One and Dones.......

[GACMAN]

I really don't want this to turn into a bash Kentucky thread but instead want to talk about this situation. I understand that the NBA has set the rule that you need to be out of HS for a year which in turn creates this situation but who is frickin in charge of the NCAA? I also understand that the whole idea of going to college is to create opportunities for yourself to earn a living...and these kids certainly do that by signing an NBA contract. BUT......I believe that the OAD situation is hurting college basketball. Some of the problems that I have:

-These kids are NOT student athletes. Everyone of them has left school already and probably never stepped foot in a classroom the 2nd semester. Does that not matter to the NCAA? What is crazy is that some of these fans of those schools have the audacity to say that these kids will come back and finish school...some of them may but the majority of them will not!

-The college game is turning into more of an NBA game every year...I HATE THAT! One of the reasons that I love the college game is because it is not the NBA...the iso game is not basketball in my opinion!

-I would love to see the NCAA take back charge of the situation and force kids to stay at least 3 years. I think there are just as many kids that fail by leaving early as succeed. The NCAA is doing these kids no favors by allowing them this out.

-If kids want to simply get to the NBA then there are plenty of opportunities overseas to go, play and immediately make money playing the game they love.

Just my opinion and I welcome any thoughts, feedback etc.

 

[TarHeelMark]

If they are good enough to go right out of high school, then I say let them be drafted but if they enroll in college, I would like to see the rule where they are required to stay 2-3 years (similar to football and baseball , iirc).

 

[Canadian Heel]

I would be fine with the old style, any time after HS.

 

[gary-7]

-These kids are NOT student athletes. Everyone of them has left school already and probably never stepped foot in a classroom the 2nd semester. Does that not matter to the NCAA? What is crazy is that some of these fans of those schools have the audacity to say that these kids will come back and finish school...some of them may but the majority of them will not!

-The college game is turning into more of an NBA game every year...I HATE THAT! One of the reasons that I love the college game is because it is not the NBA...the iso game is not basketball in my opinion!

I can't disagree with any of your post except to say that the NCAA is dependent on the NBA's Collective Bargaining Agreement for draft requirements.

The part I highlighted bothers me the most, as do these talking-head jackasses that are constantly pushing to make the college game more like the NBA. College basketball is (or maybe I should say, "was") the purest form of the game and should never emulate the league. Going to Quarters and resetting fouls like that lame-ass NIT experimental rule??? AYFKM? 24-Second clock? 30 is bad enough. F*** that.

For years dating back to the late 70s we've seen thuggery continually creep into the game via the old Big East, and wankers who brought it into the ACC --- first Terry Holland and then K. Now with the OADs we see dumbed-down offenses, "dribble-drive" nonsense and such. Hell, it takes most kids a season to get to the point where they can "feel" our Secondary Break as opposed to thinking about it.

Today there are too many coaches who want to take short-cuts in recruiting as well as setting up a system, and it's stinking up the game.

 

[GACMAN]

I can't disagree with any of your post except to say that the NCAA is dependent on the NBA's Collective Bargaining Agreement for draft requirements.

The part I highlighted bothers me the most, as do these talking-head jackasses that are constantly pushing to make the college game more like the . College basketball is (or maybe I should say, "was") the purest form of the game and should never emulate the league. Going to Quarters and resetting fouls like that lame-ass NIT experimental rule??? AYFKM? 24-Second clock? 30 is bad enough. F*** that.

For years dating back to the late 70s we've seen thuggery continually creep into the game via the old Big East, and wankers who brought it into the ACC --- first Terry Holland and then K. Now with the OADs we see dumbed-down offenses, "dribble-drive" nonsense and such. Hell, it takes most kids a season to get to the point where they can "feel" our Secondary Break as opposed to thinking about it.

Today there are too many coaches who want to take short-cuts in recruiting as well as setting up a system, and it's stinking up the game.

I agree with you.....it is just really frustrating to me because I consider myself a basketball purest...I love the intangibles, I love the stuff that happens off the ball, I love the little things that players do that never show up in the box score. In other words all of the stuff that the college game is leaving behind...and it sucks! I believe, and UNC proved it this year, that the college game would be soooooo much better with 3 and 4 year players on most teams. The NCAA is supposed to be in charge of college hoops yet they let the NBA dictate to them what and how they do it....screw the NBA Collective bargaining agreement......the NCAA should make THEIR rule and screw the NBA.

 

[gary-7]

I agree with you.....it is just really frustrating to me because I consider myself a basketball purest...I love the intangibles, I love the stuff that happens off the ball, I love the little things that players do that never show up in the box score. In other words all of the stuff that the college game is leaving behind...and it sucks! I believe, and UNC proved it this year, that the college game would be soooooo much better with 3 and 4 year players on most teams. The NCAA is supposed to be in charge of college hoops yet they let the NBA dictate to them what and how they do it....screw the NBA Collective bargaining agreement......the NCAA should make THEIR rule and screw the NBA.

Well, again the NCAA is sorta helpless vis-a-vis the draft situation, but they sure aren't as to the rules of the game, and I agree --- the less college ball looks like the NBA rule-wise, the better.

 

[soap - new and improved]

I can't disagree with any of your post except to say that the NCAA is dependent on the NBA's Collective Bargaining Agreement for draft requirements.

The part I highlighted bothers me the most, as do these talking-head jackasses that are constantly pushing to make the college game more like the . College basketball is (or maybe I should say, "was") the purest form of the game and should never emulate the league. Going to Quarters and resetting fouls like that lame-ass NIT experimental rule??? AYFKM? 24-Second clock? 30 is bad enough. F*** that.

For years dating back to the late 70s we've seen thuggery continually creep into the game via the old Big East, and wankers who brought it into the ACC --- first Terry Holland and then K. Now with the OADs we see dumbed-down offenses, "dribble-drive" nonsense and such. Hell, it takes most kids a season to get to the point where they can "feel" our Secondary Break as opposed to thinking about it.

Today there are too many coaches who want to take short-cuts in recruiting as well as setting up a system, and it's stinking up the game.

QFT.

NBA style rough play is what is ruining basketball, not refs calling fouls. Too many coaches teach the slap grab and shove style of "defense", and the only way to stop it is to foul their asses out over and over until coaches see it ain't gonna be allowed. Doubt it will happen. I have stopped watching anything but UNC basketball anymore, and even that gets tougher and tougher to watch every year because of the rules violations that are constantly allowed and even encouraged. It is turning the College game into crap far too much of the time.

Not a fan of one and dun either. If they can go into the military where they can get killed, at 18, the NBA can't be that much worse. Let 'em go at 18 or right outta HS, and if they go to college they commit for 2-3 years minimum. The rest can go NBADL or Europe for all I care.

 

[TarHeelMark]

If college basketball goes to a 24 second clock and four quarters, I'll be one foot out the door. The more it gets like the NBA, the less I will watch it.

 

[gauchoheel]

I have to ask for some more clarification.

1. Re: college becoming like the NBA. First of all, the NBA has very little has very little iso ball (see here: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nba-offenses-numbers-234100285--nba.html). Only about 8% of plays are isolation. It's getting used less and less every year because teams have realized it's less efficient than other types of offense. The NBA now emphasizes pick-and-roll and spot-up 3's more than ever before. Does college? Perhaps the 3-ball, but that's only because the 3 is currently being undervalued. See Dan D'Antoni's speech (here: http://www.sbnation.com/college-bas...ball-analytics-dan-dantoni-shut-down-reporter) for why teams should be taking more 3's, not less.

In what other way is it becoming more like the NBA, and is this detrimental? You can still play zone in college, although i see posters gripe about Cuse all the time. In the college game the offense flows much less smoothly and with less spacing, there's no doubt about that. But I really don't understand what the gripe is here?

2. Re: OAD's hurting the game. How did Markelle Fultz hurt the game this year? De'Aaron Fox? I just don't really see it. As we've noticed the last few years, teams don't require OAD's to win championships. And many of the top players, especially on the top teams, just aren't that interested in the classes anyway. Is it really that different if someone comes to UNC and majors in Exercise Science for 2.5 years before going pro? That person is essentially taking the easiest classes possible so they can stay eligible and focus on basketball.

The top players come for good coaching, facilities, and a great atmosphere to play and win championships. They aren't typically coming to be a BIology major. And I don't really see anything wrong with that. Justin Jackson would not get much benefit out of a biology degree, especially if it interfered with his basketball training and cost him a chance in the NBA.

As a fan I would like to see players on their teams for multiple years, but it doesn't mean not doing so "hurts the game". There are only 15 or so freshman nationwide that declare every year. That's out of 1000+ freshman recruits at the D-1 level. So if about 1% of freshman leave, it's pretty small potatoes in the scheme of things. Which brings me to my next question...

3. How would you make them stay? I see people all the time proposing to force players to stay 2-3 years. The problem is this isn't a communist country, there is no way for the NCAA to do that. The way it works in the NFL/MLB is those leagues have decided not to take players before they are 3+ years out of college. That choice is entirely up to them, the NCAA has no power. Even if the NCAA were to try such a rule, a Kevin Knox type player can say "Yes I'll play 3 years", and then woops he changed his mind after one year. The NCAA cannot force a player to play for them, he'd be gone.

The only way this will ever happen is if the NBA raises the age minimum to 20 or 21. That's it. The NCAA can do nothing. They could make freshman ineligible to put pressure on the NBA and try to make OADs go elsewhere, but I really doubt we'll see that. So what else can they do?

-----------------------

My ultimate belief: I am firmly a pro-players guy, who wants to see these otherworldly athletes succeed and set themselves and their families up for life. De'Aaron Fox is a once in a million talent who has about a dozen years or so to make ungodly amounts of money off of said talent. The route the big wigs have created for him is that he has to wait until he's 19 to make money off of his generational talent. Given that, he is doing what any rational human would do, setting himself up to be as ready as possible for as soon as he is 19 to capitalize and make money. There is nothing wrong with that, and I shake my head at anyone chastising him for it. If Jalek Felton has the opportunity he ought to do the exact same thing.

If we want to change it, there is only one way. Convince the NBA that they could make more money by doing it differently. That's it. In the meantime, don't blame the NCAA, and especially don't blame the players.

 

[superstar57]

NCAA has got to sale a product right? You would think controlling all of collegiate athletics would give you a large enough product, but just like the NBA they have resulted to only selling particular athletes. When the NCAA woke up one day and realized these kids, and the local AAU teams had already made some of these kids stars. Well less just say the NCAA missed Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, and Lebron James. There is no way they would allow themselves a chance to miss on a Carmelo Anthony ( Played one year, won a ring, and made NCAA millions).

NBA can do what ever they want, but let's be real if the NCAA and NBA are not cohorts why wouldn't the NBA advertise the D league as a place for HS players who wanted to go pro had to spend a mandatory year in D league.

I think the one and done rule is proving a point about good coaches and senior leadership. IT WINS YOU RINGS!

 

[soap - new and improved]

If college basketball goes to a 24 second clock and four quarters, I'll be one foot out the door. The more it gets like the NBA, the less I will watch it.

Both my feet are already out the door. Only my torso remains in the room.

 

[gary-7]

It h

I have to ask for some more clarification.

1. Re: college becoming like the NBA. First of all, the NBA has very little has very little iso ball (see here: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nba-offenses-numbers-234100285--nba.html). Only about 8% of plays are isolation. It's getting used less and less every year because teams have realized it's less efficient than other types of offense. The NBA now emphasizes pick-and-roll and spot-up 3's more than ever before. Does college? Perhaps the 3-ball, but that's only because the 3 is currently being undervalued. See Dan D'Antoni's speech (here: http://www.sbnation.com/college-bas...ball-analytics-dan-dantoni-shut-down-reporter) for why teams should be taking more 3's, not less.

In what other way is it becoming more like the NBA, and is this detrimental? You can still play zone in college, although i see posters gripe about Cuse all the time. In the college game the offense flows much less smoothly and with less spacing, there's no doubt about that. But I really don't understand what the gripe is here?

2. Re: OAD's hurting the game. How did Markelle Fultz hurt the game this year? De'Aaron Fox? I just don't really see it. As we've noticed the last few years, teams don't require OAD's to win championships. And many of the top players, especially on the top teams, just aren't that interested in the classes anyway. Is it really that different if someone comes to UNC and majors in Exercise Science for 2.5 years before going pro? That person is essentially taking the easiest classes possible so they can stay eligible and focus on basketball.

The top players come for good coaching, facilities, and a great atmosphere to play and win championships. They aren't typically coming to be a BIology major. And I don't really see anything wrong with that. Justin Jackson would not get much benefit out of a biology degree, especially if it interfered with his basketball training and cost him a chance in the NBA.

As a fan I would like to see players on their teams for multiple years, but it doesn't mean not doing so "hurts the game". There are only 15 or so freshman nationwide that declare every year. That's out of 1000+ freshman recruits at the D-1 level. So if about 1% of freshman leave, it's pretty small potatoes in the scheme of things. Which brings me to my next question...

3. How would you make them stay? I see people all the time proposing to force players to stay 2-3 years. The problem is this isn't a communist country, there is no way for the NCAA to do that. The way it works in the NFL/MLB is those leagues have decided not to take players before they are 3+ years out of college. That choice is entirely up to them, the NCAA has no power. Even if the NCAA were to try such a rule, a Kevin Knox type player can say "Yes I'll play 3 years", and then woops he changed his mind after one year. The NCAA cannot force a player to play for them, he'd be gone.

The only way this will ever happen is if the NBA raises the age minimum to 20 or 21. That's it. The NCAA can do nothing. They could make freshman ineligible to put pressure on the NBA and try to make OADs go elsewhere, but I really doubt we'll see that. So what else can they do?

-----------------------

My ultimate belief: I am firmly a pro-players guy, who wants to see these otherworldly athletes succeed and set themselves and their families up for life. De'Aaron Fox is a once in a million talent who has about a dozen years or so to make ungodly amounts of money off of said talent. The route the big wigs have created for him is that he has to wait until he's 19 to make money off of his generational talent. Given that, he is doing what any rational human would do, setting himself up to be as ready as possible for as soon as he is 19 to capitalize and make money. There is nothing wrong with that, and I shake my head at anyone chastising him for it. If Jalek Felton has the opportunity he ought to do the exact same thing.

If we want to change it, there is only one way. Convince the NBA that they could make more money by doing it differently. That's it. In the meantime, don't blame the NCAA, and especially don't blame the players.

OADs hurt the game because it's being dumbed down by the coaches who go after them and cater to them.

As for iso, etc, pck-and-roll is the latest fad but is also as old as the hills, and it's just another form of iso the way it's used in the NBA these days. The Stockton/Malone version isn't quite what we see today. No matter --- I believe OP's point is that 24 seconds limits your ability to run sound continuity offenses. And BTW, exactly who is complaining about Zones? I'm sure as hell not. They are and should be part of the game.

Bottom line is the NBA is as predictable as K dropping an F-Bomb. While it's encouraging to see guys like Pop coaching a more team-oriented system, the league unfortunately pins it's existence on star-power. Wake me up when the play-offs get to the semis.

 

[trestyles]

If they are good enough to go right out of high school, then I say let them be drafted but if they enroll in college, I would like to see the rule where they are required to stay 2-3 years (similar to football and baseball , iirc).

I don't. A player like Carmelo Anthony did not need to stay another year.

A player like Russell Wrestbrook did not need to stay after his second year.

I think it should go back the old way. I know a lot of coaches didn't like it, because they didn't know if a 5 star will show up to campus. However, a kid show to when he wants to go.

I don't think it's hurting the college game IMO.

 

[trestyles]

I have to ask for some more clarification.

1. Re: college becoming like the NBA. First of all, the NBA has very little has very little iso ball (see here: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nba-offenses-numbers-234100285--nba.html). Only about 8% of plays are isolation. It's getting used less and less every year because teams have realized it's less efficient than other types of offense. The NBA now emphasizes pick-and-roll and spot-up 3's more than ever before. Does college? Perhaps the 3-ball, but that's only because the 3 is currently being undervalued. See Dan D'Antoni's speech (here: http://www.sbnation.com/college-bas...ball-analytics-dan-dantoni-shut-down-reporter) for why teams should be taking more 3's, not less.

In what other way is it becoming more like the NBA, and is this detrimental? You can still play zone in college, although i see posters gripe about Cuse all the time. In the college game the offense flows much less smoothly and with less spacing, there's no doubt about that. But I really don't understand what the gripe is here?

2. Re: OAD's hurting the game. How did Markelle Fultz hurt the game this year? De'Aaron Fox? I just don't really see it. As we've noticed the last few years, teams don't require OAD's to win championships. And many of the top players, especially on the top teams, just aren't that interested in the classes anyway. Is it really that different if someone comes to UNC and majors in Exercise Science for 2.5 years before going pro? That person is essentially taking the easiest classes possible so they can stay eligible and focus on basketball.

The top players come for good coaching, facilities, and a great atmosphere to play and win championships. They aren't typically coming to be a BIology major. And I don't really see anything wrong with that. Justin Jackson would not get much benefit out of a biology degree, especially if it interfered with his basketball training and cost him a chance in the NBA.

As a fan I would like to see players on their teams for multiple years, but it doesn't mean not doing so "hurts the game". There are only 15 or so freshman nationwide that declare every year. That's out of 1000+ freshman recruits at the D-1 level. So if about 1% of freshman leave, it's pretty small potatoes in the scheme of things. Which brings me to my next question...

3. How would you make them stay? I see people all the time proposing to force players to stay 2-3 years. The problem is this isn't a communist country, there is no way for the NCAA to do that. The way it works in the NFL/MLB is those leagues have decided not to take players before they are 3+ years out of college. That choice is entirely up to them, the NCAA has no power. Even if the NCAA were to try such a rule, a Kevin Knox type player can say "Yes I'll play 3 years", and then woops he changed his mind after one year. The NCAA cannot force a player to play for them, he'd be gone.

The only way this will ever happen is if the NBA raises the age minimum to 20 or 21. That's it. The NCAA can do nothing. They could make freshman ineligible to put pressure on the NBA and try to make OADs go elsewhere, but I really doubt we'll see that. So what else can they do?

-----------------------

My ultimate belief: I am firmly a pro-players guy, who wants to see these otherworldly athletes succeed and set themselves and their families up for life. De'Aaron Fox is a once in a million talent who has about a dozen years or so to make ungodly amounts of money off of said talent. The route the big wigs have created for him is that he has to wait until he's 19 to make money off of his generational talent. Given that, he is doing what any rational human would do, setting himself up to be as ready as possible for as soon as he is 19 to capitalize and make money. There is nothing wrong with that, and I shake my head at anyone chastising him for it. If Jalek Felton has the opportunity he ought to do the exact same thing.

If we want to change it, there is only one way. Convince the NBA that they could make more money by doing it differently. That's it. In the meantime, don't blame the NCAA, and especially don't blame the players.

Thank you!!! Only people who don't watch the NBA say it's all ISO ball.

 

[gauchoheel]

OADs hurt the game because it's being dumbed down by the coaches who go after them and cater to them.

So the ~15 OADs split across 351 college teams hurt the game? I mean really, as a UNC fan, how many of our games this year even had a OAD in them? The Dook and Kentucky games, Florida State, NC State, and....? How was your viewing impacted at all as a viewer? The Final Four might not even have had a single OAD in it. It's really way overblown. I could watch my other team the Gauchos play an entire season in the Big West without ever seeing a single OAD player. Unless you are a Kentucky/Dook fan, OAD's are pretty peripheral to the college viewing experience right now.

As for iso, etc, pck-and-roll is the latest fad but is also as old as the hills, and it's just another form of iso the way it's used in the NBA these days. The Stockton/Malone version isn't quite what we see today. No matter --- I believe OP's point is that 24 seconds limits your ability to run sound continuity offenses. And BTW, exactly who is complaining about Zones? I'm sure as hell not. They are and should be part of the game.

Yeah, pick-and-roll has been around forever. It works. It's like asking football teams to move away from the forward pass. We're talking about one of the tenets of the game here, I don't even know how to respond to someone complaining about a strategy that is so successful. Iso ball is rare in the NBA.

The OP didn't even mention the shot clock, so I'm not so sure about your assertion. Regardless, college doesn't have a 24 second clock, and the move to 30 was largely considered a success. Scoring is up, and that's generally considered to make the game more entertaining.

In 2014-15, the last year of the 35 second clock, D-1 teams averaged 102.0 points per 100 possessions and 64.8 possessions per game. This year D-1 teams averaged 104.3 points per 100 possessions and 68.2 possessions per game. So teams are actually more efficient with the 30 second clock. Again, how is offense being hurt?

Of course, in the NBA with 6 fewer seconds and all of this crappy offense "iso ball" teams average an even better 108.2 points per 100 possessions. So maybe your eyes are deceiving you and shot clocks don't have the large negative impact on offense you think they do. The NBA plays an incredibly crisp brand of offense that no college team comes close to. Marcus Paige and Kendall Marshall can't even make the back end of an NBA roster right now. Consider that for a second.

Bottom line is the NBA is as predictable as K dropping an F-Bomb. While it's encouraging to see guys like Pop coaching a more team-oriented system, the league unfortunately pins it's existence on star-power. Wake me up when the play-offs get to the semis.

I guess I can't argue predictable. I enjoy the zones and wacky schemes in college. There's really not much evidence of the college game being ruined though, or the NBA having a negative influence. Here's another take on the increased efficiency of offense and viewability due to the lower shot clock (http://kenpom.com/blog/spiking-the-football-on-the-30second-shot-clock/).

 

[JimmyinVA]

If college basketball goes to a 24 second clock and four quarters, I'll be one foot out the door. The more it gets like the NBA, the less I will watch it.

this is my feeling 100%. and nothing symbolizes the nba's takeover of college basketball more than the OAD's. the thing i like best about college basketball is following the kids as they develop -- as players and as men. this championship carolina team is a GREAT example of that. OAD's = nada.

 

[trestyles]

Funny, I can see the college b-ball game going closer to 24 seconds in 5 years. NCAA keep tweaking the rules every year.

 

[DSouthr]

Totally believe that players should be able to enter the draft right out of high school or any time they feel is right for them. The combination of the one and done rule and the rookie salary cap the cost for a kid to stay is to great if he has the chance at a 1st round pick.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

The way it works in the NFL/MLB is those leagues have decided not to take players before they are 3+ years out of college. That choice is entirely up to them, the NCAA has no power. Even if the NCAA were to try such a rule, a Kevin Knox type player can say "Yes I'll play 3 years", and then woops he changed his mind after one year. The NCAA cannot force a player to play for them, he'd be gone.

The only way this will ever happen is if the NBA raises the age minimum to 20 or 21. That's it. The NCAA can do nothing. They could make freshman ineligible to put pressure on the NBA and try to make OADs go elsewhere, but I really doubt we'll see that. So what else can they do?

A little early for a novel, but it was a pretty good novel. I agree with most but would like to comment on the excerpted part.

It's my understanding (which could be wrong) that the only way these pro sports can impose long limits is because they have anti-trust exemptions.

Maybe we should make them follow the laws other businesses have to follow.

 

[Tom79]

I haven't seen Moses Malone or Darrell Dawkins recently but if a kid thinks he can go to the NBA straight out of HS go on then bro.
We discuss this every season (it seems), let the kids go league if they so desire, if they fail go home to Mom & Dad or overseas.
If you commit to a school how about sticking around to learn the game.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

There's really not much evidence of the college game being ruined though, or the NBA having a negative influence. Here's another take on the increased efficiency of offense and viewability due to the lower shot clock (http://kenpom.com/blog/spiking-the-football-on-the-30second-shot-clock/).

I liked this comment from that article, especially the last bit:

There will be fewer upsets.

It certainly didn’t seem like it was more difficult for an underdog to win. All we heard about this season was how often unranked teams were beating teams in the top ten and how often the AP #1 was losing. Though perhaps that was just the pollsters sucking more than usual. (Seriously, why don’t people ever offer this as a possibility?)

 

[Hark_The_Sound_2010]

The problem with the NBA is not really the style of play. The reason the NBA blows is because you absolutely know the outcome of the season before the first game is played. The Finals will be Warriors/Cavs. The Warriors will most likely win, but the Cavs have a reasonable shot to win. The Spurs are the only other team that has even a remote possibility, and they're a major longshot.

This is encapsulated by the Celtics. A couple days ago they were in the #1 seed spot in the East. And no one, I repeat no one, thinks they have a snowballs chance in France of even making the finals, let along winning them. And they were the #1 seed at the time! Sports radio around here was focusing more of their time on the Bruins (NHL) who will be the 7-8 seed in the playoffs, as they have a better chance to win the championship than the #1 seed Celtics. That's why the NBA sucks.

The Final Four might not even have had a single OAD in it.

Zach Collins (Gonzaga) will definitely be OAD.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I haven't seen Moses Malone or Darrell Dawkins recently but if a kid thinks he can go to the NBA straight out of HS go on then bro.
We discuss this every season (it seems), let the kids go league if they so desire, if they fail go home to Mom & Dad or overseas.
If you commit to a school how about sticking around to learn the game.

Alternatively, relax the rules to let kids keep some or all of their eligibility. Say, for example, you lose a year of eligibility for each year or part of a year you are on a pro team. Or lose 2 years. Or whatever.

Also, if kids declare for the draft out of HS and aren't drafted (and didn't hire an agent), let them go to school.

Yeah, I realize that last one could play havoc with recruiting but I'm sure the coaches would figure it out. Or the NCAA could raise the scholarship limit, or something.

 

[DSouthr]

What Im waiting to see is some reality sink in with these kids that maybe the clustering of one & dones to programs is not working for them like they thought. None of those one & done centric programs have been in the final 4 the last 2 seasons and most went home much earlier than expected.

Maybe if they really want a NCAA national title ring they may want to consider playing on a more experienced college team and learning from those more seasoned team mates.

 

[SeaHawk98]

I hate the rule. Let them go straight from High School. This OAD is not good for basketball. Either commit or don't . I like the baseball rule, if you come, stay for 3 years. These kids some education, its not all about basketball, its about life skills. I love it when I hear UK and DUke has so many players in the NBA. NO THEY DON"T. Calipari and K had nothing to do with them getting to the league or developing them. They just needed a place to go for a year. The NCAA should limit players you can take in a given time period. That would shut it down real quick. College needs COACHES not HANDLERS. Calipari and K are just that. These kids probably don't go to class, probably are receing improper benefits left and right because they are there only one year and don't care.

But hell, keep it up. Real coaches like Roy will win championships. the handlers will lose out.

 

[DSouthr]

The problem with the NBA is not really the style of play. The reason the NBA blows is because you absolutely know the outcome of the season before the first game is played. The Finals will be Warriors/Cavs. The Warriors will most likely win, but the Cavs have a reasonable shot to win. The Spurs are the only other team that has even a remote possibility, and they're a major longshot.

This is encapsulated by the Celtics. A couple days ago they were in the #1 seed spot in the East. And no one, I repeat no one, thinks they have a snowballs chance in France of even making the finals, let along winning them. And they were the #1 seed at the time! Sports radio around here was focusing more of their time on the Bruins (NHL) who will be the 7-8 seed in the playoffs, as they have a better chance to win the championship than the #1 seed Celtics. That's why the NBA sucks.



Zach Collins (Gonzaga) will definitely be OAD.

Good point and yet Collins was able to play with more seasoned team mates.

 

[FlaTarHeel]

What Im waiting to see is some reality sink in with these kids that maybe the clustering of one & dones to programs is not working for them like they thought.

Maybe if they really want a NCAA national title ring they may want to consider playing on a more experienced college team and learning from those more seasoned team mates.

That's the problem, being OAD is far more important.

Of course you will hear the courtesy lip-service of how so and so recruit and his 3 buddies are bringing the title to Univer of....(insert popular school).

Don't believe that bullcrap.

 

[trestyles]

What Im waiting to see is some reality sink in with these kids that maybe the clustering of one & dones to programs is not working for them like they thought. None of those one & done centric programs have been in the final 4 the last 2 seasons and most went home much earlier than expected.

Maybe if they really want a NCAA national title ring they may want to consider playing on a more experienced college team and learning from those more seasoned team mates.

Here's the thing. Dook is always going to point to Jones, Winslow, Okafor as an example. Kentucky will point to AD, MKG, and Teague as an example. Also Kentucky has more final fours with Oads then Dook. Kids and their Parents always fall for that kool-aid.

 

[gauchoheel]

The problem with the NBA is not really the style of play. The reason the NBA blows is because you absolutely know the outcome of the season before the first game is played. The Finals will be Warriors/Cavs. The Warriors will most likely win, but the Cavs have a reasonable shot to win. The Spurs are the only other team that has even a remote possibility, and they're a major longshot.

This is encapsulated by the Celtics. A couple days ago they were in the #1 seed spot in the East. And no one, I repeat no one, thinks they have a snowballs chance in France of even making the finals, let along winning them. And they were the #1 seed at the time! Sports radio around here was focusing more of their time on the Bruins (NHL) who will be the 7-8 seed in the playoffs, as they have a better chance to win the championship than the #1 seed Celtics. That's why the NBA sucks.

You know, I can actually get behind this somewhat, although I think of it more of a problem of the bloating of postseasons in American sports for the extra revenue. It wouldn't help parity but I'd like to see the postseason cut down to make the regular seasonmore meaningful. I don't see the point of going through 82 games if every halfway decent team makes it in.

Similarly I think expanding the tournament to 96 teams would significantly hurt college. If every P5 team makes it in, the whole season becomes pretty pointless from the standpoint of the tournament. Beyond that, I've always felt the conference tournaments give every team access anyway. I think expanding the tournament would hurt the game, and I think it's a real threat. It's not driven by the NBA though, just people looking to make money.

 

[JimmyinVA]

I hate the rule. Let them go straight from High School. This OAD is not good for basketball. Either commit or don't . I like the baseball rule, if you come, stay for 3 years. These kids some education, its not all about basketball, its about life skills. I love it when I hear UK and DUke has so many players in the NBA. NO THEY DON"T. Calipari and K had nothing to do with them getting to the league or developing them. They just needed a place to go for a year. The NCAA should limit players you can take in a given time period. That would shut it down real quick. College needs COACHES not HANDLERS. Calipari and K are just that. These kids probably don't go to class, probably are receing improper benefits left and right because they are there only one year and don't care.

But hell, keep it up. Real coaches like Roy will win championships. the handlers will lose out.

GREAT post, man!

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

You know, I can actually get behind this somewhat, although I think of it more of a problem of the bloating of postseasons in American sports for the extra revenue. It wouldn't help parity but I'd like to see the postseason cut down to make the regular seasonmore meaningful. I don't see the point of going through 82 games if every halfway decent team makes it in.

I feel about the ACC tournament sort of how you feel about the NBA payoffs. If the top 4 get 2 byes and the next 4 get 1 bye, that really devalues the regular season.

Why should 1 or more teams get 2 byes when they only won 2/3 of their conference games. (most years the 4th place team has been 12-6 in conference.) That's almost as bad as getting a trophy just for showing up. The higher seeding should be their reward, not 2 byes.

I suggest that the last place team shouldn't even get to play in the tournament. Then give the top 2 teams a 1-round bye. In other words, 12 teams play in the first round, then the 2 top teams join the 6 winners for an ACC Elite Eight.

This way the top several teams really have something to fight for, while the worst teams may have even more incentive to fight not to be left out.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Similarly I think expanding the tournament to 96 teams would significantly hurt college. If every P5 team makes it in, the whole season becomes pretty pointless from the standpoint of the tournament. Beyond that, I've always felt the conference tournaments give every team access anyway. I think expanding the tournament would hurt the game, and I think it's a real threat. It's not driven by the NBA though, just people looking to make money.

I'll have to disagree on this one. I realize I'm in a small minority.

I like the expansion to 96 mainly because more basketball is better. But partly because whether you start with 68 (4 games to start) or 96 (32 games to start), the next round is the round of 64. So this lets more teams play (and gives fans more games to watch) without fundamentally altering the tournament one round later. At most we may get a few more Cinderellas - which I would argue is a good thing.

We'd basically be moving from 1 in every 5 teams being in the tournament to 1 in every 4 being in. Meanwhile, the best 32 teams get a 1 round bye. Which makes sense, I think.

It also means we do away with the absurdity of teams that will be seeded 11 or 12 having to win a play-in game to be in the tournament. I mean if they are that good, they should already have a dance card.

 

[gary-7]

So the ~15 OADs split across 351 college teams hurt the game? I mean really, as a UNC fan, how many of our games this year even had a OAD in them?

Yeah, pick-and-roll has been around forever. It works. It's like asking football teams to move away from the forward pass. We're talking about one of the tenets of the game here, I don't even know how to respond to someone complaining about a strategy that is so successful. Iso ball is rare in the NBA.

The OP didn't even mention the shot clock, so I'm not so sure about your assertion. Regardless, college doesn't have a 24 second clock, and the move to 30 was largely considered a success. Scoring is up, and that's generally considered to make the game more entertaining.

In 2014-15, the last year of the 35 second clock, D-1 teams averaged 102.0 points per 100 possessions and 64.8 possessions per game. This year D-1 teams averaged 104.3 points per 100 possessions and 68.2 possessions per game. So teams are actually more efficient with the 30 second clock. Again, how is offense being hurt?

I guess I can't argue predictable. I enjoy the zones and wacky schemes in college. There's really not much evidence of the college game being ruined though, or the NBA having a negative influence. Here's another take on the increased efficiency of offense and viewability due to the lower shot clock (http://kenpom.com/blog/spiking-the-football-on-the-30second-shot-clock/).

Seems like the point got missed amid all the statistical masturbation that is kenpom. Pretty much everything in this response just talked past what I said. No big deal.
Here's what I'm saying:
As for OADs, relying on them should be fool's gold, and I'm glad we don't. I never want to see our system being dumbed down.

As for PnR, it is as an old reliable BUT it is often used differently these days in the NBA than in years past. In Houston it's a way of helping Harden play what amounts to one-on-one... in OKC it's a way of padding Westbrook's stats. So yes, frequently just another method of de facto iso.

As for the state of the game, numbers have little to do with it. It's a matter of how the game is played and the watchability, and per that, anything that makes it more NBA-like you can keep.

 

[gobblercalls]

Well, again the NCAA is sorta helpless vis-a-vis the draft situation, but they sure aren't as to the rules of the game, and I agree --- the less college ball looks like the NBA rule-wise, the better.

Just curious because I don't know the current rules. If the NCAA has a rule that there are zero academic exceptions to get athletes through admissions wouldn't quite a few of the OAD as well as many others be forced to go to the NBDL, overseas, etc. They won't do it because of revenue but would not that be a way they could limit the OAD. I only address the OAD because I don't see that an education is a very high priority for them to begin with. That could also do away with the fake high schools some of these kids supposedly attend and the myriad of problems they create.

 

[gary-7]

Just curious because I don't know the current rules. If the NCAA has a rule that there are zero academic exceptions to get athletes through admissions wouldn't quite a few of the OAD as well as many others be forced to go to the NBDL, overseas, etc. They won't do it because of revenue but would not that be a way they could limit the OAD. I only address the OAD because I don't see that an education is a very high priority for them to begin with. That could also do away with the fake high schools some of these kids supposedly attend and the myriad of problems they create.

You raise some interesting points.

 

[gauchoheel]

Seems like the point got missed amid all the statistical masturbation that is kenpom. Pretty much everything in this response just talked past what I said. No big deal.
Here's what I'm saying:
As for OADs, relying on them should be fool's gold, and I'm glad we don't. I never want to see our system being dumbed down.

As for PnR, it is as an old reliable BUT it is often used differently these days in the NBA than in years past. In Houston it's a way of helping Harden play what amounts to one-on-one... in OKC it's a way of padding Westbrook's stats. So yes, frequently just another method of de facto iso.

As for the state of the game, numbers have little to do with it. It's a matter of how the game is played and the watchability, and per that, anything that makes it more NBA-like you can keep.

No, I didn't talk past what you're saying.

1. You said OADs are hurting the game. I went at length to show how minuscule of a portion of the game they are. 90% of our games this year were not against teams that had a OAD. Most college teams never face a OAD all season. Do you have any counter to this?

2. You said college is being hurt by the NBA shot clock. I showed you that the reduced shot clock has not harmed college offenses, they've become even better. I also showed that NBA offenses are even more efficient than college, with less time. The point of offense in basketball is to score as many points per possession as you can. You've offered up zero as to how college offenses are being hurt by NBA offenses. Again, how are colleges being hurt by emulating NBA offenses? They've been getting more efficient recently. Do you have any actual evidence?

3. Numbers are inextricably linked to the game. If UNC could score 1.5 points per possession running the most boring offense of all time, they would do it, because they would also be the best offense ever. You're complaining about aesthetics that you personally don't care for like PnR and 3-pointers, but they objectively make offenses more efficient, so they are here to stay. It's no different than an old-timer whining about 3 yards and a cloud of dust being gone from football. We've moved past it, and college offenses are only going to further spread the floor and shoot 3's in the future. If that's your only complaint I suppose no one can change your mind on that, but the game has moved on. Sorry.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

Just curious because I don't know the current rules. If the NCAA has a rule that there are zero academic exceptions to get athletes through admissions wouldn't quite a few of the OAD as well as many others be forced to go to the NBDL, overseas, etc. They won't do it because of revenue but would not that be a way they could limit the OAD. I only address the OAD because I don't see that an education is a very high priority for them to begin with. That could also do away with the fake high schools some of these kids supposedly attend and the myriad of problems they create.

If they enforced such a rule, UNC wouldn't be able to field a team.

Well.... they could, but it would be a very terrible team.

 

[gauchoheel]

I'll have to disagree on this one. I realize I'm in a small minority.

I like the expansion to 96 mainly because more basketball is better. But partly because whether you start with 68 (4 games to start) or 96 (32 games to start), the next round is the round of 64. So this lets more teams play (and gives fans more games to watch) without fundamentally altering the tournament one round later. At most we may get a few more Cinderellas - which I would argue is a good thing.

We'd basically be moving from 1 in every 5 teams being in the tournament to 1 in every 4 being in. Meanwhile, the best 32 teams get a 1 round bye. Which makes sense, I think.

It also means we do away with the absurdity of teams that will be seeded 11 or 12 having to win a play-in game to be in the tournament. I mean if they are that good, they should already have a dance card.

So if we expand to 96 that means almost every power 5 team makes it into the tournament. You're okay with that? Seems to dramatically reduce the fun to me. Teams like Cuse and Clemson aren't even very good, you'd be happy to have them safely in the field? I'd much rather see about half of the power 5 fight it out for the tournament every year. That's fun!

I'm perfectly okay with the last 4 at-large teams having to play an extra game. This helps to reward regular season performance for the better teams, which I think always serves to make the regular season more meaningful and therefore more interesting.

Also, I think the 96 team tournament would actually produce fewer Cinderallas ironically, particularly if you give the top 32 teams a bye. That means often the top 16 teams (teams seeded #1-4) will be playing teams ranked from 75-96 rather than 42-64. They become even more likely to advance to the later rounds. You're also adding an extra game for all of the lower ranked teams to get through, meaning by the time you get to the Sweet 16 or so there will be even fewer of the less deserving teams left. It's harder to produce 3 straight upsets than 2.

 

[gary-7]

No, I didn't talk past what you're saying.

1. You said OADs are hurting the game. I went at length to show how minuscule of a portion of the game they are. Over 90% of our games this year were not against teams that had a OAD. Most college teams never face a OAD all season. Do you have any counter to this?

2. You said college is being hurt by the NBA shot clock. I showed you that the reduced shot clock has not harmed college offenses, they've become even better. I also showed that NBA offenses are even more efficient than college, with less time. The point of offense in basketball is to score as many points per possession as you can. You've offered up zero as to how college offenses are being hurt by NBA offenses. Again, how are colleges being hurt by emulating NBA offenses? They've been getting more efficient recently. Do you have any actual evidence?

3. Numbers are inextricably linked to the game. If UNC could score 1.5 points per possession running the most boring offense of all time, they would do it, because they would also be the best offense ever. You're complaining about aesthetics that you personally don't care for like PnR and 3-pointers, but they objectively make offenses more efficient, so they are here to stay. It's no different than an old-timer whining about 3 yards and a cloud of dust being gone from football. We've moved past it, and college offenses are only going to further spread the floor and shoot 3's in the future. If that's your only complaint I suppose no one can change your mind on that, but the game has moved on. Sorry.

Again. Completely talked past. None of those points proves or means a damned thing. And spare me the condescending "game has moved on" crap. I never said a single word about 3-pointers, BTW, and I never said I didn't "care for" PnR --- I used it like every other coach who ever taught the game. You're welcome to your opinion but you're not welcome to misrepresent mine. All the "evidence" I need is what I and many others see. I don't like a lot of that --- you do. That's fine. Done and done. Move along.

 

[gauchoheel]

Completely talked past. None of those points proves or means a damned thing.

Smh. If you want to present any sort of reasoning for your claims, by all means I'm sure people are interested. I'll continue to do so. I think talking about condescension from a guy who started his response to me with an eyeroll emoticon is pretty rich though.