Disenchantment

by Nestor on Apr 23, 2008 5:13 PM PDT in Basketball

There seems to be lot of disenchantment and bitterness towards the "one and done" rule (and 18-19 year old incredibly talented/athletically gifted kids who are operating through it) in the world of college basketball these days. Lot of people are feigning shock and outrage over kids like Love, Beasely, Mayo, Rose, Durant and Oden coming into college for one year and then quickly jumping over to the NBA.

I have no idea why this has been surprising to so many people given the way prepsters were routinely skipping college in favor of the NBA since the days of Garnett and Kobe (who may face off in the first Celtics-Lakers final that I am not going spend too much time watching). People like Plaschke (LA Times) and Mitch Albom (Detroit Free Press) are losing sleep over the current state of play.

I will admit Plaschke has a point when he argues the current "one and done" rule has reduced the college game into an "NBA minor league":

This new NBA rule has caused the most chaotic kind of free agency.

In no sport other than minor league baseball can a great player show up for one year, then just disappear to a better job in the same sport.

The senior leaders are now one-and-done freshmen. Star today, gone tomorrow. [...]

"The pros have ruined college basketball," former Bruins great Mike Warren said. "They've turned it upside down, turned it into an NBA minor league."

Warren does not agree that a player like Love will leave with no legacy. "He did more for UCLA in one year than some people do in four years," Warren said. "His legacy will last."

BTW I agree with Warren about Love's legacy. Yes, he doesn't belong at the same level as Ed O'Bannon or Tyus Edney, but he did have a remarkable first year with a number of moments that will have its own place in Bruin lore.

But let's get back to the point about the "one and done" rule reducing the college game into a minor league. Mitch Albom made the same argument in the Detroit Free Press:

If you want to run a minor league, then say it's a minor league. Don't call it college. Don't play charades with words like "student" and "alum." Are the Loves and Beasleys of the world really alumni of a school? Do their pictures really belong in the hallways and in brochures?

They are the basketball version of in-transit passengers, the ones that go from one plane to another by walking through a special corridor. If you really attended college, you know its value. You learn to be a student, to live on your own, to make decisions about time, study, friends, to grow up.

You don't get that pulling on a uniform for a few months. Dick Vitale used to call these kids Diaper Dandies. Not anymore. Diapers don't have pockets. And stuffing pockets -- on both sides -- is all this charade is about.

Oh my gosh! Can you feel the outrage in the columns of Plaschke and Albom?

Even if these guys are making the right point, I wonder if we are going to sense that outrage in the next column when they are glorifying the world of the Lakers and Pistons. You know the league "where amazing happens"?

I put up the post on the Lakers/UCLA football for a reason. I thought it was interesting to see how many UCLA fans responded in that thread and wrote about how much they love their Lakers. Well, I tell you what. I am with Menelaus:

I love the Lakers, but most of my cherished Laker memories come from a time when I regarded pro basketball as an enjoyable sport. Sadly, that time has passed.

I'm not all the way with Fox in not minding if the Lakers went the way of the Washington Generals, but I'm not too far off.

With bruinbabe2000:

I really don't care much about the NBA. I'm happy for guys like Baron Davis and Jordan Farmar, but I won't watch a complete NBA game that doesn't have the Lakers. And even if the Lakers are playing, I just watch a little here and there.

And with tasser10:

Unless things change in the NBA, my interest will keep waning year after year. Too many teams, too many overpaid mediocre players, too many games. The whole thing has been watered down.

In other words if you are going to be disenchanted and bitter about the way the intertwined world of college and pro basketball is set up, don't direct it towards these kids who are simply making the best financial decisions for them (while playing within the rules), while both the fat cats in the NBA and the NCAA administrators are doing what they can to suck up as much $$$ as they possibly can, while ruining the game at both levels.

Is there a solution to this mess? There probably is. Gene Wojciechowski from WWL suggested in a system that resembles the MLB draft:

The NBA ought to get out of the minimum age requirement business. After all, amazing happened when the Cleveland Cavaliers drafted an 18-year-old King James, and when the Charlotte Hornets drafted a 17-year-old Kobe Bryant.

And the NCAA ought to get out of the enabling business. Being at school isn't the same thing as being in school. Rationalize it any way you want, but one and done is mercenary sports, nothing more.

But if the NBA insists on an age minimum, then the least it can do is consider Major League Baseball's draft stance. It isn't perfect, but it beats this mess.

MLB drafts high school players. But if you sign with a four-year college instead of the pros, then you have to wait until after your junior season (or 21st birthday) to be eligible for the draft again. If you drop out of college, you have to petition the commissioner's office for entry into the draft.

No more one and dones. No more one-semester students. This way you give everyone a choice: the NBA, the high school stars and the D-I programs. It's what you call, "taking it to the next level."

Well that makes a lot of sense. Although Gene is a little behind ryebreadraz, who had already mentioned the idea here. That works for me and coaches like Ben Howland have the potential to dominate in that kind of set up.

However, for the time being, all Coach Howland can do is play by the rules. He can make sure he puts together a team of student athletes (who are qualified based on UCLA's academic standards) who play by the rules and give him the best opportunity to compete at the elite level year after year. That means bringing in recruits who could potentially leave after one or two years and also bringing in kids like Roll, Mata et al who will grow and develop into good college players staying for the entire 4-5 years.

Is the system fun? Of course not. But does that mean we take our disenchantment and frustration and direct it towards kids who are playing by the rules that have been set up by the NCAA and the NBA? Absolutely not.

I am all for reforming the system. But until that happens I am not going to direct my frustrations at kids like Love who stay in the program for one year or kids like Jrue Holiday who may not last at UCLA for more than 1-2 seasons.

Why get angry at kids who have grown up in an MTVized corporate sports culture of the NBA, who have been brainwashed to think it's Staples not Pauley "where amazing happens"?

Why get angry at kids who see the life styles of gazillionare NBA athletes routinely glamorized on ESPN and MTV?

If you want to do something about this problem, then put pressure on the officials who run the NBA and the NCAA. Put pressure on the actual people who don't have the emotional investment in their alma maters or schools like you or I do. Put pressure on the people who only care about the bottom line, which is to pocket as much $$$ for their respective institutions. By all means, use the platform we have on BN. If you want to reform the process badly ... organize. Write your heart out to keep the discussion going and get others to join in. But don't get bitter at the 18 year old kids who are playing by the rules.

Oh, and keep in mind when you are taking in those "amazing" Laker games at Staples or whatever way you are supporting the NBA, you are also playing a role in supporting an institution that is hugely responsible for the sorry state of basketball in America today. I am not saying that people should be boycotting the NBA. All I am saying is to keep that in the back of your minds. As for me, like Menelaus, bruinbabe, and tasser I have lost all interest and passion for the NBA for what it has done to the landscape of the college game. Plus, I find the one-on-action with no defense in the NBA games boring and ugly.

Meanwhile, I am going to put my faith in Coach Howland. I will root for the players he bring in who to date have been remarkable in the way they represent our alma mater both on and off the court. Ben Ball at Pauley: in my book that's the kind of setting where 'amazing' actually happens.

GO BRUINS.

0 recs | Comment 44 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Add

Guys ... don't get me wrong. I wrote this post to offer a perspective. I have no intent on starting an anti Laker campaign. As I have written before I do dig the idea of LA being the Round ball Mecca.

Yet I can't shake off my disenchantment with the NBA. I am not into the Lakers as much as I used to be. And lot of that has to do with the current set up between the NCAA and the NBA.

Its still cool to see the Lakers at the top of the Western conference and do well in the playoffs. But I am not as emotionally invested them as I was back in the 80s. In other words I don't go into a funk after a Laker loss like I do when UCLA loses a football or basketball game.

GO BRUINS.

by Nestor on Apr 23, 2008 6:02 PM PDT 0 recs

Im with you Nestor

in my opinion on the NBA. If it wasn't for the intriguing position of the Lakers in the playoffs this year, and the re-invigorated Boston team on the other end of the country, I wouldn't be interested at all in the corporate, self-interested world of the NBA.

Ever since I started watching UCLA basketball as a freshman a few years ago, watching the Lakers (as I had done since middle school when the Kobe-Shaq 3-pete dynasty started) has not been nearly as fulfilling as rooting for you own school's team.

Also, the style of play in college I find to be way more entertaining. Team-oriented, unselfish, passionate basketball. Toss in the yelling and screaming student section, mascots, and marching bands, and you have something intangible that is not found on the next level of professional basketball.

I'm pretty sure the Great Western Forum and the 90s and earlier Laker times were more exciting. I don't' know about you other Laker fans, but have you been to the Staples center? That place is so corporate and passion-less, almost on a level of the modern-day NFL stadium.

by Steven on Apr 23, 2008 6:04 PM PDT 0 recs

Agreed re. Staples

I imagine the experience may be better from the $$$ seats, but from where us unwashed masses get to watch a game, I cannot think of a worse arena that I have watched a game than Staples Center, whether it be college or the pros.

by bruinhoo on Apr 23, 2008 10:20 PM PDT up 0 recs

Staples from the floor and suites

I have sat on the floor, and the seats, while intriguing and close to the action, involve a lot of head back and forth, back and forth, and as low down as you can get. The best seats are just behind the "cherished 168" or whatever the numbers are.

The suites are way too high. It is better to watch on TV in the suite than to try to view the game from those seats. The best view from the suites is all the tops of heads you see....

FYI, I was fortunate enough to be invited to a suite at the Honda Center for the Stanfor/Marquette and UCLA/Texas A&M game this year. Those suites are much lower, and meet all the criteria for excellent viewing, TV, food, etc. Those work but Staples does not.
Bill

BillSouthBay

by BillSouthBay on Apr 24, 2008 11:18 AM PDT up 0 recs

same here

my only real interest in the NBA is to see former Bruins do well (B-diddy, Farmar, Kapono come to mind). I would obviously prefer the lakers win then lose, but until conference championships, i don't really see myself watching any games from beginning to end.

by Dante on Apr 23, 2008 8:22 PM PDT 0 recs

win than lose *

I almost made it seem as if I wanted the lakers to first win, and then later wanted them to lose ...

by Dante on Apr 23, 2008 8:23 PM PDT up 0 recs

Why I don't care for NBA basketball

Pro basketball, to me, is typified by Benoit Benjamin - you'll have to go find the Jim Healy link - who said "I don't give a %&@* about the fans."

College basketball, at least our version of it, is typified by the picture of a compassionate AA bending over a heartbroken Adam Morrison. No pro that I know of seems to care that much one way or another about how the game comes out.

The players seem bored most of the time, except when they get to dunk the ball. Pardon me, if you're 6'10" or so, why is it so important to pose after dunking the ball. Everyone in the league (including most of the coaches) can dunk the ball. But everyone goes bonkers. It's boring to me. But a Love full-court chest pass for a layup is art.

by Fox 71 on Apr 23, 2008 8:57 PM PDT 0 recs

That is probably my favorite clip on there

I laugh every time I hear it.

by bruinbabe2000 on Apr 24, 2008 6:48 AM PDT up 0 recs

nba minor league?

the one and done rule did not reduce the college game to an nba minor league, that happened waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy before the rule.

Across The Face

by rb bruin on Apr 23, 2008 9:00 PM PDT 0 recs

NBA Minor League

Early entry into the NBA works against that charter...the NBA is stuck paying for players to develop. Many of this year's early entrants would be substantially better players after their senior year.

I cant figure out why the NBA wouldn't want a higher age limit (and don't tell me about the players union...why do they want more competition.)

I watched my first 1/2 of NBA basketball in the last 6 years last night. Bored silly. Yeah the Lakers won but there was no defense. And, as I have said before, CNH has taught me to love watching defensive basketball.

Let"s all admit one thing though: early entry keeps interest in college basketball past the final four!

Go Team Go!

by bruins grad and dad on Apr 24, 2008 4:09 PM PDT up 0 recs

The Answer

Choices after high school:

Enter the NBA draft.
Attend college for a minimum of 3 years.

by jjreicher on Apr 23, 2008 9:09 PM PDT 0 recs

kansas and florida won the past 3 championships

neither was lead by one and done stars. in fact, they both beat some one and done players in oden and rose in the championship games.

carmelo anthony was one of few freshman that took a team to the title, and he did it before the nba rule came into play.

the game is not ruined, the past two college seasons were very exciting.

by stephons on Apr 23, 2008 9:15 PM PDT 0 recs

Great write up, Nestor

The NBA and it's marketing machine are largely to blame for the current state of college basketball, and our frustration should be focused on them.

Yet I am not 100% behind the notion that the kids and their support systems are the helpless pawns in this system. Just 2 years ago, the core of the Florida Gators, who were all projected to be lottery-bound after their 1st National Championship, put their NBA aspirations aside to make another run at the championship (at our expense). Kansas benifitted from Rush, Arthur and Chalmers (although Rush's injury forced him to stay) doing the same. Watching the Jazz-Rockets series reminds me when Battier and Boozer did the same for Duke earlier in the decade. And we're still waiting to hear from 3-time All American, Wooden award winner Tyler Hansbrough, who would surely be a first rounder, whom I believe is strongly leaning towards staying his final year. If UNC returns Hansbrough and it's core (a la Florida, Kansas and Duke), you can essentially pencil them in as the champions next year.

There are still kids out there putting money aside so as to strive to bring championships to their programs. What drives and motivates these kids to pass up millions of dollars, and, most importantly, HOW DO WE FIND THESE KIDS AND PUT THEM IN BRUIN UNIFORMS? There's still hope out there. We're seeing examples at other programs. Maybe these programs are just lucky, maybe it's something else. But I believe if #12 is going to happen, one of these years we're going to need that special player, we're going to need a Hansbrough, a Battier, a Noah, or a Horford, to step to the podium on or around April 20th and say "I'm coming back"

"You don't make it to the Final Four three straight times for no reason..Obviously coaching has something to do with it." Darren Collison

by godblesstyus95 on Apr 24, 2008 8:49 AM PDT 0 recs

Here's the thing though

why is it notable that Tyler Hansbrough has passed on the NBA three years running despite him having his number retired? Why is it notable the Corey Brewer came back to Florida as a senior? Same for Peyton Manning and Tennessee.

The answer of course is that they are the exception rather than the rule. Remember the shitstorm at Duke surrounding that '99 team when Brand, Maggette and Avery all left early, becoming the first three to leave Duke with eligibility remaining? Same thing - they were the exception to the rule.

Yeah, it'd be nice if everyone stayed and we had gotten to cheer on Jordan and Arron on Senior Day this past season. Realistically, it's hard to ask someone to pass on that kind of money, which, to be honest is probably the biggest reason why Manning, Horford and Noah all stuck around an extra year.

The conundrum, of course is that you can either A. have all the fans of your team love you forever or B. virtually guarantee setting both yourself and your family up for life financially. I know which one I would pick if I had the choice.

by seattlebruin07 on Apr 24, 2008 9:20 AM PDT up 0 recs

Most definitely

the examples I put out there are the exceptions, not the rule. It is quite rare indeed to have a sure fire lottery pick surprise everyone by staying an extra year to win a championship. Almost as rare as championships themselves, no?

A great topic is trying to find a common denominator in these rare young men that actually pass up millions for a shot at a championship. Something identifiable, something that coaches can look for when recruiting. A very logical one is the concept that these kids have financially secure families. Yet as we found out with Love, that might not be it. Is it the program and its tradition and fan base? Kansas, Duke and UNC have all been victims of early departures as well, so that's probably not it either.

Maybe it's just dumb luck.

"You don't make it to the Final Four three straight times for no reason..Obviously coaching has something to do with it." Darren Collison

by godblesstyus95 on Apr 24, 2008 9:41 AM PDT up 0 recs

Yeah, I've pretty much

made the "dumb luck" argument here. The thing about "financially secure" is that it can mean more than one thing - for example, my family is financially secure, as am I. However, if someone offered me $2M/yr to work a little harder at my job, I'm pretty sure I would say yes :). I think that's the common thing with Manning, Noah, Horford - they weren't secure, their families are rich.

Also, for a lot of players, it's simply very appealing to play ball at the highest level possible. These are, by nature, competitive guys (Jerome James aside), and it makes sense for them to want to challenge themselves against the best competition out there.

If I were to create a profile for a guy staying an extra year it would include

Family somewhere between "financially secure" and "rich"
Educated parents who emphasize completing college (Vince Carter)
Athleticism that leaves draft stock unlikely to change - either absolutely jaw dropping and skilled athletes (Tim Duncan) or guys whose lack of athleticism makes it unlikely they can climb much higher in the draft (Tyler Hansbrough)
The legitimate opportunity to win a national title. No one goes back to school and says "I'm coming back and I'm going to lead Syracuse to the NCAA Tournament next season!"
Copious amounts of attractive girls on campus... I mean uh... Good coaching!

by seattlebruin07 on Apr 24, 2008 9:54 AM PDT up 0 recs

did you just describe

kevin love's situation? (with your bullet points)

by stephons on Apr 24, 2008 10:27 AM PDT up 0 recs

Pretty much

although "Dad trying to relive youth vicariously through talented son" isn't on there =(

by seattlebruin07 on Apr 24, 2008 10:44 AM PDT up 0 recs

Florida/Kansas

Re. Florida - I believe the Florida situation was an anomaly and probably not comparable to UCLA. Our athletes don't get to coast through "leisure management" like Noah/Brewer. Seriously all those kids were doing were going to some joke classes, hanging out with the ladies, and playing ball. Not a bad life. I don't think that is going to happen under Howland at UCLA.
Re. KU - Self himself said he got lucky when Rush blew out his knee.

As for Hansborough if he had the pro potential as Love or Westbrook, he'd be gone last year.

You are right though. We need to find some of those in between kids. I think Howland will get them eventually.

by bluestreet on Apr 24, 2008 9:45 AM PDT up 0 recs

Hopefully he's got them already

Let me throw this question out there: What team has the best chance at #12?:

1. A veteran team led by Stanback, Gordon, Lee, Reeves and Anderson or....
2. A young team led by super frosh sensations Stephenson and Sidney?

I think the answer is obvious to me.

"You don't make it to the Final Four three straight times for no reason..Obviously coaching has something to do with it." Darren Collison

by godblesstyus95 on Apr 24, 2008 11:31 AM PDT up 0 recs

Not too obvious to me

I will keep an open mind on Sidney and Stephenson.

A veteran team led by Stanback, Gordon, Lee, Reeves, Anderson with the energy of a Howland coached/molded Sidney/Stephenson - I like that idea too.

Just want to keep an open mind.

by bluestreet on Apr 24, 2008 1:30 PM PDT up 0 recs

I think I'd take

the veterans to get me to the Final Four, but I think I'd rather have the SuperFroshes to try and get the rest of the way.

I think it's pretty obvious at this point that Ben's system works OK, so I'm perfectly OK with advocating guys who stay in it for a few years to go to the Final Four. In the Final Four though, all bets are off. Seems like every champ over the past ten years has had a transcendent player/small core around which the team is built rather than a deep team of many ~equal contributors (KU excluded)

07 - Corey Brewer, Joakim Noah, Al Horford
06 - Corey Brewer, Joakim Noah, Al Horford
05 - Ray Felton, Rashad McCants, Sean May
04 - Ben Gordon, Emeka Okafor
03 - Carmelo Anthony
02 - Juan Dixon
01 - Jay Williams
00 - Mateen Cleaves
99 - Rip Hamilton

However, the Final Four teams tended to be more well rounded rather than a few outstanding individuals (I swear I'll find evidence of this...)

Anyway, both sound very good to me, and since if we get Sidney and Stephenson, we'll still have the others too...

by seattlebruin07 on Apr 24, 2008 1:39 PM PDT up 0 recs

History only remembers winners?

Your list could have been
08 - Kevin Love, Darren Collison, Russell Westbrook
07 - Arron Afflalo, Darren Collison
06 - Jordan Farmar

I think it's a lot more about matchups than having that transcendent player. Note KSU with Beasley, Texas with Augustin, Davidson with Curry, etc.

by tasser10 on Apr 25, 2008 10:04 AM PDT up 0 recs

Self got lucky

when that last Davidson 3 clanked.

"Make each day your masterpiece" - JRW

by UCLAMD89 on Apr 24, 2008 3:10 PM PDT up 0 recs

Okay

A few things

Yes, it's true that only 'Melo had the National Championship impact on his team as a freshman- but remember there are ~320 D1 schools and probably ~50 who have a realistic shot to land one and done type impact players. Thus, some of the freshmen who make the biggest impact aren't going to win the title - they're going to take otherwise bad teams to the tournament or otherwise mediocre teams to the title game. Just in the past two years, Michael Conley, Jr, Greg Oden, and Derrick Rose starred as freshmen for national runners up. Tyrus Thomas helped lead LSU to the Final Four (yeah he was a RS, but same idea). OJ Mayo and Davon "I failed out of UNLV" Jefferson led SC to the tournament (imagine where the Trojans would have been without OJ). Two years ago, Thaddeus Young and Javaris Crittenton took a GT team with very little talent outside of them to the tourney. Same for Mike Beasley.
Pro ball is what it is. It's basketball at the highest level played in the world (the Olympics are somewhat of a non-factor in this judgment because it's really hard to slap together 12 guys and expect them to be a cohesive team in three weeks). Whether or not you enjoy the histronics of an NBA game is really personal preference. Personally, I love going to Hec Ed or Pauley over NBA games, but I could easily see why someone like Bill Simmons enjoys the NBA more. The quality of play this year is also incredibly high - it's very difficult to assert that the NBA has been boring because of 1v1 play this season. I've never cared that much about pro ball besides for the fantasy league we do, but I could see how someone could easily get really into it.
The MLB draft idea isn't exactly new. It's been bandied about for years, but it would never work with the NBA because of the exposure of high school players. In baseball, HS players, even the best ones are virtual unknowns outside baseball scouting circles. The same could even be said about college baseball players. For most fans, the first time they hear of Jered Weaver is when he pitches really meh-ly for the Angels, not when he is the most dominating pitcher in college at Long Beach State. On the other hand, most casual fans know who the college hoops and even HS hoops stars are. They know the Kevin Loves and Durants, the Greg Odens and Derrick Roses well before they ever make an impact in the League.

The other massive problem with adopting the baseball system is the way MLB sets up its minor league system - with the NBA a first round draft pick is expected to at least make and very likely contribute to the highest level club - the players are physically much more ready for the show at age 20-21 than a similarly talented baseball player - last year's #1 draft pick, David Price of Vandy went to AA ball out of college (two steps from the majors), and this was considered a HUGE step for him.

Yeah, the baseball system is probably the ideal way to solve everyone's draft issues, but unfortunately it simply isn't viable with hoops and football thanks to the visibility of those two sports at the grassroots and collegiate levels. It doesn't help that in baseball you can just pilfer players from other countries as well without drafting them. I wouldn't mind seeing the NBA go to a two year rule, but I'm not holding my breath either.

Lastly, college doesn't exist to make sure everyone gets a degree in something. Originally, they existed as centers or research, and still fulfill that function. Otherwise, they mostly exist to prepare people for life in the real world and future employment and as a convenient excuse for 18-22 year olds to drink every night until 2 AM and then wake up at noon. I have no problem with Kevin Love or Mike Beasley or anyone else coming to college to prepare themselves for a future career in basketball - I don't see how that's different from going to college to prepare for a career in journalism or engineering or medicine, except for the pay. They should leave when they're ready for the real world, and for a lot of them, that time is after one year.

by seattlebruin07 on Apr 24, 2008 9:10 AM PDT 0 recs

Damn, those numbered bullets didn't work so well

I knew I should have HTML formatted =(

by seattlebruin07 on Apr 24, 2008 9:10 AM PDT up 0 recs

I don't know if there is anything that can be done

Short of abolishing the NBA alltogether.

I really don't see that "skip college or go for three years" rule ever happening. Why? The all-mighty dollar, that's why.

There is FAR too much money being made on all sides with the current setup.

The NBA has no reason NOT to support things the way they are because they get to have ready-made and already marketed STARS coming into their league after showcasing their next-level abilities over actual college players.
The schools who recruit these superstar kids get to benefit from national media attention so long as the kid performs. Even though they know he has no interest in staying to get his degree or ever supporting the school after leaving. Unlike graduating students, he pays off while he plays.
The kids get the benefit of national media attention on themselves while they play in the new "D-League", and then, of course, they get their millions of dollars after a less-than-sincere press conference to announce how they love college but need to move on. (Not like I wouldn't make the same choice)
College coaches, who would otherwise never be mentioned alongside bonafide championship calibur recruiters and strategists, get to benefit by convincing these one-and-done phenoms to come to their program, where they won't have to share the spotlight, and shine. The coach gets hailed as a "genious" when his team suddenly becomes relevant on the national stage and gets big dollars in the form of a new contract or job offer after his moment in the sun...after which he returns to obscurity.

by BruinsWin on Apr 24, 2008 9:34 AM PDT 0 recs

It's not the "One-and-dones" rule

I don't think the one-and-done system is NEARLY as damaging to our beloved sport as the underhanded recruiting practices employed by MANY programs. I'm talking about GROWN MEN who have very little in the way of intellect masquerading as "college students" and being kept elligible for years by whatever means necessary so they can thug and muscle their teams to totally undeserved success. These players who have no business being anywhere near an institution of higher learning, because they aren't there to learn a thing.

To tell the truth, I really don't have that big a problem with kids like Love, Rose or Beasley. IF they are legitimately academically elligible to play and happen to be so good that they have the chance of a lifetime after one season....they deserve to take it. These kids are truly special and, as a fan, I consider it a privilege to watch them.

It's the NOT-SO-SPECIALS that are ruining the sport IMO. The Joey Dorseys, Davon Jeffersons and many many others sprinkled around the NCAA who have no right to be in college, but get to use it as playground while they steal scholarships from other, more deserving STUDENT-Athletes. These guys should be playing in Europe, the NBA D-leage or some other setting while they try to build their only skill....and the coaches who cheat and lie to get these thugs playing alongside actual students should be exposed and banned.

by BruinsWin on Apr 24, 2008 9:35 AM PDT 0 recs

What seems odd to me

Is that so many people seem to be leaving and they can't all be lottery picks or in the first round.

It blows me away that we could be talking about losing, what, five people to the draft in one year? Other teams have outstanding players; there can't be room for all of them, can there?

I guess the one that surprises me the most is Westbrook. The guy is a stud, but he is not a complete player. I know they (the NBA)are looking at upside and are afraid of missing out on a diamond in the rough, but aren't there enough nearly-done diamonds that they can leave our budding star alone?

Who else has declared so far this year? It seems that there are plenty of other superstars out there that at least a couple of ours won't be in the first round. Is Bayless going to the draft? How about Budinger? Anderson?

Man, I am just depressed. I don't blame the kids--of course I would take the money--I just want to see a little bit of continuity, savor a little bit of "wait till next year." But how can I be excited about next year when Holliday is one and done too? What, do I root for him to have a poor enough year to stick around?

by Dodger Hater on Apr 24, 2008 9:45 AM PDT 0 recs

Same question I asked before

Who is leaving the NBA and being replaced by all the new kids every year? There should be no player on a team with more than three or four years experience, because of all the can't miss guys coming out of college and getting paid $10M a season.

I guess I have another question. How stupid is the player's union? They have it within their power to make it tougher for their members to be replaced by non-union members (the lottery pick guys) but they go just the opposite way and encourage the league to take these guy, to the detriment of their own long term members -- in fact particularly to the detriment of long termers.

by Fox 71 on Apr 24, 2008 10:32 AM PDT up 0 recs

In many ways, it helps them, though

because rookie salaries get inflated, veteran salaries get pushed up as well.

In answer to your first (and probably more important) question, I believe the answer is that the shelf life of an average NBA player is relatively short. According to that, the average first rounder has spent ~5.8 years in the NBA, a number you would assume would get driven down by second rounders, undrafted FAs and international players. Also, as you can see, picks 25-30 barely get out of their first contracts on average.

Also, as far as I can tell, the influx of new players into the NBA is relatively small - many of the seniors leaving and (not too bright) underclassmen declaring end up overseas playing ball rather than in the US

by seattlebruin07 on Apr 24, 2008 11:20 AM PDT up 0 recs

PS - looks like this is only through the '97 draft

so no idea what the numbers look like from that point on.

by seattlebruin07 on Apr 24, 2008 11:22 AM PDT up 0 recs

The NBA lets the inmates run the asylum...

The players union is the group that is mostly opposed to any kind of age requirement. They would take them as high-school Freshman if they could.

Yet, the NBA has image problems. The NBA also has too-much one-on-one basketball; very little defense and refs that control the tempo too much. But, the NBA introduces new rules each year to try and fix some of their problems.

The One rule that they could change that will fix most of their problems would be to have an age requirement similar to the NFL. 3 years in college, minimum. Three years in college will go far in maturing the players as both players and Men.

College basketball, I can and do watch almost any game that is on T.V. NBA, I only watch the Lakers; with the occasional playoff game thrown in. But I watch as much college and Pro football as I can. What can I say, I'm a sports junkie.

by FullertonBruin on Apr 24, 2008 11:56 AM PDT 0 recs

best discussion of the "one-and-done"..

..anywhere on the Internet. Typical of this site, the analysis and opinions are meritorious. But the one aspect I read somewhere (maybe a comment rather than an article) not mentioned here is the fact that the one and done phenomenon is not helping the NBA as much as they would like to think it is.

It seems this can be laid at the feet of the new guys coming into the league with little or no fan base. In older times, college stars developed a following that somewhat carried over into the NBA. Remember the hoopla (sorry) when Bird and Magic took their act to Los Angeles and Boston respectively? Alcindor and Walton also brought some degree of interest with them as did others.

But a following is hard to build up unless a kid has exposure on the national level that college sports affords. It is certainly not objective, but I hardly give a flying crap about LeBron James (or Kobe Bryant, for that matter) because I did not see him (them) play for a college and in the NCAAs. On the other hand I can relate to Magic and Bird because of that fantastic NCAA tournament game they played and the build-up that occurred throughout that season.

In researching this, I came across an interesting article that says we are saddled with this rule for the next three years:

Don't expect change soon, however. The 19-year-old minimum rule was part of the collective-bargaining agreement with the NBA Players Association. There are three years remaining on the current deal with the NBA.

Also, a in interesting observation by Patrick Ewing discussing his stay at Georgetown:

Ewing entered Georgetown in 1981, and that summer's draft started with three straight underclassmen -- junior Mark Aguirre, sophomore Isiah Thomas and junior Buck Williams. Every player in the rest of the first round and the entire second round was a college senior.

Not much had changed by 1985, when Ewing, who led the Hoyas to three Final Fours and one national championship, was the first player selected. Of the 24 first-round selections, 19 were college seniors.

"A different time," Ewing said. "I can't speak for others, but when I went into college I was a boy, and when I left I was a man."

I am reminded of the move George Clooney movie "Leatherheads" which is a clumsily-told story about nascent profession football. Jim Krasinski plays a star running back in his third year at Princeton University. He is being interviewed by a gaggle of reporters and one asks, "So what will you do after you graduate from Princeton, play professional football?"

..there is the briefest moment of silence and they all break in laughter.

Who knows, maybe this short-sightedness by the NBA will give it a "Crusty Bob".

God, it's great to be a Bruin!

by whp68 on Apr 24, 2008 12:18 PM PDT 0 recs

DAMN TALL GUYS!

On analysis, the alleged disloyalty of the one-and-doners is not greed or bad character. IT IS A DIFFERENCE IN THINKING. I feel this is due to subtle differences in oxygen levels between giraffe-like basketball players and us normal people. Though seemingly trivial, this oxygen deprivation exists for a lifetime and thus has cumulative effects. These people are actually disabled and should be pitied. Athletic scholarships should be restricted to persons under 5'8". Statistics demonstrate that basketball players in this size range seldom defect to the NBA after just one year.

by Offside on Apr 24, 2008 12:46 PM PDT 0 recs

This post didn't get enough credit

Awesome

by BruinsWin on Apr 24, 2008 1:35 PM PDT up 0 recs

Nice post Nestor.

The only think I disagree with is using the words Love and Legacy in the same sentence. Love was a great player for one year at UCLA. He joined a team with 3 -4 potential pros on it, creating an awesome team, but one that wasn't able to improve upon two previous final four appearances largely because it (like its best player) lacked the athleticism of the best teams in 2007-08.

Love was a great player, but his legacy ain't close to those he named at his news conference, and is about half that of Farmar and 1/3 that of Afflalo. Love should be remembered for being one of the best freshman to ever play at UCLA, and a member of a team who reach a third straight final four. But that is a small paragraph in UCLA history at best, where champtionships are celebrated, and final four banners stuck in crates.

But he was a great player, no doubt about it.

by rfirpo on Apr 24, 2008 12:58 PM PDT 0 recs

I agree

I don't know Kevin personally but he seems like a good kid. He played hard, represented himeslef, his family, his sport, his team and his school with the utmost class. That really is a lot to ask of any 19 year old...period.

That being said, he doesn't have a UCLA legacy as far as I'm concerned....YET! He was here for all of 5 months and we know he will play in the NBA next year.

He said he is going to come back and take classes to get his degree and I give him a ton of respect. If he follows through on that, and if he continues to represent himself well out in the world, and if he is successful in contributing something positive to the world....that will be a nice legacy.

But it's is absolutely impossible for someone to leave a lasting legacy after less than one year.

by BruinsWin on Apr 24, 2008 1:41 PM PDT up 0 recs

He improved so much from Dec.

I don't recall many people mentioning what Ben Howland did for Love. Under Howland he took huge strides defensively. Remember how he was taken out of the Texas game for defensive purposes? Remember the 7 blocks he had in (I think) the Cal game?

Love was going to be "set for life" whether he went this year or next. I don't think he will improve incrementally on defense in the NBA like he did and would have under Howland.

by Dodger Hater on Apr 24, 2008 1:55 PM PDT up 0 recs

a question to those in favor of yet another change

a lot of folks seem to be in favor of another change in the eligibility requirement to declare for the nba, something a myself am opposed to.
so i ask, are you all equally as troubled with the loads of high school kids that bypass college to turn pro in baseball, hockey, and tennis? what makes basketball so different? please enlighten me.
let's not forget tiger woods left school early to join the tour as well, anyone have a problem with that?
i think many of us look at this issue with the wrong perspective, as fans. look at it from a player's perspective- if you think you're ready and someone is willing to gamble with their money that you are, why should the ncaa stand in the way? these kids dream to be nba players and if they can do it i say go for it. i have no qualms with it.
furhtermore, forcing these guys to stay in school will lead to more problems than we care to acknowledge, most prominent being an even higher degree of the student athlete for hire scenario. further regulation, i assure you, will make the ncaa game dirtier with shadowy figures, agents, and their dirty money.
i was opposed to the mandatory college requirement for the nba in theory from the get go, but for the opposite reasons as most people here. but i think it's an ok thing as a safety net as the kids get a one year audition to prove if they really are ready, i use that term somewhat loosely, i understand. i just ask people look at things more broadly and think outside the context of how great it would be if k-love was forced to stay longer.

Across The Face

by rb bruin on Apr 24, 2008 4:19 PM PDT 0 recs

You should keep some perspective too

Tiger Woods is a once in a century type of player. For every one of him, there are hundreds of others who make the decision but you don't hear from them because they are not successful. The problem is that these are still kids who, unfortunately, oftentimes get very bad advice.

With the state of professional sports being what it is, you may be right about the NCAA game getting dirtier if kids had to stay in school. I have no problem with any of them leaving early. The problem I have is that the NBA pays them way too much when they haven't proven anything yet. That is the root of the problem. Those kind of packages should be very limited, maybe to the top 5 in the draft, or something like that. The others should get a small contract until they EARN the big bucks their second year.

by tasser10 on Apr 25, 2008 10:10 AM PDT up 0 recs

Too bad the NCAA

and the NBA aren't meeting for another 3 years to reconsider this. I agree 100%

by bruin95 on Apr 24, 2008 6:12 PM PDT 0 recs

Thanks for agreeing with my Diary on one and ones

My diary posted about a week ago focused on this exact problem of one and dones turning us into an NBA minor league. Most people disagreed with my take and some made very cheap, personal shots that really said more about them than me.

Of course BH has to follow the current rules, and we support him and the team in every way, but that begs the question. Do we want to continue this flawed system that demeans any college's NCAA championship by making, in some cases, the college experience almost irrelevant to a program.

There are many good suggestions on how to fix things. The sooner the better.

In the meantime, Go Bruins.

by uclahy on Apr 25, 2008 9:17 AM PDT 0 recs

No

You suggested that Howland should build a program based on a Mid Major/WKY model by not taking one and dones. That's ridiculous.

I am not happy with the one and done rule. But that doesn't mean I think we shouldn't be taking those elite recruits. Our take is very different on this topic.

by Nestor on Apr 25, 2008 9:33 AM PDT up 0 recs