Cal on Grad Transfers - Bad for the "Kids"

#52
#52
butchna said:
NCAA had no input. This was no cooperative. The NBA was weary of diluting their product with unvetted high school stars.
Click to expand...

Whatever the reason, it isn't a loophole; that is the intended policy. Why should or would the NBA work with the NCAA about crafting a policy? They couldn't care less about the effect that it has on college basketball.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#53
#53
#54
#54
NashVol11 said:
It's more about protecting NBA GMs from making bad draft picks than about dilution IMO
Click to expand...

When you have the Robert Swifts and Gerald Greens littering the rosters straight from high school, that's dilution. If you're a GM you take a Kwame Brown just to avoid missing on the next Amare Stoudemire. The one and done rule made a lot of GM's "smarter".
 
#55
#55
05_never_again said:
Whatever the reason, it isn't a loophole; that is the intended policy. Why should or would the NBA work with the NCAA about crafting a policy? They couldn't care less about the effect that it has on college basketball.
Click to expand...

Right.
 
#56
#56
LittleCat said:
Roy has tried his daggum hardest to get the same players. He just can't. He even said it himself.
Click to expand...

Sometimes it works out better not reaching your goal. Bet he prefers the resulting teams.
 
#58
#58
butchna said:
When you have the Robert Swifts and Gerald Greens littering the rosters straight from high school, that's dilution.
Click to expand...

It is, but they don't play that much, so it's not a big difference

If you're a GM you take a Kwame Brown just to avoid missing on the next Amare Stoudemire.
Click to expand...

Only if you're a bad GM

The one and done rule made a lot of GM's "smarter".
Click to expand...

That's my point. Protecting them from their own bad decisions, at the players' expense.
 
#59
#59
NashVol11 said:
It is, but they don't play that much, so it's not a big difference



Only if you're a bad GM



That's my point. Protecting them from their own bad decisions, at the players' expense.
Click to expand...

How'd you miss EVERY point? Intentional? When your litmus test is high school level competition, every player is essentially unvetted. It's not "bad decisions", it's UNINFORMED. Lot of flyers taken on potential and no GM is immune. Jerry West would have become one of your idiots if his heyday had been during the high school flight years. He hit on Kobe Bryant when the straight from high school to NBA concept was a novelty. His and Garnett's success led to the flood. I know in your "let every player do whatever they want right now and forever" world, everything was as it should be...but it was chaos. Their product was becoming crap so they took the step of requiring potential multimillionaires to compete at a higher level for one season. Robert Swift or Gerald Green struggle a year as freshmen or overseas, and they're not wasted lottery picks. You still have busts of course but the percentages are way better. This idea that individuals with select skills have a RIGHT to make unearned millions is idiocracy in liquid form. What other career field affords that? You could have the most potentially gifted brain surgeon coming right out of high school. But you don't just let him start cutting on people sight unseen and justify it with a six figure salary. Even the fictional Doogie Howser did the boring med school and internship dance before high school thing...to protect hospital administrators from "bad decisions". :) And the most gifted bankable 20-30 million a picture actors/actresses didn't go straight from their high school drama department...unless they had been cast as child actors and DONE THE WORK. One and done stinks for the NCAA but worked for the NBA. It ain't going anywhere except up...maybe two years?
 
Last edited:
#60
#60
butchna said:
How'd you miss EVERY point? Intentional? When your litmus test is high school level competition, every player is essentially unvetted. It's not "bad decisions", it's UNINFORMED. Lot of flyers taken on potential and no GM is immune. Jerry West would have become one of your idiots if his heyday had been during the high school flight years. He hit on Kobe Bryant when the straight from high school to NBA concept was a novelty. His and Garnett's success led to the flood. I know in your "let every player do whatever they want right now and forever" world, everything was as it should be...but it was chaos. Their product was becoming crap so they took the step of requiring potential multimillionaires to compete at a higher level for one season. Robert Swift or Gerald Green struggle a year as freshmen or overseas, and they're not wasted lottery picks. You still have busts of course but the percentages are way better. This idea that individuals with select skills have a RIGHT to make unearned millions is idiocracy in liquid form. What other career field affords that? You could have the most potentially gifted brain surgeon coming right out of high school. But you don't just let him start cutting on people sight unseen and justify it with a six figure salary. Even the fictional Doogie Howser did the boring med school and internship dance before high school thing...to protect hospital administrators from "bad decisions". :) And the most gifted bankable 20-30 million a picture actors/actresses didn't go straight from their high school drama department...unless they had been cast as child actors and DONE THE WORK. One and done stinks for the NCAA but worked for the NBA. It ain't going anywhere except up...maybe two years?
Click to expand...

The point you apparently miss is that every single player in the NBA Draft is unvetted. The guys that play in Spain have the smallest jump to make, but college basketball is absolutely nothing like the NBA.

The thought process you described earlier, where a GM takes Kwame Brown because he's in high school and Amare Stoudemire or Kobe Bryant also came from high school, is an idiotic thought process. It's not any different from the people who said to avoid Porzingis because all Euros are busts, then once he's good, act like every European will be just like him (Dragan Bender) just because they're also European. You make GMs sound like helpless victims, but they're fully capable of evaluating players individually, even against relatively bad competition; they do it all the time, with every college player.

And we're not talking about whether one-and-done will go anywhere, but why it exists and whether it should.
 
#61
#61
You're drawing arbitrary lines all over the place. High school players are "unseen" and have done nothing, because they're playing bad competition; then suddenly, after a year of college, they've DONE THE WORK and "earned" their millions by playing more bad (but slightly better) competition, and those parentheses are the difference between qualified and unqualified because one guy said so.
 
Last edited:
#62
#62
NashVol11 said:
The point you apparently miss is that every single player in the NBA Draft is unvetted. The guys that play in Spain have the smallest jump to make, but college basketball is absolutely nothing like the NBA.

The thought process you described earlier, where a GM takes Kwame Brown because he's in high school and Amare Stoudemire or Kobe Bryant also came from high school, is an idiotic thought process. It's not any different from the people who said to avoid Porzingis because all Euros are busts, then once he's good, act like every European will be just like him (Dragan Bender) just because they're also European. You make GMs sound like helpless victims, but they're fully capable of evaluating players individually, even against relatively bad competition; they do it all the time, with every college player.

And we're not talking about whether one-and-done will go anywhere, but why it exists and whether it should.
Click to expand...

The one and done removes the element of taking a flyer on unproven high school talent based on pure potential. Your European point falls flat because the best of that lot compete in what amounts to pro leagues from an early developmental age. Porzingis was no mystery and had performed against quality competition. Vetted. You can't 100% guard against busts but it's an informed decision when you draft a Ricky Rubio...especially when they already have contracts with European teams. "Bad competition" in college is worlds different from the high school version...just facts. Everything I've posted are valid reasons why the one and done was enacted and ain't going anywhere.
 
#63
#63
NashVol11 said:
You're drawing arbitrary lines all over the place. High school players are "unseen" and have done nothing, because they're playing bad competition; then suddenly, after a year of college, they've DONE THE WORK and "earned" their millions by playing more bad (but slightly better) competition, and those parentheses are the difference between qualified and unqualified because one guy said so.
Click to expand...

Robert Swift and Gerald Green play a season against valid competition and there's a basis of comparison. Scotty Hopson was a five star...why'd he stay three seasons? Number five high school player coming out? Vetting.
 
#64
#64
butchna said:
The one and done removes the element of taking a flyer on unproven high school talent based on pure potential.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. It just means you take a flyer on unproven college talent based on pure potential. "Unproven" is a label that you or I can apply wherever we feel like applying it; the fact that you put the line for becoming "proven" between high school and college is nothing more than personal preference.

Your European point falls flat because the best of that lot compete in what amounts to pro leagues from an early developmental age. Porzingis was no mystery and had performed against quality competition. Vetted. You can't 100% guard against busts but it's an informed decision when you draft a Ricky Rubio...especially when they already have contracts with European teams.
Click to expand...

That's just not true. Plenty of European guys play in smaller leagues or against terrible competition, then are first-round picks. Porzingis is one of the few that played in Spain; where did Dario Saric come from?

"Bad competition" in college is worlds different from the high school version...just facts. Everything I've posted are valid reasons why the one and done was enacted and ain't going anywhere.
Click to expand...

And the NBA is worlds different from college basketball. You've just decided that college basketball is acceptably close to the NBA, and high school basketball is not, because you feel like it.

The one and done was enacted because GMs want their decisions to be easier, so they can keep their jobs. That's pretty much it. The explanations about how 18-year-olds are unvetted but 19-year-olds are vetted, or how at 18 you haven't earned anything but at 19 you have, is nothing more than subjective BS. I can say that my standard for "readiness" is playing 50 NBA games, and can defend that, but it's still pointless because there's nothing substantial to back up your or anyone's judgment of when "readiness"/"proof"/an appropriate amount of "vetting" happens. The NBA says it doesn't happen until college, because it's in their interests to say that, and you're mostly just repeating it.
 
#65
#65
butchna said:
Robert Swift and Gerald Green play a season against valid competition and there's a basis of comparison.
Click to expand...

Who decides what's "valid?" I could easily say college competition is also invalid. There's a basis of comparison whenever you feel like comparing them; you're just comparing what they did against similar college teams, instead of comparing what they did against similar AAU teams or against other high school stars. Choosing a point in time where everything is suddenly "validated" is, again, a purely subjective exercise.
 
#66
#66
NashVol11 said:
No it doesn't. It just means you take a flyer on unproven college talent based on pure potential. "Unproven" is a label that you or I can apply wherever we feel like applying it; the fact that you put the line for becoming "proven" between high school and college is nothing more than personal preference.



That's just not true. Plenty of European guys play in smaller leagues or against terrible competition, then are first-round picks. Porzingis is one of the few that played in Spain; where did Dario Saric come from?



And the NBA is worlds different from college basketball. You've just decided that college basketball is acceptably close to the NBA, and high school basketball is not, because you feel like it.

The one and done was enacted because GMs want their decisions to be easier, so they can keep their jobs. That's pretty much it. The explanations about how 18-year-olds are unvetted but 19-year-olds are vetted, or how at 18 you haven't earned anything but at 19 you have, is nothing more than subjective BS. I can say that my standard for "readiness" is playing 50 NBA games, and can defend that, but it's still pointless because there's nothing substantial to back up your or anyone's judgment of when "readiness"/"proof"/an appropriate amount of "vetting" happens. The NBA says it doesn't happen until college, because it's in their interests to say that, and you're mostly just repeating it.
Click to expand...

High school basketball is lower level than European professional leagues and college basketball. It's not in your argument's "best interest" to state, but its inconveniently factual. :) Quality of first round draft picks was better before the high school entry explosion and after the one and done remedied the situation. Why did you mention that this made GM's decisions "easier, so they can keep their jobs"? Because it vetts the prospects. If it didn't, what would be complicated? It would be great if you could let every eager high school star play 50 games before you tie your team's fate to them but I don't see the player's union going for that. You keep droning on about European busts and I have to keep gently reminding you that busts happen even after a vetting. The translation from European pro to NBA is still considerable but nowhere in the neighborhood of Robert Swift dominating 6'3 centers in Bakersfield one season and facing off against Shaq the next. I understand your concern that a number of kids haven't been able to be financially set before even being tested but it's a harsh world. :good!:
 
#67
#67
NashVol11 said:
Who decides what's "valid?" I could easily say college competition is also invalid. There's a basis of comparison whenever you feel like comparing them; you're just comparing what they did against similar college teams, instead of comparing what they did against similar AAU teams or against other high school stars. Choosing a point in time where everything is suddenly "validated" is, again, a purely subjective exercise.
Click to expand...

Quality of competition is higher in college and overseas pro leagues. Hate to be the one to inform. :)
 
#68
#68
butchna said:
Quality of competition is higher in college and overseas pro leagues. Hate to be the one to inform. :)
Click to expand...

Way to avoid the question. How do you decide when a competition level is "valid" and when it's not? I'm asking for absolute terms, not relative terms.
 
#69
#69
NashVol11 said:
Way to avoid the question. How do you decide when a competition level is "valid" and when it's not? I'm asking for absolute terms, not relative terms.
Click to expand...

College and overseas professional competition is "absolute"ly more valid than high school. How bou dat? :)
 
#70
#70
butchna said:
Why did you mention that this made GM's decisions "easier, so they can keep their jobs"?
Click to expand...

Because that's why it exists. It's about GMs gathering more data, not because they need it, but because it makes their jobs easier. You're trying to tell me why it's a necessity, but it's not; it's a luxury that they're portraying as a necessity so people don't complain.

You keep droning on about European busts and I have to keep gently reminding you that busts happen even after a vetting. The translation from European pro to NBA is still considerable but nowhere in the neighborhood of Robert Swift dominating 6'3 centers in Bakersfield one season and facing off against Shaq the next.
Click to expand...

If you think that's my point about Europe, you completely missed it. I'm saying that the thought process you mentioned--where a GM drafts Kwame Brown because he's in HS, so could be Amare--is a stupid thought process. Assuming the best HS player in the draft is the next Kobe is just as dumb as assuming the best college player "could be" Michael Jordan, just because both went to college. Or assuming the best European player is the next Dirk, just because he's European. Drafting players based on the line of thinking you offered would be incredibly dumb. Fortunately, I don't think most GMs (or any) actually think that way, and that you mostly just made it up.

I understand your concern that a number of kids haven't been able to be financially set before even being tested but it's a harsh world. :good!:
Click to expand...

For the trillionth time, saying they're "tested" in college, and not before, is based on absolutely nothing but your own personal fancy. I could easily argue that every single first-round pick ever is financially set without being tested.
 
#72
#72
NashVol11 said:
Because that's why it exists. It's about GMs gathering more data, not because they need it, but because it makes their jobs easier. You're trying to tell me why it's a necessity, but it's not; it's a luxury that they're portraying as a necessity so people don't complain.



If you think that's my point about Europe, you completely missed it. I'm saying that the thought process you mentioned--where a GM drafts Kwame Brown because he's in HS, so could be Amare--is a stupid thought process. Assuming the best HS player in the draft is the next Kobe is just as dumb as assuming the best college player "could be" Michael Jordan, just because both went to college. Or assuming the best European player is the next Dirk, just because he's European. Drafting players based on the line of thinking you offered would be incredibly dumb. Fortunately, I don't think most GMs (or any) actually think that way, and that you mostly just made it up.



For the trillionth time, saying they're "tested" in college, and not before, is based on absolutely nothing but your own personal fancy. I could easily argue that every single first-round pick ever is financially set without being tested.
Click to expand...

But I disagree. Didn't even have to multiquote. :thumbsup:

And it's not a "personal fancy". NBA did this to protect it's product.
 
#74
#74
butchna said:
But I disagree. Didn't even have to multiquote. :thumbsup:

And it's not a "personal fancy". NBA did this to protect it's product.
Click to expand...

It is; it's wholly subjective. College players are more tested than HS players, and they'd be even more tested if you made them stay four years, or stay until they're 25. But what's the right level of testing? According to you, it's whatever the NBA says it is.

NBA GMs did this to protect themselves. It doesn't make a meaningful difference in the product. The NBA will find its stars either way; we're talking about a potential marginal improvement in like the 13th man on the roster. That's barely affecting the product, if at all.
 
#75
#75
Kwame Brown plays a season of decent organized competition and he's not the first pick of the draft...simple and not of the "stupid" variety. :) Thought the Amare Stoudemire example would resonate with someone of your high intellect but alas. Point lost on you is that a team like the Knicks passed on a franchise type player that they later signed at the end of his run due to a high number of high school entry's not panning out. Big sock to GM nads that they overcompensated for in spades...leading to the one and out solution. :hmm:
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top