Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 33
  1. #1

    Wait One Year for the NBA Rule

    We are almost finished with the first season of the new NBA eligibility rule. I did not like it when it was developed and don't like it now. What do you think?

    First of all I think that 18 year old high school graduates should be able to go directly to the NBA if they wish.

    The rule certainly helps the NBA. It gives their scouts a chance to evaluate players against a higher level of competition. And the NBA gets the benefit of having rookies who have had a year of national exposure and publicity.

    However it makes even more of a mockery of the term "student-athlete." I realize that a player who plans to be one and done can choose to maximize his one year in college, have a great experience, learn something, then go make his millions. While we may not have seen it yet, in the future there will surely be players who do the minimum to stay eligible their first semester and then just play basketball the second.

    I can decide if college basketball is helped or not. It is certainly fun to watch the McD's game and know that these guys will play college ball next year. It is also fun to watch the freshmen starts. But how much do you want to invest in a guy who will be one and done?

    SoCal

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by SoCalDukeFan View Post
    What do you think?
    It should be three years or nothing.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Cary, NC
    Vitale has been the big proponent of doing it the baseball way. Everyone is available after high school. If they choose to go to college because they don't get drafted or dont' like where they're drafted, then they go to college for three years and then can come out again.
    Duke '96
    Cary, NC

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Skinker-DeBaliviere, Saint Louis
    In baseball, this also has the virtue (from labor's point of view) of allowing the junior-year kid to leverage the team that drafts him by threatening to go back to school for a fourth year.

    A movie is not about what it's about; it's about how it's about it.
    ---Roger Ebert


    Some questions cannot be answered
    Who’s gonna bury who
    We need a love like Johnny, Johnny and June
    ---Over the Rhine

  5. #5
    I like it. The superstars like Kevin Durant improve the quality of the product for one year before leaving, and in return, they get to market themselves. The non-superstars like Darrell Arthur figure out that they're not ready and stay in college. There will be fewer Korleone Youngs, Jonathan Benders, and Ousmane Cisses.

  6. #6
    I can live with Vitale's rule. I don't agree that they should have to college 3 years with no option of going to the pros after high school.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Actually, I amend my previous stand.

    My new stand is: whatever Jumbo thinks is right.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by feldspar View Post
    Actually, I amend my previous stand.

    My new stand is: whatever Jumbo thinks is right.
    I'm going with whatever Feldspar says.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Skinker-DeBaliviere, Saint Louis
    In that case, I'm telling both of you how to think.

    A movie is not about what it's about; it's about how it's about it.
    ---Roger Ebert


    Some questions cannot be answered
    Who’s gonna bury who
    We need a love like Johnny, Johnny and June
    ---Over the Rhine

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Western North Carolina

    Better than Nothing

    I like the idea of making kids go to school, but it does not help Duke if it is for only 1 year. If it were 2years+ Duke would get 3-4 AAs every year as kids tried to be on TV/win as much as possible.

    But now, it does not help. K has a system that kids do not always grasp right away. Also, K requires kids to play defense, unlike other schools (Tywon would have rarely gotten on court at Duke given his lax effort regarding D). This doesn't appeal to me-first, 1 and done players. They want to go somewhere and be showcased, and they would probably rather have a system adapted to them rather than vice versa, and many of them are allergic to defense.

    For basketball and the league, the rule is great. Not so much (yet) for Duke

    Patrick Yates

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North Carolina
    For the record, Tywon Lawson would've started at Duke. There is no question about that. But it's an irrelevant point regardless, 'cause he never came to Duke and because we don't know how he would've played had he come.

    I think the best argument against the current rule is that it does make a mockery of the idea of going to college to get a degree. However, the potential punishment a school can face if a kid just ditches class once the season is over is a good deterrent for that.

    Personally, I think Vitale's rule is more interested in letting the college game get better than it is interested in the needs and desires of the kids who play in the game. There should be a way to get out of school before your 4th season under his scheme - but he's also proposed that whole committee thing where a group will approve a certain list of people who are supposedly ready to make the leap.

    The rule is fine for now though, in my opinion.

  12. #12

    What Punishment Does a School Face

    if a kid ditches classes after the season is over?

    And if there are any, does the kid care?

    I thought college football players did that all of the time as they got ready for the draft. And I read that McRoberts is doing it at Duke (which may not be true).

    SoCal

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Goldsboro, NC

    I don't agree with the rule.......

    Personally, I would like to see more kids playing college ball because it improves the college game tremendously. However, in any other profession if a kid is ready at the age of 18 nobody cares or tries to prohibit him. If you can choose whether to go to college in any other circumstance you should be allowed when it comes to going to the NBA. College is an opportunity for young people to prepare for their future. It is their decision on whether or not to go and if they even need college. If you can get drafted out of high-school you don't need college. I don't feel that we should decide on college for a young person, that should be their choice. Just my opinion.

  14. #14
    Stern probably would have liked to get a 2 year requirement from the players association, but the 1 year deal is good for the NBA in terms of developing some publicity for top shelf players while they serve their 1 year sentence of college ball and allowing those players to develop some skills they might not develop if thrown straight into the NBA.

    It also is good for the NCAA in terms of rebutting the contention that only stiffs go to college, raising the perceived quality of the game, and (most importantly) raising interest + ratings for the tournament. On this point, NBA shill/Duke hater/ESPN Sports Guy Bill Simmons sums up the party line:

    Some readers wondered why I'd praise this year's NCAA Tournament (which has featured few upsets and a Final Four with two No. 1 seeds and two No. 2 seeds) and dismiss last year's tournament (which featured a ton of upsets and a Cinderella making the Final Four).

    The answer is simple: I like watching good basketball.

    That was the underlying theme of yesterday's blog -- for the first time in years, the quality of play has matched the excitement of the tournament itself.


    http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...x?name=simmons

    Of course the one year rule has absolutely nothing to do with actually going to class or getting a classroom education, but that ship sailed a long time ago. And as far as whether it benefits the players and impairs their ability to choose when to start playing for pay, the NCAA and NBA could not care any less.

    Overall, I think the one year requirement helps the NCAA and NBA but will hurt Duke unless K is able to make another big adjustment to his recruiting practices, as he did when the second stage of the K era was launched in the late 90s.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Younger players entering the NBA before they have actually learned the game has caused the NBA's professionalism to crumble. Quit a few guys in the NBA that came out early (from college or right from high school) have damaged the NBA because they aren't mature enough to handle all the money.

    For example: Kobe and his little girl in Colorado (and LA). He might be every bit as good as MJ but in the end he'll be remembered more for things like him & Shaq and other off court issues (there will be more to come).

    Now we read how King James will have a casino in his house (or more like a hotel). He is already becoming more consumed with the money then the game. He is just primed for some off court stuff to happen in the next year or two.

    Having said this, I believe if the guy wants to be dumb enough to go pro right out of high school let him. Imagine college basketball next year without Oden, Durant, Wright, and many more. IF guys like this jump after one or two years you can bet that more freshman will steel the spot light in college and more freshman will jump to the pros because they shined in college their first year. Because of this you won’t see college teams stay competitive year after year.

    I can’t blame Durant for going pro after this year. Watching this guy was like watching a man amongst boys. Sure he faltered in the tourney but during the year he was super. And if he can make a few million a year why play college ball. Sure he would miss out on some fun times (older women are much better, college chicks think you need to do things for them) but since I started making some bucks college life doesn’t look so good, I like my toys a lot better than those handovers.

    Things like what happened to Livingston could happen to someone playing college ball then what will they have to show for their career, look I played for Texas one year and was the POY in the Big 12, can I have the job now (then Wal-mart asks: do you have any experience)?

  16. #16
    I think it's a short-sighted rule because it only takes care of the kids who want to leave early. Programs have to over-recruit positions because you never know who's leaving. As a result, a four year guy who typically would improve over time into a big time contributer might be recruited over once, twice, or even three times during his college career. It might be over-simplifying things, but I wonder if you'd ever see a situation where a coach would sign 7 or 8 guys each year for the purpose of showcasing the heck out of those players during their one year in college. The recruiting pitch could be "come to my school, hang out, party, skip class, play ball all day every day and go to the NBA after your freshman year".

    I'd be interested to see a hockey system. Each draft consists only of 18 year olds. They get drafted and can either go pro right away, or they can choose to go to the NCAA and play while the team who drafted them maintains the rights to that player. Of course that means Hansbrough would have been drafted in 9th grade.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by freedevil View Post
    For the record, Tywon Lawson would've started at Duke. There is no question about that.
    For the record, I will question that. For evidence, I will point to Coach K's stated plan to bring J-Will off the bench with Will Avery starting. Lawson had a nice season, but he wasn't exactly better than Jason. What makes you think he would have been handed the starting spot? Or do you think we would have earned it?

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North Carolina
    I think Lawson would have earned the spot, not from day one, but mid-way through the season. In turn, when Paulus was not playing well, one could argue that Paulus, not K, would've been giving him the spot. I think it's foolish to try and deny that Lawson is much better than Greg at the point, but that's not the point of this thread.

    I think dukeimac makes some great points. You should all read the Sports Guy's column today on ESPN.com - while he drools over Kevin Love, much to my disgust (he doesn't seem to be aware of how much of a egomaniac the kid's father is), he rips the culture of the NBA apart.

    His main theme: no one cares about winning. Among all the things that college provides to those who attend, one of the best things it does is instill within people a desire to succeed (not necessarily make money, but do what they want to do and do it well).

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by freedevil View Post
    I think Lawson would have earned the spot, not from day one, but mid-way through the season. In turn, when Paulus was not playing well, one could argue that Paulus, not K, would've been giving him the spot. I think it's foolish to try and deny that Lawson is much better than Greg at the point, but that's not the point of this thread.
    And I think it's foolish to state, as if it were a known fact, who Coach K would have started at PG. I agree that Lawson, on the Duke team, would have contend for Greg's spot. I disagree that the result would have been a foregone conclusion.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North Carolina
    I regret that I was not clear, I did not mean to state that it was a foregone conclusion he would start, I should have stated that it would be highly likely that Lawson would, if not from the beginning of the season than at some point during the middle of the year.

    I have been a diehard Duke fan, like most on this board, all my life, but I seriously doubt the basketball IQ of anyone who would let their love for Duke get in the way of recognizing and trying to argue that Paulus is better than Lawson, at least at this point in their careers.

    You are entitled to your opinion Cato, but I don't think it's all that foolish to state that K may have easily gone with Lawson at some point in time during the 2006-2007 campaign.
    Last edited by freedevil; 03-29-2007 at 04:47 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. NBA Draft Rule -- What should it be?
    By MChambers in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 04-07-2008, 01:16 PM
  2. Rule Quiz! (File this one under 9J)
    By grc5 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 02-29-2008, 02:08 PM
  3. NCAA rule for review of fighting
    By DukeUsul in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-04-2007, 07:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •