Woj nails it (NBA draft age requirements)

Odom was a one-and-done.

The ability to keep yourself in school, no matter how easy it is at some programs, for two years, somehow translates to being a better professional.

I don't know if it is the self control to behave yourself for two years or the discipline to go to class and follow the school's rules, but it does somehow make for what seems to be a better pro.

I also don't know if playing a college schedule a couple of times where you are in front of a rabid Duke or Ohio State student section means more down the road than having road games in Atlanta or Houston. It just seems to, IMHO.

I know Durant, Conley and Garnett seem to be great citizens, but I think playing one year more or two years in a conference schedule just somehow toughens them for the pro game.

 

Or maybe -- just maybe -- it depends more on the individual than it does the song and dance he does for two years for your entertainment as an "amateur" athlete.

No basketball player, however talented, is obligated to do anything for the morally bankrupt institution that is college basketball. If they want to make a school millions of dollars for a small fee in return, that's their choice. They might be better for it. Or they might be just as big of an asshole when they get out. If you want to actually argue that UCLA should be paying Kevin Love, much like baseball players still get paid large sums of money while they hone their skills in their minor leagues, that would be one thing. But really you just seem to want to continue the fallacy that is amatuer sports in this country. For your entertainment.

Odom spent two years at Rhode Island, btw. He only played one season. I guess your who self-control argument about going to class and becoming a man only applies to seasons where he's also entertaining you.

 

Man you just keep heaping that bullshit in the face of a mountain of evidence proving you wrong.

Are you gonna tell us that our "better professionals" don't include guys like Lebron, Kobe, Garnett, Dwight Howard, McGrady, Nowitzki, Yao, Jermaine O'Neal, Amare Stoudamire, Carmelo Anthony, Chris Bosh, Al Jefferson, Ginobli, Parker, Durant etc.? Because all of those guys played either no college ball or less than 2 years. As is this case with every MVP candidate except Paul. As is the case with almost all of our "better" young talent these days.

If anything there's now almost an inverse relationship between NBA success and length of college play. The guys with glorious collegiate careers like Redick, Morrison and May have been failing at a far greater rate than the one and dones in recent years.

 

True. Most of the better players coming out now are the one-and-dones. You have the odd Roy, but the attrition is so great, the one-an-dones are bound to be better.

But, would a Conley for example or Durant, been a better pro with another year of college seasoning? I think yes, but we will never know.

 

I have no idea why I keep clicking on this thread. I guess I keep hoping 93 will begin to make logical arguments, but that doesn't appear to be possible.

 

The answer is no. Ask any coach.

Are they going to improve more with part-time coaching and a 30-game schedule against inferior players, or with a full-time training schedule with a slew of professional coaches preparing them for an 82 game schedule against the best players in the world?

 

IMHO, a college practice followed by a conference road game where players are giving everything they have is far superior than an NBA practice and a following game against Atlanta.

I don't care if they are more talented, a game against lethargic players and a don't give a shit crowed doesn't amount to much.

 

It's impossible to know what to argue anymore because Devil keeps moving the goalposts. Now it's a crowd and intensity thing.

 

I imagine it's similar to arguing with Hillary Clinton.

 

Except the Atlanta Hawks on a bad night would beat the living hell out of any college team.

 

Excellent.