Post by bennyskid on Sept 13, 2019 8:05:20 GMT -8
For me, it's just another example of why baseball gets it right and every other sport has it wrong. In baseball, it's simple: you get drafted out of high school and you have a decision. They can go pro immediately, get whatever bonuses, endorsements, and other deals that they like; or they can forego the money and go to college. For three years they get no endorsements, no payments, just an opportunity to develop their skills while the get an education.
It works because it isn't coercive - it's a fair choice. Both options are attractive, and for top players, it isn't obvious ahead of time which way they will decide. There is a roughly equal number of players in the majors today that took each route - which tells you that quality players are roughly evenly split regarding which path is better.
In contrast, basketball is clearly coercive. All the top players choose the same option - one-and-done. They are giving up their commercial rights in return for something that they don't value - one (worthless) year of college. Now that the NBA has a development league similar to baseball, there is no good argument for not giving athletes the same choice that baseball players have. Basketball players will be more likely to go pro right away because youth is more valuable in basketball than in baseball, but I think you would see plenty of players go through the college route and get drafted again. (The NBA would have to increase the size of their draft to better approximate the MLB model.)
Football would have to be a little different, because there is no minor-league football and the NFL has little interest in drafting 18-year-old bodies. I suggest that players would become eligible for their first draft at age 20, more-or-less after their sophomore year, and they would have the same choice. They can go pro, or live under college rules for three more years or until graduating. Again, I think you'd see players reach the NFL from through both routes.
The baseball model makes it explicit - going to college is a contract in which the athlete gives up some rights in return for certain benefits. In theory, all sports scholarships imply the same contract, but only baseball (and non-revenue sports) is clearly not coercive. The baseball model is a simple tweak that cuts the ethical knot while not destroying the system that actually serves 99.9% of the athletes (and us fans) very, very well.
It works because it isn't coercive - it's a fair choice. Both options are attractive, and for top players, it isn't obvious ahead of time which way they will decide. There is a roughly equal number of players in the majors today that took each route - which tells you that quality players are roughly evenly split regarding which path is better.
In contrast, basketball is clearly coercive. All the top players choose the same option - one-and-done. They are giving up their commercial rights in return for something that they don't value - one (worthless) year of college. Now that the NBA has a development league similar to baseball, there is no good argument for not giving athletes the same choice that baseball players have. Basketball players will be more likely to go pro right away because youth is more valuable in basketball than in baseball, but I think you would see plenty of players go through the college route and get drafted again. (The NBA would have to increase the size of their draft to better approximate the MLB model.)
Football would have to be a little different, because there is no minor-league football and the NFL has little interest in drafting 18-year-old bodies. I suggest that players would become eligible for their first draft at age 20, more-or-less after their sophomore year, and they would have the same choice. They can go pro, or live under college rules for three more years or until graduating. Again, I think you'd see players reach the NFL from through both routes.
The baseball model makes it explicit - going to college is a contract in which the athlete gives up some rights in return for certain benefits. In theory, all sports scholarships imply the same contract, but only baseball (and non-revenue sports) is clearly not coercive. The baseball model is a simple tweak that cuts the ethical knot while not destroying the system that actually serves 99.9% of the athletes (and us fans) very, very well.
