PDA

View Full Version : Has the NBA wrecked college basketball?



LA Ute
03-24-2013, 01:02 PM
I don't think it has been wrecked, but it sure has changed, and not in a positive way, as a result of the "one and done" trend. Should the NCAA and the NBA adopt a rule like the one in place for football players (3 years, including redshirt year, before going to the professional league)? I'd love to see that happen. Dan Patrick was interviewing Tom Izzo the other day about this. Izzo thinks the players' agents have a huge impact on the NBA's reluctance to make a change, and so does the Players' Association.

concerned
03-24-2013, 01:17 PM
I don't think it has been wrecked, but it sure has changed, and not in a positive way, as a result of the "one and done" trend. Should the NCAA and the NBA adopt a rule like the one in place for football players (3 years, including redshirt year, before going to the professional league)? I'd love to see that happen. Dan Patrick was interviewing Tom Izzo the other day about this. Izzo thinks the players' agents have a huge impact on the NBA's reluctance to make a change, and so does the Players' Association.

Not just one and done--allowing players to go straight out of hs did it too. Didnt just ruin college bb, but the NBA too. Paying Deshawn Stevenson or CJ Miles millions to sit at the end of the bench hurts the league.

I dont get the player asso oppositon--if you had to wait three years,there would be more slots for older players. As long as there is a salary minimum, the players assocation should be neutral; since it is just a matter of which players get it, not how much.

No qeustion it has really hurt college bb. It is just now the minor leagues; like triple AAA baseball. You just have to watch those 30 for 30s on ESPN to see you will never have the match-ups you had all those years from the Walton era to the mid 90's. Magic Bird, Jordan Ewing, Isaah Jordan, etc. etc. Duke UNLV.

college bb is entertaining, but not nearly as good as it used to be.

Solon
03-24-2013, 01:45 PM
Not just one and done--allowing players to go straight out of hs did it too. Didnt just ruin college bb, but the NBA too. Paying Deshawn Stevenson or CJ Miles millions to sit at the end of the bench hurts the league.

I dont get the player asso oppositon--if you had to wait three years,there would be more slots for older players. As long as there is a salary minimum, the players assocation should be neutral; since it is just a matter of which players get it, not how much.

No qeustion it has really hurt college bb. It is just now the minor leagues; like triple AAA baseball. You just have to watch those 30 for 30s on ESPN to see you will never have the match-ups you had all those years from the Walton era to the mid 90's. Magic Bird, Jordan Ewing, Isaah Jordan, etc. etc. Duke UNLV.

college bb is entertaining, but not nearly as good as it used to be.

The heart of this debate really isn't the merits of 22 year-olds vs. 19 year-old players.

It's really about the outdated system of amateurism that was created in Victorian England to prevent lower-class citizens from competing against gentlemen aristocrats. The real fear today is that kids will declare for the draft, not get drafted, then lose their eligibility to compete in the NCAA. If kids who declared for the draft or had even competed as pros didn't lose their eligibility, there wouldn't be a problem. The few kids who were ready for the NBA would stick in the NBA each year. The others would be able to return to college, gain additional training, then try again. You know, just like almost any other job in the world.

The mythology of amateurism and its effects on modern college athletics is one of the biggest shams around.

OrangeUte
03-24-2013, 02:47 PM
Taylor Branch'a article 2 years ago took on the myth of amateurism as a destroying force in college athletics. It focuses more on football and the claims of football players to get paid, but the myth seems to have damaged the value if ncaab much more than ncaaf.

LA Ute
03-24-2013, 03:21 PM
Here's a two-part ESPN series on the history of the rule. As one who's only recently paid much attention to this issue, I learned a lot.

Roots of one-and-done rule run deep (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/8097411/roots-nba-draft-one-done-rule-run-deep-men-college-basketball)

The unknown future of one-and-done (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/8101090/the-unknown-future-nba-one-done-rule-men-college-basketball)

SeattleUte
03-24-2013, 11:48 PM
Destroyed? Nonsense. LA, you can be such a drama queen. I've been watching and following the NCAA basketball tournament this year and obviously it's not wrecked. On the contrary. What people overlook is that players who truly are able to go stright to the NBA after one year or after high school are extremely rare; extrarodinary. 99.9% of the players no matter how highly touted out of HS need to stay multiple years, usually through their senior seasons. Take a look at UCLA's star studded class this time last season:

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/basketball/recruiting/school/_/id/26/class/2012

How many of those four do you think are NBA-ready a year later? MAYBE one, Shabazz Muhammad. The other three will be playing college basketball for a while. That is typical. I've been following Georgetown for many years, and I've cared about its recruiting classes since law school. GU has repeatedly had classes like UCLA's. Same story. Only occasionally is a player ready after one year. Almost never, in fact. Also, so many of these guys never amount to great college players. Why do you think the mid-majors are able to compete with the majors so well? Our own Aaron Dotson looks like he may wind up being an example.

Meanwhile, the world gets more populous and more competitive all the time. Good players are getting more numerous and better.

I really hate this apocalyptic talk about the college athletics' taking advantage of the kids, the death of amateur athletics, etc. 99.9% of the athletes need their college degrees and are getting something extremely valuable that they absolutely need and represents a fair bargain with the institution -- a chance to earn a degree from a U.S. university and intimate association with among perhaps America's most admired brands, those of Americas univiersities. Also, less important, but still vital, where else are 99.9% of these guys going to go play on a stage like the NCAA DI games?

LA, let me give you a tip. Ignore sports writers attempting to expound on serious subjects. They're like chipanzees wearing blazers and horned rimmed glasses. There's a reason they write in what newspapers' editors used to call the "toy department". Sports writers are fools, and they're the only ones saying there's something wrong with college athletics. The players certainly aren't, and neither are the coaches or administrators.

LA Ute
03-24-2013, 11:52 PM
Thanks for clearing that up for us. SU. :eyeroll:

SeattleUte
03-24-2013, 11:56 PM
Thanks for clearing that up for us. SU. :eyeroll:

I'm obviously right.

Snowman
03-25-2013, 06:21 AM
Without the NBA waving cash at these kids college hoops wouldn't even hardly be worth watching.

SoCalPat
03-25-2013, 10:50 AM
I don't think it has been wrecked, but it sure has changed, and not in a positive way, as a result of the "one and done" trend. Should the NCAA and the NBA adopt a rule like the one in place for football players (3 years, including redshirt year, before going to the professional league)? I'd love to see that happen. Dan Patrick was interviewing Tom Izzo the other day about this. Izzo thinks the players' agents have a huge impact on the NBA's reluctance to make a change, and so does the Players' Association.

Far more damage is done to college hoops with players like Jarred Dubois or Will Clyburn than with players like Shabazz Muhammad. One-and-done isn't just about early entries to the NBA (and I get why people hate on the NBA). But as long as it exists, you have to find ways to take advantage of it.

LA Ute
03-25-2013, 10:54 AM
Without the NBA waving cash at these kids college hoops wouldn't even hardly be worth watching.

You could say the same thing about the NFL. And yet the NFL has a three-year rule. (One of the years can be a redshirt year.) Why shouldn't College basketball have a two-year rule?

SoCalPat
03-25-2013, 10:57 AM
The heart of this debate really isn't the merits of 22 year-olds vs. 19 year-old players.

It's really about the outdated system of amateurism that was created in Victorian England to prevent lower-class citizens from competing against gentlemen aristocrats. The real fear today is that kids will declare for the draft, not get drafted, then lose their eligibility to compete in the NCAA. If kids who declared for the draft or had even competed as pros didn't lose their eligibility, there wouldn't be a problem. The few kids who were ready for the NBA would stick in the NBA each year. The others would be able to return to college, gain additional training, then try again. You know, just like almost any other job in the world.

The mythology of amateurism and its effects on modern college athletics is one of the biggest shams around.

Solon sticks the landing and gets a 10.0 from the judges.

SoCalPat
03-25-2013, 11:04 AM
You could say the same thing about the NFL. And yet the NFL has a three-year rule. (One of the years can be a redshirt year.) Why shouldn't College basketball have a two-year rule?

NBA and NFL are apples and oranges. The NFL has its three-year rule to protect its current players, whose shelf life is far shorter than the average professional basketball player. Additionally, the basketball player who declares early for the pros and doesn't make it in the NBA has nearly limitless more options than the football player who declares early and doesn't make it in the NFL.

SeattleUte
03-25-2013, 11:11 AM
Without the NBA waving cash at these kids college hoops wouldn't even hardly be worth watching.

You remind me that there are also vibrant overseas basketball industries, which create opportunities for the much larger percentage of our collegiate stars who aren't NBA material, and generate increasing numbers of young developing players who come to our U.S. universities to acquire skills and possibly get a shot at the NBA.

Our college basketball game is at least as good as ever. The church ladies will always fret and complain about change, reporters need to create artificial crises, but change accompanied by increased liberty, opportunity and capital flows is a good thing. It's like how a couple of years ago newspaper professionals were bemoaning the death of the traditional newspaper, which really was a result of the Internet and resulting unprecedented access to news and information.

concerned
03-25-2013, 11:12 AM
NBA and NFL are apples and oranges. The NFL has its three-year rule to protect its current players, whose shelf life is far shorter than the average professional basketball player. Additionally, the basketball player who declares early for the pros and doesn't make it in the NBA has nearly limitless more options than the football player who declares early and doesn't make it in the NFL.

From the athlete's perspective, they are apples and oranges, but not from the quality of the product. College bb would be better if player like Carmelo stayed as long as Jordan and Ewing. The decline in college bb isn't just the one and done, its also the 68 team field and television saturation, both of which help devalue the regular season, and turns college bb into a three week season.

LA Ute
03-25-2013, 11:25 AM
Hey Seattle, I don't know if you looked at the two-part ESPN article, but it's not an opinion piece. It's all about the history of the issue and includes comments from both sides, from well-informed people who have considered opinions. You remember considered opinions, don't you?

FountainOfUte
03-25-2013, 12:14 PM
From the athlete's perspective, they are apples and oranges, but not from the quality of the product. College bb would be better if player like Carmelo stayed as long as Jordan and Ewing. The decline in college bb isn't just the one and done, its also the 68 team field and television saturation, both of which help devalue the regular season, and turns college bb into a three week season.

I've never really understood this. I've heard the same argument used to discredit the idea of a college football playoff.

The 68-team field is a totally reasonable number. (Okay, I'll concede that I hate the last four places. The play-in "first round" is lame). I think that means that 20% of D1 schools make the tournament. Compare that to the nearly 50% of the NBA or other leagues that make their post seasons. NCAA is still pretty conservative in that respect. In fact, I'm still a proponent of folding the NIT into the NCAA somehow. The NIT should be a one-round play-in for the NCAA.

Anyway, regarding the pre- and regular season, my habits have not changed over the years. I follow the Utes, the conference the Utes are in, and a distant eye on the Top25. That's never changed for me. I like the regular season for MY team.

What I disagree with are the auto-bids that come from conference tournaments. I don't mind the conf tourneys existing; I think they're entertaining. I think they're a good chance for teams to make a case for entrance or seeding in the NCAA tournament. But I hate seeing a 1-bid reg season champ lose its auto bid to its tournament. It's a bummer.

My last point in this ramble would be that I would be happy to see the PAC-12 get rid of its conf tourney and instead add four more games to the conf regular season allowing for a true round robin.

SoCalPat
03-25-2013, 02:32 PM
I've never really understood this. I've heard the same argument used to discredit the idea of a college football playoff.

The 68-team field is a totally reasonable number. (Okay, I'll concede that I hate the last four places. The play-in "first round" is lame). I think that means that 20% of D1 schools make the tournament. Compare that to the nearly 50% of the NBA or other leagues that make their post seasons. NCAA is still pretty conservative in that respect. In fact, I'm still a proponent of folding the NIT into the NCAA somehow. The NIT should be a one-round play-in for the NCAA.

Anyway, regarding the pre- and regular season, my habits have not changed over the years. I follow the Utes, the conference the Utes are in, and a distant eye on the Top25. That's never changed for me. I like the regular season for MY team.

What I disagree with are the auto-bids that come from conference tournaments. I don't mind the conf tourneys existing; I think they're entertaining. I think they're a good chance for teams to make a case for entrance or seeding in the NCAA tournament. But I hate seeing a 1-bid reg season champ lose its auto bid to its tournament. It's a bummer.

My last point in this ramble would be that I would be happy to see the PAC-12 get rid of its conf tourney and instead add four more games to the conf regular season allowing for a true round robin.

All regular season conference champions are guaranteed a spot in the NIT. If you could use the NIT as a play-in for the NCAAs (winners advance to NCAA, losers play in the regular NIT), your concerns would largely be solved.

As for getting rid of Las Vegas, this year that would've meant trading our two wins there (USC, Cal) and an up-close look at a Sweet 16 team (Oregon) for four games against WSU, Washington (home) and UCLA and USC (road). To which I can only emphatically respond, f*** that s***.

FountainOfUte
03-25-2013, 03:02 PM
...That would've meant trading our two wins there (USC, Cal) and an up-close look at a Sweet 16 team (Oregon) for four games against WSU, Washington (home) and UCLA and USC (road). To which I can only emphatically respond, fuck that shit.

Kind of easy to say in hindsight, isn't it? I mean, yeah, from that perspective I agree with you this year. I also would have changed my lottery numbers now that I know what the winning ones were.

But what about generally speaking? Do you like the 18-game slate w/ a tournament vs. a true round robin? I know there's a restriction on # of conf games, but throw that out. Which would you prefer? Give me a guaranteed visit from UCLA, Arizona and the other Top-25 teams du jour to the Huntsman Center every year over the tourney in Vegas.

SoCalPat
03-25-2013, 08:21 PM
Kind of easy to say in hindsight, isn't it? I mean, yeah, from that perspective I agree with you this year. I also would have changed my lottery numbers now that I know what the winning ones were.

But what about generally speaking? Do you like the 18-game slate w/ a tournament vs. a true round robin? I know there's a restriction on # of conf games, but throw that out. Which would you prefer? Give me a guaranteed visit from UCLA, Arizona and the other Top-25 teams du jour to the Huntsman Center every year over the tourney in Vegas.

With the demise of the Big East, Vegas is the epicenter for postseason college basketball and I'm proud Utah is a part of it, especially since our fanbase will represent much better than most schools. It's a national stage that no home game would ever provide, short of a matchup of top 5 teams. Five years from now, you'll be changing their tune, much like there were probably people in the early days of the Big East that wished that league's conference tournament was played on campus rather than at MSG. There are just some stages you don't turn down.

SeattleUte
03-25-2013, 10:58 PM
With the demise of the Big East, Vegas is the epicenter for postseason college basketball and I'm proud Utah is a part of it, especially since our fanbase will represent much better than most schools. It's a national stage that no home game would ever provide, short of a matchup of top 5 teams. Five years from now, you'll be changing their tune, much like there were probably people in the early days of the Big East that wished that league's conference tournament was played on campus rather than at MSG. There are just some stages you don't turn down.

I'm glad we don't have Vegas playing on its home court every year. That was asinine.

UtahDan
03-27-2013, 05:45 PM
I like the NBA. A lot of the complaints sound a lot like "there's no good music anymore" to me. Not saying anyone here, but I get the faint whiff of racism in that sometimes as well.

LA Ute
11-01-2013, 09:27 AM
Dan Patrick is pretty strong on this topic. He asks: Can you name a marquee player in college basketball? Most fans, he says – the ones who buy tickets and watch on TV -- cannot. The reason is that we never have time to get to know the great players because they head off to the NBA ASAP. He thinks the NBA should adopt a rule: Complete 2 years of non-redshirt college eligibility before we’ll take you. If a talented kid doesn't want to go to college, great. He can go directly to an NBA team or to an NBA developmental league and pursue his dream there.

I do not follow the NBA, so I don't know, but Patrick says the NBA is getting younger, and is harder for him to watch as a result. There's much less discipline - "It's all pick and roll, isolation, and so forth, and looks a lot like AAU ball." The teams "who do it right" (the Spurs, for example) are winning as a result.

I thought his comments were interesting and convincing. I wish the NBA would adopt a rule like the one the NFL has.

UBlender
11-01-2013, 09:57 AM
Dan Patrick is pretty strong on this topic. He asks: Can you name a marquee player in college basketball? Most fans, he says – the ones who buy tickets and watch on TV -- cannot. The reason is that we never have time to get to know the great players because they head off to the NBA ASAP. He thinks the NBA should adopt a rule: Complete 2 years of non-redshirt college eligibility before we’ll take you. If a talented kid doesn't want to go to college, great. He can go directly to an NBA team or to an NBA developmental league and pursue his dream there.

I do not follow the NBA, so I don't know, but Patrick says the NBA is getting younger, and is harder for him to watch as a result. There's much less discipline - "It's all pick and roll, isolation, and so forth, and looks a lot like AAU ball." The teams "who do it right" (the Spurs, for example) are winning as a result.

I thought his comments were interesting and convincing. I wish the NBA would adopt a rule like the one the NFL has.

I agree completely. The one and done rule is bad for both levels of basketball. They should either adopt two years of college/post high school basketball or mimic the MLB rule where you can go pro straight out of high school, but if you don't you have to play three years before being draft eligible again. Either rule would help college basketball build some continuity and would help the NBA put a better product on the floor.

People always like to point to Garnett and Kobe and LeBron and say "why would you prevent these great players from going pro as early as possible?" What they overlook is that for each one of those there are about ten (probably more) who go pro too early and either never make it or make it but contribute to a worse product on the floor. Even with the LeBrons of the world making the leap it's a net negative for the NBA (and I say that as someone who still actively follows and enjoys the NBA).

UTEopia
11-01-2013, 10:18 AM
I agree completely. The one and done rule is bad for both levels of basketball. They should either adopt two years of college/post high school basketball or mimic the MLB rule where you can go pro straight out of high school, but if you don't you have to play three years before being draft eligible again. Either rule would help college basketball build some continuity and would help the NBA put a better product on the floor.

People always like to point to Garnett and Kobe and LeBron and say "why would you prevent these great players from going pro as early as possible?" What they overlook is that for each one of those there are about ten (probably more) who go pro too early and either never make it or make it but contribute to a worse product on the floor. Even with the LeBrons of the world making the leap it's a net negative for the NBA (and I say that as someone who still actively follows and enjoys the NBA).

I would have to agree that the college game does not seem as popular today as it was in the 70's and 80's and it undoubtedly misses some players like Bird, Magic, etc who have elevated their games at the college level as opposed to the NBA. However, for me, basketball on the whole has become less interesting. Although I follow the Utes and to a lesser extent the Jazz, I don't follow what is going on with other teams until the conference championships and the NBA playoffs. There are just too many games. From a basketball standpoint I still enjoy the college game more because it is more than the pick and roll and dribble drive penetration and then kick it out for a 3. Too me NBA basketball has become a lot like car racing. The same thing over and over and over and over.

As for rules, I like the MLB model. I think it does two things. It eliminates the talk about unfair trade practices in that it allows those who want to roll the dice to do so. It then creates some stability for those in college.

sancho
11-01-2013, 10:27 AM
Too me NBA basketball has become a lot like car racing. The same thing over and over and over and over.


Even NBA highlights have become less interesting. We have pretty much seen every dunk that can be dunked about 1000 times. All those things that were amazing in the 90s are commonplace now. Every week there is an NFL highlight that makes me say "wow." It rarely happens with basketball anymore.

Basketball still has potential for amazing, clutch moments though. I still say "wow" during close games that I am watching live.

Scratch
11-01-2013, 10:54 AM
I dont get the player asso oppositon--if you had to wait three years,there would be more slots for older players. As long as there is a salary minimum, the players assocation should be neutral; since it is just a matter of which players get it, not how much.


I know the quote above is old, but I wanted to respond to it anyway. Concerned, I think you're wrong here in saying the association should be neutral; to the contrary, I would expect the association to push for stronger barriers to entry, such as 2 or 3 years post-HS before being NBA eligible. The players' association represents NBA players, not prospective NBA players. You would think it would be doing everything it could to protect the jobs of its current members, not looking out for prospective members who are trying to take finite jobs from those current members.

Rocker Ute
11-01-2013, 10:55 AM
You have to lay some of the blame on AAU too. And Twitter. And gossip news programs. And helicopter parents.

LA Ute
11-01-2013, 11:13 AM
You have to lay some of the blame on AAU too. And Twitter. And gossip news programs. And helicopter parents.

Not to mention sports message boards. And the military-industrial complex.

concerned
11-01-2013, 11:24 AM
gridlock in Washington is the biggest culprit.

Two Utes
11-03-2013, 11:30 AM
Destroyed? Nonsense. LA, you can be such a drama queen. I've been watching and following the NCAA basketball tournament this year and obviously it's not wrecked. On the contrary. What people overlook is that players who truly are able to go stright to the NBA after one year or after high school are extremely rare; extrarodinary. 99.9% of the players no matter how highly touted out of HS need to stay multiple years, usually through their senior seasons. Take a look at UCLA's star studded class this time last season:

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/basketball/recruiting/school/_/id/26/class/2012

How many of those four do you think are NBA-ready a year later? MAYBE one, Shabazz Muhammad. The other three will be playing college basketball for a while. That is typical. I've been following Georgetown for many years, and I've cared about its recruiting classes since law school. GU has repeatedly had classes like UCLA's. Same story. Only occasionally is a player ready after one year. Almost never, in fact. Also, so many of these guys never amount to great college players. Why do you think the mid-majors are able to compete with the majors so well? Our own Aaron Dotson looks like he may wind up being an example.

Meanwhile, the world gets more populous and more competitive all the time. Good players are getting more numerous and better.

I really hate this apocalyptic talk about the college athletics' taking advantage of the kids, the death of amateur athletics, etc. 99.9% of the athletes need their college degrees and are getting something extremely valuable that they absolutely need and represents a fair bargain with the institution -- a chance to earn a degree from a U.S. university and intimate association with among perhaps America's most admired brands, those of Americas univiersities. Also, less important, but still vital, where else are 99.9% of these guys going to go play on a stage like the NCAA DI games?

LA, let me give you a tip. Ignore sports writers attempting to expound on serious subjects. They're like chipanzees wearing blazers and horned rimmed glasses. There's a reason they write in what newspapers' editors used to call the "toy department". Sports writers are fools, and they're the only ones saying there's something wrong with college athletics. The players certainly aren't, and neither are the coaches or administrators.


Except that Deloss Dodds, the most powerful AD in the country stated earlier this year that college basketball was a train wreck.

LA Ute
11-03-2013, 12:45 PM
Except that Deloss Dodds, the most powerful AD in the country stated earlier this year that college basketball was a train wreck.

Hey. Who you gonna believe, Dodds or SU?

EDIT: I don't think the NBA has wrecked college hoops, but it has harmed it or at least changed it for the worse. The damage is not irreparable, fortunately.

Irving Washington
11-05-2013, 12:42 PM
I know the quote above is old, but I wanted to respond to it anyway. Concerned, I think you're wrong here in saying the association should be neutral; to the contrary, I would expect the association to push for stronger barriers to entry, such as 2 or 3 years post-HS before being NBA eligible. The players' association represents NBA players, not prospective NBA players. You would think it would be doing everything it could to protect the jobs of its current members, not looking out for prospective members who are trying to take finite jobs from those current members.

Maybe my math is wrong, but wouldn't bumping the one and done to two and done only have a one year impact? Year one, fewer top college players coming out for the draft. After that, the same number of top players would enter the draft.

sancho
11-05-2013, 12:46 PM
Maybe my math is wrong, but wouldn't bumping the one and done to two and done only have a one year impact? Year one, fewer top college players coming out for the draft. After that, the same number of top players would enter the draft.

Do we think that the 1-and-done's have something to do with increased parity in the NCAA? Does it make the deep runs from low seeds more possible? Certainly programs like ours who are not getting 1-and-dones are glad that we don't have to face 4th year seniors about to be #1 lotto picks at UCLA and Arizona?

UTEopia
11-05-2013, 01:37 PM
Maybe my math is wrong, but wouldn't bumping the one and done to two and done only have a one year impact? Year one, fewer top college players coming out for the draft. After that, the same number of top players would enter the draft.


You would have the same number coming out after year 1, but you would have two classes with elite talent in college at the same time as opposed to one.

LA Ute
11-05-2013, 02:56 PM
You would have the same number coming out after year 1, but you would have two classes with elite talent in college at the same time as opposed to one.

Right. I think the impact on the college game, not on the NBA, is the issue.