re: How badly does College Basketball need a change?

quote:

---

He was projected top 5 pick. Every kid would have left for that.

---

Of course. He should've left, but here's the thing: why the hell was he a top 5 pick? He was a terrible college player. He could barely keep his starting job, yet the NBA took him the lottery rounds? The NBA can't continually absorb bad players in its draft. They rely on the pipeline of college talent, and they currently have a system that spits out Alex Len as one of the best players. That's a horrifyingly poor talent base.

quote:

---

Over 75% of these 1 and done guys really don't if you look at the actual guys that did leave.

---

And those guys shouldn't go to college at all. Durant was wasting his time in college and was literally forced to go by rule. That's terrible as well. Take the top players out of the college pool and let them go straight to the pros. Players not good enough to go straight from high school, should then spend more than a year honing their skills.

I've got no problem with a terrific high school talent who is good enough to play pro ball to go play pro ball. I'm talking about players who also leave early who aren't good enough, and will get drummed out of the league because the NBA is not a developmental league, nor should it be.

quote:

---

The way you are looking at this is just completely wrong.

---

No, I look at it like a fan of the college game. You're looking at like a fan of the NBA (and also, the article doesn't say what you think it says: the very creme de la creme of talent are one and dones, and they only become star players 25% of the time... that's not a great return rate considering its the peak of the talent pool, and over a third are bit players or flops, so a one and done player is more likely to be a bit player than a star, yet you're arguing it hasn't hurt the talent pool?)

I think the NBA would benefit from better college talent, which is intuitively obvious, but more importantly to me: college would benefit. If you removed one and done players entirely and have them go straight to the NBA, the quality of college basketball would go up just do to lack of turnover in programs.

Barring injury, almost all players improve from their freshman to junior years, often dramtaically. College loses out on this developmental curve. I'd rather have a slightly less talented freshman who stays 3 years than a superstar who stays one. It's better for your program, as you get more production, and by year three, the player who stayed is, a lot of the time, as good as that freshman. Also, there's just the value of roster stability. Look at LSU football for an example of how roster volatility can hurt a talented roster.

Finally, it's better for fans. You learn to hate people. Hating Duke is not nearly as much fun as it once was, because a guy like Okafor is going to be gone in a year. Same with Jabari Parker before him. You don't get years of hating Shane Battier or whatever crappy white point guard he has to slap the floor. College sports thrive on those hatreds, and basketball is robbing itself of it. As soon as you learn a player, he's gone.

Now, I think the ancillary benefits would aid the NBA with increased talent, but that's not the primary reason to adopt the college baseball rules. It's better for the college game.

Also, for a great team, Kentucky isn't that great. That's the most depressing thing. They are destroying college basketball this season, and that roster would've gotten stomped by the great programs of the 1980s, just because those teams had MEN on them, not just a bunch of kids. It would be like a loaded AAA team full of future Hall of Famers playing a good MLB team. sure, the AAA team has more talent, but they will usually lose, based on where they are on the developmental curve.


ETA: I do acknowledge Brad Stevens is great, but Butler is just one team. Five midmajors seeded five or lower have made the Final Four in the past eight years. Prior to that, it was one in thirty years. Even removing Butler from the equation means that midmajors are seeing far more success. Now, do you think midmajors have gotten that much better recently or is it because big schools have gotten worse? My money is on B. If it's A, there's no problem. In fact, it's great.