View Full Version : Branden Jennings - Will others follow
MADXSTER
07-09-2008, 08:30 PM
Brandon Jennings to go pro in Europe
The University of Arizona point guard recruit expects to secure a contract in the "hundreds of thousands of dollars," according to his attorney.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/college/basketball/la-sp-newswire9-2008jul09,0,7205760.story
GuyFawkes38
07-09-2008, 08:34 PM
Like I've said before, I think you would have to be a top, top prospect (Greg Oden like) for this to work.
It comes down to the nature of NBA scouting. NBA GM's and their top assistants want to see the players in person. It's much, much easier for them to focus and feel confident with players who stay in the states.
As it is right now, players give up hundreds of thousands of dollars in Europe to stay in the cheap D league.
Juice
07-09-2008, 11:06 PM
Guy, I agree with you. The other situation that this will happen is the one that Jennings is experiencing. He is too dumb to make it into college, so he basically has no other choice other than the JUCO route. Granted, he is talented and wont be forgotten by NBA teams, but his poor grades/test scores played a huge role in his decision.
D-West & PO-Z
07-09-2008, 11:08 PM
Guy, I agree with you. The other situation that this will happen is the one that Jennings is experiencing. He is too dumb to make it into college, so he basically has no other choice other than the JUCO route. Granted, he is talented and wont be forgotten by NBA teams, but his poor grades/test scores played a huge role in his decision.
I have read that he has not received his test grades yet and is doing this anyway. Now he may know he did terrible and has no shot to be eligible, but that has not been confirmed yet.
I have read that he has not received his test grades yet and is doing this anyway. Now he may know he did terrible and has no shot to be eligible, but that has not been confirmed yet.
The article I read this morning stated that he was not going to qualify academically.
xu95
Muskie
07-10-2008, 10:13 AM
The article I read this morning stated that he was not going to qualify academically.
xu95
I read also that he was awaiting his third set of scores. Apparently he didn't meet the score on the first test. Passed the second (which was red flagged by the NCAA because of a huge point jump) and then this third round of test scores.
I hope this is a trend that will continue for no doubt NBA ready players in high school as the one year NBA ban is not good for college basketball.
MADXSTER
07-10-2008, 10:38 AM
From the other side of the fence.
There are plenty of foreigners playing in the NBA and in Div 1 basketball. I would think an NBA team would have more resources to scout Europe than say and Div 1 school other than GW.
In my personal stance, if I had a kid with a 4.0 average and was a one and done type kid, I would send him to Europe. If you get hurt at least you have a mil. in the bank. In college you got squat.
If he goes to college, how hard is he really going to study knowing he's gone right after the basketball season ends. I just don't see freshman year of college being greater than traveling throughout Europe for a year. Sometimes life experiences you just can't put a price on. Especially when you're young. Getting a degree is different.
Competition: There's pretty good comp abroad and it's been getting better over the years. Just watch the Olympics. It's kinds like when people thought the best college football team could beat the worst NFL team. Not even close. So the question is, can the top 30-40 ncaa teams compete against the pro teams in Europe? Who knows?
Just my two cents
XU05and07
07-10-2008, 10:55 AM
Let him go...and let all those 1 and done kids do it too...I love college basketball and if college basketball gets better because of these kids skipping college all together, then I'm all for it. He wouldn't be going to college for the education anyways, so why not get paid to play for a year and then make the jump.
Good luck to him...and all those that follow
D-West & PO-Z
07-10-2008, 12:05 PM
From the other side of the fence.
There are plenty of foreigners playing in the NBA and in Div 1 basketball. I would think an NBA team would have more resources to scout Europe than say and Div 1 school other than GW.
In my personal stance, if I had a kid with a 4.0 average and was a one and done type kid, I would send him to Europe. If you get hurt at least you have a mil. in the bank. In college you got squat.
If he goes to college, how hard is he really going to study knowing he's gone right after the basketball season ends. I just don't see freshman year of college being greater than traveling throughout Europe for a year. Sometimes life experiences you just can't put a price on. Especially when you're young. Getting a degree is different.
Competition: There's pretty good comp abroad and it's been getting better over the years. Just watch the Olympics. It's kinds like when people thought the best college football team could beat the worst NFL team. Not even close. So the question is, can the top 30-40 ncaa teams compete against the pro teams in Europe? Who knows?
Just my two cents
The answer to that is an absolute NO. The Italian league is one that is way superior to College basketball, and there are other leagues that can say that as well. They guys in these Euro leagues are usually much more skilled and experienced. A lot of actual foreigners and a lot of American kids who couldnt make it in the NBA. Obviously I dont know all the Euro leagues, and there are so damn many that I'm sure some have to be watered down, but I know the top leagues in Europe are all regarded by NBA scouts and others as being much better leagues than the NCAA.
D-West & PO-Z
07-10-2008, 12:10 PM
I hope this is a trend that will continue for no doubt NBA ready players in high school as the one year NBA ban is not good for college basketball.
Says who? Who is it not good for? Doesnt effect XU, so it cant be bad for us or XU. If anything it is good for teams like XU that get good players who stay 4 years and then can be experienced and have played together for a long time to make big runs in the tourney.
What you think its bad for the teams who get the one and done guys? Yeah right. Ask Memphis if they would recruit Derrick Rose over again. Ask OSU if they would pass up Oden, Conley, and Cook. I'm guessing both would do it over again. There are many other examples.
Who exactly is this rule bad for? I just dont see it when people say that.
The new NBA rule is actually good for a team like Xavier. Derrick Rose and Michael Beasley wouldn't have picked Xavier anyhow, so they go to a team that might have went after say Kenny Frease. Not saying it would change anything, but it gives the non North Carolina, Kansas, and Duke schools some opportunities they might not have had before.
xu95
Juice
07-10-2008, 12:43 PM
The rule probably is not too good for college basketball but it is great for the NBA and that is all that matters because its the NBA's rule. Many people complain about the NBA for this and that but the NCAA is just as corrupt if not more corrupt than the NBA.
D-West & PO-Z
07-10-2008, 12:52 PM
The rule probably is not too good for college basketball but it is great for the NBA and that is all that matters because its the NBA's rule. Many people complain about the NBA for this and that but the NCAA is just as corrupt if not more corrupt than the NBA.
I still dont get how its probably not too good for college basketball.
Muskie
07-10-2008, 02:01 PM
What i think many in the media are forgetting:
Euro teams are always in a win now mode. If they do poorly enough they drop divisions. Not many Euro teams are going to be interested in a one and done H.S. kid from the states who's stated goal is to play one season and then hit the NBA Draft. WHen was the last time a guy played one year in the Euro League and was deemed good enough to make that jump?
Juice
07-10-2008, 02:36 PM
I still dont get how its probably not too good for college basketball.
It could cause problems with academic/graduation rates, especially in the 2nd semester when these kids are done with basketball. Granted, schools need to be cautious with what players they are taking in but problems could arise. I personally like the rule for college and the NBA but there should be some concern by the NCAA.
D-West & PO-Z
07-10-2008, 03:27 PM
It could cause problems with academic/graduation rates, especially in the 2nd semester when these kids are done with basketball. Granted, schools need to be cautious with what players they are taking in but problems could arise. I personally like the rule for college and the NBA but there should be some concern by the NCAA.
Yes, but I still think schools are willing to take that risk, actually we all know schools are. They really dont care. Ask OSU, Memphis, UCLA, and others if they would make different decisions regarding Oden, Conley, Cook, Love, and Rose. All of them would say absolutely not. They know what they are getting and for how long and for them going to the Final 4 I'm sure is worth the risk of a not perfect graduation rate. You can get that same risk with a kid who only stays 3 years, so its not like these are new risks. This rule may be hurting some schools, but the benfits outweigh the risks, and this rule is certainly not hurting college basketball. We get to see guys lay college ball we would never have been able to see before. Could you imagine seeing LeBron playing college ball for a year? That would have been awesome, and that team surely would have benefited as well.
The Artist
07-13-2008, 06:01 PM
The new NBA rule is actually good for a team like Xavier. Derrick Rose and Michael Beasley wouldn't have picked Xavier anyhow, so they go to a team that might have went after say Kenny Frease. Not saying it would change anything, but it gives the non North Carolina, Kansas, and Duke schools some opportunities they might not have had before.
xu95
My thoughts exactly.
golfitup
07-13-2008, 08:06 PM
It's still a dumb rule. If you are good enough, you are old enough. There should not be an age requirement for the NBA.
Juice
07-13-2008, 11:17 PM
It's still a dumb rule. If you are good enough, you are old enough. There should not be an age requirement for the NBA.
But the problem was that too many of them were not good enough and it was ruining the quality of play in the NBA. Should teams have been smarter and not drafted the kids? Yes, but it doesnt change the fact that the NBA was hurt by all those kids coming in.
It is not at all good for college basketball. Those programs that recruit these types of players can never find stability in their program or team chemistry. It makes a mockery of a team concept when a player like Beasley could care less what KSU did as long as he got his double double. It may help programs like XU but it is not good for college basketball.
MADXSTER
07-15-2008, 01:45 PM
But the problem was that too many of them were not good enough and it was ruining the quality of play in the NBA. Should teams have been smarter and not drafted the kids? Yes, but it doesnt change the fact that the NBA was hurt by all those kids coming in.
Yes you are correct, but that's the NBA's problem. So how do they fix it...they throw in an age limit. Basically they get another year to evaluate.
"It makes a mockery of a team concept when a player like Beasley could care less what KSU did as long as he got his double double." by _LH
LH, I disagree only in regards to Beasley but I get your point. Of all of the one and dones, I think Beasley was probably the most team oriented player.
Not in the games I watched Mad. In at least 3 games early in the season, his selfishness down the stretch coust KSU some wins that may have helped them get a top 6 seed.
MADXSTER
07-15-2008, 02:19 PM
I hear ya and I'll take your word on it. My guess is you probably saw him play more than I did.
Juice
07-15-2008, 02:24 PM
Beasley kind of had to be selfish because the team around him was not very good. Walker is a decent talent but if he is the only other guy, what else could Beasley do?
Beasely (at least early on) would refuse to pass out of double teams on the low post to wide open guards. Now granted, these guard were not Raymondesque but he was just looking for "his" too much and it cost the team on a number of occassions.
D-West & PO-Z
07-15-2008, 03:06 PM
LH, ask KSU if they would do it over again and take BEasley for the year. No doubt they would. Ask OSU if they would do the conley, cook, and oden, one year deal again. Absolutely they would. Ask UCLA if they would take Love again. Ask Memphis if Derrick Rose was worth it. They would all say yes and none of them are crying that it is hurting their programs, it did just the opposite for one year. KSU would have been a non factor and non story in college bball had it not been for Beasley. I cant for the life of me understand why people, not just you, argue that it is hurting the programs who take these kids while the programs themselves have made no reference to that and all and would do it over again in a second.
I will ask both in three years, especially KSU and you may not like their answer. KSU got what a 9 seed with their one and done? How many years will their program be set back after his early departure? Certainly they hired a coach that was not exacly qualified to keep Beasley happy. They did not build for the long term with his recruitment either. It is one thing to bring in one and doners if that program can do it each and every year but the occassional one and doner is nothing but a cancer to a program.
GoMuskies
07-15-2008, 03:41 PM
I thought K-State was a 6 seed that went to the second round. That's a really good season for them (hell, it's a really good season for Xavier, too).
D-West & PO-Z
07-15-2008, 03:41 PM
I will ask both in three years, especially KSU and you may not like their answer. KSU got what a 9 seed with their one and done? How many years will their program be set back after his early departure? Certainly they hired a coach that was not exacly qualified to keep Beasley happy. They did not build for the long term with his recruitment either. It is one thing to bring in one and doners if that program can do it each and every year but the occassional one and doner is nothing but a cancer to a program.
I'm not sure what this means or how you would know it. KSU just had 2 guys drafted to the NBA. You dont think that helps with recruiting? You dont think Beasley being an All America helps with recruiting? How not? Also the vast majority of the teams getting these one and done guys are teams that would attract that type of player every year and also has several hig profile kids arent just one a dones. So these schools are being harmed and it isnt hurting college ball in my opinion.
The fact that Beasley played one season at KSU will not aid in recruiting at all. He only went there to play for Hill and Huggins, not Martin.
Point is, if a kid is good enough to play pro right out of high school, he has a lot to lose by playing into a team concept that may lower his personal stats. This not good for the team or college basketball.
These players don't want to be in college and when someone is forced to play one year, problems are sure to follow.
Go,
KSU actually got an 11 seed, so it was not that great of a regular season at all and they were probably one of the last at larges to make it in.
GoMuskies
07-15-2008, 04:02 PM
But they beat USC, right? I remember that as the 6/11 game, but I couldn't remember who was the 6 and who was the 11.
D-West & PO-Z
07-15-2008, 04:05 PM
The fact that Beasley played one season at KSU will not aid in recruiting at all. He only went there to play for Hill and Huggins, not Martin.
Point is, if a kid is good enough to play pro right out of high school, he has a lot to lose by playing into a team concept that may lower his personal stats. This not good for the team or college basketball.
These players don't want to be in college and when someone is forced to play one year, problems are sure to follow.
Where are your examples of this happening? You say it will happen but it hasnt. I think you tired to use Beasley, but I didnt see from him what you are talking about. Maybe he forced some things, but he was a first team all american and by far the best on his team so why wouldnt he force a little. Hanborough forces things, David West forced some things here. I just dont see happening what you say is happening.
They did beat an overrated one and done led USC and then lost in the second round. KSU got an 11 seed with and one NCAA win with their one and done. Now they are stuck with a bad coach and will fall back to the lower middle of the Big XII.
I don't feel bad for KSU. They sold their soul to BH. He rewarded them with MB and one NCAA win. There are ways to rebuild your program and KSU's method will come back to haunt them.
GoMuskies
07-15-2008, 04:08 PM
They did beat an overrated one and done led USC and then lost in the second round. KSU got an 11 seed with and one NCAA win with their one and done.
Fair enough, but I wonder when their last previous NCAA Tournament win was. They hadn't beaten Kansas at home in about 25 years until last year. On balance, last year was a bowl of awesomeness for K-State fans.
Ask IU fans how they felt about Gordon? Ask KSU fans in three years if they were happy KSU tried to rebuild their program in the manner they chose.
One and doners are a distraction to team chemistry and their removal will be best for college basketball as a whole.
D-West & PO-Z
07-15-2008, 04:09 PM
They did beat an overrated one and done led USC and then lost in the second round. KSU got an 11 seed with and one NCAA win with their one and done. Now they are stuck with a bad coach and will fall back to the lower middle of the Big XII.
I don't feel bad for KSU. They sold their soul to BH. He rewarded them with MB and one NCAA win. There are ways to rebuild your program and KSU's method will come back to haunt them.
Where they were before Beasley, so they lose no ground and they get a lot of pub for a year they wouldnt have received if not for him. I know they would do it again.
D-West & PO-Z
07-15-2008, 04:11 PM
Ask IU fans how they felt about Gordon? Ask KSU fans in three years if they were happy KSU tried to rebuild their program in the manner they chose.
One and doners are a distraction to team chemistry and their removal will be best for college basketball as a whole.
You havent named one not one example other than Beasley which I disagree with anyway.
No they would not. KSU is not happy with one win in the NCAA's. They want a program not a season.
The rule has not been in place long enough to see the long term effects to what becomes of the programs that looked for lightening in a bottle. These schools will lose scholarships and will have a hard time building a consistent winning program.
I named Gordon. He was a major distraction to IU. Ask their fan base.
When OSU start to lose scholarships from all of their early departures you will see the negative effects one and doners had at OSU.
There is a reason many coaches do not like the rule. Why do you think that is?
D-West & PO-Z
07-15-2008, 05:29 PM
I named Gordon. He was a major distraction to IU. Ask their fan base.
When OSU start to lose scholarships from all of their early departures you will see the negative effects one and doners had at OSU.
There is a reason many coaches do not like the rule. Why do you think that is?
How was Gordon a distraction to IU. Kelvin Sampson was yes, and he may have illegally recruited Gordon, but Gordon himself was not the distraction. I know a lot of IU fans as well, none have them have ever told me Gordon was a distraction.
There are also many coaches who like the rule. A lot of them are the are the coaches who are getting these players. If you are a coach that doesnt like the rule and think the players will ruin your program then dont recruit those kids, it is as simple as that. I think Arizona recently stated that they are done recruiting one and dones. Good for them. But there are also coaches who will jump all over these players and benefit from it greatly and make it to the Final 4.
Muskie
07-15-2008, 07:18 PM
If by distraction you mean loved and or adored.... this yes Gordon was a distraction for IU fans. He was a state HS superstar who stayed in-state and went to IU.
Why do you guys even respond? He is right you are wrong. It has always been that way.
xu95
It is not about being right or wrong 95. It is about what is good for college basketball. One and done players do not care for anyone but themselves and that is not good for college basketball.
D-West & PO-Z
07-16-2008, 10:36 AM
It is not about being right or wrong 95. It is about what is good for college basketball. One and done players do not care for anyone but themselves and that is not good for college basketball.
That is such a ridiculous comment that I almost didnt reply. But I'm a sucker :rolleyes:
It is not at all ridiculous, you just don't understand it but college coaches, like Coach K do and that is why they are against the one and done rule.
Billy
07-16-2008, 01:00 PM
It is not about being right or wrong 95. It is about what is good for college basketball. One and done players do not care for anyone but themselves and that is not good for college basketball.
So, you think that the NCAA is generally worse off by having Greg Oden, Kevin Durant, Derrick Rose, and Michael Beasley for one year than they would be had they never attended college?? You're insane (as usual).
It benefits both parties...not to mention the NBA (not to imply they should be a factor).
One other thing...being in college is good for a kid. Even if for one year, even if he doesn't graduate. I think it's simplistic to view someone who leaves early as having "wasted time". Same can be said for a kid who is not an athlete, but attends university for a short length of time. Chances are, they were enriched by the experience on some level.
Personally, I think it's made recruiting a hell of a lot more interesting. The uncertainty with scholarships this has caused, and the shortage of good seniors, will GREATLY benefit smaller schools who already have to make their living spending four years developing three-star recruits. Some of the four-star, and most of the five-star guys will never see their senior year. The last two Xavier squads are pretty good examples of how that works.
In the long run, yes the NCAA is better off without sure fire one and done players. It is pretty simple to understand Billy.
GoMuskies
07-16-2008, 01:03 PM
It is pretty simple to understand Billy.
Oh, snap!!
Billy
07-16-2008, 01:06 PM
In the long run, yes the NCAA is better off without sure fire one and done players. It is pretty simple to understand Billy.
How so?
I realize it's a lot to ask you to actually expound on your opinions with points that buttress them...but I'll make the request anyway.
Billy
07-16-2008, 01:18 PM
I named Gordon. He was a major distraction to IU. Ask their fan base.
When OSU start to lose scholarships from all of their early departures you will see the negative effects one and doners had at OSU.
There is a reason many coaches do not like the rule. Why do you think that is?
BTW, if this is what you're going to use...this does not mean Eric Gordon was bad for the NCAA. The NCAA, as a whole, was better off for having him. The game on the court was better. It partially degraded the objection that the NCAA isn't interesting because it's not as good as the NBA talent-wise.
And so, too, for that matter was IU better off, as they likely would not have made the NCAA Tourney without him.
BTW, part deux. This is NOT an NCAA rule. This is essentially an NBA rule. The only thing the NCAA can do would be to attempt to mandate that college players sign contracts for four years which would prevent them from playing pro ball during that time. The NCAA would likely get sued, and they would lose that case handily.
Not to mention, they'd have to have the same rules for gymnasts, swimmers, soccer players, etc. There's no shot the NCAA wants to go down that road.
The NCAA as a whole in the long run will not be better off for having Gordon for one year. IU is in shambles anyway but his early departure will affect grad rate and scholarship numbers as well as an inability to build a program as opposed to a team. Understand?
I don't remember saying it was an NCAA rule. I clearly understand it as an NBA rule.
GoMuskies
07-16-2008, 02:00 PM
The NCAA as a whole in the long run will not be better off for having Gordon for one year. IU is in shambles anyway but his early departure will affect grad rate and scholarship numbers as well as an inability to build a program as opposed to a team. Understand?
I know I will regret this, but here goes anyway:
How, exactly, is the NCAA as a whole WORSE off in the long run for having Gordon play one year? IU would be in shambles with or without Gordon having been there, and IU's program would have been blown up regardless.
How is K-State worse off for having Beasley? They had their best season in about 20 years, and had clearly shown that they were not capable of building a program with or without Beasley. They had one great year (by K-State standards) and now regress back to K-State's mean. How are they worse off?
How is UCLA worse off for having Kevin Love for a year? Four straight Final Fours now, and I don't think anyone believes UCLA is having trouble building or sustaining a program?
How is anyone worse off for Derrick Rose playing a year at Memphis? NCAA, CBS and all college basketball fans got one of the most entertaining championship games ever, and Memphis had their best season in history. Calipari has been doing this over and over and over with the one or two and dones, and their program seems to be progressing just fine.
So where are all these examples of one and doners making NCAA basketball worse off overall?
Billy
07-16-2008, 02:10 PM
The NCAA as a whole in the long run will not be better off for having Gordon for one year. IU is in shambles anyway but his early departure will affect grad rate and scholarship numbers as well as an inability to build a program as opposed to a team. Understand?
And IU's situation is the fault of who?? The NBA rule, or Kelvin Sampson? IU hired him. His hiring wasn't the result of the NBA's high-school graduation requirements.
The argument you are making seems to center around why it's bad for individual universities (actually, one case with Eric Gordon), which is a distinct argument for why it's bad for the NCAA. Was it bad for Memphis or UCLA??
I agree it's bad for graduation rates, that's an undeniable fact. But again, I don't think that you can extend that condition to mean that the one year of enrichment the athlete recieved somehow becomes completely worthless because they didn't stay four years. Look at how many guys have left North Carolina before graduating, and then went back and finished up. There are 5-10 examples in the last twenty years. Even if they don't. The kid is a little more prepared for life, and the university has made more money to improve the university.
LH, if what you are saying is inherently true without exception...then university presidents and head coaches have the ability to make the decision to steer clear. If it's bad, they'll stop recruiting these kids.
You called it the "one and done" rule above in one of your posts above, and talked about Coach K's dislike for it. I was just pointing out that his opinion doesn't mean squat...as it's not his rule.
Further, I think some of his opinion possibly stems from the fact that it would be better for Duke to see these types of kids go right into the NBA as they aren't up to Duke's academic standards. Which is Duke's choice. I'm sure if Coach K wants to take a job at Houston, LSU, or some other state school that isn't as academically picky...they'd probably hire him.
Just a crazy hunch.
Muskie
07-16-2008, 02:12 PM
The NCAA as a whole in the long run will not be better off for having Gordon for one year. IU is in shambles anyway but his early departure will affect grad rate and scholarship numbers as well as an inability to build a program as opposed to a team. Understand?
Why is the NCAA better off?
Muskie and Go,
I already answered your questions.
Billy,
I did not read your entire reply (I rarely do) but I never stated Gordon caused the current situation at IU. Why would you come to such a conclusion?
Muskie
07-16-2008, 02:35 PM
Muskie and Go,
I already answered your questions.
Billy,
I did not read your entire reply (I rarely do) but I never stated Gordon caused the current situation at IU. Why would you come to such a conclusion?
Actually you made a statement that one and doner's damage teams that they play for because they don't buy into a team concept. You cited Beasley and Gordon. Then you said that the NCAA would have been better off if Gordon hadn't played...
I didn't see an answer in there. I missed the part where Gordon and Beasley didn't buy into the team concept i guess?
Gordon is a poor example of not buying into the team concept. When Sampson was fired and the players threatened to boycott... guess who was one of the six players who openly agreed to play for Dakich while everyone was on the fence.... Eric Gordon. That's buying into the team concept to me.
GoMuskies
07-16-2008, 02:37 PM
Muskie and Go,
I already answered your questions.
Actually you didn't. You just gave some vague response about the NCAA and K-State being worse off. You've yet to present a coherent case for any of the NCAA, K-State, Indiana, Memphis or UCLA being worse off for Rose, Gordon, Beasley and/or Love's abbreviated college stints.
Actually I did. Look again. My opinion has been anything but vague.
Billy
07-16-2008, 02:55 PM
Muskie and Go,
I already answered your questions.
Billy,
I did not read your entire reply (I rarely do) but I never stated Gordon caused the current situation at IU. Why would you come to such a conclusion?
Nor did I imply that you said that. Like Muskie, I'm trying to figure out WHY you think this is "bad" for the NCAA...and to this point, you haven't explained WHY it's bad.
Are there other examples? (Assuming you read that last sentence. It's not surprising that you find reading dissenting opinions to be tedious...yet, would feel compelled respond to it anyway.)
GoMuskies
07-16-2008, 03:00 PM
Actually I did.
Did not. (This could go on all day)
I have answered your questions already Billy. So you reply is incorrect. One more time.
One and done players are not good for college basketball as a whole for the following reasons:
Poor grad rates
Reduced scholarships for those schools failing to keep these kids past one year
Inability to build programs versus lightening in the bottle for one year
Players only out for themselves that sacrafice wins for PPG or RPG
Teams like KSU benefitted by getting an 11 seed with their one and done. They sold out games, they got national pub. Beasley leaves and all of that goes away. Had KSU recruited players to win as a program over the long haul, they may not have seen the rewards as quickly but I suspect the rewards would have remained for a much longer time.
GoMuskies
07-16-2008, 03:02 PM
IHad KSU recruited players to win as a program over the long haul, they may not have seen the rewards as quickly but I suspect the rewards would have remained for a much longer time.
How would you explain the previous 20 years when they had none of those rewards?
I don't pretend to know the history of KSU basketball. I do know there are number of ways to build a program and attempting to build or rebuild through one and done players is not the best approach.
GoMuskies
07-16-2008, 03:13 PM
I don't pretend to know the history of KSU basketball.
So you're ignorant of the whole mess and are just throwing out your baseless opinion. Fair enough.
Billy
07-16-2008, 03:26 PM
OK, and now I'll whip you (like always) by poking holes in your flawed logic.
Poor grad rates - OK...that I already give you. Although again, graduation is not a must for their to have been some type of significant enrichment. So it's a bit myopic to say that it's "bad" just because some aren't going 4 years
Reduced scholarships for those schools failing to keep these kids past one year - No, there's absolutely not a necessary reduction of scholarships. What it means, is that there is less predictability...which is a risk the coach assumes. That is in no way bad for the NCAA. You seem unwilling to understand the distinction. IU's present situation is inversely good for their competitors. It's a total wash as it pertains to the NCAA.
Inability to build programs versus lightening in the bottle for one year - Again, why is that bad for the NCAA? If anything, that gets more teams involved, even if for brief periods which is FABULOUS for the long-term health of college basketball
Players only out for themselves that sacrafice wins for PPG or RPG - And there aren't any four year players that have that problem?? Again, that's not an NCAA problem. If a player becomes selfish and it hurts the team, that's a TEAM problem...and benefits their opponent. No one is twisting a coaches arm by MAKING them recruit these kids. They assume that risk with plenty of kids with NO shot of leaving early.
Teams like KSU benefitted by getting an 11 seed with their one and done. They sold out games, they got national pub. Beasley leaves and all of that goes away. Had KSU recruited players to win as a program over the long haul, they may not have seen the rewards as quickly but I suspect the rewards would have remained for a much longer time.
If you think that Mayo/Beasley matchup in the first round wasn't good for NCAA basketball or for KSU because he left early...you need to check the ratings or pick-up a newspaper occasionally.
And, of course, read the whole article.
That may be true of your grasp of the situation GO but not for me. Sorry.
Billy,
Let me know when the whipping will begin. You have never whipped me before so there is no reason to believe you will now.
Poor grad rates - It is not about the education of these players in the classroom. You missed the point completely as usual Billy.
Reduced scholarships for those schools failing to keep these kids past one year - You missed the point again. In the long term when a program loses scholarships due to one and done's it makes it that much harder to sustain success which is not good for the NCAA.
Inability to build programs versus lightening in the bottle for one year - It is bad for the NCAA when program are good for one year and bad for 20.
Players only out for themselves that sacrafice wins for PPG or RPG - It does not matter if other 4 year players do it to or not. It simply is not good and it is far more likely to happen for a kid with no interest in anything but biding his time and getting his.
You have been whipped again Bill.
GoMuskies
07-16-2008, 03:34 PM
You must be a jewel in court LH what with all the sound reasoning and evidence you are always bringing.
Well it all is opinion (yours and mine) but mine makes more sense.
Billy
07-16-2008, 03:41 PM
Billy,
Let me know when the whipping will begin. You have never whipped me before so there is no reason to believe you will now.
Three of your four points make absolutely no sense whatsoever...and the one you made that has some merit is FAR from being enough to offset:
a.) The money it brings the NCAA.
b.) The fact that this breeds parity (GREAT for the NCAA).
c.) The fact that the product on the court is far better allowing these freshman athletes to play.
All of the points makes sense Billy. It is not that hard to understand. Coach K gets it.
GoMuskies
07-16-2008, 03:43 PM
Inability to build programs versus lightening in the bottle for one year - It is bad for the NCAA when program are good for one year and bad for 20.
How about when a program is bad for 20 years without a one and done player and then finally good for one year with the one and doner? Which way does that cut?
And why is an individual program's success or lack thereof bad for the NCAA as a whole anyway? Northwestern has been bad for about 100 years. Has that hurt the NCAA?
Billy
07-16-2008, 03:55 PM
How about when a program is bad for 20 years without a one and done player and then finally good for one year with the one and doner? Which way does that cut?
And why is an individual program's success or lack thereof bad for the NCAA as a whole anyway? Northwestern has been bad for about 100 years. Has that hurt the NCAA?
LH is unable to understand that one team must win AND lose each game. He ignores the notion that if one team is "bad" (whether that be from early deaprtures, or bad basketball), that's proportionally "good" for someone else.
Tough concept to grasp...I realize.
I understand that fine Billy. You fail to understand that one and done players are not good for college basketball as a whole. Not the NCAA, college basketball.
GoMuskies
07-16-2008, 04:04 PM
You fail to understand that one and done players are not good for college basketball as a whole.
I'm pretty sure most people fail to "understand" that LH.
Except the college coaches who know far more about what is good for their game than you ever will.
GoMuskies
07-16-2008, 04:12 PM
Except the college coaches who know far more about what is good for their game than you ever will.
Which ones? You mentioned Coach K. Pretty sure he's just concerned about what's best for Duke. Can you provide some others who don't like the rule? Pretty sure Calipari is all for it!
Billy
07-16-2008, 04:15 PM
I understand that fine Billy. You fail to understand that one and done players are not good for college basketball as a whole. Not the NCAA, college basketball.
You continue to make no sense.
How does making the talent pool shallower (as you are suggesting) HELP college basketball?? You're pointing out how it changes this and that...and it does. But almost none of what you cite has a net negative impact.
BTW, I don't LIKE the rule either on principle...but mostly because I think it's unfair of the NBA to tell an 18-year old kid he can't play at that level. If anything, the rule helps college basketball by forcing talented kids to play at least a year...which is great for those like me who love college basketball. I'd rather watch Kevin Love for one year, then never see him play.
I'm sure some guys who would have NEVER gone to college will end up staying all four years as well. That's the best possible outcome. There's no way to quanitify how many guys that will apply to...but it's not as if EVERY kid is leaving after one year. Some show up and actually like college.
It makes perfect sense Billy. College basketball would be just fine without Oden. It would be fine without Beasley.
Lute Olsen is another. Look it up if you want more names.
GoMuskies
07-16-2008, 04:26 PM
Look it up? Where? In the book of coaches who don't like the one and done rule? If you're going to say "Coaches don't like the rule," don't you think you should at least provide something to substantiate that? I'm sure there is quite a bit of disagreement among the coaches on this one, just like there is on just about every other topic.
If you know there is disagreement amoungst coaches you obviously are aware that there are many that dislike the rule. Good job!
GoMuskies
07-16-2008, 04:29 PM
If you know there is disagreement amoungst coaches you obviously are aware that there are many that dislike the rule. Good job!
And many that like the rule. What's your point?
Billy
07-16-2008, 04:32 PM
It makes perfect sense Billy. College basketball would be just fine without Oden. It would be fine without Beasley.
Who implied it wouldn't be "fine" without them? That's not the discussion. This is about A being better than B.
And feel free to provide a link to these coaches comments...because I'm curious about the context. Again, NO ONE is forcing these kids to go to college to play basketball. Coaches who don't want to deal with them can choose NOT TO RECRUIT THEM. Players who don't want to go to college can play in Europe or go to the NBDL.
You behave as if this NBA rule is leaving everyone involved without any options. BTW, this is pretty how college basketball was before Garnett and Kobe Bryant. Other than a handful of guys (like Darrell Dawkins and Shawn Kemp), EVERYONE went to school...some only for one, two, or three years. I don't think anyone looks back at the 1980s or early 90's as BAD times for college basketball because guys left early. In fact, they were pretty much the glory years in my opinion.
Billy,
You are beyond hope at this point.
D-West & PO-Z
07-16-2008, 08:08 PM
Oh man! My head is spinning. LH you have made no valid points or arguments this entire thread.
The all make sense and are valid poz.
MADXSTER
10-02-2008, 12:49 PM
Apparrently jennings is making the $$$....so the question is...will other follow.
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/weiss/2008/09/jennings-signs-lucrative-deal.html
Jennings signs lucrative deal with Under Armour
September 29, 2008
For those who thought point guard Brandon Jennings - arguably the best prep prospect in the country last year when he played for Oak Hill Academy (Va.) - might not benefit from signing with a European professional team instead of playing college basketball for a year, Sports Business Journal offers this piece of information.
Jennings, a rookie with Pallacanestro Virtus Roma, has signed a shoe and apparel deal with Under Armour, estimated to be in the mid-six figures. “It shows that they can do it,” Sonny Vaccaro, the former Nike and Reebok executive who advised Jennings on the deal as well as exploring a deal in Europe, told SBJ. Vaccaro claimed Jennings’ combined deal will exceed a $1 million a year.
“It took an 18-year-old kid from Compton to stand up to the system.” Vaccaro said, adding the parents of six elite high school players called him after Jennings signed with the Italian team in July.
Vaccaro said last week that number had grown.
Do we sense a trend here?
Muskie
10-02-2008, 03:12 PM
I sense that Sonny is out to make a name for himself at the expense of Jennings long term future.
So what if these elite players go overseas. How is anyone going to follow them? Quick tell me the channel that Jennings is playing on next season?
D-West & PO-Z
10-02-2008, 04:05 PM
I sense that Sonny is out to make a name for himself at the expense of Jennings long term future.
So what if these elite players go overseas. How is anyone going to follow them? Quick tell me the channel that Jennings is playing on next season?
Sonny Vaccaro already has a name for himself. He is a well known guy among the basetball elite. Is he trying to make a buck? I'm sure he is, but he already has a lot of connections and money.
wkrq59
10-02-2008, 04:20 PM
I hope this is a trend that will continue for no doubt NBA ready players in high school as the one year NBA ban is not good for college basketball.
LH, I agree whole-heartedly. The colleges have provided both the NBA and the NFL a free developmental program for too damned long. I still say a kid and/or his parents or guardian should have to sign a binding 4-year contract before a scholarship can be granted. This would mean more careful scouting and recruiting by the schools and it would put an end to the one-year-renewable scholarship.
It would also keep kids from saying schools 1 through 10 are high on my list but I think highly but not as strongly about schools 11 through 20. Translated, "I want to make as many unofficial visits as I can and as many official visits as I can and in the process have a helluva good time being recruited."
Such a contract would also force the potential student athlete to think carefully before he signs that document and force his parents and or guardians to do the same.
And I'm reasonably sure it would reduce cheating and flat force the NBA to forget about one-and-done. Also, it would force colleges to consider the ability of a student to earn a degree, first and foremost as our alma mater does.
For the student who does not qualify academically, there are still three roads: JC, NBA Dev. League or Europe.
But what about the "hardships?" Hey, if they were hardships after one, two or even three years, they damned right well were hardships before they ever set foot in a college or university.
Such a contract would also create a larger base of available players, and keep some of if not all the BCS schools from stockpiling. The kid who isn't mature enough as a freshman to make a selection based on the true purpose of a university isn't mature enough to play basketball as a freshman, either.:D
Hopefully the trend does continue and it forces the NBA to either move the ban to a 2 year ban or drop it all together. I am not a fan of one and done players and any method to keep them out of college for one ridiculous year is okay with me.
Muskie
10-02-2008, 04:21 PM
Yes but before this he wasn't personally hooking players up with teams (i'm not aware that he's a registered agent although I could be wrong).
Muskie
10-23-2008, 01:36 PM
Lute is out at Arizona, but i suspect it's too late for Jennings at this point.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.