PDA

View Full Version : The myth about college and the NBA.



da ThRONe
04-03-2012, 01:03 PM
Everybody complains about the "product" and how it's impacted negatively by young players. However this simply isn't true. There's no proof that 3-4 year player that enters the NBA is more likely to succeed(either immediately or after time) than that of HS and now 1 and done players.

Many people also believe that staying in college produces better players. This is illogically. As a student athlete you have less opportunity to work on your craft. As a pro baller it is your job and every franchise has the money to put the best minds and facilities to help players advance. If you know basketball you know that guys improve their games with practice and drills.

Some say it's about maturity. However most star players in college are more coddled by the college life than as a pro athlete. Either the players have the drive to be great at the highest level or not. Playing against subpar college level talent for a few more years isn't guarenteed to build more character or develop internal drive.

So why is it so many sport fans supported the rule that made young men go to college for a year and now support the idea of making them stay another year or two?

flea
04-03-2012, 01:10 PM
Because for the vast majority of players college does improve their game. For the Lebrons and Durants of the world, probably not as much but there are very few of those players. I think even for some of the superstars like Lebron and Durant a year or two of college could help if they got the right coach. The problem is that they usually can just coast on their natural talent alone like they did in high school - but if a great player like Durant wants to improve some facet of his game it's certainly easier and more forgiving to do in the college game.

For example, if Lebron had gone to college and had really focused on his post game, since he likely would spend some time as a power forward with a coach that knows what he's doing, that part of his game probably would be far more developed.

All that said, I feel like 18 year olds should be able to do what they want. If they can make an obscene amount of money and don't really care about being any good, go let them be a Kwame Brown or Jamarcus Russell if they can.

Chronz
04-03-2012, 01:17 PM
Whats been preached is that bigmen have the most to gain by going to college and learning solid bigman skills. I dont know if theres any truth to that but I do think perimeter players should definitely get to the NBA asap. I suppose some players need that gradual learning curve that comes with competing against inferior players but I was always of the mind that the sooner your playing against the best, the sooner you become your best.

It seems the only fall back on great HS players has been that they are out of the league or decline sooner than you would expect. It could all be random but if thats true then thats the only argument for going to College, to preserve your body by waiting for it to fully develop to better absorb the hits, the mental side of the game is different as you age, the older you are the more you know about the game, so if you preserve your athleticism for that peak mental stage of your career your going to enter what has been referred to as the Phental state, the perfect combination of IQ and Athleticism.

But again this could all just be crap/coincidental. Like I dont know if Tmac lasts any longer in the NBA if he gos to college, he stated part of the reason he wanted to get to the NBA was because Dr's warned him of his back problems, that his youthful bounce may not last as long as others. In his case I think years served are more valuable than physical punishment saved. Who knows really, I would love to see someone dig into this someday.

Chronz
04-03-2012, 01:18 PM
Because for the vast majority of players college does improve their game. For the Lebrons and Durants of the world, probably not as much but there are very few of those players. I think even for some of the superstars like Lebron and Durant a year or two of college could help if they got the right coach. The problem is that they usually can just coast on their natural talent alone like they did in high school - but if a great player like Durant wants to improve some facet of his game it's certainly easier and more forgiving to do in the college game.

For example, if Lebron had gone to college and had really focused on his post game, since he likely would spend some time as a power forward with a coach that knows what he's doing, that part of his game probably would be far more developed.

All that said, I feel like 18 year olds should be able to do what they want. If they can make an obscene amount of money and don't really care about being any good, go let them be a Kwame Brown or Jamarcus Russell if they can.

But if Bron is spending more time at a position he wont be playing in the NBA, against rules he wont be seeing as much of in the NBA, does it really matter? Wouldnt it theoretically take away from his perimeter game?

Like Melo and Bron were equals early in life, when both were in HS, then Melo went to College and Bron went straight to the pros, Melo was still better but Bron took off in year 2 while Melo stayed the same. I suppose that just speaks to their IQ and potential more than anything .

da ThRONe
04-03-2012, 01:18 PM
Because for the vast majority of players college does improve their game. For the Lebrons and Durants of the world, probably not as much but there are very few of those players. I think even for some of the superstars like Lebron and Durant a year or two of college could help if they got the right coach. The problem is that they usually can just coast on their natural talent alone like they did in high school - but if a great player like Durant wants to improve some facet of his game it's certainly easier and more forgiving to do in the college game.

For example, if Lebron had gone to college and had really focused on his post game, since he likely would spend some time as a power forward with a coach that knows what he's doing, that part of his game probably would be far more developed.

All that said, I feel like 18 year olds should be able to do what they want. If they can make an obscene amount of money and don't really care about being any good, go let them be a Kwame Brown or Jamarcus Russell if they can.

There's no way to ever know if LeBron would have developed a post game in college. If he was able to coast off of talent in the NBA why do you think he was going to do it in college?

flea
04-03-2012, 05:20 PM
Did you not read that I was making that presumption? I said that these guys really wouldn't have to do much to be good in college, but if they chose to round out their games rather than coasting it would benefit them. Banging around in the post with players around your size can only help your game - the degree to which the player actually puts effort into it will determine the degree to which there is improvement.

jammastershake
04-03-2012, 05:24 PM
COLLEGE BASKETBALL IS SLAVERY!!!

:facepalm:

2-ONE-5
04-04-2012, 04:04 PM
the NBA is a professional organization and if you interviewed 50 players you could easily tell which ones spent 2-4 years in college compared to the ones who entered after HS or 1 year. Some players are ready after 1 year of college ball that is obvious but even more arent that is just as obvious. Some just arent as good as they/we thought and others cant handle it which is why staying in school can be a good thing. Another positive about staying in school is being able to play in those high pressure games like in big rivalry games, conf tourny and final 4 where the spotlight is on you and you can learn from it and be better prepared for the NBA

Hellcrooner
04-04-2012, 04:13 PM
this is easy to prove.

Just need to get the data of every nba player that has ever played in the league and relate years played in the league with years of college.

I would be surprised if the players that went college didnt have longer careers in average.
this would also probably show that the players that stayed two and 3 years are the ones that last longer on average as opposed to the ones who stayed just 1 or didnt go to college.

The ones that stayed the whole 4 years may be tricky, cause in recent years they have been overlooked by teams.

DodgerBulls
04-04-2012, 04:45 PM
COLLEGE BASKETBALL IS SLAVERY!!!

:facepalm:

Same goes for high school, middle school, and elementary school assuming they are public. Seriously though, they know what the **** they are getting into. They get scholarships to study and play ball, for some boosting their status for the NBA. Are they forced to play? No. Hell, they can stop playing and lose their scholarships and simply stay in college and study. Is the school making money as they play without getting paid? Not entirely, they are getting scholarships.

Ever thought about people who play sports in college that pays their own tuition without scholarships? Are those people being enslaved? I don't think so...

In addition, why is it college basketball only? Actually, most school departments get their money... guess what from where? I guess from their exploitation of students that joined an organization that do their job and in return the department gets money. COLLEGE IS SLAVERY!!! :rolleyes:

Spiggity_ace
04-04-2012, 05:11 PM
LOL @ all this being so players can develop

its so the ncaa can market there stars like the nba does.

COOLbeans
04-04-2012, 05:43 PM
Sports in college is a major business. and those kids that skip college directly impact the quality of education in the US. since much of the revenue brought in by colleges depend on the culture and greatness of those college athletes.

The NBA probably benefits somehow by the success of college sports. Its purely fnancial, since the OPs logic makes sense in regards to the quality of professional facilities being much greater than that of universities.

conway429
04-04-2012, 06:17 PM
Players who have the talent and the drive will succeed in the NBA, regardless of if they get college coaching or whatever or not.

I just want them all to go to school because I think they should all get an education.
Whether or not you think a star college player actually does any work in school or not, going to university will teach them at least a little bit of drive, determination, and responsibility. There has to be negative effects on a kid getting showered with millions of dollars at the age of 18. And if he gets injured, or doesn't succeed in the NBA, then his life is likely down the drain, having slacked off through high school and blowing off college.

Or to take it back even further, kids shouldn't grow up thinking "all I have to do is coast through high school, then I'll make the NBA and be rich". Such a miniscule percentage of people actually make it in the NBA, the mindset growing up should be "I have to earn a college degree before I get to play in the NBA, so I need to study hard in high school to get into a college", more so just to benefit the 99.999% of kids who won't get anywhere near the NBA.

A university/college degree should be mandatory for all professional sports.

da ThRONe
04-09-2012, 11:32 PM
http://www.nba.com/2012/news/features/david_aldridge/04/09/morning-tip-nba-draft-age-limit-debate/?ls=iref:nbahpt1

This article pretty much sums up what I've been saying.

thekmp211
04-10-2012, 07:12 AM
LOL @ all this being so players can develop

its so the ncaa can market there stars like the nba does.

this x1000000.

http://thefrontcourt.com/1506/good-for-the-sport/

although i have no sympathy for the ncaa, i understand that they are sick of having to hype up the jimmers and ammos of the world.

mRc08
04-10-2012, 01:12 PM
Whats been preached is that bigmen have the most to gain by going to college and learning solid bigman skills. I dont know if theres any truth to that but I do think perimeter players should definitely get to the NBA asap. I suppose some players need that gradual learning curve that comes with competing against inferior players but I was always of the mind that the sooner your playing against the best, the sooner you become your best.

It seems the only fall back on great HS players has been that they are out of the league or decline sooner than you would expect. It could all be random but if thats true then thats the only argument for going to College, to preserve your body by waiting for it to fully develop to better absorb the hits, the mental side of the game is different as you age, the older you are the more you know about the game, so if you preserve your athleticism for that peak mental stage of your career your going to enter what has been referred to as the Phental state, the perfect combination of IQ and Athleticism.

But again this could all just be crap/coincidental. Like I dont know if Tmac lasts any longer in the NBA if he gos to college, he stated part of the reason he wanted to get to the NBA was because Dr's warned him of his back problems, that his youthful bounce may not last as long as others. In his case I think years served are more valuable than physical punishment saved. Who knows really, I would love to see someone dig into this someday.

This. Bigmen have the most to gain IMO. They have the chane to learn a post offense while having touches to practice on the court. Most young NBA bigmen in ecent memory that have come right out of high school never had a solid post game. Being able to learn and work on your post moves against easier opponents boosts confidence and skill. If a guy like Tyson Chandler would have been a three year college student, I bet he would have been a much better post scorer at this point in his career. Some guys can come right out play down low (curry for awhile, KG, etc), but even a guy like dwight would have benefitted. He only recently is considered a good post player, however, most people will tell you there more to be desired from him.

I think any player should have the right to jump right outa high school into the NBA if they want. They have the right to earn money. If they can fight in a war, they should be able to play professional basketball. However, I think going to college does a lot for players in terms of learning important skills, discipline, and "team basketball". I wish i could ask anthony davis how much he learned this year by going to college. Not just on the court, but about working together as a team to WIN. Whoever ends up with that guy is lucky as he already has a great mindset/approach to the game, wich is a product of college.

Iodine
04-10-2012, 01:17 PM
Actually making the DLeague developmental and making college athletics something you don't have to do would be awesome for everyone besides the NCAA, which I am all in favor of.

I am all for college athletics, but the NCAA is an awful organization

Stinkyoutsider
04-10-2012, 01:54 PM
I don't like the rule one bit! Here's another way for a NBA organization to have a safety net and assure the owners still get their money regardless of their decisions. If an organization sees a Kwame Brown in high school and wants to draft him, let them. Their fault if they choose Brown or go with a safer pick with possibly less upside in a polished, more mature college player. It's all about free enterprise, but there has to be accountability.

We need to allow high school students the right to choose to go pro. It's up to the teams whether they pick them or not. If we're worried about our students being educated before going to the pros, maybe the NBA teams should invest more in programs to teach these young men how to live and also to prepare them for a career after basketball.

I think the NBA should get rid of the rule all together when/if they expand the NBADL. Adding more teams will give the NBA clubs the ability to put their high school draftees there instead of right into the NBA.

Iodine
04-10-2012, 02:01 PM
^^The entire rule of organized collusion. If a player wanted to challenge the system through the courts he could get exemption from it, but he would lose an *** ton of money and could easily be black balled out the league

3RDASYSTEM
04-10-2012, 02:03 PM
Its all a biz,a BIG one at that..its just college is more 'innocent' like but still just as potent as big leagues,so getting the 'stars' to big league faster is better for both parties since the 'star' athlete wont stay no longer than 2(SHAQ/AI) but more likely 1 and done(ROSE/DURANT) or dont go at all(AMARE/KG), but make no mistake they work hand n hand like DEM/REP party but will 'act' like they in odds or have diff. views..poppycock

As far as the player having his 'id/game' its pretty much you are who you are in high school/college upon entering the league,your game dont really change as much as media gives perception of a certain player/athlete to fit they agenda

for example to me the SHAQ/DURANT/DUNCAN/KG/MELO/LEBRON/AI/KIDD/JORDANs of the world were just going to flat out ball on any level at any day, they were the 'show' basically from day 1 and they all had they niche, SHAQ was getting quaddruple teamed at LSU, AI was better as a Junior in high school than alot of players today in league and was getting box n 1 at G'TOWN

LEBRON was a beast his rookie yr and prior to coming into league and we all seen what MELO did in CUSEVILLE and prior to college

KIDD was a triple double waiting to happen at CAL, not when he got into league.

NASH was same player to me in college, real nice shooter who had uncanny ability to get in lane but wasnt athletic really physically at all but always had the skill n vision, DURANT was same college,DUNCAN was same in college.. like i said you are who you are and the media picks and chooses all this elite status **** but its easy to see who has it and who is a media darling

coaching a talent is so much easier to coach than non talent, the best/top players play from day 1 no matter whos in front or behind'em,
developing players replace starters -bball 101

today its more of media story or a PER to dictate who had more 'game',more impact..if i had a chance to watch WILT play back in his 40 and 50ppg avgs do ya think i would need a PER to figure out how dominant he truly was? no i would need to watch him live/tv, you think i need to go look at PER to figure out that AI shot a low fg pct because as a PointGuard he sacrificed for his team and shot 25+ times(sometimes 40+) a game just to give them a shot at winning plus getting JORDAN defensive rules ran at him? how in the world of basketball could his efficiency not be destroyed and looked at as crap, but not his supporting cast around him?

todays Basketball is about tv ratings,$$ and a story(it was more balanced back in day)...if that aint Hollywood i dont know what is
Too many guys today come out and have flat out no chance but still come out cause as a biz the league needs xtra bodies,its a structured ran system.as long as they play they role they will have a roster spot

and i wouldnt mind at all if KIDD-GIL or that DAVIS kid wanted to go strait from HS to league, would have made me none since i see 14-16yr boys/girls playing for grandslams in TENNIS events worldwide

thekmp211
04-10-2012, 02:28 PM
Actually making the DLeague developmental and making college athletics something you don't have to do would be awesome for everyone besides the NCAA, which I am all in favor of.

I am all for college athletics, but the NCAA is an awful organization

college athletics should be used for -college- athletes. the dudes coming into college for a year, being hurt by the rule, are going all-in on hoops.

if people didn't have such hard-ons for (admittedly) awesome sports memories and their own alma maters, college wouldn't have such a monopoly on young athletes.

top tier soccer clubs recruit transcendent talent basically as soon as they hit puberty, and why not? it gives these kids an extra five years to learn what it takes to be a highly paid professional athlete, which as great as college is absolutely does NOT prepare you for that. major league baseball obviously is a slightly more pertinent because it's system has to consider the ncaa factor.

baseball as a whole is built to be more resilient to losing elite talent, because baseball teams have much bigger rosters than basketball teams. one guy simply effects less. but it's also not as lucrative, which is why losing stars in the ncaa matters in the first place. if you don't care about the ncaa making money (and i couldn't care less) then ... why do we care about the college game? transfer the talent and the attention to the nba and minor leagues.

the real talent will still be there to root for in the nba, and a legitimate minor league/amateur league system in the nba could produce something i would contend has the potential to be more entertaining than the current ncaa game, where a select group of established teams have a lot of things in place helping them corner the market on talent.

re: the big man, theory, i honestly get what you are saying but disagree. if you earnestly developed a private alternative to college programs, it would be a better environment to learn to play in the post because your life would be devoted to post moves. you would be a professional post player trainer.

the thing that really proves your point is that none of the most fundamental big men in the league went to college, excluding duncan who is old and so damn good that he would have been amazing anywhere. the four guys that came to mind, andrew bynum, al jefferson, pau gasol and marc gasol, all didn't go to college. a professional, private-owned profit based model is almost always going to have a higher potential ceiling for results than an amateur system with divided attentions and concerns.

Iodine
04-10-2012, 02:36 PM
college athletics should be used for -college- athletes. the dudes coming into college for a year, being hurt by the rule, are going all-in on hoops.

if people didn't have such hard-ons for (admittedly) awesome sports memories and their own alma maters, college wouldn't have such a monopoly on young athletes.

top tier soccer clubs recruit transcendent talent basically as soon as they hit puberty, and why not? it gives these kids an extra five years to learn what it takes to be a highly paid professional athlete, which as great as college is absolutely does NOT prepare you for that. major league baseball obviously is a slightly more pertinent because it's system has to consider the ncaa factor.

baseball as a whole is built to be more resilient to losing elite talent, because baseball teams have much bigger rosters than basketball teams. one guy simply effects less. but it's also not as lucrative, which is why losing stars in the ncaa matters in the first place. if you don't care about the ncaa making money (and i couldn't care less) then ... why do we care about the college game? transfer the talent and the attention to the nba and minor leagues.

the real talent will still be there to root for in the nba, and a legitimate minor league/amateur league system in the nba could produce something i would contend has the potential to be more entertaining than the current ncaa game, where a select group of established teams have a lot of things in place helping them corner the market on talent.
I agree with pretty much all this

When it comes to baseball's system, most of the people I really read often (Kevin Goldstein, Jason Parks, Fangraphs guys, ect) Say that college hurts a players development more often than it could help them, with stuff like the Stanford Swing and all that. Obviously baseball is a much different game, but if the NBA had a youth system like they do in Europe, it would be awesome for the pro game.

And your right about the Alma Mater thing pretty clear cut, but since I am either going to Drexel or NYU (****ing 20 days to decide) I couldnt care less about their players :p

da ThRONe
04-10-2012, 02:46 PM
college athletics should be used for -college- athletes. the dudes coming into college for a year, being hurt by the rule, are going all-in on hoops.

if people didn't have such hard-ons for (admittedly) awesome sports memories and their own alma maters, college wouldn't have such a monopoly on young athletes.

top tier soccer clubs recruit transcendent talent basically as soon as they hit puberty, and why not? it gives these kids an extra five years to learn what it takes to be a highly paid professional athlete, which as great as college is absolutely does NOT prepare you for that. major league baseball obviously is a slightly more pertinent because it's system has to consider the ncaa factor.

baseball as a whole is built to be more resilient to losing elite talent, because baseball teams have much bigger rosters than basketball teams. one guy simply effects less. but it's also not as lucrative, which is why losing stars in the ncaa matters in the first place. if you don't care about the ncaa making money (and i couldn't care less) then ... why do we care about the college game? transfer the talent and the attention to the nba and minor leagues.

the real talent will still be there to root for in the nba, and a legitimate minor league/amateur league system in the nba could produce something i would contend has the potential to be more entertaining than the current ncaa game, where a select group of established teams have a lot of things in place helping them corner the market on talent.

re: the big man, theory, i honestly get what you are saying but disagree. if you earnestly developed a private alternative to college programs, it would be a better environment to learn to play in the post because your life would be devoted to post moves. you would be a professional post player trainer.

the thing that really proves your point is that none of the most fundamental big men in the league went to college, excluding duncan who is old and so damn good that he would have been amazing anywhere. the four guys that came to mind, andrew bynum, al jefferson, pau gasol and marc gasol, all didn't go to college. a professional, private-owned profit based model is almost always going to have a higher potential ceiling for results than an amateur system with divided attentions and concerns.

This rule is an NBA rule. It's because for whatever reason the NBA rather let the NCAA promote the players than doing it themselves. We wouldn't care who Derrick Rose, or Anthony Davis was if they had spent a year or two in the DLeague, but because they were able to get crazy publicity via their 1 and done year they come into the NBA with superstar buzz. Like I've said before why spend the time, money, and effort promoting your minor league when you can get the main stream media and the NCAA to do it for you?

thekmp211
04-10-2012, 03:11 PM
This rule is an NBA rule. It's because for whatever reason the NBA rather let the NCAA promote the players than doing it themselves. We wouldn't care who Derrick Rose, or Anthony Davis was if they had spent a year or two in the DLeague, but because they were able to get crazy publicity via their 1 and done year they come into the NBA with superstar buzz. Like I've said before why spend the time, money, and effort promoting your minor league when you can get the main stream media and the NCAA to do it for you?

the nba supports the rule for a couple reasons. 1, it likes to play the "good education" card despite that being a complete and total crock.

owners created the rule not because it made marketing stars easy, not at all. it made the rule because, like many of the provisions in each CBA, owners couldn't stop shooting itself in the foot. teams were wiffing left and right on HS prospects, over evaluating, over-hyping and generally just doing a terrible job. much like the "big market" witch hunt in this past cba, owners wanted to protect themselves from going all-in on the kwame browns of the world and built a rule to protect themselves from themselves by disallowing the possibility. what the ncaa does is provide a vetting process for the next big NBA star. kwame brown would have flopped in college, dropped down scouting boards and never have destroyed a decade of wizards basketball. that's the reasoning.

linsanity proves to the enth degree that the nba doesn't need ncaa star power. anthony davis and derrick rose will gather attention from rabid hoops fans regardless of where they play because people follow talent. it has been that way since magic and bird, who just happened to play in college and elevate the attention.

the biggest obstacle is the money makers in the ncaa who would never give up their power, and the legions of alumni from major D1 colleges who would just rather watch guys play in their alma maters team colors.

think about what lebron would have been if he'd been signed by the lakers amateur organization at age 14.

nba plays along like i said because they want to seem philanthropic and because they are still too close to the era where HS prospects screwed them over (I.e. they screwed themselves over).

da ThRONe
04-10-2012, 03:17 PM
the nba supports the rule for a couple reasons. 1, it likes to play the "good education" card despite that being a complete and total crock.

owners created the rule not because it made marketing stars easy, not at all. it made the rule because, like many of the provisions in each CBA, owners couldn't stop shooting itself in the foot. teams were wiffing left and right on HS prospects, over evaluating, over-hyping and generally just doing a terrible job. much like the "big market" witch hunt in this past cba, owners wanted to protect themselves from going all-in on the kwame browns of the world and built a rule to protect themselves from themselves by disallowing the possibility. what the ncaa does is provide a vetting process for the next big NBA star. kwame brown would have flopped in college, dropped down scouting boards and never have destroyed a decade of wizards basketball. that's the reasoning.

linsanity proves to the enth degree that the nba doesn't need ncaa star power. anthony davis and derrick rose will gather attention from rabid hoops fans regardless of where they play because people follow talent. it has been that way since magic and bird, who just happened to play in college and elevate the attention.

the biggest obstacle is the money makers in the ncaa who would never give up their power, and the legions of alumni from major D1 colleges who would just rather watch guys play in their alma maters team colors.

think about what lebron would have been if he'd been signed by the lakers amateur organization at age 14.

nba plays along like i said because they want to seem philanthropic and because they are still too close to the era where HS prospects screwed them over (I.e. they screwed themselves over).

This simply isn't true. The NBA hardly missed on High School kids. Read the article. If you look at all the HS kids taken in the lottery(which is pretty much where teams expect the real talent) most of those players panned out.

Evolution23
04-10-2012, 03:17 PM
-You couldn't be more wrong.
-So many players come into the NBA without having developed enough fundamental skills.
-Look at players like Javele McGee and Blake Griffin. All the talent in the world but it hasn't been developed yet because of their reliance on athleticism.
-4 years of college allows players to become mature and fine tune their skill sets.

thekmp211
04-10-2012, 03:19 PM
I agree with pretty much all this

When it comes to baseball's system, most of the people I really read often (Kevin Goldstein, Jason Parks, Fangraphs guys, ect) Say that college hurts a players development more often than it could help them, with stuff like the Stanford Swing and all that. Obviously baseball is a much different game, but if the NBA had a youth system like they do in Europe, it would be awesome for the pro game.

And your right about the Alma Mater thing pretty clear cut, but since I am either going to Drexel or NYU (****ing 20 days to decide) I couldnt care less about their players :p

exactly, i hail from northeastern (boston, eastern not western, in chicago) and while we have a decent hoops and hockey program, i by no means am married to watching guys toil away in our 9/10ths empty arena and i certainly don't think the few pros we did produce were somehow created or aided by the amateur process.

you are still in HS??? that should truly embarrass some of the buffoons on this site, considering i had you pegged on my short list of definitely over 20 year olds.

re: the decision, i'll say this -- it depends on what you want to study and how. drexel as i understand has an co op program, which nu also has and i can vouch for as being amazing in terms of working experience. obviously nyu is a lot more prestigious, has proximity to all that is new york and may be a lot better academically depending on what you want to do. the truth is, you'll get as much out of the experience as you put into it so don't over emphasize the importance of the choice, and enjoy this summer.

but yeah both teams have terrible hoops teams, so you're **** out of luck in that regard.

da ThRONe
04-10-2012, 03:25 PM
-You couldn't be more wrong.
-So many players come into the NBA without having developed enough fundamental skills.
-Look at players like Javele McGee and Blake Griffin. All the talent in the world but it hasn't been developed yet because of their reliance on athleticism.
-4 years of college allows players to become mature and fine tune their skill sets.

Once again if you aren't developing playing while the worlds best players. In a situation where basketball is your livelihood. What makes you think 3-4 years of inferior level competition, with school work, limited practice times, and inferior coaching staffs/trainers will get these guys there? Blake Griffin spent 2 years in college and still don't have those fundamentals.

mRc08
04-10-2012, 03:26 PM
-You couldn't be more wrong.
-So many players come into the NBA without having developed enough fundamental skills.
-Look at players like Javele McGee and Blake Griffin. All the talent in the world but it hasn't been developed yet because of their reliance on athleticism.
-4 years of college allows players to become mature and fine tune their skill sets.

I think both sides of the argument here have valid points. You are backing up what I said a bit earlier, however, others have made points that have swayed my opinion some. Regardless, I think we can all agree that the NCAA benefits heavily from these players financially. I do think though that it hurts the overall college game. The team who gets the most one and done playres who could have been drafted otherwise end up going deep every year. Its as if the competitive balance of the NCAA has been thrown off. I think players benefit from going to college, but I support getting rid of the rule. Let teams take risks on these players and hope they have a good enough staff/organization to get the most outa these guys. The only people really getting screwed out of all this are the players. If you arn't gonna pay student athletes, let them go pro.

thekmp211
04-10-2012, 03:30 PM
This simply isn't true. The NBA hardly missed on High School kids. Read the article. If you look at all the HS kids taken in the lottery(which is pretty much where teams expect the real talent) most of those players panned out.

this is kind of my point though. the guys who were sure things became instant super stars. lebron, kg, dwight, kobe are the biggest names in the sport. did their brand suffer, short term or long, by not going to college for a year? not at all.

issues arose on both ends when the players who didn't belong got sucked into the process by greedy agents, hs coaches, and opportunistic and lazy front offices who didn't do their research.

let's go post dwight, the last superstar calibur player to come straight out of HS (monta ellis' and josh smiths do NOT count for our purposes). these guys were drafted straight out of HS -

Shaun Livingston
Robert Swift
Sebastian Telfair
Al Jefferson
Josh Smith
J. R. Smith
Dorell Wright
Martell Webster
Andrew Bynum
Gerald Green
C. J. Miles G
Ricky Sánchez
Monta Ellis
Louis Williams
Andray Blatche
Amir Johnson

these guys range from 'borderline all-stars" (bynum josh and ellis) to "really underwhelming" (green, webster, blatche, miles, johnson, pretty much everyone else) to "never stuck in the league" (sexy swift, ricky sanchez). most of these guys came with the expectations tacked on to the past success of guys like lebron, kobe ect. it was just ugly, and when owners stared effing up a lot they did what they always do and just changed the rules to make life easier for themselves.

da ThRONe
04-10-2012, 03:37 PM
this is kind of my point though. the guys who were sure things became instant super stars. lebron, kg, dwight, kobe are the biggest names in the sport. did their brand suffer, short term or long, by not going to college for a year? not at all.

issues arose on both ends when the players who didn't belong got sucked into the process by greedy agents, hs coaches, and opportunistic and lazy front offices who didn't do their research.

let's go post dwight, the last superstar calibur player to come straight out of HS (monta ellis' and josh smiths do NOT count for our purposes). these guys were drafted straight out of HS -

Shaun Livingston
Robert Swift
Sebastian Telfair
Al Jefferson
Josh Smith
J. R. Smith
Dorell Wright
Martell Webster
Andrew Bynum
Gerald Green
C. J. Miles G
Ricky Sánchez
Monta Ellis
Louis Williams
Andray Blatche
Amir Johnson

these guys range from 'borderline all-stars" (bynum josh and ellis) to "really underwhelming" (green, webster, blatche, miles, johnson, pretty much everyone else) to "never stuck in the league" (sexy swift, ricky sanchez). most of these guys came with the expectations tacked on to the past success of guys like lebron, kobe ect. it was just ugly, and when owners stared effing up a lot they did what they always do and just changed the rules to make life easier for themselves.

You are failing to list where each player was drafted. It's as crucial to the agrument as their level of success. Expectation for the 15-60 picks aren't that high.

thekmp211
04-10-2012, 03:45 PM
You are failing to list where each player was drafted. It's as crucial to the agrument as their level of success. Expectation for the 15-60 picks aren't that high.

no i understand, but i remember a lot of these guys had some pretty high expectations. in particular, telfair, jefferson, webster, green, livingston, cj and both smith's came into the league with a lot of buzz. most of those guys were lotto picks. besides al and josh, both of whom peaked late and in particular jefferson was of no use to the team who drafted him, boston. jefferson was the primary piece used to acquire KG, so he obviously held quite a bit of value around the league.

and of course, the classical examples of these types go back to the two godfathers of HS busteroos, kwame brown and deshawn "best comparison: kobe bryant" stephenson.

The Jokemaker
04-10-2012, 03:46 PM
A lot of this more time in college can allow players to hone their talent and also grow into more mature adults. This last thing is the big issue in my mind because otherwise, you have these kids getting drafted high, with high expectations, a lot of money, and they have to go live away from home and become a professional at a very young age. That is a lot to put on an individual and it is easy for them to get distracted or not know how to handle it which can interfere with their on-court success and development.

da ThRONe
04-10-2012, 04:06 PM
no i understand, but i remember a lot of these guys had some pretty high expectations. in particular, telfair, jefferson, webster, green, livingston, cj and both smith's came into the league with a lot of buzz. most of those guys were lotto picks. besides al and josh, both of whom peaked late and in particular jefferson was of no use to the team who drafted him, boston. jefferson was the primary piece used to acquire KG, so he obviously held quite a bit of value around the league.

and of course, the classical examples of these types go back to the two godfathers of HS busteroos, kwame brown and deshawn "best comparison: kobe bryant" stephenson.

Telfair 13th*
Jefferson 15th
Webster 6th*
Green 18th
Livington 4th*
CJ Miles 34th
Josh Smith 17th
Earl Smith 18th

Of those only three were lottery picks. Telfair and Webster are all still in the league and Livington suffered one of the most severe knee injuries in NBA history and still battle his way back into the league. Kwame was a huge bust and Deshawn Stephenson was selected 23rd.

You can't blame the players or the system for media driven buzz. The bottom line is the facts say that HS'ers wasn't a major issue.

He115ing
04-10-2012, 04:06 PM
From a biological and psychological perspective, a person's brain has not matured yet by the time they are in highschool. Plus college courses teach critical thinking among other things. This is why in life, those who go to college tend to do better and make better Decisions than those who don't.

Plus who do you think is going to be more responsible with millions of dollars and 18 year old kid or a more mature 22-23 year old.

You should change your title because it seems like you are presenting your opinion as a fact.

da ThRONe
04-10-2012, 04:10 PM
From a biological and psychological perspective, a person's brain has not matured yet by the time they are in highschool. Plus college courses teach critical thinking among other things. This is why in life, those who go to college tend to do better and make better Decisions than those who don't.

Plus who do you think is going to be more responsible with millions of dollars and 18 year old kid or a more mature 22-23 year old.

You should change your title because it seems like you are presenting your opinion as a fact.

Honestly neither. If your not from money and/or haven't been taught how to handle money odds are you will have issues. There are tons of 3-4years athletes of all sports that blow their money. Hell you have people who have won millions of dollars in the lottery in their 40's and 50's who are broke right now.

thekmp211
04-10-2012, 04:10 PM
From a biological and psychological perspective, a person's brain has not matured yet by the time they are in highschool. Plus college courses teach critical thinking among other things. This is why in life, those who go to college tend to do better and make better Decisions than those who don't.

Plus who do you think is going to be more responsible with millions of dollars and 18 year old kid or a more mature 22-23 year old.

You should change your title because it seems like you are presenting your opinion as a fact.

but here's the thing -- the HS guys who became mega stars and mega millionaires WERE mature enough to handle it. and i don't think any of the one and done stars who panned out were made more successful as stars, or brands, or athletes or professionals by being a freshman in college or even a junior in college. lets be honest folks -- even at ivy league schools, it is not a lifestyle of great responsibility (and that goes twice for D1 athletes). and let's not act like moving to another state to play PRO basketball (your life dream, by the way) is such a huge burden or a huge professional responsibility. pressure, competitive drive, focus -- these things will be challenged but again the super star players in this league didn't "steel their minds" against the real world by going to the NBA at 19 instead of 18. and i'm pretty sure j.r. smith would have been a moron even if he'd stayed in college for a decade. you see what i mean?

thekmp211
04-10-2012, 04:21 PM
Telfair 13th*
Jefferson 15th
Webster 6th*
Green 18th
Livington 4th*
CJ Miles 34th
Josh Smith 17th
Earl Smith 18th

Of those only three were lottery picks. Telfair and Webster are all still in the league and Livington suffered one of the most severe knee injuries in NBA history and still battle his way back into the league. Kwame was a huge bust and Deshawn Stephenson was selected 23rd.

You can't blame the players or the system for media driven buzz. The bottom line is the facts say that HS'ers wasn't a major issue.

right three ... of eight, and the only two good ones weren't lottery picks. and they became good after years of development, and will probably still never be all stars. you don't draft anyone, ever, banking on someone completely average. jefferson was expected to be good, traded for a HoF player and in his defense has become one of the elite post players in the league, without having ever rushed a frat or taken a college intro course.

i remember the debate around it at the time at both levels. also included in the debate was the issue of international prospects, who were being similarly over valued and hyped as teams tried to figure out where the talent was being divided up amongst these systems with the biggest, most obvious stars going straight to the league.

march madness is a nice little flash of exposure, a nice launching pad, but it neither massively important nor even necessary in the greater scope of an NBA superstars future anymore. you could have grown kevin durant in a lab, trained him in an underground facility for 18 years and then unleashed him into the nba, and 4 seasons later he'd be just as big a star as he is now.

Iodine
04-10-2012, 04:25 PM
exactly, i hail from northeastern (boston, eastern not western, in chicago) and while we have a decent hoops and hockey program, i by no means am married to watching guys toil away in our 9/10ths empty arena and i certainly don't think the few pros we did produce were somehow created or aided by the amateur process.

you are still in HS??? that should truly embarrass some of the buffoons on this site, considering i had you pegged on my short list of definitely over 20 year olds.

re: the decision, i'll say this -- it depends on what you want to study and how. drexel as i understand has an co op program, which nu also has and i can vouch for as being amazing in terms of working experience. obviously nyu is a lot more prestigious, has proximity to all that is new york and may be a lot better academically depending on what you want to do. the truth is, you'll get as much out of the experience as you put into it so don't over emphasize the importance of the choice, and enjoy this summer.

but yeah both teams have terrible hoops teams, so you're **** out of luck in that regard.

Haha yeah I am 18. I ****ed up my back when I was fourteen, got on bedrest for 3 months, watched/read as much as I could...... and the rest is history

In regards to drafting HS players success rate, I think just looking at the rates themselves is flawed, because usually if your draft a HS kid over a "seasoned" kid it's because you love their ceiling while acknowledging they could flame out.

He115ing
04-10-2012, 04:35 PM
Honestly neither. If your not from money and/or haven't been taught how to handle money odds are you will have issues. There are tons of 3-4years athletes of all sports that blow their money. Hell you have people who have won millions of dollars in the lottery in their 40's and 50's who are broke right now.

Look, some people are just stupid, and no amount of money can fix that. But if we are at least talking about a person with average intelligence and the ability to learn then I would still put my money on a 22-23 year old that went to college. Plus, unless you a a Lebron, or a Durant it is very difficult to make that quantum leap from HS to the NBA for most players.

I think, the more a player can learn about the game before entering the NBA, the better it will be for the player and for the league.

Also I am not a fan of the unwritten one and done rule, where players jump to the NBA after 1 year at college.

thekmp211
04-10-2012, 04:54 PM
Haha yeah I am 18. I ****ed up my back when I was fourteen, got on bedrest for 3 months, watched/read as much as I could...... and the rest is history

In regards to drafting HS players success rate, I think just looking at the rates themselves is flawed, because usually if your draft a HS kid over a "seasoned" kid it's because you love their ceiling while acknowledging they could flame out.

for the most part. the problem with this thinking is it goes against the basics of talent evaluation. teams kept falling for the "next" hs guy and the 7 footer from eastern europe who could do the dream shake perfectly...against a chair. meanwhile, perfectly good basketball players were being undervalued and or ignored altogether.

the real trend to consider here is that almost all of the guys we're talking about at this point were drafted in the last year of the hs/euro mania, 2004. dwight, swift, telfair, jefferson, both smiths and dorrell wright all in the same year. now, at the time of the rule change, the guys who did pan out, hadn't (we aren't talking no brainer dwight) and weren't about to. then take a look at the international players on that list. if you don't know the name, look up pavel podkolzine. the prototype for euro busts. then you have real nba players jameer nelson, delonte west, tony allen and kevin martin getting drafted after these clowns.

these things were reacted to in tandum. teams were in the ******* trying to fill rosters with guys who didn't belong in the league, good players were getting drafted too low, or not at all for reaches that were busting all over the place, and the ncaa was not only losing it's dwight howards, but also the guys who are as you described high ceiling. guys that were carving up the incoming freshman class they decided they were so much better than. and they could never come back, another moronic rule.

now you can't make an adult international player go to school, because they have never declared "amateur" status by enrolling in an edit: american educational institution. college athletes, on the other hand, are easily man handled by the rules of the ncaa, and its uneasy alliance in the nba. the rules changes in this case, as they were intended, helped everyone involved. oh right except the athletes themselves.

Iodine
04-10-2012, 04:58 PM
So what your saying is that clearly all teams should just scout players through grainy .gif files and bleacher report articles?

OH **** YES!

But yeah, the amount of trend hopping the NBA does is quite funny

thekmp211
04-10-2012, 05:27 PM
So what your saying is that clearly all teams should just scout players through grainy .gif files and bleacher report articles?

OH **** YES!

But yeah, the amount of trend hopping the NBA does is quite funny

honestly dude, it sounds like the most mundane, obvious point, but that CBA, and both lockouts basically come down to there being a lot of poorly run teams. good franchises don't draft kwame brown, 100/100, rules notwithstanding. most teams just need to Do Better.

what makes the nba, and hoops great is that all of this ******** is STILL secondary to the talent. it's so much goddamn fun and the best in the world are so goddamn good that this stuff is largely survivable. when breaking points arrive, i don't find it surprising that owners would seek to impose as much change on players, and as little on themselves, as possible. it is not good business, just business. again, the well run franchises are immune to this stuff precisely because they are well run. dan gilbert was about to benedict arnold the nba during the lockout. have we heard one peep from him since kyrie irving landed in his lap? no. and he didn't get kyrie by doing a good job.

KnickFanSince91
04-10-2012, 05:53 PM
exactly, i hail from northeastern (boston, eastern not western, in chicago) and while we have a decent hoops and hockey program, i by no means am married to watching guys toil away in our 9/10ths empty arena and i certainly don't think the few pros we did produce were somehow created or aided by the amateur process.

you are still in HS??? that should truly embarrass some of the buffoons on this site, considering i had you pegged on my short list of definitely over 20 year olds.

re: the decision, i'll say this -- it depends on what you want to study and how. drexel as i understand has an co op program, which nu also has and i can vouch for as being amazing in terms of working experience. obviously nyu is a lot more prestigious, has proximity to all that is new york and may be a lot better academically depending on what you want to do. the truth is, you'll get as much out of the experience as you put into it so don't over emphasize the importance of the choice, and enjoy this summer.

but yeah both teams have terrible hoops teams, so you're **** out of luck in that regard.


I rep NU 05 :cheers: but please don't like to the kid about the co-op program. If you have been at NU longer than 2 years, you know all about the people on NO-OP that end up chilling in West Village with nothing to do after they finish the paper :laugh:

I at least hold on to the outside hope that we can get in the big dance and shock the world in the round of 64...then I remember the best players in school play at Marino instead of Matthews.

thekmp211
04-10-2012, 06:00 PM
I rep NU 05 :cheers: but please don't like to the kid about the co-op program. If you have been at NU longer than 2 years, you know all about the people on NO-OP that end up chilling in West Village with nothing to do after they finish the paper :laugh:

I at least hold on to the outside hope that we can get in the big dance and shock the world in the round of 64...then I remember the best players in school play at Marino instead of Matthews.

nice. go huskies! i am an 11. see, the co-op program has treated me wonderfully, and i have a few friends who got great full-time jobs with legit companies (GE legit) directly because of their experience/networking from co-op. but, like i said, it's exactly what you put into it. definitely know a few guys who balled out in NY for a semester as "interns" at a "music label".

my junior year NU had a decent squad. i'm still holding out for janning to stick in the nba. garet siler fatted him out of the league last year, but he has shot well in italy. things haven't been great since then. at least barea got us a ring.

Iodine
04-10-2012, 06:02 PM
honestly dude, it sounds like the most mundane, obvious point, but that CBA, and both lockouts basically come down to there being a lot of poorly run teams. good franchises don't draft kwame brown, 100/100, rules notwithstanding. most teams just need to Do Better.

what makes the nba, and hoops great is that all of this ******** is STILL secondary to the talent. it's so much goddamn fun and the best in the world are so goddamn good that this stuff is largely survivable. when breaking points arrive, i don't find it surprising that owners would seek to impose as much change on players, and as little on themselves, as possible. it is not good business, just business. again, the well run franchises are immune to this stuff precisely because they are well run. dan gilbert was about to benedict arnold the nba during the lockout. have we heard one peep from him since kyrie irving landed in his lap? no. and he didn't get kyrie by doing a good job.
NBA FO'S can make the worst multinationals look efficient and smooth by comparison

KnickFanSince91
04-10-2012, 06:09 PM
nice. go huskies! i am an 11. see, the co-op program has treated me wonderfully, and i have a few friends who got great full-time jobs with legit companies (GE legit) directly because of their experience/networking from co-op. but, like i said, it's exactly what you put into it. definitely know a few guys who balled out in NY for a semester as "interns" at a "music label".

my junior year NU had a decent squad. i'm still holding out for janning to stick in the nba. garet siler fatted him out of the league last year, but he has shot well in italy. things haven't been great since then. at least barea got us a ring.

It was my Middler year when JJ was a freshman. That squad was good because we got all these guys from Miami but other than that....yea.

I'll leave my cynicism about NU's connections out of this thread but I will say that you basically got the same support out of the "advisor" as you would get out of dice or careerbuilder. Great experience though, def gives you a slight leg up on your peers.

thekmp211
04-10-2012, 06:17 PM
NBA FO'S can make the worst multinationals look efficient and smooth by comparison

and real world businesses fail when they don't perform, or at least change owners and drastically modify business plan. just because a big market team like the knicks is able to profit through incompetence doesn't mean they or any team should profit from it.