Diamond Stone | Page 3 | Syracusefan.com

Diamond Stone

If you were in the top 1% of your field of choice out of high school you wouldn't need a degree.
Not remotely the same comparison.

I'm not for this rule. I'm just saying the NBA has every right to make their own requirements they deem necessary for the quality of their sport. There's a reason that they thought the straight-to-NBA situation wasn't working out well for their league.
 
There are some professions where a degree is essential (medicine, law, internet trolling)

I don't think basketball is one though.

Duke has a lot of great acting classes that many of their basketball players take. And UNC, forget it! There's a bunch of classes you can take from UNC online that you are almost guaranteed to get an A. Everyone gets an A which is why it's legal.
 
The difference is they aren't legislated by mandate. NBA jobs don't have that requirement. Starting your own business doesn't have that requirement. Working in many fields don't have that requirement. Some jobs may require it, some don't. I can guarantee you this, if the NBA put a 4-year requirement on college players, you still wouldn't stop the problem. These guys would just head to Europe for 2-3 years.
It's not as if it's a government mandate. The league is looking out for its best interests of its teams, as it should. And it should have every right to do so.

"you still wouldn't stop the problem" - what problem are you referring to?
 
Not to be that guy but I am about to be. Is there a way to have a thread dedicated to non-Cuse players entering/leaving? Love the basketball talk but maybe it cleans the board a little bit?

By the way as the first post said. Once Skal left so was Diamond. No question.

We need a thread devoted only to talking about what should be in a thread. And what are good posts and bad posts. It would like a discussion of block-charge calls but instead of basketball it would be about blogging. And no-meta-trolls allowed.
 
It helps when there are three simultaneous discussions taking place...none of which have anything to do with a Maryland big man leaving school early.

Donald Trump has great hair. He thinks the election process is rigged. Imagine that! What a buffoon.
 
Their own establishment made it the clusterF it's today. Years ago, the block/charge debate, well, there really wasn't much debate at all. Why, because it was darn obvious what a charge was back then, as well as a block. The reffing institution unnecessarily toyed with it and toyed with it and is the proximate cause of what it is today. It bred the flopping along with all the acting and BS that ensues in an exaggerated attempt to persuade/fool the ref to call the block.

The assumption that block/charge was simpler and handled better is just plain wrong. And officials bodies like IAABO and CABO don't write rules arbitrarily in a vacuum, nor do they tinker with them as whimsically or promiscuously as you are suggesting. The game evolves at both the coaching and player levels, and the rules committees in the governing bodies have to keep up. That is what compels changes in rules. Specifically, in the mid 70's coaches began teaching better defensive skills, because offensive skills were improving greatly, and game play reflected that. The fundamental concept that was adopted was that you can't play defense standing still, and the rules needed to be adjusted to reflect that. And the direction on that came from the sport's governing bodies whose rules committees write the rule books. And believe it or not, coaching bodies have more input into that than officials bodies. In other words, referees don't write the rule books. They do, however, read and study them and write exams annually, which more than 95% of fans, players and coaches do not.
 
No two game sites will have the same camera angles or even equipment. It would be very expensive to make that happen. And even if they all did, none would always have the same angle as the game officials. So although it's not an unreasonable thought, I don't see it happening. Besides, smart coaches (and there are lots of them) would save their challenge for the end of close games, which are even now almost unwatchable because of how many trips to monitor are made during the last two minutes.

No one can get block/charge right every time. Period. It's a fact of life within the game. But what I can do is be consistent, and apply a consistent line of logic to how I handle a call. My basic philosophy is that basketball is an offensive game. So if I'm going to err, it's going to be on the side of protecting the shooter, especially one who's airborne. For if we allow defensive players to continually slide under players in the air based on being able to argue they had both feet on the floor a nanosecond before the shooter's foot left the floor, there will be many, and often career changing, injuries. So that can't be allowed to happen. On the other hand, you can't go too far with that because we've all seen players who are determined to go to the basket regardless of what's in front of them, and if you reward that practice, there will only be more and more of it, turning games into free-throw shooting contests.

At the end of it all, there will always be stronger and weaker officials at every level. And the best officials can't do every game every night. We just have to learn to accept it as part of the game.

What about the Duke players and their acting classes?
 
The assumption that block/charge was simpler and handled better is just plain wrong. And officials bodies like IAABO and CABO don't write rules arbitrarily in a vacuum, nor do they tinker with them as whimsically or promiscuously as you are suggesting. The game evolves at both the coaching and player levels, and the rules committees in the governing bodies have to keep up. That is what compels changes in rules. Specifically, in the mid 70's coaches began teaching better defensive skills, because offensive skills were improving greatly, and game play reflected that. The fundamental concept that was adopted was that you can't play defense standing still, and the rules needed to be adjusted to reflect that. And the direction on that came from the sport's governing bodies whose rules committees write the rule books. And believe it or not, coaching bodies have more input into that than officials bodies. In other words, referees don't write the rule books. They do, however, read and study them and write exams annually, which more than 95% of fans, players and coaches do not.

There used to be a rule where instead of taking foul shots you can simply take possession of the ball out of bounds. I think that's a pretty cool rule. What are your thoughts?
 
What about the Duke players and their acting classes?

Come on, Dave, does anyone really think flopping never occurred until Duke basketball came along? :)
 
There used to be a rule where instead of taking foul shots you can simply take possession of the ball out of bounds. I think that's a pretty cool rule. What are your thoughts?

I reffed under that system. It caused fights.
 
Come on, Dave, does anyone really think flopping never occurred until Duke basketball came along? :)

You have to admit, they are really good at flopping. In fact in rubbed off on Malachi. He didn't even know how to do it until he played at Duke!
 
Dave85 said:
I'm sorry, referees should have absolutely no emotion during a game. There's a right way to be a referee and wrong way.

When the cyborgs take over this will not be an issue.
 
Yes, but I believe they all spent at least some time in the minor leagues and didn't go directly to the majors.

Correa is a Puerto Rican kid and went #1 in the draft and spent the past few years in the minors.
 
Wow! Really, in what way? Players on their own team?

No, between teams. Think of men's leagues, or a game between Brazil and Argentina.

And I'm heading to the golf course. It's been fun. :)
 
When the cyborgs take over this will not be an issue.

This is the kind of stuff I was talking about. Granted, it was a Laker game and officiating is not really a priority. But still, you get my point:

 
In regards to players leaving early:

I'm all for allowing NCAA players to make money off of their name. I know they are trying to work on something like this but probably still a long way off.

1) Players that really aren't ready to jump to the NBA can stay behind and not worry about money. Being able to endorse a product or show up at events would put some scratch in their pockets.
2) You could hypothetically/hopefully cut down on some of the infractions regarding money exchanging hands wrongfully.
 
In regards to players leaving early:

I'm all for allowing NCAA players to make money off of their name. I know they are trying to work on something like this but probably still a long way off.

1) Players that really aren't ready to jump to the NBA can stay behind and not worry about money. Being able to endorse a product or show up at events would put some scratch in their pockets.
2) You could hypothetically/hopefully cut down on some of the infractions regarding money exchanging hands wrongfully.
I think as more and more people continue to see the light with regard to college 'amateur' athletes, things will improve.

In a just world, players would be able to individually benefit financially (endorsements, agents). I would go one (or more) further and consider them college employees - be paid as such and not have academic requirements. I'd like to see a system where NBA teams can draft a player and the player can return to his college team similar to hockey.

All of this would be considered "extreme" yet I only see upside from a quality-of-the-game standpoint. Not to mention it's a more humane and decent system that doesn't require denials and head-in-the-sand thinking.
 
Could you imagine if we were all treated this way in our endeavors. "You must do two years or else" - pretty sure I wouldn't like that.

But in a way it is kind of like that, If you want to be a lawyer you have to go to school for seven years, if you want to be an accountant, you have to go for four.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
170,464
Messages
4,892,324
Members
5,999
Latest member
powdersmack

Online statistics

Members online
15
Guests online
851
Total visitors
866


...
Top Bottom