Brian Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 28, 2014 -> 08:52 AM) Ideally it would be similar to MLB. Either come out right after high school, or you have to play in college for 3 years. Either way, college basketball will be fine. Even if the product gets watered down, you can't beat the excitement and drama of a 64 team single elimination tournament. This. I'm over the one and done arguement. Let them go pro out of high school. Prep kids are so good, they'd be better than most of the end of the bench guys. Only thing they would have to watch out for is character and handling the transition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 The reason for 1 year of college is that the NBA wants a free year of scouting. The kept giving millions to HS kids and it is much harder to tell how good they are when they are playing HS competition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 28, 2014 Author Share Posted December 28, 2014 The NBA has an absolute right to set any employment requirements that they want to set. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoomSlowik Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 I really don't think the one-and-done rule is that big a deal in the grand scheme of things. The rule really only affects a dozen or so guys every year. IMO, it's the middle ground for each side. The NBA definitely suffers with high school guys (only 4 guys were "ready" by my definition: Lebron, KG, Amare and Dwight. Perhaps Durant, Oden and/or Davis would have been), and it's not remotely fair to force someone like Jahlil Okafor to stay another year so he can dominate overmatched college bigs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Dec 28, 2014 -> 02:36 PM) I really don't think the one-and-done rule is that big a deal in the grand scheme of things. The rule really only affects a dozen or so guys every year. IMO, it's the middle ground for each side. The NBA definitely suffers with high school guys (only 4 guys were "ready" by my definition: Lebron, KG, Amare and Dwight. Perhaps Durant, Oden and/or Davis would have been), and it's not remotely fair to force someone like Jahlil Okafor to stay another year so he can dominate overmatched college bigs. You included Davis on that list, take a look at his rookie year. He was a decent player but he was no star. Look instead at how he's grown since then, I think you can even make a case that Davis having to stay in college for 2 years wouldn't have robbed the league of anything all that important. It was clear he could turn into a great player that year, but he also wasn't there at the time. I think that makes an important point about how big the physical difference is between these college sophomores and seniors when they're in the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoomSlowik Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 (edited) QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 28, 2014 -> 01:47 PM) You included Davis on that list, take a look at his rookie year. He was a decent player but he was no star. Look instead at how he's grown since then, I think you can even make a case that Davis having to stay in college for 2 years wouldn't have robbed the league of anything all that important. It was clear he could turn into a great player that year, but he also wasn't there at the time. I think that makes an important point about how big the physical difference is between these college sophomores and seniors when they're in the league. The problem is you have to make assumptions about what would have happened when he stayed in college. Maybe he gets hurt. Maybe he doesn't improve at the same rate because he's facing inferior talent, has limits on his practice time and can't spend as much time with his coaches. One thing we do know would happen is he enters the league a year later, meaning it will take him longer to get to his second contract and likely cost him a high-salary year down the road. We also don't know that the league "loses" his rookie season. Perhaps he still puts up similar production to his rookie year after a second year in college and we're deprived of a season of Anthony Davis awesomeness. There's an assumption that staying in college means they're automatically going to keep improving, improve their stock and be more "ready" for the NBA. There are numerous examples that it's not always the case, especially among lottery pick type guys (Cody Zeller, Jared Sullinger, Perry Jones III, Isaiah Austin and James Michael McAdoo are a few recent examples). There's a progression; you have to improve moving up from high school to college and college to the pros. Once you're dominating in college, moving up is the next logical step. I also feel like people think guys would be a finished product if they just stayed an extra year or two when that's not the case. No matter how good guys are when they come into the league, they still get better with more experience. This rule affects a very small portion of college players, and most of them are talented enough to handle the next challenge. Someone like Davis or Okafor doesn't really have anything to gain by spending another year in college. The only party that definitively wins in that scenario is the NCAA, who already gets to not pay a guy to make them a bunch of money. Edited December 28, 2014 by ZoomSlowik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted December 29, 2014 Share Posted December 29, 2014 lol bruce weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigruss Posted December 29, 2014 Share Posted December 29, 2014 QUOTE (Heads22 @ Dec 28, 2014 -> 07:15 PM) lol bruce weber whoaa, they did it again. And look at Texas Southern's Conf, SWAC: TEAM CONF GB OVR Alabama St 0-0 -- 3-5 Texas Southern 0-0 -- 3-9 Arkansas-Pine Bluff 0-0 -- 3-10 Southern 0-0 -- 3-10 Grambling St 0-0 -- 2-8 Prairie View 0-0 -- 2-10 Jackson St 0-0 -- 2-11 Alabama A&M 0-0 -- 1-8 Alcorn St 0-0 -- 1-10 Miss Valley St 0-0 -- 1-11 Yikes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Jimmy0 Posted December 29, 2014 Share Posted December 29, 2014 QUOTE (greg775 @ Dec 27, 2014 -> 09:32 PM) What do you think of the state of college basketball, specifically Kentucky with the 9 McDonald's All-Americans? What are the odds UK wins it all? I'd say probably 92 percent, the other 8 percent the field. Living in a pro town as many of you do (Chicago) do you think college basketball is a total joke now in this era of one and done? I'm starting to think college basketball is a very weak feeder system to the big, bad, all-everything NBA. For example, I can almost guarantee you Cliff Alexander and Kelly Oubre are one and done at Kansas, yet as freshmen they are contributing like freshmen have done throughout history, meaning, not very much. Wiggins last year also exhibited traits of a freshman and by no means was dominant. Even Durant won one NCAA tournament game at Texas before moving on after his freshman season. Do you think college basketball has become very passe (shouldn't we just crown Kentucky and get it over with?) or do you think the college game is outstanding basketball? My take is this one and done thing has not helped the college game much and that currently when you talk about basketball you are only talking about the NBA, whereas you talk football and college is equally entertaining to the NFL. I think that Pro Sports are better than college sports because pro players are better than college players. I like the superior product that the NBA provides. I also truly believe that kids shouldn't be playing sports for free for any longer than they have to. I watch Kentucky all of the time because they have players that will play in the NBA. That's just what I prefer though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 One and done has helped very few teams while hurting the overal product IMO. But what's the better rule? I don't know Here's the better rule: You offer a scholarship, that scholarship counts against your limit for 3 years, regardless of how long the player stays, unless he transfers. Prevents Kentucky from hoarding all the one and done's. They have to offer some scholarships to 3 and 4 year players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 I'd like to add, it's interesting to see this conversation happening again on the same day a top 10 pick was sent to the D-league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 These rankings are silly. I've watched ND play several times. They are nowhere near a #14 team. They are a 10-seed at best. RPI #91. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 Why does Iowa only learn to shoot against the Buckeyes. It's weird n Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 OSU should not be ranked. Not a good bball team right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 30, 2014 -> 12:42 PM) OSU should not be ranked. Not a good bball team right now. Yes if you reset the rankings every week based on the half they just played that's true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buehrle>Wood Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 (edited) They shouldn't be ranked because they haven't come close to beating anyone good. Can't justify a number next to their name Edited December 30, 2014 by Buehrle>Wood Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Dec 30, 2014 -> 01:06 PM) They shouldn't be ranked because they haven't come close to beating anyone good. Can't justify a number next to their name Then half the teams in the top 25 wouldn't be ranked. It's the first game of conference play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 30, 2014 -> 01:00 PM) Yes if you reset the rankings every week based on the half they just played that's true. When have they looked good? At any point this season? I get it's early and conference play just started, but OSU being ranked is based on history, nothing they've shown this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 This will also be their first bad loss as the two teams they've lost to are very good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 (edited) QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 30, 2014 -> 01:17 PM) When have they looked good? At any point this season? I get it's early and conference play just started, but OSU being ranked is based on history, nothing they've shown this year. When have they looked good? Every single game except one half vs Lou and one half vs UNC. They have the seventh best offense in the country and have been destroying teams. Edited December 30, 2014 by RockRaines Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 (edited) QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 30, 2014 -> 01:18 PM) When have they looked good? Every single game except one half vs Lou and one half vs UNC. They have the seventh best offense in the country and have been destroying teams. So the only two games against actual competition. edit: and i'll admit I didn't watch all of the Louisville game, but for the part I watched they looked totally overwhelmed. Edited December 30, 2014 by Jenksismybitch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 30, 2014 -> 01:20 PM) So the only two games against actual competition. edit: and i'll admit I didn't watch all of the Louisville game, but for the part I watched they looked totally overwhelmed. Which is better than about every other team in conference. And some of those cupcakes they beat will be tournament teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 30, 2014 -> 01:21 PM) Which is better than about every other team in conference. And some of those cupcakes they beat will be tournament teams. And the conference is crap outside of Wisconsin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 30, 2014 -> 01:24 PM) And the conference is crap outside of Wisconsin. Too early to say that but you'll get your wish after this horrible loss. OSU will end the season ranked though, too much talent not to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buehrle>Wood Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 30, 2014 -> 01:11 PM) Then half the teams in the top 25 wouldn't be ranked. It's the first game of conference play. Not true. Most top 25 teams have beaten someone with a pulse. I'm guessing OSU is close to worst in terms of good wins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.