$<8172;1.:&72>.:;2<A$<8172;1.:&72>.:;2<A

2;1.:202<*5!=+52,*<287;2;1.:202<*5!=+52,*<287;

$98:<*7*0.6.7<&7-.:0:*-=*<. $98:<*7*0.6.7<.9*:<6.7<

*55

@95*27270 $=,,.;;/8:!5*A.:;?2<1'*:2.-855.0.@95*27270 $=,,.;;/8:!5*A.:;?2<1'*:2.-855.0.

@9.:2.7,.@9.:2.7,.

8-A;15.A

,**;3/.-=

8558?<12;*7-*--2<287*5?8:4;*<1<<9;D;1.:9=+;3/.-=;98:<)=7-.:0:*-

1<<952+0=2-.;;3/,.-=,2<*<287;

%12;-8,=6.7<2;98;<.-*<1<<9;D;1.:9=+;3/.-=;98:<)=7-.:0:*-*7-2;+:8=01<<8A8=/8:/:..*7-89.7

*,,.;;+A2;1.:202<*5!=+52,*<287;*<8:68:.27/8:6*<28795.*;.,87<*,<D;1.:9=+;3/.-=

@95*27270 $=,,.;;/8:!5*A.:;?2<1'*:2.-855.0.@9.:2.7,.@95*27270 $=,,.;;/8:!5*A.:;?2<1'*:2.-855.0.@9.:2.7,.

+;<:*,<+;<:*,<

%1.9=:98;.8/<12;;<=-A?*;<8,869*:..*:5A,*:..: *<287*5*;4.<+*55;;8,2*<287 ;=,,.;;

+.<?..7,855.0.+*;4.<+*5595*A.:;?181*>..2<1.:87.A.*:8/,855.0..@9.:2.7,.8:/8=:A.*:;8/

.@9.:2.7,.%12;:.;.*:,1;.<8=<<8=7,8>.:2/<1.:.?*;*;=+;<*7<2*5-2//.:.7,.27<1..*:5A9.:/8:6*7,.

8/<1.;.,*<.08:2.;8/95*A.:;27<.:6;8/;9.,2D,;=,,.;;6.<:2,;<1*<?.:.8=<527.-(2<1<1.0:8?270

<1*<87.*7--87.,855.0.+*;4.<+*5595*A.:;9.:/8:6*<*1201.:5.>.527<1.2:.*:5A,*:..:;27<1. 7

.*,18/<1..5.>.7>*:2*+5.;,87;2-.:.-87.*7--87.95*A.:;;,8:.-1201.:<1*7<1.0:*-=*<.;%1.;.

>*:2*+5.;27,5=-.--:*/<98;2<2878//.7;2>.*7--./.7;2>.?27;1*:.;D.5-08*59.:,.7<*0.=;*0.

9.:,.7<*0.*7-627=<.;9.:0*6.%1.:.;.*:,1279*:<-.<.:627.->*:2*+5.;<1*<9:.-2,<;=,,.;;27<1.

%1.;.D7-270;*:.2698:<*7<+.,*=;.<1.A1.59<8=7-.:;<*7-?1A<1.:.1*-+..7;=,1*;<:870

<:.7-8/<1.87.*7--87.,855.0.+*;4.<+*5595*A.:(1.75884270*<<1.,87<27=.-;=,,.;;<1*<<1.;.

95*A.:;*:.1*>27027,869*:2;87<80:*-=*<.;2<-.687;<:*<.-?1A<18;.95*A.:;?.:.5.*>270?1A<1.:.

?*;*,8*,1270;12/<*7-?1A<1.*<15.<.;/.5<*;<18=01<1.:.;18=5-7C<+.*:.;<:2,<2>.-:*/<.5202+252<A

:=5.

8,=6.7<%A9.8,=6.7<%A9.

%12;=7-.:0:*-=*<.9:83.,<2;*>*25*+5.*<2;1.:202<*5!=+52,*<287;1<<9;D;1.:9=+;3/.-=;98:<)=7-.:0:*-

EXPERIENCE 1

Explaining NBA Success for Players with Varied College Experience

Cody Ashley

metrics that were outlined.

With the growing trend of players leaving college after just one season of play, it was

important to understand how these athletes are performing at the next level, especially in

comparison to their graduate counterparts. The results of this study are valuable for both the

athletes making the decision to leave and talent evaluators in the NBA.

Quantitative secondary data was utilized. Players drafted between the years 2006 and

2014 were considered for the study and 86 total players (33 freshman; 53 seniors) were selected

using stratified random sampling. Data was collected from www.basketball-reference.com. It

was concluded, that one and done college basketball players perform at a higher level in their

early careers in the NBA.

demonstrated why those players were leaving, why there was a coaching shift and why the

athletes felt as though there shouldn’t be a restrictive draft eligibility rule.

Explaining NBA Success for Players with Varied College Experience

The true success of players in the NBA as well as what types of attributes and

characteristics lead to the most prosperous careers has been studied and evaluated at length

(Deshpande & Jensen, 2015; Moxley & Towne, 2014). Other research has been performed that

discusses which types of college production metrics translate well to the NBA setting for elite

college basketball talent (Coates & Oguntimein, 2010). In addition, different media outlets have

focused on the changing landscape of college basketball and the increasingly evolving coaching

philosophies that are affecting both the athletes and the game itself. (Rosenberg, 2015; Hanner

leaving after just one season in college has risen and these one and dones have been selected

highly within the draft (Harris, 2017). The changing environment of college basketball and the

role of college athletics as a stepping stone have contributed to the obvious trend that has grown

over recent years (White, 2015). Other factors that have contributed, according to past studies,

were the seemingly impossible college adjustment process for “student-athletes,” the lack of

academic resources and dedication and an overall lack of academic focus as a result of athletic

identity (Bimper, Harrison, Logan & Smith, 2017; Melendez, 2010). Due to these many potential

factors, it was a great possibility that elite college basketball players were leaving before they

were ready to enter the NBA draft and developed enough to play at such a high level. Drawing

connection to the reasons behind these athletes’ decisions to leave early and their overall success

in the NBA had not previously been studied.

be more beneficial.

The research had a practical application because it can help both NBA scouts and college

athletes trying to make the best decision for their future basketball careers, understand the trends

in terms of success for both one and dones and players who stayed for at least four seasons. It

could potentially give them an advantage to know how the similar players before them fared

once in the league.

The overall purpose of this study was to determine the level of success that each category

of player had in their first three seasons in the NBA. The research question of this study was:

How does early career NBA success compare for one and done players and players with a

Division I of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) consists of over 350

colleges and universities and over 170,000 athletes across their wide range of athletic teams. The

NCAA has stated that the role of college athletics is to provide their athletes with the skills

necessary to succeed in every aspect of their college career and beyond, throughout their lives

(NCAA, 2017). Their focus from the NCAA point-of-view was not only achievement on the

field of play but academically as well. According to the NCAA website, graduating is just as

important as the athletic success that they provide for their teams and universities as a whole.

discussed why athletes choose to go to junior colleges as a springboard to the next level. After

reaching a four-year institution within the NCAA, there is a focus for those who are good

of UNC said that many football players at UNC were reading at 4th or 5th grade levels. There

was a complete lack of academic focus for the many of these players that could be traced back to

their time in secondary school, in favor of athletic prowess.

Melendez (2009) has written about the college adjustment process and the role that

athletic identity plays on student-athletes. In athletic programs within Division I universities,

student-athletes have reported a disconnect from academic frameworks because of the continued

focus on athletics and a lack of institutional support. The time commitment and requirements

associated with being a Division I athlete are so great that it takes away from the academic

sphere. This can ultimately lead to negative effects on graduation rates, retention and future,

or low level of athletic identity. Melendez concluded that student-athletes with higher athletic

identity linked to lower academic performance. This strongly suggests that the socialization and

atmosphere and explored the reasons behind it, similarly to the findings of Bimper, Harrison,

Logan, and Smith (2017), who discussed the continued lack of academic success for African-

American athletes in college. In their literature, the scholars present evidence that shows why

black student-athletes largely fail to become successful academically that ranges from

socialization, sport culture, athletic identity, the media and the demands at playing at such a high

level.

Bimper, Harrison, Logan and Smith bring to light the fact that although these athletes are

on a scholarship, they aren’t being afforded the education that should come with it. The demands

and rigors of the sport that they play do not allow them the necessary time or resources to fulfill

one and done college basketball players compared to players with a college degree in terms of

their early career success in the NBA.

The purpose of this research was to understand how early career success compares for

in order to analyze it effectively and determine a given player to be successful or not in their

early career. As the question would suggest, both college basketball players who were drafted

after just one collegiate season and those who graduated with a college degree were being

studied. They were designated as freshmen and seniors respectively throughout the data analysis.

From 2006 to 2014 there were a total of 173 seniors and 68 freshmen drafted into the

NBA in either the first or second round. Fifty-nine of the sixty eight freshmen that were drafted

in those years were drafted in the first round (RealGM, 2017). There was a much wider range in

which the seniors were drafted, but a higher percentage was drafted in the second round than the

first. For this study, 50% of qualifying freshmen drafted into the NBA between 2006 and 2014

Draft position was collected from www.basketball.realgm.com, while statistical data was

collected from www.basketball-reference.com. The variables that were measured in order to

these metrics, they were collected on a year to year basis and taken as averages per season.

Within the parameters of this study, zeros in the variables data were not considered to be

incomplete data. During the data collection process, a detailed spreadsheet was created that

housed all of the variables from college conference to minutes played and the advanced stat

metrics. This spreadsheet is where the data was analyzed and compared between each group, in

order to determine which was more successful.

Offensive win shares, field goal percentage, field goals per game and true shooting

percentage were used because it was determined by Coates & Oguntimein (2010) that scoring

was a very effective way of determining success in the NBA and a great predictor of career

When analyzing the data from the above metrics, in order to determine which career path

is considered to be more efficient in terms of early career success, overall averages of the

or 4 years with the outcome variables. T-tests were then ran to determine if the differences that

were found between the two categories of players are significant; therefore, for example if there

is a clear difference between shooting percentage for each category, is the difference significant

in answering the question about who was more successful in their early career.

their early careers.

usage percentage, minutes played per game and games played per season. As it can be seen in the results

athletes who are good enough to make it to the NBA quickly. For players who aren’t as talented there

may be a higher focus on their education even though this still may not be the case entirely.

As noted by both Hanner and Winn (2016) and Mannix (2014), there was a clear shift in coaching

philosophies in college basketball with the focus on the recruit, play one year, win and go pro concept.

This shift could have definitely been attributed to the success that one and done players were seeing early

in their careers coupled with the promise of bright lights and large contracts once drafted into the NBA.

The young players who decide to leave after just one season knew that based on the data, they wouldn’t

be drafted any lower or garner any less success by leaving early and that is what made it an easy choice;