The Good Ol Days...

[cuseattle]

The kids have to do what's best for them. I get it and support it. But the "less of a fan" stuff...I root for Cuse as hard as I ever did, but college bball as a whole is a lot less fun to watch. The games are lower quality bball and the investment in the other teams is so much lower.

I think of the 90s-early 00s and all the random teams (nonrivals, non champions, non bluebloods) where I could name their entire starting lineups in some of the years: teams like Temple, UMass, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, Michigan, Utah, Virginia, Missouri, etc. Like...why do I know Wake Forests whole lineup from 95 or 96 or 97, but I know like two players off their team from last year?!

I know all the World Series and college hoops champs from when I was born until 2005, then I draw a blank.

 

[sufandu]

You should be happy for the players who are lucky enough to come in for a year or two and then go play professionally. I'm assuming most dream of playing in the NBA and collecting a paycheck, not playing college ball.

I don't think anyone can tell us who we "should" be happy for. I'm a Syracuse fan. When players that have barely had an impact on the program leave before scratching the surface of their talent, I'm disappointed. Of course they don't owe me anything, but that street goes both ways.

 

[OrangeDW]

I know all the World Series and college hoops champs from when I was born until 2005, then I draw a blank.

I think I can still do that. I won several bets naming all the NBA #1 picks starting in like 1990 until the early 00s. Might still be able to keep that one going too.

But the random "good" teams and players in college hoops...forget it. The Lou Roe's, the James Forrests, the Shea Seals, the Louis Bullocks, the Kiwane Garris's, the Kelly Thames', the Harold Deans, Carmelo Traviesos, Corey Becks, Tony Rutlands, Eddie Elismas, Curtis Staples, Derek Hoods, and Maceo Bastions. I don't know those type of guys on any teams any more.

 

[cuseattle]

I think I can still do that. I won several bets naming all the NBA #1 picks starting in like 1990 until the early 00s. Might still be able to keep that one going too.

But the random "good" teams and players in college hoops...forget it. The Lou Roe's, the James Forrests, the Shea Seals, the Louis Bullocks, the Kiwane Garris's, the Kelly Thames', the Harold Deans, Carmelo Traviesos, Corey Becks, Tony Rutlands, Eddie Elismas, Curtis Staples, Derek Hoods, and Maceo Bastions. I don't know those type of guys on any teams any more.

I can name the Orioles 83 roster and Mets 86 roster two deep at each position.
Cal played every inning, so I don't know the backup ss.

 

[MSOrange]

The kids have to do what's best for them. I get it and support it. But the "less of a fan" stuff...I root for Cuse as hard as I ever did, but college bball as a whole is a lot less fun to watch. The games are lower quality bball and the investment in the other teams is so much lower.

I think of the 90s-early 00s and all the random teams (nonrivals, non champions, non bluebloods) where I could name their entire starting lineups in some of the years: teams like Temple, UMass, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, Michigan, Utah, Virginia, Missouri, etc. Like...why do I know Wake Forests whole lineup from 95 or 96 or 97, but I know like two players off their team from last year?!

This is pretty much were I am. I still love Syracuse as much as I ever did and still love watching the games. I'm just addicted I guess. But most other teams, I have a general idea of who is good and who isn't. But as far as specific players, I usually have to check the game preview before each of our games to get familiar with the roster of our opponents.

Going back to us though, this era has caused me to live in the moment much better than I used to. I still love following recruiting but I'm not constantly doing depth charts for next season and 2 seasons down the road when the current season isn't even over, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

 

[JLine]

The kids have to do what's best for them. I get it and support it. But the "less of a fan" stuff...I root for Cuse as hard as I ever did, but college bball as a whole is a lot less fun to watch. The games are lower quality bball and the investment in the other teams is so much lower.

I think of the 90s-early 00s and all the random teams (nonrivals, non champions, non bluebloods) where I could name their entire starting lineups in some of the years: teams like Temple, UMass, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, Michigan, Utah, Virginia, Missouri, etc. Like...why do I know Wake Forests whole lineup from 95 or 96 or 97, but I know like two players off their team from last year?!

My post wasn't directed at you, or calling you less of a fan in any way. Also, not calling anyone less of a fan. But, someone said something along the lines of less interest in Syracuse basketball now. Still, I'm not gonna say they are less of fan. Even though I did. Hah. Poorly worded. Just don't see how anyone could lose interest, but that's a broad statement. The less interest could be minimal, and just frustration.

I don't know. I just think everything will be fine, and it's just the evolution of the game. It started with peach baskets, freshmen couldn't even play at one time, et cetera, and here we are.

 

[UnknownOrange]

I am not against players getting paid to display their talents.

I am against the one & done rule - IMHO a player should be able to declare directly out of HS or else they have to wait two years.

The one & done hurts more players than it helps. Yes, they get the quick paycheck, but by not waiting until they mature physically and their game matures mentally so many of them never develop into what they might have been & end up with shortened careers and no degree to boot. And remember, every quick paycheck a "pre-mature" kid gets means one less paycheck for an NBA veteran. And two years later these one and dones will become the veterans.

Of course, it is all part of a process. It starts with the NBA that drafts on potential and not accomplishment. Scouts speculate on what a kid might become and are never happy with what a kid is.

As long as the big paycheck is out there, that is where the kids will flow to and all I am saying is that I know it hurts the college game and I don't believe it helps the players (in the long run).

Agree with most of the post except the bold line. They absolutely should NOT solely draft on accomplishment or the Jimmer Fredette's, Tyler Hansboroughs, Doug McDermotts, Troy Bell's, etc would be top 5 picks. Which would be nonsense. It's also silly to suggest that scouts are "never happy with what a kid is" there are always misses and there are always big time successes.

 

[UnknownOrange]

Also this post is the epitome of the double edge sword. It's 100% our fault that the system is the way it is. We are the reason the revenues in college basketball and the NBA are as big as they are. Can't blame the kids for wanting a piece of their deserved-pie. Watch the 'G5' teams in college. It's what you miss about the college game

 

[Ward]

This is a very smart, timely article on why the baseball rule wouldn't be as good as people think for college basketball. Brings up quite a few strong points I never thought of - specifically points 3, 6 and 9.

Nine reasons why college coaches' pitch for 'baseball rule' in NBA Draft is junk

 

[newmexicuse]

Agree with most of the post except the bold line. They absolutely should NOT solely draft on accomplishment or the Jimmer Fredette's, Tyler Hansboroughs, Doug McDermotts, Troy Bell's, etc would be top 5 picks. Which would be nonsense. It's also silly to suggest that scouts are "never happy with what a kid is" there are always misses and there are always big time successes.

Interesting comment - I believe that all of the names that you cited were first round picks. Fredette had obvious physical shortcomings that make it very risky to see if he would project to the next level. The others you cited looked good at the time. Of course, if a player is lacking physical ability it does not matter what he has accomplished. Our Scoop is a good example of that.

On the other hand there are dozens of NBA guys out there who had great college careers, weren't one and dones, and were successful at the next level.

I probably didn't word my initial thought very well, but what I was trying to say is that in most cases in the first round, & the lottery in particular, that the scouts are not looking for guys who will be solid contributors for the next ten years, rather they are looking for a home run & trying to find the next star or superstar.

 

[UnknownOrange]

Interesting comment - I believe that all of the names that you cited were first round picks. Fredette had obvious physical shortcomings that make it very risky to see if he would project to the next level. The others you cited looked good at the time. Of course, if a player is lacking physical ability it does not matter what he has accomplished. Our Scoop is a good example of that.

On the other hand there are dozens of NBA guys out there who had great college careers, weren't one and dones, and were successful at the next level.

I probably didn't word my initial thought very well, but what I was trying to say is that in most cases in the first round, & the lottery in particular, that the scouts are not looking for guys who will be solid contributors for the next ten years, rather they are looking for a home run & trying to find the next star or superstar.

Honestly? I think it depends on the draft. Anthony Davis, KAT, Wiggins, Kyrie, etc are the type of guys who were big college names and were expected to produce right away. The lottery is tricky because there are plenty of guys who we could name who were expected to be superstars, guys who were meant to be stashed away, and guys who need time. The game has just changed.

It's not necessarily the one and done rule's fault. Players could have jumped from highschool way back in the 70's and a few did then no one did until Garnett. However college basketball at that time (70's to 90's) was a regional and then grew and grew and exploded in the mid 80's and most of the guys who would come out were Juniors and Seniors. Then once the exposure really hits and the Fab 5 comes along people realize .. hey .. maybe 18 year olds are ready? Enter KG.

 

[sufandu]

Also this post is the epitome of the double edge sword. It's 100% our fault that the system is the way it is. We are the reason the revenues in college basketball and the NBA are as big as they are. Can't blame the kids for wanting a piece of their deserved-pie. Watch the 'G5' teams in college. It's what you miss about the college game

I don't think 'G5' is what he or anyone misses. It's seeing Jordan as a sophomore and being excited to see him as a junior, or DC as a sophomore and looking forward to his junior then senior years, or watching DC as a junior and Owens as a freshman and drooling at the idea of having both together for one more year.

Watching multiple eventual lottery picks play together for multiple years made college basketball more fun in the 80's.

 

[UnknownOrange]

I don't think 'G5' is what he or anyone misses. It's seeing Jordan as a sophomore and being excited to see him as a junior, or DC as a sophomore and looking forward to his junior then senior years, or watching DC as a junior and Owens as a freshman and drooling at the idea of having both together for one more year.

Watching multiple eventual lottery picks play together for multiple years made college basketball more fun in the 80's.

Yeah I know he and most miss the superstars playing but it's back to my original point - it's our own fault they're gone. If you want to watch teams you can become familiar with you're not going to be watching future NBA players.

 

[sufandu]

Yeah I know he and most miss the superstars playing but it's back to my original point - it's our own fault their gone. If you want to watch teams you can become familiar with you're not going to be watching future NBA players.

I understand that as do most. That doesn't mean we have to like it. I don't think anyone expects it to go back to the way it was but it doesn't mean we can't long for those days.

 

[OttoMets]

Depends. Electrician, plumber, sales, entrepreneur, etc. Lots of people make money without college. Unless you are going into a career which requires a degree, (Dr. Nurse, lawyer, teacher, etc) there are lots of economic studies to show you are better off not going to college. (Opportunity costs, loans, loss of experience, etc.)
There is too much emphasis on college for college sake.
My parents did very well without a college degree. Enough to help 3 generations.
If my kid could chase his dream without college, I would encourage it. If he wanted to go to college, I would encourage that as well.

There's too much emphasis on college for $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ sake.

There's too little for its role in encouraging an appreciation for thinking, learning, and growing.

 

[OttoMets]

I think I can still do that. I won several bets naming all the NBA #1 picks starting in like 1990 until the early 00s. Might still be able to keep that one going too.

But the random "good" teams and players in college hoops...forget it. The Lou Roe's, the James Forrests, the Shea Seals, the Louis Bullocks, the Kiwane Garris's, the Kelly Thames', the Harold Deans, Carmelo Traviesos, Corey Becks, Tony Rutlands, Eddie Elismas, Curtis Staples, Derek Hoods, and Maceo Bastions. I don't know those type of guys on any teams any more.

You forgot Dante Calabria.

 

[OttoMets]

This is a very smart, timely article on why the baseball rule wouldn't be as good as people think for college basketball. Brings up quite a few strong points I never thought of - specifically points 3, 6 and 9.

Nine reasons why college coaches' pitch for 'baseball rule' in NBA Draft is junk

I would love to hear reasons why the baseball format would be bad for the NBA, bad for kids, bad for college hoops, bad for education. And those reasons probably exist. But I didn't see any among those 9.

#8 was particularly odd. Paraphrasing: Replacing one-and-done is anti-education. Because I can't think of an argument to support this claim, I'll quote Bruce Pearl, whose words also don't support this claim.

DeCourcy does good work and I was excited to read that column. Surprised and disappointed that it was mostly false dilemmas and straw men with some hyperbole sprinkled in.

 

[Ward]

I would love to hear reasons why the baseball format would be bad for the NBA, bad for kids, bad for college hoops, bad for education. And those reasons probably exist. But I didn't see any among those 9.

#8 was particularly odd. Paraphrasing: Replacing one-and-done is anti-education. Because I can't think of an argument to support this claim, I'll quote Bruce Pearl, whose words also don't support this claim.

DeCourcy does good work and I was excited to read that column. Surprised and disappointed that it was mostly false dilemmas and straw men with some hyperbole sprinkled in.

Well I think in general making these kids stay for 3 years is bad for the kids. It prevents them from making money on their skills and what if they get hurt in that 3 year span? Some of the reasons were reaching a bit but I thought he brought up some good points. I agree that #8 seemed like quite an exaggeration.

#3 - Not sure if it's "bad" for anyone but there are loopholes for kids who want to leave anyways. They could go overseas now but with a year of college if you're a star you can probably get a more tempting/lucrative offer from overseas teams. Not to mention as another person pointed out that these kids could always go to the JUCO route and be eligible to be drafted earlier. If either of these grows it takes stars away from college teams entirely.

#6 - I don't think college coaches would like if every member of their recruiting class was eligible to be drafted by the NBA whether they declared or not. What if a school is depending on a kid, he's counting on going there and then he gets surprised with a better NBA opportunity in June and leaves the school hanging? Or an NBA team drafts a kid in one of the 2 rounds and expect him to join their franchise and he says never mind? That hurts both parties.

#9 - Then like I said overall how is it fair to the kids to keep them from entering the NBA for 3 years? It just gives college coaches more control in a sport where they already have way too much of it.

 

[OttoMets]

Well I think in general making these kids stay for 3 years is bad for the kids. It prevents them from making money on their skills and what if they get hurt in that 3 year span? Some of the reasons were reaching a bit but I thought he brought up some good points. I agree that #8 seemed like quite an exaggeration.

#3 - Not sure if it's "bad" for anyone but there are loopholes for kids who want to leave anyways. They could go overseas now but with a year of college if you're a star you can probably get a more tempting/lucrative offer from overseas teams. Not to mention as another person pointed out that these kids could always go to the JUCO route and be eligible to be drafted earlier. If either of these grows it takes stars away from college teams entirely.

#6 - I don't think college coaches would like if every member of their recruiting class was eligible to be drafted by the NBA whether they declared or not. What if a school is depending on a kid, he's counting on going there and then he gets surprised with a better NBA opportunity in June and leaves the school hanging? Or an NBA team drafts a kid in one of the 2 rounds and expect him to join their franchise and he says never mind? That hurts both parties.

#9 - Then like I said overall how is it fair to the kids to keep them from entering the NBA for 3 years? It just gives college coaches more control in a sport where they already have way too much of it.

I agree with you on #6 - you make a good point. What a mess that would be. Typically (for his sloppy and dismissive tone in this column), DeCourcy writes in much starker terms than you do; he could've used a little more of your nuance.

I don't think the college coaches thing (#9) is a reason this would be detrimental to any party. The author makes an unsubstantiated generalization that doesn't persuade me. Could it be bad, could it be unfair? Sure. (By the way, I'm not at all convinced that "unfair to a certain subset of high school kids" is a bad thing. There's a lot of unfairness in the world. It's all a give and take.)

DeCourcy doesn't even deserve a response for his goofy rant in #3. Ankle monitors? Get out of here. You, on the other hand, present some ideas worth chewing on.

That's how I generally feel about the whole issue (putting aside my "I love college basketball but it used to be a lot better and it'd be great if it approached those heights again" bias). There are a lot of interested parties whose welfare should be considered. An honest discussion can be had. Too much of what I read, though (including DeCourcy, unfortunately, but not you), skirts the meat of the issue and takes the low road, throwing out charged language and making emotional appeals.

 

[Ward]

I agree with you on #6 - you make a good point. What a mess that would be. Typically (for his sloppy and dismissive tone in this column), DeCourcy writes in much starker terms than you do; he could've used a little more of your nuance.

I don't think the college coaches thing (#9) is a reason this would be detrimental to any party. The author makes an unsubstantiated generalization that doesn't persuade me. Could it be bad, could it be unfair? Sure. (By the way, I'm not at all convinced that "unfair to a certain subset of high school kids" is a bad thing. There's a lot of unfairness in the world. It's all a give and take.)

DeCourcy doesn't even deserve a response for his goofy rant in #3. Ankle monitors? Get out of here. You, on the other hand, present some ideas worth chewing on.

That's how I generally feel about the whole issue (putting aside my "I love college basketball but it used to be a lot better and it'd be great if it approached those heights again" bias). There are a lot of interested parties whose welfare should be considered. An honest discussion can be had. Too much of what I read, though (including DeCourcy, unfortunately, but not you), skirts the meat of the issue and takes the low road, throwing out charged language and making emotional appeals.

It really is such a loaded topic. I'm with you that as a fan of college basketball it would be a much better product to watch, provide deeper story lines and be better for the sport if guys were around for longer periods of time. On the other hand, I think the right thing to do is to let these kids go to the NBA whenever they please. Lift the restrictions and if there is a team that will hire them to play basketball for their organization then let them do it. Often times part of the equation is what would help college basketball but in reality that shouldn't really matter much at all when discussing how/if an individual should be able to profit of his talents that place him in the top .5% in the world at what he does.

 

[RandygoCuse]

I see both sides. Obviously, the players have to what's best for them - and I think for many of them, the smart move is to make the jump while their stock is high and they can start making money. And it's no secret that many (myself included) think the NCAA is taking advantage of them. As a fan however, this means that the product will not be as appealing. And at this point, I really only watch college ball if Syracuse is playing or it's the tourney.

I'm honestly not sure the NCAA paying players would be enough to entice them to stay as I doubt they would get nearly as much money. But I would like to see D1 basketball and football split into two divisions. Have a lower one for student athletes - maybe give them an extra year of eligibility if they graduate in four. And have an upper one where players are paid, can do endorsements, and the NCAA revisits exactly how academics will fit into their time at school.

I've never been wild about the idea that a player can make the jump out of high school or has to wait two years. I think it would encourage more kids to jump. Remember, they are going to make the jump if they want to, not if the fans think they're ready. And if they know they have to wait an extra year to start making money, they'll be reluctant to work on their game in college.

 

[CaptainJ]

I know all the World Series and college hoops champs from when I was born until 2005, then I draw a blank.

Is that the year you moved to Washington and/or they legalized medical cannabis?

 

[cuseattle]

Is that the year you moved to Washington and/or they legalized medical cannabis?

Been here since 89' and I can find things in Kansas if I want too!

 

[CaptainJ]

This reminds me of free agency in sports. Great for players, crappy for fans.

And yes, college Bevo and Tuttle nailed it. Degrees are being devalued by overprinting, very similar to what Janet Yellen and he predecessors have done with our artificially inflated dollar.

Two3 has the mic drop post of the thread though. I'm not sure why he isnt getting more love for it. We'd have more 4 year players if they hadn't been punted elsewhere.

 

[HSPORANGE]

I don't think anyone can tell us who we "should" be happy for. I'm a Syracuse fan. When players that have barely had an impact on the program leave before scratching the surface of their talent, I'm disappointed. Of course they don't owe me anything, but that street goes both ways.

Well Im Assuming you are a SU fan since you are posting on a SU board. I'm typically happy for people when they realize and reach their goals. Most of these kids goals are playing in the nba and being paid to play in the nba...