Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="UcMiami, post: 2218206, member: 199"] OK - I'll weigh in on KK - I would say this is a whole bunch of BS and a good indication why I like USA basketball just as it is instead of some self centered, biased, ego tripper and his cohorts in the AAU/youth basketball world. 1. Where the committee is from is meaningless - they are all watching in CO for 96 hrs and selecting based on what they see - very few of them have watched much U16 basketball at either AAU or HS level with the exception of one HS coach from TX who has seen some U16 players in TX and one AAU affiliated person from PA who has probably seen most of the players at the trials once or twice. The selection process for invites is done based on regional 'scouts' associated with USA basketball who each pass on recommendations and the others allowed to pay their way do so based on an application process that includes video plus recommendations from HS and AAU coaches. The idea of creating a selection committee where each member has 'sponsored' a minimum of four players and a maximum of 11 is ludicrous and creates a really whacked out process. As it is now constituted, you may have two out of eight members with some bias and 6 who have no preconceptions about any of the trial participants. (Not sure why he throws in a WNBA rep - why not turn it over completely to the AAU bozos? We all now what a selfless job they all perform and how well they play with others.) Also notice how this selection committee of AAU folks get to make lots of money running camps from which they will select their anointed few - definitely a very democratic process. 2. Interesting he chooses 24 draftees as his analysis of regional strength - those draftees being six or seven years removed from the U16 attendees - as we all know the top end of talent is variable year by year by state - using the top 12 draftees (it is a twelve player team being selected) in 2016 their were 4 from the NE (NY, CT, MD, PA), 3 from the GL (MI, MN, IL), one each from TX, CA, GA, and NC. In 2017 3 from the NE (PA, NJ, MD) 4 from the South (FL, 2-GA, SC) two each from the Serah Williams (TX, AZ) and GL (MN, MI) and one from CA. It varies quite a bit by year and the NE (six years removed) outperforms CA and TX!) 3. People have been advocating that basketball in the US and internationally should standardize rules for a while now, as well as standardizing across gender, so nothing new here, but we cannot even standardize HS rules across state lines within a single gender. And asking kids to play two different sets of rules when they are still learning how to play and developing their skills seems pretty silly - imposing something on 1000s of players of whom only a few dozen in each class will ever actually play games under the international rules in their whole career. 4. Having a full time coaching staff for the U16/U17 team is an interesting idea - I believe the men do this - but is also an expensive idea for what is only ever a 4 week a year job. I assume the men's staff spends the other 48 weeks scouting prospective players? Not sure it makes a whole lot of sense nor is it likely cost effective. I suspect the men's teams have better financial commitments as is true for most athletics. There is no question that USA operates on a different model than say the old USSR or even countries like Australia with a population and size comparable to TX. They have a basketball institute that functions like a prep school and college and in a semi-pro fashion. And they put together teams and train them from an early age and for much longer than any USA team prior to international competitions. The USA gets by on being able to call upon a much larger population and much greater participation levels. The athletic ability is incredible and the training while uneven is still very good. We still export coaches and athletes around the world. At some point, the preparation of each specific team is going to become an issue as it did in the early 90s for the NT - Tara taking a year away from Stanford and the team playing together for a year prior to the Olympics was a response to that issue - particularly because there were almost no US pro basketball players. With the WNBA and much greater international play by US players that is no longer an issue but it has created even shorter training camps for the national team. For women basketball players and their families education still comes first because a pro career is still not very lucrative or likely - screwing around with HS age girls education and upbringing just to create a better U16/U17 team is not likely to be very popular or well supported. We have a few 'sports factory' HS/Prep Schools already with mixed results. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach