Drummond, Rudy Gay, etc.. should have stayed in college

[freescooter]

I hated Steve Kerr when he played, but I agree with just about everything he says in this piece. From the NBA perspective, I'd favor raising the age to 21 or 22. From the NCAA perspective, I'd favor making basketball scholarships unusable until the original recipient's class has graduated except in certian limited situations. Better for th eplayers. Better for the college game. And better for the pro game. And as Kerr says, and I've said right along, if you don't or can't go to college, play in th e d-league or overseas.

 

[msgordon]

all youre doing is using a ridiculous amount of hindsight and using results to shape your arguments. darryl dawkins and shawn kemp were physical freaks who were NBA ready and had productive careers, but youre holding them to a higher standard because they came out of high school. you argue that only lebron dwight kobe KG were NBA ready out of high school...wow dude, certainly tough to say that now after theyre already multiple time first teamers. if gerald green were dunking on fools and dropping 25 a game right now youd probably be throwing him on that list. "some clown named jonathan bender"...as if you had any way to differentiate between Bender and KG before you had a chance to evaluate their NBA careers

 

[freescooter]

If going to college is essential for elite athletic development why have ZERO of the best soccer players in the world gone to college? Training in a full time professional setting is a much better way to become a star athlete than having to go to school. The problem is that too often there is not a lot of teaching being done in the professional setting these day, because there is a lack of incentive to do so. In Europe, if you make a player a star you can sell his rights for millions of dollars, the same incentives do not exist here.

Most of those guys start out in what is effectively the minor leagues, not unlike what happens in baseball in this country or for the most part, hockey in Canada. They learn the game as they move up through the system. And since colleges don't sponsor teams as they do here, it is sort of a silly argument isn't it? there isn't a big Universidad de Salamanca-Universidad de Madrid game every year, and there isn't an NCAA tournament of Italy...If the NBA were willing to serioulsy invest in a developmental league, that approach could probably replace the current one. But as Kerr points out, why should they when the colleges are willing to do it for them.

 

[progrocks]

From a cost stand point this works great for the NBA, the college subsidize their training costs and the colleges get to use free labor and make money from their end. WIN/WIN!!! (Lose for the players, but student athletes dont matter to anyone)

 

[Dogdeacon]

all youre doing is using a ridiculous amount of hindsight and using results to shape your arguments. darryl dawkins and shawn kemp were physical freaks who were NBA ready and had productive careers, but youre holding them to a higher standard because they came out of high school. you argue that only lebron dwight kobe KG were NBA ready out of high school...wow dude, certainly tough to say that now after theyre already multiple time first teamers. if gerald green were dunking on fools and dropping 25 a game right now youd probably be throwing him on that list. "some clown named jonathan bender"...as if you had any way to differentiate between Bender and KG before you had a chance to evaluate their NBA careers

Its a gamble, namely the draft is a gamble. The point is the likelihood of bust is higher with high school kids vs college because the sample size is greater for college and the maturity etc.... READ THE FREAKIN ARTICLE. Every pro sports draft is a crapshoot and inexact science for a multitude of reasons not the least of which is we are dealing with humans. I think you have an increased likelihood that a player is what you project him to be after 2-3 years of college, but its impossible to quantify. For example how would you compare JJ Hickson to JaVale McGee (drafted back-to-back in teens recently)? I don't know but I do strongly believe that both are underachieving possible knuckleheads (definite McGee) who would be better NBA players had they stayed in school longer. Point is there are misses and hits on each side but the probability of knowing what you are going to get goes up the bigger the sample size.

Look at baseball. Why do teams keep players in the minor leagues until they are absolutely ready to succeed at MLB level? Its absolute part of the fabric of that sport that you don't want to bring a guy up to soon. Teams assidously avoid rushing players into the show. Yet every overzealous basketball fan wants to project a glimpse of talent into an NBA lottery pick.

I'm sorry that instead of being shouted down by the outspoken throng that I agree with a guy that played in college, won multiple titles in the NBA, was a successful NBA GM and now works in professional basketball. Incidentally David Stern also agrees and wants to up the minimum to 2 years of college or 20yrs.

 

[HeGotGame]

Should the age minimum be raised? Yes

Has it adversely affected a lot of kids? Yes

Has it adversely affected the college and pro game? Yes

Would every player who has left early be a better player and more or a winner if they stayed 4 years in college as you have stated? Absolutely not.

 

[msgordon]

Its a gamble, namely the draft is a gamble. The point is the likelihood of bust is higher with high school kids vs college because the sample size is greater for college and the maturity etc....

there have been 42 guys drafted out of HS.

garnett
lebron
kobe
TMac
jermaine oneal
dwight
rashard
al harrington
dawkins
chandler
amare
perkins
al jefferson
bynum
josh smith
jr smith
lou williams
monta
dorrell wright

thats 19 nba quality starters right there, many of them WELL above average, and then there are rotation guys like deshawn stevenson, travis outlaw, cj miles, martell webster, amir johnson. theres another 10 or so guys who didnt attend d1 but went undrafted including connie hawkins, moses, kemp, brandon jennings, stephen jackson..looks like a lot less of a gamble than your avg NBA draft to me

 

[Reno]

all youre doing is using a ridiculous amount of hindsight and using results to shape your arguments. darryl dawkins and shawn kemp were physical freaks who were NBA ready and had productive careers, but youre holding them to a higher standard because they came out of high school. you argue that only lebron dwight kobe KG were NBA ready out of high school...wow dude, certainly tough to say that now after theyre already multiple time first teamers. if gerald green were dunking on fools and dropping 25 a game right now youd probably be throwing him on that list. "some clown named jonathan bender"...as if you had any way to differentiate between Bender and KG before you had a chance to evaluate their NBA careers

Hey man, I'm sure Jonathan Bender wouldn't had knee problems and would have been a winner if he spent a few years in college.

 

[Reno]

I'm sorry that instead of being shouted down by the outspoken throng that I agree with a guy that played in college, won multiple titles in the NBA, was a successful NBA GM and now works in professional basketball. Incidentally David Stern also agrees and wants to up the minimum to 2 years of college or 20yrs.

You agree with two guys who are interested in protecting NBA management from themselves. Congrats!

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

http://deadspin.com/5908998/before-...-he-should-try-some-academic-research-himself

 

[Kitaman]

Wow isn't it just a matter that some kids are simply NBA ready. Not necessarily in statistics or experience but in size and talent. Outside of the NBA employers hire people based on their potential skills/talent and not experience.

No one has talked about college coaches and their offensive styles delaying or screwing up a players development. Going to the wrong college could be worse than going straight to the pros. Similarly the same if playing for the wrong teammates (ball hoggers) or teammates that are incompatible (can't get you the ball). That may be one of Andre and Jeremy's reasons and some others I suspect. Even though the college life is desirable if your future vocation is threatened in any way then a decision has to be made. Some stick it out in college, others bolt.

Lastly some players college/high school kids have a NBA style game more suitable for the pros than college. Sure money is in the equation but for some its a not too difficult decision. As for Rudy he could of felt that there may not have been much left behind after so many teammates went to the NBA. That alone is not a bad decision if it meant the remaining players were not going to further help his game as opposed to his new and better skilled teammates.

 

[Rico444]

I guess Anthony Davis needs to dominate the college game for a few more years before this guy will be happy.

 

[AJC88]

The reason people go to college is to prepare themselves to make more money is it not? I'd say guys signing multi-million dollar contracts is a successful college career, getting a degree or not. If a kid is ready physically to go to the league without college, why stop him?
I'm a fan of high school to pro, simply because not everyone is meant to go to college. NBA execs want more time in college not because they want well rounded players coming into the league, but because they want more time to evaluate players so they don't make a Kwame Brown type pick. (BTW, Kwame Brown is considered one of the biggest busts ever and the guy still makes like 7 mill if I remember correctly.)

 

[Dogdeacon]

The reason people go to college is to prepare themselves to make more money is it not? I'd say guys signing multi-million dollar contracts is a successful college career, getting a degree or not. If a kid is ready physically to go to the league without college, why stop him?
I'm a fan of high school to pro, simply because not everyone is meant to go to college. NBA execs want more time in college not because they want well rounded players coming into the league, but because they want more time to evaluate players so they don't make a Kwame Brown type pick. (BTW, Kwame Brown is considered one of the biggest busts ever and the guy still makes like 7 mill if I remember correctly.)

Why do fans/care about the money and think want it to be all about the money? You think Kwame Brown enjoyed his first 3 years in the NBA more than Hasheem Thabeet enjoyed his years at UConn. We don't know if Kwame Brown would have been a better pro if he'd gone to college, but he could hardly be worse. Thabeet wouldn't have been drafted nearly as high so although his time in college didn't help the NBA much, it certainly helped him from all standpoints, development, money and fulfillment. Again draft is guessing game so fine with sometimes 3-4 year players don't work out (Thabeet, Adam Morrison, Danny Ferry etc.., still there are way less of these and they occur less frequently than high school busts).

Money is not everything and particularly if important steps are skipped or short-cutted it can be a detriment to development. Look at the example of the Kwame Brown draft. Top 4 picks were Brown, Curry, Chandler and Gasol. Gasol had many prep type years playing pro in Espana and the other 3 underachieved. Even though Chandler has found his niche he is not the next KG as he was hyped to be coming out of high school. Re: Money - Ask Kemba Walker which basketball season he enjoyed more, the one where he was paid or the one where he won.

Each player and every draft pick is an individual evaluation and choice, so why its seems pretty clear that Anthony Davis* & Kidd-Gilchrist are NBA ready (I think so), its a decent bet that plenty of either the Kentucky guys or other 1 and doners underachieve initially in the NBA (Drummond) and possibly for their careers.

*Dear Renocaurus, its not an acceptable argument to project me saying something I've never said and then refute it to prove a point. I said nothing about Davis until this thread and have repeatedly said that the 2yr 20old policy works on a global basis but there will always be individual exceptions - its simply that BOTH games improve college (inarguably) and NBA (debateable) if players are kept out until they are 20. However, I will say Drummond isn't ready and Davis is. Care to wager that Davis will multiply Drummond's rookie year points and rebounding by more than he did in their frosh years in college?

 

[AJC88]

Why do fans/care about the money and think want it to be all about the money? You think Kwame Brown enjoyed his first 3 years in the NBA more than Hasheem Thabeet enjoyed his years at UConn. Money is not everything and particularly if important steps are skipped or short-cutted it can be a detriment to development. Look at the example of the Kwame Brown draft. Top 4 picks were Brown, Curry, Chandler and Gasol. Gasol had many prep type years playing pro in Espana and the other 3 underachieved. Even though Chandler has found his niche he is not the next KG as he was hyped to be coming out of high school. Re: Money - Ask Kemba Walker which basketball season he enjoyed more, the one where he was paid or the one where he won.

I never said which one they enjoy more. I think you can poll most NBA players and they'll say they had more fun in college than in the pros. The NBA is a job. My post was to make the point that if a guy wants to go make millions and thinks he's ready, then why stop him?
At the same time, if you don't think that players care about money and making it to the league, you're crazy. Most players view college as a stage to set them up to make it pro. Very few players on the UConn men's team, at least while I spent my time in Storrs, gave a crap about class (I'm using the fact that they never showed up as evidence).
Again, it goes back to my argument that college isn't for everyone, which is why I am in favor of HS to pro model. Why make college a joke? If you want to go to college to further your education, become a more well rounded person, improve your game, etc. then go. If you want to, and are able to, go from high school to the pros, then by all means, do it, and enjoy your pay day.

 

[Dogdeacon]

I never said which one they enjoy more. I think you can poll most NBA players and they'll say they had more fun in college than in the pros. The NBA is a job. My post was to make the point that if a guy wants to go make millions and thinks he's ready, then why stop him?
At the same time, if you don't think that players care about money and making it to the league, you're crazy. Most players view college as a stage to set them up to make it pro. Very few players on the UConn men's team, at least while I spent my time in Storrs, gave a crap about class (I'm using the fact that they never showed up as evidence).
Again, it goes back to my argument that college isn't for everyone, which is why I am in favor of HS to pro model. Why make college a joke? If you want to go to college to further your education, become a more well rounded person, improve your game, etc. then go. If you want to, and are able to, go from high school to the pros, then by all means, do it, and enjoy your pay day.

To a lesser extent, you did the same thing that Reno did. Where did I say that players do not care about money or making the NBA?! Part of what made Kemba's final year so great is he knew that he was earning himself a gold-plated NBA future even though he was being paid $0 at the time. In my previous post I purposefully chose the word 'paid' versus 'earning' because in reality guys like Kemba and Anthony Davis are in fact earning themselves millions via college basketball and the exposure it provides. Of course ALL major college basketball players want ot make the NBA, every kid on a little league field wants to play MLB. And who on earth doesn't want to earn millions ASAP?! Nonetheless against their wishes I think its better in the long-term for the league and MOST of them to stay in school for 2-3 years. Right now far and away college basketball is the best minor league system for the NBA with Europe a distant 2nd and the NBDL an even more distant 3rd. The only reason players might want 2-3 years in college is it would keep NBA vets around longer and it improves the overall quality of the NBA. But I'm certain the players union and most individuals would be against raising the age limit.

College is a 'joke' or at least a massive hyporcrisy regarding big-time sports, but that's a different conversation. I believe major college athletes should get paid, particularly the top guys, but coming up with a technique to do that while operating within the pretense of college and amateurism is too slippery a slope. Actually to tie it in, it would be interesting to project if requiring 2-3 years of college would hasten the ultimate demise of college basketball (helps in short-term, but athletes rebel as a LeBron James in college for 3yrs seems impossible, even though that is what Lew Alcindor was). But with football having no minor league that sport might be the entrenched enough at universities to keep college basketball intact.

 

[AJC88]

To a lesser extent, you did the same thing that Reno did. Where did I say that players do not care about money or making the NBA?! Part of what made Kemba's final year so great is he knew that he was earning himself a gold-plated NBA future even though he was being paid $0 at the time. In my previous post I purposefully chose the word 'paid' versus 'earning' because in reality guys like Kemba and Anthony Davis are in fact earning themselves millions via college basketball and the exposure it provides. Of course ALL major college basketball players want ot make the NBA, every kid on a little league field wants to play MLB. And who on earth doesn't want to earn millions ASAP?! Nonetheless against their wishes I think its better in the long-term for the league and MOST of them to stay in school for 2-3 years. Right now far and away college basketball is the best minor league system for the NBA with Europe a distant 2nd and the NBDL an even more distant 3rd. The only reason players might want 2-3 years in college is it would keep NBA vets around longer and it improves the overall quality of the NBA. But I'm certain the players union and most individuals would be against raising the age limit.

College is a 'joke' or at least a massive hyporcrisy regarding big-time sports, but that's a different conversation. I believe major college athletes should get paid, particularly the top guys, but coming up with a technique to do that while operating within the pretense of college and amateurism is too slippery a slope. Actually to tie it in, it would be interesting to project if requiring 2-3 years of college would hasten the ultimate demise of college basketball (helps in short-term, but athletes rebel as a LeBron James in college for 3yrs seems impossible, even though that is what Lew Alcindor was). But with football having no minor league that sport might be the entrenched enough at universities to keep college basketball intact.

I thought your initial response to my post was suggesting that players aren't concerned about money. I don't think anyone should be forced to go to college, regardless of whether or not it will help them, to pursue a career. I guess we just don't see eye to eye on this.

And to make it clear, I think that most players would benefit from waiting and maturing their game, but college shouldn't be the only route. College shouldn't be a minor league system, but in many ways that's what it's become. Someone said it before, why would the NBA spend money to make a minor league system when college already pretty much does that for them.

 

[Reno]

This guy is delusional. No sense in arguing with a person who thinks that people should be controlled and forced into situations that make him (not them) happy. I suppose that Gates, Jobs, and Zuckerberg should have been forced to stay in college longer as they weren't mature enough to succeed in the business world. It's not your place or anyone else's to tell someone how they should live their life.

If the NBA wants a guy then the guy should be able to play in the NBA. Age shouldn't be an issue.

If the NBA wants a minor league then they should develop a minor league. It shouldn't be the college game.

If the NBA doesn't think high school guys are ready then don't draft high school guys.

The current system doesn't benefit anyone except NBA management who get a free year of development, evaluation, and reduce their own chances of making a mistake in the draft and that's the only reason the system exists. For me, that's not a good enough reason to prevent someone from earning a living.

 

[Dogdeacon]

This guy is delusional. No sense in arguing with a person who thinks that people should be controlled and forced into situations that make him (not them) happy. I suppose that Gates, Jobs, and Zuckerberg should have been forced to stay in college longer as they weren't mature enough to succeed in the business world. It's not your place or anyone else's to tell someone how they should live their life.

If the NBA wants a guy then the guy should be able to play in the NBA. Age shouldn't be an issue.

If the NBA wants a minor league then they should develop a minor league. It shouldn't be the college game.

If the NBA doesn't think high school guys are ready then don't draft high school guys.

The current system doesn't benefit anyone except NBA management who get a free year of development, evaluation, and reduce their own chances of making a mistake in the draft and that's the only reason the system exists. For me, that's not a good enough reason to prevent someone from earning a living.

You are really slow, FOR THE SECOND AND LAST TIME you can't suggest I'd make arguments like Gates, Zuckerberg and then refute them to prove your bizarre assumptions. I'm not telling anyone to do anything or making them go to school, merely voicing my opinion. And guess what the NBA is doing exactly what I merely suggest (not 'tell someone how to live their life' - spare me the drama) because they have the 19yr old age limit and/or requirement to be 1yr post high school graduation. And the NFL does a similar thing.

Here's a simulated example of how inane your arguments are. Reno think's that talented young medical prodigies should not be required to get doctorates and licenses before they can practice medicine. Is he willing to insure these unlicensed doctors or let them operate on a loved one?

Current system absolutely benefitted Kentucy, John Calipari, Anthony Davis and Kidd-Gilchrist all of whom are infinitiely more popular and have much greater projected earnings as a result of the current system. Its debatable not delusional whether another year would rise all boats, but its delusional and not debatable to want to go back to the old drafting high schoolers system that was terminated because it didn't work. Do you think your message board posts will change it back? Maybe you should publish a rebuttal to Kerr's article?

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

There's a fairly extensive body of research on this topic. You should take a look at some of it, and I think you might be a little less strident in your blowhardiness after you do.

 

[Reno]

There's a fairly extensive body of research on this topic. You should take a look at some of it, and I think you might be a little less strident in your blowhardiness after you do.

Delusional people will always be delusional. Ain't enough research in the world to help him.

 

[champs99and04]

Reno you've done a good job putting words in his mouth throughout this thread.

Look, there is a big difference between "telling somebody how do live their life" and voicing an opinion about what a player should or shouldn't do on a message board. What you're failing to understand, is that the NBA would be a BETTER PRODUCT AS A WHOLE, if there was a 20 year old age limit in place. And spare me the "Why should a kid who wants to make a living not be able to" rhetoric, because a company has every right to place age restrictions on their employees.

As is the case with every rule, there are going to be individual exceptions where the rule does not work out. Kobe, LeBron, and KG, to name just a few, would not have been better served by going to college, because they were ready to contribute from day one. The problem is that far too many talented, but extremely raw players are showing just enough potential that a team is willing to select them in the draft even if they are not ready to contribute from day one, because there hope is that 3 or 4 years down the line said player will begin to display that potential on a more regular basis.

At this point, the team has two options: 1) Play a raw, undevloped player at the expense of a less talented but more productive veteran, or 2) Sit the raw, undeveloped player on the bench and risk hindering his development.

Teams throughout the NBA are in a bind because of this, and as a result, the league is more top heavy than ever. Ideally, there should be a place where these potentially good, but not there yet players can harness their skills without diminshing the product of the NBA. For most, that place has been college. For others, it could be overseas or the D-League. I don't think by raising the age limit, players are being "forced into college" as another poster put it. There are certainly alternative options available, though admittedly not as appealing as making bank in the NBA.

Andre Drummond is a great example. As much as I love the kid, there is a pretty good chance he'll become a bust, simply due to the fact that he has close to zero skill around the basket. Nobody is sure if his skill will ever become sufficient enough to warrant giving him a spot (and likely major minutes) in the NBA. But despite the fact that it's greatly possible he becomes a bust, there is a 99% chance some team is going to draft him in the top five, placing the future of the franchise at stake and all of their fans hopes in one, unreliable basket.

So what happens if Drummond comes in and stinks up the joint, hurts his team offensively, can't make a free throw, etc. etc.? Clearly a more reliable veteran would be helping the team out more, but because Drummond was a top five pick, and because Drummond has a much higher ceiling than veteran X, this lottery team is forced to give him starters minutes while they pray he gets better.

Basically, whichever team drafts Drummond is placing player development over winning, and that makes for a much less competitive league. The NBA is great during the playoffs, but have you ever been to a Raptors-Wizards game in February? Me neither. Doesn't it make sense for these raw players to experience their growing pains in the college or the D-League rather than in the NBA? Forget the players best interests for a moment--this is a decision in the best interest of the league, and the players will have to comply.

Whether Drummond should/shouldn't have declared for the draft is another discussion.

 

[Reno]

The NBA has placed the age restriction on the league first and foremost to avoid having to create a minor league. If you truly believe the college game has improved with that restriction then you're either an idiot or 16 years old.

 

[Reno]

And as far as the NBA being a better product I'm not buying that bullshit either.

Rookies rarely contribute as more than role players for any top team regardless of their background. Even college players often take a season or two to develop into true impact players. Plus there was a very high percentage of success from the few high school players that went pro before the restriction was in place. Most of those guys ended up being solid NBA players at worst because *gasp* NBA scouts aren't that dumb. Sure they'll overdraft a Kwame Brown chasing size and athleticism, but then again they do the same thing for a Hasheem Thabeet. Neither mistake hurts the NBA product one bit.

Like I said this is all about the NBA getting a free minor league.

 

[champs99and04]

And as far as the NBA being a better product I'm not buying that bull**** either.

Rookies rarely contribute as more than role players for any top team regardless of their background. Even college players often take a season or two to develop into true impact players. Plus there was a very high percentage of success from the few high school players that went pro before the restriction was in place. Most of those guys ended up being solid NBA players at worst because *gasp* NBA scouts aren't that dumb. Sure they'll overdraft a Kwame Brown chasing size and athleticism, but then again they do the same thing for a Hasheem Thabeet. Neither mistake hurts the NBA product one bit.

Like I said this is all about the NBA getting a free minor league.

I really don't see how you can argue with the fact that the NBA would be better off with raw, unready players getting their reps in college and not the NBA.

Did you read the article? Compare Jordan/Bird/Magic's numbers in their rookie seasons compared to Dwight/Kobe/LeBron. There is a clear correlation between how many years you spend in college and your production as a rookie.

Do you know why the Kwame Brown fiasco went down like it did? Because he didn't go to college, didn't have a chance to get his weaknesses exposed. If he had gone to college, posted some pedestrian numbers, and came out after two years, there is zero percent chance he would have been selected #1 overall, and zero percent chance he would have gotten the minutes he got.

You're always going to have your "can't miss" talents who excel right out of high school. On the other hand, you decrease your margin of error in drafting these kids when you force them to attend college for a year or two. If you can't see how players coming to the NBA more prepared and developed would help the overall product than I don't know what to tell you.

 

[sledog]

If not a better product, then a Premium product, based on pricing.

 

[Reno]

I really don't see how you can argue with the fact that the NBA would be better off with raw, unready players getting their reps in college and not the NBA.

Did you read the article? Compare Jordan/Bird/Magic's numbers in their rookie seasons compared to Dwight/Kobe/LeBron. There is a clear correlation between how many years you spend in college and your production as a rookie.

Do you know why the Kwame Brown fiasco went down like it did? Because he didn't go to college, didn't have a chance to get his weaknesses exposed. If he had gone to college, posted some pedestrian numbers, and came out after two years, there is zero percent chance he would have been selected #1 overall, and zero percent chance he would have gotten the minutes he got.

You're always going to have your "can't miss" talents who excel right out of high school. On the other hand, you decrease your margin of error in drafting these kids when you force them to attend college for a year or two. If you can't see how players coming to the NBA more prepared and developed would help the overall product than I don't know what to tell you.

Hasheem Thabeet spent 3 years in college. He must be averaging 20 and 10 in the NBA, right? How about Michael Olowokandi? Kwame Brown is a bust, but he still played in the league for a decade.

The fact is players miss from high school and they miss from college. Players are ready from high school and they're ready from college. The NBA draft is always a crap shoot and GMs will always make bad picks because *shockingly* not every player in the draft will be a star. The age limit doesn't change any of that and it doesn't improve the end product in any significant way.

By the way, I realize you never saw Bird or Magic play, but you do understand the NBA is a very, very different game today. The rules have changed, the players have changed, the game has changed. Hell, in the late-90s teams averaged almost 15 points less a game than in the mid-80s. To compare raw numbers and try to draw anything about "readiness" is foolish. Not to mention you cherry picked 3 Hall of Famers that had extraordinary rookie seasons. Scottie Pippen averaged 7 points a game as a rookie. Kevin McHale 10 ppg, The Chief 9 ppg. I suppose these guys should have tried to play 5 years in college because they were clearly not ready for the NBA and the product was suffering.

 

[Ronpatz11]

Hate to jump in the fray on this, but this argument is absurd.

There is clear data that suggests that the younger a player enters the league, the better the chances are he will have a succesful career. That is irrefutable. Any personal feelings you have on the subject aren't relevant when looking at this data.

The success rate of high school to pro players is significantly higher than the rate of college players drafted into the NBA. Again, this isn't opinion, it is a fact.

The argument that KG, Kobe, etc.. weren't as succesful at 18 as college players as rookies is also a flawed argument. The entire premise of the article Kerr wrote is tied to this (false) notion that college does a better job preparing players for a NBA career than time on a NBA team. If that were the case, KG, Kobe and other high school to college pros would still be struggling with the challenges many rookies face in their 3rd season, correct? We should be comparing how rookies (average age of 20-21) compare to third year HS players. Both had two years to "prepare", either in college or the NBA. For the record, Kobe average 19.9, 5.3 and 3.8 his 3rd year. KG averaged 18.5, 9.6 and 4.2 in HIS third year. Heck, Kwame Brown, everyone's prime example of a bust, averaged 10.9 and 7.4 rpg his third year. Seems to me that two years in the NBA did a great job preparing these players.

Look at the Boston Celtics this year. JaJuan Johnson and E'Tuan Moore were both 4-year college players at Purdue. They haven't contributed a bit all season. Avery Bradley on the other hand? He played one year in college (where he completely underwhelmed) and then rode the pine, hard, his rookie season, including a stint in the D League. Funny, one year playing behind future Hall of Famers like Ray Allen and Paul Pierce prepared Bradley for a breakout season. You really think another year with Rick Barnes would have left Bradley contributing to a conference semi-finalist team? Find that VERY hard to believe.

NBA teams have resources college programs can only dream of. Expansive coaching staffs, private chefs, nutritionists, huge training staffs. With no classes to worry about or NCAA restrictions on practice time (or girls volleyball limitations on practice time), young players have the ability to focus solely on their JOB; basketball. The ability to spend all day, every day, focused only on getting better (with all of the appropriate resources around them) allows for players to do just that, get better. Throw in the ability to learn from experienced veterans who know what it takes to be succesful and I'm not sure how anyone could suggest college is a better learning environment from a basketball standpoint. Would you rather spend two years in a locker room learning from Hasheem Thabeet and AJ Price on how to succeed in the NBA or from NBA veterans who have actually done it for a decade? You can cherry pick high school players who struggled dealing with the NBA lifestyle, but I can find many more who went to college who had those same struggles.

You are obviously entitled to your own opinions on this topic. However, the data suggests that Kerr's argument (and yours, to a point) is backed up not by statistics, but rather, personal feelings. I'll take data and history.

 

[uconnfan68]

You are really slow, FOR THE SECOND AND LAST TIME you can't suggest I'd make arguments like Gates, Zuckerberg and then refute them to prove your bizarre assumptions. I'm not telling anyone to do anything or making them go to school, merely voicing my opinion. And guess what the NBA is doing exactly what I merely suggest (not 'tell someone how to live their life' - spare me the drama) because they have the 19yr old age limit and/or requirement to be 1yr post high school graduation. And the NFL does a similar thing.

Here's a simulated example of how inane your arguments are. Reno think's that talented young medical prodigies should not be required to get doctorates and licenses before they can practice medicine. Is he willing to insure these unlicensed doctors or let them operate on a loved one?

Current system absolutely benefitted Kentucy, John Calipari, Anthony Davis and Kidd-Gilchrist all of whom are infinitiely more popular and have much greater projected earnings as a result of the current system. Its debatable not delusional whether another year would rise all boats, but its delusional and not debatable to want to go back to the old drafting high schoolers system that was terminated because it didn't work. Do you think your message board posts will change it back? Maybe you should publish a rebuttal to Kerr's article?

You are the one making dumb statements. No one suggested bypassing licensing requirements for doctors. For ALL other areas that don't require strict governance, like SPORTS, business, or even representing yourself in court, it's your life. The NBA rule is an example of a business model that has completely failed everyone but the NBA. Does nothing for kids or schools.

 

[Dogdeacon]

Hate to jump in the fray on this, but this argument is absurd.

There is clear data that suggests that the younger a player enters the league, the better the chances are he will have a succesful career. That is irrefutable. Any personal feelings you have on the subject aren't relevant when looking at this data.

The success rate of high school to pro players is significantly higher than the rate of college players drafted into the NBA. Again, this isn't opinion, it is a fact.

The argument that KG, Kobe, etc.. weren't as succesful at 18 as college players as rookies is also a flawed argument. The entire premise of the article Kerr wrote is tied to this (false) notion that college does a better job preparing players for a NBA career than time on a NBA team. If that were the case, KG, Kobe and other high school to college pros would still be struggling with the challenges many rookies face in their 3rd season, correct? We should be comparing how rookies (average age of 20-21) compare to third year HS players. Both had two years to "prepare", either in college or the NBA. For the record, Kobe average 19.9, 5.3 and 3.8 his 3rd year. KG averaged 18.5, 9.6 and 4.2 in HIS third year. Heck, Kwame Brown, everyone's prime example of a bust, averaged 10.9 and 7.4 rpg his third year. Seems to me that two years in the NBA did a great job preparing these players.

Look at the Boston Celtics this year. JaJuan Johnson and E'Tuan Moore were both 4-year college players at Purdue. They haven't contributed a bit all season. Avery Bradley on the other hand? He played one year in college (where he completely underwhelmed) and then rode the pine, hard, his rookie season, including a stint in the D League. Funny, one year playing behind future Hall of Famers like Ray Allen and Paul Pierce prepared Bradley for a breakout season. You really think another year with Rick Barnes would have left Bradley contributing to a conference semi-finalist team? Find that VERY hard to believe.

NBA teams have resources college programs can only dream of. Expansive coaching staffs, private chefs, nutritionists, huge training staffs. With no classes to worry about or NCAA restrictions on practice time (or girls volleyball limitations on practice time), young players have the ability to focus solely on their JOB; basketball. The ability to spend all day, every day, focused only on getting better (with all of the appropriate resources around them) allows for players to do just that, get better. Throw in the ability to learn from experienced veterans who know what it takes to be succesful and I'm not sure how anyone could suggest college is a better learning environment from a basketball standpoint. Would you rather spend two years in a locker room learning from Hasheem Thabeet and AJ Price on how to succeed in the NBA or from NBA veterans who have actually done it for a decade? You can cherry pick high school players who struggled dealing with the NBA lifestyle, but I can find many more who went to college who had those same struggles.

You are obviously entitled to your own opinions on this topic. However, the data suggests that Kerr's argument (and yours, to a point) is backed up not by statistics, but rather, personal feelings. I'll take data and history.

Simple response, please show me this data? I don't think there is any.