This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Chase, I'm all for you playing devil's advocate, but do you honestly believe what you just typed?The NFL, the NFL Players and the NCAA all agree that allowing kids to enter the league before the existing level is BAD for business, and the court of public opinion certainly hasn't appeared to be in Clarett's favor either.
Stern's #1 goal in the next round of labor bargaining is the insertion of a age limt for the draft, so while no other league has that written now, it's not for lack of intent. Additionally, how many 2-sport collegiate athletes do you think have the opportunity to both be a NFL draft choice AND play another sport with as much income as would allow them to use the two years of wait time as a differentiating factor? Now, on the other side, how many Tier 1, but academically challenged, high school athletes would forego the developmental process of college and mistakenly throw their names into the NFL draft?The negatives of removing the age limit FAR outweigh the positives, and gains of removing it apply to a far smaller set of individuals than those that would be hurt by it (not to mention the harm that would come to the NFL in terms of cultivating and developing its product).
Yes, but my point is, that while not equal, the AFL is a viable alternative.It's not like these guys are playing for free. They are paid a decent wage to play professional football, for professional organizations, which are showcased on national television.But I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.
Free market J, free market.You're basically telling me we shouldn't let player X in because person Y might do something stupid because of it.I understand your point, but I think you're underestimating the intelligence of the athletes and overestimating how important that fact is anyway. Denying someone entrance because someone else will try to get in too is poor reasoning.As for the AFL being a viable alternative--it's not. Clarett and others have devoted their lives to playing in the NFL. Being kept out if it (even for a year) is unfair IMO. They were lured by high salaries and are now told to go to the AFL
But yes, agree to disagree.Maybe this will trickle down to the junior high level Jason, I'm not sure. What I DO know is I can't possibly see how this is going to increase the likelihood of talented players joining the NFL, while it could very possibly decrease it. Don't you think that's possible?or Captain Knowitall
No.What matters is that the NFL has established this restriction, which again I emphsize is perfectly legal under the constitution and labor laws, and as such that is good enough for me.Again, I emphasize the downfall of the NBA with the entry of players too young to properly adjust to the potential of the bling-bling lifestyle and the lack of properly acquired skills (such as hitting a simple jumpshot from the elbow consistently) and how its product has gone right into the crapper.Leave the NFL alone. You don't know better. Honest.
There's plenty of young talent in the league. In fact if you were running the NBA, NFL style your biggest marketing chip would be making the NCAA money (Lebron) because he needs to "properly acquire skills." Syracuse would have won the championship again with the unpolished Carmelo, instead of Denver getting in the playoffs. But hey, I'm sure Cleveland wouldn't mind having Darco Milicic in a Cavaliers uniform. Which brings up an interesting point, Do international players have to wait until they're 3 years out of high school? Hmmmm. I don't know ponyboy why don't you enlighten us.
I agree, David.
I wouldn't know. I stop watching the NBA when the quality of play fell off the face of the earth.Part of the reason these young guys excel the way they do is the fact that the level of play is so bad that they look good against other high school competition.Obviously there are going to be exceptions that can play at a younger level. Baseball has it right with the farm system developing and evaluating talent.
I thought you were on to something with Eric Swann until I found out that he played in the 1988 NC/SC Shrine Bowl.Now I don't know if only seniors are allowed to play in the game, or if he actually graduated in 1988 but I know he was drafted by the Cardinals 3 years after the Shrine Bowl in 1991.Swann's Shrine-Bowl page1988 NC Shrine Bowl rosterPlus he wasn't playing for one of the NFL's farm teams.
David, 2 points for you:1) You are right, Williams can sue, because anyone can sue for anything in our current society (more's the shame, but that's another entire can of worms regarding honoring agreements, trying to get rich quick, and personal responsibility issues).
Maybe you should change your handle to snottybubbles. It would certainly be appropriate.Personally, I don't give a rat's ### what the NBA does. They made their bed, now they have to lay in it. They allowed some very raw, very young kids into the high-speed, bling-bling world of the NBA - and they did it for their own gratification and to market the gangsta $$$ - , and the product has suffered immensely. NBA basketball is vitually unwatchable for all but the most die-hard NBA fanatics and fans that go for the entertainment value & not the sports value. The game is atrocious. Players don't play any kind of defense, players can't hit 12 foot jump shots at any rate higher than 40%, free throw shooting is an adventure for over half the players, big guys can't do anything but get on the block and lean in, and teamwork is a low priority. Add to that some snotty 20 year old kid thinking he knows more about the pro game than his coach because he is 6'-10" tall and has played in the hood for half his very young life, making him a major headache for both the coach & all his teammates. That, IMHO, is because the kids aren't trained properly. Put some of those studs into a college program for 2-3 years and you would see the quality of product rise to its former superlative level of play. There is a learning curve going from HS to the Pros, plain & simple. Anyone that denies that HS kids aren't ready for the NBA is either blind or lying to themselves.Explain the EU players to yourself. I could really care less.
That's just silly.The situation may or may not apply to the NFL (I think it does, but I'll hold off on addressing that for now), but your NBA argument doesn't make sense.Anthony and James are as good if not better than most vets in the league right now. I assume you accept this since it's hard not to.You say they only look good because the "level of play" is bad? Why is that again? Because all of the players came into the league early? So if the players come into the league early, they are worse players after 10 years in the NBA than they would have been if they had played 2 more years of college ball and then 8 years in the NBA? Tell me you don't really believe that.I can certainly believe that a player coming into the league after two years in school is not as "polished"/good as player coming into the league after 4 years. That makes sense because the 2nd kid has been playing longer, no problem. But if you are comparing a 3rd year NBA vet who went to college for two years to an NBA rookie who went to school for 4 years and say that that the rookie is a better NBA player on average, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that as anyone with common sense would.The guys who stay in school MIGHT have better rookie seasons, but they certainly won't have better careers, and the overall level of NBA play is not at all effected in the long-term by guys coming out "early". The only way they even PLAY early on is if they are better than the vets anyway, which INCREASES the overall level of play, not the opposite.
Rookie of the Year voting is a joke, but despite that point, think of how good the players could be if they were allowed to hone their skills for a couple of years under say, a Roy Williams, or a Jim Boheim, or any other of the cadre of top notch college coaches.As long as the NBA is allowing this, you won't see anymore Magic Johnsons, Larry Birds, or Michael Jordans. That's why the NBA had to reach to a HS junior 2 years ago as its next savior (exactly what statement does THAT make?), and of course why it had to vote him as rookie of the year, despite not being the best rookie in the league. The year of college experience under Boheim is probably why Carmello had a better year than James, despite not winning the award. Yet think of what Anthony might have become with another year or two of seasoning before being thrown into the NBA grinder. Better yet, it's frightening to think how good James could have been in 3 years if he had been in college under a top notch coach. That goes for Stoudamire also.The last two NBA rookies of the year came straight out of high school.
Amaré Stoudemire Labron James:didn'tmeantohijack:
Magic came into the league as a sophmore.Man, did that guy suck. His lack of college experience ruined his career and took the league with it.Edited to add:You should really just stop now.
lease explain why the NBA is so much of a poorer product now than it was 20 years ago. The players are better athletes overall. Why hasn't the quality of the game risen?Because Johnson got some top notch college training before entering the NBA? I think your point enhances mine, not detracting from it, as you seem to think.Magic came into the league as a sophmore.Man, did that guy suck. His lack of college experience ruined his career and took the league with it.Edited to add:You should really just stop now.
It isn't.It's a false impression.The game is better now than it ever was. The rules have changed (or have been applied differently) to make it a DIFFERENT game, which some people don't like. It has nothing whatsoever to do with athletes coming out early.There is a premium placed on athletic ability over fundementals now, that is true. But again, it has nothing to do with when the athletes come into the league.Edit to further clarify my position:If the NBA forced all players to go through 4 years of college and applied the same rules they have right now, it would be the same as it is right now, except MAYBE of slightly less quality because you wasted a couple of years of premium athletes in their prime.You would see the same lack of fundamentals because the reason the players lack fundamentals is not college prep, it simply that they aren't as "important" to the modern game as athletic ability is.Okay, then let me ask this question to Holy Schneikes, snottybubbles, and the others
Nice back-pedal. So, it's OK if college kids come out early if they go to the right school?Which schools are those?
This is fun.No backpedaling at all. Like I said, you reinforced my point.Going from living with Mom & Dad and playing say 30-35 organized games a year under a HS coach, then going directly to the NBA with its lack of discipline & guidance for players (they are, after all, supposed to be adults), playing 90+ games a year, the flying in & out of cities, the lack of practice time to hone skills & teamwork, and the entourages is too much culture shock for almost any human being, IMO. Wouldn't you agree?To go to college, even for a year, to get top skills & team coaching, to spend at least a year away from home, to learn the demands of the play at the next level, HAS to help mature kids, emotionally, mentally, as well as physically.Do you really disagree with that? And yes, the level of play in the NBA is down significantly. I find it hard to believe that you actually want to make that argument.BTW - yes, this is fun.Nice back-pedal. So, it's OK if college kids come out early if they go to the right school?Which schools are those?
OK, so the new position is that a year of college is enough. You learn things there that you couldn't POSSIBLY lean in the NBA.Sure, I get why going to school could teach you to handle the rigors of an NBA schedule and associated travel/lefestyle BETTER than actually going through that schedule and the associated travel/lefestyle.
(please note sarcasm)AGAIN, as I mentioned before, a rookie who has been in school longer will be more prepared for the NBA when compared to a YOUNGER kid who didn't go to school. BUT, the same kid who has been IN THE NBA for a year will be just as if not BETTER prepared for the NBA than he would have been if he had played in College for that same year. When you compare apples to apples, the huge glaring "problems" simply vanish.Yeah, I do belive the NBA "level of play" (if I understand what that means) is just as good if not better than it ever was. Any team today would crush a team from 20 years ago. I know people differ with me on that, but that fine. I DO note a lack of fundamentals, but again, that's due to influences other than the early entry of players into the league.
Kevin Garnett sucks as much as Magic did.He and his kind are RUINING the NBA. The level of play in the league would be SO much higher right now if KG had been playing in the NCAA rather than the NBA for those first two years.:sorryforcontinuingthehijack:You mention Bird, Magic and Jordan. You do know that 2 of them left college early don’t you?You said that HS kids aren’t ready for the NBA, I gave you two recent examples of HS kids who stepped in right away and were able to compete (sure they might be the exception) in the NBA as starters.You say that Carmello would be a better player had he stayed at Syracuse a couple of more years (we will never know) would you say the same thing about Magic, Jordan and Isiah Thomas?Oh an I can't forget about the guy who just might win this year's MVP award :AhmadRashadvoice: my main man Kevin Garnett
I know you were trying to be sarcastic, but I have no problem with that. Open it up to whoever can play for the most part. If we can send kids to war at 18, I think we aren't doing them a great disservice by allowing them to be drafted into the NBA (or NFL for that matter). If teams draft guys before they are ready to play (and they KNOW this going in most of the time), it's because they feel they can afford the roster space.If you feel that roster space is the issue that's watering down the league, I've got news:The last 2 or 3 guys on the bench don't play anyway, and if they had to, the under-prepared, talented rookies would probably do as well as the veteran stiffs.Preventing veteran stiffs from being on the the end of the bench rather than young guys with potential is only hurting the stiffs (who I do feel for, honestly), not the overall NBA product.Rookies are ALWAYS a risk. If the bad teams want to minimize risk instead of shooting for stars (which as you note is probably not a good idea), they can draft the 4 year guys where they know what they are getting. I do concede the point that high draft picks are more of riky proposition that they used to be, simply because you there used to be a lot more "film" to evaluate. But the risk is there for the good teams and the bad ones and the bad ones are still better off than the good ones. Bad teams are bad because of their location, their management, or the market they are in - it isn't really a function of risky draft picks at the top of the draft. James was "risky", but I'll bet Cleveland doesn't mind.Early entries are NOT hurting the overall NBA product. At all. It's not gonna hurt football either. It might hurt NCAA football a smidge (like it has NCAA basketball) and it might eventually hurt the NFL owners pocket-books because of the lack of a free farm-league, but it won't be the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it that everyone thinks.
As I said, it's a different game. Things change. Some folks like the changes, some folks harken back to the good ole' days.But none of that changes the fact that early entries have/had nothing to do with it.
Did you even read my posts?I've explained WHY I think that early entrane has not hurt the NBA, can you explain why you think it has?As far as I can tell, the only explanation would be that players learn basketball skills in their 1st two years of college that they don't/can't learn in the NBA (during those same two years).Wow. I can't even fathom how a person could believe this.A full time NBA staff (the best coaches in the business for the most part) working with a a FULL-TIME basketball player (as opposed to a part-time student-athlete who is probably also partying his ### off), working AGAINST the best players in the world at practice, in the best facilities possible,can't instill the same level of basketball skill than an NCAA program can over the same period of time?If you don't think fundementals are being taught in the NBA you are out of your mind. They always have been and they always will be. The guys who need more help will get it, whether it's with the the rest of the team during regular "practice" or not. There is no hard skill "cut-off" point - all the players are learning all of the time. Every basketball player in the world had FUNDEMENTAL problems with his game to some degree or other when he came into the league. KG, Jordan, Kobe, Duncan, Shaq, EVERYONE. It's not like an NBA coaching staff is going to say, "oh hey Shaq, you should have learned to shoot free throws in high school - we aren't going to "tolerate" you not being better at that.". They will help him if they can and they will take whatever time is necessary to do it.The thought of NBA level coaching being a hinderance to a player's development as a basketball player is just an absolute joke.
Your use of Shaq as an example seems to refute your argument. Obviously he has not learned the fundamental of shooting a free throw in the NBA. Pros egos get in the way of their learning curve, at least in some cxases. I would submit that ego hurts the development of pros more than it does colegiate players, but of course there is no empirical way to support that position.
Definitely wasn't the best example of a player being helped by NFL coaching - very true.The point for that particular example is simply that teams will spend time working with an athlete to improve a fundemental. I just thought of Shaq because that was the most publisized example of it that I could think of. In Shaq's case, it hasn't worked out that well. On the other hand, I SERIOUSLY doubt that if Shaq had spent additional time in college he would be shooting 80% from the line right now.
1) No, I really didn't read all posts in their entirety. Sorry. I was just posting what I believe I know on the subject. I posted that many young players have obviously given tremendous value to the league. I think that's becoming outweighed now, though.2) I explained partially why I believed this was the case. The reasons go much farther than that. We both think we are enlightened on the subject. From dealing with literally hundreds of people in the know for over a dozen years in the business, I can either take the hours it would take to explain the myriad of reasons behind this or simply tell you that it is a matter of common sense to anyone involved in the game. Maturity and learning are certainly a large part of it. 3) As much as you think it might be true, it's next to impossible to really teach the fundamentals on the professional level. Again, there are many, many reasons why this is the case. Athletes, once they get the big dollars, simply don't listen as much, nor do they care. They tend to think they're fine as they are. The teaching that occurs is mostly about particular team offenses and defenses and adjusting to the NBA play. Don't get confused between the NBA teaching players the game, and them teaching them the fundamentals. If you don't know the fundamentals like the back of your hand by the time you enter the league, it's too late (with rare exception). The NBA teaches many things, but those are already beyond fundamentals. They are trying now, as best as they can, to teach more fundamentals out of pure necessity. But it does not work at this level, at least not nearly as well as on the college level. In some examples, high school can teach some solid fundamentals too, but too often that's not the case. It doesn't work mostly because the players are so focused on learning the NBA game (out of necessity) that fundamentals takes a back seat. There's only so much time in the day and most players that need it are not willing to take the extra time on their own. I suppose it's hard to convince multi-million dollar athletes to do something they don't believe they need.As logical and sound as your arguments may be, they simply don't ring true in reality. I don't blame you for not believing me or understanding why this is the case. But the reality is that the influx of younger players coming straight into the league from high school is hurting the game. David Stern knows this, as does virtually every NBA exec and scout.Frankly, I still love the game, regardless of the the problems. And I don't think limiting young players from entering the NBA is the cure all to making the NBA what it once was. Player earnings, SportsCenter, TV revenue are all things that have hurt the game (in ways beyond what you might think) too, amongst other things. But I am not a naysayer. Despite its problems, it's still a great game.
