I hate to be a broken record on this but, in Dimitri's fine post re Daishen Nix opting for the G League and [ostensibly] s $300 large payday, that and this will be the tip of a rather ominous iceberg. My contention is this: as long as the cloud surrounding the state-imposed COVID-19 lockdown restrictions remain, the young men and women who are now scholarship athletes will opt for the most tangible course to secure recompense for their skills.
If there is the prospect of no Fall and Winter athletics in California, then young men like this will enter the pro draft. Others may hit the transfer portal and go to other universities whose teams will play in the Fall and Winter so as to maintain their skill levels and marketability.
I am sure this not the main concern for this young young man but I will bet it was one of the considerations in arriving at this decision.
(Note that I do not say that California should NOT continue with the restrictions; that is a matter of public health and the governor's decision. I am just saying that the present confusion will have athletes reaching for some certainty and clarity for their futures.)
The thing is, if it's to the point where a large number of universities aren't playing sports, the NBA might not be either. At the very least, the G League won't be (I think it's really possible the NBA runs their season and the G league doesn't, if things are in a weird middle point of concern). So if you're not positive you're actually going to get drafted and be on an NBA roster, you might not be making money at all, anywhere. So I actually think if playing sports in the winter is in question that would drive more athletes back to school, especially the ones who aren't even good enough to be considered fringe.
..why is everyone focusing on the G league or the NBA?
The NBA, NFL, MLB, etc. can offer/pay signing bonuses and salaries whether they play or not. Remember, my focus is on the possibility of the COVID-19 lockdown affecting California schools. Texas, Georgia. Florida, South Carolina, etc. anticipate "opening for biz" May 1st while Governor Newsom has stated California will be restricted until 15 May and then he will take a wait and see attitude. He also has stated ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS that there will be NO sports events allowed UNTIL A VACCINE IS FOUND. These are ominous words.
Putting yourself in the place of a scholarship athlete at UCLA, USC, Cal, or Stanford, etc., wouldn't you be THINKING ABOUT entering a draft or transferring or similar if you were face with the prospect of no opportunity to participate in your sport and you were counting on that and as well as an education to provide you your daily crust for your adult life?
The NBA, or any other sports league, isn't going to hand out 100 extra contracts if they're not playing games. It's the exact opposite. They're going to try to hand out less money if they can. The MLB is reducing their draft from 40 rounds to 5. They're eliminating 35 potential contracts!! (Not every MLB draft pick signs, I now this, hence "potential"). I have no idea why you would possibly think that the NBA would face a time of drastically reduced revenue and say "You know what, let's pay MORE players than we normally would!" The NBA is already trying to get its current players to take pay cuts and you're suggesting that teams are going to want to pay Jalen Hill, who might not even be good enough to even crack an NBA roster, a liveable salary? That's absurd. They're going to pay their current guys the best they can, they're going to have to pay their draft picks, and after that I don't see teams being very willing to give much money to undrafted guys at all, at least not until this clears up, which is probably won't by the return deadline.
Transferring, maybe? But I'd doubt it'd happen on a mass scale. Some would, for sure. I'd bet most won't. You act as if they're going to lose their scholarship. They're not. They're still going to be able to take classes, they're still going to have their housing paid for if in-person classes are available, and either way I'm sure the NCAA will find a way to cover meals and some other amenities for them. And if they don't play this year, they'll likely get a waiver to retain that year of eligibility for next season. I am very skeptical that the NCAA is going to allow certain states to play games and others to not, so I'm not even sure a season happens if everyone isn't somewhat on board. And even if they do allow it, it's not like the states that allow it have space to take on an exodus of transfers. Even if every athlete from UCLA wanted to transfer out, there wouldn't be enough space to take them on elsewhere. It's just not realistic.
I don't agree with your read on the situation at all. In times of uncertainty, people generally opt for safety. And staying at school where you have a guaranteed scholarship is the safesst route, unless you're a lock to be drafted, which Hill, who is the subject of this article, is about as far from as you can be.
..not being argumentative and agree with most of what you say. Assuming that "staying at school where you have a guaranteed scholarship is the safesst [sic] route" is the case, then that will be a determination that each athlete will have to make.
As an example, I have a granddaughter who is receiving a VB scholarship to UC Davis and is mulling over the prospect of transferring to Brown University or other schools who would be interested in her (because they were offering her a scholarship before). It is preferable for her to play VB and attend real classes as opposed three to six months of staying in a dorm room, taking Zoom classes, and not playing VB.
You are correct; it will not be a wave but there *will* be a trickle and what SEC school would NOT want to pick up some plumbs from USC or UCLA or Stanford or Cal to fatten up their roster?
As for the NCAA allowing this and not allowing that, they will be dealing with the facts and will have to do what they can to hold this together. Some scholarship athletes might be able to make the case that they be allowed to transfer without loss of scholarship or eligibility BECAUSE OF EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES.
In sum, my honest opinion is that Newsom will fold from pressure once the "early open" states prove out that there is no harm from a "no lockdown" situation. (IF, in fact, there IS no harm.) There WILL be a college football season and a college basketball season and those wanting to transfer and to opt for pro drafts will be minimum in numbers (like you say) but there will be roster losses and, sadly, they may very well be talented athletes.
(Note to OTMB web designers: emphasis, bold, underline, and blockquote html support would be greatly appreciated in an upcoming release. Failing that, Disqus is fairly easy to implement on a blog.)
I don't really disagree with any of your points that strongly but to be honest if you're an SEC school, how many players from UCLA or Cal are really an upgrade on what you have already?
I hate to be a broken record on this but, in Dimitri's fine post re Daishen Nix opting for the G League and [ostensibly] s $300 large payday, that and this will be the tip of a rather ominous iceberg. My contention is this: as long as the cloud surrounding the state-imposed COVID-19 lockdown restrictions remain, the young men and women who are now scholarship athletes will opt for the most tangible course to secure recompense for their skills.
If there is the prospect of no Fall and Winter athletics in California, then young men like this will enter the pro draft. Others may hit the transfer portal and go to other universities whose teams will play in the Fall and Winter so as to maintain their skill levels and marketability.
I am sure this not the main concern for this young young man but I will bet it was one of the considerations in arriving at this decision.
(Note that I do not say that California should NOT continue with the restrictions; that is a matter of public health and the governor's decision. I am just saying that the present confusion will have athletes reaching for some certainty and clarity for their futures.)
The thing is, if it's to the point where a large number of universities aren't playing sports, the NBA might not be either. At the very least, the G League won't be (I think it's really possible the NBA runs their season and the G league doesn't, if things are in a weird middle point of concern). So if you're not positive you're actually going to get drafted and be on an NBA roster, you might not be making money at all, anywhere. So I actually think if playing sports in the winter is in question that would drive more athletes back to school, especially the ones who aren't even good enough to be considered fringe.
..why is everyone focusing on the G league or the NBA?
The NBA, NFL, MLB, etc. can offer/pay signing bonuses and salaries whether they play or not. Remember, my focus is on the possibility of the COVID-19 lockdown affecting California schools. Texas, Georgia. Florida, South Carolina, etc. anticipate "opening for biz" May 1st while Governor Newsom has stated California will be restricted until 15 May and then he will take a wait and see attitude. He also has stated ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS that there will be NO sports events allowed UNTIL A VACCINE IS FOUND. These are ominous words.
Putting yourself in the place of a scholarship athlete at UCLA, USC, Cal, or Stanford, etc., wouldn't you be THINKING ABOUT entering a draft or transferring or similar if you were face with the prospect of no opportunity to participate in your sport and you were counting on that and as well as an education to provide you your daily crust for your adult life?
Just sayin'.
..Because it's a basketball article?
The NBA, or any other sports league, isn't going to hand out 100 extra contracts if they're not playing games. It's the exact opposite. They're going to try to hand out less money if they can. The MLB is reducing their draft from 40 rounds to 5. They're eliminating 35 potential contracts!! (Not every MLB draft pick signs, I now this, hence "potential"). I have no idea why you would possibly think that the NBA would face a time of drastically reduced revenue and say "You know what, let's pay MORE players than we normally would!" The NBA is already trying to get its current players to take pay cuts and you're suggesting that teams are going to want to pay Jalen Hill, who might not even be good enough to even crack an NBA roster, a liveable salary? That's absurd. They're going to pay their current guys the best they can, they're going to have to pay their draft picks, and after that I don't see teams being very willing to give much money to undrafted guys at all, at least not until this clears up, which is probably won't by the return deadline.
Transferring, maybe? But I'd doubt it'd happen on a mass scale. Some would, for sure. I'd bet most won't. You act as if they're going to lose their scholarship. They're not. They're still going to be able to take classes, they're still going to have their housing paid for if in-person classes are available, and either way I'm sure the NCAA will find a way to cover meals and some other amenities for them. And if they don't play this year, they'll likely get a waiver to retain that year of eligibility for next season. I am very skeptical that the NCAA is going to allow certain states to play games and others to not, so I'm not even sure a season happens if everyone isn't somewhat on board. And even if they do allow it, it's not like the states that allow it have space to take on an exodus of transfers. Even if every athlete from UCLA wanted to transfer out, there wouldn't be enough space to take them on elsewhere. It's just not realistic.
I don't agree with your read on the situation at all. In times of uncertainty, people generally opt for safety. And staying at school where you have a guaranteed scholarship is the safesst route, unless you're a lock to be drafted, which Hill, who is the subject of this article, is about as far from as you can be.
..not being argumentative and agree with most of what you say. Assuming that "staying at school where you have a guaranteed scholarship is the safesst [sic] route" is the case, then that will be a determination that each athlete will have to make.
As an example, I have a granddaughter who is receiving a VB scholarship to UC Davis and is mulling over the prospect of transferring to Brown University or other schools who would be interested in her (because they were offering her a scholarship before). It is preferable for her to play VB and attend real classes as opposed three to six months of staying in a dorm room, taking Zoom classes, and not playing VB.
You are correct; it will not be a wave but there *will* be a trickle and what SEC school would NOT want to pick up some plumbs from USC or UCLA or Stanford or Cal to fatten up their roster?
As for the NCAA allowing this and not allowing that, they will be dealing with the facts and will have to do what they can to hold this together. Some scholarship athletes might be able to make the case that they be allowed to transfer without loss of scholarship or eligibility BECAUSE OF EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES.
In sum, my honest opinion is that Newsom will fold from pressure once the "early open" states prove out that there is no harm from a "no lockdown" situation. (IF, in fact, there IS no harm.) There WILL be a college football season and a college basketball season and those wanting to transfer and to opt for pro drafts will be minimum in numbers (like you say) but there will be roster losses and, sadly, they may very well be talented athletes.
(Note to OTMB web designers: emphasis, bold, underline, and blockquote html support would be greatly appreciated in an upcoming release. Failing that, Disqus is fairly easy to implement on a blog.)
I don't really disagree with any of your points that strongly but to be honest if you're an SEC school, how many players from UCLA or Cal are really an upgrade on what you have already?
Oh, basketball, why are you doing this to us?
Aaaaaand he's already announced he's returning.
Yay. Good news. Good decision.