Two year college rule.

[MigratingOsprey]

they should be fairly successful on the whole because the talent is huge on these guys - that's why they can get drafted in the first place

i really like the one year rule, but am not sure about two years - even guys like garnett who made the transition easily was only a 10 & 6 guy his first year out

and most of the success on the list also took a couple years to season - however, there have been freshman early entrants who have come in on fire as well and contributed and some of these HS guys have started to make an impact by year 2

so i think I like it for one year and not so much for 2 yrs

 

[MigratingOsprey]

Some may have benefitted. I don't think that either of us are debating that. However, some won't benefit, or some might even be stunted in their growth.

Besides, there are just as many good coaches in the NBA, as there are in the college game.

no one could be stunted - also the coaching is different at all levels - pro style coaching shouldn't be fundamental basics

also, they can go play professionally in any league they want - just not the NBA - for their one year suspense right now

also tennis is an individual sport, with no draft, with qualifiers and no guaranteed salary for playing the game - also players are usually done by the age of 30 - as opposed to basketball where 30 is your prime - terrible comparison

 

[dreamcastrocks]

no one could be stunted - also the coaching is different at all levels - pro style coaching shouldn't be fundamental basics

also, they can go play professionally in any league they want - just not the NBA - for their one year suspense right now

also tennis is an individual sport, with no draft, with qualifiers and no guaranteed salary for playing the game - also players are usually done by the age of 30 - as opposed to basketball where 30 is your prime - terrible comparison

Completely disagree. You don't think that a bad coach can teach bad techniques, bad habits, etc?

 

[Bufalay]

If Garnett had gone to two years of college then his career would be cut short by 2 years and he would miss out on making about 40 million dollars.

 

[MigratingOsprey]

these kids aren't going to east armpit state - if you have talent enough to get drafted you will be playing for a top level college coach - you will also learn how to lead a team

i know that rashard lewis killed me because he has no idea of what it takes to own a game - he's never had that experience and it's kept him from being a top level player, imo - maybe a couple years of college could of given him that - instead, he's spent his whole career deferring to others

 

[dreamcastrocks]

these kids aren't going to east armpit state - if you have talent enough to get drafted you will be playing for a top level college coach - you will also learn how to lead a team

i know that rashard lewis killed me because he has no idea of what it takes to own a game - he's never had that experience and it's kept him from being a top level player, imo - maybe a couple years of college could of given him that - instead, he's spent his whole career deferring to others

Not every player in the league was meant to be a leader, no matter the talent. See Shawn Marion.

 

[TucsonDevil]

I am willing to bet that a full analysis of the 1995 to 2005 drafts would prove that the HS players had a far higher success rate than college or international players.

That is bad chemistry. You can't make that comparison, since those that make the jump from HS to NBA are clearly the most talented kids in the country in that age bracket - OTHERWISE, they wouldn't be considering the jump. Translation, the HS sample pool is highly more talented than the 'college' sample pool.

A more accurate assessment of this rule as a good or idea, or poor idea, is to consider what has already been proposed on the board. Would the HS kids be better qualified to compete in the NBA with college experience? That can be debated without any solid evidence to support or discredit claims. My opinion? As a Suns fan, rookies don't see playing time anyway, and my team trades away draft picks like baseball trading cards of the 'steroid era' - therefore, I don't care.

As an NBA fan, the fewer spoiled, entitled stars you can have play is a benefit to the league - but I'm not convinced that College would help that situation. The problem is in Youth Basketball leagues, where an 8th grader is labeled the next 'player x'.

 

[cly2tw]

Let me ask you a question about your list Abomb...

Of those players, how many would have been better served getting coaching from an elite College Coach such as Jim Beiheim for 2 years, rather than spending their time on the bench.....

And the question has never been how many HS EVENTUALLY work out.. players like Kobe, Amare, Howard... they were going to be superstars anyway....

in their first two years But for players like JO (3.2 PPG in his first 4 years), Al Harrington ( 4 PPG in 11 MPG), Rashard Lewis (5.1 PPG in 13 MPG)... these players would have been better suited being a "star" in College and working on Fundmentals, AND THEN coming to the NBA, instead of being at the end of the bench for 3-4 years, and then starting to get minutes... All three of these guys are In your opinon a 1 or 2, but yet it took them a long while to figure it out... something that College would have all but elminated for them....

That's great point. Players like JO, Rashard even Kobe would have benefitted from 2 years solid college coaching and may have become a star in NBA even sooner, in the mode of Melo. (They might have gotten picked earlier, with much better skills, to star for "bad" teams right away.)

Another advantage is indeed that the college game becomes even more interesting and competitive for the young stars to prove themselves in. As a result, the total level of player quality in the NBA shall increase a little.

The only drawback might be that we occasionally get to see real stars like LBJ, Amare or Melo and Wade one or two years later than before. And that these guys get to their max contracts a little later in their age.

 

[jandaman]

People rooting against it...

why?

2 year of maturing under college game, which is going to undergo some changes also, more global-style regulations.... what is wrong with players developing more, while getting education?

Its one of Stern's better ideas actually.

Let these "young" immature players, develop with people the same age as them, as well as the same conditioning as them, while being mentored by college coaches. They also get to learn more at school... its a better experience. then when they enter the league, they are much more of a contributor.

Talented players will always be talented... spending an extra year will not make them worse... in fact, its better for the long run.... (education, as they actually put more thoughts into their courses as they will spend 2 years on it, making them decide better)


Some bringing up, KG, Kobe, Amare etc.... they didnt really contributed much when they entered the league. They hit their strides when they turned 20~21.... LeBron is an exception... he's built like a 30 year old athlete.... Durant, he would of been a much better player if he stayed another year... and thats scary.. he is good now.

 

[Andrew]

Wade still would have came in the league and shocked everyone if he stayed in college his senior year. That dude is TALENTED.

 

[jandaman]

That is bad chemistry. You can't make that comparison, since those that make the jump from HS to NBA are clearly the most talented kids in the country in that age bracket - OTHERWISE, they wouldn't be considering the jump. Translation, the HS sample pool is highly more talented than the 'college' sample pool.

A more accurate assessment of this rule as a good or idea, or poor idea, is to consider what has already been proposed on the board. Would the HS kids be better qualified to compete in the NBA with college experience? That can be debated without any solid evidence to support or discredit claims. My opinion? As a Suns fan, rookies don't see playing time anyway, and my team trades away draft picks like baseball trading cards of the 'steroid era' - therefore, I don't care.

As an NBA fan, the fewer spoiled, entitled stars you can have play is a benefit to the league - but I'm not convinced that College would help that situation. The problem is in Youth Basketball leagues, where an 8th grader is labeled the next 'player x'.

i agree with this too, high school students, are usually prodigies... thats why teams overlook the college level to dwell into the hs pool, which is much smaller lists, as the guys are usually very very gifted athletically, have a huge hype based on their play and potential etc...

so different "rules" apply to the college pool and hs pool..

college players will tend to have a much deeper understanding of "team" and coaching methods too... again, the benefits far outweighs the negatives..

and it'll do the college competition so much good.... definitely benefit every basketball fan.

 

[AsUdUdE]

I am willing to bet that a full analysis of the 1995 to 2005 drafts would prove that the HS players had a far higher success rate than college or international players.

I'll take that bet...

Here is the list I came up with.. I only included players that have been selected to All-Star games, or players that have played up to that level on a consistant basis.. so players like Corey Maggette, Mike Miller, and Kyle Korver we left off the list... As were players like Martell Webster, and Deshawn Stevenson...

College Players
Rasheed Wallace
AI
Peja
Nash
Stephon Marbury (Debateable)
Tim Duncan
Chancy Billups
Dirk
Vince Carter
Antwan Jamison
Paul Pierce
Elton Brand
Lamar Odom
Baron Davis
Rip Hamilton
Jason Terry
Shawn Marion
Ron Artest
AK47
Richard Jefferson
Tony Parker
Gilbert Arenas
Manu Ginobili
Pau Gasol
Joe Johnson
Yao
Carlos Boozer
Tayshawn Prince
Carmelo Anthony
Chris Bosh
Dwayne Wade
Josh Howard
Luol Deng
Andre Igudala
Chris Paul
Deron Williams

HS Players
Kobe
KG
JO
TMAc
Rashard Lewis
Tyson Chandler
LeBron James
Amare
Dwight Howard
Josh Smith
Monta Ellis
Andrew Bynum
Al Jefferson



Pecntage wise.. maybe, but overall, I don't think one can make a comparrison as far as overall talent between the two....Yeah... as far as impact All-Star Caliber players... pretty sure College and Over-seas trumps Straight to the League HS players....

 

[dreamcastrocks]

I'll take that bet...

SIZE][/FONT]

You're missing the point. Take your star players drafted in college, then divide by EVERY player drafted that went to college. Do the same with High School players. We are wagering that high school players "produce" better players than College. The % of high school players that work out, will be higher than college.

Before someone jumps on the word "produce" I put them in quotes so that it would be taken lightly.

 

[Russ Smith]

I did this the other day and Donald and I talked about it over beers this weekend.

I tried to rank the players as a 1, 2 or 3. There are a few Incompletes. The busts are noted.

Yeah the busts are kids who probably would have busted anyways let's face it Korleone Young and some of those guys would never have survived 2 years of college unless the college classes were rigged and why force them to go to college if you won't actually make them go to class?

Kevin Love did an interview at the Final 4 where he said his favorite current class was "Sports and Masculinity." It took ESPN several hours and multiple calls to confirm it was a real class even UCLA's AD had thought Love was kidding around with them. Love made the honor roll but who has any idea what classes he took?

Mayo famously told people he nearly made the honor roll at SC, his favorite classes were African American studies, finance and journalism. The finance class turned out to be a class teaching athletes how to handle the money they earn as pros, most USC athletes take it, not a real finance class it's actually considered business at USC. The journalism class turned out to be a weekly "seminar" where they teach athletes at USC how to deal with the press, how to answer questions, and hopefully not to accept free tickets from
NBA players.

If the players educations are going to be shams why have the rule?

 

[AsUdUdE]

You're missing the point. Take your star players drafted in college, then divide by EVERY player drafted that went to college. Do the same with High School players. We are wagering that high school players "produce" better players than College. The % of high school players that work out, will be higher than college.

Before someone jumps on the word "produce" I put them in quotes so that it would be taken lightly.

Ok I'll give you percentage wise....

But that is just not a fair statement, because KOBE, and KG, would have been there regardless....

The HS has about 12-13 out of 37, while College has 34-36 out of 150 if you only inlcude the topp 20 picks where the majority were picked... a difference of about 24% to 32%....

But the amount of players who majorly benefitted from college is extrordinarlly high...

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Ok I'll give you percentage wise....

But that is just not a fair statement, because KOBE, and KG, would have been there regardless....

The HS has about 12-13 out of 37, while College has 34-36 out of 150 if you only inlcude the topp 20 picks where the majority were picked... a difference of about 24% to 32%....

But the amount of players who majorly benefitted from college is extrordinarlly high...

How is it not a fair statement? You are saying that they should have this rule. We aren't. You need to include all of those players, even those in the 2nd round. They have college mentorship. They should be better players than HS players.

 

[elindholm]

You need to include all of those players, even those in the 2nd round. They have college mentorship. They should be better players than HS players.

That makes no sense at all. The only reason a marginal prospect gets drafted in the second round at all is because of his college career. Top HS prospects almost always go early in the draft, because everyone can see their talent. 95% of second-round guys aren't going to be pros anyway; it's only because of their college training that they even get a chance.

 

[PDXChris]

Let me ask this question. From that list, how many HS players made impacts thier first year? Then look at the the players that got at least 2 years of college and how many of those made impacts their first year? That will give you a better idea if this is a good idea or not. I am not saying one is better than the other because I do not know the answer to my question.

From Sterns point of view, a bad team takes on a project and they do not get better the next year because of it. Take the Bulls who traded Elton Brand for Tyson Chandler and then drafted Eddy Curry. That set them back and look at Chandler now. Would college have helped him get there faster? I am not sure it would of, but I think that is what Stern is thinking.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

That makes no sense at all. The only reason a marginal prospect gets drafted in the second round at all is because of his college career. Top HS prospects almost always go early in the draft, because everyone can see their talent. 95% of second-round guys aren't going to be pros anyway; it's only because of their college training that they even get a chance.

It makes sense. According to the pro side argument, all of these players drafted near the lottery shouldn't be drafted there anyway, because they could use college as a way to get better.

Again, if they are good enough to not need college, whats the point of forcing them to go?

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Let me ask this question. From that list, how many HS players made impacts thier first year? Then look at the the players that got at least 2 years of college and how many of those made impacts their first year? That will give you a better idea if this is a good idea or not. I am not saying one is better than the other because I do not know the answer to my question.

How many college players do the same thing?

We shouldn't only look at the stars, or only looking at the lottery, or first round.

Again, I'm not arguing that some players, most players, wouldn't benefit. Forcing the ones that don't need it, to have it is a bad idea.

 

[Chaplin]

You need to look at these high school players 2 years into their NBA careers. Kobe Bryant wasn't the best scorer on the planet after his 2nd year. In fact, nobody outside of Lebron came in and made an impact IMMEDIATELY after getting drafted.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

You need to look at these high school players 2 years into their NBA careers. Kobe Bryant wasn't the best scorer on the planet after his 2nd year. In fact, nobody outside of Lebron came in and made an impact IMMEDIATELY after getting drafted.

How many players have had 2 years of college and struggled? It works both ways.

 

[PDXChris]

. Forcing the ones that don't need it, to have it is a bad idea.

It is hard to tell the ones who are ready to wait, but when it comes down to it, if there are no rules then the DeSagana Diop of the world get paid to sit the bench and never amount to anything while the Cavs invest a ton of money into him and never get better from it. Of course you can then say they did get better because of it, since if not for that wasted pick they never get Lebron since they would not have been so bad.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

It is hard to tell the ones who are ready to wait, but when it comes down to it, if there are no rules then the DeSagana Diop of the world get paid to sit the bench and never amount to anything while the Cavs invest a ton of money into him and never get better from it. Of course you can then say they did get better because of it, since if not for that wasted pick they never get Lebron since they would not have been so bad.

Its ok. Again, some players were never drafted to become the Kobe's or the Duncan's. Diop is a career backup player. I don't think that a year or two of college would have changed that.

 

[PDXChris]

How many players have had 2 years of college and struggled? It works both ways.

You are 100% right, that is why I am not sure if this is a good idea or not, but at least instead of a NBA team spending millions to develop them, a college is all while giving them a education and helping them mature in other ways.