Durant Durant Rant

In an ideal world, sure. But had someone approached me with an offer to write for the Kansas City Star or Pittsburgh Post-Gazette as a sophomore because they thought I was ready, I would be foolish to turn that money down if I felt OK with the transition.

As for the HS senior/college freshmen who never did anything in the league, there are guys like Jermaine O'Neal who fit that description for two, three, four years and then figured it out. Aside from school, another way to learn the skills that you need is with on the job training. And if kids like O'Neal take three, four years to figure it out, so be it, they drew NBA paychecks all the while rather than writing Western Civ essays or taking communications classes. I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

Once again you are looking at the NBA through its individual players. With those guys there the NBA is not now as good as it once was. Perhaps without as many individual stars the elements of team play would become more important- like how the Suns play now.

 

Or, better yet, if they drew NBA paychecks and left the spot in that Western Civ or communications class for some STUDENT who ACTUALLY WANTED TO BE THERE.

 

Well, we have to talk about individual players because you're talking about the draft and impacting those players' careers. Not so small issue here, and it's got to be addressed. Again, that would be great in an ideal world, but who would I be to tell a kid he can't play in the NBA when scouts believe he's ready?

More than anyone else, the NCAA is supposed to look out for the student-athletes. Not the fans, not the NBA. You can't create a four-year rule without taking into consideration the student-athletes that you're supposed to look out for in the first place and, quite simply, it's a bad idea. You would have a bunch of kids either go pro from the start (if they're 19 of course) or attend some random juco for one season until they turn 19 and then go pro.

You wouldn't stop the kids from going pro, only the means by which they did so. And the college game would suffer because the Odens, the Durants, the Melos would go the juco route as opposed to Ohio State, Texas or Syracuse.

 

How can anyone say the college game is suffering when a George Mason, with a bunch of mid-major-level kids, beats the NBA-in-training roster that was UConn? College football, because of its non-playoff structure, seems to benefit from big-name programs doing well, but basketball is far better off when the variety of talent and experience among programs plays out in the tournament.

 

The Suns aren't the only team that use teamwork. The Pistons, Spurs, Jazz, Bulls, Bobcats, and Grizzlies all use the "teamwork" gameplan.

 

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight -- like the Suns are good because of the way they play, not because they have great players.

 

magic johnson should never have left michigan state as a sophomore.


kids could play college ball for eight years and they wouldn't learn how to defend. defense in the college game is a myth.

first thing that ACC player of the year josh howard -- a four-year college player -- had to learn when he came to the nba? how. to. defend.

 

You guys don't get it. It's not about making individual players better. Its about making the game better.

Both the college game and NBA was better when players played 4 years of college ball and then went to the NBA. In the early 80's we got to watch players like Patrick Ewing and Chris Mullin for 4 years in college. We got to watch Kareem for 3 ( he was at UCLA for 4 but at that time freshman could not play)

This is less finding fault and more an observation but my guess is that you are not old enough to have a reference point.
[/quote]

You don't get it. It's not about the game, it's about individuals.
Basketball at this level is a business. Why in the hell should athletes not reach the check when it's there for the taking?

Look at Jonathan Bender. Had he gone to college for two, three years, his knee problems might have kept him from ever playing pro ball. He would have had to get a normal job like anybody else. Instead, he's 25 or 26 and set for life.

That's what the age minimum has done - it's taken away the opportunity for adults to make a living. And that's the injustice of it. If a team doesn't want to draft a player who'll take a year or two to develope, then don't draft him.

 

You don't get it. It's not about the game, it's about individuals.
Basketball at this level is a business. Why in the hell should athletes not reach the check when it's there for the taking?

Look at Jonathan Bender. Had he gone to college for two, three years, his knee problems might have kept him from ever playing pro ball. He would have had to get a normal job like anybody else. Instead, he's 25 or 26 and set for life.

That's what the age minimum has done - it's taken away the opportunity for adults to make a living. And that's the injustice of it. If a team doesn't want to draft a player who'll take a year or two to develope, then don't draft him.
[/quote]

I get it. The players should have every right to do what they want. It's a free society.
It clearly does not make the overall game better though. Anyone who has watched basketball long enough understands the difference.

I also am realistic enough to understand that we cannot turn back the clock.

 

Hey, did you all know Kareem didn't play as a freshman?

Just pointing that out for the 171st time, in case you missed the first 170 mentions.

 

If some of the teams/scouts/GM's weren't so scared of missing out on a talent, and they stopped making the kids think they have a future all star career at 18 because of their own greed and insecurity;then maybe it would get rid of this whole upside phenomenon, where players are simply selected for their raw athleticism above their game instincts and fundamentals. If the scouts and GM's of this world didn't make a market for these kids to come straight to the NBA maybe more kids would be more encouraged to stay on at college. Then perhaps only the special ones would make the jump the way it used to be.

This isn't entirely about the game. What about letting these kids enjoy college life before they need to take on responsibility of careers and family. If the scout is worth his salt, what about building a relationship with some of these college players and understanding their behavioural attributes at college to assess whether these kids have got what it takes to make it in the NBA.

Also the colleges need to take responsibility back and invest in these kids whether they think they're sticking around for more than a year or not. If the college treats it's program and it's athletes like it's a stepping stone then their is no chance of a college athlete thinking about returning if there is a remote sniff of being a first rounder in the draft.

Hakeem Olajuwon came to America and learnt the fundamentals of basketball through a lot of dedication from the athlete and and enormous investment from his college coaches. I find it difficult to see where that type of development comes from in todays environment. As a comparison I would take the example of Andrew Bynum who in my honest opinion iis developing as a player in the NBA with 1-2-1 tuition far better than he would have in a lot of college programs.

It is not about changing rules and forcing the issue it is the games administrators, parents, and colleges working to create the choices for these athletes which present their own unique opportunities as they grow up. Unforunately with the money available in the game that is easier said than done.