take over as a junior if necessary.

We rebounded well after losing Farmar and Afflalo early but losing Love and possible Holiday seems to hurt the program a lot more.

Wow, UB very thoughtful. Somehow I don't see the NBAPA or David Stern acting so rationally. Baseball and its players assocation agreed on the draft from HS or three years of college rule and it works quite well there, albeit in a much different sport with 40+ draft rounds and hundreds of development farm clubs.

I like UB's insights. I also agree with 1 and 2, but not 3. Tons of people will complain with part 3 that the schools and the NCAA already makes too much money off these kids.

UB - where is VB these days? I saw a post a week or two ago about how he's back but I haven't seen his antics since?

Does UCLA have to take Jrue back? If not, just tell him that he is not welcome back and recruit someone else.

Somehow I don't think this would be an issue at all if someone like Gaddy had committed...

The difference, IMO, with Farmar and Afflalo was that we had quality backups when they left. The problem with Jrue is we don't have that backup and the timing doesn't allow us to get a late commit/transfer now. In most years that also wouldn't be a problem because there wouldn't be someone talented enough to walk into UCLA and contribute a lot as a freshman anyways. This year is different because of Calipari, but I still don't think Jrue deserves any blame for this.

Mike H, do you think that Ben isn't trying to recruit quality back ups? You give the Farmar and Afflalo situations as prime examples, yet their back ups were players like Collison, Westbrook and Roll, each of whom were significantly lower rated than Jerime and Malcolm. So actually, Ben did a BETTER job of recruiting quality back ups last year than in prior years, ranking-wise. Ben just got lucky with DC and RW -- they played well beyond their H.S. ranking.

It's just not possible to magically have each position covered year to year, especially when players leave early. It's the bane of a college coach's existence.

UCLA's issues date back long before Jrue Holiday step foot on campus. When Westbrook was brought in to replace Farmar no one -- not even Mr. Westbrook -- could forsee him having such a monster sophomore season and leaving early. If he were going to be playing his senior season next year, the loss of Holiday would be marginalized. The same can be said for Mbah a Moute.

Couple with recruiting mistakes such as Stanback (leaving us with no juniors next year), Ryan Wright, James Keefe, etc., well, you get the picture.

Although the NBA would never agree to it, using the system employed by baseball makes the most sense. Just don't hold your breath.

BG, UB is always thoughtful.

As for VB, he is alive and kicking. Just saw him last week. He and I plan to golf tomorrow PM. I know that work has been busting his you-know-whats. He does read this blog religiously, but tells me he doesn't have much time to blog.

I'm sure things will SLOW for him sometime soon!
He won't even make the Spring scrimmage -- he has a wedding to video!

But, come fall, you can always catch VB, LIVE, in our usual UBTA spot in Lot H.

Thanks for asking! VB will love to know he is MISSED!

hey ive been saying the nba out of high school or 2-3 year commitment thing for a long time. as for ub's points, i can agree with them, but i would lighten it up a lil bit, cuz i would want the college option to be attractive to the on-the-fencers cuz college is a good thing.

but no point 3...just seems inappropriate and bad-vibed (like vb, j/k), and university turning collection agency against spoiled millionaire kid primadonnas is a whole world of blah (altho possibly entertaining).

I have made the point before that these 'student atheletes' (the one-and-done players) are using the Universiteis to show case their talent. Then, they make the jump to the NBA for guaranteed Millions. What is so wrong with asking them to pay back just a small part of what it cost the Universities? I don;t buy the crap that the schools make Millions off of these players. Did UCLA make Millions off of Jrue? Or even K-Love? Plus, the AD at UCLA is break even at best. FB and BB carry all of the other sports which are $$$ pits! So, let these Million Dollar lottery winners put something back so the Universities can move forward with their programs. STOP THE RAPE! C'mon NBA>>> Adpot UB's proposal!

Mort,

Not saying that Ben wasn't trying to land someone, but I think the only reason people are complaining is because there is no quality backup behind the presumtive starter, Anderson. Say, for example, that we had Collison for another year with Anderson as backup PG. I don't think there would be as much negative chatter directed towards Jrue.
I'd love it if some rules were tweaked so that the timing of commits/NBA deadlines were better - my point is that I think the timing is the bigger issue than whether a kid should have to go 1 or 2 or 3 years. I think that a kid going for 2 or 3 years doesn't change the dynamic that a kid can declare late in the recruiting process and/or not hire an agent and really screw up the team if the coach isn't out in front of it...that doesn't change if it's year 1 or 2 or 3.

I'm going to repost a comment I made last week, since people are still not dealing with the realities of this topic, and being delusional that that which is supposedly good for UCLA or the NCAA has any bearing on the decision-making rubric for the NBA:

"I think a lot of people are missing the point on the NBA's one-year rule. Mr. Dohn is absolutely correct that it is in the NBA's hands, which begs the obvious question: why did they institute the current rule in the first place? It is a huge advantage for the NBA. Can you imagine how immense a task it would be for the NBA to adequately scout, judge, and assess talent at the 100,000 high schools in the country, as opposed to the 350 or so Division I NCAA programs? Factor in the sporadic media coverage at the high school level, and the difficulty of assessing talent against wildy varying competition levels, and it begins to make sense. I think the NBA just got tired of stretching themselves so thin and investing considerable resources into so many busts. The NBA is a business, and they don't like wasting resources any more than other business do. Check out the number of busts on this list, and you can see where the NBA was coming from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prep-to-pro_players

Also, the 1 year of college also ensures that all players entering the NBA have at least had some minimal exposure to a higher degree of coaching and discipline, some chance to deal with the professional press, and maybe even a chance to shed some of the baggage that a high school athlete might be carrying in their hometown (e.g., a posse). Obviously, it's not foolproof, and there are plenty of Renardo Sidneys and whoever else out there who still might avoid the college system, but I think the NBA basically decided it was suffering as a business from the number of high school busts and other headaches that were coming with high school kids jumping to the NBA.

That made a ton of sense for the NBA. Now, the question you have to ask is, what would the NBA get out of changing that rule to that preferred by Mr. Dohn and Mr. Howland? Absolutely nothing. In fact, they'd be back at square one if high schoolers could start jumping to the pros again. Also, making a college player stay two years in college (whether or not they are able to go pro straight out of high school) gives the NBA nothing more than it already gets with the one year rule. To the contrary, it would just keep a potentially exciting draw like a Derrick Rose or Kevin Durant out of the league for one more year, which of course hurts the NBA's bottom line.

The NBA weighed the costs and benefits, and decided that the one year rule got them all the benefits they wanted, with the minimal costs on the back end.

Unless people can being offering a preferred alternative from the NBA's perspective, I'd like to see this subject just disappear."

as SB so eloquently copied from an ESPN article, the NBA loves the 1-year rule because it simplifies talent evaluation and reduces costs. they hated kids jumping straight to the NBA. to ask a GM to draft a HS kid was very stress-inducing since it's his job that's on the line too. but then, they want the talent as soon as possible so the 1-year rule came around. at least with one year in college, they can see how the kids can handle higher level competition. and they can see how they handle the 60000 people crowd during march madness and the intense 1-and-done atmosphere.

"Copying" seems like a strong (and distracting) word for what I can only imagine is the expression of a similar argument contained within any such article. Which would only lend further credence to my argument that this is the only rational way to look at this problem, and I'm not surprised in the least that more than one person has come to the same inevitable conclusions. Your own post seems in line with that reasoning as well, unless you're just ineloquently "copying" said ESPN article for some vague reason.

And not that I want to sideline any of this discussion or pander to the baser elements that always seem to be lurking in these internet discussions, but I do think it worth noting that charges of copyright infringement or whatever it is vu is implying are serious in the world of online journalism, especially when they're prima facie unfounded. I haven't read the ESPN article, and as such, I'm quite confident that a side by side should dispel any such notions of "copying." Let's keep it civil and respectful here.

The NBA would be a hard entity to get on board. The NCAA can, however, make life a bit easier for the schools and student-athletes. In addition to changing the timelines for declaring, etc. why not allow players to come back but give the school a waiver for the extra scholie which has to be "made up" later. So UCLA can use the extra scholie available when Jrue declares to grab an extra player right away (JC or in this case recruit someone from the Bermuda triangle of players that Calipari created). If Jrue backs out of the draft he still is on scholarship at UCLA (one extra scholarship player next year) but has to be one short in a future year.

SB, I'm not so sure that the NBAPA agrees with one and done or with drafting HS kids for the simple reason that the longer prospects are in school the longer some members of the PA have jobs. I believe the PA would like to delay entry entirely from the HS ranks for a minimum of 2 years and will negotiate from that position when the current CBA between the players and the league/owners expires in 2011 (though the league can extend it a year through 2012). The compromise from the PA might be the baseball rule, either declare and go out from HS or stay 3 years. Who knows what the economics of the NBA will be in a couple of years, though, and what the relevant positions of the parties will be. Stefan Fastis of the WSJ recently stated that he thinks the players will boycott the 2012 season because of the stated position of the owners that the profit sharing percentage has to be reduced considerably. Lots of moving parts, of which one and done will be but one.

UB,

Are you under the impression that the school does not make money off the kids college success?