I completely disagree for the reasons I layed out above. You think getting 12min a game over there made him NBA ready? You think his confidence is sky high to walk into the NBA when he couldn't crack decent minutes against far less superior talent? Jennings probably hasn't played that few minutes per game since he was in elementary. If he went to Arizona, he'd be playing huge minutes and most importantly would have the ball in his hands when the game mattered. That's the type of experience and confidence that can help you at an NBA level, not playing a handful of minutes in another country.
Wait, aren't there more important issues that Congress should be working on with our tax dollars, like steroids in baseball?
I agree about letting a kid coming out of high school being able to join the draft. 1. It would help boost the economy a little bit by giving these kids money, so they could impulse buy 2. Why waste a scholarship to somebody not planning on staying to get a degree.
There 5 million congressmen most of their opinions count for sh&t. At least this guy can be like I did something.
I don't know if you were trying to make a constitutional argument but you came KIND OF close to getting on the right path. Props for a layman.
What is the point of the 19 year age limit anyway? To force the player to attend a year of college to make a better informed decision? Let him experience college first? That's the only thing I can think of.
What about exposing a couple NFL players...it still disgusts me that everyone looks the other way in the NFL and presumably college football as well. No one can tell me that those super human angry men are fueled exclusively by protein shakes and bananas.
yeah, but I doubt that these "student athletes" always really experience true college life anyways. most of them ( I mean most of the ones that skip out in one year and go Pro) -are so caught up in their own world, that I doubt they really experience college truly anyways..
Who cares, let them go after a year of college. If they are good enough, why waste time playing inferior competition. It's not like most student athletes have some kind of family or tie with the schools they sign up for. It's like I'm a top tier player, so I join Duke and now my blood runs blue? It doesn't matter to these guys and I could care less if they did. They all want to make it to the pros (money, fame, great job) and college is practically the only medium to get there. Soon enough Congressmen will want a minimum 2 year guaranteed, untradable, contracts because they will say to GM's, it's not good for the fanbase when players get traded too fast! Think of their children having to move city to city!
You are missing the practice angle they practice alot more in Europe the play only a few games a week and practice ALOT more. And your practicing against alot better players constantly. Your are only thinking about minutes played. Thats only part of the equation. When you play in Europe your forced to work on other aspects of your game besides just scoring and there is alot more emphasis on practicing the fundamentals. Also there are alot less distractions over there so the player is forced to focus bettering his game more.
Ricky is still likely the second pick in the draft and it works both ways. Yao Ming and Andrea Bagani did just fine in terms of draft position without going into the NCAA route. OJ Mayo could've been the #1 pick overall had he came straight out of H.S. (seriously, Mayo had a lot more hype before that NCAA season begun) but he went #3 after he went to NCAA. Brandon Jennings, despite the limited playing, is still going to be an lottery pick. Also think about guys like Terrance Morris, who's stock become lower the longer they stay in college. There are also a ton of blue chip players whose stock fell after going to college. Say what you will about the Euroleagues and the fact that it gives players limited playing time, but it also shields them from having their weakness over-exposed (and it forces them to work on it earlier to earn playing time) and lowering their stock.
I'm sorry, I guess I missed the boat of Euro players who came in as lock down defenders? You really think practice is a better development for a player than being in high pressure situations in games? I can't help you if you think that. And i'm not sure about the training system there, but I'd say college has a pretty good offseason/weight training program that could further help develop them. You can practice all you want, but if you can't put it together in the games, who cares? I'm not saying being in Europe hurts your draft position moreso than arguing against opticon's idea that an American kid going to Europe could only HELP his overall game/draft stock. Of course people's stock can fall after going to colllege.. college is where you separate the hype from the studs. But if I'm an NBA team, do I pick the guy dominating college or the guy playing a bench role for some Euro team? I think it's pretty easy choice. I understand the point about Euro possibly shielding their weaknesses, but it just seems silly to say "well if they go to Europe, no one will ever find out they suck at defense." These players are able to practice hard in both college and Europe. The difference is college will expose them to a bigger national spotlight and more pressure situations, because presumably they would be playing big minutes and have the ball in their hands when it matters. I don't want my draft pick to go to Europe to learn to pass from the high post. I want him taking and making game winning shots and leading his team deep in the tournament. That's the kind of experience that's good for player's development, not sending them to Europe to mass produce guys who can't play defense.
Most 2nd round players are out of the league in 3 years or less. There are many 1st round busts also. Hopefully, they go back to college and finish 3 more years(with their savings), instead of going to $10/hr jobs. Sometimes, a taste is all you need. They might even end up coaching college ball or as an athletic trainer, after they graduate.
Mickael Pietrus plays decent enough defense no? Europe preaches team defense overall, which makes is effective in a team sport (think int'l competition, most team defended the U.S. stars ok considering the gap in talent). The problem with the NBA is that the U.S. players don't know how to help defend as well, which exposes the European players. There is also the likely hood of the imports that gets NBA attention are the Carmelo Anthonys of Europe instead of the Shane Battiers. You have your preference, but if Europe is offering money and NCAA is not (officially, legally, whatever) then you should choose Europe everytime if you're a blue chipper. If Europe is calling and NCAA says you have to go to JC for a year because of your grades or test score before you can transfer to Div I ball, you should go to Europe every time. Now if you're a blue chipper, that got some serious underhand cash from a booster, then you play NCAA ball.
It might be to their own benefit, but I don't think the union feels that way. I think the union is comprised of a lot of highly competitive guys who don't want to see someone excluded on a technicality. They know if they were 18, they wouldn't have wanted to been shut out like this. And, they probably trust in their own talents that, if they are good enough to be in the league, they'll find a place somewhere.
