Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 43
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by lotusland View Post
    I think you need someone who puts the program ahead of a particular team or an individual player minding the store to even possibly prevent violations in that environment and Calipari's history suggests that he is never "aware" of the violations when they occur. i don't think you can keep a program like UK out of trouble for very long being conveniently ignorant of what is going on around you. My UK friends have a Nascar mentality about cheating which is that it aint cheating unless you get caught. There are plenty of willing corrupters among their fans so I think it's just a matter of time.
    Well, in the end, what do you call the UK program anyway? Is it really college athletics, or is it a semi-pro program? I mean, the players stay only one
    year or two at the most, concentrate mostly on B-ball, and mostly go to the pros. Do they count as real college students in any meaningful sense of
    the word? The great thing about Duke basketball, is that usually (with some more recent exceptions) the Duke players are also actually real students.
    They go to class, they (mostly) graduate, and they go on to other careers besides basketball. That to me has always been one of the great appeals
    of the program. Now, it appears that keeping that up and winning too may get much harder. It will be very hard to resist the one-and-done Kentucky model
    for long, especially as we've basically already started doing it with Kyrie (who admittedly was pro-ready) and Austin.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    calipari has already said he doesn't expect to be at UK for.more than a decade...it was an ESPN article earlier this year..cant find it right now cause im on my phone

  3. #23

    Flavor of the moment

    A few years ago- the talk was the way to win now is to keep guys until they are seniors, sprinkle in one star player and have the team develop. This is effectively tinkering with the mid major model. Butler was great because they had guys who played together and had a star player in Hayward. Duke also took that approach and won it with a senior heavy team in 2009. UNC took an experienced team and won it all in 2008. Now the one and done model seems like the way to go. What I saw yesterday was a good team with a difference maker on defense. Davis gave KY tons of opportunities - by blocking or altering shots and getting rebounds and starting a break. They won because of a phenom player. KY did not win because of one and done rule- they won because they had a unique player who excelled when it counted. If KY wins it again next year- I may chance my opinion- unless, of course, Davis comes back.
    dukelifer

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Jacksonville, NC
    Here is my take on the Kentucky win which I feel, combined with the NBA age restriction rule, is bad for college basketball. Not necessarily because Kentucky won or that they won with a lot of freshman but because one and dones to me are devaluaing the college in college basketball.

    http://dukesportsblog.com/2012/04/03...asketball.aspx

    I'm no Kentucky fan but I have to give them credit. I'm definitely no fan of Calipari, but he did get his team to play very well despite all that talent and the egos that went with it. They were very good defensively and Anthony Davis obviously had something to do with that.
    http://www.dukesportsblog.com/

    Twitter: @MikeKlineDSB

    Facebook: Duke Sports Blog

  5. #25

    Time will tell

    Congratulations to Kentucky for winning the championship. They had superior players at every position and a phenom in Davis. With that said, I wonder how it is that one program has landed so many top rated players two years running. Given that Calipari has recently coached two teams that had to give back wins due to rules violations, I wonder if something may come up to taint his current Kentucky teams. I hope not for college basketball's future. I guess time will tell.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Mobile, Alabama

    My $.02

    The primary problem isn't necessarily with Calipari or the rule requiring high school kids to wait one year before becoming eligible for the NBA draft. The real problem is the NBA game itself, which ultimately values athleticism over basketball skills. The NBA game is so radically different from the college game that it does not value the type of coaching that players get at the college level. Fundamentals and basketball skills have almost no correlation to where a player will get drafted. Why would anyone continue in school when doing so adds no legitimate value to a professional career.

    The secondary problem is that the entire concept of amateurism is outdated, if it ever existed in the first place. Look at the Eurpoean football model, or that of Golfers and tennis players. The idea that there is any correlation between post-secondary education and excellence in the sport has been completey dropped.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by rtnorthrup View Post
    The real problem is the NBA game itself, which ultimately values athleticism over basketball skills.
    You must not watch much NBA. IMO, the NBA game values basketball skill MORE than the college game, if for no other reason the game is far less physical. If you are talking about the way that NBA teams evaluate talent for the draft, that is different.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by dukeENG2003 View Post
    You must not watch much NBA. IMO, the NBA game values basketball skill MORE than the college game, if for no other reason the game is far less physical. If you are talking about the way that NBA teams evaluate talent for the draft, that is different.
    I agree...basketball skill has a great deal to do with success in the NBA. Teams are just having to draft based on potential since kids come out early after a year or two of college.

    I don't know why any athlete would stay in school if they knew millions awaited them playing professional sports. I would sure leave early if I had the chance to make millions.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Inman, SC & Melbourne Beach, FL
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxAMillion View Post
    I agree...basketball skill has a great deal to do with success in the NBA. Teams are just having to draft based on potential since kids come out early after a year or two of college.

    I don't know why any athlete would stay in school if they knew millions awaited them playing professional sports. I would sure leave early if I had the chance to make millions.
    So do you favor eliminating the one and done rule, and letting the NBA draft kids directly out of high school? I sure favor that over the current situation. Maybe the baseball plan is best (go directly after high school, or stay in college three years). I would have to say that almost any plan is better than what we now have.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    New Jersey
    Quote Originally Posted by mgtr View Post
    So do you favor eliminating the one and done rule, and letting the NBA draft kids directly out of high school? I sure favor that over the current situation. Maybe the baseball plan is best (go directly after high school, or stay in college three years). I would have to say that almost any plan is better than what we now have.
    You may favor it, but the NBA doesn't. Why should they? They have the best of both worlds. If they get rid of the one year rule then they have a bunch of unknowns coming out of high school with zero marketability (except for the occasional freak phenom such as Lebron James). Would anyone but the diehard recruiting geek know anything about Anthony Davis or Kidd-Gilchrest last year? No. So they enter the NBA out of HS as unknowns.

    However, now that they've played collegiate ball for one year in a D1 program and have been all over ESPN, and in the NCAA Tourney, which was watched by millions of people, and have received tons of press for their accomplishments, they enter the NBA as lucrative commodities from a marketing standpoint. The NBA is all about marketing its players. So by having the one year rule, the NBA is optimizing its product from a marketing standpoint, regardless of what's better for the NCAA, collegiate athletes, or the schools. That's not the NBA's concern nor, as a business, should it be. The NBA doesn't need to force the kids to stay 2 or 3 years for its marketing success, but having them play college for one year sure does help and makes sense from a business/marketing perspective.

    I agree with you that I would prefer to see kids go straight from HS or unpack their bags and play college for 2-3 years. I hate the one year rule. But it's the NBA's rule and they have no incentive to change it.
    Rich
    Cameron Crazies Do Not Storm The Court

  11. #31

    Agree

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich View Post
    You may favor it, but the NBA doesn't. Why should they? They have the best of both worlds. If they get rid of the one year rule then they have a bunch of unknowns coming out of high school with zero marketability (except for the occasional freak phenom such as Lebron James). Would anyone but the diehard recruiting geek know anything about Anthony Davis or Kidd-Gilchrest last year? No. So they enter the NBA out of HS as unknowns.

    However, now that they've played collegiate ball for one year in a D1 program and have been all over ESPN, and in the NCAA Tourney, which was watched by millions of people, and have received tons of press for their accomplishments, they enter the NBA as lucrative commodities from a marketing standpoint. The NBA is all about marketing its players. So by having the one year rule, the NBA is optimizing its product from a marketing standpoint, regardless of what's better for the NCAA, collegiate athletes, or the schools. That's not the NBA's concern nor, as a business, should it be. The NBA doesn't need to force the kids to stay 2 or 3 years for its marketing success, but having them play college for one year sure does help and makes sense from a business/marketing perspective.

    I agree with you that I would prefer to see kids go straight from HS or unpack their bags and play college for 2-3 years. I hate the one year rule. But it's the NBA's rule and they have no incentive to change it.
    Which is why the NCAA should make freshmen ineligible for college basketball.

    SoCal

  12. #32
    Can't say I've thought of it this way, but worth reading.

    http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bask...vel-excellence

  13. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by SoCalDukeFan View Post
    Which is why the NCAA should make freshmen ineligible for college basketball.

    SoCal
    Bob Costas agrees with you

    http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/228251...45504#46945504

  14. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Atlanta Duke View Post
    Costas is being a little naive here, I think.

    Freshmen ineligibility means players will go to Europe or elsewhere outside the US for one year before declaring for the draft, and the pool of good players for college hoops will shrink even more.

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO
    Quote Originally Posted by SoCalDukeFan View Post
    Which is why the NCAA should make freshmen ineligible for college basketball.

    SoCal
    Quote Originally Posted by Atlanta Duke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ping Lin View Post
    Costas is being a little naive here, I think.

    Freshmen ineligibility means players will go to Europe or elsewhere outside the US for one year before declaring for the draft, and the pool of good players for college hoops will shrink even more.
    Let's see.... The problem is that high schools are turning out a few basketball players each year who are good enough to go directly to the NCAA or, at the very least, are highly desired by the NBA after just one year of college. So the solution is not to let HS players go to college and play. Rather, they should sit out the first year of varsity competition. This is because they are too good? I must be missing something.

    The "Freshman Ineligible" ship sailed decades ago, and it ain't coming back to NCAA competition.

    sagegrouse

  16. #36

    Future

    It would be great if Noel, Bazz, and Bennett all chose to play elsewhere. IMHO, Kentucky would still be a borderline 25 team though.

    My solution to the one and done problem would be to make eligibility for the NBA draft three years removed from high school just like football. The difference is that the NBDL already exists (or so I hear). Players that don't want to go to school, fail out, or just can't get in go into a NBDL draft. They would get paid, but in the 5 to 6 figure range depending on draft position. This would eliminate the monetary risk of NBA GM's selecting an unproven commodity. Only 1 or 2 of these guys are NBA ready immediately anyway. Because there is not a NBDL team for every NBA team, a player would be eligible for the NBA draft once three years removed from high school. I think it would work because there are so few NBDL teams.

    Imagine the popularity of the NBDL if John Wall, Kyrie Irving, Austin Rivers, Anthony Davis....all played in it.

    Of course the reality would be that most of these guys would still be in school.

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO

    Oops1 Yet Again, I Fear

    Quote Originally Posted by sagegrouse View Post
    Let's see.... The problem is that high schools are turning out a few basketball players each year who are good enough to go directly to the NCAA or, at the very least, are highly desired by the NBA after just one year of college. So the solution is not to let HS players go to college and play. Rather, they should sit out the first year of varsity competition. This is because they are too good? I must be missing something.

    The "Freshman Ineligible" ship sailed decades ago, and it ain't coming back to NCAA competition.

    sagegrouse
    Dumb, dumb, dumb, Sage Grouse. Of course, I meant to say "who are good enough to go directly to the NBA." - sage

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    New York, NY
    Quote Originally Posted by sagegrouse View Post
    Let's see.... The problem is that high schools are turning out a few basketball players each year who are good enough to go directly to the NBA or, at the very least, are highly desired by the NBA after just one year of college. So the solution is not to let HS players go to college and play. Rather, they should sit out the first year of varsity competition. This is because they are too good? I must be missing something.

    The "Freshman Ineligible" ship sailed decades ago, and it ain't coming back to NCAA competition.

    sagegrouse
    I agree with this completely. There are 345 Division I basketball schools, each of whom on average probably adds ~3 freshmen every season. That's over 1,000 kids every season who get to play (or at least be eligible to play) NCAA basketball as freshmen. Of those 1,000+, fewer than 10 - that is fewer than 1% - leave after a single season to go play in the NBA. Even if we assume that 10 freshmen leaving for the NBA is an affront to the system of NCAA basketball, stripping 1,000 kids of a season of playing college hoops as a reaction to those 10 leaving is the epitome of cutting of your nose to spite your face.
    Just be you. You is enough. - K, 4/5/10, 0:13.8 to play, 60-59 Duke.

    You're all jealous hypocrites. - Titus on Laettner

    You see those guys? Animals. They're animals. - SIU Coach Chris Lowery, on Duke

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Inman, SC & Melbourne Beach, FL
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich View Post
    You may favor it, but the NBA doesn't. Why should they? They have the best of both worlds. If they get rid of the one year rule then they have a bunch of unknowns coming out of high school with zero marketability (except for the occasional freak phenom such as Lebron James). Would anyone but the diehard recruiting geek know anything about Anthony Davis or Kidd-Gilchrest last year? No. So they enter the NBA out of HS as unknowns.

    However, now that they've played collegiate ball for one year in a D1 program and have been all over ESPN, and in the NCAA Tourney, which was watched by millions of people, and have received tons of press for their accomplishments, they enter the NBA as lucrative commodities from a marketing standpoint. The NBA is all about marketing its players. So by having the one year rule, the NBA is optimizing its product from a marketing standpoint, regardless of what's better for the NCAA, collegiate athletes, or the schools. That's not the NBA's concern nor, as a business, should it be. The NBA doesn't need to force the kids to stay 2 or 3 years for its marketing success, but having them play college for one year sure does help and makes sense from a business/marketing perspective.

    I agree with you that I would prefer to see kids go straight from HS or unpack their bags and play college for 2-3 years. I hate the one year rule. But it's the NBA's rule and they have no incentive to change it.
    OK, there are three principal actors here - the NBA, the NCAA, and the colleges. The NBA is, as you say, probably not going to act. A few of the colleges might act alone (eg, Ivy League), but the pressure on the administration by the athletic would be intense in big time schools. So, the real hope is the NCAA. They could act to at least enforce existing rules (such as the much-discussed but little understood) -- at least by me -- academic progress rule. I think the biggest problem is the person who gets into college (perhaps barely), skates by the first semester, and then stops bothering to make an effort. So college becomes sort of a showplace for new NBA talent. I favor treating college more favorably than that. Fortunately, Duke hasn't had many basketball players who fit that mold.

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    New Jersey
    Quote Originally Posted by mgtr View Post
    OK, there are three principal actors here - the NBA, the NCAA, and the colleges. The NBA is, as you say, probably not going to act. A few of the colleges might act alone (eg, Ivy League), but the pressure on the administration by the athletic would be intense in big time schools. So, the real hope is the NCAA. They could act to at least enforce existing rules (such as the much-discussed but little understood) -- at least by me -- academic progress rule. I think the biggest problem is the person who gets into college (perhaps barely), skates by the first semester, and then stops bothering to make an effort. So college becomes sort of a showplace for new NBA talent. I favor treating college more favorably than that. Fortunately, Duke hasn't had many basketball players who fit that mold.
    I just don't see that making much of a dent in the system. First, it's a vague standard and easy enough for an athletics department to overcome. Second, many of these kids are decent students. For example, I read that this year's Kentucky bball freshman class were all very good students and didn't have any issues academically. Doesn't mean they will (or should) stay in school rather than pursue their dream to play in the NBA.
    Rich
    Cameron Crazies Do Not Storm The Court

Similar Threads

  1. Signs for Future Basketball Contest
    By Viking Guy in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 02-19-2010, 04:15 PM
  2. The Future of Duke Basketball
    By dukeblue225 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 07-16-2009, 07:10 PM
  3. Replies: 26
    Last Post: 03-19-2009, 08:59 AM
  4. Kentucky Basketball Museum Closing
    By juise in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-02-2008, 04:47 PM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-21-2008, 05:36 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
  •