Chickenlounge
Well-Known Member
I'll tell you what I think about Kentucky basketball.
Kentucky Hoops.
- Thread starter NeilDiamond
- Start date
tm3308
Well-Known Member
Where the **** have you been for the last year?
DesMoinesHawki
Well-Known Member
I don't like the fact he simply turned Kentucky into an NBA farm team. The idea of "student athlete" is not even relevant at Kentucky. Unfortunately, "one and done" is becoming the norm for many players. Caliperi is a good coach. I just don't respect what he represents.
tm3308
Well-Known Member
This is basically my stance too. There are very few coaches who are better than Calipari. But I hate what the one and done rule has done to college basketball.
sportstalent
Well-Known Member
Well, unfortunately, it is up to the NBA to put in a rule to not allow the "one and done" to continue to happen. The NBA players will not agree to something other than what it is, the sad thing is that the NBA started to become much better once the "one and done" rules were put in. It has taken a lot of the garbage players, who were so overhyped for zero reason out of the equation because they suck in college, or cannot qualify and never find themselves becoming relevant.
It would further help improve the NBA, in my opinion, if they went to a two year rule as there continue to be some misses out there, but nothing is gauranteed anyway, no matter how many years are put out there, it just gives the teams a better idea of what they are getting. The NBA became untolerable for awhile due to kids coming into the league nowhere ready to play college let alone in the NBA, that has changed and the NBA has been better for it.
Honestly, I am not sure I would "help Cal pack up Fran" I don't think you would see the success at Iowa as Kentucky...he proved that at Memphis, however he was good there. I guess that I still like the idea of the "student athlete" and cannot stand roster upheaval year after year after year after year like Iowa has had with the two previous coaches at Iowa. If Cal could come in and do what he has done at Memphis/UK maybe I change my mind, but I am not sure that could happen.
tm3308
Well-Known Member
I understand that it's an NBA rule and not an NCAA one. I just hate the effect it has had on the college game.
Hawkfromnorwalk
Well-Known Member
This is the wrong forum. Tweeterhawk demands this gets moved to General College Sports.
That is all.
That is all.
HawkeyeMike23
Banned
The one and done rule has been good for college basketball. Brought in a lot of talent to the college game who otherwise would have never played a single NCAA game. The NCAA tournament is much better when you have NBA talent involved.
tm3308
Well-Known Member
The on-court product has gotten better, I won't deny that. But that's only part of the equation, IMO.
1977Hawkeye
Well-Known Member
Calipari took UMass to the Final Four. He was a minute away from a national title with Memphis (frankly, they blew that game. If only they could have made FT's, they would've won it all). It's possible that he may be even more dominant at UK, but if you look at his record at UMass and Memphis, he was still pretty much reloading each and every year. So he has won big at each and every stop he's made. Why would Iowa be different than UMass or Memphis?
Besides, if you even look at Iowa - George Raveling brought in a ton of talent and Mr. Davis took that talent and won 30 games in his first season. Why couldn't Calipari do the same once he gets his players? He's proven he can coach and can obviously get the talent (his MEANS for getting the talent aside), so I'm sure he would produce a lot of W's at Iowa, too. I have no doubt.
That said, the powers that be at Iowa will never allow someone like Calipari to be our coach. I'd bet money on that. So it's moot point.
And I'm not telling you that you're wrong to feel the way you do about student athletes. But personally, I don't watch Iowa hoops because they are good students. I watch Iowa and hope for them to win. Really as simple as that. And the roster upheaval we had under Alf and Lick was due to transfers and suspension, not because they entered the draft early. Not the same thing.
I agree it's nice to have players with the program for 3-4 years, but if we are winning big and our players go pro after 1 or 2 years - just show me where to sign. I'd take that in a heartbeat.
HawkeyeMike23
Banned
The on court production is really the only part I care about. I could not care less about who goes to class or how players do in school. I just like watching the games and the more talent on the floor, even if only for a year, the better.
tm3308
Well-Known Member
Even beyond the classroom. I like players becoming the face of a program, creating legends, etc. You don't get nearly as much of that sort of thing with such high turnover. That's part of what makes college basketball great, IMO. In 10 years, nobody is going to remember where any of today's NBA stars went to college.
The NBA created this problem by drafting high schoolers in the first place. I still don't understand why it made more sense to mandate that players have to spend at least one year between high school and the pros, than it did to simply stop drafting high school seniors. Sure, they always could leave school after their freshman year, but that didn't seem to stop players like MJ, Magic, Bird, etc. from sticking around for at least a few years.
1977Hawkeye
Well-Known Member
Pretty good post tm. But I still agree with HawkeyeMike that I'd rather have the one-and-done lottery picks if that means a higher level of winning, than to have 4-year players and be average.
My belief is that most schools have 4-year "student athletes" because they are simply unable to recruit the type of talent that can go pro at all, much less after one or two years. I'd be willing to wager that if those same 4-year players were good enough to go pro early, they too would jump for the $$$.
Likewise, if Penn State basketball (or Iowa), for instance, could recruit talent that was so good that they went pro after a year or two, that they would do so.
And I don't know what to say about MJ, Magic, etc. except that those were different times. I remember it was big news when Kenny Anderson left Georgia Tech after his sophomore year to go pro. That really sort of set a precedent, that now has become commonplace, or even expected. In the 1980's or earlier, there just didn't seem to be much thought of a player even considering going pro that soon. All that despite a lack of a rule preventing it.
I'm not sure, but I also wonder if there the money in the NBA was less in those days, and hence less incentive to enter the draft sooner? I know that MLB salaries have gone nuts since the 1980's. I'd like to see some numbers for how the NBA compares in terms of salary increases.
HawkeyeMike23
Banned
You really don't understand that? You want to be the GM that has to explain to the team owner that he didn't draft LeBron as a high school senior because he believes players should go to college? KG, Kobe, LeBron and to a lesser extent McGrady and Jermaine O'Neal were/are franchise guys who came out as high schoolers. If high schoolers are eligible for the draft there were always going to be teams willing to draft them.
Also becoming a college legend is for guys who aren't good enough to go pro early. Even when the rule becomes a two year minimum sometime in the near future, players are going to go pro as soon as they can.
tm3308
Well-Known Member
When the complaint was the high number of busts among high schoolers, it seems to make sense to simply stop drafting them. Especially since they decided to put in a rule that says just that.
To your final point: Again I bring up Jordan, Magic, and Bird (along with all the other NBA legends who made a name for themselves in college for more than one year). There was never a rule stopping players like them from entering out of high school or after their freshman years. Yet they stayed. Are you suggesting that those players weren't ready for the NBA out of high school? Perhaps they weren't (Bird would have struggled from a maturity standpoint, from what he has said). But that also didn't stop them from becoming three of the five best players to ever play the game.
ssckelley
Well-Known Member
You guys are throwing some provoking thoughts around (damn on a monday even). With the amount of money being thrown around who can blame someone for entering the NBA draft as soon as possible. Back when Jordon, Bird, and MJohnson played going to college and winning a championship meant something but the NBA was not throwing around millions of dollars back then either. As a result the game is degrading from the NBA down into college. The NBA is no longer getting polished players and now college ball have the Butlers competing for national championships. IMO the rule NBA made is not helping much because now they are drafting college freshman instead of high school seniors. I think the NBA needs to go the route of the NFL and make eligibility for the draft 3 years after they completed high school. I think you would see improved play in both the NBA and in college.
The one and done year rule is helping the NBA immensely. John Wall, Kevin Durant, Anthony Davis all have become marketable stars as rookies thanks to the rule. It's providing a year of free publicity for the NBA. I don't think they need to make it a three year rule as unlike college football, basketball players are ready to compete at the next level earlier.
tm3308
Well-Known Member
That's what I would prefer to see, although I'd be satisfied with MLB's system (provided that high schoolers who don't get drafted can still be eligible for college ball).
tm3308
Well-Known Member
They may be physically capable earlier, but they aren't usually ready after one year of college. There's more raw talent, but players can come into the league more prepared to hit the ground running if they get polished in college rather than in their first few years in the league.
