Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Draft Burn-Out - Is Boeheim right about 1st rounders?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Axel
    replied
    stooley wrote: View Post
    Actually, you'd be shocked to see what kind of training facilities D1 schools have. It's night and day compared to varsity programs in Canada.
    I know that many D1 schools have great facilities, but my point is, college's have much more competing interests (academic upgrades, other varsity sports for both men and women, infrastructure costs to build and maintain all campus facilities). NBA teams have a sole interest in basketball and often use leased arenas (thus don't have the same capital costs for infrastructure).

    It just seems more likely that the average NBA team would be able to provide more than the average college team. I'm sure there are exceptions that work in the favor of college, say Duke vs the Milwaukee Bucks; but the average college program wouldn't be able to compete with the average NBA franchise.

    Leave a comment:


  • stooley
    replied
    Axel wrote: View Post
    True but how many programs can do it and how many would guarantee it? Of the select colleges that have the resources (most pocket those profits or spread it throughout the school), how many would invest that much time and money? I'd wager it's a smaller percentage than that of NBA teams. NBA team revenue is solely tied to basketball so they re-invest into basketball. Colleges have multiple interested on how to re-invest the money into their school.
    Actually, you'd be shocked to see what kind of training facilities D1 schools have. It's night and day compared to varsity programs in Canada.

    Leave a comment:


  • Axel
    replied
    stretch wrote: View Post
    Gonzaga did that exactly with Kelly Olynyk during his redshirt year working on Kelly's strength, flexibility, and coordination with strength coach Travis Knight (same name but not the former Raptor).

    Big time NCAA programs have resources, remember that they have great revenue that they don't have to share with players.
    True but how many programs can do it and how many would guarantee it? Of the select colleges that have the resources (most pocket those profits or spread it throughout the school), how many would invest that much time and money? I'd wager it's a smaller percentage than that of NBA teams. NBA team revenue is solely tied to basketball so they re-invest into basketball. Colleges have multiple interested on how to re-invest the money into their school.

    Leave a comment:


  • stretch
    replied
    Axel wrote: View Post
    But to counter, the NBA season is longer, teams are more involved in everything (diet, etc) and the NBA resources are generally un-matched by college programs. An NBA team can invest an assistant to spend an entire year with a young player, plust vet mentors, while college can't.
    Gonzaga did that exactly with Kelly Olynyk during his redshirt year working on Kelly's strength, flexibility, and coordination with strength coach Travis Knight (same name but not the former Raptor).

    Big time NCAA programs have resources, remember that they have great revenue that they don't have to share with players.

    Leave a comment:


  • Axel
    replied
    stooley wrote: View Post
    This is a good point, but to play devil's advocate, the amount of practice time in the NBA is far, far less than in the NCAA. In college, team's are holding practices every day. They're developing skills, working on technical foundations, etc. In the NBA, players are essentially given game time to develop their skills. The very limited amount of practice time is generally used to run sets and go over schemes.
    But to counter, the NBA season is longer, teams are more involved in everything (diet, etc) and the NBA resources are generally un-matched by college programs. An NBA team can invest an assistant to spend an entire year with a young player, plust vet mentors, while college can't.

    Leave a comment:


  • stooley
    replied
    ezz_bee wrote: View Post
    I agree with the above bold. The statement, "another year in college could help with X..." Where X is player development, mental discipline, maturity, polished skills... etc, has a certain logic to it. It works off the assumption that we get better at things with time. However, there is evidence that NBA invest a lot more time and resources to top picks regardless of their performance. At the very least if you are a top draft pick you are going to get that 2nd and 3rd chance with other teams before you wash out of the league entirely.

    I do not believe there is any advantage for players to gain from staying in college an extra year if they are projected lottery pick. The advantage is only for teams who have a better sense of what the player is capable of, and make decisions more on production than potential.

    I'm not sure what is the best for fans, but for basketball players projected to go in the lottery, you should never stay in school.

    EDIT: If you are taken in the lottery you are going to get more playing time, development from the org, plus if you are a bust, you are always going to get at least 1 more second chance (unless of the case of injury, but staying in college wouldn't change that). Anthony Bennet is a great example. He was a reach at number 1, and has given one of the biggest disappointing starts for a number one pick. Yet there are many orgs that wouldn't hesitate to acquire him in a trade. If you stay in school and your draft stock lowers (which is more likely than going up) and you are drafted in the late teen's early 20's, you are way less likely to get playing time. The org is more likely to view you as a trade asset than potential worth developing (think Quincy Acy). To use another raps example, Bargs wouldn't have been spoon fed and clung to for 7 years if he was taken outside of the top 10. Yet Barg's benefited from those decisions more than the org or the fan base.
    This is a good point, but to play devil's advocate, the amount of practice time in the NBA is far, far less than in the NCAA. In college, team's are holding practices every day. They're developing skills, working on technical foundations, etc. In the NBA, players are essentially given game time to develop their skills. The very limited amount of practice time is generally used to run sets and go over schemes.

    Leave a comment:


  • planetmars
    replied
    Related to this thread.. looks like Silver is interested in raising the age limit (has to be agreed upon by the players association of course):
    http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10...a-commissioner

    The draft: Silver said everywhere he goes that "people dislike so-called one and done," referring to the many players who go to college for just one year to meet the league's age minimum of being one year out of high school and 19 years old. He favors pushing the age minimum to 20.

    "It is my belief that if players have an opportunity to mature as players and as people, for a longer amount of time before they come into the league, it will lead to a better league," he said. "And I know from a competitive standpoint that's something as I travel the league I increasingly hear from our coaches, especially, who feel that many of even the top players in the league could use more time to develop even as leaders as part of college programs."

    Leave a comment:


  • ezz_bee
    replied
    Axel wrote: View Post
    2 thoughts on this.

    1. For a player's financial perspective, you are absolutely right. If you can get a near guarantee for a high slotted salary, you take it.

    2. Developmentally though, I don't think it's necessarily true. Not many top picks made the list (Adam Morrison being the only one really and he was a junior) but I think that has as much to do with top picks garnering 2nd and 3rd chances more so than lower picks. Look at Shelden Williams for example. #5 pick in 2006 - he lasted 6 seasons in the NBA but it took 7 teams to do so. Or look at Darko Milicic - #2 in 2003 - 10 seasons with 6 teams. These players always seem to get another chance because teams are constantly looking to hit the "untapped potential" - which is a very sound strategy for team building. Would Darko have been better off not coming to the NBA when he did? He could have developed more physically and mentally and should have entered better prepared. We'll never know for sure, but I don't think you can take the findings of the OP and use it as correlation to say, top picks are better off entering the NBA than returning to college.
    I agree with the above bold. The statement, "another year in college could help with X..." Where X is player development, mental discipline, maturity, polished skills... etc, has a certain logic to it. It works off the assumption that we get better at things with time. However, there is evidence that NBA invest a lot more time and resources to top picks regardless of their performance. At the very least if you are a top draft pick you are going to get that 2nd and 3rd chance with other teams before you wash out of the league entirely.

    I do not believe there is any advantage for players to gain from staying in college an extra year if they are projected lottery pick. The advantage is only for teams who have a better sense of what the player is capable of, and make decisions more on production than potential.

    I'm not sure what is the best for fans, but for basketball players projected to go in the lottery, you should never stay in school.

    EDIT: If you are taken in the lottery you are going to get more playing time, development from the org, plus if you are a bust, you are always going to get at least 1 more second chance (unless of the case of injury, but staying in college wouldn't change that). Anthony Bennet is a great example. He was a reach at number 1, and has given one of the biggest disappointing starts for a number one pick. Yet there are many orgs that wouldn't hesitate to acquire him in a trade. If you stay in school and your draft stock lowers (which is more likely than going up) and you are drafted in the late teen's early 20's, you are way less likely to get playing time. The org is more likely to view you as a trade asset than potential worth developing (think Quincy Acy). To use another raps example, Bargs wouldn't have been spoon fed and clung to for 7 years if he was taken outside of the top 10. Yet Barg's benefited from those decisions more than the org or the fan base.
    Last edited by ezz_bee; Tue Feb 18, 2014, 09:46 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • blackjitsu
    replied
    Didn't Fab Melo get kicked off the Syracuse squad? He HAD to go into the draft -- he couldn't stay in school (if I remember correctly).

    http://content.usatoday.com/communit...1#.UwJinEF32So

    Leave a comment:


  • stretch
    replied
    I don't think it was mentioned that Donte Green (28th in 2008) and Fab Melo (22nd in 2012) are out of the league right now. Both played for Jim Boeheim, coincidently, at Syracuse.
    Last edited by stretch; Mon Feb 17, 2014, 01:58 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • e_wheazhy_
    replied
    Letter N wrote: View Post
    Jay Williams got in a motorcycle accident, that's not exactly the same thing as being a bust.
    Agreed, but if I'm not mistaken, he had a clause in his contract that explicitly stated he couldn't ride a motorcycle. And he did it anyways. And he was speeding and god knows what else. It really is a shame, and I feel for him, but I would consider that a bust, not in the traditional sense, but in the sense that a guy gets drafted high and thinks he is invincible/above improvement.

    Leave a comment:


  • MACK11
    replied
    92TillInfinity wrote: View Post
    What's Terrence Williams doing? We could use 2 Raptors in the dunk contest when it ASW is here in 2016. He's only 26!
    He has some serious attitude problems from what I hear, he couldn't close his mouth enough to stay on the Celtics last year with KG.Pierce on the team, if the Celtics couldnt chill this guy out the raptors certainly cannot

    Leave a comment:


  • 92TillInfinity
    replied
    What's Terrence Williams doing? We could use 2 Raptors in the dunk contest when it ASW is here in 2016. He's only 26!

    Leave a comment:


  • Axel
    replied
    ezz_bee wrote: View Post
    Great OP. It's really hard to parse the effect of staying in school on has on draft position. I think that if you are projected to be a lotto pick you are 100% better off by entering the draft. It seems to me that you when you're projected to be at the top there's nowhere to go but down.

    I don't like the idea of the NCAA being a farm system for the NBA. I'd much rather see the d-league develop more and have that be an avenue for players to develop. Also in this day and age, with the prevalence of distance ed programs, a player could easily play professionally in the d-league or on an NBA team and still get a college degree.
    2 thoughts on this.

    1. For a player's financial perspective, you are absolutely right. If you can get a near guarantee for a high slotted salary, you take it.

    2. Developmentally though, I don't think it's necessarily true. Not many top picks made the list (Adam Morrison being the only one really and he was a junior) but I think that has as much to do with top picks garnering 2nd and 3rd chances more so than lower picks. Look at Shelden Williams for example. #5 pick in 2006 - he lasted 6 seasons in the NBA but it took 7 teams to do so. Or look at Darko Milicic - #2 in 2003 - 10 seasons with 6 teams. These players always seem to get another chance because teams are constantly looking to hit the "untapped potential" - which is a very sound strategy for team building. Would Darko have been better off not coming to the NBA when he did? He could have developed more physically and mentally and should have entered better prepared. We'll never know for sure, but I don't think you can take the findings of the OP and use it as correlation to say, top picks are better off entering the NBA than returning to college.

    Leave a comment:


  • TSF
    replied
    Lmao that draft was the most Timberwolves thing ever. Draft three pg's, Trade the best one, ruin one just in time for one of the best overseas draft prospects to come over, then find out he can't shoot.

    I agree with the D-League being a good alternative option if you don't want to go to school, but I don't think it's an attractive one yet. Only 17 teams, and the average salary is 15 K. If you're living on your own as an 18 year old wanting some space, it's less attractive to handle bills on a tiny salary and be in an ignored league, than to pick the league that gives you free nice lodging among a large amount of people your age and the chance to get a degree.

    I don't think the D-League will be truly able to challenge the NCAA as a farm system ever. It's much more likely we see some moderate growth in the D-League as a farm system, and the NCAA as a system changes to allow players to make some money. Even if it's just a cut of the merch profits and the ability to sign endorsement deals, you'll get more in the NCAA and raise your profile.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X