College Basketball: 2015-2016

[Split T]

Statistics show that rebounding translates well from college to pros. It's not always the case, but someone like Beasley is an exception. Beasley failed, not because his stats misrepresented his talent, but because his stats disguised other non talent related problems. Simmons is clearly talented, I wouldn't worry about that in drafting him. I recently watched a draft express video on him and they made some interesting comparisons. Lamar Odom, Blake Griffin, and Boris Diaw. Perhaps Simmons can become what everyone hoped Diaw would after 2005-2006

[pickle]

I'd take Lamar Odom, from that group of players.

I feel like dominance on the college level is often due to physical superiority, particularly as it pertains to rebounding, and as Inf just said, the competition in the pros is much stronger in every aspect of the game. So while I have read plenty that rebounding translates well, I'm not sure I understand the mechanics of why this skill is more transferable than another.

[JCSunsfan]

I'd take Lamar Odom, from that group of players.

I feel like dominance on the college level is often due to physical superiority, particularly as it pertains to rebounding, and as Inf just said, the competition in the pros is much stronger in every aspect of the game. So while I have read plenty that rebounding translates well, I'm not sure I understand the mechanics of why this skill is more transferable than another.

I think its because rebounding is in the control of the player more than anything else. Other skills like passing and shooting require a coach and team to USE that player like he was used in college. With so many talented players ahead of him on the depth chart, he might never touch the ball like in college. But he can go get the ball. Rebounding is also not such a physical/talent thing as it is a mentality and an ability to judge when to box out and how the ball is going to come off the rim.

[Mori Chu]

I don't agree with that at all. I'd rather have tape on a guy at the college level than draft him straight out of high school.

I agree that having guys come straight out of HS would be even worse. Much worse.

[TOO]

I'd take Lamar Odom, from that group of players.

I feel like dominance on the college level is often due to physical superiority, particularly as it pertains to rebounding, and as Inf just said, the competition in the pros is much stronger in every aspect of the game. So while I have read plenty that rebounding translates well, I'm not sure I understand the mechanics of why this skill is more transferable than another.

I think its because rebounding is in the control of the player more than anything else. Other skills like passing and shooting require a coach and team to USE that player like he was used in college. With so many talented players ahead of him on the depth chart, he might never touch the ball like in college. But he can go get the ball. Rebounding is also not such a physical/talent thing as it is a mentality and an ability to judge when to box out and how the ball is going to come off the rim.

Well said, its why guys like Westbrook/Rondo out rebound bigs on a nightly basis.

[Indy]

Basically if a guy plays a 3-month career of college basketball, it's almost impossible to know anything for sure about the player. The NCAA basketball system is completely broken and I'll never watch until they get star players to stay for multiple years.

You can't fix that until you are legitimately paying guys to play college ball. That could be the university, or it could be NBA teams drafting guys and then letting them play college (instead of drafting international players and stashing them in Europe).

[Split T]

What do you think would happen if they did something similar to baseball. Either come straight out of highschool or play at least 3 years in college(I'd make it 2 for basketball). I think there'd still have to be some incentive to going the college route as you'd probably just get too many skipping college altogether.

[In2ition]

I like the baseball structure, but still not a huge fan of straight from hs.

[pickle]

I think its because rebounding is in the control of the player more than anything else. Other skills like passing and shooting require a coach and team to USE that player like he was used in college. With so many talented players ahead of him on the depth chart, he might never touch the ball like in college. But he can go get the ball. Rebounding is also not such a physical/talent thing as it is a mentality and an ability to judge when to box out and how the ball is going to come off the rim.

Makes sense, thanks for this.

[Indy]

What do you think would happen if they did something similar to baseball. Either come straight out of highschool or play at least 3 years in college(I'd make it 2 for basketball). I think there'd still have to be some incentive to going the college route as you'd probably just get too many skipping college altogether.

I hate a company telling someone they aren't old enough to work there if they are an adult and as qualified as some of the other end-of-bench/10-day contract guys.

[INFORMER]

All that company is saying is that they want you to bring a year of post secondary experience to the table. Hardly unreasonable.

[The Bobster]

Of course most companies aren't monopolies.

[Mori Chu]

The NBA isn't really a normal business. They shouldn't do what is "fair," they should do what is best for the NBA. If that also happens to be better for the NCAA, so be it.

I think it is not best for the NBA to have all the best college players come out after 1 year. I also don't think it is best for the star players to skip college.

[Indy]

There are some players where it makes sense for them to jump straight to the league, so I'm not a fan of absolutes.

[Indy]

The NBA isn't really a normal business. They shouldn't do what is "fair," they should do what is best for the NBA. If that also happens to be better for the NCAA, so be it.

I think it is not best for the NBA to have all the best college players come out after 1 year. I also don't think it is best for the star players to skip college.

So monopolies should be able to avoid fair practices for their labor force and focus on what is most profitable for the business?

[OE32]

The NBA isn't really a normal business. They shouldn't do what is "fair," they should do what is best for the NBA. If that also happens to be better for the NCAA, so be it.

I think it is not best for the NBA to have all the best college players come out after 1 year. I also don't think it is best for the star players to skip college.

So monopolies should be able to avoid fair practices for their labor force and focus on what is most profitable for the business?

Giving the players more choices isn't necessarily best for them - while there are players who made money who might not have otherwise (see Bender, Jonathan), there are others who have not been well-served jumping straight to the NBA.

The first thing you gotta do is maximize the size of the pie, and then you figure out how to slice it. I'm open to the notion that keeping kids from jumping to the NBA who could is better for the players, but it's not clear. I'm nearly certain, however, that keeping most 19-year-olds from active rosters is good for the NBA - not to mention, good for veterans, who may be more worthy of coveted roster spots.

Probably the best thing the NBA could do is (1) increase the number of players teams can have under contract, and (2) more strongly encourage use of the D-League for young players. If 19-year-olds know that they'll make the money, but that they'll be playing in front of smaller crowds, not on television, not subject to the celebrity status that big-time NCAA athletes have, many of them will choose to stay in school. But if they want the option of jumping straight to the league, I don't know if it makes much sense to force them to go to school. Increasing the number of roster spots and elevating the role of the D-league seems like a sensible compromise, imo.

What do you think, Indy?

[pickle]

Is the D League considered an inherently more or less competitive environment vs. the NCAA?

[Indy]

The NBA isn't really a normal business. They shouldn't do what is "fair," they should do what is best for the NBA. If that also happens to be better for the NCAA, so be it.

I think it is not best for the NBA to have all the best college players come out after 1 year. I also don't think it is best for the star players to skip college.

So monopolies should be able to avoid fair practices for their labor force and focus on what is most profitable for the business?

Giving the players more choices isn't necessarily best for them - while there are players who made money who might not have otherwise (see Bender, Jonathan), there are others who have not been well-served jumping straight to the NBA.

The first thing you gotta do is maximize the size of the pie, and then you figure out how to slice it. I'm open to the notion that keeping kids from jumping to the NBA who could is better for the players, but it's not clear. I'm nearly certain, however, that keeping most 19-year-olds from active rosters is good for the NBA - not to mention, good for veterans, who may be more worthy of coveted roster spots.

Probably the best thing the NBA could do is (1) increase the number of players teams can have under contract, and (2) more strongly encourage use of the D-League for young players. If 19-year-olds know that they'll make the money, but that they'll be playing in front of smaller crowds, not on television, not subject to the celebrity status that big-time NCAA athletes have, many of them will choose to stay in school. But if they want the option of jumping straight to the league, I don't know if it makes much sense to force them to go to school. Increasing the number of roster spots and elevating the role of the D-league seems like a sensible compromise, imo.

What do you think, Indy?

I am bothered by how the NCAA exploits kids for profits, and feel like, although exploited some in the NBA, they are in a much better position there (as a labor force). Really it is free labor versus paid labor. And when you look at the money the NCAA brings in, and pays their coaches, it is awful that the players get nothing.

So I usually side with the players, even the 18 year old ones (or younger). I just wish there was a better way for them to benefit from the league that eventually wants them, without being raped by the NCAA first.

If 19-year-olds know that they'll make the money, but that they'll be playing in front of smaller crowds, not on television, not subject to the celebrity status that big-time NCAA athletes have, many of them will choose to stay in school.

I wanted to respond to this specifically: I don't think most kids are wanting to go to the NBA to be on TV or play for big crowds. I think they want those things, but the money is the real draw. Many of them will make more on their rookie contracts in their first year, than most 18 year old will make for the next 20 years.

[Split T]

Is the D League considered an inherently more or less competitive environment vs. the NCAA?

Less competitive than the top conferences of NCAA. That's the problem with using the d league as a minor league. It needs to be better than the NCAA.

[Hermen]

Is the D League considered an inherently more or less competitive environment vs. the NCAA?

Less competitive than the top conferences of NCAA. That's the problem with using the d league as a minor league. It needs to be better than the NCAA.

As far as I know NBA teams can take best D League players in the middle of the season and can assign and take away their own players as well. Also D League teams owned by NBA teams can be used for experimentation. I don't think this makes a competitive environment. At least on a team level, players of course want to shine.