someone PLEASE explain to me how making potential NBA players stay in college is a good thing

fontaine

fontaine

Banned
8,053
6,535
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
i'm not sure what i'm missing... but this is ridiculous.

i searched for a thread and couldnt find one, so excuse if this is repetitive...

but can anyone legitimately argue for this rule?

the only thing i can think of is the NBA being a private institution and can discriminate against anyone they want ... but even that sounds kind of janky...

please make me understand what all these analysts / sports bloggers are saying.. b/c i just dont understand it.
 
Players being forced to stay longer in college would make the college game 1000x better. There are other arguments, but quite frankly, thats the only argument that matters to me.
 
Last edited:
I think it increases the quality of the players entering the NBA, although dudes like Kobe and LBJ kinda make that theory look bad 
laugh.gif
 
I agree Ricky.

Beating up on hapless non-professionals for an extra season doesn't help the player's development as much as practicing & playing against the best players on the planet every night.

Iron sharpens iron.

Plus we see 4 year guys go on to the NBA & do absolutely nothing all the time. If he's a good player, he'll figure it out.
 
Last edited:
Money Money Money

They tryna make college a pseudo d league. They want a more competitive atmosphere.

And if those top prospects stay longer they become more recognizable therefore bringing in more revenue

College football sometimes have legitimate superstars that make millions for the school and networks over a few years IE Reggie bush, Tim tebow, Vince young, johnny manziel

Basketball players usually don't stay long enough for that to happen

Personally i think they should just forgo college all together if they're that good.The college season is glorified camp or aau for the elite players
 
Last edited:
To create hype for when they enter the NBA.

But I kind of think the true intention of this two year rule is to funnel the elite HS players towards the D-League.
 
success rate is low but ie bender 

but i say let them cook if they not good enough thats what the d league for right 
 
So players don't develop in the NBA and hurt the quality of play. Of course there are exceptions like a LeBron but generally speaking the HS players need work. NBA prefers that initial improvement to happen elsewhere. Not a fan of it and unfair to NCAA as well since tey don't have a say in it while the NBA essentially forces one and dones on them
 
So players don't develop in the NBA and hurt the quality of play. Of course there are exceptions like a LeBron but generally speaking the HS players need work. NBA prefers that initial improvement to happen elsewhere. Not a fan of it and unfair to NCAA as well since tey don't have a say in it while the NBA essentially forces one and dones on them
Click to expand...

This. The NBA does not need to be a development league (as much as possible). I'm all for players staying in school as long as they can, even if I do admit the system is flawed. But I'm not a player worrying about my rights....I'm a paying customer.

Barkley's take this week :lol:

If Charles Barkley were the commissioner of the National Basketball Association, he would make an immediate change: No player can enter the NBA draft until the completion of his sophomore year of college.

"I think you should have to play in college for two years," Barkley said on Tuesday during a press event at Manhattan's tony Essex House Hotel to announce CBS and Turner's broadcast plans for the NCAA tournament.

"You'll get a lot better in two years than you will playing 30 games. Clearly, the NBA sucks right now. The NBA is the worst it's ever been. I feel bad for the fans because they are not getting a quality product. All the players are making a lot of money but these fans are not getting quality basketball."

On the issue of players like LeBron James jumping from high school to the pros, Barkley said, "There's only one LeBron. Let's be honest here: You look at Kevin Garnett or Kobe Bryant, Hall of Fame players, but LeBron is the only player in the last 30 years who was good enough to go out of high school. And these other guys are not LeBron James and will never be."
Click to expand...
 
Nah I don't believe that college makes players better. 

Every player I've seen go to college never got any better.  Matter of fact I think college hurt them more than helped.

In college you don't really develop.  You just play in whoever's the coach's system.  That's why there are so many tweeners.  In college if you're 6'8 ur gonna be a 4 even if you and everyone else knows ur gonna be a 3 in the League.  I can go on and on about how many 6'3 two guards end up playing on the bench in the L because their NBA position is a 1.

Honestly, after looking at the All Star HS games from last year, every single one of those prospects, Parker, WIggins, Randle, etc play exactly the same as they do in college as they did in HS.  Wiggins still can't shoot, Parker hasn't changed in body type or athleticism, Randle is exactly the same if not worse because he plays with 3 other freshmen, Aaron Gordon still can't dribble or shoot, etc.  I just hate hearing about how college is supposed to help develop these players.  I have not seen one player develop anything in college, except your 4 year guy who was off the draft radar to start with.  Even Oladipo, who they said developed so much in college, all he does in the League is run and dunk.

All college does is give you exposure to the mainstream audience.  If ppl said players should stay in college to make themselves more marketable or a household name, I could go with that, but this nonsense about college develops NBA prospects, you can miss me w all that garbage
 
Tom Haberstroh:
The case for one-and-dones

When discussing the age-limit rule, consider the case of Jonny Flynn.

Back in 2009, Syracuse's sophomore point guard played 67 minutes in a six-overtime win over UConn in the Big East tournament at Madison Square Garden. That was followed by another thrilling overtime victory the next day to earn a trip to the Big East championship. Shortly after Flynn's impressive tear that won him Big East tournament MVP without his team winning the title (Louisville ended up winning), Flynn and the No. 3 Orange reached the Sweet 16 before eventually falling to Blake Griffin and the second-seeded Oklahoma Sooners.

It was one of the most captivating few weeks of basketball we had seen from a college player in some time, all broadcast on national television. And a couple of months later, the Minnesota Timberwolves selected Flynn with the sixth pick of the 2009 NBA draft, ahead of Stephen Curry (No. 7 pick), Ty Lawson (No. 18) and Jrue Holiday (No. 17). Five years later, Flynn is out of the NBA.

NBA commissioner Adam Silver has suggested that an additional year in college will give NBA teams an extra year of information and ability to evaluate prospects. And the logic seems sound. After all, it stands to reason that more information can't be a bad thing.

But then we look at the facts. Since the 2005 age-limit rule went into effect that essentially forced players to wait a year following high school -- most often playing one season in college -- NBA teams have been twice as likely to draft a sophomore bust than a freshman, one-and-done bust. Turns out there are more Flynns than Anthony Bennetts. Not only that, but there are more Kevin Durants (stars who left as freshman) than there are Russell Westbrooks (stars who left as sophomores).

If one-and-dones have been the far safer bet, then why are we trying to keep them out?

The DRAFT Initiative

History repeats itself. Back in 2009, I systematically studied the NBA draft by looking at the yield of each draft pick selected since 1989 using John Hollinger's EWA metric (explained here). One of the key findings of the DRAFT Initiative study was that high schoolers outperformed every other draft class on average across their first five years in the league. The savvier, more mature players simply didn't measure up to the preps-to-pros prospects.

It ran counter to the conventional wisdom, but what we found looking at 20 years of data was that high schoolers were more likely to become stars in the league than any other player pool. For the purposes of the study, players with a yearly EWA of less than 1.00 were considered backups (we called them "scrubs" back in 2009 but that seems a bit harsh). Players with a yearly EWA between 1.00 and 5.00 were considered solid performers. Players with a yearly EWA between 5.00 and 10.00 were considered stars. And players with a yearly EWA greater than 10.00 were considered superstars.

As the study found, 31 percent of high schoolers drafted in the first round went on to become stars in the NBA, more than three times as often as college seniors. The high school talent pool produced superstars at an 18.3 percent clip compared to just 7 percent of college freshmen, less than 2 percent of college seniors and 5 percent of international players. Furthermore, 39 percent of the high schoolers didn't pan out, the exact same rate that college seniors flubbed at the next level.

When it came to high schoolers, the risk was worth the reward. But why didn't it seem that way?

Our minds can play tricks on us. Anecdotally, we remember the draft blunders of Kwame Brown, Jonathan Bender and Darius Miles, who all flamed out after coming out of high school. They stood as irrefutable evidence that 18-year-olds had no business in the NBA. We were told they were too raw, too immature, too unpolished.

But then there's LeBron James. Kobe Bryant. Kevin Garnett. Dwight Howard. Amare Stoudemire. Tracy McGrady. Global megastars, the faces of the NBA, all of whom came out of high school.

And that's just looking at the first round. We've heard the cautionary tale of Korleone Young, who came out of high school only to land in the second round and last just three games in the NBA. Young stood as Exhibit A on why skipping college and going straight to the pros could be a very bad idea. But then there's Monta Ellis, Rashard Lewis, Amir Johnson and Lou Williams, all high schoolers who fell to the second round and still enjoyed long, successful careers in the league. Why don't we hear more about those stories of redemption?

Despite all of the evidence that high schoolers were doing just fine in the NBA, the 2005 collective bargaining agreement set out to ban them from the league until they were 19. Now the NBA wants to push the limit even higher and a familiar tone has returned in 2014: The one-and-dones are too raw, too immature and too unpolished for the league. Is it true?

DRAFT Initiative reboot

What we've come to learn is that the age limit is essentially an attempt to legislate the risk out of the draft. Flynn represents a key problem for those who advocate that more years means more certainty: sometimes an extra year or two doesn't give us more information; rather, it provides more fodder to fuel our cognitive biases.

Looking at lottery picks since the age-limit rule went into effect in the 2006 draft, the longer a player stayed at school, the worse he tended to perform in the NBA. As mentioned at the top, one-and-dones have fared very well in the league. Of the 34 one-and-done lottery picks since 2006, just six have become backups (think Xavier Henry and Austin Rivers). Keep in mind, Nerlens Noel is included in this "backup" group even though he hasn't played yet. On the other hand, a total of 12 have gone on to become stars (think Durant, Derrick Rose, Kevin Love, Andre Drummond, Kyrie Irving, DeMarcus Cousins, John Wall and Anthony Davis). Look at those names. That's an incredible hit rate.

View media item 856744
But the interesting thing is that more college experience only tends to muddle the picture. Of the 29 sophomore lottery picks selected over that time, more than a third (11) have been backups (think Harrison Barnes, Meyers Leonard and Patrick O'Bryant) and nine have become stars (think Westbrook, Griffin and James Harden). Even if we adjust for draft slot (a No. 1 lottery pick has vastly higher expected return than a No. 13 lottery pick), we find that one-and-dones still edge out the sophomores who came into the league with more tape for scouts to watch.

And the deeper we go, the less predictive it becomes. Did three years at college help teams gauge the proper value of Hasheem Thabeet (No. 2 in 2009), Evan Turner (No. 2 in 2010), Adam Morrison (No. 3 in 2006), Wesley Johnson (No. 4 in 2010) or Thomas Robinson (No. 5 in 2012)? Hardly. Looking at college seniors, the picture doesn't get any better. For every Damian Lillard, there is a Shelden Williams and a Hilton Armstrong.

Looking at the data, Silver's stance that an extra year of scouting will help teams get closer to the bull's-eye doesn't stand up to scrutiny. And as fellow Per Diemer Kevin Pelton illustrated on Tuesday, sophomores who returned to school only improved marginally on average, a far cry from the notion that another year at college dramatically boosts draft stock and NBA preparedness.

In the end, drafting players is hard work. But it isn't made any easier with age limits ostensibly implemented to protect the NBA game. In reality, the age limit attempts to protect NBA teams from themselves. And it doesn't really work, as Flynn, Thabeet and Morrison have demonstrated. Even with an extra year of data, teams strike out on sophomore draftees more often than they do with one-and-dones.

While Silver seems determined to raise the age limit, we should speak up for the prospects who have historically proved they can play in the league at a young age. NBA teams don't need an age limit; they need a mirror.
Click to expand...
 
AZwildcats said:
I think it increases the quality of the players entering the NBA, although dudes like Kobe and LBJ kinda make that theory look bad :lol:
Click to expand...

This argument would the equivalent to people comparing everyday college dropouts to Steve Jobs and Bill Gates.
 
Last edited:
Players that come into the NBA undeveloped have a slim chance of developing once they hit the NBA in the way that they could develop on the college level.

Take a player like Daniel Orton. If he would have stayed in college, he would have been able to see success when working on his post game against college players through practice and in games. When he gets to the NBA, he has to practice against NBA players so the likelihood of the moves he is practing in one-on-one drills succeeding is slim. So his confidence is shot.

The same can be said for any player at any position. Developing your skills vs. weaker competition so it can translate into confidence in those same moves on the next level.
 
WillzWay26 said:
Nah I don't believe that college makes players better. 

Every player I've seen go to college never got any better.  Matter of fact I think college hurt them more than helped.

In college you don't really develop.  You just play in whoever's the coach's system.  That's why there are so many tweeners.  In college if you're 6'8 ur gonna be a 4 even if you and everyone else knows ur gonna be a 3 in the League.  I can go on and on about how many 6'3 two guards end up playing on the bench in the L because their NBA position is a 1.

Honestly, after looking at the All Star HS games from last year, every single one of those prospects, Parker, WIggins, Randle, etc play exactly the same as they do in college as they did in HS.  Wiggins still can't shoot, Parker hasn't changed in body type or athleticism, Randle is exactly the same if not worse because he plays with 3 other freshmen, Aaron Gordon still can't dribble or shoot, etc.  I just hate hearing about how college is supposed to help develop these players.  I have not seen one player develop anything in college, except your 4 year guy who was off the draft radar to start with.  Even Oladipo, who they said developed so much in college, all he does in the League is run and dunk.

All college does is give you exposure to the mainstream audience.  If ppl said players should stay in college to make themselves more marketable or a household name, I could go with that, but this nonsense about college develops NBA prospects, you can miss me w all that garbage
Click to expand...
Are you being serious? How do you feel they don't get better? What exactly are you basing that off of? Serious question.

And you are ignoring the fact that it takes TIME to develop. You bring up A. Gordon. And you say that he still can't shoot/dribble. Look at it like a role playing game. Yes, my level might still be a 47. But that doesn't mean he shoots/dribble the same as he did when he came into Arizona. And I can't even agree that he hasn't gotten better in those areas when comparing him to a year ago. One year isn't going to take him from average to GREAT. I don't know, I just don't understand your argument here. Seems like you are looking for instant improvements.
 
Last edited:
DCAllAmerican said:
Are you being serious? How do you feel they don't get better? What exactly are you basing that off of? Serious question.

And you are ignoring the fact that it takes TIME to develop. You bring up A. Gordon. And you say that he still can't shoot/dribble. Look at it like a role playing game. Yes, my level might still be a 47. But that doesn't mean he shoots/dribble the same as he did when he came into Arizona. And I can't even agree that he hasn't gotten better in those areas when comparing him to a year ago. One year isn't going to take him from average to GREAT. I don't know, I just don't understand your argument here. Seems like you are looking for instant improvements.
Click to expand...
but dude made an excellent point...

these cats are the same people that they were when they left high school.

and how are they developing when they're playing alongside other undeveloped, unproven players?

that to me doesn't make him better....

you REALLY think he made more leaps as a college player playing against maybe ONE nba player in practice, maybe 6 nba players all season, while having limits on his time to be in the gym with his coaches?

or would he have been better in the gym 5 hours a day, on an nba diet, with NBA coaches, playing against NBA players every day?

its clearly for the dollars, which I aint mad at... but I wonder why this rule doesn't apply to the mlb, hockey, soccer, or golf...
 
NBA feels it's good for the NBA. They don't have to take risks over younger kids. It's really that simple
 
But why can't it be possible. Like the NBA is a business they have the right to look at an 18 year old kid and say no we would rather draft the sophomore out of college who has tourney experience. But why aren't kids given the option.

If you are about to enter college and an nba team says we would draft you num 1 over all in the upcoming draft if we could....then you should be able to seek that employment opportunity. If you think it will degrade the quality of play then don't draft a kid. But the choice should still be there. The only real reason is money. College wants the money these kids generate. Imagine what colleges would have done if lebron was forced to play a year.

When it was ok to skip college and go right to the league it wasn't like tons of kids were doing it. They realized college was the best route to showcase themselves and get more money in the draft. I think its not fair to "protect" the nba game from "lower quality play" or "riskier" picks at the expense of these kids. It should be just like any other job. If you think the young kid can turn out to be the best employee you have...you hire him. Or you say...go gain more experience and come back in 2 years.
 
Making kids stay in college longer wouldn't hurt anyone as players. 

Making kids stay in college longer wouldn't hurt the NBA game. 

Making kids stay in college longer WOULD help the college game......a whole hell of a lot.
 
In america, you can join the armed forces at 18..

My stance is, if you are good enough to get drafted at whatever age and a parent or legal guardian is willing to sign a consent form for the contract then you should be allowed to get paid for your skills.. Like actors who are also entertainers





We aren't asking athletes to be brain surgeons or draft legislation.. Literally we want them to be able to put a ball in a hoop or facilitate that or prevent that from happening

Worst case they should go with the baseball system.. But I think it's a farce making these guys go to college whenever they may already possess the necessary skills for their chosen profession
 
kids that arent ready will more than likely sit on the bench. if they stay in college they would actually get to play and develop in an actual game. there are exceptions, but for the most part, if you arent ready, youre more than likely sitting on the bench. coaches in the league arent worried about developing your skills, that's on you, for the most part.
 
itsaboutthattime said:
But I think it's a farce making these guys go to college whenever they may already possess the necessary skills for their chosen profession
Click to expand...

There are literally countless jobs in America that people have the skills to do, but one of the job requirements is having a college degree and/or previous job experience. How is this any different?
 
Last edited:
dland24 said:
itsaboutthattime said:
But I think it's a farce making these guys go to college whenever they may already possess the necessary skills for their chosen profession
Click to expand...

There are literally countless jobs in America that people have the skills to do, but one of the job requirements is having a college degree. How is this any different?
Click to expand...


It's about the option. "Must have a college degree" Doesn't mean you can't apply. And what if you have a 4.0 in high school and didn't go to college because you started your own business and already are making millions off it? That would be more impressive then a college degree. Just like there are some players that are impressive enough to skip college. It's not likely...and its not the norm....but the option should be there
 
Jking0821 said:
 
dland24 said:
 
itsaboutthattime said:
But I think it's a farce making these guys go to college whenever they may already possess the necessary skills for their chosen profession
Click to expand...
There are literally countless jobs in America that people have the skills to do, but one of the job requirements is having a college degree. How is this any different?
Click to expand...

It's about the option. "Must have a college degree" Doesn't mean you can't apply. And what if you have a 4.0 in high school and didn't go to college because you started your own business and already are making millions off it? That would be more impressive then a college degree. Just like there are some players that are impressive enough to skip college. It's not likely...and its not the norm....but the option should be there
Click to expand...
You responded before you saw my edit of "and/or previous job experience." 
 
Last edited:
dland24 said:
itsaboutthattime said:
But I think it's a farce making these guys go to college whenever they may already possess the necessary skills for their chosen profession
Click to expand...

There are literally countless jobs in America that people have the skills to do, but one of the job requirements is having a college degree. How is this any different?
Click to expand...

Depends on the job and the level of skill of that individual.. For some jobs you just have to have some sort of verification that, that person should be capable of doing that job..

But even still, if a person doesn't have necessary requirements for that job.. But do have the skills or expertise, they can still be hired in a consultancy role

But look at Quentin Tarantino, he didn't need a film degree to make films.. What degree did lebron james need to help his team win the finals last year?


Would guys benefit from the playing team in college, yes.. But that goes for anything, of course you can only get better at doing something by actually doing it.. But I think those guys should be given the freedom to make that choice
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom