April 25, 2008
By Gary Parrish
CBSSports.com Senior Writer
If you read me regularly you know I'm an advocate of projected lottery picks taking guaranteed NBA money at the first available opportunity sans rare cir stances. I've honestly never understood how anybody could disagree, how it can be a "mistake" for a young person to make more money in a two-year span than most Americans -- college graduates, even -- will earn in 20 or 30 years.
And stop with the get-better-in-school argument.
It's mostly silly.
LeBron didn't spend a day in college, yet led the NBA in scoring this past season. (AP)
There are people who love to tell you how prospects can improve by playing another year in college, or even all four years in college. It's true, in some respect. But that theory ignores the alternative, that there are plenty of examples of players who improved once they were in the NBA and that there's no tangible evidence backing the claim that honing your skills in college is actually better than doing it in the NBA (even if it's on an NBA bench).
You don't think Gilbert Arenas got better after he entered the NBA?
What about Jermaine O'Neal's improvement as he sat and watched?
Did going to the NBA too early stunt their growth?
Of course, it didn't, but that's not the point.
The point is that out of curiosity I took a look at the 16 teams competing in these NBA Playoffs and tried to see if there is a correlation between college experience and the success of individuals and the franchises they lead. What I learned is that it doesn't seem to be a factor at all considering that heading into Friday night's action eight of the 16 teams have leading scorers in these playoffs who never spent a minute in college.
Did you get that?
Dwight Howard (Magic), LeBron James (Cavaliers), Tracy McGrady (Rockets), Amare Stoudemire (Suns), Dirk Nowitzki (Mavericks), Manu Ginobli (Spurs), Kobe Bryant (Lakers) and Kevin Garnett all entered the NBA without college experience, which should tell you everything you need to know about the legitimacy of the age limit and how it's embarrassingly dishonest for the NBA to pretend it was somehow put in place to protect our nation's youth. Pleeease. The age limit forcing players to college is a marketing tool and nothing more, a rule designed to turn guys like Derrick Rose and Michael Beasley into recognizable stars before they enter the NBA so that a Christmas Day doubleheader can be built around them more quickly. I see the genius of it; I won't deny that. But the age limit is no more necessary for the majority of high school players with immediate/legitimate NBA aspirations than the biology class they might take in their first semester of college.
(Rant complete)
Not getting schooled
College experience for teams' current leading scorers in NBA playoffs.
Player Yrs.
Dwight Howard 0
LeBron James 0
Kevin Garnett 0
Dirk Nowitzki 0
Manu Ginobli 0
Kobe Bryant 0
Tracy McGrady 0
Amare Stoudemire 0
Chris Bosh 1
Rasheed Wallace 2
Chris Paul 2
Allen Iverson 2
Joe Johnson 2
Antawn Jamison 3
Deron Williams 3
Andre Miller 4
Anyway, only one of the leading scorers of the 16 playoff teams spent four years in college.
His name is Andre Miller.
He plays for the Sixers.
Beyond that there are two three-year players (Antawn Jamison of the Wizards, Deron Williams of the Jazz), four two-year players (Rasheed Wallace of the Pistons, Chris Paul of the Hornets, Allen Iverson of the Nuggets, Joe Johnson of the Hawks) and one one-year player (Chris Bosh of the Raptors), meaning the leading scorers of the 16 NBA Playoff teams spent a combined total of 19 seasons in college.
That's an average 1.2 seasons each.
And if you think college preparation is still necessary I can't do anything for you.
Truth is, I love it when great players stay in college because I love college basketball. I wish D.J. Augustin was doing another year, and wouldn't it be great if Jerryd Bayless and Donte' Greene and Darrell Arthur all came back too? Nobody would find that more enjoyable than me. But I'm also willing to admit that any desire I have to see those guys again play in the NCAA tournament is based on my personal enjoyment and not some foundationless claim that Bayless or Arthur or anyone projected as a first-round draft pick might not reach his potential if he leaves school too early or that he might noticeably benefit from another year in college.
The bottom line is that guys who are built to make it usually make it and guys who aren't usually don't.
But either way, it has very little to do with college experience.
And if you don't believe me just turn on the NBA Playoffs.
http://www.sportsline.com/collegebas...story/10798501
I agree with the argument but Ginobili and Dirk shouldn't be on that list. Ginobili entered the league at 25, after years of competing professionaly in Europe. Dirk was 19, but he had also been playing in Europe for a couple of years. International player get arguably better preparation since early stages. They don't need to go to US colleges.
He mentiones Arenas as well. He went to Arizona.
Who is to say the players wouldn't be better than they are today if they went to school? Perhaps they would be even better.
I don't agree or disagree with his article because I can't be bothered giving it enough thought, but it seems stupid to come to the conclusion he did based on some little stats.
The writer's an idiot. Some of the best players in the playoffs didn't go to college. Some of the best players in the playoffs did.
Tim Duncan, 4 years
Steve Nash, 4 years
Paul Pierce, 3 years
Ray Allen, 3 years
Shaquille O'Neal, 3 years
Deron Williams, 3 years
Carlos Boozer, 3 years
Antawn Jamison, 3 years
Allen Iverson, 2 years
Chris Paul, 2 years
Rasheed Wallace, 2 years
Caron Butler, 2 years
Chauncey Billups, 2 years
Jason Kidd, 2 years
And, I wouldn't count international players since they start playing professionally in their early teens. Sure, some of the very best NBA players are straight from high school like Kobe, LeBron, KG, D12, T-Mac, and Amare. But, that's why. They are the exception. Most 17-19 year olds need to grow and mature physically and mentally. Most need better coaching to improve fundamentals. It's one in a million that a player is physically, mentally, and emotionally ready to play in the NBA right out of high school like LeBron was. And, most of these straight out of high school players needed a year or two to really contribute in the league anyway.
Article is stupid.
Does the writer really think that two or three years of college wouldn't have been beneficial to those who went only one year, or never attended at all?
I personally think that's a myth too. There is no evidence whatsoever that college teaches better fundamentals to future NBA players. In fact, on a completely personal opinion, I think college coaching even at the best schools is horrible. If teams are so well taught fundamentally how come they can't break a 2-3 zone which almost every college team employs without any deviations whatsoever. There is also that stupid NCAA rule that prevents players from over practicing.
There might be an argument to be made about most 18 year olds not being ready from a mental standpoint, and I might buy that. However it seems to me like there is little difference, if any, of better fundamentals from college coaches. Most likely you will get better fundamentals while being in the NBA.
I agree 100%. Most guys coming out of high school aren't near ready for the mental and physical grind of an 82 game season plus playoffs. Like you said, there are a few exceptions, just like there are exceptions to everything. But damned few that a couple of years in college wouldn't help.Most need better coaching to improve fundamentals. It's one in a million that a player is physically, mentally, and emotionally ready to play in the NBA right out of high school like LeBron was. And, most of these straight out of high school players needed a year or two to really contribute in the league anyway.
Article is stupid.
Lets see. Go to school or make millions hmmmm? How about make millions then go to school.
This is what I'm talking about, and the importance of such comes from these players actually getting to play in games against other top compe ion.
Sure, save for the completely random Amare Stoudemire's, LeBron James' and Dwight Howard's of the prep world, most aren't ready physically, and, most of the time, those who are, have basically dominated because of such, not from any real ability or skill. Those two reasons are why most prepsters took three or four years to really become quality players. Some never did despite the fine coaching.
College would give a better foundation to those two types of players. For the physically underdeveloped, two or three years can give them the time to grow into their bodies while developing both skill and understanding of the game. For those physically ready, but with no real skill, it can help develop said skills for the positions.
This would allow them to step in semi immediately and make a significant impact in the League without having to drastically develop in one or both areas. It means they are ready to be their potential, rather than just have it.
Sure, maybe the superstar players don't really benefit in the long run, but for every Kobe there's a Deshawn Stevenson and Darius Miles (prep to pro) or DuJaun Wagner (one-n-done) and for every Garnett, Amare and Howard there's a Jonathan Bender, Al Harrington, Kwame Brown, Tyson Chandler, Eddy Curry and Desagania Diop.
What about making millions while you go to school, like most future NBA superstars do.
How come the author didn't use Ndudi Ebi as an example?
No, more likely it's: "I have millions, who the cares about school."
I say this article is kinda off and stupid. Some guys should be on that list and so on.
Oh... you mean one of the rare examples of a kid not only failing, but failing so bad he was released before his rookie-scale contract was even up? A player so bad that in his third year his team attempted to send him to the NBDL against NBA rules and without his knowledge? Do you mean the concensous #2 overall player behind LeBron James who's now playing in Europe for pennies on the dollar to what he could have made in the NBA?
He's such an isolated instance, it wasn't worth the type.
Not everyone in this league is LeBron James.
Leon Smith, Korleone Young, Ousmane Cisse, James Lang, Lenny Cooke, and countless other kids who declared for the NBA draft and didn't even get drafted.
Point is that the players that came out of high school and made it had the talent. There were plenty others that thought they had it but could have been better served had they gone to college. It's not as isolated as you think. And, how do we not know that Kobe would have been even better spending two years at Duke? Same with LeBron or KG or Dwight.
Because there is no evidence whatsoever that going to Duke, UNC... makes you a better player. Americans lover their college for romantic reasons, but you have to understand that level of the game is pretty awful.
I understand the mental part of growing up, but please nobody ever say that you get better training while in college.
Since we are making hypothesis, how do we know that the Ndudi Ebis would have been awful players EVEN if they went to college. Most of these guys are physical specimen without any skill who can dominate guys half their size in high school, and NBA teams take a chance thinking they can develop their skills. Most likely they would have failed in college as well. Think Thabeet, the UConn center.
This whole age limit thing is stupid and racist.
This is a good argument, but there's more to it. High school players good enough to get drafted have spent their whole lives getting their asses kissed. They haven't had to deal with much on-court adversity and often project a sort of arrogance which turns off casual fans. Stern's idea is that players, after playing a year or two against players just as good as they are, will enter his league more humble and coachable.The age limit forcing players to college is a marketing tool and nothing more, a rule designed to turn guys like Derrick Rose and Michael Beasley into recognizable stars before they enter the NBA so that a Christmas Day doubleheader can be built around them more quickly.
Why do so many make this point? Is there not a collegiate analogue for this example? For every Tim Duncan, David Robinson, and Patrick Ewing, there's a Michael Olowokandi, Chris Washburn, and Joe Barry Carroll. Besides, some of those players on that list are pretty good.Sure, maybe the superstar players don't really benefit in the long run, but for every Kobe there's a Deshawn Stevenson and Darius Miles (prep to pro) or DuJaun Wagner (one-n-done) and for every Garnett, Amare and Howard there's a Jonathan Bender, Al Harrington, Kwame Brown, Tyson Chandler, Eddy Curry and Desagania Diop.
I don't blame Stern for wanting to make his product as palatable as possible, but I don't like it. I don't care if HS guys fail - they get into the draft, that's the risk they take. I certainly don't care if GMs get fired for drafting those guys.
What do you mean there's no evidence? I think there's quite a bit of evidence. While schools like Duke and North Carolina generally get the best high school players, not all of the kids that go there project as NBA players before going there. Chris Duhon was a great high school player, but his size and lack of athleticism didn't project to the NBA. Same thing with Sean May's height and lack of athleticism. There are plenty of examples of high school players who weren't McDonald's All Americans improving their game in college and becoming better prospects for it. I wouldn't say there's no evidence. But, it's hard to prove either way, because what evidence is there that players like Kobe, T-Mac, KG, Amare, Dwight couldn't have improved their games with 2 years of college so that they were better prepared right off the bat in their rookie seasons? It's conjecture both ways.
There is a basketball skills development argument and an education/life skills argument for staying in school. Of course many four-year players don't take advantage of the nonbasketball opportunities available to them in college. That's another choice.
LMAO.. It's arguable that it's stupid, but why would it be racist?
I think he means there is no age limit in baseball, hockey,tennis, or soccer so why in the sport that is dominated by black athletes. Am I right?
Or Korleone Young.
Baseball and Hockey have replete minor leagueS. Also, in baseball, there are windows of opportunity to be drafted. If you pass right out of HS, you have to wait like 2 or 3 years as ineligable.
My argument isn't about development. My argument is that younger players aren't done growing yet and their bone growth plates are still open, and they are subject to injury from the 82 game grind. See: Stoudemire, Amare; Bender, Jonathan; Miles, Darius. Younger and younger players are needing serious knee surgery before 30 and with no trauma event to trigger it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
