How To Fix The One And Done Rule

[TexArkHogFan]

One guys opinion but I agree something needs to be done.

http://www.cheatsheet.com/sports/heres-how-the-nba-can-fix-the-ncaas-one-and-done-prob

[ErieHog]

#1-- Why should the NBA harm itself, by doing something like that for the benefit of the NCAA?  It doesn't help them in the slightest.

#2--  There is nothing wrong with the current system, save that it arbitrarily forces the best talent to play college basketball for a year.     That's a market distortion that *improves* college basketball, rather than detracts from it.

[HOGINTENNESSEE]

Where there needs to be change is the NCAA allowing players that go undrafted a chance to return to school.  They are so hung up on this agent thing. They could make a work around. But they refuse to.

[The_Iceman]

Where there needs to be change is the NCAA allowing players that go undrafted a chance to return to school.  They are so hung up on this agent thing. They could make a work around. But they refuse to.

Agreed. We need to let kids enter the draft with the possibility of returning. If you are a first round pick, you can't return to school. If you are a 2nd round pick, then you can. Let kids do like they do in baseball where they can get drafted, then make the decision.

[Hawg Red]

The only thing that needs to be address as far as the age limit is abolishing it (well, returning to the 18 year/graduating HS class rule).

[hawginbigd1]

#1-- Why should the NBA harm itself, by doing something like that for the benefit of the NCAA?  It doesn't help them in the slightest.
#2--  There is nothing wrong with the current system, save that it arbitrarily forces the best talent to play college basketball for a year.     That's a market distortion that *improves* college basketball, rather than detracts from it.

I couldn't read the article for technical issues, but there are a lot that disagree with you in the NBA on this. They say making something similar to FB would only help the NBA. The NBA is hurting itself because these guys are not ready to play NBA ball.

[Hawg Red]

The NBA is hurting itself because these guys are not ready to play NBA ball.

Really?

Kevin Durant, Anthony Davis, LeBron James, DeMarcus Cousins, John Wall, Kyrie Irving, Kevin Love, Andrew Wiggins, Giannis Antetokounmpo, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, Eric Bledsoe, Brandon Knight, Bradley Beal, Andre Drummond, Enes Kanter, Tristan Thompson, Derrick Favors, Avery Bradley, Tyreke Evans, Eric Gordon, O.J. Mayo, DeMar DeRozan, Jrue Holiday, and many more would disagree.

Sure, there are guys that aren't ready after a year. There are guys that come out after a year and bust, but you see that at every age/class. More than enough guys successfully making a quick transition after one or no years of college ball.

[Danny J]

Where there needs to be change is the NCAA allowing players that go undrafted a chance to return to school.  They are so hung up on this agent thing. They could make a work around. But they refuse to.

Great post

[TexArkHogFan]

For some reason, the link doesn't work anymore but basically the guy was saying pattern it after the MLB rule.  A few differences, but that was the gist of it. 

[WarPig88]

#1-- Why should the NBA harm itself, by doing something like that for the benefit of the NCAA?  It doesn't help them in the slightest.

#2--  There is nothing wrong with the current system, save that it arbitrarily forces the best talent to play college basketball for a year.     That's a market distortion that *improves* college basketball, rather than detracts from it.

Actually it does hurt he NBA. There are guys getting drafted highly who are totally unproven commodities that to be honest, probably don't get drafted just 20 years ago because they would have petered out before getting to the NBA.

I am thinking that guys like Jerod Ward, Marcus Liberty, Lloyd Daniels, etc would have been top 5 lottery picks if things were done the same way as they are today.

When you look at the league, it mirrors this move toward potential over proven skills. The league is seen as being less skilled overall than it was only a few decades ago, not more skilled.

Let's go ahead and add Eric Montross, Joey Beard, Stanley Roberts, Randy Livingston, Tony Kimbro, etc

Gotta wonder what the NBA would look like today if teams had tried building around those guys.

[azhog10]

I wish they would allow kids that are or arent drafted the ability to come back. The MLB allows this and I think the NCAA and NBA should as well. I'm not sure how baseball players are allowed to enter the draft without an agent, or whatever it is that they do to still keep amateur status. I would like to see a rule that allows kids to go without that 1 year, but if they do go to college they stay for two. I don't agree that this would hurt the NBA. There are players that have excelled after one year, but theres many many more players that listen to the wrong people and lose their college elgibility because of it.

The NCAA should be looking out for the student athlete and if they get extremely bad information, like NBA scouts and others giving them a grade of first round and they go undrafted. They should be allowed to come back. IMO

[WarPig88]

I wish they would allow kids that are or arent drafted the ability to come back. The MLB allows this and I think the NCAA and NBA should as well. I'm not sure how baseball players are allowed to enter the draft without an agent, or whatever it is that they do to still keep amateur status. I would like to see a rule that allows kids to go without that 1 year, but if they do go to college they stay for two. I don't agree that this would hurt the NBA. There are players that have excelled after one year, but theres many many more players that listen to the wrong people and lose their college elgibility because of it.

The NCAA should be looking out for the student athlete and if they get extremely bad information, like NBA scouts and others giving them a grade of first round and they go undrafted. They should be allowed to come back. IMO

The NCAA needs to do that. Stern was a butt toward NCAA basketball and that attitude helped create this issue today.

This is something the NCAA can do without the help of the NBA that actually could have some effect. If all it did was make NBA teams more cautious about drafting college kids, it would help the college game a lot. Pretty sure Qualls would be back after what happened to him.

[ErieHog]

Actually it does hurt he NBA. There are guys getting drafted highly who are totally unproven commodities that to be honest, probably don't get drafted just 20 years ago because they would have petered out before getting to the NBA.

I am thinking that guys like Jerod Ward, Marcus Liberty, Lloyd Daniels, etc would have been top 5 lottery picks if things were done the same way as they are today.

When you look at the league, it mirrors this move toward potential over proven skills. The league is seen as being less skilled overall than it was only a few decades ago, not more skilled.

Let's go ahead and add Eric Montross, Joey Beard, Stanley Roberts, Randy Livingston, Tony Kimbro, etc

Gotta wonder what the NBA would look like today if teams had tried building around those guys.

Only to people who don't actually watch the NBA, does it look in any way like skills are in decline.  Really, this is a golden era of NBA play, and people continue to reuse the same old critiques of the league that are a decade old.

[WarPig88]

Only to people who don't actually watch the NBA, does it look in any way like skills are in decline.  Really, this is a golden era of NBA play, and people continue to reuse the same old critiques of the league that are a decade old.

http://www.rantsports.com/nba/2015/01/04/kobe-bryant-wrong-about-aau-being-culprit-of-declining-basketball-skills-in-america/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204621904574248282288269744

http://www.sportsgrid.com/nba/charles-barkley-the-nba-sucks-because-agents-and-players-families-are-greedy-pigs/


Just a couple of NBA players in those links disagreeing with you.

I guess they don't know how to watch.

[rude1]

For some reason, the link doesn't work anymore but basically the guy was saying pattern it after the MLB rule.  A few differences, but that was the gist of it. 

I guess everyone is forgetting why the one and done rule was put in, the high school kids had started declaring for the draft in droves, whether they were on anyone's draft board or not. Many kids got lost during that time who didn't get drafted and lost the option to attend college.

At least the one and done rules forces those kids to go to college where they might then understand that they are not nearly NBA ready. Tell a kid he either goes pro or locks himself into going to college for 3 years pretty much turns the clock back where we were, where they will just opt to go into the draft whether highly thought of or not.

[ErieHog]

http://www.rantsports.com/nba/2015/01/04/kobe-bryant-wrong-about-aau-being-culprit-of-declining-basketball-skills-in-america/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204621904574248282288269744

http://www.sportsgrid.com/nba/charles-barkley-the-nba-sucks-because-agents-and-players-families-are-greedy-pigs/


Just a couple of NBA players in those links disagreeing with you.

I guess they don't know how to watch.

Yep.  They don't actually look at numbers or context-- and they're concerned about their historical legacy. 

The Barkley commentary is most noteworthy due to context.  Two of the 10 least efficient teams in the league, going head to head,  on a night where the one big time star between both teams was out, and the two second-tier type players had atrocious nights, is not much in the way of a sample of teling you anything about the health of the NBA, any more than a box score from a Minnesota-Hawks game would have been at Barkley's peak.

Barkley is particularly good at badmouthing how 'turrible' skills are, without mentioning how his own compared,  because it isn't favorable.     Free throw shooting is a great hobby horse of the 'the league's skill level is in decline' crowd--- but all but 6 teams shot better from the line collectively than a superstar like Barkley did for his career last year.    Collectively, FT shooting as a whole was off .   3 point shooting continues its upward trend, and effective FG% is higher now than it was at any point in the history of the league, prior to 1995, and has been within spitting distance of the best numbers since then, each of the last 3 years-- all while the pace has dropped around the league,  turnovers have declined from peak levels, and foul rates are the lowest in league history.

Keep in mind, those turnovers often generated easy baskets, inflating shooting percentages-- and the leage *still* outplays its historical norms. Offensive rebounding is historically down as well, another sign of good fundamental play, and another source of previously cheap, high conversion rate points.

The analytics frame the case perfectly.    The game is as healthy, or healthier than it has ever been, from a skill standpoint.      Watching a Indiana-Washington game and comparing it to a Bulls-Trailblazers final is going to necesarily suffer-- when you take the best out of one bunch, and compare it to the bottom of the other barrel, there would be a significant issue with trying to claim one group is better.   Its the same reason we don't talk about the quality of 80s or 90s basketball, in the context of their worst teams.     

Or, you know, we could always go back and watch Barkley shoot 3s at a rate 10 full percent below the league average now, and call that a halicon day for skill level in the League, even though its demonstrably worse.

Barkley and Kobe are pretty well the poster children for this kind of thinking.  Its most common in older players and recent retirees, who are worried about their historical placement.

[WarPig88]

Yep.  They don't actually look at numbers or context-- and they're concerned about their historical legacy. 

The Barkley commentary is most noteworthy due to context.  Two of the 10 least efficient teams in the league, going head to head,  on a night where the one big time star between both teams was out, and the two second-tier type players had atrocious nights, is not much in the way of a sample of teling you anything about the health of the NBA, any more than a box score from a Minnesota-Hawks game would have been at Barkley's peak.

Barkley is particularly good at badmouthing how 'turrible' skills are, without mentioning how his own compared,  because it isn't favorable.     Free throw shooting is a great hobby horse of the 'the league's skill level is in decline' crowd--- but all but 6 teams shot better from the line collectively than a superstar like Barkley did for his career last year.    Collectively, FT shooting as a whole was off .   3 point shooting continues its upward trend, and effective FG% is higher now than it was at any point in the history of the league, prior to 1995, and has been within spitting distance of the best numbers since then, each of the last 3 years-- all while the pace has dropped around the league,  turnovers have declined from peak levels, and foul rates are the lowest in league history.

Keep in mind, those turnovers often generated easy baskets, inflating shooting percentages-- and the leage *still* outplays its historical norms. Offensive rebounding is historically down as well, another sign of good fundamental play, and another source of previously cheap, high conversion rate points.

The analytics frame the case perfectly.    The game is as healthy, or healthier than it has ever been, from a skill standpoint.      Watching a Indiana-Washington game and comparing it to a Bulls-Trailblazers final is going to necesarily suffer-- when you take the best out of one bunch, and compare it to the bottom of the other barrel, there would be a significant issue with trying to claim one group is better.   Its the same reason we don't talk about the quality of 80s or 90s basketball, in the context of their worst teams.     

Or, you know, we could always go back and watch Barkley shoot 3s at a rate 10 full percent below the league average now, and call that a halicon day for skill level in the League, even though its demonstrably worse.

Barkley and Kobe are pretty well the poster children for this kind of thinking.  Its most common in older players and recent retirees, who are worried about their historical placement.

I like how you claim people that don't know the game say skills are down. Then I show you people who have watched way more than you will ever see at a very close vantage point say it's down and you move the goal post.

You also forget that these guys worked out every day with other NBA players and see things you and I are not privy to when they form their opinions.

Stats are for losers. You can't even find true post players or true points on all the teams anymore. I know you will claim the "game" has changed, blah blah. Maybe the game has adjusted to the available talent? Surely not.

So now even people who have played and watched the game don't know what they are talking about anymore?

Free throws have NEVER been a measure of basketball skill. Anyone who loves the game knows the greatest free throw shooters known to man rarely were ever good at the actual game. LOL

[ErieHog]

I like how you claim people that don't know the game say skills are down. Then I show you people who have watched way more than you will ever see at a very close vantage point say it's down and you move the goal post.

You also forget that these guys worked out every day with other NBA players and see things you and I are not privy to when they form their opinions.

Stats are for losers. You can't even find true post players or true points on all the teams anymore. I know you will claim the "game" has changed, blah blah. Maybe the game has adjusted to the available talent? Surely not.

So now even people who have played and watched the game don't know what they are talking about anymore?

Free throws have NEVER been a measure of basketball skill. Anyone who loves the game knows the greatest free throw shooters known to man rarely were ever good at the actual game. LOL

To the contrary-- statistics and measurables are goalposts that, by definition *cannot* move.

People who try to protect their legacy against data,  are living in denial.    Its the slow, sepia-toned burnishing of the past, when Men were Men, and all children were above average, to borrow a turn of phrase from Garrison Keilor.

Sentiment is a powerful narcotic, in all aspects of life.   We might remember Michael Jordan leaping over Manute, standing on the shoulders of Mark Eton,  but it neither makes it true, nor does it make it better than when today's players also can't  jump over Hibbert on Thabeet's.

When Bird/Magic/Jordan were active,  they were held up against Dr. J, Kareem, and young Moses in the same way--   'They're not as skilled. The artistry has left basketball, the modern game is ugly'  -- this is an invariable part of sports, since time immemorial.    It was just as untrue then, as now.

The game is different;  if anything, the athleticism and skill level continues to climb upward, not recede.     It grows in complexity and efficiency at the same time, which is no mean feat-- it is rare to see progress in more than one of these areas at a time, in any competitive endeavor.

[(notOM)Rebel123]

Where there needs to be change is the NCAA allowing players that go undrafted a chance to return to school.  They are so hung up on this agent thing. They could make a work around. But they refuse to.

If this were to happen, the NBA would probably be forced to expand its draft beyond two rounds. 2 rounds leaves very little room for error. But I guess they (NBA) feel more undrafted players have opportunities to sign as free-agents. Years ago, the draft was 10 rounds, I believe. It seems to hamstring college baseball coaches in not knowing if you'll have a player returning or not until
Mid-July.

[TexArkHogFan]

I would be in favor of allowing high school kids to be drafted and if they aren't drafted,  allow them to go to college but make it mandatory for a minimum of two years.  This would allow the super studs to pursue their dreams right out of high school and let the other ones know they ain't ready for the NBA yet.  Of course, this would wreck havoc on college recruiting especially in the early signing period.  After two years in college, they wouldn't have to "declare" for the draft, just make them draft eligible and if they aren't drafted, continue on with their college careers. 

[Hawg Red]

I would be in favor of allowing high school kids to be drafted and if they aren't drafted,  allow them to go to college but make it mandatory for a minimum of two, or even three years.  This would allow the super studs to pursue their dreams right out of high school and let the other ones know they ain't ready for the NBA yet.  Of course, this would wreck havoc on college recruiting especially in the early signing period.  After two years in college, they wouldn't have to "declare" for the draft, just make them draft eligible and if they aren't drafted, continue on with their college careers.

Except that isn't fair to the players that aren't ready out of HS but are after a year of college. You're taking away a year of earning potential from them.

Look, it's been proven that players can be ready for the NBA after high school, so I think, at that point, the player should be able to decide when he's ready to go to the NBA. The days of the 1980s college super-teams are over. The best you get now is Kentucky full of stud freshmen. There are more spots in the NBA now and more money than there's ever been. There's just simply no logical reason to hold kids back once their HS class has graduated. You're going to have busts at very level. The draft has never been an exact science.

[TexArkHogFan]

Most kids that are now one and done will usually be ready right out of high school.  It took Portis two years to get ready for the NBA,  I think that should be the norm.  Of course, just my opinion not backed up by scientific fact. lol.  There are other things to consider beside physical talent, ie., mentally ready.  Most kids right out of high school usually aren't ready to tackle the real world with all its trials and tribulations.  Of course, I'm still of the opinion that every high school and college graduate should serve two years in the military to get their life started on the right course.  Look at college coaches now, they have to be a father figure to most of these young kids.  You ain't gonna get that in the NBA where you're making more money than the coach.

[Hawg Red]

Most kids that are now one and done will usually be ready right out of high school.  It took Portis two years to get ready for the NBA,  I think that should be the norm.  Of course, just my opinion not backed up by scientific fact. lol.

From the last two drafts:

D'Angelo Russell
Devin Booker
Rashad Vaughn
Tyus Jones
Kevon Looney
Noah Vonleh
Zach LaVine
James Young
Tyler Ennis

None of those players probably would have been a 1st round pick out of HS, but they were after 1 year of college.

[HOGINTENNESSEE]

If this were to happen, the NBA would probably be forced to expand its draft beyond two rounds. 2 rounds leaves very little room for error. But I guess they (NBA) feel more undrafted players have opportunities to sign as free-agents. Years ago, the draft was 10 rounds, I believe. It seems to hamstring college baseball coaches in not knowing if you'll have a player returning or not until
Mid-July.

I really doubt that. NBA has plenty of players to choose from in the Euro and NBDL to choose from. Only about 5% of the NBA is made of undrafted players. Most of those undrafted players played in Europe before coming to the U.S. Most second round picks are out of the league in one year

I would also like to add that that player could still go to Europe or sign as an undrafted FA if they so choose. It will never be mandatory for the player to come back to school.

[Hog Fan from Camden]

I couldn't read the article for technical issues, but there are a lot that disagree with you in the NBA on this. They say making something similar to FB would only help the NBA. The NBA is hurting itself because these guys are not ready to play NBA ball.

Agree, currently NBA basketball is so watered down that I can barely watch.  On top of that the NCAA is so top heavy, with one and done players choosing to play together that it is killing the NCAA game also.  I truly think the rule is hurting both NBA and NCAA basketball.  I like the baseball rules better including the draft component.

[Hog Fan from Camden]

Except that isn't fair to the players that aren't ready out of HS but are after a year of college. You're taking away a year of earning potential from them.

Look, it's been proven that players can be ready for the NBA after high school, so I think, at that point, the player should be able to decide when he's ready to go to the NBA. The days of the 1980s college super-teams are over. The best you get now is Kentucky full of stud freshmen. There are more spots in the NBA now and more money than there's ever been. There's just simply no logical reason to hold kids back once their HS class has graduated. You're going to have busts at very level. The draft has never been an exact science.

These players do not have to go to college, they can play overseas if they want and try the draft again next year or try the free agent route, play in the D-League a year.  No one would be taking anything away from them, it is there choice to go to college two years or do something else.

[hawginbigd1]

These players do not have to go to college, they can play overseas if they want and try the draft again next year or try the free agent route, play in the D-League a year.  No one would be taking anything away from them, it is there choice to go to college two years or do something else.

Agreed, if you don't want to be tied down in college for 2 or 3 years don't go. Pretty fair to me.

[Hawg Red]

These players do not have to go to college, they can play overseas if they want and try the draft again next year or try the free agent route, play in the D-League a year.  No one would be taking anything away from them, it is there choice to go to college two years or do something else.

But why do they have to go for 2 years if they do go? Why that arbitrary number? There's no need for it. People just want to see more top players in college basketball and it's coming from a selfish place.

[TomBigBeeHog]

But why do they have to go for 2 years if they do go? Why that arbitrary number? There's no need for it. People just want to see more top players in college basketball and it's coming from a selfish place.

You're right Red, if that's any consolation. That and a buck fifty will get you a cheap cup of coffee.

[hawginbigd1]

But why do they have to go for 2 years if they do go? Why that arbitrary number? There's no need for it. People just want to see more top players in college basketball and it's coming from a selfish place.

You aren't exactly wrong, it is selfish to a degree. IMO all of this in and out stuff is negatively affecting a game I and millions of others love. Yes I believe NCAA BB would be better overall if Towns, Davis and others never showed up on campus. I don't begrudge them their opportunity at millions but their opportunity should not affect the product we love.

[Hog Fan from Camden]

But why do they have to go for 2 years if they do go? Why that arbitrary number? There's no need for it. People just want to see more top players in college basketball and it's coming from a selfish place.

I'll admit that I want to see the NCAA teams become more balanced (especially the Razorbacks) with stars staying longer and by default being spread across more teams.  Bottom line, as a hog fan, I hate the current model.  IMO, it will be hard for the hogs (or any other non elite/blue blood team) to regain any ground lost over the last few years under this current model.  We will become a place where good coaches come to regress and I think it is because of the current NCAA basketball one and done rule.  Sorry, I literally hate the current state of NCAA basketball!

[Hawg Red]

You aren't exactly wrong, it is selfish to a degree. IMO all of this in and out stuff is negatively affecting a game I and millions of others love. Yes I believe NCAA BB would be better overall if Towns, Davis and others never showed up on campus. I don't begrudge them their opportunity at millions but their opportunity should not affect the product we love.

Obviously it would be better with more top players, but that doesn't mean there is a bad product as is. Do you enjoy Razorback basketball any less? I sure don't. There's still a ton of ultra-talented players in college basketball. I've accepted that we will only get them for 1-2 years instead of 3-4 like in the golden era of college basketball. Times change but it's not right to take away career opportunities from kids for less than necessary reasons. They shouldn't be made to play for less than 25k in the D-League or subject to nationalistic politics overseas.

[Hawg Red]

I'll admit that I want to see the NCAA teams become more balanced (especially the Razorbacks) with stars staying longer and by default being spread across more teams.  Bottom line, as a hog fan, I hate the current model.  IMO, it will be hard for the hogs (or any other non elite/blue blood team) to regain any ground lost over the last few years under this current model.  We will become a place where good coaches come to regress and I think it is because of the current NCAA basketball one and done rule.  Sorry, I literally hate the current state of NCAA basketball!

There are plenty of non-elite schools having great success.

[hawginbigd1]

I'll admit that I want to see the NCAA teams become more balanced (especially the Razorbacks) with stars staying longer and by default being spread across more teams.  Bottom line, as a hog fan, I hate the current model.  IMO, it will be hard for the hogs (or any other non elite/blue blood team) to regain any ground lost over the last few years under this current model.  We will become a place where good coaches come to regress and I think it is because of the current NCAA basketball one and done rule.  Sorry, I literally hate the current state of NCAA basketball!

+1 well said. I just don't think i am at hate however.

[Hog Fan from Camden]

I'll admit that I want to see the NCAA teams become more balanced (especially the Razorbacks) with stars staying longer and by default being spread across more teams.  Bottom line, as a hog fan, I hate the current model.  IMO, it will be hard for the hogs (or any other non elite/blue blood team) to regain any ground lost over the last few years under this current model.  We will become a place where good coaches come to regress and I think it is because of the current NCAA basketball one and done rule.  Sorry, I literally hate the current state of NCAA basketball!

With the current rule, if you are not one of the elite programs and you go thru some hard years (like the HOGS have over the last 20 years or so), it becomes nearly impossible to claw you way back to prominence.  As a Hog fan (that stands for fanatic) I don't care how this effects the NBA or any other team, I only care about the HOGS.  This rule will make it very hard for us to become competitive for any length of time.  Some will probably disagree with this, but I think this will remain true no matter who is the coach, because of this rule.

[Hog Fan from Camden]

There are plenty of non-elite schools having great success.

Name one that has been thru the turmoil that we have over the past 12-20 years.

[Hog Fan from Camden]

Guys, I'm not trying to start a big debate here, I'm just trying to articulate how a person who at one point love everything about NCAA basketball has now been soured and just barely watches anymore.  I use to know all of the stars no matter what team and enjoyed watching the teams play.  Now I mostly watch just the hogs.  Maybe it's just me or sour grapes because the hogs are having a hard time.  All I know is I am no longer a fan of NCAA basketball.

[Hog Fan from Camden]

+1 well said. I just don't think i am at hate however.

Maybe hate was a little strong!

[Hawg Red]

Name one that has been thru the turmoil that we have over the past 12-20 years.

I can name programs like Baylor and Wichita State that have come from nothing and been successful over multiple years.

Also, I do believe Arkansas signed a McDonald's All-American and then won 27 games last season. Time to let go of the past. Things have been repaired enough to raise the bar a little for the Hogs. We're okay. The coaches just need to go out there and get the players they need to succeed. By all accounts, some really good players are on their way to Fayetteville for official visits. Not sure that the turmoil of the past 12-20 years is on their minds. They likely only care about the last couple of years and what the future looks like for them.

[The_Iceman]

But why do they have to go for 2 years if they do go? Why that arbitrary number? There's no need for it. People just want to see more top players in college basketball and it's coming from a selfish place.

NBA teams also want the chance to evaluate these players on a high level than high school. It decreases their bust percentage.

[Hawg Red]

NBA teams also want the chance to evaluate these players on a high level than high school. It decreases their bust percentage.

There isn't a high percentage of high school-to-NBA busts, though.

[WarPig88]

There isn't a high percentage of high school-to-NBA busts, though.

Depends on the term bust.

Professional teams don't just throw away their huge investments, which is what those hs guys are. They get second, third, fourth chances where Qualls will not.

I consider Jonathan Bender, Kwame Brown, Al Harrington, Darius Miles, Sebastian Telfair, etc all to be busts. They never came close to their projections regardless of how long they stayed in the league. Their youth and "potential" along with the lack of a D league at the time is all that kept them on NBA rosters.

[WarPig88]

I can name programs like Baylor and Wichita State that have come from nothing and been successful over multiple years.

Also, I do believe Arkansas signed a McDonald's All-American and then won 27 games last season. Time to let go of the past. Things have been repaired enough to raise the bar a little for the Hogs. We're okay. The coaches just need to go out there and get the players they need to succeed. By all accounts, some really good players are on their way to Fayetteville for official visits. Not sure that the turmoil of the past 12-20 years is on their minds. They likely only care about the last couple of years and what the future looks like for them.

Wichita St doesn't fit that example at all. They coughed and sputtered in between successful periods before stabilizing only recently. They didn't just explode out of nowhere and start sustaining success. They had some success, struggled, moved forward, THEN sustained some level of success.

Baylor is cheating and everyone knows it.

Not good examples.

[Hawg Red]

Depends on the term bust.

Professional teams don't just throw away their huge investments, which is what those hs guys are. They get second, third, fourth chances where Qualls will not.

I consider Jonathan Bender, Kwame Brown, Al Harrington, Darius Miles, Sebastian Telfair, etc all to be busts. They never came close to their projections regardless of how long they stayed in the league. Their youth and "potential" along with the lack of a D league at the time is all that kept them on NBA rosters.

Al Harrington???

Dude was a late first round pick (25th overall) and had career averages of 13.5 PPG and 5.6 RPG over 981 games. Finished 2nd in 6th Man of the Year voting one season. I'm sorry, but he's got to be the upper tier of late first round picks. Al Harrington was in no way, shape or form a "bust." He was a very good player for where he was picked and mostly definitely met expectations.

[The_Iceman]

Depends on the term bust.

Professional teams don't just throw away their huge investments, which is what those hs guys are. They get second, third, fourth chances where Qualls will not.

I consider Jonathan Bender, Kwame Brown, Al Harrington, Darius Miles, Sebastian Telfair, etc all to be busts. They never came close to their projections regardless of how long they stayed in the league. Their youth and "potential" along with the lack of a D league at the time is all that kept them on NBA rosters.

Harrington and Miles were good NBA players, just not great. But there aren't that many truly great players anyways.

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/_/id/550/darius-miles
http://espn.go.com/nba/player/_/id/308/al-harrington

[WarPig88]

To the contrary-- statistics and measurables are goalposts that, by definition *cannot* move.

People who try to protect their legacy against data,  are living in denial.    Its the slow, sepia-toned burnishing of the past, when Men were Men, and all children were above average, to borrow a turn of phrase from Garrison Keilor.

Sentiment is a powerful narcotic, in all aspects of life.   We might remember Michael Jordan leaping over Manute, standing on the shoulders of Mark Eton,  but it neither makes it true, nor does it make it better than when today's players also can't  jump over Hibbert on Thabeet's.

When Bird/Magic/Jordan were active,  they were held up against Dr. J, Kareem, and young Moses in the same way--   'They're not as skilled. The artistry has left basketball, the modern game is ugly'  -- this is an invariable part of sports, since time immemorial.    It was just as untrue then, as now.

The game is different;  if anything, the athleticism and skill level continues to climb upward, not recede.     It grows in complexity and efficiency at the same time, which is no mean feat-- it is rare to see progress in more than one of these areas at a time, in any competitive endeavor.

Statistical analysis says that abandoning the mid range game makes offenses more efficient, yet scoring is down at every level now.

Stats are for losers. It's the analysis of those stats that matter. There are numbers within numbers. Stats say that UA vs UNLV matchup in Barnhill was a close game. Anyone that was there knows that it wasn't.

So no, stats are not the ONLY analytical tool. They are merely a quantitative measure and in the hands of the wrong people are worthless, hence the quote, "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics".

[Hawg Red]

Wichita St doesn't fit that example at all. They coughed and sputtered in between successful periods before stabilizing only recently. They didn't just explode out of nowhere and start sustaining success. They had some success, struggled, moved forward, THEN sustained some level of success.

Baylor is cheating and everyone knows it.

Not good examples.

Save for Mark Turgeon's one Sweet 16 season in 2006, Wichita State has had not real success outside of the last 3 seasons since 1981.

Baylor has cheated, yes. There is no evidence of current cheating.

[WarPig88]

Harrington and Miles were good NBA players, just not great. But there aren't that many truly great players anyways.

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/_/id/550/darius-miles
http://espn.go.com/nba/player/_/id/308/al-harrington

Miles was a flop for a top 5 pick.

You win on Harrinton though! No doubt on that one.

[WarPig88]

Save for Mark Turgeon's one Sweet 16 season in 2006, Wichita State has had not real success outside of the last 3 seasons since 1981.

Baylor has cheated, yes. There is no evidence of current cheating.

Turgeon started them in the right direction though. They didn't come out of NOWHERE. It took time and they are in a very favorable situation in that they play a lower level of competition and maintain momentum much easier than in a league like ours.

[azhog10]

Only to people who don't actually watch the NBA, does it look in any way like skills are in decline.  Really, this is a golden era of NBA play, and people continue to reuse the same old critiques of the league that are a decade old.

I disagree to a point. I think your superstars are better than ever. But the average age for players starting their careers are increasingly low, and the aveage age of those ending their careers are as high as they've ever been. That means older guys are playing longer, which would tell me that players coming in aren't as good as they used to be. Also, the average career length peeked around 2003-05. Stockton said years ago that when the NBA went to putting athleticism over skill it bought him more time in the NBA. Kids were coming in that didn't have the skill to play at the NBA level and i think that still holds true today.