http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/25015812/g-league-offe...

Well the G League may become a true minor league and alternative to the NCAA. I like it. If only the NFL could figure out something similar.

I see two absolutely delusional posts in this thread already, so I'm out.

$125K for the next 4-5 years being offered to the best of the best isn't going to change anything. Even if the best 450 18-year olds in the world go to the G-League every single year, only a small fraction of them will actually get that level of pay. Not only that, but at the end of the day, it's a bunch of 18-year olds playing for teams no fans have any actual loyalty to.

Or, if you really think 18 year olds want to sign up for playing a 50-game schedule against guys who already have a few years of NBA experience and are doing anything to get back there, that's funny. No sane agent is going to give that advice vs. going to college.

RIP Big Baller Brand League

Lol, not every Power 5 recruit would get the $125K salary. Very few would.

About 80 players per school year at most ever play a second in the NBA. Only about 65-70% of those guys will actually play more than the equivalent of one NBA season. Fact is, there is no lucrative minor league basketball market in the USA. No one cares about watching a bunch of 18-year olds going through growing pains and hoping to be a 9th man in the NBA in 2-3 years. Not unless they have a name of a school thousands of people are connected to because they too went to that university.

Even if they landed every single top 10 recruit, which they won't, it's only going to be a temporary fix to the problem the NBA created in the first place.

Hmmmmm. Let me just be devil's advocate for Donuts.

This is huge. The NCAA's current model for basketball becomes more solid/viable with higher G League pay. And, maybe even more attractive.

All the glory and life-long prestige and a degree from playing at Duke might start to look pretty good compared to driving around in cramped buses to empty gyms for $125,000 and a very small shot at the NBA.

The NCAA may even start saying, hey, remember when you were all going bonkers over us offering "just" a scholarship/degree/glory/lifelong prestige? How's that bus trip from Providence to Albany to play for 200 fans and $10K per month looking now?

And if the one and done rule goes away and the G League pays up to $125,000? Holy moly. The NCAA will throw itself a HUGE party. It will not have to change anything for basketball. Nothing. It will then only have a football problem. And, it can start pointing to all the issues the NBA/G League will have and say, see, our model for football is actually pretty darn good. We don't need to pay you cash. The pay for scholarship/degree/glory/lifelong prestige model is not just fine, but a really great deal.

What's funny in all of this is that, the NCAA is the bad guy, and the NBA is the good guy the way it has all been framed. A lot of people want to see the NCAA burn after this announcement.

First, not happening, but second, this who problem is the NBA's fault. It's hilarious how they are now being shown as the good guys, throwing more money at young players. You know what paid more money and worked better for all parties? No one-and-done rule. But hey, let's give them $125K instead of letting NBA owners give the Harrison twins top five pick money out of high school because they thought they were great.

I believe the only players eligible to be called up are those on 2 way contracts. Unaffiliated players, as these would likely be, wouldn't be eligible for call ups.

Uhhhh, no. The Player's Union never wanted an age limit. What are you talking about?

Appreciate your polite response.

My recollection is that the players union's new stance on the age limit was contingent on first increasing the share of BRI the players received and second increasing the roster size. Prior to the previous CBA, the Players Union was happy to concede on the age limit because doing so protected veteran jobs. Now that there are more jobs due to the increased roster size, and more money due to the increase in BRI, they're taking a more principled stance on the age limit.

I think many are confusing the idea that a scholarship is a good deal for the athlete versus are the so called "student athletes" really employees of the university and should be afforded the same rights as employees. Walter Byers coined the phrase to avoid having workers compensation and other issues of employment. There is also the sentiment for most people that "sure, give me a scholarship and let me play ball and I would be happy". Athletes will be students when professors start making 5M a year.

Sure, but to extend the metaphor if you give me a Matisse when you have ten Matisses because of me, I still got ripped off.

The number of "Matisse" student-athletes out there is infinitesimally small. The vast majority either:

1. Have no chance to ever play in the pros (97% of all college athletes)
2. Might be able to get a sniff in the pros after a full college career (just about any MAC or G5 player in the NFL or NBA)

To blow up the system for a tiny number of elite student-athletes is insanity.

I'm all for the G-League doing this. If you have no interest for being in school, I don't want you there. Move on and get paid.

But anyone who goes back to the "poor college students are labor that schools make big money off of" argument does not understand the first thing about college athletics.

Interesting. Maybe Nike, Adidas, Under Armour, and New Balance should own G League teams.

Carnac predicts in 8 years we will be reading articles about all the poor, poor high school athletes who took G League/NBA/Shoe money and were broke and degree-less by age 22. And how horrible the G League/NBA/Shoe companies are.