[ColoradoTree]

I readily concede the point that to the extent the one-and-done phenomenon reaches women's college basketball, Stanford would not be as well-positioned to grab a player intent on playing college basketball for just one year. But I also agree with the points that it's the rare women's college player that is so obviously better than everyone as a freshman that they should be playing professionally. (Brittney Griner is another one that comes to mind.) And also with the point that some of the elite recruits that come to our program are intent on academic achievement, recognizing that there will need to be a life after professional basketball. 

It's important to recognize that the salary jump here is primarily for veteran players. It's only the top handful in the league that will make $500K. $130K is expected to be the average. But there is still a rookie salary scale, and for the top 4 players drafted, the salary is $68,000/year (though there is a chance to access additional bonus money from a marketing fund, though the amount they could get would likely be modest, and the mechanism for accessing that is unclear, other than "be really successful"). http://www.startribune.com/wnba-players-...566969712/

Given the modest rookie salary, and the fact that only a bare handful of players will make north of $300,000/year, I don't agree that this salary scale change will move the needle considerably in terms of bringing about one-and-done women's college basketball players. Per Forbes, the average length of a woman's professional basketball career is five years, so the value proposition of leaving early just doesn't seem to be there yet. 

If WNBA salaries ever get within shouting distance of NBA ones, then sure, all bets are off. But we're a long way from that point as yet.

[ColoradoTree]

I readily concede the point that to the extent the one-and-done phenomenon reaches women's college basketball, Stanford would not be as well-positioned to grab a player intent on playing college basketball for just one year. But I also agree with the points that it's the rare women's college player that is so obviously better than everyone as a freshman that they should be playing professionally. (Brittney Griner is another one that comes to mind.) And also with the point that some of the elite recruits that come to our program are intent on academic achievement, recognizing that there will need to be a life after professional basketball. 

It's important to recognize that the salary jump here is primarily for veteran players. It's only the top handful in the league that will make $500K. $130K is expected to be the average. But there is still a rookie salary scale, and for the top 4 players drafted, the salary is $68,000/year (though there is a chance to access additional bonus money from a marketing fund, though the amount they could get would likely be modest, and the mechanism for accessing that is unclear, other than "be really successful"). http://www.startribune.com/wnba-players-...566969712/

Given the modest rookie salary, and the fact that only a bare handful of players will make north of $300,000/year, I don't agree that this salary scale change will move the needle considerably in terms of bringing about one-and-done women's college basketball players. Per Forbes, the average length of a woman's professional basketball career is five years, so the value proposition of leaving early just doesn't seem to be there yet. 

If WNBA salaries ever get within shouting distance of NBA ones, then sure, all bets are off. But we're a long way from that point as yet.