When is Returning to School Helpful?
On the fence about whether a prospect should stay in the draft? Perhaps this guide can be of service
Two years ago during the 2020 NBA Draft cycle, rumors were swirling about Michigan State big man Xavier Tillman spurning the NBA draft and returning for school. Tillman, a 21-year-old rising senior at the time, was a fringe first-round candidate in the eyes of many and a sure-fire draft pick with his unique blend of frontcourt passing and intense defense.
The decision was and should have been Tillman's alone based on what he values. Some players want a four-year degree and college experience. Others are hungry to leave their alma mater with a championship–in 2020, the abrupt cancelling of the season certainly is a difficult note to leave on. Each situation should be viewed through an individual lens for what is important to the prospect, their families and the likelihood of the draft situation involved.
This article will focus on prospects who are debating a return to college from a purely strategic point of view, and won't even try to address the myriad factors of emotional connection that pull people in different directions. There needs to be somewhat of a blueprint for why and how prospects make their decisions, so we'll take a gander at putting one together and framing the right questions for each prospect to ask.
Question #1: Will there be an opportunity for me to keep my minutes and grow if I come back to school?
At the end of a season, really every player with pro potential is faced with three paths: declare for the draft, go back to the same school or transfer to a different one. It’s very rare to see NBA-level talent transfer, but it’s still an option nonetheless. If a player is wrestling with returning, they need to feel comfortable that minutes will be there when they return so they can show improvement in the areas required.
The timeline and recruiting cycle make it important for players — and their coaches — to have a realistic feel for draft declarations way before the April or May declaration period. Most recruits sign their letter of intent (LOI) to join an institution at least six months before the NBA draft takes place. When advising the player in their program whether to stay or to leave, the coach has a very clear picture of what the roster will look like next year and how playing time would work.
Perhaps the best recent example of this might be at the University of North Carolina with Roy Williams. During the same draft cycle as Tillman, freshman point guard Cole Anthony came into Chapel Hill as a top-five recruit, and someone Williams wanted to give the keys to. Why did the Tar Heels go so hard after Anthony on the recruiting trail? Because they identified (correctly so) the point guard from the class above, Coby White, as a one-and-done lottery pick.
Carolina couldn't be left empty-handed, so they planned on White's departure by signing Anthony beforehand. A year later, they did the same with two point guards: RJ Davis and Caleb Love.
One domino that falls wrong screws up the entire order and sales pitch for Williams. If White doesn't perform to his level and wants to return to school, that impacts Williams' ability to deliver on his promises to Anthony for playing time, which impacts their ability to sign Davis.
The domino falling can go either way. It can nudge a prospect out the door before they're ready, as to not mess up the envisioned roster. Or returning to play alongside another similar player can damage draft value, now sharing the spotlight with a player a year younger and showing off less of what you can do.
Coaches dealing with early entrants are typically in Power Five conferences and recruit similar players who are high on national recruit rankings and have the same NBA stars in their eyes. The path to playing time and the understanding of which prospects are coming in after you is a huge part of this process.
Question #2: Do those who advise me have an accurate read on my draft stock?
Any frequent readers of my work know I spend a ton of time talking about bias. In this conversation specifically, inherent bias factors in a great deal. A cheap, working definition of the term: underlying factors or beliefs that go largely undetected but influence your decision-making.
When it comes to getting advice as a draft prospect, no stakeholder has a clearer financial gain from your decision than an agent.
​Over the last few years, prospects testing the draft waters have become able to sign and take advice with NCAA-certified agents without losing their amateur status, which allows them to return to college. Such a stockpile of pre-vetted advisors sees an opportunity to make a paycheck sooner, although their fiduciary responsibility should lead them to put the player's best interests at the forefront. By having a likely financial stake in the prospect, we've largely accepted that means the agent will do what's best for the prospect's ability to make the most money, which in turn is the right decision for that player.
That stance comes with a minimal view of all the external factors pressing on an agent. Hitting quotas for signing clients, relationships with NBA folks who might want to bargain shop and get a high-quality prospect for cheap based on their own draft assets in the next two years — they all make some sort of impact.
Is that data? Yes. Is the data collector able to be easily swayed by those factors? Also yes.
Question #3: What is this year’s draft landscape like?
None of these discussions are had in a vacuum. The draft is, and always will be, about relative value: is the skill you offer better at this draft position than what others can offer?
Analyzing the relative strength or weakness of a draft class is important for that. For example, this 2022 draft is widely recognized as one lacking high-end talent. A year ago, we saw the most loaded draft class since the LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony show in 2003.
That factor, and the front-end depth of the 2021 draft, has a huge impact on what any potential first-rounder decided. A name like Tyrell Terry of Stanford comes to mind. Terry is highly skilled as a 3-point shooter and had some dark horse candidacy as a mid-first round selection. But the common chorus sings loudly: he should consider going back to school to add strength, as his body isn't NBA-ready.
​After going early in the second round, a return to school may have been the right call. Or, even if he played at a higher level, it could have been harder to crack much higher in the draft. It's not just about projecting where each player falls this year as opposed to next year, it’s about seeing where they fall in relativity to where they’d fall next year with what they gain.
Question #4: Where is my draft range now in comparison to where it could be next year?
The framing of this question needs to be player-specific and skill-specific. Who you ask it to is addressed in the section above, but how you contextualize the answers is important.
Think about it in terms of three separate but highly overlapping questions:​
If I leave now, what will my likely draft range be?
If I come back, what would I accomplish that makes me more likely to raise that range?
How likely is it that I accomplish that task?
In 2019, the Duke Blue Devils were a transcendent college program. Zion Williamson, RJ Barrett and Cam Reddish were all top-ten selections, and all shared the floor. The fourth cog in that wheel was Tre Jones, a facilitating point guard with a wretched 3-point shot. That outside shooting ended up costing Duke in the NCAA Tournament. In a second-round game against UCF, their opponent put 7'8" Tacko Fall on the 6'2" point guard, sagging off and daring him to shoot.
Scouts were pretty clear with Jones on feedback. If you leave now, you're likely a late-first round selection. But staying at Duke and showing great improvement in your 3-point shooting will tighten up the biggest flaw in your game. By doing so, next year you can be in the discussion for a lottery pick and move your name slightly up the board.
Only Jones could answer prong number three about how likely it is he accomplished that goal. To his credit, Jones did that at Duke, going from 26.2 percent shooting last year to 36.1 percent from 3 as a sophomore. It didn’t result in a higher draft spot, but that doesn’t mean he made the wrong call.
Others, like Jaden Ivey and Bennedict Mathurin, have added pieces to their game but really benefited from standing out in comparison to a weaker draft class. All three questions have to be answered and figured out together.
Question #5: If I enter the draft next year, will scouts say that I’m too old to justify a higher draft spot?
There are several circumstances where improved on-court play doesn’t necessarily translate to a higher draft position. One of our points in the ten commandments of draft scouting is that age matters for projection: making a four-year investment in a talented 18-year-old can reap higher (and longer-term) rewards than a four-year investment in a 23-year-old.
Of all the important questions to ask above, there are circumstances where draft stock really can’t improve and a guy won’t move into the lottery or mid-1st round because he’ll be disqualified next year from those discussions for being just too old. It’s okay to acknowledge those on the earlier side of a decision, and really worth feeling out.
If an agent is giving advice to a player, they should be asked very directly: if I come back next year, will scouts say I’m too old for a spot that I might earn based on my play?
Sometimes things don’t work that way. Ochai Agbaji and Chris Duarte are two elder statesmen who are likely lottery guys. Sometimes it does keep players down and can be the difference in millions of dollars in guaranteed money.