[kenjackson]

But this doesn't answer why aren't the minor leagues a bigger deal? I'd argue that most basketball players, even those that are really strong, feel that college offers two things that the minor/farm leagues don't:

1) The best colleagues. The best US ballers not in the NBA play NCAA ball. Not the NBA farm league. Colleges, from the Ivies to the UCs, are where the best students are. The benefit of going to college is you're around the best CS students AND the best physics, bio, literature, econ, and math students.

2) It's a hedge. While college degrees aren't on the forefront of the minds of college players, especially D1 players, it is something that is in the equation. There is a belief that they can be spotted for the NBA by playing college ball, and if it doesn't work out, they still get a college degree (unless they go to USC).

The only thing that twists this up is athletes get a full ride scholarship. And many here complain that college costs too much. But recall that the best students will have their college paid for them (and in some countries college is free). Cost ends up being inversely proportional to perceived potential (with need factored in too).

This ends up being almost exactly the scenario that Thiel is advocating. Top students get lots of funding. Less good students get a little. Average students get none, and rich students with average potential fund things out of their own pocket. Those who are poor with average potential are just screwed. Welcome to college in 2011.