There is great value in being able to look around the corner and imagine what could be.
So bear with me for a moment and picture an alternate baseball reality.
It's June 2025, the Men's College World Series is underway, and the MLB Draft is days away. Colt Emerson and Kevin McGonigle are anchoring the middle infield for Auburn, two elite sophomores competing not only for a national championship but to become the No. 1 overall pick.
Their opponents are just as loaded. They face Vanderbilt in an elimination game that features center fielder Max Clark and ace Thomas White. North Carolina recently bowed out despite rostering Walker Jenkins, who projects as a top-10 selection. Texas star Bryce Rainer is another prospect generating buzz, and LSU freshman Konnor Griffin offered regular highlight fodder for social media.
Television ratings continue to climb as fans spend two years watching future first-round picks develop. NIL and revenue sharing have turned the sport's biggest stars into seven-figure earners before they ever sign for seven-figure bonuses professionally. More talent means more revenue. Facilities rival those of pro affiliates, attendance is surging, and college baseball sits squarely in a golden age.
Most important, the best amateur players in North America now occupy one stage, creating sustained interest in both college baseball and the MLB Draft much like the NFL and NBA enjoy between their college and professional games.
Instead of occasional Draft classes spiking interest when a rare talent like Paul Skenes or Stephen Strasburg is available, every Draft features recognizable stars who have spent years performing on ESPN.
It sounds like fantasy.
The proposal would establish a minimum draft age of 20, eliminate high school selections and send virtually every elite North American amateur talent to college for at least two seasons before becoming draft eligible.
2026 MLB Draft presented by Nippon Express
July 11-12:
The proposal also includes a hard-slotted, 12-round draft, unlimited undrafted free-agent signings, tradable draft picks, and mandatory combines for medical evaluations.
At first glance, the proposal feels like exactly what critics called it: another attempt to reduce amateur spending. If that's all it is, it deserves criticism. But I don't think that's the most interesting question. I'm less interested in whether this exact proposal should become embedded in the CBA than whether the core structural changes proposed by MLB better position the sport's long-term architecture.
The reality is if baseball were designing an amateur draft for today -- not for 1965 -- it would build something very different.
Why propose this now?
College baseball has changed dramatically over the last decade. The gap is narrowed. That's what is allowing for the conversation.
The nation's top programs now operate pitching and hitting laboratories equipped with technology that rivals, and in some cases exceeds, what exists at pro affiliates.
Schools like LSU, Georgia, Wake Forest, Oregon State, North Carolina, Ohio State and others have embraced player-tracking systems, biomechanics, bat-tracking, force plates and advanced pitch design.
The coaching and support staff is improved as well.
Even as a pro, Skenes, the reigning NL Cy Young winner, still relies daily on Georgia's strength and conditioning staff and player development resources.
Georgia director of baseball athletic performance Derek Groomer -- who was with Skenes at LSU -- once told me he tracks "every data marker you could imagine [on Skenes] -- and more you couldn't."
That's increasingly representative of elite college baseball. Wes Johnson's move from the Twins to LSU (now Georgia), and Tanner Swanson's knee-down catching innovations at Washington illustrate how ideas now flow both directions.
There is increasing cross-pollination between college and professional baseball. Coaches move freely between the two levels, training methods spread rapidly, and prospects are arriving in professional baseball more polished than ever before. Evidence? Players are moving through the Minor Leagues faster, as researched by Baseball America's J.J. Cooper.
Now imagine every elite high school player spending two years inside that developmental environment before entering affiliated baseball.
The money question(s)
Structural change is being proposed not only because of a change in college baseball quality but also due to financial opportunities for players.
For years, Division I baseball programs divided a paltry 11.7 scholarships across entire rosters.
That limited the player pool.
Today, programs can offer as many as 34 full scholarships. That alone creates a powerful incentive for more elite athletes to choose college baseball, regardless of any changes to the Draft. Combined with NIL and revenue sharing, the economics have fundamentally shifted.
Star college players increasingly earn six-figure incomes -- and under a proposed system where every elite amateur passes through college, those opportunities would become even more valuable as the college product attracted more media and gate dollars.
Also consider that the vast majority of college players will never reach professional baseball, and the overwhelming majority of players drafted never reach the Major Leagues. Receiving two years of education while developing as a player has real long-term value that often gets overlooked.
At the same time, the reduction in Draft bonuses is a legitimate concern. There's already an imbalance of dollars flowing to older players versus young in MLB.
But focusing solely on signing bonuses ignores the broader financial picture.
Under MLB's proposal, college players become draft eligible after just two seasons instead of three. UCLA's Roch Cholowsky -- No. 1 on MLB Pipeline's Top Draft Prospects list for 2026 -- would have been eligible to be drafted last year under this format.
This is essentially a massive service time gain for players. It means the majority of elite college prospects would begin their professional careers a year earlier. And it's college players who make up 81% of selections in recent Drafts, and the majority of North American Major League players.
Last year's Draft illustrates the point: 86% of the top-40 college selections last June would be eligible for free agency and arbitration one year earlier under the proposed rules.
That matters because arbitration and free agency payments can dwarf signing bonuses.
Entering free agency at 28 instead of 29, or 29 instead of 30, can be worth tens of millions of dollars. A younger free agent commands a greater premium, and more guaranteed years because clubs are purchasing more seasons before age-related decline enters the equation.
The human element
There is another aspect of this proposal that receives far less attention.
The human one.
Padres pitcher Walker Buehler once described the reality of Minor League Baseball to me in remarkably blunt terms.
"At any affiliate, there are three players who have a chance to play in the Majors," he said. "The rest of the players are there so they can play. I don't think that's fair. You are preying on their dreams."
Two years ago, I spoke with Doug Deeds, one of 1,420 Minor Leaguers since 1891 to accumulate 4,000 plate appearances without reaching the Major Leagues.
"You are so hyper-focused on training, getting ready for next year, thinking about the what-ifs," Deeds told me. "It's like you put everything else on hold."
We often don't know when to quit chasing a dream.
Their words become even more relevant because clubs increasingly employ sophisticated player evaluation tools and data.
With bat-tracking, biomechanical analysis and years of amateur data, organizations have a far better understanding of which players possess legitimate Major League potential than they did even a decade ago.
This presents a difficult reality when 75% of high school signees (2012-19) never reach the Major Leagues, while only a small percentage (12%) ever take advantage of the Continuing Education benefits available after their careers end.
Conversely, a Albert Pujols or Mike Piazza slipping through the cracks because the Draft features fewer rounds is unlikely in today's data-rich environment.
Critics point to the disappearance of teenage Major League debuts such a proposal would eliminate.
Teenage debuts -- think Ken Griffey Jr. and Alex Rodriguez -- are undeniably exciting and often signal a special talent. Konnor Griffin joined the short list this April. He's an extraordinary exception.
Over the last 40 years, there have been only 29 teenage Major League debuts.
During that same period, there have been 8,630 total player debuts.
Teenagers account for roughly one-third of one percent of debuts. In other words, 99.67% of debuts are achieved by players 20 or older since 1986.
Systems should be designed around what benefits the overwhelming majority of participants -- not the rarest outliers.
A college-first model creates a stronger developmental filter while protecting more players from the harshest realities of professional baseball.
***
Ultimately, a stronger college feeder system creates better players, more recognizable stars and greater fan engagement before prospects ever enter affiliated baseball.
It creates an MLB Draft that feels like an event rather than a niche industry gathering. Imagine Draft night becoming one of baseball's signature annual events because fans have spent years watching those players compete.
It strengthens college baseball while simultaneously strengthening professional baseball.
Pair that with better competitive balance and baseball would have components of a formidable growth engine. Everyone benefits from an expanding revenue pie. MLB's revenue growth trails all the major North American sports over the last 15 years.
Whether MLB's exact proposal is the right answer is almost beside the point. The most important realization is the assumptions underpinning baseball's development system no longer match the reality on the ground.
The foundations have changed. The structure should too.