Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 61 to 77 of 77
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Quote Originally Posted by RPS View Post
    Why? Since we're talking about positions of parties to labor negotiations, I see no reason to assume that publicly stated positions are accurate. Moreover, even if the article is accurate, the league's position was arrived at via negotiations among multiple parties. There is no necessary unified position.
    Well, since the Player’s Association clearly was not arguing in favor of an increased age requirement this had to be the position of a majority of owners.

    Quote Originally Posted by RPS View Post
    Finally, 12 years is a long time for teams to have gotten a better handle on their systems and strengths. Jeff Bezos famously said that people who are right a lot change their minds a lot. Silver's comments suggest evolution and change. I have no doubt that teams have changed their collective minds on this over the past 12, perhaps more than once.
    Your argument is that a majority of NBA teams now believe that their player evaluation systems are so superior to those of their rivals that they prefer more uncertainty involving athletes to be drafted because they believe they have a significant edge. But why wouldn’t they have had the same belief in themselves in 2005? Silver didn’t cite this as one of the things that have changed. You are saying that it is but you have not given a rationale as to why the views on this might have changed. Do you have any foundation for this belief or are you just saying that it could have happened? You must acknowledge that normally people agree that the status quo will remain constant and the burden is on the person who asserts that there has been a change to show evidence of it or at least provide a rationale that could have produced it.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    New York, NY
    Quote Originally Posted by swood1000 View Post
    Well, since the Player’s Association clearly was not arguing in favor of an increased age requirement this had to be the position of a majority of owners.



    Your argument is that a majority of NBA teams now believe that their player evaluation systems are so superior to those of their rivals that they prefer more uncertainty involving athletes to be drafted because they believe they have a significant edge. But why wouldn’t they have had the same belief in themselves in 2005? Silver didn’t cite this as one of the things that have changed. You are saying that it is but you have not given a rationale as to why the views on this might have changed. Do you have any foundation for this belief or are you just saying that it could have happened? You must acknowledge that normally people agree that the status quo will remain constant and the burden is on the person who asserts that there has been a change to show evidence of it or at least provide a rationale that could have produced it.
    I'm not going to get majorly involved in this discussion between you fine folks. But I will cite one reason that would, it seem, amount to evidence of "change": media and social media.

    12 years ago was nowhere like it was today in regards to media, social media, and the ability to share and find information. You couldn't even join Facebook in 2005 unless you had a recognized, university-sanctioned (.edu) email account. I would know, because I matriculated at Duke that year. Youtube was a relative unknown and wasn't even owned by Google at that time. And the first iPhone hadn't even come out. I don't know for certain, but I can only imagine it was much, much harder to gain access to these 16-year old kids as they rose up the basketball ranks.

    I would hazard a guess that professional basketball franchises would rely on regional talent evaluators to get localized scoops on kids in certain areas in order to try to glean as much information as they could before making a reasoned judgment call (that probably amounted to little more than an educated guess) before drafting a kid out of high school. Such a construct would require a lot of legwork, connections, timing, interviews, etc. Where "etc" in this example means money.

    In 2017, it's dramatically easier to get to know a potential high school draft pick. They are more available, you are more available, data is more available - Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, Snapchat, Wikipedia, iPhones, FaceTime, 4K videos via text message, the list goes on and on. I just can't imagine that the math (money-wise as well as logistics-wise) hasn't changed immensely in the past 12 years. And that's not even considering the fact that the NBA is more flush with cash than it has ever been.

    So, while I'm not sure why Adam Silver would say what he said, and I'm not sure what exactly would change his (or NBA owners') view on the matter, I do believe that there has been an unquestionable shift in availability of data in the past decade+. That much seems certain, at least to me.

    - Chillin

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    San Diego, California
    Quote Originally Posted by swood1000 View Post
    Well, since the Player’s Association clearly was not arguing in favor of an increased age requirement this had to be the position of a majority of owners.
    I'm not fixated on the league's official bargaining position, then or now. To say that "the league" (meaning, generally, "the owners") took a particular position in collective bargaining does not mean that "the owners" (as in all of them) hold a particular position.

    Quote Originally Posted by swood1000 View Post
    Your argument is that a majority of NBA teams now believe that their player evaluation systems are so superior to those of their rivals that they prefer more uncertainty involving athletes to be drafted because they believe they have a significant edge.
    No, I am not.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Quote Originally Posted by ChillinDuke View Post
    I'm not going to get majorly involved in this discussion between you fine folks. But I will cite one reason that would, it seem, amount to evidence of "change": media and social media.

    12 years ago was nowhere like it was today in regards to media, social media, and the ability to share and find information. You couldn't even join Facebook in 2005 unless you had a recognized, university-sanctioned (.edu) email account. I would know, because I matriculated at Duke that year. Youtube was a relative unknown and wasn't even owned by Google at that time. And the first iPhone hadn't even come out. I don't know for certain, but I can only imagine it was much, much harder to gain access to these 16-year old kids as they rose up the basketball ranks.

    I would hazard a guess that professional basketball franchises would rely on regional talent evaluators to get localized scoops on kids in certain areas in order to try to glean as much information as they could before making a reasoned judgment call (that probably amounted to little more than an educated guess) before drafting a kid out of high school. Such a construct would require a lot of legwork, connections, timing, interviews, etc. Where "etc" in this example means money.

    In 2017, it's dramatically easier to get to know a potential high school draft pick. They are more available, you are more available, data is more available - Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, Snapchat, Wikipedia, iPhones, FaceTime, 4K videos via text message, the list goes on and on. I just can't imagine that the math (money-wise as well as logistics-wise) hasn't changed immensely in the past 12 years. And that's not even considering the fact that the NBA is more flush with cash than it has ever been.

    So, while I'm not sure why Adam Silver would say what he said, and I'm not sure what exactly would change his (or NBA owners') view on the matter, I do believe that there has been an unquestionable shift in availability of data in the past decade+. That much seems certain, at least to me.

    - Chillin
    Do you think that this change in the availability of data would lead NBA teams to conclude that evaluating the NBA potential of high school players would be preferable to evaluating them after one year of college? Wouldn't they still want the decrease in uncertainty afforded by seeing how they do against college competition?

  5. #65
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    New York, NY
    Quote Originally Posted by swood1000 View Post
    Do you think that this change in the availability of data would lead NBA teams to conclude that evaluating the NBA potential of high school players would be preferable to evaluating them after one year of college? Wouldn't they still want the decrease in uncertainty afforded by seeing how they do against college competition?
    I think your question(s) are valid but not focused enough. In other words, I think when faced with a question of relatively more or less uncertainty, an NBA team acting rationally would always opt for less uncertainty.

    The question to me involves degree of uncertainty. Like I said previously, I don't particularly want to get too involved in this discussion. But my admittedly brief thoughts on the matter are that thanks to the increased availability of information today, the amount of uncertainty has materially dropped across the board. So much so that variance in potential outcomes for a given draft pick are much more contained within a reasonable band than they were 12 years ago.

    If you agree with that, then the evaluation becomes one of weighing the incrementally increased uncertainty of a HS player (compared to a college freshman) versus the materially lower uncertainty of all basketball players' skill sets. I could see a reasonable NBA decision maker being more comfortable taking high schoolers today if the Kwame Brown's of today's world are materially less risky. Not saying that is definitively how it is, but I could see the argument going that way.

    To be clear, none of this is to imply that the NBA Draft has become riskless. There is still obviously risk. And it exists whether or not you draft straight out of HS or out of college (hello, Anthony Bennett). But, again, I could see an NBA decision maker wanting to have an extra year of John Wall, Kyrie Irving, Anthony Davis, Andrew Wiggins, KAT, Simmons, or Fultz (the other #1 draft picks in the last 8 years; I arbitrarily stopped at 8 years) in exchange for some added risk by not seeing their (likely one year of) college experience - especially (enter: Adam Silver) when the last two examples on my list had arguably lackluster college experiences (by their own design) at least in regards to level of competition, exposure, and accomplishment.

    I could see it go both ways, frankly.

    ETA - I also think the dramatic increase in European players in the NBA has added a new wrinkle into the calculus.

    - Chillin
    Last edited by ChillinDuke; 10-19-2017 at 01:49 PM.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NC Raised, DC Resident
    Quote Originally Posted by ChillinDuke View Post
    SNIP...

    To be clear, none of this is to imply that the NBA Draft has become riskless. There is still obviously risk. And it exists whether or not you draft straight out of HS or out of college (hello, Anthony Bennett). But, again, I could see an NBA decision maker wanting to have an extra year of John Wall, Kyrie Irving, Anthony Davis, Andrew Wiggins, KAT, Simmons, or Fultz (the other #1 draft picks in the last 8 years; I arbitrarily stopped at 8 years) in exchange for some added risk by not seeing their (likely one year of) college experience - especially (enter: Adam Silver) when the last two examples on my list had arguably lackluster college experiences (by their own design) at least in regards to level of competition, exposure, and accomplishment.

    I could see it go both ways, frankly.

    ETA - I also think the dramatic increase in European players in the NBA has added a new wrinkle into the calculus.

    - Chillin
    Cherry picking a bit here, but I was surprised by Silver's singling out the last two #1 overall picks...I think their respective teams' abhorrent records cloud their individual performances a bit in our memories if we're talking about their accomplishments:

    Fultz averaged a 23, 6, 6 last season at UDub. That's, uh, not bad for a freshman. And certainly his level of competition, while not NBA-level, was P5. Now, certainly, his teammates in practice likely didn't push him too much. His exposure, to scouts and to the public via ESPN, was sky high.

    Simmons averaged a 19, 12, 5 in his one season in Baton Rouge. Samesies WRT competition (I guess some call the SEC a P5 hoops conference), and there wasn't a day that went by during CBB season that we didn't hear something about Ben Simmons re: exposure.
    Last edited by English; 10-19-2017 at 03:05 PM. Reason: Words.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Quote Originally Posted by ChillinDuke View Post
    But, again, I could see an NBA decision maker wanting to have an extra year of John Wall, Kyrie Irving, Anthony Davis, Andrew Wiggins, KAT, Simmons, or Fultz … in exchange for some added risk by not seeing their (likely one year of) college experience …I could see it go both ways, frankly.
    I guess I question whether the information revolution in the past twelve years has really added that much to the ability of the NBA decision maker to evaluate high school athletes. As of 2012 NBA commissioner David Stern said "We would love to add a year, but that's not something that the players' association has been willing to agree to." In 2014 current commissioner Adam Silver gave “his strong opinion that the league's minimum age should be raised from 19 years old to 20.” According to a June, 2017 NYT article Silver said he has talked to many veteran players, who have a sense that the 19-year-olds “are not coming in game-ready.” Furthermore his recent statement didn’t say what his preferred solution to the problem is. Unless he’s been urging a position that is not supported by the owners it seems that they still don’t think that there would be a net positive in drafting players out of high school.

    If they begin drafting high schoolers not only would the NBA have greater uncertainty but also greater cost since they would have to scout all the high schools and would have to foot the bill for player development of players not yet ready for the NBA. Furthermore, the NBA currently benefits from the fact that its best players were already household names by the time they were drafted.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    New York, NY
    Quote Originally Posted by swood1000 View Post
    I guess I question whether the information revolution in the past twelve years has really added that much to the ability of the NBA decision maker to evaluate high school athletes. As of 2012 NBA commissioner David Stern said "We would love to add a year, but that's not something that the players' association has been willing to agree to." In 2014 current commissioner Adam Silver gave “his strong opinion that the league's minimum age should be raised from 19 years old to 20.” According to a June, 2017 NYT article Silver said he has talked to many veteran players, who have a sense that the 19-year-olds “are not coming in game-ready.” Furthermore his recent statement didn’t say what his preferred solution to the problem is. Unless he’s been urging a position that is not supported by the owners it seems that they still don’t think that there would be a net positive in drafting players out of high school.

    If they begin drafting high schoolers not only would the NBA have greater uncertainty but also greater cost since they would have to scout all the high schools and would have to foot the bill for player development of players not yet ready for the NBA. Furthermore, the NBA currently benefits from the fact that its best players were already household names by the time they were drafted.
    I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion. You may well be right.

    But I unquestionably disagree with the bolded. And maybe disagree is not the right word - but I don't see how it's even arguable. If the information revolution has greatly increased my ability to comparison shop couches from regional retailers that ship nationwide, learn about what movie I want to see before I even get to the theater, or watch a 50-minute documentary on the Komono Dragon at the push of a button, certainly an NBA exec has greatly benefited from YouTube videos, high school game broadcasts/live streams, video via text message, etc. IMO it's unquestionably easier to figure out / learn about "stuff" than it was 12 years ago. And I don't see why high school basketball players wouldn't be classified as "stuff".

    Again, that doesn't mean that it's worthwhile to change OAD, at least to owners/franchises.

    - Chillin

  9. #69
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    New York, NY
    Quote Originally Posted by English View Post
    Cherry picking a bit here, but I was surprised by Silver's singling out the last two #1 overall picks...I think their respective teams' abhorrent records cloud their individual performances a bit in our memories if we're talking about their accomplishments:

    Fultz averaged a 23, 6, 6 last season at UDub. That's, uh, not bad for a freshman. And certainly his level of competition, while not NBA-level, was P5. Now, certainly, his teammates in practice likely didn't push him too much. His exposure, to scouts and to the public via ESPN, was sky high.

    Simmons averaged a 19, 12, 5 in his one season in Baton Rouge. Samesies WRT competition (I guess some call the SEC a P5 hoops conference), and there wasn't a day that went by during CBB season that we didn't hear something about Ben Simmons re: exposure.
    Well I admitted that I arbitrarily chose the last eight #1 picks. No particular reason to cut my sample there.

    Re: Simmons/Fultz - I don't believe Silver's comments were meant to question the amount of marketing these guys got. Nor the amount of counting stats they obtained. My take was that he is concerned that kids are starting to "game" the system a bit and choose the path of least resistance to park themselves for their one year post high school. The NBA loves the current construct for a bunch of reasons, and one of those is growth in challenging circumstances - playing with and against the best. If kids are starting to do what Fultz/Simmons did (or, possibly more concerning, Mitchell Robinson), then that needs to be looked at by the NBA. Let's play logical extremes - this will never happen, but if the Top 10 HS kids all went into hiding for a year after they graduated and then declared for the draft, where does that leave the NBA on draft night? In Silver's eyes (again, my take), kids see the money one year away, and the last thing they want to do is risk the payday - so they (perhaps they're just beginning to; perhaps these examples are just outliers) choose suboptimal ways (for the NBA) to spend their one year that reduces the risk to that payday.

    [I prefer not to get into the Teams v Players debate that seems to always erupt at this point.]

    So, Silver is pointing out that there's a lot of money on the line for these kids. If they want that money, we need to figure out a better system that better aligns the NBA's long-term interests with the money that is being paid to players. Perhaps he's thinking that the kids getting smaller chunks of that big payday sooner in the G-League is a better construct. The kids get paid more than they do in college, and the NBA learns more about their skill sets and how they potentially stack up before they invest significantly more money in them. A win-win, potentially.

    I have no idea if that's where Silver was coming from. But that's how it struck me.

    - Chillin

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Quote Originally Posted by ChillinDuke View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by swood1000 View Post
    I guess I question whether the information revolution in the past twelve years has really added that much to the ability of the NBA decision maker to evaluate high school athletes.
    I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion. You may well be right.

    But I unquestionably disagree with the bolded. And maybe disagree is not the right word - but I don't see how it's even arguable. If the information revolution has greatly increased my ability to comparison shop couches from regional retailers that ship nationwide, learn about what movie I want to see before I even get to the theater, or watch a 50-minute documentary on the Komono Dragon at the push of a button, certainly an NBA exec has greatly benefited from YouTube videos, high school game broadcasts/live streams, video via text message, etc. IMO it's unquestionably easier to figure out / learn about "stuff" than it was 12 years ago. And I don't see why high school basketball players wouldn't be classified as "stuff".

    Again, that doesn't mean that it's worthwhile to change OAD, at least to owners/franchises.

    - Chillin
    But if “the information revolution in the past twelve years has really added that much to the ability of the NBA decision maker to evaluate high school athletes” then why would Stern in 2012 and Silver in 2014 not be on board? Isn't it the fundamental problem that there is a limit to how much one can learn from watching high school athletes demolish athletes from the local high school (who are not even good enough to be scouted for college)?

  11. #71
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    New York, NY
    That I don't know. Do as I do, not as I say, and all that.

    It's possible the paradigm shift had occurred but they didn't want to tip their hand in negotiations or something. Who knows. Hard to opine on public statements these days. Or ever.

    - Chillin

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NC Raised, DC Resident
    Quote Originally Posted by ChillinDuke View Post
    Well I admitted that I arbitrarily chose the last eight #1 picks. No particular reason to cut my sample there.

    Re: Simmons/Fultz - I don't believe Silver's comments were meant to question the amount of marketing these guys got. Nor the amount of counting stats they obtained. My take was that he is concerned that kids are starting to "game" the system a bit and choose the path of least resistance to park themselves for their one year post high school. The NBA loves the current construct for a bunch of reasons, and one of those is growth in challenging circumstances - playing with and against the best. If kids are starting to do what Fultz/Simmons did (or, possibly more concerning, Mitchell Robinson), then that needs to be looked at by the NBA. Let's play logical extremes - this will never happen, but if the Top 10 HS kids all went into hiding for a year after they graduated and then declared for the draft, where does that leave the NBA on draft night? In Silver's eyes (again, my take), kids see the money one year away, and the last thing they want to do is risk the payday - so they (perhaps they're just beginning to; perhaps these examples are just outliers) choose suboptimal ways (for the NBA) to spend their one year that reduces the risk to that payday.

    [I prefer not to get into the Teams v Players debate that seems to always erupt at this point.]

    So, Silver is pointing out that there's a lot of money on the line for these kids. If they want that money, we need to figure out a better system that better aligns the NBA's long-term interests with the money that is being paid to players. Perhaps he's thinking that the kids getting smaller chunks of that big payday sooner in the G-League is a better construct. The kids get paid more than they do in college, and the NBA learns more about their skill sets and how they potentially stack up before they invest significantly more money in them. A win-win, potentially.

    I have no idea if that's where Silver was coming from. But that's how it struck me.

    - Chillin
    I don't think we have a disagreement on much of what you've said.

    I'm curious why going to a lousy team for a season and missing the NCAAT would be considered the path of least resistance for these last two top picks and for the future hypothetical stars. I understand Simmons chose a fairly local option (from Montverde in FL to LSU)--some loose logic in that, I guess. Fultz is an east coast guy who ended up in the Pacific Northwest on a terrible team surrounded by overmatched teammates. No one but Markelle can speak to his rationale, but I don't understand the arithmetic. Perhaps the recruiting was just so much better than what these guys were hearing, but that's a bit of a leap.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    New York, NY
    Quote Originally Posted by English View Post
    I don't think we have a disagreement on much of what you've said.

    I'm curious why going to a lousy team for a season and missing the NCAAT would be considered the path of least resistance for these last two top picks and for the future hypothetical stars. I understand Simmons chose a fairly local option (from Montverde in FL to LSU)--some loose logic in that, I guess. Fultz is an east coast guy who ended up in the Pacific Northwest on a terrible team surrounded by overmatched teammates. No one but Markelle can speak to his rationale, but I don't understand the arithmetic. Perhaps the recruiting was just so much better than what these guys were hearing, but that's a bit of a leap.
    "Path of least resistance" (my term) probably isn't the best way of describing it - but generally it gets to what I'm trying to say. If a guy like Fultz goes to Duke and is overshadowed by Tatum, Giles, and has to return for a sophomore year (sort of like Bolden), that could be viewed as a negative - by the press, the NBA, the kid, his family, a whole host of people. It could be viewed as negative. It doesn't mean it is a negative. But the simple fact that it could be more or less implies increased risk. Why would the kid risk that when it could amount to future millions? Why not just go somewhere where he's essentially guaranteed to be the leading scorer, play a ton of minutes, be the face of the program, etc?

    The NBA wants to see how a player stacks up. They want a player like Fultz to be compared directly to Tatum, Giles, all the big boys. It reduces the draft pick risk.

    People may get hung up on Fultz being really good and thus may miss the point I'm trying to make. So let's use Mitchell Robinson, he of Western Kentucky fame, or lack thereof.

    Mitchell Robinson was a Top-10 HS recruit (#8 RSCI). He chose WKU. He has since decommitted and is taking the year off to prep for the draft. NBA teams will obviously do a lot of stuff to try to evaluate Robinson when the time comes to draft. But they will clearly lose valuable information about how Mitchell Robinson stacks up against college competition. Is he more similar to Kelly Oubre, Bam Adebayo, Malik Newman, or Alex Poythress (all former RSCI #8s). Clearly, an NBA team would like to know if they are getting an Adebayo (14th pick) or Oubre (15th pick) versus a Poythress (undrafted, but in the G-League; had a cup of coffee with Philly).

    Will the NBA get enough information on Mitchell Robinson without him playing college basketball? Unclear. We'll never know. But I think it's safe to assume the NBA will get less information than it otherwise would have. That simple assumption, if true, is enough for the NBA to look at the construct and think, "Hmmmm, can we better devise this OAD rule? When kids were blindly opting for primetime college, we were getting a great deal. But now kids are opting for non-primetime college. Or perhaps not even choosing college at all. So maybe we should take another look at our construct to make it work better for us." That's how I take Silver's comments.

    - Chillin

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NC Raised, DC Resident
    Quote Originally Posted by ChillinDuke View Post
    "Path of least resistance" (my term) probably isn't the best way of describing it - but generally it gets to what I'm trying to say. If a guy like Fultz goes to Duke and is overshadowed by Tatum, Giles, and has to return for a sophomore year (sort of like Bolden), that could be viewed as a negative - by the press, the NBA, the kid, his family, a whole host of people. It could be viewed as negative. It doesn't mean it is a negative. But the simple fact that it could be more or less implies increased risk. Why would the kid risk that when it could amount to future millions? Why not just go somewhere where he's essentially guaranteed to be the leading scorer, play a ton of minutes, be the face of the program, etc?

    The NBA wants to see how a player stacks up. They want a player like Fultz to be compared directly to Tatum, Giles, all the big boys. It reduces the draft pick risk.

    People may get hung up on Fultz being really good and thus may miss the point I'm trying to make. So let's use Mitchell Robinson, he of Western Kentucky fame, or lack thereof.

    Mitchell Robinson was a Top-10 HS recruit (#8 RSCI). He chose WKU. He has since decommitted and is taking the year off to prep for the draft. NBA teams will obviously do a lot of stuff to try to evaluate Robinson when the time comes to draft. But they will clearly lose valuable information about how Mitchell Robinson stacks up against college competition. Is he more similar to Kelly Oubre, Bam Adebayo, Malik Newman, or Alex Poythress (all former RSCI #8s). Clearly, an NBA team would like to know if they are getting an Adebayo (14th pick) or Oubre (15th pick) versus a Poythress (undrafted, but in the G-League; had a cup of coffee with Philly).

    Will the NBA get enough information on Mitchell Robinson without him playing college basketball? Unclear. We'll never know. But I think it's safe to assume the NBA will get less information than it otherwise would have. That simple assumption, if true, is enough for the NBA to look at the construct and think, "Hmmmm, can we better devise this OAD rule? When kids were blindly opting for primetime college, we were getting a great deal. But now kids are opting for non-primetime college. Or perhaps not even choosing college at all. So maybe we should take another look at our construct to make it work better for us." That's how I take Silver's comments.

    - Chillin
    This is well reasoned, and I agree with the premise. If Silver's comments are based on three kids, though--and one of whom absolutely put himself in this position through a wildly convoluted and self-inflicted path (Robinson...he actually seemed to want to play high-level CBB at Kansas)--it sort of misses all the other dozens and dozens of prospective NBA players who go the same route toward the NBA that they have for decades. Throw in Mudiay and a couple of others that ended up overseas for various reasons unrelated to not wanting to play with the big boys, and you've got a handful on which the NBA didn't have as much to evaluate. Still, if that constitutes a sea change, I must be missing it.

    When we start getting some double-digit percentage of the top HS recruits opting for non-P5 schools or schools devoid of any chance of making the NCAAT, or taking a PG year altogether, then I would better understand Silver's argument for change (or even including it as one of several arguments for change). It just strikes me as a bit disingenuous to say that two guys, now three or so, of the top-30 recruits of the last three years, have ended up in situations where they didn't consistently practice against other NBA-level players so it's time for a major shift.

    All this said, for me this is merely a thought exercise. I'm not wedded to the current OAD rule, but just curious to Silver's explicitly referencing the past two overall No. 1's in his list of reasons to tear it down, er, rethink it.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    New York, NY
    Quote Originally Posted by English View Post
    This is well reasoned, and I agree with the premise. If Silver's comments are based on three kids, though--and one of whom absolutely put himself in this position through a wildly convoluted and self-inflicted path (Robinson...he actually seemed to want to play high-level CBB at Kansas)--it sort of misses all the other dozens and dozens of prospective NBA players who go the same route toward the NBA that they have for decades. Throw in Mudiay and a couple of others that ended up overseas for various reasons unrelated to not wanting to play with the big boys, and you've got a handful on which the NBA didn't have as much to evaluate. Still, if that constitutes a sea change, I must be missing it.

    When we start getting some double-digit percentage of the top HS recruits opting for non-P5 schools or schools devoid of any chance of making the NCAAT, or taking a PG year altogether, then I would better understand Silver's argument for change (or even including it as one of several arguments for change). It just strikes me as a bit disingenuous to say that two guys, now three or so, of the top-30 recruits of the last three years, have ended up in situations where they didn't consistently practice against other NBA-level players so it's time for a major shift.

    All this said, for me this is merely a thought exercise. I'm not wedded to the current OAD rule, but just curious to Silver's explicitly referencing the past two overall No. 1's in his list of reasons to tear it down, er, rethink it.
    Right, I agree. I don't think it's a "sea change." But I think it's potentially a piece of a much more complex development. When you add to it the growth of the G-League, the increased amount of international players in the NBA, two-way contracts, draft-and-stash, and what appears to be a whole lot more money floating around the system, it doesn't strike me as a huge leap to reconsider the current construct (OAD, mainly) and potentially find other options that are more beneficial to the NBA.

    - Chillin

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cary, NC
    Great article about Bagley which gives some insight about him as a player and person and also discusses the larger context of OAD players. It explores the conundrum that the rule is completely unfair to the players, yet spending a year in college can also be a good thing for them. Worth a read.

    https://www.cbssports.com/college-ba...d-done-debate/

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by UrinalCake View Post
    Great article about Bagley which gives some insight about him as a player and person and also discusses the larger context of OAD players. It explores the conundrum that the rule is completely unfair to the players, yet spending a year in college can also be a good thing for them. Worth a read.

    https://www.cbssports.com/college-ba...d-done-debate/
    Liked seeing the quote below. Spread the word, Marvin.

    "It's amazing," Bagley said. "It's the best decision I've made in my whole life, to come here and to play for Coach K and the coaching staff here at Duke. Every day I'm learning something new that I didn't know before. Coach K has been really honest with me in film, telling me when I'm messing up, telling me when I'm doing something good. Just teaching every single day about different defensive stuff, offensive stuff. I'm having fun, man."

Similar Threads

  1. Silver Lining
    By freshmanjs in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-02-2015, 09:48 AM
  2. Another Wildcat in Silver Bracelets
    By tommy in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-01-2013, 01:23 PM
  3. Silver Lining???
    By dbcooper in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 03-06-2012, 09:21 AM
  4. The value of Silver Alerts???
    By cf-62 in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-20-2010, 04:29 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
  •