Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 115
  1. #21
    I am happy for for Kyrie, Austin, Luol, and Corey. I am happy they are Dukies.

    That said, the saddest day in my own history of Duke fandom is when the 99 guys declared early. I was always very proud that every Duke guy played four years until then. It somehow felt like it respected Duke as an educational institution.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Skinker-DeBaliviere, Saint Louis
    I suppose the real question for Duke's sake to ask is, do you think if HS kids could go to the NBA straight, would KI and AR have stopped here at all? Did they help us?

    I don't know. Let's ignore KI's injury. That's peripheral.

    AR helped us against UNC. And other times, as much as this "addition by subtraction" meme has taken hold. I don't understand how people regard the loss of your best player as a good thing, but I've heard/seen too much of it to pretend it isn't there. The judgment on AR has been shocking.

    If you think college BB is enriched by a year of these dudes vs none, then it helps college BB. Also, if a guy decides to go to the draft straight out of HS, there's no chance he stays for his sophomore year. But if he goes to college for one year, there's some nonzero chance he stays for year two. Might be low, but it exists.

    I'm comfy with a year of a rental of a guy. Why are we so ready to act like 2 or 3 years is so much better than 1 year, from some 1977-purity-test perspective? Meh. I kind of think given how stacked the draft is this year, AR should come back. For his sake. But I'm all whatev by this point. We have to do what we have to do. And as long as we don't compromise the integrity of the program, I don't care whether a dude is here 1, 2, 3 or 4 years. Heck, Maggette did this thirteen years ago. I guess what I'm saying is, if Mike Krzyzewski is cool with a one-and-done, so am I. And I ain't nobody.

    Come back Austin! (After those workouts). But if you don't, let's recruit more Austins. If they exist. It's 2012, not 1965.

    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

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    On this, I'm an Adam Smith guy all the way. One and dones will much, much more often than not be none and dones. I think that the college game would be btter it. When guycoold go straight t the pros, if I remember correctly, players didn't leave after one year (was there a rule against that) but rather seemed to have had a real interest in getting a start in life, you know, geting themselves a ood start on life fter basketball, maturing entallly, emotionally and physically for the challenges on the next level and, more importantly, for thbulk of their lives tht was to come long after their playing da ended.

    As a fan, I'd like to think that there was one area of high level basketball in which good teams were not built on immediate dollars. In the pros, owners can radically change a deam by buying and selling players. College is becoming infected by the same disease--not the making of money, I'm all for that-tbuying players for one year's stardoom on the college level and then paying them what they would have earned straight out of high, but by forcing guys who wou signed straight out of high school. Those kids should have a chance to go for the dough as soon as the pros will draft them high and pay them a fortune.

    In the main, those kids, unless that are grouped in a gaggle like Kentucky does, would be crazy if they didn't push their individual games, if for nothing else but to stave off losing ground. In the meantime, fans are left to root for the stars, who actually are pros in college garb, and miss out on seeing the guys who grow up as players, terammates and men right before out eyes. We get to appreciate the star coaches, and there are many, really be educators and team builders; heck, aside for the star coaches, the mid level ranks on up are filled with them. Probably on down as well.

    Let them sign out of high school; those who don't will probably be like Dunlevy, Boozer, Brand, and so many others who get quite a lot oout of a college experience, things I should think are irreplaceable, while actually giving the fans something to be fans about.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Durham/Boston
    Quote Originally Posted by ncexnyc View Post
    Really, the NCAA doesn't have a vote in the matter. How about tightening up the rules on graduation vis a vis scholarships. Or maybe adapt a rule that penalizies an institution by docking them in the following fashion. If you have a player jump after a season, you lose 3 yrs worth of scholarship time for another player. If that team were to have 2 players jump after a year then the penalty would be 6 years and so on down the line.

    Once a program gets burned by these type of players, they'd think long and hard about these type of kids.

    How about contracts between incoming players and institutions. If the player reneges they are on the hook for X amount of dollars?

    There is plenty that the NCAA can do, they've just got to sit down and make a decision.
    Sure the NCAA could do that, but why would they? That policy would hurt everyone involved, including the NCAA. Schools - especially those that expect to compete for championships year in and year out - would shy away from potential one-and-done players just like you suggested. But where do those players go? They still can't go to the NBA for another year, so most likely to smaller schools that are willing to throw away three future years for one big run. So instead of Kentucky being full of one-and-dones, you would have say, Akron. When the bluebloods don't dominate, national interest in college basketball wanes and the NCAA looses out on exposure and revenue. Players loose out on the experience and exposure of playing for a big name school with a passionate fanbase. No one wins. Furthermore, punishing the school does nothing to incentivize the players to stay longer.

    But I think a more important point to touch on is why we vilify players for leaving early in the first place. I think the recent Onion graphic on John Calipari (you cant find it here http://www.theonion.com/articles/john-calipari,27596/) put it best when they (sarcastically) said he "makes a mockery of higher education by helping students find multimillion-dollar careers in their chosen profession." Isn't that really the point of a college career in the first place? Lets not pretend that any one-and-done type player is at school (even Duke) to get an education. That one year is a chance to grow as a player to prepare for a future career NBA; just like the rest of us are here to prepare for careers in law, medicine, engineering, research, etc. Believe me, if I could have left school early to make a million dollars as a doctor, I would have. I have no problem with a basketball player doing the same.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Quote Originally Posted by greybeard View Post
    On this, I'm an Adam Smith guy all the way. One and dones will much, much more often than not be none and dones. I think that the college game would be btter it. When guycoold go straight t the pros, if I remember correctly, players didn't leave after one year (was there a rule against that) but rather seemed to have had a real interest in getting a start in life, you know, geting themselves a ood start on life fter basketball, maturing entallly, emotionally and physically for the challenges on the next level and, more importantly, for thbulk of their lives tht was to come long after their playing da ended.
    By and large, you're right that when guys could go straight to the pros from high school, there were relatively few who, having chosen to go to college, left after just one year. Here's the way it went:

    In 1996, three freshmen came out: a juco guy nobody's heard of, plus Shareef Abdur-Rahim and Stephon Marbury. Three high schoolers, including Kobe Bryant, came out.

    In 1997, two freshmen and one high schooler (Tracy McGrady) came out.

    In 1998, three freshmen (one at a juco) and four high schoolers came out.

    In 1999, four freshmen (including Corey Maggette) and two high schoolers came out.

    In 2000, three freshmen and two high schoolers came out.

    In 2001, nine freshmen and six high schoolers (including 3 of the first four draft picks -- Kwame Brown, Tyson Chandler, and Eddie Curry) came out.

    In 2002, six freshmen (four of whom you've never heard of) and four high schoolers (including Amare Stoudemire) came out.

    In 2003, three freshmen came out: a guy named Jonathan Hargett, and two guys named Carmelo Anthony and Chris Bosh. Five high schoolers came out, including LeBron James.

    In 2004, five freshmen (including, sigh, Luol Deng and Kris Humphries) and nine high schoolers (including Dwight Howard and Shaun Livingston) came out.

    In 2005, three freshmen (including Marvin Williams) and eleven high schoolers came out.



    At this point, the "one and done" rule came into effect. So then:



    In 2006, two freshmen came out.

    In 2007, nine freshmen, including Greg Oden and Kevin Durant, came out.

    In 2008, 14 freshmen, led by Derrick Rose, came out.

    In 2009, five freshmen came out.

    In 2010, eleven freshmen, led by John Wall, came out.

    And in 2011, Kyrie Irving (again, sigh) led a group of nine freshmen to come out.


    Summing it up, in the ten drafts where high schoolers could come out, 41 freshmen came out, so 4.1 per year.

    In the six drafts since the one-and-done rule was instituted, 50 freshmen have come out, or 8.3 per year. Twice as many.

    I think you're right. In the high school-straight-to-the-draft days, most of the kids who chose not to go that route, but rather tried it in college, ended up staying awhile -- at least two years. It seems like now, with the one-and-done rule, there are a lot more kids who are in college for that one year only because they're forced to. If they could've gone pro right out of high school, many would have (the numbers above show the average was 4.2 per year), therefore reducing the numbers of college players leaving after just one year.

    I will say, though, that for all the hue and cry over freshmen leaving college, these are still pretty small numbers when viewed in the context of all the college ballplayers out there populating all these teams.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Carolina Beach

    3

    Quote Originally Posted by anon View Post
    Two questions, because I hear a lot of people say this.

    1. Why three and not four? Three has absolutely no meaning. Four is the number of years it typically takes to get a bachelor's degree.

    2. Why not just go back to the old system, which was basically the same thing? If you are a one-and-doner in the current system, you're just going to go directly. If you aren't, you're probably going to stay for at least three years anyway. Obviously there are a few exceptions, but they seem to have worked out OK. (Luol / Corey)

    Not trying to antagonize. Just wondering.
    Three years should get someone pretty close to a degree and even if they left hopefully many would want to obtain their degree. Also and I don't know that it has anything to do with this but I wonder if baseball went with the 3 years because it in most cases it would coincide with being age 21. I don't know that we will ever see it but I would love it if we followed the baseball rule. I think it is the most we could ever hope for but what may happen next is they have to stay two years. That seems to be the one rule change that is mentioned most. Regardless if they have no interest in going to school and are good enough go straight to the NBA.

    One and done also creates a hired gun where some kids have zero interest in school and just try to stay eligible. Not at Duke which add that to the list of things I love about Duke.

  7. #27
    It might depend on what a one and done brings to the program in terms of success. KI was a great talent but the team did make the Sweet 16 last year basically without him and I never like the way Nolan's Duke time ended. He was doing a good job at the point and "Zona was a matchup problem for Duke with or without Irving. It might also depend on the team that the one and done joins. There was no way that AR was going to push this team over the top. He was good but not overwhelming and the players around him were not exactly vintage Duke. It was a lot different with Syracuse in 03 when Melo had a group of solid players around him. I am not trying to diminish this year's team but it was a bit sub-par and K did a whale of a job getting what he did out of them. I don't like the rule but what is a coach to do? He has to go after them and land them once in a while to keep the program relevant and on the national radar.

    There is a good read on ESPN.com about the impact it will have if UK wins it all with its one and dones. It aint pretty IMO.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Kansas
    This thread will stop if the NCAA enforces this graduation rate rule. If they do teams like UK will be screwed because they would have a graduation rate of about 10 percent or so. Then again UK could allow they too take basket weaving online so that they can get a degree later

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    On the couch
    I believe that the whole system is broken. I will say up front that I do not expect many to share my feelings.

    I think it is obscene that NBA players and professional athletes in general make the amount of money they make. I know, I know, they make what the market will bear and I am a capitalist at heart so I understand what is happening. But, I don't like it. Teachers, police, fire, EMT, nurses, military personnel and yes even doctors earn way less money over their careers than most NBA players, even the ones that never make it big. To me something is wrong with this. I am not saying that other professions should make as much, but I do question why we value watching guys play a game way more than we do other less exciting yet much more meaningful professions. Is it (the NBA) really that entertaining??

    I have heard the argument that they need to earn big dollars because their careers are short. My logic to that is, well get another job when you are done playing ball... who says that you need to earn enough money in 10 years so that you never have to work again? Are you telling me that Steve Nash will be unable to hold a job in the next 5 years after he retires? I spent 20 years in the Navy and retired, but guess what? I got another job and work about 50 hours a week because I have to in order to put two kids through college...

    Sometimes I am an old grumpy man, this is one of those times. I can see a day in this country when the economy gets so bad that things like the NBA, NFL, MLB etc... will be luxuries that we cannot afford. I hope I am wrong, but I think it will not be long before they price themselves out of jobs. The average person cannot afford to go to a game now...

    I think college should be for education. I think that if everyone spent as little (zero in direct $) on the NBA then the players would be making a lot less money and more likely to stay in college so they would be thankful they were able to get a "free" education that they can use in their second career after the playing days are over.

    Getting down off the soap box now.... thanks for letting me vent.

  10. #30

    New York Times

    Joe Nocera's take is worth a read:

    It was amusing this week to watch [incoming NCAA president Mark] Emmert trot out “the collegiate model” as he was confronted with the reality of the “one and done” freshman. “One and done” freshmen — or players who have no interest in college and are enrolling only until they turn 19 and become eligible for the professional draft — have been a hot topic in the runup to this weekend’s Final Four. That’s because John Calipari, the Kentucky coach, has become the master of recruiting them — and his team is favored to win the championship. Calipari is completely upfront about what he is doing: He is gaming the system by bringing in players who need a way station until they are old enough to turn pro. Indeed, Calipari tells them when he is recruiting them that he doesn’t expect them to stay for more than a year.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/31/op...s.html?_r=1&hp

  11. #31
    As a matter of principle, I find the idea of preventing people from going to the NBA straight out of high school, or at any other point at which they want to and at which an NBA team would hire them, objectionable. Talk of requiring two years of college, or players to sign contracts that would require them to pay penalties to schools if they leave before three years, strikes me as deeply wrong.

    Obviously, not everyone shares my values and perspective on those matters. But even from the narrow self-interest of a college basketball fan, I find these “solutions” highly questionable. Here’s why:

    The more you force or coerce players who don’t want to be in college to stay in college, the more you have college basketball teams made up of players who don’t want to be on college basketball teams.

    That’s something college basketball fans want?

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Atlanta, GA/Durham, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by miramar View Post
    Joe Nocera's take is worth a read:

    It was amusing this week to watch [incoming NCAA president Mark] Emmert trot out “the collegiate model” as he was confronted with the reality of the “one and done” freshman. “One and done” freshmen — or players who have no interest in college and are enrolling only until they turn 19 and become eligible for the professional draft — have been a hot topic in the runup to this weekend’s Final Four. That’s because John Calipari, the Kentucky coach, has become the master of recruiting them — and his team is favored to win the championship. Calipari is completely upfront about what he is doing: He is gaming the system by bringing in players who need a way station until they are old enough to turn pro. Indeed, Calipari tells them when he is recruiting them that he doesn’t expect them to stay for more than a year.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/31/op...s.html?_r=1&hp
    And of course, Stern believes it's the colleges that should do better.

    http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.c...ge-basketball/

  13. #33
    Not a fan of the 1 & done rule but it's the rule. Yes it was nice having Kyrie & Austin for a year. Thing is the past 2 years having 1 & doners we failed to make it out of the second round last year & this year was...nevermind.

    2010 team had zero 1 & doners. I am kind of partial to the 2010 team. Yes Austin & Kyrie gave us some great moments but nothing comes close to cutting nets at Indy. Neither can ever be a Nolan Smith to me because I never got the chance to enjoy them for 4 years. Yes they are part of the Duke family & I will shut-up until Midnite Madness.

    Have a great summer everyone!

  14. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by tommy View Post
    Summing it up, in the ten drafts where high schoolers could come out, 41 freshmen came out, so 4.1 per year.

    In the six drafts since the one-and-done rule was instituted, 50 freshmen have come out, or 8.3 per year. Twice as many.
    Thanks for supplying those numbers. Looking at it another way, though, before the one-and-done rule was instituted there were 8.8 players/year on average that came out before their sophomore year of college. (And it was trending up with 12.2 players/year for the 2001-5 timeframe.) Since the rule was instituted, there have been 8.3 players/year on average that came out before their sophomore year of college, a number smaller than the previous 8.8 average over the previous 10 years and much smaller than the 12.2 trend that was established for the previous 5 years.

    Thus, it seems like the one-and-done rule that the NBA has instituted has successfully served its purpose from the NBA perspective. That is, teams are more easily able to identify players that can cut it in the NBA after a year of high quality competition in the NCAA rather than having to make that determination at the high school level where there are more variables involved. It was much more likely in the past for a franchise to take a risk on a high schooler and end up being a bust, since they obviously hadn't played against top notch competition. So, from a pure numbers perspective, it seems like the rule has made more players stay in college past their freshman year, which may or may not be meaningful/good depending on your perspective. But again, as you said, these numbers are still miniscule in comparison to how many participants there are at the DI level.

  15. #35
    I hate it because I think it does harm to more players than it does good. The value of a full four years of education is priceless. If you're good, you'll be good after four years of maturity, education, better able to handle whichever imposter (success or failure) comes your way.

  16. #36
    My guess: Kyrie and Austin would have been one-and-done with or without the rule. How many guards have gone pro straight out of high school?

    I don't really think the rule has had such a big impact, aside from guys like Oden, Durant, Rose, Beasley, Wall, Davis. We're talking a handful of guys in each class. I think it's been great for college bball to have those guys around, but negligible impact on Duke. Additionally how many one-and-dones have won a national championship? How many of those guys wouldn't have been in college, if it weren't for the 1-year rule?

  17. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by AsiaMinor View Post
    I hate it because I think it does harm to more players than it does good. The value of a full four years of education is priceless. If you're good, you'll be good after four years of maturity, education, better able to handle whichever imposter (success or failure) comes your way.
    This rule has no bearing on whether players stay four years. If anything, theoretically, it makes them more likely to do so. And if 4 years of education is priceless, then how does it hurt guys like Kevin Durant to get 1 year of education- rather than none at all?

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

    Heartily agree and.....

    Quote Originally Posted by oldnavy View Post
    I believe that the whole system is broken. I will say up front that I do not expect many to share my feelings.

    I think it is obscene that NBA players and professional athletes in general make the amount of money they make. I know, I know, they make what the market will bear and I am a capitalist at heart so I understand what is happening. But, I don't like it. Teachers, police, fire, EMT, nurses, military personnel and yes even doctors earn way less money over their careers than most NBA players, even the ones that never make it big. To me something is wrong with this. I am not saying that other professions should make as much, but I do question why we value watching guys play a game way more than we do other less exciting yet much more meaningful professions. Is it (the NBA) really that entertaining??

    I have heard the argument that they need to earn big dollars because their careers are short. My logic to that is, well get another job when you are done playing ball... who says that you need to earn enough money in 10 years so that you never have to work again? Are you telling me that Steve Nash will be unable to hold a job in the next 5 years after he retires? I spent 20 years in the Navy and retired, but guess what? I got another job and work about 50 hours a week because I have to in order to put two kids through college...

    Sometimes I am an old grumpy man, this is one of those times. I can see a day in this country when the economy gets so bad that things like the NBA, NFL, MLB etc... will be luxuries that we cannot afford. I hope I am wrong, but I think it will not be long before they price themselves out of jobs. The average person cannot afford to go to a game now...

    I think college should be for education. I think that if everyone spent as little (zero in direct $) on the NBA then the players would be making a lot less money and more likely to stay in college so they would be thankful they were able to get a "free" education that they can use in their second career after the playing days are over.

    Getting down off the soap box now.... thanks for letting me vent.
    .........bring back the frosh ineligibility rule, and the rest will take care of iteslf.

  19. #39
    I don't like it. I don't think players should be restricted from going to the NBA when they want, including directly from HS. Also, I think it is good for the college game because you wouldn't get players intending to be one-and-done (not nearly as many at least as many of them wouldn't attend college in the first place).

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Quote Originally Posted by oldnavy View Post
    I think it is obscene that NBA players and professional athletes in general make the amount of money they make. I know, I know, they make what the market will bear and I am a capitalist at heart so I understand what is happening. But, I don't like it. Teachers, police, fire, EMT, nurses, military personnel and yes even doctors earn way less money over their careers than most NBA players, even the ones that never make it big. To me something is wrong with this. I am not saying that other professions should make as much, but I do question why we value watching guys play a game way more than we do other less exciting yet much more meaningful professions. Is it (the NBA) really that entertaining??
    I definitely agree that some players are grossly overpaid and many doctors, nurses, firemen, etc. are underpaid, but don't think it's fair to say we value watching guys play a game more than other more meaningful professions. If you look at the professions in the aggregate, how much athletes get paid is much more reasonable. The lowest paid NBA player gets about $400k a year and the highest gets about $20 million, but there are also only 400-500 NBA players in the league compared with how many hundreds of thousands of people in the more important professions. Also, think how much more consumers spend on healthcare or than entertainment each year. It seems like it's just a matter of fewer athletes than nurses, firemen, teachers, etc., to spread the money around.

    Quote Originally Posted by DukieTiger View Post
    This rule has no bearing on whether players stay four years. If anything, theoretically, it makes them more likely to do so. And if 4 years of education is priceless, then how does it hurt guys like Kevin Durant to get 1 year of education- rather than none at all?
    I disagree with this to some extent. Before the rule, there was a choice as to whether a player went to college in the first place, now players for the most part don't have a meaningful choice about whether to go to college. In effect, they had two choices, first whether to go to college and if yes, which college to go to. Now, the question for potential one and dones is where to spend a year, so they don't go in really committing to college over the pros, they go in committing to a particular program. If you don't have to go to college in the first place, but decide to instead of the NBA, then I would think you'd be going in with the mindset of spending multiple years there instead of bolting after a year. I'd imagine it's a lot harder to turn down millions of dollars the first time (out of high school) than the second time (after your freshman year).

Similar Threads

  1. Austin Rivers and the one and done rule
    By MChambers in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 03-31-2012, 12:40 AM
  2. Kyrie Irving or Austin Rivers
    By trey_dre20 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 05-31-2011, 09:23 PM
  3. Fan's Guide All-Defensive Team--Am I Missing Something?
    By MCFinARL in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-09-2011, 03:00 PM
  4. A Bama fan's lack of class
    By epoulsen in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 02-18-2011, 07:49 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
  •