I want to thank everyone who commented, and apologize for responding a little late to some of the feedback. Reading through the posts, I wanted to touch on three general questions that I found particularly interesting:
1) Will American prospects succeed in Europe/Will they have any value? The quick (and mealy-mouthed) answer is: I don't know. (That's why I framed the article as a thought experiment, and not a prediction of what will happen.) In my piece, I alluded to some of the reasons why Jennings might fail miserably in Europe. At the same time, a glance through the Euroleague rosters reveals plenty of names (Qyntel Woods! Bootsy Thornton! Terence Morris!) who never made it in the NBA and now thrive in Europe. Of course, these players have the benefit of experience, which Jennings doesn't have. And I'd be very surprised if American 18-year-olds started putting up superstar numbers in Europe. But I don't think it is unreasonable to imagine Jennings might have some value to a European team.
(Also, one fascinating sidenote: some draft experts peg another teenage point guard, Ricky Rubio, as a potential first pick in next year's NBA draft. Rubio has thrived in the Spanish league at age 17. Granted, he's grown up in a European system; Jennings hasn't. And Rubio is a little taller -- although not terribly athletic, according to DraftExpress. Either way, it suggests young players can succeed in Europe.)
Another point: I don't think Jennings needs to be a superstar in order to get a decent draft pick next year. NBA teams draft on potential -- first round pick Alexis Ajinca averaged 5 points a game in France last year -- and smart scouts won't expect him to dominate. If he handles the transition with maturity, demonstrates a willingness to be coached, and shows just occasional flashes of brilliance, that's probably enough. He doesn't have to be an MVP.
2) Is there a viable alternative in the U.S. to the Euroleague? Let's take college basketball out of the picture -- and by the way, I agree with all those commenters who said that March Madness should continue to thrive regardless of what happens to Jennings. Instead, can we imagine a viable professional system in the U.S. that keeps kids like Brandon Jennings at home?
It seems clear to me that the D-League won't work -- it doesn't pay enough, and it is too clearly branded as a second-tier option. momo67 suggested an interesting alternative: why don't the endorsers create their own developmental system? After all, this could be a logical offshoot of the summer showcases the shoe companies already sponsor for high schoolers. The best players could still get their shoe deals; meanwhile, the endorsers would have the benefit of catching players early, before exposure drives up their bargaining power. And all the dislocation that comes with heading overseas would be avoided.
In theory, this makes a whole lot of sense. But I don't see it happening for two reasons. The first is that to get this league started, you need a critical mass of players. But while I think Europe could hypothetically draw some of the top U.S. high school players, getting the dozens necessary to create an exciting league up front would be a challenge. For a mid-tier prospect, the added exposure of playing in college (not to mention the historical precedent) would probably still make NCAA ball a default.
Secondly, I think this puts the endorsers in a position they don't really want to be in. We've already seen how the issue of high schoolers going pro seems to draw an uncharacteristic amount of controversy in basketball. (Nobody pays any mind when 18-year-old baseball players are drafted.) I think that the shoe companies are more than happy to find ways to sign players at age 18 -- and I have no doubt the lure of a shoe contract was a key factor in Jennings' decision -- but I think that they aren't looking for the publicity that would come with creating their own league.
3) In practice, there are a lot of technical rules -- many in the NBA's Collective Bargaining Agreement -- that will determine how this plays out.
Several commenters mentioned, for example, the possibility that a "transfer fee" system would arise, like in international soccer. In many ways, this already exists: a big issue when Europeans get drafted into the NBA is whether or not their existing deals have a hefty buyout clause. In several cases, this keeps European stars across the Atlantic even though their services are hotly sought after in the NBA. And as I've noted in other posts, long-term contracts with buyouts could create a greater incentive for Americans to go abroad: the players get more security from the longer deals, while the European teams get a monetary payoff if the player bolts to the States.
However, commenter ejb9 pointed out that a clause in the Collective Bargaining Agreement might limit that possibility. As it stands, an NBA team can only pay up to $500,000 towards a contract buyout in Europe; the player has to cover the rest. If that remains in place, it would seem to limit the ability of a real transfer fee system from developing. But a bigger point is this: these relatively obscure rules could really affect whether or not Europe becomes a popular destination for U.S. players.
Other things to watch: Does the NBA up the age limit -- opening the floodgates? Are there other contractual ways European teams can benefit by serving as feeders to the NBA? What sort of arrangements between endorsers and European teams are legal, and which are likely to develop (i.e., could FC Barcelona be a designated destination for Nike players, for example?)
The upshot is that because of these rules, the NBA still has a lot of control over how the situation develops. Regardless, I'll be curious to watch whether Jennings' gamble pays off -- and I thank you all for your comments.
