Welcome to Hogville!      Do Not Sell My Personal Information

One-And-Done Gone?

Started by RyeHogFan, February 19, 2014, 09:08:00 am

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RyeHogFan

I read a few days ago that new NBA commissioner Adam Silver is pushing really hard to increase the NBA age limit to 20 years old. I heard that some college coaches want to use baseball's model where a guy has to either bypass college altogether or he has to go 3 years. I highly doubt that rule takes place anytime soon, but the age limit of 20 very well could. My overall question is, what effect would this have? If it's just one more year, would it really make the NBA and college basketball better? But the main thing I'm wondering about is the competitiveness of NCAA bball with this rule.

1) If schools like Kentucky have to keep kids for two years, will this make them better or worse? You could argue either way really. If Kentucky can't load up on 6 or 7 of the top guys every year, then that will start to filter down to other teams. But then again, if these teams have to keep players and actually develop them, they might be much better off.

2) Will we see less mid-major schools doing well against major conference teams? Usually the mid-major teams that have done really well have been senior-laden teams against a bunch of young guys. If these really talented guys are able to get seasoned and developed, then it could make it very difficult for these smaller schools to compete.

Anybody have any thoughts on this?

azhog10

I like this idea. Some kids need to go straight to the NBA and this would keep a lot of under the table stuff from happening at the level it does. This will also make schools academic support a little more important. If a kid does decide to go to college he is going to actually have to go to class and not bank on leaving after year one. This will change recruiting a bit as well I would believe.

 

RyeHogFan

Quote from: azhog10 on February 19, 2014, 09:10:57 am
I like this idea. Some kids need to go straight to the NBA and this would keep a lot of under the table stuff from happening at the level it does. This will also make schools academic support a little more important. If a kid does decide to go to college he is going to actually have to go to class and not bank on leaving after year one. This will change recruiting a bit as well I would believe.

I definitely agree. How do you think this would specifically affect Arkansas?

trashcan maN

If this went into effect, most top players would just enter the draft like they did before the mandatory 1 year. Teams will have no problem spending a 2nd round pick on a project HS player, and players would be more likely to take a lesser contract to avoid 3 years of college.

RyeHogFan

Quote from: kj0N on February 19, 2014, 09:17:20 am
If this went into effect, most top players would just enter the draft like they did before the mandatory 1 year. Teams will have no problem spending a 2nd round pick on a project HS player, and players would be more likely to take a lesser contract to avoid 3 years of college.

But what if Silver has his way and it's simply an age limit of 20 with no option to come out from high school?

azhog10

Quote from: RyeHogFan on February 19, 2014, 09:14:07 am
I definitely agree. How do you think this would specifically affect Arkansas?
Considering we don't really have a lot of one and done guys, or we aren't getting the top 5 or so players in nation. Not much at all. I think it would make us a little more competitive with the UK's and Florida's in our conference. But honestly you just never know. Cal might could luck into talking one or two guys into staying and then it would become a matter of can we get our lesser talented players to develop at a much faster rate. It would definitely be a change, but one I would welcome.

RazrRila99

On this same, but a side, note - would something like this work for football?  Maybe make an NFL sanctioned developmental league, etc? 

Mick Hogger

I'm all for it. The only way I could see letting them go straight from high school is with the guarantee they could only play in the D-League at D-League pay for the same amount of time, but there would be have to be heavy regulations and oversight to prevent corruption there.
Quote from: forrest city joe on Today at 10:06:10 am
ok i get you. but do you have to post it over and over and over and over? and for the 100th time. Mike is going to be coach here no matter if you like it or not.

Hawg Red

Forget the baseball model. Won't be happening anytime soon. Like, won't be happening in the next 20 years, if ever. And, really, it shouldn't be like that. Basketball is a game where players often develop dramatically from one year to a next, so while a kid may not be ready for the NBA out of HS, he could be after 1 or 2 years in college. I think the 20 year age limit is the best route. I don't see any need to force a kid to go to school for 3 years just because he isn't NBA-ready at 18 years old.

I've always been a proponent of kids being able to declare right out of HS, but I know that's resulted in a watered down NBA because, in most cases, the teams drafting these kids have to wait longer to reep the rewards of them being stars. The problem with kids coming out of HS is not that they don't make it because the numbers are remarkably in their favor for having 10+ year NBA careers at varying levels of signifance, but it hurts the league when your high draft picks don't produce early. Kids would produce in the '90s because they generally wouldn't come out before their sophomore or junior year. I just don't like it when people try to use the argument of failure for why kids shouldn't be able to go pro at whatever level. It goes both ways -- there are kids who cost themselves money by going pro too early and kids that cost themselves money by not going pro early enough. Can't be worried about that.

Hawg Red

As for what it would do to recruiting, there would definitely be a trickle-down effect if UK can't cycle in half of the top 10 in every recruiting class. I don't think it really hurts Kentucky if, say, the Harrison twins have to play an extra year of college ball. What it does do is allow another program(s) to get some elite talent and that trickles down to Arkansas. I'd have to think it would help Arkansas, actually.

thirtythree

I wish the would do it like baseball.

onebadrubi

Quote from: Hawg Red on February 19, 2014, 09:41:28 am
As for what it would do to recruiting, there would definitely be a trickle-down effect if UK can't cycle in half of the top 10 in every recruiting class. I don't think it really hurts Kentucky if, say, the Harrison twins have to play an extra year of college ball. What it does do is allow another program(s) to get some elite talent and that trickles down to Arkansas. I'd have to think it would help Arkansas, actually.

Where it will hurt Kentucky is keeping the players eligible.  These kids aren't going to class because they know they are about to be gona.  If they are forced to complete 3-4 semesters it may prevent some from having the grades... Albeit Kentucky would have to care and enforce that, but they'd probably keep them eligible even if they fail out of classes.

Florida doesn't have one and done players... Look what he's done.  Good players that he can coach up for 3-4 years.  This is still the year in and year out formula for success, just some kids refuse to be apart of it.  If Kentucky had any one of florida's upper class men among those freshman it would be scary, the closest they have is poythres, who Cal lights into often. 


Hawg Red

Quote from: onebadrubi on February 19, 2014, 10:21:00 am
Where it will hurt Kentucky is keeping the players eligible.  These kids aren't going to class because they know they are about to be gona.  If they are forced to complete 3-4 semesters it may prevent some from having the grades... Albeit Kentucky would have to care and enforce that, but they'd probably keep them eligible even if they fail out of classes.

If that were true, UK would have a horrible APR, but Calipari gets them to finish out their freshman year. You may be right that it could hurt UK in the long-run, but as of now, they aren't have players not going to class, or they're at least not having their APR suffer and have found a way around it.

 

The_Iceman

I actually like the one and done rule.

1) it protects the NBA teams by giving them a shot to evaluate players in a more competitive environment which produces more accurate scouting reports

2) it protects the players from lying scumbag agents who try to convince players they're good enough out of high school when they aren't. If the player gets to campus and is a star, he can leave and go to the NBA. If the player wasn't that good and needs development, he still has the chance to earn a free education while playing basketball, and can enter the draft when he's ready.

Making a player stay two years is unnecessary, especially for guys like Parker, Randle, etc. But allowing a player to go right out of high school exposes kids, sometimes minors, to decisions they aren't informed enough for.

GuvHog

I prefer the NFL model where a player is not eligible for the draft until after the equivalent of their 3rd year of college.
Bleeding Razorback Red Since Birth!!!

ErieHog

Quote from: RyeHogFan on February 19, 2014, 09:22:20 am
But what if Silver has his way and it's simply an age limit of 20 with no option to come out from high school?

Top flight talent will take the exodus to the top European leagues to get paid, and the quality of college basketball drops like a rock.  Then the NBA gets sued, and if the process moves fast enough, all age limits get tossed.

This is a terrible idea.   
No cause, ever, in the history of all mankind, has produced more cold-blooded tyrants, more slaughtered innocents, and more orphans than socialism with power. It surpassed, exponentially, all other systems of production in turning out the dead. The bodies are all around us. And here is the problem: No one talks about them. No one honors them. No one does penance for them. No one has committed suicide for having been an apologist for those who did this to them. No one pays for them. No one is hunted down to account for them. It is exactly what Solzhenitsyn foresaw in The Gulag Archipelago: "No, no one would have to answer. No one would be looked into." Until that happens, there is no "after socialism."

TheRazorbackGuy

Quote from: RyeHogFan on February 19, 2014, 09:08:00 am
I read a few days ago that new NBA commissioner Adam Silver is pushing really hard to increase the NBA age limit to 20 years old. I heard that some college coaches want to use baseball's model where a guy has to either bypass college altogether or he has to go 3 years. I highly doubt that rule takes place anytime soon, but the age limit of 20 very well could. My overall question is, what effect would this have? If it's just one more year, would it really make the NBA and college basketball better? But the main thing I'm wondering about is the competitiveness of NCAA bball with this rule.

1) If schools like Kentucky have to keep kids for two years, will this make them better or worse? You could argue either way really. If Kentucky can't load up on 6 or 7 of the top guys every year, then that will start to filter down to other teams. But then again, if these teams have to keep players and actually develop them, they might be much better off.

2) Will we see less mid-major schools doing well against major conference teams? Usually the mid-major teams that have done really well have been senior-laden teams against a bunch of young guys. If these really talented guys are able to get seasoned and developed, then it could make it very difficult for these smaller schools to compete.

Anybody have any thoughts on this?

You have a link on this article?


-Blu

Baseball actually has the best model, would love for college hoops to do the same.  I think it would help both brands, because right now this one-and-done is a joke, I haven't heard an expert yet on ESPN that like's the one-and-done rule.

Look at the one and done's this year.... Anthony Bennett, Nerlens Noel, Ben McClemore, Shabazz Muhammad, and Archie Goodwin.  Noel is hurt, but the rest of these guys aren't really doing anything, none of them were ready to come out this year.  If my team would have drafted any of these guys I'd be upset.  Give me a Victor Oladipo (JR), Michael Carter Williams (SO), Trey Burke (SO), Tim Hardaway (JR), or Tony Snell (JR) over every single one of those one and done's.


You should have to stay in college 3 years or be removed from high school 3 years before declaring for the draft, if you don't go right after high school.  And some say well what if they develop enough to be a pro player after one or two years.  That's fine, if your good enough after one or two years, you should be good enough after three, you decided to go to college, so you can get a degree, which is the main objective of going to school anyway, so work on getting that degree.  And, if your just that eager to get out and make money or decide college isn't for you, you can always go overseas.

But the NBA using the NCAA as a one year free training camp for them isn't the best idea for either parties IMO, glad the new commissioner is starting to see this.

Piggage

Quote from: Hawg Red on February 19, 2014, 10:27:55 am
If that were true, UK would have a horrible APR, but Calipari gets them to finish out their freshman year. You may be right that it could hurt UK in the long-run, but as of now, they aren't have players not going to class, or they're at least not having their APR suffer and have found a way around it.

The APR isn't hurting Kentucky, but they rely on their top 7-8 players so much that losing a scholarship or two at the bottom of their bench wouldn't hurt them. I doubt they'd have trouble finding enough walk-ons to have full practices.

The impact that an age minimum or college baseball model might have on Kentucky is that more of the top recruits in the country could choose some other school instead.

When you can spend a few months at a school because of its reputation as a draft-pick factory and then jump to the NBA, who cares what school it is or whether it's in a state you know anything about or will ever set foot in again? But if you know you'll have to spend 2-3 years at that school, you might give a few other top tier programs a closer look.

Sooie71923

I think it would improve college basketball.

brandon

The question is how Organizations develop players. MLB has their farm system, the NFL uses College Football. It's a lot easier for the NBA to use College Basketball. The NBA won't lose out on one and done stars they'll just have to wait a year but it will help force some kids to develop into solid NBA contributors which helps the quality of the league.

Hawg Red

Quote from: brandon on February 19, 2014, 12:47:33 pm
The question is how Organizations develop players. MLB has their farm system, the NFL uses College Football. It's a lot easier for the NBA to use College Basketball. The NBA won't lose out on one and done stars they'll just have to wait a year but it will help force some kids to develop into solid NBA contributors which helps the quality of the league.

NBA is close to having a full minor league system. About half the league has their own D-League team at this point, so they're moving in that direction. But, generally, yes, they do prefer to use the NCAA as their minor league.

Hawg Red

Quote from: Piggage on February 19, 2014, 12:30:50 pm
The APR isn't hurting Kentucky, but they rely on their top 7-8 players so much that losing a scholarship or two at the bottom of their bench wouldn't hurt them. I doubt they'd have trouble finding enough walk-ons to have full practices.

The impact that an age minimum or college baseball model might have on Kentucky is that more of the top recruits in the country could choose some other school instead.

When you can spend a few months at a school because of its reputation as a draft-pick factory and then jump to the NBA, who cares what school it is or whether it's in a state you know anything about or will ever set foot in again? But if you know you'll have to spend 2-3 years at that school, you might give a few other top tier programs a closer look.

Eh, might impact them some, but also factor in that Kentucky doesn't even offer some top 20 talent. While a 2 year game limit might have players that would normally head to Kentucky looking around, they're still plenty of top talent they could go after instead. UK will always get top talent while Calipari is there. I don't think this rule really impacts them much. Kentucky's always losing players after one year and it's usually half that are ready (Wall, Cousins, Davis, Randle) and half that aren't (Teague, Goodwin, Orton, Lamb), so this might actually help them.

 

ErieHog

Quote from: Sooie71923 on February 19, 2014, 12:39:31 pm
I think it would improve college basketball.

I've never heard a cogent argument for how it would;  how do you make something better, by systematically excluding the best incoming parts?
No cause, ever, in the history of all mankind, has produced more cold-blooded tyrants, more slaughtered innocents, and more orphans than socialism with power. It surpassed, exponentially, all other systems of production in turning out the dead. The bodies are all around us. And here is the problem: No one talks about them. No one honors them. No one does penance for them. No one has committed suicide for having been an apologist for those who did this to them. No one pays for them. No one is hunted down to account for them. It is exactly what Solzhenitsyn foresaw in The Gulag Archipelago: "No, no one would have to answer. No one would be looked into." Until that happens, there is no "after socialism."

poloprince

You should not be denied any type of employment once you reach 18.  If a NBA teams wants to draft a 18 year old, so be it.  If not i think a 3 year college stay should be the minimum.
$PoLoPrInCe$

Hawg Red

Quote from: poloprince on February 19, 2014, 01:31:48 pm
You should not be denied any type of employment once you reach 18.  If a NBA teams wants to draft a 18 year old, so be it.  If not i think a 3 year college stay should be the minimum.

I'm with you on this.

The problem here falls on the GMs in the NBA. Stop taking guys that aren't ready or aren't good enough. If that means a more frank and comprehensive evaluation process before a player decides to declare, so be it. But that involve the NCAA changing their ridiculous deadline.

The problem in the early 2000s was the GMs good too hung up on HS kids and unproven international players. That wasn't the players' fault, but there still good, young HS and international players getting drafted and players of that ilk shouldn't be denied.

donbro

I think most people on here are hypocrites. If you could make millions doing what you specialize in, you would reject any policy that restrict you to do so. I doubt any of you leave money on the table meaning if your boss suggest that you  volunteer at the local food bank for three years or even one, most if not all would reject that.

TheRazorbackGuy


GuvHog

Quote from: ErieHog on February 19, 2014, 11:39:17 am
Top flight talent will take the exodus to the top European leagues to get paid, and the quality of college basketball drops like a rock.  Then the NBA gets sued, and if the process moves fast enough, all age limits get tossed.

This is a terrible idea.   

If that is true then why have all attempts to have the courts force the NFL to take players at a younger age failed miserably???
Bleeding Razorback Red Since Birth!!!

RockChalkJayhawk

Quote from: -Blu on February 19, 2014, 12:11:25 pm
Look at the one and done's this year.... Anthony Bennett, Nerlens Noel, Ben McClemore, Shabazz Muhammad, and Archie Goodwin.  Noel is hurt, but the rest of these guys aren't really doing anything, none of them were ready to come out this year. 

McLemore was drafted by the Kings at #7.  He couldn't pass that up whether you feel he was ready to contribute or not. Contribution isn't the point anyway, opportunity is.  And when the door opened for him, he wisely walked through.

McLemore had nothing as a kid, growing up in devastating poverty:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/big12/2013/02/27/big-12-mens-college-basketball-kansas-jayhawks-ben-mclemore/1947401/?sf9993444=1
"You get those hunger pains," McLemore said. "I am so hungry. We don't have any food. What are we going to eat? Your stomach hurts. Then you get so upset and mad, like, no food. You start having tantrums and don't want to do anything. You get mad at everybody because you don't have any food. That's what happens when you don't eat. You are so sluggish. It's just bad, man."

http://www.spotrac.com/nba/sacramento-kings/ben-mclemore/
Thanks to the NBA, McLemore is guaranteed $5,922,240.  I bet we all would like to make that kind of money for 'not really doing anything'.

TheRazorbackGuy

Quote from: Terry (GUVHOG) Holcomb on February 19, 2014, 03:03:36 pm
If that is true then why have all attempts to have the courts force the NFL to take players at a younger age failed miserably???

Maurice Clarett on Youngstown Boys ESPN 30 for 30

Hawg Red

There's good and bad years for one-and-dones. 2013 just happened to be a bad year (at least as far as first year performance goes). But let's not forget 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011 and 2012. Those were solid to great years for one-and-dones. It's cherry-picking to use last year as THE example for doing away with one-and-dones.

TheRazorbackGuy

Quote from: RyeHogFan on February 19, 2014, 09:08:00 am
I read a few days ago that new NBA commissioner Adam Silver is pushing really hard to increase the NBA age limit to 20 years old. I heard that some college coaches want to use baseball's model where a guy has to either bypass college altogether or he has to go 3 years. I highly doubt that rule takes place anytime soon, but the age limit of 20 very well could. My overall question is, what effect would this have? If it's just one more year, would it really make the NBA and college basketball better? But the main thing I'm wondering about is the competitiveness of NCAA bball with this rule.

1) If schools like Kentucky have to keep kids for two years, will this make them better or worse? You could argue either way really. If Kentucky can't load up on 6 or 7 of the top guys every year, then that will start to filter down to other teams. But then again, if these teams have to keep players and actually develop them, they might be much better off.

2) Will we see less mid-major schools doing well against major conference teams? Usually the mid-major teams that have done really well have been senior-laden teams against a bunch of young guys. If these really talented guys are able to get seasoned and developed, then it could make it very difficult for these smaller schools to compete.

Anybody have any thoughts on this?

Brilliant Topic!

ErieHog

Quote from: Terry (GUVHOG) Holcomb on February 19, 2014, 03:03:36 pm
If that is true then why have all attempts to have the courts force the NFL to take players at a younger age failed miserably???

There haven't been those efforts, and there are strong medical arguments regarding physical maturity and injury risk that would come into play.      The NBA has been in court over the 1 and done rule before-- they were *extremely* fortunate to get a slow moving judicial venue,  which rendered the case moot by deign of the passage of time faster than the Court could resolve the issue.  If you double the time, eventually they'll get in a courtroom-- and they will lose.
No cause, ever, in the history of all mankind, has produced more cold-blooded tyrants, more slaughtered innocents, and more orphans than socialism with power. It surpassed, exponentially, all other systems of production in turning out the dead. The bodies are all around us. And here is the problem: No one talks about them. No one honors them. No one does penance for them. No one has committed suicide for having been an apologist for those who did this to them. No one pays for them. No one is hunted down to account for them. It is exactly what Solzhenitsyn foresaw in The Gulag Archipelago: "No, no one would have to answer. No one would be looked into." Until that happens, there is no "after socialism."

Hawg Red

I'd have to think the NBA would lose badly in court over any 19 or older age limit. I mean....Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Tracy McGrady, Dwight Howard, LEBRON JAMES, Andrew Bynum, Jermaine O'Neal, Al Harrington, Rashard Lewis, Amar'e Stoudemire, Al Jefferson, Monta Ellis -- kill their case. Proves that there really is no difference between a college senior and a HS senior. Some will contribute immediately and some will flame out and not make it. But the success rate in terms of having a 10+ year long NBA career for all the guys who came in from HS was pretty friggin' good.

ErieHog

Quote from: Hawg Red on February 19, 2014, 03:49:19 pm
I'd have to think the NBA would lose badly in court over any 19 or older age limit. I mean....Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Tracy McGrady, Dwight Howard, LEBRON JAMES, Andrew Bynum, Jermaine O'Neal, Al Harrington, Rashard Lewis, Amar'e Stoudemire, Al Jefferson, Monta Ellis -- kill their case. Proves that there really is no difference between a college senior and a HS senior. Some will contribute immediately and some will flame out and not make it. But the success rate in terms of having a 10+ year long NBA career for all the guys who came in from HS was pretty friggin' good.

It won't even be success contingent; it will be a matter of pointing to paychecks that even the failures get, to show real financial damages.
No cause, ever, in the history of all mankind, has produced more cold-blooded tyrants, more slaughtered innocents, and more orphans than socialism with power. It surpassed, exponentially, all other systems of production in turning out the dead. The bodies are all around us. And here is the problem: No one talks about them. No one honors them. No one does penance for them. No one has committed suicide for having been an apologist for those who did this to them. No one pays for them. No one is hunted down to account for them. It is exactly what Solzhenitsyn foresaw in The Gulag Archipelago: "No, no one would have to answer. No one would be looked into." Until that happens, there is no "after socialism."

Hawg Red

Quote from: ErieHog on February 19, 2014, 03:50:49 pm
It won't even be success contingent; it will be a matter of pointing to paychecks that even the failures get, to show real financial damages.

I'd have to think that the success aspect would prove that they could perform the job at least as capably college players, thus there is no reason to deny them entry/employment given the previous history.

RyeHogFan

This is why I love Jump Ball--good civil discussion with (mostly) no name calling. I love hearing the perspective of others on something like this. You guys think of things I never would have.

TheRazorbackGuy


brandon

Quote from: Hawg Red on February 19, 2014, 01:01:10 pm
NBA is close to having a full minor league system. About half the league has their own D-League team at this point, so they're moving in that direction. But, generally, yes, they do prefer to use the NCAA as their minor league.

I don't consider what the NBA has as even close to the MLB farm system. But your right the NBA is trying to do both.

HawgnCorona

It should be. I dont think it does anything for the quality of the NBA. In the past you had some exceptional athletes. But everyone that thinks one and done are not exceptional.

Stay in school, better your game and learn how to manage your money if they are fortunate enough to make it that far.
Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all your getting, get understanding." --   Proverbs 4:7

"Live justly, love mercy and to walk humbly with the Most High."-- Micah 6:8

-Blu

Quote from: RockChalkJayhawk on February 19, 2014, 03:05:30 pm
McLemore was drafted by the Kings at #7.  He couldn't pass that up whether you feel he was ready to contribute or not. Contribution isn't the point anyway, opportunity is.  And when the door opened for him, he wisely walked through.

McLemore had nothing as a kid, growing up in devastating poverty:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/big12/2013/02/27/big-12-mens-college-basketball-kansas-jayhawks-ben-mclemore/1947401/?sf9993444=1
"You get those hunger pains," McLemore said. "I am so hungry. We don't have any food. What are we going to eat? Your stomach hurts. Then you get so upset and mad, like, no food. You start having tantrums and don't want to do anything. You get mad at everybody because you don't have any food. That's what happens when you don't eat. You are so sluggish. It's just bad, man."

http://www.spotrac.com/nba/sacramento-kings/ben-mclemore/
Thanks to the NBA, McLemore is guaranteed $5,922,240.  I bet we all would like to make that kind of money for 'not really doing anything'.

I don't get it... he's not starving while he's in college is he?  You don't have to make 5 million dollars to get something to eat.  While I am sympathetic to his prior situation, I'm speaking as an NBA and college BBall fan.

All I'm saying is the kids that are good enough to go right after high school, should have the opportunity to go, if they aren't good enough right after high school or want to go to college, they should honor their commitment and go to college at least 3 years.  This is what baseball does, and it works great for them.  And again, let's say a kid like McLemore isn't good enough after high school, but after 1 or 2 years he decides he doesn't want to go to college anymore, he can either go overseas or go to the D-League, but he's not eligible for the NBA draft, until after he's removed from high school for 3 years.

Benefits of that is...

1. It allows those that are ready for the pros to immediately enter after high school, chances are if they aren't good enough right after high school, they'll need at least a couple years of college ball anyways.

2. It will strengthen the college game and help the brand.  The prime days of college bball was in the 90's when you had Grant Hill, Corliss Williamson, Jerry Stackhouse, Bobby Hurley, Christian Laettner, etc.  These were name's even the casual fan knew.  There were story line's and rivalrys that carried on amongst players from year-to-year.  Now, those rivalrys are watered down, because these teams are completely different in terms of their major stars every single year with the one and done rule.

3. It will cut down on all these ESPN 30 for 30 stories you hear about pro players going broke right after they retire.  Getting an education and learning how to manage your money is priceless, and they are getting a free ride in school to learn to do that.  Chances are your not going to be too educated after 1 year of taking basic freshmen classes.  You talk about poverty and wanting to see someone do well for themselves, if you truly want the best for them, you should want them to get a good education, because their basketball career could be over tomorrow (See Jay Williams), but having an education is something that's going to guarantee them no matter what happens they'll always be able to provide for themselves.  Agents love to see these uneducated high school and one-and-done players, because they know that these kids are at their mercy.  Your not going to see a Grant Hill or a Jay Williams broke no matter what happens, because they are educated.


HawgnCorona

If contribution isnt the point then it should be. Because if you aren't as skilled as you thought you were, that opportunity will be short lived. Hence killing to birds with one stone aint a bad idea. Having some education will help at least in getting a better 9 to 5.
Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all your getting, get understanding." --   Proverbs 4:7

"Live justly, love mercy and to walk humbly with the Most High."-- Micah 6:8

Hawg Red

Quote from: brandon on February 19, 2014, 06:38:11 pm
I don't consider what the NBA has as even close to the MLB farm system. But your right the NBA is trying to do both.

Well, I just mean "full" as in one D-League team for each NBA team. They'll never have multiple minor league levels like MLB.

Hoggish1

Quote from: RyeHogFan on February 19, 2014, 09:08:00 am


1) If schools like Kentucky have to keep kids for two years, will this make them better or worse? You could argue either way really. If Kentucky can't load up on 6 or 7 of the top guys every year, then that will start to filter down to other teams. But then again, if these teams have to keep players and actually develop them, they might be much better off.




Cal hits it like a broken record; "we're so young..."  If they have to stay a 2nd year he will be exposed as a guy who can't coach...!

Hawg Red

Quote from: Hoggish1 on February 19, 2014, 08:56:50 pm
Cal hits it like a broken record; "we're so young..."  If they have to stay a 2nd year he will be exposed as a guy who can't coach...!

Didn't have a ton of one-and-dones at Memphis and he damn near won a NC out of C-USA.

ErieHog

Quote from: HawgnCorona on February 19, 2014, 08:47:29 pm
If contribution isnt the point then it should be. Because if you aren't as skilled as you thought you were, that opportunity will be short lived. Hence killing to birds with one stone aint a bad idea. Having some education will help at least in getting a better 9 to 5.

Why should it be?   They're performing a job.     
No cause, ever, in the history of all mankind, has produced more cold-blooded tyrants, more slaughtered innocents, and more orphans than socialism with power. It surpassed, exponentially, all other systems of production in turning out the dead. The bodies are all around us. And here is the problem: No one talks about them. No one honors them. No one does penance for them. No one has committed suicide for having been an apologist for those who did this to them. No one pays for them. No one is hunted down to account for them. It is exactly what Solzhenitsyn foresaw in The Gulag Archipelago: "No, no one would have to answer. No one would be looked into." Until that happens, there is no "after socialism."

HawgnCorona

Quote from: ErieHog on February 19, 2014, 08:58:33 pm
Why should it be?   They're performing a job.     
True. But what happens when you dont perform well --on the job? However when you learn how perform well you have longevity. Not so much when you are lacking...You get replaced by some one better.
Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all your getting, get understanding." --   Proverbs 4:7

"Live justly, love mercy and to walk humbly with the Most High."-- Micah 6:8

Hawg Red

Quote from: HawgnCorona on February 19, 2014, 09:35:13 pm
True. But what happens when you dont perform well --on the job? However when you learn how perform well you have longevity. Not so much when you are lacking...You get replaced by some one better.

And in most jobs, you can't get re-hired after you're fired. You can in the NBA.